# Is Mahler the Ron Paul of symphonists?



## 4'33"

While watching some recent debates I realized that Ron Paul really hits the nail on the head on certain issues (particularly foreign affairs and drugs) but is a looney-tune half the time on other issues. I'll cheer him on then suddenly think "oh no, what is he talking about?!"

Occasionally I try to turn myself on to Mahler, but I end up with the same reaction. He'll have really mind blowing great parts immediately followed by the most ridiculous crap. I can't even make it through a whole symphony without wanting to through my iPod through a window! Add to this the fact that his music his way too long and over-the-top with romantic excess and he comes off to me as just awful.

But, just like Ron Paul, he has a cult like following that worships his music. And it appears his music is performed almost as much as Beethoven's (!!!!!!!!!). So I'm asking for illumination. What is it about his music that people love? I've heard the whole "symphony is a world" claptrap nonsense, but is that really what people want? Disjointed bloated ideas with no sense of form or structure? There is so much better music from the 20th century to explore - why the focus on this carcass of late 19th century angst?


----------



## Manxfeeder

David Hurwitz has an interesting book, _The Mahler Symphonies, An Owner's Manual_, where he points out the things that you're asking about. It might not change your opinion about Mahler, but at least you'll be more informed.


----------



## Crudblud

I like mind blowing great parts and ridiculous crap, having them both in the same place is just so convenient, you know?


----------



## mmsbls

4'33" said:


> He'll have really mind blowing great parts immediately followed by the most ridiculous crap. ...Add to this the fact that his music his way too long and over-the-top with romantic excess and he comes off to me as just awful.
> 
> Disjointed bloated ideas with no sense of form or structure? There is so much better music from the 20th century to explore - why the focus on this carcass of late 19th century angst?


There are many posts on TC essentially asking how it's possible that people actually like a particular composer or work. These posts never denigrate marginal composers or works but only very highly regarded composers or works (maybe modern music is an exception). Generally the posts describe exactly how the composer's music or the particular work is horrible or inferior. As stated, it is a bizarre mystery how huge numbers of listeners could like such awful music. You seem to know that no one could really enjoy Mahler.

If Mahler were considered a marginal composer enjoyed by a small number of people, then you might ask what those people like about him. Since he's considered one of the greatest (say top 20) composers, you might ask why _you_ find his music to be crap.

Here's my answer-
I don't like ridiculous crap, romantic excess, music that's too long, or bloated ideas. I do, in general, love Mahler like the majority of classical listeners I know. I think his music is incredibly beautiful so I love it. I'm sure that won't help you, but I don't know what possibly could.


----------



## Meaghan

4'33" said:


> What is it about his music that people love? I've heard the whole "symphony is a world" claptrap nonsense, but is that really what people want? *Disjointed bloated ideas with no sense of form or structure? There is so much better music from the 20th century to explore - why the focus on this carcass of late 19th century angst?*


Given this bit, it seems to me you're actually not particularly interested in why people like Mahler and would rather just trash talk him than hear answers, but here's an attempt at one anyway.

There _is_ form and structure in Mahler. It's large-scale and complex. It can be hard to detect when one's understanding of forms is basically on a classical scale, which is why my theory classes did not really equip me to analyze Mahler. Once you (/I) get it, though, it's pretty cool. The Hurwitz book Manxfeeder mentioned is great for understanding Mahler's forms and structures. His discussion of the "rondo from Hell" that is the finale of the 7th is particularly good.

As for "mind blowing parts followed by ridiculous crap," Mahler's quirky moments are not for everyone. I love them. Purely subjective.

In other news:


----------



## violadude

For the last time, Mahler's music is not formless!!! :scold:


----------



## Vaneyes

4'33" said:


> While watching some recent debates I realized that Ron Paul really hits the nail on the head on certain issues (particularly foreign affairs and drugs) but is a looney-tune half the time on other issues. I'll cheer him on then suddenly think "oh no, what is he talking about?!"
> 
> Occasionally I try to turn myself on to Mahler, but I end up with the same reaction. He'll have really mind blowing great parts immediately followed by the most ridiculous crap. I can't even make it through a whole symphony without wanting to through my iPod through a window! Add to this the fact that his music his way too long and over-the-top with romantic excess and he comes off to me as just awful.
> 
> But, just like Ron Paul, he has a cult like following that worships his music. And it appears his music is performed almost as much as Beethoven's (!!!!!!!!!). So I'm asking for illumination. What is it about his music that people love? I've heard the whole "symphony is a world" claptrap nonsense, but is that really what people want? Disjointed bloated ideas with no sense of form or structure? There is so much better music from the 20th century to explore - why the focus on this carcass of late 19th century angst?


You're right. Stay where you are.


----------



## Art Rock

Tastes differ. Tastes are personal. Your taste will not appeal to many others and vice versa. No need to go bashing other people's tastes.


----------



## Vaneyes

For that, you've just been assigned carcass duty.


----------



## brianwalker

No. Just no. Ron Paul makes some good points, but those good points are pedestrian libertarian ones. I knew almost all of them by the time I was 15. 

Mahler was one of the greatest composers of all time
Ron Paul is not close to being one of the greatest statesman of all time. He's just the American political flavor of the month. 

A more appropriate comparison would be Napoleon. 

King Solomon - Bach
Alexander the Great - Mozart 
Julius Caesar - Beethoven

.......


etc.

I'll give you 6/10 for creativity. I have never before encountered this form of Mahler bashing. Kudos to you.


----------



## Sid James

4'33" said:


> ...
> 
> Occasionally I try to turn myself on to Mahler, but I end up with the same reaction. He'll have really mind blowing great parts immediately followed by the most ridiculous crap. I can't even make it through a whole symphony without wanting to through my iPod through a window! Add to this the fact that his music his way too long and over-the-top with romantic excess and he comes off to me as just awful...


A quote from THIS article in The Guardian, that does go into the reasons behind the fragmentation and high contrast in Mahler's works that you discuss. -

*{In 1907, Mahler met Jean Sibelius, whose symphonies are the polar opposite of Mahler's: compressed, distilled, self-referential. The composers discussed the meaning of the symphony. Sibelius admired its "profound logic and inner connection". Mahler completely disagreed: "A symphony must be like the world," he said. "It must embrace everything."}*



> ...
> And it appears his music is performed almost as much as Beethoven's (!!!!!!!!!)...


I don't think Mahler is merely a "cult" figure. He is admired across the board by many classical listeners, musicians, writers on music, and a lot of others.

If you want to see a really "cult" composer, go listen to someone like Rued Langgaard, who similar to Mahler did some pretty overblown "late romantic" symphonies, but without Mahler's facility or uniqueness/strength of vision.

Mahler's music is not performed as much as Beethoven's at least not around here. In last two years, there has been a complete Mahler cycle done and a lot of his works, symphonies and song-cycles, played by many orchestras. I've had the privelege to go to some of these. But Beethoven is performed far more here, eg. he composed in many other genres than just symphonies or songs like Mahler - eg. chamber music, solo instrumental, concertos, his opera Fidelio, the ballet Creatures of Prometheus, etc. So he's bound to be performed more.

Mahler's symphonies, a number of them, require larger orchestra, soloists and choirs, bigger than Beethoven's, only whose 9th symphony need added forces of the sort. So it costs more money to put on Mahler, so he's done much less here.

With that in mind, you might like to approach Mahler as a rare treat, not as an everyday "bread and butter" kind of listening?

So basically a good idea to read the sources as people have said, and experience his music, think about it, etc. Pulling it down will not really be helpful for you as a listener, although what you say - eg. the long length, the high contrasts, big emotions, etc. - are reasons why a fair amount of people don't connect with him or like him. I understand that, I'm in the middle with him myself. But I would not dismiss him the way you do, doesn't make sense to me and is of little use...


----------



## moody

Vaneyes said:


> For that, you've just been assigned carcass duty.


Who on earth is this Ron Paul person ?


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> Who on earth is this Ron Paul person ?


Probably the world's best known self-described libertarian. Personally, I think he is a valuable foil for the plutocrats of the world; his spiel is the ideal that they have corrupted.


----------



## starthrower

Mahler will be remembered long after Ron Paul is forgotten. If we put a bunch of Ron Paul's in power, talented people like Mahler will have to drive a truck to pay the bills. No time for creating great works of art, because subsidizing artists is socialism, and that's evil.


----------



## Vaneyes

moody said:


> Who on earth is this Ron Paul person ?


Some say a catalyst for a much-needed third political party in America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul


----------



## starthrower

The party of we've already got ours?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

With Mahler worshippers, what you see is what you get. They worship exactly what you hear when you hear Mahler.

Ron Paul worshippers worship a fictional version of a politician that is smart, worldly, and that cares about civil liberties.


----------



## superhorn

The Ron Paul of symphonists !!!!! I can't contain my laughter !!!!!!










:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Sid James

Just to add something maybe more useful to the OP, here are some things by Mahler that I like and are not overblown or too much like the qualities the OP dislikes, compared to his other things (but I'm okay with them too, these are just my favourites) -

_*Symphony #4 *_- His tightest, most coherent, symphony. He wrote the final movement, a song for female voice called _The Heavenly Life _(soprano or mezzo soprano) with the orchestra last, maybe 5-10 years before working on (adding) the earlier three movements. All movements thematically relate to the tune of this song at the end. Also, it's for smaller orchestra than some of his huge ones, and it is only an hour long (without the _blumine _movement, later extracted, but now they sometimes inlcude it as a bonus track).

_*Songs of a Wayfarer (Leider eines fahrenden gesellen)*_ - These are very picturesque songs, Mahler illustrates his own poetry -the usual stuff about love found and lost - with great sensitivity and imagination. The last song, with the poet sitting under a tree, the petals falling on him, he is thinking/dreaming whether his love affair was real or imagined, the music illustrates this so well, very moving stuff.

*Songs of Children's Death (Kindertotenlieder)* - Like the above, very well set, but these were about poems by a guy from before Mahler's time, Ruckert. These have reduced me to tears. Very emotional and dark. Mahler's daughter died somewhat later, but he had a sibling or two die during his childhood. He later said that he could not have written this work after his daughter's death, it's that intense.

*Adagietto from Sym.#5 * *& Adagio from Sym.#10 - *As I said in earlier post, you can do Mahler in chunks, not necessarily listen to the whole work. These famous pieces work well on their own, they are sometimes done like that live in concert, as stand-alone pieces. The former like a love letter to his wife to be, quite romantic, the latter quite stark and pared down, his last completed work, the massive 9 note clusters bringing Mahler firmly into line with the modernist trends of the times just before he died...


----------



## DavidMahler

4'33" said:


> While watching some recent debates I realized that Ron Paul really hits the nail on the head on certain issues (particularly foreign affairs and drugs) but is a looney-tune half the time on other issues. I'll cheer him on then suddenly think "oh no, what is he talking about?!"
> 
> Occasionally I try to turn myself on to Mahler, but I end up with the same reaction. He'll have really mind blowing great parts immediately followed by the most ridiculous crap. I can't even make it through a whole symphony without wanting to through my iPod through a window! Add to this the fact that his music his way too long and over-the-top with romantic excess and he comes off to me as just awful.
> 
> But, just like Ron Paul, he has a cult like following that worships his music. And it appears his music is performed almost as much as Beethoven's (!!!!!!!!!). So I'm asking for illumination. What is it about his music that people love? I've heard the whole "symphony is a world" claptrap nonsense, but is that really what people want? Disjointed bloated ideas with no sense of form or structure? There is so much better music from the 20th century to explore - why the focus on this carcass of late 19th century angst?


What ridiculous crap? Those are strong words.

He has more than a cult following too. I would guess Mahler has a broader fanbase than any other composer at this point minus the big 3 and maybe 2 others.


----------



## Frasier

My text book says of Mahler:


> It was suddenly realised that Mahler had not written ten big long boring symphonies…which you have to listen to carefully from beginning to end in order not to miss the themes but had, in fact, strung together hundreds of attractive little tunes. And it was possible to go into a coma for a lot of the symphony and still get involved when you came to again. It is possible to switch on the car radio at 9.30am in the depths of the country to…a Mahler symphony well into its stride and to arrive in town and find a parking place with it still going on in its forgetfully energetic way that suggests it might still be in progress at 5.30.


I'm inclined to agree with the O/P but admit there are two camps: those who think he's a good composer and those who think he's bad - and little can be done to move someone from one to the other. I thought the 4th was a bit of...well... the Sleighbell Symphony. I gave up at the 4th movement, this female crooning away but interrupted every so often by a burst of sleighbells as if Santa was gee-ing up his sled then letting the singer go on a while. But there it is, each to his own...


----------



## violadude

Frasier said:


> My text book says of Mahler:
> 
> I'm inclined to agree with the O/P but admit there are two camps: those who think he's a good composer and those who think he's bad - and little can be done to move someone from one to the other. I thought the 4th was a bit of...well... the Sleighbell Symphony. I gave up at the 4th movement, this female crooning away but interrupted every so often by a burst of sleighbells as if Santa was gee-ing up his sled then letting the singer go on a while. But there it is, each to his own...


Did you bother to look up what that song was actually about?


----------



## Art Rock

Sid James said:


> _*Symphony #4 *_- His tightest, most coherent, symphony. He wrote the final movement, a song for female voice called _The Heavenly Life _(soprano or mezzo soprano) with the orchestra last, maybe 5-10 years before working on (adding) the earlier three movements. All movements thematically relate to the tune of this song at the end. Also, it's for smaller orchestra than some of his huge ones, and it is only an hour long (without the _blumine _movement, later extracted, but now they sometimes inlcude it as a bonus track).


Small correction: Blumine is a retracted movement of the first symphony, not the fourth.


----------



## Sid James

Art Rock said:


> Small correction: Blumine is a retracted movement of the first symphony, not the fourth.


Thank you very much Art Rock. I learn something new here everyday, or so.

I said what I said mistakenly, as I have THIS recording of Mahler's sym.#4, with _Blumine_ as the bonus track. On the cd itself, there is no info about this movement, I thought it was part of this symphony.

Now just having looked on that link I have put just now, it says what you say, that was part of Sym.#1. I knew Sym.#1 had a_ Blumine_, but I thought it was a different _Blumine_.

A bit confusing why they put it with Sym.#4, but I guess they padded out the disc with it, and it's a live recording, so it may have been recorded in the same session...


----------

