# Do you find any of Mahler´s symphonies sometimes too long?



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

The title and the poll question and the options say everything necessary.

I am interested in the distribution of the opinions.

Because TC is a concentration of Mahler fanatics, I chose the answers to be anonymous. 

Please share your views if you dare!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I like some of the symphonies very much (4, 5, and 6) and find others tedious. I'm not voting because, while I believe that virtually all of them, including the ones I like a lot, are flabby, I cannot think of specific remedies or edits that would solve whatever problems I sense. Of all the options you've offerred, I'm closest to voting for the first — no changes required — because I don't think there are easy solutions. The Sixth I think would be easiest to improve [for Mahler, that is, not me]. The finale is the problem for me but I don't know what should be done. I plan to try to look for an answer soon when I have time.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mahler symphonies cannot be cut; his works are all through-composed. Any cuts are damaging and make no sense. There are recordings, mostly of live radio broadcasts, that have disfiguring cuts and it just demonstrates that Mahler knew what he was doing. Yes, sometimes it seems like the music could have been trimmed but then comes a conductor who understands the music and can make it seem shorter or less long-winded. For me, the only stretch in any of his works that just goes on too long is the opening part of the second movement of the 8th. And that's why I vastly prefer recordings that get the entire 8th on one disk - the tempos have to move to get it all on.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Let's ask Max Reger how he handled the question whether some first-rate-music could be too long.

Some day, Reger attended a concert where a symphony by Bruckner was performed. When it was over, he met Dr. Rudolf Louis, a local reviewer. In earlier times, Dr. Louis had already declared Max Reger being prone to the madhouse (asylum?) based on his music.

In the crowd before the exit, Dr. Louis talked to Reger: "Na, wissen'S, Herr Reger, ganz scheen, der Bruckner, aber mir z'lang!" ("Well, you know, Mr. Reger, quite nice, this Bruckner, but too long for me!")

Reger, a giant man, grabbed Dr. Louis at his ascot, shaked him a little and said: "Der Bruckner, der is net z'lang, aber sie san's zu kurz!" ("Bruckner is not too long, but you are too short!")


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

mbhaub said:


> Mahler symphonies cannot be cut; his works are all through-composed. Any cuts are damaging and make no sense. There are recordings, mostly of live radio broadcasts, that have disfiguring cuts and it just demonstrates that Mahler knew what he was doing. Yes, sometimes it seems like the music could have been trimmed but then comes a conductor who understands the music and can make it seem shorter or less long-winded. For me, the only stretch in any of his works that just goes on too long is the opening part of the second movement of the 8th. And that's why I vastly prefer recordings that get the entire 8th on one disk - the tempos have to move to get it all on.


This. In spades.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

So far, I have found good to excellent recordings of symphonies 1-7 and DLVDE and some of 9 that are okay but did not impress me. Being long is not a problem, but it does make it harder to evaluate the same number of performances as I can for symphonies half the length.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Nope - no editing, no shortening, no messing around with his music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

No. “The fault lies not in our stars, but in ourselves.”


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Mahler on making cuts: "Mr. Weingartner understands Wagner even less than I do and can't see that cuts make a work longer rather than make it shorter."


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

Mahler just went over the top while Bruckner restrained himself (or was restrained)


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

I would abide by Mahler's dying request that the "big Broadway tap number" be restored to the 8th...


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I would cut and edit maybe something from the 2nd Movement of the 5th, the finale of the 6th and the first movement of the 7th. The middle symphonies have always given me the most trouble, also because they remind each other a lot. Everything else I find balanced in his output.

I genuinely can picture and hear in my mind the perfect versions of the 5th, 6th and the 7th with relatively minor changes which would not ruin anything. That is why the flaws irritate me and why I cannot stop talking about Mahler on TC.

(As I am not interested in the 8th, I do not comment on the 8th.)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Shaughnessy said:


> I would abide by Mahler's dying request that the "big Broadway tap number" be restored to the 8th...


I only listen to the first half of the 8th, but if Ann Miller and Mickey Rooney were to show up in top hat and tails, I might stay through the intermission.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Only when I need to use the john.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Manxfeeder said:


> *I only listen to the first half of the 8th, but if Ann Miller and Mickey Rooney were to show up in top hat and tails, I might stay through the intermission.*


This is the "big Broadway tap number" that was cut from the original version of the 8th - Kind of a shame really that Mahler axed it in favor of "Blicket auf zum Retterblick"



Spoiler: Deleted "big Broadway tap number" from Mahler's original uncut version of the 8th Symphony


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I seldom put on Mahler because of the length, but long car-trips and concert halls are fantastic. You should have an electric car. Diesel and winter-tires don't work...


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> *I would cut and edit maybe something from the 2nd Movement of the 5th*, the finale of the 6th and the first movement of the 7th. The middle symphonies have always given me the most trouble, also because they remind each other a lot. Everything else I find balanced in his output.


I must disagree with this. I think the second movement of the 5th is perfectly structured and to the point. I think it's the best symphonic movement Mahler ever wrote. If there's a problem with the 5th, IMO, it's the scherzo, which is longer than the other movements and not connected to the cyclic thematic processes that tie Part One and Part Three together. This is likely because the scherzo was completed before the other movements and, if memory serves, was composed with another purpose in mind, that is, not originally intended to be a part of a larger work. One could cut the whole movement without any _specific_ harm to the symphony. I say specific harm because the symphony would not work without some kind of large movement in that position, I just think it needs to be one that has a more organic connection to the rest of the work.


----------



## LKB (Jul 27, 2021)

I never find myself wishing a Mahler work to be shorter. I do find myself occasionally wishing that a Mahler work was longer.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Waehnen said:


> Please share your views if you dare!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Just finished Boulez's No.2 and it was the quickest 80 minutes of Mahler I've experienced. I'm going to listen to it again.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Thread question: Yes, I do find Mahler's symphonies too long, particularly the ones which go over an hour. Same with Bruckner. This is a matter of my personal taste. In most cases, anything which goes too much over an hour stretches out before me like the Sahara. I can't help thinking about when its going to end.

Poll question: "No, there is no need for shortening or editing in any of Mahler's work!" If you applied the same sort of thinking to Sibelius, you'd be looking for a way to lengthen his symphonies.

I understand the connection between the two questions, but I think it's obvious that leaving the work intact is the best option. In classical, Mahler's not to be messed with, he's as sacred as say Beethoven. I read that when offered the score of Mahler's 10th, Schoenberg and Shostakovich refused to complete it. Perhaps they where being too cautious, but altering a work which is fully complete would be much more radical.

I had a phase when I was into Bruckner and to an extent Mahler, but for various reasons it faded. I still listen to a few of their symphonies. The fact that they specialised in the symphony leads to a bit of a problem compared to other composers with more varied output. There's not much else to turn to, apart from mainly songs in Mahler's case, and choral music and the quintet in Bruckner's.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> I must disagree with this. I think the second movement of the 5th is perfectly structured and to the point. I think it's the best symphonic movement Mahler ever wrote. If there's a problem with the 5th, IMO, it's the scherzo, which is longer than the other movements and not connected to the cyclic thematic processes that tie Part One and Part Three together. This is likely because the scherzo was completed before the other movements and, if memory serves, was composed with another purpose in mind, that is, not originally intended to be a part of a larger work. One could cut the whole movement without any _specific_ harm to the symphony. I say specific harm because the symphony would not work without some kind of large movement in that position, I just think it needs to be one that has a more organic connection to the rest of the work.


I almost agree with you. I almost left out mentioning the 2nd movement of the 5th and rather would have. But if the music continuously brings to mind some changes which I think would make the work better, then I am inclined to think there is something a bit off-balance in the music. Nevertheless, the 5th is the most balanced of the middle symphonies. I have no problems with the scherzo.

There is something about the middle symphonies by Mahler that bring the editor in me out. I have never felt the need to edit for example Bruckner or Shostakovich. I have no problems with large forms or eclecticism as such, so there is something specific about the middle Mahler symphonies.

In the biography I read that even during composing the 5th, Mahler said that he was not as inspired as he was when younger but that he hoped his craftmanship would compensate. It is the occasional feeling of the uninspired craftsman overdoing things which I would edit out in symphonies 5-7. For example, the 2nd Movement of the 5th was a huge problem for me in the beginning because the choice of making a variation movement based on the 1st movement suggested that Mahler didn´t have enough original material and so he HAD to make a variation movement.

In the middle symphonies I have a feeling that Mahler is constantly forcing everything out of his material, turning every stone all the time, and there is something convulsive about it. The opposite of that technique or approach is Sibelius symphonies 4-7: you get the feeling he could have gone on forever but chose not to. He did not need to. He poured from a bottomless well of wonderful unique melodies, harmonies and rhythms -- whereas Mahler had to force everything out of his little material (mainly the marching) because he could not come up with anything else.

With some editing this forceful and convulsive atmosphere and impression could have and should have been avoided.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

If you take out something, it has to strengthen the piece and have no negative impact to its overall integrity. I think there are similarities with editing a movie. If scenes are deleted, they have to be extraneous of what's left in terms of plot and character development. 

With something like Mahler's first symphony, its easy to see why he took out Blumine. Even that's an atypical example, because Blumine was originally part of music for a play before Mahler decided to use it in the symphony. I think the piano quartet movement is an example of the opposite problem - not enough meat in the sandwich. The thematic material is interesting but barely strong enough to sustain it as a movement, let alone as the basis for an entire work.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Sid James said:


> If you take out something, it has to strengthen the piece and have no negative impact to its overall integrity. I think there are similarities with editing a movie. If scenes are deleted, they have to be extraneous of what's left in terms of plot and character development.
> 
> With something like Mahler's first symphony, its easy to see why he took out Blumine. Even that's an atypical example, because Blumine was originally part of music for a play before Mahler decided to use it in the symphony. I think the piano quartet movement is an example of the opposite problem - not enough meat in the sandwich. The thematic material is interesting but barely strong enough to sustain it as a movement, let alone as the basis for an entire work.


Also, if you edit something out it often requires some adjustments elsewhere. So editing has to be part of the creative process. That is why it is problematic for conductors to just edit some parts out while not being able to do the necessary adjustments elsewhere through composing.


----------



## Terrapin (Apr 15, 2011)

And I find sometimes water is too wet but it is what it is. I love water and Mahler.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Waehnen said:


> Also, if you edit something out it often requires some adjustments elsewhere. So editing has to be part of the creative process. That is why it is problematic for conductors to just edit some parts out while not being able to do the necessary adjustments elsewhere through composing.


I know what you mean, basically not letting the seams show. Mahler would have found this hard, because his cycle arguably consists of mini cycles. Mahler's first four have been grouped as the Wunderhorn symphonies, a lot of the thematic material originates from his songs. I'm really not sure about 5-7, and 8 seems to be a stand alone piece. DLVDE, 9 and 10 are quite tightly knit as a group, not only in terms of the music but also the circumstances under which they where composed (basically, Mahler knew he was living on borrowed time).


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I like some of the symphonies very much (4, 5, and 6) and find others tedious. I'm not voting because, while I believe that virtually all of them, including the ones I like a lot, are flabby, I cannot think of specific remedies or edits that would solve whatever problems I sense.


I have the same perplexity about Mahler. I don't think tightening up the parts I find overextended or diffuse could be achieved by making cuts. I have the same feeling about certain parts of Bruckner and Wagner (though very rarely about the latter). My solution in the most extreme cases (Mahler's 3rd, first movement, for example) is simply not to listen to the music, but I understand completely that devoted Mahlerians wouldn't part with a note of it. The faults of genius are still more interesting than the successes of mediocrity.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> In the biography I read that even during composing the 5th, Mahler said that he was not as inspired as he was when younger but that he hoped his craftmanship would compensate. It is the occasional feeling of the uninspired craftsman overdoing things which I would edit out in symphonies 5-7.
> 
> In the middle symphonies I have a feeling that Mahler is constantly forcing everything out of his material, turning every stone all the time, and there is something convulsive about it.
> 
> With some editing this forceful and convulsive atmosphere and impression could have and should have been avoided.


I have similar feelings. I suspect Colin Davis did too; he said in an interview that he liked the first symphony best because (paraphrasing now) it presented the essence of Mahler in a concise way. I feel that way about _Das Lied von der Erde_. But I do think that the straining after something huge - and sometimes achieving it gloriously - was a part of Mahler's nature that had to be expressed through forms and techniques that put him in danger of excess. For the most part, I don't believe that editing could resolve this issue.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I have the same perplexity about Mahler. I don't think tightening up the parts I find overextended or diffuse could be achieved by making cuts. I have the same feeling about certain parts of Bruckner and Wagner (though very rarely about the latter). My solution in the most extreme cases (Mahler's 3rd, first movement, for example) is simply not to listen to the music, but I understand completely that devoted Mahlerians wouldn't part with a note of it. The faults of genius are still more interesting than the successes of mediocrity.


If it's a stylistic problem, like perhaps with Mahler, cuts and pastes will abound, until after many walks you forget what you were even doing. However if the problem isn't style but great talent paired with incompetence, adjustments to things like form and lengths, harmony, orchestration, seems more hopeful.

The best solution for the former position might not be edits but rather, one composing their own works and variations from the composer's influence.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Do you think Mahler´s symphonies would benefit from shortening [or] editing?*

For those who want shorter Mahler symphonies, I would recommend Webern's Opus 21.

Now, can we have a post asking: 
*Do you think Webern´s Symphonie Op. 21 would benefit from lengthening or editing?*

By the way, I clicked a "Like" for Philidor's Max Reger story.


----------



## GMB (10 mo ago)

I don't believe you can edit Mahler or Bruckner, both of whom I love, but the problem is they both clung to the traditional symmetry and repetition within movements of the Classical Symphony invented by Haydn, whose Symphonies are a third as long as theirs! The repetition is unnecessary. As Anton Webern said, when asked why there were no repeats in his works, if you were listening the first time, there was no reason for me to repeat it. I totally agree! I was listening the first time, I don't need it to be repeated. I wonder if Webern was thinking of Mahler' and Bruckner's Symphonies when he said that!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

There are many composers some of whom would benefit from certain of their works being truncated or completely expunged but fortunately Mahler is not one of them! But that is only my totally subjective opinion. Clearly there are those out there who know better than the composer what they really should have written. I wish them good fortune 🤔


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I have similar feelings. I suspect Colin Davis did too; he said in an interview that he liked the first symphony best because (paraphrasing now) it presented the essence of Mahler in a concise way. I feel that way about _Das Lied von der Erde_. But I do think that the straining after something huge - and sometimes achieving it gloriously - was a part of Mahler's nature that had to be expressed through forms and techniques that put him in danger of excess. For the most part, I don't believe that editing could resolve this issue.


I'm not sure Davis had a talent for Mahler anyway. But he didn't seem to have a problem with Berlioz, who often can seem over-long.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mahler is a composer who I feel it took me ages and ages to fully understand. I find his huge dramas very difficult to hold together in my head. These days it is fine when I'm listening to them but comparing performances - something that I feel satisfied I can do (for myself) with most music (including operas) - remains a challenge for me. I love music that yields gold in a wide variety of interpretations (and Mahler's music is certainly almost always that) but find getting inside each of the many great Mahler performances we have had to be very hard. Editing them down would not help at all: it would probably destroy what I now call "some of the greatest music before us" but once felt was often flawed. 

If you want to edit Mahler I say give it time instead. Life doesn't have to be such a rush.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Mahler is generally too everything for me except the song cycles. To me he is the same as Wagner.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Definitely yes. His 3rd and 8th symphonies are particularly taxing. I do like a bleeding chunk of his second symphony (the first 3 movements) and his 4th symphony, but am generally not a fan of most of his other symphonies. Even his 4th symphony, which maybe his shortest, could use and would benefit from massive cuts.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

I've attended performances where a Mahler work seemed overlong and other performances where the same work seemed to be over too soon. It might well be a combination of a good performance and being the in the right mood at the right time. Especially if you're familiar with a work.

Whilst I trust Mahler knew what he was doing, it's telling that we accept editors and readings that suggest edits for books and plays, but it's thought the artist as composer can't be faulted in his choices. With works as broad in scope and dense in content as Mahler's it's not unreasonable to ask if the composer/author's perspective is greatly at odds with the audience perspective. Has there ever been an artist (composer, writer, filmmaker) who ever truly agreed with an editor's suggestions? The fact nevertheless remains that it is sometimes an outside editor who sometimes shapes a final artwork into its best form. Whether that would be the case for Mahler is not for me to say.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> I would cut and edit maybe something from the 2nd Movement of the 5th, the finale of the 6th and the first movement of the 7th. The middle symphonies have always given me the most trouble, also because they remind each other a lot. Everything else I find balanced in his output.
> 
> I genuinely can picture and hear in my mind the perfect versions of the 5th, 6th and the 7th with relatively minor changes which would not ruin anything. That is why the flaws irritate me and why I cannot stop talking about Mahler on TC.
> 
> (As I am not interested in the 8th, I do not comment on the 8th.)


I have a copy of the full score of the 5th symphony to hand. If you would be kind enough to tell me which bars you would cut and which sections you would edit then I can play through the 5th and take your emendations into consideration and, who knows, maybe hear what you appear to be hearing.

I’m sure that high pitched whirring noise in the background is not Mahler spinning in his grave. 

BTW I admire your chutzpah in referring to any of Mahler’s writing as “flaws”.

I always was under the impression that Mahler’s own thoughts were the “perfect versions “ of his 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies. Clearly I and many others have laboured for fifty years under this illusion! Who knew. I’m going to cease and desist now lest I write something that I won’t regret but might get me banned. 😇

Cheers.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier (12 mo ago)

Barbebleu said:


> I have a copy of the full score of the 5th symphony to hand. If you would be kind enough to tell me which bars you would cut and which sections you would edit then I can play through the 5th and take your emendations into consideration and, who knows, maybe hear what you appear to be hearing.
> 
> I’m sure that high pitched whirring noise in the background is not Mahler spinning in his grave.
> 
> ...


What's with the passive aggressiveness? Waehnen didn't say that his opinion is fact. You came into a thread that asked if people found Mahler symphonies too long, of course you will find that not everyone is going to have the same answer.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

GMB said:


> they both clung to the traditional symmetry and repetition within movements of the Classical Symphony invented by Haydn


What do you mean by "invented"? I'm reminded of those stubborn, obnoxious wikipedia editors who keep quoting Rosen, Landon, Tovey, Pohl to have us believe their propaganda.


hammeredklavier said:


> Franz Ignaz Beck (1734 - 1809) - Symphony in G minor op.3 no.3 (Callen 15, *published in 1762*)
> 1. Allegro con spirito 00:00 ~ 05:07 / 2. Andante poco adagio 05:07 ~ 09:51 / 3. Minuetto 09:51 ~ 13:51 / 4. Presto 13:51 ~ 18:05
> 
> 
> ...





hammeredklavier said:


> Mara Parker, who claims to have examined over 650 string quartet works from 1750-1797 (and is much better than the overrated Charles Rosen) -
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

Yea there long but they work.Wagner Mahler and Bruckner were very long but we must remember they had less output.
In one Mahler symphony could be the effort of 20 or 30 Bach or Mozart movements so it's sort of 6 of one half dozen the other.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

4chamberedklavier said:


> What's with the passive aggressiveness? Waehnen didn't say that his opinion is fact. You came into a thread that asked if people found Mahler symphonies too long, of course you will find that not everyone is going to have the same answer.


I wasn’t aware that, in your opinion, I was being passive aggressive. Anyway I’m sure that Waehnen can defend himself. I’m pretty sure that most people on this forum are aware of my thoughts on second guessing composer’s intentions. 
And when one makes a statement like “I genuinely can picture and hear in my mind the perfect versions of the 5th, 6th and the 7th with relatively minor changes which would not ruin anything.” then you have moved past mere opinion into statements of fact. IMHO of course. 🥸


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

Ill stick with Malhers final products. Yes they are long. Who says you have to listen to the whole enchilada each time? I almost never do. I started thread a few months ago about "splitting Symphonies". Works for me


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

When I was first getting into Mahler (and really classical music in general) I would rarely listen to "the whole enchilada." But now if I don't have the time to listen to a complete work in one day (whether it be an opera, string quartet, symphony, piano sonata, etc.) I usually opt for something shorter rather than extract some "bleeding chunks." (Wagner is perhaps one exception: I'm okay with listening to just one _Ring_ opera at a time, and sometimes I'll focus on one act at a time or even one scene at a time.) I had favorite individual movements: the _Eroica_ scherzo, first movement of Mozart's 40th, and (getting back to Mahler) the first movement of the First Symphony, the third movement of the Third, and the finale of the Sixth. It was a good way of getting familiar with Mahler for the first time but now I would rather listen to the complete work when I have the chance. The downside to this approach is that it either takes a large time commitment, or the willingness to not hear longer works as often.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

I'm just here to join in the "2nd movement of 8" clan...


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Having heard Mahler's (and Bruckner's) works quite a lot I will admit to sometimes skipping movements or parts of movements to get to parts I enjoy. Recordings of course, I don't have the temerity to tell a live orchestra to miss bits. There are times for listening to the entire thing and times for dipping in. The lengths of the works are what they are and I'm happy to have the choice.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Mahler symphonies cannot be cut; his works are all through-composed. Any cuts are damaging and make no sense. There are recordings, mostly of live radio broadcasts, that have disfiguring cuts and it just demonstrates that Mahler knew what he was doing. Yes, sometimes it seems like the music could have been trimmed but then comes a conductor who understands the music and can make it seem shorter or less long-winded. For me, the only stretch in any of his works that just goes on too long is the opening part of the second movement of the 8th. And that's why I vastly prefer recordings that get the entire 8th on one disk - the tempos have to move to get it all on.


There's a difference between whether it can be cut or not (I agree they can't) and whether they were written too long in the first place, which I believe is the case. For all of them. We are still humans in the audience, and the only increasing feeling we get from listening for this long, is wondering what adamantite the chair must be made of to be so hard on our backside.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

In my (admittedly relatively small) experience, great performances of Mahler and Wagner feel like they go by really fast. This is not true so much for recordings but it is certainly my experience with live performance. I don't expect I'm alone in feeling this, though I'm sure it's not unanimous, but it does further diminish the case for cutting in my opinion.


----------



## Nakulanb (4 mo ago)

They feel directionless to me in my short time with them. But I’m also less interested in symphonic work these days.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

The option I wanted is "There are _some_ places where shortening or editing would benefit the music." I quite enjoy Mahler and I admire his decision to work with extremely large and well-thought structures, and I think that most of the time his musical achievements were superlative, yet I believe that there are a few longueurs in some of the symphonies that could be cut (but I also think that only Mahler himself could have done this right, and that therefore nowadays his symphonies should always be played as they are).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

There's this line by Nietzsche "if you gaze long into an abyss, it gazes into you." I think that sums up a part of the sublime - its all encompassing, unfathomable, cathartic. I think that a big part of debates like this isn't just about the formal implications of length - structural, thematic integrity and so on - but also about whether we as listeners want to buy into that larger than life aesthetic. Entering into this sort of deal means you're likely to experience not only highs and lows, but also bits that are boring and disconnected.

Some composers ask more from listeners than others. That's okay. Whether listeners choose to accept such a challenge or not is okay too.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> I have a copy of the full score of the 5th symphony to hand. If you would be kind enough to tell me which bars you would cut and which sections you would edit then I can play through the 5th and take your emendations into consideration and, who knows, maybe hear what you appear to be hearing.
> 
> I’m sure that high pitched whirring noise in the background is not Mahler spinning in his grave.
> 
> ...



I am simply saying this: I have NEVER felt the need to EDIT while listening to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the 9th Symphonies. Whereas I have ALWAYS felt the need to EDIT while listening to the 2nd Movement of the 5th, the finale of the 6th and the 1st Movement of the 7th.

Does the statement above somehow make me an arrogant person worthy of anger?

Almost half of the voters on this poll are of the opinion that there are places in Mahler´s output which would benefit from some editing. So I am not that unique in my opinions, I just vocalise my thoughts. I bet if a similar poll was made of Beethoven, Brahms, Bruckner or Sibelius (or many other symphonists), the number of those in favour of some editing would be much much lower.

Of course Mahler´s versions are the true versions. I have no right to start editing them and of course I will not. It is wonderful that there are people (like you) who enjoy the music so much that the idea of editing or the word ´long´ has never even crossed their mind.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I just wish they could (individually) fit on a single disc! I think that's why I have a preference for Kubelik's Mahler cycle.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> I am simply saying this: I have NEVER felt the need to EDIT while listening to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and the 9th Symphonies. Whereas I have ALWAYS felt the need to EDIT while listening to the 2nd Movement of the 5th, the finale of the 6th and the 1st Movement of the 7th.
> 
> Does the statement above somehow make me an arrogant person worthy of anger?
> 
> ...


You are probably right in suggesting that I may have somewhat overreacted in my response. I apologise but you’ll just need to put it down to my advancing years and my love of Mahler.

Now if you want to excise vast swathes of Bach cantatas, Mozart operas and symphonies, Haydn symphonies and everything by Handel, have at it and you won’t hear a peep of dissent from me!😂


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Barbebleu said:


> Now if you want to excise vast swathes of Bach cantatas, Mozart operas and symphonies, Haydn symphonies and everything by Handel, have at it and you won’t hear a peep of dissent from me!😂


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> You are probably right in suggesting that I may have somewhat overreacted in my response. I apologise but you’ll just need to put it down to my advancing years and my love of Mahler.


No worries, @Barbebleu! I have been quite relentless with my Mahler writings ever since I joined the forum, and I have totally earned from the community the reaction that not everybody likes it. The writings of mine also tend to be rather strong and bold -- so that I could test and reflect my thinking, spot flaws in my thinking and learn more. The important thing is, though, that I really do not think I know stuff better than others. Hardly any of these things are truly set in stone, either.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> In my (admittedly relatively small) experience, great performances of Mahler and Wagner feel like they go by really fast. This is not true so much for recordings but it is certainly my experience with live performance. I don't expect I'm alone in feeling this, though I'm sure it's not unanimous, but it does further diminish the case for cutting in my opinion.


It could be because in a live concert situation there is the visual aspect and the physical experience. However more likely it is down to familiarity with the music. I'm very familiar with Bruckner, so sitting through a symphony of his feels nothing like a chore and some movements pass by far too quickly (e.g. scherzos). Whereas I've seen people in the Sunday afternoon audiences, obviously dragged along by parents and spouses, who are yawning and squirming uncomfortably in their seats because an unknown journey on a long adagio actually feels long (cf. children in the car 'are we nearly there yet?!).

In a purely listening scenario, especially with less familiarity, such long and large-scale works will feel long and a bit unwieldy. However if a listener is familiar with Mahler's works then I don't know how they could feel long.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Funny: the only two Mahler symphonies that I sometimes (not always) find boring are the shortest ones: 1 and 4.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Can I answer "Yes and no"? I like economy, and sometimes Mahler's movements can feel a bit digressive if you don't listen to them several times which can be a time investment. But that's what makes Mahler Mahler...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Subutai said:


> I just wish they could they could (individually) fit on a single disc! I think that's why I have a preference for Kubelik's Mahler cycle.


Exactly right. Kubelik didn't storm the heavens, perhaps, but he moves the music along. I have some newer cds that have 85 minutes on them, but even the Solti version of the 3rd wouldn't fit.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't think one could simply make cuts but a revision of the finales of the first two symphonies could IMO improve them. I cannot be bothered to look up the exact locations in the scores but in the first symphony the "triumphant chorale" appears quite early and afterwards there follows a lot that seems dramatically superfluous until the (again fairly long and repetitive) apotheosis of that chorale with all that "as loud as possible, Horn players stand up and point bells upwards!" etc. (This in addition to the whole finale feeling a bit like a "new piece" despite the quotations from the first movement.)

And in the 2nd's finale I quite like the atmospheric beginning with the "Last Judgment" association but the stretch between these first ca. 5 min? and the part with choir is way too long and should have been condensed considerably.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

The fourth movement of No.7 - that Nachtmusik with the bloody guitars and mandolins - needs to be cut by about half.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

I have two solutions to bridge the understanding gap between both factions:

1. Stitch together all Mahler's symphonies end-to-end to create a giant symphonic leviathan.
This solution is to help the anti-edit people to understand how long and spun-out a Mahler symphony feels to the other side.

2. Snip several motifs from all the symphonies and edit them together into a three-minute work scored for toy piano and kazoo trio.
This is to make the pro-edit side understand how the anti-edit side would see a Mahler symphony subjected to meddling hands.

Everyone else can stand in the middle and applaud or blow raspberries.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Chat Noir said:


> 1. Stitch together all Mahler's symphonies end-to-end to create a giant symphonic leviathan.
> This solution is to help the anti-edit people to understand how long and spun-out a Mahler symphony feels to the other side.


About a year ago, I spent a full day watching the DVD box set of Bernstein conducting all of the symphonies. I still love Mahler, but I will admit that was a tough day. It only solidified my feelings about 8.2. I almost never got to 9 at all.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Chat Noir said:


> I have two solutions to bridge the understanding gap between both factions:
> 
> 1. Stitch together all Mahler's symphonies end-to-end to create a giant symphonic leviathan.
> This solution is to help the anti-edit people to understand how long and spun-out a Mahler symphony feels to the other side.
> ...


Listening to the first of your hypothetical works sounds like an inefficient form of suicide. The second piece sounds rather delighful though. It might be programmed immediately before or after Cage's 4'33." If before, the Cage would give us a chance either to contemplate the profundity of Mahler or to recover from laughing too hard. If after, Mahler would be revealed as a Postmodernist and thus more avant garde than Cage.

I wouldn't blow raspberrires, but I might bring some for snacking during the concert, assuming they weren't serving corn dogs and beer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

As a corollary to this debate, I wonder what Mahler would think of arrangements of his music? These where often done to make performance easier (like Schoenberg's chamber arrangement of DLVDE). Its a pertinent question, since Mahler himself did arrangements of music by others (e.g. Bach, Weber and Beethoven). Going beyond classical, he's been interpreted by musicians like Uri Caine, who did a fusion album entirely consisting of Mahler arrangements. Here's his take on the famous Adagietto:


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

NLA


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Waehnen said:


> The title and the poll question and the options say everything necessary.
> 
> I am interested in the distribution of the opinions.
> 
> ...


Yes, all of them, if I'm not in the mood for a marathon.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Chat Noir said:


> I have two solutions to bridge the understanding gap between both factions:
> 
> 1. Stitch together all Mahler's symphonies end-to-end to create a giant symphonic leviathan.
> This solution is to help the anti-edit people to understand how long and spun-out a Mahler symphony feels to the other side.
> ...



I am looking forward to the Kazoo Sonata reduction of Mahler's compositions. It sounds delightful, and in the case of several symphonies a definite improvement on the originals.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Chat Noir said:


> Stitch together all Mahler's symphonies end-to-end to create a giant symphonic leviathan.


Done.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I have only listened to his first symphony so I can’t say something specifically about Mahler’s symphonies. But I can say that I think composers can make mistakes too. I also think that only the composer himself can revise his own works and only then the newer version is the legitimate one


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Done.


Hopefully all the movements are in a random order to keep everyone guessing.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> I have only listened to his first symphony so I can’t say something specifically about Mahler’s symphonies. But I can say that I think composers can make mistakes too. I also think that only the composer himself can revise his own works and only then the newer version is the legitimate one


But this gets even more complicated with Bruckner's music, where some of the revisions were made under pressure from heavy criticism and possibly went against Bruckner's own intentions. So it's debatable if these versions are "authorized" or not, even though they were executed by Bruckner.

You should try some more Mahler. A lot of conductors preferred one over the other; Bernstein did Mahler and Karajan did Bruckner, for instance. I am personally much more receptive to Mahler's music but I'm listening to Sinopoli's Bruckner Fourth right now. Sinopoli, incidentally, is one of the (sort of rare) conductors who did _both_ Mahler and Bruckner well.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Monsalvat said:


> But this gets even more complicated with Bruckner's music, where some of the revisions were made under pressure from heavy criticism and possibly went against Bruckner's own intentions. So it's debatable if these versions are "authorized" or not, even though they were executed by Bruckner.
> 
> You should try some more Mahler. A lot of conductors preferred one over the other; Bernstein did Mahler and Karajan did Bruckner, for instance. I am personally much more receptive to Mahler's music but I'm listening to Sinopoli's Bruckner Fourth right now. Sinopoli, incidentally, is one of the (sort of rare) conductors who did _both_ Mahler and Bruckner well.


The thing is, I really want to try some more Mahler but there has to be a combination of 3 things when I listen to a new piece of classical music: I have to be in the right mood to listen to something new, which is sometimes the case. Even worse is that I have ADD and have problems with my attention span. I have found that it helps when I listen to a piece on YouTube because seeing the orchestra play really helps for some reason. So do you know good performances on Youtube of Mahler’s symphonies? I heard Abbado live performances are good. So I want to fully listen attentively when listening to something for the first time, so when I’m cycling to school that isn’t the case. And I also need to have enough time because I don’t want to split movements when I’m listening to something for the first time and with a Mahler symphony I need at least an hour of my time. Those 3 things don’t often coincide, it’s the reason that only 2 weeks ago I listened to the pathetique symphony for the first time even though I knew long before that it was really good. But I’m planning on listening to all of the symphonies and song cycles at some point so I’m sure it will be all right.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> Sinopoli, incidentally, is one of the (sort of rare) conductors who did _both_ Mahler and Bruckner well.


Haitink, Solti, Abbado, Blomstedt, Tennstedt, Horenstein, to name but a few?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Philidor said:


> Haitink, Solti, Abbado, Blomstedt, Tennstedt, Horenstein, to name but a few?


Walter certainly, Giulini as well....


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> Walter certainly, Giulini as well....


Giulini didn't do much of either. Definitely add Barbirolli to the list. I don't know if he managed all Bruckner but he said that he wanted to.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> Giulini didn't do much of either. Definitely add Barbirolli to the list. I don't know if he managed all Bruckner but he said that he wanted to.


Giulini didn't do a lot, but what he did is really outstanding - best Mahler 9, great #1, great Bruckner 9...very high batting average!!


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I think of all of those except Tennstedt, Horenstein, Blomstedt, and Haitink as being more on the Mahler side, but I'm less familiar with Bruckner recordings in general since I listen to them less which gives me a bit of a selection bias. I didn't actually know that Barbirolli or Tennstedt did Bruckner, and I've never heard Giulini or Walter, so perhaps I was making that comment from a viewpoint without having all the information (and like I said, I'm more sympathetic to Mahler than to Bruckner usually). Chailly has recorded a Bruckner cycle and a Mahler cycle. Celibidache is another example of the dichotomy I was thinking of. Or Skrowaczewski, or Eugen Jochum. Heck, even Knappertsbusch and Furtwängler. There are obviously some who did a little of one or the other. Boulez recorded a Mahler cycle, but only Bruckner's Eighth (though I think he did conduct other Bruckner symphonies). And even today we have Thielemann, another Brucknerite who seems to mostly stay away from Mahler as far as I've been able to see.

In response to Post #74 I would recommend the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra's video library which includes videos of all nine symphonies with various conductors: Video – Concertgebouworkest. The one's I've seen are relatively recent with decent cinematography and fairly good sonics. Maazel's _Sixth_ is slow (though it didn't feel _that_ slow but it is over an hour and a half I think). I sympathize with the predicament Mahler gave us in respect to the sheer length.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> Even worse is that I have ADD and have problems with my attention span.


If you can read music, I might suggest listening with a score in hand. I do almost all of my listening this way.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Monsalvat said:


> I think of all of those except Tennstedt, Horenstein, Blomstedt, and Haitink as being more on the Mahler side, but I'm less familiar with Bruckner recordings in general since I listen to them less which gives me a bit of a selection bias. I didn't actually know that Barbirolli or Tennstedt did Bruckner, and I've never heard Giulini or Walter, so perhaps I was making that comment from a viewpoint without having all the information (and like I said, I'm more sympathetic to Mahler than to Bruckner usually).


There is an amusing story about the time that Barbirolli and Andre Previn were flying into Houston when the aircraft hit some bad turbulence. Barbirolli apparently said "I can't die yet, I haven't conducted all the Bruckner symphonies!" I don't know how many he did and only aware of the 4th, 7th, 8th and 9th.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

prlj said:


> If you can read music, I might suggest listening with a score in hand. I do almost all of my listening this way.


Yes I can, so I will try that out


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

When I became acquainted with Mahler's music as a student, I thought: nice but often too long. Like someone who tells a story but just a little too elaborate. Now 20 years later I still love Mahler very much. But I think his music would have been more powerful if he had limited himself more.

Recently listened to several Mahler symphonies. Then the 3rd by Beethoven (Chailly). That was a shock. I listened open-mouthed. So powerful, so to the point. Not too verbose anywhere.

With all due respect to Mahler, he is not at the level of Beethoven.


----------



## unhandyandy (May 18, 2019)

I can't believe no one has mentioned that goddam post horn solo in the 3rd.

I think a performing version of 10th in which the 1st movement runs directly into the 5th, omitting 2-4, is an idea worth trying.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

unhandyandy said:


> I can't believe no one has mentioned that goddam post horn solo in the 3rd.
> 
> I think a performing version of 10th in which the 1st movement runs directly into the 5th, omitting 2-4, is an idea worth trying.


You don't like the posthorn solo?? I guess it may not be to everyone's tastes but I love it.


----------



## auguste48 (Sep 15, 2018)

CnC Bartok said:


> The fourth movement of No.7 - that Nachtmusik with the bloody guitars and mandolins - needs to be cut by about half.


Absolutely not. That would destroy the structure.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

unhandyandy said:


> I think a performing version of 10th in which the 1st movement runs directly into the 5th, omitting 2-4, is an idea worth trying.


If that's your view of the symphony then I suggest you also omit the 1st and 5th movements.


----------



## PSchiefelbein (Mar 17, 2021)

I've not been one to criticize a composer for being too long-winded-- I find myself more frustrated with those who edit down their works to such a degree that they sound like they're over before the argument has been fully made. (Sibelius 3rd has always struck me that way, and I happen to love Hickox' recording of the Vaughan Williams "London" Symphony.). But I have found that Mahler depends very heavily on the conductor to make his case. The right person can turn his music into an utterly unique experience. A few years ago I got a set of the Mahler symphonies done by several different conductors. The 4th was a Horenstein performance I never knew existed. I thought I knew the piece well, but the slow movement was like something I had never heard before, with a depth and power I never knew existed. Time stood still, until at the end I felt like I had awoken from a spell. A friend I played it for came away saying it was the best he'd ever heard, too. He later played for me a live Karajan performance of a Mahler slow movement (I tend to hate Karajan, by the way) and the same thing happened. I have occasionally had the same experience with Beethoven and Brahms under conductors who transcend the performance tradition. And when it happens, no piece is ever too long.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I have come to the conclusion that my main problem with Mahler is indeed the length of the works. Mahler does not create the additional length by coming up with new material or creating contrasts but by circulating and elaborating on the existing material. This results in an unusual level of repetition also within the symphonies and between the symphonies, when compared to the main body of the western concert music literature.

A little less length in many places would have resulted in less repetition and more concentrated expression, which would have resulted in the symphonies not reminding each other so much and each having a more unique character.

It would also have resulted in the excess length not blocking the possibility to enjoy the great material without reservations. In order to really enjoy the 6th Symphony, I created a play list with Haitink/Concertgebouw performing the 3 first movements with the Andante second -- and then replacing the way too long finale with the C-major finale of the 7th Symphony (same performers). I was surprised how much I enjoyed this combination. The shadow of the way too long and repetitive finale did not ruin the experience of the first movements. Or course I missed the hammerblows but the celebratory 7th Symphony finale actually felt more in place here after all the drama, than in the 7th symphony which is full of joy anyway.

So my tactics from now on is finding ways to avoid facing the frustrating and totally unnecessary excessive length and repetition. That way I can really really enjoy the music of this composer who indeed is one of my absolute favourites nowadays.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I’m perplexed. Let’s see if I’ve got this right.

What you are saying is you don’t really like Mahler but you like the idea of Mahler but only if he didn’t write long repetitive symphonies. So you really need to find another composer who writes like Mahler but shorter. Definitely not Mahler though because he is , to your ears, too long winded. 🤔

He is one of my absolute favourites too but that’s because he composes stuff that I love. Which is why I listen to it! Composers who don’t write stuff that I like I tend to avoid. And I certainly wouldn’t suggest they wrote differently to accommodate my listening requirements.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> I’m perplexed. Let’s see if I’ve got this right.
> 
> What you are saying is you don’t really like Mahler but you like the idea of Mahler but only if he didn’t write long repetitive symphonies. So you really need to find another composer who writes like Mahler but shorter. Definitely not Mahler though because he is , to your ears, too long winded. 🤔
> 
> He is one of my absolute favourites too but that’s because he composes stuff that I love. Which is why I listen to it! Composers who don’t write stuff that I like I tend to avoid. And I certainly wouldn’t suggest they wrote differently to accommodate my listening requirements.


No, I am saying that I really like Mahler but there are specific problems which to an extent prevent me from enjoying the music in some places. As a composer it is strongly in me to find solutions to structural problems. Cannot help it. So I am moving past the obstacles in order to let the music shine without the shadows cast by certain problems.

Why would I put so much effort into this if I didn't like what Mahler wrote? Mahler is my favourite composer alongside Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Brahms and Sibelius. I listen to Mahler almost every day, almost as much as Beethoven and Brahms.

Then again I sometimes think I should let the issue go already when it comes to this forum. Luckily I think I am in a conclusive phase when it comes to figuring the composer out. Hopefully from now on I know how to listen to it and what to avoid. I will concentrate most on the symphonies I think are perfect: 2nd, 3rd and 9th. The 5th is really close to being perfect so maybe I will just decide not to see the 2nd Movement as a problem -- I will just embrace it. The 4th is a great symphony although I do not like the even rhythm staccato hopping around (so typical of Mahler!) in the first movement at all. The 6th I will listen to without the finale, or replacing it with something else. The 7th I will listen to maybe skipping the sprawling "Dotted Rhythm to the Max" first movement. And so forth.

This thread has proven to me that it is not just me who sees some length problems in Mahler. There is no need for trying to explain myself from now on.

So let´s enjoy the great music of Mahler, everyone in their own way! Thanks.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Surely composers aren’t writing just for the technical exercise that it provides. Music tends to be written to elicit an emotional response so I believe that Mahler, like the majority of great composers, knew what message he wanted to get across and what compositional methods he needed to arrive at the finished work. Certainly other thoughts would have come into his head and revisions may or may not have been made but essentially if there is repetition and length then one would have to believe that it was the composer’s intention. IMHO of course.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Waehnen, what are your thoughts on Richard Strauss's tone poems? It seems to me like they might combine the late Romantic musical idiom with a more concise form that might appeal more to your tastes, but you didn't list him in your above post as one of your favorites.

I'm intrigued by your preferred playlist, ending the Sixth with the Seventh's finale. The finale of the Seventh is also a bit repetitive but after all it is a Rondo! And it only takes two-thirds the time to perform it compared with the finale of the Sixth. Both you and I love Mahler's music and I'm a bit tickled at how different our tastes are _despite_ sharing this common affection for his music. It's practically a truism that Mahler's music can withstand a broad variety of interpretations.



Waehnen said:


> So let’s enjoy the great music of Mahler, everyone in their own way!


Yes at the end of the day this is what it boils down to.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> Waehnen, what are your thoughts on Richard Strauss's tone poems? It seems to me like they might combine the late Romantic musical idiom with a more concise form that might appeal more to your tastes, but you didn't list him in your above post as one of your favorites.


In my opinion there is much more depth to Mahler than there is to Richard Strauss. I do like Zarathustra, The Alpensymphonie, Vier Letzte Lieder and The Metamorphosen for strings, though. A lot of Strauss music brings to mind the word _bourgeois_, for some reason.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I think I might try the Waehnen method of listening in the future only going one step beyond! 

Mahler’s 5th Symphony with the three inner movements replaced by 1) the 2nd movement of Brahms 3rd Symphony,2) any movement from a random Mozart Symphony and 3) Dark Star by the Grateful Dead. Man alive, what a live gig that would be!😂


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Waehnen, I’m glad you accepted my last post in the spirit in which it was posted however the substitution of one of Mahler’s movements into another Mahler symphony was just too much for me. It gave me the impression that all Mahler sounds the same so it doesn’t really matter in which order you listen to the movements. Surely not! There must be some sort of unified structure to each individual symphony.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> Waehnen, I’m glad you accepted my last post in the spirit in which it was posted however the substitution of one of Mahler’s movements into another Mahler symphony was just too much for me. It gave me the impression that all Mahler sounds the same so it doesn’t really matter in which order you listen to the movements. Surely not! There must be some sort of unified structure to each individual symphony.


The thematic material and the key of the Finale of the 7th was close enough to the material and key of the 6th. I was able to "buy" it. Nevertheless, I missed the first 2/3 of the Finale of the 6th. All the depth there is to it. Cut 1/3 of the finale of the 6th and it would be one of the best symphonies ever written, no doubt about that. 

(I am not "happy" with my playlist our proud of it but at least it allows me to enjoy the first 3 movements.)


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

They are what they are.
I listen a lot to Wagner, including full cycles of a Ring in a oner a few times a year including summer solstice and I sometimes listen to full symphony cycles, so maybe I've got more listening stamina than I had when I listed to Mahler symphony-at-a-time when I started out listening to classical.

You've started me on a Mahler cycle. Various conductors as I don't have full sets.
Just started #3.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahler very slow moving. Yeah I don’t think that can be fixed.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> Mahler does not create the additional length by coming up with new material or creating contrasts but by circulating and elaborating on the existing material.


This is exactly the problem with "The Art of the Fugue" and the "Goldberg Variations".

One only subject and more than one hour of music. Just elaborating on the existing material. 

Absolutely inferior music.

Everyone understanding just a minimum about classical music must come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Philidor said:


> This is exactly the problem with "The Art of the Fugue" and the "Goldberg Variations".
> 
> One only subject and more than one hour of music. Just elaborating on the existing material.
> 
> ...


😂


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> This is exactly the problem with "The Art of the Fugue" and the "Goldberg Variations".
> 
> One only subject and more than one hour of music. Just elaborating on the existing material.
> 
> ...


I do believe that the fugue and the variations as musical forms are not symphonic by nature although they can of course be used as techniques in some parts of a symphony. A long symphony should indeed contain enough contrasts both in the material and in the texture or technique type in order to maintain the intensity. Even the classical sonata form, which can be considered rather symphonic, indicates this with contrasting 2nd themes in another key etc. Also rondo has great constant contrasts by default, also scherzos with their trios etc. There is a reason why those forms have been used a lot in the symphonic literature, and one should also take advantage of the idea of the contrast in each of the forms.

A symphony should express 'unity in great diversity' rather than be a 'monolith of elaboration'.

Listened to one of my favourite recordings last night: Mahler´s 2nd Symphony by Klemperer/Philharmonia. I was awestruck again just by how inspired the music is! Fresh ideas upon fresh ideas and not a moment of the boring "let´s elaborate the dotted rhythm to the max" -attitude which is the hindrance of later Mahler, and which I have to try to avoid. Absolutely magnificent symphony! One of the very best ever created and highest peaks of the western art music. Thank you very much.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Philidor said:


> This is exactly the problem with "The Art of the Fugue" and the "Goldberg Variations".
> 
> One only subject and more than one hour of music. Just elaborating on the existing material.


That's actually less funny than one might think. 

I don't think the Art of Fugue was ever meant to be performed in its entirety in one setting and it probably was not performed publicly more or less complete before the early 20th century.

And a pretty decent musician (and ardent admirer of Bach) like Busoni cut the Goldberg variations to little more than half for performance.
Of course, we are now much smarter and much more musical than people 100-150 years ago who could not properly appreciate these works but it shows that there was in fact a problem for public performance.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> A symphony should express 'unity in great diversity' rather than be a 'monolith of elaboration'.


A symphony should express what the composer wanted to express. Be it Haydn #3, Tchai #6 or Mahler #9.

I don't see any sense in prescribing the composers posthumously what they should have expressed or not.



Kreisler jr said:


> Of course, we are now much smarter and much more musical than people 100-150 years ago


I fully agree. That's why we are entitled to say "Mahler, your symphony is just too long" as if he was a silly schoolboy failing to some task.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I think I will retire from this thread. There is no progress in discussion.

Waehnen tries to prove that Mahler #6 is too long. However, this is not possible, as this depends on the listener and his ability to receive music. Reger could have said "If Mahler #6 is too long, you are too short". 

The major error is not that Waehnen says that Mahler #6 is too long, but that he says that there are absolute jugdements in music (apart from parallel fifths in a certain context).

Waehnen, just say that Mahler #6 is too long for you and we are in full agreement!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> A symphony should express what the composer wanted to express. Be it Haydn #3, Tchai #6 or Mahler #9.
> 
> I don't see any sense in prescribing the composers posthumously what they should have expressed or not.


You should stop interpreting everything I say in the worst possible way. I was talking about the diversity required of a symphony in general terms, just like you were talking about some fugues and variations in general terms. 

In my opinion it is totally acceptable to enjoy and appreciate even 'elaboration monoliths' without many contrasts. Although there is a reason why Tapiola (by Sibelius) is a tone poem and not a symphony proper, like the 7th. One of them is a monolith, the other one expresses great diversity in unity.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> You should stop


I think your trials to prescribe what Mahler should have done and what I should do are maybe not successful.  

Of course every statement in a forum can be discussed. This is why the forum exists. And this holds even if you don't like the discussion on your statements.

Maybe we can stop it at this stage.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I think your trials to prescribe what Mahler should have done and what I should do are maybe not successful.
> 
> Of course every statement in a forum can be discussed. This is why the forum exists. And this holds even if you don't like the discussion on your statements.
> 
> Maybe we can stop it at this stage.


You are constantly nitpicking, and the way you quote only the words "you should stop" is a good example of that. It is a diversion technique of sorts. Anyway, it seems to be that my opinions quite simply irritate you because I have criticism on some work of your favourite composer, whom you admire without reservations. Everything else is mostly an expression of that irritation, it seems.

I totally understand that my writings may irritate. Mainly because I refuse to accept the setting where everyone who just praises Mahler without reservations would be 'objectively right' -- and everyone who has some criticism would be merely on the ground of subjective opinions and should leave it at "I don´t like this". Never gonna happen, sorry.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> You think your or mine opinion on music would as valuable as Mozart's, because "they are only opinions anyway"? Of course* it matters if the greatest composer describes some features of music as he sees it, as opposed to some random dude on the internet*...





Kreisler jr said:


> And* a pretty decent musician (and ardent admirer of Bach) like Busoni* cut the Goldberg variations to little more than half for performance. *Of course, we are now much smarter and much more musical than people 100-150 years ago* who could not properly appreciate these works but it shows that there was in fact a problem for public performance.


Who's "we"? So you, a random guy on the internet, are much smarter and much more musical than Busoni?


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

When you are dealing with the greatest symphonist of all time it takes some nerve to ask for cuts. None of his symphonies is perfect and it is part of their beauty. It has to do with the way he composed, sometimes using separate pieces to fill in a gap in a symphony. That being said i do not like the 8th and you can cut the whole symphony as far as i am concerned.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

justekaia said:


> When you are dealing with the greatest symphonist of all time it takes some nerve to ask for cuts.


Let´s face it: nobody is really aiming at a real cut of a Mahler symphony. But there has to be a way to speak about the concept of a major work possibly not being perfect in every way. It must also be accepted that it is not enough for everybody to just state "I don´t like this" and move forward without further analysis. It should be acknowledged that analytical, constructive and even critical (not cynical) thinking benefits the community in the end.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Each act of a Wagner opera is roughly the length of a Mahler (or Bruckner) symphony. I think I am in agreement with most other Wagner fans when I say that cuts in a Wagner opera are almost always undesirable. There is a 2 1/2 minute cut in Act II of _Tristan_ that the Metropolitan Opera recently re-introduced under Simon Rattle, but aside from that, most Wagner operas nowadays are done unabridged (unlike, say, the performance practices of the 1930s). So my own personal experience with Wagner has probably lent me the patience required to sit through Mahler without wishing it was shorter. 

Anyway, this thread seems dangerously close to the objectivist/subjectivist debate, which I am hoping to avoid.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> So my own personal experience with Wagner has probably lent me the patience required to sit through Mahler without wishing it was shorter.


One great benefit of the length is that there sure is enough and plenty of gorgeous orchestral writing! None of it ends too soon. One can jump in and dwell in the symphonic sea. The Mahler symphonies are a true treasure in that sense. It has crossed my mind that maybe Mahler wanted to achieve just that: not people analysing or trying to intellectually follow every gesture and get every meaning, but to jump in and dwell, go with the flow.

Maybe he did analyse the matter and had figured there is a (saturation?) point after which the listeners are warmed up. Maybe he wanted to push the listeners down the slope in order to achieve a strong and lasting emotional impact.

That is a very Wagnerian effect, you know? They say people went crazy at the performances of the Tristan in the days.

Just maybe I should accept that Mahler consciously expanded the scope and length of his symphonies way over the top in order to affect and achieve the mental status he preferred for the listeners? That would be a totally new concept for me to ponder -- not just aesthetics or the drama. But the psychology and neurology of a human being listening to huge orchestral layers wave after wave.


----------



## brunumb (Dec 8, 2017)

Just listen to Majler's music any way that you enjoy and makes you happy. He's dead and I'm sure he won't mind.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Waehnen said:


> One great benefit of the length is that there sure is enough and plenty of gorgeous orchestral writing! None of it ends too soon. One can jump in and dwell in the symphonic sea. The Mahler symphonies are a true treasure in that sense. It has crossed my mind that maybe Mahler wanted to achieve just that: not people analysing or trying to intellectually follow every gesture and get every meaning, but to jump in and dwell, go with the flow.
> 
> Maybe he did analyse the matter and had figured there is a (saturation?) point after which the listeners are warmed up. Maybe he wanted to push the listeners down the slope in order to achieve a strong and lasting emotional impact.
> 
> ...


I think it's reasonable to say that not all music can be judged by the same criteria. With Mahler specifically in mind, I'll suggest the likelihood that we simply can't be as objective in judging a work which clearly aims to overwhelm the listener emotionally as we can in judging one whose aims are mainly to give aesthetic pleasure. In the former case I would say that what we end up asking is whether the process of trying to overwhelm the listener goes on too long. To this curious question, any individual's answer will consist of little more than stating whether he is in fact satisfactorily overwhelmed, and whether he finds that the music continues past the point when its aim of overwhelming him is achieved. Debates about the abstract construction of such a work may still be worthwhile, but the criteria we apply won't tell us with any certainty whether the work is too long. We have to ask: too long for what, and for whom?

Mahler's 8th is way too long for me, but for you it may be too short.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> Mahler's 8th is way too long for me, but for you it may be too short.


I imagine that _Parsifal_ would emphatically _not_ be too long for you, even though it is about three times as long as Mahler’s Eighth. This reinforces your point about the necessity to ask, “too long for whom?” This is probably why it is hard for everyone to come to agreement on the topic of this thread, but also why it makes for good debate.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Woodduck said:


> I think it's reasonable to say that not all music can be judged by the same criteria. With Mahler specifically in mind, I'll suggest the likelihood that we simply can't be as objective in judging a work which clearly aims to overwhelm the listener emotionally as we can in judging one whose aims are mainly to give aesthetic pleasure. In the former case I would say that what we end up asking is whether the process of trying to overwhelm the listener goes on too long. To this curious question, any individual's answer will consist of little more than stating whether he is in fact satisfactorily overwhelmed, and whether he finds that the music continues past the point when its aim of overwhelming him is achieved. Debates about the abstract construction of such a work may still be worthwhile, but the criteria we apply won't tell us with any certainty whether the work is too long. We have to ask: too long for what, and for whom?
> 
> Mahler's 8th is way too long for me, but for you it may be too short.


You speak wisely. My problems with Mahler have indeed been in relation to Mahler trying to overwhelm the listener. For example my reaction to the 2nd Movement of the 5th: "You already made this point in the first movement! Why on earth are you repeating the same thing again? I ain´t stupid, I got it already!" But if the point and aim is to overwhelm, then it must be admitted that the 2nd Movement is an excellent way to escalate what was said in the 1st Movement and to overwhelm the listener with it.

This also explains why I have sometimes felt that Mahler is arrogant. I have felt that he does not respect the listener because there is so much repetition and length. Now I must speculate if there were much more contrasts and less repetition, maybe the symphonies would not be as overwhelming? The repetition of the "emotional package" is what drives the message through.

This poll question could maybe be turned to: 'Do you want to be overwhelmed by Mahler?'

My answer is: no. That is why I enjoy the 2nd and the 3rd symphonies most because in those symphonies the contrasts are the largest and Mahler allows the listener to breathe. It feels like the wind gets to blow over the fields and through the forest.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> This poll question could maybe be turned to: 'Do you want to be overwhelmed by Mahler?'


You can ask this question, of course, however, what is it good for? The symphonies are written ... whether you like them or not ...

Overwhelming was a key issue in its time. Beethoven. The "Durchbruch"-scenarios with Schumann and others. Bruckner. In particular: Wagner, the biggest overwhelmer (does this word exist?) ever. Strauss and many other too-late-romantics.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> You can ask this question, of course, however, what is it good for? The symphonies are written ... whether you like them or not ...
> 
> Overwhelming was a key issue in its time. Beethoven. The "Durchbruch"-scenarios with Schumann and others. Bruckner. In particular: Wagner, the biggest overwhelmer (does this word exist?) ever. Strauss and many other too-late-romantics.


So far I would say Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Mahler are overwhelmers. It was not until now that I really got how conscious Mahler must have been with his determination to overwhelm and how that affected his compositional techniques and aesthetics.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

I think, overwhelming was only part of his aesthetic objectives.

I remind "Eine Sinfonie schreiben, das ist: mir eine Welt schaffen". (Writing a symphony, this is creating a world to me). The third symphony shows the direction most clearly. And in the third, overwhelming happens not only by sheer sound volume.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Monsalvat said:


> I imagine that _Parsifal_ would emphatically _not_ be too long for you, even though it is about three times as long as Mahler’s Eighth. This reinforces your point about the necessity to ask, “too long for whom?” This is probably why it is hard for everyone to come to agreement on the topic of this thread, but also why it makes for good debate.


Quite true. Four hours of _Parsifal_ or _Gotterdammerung_ may be too long for my aging backside and prostate - I remember fondly the days when the body was as durable as the spirit - but neither contains a bar of music I'd willingly part with. Opera, of course, is different in that there's a story the music is telling, and the score, even if musically continuous throughout an act, doesn't constitute a single formal entity. The prologue and first act of _Gotterdammerung_ occupy nearly two hours without a pause, as does act one of _Parsifal,_ but they contain numerous distinct sections. I can't imagine a four-hour symphony that wouldn't seem ridiculously overextended. For me Mahler and Bruckner push the limit of what's reasonable, and sometimes exceed it.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I think, overwhelming was only part of his aesthetic objectives.


So do I -- I just had never understood that is the reason for some of the features and solutions I have criticised. That was the missing piece of the puzzle. For me, that is. Sure, if you want to overwhelm, you will not bring another contrast into the finale of the 6th and leave out the 3rd wave.

I really enjoy Wagner´s orchestral numbers but have walked out at half time of every Wagner opera performance I have attended.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Philidor said:


> You can ask this question, of course, however, what is it good for? The symphonies are written ... whether you like them or not ...
> 
> Overwhelming was a key issue in its time. Beethoven. The "Durchbruch"-scenarios with Schumann and others. Bruckner. In particular: Wagner, the biggest overwhelmer (does this word exist?) ever. Strauss and many other too-late-romantics.


Of course none of the "overwhelmers" are doing that all the time. I'd even say that Wagner and Mahler, the prime suspects, are _not_ doing it more often than they're doing it. Most of Wagner is not _Tristan und Isolde, _with its delirious passions; _Parsifal,_ actually, is deliberate and contemplative for much of its length, although that makes its own demands on the listener. With enough diversity of material and mood, along with a sense of overall pace and proportion, a composer can fill a lot of time, and I think both Wagner and Mahler do a superior job of it.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Woodduck said:


> I'd even say that Wagner and Mahler, the prime suspects, are _not_ doing it more often than they're doing it.


Here, I fully agree. 


Woodduck said:


> With enough diversity of material and mood, along with a sense of overall pace and proportion, a composer can fill a lot of time, and I think both Wagner and Mahler do a superior job of it.


I don't dissent and I like Parsifal certainly not less than, say, Holländer or Walküre.

However, I don't think that I have to stand up for "Mahler the overwhelmer" or "Mahler the anti-overwhelmer". The critical posting was this one:


Waehnen said:


> My problems with Mahler have indeed been in relation to Mahler trying to overwhelm the listener.


----------



## Chat Noir (4 mo ago)

Overwhelming the listener might actually be 'offering the listener a spectacle'. I don't read those 500-1000 page 'epic novels' very often (if at all) because I find them 'overwhelming' and I have other stuff to do. My preference is for shorter books with the content more compacted or even just less content. Once in a while though I'll pick up one of these books and read it over a fairly long period - like the summer break, or part of the winter - because they are to be read differently than a short book.

This is pretty much the same for me with music. I have a slight inclination towards smaller-scale works, but sometimes I like the _gigantesque_ of musical works that are more like the picaresque novel than a focused novella. And in any case Mahler's symphonies aren't really 'unfocused' or large in the sense that you have to listen to one long, unending stream for the entire duration. These type of works reward repeated listening.


----------



## OCEANE (10 mo ago)

LKB said:


> I never find myself wishing a Mahler work to be shorter. I do find myself occasionally wishing that a Mahler work was longer.


Agreed and thanks for sharing.

I love all Mahler symphonies and love just the way they are...not necessarily to be perfect IMHO. I also tend to believe that Mahler input everything he had into his symphonies and presented the world the music he believed in.

To me, every attentive listening session is a process of thoughts and experience. Sometimes I'm so involved and do wish the movement (the process) could keep on and on... such as the finale of Symphony No. 2 & 3.


----------



## golfer72 (Jan 27, 2018)

I view Mahler Symphonies this way. He only completed 9 and they are the large majority of his work. Im thankful they are long. I also dont normally listen to the entire Sym at one sitting. Works for me.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Bump.

Regarding this subject too, I think Brahms' symphonies are much too _short_. He's got enough content and scope in there for at least three times the length, die we would simply for his added little constructions and variations on top of it, building a curve of wider heights and peaks. To simplify what I mean, he's a drug and I neeeeed him to up the dosage.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Mahler's symphonies are what they are - it's a bit like asking Webern to write much longer works than he did - unrealistic. Scherchen did massive cuts in some performances, maybe also because of a lack of rehearsal time, but the result is rather poor and unsatisfying.
And after all, Mahlers inserts a lot of variation into his orchestral landscapes.

But ultimately, it's a matter of one's psychological preferences. Symphonies by CPE Bach or Sammartini then might work in stead.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I suppose it does not make anyone a bad listener of classical music if they consider some Mahler symphonies and Wagner operas a bit too long for the maximum effectiveness. Those two represent, after all, one extreme of the canonised western music, in their attempt to overwhelm the listener -- sometimes succeeding, sometimes resulting in exhaustion and irritation. All of this is understandable, logical and inevitable, in my opinion.

Even just the fact that 30 against 32 (almost half) voted that some editing would benefit the music indicates that the excessive length is not perceived totally unproblematic in our culture. Should the length of some speculative modern Mahlerian symphonies go even bigger, the numbers would change accordingly -- fewer and fewer would accept the overwhelming solutions.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I was so used to your avatar, @Waehnen: now it looks totally different! 

Oddly enough, I'm fine with Mahler and Wagner but I struggle with Bruckner. I don't think it's necessarily the length itself, but the way that the time is used. Mahler and Wagner just grip my attention stronger, I think, and listening to Bruckner takes a different kind of thinking with I haven't honed. I have to be in just the right mood, and then Bruckner can be enjoyable. But I'm weird, anyway; my favorite symphony of his is the Fifth, which seems to be an unusual choice. But I haven't spent enough time on his symphonies, particularly the Eighth and Ninth.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> I suppose it does not make anyone a bad listener of classical music if they consider some Mahler symphonies and Wagner operas a bit too long for the maximum effectiveness. Those two represent, after all, one extreme of the canonised western music, in their attempt to overwhelm the listener -- sometimes succeeding, sometimes resulting in exhaustion and irritation. All of this is understandable, logical and inevitable, in my opinion.
> 
> Even just the fact that 30 against 32 (almost half) voted that some editing would benefit the music indicates that the excessive length is not perceived totally unproblematic in our culture. Should the length of some speculative modern Mahlerian symphonies go even bigger, the numbers would change accordingly -- fewer and fewer would accept the overwhelming solutions.


I'd agree about excessive length being a problem say in some second or third-rate romantic composers, Rubinstein's _Ocean Symphony_ in the complete version being an obvious example of travesty (that is, for a listener from our time, with the repeating options through our media, that we have) but that's also because there's much less intricacy and variation in such works.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> I was so used to your avatar, @Waehnen: now it looks totally different!
> 
> Oddly enough, I'm fine with Mahler and Wagner but I struggle with Bruckner. I don't think it's necessarily the length itself, but the way that the time is used. Mahler and Wagner just grip my attention stronger, I think, and listening to Bruckner takes a different kind of thinking with I haven't honed. I have to be in just the right mood, and then Bruckner can be enjoyable. But I'm weird, anyway; my favorite symphony of his is the Fifth, which seems to be an unusual choice. But I haven't spent enough time on his symphonies, particularly the Eighth and Ninth.


This surely is interesting! For some reason I have no problem with the length of the Bruckner symphonies. 

If I had to say why, without detailed analysis, probably it has got something to do with the ethos of the composer. Bruckner is so noble in his material and expression and so refined in his compositional means that I am constantly convinced by what he does. I feel that Bruckner demands of himself the best he can create, all the time, every second. Bruckner never wastes the listener's time and musically I do not spot any places which would bring editing to my mind. 

Whereas Mahler and Wagner seem to be more confident in themselves, bordering on egoist and arrogant occasionally. Mahler and Wagner both have some sections where I perceive the material or the handling of the material either mediocre or uninspired. Only with such sections the length becomes a problem for me -- the aim at overwhelming the listener does not justify the uninspired or mediocre moments in my ears.

Luckily I have learnt to deal with these issues and they do not bother me at all nowadays. I have learnt ways to concentrate on the undeniable strengths of each composer.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Actually I consider it a possibility that had I lived at the time of Wagner and Mahler, the length might not have been a problem at all for me. It is possible that I would not have perceived anything as unnecessarily uninspired for aiming at lengthening the overwhelming musical sections. It is possible I would have welcomed all the lengthening sections.

There were not as many ways and forms of entertainment those days. There was not so much info everywhere. There was not so much constant noise or media feed.

Maybe this is an issue of a modern person of the 21st century not needing to be overwhelmed by music which unfolds as an all-encompassing world.

It is also possible that had Mahler known his symphonies would one day be listened to repeatedly at will in multiple versions, he might have created a bit more concise versions of some of the symphonies. Being a conductor himself, he created the symphonies for the concert, a unique event, and aimed at overwhelming the listeners in this particular event. There is no doubt that had I been in one of those events in his time (without my CD´s and files and 21st century ethos), I would have perceived many of these things differently (to what length, I couldn´t possibly tell).


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

I see no reason why Mahler's symphonies should be shortened to fit in with the opinions of those who think otherwise. They are the length they are for a reason. Accept them for what they are or don't listen to them. Pretty simple.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> I see no reason why Mahler's symphonies should be shortened to fit in with the opinions of those who think otherwise. They are the length they are for a reason. Accept them for what they are or don't listen to them. Pretty simple.


Of course nobody that I know of is planning on shortening the symphonies -- or unaccepting them, whatever that is even supposed to mean. This is merely beneficial discussion on aesthetic values and reception, and completely natural as such. People with all kinds of views on the matter should be welcomed to listen to Mahler with a good conscience.


----------



## ansfelden (Jan 11, 2022)

I probably posted this already but since it is true:

"A Bruckner a day keeps the Mahler away"


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

ansfelden said:


> I probably posted this already but since it is true:
> 
> "A Bruckner a day keeps the Mahler away"


True in what respect? Is this another 21st century ‘this is my truth’ woke homilies where we forego actual truth for some half-baked idea of what constitutes truth? Give me strength!😤

This is also true - a Schönberg a day keeps the Bruckner away or any two composers you care to substitute. BTW it’s actually not true. It‘s really ineffable twaddle like most of the stuff on this thread where objectivity is sacrificed on the altar of ‘I know what the composer did wrong and I have the remedy!’


----------



## Lisztianwagner (2 mo ago)

I've voted for the first option, I think Mahler's symphonies don't need to be shortened or edited; in those works the composer expressed himself and his view of the world, wanting to communicate in all its shades what he needed; they aren't too long or too short, they are exactly how they have to be.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Of course nobody that I know of is planning on shortening the symphonies -- or unaccepting them, whatever that is even supposed to mean. This is merely beneficial discussion on aesthetic values and reception, and completely natural as such. People with all kinds of views on the matter should be welcomed to listen to Mahler with a good conscience.


Acceptance speaks for itself. If you love Mahler's music, then you overlook whatever shortcomings you believe it to have --- anyway, like your other Mahler threads, this one comes across as nothing more than someone with an axe to grind. Also, you're only open to discussion when someone is in agreement with you. It seems like you could careless when someone disagrees with you and you turn it around on them like they're wrong for even voicing their dissenting opinion. I think a more fruitful conversation can happen when you have something good to say about the music.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> *Even just the fact that 30 against 32 (almost half) voted that some editing would benefit the music *indicates that the excessive length is not perceived totally unproblematic in our culture. Should the length of some speculative modern Mahlerian symphonies go even bigger, the numbers would change accordingly -- fewer and fewer would accept the overwhelming solutions.


How to use statistics to (kinda) say what you want them to say ... 54.5% selected 'No, there is no need for shortening or editing...'


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Becca said:


> How to use statistics to (kinda) say what you want them to say ... 54.5% selected 'No, there is no need for shortening or editing...'


And here lies the problem with this thread and reason why my comments to the OP about their axe grinding is not without foundation.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

ansfelden said:


> I probably posted this already but since it is true:
> 
> "A Bruckner a day keeps the Mahler away"


How about a Bruckner a day and a Mahler a day? Wait scrap that, then the whole day is probably over before you’re done listening to both. I’ll switch them up then


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Well, good music cannot thrive in total democracy. It is a bit authoritarian perhaps, in that certain individuals must lay down the law and write good music (or perform it). Access to music should be more democratic, but the actual process of creating it requires a non-democratic approach. Everyone in the orchestra/chorus/etc. must submit to the conductor's will, and the conductor submits to the composer's will (as best as they are able); the audience is not directly involved in this process in any democratic way (except in the broad sense of ticket/album sales). Although this poll indicates that certain minority views are present, it doesn't mean anyone should change their approach to Mahler (and I don't think that is what this thread meant to suggest, if I'm interpreting it correctly). In other words, just because a subset of people think the inner movements of Mahler's Sixth should be performed in one order doesn't mean conductors should change which order they choose; this is not a choice reserved for the audience. This argument extends to other emendations such as abridging or editing the symphony.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> Acceptance speaks for itself. If you love Mahler's music, then you overlook whatever shortcomings you believe it to have --- anyway, like your other Mahler threads, this one comes across as nothing more than someone with an axe to grind. Also, you're only open to discussion when someone is in agreement with you. It seems like you could careless when someone disagrees with you and you turn it around on them like they're wrong for even voicing their dissenting opinion. I think a more fruitful conversation can happen when you have something good to say about the music.


I do not perceive myself as having an axe to grind. This is an older thread (resurrected by someone else) on aesthetic discussion on artistic values and reception. Of course I have expressed my experiences also in more emotional terms in my other 'Help me with Mahler' -thread, but that was the whole point. Others have expressed their experiences as well and that is a good thing.

Not sure what you mean that I would be open to discussion only when someone is in agreement with me. I do not spot this kind of behaviour in myself -- quite the opposite: the most interesting conversation often occurs when people coming from different viewpoints try to understand each other. Neither have I attacked you or anyone else.

I just wanted to point out that nobody is actually planning on shortening the symphonies, and this conversation should be welcomed as discussion on aesthetics and reception and how they differ. It is obvious that some people still consider the aesthetic critics as arrogant people who do not accept Mahler for what he is and want to finish his work for him because they know better. That is not the case, and it needs to repeated, imho.

This kind of conversation might be unpleasant for some people for various reasons, that much I get. I am moving towards other kind of conversations on this forum but if I have something to say in a Mahler thread, I will say it in the future also. But let me express I am sorry to irritate you, that is not my aim.



Becca said:


> How to use statistics to (kinda) say what you want them to say ... 54.5% selected 'No, there is no need for shortening or editing...'


You are the scientist here and I respect that, so if I have interpreted the statistic in a wrong way, please correct me! From my perspective, I was merely trying to state in the light of the 'results' that I am not the only listener who has been pondering over these issues regarding Mahler. Even now it is 34 against 36.




Monsalvat said:


> Well, good music cannot thrive in total democracy. It is a bit authoritarian perhaps, in that certain individuals must lay down the law and write good music (or perform it). Access to music should be more democratic, but the actual process of creating it requires a non-democratic approach. Everyone in the orchestra/chorus/etc. must submit to the conductor's will, and the conductor submits to the composer's will (as best as they are able); the audience is not directly involved in this process in any democratic way (except in the broad sense of ticket/album sales). Although this poll indicates that certain minority views are present, it doesn't mean anyone should change their approach to Mahler (and I don't think that is what this thread meant to suggest, if I'm interpreting it correctly). In other words, just because a subset of people think the inner movements of Mahler's Sixth should be performed in one order doesn't mean conductors should change which order they choose; this is not a choice reserved for the audience. This argument extends to other emendations such as abridging or editing the symphony.


Precisely! Agreed!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Monsalvat said:


> Well, good music cannot thrive in total democracy. It is a bit authoritarian perhaps, in that certain individuals must lay down the law and write good music (or perform it). Access to music should be more democratic, but the actual process of creating it requires a non-democratic approach. Everyone in the orchestra/chorus/etc. must submit to the conductor's will, and the conductor submits to the composer's will (as best as they are able); the audience is not directly involved in this process in any democratic way (except in the broad sense of ticket/album sales). Although this poll indicates that certain minority views are present, it doesn't mean anyone should change their approach to Mahler (and I don't think that is what this thread meant to suggest, if I'm interpreting it correctly). In other words, just because a subset of people think the inner movements of Mahler's Sixth should be performed in one order doesn't mean conductors should change which order they choose; this is not a choice reserved for the audience. This argument extends to other emendations such as abridging or editing the symphony.


You write excellently on the matter!

Fundamentally, us listeners have no say in the form of the compositions of others. It is the composer’s business.

Us listeners have no say in how a conductor or performers interpret and perform the piece. It is their business.

Us listeners have no say in how other people should listen to or interpret the music, either.

What we can do, though, is voice our opinions, ideas, ponderings and thoughts on all the matters above. Music is a field of interaction where everyone plays a part, after all.

Interaction and reflection should be encouraged. Conversation should not be limited to ”I like this” and ”I don’t like this.” That would do unjustice to the interaction field most complicated indeed.

Does anyone disagree?


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

I don't disagree and I didn't intend my post to suggest that any debate should be stifled (even though I voted for no editing/shortening). Just to be clear, I was responding to Becca's post with a related point. I think one of the attributes of great works is that they can survive debates. In terms of performance, though it doesn't matter if 55% of people, 50.1%, or 99% of people agree; classical music is not all about majority rule. I wholeheartedly agree with your point about "I like this/I don't like this" not being enough.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Monsalvat said:


> Well, good music cannot thrive in total democracy. (...) but the actual process of creating it requires a non-democratic approach. Everyone in the orchestra/chorus/etc. must submit to the conductor's will, and the conductor submits to the composer's will (as best as they are able); the audience is not directly involved in this process in any democratic way (except in the broad sense of ticket/album sales). (...)


Obviously, *Persimfans* represented one of the conscious and successful attempts at breaking with some of those mechanisms - a conductorless orchestra of up to 150 musicians, playing all sorts of works in 1920s, including Prokofiev, and they'd probably be able to perform Mahler as well, Klemperer and Prokofiev among others admiring their top-notch quality. Repertoire and performance details were decided via democratic discussions and procedures, etc. The advance of Stalinism resulted in the orchestra being disbanded in 1933.

There have also been various attempts at reviving the set of ideas behind it; some are mentioned here


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conductorless_orchestra


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Absolutely, 100%. Every time I try to get through Mahler, at the 20 or 30 minute mark of a symphony I think "that was enjoyable, a lot of fun passages there..." and then I look at the time stamp and I'm like "oh."

I shouldn't be looking at the clock when I'm listening to a symphony. I never do it when I listen to Beethoven, Sibelius, Schubert, Nielsen, Brahms.... but every single time I do it with Mahler.


----------



## FrankE (Jan 13, 2021)

They are the duration that they are.
The issue is how much time I have to listen to a particular work (or consume a work whether it be music, film, textbook) in a particular instance and how little time there is to devote to consuming works due to, you know, ... mortality.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Just listened to the 9th after a few years of not listening to it. At 80 minutes, it can definitely benefit from having about 30% of its content cut. But the other 70% or so is fantastic.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MatthewWeflen said:


> Every time I try to get through Mahler, at the 20 or 30 minute mark of a symphony I think "that was enjoyable, a lot of fun passages there..." and then I look at the time stamp and I'm like "oh."


Don't look at the time stamp then.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Just listened to the 9th after a few years of not listening to it. At 80 minutes, it can definitely benefit from having about 30% of its content cut. But the other 70% or so is fantastic.


That is exactly my experience and perception on the 9th as well!

I find nothing to complain about the whole symphony other than 25-30% of the length could be cut. There is quite a lot of repetition especially in the 1st Movement. Waves of the roughly 2 contrasting theme/character groups follow each other again and again and it goes on floating for 30 minutes. Gorgeous music but 22 minutes of it would have been enough. You could have saved the extensive floating for the finale. Two endless floatings on a sea of sound is a bit too much for a symphony, in my opinion.

(This is something I have avoided speaking out until now (sacrilege!), this forum being a bit hostile to anyone having any problems with Mahler.)


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> That is exactly my experience and perception on the 9th as well!
> 
> I find nothing to complain about the whole symphony other than 25-30% of the length could be cut. There is quite a lot of repetition especially in the 1st Movement. Waves of the roughly 2 contrasting theme/character groups follow each other again and again and it goes on floating for 30 minutes. Gorgeous music but 22 minutes of it would have been enough. You could have saved the extensive floating for the finale. Two endless floatings on a sea of sound is a bit too much for a symphony, in my opinion.
> 
> (This is something I have avoided speaking out until now (sacrilege!), this forum being a bit hostile to anyone having any problems with Mahler.)


I have no problem with you having issues with Mahler's symphonies, but what I find puzzling is your incessant need to continue to make your point over and over again. The very thing you're criticizing Mahler for (i. e. repetition) is what you're actually doing in your own posts. It's actually rather tiring to read and I'm sure there are several other members here who would agree if they've read your posts over the past couple of months about this composer.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> I have no problem with you having issues with Mahler's symphonies, but what I find puzzling is your incessant need to continue to make your point over and over again. The very thing you're criticizing Mahler for (i. e. repetition) is what you're actually doing in your own posts. It's actually rather tiring to read and I'm sure there are several other members here who would agree if they've read your posts over the past couple of months about this composer.


No doubt I repeat myself. That is part of my character because I have ”deep processes” that last some time.

Nevertheless, I have moved on from my intensive Mahler phase and will not put up new threads on the composer. But if someone else writes on a Mahler thread and I want to reply for whatever reason, I will do so without asking permission from you or anyone else.

I am not the only one repeating myself on this forum. I remember someone who had quite a few Masterpieces-threads on the main area.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> No doubt I repeat myself. That is part of my character because I have ”deep processes” that last some time.
> 
> Nevertheless, I have moved on from my intensive Mahler phase and will not put up new threads on the composer. But if someone else writes on a Mahler thread and I want to reply for whatever reason, I will do so without asking permission from you or anyone else.
> 
> I am not the only one repeating myself on this forum. I remember someone who had quite a few Masterpieces-threads on the main area.


My "Masterpieces" threads were created for the discussion of _different_ works by _different_ composers. Your ongoing commentary is only about one composer. Apples and oranges I'm afraid. Nice try though! 

Sure, you're free to comment on whatever you wish just as I'm free to tell you that you're saying the same thing over and over again!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> My "Masterpieces" threads were created for the discussion of _different_ works by _different_ composers. Your ongoing commentary is only about one composer. Apples and oranges I'm afraid. Nice try though!
> 
> Sure, you're free to comment on whatever you wish just as I'm free to tell you that you're saying the same thing over and over again!


I find the repeated Masterpieces format BORING and nowadays skip the threads. But because I am a polite person, I do not usually say aloud things like this. I keep it to myself. Let other forumists conduct themselves the way they want. 😉


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> I find the repeated Masterpieces format BORING and nowadays skip the threads. But because I am a polite person, I do not usually say aloud things like this. I keep it to myself. Let other forumists conduct themselves the way they want. 😉


I could careless what you find boring and the fact that you skip the threads means little to me, especially since you haven't contributed to any of them. You're a polite person? Ummm...okay, I have my doubts.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> I could careless what you find boring and the fact that you skip the threads means little to me, especially since you haven't contributed to any of them. You're a polite person? Ummm...okay, I have my doubts.


Why should I then care about your opinion on my Mahler repetition? I could also reply to you that I couldn’t care less. But I will not.

It seems you have different rules for yourself and others. You have the right to complain about others but you yourself ”couldn’t care less” if someone has opinions on your behavior.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> I could careless what you find boring and the fact that you skip the threads means little to me, especially since you haven't contributed to any of them. You're a polite person? Ummm...okay, I have my doubts.


Also letting you and everyone else know that it is a new year and ain’t nobody got time for petty/unnecessary negativity!

So from now on I will just ignore posts that complain on my writing without any weighty arguments. Neither will I complain on what others do.

For the positivity of the forum. We are doing just fine!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Why should I then care about your opinion on my Mahler repetition? I could also reply to you that I couldn’t care less. But I will not.
> 
> It seems you have different rules for yourself and others. You have the right to complain about others but you yourself ”couldn’t care less” if someone has opinions on your behavior.





Waehnen said:


> Also letting you and everyone else know that it is a new year and ain’t nobody got time for petty/unnecessary negativity!
> 
> So from now on I will just ignore posts that complain on my writing without any weighty arguments. Neither will I complain on what others do.
> 
> For the positivity of the forum. We are doing just fine!


Don't paint yourself a saint, because you ain't. Now, isn't time for you start yet another thread about how Mahler's symphonies' duration should be reduced because you're not actually a fan of the composer's music anyway? 

Special note: Complaining about the length of Mahler's symphonies is a cop out for not saying what one actually means to say, which is "I just don't care much for his music." Critics have been saying this since the first time a Mahler symphony was premiered. It's not mentioned much nowadays because so much of his music is a part of the standard repertoire (and rightfully so!), which I guess irks Finnish classical fans who prefer Sibelius or other composers with more streamlined approaches to composition.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> Don't paint yourself a saint, because you ain't.


Nope, I ain´t a saint, no need for paint!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Nope, I ain´t a saint, no need for paint!


Neither am I, so get used to my negative comments!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> Neither am I, so get used to my negative comments!


Like I said, from now on I will just ignore the comments that trigger negative impulses in me -- unless the fight is worth picking! In my opinion our little quarrel didn´t really bring anything valuable to the table or to the discussion. So it was a quarrel I should not have picked. Sorry!


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Like I said, from now on I will just ignore the comments that trigger negative impulses in me -- unless the fight is worth picking! In my opinion our little quarrel didn´t really bring anything valuable to the table or to the discussion. So it was a quarrel I should not have picked. Sorry!


But there's nothing to be gained from your ongoing discussion about the length of Mahler's symphonies other than you think they're too long. I mean that's it. You haven't shown the slightest interest in changing your mind or budging on your opinion, so there's actually nothing of value about anything that anyone could say to you where you're going to question your own opinion. In other words, your mind about Mahler is already made up.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> But there's nothing to be gained from your ongoing discussion about the length of Mahler's symphonies other than you think they're too long. I mean that's it. You haven't shown the slightest interest in changing your mind or budging on your opinion, so there's actually nothing of value about anything that anyone could say to you where you're going to question your own opinion. In other words, your mind about Mahler is already made up.


My intensive Mahler period lasted for about a year. Now that the year is over -- yes, for most parts my mind is made up in the sense that I haven´t spotted much shifting in my thougths for the last a few months. Before that there was a lot of shifting and I changed my mind often. My journey was full of revelations!

There is a lot of Mahler I enjoy. Symphonies 2, 3 and 5 (without the movements 2 and 3) are amongst the greatest symphonies I have ever heard. Every Mahler symphony has great elements to them. Some of the movements I enjoy as independent symphonic poems. There are only a couple of movements which I really dislike. 

So I have found my own workarounds. Life is good!

But you are correct, there probably will not be as much valuable conversation on Mahler between me and the forum from now on. That is why I am rather passive on Mahler and reply only when I see a post I feel like replying to. Still, I always have an open mind and never believe to have found some final truth on matters.

I will keep listening to Mahler for years so undoubtedly there will be at least some new revelations down the line for me too.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> There is a lot of Mahler I enjoy. Symphonies 2, 3 and 5 (without the movements 2 and 3) are amongst the greatest symphonies I have ever heard. Every Mahler symphony has great elements to them. Some of the movements I enjoy as independent symphonic poems. There are only a couple of movements which I really dislike.


I was going to refrain from commenting but really! This was just too much to take. Do you actually read what you’ve written?
Second sentence. ‘Symphonies 2, 3 and 5 (without the movements 2 & 3) are amongst the greatest symphonies I have ever heard.’ Well for a kick off 5 without two of its movements no longer constitutes a Mahler Symphony.
‘Some of the movements I enjoy as independent symphonic poems.’ The movements of various symphonies are not independent symphonic poems. They are part of a greater thematic and interrelated structure and do not exist in a vacuum.
It is clear that Mahler as a symphonist is of little or no interest to you. You only hear bits of him to suit your own peculiar taste.
I have a workaround too for composers I have little interest in - I don’t listen to them and nor do I wind up those that do and enjoy them. What is there to gain by antagonising those Baroque fans, a genre that does nothing for me at any level?

I’ve never fully understood your agenda on any Mahler forum ever since you first posited the statement- Help me understand Mahler. Nothing to understand really, you get it or you don’t and no amount of twisting his music about will alter that.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> I was going to refrain from commenting but really! This was just too much to take. Do you actually read what you’ve written?
> Second sentence. ‘Symphonies 2, 3 and 5 (without the movements 2 & 3) are amongst the greatest symphonies I have ever heard.’ Well for a kick off 5 without two of its movements no longer constitutes a Mahler Symphony.
> ‘Some of the movements I enjoy as independent symphonic poems.’ The movements of various symphonies are not independent symphonic poems. They are part of a greater thematic and interrelated structure and do not exist in a vacuum.
> It is clear that Mahler as a symphonist is of little or no interest to you. You only hear bits of him to suit your own peculiar taste.
> ...


Well said, @Barbebleu! If you can't enjoy a complete symphony from Mahler without feeling the need to cut out movements, then you're no fan of the composer. It's like me saying "You know Wagner's _Parsifal_ would be great if it was only one hour long. He didn't need to write that other stuff." F**** nonsense from you, @Waehnen!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> Well said, @Barbebleu! If you can't enjoy a complete symphony from Mahler without feeling the need to cut out movements, then you're no fan of the composer.


That is incorrect. I am a fan of Mahler (trust me, I know what composers I like) yet I am perfectly fine skipping the first movement of the 9th.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> That is incorrect. I am a fan of Mahler (trust me, I know what composers I like) yet I am perfectly fine skipping the first movement of the 9th.


Good for you.


----------



## Lisztianwagner (2 mo ago)

_"If you think you're boring your audience, go slower not faster. "_ Gustav Mahler


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Lisztianwagner said:


> _"If you think you're boring your audience, go slower not faster. "_ Gustav Mahler


Well, this does help explain the length of his symphonies.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Barbebleu said:


> I was going to refrain from commenting but really! This was just too much to take. Do you actually read what you’ve written?
> Second sentence. ‘Symphonies 2, 3 and 5 (without the movements 2 & 3) are amongst the greatest symphonies I have ever heard.’ Well for a kick off 5 without two of its movements no longer constitutes a Mahler Symphony.
> ‘Some of the movements I enjoy as independent symphonic poems.’ The movements of various symphonies are not independent symphonic poems. They are part of a greater thematic and interrelated structure and do not exist in a vacuum.
> It is clear that Mahler as a symphonist is of little or no interest to you. You only hear bits of him to suit your own peculiar taste.
> ...


Thanks for your post, @Barbebleu . Admittedly I have had trouble understanding why my postings on Mahler have been so provocative time after time. But there you say that you have perceived my writing as _*purposefully*_ _*winding up and antagonising Mahler fans.*_

That has never been my aim. It should be obvious that is has never been my aim.

For years I did not really get Mahler and last October I eventually decided to really get to the task and see what this composer is about and see if I could shake off my doubts and concerns. So I asked for some help from this forum and started listening. And help I got! And did get the hang of the music. I shared my thoughts along the way.

We have 2 schools here. You and @Neo Romanza seem to think that I should never have had this Mahler project or at least not share it on the forum. Whereas I think my Mahler journey and interaction with the forum was most worthwhile and it provided us means to get to core of musical aesthetics and reception. Undoubtedly it has been a challenge both for me and the forum -- because there has been great honesty both on my side and on the side of the others on this forum. But I would say it has been a most rewarding challenge.

So I cannot really be angry at neither of you. And I hope you are not angry at me.

I am happy to hear from people why they do not like certain pieces of music I love. For example, @RobertJTh expressed that he does not particularly like the 6th Symphony by Sibelius because the middle movements seem to end kind of quickly. I had never thought of that, but that helped me understand why I have appreciated the version by Berglund/Bournemouth where extra weight is being put on the middle movements -- they are not perceived as mere intermezzos in Berglund´s hands. So the criticism of Rob helped me define what problems I have had with certain performances of the 6th Symphony.

I am of the school who believes that being honest even about difficult things and looking the reality in the eye is eventually for the benefit of the music and us around the music. Of course honesty cannot be a synonym for cruelty. There is a saying that people who love their cruel honesty, love the cruelty more than the honesty. That is to be avoided of course. People should be polite if possible. But like Neo said, we ain´t no saints. I am not expecting perfect behavior from any of us in all circumstances.

This must have something to do with me being a composer. For years I was the leader of progressive rock bands. In my bands there was always a rule: everyone in the band had to like all the material. So I have a long history of trying to figure out why somebody didn´t like something and then fixing it. Also, if a guitarist brought up some riffs and I had trouble with something, I made suggestions on how to make stuff work better. I was the one who shaped the pieces together eventually so that everyone was happy.

As a composer I need to be cruelly honest with my music and I expect it from my colleagues as well. A few months ago I let 3 people listen to the huge string section of my symphony. All three said that it sounded like from a TV-series (and thought it was a positive comment). I was kinda shocked because the thought hadn´t occurred to me. But was I grateful to them, oh yes! It was easy to twist the music to the other direction. They had all spotted certain laziness in my sketch which I at the time yet hadn´t. The section is now so much better -- even though I didn´t have to change much of it. Just the necessary sharpening it up.

I do that all the time: being cruelly honest about what I have done. I ask myself every day: "Is this worth listening to? Am I wasting the listener´s time? Is this ********? Or is this damn good even today?"

This is where I come from. This thinking of mine might leak into how I write on the forum.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> Thanks for your post, @Barbebleu . Admittedly I have had trouble understanding why my postings on Mahler have been so provocative time after time. But there you say that you have perceived my writing as _*purposefully*_ _*winding up and antagonising Mahler fans.*_
> 
> That has never been my aim. It should be obvious that is has never been my aim.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this post. I understand where you're coming from much better. Even though I don't agree with many of your opinions about Mahler, I respect them and more so now since you've been so forthcoming with your responses. I'm sorry I was so rude to you, it's just that the criticism of if only this or that composer shortened something kind of irks me, especially when it comes to Mahler (or Wagner or Bruckner for that matter). My only hope is you'll continue to listen and derive whatever kind of pleasure you can from music. (Just don't tell us how you're skipping movements in Mahler's symphonies and we'll be fine...LOL!)


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Waehnen said:


> Thanks for your post, @Barbebleu . Admittedly I have had trouble understanding why my postings on Mahler have been so provocative time after time. But there you say that you have perceived my writing as _*purposefully*_ _*winding up and antagonising Mahler fans.*_
> 
> That has never been my aim. It should be obvious that is has never been my aim.
> 
> ...


I’m never angry with you W. Merely a little baffled. But hey, whatever works for you. 😎


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Neo Romanza said:


> Thanks for this post. I understand where you're coming from much better. Even though I don't agree with many of your opinions about Mahler, I respect them and more so now since you've been so forthcoming with your responses. I'm sorry I was so rude to you, it's just that the criticism of if only this or that composer shortened something kind of irks me, especially when it comes to Mahler (or Wagner or Bruckner for that matter). My only hope is you'll continue to listen and derive whatever kind of pleasure you can from music. (Just don't tell us how you're skipping movements in Mahler's symphonies and we'll be fine...LOL!)





Barbebleu said:


> I’m never angry with you W. Merely a little baffled. But hey, whatever works for you. 😎


Thanks, Neo & Barbebleu!

I think the world can survive without my Mahler playlists being public from now on...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Mahler is a top 5 composer for me, but he's one of those composers (like Wagner) where I feel like I have to bring my "A" game in terms of my focus and mental energy as it's very easy to drift during the parts that I feel are less than thrilling. Given that even a huge fan like myself feels like this I can totally sympathize with anyone who feels Mahler could've used with some judicious editing, but I'm also reminded of what I once said of him that I feel like Mahler's is the kind of music one lives in: his oeuvre is like a universe, each symphony a galaxy, each movement a planet. Like life it's only appropriate that not every moment is those which spark the utmost interest and excitement, but, in their own way, those longueurs help to accentuate the peaks even more. It reminds how some people complain about "slow" films like 2001: A Space Odyssey with criticisms like "couldn't Kubrick just have cut some of the stuff like spaceships floating/docking and people walking around?" My thought has always been "no, because sometimes time is necessary in order to immerse someone in the reality of the work itself." I've always felt similar things about other art that's both slower (and grand) in that there's an entire aesthetic experience that's only available when one is forced to just spend time in the world, an aesthetic that approaches something closer to what life is like. I think music can do that too, and perhaps my thought about "living" with Mahler is partly related to just how much time and space he provides for a listener to inhabit and observe his sonic planets, exploring its utterly unique environments at our leisure.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> I do that all the time: being cruelly honest about what I have done. I ask myself every day: "Is this worth listening to? Am I wasting the listener´s time? Is this ******? Or is this damn good even today?"


_"Why do you keep listening to music you don't consider worth listening to? Can you give me one reason I can understand?"
"It's killing me."_


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Mahler is a top 5 composer for me, but he's one of those composers (like Wagner) where I feel like I have to bring my "A" game in terms of my focus and mental energy as it's very easy to drift during the parts that I feel are less than thrilling. Given that even a huge fan like myself feels like this I can totally sympathize with anyone who feels Mahler could've used with some judicious editing, but I'm also reminded of what I once said of him that I feel like Mahler's is the kind of music one lives in: his oeuvre is like a universe, each symphony a galaxy, each movement a planet. Like life it's only appropriate that not every moment is those which spark the utmost interest and excitement, but, in their own way, those longueurs help to accentuate the peaks even more. It reminds how some people complain about "slow" films like 2001: A Space Odyssey with criticisms like "couldn't Kubrick just have cut some of the stuff like spaceships floating/docking and people walking around?" My thought has always been "no, because sometimes time is necessary in order to immerse someone in the reality of the work itself." I've always felt similar things about other art that's both slower (and grand) in that there's an entire aesthetic experience that's only available when one is forced to just spend time in the world, an aesthetic that approaches something closer to what life is like. I think music can do that too, and perhaps my thought about "living" with Mahler is partly related to just how much time and space he provides for a listener to inhabit and observe his sonic planets, exploring its utterly unique environments at our leisure.


This is extremely valuable text. Thank you!

One big key question from my part: does the overuse of the repeated dotted rhythm TAT-TA-TAA not bother you (or anyone) in symphonies 6-9? It takes me out of the magic and has proven to be the biggest obstacle for me. The rhythm repeated (too often) does not make me want to stay in the Mahler world of those symphonies because it gives me the impression of uninspired music making. If someone could provide me with an insight why it is this rhythm all the time or what is the significance of it, maybe I could 'accept' it and start enjoying even those moments.

Just a few TAT-TA-TAA moments:


----------



## verandai (Dec 10, 2021)

I think this is just a personal "thing" with this pattern for you (and probably to some other people).

I'm not a big fan of this pattern, but I'm not annoyed by it if it's used as a contrastic element - for example to create an atmosphere of departure.

I didn't feel the overuse of it in Mahler's symphony so far, I'll try to pay attention to it in the next listenings.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I still haven’t listened to any other Mahler symphony than the first because of the length and I have trouble concentrating in general so I almost never sit down and just listen to something without doing anything else for an hour and a half, which I do believe is necessary for Mahler. But I’m listening to the first now and I’m reminded how much I love it and how wonderful the music is. The first movement always lifts my spirit so much! I really should just listen to the first movement of the 2nd or something and just split it and to make amends for the length. And as for the length of the first symphony, at least the first movement is perfect in my opinion and wonderfully developed


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

I would love to hear some edited Mahler symphonies. But it's never going to happen.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> I would love to hear some edited Mahler symphonies. But it's never going to happen.


I certainly hope that doesn't happen. I'm happy with them as they are, so long as there's some popcorn too.


----------



## cybernaut (Feb 6, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> I certainly hope that doesn't happen. *I'm happy with them as they are*


Even the ones with too many notes?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Waehnen said:


> This is extremely valuable text. Thank you!
> 
> One big key question from my part: does the overuse of the repeated dotted rhythm TAT-TA-TAA not bother you (or anyone) in symphonies 6-9? It takes me out of the magic and has proven to be the biggest obstacle for me. The rhythm repeated (too often) does not make me want to stay in the Mahler world of those symphonies because it gives me the impression of uninspired music making. If someone could provide me with an insight why it is this rhythm all the time or what is the significance of it, maybe I could 'accept' it and start enjoying even those moments.


Years of listening to rock/metal and jazz has probably inoculated me against being annoyed at repetitive rhythms.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

verandai said:


> I think this is just a personal "thing" with this pattern for you (and probably to some other people).
> 
> I'm not a big fan of this pattern, but I'm not annoyed by it if it's used as a contrastic element - for example to create an atmosphere of departure.
> 
> I didn't feel the overuse of it in Mahler's symphony so far, I'll try to pay attention to it in the next listenings.


It would be interesting to know does anyone here really LOVE the TAT-TA-DAA pattern.

Unfortunately listening to these symphonies is like having a nice Scotch or a Bourbon and then hearing the TAT-TA-DAA (once again) and smashing the whisky glass against the wall. Yes, it irritates me that much.

So far I do not believe it is just me. (So far nothing in the world of music has been just me.)


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

cybernaut said:


> Even the ones with too many notes?


yeah. Always trust the composer, it's their music after all....


----------

