# Is this guy really one of the great symphonists???



## Barking Spiderz

On my car journey home last night I tuned into one of the CM stations just at the start of a live recital of a symphony I was unfamiliar with. I cant say I liked what I was hearing but I thought I'd persist with it. But it went on and on and on. The last movement justed dragged interminably. It reminded me of a dying fly. Just when you think it's dead, a leg twitches. The same thing happens moments later. You hear little bits of flute widdling then it all goes quiet, then a honk or two on bassoon and you think it's over, but no, it kicks back into life for a bit, then gets quieter again ...and on and on and on it limps. Eventually, as I'm about to veer off the road in a state of soporification the audience applause wakes me. And what is this piece? None other than the allegedly seminal 9th by Mahler, performed by Dudamel and the LAPO. I find it hard to believe this is a work with a great reputation. I've previously heard his 1st, 5th and 8th and they're equally dreary, IMO. Please could someone explain why he's so highly esteemed as I hear no memorable melodies in his symphonies or am I just unsophisticated in liking music that has a tune.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Some people just don't 'get' Mahler and that's fine - we're ALL different (thank goodness!). For me, the final movement of Mahler 9 is one of the most heart-wrenching and cataclysmic pieces of music ever written and I am seldom dry-eyed at the end of it (I have been known to be phyisically shaking too!).

The sheer scale of much of Mahler's music can be a challenge - he was no miniaturist, that's for sure. I don't think that listening to it in the car is the best way to appreciate this great music, however. And I haven't heard Dudamel do any Mahler so I don't know if he's any good at it. I would give Mahler another chance, but for goodness sake, LISTEN to it properly rather than having it on as background music when your attentions should, quite rightly, be on the road ahead.


----------



## Art Rock

Mahler's ninth is for me one of the ultimate musical experiences. Period. Then again, everyone has a different taste. Try again in a few months - and perhaps ease your way into the Mahler world with his 4th (that was my introduction to him 25 years ago). If you do not like him, so be it. There are no alleged masters or masterpieces that everyone likes.


----------



## emiellucifuge

True there arent always great flowing melodies. With Mahler its the intense emotional exoression and the vast journey he takes you on. Once you get into it it is immensly rewarding.

I think the 4th is a good place to start.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

the 5th is the place to start.


----------



## Ukko

Barking Spiderz said:


> or am I just unsophisticated in liking music that has a tune.


You have it figured.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Delicious Manager said:


> Some people just don't 'get' Mahler and that's fine - we're ALL different (thank goodness!).


Yup... _that's_ worth repeating.

Speaking for myself, when I was half the age I am now, I found Bruckner's symphonies incomprehensible, and couldn't see what the big deal was. Then, more than a decade later, it came together for me. Occasionally, I hold out the hope that others who have similar initial reactions to such music can return to appreciate them, the way I did. So that there's no misunderstanding, I hope that the reaction to this personal experience on my part isn't incorrectly interpreted as my suggesting that I improved my understanding as I 'matured' (whatever that means in this context). There are plenty of music fans whom I admire, whose understanding and attention-span doubtless exceed mine, who STILL find banality and bloat in Mahler, in the places where I find earthiness and grandeur.


ScipioAfricanus said:


> the 5th is the place to start.


Since the 5th is my very favorite Mahler symphony (with the 9th close behind), it's hard to disagree with this, but the OP said


Barking Spiderz said:


> I've previously heard his 1st, 5th and 8th and they're all equally dreary, IMO.


that dispenses with the idea that the thread starter could currently gain any traction with Number 5 OR with Number 1, which would have been my suggestion but for the 'prior restraint.'


Barking Spiderz said:


> ... am I just unsophisticated in liking music that has a tune.


Need to know more about your taste otherwise before indulging in speculation on THAT front.

To again speak personally, I might be in the minority among Classical Music fans by ranking Tchaikovsky in the top half-dozen composers in history. I also think Phil Goulding didn't figure wrongly by putting Johann Strauss Jr. in his top-50-- so I'm comfortable with my ability to appreciate a good tune. That said, there could be at least a dozen composers who have to be considered among the all-time greats who nonetheless haven't provided us with many (or any) universally recognizable "big tunes."


----------



## TresPicos

Barking Spiderz said:


> Please could someone explain why he's so highly esteemed as I hear no memorable melodies in his symphonies or am I just unsophisticated in liking music that has a tune.


Tunes are for sissies. 

If there is an unsophistication, it does not lie in liking music that has a tune, but in not liking music that hasn't because it hasn't.

When it comes to classical music, I would guess that most people rather naturally start out having the same taste as an 18th or 19th century person. 20th century music is typically less accessible and more of an acquired taste. There is a journey there, just like there was back in the day.


----------



## World Violist

The car is the worst place to listen to Mahler's 9th. The textures are just too delicate, and the engine alone is enough to destroy the experience unless you're wearing headphones... but you're driving.

I still can't claim to understand the first two movements (indeed, the second I find to be somewhat flawed), but the last two movements I think are among Mahler's finest statements. However, there is another work by Mahler that is more perfect, and that is Das Lied von der Erde. Not only is it two-thirds the length of the 9th and therefore easier to digest, it is abundantly melodic (it is, after all, a song cycle-symphony) and has as its finale a song titled The Farewell, which contains possibly the most chilling moments in all of Mahler. In my humble opinion it's incomparable to anything else he wrote.


----------



## emiellucifuge

World Violist said:


> The car is the worst place to listen to Mahler's 9th. The textures are just too delicate, and the engine alone is enough to destroy the experience unless you're wearing headphones... but you're driving.
> 
> I still can't claim to understand the first two movements (indeed, the second I find to be somewhat flawed), but the last two movements I think are among Mahler's finest statements. However, there is another work by Mahler that is more perfect, and that is Das Lied von der Erde. Not only is it two-thirds the length of the 9th and therefore easier to digest, it is abundantly melodic (it is, after all, a song cycle-symphony) and has as its finale a song titled The Farewell, which contains possibly the most chilling moments in all of Mahler. In my humble opinion it's incomparable to anything else he wrote.


ewig.... ewig... ewig...


----------



## Art Rock

My favourite piece of music altogether. Good call (it was actually my second Mahler CD, with the main song cycles 3d - I still trerasure them all).


----------



## Manxfeeder

I agree; the ending of the 9th is memorable. But also the first page of the score to me is also memorable, especially if you start it after finishing the last movement of Das Lied. 

I've wondered if someone in a blindfold test played it up to score number 1 (when the violins play the "ewig" theme) and said it was written by Anton Webern, how many would disagree. Like Webern, it's tentative, expectant, yet sparse. 

One person commenting on the first movement said, This is why the evolutionary Mahler has had greater influence than the revolutionary Schoenberg: It contains the sparse, fragmentary textures of Webern, the epigrammatic style of Berg, and the tonal thematicism of Schoenberg.


----------



## the_emptier

mahlers 9th is unreal for me, i've listened to it like once a day for the past while. i guess it depends on what you like


----------



## elgar's ghost

Barking Spiderz - I'm aware that you give composers a fair crack of the whip (I think I know you from another forum under another name) but if the Mahler symphonies you've heard so far haven't already floated your boat then it's unlikely the others will either. Apart from his early cantata ('Das Klagende Lied') and a single movement from an abandoned piano quartet all of Mahler's output was exclusively songs and symphonies so you haven't exactly got a lot of options to find another way in. I can only hope that his works are sleepers and that you'll take to them in time. If in the future you have another go at his symphonies my suggestion is that you start at the beginning - No 1 is, along with No 4, his shortest and possibly his most approachable so that's about as easy as it's likely to get. Here's hoping.


----------



## Sid James

I can see where the OP is coming from. It's not that I don't like the 9th for lack of melody or something like that, it's just that it's so darned depressing. Especially the final movement. Leaves me feeling like Bruckner's 9th - doom & gloom galore. So maybe it's not Mahler that you don't like, it's just his more depressing side, which I can understand. I think the 10th is a bit more digestible in that regard, the feeling at the end is (for me) that of hope, even though he knew he was going to die. But yes, I agree with the others who recommend the 4th, as it's his lightest symphony. Having said that, I plan to explore Mahler's 9th in more depth this year, as I want to go to a performance of it at the Sydney Conservatorium later on in the year. But it's definitely not my favourite work by him - I'm a bigger fan of his song cycles such as the _Wunderhorn_, the _Songs of a Wayfarer_, or _Kindertotenlieder_...


----------



## the_emptier

songs of a wayfarer is fantastic, and probably really accessible for skeptics 

i think mahlers 9th has a pretty light air around it, in the 2nd movement at least, and other parts. bruckners 9th gets light at times but always remains foreboding


----------



## Weston

I have almost the same reaction as Barking Spiderz, though I don't find these symphonies depressing exactly. For me they sound merely okay while they're playing, then they are gone and leave nothing at all behind, no impression whatsoever.

Maybe I need some annotations, but why should I go to the trouble when there is so much more out there? And what is this "Mahler scale" I've heard about?


----------



## david johnson

'explain why he's so highly esteemed '

the music is certainly well crafted and it sounds great. as soon is figure out how to describe the divine taste of hot fudge cake i'll get back here with the right words  
some things are not easy to reduce to language.

dj


----------



## Manxfeeder

Weston said:


> Maybe I need some annotations, but why should I go to the trouble when there is so much more out there?


Because at least the way I hear it, he's telling you how to face your mortality and accept it. Benjamin Zander said of the process, "Despair and knowledge of suffering are turned into the meaning and value of life."

Leonard Bernstein commented about the last page of the score, "This comes as close to describing dying peacefully as music ever has."


----------



## tdc

david johnson said:


> 'explain why he's so highly esteemed '
> 
> the music is certainly well crafted and it sounds great. as soon is figure out how to describe the divine taste of hot fudge cake i'll get back here with the right words
> some things are not easy to reduce to language.
> 
> dj


Yes, this is the problem I'm having. To explain in words why its a great piece of art and why someone should like it, is rather difficult! But is he one of the great symphonists? In my opinion most definetely, I would go so far to place him in the top three best of all time.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Weston said:


> And what is this "Mahler scale" I've heard about?


You've piqued my interest. I've heard of the Mahler Rhythm but not the Mahler Scale. Is there such a thing?


----------



## emiellucifuge

I dont think so, there is a specific scale he used in his 10th.

a Mahler rhythm?


----------



## Manxfeeder

World Violist said:


> I still can't claim to understand the first two movements (indeed, the second I find to be somewhat flawed),


Here's what David Hurwitz makes of the form of the second movement: ABaBCaCBCABA. When Mahler wants to write crazy, he sure can.


----------



## World Violist

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont think so, there is a specific scale he used in his 10th.
> 
> a Mahler rhythm?


All I know is that Mahler dumped a 9-note chord in the tenth symphony that is almost unanalyzable. I'm not aware of any specific scales or rhythms... you might be thinking of Bruckner.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Manxfeeder said:


> Here's what David Hurwitz makes of the form of the second movement: ABaBCaCBCABA. When Mahler wants to write crazy, he sure can.


I think Mr. Hurwitz is approaching Mahler from the wrong paradigm here.


----------



## Manxfeeder

World Violist said:


> I'm not aware of any specific scales or rhythms... you might be thinking of Bruckner.


There was a year where I listened to a lot of Mahler's symphonies, and I recall he had a repetitive rhythm he used like Bruckner did, and I've heard it referenced as the Mahler rhythm, but I can't remember exactly what it was now.


----------



## Manxfeeder

emiellucifuge said:


> I think Mr. Hurwitz is approaching Mahler from the wrong paradigm here.


Do you think it's more random than preplanned?


----------



## emiellucifuge

Manxfeeder said:


> Do you think it's more random than preplanned?


I think Mahler did have a plan for his music, part of what makes it so effective.

I dont think the plan was in the rather 'classical' structural sense of sectional themes. It seems to me Mr Hurwitz has derived his structure by identifying the order in which themese (re)appear, as if it was a Mozart rondo.

Mahler's plan is something deeper, not necessarily in the obvious and apparent musical elements, but perhaps in the spiritual journey. The musical elements being subjected to this rather than the other way around.

Edit: so following on- Hurwitz order of subjects is probably correct, but I dont think its a useful way to look at Mahler's music.


----------



## starry

emiellucifuge said:


> Mahler's plan is something deeper


That's a matter of opinion.


----------



## emiellucifuge

starry said:


> That's a matter of opinion.


yes it is..


----------



## Wicked_one

World Violist said:


> All I know is that Mahler dumped a 9-note chord in the tenth symphony that is almost unanalyzable. I'm not aware of any specific scales or rhythms... you might be thinking of Bruckner.


The rhythm might be the one used constantly in his 2nd symphony (and every each one of them): dotted eight + a sixteenth.

I know I read this thing somewhere, that it was his favorite rhythm... of course, I don't remember, but I know it's out there.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Yeah ive noticed that too, it pops up everywhere.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Barking Spiderz said:


> On my car journey home last night I tuned into one of the CM stations just at the start of a live recital of a symphony I was unfamiliar with. I cant say I liked what I was hearing but I thought I'd persist with it. But it went on and on and on. The last movement justed dragged interminably. It reminded me of a dying fly. Just when you think it's dead, a leg twitches. The same thing happens moments later. You hear little bits of flute widdling then it all goes quiet, then a honk or two on bassoon and you think it's over, but no, it kicks back into life for a bit, then gets quieter again ...and on and on and on it limps. Eventually, as I'm about to veer off the road in a state of soporification the audience applause wakes me. And what is this piece? None other than the allegedly seminal 9th by Mahler, performed by Dudamel and the LAPO. I find it hard to believe this is a work with a great reputation. I've previously heard his 1st, 5th and 8th and they're equally dreary, IMO. Please could someone explain why he's so highly esteemed as I hear no memorable melodies in his symphonies or am I just unsophisticated in liking music that has a tune.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

It's because he's German/Austrian. Everyone is obsessed with Naturalistic Germans/Austrians. Except me.


----------



## the_emptier

listening through all of his symphonies now.....in the last movement of #2. my god, this is amazing


----------



## Romantic Geek

Delicious Manager said:


> Some people just don't 'get' Mahler and that's fine - we're ALL different (thank goodness!). *For me, the final movement of Mahler 9 is one of the most heart-wrenching and cataclysmic pieces of music ever written and I am seldom dry-eyed at the end of it (I have been known to be phyisically shaking too!).*
> 
> The sheer scale of much of Mahler's music can be a challenge - he was no miniaturist, that's for sure. I don't think that listening to it in the car is the best way to appreciate this great music, however. And I haven't heard Dudamel do any Mahler so I don't know if he's any good at it. I would give Mahler another chance, but for goodness sake, LISTEN to it properly rather than having it on as background music when your attentions should, quite rightly, be on the road ahead.


Makes two of us. And I particularly think the first two movements sound a lot like John Williams (in a good way).


----------



## Huge

I thought this forum was for people who knew what classical music (in all it's forms) was about. Clearly not. Some really quite odd things being said. Mahler wrote some of the finest "tunes" ever written. That just happens to be a fact. If you think otherwise, I suggest you actually listen to a few pieces actually written by him.

Is Mahler really one of the greats? YES of course he is. Any halfwitted musicologist will tell you that.

Whether you _like_ his music is neither here nor there.


----------



## Ukko

Huge said:


> I thought this forum was for people who knew what classical music (in all it's forms) was about. Clearly not.


I don't know where that thought came from. Shucks, I don't even know what you base 'great composer' on. Notice that I am not dumping on you because of this lack of clarity. Such restraint is a tenet of 'civilized discourse'.



I suspect that much of the antipathy toward Mahler's music has little to do with unrecognized melodies. Discomfort caused by the angst - often downright anguish - seems to me to be the underlying 'problem'.


----------



## Guest

Huilunsoittaja said:


> It's because he's German/Austrian. Everyone is obsessed with Naturalistic Germans/Austrians. Except me.


Mahler was born into a German-speaking family, to be sure, but it was in Bohemia that it happened. Mahler grew up in Bohemia hearing Bohemian music.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

OK since this OP I borrowed the 9th and the 5th off a friend and listended to it at home. Nope, no change, car engine or not. Some responses here are a bit harsh as if anyone who doesnt appreciate Mahler must be some cloth-eared fool. I feel the same about Bruckner but then he's not as widely performed and acclaimed.


----------



## emiellucifuge

thats a shame.

Personally Mahlers music has the ability to affect me like nothing else. Try all his symphonies before you give up. Theyre all different and it may turn out worthwhile.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I love Mahler's works but there's no single composer who can please everybody. Bruce Springsteen is one of the biggest rock stars on the planet but when I first told an avid Bossophile friend that his stuff does absolutely nothing for me he goggled at me no less incredulously than if an alien had just zapped him.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

I agree, Springsteen's popularity and success boggles the mind. To my ears he's a cliched hack of moderate singing ability with modest songwriting skills.
Going back to Mahler, a key problem I have with the 9th is the last movement which doesn't seem to go anywhere. It reminds me of watching a dying fly. You think it's all over but then signs of life splutter for a bit before it al 'goes still again. You're ready to call it a day but the bvgger just wont quit. Maybe I'll try one of his less celebrated symphonies. I tend to find that I often prefer the less famous efforts by big names to their more heralded works e.g. LVB's 2nd and 4th over his 9th and Dvorak's 6th over his 9th. Maybe I just have an issue with 9th symphonies.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Maybe you do have a thing with the 9th, but otherwise with Mahler all his symphonies are celebrated at near equal measure as they each explore very different concepts. (except his 7th, which I feel is unjustly neglected)

According to our Top 150 Symphonies the order of his symphonies is this:

2. 2nd Symphony
15. 5th
17. 6th
18. 9th
20. 4th
33. 1st
51. 8th
81. 3rd
92. 7th

Edit: Statistically he ended up being the most succesful symphonist on the list, to answer the thread title.


----------



## GraemeG

Barking Spiderz said:


> OK since this OP I borrowed the 9th and the 5th off a friend and listended to it at home. Nope, no change, car engine or not. Some responses here are a bit harsh as if anyone who doesnt appreciate Mahler must be some cloth-eared fool. I feel the same about Bruckner but then he's not as widely performed and acclaimed.


These are 75 minute works. Two hearings won't do them justice.
Work at it.
GG


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

If only you all were as dedicated and determined to listen to ........'s music as you are for Mahler's. 

"Look, I know his music is long and boring sometimes, but you just have to penetrate it farther, understand his language, delve into his mind, his world. Then you'll not be bored anymore, and maybe you'll regret that it ended at all!"

"Get better recordings! I suggest such and such..."

"Listen a couple times. You will discover new things every time."

Sounds familiar. 

If only I was so dedicated to listening to Mahler as I am for my dead love(s). hahaha!


----------



## Weston

Thinking back on this phrase "Mahler scale," I may have misinterpreted it. I had thought I heard the term while trying to finish watching a DVD "A Wayfarer's Journey: Listening to Mahler." I wonder if it was referring to size, as in a Mahler sized symphony or Mahler scaled orchestra. If so, that's a poor choice of words when talking about music. Sorry for the false alarm.


----------



## the_emptier

No doubt it meant scale as in size...he certainly was noteworthy of loooong works, third symphony being probably the longest in the common repertoire. I love it though


----------



## GraemeG

I'm not arguing that BS will love it if s/he listens to it enough.
I'm saying that one or two listenings is insufficient to make a judgement.
Pretty clear distinction.
If it sounds familiar, it's because it's good advice.
GG


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Blimey. I heard his first symph on the radio last night and blow me down I like it, particularly the 3rd movement Probably because it's in a major key helps and it certainly differs from his later ones.


----------



## tdc

Barking Spiderz said:


> Blimey. I heard his first symph on the radio last night and blow me down I like it, particularly the 3rd movement Probably because it's in a major key helps and it certainly differs from his later ones.


Have you tried the 4th yet?


----------



## the_emptier

2nd is amazing, the choir is so great


----------



## Huge

The third movement of his 1st is famous for being in a minor key (Frere Jaques), you probably mean the 2nd


----------



## Chris

I have only ever heard three Mahler symphonies, nos. 1, 3 and 4. This morning the subject of Radio 3's Building a Library was Mahler's Tenth. Some of the portions played were very, very slow music, but what struck me was the enlivening effect the studio discussion had on these extracts. The presenters were trying to link the music with what was going on in Mahler's life at the time of composition and I felt it turned what I might have dismissed as lethargic music into something rather interesting. So the answer to listeners who can't stomach the finale of the Ninth might be to read what the experts make of it, then listen. Perhaps musicologists are of some use :lol:.

If anyone's interested, the winning recommendation for the Tenth was Simon Rattle and the Berlin Philharmonic playing Deryck Cooke's second performing edition.


----------



## scytheavatar

Mahler is like Brahms, far too many conductors don't get him and your choice of conductor is very important in determining whether you'll appreciate him. I'll recommend you to try listening to Solti's Mahler; he is probably the most consistently good of all Mahler conductor and the one to let Mahler's music have the directness and power it should have.


----------



## pocketmahler

I tend not to judge any music on first hearing. So many times I have (in my mind) dismissed a piece of music that I am unfamiliar with purely because of external factors which may affect my critical judgement - bad day at work, tiredness etc... but have subsequently returned to the work and have discovered that I have been completely wrong in my original appraisal.


----------



## Laudemont

Many factors go into why we like or dislike a particular piece of music, or a particular composer. Sometimes the composer's character turns me off to even trying to listen to them -- for example, I have no interest in hearing anything by Scriabin, he was such a louse. But I don't care for Arnold Bax's life style either, yet I am often drawn back to his symphonies -- perhaps I have a streak of Celtic in me that resonates with Bax.

Regarding Mahler, this thread started with mention of his 9th Symphony. I am afraid I have the same reaction to it as the initial poster. (Remember, I am only expressing my personal reaction, not trying to insult those who think highly of Mahler.) I find it tiresome to listen to those repetitive sighs at the end. Besides, Mahler often presents what I consider cloying, sappy tunes, and I prefer more structured, gutsy (though not highly dissonant) music. For this reason I am currently listening to Mahler's 6th Symphony, which I don't believe has been mentioned. I am a fan of Bruckner, and although in general Mahler and Bruckner live in different worlds my reaction to Mahler's 6th is that it must be the most Brucknerian of Mahler's symphonies, for its driving thrust in the first movement at least, and that is probably why I am liking it so far.


----------



## GoneBaroque

I came to Mahler only after many years of listening to classical. My introduction was through Das Lied von der Erde which I still regard as a good place to start. Be patient and proceed slowly, perhaps the 1st and 4th next assimilate them and then continue your journey.

Rob


----------



## GKC

YES

Though I recall reading and essay/article where the author thought M. and Bruckner were not great composers (a- la Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, et al), but together, they might have made one (1). 


GKC


----------



## Tapkaara

I should give the 9th another listen but I have always been sceptical of it, even at a time when I was more into Mahler.


----------

