# Mahler symphonies -- general discussion



## Waehnen

*Symphony no. 1*
- Took 4 years of composing (1884-1888) and 3 years of editing 1893-1896

*Symphony no. 2*
- Took 10 years of composing (1884-1894) and 1 year of editing (1903)

*Symphony no. 3*
- Took 3 years of composing (1893-1896) and 1 year of editing (1906)

*Symphony no. 4*
- Took 1 year of composing (1899-1900)

*Symphony no. 5*
- Took 1-2 years of composing (1901-1902) and 7 years of editing (1904-1911)

*Symphony no. 6*
- Took 1-2 years of composing (1903-1904), and 1 year of editing (1906).

*Symphony no. 7*
- Took 1-2 years of composing (1904-1905) and some editing

*Symphony no. 8*
- Took 1 year of composing (1906) and some editing

*Symphony no. 9*
- Took 1-2 years of composing (1908-1909)

The 2nd Symphony took a lot of more effort than the others and it sure can be heard in the material. It is completely on a level of it´s own. I am awestruck now that I have great recordings of the symphony and it has finally hit me with all it´s strenght and finesse.

Also, symphonies 3 and 5 were worked upon for long periods of time. I make the bold claim that I can hear the efforts in the quality of the music.

It also needs to be admitted that in symphonies 4, 6, 7 and 8 it can be heard that Mahler did not work on them for as long as on the 2, 3 and 5. Had he worked more on 6 and 7, maybe they would not remind each other (and the 5th) as much.

What remains a mystery to me is how on earth Mahler composed something as spectacular as the 9th in such a short time. (There are a few details that show the hurry, though.)

(Symphony no. 1 seems to be an excellent piece of music but I cannot make any comment on it´s quality just yet.)


----------



## Philidor

Some courageous statements!  Thank you for being so public with them.

I don't think that Mahler worked 10 years without interruption on his 2nd symphony.

Nor do I think that one could hear that the sixth symphony was done faster. If I listen to the finale with its complex counterpoint ... here is really "next level Mahler".

Why did you omit the "Lied von der Erde"?


----------



## Merl

Mahler didn't work on his 2nd symphony for 10 years. I'm sure it's 6 and there were many interruptions!


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> Some courageous statements!  Thank you for being so public with them.


I enjoy speaking out loud, discussing the matters, testing my "bold" statements, listening to opposing arguments -- and then correcting myself if I have been proven wrong!


----------



## Philidor

Waehnen said:


> I enjoy speaking out loud, discussing the matters, testing my "bold" statements, listening to opposing arguments -- and then correcting myself if I have been proven wrong!


That's great!


Waehnen said:


> The 2nd Symphony took a lot of more effort than the others and it sure can be heard in the material. It is completely on a level of it´s own.


Could you please be so kind and share some examples, where you feel the additional effort in the material?

And what do you mean by "on a level of its own"? Bruckner 8 was written in neighbourhood. Don Juan, Zarathustra, ...


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> That's great!
> Could you please be so kind and share some examples, where you feel the additional effort in the material?
> 
> And what do you mean by "on a level of its own"? Bruckner 8 was written in neighbourhood. Don Juan, Zarathustra, ...


Level of its own when compared to other Mahler!

It will be a hard task for me to try to point where the extra effort is shown, so I will get to it tomorrow, maybe!

Let's just say for now that there is nothing mediocre or less than excellent movements in the 2nd Symphony. Even compare the Ländler to other Ländlers. Mahler took his time to be inspired in everything he did in this symphony.

Do you really think Mahler is as concistently inspired in his later symphonies, from movement to movement? Do the later symphonies have as strong a profile of their own?


----------



## Philidor

Waehnen said:


> Do you really think Mahler is as concistently inspired in his later symphonies, from movement to movement? Do the later symphonies have as strong a profile of their own?


Yes, indeed. Absolutely for the sixth, the eighth, the ninth. (With the fifth and the seventh I am not so acquainted.)

Some arguments:

#6
1) Symbols never had such weight as in the sixth. Take the march as symbol for relentless proceeding, the major/minor symbol (first with three trumpets) for fate, together with the dotted rhythm in the timpani, take the "mad choral" (2nd theme in 1st movement) as symbol for collapsing beliefs, the xylophone as instrument of the danse macabre, the tam-tam as sympbol for death, the hammer as symbol for a stroke of fate, the cowbells as symbol for remoteness and isolation, church bells as symbol for religious dogmas, ... any counterexample, even with Mahler?
2) A new level and a new kind of polyphony in the finale.
3) An anticlimax symphony with tragic, deathly end, preceded maybe only in Tchaikovsky 6. 
4) Related to this: A unique symphonic dramaturgy.

#8:
1) Unique already by the chosen texts. 
2) Which piece before showed such entusiasm as the first movement?
3) Again we find a very complex polyphonic setting
4) As opposed to the agglomeration of participants in the first movement, the second movement is to a large extent intimate, less orchestral than chamber-like.

#9:
1) For the ninth, I only point out the transcendental sections, one in the third movement, and the end of the finale. Never before Mahler reached such spheres beyond terrestial experience, not in the 2nd, not in the 3rd, not in the "Lied von der Erde".


----------



## golfer72

(#9:
1) For the ninth, I only point out the transcendental sections, one in the third movement, and the end of the finale. Never before Mahler reached such spheres beyond terrestial experience, not in the 2nd, not in the 3rd, not in the "Lied von der Erde".) My favorite part of the 9th is the climax about 3-4 minutes in to the first movement. Just fantastic. Inbal on Denon is the best Ive heard.


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> Yes, indeed. Absolutely for the sixth, the eighth, the ninth. (With the fifth and the seventh I am not so acquainted.)
> 
> Some arguments:
> 
> #6
> 1) Symbols never had such weight as in the sixth. Take the march as symbol for relentless proceeding, the major/minor symbol (first with three trumpets) for fate, together with the dotted rhythm in the timpani, take the "mad choral" (2nd theme in 1st movement) as symbol for collapsing beliefs, the xylophone as instrument of the danse macabre, the tam-tam as sympbol for death, the hammer as symbol for a stroke of fate, the cowbells as symbol for remoteness and isolation, church bells as symbol for religious dogmas, ... any counterexample, even with Mahler?
> 2) A new level and a new kind of polyphony in the finale.
> 3) An anticlimax symphony with tragic, deathly end, preceded maybe only in Tchaikovsky 6.
> 4) Related to this: A unique symphonic dramaturgy.
> 
> #8:
> 1) Unique already by the chosen texts.
> 2) Which piece before showed such entusiasm as the first movement?
> 3) Again we find a very complex polyphonic setting
> 4) As opposed to the agglomeration of participants in the first movement, the second movement is to a large extent intimate, less orchestral than chamber-like.
> 
> #9:
> 1) For the ninth, I only point out the transcendental sections, one in the third movement, and the end of the finale. Never before Mahler reached such spheres beyond terrestial experience, not in the 2nd, not in the 3rd, not in the "Lied von der Erde".


Thanks for your meaningful input.

I will try to express it in yet another way by just commenting the 1st Movements.

The 1st Movements of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 9th are most inspired and they all contain a high profile, they have a point to them.

Where as the 1st Movements of the 6th and the 7th brings this though to my mind, I hear Mahler saying: "I am not inspired. I have no original idea for this symphony. But I can always start with a march in minor key. Let's go with that."

The 1st Movement of the 6th is a perfect example of masterful music without an original high profile, unique idea or purpose. It is shining and skillful - yet hollow inside the cover.

I have been pondering over this for some time now and I have come to the conclusion that Mahler was in hurry after the 5th Symphony. Hence the in my ears hasty and more uninspired and less unique constructions of 6, 7 and 8.

Symphony 4 is an inspired yet transitional work and beautiful in it's own rights, but not of the same stature as the other symphonies of my choice and admiration. Anyhow, I am most happy with all these: 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th. There is plenty of Mahler for me there as well, right?

Then again I need to admit that despite the long revision time, Mahler still left the 2nd Movement of the 5th in its place. Why on earth? That is just a bad movement obviously just constructed from the leftovers from the 1st (excellent) movement.

Maybe my theory of a correlation between time invested and the quality is just bad.

I have another theory, though, of composer exhausting the uniqueness of their creativity at some point. The 2nd and 3rd are so FRESH music. Are 5-7 fresh? Not by any means!


----------



## Philidor

Waehnen said:


> Where as the 1st Movements of the 6th and the 7th brings this though to my mind, I hear Mahler saying: "I am not inspired. I have no original idea for this symphony. But I can always start with a march in minor key. Let's go with that."
> 
> The 1st Movement of the 6th is a perfect example of masterful music without an original high profile, unique idea or purpose. It is shining and skillful - yet hollow inside the cover.


The 6th is my favorite among Mahler's symphonies (together with #9), so I thought a little about what to answer.

My first thought was that even Karajan called the sixth "Kapellmeistermusik". Don't know whether this word has found its way into the english language as "Lied" did. You find "Kapellmeister" in the english wikipedia. Kapellmeistermusik is the music that some Kapellmeister or conductor had to write for some function, maybe as an entr'acte for some play. Kapellmeistermusik is meant as something which is ok in terms of craftsmanship but maybe not ultimatively inspired. And yes, it has some negative connotation. Music for some usage. I think it meets your description. So you are in good company with Karajan!

As far as I have learnt about Mahler, he never ever had ideas such as "I feel that I have to compose something but I do not exactly know, what". Mahler described composing as a must. It is already inside him and he ("just") had to bring the content into some appropriate form.

So inspiration and the need for artist's expression was always the first step for him.

Are you familiar with modern theories of communication, in particular the sender-receiver-problem?

Do you think that there is any sense in giving Mahler a second chance to reach you, maybe some years later? As a motivation, I would mention that thousands of aficionados of classical music are estimating the 6th and 7th very highly. Rattle integrated the 7th into his series on 20th century music, in order to shape a way to modern music for others, and yes, he understood one or two things about music. 

I think it could be worth a try.


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> The 6th is my favorite among Mahler's symphonies (together with #9), so I thought a little about what to answer.
> 
> My first thought was that even Karajan called the sixth "Kapellmeistermusik". Don't know whether this word has found its way into the english language as "Lied" did. You find "Kapellmeister" in the english wikipedia. Kapellmeistermusik is the music that some Kapellmeister or conductor had to write for some function, maybe as an entr'acte for some play. Kapellmeistermusik is meant as something which is ok in terms of craftsmanship but maybe not ultimatively inspired. And yes, it has some negative connotation. Music for some usage. I think it meets your description. So you are in good company with Karajan!
> 
> As far as I have learnt about Mahler, he never ever had ideas such as "I feel that I have to compose something but I do not exactly know, what". Mahler described composing as a must. It is already inside him and he ("just") had to bring the content into some appropriate form.
> 
> So inspiration and the need for artist's expression was always the first step for him.
> 
> Are you familiar with modern theories of communication, in particular the sender-receiver-problem?
> 
> Do you think that there is any sense in giving Mahler a second chance to reach you, maybe some years later? As a motivation, I would mention that thousands of aficionados of classical music are estimating the 6th and 7th very highly. Rattle integrated the 7th into his series on 20th century music, in order to shape a way to modern music for others, and yes, he understood one or two things about music.
> 
> I think it could be worth a try.


Don't get me wrong. None of the symphonies is bad, all of them are good, many are excellent, and 2, 3 and 9 are masterpieces.

In the 6th Symphony I consider the slow movement and the finale excellent. I just do not care for the Kapellmeistermusik. Nicht für mich.

This weekend I am likely to create a Mahler playlist and post it on the other thread. I will pick and choose! There is a lot to admire and love here. For some reason I just need a "thought system" to cope with this eclectic and brilliant yet somewhat uneven monster of a symphonist.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Obviously, an argument could be made to exactly the opposite conclusion that a piece with a long history might be worse for the long struggle or whatever before it was finished. So it is very dubious to conclude anything from the mere fact how long the composition/revision process took.

For me the finale of the 2nd is one of the most flawed Mahler movements (after the finale of the 1st) and is only saved by a few emotionally gripping movements, like the beginning with the "outcry" and "last trumpet" etc. and later the first choral entry. All the late instrumental symphonies (5-7,9) I find clearly superior both in details and in overall stringency "arch". 

One would have to go into more details and I cannot do this now but when comparing e.g. the 1st movements of #2 and #6, both of the "dark march" variety, I think one would see how the strictness and superior "logic" (in the sense of stringent relation of parts) of the 6th adds to the ominous, "fateful" character (like in Beethoven's 5th) whereas in the 2nd one has more the impression of clichés and gestures put together (very effecticely). The 2nd is still a very good piece and for many emotionally more accessible and overwhelming than the later purely instrumental symphonies but I do find it flawed, especially the finale.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> Obviously, an argument could be made to exactly the opposite conclusion that a piece with a long history might be worse for the long struggle or whatever before it was finished. So it is very dubious to conclude anything from the mere fact how long the composition/revision process took.
> 
> For me the finale of the 2nd is one of the most flawed Mahler movements (after the finale of the 1st) and is only saved by a few emotionally gripping movements, like the beginning with the "outcry" and "last trumpet" etc. and later the first choral entry. All the late instrumental symphonies (5-7,9) I find clearly superior both in details and in overall stringency "arch".
> 
> One would have to go into more details and I cannot do this now but when comparing e.g. the 1st movements of #2 and #6, both of the "dark march" variety, I think one would see how the strictness and superior "logic" (in the sense of stringent relation of parts) of the 6th adds to the ominous, "fateful" character (like in Beethoven's 5th) whereas in the 2nd one has more the impression of clichés and gestures put together (very effecticely). The 2nd is still a very good piece and for many emotionally more accessible and overwhelming than the later purely instrumental symphonies but I do find it flawed, especially the finale.


In my musical world, both technical craftmanship and meaningful expression are a requirement. If a piece of music manages to intensively express something, I do not care if it is not technically as great an achievement as some other piece of music. What the composer wants to say comes first, then comes the technicality of how the expression is brought into music.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I tried to suggest that pieces like Mahler's 6th are superior because of the congruence of the more technical and formal things and emotional expression.
The first three Mahler symphonies are halfway between symphony and symphonic poems. We know that the 1st had the title "Titan" and titles for movements and the first movement of the 2nd started as "Totenfeier", basically a funereal symphonic poem, and there are also narrative comments by Mahler for the last movement with its Judgement Day "plot". And similarly for the titles of the 3rd ("What love tells me" and more cringey stuff). 
Now, of course, it is not necessary that a symphonic poem relies more on "external" narrative/depiction than on internal logic, but they usually do 
Symphonies like Mahler's 5th and 6th forego any external narrative in favor of a more abstract representation of tragic/triumphal developmental arches. One does not have to prefer this to what is done in e.g. his 2nd but it seems to me both a conscious change from the earlier pieces and also successfully executed.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I tried to suggest that pieces like Mahler's 6th are superior because of the congruence of the more technical and formal things and emotional expression.
> The first three Mahler symphonies are halfway between symphony and symphonic poems. We know that the 1st had the title "Titan" and titles for movements and the first movement of the 2nd started as "Totenfeier", basically a funereal symphonic poem, and there are also narrative comments by Mahler for the last movement with its Judgement Day "plot". And similarly for the titles of the 3rd ("What love tells me" and more cringey stuff).
> Now, of course, it is not necessary that a symphonic poem relies more on "external" narrative/depiction than on internal logic, but they usually do
> Symphonies like Mahler's 5th and 6th forego any external narrative in favor of a more abstract representation of tragic/triumphal developmental arches. One does not have to prefer this to what is done in e.g. his 2nd but it seems to me both a conscious change from the earlier pieces and also successfully executed.


I refer to that kind of thinking as "autonomy aesthetics". It traditionally suggests that pieces of music that stand on their own independently, referring only to themselves, would somehow be more valuable than works of art that also refer to the reality outside themselves. There certainly are works that aesthetically seem to be more "pure music" than others. There is no reason to think that such works would somehow be more "objective" and hence somehow more valuable, though.


----------



## Waehnen

I did some serious listening. It is true that the 5th symphony is very unified and in that way more tightly constructed than the symphonies before the 5th. Neither is there any bad material.

My previous reactions have rosen from the fact that I as a listener long for more contrasts. This is a unified whole for sure but like a large novel (without much poetry) the colours stay the same all the time. Also I feel some of the movements are too long. So too much lenght and too little contrasts and inspiration. A good symphony but not on the level of the 2nd, 3rd or the 9th is my final statement on the matter.

The material in the 2, 3 and 9 thrills and excites me. Of the 5th Symphony only the 1st Movement and Adagietto really have a high enough profile to give me the kicks.

Like I stated in another thread, I will leave the 7th symphony out of my listening completely and see if I am able to feel and see something expressively meaningful in the first two movements of the 6th when there is not the shadow of the seventh lingering. 

(I cannot say why but I deeply dislike the melodies and harmonies of the 1st movement of the 7th. There are traces of the same in the 6th and it affects me negatively.)


----------



## Waehnen

I gave another go at the 2nd movement of the 6th. I find exactly the same problem with the melodies, harmonies and gestures as with the 1st Movement of the 7th. Seriously and honestly, I cringe when I hear this stuff. There is nothing in me that wants to listen to this. So it sure is a problem for me bonding with this symphony.

So I have finally gotten to the core of my Mahler problems. This kind of analysis is important so that I will reject only what needs to be rejected and will be able to enjoy what needs to be enjoyed.


----------



## Malx

Kreisler jr said:


> I tried to suggest that pieces like Mahler's 6th are superior because of the congruence of the more technical and formal things and emotional expression.
> The first three Mahler symphonies are halfway between symphony and symphonic poems. We know that the 1st had the title "Titan" and titles for movements and the first movement of the 2nd started as "Totenfeier", basically a funereal symphonic poem, and there are also narrative comments by Mahler for the last movement with its Judgement Day "plot". And similarly for the titles of the 3rd ("What love tells me" and more cringey stuff).
> Now, of course, it is not necessary that a symphonic poem relies more on "external" narrative/depiction than on internal logic, but they usually do
> Symphonies like Mahler's 5th and 6th forego any external narrative in favor of a more abstract representation of tragic/triumphal developmental arches. One does not have to prefer this to what is done in e.g. his 2nd but it seems to me both a conscious change from the earlier pieces and also successfully executed.


I can see where you are coming from in your line of thinking but the one thing that has always dissuaded me from it is - how do we know if in the fifth and sixth symphonies Mahler also had a narrative in mind but simply didn't reveal it.
I appreciate that this is a thought that can never be proven either way.


----------



## Enthusiast

Kreisler jr said:


> I tried to suggest that pieces like Mahler's 6th are superior because of the congruence of the more technical and formal things and emotional expression.
> The first three Mahler symphonies are halfway between symphony and symphonic poems. We know that the 1st had the title "Titan" and titles for movements and the first movement of the 2nd started as "Totenfeier", basically a funereal symphonic poem, and there are also narrative comments by Mahler for the last movement with its Judgement Day "plot". And similarly for the titles of the 3rd ("What love tells me" and more cringey stuff).
> Now, of course, it is not necessary that a symphonic poem relies more on "external" narrative/depiction than on internal logic, but they usually do
> Symphonies like Mahler's 5th and 6th forego any external narrative in favor of a more abstract representation of tragic/triumphal developmental arches. One does not have to prefer this to what is done in e.g. his 2nd but it seems to me both a conscious change from the earlier pieces and also successfully executed.


I am not sure I can relate to this. The music in all of the Mahler symphonies seems abstract to me - far more so than, say, Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique (which is still nevertheless a symphony to me) - because I think that when a composer sets out to write a symphony his/her intentions are ultimately abstract. You may be saying that the earlier symphonies are less successful and fair enough but it is only a personal opinion. It is often not a good idea to use a rational argument to support our personal tastes as it can close our ears. But it can certainly be stimulating to construct one.

Most great symphonies take you "on a journey" and the feeling of completeness and satisfaction we derive from them is greatly a matter of having arrived and being able to look back and see the whole in the light of that arrival. Perhaps this is partly what is involved in Malx's suggestion above suggesting that Mahler might have had a programme in his 5th and 6th symphonies even if he didn't share it with us. But either way the act of writing a symphony is concerned with a whole that somehow seems to transform us. Mahler 2 and 3 are great sprawling works and it can sometimes be hard to perceive this whole as a unity until we are very familiar with the work. But I think it is there for all that. To put it plainly, I perceive a unity in all of Mahler's symphonies (Das Lied included) while I perceive no such unity in any symphonic poems I know.


----------



## Philidor

Malx said:


> I can see where you are coming from in your line of thinking but the one thing that has always dissuaded me from it is - how do we know if in the fifth and sixth symphonies Mahler also had a narrative in mind but simply didn't reveal it.
> I appreciate that this is a thought that can never be proven either way.


We know that Mahler stated that the three hammer blows are hitting the hero of the symphony, the third one lethal.

This is already one narrative aspect.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think there is a difference between implicit or vague narratives and explicit ones. This more or less starts with Beethoven; we have only two or three works with somewhat explicit narrative (Pastoral and Les Adieux) but because of the dramatic character of the music and some remarks or anecdotes (for the Eroica and other works) the impression of an undisclosed narrative has been so strong that people made them up for a lot of Beethoven pieces. Honestly, I have never been a fan of tone poems and there are only a few I find as convincing as I find most "absolute" music (such as Brahms). Of course, there are some tone poems with a tight inner logic, mostly independent of the extramusical narrative.

I don't think Berlioz Fantastique is far from Mahler; with very few exceptions (thunder and the few seconds of the execution at the end of the marche) it is also quite abstract. With Mahler you have bird noises, military and hunting signals, waltzes, overall quite a bit of "loaded" music, that provokes fairly clear associations. And we have even titles and comments about the supposed meaning of stuff like cowbells or hammer blows. Plus song quotations and sometimes titles, comments and song texts. Sure, it's hardly ever straightforward, more riddles and vague reminiscences than programmatic narratives.

As for Mahler, it seems plausible for me that there is a "cut" between the 4th and 5th. 
It is not a personal opinion that there were titles and comments for 1-3 and not for 5-7 and 9. (4 ist a borderline case, IMO.) If I was better at musical analysis I could probably show how 5-7,9 are more highly organized and more stringent as compositions. This is not saying that they are absolutely better but it seems generally recognized in Mahler research and commentary that there was conscious move away from the "Wunderhorn" pieces (that provoke programmatic content because of either titles or relationship to songs or both) and that this was also accompanied with including more elaborate polyphony etc.


----------



## Waehnen

Being a Sibelian person by default, my experience is that Mahler was better at being the sprawling Mahler who composed symphonies encompassing everything like the world, than being Sibelian in the sense of creating tightly constructed symphonies with deep motific thinking. Sibelius is way better in that. Mahler is way better in his eclectism and expressing a free spirit. I really, really love the free spirit I hear in symphonies 2, 3 and 9. I think the famous conversation with Sibelius planted a seed in Mahler. He kinda wanted to be Beethovenian, too. Hence symphonies 5-7. (Not my favourites.)


----------



## Philidor

I agree that the (late) Sibelius symphonies are more into symphonic coherence and logic than the middle Mahler symphonies. At least partially, and Mahler # 7 might be the best example. (For # 6, on the other side, I feel great symphonic coherence and logic.)

But - what importance does it have? Do we say "Schubert is worse than Beethoven, because he is lacking all the symphonic drama"? I don't think that Schubert wanted to write some symphonic drama. So why to blame him that he doesn't deliver a symphonic drama as Beethoven did?

Same for Sibelius and Mahler. Why blaming Mahler for showing less symphonic coherence? I don't think that this was his first objective.



> He kinda wanted to be Beethovenian, too.


For my taste, this is far too much simplification. (Please define "Beethovenian" in order to give a chance to understand what you could mean. "Beethovenian" in the sense of op. 131, right?)

If you want to express your sympathy and antipathy with some music, I am fine and glad about to learn.
Should anyone want to judge a composer, to my mind it wouldn't be inappropriate, if the judge showed somehow that he is (minimum) on eye's level with the composer. I'd prefer talking about the music. But this is just my taste.


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> I agree that the (late) Sibelius symphonies are more into symphonic coherence and logic than the middle Mahler symphonies. At least partially, and Mahler # 7 might be the best example. (For # 6, on the other side, I feel great symphonic coherence and logic.)
> 
> But - what importance does it have? Do we say "Schubert is worse than Beethoven, because he is lacking all the symphonic drama"? I don't think that Schubert wanted to write some symphonic drama. So why to blame him that he doesn't deliver a symphonic drama as Beethoven did?
> 
> Same for Sibelius and Mahler. Why blaming Mahler for showing less symphonic coherence? I don't think that this was his first objective.
> 
> For my taste, this is far too much simplification. (Please define "Beethovenian" in order to give a chance to understand what you could mean. "Beethovenian" in the sense of op. 131, right?)
> 
> If you want to express your sympathy and antipathy with some music, I am fine and glad about to learn.
> Should anyone want to judge a composer, to my mind it wouldn't be inappropriate, if the judge showed somehow that he is (minimum) on eye's level with the composer. I'd prefer talking about the music. But this is just my taste.


I talk about Beethovenian symphonic logic, nothing else. And I am a friend of Mahler's music if that somehow isn't clear. Symphonic logic and thorough coherence are not the only values in music, for sure.


----------



## Becca

Remember that Mahler was a very strong willed person with definite ideas about what he wanted and he wasn't shy about making sure they happened. Don't forget that he was known to modify the works of others (e.g.Schumann and Beethoven), that isn't the hallmark of someone who is easily influenced by others, and is definitely not the type of person who would write something just because he felt that it was required.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> Remember that Mahler was a very strong willed person with definite ideas about what he wanted and he wasn't shy about making sure they happened. Don't forget that he was known to modify the works of others (e.g.Schumann and Beethoven), that isn't the hallmark of someone who is easily influenced by others, and is definitely not the type of person who would write something just because he felt that it was required.


Yeah, I claim to know nothing about his personality. So I talk about music only! Beethovenian ambitions are symphonic and musical, not literal or biographical - when I speak of them.


----------



## mbhaub

Kreisler jr said:


> It is not a personal opinion that there were titles and comments for 1-3 and not for 5-7 and 9. (


Most of the Mahler symphonies had titles; none given by him:

1. Titan
2. Resurrection
3.
4.
5. The Giant
6. Tragic
7. Song of the Night
8. Symphony of a Thousand
9.
10.


----------



## Philidor

3. Ein Sommermorgentraum (A Midsummer Morning's Dream)


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> 3. Ein Sommermorgentraum (A Midsummer Morning's Dream)


Philidor, have I offended you with the way I talk about Mahler's music? I have great appreciation for the human beings behind the music and my playlists etc. are forum talk, a way of processing these musical matters. How could I not appreciate Mahler? It is just that nobody's music has landed from the heavens, and even great artists are human.

I would not have talked about my problems with the 6th and 7th symphonies had I considered the music irrelevant or trivial, or had I thought that forum discussion could not help me forward. I also challenge myself and thoughts continuously. It is not the same as "picking gold tooths from the dead".


----------



## Philidor

My last posting referred to the list of MBHaub.

And no, by writing things on Mahler's, music you are certainly not offening me ...


----------



## Waehnen

Philidor said:


> My last posting referred to the list of MBHaub.
> 
> And no, by writing things on Mahler's, music you are certainly not offening me ...


Good!  Yet I admit that due to the huge and indulgent scale of the symphonies and their orchestration, and the demands he throws on the laps of the listeners, I kinda seem to have an attitude that Mahler has to rise up to the challenge! Mahler symphonies are bold claims and deserve to be discussed critically.

I personally just do not take bul**** on this scale. If this is the scale of the symphonies, orchestra and the hype around them, we have some bold claims indeed on the table - and therefore I most certainly have some demands as a listener as well.


----------



## Becca

mbhaub said:


> Most of the Mahler symphonies had titles; none given by him:
> 
> 1. Titan
> 2. Resurrection
> 3.
> 4.
> 5. The Giant
> 6. Tragic
> 7. Song of the Night
> 8. Symphony of a Thousand
> 9.
> 10.


The use of 'Tiitan' was only on the earlier 5 movement symphonic poem and then only for the 2nd (1893) & 3rd (1894) performances, Mahler subsequently dropped the Blumine movement, reworked it as a symphony and never used the title for the symphony.


----------



## mbhaub

Becca said:


> The use of 'Tiitan' was only on the earlier 5 movement symphonic poem and then only for the 2nd (1893) & 3rd (1894) performances, Mahler subsequently dropped the Blumine movement, reworked it as a symphony and never used the title for the symphony.


I'm aware of this, however - there have been several cds that had Mahler: *Symphony No. 1 "Titan"* emblazoned on the cover. Inappropriate yes, but the name has stuck for people.


----------



## mbhaub

and...




















And they are all the standard 4-movement Symphony no. 1.


----------



## Waehnen

My updated strategy for being a happy Mahlerian:

- Admit it needs to be done and shorten the 5th by leaving out either the 2nd Movement or the Scherzo
- Leave out the 2 first movements of symphony no. 6
- Skip symphony 7 (material that continuously affects you negatively)
- Enjoy symphonies 1, 4 and 8 with some reservations
- Enjoy symphonies 2, 3 and 9 without reservations


----------



## Enthusiast

^^ Oh no! Don't do those things. Please!



Waehnen said:


> I talk about Beethovenian symphonic logic, nothing else. And I am a friend of Mahler's music if that somehow isn't clear. Symphonic logic and thorough coherence are not the only values in music, for sure.


Indeed, the symphonic logic of Beethoven was a somewhat classical virtue. The development we find in the more romantic composers is more concerned with the way emotions play out in our minds (with sudden flights of fancy and mood changes and strange juxtapositions etc.).


----------



## Waehnen

Enthusiast said:


> ^^ Oh no! Don't do those things. Please!


Please elaborate. I will listen and appreciate it if you put your heart and mind to it and mean it. Thanks.


----------



## Aries

I think the 2nd movement of the 5th has really nice quiet sections and is important for the overall conception of the symphony of "per aspera ad astra". The Scherzo is has a really nice athmosphere, but very different to the first two movements. 

The 1st movement of the 6th pronounced character imo. Its bitter and sweet and is crafted really good. A great movement imo, my favourite within the 6th along with the slow movement. For example compare the coda of the 1st and 4th movement. I love the playful bitter sweetness of the coda of the 1st movement, while the end of the 4th movement hurted my ears more in the past than it attracted me.


----------



## Waehnen

Aries said:


> I think the 2nd movement of the 5th has really nice quiet sections and is important for the overall conception of the symphony of "per aspera ad astra". The Scherzo is has a really nice athmosphere, but very different to the first two movements.
> 
> The 1st movement of the 6th pronounced character imo. Its bitter and sweet and is crafted really good. A great movement imo, my favourite within the 6th along with the slow movement. For example compare the coda of the 1st and 4th movement. I love the playful bitter sweetness of the coda of the 1st movement, while the end of the 4th movement hurted my ears more in the past than it attracted me.


The first movement of the sixth is brialliantly constructed. But what meaningful expression does it carry? I hear it more like a scerzo or a finale, even. But not setting a theme on a symphony. That is my problem with that movement.


----------



## Enthusiast

Waehnen said:


> Please elaborate. I will listen and appreciate it if you put your heart and mind to it and mean it. Thanks.


Well, (flippantly) I am already a happy Mahlerian (and seem to become a happier one with each years that passes) without any changes to the works.

(More seriously),



> My updated strategy for being a happy Mahlerian:
> 
> - Admit it needs to be done and shorten the 5th by leaving out either the 2nd Movement or the Scherzo
> - Leave out the 2 first movements of symphony no. 6
> - Skip symphony 7 (material that continuously affects you negatively)
> - Enjoy symphonies 1, 4 and 8 with some reservations
> - Enjoy symphonies 2, 3 and 9 without reservations


The 5th was my first Mahler symphony and I have always loved it. If I had a problem with it then that was probably in the last movement which seemed a bit rambling but later I found out that that "failing" was more down to a failure of Barbirolli (otherwise a favourite recording) failing to give it sufficient shape rather than to the music itself. I always loved the way the second movement ramped up the emotion that was already at a high level in the first movement (it's like a rollercoaster that suddenly becomes more hardcore!) and the scherzo is just too wonderful to lose (Nick Busch for Barbirolli sold it to me from the outset).

The 6th is more problematic, I will grant you. When you say "leave out the first two movements" I wonder which second movement you are thinking of? It depends on which way around you place the Scherzo and the Andante - but both solutions do present problems for conductors. It is a difficult symphony to pull off but can be devastating.

The 7th? Well, it isn't my favourite but it's still a fine piece of music with much magic in it. I would not like to be without it.

We agree completely on 2, 3 and 9! And probably that 1, 4 and 8 are somehow lesser works than those three are. But, again, I think they are more difficult to bring off satisfactorily but I think we probably all know one or two versions that present them as fine and powerful works (both Ozawa and Nagano helped me to fully love the 8th and I enjoy many accounts of the 4th including Bernstein's second recording with the wonderfully strange choice of a boy soprano in the last movement). The coldness of the much praised Reiner and, to a lesser extent, Szell did spoil the work for me at one point in my listening.

I guess what I am saying is all those problems you may be thinking of seem to be spurs or opportunities for extraordinary performances. And I know of relatively few works in the repertoire that are as rewarding as they can be.


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> The first movement of the sixth is brialliantly constructed. But what meaningful expression does it carry? I hear it more like a scerzo or a finale, even. But not setting a theme on a symphony. That is my problem with that movement.


It think the movement is about a fight between depressing, pessimistic forces and consoling, optimistic elements interrupted with a peaceful refuge in the mittle of the movement with cowbells in the mountains. Its like fighting a depression but there is so much power and hope in this movement that the overall expression is a positive one imo.


----------



## Waehnen

Thank you very much, Enthusiast and Aries! Could you please recommend me recordings of both the 5th and the 6th that you find balanced and that are able to communicate and express and convince without too many problems? I would much appreciate it.

I have Bernstein, Rattle, Barbirolli and Solti of both.
Plus Abbado of the 6th.

I cannot really yet remember the main differences of the recordings. I find none of the recordings bad but would appreciate if experienced Mahlerians like you would point me to the direction that has convinced you of the works.

I wonder whether Karajan is an option? It would not be the first time that Karajan has convinced me of a work I have found problematic.


----------



## Becca

5th - Rudolf Barshai / Junge Deutsche Philharmonie
6th - Thomas Sanderling / St. Petersburg Philharmonic (despite the wrong middle movement order)

As to HvK - I am not familiar with his but one ex-TC member who was a significant Mahler scholar thought HvK's 6th to be the antithesis of what Mahler wanted. FWIW, I generally agreed with that person.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> 5th - Rudolf Barshai / Junge Deutsche Philharmonie
> 6th - Thomas Sanderling / St. Petersburg Philharmonic (despite the wrong middle movement order)
> 
> As to HvK - I am not familiar with his but one ex-TC member who was a significant Mahler scholar thought HvK's 6th to be the antithesis of what Mahler wanted. FWIW, I generally agreed with that person.


Thanks, Becca! But I read somewhere Karajan talking about Mahler. He said that the music easily sounds banal if you are not careful. He described the 6th as Kapellmeistermusik so that could suggest that Karajan would aim to eliminate the same kind of dangers that I would. It is a possibility because so far I cannot think of a single record where Karajan was "totally wrong". Most often he nailed everything he did.


----------



## Waehnen

I just had to get myself the Mahler 6th by Karajan. For once I can say that there is not a trace of Star Wars or other banalities. Not on the 1st Movement nor the 2nd — both of which have been a problem for me. Quite unbelievable that Karajan has avoided bringing to the front the elements that I have found so very irritating and under which I have found myself saying: ”I cannot listen to this”.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> ....Could you please recommend me recordings of both the 5th and the 6th that you find balanced and that are able to communicate and express and convince without too many problems? I would much appreciate it.
> I have ... Solti of both.
> Plus Abbado of the 6th.


You are in good shape!! Solti in both, Abbado/CSO is really fine also....Solti's M6 is brutal, crushing, no break for the unfortunate, but it works so well for this towering work....it isn't supposed to be "nice"...Solti's M5s [both - '70, '90] are epic, top notch, he had this piece down, and his orchestra just nails it completely....


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> ...so far I cannot think of a single record where Karajan was "totally wrong". Most often he nailed everything he did.


LOL!....sorry, I can't think of a single recording in which HvK gets it totally "right"...It just never works for me, after years and years of trial.....but, hey, give it a shot, to each his own....


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> LOL!....sorry, I can't think of a single recording in which HvK gets it totally "right"...It just never works for me, after years and years of trial.....but, hey, give it a shot, to each his own....


Heck, you are American, I am European. There sure are some differences in taste, and I find it wonderful! I am happy with diversity.


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> You are in good shape!! Solti in both, Abbado/CSO is really fine also....Solti's M6 is brutal, crushing, no break for the unfortunate, but it works so well for this towering work....it isn't supposed to be "nice"...Solti's M5s [both - '70, '90] are epic, top notch, he had this piece down, and his orchestra just nails it completely....


Thanks, I will try the Solti 6th tomorrow. Just saying the Karajan 6th is wonderful. For the first time I really liked the work.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> Thanks, I will try the Solti 6th tomorrow. Just saying the Karajan 6th is wonderful. For the first time I really liked the work.


You might not like Solti right off, you may feel that you got beaten up!! :lol::lol:


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> You might not like Solti right off, you may feel that you got beaten up!! :lol::lol:


Due to your recommendation I have a full cycle of Solti. The 1st, 2nd and 4th and 8th I have so far listened and liked them all. So not a bad record so far.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> My updated strategy for being a happy Mahlerian:
> - Skip symphony 7 (material that continuously affects you negatively)


Whaaaaat! How in the world does it affect you negatively? The whole symphony is a progression from darkness to light. It has some of the most beautiful music Mahler ever wrote. Don't take my word for it, take it from Leonard Bernstein. In his book "Findings" that's what he wrote. The 7th is perhaps the most experimental and least organic symphony, but don't skip it - ever! For many of us, it's one the most enjoyable.


----------



## Monsalvat

I also recall reading that Karajan blatantly ignored Mahler's very precise, deliberate instructions at some points in his recording of the Sixth. That recording's reputation has caused me not to listen to it, so I cannot say it's good or bad, just that it has a controversial reputation. But at the end of the day, if you like it, then it's a good recording _for you_, even if it distorts Mahler's intentions.

I can't explain exactly why I like the Seventh; it took me a long time to like it at all, but now it's something I frequently listen to. I liked Klemperer's recording and Boulez; I think this proves that it can take antipodal interpretive approaches. Klemperer is lugubrious, perhaps too slow, but he makes up for it in how he brings out the details and the _sound_ itself. I don't think the Seventh is something you can force yourself to like: come back to it every once in a while and see if you become more receptive to it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The 7th creates some fascinating "nocturnal" atmospheres, it has an "impressionist" aspect like the beginning of the 1st symphony. E.g. the beginning of the first movement, the whole 1st Nachtmusik (the second is also nice but a fairly conventional "serenade") and the dark scherzo that seems a cousin of the one in the 6th symphony. Many don't like the finale but I think it is hilarious being both an exaggerated Uber-Meistersinger-Prelude and a bit of a parody of such celebratory brassy pieces. I am not the person for musical analysis and never looked into it more deeply but I recall a person in another forum who was a musicology professor claiming that together with the 1st movement of the 9th the 1st of the 7th was the most complex piece in all Mahler.


----------



## Waehnen

Right now the problem for me in the seventh is very subjective: I dislike the first melody and the harmonies underneath it and what follows. That stuff is precisely the kind of harmonies that Karajan has been able to tone down a bit in his interpretation of the sixth. When I get home, I might analyze the harmonic problems because it is starting to interest me — what is it about it that irritates me so much. Makes me feel kinda silly.

All these strong experiences and feelings with these matters must have something to do with me being a composer myself. I cannot help but suffer from harmonies and melodies my musical mind does not like. It is stupid of course.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> Whaaaaat! How in the world does it affect you negatively? The whole symphony is a progression from darkness to light. It has some of the most beautiful music Mahler ever wrote. Don't take my word for it, take it from Leonard Bernstein. In his book "Findings" that's what he wrote. The 7th is perhaps the most experimental and least organic symphony, but don't skip it - ever! For many of us, it's one the most enjoyable.


The Bernstein book "Findings" is most interesting and enlightening....I've got to pull it out again and re-read it....Lenny's views on music are always stimulating....a genius, whether or not we agree with him all the time...


----------



## Waehnen

I also got myself the 5th by Karajan. He is my trusted creator of default interpretations. I have read Karajan praising the 5th Symphony, especially emphasizing the meaning and tremendous psychological effect of the finale. Sounds like a good starting point. Will listen to it shortly.


----------



## Merl

The 7th took a while to click with me but mainly because Id heard the wrong recordings (that diabolical, turgid Klempy 7th nearly put me off Mahler for life) and other performances wouldn't make any imprint on me. I think the first one that made me sit up and take notice was Lenny's first effort and then others started interesting me for the way they handled it (Gielen, Tilson Thomas, etc). I'll be honest I've not been able to get past that uber-expensive Inbal Exton 7th recording since I heard it. It's really that good. It helps that Exton gave that Tokyo Met cycle killer sound too.


----------



## Waehnen

After listening to versions of the 5th and 6th Symphonies by Karajan/Berliner/DG, I am finally convinced that these pieces of music are balanced, inspired and well thought out. They don’t need me messing around them with my playlists. Hah. As far as I am concerned, Karajan has been able to eliminate all banality and Star Wars and is able to electrify everything to the extent that I no longer feel these works are too long or boring or mindless babble or that Mahler somehow lost it after the 4th.

So here’s my updated strategy for being a happy Mahlerian:

- Listen to symphonies 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 without any reservations
- Listen to symphonies 1, 4, 7 and 8 with some reservations
- Choose your recordings carefully for the mainstream Mahlerism can be full and thick of mannerism


----------



## Enthusiast

Waehnen said:


> Thank you very much, Enthusiast and Aries! Could you please recommend me recordings of both the 5th and the 6th that you find balanced and that are able to communicate and express and convince without too many problems? I would much appreciate it.
> 
> I have Bernstein, Rattle, Barbirolli and Solti of both.
> Plus Abbado of the 6th.
> 
> I cannot really yet remember the main differences of the recordings. I find none of the recordings bad but would appreciate if experienced Mahlerians like you would point me to the direction that has convinced you of the works.
> 
> I wonder whether Karajan is an option? It would not be the first time that Karajan has convinced me of a work I have found problematic.


OK, so you seem to have arrived at the two Karajan performances. For me that is almost the same as saying you don't like Mahler (especially with Karajan's 5th) but obviously that's just a personal view of mine. I do have quite broad tastes in Mahler and can enjoy good performances in a wide variety of approaches. There is legitimacy and effectiveness to be found in the more pastoral and Bavarian (Kubelik or Neumann) and the relatively controlled and balanced (try Frank Shipway or Levine or perhaps even Barshai - but the latter is not one I warm to at all) and the hyper-emotional. But to my ear Karajan (I am usually a big fan of his) is just bland and dull. Mahler needs personality and flavour but Karajan, so often a master at those qualities, doesn't find it in his Mahler. Not to my ears.

You mention having Bernstein in both works but are they the two with the Vienna Phil? Those are the crowning glories of his second survey and incredibly powerful but very well structured performances. They both greatly surpass his earlier New York efforts with those symphonies. But if they are just too hysterical for you then, well, have you tried Boulez or Vanska (his 5th is especially good)? Jansons is also very good and, as often with him, very well built. His live 6th with the LSO is an first rate account. There are many many more (too many to hold in my head at the same time) but this thread is already filled with recommendations (if not always ones I personally enjoy) so we have now gone beyond words. I urge you to explore many more than you have so far.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think there are good reasons why the 7th is a bit of an acquired taste. In fact, I think it might help to consider most of Mahler an acquired taste and grant oneself time to get familiar with it. When I first encountered Mahler after a year or two of listening to classical music in the late 1980s, his music was generally considered difficult and more on the fringe of standard repertoire, i.e. it was perfectly fine not to care at all about Mahler. For conductors, too, cf. Celibidache, Wand and others who totally ignored Mahler and others like Karajan, Giulini, even Klemperer who were quite selective. 

I don't remember how many years it took me to get to the 7th, 3rd and 8th symphonies, probably 5 or more. If one needs to buy all this stuff on separate expensive CDs and has lots of other music to discover and is fairly inexperienced with complex classical music as I was as a teenager, it was a good thing to take years over years to familiarize oneself with the symphonies one after the other.


----------



## Waehnen

Enthusiast said:


> OK, so you seem to have arrived at the two Karajan performances. For me that is almost the same as saying you don't like Mahler (especially with Karajan's 5th) but obviously that's just a personal view of mine. I do have quite broad tastes in Mahler and can enjoy good performances in a wide variety of approaches. There is legitimacy and effectiveness to be found in the more pastoral and Bavarian (Kubelik or Neumann) and the relatively controlled and balanced (try Frank Shipway or Levine or perhaps even Barshai - but the latter is not one I warm to at all) and the hyper-emotional. But to my ear Karajan (I am usually a big fan of his) is just bland and dull. Mahler needs personality and flavour but Karajan, so often a master at those qualities, doesn't find it in his Mahler. Not to my ears.
> 
> You mention having Bernstein in both works but are they the two with the Vienna Phil? Those are the crowning glories of his second survey and incredibly powerful but very well structured performances. They both greatly surpass his earlier New York efforts with those symphonies. But if they are just too hysterical for you then, well, have you tried Boulez or Vanska (his 5th is especially good)? Jansons is also very good and, as often with him, very well built. His live 6th with the LSO is an first rate account. There are many many more (too many to hold in my head at the same time) but this thread is already filled with recommendations (if not always ones I personally enjoy) so we have now gone beyond words. I urge you to explore many more than you have so far.


It is quite strange to say that Karajan's Mahler is not Mahler at all. I listened to the 6th by Solti right after the Karajan version and I did not find it all that different. Both are excellent if you ask me and both avoid the banality, totally.


----------



## Monsalvat

Well, here is the thread I referred to earlier (from 2016): Karajan's Mahler 6

The comments by Mahlerian are specifically what I was recalling. It gets into a back-and-forth about whether such criticism is warranted, and I really don't know since I haven't heard it, but it made quite interesting reading for me. But the question of "banality" is quite different than what Mahlerian was addressing, which was fidelity to the composer's written instructions. In other words it might be a good performance but not a good representation of Mahler's will. Now I will leave it up to others to decide on that question.


----------



## Enthusiast

Waehnen said:


> It is quite strange to say that Karajan's Mahler is not Mahler at all. I listened to the 6th by Solti right after the Karajan version and I did not find it all that different. Both are excellent if you ask me and both avoid the banality, totally.


Fair enough. We are all different. I don't think I said that Karajan's Mahler at all - rather that I find it so. I know that there are many who disagree with me on that and would not want to suggest that they are wrong (merely that I feel differently).

I am not a big fan of Solti's Mahler either, I'm afraid.

The banality issue is an interesting one. I think Mahler does skate close to something akin to banality at times and that that (the risk taking and all) is a part of the composer he was. Much of the British music loving public dismissed Mahler for just this reason - he was said to be vulgar - until the revival in the 1960s.


----------



## Waehnen

Enthusiast said:


> Fair enough. We are all different. I don't think I said that Karajan's Mahler at all - rather that I find it so. I know that there are many who disagree with me on that and would not want to suggest that they are wrong (merely that I feel differently).
> 
> I am not a big fan of Solti's Mahler either, I'm afraid.
> 
> The banality issue is an interesting one. I think Mahler does skate close to something akin to banality at times and that that (the risk taking and all) is a part of the composer he was. Much of the British music loving public dismissed Mahler for just this reason - he was said to be vulgar - until the revival in the 1960s.


Talking about the differences in taste and preferences is very interesting! Mahler is not the only place for such, of course.

So far I have found banality mostly in what I call "The Star Wars topos" and the occurrences have been in the 6th and the 7th Symphonies. I do not find symphonies 2, 3, 5 or 9 banal at all. And at least with these versions by Karajan and Solti, I do not find the 6th banal either.

I will next listen to the 1st movement of 7th by Solti and -- fingers crossed -- hope I can bear the beginning. 

Edit: No, this I just cannot bear (the beginning of the 7th, melodies harmonies and gestures). Sorry. But I am fine now, I have many wonderful versions of Mahler symphonies and have now formed a friendship with both the 5th and the 6th, too. So nothing to complain about anymore, really.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> I will next listen to the 1st movement of 7th by Solti and -- fingers crossed -- hope I can bear the beginning.


There's a can of worms. Solti (and Barenboim, too) both play the opening rhythm unlike practically everyone else. They use a measured tremolo rather than a Bruckner-like haze. They had good reasons for it - although they couldn't convince anyone else that it was correct. I think they were, wrong, too. The unmeasured haze sounds right. So right there, in the first 30 seconds of the 7th there's an unsettled controversy.


----------



## Monsalvat

Waehnen, have you listened to Sinopoli's recording of Mahler's 7th? The beginning of the first movement is very different from any other recording I've ever heard of it; there's a totally different balance than usual. I don't know if you would like it any more than other recordings, but try the first minute or two perhaps.


----------



## Becca

I notice that there has been no mention of the 10th symphony - the performing editions, not just the adagio - if you like the 9th, I think you will also enjoy the 10th. The best recommendation is for the Cooke III version, and for that is the Rattle/Berlin recording, although the Harding/Vienna is also very good. I initially thought well of Dausgaard/Seattle but have come to the conclusion that it pushes too hard.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ For me only the Dausgaard works that well (I often find 10 difficult to appreciate). But by ten miles the Vanska recording of 10 is my preferred choice. Do you know it?


----------



## Waehnen

Monsalvat said:


> Waehnen, have you listened to Sinopoli's recording of Mahler's 7th? The beginning of the first movement is very different from any other recording I've ever heard of it; there's a totally different balance than usual. I don't know if you would like it any more than other recordings, but try the first minute or two perhaps.


I checked the beginning on Youtube. Thanks for the recommendation. I have give it to you - that sound appealing and there is not a trace of the hugely feared "Star Wars -topos" or banality. I have to check this maestro. Is this recording generally well received?


----------



## Waehnen

It is now obvious that the right performance is the deciding factor on whether I like a Mahler piece or not. Maybe more that with any other composer.

There lies the danger. The 2nd Movement of the 5th by Solti is just too one-note for me — and immediatedly my brain suggests me it is the fault of the composition, when it is not. I really enjoy the Karajan version of it which really brings expression to the gestures. I do not care for play-throughs. In this Karajan and Solti are like from a totally different planet. Karajan sings, Solti just plays through.

(I am aware that many would choose Solti over Karajan.)


----------



## Waehnen

I’ve tried my different versions of the 1st Movement of the 7th.

Abbado/Chicago is actually very good. Not a trace of banality. I am suprised!

The Bernstein version I cannot stand.

The Solti version I cannot stand.

Rattle version is also rather good!

But the winner here is Abbado for being able to balance the harmonies with such a mastery. It is still not my favourite with all the overtly excessive diminished and augmented chords but it sure is bearable.


----------



## Enthusiast

Gielen's 7s are both very good, particularly the Testament one with the Berlin Phil.


----------



## Waehnen

I have been listening to Rattle/Birmingham versions of the symphonies lately. They are always European in the sense that there is none of the Star Wars or cinematic atmosphere. Excellently musical and sophisticated interpretations and playing. I started my Mahler journey with these and now I have happily returned to them.


----------



## mbhaub

For many listeners those Rattle recordings are just wrong. The 2nd is so over-micro-managed as to become silly at times. The first movement in particular. Follow with a score and you'll see what I mean. The third is where he got the stupid - really stupid - idea of having the English horn play that glissando; other fools thought Rattle was a Mahler expert (he isn't) and followed his lead. It's a terrible idea and utterly wrong. The 7th is glib, disjointed and frankly boring - just like his performances in Los Angeles of the symphony. He does the 6th well, but there are many finer versions. The one Mahler symphony that he does better than most: the 10th. But then, it's not really a Mahler symphony. IMO Rattle is a highly over-rated conductor.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> For many listeners those Rattle recordings are just wrong. The 2nd is so over-micro-managed as to become silly at times. The first movement in particular. Follow with a score and you'll see what I mean. The third is where he got the stupid - really stupid - idea of having the English horn play that glissando; other fools thought Rattle was a Mahler expert (he isn't) and followed his lead. It's a terrible idea and utterly wrong. The 7th is glib, disjointed and frankly boring - just like his performances in Los Angeles of the symphony. He does the 6th well, but there are many finer versions. The one Mahler symphony that he does better than most: the 10th. But then, it's not really a Mahler symphony. IMO Rattle is a highly over-rated conductor.


Have you noticed a line between American conductors, orchestras and listeners and European conductors, orchestras and listeners when it comes to Mahler? Just a thought that has come to my mind lately.

I hear a clear difference between Barbirolli, Karajan and Rattle -- and Bernstein & Solti for example.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> For many listeners those Rattle recordings are just wrong. The 2nd is so over-micro-managed as to become silly at times. The first movement in particular. Follow with a score and you'll see what I mean. The third is where he got the stupid - really stupid - idea of having the English horn play that glissando; other fools thought Rattle was a Mahler expert (he isn't) and followed his lead. It's a terrible idea and utterly wrong. The 7th is glib, disjointed and frankly boring - just like his performances in Los Angeles of the symphony. He does the 6th well, but there are many finer versions. The one Mahler symphony that he does better than most: the 10th. But then, it's not really a Mahler symphony. IMO Rattle is a highly over-rated conductor.


I heard him conduct BPO in Mahler 9, on PBS-TV Great Performances - it was awesome that PBS broadcast this particular concert....I really put them up for the program choice.....performance was OK, not bad, certainly not top level....
I'm with you, I think he's over-rated...


----------



## Waehnen

I have so far enjoyed the 2nd, 5th and the 6th by Rattle. I have enjoyed the level of (micro-)management — then again I much prefer conductors who are interested in the details rather than just setting the tempo and repeating in the rehearsals, like Abbado always did: ”Listen to each other!” And then leaving the players to play the pieces through in whatever way they have done it for 30 years. That I find immensely boring. I call it ”this is how Mahler is done” attitude.

Then again I must admit that Abbado/Chicago version of the 7th is magnificent. Better than any Bernstein or Rattle or Solti.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> For many listeners those Rattle recordings are just wrong. The 2nd is so over-micro-managed as to become silly at times. The first movement in particular. Follow with a score and you'll see what I mean. The third is where he got the stupid - really stupid - idea of having the English horn play that glissando; other fools thought Rattle was a Mahler expert (he isn't) and followed his lead. It's a terrible idea and utterly wrong. The 7th is glib, disjointed and frankly boring - just like his performances in Los Angeles of the symphony. He does the 6th well, but there are many finer versions. The one Mahler symphony that he does better than most: the 10th. But then, it's not really a Mahler symphony. IMO Rattle is a highly over-rated conductor.


I listened to the 3rd by Rattle/CBSO concentrating. This truly is eclectic! I had "no idea" of some of the material because not many conductors bring all this stuff to the front. For sure this performance is not mainstream but it sure is brillliant and insightful.

What is the point of talking about the eclectism of Mahler and then playing it like Star Wars March from the beginning to end? This is thrilling Mahler. Music to my ears. I love this atmospheric Mahler. Starwars March Mahler not me thingie.


----------



## OCEANE

Waehnen said:


> I have so far enjoyed the 2nd, 5th and the 6th by Rattle. I have enjoyed the level of (micro-)management - then again I much prefer conductors who are interested in the details rather than just setting the tempo and repeating in the rehearsals, like Abbado always did: "Listen to each other!" And then leaving the players to play the pieces through in whatever way they have done it for 30 years. That I find immensely boring. I call it "this is how Mahler is done" attitude.
> 
> Then again I must admit that Abbado/Chicago version of the 7th is magnificent. Better than any Bernstein or Rattle or Solti.


I enjoy Rattle's Brahms with Berlin and some of his Mahler are also fine though not my first choice. Having said that, I think Rattle as a conductor has made great effort in his profession with achievement. I would not consider him to be overrated at all.


----------



## Triplets

Who cares low long the works took to gestate? We measure them by the result, not by the sweat expended.


----------



## Waehnen

Triplets said:


> Who cares low long the works took to gestate? We measure them by the result, not by the sweat expended.


When considering the inspired diversity within a symphony, I think symphonies 2 and 3 outshine the other symphonies. I also think they are the most original and unique pieces of music Mahler ever composed.

I think there is a correlation between the results described above and the time and effort invested by the composer.

This however has got nothing to do with the overall quality of a piece, I admit this. Symphonies 5, 6 and 9 are also masterpieces although their inspired diversity of the material within themselves and also in comparison to Mahler's complete output is not as high as with the 2nd and 3rd.


----------



## PathfinderCS

I apologize if this is not the thread for this, but I must comment.

I'm a lover of any composition that includes a major organ part alongside the orchestra and chorus parts, and naturally when I learned the 8th Symphony was written with an organ part I jumped all over it. Of course, looking through Apple Music I picked the Boulez version and was left...not very impressed.

I think part of my problem was expectations. I was expecting a LOUD organ with orchestra similar to what Saint-Saens, Widor, and Guilmant have provided and I didn't get that. I let it go after a few months and decided to come back to it. After browsing this forum I went with the recommendation for Horenstein/RPO and immediately came back with a VERY different impression. It hit me. I finally *GOT* the Eigth.

As it stands Mahler's 8th is my fav symphony period, and second classical piece behind Stravinsky's Rite. After Horenstein I also went Tilson/SFS and Solti/Chicago and finally GOT the organ part. I can actually hear and spot it with much more clarity now after many listenings. Heck; I even found the Harmonium parts! 

That said; is there a recording of the 8th with a clearer recording of the organ? Closest I found was that of the Frankfurt Radio Symphony, but they only had the first part available on YouTube.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> When considering the inspired diversity within a symphony, I think symphonies 2 and 3 outshine the other symphonies. I also think they are the most original and unique pieces of music Mahler ever composed...Mahler's complete output is not as high as with the 2nd and 3rd.


Whenever anyone asks me where to start with Mahler, I always recommend the 3rd. It has is all and is the one symphony most illustrative of Mahler's style, skill and originality. A fine performance and sonically great recording helps and the 3rd is blessed with those: Bernstein, Abbado, Maazel, Haitink, Horenstein, Honeck, Levine, Gielen, Bertini, Ozawa among them.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> Whenever anyone asks me where to start with Mahler, I always recommend the 3rd. It has is all and is the one symphony most illustrative of Mahler's style, skill and originality. A fine performance and sonically great recording helps and the 3rd is blessed with those: Bernstein, Abbado, Maazel, Haitink, Horenstein, Honeck, Levine, Gielen, Bertini, Ozawa among them.


I have Bernstein, Abbado/Vienna, Solti/Chicago and Rattle/CBSO.

Of those I like Bernstein the best but I would like yet one recording more of the 3rd. One with intense atmospheres, great sound and efficient focus on detail without loosing the sight of the whole. Rushing through with a tunnel vision is a no no for me. What version would you recommend?

Edit: I dis some research and got myself the 3rd by Chailly. I have been interested in this conductor for some time now so had to try it. Sounds excellent. Everything I desire, in fact.


----------



## OCEANE

Waehnen said:


> I have Bernstein, Abbado/Vienna, Solti/Chicago and Rattle/CBSO.
> 
> Of those I like Bernstein the best but I would like yet one recording more of the 3rd. One with intense atmospheres, great sound and efficient focus on detail without loosing the sight of the whole. Rushing through with a tunnel vision is a no no for me. What version would you recommend?
> 
> Edit: I dis some research and got myself the 3rd by Chailly. I have been interested in this conductor for some time now so had to try it. Sounds excellent. Everything I desire, in fact.


I've got the boxset of Chailly's Mahler cycle and you're right that they sound outstanding. To my personal preference, the interpretation, particularly 3, 5, 6 is well balanced.


----------



## Rach Man

Waehnen said:


> I have Bernstein, Abbado/Vienna, Solti/Chicago and Rattle/CBSO.
> 
> Of those I like Bernstein the best but I would like yet one recording more of the 3rd. One with intense atmospheres, great sound and efficient focus on detail without loosing the sight of the whole. Rushing through with a tunnel vision is a no no for me. What version would you recommend?
> 
> Edit: I dis some research and got myself the 3rd by Chailly. I have been interested in this conductor for some time now so had to try it. Sounds excellent. Everything I desire, in fact.


If I may offer two pieces of possible interest to you.

First, my favorite Mahler 3 is Honeck with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. It is brilliant and recorded in wonderful sound. In fact the first movement, with Honeck and the PSO may be my favorite movement in classical music. (That may be a tall tale. But I do feel that at the moment.)

Secondly, Michael Tilson Thomas has done some wonderful accounts of classical music called _Keeping Score_. He does one with Mahler 1, then you have him conducting the San Francisco Orchestra performing the symphony at the end. These videos of Tilson Thomas explaining great classical works are splendid . I have bought many of them and enjoyed each one. The Mahler 1 is right at the top of my list of his videos.

Here is a link where you can watch it on YouTube. Take some time and watch it. It is very good.






I hope that you like the video. Plus try Honeck and the PSO perform Mahler 3.


----------



## OCEANE

Rach Man said:


> If I may offer two pieces of possible interest to you.
> 
> First, my favorite Mahler 3 is Honeck with the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra. It is brilliant and recorded in wonderful sound. In fact the first movement, with Honeck and the PSO may be my favorite movement in classical music. (That may be a tall tale. But I do feel that at the moment.)
> 
> Secondly, Michael Tilson Thomas has done some wonderful accounts of classical music called _Keeping Score_. He does one with Mahler 1, then you have him conducting the San Francisco Orchestra performing the symphony at the end. These videos of Tilson Thomas explaining great classical works are splendid . I have bought many of them and enjoyed each one. The Mahler 1 is right at the top of my list of his videos.
> 
> Here is a link where you can watch it on YouTube. Take some time and watch it. It is very good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope that you like the video. Plus try Honeck and the PSO perform Mahler 3.











I dont have CD of Honeck's mahler but DSD files and his recording is top class. As for the interpretation, I like them as well but I think they might not be other's cup of tea.


----------



## mbhaub

^^^^ That is a terrific recording as are all of the Mahler they did. It's frustrating that the cycle on Exton will likely never be complete.


----------



## ansfelden

Mahler is 1 and 4 for me, everything else i have not comprehended (maybe as it should be) yet. every now and then i try, but most of the time it is... Bruckner instead.


----------



## KevinJS

PathfinderCS said:


> I apologize if this is not the thread for this, but I must comment.
> 
> I'm a lover of any composition that includes a major organ part alongside the orchestra and chorus parts, and naturally when I learned the 8th Symphony was written with an organ part I jumped all over it. Of course, looking through Apple Music I picked the Boulez version and was left...not very impressed.
> 
> I think part of my problem was expectations. I was expecting a LOUD organ with orchestra similar to what Saint-Saens, Widor, and Guilmant have provided and I didn't get that. I let it go after a few months and decided to come back to it. After browsing this forum I went with the recommendation for Horenstein/RPO and immediately came back with a VERY different impression. It hit me. I finally *GOT* the Eigth.
> 
> As it stands Mahler's 8th is my fav symphony period, and second classical piece behind Stravinsky's Rite. After Horenstein I also went Tilson/SFS and Solti/Chicago and finally GOT the organ part. I can actually hear and spot it with much more clarity now after many listenings. Heck; I even found the Harmonium parts!
> 
> That said; is there a recording of the 8th with a clearer recording of the organ? Closest I found was that of the Frankfurt Radio Symphony, but they only had the first part available on YouTube.


I read that Chailly's recording is particularly sympathetic to the organ. Can't say though, because I don't have it (yet). When it arrives, I'll report back here.


----------



## Waehnen

My intuitive urge all over again would be to delete the repetition from the beginning of the 6th Symphony’s 1st Movement. Also, the finale could have been edited to be at least 20% shorter without losing anything crucial. Anyone agree?


----------



## Monsalvat

The first movement of Mahler's Sixth is in sonata-allegro form, and he even calls for a repeat of the exposition. Are you saying you don't believe the repeat of the exposition should be observed, or that the recapitulation should be excised? My own inclination would be to keep everything as is, Andante–Scherzo, and observe the exposition repeat. I could understand someone arguing for Scherzo–Andante (and many conductors have performed it with either ordering in the past and present), and it's not that uncommon to drop exposition repeats, but I wouldn't want to venture further than that.


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are quite a few recordings without the exposition repeat. There are also some (like Kondrashin) that are in addition very fast, so the movement becomes quite terse (about 16-18 min).


----------



## Aries

Waehnen said:


> My intuitive urge all over again would be to delete the repetition from the beginning of the 6th Symphony's 1st Movement. Also, the finale could have been edited to be at least 20% shorter without losing anything crucial. Anyone agree?


I just heard the mentioned Kondrashin recording, and I think leaving out the repetition of the exposition works and enhances the development. But I think this in general, regarding other works too. No movement comes to my mind where I need the exposition repetition.

Kondrashin also places the Scherzo in the second position and the slow movement in 3rd, what are just better fitting places for the movements imo. The Scherzo after the first movement sounds right, the slow movement after the Scherzo sounds right. On the other hand the Scherzo after the slow movement sounds misplaced.

The Finale is maybe too long, overall it just didn't captured me yet.


----------



## mbhaub

The finale too long? Nah, it's a great adventure. It's a tale told in tones and quite a ride if the performance is up to par and the listener does his job too: listen and follow the story. Most people have no trouble with movies that go on for hours, TV shows of 30 minutes, operas that last seemingly forever. Why should a 30 minute movement cause any trouble? I just put on the headphones, turn out the lights and let Mahler tell me a nice story. Not one minute too long.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> The finale too long? Nah, it's a great adventure. It's a tale told in tones and quite a ride if the performance is up to par and the listener does his job too: listen and follow the story. Most people have no trouble with movies that go on for hours, TV shows of 30 minutes, operas that last seemingly forever. Why should a 30 minute movement cause any trouble? I just put on the headphones, turn out the lights and let Mahler tell me a nice story. Not one minute too long.


How would you describe the story, though? I hear it as three waves, of a hero or a war machine trying to march. A hammer blow kind of finishes every wave. Before the last wave peace of mind is even searched at the countryside, with the cowbells and all that - but still the 3rd hammerblow awaits. So it would be a story of enthusiastic and optimistic and even foolish persistence until finally admitting one's fate, right?

I cannot help but have a feeling that to a certain extent there is compensation for the lack of high profile ideas through excessive and extended elaboration. Why tell a new story and not build on the story already told in the previous movements?

It seems I am also of the school that thinks music should be so engaging that no other arguments are needed. Something is wrong if I need to constantly push myself in order to stay interested.


----------



## Livly_Station

There's no Mahler Symphony which strikes me as perfect from beginning to end, but that's not to say I don't love the cycle -- only that it's harder for me to figure out my absolute favorite, unless we're including _Das Lied Von Der Erde_, which is everything I could hope for in music. Other than that, maybe the 10th is the one flawless symphony, but unfortunately it wasn't finished.

- If I had to choose one now, the 3rd might be my ideal Mahler Symphony, since it gives me that full _Mahler experience_ of confronting an entire world made out of pure music, in this case quite literally. I love how the first movement starts as a _Creation Myth_ (in my mind): a fanfare introduces the spiritual darkness of the silent Cosmos, which is followed by violent lightning bolts hitting a rocky Earth, and then finally Life awakens. Brilliant! All movements that follow are beautiful and add to the worldbuilding of the work, although not all are awe-inspiring on their own. That final movement though -- it's transcendental! And a great idea to end the Myth.

- The 9th could be my favorite Symphony because the outer movement are truly perfect. Nevertheless, I can't find myself to love the inner movements. I like them alright, but they don't match the greatness I need for what's around them.

- That's why I might place the the 4th and 5th Symphonies above the 9th. Although not achieving the same highs, both pieces are cohesive, creative, emotional, fun and inspiring -- in fact, I listen to them the most out of the entire cycle.

- The 7th Symphony is not far behind. I can't say it's cohesive as a whole, but it's full of great ideas and captivating melodies. And chaos too -- good chaos.

- I have a weird history with the 2nd Symphony... I still remember listening to it for the first time and _loving_ it all the way through... but this experience never happened again. Don't ask me why. Some parts are iconic though.

- The 1st Symphony is well written, pretty, but hardly on par with the other Symphonies.

- I've never enjoyed the 6th Symphony even though the slow movement is one of my favorites.

- I should listen to the 8th more. I have nothing to say about it.


----------



## Livly_Station

Recently I've been listening to Kubelik and Sinopoli, both refreshing to me.


----------



## Waehnen

Livly_Station said:


> There's no Mahler Symphony which strikes me as perfect from beginning to end, but that's not to say I don't love the cycle -- only that it's harder for me to figure out my absolute favorite, unless we're including _Das Lied Von Der Erde_, which is everything I could hope for in music. Other than that, maybe the 10th is the one flawless symphony, but unfortunately it wasn't finished.
> 
> - If I had to choose one now, the 3rd might be my ideal Mahler Symphony, since it gives me that full _Mahler experience_ of confronting an entire world made out of pure music, in this case quite literally. I love how the first movement starts as a _Creation Myth_ (in my mind): a fanfare introduces the spiritual darkness of the silent Cosmos, which is followed by violent lightning bolts hitting a rocky Earth, and then finally Life awakens. Brilliant! All movements that follow are beautiful and add to the worldbuilding of the work, although not all are awe-inspiring on their own. That final movement though -- it's transcental! And a great idea to end the Myth.
> 
> - The 9th could be my favorite Symphony because the outer movement are truly perfect. Nevertheless, I can't find myself to love the inner movements. I like them alright, but they don't match the greatness I need for what's around them.
> 
> - That's why I might place the the 4th and 5th Symphonies above the 9th. Although not achieving the same highs, both pieces are cohesive, creative, emotional, fun and inspiring -- in fact, I listen to them the most out of the entire cycle.
> 
> - The 7th Symphony is not far behind. I can't say it's cohesive as a whole, but it's full of great ideas and captivating melodies. And chaos too -- good chaos.
> 
> - I have a weird history with the 2nd Symphony... I still remember listening to it for the first time and _loving_ it all the way through... but this experience never happened again. Don't ask me why. Some parts are iconic though.
> 
> - The 1st Symphony is well written, pretty, but hardly on par with the other Symphonies.
> 
> - I've never enjoyed the 6th Symphony even though the slow movement is one of my favorites.
> 
> - I should listen to the 8th more. I have nothing to say about it.


My problem with the 8th is that the singing starts immediatedly. And if I have heard correctly, there is a lot of Eb Major chorale - in the same key as the 2nd Symphony finale. Certain elements seem to have been circulated from the 2nd. It feels as though Mahler wanted a comeback for the success of the 2nd Symphony and thus repeated himself a bit.


----------



## realdealblues

Waehnen said:


> My problem with the 8th is that the singing starts immediatedly. And if I have heard correctly, there is a lot of Eb Major chorale - in the same key as the 2nd Symphony finale. Certain elements seem to have been circulated from the 2nd. It feels as though Mahler wanted a comeback for the success of the 2nd Symphony and thus repeated himself a bit.


Couldn't disagree more with that statement. The 8th was Mahler's return to orchestra and voice after focusing on the purely orchestral 5th, 6th & 7th symphonies, but that's about all it has in common with the 2nd. Part one of the 8th is more like Mahler "Mahlerizing" Bach and part two is totally Operatic in nature. Mahler considered it the greatest thing he had ever composed up to that point and that his earlier works were nothing more than steps leading up to it. There was no looking for a "comeback" of the 2nd symphony, it was something entirely new. As much as I love the 2nd, the scope of the 8th dwarfs the 2nd in everyway in my book.


----------



## Waehnen

realdealblues said:


> Couldn't disagree more with that statement. The 8th was Mahler's return to orchestra and voice after focusing on the purely orchestral 5th, 6th & 7th symphonies, but that's about all it has in common with the 2nd. Part one of the 8th is more like Mahler "Mahlerizing" Bach and part two is totally Operatic in nature. Mahler considered it the greatest thing he had ever composed up to that point and that his earlier works were nothing more than steps leading up to it. There was no looking for a "comeback" of the 2nd symphony, it was something entirely new. As much as I love the 2nd, the scope of the 8th dwarfs the 2nd in everyway in my book.


Please tell your favourite recording of this symphony! I am happy if I am wrong. When it comes to Mahler, I have often been wrong in my initial "statements".


----------



## Becca

Try the live Proms Rattle / Nat'l Youth Orchestra of GB performance which you can find on YouTube. It has a level of cohesion and enthusiasm which I haven't found in commercial recordings.


----------



## realdealblues

Waehnen said:


> Please tell your favourite recording of this symphony! I am happy if I am wrong. When it comes to Mahler, I have often been wrong in my initial "statements".


Probably my favorite that generally flies under the radar is Michael Gielen's first recording which was a live recording from 1981 on the Sony label.







For me it captures the excitement that seems to come from a "live" performance perfectly.

I like Bernstein's 1966 recording with the London Symphony Orchestra, and while sometimes considered "overrated" or "over mentioned" I do still like Solti's 1971 recording with the Chicago Symphony.


----------



## PathfinderCS

Waehnen said:


> Please tell your favourite recording of this symphony! I am happy if I am wrong. When it comes to Mahler, I have often been wrong in my initial "statements".


Solti/Chicago is really the go-to, but Michael Tilson Thomas/San Francisco Symphony is a FINE recording as well!


----------



## Waehnen

realdealblues said:


> Probably my favorite that generally flies under the radar is Michael Gielen's first recording which was a live recording from 1981 on the Sony label.
> View attachment 165241
> 
> For me it captures the excitement that seems to come from a "live" performance perfectly.
> 
> I like Bernstein's 1966 recording with the London Symphony Orchestra, and while sometimes considered "overrated" or "over mentioned" I do still like Solti's 1971 recording with the Chicago Symphony.


That Gielen recording is actually my first Mahler CD, from a long time ago. I did not get the music then so I have not spinned the CD often. But I will bounce it now into a digital format and start listening. Thank you!

I have also the Solti/Chicago + 1 Rattle/CBSO so all I should need is some serious listening with an open mind.


----------



## Waehnen

Listened to the Gielen version of Symphony 8. It is actually really good. The music doesn’t sound bombastic at all. And the focus is not on ”oh my how much people there is on the stage”. The sound fields and textures are actually very balanced.

This experience now made me a friend of the 8th Symphony.

But you must admit there definitely is conscious refering to the Finale of the 2nd Symphony! The same cadenzas reaching Eb Major in full choir + orchestra celebrative tutti.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> The finale too long? Nah, it's a great adventure. It's a tale told in tones and quite a ride if the performance is up to par and the listener does his job too: listen and follow the story. Most people have no trouble with movies that go on for hours, TV shows of 30 minutes, operas that last seemingly forever. Why should a 30 minute movement cause any trouble? I just put on the headphones, turn out the lights and let Mahler tell me a nice story. Not one minute too long.


The Barbirolli version is convincing and it makes sense in my ears.


----------



## Marc

mbhaub said:


> The finale too long? Nah, it's a great adventure. It's a tale told in tones and quite a ride if the performance is up to par and the listener does his job too: listen and follow the story. Most people have no trouble with movies that go on for hours, TV shows of 30 minutes, operas that last seemingly forever. Why should a 30 minute movement cause any trouble? I just put on the headphones, turn out the lights and let Mahler tell me a nice story. Not one minute too long.


I do not have problems with the length of this Finale either. There is intensity from start to finish.
The only 2 long movements that cause a bit of 'trouble' with me and make me check my watch are the Finale of the 2nd and the opening movement of the 3rd (especially the latter). 
Also the 2nd movement of the 8th, but I myself consider that a three-part movement without pauses between the various parts.


----------



## Marc

FWIW, this could be my favourite cycle... well...

1 Florida Philharmonic Orchestra - James Judd
2 Budapest Festival Orchestra et al - Lisa Milne, Birgit Remmert, Iván Fischer
3 Concertgebouw Orkest et al - Maureen Forrester, Bernard Haitink
4 Radio Sinfonie-Orchester Frankfurt - Helen Donath, Eliahu Inbal
5 Junge Deutsche Philharmonie - Rudolf Barshai
6 New Philharmonia Orchestra - John Barbirolli
7 Chicago Symphony Orchetra - Claudio Abbado
8 Boston Symphony Orchestra et al - Seji Ozawa
Das Lied von der Erde - New Philharmonia Orchestra, Christa Ludwig, Fritz Wunderlich, Otto Klemperer
9 London Symphony Orchestra - Georg Solti
10 Radio-Sinfonie Orchester Berlin - Riccardo Chailly

If I would have to pick one cycle with 'just' one conductor, then I would probably go for Gary Bertini.
I do admit though that my listening experiences are limited, that is to say: I do not know much 21st century recordings/performances. I kinda stopped collecting more Mahler for the last (more or less) two decades, with the odd exception of course.


----------



## Waehnen

I find Mahler gargantuant, effective, skillful, impactful and often beautiful. But graceful? Never. Mahler is like a gorgeous ballet performed by most skillful and expressive gorillas.


----------



## mbhaub

Not graceful? As in...
Symphony 2, movement 2
Symphony 3, movement 2
Symphony 4, movement 3
Symphony 5, movement 3
Symphony 6, movement 3 (S/A)
Symphony 7, movement 4

Very graceful, if played and conducted well.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> Not graceful? As in...
> Symphony 2, movement 2
> Symphony 3, movement 2
> Symphony 4, movement 3
> Symphony 5, movement 3
> Symphony 6, movement 3 (S/A)
> Symphony 7, movement 4
> 
> Very graceful, if played and conducted well.


Yes, Mahler is full of gorgeous and beautiful, stunning music!

But I talk of gracefulness as in:

Mozart 40th Symphony, movement 2
Beethoven, Piano Sonata no. 30, 1st Movement
Schubert String Quintet, movement 2
Brahms, Piano Quartet no. 3, movement 3
Sibelius 6th Symphony, movement 1

That absolute gracefulness of music! You get what I mean? That is what I am talking about.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> Not graceful? As in...
> Symphony 2, movement 2
> Symphony 3, movement 2
> Symphony 4, movement 3
> Symphony 5, movement 3
> Symphony 6, movement 3 (S/A)
> Symphony 7, movement 4
> 
> Very graceful, if played and conducted well.


I used a wrong word, sorry! The right word is exquisite!


----------



## mbhaub

No, I really don't know what you mean now.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> No, I really don't know what you mean now.


Exquisite grace? You buy that one?


----------



## Waehnen

Mahler’s 2nd Symphony by Klemperer/Philharmonia must be one of the absolute high points of western classical art concert music.


----------



## Becca

You do like hyperbole, don't you!
I would never go that far but can say that Klemperer/Bavarian RSO is just a tad better in that it is from a live performance but is otherwise very similar.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> You do like hyperbole, don't you!
> I would never go that far but can say that Klemperer/Bavarian RSO is just a tad better in that it is from a live performance but is otherwise very similar.


I suppose you are right! I am drawn to hyperboles. The reason for that is: when it comes to music, hyperboles are safe and even helpful! Music forms its own reality in a way.

Sometimes composers have one definite work which plays to all their strenghts and shows no weaknesses — and with Mahler that is the 2nd Symphony.

Klemperer has many high points but Mahler 2nd is definitely one of the highest.


----------



## Waehnen

I think Haitink is one of the greatest Mahler conductors, if not the greatest. I truly like the ”Mahler persona” Haitink communicates. This Mahler actually sounds like a lucid, mature, sober and balanced person — as opposed to self-centered, pompous or over-dramatic.


----------



## Monsalvat

I'm only really familiar with Haitink's Concertgebouw cycle. Do you know if his Berlin recordings of Mahler are worth exploring also? I think he was an understated conductor, which contributed to him being an underrated conductor... the opposite of big and flashy, which might sell fewer CDs or tickets but gives a more balanced interpretation. I've heard the term "objective" used to describe Haitink... but I will stay away from this epithet myself.


----------



## mbhaub

Haitink's Mahler is excellent. It's more in line with Bruno Walter than Leonard Bernstein. He plays it as a musical composition; it's very beautiful and easy to live with. It's impressive and quite enjoyable even if he doesn't storm the heavens like Bernstein and others. He was fortunate that producers let him keep recording Mahler. There are some recordings where maybe someone should have told him to stop, but listening to his early Philips set and then the later ones, he definitely matured and had different insights in his later years. So did Bernstein in his three cycles. There are some of the Berlin recordings I prefer to the Concertgebouw, like the 6th. But even better was the 6th with Chicago on their own label. Haitink's Mahler is not my favorite, but there's nothing wrong with any of it and his overall achievement in Amsterdam or Berlin is at a very, very high level and more consistent than practically anyone's, including Bernstein.


----------



## Enthusiast

I love a lot of Bernstein's Mahler but I feel his way is the outlier rather than the norm or standard. Thank God for that. There is so much great Mahler to be heard and loved once any idea that his is the right way is ditched. As for Haitink, I don't know his Berlin Mahler but in general I think his late recordings were often something special. On the other hand I have it in mind that he became a little ambivalent about Mahler (do I have that right), possibly because he was known as a Mahler expert in the 1970s and 80s.


----------



## Waehnen

I got from my previous Bruckner7/Jochum experience the mental state of just floating and enjoying, not analyzing a bit.

With the same mental state I listened to Das Lied von der Erde (Klemperer) and the 8th Symphony (Solti). And I enjoyed both more than ever.

With this music one might need to float and go with the flow and waves. If you wish to analyse the melodies/harmonies/rhythms/drama or extensively listen to details, you might get lost.


----------



## Waehnen

Listening to the 4th by Haitink/Royal Concertgebouw. The same thing here as with the 7th. The music suddenly has a point to it and it is not just Mahler doing some Viennese hopping around.

One of Haitink’s virtues is the ability go make Mahler sound gentle and balanced and colourful when needed. He totally avoids the ”rock n’ roll let’s do whaddeva we want” -attitude of some after declaring Mahler the composer of the new generation.

Also, one musical situation leads logically to another. It creates a strong sense of meaningful expression.


----------



## Waehnen

So far all the Haitink versions I have place on top: 3rd (a tie with Bernstein), 4th, 5th, 6th (a tie with Rattle), 7th and 9th.

I wonder could Haitink possibly surpass Klemperer and Rattle on the 2nd Symphony or Gielen or Solti on the 8th?


----------



## Waehnen

The 8th by Haitink is also wonderful! It is just amazing how this one conductor manages to communicate the Mahler music to me in a meaningful way.

This is ridiculous: even the 2nd rises to the top (with Rattle and Klemperer). The very ending is the most ecstatic ever! The ending is where I though Haitink would fall behind the others -- but was I wrong, little did I know!


----------



## Waehnen

I have been a bit criticised on this forum for having problems with the 2nd Movement of the 5th. Like I stated before, I have felt the movement is somewhat unnecessary because the statement has already been made in the 1st Movement.

Well, it was only tonight that I read that Mahler himself had planned the symphony to be in 4 movements. The first two movements were together at first but he split them into two movements. I am extremely happy that for once he had the discipline to make such an excellent and concise first movement and leave the 2nd movement stuff out of it. But I would rather hear the symphony without the leftover material 2nd movement.

Sorry all, again. Still, an amazing symphony!


----------



## mbhaub

That second movement is what makes or breaks a performance for me. It must be driven hard and really move. With Vehemence! Taken too slowly and tamely it loses all purpose. The very ending, with that single solo timpani note, is so much more effective if what came before was so manic. The trouble is that this is a long, tough, tiring and demanding movement that comes right after another long, tough, demanding movement. The stamina it takes to pull it off is tremendous and maybe that's why even in concert it can be a letdown. No excuses for recordings.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> That second movement is what makes or breaks a performance for me. It must be driven hard and really move. With Vehemence! Taken too slowly and tamely it loses all purpose. The very ending, with that single solo timpani note, is so much more effective if what came before was so manic. The trouble is that this is a long, tough, tiring and demanding movement that comes right after another long, tough, demanding movement. The stamina it takes to pull it off is tremendous and maybe that's why even in concert it can be a letdown. No excuses for recordings.


Thank you for your balanced and insightful opinion on the matter. Much appreciated!


----------



## RobertJTh

To me, the 2nd movement is absolutely essential. It serves as a logical continuation and intensification of the first movement, and ties the whole symphony together because the chorale theme returns in the finale, creating a most effective arch form. The use of this chorale theme is (to me) one of the most impressive feats in any symphony by Mahler. It tries to give the movement a positive conclusion, but at the height of the victorious climax, it's defeated by the negative forces, and it's like the music plunges down into an abyss of despair. A chilling moment - and Mahler must have realized its power since he built the finale of the 6th upon similar structures, on an even larger scale.
To me, the finale of the 5th with all its wonderful themes, counterpoint and mastery of invention would be a rather pointless, superficial and disconnected affair if it weren't for that magical moment where the chorale theme appears again, and now reaches the intended positive outcome.
There are not many recordings that make you realize that the symphony is built on these two pivotal points. Many conductors simply underplay the climaxes. Barbirolli is one that makes you feel the weight and importance of that climax in the 2nd movement


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> To me, the 2nd movement is absolutely essential. It serves as a logical continuation and intensification of the first movement, and ties the whole symphony together because the chorale theme returns in the finale, creating a most effective arch form. The use of this chorale theme is (to me) one of the most impressive feats in any symphony by Mahler. It tries to give the movement a positive conclusion, but at the height of the victorious climax, it's defeated by the negative forces, and it's like the music plunges down into an abyss of despair. A chilling moment - and Mahler must have realized its power since he built the finale of the 6th upon similar structures, on an even larger scale.
> To me, the finale of the 5th with all its wonderful themes, counterpoint and mastery of invention would be a rather pointless, superficial and disconnected affair if it weren't for that magical moment where the chorale theme appears again, and now reaches the intended positive outcome.
> There are not many recordings that make you realize that the symphony is built on these two pivotal points. Many conductors simply underplay the climaxes. Barbirolli is one that makes you feel the weight and importance of that climax in the 2nd movement


I have not been able to leave the 2nd Movement out of my listening due to balance issues. There is just too much of the brighter music and the 1st movement is left isolated and standing alone if you leave the 2nd movement out. I have also loved the brightening in the end of the 2nd movement. The whole symphony seems like a process.

Nevertheless I have never been able to avoid getting the feeling that there is some leftover material from the 1st Movement that Mahler just wasn´t brave enough to get rid of. Using the same themes and harmonies again has also always brought to mind the idea that Mahler was somehow lacking in inventive powers. The 2nd Movement could have been created without the excessive use of the 1st Movement Material. Such a brightening towards the chorale and the referring to the finale could have been achieved through other, thematically more subtle and sophisticated means.

I get the feeling of Mahler being lazy, uninventive or arrogant and that takes me out of the magic. It is very unfortunate for me because just like with the 6th, with some minor editing I would have yet another perfect symphony to listen to. 

Your post is nevertheless very much on point and I will listen to my Barbirolli with that in mind today.


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> To me, the 2nd movement is absolutely essential. It serves as a logical continuation and intensification of the first movement, and ties the whole symphony together because the chorale theme returns in the finale, creating a most effective arch form. The use of this chorale theme is (to me) one of the most impressive feats in any symphony by Mahler. It tries to give the movement a positive conclusion, but at the height of the victorious climax, it's defeated by the negative forces, and it's like the music plunges down into an abyss of despair. A chilling moment - and Mahler must have realized its power since he built the finale of the 6th upon similar structures, on an even larger scale.
> To me, the finale of the 5th with all its wonderful themes, counterpoint and mastery of invention would be a rather pointless, superficial and disconnected affair if it weren't for that magical moment where the chorale theme appears again, and now reaches the intended positive outcome.
> There are not many recordings that make you realize that the symphony is built on these two pivotal points. Many conductors simply underplay the climaxes. Barbirolli is one that makes you feel the weight and importance of that climax in the 2nd movement


Barbirolli was kinda slow in the finale? I must say I prefer the Haitink/Concertgebouw version to almost anything, even in the 2nd Movement.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't understand how anyone could find the 2nd movement redundant. Even IF it shared ALL the material with the 1st mvmt (which is IMO not the case, I don't hear such close resemblance at all) this would be a bit like saying Beethoven should only have written 15 or 20 Diabelli-Variations, not 33, and that he was "lazy" by not writing another 15 variations on a different theme instead of using the same. 
But it is totally different. If pressed, I'd probably say that this is the real "Hauptsatz" of the 5th and the funeral march before an "overlong introduction" (which would also be nonsense, but maybe you get what I mean with that) To me, it seems more that the first two movements are both necessary and neither is redundant. I am trying to think of another or similar case with two closely related but still strongly contrasting movements but I am not sure. Maybe "fantasies" sharing some material/themes, like Schubert's Wandererfantasie or violin fantasy... Certainly there must be similar cases in later 20th century music.


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> I get the feeling of Mahler being lazy, uninventive or arrogant and that takes me out of the magic.


😡 That strange sound you hear would be the sound of my blood boiling and steam coming out of my ears. I doubt any of the great 20th century composers would have the cojones to call Mahler lazy, arrogant or lacking invention. You really have an inordinately high opinion of yourself with regard to pointing out the ‘faults’ of one of the greats. If you don’t like the things he does why on earth subject yourself to listening to him and even more so, subjecting us to your curious judgements?


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't understand how anyone could find the 2nd movement redundant. Even IF it shared ALL the material with the 1st mvmt (which is IMO not the case, I don't hear such close resemblance at all) this would be a bit like saying Beethoven should only have written 15 or 20 Diabelli-Variations, not 33, and that he was "lazy" by not writing another 15 variations on a different theme instead of using the same.
> But it is totally different. If pressed, I'd probably say that this is the real "Hauptsatz" of the 5th and the funeral march before an "overlong introduction" (which would also be nonsense, but maybe you get what I mean with that) To me, it seems more that the first two movements are both necessary and neither is redundant. I am trying to think of another or similar case with two closely related but still strongly contrasting movements but I am not sure. Maybe "fantasies" sharing some material/themes, like Schubert's Wandererfantasie or violin fantasy... Certainly there must be similar cases in later 20th century music.


Like I said before, leaving the 2nd Movement out would hurt the balance of the symphony. So I cannot truly suggest leaving it out. So for that reason the word redundant is not something I would use.

Sometimes there are moments when I just have to admit that my personal musical taste does not react well to something. This might be one of those cases. There are not many movements in any of the Mahler symphonies that I would not like at all. The finale of the 6th and the first movement of the 7th I would shorten, but I still like much of the material in both movements despite the inevitable frustration.

But for the first time I have to admit: the second movement of the 5th Symphony is in my opinion just ugly and unpleasant. I do not like it at all. It is not music I care to listen to. It represents everything I dislike in music: jumping from one theme and gesture to another without seemingly any point. Pompous, hysteric and noisy. Add to it that it repeats the themes from the first movement whilst being everything I mention. So I will no longer try to explain or rationalise my dislike for the 2nd Movement. It is just plain awful and ugly.

I apologise because it is not constructive or pleasant to talk about what we dislike, all that much.


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> 😡 That strange sound you hear would be the sound of my blood boiling and steam coming out of my ears. I doubt any of the great 20th century composers would have the cojones to call Mahler lazy, arrogant or lacking invention. You really have an inordinately high opinion of yourself with regard to pointing out the ‘faults’ of one of the greats. If you don’t like the things he does why on earth subject yourself to listening to him and even more so, subjecting us to your curious judgements?


Of course I did not call him lazy, arrogant or lacking invention, I just pointed out that this particular movements gives me the feeling of such. But you are right that it is curious I keep on talking about Mahler and what causes me frustration about Mahler. But I have never encountered work of another major composer which creates such an enormous urge within me to EDIT, EDIT, EDIT. I have never ever felt the need to edit any Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Sibelius, Chopin, Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Mendelssohn, Schumann...

So this is new and very peculiar for me as well.

I wish there was a ban for me to post about Mahler. I have indeed said enough, although I aim at good and mean no harm.


----------



## Monsalvat

_Stürmisch bewegt, mit größter Vehemenz_. It's not meant to be comfortable or pretty music. I wouldn't call it awful and ugly, though; nor would I call it pompous. I can't fault you for not liking it but I wouldn't blame it on Mahler. So I think this is fair, since everyone is entitled to their own tastes:


Waehnen said:


> Sometimes there are moments when I just have to admit that my personal musical taste does not react well to something. [...] It represents everything I dislike in music.


But not this:


Waehnen said:


> It is just plain awful and ugly.


It works well for me, and not just on a structural level. I can think of plenty of works I would describe as more "ugly" than this. I also confess I don't feel the same way that you do about Mahler's repetition; repetition can be a good thing, as in a sonata-allegro or rondo movement, and development of previously introduced material is one of the fundamental inventive processes in music.

Now halfway through writing this post I see you have responded with another: I know you mean no harm. I guess Mahler just frustrates you for some reason. I've never felt that impulse to edit (in Mahler or elsewhere), though I know you are a composer also and I am _not_. What I think I find most peculiar is that it only seems to be certain movements of Mahler (5/I, 6/IV, 7/I) that seem to trigger this impulse in you. Perhaps Mahler's use of the symphonic structure introduced novel subjective traits which you instinctively find disagreeable? I've written this before, but I've noticed that Mahler's own process of editing his works involved details of orchestration, balance and dynamics, but _not_ structure, whereas your own remarks focus _only_ (or nearly so) on modifying the structure. I don't know why that is, obviously.


----------



## Waehnen

Monsalvat said:


> _Stürmisch bewegt, mit größter Vehemenz_. It's not meant to be comfortable or pretty music. I wouldn't call it awful and ugly, though; nor would I call it pompous. I can't fault you for not liking it but I wouldn't blame it on Mahler. So I think this is fair, since everyone is entitled to their own tastes:
> 
> But not this:
> 
> It works well for me, and not just on a structural level. I can think of plenty of works I would describe as more "ugly" than this. I also confess I don't feel the same way that you do about Mahler's repetition; repetition can be a good thing, as in a sonata-allegro or rondo movement, and development of previously introduced material is one of the fundamental inventive processes in music.
> 
> Now halfway through writing this post I see you have responded with another: I know you mean no harm. I guess Mahler just frustrates you for some reason. I've never felt that impulse to edit (in Mahler or elsewhere), though I know you are a composer also and I am _not_. What I think I find most peculiar is that it only seems to be certain movements of Mahler (5/I, 6/IV, 7/I) that seem to trigger this impulse in you. Perhaps Mahler's use of the symphonic structure introduced novel subjective traits which you instinctively find disagreeable? I've written this before, but I've noticed that Mahler's own process of editing his works involved details of orchestration, balance and dynamics, but _not_ structure, whereas your own remarks focus _only_ (or nearly so) on modifying the structure. I don't know why that is, obviously.


Thanks Monsalvat for your wise words and understanding. 

Yes, my own remarks focus only on modifying the structure. There is something about Mahler that triggers the composer in me. This is a personality trait of mine, which very seldom comes forward and which I very seldom need to analyze. It is my deep inner aim at an aesthetic balance, I think.

I take music very seriously. When I listen to music and learn to accept a composition, I subconsciously listen to it as though the composition was my own. Listening to a Schubert Sonata, I hear the person composing it, I understand the inner logic -- and my heart and mind sings along. And nearly always with the great masters I feel no need to complain about their musical structures, quite the opposite. I accept the outcome and would have composed the pieces the same way if I was them.

But with Mahler there are places where I cannot seem to _accept _the music. My soul does not sing with the music no matter how hard I try. Outside the symphonies 2, 3 and 9, I cannot find myself coming to the same conclusions about the material as Mahler. But through symphonies 2 and 3 and the 9th, my heart and mind sings. With the rest of the symphonies it is just movements I am able to accept.

It is a new thing for me not being able to accept compositions from a major composer.

The things I am not able to accept irritate me, and I have been trying to find my way around them with multiple versions. This relentlessness has of course benefitted me in that I have found excellent versions of each symphonies. With Haitink I have found peace when it comes to the versions -- there cannot be better versions than these, when it comes to me and Mahler. (But nothing surpasses Klemperer´s Resurrection!)


----------



## Becca

If you find the 2nd movement so 'ugly and unpleasant', why not do as you did with the 7th, i.e. substitute something else in its place in order to not 'hurt the balance of the symphony'?


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> If you find the 2nd movement so 'ugly and unpleasant', why not do as you did with the 7th, i.e. substitute something else in its place in order to not 'hurt the balance of the symphony'?


I have a playlist of the 6th Symphony conducted by Haitink where the finale is from the 7th, also conducted by Haitink. It was a silly maneuver but it worked.

This is embarrassing but some time ago I actually tried to replace the 2nd Movement of the 5th with a middle movement from the 7th but it wasn´t any good. Too much "brightness".

Now that you suggested, a thought occurred: the scherzo from the 6th is also dark so that might actually do the trick and work in place of the 2nd Movement of the 5th.

Thank you Becca for your suggestion and not being negative about my silliness. Music tends to sometimes lure strange things out of us humans!


----------



## Becca

Why not just put the movements of the 5th, 6th and 7th into a random playlist and see what comes out!!


----------



## Barbebleu

Why stop there. Put all the symphonies of all composers on shuffle. Play any four or five random movements. Even better, add some - no, must stop now and let my meds kick in!😤


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> Why not just put the movements of the 5th, 6th and 7th into a random playlist and see what comes out!!


Cannot do that. It would undoubtedly result in the lovely symphony of

I 1st Movement from the 7th
II 2nd Movement from the 5th
III Finale from the 6th



I actually made a playlist with Rattle/Berliner versions. The scherzo from the 6th replaced the 2nd Movement of the 5th. And let me tell you — what a magnificent symphony! I was able to enjoy the symphony from the very beginning to the very end and got huge kicks out of it. Does this make me a bad person?

(I will sort out the 7th in a similar fashion but will not burden you with that.)

It was a mistake to bring up the fact that Mahler had himself planned the 5th Symphony to be in 4 movements and only later split the 1st movement into two. I claim to have always heard in the music that the relationship between the first two movements was not planned, it just happened and Mahler felt he had to put the material somewhere. Add to that the preference to overwhelm the listener instead of balancing the aesthetics, so here we are.

I just thought the historical fact was interesting in relation to the music and couldn´t shut my mouth already.

Anyway, this is the point where I will stop posting about Mahler altogether because my thoughts and ideas seem to provoke negative energy in others. Which is of course understandable, but most certainly not something I aim at. I have also reached a point where I know what I think about the symphonies, I have expressed my thoughts and tested them in the TC community, and my opinions no longer change all that much.

So you will not hear the word Mahler from me again and you try to get rid of the negative energy concerning these talks. Do we have deal?


----------



## Barbebleu

Far be it from me to suggest you stop posting about Mahler. For my part I will stop reading this thread. That should help my blood pressure!😇

As someone else posted you seem more concerned with form and structure rather than the emotional impact of Mahler’s compositions. I’m sure that moving a movement from the 6th to the 5th would not only be thematically bizarre but emotionally catastrophic. 

btw, with regard to your first paragraph it might be true to say that you have ceased to listen to Mahler’s 5th symphony in any meaningful way that Mahler intended. IMHO of course.

I have a challenge for you. As a composer you surely have access to orchestral musicians so why don’t you edit the offending symphonies and see if you can get a group of musicians to perform the amended versions. If you can get it on YouTube so much the better then we can all form our opinions on the merits of your emendations.

Of course you may be, and I don’t know this of course, a computer composer which is a different thing all together. 

And so fare thee well: Thou never shalt hear Barbebleu any more.


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> And so fare thee well: Thou never shalt hear Barbebleu any more.


I hope to hear from you, @Barbebleu! I most certainly do not hold a grudge towards anyone involved.

It is just that I will not be talking about a certain composer or about my views on this certain composer no longer. Even though there is no 'deal' on the matter.


----------

