# Why should I listen to Mahler?



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I've never really been a fan of Gustav Mahler--or any late Romantic music, for that matter. However, after reading about his 6th Symphony ("Tragic"), I've recently gained interest in finding out more about his music. So tell me, why should I listen to Mahler?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dunno, I guess you'll have to kind of answer that question for yourself, more or less? I'm kind of the same, I'm not a huge fan of late Romantic music, though I don't mind some of the composers from that era, like Brahms or Stanford.

I've never heard Mahler's 6th, but I think that the 1st is a good place to start, followed by the 4th and 5th. I haven't heard all of his symphonies, but those three are my favourites so far. & I also like the 10th but find the 9th a bit too obsessed with death.

One thing late Romantic music is good for is counterbalancing the more pared down feel of some of the music of the C20th - such as most of Sibelius, for example, not to speak of the minimalists, who are really at the opposite end of the spectrum, musically speaking...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

If you don't know Mahler, you will be shunned by the rest of Classical Music Society. Everyone is obsessed with him. Except me, his 1st Symphony is pretty good, but I don't like his tone/attitude very much, and I'm not a late-Romantic German fan. But you may like him, I don't know.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> I've never really been a fan of Gustav Mahler--or any late Romantic music, for that matter. However, after reading about his 6th Symphony ("Tragic"), I've recently gained interest in finding out more about his music. So tell me, why should I listen to Mahler?


I don't know of any good reason why you should listen to Mahler - I'm assuming you mean his symphonies. Maybe you aren't interested in the dramatically effective utilization of solo instruments and small choirs in a symphonic context - or the integration of solo voice in the train of progression e.g. the finale of the 4th - or the effective evocation of angst in several of the symphonies - or the expressions of joy and good humor that are tinged with uncertainty - in the same symphonies.

Well, maybe...

Listening to Mahler can be a workout. If you spend your day at hard physical labor, Mahler's exercise of the mental side will be relaxing. If you spend your workday at a desk, you can listen to Mahler while you're doing the push-ups/chin-ups, and get a full system mojo going. (What you do with that is optional.)


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré (Nov 21, 2010)

I never understood the hype. He is a very good composer, surely, but is he better than others? I wouldn't say so.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Personnaly I prefer Schreker and Zemlinksy...These guy were more versatiles and could compose OPERAS!!!!!!!! Mahler composed Sarema's overture for Zemlinsky's first opera.

Martin


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

After listening to his first and sixth symphonies (I'll get to the rest over the weekend), I've found Mahler's attitude to be very cynical. The orchestration is just what I'd expect from a late Romantic composer: very... evocative. They sound almost like tone poems. (And according to Wikipedia, the first was originally supposed to be one.) All in all, not as bad as I'd expected. They're not totally dissonant or atonal, so I guess I can listen to them.

And thank you, Hilltroll, for your suggestion. I listened to Mahler's First before writing, as a form of mental stretching, and I managed to finish writing a sonnet for school in about an hour. (Which is about 23 hours less than it usually takes )


----------



## scytheavatar (Aug 27, 2009)

You should try his 5th next, since it's probably his signature work and the one that's the best balance between being accessible and being definitive of what Mahler's music is about. And to answer your question as to why you should listen to Mahler, because his music is good.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I like Mahler...He's nice, deep and musical.

Martin


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Das Lied von der Erde
Kindertotenlieder
Symphony 4
Symphony 9

I rank these amongst the 20-30 or so of the best pieces I have ever heard (and I have heard a lot). My favourite composer after Bach.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

scytheavatar said:


> You should try his 5th next, since it's probably his signature work and the one that's the best balance between being accessible and being definitive of what Mahler's music is about. And to answer your question as to why you should listen to Mahler, because his music is good.


The 5th has the widest span of effective interpretation of any symphony I know. There are many recordings wherein the music evokes an enveloping darkness ranging from twilight to midnight, and a few interpretations e.g. Alain Lombard's with the Aquitaine orchestra, which bring out a blend of drama and almost folk-like high spirits. Yep, Mahler _and_ high spirits.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kopachris said:


> After listening to his first and sixth symphonies (I'll get to the rest over the weekend), I've found Mahler's attitude to be very cynical.)


"Cynical" is what I heard too, for a long time. I eventually modified that impression, maybe because of reading about him. Now what I hear, in place of cynical, is varying degrees of distrust in the possibility of 'the good life'.

Near as I can tell he was deeply religious, but couldn't settle on whether God was Old Testament, New Testament, or maybe even Deist in nature. I think the intensity of feeling in the 2nd symphony reflects his angst, an attempt to convince himself.

And that concludes my sermon for today.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Cynical" is what I heard too, for a long time. I eventually modified that impression, maybe because of reading about him. Now what I hear, in place of cynical, is varying degrees of distrust in the possibility of 'the good life'.


I think that's an interesting take on Mahler. Personally, I just hear in his music what life is: it's good mixed with bad. You may be weeping at a funeral, but that doesn't stop people outside from laughing.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

One thing about Mahler, he sure could orchestrate. He understood color and polyphony; he may have a huge orchestra, but as one second flutist said, he makes you feel like you're the most important player.

What interests me about Mahler is, his 9 symphonies can be taken as one large meta-symphony. The 1st starts with a young boy coming to life and the 9th ends with him dying. Themes from one symphony show up in others. He has a continuing "aspiration" theme which shows up in most of them. So if you know his language, each piece has some recognizable frame of reference.

Jean Sibelius gave this quote, but it applies to Mahler's music: "A symphony is a confession of faith at different stages of one's life."

I've found David Hurwitz's The Mahler Symphonies, An Owner's Manual helpful when I went through them. He just tells you what to listen for and when, which helps in the big pieces.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2010)

I love Mahler, but his symphonies can be daunting. There is a lot in them to digest, and in most cases purposely so. 

Were I to try to introduce myself to them, I would do it in order. There is a progression to them. Don't neglect Das Lied von der Erde. 

Personally, the symphony that I have connected with the most would be his 2nd, the "Resurrection" symphony. It is in many ways a tone poem. The "Urlicht" lied that he incorporated into it is one of the most beautiful works I have heard, when sung by just the right person.

He's not for everyone. I love his 2nd symphony, but my wife doesn't care for it at all.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

the last movement of his 3rd and his 5th symphony demands every man to bend the knee.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> why should I listen to Mahler?


That is quite silly question. Why should you listen to music in general at the first place? Well, because it can beautiful. If you don't find his music beautiful there is still ambition to posess knowledge. Someone who doesn't know Mahler can't say he knows anything about music and you should go through his symphonies just to prevent yourself from being ignorant. And perhaps during this journey you shall find the beauty finding of which is worth of all efforts? SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTT! <echoes of last words fill the misty valley> <earthquake> <the prophet disappears>


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Aramis said:


> That is quite silly question. Why should you listen to music in general at the first place? Well, because it can beautiful. If you don't find his music beautiful there is still ambition to posess knowledge. Someone who doesn't know Mahler can't say he knows anything about music and you should go through his symphonies just to prevent yourself from being ignorant. And perhaps during this journey you shall find the beauty finding of which is worth of all efforts? SEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK ITTTTTTTTTTTTTTT! <echoes of last words fill the misty valley> <earthquake> <the prophet disappears>


You're looking too deep. You fell into an enormous geode. Go back up? (Y/n)

:devil:


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Oh, Mahler's a hard nut to crack. I almost desperately want to like his music because I adore Mahler the Man, but... it's hard. Also, in addition of liking the person, I'm very impressed by everything that I've read about his music. My tiny neurons just cannot grasp his music yet!

I've managed to learn to really like the first movement of his 5th symphony, though. But there's a long way to go!


----------



## Pierrot Lunaire (Dec 16, 2010)

I just read this interview with Pierre Boulez last night regarding Mahler. You might find it interesting.

http://mahler.universaledition.com/pierre-boulez-on-mahler/


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

I feel almost excited for you, once you crack it it will be the most incredible thing in the world.

Thanks for that interview interesting.

Lorin Maazel said (I paraphrase): if so many of the worlds renowned and respected musicians believe and love Mahlers music, you kind of need to have faith that it is good and keep trying.


----------



## Charon (Sep 8, 2008)

Mahler 5 was the first symphony I truly "listened" to. Of course, I fell in love with the 4th movement. I went to see Mahler 4 at the symphony hall last year and the 4th movement brought be to tears!

While I haven't heard all of Mahler's works, I can say that they are an interesting journey, evocative and beautiful. His music tends to captivate listeners, and brings them into enchantment.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent (Feb 28, 2008)

I say, if you don't like a piece, don't listen to it. 

To me, Mahler is everything you could want in a composer, only his symphonies are LOOOOOOOOOONG!!! Though it is worth it.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

If you're having trouble getting into Mahler, the Kindentotenlieder are the place to start. They're much shorter, the whole collection of the 5 songs is only 20 minutes long. I also find them very accessible and a good transition into his larger works.

Personally, Symphony #2 is where I'd start. The last two movements are especially good in my opinion. My personal favorite is Symphony #3, but it's a real doozie length wise, so definitely not a good place to start.

My suggestion is to maybe start with the symphonies as background music...and when your ear picks up the intricacies, then you'll be able to tackle them in a single sit down listen.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Romantic Geek said:


> If you're having trouble getting into Mahler, the Kindentotenlieder are the place to start. They're much shorter, the whole collection of the 5 songs is only 20 minutes long. I also find them very accessible and a good transition into his larger works.
> 
> Personally, Symphony #2 is where I'd start. The last two movements are especially good in my opinion. My personal favorite is Symphony #3, but it's a real doozie length wise, so definitely not a good place to start.
> 
> My suggestion is to maybe start with the symphonies as background music...and when your ear picks up the intricacies, then you'll be able to tackle them in a single sit down listen.


Symphony 2 was alright. I did enjoy No. 6 very much, though. No. 3 was alright, too, though I'm not a fan of choral symphonies. I usually stop listening to Beethoven's 9th once "Freude..." starts playing. The only reason I kept listening to Mahler's 3rd was because the lyrics for the fourth movement were from Zarathustra's Roundelay.



> Kindentotenlieder


"Children death song?!"


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

Trust me...they're hauntingly good. Especially the first one, that's what got me hooked on Mahler.


----------

