# Mahler's 5's opening made me cry - Do you feel the same?



## Lord Lance

I was of the opinion you had to be quite ahead, into, the piece for the tears to start shedding - Beethoven's Ninth's Ending- but for some reason within the opening minutes I felt this sudden wave of joy to hit me.


Have you felt such emotions?


----------



## Mahlerian

The opening of Mahler's Fifth is quite powerful. After the trumpet calls, suddenly the orchestra bursts in in the major. As a listener, you think maybe that's where we're heading (as it is, eventually), but just as quickly the music shifts back to minor and crawls down into the lowest, most guttural range of the orchestra.

If you are a listener hearing the work for the first time, this is startling, but if you've heard the work before, you'll subconsciously recognize that we are hearing the first attempts towards that triumphant final chorale fall flat before they even get off the ground.

I can't say I've personally ever had such a strong emotional reaction to that opening before (other parts of Mahler, yes), but I think I know where it could come from (although it's almost certainly who you are at the moment you're listening that makes the difference as well).


----------



## Lord Lance

While we are at it, Mahlerian, what's your favorite movement from all of Mahler's symphonies?


----------



## Mahlerian

That's a hard question....

I think perhaps the Andante from the Sixth would be my favorite, and I've always considered it a truly beautiful movement, though it has become even better the more I came to know it well.

My favorite Mahler scherzo is probably that of the Second (followed by the Fifth).
My favorite Mahler finale is, once again, the Sixth, followed by the Ninth and the Fourth.
My favorite Mahler first movement is that from the Ninth, followed by the Seventh and the Sixth.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> The opening of Mahler's Fifth is quite powerful. After the trumpet calls, suddenly the orchestra bursts in in the major. As a listener, you think maybe that's where we're heading (as it is, eventually), but just as quickly the music shifts back to minor and crawls down into the lowest, most guttural range of the orchestra.
> 
> If you are a listener hearing the work for the first time, this is startling, but if you've heard the work before, you'll subconsciously recognize that we are hearing the first attempts towards that triumphant final chorale fall flat before they even get off the ground.
> 
> I can't say I've personally ever had such a strong emotional reaction to that opening before (other parts of Mahler, yes), but I think I know where it could come from (although it's almost certainly who you are at the moment you're listening that makes the difference as well).


Mahlerian, what's the most powerful opening of the Mahler V that you've heard? Which Mahler's V has the most dramatically-exciting second movement? Which Mahler's V has the most breathtakingly-sublime _Adagietto_?


----------



## Ukko

There are M5s and then there are M5s, and some of them never make it to triumphant. My conditional favorite of those that do is the one recorded by Alain Lombard and the 'Aquitaine' orchestra. Conditional because nether the recorded sound nor the ensemble of the orchestra are first rate... just the interpretation.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Mahlerian said:


> That's a hard question....
> 
> I think perhaps the Andante from the Sixth would be my favorite, and I've always considered it a truly beautiful movement, though it has become even better the more I came to know it well.
> 
> My favorite Mahler scherzo is probably that of the Second (followed by the Fifth).
> My favorite Mahler finale is, once again, the Sixth, followed by the Ninth and the Fourth.
> My favorite Mahler first movement is that from the Ninth, followed by the Seventh and the Sixth.


---
I'll never forget the first time I heard Karajan doing that piercingly-sublime_ Andante _from Mahler's Sixth Symphony. I just played it over and over and_ OVER_ again; like some addict or something. Ha. Ha. Ha. . .

I cherish the ending of the Mahler VI the most out of all of his symphonies as well. For me, its the message conveyed; at least as interpreted by my hard-wiring: Never give in. Never give up. Always charge, never bend. . . come what may-- hardly a pessimistic message in my view; Nietzsche's _Birth of Tragedy _set to music.


----------



## Ukko

"I cherish the ending of the Mahler VI the most out of all of his symphonies as well. For me, its the message conveyed; at least as interpreted by my hard-wiring: Never give in. Never give up. Always charge, never bend. . . come what may-- hardly a pessimistic message in my view; Nietzsche's _Birth of Tragedy _set to music."

Whatever was once the conveyor of that message to me, now it will always be the sketch of the frog in the heron's beak, and "Jimmy V" saying "Never, ever give up."


----------



## Couac Addict

Whilst I've never considered Bernstein and Mahler to be a very happy marriage, I thought he did a tidy job of the 5th with the Vienna Philharmonic. A great live recording.


----------



## Mahlerian

Marschallin Blair said:


> Mahlerian, what's the most powerful opening of the Mahler V that you've heard? Which Mahler's V has the most dramatically-exciting second movement? Which Mahler's V has the most breathtakingly-sublime _Adagietto_?


The Adagietto of Bernstein's Vienna recording is sublime, despite my reservations about taking the movement quite so slowly.

For drama, I always love Tennstedt's reading with the LPO.

The worst Mahler 5 I ever heard was Ozawa's with the Boston Symphony, which Philips has understandably deleted from its catalog.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Ukko said:


> "I cherish the ending of the Mahler VI the most out of all of his symphonies as well. For me, its the message conveyed; at least as interpreted by my hard-wiring: Never give in. Never give up. Always charge, never bend. . . come what may-- hardly a pessimistic message in my view; Nietzsche's _Birth of Tragedy _set to music."
> 
> Whatever was once the conveyor of that message to me, now it will always be the sketch of the frog in the heron's beak, and "Jimmy V" saying "Never, ever give up."


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . I see it a bit more like Beowulf cutting his way out of the sea monster, myself.


----------



## senza sordino

The opening of Mahler's fifth reminds me of the opening credits of Red Dwarf. I don't mean that it's been ripped off or plagiarized. 
Listen to the first minute of this clip. 




I know it isn't the same, it's that one reminds me of the other.


----------



## Varick

Couac Addict said:


> Whilst I've never considered Bernstein and Mahler to be a very happy marriage, I thought he did a tidy job of the 5th with the Vienna Philharmonic. A great live recording.


Wow, that's odd. Given the fact that it was pretty much Bernstein that put Mahler "On the Map" of the mainstream repertoire (thankfully so). I'd argue that by & large his recordings of Mahler are the best. That's what makes a ball game though. I am interested, who DO you like conducting Mahler?



Mahlerian said:


> The Adagietto of Bernstein's Vienna recording is sublime, despite my reservations about taking the movement quite so slowly.
> 
> For drama, I always love Tennstedt's reading with the LPO.
> 
> The worst Mahler 5 I ever heard was Ozawa's with the Boston Symphony, which Philips has understandably deleted from its catalog.


Wow, shocking, the worst rendition of an orchestral piece was conducted by Ozawa. lol. I'll never understand how he lasted so long at the BSO.

Varick


----------



## Ukko

"Wow, that's odd. Given the fact that it was pretty much Bernstein that put Mahler "On the Map" of the mainstream repertoire (thankfully so). I'd argue that by & large his recordings of Mahler are the best."

Lenny did this? Walter and Mitropoulos and Kubelik are only words for you?


----------



## brotagonist

Mahlerian: "...it's almost certainly who you are at the moment you're listening..."

So often I read about people who are cast into bottomless pits of depression (depression is a clinical diagnosis), moved to boundless rapture (another diagnosis? the flip side of the former), driven to insanity through chromaticism, dissonance and atonality (insanity is a legal term, not a psychological diagnosis), etc., by music...

I guess exaggeration makes it seem more credible :lol: Unless you are already in that state, music cannot exert such a pull on a person's mental state. Sure, music is moving, but not to the point of a complete loss of control after hearing it.


----------



## Varick

Ukko said:


> "Wow, that's odd. Given the fact that it was pretty much Bernstein that put Mahler "On the Map" of the mainstream repertoire (thankfully so). I'd argue that by & large his recordings of Mahler are the best."
> 
> Lenny did this? Walter and Mitropoulos and Kubelik are only words for you?


Yes, Lenny did this. Sure there were conductors who "performed" Mahler before Bernstein, but nobody gave Mahler the kind of notoriety that Bernstein did. I don't know how you think any of the above brought Mahler out into the mainstream MORE than Lenny.


----------



## Ukko

Varick said:


> Yes, Lenny did this. Sure there were conductors who "performed" Mahler before Bernstein, but nobody gave Mahler the kind of notoriety that Bernstein did. I don't know how you think any of the above brought Mahler out into the mainstream MORE than Lenny.


Mahler needed to be "brought out into the mainstream" only once. Lenny came along well after the fact. If Lenny caused Mahler 'notoriety', I hope he was ashamed of himself.


----------



## Brad

Varick said:


> Wow, shocking, the worst rendition of an orchestral piece was conducted by Ozawa. lol. I'll never understand how he lasted so long at the BSO.


What was so bad about Ozawa? I've never heard of him.


----------



## Ukko

Brad said:


> What was so bad about Ozawa? I've never heard of him.


The majority of civilized folk felt that he stayed in Boston too long, that the first couple years were his best there - and pretty damn good they were too.


----------



## Varick

Ukko said:


> Mahler needed to be "brought out into the mainstream" only once. Lenny came along well after the fact. If Lenny caused Mahler 'notoriety', I hope he was ashamed of himself.


LOL, yes, I certainly misused the word notoriety.

As for Lenny bringing Mahler into the mainstream, I guess your version of history and mine (as well as almost every critic, musician, music lover, past colleagues in the music industry I ever known or read) are different.

V


----------



## Blancrocher

For what it's worth, this is what Wikipedia has to say about the "modern revival" of Mahler:



> According to American composer David Schiff, his compatriot Leonard Bernstein used to imply that he had single-handedly rescued Mahler from oblivion in 1960, after 50 years of neglect. Schiff points out that such neglect was only relative-far less than the disregard of Bach in the years after his death. Although Bernstein gave the Mahler revival further impetus, it was well under way before 1960, sustained by conductors such as Stokowski, Dimitri Mitropoulos and John Barbirolli, and by long-time Mahler advocate Aaron Copland.[167]
> 
> Deryck Cooke argues that Mahler's popularity escalated when a new, postwar generation of music-lovers arose, untainted by "the dated polemics of anti-romanticism" which had affected Mahler's reputation in the inter-war years. In this more liberated age, enthusiasm for Mahler expanded even into places-Spain, France, Italy-which had long been resistant to him.[168] Robert Carr's simpler explanation for the 1950s Mahler revival is that "it was the long-playing record [in the early 1950s] rather than the Zeitgeist which made a comprehensive breakthrough possible. Mahler's work became accessible and repeatable in the home."[150] In the years following his centenary in 1960, Mahler rapidly became one of the most performed and most recorded of all composers, and has largely remained thus. In Britain and elsewhere, Carr notes, the extent of Mahler performances and recordings has replaced a relative famine with a glut, bringing problems of over-familiarity.[150] Harold Schonberg comments that "it is hard to think of a composer who arouses equal loyalty", adding that "a response of anything short of rapture to the Mahler symphonies will bring [to the critic] long letters of furious denunciation".[169]
> 
> In a letter to Alma dated 16 February 1902, Mahler wrote, with reference to Richard Strauss: "My day will come when his is ended. If only I might live to see it, with you at my side!"[170] Carr observes that Mahler could conceivably have lived to see "his day"; his near-contemporary Richard Strauss survived until 1949, while Sibelius, just five years younger than Mahler, died only in 1957.[171]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler

Interesting hypothesis that innovations in recording technology account for it! :lol:


----------



## Vaneyes

senza sordino said:


> The opening of Mahler's fifth reminds me of the opening credits of Red Dwarf. I don't mean that it's been ripped off or plagiarized.
> Listen to the first minute of this clip.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it isn't the same, it's that one reminds me of the other.


An odd contraption, indeed. Maybe a little of ASZ opening thrown in, too. :lol:


----------



## Avey

Mahlerian said:


> That's a hard question....
> 
> I think perhaps the Andante from the Sixth would be my favorite, and I've always considered it a truly beautiful movement, though it has become even better the more I came to know it well.
> 
> My favorite Mahler scherzo is probably that of the Second (followed by the Fifth).
> My favorite Mahler finale is, once again, the Sixth, followed by the Ninth and the Fourth.
> My favorite Mahler first movement is that from the Ninth, followed by the Seventh and the Sixth.


To mind, the _andante_ from the _Sixth_ is so remarkable given the contrast to the rest of the piece. It is calm, and provides a space to breathe among the angst, intensity, and distress. Though I don't mean to put words in your mouth, just my endorsement for your comment.

Also, anecdote: The opening theme to the _Ninth_ is an axiom I live by. It may be the only _sound_, i.e. musical phrase, that I adhere to and worship in my day-in, day-out life. It's like a consideration, a memory, or a maxim that's been etched on my mind. And I don't expect that to make any _literal_ sense.


----------



## senza sordino

Vaneyes said:


> An odd contraption, indeed. Maybe a little of ASZ opening thrown in, too. :lol:


I don't know what ASZ is, please enlighten me.

BTW, I loved Red Dwarf when it was on PBS, but it wasn't on constantly.


----------



## Guest

senza sordino said:


> The opening of Mahler's fifth reminds me of the opening credits of Red Dwarf. I don't mean that it's been ripped off or plagiarized.
> Listen to the first minute of this clip.
> 
> I know it isn't the same, it's that one reminds me of the other.


I wonder if this opening was ruined for me by familiarity before I knew what it was...






This was transmitted in 1974 - I was gripped! I have it on DVD and it now looks rather wooden.


----------



## Couac Addict

Varick said:


> Wow, that's odd. Given the fact that it was pretty much Bernstein that put Mahler "On the Map" of the mainstream repertoire (thankfully so). I'd argue that by & large his recordings of Mahler are the best. That's what makes a ball game though. I am interested, who DO you like conducting Mahler?
> 
> Varick


Bernstein was renowned for his Mahler performances but I find him a bit extreme/bombastic etc.

For the symphonies, my preferences are probably Rattle for 1,2,10. Horenstein for the 3rd (I quite like Bernstein's 3rd as well - he's not his usual 'over the top" self). Szell 4. Bernstein 5. Boulez 6&7. Solti 8. Karajan 9.

That still leaves out names like Kubelik, Walter, Mehta, Barbirolli, Tennstedt who all had their moments for particular symphonies.


----------



## techniquest

I don't mean to be flippant, but the only thing about the opening of Mahlers' 5th that makes me cry is the fact that after that opening, I can't get anywhere with the rest of the symphony (adagietto excepted).


----------



## PetrB

Mahlerian said:


> emotional reaction(s)... come from... who you are at the moment you're listening.


Yes. Music, words, images are but the trigger for the reaction. The sole source of the emotion of a listener is within the listener.


----------



## DeepR

PetrB said:


> Yes. Music, words, images are but the trigger for the reaction. The sole source of the emotion of a listener is within the listener.


It's not like the listener is already emotionally on the edge and just needs that little push over the edge. The emotional impact of music is more than a little trigger, it can hit like a truck, seemingly out of nowhere.
The "triggers" in music can be very specific, yet still cause similar emotional responses in more than one listener, perhaps emotions that they would not, or rarely have otherwise... so at the very least music can be very succesful in triggering certain emotions... and if you take that a little further, I guess some would say it transmits emotion.


----------



## Ukko

DeepR said:


> It's not like the listener is already emotionally on the edge and just needs that little push over the edge. The emotional impact of music is more than a little trigger, it can hit like a truck, seemingly out of nowhere.
> The "triggers" in music can be very specific, yet still cause similar emotional responses in more than one listener, perhaps emotions that they would not, or rarely have otherwise... so at the very least music can be very succesful in triggering certain emotions... and if you take that a little further, I guess some would say it transmits emotion.


There are hard-wired reactions to sounds in nature. I haven't read it, but suspect that some elements in music have non-obvious relationships to those sounds, to the extent that the hard-wiring reacts to them - perhaps in ways that Nature did not intend.

 eek


----------



## Varick

DeepR said:


> It's not like the listener is already emotionally on the edge and just needs that little push over the edge. The emotional impact of music is more than a little trigger, it can hit like a truck, seemingly out of nowhere.
> The "triggers" in music can be very specific, yet still cause similar emotional responses in more than one listener, perhaps emotions that they would not, or rarely have otherwise... so at the very least music can be very succesful in triggering certain emotions... and if you take that a little further, I guess some would say it transmits emotion.





Ukko said:


> There are hard-wired reactions to sounds in nature. I haven't read it, but suspect that some elements in music have non-obvious relationships to those sounds, to the extent that the hard-wiring reacts to them - perhaps in ways that Nature did not intend.


This is why my favorite quote about music is, _"Music is a higher revelation than philosophy"_ - L V Beethoven

The Fibonacci series comes into effect a lot here. When they've built rooms with the dimensions in line with the "divine ratio" they have tested and recorded that people's blood pressure goes down and their muscles relax upon entering such rooms.

Another test was I believe in Sweden that they performed on milking cows. When they played tonal music (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc) milk production increased. When they played atonal music (Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen, etc), they produced less milk.

Yes, there is much going on in the subconscious and hard wiring when it comes to music, sounds, sights, and the other senses.

V


----------



## Mahlerian

Varick said:


> Another test was I believe in Sweden that they performed on milking cows. When they played tonal music (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc) milk production increased. When they played atonal music (Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen, etc), they produced less milk.
> 
> Yes, there is much going on in the subconscious and hard wiring when it comes to music, sounds, sights, and the other senses.


I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove, and I also want to know how rigorous this study was...

All of the studies that have attempted to prove the "naturalness" of tonality have failed, or weakened the definition of tonality to the point where anything and everything (including Schoenberg, Cage, and Stockhausen) could fairly be considered tonal.


----------



## PetrB

DeepR said:


> It's not like the listener is already emotionally on the edge and just needs that little push over the edge. The emotional impact of music is more than a little trigger, it can hit like a truck, seemingly out of nowhere.
> The "triggers" in music can be very specific, yet still cause similar emotional responses in more than one listener, perhaps emotions that they would not, or rarely have otherwise... so at the very least music can be very succesful in triggering certain emotions... and if you take that a little further, I guess some would say it transmits emotion.


I would say _*music is only capable*_ (and yes that capable can be strong and overwhelming) _*of evoking emotion.*_

It does not "transmit" anything but sound


----------



## PetrB

Varick said:


> .... Another test was I believe in Sweden that they performed on milking cows. When they played tonal music (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc) milk production increased. When they played atonal music (Schoenberg, Cage, Stockhausen, etc), they produced less milk.


That is fine, my colleague Varick, but the last anyone checked, neither composers, performers, or the intended listeners of that music -- any sort of music -- were cows


----------



## KenOC

PetrB said:


> That is fine, my colleague Varick, but the last anyone checked, neither composers, performers, or the intended listeners of that music -- any sort of music -- were cows


Though many find this music, nonetheless, udderly unpleasant.


----------



## Lord Lance

techniquest said:


> I don't mean to be flippant, but the only thing about the opening of Mahlers' 5th that makes me cry is the fact that after that opening, I can't get anywhere with the rest of the symphony (adagietto excepted).


There will come a time when your words will change. You require many more listens or perhaps, just need to hear it again some other time. I have had the same experience with Mahler 3 - Took me a dozen listens.


----------



## techniquest

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> There will come a time when your words will change. You require many more listens or perhaps, just need to hear it again some other time. I have had the same experience with Mahler 3 - Took me a dozen listens.


Well, I first heard the work in the early 1980's and have heard it many times since - not just heard but listened too - and yet the magic just passes me by. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, most of the 9th and even the 10th are works of wonder that enthrall me to the core.


----------



## Varick

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove, and I also want to know how rigorous this study was...
> 
> All of the studies that have attempted to prove the "naturalness" of tonality have failed, or weakened the definition of tonality to the point where anything and everything (including Schoenberg, Cage, and Stockhausen) could fairly be considered tonal.


It was a study long ago that I read about long ago. Regarding the "failure" of testing the naturalness of tonality (which hasn't weakened definitionally. Tonal and atonal are musical structures that have pretty defined parameters), that of which I do not know. You may be correct, however I do find it suspect in light of the many studies done on the Fibonacci Series (which are prevalent in many tonal structures of music, particularly in Bach, Mozart, and often Beethoven, but are lacking in atonal music) and it's subconscious effects on us humans when it comes to music, art, geometry and architecture.

I am aware of the classic study regarding the loss of the naturalness of tonal music that one encounters in atonal music is in Leonard Bernstein's "Six Norton Lectures" at Harvard University in the early 1970's, later published as "The Unanswered Question: Six Talks at Harvard by Leonard Bernstein". These lectures and the book (published in 1976) were required reading for Ph.D.'s (in music obviously) back in the late '70's and '80's. So were two important books published earlier by the music theorist, Leonard B. Meyer. Meyer's second book, "Music, The Arts, and Ideas: Patterns and Predictions in Twentieth-Century Culture" was published in 1967 and had a direct impact on Bernstein's conception of the movement from tonality to atonality.

Essentially, Meyer and Bernstein use "information theory" and philosophy of language to demonstrate that when we learn tonal music, even as children, we naturally internalize its codification system which creates "expectations". This allows us to predict what might come next in a musical passage, and more importantly, what would not be possible: for example, the opening of the Mozart piano sonata in C major could NOT be followed by a bi-tonal theme simultaneously in the keys of C major and F-sharp major.

So whereas much has been done on a "naturalization effect" on us as we are exposed to atonal music regarding when and how often, I'm not familiar with studies showing tonality is not "natural." You may be correct, but I am unfamiliar.

V


----------



## Mahlerian

Varick said:


> It was a study long ago that I read about long ago. Regarding the "failure" of testing the naturalness of tonality (which hasn't weakened definitionally. Tonal and atonal are musical structures that have pretty defined parameters), that of which I do not know. You may be correct, however I do find it suspect in light of the many studies done on the Fibonacci Series (which are prevalent in many tonal structures of music, particularly in Bach, Mozart, and often Beethoven, but are lacking in atonal music) and it's subconscious effects on us humans when it comes to music, art, geometry and architecture.


I have no clue what you mean about the Fibonacci series in this context. Do you mean the proportions of sections?

Anyway, the point is that "atonal" is _not_ a precisely defined term at all. It is only defined in relation to what the speaker defines as being tonal.

Wikipedia's articles on the matter indicate how confused people are about the whole issue.

From Tonality:



Wikipedia said:


> Tonality is a musical system in which hierarchical pitch relationships are based around a tonic triad, and on hierarchical relationships between that central triad and the seven others in a key. Tonality was the predominant musical system in the European tradition of classical music from the late 1500s until early in the 20th century, and in modern times has been globalized as the central vehicle for popular music.


From Atonality:



Wikipedia said:


> Atonality in its broadest sense is music that lacks a tonal center, or key. Atonality, in this sense, usually describes compositions written from about 1908 to the present day where a hierarchy of pitches focusing on a single, central tone is not used, and the notes of the chromatic scale function independently of one another (Kennedy 1994). More narrowly, the term atonality describes music that does not conform to the system of tonal hierarchies that characterized classical European music between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries (Lansky, Perle, and Headlam 2001). "The repertory of atonal music is characterized by the occurrence of pitches in novel combinations, as well as by the occurrence of familiar pitch combinations in unfamiliar environments" (Forte 1977, 1).
> More narrowly still, the term is sometimes used to describe music that is neither tonal nor serial, especially the pre-twelve-tone music of the Second Viennese School, principally Alban Berg, Arnold Schoenberg, and Anton Webern (Lansky, Perle, and Headlam 2001). However, "[a]s a categorical label, 'atonal' generally means only that the piece is in the Western tradition and is not 'tonal'" (Rahn 1980, 1), although there are longer periods, e.g., medieval, renaissance, and modern modal musics to which this definition does not apply.


Note that these two definitions are contradictory. The definition of tonality is specifically related to harmonic idioms focusing on a _triad_, while the definition of atonality is defined as different from focusing on a central _pitch_. Atonality also gives several definitions which are quite different from each other. The only thing that is clearly defined is that the music in question is not, strictly speaking, tonal.

But even the definition of "tonal" becomes confused when we consider the idea of "nonfunctional" tonality, which became normal for non-12-tone modernism such as neoclassicism and postmodernist trends such as minimalism and neoromanticism. If tonality is defined as a system based on "hierarchical" relationships, then subverting these to the point of invisibility, as nonfunctional tonality does, makes it not "tonal" by the first definition. Yet it is not considered atonal, either.

Note that tonality, as defined above, does not cover any modal music, as modal music is not based around organization of pitches around a central triad.

So tonality, as defined by Wikipedia (and this is in fact the traditional definition of tonality) is probably not natural. It grew up in a single tradition, and then only after a thousand and more years of development.

When this argument comes up, the response is usually as follows: "but modal music _is_ tonal!" Even if I grant this, you realize that we are now including everything, all music in the history of the world is tonal, until about 1908 or so, when someone decided that he wanted to write something that wasn't. It's silly enough to think that Brahms and Bach are more closely related than Brahms and Berg, but in my mind, it's absolutely absurd to imagine that Grieg has more in common, on a musical level, with Gagaku than with Webern.

And on top of that, it's not at all clear cut what music centers around a note and what doesn't. Much 20th century music, without the underpinnings of functional harmony, establishes a pitch as central simply by focusing on it in one way or another, by pedal points and the like. Think about this: if you add an F# pedal to Beethoven's C major Symphony, it doesn't suddenly change the tonal orientation of the work. It just has an obnoxious tritone at every opportunity around a work that's still firmly in C major. But there are many works in the 20th century (Impressionist, Neoclassical) that add notes such as this specifically in order to stabilize materials that would, on their own, not necessarily imply one key over another.

Furthermore, none of the initial "atonal" composers thought that they were writing "atonal" music. No theories were devised, no terms were agreed upon (early critics, before the term atonality, occasionally referred to Schoenberg's work as "cubist" or "impressionist" when they didn't call it "anarchist"). They were aware that they were writing music that did not use the common triadic relationships or cadences, freed from many conventions, but it is clear that they could not have written in an expressionist idiom without first understanding the workings of tonality. Their music makes powerful use of our expectations, harmonic and melodic, often enough by subverting them, but more often than you might think by fulfilling them, at least in part.

So no, these terms are not clearly defined.


----------



## Varick

Well Mahlerian, I must admit, you caught me off guard with your last post which was eloquent and precisely on point. I was trying to keep the "definitions" of tonality and atonality in a simple context within relationships of each other (in more of layman's understanding of such terms). I did not know you were going to go into such detail. I try not to go into that kind of detail because I often do not know the knowledge of the reader, so I try to keep things in a much more simpler context. I'm sure many people here understand and know of these ideas, and many who don't. And by reading some posts on this forum, there are also a great many who know a lot more about certain things than I do.

If you start going into more of the philosophy and theory of music (such as ideas from Meyer and in books such as "Philosophy and the Analysis of Music" by Lawrence Ferrara), it goes into realms far deeper and broader than anything we can go into here in an abridged version. However I did allude in my last post that tonality and atonality can often be defined as what it is NOT.

But when it comes to tonality, I must take the legal application of precedence when it comes to defining "tonality." When things are being used in a certain way for over 1000 years, I say there becomes a working definition and parameters of such things. Other times when it comes to art for instance, I never liked idea that "it can't be defined." This is where I try to forgo "academic" ideas and language and posit a bit of common sense: If "it" isn't defined or have parameters then anything goes. When anything goes you have chaos and anarchy, and nothing works in chaos and anarchy (and no, I don't want to go into "chaos theory" that does prove "order" in chaos ).

This has been a lively and enjoyable discussion. I am enjoying it tremendously.

V


----------



## Mahlerian

Varick said:


> But when it comes to tonality, I must take the legal application of precedence when it comes to defining "tonality." When things are being used in a certain way for over 1000 years, I say there becomes a working definition and parameters of such things. Other times when it comes to art for instance, I never liked idea that "it can't be defined." This is where I try to forgo "academic" ideas and language and posit a bit of common sense: If "it" isn't defined or have parameters then anything goes. When anything goes you have chaos and anarchy, and nothing works in chaos and anarchy (and no, I don't want to go into "chaos theory" that does prove "order" in chaos ).


But tonality was not in use for "over 1,000 years". It began to emerge around 1600 with the beginning of the Baroque, and, as one music history text put it, was not fully established in its modern form (without modal admixtures) until about Corelli's time, in the late 17th century. Even dating modern tonality back to 1600, that's still only 300 years before the system was already strained to the breaking point (and in some cases, past it) by Liszt, Debussy, Strauss, Wolf, and Mahler. Already by that point the feeling of being "in a key" was stretched to include points of stability other than those reached by a clear cadence. No Classical or Baroque era composer would have dreamed of ending a piece by using flat-II to I as a substitute dominant-tonic cadence, but this is just what Bruckner does in the finale of his Fourth. When a system based on the clear relationship of dominant to tonic begins to produce pieces where any such relationships are consistently avoided on the harmonic level, that system is in its last days.

Anyway, the truth is that there is no "anything goes" in atonal music, outside of a few experimental pieces from the 60s or so. This was generally not desired by composers, let alone achieved. Any pitch language creates its own coherence if it is consistent enough (not to say that it's good just because it's coherent).

Going back to Bernstein, I feel that he both presents his material well and that he distorts it with his own biases. Although he recognizes Schoenberg's genius, he feels little need to show where it comes from, to show how the music really works. His sympathies lie more with Berg, and specifically the Berg of the Violin Concerto (less than the Berg of the Chamber Concerto or the Three Pieces for Orchestra or even the Berg of Wozzeck). The Berg Violin Concerto is certainly an amazing work, but it doesn't work because it's tonal (it's not, save for the chorale), it works because it's a well-written piece of music. He describes Stravinsky, but doesn't get into his late works (which still have yet to find their place in the canon, unfortunately).

His point that we can infer that it is not natural by its relative non-acceptance is now rendered moot by the fact that this music _is_ in the process of being accepted into the regular repertoire. Only in Classical Music, and only with regards to controversial composers such as the Second Viennese School, can people with a straight face say about pieces that are regularly performed, recorded, and listened to more than a century later (and far more than during the composer's lifetime) that they will never be liked or accepted. Countless lesser-known conservative composers of the era have fallen into neglect simply because nobody is interested in them (even some really good ones).


----------



## Ukko

Thanks, V & M. I almost think I sort of follow your arguments. In many lines of work, that could be a dangerous thing.


----------



## Varick

Mahlerian said:


> But tonality was not in use for "over 1,000 years". It began to emerge around 1600 with the beginning of the Baroque, and, as one music history text put it, was not fully established in its modern form (without modal admixtures) until about Corelli's time, in the late 17th century.


I apologize, for some reason, I thought you had mentioned that tonality was around for 1000 years. I have no idea where I got that from. When I re-read what you wrote, I couldn't find it. I was pretty much using what you had stated to make a point. When I wrote that above, I was thinking, "where did he get 1000 years from?" but then thought you must have been thinking of the diatonic scale, which HAS been around for nearly a millennium.

I must say, I rarely discuss things on Internet BB's by "looking up" things as I type, unless perhaps it's to get a certain year or spelling of a name correct. I don't know if other people do or not. I would think some do, but I also think there are plenty who do not. I have not been blessed with a great memory. Many (dare I say most) things I learned in graduate school I have forgotten. Terms, technical language, etc.

Unless you are currently studying this subject, you my friend, have much greater recall than I will ever have. I can barely recall which of the mixolydian or aeolian scales starts on the 5th or 6th note.

V


----------



## Varick

Mahlerian said:


> Going back to Bernstein, I feel that he both presents his material well and that he distorts it with his own biases. Although he recognizes Schoenberg's genius, he feels little need to show where it comes from, to show how the music really works. His sympathies lie more with Berg, and specifically the Berg of the Violin Concerto (less than the Berg of the Chamber Concerto or the Three Pieces for Orchestra or even the Berg of Wozzeck). The Berg Violin Concerto is certainly an amazing work, but it doesn't work because it's tonal (it's not, save for the chorale), it works because it's a well-written piece of music. He describes Stravinsky, but doesn't get into his late works (which still have yet to find their place in the canon, unfortunately).


Were you already familiar with the Six lectures or did you just read them since my earlier post? Just curious.



Mahlerian said:


> His point that we can infer that it is not natural by its relative non-acceptance is now rendered moot by the fact that this music _is_ in the process of being accepted into the regular repertoire. Only in Classical Music, and only with regards to controversial composers such as the Second Viennese School, can people with a straight face say about pieces that are regularly performed, recorded, and listened to more than a century later (and far more than during the composer's lifetime) that they will never be liked or accepted. Countless lesser-known conservative composers of the era have fallen into neglect simply because nobody is interested in them (even some really good ones).


Well this brings up another point that I'd be very interested in what your take is.

I believe there are two types of acceptance: The first is, what the music world (ie: Musicians and those who run concert halls, record companies, and every other aspect of the music industry) accepts, and the second: What the general public accepts. Although I believe there are many areas of intersection, often (And it does seem increasingly so) they are roads very far apart.

I don't believe your average classical music listener appreciates, enjoys, or accepts many modern composers that delve into and predominantly write (or have written) atonal music. When I lived in Manhattan, I constantly went to Carnegie Hall and occasionally Avery Fisher (I tried to avoid that hall. The acoustics are awful). The Hall, was always more full when "tonal" (mainstream if you will) composers were being performed. Even more "tonal" 20th Century composers like Vaughn Williams, Aaron Copeland, etc.would pack them in. When more of the Second Viennese School composers and more atonal composers were headlined, there were a lot more empty seats in the theater. Of course, a certain soloist, conductor, or orchestra could sell more tickets, but on the whole, that was the pattern.

I believe this is part of classical music's problem today. Many modern composers have become accustomed to living in such a hermetically sealed world that they no longer write for people, they write for themselves and maybe for some colleagues. I believe there has become a strong smug and narcissistic mentality that has taken over so much of the arts today that the average person can no longer relate.

I do believe the *biggest* problem is that we have become a culturally illiterate society (Ask people what a Rubins is, and they'll tell you it's a sandwich), especially in the USA, but I fear that the above reasons are only going to make it harder for a classical music "comeback."

Now, with all that said, I will admit that the aspect of classical music I am least familiar with is 20th century and newer. I only have a few handfuls of recordings (50 or so) of 20th Century & modern composers, and by reading some of the posts in this forum, there are still so many more I haven't even heard *of*, let alone heard. I have also come to some of the above conclusions just by speaking with friends and acquaintances who share a love of classical music as well.

Just curious on your thoughts.

V


----------



## Mahlerian

Varick said:


> Were you already familiar with the Six lectures or did you just read them since my earlier post? Just curious.


I'm familiar the video version, and have discussed it before in this kind of context.



Varick said:


> Well this brings up another point that I'd be very interested in what your take is.
> 
> I believe there are two types of acceptance: The first is, what the music world (ie: Musicians and those who run concert halls, record companies, and every other aspect of the music industry) accepts, and the second: What the general public accepts. Although I believe there are many areas of intersection, often (And it does seem increasingly so) they are roads very far apart.


You've conflated a few things in your "first type". Record company execs tend not to be musicians. They tend to look after the bottom line more than anything else. Sure, you'll have a few (like the head of Columbia who had the wonderful idea of having Stravinsky record all of his own works for the label) who will underwrite a large project at a loss because of the prestige involved, but usually, the big companies are not interested in anything that's sure not to sell.

Now, there is a big difference, on the other hand, between the tastes of a lot of musicians (or musicologists) and the public. There are a number of composers that are considered very important in musical history books that are little performed or recorded. Many composers before 1700 fall into this category, and a number in the recent postwar years as well (particularly the so-called "academic serialism" of Babbitt and Sessions). In these cases, the number of recordings and performances better matches public interest than musicological interest.

This is all to say that I don't believe that a composer being accepted as important by any sort of establishment is going to automatically generate performances and recordings, for which a certain level of public interest is needed.



Varick said:


> I don't believe your average classical music listener appreciates, enjoys, or accepts many modern composers that delve into and predominantly write (or have written) atonal music. When I lived in Manhattan, I constantly went to Carnegie Hall and occasionally Avery Fisher (I tried to avoid that hall. The acoustics are awful). The Hall, was always more full when "tonal" (mainstream if you will) composers were being performed. Even more "tonal" 20th Century composers like Vaughn Williams, Aaron Copeland, etc.would pack them in. When more of the Second Viennese School composers and more atonal composers were headlined, there were a lot more empty seats in the theater. Of course, a certain soloist, conductor, or orchestra could sell more tickets, but on the whole, that was the pattern.


If you have a Berlin Philharmonic Digital Concert Hall subscription, check out a certain BBC Proms concert from a few years ago. The first half has Wagner's Parsifal overture and Strauss's Four Last Songs, and the second half is entirely taken up by the orchestral pieces sets of the Second Viennese School, run together without a break. The Royal Albert Hall is packed, and in fact, the second half elicits more applause and cheers than the first.

More proof? Stockhausen events routinely sell out. When a soloist like Hilary Hahn takes up the Schoenberg Violin Concerto, her fans go along and find they enjoy the music just fine as music, without any of the baggage it's accrued. The Berg Concerto is already a warhorse, and the Schoenberg Piano Concerto is on its way there. Sony continues to re-release Boulez's Webern set for the umpteenth time (record companies don't re-release things that nobody is buying).



Varick said:


> I believe this is part of classical music's problem today. Many modern composers have become accustomed to living in such a hermetically sealed world that they no longer write for people, they write for themselves and maybe for some colleagues. I believe there has become a strong smug and narcissistic mentality that has taken over so much of the arts today that the average person can no longer relate.


The average person can relate just fine, so long as they're not talked down to and they find their way into familiarity with the music. I think the problem is that we have generations of people telling the average person that they cannot possibly relate to this music, that it's overly intellectual (a charge that was also leveled at Brahms, Bach, and Mahler), that it's nonsense (a charge also leveled against Debussy and late Beethoven), or that it sounds like a cat running up and down a keyboard (that one was thrown at Wagner).

There are people I've run into who are sure that they hate Schoenberg though they've never heard any of it, or never really understood any of it, perhaps.



Varick said:


> Now, with all that said, I will admit that the aspect of classical music I am least familiar with is 20th century and newer. I only have a few handfuls of recordings (50 or so) of 20th Century & modern composers, and by reading some of the posts in this forum, there are still so many more I haven't even heard *of*, let alone heard. I have also come to some of the above conclusions just by speaking with friends and acquaintances who share a love of classical music as well.


The early 20th century is, along with the late 19th, the area of classical music I know best. My love of classical began with Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, and Stravinsky, and quickly branched out to include Bruckner, Mahler, Schoenberg, Debussy, and Messiaen. It is music that I know well and love deeply.


----------



## Varick

Thank you very much MAHLERIAN for all your input. It has been a pleasure discussing these things with you. As you can see, I am new here and it is such a delight for me to have found this web site. I was starting to go a bit "classical music stir crazy" because my aformentioned followers of classical music are few in far between in my life. I have an abundance of friends and family whom I love and adore, but far too few of them appreciate and/or are familiar with classical music.

Every time I'm about to expand my CD collection of classical music (approx 2000 CD's) into the 20th Century, I get caught up on buying different recordings of pieces I already love. Thx again. I look forward to future discussions.

V


----------



## Lord Lance

Varick said:


> Thank you very much MAHLERIAN for all your input. It has been a pleasure discussing these things with you. As you can see, I am new here and it is such a delight for me to have found this web site. I was starting to go a bit "classical music stir crazy" because my aformentioned followers of classical music are few in far between in my life. I have an abundance of friends and family whom I love and adore, but far too few of them appreciate and/or are familiar with classical music.
> 
> Every time I'm about to expand my CD collection of classical music (approx 2000 CD's) into the 20th Century, I get caught up on buying different recordings of pieces I already love. Thx again. I look forward to future discussions.
> 
> V


If you need to give it to someone: call me!  
I'd be more than happy to take your collection.


----------



## Varick

Ludwig van Beethoven said:


> If you need to give it to someone: call me!
> I'd be more than happy to take your collection.


You'd have to pry my CDs out of my cold dead hands!

V


----------



## EdwardBast

PetrB said:


> I would say _*music is only capable*_ (and yes that capable can be strong and overwhelming) _*of evoking emotion.*_
> 
> It does not "transmit" anything but sound


A large contingent of aestheticians, theorists and musicologists disagree. Music transmits ideas of all kinds by convention, by isomorphism with human expressive behavior including gesture, posture and utterance (Peter Kivy), through metaphorical exemplification (Nelson Goodman), and by integrated formal-expressive configurations that have been called plot archetypes (Anthony Newcomb), expressive genres (Robert Hatten), or just plain plots.

To point out the perfectly obvious in this case: funeral marches are laden with significance based on conventional associations.


----------



## Ukko

EdwardBast said:


> [...]
> To point out the perfectly obvious in this case: funeral marches are laden with significance based on conventional associations.


That is a poor example. The 1st movement of Beethoven's "Moonlight" sonata is so 'laden with significance' that there is no general agreement that it _is_ a funeral march. Alkan's explicitly labeled funeral march for the parrot is laden with associations only remotely related to funerals.


----------



## Cheyenne

EdwardBast said:


> integrated formal-expressive configurations that have been called plot archetypes (Anthony Newcomb)


Am I the only one who has not a single idea what this could possibly mean?

Mahler's 5th is nice, by the way. I have never understood the problems people have with the finale and its form.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

The one portion of Mahler's Fifth that has always brought tears to my eyes has been the heartfelt adagietto.


----------

