# I Love Mahler & the Impressionists



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Beethoven's late SQ are cool too. I thought it was Mozart that held my heart, but as time moves forward, my tastes are moving towards Romanticism and the Impressionists. I love how vivid their works are, they are my kind of vivid, at least. I also find them very intriguing and interesting intellectually, and they move me very much emotionally.

Who else enjoys similar tastes?

What would you recommend I check out next based on these likings.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Oh, I also enjoy Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. (Lots of Classical inspired New Age as well, but that isn't for this section of the forum)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

With Mahler, I love how interesting he is, one minute he'll have you smiling, the next, he'll fill you with fear. And it all flows so well together, very seamlessly.

He inspires me very much!


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Mahler is a marvel, I agree  I haven't listened to him much lately, but he's served time as one of my favorite composers. You say impressionists, I presume Ravel and Debussy,anyone else in the category you've listened to? You may like *Poulenc* as well. I'm not sure how stylistically related (I'm no music scholar just an enjoyer) but I can't help but feel maybe you'd enjoy *Richard Strauss* if you like Mahler, both his vocal and instrumental works. And finally, if you don't mind a symphony that consists all of slow movements, I highly rate *Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs*. It was my enjoyment of that symphony that led forum members here to recommend Mahler to me.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Sonata said:


> Mahler is a marvel, I agree  I haven't listened to him much lately, but he's served time as one of my favorite composers. You say impressionists, I presume Ravel and Debussy,anyone else in the category you've listened to? You may like *Poulenc* as well. I'm not sure how stylistically related (I'm no music scholar just an enjoyer) but I can't help but feel maybe you'd enjoy *Richard Strauss* if you like Mahler, both his vocal and instrumental works. And finally, if you don't mind a symphony that consists all of slow movements, I highly rate *Gorecki's Symphony of Sorrowful Songs*. It was my enjoyment of that symphony that led forum members here to recommend Mahler to me.


Awesome, thank you!


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Try Zemlinsky (Lyric symphony), Schmidt (Symphony 4), Respighi (Fountains of Rome), Takemitsu (A flock descends into the pentagonal garden).


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

do you already know Szymanowski? If not, try with his third symphony.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

norman bates said:


> do you already know Szymanowski? If not, try with his third symphony.


I'm finishing up a book, I'll get to some of the recs in this thread and report back in a bit later tonight.

Thanks all!


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

Bruckner's a lot like Mahler, you might like him. His symphonies actually inspired Mahler a ton. Bruckner and Wagner I think are Mahler's two main influences. Also, Respighi (as Art Rock said) is great. For Respighi, I recommend Fountains of Rome, Church Windows, and Brazilian Impressions, and Bruckner- Symphonies Nos. 4, 7, and 8.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> With Mahler, I love how interesting he is, one minute he'll have you smiling, the next, he'll fill you with fear. And it all flows so well together, very seamlessly.
> 
> He inspires me very much!


How about when he blasts you with full orchestra, then stops on a dime and proceeds with a chamber-music like ländler (like a waltz) played only by three instruments, violin, viola and cello. He does it so seemlessly....which is what we label as "pure genius".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hpowders said:


> How about when he blasts you with full orchestra, then stops on a dime and proceeds with a chamber-music like ländler (like a waltz) played only by violin, viola and cello. He does it so seemlessly....which is what we label as "pure genius".


I know! He's incredible. I love how all over the place he is, yet maintaining a flow and consistency. That is very unique to him, I feel.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I know! He's incredible. I love how all over the place he is, yet maintaining a flow and consistency. That is very unique to him, I feel.


Yes! You articulated the "Mahler essence" very well....a composer for our time....running the gamut from frightening terror to pastoral loveliness.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'm surprised you liked that post Bettina, I know you like to support people in their own opinions though, so it doesn't surprise me that much, !


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm surprised you liked that post Bettina, I know you like to support people in their own opinions though, so it doesn't surprise me that much, !


Yes, I liked it because hpowders did a great job explaining why he loves Mahler's music. I agree with him about Mahler's brilliant use of contrasts and juxtapositions, even though I personally don't enjoy being taken on Mahler's emotionally shocking roller coaster rides. Maybe my nerves are too weak for Mahler's music! :lol:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Bettina said:


> Yes, I liked it because hpowders did a great job explaining why he loves Mahler's music. I agree with him about Mahler's brilliant use of contrasts and juxtapositions, even though I personally don't enjoy being taken on Mahler's emotionally shocking roller coaster rides. Maybe my nerves are too weak for Mahler's music! :lol:


Beethoven isn't so easy on the nerves either, though! !!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Bettina said:


> Yes, I liked it because hpowders did a great job explaining why he loves Mahler's music. I agree with him about Mahler's brilliant use of contrasts and juxtapositions, even though I personally don't enjoy being taken on Mahler's emotionally shocking roller coaster rides. Maybe my nerves are too weak for Mahler's music! :lol:


The length of his symphonies the length of tv shows or movies cause you to plan when you will listen to one.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> Yes, I liked it because hpowders did a great job explaining why he loves Mahler's music. I agree with him about Mahler's brilliant use of contrasts and juxtapositions, even though I personally don't enjoy being taken on Mahler's emotionally shocking roller coaster rides. Maybe my nerves are too weak for Mahler's music! :lol:


Nice of you to write so, m'lady!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Tchaikov6 said:


> Bruckner's a lot like Mahler, you might like him.


I have been a Bruckner & Mahler enthusiast for decades but long ago came to the conclusion that the similarities between them are mostly superficial and the differences are substantive as witnessed by their totally different backgrounds and personalities.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Beethoven isn't so easy on the nerves either, though! !!


That's true, but Mahler goes even further than Beethoven with the emotional ups and downs. I can handle Beethoven's mood swings, but Mahler is a bit too much for me. I'm happy to let Alma have him!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> That's true, but Mahler goes even further than Beethoven with the emotional ups and downs. I can handle Beethoven's mood swings, but Mahler is a bit too much for me. I'm happy to let Alma have him!


You are most likely not neurotic. Neurotics respond well to Mahler's music.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

hpowders said:


> How about when he blasts you with full orchestra, then stops on a dime and proceeds with a chamber-music like ländler (like a waltz) played only by three instruments, violin, viola and cello. He does it so seemlessly....which is what we label as "pure genius".


This is perhaps the thing about Mahler that I appreciate the most. Sadly, there are some people who dismiss his music as all loud, boring, bloviating, bloated bluster, and that alone. Such people are...misinformed.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

hpowders said:


> You are most likely not neurotic. Neurotics respond well to Mahler's music.


Who are you calling Neurotic, buddy? 

(I'm totally neurotic, to the bone as green day says)
:lol:


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> *Bruckner's a lot like Mahler,* you might like him. His symphonies actually inspired Mahler a ton. Bruckner and Wagner I think are Mahler's two main influences. Also, Respighi (as Art Rock said) is great. For Respighi, I recommend Fountains of Rome, Church Windows, and Brazilian Impressions, and Bruckner- Symphonies Nos. 4, 7, and 8.


A common myth. Just because they both composed extremely long symphonies and were deeply inspired by Wagner doesn't mean they are so similiar. They composed very differently and have very different followings. I adore Bruckner but don't like Mahler.


----------



## mathisdermaler (Mar 29, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Beethoven isn't so easy on the nerves either, though! !!


He can be...


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

This is wonderful! I need more exposure to piano music I really really love. Thank you for this recommendation.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

mathisdermaler said:


> A common myth. Just because they both composed extremely long symphonies and were deeply inspired by Wagner doesn't mean they are so similiar. They composed very differently and have very different followings. I adore Bruckner but don't like Mahler.


Well, I adore Mahler, and like much of Bruckner a really, really lot. Takes all kinds.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Becca said:


> I have been a Bruckner & Mahler enthusiast for decades but long ago came to the conclusion that the similarities between them are mostly superficial and the differences are substantive as witnessed by their totally different backgrounds and personalities.


Thanks for pointing this out. I've come to similiar conclusions over the years.

Perhaps already mentioned by others, but conductor Bruno Walter, friend and colleague of Mahler, pointed out one of the major differences between them, that "Mahler, his whole life through, was seeking God... Bruckner had found God." Wow.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> *Who are you calling Neurotic*, buddy?
> 
> (I'm totally neurotic, to the bone as green day says)
> :lol:


People who easily respond to and identify with Mahler's music....which includes myself.

Those who simply "don't get it" are probably not neurotic.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Can't go wrong with Strauss' tone poems. Also Bruckner is indispensable: if you like romanticism try the majestic 4th


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Totenfeier said:


> This is perhaps the thing about Mahler that I appreciate the most. Sadly, there are some people who dismiss his music as all loud, boring, bloviating, bloated bluster, and that alone. Such people are...misinformed.


The old Spectator music critic said he 'peddles sentimentality as courage'.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Beethoven's late SQ are cool too. I thought it was Mozart that held my heart, but as time moves forward, my tastes are moving towards Romanticism and the Impressionists. I love how vivid their works are, they are my kind of vivid, at least. I also find them very intriguing and interesting intellectually, and they move me very much emotionally.
> 
> Who else enjoys similar tastes?
> 
> What would you recommend I check out next based on these likings.


Fantastic. I love hearing of this kind of progression and development in tastes and pursuits. Good for you, Captain, and congratulations.

My suggestion, since you asked: If you've not yet checked out the Sibelius symphonies, it may be time.


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

hpowders said:


> How about when he blasts you with full orchestra, then stops on a dime and proceeds with a chamber-music like ländler (like a waltz) played only by three instruments, violin, viola and cello. He does it so seemlessly....which is what we label as "pure genius".


Re: Mahler, I hear him as pushing the boundaries of diantonicism as far as possible; practically to the breaking point. And paving the way for what was to become 20th-century music.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

mathisdermaler said:


> A common myth. Just because they both composed extremely long symphonies and were deeply inspired by Wagner doesn't mean they are so similiar. They composed very differently and have very different followings. I adore Bruckner but don't like Mahler.


But Mahler was still very influenced by Bruckner, that is proven. I think their music is similar, but not in terms of "notes on the page." Spiritually, both Bruckner and Mahler have common goals. Also, I think Mahler and Bruckner's orchestration is quite similar.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Art Rock said:


> Try Zemlinsky (Lyric symphony), Schmidt (Symphony 4), Respighi (Fountains of Rome), Takemitsu (A flock descends into the pentagonal garden).


Trying Schmidt Symphony 4!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Trying Schmidt Symphony 4!


Well that was fantastic!


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Tchaikov6 said:


> But Mahler was still very influenced by Bruckner, that is proven. I think their music is similar, but not in terms of "notes on the page." Spiritually, both Bruckner and Mahler have common goals. Also, I think Mahler and Bruckner's orchestration is quite similar.


Sorry I have to disagree strongly here. I hear no similarities whatsoever in Mahler and Bruckner. Mahler was influenced by Bruckner, but who wasn't? Bruckner was one of the most influential composer of his time. He also wrote about Bruckner and obviously conducted his music, so maybe that's where this impression comes.

IMO Mahler is a boiling fusion of all sorts of influences, Bruckner is more purist in a sense. His only master is Wagner, but his way of expressing is, let's say, a bit eccentric.

In fact, I'm not sure if there are two composers who are in essence further apart! Bruckner with his inward, massive repetitive patterns which Brahms called "symphonic boa constrictors" and Mahler with his ever-changing, neurotic, outward world. They go to extremes with their differences

Added: but then again, this is only how things are looked at. There are also valid similarities, like the sheer size of their work, their common background etc. There are so many ways to look at things. But I still insist that the most similar composer to Bruckner is Messiaen, both spiritually, and how they use musical techniques, or "shock effects" to create this strange, hypnotic atmosphere. Mahler is quite different in this sense. His technique is not in hypnotic patterns, but in a sheer volume of different sounds and expressions, and in his magical ability to make it sound as a coherent unit (sorry I ran out of words here...  )


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Lenny said:


> Sorry I have to disagree strongly here. I hear no similarities whatsoever in Mahler and Bruckner. Mahler was influenced by Bruckner, but who wasn't? Bruckner was one of the most influential composer of his time. He also wrote about Bruckner and obviously conducted his music, so maybe that's where this impression comes.
> 
> IMO Mahler is a boiling fusion of all sorts of influences, Bruckner is more purist in a sense. His only master is Wagner, but his way of expressing is, let's say, a bit eccentric.
> 
> ...


Bruckner was also heavily (and noticeably) influenced by Bach, Schubert and Beethoven (his 9th especially).


----------



## Melvin (Mar 25, 2011)

if you like Mahler, try Strauss "Alpensymphonie". If you like impressionist, go Turina & De Falla!


----------



## Omicron9 (Oct 13, 2016)

Dang. I recommended Sibelius to you, but wasn't thoughtful enough to include a link. Allow me to rectify with Sibelius 4. Big, dark, mysterious; fantastic.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Omicron9 said:


> Dang. I recommended Sibelius to you, but wasn't thoughtful enough to include a link. Allow me to rectify with Sibelius 4. Big, dark, mysterious; fantastic.


I don't have enough time in the evenings after work for everything I want to do! Read, Listen to Music, Practice Piano, and Draw! It's exciting, but I never want to go to bed! :lol:

(I'll listen to this tomorrow)


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Just put Sibelius' 4th on, off to a great start!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

hpowders said:


> People who easily respond to and identify with Mahler's music....which includes myself.
> 
> Those who simply "don't get it" are probably not neurotic.


I like to think that I'm the exception that proves the rule. Now paranoid! That's a whole different ball game. Don't tug at that thread!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Omicron9 said:


> Fantastic. I love hearing of this kind of progression and development in tastes and pursuits. Good for you, Captain, and congratulations.
> 
> My suggestion, since you asked: If you've not yet checked out the Sibelius symphonies, it may be time.


Also give Nielsen a shot. Another fantastic Scandewegian symphonist.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Tallisman said:


> The old Spectator music critic said he 'peddles sentimentality as courage'.


The old Spectator music critic was deluded and deranged.


----------

