# Why is Mahler not more popular amongst the mainstream?



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Every layperson knows who Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are. Most people would also recognize names like Tchaikovsky and more modern composers like Debussy. But most people will have never heard of Gustav Mahler. 

Mahler composed some of the most emotionally powerful music ever written. Even on these boards, when asked what the greatest work of all time is, a symphony of his almost always comes up as number 2 after the obligatory mention of Beethoven's 9th or some other piece along those lines.

One may argue that Bach is the best composer of all time, because he was the primary pioneer of Western musical tradition. But Mahler took it the farthest. He couldn't have done it without what others did before him, but on the shoulders of giants Mahler took music pretty much as high as it will ever go, in terms of ability to produce emotion in the listener. One appreciates the importance and genius of Bach and the rest of them, but none hit the emotional strings like Mahler does. 

Having composed music like this, how is it that even Debussy has more popular name recognition than Mahler?


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

I don't think Mahler is any less popular than Debussy. In the circles I run in Mahler is *more* discussed than Debussy. But then, I'm not an afficionado of the mainstream. Perhaps Mahler is less telemarketed to the general public, but I don't understand why this should be. I have a suspicion about Wagner's music being unrepresented, but not Mahler.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Antiquarian said:


> I don't think Mahler is any less popular than Debussy. In the circles I run in Mahler is *more* discussed than Debussy. But then, I'm not an afficionado of the mainstream. Perhaps Mahler is less telemarketed to the general public, but I don't understand why this should be. I have a suspicion about Wagner's music being unrepresented, but not Mahler.


Of course Mahler is well known amongst classical listeners. What I mean is that Mahler is not a name known by most non-classical listeners, whereas most of these would certainly know who Bach, Beethoven, or even Debussy is.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Toooooooo long.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Taste takes time to temper. I remember finding Mahler to be noisy and chaotic when I first got into classical. 

I now find his symphonies to be some of the most interesting and enchanting of the genre.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

It is likely a combination of the fact that, unlike Bach, Beethoven, or Debussy, or Mozart or Tchaikovsky or any of several other more "popular" composers known to the non-classical public, Mahler has neither any memorable, widely-known melodies attached to his name, nor have any major films been made about his life and times. There is no Nutcracker, no _Amadeus_, no Immortal Beloved or Ode to Joy, no Boléro. Alas. And as a composer primarily of symphonies and lieder, his works do not lend themselves to that access to a greater public.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Why single out Mahler among composers who are not household words? Is _any_ other composer's name as generally familiar as Bach's, Mozart's, or Beethoven's? I don't think these three composers are "telemarketed." They've been loved for centuries, they retain their broad appeal, and they're rightly regarded as key figures in the Western musical tradition. Would it come as a shock to you to hear that Mahler's music has less universal appeal than Bach's, Mozart's, or Beethoven's? His greatness is not disputed by many, but his emotional universe is very personal, and many people - even among classical music lovers - don't resonate with it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Let me talk about Beethoven. In general:

His music is astonishingly direct and to the point.
He never uses two notes when one will do.
He has uniformly strong musical ideas, strongly presented.
He gets from the start to the end by the most direct route.
When he finishes, you know you've been somewhere.
His music mostly radiates health and optimisim, even in its deepest and most violent struggles.
The good guy almost always wins and afterwards goes out for a nice medium-rare steak.

Now let me talk about Mahler…


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Bach, Mozart, & Beethoven have been around longer as well as many great points made by others in this thread. I think _Strange Magic_ really hits the nail on the head here. Just like in pop, there is such a things as a "musician's musician." Mahler is that in the classical world. Prince was that in Popular music especially after the early 90's (Yes, before that, especially in the '80's he was very popular, but after that...).

V


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Every layperson knows who Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are. Most people would also recognize names like Tchaikovsky and more modern composers like Debussy. But most people will have never heard of Gustav Mahler.
> 
> Mahler composed some of the most emotionally powerful music ever written. Even on these boards, when asked what the greatest work of all time is, a symphony of his almost always comes up as number 2 after the obligatory mention of Beethoven's 9th or some other piece along those lines.
> 
> ...


Are this your own perceptions?


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I always thought Mahler retained an almost outsized part of the repertoire these days compared to his relatively slight contributions as a composer. Compared to, say, Bruckner he seems to be programmed much more often despite the latter having a similarly slight oeuvre, composing mainly in the same genre as Mahler, and the two being arguable equals in terms of contributions as an artist.


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Why single out Mahler among composers who are not household words? .... His greatness is not disputed by many, but his emotional universe is very personal, and many people - even among classical music lovers - don't resonate with it.


I find myself agreeing in toto with *Woodduck *-- a rare, but notable phenomenon -- because he put it precisely right: *Bach*, *Mozart*, *Beethoven*, _and yes, *Debussy*, *Tchaikovsky*, *Schubert*, *Brahms*_ -- these are names that fill the performance hall. Outside that, it is hard _not_ to say someone is "unheard" of to the lay concert-goer. That is circumstantial.

But I also must say, compared to hundreds of other preeminent composers, *Mahler *gets his fair due. Orchestras routinely play his works. The performing is obviously not at the rate of *WAM*, *LVB*, *Haydn*, *Brahms*, etc -- but the point being is that "unheard of" is a relative designation that I truly think you misapplying here.

If I am thinking of "unheard"/"under performed" of composers -- particularly to the _lay concert-goer_ -- it is certainly not *Mahler *that I nominate. I'd run through a dozen others before GM.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

It's not clear what the OP means by "mainstream".

If he means the generally keener types of classical music fans, of the variety who visit Boards like this, Mahler is generally very highly regarded, as testified by numerous composer polls of various descriptions that have sprung up on this Board over a number of years. They all have him rated just within the top 10. 

If what is meant by "mainstream" is the wider classical music fan base, it's probably correct that Mahler has a much lesser standing. Opinions will vary in different countries but according the UK's Classic FM "Hall of Fame", in which listeners vote annually for their favourite works, Mahler had one work, Symphony No 5, that achieved the no 50 spot in the 2016 poll. This is a poor result and is probably a reflection of the narrow range of his output, that some of works may seem over long, and the emotionally charged nature of some of it may not appeal to many people. Generally speaking, it's composers with all the catchy tunes and wide variety of genres that are liked most.

Possibly the OP doesn't classical music fans at all when he refers to "mainstream". He may be asking why Mahler's name is not held in the same high esteem by the much wider music listening public that includes those who have only a very limited interest in classical music. If so, the answer is probably that there is no need to recall names of composers like Mahler when all such people are interested in is a few headline works by the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Handel etc.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Avey said:


> I find myself agreeing in toto with *Woodduck *-- a rare, but notable phenomenon -- because he put it precisely right: *Bach*, *Mozart*, *Beethoven*, _and yes, *Debussy*, *Tchaikovsky*, *Schubert*, *Brahms*_ -- these are names that fill the performance hall. Outside that, it is hard _not_ to say someone is "unheard" of to the lay concert-goer. That is circumstantial.


Another thing all of these composers ^ ^ ^ share is that every one of them has composed great works in a broad range of genres whereas Mahler was a specialist. And if that is not enough in itself, I'll cite Vaneyes' and Ken's perspicacious comments above.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Debussy is no doubt more known say in France than Mahler is, but not generally, I think. Of curse I´m not speaking of people with a developed interest in classical music.

I think there´s a chance/risk however that the popularization of Satie might-might have made him even more well-known than the two of them


----------



## Chris (Jun 1, 2010)

I came very late to Mahler. Up to the beginning of this year I owned just a single CD, of the Fourth symphony, and only knew bits of the other works from snatches heard on Radio 3. A few months ago I finally bought a boxed set (Pierre Boulez conducting) and found I loved every note. I'm now thinking of buying one of the Leonard Bernstein sets, on the basis of various comments and recommendations I have read on this site (Boulez sounds a bit too quick sometimes...he is a full ten minutes faster in the Fourth compared to my old CD).

I'm not sure why it took me 40 years to get round to Mahler but satirist Michael Wharton (died 2006) might have something to do with it. He wrote the Peter Simple column in the Daily Telegraph for many decades. He populated this with amusing fictional characters including Sir Jim Gastropodi, conductor of the Stretchford Municipal Orchestra. Sir Jim was forever unearthing lost symphonies by Mahler including The Interminable (no. 18), The Inexplicable (no. 26) and The Unforgivable (no. 44). Each of these lasted several hours and in rehearsals Sir Jim would invariably be continuing his frantic conducting from the podium oblivious to the fact the players had long left their places and sloped off to the pub.


----------



## Guest (Nov 7, 2016)

Well you could rephrase the question as such:

*Why do most people only know a few composer names, namely Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (perhaps Chopin, Tchaikovsky and a few others)? *

I don't think most people know of Mahler more than they know of very important composers such as Liszt, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Haydn and probably also Debussy.

And then... what if you ask random people about Beethoven, they'll probably recognize Für Elise, the beginning of the 5th symphony, and the Ode to Joy theme. That's it.

But then ask random people off the streets to name important novelists, writers, philosophers, and painters and you'll come just as empty handed I think!


----------



## psfrankel (Nov 5, 2016)

Blake said:


> Taste takes time to temper. I remember finding Mahler to be noisy and chaotic when I first got into classical.
> 
> I now find his symphonies to be some of the most interesting and enchanting of the genre.


I couldn't agree more. This was my experience and in fact, to be totally honest, is still my experience in some ways. In my case it's kind of a musical PTSD thing. Mahler was one of the composers used to humiliate me. I wasn't, well, _allowed_ you might say, to express my opinion or suggest that I wasn't having some immediate high-brow, intense, intellectual response and that I found his symphonies difficult to enjoy. And that they did seem a bit 'noisy & chaotic'. Which by itself would not & never has been enough to put me off. I've had similar responses to a lot of pieces that over time have become very enjoyable, even beloved.

Still, even now my first response is to turn off the stream if it's Mahler. That is, if I _know_ it's Mahler, if the announcer says "And up next, we're going to hear Mahler's xyz." And the only Mahler I own is his first symphony, and that's only because the community orchestra my husband played in was doing it and he needed a copy to listen to.

Maybe now that I realize what happened with me & dear Gustav, it's time to renew my acquaintance and begin again.

Suggestions about where to start are welcome. Even individual movements of different symphonies. PM me if you don't want to reply here.

Thanks, Blake. Nothing like a little early morning "Aha" therapy to start the day on a good ... note!:kiss:


----------



## psfrankel (Nov 5, 2016)

Chris said:


> I came very late to Mahler. ...
> I'm not sure why it took me 40 years to get round to Mahler but satirist Michael Wharton (died 2006) might have something to do with it. He wrote the Peter Simple column in the Daily Telegraph for many decades. He populated this with amusing fictional characters including Sir Jim Gastropodi, conductor of the Stretchford Municipal Orchestra. Sir Jim was forever unearthing lost symphonies by Mahler including The Interminable (no. 18), The Inexplicable (no. 26) and The Unforgivable (no. 44). Each of these lasted several hours and in rehearsals Sir Jim would invariably be continuing his frantic conducting from the podium oblivious to the fact the players had long left their places and sloped off to the pub.


So I'm not the only one! 
Only you have a better reason. Also, I will have to find some of Whaton's satire. Sir Jim sounds hilarious.:lol:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Genoveva said:


> It's not clear what the OP means by "mainstream".
> 
> If he means the generally keener types of classical music fans, of the variety who visit Boards like this, Mahler is generally very highly regarded, as testified by numerous composer polls of various descriptions that have sprung up on this Board over a number of years. They all have him rated just within the top 10.
> 
> ...


I agree with all this. 
One other aspect, perhaps, is longevity. Mahler has been popular among "our crowd" for 50 or so years, much less than, say, Tchaikovsky or Brahms. So his music has had less chance to filter into public awareness anyway. But the absence of any nice short "popular hits" in his music is definitely a huge factor.
Actually speaking of the Classic FM Hall of Fame, this year Mahler also had 2 other entries - Symphony no.2 at #104 and Symphony no.1 at #217. Brahm's 1st, 3rd and 4th symphonies appear at #204, 225, and 235; his 3 highest works were the Requiem at #72, violin concerto at #147, and 2nd piano concerto at #166. So Mahler might in some sense be regarded as more popular than Brahms, who I think we might instinctively regard as a "bigger name" among the public.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> I agree with all this.
> One other aspect, perhaps, is longevity. Mahler has been popular among "our crowd" for 50 or so years, much less than, say, Tchaikovsky or Brahms. So his music has had less chance to filter into public awareness anyway. But the absence of any nice short "popular hits" in his music is definitely a huge factor.
> Actually speaking of the Classic FM Hall of Fame, this year Mahler also had 2 other entries - Symphony no.2 at #104 and Symphony no.1 at #217. Brahm's 1st, 3rd and 4th symphonies appear at #204, 225, and 235; his 3 highest works were the Requiem at #72, violin concerto at #147, and 2nd piano concerto at #166. So Mahler might in some sense be regarded as more popular than Brahms, who I think we might instinctively regard as a "bigger name" among the public.


Couldn't the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony be considered a short "popular hit"?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Nereffid said:


> I agree with all this.
> One other aspect, perhaps, is longevity. Mahler has been popular among "our crowd" for 50 or so years, much less than, say, Tchaikovsky or Brahms. So his music has had less chance to filter into public awareness anyway. But the absence of any nice short "popular hits" in his music is definitely a huge factor.


The longevity aspect is, I think, not too relevant here. Here are some death dates for several composers: Tchaikovsky 1893, Brahms 1897, Mahler 1911, Ravel 1933, Prokofiev 1953, Copland 1990.
Ravel has been mentioned for Boléro; Prokofiev will be recognized for Peter and the Wolf at the least, and Copland for Fanfare for the Common Man, Appalachian Spring and more. It's those memorable melodic bits that are heard here, there, now, then--in sound tracks, advertisements, incidental/accidental music heard randomly--that seals the deal for certain composers with a wide general public. A movie always helps, too.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Couldn't the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony be considered a short "popular hit"?


Depends on what you mean by "popular", I suppose. Do milkmen whistle it?


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Francis Poulenc said:


> [...]
> 
> But Mahler took it the farthest. He couldn't have done it without what others did before him, but on the shoulders of giants Mahler took music pretty much as high as it will ever go, in terms of ability to produce emotion in the listener. One appreciates the importance and genius of Bach and the rest of them, but none hit the emotional strings like Mahler does.
> 
> [...]


I'm interested in the debate that your post has created, Francis Poulenc, and I certainly don't want to derail it. But I find myself unable to agree with your assertion that Mahler "took Western musical tradition farthest". He took it to a certain point of development, and then others took it farther still, and in different directions, surely? Of course, the place or places that Mahler took it to are liked and appreciated by many "in the know" to a very high degree, me included, and I am moved, often, by something in a Mahler work. But I'm also immensely moved by the Britten I'm listening to now, or by Bartok or Messiaen or the Tippet oratorio I heard in the concert hall last week. So I conclude that - once again - the problem is subjective taste, i.e. why do people in general not hear and love what I do?

After all, there is (in my opinion) no objective measure of art and maybe - as others have said - the barrier to more people recognising Mahler's name or loving his music lies in its length, complexity, lack of catchy tunes (though there are plenty from the 'Wunderhorn' period), unfamiliarity, cultural difference, etc.

Another thought arises - does it matter? Those who programme and play Mahler in concert clearly have him on radar in the UK at least, so I doubt he'll 'go away' any time soon.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Another thought arises - does it matter? Those who programme and play Mahler in concert clearly have him on radar in the UK at least, so I doubt he'll 'go away' any time soon.


No, it doesn't matter. Mahler has a firm place in the orchestral repertoire and for good reason - in the US too. There is no danger of him slipping into oblivion.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: For the same reason my posts are more popular than the posting dissertationers.

It's all about brevity, my friends.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Let me talk about Beethoven. In general:
> 
> His music is astonishingly direct and to the point.
> He never uses two notes when one will do.
> ...


Okay, to play along, the lay person still knows nothing of Beethoven besides Da Da Da, Da... The OP's scenario is rather pointless. Everbody's heard of Stravinsky too, but Joe Blow doesn't know one note of his music, unless he's a Yes fan.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I read that US Orchestras programmed GM more than any other Composer last year, including Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc. 
So who is 'mainstream'?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Triplets said:


> I read that US Orchestras programmed GM more than any other Composer last year, including Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, etc.
> So who is 'mainstream'?


Beethoven was the most-programmed composer in the US last season. Mahler wasn't in the top ten.

http://www.bsomusic.org/stories/what-data-tells-us-about-the-2015-16-orchestra-season.aspx


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

psfrankel said:


> Suggestions about where to start are welcome. Even individual movements of different symphonies. PM me if you don't want to reply here.


It's been some time since I've listened through Mahler's symphony cycle... so, I don't have the confidence to suggest where to start for someone trying to break the threshold.

But I can suggest you reach out to someone like Mahlerian. From what I've seen, he's quite educated on Mahler's work. I'm sure he could point you in the right direction. 
:tiphat:


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Blake said:


> It's been some time since I've listened through Mahler's symphony cycle... so, I don't have the confidence to suggest where to start for someone trying to break the threshold.
> 
> But *I can suggest you reach out to someone like Mahlerian*. From what I've seen, he's quite educated on Mahler's work. I'm sure he could point you in the right direction.
> :tiphat:


Unfortunately and for the foreseeable future he's not posting here. I suspect he might suggest just listening to any of the first five symphonies, trying different conductors / orchestras and recordings until you find some combination that satisfies you and helps you grasp what's going on. My own suggestion would be to start with the relatively brief and accessible 4th.

Or if orchestral song cycles interest you, maybe try Des Knaben Wunderhorn, Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen, Kindertotenlieder or the Ruckert Lieder.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

psfrankel said:


> Maybe now that I realize what happened with me & dear Gustav, it's time to renew my acquaintance and begin again.
> 
> Suggestions about where to start are welcome. Even individual movements of different symphonies. PM me if you don't want to reply here.





Blake said:


> It's been some time since I've listened through Mahler's symphony cycle... so, I don't have the confidence to suggest where to start for someone trying to break the threshold.
> 
> But I can suggest you reach out to someone like Mahlerian. From what I've seen, he's quite educated on Mahler's work. I'm sure he could point you in the right direction.
> :tiphat:


When I joined TC, I asked for the same sort of help, and got it in this thread, which is chock full of kind & knowledgeable posts.

http://www.talkclassical.com/25689-mahler-where-should-ignoramus.html?highlight=

It's a mighty long thread, and too laborious to reread, but I cite it to make two points:

1. Mahlerian :tiphat: certainly did give me a lot of help with where to start, but so did many others who are still posting on the board. :tiphat: :tiphat:

and 2. I posted the thread because I felt inadequate - I knew nothing of Mahler, yet he seemed to be known & loved by just about everyone else on the site. So although he may not be known by the average person in the street, he is known by those who are 'into' classical music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Oops, wrong thread.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Every layperson knows who Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are. Most people would also recognize names like Tchaikovsky and more modern composers like Debussy. But most people will have never heard of Gustav Mahler.
> 
> Mahler composed some of the most emotionally powerful music ever written. Even on these boards, when asked what the greatest work of all time is, a symphony of his almost always comes up as number 2 after the obligatory mention of Beethoven's 9th or some other piece along those lines.
> 
> ...


I have no idea.

Has anyone seen any actual surveys which support this observation?

I did read an actual study that appeared in the _Journal of Consumer Psychology_ conducted by USC. According to this study in the area of popular music most people prefer music that is simple and has repetitive lyrics. The authors stated that they do not know if the same results would be applicable to people who listen to jazz or classical.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Beethoven was the most-programmed composer in the US last season. Mahler wasn't in the top ten.
> 
> http://www.bsomusic.org/stories/what-data-tells-us-about-the-2015-16-orchestra-season.aspx


Cool link. The two most interesting quirks to me were that Rachmaninoff was programmed so frequently and that the Brahms 2nd Symphony was his most frequently programmed work. I would have guessed his other 3 symphonies and 3 of his concertos would have all been ahead, or at least one of them.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Unfortunately and for the foreseeable future he's not posting here. I suspect he might suggest just listening to any of the first five symphonies, trying different conductors / orchestras and recordings until you find some combination that satisfies you and helps you grasp what's going on. My own suggestion would be to start with the relatively brief and accessible 4th.
> 
> Or if orchestral song cycles interest you, maybe try Des Knaben Wunderhorn, Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen, Kindertotenlieder or the Ruckert Lieder.


Ah, that's news to me. I'm behind on the current events around here... That's a bummer to see him go.

But yes, there are other members around who are more educated than I on Mahler's work. It's hard to recommend a piece without knowing the listener's personality. What sparked my interest in Mahler could turn someone else off... I will say that his 2nd was the first that really grabbed me, and continues to be one of my favorites.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

..............................................






​


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I wouldn't recommend that a Mahler newbie start with the fourth symphony. It's an odd work by any measure: it's twisted faux-cheerfulness may delight you or repel you. In fact I wouldn't recommend to everyone any particular way of getting into Mahler. I've always felt that his works are deeply personal to a rare degree - personal in their unsparing self-expression, and in how they strike listeners. I started with his first symphony and liked it (mostly), then heard his fourth and didn't like it at all (and still don't decades later). I love _Das Lied von der Erde_ and the "Resurrection" Symphony entire, but in most of the symphonies I like some movements but not others. I have moods where Mahler is welcome and moods where I can't stand him and feel like a voyeur in a psych ward.

Mahler represents for me the most extreme personalization of the expanded language of late German Romanticism; unlike Wagner, who did the most to create that language, and whose intense expressivity is placed at the service of varied dramatic/theatrical purposes and is thus objectified and universalized (expressing not so much Wagner as Tannhauser, Wotan, Isolde or Amfortas), Mahler seems to use programmatic ideas as expressions of some personal quest for self-transcendence, a drive toward emotional catharsis through maximal self-indulgence - or, to put it another way, through letting it all hang out. This is one side of the schizoid modern (post-romantic) sensibility - the other side being represented by Stravinskian ("music expresses nothing") neo-classicism, and both sides seeking a perhaps uneasy synthesis in Schoenberg's twelve-tone works, which some listeners find intensely expressive and others find emotionally arid. I think I like _Das Lied_ most among Mahler's works (along with some of his songs) because his desire for a close and detailed expression of poems - art works already complete in themselves - took him out of his own psychic self-absorption in a way that the more amorphous grandiosity of his other programmatic inspirations couldn't.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I guess that I misremembered the quote about Mahler being the most frequently performed Composer.
But if it's the case that he isn't even in the top ten...then why are there so many Mahler haters around? If you don't like his music, don't listen to it. Apparently you have plenty of opportunities to avoid it at Symphony Concerts. Why do people always have to criticize art that is appreciated by many others? Why does Mahler produce such animus in some people? I am assuming that all the Mahler haters aren't overt or covert Anti Semites...I hope


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Triplets said:


> I guess that I misremembered the quote about Mahler being the most frequently performed Composer.
> But if it's the case that he isn't even in the top ten...then why are there so many Mahler haters around? If you don't like his music, don't listen to it. Apparently you have plenty of opportunities to avoid it at Symphony Concerts. Why do people always have to criticize art that is appreciated by many others? Why does Mahler produce such animus in some people? I am assuming that all the Mahler haters aren't overt or covert Anti Semites...I hope


Good Lord! To whom could this be addressed? Anti-Semites?! Clearly you are _not_ assuming that all the Mahler haters - none of whom, whoever they are, seem to have taken an interest in this thread - are not members of that horrid fraternity, else you wouldn't have felt the need to bring it up.

Methinks someone needs a stiff belt of something - or maybe just a good barn-storming performance of the Symphony of a Thousand.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

There's no quick fix in Mahler... that's the animus. You can't be anxious about the finish-line when you're listening to him, as each moment is equally important. But here-in lies the rub, if you get one part, then you've understood what he's trying to say. It doesn't matter if you've reached the last part of the symphony. The beginning is now, and the end is now.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Triplets said:


> I am assuming that all the Mahler haters aren't overt or covert Anti Semites...I hope


I wonder if one could be both anti-semitic and a Mahler fan. For instance I hate Irish people (red ale, potatoes, redheads, the whole lot of them and their miserable history) but I love Joyce. This would be a controversial stance but I'm one of those rarely found self-loathing micks so it dampens the effect a bit. Plus people only care whether you're Irish on one stupid holiday per year, and I can usually be found salting the earth on that particular day in my bid to rid the world of the dreaded clover symbol once and for all. Anti-semitism gets all the good press.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

I would say the greatest movements (which regardless have to be listened to 5-10 times before you begin to appreciate them) are:

1. 6th movement from 3rd Symphony
2. 4th movement from 9th Symphony
3. 4th movement from 5th Symphony
4. 5th movement from 2nd Symphony
5. Andante Moderato from 6th Symphony
6. Last song from Das Lied von Der Erde

Those are his masterpieces.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Ayup, it shouldn't be a surprise that there's still an unhealthy dose of racism, patriotism, and any other kind of "ism" going on in the world. But I don't feel that's the culprit for why Mahler isn't as popular as some think he should be.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Francis Poulenc said:


> I would say the greatest movements (which regardless have to be listened to 5-10 times before you begin to appreciate them) are:
> 
> 1. 6th movement from 3rd Symphony
> 2. 4th movement from 9th Symphony
> ...


It probably speaks to both the personal nature of Mahler's works and to the highly varied nature of his symphonies that I wouldn't list a single one of those among my 6 favorite Mahler movements.


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

bz3 said:


> It probably speaks to both the personal nature of Mahler's works and to the highly varied nature of his symphonies that I wouldn't list a single one of those among my 6 favorite Mahler movements.


Those are the pieces that are most commonly revered.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Mahler has never been more popular than he presently is.


----------



## Weird Heather (Aug 24, 2016)

I have noticed that Mahler, in general, isn't all that well known to the general public, but this can vary from location to location. I used to live in a city where the local symphony orchestra was a Mahler specialist and had been since the 1960s, and Mahler was deeply imbedded in the local musical culture. Of course, symphony orchestras have their regular audiences, but these people are likely to be familiar with Mahler even if the orchestra infrequently performs his music. However, if the local orchestra regularly performs and heavily promotes his music, as this orchestra does, then knowledge of Mahler is likely to filter out to the more casual audience - people who might attend a performance once a year or even less frequently. Over time, the effect is cumulative, and some vague knowledge filters out to the general public. In that city, I found that many people at least vaguely knew his name and associated him with classical music, and people who weren't classical music fans but might occasionally attend a symphony concert were fairly likely to have heard some of his music. Some of these people even liked his music. In the city where I live now, I seldom even hear his name mentioned; although the local orchestra does program his music, he just isn't so deeply imbedded in the local culture.

All of this is anecdotal of course. It would be interesting to do a study and see if my observations pan out, but I doubt anybody would ever want to take the time and spend the money necessary to do it properly.


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

I agree that Mahler is not a household name, whereas Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Holst, Puccini, Strauss, possibly Sibelius and even Delius are much more widely known. The reason, is partly due to the length and type of his most important works. 

Tchaikovsky wrote in many genres, and was a master of lyricism.

Debussy was important because his music was ground-breaking, more so than any other 20th Century composer.

Rachmaninov also wrote in several genres and was also highly lyrical and easy to hear.

Elgar wrote in many genres and was at a re-birth for British music.

Holst wrote mostly shorter pieces – but, actually, why he is so well known I’m not sure.

Puccini is easy, as a song can become popular on its own and he was very lyrical.

Strauss wrote much shorter pieces, more exciting pieces, is easier to listen to and more light-hearted.

So, Mahler (who I love) has suffered hugely from the length of his works, the feverishness of its emotions, the lack of variety of genre and because he did not innovate, but instead just added to the perfecting of Romanticism.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Bruckner Anton said:


> Mahler has never been more popular than he presently is.


Possibly true but according to the OP he should be even more popular. Of course, if everybody who came to this Board to say that their favourite composer should be more popular then the whole concept of popularity wouldn't make sense. It would rather like trying to lift yourself up by pulling on your own boot strings, which of course is completely crazy. Just saying.


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Couldn't the Adagietto from the 5th Symphony be considered a short "popular hit"?


I think it helps, but still not immediately appealing and quick and easy for non-listeners.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

hpowders said:


> OP: For the same reason my posts are more popular than the posting dissertationers.
> 
> It's all about brevity, my friends.


I laughed out loud at this one :lol:


----------



## scott777 (Oct 9, 2016)

Bruckner Anton said:


> Mahler has never been more popular than he presently is.


Among listeners of classical music, but not of people in general.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> When I joined TC, I asked for the same sort of help, and got it in this thread, which is chock full of kind & knowledgeable posts.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/25689-mahler-where-should-ignoramus.html?highlight=
> 
> ...


The help is there for anyone requesting it. PetrB got me into the Debussy Études and Schoenberg Violin and Piano Concertos.

I'm grateful to him wherever he is!!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

> I agree that Mahler is not a household name, whereas Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Holst, Puccini, Strauss, possibly Sibelius and even Delius are much more widely known. The reason, is partly due to the length and type of his most important works.


This probably applies mainly to UK, of course. The knowledge on names and specific pieces varies from region to region. Delius is extremely obscure in Scandinavia, certainly in Sweden, slightly less perhaps in Denmark due to his/the music´s connections to DK.


----------



## ST4 (Oct 27, 2016)

My impression has been that he is the most popular post-beethoven romantic composer besides Brahms, am I wrong?

Though I do suspect his popularity is shared by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

ST4 said:


> My impression has been that he is the most popular post-beethoven romantic composer besides Brahms, am I wrong?
> 
> Though I do suspect his popularity is shared by Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninoff


Yes my impression is that the OP wants Mahler to be as popular as Mozart.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Seven of the nine finished Mahler Symphonies are simply too long for mainstream, inexperienced listeners to sit there and not get restless.


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

I've always preferred Mahler's music live. Listening to it on my headphones never does it for me. I don't know his music very well for that reason.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Mahler didn't have hits or "blockbusters". Maybe his financies were good enough, or his ego was big enough, or something... All the biggest names have something for _everybody_. From naive "lullabies" to complex pieces that please critics. That's why they are biggest?


----------



## jailhouse (Sep 2, 2016)

He can't be that unpopular considering I heard the Adagietto from his 5th symphony in a freaking perfume ad on tv the other day

nearly puked

edit: here check it out and puke along with me to jared leto and his dumb tattoo, two hot chicks, and sepia color filters


----------



## GodotsArrived (Jan 12, 2017)

I'm amazed at the thread title. Perhaps I'm missing something but if number of recordings and frequency of concert programming are any guide, it would seem to me that Mahler has become very much mainstream today. It's far harder to avoid him than confront him (not that I'd want to do the former.) And having lived in seven major cities in five countries over the past two decades, that goes for all of them. Outside of the core rep (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, etc.) Mahler is as ubiquitous as any composer wherever I have been. Where is it that he's not considered mainstream?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

When an Ice Dance team at the Winter Olympics wins the gold medal for a program choreographed to Mahler (the ubiquitous 5th symphony adagietto), then Mahler is a lot more of mainstream than any number of other major composers.


----------



## GodotsArrived (Jan 12, 2017)

Becca said:


> When an Ice Dance team at the Winter Olympics wins the gold medal for a program choreographed to Mahler (the ubiquitous 5th symphony adagietto), then Mahler is a lot more of mainstream than any number of other major composers.


Not to mention all those French children still singing Frere Jaques in Primary School


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

jailhouse said:


> He can't be that unpopular considering I heard the Adagietto from his 5th symphony in a freaking perfume ad on tv the other day
> 
> nearly puked
> 
> edit: here check it out and puke along with me to jared leto and his dumb tattoo, two hot chicks, and sepia color filters


I had enough in 15 seconds. Mahler is now ruined!


----------



## GodotsArrived (Jan 12, 2017)

Lenny said:


> I had enough in 15 seconds. Mahler is now ruined!


Wait til you see the promotional video for Mike Tyson's latest comeback then. Aufestehen, Ja Wir Aufestehen...


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

DoReFaMi said:


> Well you could rephrase the question as such:
> 
> *Why do most people only know a few composer names, namely Bach, Mozart and Beethoven (perhaps Chopin, Tchaikovsky and a few others)? *
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, I agree with this post (at least for the U.S.). I am tutoring several high school students for the SATs. Recently I had cause to ask them if they knew who Bach was. They did not. A handful of works have crossed into the popular culture. Tchaikovsky's "Nutcracker" and Beethoven's 5th and the Moonlight Sonata for example. (Beethoven and Tchaikovsky also benefit from a namecheck by Chuck Berry.) People know "Claire de Lune" but I wonder how many know who composed it. I suspect Mozart is known primarily through "Amadeus." Ken Russell's "Mahler" - not so much.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Lenny said:


> I had enough in 15 seconds. Mahler is now ruined!


Nah, if he can survive Visconti, he can survive this too. :lol:


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Every layperson knows who Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are. Most people would also recognize names like Tchaikovsky and more modern composers like Debussy. But most people will have never heard of Gustav Mahler.


a matinee, a Pinter play
perhaps a piece of Mahler's
I'll drink to that
(And one for Mahler!)






"Wouldn't you just _die_ without Mahler?"






"a particular British man-type [...] They were probably into Burial at some point. They also have a favorite Mahler symphony. They've probably been to Berghain and even considered moving to Berlin in the mid-2000s."


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/799927439577280512


Francis Poulenc said:


> Having composed music like this, how is it that even Debussy has more popular name recognition than Mahler?


I don't think he does but if so it probably doesn't hurt that Debussy is factually better than Mahler.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

GodotsArrived said:


> Wait til you see the promotional video for Mike Tyson's latest comeback then. Aufestehen, Ja Wir Aufestehen...


Please share it. I think I've now recovered from the Gucci video.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I don't think he does but if so it probably doesn't hurt that Debussy is factually better than Mahler.


There is NO such thing as 'factual' when it comes to personal opinions about music, musicians, composers, etc., for that is all they are - personal.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

DoReFaMi said:


> I don't think most people know of Mahler more than they know of very important composers such as Liszt, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Prokofiev, Haydn and probably also Debussy.


Shostmaninoff, Rachofiev, and Prokakovich are not very important composers.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

Becca said:


> There is NO such thing as 'factual' when it comes to personal opinions about music, musicians, composers, etc., for that is all they are - personal.


I mean, you can say it's your personal opinion that the earth is bigger than the sun and you'll be right that it's your personal opinion, but your personal opinion will still be wrong.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Shostmaninoff, Rachofiev, and Prokakovich are not very important composers.


Never heard! But people should know about Lisbussy, Shosbussy, Rachbussy, Prokobussy and Debyssybussy!


----------



## GodotsArrived (Jan 12, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I mean, you can say it's your personal opinion that the earth is bigger than the sun and you'll be right that it's your personal opinion, but your personal opinion will still be wrong.


You think that's bad. I met a bloke earlier today who thought the earth was ROUND. LOL. Like people in Australia wouldn't be falling off. Idiot.


----------



## satoru (May 29, 2014)

According to the following site, Mahler's music has been featured in more than 100 films, including Death in Venice, Sutter Island, Children of Men and The tree of life. To me, a composer featured in that many movies is popular. I guess many people have heard Mahler's music (or part of it) but don't recognize the composer. My first exposure to Mahler was "Death in Venice", and it was years later when I finally associated the music and the composer. Yes, most of his pieces are too long for a beginner, as others stated, and I totally agree with opinion from my own experience.

http://www.cmuse.org/10-fun-facts-about-gustav-mahler/


----------



## Guillet81 (Jul 4, 2016)

Speaking only for myself, I would say Tchaikovsky is "the" composer, in terms of taking music to its highest emotional level. (Holding to a simplistic emotional vs intellectual model.) As pointed out, he has greater name recognition than Mahler, and that I suspect is because Tchaikovsky's heart-stirring simply appeals to a larger audience.


----------



## GodotsArrived (Jan 12, 2017)

Guillet81 said:


> Speaking only for myself, I would say Tchaikovsky is "the" composer, in terms of taking music to its highest emotional level. (Holding to a simplistic emotional vs intellectual model.) As pointed out, he has greater name recognition than Mahler, and that I suspect is because Tchaikovsky's heart-stirring simply appeals to a larger audience.


I suspect it's probably also that his ballets -- particularly Swan Lake and the ubiquitous Christmas Nutcracker -- and to a lesser extent his operatic output have also brought him to a much broader audience. Remember, the ballets play on TV, cinemas, the village hall and wherever. They reach parts that other compositions cannot reach (to paraphrase the Heineken advert). I suspect Tchaikovsky's orchestral and chamber output (possibly excepting 6 and maybe PC1) isn't dramatically better known than Mahler's.


----------



## jailhouse (Sep 2, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Nah, if he can survive Visconti, he can survive this too. :lol:


well the difference is Visconti made an excellent, artful movie.

This is just a corruption for financial gain. It's a god damned perfume ad


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

Lenny said:


> Please share it. I think I've now recovered from the Gucci video.


lucky you, I should've watched only 15 seconds too.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

satoru said:


> According to the following site, Mahler's music has been featured in more than 100 films, including Death in Venice, Sutter Island, Children of Men and The tree of life. To me, a composer featured in that many movies is popular. I guess many people have heard Mahler's music (or part of it) but don't recognize the composer. My first exposure to Mahler was "Death in Venice", and it was years later when I finally associated the music and the composer. Yes, most of his pieces are too long for a beginner, as others stated, and I totally agree with opinion from my own experience.
> 
> http://www.cmuse.org/10-fun-facts-about-gustav-mahler/


Yes. The great Adagietto from Mahler 5 was featured in Death in Venice, one of my favorite films.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

jailhouse said:


> well the difference is Visconti made an excellent, artful movie.
> 
> This is just a corruption for financial gain. It's a god damned perfume ad


And what a movie that is.:tiphat:


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Lenny said:


> Never heard! But people should know about Lisbussy, Shosbussy, Rachbussy, Prokobussy and Debyssybussy!


And of course Octodebussy, the eight-armed composer of Impressionist ragas.


----------

