If anyone has any ideas, I would like to talk about them, but I really struggle to see how these six movements form a cohesive work of art. Naturally, one can default to Mahler's descriptions for each movement, but I immediately go beyond that and just listen to the progress of the work itself.
I don't get it. It seems such a potpourri, like some leftover studies expanded and cobbled together. If the triumph of spirit and music known as Mahler's 2nd Symphony had not been there, then perhaps this 3rd titled symphony would have seemed like a step towards greatness, but as it is...what is going on?
For my taste, movements 1 through 3 are far too alike. Then the two choral numbers don't belong together either: first a dirge-like solo followed by a ding-dong Christmas carol.
And then, omg, the concluding movement belongs somewhere else again. It has none of the noisy brassiness of the opening movements, or none of the tinkling percussions of the Christmas movement, but forms a long, slow unwinding for the strings.
Don't get me wrong, I feel each movement on its own is interesting and engaging, but how they are all supposed to come together to form a whole musically (without his written descriptions) escapes me totally. As for the final movement, I think it alone can stand as one of the greatest symphonies ever written. It is amazing, but again, how does it fit with the rest...?