# So, I don't get the Mahler hype.



## Minor Sixthist

It doesn't take this site to experience what I call the Mahler hype. Mahler seems to have an incredibly high level of admiration and respect from musicians that's distinct from the rest. Maybe it's that there seems to be so much to say about each of his nine symphonies, and how they're so distinct from one another, so provoking, such incredible works of art.

I feel like I'm missing something. I've been trying to listen to the symphonies, or at least get a taste of each of one piece's movements, to try and experience this incredible music, but the fuse doesn't light. After a few minutes of the first or fourth symphony, I'll then skip ahead to the second movement. A few more minutes there, skip ahead in that movement, and onto the third, and . . . well, I guess it's that nothing happens for me. 

I've done this with, like I said, the first symphony, the second, I believe the fourth, and the fifth. I just now listened to eleven minutes of the ninth symphony, the one I had the most faith in because of what I've heard about it, I regret to say I cannot hum a single motif from those save the trumpet flourish from the fifth symphony, and that is 90% because I've been exposed to trumpet players in my ensembles long enough to hear that motif eagerly played many times.

And I know what a lot of you are thinking. A few minutes? Skipping around? I should just sit there, focus, and get through more than a few minutes before skipping. But see, I don't know about everyone else, but for me, listening to three to five minutes of the music really does give a strong sense of the composer's and the piece's style, though I'd like to think, you know, don't judge a book by a cover, and all that. When I'm unimpressed by a few minutes, I may skip around and end up listening to nine minutes elsewhere, and most if not all the time, I'm not moved there either. Not enough changes.

Maybe I'm being dramatic, but honestly, I feel like I'm missing something. I want to experience the deep appreciation so many people have for his music because I've never seen another composer who has so much of his symphonic work so deeply respected, except for, I guess, Beethoven, but then, I understand why in terms of his music. 

What is it about Mahler that is so brilliant to very many people? I feel like the quality the makes it so impressive to people is that there's . . . a lot going on? It's vivacious and it has edge. But it's so lackluster to me.

Anyone have thoughts?


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm sort of with you, I'm not a Mahler fanatic, but I didn't skip, and relistened again and again. I was moved by the 9th a few weeks ago, and wanted to be again, and I put it on, but the next two times didn't work out. I put the 5th on after and it did work out. I don't think you need to pressure yourself to like anything, and it just makes it worse if you do.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Okay, how to start listening to Mahler:

Start with No. 4. My favorite is Abbado, even though many people think it has a dry sound. Before you listen, read about the fourth. There is so much hidden in Mahler's music, little clues about his life, his music, that makes it so much more meaningful. For instance, the slow movement begins with the same chords as the Act 1 Fidelio Quartet in the same key- and probably on purpose. So is that irony then? Since the person who begins the Quartet thinks she's getting married to the man she loves, but... well... he's not a man! The fourth is about childlike innocence, but it is one of Mahler's most mature works, personally.

The first movement:

Listen to it once. Try to pick out the melodies, the countermelodies, development, all of that... you probably won't like it on first listen, just like me. But for me, Mahler is about repetition, and this is especially for the first movement of the fourth. The more you listen to it, the more you hear, the better you can understand it. For instance, Mahler even quotes his own fifth symphony in the first movement of the fourth. 

The second movement:

A haunting "death fiddler" movement, where there is a beautiful violin solo contrasting with a lively dance. Here is Mahler at his most sarcastic, I think. Especially the end of this movement, which is on a major note, but leaves, quoting a book I have on Mahler, "a sulfurous aftertaste." 

The third movement:

Heaven meets Earth... Especially in the climax. That's all that needs to be said. 

The fourth movement:

The soprano solo is quite lovely, and the ending chords give me chills up my spines.

Start with that, I guess. I hope Mahler works for you soon.


----------



## Pugg

Why force yourself, if you do not like the music just don't start with it, your subconscious maybe saying otherwise but do not force yourself, to any kind of music you do not like for that matter


----------



## Becca

Minor Sixthist said:


> And I know what a lot of you are thinking. A few minutes? Skipping around? I should just sit there, focus, and get through more than a few minutes before skipping. But see, I don't know about everyone else, but for me, l*istening to three to five minutes of the music really does give a strong sense of the composer's and the piece's style*, though I'd like to think, you know, don't judge a book by a cover, and all that. When I'm unimpressed by a few minutes, I may skip around and end up listening to nine minutes elsewhere, and most if not all the time, I'm not moved there either. Not enough changes.


The highlighted part is the fundamental flaw in the argument as any composer whose style can be sensed within 3 to 5 minutes is not someone who can think in terms of large scale symphonic structure. I can think of any number of works where by the end of the first movement I was thinking that this piece does nothing for me and isn't 'going' anywhere, but where continuing to listen to the end I began to see that there was an interesting musical argument taking place. It happened just this evening with a Prokofiev symphony which I had never listened to before (7th). Mahler's symphonies cover such a diverse range of emotions that there is no way that you can grasp them in small chunks. Now I am not saying that you will ever come to like his symphonies but I am fairly certain that you won't with your approach to them. An analogy to this would be looking in isolation to a few small parts of a painting and deciding from them whether the entire canvas is of interest. Any significant work, be it painting or symphony, is greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Pugg said:


> Why force yourself, if you do not like the music just don't start with it, your subconscious maybe saying otherwise but do not force yourself, to any kind of music you do not like for that matter


My thoughts exactly Pugg. Don't like it, then get away from it. Try other composers. One day, sooner or later, you will return to Mahler for another listen, but don't demand anything of yourself. If it still doesn't say anything to you or you don't connect with it, leave it alone once again. Try approaching something different with an open mind. It took me many years before I came to enjoy chamber music or Haydn or Mozart....And I'm still not that enamoured with Beethoven, except for his "Eroica" Symphony and Triple Concerto. Trust your own feelings. Don't insist you must like a composer's music simply because others do.


----------



## Dan Ante

I can take or leave Mahler he is not at the top of my list, but I can and do listen to the complete work.


----------



## Lenny

My Mahler enthusiasm started with a rather unorthodox way: I just listened to the symphonies in background while doing other things. I know this is just a personal view of things, but for me it seems to be easier to absorb the overall structure and "drama" if I'm not just sitting and trying to understand each and every nuance. So, what happened is that eventually these massive pieces started to grow, and then I got hooked. I guess this just reflects my more generic way of learning: I like to understand big picture before going to the details. Then go back to big picture, and to the details, and... kind of iterative approach.

Actually, if I listen to the any piece of music very conciously, just "letting it sink", I don't undestand at all what is going on. I completely lose the red line. Get lost to the music.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I really didn't care about Mahler and then I went to a performance of Beethoven's 5th and Mahler's 1st was also on the program. I really enjoyed the Mahler part, but didn't think about it much after that. Then some months later I pulled out a Mahler symphony 5 disk that I had laying around from a garage sale or somewhere and played it. I was hooked and quickly purchased a full cycle and other miscellaneous Mahler symphony recordings.


----------



## Sloe

I feel the same. For me his music is rather blaha. Not bad but not something I want to listen a lot to.


----------



## Captainnumber36

My first exposure was to his fifth and I loved it. I enjoy the different feels he flows in and out of and how unique they sound melodically.

It's not worth trying to force yourself to like something, but at the same time, there are certain moods that make you more receptive to different types of music. I'd say Mahler is good for thought provoking times to stimulate creative thinking.


----------



## Pugg

Haydn67 said:


> My thoughts exactly Pugg. Don't like it, then get away from it. Try other composers. One day, sooner or later, you will return to Mahler for another listen, but don't demand anything of yourself. If it still doesn't say anything to you or you don't connect with it, leave it alone once again. Try approaching something different with an open mind. It took me many years before I came to enjoy chamber music or Haydn or Mozart....And I'm still not that enamoured with Beethoven, except for his "Eroica" Symphony and Triple Concerto. Trust your own feelings. Don't insist you must like a composer's music simply because others do.


Amen to this. ........


----------



## MarkW

I don't know what to say.

First, there's nothing that says you _have_ to like Mahler. If it doesn't speak to you, go on to something else and come back in a year, and then a year later still . . . or not at all.

You don't want us to suggest another way of listening, so I won't. But I don't know what you're going to do about Tristan und Isolde, or Peleas et Melisande, or Bruckner . . .

I admit that I've never been able to get past page 10 of The Sound and the Fury, but figure that's _my_ problem.

You might ocassionally try putting a symphony on in its entirety in the background, while you're making dinner, or reading a book, or fixing your bicycle, and just absorb it osmotically. Although he's long-winded, most of his arguments play out better across the whole structure. But they are wildly different -- and coming to terms with one doesn't mean you're home free with the others.

Do what works for you.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Perhaps Mahler himself can help you understand how to listen to his music. He said "A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything." We move through the world slowly, a moment, an hour, a day at a time, experiencing what is around us as it happens, not knowing where the future leads and with only a feeble grasp of what lay behind, by way of (often faulty) memory or (often skewed or biased) history. Yet riches lie all round, and we can only scrape the surface of it all, meeting moments of surprise and wonder, terror and delight, joy and sadness ... in other words, life.

In his hour plus long symphonies, Mahler provides us a microcosm of life itself. Not all of life is satisfying, or delightful, or comprehensible, or meaningful. But it is vibrant and energizing, revealing and informative. It is experience. It is living. It is like the world, containing everything.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

If I like it, I listen. If I don't,I don't. I'm not forcing it. Mahler is one of the composers that is hit or miss for me.

Don't have me thrown off the forum, but even Beethoven has pieces I don't care for.


----------



## Razumovskymas

I don't really know Mahlers' work but if you're so keen to get into the hype put some work in it man! 

First, do some research about which symphony is the most important. Then pick yourself a symphony purely on personal preference.

Then, listen to them completely (not 10 minutes man, c'mon), not once but 3, 4, 6, 7 times as long as needed (of course that also depends on your devotion). Then after al that suffering you either give up or the symphonies will reveal themselves. In the latter case: congratulations! You can use this forum to declare the genius of Mahler. In the former case: there's two approaches. One is to declare Mahler to be an overrated composer. You can do this on this forum, lot's of interesting debate will follow and you can start a quest to try to prick the Mahler bubble. The other approach is to be humble about it and accept that you're just not artistically mature enough (and probably will never be) to understand Mahler.

As for Mahler, my listening experience is equal to yours, so I just shut up about him until I decide to go through some more suffering.

As for Bach, my listening experience is somewhat more extensive but in order not to get lynched by the TC community I describe my lack of Bach admiration to be the result of my own personal preference and definitely not a "sane" opinion. Sometimes, when I'm sitting alone in some bar drinking my 3th whisky I stare before me and mumble "Bach is overrated". "What's that you're saying" the bartender says "Oh nothing...." I say.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I don't agree that not getting into Mahler (or any other major composer) is a sign of lack of artistic maturity. Vaughan Williams heartily disliked Beethoven's music, but wrote an essay which lays out the greatness of the Choral Symphony. As it happens that's pretty much how I view Mahler - I simply don't enjoy the sounds he puts together, but I can recognise the immense craft that went into doing so.


----------



## Lenny

^^ Sounds like some cult stuff 

Is it really so that Mahler is _untouchable_ in TC?

I'd love to hate Mahler and to say it proudly in this thread.. but can't lie about it . Is it okay to say Tschaikovsky sucks?


----------



## Art Rock

Mahler is my 2nd favourite composer after Bach, but if you don't enjoy him, so be it. Nobody enjoys everything. No need to use words like "hype" or "overrated" though - tastes differ.


----------



## JamieHoldham

I was exactly the same, didn't like Mahler at first, had to skip through his Symphonys to find anything of interest as there is a lot of development in his music, but first came to the point of LOVING Mahler once I listened to the first movement of his 10th Symphony, "Adagio."

It's much different than the rest of his music I think, personally, and a lot more emotional / personal. I think it's a great starting point when first listening to Mahler. It's what got me into him, the sublime beauty of this first movement if beyond anything else he composed in my opinion.


----------



## DeepR

To be honest, you haven't given his music a fair chance. 
You're listening to fragments of 1-1,5 hour long symphonies.
Do you judge a book by a few pages or a painting by only looking at one corner?
The way I get into such big works is by listening to each movement seperately at least a couple of times. Slowly getting to know them. Then I'm ready to listen to the entire work a few times. It does take serious time and effort before you can have a proper "mental picture" of big and complex works like this. During this process you will gradually find out whether you like his music or not.


----------



## Triplets

This topic has come up before, so the OP shouldn't feel bad. Mahler appreciation is an acquired taste that once acquired becomes addictive.
It should be kept in mind that the Mahler sound world of Symphonies 1-4 is very different from that of 5&6, and 7-9 and Das Lied Von Der Erde show a further evolution. You may find yourself liking one phase more than another and if that happens for a given piece you may want to stay within that period before moving on.
I initially didn't like Mahler but my gateway work was the First Symphony. It does take some patience but I love the way that I slowly germinates, feeling like an early morning stroll in the woods outside a provincial town in the summer. The third movement is one of GM's most striking creation, setting Frere Jacques as a Funeral March, with a klezmer outburst in the middle that does not sound out of place. Mahler's music is Universal and thrives under many approaches, but I feel that Symphonies 1 and 4 (the other gateway work) come off best with Jewish Conductors who can ladle out the schmaltz, such as Leonard Bernstein or Bruno Walter. That may reflect my Jewish upbringing, so be advised.


----------



## Triplets

Lenny said:


> ^^ Sounds like some cult stuff
> 
> I'd love to hate Mahler and to say it proudly in this thread.. but can't lie about it . Is it okay to say Tschaikovsky sucks?


I have never understood why so many music lovers hate Tchaikovsky, but it's not an uncommon sentiment.


----------



## Manxfeeder

With a composer like Mahler, you need a road map to get you to see what's going on. Personally, I'd recommend David Hurwitz's The Mahler Symphonies, An Owner's Manual. He clearly loves these pieces, and he writes in a very relatable manner. He takes each symphony in order and explains step by step what is happening.

If you still don't like them, at least you'll know why, like the famous old lawyer responding to a judge who said, "Mr. Smith, I have read your case, and I am no wiser then when I began it." His remark: "Perhaps not, but you are better informed."


----------



## Heck148

Minor Sixthist said:


> I feel like I'm missing something. I've been trying to listen to the symphonies, or at least get a taste of each of one piece's movements, to try and experience this incredible music, but the fuse doesn't light. After a few minutes of the first or fourth symphony, I'll then skip ahead to the second movement. A few more minutes there, skip ahead in that movement, and onto the third, and . . . well, I guess it's that nothing happens for me........
> I've done this with, like I said, the first symphony, the second, I believe the fourth, and the fifth. I just now listened to eleven minutes of the ninth symphony, the one I had the most faith in because of what I've heard about it,


As an approach to listening to music, I don't think exposing yourself to short segments and jumping around is really a very fruitful method. It's rather like trying to read a novel by just reading a page or so here, jumping to the next chapter, reading a page or so, again jumping ahead, again short segment - you will get no flow, no continuity, no sense of the form of the work...It doesn't surprise me that the music does not come across favorably to you.
Might I suggest a different approach?? - try one movement at a time - a shorter mvt - one that is straight ahead in a readily discernible form - say movement II of Symphony #1 - the "scherzo" - very clear form ABA -main section, slower middle section, repeat of main section....Don't skip around, just let the music play...see if that works for you...

It's perfectly OK it it doesn't work, nobody has to like anything....but at least you'll be giving the composer and his music a fair hearing.


----------



## Jacred

The first Mahler symphony that I listened to was the 3rd and I still like it a lot to this day. Before that, I didn't really get the Mahler hype, either. I still don't, actually, but I do appreciate his works for what they are and respect others to whom Mahler is an important composer.

Give it more tries, I guess, but don't feel let down if you still don't like it. Disliking music to which you have honestly put an effort into listening is not a weakness.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone who gave me input. Maybe it wasn't exactly correct to say that I skip around, it's generally that I give each movement a chance, and maybe I just lack patience but not enough seems to happen, not even in a measurement of time, but sort of in music as well. So much music has gone by and there's no feeling. As lots of you have said, that's ok, I shouldn't force myself into it, but as more have said, I should give the symphonies a fair chance.

I definitely agree I haven't, and I guess I should, though it's going to really try my patience. Does anyone else agree that making yourself listen to a piece in its entirety just for the chance you gain a moving new perspective on it then is not necessarily worth considerably disliking the parts that comprise it? And of course I don't mean a matter of minutes. I mean movements. Maybe that doesn't seem like a 'mature' look on it, as a lot of replies seem to coin it when you're able to sit yourself down and listen to the entirety while doing nothing else, but could something not be said for the small parts that seem to drag on?

And I don't mean three minutes, because that's not a real gauge of how much I listen to before declaring an opinion. I don't know who in their intelligent mind could declare an opinion that quickly. I listen for contrast and primarily I try to decide if I'm feeling it. I generally am not with these symphonies. I'm currently listening to the first symphony and I plan to re-listen to the fifth and ninth as well.

I guess my method of listening wasn't one that warranted judgement, and maybe I'm not patient enough, but I suppose I believe something is could be said about the level of interest can invoke in parts of the work less than the entirety of it. I don't mean a matter of minutes, I mean a matter of movements. Of course I've listened to full movements of Mahler, I'm not THAT impatient. 

I have to disagree with the portrait analogy, though. The idea it seeks to portray, I definitely agree with - I shouldn't make a judgement so quickly in. Still, a brushstroke, or a series of brushstrokes, of negative space in, say, a portrait of a person is not necessarily meant to invoke the emotion invoked when you look at the entire work. With music, however, how much negative space do you appreciate? (please don't take that literally. I'm not calling an iota of Mahler negative space just because I'm not riveted by it thus far. I just mean how much of it that you personally do not understand, is acceptable for you personally to listen to just in order to get all the way through?)

Anyway, this post was really meant to update on my new goal to give myself more time to listen and appreciate. I myself think my judgement sounds immature, but I decided not to try to hide it. I need time to give it more of a chance. I need time to gain maturity, and not only in the way I listen to music. Patience may come with time, or it could come with the eventual termination of this time in my life in which high school demands considerable time and focus and energy, especially with APs and testing and having to balance academic stability with a very demanding musical commitment, of which several performances are coming up quick, and then balancing that with the need to tend to your own basic needs and those of other people. and of your own emotional stability, which for me has never been so steady in my older years. It's a time that tries my patience each day.

I am onto a ways through the second movement of The Titan, and willing to continue here. Some pretty cool things happening. Thank you for all your input. :tiphat:


----------



## Becca

Minor Sixthist said:


> I am onto a ways through the second movement of The Titan, and willing to continue here. Some pretty cool things happening. Thank you for all your input. :tiphat:


P.S. Forget the 'Titan' nonsense, that was something that Mahler attached to a very early version of the symphony before he made some major changes including dropping the Blumine movement. He dropped the title by the time the final version of the symphony was published and (I believe) was quite specific about not wanting it used. It should be noted that 'Titan' had not been intended as descriptive, rather as referring to a book of that name which had given him some inspiration.


----------



## Chronochromie

A similar thing happened to me with Mahler (except I liked the 1st symphony from the beginning), I couldn't get into the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th at all. What did I do? I tried the 7th, the one considered the weirdest and/or his worst, it turns out it's great and I loved it at first listen. 

So you may want to try that. Also recordings can make a huge difference with their diverse approaches, from Bernstein to Boulez , and everyone has different tastes, so you have to find the ones that are right for you.


----------



## Becca

Perhaps before suggesting what symphonies you might like and how you might go about it, we should ask what composers/symphonies you do enjoy. Also have there been cases where it did take time for you to come to like them?


----------



## Minor Sixthist

In terms of composers, I tend to enjoy French impressionism. I enjoy a lot of Debussy and Ravel, as well as Liszt, Chopin, Satie and some Scriabin. In terms of orchestral stuff I love Dvorak, Sibelius, Bizet, and enjoy Holst's military suites, and some Vaughan Williams, including his symphonies I'll mention below, as well as his English folk suite. There are many more, but I'm glad you asked the second question. 

Dvorak 8 took multiple listenings to appreciate, especially the inner two movements, and that's a piece I find incredible. There's also Symphonic Metamorphosis on themes by von Weber by Hindemith, which took a few listenings, but now I'll hardly let up an opportunity to intently listen to the first and third movements at that point, and the third movement's opening solo is to die for. There was Dvorak 9 as well. I treasure that piece now, but the first, third and fourth movements took some time. There's also Vaughan Williams' fourth and ninth. 

As for non-symphonies, there's Holst's second military suite in F, Debussy's Arabesque no. 1, and pretty much any Scriabin I'll listen to, primarily some of the preludes. (@Becca, oops, didn't use the quote option)


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Minor Sixthist said:


> It doesn't take this site to experience what I call the Mahler hype.


People ran out of Beethoven symphonies and Wagner operas.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mahler is pretty unique, in that there is little he does that is conventional, which makes his music harder to relate to in the beginning. His music is quite demanding, and you eventually are forced to make a decision whether or not to accept it on its own terms, to a degree which depends how maleable you are. It's like a compromise between the listener and him, the composer. Personally I always accepted the Song of the Earth, as it was the most relatable to me, and have accepted to a larger degree, Symphonies 1, 5, 9, and lesser degree 4 and 7. I still will not accept, or concede to his 2, 3, 6 and 8, even after listening to the whole works more than a few times.


----------



## AfterHours

Mahler is unlikely to catch your ear as much as Beethoven/Mozart and several others, unless you're pretty well-versed in many forms of Classical, or even other forms of music/art. He composes music much more in line with Beethoven's late works, in that his compositions are often quite "inward" and more of a "stream-of-consciousness" than more standard examples of other composers (there's much more to it, emotionally/conceptually, than that, but it's a starting place in terms of "how" to listen to him). I would say you might want to acclimate yourself more to Beethoven's late works (if you haven't already), and Brahms' masterpieces (if you haven't already), and then, more likely, Mahler will come to you with far less effort.


----------



## hpowders

Nobody can convince you to like something that you yourself cannot "feel".

If you don't like Mahler, that's fine. Nothing inherently wrong with you.

Move on to composers you find more satisfying.

Perhaps one day you will come back to Mahler and something will "click".

The human brain and perception are wonderous that way.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

I don't think you're wrong to skip around, personally. If you've heard something enough times to somewhat know it and it's still not moving you after 10 minutes, your brain is probably just not primed for that piece or that composer and likely won't be until a significant amount of time has elapsed. I'm emphatically against the "just keep listening" philosophy. I tried it relentlessly with a wide variety of composers and pieces and it just doesn't work. The few times it did work I was probably just inclined toward the piece anyway.

When I first heard the Art of Fugue I couldn't make any sense out of it so I didn't really "like" it, but I was attracted to its somber, meditative sound and so I kept listening until I understood enough of what I was hearing to enjoy it. But that initial spark was there. Throughout my entire life I've found that if a spark like that doesn't appear within the first ten or so listens it's pointless to continue until at least several months have passed. 

There are countless songs that I remember trying hard to enjoy as a kid that I love effortlessly now. Around four years ago one of the first classical pieces I listened to was Mahler's ninth. I could tell it was very good music but I just didn't react to it; there was no spark, no natural inclination toward the overall sound or style of the work. I tried the first movement again years later and I thought it was the greatest piece of music I'd ever heard.

Think about how long it takes your brain to flush its familiarity with a piece of your own writing, let's say a school essay that you worked really hard on and once knew so intimately that you could predict each sentence before you read it. Until you've waited long enough to mostly forget it, to the point that it almost feels like reading another person's writing, you can't expect to truly see it or revise it with a fresh perspective. I think taste in music operates similarly.


----------



## Becca

Minor Sixthist - I see from another thread that you are still in your mid teens which, if so, does put a different twist on the issue. Neurological development in the late teens and early twenties is a fascinating topic and relevant here as that is the period during which the ability to think and plan over a larger span is developing. I notice that most of the items that you listed are relatively small scale works, or complex works writ small (e.g. some Sibelius.) I would guess that if you have difficulty grasping the larger scale of the Mahler symphonies now, you might find them more approachable over the coming years.


----------



## Woodduck

Clairvoyance Enough said:


> Around four years ago one of the first classical pieces I listened to was Mahler's ninth. I could tell it was very good music but I just didn't react to it; there was no spark, no natural inclination toward the overall sound or style of the work. I tried the first movement again years later and I thought it was the greatest piece of music I'd ever heard.


You were right the first time.


----------



## Woodduck

I don't think Mahler is hyped. He just wrote music that hypes itself. It's great stuff (most of the time), but it tries to be even more than that ("A symphony <_pregnant pause and deep sucking of breath_> MUST CONTAIN THE WORLD!" - _Gustav Mahler_). Some people are bowled over by the self-lacerating intensity of it all; others are a bit put off, some actually loathe it. You may be in one of the latter two groups, and may or may not eventually join the fans. This old dog never has, and I'm learning fewer new tricks every year.


----------



## Casebearer

Maybe you should not start with the symphonies but with the Lieder cycles. For some reason I became acquainted with them much earlier than with his symphonies. The Lieder are what got me hooked on Mahler. To me they maybe are the essence of his work.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Animal the Drummer said:


> I don't agree that not getting into Mahler (or any other major composer) is a sign of lack of artistic maturity. Vaughan Williams heartily disliked Beethoven's music, but wrote an essay which lays out the greatness of the Choral Symphony. As it happens that's pretty much how I view Mahler - I simply don't enjoy the sounds he puts together, but I can recognise the immense craft that went into doing so.


That's exactly right, I think. I have never warmed to Mahler but readily acknowledge his significance.


----------



## Alydon

Out of all the great composers Mahler is the one I feel I'm supposed to like but if I never listened to another one of his works I wouldn't miss them. As far as a symphonist is concerned I much prefer Bruckner over Mahler, and my ears and brain are telling me these are mightier works, and for me Mahler dilutes his music too much and goes off on meandering dead ends.


----------



## Klassik

Alydon said:


> Out of all the great composers Mahler is the one I feel I'm supposed to like but if I never listened to another one of his works I wouldn't miss them. As far as a symphonist is concerned I much prefer Bruckner over Mahler, and my ears and brain are telling me these are mightier works, and for me Mahler dilutes his music too much and goes off on meandering dead ends.


I feel pretty similarly about Mahler. I do like his first and fifth symphonies, but even then I would not rank them at the top of my list. I find these symphonies to be interesting because of the oddity of them, but I think Mahler is able to pull off the oddities with those symphonies better than the other ones where the "kitchen sink" approach is obvious to me. Mahler is frequently linked to Bruckner, but I find Bruckner to be more enjoyable.


----------



## Barbebleu

Phil loves classical said:


> Mahler is pretty unique, in that there is little he does that is conventional, which makes his music harder to relate to in the beginning. His music is quite demanding, and you eventually are forced to make a decision whether or not to accept it on its own terms, to a degree which depends how maleable you are. It's like a compromise between the listener and him, the composer. Personally I always accepted the Song of the Earth, as it was the most relatable to me, and have accepted to a larger degree, Symphonies 1, 5, 9, and lesser degree 4 and 7. I still will not accept, or concede to his 2, 3, 6 and 8, even after listening to the whole works more than a few times.


Where are you on say Klagende Lied, Knaben Wunderhorn or the song cycles?


----------



## EdwardBast

My relationship to Mahler's music is conflicted. I think some of the symphonies are excellent (4, 5 & 6) and others quite bad (3 & 7) and I am continually surprised that others, by my lights, can't tell the difference. (Why can't everyone agree with me! ) That being said, you are definitely missing something, and I think Becca has pretty much nailed what it is: Much of what is best in Mahler can't be grasped listening in five minute snippets. One example of what I mean is the second movement of the Fifth Symphony, IMO one of the most ingenious movements composed in its decade. There are two essential impulses in the movement, the stormy opening material and more lyrical, aspiring ideas. These pull in opposite directions, the stormy material getting darker and more agitated throughout, the lyrical ideas eventually culminating in the chorale near the end. In fact, the glorious chorale is thrown up from the movement’s darkest depths, and then after it has its moment, the storm returns to have the final word and throw everything back into doubt. The overall process is centrifugal, the contradictions intensified throughout. SPOILER ALERT: This conflict is resolved in the finale in several ways — which is to say, you have to listen to the whole thing to get how it all works. 

I like what Casebearer said: Listen to the songs. (Kindertotenlieder will break your heart) I wish one could trade in some of the bad symphonies for a few more song cycles.


----------



## bharbeke

If I'm going to be listening to a longer piece that I do not know if I like or not (or have only heard bad versions of before), I will try to combine that listening with another activity. For example, I can read a book with the music on in the background and see if any part of the music catches my attention. You could also listen to movements at a time.


----------



## arpeggio

Every so often we are subjected to a I do not get a "whatever" thread.

OP, this is not the first I do not get Mahler thread.

I have the same response to all of them. No matter how great a composer is there are always those who do not get him/her. So what?


----------



## Woodduck

arpeggio said:


> Every so often we are subjected to a I do not get a "whatever" thread.
> 
> OP, this is not the first I do not get Mahler thread.
> 
> I have the same response to all of them. No matter how great a composer is there are always those who do not get him/her. So what?


You've never said to anyone, "I don't see what people like about this, what am I missing"? You've never wanted to know what you're missing?

MinorSixthist has just joined the forum. It seems a little unwelcoming to be pointing out that we were tired of his question before he even asked it.


----------



## Sloe

Woodduck said:


> You've never said to anyone, "I don't see what people like about this, what am I missing"? You've never wanted to know what you're missing?
> 
> MinorSixthist has just joined the forum. It seems a little unwelcoming to be pointing out that we were tired of his question before he even asked it.


Is there any forum about anything were the same subjects don't get brought up over and over again?


----------



## hpowders

The word "hype" in the OP troubles me. It's not "hype" just because you don't "get it", that so many other people find Mahler to be so emotionally moving and stimulating.

The word "hype" implies that those of us who love his music are exaggerating and pumping him up in a dishonest way so we have to "hype" his music; that we are all collectively faking it.

That is not the truth.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Becca said:


> Minor Sixthist - I see from another thread that you are still in your mid teens which, if so, does put a different twist on the issue. Neurological development in the late teens and early twenties is a fascinating topic and relevant here as that is the period during which the ability to think and plan over a larger span is developing. I notice that most of the items that you listed are relatively small scale works, or complex works writ small (e.g. some Sibelius.) I would guess that if you have difficulty grasping the larger scale of the Mahler symphonies now, you might find them more approachable over the coming years.


I could relate to this. I don't deny that my capacity to continue listening is not anywhere near what it could be, and I accept and understand that. Thanks for your input. I'll be happy to see if age and maturity change my perceptions.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

hpowders said:


> The word "hype" in the OP troubles me. It's not "hype" just because you don't "get it", that so many other people find Mahler to be so emotionally moving and stimulating.
> 
> The word "hype" implies that those of us who love his music are exaggerating and pumping him up in a dishonest way so we have to "hype" his music; that we are all collectively faking it.
> 
> That is not the truth.


I see how the word could've been taken like that, but for what it's worth that wasn't my meaning at all. Maybe it was my fault in using the word, but I was writing pretty casually/colloquially and I guess it's just a word I intended to mean enthusiasm. Eager enthusiasm, but I definitely did not intend to claim you were "collectively faking it," so sorry if that came across . . . I don't consider my perception of his music of any more value than any other persons, and if anything I consider others' with considerably more respect because according to many of you it's a maturity thing that develops over time.

I don't think any opinions of him are blown out of perspective, as you claim. The focus is on my own perception, which is perhaps not developed enough, surely not on a collective group of people's who enjoy his music.


----------



## Bettina

Minor Sixthist said:


> I could definitely relate to this. I guess I can't really spite myself for what I currently have the capacity to enjoy. I'll give it time.


Your brain development actually seems to be pretty advanced, based on how well you structure your posts and communicate your thoughts. You're definitely one of the TC prodigies! I don't think that your inability to enjoy Mahler necessarily has anything to do with your age. I myself have a great deal of difficulty enjoying Mahler - try as I might, his music strikes me as meandering and maudlin - and I'm about 20 years older than you (gosh, I hate to admit that!)


----------



## hpowders

Minor Sixthist said:


> I see how the word could've been taken like that, but for what it's worth that wasn't my meaning at all. Maybe it was my fault in using the word, but I was writing pretty casually/colloquially and I guess it's just a word I intended to mean enthusiasm. Eager enthusiasm, but I definitely did not intend to claim you were "collectively faking it," so sorry if that came across . . . I don't consider my perception of his music of any more value than any other persons, and if anything I consider others' with considerably more respect because according to many of you it's a maturity thing that develops over time.
> 
> I don't think any opinions of him are blown out of perspective, as you claim. The focus is on my own perception, which is perhaps not developed enough . . .?


No problem. Thanks for responding. Yes. One day you may perceive Mahler's music more positively, but even if you don't, you have plenty of other composers to explore.

I, myself, do not care for the music of some of the most popular composers voted on by TC members. So what? Doesn't make me or them bad people. Purely a case of personal taste.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

arpeggio said:


> Every so often we are subjected to a I do not get a "whatever" thread.
> 
> OP, this is not the first I do not get Mahler thread.
> 
> I have the same response to all of them. No matter how great a composer is there are always those who do not get him/her. So what?


Woodduck put it flawlessly. I posted here because I believe I could benefit from more mature approaches to understanding music that is considered my many to be beautiful, moving, and impactful. I got many helpful responses which opened my eyes to new ways I could listen to music in order to experience these emotions through a patient and empathetic understanding. I've accepted that there's an impatience that I've seen come with my approach to new things, music and otherwise, and the wise words of people who have gained more patience and wisdom in their life is more valuable to me than the shred of dignity I risked to feel the discomfort of facing my immaturities.

So that's what. You may be a person to accept that you don't 'get' a composer, but I feel there is at least a chance the fault is in one's id-driven approach. An instant gratification system that doesn't allow someone like myself to give beautiful art another chance.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Bettina said:


> Your brain development actually seems to be pretty advanced, based on how well you structure your posts and communicate your thoughts. You're definitely one of the TC prodigies! I don't think that your inability to enjoy Mahler necessarily has anything to do with your age. I myself have a great deal of difficulty enjoying Mahler - try as I might, his music strikes me as meandering and maudlin - and I'm about 20 years older than you (gosh, I hate to admit that!)


Thank you so much, Bettina. I'm glad to hear I'm able to communicate my ideas well enough to have a proper discussion, and I'm so thankful to everyone that provides their input. I've felt really welcome here in that people aren't afraid to point out the flaws I may have in my approaches - the variety of real, unembellished guidance is so valuable to me. Again, I appreciate this compliment so much. Cheers.


----------



## Becca

Minor Sixthist said:


> Woodduck put it flawlessly. I posted here because I believe I could benefit from more mature approaches to understanding music that is considered my many to be beautiful, moving, and impactful. I got many helpful responses which opened my eyes to new ways I could listen to music in order to experience these emotions through a patient and empathetic understanding. I've accepted that there's a impatience that I've seen come with my approach to new things, music and otherwise, and the wise words of people who have gained more patience and wisdom in their life is more valuable to me than the shred of dignity I risked to feel the discomfort of facing my immaturities.


I hope that you continue to be active on this site and feel free to express your explorations and views as I, for one, will be very interested to see how they develop given your very thoughtful comments this evening.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

Becca said:


> I hope that you continue to be active on this site and feel free to express your explorations and views as I, for one, will be very interested to see how they develop given your very thoughtful comments this evening.


I absolutely will. Thank you so much for your insights, they are always so thoughtfully executed. Your appreciation for others in the community cannot go unnoticed


----------



## Pugg

Minor Sixthist said:


> Thank you so much, Bettina. I'm glad to hear I'm able to communicate my ideas well enough to have a proper discussion, and I'm so thankful to everyone that provides their input. I've felt really welcome here in that people aren't afraid to point out the flaws I may have in my approaches - the variety of real, unembellished guidance is so valuable to me. Again, I appreciate this compliment so much. Cheers.


Just like a bunch of friendly neighbours on this site.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Minor Sixthist said:


> It doesn't take this site to experience what I call the Mahler hype. Mahler seems to have an incredibly high level of admiration and respect from musicians that's distinct from the rest. Maybe it's that there seems to be so much to say about each of his nine symphonies, and how they're so distinct from one another, so provoking, such incredible works of art.
> 
> I feel like I'm missing something. I've been trying to listen to the symphonies, or at least get a taste of each of one piece's movements, to try and experience this incredible music, but the fuse doesn't light. After a few minutes of the first or fourth symphony, I'll then skip ahead to the second movement. A few more minutes there, skip ahead in that movement, and onto the third, and . . . well, I guess it's that nothing happens for me.
> 
> I've done this with, like I said, the first symphony, the second, I believe the fourth, and the fifth. I just now listened to eleven minutes of the ninth symphony, the one I had the most faith in because of what I've heard about it, I regret to say I cannot hum a single motif from those save the trumpet flourish from the fifth symphony, and that is 90% because I've been exposed to trumpet players in my ensembles long enough to hear that motif eagerly played many times.
> 
> And I know what a lot of you are thinking. A few minutes? Skipping around? I should just sit there, focus, and get through more than a few minutes before skipping. But see, I don't know about everyone else, but for me, listening to three to five minutes of the music really does give a strong sense of the composer's and the piece's style, though I'd like to think, you know, don't judge a book by a cover, and all that. When I'm unimpressed by a few minutes, I may skip around and end up listening to nine minutes elsewhere, and most if not all the time, I'm not moved there either. Not enough changes.
> 
> Maybe I'm being dramatic, but honestly, I feel like I'm missing something. I want to experience the deep appreciation so many people have for his music because I've never seen another composer who has so much of his symphonic work so deeply respected, except for, I guess, Beethoven, but then, I understand why in terms of his music.
> 
> What is it about Mahler that is so brilliant to very many people? I feel like the quality the makes it so impressive to people is that there's . . . a lot going on? It's vivacious and it has edge. But it's so lackluster to me.
> 
> Anyone have thoughts?


I used to be exactly where you are. I didn't get into Mahler because he didn't have memorable themes like Beethoven and Brahms. Then, almost suddenly, I became a Mahler fanatic. Now I cannot get enough. I look at Mahler as a deep ocean of depth, and I actually see Beethoven and Brahms as more simplistic precisely because they are so much easier to grasp.

I recommend the 5th as the best way to get into Mahler. All the movements are so impassioned. Try the Barbirolli recording.

The 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th are easier to get into, but the later symphonies really offer the most in terms of complex depth and feeling, especially the shattering 9th. I recommend the Barbirolli 6th and Klemperer 7th. They are both criticized as being too slow, but I find them the most revealing of what each symphony offers. Of course the Horenstein 8th is a classic performance, but if you want better sound go for Bernstein or Solti.


----------



## realdealblues

Like others have said, you'll either like it or you won't. 

Some music takes time to grow on people, sometimes it never takes hold. 

I was instantly addicted to Mahler. It took me a few listens to wrap my head around the 8th, but all the others were instantaneous, but there are other composers that took more time. Bartok was a hard one for me. Schoenberg even more so, and I still don't like all his works or Bartok's works for that matter.

I let a work play completely through. If I didn't have an initial response, I shelve it for a while and revisit it later. Sometimes I might just put it in the background while working to see if my subconscious starts to pick up on it. If after several attempts I still don't enjoy it then I move on. Some works will register with you, some won't. There's no shame in that.


----------



## Guest

Shame is waste.


----------



## hpowders

realdealblues said:


> Like others have said, you'll either like it or you won't.
> 
> Some music takes time to grow on people, sometimes it never takes hold.
> 
> I was instantly addicted to Mahler. It took me a few listens to wrap my head around the 8th, but all the others were instantaneous, but there are other composers that took more time. Bartok was a hard one for me. Schoenberg even more so, and I still don't like all his works or Bartok's works for that matter.
> 
> I let a work play completely through. If I didn't have an initial response, I shelve it for a while and revisit it later. Sometimes I might just put it in the background while working to see if my subconscious starts to pick up on it. If after several attempts I still don't enjoy it then I move on. Some works will register with you, some won't. There's no shame in that.


The subconscious does respond with a delayed reaction. Often I play a new work that passes in one ear and out the other, with no memorable effect. I may repeat this twice more. Same deal. Then, I move on to other things and maybe a week later, repeat the acquaintance with the "vapid" music and lo and behold, I hear things I missed on my initial encounters. Yes. The music must have been stored in the subconscious, making it easier to assimilate on future hearings.


----------



## arpeggio

realdealblues said:


> Like others have said, you'll either like it or you won't.
> 
> Some music takes time to grow on people, sometimes it never takes hold.
> 
> I was instantly addicted to Mahler. It took me a few listens to wrap my head around the 8th, but all the others were instantaneous, but there are other composers that took more time. Bartok was a hard one for me. Schoenberg even more so, and I still don't like all his works or Bartok's works for that matter.
> 
> I let a work play completely through. If I didn't have an initial response, I shelve it for a while and revisit it later. Sometimes I might just put it in the background while working to see if my subconscious starts to pick up on it. If after several attempts I still don't enjoy it then I move on. Some works will register with you, some won't. There's no shame in that.


Point I was trying to make with my post. You did a better job.


----------



## Becca

For those here who do like Mahler, it would be interesting to know how old you were when you first encountered him AND how old when you came to like him. I remember my first exposure to Mahler (1st) was when I was around 17 and it made no impression on me at all. I can't remember how old I was when I got to like him but it had to be before I was 21.


----------



## hpowders

I was 13. Bought Mahler 4/Bernstein/NY Philharmonic from an ecstatic review in Stereo/Review magazine. Got hooked by the opening sleigh bells. That entire first movement was one of the most beautiful things I had ever encountered-like a nostalgic memory of a winter scene with family and friends, sleighing through beautiful white powder snow, surrounding a country retreat, combined with sadness knowing that this wonderful experience was lost forever and could never be recreated.

I was INSTANTLY mesmerized!!


----------



## Art Rock

Becca said:


> For those here who do like Mahler, it would be interesting to know how old you were when you first encountered him AND how old when you came to like him.


I was about 30. Well into my first year of exploring classical music, I tried his 4th, the three main song cycles and Das Lied von der Erde within a few weeks. I was hooked right from the start.


----------



## Merl

We all have classical pieces we don't like or get. That's just your musical taste. I don't like Tchaikovsky's Mannfred at all, Mahler's 3rd and 8th leave me cold and Ive never much cared for Shostavich's later symphonies (love some of the others). It's whatever works for you. I'd say Mahler's 1st is the most accesible to my ears (it's the one that turned me onto Mahler) but if that doesn't float yer boat then his output might not be for you. Just nice that you are trying his music out. ;-)


----------



## Sonata

hpowders said:


> I was 13. Bought Mahler 4/Bernstein/NY Philharmonic from an ecstatic review in Stereo/Review magazine. Got hooked by the opening sleigh bells. That entire first movement was one of the most beautiful things I had ever encountered-like a nostalgic memory of a winter scene with family and friends, sleighing through beautiful white powder snow, surrounding a country retreat, combined with sadness knowing that this wonderful experience was lost forever and could never be recreated.
> 
> I was INSTANTLY mesmerized!!


I had a similar experience with his second symphony. Mahler was recommended to me after I talked about how much I liked Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful songs. I finally got around to listening to him a year later. I was in the parking lot getting ready to leave the beach and head home, and I put it in the CD player.

I stayed parked at the beach for a good half an hour. Just listening. I was bowled over completely.


----------



## realdealblues

Becca said:


> For those here who do like Mahler, it would be interesting to know how old you were when you first encountered him AND how old when you came to like him.


I was a teenager...don't remember exactly how old. I heard the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony although I had no idea which symphony it was from. All I heard the announcer say was Mahler. I went to the local record store and bought the only Mahler album they had. Mahler's 6th Symphony conducted by Harold Farberman. I listened to the 6th and while I obviously didn't find the Adagietto I was looking for I did hear one of the most amazing works I had ever heard. I immediately started looking around and eventually found a box set of Leonard Bernstein conducting all 9 Symphonies (with the 10th Adagio) with the New York Philharmonic. I started at Symphony #1 and listened straight through to each one and was just utterly blown away by each and every movement. Every note resonated with me from the first listen. I spent months doing nothing but listening to those Symphonies over and over.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Had the "Titan" on LP back in the late 1970s at the age of about 21, but never really thought much of it. I was out of classical for a long time and got back in about 2009. After a Beethoven OCD period and opera addiction I finally last year at the age of 58 got into Mahler and he instantly became one of my top handfull of composers for symphonic music (Mahler, Beethoven and Mendelssohn are my big three).


----------



## Tchaikov6

realdealblues said:


> I was a teenager...don't remember exactly how old. I heard the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony although I had no idea which symphony it was from. All I heard the announcer say was Mahler. I went to the local record store and bought the only Mahler album they had. Mahler's 6th Symphony conducted by Harold Farberman. I listened to the 6th and while I obviously didn't find the Adagietto I was looking for I did hear one of the most amazing works I had ever heard. I immediately started looking around and eventually found a box set of Leonard Bernstein conducting all 9 Symphonies (with the 10th Adagio) with the New York Philharmonic. I started at Symphony #1 and listened straight through to each one and was just utterly blown away by each and every movement. Every note resonated with me from the first listen. I spent months doing nothing but listening to those Symphonies over and over.


Wow, this is pretty much exactly how I came to like the Mahler symphonies, except the symphony I started with was the fourth- and then I eventually got a box set of the Abbado interpretations... And I also began with 1 and ended with 9. As well as spending months only listening to Mahler.


----------



## Bill H.

I remember hearing Mahler One as a teenager and liking it, but it was on a small radio, so the impact wasn't as great as it could have been. [Some years later, I heard the Boston Symphony play it at Tanglewood, with a relatively unknown Japanese guest conductor, and it knocked my socks off; the audience went crazy too, with multiple ovations.]

What REALLY got me into Mahler was hearing a performance of the Second ("Resurrection") Symphony, played by the University Symphony Orchestra, choir and soloists, where I was attending as an undergrad. It was one of those Enormous State Universities, so it had the resources and reasonable levels of musical talent to pull it off, even if it wasn't exactly the Vienna Philharmonic or the Concertgebouw.

The conductor followed Mahler's directive, in that he had a long pause after the "Totenfeier" first movement. It was a good thing too--for I sat there, utterly stunned at what I'd heard. And so it went, revelation after revelation in that remarkable work.

Have never looked back since. Of course, not everyone will feel the same way, and that's OK. It took me just about as long to get into Brahms, and to this day I still find that Liszt doesn't do anything for me.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> For those here who do like Mahler, it would be interesting to know how old you were when you first encountered him AND how old when you came to like him. I remember my first exposure to Mahler (1st) was when I was around 17 and it made no impression on me at all. I can't remember how old I was when I got to like him but it had to be before I was 21.


My experience is the reverse image of yours. I too was first exposed to the 1st Symphony at around 17, and I was fascinated and listened to it quite a bit. My next Mahler was _Das Lied von der Erde_, which made a profound impression, and then came the 2nd Symphony, which I also liked. As I heard the later symphonies, though, I found I liked Mahler less and less. I went through a period of loathing much of his music, and now I've settled into just having mixed feelings. _Das Lied_ and a few of the songs remain special for me, however. I seem to like Mahler best when he's not trying to "contain the world."

I take from our mirror-image experiences that familiarity can work more than one way: it can get you past qualities in the music that initially didn't mean anything to you, puzzled you, or blocked your enjoyment - or it can get you past an initial infatuation with certain arresting qualities, leading to a recognition that you really have little affinity for the music, or even an antipathy towards it.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

I must have been younger than 8 years old when I first heard my dad's LP of Mahler 4 (because I remember the flat we lived in when I heard it first). I remember being intrigued and kind-of liking it, but I was a Beethoven exclusivist at the time.

Coming back to classical music in my early 20s as a student I acquired (on LP) Symphony 1 (Solti, LSO), 4 (von Karajan, Berlin PO); Leider eines fahrenden Gesellen, Kindertotenleider (Furtwangler, Philharmonia, Fischer-Dieskau); Das Lied von der Erde (Chicago SO, Fritz Reiner) and eventually Rattle's recording of the Second Symphony with the City of Birmingham SO. All of these works quite quickly became favourites that I'd play over and over. Although I now had broader tastes, I think Mahler became my new favourite composer.

In the CD era I have slowly acquired the rest, the Boulez symphonies box set and multiple copies of quite a few works, the early lieder etc. I did a comprehensive listen through early in my time at TalkClassical in which I attempted to get to grips with the later symphonies, partly successfully, I think.

In some ways I think later Mahler can be a 'gateway' to 20th century modernism. Symphonies 7 - 10 are certainly increasingly complex and dissonant. My experience has been that they're not on the whole easy to grasp or appreciate, though individual movements may be more accessible - the 2nd movement scherzo of #10, for instance.

By the time I explored beyond the 5th symphony I suppose I was more or less convinced by what I had already heard that the later symphonies would be worth exploring. I'm not sure what I would have made of them in my mid-teens - not very much, I rather suppose, looking back.

My advice would be to listen to what you like now, but always keep exploring and pushing to extend your listening boundaries. Eventually you may come back to Mahler - or not.


----------



## Merl

Mahler never appeared on my dad's James Last classical albums so I didn't hear his music till I was in my twenties, lol.


----------



## Heck148

I guess the easiest approach to Mahler would be thru symphonies 1-4. I know that's how I did it, tho I went to the others pretty quickly - 
first, in order - #2, #1, #3,

then #5 - hated it, because I had a crappy recording Scherchen/VSOO - awful
Got the Walter/NYPO, then loved #5...

got into 4, 7,8 pretty soon after,
then 9 [Barbirolli/BPO] didn't like it too much, then heard Walter/ColSO - got into it completely.

#6 was the last for me - hard to find good recordings - the Solti/CSO from '70 sold me completely...

I guess I wouldn't recommend starting with 9, or 8....kind of like having your first Beethoven exposure be 4tet #14, or maybe 13, 15....the greatest stuff - but heavy going for new listeners - very intense.


----------



## arpeggio

*Zander Lectures*

There is one set of recordings that might help. Benjamin Zander has recorded all of the symphonies except the _Eighth_ on Telarc with the Philharmonia Orchestra. Each recording includes a separate disc where Zander discusses the symphony a la Bernstein. I have the _First and the Fifth_. Maybe listening to one of Zander's lecture might help. The ones that have received the best reviews are the recordings of the _First and the Second_.

I hope one of these helps.


----------



## Omicron9

I don't know if this will help, but for me, I hear Mahler as kind of the last composer working within the diatonic system. Even then, he stretched it as far as it could go without crossing the line into atonality, which is* not* a bad word. I hear him pulling and stretching keys and diatonicism practically to the breaking point.

As such, one might say that he had devised his own harmonic language. Perhaps Mahler is an acquired taste. It sounds like you're giving him a good shot, instead of simply hearing a single piece one time and deciding it's not for you. Maybe you won't ever like Mahler. That's OK; not everyone is going to like all composers. A suggestion: next time you do listen to Mahler (recommendations: 2 and 9), think of him as the bridge between the musics of the 19th and 20th centuries. The argument could be made that he had one foot in each camp, as it were. I think it shows in his unique work.

-09


----------



## SixFootScowl

Omicron9 said:


> I don't know if this will help, but for me, I hear Mahler as kind of the last composer working within the diatonic system. Even then, he stretched it as far as it could go without crossing the line into atonality, which is* not* a bad word. I hear him pulling and stretching keys and diatonicism practically to the breaking point.
> 
> As such, one might say that he had devised his own harmonic language. Perhaps Mahler is an acquired taste. It sounds like you're giving him a good shot, instead of simply hearing a single piece one time and deciding it's not for you. Maybe you won't ever like Mahler. That's OK; not everyone is going to like all composers. A suggestion: next time you do listen to Mahler (recommendations: 2 and 9), think of him as the bridge between the musics of the 19th and 20th centuries. The argument could be made that he had one foot in each camp, as it were. I think it shows in his unique work.
> 
> -09


Fascinating analysis. Maybe that is what makes Mahler unique. For there does not seem to be anyone quite like him.

And on that bridge thought, so Beethoven also was a sort of bridge. Both men were cutting edge, enough of a renegade to take music and (as the Star Trek opening statement said) "go where no man has gone before."

What puzzles me is (IIRC) I read that he conducted many operas, yet never wrote an opera.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I'd be interested to know whether the kind of advice in Omicron's post above (also given in other posts in this thread) to think of particular works, or a particular composer's overall output, in a certain way would persuade other posters to like the music in question. I understand what motivates it, and it's a valuable approach musicologically, but it wouldn't get me actually liking music (whether Mahler's or anybody else's) that I didn't like already. For me, while of course the intellect has its rightful place in musical appreciation, my emotional response to any music is an entirely distinct matter and the two really don't overlap.


----------



## Omicron9

Animal the Drummer said:


> I'd be interested to know whether the kind of advice in Omicron's post above (also given in other posts in this thread) to think of particular works, or a particular composer's overall output, in a certain way would persuade other posters to like the music in question. I understand what motivates it, and it's a valuable approach musicologically, but it wouldn't get me actually liking music (whether Mahler's or anybody else's) that I didn't like already. For me, while of course the intellect has its rightful place in musical appreciation, my emotional response to any music is an entirely distinct matter and the two really don't overlap.


My opinion wasn't intended to sway anyone's like or dislike of Mahler. It was just a suggestion for perhaps a better understanding of how one person hears Mahler's works. Understanding, whether you like a composer (or piece), is never a bad thing; regardless of liking or not liking the piece/composer in question.

That's all. Just a thought toward a possible better understanding.

-09


----------



## Woodduck

Omicron9 said:


> I don't know if this will help, but for me, I hear Mahler as kind of the last composer working within the diatonic system. Even then, he stretched it as far as it could go without crossing the line into atonality, which is* not* a bad word. I hear him pulling and stretching keys and diatonicism practically to the breaking point.
> 
> As such, one might say that he had devised his own harmonic language. Perhaps Mahler is an acquired taste. It sounds like you're giving him a good shot, instead of simply hearing a single piece one time and deciding it's not for you. Maybe you won't ever like Mahler. That's OK; not everyone is going to like all composers. A suggestion: next time you do listen to Mahler (recommendations: 2 and 9), think of him as the bridge between the musics of the 19th and 20th centuries. The argument could be made that he had one foot in each camp, as it were. I think it shows in his unique work.
> 
> -09


As a harmonist, Mahler has his tonally precipitous moments, but they really aren't that frequent. I can't think of anything in Mahler to equal the sustained chromatic density and tonal instability Wagner achieved decades earlier in _Tristan_ and _Parsifal._ Mahler is much more diatonic than late Wagner, and far from inventing a unique harmonic language.


----------



## Judith

Mahler is one of my challenging composers. Will take a few listens to get to know him!

Just bought his symphony cycle performed by

CBSO conducted by Simon Rattle!


----------



## hpowders

If you have seen the movie "Death in Venice" and weren't moved by the frequently played Adagietto from Mahler 5, then Mahler is simply not the composer for you.


----------



## ibrahim

Mahler is certainly an acquired taste. I would not recommend him to anyone who already didn't have a certain level of experience with classical music. Firstly, some respectable critics (one of who is cited by the wiki entry on Mahler) acknowledge that his symphonies could be bloated. I'm sorry to say Mahler didn't always have the talent to express a sentiment or music idea succinctly. Nonetheless, his symphonic output are admirable _structures_ that anyone who dreams of composing probably envies. His music makes the orchestra shine. I saw a performance of the Resurrection symphony in Maryland in 2012 or 2013 and I was giddy with excitement for two weeks afterwards -- so intense was the experience.

I'm familiar with his symphonies 1 through 5, have never really made any progress on 7 and 8 (as in I don't think I ever managed to listen to a complete performance) and only the other night heard his 9th for the first time and I enjoyed it and is a work I'd like to get to know a lot better.

I should say, my FIRST experience with Mahler was his 5th symphony, and I did not like it at all when I first heard it. _I just wasn't sophisticated enough about music to appreciate it._ I mean at the time the core of my classical music appreciation was the 1st Viennese school, so it *can* be a bit jarring to go from that to Mahler.


----------



## hpowders

ibrahim said:


> *Mahler is certainly an acquired taste*. I would not recommend him to anyone who already didn't have a certain level of experience with classical music. Firstly, some respectable critics (one of whom is cited by the wiki entry on Mahler himself) acknowledge that his symphonies could be bloated. I'm sorry to say Mahler didn't always have the talent to express a sentiment or music idea succinctly. Nonetheless, his symphonic output are admirable _structures_ that anyone who dreams of composing probably envies. His music makes the orchestra shine. I saw a performance of the Resurrection symphony in Maryland in 2012 or 2013 and I was giddy with excitement for two weeks afterwards -- so intense was the experience.
> 
> I'm familiar with his symphonies 1 through 5, have never really made any progress on 7 and 8 (as in I don't think I ever managed to listen to a complete performance) and only the other night heard his 9th for the first time and I enjoyed it and is a work I'd like to get to know a lot better.
> 
> I should say, my FIRST experience with Mahler was his 5th symphony, and I did not like it at all when I first heard it. _I just wasn't sophisticated enough about music to appreciate it._ I mean at the time the core of my classical music appreciation was the 1st Viennese school, so it *can* be a bit jarring to go from that to Mahler.


For you he may be an acquired taste, but not for me. I fell in love with his music at first hearing, after listening to the first movement of Symphony No. 4, years ago. I like all his symphonies, especially 5, 8 and 9.

He is one of the few composers who really "speaks" to me and "gets" me. Brahms is another.

There are plenty of folks on TC who like Mahler and who don't like Mahler.

My problem is with your word "certainly" as in "Mahler is certainly an acquired taste."

That is certainly presumptuous on your part.


----------



## ibrahim

Certainly that's fine too! We're all different!


----------



## hpowders

ibrahim said:


> Certainly that's fine too! We're all different!


Maybe one day, you will like Mahler. It can happen.


----------



## ibrahim

I already do like him. I adore the symphonies 1 to 5. I saw 2nd and 3rd live in performance. Only heard the 9th for the first time a few days ago, so it's a work I haven't quite "digested" yet so to speak, intellectually. But repeat listenings should do the trick.


----------



## hpowders

ibrahim said:


> I already do like him. I adore the symphonies 1 to 5. I saw 2nd and 3rd live in performance. Only heard the 9th for the first time a few days ago, so it's a work I haven't quite "digested" yet so to speak, intellectually. But repeat listenings should do the trick.


Oh. Okay. Didn't realize that.


----------



## JAS

arpeggio said:


> There is one set of recordings that might help. Benjamin Zander has recorded all of the symphonies except the _Eighth_ on Telarc with the Philharmonia Orchestra. Each recording includes a separate disc where Zander discusses the symphony a la Bernstein. I have the _First and the Fifth_. Maybe listening to one of Zander's lecture might help. The ones that have received the best reviews are the recordings of the _First and the Second_.


Two small notes. I think the 7th is also still missing, and the 2nd is on the LINN label since Telarc went under after Eric Kunzel died. Here is a link for the other recordings, including one Bruckner and a Beethoven: http://www.benjaminzander.com/recordings/philharmonia

In general, I have found his discussions to be more interesting than the performances, which are by no means bad but don't quite live up to the competition. It may be that they are a bit on the "safe" side, going for accuracy rather than interpretive gusto.


----------



## Pugg

ibrahim said:


> I already do like him. I adore the symphonies 1 to 5. I saw 2nd and 3rd live in performance. Only heard the 9th for the first time a few days ago, so it's a work I haven't quite "digested" yet so to speak, intellectually. But repeat listenings should do the trick.


Take your time, it's your choice.


----------



## Phil loves classical

On Mahler, I think David Erwen put it best:

Like Bruckner, Mahler has been a provocative and controversial figure in music. There are those who feel Mahler's symphonies represent the apotheosis of that form, that his was a prophetic voice in music- that in short, he was one of music's great masters... Others, however, condemn Mahler for his garrulousness, his habit of using a paragraph to do the work of a sentence, his tendency to yield to hysteria, bombast, pompousness. The truth lies somewhere midway between those poles of critical opinion.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Also this from Phil Goulding:

Some of the experts used to say it was difficult, after hearing a Bruckner or Mahler symphony, to decide whether it was good stuff in spite of some bad moments or bad stuff in spite of some good moments. :lol:


----------



## Heck148

ibrahim said:


> I already do like him. I adore the symphonies 1 to 5. I saw 2nd and 3rd live in performance. Only heard the 9th for the first time a few days ago, so it's a work I haven't quite "digested" yet so to speak, intellectually. But repeat listenings should do the trick.


Mahler 9 is one of the greatest of ALL musical creations....a multi-course musical meal that will stimulate plenty of digestion....


----------



## Dan Ante

I have the BPO with Karajan performing the 9th I must admit I have yet to get to the point of actually liking it, this is after about 25 years or so.


----------



## Heck148

Dan Ante said:


> I have the BPO with Karajan performing the 9th I must admit I have yet to get to the point of actually liking it, this is after about 25 years or so.


Try Walter/ColSO or Giulini/CSO....They really get into it


----------



## arpeggio

JAS said:


> Two small notes. I think the 7th is also still missing, and the 2nd is on the LINN label since Telarc went under after Eric Kunzel died. Here is a link for the other recordings, including one Bruckner and a Beethoven: http://www.benjaminzander.com/recordings/philharmonia
> 
> In general, I have found his discussions to be more interesting than the performances, which are by no means bad but don't quite live up to the competition. It may be that they are a bit on the "safe" side, going for accuracy rather than interpretive gusto.


Clarification: I was not recommending these recordings because they are great performances. I have no idea which or these recordings and performances are great. Even though Mahler he is my favorite composer I apologize to those who think I was making myself out be some sort of authority on Mahler. I am not. I was recommending them because of the lectures which I thought might be helpful to the OP.

I have no idea which of Zander's recordings are still in print. One can still purchase the recordings of the _First, Third, Fourth and the Fifth_ through Arkive Music. Some of the others are available through Amazon. I apologize if members believe I should have made a detailed statement concerning the availability of the recordings in my original post.

I apologize to the members for any flaws or inaccuracies in my post.


----------



## AfterHours

Phil loves classical said:


> On Mahler, I think David Erwen put it best:
> 
> Like Bruckner, Mahler has been a provocative and controversial figure in music. There are those who feel Mahler's symphonies represent the apotheosis of that form, that his was a prophetic voice in music- that in short, he was one of music's great masters... Others, however, condemn Mahler for his garrulousness, his habit of using a paragraph to do the work of a sentence, his tendency to yield to hysteria, bombast, pompousness. The truth lies somewhere midway between those poles of critical opinion.


Good quote. I find music/art compelling and worthwhile largely proportional to the degree it is expressed creatively (generally, the more creative the better), and to the degree it is expressed with extraordinary emotional and conceptual conviction. There are plenty of bloated works that don't sustain such, that meander or overstate their ideas. I think Mahler, his 9th above all others, was an exception, rendering the breadth of content extraordinary as opposed to unnecessary, because it was expressed with such convictions and boundless creativity. Despite being such a massive conception, everything counts, there is not a moment wasted.


----------



## JAS

arpeggio said:


> Clarification: I was not recommending these recordings because they are great performances. I have no idea which or these recordings and performances are great. Even though Mahler he is my favorite composer I apologize to those who think I was making myself out be some sort of authority on Mahler. I am not. I was recommending them because of the lectures which I thought might be helpful to the OP.
> 
> I have no idea which of Zander's recordings are still in print. One can still purchase the recordings of the _First, Third, Fourth and the Fifth_ through Arkive Music. Some of the others are available through Amazon. I apologize if members believe I should have made a detailed statement concerning the availability of the recordings in my original post.
> 
> I apologize to the members for any flaws or inaccuracies in my post.


Please don't perceive an attack where none is intended. (Certainly no apologies are needed.) I think Zander's discussions are indeed interesting. I was merely providing more information. And I think all of the recordings are pretty readily available, especially if one is not picky about condition.


----------



## jdec

Phil loves classical said:


> On Mahler, I think *David Erwen* put it best...
> 
> Also this from *Phil Goulding*...


Sorry but, who are those 2 guys? are they important/respected enough personalities in the Classical Music spheres?


----------



## Phil loves classical

jdec said:


> Sorry but, who are those 2 guys? are they important/respected enough personalities in the Classical Music spheres?


Typo, it's David Ewen. He's a musicologist, author, and historian. Phil Goulding is an author and researcher, but a self-acclaimed nonexpert in music, and his statement came from his research on experts.


----------



## Charlie Ladd

Well, like a lot of people have already said, you have to listen to the whole thing! Can you appreciate a great novel just by flipping through and reading a few random sections? Of course not! Can you appreciate a great movie just from watching a few short clips of it? Of course not!

Here's what I do when I'm trying to wrap my head around a piece: I turn it on, let it play, and go on doing whatever I'm doing while the music goes on in the background. You don't need to sit there and maintain rapt attention the whole time. Just let it play so that you can hear it, and feel free to focus on or think about whatever. It is absolutely critical is that you finish the whole thing though. Nothing else, just make sure you get through the whole thing. Do this a few times and you'll find that you've unconsciously started to pick things up. After that, hopefully you'll reach a critical point where it starts to make sense to you, then the floodgates will open and you can find yourself truly enjoying the music. I have found that this method helped me to understand several great composers whom I previously struggled with, including Mahler, who is now in my top 5.

If it still doesn't work after several good listenings, you basically have two options: give up and accept that you can't wrap your head around it (which is perfectly fine, we all have music we don't care for), or become obsessed and do very heavy research and internal soul-searching until you find it. The latter option is quite difficult indeed, but in my opinion greatly rewarding--it's how I got into classical music in the first place.


----------



## Dan Ante

Heck148 said:


> Try Walter/ColSO or Giulini/CSO....They really get into it


I will keep an eye out for them, are they really all that different?


----------



## ibrahim

Charlie Ladd said:


> Well, like a lot of people have already said, you have to listen to the whole thing! Can you appreciate a great novel just by flipping through and reading a few random sections? Of course not! Can you appreciate a great movie just from watching a few short clips of it? Of course not!
> 
> Here's what I do when I'm trying to wrap my head around a piece: I turn it on, let it play, and go on doing whatever I'm doing while the music goes on in the background. You don't need to sit there and maintain rapt attention the whole time. Just let it play so that you can hear it, and feel free to focus on or think about whatever. It is absolutely critical is that you finish the whole thing though. Nothing else, just make sure you get through the whole thing. Do this a few times and you'll find that you've unconsciously started to pick things up. After that, hopefully you'll reach a critical point where it starts to make sense to you, then the floodgates will open and you can find yourself truly enjoying the music. I have found that this method helped me to understand several great composers whom I previously struggled with, including Mahler, who is now in my top 5.
> 
> If it still doesn't work after several good listenings, you basically have two options: give up and accept that you can't wrap your head around it (which is perfectly fine, we all have music we don't care for), or become obsessed and do very heavy research and internal soul-searching until you find it. The latter option is quite difficult indeed, but in my opinion greatly rewarding--it's how I got into classical music in the first place.


That has been my go to method of getting acquainted with unfamiliar pieces for years -- however now I think I've familiar enough with the language of classical music in general that I find the music to be a _distraction_ if I'm not paying attention to it. Impossible for me to use classical music as "background music" when reading for example...too distracting...nature sounds are preferable for such purposes.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Those who don't get Mahler are not alone. Even Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer, who were both approved by Mahler himself, felt they didn't get some of his Symphonies and so did not perform them. Walter performed 1,2,4,5,9 and Klemperer performed 2,4,7,9. They both didn't get 3, 6 and 8.


----------



## hpowders

Phil loves classical said:


> Those who don't get Mahler are not alone. Even Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer, who were both approved by Mahler himself, felt they didn't get some of his Symphonies and so did not perform them. Walter performed 1,2,4,5,9 and Klemperer performed 2,4,7,9. They both didn't get 3, 6 and 8.


I find it very hard to believe that musicians of the caliber of Walter & Klemperer weren't able to "get" Mahler 3, 6 and 8, while I can.

I guess that's why I have the expert button and they don't.


----------



## hpowders

Mahler? His melodies are irresistable to me. I love the way he can be going full blast with the entire orchestra and then miraculously and so, so smoothly, he transitions into a moving chamber ensemble of two to four instruments with the most lilting Austrian melodies from a time, sadly, no longer in existance. Completely beguiling and original!


----------



## ww129

The first time I listened to Mahler's symphonies was about 5 years ago. One day, I got myself a nice LP box set conducted by Bernstein and went through 1 to 9 immediately when I gone home. The first impression that followed was I did not like them at all. So, the box set was put aside for about a year before I took it out and ran through it for the second time. This time, I felt like the symphonies were ok but I found myself disconnected from the music. So, I began surfing the internet and looking through books to learn more about Mahler and his music. A couple of months slipped by and I listened to the symphonies for the third time. Wow, for no reason at all, I suddenly began realizing the beauty of the symphonies. 

IMHO, Mahler's symphonies have substance and need to spend time as well as patient going through a learning curve before knowing how to admire the music. Of course, like all other music, Mahler's symphonies are not for everyone. If you don't like them, just leave them alone. There are plenty of music on earth that you can choose. To me, I am lucky to like Mahler's great music.


----------



## Larkenfield

Phil loves classical said:


> Those who don't get Mahler are not alone. Even Bruno Walter and Otto Klemperer, who were both approved by Mahler himself, felt they didn't get some of his Symphonies and so did not perform them. Walter performed 1,2,4,5,9 and Klemperer performed 2,4,7,9. They both didn't get 3, 6 and 8.


While this thread is about not "getting" Mahler, this is very true about Walter and Klemperer. While both conductors were friends of the composer, Walter not only didn't perform 6,7 and 8, but he may not have approved of them as well. I believe 6, for instance, was too dark or tragic for either of them to perform or, as already mentioned by others, they simply didn't understand it. What's fascinating about the 6th is that Mahler wrote it at a time when he was relatively happy, almost as if he had anticipated the personal losses that were to come involving the death of his daughter and his heart problems.

Why Walter and Klemperer never performed 8, though Leopold Stowkowski did in America, is anybody's guess. But I feel that it may have had something to do with Mahler converting to Christianity for political or social reasons, and Klemperer and Walter never did, that I know of. Eventually, Walter became deeply involved with the philosophical and esoteric teachings of Rudolph Steiner.

As much as I've greatly appreciated Walter's Mahler recordings as idiomatic, I took off a star of admiration because he never championed 6, 7 and 8 -- this after I repeatedly looked for the performance of them in the NYP program notes archives when Walter was conducting the same orchestra that Mahler did. Had Mahler not run out of time, perhaps the performances of the more challenging 6, 7, 8 would have eventually been forthcoming from Walter and Klemperer, something in the manner of a deeper appreciation or understanding.

For those new to Mahler, I believe the performances of any symphony can vary greatly and make a major difference in whether it holds the attention of the listener or not. I came to Mahler relatively late in life and the timing of one's exposure may also make a major difference in appreciating what I feel are great symphonic works and fantastic orchestrations. Mahler also understood the importance of stillness and silence and IMO was a melodic genius. If the melodic sweep of his symphonies doesn't capture the imagination of the listener, I doubt if anyone will ever "get" him.


----------



## Larkenfield

Heck148 said:


> Try Walter/ColSO or Giulini/CSO....They really get into it


Bravo. Walter's is just a tremendous performance, not only with regard to the Mahler symphonies but to the Romantic era itself. I found it wonderfully rich, satisfying, and rewarding. Excellent sound quality as well. 
ii
Least idiomatic and distorted performances of the 5th and 6th that I've ever heard we're by von Karajan, and I'd never recommend them to anybody who wants to "get" the composer. Obscenely loud and bombastic in places-overall like looking through the wrong end of a telescope. I tossed the disks out the window. His performance of the 9th was better but not of the same league as Walter and Giulini.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Larkenfield said:


> While this thread is about not "getting" Mahler, this is very true about Walter and Klemperer. While both conductors were friends of the composer, Walter not only didn't perform 6,7 and 8, but he may not have approved of them as well. I believe 6, for instance, was too dark or tragic for either of them to perform or, as already mentioned by others, they simply didn't understand it. What's fascinating about the 6th is that Mahler wrote it at a time when he was relatively happy, almost as if he had anticipated the personal losses that were to come involving the death of his daughter and his heart problems.
> 
> Why Walter and Klemperer never performed 8, though Leopold Stowkowski did in America, is anybody's guess. But I feel that it may have had something to do with Mahler converting to Christianity for political or social reasons, and Klemperer and Walter never did, that I know of. Eventually, Walter became deeply involved with the philosophical and esoteric teachings of Rudolph Steiner.
> 
> As much as I've greatly appreciated Walter's Mahler recordings as idiomatic, I took off a star of admiration because he never championed 6, 7 and 8 -- this after I repeatedly looked for the performance of them in the NYP program notes archives when Walter was conducting the same orchestra that Mahler did. Had Mahler not run out of time, perhaps the performances of the more challenging 6, 7, 8 would have eventually been forthcoming from Walter and Klemperer, something in the manner of a deeper appreciation or understanding.
> 
> For those new to Mahler, I believe the performances of any symphony can vary greatly and make a major difference in whether it holds the attention of the listener or not. I came to Mahler relatively late in life and the timing of one's exposure may also make a major difference in appreciating what I feel are great symphonic works and fantastic orchestrations. Mahler also understood the importance of stillness and silence and IMO was a melodic genius. If the melodic sweep of his symphonies doesn't capture the imagination of the listener, I doubt if anyone will ever "get" him.


Klemperer did record the 7th, which is my favourite version, and my favourite symphony of Mahler's. Actually Klemperer's versions of 2, 4, 7 and 9 are all my favourite versions. Guess I really connect with Klemperer's more measured approach


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I decided to give Mahler one last try after hearing a radio program going into some depth about the first symphony. I got to where I liked the first ok after several listens. Even though it has the silly children's song variation in it. 

I tackled the second next and it was the Kaplan recording that did it for me after trying out some others . The second is now one of my top 20 symphonies although I only like a select few recordings. I've probably listened to this symphony 10 times in the past few weeks.


----------



## Larkenfield

Phil loves classical said:


> Klemperer did record the 7th, which is my favourite version, and my favourite symphony of Mahler's. Actually Klemperer's versions of 2, 4, 7 and 9 are all my favourite versions. Guess I really connect with Klemperer's more measured approach


Yes, you're of course right that K did record of 7th. But not Walter. I should have been more clear that I was directing my comments primarily to Walter.


----------



## larold

I think the Mahler "hype" you describe is little more than the popularity his symphonies have achieved in the 21st century. His music was not considered that great in the middle 20th century. Then Leonard Bernstein and Maurice Abravanel recorded all the symphonies in USA and Vaclav Neumann recorded them all in Europe -- and hundreds followed.

Then, after 50 years of listening to recordings every orchestra everywhere in this century started scheduling his symphonies on subscription concerts. Where I live both the university symphony and regional professional symphony near me now schedule Mahler symphonies every year. 

I am with you about Mahler; in fact, I am probably beyond you. I think everything he wrote beyond his songs is too long, too obtuse, and too everything. Whenever I listen to anything by him other than songs I find it arrives at a natural end point -- and goes on for another 10 or 20 minutes. I find this true for even his classically-inclined symphony No. 1. Mahler famously said a symphony had to represent the world so he threw in the kitchen sink every time.

The Mahler idolatry we see today goes to show what can happen to a composer over time. 75 years ago Mahler wasn't considered one of the greatest. Today, his music is scheduled and played everywhere more than Bach's music. I don't think this means people suddenly unearthed something great in the 21st century that wasn't there earlier. I just think Mahler's symphonies became more and more and more popular over time and exposure to the point where everyone thought everyone else wanted to hear them all the time. 

Note that this isn't the case with Mahler's greatest curiosity, Das Lied von der Erde. If you live in Des Moines, Sacramento, Butte or Charleston, you probably will have a chance to hear Mahler symphonies in concert but I doubt those places will schedule the song of the earth. It's just too weird and requires too many components.


----------



## millionrainbows

Minor Sixthist said:


> I just now listened to eleven minutes of the ninth symphony, the one I had the most faith in because of what I've heard about it, I regret to say I cannot hum a single motif from those save the trumpet flourish from the fifth symphony, and that is 90% because I've been exposed to trumpet players in my ensembles long enough to hear that motif eagerly played many times.


When I listen to his Ninth, I'm listening to those weird root movements of thirds, in the slow movement. Very unusual. Motifs? I don't remember much except for that main one.

Beethoven doesn't have many melodies, either. A lot of it is just gestures, gestures of rhythm and of harmonic events.


----------



## millionrainbows

For ultimate sonics, it might help to get into it as pure sound. Bernstein's box (Carnegie Hall Presents, not the other one), and Zinman's SACDs sound fabulous.


----------



## Merl

Mahler r is often a 'marmite' composer for some and its not only casual listeners who think that. Such highly regarded conductors as Monteux and Toscanini thought little of Mahler's compositions. Toscanini said of the 5th symphony (after reading the score),

"Believe me, Mahler is not a genuine artist. His music has neither personality or genius. . . . At every step you fall, not into a commonplace, but into some triviality. . . . Add to this technical difficulty and exaggerated proportions." Monteux referred to Mahler's works as" overblown". I read many years ago that Walter never performed the 8th as he felt he could never do such a score justice but what he said privately was that he never cared for it. I must admit it took me a long time to appreciate Mahler" other symphonies (other than the First - which was immediate for me) however I soon succumbed to the 4th (those lovely sleigh bells got me) and then the 5th.if you shaved an hour off the 3rd I'd probably enjoy as it just sounds bloated to me but others love it. It's just different strokes for different folks. Karajan, for example, admitted that he never really enjoyed Mahler" early symphonies (especially the First) but found 'great emotional attachment'" to his later ones.


----------



## DaveM

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven doesn't have many melodies, either.


Of course he doesn't. And the Earth is flat.


----------



## Bradius

I absolutely adore Mahler! Big, meaty symphonies that just fill the world. For example, #3 is such an odessy, with a boy’s choir and a ethereal ending that builds to a climax. #1 has heights of sheer exuberance and sarcasm/pathos. I love all of Mahler’s works (well, not so crazy about Wunderhorn. It seems a bit silly), but the symphony is where he really shines. They are just powerful, overwhelming, enveloping forces of nature.


----------



## bz3

I get more enjoyment out of his songs these days than any of the symphonies other than the 9th and 10th. I wish he'd done an opera.


----------



## arnerich

I really like the 2nd movement of Mahler's third. It's like chamber music.


----------



## Heck148

arnerich said:


> I really like the 2nd movement of Mahler's third. It's like chamber music.


There are so many sections of Mahler's music that are chamber music. His use of the orchestra is superb....often there will only be 2 or 3 instruments playing, even tho there are 100 or so on stage....Sym #4 is filled with such passages, so is #9, and, believe it or not, parts of #8, esp in the 2nd section.


----------



## Tallisman

Try the second movement of the Resurrection. If your heart doesn't ascend into the heavens during the staccato string-plucking, then try the 4th a couple of times. Short and accessible. The 3rd is a desert to me, still.


----------



## Larkenfield

To appreciate anyone new there has to be some type of an initial breakthrough experience that grabs the listener, perhaps the random hearing of something by accident or serendipity where the mind’s defences are at least temporarily suspended. People generally think in terms of like and dislike, but actually there’s a third way: to suspend judgment without liking or disliking to get more familiar by having some sense of emotional detachment. An additional way is to try and hear the music from the composer’s point of view rather than your own, usually requiring some background on the work or composer. The score obviously sounds good to the composer or he or she wouldn’t have written it. So what what was written into the music that the composer thought worth hearing? For any of this to happen generally requires enough curiosity on the part of the listener to make it worthwhile. Otherwise why bother?—and it might be better to move on to someone else or come back to the composer later. I’ve never found anyone’s taste in music to be remain static for an entire lifetime, and sometimes the epiphany comes later in life.


----------



## bilahn

*Mahler*

This has been an interesting threat. Let me introduce myself as someone who was hooked from the very first bars of Mahler I have ever heard, and 35 years later, there is basically Mahler and everybody else!

So you may not have that innate affinity for Mahler, but I would suggest taking one movement, I suggest the 1st movt of #2 and really give a close listen and listen again. It is VERY helpful to listen with a score. Seeing the music at the same time makes you hear and understand and enjoy so much more.If after several close readings you are still a blank, try another movement, I suggest #9 1st movt, or for something shorter the opening song of Das Lied von der Erde, which I would call just about the most perfect 10 minutes of music ever written.

Realize also that while Mahler is most notorious for his orchestra tsunamis, (e.g.the climaxes in Movt 1 of #7 or#8 practically put me in cardiac arrest!)- it is really the delicacy and extreme originality of his orchestration, and the almost unearthly beauty of his music that really sticks with you. I dare anyone to listen to the closing of #3, Das Lied, or #10 without literally sobbing).

On the other hand, some of his symphonies have 1 or even 2 movts which are more subpar. For example, the 2nd movt of the 9th seems pretty trivial after the colossal first movement.

If you still don't like Mahler, maybe he is not for you.

There are several very popular composers I myself have nothing to do with. I think Tchaikovsky is cheap and cloying, Mozart prissy and predictable, and Wagner almost incomprehensibly boring, when not actually distasteful! I know his many fans are incredulous but that's how I feel! (there are a few Mozart and Tchaikovsky pieces I do like, but even one note of Wagner will make me head for the hills).

Sometimes coming back and trying again can really make a difference. I am also a big fan of Sibelius, but found his 4th Symphony to be as dry as dust. After not listening to it for 30 YEARS, I tried again and I was IMMEDIATELY thunderstruck. I now consider not only his greatest work, but one of the most amazing symphonies ever written.

I hope you come to love Mahler as much as I do - my life would not be the same without his music.


----------



## Tchaikov6

bilahn said:


> This has been an interesting threat. Let me introduce myself as someone who was hooked from the very first bars of Mahler I have ever heard, and 35 years later, there is basically Mahler and everybody else!
> 
> So you may not have that innate affinity for Mahler, but I would suggest taking one movement, I suggest the 1st movt of #2 and really give a close listen and listen again. It is VERY helpful to listen with a score. Seeing the music at the same time makes you hear and understand and enjoy so much more.If after several close readings you are still a blank, try another movement, I suggest #9 1st movt, or for something shorter the opening song of Das Lied von der Erde
> 
> If you still don't like Mahler, maybe he is not for you.
> 
> There are several very popular composers I myself have nothing to do with. *I think Tchaikovsky is cheap, Mozart prissy and predictable, and Wagner almost incomprehensibly boring, when not actually distasteful. *I know his many fans are incredulous but that's how I feel! (there are a few Mozart and Tchaikovsky pieces I do like, but even one note of Wagner will make me head for the hills).
> 
> Sometimes coming back and trying again can really make a difference. I am also a big fan of Sibelius, but found his 4th Symphony to be as dry as dust. After not listening to it for 30 YEARS, I tried again and I was IMMEDIATELY thunderstruck. I now consider not only his greatest work, but one of the most amazing symphonies ever written.
> 
> I hope you come to love Mahler as much as I do - my life would not be the same without his music.


Mozart prissy???






Tchaikovsky cheap?






Wagner... well, I love Wagner but I can see why people hate him... But not even some of the overtures, or maybe Siegfried Idyll?

But to each his own, I have a strong unfounded distaste for much of Chopin and Strauss's music.


----------



## Minor Sixthist

I cringed just a little when I saw my moldy old thread essentially shocked back to life a year and a half after I posted it, but no complaints. Seeing change is refreshing.

For what it's worth, Resurrection has become a work very close to my heart. The most touching brass moments haven't left my playlist for several months. I have a solid appreciation for many things Mahlerian now, for sure.

I saw the Fourth performed live over the summer by a major US orchestra. I found it really boring! Maybe it was the sleighbells in August that were off-putting, or the Mozart piano something-or-other programmed in the first half of the show — I believed the two pieces were too 'big' of works to program together. A smaller overture or something would've worked better to precede the Mahler. I watched the performance with my musical peers, and funnily enough the opinion was either one of absolute rapture for the Mahler or total distaste for it. Oh well, we have to let our major orchestras explore the lesser known symphonies once in a blue moon.

bilahn- I agree on Mozart, but Tchaik, cheap? Are you talking the Sixth? To take that as an example, I've never found it disingenuous. I know how you arrived at 'cloying,' but his emotion never came off overdone or contrived to me. I actually find the 4th movement really heartbreaking. I had the pleasure of watching the same major orchestra mentioned above perform Tchaik 6, one of the last things in their series, and the last several bars, around the brass choir, was the first time I've ever cried in an audience. I've mentioned before that at one point on the forums, I hear with absolute certainty the perfectly orchestrated sound of weeping at one specific point in that movement, that wrenching major 'B' section - and I am not one to easily contrive such solid things from abstract music, but it's just so clearly the sound of heaving sobs to me. Call me a romantic - if PT's target audience was romantic, impressionable youths, there's something to be said for target audience.


----------



## bilahn

Oh Dear - the Third is my favorite of all them!


----------



## Minor Sixthist

bilahn said:


> Oh Dear - the Third is my favorite of all them!


Was this referring to my post? I hope you didn't think I meant 3 when I discussed 4. I haven't tried 3 out yet. I plan to now.


----------



## Woodduck

bilahn said:


> I dare anyone to listen to the closing of #3, Das Lied, or #10 without literally sobbing.


I don't even sob figuratively.


----------



## Becca

The difficulty with the 4th symphony is that it is often perceived as the 'little brother' to the 3rd. When a conductor treats it as the shortest, lightest and least troubled of the Mahler symphonies, an interlude between the 3rd and 5th, they have lost the thread before they have even started. Don't be misled by the apparently bucolic last movement, there are dark undercurrents, just as with the rest of the symphony. The solo violin in the second movement which is tuned a whole tone higher than the rest of the orchestra is 'death playing the fiddle.' Then there is the 3rd movement which is every bit as complex and emotional as the last movement of the 3rd.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I am currently on a crash course (where I have actually crashed several times) of Mahler's music, guided by Becca. It's not easy, but I'm slowly making progress. If I can get 5 extra years added to my life I might even complete the course.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Becca said:


> The difficulty with the 4th symphony is that it is often perceived as the 'little brother' to the 3rd. When a conductor treats it as the shortest, lightest and least troubled of the Mahler symphonies, an interlude between the 3rd and 5th, they have lost the thread before they have even started. Don't be misled by the apparently bucolic last movement, there are dark undercurrents, just as with the rest of the symphony. The solo violin in the second movement which is tuned a whole tone higher than the rest of the orchestra is 'death playing the fiddle.' Then there is the 3rd movement which is every bit as complex and emotional as the last movement of the 3rd.


Yeah I totally agree. There is so much more to the fourth than a light cheery innocent piece.


----------



## Dimace

Tchaikov6 said:


> Mozart prissy???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tchaikovsky cheap?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wagner... well, I love Wagner but I can see why people hate him... But not even some of the overtures, or maybe Siegfried Idyll?
> 
> But to each his own, I have a strong unfounded distaste for much of Chopin and Strauss's music.


He has written well for Mahler, our new friend. Very well indeed.

After he wrote these comments for the three composers, which for me at least and with a lot of respect for our new member, are unthinkable. I understand the I DONT LIKE someone or something. It is natural. I don't like some dishes. I don't like the green color, etc. But to say that Piotr is cheap is something that surpasses my fantasy.

I feel, that our friend has indented to say that he doesn't listen the Mozart or he does not understand the Wagner. I also don't listen the Mozart. But I have almost everything he has composed and for me, with Ludwig, are the composers they have reinvented the human musical history. I also don't listen (and not I don't like or it is boring...) the Meistersingers. This is MY problem. I don't know enough music, I'm not so musically trained to follow such a massive work. What, our good friend, has done with Mahler, is the solution to such problems:* Train yourself to accept the greatness of these masters. *


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> The difficulty with the 4th symphony is that it is often perceived as the 'little brother' to the 3rd. When a conductor treats it as the shortest, lightest and least troubled of the Mahler symphonies, an interlude between the 3rd and 5th, they have lost the thread before they have even started. Don't be misled by the apparently bucolic last movement, there are dark undercurrents, just as with the rest of the symphony. The solo violin in the second movement which is tuned a whole tone higher than the rest of the orchestra is 'death playing the fiddle.' Then there is the 3rd movement which is every bit as complex and emotional as the last movement of the 3rd.


When I first heard Mahler's 4th as a teenager I found it strange, even disturbing, even though I was already quite comfortable with Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_ and Wagner's _Tristan._ Alma Mahler told her husband, "In this sort of thing I prefer Haydn." Was she ever off the mark!


----------



## Xisten267

bilahn said:


> This has been an interesting threat. Let me introduce myself as someone who was hooked from the very first bars of Mahler I have ever heard, and 35 years later, there is basically Mahler and everybody else!


Could you please tell me which is your favorite performance for each Mahler symphony (including Das Lied von Der Erde)? I've been listening to his symphonies in a single performance for a while and plan to try others soon. I'm strongly considering buying the Bernstein set after the discussions about Mahler's symphony performances at the thread Mahler Symphonies.

In time: I think that it's really disturbing the fact that you bash great composers just because you dislike them, but since you say that you love Mahler that much, I'm curious about your performance preferences.


----------



## Dimace

Allerius said:


> Could you please tell me which is your favorite performance for each Mahler symphony (including Das Lied von Der Erde)? I've been listening to his symphonies in a single performance for a while and plan to try others soon. I'm strongly* considering buying the Bernstein set *after the discussions about Mahler's symphony performances at the thread Mahler Symphonies.
> 
> In time: I think that it's really disturbing the fact that you bash great composers just because you dislike them, but since you say that you love Mahler that much, I'm curious about your performance preferences.


Do it! I have EVERYTHING from Lennie (the whole Royal Edition, in which there are also the Mahler's symphonies) and I can assure you that you will be very happy with them.


----------



## janxharris

Minor Sixthist said:


> and how they're so distinct from one another


Really?





 Sympnony No. 2, 3rd movement




 Sympnony No. 1, 2nd movement


----------



## DavidA

Well worth a watch


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Allerius said:


> Could you please tell me which is your favorite performance for each Mahler symphony (including Das Lied von Der Erde)? I've been listening to his symphonies in a single performance for a while and plan to try others soon. I'm strongly considering buying the Bernstein set after the discussions about Mahler's symphony performances at the thread Mahler Symphonies.
> 
> In time: I think that it's really disturbing the fact that you bash great composers just because you dislike them, but since you say that you love Mahler that much, I'm curious about your performance preferences.


Lenny is great, but his is not the only view of Mahler. My favorite hands down is Barbirolli. He just understood the passion of Mahler in such a visceral way.

If I were to recommend a handful of recordings for each work, in general order, it would be:

1 - Barbirolli, Kubelik, Bernstein (DG)
2 - Klemperer, Mehta, Rattle
3 - Horenstein, Barbirolli, Bernstein (Sony)
4 - Barbirolli, Horenstein, Szell
5 - Barbirolli, Shipway, Schwarz, Bernstein (DG)
6 - Barbirolli, Bernstein (DG), Karajan (DG)
7 - Klemperer, Abbado, Bernstein (DG)
8 - Horenstein, Bernstein (DG), Solti
9 - Barbirolli, Karajan (2nd recording, 1982), Klemperer
DLVDE - Ferrier/Walter, Hodgson/Horenstein, Baker/Kubelik, Ludwig/Klemperer


----------



## larold

_Sometimes coming back and trying again can really make a difference. I am also a big fan of Sibelius, but found his 4th Symphony to be as dry as dust. After not listening to it for 30 YEARS, I tried again and I was IMMEDIATELY thunderstruck. I now consider not only his greatest work, but one of the most amazing symphonies ever written. _

I think this comment, more than any other in this thread, describes the current Mahler fixation. Sixty years ago Mahler wasn't considered a great composer and almost no one performed his symphonies. Thirty years ago people were listening to Mahler and people were recording him but he wasn't played much in concerts around the world. Now he's more popular than Bach and as popular as Beethoven on concert schedules.

I don't listen to Mahler much anymore but, when I did (or still do), these are the recordings I prefer:

*Symphonies*
*1* Abravanel, Utah Symphony Orchestra
*2 *same as above
*3* Barbirolli
*4* Don't like it, don't listen even though it's light and airy compared to most others
*5* Levine Philadelphia Orchestra also like Neumann Gewandhaus Orchestra
*6* Mackerras on a BBC magazine recording
*7* Neumann Gewandhaus Orchestra also like Noseda BBC Philharmonic
*8* Don't listen don't like
*9* Don't listen once liked Karel Ancerl Czech Philharmonic
*10* don't listen, hard for me to think of it as Mahler since everyone else completed it
*-- *Das Lied von der Erde don't listen

Songs
*Kindertotenlieder* Kirsten Flagstad & Boult
*Wayfarer* songs Alfred Poell & Furtwangler
*Wunderhorn* Maureen Forrester, Heinz Rehfuss, Felix Prohaska also like Poell & Felbermeyer


----------



## Hydrarchos

Art Rock said:


> Mahler is my 2nd favourite composer after Bach, but if you don't enjoy him, so be it. Nobody enjoys everything. No need to use words like "hype" or "overrated" though - tastes differ.


To be fair, "overrrated" doesn't refer to intrinsical musical value, just to reception. And yes, I think Mahler is overrated, in the sense of: over-represented in the orchestral repertoire relative to equally worthy peers. Just as Volkmar Andreae is underrated.


----------



## Larkenfield

Hydrarchos said:


> To be fair, "overrated" doesn't refer to intrinsical musical value, just to reception. And yes, I think Mahler is overrated, in the sense of: over-represented in the orchestral repertoire relative to equally worthy peers. Just as Volkmar Andreae is underrated.


Andreae is excellent!






So is Mahler.


----------



## Dan Ante

Larkenfield said:


> Andreae is excellent!
> 
> So is Mahler.


Volkmar Andreae... absolutly fantastic first time I have heard this, but Mahler well............ so so for me.


----------



## Enthusiast

Mahler? He may be the most challenging composer I know. To recognise the challenge means recognising the greatness. And to recognise how big the challenge has been means recognising how very great the music is. If it weren't so great the challenge would be too great to bother with. Was Mahler perhaps one of the very greatest composers? I wouldn't have even asked this a year ago. But I do now. 

I have loved Mahler's music since I was a teenager but have often felt that I was done with him, that he is over the top and overwrought, only to find myself returning and finding a deeper and more satisfying experience than previously. 

And then there have been the "problem works" - for me the 3rd, 7th and 8th - that I have spent so many times convinced that I had correctly understood the weakness and flaws in them only to find there are no real flaws at all. And then I tell myself that they just needed particularly good performances only to find that many performances of them work pretty well, too. 

Well, I'm not there yet with the 8th, but I'm sure I will one day be. And I don't find myself that interested in the 10th - the adagio sounds so much greater than the reconstituted parts in just the same way the the genuine Mozart part of "Mozart's Requiem" sound so much more wonderful than the part that was completed by Sussmayr - both represent for me complete works that we will never know.


----------



## Becca

As much as Bernstein did to promote Mahler's symphonies, I have always felt that his passionate enthusiasms were a double-edge sword. Passions are mostly a good thing but can become a problem when pushed too far. Perhaps Bernstein could get away with it (sometimes) but he left a legacy which some others try to follow and can't always manage.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ Oh yes, there has been a feeling that Mahler _must _be excessively emotional and Lennie's success may have fed that. For me the essential ingredient is character: there is no space for blandness or "business as usual" in Mahler.


----------



## Becca

_""Nothing great is achieved without passion, but underneath the passion there should always be that large impersonal survey which sets limits to actions that our passions inspire."_ - Bertrand Russell


----------



## DavidA

Hydrarchos said:


> To be fair, "overrrated" doesn't refer to intrinsical musical value, just to reception. And yes, I think Mahler is overrated, in the sense of: over-represented in the orchestral repertoire relative to equally worthy peers. Just as Volkmar Andreae is underrated.


Mahler was comparatively neglected until Bernstein's crusade which awakened interest. Like anything, the pendulum swung. I'm getting more into Mahler and I can see the value.


----------



## eugeneonagain

He's still a bit of a musical windbag.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> He's still a bit of a musical windbag.


Clearly, no one can say that about you.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Clearly, no one can say that about you.


I _am_ a windbag, but an unmusical one. Rejoice though, because it means I am not motived to write 9 hour symphonies.


----------



## Larkenfield

A few quotes on Mahler by his colleague and friend Bruno Walter:

_"His (Mahler's) works show him to be a creative musician of genuine originality, whose inspirations came from his deep humanity, from his love for nature and from his spiritual inner life."

"These pages (liner notes) do not afford the opportunity to describe Gustav Mahler's complex and powerful personality. Suffice it to say that he was a great human soul whose vision, longings and emotions reached to the very boundaries of man's limitations."

"But whatever the ecstasy of his feelings and the impact of actual events had done to arouse Mahler's musical imagination, the final product of his creative self-expression was 'absolute' music in symphonic form."

Walter was to have an "apprentice" type of relationship with Mahler from the time he (Walter) was 17 years old (1894) till Mahler's death in 1911. Walter said that Mahler would play the piano renditions of all of his symphonic scores to him. Walter went on to write a book about Mahler in 1936, 25 years after Mahler's death._


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> I _am_ a windbag, but an unmusical one. Rejoice though, because it means I am not motived to write 9 hour symphonies.


Cause for rejoicing indeed. In the famous argument between Mahler and Sibelius, I put my money on the latter.


----------



## KenOC

eugeneonagain said:


> He's still a bit of a musical windbag.


Reminds me of some ancient liner notes I once read on Bruckner. The writer carefully differentiated between "long-winded" and "long-breathed," with an obvious intent. I wasn't totally convinced then, just like I'm not totally convinced (then or now) that Beethoven wasn't "tone-painting" in his Pastoral, when it's quite obvious, despite his own denials, that he was. :lol:


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> Cause for rejoicing indeed. In the famous argument between Mahler and Sibelius, I put my money on the latter.


If the judges for that bet were those 151 conductors that participated on this survey, you most likely would lose some money:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler


----------



## eugeneonagain

It'd probably be worth it just to express the unpopular opinion. I have a loose change jar for these occasions.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> If the judges for that bet were those 151 conductors that participated on this survey, you most likely would lose some money:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler


Ha. I'd make off with the cash while they were all stuck with their noses in the score, struggling not to get lost amid the interminable rantings of Pater Ecstaticus, Pater Profundus, and Doktor Marianus.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Reminds me of some ancient liner notes I once read on Bruckner. The writer carefully differentiated between "long-winded" and "long-breathed," with an obvious intent. I wasn't totally convinced then, just like I'm not totally convinced (then or now) that Beethoven wasn't "tone-painting" in his Pastoral, when it's quite obvious, despite his own denials, that he was. :lol:


All he said was "more the expression of feeling than painting." That sounds right to me.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> All he said was "more the expression of feeling than painting." That sounds right to me.


Well, of course you may be right, except for the babbling brook, the birds (their names even written in the manuscript), the old peasant and his bassoon who can only play two notes, the rough mountain folk joining in the dancing, the patter of rain drops as everybody scurries for cover, the thunder, the lightning, the howling as the wind whips the trees… Richard Strauss, look out!


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Well, of course you may be right, except for the babbling brook, the birds (their names even written in the manuscript), the old peasant and his bassoon who can only play two notes, the rough mountain folk joining in the dancing, the patter of rain drops as everybody scurries for cover, the thunder, the lightning, the howling as the wind whips the trees… Richard Strauss, look out!


That's why Beethoven is greater than Strauss. His tone-painting actually says something.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> That's why Beethoven is greater than Strauss. His tone-painting actually says something.


Well, well, Beethoven was no doubt the greater composer of the two, but not for that reason. Strauss's "tone-painting" definitely says something too, but I understand not everybody has the necessary artistic sensitivity for it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

What does his 'tone painting' say?


----------



## jdec

eugeneonagain said:


> What does his 'tone painting' say?


Beethoven's or Strauss'? in any case the answer is right there in the music!


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Well, well, Beethoven was no doubt the greater composer of the two, but not for that reason. Strauss's "tone-painting" definitely says something too, but I understand not everybody has the necessary artistic sensitivity for it.


It's one reason among several. What Strauss's tone-painting says is, for the most part, "Listen to what I can portray in sound: just about everything." Even after the "Pastoral," it would never have occurred to Beethoven to brag about his skills in that department, as it wouldn't have occurred to Strauss to say "more an expression of feeling than painting." Beethoven had little precedent for creating such evocative imagery in sound, or for his ability to make it part of the basic formal structure of the music and transcend completely any suspicion of showmanship. Strauss had the whole Romantic movement behind him, including Wagner, whose tone-painting was second to none and always directed, like Beethoven's, at enhancing a greater idea. How great Strauss's great ideas were is debatable; I find much of his orchestral music to be technicolor bling, incredibly skillful and often sensuously beautiful but fundamentally vulgar, and I think he was at his best when he just got down to writing music, which would include his songs, his concertos, and some of his operas.

But I understand that some people enjoy vulgarity and kitsch.


----------



## Woodduck

eugeneonagain said:


> What does his 'tone painting' say?


Beethoven's pantheistic (if I may call it that) love of nature is in every bar of the "Pastoral," and the touches of onomatopoeia are all directed at the goal of conveying that message and completely subsumed by the mood of sweet pleasure and gratitude. There isn't a whiff off show-offishness.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> But I understand that some people enjoy vulgarity and kitsch.


Let's hope they can finally learn to appreciate great composers like Mahler and Strauss someday.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Beethoven's pantheistic (if I may call it that) love of nature is in every bar of the "Pastoral," and the touches of onomatopoeia are all directed at the goal of conveying that message and completely subsumed by the mood of sweet pleasure and gratitude. There isn't a whiff off show-offishness.


I'll have to agree with that. I always hear the _Pastoral _with delight, but then _Eine Alpensinfonie_ comes on I have to struggle to pay attention, no matter how well Strauss describes things. My mind wanders, usually at about the point where Richard's trail passes that low granite cliff, you know the one, with the diagonal quartz seams and the marmot poop at the base…


----------



## Becca

"_I may not be a first-rate composer, but I am a first-class second-rate composer._" - Richard Strauss


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Let's hope they can finally learn to appreciate great composers like Mahler and Strauss someday.


They already do. That's how they know Beethoven is greater.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> They already do. That's how they know Beethoven is greater.


Funny, it would seem you imply people like Furtwangler, a conductor I know you admire, "enjoys vulgarity and kitsch". In other thread you wrote: "_Furtwangler was preeminently a musician devoted to honoring the truth that music can mean something._". He used to conduct R. Strauss' a lot. 

And come on, we know Beethoven is greater than almost everybody (save for Mozart or Bach for many).


----------



## Becca

jdec said:


> Let's hope they can finally learn to appreciate great composers like Mahler and Strauss someday.


I have no doubt about Mahler and feel that both Strausses, Johan I & II, are up there also.


----------



## jdec

Becca said:


> I have no doubt about Mahler and feel that both Strausses, Johan I & II, are up there also.


Woodduck has his doubts about both Mahler and R. Strauss. You have no doubt about Mahler but you do about R. Strauss. I have no doubt about any of them (including the Austrian Strausses).

Everybody happy.


----------



## Becca

jdec said:


> Woodduck has his doubts about both Mahler and R. Strauss. You have no doubt about Mahler but you do about R. Strauss. I have no doubt about any of them (including the Austrian Strausses).
> 
> Everybody happy.


Of course not, that would spoil all the fun


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Funny, it would seem you imply people like Furtwangler, a conductor I know you admire, "enjoy vulgarity and kitsch". In other thread you wrote: "_Furtwangler was preeminently a musician devoted to honoring the truth that music can mean something._". He used to conduct R. Strauss' a lot.


Strauss is an important German composer in Furtwangler's time who wrote some great music and arguably represented the end of the German Romantic tradition of which Furtwangler was a leading exponent. Furtwangler performed most of that repertoire, so I see nothing surprising about his performing Strauss. On the other hand, he was ambivalent about Mahler and rarely performed him, but that wasn't unusual then (and of course Mahler was a Jewish composer and unwelcome during the Nazi years). Furtwangler didn't perform much Schoenberg, and made his opinions of atonality clear. I imagine Strauss represented for him the last gasp of a great tradition.


----------



## KenOC

I'm not sure what people are arguing about here.


----------



## jdec

_It is one of the contradictions of Glenn Gould's musical tastes that despite his dislike for the center of the standard Romantic piano repertory (Chopin, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, and Rachmaninoff), he had a true affection for the music of the late German Romantics - Wagner and Strauss - who, unfortunately, composed virtually no piano music. Gould would play through their operas at the piano, complete with his trademark singing at the keyboard no doubt, in the privacy of his apartment late at night. In Gould's honor, Michael Arnowitt has transcribed for piano one of the most moving pieces of the twentieth century, Richard Strauss' Metamorphosen. Originally scored for 23 solo strings, this composition, known to be one of Gould's favorites, was written at the very end of World War II.

In 1961, writing to Leonard Bernstein, Gould praised Schoenberg and Strauss as the two greatest composers of the 20th century, adding that Strauss's greatness would be recognized once "the time-style equation, which clutters most judgment" of his later work, had dissolved. _


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Woodduck has his doubts about both Mahler and R. Strauss. You have no doubt about Mahler but you do about R. Strauss. I have no doubt about any of them (including the Austrian Strausses).


I don't have doubts. I simply recognize qualities and react to them. I've never questioned Mahler's greatness, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize him.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> I'm not sure what people are arguing about here.


Jdec is merely displeased when I criticize Strauss for exhibiting a certain, um, shallowness. No biggie.


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> _
> In 1961, writing to Leonard Bernstein, Gould praised Schoenberg and Strauss as the two greatest composers of the 20th century, adding that Strauss's greatness would be recognized once "the time-style equation, which clutters most judgment" of his later work, had dissolved. _


Gould may be right about Strauss and Schoenberg, if we consider Mahler a 19th-century composer.


----------



## KenOC

jdec said:


> _...In 1961, writing to Leonard Bernstein, Gould praised Schoenberg and Strauss as the two greatest composers of the 20th century..._


Gould had a fancy speedboat bearing the name "Arnold." He even criticized Bach on occasion, but Schoenberg...never.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> Jdec is merely displeased when I criticize Strauss for exhibiting a certain, um, shallowness. No biggie.


One can find certain "shallowness" even in lesser works of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...I don't find it in many of their best works, nor in Strauss's best works. Sorry I insist, but it's not really Strauss's music fault that you cannot recognize it's greatness.

But as you said, no biggie. :tiphat:


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> Gould may be right about Strauss and Schoenberg, if we consider *Mahler* a 19th-century composer.


No more money put on Sibelius then? 
Kidding aside, I agree about Mahler. Although we have also Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Bartok as other top contenders for the accolade.


----------



## jameslewitzke

I do agree with the OP in a sense that Mahler hasn't quite "hooked" me in the same way for me Shostakovich and Beethoven's symphonies have, which is ironic in a way since I love the latter two's for their powerful / dramatic impacts.

I would like to eventually change that however and experience Mahler the way others do. Maybe I just haven't stumbled across the right piece however to get fully pulled into a Mahler Symphony.

Anyone have a good recommendation as a starting point for a situation like that?


----------



## Becca

No doubt everyone will list their personal favourites, however it would first be useful to know which of the Shostakovitch and Beethoven symphonies are your most AND least favourite, then it might be possible to make relevant suggestions.


----------



## Dan Ante

I must try one of my Mahler CDs tonight and listen with fresh ears.


----------



## jameslewitzke

Symphony No 8 by Shostakovich is my favorite, followed by his tenth and fifth. For Beethoven I'd say Ninth. Can't really say I have a least favorite though.


----------



## Becca

Then I would say go with the 2nd as a relatively safe choice. The 1st and 5th (or vice-versa) next.


----------



## jameslewitzke

Alright thanks Becca, will give that Symphony a try. I think I had started with his fifth or ninth when I first gave him a shot. Hopefully the second speaks to me more


----------



## jdec

I was also going to suggest you the 2nd symphony based on the works you mention. Versions with a bit quicker tempo like Mehta's (Decca Legends) or Klemperer's could be a good starting point.


----------



## Becca

Personally I would strongly recommend the live concert Klemperer/Bavarian RSO, closely followed by his studio recording with the Philharmonia. As to Mehta, the worst performance of the 2nd I ever attended was Mehta/LAPO.


----------



## jdec

Not a fan of Mehta's tenure with the LAPO, or of Mehta overall as a conductor, but his Mahler 2nd with the VPO is commonly regarded among the best recordings of this symphony. It was selected to be part of the Decca Legends series. I actually prefer it to the latest one by Rattle and the BPO. Others I like a lot too are Abbado/Lucerne, Tenstedt/LSO, Haitink with Chicago S.O.


----------



## jdec

A few reviews on the Mehta /VPO recording:

https://topear.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/mehtas-marvelous-mahler-2/

https://www.classicstoday.com/review/review-4894/

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=1052702

https://www.theaterbyte.com/music/c...harmonikermehta-blu-ray-audio-review.html?amp


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> One can find certain "shallowness" even in lesser works of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach...I don't find it in many of their best works, nor in Strauss's best works. Sorry I insist, but it's not really Strauss's music fault that you cannot recognize it's greatness.
> 
> But as you said, no biggie. :tiphat:


If you agree that it's no biggie, why are you still raising objections? Do you think this is a real discussion? What's to discuss? I say I find Strauss's orchestral spectaculars rather shallow, and you have an apparently unstoppable seizure and can't stop whingeing and telling me I'm musically ignorant and inserting little smiley faces so it looks like you're being amusing. Actually you're being annoying.

Why does it matter so much to you what I think of Strauss? What entitles you to judge my capacity for musical understanding? I haven't judged yours, although the temptation keeps getting stronger (smiley face).

Let me state this as unambiguously as I can: I do not like Cecil B. DeStrauss's overwrought, gussied-up, bloviating, meandering, episodic, super-duper, supersonic four-part spectacular, "Thus Spake A Trans- figured Domestic Hero's Life." And I didn't say that I find shallowness in the best works of Strauss. I said that I find it in some of his _major tone poems,_ particulary the above, which you may rank among his best works and find terribly rich in meaning but I do not. I find shallowness in much, but not all, of Strauss's music, including his operas. And guess what? I'm neither the first nor the last to deny him a place in the select company of composers who actually probe the deeper recesses of the human soul rather than glorify Biblical necrophiliacs, Greek hereditary homicide, and middle-aged aristocratic women with nothing better to do than obsess over adolescent boys and encroaching crow's feet.

Now can we just put this to bed?


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Cause for rejoicing indeed. In the famous argument between Mahler and Sibelius, I put my money on the latter.


I am not sure why we need to compare them except that they represent opposite (and equally valid) approaches to the symphony. As someone who is naturally biased toward art with a strong element of classical discipline I certainly found Sibelius much easier to like. But as time goes by I am slowly shifting my feeling on this. Sibelius was a great symphonist, no doubt about it, but for the long haul I am finding more in Mahler than I ever expected to and would right now rate him significantly higher than Sibelius. It isn't just that I keep finding new things to delight me in Mahler (while it is quite some time since Sibelius delighted me in that way). He also opened up so many new possibilities for music.

Others mentioned recently in this thread - Strauss and Shostakovich - don't even come close to either in my opinion Beethoven, of course, rules the pantheon with a very few others from back in the days when the great composers had real range and excelled in a wide range of forms.


----------



## Enthusiast

Becca said:


> Personally I would strongly recommend the live concert Klemperer/Bavarian RSO, closely followed by his studio recording with the Philharmonia. As to Mehta, the worst performance of the 2nd I ever attended was Mehta/LAPO.


That Klemperer is a great one but I wouldn't dismiss Mehta in this symphony. Like jdec, I value his Vienna PO recording ... and think, perhaps, that his recording with the Israel PO may be even better. It is, anyway, one of Mahler's most constantly fascinating and satisfying symphonies - as well as being one that really sprawls! - and there are quite a few excellent recordings of it.


----------



## eugeneonagain

jdec said:


> Let's hope they can finally learn to appreciate great composers like Mahler and Strauss someday.


I agree, Johann Strauss is very underrated.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> I am not sure why we need to compare them except that they represent opposite (and equally valid) approaches to the symphony. As someone who is naturally biased toward art with a strong element of classical discipline I certainly found Sibelius much easier to like. But as time goes by I am slowly shifting my feeling on this. Sibelius was a great symphonist, no doubt about it, but for the long haul I am finding more in Mahler than I ever expected to and would right now rate him significantly higher than Sibelius. It isn't just that I keep finding new things to delight me in Mahler (while it is quite some time since Sibelius delighted me in that way). He also opened up so many new possibilities for music.
> 
> Others mentioned recently in this thread - Strauss and Shostakovich - don't even come close to either in my opinion Beethoven, of course, rules the pantheon with a very few others from back in the days when the great composers had real range and excelled in a wide range of forms.


My reference was to the _argument_ between Mahler and Sibelius, which dealt with the nature of the symphony as a form. Sibelius said: "I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives," while Mahler said: "The symphony is like the world; it must embrace everything."

Quite apart from the music each composer left us, I was merely expressing support for the Sibelian philosophy. Like you, I'm "naturally biased toward art with a strong element of classical discipline." I find that Mahler does show such discipline in many of his works, but his urge to programmatic self-expression tends to push the envelope and occasionally tear it. The attempt to "embrace everything" inevitably includes some things some people will find not worth embracing, and paradoxically leaves out parts of "everything" which Sibelius cultivates with exquisite severity.


----------



## jdec

Woodduck said:


> If you agree that it's no biggie, why are you still raising objections? Do you think this is a real discussion? What's to discuss? I say I find Strauss's orchestral spectaculars rather shallow, and you have an apparently unstoppable seizure and can't stop whingeing and telling me I'm musically ignorant and inserting little smiley faces so it looks like you're being amusing. Actually you're being annoying.
> 
> Why does it matter so much to you what I think of Strauss? What entitles you to judge my capacity for musical understanding? I haven't judged yours, although the temptation keeps getting stronger (smiley face).
> 
> Let me state this as unambiguously as I can: I do not like Cecil B. DeStrauss's overwrought, gussied-up, bloviating, meandering, episodic, super-duper, supersonic four-part spectacular, "Thus Spake A Trans- figured Domestic Hero's Life." And I didn't say that I find shallowness in the best works of Strauss. I said that I find it in some of his _major tone poems,_ particulary the above, which you may rank among his best works and find terribly rich in meaning but I do not. I find shallowness in much, but not all, of Strauss's music, including his operas. And guess what? I'm neither the first nor the last to deny him a place in the select company of composers who actually probe the deeper recesses of the human soul rather than glorify Biblical necrophiliacs, Greek hereditary homicide, and middle-aged aristocratic women with nothing better to do than obsess over adolescent boys and encroaching crow's feet.
> 
> Now can we just put this to bed?


Funny that you react that way when you have been very defensive each time Wagner has been criticized on some hot discussions (e.g. Wagner vs Mozart in operas) in the past few years (even banned in the forum for some days). Now, lately and often you have showed certain self indulgence by putting-down Mahler and R. Strauss with the use of some peculiar pejoratives in some of your posts, and that insistence can also become a bit annoying for the people that can really appreciate those 2 composers.

But you are right, it shouldn't matter to me what you think of Strauss or Mahler, so I agree, let's just put this to bed.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> That Klemperer is a great one but *I wouldn't dismiss Mehta in this symphony.* Like jdec, I value his Vienna PO recording ... and think, perhaps, that his recording with the Israel PO may be even better. It is, anyway, one of Mahler's most constantly fascinating and satisfying symphonies - as well as being one that really sprawls! - and there are quite a few excellent recordings of it.


Certainly the VPO is electrifying


----------



## Woodduck

jdec said:


> Funny that you react that way when you too have been very defensive each time Wagner has been criticized on some hot discussions (e.g. Wagner vs Mozart in operas) in the past few years (even banned in the forum for some days). Now, lately and often you have showed certain self indulgence by putting-down Mahler and R. Strauss with the use of some peculiar pejoratives in some of your posts, and that insistence can also become a bit annoying for the people that can really appreciate those 2 composers.
> 
> But you are right, it shouldn't matter to me what you think of Strauss or Mahler, so I agree, let's just put this to bed.


Let's be clear about something. I do not defend any composer against people who dislike his music, which is their right to do. I defend Wagner against people who talk about him and his work without knowing what they're talking about and who perpetuate ignorant or pernicious stereotypes - which, if you yourself are not ignorant of the matter, you should realize are quite prevalent. My knowledge of Wagner's work is deep after more than half a century of study, and I think I'm safe in assuming that you are not in a good position to question it or to frivolously call my numerous thoughtful commentaries on the subject "defensive." As for my quarrel with someone else on this forum and the unfortunate brief absence which it brought about, you're out of line in bringing it up here.

Are we straight?


----------



## Bulldog

Concerning the 4 composers who have most recently been talked about on this thread, my preferences are:

1. Mahler
2. R. Strauss
3. Wagner
4. Sibelius

It's just based on my enjoyment and the impact they have on me.


----------



## millionrainbows

The preferences expressed here reflect different ways of perceiving time, and perceiving musical meaning-in-time.

Beethoven is "about" something because his music is narrative. Events are uniform, continuous, and connected, like reading a narrative flow.
R. Strauss and Mahler represent the new perception of time, of experiencing being-in-time. Just a cursory listen to the first part of Mahler's First sets up the whole reason for his aesthetic.

Stillness, being subsumed into a huge, engulfing landscape, rather than "observing" a landscape from the vantage point of a picture-window or frame as in Beethoven, is a different way of experiencing time.
With Mahler and Strauss, we go "into" the vanishing point, through it, and perspective is reversed. "We" are a point of being now, not a giant eyeball looking from without, detached, and cold. Perspective has been reversed.

Beethoven's 'linear' narrative time seems to move towards goals. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.

Mahler and Strauss evoke a sense of nonlinear time, in which time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly. Mahler is full of broken-down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Of course, not a narrative, so why compare this to Beethoven?

At the other extreme of the 'nonlinear' continuum is music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures which seem to be connected, as in a narrative.

A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece, or as in Mahler's First, an entire movement. A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases. We usually lose our sense of perspective in a Mahler symphony.

This is why "Johnny can't read."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> The preferences expressed here reflect different ways of perceiving time, and perceiving musical meaning-in-time.
> 
> Beethoven is "about" something because his music is narrative. Events are uniform, continuous, and connected, like reading a narrative flow.
> *R. Strauss and Mahler represent the new perception of time, of experiencing being-in-time. Just a cursory listen to the first part of Mahler's First sets up the whole reason for his aesthetic. *
> 
> Stillness, being subsumed into a huge, engulfing landscape, rather than "observing" a landscape from the vantage point of a picture-window or frame as in Beethoven, is a different way of experiencing time.
> With Mahler and Strauss, we go "into" the vanishing point, through it, and perspective is reversed. "We" are a point of being now, not a giant eyeball looking from without, detached, and cold. Perspective has been reversed.
> 
> Beethoven's 'linear' narrative time seems to move towards goals. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.
> 
> *Mahler and Strauss evoke a sense of nonlinear time, in which time seems to stand still or evolve very slowly. Mahler is full of **broken-down connections between musical events in order to create a series of more or less discrete moments. Of course, not a narrative, so why compare this to Beethoven?*
> 
> 
> *A virtually static moment is expanded to encompass an entire piece, or as in Mahler's First, an entire movement.* A vertical piece does not exhibit large-scale closure. It does not begin, but merely starts. It does not build to a climax, does not set up internal expectations, does not seek to fulfill any expectations that might arise accidentally, does not build or release tension, and does not end, but simply ceases. *W**e usually lose our sense of perspective in a Mahler symphony.*


I like where you're going with this inquiry into time, but I think you've turned up a road that leads us away from confronting the real complexity of the matter. Mahler's relationship to time seems to me very ambivalent, in fact deeply conflicted. The first movement of his First Symphony is indeed rather leisurely and picturesque - pastoral, even - and largely free of the angst and striving that drives so much of his work. He can dally awhile among the daffodils, he can stretch out under the linden tree by the brook - and doesn't Beethoven do the same in his "Pastoral"? - but the holiday from time's implacable demands will not last, and Mahler's final movement shatters it completely.

It's true that Mahler doesn't construct the tight narratives of Classicism, but Romanticism got away from that kind of finely guaged progression long before Mahler entered the world. Mahler, I would aver, is as conscious of and concerned with time as Beethoven. The difference is that Beethoven felt himself at home in time and master of it, while Mahler is terrified of it and constantly trying - _and failing_ - to deny its omnipotence. Arch-Romantic that he is, he wants to lose himself in the eternal now - like Faust, who cries out to a moment of exquisite happiness, "Verweile doch, du bist so schoen!" - But stay a while, you are so beautiful! Sadly for Faust, for Mahler and for us, the moment must pass.

Mahler wanted the symphony to "embrace the world" (as he said to Sibelius) because the irresistible future and the necessity of death was too frightening and painful - because in embracing everything he hoped to put off the inevitable confrontation with nothingness. Consequently his music, more than that of any other composer, is full of the beautiful poignancy and stark terror of mortality and loss. Time, for Mahler, is anything but static, but rather weighs on him with an unbearable heaviness. His music may not know where it's going as Beethoven's does, but the demand of his art for coherence forces him to wrestle with time (in symphonic form) with an unmatched intensity, and the illusion of the exquisite moment - of the possibility that life can go on and bring contentment - is shattered at the end of his Sixth Symphony by the blows of time's hammer.


----------



## Phil loves classical

With Mahler I can only concentrate for at most 2 movements in a sitting, or else tune in and out from time to time. It's like watching a miniseries to me.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> With Mahler I can only concentrate for at most 2 movements in a sitting, or else tune in and out from time to time. It's like watching a miniseries to me.


Or a maxiseries? :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Yes, I'm not sure, but Mahler seems to be "stuck" in time. It oppresses him, he's in a pressure cooker. That's the other extreme of the 'nonlinear' continuum; music that maximizes consistency and minimizes articulation. Vertical time means that whatever structure that is in the music exists between simultaneous layers of sound, not between successive gestures. Mahler is in an in-between state. That's why I seem to "get lost" in it, there are fewer recognizable signposts, fewer connected gestures.


----------



## Larkenfield

It’s funny. I’ve never had the sense that Mahler didn’t know exactly what he was doing and was completely at peace with it, whether the music expressed turbulence or loss or love or bliss. I got the impression that he completely accepted the music that came to him and he wrote it down with absolute perfection as the great composer and orchestrator that he was... I can hear his doubts about life, his questioning about life in his music, but never about how he wanted to express it, no matter what he wrote. This quality of spiritual acceptance is something that I think is too often forgotten about him, and instead, he ’s viewed as a complete neurotic, by neurotic conductors, who didn’t know which end was up. Well, maybe there were times when he didn’t know the answers, like the rest of us, but I believe he was about as surefooted and incisive as any composer who ever lived, and I think this can clearly be heard in his unforgettable genius for melody. Even in his 10th Symphony, written when he was terminally ill, I hear no diminishment of his creative power at all. He was progressing harmonically and melodically and, unfortunately, he simply ran out of time. But maybe he was lucky not to see the carnage that was about to take place in the world through terrible political upheavals and war.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> It's funny. I've never had the sense that Mahler didn't know exactly what he was doing and was completely at peace with it, whether the music expressed turbulence or loss or love or bliss. I got the impression that he completely accepted the music that came to him and he wrote it down with absolute perfection as the great composer and orchestrator that he was... I can hear his doubts about life, his questioning about life in his music, but never about how he wanted to express it, no matter what he wrote. This quality of spiritual acceptance is something that I think is too often forgotten about him, and instead, he's viewed as a complete neurotic, by neurotic conductors, who didn't know which end was up. Well, maybe there were times when he didn't know the answers, like the rest of us, but I believe he was about as surefooted and incisive as any composer who ever lived.


Who has portrayed Mahler as a "helpless wimp" or a "complete neurotic who didn't know which end was up"? What do those phrases even mean? Is Leonard Bernstein the neurotic conductor you're referring to? He certainly spoke of the emotional complexity and conflict in Mahler's music, and performed it with great intensity. Do you think he misrepresented the composer in some way (aside from taking about five minutes too long to get through the adagietto of the 5th symphony, that is)?


----------



## Becca

Woodduck said:


> *Do you think he misrepresented the composer* in some way (aside from taking about five minutes too long to get through the adagietto of the 5th symphony, that is)?


Yes! I wish that I could find that quote but it was Bernstein who believed that Mahler's 9th was a farewell and that nothing could come after it which is ridiculous when you seen how the 9th and 10th fit together. That, of course, didn't stop Bernstein from performing the adagio from the 10th.


----------



## Woodduck

Becca said:


> Yes! I wish that I could find that quote but it was Bernstein who believed that Mahler's 9th was a farewell and that nothing could come after it which is ridiculous when you seen how the 9th and 10th fit together. That, of course, didn't stop Bernstein from performing the adagio from the 10th.


Bernstein was definitely prone to overdramatization. Still, I think his remarks on the 9th do tell us something. One can express a sense of mortality and farewell without actually ending one's life and work, and Bernstein obviously knew that. Look at the end of Das Lied von der Erde, in which the poet wanders off into a sort of timeless oblivion. We'd never guess he'd be coming back to sing for us again.


----------



## fluteman

millionrainbows said:


> Beethoven's 'linear' narrative time seems to move towards goals. This is accomplished by processes which occur within tonal and metrical frameworks.


Yes, one of your better posts, millionrainbows. And Beethoven's unshakable reliance on linear narrative (except perhaps in some of the late string quartets) ultimately is what makes him the last great classical composer rather than the first great romantic one. But once you get all the way down (or up) to Wagner, Mahler, Strauss and Sibelius, there are dramatic departures in all directions from the old classical forms, and I think it becomes much harder to make these head-to-head evaluations.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> My reference was to the _argument_ between Mahler and Sibelius, which dealt with the nature of the symphony as a form. Sibelius said: "I admire the symphony's style and severity of form, as well as the profound logic creating an inner connection among all of the motives," while Mahler said: "The symphony is like the world; it must embrace everything."
> 
> Quite apart from the music each composer left us, I was merely expressing support for the Sibelian philosophy. Like you, I'm "naturally biased toward art with a strong element of classical discipline." I find that Mahler does show such discipline in many of his works, but his urge to programmatic self-expression tends to push the envelope and occasionally tear it. The attempt to "embrace everything" inevitably includes some things some people will find not worth embracing, and paradoxically leaves out parts of "everything" which Sibelius cultivates with exquisite severity.


Thanks. I understood what you were referring to and I guess my point was that, while I have spent most of my music-listening life valuing Sibelius and his philosophy over Mahler and his, I now find myself (much to my surprise) valuing _the results _that Mahler arrived at above even Sibelius (a composer who I have always loved deeply). It isn't that Sibelius has gone down in my estimation but that I have finally found myself appreciating even Mahler's more wayward works.

BTW I enjoy those CDs that have earlier versions of Sibelius (the 5th symphony on one and the violin concerto on the other) alongside the versions we know. I am amazed at how much great music Sibelius was able to jettison in the interests of arriving at a tight and potent whole - _that _is discipline! - and I suppose Mahler would have somehow kept everything and added more!


----------

