# The Mahler Cult



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Bernard Haitink on what he says about Mahler's excess:

_Es ist ein Steckenpferd von mir und eine grosse Sorge. Dieser Mahler-Kult: Es gibt Leute, die nur zu einem Konzert kommen, wenn Mahler gespielt wird. Nach einer Aufführung von Mahlers dritte Sinfonie habe ich einmal einen Brief gekommen: 'Ich war so gerührt, ich habe das ganze Stück über geheult.' Fast hatte ichzurückgeschrieben: 'Sie sollten einen Psychiater aufsuchen'. Das habe ich natürlich nicht getan. Es sind Einzelfälle, aber dieser Mahler-Kult - damit wird Mahler nicht gedient. Aber es ist so, und vielleicht wird es nach diesem Jubiläum wieder weniger werden.
_
Translated:

_It's a hobbyhorse of mine and a major worry, this Mahler cult. There are people who come to a concert only if Mahler is played. Once, after a performance of Mahler's Third Symphony, I received a letter, telling me: 'I was so moved, I wept through the whole piece. " I almost wrote back: 'You need to see a psychiatrist.' I didn't, of course. These are isolated instances, but Mahler is not well served by this cult. Maybe, after the anniversary year, it will all die down._

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippedd...tink-lashes-out-again-at-the-mahler-cult.html

Judging from the amount of Mahler's recordings and performances today, the cult is going strong.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Well, Mahler himself went to see Freud and had himself analyzed. So why not send peple who identify with his music to a psychiatrist. Doesn't mean they're crazy. Just that there might be something worth digging up and talking about.

Mahler's music is extremely engaging and shamelessly exhibitionistic. Child-like, in the best sense, in its unrestrained expression. Geniously composed, too. As communicative, as speaking-directly-to-the-heart as Tchaikovsky, combined with overwhelming Wagnerian orchestral might. Mahler is unparalleled in many ways, though not all of them are good.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

There are nuts who follow every composer and it would be better if they listen at home if they are incapable of controlling themselves.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

"There are people who come to a concert only if Mahler is played."
"I received a letter, telling me: ‘I was so moved, I wept through the whole piece. ”"
"These are isolated instances"

So what he's saying is that there's this apparently quite small group of people who go to concerts specifically to hear music that really moves them. 
Outrageous!


Incidentally, Haitink's recording of Das Lied von der Erde was a significant contributor to my love of Mahler.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Also, it would be nice if someone could post a bit more of the article in question. Norman Lebrecht, who seems to be the only source of the quote in a quick Google search, is of course a big Mahler fan and was obviously cherry-picking this comment. I'm not saying he's distorting what Haitink said, just that more context for Haitink's remarks would be more useful.
It's a standard bad-journalism trick: take a comment that might have been said tangentially or in passing during a conversation about something else, and turn it into its own separate little controversy. 
The article is described on Das Orchester's web site as "Der niederländische Dirigent Bernard Haitink spricht über den Musikbetrieb, das Orchesterleben und die Kulturpolitik - und zieht eine kritische Bilanz" (http://www.dasorchester.de/de_DE/journal/issues/showarticle,35170.html), so it's clearly not just Haitink "lashing out at the Mahler cult".


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahler is a 'sophisticated' composer, who writes 'deep' music. If people go to concerts and are strongly moved by the music, they can tell this to everyone they know, to make sure their friends know how sophisticated and deep their musical tastes are.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> "There are people who come to a concert only if Mahler is played."
> "I received a letter, telling me: 'I was so moved, I wept through the whole piece. ""
> "These are isolated instances"
> 
> ...


Really ,I'm just glad that I was not sitting next to this hysterical person. There is something called self control you know and it should be practised when in public.Before jerking out your comments have you thought of the consequences if the whole audience starts blubbering ?


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I expect that some concert-goers enjoy telling their friends that they were moved to tears by other classical composers, not just Mahler. It proves that they are not just materialists, but have a spiritual side. 

Others, however, would be ashamed of telling their friends that they were moved to tears, because, as discussed on another thread, they wouldn't want to be seen as soft and over-emotional.

In either case, the reaction & the desire to tell others about it says nothing about the *composer*.
And every major composer must have a *cult* - otherwise known as Fans.


----------



## isridgewell (Jul 2, 2013)

It would seem that the most common criticism of Mahler among those that do not like his music is that he was to self pitying; nearly all of the tragedy his music carries is centered around himself (unlike say Shostakovich who reflected the plight of the ordinary people and to some extent the nation).

Don't get me wrong, I am a big admirer of Mahler, but I do see some of the point made about "self pity." Mahler had a very tragic life and was able to give a voice to this through his music (unlike some who have equally tragic lives). But to what extent we "share" his suffering through in depth "experiences" with his music is interesting.

I once saw an interview with the composer Colin Mathews who said he could not listen to the 6th symphony as it contained so much personal tragedy and was too painful and moving an experience to go through.

Personally I love Mahler, self pitying or not.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

For me this statement just proves that Haitink is not a deep enough human being to conduct either Mahler or Shostakovich!

/ptr


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Really, folks. The words, wept, hysterical and blubbering are three very different things. I have spent a large portion of a very good rock concert with eyes watering, tears of joy if you will. It doesn't mean I was making a scene or any noise at all. There is nothing shameful about having a physiological reaction to the music. It just means you are doing it right. I would not want to sit next to a stoic humorless grouch myself.

As for Mahler, I begin to see if you are into it how his music could have an intense physiological effect. I just have trouble staying alert for an hour and a half these days. He does rather go on, doesn't he?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The German verb _heulen _is not exactly synonymous with crying, it depicts a type of crying that is clearly audible to those in the neighbourhood. That said, either the interview was in Dutch and then translated by the reporter to German (with obvious dangers of misinterpretation) or it was in German which is not Haitinks mother tongue (with obvious dangers of misinterpretation).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Weston said:


> Really, folks. The words, wept, hysterical and blubbering are three very different things. I have spent a large portion of a very good rock concert with eyes watering, tears of joy if you will. It doesn't mean I was making a scene or any noise at all. There is nothing shameful about having a physiological reaction to the music. It just means you are doing it right. I would not want to sit next to a stoic humorless grouch myself.
> 
> As for Mahler, I begin to see if you are into it how his music could have an intense physiological effect. I just have trouble staying alert for an hour and a half these days. He does rather go on, doesn't he?


How would you know you were sitting next to a stoic,humourless grouch---or can you tell because he isn't crying like a baby ?
Keep your emotions under control unless you are alone,there's to much screaming and bawling these days especially from America.
My generation just find it an embarrassment---and that's not because we don't feel but you can give to much away in various circumstances.
You don't find James Bond or John Wayne rolling around gabbling out their feelings now do you ?
Lastly I find what you say rather insulting,I know what I feel and you don't !!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ptr said:


> For me this statement just proves that Haitink is not a deep enough human being to conduct either Mahler or Shostakovich!
> 
> /ptr


I was thinking that emotion and Haitink are not close bedmates.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Ramako said:


> Mahler is a 'sophisticated' composer, who writes 'deep' music. If people go to concerts and are strongly moved by the music, they can tell this to everyone they know, to make sure their friends know how sophisticated and deep their musical tastes are.


Or maybe they just like Mahler?

Nah... couldn't be.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I think it's an awkward one for classical fans, especially if they describe what they feel to non-classical fans. Typical conversation:

"I was moved to tears by Mahler last night, so expressive and profound, it shook me to the core."

"Mmm-_kay!_ I have to leave now..."


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

moody said:


> I was thinking that emotion and Haitink are not close bedmates.


A very appropriate conclusion Mr Moody!

/ptr


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

ptr said:


> For me this statement just proves that Haitink is not a deep enough human being to conduct either Mahler or Shostakovich!
> 
> /ptr


Hm... That's going a bit too far, don't you think? Maybe his perspective is different from some, but I'm not sure that disqualifies him from conducting Mahler or Shostakovich. A lifetime in music, down the tubes, eh?

I wonder, what composers _is_ he deep enough for?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

ptr said:


> A very appropriate conclusion Mr Moody!
> 
> /ptr


Maybe what moves you (and moody) are not the same things that moves Haitink (it's allowed). It hard for me to imagine someone making a career in music without feeling music emotionally. Maybe he's just in it for the money...?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

apricissimus said:


> Hm... That's going a bit too far, don't you think? Maybe his perspective is different from some, but I'm not sure that disqualifies him from conducting Mahler or Shostakovich. A lifetime in music, down the tubes, eh?
> 
> I wonder, what composers _is_ he deep enough for?


I did not forbid him to conduct, I'm sure that there enough of an audience for him to play with. For me Haitink is a very run of the mill Kapellmeister who probably have all the talents needed, and he doesn't do anything wrong, but more so, he (for my kind) do not challenge the appetite, he makes music devoid of seasoning (if I'm allowed a dining analogy). I fully understand that some like their music tasting like hospital food, but that is not me, I'm not claiming to be "right", I'm just expressing what his recordings and concerts have told me.

.. and FWIW, it's not the composers that are the problem here!

/ptr


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Who cries for 2 hours? Is that even possible? I don't get much more than one tiny tear. :lol:


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Well there are certainly many genius moments and deep emotional passages in Mahler's symphonies, but crying during the whole piece is absolutely crazy.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Carpenoctem said:


> Well there are certainly many genius moments and deep emotional passages in Mahler's symphonies, but crying during the whole piece is absolutely crazy.


I think so. I mean, the _whole _piece? It implies they began sobbing just after the initial wave of the baton...


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Some of Mahler's music has a tendency to dig deeper into my soul than music usual does - by that I don't mean cascades of tears or orgasmic exclamations of delight, but certainly an occasional lump in the throat, a smile or simply letting out a long contented sigh in admiration of the beauty and scale of it - and in my own case this is outstanding for two reasons: a) I usually consider myself to be a rational individual not given to emotional outbursts when listening to music however much I enjoy a work, and b) there are very few, if any, other composers whose music moves me as much as his. I can't analyse this - the music of Mahler just seems to hit the sweet spot in different ways.


----------



## Carpenoctem (May 15, 2012)

Kieran said:


> I think so. I mean, the _whole _piece? It implies they began sobbing just after the initial wave of the baton...


Yeah, there is no way someone cried during the whole piece. Sure, you can shed a tear or two during a performance, but this sure is exaggerated.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I understand Haitink's concerns, to be frank. There are those that find everything in Mahler, that see him as complete, flawless, a communicator of the human spirit like none other - in brief, they nearly worship him. This attitude is exaggerated and overbearing to me. If one will be so free to recall the 'flawless pieces/passages of music thread', you may recall that I, as well as Mahlerian, mentioned Das Lied von der Erde as a contender; but that there was another comment which already goes a little too far for me: someone mentioned 'all of [Mahler]'. Who really can call Lieder Eines Fahrende Gesellen or his First Symphony, to name the two most obvious examples, perfect - flawless? It happens with other composers too - Bach the elder, for one. In the worst cases, it becomes a form of deification, which, I believe, does nobody any good.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

I don't get it. Mahler symphonies are outstanding, it is normal that many people want to listen it. I am pretty sure that there is much more people around that just want to go to a concert if there is some Beethoven. And that is perfectly fine too, that's what happens with the great composers, they attract admirers.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Kieran said:


> I think so. I mean, the _whole _piece? It implies they began sobbing just after the initial wave of the baton...


Imagine - the conductor picks up his baton, they get their hankies out, and the orchestra strikes up to a chorus of snivelling.
If it had *that* much effect, it could be *so* useful for psychotherapists!


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Kieran said:


> I think so. I mean, the _whole _piece? It implies they began sobbing just after the initial wave of the baton...


Maybe they misunderstood the dynamics and went from pp - pretty plopping tears all they way to ff frenetic floods?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ramako said:


> Mahler is a 'sophisticated' composer, who writes 'deep' music. If people go to concerts and are strongly moved by the music, they can tell this to everyone they know, to make sure their friends know how sophisticated and deep their musical tastes are.


"Sophisticated"? Mahler? Nah. His music is way too much 'heart-on-sleeve' for that label, in the way you appear to be applying it. I mean, any low-brow commoner can get all worked up by his music. _Sophisticated_ is when the WTC reveals some really good lottery numbers.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> Or maybe they just like Mahler?
> 
> Nah... couldn't be.


The individual I described may or may not like Mahler (I should probably point out that I actually rather like him), however if one isn't in to music in general, doesn't have the time/energy/interest or whatever to pursue it for much time, then I would say that Mahler is a very efficient composer to invest into. While Mozart and Beethoven, for example, can be very deep, and many very musical people like them a great deal, there are a quite a lot of musically 'unsophisticated' people who like them too, and there is no way that one would want to be confused for one of those. Mahler is more difficult to get, so liking him at once puts you on quite a high musical level.

And, at least in this country, you can say *Maaaaaah*ler, with a huge emphasis on the A which allows you to show off your Queen's English as well


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Sophisticated"? Mahler? Nah. His music is way too much 'heart-on-sleeve' for that label, in the way you appear to be applying it. I mean, any low-brow commoner can get all worked up by his music. _Sophisticated_ is when the WTC reveals some really good lottery numbers.


True, but it depends what company you are in.

Although if you can pull the Mahler 'irony' card which does away with all those kind of 'overindulgent' accusations without having to think too hard or spend too much energy looking into the music.

If you are in a reasonably musically knowledgable society, though, I would nominate Beethoven's Late Quartet's as the best card to put your 'sophisticated' chips on.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Speculating on the sincerity behind others' expressions of their musical tastes is just dreary and depressing. I don't see what good can come out of it.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I so agree, apricissimus - (or should that be apricissime - vocative case?). 

If you nick a quote or pretend to knowing something you don't, you can guarantee that someone will unmask you in company in the most embarrassing way. Safest not to pretend.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

apricissimus said:


> Speculating on the sincerity behind others' expressions of their musical tastes is just dreary and depressing. I don't see what good can come out of it.


I'm not really commenting on anyone's sincerity, this stuff just goes with the territory (it can be contradictory too, which is even more interesting imo).

And while my humour is often not well appreciated, it must be said that 'dreary and depressing' is a step down from the usual blank faces :lol:


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Ramako said:


> True, but it depends what company you are in.
> 
> Although if you can pull the Mahler 'irony' card which does away with all those kind of 'overindulgent' accusations without having to think too hard or spend too much energy looking into the music.
> 
> If you are in a reasonably musically knowledgable society, though, I would nominate Beethoven's Late Quartet's as the best card to put your 'sophisticated' chips on.


I think this is a brilliant joke; great irony; and I took Apric's post not as a comment on it, but as an observation on the topic that had been raised.

Wit may not always be appreciated, but please don't give up on us, Ramako!


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> I think this is a brilliant joke; great irony; and I took Apric's post not as a comment on it, but as an observation on the topic that had been raised.
> 
> Wit may not always be appreciated, but please don't give up on us, Ramako!


Thank you Ingenue, but don't worry I'm not going anywhere: if I abandoned every company in which my humour fell dead on some ears I would lead a totally hermetic existence - even more than I already do!


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

I have to admit -- I did not get the joke. (And now knowing that it's a joke, I still don't get it... But oh well.)


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Mwahahahaha yes our cult only grows stronger with the blood of Mozart fans


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Cosmos said:


> Mwahahahaha yes our cult only grows stronger with the blood of Mozart fans


Don't be fooled by our powdered wigs! We members of _The 'Gangerl_ _Mob_ are tough as teak and welcome all-comers to the war! :devil:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

apricissimus said:


> Hm... That's going a bit too far, don't you think? Maybe his perspective is different from some, but I'm not sure that disqualifies him from conducting Mahler or Shostakovich. A lifetime in music, down the tubes, eh?
> 
> I wonder, what composers _is_ he deep enough for?


It doesn't mean that,he's an alright conductor but not much more--but he's a nice guy as I know because I got stuck in an elevator with him once.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> I expect that some concert-goers enjoy telling their friends that they were moved to tears by other classical composers, not just Mahler. It proves that they are not just materialists, but have a spiritual side.
> 
> Others, however, would be ashamed of telling their friends that they were moved to tears, because, as discussed on another thread, they wouldn't want to be seen as soft and over-emotional.
> 
> ...


I am a fan of a number of composers and ,importantly,was a fan of certain conductors but never blubbered at a concert.
This is why I can't watch muck like the X Factor and such programmes where everybody screams and weeps whether they win or lose.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

moody said:


> This is why I can't watch muck like the X Factor and such programmes where everybody screams and weeps whether they win or lose.


You mean it actually makes a difference if they win or lose?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Taggart said:


> You mean it actually makes a difference if they win or lose?


Oh yes,their lives are over if they lose you know---small lives !


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Bread and circuses... 

'Blubbering' is a bit of a loaded word, mr moody; doesn't a small tear ever come to your eyes if you hear a really beautiful 'song of the earth'? Or do you only give in to that at home?

But you could always pull your visor down, and nobody would know!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> Bread and circuses...


That's very enigmatic.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

A Latin sneer, I'm afraid: panem et circenses. 

The Roman mob - shouting for gladiators to die, backing charioteers of different 'colours', happy for all sorts of injustices to exist so long as they had entertainment and enough to eat.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Sophisticated"? Mahler? Nah. His music is way too much 'heart-on-sleeve' for that label, in the way you appear to be applying it. I mean, any low-brow commoner can get all worked up by his music. _Sophisticated_ is when the WTC reveals some really good lottery numbers.


Yes, but even many Mahler fans seem not to fully understand these works, which are complex by any definition (I'm still learning). Also, the heart-on-sleeve aspect is overemphasized by some who seem only to understand that something is being strongly expressed, without any knowledge of what it is or where, in a musical sense, it came from.

For an example, there was a person several years back here at TC who complained that in the first movement of the 5th, everything proceeded normally until, "with no reason or coherence", WHAM!, there's a new theme and it's loud.

If all Mahler seems like is a series of moments where something follows something else for no particular reason, of course it will seem over-the-top, but this is emphatically not true of Mahler as a composer. The moment in question is a presaging of the second movement (which has its own reminiscence of the first), and it is indeed thematically derived from the earlier material in the movement. If you understand the moment's place in the whole, it might even come across as calculated. But that's the genius at work, that even the most well thought-out moment can seem spontaneous, and this particular sensation of spontaneity pervades Mahler's works.


----------



## DonnaMysteriosa (Jul 2, 2013)

I dont think mahler was self-pitying...just melancholic man who was able to express his feelings through music...some of Verdi's music is also melancholic


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but even many Mahler fans seem not to fully understand these works, which are complex by any definition (I'm still learning). Also, the heart-on-sleeve aspect is overemphasized by some who seem only to understand that something is being strongly expressed, without any knowledge of what it is or where, in a musical sense, it came from.
> [...]


I gather that you and I listen to music differently. I don't care one whit what Mahler intended to intimate.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I gather that you and I listen to music differently. I don't care one whit what Mahler intended to intimate.


I'm not talking about "it's sad here", "it's angry here", and other such mundane things (see the quote in my signature). I'm simply referring to the musical/developmental/formal qualities of various passages. In that sense, I'm sure you care about what any composer intends one to hear in a given passage.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nutters are nutters, regardless of which composer, comic book, video game, ideology, philosophy they latch on to as the object of their particular interest.

A woman I knew did not consume much classical, but she had all the Mahler Symphonies in her home recordings collection. She asked me, "Why does Mahler make me feel all weepy?" I instantly also thought, "good question for your shrink." But equally thought, and this I answered, "Mahler can -- and at least in part is supposed to -- do that."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

In general, if anyone has that dipstick you slide down all performer's and composer's throats (or down the throat of the music itself) which magically tells you if the music "Has Soul," or is "Soulless," well, _patent that sucker._


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not talking about "it's sad here", "it's angry here", and other such mundane things (see the quote in my signature). I'm simply referring to the musical/developmental/formal qualities of various passages. In that sense, I'm sure you care about what any composer intends one to hear in a given passage.


I'm not so sure; maybe it's terminology. I care about being able to 'connect' with the music, because otherwise it is just a series of sounds. Then I care about _staying_ connected. In non-vocal music the composer, performer(s) and I often get those things done, without lyrics helping, without a 'program' interfering. All the hard stuff is on them; I didn't have to work and study and practice for years to learn my part.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'm not so sure; maybe it's terminology. I care about being able to 'connect' with the music, because otherwise it is just a series of sounds. Then I care about _staying_ connected. In non-vocal music the composer, performer(s) and I often get those things done, without lyrics helping, without a 'program' interfering. All the hard stuff is on them; I didn't have to work and study and practice for years to learn my part.


Exactly. I feel Mahler's music stands alone without any programs, simply on its musical basis.

(Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, I agree with Haitink that someone weeping through Mahler's 3rd symphony from first bar to last does nothing to help his music or his reputation. I'd almost go as far as to say it shows a distinct lack of understanding of that joyful, all-embracing work.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Exactly. I feel Mahler's music stands alone without any programs, simply on its musical basis.
> 
> (Oh, and in case anyone was wondering, I agree with Haitink that someone weeping through Mahler's 3rd symphony from first bar to last does nothing to help his music or his reputation. I'd almost go as far as to say it shows a distinct lack of understanding of that joyful, all-embracing work.)


I recall reading from LP jacket notes Mahler's comment to his wife that he was giving the public happy music this time.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Don't point at Mahler. Point at the nutjobs who need a copy of everything produced, and conductors who have a false impression of their interpretive ability. :lol:


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> Bread and circuses...
> 
> 'Blubbering' is a bit of a loaded word, mr moody; doesn't a small tear ever come to your eyes if you hear a really beautiful 'song of the earth'? Or do you only give in to that at home?
> 
> But you could always pull your visor down, and nobody would know!


You really must look back at what was actually said earlier on. This was not about a small tear.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> 'I was so moved, I wept through the whole piece."


One tear, or a sob-fest... *There Are No Happy Tears*

_*We cry when we are frustrated and at no other time.*_ ("Tears of Joy," is a lie.)

Again we find music acting as a Rorschach blot on the listener. Something evoked which then triggers open a hatch in a compartment of the mind, and we get 'sad.'

Many react in the face of what they find beautiful by a tear or a bit of a cry -- beauty is an ideal which reminds us of how much within and all around us is not ideal. We cry when we are frustrated: no one is crying at the beauty of Mahler, etc. They are crying because something about the music triggered within them that something which they think, feel, or a remembered event which did / does not meet an ideal, or the music catalyzes a feeling that something is at the least less than satisfactory -- something was frustrated / frustrating about a situation, or as the Brits say, "No Joy."

A large group of musicians playing beautifully together "In Concert" can trigger the reminder that all of humanity, our families, are doing anything but 'working in concert.' De facto, the 'perfection' of art can remind us of so much which is less than....

For some, that Rorschach / trigger / in concert reminder is Mahler. For others, the grid order of a Newtonian universe and an 18th century clockwork signifies order, the perfect order of the divine. For them, if it is not crossword puzzles or the Kabbalah, it is Bach... maybe all three.

One acquaintance of mine thinks that minimal music, most of Philip Glass, all of Steve Reich, earlier John Adams, are ideal because he has attached to the overall sound it makes, the 'process pieces,' a meaning, that the patterns reflect very much "how he is sure his brain works." I'd like to see him chatting that one up Dr. Oliver Sachs, psychiatrist and neurologist 

'nuff said.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> I expect that some concert-goers enjoy telling their friends that they were moved to tears by other classical composers, not just Mahler. It proves that they are not just materialists, but have a spiritual side.
> 
> Others, however, would be ashamed of telling their friends that they were moved to tears, because, as discussed on another thread, they wouldn't want to be seen as soft and over-emotional.
> 
> ...


Yes, Ingenue.

From time to time I give to common -not skilled- people a sort of workshop of classical music appreciation that includes Jazz as well as contemporary music, but the main idea is to work with emotions as being aware of them.

Many people has problems with emotions and -classical- music is one of the best means to work with them in a healthy way. I shade tears when the workshop reaches Beethoven's symphonies and I can remember a young woman moved to tears, too, with the ninth and referring a sort of healing; a kind of burden left in the floor and feeling lightly and with hope: her husband was through a difficult disease.

So, Mahler, Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi, Bach, etc. can move different feelings in different people at different moments of their life; this is why music is so important in my life.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> One tear, or a sob-fest... *There Are No Happy Tears*
> 
> _*We cry when we are frustrated and at no other time.*_ ("Tears of Joy," is a lie.)
> 
> ...


I'm sorry, but that's just total nonsense. But, I can only speak from my own experience. Being moved doesn't have to mean you are frustrated.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Actually, in German, the verb "heulen" mens to howl , as in the howls of animals . I recently strted thread about us being "Mahlered to death", evne though I love his music dearly .
It's also very easy for conductors to oversentimentalize Mahler's music . And there's much more to Mahler than 
sorrow and grief . Only the 6th symphony , the so-called "Tragic" ends in a minor key ,and there's plenty of 
optimism and joy in his music, too . as well as everything you could imagine .


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> I'm sorry, but that's just total nonsense.


Next time you're in tears, track where that comes from more than carefully -- it is because you feel something is frustrated: pain, loss, are frustrations.

If you are a musician, the real fact you as a listener have not reached the ideal as performer or composer can have you crying when hearing a 'happy' work which you recognize as a kind of peak of one kind of perfection -- crying that you are not at that peak, envy is frustration. Yearning is frustration. Many states of being and life-situations are 'frustrating' in part or whole.

No one, but no one, at least in western cultures, cries because they are "happy." I more than seriously doubt anyone responds to true beauty with tears.

Prove me wrong


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I have met Mahler fans who did not profess of having cult-like fixation on him. They just liked him. As to myself, I'm only against music cults if they end up belittling everyone else in the process, in the effort to uplift their idol. I don't approve of people worship, and would want to avoid that as much in my own fanaticism of composers. The best way to solve that of course is to point to where all the inspiration came from, for composers of all times and places. 

I'm not so bothered by the fact that there's a _cult _around Mahler so much as there's a cult around _Mahler_. Like, _why Mahler?_ Actually, that's an easy one, because he was super promoted back in the golden age of orchestras and conductors. If some upper echelon people decided to promote some otherwise obscure composer, it would have worked to revive them _all-round just as well_. I've heard 3 Mahler symphonies performed live, and I must admit he *can *be good to my ears, but my aesthetic values just don't line up with him, and for the vast majority of the time. Mahler will never be my lover. Bruckner is where it's at for me!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

superhorn said:


> And there's much more to Mahler than
> sorrow and grief . Only the 6th symphony , the so-called "Tragic" ends in a minor key ,and there's plenty of
> optimism and joy in his music, too . as well as everything you could imagine .


His eighth too, that symphony just makes me want to throw myself of a building you know: endless pain and misery. Good thing I have something bright and cheerful, like Schnittke's piano concerto, laying around to cheer me up afterwards.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ah c'mon, _PetrB_, why are you begging members to go off self-analyzing? Ain't there enough already?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Next time you're in tears, track where that comes from more than carefully -- it is because you feel something is frustrated: pain, loss, are frustrations.
> 
> If you are a musician, the real fact you as a listener have not reached the ideal as performer or composer can have you crying when hearing a 'happy' work which you recognize as a kind of peak of one kind of perfection -- crying that you are not at that peak, envy is frustration. Yearning is frustration. Many states of being and life-situations are 'frustrating' in part or whole.
> 
> ...


I think there are other causes for tears than just downright negative things like frustration and pain. I can't prove you wrong, because I can only speak from my own experience. I think one cries from being intensely moved by something, whether it is very negative or positive, or somewhere in between.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Remember where 'fan' -- as in ardent admirer / follower of, comes from --

fa·nat·ic
n.
A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.
adj.
Fanatical.
[Latin fnticus, inspired by orgiastic rites, pertaining to a temple, from fnum, temple; see dhs- in Indo-European roots.]


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Here's Thomas de Quincey on Mater Lachrymarum in _Suspiria de Profundis_ (it is the last sentence that is important):

"_The eldest of the three is named Mater Lachrymarum, Our Lady of Tears. She it is that night and day raves and moans, calling for vanished faces. She stood in Rama, where a voice was heard of lamentation, - Rachel weeping for her children, and refusing to be comforted. She it was that stood in Bethlehem on the night when Herod's sword swept its nurseries of Innocents, and the little feet were stiffened for ever, which,heard at times as they tottered along floors overhead, woke pulses of love in household hearts that were not unmarked in heaven.

"Her eyes are sweet and subtle, wild and sleepy, by turns; oftentimes rising to the clouds, oftentimes challenging the heavens. _


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Ah c'mon, _PetrB_, why are you begging members to go off self-analyzing? Ain't there enough already?


I hope I did not invite confessionals about navel-gazing (not to at all put down knowing yourself, whatever 'the way.')

I'd like the boiled down news, as in Dragnet's Sergeant Friday (Jack Webb) who so often interrupted a story and said, "Just the facts, ma'am."

I don't need or want the entire therapy session or all the gestalt moments along the way... "just the facts, ma'am."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

DeepR said:


> I think there are other causes for tears than just downright negative things like frustration and pain. I can't prove you wrong, because I can only speak from my own experience. I think one cries from being intensely moved by something, whether it is very negative or positive, or somewhere in between.


For the sake of argument, let's call Stasis = your normal state. Ecstasis = out of normal state (ecstasy) Ergo, intensely moved by beauty out of our Stasis, if tears, it is because the beauty exists and the Stasis is wanting... the tears are over frustration the Stasis is wanting, not over the Beauty / Ecstasis.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

@superhorn

Use *"Mahler" *in a sentence as a verb.

1. I was so mahlered last night at the concert, that I have no appetite whatsoever today. I need to call my shrink.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> @superhorn
> 
> Use *"Mahler" *in a sentence as a verb.
> 
> 1. I was so mahlered last night at the concert, that I have no appetite whatsoever today. I need to call my shrink.


You were 'painted!' What color, we'll let the witnesses describe.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Strange sentiments in this thread... I could have sworn Mahler's music is just a bunch of crap. Maybe I should listen to it again sometime.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couchie said:


> Strange sentiments in this thread... I could have sworn Mahler's music is just a bunch of crap. Maybe I should listen to it again sometime.


You're confused: it is Bruckner's music which is a bunch of -- roll the R, now -- Crap.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Strange sentiments in this thread... I could have sworn Mahler's music is just a bunch of crap. Maybe I should listen to it again sometime.


Hmm you should. Hans von Bülow said that Tristan und Isolde is a Haydn symphony compared to Mahler's 2nd.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

PetrB said:


> You're confused: it is Bruckner's music which is a bunch of -- roll the R, now -- Crap.


Lol, not exactly crap, imo, it isn't all bad.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Hmm you should. Hans von Bülow said that Tristan und Isolde is a Haydn symphony compared to Mahler's 2nd.


Maybe I should listen to Tristan und Isolde again some time...


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Mahler tends to disparage Schubert for his supposed repetitiveness and long windiness. What an #@*.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> Mahler tends to disparage Schubert for his supposed repetitiveness and long windiness. What an #@*.


What?

P.S.: What?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Mahler may well be a cult, but I can think of worse cults to belong to...


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

brianvds said:


> Mahler may well be a cult, but I can think of worse cults to belong to...


Indeed, it is to the cult's around some 18th and 19th century Germanic Composers what a crying teenage girls wet pillow is to termonuklear war! I much prefer a wet pillow.. 

/ptr


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Crudblud said:


> What?
> 
> P.S.: What?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm not sure Mahler is all washed up in this. Seems a pretty reasonable viewpoint.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

peeyaj said:


>


I'm not sure Mahler's comments are entirely off the mark, and he seems not to hold Schubert in an extremely low opinion; just feels it might have been better.

As far as I know, Schubert was indeed somewhat deficient in theoretical knowledge and took some counterpoint lessons late in his life (of course, he had no way of knowing that it was late in his life!) in order to remedy it.

I do not find the "bewildering passage" all that bewildering either. I think what Mahler means is that Schubert's talent is more suited to the shorter forms, because he is primarily a melodist rather than a composer who works out ideas on a large scale. And once again I don't think Mahler was necessarily wrong.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> I think what Mahler means is that Schubert's talent is more suited to the shorter forms, because he is primarily a melodist rather than a composer who works out ideas on a large scale. And once again I don't think Mahler was necessarily wrong.


Well, one might shyly point to the Great C-major Symphony or the Quintet as counter-examples.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Well, one might shyly point to the Great C-major Symphony or the Quintet as counter-examples.


Indeed, but then, Mahler does not deny that Schubert wrote some great works in the longer forms. He seems not to be quite as consistent though as, say, Mahler...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> You were 'painted!' What color, we'll let the witnesses describe.


Actually, "malen" is to paint, while "mahlen" is to grind.



PetrB said:


> You're confused: it is Bruckner's music which is a bunch of -- roll the R, now -- Crap.


I disagree.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Mahler tends to disparage Schubert for his supposed repetitiveness and long windiness. What an #@*.


From the perspective of Mahler's own aesthetic, which precluded any literal repetition whatsoever, of course Schubert and Bruckner were deficient.

Remember that these comments were not public. How is he necessarily an @#! just because he said some negative things (and not altogether negative, either) about a composer? I don't consider Vaughan Williams an @#! just because he called Mahler "a passable imitation of a composer."


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I don't consider Vaughan Williams an @#! just because he called Mahler "a passable imitation of a composer."


Would you say he was a &€@\%! instead?


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Stravinsky said many rude thing about composers I like and I still like him. 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

This is what my mom always quotes whenever I talk about Mahler:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I probably wouldn't understand the dipsy one even without the music in the way.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Mahler was a master of form and development. Of course he would criticize these aspects in other composers. Even more if he thought they were weak.
I find pretty naive that view about the composers being gods, uncapable of error, and, ergo, not susceptible of critique.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Mahler was a master of form and development. Of course he would criticize these aspects in other composers. Even more if he thought they were weak.
> I find pretty naive that view about the composers being gods, uncapable of error, and, ergo, not susceptible of critique.


Mahler also made his living primarily as conductor, and thus would have possessed a great knowledge of theory, and a very broad knowledge of the work of many composers. In short, he knew what he was talking about. From the comments by him that were posted, it is clear that he doesn't for a moment deny Schubert's talent or the greatness of some of his works. But he does seem to go to the heart of the matter.

On the other hand, Schubert was such a seemingly unlimited fount of melodies that had he taken a more theoretical approach, we may well have been robbed of many of his beautiful melodies.

Same thing happened with Borodin: invented some of the most ravishing melodies in history, and never developed them. But how does one really develop those kind of melodies?


----------



## FLighT (Mar 7, 2013)

There's nothing like a thread title with the name "Mahler" in it to get everyone on their feet expressing strong feelings, one way or the other.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

brianvds said:


> But how does one really develop those kind of melodies?


One studies Mozart... :tiphat:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Same thing happened with Borodin: invented some of the most ravishing melodies in history, and never developed them. But how does one really develop those kind of melodies?


Ay, that's the rub indeed. There's a good reason why the motifs favored by classical-era composers were very simple, even to the point of being arpeggiated triads, and it's the same reason why Romantic sonata movements got much longer as their melodies became more elaborate...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Ay, that's the rub indeed. There's a good reason why the motifs favored by classical-era composers were very simple, even to the point of being arpeggiated triads, and it's the same reason why Romantic sonata movements got much longer as their melodies became more elaborate...


Very interesting - I hadn't thought of that with relation to Romantic movements.

And yet the motifs I usually find most remarkable with Mahler are very short.


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

Even though I love Schubert, I can see exactly where Mahler is coming from. Anyone who's listened to the 2nd movement of the Schubert's Great C major symphony must at times wish for just some more "elaboration" on the original theme, however good the theme is.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

brianvds said:


> But how does one really develop those kind of melodies?


In this interview*, Boulez addresses precisely this point: inspiration, good ideas and material - the craft needed to develop them.

He makes an interesting comparison between Ives and Mahler.
He says that Ives was very inventive and that he often came up with great ideas and original material, but that he didn't have enough craft. Boulez mentions particular mistakes in part writing which are, according to him, basic. Also, he says that Ives didn't have any sense of form or direction.
On the other hand, Mahler was often inspired by almost banal themes, taken from popular marches and things like that. But he developed them with incredible craft and real sense of direction.
Boulez says that he believes that good art is produced by a dialectic process, i.e., it's not something naive: one should have principles and, using them, be able to construct a big coherent work.

*



, at 1:16:00


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

aleazk said:


> In this interview*, Boulez addresses precisely this point: inspiration, good ideas and material - the craft needed to develop them.
> 
> He makes an interesting comparison between Ives and Mahler.
> He says that Ives was very inventive and that he often came up with great ideas and original material, but that he didn't have enough craft. Boulez mentions particular mistakes in part writing which are, according to him, basic. Also, he says that Ives didn't have any sense of form or direction.
> ...


Oh, some of the themes are unquestionably banal. Take for example the entry of the off-stage band in the wedding of Das Klagende Lied:







http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fk19Rz7hlek#t=121s

There is nothing interesting about the melody or harmony of this passage, which is just a collection of prototypical fanfares on a C major harmony, complete with incessant timpani pounding. However, it follows immediately upon a huge outburst from the orchestra and chorus, so the muted sonority combined with the inanity of the material comes as something of a shock, furthered by the interpolation of the harp (on-stage) in the fourth bar. If this shock were the sole intent of the passage, it would be effective but useless on a musical level, but all of these things, the effect of distance and perspective, the oddly insistent banality of the material, and the contrast with what preceded it, are developed later in the movement, when the band returns, time after time, seemingly unaffected by the catastrophic occurrences within the castle walls (that is, on-stage). With each successive appearance, its insistent pounding seems more sinister and forced, less in-sync with the overall mood, and the cumulative effect of this requires that its banality seem naive at first, so that listeners can accept it.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Kieran said:


> One studies Mozart... :tiphat:


Mozart seldom wrote such melodies, and when he did, they remained undeveloped.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Boulez says that he believes that good art is produced by a dialectic process, i.e., it's not something naive: one should have principles and, using them, be able to construct a big coherent work.


I tend to agree, at least when it comes to writing extended, classical-style works. There are plenty of naive folks musicians with no theoretical knowledge at all, who create very attractive music. But they don't write symphonies and concertos and fugues.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

There are those who say that Schubert's melodies are perfect in themselves - to develop them could only make them imperfect.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Ramako said:


> There are those who say that Schubert's melodies are perfect in themselves - to develop them could only make them imperfect.


I tend to agree with that view. But such perfect melodies are often suited to shorter forms rather than extended symphonies etc.

Unfortunately, in Schubert's time there wasn't much of a tradition of writing short orchestral works along the lines of, say, Ketelby or Leroy Anderson. Impromptus for orchestra by Schubert may well have been an interesting idea.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

brianvds said:


> I tend to agree, at least when it comes to writing extended, classical-style works. There are plenty of naive folks musicians with no theoretical knowledge at all, who create very attractive music. But they don't write symphonies and concertos and fugues.


Stop slagging off Paul McCartney!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

We are Mahler. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> We are Mahler. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.


You missed the middle bit - "We will add your musical and harmonic distinctiveness to our own. Your orchestrations will adapt to service us. "


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Mahler may well be a cult, but I can think of worse cults to belong to... 

That's true... we currently have something of a Sibelius cult and not too long ago we had a Frank Zappa cult and a very sizable Ligeti cult.

I'm not sure Mahler's comments are entirely off the mark, and he seems not to hold Schubert in an extremely low opinion; just feels it might have been better.

But do you believe that Mahler was the one capable of some "improvement"?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mahler's 7th is the best. I love Mahler, I'd go to a concert if his music is being played. But I love *Sibelius* even more, his 7th beats Mahler's 7th. ut:


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Mahler's 7th seems to be rather underappreciated, doesn't it?

Best regards, Dr


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Mahler's 7th is the best. I love Mahler, I'd go to a concert if his music is being played. But I love *Sibelius* even more, his 7th beats Mahler's 7th. ut:


There is something crazy with Sibelius, the more I listen the more I want to listen. I am getting obsessed. Is there a cult for him? I would totally join it


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> But do you believe that Mahler was the one capable of some "improvement"?


I doubt that. I know from experience in drawing and painting that with any piece, you reach a point where it may not be perfect, but you cant improve it either. Anything you now do to it will make it worse rather than better. I suspect then same is true of music.

Had Schubert been able to hear Mahler]s opinions, and had he gone and studied some more theory etc. he may have felt that the works needed to be completely rewritten, instead of just improve. But with an inexhaustible fount of ideas like he had, I doubt he would have done it - I think he would just have written new works, incorporating whatever he learned.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Had Schubert been able to hear Mahler]s opinions, and had he gone and studied some more theory etc. he may have felt that the works needed to be completely rewritten, instead of just improve. But with an inexhaustible fount of ideas like he had, I doubt he would have done it - I think he would just have written new works, incorporating whatever he learned.


Schubert was starting counterpoint lessons when he died...


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Schubert was starting counterpoint lessons when he died...


One could perhaps point to Schubert as an example of why study in counterpoint is pointless. He seemed to have done pretty well without any formal knowledge of it.


----------



## schuberkovich (Apr 7, 2013)

brianvds said:


> One could perhaps point to Schubert as an example of why study in counterpoint is pointless. He seemed to have done pretty well without any formal knowledge of it.


An example I like is the 2nd movement of the unfinished. The counterpoint is not very sophisticated, but it's so lovely:
@14:51


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

"Schubert was starting counterpoint lessons when he died... "



brianvds said:


> One could perhaps point to Schubert as an example of why study in counterpoint is pointless. He seemed to have done pretty well without any formal knowledge of it.


Well, it certainly turned out to be pointless for him. I hope he didn't pay in advance!


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

You know, Schubert was a mere wippersnapper who just had started learning his trade when He passed on, and as in many such cases with composers who died young we will never know what paths he would have taken. Even if I love Mahler's music, I think his comments do not really take all the circumstances in account!
I would love to have been a fly on the wall in a meeting between the mature Schubert and Mahler (almost possible), because I hear many similarities in how they incorporate those trivialities in their music, as much as I could see Mahler as a heir to Schubert in a melodic sense! But I can also see the Mahler behind the "musikalische Gesamtkunstverk" first would shun back if he heard that someone called him a heir to Schubert, but I believe that they used similar Musical Lego blocks, it's just that Mahler had more of them, and in several more sizes and colours. 

Just some late night ramblin' before falling of the chair and in to bed! 

/ptr


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

moody said:


> have you thought of the consequences if the whole audience starts blubbering ?


that would be a born again christian service.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> We are Mahler. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.


all your bases are belong to Mahler.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Taggart said:


> You missed the middle bit - "We will add your musical and harmonic distinctiveness to our own. Your orchestrations will adapt to service us. "


Like it. But please reconsider your avatar, man - a miserable man for a miserable stretch of water - how about a Partick Thistle or Third Lanark player?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

julianoq said:


> There is something crazy with Sibelius, the more I listen the more I want to listen. I am getting obsessed. Is there a cult for him? I would totally join it


Yes and please do join. Or we will come and find you and make you join anyway.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Schubert was starting counterpoint lessons when he died... "
> Well, it certainly turned out to be pointless for him. I hope he didn't pay in advance!


That may well be why he died in poverty.

"Yes, folks, that's right! Sign up for our counterpoint lessons in the next hour, and you get the complete writings of Mahler, ABSOLUTELY FREE OF CHARGE! Call us NOW!"


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

elgars ghost said:


> Like it. But please reconsider your avatar, man - a miserable man for a miserable stretch of water - how about a Partick Thistle or Third Lanark player?


The Clyde is one of the finest rivers in Europe. Secondly, give Partick its full name - Partick Thistle Nil.

I won't consider anybody who has appeared in Skippy (the Bush Kangaroo) or played alongside Mick Jagger (in Ned Kelly) as "miserable" - it's more a brooding existential angst (as in "angst away and bile yer heid!).


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

RE: Schubert, Mahler and Melody.

"...people usually think of a melody as a tune, something you go out whistling, that's easy to remember... the most important thing about a tune is that usually it is complete in itself - that is, it seems to have a beginning, middle and end, and leaves you feeling satisfied - in other words, it's a song, like Gershwin's Summertime, or Schubert's Serenade.

But in symphonic music, which is what we're mostly concerned with here, tunes aren't exactly in order, because being complete in themselves, tunes don't cry our for further development. And, as I hope you remember from former programs of ours, development is the main thing in symphonic music - the growing of a melodic seed into a big symphonic tree. So that seed mustn't be a complete tune, but rather a melody that leaves something still to be said, to be developed - and that kind of melody is called a theme." - Leonard Bernstein, What is Melody?


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

"Mahler was the greatest orchestra expert of all times, very musical themes, but he didn't know what to do with them. It's not going anywhere." - Celibidache

It's difficult to think of the opening themes of Bruckner's Seventh or Schubert's D960 piano sonata as incomplete. Of course they are elaborated on, cast in different lights, during the development, but still.

With Mahler, I sometimes feel that his themes, when first presented, don't sound so much incomplete but instead provocative. It's like they're trying to pick a fight with you. And you feel they're saving their most powerful punch for the right time.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Taggart said:


> The Clyde is one of the finest rivers in Europe. Secondly, give Partick its full name - Partick Thistle Nil.
> 
> I won't consider anybody who has appeared in Skippy (the Bush Kangaroo) or played alongside Mick Jagger (in Ned Kelly) as "miserable" - it's more a brooding existential angst (as in "angst away and bile yer heid!).


Sorry Tags, only jesting. I was suggesting that the stretch of water was miserable as it must contain a few murder victims if DCI Jim Taggart is stood anywhere near it. On second thoughts, his successor Burke is far more grumpy, don't you think? The first thing on TV I can remember Mark McManus being in was Sam back in the 70s - set in a Yorkshire mining community, as I recall. I also remember him having a cameo in the Minder movie. Ring any bells?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Andreas said:


> "Mahler was the greatest orchestra expert of all times, very musical themes, but he didn't know what to do with them. It's not going anywhere." - Celibidache


This is actually partly why I like Mahler - he meanders all over the place. It's like taking a stroll in some sort of alternative universe, full of fascinating things.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Andreas said:


> "Mahler was the greatest orchestra expert of all times, very musical themes, but he didn't know what to do with them. It's not going anywhere." - Celibidache


It's interesting how some conductors tend towards Mahler and others towards Bruckner, but rarely do they specialize in both (except perhaps Haitink). The two composers had very different temperaments, and I suppose they attract different personalities.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Meet the cult leader:


----------

