# Understanding Mahler, Part 1



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Understanding Mahler
Introduction

Mahler is considered one of the most important composers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but his output was relatively small. In his maturity, he wrote ten symphonies, three song cycles (one of symphonic length and subtitled symphony), and a handful of other songs, most of which he orchestrated. This is not as small as the oeuvres of some other important composers, but none so central to the contemporary repertoire, and none so persistently with every work, all written over a period of approximately 25 years.

What makes Mahler so important? This series is going to examine this question in detail, culminating in detailed explanations of the workings of his two most popular works, the 2nd and 5th symphonies, which date from different periods of his career. Mahler was misunderstood throughout his lifetime and continues to be misunderstood today even in his popularity. I hope to dispel some of the myths surrounding Mahler the man and the composer, or at least stimulate some discussion where there is doubt (and my capabilities as a musicologist are not great by any standard, so I hope to be challenged as often as possible). I will not attempt to answer biographical questions or relate these to his music, as I feel that while such a study may be interesting or indeed worthwhile, if one does not understand the music on its own terms, it may do more harm than good.

Part 1: Overview

Mahler is generally called a Late Romantic. Late Romanticism is rather poorly defined in any case, and while it is inaccurate to simply refer to his work as Romantic, it is also inaccurate to call it Modernist, not having in common with Debussy or Stravinsky either the tentative or decisive renunciation of the hierarchical tonal system. Late Romanticism, which began in response to Wagner with Strauss, Mahler, Wolf, and the early works of the Second Viennese School, was a continuation of the line through Bruckner in opposition to Brahms and his disciples, typified by harmonic complexity, contrapuntal density, and an emphasis on development. In some ways, the movement took the tendencies of earlier Romanticism to their limits, with the expansion of form, the intensification of programmatic content, and especially the move towards harmonic ambiguity. Richard Strauss's 1896 tone poem Also Sprach Zarathustra reflects all of these traits, as a single uninterrupted 35-minute long movement based directly on Nietzsche's book ending inconclusively between the keys of B major and C major.

For Strauss, as for Wagner, the future lay in an exploration of the intersection between music and drama, and the majority of the former's important works had significant programmatic content or were otherwise tied to words in some way. Absolute music, such as that of Brahms, was a thing of the past. Strauss and Mahler had a good deal in common, not least of all their new virtuosic use of an expanded orchestra, but they differed in some key respects. They were both renowned conductors, but only Strauss gained any kind of widespread critical or popular approval, while Mahler's music was considered more the curious eccentricities of an excellent conductor. Strauss made his name with a series of tone poems and a series of operas, the latter mostly coming after the former. Mahler stuck to symphonies and songs, and although some of the former have programmatic content, it is not at all necessary to comprehension of the work as it is in the relatively free fantasia form of a tone poem, as the music stands on its own, its internal "narrative" as fully realized as that of Beethoven's 5th or 9th symhonies.

In spite of this, the complexity and idiosyncracy of Mahler's treatment of classical forms has resulted in misapprehension, leading to misplaced criticisms of diffuseness, incoherence, or eclecticism. It has also not helped performances of these works, either, as in spite of Mahler's extremely detailed performance instructions (rendered in a personal mixture of German and Italian), various conductors' approaches differ wildly. Mahler's music appeals to people from all kinds of traditions, attested to by the championing of his works by conductors as diverse as Bruno Walter and Anton Webern (who unfortunately never recorded any of Mahler's works for posterity), or, a generation later, Leonard Bernstein and Pierre Boulez.

As with Beethoven, every one of Mahler's symphonies is different from the others, with its own character. As with Bruckner, they contend with the large scale and weight of Beethoven's 9th, which was the impetus and inspiration for nearly a hundred years of large scale symphonic works, with or without chorus. Uniquely among Romantic composers, though, Mahler approached every symphony differently, leading to widely varying forms, both on the level of the symphonies as a whole, which have as many as 6 or as few as 2 movements, and on the level of those individual movements themselves, which adapt classical procedures in unique ways.

The next few parts of this series will examine Mahler's musical language. In particular, they will be devoted to the question of how it differs from that of his predecessors.

Blog Index


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Very informative and interesting! Thanks and keep writing!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SiegendesLicht;bt1669 said:


> Very informative and interesting! Thanks and keep writing!


Thank you for reading. I'll write these as I get the time and inspiration.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

Very insightful. This will be an interesting blog for me as I begin to work thru the symphonies again. I can't think of another composer who so completely and profoundly uses the symphony as their vehicle for communication.


----------

