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

>>And in the second movement "Titan" of his first symphony with the
>>same name ...

Deryk Barker <[log in to unmask]> replies:

>Aaaargh! James, you just hit a hot button.

Oops!

>Mahler's 1st should only be referred to as Titan when referring to the
>1893 (Weimar) revision, which is not the version usually performed (that's
>from 1898/9).  The orchestration is different and there are five movements.
>None of which are called Titan.

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

>And I'm even more confused because the additional movement which Mahler
>excised from his final revision was second.  So I'm not sure if we're
>arguing over a typo, you are referring to 1893 and it's second movement,
>Blumine, or whether you're talking about the second movement from the
>1898/9 revision, which was originally third.

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

>BTW, is there any evidence that mahler had seen the score of Rott's
>symphony before about 1900? I've misplaced my copy of the Hyperion Rott
>CD, but my memory is that Mahler's remark about the two of them springing
>from the same soil was made after examing the score at around that time,
>and that he'd been lent the score by someone whose name completely escapes
>me. [...] Anyone with access to accurate info?

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....

James Zehm <[log in to unmask]>