# The Most Ignorant Statement About Mahler Ever Made



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

This is the most ignorant statement about Mahler I have ever read:

"_With the exception of a few musicians enthralled with the challenge of playing his music, the people who love Mahler love him because of who he is, not because they enjoy listening to his music._" Why Has Mahler Become a Cultural Icon, Kevin MacDonald

Take a lesson fellow Mahlerites: Mahler's music is not the thing you love you only love the idea of Mahler. Forget about those sweeping adagios, you are smitten by the cultural image.

All this tells us is that MacDonald does not enjoy listening to the music of Mahler, after all, who could ever do a thing like that with a product so inferior?


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

I've seen more ignorant things said about him than that. I'd repost them here but I'm afraid they might be against the forum rules.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

Indeed. For sheer ignorance and prejudice, the Vienna Philharmonic takes the sacher torte. See this article in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/mar/11/vienna-philharmonic-history

Ugh. Just ugh.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Klassic said:


> This is the most ignorant statement about Mahler I have ever read:
> 
> "_With the exception of a few musicians enthralled with the challenge of playing his music, the people who love Mahler love him because of who he is, not because they enjoy listening to his music._" Why Has Mahler Become a Cultural Icon, Kevin MacDonald
> 
> ...


Sounds like another hack trying to make a few bucks. He knows what he says is going to rile people up and it's exactly what he wants. Either that, or there really *isn't* anything rattling around in there.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I do actually think that a lot of listeners are fascinated by Mahler - the composer person, with his large scale symphonies and almost fairy tale like biography. They may be wrong of course.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

The same could be said of Beethoven. There is the man and then the legend. Really it could be said of any well known artist. But why then would we sit at home alone and listen to Beethoven (or Mahler or whomever) if there weren't a reason for their stature?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

This one takes the cake for me.

"Brass, lots of brass, incredibly much brass! Even more brass, nothing but brass!--that was the first movement....None the less, the fourth movement is positively the last [a reference to the changed order of the inner movements], and with it Mahler's symphony ends, for all symphonies must end sometime, even if they are as endlessly long as Mahler's Sixth, entitled 'tragic'. And now, heedless of the shrieks of rage of the Mahlerites, a loud, clear, and energetic protest must be made against the corruption of healthy musical sense and taste by performances of this kind in the city where Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, and Haydn lived and produced their most sublime works....Theater people used to maintain that Mahler was a fine symphonist. Knowledgeable music lovers can now prove that he is not a good symphonist....His melodic invention is minimal, his contrapuntal and thematic elaboration is nil, and many things which look imposing on his scores produce no effect because you don't hear them. The harps with their gissandos and the thrice-divided violas labour in vain to be heard during the assault of the gigantic army of brass, and the insistent and continuous ringing of cow and sheep bells cannot conceal the hopeless emptiness of the Sixth Symphony." - Heinrich Reinhardt


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Wagner and Liszt had interesting stories, but I can barely tolerate their music. Any critic who thinks people extoll GM for extra musical reasons is truly an ignoramus, as the OP has stated


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Yeah, um, the guy the OP quotes is apparently an anti-Semite who resents Mahler's Jewishness. So I'd say, the bit quoted above isn't even the most ignorant part of the post.

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/02/kevin-macdonald-why-is-mahler-so-popular/


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I wish someone would've told me sooner... Maybe I wouldn't have waisted so much time thinking I was actually enjoying myself.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> Yeah, um, the guy the OP quotes is apparently an anti-Semite who resents Mahler's Jewishness. So I'd say, the bit quoted above isn't even the most ignorant part of the post.
> 
> http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/02/kevin-macdonald-why-is-mahler-so-popular/


There were some awful remarks made about Mahler in Ernest Ansermet's rambling anti-modern screed "Les fondements de la musique dans la conscience humaine," including that he, like all other Jewish composers, was incapable of truly innovating, so he just stuck together others' accomplishments.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Well, isn't it obvious that Kevin MacDonald employs an army of interviewers who stand outside the doors of concert halls all over the world and ask everyone who leaves a concert of Mahler's music looking pleased whether they really liked the music or whether they just think Gustav was a cool dude?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> There were some awful remarks made about Mahler in Ernest Ansermet's rambling anti-modern screed "Les fondements de la musique dans la conscience humaine," including that he, like all other Jewish composers, was incapable of truly innovating, so he just stuck together others' accomplishments.


I had no idea about Ansermet.

I think people are assuming Kevin MacDonald is a music critic, which he isn't. He's a once well-regarded historian who has drifted into (or slowly revealed himself to be a purveyor of) bigotry. Actually an interesting case, but not because of what he says about Mahler, which probably has little to do with Mahler's music.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_B._MacDonald


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Does it really matter what Kevin MacDonald thinks about Mahler? The indignation above reminds me of an interview with William F. Buckley Jr., where he was sitting at the keyboard playing Bach and going on about how much he loved JSB and his divine music. He then launched into a fierce, sudden diatribe, saying he had heard that some 14-year-old kid in the inner city somewhere had said that Bach was "a punk"--how could anyone think or say such a thing?! It was bizarre, seeing a grown man of some intelligence vent so much spleen on the views of an adolescent on some mean street. Sheesh!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> I had no idea about Ansermet.


I didn't know that either until I read Fischer's biography, which has one chapter that begins with a particularly nasty quote from his book.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Haha funny, I remember hearing the first, fifth, and eight symphonies before reading up on his life. I guess my memory is wrong; i care more about the man than the music


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> This one takes the cake for me.
> 
> "Brass, lots of brass, incredibly much brass! Even more brass, nothing but brass!--that was the first movement....None the less, the fourth movement is positively the last [a reference to the changed order of the inner movements], and with it Mahler's symphony ends, for all symphonies must end sometime, even if they are as endlessly long as Mahler's Sixth, entitled 'tragic'. And now, heedless of the shrieks of rage of the Mahlerites, a loud, clear, and energetic protest must be made against the corruption of healthy musical sense and taste by performances of this kind in the city where Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, and Haydn lived and produced their most sublime works....Theater people used to maintain that Mahler was a fine symphonist. Knowledgeable music lovers can now prove that he is not a good symphonist....His melodic invention is minimal, his contrapuntal and thematic elaboration is nil, and many things which look imposing on his scores produce no effect because you don't hear them. The harps with their gissandos and the thrice-divided violas labour in vain to be heard during the assault of the gigantic army of brass, and the insistent and continuous ringing of cow and sheep bells cannot conceal the hopeless emptiness of the Sixth Symphony." - Heinrich Reinhardt


Ah, pretentious old music critics. Today we've got tabloids, and the like, which fall flat in comparison with the bundles of hilarity to be had with these guys!


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Does it really matter what Kevin MacDonald thinks about Mahler? The indignation above reminds me of an interview with William F. Buckley Jr., where he was sitting at the keyboard playing Bach and going on about how much he loved JSB and his divine music. He then launched into a fierce, sudden diatribe, saying he had heard that some 14-year-old kid in the inner city somewhere had said that Bach was "a punk"--how could anyone think or say such a thing?! It was bizarre, seeing a grown man of some intelligence vent so much spleen on the views of an adolescent on some mean street. Sheesh!


Not to mention a lot's of others who criticises Mahler (and others for that matter) from the sideline.
:tiphat:


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The statement was published on a white supremacist website...not sure what you'd expect from that crowd?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> Yeah, um, the guy the OP quotes is apparently an anti-Semite who resents Mahler's Jewishness. So I'd say, the bit quoted above isn't even the most ignorant part of the post.
> 
> http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2010/02/kevin-macdonald-why-is-mahler-so-popular/


Ugh... why are we giving these bigots web traffic?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Nereffid said:


> Ugh... why are we giving these bigots web traffic?


Morbid fascination, I would presume.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

CypressWillow said:


> Indeed. For sheer ignorance and prejudice, the Vienna Philharmonic takes the sacher torte. See this article in The Guardian:
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/mar/11/vienna-philharmonic-history
> 
> Ugh. Just ugh.


Ah, that again. And what precisely does Kevin MacDonald have to do with the Vienna Philarmonic?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Ugh... why are we giving these bigots web traffic?


I'm not. I didn't click on it, and I have no intention of doing so.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not. I didn't click on it, and I have no intention of doing so.


Smart move--I clicked on it and ended up getting electrocuted.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Ugh... why are we giving these bigots web traffic?


Yes, precisely! Why quote this specimen at all? As isorhythm notes, "The statement was published on a white supremacist website...not sure what you'd expect from that crowd?" Giving it any air at all is a bad idea.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

So how come when somebody says "people mostly listen to Schoenberg because of the intellectual or compositional methods, but not for how the music actually sounds" he gets applauded?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

SeptimalTritone said:


> So how come when somebody says "people mostly listen to Schoenberg because of the intellectual or compositional methods, but not for how the music actually sounds" he gets applauded?


Because ignorance about Schoenberg is laudable. He's too frightening to actually know the truth about.

And clearly serialism is comparable to genocide.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

My mother played Schoenberg, and not the clearly CP stuff.


----------



## LHB (Nov 1, 2015)

Can we please just let this stupid thread die? What even is the point of this thread?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SeptimalTritone said:


> So how come when somebody says "people mostly listen to Schoenberg because of the intellectual or compositional methods, but not for how the music actually sounds" he gets applauded?


Were you asking anyone in particular?

Anyway: Do people say that? Do they get applauded? Are you drawing a parallel between them and the antisemitic nonsense Kevin Mac Donald spouts? If so, what is the parallel?


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

It release of giggles... and if you wanted to die, do not post here.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Were you asking anyone in particular?
> 
> *Anyway: Do people say that? Do they get applauded?* Are you drawing a parallel between them and the antisemitic nonsense Kevin Mac Donald spouts? If so, what is the parallel?


Why...yes, they do. The parallel is making ignorant statements about where a composer's popularity (with the people that composer is popular with) comes from. The fact that in one of these cases the statements are clearly motivated by antisemitism doesn't mean that ignorance in one case isn't the same as ignorance in the other.



TC Member said:


> I respect [Schoenberg's] intellect for having come up with the concept of serial/atonal music; he gets points for being a innovative music theorist. But just because it "looks good on paper" doesn't necessarily mean it will sound good as performance. Music is art; not a science experiment.





Another TC Member said:


> That's fine. . . on paper.
> 
> But the bottom line for beauty is how it sounds.





Member at another classical forum said:


> Music has to reach beyond the printed page. I'm sure Schoenberg is absolutely wonderful on paper, but it loses something in translation...for me, at least.


None of these were in discussions about theory, nor was theory brought up. The "on paper" part is just a knee-jerk reaction people have to the idea of Schoenberg which has no relation to how any of us listen to his music. But such ignorance is hardly limited to people pontificating on forums...



Donal Henahan said:


> Purely instrumental works in systematically atonal idioms, like Schoenberg's Violin Concerto, can leave a reasonably experienced listener to modern music untouched and shamefully eager for intermission. Their technical ingenuity does not seem to be matched by audible subtleties of expression or dramatic power, no doubt because the dialectic energies inherent in traditional key-centered systems are not available to the atonal composer. In many severely atonal works, of course, one may discern beauties of logic or design, if only by reading the score. But abstract satisfactions are also available in other activities, like extracting square roots without a computer or reading subway timetables.


It's clear that the root of such statements is that many are uncomfortable with the truth that people who love Schoenberg's music love it because it sounds wonderful; its potent combination of lyrical melody with rich harmony, active counterpoint, and motivic development, far from being something confined to the page, makes for a powerful listening experience like no other.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Klassic said:


> This is the most ignorant statement about Mahler I have ever read:
> 
> "_With the exception of a few musicians enthralled with the challenge of playing his music, the people who love Mahler love him because of who he is, not because they enjoy listening to his music._" Why Has Mahler Become a Cultural Icon, Kevin MacDonald
> 
> ...


I don't see how this is so ignorant, if taken in the right spirit and not re-interpreted into a simplistic thought process which insults the intelligence of anyone who dares to take the opposing view ("Mahler's music is not the thing you love you only love the idea of Mahler. Forget about those sweeping adagios, you are smitten by the cultural image"). A little too simplistic for me.

There's a view in bluegrass music, that when you hear a player, "you are listening to the man as much as the music." It makes a lot more sense in that context, especially when you are listening to old men playing the fiddle from different regions of the US (in a collection of regional fiddle styles).

This shows that music can be connected to place, and to beings (personalities, characters), and that this is where it gets much of its identity and meaning.

I think the OP has jumped the gun here, and I also think that Kevin McDonald has missed the true point.

Experience with popular music, which is by nature more connected with individual personality (solo folk artists, singers), makes music seem naturally more connected with the human element.

I don't see why we can't apply this to Mahler as well; wouldn't we be doing him a disservice as an artist to ignore his humanity and the sheer force of his personality?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the OP has jumped the gun here, and is seriously exaggerating the intent of Kevin McDonald, perhaps for some specious "internet reasoning" that seems to go along with this territory.


If you google the quote and click through to the article - which I don't recommend you do, because I've already done it for you and there's no need to give these people more traffic - you'll see that the intent of Kevin McDonald is in fact to expose Mahler as part of a Jewish conspiracy that is destroying white culture.

Why anyone thought this fringe person worthy of mention on this forum is unclear.


----------



## Radames (Feb 27, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> If you google the quote and click through to the article - which I don't recommend you do, because I've already done it for you and there's no need to give these people more traffic - you'll see that the intent of Kevin McDonald is in fact to expose Mahler as part of a Jewish conspiracy that is destroying white culture.
> 
> Why anyone thought this fringe person worthy of mention on this forum is unclear.





millionrainbows said:


> I don't see how this is so ignorant, if taken in the right spirit and not re-interpreted into a simplistic thought process which insults the intelligence of anyone who dares to take the opposing view ("Mahler's music is not the thing you love you only love the idea of Mahler. Forget about those sweeping adagios, you are smitten by the cultural image"). A little too simplistic for me.


I did google and see the article. At the end the intention is clear when he says "Mahler has become a sainted icon of the new culture - another example of Jewish genius. Even if no one really enjoys listening to his music."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

isorhythm said:


> If you google the quote and click through to the article - which I don't recommend you do, because I've already done it for you and there's no need to give these people more traffic - you'll see that the intent of Kevin McDonald is in fact to expose Mahler as part of a Jewish conspiracy that is destroying white culture.
> 
> Why anyone thought this fringe person worthy of mention on this forum is unclear.


As I explained, I'm more interested in the idea of music, also classical music, being connected to real human beings. I've always sensed the "Mahler" in Mahler's music.

I'm not interested in exaggerated, overly-simplistic re-interpretations which presume to get me involved in name-calling or in defending that which does not need defending.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

When I first glanced at this thread title, I thought it said "The Most Ignorant Statement That Mahler Ever Made." :lol:

I'm sure some of you here will remember what I am referring to.

~http://www.talkclassical.com/31854-gustav-mahler-antisemite.html?highlight=


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> When I first glanced at this thread title, I thought it said "The Most Ignorant Statement That Mahler Ever Made." :lol:
> 
> I'm sure some of you here will remember what I am referring to.
> 
> ~http://www.talkclassical.com/31854-gustav-mahler-antisemite.html?highlight=


Not that I'd want to bring it up, really, much less defend it, but I know of an even more egregiously ignorant and offensive statement Mahler made.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

Sorry Kevin! But Mahler is one of the most loved composers. Liked it or not.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Blame LB.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Or Frank Rampolla.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Not that I'd want to bring it up, really, much less defend it, but I know of an even more egregiously ignorant and offensive statement Mahler made.


Tell us! America wants to know! Maybe it will prove to be good thread fodder.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Why...yes, they do. The parallel is making ignorant statements about where a composer's popularity (with the people that composer is popular with) comes from. The fact that in one of these cases the statements are clearly motivated by antisemitism doesn't mean that ignorance in one case isn't the same as ignorance in the other.
> 
> None of these were in discussions about theory, nor was theory brought up. The "on paper" part is just a knee-jerk reaction people have to the idea of Schoenberg which has no relation to how any of us listen to his music. But such ignorance is hardly limited to people pontificating on forums...
> 
> It's clear that the root of such statements is that many are uncomfortable with the truth that people who love Schoenberg's music love it because it sounds wonderful; its powerful combination of lyrical melody with rich harmony, active counterpoint, and motivic development, far from being something confined to the page, makes for a powerful listening experience like no other.


What I thought they mostly said was that people who claimed to like Schoenberg were lying in order to help in the downfall of Western civilization.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> What I thought they mostly said was that people who claimed to like Schoenberg were lying in order to help in the downfall of Western civilization.


This was not the quote under discussion in this topic, although it is part of the source that the quote comes from.

In other words, you are putting out a red herring and changing the topic.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> This was not the quote under discussion in this topic, although it is part of the source that the quote comes from.
> 
> In other words, you are putting out a red herring and changing the topic.


I have no idea what you are talking about with your sources and your exotic fish.

What I was getting at in questioning Septimaltonal was a factual point, that I didn't think detractors by and large thought Schoenberg should be valued for his theoretical thinking as opposed to his music. I thought they mostly hated both, and the theory more than the music itself.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> I have no idea what you are talking about with your sources and your exotic fish.
> 
> What I was getting at in questioning Septimaltonal was a factual point, that I didn't think detractors by and large thought Schoenberg should be valued for his theoretical thinking as opposed to his music. I thought they mostly hated both, and the theory more than the music itself.


And I responded to your contention by providing several examples, all from different sources.

You ignored them and made fun of me for quoting them, without providing any explanation for your dismissal. Now you are changing the subject again to a point that I had already answered.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> And I responded to your contention by providing several examples, all from different sources.
> 
> You ignored them and made fun of me for quoting them, without providing any explanation for your dismissal. Now you are changing the subject again to a point that I had already answered.


Sorry, man. I still have no idea what you are on about. Let me try again: I was merely suggesting that Septimal's paraphrase of a typical TC Schoenberg basher: "people mostly listen to Schoenberg because of the intellectual or compositional methods, but not for how the music actually sounds" was not accurate - that more of them tend to hate the theory too and think it was the downfall of western civilization. Now anyone with a functioning nose for humor - or attempts at it - might have read this as wry commiseration; I was saying: No it's worse still: They don't really believe you like it at all!

But now that you've mentioned your quotations from TC, none of them carry the meaning you have attributed to them. None of them makes a general statement about why anyone listens to or values Schoenberg, except the writer himself. They were just personal reactions. The rest seems to be your imagination? Like your apparent conviction that we were engaged in whatever discussion you thought we were engaged in.

Hey: Weren't we supposed to be addressing ignorant remarks about Mahler? How did we get onto Schoenberg anyway?


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> ... How did we get onto Schoenberg anyway?


Because that is simply *what happens here*.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry, man. I still have no idea what you are on about. Let me try again: I was merely suggesting that Septimal's paraphrase of a typical TC Schoenberg basher: "people mostly listen to Schoenberg because of the intellectual or compositional methods, but not for how the music actually sounds" was not accurate - that more of them tend to hate the theory too and think it was the downfall of western civilization. Now anyone with a functioning nose for humor - or attempts at it - might have read this as wry commiseration; I was saying: No it's worse still: They don't really believe you like it at all!
> 
> But now that you've mentioned your quotations from TC, none of them carry the meaning you have attributed to them. None of them makes a general statement about why anyone listens to or values Schoenberg, except the writer himself. They were just personal reactions. The rest seems to be your imagination? Like your apparent conviction that we were engaged in whatever discussion you thought we were engaged in.


All of them are statements about what the music is, and where its appeal supposedly comes from. Again, remember that NOTHING about theory or the score had been brought up in any instance. This is being introduced into the conversation in order to distract.

Your continued mockery is uncalled for.



EdwardBast said:


> Hey: Weren't we supposed to be addressing ignorant remarks about Mahler? How did we get onto Schoenberg anyway?


Because of the outright hypocrisy, endemic to this forum, wherein ignorant statements about Mahler and other "accepted composers" are roundly condemned while ignorant comments about Schoenberg are supported and perpetuated.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I do not understand the thin-skinnedness of some of the participants in this thread. Stupid things (things I don't agree with) are said and printed about composers and their works all the time--Brockway and Weinstock's notions about the major works of Brahms are stupefying in their wrong-headedness, as are the opinions of Harold C. Schonberg relegating Sibelius to peripheral, minor status. Prokofiev called Debussy's music "spineless gelatine". Since almost all of this is totally subjective, my response to negative criticism of works or composers or artists that I like, that does not involve issues of clearcut, verifiable fact, I dismiss as the ravings of idiots. This greatly pleases me, and I can listen to all sorts of music with a clear and tranquil mind.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> I do not understand the thin-skinnedness of some of the participants in this thread. Stupid things (things I don't agree with) are said and printed about composers and their works all the time--Brockway and Weinstock's notions about the major works of Brahms are stupefying in their wrong-headedness, as are the opinions of Harold C. Schonberg relegating Sibelius to peripheral, minor status. Prokofiev called Debussy's music "spineless gelatine". Since almost all of this is totally subjective, my response to negative criticism of works or composers or artists that I like, that does not involve issues of clearcut, verifiable fact, I dismiss as the ravings of idiots. This greatly pleases me, and I can listen to all sorts of music with a clear and tranquil mind.


This isn't really about music or composers. I think there's another motive at work here: "they" are trying to attract any potential anti-semites out into the open for their scrutiny. Some sort of social agenda, to keep the world safe. Whoever it is, they are probably in collusion with law enforcement. That's the way things work nowadays.

By the way, did anyone leave a backpack here? I saw it over there unattended...


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

"Honey, come on! You have the doctors appointment in 20 minutes!"

"Okay, dear. Just let me listen to this Mahler 8 I just got in the mail. I'm unwrapping it now".


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Not sure how useful this thread is, but I'll just have to get one thing out of my system because I don't think anyone's mentioned it yet.

The OP has a statement that is _not_ about Mahler, despite what the topic line is saying. It is not even about Mahler's _music_. It is about _people who listen to Mahler._

What is the significance of this? Well, I think that it's not so bad to be wrong about a group that has not been extensively documented (i.e. modern Mahler fans... although it may show one's prejudice!), as is to be wrong about a phenomenon that has been extensively documented and written about (i.e. Mahler. And his music.).


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

This is not an ignorant statement but it sums up the view of many who can't stand Mahler. Interestingly it comes from John Culshaw, the record producer who was the driving force behind the classic Solti/VPO Ring Cycle, the Solti/Nilsson Salome and many others. He wrote that it made him feel sick: "_not metaphorically but physically sick. I find his strainings and heavings, juxtaposed with what always sounds (to me) like faux-naif music of the most calculated type, downright repulsive._"


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Becca said:


> He wrote that it made him feel sick: "_not metaphorically but physically sick. I find his strainings and heavings, juxtaposed with what always sounds (to me) like faux-naif music of the most calculated type, downright repulsive._"


Surprisingly, I would believe that it actually made me feel sick. Mahler's later symphonies do, in fact, give me a migraine - I can't listen to them. It's not that I don't like Mahler, but it must be a personal vulnerability to certain sound patterns or something.

For example: I had nightmares of hell and burning after I listened to 3 minutes of Xenakis a few weeks ago.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I've never had any music give me physical symptoms like nausea or headache...I can't even imagine how that works.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

violadude said:


> I've never had any music give me physical symptoms like nausea or headache...I can't even imagine how that works.


I hadn't either, until I listened to some pieces by Georg Friedrich Haas. Still, I'm not too sure how it works.

For the record I'm not implying Haas is a bad composer. Sometimes people get ill from eating certain foods - it doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with the food, it may just be an issue with the person (ie - allergies).


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2016)

violadude said:


> I've never had any music give me physical symptoms like nausea or headache...I can't even imagine how that works.


Psychoacoustic music is your new friend.


----------



## Nevum (Nov 28, 2013)

As Brucknerite with Mahlerite tendencies, I find this as one the most idiotic statements ever made in musical history. Who is this guy MacDonald anyway? Does he sell Hamburgers?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> I've never had any music give me physical symptoms like nausea or headache...I can't even imagine how that works.


Maybe you never heard the Monkees.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Maybe you never heard the Monkees.


Do you mean late period Monkees or early period Monkees.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Do you mean late period Monkees or early period Monkees.


C'mon, real people don't listen to late period Monkees.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

KenOC said:


> C'mon, real people don't listen to late period Monkees.


You mean when they played on their own without the Wrecking Crew, you could have a point there... Good enough for the Beach Boys I guess.

But still prefer Mahler - getting back on topic


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> If you google the quote and click through to the article - which I don't recommend you do, because I've already done it for you and there's no need to give these people more traffic


Well without reading the article, it's difficult to know the context for what the OP quoted.

The article is poorly written, riddled with errors, and wanders aimlessly, making no point. It doesn't even get on a soapbox and rant, which would be something.


----------

