# Mahler = Most misinterpreted composer?



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I'm posing an infant hypothesis for the sake of potential, based on a contrast I recognized between two very different online groups, and asking for your input or knowledge of Mahler if you have any. There is a loosely defined community online who especially adores and appreciates the music of composers like Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Holst, Chopin, and especially touts how amazing Mahler is compared to most. You can call them the more common population (given that populations can be defined in different ways.) And there seems to be a completely seperate community who greatly undervalues the first four composers, preferring more like Brahms, Schubert, Schumann. This divide is the most pronounced with Mahler, meaning Mahler's love is especially split more than any other popular composer. My question is, why might two obviously different taste groups appreciate Mahler in particular, if they're likely listening for and expecting different things. This again is a most informed hypothesis, it doesn't appear true of Brahms, Wagner, Bach, Beethoven, who appeal to more defined fanbases and styles. Meaning, I have doubts because of this that Mahler is a 'gateway' composer, and it indicates instead he has another layer that Group A isn't catching. Mahler's most popular symphony is his 5th and even his 1st, but the favorites on this forum are the 2nd and 9th. Is one group hearing much vastly different from the other group? Have any (constructive, non-sarcastic) thoughts or personal experiences that could support, refute, or illuminate something about it? We're being open and calculated, not necessarily jumping to any conclusions.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

peeyaj said:


> Bernard Haitink on what he says about Mahler's excess:
> 
> _Es ist ein Steckenpferd von mir und eine grosse Sorge. Dieser Mahler-Kult: Es gibt Leute, die nur zu einem Konzert kommen, wenn Mahler gespielt wird. Nach einer Aufführung von Mahlers dritte Sinfonie habe ich einmal einen Brief gekommen: 'Ich war so gerührt, ich habe das ganze Stück über geheult.' Fast hatte ichzurückgeschrieben: 'Sie sollten einen Psychiater aufsuchen'. Das habe ich natürlich nicht getan. Es sind Einzelfälle, aber dieser Mahler-Kult - damit wird Mahler nicht gedient. Aber es ist so, und vielleicht wird es nach diesem Jubiläum wieder weniger werden.
> _
> ...


So, not only is his music not interpreted properly, he's also not well served by his fans.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Interessting topic.

I personally like Tchaikovsky very much. The other group you mentioned, do they like only Mahler or also some other composers?


Ethereality said:


> My question is, why might two obviously different taste groups appreciate Mahler in particular, if they're likely listening for and expecting different things.


Two ideas: Mahlers style is unlike the style of other composers on the edge of two eras: between romantizism and modernism. And there are big differences between his symphonies on top of it. Every symphony has a separate concept.



Ethereality said:


> Mahler's most popular symphony is his 5th


Maybe, but different Mahler fans have probably much different favorite Mahler symphonies.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Bernard Haitink has spoke, the discussion about this is over.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> Just on average, meaning Mahler's love is especially split more than any other popular composer.


What about Bruckner?

And other than with the adagietto, where do you see the 5th as being his most popular symphony?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Ethereality said:


> I'm posing an infant hypothesis for the sake of potential, based on a contrast I recognized between two very different online groups, and asking for your input or knowledge of Mahler if you have any. There is a loosely defined community online who especially adores and appreciates the music of composers like Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Holst, and especially touts how amazing Mahler is compared to most. You can call them the more common population (given that populations can be defined in different ways.) And there seems to be a completely seperate community who undervalues the first three composers instead. Just on average, meaning Mahler's love is especially split more than any other popular composer. My question is, why might two obviously different taste groups appreciate Mahler in particular, if they're likely listening for and expecting different things. This again is a formulated hypothesis, it doesn't appear true of Brahms, Wagner, Beethoven or anyone. Meaning, I have doubts because of this that Mahler is a 'gateway' composer. Does he instead have another layer that Group A isn't catching? Mahler's most popular symphony is his 5th, and this phenomenon is the most pronounced I've noticed of all the composers. Is one group hearing something vastly different than the other group. Have any (constructive, non-sarcastic) thoughts or personal experiences that could support, refute, or illuminate something about it? We're being open and calculated, not necessarily jumping to any conclusions.


Not really following your logic Ethereality. Communty 1 likes all four, but community 2 only favour Mahler?

As I understand it, Mahler's popularity is generally for the adagietto of the 5th.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Mahler pleases both worlds because he got it all. Mahler is modern, but romantic too. Mahler combines german formality and spirit with a lush, melodramatic aesthetic. Mahler's music is bold, but never at the cost of a stream of memorable melodies.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

janxharris said:


> As I understand it, Mahler's popularity is generally for the adagietto of the 5th.


Mahler's popularity is centered on one movement from one symphony? No way - it's centered on all his symphonies, lieder, and orchestral songs.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Becca said:


> What about Bruckner?


You mean Bruckners followers are splited? In which way?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

janxharris said:


> As I understand it, Mahler's popularity is generally for the adagietto of the 5th.


the canon from the 1st; don't many people get to sing it when they're in kindergarten?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> Mahler's popularity is centered on one movement from one symphony? No way - it's centered on all his symphonies, lieder, and orchestral songs.


Well it's the adagietto that's most often played on popular classical radio. I wouldn't disagree with you if we are talking concert goers.

Didn't Thomas Mann or somebody else linked with Death in Venice ask if Mahler had any more music like the adagietto?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> the canon from the 1st; don't many people get to sing it when they're in kindergarten?


Mahler's minor key version?


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

It's a good question given how many times he's fallen in and out of the canon.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Jay said:


> It's a good question given how many times he's fallen in and out of the canon.


He's been "canonical" and has been pretty popular all my life, and probably for quite a while before that. I do agree that there is kind of a Mahler "cult". But...to each his own, live and let live and all that.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

dissident said:


> He's been "canonical" and has been pretty popular all my life, *and probably for quite a while before that*. I do agree that there is kind of a Mahler "cult". But...to each his own, live and let live and all that.


Depends when you were born. He's always had a following but it hasn't always been quite so numerous. In my first year at university in the mid-70s the guy who lived across the corridor from me was a big fan (he tried to convert me - I'm afraid he didn't succeed) and bemoaned the fact that there were relatively few of them around. My recollection is that the real Mahler boom began perhaps about a decade later.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Animal the Drummer said:


> Depends when you were born. He's always had a following but it hasn't always been quite so numerous. In my first year at university in the mid-70s the guy who lived across the corridor from me was a big fan (he tried to convert me - I'm afraid he didn't succeed) and bemoaned the fact that there were relatively few of them around. My recollection is that the real Mahler boom began perhaps about a decade later.


Yeah well even so he was probably more "canonical" than Schoenberg at that point.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I was there at the beginning of the Mahler "boom". Yes, there had always been followers, and contrary to what some believe, his music was widely performed in the US and elsewhere long before Bernstein came around. Go to the New York Philharmonic archives and you can see for yourself that the symphonies were not obscure or rarely given. Everything had been recorded before Bernstein came around. What really propelled the boom was the development of stereophonic sound and higher quality playback at home. Now you could get a better facsimile of what the music sounded like. For me the recordings from Utah (with Abravanel), New York (Bernstein) and Munich (Kubelik) were revelations. Others contributed, too, like Barbirolli, Horenstein, and of course the Bruno Walter recordings were all available. My Mahler collection in 1973 was quite extensive. Then along came a new powerhouse: Solti in Chicago and then Levine in Chicago among other places. By 1978 we had their complete cycles and the advent of digital recordings. People flocked to concerts of Mahler. Sell-out houses just for a chance to hear the music live. Those days are past: Mahler has become so routine that he is no longer the guaranteed big draw he once was. The boom was over.

The advent of the CD had something to do with it - even higher quality sound. Dare I say that with a fine playback system the sound at home could rival a concert hall? What has happened in the 40 years now since the CD is a recording boom where everyone everywhere seems to want to make a Mahler cycle just like once upon a time a Beethoven cycle was the thing to do. There have been a few that were worth it, but many more that weren't necessary. 

It's not that Mahler's time has passed, or that he's becoming outmoded, it's just that we've been so saturated since the mid-60s that there's no sense of discovery any more. And regrettably, there nothing on the horizon to replace him. Nothing. I've always hoped that Franz Schmidt would be the new kid on the block, but that's not going to happen. Maybe we'll all rediscover Tchaikovsky; there hasn't been a really great new set of his symphonies for a long, long time. But feat not: Mahler still lives. I already have my tickets for Mahlerfest 2023 in Leipzig!


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> It's not that Mahler's time has passed, or that he's becoming outmoded, it's just that we've been so saturated since the mid-60s that there's no sense of discovery any more. *And regrettably, there nothing on the horizon to replace him. Nothing*. I've always hoped that Franz Schmidt would be the new kid on the block, but that's not going to happen. Maybe we'll all rediscover Tchaikovsky; there hasn't been a really great new set of his symphonies for a long, long time. But feat not: Mahler still lives. I already have my tickets for Mahlerfest 2023 in Leipzig!


Good morning, sir, have you heard the word of Villa-Lobos?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Animal the Drummer said:


> .....In my first year at university in the mid-70s the guy who lived across the corridor from me was a big fan (he tried to convert me - I'm afraid he didn't succeed) and bemoaned the fact that there were relatively few of them around. My recollection is that the real Mahler boom began perhaps about a decade later.


I was at music conservatory in late 60s....the Mahler boom had definitely hit, big-time by then...


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Not really following your logic Ethereality. Communty 1 likes all four, but community 2 only favour Mahler?
> 
> As I understand it, Mahler's popularity is generally for the adagietto of the 5th.


I updated the OP to more clearly explain what I mean. It seems Mahler has some of the most varied fanbases of all the composers based on some clear poll data throughout the years, which means to me that people hear very different things in him. This indicates opposite trend of a 'gateway' composer like Mozart or Tchaikovsky. It seems to indicate his music instead might have two different dimensions or layers depending on what music you like to hear. Lively Station seems to have touched on the topic a bit. Thanks Lively. I feel like we could squeeze this lemon even more. I dont know.



dissident said:


> I do agree that there is kind of a Mahler "cult".


I think there might be _two Mahler cults! _One more popular/modern, and the other more Classically based. Not that a few might fit into both, but there's definitely many who don't see the same values and tastes in Mahler, or else they would like more of the same composers.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I love Mahler's music, but in recent years his symphonies have been played to death in concert and there are now more recordings of them ( also live video performances on DVD )than you can shake a stick at . 
I remember the Schwann catalogue from around 1969 when I was a teenager , and there were only about 100-125 LP recordings of his symphonies available at the time . 
Some of these are still classics , such the ones by Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, Sir Georg Solti , Jascha Horenstein and others .
Decades after this, when the Schwann catalogue was still around , it was a thick tome . The original one from over 50 years ago which I still remember could easily be held in your hand . 
The big catalogue listed who knows how many recordings of the Mahler symphonies, and since then, who knows how many have been released . 
It's an embarrassment of richness for Mahler fans , but how many recordings do we really need ? 
Decades ago, there were only a few recordings of symphonies, 3, 6,7 and 8 . Now there are almost as many as the most popular ones, 1,2, 4, 5 and 9 . 
But only one of Deryck Cooke's completion of the 10th, with Ormandy and the Philadelphia orchestra . Now there are quite a few by Rattle, Chailly , Rudolf Barshai, Zinman etc .
In 1969, only Bernstein had recorded all nine if I remember correctly, and Abravanel was still working on his set . Then we had complete sets by Kubelik and Haitink . 
Now we have complete sets by Abbado , Boulez, Bertini, Chailly , DeWaart , Gielen, Inbal, Maazel, Neumann,Jonathan Nott , Ozawa, Rattle, Svetlanov, Solti. Snippily , Markus Stenz, Klaus Tennstedt, Michael Tilson Thomas, Emil Tabakov, and Zinman , not all of which are currently available . 
There are more sets in progress by other conductors such as Oslo Vanska, Adam Fischer and others , and probably some sets I can't recall offhand that have been made .
We even have HIP ! Mahler from Roger Norrington and Philippe Herreweghe, although how authentic these recordings are is a moot question and even questionable altogether .
How does an individual classical CD collector choose from this incredibly wide variety of recordings ? 
It's no easy task . But you can hear so many different recordings on youtube , and this is a good way to decide if you would like to purchase or download Mahler symphonies . 
And why get your tenth set of the Mahler symphonies when you can get interesting lesser known symphonies by the like of Roussel, Magnard, Bax, George Whitefield Chadwick, Havergal Brian , Rued Langaard, Franz Schmidt , Myaskovsky, Franz Berwald, Mily Balakirev, Dukas, Vincent D'Indy ,
Zdenek Fibich, Karol Szymanowski, Sergei Taneyev and others so easily ? 
It's so easy to get jaded by listening the the music of one great composer over and over again, day in day out . Once you get familiar with lesser known repertoire, you can come the symphonies of Mahler refreshed .


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

superhorn said:


> It's so easy to get jaded by listening the the music of one great composer over and over again, day in day out . Once you get familiar with lesser known repertoire, you can come the symphonies of Mahler refreshed .


Well it's not so easy to do with Bach's music, but I agree with your overall point. In a way it's probably because the Mahler symphonies are showpieces for conductors and orchestras, the way pianists have to get out a complete Beethoven sonata cycle or the complete WTC etc.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Ethereality said:


> There is a loosely defined community online who especially adores and appreciates the music of composers like Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Holst, Chopin, and especially touts how amazing Mahler is compared to most. You can call them the more common population (given that populations can be defined in different ways.) And there seems to be a completely seperate community who greatly undervalues the first four composers, preferring more like Brahms, Schubert, Schumann.


Hmm, than I can't identify myself with any of these groups. I like Tchaikovsky and Schubert, but don't like Chopin and Brahms much.

But what I like about Mahler is more related to Bruckner, Wagner and Shostakovich, not with Tchaikovsky or Schubert.



Ethereality said:


> Mahler's most popular symphony is his 5th and even his 1st, but the favorites on this forum are the 2nd and 9th. Is one group hearing much vastly different from the other group?


Probably. Mahler is a composer where I often don't understand the opinion of others. Like the reduction of the 5th to the adagietto. I like the first, third and last movement more. Or the reception of the Finale of the 9th. For me it is positive and peaceful movement and it makes me happy deep inside me. And I don't understand the high rating of the 1st. For me it is not even closely one of his best works.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

Aries said:


> Mahler is a composer where I often don't understand the opinion of others. Like the reduction of the 5th to the adagietto.


Well, that's not really true. What happened is that because of _Death in Venice_, the _adagietto_ became famous on its own, so casual listeners of classical music may know it and like it without ever bothering with the entire symphony. However, any fan who actually cares about listening to symphonies and want to discover Mahler will have a more homogeneous opinion of the 5th.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I've never really got what is special about the adagietto of Mahler's 5th. Perhaps one must hear it in the context of the film.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Don't know which cult I belong to. I like Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Brahms and Schubert. And I listen equally on occasion to Chopin and Schumann. As for Mahler, always.

I came to Mahler via his Second Symphony, after hearing the classic Bruno Walter recording from back in the day.









The Second remained my favorite symphony for some while and it led me to the other Mahler works, including the song cycles, which I first encountered in no particular order. I enjoy the Fifth but never thought of ranking it above others. I probably listen more often to the Fourth, with the First a close second, but that could be because it's a tad shorter in length than others (2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9) which demand a great time investment to really sit down and enjoy fully. Each Mahler symphony is magical in its own ways, and that's a good thing. I especially appreciate the various interpretations, which keeps the music fresh, even though I could likely play the old Bruno Walter Second for the upteenth hundredth time and think the music is fresh.

So, if any of you want to join the new Cult which includes those composer fellows above _and _Mahler _and_ including more than Mahler's Fifth Symphony, membership is open and admission is currently free.*

_______________
* But if this Cult catches on, I may start charging dues.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I don't know if when I edited the OP I made it even more confusing, but all-in-all, I would second what Lively Station said. Mahler is like a hybrid of neo-classicism and contemporary music. This split between some distinct people I notice who prefer more Classical music like Brahms, Schubert, Mozart, Schumann--and those who underappreciate many of these for more Late-Romantic and contemporary stylings like Debussy, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, Holst, doesn't seem to have any effect on their Mahler rating. Meaning the relation is totally orthogonal and absent, they hear exactly what they like in Mahler regardless of if its classical forms, or lovely soundscape orchestration. I would say many are 'deaf' to the others' criticisms of Mahler, or else they would like more of the same music. Sorry if I'm repeating myself but I needed to clarify. I wouldn't be surprised if this is very true, it sorta has to be if Mahler fans seem to have totally opposite favs from one another, more pronounced than any other composer fanbase. I hear some of you don't feel you belong to either group, that's not uncommon either, but we all know the common posts that read 'I never understand what people see so much in x composer.' In the case of just Mahler alone it's more ambiguous. Here is also this poll https://www.talkclassical.com/class...polls/poll-702-what-your-favorite-mahler.html

In conclusion however, for now I wouldn't say Mahler is the most split and misinterpreted composer necessarily, but when comparing two distinct groups of tastes he might be.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

tdc said:


> I've never really got what is special about the adagietto of Mahler's 5th. Perhaps one must hear it in the context of the film.


It's beautiful music that's what is special about it.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Neo Romanza said:


> It's beautiful music that's what is special about it.


Of course, but do you think it is Mahler's best symphonic movement? Or the only one that is beautiful? Its not hard for me to understand why someone would find it beautiful, my confusion is related to why some seem to treat it as the only great Mahler movement, or the peak of all of his music. There are a number of beautiful Mahler symphonic movements, like the final movement of _Das Lied von der Erde_, the first movement of the 9th, the adagio from the 10th etc. I don't generally see those ones singled out.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

How is one supposed to "interpret" a composer's work?

I don't interpret or (I believe) misinterpret Mahler. I try to listen to his symphonies every few months, and I have a hard time enjoying them because I find them bloated and meandering. I don't think this is an issue of interpretation. I have a particular experience when listening, one that doesn't jibe with my desires for a listening experience.

I don't interpret Beethoven or Tchaikovsky or Shostakovitch, either. I listen to them and experience them.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

The _adagietto_ is far from my favorite symphonic movement by Mahler, but it's easy to see why it's a crowd pleaser: short in duration, with a consistent tone throughout, ternary form, theme A builds up to a big climax, hummable melody, etc. Also, I think the accompanying harp has a great, iconic effect that makes the piece memorable, and the orchestration being for strings only is a great touch. In comparison, other works by Mahler are beautiful too, but can be seen as chaotic, messy, uneven, clumsy, incongruous, rambling, excessively long (I disagree, mostly).

Emotionally, the _adagietto_ is special too. It's obviously sentimental, but if you go deeper it's rather ambiguous, especially from one interpretation to another. It can be sorrowful, nostalgic, warm, hysterical, loving or even joyful. In other words, is it bitter, sweet or bittersweet? I don't know, but it's great.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure I understand what is being asked here (too many concepts that don't describe how I approach any music). I love Mahler and think, now, that he was one of the very greatest (a fifth for the "top 4" despite his only working in two genres: symphony and lied) but the route I took to get here was tortuous. I tend to need classical discipline in music, even Romantic music, and Mahler, although I liked him, seemed too chaotic. I preferred the more disciplined Sibelius. But Mahler slowly got inside me - he really does prove his claim (to Sibelius) that a symphony should be like the world and include everything - and that is a miracle. His musical language is of its time and place but there has never been anything at all that is like his music. Schmidt sounds so controlled next to him, Zemlinsky never even glimpses the heights he strolls across. And he rivals Beethoven in producing music that responds so well to such a wide variety of treatments. He is a one off but it has taken me half my life to fully understand him. Or, correction, not fully but to the extent that I do now.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Ethereality said:


> Mahler is like a hybrid of neo-classicism and contemporary music.


Isn't Mahler romantic? I'm not an expert for neo-classicism, but I think Mahler is the complete opposite, because neo-classicism wanted to make the music more sober, short and simple compared to romanticism, didn't they? But Mahler is compared to other romantic composers more dissolute. Bruckner had a strict form for his symphonies. It feels like there is not much form left in Mahlers symphonies. And Mahler seems to have the pretension to express the whole world in his symphonies. But this total pretension is a very romantic concept I think.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Mahler is on the threshold between late romanticism and modernism (not classicist in style and not contemporary in time).


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Aries said:


> Isn't Mahler romantic? I'm not an expert for neo-classicism, but I think Mahler is the complete opposite, because neo-classicism wanted to make the music more sober, short and simple compared to romanticism, didn't they? But Mahler is compared to other romantic composers more dissolute. Bruckner had a strict form for his symphonies. It feels like there is not much form left in Mahlers symphonies. And Mahler seems to have the pretension to express the whole world in his symphonies. But this total pretension is a very romantic concept I think.


I wasn't saying big C classicism. But I was referring to, for example, the way Brahms is so very concerned with structure and argument as a classical tendency ... to be contrasted with Schumann's concern with a more poetic "logic" which is more typically romantic. But, of course, all three (Brahms, Schumann and Mahler) are (big R) Romantic composers. That goes without saying, I would have thought.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

Art Rock said:


> Mahler is on the threshold between late romanticism and modernism (not classicist in style and not contemporary in time).


Often benignly troped as a "transitional" figure, Mahler was a man out-of-time, too young to be at the core of 19th c. symphonism, too old for the new ideas swirling around him.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't think Mahler was too old for the beginning of modernity. He died fairly young. A finished 10th or a speculative 12th symphony a few years later (with the composer being still not even 60 years old) might have been free/atonal in all but name. Of course, the huge symphonies did fall out of favor as well (cf. Schönberg never following up on a piece like "Gurrelieder").
And he was not at all out of his time. (Of course, nobody really is, but there are cases like late Beethoven and late Schubert and maybe a few others where it was historically true to the extent that the music was not followed up on but still admired. Whereas Zemlinsky's Lyric symphony or Berg's op.6 pieces are IMO clear followups to Mahler.) There have been technical comparisons showing similarities between (I think) the 2nd symphony and Strauss' Death and Transfiguration.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Well I am clear as to which 'cult' I belong to - the Malx cult. I like what I like and I really don't care who wrote it, when it was written, only what it sounds like. The notion that someone can't like one composers work because they admit to liking another 'group' of composers work is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

tdc said:


> Of course, but do you think it is Mahler's best symphonic movement? Or the only one that is beautiful? Its not hard for me to understand why someone would find it beautiful, my confusion is related to why some seem to treat it as the only great Mahler movement, or the peak of all of his music. There are a number of beautiful Mahler symphonic movements, like the final movement of _Das Lied von der Erde_, the first movement of the 9th, the adagio from the 10th etc. I don't generally see those ones singled out.


I try my best not to say whether something is "better" or "the best" in relation to a composer with whom I love. The reason is because I know that deep down I'm only fooling myself with trying to narrow down what I believe to be great when the reality is there's so much great music out there that it seems a fruitless task to say what is better. What matters to me nowadays is whether I'm moved by it and if I am, then I feel the composer has done their job. There are endless moments throughout Mahler's oeuvre that I feel a strong affinity for and find gorgeous --- the _Adagietto_ from the 5th is only one out of many.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Of the composers mentioned in the OP I only like some Holst and some Mahler. None of the others. How does that fit with the hypothesis?


----------



## AaronSF (Sep 5, 2021)

The OP's premise doesn't work for me. Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov, Chopin, Holst? What an odd combination! It would never occur to me to put these composers together and then set up a dichotomy with Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms. Romanticism in music for me starts with late Beethoven and Schubert, comes fully into its own with Schumann and Chopin, matures with Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner, Liszt, Fauré, Berlioz, and R. Strauss, then essentially ends with Mahler, who edged up toward atonality, looked over the cliff, and didn't jump. Mahler's emotional canvas also exaggerates and stretches the emotionality of the Romantics to a breaking point. Indeed, much of Mahler is about going to extremes again and again and then backing off without a "satisfactory" musical or emotional resolution. To me there's a real _coitus interruptus_ quality to his music...frustratingly intense and intensely frustrating.

I've always liked Mahler since first hearing him in the early '70s, and a big part of why I like his music is the sense it always gives me of the imminent end of a huge chunk of Western civilization. He seems to sum up musically the incredible tragedy of the First World War, as though he saw it coming. The First World War is a demarcation point, after which accepted rules and traditions about virtually everything (certainly in the arts) were called into question. For me Mahler was the musical inflection point after which nothing was the same.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> ........
> Maybe we'll all rediscover Tchaikovsky; there hasn't been a really great new set of his symphonies for a long, long time ......


I would certainly hope so. A rediscovery of Tchaikovsky's magnificent music would be very welcome. I don't understand the relative obscurity the music of the great Russian has fallen into.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

haziz said:


> I would certainly hope so. A rediscovery of Tchaikovsky's magnificent music would be very welcome. I don't understand the relative obscurity the music of the great Russian has fallen into.


Surely you jest ... just look at reviews of concerts and see the frequency with which Tchaikovsky symphonies show up, also the concerti, and what about the ballets?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

haziz said:


> .... A rediscovery of Tchaikovsky's magnificent music would be very welcome. I don't understand the relative obscurity the music of the great Russian has fallen into.


Especially the excellent symphonies 1-3.....give 4, 5 and 6 a rest.....the first three are really excellent works....


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Heck148 said:


> Especially the excellent symphonies 1-3.....give 4, 5 and 6 a rest.....the first three are really excellent works....


...and the 4 orchestral suites


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I love Tchaikovsky, Holst, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann.... and on and on.

Mahler drives me to distraction. His symphonies are soo... crushingly... long... and meandering. At least fellow crushingly long composer Bruckner (whom I enjoy) makes it clear what idea he's developing.

Mahler has beautiful sounds. It's just like a ten gallon (45L) milkshake that's been blended into incomprehensibility for me.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I love Tchaikovsky, Holst, Brahms, Schubert, Schumann.... and on and on.
> 
> Mahler drives me to distraction. His symphonies are soo... crushingly... long... and meandering. At least fellow crushingly long composer Bruckner (whom I enjoy) makes it clear what idea he's developing.
> 
> Mahler has beautiful sounds. It's just like a ten gallon (45L) milkshake that's been blended into incomprehensibility for me.


I adore Tchaikovsky and like Holst, Brahms and Schumann. I am however meh about Mahler, and simply detest Bruckner's music. I think Ethereality's theory about preference for clusters of composers does not have a real basis. We all have our own quirks and preferences for individual composers and sometimes individual compositions.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I am too young to remember "Death in Venice" (actually wasn't born when it came out and never saw the movie, didn't much like the novella either although I only read it once as a teenager long ago) but I believe that the Adagietto was not particularly famous as an isolated piece before that movie. And the "boom" for Mahler preceded that movie at least to some extent. 

Nevertheless I remember well that Mahler was still somewhat exotic (or at least considered an "advanced" preference) when I got into classical music as a teenager in the late 1980s. A funny thing seems also that some of the features of Mahler that were held against him and also against particularly subjective/passionate interpretations (like Bernstein's) by some commentators earlier were turned into virtues. Overall, I have the impression that many large scale late romantic/(early) modern symphonies have gained a lot of popularity in the last ca. 40 years. This didn't hurt Beethoven or Brahms much, but maybe Tchaikovsky, Rimsky, Richard Strauss and a few others that represented "orchestral spectacular" in the 1960s lost a bit of status and share of attention. It's not that Mahler, Bruckner, Sibelius, Nielsen, Shostakovich were unknown in the 1960s but as I said they were all considered rather "niche" (compared with Brahms, Dvorak, Strauss) when I was a teenager in the late 1980s. The "internationalization" began of course earlier, basically with LPs being reasonably affordable and stereo/sound quality more conducive for the appreciation of large orchestral music, so people were not as restricted to local programming as before. I once read a commentary from ca. 1960 (might even have been by Bruno Walter) about Bruckner being second only to Beethoven and Mozart in Austria but virtually never played e.g. in France.

As for the clusters, I think there is often clustering of preferences (such as "anglophile", "russophile", "pianophile" more focus on chamber or more on big orchestral music etc.) but there are no hard and fast rules and the particular suggestions in the OP don't seem that plausible to me.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

mbhaub said:


> ........
> Maybe we'll all rediscover Tchaikovsky; there hasn't been a really great new set of his symphonies for a long, long time ......


I agree that the great music of Tchaikovsky has been in relative neglect recently.

Speaking of Tchaikovsky symphony cycles, it depends on your definition of recent, but I do love Jurowski's cycle with the London Philharmonic Orchestra. A fine, relatively recent, Tchaikovsky cycle, but yes there is a relative dearth of those.


----------

