# Mahlerian wilderness



## juliante

I really want to like Mahler's symphonies. I am over Mozart's and Brahms' I have listened to death. But after 2 full listens to Mahler's 5th I am still on the wilderness. I feel that due to doing lots and lots of conducting, Mahler had a fabulous ability to produce lovely orchestral snippets and flourishes, but as far as a coherent symphony ....well my conclusion thus far is that enjoyment of his symphonies must arise from the human brain's drive to seek and see order in chaos. As for the adagio - boring. Please folks ... How do I listen to Mahler's symphonies? I am guessing it is a mindset thing. (I do like Sibelius a lot....is that relevant...?)


----------



## TxllxT

Well, guessing about mindsets, I think Mozart & Brahms offer the listener a possibility of classical supervision (referring to the correspondence between all the parts etc., lifting the spirit of the listener up to a divine all-knowing, all-seeing position), while Mahler is not having this supervisionary thing in his music anymore. With him it is more like a discovery trail and his music doesn't offer these classical divinations...


----------



## dsphipps100

The 5th is, texturally and contrapuntally, one of Mahler's busiest symphonies, and can be a challenging listening experience, especially if the recording quality and the performance aren't truly fabulous. Why not start with something more accessible, like the 1st, for instance?

Also, to which recording of the 5th are you listening? The Bernstein/Vienna recording is probably the most commonly recommended these days, and it is indeed quite excellent, although my personal favorite is the Michael Tilson Thomas/San Francisco recording, because the recording has such stunning clarity that I can hear things more clearly on it than any other recording I've ever heard.

But again, I would suggest starting with something more accessible, like the 1st Symphony, for instance. It has received a number of decent recordings. (My personal favorite is the Muti/Philadelphia recording, or the Solti/Chicago is a close runner-up.)


----------



## dsphipps100

juliante, here's another question for you as well (although it'll probably seem kinda weird at first): When you're driving on the interstate highway in heavy traffic, does it tend to make you really nervous? Or are you generally pretty comfortable with it? The reason I'm asking is because Mahler is all about multiple stimuli. In his later symphonies (especially from the 5th onward), he tends to come at you from multiple directions all at once, with densely written contrapuntal structures. If you're usually pretty comfortable in heavy traffic on the interstate, then you might be the kind of person who can handle the multiple stimuli of a later Mahler symphony, and it's just a matter of finding the right recording. But if you tend to be really nervous in the midst of all the activity on the interstate, then honestly, Mahler might be too much for you.


----------



## juliante

dsphipps100 said:


> juliante, here's another question for you as well (although it'll probably seem kinda weird at first): When you're driving on the interstate highway in heavy traffic, does it tend to make you really nervous? Or are you generally pretty comfortable with it? The reason I'm asking is because Mahler is all about multiple stimuli. In his later symphonies (especially from the 5th onward), he tends to come at you from multiple directions all at once, with densely written contrapuntal structures. If you're usually pretty comfortable in heavy traffic on the interstate, then you might be the kind of person who can handle the multiple stimuli of a later Mahler symphony, and it's just a matter of finding the right recording. But if you tend to be really nervous in the midst of all the activity on the interstate, then honestly, Mahler might be too much for you.


Nice analogy. I find driving in heavy traffic completely over-stimulating and unpleasant. (But I think I love counterpoint......!?) To answer the other helpful reply - it's Rattle's I have. Not tried Mahler 1, the nick name puts me off...


----------



## Polyphemus

juliante said:


> Nice analogy. I find driving in heavy traffic completely over-stimulating and unpleasant. (But I think I love counterpoint......!?) To answer the other helpful reply - it's Rattle's I have. Not tried Mahler 1, the nick name puts me off...


Here is some heresy for you all.

Rattle/Mahler ho hum.

So many superb Mahler recordings out there.

Suggest you try some other conductors.


----------



## scratchgolf

juliante said:


> Nice analogy. I find driving in heavy traffic completely over-stimulating and unpleasant. (But I think I love counterpoint......!?) To answer the other helpful reply - it's Rattle's I have. Not tried Mahler 1, the nick name puts me off...


The Rattle may be part of your problem. He's not really known for his Mahler, or anything really substantial for that matter. I don't like Solti's Mahler much either but try some different things. Boulez, Bernstein, Jarvi, Karajan, Symphonies 1,2,4, and 6 maybe. 2 was my entry to Mahler, as with many others I'm sure. Boulez's Mahler 2 is my absolute fav.


----------



## Mal

I also struggle with Mahler, and haven't found a totally satisfying fifth yet, although I love the adagio! Whose performance are you listening to? Two earlier symphonies that *are* totally satisfying, to my ears, are:

#2 Klemperer, Philharmonia, EMI
#4 Szell, Cleveland, Sony

Looking at my guide books Kubelik Bavarian RPO seems to get the most nods for #1, here's the spotify link if anyone fancies listening & discussing:

https://play.spotify.com/album/5H3B6aOxbv0LOjYIWTdRtl


----------



## techniquest

Regular readers will know that I'm no fan of the fifth, and that may well be where your problem with Mahler lies. Leave the 5th alone and try elsewhere. I'd suggest anything before the 5th (though the 3rd is probably too much for someone starting out with Mahler, especially after the relative brevity of Mozart and comfort of Brahms).
Also, don't be put off by the nickname of Mahler's 1st (Titan); it isn't really relevant to the symphony as we know it today. Think of it in the same way as Mozart's 41st is nicknamed 'Jupiter'.


----------



## Cosmos

The 5th is one of my favorites! But I've noticed it gets mixed reactions. And of course it all depends on preferences: the first Mahler works I heard were Symphonies 1, 5, and 8, and I fell in love with them immediately. Though I remember having to break the 5th into parts because listening to all of it at once was too much for me at the time

For a less "busy" one, and a "more cohesive" one, I'd recommend checking out the 4th. The two versions I have are James Levin w/ the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, and Lorin Maazel w/ the Vienna Philharmonic. I prefer Levin [maybe because that's the first one I heard and now judge all 4ths against :lol:]

The 1st is also a good beginner's Mahler. There are some "busier" flourishes in the last movement, but much easier to swallow than the 5th


----------



## starthrower

You just have to keep listening. It took me a couple of years to fall in love. I don't think the adagio from no. 5 is boring. In fact, it's my favorite movement from that symphony, which is not a favorite overall.

Everybody's different, but the two pieces that first grabbed me are the Adagio from the unfinished 10th, and Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen from the Boulez's Mahler Lieder CD.


----------



## Guest

The 4th is an ideal symphony to start with,not to complex or to long for a starter and It is one of my favorites.:tiphat:


----------



## starthrower

juliante said:


> Please folks ... How do I listen to Mahler's symphonies?


You listen to them over and over again. These are huge, complex works, and the brain needs time to process, absorb, and hear what's going on.


----------



## Mal

I just listened to Kubelik Bavarian RPO in #1 and really enjoyed it: lyrical, lively, light textured and sensitively phrased throughout. Shouldn't fail with a Mozartian!


----------



## isorhythm

Try _Das Lied von der Erde_ - in some ways I think it's more accessible than his symphonies.


----------



## Woodduck

isorhythm said:


> Try _Das Lied von der Erde_ - in some ways I think it's more accessible than his symphonies.


I second this heartily. I like only certain movements of the symphonies, finding large stretches of them overwrought and their insistent and precipitous emotionalism tiresome, but _Das Lied_, by being anchored to a text, is concise, clean, and precise in its poignancy. It may get you into Mahler's world with less pain.


----------



## Becca

juliante said:


> Nice analogy. I find driving in heavy traffic completely over-stimulating and unpleasant. (But I think I love counterpoint......!?) To answer the other helpful reply - it's Rattle's I have. Not tried Mahler 1, the nick name puts me off...


The nickname was something that Mahler removed and rejected early in his composing career so I don't know why it still surfaces as it really has nothing to do with the work.


----------



## Mahlerian

The coherence of Mahler's symphonies may not reveal itself immediately, because, as others have said, there's a good deal going on at once, but if you take the time to get to grips with the structure of each work, its coherence will gradually become clear. All of them, including the much-maligned Eighth and the Tenth, are worth coming to understand.

The Fifth is, interestingly enough, one of Mahler's most cohesive symphonies in terms of interconnections between movements and the extended development from movement to movement, along with the Sixth and the Eighth. This was not immediately clear to me, nor to most others, so don't worry if it isn't clear to you yet.

As others have said, one of the earlier symphonies, especially the First or Second, may be easier to approach. They are not as complex and don't present the formal difficulties of the later works. I would also suggest trying another conductor, because Mahler performances can differ wildly, and you should find an approach that works for you personally.

Finally, none of Mahler's symphonies, in their finished, published form, have nicknames. Those given to the First and Sixth stemmed from Mahler, but the others did not, and in any event he did not want the works to be bound by titles and programs.


----------



## Manxfeeder

I found David Hurwitz's book The Mahler Symphonies, An Owner's Manual helpful. He is not overly technical, and you can tell he really loves this music.


----------



## bz3

I like the 5th quite a bit and I do find it among his most cohesive. I pick around for movements when I listen to Mahler quite a bit but I generally listen to the 5th straight through. He makes a good accompanist in this one for my long walks. 

I'd suggest going at the scherzo in trying to appreciate the whole.


----------



## dsphipps100

Becca said:


> The nickname was something that Mahler removed and rejected early in his composing career so I don't know why it still surfaces as it really has nothing to do with the work.


Just as with the "Tragic" 6th and the "Symphony of a Thousand" 8th, it's for one reason - to increase sales.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$​


----------



## Crudblud

My introduction to Mahler was Rafael Kubelík's symphony cycle with the Sinfonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks. As I have gone on to other recordings my taste for Kubelík's Mahler overall has lessened, but his take on the 1st is still my favourite.

Overall, I would say that there isn't really a Mahler symphony I liked immediately, and it was only much later in my listening that I started to find the 5th agreeable. These days it's Walter's 1947 5th that works for me the best, especially since it refuses to drag the Adagietto out to the preposterous duration one finds with a Bernstein or Karajan.


----------



## Mal

Crudblud said:


> My introduction to Mahler was Rafael Kubelík's symphony cycle with the Sinfonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks. As I have gone on to other recordings my taste for Kubelík's Mahler overall has lessened, but his take on the 1st is still my favourite.


I really like Kubelik's 1st, it's now my first choice, but I'm just now listening to his opening movement of the 2nd, a day after listening to Klemperer's magnificent version again, and it sounds overly neurotic and confused, light in strings, sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast, lacking in spirituality & monumentality, and the trumpets are straining beyond their ability. In fact I'll have to turn it off...


----------



## dsphipps100

Mal said:


> I really like Kubelik's 1st, it's now my first choice, but I'm just now listening to his opening movement of the 2nd, a day after listening to Klemperer's magnificent version again, and it sounds overly neurotic and confused, light in strings, sometimes too slow, sometimes too fast, lacking in spirituality & monumentality, and the trumpets are straining beyond their ability. In fact I'll have to turn it off...


Try the Kaplan-Vienna 2nd. I think you'll find it to be a big improvement.


----------



## juliante

Thanks all. I love this forum. In summary: Try a conductor other then Rattle; try an earlier symphony, 1 or 4; keep at it!; get a guide. I cherish the challenge, in this day age of Spotify playlists and compute generated user recommendation.


----------



## waldvogel

If, by any chance you happen to live within a reasonable distance of a good symphony orchestra, get tickets to the next performance of Mahler. If the orchestra is competent and if the hall isn't a total dead zone, you will be in for a treat! I had the good luck of seeing the second symphony performed last month in Detroit, and it blew me away. This comes from someone who has known and loved this symphony for about 45 years, has owned many different recordings, and had seen it performed live twice before, but not recently.

In my personal opinion, when listening to a recording, Mahler isn't a composer who benefits from the use of headphones. This may be difficult to avoid if you have neighbours who will complain about loud noises, but there are times when you just have to feel the glorious sound all over your body. 

Mahler's Second Symphony was my entry drug into his catalogue. It does involve a 90 minute commitment (including recovery time lol) but it's generally coherent and easy to follow. As you get to know it better, you will unearth some of the more subtle interconnections between the movements. It took me about 30 years to figure out that the introductory march and the "Auferstehn" hymn were similar in many ways...


----------



## Nereffid

juliante said:


> Thanks all. I love this forum. In summary: Try a conductor other then Rattle; try an earlier symphony, 1 or 4; keep at it!; get a guide. I cherish the challenge, in this day age of Spotify playlists and compute generated user recommendation.


I doubt if Rattle's the problem; interpretive differences are rarely so great as to actually make you think an entire symphony is chaotic. The problem is far more likely to be your choice of symphony. My intro to Mahler (still my favourite composer) was the 1st, and I think that it makes the most sensible option.

Of course really the "problem" is with you yourself.  Or rather there _isn't_ a problem. Ultimately it is indeed a "mindset thing" - like any other music or art. I applaud you for wanting to like Mahler but none of us is obliged (or guaranteed) to like everything.


----------



## Mahlerian

dsphipps100 said:


> Try the Kaplan-Vienna 2nd. I think you'll find it to be a big improvement.


Please no. That recording is trash.


----------



## dsphipps100

Mahlerian said:


> Please no. That recording is trash.


Right, Mahler's own orchestra and the conductor who has sold more Mahler 2nds than any other conductor in history (albeit with the London Sym on an earlier recording) is "trash". Sure, yeah, whatever.


----------



## Mahlerian

dsphipps100 said:


> Right, Mahler's own orchestra and the conductor who has sold more Mahler 2nds than any other conductor in history (albeit with the London Sym on an earlier recording) is "trash". Sure, yeah, whatever.


The Vienna Philharmonic is also the orchestra that kicked Mahler out for daring to conduct his own works and for being a perfectionist. If you want an orchestra with a continuous Mahler tradition, dating back to the composer himself, why not the Royal Concertgebouw or the New York Philharmonic?

Whether something sells or not is not relevant to its quality. Some things that sell well are of excellent quality, some less so. I would never recommend Kaplan over Tennstedt, Bernstein, Boulez, Walter, or others that provide more of the score's inner depth (Rattle is fine in some of the symphonies, but I dislike his Second).


----------



## Mal

waldvogel said:


> In my personal opinion, when listening to a recording, Mahler isn't a composer who benefits from the use of headphones...


In my personal opinion, it depends on the headphones. In the past few days I've listened to Mahler 1,2,3, and he has sounded better to me through my Senn HD 650s than through any other headphones/speakers I've encountered. Here's (Dave) Mahler, singing their praises and comparing them with other headphones:

http://www.head-fi.org/t/634201/battle-of-the-flagships-58-headphones-compared


----------



## dsphipps100

Mahlerian said:


> The Vienna Philharmonic is also the orchestra that kicked Mahler out for daring to conduct his own works and for being a perfectionist.


That's politics, it has nothing to do with musical ability.


Mahlerian said:


> If you want an orchestra with a continuous Mahler tradition, dating back to the composer himself, why not the Royal Concertgebouw or the New York Philharmonic?


Because I have the Vienna Philharmonic.


Mahlerian said:


> Whether something sells or not is not relevant to its quality. Some things that sell well are of excellent quality, some less so.


"Trash" will never be a best seller.


Mahlerian said:


> I would never recommend Kaplan over Tennstedt, Bernstein, Boulez, Walter, or others that provide more of the score's inner depth (Rattle is fine in some of the symphonies, but I dislike his Second).


Since it was my recommendation regarding the Kaplan, not yours, then it doesn't really matter, does it? Regardless, the Kaplan-Vienna recording is not "trash".

Kaplan's interpretation is excellent. This first movement must be accounted one of the finest on disc -marvelously played by cellos and basses, the big moments pegged for all that they are worth, the second subject and quiet episodes gorgeously sustained and atmospheric. Kaplan times those tricky "breath pauses" at the movement's climax perfectly, and no one makes more musical sense out of the closing measures - the trumpet swells to a real fortissimo, exactly as Mahler wrote it, with the final downward scale positively cataclysmic. The same virtues apply to the Andante moderato: ideal tempo, shapely phrasing, and beautiful string tone add up to as fine a view as you're likely to hear.

The scherzo is equally well-done. Kaplan's generous observance of the "with parody" directive in those episodes for tipsy clarinet gives his version an authentic character too-often lacking among his more mainstream conducting colleagues. There also no reservations about the wonderfully solemn accompaniment Kaplan manages in the fourth movement for Nadja Michael's singing of it.

The finale erupts superbly. Even the ensuing slightly-out-of-sync offstage horns against woodwind triplets make a valid point about Mahler's use of spatial effects. The big climaxes are marvelously judged, the all-important horn playing is magnificent, and the great march rocks-Kaplan gets the strings to dig hard and the low brass to really snarl.

Kaplan coaxes lovely, hushed singing from the chorus, with impressive low basses. Soprano Latonia Moore floats her brief solos against the massed voices seraphically, while the orchestral interludes receive aptly luminous treatment. The closing pages, with the organ excellently balanced and lending just the right touch of celebratory weight, come off magnificently. Kaplan doesn't stretch out the final chorus as Bernstein does, but he broadens the tempo enough to permit the music's transcendental excess to make its full effect. No one realizes more effectively than Kaplan that troublesome moment just before the end when the "resurrection theme" gets banged out by timpani doubled by organ pedals, and you won't hear the final crescendo leading to that "punched out" last chord better handled by anyone, anywhere.

Sonically this production is a joy to listen to. I have never heard a Mahler recording with more clarity and inner detail than this one provides.

Kaplan gets far more authentic results from this recalcitrant orchestra than most other conductors. Certainly it's comparable to Vienna's only previous generally successful effort in this symphony, under Mehta for Decca (Maazel's Sony recording is weird in too many places, and Abbado's is a bore). In the final analysis, Mahlerians will want to hear it for Kaplan's own thoroughly sympathetic and cogent view of the music, one that should put to rest once and for all any questions doubters may have about his credentials as a true Mahler conductor with something to say and the technical means to say it.


----------



## Mahlerian

I do not disagree that the playing that Kaplan elicits from the Vienna Philharmonic is wonderful, befitting a world-class orchestra such as they undoubtedly are.

But his interpretation is markedly inferior. Where he doesn't follow the score directly, he does worse than others who put their own stamp on the music, and where he tries to follow the score's instructions, he loses out to those who have a better idea of pacing.

I find his pauses near the end of the first movement overextended and obnoxious, the timbre of his mezzo is not the least bit child-like, the finale lacks drive, the climax lacks necessity.


----------



## Triplets

juliante said:


> Nice analogy. I find driving in heavy traffic completely over-stimulating and unpleasant. (But I think I love counterpoint......!?) To answer the other helpful reply - it's Rattle's I have. Not tried Mahler 1, the nick name puts me off...


Mahler 1 is a great work. Forget the nickname.
Mahler 1-4 all inhabit a very different sound world than the 5th. The 5th was a real departure, a stylistic break. It sounds very impersonal compared to the first 4. 5 is a tougher nut to crack, and it took me a few years to get it


----------



## dsphipps100

Mahlerian said:


> I do not disagree that the playing that Kaplan elicits from the Vienna Philharmonic is wonderful, befitting a world-class orchestra such as they undoubtedly are.
> 
> But his interpretation is markedly inferior. Where he doesn't follow the score directly, he does worse than others who put their own stamp on the music, and where he tries to follow the score's instructions, he loses out to those who have a better idea of pacing.
> 
> I find his pauses near the end of the first movement overextended and obnoxious, the timbre of his mezzo is not the least bit child-like, the finale lacks drive, the climax lacks necessity.


Thank you. These are legitimate objections, even if I disagree, but that's OK, we don't all have to see eye to eye. But I can at least respect an evaluation like this one instead of the recording being simply dismissed as "trash".


----------



## dsphipps100

Triplets said:


> 5 is a tougher nut to crack, and it took me a few years to get it


Part of the problem, also, with the 5th is that the 2nd and 5th mvts have really dense polyphony. If the recording at hand isn't performed with exceptional clarity and accuracy by the orchestra, and/or also if the recording isn't of exceptional quality, then it can easily sound like a muddled mess.


----------



## Avey

dsphipps100 said:


> ....
> Kaplan gets far more authentic results from *this recalcitrant orchestra* than most other conductors. ...


Yeah, so, following your analysis, that was definitely _not_ the adjective I was expecting you to use.


----------



## dsphipps100

Avey said:


> Yeah, so, following your analysis, that was definitely _not_ the adjective I was expecting you to use.


Heh heh, well, the only orchestra that I'm aware of in the world whose reputation for "recalcitrance" is worse than the Wiener Philharmoniker's is the New York Philharmonic, the orchestra who complained the most publicly about Kaplan, interestingly enough.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/arts/music/18kapl.html

and

http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes/2008/12/some-words-about-gilbert-kaplan.html

The fact is, however, that I cannot believe anybody could put out two different recordings of the Mahler 2nd, such as Kaplan has done, with two different orchestras (London and Vienna) that (1) are of reasonably high quality (at the least), and (2) are interpretively so similar, without possessing at least _some_ ability. The London Symphony and the Wiener Philharmoniker are so different that, if they were truly just going through the motions as many suggest is the case under Kaplan, then those two orchestras would surely have produced radically different Mahler 2nds. And yet, when you compare Kaplan's 2 recordings side by side, there is an interpretive consistency precisely as one would expect from other conductors who have recorded the piece more than once, such as Bernstein, Solti, Rattle, Abbado, etc. So the only conclusion I can draw is that, one way or another, Kaplan _is_ putting his "stamp" on the proceedings.

Now, to be sure, I happily recognize that many people are not going to consider Kaplan's view of the Mahler 2nd as their favorite, and I have absolutely no problem with that. One of the fun things about music is that we can all vehemently disagree and yet still (hopefully) be friends at the end of the day.

But to dismiss Kaplan as an unskilled charlatan hack merely because he has not followed the traditional, beaten path into the conducting profession is simply not facing the facts.


----------



## hapiper

I am with you , it took me at least 10 attempts to listen to his Symphony #2 before I made it all the way through. I agree with others suggestion with Symphony #1, I got through that on the first try. Another I just listened to, and liked a lot, was his #4. Reminded me in some ways of Beethoven's Pastoral (#6). His symphonies tend to be on the long side and very dense, no fluff with Mahler for sure. I know I have some less than good recordings which as others have said, makes getting though it all the more difficult. I will say, once I got through the second, I did enjoy it. Not sure why they call it "Resurrection" but not only did I like it, I am going to give it another shot real soon. I listened to Mehta's the first time, I think I'll try Bernstein on this go. I have Das Lied von der Erde too, I'll give that a listen tonight.


----------



## dsphipps100

hapiper said:


> Not sure why they call it "Resurrection"


Mahler originally wrote the 1st movement as a stand-alone tone poem, which he called "Todtenfeier", or "Funeral Rite", which he described as the death of the "hero" from his 1st symphony. He then went on to expand on it by developing it into the 2nd Symphony. In the last movement, the chorus sings Klopstock's "Aufersteh'n" (probably got the spelling wrong there), which means "Resurrection" in English. The idea is that the "hero" has been resurrected, brought into the presence of God, and has been redeemed into God's presence. Mahler was undoubtedly subconsciously (or maybe overtly consciously) projecting himself into the "hero"'s role, but that's why it's called the "Resurrection" Symphony.

Happy listening.


----------



## Mal

I just listened to the Bernstein/Vienna recording - now I have heard a fully satisfying 5th! Invigorating and exciting from the get-go, some say Lenny is too self indulgent, but to me he sounds like he's fully indulging Mahler's intentions, and therefore (unlike some others) is never boring or staid. The VPO are at their glowing, golden best, and it's very well recorded.


----------



## dsphipps100

Mal said:


> I just listened to the Bernstein/Vienna recording - now I have heard a fully satisfying 5th! Invigorating and exciting from the get-go, some say Lenny is too self indulgent, but to me he sounds like he's fully indulging Mahler's intentions, and therefore (unlike some others) is never boring or staid. The VPO are at their glowing, golden best, and it's very well recorded.


You should try the Bernstein-Vienna 6th as well.







If anything, it's even better. Their opening section of the 4th movement is one of the most frightening things I've ever heard in my life. (And for good or for bad, Bernstein reinstates the 3rd hammer blow.)


----------



## Mal

I tried the first movement of Bernstein, Boulez, and Karajan in #6 and found they didn't wash. Maybe I've imprinted on Szell! I listened to Szell a decade ago and found it unbearable (maybe I was expecting nice spring birds like in his 4...) This time, knowing what to expect, I thought it was marvellous, it's now (fairly) firmly in place as my current library choice.


----------



## juliante

Woodduck said:


> I second this heartily. I like only certain movements of the symphonies, finding large stretches of them overwrought and their insistent and precipitous emotionalism tiresome, but _Das Lied_, by being anchored to a text, is concise, clean, and precise in its poignancy. It may get you into Mahler's world with less pain.


Thank both for erde reccommendation - definitely did the trick, particularly once I heard the wonderful last movement. I have Solti / concertbouw. Any other recs? Good sound and rich orchestration particularly emphasising the gorgeous orchestral sonorities in the lower register please! I also have one by bbc northern orchestra (?) that pales against the Solti (but the Solti is a bit quiet in parts) thanks a lot.

2nd symphony now....


----------



## isorhythm

juliante said:


> Thank both for erde reccommendation - definitely did the trick, particularly once I heard the wonderful last movement. I have Solti / concertbouw. Any other recs? Good sound and rich orchestration particularly emphasising the gorgeous orchestral sonorities in the lower register please!.


I've yet to hear one I like better than this:


----------



## dsphipps100

The Klemperer recording that isorhythm mentioned is probably the most-often recommended, and you'll do well if you get that one. I personally prefer the Haitink/Amsterdam recording (with Janet Baker and James King) because it has better recorded sound, Amsterdam is a better Mahler orchestra than the Philharmonia, and I think Janet Baker's singing is more nuanced than Christa Ludwig's was for Klemperer. Another good one is the Karajan recording, which has the same Christa Ludwig as Klemperer, but it also has Rene Kollo on the tenor part. Kollo's handling of DLVDE was highly regarded enough that he was used by Karajan, Bernstein, and also Solti (on Solti's 1972 recording with the Chicago Symphony). I'd say that's a pretty impressive list of endorsements for Kollo, myself.


----------



## Adair

dsphipps100 said:


> Heh heh, well, the only orchestra that I'm aware of in the world whose reputation for "recalcitrance" is worse than the Wiener Philharmoniker's is the New York Philharmonic, the orchestra who complained the most publicly about Kaplan, interestingly enough.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/arts/music/18kapl.html
> 
> and
> 
> http://davidfinlayson.typepad.com/fin_notes/2008/12/some-words-about-gilbert-kaplan.html
> 
> The fact is, however, that I cannot believe anybody could put out two different recordings of the Mahler 2nd, such as Kaplan has done, with two different orchestras (London and Vienna) that (1) are of reasonably high quality (at the least), and (2) are interpretively so similar, without possessing at least _some_ ability. The London Symphony and the Wiener Philharmoniker are so different that, if they were truly just going through the motions as many suggest is the case under Kaplan, then those two orchestras would surely have produced radically different Mahler 2nds. And yet, when you compare Kaplan's 2 recordings side by side, there is an interpretive consistency precisely as one would expect from other conductors who have recorded the piece more than once, such as Bernstein, Solti, Rattle, Abbado, etc. So the only conclusion I can draw is that, one way or another, Kaplan _is_ putting his "stamp" on the proceedings.
> 
> Now, to be sure, I happily recognize that many people are not going to consider Kaplan's view of the Mahler 2nd as their favorite, and I have absolutely no problem with that. One of the fun things about music is that we can all vehemently disagree and yet still (hopefully) be friends at the end of the day.
> 
> But to dismiss Kaplan as an unskilled charlatan hack merely because he has not followed the traditional, beaten path into the conducting profession is simply not facing the facts.


An interesting discussion. But it seems that the _musicians themselves_ were the ones calling him a charlatan, and not only musicians from the NY Phil but also from the Pittsburg and the NSO. They saw him as arrogant and incompetent (the deadliest mixture of all!). Surely their professional judgement cannot be dismissed either. Their negative experience of working with Kaplan is a part of "the facts" too. They must know an unskilled conductor when they see one. It wasn't just that Kaplan followed a non-traditional path into conducting (some might say he bought his way into it) but that they felt that, in the end, he was an incompetent conductor, period. I would be interested to know what the musicians of the Vienna Phil and the London Symphony truly thought of Kaplan, if they could speak freely.


----------



## violadude

Mahlerian said:


> I do not disagree that the playing that Kaplan elicits from the Vienna Philharmonic is wonderful, befitting a world-class orchestra such as they undoubtedly are.
> 
> But his interpretation is markedly inferior. Where he doesn't follow the score directly, he does worse than others who put their own stamp on the music, and where he tries to follow the score's instructions, he loses out to those who have a better idea of pacing.
> 
> I find his pauses near the end of the first movement overextended and obnoxious, the timbre of his mezzo is not the least bit child-like, the finale lacks drive, the climax lacks necessity.


I agree with you, Mahlerian. I think it's the Kaplan/Vienna recording that came with my 150th Anniversary Mahler complete works set and I just listened to it a couple days ago. The thing that bothered me most with his interpretation was I thought the transitions between each section of the piece were very odd...they didn't drive the piece forward very well. In the first movement and the last movement especially, I felt like I was listening to a bunch of separate sections of music rather than a whole movement. Something about it just didn't drive the music forward.


----------



## dsphipps100

Adair said:


> I would be interested to know what the musicians of the Vienna Phil and the London Symphony truly thought of Kaplan, if they could speak freely.


In that case, then please go to this webpage...

http://slippedisc.com/2016/01/sad-news-gilbert-kaplan-has-died/

...where you can find a number of comments people left upon hearing the news of Kaplan's death on January 1st this year. People commenting include conductor Leonard Slatkin and a number of people who worked under Kaplan on various occasions, including at least one person who was in the sessions for the London Symphony recording of the 2nd Symphony. I don't recall seeing any comments from anybody in the Wiener Philharmoniker, however, but I think you will still find the comments very enlightening.


----------



## dsphipps100

violadude said:


> I agree with you, Mahlerian. I think it's the Kaplan/Vienna recording that came with my 150th Anniversary Mahler complete works set and I just listened to it a couple days ago. The thing that bothered me most with his interpretation was I thought the transitions between each section of the piece were very odd...they didn't drive the piece forward very well. In the first movement and the last movement especially, I felt like I was listening to a bunch of separate sections of music rather than a whole movement. Something about it just didn't drive the music forward.


At least you are evaluating him based on his music-making.


----------



## dieter

Stay with it. We expect instant gratification these days. Mahler symphonies are not pop songs. Sory to sound like the preacher. Persevere, take Mahler on HIS terms. He was a very great composer. You'll be glad you persevered. remember, Mozart he ain't.


----------



## dieter

Polyphemus said:


> Here is some heresy for you all.
> 
> Rattle/Mahler ho hum.
> 
> So many superb Mahler recordings out there.
> 
> Suggest you try some other conductors.


Can't agree more!!!


----------



## dieter

Also, please try to find Inbal's Japanese recordings of Mahler. I'm listening to his 4th on Spotify as I write. He is a VERY under-rated conductor.


----------



## Stirling

Put on Mahler's 5th and listens..


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

dieter said:


> Also, please try to find Inbal's Japanese recordings of Mahler.


Inbal's Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra recordings of Mahler were pretty good, too.


----------



## dieter

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Inbal's Frankfurt Radio Symphony Orchestra recordings of Mahler were pretty good, too.


I love them. Particularly the 7th...


----------



## Enthusiast

Mahler 5 was the first I listened to and I loved it from the outset. Those first two movements hit you in the gut and then you get the lovely scherzo with its concertante horn part and then the most lovely of Mahler's slow movements. The final movement is a tougher nut - it often sounds like Mahler struggled with it and the audience has to struggle, too. 

It was the wonderful Barbirolli recording that made me fall in love with the piece (Nick Busch's solo horn in the third movement is unsurpassed for me) and I didn't really like any of the other that were available at the time. But since then I have grown to prefer the later (Vienna PO) Bernstein among many others (for example, Svetlanov, Shipway, Chailly are all great) but I don't find the 5th to be a symphony that is worth having lots of recordings of (in the way that most other Mahlers are) - there seems to be a consensus about how it should sound. 

I am tempted to say in response to the OP that if a work doesn't do it for you then you should maybe leave it for later. Try a different Mahler (2, 6, 9?) or a different composer. Given a preference for the disciplined Sibelius over the less restrained Mahler, Beethoven's symphonies seem essential if you don't already worship them.


----------



## dsphipps100

Enthusiast said:


> I have grown to prefer the later (Vienna PO) Bernstein among many others (for example, Svetlanov, Shipway, Chailly are all great) but I don't find the 5th to be a symphony that is worth having lots of recordings of (in the way that most other Mahlers are) - there seems to be a consensus about how it should sound.


You might also find the Tilson Thomas/San Francisco recording worthy as well.







Firstly, of all the Mahler 5ths I've heard, that one has better clarity and detailed sound than anybody else. (For that matter, it might even be the most detailed Mahler Symphony recording I've ever heard, period.) Even in that incredibly busy, swirling last movement - which I noticed you struggled with somewhat the first time you heard it - you can hear _everything_ on the Thomas/San Francisco recording.

There's a couple of other features about it as well. In the 1st mvt, Thomas takes a speed that, after having the Bernstein/Vienna as my favorite for years, seemed somewhat lurching and almost stumbling forward a bit too fast. It's almost like Thomas wants to convey a sensation of almost tripping over one's own feet during the first movement. I didn't like it at first, having been accustomed to Bernstein's slow, dignified tread for a long time.

But then I heard a piano roll recording of Mahler himself performing the 5th Symphony's 1st mvt. Here it is:

View attachment 82229


(That recording comes from the Kaplan-London Sym # 2 album, by the way.)

I was astonished to realize that, if anything, Thomas actually comes closer to emulating Mahler's own performance than anybody else I've heard doing the 5th.

There's one other little interpretive detail of Thomas's performance that I've come to absolutely adore since then as well: As you are doubtless aware, there's a brass chorale that appears near the end of the "sturm-und-drang" 2nd mvt - a bright spot amidst all the darkness and despair. But the chorale gets swallowed up rather quickly and we're plunged back into the despair.

Then, in the last movement, the chorale reappears, again at the end, but this time the chorale sweeps all opposition before it and triumphantly swaggers the symphony to its rousing conclusion. It's one of the greatest moments in Mahler's output if you ask me.

Here's what Thomas does that I've come to love so much: In the last movement's chorale, when he reaches the spot where, in the 2nd movement, the chorale collapsed back into despair, he takes an ever-so-brief pause, like a roller coaster briefly stopping at the top of the highest hill before the plunge, as if to cause the listener a split-second fear that the chorale might be about to collapse again - but then, of course the chorale and the symphony continue on to the end in unabated triumph.

So then, after hearing Thomas do this, I whipped out a score that I have of Mahler's 5th and do you know what I found??? At the spot where Thomas makes his pause, Mahler himself indicated in the score, "Ritardando MOLTO - Accelerando". I was stunned. Thomas is the ONLY conductor I have ever heard who actually follows that indication!! It wasn't just a neat little idea that Thomas had while he was studying the score, it was Mahler's explicit instruction! And *nobody* (including Bernstein) ever follows it! And, after hearing Thomas do it, it's so marvelously perfect!

Here it is:

View attachment 82230


(The pause I'm talking about is exactly 59 seconds into the excerpt.)

And here is the page out of the score where you can see the "Ritardando molto-accelerando" indication for yourself:










(And by the way, before anybody suggests that the indication is actually "ritardando, molto accelerando, uh uhn, not gonna fly - notice the period "." _after_ the word, "molto", indicating a stop, like on a telegram. That means the instruction ends with molto, which requires the molto to be associated with the ritardando, and the accelerando to therefore be separate from the "ritardando molto" indication.)

And one last comment - all this would be for naught if the San Francisco Symphony gave anything less than an absolutely stellar performance - but they are every bit the match for this massive piece. Their principal horn, Robert Ward, does a particularly fine job of the scherzo.

I really think the Thomas-San Francisco recording is worth your time (and everybody else's as well!)


----------



## EdwardBast

dsphipps100 said:


> There's one other little interpretive detail of Thomas's performance that I've come to absolutely adore since then as well: *As you are doubtless aware, there's a brass chorale that appears near the end of the "sturm-und-drang" 2nd mvt - a bright spot amidst all the darkness and despair. But the chorale gets swallowed up rather quickly and we're plunged back into the despair.
> 
> Then, in the last movement, the chorale reappears, again at the end, but this time the chorale sweeps all opposition before it and triumphantly swaggers the symphony to its rousing conclusion.* It's one of the greatest moments in Mahler's output if you ask me.
> 
> Here's what Thomas does that I've come to love so much: In the last movement's chorale, when he reaches the spot where, in the 2nd movement, the chorale collapsed back into despair, he takes an ever-so-brief pause, like a roller coaster briefly stopping at the top of the highest hill before the plunge, as if to cause the listener a split-second fear that the chorale might be about to collapse again - but then, of course the chorale and the symphony continue on to the end in unabated triumph.
> 
> So then, after hearing Thomas do this, I whipped out a score that I have of Mahler's 5th and do you know what I found??? At the spot where Thomas makes his pause, Mahler himself indicated in the score, "Ritardando MOLTO - Accelerando". I was stunned. Thomas is the ONLY conductor I have ever heard who actually follows that indication!! It wasn't just a neat little idea that Thomas had while he was studying the score, it was Mahler's explicit instruction! And *nobody* (including Bernstein) ever follows it! And, after hearing Thomas do it, it's so marvelously perfect!


You have picked out a crucial moment and the essential thematic connection and dramatic resolution of the symphony, and this kind of long-range thinking is why I always thought the Fifth was Mahler's best. I think the second movement is one of the greatest creations of its decade because of the way it develops the centrifugal tendencies in the movement's thematic material. Over the whole movement the chorale is struggling to be born, hinted at and its motives achieving ever greater prominence, while the dark and stormy material too grows in strength. The chorale is at last thrown up out of the darkest moment (_De profundis clamavi_) and then, as you say, swallowed up again.

Two little points of dissent, however: You say that in the end of the finale "the chorale sweeps all opposition before it." I just don't hear much opposition in the finale, and if there is one thing I find disappointing about the Fifth, it is that there really isn't enough dramatic tension toward the end and there probably should be - that is, some threat of the second movement's darkness returning. Clearly, the darkness of Part One has been overcome - somehow - but it seems to have happened off stage, as it were. I want to _hear_ the overcoming, not be told after the fact that it has happened. Did I miss something crucial?

There is no indication or hint in the score that a pause should be taken at the point Thomas does. The period separating ritardando molto and accelerando does not call for or justify the pause in any way. Which is not to say that it doesn't work! I think it _was_ "a neat little idea that Thomas had when studying the score," but so what? If it works, it works.


----------



## dsphipps100

EdwardBast said:


> Two little points of dissent, however: You say that in the end of the finale "the chorale sweeps all opposition before it." I just don't hear much opposition in the finale


I can see where you're coming from.







I think what I meant was the chorale's opposition in the 2nd mvt. When the chorale reappears in the 5th mvt, the 2nd mvt's "opposition" to the chorale's optimism is not even allowed to have a say, which you go on to discuss in your next statement...


EdwardBast said:


> and if there is one thing I find disappointing about the Fifth, it is that there really isn't enough dramatic tension toward the end and there probably should be - that is, some threat of the second movement's darkness returning.


I had never really thought about that before, but I can see where you're coming from. I suppose it's just an opinion and personal choice on the part of the composer. Another 5th Symphony, Beethoven's 5th, has sometimes been compared with Mahler's 5th in that both symphonies feature a complete turnaround from darkness to light, although I suppose the Beethoven finale's emergence out of the hushed pizzacati section at the end of his scherzo is probably at least somewhat more dramatic than the sudden horn interjection at the end of Mahler's Adagietto.


EdwardBast said:


> Clearly, the darkness of Part One has been overcome - somehow - but it seems to have happened off stage, as it were. I want to _hear_ the overcoming, not be told after the fact that it has happened. Did I miss something crucial?


That's a very good and interesting question, but I certainly do not feel qualified to answer it.


EdwardBast said:


> There is no indication or hint in the score that a pause should be taken at the point Thomas does. The period separating ritardando molto and accelerando does not call for or justify the pause in any way. Which is not to say that it doesn't work! I think it _was_ "a neat little idea that Thomas had when studying the score," but so what? If it works, it works.


I can see what you're saying, that Thomas went further, perhaps, in that moment than Mahler had in mind, but the truth is that pretty much every other recording I have offers only a brief nod (at the most, if anything at all) to the "ritardando molto" indication, and then plunges heedlessly back into the brass fireworks. Ever since I realized that Thomas' performance (whether it was truly, fully Mahler's actual intention or not) does more than anybody else's to make the reference back to that crucial moment in the 2nd movement, I can't help listening to every other recording with a touch of regret at that point while the conductor plunges through, not seeming to be really aware of what he just passed over. (For what it's worth, my collection of Mahler 5ths includes Haitink-Amsterdam, Abbado-Berlin, Abbado-Chicago, Barenboim-Chicago, Solti-Chicago (ADD), Inbal-Frankfurt, Sinopoli-Philharmonia, Karajan-Berlin, Gatti-Royal Phil, Levine-Philadelphia, Bernstein-Vienna, Bernstein-NY Phil, Maazel-Vienna, Thomas-San Francisco, Boulez-Vienna, Chailly-Amsterdam, Rattle-Berlin, Gergiev-LSO, Levi-Atlanta, Tennstedt-London Phil, and Kubelik-Bavarian Radio SO.) Thanks for your thoughts, it's not very often that I find somebody who can actually make me re-think a Mahler symphony, so I appreciate it.


----------



## hansklein

starthrower said:


> You listen to them over and over again. These are huge, complex works, and the brain needs time to process, absorb, and hear what's going on.


Great advice. I needed to listen to the works many times before I really understood what was going on. Although the works are hugely complex and monumental in length, I eventually realized that Mahler continued to use traditional sonata allegro, scherzo, and rondo structures in very creative, yet very understandable ways. One of the joys in my journey with Mahler is discovering how he manipulates these musical templates to create his unique and singular musical landscapes. As experimental as some of the music sounds, Mahler still used traditional forms (like Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms) which, once I understood this, I used my prior knowledge of these forms to assist me in understanding Mahler's incredible musical universes.


----------



## Haydn man

hansklein said:


> Great advice. I needed to listen to the works many times before I really understood what was going on. Although the works are hugely complex and monumental in length, I eventually realized that Mahler continued to use traditional sonata allegro, scherzo, and rondo structures in very creative, yet very understandable ways. One of the joys in my journey with Mahler is discovering how he manipulates these musical templates to create his unique and singular musical landscapes. As experimental as some of the music sounds, Mahler still used traditional forms (like Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms) which, once I understood this, I used my prior knowledge of these forms to assist me in understanding Mahler's incredible musical universes.


I could not agree more, this describes how I am slowly coming to terms with Mahler


----------



## chalkpie

Mahlerian said:


> Please no. That recording is trash.


Disagree. How can you dismiss an entire 5 movement symphony with each measure being trash? ********.

Please specify in detail how its "trash". I own over 15 M2's on CD, and his DG is one of them, and I enjoy it from time to time. Certainly not the best (there is no best), but its not trash.


----------



## Xenakiboy

I'm not sure if it's too late to give my input here but with a composer like Mahler, when you don't know the music. The way you should listen to it is not by focusing on a melody (like a lot of composers before him) but listen to it as a whole, if you get what I mean. As with a lot of contemporary music, it doesn't rely on simply one thing to lead it, because there is so much going on. 

I don't know if that fully made sense, but that is my advice, before the music becomes familiar to you.


----------



## Pugg

isorhythm said:


> I've yet to hear one I like better than this:


This is such a wonderful recording :tiphat:


----------



## arpeggio

juliante said:


> I really want to like Mahler's symphonies. I am over Mozart's and Brahms' I have listened to death. But after 2 full listens to Mahler's 5th I am still on the wilderness. I feel that due to doing lots and lots of conducting, Mahler had a fabulous ability to produce lovely orchestral snippets and flourishes, but as far as a coherent symphony ....well my conclusion thus far is that enjoyment of his symphonies must arise from the human brain's drive to seek and see order in chaos. As for the adagio - boring. Please folks ... How do I listen to Mahler's symphonies? I am guessing it is a mindset thing. (I do like Sibelius a lot....is that relevant...?)


There are many great composers that we do not get. I have many friends who do not get Mahler. Do not worry about it.


----------



## jdec

Mal said:


> In my personal opinion, it depends on the headphones. In the past few days I've listened to Mahler 1,2,3, and he has sounded better to me through my Senn HD 650s than through any other headphones/speakers I've encountered.


I just got those headphones. Any headphone amplifier you recommend in particular? or do you use them with no amplifier?

(Sorry for the quick off topic)


----------



## BoggyB

I too find myself in the Mahler wilderness, whilst simultaneously being a Bruckner lover. I quite like his first and I rate his second highly, but after that, I'm floundering. I'll have to work through them all again at some point, but I gotta say, I'm suspicious about the notion from this thread that you have to listen repeatedly until you "get it". More likely, I suspect, that it's a case of just liking it or not - as others have already said.

Something else that drives me away is the so-called Cult of Mahler, which I presumably don't need to define here (which is helpful because I don't have a definition at hand). I remember seeing a video on youtube where a conductor told of how a woman wrote to him after a Mahler performance thanking him for it and saying how she cried all the way through.


----------



## hapiper

jdec said:


> I just got those headphones. Any headphone amplifier you recommend in particular? or do you use them with no amplifier?
> 
> (Sorry for the quick off topic)


The 650's are a high impedance headphone so they will work well with most amps. I would try a good tube amp. Are you listening via a cd player or by way of your computer? If you want to send me a PM and let me know what sort of budget you are looking at I can give you some more concrete suggestions.


----------



## Mahlerian

BoggyB said:


> Something else that drives me away is the so-called Cult of Mahler, which I presumably don't need to define here (which is helpful because I don't have a definition at hand). I remember seeing a video on youtube where a conductor told of how a woman wrote to him after a Mahler performance thanking him for it and saying how she cried all the way through.


That was Bernard Haitink, I believe? Well, I don't think there's anyone like that here. I appreciate Mahler for his extension of the Germanic/Austrian symphonic tradition, his thematic development, his formal imagination, and his genius for orchestration, not because I would cry through his works (or anyone else's).


----------



## R3PL4Y

As much as I want to like Mahler, a lot of the time I have a hard time getting anything out of some his music. It's not that I don't understand it, as on an intellectual level, I feel like I understand it well enough that I should be able to enjoy it. However, I just always feel like I am missing something when I listen to some of his works. I truly enjoy some of them, such as the second, third, and DLVDE. However, every time I listen to 5, 6, or 7, they always sound kind of goofy in a way, although I don't exactly know why. I understand that humor is an inherent part of some of Mahler's music, but the 5th, 6th, and 7th always sound light to me for some reason, despite everything that I know they contain.


----------



## Pugg

Haydn man said:


> I could not agree more, this describes how I am slowly coming to terms with Mahler


And your post put a smile on my face.


----------



## juliante

juliante said:


> I really want to like Mahler's symphonies. I am over Mozart's and Brahms' I have listened to death. But after 2 full listens to Mahler's 5th I am still on the wilderness. I feel that due to doing lots and lots of conducting, Mahler had a fabulous ability to produce lovely orchestral snippets and flourishes, but as far as a coherent symphony ....well my conclusion thus far is that enjoyment of his symphonies must arise from the human brain's drive to seek and see order in chaos. As for the adagio - boring. Please folks ... How do I listen to Mahler's symphonies? I am guessing it is a mindset thing. (I do like Sibelius a lot....is that relevant...?)


Just to say - 9 months on from my original post, I can't imagine what I was struggling with.... I guess I was right I think, it was a mindset thing. Listening almost exclusively classical period orchestral music for too long at the start of ones cm journey should come with a health warning! Thanks as well - many posts were helpful. 'Just listen' means a lot when you understand what that takes... if that makes sense.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

juliante said:


> Just to say - 9 months on from my original post, I can't imagine what I was struggling with.... I guess I was right I think, *it was a mindset thing. Listening almost exclusively classical period orchestral music for too long at the start of ones cm journey should come with a health warning!* Thanks as well - many posts were helpful. 'Just listen' means a lot when you understand what that takes... if that makes sense.


I think of Mahler, particularly in his middle or later works, as much as an early modernist as a late romantic, and a pivotal figure standing amidst and between the sound-worlds of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The complexity of his constructions and the degree of dissonance that he sometimes used make him quite a different proposition for the listener familiar mainly with the earlier period.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I just got into Mahler back in July and jumped in with both feet buying a complete cycle. I have enjoyed every Mahler symphony including Das Lied von der Erde and the performing version of the 10th. I find it hard to get my head wrapped around an entire Mahler symphony (or any lengthy symphony for that matter), but just listen and enjoy each wonderful part as I go along.


----------



## clavichorder

I like the 5th but I'm generally lost in the woods, musically speaking.


----------



## Euterpe

I highly recommend a book about Mahler's symphonies, named Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies.
The author, a musicologist, is a well-known Mahler expert as Bernstein. The music of Mahler, I believe, is almost a philosophy of life in his point of view. The existentialism in the 20 century has some similarities with Mahler's outlook — a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.


----------



## Pugg

Euterpe said:


> I highly recommend a book about Mahler's symphonies, named Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies.
> The author, a musicologist, is a well-known Mahler expert as Bernstein. The music of Mahler, I believe, is almost a philosophy of life in his point of view. The existentialism in the 20 century has some similarities with Mahler's outlook - a sense of disorientation and confusion in the face of an apparently meaningless or absurd world.


Do you have the name of this writer please?


----------



## hpowders

OP: Take one symphony like no. 1 or 4 and play it over and over.

The brain responds to repetition.

I don't mean keep playing the symphony consecutively. Try once a day for about a week. It should start making sense.


----------



## Vaneyes

Mahler wilderness can often be attributed to bad recordings done by misguided conductors and/or dispassionate orchestras. There are many of these in the catalog. Don't despair. Keep listening after adequate breathers. :tiphat:


----------



## juliante

Vaneyes said:


> Mahler wilderness can often be attributed to bad recordings done by misguided conductors and/or dispassionate orchestras. There are many of these in the catalog. Don't despair. Keep listening after adequate breathers. :tiphat:


Talking of which - I am struggling with the final movement of the 6th. I have gerviev / LSO. Duggan does not mention this recording in his overview. Does anyone have any comments on gerviev' version? I do enjoy the first 3 movements a lot. I am aware the final movement is highly regarded, well structured etc...but all that banging and crashing and for half an hour....it's draining, not in a good way !


----------



## Vaneyes

juliante said:


> Talking of which - I am struggling with the final movement of the 6th. I have gerviev / LSO. Duggan does not mention this recording in his overview. Does anyone have any comments on gerviev' version? I do enjoy the first 3 movements a lot. I am aware the final movement is highly regarded, well structured etc...but all that banging and crashing and for half an hour....it's draining, not in a good way !


The late Tony Duggan (1954 - 2012) Mahler reviews and revisions were sparse after 2007, just about the time Gergiev began his Mahler series.

While Gergiev Mahler has generally been greeted with mixed reviews, his Mahler 6 has probably fared the best. It's hard to say what Mr. Duggan would have thought. He surprised on occasion. Interesting to note, Mr. Duggan's reviewing nemesis "The Hurwitzer" gave Gergiev Mahler 6 a 9/9 for performance and sound.

http://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-14300/

Last but by no means least, juliante, it's *your* ears that subsequently count. Keep listening. :tiphat:


----------



## Merl

I like Gergiev's Mahler cycle. It's vigorous and exciting - just like me!


----------



## Weird Heather

I have been listening to Mahler for many years, but I still feel like there is a lot that I don't "get," and I'm sure I will always feel that way. This is the nature of Mahler, and it keeps me coming back. With each hearing, I feel like I discover something new.

One way I have come to think about various composers is to compare their music to other art forms. This certainly isn't the ideal way to discover all of the mysteries, but it can provide a framework for interpretation. For example, I might compare Bruckner's work to architecture; to me, his music feels like a grand structure consisting of an intricate combination of numerous building blocks. Mahler's music, to me, is more like literature. Particularly in the early symphonies, but to some extent in most of his compositions, I detect a sense of narrative flow. I feel like a story is gradually unfolding, but it generally isn't a straightforward story constructed in a conventional manner. Like others in this thread, I find the fifth symphony particularly enigmatic, but I still enjoy it. It just isn't quite as easy to parse as, for example, the third. I think one reason I am drawn to Mahler is that I have always had a strong interest in complex and unconventional literature, and he seems to be speaking in a strongly literary language.


----------

