James Zehm ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

>Sometimes it is played with the Blumine as FIFTH movement too.  I have such
>a version on CD.

Well, actually I think in this case Blumine is viewed as a bonus, rather
the way that an overture would be after a symphony.  It is not a 5th
movement.

>No, Mahler wrote a new 2nd movement to his 1.  as he thought the "Blumine"
>wasn't "gut genug".

No, I'm sorry but this simpy is not true.  The 3rd movement in the 1893
revision (including Blumine) is the same as the 2nd movement in the 1898/9
revision (without Blumine).

>How he now could think so.  I think it is not that sure, the Blumine
>connects well with the 3rd movement for instance, but the new better with
>movements 1.  and possibly 4.  Anyway that new 2nd movement is what we are
>talking about (I hope)

To repeat: there is no new second movement.

>I hardly belive that Mahler was not influenced by Rotts 1880 symphony...the
>melodies used in the Mahler 2nd mov. and Rott 3 mov. are roughly the
>same....and same rythm, and so....

I wasn't asking what you personally believe, but whether there was any
evidence for it.  It is hard for many people to believe that Holst hadn't
heard Dukas' L'apprenti Sorcier when he wrote Uranus the Magician, but
there is no evidence that he had...

Deryk Barker
[log in to unmask]