# Mahler: What's the fuss about?!



## EDaddy

At the risk of upsetting some people, can someone tell me please what the big hoopla is about Mahler?
I have tried and tried and tried to like his symphonies, to no avail. Case in point: his Symphony #5. What a bumbling, over-reaching, piece of neurotic nonsense! It sounds like a man who couldn't freaking make up his mind. Musically speaking that is. His motif's sound half baked, uninspired (but trying to be) and utterly sophomoric to me. There's questionable continuity at best and the guy couldn't write a memorable melody if his life depended on it. I mean, help me out here, folks. Do you ever find yourself humming a Mahler melody or motif?

Now granted, I'm holding him up to some pretty stringent standards here. I'm not comparing him to a list of average composers. I'm putting the quality of his composing skills up against the likes of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Schumann, Shostakovich... heck, even Bruckner blows him out of the water as a composer IMO. At least Bruckner's best symphonies have continuity, clarity of line, flow, depth of emotion (but not at the expense of structure and musicality) and counterpoint that makes sense! Whereas Mahler, more often than not, sounds as if he was trying _way _too hard, over thinking everything, and just stringing a bunch of discombobulated musical sections together like a patch quilt.

His 1st symphony IMO was his most uniform and well-constructed from a compositional standpoint. His 2nd admittedly has some inspired moments, but the operative word here is _moments_. It, like most of his symphonic works, have so much filler (dare I say bunk?) in between otherwise disparate islands of inspiration that are crying out to feel a connection with something.

Help me out here guys. I've tried so hard to like this guy. What am I missing?


----------



## Ravndal

Woops. I know I'm totally wrong, but I so totally agree with you. Though, "even bruckner is better"?? Bruckner is fantastic. And I also like Mahler's first.


----------



## FleshRobot

Just move on then. Asking for a broad-based toolbox that will allow you to connect to music might continue another of those endless debates in this forum.


----------



## EDaddy

Thank you Ravndal! Nice to know someone else agrees. _Are you wrong? _Then again, what _is_ right or wrong when it comes to music? The saying "One man's ceiling is another man's floor" springs to mind.

For the record, I absolutely love Bruckner! I see how my wording could have suggested otherwise. But Mahler?... I just don't get it or how he is even considered to be on the same tier.


----------



## EDaddy

Ah, but what's the fun if not a debate, Flesh? ;-)


----------



## Mister Man

Mahler Symphony No.9 is nice. The 4th movement makes me cry.

Your ear is more experienced than mine and I can't relate.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

> *Originally posted by EDaddy*
> Case in point: his Symphony #5. What a bumbling, over-reaching, piece of neurotic nonsense! It sounds like a man who couldn't freaking make up his mind. Musically speaking that is. His motif's sound half baked, uninspired (but trying to be) and utterly sophomoric to me.


Fighting talk!

I find myself whistling and humming stray Mahler themes all the time. In my opinion he's a master symphonist and lieder-setter. But me saying that isn't going to change your opinion of music you've heard and don't like.

So, each to his or her own. And thank goodness for difference and variety.


----------



## hpowders

Repeated exposure might change OP's mind.


----------



## EDaddy

I don't know about my ear being more advanced, MM. We all hear things in our own way. His 9th is another example to me of a work of Mahler's that has pockets of inspired and beautiful moments. I agree with you about the 4th movement, and the first as well. I don't know... I guess I want to hear those moments occur more often. I guess I like excerpts of Mahler, as opposed to entire (or close to entire) symphonies.


----------



## PetrB

What is the big hooplah-gooplah about Bach, Mozart, Berg, Beethoven, Berio, Brahms, Stravinsky, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Brahms, etc. etc. etc.?

They were all terrific composers. That is usually why there is a "hooplah-dooplah" about any artist's work.

Besides, if Mahler is somehow 'not talking to you' -- i.e. in a way inaccessible to you -- there is always Bruckner, with those (outwardly) more readily recognizable simple themes, (they're certainly repeated enough so just about anyone knows they are there and recognizes them) and for the listener less willing or able to 'go modern,' (and late romantic, etc. Mahler was a modern composer), Bruckner has that overall quality of that music proceeding by already known ways which came before, with which most listeners are already familiar.

Mahler may take some much more work, or if he remains forever elusive, then I think the listener should 'move on' to other repertoire.

No one gets absolutely everything.


----------



## EDaddy

I know I hit a bees nest with a baseball bat, Turnabout! Clearly I must be missing something 
because his 5th literally makes me wanna slap my mama!


----------



## hpowders

Who's stopping you?


----------



## FleshRobot

EDaddy said:


> Ah, but what's the fun if not a debate, Flesh? ;-)


Well, if that's the case, *you're wrong about Mahler.*


----------



## Mahlerian

The Fifth Symphony is not only not any of the things you have said, not only not a sloppy patchwork, it is a resolutely coherent symphonic statement without any filler whatsoever in which all of the themes are interconnected.

I find Mahler to be one of the most melodic composers. I have found entire sections or movements of his works running through my head.

The famous Adagietto theme, for example, is distinctly related to the opening funeral march in contour, and there are motivic elements that are common to all of the movements' main themes.

In my opinion, Shostakovich's symphonies don't even deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Mahler's. They're not even close to the same level. Bruckner's are somewhat more uneven, despite their structure and harmonic strengths.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> Who's stopping you?


_His_ Yo Mama (not to be confused with Yo-Yo Ma.)


----------



## EDaddy

Yeah, I knew I was probably taking a baseball bat to a bees nest but that was certainly not my intention. More just curious to hear what people have to say about the man's music that either speaks to them or not... and why. More just a curiosity than anything.


----------



## EDaddy

I might well be, Flesh. I might well be.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> _His_ Yo Mama (not to be confused with Yo-Yo Ma.)


I'm hoping the OP either spends many, many months listening intensely to Mahler's symphonies and lieder, over and over, since this is the only legitimate way to find out what "the fuss" is about, or simply decides to ignore his music.

Nobody can explain to the OP what "the fuss" about Mahler is.
Either he does the serious work involved to find out or he doesn't. Nobody here can do the serious ear work required for him.

All I can say is Mahler deserves the work required.


----------



## mmsbls

I don't try to analyze music since I don't know enough. I couldn't say if Mahler's symphonies are well constructed or not. For me every section of a Mahler symphony is a wonderful listening experience. I've described the full symphonies as similar to taking a journey. I seem to be in new places throughout, but each of those places strikes me as just right. I'm less concerned with finding a melody than hearing the beauty that seems always present. I find that I have a similar experience to both Bruckner and Mahler although I enjoy Mahler more.


----------



## PetrB

The OP seems to be a near perfect example of a post which announces opinion and seeks only confirmation / approval of that opinion. To me that is convincing enough that any supposed discussion which might change that opinion on Mahler is here useless.

Try Mahler in, say, another ten years; for now, with that opinion not about to be changed, a listener is better off listening to anything but Mahler. A decade will not change Mahler, or any composer a listener 'just does not get,' but it allows enough time for a real transformative change in the listener. Even then, time will not change all a person's tastes: after decades and decades, I still find Bruckner 'obvious' and boring.


----------



## Mahlerian

EDaddy said:


> Yeah, I knew I was probably taking a baseball bat to a bees nest but that was certainly not my intention. More just curious to hear what people have to say about the man's music that either speaks to them or not... and why. More just a curiosity than anything.


I love Mahler's music for the lyrical melodies, the ever-shifting orchestral colors, the inventiveness and solidity of the structures, the naturalness of the counterpoint and the manner in which even the most unimportant voice is made to play its valuable part, the way each event flows logically into the next while feeling utterly spontaneous, and, moreover, just the sheer beauty of the sound.

Sure, I could get specific and technical, but why bother?


----------



## EDaddy

On the contrary, PetrB, I seek to hear _all _opinions. If everyone had but one, what
would be the point?


----------



## PetrB

EDaddy said:


> On the contrary, PetrB, I seek to hear _all _opinions. If everyone had but one, what
> would be the point?


I agree, total agreement is boring.

I do sincerely think there is not much which will convince enough that in anytime soon will Mahler 'open up to you,' so the "move on" suggestion is also genuine, as is the advice to check in on Mahler, later, as in a good handful of years from now.

After all, you already know there is a huge fanbase for the man's music, and he is generally considered "one of the greats of all time." But it is "just music" and there are tons of repertoire to explore, excluding Mahler's symphonies and songs 

Meanwhile, your "I don't like / don't get Mahler and am at least a little proud of it" kit is in the mail; the inventory includes:
1 pin-on badge
4 stickers for your household to display on windows and entry door
1 bumper sticker
1 silk-screened T-shirt
1 embroidered bill cap.

The packet is part of a long-term service where in several years you get the same kit, which says instead, "I used to dislike Mahler, but since have heard and seen the light" 

ADD P.s. _Advisory_ Some of your opinions of this composer or piece may never change, i.e. for me, after a lifetime of training in music, theory, composition, and a fair familiarity with Bruckner of near fifty years, I still don't care for it


----------



## FleshRobot

EDaddy said:


> Yeah, I knew I was probably taking a baseball bat to a bees nest but that was certainly not my intention. More just curious to hear what people have to say about the man's music that either speaks to them or not... and why. More just a curiosity than anything.


I see it, but it's quite hard to express my felings towards his music using words. It would just come out as "amazing", "incredible", "epic", "wonderful melodies and orchestration" and then you would just disagree. I don't know the more technical stuff, so I coudn't help you with that, but then again, that's not what makes me enjoy music anyway. Also, since you've asked, I do find myself humming some of his music, principally the melody played by the baritone horn in the beggining of his 7th symphony.


----------



## Winterreisender

I find Mahler's symphonic output very diverse, which means there are some works I gravitate towards a lot more than others. The thirty minute slow movements of #3 and #9 aren't really to my taste (perhaps I just lack the attention span...) but I never tire of the theatrical character of #8 or the playful folk-inspired moments in #1. In my opinion #2 in is one of the most powerful symphonies I have heard; it contains everything Mahler is good at (Ländler, Lieder, epic choral finale, etc.). Personally, I find his symphonies infinitely more enjoyable than Bruckner's or Shostakovich's.


----------



## Novelette

Mahlerian said:


> The Fifth Symphony is not only not any of the things you have said, not only not a sloppy patchwork, it is a resolutely coherent symphonic statement without any filler whatsoever in which all of the themes are interconnected


So it has also seemed to me. "Discursive" is a word I would least associate with Mahler's 5th.


----------



## EDaddy

That's awesome, Mahlerian. I wish I could hear it like you do! To me it sounds like he wrote
each different section on different days/weeks/months, having lost "sight" of his original vision
and/or direction.

I liken it to this: You know how the sign of a great actor is one who is so good that we, the viewer, cease to remember that he/she is acting? As opposed to the actor who, by some lesser ability or whatever, keeps you from being able to enjoy the movie because you can't stop noticing how much they seem like they're acting? That's how Mahler is for me. I'm repeatedly shaken out of the moment when he transitions to some new musical thought that, to me, seems so... forced? Awkward? Unnatural? That's not to say it _is_ forced or awkward or unnatural. 
That's just how it hits me. And it keeps me forever on the periphery of his music, as opposed to being pulled into and losing myself in it. Might be my shortcoming; not his! Who knows? And who can say?

So fascinating how differently people can hear and react to the same piece of music. Isn't it?


----------



## EDaddy

_"Meanwhile, your "I don't like / don't get Mahler and am at least a little proud of it" kit is in the mail; the inventory includes:
1 pin-on badge
4 stickers for your household to display on windows and entry door
1 bumper sticker
1 silk-screened T-shirt
1 embroidered bill cap."_

LMAO!!! Touche! That's awesome!


----------



## EDaddy

Speaking of which, how do you do those posted by quotes? I need to do it proper.


----------



## shangoyal

If we are being open, why say that somebody might "get" Mahler's music in another 10 years. They might not get it in their entire lifetime. Their life purpose might not need them to listen to Mahler's music - or it might.

I personally like Mahler's music - it has a lot to say - but perhaps he is always a little too intense for my taste. My subjective response to his music-making is almost always that he is being a little spiteful, angry or showy - even though he is good at doing what he is doing, it just might have helped to be a bit more relaxed. I have heard he wrote his music in the summers off from his position as a reputed conductor - so perhaps if he had more time...


----------



## PetrB

EDaddy said:


> That's awesome, Mahlerian. I wish I could hear it like you do! To me it sounds like he wrote
> each different section on different days/weeks/months, having lost "sight" of his original vision
> and/or direction.
> 
> I liken it to this: You know how the sign of a great actor is one who is so good that we, the viewer, cease to remember that he/she is acting? As opposed to the actor who, by some lesser ability or whatever, keeps you from being able to enjoy the movie because you can't stop noticing how much they seem like they're acting? That's how Mahler is for me. I'm repeatedly shaken out of the moment when he transitions to some new musical thought that, to me, seems so... forced? Awkward? Unnatural? That's not to say it _is_ forced or awkward or unnatural.
> That's just how it hits me. And it keeps me forever on the periphery of his music, as opposed to being pulled into and losing myself in it. Might be my shortcoming; not his! Who knows? And who can say?
> 
> So fascinating how differently people can hear and react to the same piece of music. Isn't it?


Prokofiev, even in his most formalized pieces (i.e. _Form_), is an episodic composer. It sounds like you are 'reacting' to that in the Prokofiev and similarly to Mahler in general. Compared to Prokofiev, Mahler is much "stronger" (as in greatly) in making formal large and long structures, but for some more classical / formally oriented, _and with those expectations in mind_, I imagine Mahler could sound like he drops one idea or theme for another like a hot potato... in fact, he really does not, and from a structural / technical viewpoint that is one of "the marvels" of his works.

By comparison, Bruckner is a formalist who very much adheres to one idea being worked out within one movement and I think that makes his music, for the general listener, that much easier to follow (this the point of how many a listener listens, and what is first and most accessible; otherwise this was simplistic in the extreme in that Brahms, Bruckner, and Mahler are known for these huge formalized symphonic structures, which are anything but 'simple.')


----------



## brianvds

mmsbls said:


> I don't try to analyze music since I don't know enough. I couldn't say if Mahler's symphonies are well constructed or not. For me every section of a Mahler symphony is a wonderful listening experience. I've described the full symphonies as similar to taking a journey. I seem to be in new places throughout, but each of those places strikes me as just right. I'm less concerned with finding a melody than hearing the beauty that seems always present. I find that I have a similar experience to both Bruckner and Mahler although I enjoy Mahler more.


That was pretty much what I was going to say before you beat me to it. Especially the bit about taking a journey. I wouldn't know about analysis and formal structure and whatnot, and Mahler's symphonies do indeed sound a bit rambling to me, but that is precisely what I like about them - it's like taking a journey through a world he created, and you move from place to place while enjoying the sights and sounds.


----------



## Avey

EDaddy said:


> At the risk of upsetting some people, can someone tell me please what the big hoopla is about Mahler?


1. I wanted to after reading this first question, but then you said this...



EDaddy said:


> ... his Symphony #5. What a bumbling, over-reaching, piece of neurotic nonsense! It sounds like a man who couldn't freaking make up his mind. Musically speaking that is. His motif's sound half baked, uninspired (but trying to be) and utterly sophomoric to me. There's questionable continuity at best and the guy couldn't write a memorable melody if his life depended on it.


2. I don't berate composers here, nor do I castigate those who like any particular work. So, I do my best to ignore those who do. But I break that rule in some cases--which is, like, now.

3. Those are strong sentiments. Do you also write music?

4. And why such disdain? I find it difficult to respond coherently to such comments, at least to keep a discussion going, because it can only end up in argument. _I hate this, but why do you guys like it?_ That's not a good foundation.



EDaddy said:


> I mean, help me out here, folks. Do you ever find yourself humming a Mahler melody or motif?


5. The opening theme to the *Ninth Symphony* is etched into my psyche. It is an axiom that I live by. Or, I should say, one of several Mahler has given me.



EDaddy said:


> ... and counterpoint that makes sense!


6. _Rondo_, the *Ninth*. He wrote it for you.



EDaddy said:


> ...sounds as if he was trying _way _too hard, over thinking everything, and just stringing a bunch of discombobulated musical sections together like a patch quilt.


6. With your permission, I am _sooo_ stealing the "patch quilt" simile from you for one of my typical, strewn out expositions. Kudos.



EDaddy said:


> ... in between otherwise disparate islands of inspiration that are crying out to feel a connection with something.


7. The connection is *you*, the listener, the one who gets to experience it.


----------



## Blake

Stop pretending you don't like Mahler already, and like Mahler already. 

But honestly, nobody can fruitfully explain why they like what they like. We attach fickle concepts to hide our ignorance, but no one knows. Don't let them fool you. We just feel comfortable with the "idea" that we know. Dig what you like, and stop waisting time with what you don't. But if you enjoy opening up to a more difficult artist... then dig the ride. 

:tiphat:


----------



## PetrB

EDaddy said:


> ... and counterpoint that makes sense!


I'm reproducing my answer to this question given on another forum some years ago:

Q: Greatest contrapuntal masters?

A: 
Guillaume de Machaut
Josquin des Pres
Orlando di Lassus
Giovanni Palestrina
Jean-Phillippe Rameau (subtle as .... a completely other manner than his contemporary, Bach)
Claudio Monteverdi
Wolgang Mozart
Ludwig van Beethoven (imo, the strongest contrapuntal hand he played was in the Missa Solemnis)
Robert Schumann
Felix Mendelssohn
Frederic Chopin (peppered throughout much of his work: a great player, admirer and advocate of Bach)
Johannes Brahms
Gustav Mahler
Igor Stravinsky (Le Sacre du Printemps / Symphony of psalms, middle movement - inverted and double fugue / Concerto for two solo pianos, 4th movement, prelude e fuga) / Variations on von Himmel Hoch (Bach chorale tune with Baroque contrapuntal variants)
Bela Bartok (Music for Stringed Instruments, Percussion and Celesta, 1st movement Fugue)
Arnold Schoenberg
Alban Berg
Anton Webern
Claude Debussy (peppered throughout a lot of his work)
Dmitri Shostakovitch (a bit like re-inventing the wheel, but, ala Bach, 24 preludes and fugues)
Benjamin Britten (Variations and Fugue on a theme of Purcell)
Darius Milhaud
Olivier Messiaen
Gabriel Faure
Pierre Boulez
Charles Ives
Leon Nancarrow
Samuel Barber (Piano Sonata, last movement fugue)
Elliott Carter
Charles Wuorinen
Milton Babbitt
Avro Part
Olli Mustonen (try Nonet, 1995)

These few named - while omitting many more - because Counterpoint is a wonderful thing, and its cosmology goes far beyond the beauty of an 18th century Anglo-Saxon watch as a signifier of cosmic order..... Just to address that general 'Bach is it, and one and only.' type of neurosis which afflicts so many.

Best regards.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 
I've put it here for you, and anyone, who thinks "counterpoint" means and sounds like one and a half sorts of music in which it is manifest.

Point being, Mahler's counterpoint is masterly, with nothing at all to be considered weak or flawed. We're back to you either don't hear it, can't hear it, or _most likely think that "contrapuntal" should sound a certain way, which you are listening for while missing the quality and extent of Mahler's counterpoint._

I hope you do know the opening introduction to Stravinsky's _Le Sacre du Printemps_ is one of the most astounding displays of counterpoint, and that sounds nothing like the counterpoint of that north European Thuringian who was a master of 18th century north European style counterpoint -- and also that the 18th century northerm counterpoint is no end-all and be-all but one of many ways to skin a cat?


----------



## GGluek

Well, just the opposite for me. While I don't like it all, I listen to, and hum, Mahler all the time. But after fifty years of trying -- and not ducking into doorways when he approaches -- I find most of Bruckner uninteresting (to me), and not worth the time it takes to listen to it. Neither of us is "right." "One man's meat ..."


----------



## hpowders

I feel the same. Indifferent to Bruckner. Love Mahler. What do you mean I'm not right? :devil:


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> I feel the same. Indifferent to Bruckner. Love Mahler. What do you mean I'm not right? :devil:


With all due credit given the first on this forum to counterpost merely,
*"Your opinion is wrong!"*

... loved it!


----------



## hpowders

How can any opinion be wrong if it's simply an expression of what someone thinks and is not professing to be an absolute truth?

edit:^^^ it was late at night and the rum cake had kicked in rendering me extremely philosophical. It will never happen again!


----------



## arpeggio

*Here we go again*

Liking or disliking Mahler does not prove anything.

We have been reading threads like this for years. If you have been visiting this forum you would be aware of this and it makes us skeptical over your sincerity.

There are plenty of make me like Mozart or make me like Wagner or, heaven forbid, make me like Boulez threads.

All veteran listeners understand reacting to all art is a very subjective experience. In my case I do not get Verdi or Faure, yet the last thing I would do is start a thread screaming make me like Faure. :scold:

There is no way any of us can convince someone that they should like Mahler or Mozart or Verdi or whatever.

At our last orchestra rehearsal I was discussing this phenomenon with one of the members I play with. When I conceded to him that I found Faure boring he was aghast. I then got him to admit he could not stand Bel Canto singing.

All of us here have our little pet peeves. 'Ingelou' started a great thread entitled "Unworthy" where we bared out souls and acknowledged all the great music we did not get: http://www.talkclassical.com/30356-unworthy.html

Most of us could not care less if someone dislikes Mahler and they have every right to. What ticks many of us off is 90% of the time when a person starts a thread like this they have some sort of hidden agenda.

Liking Mahler does not prove that I am smarter than the average bear. Also, disliking Mahler does prove that I am smarter that the average bear.

Update: Sorry about the above rant. I get so tired when I see threads like this I lost my cool.


----------



## FleshRobot

arpeggio said:


> Also, disliking Mahler does prove that I am smarter that the average bear.


It does, doesn't it?


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> How can any opinion be wrong if it's simply an expression of what someone thinks and is not professing to be an absolute truth?
> 
> Help me. I just want to know why.


So, "Your opinion is wrong!" does not elicit the least bit of a tiny giggle from you? That is of course what it was meant to do


----------



## Ingélou

The OP is amazing. I like Mahler. I once knew nothing about him, but was helped by so many TC members, *especially by Mahlerian & PetrB.* But there are, of course, composers that I don't like - I just wouldn't start a thread proclaiming that BIg Composer X was not worth making a fuss about because I couldn't cotton to him. Why should the world take notice of that?

But on the other hand, there are some excellent posts on here explaining why so many people do like Mahler - *especially by Mahlerian and PetrB. *

The Resurrection Symphony is my favourite but I also like the first a lot, and there are parts of every symphony that I love - in particular, the Adagietto in the Fifth - Part 2 of the 8th, the Faust Poem - the Andante Comodo & the Adagio in the Ninth - and the Adagio in the Tenth. I have just revisited my thread 'Mahler - where should an ignoramus start', where I kept diary entries of first listening to Mahler's symphonies. In general, what I love about Mahler are the lyrical bits, often played by harp or strings, which for me are the music of serious, existential thought - they capture what it means to be a conscious being. (Pardon the technical language.  ) What I don't like about Mahler is what I called 'his beergarden style', rousing brass band stuff. But of course I wouldn't be without it. Light & shade. Exploration. As someone said above, a Mahler symphony invites you to share a journey.

This is a personal response, but a) the OP is largely personal taste too and b) we have some excellent musical analyses already, *especially by Mahlerian & PetrB!*

Oh, and btw, *delenda est Carthago...* :lol:


----------



## PetrB

Ingélou said:


> Oh, and btw, *delenda est Carthago...* :lol:


Lady, I'd be blushing if it weren't for the fact you made me look up the above Latin phrase


----------



## DavidA

I believe it was Leonard Bernstein who once said that the 20th century is the century of death and Mahler is its prophet.
Perhaps that's why I can't get on with Mahler, despite having many of his works on CD. All those strainings and heavings telling of death and despair. I prefer music that is more uplifting. But each to his own.


----------



## Guest

As someone who first experienced, and dlsliked, Mahler through the _Death in Venice_ soundtrack (around 1976/77), I can assure you that, over time, opinions can change. Whilst I can't say that I now _love _the man's music, I am willing to listen more sympathetically to his 5th Symphony, and the adagietto in particular, which does not sound as it dreary as I first thought.

Bruckner, on the other hand...I may need time _beyond _the grave to 'get it'.


----------



## starry

EDaddy said:


> I've tried so hard to like this guy.


Why? Wait till you have more interest in the music to try properly. It's not an exam you have to pass and there's no rush.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> So, "Your opinion is wrong!" does not elicit the least bit of a tiny giggle from you? That is of course what it was meant to do


Yes, but it was late at night and the rum cake.....

.....made me depressingly philosophical.

Forgive me. It will never happen again.


----------



## Xaltotun

Sometimes pure (repeated) experience enhances understanding, but often language will do more. That's just how our minds work. Often, there has been a piece of classical music that I haven't been able to get into, and then I've read just a tiny and banal program note, or a TalkClassical post, and bam - somehow my mind can then wrap around the piece. I don't even think that it's necessary for the bit of language to be objective or truthful to reality; it just has to be evocative and accurate enough to kickstart my mind into working its own way.

So what I'm saying is just that I think that these kinds of threads are actually meaningful, because a tiny bit of language can bridge a chasm that would otherwise require filling it up with loads of experience. Not that experience is meaningless, of course.

And with Mahler... how about reading some essays about his music, like Bernstein's _Mahler: His Time Has Come_ (it is very short but very good)? Also, listen to different recordings and interpretations, rather than just the same one over and over.


----------



## hpowders

Or simply getting The New York Philharmonic set of Mahler Symphonies (The Mahler Broadcasts, 1948-1982) recorded live by the likes of Barbrolli, Tennstedt, Boulez, Kubelik, Stokowski and Bruno Walter; play through it four or five times.
The "fuss" should be revealed without any help from anyone here.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I believe it was Leonard Bernstein who once said that the 20th century is the century of death and Mahler is its prophet.
> Perhaps that's why I can't get on with Mahler, despite having many of his works on CD. All those strainings and heavings telling of death and despair. I prefer music that is more uplifting. But each to his own.


Bernstein's Mahler is not my Mahler. Mahler is filled with struggle, yes, but so is Beethoven. Of all of Mahler's larger-scale works, how many end in the minor?*

*The answer is three: Das Klagende Lied, Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen, and the Sixth Symphony.


----------



## Xaltotun

Bernstein also wrote that Mahler "stood one foot in the 20th century, the other in the 19th"; I think someone like Shostakovich is much more a straightforward "prophet of death and destruction"; Mahler is always multi-faceted to the point of being wilfully self-contradictory (and that's a compliment).


----------



## Kieran

The problem with Gustav is, there isn't enough of him! His fifth and Das Lied are among my favourite non-Mozart music...


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahler is not among my favorite composers. Nowhere near the top of the list. In fact, with the exception of Bruckner, I like every composer the OP mentions - Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Schumann, Stravinsky - better than Mahler. Nevertheless, I recognize the genius in some of his work, especially the Fifth Symphony, and I think I can explain exactly what he is missing. But I would recommend that EDaddy listen to another side of Mahler before trying the symphonies again. Listen to Kindertotenlieder, and as soon as the first song tears your heart with its depth of grief and beauty, you will be in a better state of mind to appreciate something like the Fifth Symphony.

As for the Fifth, it is a masterpiece, if perhaps a flawed one. The grief and turmoil of the first movement requires no explanation, and I could easily find myself singing the opening melody (humming, obviously, would be absurd) - except that it, and many of the other themes, are not for singing. They are for railing at eternity and defying fate, throwing a challenge at existence itself. If they were for singing or humming, he would have written them for voices!

The second movement is a thoroughly original experiment in encompassing two irreconcilable forces or impulses. There is the storm of chaos of the opening, the principal idea that intensifies throughout. At the same time their is a desire to rise above the waves (the characteristic motive is large leap upward followed by a sighing slip downward), a desperately hopeful aspiration that grows stronger and more desperate throughout. Toward the end, with superhuman effort, it rises to its culmination in that glorious chorale - before being pulled at last into the irresistible undertow. If one misses the through line and the overall progression, the movement could well sound like "discombobulated musical sections together like a patch quilt." But the essence and meaning of the movement is precisely a play of irreconcilable opposites - and it is a perfectly planned and systematic one. If there were an epigram for the movement it might be Yeat's lines from "The Second Coming:" _"Things fall apart; the center cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world."_

The last part of the symphony, the Adagietto and finale, pulls the threads together. The hopeful aspiration of the second movement is at last realized in the final chorale, which is derived from the one in the second movement, and it is the contemplative turn inward of the Adagietto that prepares the way - and its melody is beautiful and lyrical, but its pace defies the continuity of human breath and concentration; once again, not for singing.

The second part of the symphony, the scherzo, doesn't play a clear role in the overall drama, and I have no good explanation for exactly why it is where and as it is in the symphony. It is certain that something is needed between Part I and Part III of the symphony - without it, there is too much psychological distance between the end of the storm and the Adagietto. But the scherzo is a bit too much of a digression for my tastes. Is the overall structure flawed? Perhaps. But maybe I just need to relax and enjoy the digression.


----------



## arpeggio

Ingélou said:


> The OP is amazing. I like Mahler. I once knew nothing about him, but was helped by so many TC members, *especially by Mahlerian & PetrB.* But there are, of course, composers that I don't like - I just wouldn't start a thread proclaiming that BIg Composer X was not worth making a fuss about because I couldn't cotton to him. Why should the world take notice of that?
> 
> But on the other hand, there are some excellent posts on here explaining why so many people do like Mahler - *especially by Mahlerian and PetrB. *
> 
> The Resurrection Symphony is my favourite but I also like the first a lot, and there are parts of every symphony that I love - in particular, the Adagietto in the Fifth - Part 2 of the 8th, the Faust Poem - the Andante Comodo & the Adagio in the Ninth - and the Adagio in the Tenth. I have just revisited my thread 'Mahler - where should an ignoramus start', where I kept diary entries of first listening to Mahler's symphonies. In general, what I love about Mahler are the lyrical bits, often played by harp or strings, which for me are the music of serious, existential thought - they capture what it means to be a conscious being. (Pardon the technical language.  ) What I don't like about Mahler is what I called 'his beergarden style', rousing brass band stuff. But of course I wouldn't be without it. Light & shade. Exploration. As someone said above, a Mahler symphony invites you to share a journey.
> 
> This is a personal response, but a) the OP is largely personal taste too and b) we have some excellent musical analyses already, *especially by Mahlerian & PetrB!*
> 
> Oh, and btw, *delenda est Carthago...* :lol:


What a nice post.  I wish I could express why Maher is my favorite but that would be beyond the reach of fumble fingers here.


----------



## PetrB

DavidA said:


> I believe it was Leonard Bernstein who once said that the 20th century is the century of death and Mahler is its prophet.
> Perhaps that's why I can't get on with Mahler, despite having many of his works on CD. *All those strainings and heavings telling of death and despair.* I prefer music that is more uplifting. But each to his own.


*Golly, you must pretty much despise the entire spectrum of the romantic composers, then.*


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> The second part of the symphony, the scherzo, doesn't play a clear role in the overall drama, and I have no good explanation for exactly why it is where and as it is in the symphony. It is certain that something is needed between Part I and Part III of the symphony - without it, there is too much psychological distance between the end of the storm and the Adagietto. But the scherzo is a bit too much of a digression for my tastes. Is the overall structure flawed? Perhaps. But maybe I just need to relax and enjoy the digression.


The Scherzo was actually the first movement of the five to be written, and is accordingly integral to the symphony. It plays several roles.

First, it establishes the D major that the chorale in the previous movement had failed to achieve, and that with some strength and force. D major is the home of parts II and III of the symphony. After the C# minor introductory movement (the "extra" one in Mahler's conception) and the A minor sonata form movement, which had F minor and D minor as its most important subsidiary keys, the D major of the Scherzo both marks a distinct step away and a logical progression forward to the F major and D major of part III.
Second, its opening horn call takes the very force of death and despair of the first two movements, that dissonant leap to an appoggiatura, and plays with it in an openly joyful manner. Note how the first phrase of the horn hangs in the air for a bit before resolving, before any harmonization has entered to assure us that we are "safe" from the minor keys of Part I (of course, the first movement's tutti also begins seemingly in the major, and the Adagietto seemingly opens in the A minor of the second movement before melting into F major).
Third, it brings in the more contrapuntal textures that will play an important role in the finale above all.


----------



## Cosmos

Idk I just really like his music. It emotionally moves me whenever I listen to it


----------



## hpowders

Cosmos said:


> Idk I just really like his music. It emotionally moves me whenever I listen to it


And THAT is what it really is all about, isn't it?


----------



## Cosmos

hpowders said:


> And THAT is what it really is all about, isn't it?


Honestly though.

Also, I'm surprised that EDaddy would say the fifth is incoherent babble while the first is more uniform and musically instructed. I mean, the musical scope of fifth is the most "structured" of his symphonies (that come to mind at the moment); it follows the minor/Major format that Beethoven used in many works, its divided into three parts of contrasting moods, a few important motifs are scattered throughout, and that FINALE mein Gott. 
Meanwhile [as much as I LOVE the first] the first is kind of odd. When I first listened to it, I couldn't predict it's direction. While that initially got me into loving Mahler, just cuz of the unpredictability, now I'm slowly losing touch with what they symphony is trying to "say" [and yes, I know that music doesn't have to SAY anything, but I don't want to dwell on the metaphysics of that question]. 
IMO, I would understand if he had distain for Mahler after hearing the seventh. I personally find the seventh to be least comprehensible of the lot. Also, there aren't too many moments from that work that really get me like the music of the others.

But oh well, that's just my two cents of contrasting someone else's opinion


----------



## hpowders

Cosmos said:


> Honestly though.
> 
> Also, I'm surprised that EDaddy would say the fifth is incoherent babble while the first is more uniform and musically instructed. I mean, the musical scope of fifth is the most "structured" of his symphonies (that come to mind at the moment); it follows the minor/Major format that Beethoven used in many works, its divided into three parts of contrasting moods, a few important motifs are scattered throughout, and that FINALE mein Gott.
> Meanwhile [as much as I LOVE the first] the first is kind of odd. When I first listened to it, I couldn't predict it's direction. While that initially got me into loving Mahler, just cuz of the unpredictability, now I'm slowly losing touch with what they symphony is trying to "say" [and yes, I know that music doesn't have to SAY anything, but I don't want to dwell on the metaphysics of that question].
> IMO, I would understand if he had distain for Mahler after hearing the seventh. I personally find the seventh to be least comprehensible of the lot. Also, there aren't too many moments from that work that really get me like the music of the others.
> 
> But oh well, that's just my two cents of contrasting someone else's opinion


I find the first the weakest of the Mahler symphonies. I rarely play it. I like the fifth, but I would eliminate the schmalzy Adagietto movement from it. The 7th is a bit of a rambling mess. Here the right conductor is crucial to making it sound convincing. I have a Kubelik performance which is as good as any.

I like to keep it simple. I know what I hear and I know what I like. I don't need a PhD in music theory. I go purely by feelings.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> . Of all of Mahler's larger-scale works, how many end in the minor?*LOR]


Frankly, I never usually get that far with him!


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Bernstein's Mahler is not my Mahler. Mahler is filled with struggle, yes, but so is Beethoven. Of all of Mahler's larger-scale works, how many end in the minor?*
> 
> *The answer is three: Das Klagende Lied, Lieder Eines Fahrenden Gesellen, and the Sixth Symphony.


Nor mine. I have several different performances of Bernstein's Mahler 9th and I come away unsatisfied from each.

I know you dislike the Karajan, but after playing it several times, this unlikely choice for Mahler got the 9th right in one try, in my opinion and trumped Bernstein, the so-called Mahler authority at his own game. It's a shame Karajan didn't live to record all the Mahler symphonies.


----------



## arpeggio

*Maybe I Am Wrong*

Now I have had a chance to calm down I am going to make a suggestion that might help the OP.

Benjamin Zander, the conductor, has made recordings of the Mahler Symphonies which include an extra disk where he discusses the Symphony a la Bernstein. The one on the Fifth is quite good. Zander addresses many of the reasons that I like Mahler. Maybe this will help.






​
See:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/Drilldown?name_id1=7537&name_role1=1&comp_id=1803&genre=66&bcorder=195&name_id=59341&name_role=3

http://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Symphony-Benjamin-Philharmonia-Orchestra/dp/B00005B7KD/ref=sr_sp-btf_image_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1393088750&sr=8-4&keywords=mahler+zander


----------



## hpowders

Zander's Mahler Fourth is one of the best I've ever heard. Finally, just the right child-like soprano for the incredibly difficult to cast 4th movement.

I'm more lukewarm on the rest of his series.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

;It seems rather obvious to me that the op should be taken lightly and with liveliness; 

This thread has already too many great posts, so however I praise Mahler now will be irrelevant. What I can say is that my appreciation for Mahler greatly increased when I started to compose. Also, his 5th is to my ears a sort of even blend of Brahms, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky (yes you read correctly), probably one of his most passionate in the sense of the romantics. The development of the themes is as clear as any Beethoven. If it's Mahler's "grotesques" that keep you from feeling the unity in his works: listen with more care, it isn't just noise.


----------



## Mahlerian

Cosmos said:


> IMO, I would understand if he had distain for Mahler after hearing the seventh. I personally find the seventh to be least comprehensible of the lot. Also, there aren't too many moments from that work that really get me like the music of the others.


I love the Seventh. But GOD is it weird. I'm not quite sure how to fit it all together. Maybe I should actually do what CoAG asked and do an analysis; I might learn to appreciate it more as a whole. As it is, I love the first movement, and enjoy the others just fine, but the progression from one to the next leaves me feeling more ambivalent than any of Mahler's other works.

As for the First, I think it's the weakest simply judged in terms of content, but Mahler's bar is set high enough that it's still great, especially for a First Symphony.


----------



## DavidA

Richannes Wrahms said:


> ;It seems rather obvious to me that the op should be taken lightly and with liveliness;
> 
> This thread has already too many great posts, so however I praise Mahler now will be irrelevant. What I can say is that my appreciation for Mahler greatly increased when I started to compose. Also, his 5th is to my ears a sort of even blend of Brahms, Bruckner and Tchaikovsky (yes you read correctly), probably one of his most passionate in the sense of the romantics. The development of the themes is as clear as any Beethoven. If it's Mahler's "grotesques" that keep you from feeling the unity in his works: listen with more care, it isn't just noise.


The problem with your reasoning is that this is a subjective matter. If someone doesn't like a composer's music then listening with more care is not going to increase their appreciation. Perhaps the opposite. I don't like Mahler's music much and am not about to listen with greater care to music that I find depressing!
You have to appreciate that there is music that some people simply don't care for. I'm not saying it's no good - just I don't happen to like it.


----------



## Morimur

DavidA said:


> The problem with your reasoning is that this is a subjective matter. If someone doesn't like a composer's music then listening with more care is not going to increase their appreciation. Perhaps the opposite. I don't like Mahler's music much and am not about to listen with greater care to music that I find depressing!
> You have to appreciate that there is music that some people simply don't care for. I'm not saying it's no good - just I don't happen to like it.


One can appreciate and respect a composer's music without liking it based on quality alone. I am not a fan of Mozart but I can certainly appreciate and respect his art. One must try to remain objective if one is to make sound judgements.


----------



## DavidA

Lope de Aguirre said:


> One can appreciate and respect a composer's music without liking it based on quality alone. I am not a fan of Mozart but I can certainly appreciate and respect his art. One must try to remain objective if one is to make sound judgements.


Sorry, but liking or disliking something is a subjective matter.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> Sorry, but liking or disliking something is a subjective matter.


But there are objective elements that are agreed upon as distinguishing quality work from shoddy amateur pieces that no one outside of immediate family of the composer could ever care about.

It's not entirely subjective, although subjectivity certainly plays a role.

One _can_ state objectively that Mahler's music sounds subjectively disjointed, but one _cannot_ state objectively that it is randomly cobbled together from spare parts without any rhyme or reason, because that's objectively false.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> But there are objective elements that are agreed upon as distinguishing quality work from shoddy amateur pieces that no one outside of immediate family of the composer could ever care about.
> 
> It's not entirely subjective, although subjectivity certainly plays a role.
> 
> One _can_ state objectively that Mahler's music sounds subjectively disjointed, but one _cannot_ state objectively that it is randomly cobbled together from spare parts without any rhyme or reason, because that's objectively false.


I didn't say anything like that. I just said I didn't much like it. That is pure subjectivity!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> If someone doesn't like a composer's music then listening with more care is not going to increase their appreciation.


If someone has decided irrevocably so, then I guess you're right. On the other hand, if someone has decided that, for the moment, they don't like it...

Which is exactly the quest of the OP, who hasn't decided irrevocably.


----------



## Mahlerian

DavidA said:


> I didn't say anything like that. I just said I didn't much like it. That is pure subjectivity!


Yes, but then you said that appreciation is entirely subjective, which I disagree with. Obviously your opinions are your own, and I'm not even interested in changing them.


----------



## millionrainbows

EDaddy said:


> At the risk of upsetting some people, can someone tell me please what the big hoopla is about Mahler?
> I have tried and tried and tried to like his symphonies, to no avail. Case in point: his Symphony #5. What a bumbling, over-reaching, piece of neurotic nonsense! It sounds like a man who couldn't freaking make up his mind. What am I missing?


That's funny, my first experience of *Mahler* was also the fifth, with* Bernstein/NYP* on vinyl. It was given to me by a beautiful ballet dancer, and she said it was used in _"Last Tango in Paris"_ with *Marlon Brando*.

_How could I not listen?_ What struck me immediately was that super-long suspension in the slow Adagio movement. I had never heard anything like that before! It was the longest suspension I had ever heard, and at the tender age of 18, longer is better.

I guess you have to be in the right place at the right time.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> The Scherzo was actually the first movement of the five to be written, and is accordingly integral to the symphony. It plays several roles.
> 
> First, it establishes the D major that the chorale in the previous movement had failed to achieve, and that with some strength and force. D major is the home of parts II and III of the symphony. After the C# minor introductory movement (the "extra" one in Mahler's conception) and the A minor sonata form movement, which had F minor and D minor as its most important subsidiary keys, the D major of the Scherzo both marks a distinct step away and a logical progression forward to the F major and D major of part III.
> Second, its opening horn call takes the very force of death and despair of the first two movements, that dissonant leap to an appoggiatura, and plays with it in an openly joyful manner. Note how the first phrase of the horn hangs in the air for a bit before resolving, before any harmonization has entered to assure us that we are "safe" from the minor keys of Part I (of course, the first movement's tutti also begins seemingly in the major, and the Adagietto seemingly opens in the A minor of the second movement before melting into F major).
> Third, it brings in the more contrapuntal textures that will play an important role in the finale above all.


Yes, the scherzo was composed first, but I don't see how this, in and of itself, makes it integral to the symphony. In fact, I seem to remember it wasn't composed with the intention of it being part of this symphony at all, was it? In any case, Mahler made no effort to derive the material of the other movements from it. It is pretty much left out of the overall thematic processes that unite the other movements; The commonality of a dissonant leap to an appoggiatura isn't enough to do it for me, especially given that this figure is a ubiquitous mannerism of the composer's style.

I don't find the arguments according to tonal areas convincing either. The whole overall scheme of C#m to D is kind of ad hoc, the attempts to rationalize it as some sort of leading-tone relationship notwithstanding; Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, the tonal scheme works perfectly well with or without the scherzo.

Anyway, I think the scherzo is a wonderful piece of music. It is just its role within the symphony as a whole that I can't quite justify or come to terms with. And I have tried.

And about the Seventh - I am trying to work out how it all comes together as well, but as yet, with limited success.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Yes, the scherzo was composed first, but I don't see how this, in and of itself, makes it integral to the symphony. In fact, I seem to remember it wasn't composed with the intention of it being part of this symphony at all, was it? In any case, Mahler made no effort to derive the material of the other movements from it. It is pretty much left out of the overall thematic processes that unite the other movements; The commonality of a dissonant leap to an appoggiatura isn't enough to do it for me, especially given that this figure is a ubiquitous mannerism of the composer's style.


I'm sorry that you aren't convinced, but the movements are indeed interconnected. Mahler began the scherzo, if I remember correctly from La Grange, as the first part of a projected new symphony. As with the Nachtmusik inner movements of the Seventh, he created outwards from there.

Also, figures of the kind emphasized in every movement of the Fifth (particularly leaps of a major and minor ninth to an appoggiatura) aren't so ubiquitous that they could be transferred into any of the other symphonies without modification. Britten's lift from the second movement in Peter Grimes is directly traceable to this and no other source, for example.



EdwardBast said:


> I don't find the arguments according to tonal areas convincing either. The whole overall scheme of C#m to D is kind of ad hoc, the attempts to rationalize it as some sort of leading-tone relationship notwithstanding; Nevertheless, as far as I am concerned, the tonal scheme works perfectly well with or without the scherzo.


Ad hoc? Mahler planned out the key relationships in his symphonies very carefully. There was an initial plan for the 8th that had prospective keys for the several movements before even sketching any of the material.

But the tonal relationship of c#-D is not the way to look at it. It is c#-a-D, as the "true" first movement, the sonata-allegro of the symphony, is in fact in A minor, with D already emphasized both by the aforementioned chorale as well as the D minor that precedes it. And A as a key area is already important in the first movement. The first harmony heard in the whole symphony is A major (and this is quickly followed by D major before turning to G# minor). The second interruption in the march is in A minor and is based on the second theme of the following movement.

The mood of the scherzo, also, is already present in the A-flat major section of the second movement (a jaunty march), which contains similar figures to the scherzo.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Many of you here are talking with uncontagious passion.

I'm curious to get to know the writer of the OP, I was quite surprised that he compared Russian composers first to Mahler, quite surprised! To me, with a few exceptions, Mahler and the Russians are in two separate worlds that actually didn't know each other that well, and so were not very influenced. Their core aesthetic values were quite different. If I was wanting to compare Mahler to someone who I thought was a "better" composer, I'd go to Wagner first, then possibly Brahms or R. Strauss, but not another Russian. Certainly not Shostakovich either! I hate when Shostakovich is compared to Mahler excessively (though it is sometimes reasonable), but ironically this is what most people love about Shostakovich, and they ignore other elements of influence on him to their benefit.

Anyhow, I've seen a bit of what the OP writer thinks about music, that he does turn to melodicism above other things in determining a good composer. Such people are often persecuted for sounding simple-minded, because they're not "mature" enough to handle "hard" music. "Hard" is associated with "good." Germanic-influenced music has that aura of sounding "hard" to the ear, because those composers and their audiences liked that, and why? Because that was the aesthetic value they liked and grew up with. _It doesn't mean they're more mature, or even less mature. It just means they are different._ Of course, the Germans always had the upper hand when it came to manipulating opinions. 

So before anyone criticizes either side, let everyone be aware that we all grew up believing different things from each other about what good music is like, either because it was free choice, or simply from exposure. But it's about time that a dissenting voice arose concerning the problem at stake: melodicism and memorability. Are these important? Yes, but not in equal degrees to people. I happen to be on the far side of the spectrum with the OP author that a "good thematic material" is a very important part of the picture, not simply what one does with it. But there are many of those on the other side, who have totally opposite values and will enjoy music solely for other elements it has such as _development _and form. I must admit I can't understand having that kind of value because I've never felt an inclination toward it, but I strongly believe it is taste and exposure that influence these values. But there's another dimension, the orchestration/color spectrum. I think instrumental color is key to someone enjoying a theme, not just the thematic material itself. I think this spectrum greatly divides people as well, because orchestration styles can be so incredibly different. And again, it's about what we're use to.


----------



## chalkpie

I used to feel pretty much the same way. I despised the fact that he was SO loved and what I heard (M5 and M7) just baffled me. One summer night, it only took some headphones, Lenny's Vienna M5, a beer, and a toke to realize I had been mistaken all along. I saw the light. He is now EASILY top 5 and I own probably more GM recordings than any other composer (at least 15 M2's for instance). I have even had some Mahler burn-out I listened so much...I actually rarely spin him these days. 

Mozart is not a favorite composer of mine, but I do appreciate him occasionally, and have enough brains to realize there is validity in his art. Mahler deserves respect, whether you like him or not. Actually every composer that is mentioned here deserves respect to some degree from all of us, regardless of how much or how little they tickle our fancy.


----------



## Mahlerian

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I'm curious to get to know the writer of the OP, I was quite surprised that he compared Russian composers first to Mahler, quite surprised! To me, with a few exceptions, Mahler and the Russians are in two separate worlds that actually didn't know each other that well, and so were not very influenced.


Mahler, who spent his early conducting career in Budapest and Hungary, was quite familiar with the music of Tchaikovsky and Rubinstein, and conducted their operas frequently alongside his beloved Mozart and Wagner. He also visited Russia several times and conducted orchestras there.

Did he ever adopt a Russian symphonic style? No. That much, you are correct, was anathema to him (he resented having to conduct Tchaikovsky's Sixth _every season_ at the New York Philharmonic, although he occasionally did program some of Tchaikovsky's other symphonies, including the Second). His symphonic predecessors were Beethoven, Wagner, and to a lesser extent, Bruckner and Brahms.



Huilunsoittaja said:


> But it's about time that a dissenting voice arose concerning the problem at stake: melodicism and memorability. Are these important? Yes, but not in equal degrees to people. I happen to be on the far side of the spectrum with the OP author that a "good thematic material" is a very important part of the picture, not simply what one does with it. But there are many of those on the other side, who have totally opposite values and will enjoy music solely for other elements it has such as _development _and form.


But many here have specifically pointed out that they find Mahler's thematic material quite strong and memorable (such as myself). I am aware that you, and others here, do not. But many of us do. _Of course_ thematic material is important. There's a reason why I have never taken to Reger, and it's because I never find much of interest in his themes, despite the virtuosity of the treatment.


----------



## aleazk

I'm not very fond of some of the material used by Mahler. I really don't like marches, for instance, both for their militaristic content (extra-musical, I know) but also at the purely aesthetic level, I really don't like that dull rhythm. I feel marches so incredibly alien to me, to my "world", a decimononic thing and for a decimononic sensitivity.

Since all of these things are at the very surface of the music, they are more or less the first things to which you react, this caused me to shy away from Mahler at the beginning.

But once I got used to that (with some effort, I must say), I finally could appreciate the music. Its incredible momentum, always moving forward, searching for the "meaning of life" if you want. The incredible sense of form at the big scale. Which is amazing, considering all the different and contrasting moments through the pieces/movements. Mahler's sense of irony in some of those contrasting moments, but always in the general framework of the "irony of life". And of course a lot of the other material which is not related to marches. To me it is really melodious and indeed quite memorable.


----------



## DavidA

Mahlerian said:


> Yes, but then you said that appreciation is entirely subjective, which I disagree with. Obviously your opinions are your own, and I'm not even interested in changing them.


No, I said I just don't like it!


----------



## Guest

In the face of 'opposition' from Mahlerian and me, you continue to repeat your claim that all you said was...



DavidA said:


> No, I said I just don't like it!


In two posts, you clearly said more than just 'I don't like it.'



DavidA said:


> The problem with your reasoning is that this is a subjective matter. If someone doesn't like a composer's music then listening with more care is not going to increase their appreciation. Perhaps the opposite. I don't like Mahler's music much and am not about to listen with greater care to music that I find depressing!
> You have to appreciate that there is music that some people simply don't care for. I'm not saying it's no good - just I don't happen to like it.





DavidA said:


> Sorry, but liking or disliking something is a subjective matter.


No one's forcing you to like Mahler (least of all me, who remains Unconverted, but willing to listen) but you might at least have the grace to acknowledge that your posts assert more than you keep trying to claim.


----------



## Nereffid

MacLeod said:


> If someone has decided irrevocably so, then I guess you're right. On the other hand, if someone has decided that, for the moment, they don't like it...
> 
> Which is exactly the quest of the OP, who hasn't decided irrevocably.


Hasn't decided irrevocably?! Read the OP again, which is basically: "I hate this crap. Can you guys tell me what you think is so great about this huge steaming pile of manure?"
Yeah, there's someone ready and willing to change his mind.


----------



## Guest

When I first started to take a big interest in classical music, I liked Mahler's music a great deal. I still like it but have lost interest to some extent. Ditto for Tchaikovsky and Bruckner, even though I regard all three as great composers. No amount of additional listening would restore my former interest in any of these composers. In fact, it would probably make things worse, as I do not want to finish up disliking generally any major composer's works. 

It's not for me to question other peoples' tastes but personally I cannot understand what there is to dislike about the music of any the big name composers (25-30 or so). Maybe the odd piece might not appeal, but to write off a major composer's entire output is not something that I have ever done. I would have thought that a more suitable place for this kind of negative comment would be the long running "overrated and underrated composers thread" where all manner of prejudices are aired frequently.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Hasn't decided irrevocably?! Read the OP again, which is basically: "I hate this crap. Can you guys tell me what you think is so great about this huge steaming pile of manure?"
> Yeah, there's someone ready and willing to change his mind.


Well, IMO, there were two ways to 'read' the OP. Either it is as you say, and the real purpose of the OP is to provoke; or there is a genuine element of enquiry. I decided to give the OP the benefit of the doubt.

More importantly, I was making a general point that likes and dislikes, even once publicly declared, are subject to change.


----------



## hpowders

Even Madonna is better than Mahler, eh??? :lol:


----------



## ptr

EDaddy said:


> Mahler: What's the fuss about?!


For a simpleton like myself, the quality fuss about Mahler is the fact that his universe encompass all the musical tradition prior to him at the same time as he points forward to thing in the pipeline (even if only in micro details). Like all golden things, take Chess fx. his music take seconds to dispel (or love) but a lifetime of hard studies to understand and for me, the fact that every time I hear a piece of Mahler Music I discover a new layer or a new dimension. 
I believe that familiarity is essential for Mahler, the more I learn about him and his music the more I realise I have just started scraping on the surface. Mahler is the Mariana Trench of music, You think You've reached his bottom just to realise that there is further depths to find!

Mahler might not be "better" then this or that composer, I don't really care! :tiphat:

/ptr


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> I'm sorry that you aren't convinced, but the movements are indeed interconnected.


The basic point stands: Parts I and III, along with their component movements, are explicitly linked by thematic quotations and transformations that are unequivocally intentional and extensive - not just a few notes - and these connections tie the themes into a dramatic evolution spanning the symphony. Any thematic connection between the scherzo and the other movements is of a different order and specificity; at best a link through discreet short motives that are commonplace in the composers style. There is a big difference. It is aesthetically significant. What one might make of this is an open question.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> In the face of 'opposition' from Mahlerian and me, you continue to repeat your claim that all you said was...
> 
> In two posts, you clearly said more than just 'I don't like it.'
> 
> No one's forcing you to like Mahler (least of all me, who remains Unconverted, but willing to listen) but you might at least have the grace to acknowledge that your posts assert more than you keep trying to claim.


If you look carefully and read what I said, then it doesn't amount to any more than I don't particularly like Mahler's music as I find it depressing. That is it. No more no less.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> The basic point stands: Parts I and III, along with their component movements, are explicitly linked by thematic quotations and transformations that are unequivocally intentional and extensive - not just a few notes - and these connections tie the themes into a dramatic evolution spanning the symphony. Any thematic connection between the scherzo and the other movements is of a different order and specificity; at best a link through discreet short motives that are commonplace in the composers style. There is a big difference. It is aesthetically significant. What one might make of this is an open question.


It is more than that, as I have said. The themes have the _exact same shape_ and trace the _exact same distance_, albeit changing a descending minor sixth to a descending major sixth.








Unless you think that this, too, is common enough to all of Mahler's works that it is insignificant. Combined together with the suspension, I'd say there is close to no chance that this is coincidence (especially as these are the main themes of their respective movements).


----------



## senza sordino

I am unable to discuss the technical details of Mahler's music. I like his symphonies because they are so large, expansive and complex. Melodic lines are long, developmemt is long. There is so much to listen to. Each time I listen I find something new. I couldn't possibly memorize everything, so listening always seems quite fresh. I don't listen to a Mahler symphony everyday, I reserve his symphonies when I've got lots of time and energy.


----------



## hpowders

What I love about Mahler are the enormous contrasts within a movement that I have not heard done by any other composer.
He can have the full orchestra playing very loudly and then all of a sudden without warning or transition, there's chamber music among two or three instruments played very gently and charmingly. It seemingly comes out of nowhere!
He goes full blast and then stops on a dime and there's two instruments softly interacting. And it works!
Pure genius!!!
That's what the fuss is about in my opinion!!


----------



## EDaddy

Several of you have questioned my comparing Mahler's music with that of certain Russian composers (i.e. Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev). So for the sake of clarity, I wanted to add a addendum.

I wasn't comparing his music to theirs stylistically. I was comparing it solely from a perspective of musical construct. I don't think I succeeded in making that point clear in my wording and that's my bad. Perhaps the easiest way to say it is as follows: I do not like the way Mahler constructs and develops not all, but a lot, of his musical ideas. To me much of it sounds forced and awkward and... well...unnatural. Whereas the music of Stravinsky, Prokofiev - and to a much lesser degree, Shostakovich - generally develops and flows more naturally or logically (to my ears of course), and as a result sounds more... "right" or inevitable (to me). Those composers were literally the first that sprang to mind (probably because I have currently been listening to them a lot lately). But I could have compared my opinions of Mahler's construction abilities (or lack thereof) to a whole slew of our composer's that I believe were far more adept at it... Bach (perhaps reining supreme), Beethoven, Mozart, Dvorak, etc... etc. The list goes on. Are these composer's anything like Mahler stylistically, periodically, what have you? Of course not! That would be like comparing a grape to an avocado. But as far as their overall knack or talent for compositional development and construct, I think these other composer's were generally far superior at doing so in a logical, unforced, fluid and believable way. I feel compelled to add that I find Shostakovich's music to be very uneven, but as for his symphonic works of which I consider his best (nos. 1, 5 and 10), to me - in these instances - his development "makes more sense" than much, if not most, of Mahler's works in the idiom. That is just my (humble/ not-so-humble) opinion.

Also, for the record, some of you have asked about or questioned my "musical cred" (God forbid I should have anything less for posting an_ opinion _and getting a discussion going!). So, to answer your questions - not that it should matter - I have a strong musical background, including but not limited to, years and years-worth of composition, theory, performance and the like, and I have been a professional musician for almost 30 years in various capacities.

Regardless, I stated an opinion. Nothing more; nothing less. And I, for one, have had a most enjoyable time hearing everyone's thoughts, responses, objections, agreements and insights on the subject. I admire your passion for a musical sub-genre we all, in our various ways, have been deeply moved and likely changed by.

Cheers!


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> It is more than that, as I have said. The themes have the _exact same shape_ and trace the _exact same distance_, albeit changing a descending minor sixth to a descending major sixth.
> View attachment 35760
> 
> 
> Unless you think that this, too, is common enough to all of Mahler's works that it is insignificant. Combined together with the suspension, I'd say there is close to no chance that this is coincidence (especially as these are the main themes of their respective movements).


Actually, the example shows a diminished 10th, not a major 9th, and it isn't just a matter of enharmonic spelling. The E following the high F proves it to have been a tenth functionally, not a 9th. The intervals are unrelated and quite different aesthetically and theoretically (#4 to 6 in minor mode versus 5 to 6 in major). So, in fact, neither of the key intervals matches, though the difference in the 6ths might be chalked up to the contrast of mode. But the metric placement of the final tonic arrival is different as well.

I would be delighted to find concrete connections between themes of the scherzo and other themes of the symphony. I once spent weeks looking for them. It is perfectly possible I missed something. I will even try listening again and hearing the relationship you suggest. But its theoretical basis is sketchy at best.


----------



## millionrainbows

EdwardBast said:


> I would be delighted to find concrete connections between themes of the scherzo and other themes of the symphony. I once spent weeks looking for them. It is perfectly possible I missed something. I will even try listening again and hearing the relationship you suggest. But its theoretical basis is sketchy at best.


I'm sure that you will see many, many connections if you take chalkpie's advice: "...it only took some headphones, Lenny's Vienna M5, a beer, and a toke to realize I had been mistaken all along. I saw the light."


----------



## millionrainbows

aleazk said:


> I'm not very fond of some of the material used by Mahler. I really don't like marches, for instance, both for their militaristic content (extra-musical, I know) but also at the purely aesthetic level, I really don't like that dull rhythm. I feel marches so incredibly alien to me, to my "world", a decimononic thing and for a decimononic sensitivity.
> 
> Since all of these things are at the very surface of the music, they are more or less the first things to which you react, this caused me to shy away from Mahler at the beginning.


I feel the same way about marches, but as in the sixth, maybe Mahler was reflecting the growing militaristic mood of nationalism which was rearing its ugly head. Did that ever occur to you?


----------



## PetrB

EDaddy said:


> Several of you have questioned my comparing Mahler's music with that of certain Russian composers (i.e. Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev). So for the sake of clarity, I wanted to add a addendum.
> 
> I wasn't comparing his music to theirs stylistically. I was comparing it solely from a perspective of musical construct. I don't think I succeeded in making that point clear in my wording and that's my bad. Perhaps the easiest way to say it is as follows: I do not like the way Mahler constructs and develops not all, but a lot, of his musical ideas. To me much of it sounds forced and awkward and... well...unnatural. Whereas the music of Stravinsky, Prokofiev - and to a much lesser degree, Shostakovich - generally develops and flows more naturally or logically (to my ears of course), and as a result sounds more... "right" or inevitable (to me). Those composers were literally the first that sprang to mind (probably because I have currently been listening to them a lot lately). But I could have compared my opinions of Mahler's construction abilities (or lack thereof) to a whole slew of our composer's that I believe were far more adept at it... Bach (perhaps reining supreme), Beethoven, Mozart, Dvorak, etc... etc. The list goes on. Are these composer's anything like Mahler stylistically, periodically, what have you? Of course not! That would be like comparing a grape to an avocado. But as far as their overall knack or talent for compositional development and construct, I think these other composer's were generally far superior at doing so in a logical, unforced, fluid and believable way. I feel compelled to add that I find Shostakovich's music to be very uneven, but as for his symphonic works of which I consider his best (nos. 1, 5 and 10), to me - in these instances - his development "makes more sense" than much, if not most, of Mahler's works in the idiom. That is just my (humble/ not-so-humble) opinion.
> 
> Also, for the record, some of you have asked about or questioned my "musical cred" (God forbid I should have anything less for posting an_ opinion _and getting a discussion going!). So, to answer your questions - not that it should matter - I have a strong musical background, including but not limited to, years and years-worth of composition, theory, performance and the like, and I have been a professional musician for almost 30 years in various capacities.
> 
> Regardless, I stated an opinion. Nothing more; nothing less. And I, for one, have had a most enjoyable time hearing everyone's thoughts, responses, objections, agreements and insights on the subject. I admire your passion for a musical sub-genre we all, in our various ways, have been deeply moved and likely changed by.
> 
> Cheers!


On boards like this, regardless of what you say, someone (imo 'with issues') will not only ask you about your creds, but often enough will set that question as a sort of laying down of the gauntlet challenge. In any and all of those instances (because, if you remain, it will almost certainly happen _again_ -- an ethos attitudinal floats about in such fora just recall which of the two of you is most likely 'challenged,' and ignore the call.


----------



## Petwhac

EDaddy said:


> Now granted, I'm holding him up to some pretty stringent standards here. I'm not comparing him to a list of average composers. I'm putting the quality of his composing skills up against the likes of Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Schumann, Shostakovich... heck, even Bruckner blows him out of the water as a composer IMO.


Thanks for brightening my Sunday evening. 
However, I was unable to continue reading your post further than the part I quoted due to laughing so hard! Especially the reference to Shostakovich.

Well done


----------



## Mahlerian

EDaddy said:


> I feel compelled to add that I find Shostakovich's music to be very uneven, but as for his symphonic works of which I consider his best (nos. 1, 5 and 10), to me - in these instances - his development "makes more sense" than much, if not most, of Mahler's works in the idiom. That is just my (humble/ not-so-humble) opinion.


Shostakovich intentionally simplified his development sections in the later symphonies because he was afraid of reprisal. The Fourth represents what he could _really_ do if he went all-out to make the most of his material. Even there, I find his harmony rather colorless and the themes less interesting compared to Stravinsky or Schoenberg or Mahler, but as a symphony, it's a tour de force of development.

The Fifth, when compared to the Fourth, just strikes me as a bit of a disappointment. The treatment is more repetitive and the harmony even less colorful. On top of that, the louder parts of the finale are so obvious as to be irritating, whatever their intent may have been (and I've heard this in several different performances). I have a fondness for the slow movement, though.

Shostakovich's music is always well-constructed, but I find much of it just uninteresting.

I do agree with PetrB though in that you shouldn't worry about the ones who question your credentials. They lose just by asking, as you weren't venturing anything that required any to begin with.


----------



## millionrainbows

EDaddy said:


> Several of you have questioned my comparing Mahler's music with that of certain Russian composers (i.e. Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev). So for the sake of clarity, I wanted to add a addendum.
> 
> I wasn't comparing his music to theirs stylistically. I was comparing it solely from a perspective of musical construct. I don't think I succeeded in making that point clear in my wording and that's my bad. Perhaps the easiest way to say it is as follows: I do not like the way Mahler constructs and develops not all, but a lot, of his musical ideas. To me much of it sounds forced and awkward and... well...unnatural. Whereas the music of Stravinsky, Prokofiev - and to a much lesser degree, Shostakovich - generally develops and flows more naturally or logically (to my ears of course), and as a result sounds more... "right" or inevitable (to me). Those composers were literally the first that sprang to mind (probably because I have currently been listening to them a lot lately). But I could have compared my opinions of Mahler's construction abilities (or lack thereof) to a whole slew of our composer's that I believe were far more adept at it... Bach (perhaps reining supreme), Beethoven, Mozart, Dvorak, etc... etc. The list goes on. Are these composer's anything like Mahler stylistically, periodically, what have you? Of course not! That would be like comparing a grape to an avocado. But as far as their overall knack or talent for compositional development and construct, I think these other composer's were generally far superior at doing so in a logical, unforced, fluid and believable way. I feel compelled to add that I find Shostakovich's music to be very uneven, but as for his symphonic works of which I consider his best (nos. 1, 5 and 10), to me - in these instances - his development "makes more sense" than much, if not most, of Mahler's works in the idiom. That is just my (humble/ not-so-humble) opinion.
> 
> Also, for the record, some of you have asked about or questioned my "musical cred" (God forbid I should have anything less for posting an_ opinion _and getting a discussion going!). So, to answer your questions - not that it should matter - I have a strong musical background, including but not limited to, years and years-worth of composition, theory, performance and the like, and I have been a professional musician for almost 30 years in various capacities.
> 
> Regardless, I stated an opinion. Nothing more; nothing less. And I, for one, have had a most enjoyable time hearing everyone's thoughts, responses, objections, agreements and insights on the subject. I admire your passion for a musical sub-genre we all, in our various ways, have been deeply moved and likely changed by.
> 
> Cheers!


I see what EDaddy is saying; a good musical idea will be conceived, and occur as a total unity, in every sense, because it is an organic whole, naturally conceived. The "being" of the composer is so fused with the idea that no arbitrary tweezing or alteration is necessary. Perhaps EDaddy sees Mahler as a rather forced example of a composer doing his best, with supreme intelligence, but without that "voice from the muse," the ineffable, illogical, force of a sheer idea, which unites all. That's called "genius," not a "carefully planned excursion into new key areas." Stravinsky had it, definitely.........iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii


----------



## shangoyal

millionrainbows said:


> I see what EDaddy is saying; a good musical idea will be conceived, and occur as a total unity, in every sense, because it is an organic whole, naturally conceived. The "being" of the composer is so fused with the idea that no arbitrary tweezing or alteration is necessary. Perhaps EDaddy sees Mahler as a rather forced example of a composer doing his best, with supreme intelligence, but without that "voice from the muse," the ineffable, illogical, force of a sheer idea, which unites all. That's called "genius," not a "carefully planned excursion into new key areas." Stravinsky had it, definitely.........iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii


Brilliant :lol: :lol:


----------



## Haydn man

Oh dear!
As someone trying Mahler again and having enjoyed the 1st symphony yesterday as part of the SS thread, I have got rather lost reading all this.
'Mahler is rubbish unless you can convince me otherwise' is pointless unless the person making the statement is open to change their opinion. Seems posts like this are more provocative than thought provoking
My brain hurts now so will have to go and sit in a darkened room


----------



## Blancrocher

Haydn man said:


> 'Mahler is rubbish unless you can convince me otherwise' is pointless unless the person making the statement is open to change their opinion.


Give it time--Mahler composed a lot of music.


----------



## lupinix

Mahlerian said:


> The Fifth, when compared to the Fourth, just strikes me as a bit of a disappointment. The treatment is more repetitive and the harmony even less colorful. On top of that, the louder parts of the finale are so obvious as to be irritating, whatever their intent may have been (and I've heard this in several different performances). I have a fondness for the slow movement, though.


 I really agree with this, although I do like shostakovich 4 a lot and also like the finale of 5 more than the other movements due to the intended irritation


----------



## Mahlerian

lupinix said:


> I really agree with this, although I do like shostakovich 4 a lot and also like the finale of 5 more than the other movements due to the intended irritation


Oh, I love Shostakovich's Fourth, actually. The long, slow coda is a masterful touch, and the structure of the work is ingenious (two bulky movements framing a short, fleet, but powerful scherzo). I wish that he could have applied the melodic skills he showed in his later works to a full symphonic canvas of that type again. I'm disappointed with his later works (although I like the Sixth and Fourteenth in particular, as well as some of his string quartets and piano works), because they don't often live up to that promise.


----------



## lupinix

Mahlerian said:


> Oh, I love Shostakovich's Fourth, actually. The long, slow coda is a masterful touch, and the structure of the work is ingenious (two bulky movements framing a short, fleet, but powerful scherzo). I wish that he could have applied the melodic skills he showed in his later works to a full symphonic canvas of that type again. I'm disappointed with his later works (although I like the Sixth and Fourteenth in particular, as well as some of his string quartets and piano works), because they don't often live up to that promise.


Yeah it is by far my favorite shostakovich symphony ^^


----------



## nightscape

I'm actually sort of interested in this topic. As someone who, from moment one, was captivated by Mahler I cannot truly answer this question. The same can be said for any composer. There are composers like Mahler, Dvorak, Beethoven and Prokofiev to whom I was attached immediately. Then there are others like Shostakovich, Bartok, Bach, Bruckner, and Mozart that I struggled with at some point or another. They are now composers that I love. No real consistency in style, time period, etc

But you have to be willing to dive in. I love music too much to be close-minded.


----------



## PetrB

nightscape said:


> I'm actually sort of interested in this topic. As someone who, from moment one, was captivated by Mahler I cannot truly answer this question. The same can be said for any composer....
> 
> *But you have to be willing to dive in.*


a-Yep! You also do well to be aware you're not diving into the same lake as last time, even with composers whose music is very similar in style, or who share a lot of attributes of an era. We dive in to a new and different lake, each composer, each piece, really.


----------



## EDaddy

As befuddling as Mahler can be to me, I have to say the one movement from his 5th Symphony (I forgot to mention this!) that really does move me is the Adagietto. There's such an achingly tragic sadness and yearning about it. It's haunting. As for the rest of that symphony, can't say I really get it but... love the Adagietto!

So I guess there's something to fuss about!


----------



## Mahlerian

EDaddy said:


> As befuddling as Mahler can be to me, I have to say the one movement from his 5th Symphony (I forgot to mention this!) that really does move me is the Adagietto. There's such an achingly tragic sadness and yearning about it. It's haunting. As for the rest of that symphony, can't say I really get it but... love the Adagietto!


Did you notice that the theme of the central section of the Adagietto reappears in the Finale a few times? Maybe that'll help you to appreciate the rest of the movement.


----------



## EDaddy

PetrB said:


> On boards like this, regardless of what you say, someone (imo 'with issues') will not only ask you about your creds, but often enough will set that question as a sort of laying down of the gauntlet challenge. In any and all of those instances (because, if you remain, it will almost certainly happen _again_ -- an ethos attitudinal floats about in such fora just recall which of the two of you is most likely 'challenged,' and ignore the call.


Noted. Sounds like sound advice to me. Cheers!


----------



## EDaddy

Mahlerian said:


> Did you notice that the theme of the central section of the Adagietto reappears in the Finale a few times? Maybe that'll help you to appreciate the rest of the movement.


You know what? I will give it a listen with just that in mind, Mahlerian. _Nostrovia!_


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> If you look carefully and read what I said, .


Of course, yes, thank you. Reading! Such an important skill, essential I suppose, if TCers are going to be able to understand each other properly.


----------



## ArtMusic

With Mahler, think gigantic! Instead of writing several smaller symphonies or concertos or other orchestral works, he consolidated his musical ego and creativity into the the symphony - symphony about the world, the universe, about everything. That was the Mahler ego. Like or not, you decide, as always. To me, it's tolerable once a while. I like all things, and in moderation.


----------



## aleazk

millionrainbows said:


> I feel the same way about marches, but as in the sixth, maybe Mahler was reflecting the growing militaristic mood of nationalism which was rearing its ugly head. Did that ever occur to you?


Yes, as I said, it was just a very superficial and immediate reaction. In fact, the sixth symphony is probably my favorite now.


----------



## GGluek

So, basically, you're saying that what you dislike about Mahler is one of his signatures -- the more or less constant development that infuses his music (as Mahlerian has talked about.) he doesn't work out themes in an orderly manner in a separate compartmentalized development section, but constantly evolves them through a movement (and sometimes between movements). No problem with disliking this, but it's never going to be like Brahms or Dvorak. You'll either eventually learn to appreciate or like it, or you won't. No harm, no foul. 

=EDaddy;613517]Several of you have questioned my comparing Mahler's music with that of certain Russian composers (i.e. Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Prokofiev). So for the sake of clarity, I wanted to add a addendum.

I wasn't comparing his music to theirs stylistically. I was comparing it solely from a perspective of musical construct. I don't think I succeeded in making that point clear in my wording and that's my bad. Perhaps the easiest way to say it is as follows: I do not like the way Mahler constructs and develops not all, but a lot, of his musical ideas. To me much of it sounds forced and awkward and... well...unnatural. Whereas the music of Stravinsky, Prokofiev - and to a much lesser degree, Shostakovich - generally develops and flows more naturally or logically (to my ears of course), and as a result sounds more... "right" or inevitable (to me). Those composers were literally the first that sprang to mind (probably because I have currently been listening to them a lot lately). But I could have compared my opinions of Mahler's construction abilities (or lack thereof) to a whole slew of our composer's that I believe were far more adept at it... Bach (perhaps reining supreme), Beethoven, Mozart, Dvorak, etc... etc. The list goes on. Are these composer's anything like Mahler stylistically, periodically, what have you? Of course not! That would be like comparing a grape to an avocado. But as far as their overall knack or talent for compositional development and construct, I think these other composer's were generally far superior at doing so in a logical, unforced, fluid and believable way. I feel compelled to add that I find Shostakovich's music to be very uneven, but as for his symphonic works of which I consider his best (nos. 1, 5 and 10), to me - in these instances - his development "makes more sense" than much, if not most, of Mahler's works in the idiom. That is just my (humble/ not-so-humble) opinion.

Also, for the record, some of you have asked about or questioned my "musical cred" (God forbid I should have anything less for posting an_ opinion _and getting a discussion going!). So, to answer your questions - not that it should matter - I have a strong musical background, including but not limited to, years and years-worth of composition, theory, performance and the like, and I have been a professional musician for almost 30 years in various capacities.

Regardless, I stated an opinion. Nothing more; nothing less. And I, for one, have had a most enjoyable time hearing everyone's thoughts, responses, objections, agreements and insights on the subject. I admire your passion for a musical sub-genre we all, in our various ways, have been deeply moved and likely changed by.

Cheers![/QUOTE]


----------



## EdwardBast

lupinix said:


> I really agree with this, although I do like shostakovich 4 a lot and also like the finale of 5 more than the other movements due to the intended irritation


I don't think either 4 or 5 is among Shostakovich's best work. I prefer 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15, and sometimes others as well. The Fourth is the one Mahler enthusiasts naturally gravitate to because it is the most Mahleresque. But those making disparaging comparisons between Mahler and Shostakovich should remember that the sprawling symphony encompassing worlds is probably the easiest genre in which to compose - except for the sheer tedium of the copy work. String quartets, on the other hand, are hard.


----------



## millionrainbows

Rather than "developments," I think I got the essence of Mahler from his Kindertotenlieder; the long, lyrical lines, and everything about those. Maybe if this were applied to the symphonies...but the reason I like the sixth so much is those signature themes and melodies.


----------



## GGluek

Digression:

One of the things that's always amused me about the Fifth is that if you're absent-mindedly playing the finale in your head and aren't paying attention, you can easily miss the off ramp and wind up going around and around for hours.


----------



## hpowders

The fourth is Mahler's most popular symphony because it is the shortest.

I like Mahler a lot, but there are times I simply don't have 70-85 minutes to spare.


----------



## sharik

EDaddy said:


> Mahler: What's the fuss about?!


the orchestration. Mahler as an orchestrator is equal to Wagner and Beethoven.


----------



## EdwardBast

sharik said:


> the orchestration. Mahler as an orchestrator is equal to Wagner and Beethoven.


As a great conductor should be!

Polygraph Polygraphovich! It is good to see your coat looking so healthy after your recent surgery.


----------



## EdwardBast

hpowders said:


> The fourth is Mahler's most popular symphony because it is the shortest.
> 
> I like Mahler a lot, but there are times I simply don't have 70-85 minutes to spare.


Puts me in mind of that brilliant old quip: "I would have written you a shorter letter but I didn't have time."


----------



## techniquest

Some interesting reading.
If I were to set out my stall, it would be one that appreciates music primarily from a listening and enjoyment point of view. I don't understand the technical finesse of development, construct and so on; if this was what was most important in music, then surely one should never have to hear it, but merely study the score. Like mathematical equations on a stave.
I also believe that the 'fuss' about Mahler is perpetuated not from those who like and enjoy his music, but rather from those who don't; based on the fear that there is something important that they're missing. By not 'getting' what is perceived to be somehow important, there is little option but to denigrate it. But that's what makes music so much more than mathematical equations on staves - the most important factor is the effect it has on the emotive side of the brain. As a listener, I can enjoy a Mahler symphony - drink it in; savour the moments - to the point where the emotion becomes physical: the very end of M2 done right can move me to tears. Done wrong it can move me to anger, though I don't go about demonstrating that anger. Why would a piece of music have such an effect? It's that magic that's woven through the many interactions of sound; how particular vibrations and tones affect individual feeling.
I found that magic in Mahler 2 when I was about 15 and it hit me hard. I later found similar magic in Mahler 3, then 6, then 8, then 7...But I never, ever, found it in 5 (despite the Adagietto), yet this is one of the most popular of his works. I don't get it; but it doesn't worry me.


----------



## hpowders

EdwardBast said:


> Puts me in mind of that brilliant old quip: "I would have written you a shorter letter but I didn't have time."


Sometimes I'm going out and I only have about an hour to listen to something. I'd rather not play "excerpts" so I may reach for 3 or 4 Persichetti piano sonatas instead of Mahler's 6th Symphony.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> I don't think either 4 or 5 is among Shostakovich's best work. I prefer 6, 8, 10, 13, and 15, and sometimes others as well. The Fourth is the one Mahler enthusiasts naturally gravitate to because it is the most Mahleresque. But those making disparaging comparisons between Mahler and Shostakovich should remember that *the sprawling symphony encompassing worlds is probably the easiest genre in which to compose* - except for the sheer tedium of the copy work. String quartets, on the other hand, are hard.


Like anything, the trick is doing it _well_, not doing it. And that so few have done it well, despite numerous attempts, seems to indicate that this is not true. Outside of Bruckner, Mahler, and Shostakovich (as well as Beethoven's Ninth, of course), how many hour-plus symphonies have really made it into the repertoire?


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Like anything, the trick is doing it _well_, not doing it. And that so few have done it well, despite numerous attempts, seems to indicate that this is not true. Outside of Bruckner, Mahler, and Shostakovich (as well as Beethoven's Ninth, of course), how many hour-plus symphonies have really made it into the repertoire?


Who is talking hour-plus? The sprawl line for me can be at forty minutes or less. From my perspective, there are many symphonies in this category. My point is that it is easy with large orchestral forces to dazzle and distract, to so pummel an audience with heroic gestures, choirs of angels, trumpets of the last judgment, and funereal gravitas, that they are desensitized to fairly obvious structural flaws. Bogus pomp, bombast, and volume can cover many sins. Vast coloristic resources make it possible to stretch and artificially resuscitate weak material. In writing a string quartet there is no cover. Mastering the string quartet genre requires a different order of discipline than writing for orchestra.


----------



## senza sordino

Next May, I'll will see the Vancouver symphony perform Mahler's 9th. It's the only piece on that night's program. I'm looking forward to that. I can really devote some energy and concentration to this piece. I saw the fourth symphony performed a year ago. The VSO is finishing a Mahler cycle.


----------



## PetrB

hpowders said:


> The fourth is Mahler's most popular symphony because it is the shortest.


That's a titch reductive  The fourth is the most "classical" of all the symphonies, and it has its fans who don't care for, or can not so readily, get in to the rest of Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## hpowders

PetrB said:


> That's a titch reductive  The fourth is the most "classical" of all the symphonies, and it has its fans who don't care for, or can not so readily, get in to the rest of Mahler's symphonies.


Yes. That too.


----------



## PetrB

EdwardBast said:


> Puts me in mind of that brilliant old quip: "I would have written you a shorter letter but I didn't have time."


LOL. new to me. That reminded me of another, "I would have enclosed some money but I've already sealed the flap down."


----------



## EdwardBast

PetrB said:


> That's a titch reductive  The fourth is the most "classical" of all the symphonies, and it has its fans who don't care for, or can not so readily, get in to the rest of Mahler's symphonies.


While hearing a performance of the Fourth a few years back, it occurred to me that that symphony is very sensitive and high maintenance - in a good way. It seems to require, or leaves room for(?), so many subtle gradations of tempo and such nuance from the conductor, that it can reach unexpected (to me at the time) heights in a really good performance. In this case, the conductor was one of my favorites, Ivan Fischer (with the New York Philharmonic, perhaps as a last minute fill-in(?)). I had liked the symphony already, but in this performance it was sheer genius. Any other fans of Fischer out there? Is he known for Mahler? Or was that a fluke?


----------



## hpowders

The biggest problem with the Fourth Symphony is finding the right soprano for the fourth movement-one who possesses that child-like naivete quality.
The only conductor who cast this part correctly as far as I'm concerned is Benjamin Zander.


----------



## millionrainbows

Mahler was combining the "development" aspect of Brahms with the large-scale, operatic grandeur of Wagner, thus uniting the two opposing camps into one grand synthesis.

I think this what the First symphony is alluding to in its opening, an operatic suspension which builds tension.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Who is talking hour-plus? The sprawl line for me can be at forty minutes or less. From my perspective, there are many symphonies in this category. My point is that it is easy with large orchestral forces to dazzle and distract, to so pummel an audience with heroic gestures, choirs of angels, trumpets of the last judgment, and funereal gravitas, that they are desensitized to fairly obvious structural flaws. Bogus pomp, bombast, and volume can cover many sins. Vast coloristic resources make it possible to stretch and artificially resuscitate weak material. In writing a string quartet there is no cover. Mastering the string quartet genre requires a different order of discipline than writing for orchestra.


But Mahler often leaves his material completely exposed. He was not given to thick, Straussian scoring (where there are lots of doublings and details that are not heard but are present simply, and for no other reason than, to add thickness). In fact, the number of times such scoring is used in the Sixth for example can be counted on both hands. But when they are used it is significant. Mahler almost never scored like this.

Which brings me to my next point. The whole model of reduction of orchestral scores into piano scores or similar as being somehow a purer form of music is increasingly irrelevant as music moved into the 20th century. It is interesting that an a capella choir arrangement of Schoenberg's Farben or a chamber reduction of Das Lied von der Erde exists, but one must admit that something has been lost, not because the original tried to cover up deficiencies with orchestral color, but because the color was used specifically to deliver the musical message in a particular way.


----------



## violadude

EdwardBast said:


> Who is talking hour-plus? The sprawl line for me can be at forty minutes or less. From my perspective, there are many symphonies in this category. My point is that it is easy with large orchestral forces to dazzle and distract, to so pummel an audience with heroic gestures, choirs of angels, trumpets of the last judgment, and funereal gravitas, that they are desensitized to fairly obvious structural flaws. Bogus pomp, bombast, and volume can cover many sins. Vast coloristic resources make it possible to stretch and artificially resuscitate weak material.


I agree, wholeheartedly! There are many many lesser Romantic Era composers that do exactly what you are describing. Mahler isn't one of them though.


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> I agree, wholeheartedly! There are many many lesser Romantic Era composers that do exactly what you are describing. Mahler isn't one of them though.


Let's not name names, but "many" -- _imo, natch_ -- is more than correct


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Most of them were Strauss imitators, some of them were British, a few of them were Danish, they are admired by some due to extra-musical reasons, a minority genuinely praise their style. I've said enough.


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> The biggest problem with the Fourth Symphony is finding the right soprano for the fourth movement-one who possesses that child-like naivete quality.
> The only conductor who cast this part correctly as far as I'm concerned is Benjamin Zander.


When I tried Mahler some years ago I put on the fourth symphony. My wife said: "That silly little tune really gets on my nerves!" After a time it got on my nerves too!


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> When I tried Mahler some years ago I put on the fourth symphony. My wife said: "That silly little tune really gets on my nerves!" After a time it got on my nerves too!


Well, everybody's different. There's no law that says you have to love Mahler.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> But Mahler often leaves his material completely exposed. He was not given to thick, Straussian scoring (where there are lots of doublings and details that are not heard but are present simply, and for no other reason than, to add thickness). In fact, the number of times such scoring is used in the Sixth for example can be counted on both hands. But when they are used it is significant. Mahler almost never scored like this.


It is perfectly possible to dazzle, distract and pummel in the manner I described within the parameters of orchestration you have laid out. The option to constantly change textures and avail oneself of coloristic resources using small undoubled forces also allows vast degrees of freedom compared with writing for string quartet - which was my original jumping off point.



Mahlerian said:


> Which brings me to my next point. The whole model of reduction of orchestral scores into piano scores or similar as being somehow a purer form of music is increasingly irrelevant as music moved into the 20th century. It is interesting that an a capella choir arrangement of Schoenberg's Farben or a chamber reduction of Das Lied von der Erde exists, but one must admit that something has been lost, not because the original tried to cover up deficiencies with orchestral color, but because the color was used specifically to deliver the musical message in a particular way.


I am not familiar with this custom of using piano reduction as a purifying exercise. Sounds like travesty to me. Of course essential aspects of a work would be lost in such butchery! I don't see any connection between this observation and anything I wrote, nor do I necessarily assume you did either.



violadude said:


> I agree, wholeheartedly! There are many many lesser Romantic Era composers that do exactly what you are describing. Mahler isn't one of them though.


So, I will assume you admire Mahler's Third and Seventh Symphonies more than I do ;-)


----------



## EdwardBast

double post ---------


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

I haven't found the 'key' to Mahler yet but I'll be giving him more tries. I do remember liking parts of his 1st and 5th symphonies, as well as his Das Lied von der Erde.


----------



## hpowders

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> I haven't found the 'key' to Mahler yet but I'll be giving him more tries. I do remember liking parts of his 1st and 5th symphonies, as well as his Lied von der Erde.


It surely isn't easy for one who is used to Haydn's cleverness and pithiness to get used to the urban sprawl that is Mahler!


----------



## Petwhac

EdwardBast said:


> It is perfectly possible to dazzle, distract and pummel in the manner I described within the parameters of orchestration you have laid out. The option to constantly change textures and avail oneself of coloristic resources using small undoubled forces also allows vast degrees of freedom compared with writing for string quartet - which was my original jumping off point.


If it really is possible to dazzle, distract and pummel (I've never felt that way) using orchestral forces, it is also possible to do it with a string quartet. Writing idiomatically for any ensemble, however large or small has nothing to do with 'content'.
If there is "nowhere to hide" in writing for St.Qtet I would have thought there is less than nowhere to hide (?!) in writing for solo piano. And yet we find some bombastic, colouristic and 'flashy' piano writing.

There are many passages in Mahler's symphonies that demonstrate to me that he was a composer who would have mastered any medium he chose. His tightly woven motivic development, fantastic command of harmony and counterpoint, pacing, structure and yes, orchestration, put him in the very highest division of composers as far as I am concerned (if we must divide them!).

If I had to find fault I would say certain movements are a little long winded but I find them no more so than many by Bruckner who's long windedness I find lest engaging.


----------



## aleazk

I agree with the "dazzling, distracting" thing in orchestral composition. But that can only be said as a critique if we are thinking in some mediocre, or at least lazy, composer (the same we could say about the abuse of octaves in piano writing; powerful, yes, but also empty!).

But in the hands of a master, like Mahler, Stravinsky or Ravel, this characteristic of the orchestra becomes essential for the composition of transcendental masterpieces, and it becomes a necessity for expressing certain musical ideas which would be impossible in some other mediums.

As always, the important thing is not the pen, but who is holding it!.


----------



## EdwardBast

Petwhac said:


> If it really is possible to dazzle, distract and pummel (I've never felt that way) using orchestral forces, it is also possible to do it with a string quartet. Writing idiomatically for any ensemble, however large or small has nothing to do with 'content'.


I wasn't talking about writing idiomatically.



Petwhac said:


> If there is "nowhere to hide" in writing for St.Qtet I would have thought there is less than nowhere to hide (?!) in writing for solo piano. And yet we find some bombastic, colouristic and 'flashy' piano writing.


Some composers have, in fact, made that comment about composing for piano. Rachmaninoff, for example, said he found piano miniatures more challenging than orchestral works because of the monochrome palette. And yes, of course flashy bombastic piano writing can dazzle and give cover to weak material in the same way that bombastic orchestral scoring can.



Petwhac said:


> There are many passages in Mahler's symphonies that demonstrate to me that he was a composer who would have mastered any medium he chose. His tightly woven motivic development, fantastic command of harmony and counterpoint, pacing, structure and yes, orchestration, put him in the very highest division of composers as far as I am concerned (if we must divide them!).


The context of my original remarks has been lost in the shuffle. I was responding to statements earlier in the thread disparaging Shostakovich in comparison to Mahler. I was pointing out that there are important ways in which composing for orchestra is easier and requires less discipline than writing for string quartet. This view is common enough among composers as to be considered an old saw. You might be correct that Mahler could have risen to the challenge of mastering composition for any forces and in every genre. I was hinting that Shostakovich had actually done so.



Petwhac said:


> If I had to find fault I would say certain movements are a little long winded but I find them no more so than many by Bruckner who's long windedness I find lest engaging.


I agree.


----------



## Petwhac

EdwardBast said:


> I wasn't talking about writing idiomatically.
> Some composers have, in fact, made that comment about composing for piano. Rachmaninoff, for example, said he found piano miniatures more challenging than orchestral works because of the monochrome palette. And yes, of course flashy bombastic piano writing can dazzle and give cover to weak material in the same way that bombastic orchestral scoring can.


What's true for Rachmaninoff is not necessarily true in general.
Each medium has it's own set of issues and whether or not one can rely on 'colour' for it's own sake very much depends on the era and style of music. 
Ravel who is pretty widely acknowledged as one of the great orchestrators, wrote everything for piano and scored it afterwards.
I don't find Mahler guilty of what I gather you accuse him of. Unless I am misunderstanding you.



EdwardBast said:


> The context of my original remarks has been lost in the shuffle. I was responding to statements earlier in the thread disparaging Shostakovich in comparison to Mahler. I was pointing out that there are important ways in which composing for orchestra is easier and requires less discipline than writing for string quartet. This view is common enough among composers as to be considered an old saw. You might be correct that Mahler could have risen to the challenge of mastering composition for any forces and in every genre. I was hinting that Shostakovich had actually done so.


I do not think that in Mahler's era one would find the view common that composing for quartet was harder than for orchestra. Perhaps in the later 20C and modern times composers have used timbre and colour on a more equal footing to pitch and rhythm. One can understand a contemporary composer being able to 'hide' behind orchestration but not Mahler.
Even the Rite Of Spring can be rendered for piano duet without loosing it's essential impact as a composition. As with a Mahler symphony, it's all to be found in the notes.

Mahler, like Wagner and R.Strauss simply preferred in general to write for large forces.
I may be one of the disparagers you refer to. I find Shosty far more prone to grand gesture and 
bombast than Mahler.


----------



## mtmailey

I see they are trying to make him A GREAT composer but he is not,trying to compare him to great ones are a waste of time.


----------



## Petwhac

mtmailey said:


> I see they are trying to make him A GREAT composer but he is not,trying to compare him to great ones are a waste of time.


For the sake of clarity.
Who are _they_ and who is _he_?


----------



## EdwardBast

Petwhac said:


> What's true for Rachmaninoff is not necessarily true in general.


It might not even be true for Rachmaninoff; He seemed to have an easy time of it.



Petwhac said:


> One can understand a contemporary composer being able to 'hide' behind orchestration but not Mahler.
> Even the Rite Of Spring can be rendered for piano duet without loosing it's essential impact as a composition. As with a Mahler symphony, it's all to be found in the notes.


I have already stated that I think it is _not_ "all to be found in the notes," that stripping a symphony of its colors _should_ be expected to diminish a symphony's effect and integrity. (Please stop for a second and imagine the Adagietto from the Fifth Symphony in piano reduction!) But since you don't believe this, and especially don't believe it of Mahler, I must ask for clarification: Are you suggesting that you would be willing to sit through a piano reduction of Mahler's Third Symphony? Or the Seventh? Really? I would not want to do that with even the ones I like.



Petwhac said:


> Mahler, like Wagner and R.Strauss simply preferred in general to write for large forces.
> I may be one of the disparagers you refer to. I find Shosty far more prone to grand gesture and
> bombast than Mahler.


I presume you mean in his symphonies? Which ones? (Everyone knows about the finale of 5 and the first movement of 7, so we can take those as given.) Or do you have examples of bombast in his quartets, other chamber works, songs, solo piano works, solo sonatas, and concertos?


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

Ravndal said:


> Woops. I know I'm totally wrong, but I so totally agree with you. Though, "even bruckner is better"?? Bruckner is fantastic. And I also like Mahler's first.


Ah but "Wouldn't you just die without Mahler?"


----------



## DavidA

Haut Parleur said:


> Ah but "Wouldn't you just die without Mahler?"


No! . .


----------



## millionrainbows

So, if Mahler is not revered on purely musical/technical/craftsmanship grounds (after all, this is art, not science), then perhaps there might be some_ other _reason that he has become so popular among CM listeners and buyers.

The thread question itself, *"Mahler: What's all the fuss about?" *seems to be flaunting an attitude which goes against the current status quo grain, if general popularity, recording sales, and concert programming are any indicator. The "rewriting of history" happens more often today, and anyone with an agenda (feminists, Christians, Ann Coulter, blues historians) can attempt to rewrite history in an attempt to create a new, revised record which fits their agenda, whatever that may be.

It is usually not the case in such revisions and rewrites that this 'new history' would accurately reflect Mahler's position as it actually existed in his own time; history has a way of creating larger-than-life figures out of mere mortals, and the times in which men actually lived tend to be blinded to anything other than the mundane. It is only in retrospect that 'greatness' is formed. Thus 'history' works its magic. History, rather than being an accurate reflection of what actually happened, is more likely be subject to forces which are driven by agendas, consciously or not. History is all too often yet another attempt to create an 'icon' for social/cultural purposes, as well as public worship and consumption.

If we cannot prove, or credibly assert Mahler's "greatness" by the music itself (after all, it's just opinion), then shouldn't we be looking in non-musical areas? After all, humans will be humans, and history will be what we make it.


----------



## Serge

Haut Parleur said:


> Ah but "Wouldn't you just die without Mahler?"


Huh? I would happily die without Mahler!


----------



## PetrB

Serge said:


> Huh? I would happily die without Mahler!


Like Mahler was ever aware of you or me... or Leonard Bernstein, even :lol:...:lol:...:lol:...


----------



## PetrB

millionrainbows said:


> So, if Mahler is not revered on purely musical/technical/craftsmanship grounds (after all, this is art, not science), then perhaps there might be some_ other _reason that he has become so popular among CM listeners and buyers.
> 
> The thread question itself, *"Mahler: What's all the fuss about?" *seems to be flaunting an attitude which goes against the current status quo grain, if general popularity, recording sales, and concert programming are any indicator. The "rewriting of history" happens more often today, and anyone with an agenda (feminists, Christians, Ann Coulter, blues historians) can attempt to rewrite history in an attempt to create a new, revised record which fits their agenda, whatever that may be.
> 
> It is usually not the case in such revisions and rewrites that this 'new history' would accurately reflect Mahler's position as it actually existed in his own time; *history has a way of creating larger-than-life figures out of mere mortals, and the times in which men actually lived tend to be blinded to anything other than the mundane. It is only in retrospect that 'greatness' is formed. Thus 'history' works its magic. History, rather than being an accurate reflection of what actually happened, is more likely be subject to forces which are driven by agendas, consciously or not. History is all too often yet another attempt to create an 'icon' for social/cultural purposes, as well as public worship and consumption.*


Aha, just like those synthetic pedestals Bach and Beethoven are sitting upon!


----------



## dgee

Hey million - can you add rich," well-educated" white males to that list of people with agendas pls? Main perpetrators of "history" ;-)


----------



## Morimur

Damn those synthetic pedestals!

_*Shakes his fist at the gods._


----------



## PetrB

mtmailey said:


> I see they are trying to make him A GREAT composer but he is not,trying to compare him to great ones are a waste of time.


Somewhere -- your opinion that Mahler is not a great composer and my opinion that Mahler is a great composer -- both count.

:lol:...:lol:...:lol:...


----------



## PetrB

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Damn those synthetic pedestals!
> 
> _*Shakes his fist at the gods._


I know, if they were made of natural material they would be naturally biodegrading / biodegraded by now. P.s Mama Nature does not make synthetic pedestals: people do


----------



## tdc

I don't know there are a lot of people around right now I consider "great". For example Gubaidulina is a great composer, and David Lynch is a great film director. 

While I think there is some truth to MR's post, I think some here are making a little too much about history and its making of greatness. It can work the opposite way too, composers great in their time can be reduced in staure by falling out of fashion and/or facts can be shown to try to reduce a composers status - ie - Wagner.


----------



## Morimur

Both Mahler and Wagner are GREAT composers and anyone who believes otherwise simply lacks sound judgement in these matters. One need not be a 'fan' of either composer to recognize their 'greatness' and one should exercise objectivity when making judgements on any subject if one wishes to be taken seriously. The greatness and genius of Mahler are not up for debate and the proof is in his output.


----------



## EdwardBast

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Both Mahler and Wagner are GREAT composers and anyone who believes otherwise simply lacks sound judgement in these matters. One need not be a 'fan' of either composer to recognize their 'greatness' and one should exercise objectivity when making judgements on any subject if one wishes to be taken seriously. The greatness and genius of Mahler are not up for debate and the proof is in his output.


Perhaps. But to actually get at this issue we would have to have another thread debating what exactly the criteria of greatness are.


----------



## Blake

He's pretty well recognized as great. Most sincere listeners can admit that, whether they enjoy the sound waves or not. 

Greatness comes from impact and innovation, and he sure as hell made behemoth movements in both.


----------



## Petwhac

EdwardBast said:


> I have already stated that I think it is _not_ "all to be found in the notes," that stripping a symphony of its colors _should_ be expected to diminish a symphony's effect and integrity. (Please stop for a second and imagine the Adagietto from the Fifth Symphony in piano reduction!) But since you don't believe this, and especially don't believe it of Mahler, I must ask for clarification: Are you suggesting that you would be willing to sit through a piano reduction of Mahler's Third Symphony? Or the Seventh? Really? I would not want to do that with even the ones I like.


I do believe it is all in the notes and especially in the case of the adagietto, in the harmony. A piano reduction must indeed diminish some of a symphony's effect but it's integrity? No.
Hamlet is more effective played with great actors but the essence of it's greatness is all in the words on the page. 
The 3rd and the 7th are probably my least favourite but I'd take a piano reduction of them over much of Shostakovich's output.



EdwardBast said:


> I presume you mean in his symphonies? Which ones? (Everyone knows about the finale of 5 and the first movement of 7, so we can take those as given.) Or do you have examples of bombast in his quartets, other chamber works, songs, solo piano works, solo sonatas, and concertos?


I am talking in general. Shostakovich, in his concerti, chamber music or symphonies leaves me with an impression of somebody who talks a great deal but doesn't have that much of interest or import to say.
Lots of notes, less content.
Just listening to the 8th quartet recently, I can't recall anything going on there that Mahler couldn't have done in his sleep ( slight exaggeration)
If I were asked to write a pastiche of each composer I believe I'd find it easier to do Shost as his habits are the more obvious.


----------



## EdwardBast

Petwhac said:


> I do believe it is all in the notes and especially in the case of the adagietto, in the harmony. A piano reduction must indeed diminish some of a symphony's effect but it's integrity? No.
> Hamlet is more effective played with great actors but the essence of it's greatness is all in the words on the page.
> The 3rd and the 7th are probably my least favourite but I'd take a piano reduction of them over much of Shostakovich's output.
> 
> I am talking in general. Shostakovich, in his concerti, chamber music or symphonies leaves me with an impression of somebody who talks a great deal but doesn't have that much of interest or import to say.
> Lots of notes, less content.
> Just listening to the 8th quartet recently, I can't recall anything going on there that Mahler couldn't have done in his sleep ( slight exaggeration)
> If I were asked to write a pastiche of each composer I believe I'd find it easier to do Shost as his habits are the more obvious.


No one knows how successful Mahler would have been at composing quartets. Based on the mastery of form demonstrated in works like the third and seventh symphonies, I would not be optimistic. In general, citing Shostakovich's 8th, the "entry level" work for most folks who have barely scratched the surface of his output (and not even among the best of his quartets), gives little evidence that one knows how successful Shostakovich _*was*_ in composing quartets. In your earlier note you claimed Shostakovich was more bombastic than Mahler. You have provided no examples to support this.

General impressions of Shostakovich's style and the aesthetic content of his music impress me to the extent they reflect knowledge of his best work - or at least sufficient familiarity with his output to allow the identification of his best work.


----------



## Petwhac

EdwardBast said:


> No one knows how successful Mahler would have been at composing quartets. Based on the mastery of form demonstrated in works like the third and seventh symphonies, I would not be optimistic. In general, citing Shostakovich's 8th, the "entry level" work for most folks who have barely scratched the surface of his output (and not even among the best of his quartets), gives little evidence that one knows how successful Shostakovich _*was*_ in composing quartets. In your earlier note you claimed Shostakovich was more bombastic than Mahler. You have provided no examples to support this.
> 
> General impressions of Shostakovich's style and the aesthetic content of his music impress me to the extent they reflect knowledge of his best work - or at least sufficient familiarity with his output to allow the identification of his best work.


Ok you tell me which is his best quartet and by what criteria you make the judgement. What is this mastery of form you go on about? How well acquainted with Mahler's 2nd, 4th, 6th ,8th and 9th symphonies are you? Those are the ones I consider his best. What are their formal deficiencies?
Shostakovich never reached the heights of counterpoint found in Mahler 8, in my opinion, but if you would like to cite an example from Shostakovitch, I'll re-examine my opinion.


----------



## hpowders

Mahler's 8th is underrated. No doubt about it.
You really need to hear the Mahler 8th in live performance. No sound system can do it justice.
Bet there would be some amazed converts, after a fine live performance.


----------



## EdwardBast

Petwhac said:


> Ok you tell me which is his best quartet and by what criteria you make the judgement. What is this mastery of form you go on about?


Hard to pick the best. I would rate 3, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 13 (at least) more highly than the famous 8th, which strikes me as more of a curiosity. I would try 5 or 10. (Edit: Forgot criteria. Nothing special; all the usual things. One thing that stands out is that there are subtle connections among the movements that must be grasped to comprehend the overall structure.) If you listen with an open mind to the Borodin Quartet performing either of those, you will get it - or not.



Petwhac said:


> How well acquainted with Mahler's 2nd, 4th, 6th ,8th and 9th symphonies are you? Those are the ones I consider his best. What are their formal deficiencies?


Since I, unlike you, have not been making comprehensive assertions about the value of a composer's work - except to argue that the fuss about Mahler is justified!-, and have not claimed any of the above works to be structurally defective (which does not necessarily mean I think they are not flawed), there is no call for me to do this. However, I do know all of Mahler's symphonies; It was mandatory for a graduate seminar I had on them. In any case, you have already conceded my point on 3 and 7, and above in my overwhelmingly favorable discussion of the Fifth, the one I consider his best (and admittedly the only one for which I have performed a comprehensive technical analysis), I have already pointed out what I consider to be its major structural flaw. That is more than sufficient to support any limited statements I have made about Mahler.



Petwhac said:


> Shostakovich never reached the heights of counterpoint found in Mahler 8, in my opinion, but if you would like to cite an example from Shostakovitch, I'll re-examine my opinion.


I'm not sure exactly what "heights of counterpoint" means. You are aware that Shostakovich composed preludes and fugues for piano in every key, right? And fugues in other works as well. His music is often pervasively contrapuntal. Take your pick. Explore.


----------



## Petwhac

EdwardBast said:


> Since I, unlike you, have not been making comprehensive assertions about the value of a composer's work -


Well, you have been making wild and unsubstantiated generalisations such as....



EdwardBast said:


> My point is that it is easy with large orchestral forces to dazzle and distract, to so pummel an audience with heroic gestures, choirs of angels, trumpets of the last judgment, and funereal gravitas, that they are desensitized to fairly obvious structural flaws.


I take it the part about "trumpets of the last judgment" was referring to Mahler's 2nd. So I also took it that you felt the symphony had " fairly obvious structural flaws".

You have also made the following assertion which I find questionable and highly dubious



EdwardBast said:


> In writing a string quartet there is no cover. Mastering the string quartet genre requires a different order of discipline than writing for orchestra.


Perhaps a different discipline, to some extent. But a different _order_ of discipline means what? 
If it means the composer can 'hide behind orchestral colour' then the quartet composer has the easy and homogeneous sonority of the solo strings with which to articulate the musical idea.



EdwardBast said:


> However, I do know all of Mahler's symphonies; It was mandatory for a graduate seminar I had on them. In any case, you have already conceded my point on 3 and 7, and above in my overwhelmingly favorable discussion of the Fifth, the one I consider his best (and admittedly the only one for which I have performed a comprehensive technical analysis),


The fact that you consider his 5th to be his best and I think it is his 5th or 6th best probably means we shall never agree. I am hoping that by 'comprehensive technical analysis' you don't mean the rather subjective and descriptive prose of your earlier post. Phrases such as, 
_"As for the Fifth, it is a masterpiece, if perhaps a flawed one. The grief and turmoil of the first movement requires no explanation, and I could easily find myself singing the opening melody (humming, obviously, would be absurd) - except that it, and many of the other themes, are not for singing"_ do not fill me with confidence in your grasp of musical analysis. No offence intended


----------



## DavidA

hpowders said:


> Mahler's 8th is underrated. No doubt about it.
> You really need to hear the Mahler 8th in live performance. No sound system can do it justice.
> Bet there would be some amazed converts, after a fine live performance.


I must confess that I have only heard it on TV. But I was bored stiff with it!


----------



## hpowders

DavidA said:


> I must confess that I have only heard it on TV. But I was bored stiff with it!


I was too the first time I heard it, but after 7 or 8 more times I liked it. It is the kind of thing you need to hear live.
They don't call it Symphony of a Thousand for nothing.
It's far from my favorite Mahler symphony, but with repeated exposure, I heard what I needed to hear. It is a complex score.


----------



## EDaddy

sharik said:


> the orchestration. Mahler as an orchestrator is equal to Wagner and Beethoven.


Wagner maybe, though to my ears that's a stretch. But Beethoven? Bah humbug! Beethoven is on a tier of which only two others sit: Bach and Mozart, with Bach taking the tip of the triangle. In the holy triumvirate, there is only room for three!


----------



## LancsMan

EDaddy said:


> Wagner maybe, though to my ears that's a stretch. But Beethoven? Bah humbug! Beethoven is on a tier of which only two others sit: Bach and Mozart, with Bach taking the tip of the triangle. In the holy triumvirate, there is only room for three!


Sorry to disagree. Beethoven, Mozart and Bach are three my favourite composers but their strengths really are in different directions than orchestration. Not that they are bad in that department (difficult to judge Bach objectively here). Whereas Mahler is an absolute master of orchestration.


----------



## Mahlerian

EDaddy said:


> Wagner maybe, though to my ears that's a stretch. But Beethoven? Bah humbug! Beethoven is on a tier of which only two others sit: Bach and Mozart, with Bach taking the tip of the triangle. In the holy triumvirate, there is only room for three!


Mahler's style of orchestration is that of modernism (and it was in this that his influence on the crisp, no frills style of the Second Viennese School was paramount, as well as on Shostakovich and Britten), so it's difficult to compare it with anything that preceded that idiom. But as Schoenberg said, there is nothing superfluous in his orchestration. If there are 10 horn parts, it's because he absolutely needs that many, for contrapuntal/antiphonal effects and not merely for obtaining a "big sound".

Some people prefer Straussian lushness, and they think Mahler was trying for, but failed to achieve, that sound, but that's wrong. He only rarely employed that sort of texture, and when he does it is occasionally to set it up as something ready to collapse under the weight of its own sonority (as in the finale of the Sixth). Mahler's orchestration is utterly _sui generis_ and has proven neither to be replicable by scholars (witness the attempts at orchestrating the Tenth) nor transferrable to other styles: when Mahler orchestrated others' works, he did so quite conservatively and did not apply the "effects" found in his own music, because they are in Mahler essential parts of the music itself, rather than simply local coloration.


----------



## EdwardBast

Petwhac said:


> Well, you have been making wild and unsubstantiated generalisations such as....
> 
> My point is that it is easy with large orchestral forces to dazzle and distract, to so pummel an audience with heroic gestures, choirs of angels, trumpets of the last judgment, and funereal gravitas, that they are desensitized to fairly obvious structural flaws.
> 
> I take it the part about "trumpets of the last judgment" was referring to Mahler's 2nd. So I also took it that you felt the symphony had " fairly obvious structural flaws".


I was thinking of the Tuba mirum from Berlioz's Requiem. Haven't really looked for flaws in the 2nd. Too busy being delightfully pummeled ;-)



Petwhac said:


> You have also made the following assertion which I find questionable and highly dubious
> 
> In writing a string quartet there is no cover. Mastering the string quartet genre requires a different order of discipline than writing for orchestra.
> 
> Perhaps a different discipline, to some extent. But a different _order_ of discipline means what? If it means the composer can 'hide behind orchestral colour' then the quartet composer has the easy and homogeneous sonority of the solo strings with which to articulate the musical idea.


It means an order of magnitude more restrictions on choice and disposition of material. If one has a full orchestra at ones disposal, and one is willing to subdivide minutely down to small chamber groups and soloists, then any idea whatsoever, for virtually any forces whatever, is potentially suitable for ones symphony. And one has the additional vast resources of textural contrasts, multiple antiphonal dialogues using different families of instruments, contrasts of soloists with large ensembles, etc. But this isn't my idea, it is an old saw repeated among composers and critics for decades if not centuries. Often it is expressed by comparing the quartet to a line drawing and orchestral composition to painting with oils.



Petwhac said:


> The fact that you consider his 5th to be his best and I think it is his 5th or 6th best probably means we shall never agree. I am hoping that by 'comprehensive technical analysis' you don't mean the rather subjective and descriptive prose of your earlier post. Phrases such as,
> 
> _"As for the Fifth, it is a masterpiece, if perhaps a flawed one. The grief and turmoil of the first movement requires no explanation, and I could easily find myself singing the opening melody (humming, obviously, would be absurd) - except that it, and many of the other themes, are not for singing"_ do not fill me with confidence in your grasp of musical analysis. No offence intended


You missed the more analytical part where I described what the flaw was. Had you read my contributions to this thread more carefully, you would have noticed that I described the fundamental structural principal of the second movement of the Fifth and outlined some of the symphony's overall thematic processes in layman's terms. Later I engaged in a somewhat technical discussion with Mahlerian about whether the principal theme of the scherzo can be derived from one in the second movement. The passage you quote was answering a specific statement by one of Mahler's detractors who was complaining that he didn't walk away from Mahler's works humming and singing the tunes! I was merely explaining that some of them aren't designed to be sung or hummed.

More to the point, on a board of this type, one is writing for a general audience including many musical amateurs. In so doing it seems appropriate to me to try to communicate in a way that will be broadly understood and not too far outside of the general comfort zone. When I have analytical ideas to present to specialists, I send them to professional journals in theory, musicology, and aesthetics.


----------



## mtmailey

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Both Mahler and Wagner are GREAT composers and anyone who believes otherwise simply lacks sound judgement in these matters. One need not be a 'fan' of either composer to recognize their 'greatness' and one should exercise objectivity when making judgements on any subject if one wishes to be taken seriously. The greatness and genius of Mahler are not up for debate and the proof is in his output.


You are somewhat right but WAGNER is better than MAHLER.WAGNER has plenty of hits compared to MAHLER.


----------



## hpowders

I wonder why some folks have such difficulty accepting the fact that many great composers can co-exist among TC listeners without any one of them having to be asserted as greater than another.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

May I offer you an edit?



mtmailey said:


> You are somewhat right but WAGNER is better than MAHLER _in my opinion, because my personal taste favours Wagner over Mahler._
> 
> _My reason for saying this is that _WAGNER has plenty of hits compared to MAHLER _and that is what counts most for me_.


Is that not better?


----------



## hpowders

Can't we all just get along?

Prescription: play the finale of Beethoven's 9th Symphony with the words handy.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Or go full Tristan und Isolde and let the poison flourish


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

TurnaboutVox said:


> May I offer you an edit?
> Is that not better?


Agreeably as, though I'm fond of Wagner's Greatest Hits, I'd just die without the divine M :tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows

Even without knowing anything about music, any observer could look at the number of recordings and books on Mahler, and conclude that "50,000,000 fans can't be wrong" (with Mahler standing there in a gold lame suit). Pierre Boulez has done all the symphonies, songs, and more; Abravanel; Zinman; etc. etc. etc.

But is he really 'great?' I guess we'll have to do an autopsy.


----------



## mtmailey

hpowders said:


> I wonder why some folks have such difficulty accepting the fact that many great composers can co-exist among TC listeners without any one of them having to be asserted as greater than another.


That is how humans are that is much i like music that sounds great.


----------



## hpowders

mtmailey said:


> That is how humans are that is much i like music that sounds great.


 I may like Mahler and you, Tchaikovsky, but I would be foolish to say because of that Tchaikovsky is not as great as Mahler.
Personal preferences in no way diminishes a composers' greatness.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think Mahler's appeal lies in the intimate nature of his approach. These are not really symphonies so much as they are 'symphonic lieder,' and that explains a lot. The parts are more like chamber music, and the lines tend to be very contrapuntal, and small parts of the orchestra are used and divided-up. They are lyrical and song-like, so the melodies are lyrical, not like most fragmented, motivic symphonic matter. Harmonically, Mahler continues Wagner's Tristan-period chromaticism, paving the way to Schoenberg, and onward to atonality. In many ways, Mahler represents the Wagnerian approach, without being opera. That's the way I see it.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Who is talking hour-plus? The sprawl line for me can be at forty minutes or less. From my perspective, there are many symphonies in this category. My point is that it is easy with large orchestral forces to dazzle and distract, to so pummel an audience with heroic gestures, choirs of angels, trumpets of the last judgment, and funereal gravitas, that they are desensitized to fairly obvious structural flaws. Bogus pomp, bombast, and volume can cover many sins. Vast coloristic resources make it possible to stretch and artificially resuscitate weak material. In writing a string quartet there is no cover. Mastering the string quartet genre requires a different order of discipline than writing for orchestra.


Superbly stated. Encore!


----------



## Guest

hpowders said:


> I wonder why some folks have such difficulty accepting the fact that many great composers can co-exist among TC listeners without any one of them having to be asserted as greater than another.


Perhaps it has something to do with some folks' difficulty accepting that many great posters can co-exist among TC members without any one of them having to be asserted as a greater poster than another.

Or, to put it another way, all posters' opinions are equal: but some are more equal than others!:devil:


----------



## Katie

*RE: 'all this fuss'*

It's absolute nonsense! As an esteemed former American president warned us, "Iraq, North Korea, Mahler, and Asparagus" constitute a dangerous Axis of Evil bent on the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, increased vegetable portions at dinner, and - perhaps most sinisterly - bridging the musical gap between the 19th-century Austro-German tradition and the modernism of the early 20th century!

Not to mention his Fascist God Complex! I mean, what is one to make of the statement: "To write a symphony is to create a universe[SUP]****[/SUP]"....absolute blasphemy!

Thus, it is with Edwardian "funereal gravitas" that I caution, "Getting your Gustav on" comes with the price of a soul :devil:

Edit: Ooops, just noticed the former post also employed the "smiley devil"...that's gotta be some kind of emoticon faux pas...due apologies!

**** Or, "whole world", depending on just how darn clever or pedantic ya wanna be, smarty


----------



## nightscape

millionrainbows said:


> But is he really 'great?'


He never got his picture on bubblegum cards, did he? Have you ever seen his picture on a bubblegum card? How can you say someone is great who's never had his picture on bubblegum cards?


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't really take the OP seriously, but see it as a prompt to rave about Mahler. Music's (and all art's) purpose is to communicate, and Mahler does this. His _Sixth Symphony _conveys so much angst and emotion, as well as the _Kindertotenlieder.

_Once you read about this, for example, in the Listener's guide to the Symphony, and are able to identify "Alma's theme" and know about his daughter dying after the *Sixth,* and Alma's trepidation at the_ Kindertotenlieder,_ and Mahler's own angst backstage while conducting the Sixth, and the _"three hammer-blows of fate that fell the hero as a tree is felled," _then what more could you ask for? I mean, it's practically a* movie *right there. I admit, yesterday I cried while listening to it.


----------



## Katie

nightscape said:


> He never got his picture on bubblegum cards, did he? Have you ever seen his picture on a bubblegum card? How can you say someone is great who's never had his picture on bubblegum cards?


I see we're on the same page here, which probably means you're reading the wrong book...though its nice to have company out on the fringe! /Kat


----------



## millionrainbows

I would buy the cards! I really liked the *Mars Invasion *and *Civil War series,* since I'm not into sports.* R. Crumb's Heroes of the Blues* card set is nice, too. There are lots of good paintings, prints, and photographs of Mahler, as well. I have that big book of photographs, which is about the same thing: material for unabashed fan-boys like me.


----------



## southwood

Katie said:


> It's absolute nonsense! As an esteemed former American president warned us, "Iraq, North Korea, Mahler, and Asparagus" constitute a dangerous Axis of Evil bent on the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, increased vegetable portions at dinner, and - perhaps most sinisterly - bridging the musical gap between the 19th-century Austro-German tradition and the modernism of the early 20th century!
> 
> Not to mention his Fascist God Complex! I mean, what is one to make of the statement: "To write a symphony is to create a universe[SUP]****[/SUP]"....absolute blasphemy!
> 
> Thus, it is with Edwardian "funereal gravitas" that I caution, "Getting your Gustav on" comes with the price of a soul :devil:
> 
> Edit: Ooops, just noticed the former post also employed the "smiley devil"...that's gotta be some kind of emoticon faux pas...due apologies!
> 
> **** Or, "whole world", depending on just how darn clever or pedantic ya wanna be, smarty


Did Mahler say that to a certain heavy drinking, cigar smoking, bald headed Nordic gentleman ?


----------



## Katie

southwood said:


> Did Mahler say that to a certain heavy drinking, cigar smoking, bald headed Nordic gentleman ?


Not sure, I read it off a t-shirt at last year's Pegasus Festival in Louisville; that kind of acquired knowledge can only take you so far...

...incidentally, allow me reiterate Kudos for that magnificent pre-Python Bonzo Dog reference! /K


----------



## Woodduck

southwood said:


> Did Mahler say that to a certain heavy drinking, cigar smoking, bald headed Nordic gentleman ?


Yes, he did. It's one of my favorite composer anecdotes. Sibelius remarked that what he loved above all in writing a symphony was the discipline of structure, specifically the interrelationships and development of thematic material. Mahler responded with something like - and I can just see the clenched fists, the jerk of the head, and the frown behind the granny glasses - "No, no! A symphony must contain the world!" I can then see Sibelius squinting, half-smiling cryptically, and retreating quietly into a cloud of cigar smoke.


----------



## MystereMelodique

hpowders said:


> I'm hoping the OP either spends many, many months listening intensely to Mahler's symphonies and lieder, over and over, since this is the only legitimate way to find out what "the fuss" is about, or simply decides to ignore his music.
> 
> Nobody can explain to the OP what "the fuss" about Mahler is.
> Either he does the serious work involved to find out or he doesn't. Nobody here can do the serious ear work required for him.
> 
> All I can say is Mahler deserves the work required.


You just reinforced what the OP said - that he cannot relate to Mahler, that the guy (Mahler) couldn't write a melody to save his life and he has no memorable hooks that grab you. If Mahler had the uncanny knack of incorporating memorable "tunes" or motifs in his symphonies like Dvorak or Beethoven or Mozart or Tchaikovsky then it wouldn't require months of patient listening would it?

To me the greatest symphonies grabs you instantly like a catchy pop number and repeated listenings only provide a more rewarding experience as one peels away the layers of sound that make the work.

Now before someone commits the logical fallacy of concluding that works that lack immediate appeal are second rate or not worth listening to let me say this: some of my favorite music (classical and otherwise) grew on me after many repeated listenings - I too wondered "what the fuss was about" until a psychoaccoustic connection in my brain was finally made.

But any ranking list that I come up with will always put the memorable symphonies with instant ear appeal on the top of the ones that took months of work.


----------



## violadude

MystereMelodique said:


> But any ranking list that I come up with will always put the memorable symphonies with instant ear appeal on the top of the ones that took months of work.


What if the more immediately appealing symphony doesn't have as much long term value? Do you still rank them on top or do they have to have equal long term value of the other pieces that aren't as immediately appealing?


----------



## Mahlerian

MystereMelodique said:


> You just reinforced what the OP said - that he cannot relate to Mahler, that the guy (Mahler) couldn't write a melody to save his life and he has no memorable hooks that grab you. If Mahler had the uncanny knack of incorporating memorable "tunes" or motifs in his symphonies like Dvorak or Beethoven or Mozart or Tchaikovsky then it wouldn't require months of patient listening would it?


No, because it's not the themes themselves (which are quite memorable indeed), so much as the way they are put together in the symphonic dialogue that causes problems for people.

People are generally drawn to works with a high level of literal repetition, which Mahler consciously avoids. But repetition alone doesn't secure popularity. Bruckner's popularity is not really any higher than Mahler's, and his music is much more repetitive at the surface level (underneath, not quite as much, which is actually part of what bothers people).

*Goes back to having themes from Mahler's 10th play through his head....*


----------



## MystereMelodique

violadude said:


> What if the more immediately appealing symphony doesn't have as much long term value? Do you still rank them on top or do they have to have equal long term value of the other pieces that aren't as immediately appealing?


That might be true with someone like Hadyn, lots of pretty fluff (IMHO) and eventually one grows out of it. Maybe the same fate awaits Beethoven's 5th (no pun intended), or Dvorak's 7th-9th, or Mozart's 40th? I certainly hope not!! I am still figuring Shostakovich out - I prefer his concertos and chamber works much more but his symphonies to me is just organized not unpleasant noise. Weirdly enough I can't get enough of Lutoslawski's 3rd and 4th symphonies which is counter-intuitive.


----------



## Guest

MystereMelodique said:


> Now before someone commits the logical fallacy of concluding that works that lack immediate appeal are second rate or not worth listening to let me say this: some of my favorite music (classical and otherwise) grew on me after many repeated listenings - I too wondered "what the fuss was about" until a psychoaccoustic connection in my brain was finally made.


I don't think anyone would commit the logical fallacy you refer to. But they might just disagree with your opinion that the greatest symphonies are those that grab you "instantly like a catchy pop number".


----------



## JCarmel

" That might be true with someone like Hadyn, lots of pretty fluff (IMHO) and eventually one grows out of it."...

Well, I'd better hurry-up & get de-fluffed, as I've not got much time left?!


----------



## Mahlerian

JCarmel said:


> Well, I'd better hurry-up & get de-fluffed, as I've not got much time left?!


May we all never grow out of Haydn!


----------



## Blake

Haydn, pretty fluff?? Nooo.

I used to think that too before I further educated myself on the matter.


----------



## hpowders

JCarmel said:


> " That might be true with someone like *Hadyn, *lots of pretty fluff (IMHO) and eventually one grows out of it."...
> 
> Well, I'd better hurry-up & get de-fluffed, as I've not got much time left?!


Well, Hadyn may have been a lot of superficial fluff. FJ Haydn, certainly wasn't. He was a composing virtuoso.
Case in point: listen to the final movement of symphony #102. The Haydn; NOT the Hadyn!!!


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

I see that everyone is attacking my favorites composers. Attack to Bach, Mahler... I bet that someday someone will attack Shostakovich. Ahh! Well!


----------



## KenOC

OldFashionedGirl said:


> I see that everyone is attacking my favorites composers. Attack to Bach, Mahler... I bet that someday someone will attack Shostakovich. Ahh! Well!


Check the "Haydn and Shostakovich" thread for some relevant posts written by well-meaning but totally misguided people...


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> Check the "Haydn and Shostakovich" thread for some relevant posts written by well-meaning but totally misguided people...


Hey there! ut:


----------



## KenOC

Speak o' the debbil!


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> Speak o' the debbil!


Ohh, now you know I've been right all this time. My reasoning is impenetrable.


----------



## Chronochromie

I've only heard his 1st Symphony last week and now I can't get it out of my head. As most people here like them all I'll go in order, rare for me to do.


----------



## Blake

Der Leiermann said:


> I've only heard his 1st Symphony last week and now I can't get it out of my head. As most people here like them all I'll go in order, rare for me to do.


Well, the second is even more amazing in my view, so brace yourself for the Resurrection.


----------



## Woodduck

The title of this thread could mean two things: Why is everyone fussing about Mahler? or: What's Mahler makin' such a bleedin' fuss about? I've asked myself both questions and have decided that there's just too much fussing all around. But I won't put up a fuss about it.


----------



## hpowders

The biggest fuss was in the 1960's when Leonard Bernstein attempted to bring Mahler into the mainstream.
Now that Mahler's mainstream, one might ask, what's all the fuss about?
For me a greater fuss involves works like the Hammerklavier Sonata and Schubert Quintet in C, but these are stories for another day. I don't wish to steal Mahler's thunder....er....intermittent occasional light rain.


----------



## KenOC

Vesuvius said:


> Ohh, now you know I've been right all this time. My reasoning is impenetrable.


You certainly have a point there! :lol:


----------



## Blake

KenOC said:


> You certainly have a point there! :lol:


That'll learn ya' good.


----------

