# Climbing to the Summit



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Being here and attending Mahlerian's posts and 'Mahlerians' posters I get interest in exploring Mahler's symphonies. The only one I know well is just his first. Several attempts for the second and all them fail. And that was all. I purchased some time ago the Klaus Tennstedt cycle. Not planning to purchase other by the moment this is the box set with which the adventure will take place.

I 'feel' -intuition- that Mahler's symphonies are one of the few highest peaks to climb. So, I have got the equipment and the 'sherpas' so to reach the summit.

Any advice is welcome.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

At least you've established Base Camp, Ondine! And even if your crampons and ice pick fail to dig in occasionally I still think you'll eventually plant the flag at the top if you persevere. If you're happy with the 1st then I would listen to the others just once (and in order), then go back and renew your battle with the 2nd.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Don't feel the need to scale them in order. The peaks are of different sizes and shapes, so some people have an easier time attacking one over another. CoAG's favorite outpost to spend time in is the 7th, but most people find the climate there rather inhospitable. Just because everyone else seems to have the "I climbed the Resurrection Symphony" bumper sticker doesn't mean that you have to drive up the side in order to get there as fast as possible. Take your time, let your eyes adjust to the scenery, and build the stamina you need to rappel up the steeper ones.


----------



## RussianIvan (Jun 30, 2013)

Hello! I have personally never thought of Mahler's symphonies as some kind of a summit. To my mind they are rather openly experimental and not self-contained. That is, perhaps, a fascinating thing about Mahler's symphonies - they reflect the process of their creation, reflect a personality of their composer, his_ imperfect_ personality. Probably, that is what distiguishes Mahler as a neo-romantic composer from romantic composers, who, arguably, always tried to create a perfect beauty as a result of a perfect beauty of an inner personality of a composer. 
In my opinion, Mahler made very inventive, but also very imperfect works (which is not a bad thing, in this case). This imperfectness, is, perhaps, a (quasi)intentional device, which he used to reach the listeners, to give them a feeling of participation in the creative process. Arguably, after Mahler, no one used such a device with a comparable success, except, perhaps Schostakovich in his 4th symphony.
But, well, that's just my idea about Mahler, which (partly) has been invented just now.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

RussianIvan said:


> Hello! I have personally never thought of Mahler's symphonies as some kind of a summit. To my mind they are rather openly experimental and not self-contained. That is, perhaps, a fascinating thing about Mahler's symphonies - they reflect the process of their creation, reflect a personality of their composer, his_ imperfect_ personality. Probably, that is what distiguishes Mahler as a neo-romantic composer from romantic composers, who, arguably, always tried to create a perfect beauty as a result of a perfect beauty of an inner personality of a composer.


What about Schumann? Berlioz? Chopin? Their works consistently denied the traditional symmetries of classical "perfection" in favor of what in their eyes was a more expressive style that embraced the banal, the disturbing, and the shocking in order to achieve the sublime, which is not always pretty. Mahler's music continues of these trends while also taking into account the developments in harmony and form in Wagner and since.

Some aspects of Mahler's technique, particularly his incisive and fragmentary orchestration and emphasis on development, looked forward to the era of modernism that followed him, but his symphonic form was always built on the past. What about his works strikes you as not "self-contained"? There are quotations that bleed over from one movement or (more rarely) work into another, true, but each work is a closed entity in itself to the same extent as a symphony by Beethoven, Mozart, or Schubert, presenting themes and developing them, resolving harmonic tensions, and so forth.


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

Ondine said:


> Being here and attending Mahlerian's posts and 'Mahlerians' posters I get interest in exploring Mahler's symphonies. The only one I know well is just his first. Several attempts for the second and all them fail. And that was all. I purchased some time ago the Klaus Tennstedt cycle. Not planning to purchase other by the moment this is the box set with which the adventure will take place.
> 
> I 'feel' -intuition- that Mahler's symphonies are one of the few highest peaks to climb. So, I have got the equipment and the 'sherpas' so to reach the summit.
> 
> Any advice is welcome.


I'm working on getting into Mahler, I've just listened to the second ands it's tremendulent, I can't wait to continue with this.


----------



## RussianIvan (Jun 30, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> What about Schumann? Berlioz? Chopin? Their works consistently denied the traditional symmetries of classical "perfection" in favor of what in their eyes was a more expressive style that embraced the banal, the disturbing, and the shocking in order to achieve the sublime, which is not always pretty. Mahler's music continues of these trends while also taking into account the developments in harmony and form in Wagner and since.
> 
> Some aspects of Mahler's technique, particularly his incisive and fragmentary orchestration and emphasis on development, looked forward to the era of modernism that followed him, but his symphonic form was always built on the past. What about his works strikes you as not "self-contained"? There are quotations that bleed over from one movement or (more rarely) work into another, true, but each work is a closed entity in itself to the same extent as a symphony by Beethoven, Mozart, or Schubert, presenting themes and developing them, resolving harmonic tensions, and so forth.


That is perhaps, what I mean by "my opinion". It is a question of quantity turning (or not turning) into quality.

In my opinion the scale on which Mahler uses these devices - I mean uncommon instruments, uncommonly huge orchestras, "banal" melodies, "folk" orchestration, mixing of historical styles (the 5th symphony finale can serve as an example), very uncommon structure of his works - all this gives his music a conceptual quality, which is very different from the music of the other [romantic] composers before him. All this together I call "not self-contained". Perhaps, I could also called my feeling about this with the words "open structure".
Schnittke was very much influenced by such a style, but right now I feel, that this oppenness of structure was never a thing, that he wanted to be felt genuine. While for Mahler it was just his, that's all.

I'm not a musicologist, therefore, not liabile for any of my personal opinions


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I found the 2nd far more accessible than the 1st somehow. It really resonated with me. 

I feel I should move on to the 3rd even though that is a bit of a white elephant, but tonight after dinner is a good time to try it since it is Mahler's birthday. No Google doodle though! I am disappointed.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

If Mahler is a mountain, it seems higher from a distance than up close.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

RussianIvan said:


> In my opinion the scale on which Mahler uses these devices - I mean uncommon instruments, uncommonly huge orchestras, "banal" melodies, "folk" orchestration, mixing of historical styles (the 5th symphony finale can serve as an example), very uncommon structure of his works - all this gives his music a conceptual quality, which is very different from the music of the other [romantic] composers before him. All this together I call "not self-contained". Perhaps, I could also called my feeling about this with the words "open structure".


By the scale of symphonic music, Mahler's orchestra was large, but similar-sized groups were common for tone poems and operas. Massed choral ensemble renditions of, say, Handel's Messiah, with 1000 or more musicians, were a 19th century staple. The use of multiple styles within a piece can be traced as far back as Monteverdi (who frequently made use of both the old polyphonic technique as well as the more contemporary homophonic style) and continues through Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, and countless others. The list of composers who made use of "pastoral" or "folk" elements is similarly long. The "banality" of Mahler's melodies is only locally applicable, and as I implied, examples of that kind may be found elsewhere in the canonic literature.

The structures of his works are not exceedingly unusual; Mahler used sonata form as a firm basis for even his wildest fantasias. The scale of his works is only marginally larger than that of Beethoven's 9th.

On the one hand, if Mahler's music depended entirely on "effects" such as these for its quality, then it might be deserving of the somewhat derisive "conceptual" label. It does not. One needs to know nothing of what elements are used to understand the music, which stands alone as pure music (and Mahler knew this when he forbade any programs, even those he himself had written, usually after the fact, to be attached to performances of his works).


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

For me, I got really curious reading Mahlerian's blog. Plus I have a box set of the symphs. Tried listening a few times but didn't warm to them. I only committed to the fifth when Mahlerian was writing it up and I thought, it's a good opportunity to learn, and listen. I committed to it. I wanted to do it but there were other easier things to do. It's a benefit of this forum, how generously people share and encourage, and armed with the blog I listened. I'm no expert but this opened the door a peek. I can say I know little of Mahler, but if I put on the fifth it no longer daunts me. In fact, I wonder why it ever did...


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Bix said:


> I'm working on getting into Mahler, I've just listened to the second ands it's tremendulent, I can't wait to continue with this.


I finally completed the second on Friday night. I need to hear it several times but after having heard all his ten. I felt it quite fragmentary with pieces here and there but at the very end there is a feeling of completeness, Malherian (post #5) has commented with which I agree.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

RussianIvan said:


> "open structure".


That's the feeling I have.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Weston said:


> I found the 2nd far more accessible than the 1st somehow. It really resonated with me.
> 
> I feel I should move on to the 3rd even though that is a bit of a white elephant, but tonight after dinner is a good time to try it since it is Mahler's birthday. No Google doodle though! I am disappointed.


Yesterday I tried the 3rd and I love it.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> [...]. One needs to know nothing of what elements are used to understand the music, which stands alone as pure music (and Mahler knew this when he forbade any programs, even those he himself had written, usually after the fact, to be attached to performances of his works).


This is my musical creed, Mahlerian.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Kieran said:


> It's a benefit of this forum, how generously people share and encourage, and armed with the blog I listened. I'm no expert but this opened the door a peek.


Yes, I agree Kieran. Slowly, I started to get curious about Mahler and I am discovering him really interesting. Open to many feelings and emotional responses.

Take into account that I am commencing this endeavour from Viennese Classicism and Baroque background, so I need time to get acquainted with this new language.

I will have a look to Mahlerian's Blog


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I thought I would try to stay in keeping with the original spirit of the thread...I think a good "base camp" is the 1st symphony. After all, it was Mahler's first effort in the symphonic realm and contains some of his most familiar music. Mahler seems to yield the most reward, at least for me, when I listen to his symphonies in chronological order. They follow a very logical path, and they're often grouped together as such, e.g., 1 through 4, 5 through 7, 8 and 9. The later symphonies (esp. 6 through 9) are better reached after having gone through the earlier ones...just like climbing a mountain, eh? Put into the context of Mahler's artistic development, they are more easily grasped. My personal favorite is his 6th symphony, but I definitely had to spend some time with his earlier symphonies before I could really adjust to the higher altitude.
The great thing about Mahler is that no matter how many times you listen to his music, you'll come away with a completely new experience. He'll take a tune that by itself is completely ordinary, yet spin it into a musical fabric that gives it a whole new meaning. This is what makes Mahler's alpine air so bracing, at least for me.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Celloman said:


> The great thing about Mahler is that no matter how many times you listen to his music, you'll come away with a completely new experience. He'll take a tune that by itself is completely ordinary, yet spin it into a musical fabric that gives it a whole new meaning. This is what makes Mahler's alpine air so bracing, at least for me.


Yes, that's what I am realizing.


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

I absolutely love the 6th. Scary in a good way. An important musical statement about war. Speaking as a Mozart fan I think the 6th Symphony is a good bridge into Mahler for one who is familiar with the darker elements of Mozart's music.

(EDIT: The "war" thing may be editorializing... but have a listen and see if you don't agree )


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Kieran said:


> For me, I got really curious reading Mahlerian's blog. Plus I have a box set of the symphs. Tried listening a few times but didn't warm to them. I only committed to the fifth when Mahlerian was writing it up and I thought, it's a good opportunity to learn, and listen. I committed to it. I wanted to do it but there were other easier things to do. It's a benefit of this forum, how generously people share and encourage, and armed with the blog I listened. I'm no expert but this opened the door a peek. I can say I know little of Mahler, but if I put on the fifth it no longer daunts me. In fact, I wonder why it ever did...


Mahler liked Mozart's music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fact is that many a Mahler symphony is not cohesive for the reason the poor man could only really compose during the summer months when he was free of intensive conducting duties. It is difficult, even for genius, to work on some large-scale piece in bits, with nearly nine months in between when one can pick up where one left off. (IMHO, this 'shows' in much of the symphonies.)

That particular criticism is technical, and a small academic point in light of the tremendous quality of the writing, the music itself.

But how Mahler worked means there may be, for any listener of the symphonies, a feeling of a number of great movements strung together under the banner of one symphony: it also means you really do not have to, initially or later, listen to them all the way through -- though that is the opposite of what I believe and tend to do myself 

Nos. 1, 4, 9 are to me the most consistent, 'cohesive' works. The 4th is the most 'classical' as well as the briefest of them all.

I personally don't at all care for the 9th, and think the 2nd, in general, ridiculously over-revered if not overrated due to its textual content.

You might wish to find one movement of any of them which 'takes you.' and then expand your listening to the other movements from the particular symphony, then put them in order for the full listen through.

Don't forget the masterpiece of Das Lied von Der Erde... which is really another symphony of sorts.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't understand why you have to like Mahler now, there's plenty of other classical music you might be more profitable at present listening to. Maybe come back to Mahler when you are more ready to like it, what's the rush? And there have been some Mahler threads but does that mean if there were some Schoenberg threads you'd rush to listen to that, or on a popular music forum lots of dubstep threads you'd feel you have to listen there? It just sounds like you want to go with what you think is popular here, rather than just finding what you like now. I don't see how you can really force liking something.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Fact is that many a Mahler symphony is not cohesive for the reason the poor man could only really compose during the summer months when he was free of intensive conducting duties. It is difficult, even for genius, to work on some large-scale piece in bits, with nearly nine months in between when one can pick up where one left off. (IMHO, this 'shows' in much of the symphonies.)
> 
> That particular criticism is technical, and a small academic point in light of the tremendous quality of the writing, the music itself.
> 
> ...


I feel that whatever you're hearing, it's not for the reasons you think. Nos. 1 and 4 were composed over relatively long stretches of time, and I personally feel that the 1st is less consistent in a number of ways than any of the ones that followed.

The symphony composed in the shortest span was the 8th (what he completed of the 10th as well), which, incidentally, is thematically the most succinct of the set. But I'm sure that your aesthetics don't align with it at all. Which brings me to the question: if you don't feel a strong attraction to the works as whole pieces, or indeed to the symphony as a form in general from 1850 or so on, do you think you can judge its particular aesthetics (rather than merely the technical quality of the writing on a moment-to-moment level) as well as those who do? Pierre Boulez said that he looks to Mahler as a prime example of how to construct large-scale form, and I believe many in the 20th century have done the same.


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

starry said:


> I don't understand why you have to like Mahler now, there's plenty of other classical music you might be more profitable at present listening to. Maybe come back to Mahler when you are more ready to like it, what's the rush? And there have been some Mahler threads but does that mean if there were some Schoenberg threads you'd rush to listen to that, or on a popular music forum lots of dubstep threads you'd feel you have to listen there? It just sounds like you want to go with what you think is popular here, rather than just finding what you like now. I don't see how you can really force liking something.


Are you saying that we are Ovis Aries of the order Artiodactyla?

I don't think anyone in these posts so far have said that they are looking into Mahler because he is trendy at the moment, or because there is lots of talk of him at present, or because _Ooooooh Ooooooh Mahlers so popular that I won't be taken seriously unless I force myself to like his music _.

People are saying that they have listened to Mahler before or have not and that they are now exploring his music - the fact that many people on this forum speak of Mahler is only a benefit because we can learn from others.

And as to what is profitable about listening to music I don't know.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I also don't think you can take Mahler's "vacation time in a hut near a lake" as a strict composing period. Creativity can, and did for Mahler, weave continuously. He was a supreme observer long before formalizing the compositions. Just sayin'. :tiphat:


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

You can learn some things from others, but whether you can learn to love music just from what someone else says is questionable I think. And you don't have to like everything by a composer either, I would take what I like, if I don't like something I don't worry about it I might grow to like it years later or I might never. There's always plenty of other music to enjoy. And there is no doubt that some do want to like music that others do on forums, I never said it was certainly that here but I've seen it enough times in other places. Though why would anyone consider it to be a 'summit' of music if they don't like most of it? Just based on what somebody else says? Mahler probably isn't thought of as trendy now as back in the 60s or even 80s, not that I care anyway as that shouldn't be relevant. With Mahler the easiest ones for many are probably earlier pieces like 1,2 and 4. 4 could even be the most popular among those who are very selective with his symphonies.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

starry said:


> You can learn some things from others, but whether you can learn to love music just from what someone else says is questionable I think. And you don't have to like everything by a composer either, I would take what I like, if I don't like something I don't worry about it I might grow to like it years later or I might never. There's always plenty of other music to enjoy. And there is no doubt that some do want to like music that others do on forums, I never said it was certainly that here but I've seen it enough times in other places. Though why would anyone consider it to be a 'summit' of music if they don't like most of it? Just based on what somebody else says? Mahler probably isn't thought of as trendy now as back in the 60s or even 80s, not that I care anyway as that shouldn't be relevant. With Mahler the easiest ones for many are probably earlier pieces like 1,2 and 4. 4 could even be the most popular among those who are very selective with his symphonies.


This is just, to me, odd. All someone has done is had their interest piqued and is then following through on that interest. What piqued the interest is of no consequence in the big scheme. It certainly was not some pop marketing hype which brought the OP to Mahler. You allude to 'other composers' that would be as good or better to investigate, yet name no alternate composers or pieces. Is there some other composer you wish to advocate in lieu of Mahler? and then a very salient question after that would be why you wish to advocate that composer.

The OP looked at a blog, saw it, actively clicked on the blog link and then read it. All voluntary.

You can only love what you love, and no one can make you love something which you do not. That seems a blazing flash of the obvious to me.

You seem to be alluding to some imaginary force of influence, the OP being 'weak' or easily led. I think the OP, and others, don't need so much looking after.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

PetrB said:


> You allude to 'other composers' that would be as good or better to investigate, yet name no alternate composers or pieces. Is there some other composer you wish to advocate in lieu of Mahler? and then a very salient question after that would be why you wish to advocate that composer.
> 
> You can only love what you love, and no one can make you love something which you do not. That seems a blazing flash of the obvious to me.


I don't really think you get my point at all. Why would I be advocating composers that someone else should listen to if I think they should just decide for themselves? And why would I say someone shouldn't love what they love if my advice would be for them to do just that? Anyway for me Mahler isn't a 'summit' of classical music at present because even if some others think he is I'm not convinced (like the OP really). That might change in the future or it may not, but I don't worry about it or think that he is a summit that is somehow vital to conquer.

As a separate point if others love Mahler that's great, good for them, though he is more of a cult figure than a generally loved one I feel.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Don't feel the need to scale them in order. The peaks are of different sizes and shapes, so some people have an easier time attacking one over another. CoAG's favorite outpost to spend time in is the 7th, but most people find the climate there rather inhospitable. Just because everyone else seems to have the "I climbed the Resurrection Symphony" bumper sticker doesn't mean that you have to drive up the side in order to get there as fast as possible. Take your time, let your eyes adjust to the scenery, and build the stamina you need to rappel up the steeper ones.


Each symphony is a summit to me, I currently have (in the order I got them) "I climbed Song of the Night," "I climbed the Titan," "I climbed the 4th," and I've nearly got "I climbed the Resurrection Symphony." Yes, I have heard them all at least a few times, but with Mahler I don't immediately "climb" to the summit, rather I sit to the side and admire the great beauty and passion they all have.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

starry said:


> You can learn some things from others, but whether you can learn to love music just from what someone else says is questionable I think. And you don't have to like everything by a composer either, I would take what I like, if I don't like something I don't worry about it I might grow to like it years later or I might never. There's always plenty of other music to enjoy. And there is no doubt that some do want to like music that others do on forums, I never said it was certainly that here but I've seen it enough times in other places. Though why would anyone consider it to be a 'summit' of music if they don't like most of it? Just based on what somebody else says? Mahler probably isn't thought of as trendy now as back in the 60s or even 80s, not that I care anyway as that shouldn't be relevant. With Mahler the easiest ones for many are probably earlier pieces like 1,2 and 4. 4 could even be the most popular among those who are very selective with his symphonies.


Hey! Nobody has forced me to listen to Mahler.

I have had a gut feeling -since- about him and his symphonic oeuvre. That is all. I am a curious person who like to explore different things that sometimes challenges my comfort zone. Feels good for me. That is all.

Also I have to say this: I am a very slow listener. I can't process too much music; I can get lost. One piece at a time.


----------



## Ondine (Aug 24, 2012)

Update:

Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 have been listen once. To soon to tell about them because it is just a first approach but I can tell that while number one is still beautiful, number three has been outstanding as number five.

Number six has mixed feelings: the opening and last movements are wonderful while the middle movements were quite clustered but in general sixth is a great work.

Maybe this weekend I will listen the rest of them.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Ondine said:


> Update:
> 
> Numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 have been listen once. To soon to tell about them because it is just a first approach but I can tell that while number one is still beautiful, number three has been outstanding as number five.
> 
> ...


Listen to symphony no. 7 just the first movement on repeat. That movement is the best single movement in any symphony ever written (apart from symphonies by *Sibelius*).


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Listen to symphony no. 7 just the first movement on repeat. That movement is the best single movement in any symphony ever written (apart from symphonies by *Sibelius*).


Gonna try that out now


----------



## Bix (Aug 12, 2010)

Bix said:


> Gonna try that out now


Of course I'll listen to the whole thing, I don't want a spanking from Mahlerian


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Bix said:


> Of course I'll listen to the whole thing, I don't want a spanking from Mahlerian


Yes, you be a good boy and listen to the 7th. And don't let me catch you attaching any nicknames to it either, like that naughty CoAG...


----------



## RussianIvan (Jun 30, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> By the scale of symphonic music, Mahler's orchestra was large, but similar-sized groups were common for tone poems and operas. Massed choral ensemble renditions of, say, Handel's Messiah, with 1000 or more musicians, were a 19th century staple. The use of multiple styles within a piece can be traced as far back as Monteverdi (who frequently made use of both the old polyphonic technique as well as the more contemporary homophonic style) and continues through Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann, Brahms, Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner, and countless others. The list of composers who made use of "pastoral" or "folk" elements is similarly long. The "banality" of Mahler's melodies is only locally applicable, and as I implied, examples of that kind may be found elsewhere in the canonic literature.
> 
> The structures of his works are not exceedingly unusual; Mahler used sonata form as a firm basis for even his wildest fantasias. The scale of his works is only marginally larger than that of Beethoven's 9th.
> 
> On the one hand, if Mahler's music depended entirely on "effects" such as these for its quality, then it might be deserving of the somewhat derisive "conceptual" label. It does not. One needs to know nothing of what elements are used to understand the music, which stands alone as pure music (and Mahler knew this when he forbade any programs, even those he himself had written, usually after the fact, to be attached to performances of his works).


Well, then to you Mahler is "conceptually" no different from Beethoven and Stravinskiy from Mozart) Maybe I'm just too tied by the opinions on Mahler's music, which I've once read in some popular sources (not books on musicology).


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, you be a good boy and listen to the 7th. And don't let me catch you attaching any nicknames to it either, like that naughty CoAG...


Like "Song of the Night?"


----------

