# Help me with Mahler!



## Waehnen

Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Kokkonen are symphonists to my liking, to name a few.

But Mahler! I just don’t get the music! For me it sounds a bit trivial in the sense that the music flows as though the composer was writing a diary. ”Yesterday I did this and that, this morning I woke up….” What I’m trying to say is that with the other composers I know how to follow the music, there is logic behind everything.

In my ears Mahler music has so far lacked symphonic logic. It is as though stuff just happen.

It is obvious I must be wrong. There are many mahlerians here. Please help me to better understand the essence of Mahler’s music!


----------



## Manxfeeder

What got me into Mahler was David Hurwitz's book The Mahler Symphonies: An Owner's Manual. He goes through each piece, telling you what to listen for as you're listening, in a friendly, conversational manner.


----------



## Kreisler jr

To get into the musical language I'd recommend the songs, especially Wunderhorn. 
Of course, this does not really help with the "logic". For this, maybe focussing on a few comparably "tight"/regular movements could help. E.g the first movements from the 1st, the 2nd, the 4th and especially the 6th. Overall the 6th might be the architecturally tightest, most cogent of Mahler's symphonies but the finale is still so bloody long that it's not easy to follow (for me).


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> In my ears Mahler music has so far lacked symphonic logic. It is as though stuff just happen.
> It is obvious I must be wrong. There are many mahlerians here. Please help me to better understand the essence of Mahler's music!


I'm sure you'll get lots of good suggestions - many experienced, knowledgeable listeners on this board.

what Mahler works have you heard so far?? Composers like Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler wrote huge works, long and complex....sometimes it's easier to take small chunks at a time - one movement, one scene....let yourself digest the structure and drama of that smaller piece....then you can add on...


----------



## starthrower

The No.10 Adagio is what made Mahler click for me. Up till then I was struggling to get into the music. The first movement to No.9 is another fantastic piece of music that might click for you. But just keep listening. And starting with No.1 is also a good strategy. It's a great symphony that's shorter than some of the other huge works.


----------



## joen_cph

Or the effective, relative simplicity of the 3rd's first movement ...


----------



## Azol

I got into Mahler via Eighth Symphony (not the best possible point of entry, to be honest) but it might work for you especially if you enjoy opera.
You might try sampling single different popular movements (M5 Adagietto, M3 Finale, M4 Adagio etc) and build from there.
But I'd say forcing yourself to enjoy Mahler is probably not going to work the direct way - you might find yourself coming to Mahler the roundabout way by listening to many different composers well into the 20th century and beyond.


----------



## Bwv 1080

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who like Mahler and those without souls

sorry


----------



## Barbebleu

I wouldn’t bother. Listen to what you like and don’t waste precious time trying to listen to what doesn’t move you emotionally. Mahler’s not for everyone.


----------



## mbhaub

For me, the Mahlerian hook wasn't the logic, or form, or whatever message he was trying to say. It was the orchestral sound: the use of instruments, the extraordinary harmony, the heaven-storming climaxes and the soft, passionate passages. My understanding of all the rest came late. The work that hooked me as a 13-year-old: the 7th of all things in Bernstein's first recording. The scoring alone was all I cared about. So the Third was a cinch as was Six and then Five. The First gave me trouble for quite some time, as did the Eighth. Now, some 50+ years later Mahler is one composer I cannot live without. Especially this time of year: get a nice cognac out, put the headphones on and wallow in any of the works for a couple of hours. Life is good.


----------



## JTS

Bwv 1080 said:


> There are two kinds of people in this world: those who like Mahler and those without souls
> 
> sorry


Total rubbish! I remember the late John Culshaw saying he had an aversion to Mahler as 'all it's straining and heavings' made him physically sick! This is the guy who recorded the Ring and tons more. A case of one man's meat can be another man's poison. I know plenty of people who don't care for Mahler and they all have souls.
I came late to Mahler. I go it fits and starts with his music - bit like the man himself. If you don't like it don't feel guilty. There are plenty of people like you. Rnjoy what you do like.


----------



## SanAntone

Waehnen said:


> Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Kokkonen are symphonists to my liking, to name a few.
> 
> But Mahler! I just don't get the music! For me it sounds a bit trivial in the sense that the music flows as though the composer was writing a diary. "Yesterday I did this and that, this morning I woke up…." What I'm trying to say is that with the other composers I know how to follow the music, there is logic behind everything.
> 
> In my ears Mahler music has so far lacked symphonic logic. It is as though stuff just happen.
> 
> It is obvious I must be wrong. There are many mahlerians here. Please help me to better understand the essence of Mahler's music!


I was like you for years. Well, not exactly like you, I never thought Mahler was trivial, but I could not enjoy his works. Too sprawling, too (for lack of a better word) bombastic. And I would periodically listen again in the hope that one day it might click with me.

My first exposure which set me up for this lifelong quest to achieve my original high, like a drug addict, was the movie _Death in Venice_ (this was 1971) in which the beautiful Adagietto from the 5th Symphony was featured. I absolutely loved it. But when I tried other symphonies by Mahler, nothing came close. I had purchased the Bernstein complete set of symphonies and would dutifully listen to them, or usually one or two of them, with the inevitable result of putting them back on the shelf for another few years to gather dust.

Then this year that magical click occurred.

If you ever heard something of Mahler's that you really liked, then stick with him, you too might achieve the "click."


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> For me, the Mahlerian hook wasn't the logic, or form, or whatever message he was trying to say. It was the orchestral sound: the use of instruments, the extraordinary harmony, the heaven-storming climaxes and the soft, passionate passages. My understanding of all the rest came late.....


Yup....the sounds that Mahler generates with his orchestrations are really fascinating...it was #2 for me, when JFK was killed.....


----------



## starthrower

joen_cph said:


> Or the effective, relative simplicity of the 3rd's first movement ...


Speaking of first movements. Every one of Mahler's symphonies has a very memorable opening that draws the listener into the work. It's just a matter of putting in the listening time. After a while your ear will distinguish each and every symphony and its melodies and themes and then you'll feel like you've made some progress in getting to know these works. But it takes some time which will pay off in the end.


----------



## golfer72

i love the climaxes and how you can here the themes all playing together at the same time more than any other composer IMO. Mahler seems more transparent to me than other composers.


----------



## Bwv 1080

golfer72 said:


> i love the climaxes and how you can here the themes all playing together at the same time more than any other composer IMO. Mahler seems more transparent to me than other composers.


Yes, Mahler's counterpoint skills are underrated as it never sounds academic like Reger or Schoenberg - the Rondo Burleske from the 9th symphony is on par with the Jupiter Finale, but the technique is all subsumed by the vision.


----------



## Bwv 1080

JTS said:


> Total rubbish! I remember the late John Culshaw saying he had an aversion to Mahler as 'all it's straining and heavings' made him physically sick! This is the guy who recorded the Ring and tons more. A case of one man's meat can be another man's poison. I know plenty of people who don't care for Mahler and they all have souls.
> I came late to Mahler. I go it fits and starts with his music - bit like the man himself. If you don't like it don't feel guilty. There are plenty of people like you. Rnjoy what you do like.


Well Hitler liked Wagner as well, but not Mahlers music (he did like Mahler's conducting of Wagner, but that was before the war and before he became Hitler)

You know the  thingy means right? Evidently not, makes me wonder what you wrote before the edit


----------



## mbhaub

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, Mahler's counterpoint skills are underrated as it never sounds academic like Reger or Schoenberg - the Rondo Burleske from the 9th symphony is on par with the Jupiter Finale, but the technique is all subsumed by the vision.


Mahler confessed that counterpoint was his weakness, something he had to really work at, and was mad at himself for not having taken counterpoint classes at school more seriously. And he was right: it wasn't until the 5th that he seems to really have a handle on it. But counterpoint wasn't that big of a deal to the late romantics, saving Reger, Bruckner and Brahms maybe.


----------



## Rogerx

> It is obvious I must be wrong. There are many mahlerians here. Please help me to better understand the essence of Mahler's music!


If that's how you feel, why waste time on it. It's not that you must but on the other hand, listening to the fourth will do you good .
( perhaps) Good luck on your voyage.


----------



## Waehnen

Thanks for your replies! It warms my heart that obviously I am not alone with this issue. Mahler is somewhat different from other symphonic music.

My problem often is that I expect from certain music something that it just is not. Mahler is not profound symphonic thinking. The symphonies are, in his own words, ”like worlds and must embrace everything.”

The only times I have actually enjoyed Mahler are the times when I have accepted that ”this is clever and hedonistic orhestral soundscapes from a master musician to other musicians.”


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> But Mahler! I just don't get the music!


My first experience of Mahler was through film and TV scores - I disliked _Death in Venice _and the adagietto from the 5th, so knew I was never going to like him. Ghastly, miserable, overblown, I thought.

Later, I discovered that the fanfare at the beginning of a TV series called _Fall of Eagles, _which I really liked_, _was from the opening of the 5th. So I got to like that first movement.

But even better was watching a televised performance of the 6th at the Proms, Gergiev conducting. The andante was so moving that I had to force myself to buy a CD and listen to the whole thing again (Janssons, LSO).

I've found the same route - TV performances - into the symphonies of Prokofiev, Sibelius, Shostakovich and Vaughan Williams.



Bwv 1080 said:


> There are two kinds of people in this world: those who like Mahler and those without souls
> 
> sorry


ikr!

Until I finally got to like him, I was convinced I'd never get through the pearly gates! The relief when he finally clicked was like the climax to the andante of the 6th.


----------



## JTS

Bwv 1080 said:


> Well Hitler liked Wagner as well, but not Mahlers music (he did like Mahler's conducting of Wagner, but that was before the war and before he became Hitler)
> 
> You know the  thingy means right? Evidently not, makes me wonder what you wrote before the edit


Yes your obvious brilliant sense of wit. As presumably is your somewhat puzzling reference to Hitler. I hope you're not implying something here!

My edit was to correct a spelling mistake. Sorry to disappoint!


----------



## Kreisler jr

Bwv 1080 said:


> Yes, Mahler's counterpoint skills are underrated as it never sounds academic like Reger or Schoenberg - the Rondo Burleske from the 9th symphony is on par with the Jupiter Finale, but the technique is all subsumed by the vision.


I think some of the fugato sections in e.g. the 2nd or 3rd? movement of the 2nd and even the scherzo of the 5th do sound a bit perfunctory or academic. But that's similar with some early/middle Beethoven vs. op.133 so I wouldn't hold this against Mahler. And like op.133 the Rondo Burleske is not "subtle" like loads of Brahms where one has to look at the score to see all the little canons and whatever is going on.
(A problem with the Rondo Burleske is sometimes that "analytic" conductors like Gielen take it too slowly thus sacrificing fierceness for clarity and the more emotional types have it the other way round.)

I like Mahler but I think he has been overrated in the last ca. 30 years or so (if not as grossly as we was sometimes underrated even until the 1970s). Actually, I am not even sure if he really is rated as highly as one might think from the internet and the huge number of recordings. For all I know there are still many listeners who don't care much about Mahler, but they are rarely in nerdy internet discussions.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I like Mahler but I think he has been overrated in the last ca. 30 years or so (if not as grossly as we was sometimes underrated even until the 1970s). Actually, I am not even sure if he really is rated as highly as one might think from the internet and the huge number of recordings. For all I know there are still many listeners who don't care much about Mahler, but they are rarely in nerdy internet discussions.


Rikhard Strauss said of himself that he is a First rate Second Class Composer. ATM I think that is the case with Mahler as well. He might be of the highest class a second class composer.

I hope to be proven wrong! I will do my best to prove myself wrong!


----------



## david johnson

I do not know how to respond. I've enjoyed Mahler since I was in 9th grade and first heard his Sym 1. Have you sampled that one and #2 very many times?


----------



## Kreisler jr

In any case it is quite stunning how Strauss completely dominated vs. Mahler until into the late 20th century and how this has been reversed within about 30 years. Some part might be self-segregation of operaphiles but even when I started listening to classical music in the mid-late 1980s as a teenager, Mahler (and Bruckner and (most of) Sibelius and Shostakovich...) were comparably niche composers, or say at the border of mainstream, more for specially interested or "advanced" listeners. Whereas both La mer or Till Eulenspiegel would almost certainly be among the pieces presented in your 50 famous classical works surveys.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Waehnen said:


> Thanks for your replies! It warms my heart that obviously I am not alone with this issue. Mahler is somewhat different from other symphonic music.
> 
> My problem often is that I expect from certain music something that it just is not. Mahler is not profound symphonic thinking. The symphonies are, in his own words, "like worlds and must embrace everything."
> 
> The only times I have actually enjoyed Mahler are the times when I have accepted that "this is clever and hedonistic orhestral soundscapes from a master musician to other musicians."


Many consider Mahler the first modern composer, with an expressionistic, ironic aesthetic


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am not sure if this is modern, but in many ways Mahler is th old romantic among the late romantics. At least up to the 4th symphony with all his wunderhorn, Hoffmann and pseudo folk music. Basically the oposite to the typical fin de siecle decadence although he has a bit of this as well.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not sure if this is modern, but in many ways Mahler is th old romantic among the late romantics. At least up to the 4th symphony with all his wunderhorn, Hoffmann and pseudo folk music. Basically the oposite to the typical fin de siecle decadence although he has a bit of this as well.


I find a lot of irony in the 1st and 4th, not so much in 2&3


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> Rikhard Strauss said of himself that he is a First rate Second Class Composer. ATM I think that is the case with Mahler as well. He might be of the highest class a second class composer.
> 
> I hope to be proven wrong! I will do my best to prove myself wrong!


Strauss was wrong on the first count and I would beg to differ with regard to the estimable Gustav. First rate and first class.


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> Strauss was wrong on the first count and I would beg to differ with regard to the estimable Gustav. First rate and first class.


Thanks, Barbebleu! My first step is to convince myself through the music that he didn't just write whatever came to his mind one day at a time but had some planning done or some overall idea of the piece before starting to put notes down on the paper.

Have you heard the stories about how he just wrote the symphonies without any planning, like a diary?

If the anecdote above is true, is the only way of listening to Mahler just enjoying the very moment you are hearing? Carpe diem -style of approach? Instead of waiting for a story to be told or a complex state of mind expressed?

For me the music sounds like this: "Right now I feel like this and write it down. This sounds good on the orchestra. OK, another day. Today I write this. This sounds good on the orchestra. Ok, another day! Today I write this, this sounds good on the orchestra."

Could you point me some signs of compositional, architectural, narrative planning? That would help me on my journey.

So far I have enjoyed the 1st Movements of both the 9th and 10th Symphonies. They are coherent enough for me!


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> Have you heard the stories about how he just wrote the symphonies without any planning, like a diary?
> 
> Could you point me some signs of compositional, architectural, narrative planning? That would help me on my journey.


Why is planning so important to you? Given the vastness of his compositions it would make no sense for him to have just written down whatever came into his head at any given time. He worked hard on these symphonies and was constantly revising and refining and still was never fully satisfied with the end results. I have read many books about Mahler, in particular Donald Mitchell's monumental technical biography in three volumes which goes into Mahler's composing style in great detail. He planned alright. Enjoy. My journey started with Bernstein's Mahler 2.

If you're having some difficulty with coherence in Mahler's symphonies you're going to have real problems with Hohvaness!:lol:


----------



## Kreisler jr

Bwv 1080 said:


> I find a lot of irony in the 1st and 4th, not so much in 2&3


I think irony is a bit ambiguous here. (Prima facie both the "cuckoo has fallen to his death" and the "fish sermon" movements are prime irony examples)

Like Dickens or Dostoevsky (I think Mahler loved both authors, especially the latter) he is both ironic and naive/serious. And so are in their way the early German romantics Heine, E.T.A. Hoffmann and (Schumann's favorite) Jean Paul (of whom I admittedly have read almost nothing, he seems a rather acquired taste).

E.g. in the first symphony the last movement is completely serious and so is the "Lindenbaum" section in the otherwise ironic 3rd movement. Or the posthorn in the cuckoo movement of the 3rd. The juxtaposition of the Nietzsche "midnight song" and the silly "bimm bamm" children's choir.

Similarly in the 4th. The seemingly most parodistic movement, the finale ends with a serious transfiguration that I think, has to be taken at face value (and as has been pointed out it is probably not accidental that it is the stanza about the heavenly music that shows the only true paradise, like in the verses in "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen" about resting in my private heaven, in my loving, in my song).

Same in the 2nd with the passage in the fish sermon mvmt that suddenly gets seriously desperate; the ennui has turned into existential despair (there is an explicit comment by Mahler? saying roughly this). This in turn opens the finale and in between we have the utterly unironic "Urlicht" (and just looking at that text it takes effort *not* to treat it with irony).

But this was not my main point, but rather the distance to some "fin de siecle moods" and the closeness to the poetry and mood of the early 19th century romantics, including the "dark" ones. Mahler, irony or not, is leagues away from Straussian, Nietzschean, and even further from contemporary French ennui and cynicism. (I am not sure if the fascination with the (often faux) folk poetry of the Wunderhorn collection could be compared to the collecting of real folk music a bit later by people like Bartok or RWV.)
There is some irony, but all of it is dominated by nostalgia, by the fascination with nature (including its rough, uncivilized form like the "nature sounds" of the beginning of the 1st and even more the first mvmt of the 3rd) and, I believe, real compassion.

Whereas Strauss could sometimes be quite close to a bourgeois a**hole version of Übermensch and I'd even go so far that some of his music, like "Heldenleben" shows this as well.


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> Why is planning so important to you? Given the vastness of his compositions it would make no sense for him to have just written down whatever came into his head at any given time. He worked hard on these symphonies and was constantly revising and refining and still was never fully satisfied with the end results. I have read many books about Mahler, in particular Donald Mitchell's monumental technical biography in three volumes which goes into Mahler's composing style in great detail. He planned alright. Enjoy. My journey started with Bernstein's Mahler 2.
> 
> If you're having some difficulty with coherence in Mahler's symphonies you're going to have real problems with Hohvaness!:lol:


Planning and coherence is the opposite of meaningless babble. The opposite of merely turning the crank of a compositional barrel organ. Planning and coherence and the depth of meaning are ways to ensure the composer gives his/her best and is not wasting the listener's time.


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> Planning and coherence is the opposite of meaningless babble. The opposite of merely turning the crank of a compositional barrel organ. Planning and coherence and the depth of meaning are ways to ensure the composer gives his/her best and is not wasting the listener's time.


I have never thought that Mahler was wasting the listener's time. I've always found him to be intensely rewarding, but that's just me!. In fact I have never thought any composer sets out to waste either his/her own or the listener's time, even composers whose music holds little or no interest for me. Too much effort for little reward I would think.


----------



## Waehnen

I wasn’t suggesting that Mahler was wasting anyone’s time, that would be arrogant. Because you asked, I just explained why planning, coherence and depth of meaning are important to me. I intend to find those things in Mahler’s music, because that is the way for me to really get the music.

Of course it would be absurd and ridiculous for a composer to have a goal of wasting everyone’s time! But it is imaginable that some one with a high ego, considering oneself a genius, could just write stuff without much effort and consideration, thinking that everything that comes from that mind must be perfect. So the arrogance of a mediocre composer thinking oneself to be genius, could well result in time being wasted!


----------



## maestro267

First movt. of Symphony No. 6 is in a clear sonata form, just writ large.


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> I wasn't suggesting that Mahler was wasting anyone's time, that would be arrogant. Because you asked, I just explained why planning, coherence and depth of meaning are important to me. I intend to find those things in Mahler's music, because that is the way for me to really get the music.
> 
> Of course it would be absurd and ridiculous for a composer to have a goal of wasting everyone's time! But it is imaginable that some one with a high ego, considering oneself a genius, could just write stuff without much effort and consideration, thinking that everything that comes from that mind must be perfect. So the arrogance of a mediocre composer thinking oneself to be genius, could well result in time being wasted!


I think it takes a certain kind of arrogance and/or genius to be a composer anyway - even a mediocre one!:lol:


----------



## starthrower

Barbebleu said:


> I have never thought that Mahler was wasting the listener's time. I've always found him to be intensely rewarding, but that's just me!. In fact I have never thought any composer sets out to waste either his/her own or the listener's time, even composers whose music holds little or no interest for me. Too much effort for little reward I would think.


Right-o, Barb. People who are worried about wasting time don't listen to classical music. They're out raking leaves or painting the shed.


----------



## Waehnen

starthrower said:


> Right-o, Barb. People who are worried about wasting time don't listen to classical music. They're out raking leaves or painting the shed.


Not all classical music is worth the effort, is it? Not all classical music is brilliant. There is an awful lot of mediocre modern contemporary music, too. I just wanna focus on the brilliant stuff!


----------



## Waehnen

maestro267 said:


> First movt. of Symphony No. 6 is in a clear sonata form, just writ large.


I bought the full cycle by Simon Rattle when I started this thread. Just listening to the 1st Movement of the 6th Symphony. For me this is easy to enjoy. Thanks for the recommendation!

I also considered the Finale of the 9th Symphony quite wonderful.


----------



## starthrower

Waehnen said:


> Not all classical music is worth the effort, is it? Not all classical music is brilliant. There is an awful lot of mediocre modern contemporary music, too. I just wanna focus on the brilliant stuff!


That's up to each and every listener to decide. One lifetime is not enough to focus on all of the great or so called brilliant works in the history of classical music. But is it only a matter of brilliance? I don't think so. I'm interested in the music that resonates with me as a listener so I don't sit around all day listening to Mozart or Monteverdi madrigals. As brilliant as it is, I have other interests.


----------



## Waehnen

starthrower said:


> That's up to each and every listener to decide. One lifetime is not enough to focus on all of the great or so called brilliant works in the history of classical music. But is it only a matter of brilliance? I don't think so. I'm interested in the music that resonates with me as a listener so I don't sit around all day listening to Mozart or Monteverdi madrigals. As brilliant as it is, I have other interests.


Good point! Brilliance most certainly does not cover all that resonates in music. I agree. But very seldom I've been touched by a mediocre composition. Well, maybe Nightride and Sunrise by Sibelius falls into that category. Mediocre but it resonates.


----------



## EdwardBast

To my ears Mahler's symphonic output is uneven. Some works and movements are excellent, others I find tedious, incoherent, or banal. I really like symphonies 4-6 and isolated movements and bits of some of the others.


----------



## Art Rock

Mahler is my #2 composer (second only to Bach), but if it does not work for someone, it does not work. No-one is obliged to appreciate all the great masters, and indeed many of us have our own weak spots in that respect.

That said, it might be worthwhile to start exploring Mahler first in a more condensed form, his three famous song cycles for voice and orchestra (and some of the themes in them are recycled in the symphonies): Kindertotenlieder, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, and Rueckertlieder.


----------



## Waehnen

EdwardBast said:


> To my ears Mahler's symphonic output is uneven. Some works and movements are excellent, others I find tedious, incoherent, or banal. I really like symphonies 4-6 and isolated movements and bits of some of the others.


There was some talk about brilliance just then. Symphony no. 6 seems to be brilliant! It resonates the best so far out of all Mahler I have heard. Interesting!


----------



## starthrower

Waehnen said:


> Good point! Brilliance most certainly does not cover all that resonates in music. I agree. But very seldom I've been touched by a mediocre composition. Well, maybe Nightride and Sunrise by Sibelius falls into that category. Mediocre but it resonates.


Music that feels like it has some heart and soul is what resonates with me. Flashy pieces written for the sake of virtuosity, or lighthearted New Years Eve waltzes are really not my thing. I don't worry about mediocrity because there is so much great stuff to listen to in the world of classical music.

I've been turned on to tons of great stuff here in the past eleven years. When I discovered this forum I did not own one opera, or a string quartet by more than one composer. And I had never listened to Mahler, Bruckner, Szymanowski, Janacek, Schnittke, Ligeti, Berg, Sibelius, Honegger, Martinu, Hartmann, Nielsen, etc. I got immersed in it all reading about it here from the hundreds of knowledgeable listeners.


----------



## starthrower

And as Ed Bast pointed out. You don't have to love everything Mahler wrote. He mentioned 4-6, and last year I got obsessed with M5 and I collected about 8-9 recordings. It's now one of my favorite Mahler symphonies. But I neglected it in the beginning of my exploration years ago.


----------



## Waehnen

starthrower said:


> And as Ed Bast pointed out. You don't have to love everything Mahler wrote. He mentioned 4-6, and last year I got obsessed with M5 and I collected about 8-9 recordings. It's now one of my favorite Mahler symphonies. But I neglected it in the beginning of my exploration years ago.


Very true. So far even just this Symphony no. 6 makes all the exploring worth it. But I cannot help but wonder why it is this Symphony out of all Mahler. This just makes sense in my mind and heart and resonates. This is not senseless babble.


----------



## Art Rock

In addition, perhaps more than with any other composer, there is no consensus about which of his symphonies are the best. Especially the 4th and 8th, which some rank at the top and others at the bottom.


----------



## Waehnen

Art Rock said:


> In addition, perhaps more than with any other composer, there is no consensus about which of his symphonies are the best. Especially the 4th and 8th, which some rank at the top and others at the bottom.


Could be very true!


----------



## starthrower

I love the 8th! But I love choral music too. I don't know why people struggle with it? Maybe the first part feels a little too over the top for some listeners? I get that feeling from some pieces by other composers but not Mahler's 8th. Even if it is over the top. I love it!


----------



## Azol

Mahler is very frugal about resourcing to bombast in his Eighth. The score is not that dense most of the time but he surely uses all the extra punch he can when he lifts up into the sky and beyond. But the sheer amount of singing can be a big NO for some listeners, I guess. It's a pity Mahler never wrote an opera.


----------



## mbhaub

There's something that hasn't been mentioned yet unless I missed it: Mahler makes a much bigger impact in a good live performance with a good orchestra. No matter how good a recording is or the performance on it, no matter how great your playback equipment, hearing any of the works live can be - should be! - a life-changing event. I'll never forget hearing the 2nd in person some 50 years ago. It was thrilling, electrifying to say the least. His star seems to be ebbing in the USA right now, and the likes of Bernstein, Solti, Levine, Szell and Ormandy long gone. But if it's possible to get to a major orchestra performing Mahler you should do it. There are still some excellent Mahler conductors out there.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> There's something that hasn't been mentioned yet unless I missed it: Mahler makes a much bigger impact in a good live performance with a good orchestra. No matter how good a recording is or the performance on it, no matter how great your playback equipment, hearing any of the works live can be - should be! - a life-changing event. I'll never forget hearing the 2nd in person some 50 years ago. It was thrilling, electrifying to say the least. His star seems to be ebbing in the USA right now, and the likes of Bernstein, Solti, Levine, Szell and Ormandy long gone. But if it's possible to get to a major orchestra performing Mahler you should do it. There are still some excellent Mahler conductors out there.


I actually think that is one of the keys to solving this puzzle.

The hundreds of conductors voted for the best symphonies of all time and 3 symphonies in the top 10 were by Mahler.

https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/

As I stated before, I have elaborated the idea that master musicians adore the music of the master musician, Mahler. He was an extremely talented conductor himself and so must have really known how to make the orchestra sing. Mahler reflected this on his symphonies. He did not compose his symphonies for the CD-player but for a live orchestra in front of a live audience in a grand concert hall.

Actually I have no doubt that the music must have a huge impact on a listener in the audience whose mind doesn´t wander but who is captivated and immersed by the vast and colourful orchestral sounds.

So maybe Mahler could be described as Orchestral Art?

Yes, at least right at this moment I would tend to think that Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius were creators of Symphonic Art, but Mahler was the creator of Orchestral Art.

My problem as a listener has been that I have searched for the Symphonic in Mahler, also. Instead I should have opened my mind for the Orchestral.


----------



## EdwardBast

Waehnen said:


> There was some talk about brilliance just then. Symphony no. 6 seems to be brilliant! It resonates the best so far out of all Mahler I have heard. Interesting!


I like the Fifth just as much as the Sixth. Its second movement is my favorite symphonic movement by Mahler. My only reservation about the Fifth is that the scherzo, nice as it is, isn't as tightly integrated into the overall structure as the other four movements, which bothers me a bit because it's the longest of the bunch.


----------



## Roger Knox

redundant post .. thanks josquin13 anyways!


----------



## Roger Knox

mbhaub said:


> But counterpoint wasn't that big of a deal to the late romantics, saving Reger, Bruckner and Brahms maybe.


I agree with one addition. I think that Richard Strauss was a superb polyphonist, if not contrapuntist (imitative counterpoint at the very least wasn't his style.) Multiple voices in different rhythms he said came to him instantly and things fit together, sometimes in innovative ways.


----------



## Josquin13

Mahler was one of the great orchestrators (right up there with R. Strauss, Ravel, & Debussy), and his symphonies are notoriously difficult to do justice to in the recording studio (& even more so than those other three). Therefore, at some point, I would strongly urge you to hear his music live in the concert hall, & preferably played by a world class orchestra.

Mahler's music isn't 'trivial'. I started with Bruno Walter's old, mono New York Philharmonic recording of the 4th Symphony in college, and wore the LP out: 



.

After that, I subsequently came to love Mahler's three orchestral song cycles, as sung by Janet Baker, with Sir John Barbirolli conducting the New Philharmonia Orchestra (on EMI). This record is a desert island disc in my Mahler collection, & the moving song, "Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen", or "I am lost to the world", from his 5 Rückert-Lieder is essential listening:






Here too is the Baker/Barbirolli "Kindertotenlieder": 



, and "Songs of a Wayfarer": 



.

Baker likewise sings on one of my favorite recordings of Mahler's Symphony No. 2, "Resurrection", with Leonard Bernstein conducting the LSO live at Ely Cathedral in 1968. Here she is singing the beautiful 4th movement, "Urlicht. Sehr feierlich, aber schlicht": 



. You might also enjoy the full DVD film, though granted, it's not in ideal sound, but it is a wonderfully exciting performance, & especially in the final choral movement:






Speaking of Bernstein, I'd also recommend hearing his 1965 recording of the Symphony No. 7 (his later DG recording is good, too, and one of the few Bernstein DG Mahler recordings that I can recommend: 



, but the 1965 Columbia/Sony recording is special, IMO): 



.

(By the way, Claudio Abbado is excellent in the 7th Symphony, too: 



, as is Rafael Kubelik...)

In fact, the whole Bernstein 1960s New York cycle has been remastered in DSD and is one of the real bargains in the catalogue at around $20-25 (EDIT: Unfortunately, I see the price has gone up a bit on Amazon--to $31--even so, it's still a prime bargain). After all, these are the DSD remasters that the excellent Japanese hybrid SACDs were based on: https://www.amazon.com/Mahler-Compl...ernstein+mahler&qid=1637265335&s=music&sr=1-1

I'd also recommend hearing Mahler's 5th Symphony, too, with its beautiful, heartfelt Adagio, which is a love letter in music to Mahler's then future wife, Alma (as he later told the Dutch conductor, Willem Mengelberg). There are many excellent performances of this symphony, but here are two of my favorites,

--Gunther Herbig, Berlin Symphony Orchestra:






















It's interesting to hear Herbig's performance of the 5th next to Mahler's own piano roll recording, as it becomes evident that Herbig has listened carefully & thoughtfully to Mahler's interpretation (unlike some conductors): 




--Rafael Kubelik, & the Symphonie-Orchester Des Bayerischen Rundfunks, or Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra: 




But most of all, I'd strongly recommend that you hear Mahler's 9th Symphony, with its 'other worldly' closing Adagio 4th movement. For many people, this is the greatest symphony ever written. But I do think it is an older person's symphony. I don't think I quite fully appreciated it in my younger days.

Here are a handful of what I'd consider to be 'great' performances of the 9th, by some of my favorite Mahler conductors & orchestras: Which is intended to serve as further guidance in regards to acquainting you with a handful of special Mahler conductors, but also because, as with any towering musical masterpiece (if you will), it's helpful to hear a range of different performances, in order to more fully comprehend the genius behind the work:

--Bruno Walter & the Columbia Symphony Orchestra (1961)--Walter was Mahler's assistant & protégé. Not only did Mahler ask Walter conduct the premiere of the 9th after his death (& Oskar Fried, the second performance), but he also dedicated the symphony to Walter: 



.

--Karel Ančerl, Czech Philharmonic (1966): 




--Carlo Maria Giulini, Chicago Symphony Orchestra (1977): 




--Riccardo Chailly, Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam--this is my top digital era pick (alongside Chailly's live Leipzig Gewandhaus 9th), and it has been available in both a CD & hybrid SACD format, & the latter sounds best, if you can track it down (if interested). By the way, while in Amsterdam, Chailly had access to Willem Mengelberg's heavily notated conducting scores, which were developed in close consultation with Mahler. (So too did another fine Mahler conductor, Bernard Haitink, when he formerly led the Concertgebouw). But alas, unlike Walter, Mengelberg didn't conduct the 9th under Mahler's guidance:


















--Here too is my other digital era pick, if sound quality is important to you: As noted, Chailly later recorded the 9th in Leipzig on DVD, & it is another very, very fine performance by a great orchestra. It is also a somewhat different interpretation from Chailly's earlier 9th--indeed there are days when I prefer his Leipzig account to the Concertgebouw performance (& the other way around): 




(This is my 3rd digital era pick of the 9th, which some might prefer to Chailly's, conducting-wise--though the orchestra isn't as good: 



)

Other legendary performances that deserve mention,

--Sir John Barbirolli, Berlin Philhrmonic Orchestra (1964): 




--Otto Klemperer, New Philhrmonia Orchestra (1967)--Klemperer was another conductor that knew & worked closely with Mahler (along with F. Charles Adler, whose pioneering Mahler records strongly influenced the young Leonard Bernstein, according to Bernstein): 




(As an extra a bonus, here is F. Charles Adler conducting the 1952 premiere of Mahler's 10th on record: 



.)

I hope that the above suggestions help to get you into Mahler's music more deeply.

P.S. Nice to see that you've discovered the underrated four symphonies of Joonas Kokkonen! I thought I was the only one who mentioned them favorbly on TC.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> I like the Fifth just as much as the Sixth. It's second movement is my favorite symphonic movement by Mahler. My only reservation about the Fifth is that the scherzo, nice as it is, isn't as tightly integrated into the overall structure as the other four movements, which bothers me a bit because it's the longest of the bunch.


But doesn't Mahler 5 present clearly as three main sections?? Mvts 1,2 ...3.....4,5 ....mvt 3, the scherzo standing by itself, as the preceding and succeeding movements are paired off...


----------



## mbhaub

Depending on ones' situation in life, where you live, financial resources, etc., here are a couple of ways to really get into Mahler.

The Colorado MahlerFest https://mahlerfest.org/ already has the Third on the docket for 2022. It's set in the beautiful town of Boulder, the orchestra is excellent as is the conductor. The people who attend are real Mahler fans and the excitement is palpable. Lots to do in and around Boulder, also. Maybe I'll see you there!

If you really want to get the total Mahler experience, head to Leipzig, Germany in 2023. https://www.leipzig.travel/en/culture/music/city-of-music-leipzig/gewandhaus-festival/

They're putting on all the symphonies, Das Lied, and Klagende Lied. It was supposed to be this last May, but Covid got in the way. I bought my tickets a while ago and if it's like last time, they're going to be hard to get already.


----------



## starthrower

mbhaub said:


> Depending on ones' situation in life, where you live, financial resources, etc., here are a couple of ways to really get into Mahler.
> 
> The Colorado MahlerFest https://mahlerfest.org/ already has the Third on the docket for 2022. It's set in the beautiful town of Boulder, the orchestra is excellent as is the conductor. The people who attend are real Mahler fans and the excitement is palpable. Lots to do in and around Boulder, also. Maybe I'll see you there!


Love, love, love Colorado! I vacationed there twice in 1996 and '98. Went to Denver, Boulder, Co Springs, Breckenridge, Aspen, and Vail. Would love to go back for some live music but I'm a long way away.


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> But doesn't Mahler 5 present clearly as three main sections?? Mvts 1,2 ...3.....4,5 ....mvt 3, the scherzo standing by itself, as the preceding and succeeding movements are paired off...


Yes, three main sections. But your description of the overall design ("the preceding and succeeding movements are paired off") is not an accurate summary of how the symphony is unified and it misses the most important connections. The derivation of themes in the finale from the second movement, especially the final chorale (not to mention the principal theme of the finale!), is the backbone of the whole structure. The chorale's struggle toward power and glory in the second movement is denied, the stormy music having the finale word. The end of the finale, however, supplies the conclusion denied in Part I. My point was that the longest movement, the scherzo, has nothing substantive to do with the main drama and cyclic design.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> .....The chorale's struggle toward power and glory in the second movement is denied, the stormy music having the finale word. The end of the finale, however, supplies the conclusion denied in Part I. My point was that the longest movement, the scherzo, has nothing substantive to do with the main drama and cyclic design.


I understand about the chorale theme from mvt II that reappears and prevails in the Finale....and yes the scherzo is not involved with that aspect of the cyclic design, but it is certainly not superfluous or unrelated to the work....it is a major, contrasting statement, the longest movement...the following Adagietto is not connected with the choral idea either, tho it is, of course, thematically connected with the Finale.
It is not required that every movement of a work be intimately connected with the other movements.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Mahler is one of the only composers to actually make me break down in tears. Not an easy feat, but there's something within his music that spoke to me. If you find none of these moments in his music, then it's best not to force yourself to listen. I wish I could help you or guide you in some way, but I can't, it's up to you to figure this out for yourself.


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> Mahler is one of the only composers to actually make me break down in tears. Not an easy feat, but there's something within his music that spoke to me. If you find none of these moments in his music, then it's best not to force yourself to listen. I wish I could help you or guide you in some way, but I can't, it's up to you to figure this out for yourself.


I have been given many tips and great advice on this Forum thread!

It might be silly but one key for the decryption now seems to be not to consider Mahler primarily a symphonic composer/genius but an orchestral composer/genius. That thought helps my listening and opening my ears and mind. For I just cannot expect this to be anything like Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius or Shostakovich.

Mahler is foremost an orchestral composer, more than any of the aforementioned. For me there is a crucial difference.

I think you guys have helped me over one obstacle! So thank you.


----------



## 89Koechel

Thank YOU, Waehnen ... but one might say that even Mahler, or Shostakovich were somewhat-limited in their inspirations and results. There was a critic - Eric Salzman, in his "Twentieth-Century Music: An Introduction", mentioned that Shostakovich, in "His large structures, built on long, simple, tonal planes, endless repetition, rhythmic and harmonic insistence, and big, dramatic contrasts spaced out on a Mahlerian time scale, are not profound, thought they generally affect the appearance of profundity. Nevertheless, they do achieve, by a force of will, a certain scope and grandeur." Well, I would argue that the Shostakoich 1st, 2nd and 3rd Symphonies are NOT guilty of such superfluous elements, but are excellent/original works, in their own right.


----------



## Waehnen

With Shostakovich there is always a narrative which makes sence even though the compositional techniques he applies vary a lot. So I never judge Shostakovich based on the musical techinique. In my eyes Shostakovich is all about expression, in the footsteps of aesthetics of Tolstoi.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Heck148 said:


> I understand about the chorale theme from mvt II that reappears and prevails in the Finale....and yes the scherzo is not involved with that aspect of the cyclic design, but it is certainly not superfluous or unrelated to the work....it is a major, contrasting statement, the longest movement...the following Adagietto is not connected with the choral idea either, tho it is, of course, thematically connected with the Finale.
> It is not required that every movement of a work be intimately connected with the other movements.


The scherzo is supposed to work as a kind of pivoting point. I think it is a fascinating movement, maybe the greatest and most ambitious symphonic scherzo of all, but I am also not entirely sure if the function as turning point of the whole symphony works. But I liked the 5th basically from the first encounter and it was my favorite for a few years before I "got" the 9th.


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Kokkonen are symphonists to my liking, to name a few.
> 
> But Mahler! I just don't get the music! For me it sounds a bit trivial in the sense that the music flows as though the composer was writing a diary. "Yesterday I did this and that, this morning I woke up…." What I'm trying to say is that with the other composers I know how to follow the music, there is logic behind everything.
> 
> In my ears Mahler music has so far lacked symphonic logic. It is as though stuff just happen.
> 
> It is obvious I must be wrong. There are many mahlerians here. Please help me to better understand the essence of Mahler's music!


Maybe that's exactly Mahler's strength?
Using a lot of symphonic and form-based logic and being able to make it sound like a _Stream of Consciousness_?


----------



## Waehnen

Marc said:


> Maybe that's exactly Mahler's strength?
> Using a lot of symphonic and form-based logic and being able to make it sound like a _Stream of Consciousness_?


Excellent analysis!

Not so much symphonic music, but:

_*Stream of consciousness expressed through genius orchestral measures.*_

I am happy to accept a composer like that!


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> Excellent analysis!
> 
> Not so much symphonic music, but:
> 
> _*Stream of consciousness expressed through genius orchestral measures.*_
> 
> I am happy to accept a composer like that!


More 'extensively' explained:

Mahler, being a (very good) opera and orchestral conductor, knew all the (im)possibilities of the various instruments very well. I think that this added to his orchestration skills.
But personally I always had the idea that his symphonic movements were rather well wrought and were not symphonically 'illogical' at all, but that he was able to make you feel that the notes just 'flew out' of his pen, inspired by his ever-changing mood(s).


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> I understand about the chorale theme from mvt II that reappears and prevails in the Finale....and yes the scherzo is not involved with that aspect of the cyclic design, but it is certainly not superfluous or unrelated to the work....it is a major, contrasting statement, the longest movement...the following Adagietto is not connected with the choral idea either, tho it is, of course, thematically connected with the Finale.
> *It is not required that every movement of a work be intimately connected with the other movements.*


I agree. Something is definitely needed for contrast and pacing between the second movement and the Adagietto.



Kreisler jr said:


> The scherzo is supposed to work as a kind of pivoting point. I think it is a fascinating movement, maybe the greatest and most ambitious symphonic scherzo of all, but I am also not entirely sure if the function as turning point of the whole symphony works. But I liked the 5th basically from the first encounter and it was my favorite for a few years before I "got" the 9th.


The way I hear it: If the scherzo wasn't there, the cogent statement of the symphony's principal conflict or opposition at the end of the second movement would be too close in time to its resolution in the finale. So, as I said above in response to Heck, something substantial needs to be there. But, correct me if I'm wrong: Wasn't the scherzo completed before Mahler got to work on the other movements? Isn't that why it has no substantial connection to the other movements, because it was composed before they existed? I think it just happened to be handy and ready to go when Mahler needed something between Part I and Part III, so he inserted it.


----------



## Waehnen

Marc said:


> More 'extensively' explained:
> 
> Mahler, being a (very good) opera and orchestral conductor, knew all the (im)possibilities of the various instruments very well. I think that this added to his orchestration skills.
> But personally I always had the idea that his symphonic movements were rather well wrought and were not symphonically 'illogical' at all, but that he was able to make you feel that the notes just 'flew out' of his pen, inspired by his ever-changing mood(s).


I get what you mean. Yet I do not consider Mahler to be as symphonic as some other composers because his motifs, melodies and themes are not of a particularly high profile. Compare the themes and melodies of Mahler to those of Sibelius, for example. Sibelius is a melodic and thematic and motific genius, where Mahler is not. Then again, Mahler is an orchestral genius, Sibelius by all means is not.


----------



## Marc

Neo Romanza said:


> Mahler is one of the only composers to actually make me break down in tears. Not an easy feat, but there's something within his music that spoke to me. If you find none of these moments in his music, then it's best not to force yourself to listen. I wish I could help you or guide you in some way, but I can't, it's up to you to figure this out for yourself.


Yep.
I've seen people react to the final chorus of his 2nd symphony, getting very annoyed and shouting "disgusting!", and I've seen other people burst out in tears & getting very moved. Same music, all humans, very different responses.


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> I get what you mean. Yet I do not consider Mahler to be as symphonic as some other composers because his motifs, melodies and themes are not of a particularly high profile. Compare the themes and melodies of Mahler to those of Sibelius, for example. Sibelius is a melodic and thematic and motific genius, where Mahler is not. Then again, Mahler is an orchestral genius, Sibelius by all means is not.


Mahler got much of his inspiration from folk music, dance tunes and military band music. Maybe that explains a lot. 
I do remember an interview with Bernard Haitink where he admitted that Mahler's music sometimes was verging on Kitsch, but, as Haitink said, maybe Kitsch is something that we like and admire more than we actually want to admit.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> Then again, Mahler is an orchestral genius, Sibelius by all means is not.


That's ridiculous. Sibelius was very economical in his use of the orchestra, but a master - genius - nonetheless. His early works betray a lack of experience, but then so do Mahler's early versions of Das Klagende Lied and the First Symphony. Sibelius just didn't endlessly revise things. But symphonies 4, 5, 7, Tapiola, En Saga and others demonstrate an orchestral wizardry second to none.


----------



## Kreisler jr

EdwardBast said:


> I agree. Something is definitely needed for contrast and pacing between the second movement and the Adagietto.
> [...]
> The way I hear it: If the scherzo wasn't there, the cogent statement of the symphony's principal conflict or opposition at the end of the second movement would be too close in time to its resolution in the finale. So, as I said above in response to Heck, something substantial needs to be there. But, correct me if I'm wrong: Wasn't the scherzo completed before Mahler got to work on the other movements? Isn't that why it has no substantial connection to the other movements, because it was composed before they existed? I think it just happened to be handy and ready to go when Mahler needed something between Part I and Part III, so he inserted it.


I don't know. I have a hard time to believe that Mahler would have composed an almost 20 min long scherzo with no clear plan how to use this movement and then inserted it in an otherwise unrelated? symphony because some 15-20 min. needed to be filled 

And there are connections between at scherzo and Rondo-finale, I think. But I don't know how well founded the idea is I was referring to, that it is the turning point of the whole work.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> I have been given many tips and great advice on this Forum thread!
> 
> It might be silly but one key for the decryption now seems to be not to consider Mahler primarily a symphonic composer/genius but an orchestral composer/genius. That thought helps my listening and opening my ears and mind. For I just cannot expect this to be anything like Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius or Shostakovich.
> 
> Mahler is foremost an orchestral composer, more than any of the aforementioned. For me there is a crucial difference.
> 
> I think you guys have helped me over one obstacle! So thank you.


What I find to be odd is that you'd expect Mahler to be like another composer to begin with. Each of the composers you mentioned occupy their _own_ sound-worlds. They couldn't be more different from each other. Mahler is Mahler until the end. There's nobody like him and there never will be. Oh and he _is_ a symphonic genius. Not sure why you wouldn't label him as such. He took the symphonic form and made it his own.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> That's ridiculous. Sibelius was very economical in his use of the orchestra, but a master - genius - nonetheless. His early works betray a lack of experience, but then so do Mahler's early versions of Das Klagende Lied and the First Symphony. Sibelius just didn't endlessly revise things. But symphonies 4, 5, 7, Tapiola, En Saga and others demonstrate an orchestral wizardry second to none.


Yeah, Sibelius was an excellent orchestrator but didn't go to the lengths of Strauss, Mahler, Ravel and Stravinsky. Yet I am very happy that you defend Sibelius in this regard.

All of them, Stravinsky, Mahler ans Strauss commented on Sibelius' orchestration back then. The point was that "he doesn't know" as much about orchestration as them. Of this Sibelius was proud and said he offers pure spring water instead of cocktails.


----------



## Enthusiast

Waehnen said:


> Not all classical music is worth the effort, is it? Not all classical music is brilliant. There is an awful lot of mediocre modern contemporary music, too. I just wanna focus on the brilliant stuff!


From that statement I assume you know contemporary music well enough to see some as mediocre and presumably to recognise that some is brilliant? Or are you another new member who has come here to trash modern music despite not knowing any? If the latter please try to keep such opinions to threads that they are relevant to and refrain from polluting threads that seem not to require an opinion on the contemporary.


----------



## Waehnen

Enthusiast said:


> From that statement I assume you know contemporary music well enough to see some as mediocre and presumably to recognise that some is brilliant? Or are you another new member who has come here to trash modern music despite not knowing any? If the latter please try to keep such opinions to threads that they are relevant to and refrain from polluting threads that seem not to require an opinion on the contemporary.


I am a composer of contemporary music myself. I have had 3 teachers of composition, all of them of the highest standard here in my homeland. One of them was a true modernist (atonal), one was a postmodernist (tonal) and one something in between (chromatic and spectral freetonal, I suppose). All of them are great composers. I have no need to trash modern music. I even happen to know some.

So don´t worry!

(Although I do wonder why you decided to quote this only post by me where I did refer to contemporary music and on that basis started to wonder if I have an agenda to mock the contemporary.)


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> What I find to be odd is that you'd expect Mahler to be like another composer to begin with. Each of the composers you mentioned occupy their _own_ sound-worlds. They couldn't be more different from each other. Mahler is Mahler until the end. There's nobody like him and there never will be. Oh and he _is_ a symphonic genius. Not sure why you wouldn't label him as such. He took the symphonic form and made it his own.


I have been talking about my ability to grasp Mahler´s music. Like I stated above, symphonic to me means something that Mahler is not (themes, motifs and melodies of higher profile with organic growth, or a strong narrative and overall drama and structure). Right now, for me Mahler is orchestral expression of cognition, and brilliant as such.

Of course I realize this is not how everyone sees this, if anyone other than myself.

I like Mahler better and better every day, so this is a matter of enthusiasm for me!


----------



## EdwardBast

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't know. I have a hard time to believe that Mahler would have composed an almost 20 min long scherzo with no clear plan how to use this movement and then inserted it in an otherwise unrelated? symphony because some 15-20 min. needed to be filled
> 
> And there are connections between at scherzo and Rondo-finale, I think. But I don't know how well founded the idea is I was referring to, that it is the turning point of the whole work.


If memory serves, it was composed and completed as an independent work before the rest of the symphony it became part of(?), so I wouldn't say without a plan. It could have been intended for performamce as a stand alone single-movement work.

Note: this is all from memory of a Mahler seminar in grad school.


----------



## Enthusiast

Waehnen said:


> I am a composer of contemporary music myself. I have had 3 teachers of composition, all of them of the highest standard here in my homeland. One of them was a true modernist (atonal), one was a postmodernist (tonal) and one something in between (chromatic and spectral freetonal, I suppose). All of them are great composers. I have no need to trash modern music. I even happen to know some.
> 
> So don´t worry!
> 
> (Although I do wonder why you decided to quote this only post by me where I did refer to contemporary music and on that basis started to wonder if I have an agenda to mock the contemporary.)


Ah OK. That's good then.

Yes, you are right. I am not really following this thread. I find many threads these days seem similar to earlier ones and I have less inkling to spend time in fast moving threads than I used to. But I caught a sight of the post I responded to and thought I would ask. Politely, I hope.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> I have been talking about my ability to grasp Mahler's music. Like I stated above, symphonic to me means something that Mahler is not (themes, motifs and melodies of higher profile with organic growth, or a strong narrative and overall drama and structure). Right now, for me Mahler is orchestral expression of cognition, and brilliant as such.
> 
> Of course I realize this is not how everyone sees this, if anyone other than myself.
> 
> I like Mahler better and better every day, so this is a matter of enthusiasm for me!


Just because you don't find Mahler to be "symphonic" doesn't mean that he isn't. Stop being so narrow-minded.


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> Just because you don't find Mahler to be "symphonic" doesn't mean that he isn't. Stop being so narrow-minded.


You don´t have to mind my ways of describing music. You are free to call Mahler symphonic. Most people do so you are in a good company, really. Never mind one Waehnen.

But if you want to, I can tone down this new symphonic vs. orchestral idea of mine so that it will not unnecessarily irritate you and others.


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> Yeah, Sibelius was an excellent orchestrator but didn't go to the lengths of Strauss, Mahler, Ravel and Stravinsky.


I'm always puzzled by criticisms of a composer's "orchestration" (and not just Sibelius - similar things have been said of Beethoven's works). Surely it is what it is?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Forster said:


> I'm always puzzled by criticisms of a composer's "orchestration" (and not just Sibelius - similar things have been said of Beethoven's works). Surely it is what it is?


I have seen the claim by a guy who supposedly had studied composition that orchestration was the most scientific part of music (overtones of different instruments and there superpositions etc.) and e.g. Brahms was "objectively bad" at it. I think this claim is highly exaggerated but why should it not be criticized like any other aspect. 
The harmonies, melodies, rhythms, forms are also "what they are" but that does not mean they are always convincing to every critic?


----------



## Forster

Kreisler jr said:


> I have seen the claim by a guy who supposedly had studied composition that orchestration was the most scientific part of music (overtones of different instruments and there superpositions etc.) and e.g. Brahms was "objectively bad" at it. I think this claim is highly exaggerated but why should it not be criticized like any other aspect.
> The harmonies, melodies, rhythms, forms are also "what they are" but that does not mean they are always convincing to every critic?


Well, yes, I agree. It's why I find the general standard of evaluation of musical quality lacking at TC, because it's so often no more than hyperbolic positivity/negativity without supporting evidence. Such as:

"Ravel/Mahler is an absolute master of orchestration!"

Is he? What does he do then that few others do as well or better?


----------



## Heck148

Forster said:


> I'm always puzzled by criticisms of a composer's "orchestration" (and not just Sibelius - similar things have been said of Beethoven's works). Surely it is what it is?


orchestration is very crucial. it establishes the clarity, the texture, the highlights of the music....the greatest composers, who are also great orchestrators use the full palette of orchestral colors in their scoring.
Mahler was a brilliant orchestrator - esp by the end of his career - Symphony #9, DLvdE - exquisitely orchestrated...of course, Mahler was a very active conductor - he stood on the podium conducting all sorts of works - he knew, and learned, what combinations work, what doesn't...
Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Ravel, Strauss, Schoenberg are just a few brilliant orchestrators....it adds so much to their music. There is a clarity of texture, a colorful, even flamboyant tone quality to the music...different combinations of instruments, playing in their different ranges is explored...low register, middle, high - the wind instruments, esp, take on very different tone qualities as the progress thru their ranges....The strings are capable of nearly endless variety of sounds, thru use of different bowing, plucking techniques - speed, pressure, etc - and they have a huge range....all of these different colors and combinations can be used to great effect.


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> Well, yes, I agree. It's why I find the general standard of evaluation of musical quality lacking at TC, because it's so often no more than hyperbolic positivity/negativity without supporting evidence. Such as:
> 
> "Ravel/Mahler is an absolute master of orchestration!"
> 
> Is he? What does he do then that few others do as well or better?


I know what you mean. It should be valued more to explain in further depth why a certain orchestration is good and some is not as good.

For example, Mozart, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky are excellent orchestrators and their music always SOUNDS good. Whereas Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius orchestrations are not always as balanced.

We could go into detail about how Brahms doubles his woodwinds or how you can almost hear the piano/keyboard style behind Beethoven, or how Paavo Berglund had to correct the nuances in the Sibelius scores and how for example Sir Simon Rattle has studied the Berglund corrections thoroughly.

On this thread, I have to give it to Mahler: his orchestra sounds just SO GOOD. It is an artform in itself to write music that sounds so wonderful.

Maybe we should have an orchestration thread somewhere?


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> Maybe we should have an orchestration thread somewhere?


pm sent.............


----------



## mbhaub

There's a difference between "good" orchestration and what someone like Mahler or Strauss did. They went full Technicolor! Brahms made due with a standard romantic orchestra - it's all he needed. No special effects. Look how rarely he used the harp. Once or twice? It's an essential and beautiful addition to the orchestras of Mahler and Strauss. Also, I can assure you that Mozart, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky most certainly use wind doublings - but they knew how and when to do it. That's the Schumann problem: he doubles all over the place without their skill and creates this clotted sound. In recent weeks I've played the Brahms symponies 2 and 4, the Academic Festival overture and three Hungarian Dances. I'm principal bassoon. There are very, very few times the 2nd bassoon doubles me.


----------



## starthrower

I'm just a listener without any real knowledge of how these magnificent symphonies are put together but I found the comment about Schumann interesting. And he's one of the 19th century symphony composers I could never warm to. And I don't know if it's the thematic material, the orchestration, or both? But other than Szell's recording of No.2, nothing really grabs me. I have the Szell, and Sawallisch cycles.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Neo Romanza said:


> *Stop being so narrow-minded.*


^This sentence should have been said at the very start of the thread, in fact (it should be done in) every thread of the type "I dislike/hate/don't get something".


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## bz3

starthrower said:


> I'm just a listener without any real knowledge of how these magnificent symphonies are put together but I found the comment about Schumann interesting. And he's one of the 19th century symphony composers I could never warm to. And I don't know if it's the thematic material, the orchestration, or both? But other than Szell's recording of No.2, nothing really grabs me. I have the Szell, and Sawallisch cycles.


The famous Furtwangler Schumann 4 should clarify to any listener whether or not he is a Schumann fan in the symphonic genre. I personally am a great fan of his, he is probably just outside my top 5 symphonists and I very much wish he'd been alive/healthy longer so he could develop more in the genre.

One thing I don't understand about some listeners however, and that's not to say you but just speaking generally, is how they can be fans of Brahms and not fans of Schumann symphonies. To me, the two quartets are almost companion pieces and even Brahms acknowledged how much he lifted from Schumann.


----------



## starthrower

I never give up trying and sometimes I just have to connect with a composer during the right year when my brain is receptive. This year it was Verdi. I do like the Brahms symphonies but I can't listen to them over and over like Mahler. I have to give them a year off after listening to them.


----------



## Waehnen

hammeredklavier said:


> ^This sentence should have been said at the very start of the thread, in fact (it should be done in) every thread of the type "I dislike/hate/don't get something".


I have to disagree with you. I had the courage to admit my problems with Mahler and let you guys help me with it. I have no need to pretend that I know everything and get everything all the time.

What a great subject for discussion it has been! Look at all the insight posted.

Starting this thread actually proves that I do have an open mind. A person with a closed mind thinks he already knows everything of importance or pretends he does. My starting point was that _Mahler music just cannot be as trivial as I had thought,_ and there must be a key that makes it click.


----------



## Forster

Heck148 said:


> ...all of these different colors and combinations can be used to great effect.


I fully understand that. It doesn't tell me why one composers choice of sounds is better than another's, only that there are limitless choices, and some people like some choices more than others.



Waehnen said:


> For example, Mozart, Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky are excellent orchestrators and their music always SOUNDS good. Whereas Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius orchestrations are not always as balanced.


But even if this is true, I prefer Beethoven and Sibelius to any of the others. What does that say about the significance of 'good' orchestration?



mbhaub said:


> There's a difference between "good" orchestration and what someone like Mahler or Strauss did. They went full Technicolor!


Interesting that again, music is too difficult to describe without reference to the visual (see discussion about beauty...no, on second thoughts...).

So, only those artists who use the full colour palette would be considered great artists?


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> But even if this is true, I prefer Beethoven and Sibelius to any of the others. What does that say about the significance of 'good' orchestration?


Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius are the most important composers for me as well. I even feel like I couldn´t live without them because their music enriches my life so much.

Yes, it does say quite a lot about the importance of orchestration, actually.

There are composers whose major focus is on the technicality of composing, and they take great pride in the craftmanship of orchestration and managing the scales and chords or other compositional systems, for example.

Then there are those whose major focus is in the high profile and soul of the material (they worked on their themes for years) which then can be worked into expression to which the orchestral colours are secondary.

This isn´t to say that Beethoven, Brahms or Sibelius weren´t great professionals at orchestration. It isn´t either to say that Mahler, Ravel, Strauss or Stravinsky lacked soul. This story ain´t black and white.

I think it is fair to make this division, though. There must be a way of talking about the different points on emphasis without saying the other side is better than the other in an absolute or objective way.

*Masters of high profile musical material forged into powerful symphonic expression:* Beethoven, Brahms, Sibelius

*Masters of orchestration, orchestral expression, intellectual stimulus and musical techniques: *Mahler, Ravel, Strauss, Stravinsky


----------



## Forster

Waehnen said:


> Beethoven, Brahms and Sibelius are the most important composers for me as well. I even feel like I couldn´t live without them because their music enriches my life so much.
> 
> Yes, it does say quite a lot about the importance of orchestration, actually.


I said '_good_' orchestration. That's critical to what I'm questioning. I'm not doubting the importance of orchestration, just how we can define good orchestration (and compare what Ravel does to what Beethoven does) when it comes down to a matter of choices for purposes.


----------



## Waehnen

Forster said:


> I said '_good_' orchestration. That's critical to what I'm questioning. I'm not doubting the importance of orchestration, just how we can define good orchestration (and compare what Ravel does to what Beethoven does) when it comes down to a matter of choices for purposes.


I wasn't implying you were downplaying the importance of orchestration. I tried to express, amongst other things, that your questions are good and important. I tried to say something related to your questions, too. Although I included some thoughts of my own unrelated to your questions.


----------



## Waehnen

Yesterday I listened to the Resurrection symphony on the train, running through the countryside. At least in this C minor symphony there is the kind of symphonic architecture and development of themes which I enjoy. Out of darkness came the light with the choir, creating a powerful effect! I enjoyed both the material and the overall structure.

I have had an Otto Klemperer CD of this Symphony for years but it was this modern Simon Rattle version that appealed to my hedonistic ears more. This is very orchestral music indeed so the record sounds should be as good as possible, right? I am happy to be friends with the 2nd Symphony now. 

Whereas the other Symphony in listening yesterday: unfortunately I have to say the 2nd Movement of Symphony no. 9 is way too Kitch for my liking. I mean, who major composer would ever think that dancelike gesture with the trills and hopping between the dominant and the tonic is somehow inspirational material? I do not think Mahler uses irony as a narrative technique either, like Shostakovich does, so that cannot be an excuse for this.

Anyway, I am on a much stronger path now that I realize that Mahler is an uneven composer. The symphonies are huge so there might be whole movements which I will allow myself to skip in the future. So I don’t have to like everything he does but to find the beautiful and uplifting and magical moments that luckily seem to exist in abundance.


----------



## Waehnen

Todays listen was the 5th Symphony.

I’m happy with all the material and didn’t find any Kitch. The handling of the material and the overall structure were also very coherent. Nothing annoyed me, really. The themes are not of particular grandeur but then again you could’t write this music with for example Tchaikovskian melodies.

I conceived the structure like this:

I Funeral March
II Angst
III Softening of spirit
IV Gratefulness for life
V Joy

I am happy to hear storylines like the above behind the music.

No, Mahler didn’t just write whatever came to his head at a given time. I am happy to have been wrong!


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> Todays listen was the 5th Symphony.
> 
> The themes are not of particular grandeur but then again you could't write this music with for example Tchaikovskian melodies.


I should hope not. If I want Tchaikovskian melodies I can listen to Tchaikovsky. Mahler reaches the parts others don't.


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> I should hope not. If I want Tchaikovskian melodies I can listen to Tchaikovsky. Mahler reaches the parts others don't.


Of all the symphonic literature, Mahler's themes are not on the most memorable side. Then again the music would have a different setup with a more high profile material.

This is one of the things I've been struggling with Mahler, you know. No larger than life themes. But it's OK when one finds the focus elsewhere, like I'm beginning to do.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Waehnen said:


> Whereas the other Symphony in listening yesterday: unfortunately I have to say the 2nd Movement of Symphony no. 9 is way too Kitch for my liking. I mean, who major composer would ever think that dancelike gesture with the trills and hopping between the dominant and the tonic is somehow inspirational material? I do not think Mahler uses irony as a narrative technique either, like Shostakovich does, so that cannot be an excuse for this..


I actually think that the 2nd movement of the 9th is one of the most clearly ironic ones. 
As I wrote elsewhere I think that in other pieces there is real nostalgia mixed with ironic distance but here the latter dominates. And the waltz-tune later that becomes almost brutal is also an indication that this (like Rondo burlesque or the "Frere Jacques" funeral march in the 1st and some other movemens) is a "Grotesque", a "Landler of Death". A milder precursor of this movement is the 2nd of the 4th with "death playing the fiddle"
The danger of kitsch I find far more in e.g. the second movements of the 2nd and 3rd symphonies but I also believe that these are "honest" idylls or recollections of such (like e.g. the waltz-like movements in Tchaikovsky 5th and 6th).


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I actually think that the 2nd movement of the 9th is one of the most clearly ironic ones.
> As I wrote elsewhere I think that in other pieces there is real nostalgia mixed with ironic distance but here the latter dominates. And the waltz-tune later that becomes almost brutal is also an indication that this (like Rondo burlesque or the "Frere Jacques" funeral march in the 1st and some other movemens) is a "Grotesque", a "Landler of Death". A milder precursor of this movement is the 2nd of the 4th with "death playing the fiddle"
> The danger of kitsch I find far more in e.g. the second movements of the 2nd and 3rd symphonies but I also believe that these are "honest" idylls or recollections of such (like e.g. the waltz-like movements in Tchaikovsky 5th and 6th).


I also have a Bernstein recording of the 9th Symphony. After your comment I decided I needed "another opinion on the issue". Bernstein's tempo and articulation doesn't emphasize the elements of the Kitsch/Ironic theme as much as Simon Rattle. It doesn't irritate me as much. So thanks again! I'm getting the hang of it. Many versions are needed before truly forming an opinion.


----------



## Heck148

The Landler movement of Sym #9 is extremely effective and moving....yes, it's the dance movement but this time, it's last call, "the dance is over"....a much heavier context than the usual landler "folk dance" format...the closing pages are esp touching, the chamber music settings for solo viola, horn, bassoon, contrabassoon....talk about great orchestration....!!


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> The Landler movement of Sym #9 is extremely effective and moving....yes, it's the dance movement but this time, it's last call, "the dance is over"....a much heavier context than the usual landler "folk dance" format...the closing pages are esp touching, the chamber music settings for solo viola, horn, bassoon, contrabassoon....talk about great orchestration....!!


Not my cup of tea ATM but the first and last movements of the 9th Symphony sure are awesome. So far as complete works I've enjoyed the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th Symphonies. They are like vast worlds, full of detail. It will take time to explore it all!


----------



## Kreisler jr

Heck148 said:


> The Landler movement of Sym #9 is extremely effective and moving....yes, it's the dance movement but this time, it's last call, "the dance is over"....a much heavier context than the usual landler "folk dance" format...the closing pages are esp touching, the chamber music settings for solo viola, horn, bassoon, contrabassoon....talk about great orchestration....!!


Yes, but there are also huge contrasts, like in the first movement (where there is also the chamber music with flute, viola solos etc.) In the waltz sections in the middle there are brutal passages with heavy brass that are IMO at least as "apocalyptic" as Ravel's La Valse. Mahler was actually closer to the Vienna Belle Epoque culture (and this one experienced a much harder fall 1918 than France did).


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> You don´t have to mind my ways of describing music. You are free to call Mahler symphonic. Most people do so you are in a good company, really. Never mind one Waehnen.
> 
> But if you want to, I can tone down this new symphonic vs. orchestral idea of mine so that it will not unnecessarily irritate you and others.


I'm not irritated in the slightest. I'm just trying to make you understand that the symphonic form isn't confined to your own box that you seem to want to put it in. It's a medium that has been expanded upon since the days of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not irritated in the slightest. I'm just trying to make you understand that the symphonic form isn't confined to your own box that you seem to want to put it in. It's a medium that has been expanded upon since the days of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven.


It wasn't a box but a way to describe different approaches to the symphonic art. But after my recent experiences with Mahler I have no longer need to speculate whether he was symphonic or not. Sure he was! Just not as thematic and high profile material oriented as some other symphonists.

I want to point out also that there are some forumists who do totally get what I have been trying to say and what I have experienced on my journey.

Life is richer when I try to get to the bottom of things and verbalize my thoughts along the way. It is my way of learning. Making honest statements, testing them, learning more, correcting.


----------



## SanAntone

Waehnen said:


> It wasn't a box but a way to describe different approaches to the symphonic art. But after my recent experiences with Mahler I have no longer need to speculate whether he was symphonic or not. Sure he was! Just not as thematic and high profile material oriented as some other symphonists.
> 
> I want to point out also that there are some forumists who do totally get what I have been trying to say and what I have experienced on my journey.
> 
> Life is richer when I try to get to the bottom of things and verbalize my thoughts along the way. It is my way of learning. Making honest statements, testing them, learning more, correcting.


I absolutely "get" what you have said, and made similar comments in another thread. Here's where I think the problem occurs, for most trained musicians, a symphony is thought of like Wikipedia describes: "a work usually consisting of multiple distinct sections or movements, often four, with the first movement in sonata form."

Laypersons are not so specific.

Later in the same article,



> Towards the end of the 19th century, Gustav Mahler began writing long, large-scale symphonies that he continued composing into the early 20th century. His Third Symphony, completed in 1896, is one of the longest regularly performed symphonies at around 100 minutes in length for most performances. The Eighth Symphony was composed in 1906 and is nicknamed the "Symphony of a Thousand" because of the large number of voices required to perform the work.
> 
> The 20th century saw further diversification in the style and content of works that composers labeled symphonies. Some composers, including Dmitri Shostakovich, Sergei Rachmaninoff, and Carl Nielsen, continued to write in the traditional four-movement form, while other composers took different approaches: Jean Sibelius' Symphony No. 7, his last, is in one movement, Richard Strauss' Alpine Symphony, in one movement, split into twenty-two parts, detailing an eleven hour hike through the mountains and Alan Hovhaness's Symphony No. 9, Saint Vartan-originally Op. 80, changed to Op. 180-composed in 1949-50, is in twenty-four. Similar variety was seen in the length of symphonies: Gustav Mahler continued to compose immense works taking over an hour to perform, but still further extremes were achieved by others such as Havergal Brian, whose Symphony No. 1 "Gothic", completed in 1927, lasts nearly two hours. At the other end of the scale, a performance of the Little Symphony No. 1 by Darius Milhaud, composed in 1917, lasts just three and a half minutes.


So, IMO, the term has become too broad to have any real meaning anymore. If a composer labels his work "Symphony" then in his mind at least that's what it is and has some connection to the tradition. It's not worth arguing over.


----------



## Waehnen

SanAntone said:


> So, IMO, the term has become too broad to have any real meaning anymore. If a composer labels his work "Symphony" then in his mind at least that's what it is and has some connection to the tradition. It's not worth arguing over.


I agree! The music under the title Symphony is so extremely varied that we cannot even define what symphonic means nowadays. In that regard that other thread on General Music Discussion is rather funny. "The greatest symphonist ever - must be Mahler, everyone agree?" We have this title that means practically nothing and then we should put symphonists in order?

You just cannot compare Sibelius to Mahler, for example. It is like comparing the floor to the roof. Which is better?


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> Not my cup of tea ATM but the first and last movements of the 9th Symphony sure are awesome. So far as complete works I've enjoyed the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th Symphonies. They are like vast worlds, full of detail. It will take time to explore it all!


Compare the Landler of Sym #2 [mvt 2], with that of Sym #9 - both are very effective, but there is a seriousness with the latter - the earlier one is much more peaceful overall, less agitated....
M9 is really heavy duty - it's great that you are enjoying Sym 9/I and IV - it is an amazing compositions by themselves...very difficult to bring off effectively.


----------



## Heck148

Kreisler jr said:


> Yes, but there are also huge contrasts, like in the first movement (where there is also the chamber music with flute, viola solos etc.) In the waltz sections in the middle there are brutal passages with heavy brass that are IMO at least as "apocalyptic" as Ravel's La Valse. Mahler was actually closer to the Vienna Belle Epoque culture (and this one experienced a much harder fall 1918 than France did).


Yes, for sure - the contrasts between the different "Landler" sections is quite remarkable...different tempi, different weight, different feeling altogether...these contrasts must be brought out.


----------



## Waehnen

May I suggest another approach?

Please post your 5 favourite Mahler _movements_. SanAntone wrote that the slow movement of Symphony 5 was the turning point for him. So I did listen to it seperately from the rest of the symphony. I sure enjoyed it more that way!

One of my problems with Mahler undoubtedly is the overwhelmingly huge scale of the music. I get exhausted under the seemingly endless flow of ideas. I need to take this music in smaller pieces to do it more justice.


----------



## Ulfilas

The first five movements of Mahler 3?


----------



## Waehnen

Ulfilas said:


> The first five movements of Mahler 3?


So Symphony 3 is your favourite? Thanks for the tip!


----------



## starthrower

Waehnen said:


> May I suggest another approach?
> 
> Please post your 5 favourite Mahler _movements_. SanAntone wrote that the slow movement of Symphony 5 was the turning point for him. So I did listen to it seperately from the rest of the symphony. I sure enjoyed it more that way!
> 
> One of my problems with Mahler undoubtedly is the overwhelmingly huge scale of the music. I get exhausted under the seemingly endless flow of ideas. I need to take this music in smaller pieces to do it more justice.


Better stay away from no.3. The first movement is over a half hour. Some of my favorite movements are:
1st from no.1
1st from no.9
No. 10 Adagio
Part 2 of no.8
The entire 2nd symphony
All of the 5th with the exception of the finale which is a little weaker than the rest.

I still need to listen more to nos.6 & 7 because I haven't internalized all of the music. I can only recall the first movements which I like a lot. And I pretty much enjoy no.4 all the way through with the exception of Bernstein's DG recording with the boy soprano which sounds two dimensional. It needs a mature vocalist with more depth, nuance, and character.


----------



## starthrower

And just to add to this, I mainly sited the movements I feel like I know to some degree. The symphonies are massive and will take many more years to absorb. Especially since I'm always listening to other music. And I get distracted much of the time which doesn't help. And with the 3rd symphony it may be a good idea to listen to the first movement alone, then take a break and repeat. Or move on if you feel like you've got a handle on it?


----------



## Waehnen

starthrower said:


> And just to add to this, I mainly sited the movements I feel like I know to some degree. The symphonies are massive and will take many more years to absorb. Especially since I'm always listening to other music. And I get distracted much of the time which doesn't help. And with the 3rd symphony it may be a good idea to listen to the first movement alone, then take a break and repeat. Or move on if you feel like you've got a handle on it?


Your suggestions are much appreciated! Thank you.

I need to listen to other stuff as well between my Mahlers. Been listening to Bruckner and Beethoven Cello Sonatas, Mozart String Quintet, Mendelssohn String Quartets and Sibelius Symphonies in between. It's almost funny how much relief I felt listening to Beethoven after many days of Mahler.

I've tried the 3rd many times now. I admit I do not get it at all, yet. Oh I recognise the repeating themes but to my ears that similar faith-motif-techinique is better executed in the 5th Symphony whose main theme is actually interesting.

Listening to the 7th Symphony now. There is something that appeals to me here. It is as though he felt "we don't need superlatives or excess here. I know what I'm doing anyway."


----------



## starthrower

I just put on Bernstein's first No.7. I love the opening theme to this one, and the fact that it's all on one disc.

Edit: Just finished listening. I think the first four movements are phenomenal. Incredibly interesting and beautiful orchestration and music! I didn't like the finale as much. A bit over the top with the flag waving triumphalism. Just wasn't as interesting as the rest.


----------



## mbhaub

The final movement has long been a source of ridicule and damnation in this symphony. The grandiose, "flag waving" ending can seem somewhat false and over-the-top. Somehow it doesn't live up to what it should. But there are those of us who have no problem with it at all - as long the performance really lets loose and play the thing for all its worth. Someone once said that the secret is to think of it like the Keystone Cops. Now, if you don't know that reference it's meaningless. It has to move, the transitions need to be spot on, the dynamic contrasts very present. Bernstein really seemed to get it right in his first performance, maybe a bit less later on. There have been a few since then that really seemed to get it: Kondrashin in Amsterdam is one. A really new one, Petrenko with the Bavarian State Orchestra is a real winner start to finish. He lets the sunshine in and plays the daylights out of the thing. Solti seemed to understand. The guys who take it super-seriously make a mess: Klemperer, Masur, Maazel, even Haitink.


----------



## starthrower

That movement is made for conductors like Solti and Bernstein. Even though it's not as great as the others, I thoroughly enjoyed Bernstein's performance. And the remastered CD sounds really good. The punch of the timpani, and the crystal clear resolution of the guitar and mandolin. I found this to be a superb listening experience.


----------



## Waehnen

I listened to the 7th Symphony finale again on your ”recommendation”. I find the movement genuine and joyous. It is like joy that is not too hard thought over. Like beautiful summer days that just keep you happy despite yourself. When the world and its people delight you and the sun just won’t set.


----------



## Kreisler jr

There are several ideas for the 7th's last movement:

- it's hysteric pseudojoy
- it's a parody on the Meistersinger Prelude
- it's a general parodistic take on fin de siecle optimism
- it's a genuine celebration "sunrise/sunlight" after the night


----------



## golfer72

Make sure you try the last movement of #3. It builds slowly to an awesome cathartic finish.


----------



## Waehnen

golfer72 said:


> Make sure you try the last movement of #3. It builds slowly to an awesome cathartic finish.


Thank you! The Finale of the 3rd Symphony is beautiful music in it's own rights. And again, I understand the music and get feelings from it while I am not being exhausted by the grand scale.

It is the same with Wagner. I absolutely love the music but I just CANNOT listen to any music for 4hours. I have walked out from 2 Wagner opera performances in the halftime because I just can't take so much. I am a sensitive person and I need the time and space to reflect on what I have experienced.

From this I have learned that where needed, I will take the Mahler Symphonies movement by movement and treat them as independent and seperate works. I don't even think that Mahler would have objected to this in a grand manner. He was always writing a symphony and wrote little else. So the symphonies are in a way "collections" of his musical ideas at a given timeline. The colossal Symphonies must have also been the most efficient way to put as much musical material into performance as possible.

It would be silly of me to make myself a prisoner of the huge scale of the works. Many things have contributed to the works being so huge, and purely artistic reasons for creating a specific musical work are not the only reasons, I believe.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> Thank you! The Finale of the 3rd Symphony is beautiful music in it's own rights. And again, I understand the music and get feelings from it while I am not being exhausted by the grand scale.
> It is the same with Wagner. I absolutely love the music but I just CANNOT listen to any music for 4hours.


Absolutely!! take one or 2 movements at a time....same with Wagner, do a couple of scenes, or an Act for one session....nothing obligates a listener to sit thru the entire work at one sitting....
Boris Goldovsky told an interesting story on this topic - He was trying to get into Parsifal, went to repeat performances - but consistently felt the last act was a letdown, he just couldn't stay with it....his teacher at the time [E. Dohnanyi, iirc] advised him - what time does the Third act begin?? Boris named it - Dohnanyi told him, arrive in time to hear just Act 3, by itself....sure enough, Goldovsky did that, thoroughly enjoyed it, said the entire work opened up to him....


----------



## Marc

starthrower said:


> I just put on Bernstein's first No.7. I love the opening theme to this one, and the fact that it's all on one disc.
> 
> Edit: Just finished listening. I think the first four movements are phenomenal. Incredibly interesting and beautiful orchestration and music! I didn't like the finale as much. A bit over the top with the flag waving triumphalism. Just wasn't as interesting as the rest.


The built-up to a happy ending was, imho, much more successul in Symphony 5 than in 7.

Anyway... i.c. 5 'nice' movements of Mahler to start with:

I would start with a song, like "Ging heut' Morgen übers Feld" from the _Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen_. The main theme of the song returns in the first movement of Symphony 1... this first movement is also a nice piece of music for a non-Mahlerian to start with.
(Another song suggestion could be "Ich atmet' einen Linden Duft" from the _Rückert-Lieder_. Lyrical and beautiful.)

For a slow movement, I would probably pick the slow movement of the 6th. It's both lyrical and full-blooded Mahler. Including cow bells! Yeah!

For combinations of Mahlerian deeply felt emotion combined with ironic almost Kitsch-like intermezzi: maybe the 3rd movement of the 5th symphony (the Scherzo) is a good choice. It's got a phenomenal part for the solo horn. Just beautiful imho. I deeply love this movement, preferably in a not too fast tempo (17 to 19 mins or so).
Another good combi, with all kinds of seriousness, lyricism, lament and ironic wit is the 1st movement of the 7th.

For a heavenly and very emotional ending, I would go for the final chorus of the 2nd symphony. Maybe not the entire Finale, because it's a very long piece. Just start when the choir begins... if this ending leaves you cold, then you're probably not suited to become a Mahlerian ever.


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> Of all the symphonic literature, Mahler's themes are not on the most memorable side. Then again the music would have a different setup with a more high profile material.
> 
> This is one of the things I've been struggling with Mahler, you know. No larger than life themes. But it's OK when one finds the focus elsewhere, like I'm beginning to do.


Funny.
I have a totally different experience with Mahler's themes.
They keep on lingering on in my head, even during times when I do not listen to his music very often.
The only thing is imho, that he breaks some developments of themes and tunes off at an early stage and kinda runs into another one... a friend of mine, who dislikes Mahler an awful lot, apparently once has said "Mahler? Too many tunes for one cent." At least, that's what his wife once told me. When I heard her tell that story, I bursted out in laughter. Quite a solid recap of good ole Gustav. The positive thing was, that I could take his wife out to enjoy a Mahler concert together with her.


----------



## Kreisler jr

The common complaint is usually more that (too) many of the tunes/themes are "trivial" (march, landler etc.) and/or that some pieces are a bit too episodic.
I also think to listen to the Wayfarer songs and the first symphony is a very good exploration of Mahler, although as I wrote elsewhere I find the finale of that symphony one of the weakest pieces of that composer. The 2nd, 4th, 5th symphonies have also been among the most popular for a reason, although I think the scherzo of the 5th is a fairly tough movement because it is both strange (among other things very ambiguous in mood, compared to the first two movements or the Adagietto) and very long.


----------



## Marc

Kreisler jr said:


> The common complaint is usually more that (too) many of the tunes/themes are "trivial" (march, landler etc.) and/or that some pieces are a bit too episodic.
> I also think to listen to the Wayfarer songs and the first symphony is a very good exploration of Mahler, although as I wrote elsewhere I find the finale of that symphony one of the weakest pieces of that composer. The 2nd, 4th, 5th symphonies have also been among the most popular for a reason, although I think the scherzo of the 5th is a fairly tough movement because it is both strange (among other things very ambiguous in mood, compared to the first two movements or the Adagietto) and very long.


Got you about the Scherzo of No. 5 (but I love it so much), and I agree about the finale of the 1st.
Then again, I deliberately 'refused' to pick only the most accessible pieces/movements.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I like that scherzo myself a lot, it might be the greatest symphonic scherzo ever. (As I wrote somewhere, the 5th was probably my favorite Mahler for years when I was young and before I really got into the 9th and 6th.)
It's just that like the first movement from the 9th or 7th, I'd not recommend it in isolation or to a beginner.


----------



## Marc

Yeah... I like to throw them rookies before the lions. 

I must say though, the first time I listened myself really thorougly to the Mahler symphonies, after getting acquainted with them on a more general level, Mahler 5-3 and 7-1 immediately belonged to my favourite movements. 
5-3 ... Haitink/Berliner Phil, Bernstein/Wiener Phil, Chailly/Concertgebouw and Barshai/Junge Deutsche Philharmonie are a few very strong contenders.
7-1 with a.o. Solti/Chicago, Bernstein/New York, Abbado/Chicago and Haitink/Concertgebouw (Christmas Matinee 'live').

I do realize that there must be plenty more good to impressive recordings, especially among the more recent ones that I do not know, because I stopped buying new Mahler stuff shortly after the Millennial change. (I'm a bit more into 16th up to early 19th century music since then. Well... not all the time though.)


----------



## Waehnen

I have found another way to enjoy Mahler!

Because the material used is not of a particularly high profile, I find the music relaxing. In the sense that I can just dwell in the music without concentrating. Also, the drama does not require full attention all the time.

3rd Symphony with it’s huge scale is a great way of relaxing. Not every detail needs to make sense or belong to a high profile dramatic narrative.

And I speak of this in favour of Mahler.


----------



## golfer72

Yeah no reason at all to have to listen to entire works. I listen to individual movements from lots of composers. As far as Mahler 3 Finale goes there is a great video on Youtube of Claudio Abbado conducting it. Its terrific. Abbado is basically in tears at the end and there is no applause for like 30 seconds .The entire audience was seemed like they were transfixed. The video is the entire Symphony


----------



## Snowbrain

I'd say, pay attention to what great musicians, conductors, and others in the know say about Mahler. Then ask yourself, "Why do they think his music is so great? Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I need to expand my horizons." Listen to a Bernstein lecture on Mahler. Read a book on Mahler's music. Then listen again, a couple of times. If you still don't get it, well, you tried.

Then again, there's a reason Mahler has not one but three symphonies in the top 20 of all time, a list made by 150 of the world's contemporary composers - his 9th, his 2nd, and his 3rd (https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/), and those three are in the top 10 of this list. Maybe there's something they know I don't.

Personally, I think Mahler's 1st and 4th are his most accessible, followed by the 2nd, 5th, and others. The 8th is the least accessible in my view. To me, Mahler's 2nd is the most sublime work of all time, standing in the same hallowed space as Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## mbhaub

golfer72 said:


> The entire audience was seemed like they were transfixed.


That happens sometimes, rarely; but when it does the feeling is incredible. It takes all the stars to align perfectly: music, orchestra, conductor, audience...what a rush it is. Of course in so many places nowadays there's always some jerk (always a man) who has to break the spell and shout "Bravo!". Anyway, there are really very few composers whose music can elicit this transfixion.


----------



## Snowbrain

golfer72 said:


> Yeah no reason at all to have to listen to entire works. I listen to individual movements from lots of composers. As far as Mahler 3 Finale goes there is a great video on Youtube of Claudio Abbado conducting it. Its terrific. Abbado is basically in tears at the end and there is no applause for like 30 seconds .The entire audience was seemed like they were transfixed. The video is the entire Symphony


I sat in the second row at Benaroya Hall in Seattle for a performance of Mahler's 9th by Gustavo Dudamel and the LA Phil... the same thing happened at the end - Dudamel kept his hands in the air for what felt like three hours (probably only 60 seconds) while the entire hall waited in reverent silence, and he then lowered them like someone doing Taichi, and even then there was no applause - like the audience had been so transfixed by the beauty, the only proper response was silence - but then, slowly, the applause began and built into a respectful, reverent appreciation for the great spiritual gift we had all shared. As Dudamel took his curtain calls, I noted one of the cellists was wiping tears from his cheeks, as were many others there that night I'm certain.


----------



## Waehnen

Snowbrain said:


> I'd say, pay attention to what great musicians, conductors, and others in the know say about Mahler. Then ask yourself, "Why do they think his music is so great? Maybe I'm missing something. Maybe I need to expand my horizons." Listen to a Bernstein lecture on Mahler. Read a book on Mahler's music. Then listen again, a couple of times. If you still don't get it, well, you tried.
> 
> Then again, there's a reason Mahler has not one but three symphonies in the top 20 of all time, a list made by 150 of the world's contemporary composers - his 9th, his 2nd, and his 3rd (https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/), and those three are in the top 10 of this list. Maybe there's something they know I don't.
> 
> Personally, I think Mahler's 1st and 4th are his most accessible, followed by the 2nd, 5th, and others. The 8th is the least accessible in my view. To me, Mahler's 2nd is the most sublime work of all time, standing in the same hallowed space as Beethoven's 9th.


After starting this thread I have taken huge steps in understanding Mahler. I am grateful for everyone who have helped me. I am on a right path, I feel, and only at the beginning of my Mahler journey, for sure.

*Right now I enjoy these aspects of the music:*

1. Great orchestral writing
2. Musical material that effortlessly suits wide scale
3. Mahler´s music is holistic and true to his words:



> "I said that I admired its strictness and style and deep logic, which requires that all its motifs must be linked to each other," Sibelius recollected later. "Nein, die Symphonie muss sein wie die Welt. Sie muss alles umfassen," answered Mahler. ("No, the symphony must be like the world. It must encompass everything.")


4. The music sounds unique and original
5. The psychological impact of the material, orchestral language and large scale narrative is effective
6. High profile textures
7. Dramatic symphonic architecture

*What I have yet to find:*

1. High profile melodies
2. High profile chordal structures
3. High profile polyphony


----------



## Kreisler jr

Waehnen said:


> *What I have yet to find:*
> 
> 1. High profile melodies
> 2. High profile chordal structures
> 3. High profile polyphony


And you find this rather in Sibelius???

I am afraid the first point is very subjective. I think Mahler has a lot of accessible, memorable melodies. He wrote some of the most beautiful songs although I admit that some of them rely more on creating an atmosphere than on melody. In the symphonies, the finale of the 3rd and the andante of the 6th might be the most purely melodically appealing.

I don't know what a good example for #2 (by anyone) would be.

As for polyphony, Mahler cranked this up beginning with the 5th symphony that has lots of fugato sections (often even a bit academic at first listen) in the scherzo and finale. His greatest movement in this respect is the Rondo-Burleske from the 9th.
Generally, like with Beethoven, I think it is a mistake to expect lots of "explicit" academic polyphony from Mahler. It's more the general complexity of orchestral writing that emerges into polyphony in certain sections.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> And you find this rather in Sibelius???
> 
> I am afraid the first point is very subjective. I think Mahler has a lot of accessible, memorable melodies. He wrote some of the most beautiful songs although I admit that some of them rely more on creating an atmosphere than on melody. In the symphonies, the finale of the 3rd and the andante of the 6th might be the most purely melodically appealing.
> 
> I don't know what a good example for #2 (by anyone) would be.
> 
> As for polyphony, Mahler cranked this up beginning with the 5th symphony that has lots of fugato sections (often even a bit academic at first listen) in the scherzo and finale. His greatest movement in this respect is the Rondo-Burleske from the 9th.
> Generally, like with Beethoven, I think it is a mistake to expect lots of "explicit" academic polyphony from Mahler. It's more the general complexity of orchestral writing that emerges into polyphony in certain sections.


Thank you, Kreisler jr. I am trying not to "make statements" but to express what is my stage on this journey. It is obvious the musical material in itself must be appealing to many listeners, otherwise Mahler wouldn´t be considered a great symphonist. I need to cross that border in order to get emotionally attached to his music.

I will listen to the melodies on the movements you suggested above today, concentrating. (3rd and 6th Symphony).


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> And you find this rather in Sibelius???
> 
> I am afraid the first point is very subjective. I think Mahler has a lot of accessible, memorable melodies. He wrote some of the most beautiful songs although I admit that some of them rely more on creating an atmosphere than on melody. In the symphonies, the finale of the 3rd and the andante of the 6th might be the most purely melodically appealing.
> 
> I don't know what a good example for #2 (by anyone) would be.
> 
> As for polyphony, Mahler cranked this up beginning with the 5th symphony that has lots of fugato sections (often even a bit academic at first listen) in the scherzo and finale. His greatest movement in this respect is the Rondo-Burleske from the 9th.
> Generally, like with Beethoven, I think it is a mistake to expect lots of "explicit" academic polyphony from Mahler. It's more the general complexity of orchestral writing that emerges into polyphony in certain sections.


The finale of the 3rd Symphony is gorgeous. So are the slow movements of symphonies 5, 6 and 9 (the Finale). They sound like they are of the same family. A bit like "this is how Mahler does the slow movement."

Yes, there are melodies, but it seems I have to accept that very few composers are melodic geniuses like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Grieg, Wagner, Brahms, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius, Stravinsky and Shostakovich.

So I will appreciate Mahler for other aspects!


----------



## Waehnen

Sometimes it is also a matter of the conductor. Listening to the 6th Symphony by Abbado and for some reason in my ears this works better than Rattle, Bernstein or Klemperer. Maybe Italians know how to really bring out the ”bellisimo” in a manner that also my northern heart starts to sing.

Just saying that this version of 6th Symphony sounds and feels just great and not just ”orchestral brilliance”.


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> The finale of the 3rd Symphony is gorgeous. So are the slow movements of symphonies 5, 6 and 9 (the Finale). They sound like they are of the same family. A bit like "this is how Mahler does the slow movement."
> 
> Yes, there are melodies, but it seems I have to accept that very few composers are melodic geniuses like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Grieg, Wagner, Brahms, Chopin, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Ravel, Sibelius, Stravinsky and Shostakovich.
> 
> So I will appreciate Mahler for other aspects!


A thought in favour of Mahler. One tends to get BORED with high profile melodies after a while. Think about for example listening again and again the beginning of the 1st Piano Concerto by Tchaikovsky, or Ode to Joy by Beethoven.

I think it possible the Mahlerian themes do not wear thin as quickly. Or at least they afford more repetitive listening. Dunno. Just a thought!

Sorry to be flooding and spamming! But the 9th Symphony works best in the hands of Karajan! He is able to dive in the details and gestures and offer them on a plate for me to pick and have a bite. Most enjoyable! I hope the 2nd Movement Ländler is also more bearable than in the other versions I've been listening.


----------



## Malx

Waehnen said:


> Sorry to be flooding and spamming! *But the 9th Symphony works best in the hands of Karajan!* He is able to dive in the details and gestures and offer them on a plate for me to pick and have a bite. Most enjoyable! I hope the 2nd Movement Ländler is also more bearable than in the other versions I've been listening.


Try Bruno Maderna's recording for a different take on this symphony.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> ....the 9th Symphony works best in the hands of Karajan! He is able to dive in the details and gestures and offer them on a plate for me to pick and have a bite. Most enjoyable! I hope the 2nd Movement Ländler is also more bearable than in the other versions I've been listening.


Karajan is ok with Mahler 9, good effort, well-recorded, but there are several that are much better....Giulini, Boulez, Walter [ColSO] are all really topnotch...they get it all...Solti's good too...[there's a <<Mahler Sym #9>> thread somewhere]


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> Karajan is ok with Mahler 9, good effort, well-recorded, but there are several that are much better....Giulini, Boulez, Walter [ColSO] are all really topnotch...they get it all...Solti's good too...[there's a <<Mahler Sym #9>> thread somewhere]


Thanks! We listened Mahler tonight with glasses of wine. Karajan's 9th and Abbados 6th worked very well. Rattle's 5th Adagietto and 3rd Finale not quite as well although they were enjoyable.

Please recommend good recordings of the 3rd and 5th! I wanna get to the Abbado and Karajan level of sound.


----------



## jim prideaux

Boulez 5th with the VPO....

A revelation for me this weekend!


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> Please recommend good recordings of the 3rd and 5th! I wanna get to the Abbado and Karajan level of sound.


 Mahler 3 - Levine/CSO, Bernstein/NYPO II, '87 DG] - for the finale - Martinon/CSO live from '67 - nothing like it.
Mahler 5 - both Soltis [CSO] are outstanding '70, '90, Abbado/CSO; for historical - Walter/NYPO '47


----------



## golfer72

Snowbrain said:


> I sat in the second row at Benaroya Hall in Seattle for a performance of Mahler's 9th by Gustavo Dudamel and the LA Phil... the same thing happened at the end - Dudamel kept his hands in the air for what felt like three hours (probably only 60 seconds) while the entire hall waited in reverent silence, and he then lowered them like someone doing Taichi, and even then there was no applause - like the audience had been so transfixed by the beauty, the only proper response was silence - but then, slowly, the applause began and built into a respectful, reverent appreciation for the great spiritual gift we had all shared. As Dudamel took his curtain calls, I noted one of the cellists was wiping tears from his cheeks, as were many others there that night I'm certain.


That must have been awesome to have been there. Good for you. Thanks for mentioning


----------



## golfer72

Waehnen said:


> Thanks! We listened Mahler tonight with glasses of wine. Karajan's 9th and Abbados 6th worked very well. Rattle's 5th Adagietto and 3rd Finale not quite as well although they were enjoyable.
> 
> Please recommend good recordings of the 3rd and 5th! I wanna get to the Abbado and Karajan level of sound.


I have the Inbal cycle on Denon. I think its very good. The sound is fantastic too


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> But the 9th Symphony works best in the hands of Karajan! He is able to dive in the details and gestures and offer them on a plate for me to pick and have a bite. Most enjoyable! I hope the 2nd Movement Ländler is also more bearable than in the other versions I've been listening.


To limit the 9th to one performance seems a bit absurd to me. The 9th is so vast that *no one* is _the best_ (whatever this really means). There are many 9th performances that are worth listening to because all the well-known conductors of this symphony have brought out different aspects in the music that another conductor might completely have missed or simply doesn't think is too important. My suggestion is to keep listening to other performances and be bit more open-minded in the process.


----------



## KevinJS

Neo Romanza said:


> To limit the 9th to one performance seems a bit absurd to me. The 9th is so vast that *no one* is _the best_ (whatever this really means). There are many 9th performances that are worth listening to because all the well-known conductors of this symphony have brought out different aspects in the music that another conductor might completely have missed or simply doesn't think is too important. My suggestion is to keep listening to other performances and be bit more open-minded in the process.


There you have it. No one would limit themselves to one Beethoven 9th. Why subject Mahler to artificial constraints? If someone could be bothered to perform and record it, I want to hear it.


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> To limit the 9th to one performance seems a bit absurd to me. The 9th is so vast that *no one* is _the best_ (whatever this really means). There are many 9th performances that are worth listening to because all the well-known conductors of this symphony have brought out different aspects in the music that another conductor might completely have missed or simply doesn't think is too important. My suggestion is to keep listening to other performances and be bit more open-minded in the process.


Maybe I have expressed myself badly, as usual. Just saying that the Karajan version made it click for me. It was not meant to be an exclusive statement. Just an excited superlative.

Of course I keep an open mind. When it comes to music, that is the only way to be. Sometimes opening the mind takes work, though, of which my Mahler case is a good example. I think I have proven to be persisting in the opening process. 

I believe in expressing thoughts even in the middle of processes, without definite and final statements.

Thanks everyone for the recommendations!


----------



## Art Rock

KevinJS said:


> No one would limit themselves to one Beethoven 9th.


15 characters as usual


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> Maybe I have expressed myself badly, as usual. Just saying that the Karajan version made it click for me. It was not meant to be an exclusive statement. Just an excited superlative.
> 
> Of course I keep an open mind. When it comes to music, that is the only way to be. Sometimes opening the mind takes work, though, of which my Mahler case is a good example. I think I have proven to be persisting in the opening process.
> 
> I believe in expressing thoughts even in the middle of processes, without definite and final statements.
> 
> Thanks everyone for the recommendations!


If it's the 2nd Karajan recording (digital, first issued in 1982), then I might understand why you like it.

I think Karajan's 1st recording (analog, around 1979 iirc) has a more 'Mahlerian' and less 'Karajan-esque' atmosphere. 
Especially the final movement: in my recollection, Karajan's 2nd recording was too ethereal and beautiful to my taste, which probably makes it more 'acceptable' for non-Mahlerians.  
I have always thought that this Finale is somehow the 'mirror' of the final song of _Das Lied von der Erde_. In this song, 'Der Abschied', there is more peace with the Final Farewell, whilst in the Ninth there is a resistance until the end, which makes it more tense and anxious. Karajan 2 somehow misses that feel.


----------



## joen_cph

Kondrashin in the 9th is somewhat classical in its approach, making it less tragic, IMO, in spite of a not-perfect coordination at times. 

Whereas I personally find Karajan's second recording full of pain, and probably prefer the 1st recording.


----------



## Marc

joen_cph said:


> Kondrashin in the 9th is somewhat classical in its approach, making it less tragic, IMO, in spite of a not-perfect coordination at times.
> 
> Whereas I personally find Karajan's second recording full of pain, and probably prefer the 1st recording.


Lol.
There you go: different persons, different experiences.


----------



## Kiki

There are 4 Karajan M9s out there in the wild as far as I know.

1979/80, BPO (DG)
1982 May Live, BPO (St. Laurent)
1982 August Live, BPO (St. Laurent)
1982 September Live, BPO (DG) 

IMO, the 1st DG is glorious, while the 2nd DG is lean and mean.

The May 1982 sounds, relatively speaking, less coherent (in terms of transitions and tempo changes). Broadcast-quality sound is also poor.

The one that really blows the roof off is the August 1982. Unfortunately, its poor broadcast sound cannot endorse recommendation.

The Kondrashin (either the 1964 or the 1967 Live) is a different animal. It is crazy. Love it!


----------



## KevinJS

Art Rock said:


> 15 characters as usual


No one who likes the piece, that is. I freely admit some might not have any copies and would not feel limited.


----------



## Art Rock

There are lots of pieces I absolutely love and where I have only one version on CD - I would be surprised if I were the only one whose CD collection is based on that principle.

ETA: let's not hijack the thread though. There are a number of threads on this:
Poll: How many versions?
Most versions of a single work
How often you buy a same pieces but different recording / performer?


----------



## HenryPenfold

Art Rock said:


> There are lots of pieces I absolutely love and where I have only one version on CD - I would be surprised if I were the only one whose CD collection is based on that principle.


I really wish I had the intellectual and emotional discipline to be like that, I envy you.

When I began building a classical music collection at the beginning of the 1990s, I was focussed on identifying good recordings of the central repertoire, and was fastidious in avoiding any duplication of filler works. When I found a CD I wanted, which had a filler item I already had, I would be frustrated, confused and depressed! How many superfluous Marche Slavs are there out there!

Then one Saturday morning I was listening to BBC Radio 3's 'Building A Library' and heard a Borodin symphony recording that absolutely blew my humble Naxos CD out of the water. I told myself it is legitimate explore alternative recordings. To a degree it is, but 48 Bruckner 8s, 20 Ring Cycles, 37 Mahler 9s, 8 Mahler 10 completions?


----------



## Waehnen

For now, I bought the Abbado/Vienna Philharmonic -version of the 3rd Symphony. The sound is so good and all the musical gestures are well thought over. Like I said before, this is bellissimo. And I remember someone here writing about a live Abbado performance in which the audience was deeply touched by the finale. Well, I live for the magical moments in music so I just had to try this. We’ll see about the finale soon!


----------



## Rogerx

Waehnen said:


> For now, I bought the Abbado/Vienna Philharmonic -version of the 3rd Symphony. The sound is so good and all the musical gestures are well thought over. Like I said before, this is bellissimo. And I remember someone here writing about a live Abbado performance in which the audience was deeply touched by the finale. Well, I live for the magical moments in music so I just had to try this. We'll see about the finale soon!


Good one but so is this, do not look. listen before you finished yours


----------



## Waehnen

Rogerx said:


> Good one but so is this, do not look. listen before you finished yours


Thanks!

Right now I am at a stage where I think I have the overall view on Mahler and will have to do some concentrated studies.

I have chosen the symphonies 3, 6 and 9 as my reference points for the deep dive. I have great recordings of each and I like the works and the musical material. So I will build on the Mahlerian strenghts as perceived by me.

So here we go…


----------



## Phil loves classical

Funny, it seems Mahler seems to be the most 'difficult' pre-20th century composer, to those vocal enough to say it, I've seen since I've joined TC. His symphonies can be so expansive, that I was lost at the beginning when delving into his stuff. Symphony 4 is generally considered his most accessible; it appears to be the tightest to me. No. 7 is said to be the most elusive of all. I trust Otto Klemperer as my guide the most to Mahler. He recorded the ones he felt a connection with, and didn't record the ones he felt he didn't understand, from what I recall what was said, and he knew Mahler personally!


----------



## Marc

I learned to appreciate Mahler's music during college years by visiting live concerts. 
I only knew his _Fahrende Geselle_, 1st and 4th symphonies from vinyl, but hearing the 5th in the concert hall really got me thrilled and... interested.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Phil loves classical said:


> Funny, it seems Mahler seems to be the most 'difficult' pre-20th century composer, to those vocal enough to say it,


I am not so sure. Actually, I am pretty certain that even disregarding pre-Bach or later lesser known composers there are several other composers between 1700 and 1900 that are "difficult" to appreciate for many listeners but nowadays Mahler is the one of them that seems so solidly established (especially if one's main interaction with other classical music listeners is the internet) that it seems a "problem" not to be a huge Mahler fan. Some other cases would be Berlioz, Bruckner, Wolf, Franck, Wagner (and probably most opera except maybe for Mozart, Carmen and few other warhorses). It's just that for Wagner it is broadly accepted that his music is difficult and highly controversial whereas for Mahler this impression has been reduced (it was rather controversial until a few decades ago, and I think there is still a considerable proportion of classical listeners who don't like Mahler at all, just as there is for Wagner.)


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I am not so sure. Actually, I am pretty certain that even disregarding pre-Bach or later lesser known composers there are several other composers between 1700 and 1900 that are "difficult" to appreciate for many listeners but nowadays Mahler is the one of them that seems so solidly established (especially if one's main interaction with other classical music listeners is the internet) that it seems a "problem" not to be a huge Mahler fan. Some other cases would be Berlioz, Bruckner, Wolf, Franck, Wagner (and probably most opera except maybe for Mozart, Carmen and few other warhorses). It's just that for Wagner it is broadly accepted that his music is difficult and highly controversial whereas for Mahler this impression has been reduced (it was rather controversial until a few decades ago, and I think there is still a considerable proportion of classical listeners who don't like Mahler at all, just as there is for Wagner.)


I think it is absolutely OK not to care for a certain composer or certain music. The problem only comes if one thinks that others should also not like the composer or music -- and if one then tries to convince others on that path.

The same goes other way around: if you care for certain music, you should not think badly of those who do not care for the same music. It is highly likely they are not less talented than you are.

Music is wide enough a field for us all. If we all felt obliged to like everything, that would most certainly ruin everything. We would lose our personalities, I think. What would be the point in just smiling in a circle without feeling anything? No great composer has ever walked on this world who has liked EVERYTHING, so why on earth should we?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Waehnen said:


> I think it is absolutely OK not to care for a certain composer or certain music.


Of course, this is perfectly o.k. 
The point is rather that there are or used to be composers/pieces liked/appreciated by almost everyone into classical music whereas other were considered "difficult", "acquired taste", "controversial". Some of this changes but usually quite slowly over decades or more. E.g. a friend of mine had in the late 1980s a music teacher in school who disliked Beethoven and managed to avoid his music in class (just do all the sonata stuff with Mozart and Haydn or so) which my Beethoven loving friend found excentric and irritating (I think that lady was in some other ways excentric as well)  Most people would still find this a bit excentric. Bruckner and Mahler were considered difficult or acquired tastes as late as that same period in the 1980s and disliking them would have been considered not at all remarkable (unlike some disliking Beethoven), but have become far more mainstream today, I believe. OTOH as someone remarked in another thread, the Franck symphony was a staple in the 1950s-60s (compared to Mahler or Bruckner) but seems to have become a bit exotic by now.


----------



## Bogdan

Some conductors don't get Mahler but they still play and record it, and it's important to hear a performance by someone who digs this music. If you want a complete cycle, Kubelik would be my recommendation; must say I don't like Rattle. Bertini is also great.

Then there are some special individual performances worth hearing, just in case they might do it for you.

1 - Bertini live with the BPO. Practically impossible to find on cd, but available here:






3 - Horenstein

4 - Swarowsky with the Czech Philharmonic.

Edit: almost forgot, but Ken Russell's Mahler movie is a must watch, just don't take it literally 
And it turns out there's a beautiful HD version on youtube:


----------



## mbhaub

Bogdan said:


> Some conductors don't get Mahler but they still play and record it...


Well, they _think_ they get Mahler. I really can't imagine anyone putting in the time and effort to learn those symphonies if he didn't have some feeling for it, and it's so expensive to put on most Mahler what with all the extra players needed.


----------



## Marc

I don't feel the need to say anything about conductors getting or not getting Mahler, or any other composer for that matter.
When did f.i. Leonard Bernstein 'get' Mahler?
In the 1960s, with his first integral?
In the 1970s, during his filmed integral?
Or in the 1980s, with his DG integral?
Or did he never really 'get' Mahler at all?


----------



## Waehnen

Just letting you guys know that this little Mahler journey of mine has paid off!

I have finally been able to set my mind to the pace and logic of the music. I hear it as a kind of cognitive and emotive river flow where motifs emerge and sink under the surface just to resurface again. 

I find it easy to relax while listening to Mahler, for the pace required of the listeners attention is slower and wider than in the other symphonists I have already known. Shostakovich and Bruckner frequencies are also slow but not as slow as Mahler.

Mahler is kind of great sounding epic documentary of human existence and cognition.

I´m not sure I have the English to describe what I am trying to say.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Marc said:


> I don't feel the need to say anything about conductors getting or not getting Mahler, or any other composer for that matter.
> When did f.i. Leonard Bernstein 'get' Mahler?
> In the 1960s, with his first integral?
> In the 1970s, during his filmed integral?
> Or in the 1980s, with his DG integral?
> Or did he never really 'get' Mahler at all?


I think he understood Mahler better than most conductors as you can tell his music was a lifelong passion. A lot of times passions can become diluted and people find other avenues to journey towards, but with Bernstein, Mahler was _his_ journey. I mean what prominent conductor has done so much for the composer and wore him on his clothing?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Neo Romanza said:


> I think he understood Mahler better than most conductors as you can tell his music was a lifelong passion.


"He's buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn with a copy of Mahler's Fifth Symphony laid across his chest."
https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/leonard-bernstein/


----------



## Neo Romanza

hammeredklavier said:


> "He's buried in Green-Wood Cemetery in Brooklyn with a copy of Mahler's Fifth Symphony laid across his chest."
> https://heavy.com/news/2018/08/leonard-bernstein/


Which further proves my assertion about Bernstein's affection for Mahler's music!


----------



## Marc

Neo Romanza said:


> I think he understood Mahler better than most conductors as you can tell his music was a lifelong passion. A lot of times passions can become diluted and people find other avenues to journey towards, but with Bernstein, Mahler was _his_ journey. I mean what prominent conductor has done so much for the composer and wore him on his clothing?


I made my post in a certain context. I was reacting to postings where it was said that there are conductors who still want to play him and make recordings of his works, whilst they do not 'get' Mahler at all. They 'think' they 'get' Mahler, but they are apparently 'mistaken'. Which is a point of view that I find... debatable, to say the least.
I tried to make my point by bringing forward Leonard Bernstein, who is/was worldwide known as someone who 'gets' Mahler. But Bernstein's approach towards Mahler's music changed quite significantly during the years. So, since his interpretations changed during the years: during which part of his lifetime was Bernstein really 'getting' Mahler? 
Personally, I could never answer that question. 
As I can also not answer the question which conductor is really 'getting' Mahler or not.

All I know is that there are hundreds of various and very different performances/recordings/interpretations of Mahler's music... which is kinda funny in a way, because Mahler was extremely generous with meticulous instructions in his scores.

So who is the conductor that really 'gets' Mahler?
Will he/she stand up, please?
('Warning': these are rhetorical questions. )


----------



## mbhaub

Bernstein "got" Mahler pretty early on thanks to two New York Philharmonic conductors: Dimitri Mitropoulos and Bruno Walter. As an assistant conductor of the orchestra, listening to those two titans rehearsing and performing the music opened Bernstein's ears and he took up the Resurrection pretty early on. He even realized that he had a lot to learn: after hearing the Walter recording of the First, with the Columbia Symphony, he decided to delay recording himself until the cycle neared the end. He he didn't "get it" yet and he wasn't in Walter's league.


----------



## Waehnen

I feel kinda embarrassed after following the score and listening to the 6th Symphony slow movement, conducted by Bernstein.














What an experience! Stunning!

It would appear that only by reading the score you really got to see some of the mastery of Mahler. So my initial idea that Mahler is somewhat a composer for the musicians, is not totally irrelevant. As a musician, you just cannot but admire the work on this movement.

You know what -- I no longer care if the melodic material is not of the highest profile on the planet. We have plenty of high profile melodic stuff in the world. But this Mahler guy is unique in his craft. Nothing is lacking from this score, for sure.

(EDIT: For some time now I have been wondering what other piece of music the melodic material is rather similar to. The slow movement of Tchaikovsky Symphony no. 5!)


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> It would appear that only by reading the score you really got to see some of the mastery of Mahler.


Yes, Mahler scores are amazing to study....the orchestration alone is remarkable...by the end of his career - Sym #9, DLvdE - the transparency is stunning, even in the fortissimo parts - if conducted and played well, it's all transparent, you can hear every line....


----------



## mbhaub

What's frustrating is that we'll never know what changes Mahler would have made in the 9th and DLVDE had he lived to conduct them. Everything he wrote he altered the scoring repeatedly and there's no doubt in my mind that he would have also made changes to these last two works.


----------



## Heck148

mbhaub said:


> What's frustrating is that we'll never know what changes Mahler would have made in the 9th and DLVDE had he lived to conduct them. Everything he wrote he altered the scoring repeatedly and there's no doubt in my mind that he would have also made changes to these last two works.


Well, he certainly got a lot right on his first go with these 2 works...pretty outstanding orchestration.


----------



## Marc

Heck148 said:


> Yes, Mahler scores are amazing to study....the orchestration alone is remarkable...by the end of his career - Sym #9, DLvdE - the transparency is stunning, even in the fortissimo parts - if conducted and played well, it's all transparent, you can hear every line....


I once attended a Mahler 5 and sat behind the orchestra in an amphitheater-like setting, so I could look (down) at all musicians very well, and it was then that I got the idea that Mahler was just one 'large chamber music' composer. Very refined and thoughtful division and coming together of all the different instrument sections.


----------



## Waehnen

My journey with Mahler is going well! It seems I have been able to cross the mental obstacles I had before. 

At this moment 3, 5 and 6 are my favourites. I find myself selecting them the most often. 2, 7 and 9 equally come the good second group. 1st, 4th ans 8th are on the outer circle still.


----------



## Azol

Great to hear. Which performances did you choose for each symphony?


----------



## Waehnen

Azol said:


> Great to hear. Which performances did you choose for each symphony?


For 3rd I have Abbado and Rattle. Both are good.
For 5 my absolute choice is Bernstein.
For the 6th I enjoy Abbado.
For the 2nd my choice is Klemperer after all.
7th works as Abbado as well.
For the 9th Karajan for sure.

Bernstein seems to be a true mahlerian. I already know I need to purchase at least 3rd and 6th by Bernstein.


----------



## Azol

Both M3 and M7 with Bernstein (any version you can find) are knockout performances. I prefer DGG for M3 and the DVD of M7 for sheer energy, the Finale is one of the best ever recorded.

P.S. Have listened to a few of recordings of M7 Finale, notably Chailly with Concertgebouw, Bernstein with NY Phil (DGG), Tennstedt with London Phil (studio one). Funny thing is - Tennstedt is the fastest (around 18 minutes), Bernstein is 18:40, Chailly is 19 minutes.
Chailly is pure Italian grace, very carnival-like, dancing and celebrating all along, but sometimes you'd wish for more reckless abandon. The famous timpani rhythmic "leitmotif" invokes an almost Christmas feel, echoing J.S.Bach universally recognizable festive atmosphere of Christmas Oratorio. And the dancing part closer to the coda sounds almost like a twin brother to the Feste Romane: La Befana by Ottorino Respighi.
Tennstedt doesn't sound very fast and furious as you would expect, a very elegant approach.
But Bernstein is just wild, it takes your breath away, you can fully expect musicians would have their instruments destroyed in the process  They are surely on fire and you'd wish you could have joined the fun.


----------



## KevinJS

Waehnen said:


> My journey with Mahler is going well! It seems I have been able to cross the mental obstacles I had before.
> 
> At this moment 3, 5 and 6 are my favourites. I find myself selecting them the most often. 2, 7 and 9 equally come the good second group. 1st, 4th ans 8th are on the outer circle still.


Looks like you're attacking this from pretty well the opposite to me. I'm coming to Mahler late, having found that earlier exposure didn't take, for whatever reason. The 8th drew me in, courtesy of Robert Shaw/Atlanta Symphony, to which I added Solti and a few others (some of which haven't yet arrived. I had Haitink's 4th, with Elly Ameling and the Concertgebouw, and added the three recordings featuring boy sopranos by Bernstein, Nanut and Griffiths ( with the chamber orchestra arrangement by Stein). I have a couple more of those chamber orchestra arrangements on the way. I think I may have screwed up, thinking that Schönberg did an arrangement. Now I'm not sure. Both may have been by Stein. I guess I'll find out when they arrive. Bernstein's 1st hit me between the eyes, although in slightly more gentle fashion than Solti's 8th.

So, where now? I'm trying to find room for 2, 3 and 6. I'm finding the hooks in all three. Currently, I only have Kubelik's 3rd, with more on the way. I'm well set up for the 2nd, with 6 versions. Not sure how many 6ths I have, although one of them is Bernstein (DG).

So that leaves 7 (one copy: Abbado/VPO), 9 (2 copies of which one is in the DG "Great Symphonies" box and 5 (2 copies: Dudamel in the DG box and I forget the other).

I have a couple of 10ths and DLVDE and most, if not all, of the songs too.

Discovering Mahler pretty well from the ground up is a wild ride, and a fun one.


----------



## Waehnen

Azol said:


> Both M3 and M7 with Bernstein (any version you can find) are knockout performances. I prefer DGG for M3 and the DVD of M7 for sheer energy, the Finale is one of the best ever recorded.
> 
> P.S. Have listened to a few of recordings of M7 Finale, notably Chailly with Concertgebouw, Bernstein with NY Phil (DGG), Tennstedt with London Phil (studio one). Funny thing is - Tennstedt is the fastest (around 18 minutes), Bernstein is 18:40, Chailly is 19 minutes.
> Chailly is pure Italian grace, very carnival-like, dancing and celebrating all along, but sometimes you'd wish for more reckless abandon. The famous timpani rhythmic "leitmotif" invokes an almost Christmas feel, echoing J.S.Bach universally recognizable festive atmosphere of Christmas Oratorio. And the dancing part closer to the coda sounds almost like a twin brother to the Feste Romane: La Befana by Ottorino Respighi.
> Tennstedt doesn't sound very fast and furious as you would expect, a very elegant approach.
> But Bernstein is just wild, it takes your breath away, you can fully expect musicians would have their instruments destroyed in the process  They are surely on fire and you'd wish you could have joined the fun.


Thank you for insisting on the 3rd by Bernstein. I had to buy it although I have spent too much money on recordings recently. Even the aggressive articulation of the first theme on the brass sets this apart from both Rattle and Abbado. For me a strong interpretation is a requirement in a performance. "This is the way I do this symphony" is what I get from
Bernstein's Mahler, and it thrills me.


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> Thank you for insisting on the 3rd by Bernstein. I had to buy it although I have spent too much money on recordings recently. Even the aggressive articulation of the first theme on the brass sets this apart from both Rattle and Abbado. For me a strong interpretation is a requirement in a performance. "This is the way I do this symphony" is what I get from
> Bernstein's Mahler, and it thrills me.


Surprisingly the 6th Symphony works better by Abbado than by Bernstein whereas on the 3rd and 5th Bernstein would be my choice! There is no standard solution when it comes to great and even greater music!

I even go to the lenghts of stating that with Bernstein/Vienna the 6th Symphony is too aggressive and one-note. Under Abbado it sure is not aggressive or one-note.

It would appear that for me the right recording of a Mahler Symphony seems to be of a crucial importance.


----------



## Waehnen

I watched that little video on Mahler yesterday. I found it interesting and well put together. It would seem with Mahler autobiographical elements help to understand the music. The significance of the hammer blows in the 6th Symphony etc.


----------



## Waehnen

I had forgotten about an old CD of mine: Barbirolli conducting the Mahler 5th. Oh my, now that I finally understand this music, this version is even better than the Bernstein! Glorious John did it again.


----------



## Waehnen

I’ve gotten to the point of considering the 1st Movement of the 5th Symphony a masterpiece. It is not in any way mediocre.


----------



## KevinJS

Since this thread asks for help, I'll attempt to supply a bit. Bear in mind that this is my opinion and doesn't claim to be anything else. YMMV.

Symphony #4 arranged for chamber orchestra by Erwin Stein.

As we know, Mahler's stuff is BIG. Recomposing the 4th for 12 musicians and a soprano, however, gives a magical experience. I have 3 versions (I think):

The first two are relatively conventional

















The last uses a boy soprano, in this case Daniel Hellmann from the Zürcher Knabenchor. The Northern Sinfonia is Britain's only full-time chamber orchestra, by the way. Howard Griffiths was kicking around Switzerland for a while, which is presumably where he met the chorister. I last saw his name mentioned as the conductor of a chamber orchestra in Frankfurt/Oder, deep in what was once the DDR, actually within spitting distance of Poland.


----------



## 89Koechel

Very nice, Kevin JS!! I'd still vote, overall, for what Mengelberg, Szell, Reiner, Bruno Walter "did" in the past, with this pivotal Symphony ... and thanks for the EXAMPLE of the Fourth, in chamber form!


----------



## KevinJS

89Koechel said:


> Very nice, Kevin JS!! I'd still vote, overall, for what Mengelberg, Szell, Reiner, Bruno Walter "did" in the past, with this pivotal Symphony ... and thanks for the EXAMPLE of the Fourth, in chamber form!


Sure, the chamber works are not the be all and end all. I just like digging for weird stuff, like Kondrashin's 4th, with two 4th movements, sung first in Russian and then repeated in German. One day. I'll lay hands on a copy of that. I'm well supplied with more conventional 4ths, too; Abbado, Bernstein (NY/Reri Grist), Bernstein (Wiener/Wittek), Bernstein (Wiener/Bergius), Nanut, Zinman.


----------



## Waehnen

Thanks, Kevin and Koechel. I have listened to both Mengelberg and Rattle versions of the 4th Symphony over the last a couple of days. I enjoy both.

We watched a home video of our trip to Germany in 2018. I was shocked that the documents pointed that we went to a concert where Mahler’s 3rd Symphony was played. Shocked because neither one of us had any memories of the music or the concert. In my diary I have only stated: ”Too long Wagnerian stuff, could have been edited. Enjoyable.”

Usually we remember and talk about our concert experiences for years. Not this one.

Mahler’s material is most interesting to me in Symphonies 5, 6 and 7. The 3rd is no longer my favourite — although it is coherent, the material is not of high profile at all.


----------



## Waehnen

You will never guess which 2 gorgeous creatures arrived today! One clue, though: they might help me with Mahler!


----------



## Waehnen

I have been enjoying the 5th Symphony with the score a lot.

Then again I was underwhelmed by the 6th Symphony. I have been trying to like Mahler so much that only after reading the score while listening to the 1st Movement I had to admit to myself: the material is mediocre. The march music does not resonate. It is not interesting. Nevertheless, the elaboration on the mediocre themes is most skillful.

Don’t get me wrong. I enjoy Mahler a lot. But quite often I put the music under the concept of ”excellent elaboration and execution on mediocre ideas and themes.”


----------



## golfer72

Waehnen said:


> I have been enjoying the 5th Symphony with the score a lot.
> 
> Then again I was underwhelmed by the 6th Symphony. I have been trying to like Mahler so much that only after reading the score while listening to the 1st Movement I had to admit to myself: the material is mediocre. The march music does not resonate. It is not interesting. Nevertheless, the elaboration on the mediocre themes is most skillful.
> 
> Don't get me wrong. I enjoy Mahler a lot. But quite often I put the music under the concept of "excellent elaboration and execution on mediocre ideas and themes."


I listened to Mahler 6 recently. i like it except for the finale which i dont think is one of his best finales


----------



## Waehnen

golfer72 said:


> I listened to Mahler 6 recently. i like it except for the finale which i dont think is one of his best finales


I also like the 6th. My (probably self-made) problem is that at this moment I feel symphonies 5, 6 and 7 are basically the same symphony. Each start with a pompous (more or less Star Warsy) minor key march. Out of the three, my pick would be symphony no. 5 for I find it the most artistic and it's march is actually very good and created of high profile material.

At the moment I struggle with the question, is Mahler full of variations of the same ideas or is there strong uniqueness to each symphony.

If I had to pick the symphonies with the most unique profile and a strong arch, I would probably choose Symphonies no. 2, 5 and 9. Now that I have found performances of each that suit me perfectly, I just might choose those 3 as my distinctive Mahler ones. They all have something unique to offer.

Should someone still be interested in helping me with Mahler, I would appreciate insight on what is special and unique and important and vital about each symphony.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Some differences in the overall arch and relative weight are that the 6th has a tragic finale that is also by far the longest and most complex movement whereas the 7th has the most weighty first movement and the 5th has the huge scherzo as longest movement. The funeral march of the 5th is also a "real" slow funeral march with "trios", not a fastish sonata movement with a march-like main theme like in #6 and the one in #7 is the most complex of them but also more or less a sonata movement. The 5th has a clearer "path to resolution" with that chorale "failing" in the 2nd movement and appearing triumphant in the finale. Similarly, the 6th with its tragic collapse of everything in the finale. The 7th does not seem so tightly organized, therefore maybe the dislike many have for the finale that feels out of place.

But, sure, there are similarities, and they have been commented on or even led to grouping these three together in a similar way the first 4 have been claimed as a group of "Wunderhorn symphonies".
To me, the 6th seems like a massive, tragic "variant" of the 5th; I am also a bit surprised and have no explanation that the 7th is so similar to the 5th again.


----------



## justekaia

I see Mahler differently. There are symphonies that are linked but essentially every single one is different and i am convinced Mahler's personal life immensely influenced his composition. Therefore I see the symphonies as a work of art that one should accept or refuse in its totality. Each symphony is a kind of building block that adds layers to a musical trajectory. I also believe none of his symphonies is perfect and that was not his intention. Some movements are more striking than others, but they are scattered over all the symphonies. 3, 9, 10 contain some of these movements IMHO.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think they should all be treated as separate works because that's what they are. They are not "sequels" of novels. I am also wary about stressing the tentative connection to personal circumstances.


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I think they should all be treated as separate works because that's what they are. They are not "sequels" of novels. I am also wary about stressing the tentative connection to personal circumstances.


I could not prevent myself from giving yet another chance for the 6th Symphony. The Barbirolli-version does not sound like Star Wars at all. He gives space for the beautiful tone colours of the orchestra. He has really thought about the gestures. That is the only way I can deal with this symphony.

Thanks for Becca for reminding me of the greatness of Barbirolli.


----------



## Waehnen

One of my original problems with Mahler was that the musical gestures sometimes made no sense in my ears. And that resulted in even the musical colours to be kind of meh. Just some "this is how Mahler is done" -stuff that the conductors and orchestras rush through.

But now I have found Barbirolli´s Mahler. I admit that only with these wonderful versions of the 5th, 6th and the 9th, I am able to hear meaningful expression in musical passages that I have dismissed before as more or less meaningless babble. And only now do I actually realize how much babble I have (unconsciously) heard in the music before. My "experience of babble" used to lead me to trying to listen to the music in a slower frequency and in larger waves.

Now I eventually have faith in the actual musical material happening in the frequency of seconds, too. The Barbirolli approach also lets me see more differences in the symphonies. They are unique pieces after all.

I am very happy that I have found Barbirolli.


----------



## Becca

I notice that you mentioned his 6th but there are two available, the studio recording on Warner/EMI and the live Proms performance from the night before which is available on Testament. Somewhat surprisingly there is quite a difference between them, particularly in the 1st movement. Personally I much prefer the live version.


----------



## Waehnen

Just listened to the 2nd Symphony by Rattle. Let’s just say that I no longer feel like I need ”Help with Mahler”. After all this has been as much a journey in trying to understand Mahler as a journey in finding recordings that suit me. 

There are 5 symphonies now of which I have perfect and satisfying versions. With these, criticism has turned into feeling the magic and seeing the depth.

2 — Rattle
3 — Bernstein
5 — Barbirolli
6 — Barbirolli
9 — Barbirolli

Excellent symphonies and excellent recordings! Thank you all.


----------



## 89Koechel

Waehnen - Great that you've found your "niche", so to speak, in Mr. John Barbirolli, in Mahler. Maybe you're aware that he partnered, so to speak, with great vocalists of the past - Melchior, Schorr, et. al., in his earlier days. Well, even in Mahler's Sixth, one might offer another recommendation - Jascha Horenstein, and not, just in the rare Unicorn recording, with the Stockholm Philharmonic, but in another, decent LP set. Good GOD, it's even available on Apple music! You will find NO "rush through" with Horenstein, in any of the latter's Mahler recordings, even from the days of his Vox recordings, thru the others, of different recording sources. All the best ....


----------



## haziz

I am glad you are more appreciative of Mahler and am now enjoying his compositions, but remember that it is OK to not like a composer's music. If after a few listening sessions you don't "get" a composer, it is perfectly fine to move on and find another whose music clicks better with you.

Regarding Mahler, I do like a bleeding chunk of Symphony No. 2 (the first 3 mvmts), and am a bit meh about Symphony No. 4. I find Symphonies Nos. 1 & 5 listenable, as well as the first movement of 6. Never liked the others. I would rank a dozen or more symphonists well ahead of him ...... and that is OK.


----------



## Becca

haziz said:


> I am glad you are more appreciative of Mahler and am now enjoying his compositions, but remember that it is OK to not like a composer's music. If after a few listening sessions you don't "get" a composer, it is perfectly fine to move on and find another whose music clicks better with you.
> 
> Regarding Mahler, I do like a bleeding chunk of Symphony No. 2 (the first 3 mvmts), and am a bit meh about Symphony No. 4. I find Symphonies Nos. 1 & 5 listenable, as well as the first movement of 6. Never liked the others. I would rank a dozen or more symphonists well ahead of him ...... and that is OK.


That absolutely heretical idea deserves slow burning at the stake whilst the Mahler 8th is being played.

_Blicket auf zum Retterblick,
Alle reuig Zarten,
Euch zu seligem Geschick
Dankend umzuarten._


----------



## Waehnen

haziz said:


> I am glad you are more appreciative of Mahler and am now enjoying his compositions, but remember that it is OK to not like a composer's music. If after a few listening sessions you don't "get" a composer, it is perfectly fine to move on and find another whose music clicks better with you.
> 
> Regarding Mahler, I do like a bleeding chunk of Symphony No. 2 (the first 3 mvmts), and am a bit meh about Symphony No. 4. I find Symphonies Nos. 1 & 5 listenable, as well as the first movement of 6. Never liked the others. I would rank a dozen or more symphonists well ahead of him ...... and that is OK.


Yes! I do not admit social pressure on the matter but I do appreciate the community enough not to overlook the common opinions and appreciations. At least I want to find out what the fuss is about.

Like I have said many times now, symphonies 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 I consider masterpieces. Symphonies 1, 4, 7 and 8 are good but not of all that great appeal to me. I feel content in a situation where I eventually feel I know what Mahler is about.

The greatest lesson has been that especially with Mahler, I absolutely need a performance that suits my personality. Otherwise I put the blame on the work. It took a long time to seperate the "Banal Star Wars Conducting" - which I really really dislike - from the works which actually do not require the star wars approach at all.


----------



## 89Koechel

Waehnen - "(star wars approach") - Hmm, interesting way to assess those interpretations/recordings that were/are ... let's say ... somewhat FLAMBOYANT, eh? The Mahler structure almost-INVITES certain tempo variations, from one to another ... NO doubt. It can be the same, even, in Beethoven or Brahms or Schubert Symphonies - eh? Well, if you want a sane/rational approach to conducting/Mahler ... one might suggest the late Jascha Horenstein, in most of Mahler's Symphonies. I'm sure that other posters can mention others. Thanks.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> I have been given many tips and great advice on this Forum thread!
> 
> It might be silly but one key for the decryption now seems to be not to consider Mahler primarily a symphonic composer/genius but an orchestral composer/genius. That thought helps my listening and opening my ears and mind. For I just cannot expect this to be anything like Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Sibelius or Shostakovich.
> 
> Mahler is foremost an orchestral composer, more than any of the aforementioned. For me there is a crucial difference.
> 
> I think you guys have helped me over one obstacle! So thank you.


Upon reading my initial post to you, I realized that I can at least guide you to some resources that I believe would help you (even though I see now that you don't really need them), but do check these out:

Tilson Thomas documentary on the composer:










And this hugely informative website:

https://mahlerfoundation.org/


----------



## Waehnen

89Koechel said:


> Waehnen - "(star wars approach") - Hmm, interesting way to assess those interpretations/recordings that were/are ... let's say ... somewhat FLAMBOYANT, eh? The Mahler structure almost-INVITES certain tempo variations, from one to another ... NO doubt. It can be the same, even, in Beethoven or Brahms or Schubert Symphonies - eh? Well, if you want a sane/rational approach to conducting/Mahler ... one might suggest the late Jascha Horenstein, in most of Mahler's Symphonies. I'm sure that other posters can mention others. Thanks.


None of these on my list apply the star wars approach! And I am able to point out immediatedly when I hear the star wars approach - and stop the listening. So nothing to worry about anymore, really. It was an initial problem with me which messed my thoughts on Mahler. Mahler is marchy, dissonant, loud and pompous enough in itself - there is no need for the conductors to emphasize those characteristics.

Quite the contrary - please do emphasize the chamber music like textures, please do highlight the contrasting orchestral colours etc., please find the interesting from the marching and offer it to us. Many conductors are just lazy with the details and get overwhelmed by the vastness of the music. But still: No marching through the music, please.

It is a trait in many interpretations of many conductors, luckily nobody marches all the time. But I have been forced to pick and choose!

Symphony no. 1
Solti/LSO

Symphony no. 2
Jurowski/LPO

Symphony no. 3
Chailly/Concertgebouw

Symphony no. 4
Mengelberg/RCO

Symphony no. 5
Bernstein/Vienna

Symphony no. 6
Barbirolli/Philharmonia

Symphony no. 7
Abbado/Chicago

Symphony no. 8
Gielen/Frankfurter

Symphony no. 9
Karajan/Berliner


----------



## Waehnen

It happened again: Last night I listened to the 5th Symphony by Bernstein. I started thinking the finale is not so good… The same old bull…. came to mind: not enough high profile themes, blah boah blah…

Luckily I am learning: I remembered really liking the Karajan version of the 5th Symphony finale. So I listened to it this morning. What a magnificent finale! So much joy and energy! All the musical gestures have a meaning other than brilliant orchestral writing and virtuoso playing.

I have never experienced anything like this with another composer: every movement needs just the right performance to even make musical sense, hit the mark and not to mention provide the kicks. Mediocre performance of a movement just will not do at all. What a challenge to conductors, orchestras and us listeners!


----------



## Barbebleu

Maybe not a challenge to all listeners. Some listeners get Mahler quite quickly. Others, not so much. It depends on the individual listener. I have no way of knowing what others hear when they listen to any piece of music and that is why we like some stuff and dislike other stuff. For my part baroque does nothing for me emotionally or intellectually but I appreciate that there are thousands out there who love it. I’ve never been clear as to why one would ‘try’ to like certain composers or genres if the first time appeal is not there. There’s so much music out there that I love so I don’t feel like wasting time trying to ‘get’ things that do not pique my interest.


----------



## marlow

Barbebleu said:


> Maybe not a challenge to all listeners. Some listeners get Mahler quite quickly. Others, not so much. It depends on the individual listener. I have no way of knowing what others hear when they listen to any piece of music and that is why we like some stuff and dislike other stuff. For my part baroque does nothing for me emotionally or intellectually but I appreciate that there are thousands out there who love it. I've never been clear as to why one would 'try' to like certain composers or genres if the first time appeal is not there. There's so much music out there that I love so I don't feel like wasting time trying to 'get' things that do not pique my interest.


Absolutely. I never see why I should waste my time trying to 'get' composers which I dislike or which doesn't do anything for me. Life is too short.


----------



## Waehnen

marlow said:


> Absolutely. I never see why I should waste my time trying to 'get' composers which I dislike or which doesn't do anything for me. Life is too short.


Don't you think that could lead to mental lazyness, thinking that something one doesn't get straight away is a waste of time?

I at least want to know what I am dealing with and only then make my decision on which frequency come back to the music if at all.

Mahler has enriched my musical world a lot since November when I really started to listen to it. So I would say 4 months of more or less intensive listening has been all worth it and far from waste of time.

It is also obvious not everyone require the same things from music. For example, generalizing: Americans are some times happier with straight forward performances with excellent orchestras, whereas Europeans do not mind the orchestra being not so exact all the time if the performance nevertheless is well thought out and full of expression.


----------



## Barbebleu

Well I’m European and I don’t like inexact playing. Spot on intonation and ensemble work is essential for my well being.


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> Well I'm European and I don't like inexact playing. Spot on intonation and ensemble work is essential for my well being.


And I fully appreciate that. How about the full of expression part of a performance?


----------



## Barbebleu

That’s important too. That’s the first thing that grabs me when I hear something new. It’s how I instantly loved the Scandinavian composers like Sibelius, Nielsen and Greig:- that cold, crystalline, icy wastes feel to the music but with enough romantic passion to warm your heart.

I’m not a composer like yourself but I play a couple of instruments and although I’m not absorbed by the technical side of music I like to think I know enough about what I like to spot above average performances. Fifty five years of listening leaves some impact!:lol:


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> That's important too. That's the first thing that grabs me when I hear something new. It's how I instantly loved the Scandinavian composers like Sibelius, Nielsen and Greig:- that cold, crystalline, icy wastes feel to the music but with enough romantic passion to warm your heart.
> 
> I'm not a composer like yourself but I play a couple of instruments and although I'm not absorbed by the technical side of music I like to think I know enough about what I like to spot above average performances. Fifty five years of listening leaves some impact!:lol:


I do not doubt that!

It is a subjective matter which performance touches you more than others. For example, I am sure many would consider Bernstein's version of the Finale of the 5th better than Karajan's. It is subjective that overall Karajan is the one conductor that almost always convinces me.

Whereas I think it is a more objective matter that both performances are technically great.

I would never say somebody would be WRONG liking a performance!


----------



## DavidUK

I remember reading an interview with a prominent musician from a major orchestra who said he absolutely hated Mahler's music and hated playing it even more! So obviously as we all have different tastes not everyone will like everything. For example I cannot listen to Wagner and most Mozart does nothing for me. The sheer length of Mahler's symphonies means it takes longer to assimilate them so maybe it's best to concentrate on just one symphony and hopefully get to know and enjoy before moving on to another.


----------



## PathfinderCS

I'll be honest; I can relate. Trying to get and understand Mahler has been challenging, but I have the will and the want to try. His Eighth symphony was the first that really clicked, and little by little his Second and Third symphonies are coming along.

Of course I'm not really forcing myself; just going with the flow. Moving on to others when I feel like I need.


----------



## 89Koechel

PathfinderCS - Well, maybe the Fourth Symphony is the MOST-accessible, the most-listenable (in certain ways) of all. There is NO DEARTH of excellent performances/recordings of the latter, incl. Szell, Bruno Walter, Willem Mengelberg/Concertgebouw, Jascha Horenstein and a HOST of others, even as I name some of the best, from bygone days. Eventually, I think you'll reach the 9th Symphony, and the Mr. von Karajan, with the Berlin Symphony (actually, in two recordings) might be a best choice ... even as it might seem unlikely that a GERMAN conductor could succeed, so well. Good luck!


----------



## Ulfilas

You can understand the essence of the music and still not enjoy it, that 's oK!


----------



## Ulfilas

Personally I prefer a more objective and less exaggerated approach (which doesn't mean lacking in emotion). My favourite Mahler conductors are Bruno Walter, Kubelik, Boulez and Zinman.


----------



## OCEANE

Ulfilas said:


> Personally I prefer a more objective and less exaggerated approach (which doesn't mean lacking in emotion). My favourite Mahler conductors are Bruno Walter, Kubelik, Boulez and Zinman.


Me too, as Mahler symphonies are so expansive and complicate in structure, personally i prefer the more objective approach and well balanced without too exaggerated interpretation.


----------



## Waehnen

So I really had a very intensive Mahler period since the beginning of this thread — after which I have also listened to some other music intensively and thus been able to reflect on my relationship with Mahler.

I will sum up my findings:

1. Mahler maybe more than any other composer requires the exactly suitable conductor and performance for each symphony to make a positive impact.

2. Quite often I thought that a symphony is mediocre although it was just a mediocre performance which flattened the musical material into mindless babble through which the orchestra and listener had to march.

3. I encourage to talk about the symphonies with references to specific performances. Otherwise we can talk past each other and not really understand what the others are saying.

4. Don’t fall to the same trap I did: thinking that the symphonies 5 and 6 are mediocre because S-A order of the 6th’s inner movement creates an unnecessary and unbelievably irritating resemblance between the two symphonies. Mahler solved this problem for us: A-S it is!

5. I place the Mahler Symphonies into 3 categories, using in my evaluation both subjective and objective criteria. It helps my overall appreciation of Mahler to concentrate on the first category.

Masterpieces: 2, 3, 5, 6 (A-S!) and 9 (although almost too heavy and admittedly over-orchestrated)
Good and enjoyable work: 1, 4
Other Mahler is better: 7, 8

Mahler’s music, the performances and the reception is a complicated matter. Allowing yourself even the criticism and negative feelings and irritation and being honest with yourself serves a good purpose eventually. It helps to find the solutions that are convincing and a mind-set that is suitable. It is possible to really enjoy many moments when not forced to like everything.


----------



## Monsalvat

I think I find this interesting because your approach is so different from mine. I basically fell in love with the Fifth at first listen, same with the Sixth, and then broadened my listening; I listen to the 1st, 4th, and 8th the least of the symphonies but love the 7th. I remember you discussing how you found a similarity between the Fifth and the S/A Sixth and couldn't make head nor tail of it; they are very different works and I think even at a skeletal, structural level, I don't really see this resemblance. Does Brahms's First irritate you because there are some (at least superficial) resemblances between it and Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth? (Not to suggest that you do, but I think that it's a parallel argument.) The scherzi from the Fifth and Sixth are _so_ different that I just don't see them playing the same structural role; for me, the Fifth's scherzo is the fulcrum of the work, while the Sixth's fulcrum is probably the Andante (though this may depend on the A/S or S/A ordering). I agree with the A/S order (this argument was extensively litigated in another thread of yours), but for _entirely_ different reasons.

The other reason I'm fascinated by how differently we approach Mahler is due to the importance you attach to specific recordings. I try to never listen to the same recording twice in a row; I'm happy with both Bernstein and Boulez in my library. I don't think any performance of Mahler can have all the answers, and sometimes I'm willing to accept more than one correct answer, which necessitates multiple interpretations. I actually think that, in contrast to your first point, Mahler is open to multiple interpretations to a very high degree. Obviously this means that some of the interpretations might be against what you or I value, which only confirms the importance of a good conductor in this repertoire.

None of this is intended as criticism; I'm just fascinated by how differently we approach the music of Gustav Mahler.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> So I really had a very intensive Mahler period since the beginning of this thread — after which I have also listened to some other music intensively and thus been able to reflect on my relationship with Mahler.
> 
> I will sum up my findings:
> 
> 1. Mahler maybe more than any other composer requires the exactly suitable conductor and performance for each symphony to make a positive impact.
> 
> 2. Quite often I thought that a symphony is mediocre although it was just a mediocre performance which flattened the musical material into mindless babble through which the orchestra and listener had to march.
> 
> 3. I encourage to talk about the symphonies with references to specific performances. Otherwise we can talk past each other and not really understand what the others are saying.


Mahler was a virtuoso orchestrator and pushed every section to its limits. His music demands a high level of ability to come off well. But he's hardly alone there. Think R Strauss, Korngold, Schmidt, Prokofieff, Bartok, and a zillion more. Mediocre performances, especially on recordings, are not going to cut it. However, in live performance you don't need the "exactly suitable conductor". You just need a good, solid musician who has some empathy to the music and a capable orchestra. It does not have to be the Berlin Philharmonic. I've heard some thrilling Mahler in Tucson, Arizona, of all places that put any recording - and I mean any - to shame. How is that possible? Because a) they were live performances and b) the synergy created by a live performance and audience cannot be caught on record. I've heard them play 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, DLVDE under George Hanson (who?) who isn't exactly a well-known maestro, but man could he bring Mahler to life. Looking forward to a Covid-delayed 2nd next season. It's possible, even likely, that those same performances, if caught on record, wouldn't have the same power they did in person. And I've heard a really mediocre 5th with Mehta and the NY Phil. The recording they made for Teldec is the best 5th on record IMO. But that live performance was so deadly dull that calling it mediocre is a compliment.


----------



## Waehnen

Monsalvat said:


> I remember you discussing how you found a similarity between the Fifth and the S/A Sixth and couldn't make head nor tail of it; they are very different works and I think even at a skeletal, structural level, I don't really see this resemblance. Does Brahms's First irritate you because there are some (at least superficial) resemblances between it and Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth? (Not to suggest that you do, but I think that it's a parallel argument.) The scherzi from the Fifth and Sixth are _so_ different that I just don't see them playing the same structural role; for me, the Fifth's scherzo is the fulcrum of the work, while the Sixth's fulcrum is probably the Andante (though this may depend on the A/S or S/A ordering). I agree with the A/S order (this argument was extensively litigated in another thread of yours), but for _entirely_ different reasons.


The relationship between the 1st two movements in the 5th and the S-A 6th is indeed very similar: a very dark march at the beginning with a developing variation movement as the second, sharing a lot of the same material. I will not go further into technical details than that. But for me doing the same thing twice in two consequent symphonies which already share many stylistic characteristic, it is absolutely unbearable.

The A-S version helps the conductors to shape the music of the symphonies differently and bring the both works a unique character. That way I am not taken out of the illusion and I love it. I will keep it this way.




Monsalvat said:


> The other reason I'm fascinated by how differently we approach Mahler is due to the importance you attach to specific recordings. I try to never listen to the same recording twice in a row; I'm happy with both Bernstein and Boulez in my library. I don't think any performance of Mahler can have all the answers, and sometimes I'm willing to accept more than one correct answer, which necessitates multiple interpretations. I actually think that, in contrast to your first point, Mahler is open to multiple interpretations to a very high degree. Obviously this means that some of the interpretations might be against what you or I value, which only confirms the importance of a good conductor in this repertoire.


I was not trying to say to have only 1 recording for each symphony that I find suitable. More than one for each. But it has happened to me quite often that I listen again to a version which I have already abandoned (and forgotten about it) -- and then all of a sudden have problems with the composition and start the criticising again. Finding myself irritated.

Should I listen to a full Mahler cycle from a one conductor and orchestra, I would probably find it unenjoyable. You cannot do this music in one cycle and have enough different mindsets to make it all work. It is humanly impossible in my opinion.

It has never been like this with any other composer. For example, give me two mediocre performances of the 5th and then the 6th in S-A and I actually feel anxiety. I feel like shouting at Mahler: "Cut the ********! Don´t bring us the same all the time, you know better than this! Not everything that comes out of your pen is gold! Have some effort, please!"

Luckily there is an abundance of Mahler recordings and great orchestras in the world. And it is not a small achievement to accomplish 5 absolutely massive masterpiece symphonies! So all in all, I am of course happy and thankful for the music.

Yes, it is fascinating how our Mahler stories can be totally different stories.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> Mahler was a virtuoso orchestrator and pushed every section to its limits. His music demands a high level of ability to come off well. But he's hardly alone there. Think R Strauss, Korngold, Schmidt, Prokofieff, Bartok, and a zillion more. Mediocre performances, especially on recordings, are not going to cut it. However, in live performance you don't need the "exactly suitable conductor". You just need a good, solid musician who has some empathy to the music and a capable orchestra. It does not have to be the Berlin Philharmonic. I've heard some thrilling Mahler in Tucson, Arizona, of all places that put any recording - and I mean any - to shame. How is that possible? Because a) they were live performances and b) the synergy created by a live performance and audience cannot be caught on record. I've heard them play 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, DLVDE under George Hanson (who?) who isn't exactly a well-known maestro, but man could he bring Mahler to life. Looking forward to a Covid-delayed 2nd next season. It's possible, even likely, that those same performances, if caught on record, wouldn't have the same power they did in person. And I've heard a really mediocre 5th with Mehta and the NY Phil. The recording they made for Teldec is the best 5th on record IMO. But that live performance was so deadly dull that calling it mediocre is a compliment.


I believe every word. And you speak from experience. Thanks!


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Waehnen said:


> 5. I place the Mahler Symphonies into 3 categories, using in my evaluation both subjective and objective criteria. It helps my overall appreciation of Mahler to concentrate on the first category.
> 
> Masterpieces: 2, 3, 5, 6 (A-S!) and 9 (although almost too heavy and admittedly over-orchestrated)
> Good and enjoyable work: 1, 4
> Other Mahler is better: 7, 8


Funny how our preferences can be so similar yet so different. My list would be identical to yours, except I'd switch the positions of 7 and 2 or 3


----------



## Waehnen

4chamberedklavier said:


> Funny how our preferences can be so similar yet so different. My list would be identical to yours, except I'd switch the positions of 7 and 2 or 3


My problem with the 7th is that it is recycling material from the 5th and 6th to the extent of appearing a less inspired copy of it’s predecessors. The 1st, 3rd and 5th Movement — everything has been heard before in the 5th and the 6th Symphonies.

So for the 7th it is only Die Nachtmusik für mich, bitte.

I am able to enjoy the works of this period if it is 5th and 6th A-S and no 7th. But give me 5th, 6th S-A and the 7th and it is just too much and I find myself being irritated and wanting to EDIT EDIT EDIT.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Waehnen said:


> My problem with the 7th is that it is recycling material from the 5th and 6th to the extent of appearing a less inspired copy of it’s predecessors. The 1st, 3rd and 5th Movement — everything has been heard before in the 5th and the 6th Symphonies.
> 
> So for the 7th it is only Die Nachtmusik für mich, bitte.
> 
> I am able to enjoy the works of this period if it is 5th and 6th A-S and no 7th. But give me 5th, 6th S-A and the 7th and it is just too much and I find myself being irritated and wanting to EDIT EDIT EDIT.


I actually agree, but the 7th's similarity with the 5th & 6th is what makes me like it more than the others. I suppose originality isn't too important for me


----------



## Waehnen

4chamberedklavier said:


> I actually agree, but the 7th's similarity with the 5th & 6th is what makes me like it more than the others. I suppose originality isn't too important for me


This is really interesting! It made me aware of a hardwired attitude of mine: originality is highly important. I also see extensive circulation of old material a quality which is pointing to the direction of a lack of imagination and a lack of certain creativity in coming up with new material.

This is of course an aesthetic value which I have grown into and which I have more or less unconsciously chosen to hold onto.

In the first movement of symphony no. 4 I claim to hear both themes that point to the first and last movements of the 5th symphony. Also one main theme is straight forwardly borrowed from the first Rasumovsky Quartet by Beethoven, the theme at the very beginning of the SQ. These things really do bother me.

Mahler circulates certain orchestral gestures from symphony to symphony. One particular gesture is actually from Strauss’ Zarathustra.


----------



## Merl

I still think the 1st is the best place to start as it's more accessible to many but that's maybe cos that's the one that got me hooked.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> In the first movement of symphony no. 4 I claim to hear both themes that point to the first and last movements of the 5th symphony. Also one main theme is straight forwardly borrowed from the first Rasumovsky Quartet by Beethoven, the theme at the very beginning of the SQ. These things really do bother me.


I've read an article once (in a Dutch music magazine from the 70's) that claimed Mahler had "borrowed" the main theme from the first movement of the 4th from some obscure salon piece for piano by a forgotten composer - I forgot which one, but the resemblance was more than striking: it was almost exactly the same melody. It's possible that Mahler heard it once and unconsciously used it, honeslty thinking it was of his own invention. It's also possible that it's a complete coincidence.
Still, one can argue how important these issues are. The salon piece composer did nothing with the theme, Mahler used it to build a vast and truly great symphonic movement.- with such incomparable qualities, can one still claim it's a case of plagiarism?
Of course there's the case of Hans Rott's ramshackle symphony in E major that allegedly was used as a model for his friend Mahler's first symphony. There's a certain resemblance in style and ambition, but again, the difference in quality is so big that it renders the discussion pointless. (Rott did write a great scherzo though - I actually prefer it to Mahler's scherzo!)


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> I've read an article once (in a Dutch music magazine from the 70's) that claimed Mahler had "borrowed" the main theme from the first movement of the 4th from some obscure salon piece for piano by a forgotten composer - I forgot which one, but the resemblance was more than striking: it was almost exactly the same melody. It's possible that Mahler heard it once and unconsciously used it, honeslty thinking it was of his own invention. It's also possible that it's a complete coincidence.
> Still, one can argue how important these issues are. The salon piece composer did nothing with the theme, Mahler used it to build a vast and truly great symphonic movement.- with such incomparable qualities, can one still claim it's a case of plagiarism?
> Of course there's the case of Hans Rott's ramshackle symphony in E major that allegedly was used as a model for his friend Mahler's first symphony. There's a certain resemblance in style and ambition, but again, the difference in quality is so big that it renders the discussion pointless. (Rott did write a great scherzo though - I actually prefer it to Mahler's scherzo!)


Do you think it was a conscious choice made by Mahler to borrow a lot of his material from himself and other composers -- or was it unintended?

This is the one thing I criticise Mahler of: circulating the same material and often accepting mediocre musical elements as the starting point for his masterful constructions. It is the only true weakness of this great composer.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> Do you think it was a conscious choice made by Mahler to borrow a lot of his material from himself and other composers -- or was it unintended?
> This is the one thing I criticise Mahler: circulating the same material and often accepting mediocre musical elements as the starting point for his masterful constructions. It is the only true weakness of this great composer.


I guess we'll never know. I doubt Mahler had the intention to steal other people's material in some kind of moustache-twirling "they'll never know" villain type way. His themes are often pretty rudimentary, which means fishing in the same tonal pond as a lot of other composers, and it's always possible that two people catch the same fish. That's the thing about Mahler, at least the Mahler from the early and middle periods, his thematical material seemed to belong to an older generation, but the way he expanded on it, harmonically and texture-wise was uniquely his own. Mahler was a true post-modern composer, maybe one of the first ever, in the sense that there's a clear discrepancy in style between the musical material and the development.
But I don't see that as a negative thing. It makes him what he is, a unique and inimitable composer.
In the three works from his late period (DLvdE, symphonies 9 and 10) that discrepancy finally disappeared, and his melodic material converged with his harmonic and contrapuntal style, turning him from a post-modern into a truly modern composer.


----------



## Waehnen

4chamberedklavier said:


> I actually agree, but the 7th's similarity with the 5th & 6th is what makes me like it more than the others. I suppose originality isn't too important for me


I will give the 7th one more chance. I got myself some more Klemperer! Let’s see if the maestro convinces me like he did with the magnificent 2nd.


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> I will give the 7th one more chance. I got myself some more Klemperer! Let’s see if the maestro convinces me like he did with the magnificent 2nd.


Too early to say nothing much but for the first time the 7th has sounded in any way PROFOUND. That is good in a symphony, me thinks.


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> I will give the 7th one more chance. I got myself some more Klemperer! Let’s see if the maestro convinces me like he did with the magnificent 2nd.


If any recording of the 7th will convince you it's a dog, it's the Klemperer. Woof. What a boring, miserable performance. The three middle movements are ok, nothing special. The first is just dull, dull, dull. But it's a thriller compared to the finale.

With so many excellent 7th from Bernstein, Tilson Thomas, Kondrashin, Rosbaud, Abbado, Solti, Jansons, Ozawa and others, don't let Otto ruin the fun.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> If any recording of the 7th will convince you it's a dog, it's the Klemperer. Woof. What a boring, miserable performance. The three middle movements are ok, nothing special. The first is just dull, dull, dull. But it's a thriller compared to the finale.
> 
> With so many excellent 7th from Bernstein, Tilson Thomas, Kondrashin, Rosbaud, Abbado, Solti, Jansons, Ozawa and others, don't let Otto ruin the fun.


But you have to admit that if the greatest problem for me has been the symphonies 5, 6 and 7 resembling each other, this kind of solves it? 

5/Bernstein
6/Rattle Berlin
7/Klemperer

I enjoy the works much more when the performance is highly inspired in handling of the details and the profile is as high as possible.

I am not saying those are the best performances for each symphony but for sure the symphonies do not sound the same!

Abbado/Chicago has so far been the only version of the 7th that does not irritate me. That is not enough. Klemperer actually made me interested in the material of the 7th and that has not happened before. It is something, right?


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> Abbado/Chicago has so far been the only version of the 7th that does not irritate me. That is not enough. Klemperer actually made me interested in the material of the 7th and that has not happened before. It is something, right?


My go-to performance of the 7th is Chailly/CGO. Slow first movement, but unlike Klemperer's 4-square version it's full of brooding tension and mystery. And the playing by the Concertgebouw Orchestra is glorious, it's like the famous 1908 performance where Mahler himself conducted the work in Amsterdam is channeled through the hands of Chailly (who even re-introduced the restored low-D timpani that Mengelberg used in the finale...)
The CGO is a safe bet in the 7th anyway, Haitink's performances are among the better ones in his cycle(s) as well. I'd go for the live so-called "Kerstmatinee" performance on Philips though, not the earlier not-as-intense studio recording. Don't know if this famous Philips set is still available, it's not complete but it has some glorious performances that Haitink never bettered in Vienna or Berlin. The live 3rd and 9th are marvelous too (but the studio 9th is superb and justly famous as well).

As for Klemperer - it's a strange case. Objectively speaking it's a bizarre excersize in artificiality, completely going against the natural flow of the music. But no-one can deny that Klemperer of all conductors, living or dead, had the strongest ties to Mahler himself (Walter never did the 7th as far as I know), being his assistant at the world premiere. And I've read somewhere (but without a source) that Mahler preferred relatively slow tempi in his own works.
But Mahler was also known for his flexible tempi and the freedom of his interpretations, qualities that are completely absent in Klemperer's 7th. So I think after all it's more Klempeper than mahler, it even sounds like a caricature of Klemperer's usual approach to music.


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> My go-to performance of the 7th is Chailly/CGO. Slow first movement, but unlike Klemperer's 4-square version it's full of brooding tension and mystery. And the playing by the Concertgebouw Orchestra is glorious, it's like the famous 1908 performance where Mahler himself conducted the work in Amsterdam is channeled through the hands of Chailly (who even re-introduced the restored low-D timpani that Mengelberg used in the finale...)
> The CGO is a safe bet in the 7th anyway, Haitink's performances are among the better ones in his cycle(s) as well. I'd go for the live so-called "Kerstmatinee" performance on Philips though, not the earlier not-as-intense studio recording. Don't know if this famous Philips set is still available, it's not complete but it has some glorious performances that Haitink never bettered in Vienna or Berlin. The live 3rd and 9th are marvelous too (but the studio 9th is superb and justly famous as well).
> 
> As for Klemperer - it's a strange case. Objectively speaking it's a bizarre excersize in artificiality, completely going against the natural flow of the music. But no-one can deny that Klemperer of all conductors, living or dead, had the strongest ties to Mahler himself (Walter never did the 7th as far as I know), being his assistant at the world premiere. And I've read somewhere (but without a source) that Mahler preferred relatively slow tempi in his own works.
> But Mahler was also known for his flexible tempi and the freedom of his interpretations, qualities that are completely absent in Klemperer's 7th. So I think after all it's more Klempeper than mahler, it even sounds like a caricature of Klemperer's usual approach to music.


In my experience, even though I hate to admit it even after the Klemperer, _*the 7th Symphony is just bad*_. It has absolutely no focus and it is circulating the past innovations of Mahler over and over again.

There must of course be a strong subjective element to my judgment. But if the 7th was my own composition, there would still be a lot of work. At least 1/4 of the material would be thrown in the bin, and a lot of new contrasting material would have to be invented in order to prevent the excessive and boring circulation of the same stuff.

_*Luckily symphonies 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9 are not bad at all but adorable!*_

Enough of me trying to get into the 7th. I´ve tried my best. There are bigger problems on the planet. Thanks all!


----------



## Waehnen

I think one way of describing the Mahler symphony cycle is a dichotomy between The Bloom and The Concrete Brutalism.

The earlier Mahler symphonies 1-4 were all about The Bloom — the inspired and eclectic sense of nature and humanity.

In the 5th I for the first time sense a brutalist concrete construction block but there is still the bloom of humanity as the driving force.

In the 6th the concrete brutalist building blocks are already one of the key elements.

The 7th is all about concrete brutalism, the pinnacle of brutalism.

The 8th tries to restore the bloom but the concrete blocks and boxlike shape of the overall structure can be seen through the leafes and vines.

The 9th is a succesful mix of The Bloom and the Concrete.

(People with better English may want to enhance this attempt of mine, like always. Much appreciated.)


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> My go-to performance of the 7th is Chailly/CGO. Slow first movement, but unlike Klemperer's 4-square version it's full of brooding tension and mystery. And the playing by the Concertgebouw Orchestra is glorious, it's like the famous 1908 performance where Mahler himself conducted the work in Amsterdam is channeled through the hands of Chailly (who even re-introduced the restored low-D timpani that Mengelberg used in the finale...)
> The CGO is a safe bet in the 7th anyway, Haitink's performances are among the better ones in his cycle(s) as well. I'd go for the live so-called "Kerstmatinee" performance on Philips though, not the earlier not-as-intense studio recording. Don't know if this famous Philips set is still available, it's not complete but it has some glorious performances that Haitink never bettered in Vienna or Berlin. The live 3rd and 9th are marvelous too (but the studio 9th is superb and justly famous as well).
> 
> As for Klemperer - it's a strange case. Objectively speaking it's a bizarre excersize in artificiality, completely going against the natural flow of the music. But no-one can deny that Klemperer of all conductors, living or dead, had the strongest ties to Mahler himself (Walter never did the 7th as far as I know), being his assistant at the world premiere. And I've read somewhere (but without a source) that Mahler preferred relatively slow tempi in his own works.
> But Mahler was also known for his flexible tempi and the freedom of his interpretations, qualities that are completely absent in Klemperer's 7th. So I think after all it's more Klempeper than mahler, it even sounds like a caricature of Klemperer's usual approach to music.


I admit to purchasing the Chailly 7th and it would seem to be the best version so far. So thanks!

Cinematic music without any high profile themes and rhythmically utterly boring, but still with many pleasing moments. The worst Mahler symphony but an interesting curiosity.


----------



## HistoryJoe

Before the lockdown I don't think I'd ever given Mahler a chance.... not sure if it was because of the length of the symphonies or if I bounced off of them sometime in the long-forgotten past. I had recently moved and had a box of random CD's that hadn't been mixed with my normal stuff. So, working from home for months, I just went one by one to see which ones were worth keeping and on an early Monday morning hit a Yoel Levi recording of the Resurrection (#2) and I kept tuning in closely. Within 10 minutes I'd moved to the living room (sorry boss) and took the whole thing in.

Enthralling! After checking here I picked up the Boulez box and went through his whole sequence. I've since picked up a few other complete runs and each one has treasures. I can't even say which ones are favorites, but for 18 months Mahler was definitely my soundtrack.


----------



## Waehnen

Listening to the 6th by Barbirolli after a rather intensive period of trying to get into one later symphony…

Damn I am enjoying all the themes! Mahler actually has themes with a decently high profile here! Not just a dotted rhythm with the perfect fourth here and there, but longer and actual, decent themes that are worth elaborating! 

What a joy, what a thrill after all the previous effort!


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> Listening to the 6th by Barbirolli after a rather intensive period of trying to get into one later symphony…
> 
> Damn I am enjoying all the themes! Mahler actually has themes with a decently high profile here! Not just a dotted rhythm with the perfect fourth here and there, but longer and actual, decent themes that are worth elaborating!
> 
> What a joy, what a thrill after all the previous effort!



Even the 8th Symphony (Gielen) is a joy when compared to it’s predecessor. Wonderful!


----------



## Waehnen

My random play gave me the scherzo and the finale of the 7th by Solti today. It sounded very good. Which made me kinda frightened — after all it was Solti that convinced me of the 9th and made me see past the overorchestration. What if he convinces me that the 7th is not mediocre ******** after all the effort I’ve put in with other versions? Have I been polemic and overexpressive about the symphony in vain and against better knowledge? 

Haven’t really listened to the Solti/Chicago version of the 7th yet. But I am obliged to do so now.


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> My random play gave me the scherzo and the finale of the 7th by Solti today. It sounded very good. Which made me kinda frightened — after all it was Solti that convinced me of the 9th and made me see past the overorchestration. What if he convinces me that the 7th is not mediocre ****** after all the effort I’ve put in with other versions? Have I been polemic and overexpressive about the symphony in vain and against better knowledge?
> 
> Haven’t really listened to the Solti/Chicago version of the 7th yet. But I am obliged to do so now.


My ”fears” became true! For the first time the whole 1st Movement made sense in my ears. It could boil down to these things:

- Solti lets the 1st Movement be fast and straight forward from the beginning and does not try to play it as an impressionistic piece. Solti does not dwell too much on details. He sees the forest from the trees.

- The first movement is clearly happy or content which is consistent with how Mahler referred to this symphony. The brass solos here are not mourning but happy, even amused. Maybe many conductors have tried to capture this image of Mahler rowing a boat at night — I have read somewhere that’s how and where the music of the 1st Movement came to him. It is now obvious to me that ”being content” is the right path, not the boat trip in darkness.

- Solti emphasizes the different sections within the 1st Movement, giving them great contrast. This greatly dimishes the impression of ”mindless babble” and just ”hopping around aimlessly without having anything to say”.

- Solti is able to give every orchestral gesture (and section) an appropriate focus. In many places I felt ”oh this is what was meant to happen here”.

- Solti seems to have recognized that there indeed are no proper melodies or rhythmic motives in this music (a dotted rhythm is no theme). So he has found the level on which the symphony rather communicates: ”textural, harmonic, orchestral and rhythmical situations”. The symphony is a network of musical situations, not of themes or motifs. This greatly helps Solti to communicate and me to receive.

- I conclude that with this symphony many a conductor has been at a lost — and so have been I

It is still not my favourite Mahler symphony but at least I now finally have a version/insight based on which I can say ”no, Mahler didn’t lose it completely.”


----------



## golfer72

Waehnen said:


> My ”fears” became true! For the first time the whole 1st Movement made sense in my ears. It could boil down to these things:
> 
> - Solti lets the 1st Movement be fast and straight forward from the beginning and does not try to play it as an impressionistic piece. Solti does not dwell too much on details. He sees the forest from the trees.
> 
> - The first movement is clearly happy or content which is consistent with how Mahler referred to this symphony. The brass solos here are not mourning but happy, even amused. Maybe many conductors have tried to capture this image of Mahler rowing a boat at night — I have read somewhere that’s how and where the music of the 1st Movement came to him. It is now obvious to me that ”being content” is the right path, not the boat trip in darkness.
> 
> - Solti emphasizes the different sections within the 1st Movement, giving them great contrast. This greatly dimishes the impression of ”mindless babble” and just ”hopping around aimlessly without having anything to say”.
> 
> - Solti is able to give every orchestral gesture (and section) an appropriate focus. In many places I felt ”oh this is what was meant to happen here”.
> 
> - Solti seems to have recognized that there indeed are no proper melodies or rhythmic motives in this music (a dotted rhythm is no theme). So he has found the level on which the symphony rather communicates: ”textural, harmonic, orchestral and rhythmical situations”. The symphony is a network of musical situations, not of themes or motifs. This greatly helps Solti to communicate and me to receive.
> 
> - I conclude that with this symphony many a conductor has been at a lost — and so have been I
> 
> It is still not my favourite Mahler symphony but at least I now finally have a version/insight based on which I can say ”no, Mahler didn’t lose it completely.”


Glad you are finally coming around !


----------



## Waehnen

golfer72 said:


> Glad you are finally coming around !


So am I. 

”A song of the night” is a title Mahler never knew. I am of the belief that title has led many to a wrong path as conductors and listeners. I am not greateful to whoever came up with the title and the idea that the symphony is a journey from dusk till dawn. It is not. The idea works against the actual music and how it is constructed and that is BAD.

If there needs to be a title, it should be ”A song of content days and nights”. There hero taking a few hammer blows in the previous episode has gotten to his feet again and found himself. Able to take in the bad days also.


----------



## Waehnen

I no longer think it is "help" I need with Mahler, but I have to say this: if I had to name one weak point in Mahler´s music, it would be the lack of distinctive, high profile rhythms. Rhythmically all the symphonies are more or less the same. This aspect does not bother me when I listen to a single symphony every now and then. But I have come to realize that due to this little problem, I need more rhythmic music to balance Mahler. Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Wagner, Bruckner, Sibelius, Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Shostakovich -- all of them are rhythmically more inspiring than Mahler.

Rhythmically Mahler is utterly boring. It is wonderful that orchestrally, harmonically and in drama and architecture Mahler is everything but boring!


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> Rhythmically Mahler is utterly boring.


Can you give some examples of movements or complete symphonies that you think are rhytmically "boring"? Because I find it hard to agree with this statement.
Take the symphony on hand for example, the 7th. From the very start it's got a very strong rhytmical profile, with the "French Overture" rhythm pervading the complete movement, but never being so prevalent that it becomes obtrusive. Mahler's mastery in the art of variation makes that strong rhythms are always balanced by strong melodic and harmonic material.

Same with the 5th, the triplet motive in the trumpet at the beginning, or the 6th, with the march rhytm, harmonically colored by major-minor chords - or, most subtly, the "heartbeat" in the first movement of the 9th. All those are instantly recognizable as rhythmical building stones, the movement's skeletons, which Mahler "fleshes out" with his melodies and harmonies.

Mahler's use of rhytm is, in my opinion, in perfect balance with the other elements that make his music so unforgettable, and I can't think of a single instance where it takes too much prevalence, or conversely, makes to weak an impression.


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> Can you give some examples of movements or complete symphonies that you think are rhytmically "boring"? Because I find it hard to agree with this statement.
> Take the symphony on hand for example, the 7th. From the very start it's got a very strong rhytmical profile, with the "French Overture" rhythm pervading the complete movement, but never being so prevalent that it becomes obtrusive. Mahler's mastery in the art of variation makes that strong rhythms are always balanced by strong melodic and harmonic material.
> 
> Same with the 5th, the triplet motive in the trumpet at the beginning, or the 6th, with the march rhytm, harmonically colored by major-minor chords - or, most subtly, the "heartbeat" in the first movement of the 9th. All those are instantly recognizable as rhythmical building stones, the movement's skeletons, which Mahler "fleshes out" with his melodies and harmonies.
> 
> Mahler's use of rhytm is, in my opinion, in perfect balance with the other elements that make his music so unforgettable, and I can't think of a single instance where it takes too much prevalence, or conversely, makes to weak an impression.


I am happy that you are satisfied with the rhythms of Mahler´s music. I feel absolutely no need to try to convince you to think the way I do. Of course I would also have preferred not to realize that it is the rhythms that prevent me from wanting to listen to this music to the extent of some other composers. I still enjoy Mahler but after listening to a lot Mahler since October 2021, at this moment I am just fed up with the rhythms, or the lack of stimulating rhythms. I am not fed up with anything else about the music, though.

Whatever Mahler piece I play, it is always the same basic rhythms: There are the dotted rhythms. Then there is the repetition of semiquavers. Then there is the "hit on every beat of the bar" approach. Then there are the triplet motifs of the 3rd and 5th Symphonies. Then there are the tremolos and trills. Then there are the ländler, march and waltz. Then there are the slow movements with stable rhythms and long archs.

It must be a subjective thing because the lack of distinctive rhythms prevented me from "getting Mahler" in the beginning. After my long and wonderful Mahler journey of almost a year, it is the lack of distinctive rhythms that I find the only, yet rather great downside of the music. I absolutely believe that the Mahler rhythms are enough for some people, like you. The Mahler music no longer irritates me at all, it is just that the rhythms are not stimulating enough.

I almost thought of not letting this thought of mine known because it is kind of a depressive thought. Maybe having a break from Mahler will help. Today I listened to Beethoven, Bruckner, Mozart and Sibelius just to enjoy the wonderful, wonderful rhythms.


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> I almost thought of not letting this thought of mine known because it is kind of a depressive thought. Maybe having a break from Mahler will help. Today I listened to Beethoven, Bruckner, Mozart and Sibelius just to enjoy the wonderful, wonderful rhythms.


I still don't understand the problem, really - maybe you could make it more clear with a 1:1 comparison of two works that you consider rhythmically satisfying and unsatisfactory, and in what way?
Take Bruckner for example, it baffles me how you can perceive his use of rhythm as more varied and stimulating as Mahler's. Don't get me wrong, I love Bruckner, maybe even more than Mahler, but his music can be quite rhythmically primitive and unyielding. Take the famous Bruckner rhythm (quarter note triplets followed by 2 quarters) that dominates many of his movements and often takes the form of a rhythmical ostinato. Mahler never uses persistent rhythmical patterns like that.


----------



## hammeredklavier

What do you think about this-
_"The Rhythmic Weakness of Wagner
Robert Ralph The Rhythmic Weakness of Wagner on JSTOR
Wagner's weakness undoubtedly lay in the staleness of his rhythmic formulae. After the stringent measures of the Beethoven symphonies it is small wonder that the critics of Wagner's time objected to the latter's music. To a student of that period, who knew his 'fifth Symphony' well, the prelude to 'Lohengrin' or the 'Venusberg' music, must have seemed as boneless as jellyfish. Doubtless much of the misunderstanding arose from the fact that the audiences of that day were peering for rhythms, and Wagner was giving them harmonies and polyphonies. The reason why Mankind prefers music with a strong rhythm to the other variety, is probably purely physiological. [...]"_


----------



## Waehnen

RobertJTh said:


> I still don't understand the problem, really - maybe you could make it more clear with a 1:1 comparison of two works that you consider rhythmically satisfying and unsatisfactory, and in what way?
> Take Bruckner for example, it baffles me how you can perceive his use of rhythm as more varied and stimulating as Mahler's. Don't get me wrong, I love Bruckner, maybe even more than Mahler, but his music can be quite rhythmically primitive and unyielding. Take the famous Bruckner rhythm (quarter note triplets followed by 2 quarters) that dominates many of his movements and often takes the form of a rhythmical ostinato. Mahler never uses persistent rhythmical patterns like that.


The first comparison that comes to mind for some reason are the finales of Mahler 5th and Sibelius 6th.

In my opinion the 5th is rhythmically probably the most inspiring of all the Mahler but still I do not sense rhythmic momentum anywhere. The rhythms do not drive the music forward on their own. They just happen inside an episode, "here we have rhythms like this". The rhythms just serve the minimum so that Mahler can achieve what he wants in other aspects. The rhythms are standard Mahler building blocks which he had in his storage room. "Let´s put that block here." That is the feeling I get.

Whereas Sibelius gains wonderful rhythmic momentum from the very first bars and is able to eloquently keep the energy up, only to resolve the momentum in the "choral strings sing Sibelius" ending. All the rhythms are sophistically unique and tailored for this very symphony. There is a fine polyphony and dialogue of rhythms even. The rhythms add to the wonderful melodic material in a crucial way. After this finale, one feels refreshed.

I have scores of both symphonies so if you still need further explanation, I might try to explain this with examples.





hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about this-
> _"The Rhythmic Weakness of Wagner
> Robert Ralph The Rhythmic Weakness of Wagner on JSTOR
> Wagner's weakness undoubtedly lay in the staleness of his rhythmic formulae. After the stringent measures of the Beethoven symphonies it is small wonder that the critics of Wagner's time objected to the latter's music. To a student of that period, who knew his 'fifth Symphony' well, the prelude to 'Lohengrin' or the 'Venusberg' music, must have seemed as boneless as jellyfish. Doubtless much of the misunderstanding arose from the fact that the audiences of that day were peering for rhythms, and Wagner was giving them harmonies and polyphonies. The reason why Mankind prefers music with a strong rhythm to the other variety, is probably purely physiological. [...]"_


There might be some truth in that speculation that we could apply to this Mahler discussion as well. Thanks, Hammered!


----------



## Kreisler jr

This seems mostly cherrypicking of "bad examples". Starting with the Wagner example because it seems more striking: The aetheric Lohengrin prelude would be destroyed by "driving" or just strongly articulated rhythms. But there are leitmotives that are mostly rhythmical (Hunding, the Giants) or where the rhythm is an essential part of the recognizable shape (Walhall, "Sword", spear/treaty etc.). And the rhythmically driven Ride of the Valkyries is a famous as the Lohengrin prelude and the other famous Lohengrin excerpt is a bridal _march_. So for Wagner the claim is highly dubious even at the most obvious/superficial level.

I think, it's the same with Mahler. Part of this is of course that it is almost impossible to say what is weak or "formulaic" rhythm. Also, composers can be both good and bad in this respect in different pieces. Schumann has great stuff with off-beat, cross rhythm etc., like Toccata, but he also has mind-numbingly uniformous repetitive stuff that reminds one of Alice and the Red Queen (running at full speed but not gaining ground). And to claim that Bruckner or Sibelius should be rhythmically "better" than Mahler seems bizarre to me. Mind-numbingly repetitive Bruckner scherzi (or worst of all Sibelius' "Night ride"....)? Vague vapors of northern swamps without direction? I think Mahler rarely falls into either trap. But, as I said, it is cherrypicking, one will probably find some examples of "boring rhythm" by any composer.

There is a real feature of Mahler that might also concern rhythms and that, I think, used to bother some people and maybe still does. Mahler uses these marches, laendler, folk tunes etc. and while integrated in a symphonic structure they are usually clearly recognizable musically and semantically, like using preexistent things in a collage. (I've read books or articles where people disliked that Mahler uses "semantically too definite" motives.)
Whereas Beethoven, Sibelius, Brahms (mostly, the Alphorn in the 1st symphony is one of the few exceptions) and most others usually "melt down and re-shape to their purposes" material that might come from elsewhere (like folk tunes, chorales, marches etc.).
The next step after Mahler is Ives whose music sometimes is truly overlapping collage with hardly any cutting and shaping by the artist. Like three marching bands audible at the same time at a certain point of a parade.


----------



## Montarsolo

A friend introduced me to Mahler (when I was a student). Symphony no. 2 and 5 with Haitink. Splendid!I I then bought Haitink's complete recording box below. Not ideal to buy all symphonies at once. It is better to save up for a CD so you know the symphony completely before you have the money for the next symphony.

I thereupon decided to discover Mahler through vinyl. Mahler is rarely found at thrift stores. Bought Mahler 4 there with Levine. Superb symphony. Played this one a lot before I came across a next vinyl Mahler record. But I must confess that the symphonies I encountered afterwards appeal less to me: 1, 3 and 7. Listened to it several times but 2, 4 and 5 still win for me. If those are my favorites, which one should I 'learn' next?


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> This seems mostly cherrypicking of "bad examples". Starting with the Wagner example because it seems more striking: The aetheric Lohengrin prelude would be destroyed by "driving" or just strongly articulated rhythms. But there are leitmotives that are mostly rhythmical (Hunding, the Giants) or where the rhythm is an essential part of the recognizable shape (Walhall, "Sword", spear/treaty etc.). And the rhythmically driven Ride of the Valkyries is a famous as the Lohengrin prelude and the other famous Lohengrin excerpt is a bridal _march_. So for Wagner the claim is highly dubious even at the most obvious/superficial level.
> 
> I think, it's the same with Mahler. Part of this is of course that it is almost impossible to say what is weak or "formulaic" rhythm. Also, composers can be both good and bad in this respect in different pieces. Schumann has great stuff with off-beat, cross rhythm etc., like Toccata, but he also has mind-numbingly uniformous repetitive stuff that reminds one of Alice and the Red Queen (running at full speed but not gaining ground). And to claim that Bruckner or Sibelius should be rhythmically "better" than Mahler seems bizarre to me. Mind-numbingly repetitive Bruckner scherzi (or worst of all Sibelius' "Night ride"....)? Vague vapors of northern swamps without direction? I think Mahler rarely falls into either trap. But, as I said, it is cherrypicking, one will probably find some examples of "boring rhythm" by any composer.
> 
> There is a real feature of Mahler that might also concern rhythms and that, I think, used to bother some people and maybe still does. Mahler uses these marches, laendler, folk tunes etc. and while integrated in a symphonic structure they are usually clearly recognizable musically and semantically, like using preexistent things in a collage. (I've read books or articles where people disliked that Mahler uses "semantically too definite" motives.)
> Whereas Beethoven, Sibelius, Brahms (mostly, the Alphorn in the 1st symphony is one of the few exceptions) and most others usually "melt down and re-shape to their purposes" material that might come from elsewhere (like folk tunes, chorales, marches etc.).
> The next step after Mahler is Ives whose music sometimes is truly overlapping collage with hardly any cutting and shaping by the artist. Like three marching bands audible at the same time at a certain point of a parade.


I was asked to pick examples so I did. When it comes to me, that is beside the point. When I listen to Mahler and find the rhythms boring, it has got nothing to do with comparison to some other symphonies. Rhythms are boring or exciting on their own.

Are you of the opinion that the Finale of the 5th is somehow a "bad example"? If there has been some wide critic on the rhythms of it, I am not aware of such. So I am not picking any bad examples. I was picking representative examples while trying to explain the issue to Rob.

The fact is that I have not gotten bored with Sibelius´ or Beethoven´s rhythms in 26 years but I got bored of Mahler rhythms in less than 1 year. Try to explain that to me, and keep in mind that I have no reason not to be honest about this.

Just listened to the Bruckner Scherzo of the 4th Symphony this morning (random play blessed me with that). There is gorgeous momentum, energy and even honesty in the repetition. Both of you speak as though repetition would obviously be the opposite of sophisticated rhythmics -- it is not. Rhythms should be effective and provide momentum and stimulus. I do not care what is the technique as long as the rhythms are effective.


----------



## Waehnen

I listened to the 2nd today conducted by Klemperer. It was completely satisfying and most uplifting although there is nothing special or striking about the rhythms. When I listen to Mahler, from now on I just accept that the rhythms will not give me the kicks, for that is not the forte of Mahler. Other stuff is. 

No worries!


----------



## mbhaub

Waehnen said:


> I listened to the 2nd today conducted by Klemperer. It was completely satisfying and most uplifting although there is nothing special or striking about the rhythms. When I listen to Mahler, from now on I just accept that the rhythms will not give me the kicks, for that is not the forte of Mahler. Other stuff is.
> 
> No worries!


Just out of curiosity, give us a list of a few works that have that striking rhythm that Mahler, Beethoven, Sibelius and others lack.


----------



## Waehnen

mbhaub said:


> Just out of curiosity, give us a list of a few works that have that striking rhythm that Mahler, Beethoven, Sibelius and others lack.


I wrote this:



Waehnen said:


> The fact is that I have *not* gotten bored with Sibelius´ or Beethoven´s rhythms in 26 years but I got bored of Mahler rhythms in less than 1 year. Try to explain that to me, and keep in mind that I have no reason not to be honest about this.


So I was saying that in my ears, Sibelius and Beethoven have lasted rhythmically longer (and they still do!) than Mahler. Maybe I constructed the sentence in a wrong way?


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't quite understand the problem with the finale of Mahler's 5th although the main rondo theme is rhythmically quite simple, I think there is enough variety with the subsidiary motives and episodes etc.
But my general point was that one can hardly take one example where one finds one abstracted aspect unsatisfactory and then claim that this is a general feature of the composer. 
So I mentioned some examples from other composers, because, honestly, I struggle to find "good bad ones" in Mahler.
E.g. the 1st symphony begins "indefinite" with "dawn" and then the birds and/or a distant trumpet wake up call with its "tattoo" signal rhythm. Then the "cuckoo call" is transformed into the "wayfarer theme", representing brisk walking but no dotted march rhythm at all. Disregarding the remainder of the movement I think this introduction + beginning of fast section is both a great musical "evolution" and also a plausible "narrative", altogether going from the quiet, "motionless" dawn mood to the activity of the summer day. I think the control of "musical motion" is done quite successfully (not entirely sure about the second half of that movement or about the symphony's finale, though).


----------



## Waehnen

Kreisler jr said:


> I don't quite understand the problem with the finale of Mahler's 5th although the main rondo theme is rhythmically quite simple, I think there is enough variety with the subsidiary motives and episodes etc.
> But my general point was that one can hardly take one example where one finds one abstracted aspect unsatisfactory and then claim that this is a general feature of the composer.
> So I mentioned some examples from other composers, because, honestly, I struggle to find "good bad ones" in Mahler.
> E.g. the 1st symphony begins "indefinite" with "dawn" and then the birds and/or a distant trumpet wake up call with its "tattoo" signal rhythm. Then the "cuckoo call" is transformed into the "wayfarer theme", representing brisk walking but no dotted march rhythm at all. Disregarding the remainder of the movement I think this introduction + beginning of fast section is both a great musical "evolution" and also a plausible "narrative", altogether going from the quiet, "motionless" dawn mood to the activity of the summer day. I think the control of "musical motion" is done quite successfully (not entirely sure about the second half of that movement or about the symphony's finale, though).


Thanks for writing that. I also love those things about the 1st Symphony. I also think Mahler controls everything he does, perfectly even, and it is rewarding. Similar slow and rewarding processes we have in the finale of the 2nd Symphony and also in the first movement of the 7th.

I am not saying Mahler is not skilled with rhythms. He just is not a genius with novel rhythmic inventions and creating eloquent rhythmic momentum and constellations like some other composers. He is genius in many other symphonic aspects.

*The energy level and level of inventiveness and originality carried by and invested in Mahler´s rhythms is lower than in the works of many other major composers.*

^^ That is my point here. I cannot evade the conclusion once I have realized it and seen it is true.

Can you think of a single piece from Mahler that would be even close to the same level as the Scherzo from Beethoven´s 9th Symphony when it comes to the energy level of the rhythms? Or the 1st Movement of Brahms Symphony no. 4? Or the Mozart Symphony no. 40? Or Tchaikovsky´s great march from the Symphonie Pathétique? Or the 3rd Symphony by Sibelius? Or Rhapsodie Espagnole by Ravel? Or La Mer by Debussy? Or the 7th by Shostakovich. Not to mention some Stravinsky.

The only other major composer which I think is almost as low on the energy and innovation levels of the rhythms as Mahler is Richard Strauss. I listened to the Heldenleben yesterday and my experience was very similar to that with Mahler.

(Pinging @Kreisler jr after updating this post this morning.)


----------



## Malx

If the rhythms were different it probably wouldn't sound like the Mahler we know and love - listen and enjoy, don't over analyse all you'll get is a headache


----------



## Waehnen

Malx said:


> If the rhythms were different it probably wouldn't sound like the Mahler we know and love - listen and enjoy, don't over analyse all you'll get is a headache


That is correct. With more high profile and distinctive rhythms Mahler would not have been able to construct his symphonic archs on such a vast scale. It is part of his unique style not to invest as much into the rhythms but to paint with a wide brush yet strong colours on a huge canvas. Accepting this is part of enjoying the music more. When one does not expect something Mahler is not about.

Then again I will point out that this analysis derived from the intuitive reaction of mine, not the other way around. I do not let analysis affect my listening too much.


----------



## Waehnen

Rhythmically the symphonies 2, 3 and 9 are the most unique in my opinion. Those symphonies also resemble each other the least. Those are also the most inspired symphonies of Mahler overall.

Whereas symphonies 5, 6 and 7 resemble each other a lot, also rhythmically. Again it seems that it is the close relationship of the middle symphonies which has created a problem for me -- this time through making me bored of the similar rhythms.


----------



## B Mac

Waehnen said:


> Thanks, Barbebleu! My first step is to convince myself through the music that he didn't just write whatever came to his mind one day at a time but had some planning done or some overall idea of the piece before starting to put notes down on the paper.
> 
> Have you heard the stories about how he just wrote the symphonies without any planning, like a diary?
> 
> If the anecdote above is true, is the only way of listening to Mahler just enjoying the very moment you are hearing? Carpe diem -style of approach? Instead of waiting for a story to be told or a complex state of mind expressed?
> 
> For me the music sounds like this: "Right now I feel like this and write it down. This sounds good on the orchestra. OK, another day. Today I write this. This sounds good on the orchestra. Ok, another day! Today I write this, this sounds good on the orchestra."
> 
> Could you point me some signs of compositional, architectural, narrative planning? That would help me on my journey.
> 
> So far I have enjoyed the 1st Movements of both the 9th and 10th Symphonies. They are coherent enough for me!


Funny enough, the ones you listed were two of the most structurally complex...

I think what you're getting at is that Mahler doesn't adhere to a structural formula, what you call "symphonic coherence". Whereas Beethoven, Brahms or Bruckner would religiously. Mahler is different in that he expands the accepted forms to suit how he develops motives in a stream-of-consciousness, instead of a bracketed, fashion. His music is more about instrumental color and psychological arcs instead of being a "textbook example" of sonata-allegro form.


----------



## Waehnen

B Mac said:


> Funny enough, the ones you listed were two of the most structurally complex...
> 
> I think what you're getting at is that Mahler doesn't adhere to a structural formula, what you call "symphonic coherence". Whereas Beethoven, Brahms or Bruckner would religiously. Mahler is different in that he expands the accepted forms to suit how he develops motives in a stream-of-consciousness, instead of a bracketed, fashion. His music is more about instrumental color and psychological arcs instead of being a "textbook example" of sonata-allegro form.


You are right. The symphonic logic is different compared to the other symphonic masters, in precisely the way you describe. The music is often arcs of instrumental colour and psychology, rather than telling a story through symphonic motific development. What also contributed to my initial impressions is the rather frequent lack of high profile rhythms and rhythmic motifs which would give structure to the music and in that way keep up the intensity and momentum. Strong rhythms help the listener to grasp the idea of the music and hold on to something. It can be said, should my taste be analyzed, that the stronger the rhythms, the more I like the symphony.

The strong rhythm symphonies: 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9.
The not so strong rhythm symphonies: 1, 4, 7, 8

I am in a good place with this composer nowadays. I listen to mostly The Strong Rhythm Symphonies. With the 5th symphony I use the scherzo from the 6th in place of the 2nd Movement which I cannot stand. And the too long finale of the 6th is replaced by the finale of the 7th. And I am very happy with my Mahler with these small tweaks of mine. Haitink, Rattle and Solti -- everything I need.


----------



## B Mac

Waehnen said:


> You are right. The symphonic logic is different compared to the other symphonic masters, in precisely the way you describe. The music is often arcs of instrumental colour and psychology, rather than telling a story through symphonic motific development. What also contributed to my initial impressions is the rather frequent lack of high profile rhythms and rhythmic motifs which would give structure to the music and in that way keep up the intensity and momentum. Strong rhythms help the listener to grasp the idea of the music and hold on to something. It can be said, should my taste be analyzed, that the stronger the rhythms, the more I like the symphony.
> 
> The strong rhythm symphonies: 2, 3, 5, 6 and 9.
> The not so strong rhythm symphonies: 1, 4, 7, 8
> 
> I am in a good place with this composer nowadays. I listen to mostly The Strong Rhythm Symphonies. With the 5th symphony I use the scherzo from the 6th in place of the 2nd Movement which I cannot stand. And the too long finale of the 6th is replaced by the finale of the 7th. And I am very happy with my Mahler with these small tweaks of mine.


I'd agree with all of the above instead of replacing the finale of the sixth. There's too much emotional gravitas in the sixth's finale to discard, the finale of the seventh is too "feel-good" and hollow in my opinion - I actually prefer finales that aren't smash-bang.

You should also try Das Lied von der Erde and the 10th, see where those fall.


----------



## Waehnen

B Mac said:


> I'd agree with all of the above instead of replacing the finale of the sixth. There's too much emotional gravitas in the sixth's finale to discard, the finale of the seventh is too "feel-good" and hollow in my opinion - I actually prefer finales that aren't smash-bang.
> 
> You should also try Das Lied von der Erde and the 10th, see where those fall.


I agree with you that the 6th Symphony finale is artistically and emotionally great. It is just pity that the 3rd heroic wave is too much for me when it comes to the structure. If the 3rd wave was edited out, it would be a most magnificent finale. Luckily I have the idea of the finale in my mind so I can cherish the artistry of it.


----------



## Neo Romanza

This may sound incredibly biased, but I love every symphony Mahler wrote (esp. _Das Lied von der Erde_). There was a time when I wasn't too impressed with the 1st, 7th or 8th, but this has long come to past. The amount of detail in each of these symphonies is enough to spend a lifetime with (and many have and other generations will continue the same course). One of the criticisms I'm so sick of reading (or hearing about) is the emotionalism of his music. The critics use this as some sort crutch to bring home their negative responses in so many of the reviews I've read of his music. For me, they're flat-out wrong, because there's much more happening within the music to level this kind of criticism. It's like they purposely haven't truly listened to what the music is expressing and what it is doing. Also, and I may have mentioned this before, but huge props to his skill as an orchestrator. How he can go from full-on clashes of sound at the highest of decibels to chamber-like sonorities and make each of these huge contrasts sound crystal clear is remarkable. I think it's all too easy to look at Mahler superficially, but when you really start to dig into his music, there's so much to dissect that it's difficult not to come away astounded by all the work he put into his compositions. Oh and the song cycles are beyond this planet! Wow!

I haven't lived with Mahler's music as long as many members here as I've only been seriously listening to classical for 14 years, but the more time I spend with Mahler, the more I adore his artistry, but, more importantly, the emotional impact it has had one me and I mean this in best possible sense.


----------



## Waehnen

Neo Romanza said:


> This may sound incredibly biased, but I love every symphony Mahler wrote (esp. _Das Lied von der Erde_). There was a time when I wasn't too impressed with the 1st, 7th or 8th, but this has long come to past. The amount of detail in each of these symphonies is enough to spend a lifetime with (and many have and other generations will continue the same course). One of the criticisms I'm so sick of reading (or hearing about) is the emotionalism of his music. The critics use this as some sort crutch to bring home their negative responses in so many of the reviews I've read of his music. For me, they're flat-out wrong, because there's much more happening within the music to level this kind of criticism. It's like they purposely haven't truly listened to what the music is expressing and what it is doing. Also, and I may have mentioned this before, but huge props to his skill as an orchestrator. How he can go from full-on clashes of sound at the highest of decibels to chamber-like sonorities and make each of these huge contrasts sound crystal clear is remarkable. I think it's all too easy to look at Mahler superficially, but when you really start to dig into his music, there's so much to dissect that it's difficult not to come away astounded by all the work he put into his compositions. Oh and the song cycles are beyond this planet! Wow!
> 
> I haven't lived with Mahler's music as long as many members here as I've only been seriously listening to classical for 14 years, but the more time I spend with Mahler, the more I adore his artistry, but, more importantly, the emotional impact it has had one me and I mean this in best possible sense.


Luckily we are all allowed to be biased! It is wonderful you have found such an endless world or treasures with Mahler. For me Beethoven and Sibelius are the ones who have enriched my life enormously, beyond any other music. 

At his best, Mahler is absolutely wonderful also in my often critical ears. Take for example the 1st Movement of the 5th Symphony -- I am awestruck at the orchestral and compositional mastery. I am obsessed with Mahler at his best.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> Luckily we are all allowed to be biased! It is wonderful you have found such an endless world or treasures with Mahler. For me Beethoven and Sibelius are the ones who have enriched my life enormously, beyond any other music.
> 
> At his best, Mahler is absolutely wonderful also in my often critical ears. Take for example the 1st Movement of the 5th Symphony -- I am awestruck at the orchestral and compositional mastery. I am obsessed with Mahler at his best.


Sibelius is certainly another one of those composers that have also enriched my life but in a completely different way than Mahler, but this would be a topic for another thread.  I'm slowly coming around to Beethoven, but his late SQs are extraordinary.


----------



## Waehnen

Today I will give the Finale of the 6th yet one more chance by listening to my Solti/Chicago version of it! Usually Solti is the one I need to go to if I have doubts about the structure of something Mahlerian. Let´s see if this maestro is able to convince me that the 3rd heroic wave does not ruin anything.


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> Today I will give the Finale of the 6th yet one more chance by listening to my Solti/Chicago version of it! Usually Solti is the one I need to go to if I have doubts about the structure of something Mahlerian. Let´s see if this maestro is able to convince me that the 3rd heroic wave does not ruin anything.


Unfortunately didn´t help! This will remain one of the mysteries of music to me. How something that my whole musical experience and existence indicates as an obvious and major compositional error can be praised by so many talented people. 

If I could solve this puzzle, I would be a wise man, I think. If I had the time I would set up a research on this. Something like: "The Finale of Mahler´s 6th Symphony -- Musical reception affected by neurology, psychology and the aesthetic values of the community and the individual."


----------



## Waehnen

Me being critical of a composer is relative.

Brahms created 4 great symphonies which I adore.

If I choose the best 5 Mahler symphonies, and leave the rest out, then he is in my opinion as great a symphonist as Brahms.

1. Symphony no. 2
2. Symphony no. 3
3. Symphony no. 5 (the 2nd movement replaced by the scherzo from the 6th)
4. Symphony no. 6 (the finale replaced by the finale of the 7th)
5. Symphony no. 9

Gorgeous symphonies! If I was forced to listen to all of Mahler, that would just end up me rejecting the composer and the music totally. 

So thanks to whoever it was on this thread who said that I don´t have to like all of Mahler because he was somewhat inconsistent. Those were wise words.

Just a final thought on this. (For now!)


----------



## Waehnen

Just sharing something I found in the interwebs: Vaughan Williams criticised Mahler on not being able to manage his finales which resulted in the excessive and unnecessary length. I have no doubt he had the 6th on his mind.


----------



## RobertJTh

I don't want to crank up the discussion again, but I still find it mind boggling how anyone who claims he loves Mahler can hate the finale of the 6th. To me it's the single greatest expression of Mahler's genius, ex aequo with the first movement of the 9th. And replacing it with the weakest of Mahler's finales (the 7th's)... why?
There's not a note or a minute too many in the finale of the 6th, formally it's pure perfection.
That V-W disliked Mahler (he once called him "a very tolerable imitation of a composer") proves close to nothing. Leave it to composers to be the worst critics of other composers' works.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Waehnen said:


> Just sharing something I found in the interwebs: Vaughan Williams criticised Mahler on not being able to manage his finales which resulted in the excessive and unnecessary length. I have no doubt he had the 6th on his mind.


I think it's fair to say that we shouldn't worry about composer's criticisms of other composers as these are nothing more than either petty jealousy, stubborn indifference or just sheer viciousness. Remember what Copland said about RVW's 5th symphony? He said it was like a staring at a cow for 45 minutes. So the bottom line is who cares what they thought. This makes no difference in how _we_ hear the music.


----------



## Waehnen

This thread is "Help me with Mahler!" So I will answer @RobertJTh in order to state as clearly as I can where I find the problem with the Finale. Maybe you can help me understand something I am missing atm.



RobertJTh said:


> I don't want to crank up the discussion again, but I still find it mind boggling how anyone who claims he loves Mahler can hate the finale of the 6th.


First of all, I do not hate the finale. I am awestruck by the first 2/3 of it. Mahler really created something wonderful here. Like a whole new world. I think Mahler was at a creative peak when he crafted the finale.

I just think the finale is too long for the material. The material is not strong and variable enough in order to sustain the 3rd heroic wave. Two waves would have been enough. The dramatic point was already driven through with the 2 waves. Nothing is gained by the 3rd wave apart from getting to repeat the same material, which in itself is not all that interesting.




RobertJTh said:


> And replacing it with the weakest of Mahler's finales (the 7th's)... why?


For me there is nothing weak at all about the 7th Symphony Finale. And it´s strengths are even more obvious after the 3 dark movements of the 6th. The C Major of it brightens the atmosphere absolutely wonderfully and I even hear additional depth in it after the 6th Symphony Scherzo. But I am not here to defend or advertise my workaround arrangement.


But why do I have problems with the 3rd Heroic Wave of the finale and many do not? I have been wondering about it myself.

I have a few questions to which I suppose you would answer yes, and to which I would answer no.


1. Does Mahler have any groups of melodic-harmonic themes in his music whose quality would be at the level of Wagner´s Tannhäuser Overture, for example?
-- My answer is no.

2. Does Mahler have any sections in his music where he controls the melodic-harmonic material as nobly and aesthetically as Bruckner in all his symphonies?
-- My answer is no.

3. Are passages like in the photo below melodically and rhythmically interesting enough and worth repeating all over and over?
-- My answer is no.











In my mind Mahler is at his best when he creates strong orchestral visions that are compact enough and in relation to each other, varied enough. When Mahler starts thinking his melodic and rhythmic material in itself is interesting enough and worth repeating, he drives off the road in my ears.

When it comes to the quality of the thematic and rhythmic material, he ain´t Wagner. When it comes to the genius of handling the material nobly and raising it to the heavens and always having a wonderfully good taste, he ain´t Bruckner.

Composers should to an extent restrain the visibility on the areas where they lack -- and stick to what they do best: in Mahler´s case either creating compact and absolutely genius orchestral and psychological dramas like the 1st Movement of the 5th; or creating enough of wonderfully varying material and contrasts in an eclectic manner like in the "treasure chest" 1st Movement of the 3rd Symphony.

_*The finale of the 6th could have been at the level of both the movements aforementioned, had he cut the 3rd heroic wave: it would have been varied enough and compact enough and it would not have highlighted the fact that his material is not of a particularly high level of profile.*_


----------



## RobertJTh

Waehnen said:


> I just think the finale is too long for the material. The material is not strong and variable enough in order to sustain the 3rd heroic wave. Two waves would have been enough. The dramatic point was already driven through with the 2 waves. Nothing is gained by the 3rd wave apart from getting to repeat the same material, which in itself is not all that interesting.


Like I wrote before, the finale is really formally perfect. There's an extended analysis of the finale by Erwin Ratz (yes, the guy who's responsible for the huge mess regarding the order of the middle movements...) which shows it's an extended sonata form with (after a short slow introduction) 2 thematic groups that form the exposition, then a huge development section which elaborates on the material and which contains the 2 hammer blows - a varied reprise, and a coda that originally had the 3rd hammer blow. Excising one or more of those elements would distort this perfect, classical form and leave you with a bleeding, formless chunk.
And I'm not sure what you mean by "3 waves", you mean the passages that lead up to the hammer blows? If so, they can hardly be accused of repeating the same material.
Regarding that, the finale has. of all movements, the largest amount of themes and thematic material, it's extremely varied and every theme has its function in the setting of this giant sonata form allegro. Most are pretty memorable too, in my opinion.



> For me there is nothing weak at all about the 7th Symphony Finale. And it´s strengths are even more obvious after the 3 dark movements of the 6th. The C Major of it brightens the atmosphere absolutely wonderfully and I even hear additional depth in it after the 6th Symphony Scherzo. But I am not here to defend or advertise my workaround arrangement.


It's all relative of course and "weakest" compared to other Mahler finales means that it's still pretty darn good music. But Mahler already had written a great instrumental symphony with a dark-to-light progression (the 5th), and to me the 7th sounds like a lesser effort in the same genre to me. Not so much in the first 3 movements, those are among the best of Mahler's purely instrumental movements. The problem is that the 2nd Nachtmusik and specially the finale provoke explicit comparison to the Adagietto and the finale of the 5th - and frankly, they're not as good.



> 1. Does Mahler have any groups of melodic-harmonic themes in his music whose quality would be at the level of Wagner´s Tannhäuser Overture, for example?
> -- My answer is no.


That's a wholly subjective affair, and I'm afraid that doesn't mean anything to me unless you can do a note-for-note comparison of Mahler's and Wagner's themes and then point out the weak spots in Mahler's.



> 2. Does Mahler have any sections in his music where he controls the melodic-harmonic material as nobly and aesthetically as Bruckner in all his symphonies?
> -- My answer is no.


Completely different styles and aesthetics.



> 3. Are passages like in the photo below melodically and rhythmically interesting enough and worth repeating all over and over?
> -- My answer is no.


I guess you could call that the "heroic" or "hero's" theme - and yes, I find it thrilling and more than just interesting. More so, if you listen how that long theme unfolds, jumps from one orchestral group to another, with constantly varying rhythmic profiles, creating lots of tension and excitement. It's never literally repeated, so again I can't understand what problems anyone could have with it.
And if you want a Wagner comparison, I guess it's here: a theme that Wagner could have invented - and it wouldn't surprise me if it Mahler knowingly created it to sound like a Wagner citation and to put the image of a Siegfried-like hero in our minds. it certainly works for me.



> In my mind Mahler is at his best when he creates strong orchestral visions that are compact enough and in relation to each other, varied enough.


And that's exactly what he does in the finale of the 6th!
Compactness just means that there are no dead spots in the music, that everything flows nicely and that the allotted time suffices for the development of the musical material. And I see no problem there in Mahler's case.



> When Mahler starts thinking his melodic and rhythmic material in itself is interesting enough and worth repeating, he drives off the road in my ears.


Oh, he's certainly capable of that - relying too much on mediocre material. See the 2nd part of the 8th, where the entrance of Mater Gloriosa is a huge letdown because he re-uses the same (not very interesting) melody we heard a zillion times before. But in my perception, that never happens in the 6th. It does in the finale of the 9th though (I realize I'm threading on sacrilegious grounds here), where the "turn" motive, lifted from the middle part of the Rondo Burlesque, overstays its welcome. Richard Specht, in his Mahler biography, suggested that Mahler would have gotten rid of some of those if he could have his music performed.
So no, Mahler wasn't infallible. But quoting the finale of the 6th as an example of his fallibility makes little sense to me.



> When it comes to the quality of the thematic and rhythmic material, he ain´t Wagner. When it comes to the genius of handling the material nobly and raising it to the heavens and always having a wonderfully good taste, he ain´t Bruckner.


Again, subjective - and besides, we don't listen to Mahler because he had such good taste. That's a quality one finds in large quantities in composers that are completely forgotten today.



> A composer should stick to what he does best: either creating compact and absolutely genius orchestral and psychological dramas like the 1st Movement of the 5th; or creating enough of wonderfully varying material and contrasts in an eclectic manner like in the "treasure chest" 1st Movement of the 3rd Symphony.


Completely different movements that serve completely different functions. The first movement of the 3rd works so well because it depicts the birth of music itself from the womb of chaos. It would make the worst possible finale though. The first movement of the 5th is a relatively short movement with a simple structure that serves as a prelude to the turbulent 2nd movement. Again, a movement of its type wouldn't work as a finale.



> The finale of the 6th could have been at the level of both the movements aforementioned, had he cut the 3rd heroic wave: it would have been varied enough and compact enough and it would not have highlighted the fact that his material is not of a particularly high level of profile.


Mahler's genius stroke in the 6th was combining the strictest classical forms he ever chose with the most intense romantic content, and finding the perfect balance between those qualities. I feel that any structural change would damage or destroy that equilibrium. Maybe cuts (but who would dare to make them?) would somehow work in other symphonies (though I can't easily think of any candidates...), but not in the 6th!


----------



## Waehnen

Thanks for defending the case of the Grande Finale, @RobertJTh! I appreciate it.

I necessarily do not see much point in trying to argue any further. I have put into words as clearly as I in these circumstances can what I see as the problem -- and you have very clearly showed that you do not see things similarly at all.

Actually I think genuine differences like these are wonderful and necessary for the music to evolve and stay alive and virile. I do not think you are objectively wrong, but neither am I.

One of the keys to the puzzle might be this: you see a lot of variation in the very same places where I see just repetition. Should we want to continue the conversation, this could be explored. How can it be that we experience the same musical passages in exactly the opposite ways?


----------



## golfer72

Funny how people see things differently. As far as cuts go if anything I think the first movement of 3 is too long and could be cut. I dont find it that interesting. The finale though is maybe his best. Maybe i need to listen to 3 a few more times. Maybe I just dont get it. As far as 6 and 7 go i dont see any reason for cuts. Having said that Mahler is no longer with us so lets just listen to the Symphonies as they are.


----------



## mbhaub

golfer72 said:


> As far as cuts go if anything I think the first movement of 3 is too long and could be cut. I dont find it that interesting.


About 45 years ago the band director at USC, William Schaefer made a transcription of this first movement for wind ensemble. And he made a whopping cut in the middle - essentially half of the development section. Some other smaller cuts - and miraculously enough the joins were very smooth and natural with nothing jarring. It was quite well done. Mahler lovers would be horrified at the cutting, but for wind band it's an excellent transcription. His handling of the orchestration was interesting and required re-seating the band. Most of the original orchestration wind parts were left as-is and one player assigned to each of them. The original string parts were re-written for the remaining band instruments. Percussion untouched. The new orchestration in no way compared to Mahler's original, but it did allow an ensemble that otherwise can't play Mahler's music a chance to do so.

Then the truth came out: Schaefer actually arranged the entire first movement. It was the publisher, Southern, that demanded the cuts for publication. Here's the complete first movement for band:


----------



## Waehnen

I listened to the 6th Symphony finale by Rattle/Berliner early this morning. Referring to my useful conversation with RobertJTh, my focus was on trying to see the variation in stead of the repetition. Admittedly something shifted. For the first time I was able to get a glimpse of how it is possible some people do not see the finale as a problem.

When Beethoven does the variation, the rhythmic shape constantly evolves. When Mahler does the variation, it is just variation within the constant marching. So the key problem for me seems to have been that on a symphonic scale, I do not consider the variation within the marching genre significant enough to be proper variation at all. I take marching as marching and within there is not enough of meaningful variety of 'expressive packages' for me.

*Many are able to take the variation within the marching as proper, meaningful and exciting form of variation whereas I am not. There is the key to this puzzle.*

If the finale was a symphonic poem on its own I would probably be able to accept it. But being the finale of an already huge and immensely heavy weight symphony, it is just too much. 20 minutes of this music would have been perfect for the finale spot, not 30.

Is it an impactful and effective symphonic poem? YES! Is it the best solution for the finale spot of a huge symphony? NOOOOOO!!!! 

Nevertheless, thank you very much indeed, @RobertJTh !


----------



## golfer72

mbhaub said:


> About 45 years ago the band director at USC, William Schaefer made a transcription of this first movement for wind ensemble. And he made a whopping cut in the middle - essentially half of the development section. Some other smaller cuts - and miraculously enough the joins were very smooth and natural with nothing jarring. It was quite well done. Mahler lovers would be horrified at the cutting, but for wind band it's an excellent transcription. His handling of the orchestration was interesting and required re-seating the band. Most of the original orchestration wind parts were left as-is and one player assigned to each of them. The original string parts were re-written for the remaining band instruments. Percussion untouched. The new orchestration in no way compared to Mahler's original, but it did allow an ensemble that otherwise can't play Mahler's music a chance to do so.
> 
> Then the truth came out: Schaefer actually arranged the entire first movement. It was the publisher, Southern, that demanded the cuts for publication. Here's the complete first movement for band:


Very interesting. Thanks fior sharing


----------



## Waehnen

I realised a little while ago that the 8th Symphony has neither of the two traits I dislike in Mahler: speaking of 'dance-like staccato hopping' and 'extended marching in a minor key', of course. I have kind of neglected the 8th because I do not find huge choirs as expressive as instrumental music for they can be rather "in your face" and not very subtle. Vocal music is often about western heroic subjects expressing themselves... But there are times when I like to listen to music with huge choirs, too.

So no reason to dislike the 8th for me. No reason to neglect it.

The finale of the 7th has been shifted to the finale spot of the 6th, but there are still 3 middle 7th Symphony movements, who together form a rather adorable _La Petite Symphonie Burlesque_! (The name of my playlist!) No need for the sprawling first movement there, which I will listen to as a separate Symphonic Poem just like the finale of the 6th.

Lovely workarounds!

That only leaves me with the problem of the 4th, which is all about dance-like staccato hopping... And I find it is being overshadowed by basically every other Mahler symphony.


----------



## Barbebleu

Sorry, I couldn’t resist chipping in here. To say that Mahler was incompetent in aspects of composition and would have been better advised to stick to what he was good at is baffling and inexcusably arrogant. The day you are recognised as one of the great composers will be the day you can make statements like that with little fear of contradiction.

BTW I have a Beethoven workaround for his ineffably tedious 9th Symphony. For the ghastly, boring final movement, (obviously IMHO only, which I want to make perfectly clear) and its endlessly repetitive ‘Ode to Joy’, I substitute all of Mahler’s 8th symphony. Problem solved. 😏


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> Sorry, I couldn’t resist chipping in here. To say that Mahler was incompetent in aspects of composition and would have been better advised to stick to what he was good at is baffling and inexcusably arrogant. The day you are recognised as one of the great composers will be the day you can make statements like that with little fear of contradiction.
> 
> BTW I have a Beethoven workaround for his ineffably tedious 9th Symphony. For the ghastly, boring final movement, (obviously IMHO only, which I want to make perfectly clear) and its endlessly repetitive ‘Ode to Joy’, I substitute all of Mahler’s 8th symphony. Problem solved. 😏


There is absolutely nothing arrogant here on my part. It is arrogance to try to shut people´s mouth in front of the "truth". I am not into worshipping people, not even great composers.


----------



## Waehnen

Why are you sad, @Becca ? Don´t you think it is arrogant to proclaim that Mahler was so great a composer that none of us mortals have the right to say anything other about the music than it is absolutely perfect -- and then worship all the music without any reservations? I am fed up with that kind of comments and that attitude towards me. Anyone who has really read what I write should see that I am truly reflecting this music, trying to get to the bottom of it and trying to let the Mahler music shine it´s best light.


----------



## Barbebleu

Waehnen said:


> There is absolutely nothing arrogant here on my part. It is arrogance to try to shut people´s mouth in front of the "truth". I am not into worshipping people, not even great composers.


What truth? Opinion is not truth, merely opinion. This all smacks of the woke generation and their own personal ‘truths’. Truth does not exist where music is concerned, only interpretation and opinion. Clearly you do not see your denigration of Mahler as arrogant. My ’truth’ is that I do! 😡


----------



## Becca

Waehnen said:


> Why are you sad, @Becca ? Don´t you think it is arrogant to proclaim that Mahler was so great a composer that none of us mortals have the right to say anything other about the music than it is absolutely perfect -- and then worship all the music without any reservations? I am fed up with that kind of comments and that attitude towards me. Anyone who has really read what I write should see that I am truly reflecting this music, trying to get to the bottom of it and trying to let the Mahler music shine it´s best light.


Nobody other than you has said anything about "absolutely perfect" or "worship all the music", we don't. What is sad is this talk about others being arrogant when it is you are the one going on about "truth", "truly reflecting this music", etc.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I'll chime in again in this thread and offer my other two measly cents: no one in their right mind would call Mahler a "perfect" composer, because there's no such thing and this goes double for Bach who many listeners believe he could do no wrong. The reality is that I love Mahler and his music has meant something _to me_. I think the problem with the OP Waehnen is that while it's great that you're continuing to try to understand Mahler's music, you seem to have too much focus on what the composer doesn't do or that isn't to your liking instead of figuring out what the music does do that you enjoy and more important that touches your heart. Let's face it: if his music doesn't move you, shake your bones or make you think endlessly about in a positive way after you've heard it, then perhaps he's just not for you. For me, he's one of the great composers because I believe his music reflects a humanity in it and it shows us that, while we're only here for a short amount of time, it's in our best interest to try and find solace amongst the chaos. For Mahler, it was nature and it's within nature that he was able to self-reflect and re-evaluate what is important to him. To try and continuously find fault with his music from a technical standpoint is futile, because it is clear that it's about so much more than this (even though he was a brilliant orchestrator and knew how to get his ideas down in a clear manner). My only suggestion to Waehen is listen to the music from a moment-to-moment basis and try not to get caught in what your ears perceive to be wrong but instead focus on what your ears and what your heart find right.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> Nobody other than you has said anything about "absolutely perfect" or "worship all the music", we don't. What is sad is this talk about others being arrogant when it is you are the one going on about "truth", "truly reflecting this music", etc.


Becca, are you trying to state that Barbebleu didn´t call me arrogant here? Are you really saying that it was all me, and do you believe your own claim?



Barbebleu said:


> To say that Mahler was incompetent in aspects of composition and would have been better advised to stick to what he was good at is *baffling and inexcusably arrogant*. The day you are recognised as one of the great composers will be the day you can make statements like that with little fear of contradiction.


I had a great and honest and valuable conversation with RobertJTh and I regret nothing about it. I am sure he and some others understand that there was nothing arrogant on my part in my comments. I might be courageous and bold and strong in my wording in order to be clear, yes, but arrogant -- no.

But to say I am arrogant clearly shows that Barbebleu thinks I have no right to be critical about Mahler because he is a perfect composer and his compositions are perfect. And me having problems with the music is in his eyes me being inexcusably arrogant. So Barbebleu thinks he possesses "the truth of the perfect composer" here and he is trying to shut my mouth. And I do not like it. What else could his statement mean?

I have never suggested in possessing the truth on these matters. I have a point of view with objective and subjective elements to it — just like everyone else.

So Becca, is it really just me who is going on here? You really believe I started this little quarrel? I know of course that you have picked a side a long time ago. Petty of me to point it out.



Neo Romanza said:


> I'll chime in again in this thread and offer my other two measly cents: no one in their right mind would call Mahler a "perfect" composer, because there's no such thing and this goes double for Bach who many listeners believe he could do no wrong. The reality is that I love Mahler and his music has meant something _to me_. I think the problem with the OP Waehnen is that while it's great that you're continuing to try to understand Mahler's music, you seem to have too much focus on what the composer doesn't do or that isn't to your liking instead of figuring out what the music does do that you enjoy and more important that touches your heart. Let's face it: if his music doesn't move you, shake your bones or make you think endlessly about in a positive way after you've heard it, then perhaps he's just not for you. For me, he's one of the great composers because I believe his music reflects a humanity in it and it shows us that, while we're only here for a short amount of time, it's in our best interest to try and find solace amongst the chaos. For Mahler, it was nature and it's within nature that he was able to self-reflect and re-evaluate what is important to him. To try and continuously find fault with his music from a technical standpoint is futile, because it is clear that it's about so much more than this (even though he was a brilliant orchestrator and knew how to get his ideas down in a clear manner). My only suggestion to Waehen is listen to the music from a moment-to-moment basis and try not to get caught in what your ears perceive to be wrong but instead focus on what your ears and what your heart find right.


Thanks Neo for your comment. People seem to neglect all the positive I write about Mahler´s music, though. So how could I state that Mahler is not for me?

Not all Mahler is for me, I know that much. But much of it sure is! This thread is about me trying to figure it out. People should not be offended about it.

I think Beethoven is the only composer whose almost every work seem to be for me. I am critical of everyone else at some place. I am in a constant search for music and interpretations that work for me. And I am happy for things like I did not stick to the Barbirolli version of the 6th symphony which was just way too dark for my likings and messed up my thoughts initially.

(And the most critical I am about is of course myself. I do not consider myself a better composer than the composers under discussion. I talk here as a listener and enjoyer of music, although my background of course affects the processes.)

But enough of this petty quarrel.


----------



## Becca

I don't know why I bother, the points rarely seem to get across.

P.S. If I say something, it's because I mean it.


----------



## Waehnen

Becca said:


> I don't know why I bother, the points rarely seem to get across.
> 
> P.S. If I say something, it's because I mean it.


It is your interpretation of my words that I would have referred to myself with the word "truth". I was referring to Barbebleu of course. It is all explained here:



Waehnen said:


> But to say I am arrogant clearly shows that Barbebleu thinks I have no right to be critical about Mahler because he is a perfect composer and his compositions are perfect. And me having problems with the music is in his eyes me being inexcusably arrogant. So Barbebleu thinks he possesses "the truth of the perfect composer" here and he is trying to shut my mouth. And I do not like it. What else could his statement mean?
> 
> I have never suggested in possessing the truth on these matters. I have a point of view with objective and subjective elements to it — just like everyone else.


And it is a meaning given by you on my words "truly reflecting", should they be interpreted as "others reflecting untruly". I am speaking of honest reflection.

But like I said, you have chosen your side a long time ago and choose to interpret everything I say in the worst possible way and then try to hold me accountable for your own interpretations.

I do not appreciate it at all.


----------



## Waehnen

A lot of Mahler for me to enjoy nowadays, actually:

Symphony no. 1 (Solti/London)
Symphony no. 2 (Klemperer/Philharmonia)
Symphony no. 3 (Haitink/Concertgebouw)
Symphony no. 5 (Haitink/Concertgebouw or Rattle/Berliner, with the 2nd movement replaced by the scherzo from the 6th symphony)
Symphony no. 6 (Haitink/Concertgebouw or Rattle/Berliner, with the finale replaced by the finale of the 7th symphony)
Symphony no. 7 (Haitink/Concertgebouw, with only the 3 middle movements, La Petite Symphonie Buslesque!)
Symphony no. 8 (Haitink/Concertgebouw or Solti/Chicago)
Symphony no. 9 (Many recordings: Bernstein, Karajan, Haitink, Rattle, Solti...!)
Das Lied von Der Erde (Klemperer/Philharmonia)
Symphonic Poem: Ein Heldenleben II (The Finale of the 6th Symphony on it´s own, many great recordings)
Symphonic Poem: Abenddämmerung am See / Dusk At The Lake (The 1st Movement of the 7th Symphony on it´s own, Solti/Chicago or Haitink/Concertgebouw)

So eventually it is only the 4th I dislike and cannot find workarounds on. Not bad at all for a person who supposedly hates Mahler!


----------



## Barbebleu

So if I’ve read you right you know better than Mahler how he constructed his symphonies. Specifically the 5th, 6th and 7th. You also appear to have invented some compositions too. ‘La Petite Symphonie Burlesque’ whatever that may be and two ‘Symphonic Poems’ that I’m pretty sure he never wrote! If you don’t understand how that is a form of arrogance then I don’t know what else to say. Good luck in your future endeavours but I do wish you’d picked another composer to deconstruct. Maybe Beethoven or Sibelius.

Btw very early in this thread (post#9) I suggested you might avoid continuing to try to like Mahler. Clearly that advice was ignored. If you have to ‘try’ to like a composer then that composer is clearly not ticking all your boxes. I have listened to an awful lot of composers in my 74 years taking up space on this mudball we call Earth and I’m happy to avoid the composers that don’t appeal to me emotionally or intellectually and not waste time on those that don’t.

I don’t think Mahler is perfect by any stretch of the imagination but I do think he knew what he was doing and what his intentions were when he composed any of his works. 😎


----------



## Waehnen

Barbebleu said:


> So if I’ve read you right you know better than Mahler how he constructed his symphonies. Specifically the 5th, 6th and 7th.


Not at all! This is me being subjective and selfish and taking everything I enjoy of the symphonies and arranging them so that they suit my aesthetic world and I am not irritated by anything. This way I am able to enjoy the wonderful music. The middle symphonies 5, 6 and 7 have given me the most problems since the very beginning, yes. I am happy to have found perfect recordings and perfect solutions for me.



Barbebleu said:


> I don’t think Mahler is perfect by any stretch of the imagination but I do think he knew what he was doing and what his intentions were when he composed any of his works. 😎


Sure he knew what he wanted. I am of the belief that he suffered from a "Wagner Syndrome", though, and thus over-composer some of his music and didn´t have enough of self-discipline to edit. Worshipping Wagner had distorted his aesthetic values. This I believe.

Nevertheless, my workarounds are for myself to enjoy -- and for those who have had similar problems with Mahler as myself. It is perfectly clear to me that many are very happy with the symphonies 5, 6 and 7 exactly the way they are.




Barbebleu said:


> Btw very early in this thread (post#9) I suggested you might avoid continuing to try to like Mahler. Clearly that advice was ignored. If you have to ‘try’ to like a composer then that composer is clearly not ticking all your boxes. I have listened to an awful lot of composers in my 74 years taking up space on this mudball we call Earth and I’m happy to avoid the composers that don’t appeal to me emotionally or intellectually and not waste time on those that don’t.


If Mahler´s music didn´t appeal to me, why would I be writing? I have been writing on Mahler now for over a year! And it sure has been a journey. Through all the wrong recordings into finding the ones that suit me, one symphony after another finding what they are about... Wonderful!

And it also feels good that at this moment I am perfectly able to know what my problems have been, and I know how to avoid the frustration. It sure hasn´t been easy to get where I am now!

This is a happy story, you know!


----------



## Waehnen

Waehnen said:


> So eventually it is only the 4th I dislike and cannot find workarounds on. Not bad at all for a person who supposedly hates Mahler!


Thanks again, Random Play! Today I was blessed with the 4th Symphony conducted by Karajan. I didn´t recognise the version at first but I was like _"Why does this *not *sound like ironic neoclassical staccato hopping bordering on grotesque? This is gorgeous!"_

Haitink is usually the one to go to, but this time even Haitink is somewhat neoclassical and grotesque. But the Karajan version is just absolutely beautiful and adorable. That´s my version of the 4th Symphony and none other!

I am happy to be continuously corrected:

Symphony no. 1 (Solti/London)

Symphony no. 2 (Klemperer/Philharmonia)

Symphony no. 3 (Haitink/Concertgebouw)

*Symphony no. 4 (Karajan/Berliner)*

Symphony no. 5 (Haitink/Concertgebouw or Rattle/Berliner, with the 2nd movement replaced by the scherzo from the 6th symphony)

Symphony no. 6 (Haitink/Concertgebouw or Rattle/Berliner, with the finale replaced by the finale of the 7th symphony)

Symphony no. 7 (Haitink/Concertgebouw, with only the 3 middle movements, La Petite Symphonie Buslesque!)

Symphony no. 8 (Haitink/Concertgebouw)

Symphony no. 9 (Many recordings: Bernstein, Karajan, Haitink, Rattle, Solti...!)

Das Lied von Der Erde (Klemperer/Philharmonia)

Symphonic Poem: Ein Heldenleben II (The Finale of the 6th Symphony on it´s own, many great recordings)

Symphonic Poem: Eine Abenddämmerung am See / Dusk At The Lake (The 1st Movement of the 7th Symphony on it´s own, Solti/Chicago)



Also, the Haitink/Concertgebouw version of the 8th was the high point of my day. It was also absolutely gorgeous!


----------



## hammeredklavier

<Why Listen to Mahler?>


----------



## Waehnen

hammeredklavier said:


> <Why Listen to Mahler?>


I think that link was provided earlier in this or some other thread for I am familiar with that clip! I find it useful.  

Being enthusiastic about the 4th by Karajan, I listened to the 5th by Karajan, with the 2nd Movement and all. This time the 2nd movement was bearable, which is good! Still, my workaround with the Scherzo from the 6th Symphony replacing the 2nd movement of the 5th, brings enough of Sturm und Drang -- but also the much needed contrast after the 1st movement. With my workaround every movement have their own distinctive character and material. That is why I still prefer it. I am left unsatisfied with too little contrast within the symphony with the original (hysteric, non-independent and rather ugly) 2nd Movement.


----------



## Waehnen

Today was another day of honesty. I decided to create a Mahler playlist with only the movements that I truly love. The results:

1/1
2/1
2/2
2/3
2/4
2/5
3/1
3/2
3/3
3/4
3/5
3/6
5/1
5/4
5/5
6/1
6/2 (Andante)
9/1
9/4

Still there is music for 5h 22m. Whereas the complete Sibelius cycle by Rattle is only 3h 48m. Puts things into perspective, right?


----------



## PeterKC

Think of Mahler as music that is not so much structure, but essence. Philosophy as music, music as philosophy.

P.S. Curious why you think of Stravinsky as a symphonist.


----------



## PeterKC

Ulfilas said:


> Personally I prefer a more objective and less exaggerated approach (which doesn't mean lacking in emotion). My favourite Mahler conductors are Bruno Walter, Kubelik, Boulez and Zinman.


You might check out Bertini's Cycle.


----------



## Waehnen

PeterKC said:


> Think of Mahler as music that is not so much structure, but essence. Philosophy as music, music as philosophy.
> 
> P.S. Curious why you think of Stravinsky as a symphonist.


I remember at least three symphonies by Stravinsky. One was in C, one was in three movements, and one was in psalms. 😉 Also I consider some of his ballets rather symphonic, too.

Talking about listening to Mahler as essence rather than structure is a good point in my opinion. Listening to just ’atmospheres’ or ’emotion’ has never been my strong point. As a listener, I need the structure. Otherwise the artistic experience lacks something from the ideal of Immanuel Kant: where the emotion meets the conception of structure intuitively at the same time.

I made an experiment today. Created a playlist of the Symphony no. 5 but leaving out the ugly, sprawling and bouncy leftovers 2nd movement and the hopping scherzo. So only movements I, IV and V.

With just 3 movements the symphony lasts perfect 40 minutes and all the writing is utterly masterful and there is nothing I dislike. The form and balance is perfect and there is nothing forceful, and the ego of Mahler does not get in the way of the music. The symphony sounds like a true classic masterpiece this way. Immensely graceful, even. Wonderful!

No wonder Mahler has given me so much annoyance: there are true jewels behind the junk and I have intuitively always known that. One just needs to be brave and grap the jewels.


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> [...]
> 
> I made an experiment today. Created a playlist of the Symphony no. 5 but leaving out the ugly, sprawling and bouncy leftovers 2nd movement and the hopping scherzo. So only movements I, IV and V.
> 
> With just 3 movements the symphony lasts perfect 40 minutes and all the writing is utterly masterful and there is nothing I dislike. The form and balance is perfect and there is nothing forceful, and the ego of Mahler does not get in the way of the music. The symphony sounds like a true classic masterpiece this way. Immensely graceful, even. Wonderful!
> 
> No wonder Mahler has given me so much annoyance: there are true jewels behind the junk and I have intuitively always known that. One just needs to be brave and grap the jewels.


Oh my, a musical life without the Scherzo of Mahler 5.

😭






😃


----------



## Waehnen

Marc said:


> Oh my, a musical life without the Scherzo of Mahler 5.
> 
> 😭


Feeling no need criticise the Scherzo. There is nothing wrong with it. I just do not like that kind of huge dancing movements in symphonies. Same with the Scherzo of the 7th — I am just not interested in the material and for me nothing important is expressed. So they are kind of filler movements.

I did listen to the 5th Scherzo after your post and had to conclude that I am merely indifferent to the music and slightly irritated by the ”expressionless dancing babble” of it. But this is very subjective indeed.

(No worries! I have moved on from my intensive Mahler listening period and do not feel the struggle anymore.)


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> Feeling no need criticise the Scherzo. There is nothing wrong with it. I just do not like that kind of huge dancing movements in symphonies. Same with the Scherzo of the 7th — I am just not interested in the material and for me nothing important is expressed. So they are kind of filler movements.
> 
> I did listen to the 5th Scherzo after your post and had to conclude that I am merely indifferent to the music and slightly irritated by the ”expressionless dancing babble” of it. But this is very subjective indeed.
> 
> (No worries! I have moved on from my intensive Mahler listening period and do not feel the struggle anymore.)


Lol.
No worries, I'm not worried.
It is true though, that if you are not into the (huge or maybe even less huge) dancing movements in symphonies, then you will miss out on some quintessential Mahlerian elements.
But that's what she skip-through buttons are for: to follow your own preferences. The advantages of our time.
Mahler might have gotten grumpy about it, but he's dead. He can't do anything about it.
If you listen to Bach's orchestral suites and you got fed up with Badinerie and Air, skip them. It's possible and it's allowed, even though they are quintessential Bach.

(For the record, even though it's probably unnecessary to emphasize: this particular Scherzo is one of my top 3 Mahler favourites. But tastes differ. Let's celebrate diversity.)


----------



## Kreisler jr

I can agree that the scherzo of Mahler's 5th is almost too long but I think Mahler pulls it off well and I also find it fascinating having a scherzo as pivotal point in this symphony. The scherzo/menuet was a bit of a problem already around 1800 because the variety possible was limited and as symphonies (an other multimovement works) became more explicitly dramatic-poetic the use of a dance movement was often dubious because it did not quite fit the serious/dramatic mood of a piece. 

Beethoven did some transformations with a wide range of scherzo-type movements (including chamber music probably wider than anyone else, except maybe Mahler), incl. sinister/dramatic ones like in the 5th symphony but he mostly "only" expanded the general scheme of the type (The most innovative and interesting one to me is the sonata-rondo scherzo in the quartet op.59/1 but that remained a singular, sui generis, movement.)
The romantics introduced more variety with less dance-like intermezzo movements but generally stuck both to the form (more or less tripartite) and lighter character. Some, like Franck, left the scherzo out altogether and reduced the "scherzando" to an episode in a slow movement. It's a bit surprising to me that, unlike in chamber/solo piano music the scherzo/intermezzo was seen as obligatory for so long.

Mahler sometimes mainly expanded (and I think that the scherzo-type movements 2+3 of the 3rd symphony are a bit too long for their rôle/weight/material) but I find that he also creatively transformed the scherzo-type and expanded its expression, from the traditional dancy (1st symphony) or idyllic (2,ii and 3,ii) to the grotesque (2,iii or 9,ii) or quite dark (6,7, 9,iii). The huge scherzo of the 5th has many aspects, a bit of all of them, but overall seems to achieve the optimistic turn after the funeral march and the furious wrath/despair of the 2nd movement.


----------



## Marc

Natalie Bauer-Lechner (violist and close friend of Mahler), mentioned that Mahler had said to her that the scherzo of the Fifth is "the human being in full daylight, at the zenith of his life."
Mahler also is supposed to have said: "“the Scherzo is a damnable movement. It will have a long history of suffering! Conductors will take it too fast for fifty years, and audiences... oh heavens! What sort of faces will they pull at this chaos...”.

I like the approach of Haitink and the Berliner in this one; I also prefer it on the slowish side.
_When one is in full daylight and at the zenith of one's life, one might as well make that a longer (lasting) experience_.
There, I said it.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think the slowest 5th in mvmts 2,3 and 5 I have heard is Wyn Morris' (but he is fast in the adagietto!). It's a bit too slow for me in 5,ii but the scherzo and finale are so distinctly characterized that nobody minds another 2 min. playing time and they do not feel sluggish at all. Not sure what was the original label (rec. mid-late 1970s, I think) and one has to beware of bronzed copies (because it appeared also on one of the affected British labels) but it's worth seeking out.


----------



## Waehnen

Thanks for the Scherzo recommendations and thoughts on the matter, both of you — they encouraged me to have a go with my Haitink/Concertgebouw recording and imagine that the movement is an independent work. It sure works this way for me as well!

(And I don’t have to worry about the orchestral similarities with the lovely lovely finale.)

(It’s the same with the finale of the sixth — as an independent symphonic poem I am able to enjoy it, not as a part of a symphony of such huge proportions.)


----------



## Marc

Waehnen said:


> Thanks for the Scherzo recommendations and thoughts on the matter, both of you — they encouraged me to have a go with my Haitink/Concertgebouw recording and imagine that the movement is an independent work. It sure works this way for me as well!
> 
> (And I don’t have to worry about the orchestral similarities with the lovely lovely finale.)
> 
> (It’s the same with the finale of the sixth — as an independent symphonic poem I am able to enjoy it, not as a part of a symphony of such huge proportions.)


The Scherzo of the Fifth almost feels more like a horn concerto, or a symphonic poem/movement with obbligato horn. I love it. It's great to experience it live, too. But, as part of the entire symphony, I still consider it mostly as a great transitional movement that takes the listener by the hand (_ear!)_ to another side of... well, either 'life' (as Mahler saw it), or to Mahler's personal universe.

I agree about the the quality of the Finales of both 5 and 6. But I can't regard the latter as an independend piece. Sure, it's very long, but imho if fits as the end of a long fight that already started with the first bars of the opening movement.


----------

