# Mahler: Symphony #2 "Resurrection"



## science

Mahler's second symphony, "Resurrection," is currently on the fifth tier of the Talk Classical community's favorite and most highly recommended works, making it tied for the third highest-ranked symphony.

Wikipedia has a great article about it, including a fair bit of analysis that amounts to a very good listening guide. The best source for recording recommendations is probably Trout's blog post on this work:



> Condensed Listing:
> 1.	Klemperer (cond.), Schwarzkopf, Rössl-Majdan, Philharmonia Orchestra & Chorus	(1962)
> 2.	Mehta (cond.), Cotrubas, Ludwig, Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra, Vienna State Opera Chorus (1975)
> 3.	Bernstein (cond.), Hendrick, Ludwig, New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Westminster Choir (1987)
> 4.	Walter (cond.), Forrester, Cundari, New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Westminster Choir (1958)
> 5.	Klemperer (cond.), Baker, Harper, Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra & Chorus	(1965)
> 6.	Abbado (cond.), Larsson, Gvazava, Lucerne Festival Orchestra, Orféon Donostiarra	(2003)
> 7.	Rattle (cond.), Auger, Baker, City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra & Chorus	(1986)
> 8.	Tennstedt (cond.), Kenny, Van Nes, London Philharmonic Orchestra & Chorus	(1989)
> 9.	Bernstein (cond.), Tourel, Venora, New York Philharmonic Orchestra, Collegiate Chorale (1963)
> 10.	Scherchen (cond.), Coertse, West, Vienna State Opera Orchestra, Vienna Academy Chamber Choir	(1958)


This site has a poll about favorite recordings, and a thread specifically about the epic fifth movement.

As usual, the main questions of this thread are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?*

And of course, what are your favorite recordings?


----------



## mbhaub

*Do you like this work?* Positively YES. Love this symphony. Love hearing it on cd, live, and even performing it.
*Why?* It's extraordinarily powerful. Grips the emotions. Elevated the spirit.
*What do you like about it?* The roller coaster of orchestra wizardry.
*Do you have any reservations about it?* None whatsoever.

There are so many excellent recordings, it's hard to isolate "the best". But if I could only keep one it's going to be Herbert Blomstedt and San Francisco on Decca. Superb playing, conducting, singing, recording.


----------



## Enthusiast

A great work. You can spend your whole life exploring it! It is probably the key to the more expansive side of Mahler's musical character. 

Don't forget Barbirolli's recordings or Mehta's Israel Philharmonic. Steinberg is good, too, and the Solti LSO recording served me well for many years. And then there is Boulez. And I have never understood how Rattle's account gets to sit with such exalted company.


----------



## zelenka

I like only the first 2 movements, the rest is boring to me, also I like Mahler's fifth and ninth more than his second


----------



## larold

I liked it for some years after discovering it and enjoyed several recordings. Then it began to wear out its welcome. Then I heard it in concert -- an unendurable 85-minute ordeal stuck in a concert hall. I haven't listened to it much since then. Like most Mahler symphonies it has hypnotic moments surrounded by somewhat disconnected and noisy ones.

Intellectually it was another element that led me to question Mahler and his musicmaking. Mahler was Jewish, of course, and Jews don't believe in Christ or Christianity, at least not in terms of their religion. Why then would Mahler have an obsession with Christian resurrection to such point he wrote a symphony about it? Was this an identity crisis? Or just more metaphysics he tried to resolve musically?

To me this was similar to his other obsessions played out in his music -- dead children in Kindertotenlieder and Symphony 9 (of course he had a child that died), man's fate in the universe in Symphony 6, ideas of heaven and nature in Symphonies 2, 3 and 4, his daughter's death and his own heart ailments that led to his death in Symphony 9, whatever the hell he was trying to project in Symphony 8 (read the vocal score to the first part sometime), other metaphysical aspects of life elsewhere.

The list of recordings cited above probably came from the Penguin Guide. Many people I know preferred Leonard Bernstein in this music. He recorded it at least three times and was in many ways the perfect advocate for it. Like Mahler he was Jewish and, again like Mahler, he had some conflict in his identity having been a husband and father that later becoming a gay man in New York and again later returned to his original role. I never enjoyed Bernstein's Mahler but many people I know do/did.

My preference was for recording that somewhat scaled back Mahler's psychoses such as those by Maurice Abravanel and Utah Symphony and Vaclav Neumann and the Czech Philharmonic.


----------



## janxharris

larold said:


> ...an unendurable 85-minute ordeal...


That's my experience.

It remains astonishing to me:

The BBC Music Magazine top 10
1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
*5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)*
6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896)


----------



## Enthusiast

The strange thing there for me is the presence of Mahler 3 in the top 10 and perhaps also the Berlioz, fine work though it is. 

And to the Mahler 2 doubters - as I said earlier ... it is a work you can spend your life exploring. It is not like other music!


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> That's my experience.
> 
> It remains astonishing to me:
> 
> The BBC Music Magazine top 10
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> 3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
> 4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
> *5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)*
> 6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
> 7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
> 8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
> 9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
> 10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896)


All lists such as this are extremely subjective even in the hands of conductors. I'd certainly put Beethoven's fifth - one of the most original of all symphonies - in the top ten but then I don't listen to it nearly as much as the Pastoral or the Eroica. And what about Bruckner? As for Mahler, his music is at the moment very fashionable, but if the list had been made when I was a boy, Mahler would have been nowhere. Just to say it's an interesting snapshot of opinion at that time.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> The strange thing there for me is the presence of Mahler 3 in the top 10 and perhaps also the Berlioz, fine work though it is.
> 
> And to the Mahler 2 doubters - as I said earlier ... it is a work you can spend your life exploring. It is not like other music!


I think you might find Mahler 2 and 3 are is most performed symphonies at present.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ 2 doesn't surprise me but 3 can be problematic so that does surprise me. It pleases me to hear that it is getting more attention, though. It has a lot going for it.


----------



## janxharris

Enthusiast said:


> It is not like other music!


But it's very much like his own music. The scherzo movement (middle section) sounds like Sy 1, 2nd mvmt and we are presented with all the usual Mahler idiosyncratic cliches.

Compare:


----------



## larold

_
It remains astonishing to me:

The BBC Music Magazine top 10
1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)
6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896) _

I wasn't surprised by this when I saw it in BBC Music Mag. It was a poll of 30 conductors, I believe, all (of course) alive. This means it represented today's musical ethos played in concert.

Over my time listening to classical music, about the last 45 years, no composer has more ascended to the concert hall than Gustav Mahler and his gargantuan symphonies. When I started going to concerts and listening to music about 1970 his symphonies were almost never played in concert. Then, thanks to the recordings of all of them by Bernstein and Abravanel (the first to do it in USA) and Neumann in Europe (soon followed by others) their acclaim began to spread.

Then, about 1990, they started showing up on concerts everywhere. I remember when the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Symphony played the Mahler 3 in concert about 2000, the first time ever there. In the last 15 years my local university orchestra played all the Mahler symphonies and Das lie von der Erde in concert.

I think if the BBC Music poll had been conducted in 1950, 1970 or even 1990 Mahler would never have appeared. But today he is more popular than he has ever been.

And, like it or not, the Resurrection symphony is a bewitching piece of music, a hybrid like the Beethoven 9th and Mendelssohn Lobgesang that begins purely orchestrally and then becomes a cantata with a quasi-religious message from a guy somewhat mixed up about the topic. Read the vocal score sometime and you'll see he isn't quite sure if you get to heaven or not and/or what it takes to get there.


----------



## Totenfeier

I've written extensively about M2 on TC, and everybody knows where I stand (I am, after all, Totenfeier), so just a few observations:
- Gun-to-the-head-you-can-never-listen-to-another-one: Walter, NYPO 1958.
-If anybody ever built a "Mahler Cathedral," it was Klemperer/Schwartzkopf/Rossl-Madjan 1962.
-The studio Mehta/Israel is excellent (not the Masada one. I don't get the Vienna love myself - may need a few more listens).
-I do not like Bernstein in M2 because it's always too Bernsteiney.
-I always love Tennstedt's take on anything.
-Scherchen is weird. Good weird.
-Kubelik is very excellent; he may have the most perfect Scherzo of them all.
-Blomstedt/SF is one of the most undiscovered gems of all time. Might be a close decision between him and Walter on the Gun-to-the-head thing.
-Vaclav Neumann deserves a very honorable mention, especially for overall tempo.
-Rattle deserves to be horsewhipped and hung by his thumbs for a week in the dungeon for what he did to the climax of the first movement with the CBSO.

So there.


----------



## janxharris

larold said:


> _
> It remains astonishing to me:
> 
> The BBC Music Magazine top 10
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> 3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
> 4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
> 5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)
> 6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
> 7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
> 8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
> 9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
> 10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896) _
> 
> I wasn't surprised by this when I saw it in BBC Music Mag. It was a poll of 30 conductors, I believe, all (of course) alive. This means it represented today's musical ethos played in concert.
> 
> Over my time listening to classical music, about the last 45 years, no composer has more ascended to the concert hall than Gustav Mahler and his gargantuan symphonies. When I started going to concerts and listening to music about 1970 his symphonies were almost never played in concert. Then, thanks to the recordings of all of them by Bernstein and Abravanel (the first to do it in USA) and Neumann in Europe (soon followed by others) their acclaim began to spread.
> 
> Then, about 1990, they started showing up on concerts everywhere. I remember when the Grand Rapids (Mich.) Symphony played the Mahler 3 in concert about 2000, the first time ever there. In the last 15 years my local university orchestra played all the Mahler symphonies and Das lie von der Erde in concert.
> 
> I think if the BBC Music poll had been conducted in 1950, 1970 or even 1990 Mahler would never have appeared. But today he is more popular than he has ever been.
> 
> And, like it or not, the Resurrection symphony is a bewitching piece of music, a hybrid like the Beethoven 9th and Mendelssohn Lobgesang that begins purely orchestrally and then becomes a cantata with a quasi-religious message from a guy somewhat mixed up about the topic. Read the vocal score sometime and you'll see he isn't quite sure if you get to heaven or not and/or what it takes to get there.


151 conductors.


----------



## Tchaikov6

One of my favorite symphonies, ever, and I still only have one recording- Abbado with Lucerne Festival, which I absolutely love. There are several other recordings on Youtube that I really liked, Bernstein's 1987 recording at the top of my list...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

It is a symphony that I like, but not as much as Mahler's 4th, 5th, 6th and 9th. I do think it is a tad bit overrated.

There are some really good recordings by Walter (1957 live), Scherchen, Stokowski, Bernstein (1963) and Rattle. Klemperer's studio account may be the best one to start with, although Mehta's sounds pretty spectacular as well if not particularly revealing as an interpretation.

The two that I return to the most, however, are these:

Barbirolli, 1970









Klemperer, 1965


----------



## Dimace

Tchaikov6 said:


> *One of my favorite symphonies, ever*, and I still only have one recording- Abbado with Lucerne Festival, which I absolutely love. There are several other recordings on Youtube that I really liked, Bernstein's 1987 recording at the top of my list...


Count me in the club!! *Monumental symphony. * With the right conductor, singers, etc. can blow your mind with its beauty. No other symphony in the human history delivers more tension to the listener. It is like an earthquake which in the beginning is 5 Richter and gradually becomes stronger till the maximum of nine. You can not hold back this thing. Amazing!


----------



## mbhaub

Dimace said:


> With the right conductor, singers, etc. can blow your mind with its beauty. No other symphony in the human history delivers more tension to the listener. It is like an earthquake which in the beginning is 5 Richter and gradually becomes stronger till the maximum of nine. You can not hold back this thing. Amazing!


Amen to that, and what's more, it doesn't take a world-class orchestra, a famous conductor, or anything else. Just real honesty. I was involved in a performance some 40 years ago - the first time that orchestra had ever mounted the work. At the end, when the chorus stopped singing - yet with another minute to go in the orchestra - the audience started cheering and clapping. I've never experienced anything like it. When the orchestra finished, the audience response was overwhelming - near pandemonium. Everything just clicked that night. Listeners and chorus members and orchestra alike were in tears. I imagine for a large number of the audience it was their first exposure to Mahler, or at least live. Thrilling. And no recording can ever capture those moments.


----------



## janxharris

Mahler's 2nd - a 'monumental symphony' or '...an unendurable 85-minute ordeal...'


----------



## Larkenfield

janxharris said:


> But it's very much like his own music. The scherzo movement (middle section) sounds like Sy 1, 2nd mvmt and we are presented with all the usual Mahler idiosyncratic cliches.
> 
> Compare:


The same old cliche of complaints... first about Mozart, now Mahler... "All the usual Mahler idiosyncratic cliches"? _Twice does not a cliche make_. Mahler often quoted others including himself. There's a quote from Dvorak's New World Symphony in Mahler's 10th.

If one is going to understand or appreciate a composer with any kind of sensitivity and intelligence it means understanding why he may have composed what he did rather than ridicule it. He's remembering songs that impressed him from his childhood and occasionally would include them in his symphonies.

The question is whether any listener can hear into the heart of a composer and his works, and some evidently just don't have the heart or the ears. The criticism about cliches and repetitions, whether it's about Mozart or Mahler, is about as surface as listening gets.

Anyone can express a thoughtless repetitive opinion that lacks any real depth of insight, but it's worth little compared to those who have something of value to say that's the result of a lifetime of not just hearing but_ listening_.

Listening is an act of will and those whose opinions are worth taking to heart have developed it and view a composer's works about more than two similar phrases taken out of the context of two full-length symphonies. Anyone can do that. And all it takes is a short MTV attention span.

Mahler's music is primarily intended for grownups and, again to emphasize the point, he frequently looks back in his life to the associations he has to both blissful and tragic events... and those who appreciate him understand this from the get-go and accept that as part of his character and personality as a composer. Otherwise, he's not intended for those who evidently live to complain... and complain... and complain... without having any genuine feel for certain composers, including some of the greatest who ever lived.


----------



## Jacck

Larkenfield said:


> He's remembering songs that impressed him from his childhood and would sometimes write his remembrances into his symphonies.


that is my problem with Mahler. His music is all about his pathetic "me". "MY remembered childhood", "what love tells ME". It is one overblown pathetic narcissistic morbid preoccupation with his own self, torturing the listeners for 1.5 hours with Mahlerian musical self-indulgent whining and self-pitying. Sibelius composed about the Finnish nature, Shostakovich about the absurdly-grotesque life under Stalin, Bruckner about God or nature, but Mahler about his "me"

PS: I realize that this comment about Mahlers music can be more about me, than about Mahler, ie that I psychologically project this into his music. But this is simply how his music affects me at the moment, my subjective reaction to me, what it evokes in me. It can possibly change in the future, when I understand Mahler more.


----------



## janxharris

Larkenfield said:


> The same old cliche of complaints... first about Mozart, now Mahler... "all the usual Mahler idiosyncratic cliches"? _Twice_ does not a cliche make. Mahler often quoted others including himself. There's a quote from Dvorak's New World Symphony in Mahler's 10th. If one is going to understand or appreciate a composer with any kind of sensitivity and intelligence it means understanding why he may have composed what he did rather than ridicule it. He's remembering songs that impressed him from his childhood and would sometimes write his remembrances into his symphonies.


I did not ridicule but you are clearly irritated by my opinion. For me Mahler is, in general, saturated with clichés - something I consider to be the elephant in the room. I also think he composed some fantastic music.



> The question is whether any listener can hear into the heart of a composer and his works, and some evidently just don't have the heart or the ears.


An apparent claim to objective superiority. Perhaps I have mistaken you? The thread calls fore people's opinions so what do you expect?



> The criticism about cliches and repetitions, whether it's about Mozart or Mahler, is about as surface as listening gets. Anyone can express a thoughtless repetitive opinion that lacks any depth of insight, but it's worth little compared to those who have something of value to say that's the result of a lifetime of not just hearing but_ listening_. Listening is an act of will and those whose opinions are worth taking seriously have developed it and view a composer's works about more than a few simple phrases taken out of the context of two full-length symphonies. Anyone can do that and all it takes is a short attention span like on MTV. Mahler is music for grownups and he frequently looks back in his life to pleasurable or sad events, and those who appreciate him understand this from the get-go and accept that as part of his character and personality. Otherwise, he's a composer meant for someone else.


Your attempt to denigrate is uncalled for. The complaint that Mahler's symphonies sound very similar is often heard. I don't consider music that just keeps reminding me of other pieces as that worthy; I value definition in music otherwise it all just becomes part of an amorphous mass of mediocrity.


----------



## janxharris

The OP:

As usual, the main questions of this thread are: *Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it? *


----------



## Art Rock

Love it, one of the few dozens of works that I consider the best of classical music ("best" as my favourites). Even so, his 4th, 6th and 9th I like even more.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Enthusiast said:


> The strange thing there for me is the presence of Mahler 3 in the top 10 and perhaps also the Berlioz, fine work though it is.


I personally rate Mahler's 3rd above his 2nd, fine work though the latter is.


----------



## DeepR

I've had my phase of being enraptured by this piece. It's hard not to be swept away by the great finale. The rest of the symphony is fine too. But for some reason I've barely listened to it anymore once I had heard it in concert.


----------



## DavidA

Jacck said:


> *that is my problem with Mahler. His music is all about his pathetic "me". *"MY remembered childhood", "what love tells ME". It is one overblown pathetic narcissistic morbid preoccupation with his own self, torturing the listeners for 1.5 hours with Mahlerian musical self-indulgent whining and self-pitying. Sibelius composed about the Finnish nature, Shostakovich about the absurdly-grotesque life under Stalin, Bruckner about God or nature, but Mahler about his "me"
> 
> PS: I realize that this comment about Mahlers music can be more about me, than about Mahler, ie that I psychologically project this into his music. But this is simply how his music affects me at the moment, my subjective reaction to me, what it evokes in me. It can possibly change in the future, when I understand Mahler more.


I think you could say this about an awful lot of composers. Schubert songs for instance! Just that Mahler lets it hang out more than most


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

janxharris said:


> The scherzo movement (middle section) sounds like Sy 1, 2nd mvmt and we are presented with all the usual Mahler idiosyncratic cliches.


Can clichés actually be idiosyncratic?

Anyhow, it's not as if Mahler was unique in "re-purposing" material he'd previously written. Beethoven got great mileage out of his Prometheus/Eroica theme, which appears in at least three works that I can recall, and the _Ode to Joy_ is practically a retread of the _Choral Fantasia_. I also find some motivic similarities in the finales of the 5th Piano Concerto and the _Les Adieux_ piano sonata. And, like Mahler, Beethoven found inspiration in the sounds of nature, popular songs and the music of other composers, Haydn and Mozart among them.


----------



## janxharris

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Can clichés actually be idiosyncratic?


Before I knew all of Mahler's symphonies (well, actually I still haven't heard the 8th), if a symphony of his came on the radio that I did not know I could, without fail, guess that it was one of his.

For example, he often emphasises the last beat of a bar - something I associate with him because he does it so often - so it's idiosyncratic (though of course other composers will use it) and a cliché. I personally find it irritating after awhile.



> Anyhow, it's not as if Mahler was unique in "re-purposing" material he'd previously written. Beethoven got great mileage out of his Prometheus/Eroica theme, which appears in at least three works that I can recall, and the _Ode to Joy_ is practically a retread of the _Choral Fantasia_. I also find some motivic similarities in the finales of the 5th Piano Concerto and the _Les Adieux_ piano sonata. And, like Mahler, Beethoven found inspiration in the sounds of nature, popular songs and the music of other composers, Haydn and Mozart among them.


You have a point but, for me, Mahler takes it to whole new level. He seems to be expressing the same subset of life experiences in his music in each of his symphonies. That's my perception anyway.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

janxharris said:


> He seems to be expressing the same subset of life experiences in his music in each of his symphonies. That's my perception anyway.


You may well have a point there, but that's one of the things I enjoy in Mahler's symphonies - I feel like I'm stepping into another world. I get the same feeling with Wagner and Sibelius, but not too many other composers.


----------



## DavidA

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Can clichés actually be idiosyncratic?
> 
> *Anyhow, it's not as if Mahler was unique in "re-purposing" material he'd previously written.* Beethoven got great mileage out of his Prometheus/Eroica theme, which appears in at least three works that I can recall, and the _Ode to Joy_ is practically a retread of the _Choral Fantasia_. I also find some motivic similarities in the finales of the 5th Piano Concerto and the _Les Adieux_ piano sonata. And, like Mahler, Beethoven found inspiration in the sounds of nature, popular songs and the music of other composers, Haydn and Mozart among them.


Handel and Bach were experts at it! :lol:


----------



## janxharris

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> You may well have a point there, but that's one of the things I enjoy in Mahler's symphonies - I feel like I'm stepping into another world. I get the same feeling with Wagner and Sibelius, but not too many other composers.


I do like some Mahler - Symphony 1 (1st and 2nd), Symphony 5 (Adagietto), Symphony 7 (some of the 1st, Nachtmusik I).


----------



## janxharris

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> You may well have a point there, but that's one of the things I enjoy in Mahler's symphonies - I feel like I'm stepping into another world. I get the same feeling with Wagner and Sibelius, but not too many other composers.


I like many of the Wagner Overtures and the Tristan Prelude (I am strill discovering his music).

For me, Sibelius's mature works are pretty much unequalled.


----------



## Phil loves classical

It is like watching the 1950's epics Ben Hur or the Ten Commandments to me. I really disliked it at first. Like a lot of Mahler music it came across as overblown. I was listening to Bernstein's version, which was another opportunity for me to bash his conducting style, and together with sort of music, really irritated me. But then I heard Klemperer's more laid-back version, as an experience it can be quite captivating.


----------



## janxharris

Phil loves classical said:


> It is like watching the 1950's epics Ben Hur or the Ten Commandments to me. I really disliked it at first. Like a lot of Mahler music it came across as overblown. I was listening to Bernstein's version, which was another opportunity for me to bash his conducting style, and together with sort of music, really irritated me. But then I heard Klemperer's more laid-back version, as an experience it can be quite captivating.


Perhaps I need to check out Klemperer's version because you experience is like mine. The last movement sounds, to me, like a poorly written film score. I've been listening to Claudio Abbado and the Lucerne Festival Orchestra.


----------



## DavidA

I must confess I feel sympathy with people who don't like Mahler. At one time I thought his music was just a load of strainings and heavings but I have got to appreciate it quite a lot now. So everything comes to him who waits...............


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> I must confess I feel sympathy with people who don't like Mahler. At one time I thought his music was just a load of *trainings and hearings* but I have got to appreciate it quite a lot now. So everything comes to him who waits...............


?????????????????????????????


----------



## Jacck

DavidA said:


> I think you could say this about an awful lot of composers. Schubert songs for instance! Just that Mahler lets it hang out more than most


you are probably right. Schubert's Winterreise is similar, it portrays the journey of a lonely man in a winter landscape desparately searching for love and is preoccupied with death (Der Lindenbaum), but for some reason or other Schubert does not provoke me the same way Mahler does.

Mahler said that his symphonies contain the whole world. To me it feels like his ego is bigger than the world and like all narcissists, he is preoccupied with his own death, hence all the rambling about death and ressurrection and similar topics. I am also in a minority, because the Mahlers best symphony to me is the 8th. I find it beautiful, although I dislike its theme. Again this narcissistically bombastic "bigger than world" theme - final scenes from Goethe's Faust about personal salvation and such grandiose bombast.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> ?????????????????????????????


See corrected post


----------



## Jacck

I was researching some info about Mahler as a person, because I wanted to know whether my assessment of his personality based on his music is accurate or completely bogus (possibly a projection) and it seems I was at least in part correct

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/oct/30/highereducation.biography

a pretty unpleasant chap with an insecure attachment style
"It didn't help that Mahler had insisted on her abandoning composition as one of the conditions of the marriage, which he laid out in a terrifying letter of December 1901: "From now on you have only one profession: to make me happy!... You must surrender yourself to me unconditionally". Not only a narcissist, but a little tyrant as well.


----------



## Becca

You need to put that in the perspective of almost 120 years ago, whatever we might think about it now, it was not that unusual an attitude or expectation.


----------



## janxharris

Jacck said:


> I was researching some info about Mahler as a person, because I wanted to know whether my assessment of his personality based on his music is accurate or completely bogus (possibly a projection) and it seems I was at least in part correct
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2004/oct/30/highereducation.biography
> 
> a pretty unpleasant chap with an insecure attachment style
> "It didn't help that Mahler had insisted on her abandoning composition as one of the conditions of the marriage, which he laid out in a terrifying letter of December 1901: "From now on you have only one profession: to make me happy!... You must surrender yourself to me unconditionally". Not only a narcissist, but a little tyrant as well.


The sad thing is that Alma ended up having an affair.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Art is not supposed to be boring. Mahler was one of the least boring of composers.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

janxharris said:


> The sad thing is that Alma ended up having an affair.


I'm not surprised, given the company she hung out with. A man with the name of Gropius seems pre-destined to be a bit saucy with the ladies


----------



## mbhaub

janxharris said:


> The sad thing is that Alma ended up having an affair.


Correction: Alma ended having _many_ affairs. She was quite a nymphomaniac and went from bed to bed to bed. Tom Lehrer did it best.


----------



## Heck148

the Tom Lehrer song!! I remember it well !! lol!!


----------



## janxharris

A difficult balance - time spent obsessing over your score and time spent with your spouse...it's no surprise that Beethoven remained single.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> The sad thing is that Alma ended up having an affair.


Nit surprised. Mahler was a toerag and a womaniser himself. When their child died he cleared off to the mountains and left her to cope with the grief and the funeral arrangements. He was completely self centred. He was unable to see ger needs - he thought only about his own


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Nit surprised. Mahler was a toerag and a womaniser himself. When their child died he cleared off to the mountains and left her to cope with the grief and the funeral arrangements. He was completely self centred. He was unable to see ger needs - he thought only about his own


I haven't read that he was a womaniser. What's your source please?


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> I haven't read that he was a womaniser. What's your source please?


BBC Documentary. Not sure whether he continued to be after marriage. He certainly couldn't see anyone else's needs but his own


----------



## DavidA

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Art is not supposed to be boring. Mahler was one of the least boring of composers.


Another of your considered opinions!


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> BBC Documentary. Not sure whether he continued to be after marriage. He certainly couldn't see anyone else's needs but his own


This?


----------



## DavidA

Mahler was baptised as a Catholic to get the job at the Vienna opera. the resurrection was just one idea that intrigued him at the time.


----------



## janxharris

DavidA said:


> Mahler was baptised as a Catholic to get the job at the Vienna opera. the resurrection was just one idea that intrigued him at the time.


So he was a Messianic Jew.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> This?


Yes. This is a good documtary


----------



## Woodduck

Jacck said:


> that is my problem with Mahler. His music is all about his pathetic "me". "MY remembered childhood", "what love tells ME". It is one overblown pathetic narcissistic morbid preoccupation with his own self, torturing the listeners for 1.5 hours with Mahlerian musical self-indulgent whining and self-pitying. Sibelius composed about the Finnish nature, Shostakovich about the absurdly-grotesque life under Stalin, Bruckner about God or nature, but Mahler about his "me"
> 
> PS: I realize that this comment about Mahlers music can be more about me, than about Mahler, ie that I psychologically project this into his music. But this is simply how his music affects me at the moment, my subjective reaction to me, what it evokes in me. It can possibly change in the future, when I understand Mahler more.


Your perception of self-absorption in Mahler's music accords with mine, and I know that it's shared by others (more than a few, I suspect).

One must begin by saying that such a quality in an artist's work doesn't preclude excellence and even greatness, but it does signal a tortured aesthetic we might call decadent Romanticism or perhaps proto-expressionism, either name apt for work, situated between the era of Wagner's _Parsifal_ and that of Schoenberg's _Erwartung,_ which cries out that the idealism of Romanticism has been lost but the cynicism of Expressionism cannot yet be embraced. An artist caught in that conflict is forced to turn inward to grapple with and express the reality of his own psychic life, which Mahler does unsparingly regardless of the subjects he nominally treats.

It's rare to encounter in the music of other composers such thorough self-reflection, self-dissection, and self-confession as Mahler performs in work after work. His famous dictum that a symphony "must embrace the world" turns out not to be an expression of openness to the objective universe but rather of total absorption in the convolutions of his inner life, and I find it interesting that he made that statement to Sibelius, in whose work the man himself seems largely submerged in the phenomena of the world in which he lived, the world of Finnish nature and myth. Maybe if Sibelius had had a little more of Mahler's grandiose conviction of the cosmic importance of his inner universe he would have left us that eighth symphony and more.

My own reactions to Mahler's music vary from work to work, movement to movement, and performance to performance, but my sense of his fundamental and extreme subjectivism has never changed.


----------



## Guest

Jacck said:


> I realize that this comment about Mahlers music can be more about me, than about Mahler, ie that I psychologically project this into his music.


Exactly so. For me, the jury is still out on whether Woodduck's (and your) analysis - that Mahler's music is "about" him and his inner world - can really apply. I do enjoy some of his work, but it seems more practical to criticise it for being overlong, bombastic and repetitive than for being "wrapped up in himself".


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> Your perception of self-absorption in Mahler's music accords mine, and I know that it's shared by others (more than a few, I suspect).
> 
> One must begin by saying that such a quality in an artist's work doesn't preclude excellence and even greatness, but it does signal a tortured aesthetic we might call decadent Romanticism or perhaps proto-expressionism, either name apt for work, situated between the era of Wagner's _Parsifal_ and that of Schoenberg's _Erwartung,_ which cries out that the idealism of Romanticism has been lost but the cynicism of Expressionism cannot yet be embraced. An artist caught in that conflict is forced to turn inward to grapple with and express the reality of his own psychic life, which Mahler does unsparingly regardless of the subjects he nominally treats.
> 
> It's rare to encounter in the music of other composers such thorough self-reflection, self-dissection, and self-confession as Mahler performs in work after work. His famous dictum that a symphony "must embrace the world" turns out not to be an expression of openness to the objective universe but rather of total absorption in the convolutions of his inner life, and I find it interesting that he made that statement to Sibelius, in whose work the man himself seems largely submerged in the phenomena of the world in which he lived, the world of Finnish nature and myth. Maybe if Sibelius had had a little more of Mahler's grandiose conviction of the cosmic importance of his inner universe he would have left us that eighth symphony and more.
> 
> My own reactions to Mahler's music vary from work to work, movement to movement, and performance to performance, but my sense of his fundamental and extreme subjectivism has never changed.


Mahler was obviously a great genius. There is no question about it. But being a genius in one area of life does not preclude having a difficult character or an obnoxious personality or being amoral.
My own reaction to his work changes not only from work to work, but also from time to time. I remember having been blown away by his 9th symphony the first time I heard it, but when I tried next time, the magic was no more there. I find listening to Mahler mostly emotionally draining and it is something of a chore for me. I try listening to him from time to time, but mostly prefer other music.


----------



## Enthusiast

For me coming to love Mahler was a strange case. It took time and seemed to depend more than most music on my mood. My first Mahler was 5 - which I loved from the start - but it took me quite a while to find another that I really enjoyed. It wasn't just the apparent problem symphonies (3 and 7). It was a while before I came to really appreciate the poetry of 1 - for a long time I just thought of it as "an early symphony" - and I felt that 6 was more admirable than lovable. I was OK with 9 but the others seemed like a mess with the powerful mixed up with the merely jovial and with whole movements when Mahler just seemed to be struggling to make music out of his ideas. Give me the rigour and discipline of Sibelius, I thought. 

But all of that has changed. A long journey, then, with lots of periods when I just didn't want to listen to Mahler. It was all so disruptive and messy and overwrought. But as I got older all of that went away and I don't know how it came about - it was something to do with deeper familiarity - but these days I feel certain that Mahler is, alongside Beethoven and Brahms, one of the greatest symphonists of all. And Mahler 2 is one of his greatest works.


----------



## janxharris

You may have a point but it is all rather vague. Apparently Mahler believed in the creator God but did not subscribe to a particular creed - and yet he also was an affirmed agnostic - which is quite contradictory. It would seem that the Resurrection Symphony was merely musing on _possibilities_.


----------



## Enthusiast

I do not see why Christian faith is necessary for one to find the idea (and the stories) of resurrection powerful.


----------



## Dimace

mbhaub said:


> Amen to that, and what's more, it doesn't take a world-class orchestra, a famous conductor, or anything else. Just real honesty. I was involved in a performance some 40 years ago - the first time that orchestra had ever mounted the work. At the end, when the chorus stopped singing - yet with another minute to go in the orchestra - the audience started cheering and clapping. I've never experienced anything like it. When the orchestra finished, the audience response was overwhelming - near pandemonium. Everything just clicked that night. *Listeners and chorus members and orchestra alike were in tears*. I imagine for a large number of the audience it was their first exposure to Mahler, or at least live. Thrilling. And no recording can ever capture those moments.


I cry, my friend! Under certain circumstances, like I live my last moments on this earth. Like I lost everything. There is no relief to me at the end. No resurrection, no hope. Nothing. It is a joke that Mahler named it Resurrection Symphony. I receive only condemnation, because I (the men) crucified Him. No one feels free after this symphony. I can see the opened tomb. I know that He has escaped from him to the Himmel and at the same moment I hear the voice of Mahler saying: Now you will take His place to the underworld! For EVER! I don't go often to the church… I don't need it, the moment I have this symphony and the 5th of Tschaikowsky. (another deadly, no happy end, symphony)


----------



## DrSardonicus

Enthusiast said:


> I do not see why Christian faith is necessary for one to find the idea (and the stories) of resurrection powerful.


Indeed, and I think this reflects in the listener. I'm as skeptical as they come, but the themes of Symphony 2 are still powerful to me. In fact, I prefer to interpret Mahler's conclusion in such a way as to suggest that whatever happens after death, we live on in the memories of those we've touched when alive.

Or this resurrection could be interpreted as a non-eschatological rebirth, a kind of spiritual cleansing. Listening to the symphony can have a particularly cleansing affect, a sort of resetting. Starting anew.

In any case, there's a strong sense of unification in the text to me. It doesn't talk heavily about dividing and judging, or casting people to hell and selecting those who are 'righteous' to heaven. It feels humanistic and inclusive, not divisive as Christian ideas of the afterlife can be, for example.


----------



## DavidA

janxharris said:


> So he was a Messianic Jew.


No he remained an agnostic. His baptism was one of convenience not conviction


----------



## DeepR

janxharris said:


> Perhaps I need to check out Klemperer's version because you experience is like mine. The last movement sounds, to me, *like a poorly written film score*. I've been listening to Claudio Abbado and the Lucerne Festival Orchestra.


Come on, that's just bogus.  The Abbado/Lucerne is quite good IMO. 
You could try Dudamel, although he does take it a little slow, it's still a great experience.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Excuse my rudeness, Zhdanov, but I wonder if you have read Umberto Eco's "Prague Cemetery"? He seems to be satirising views rather like the ones you are expressing in this thread.
> 
> But I'm not sure I follow your argument. Are you suggesting that Mahler would have got nowhere without a conspiracy on the part of the Christian elite to "use him"? He was, of course, foremost a noted conductor. Perhaps you will say that this elite were behind his success in this too? Why, I wonder. Where did his own talent and interests come in? Was he just a puppet? And from your argument (no one gets anywhere without the support of the elite) were all the other successful musicians of his time also puppets?


The emptiness of the argument is actually illustrated by the fact that Mahler's music didn't begin to be widely recognised till around 50 years ago. I suppose it was 'elitists' like Bernstein who were to blame for the propagation of Christian ideas? Or perhaps Bernstein was another used by the mythical elite?


----------



## janxharris

DeepR said:


> Come on, that's just bogus.  The Abbado/Lucerne is quite good IMO.
> You could try Dudamel, although he does take it a little slow, it's still a great experience.


I keep trying DeepR but it's not happening,


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

DavidA said:


> Another of your considered opinions!


Another of your substanceless responses


----------



## DeepR

janxharris said:


> I keep trying DeepR but it's not happening,


Fair enough. In the thread about Mozart's Jupiter you mentioned you like a strong narrative. Well, here it is. Couldn't be more different from the finale of the Jupiter. I'm just somewhat confused that neither of these pieces do much for you. Either way, giving the music a fair chance is all you can do.


----------



## janxharris

DeepR said:


> Fair enough. In the thread about Mozart's Jupiter you mentioned you like a strong narrative. Well, here it is. Couldn't be more different from the finale of the Jupiter. I'm just somewhat confused that neither of these pieces do much for you. Either way, giving the music a fair chance is all you can do.


The other element that for me is fundamental is a harmonic language that I find fresh and original. In general, I don't get that with Mahler.


----------



## DeepR

janxharris said:


> The other element that for me is fundamental is a harmonic language that I find fresh and original. In general, I don't get that with Mahler.


Alright. I don't know whether the harmonic language in Mahler 2 is fresh and original compared to... other symphonies around that time? I'm not qualified to judge and it doesn't really concern me either, when the music has such a great (positive) effect on me. Surely it's very accomplished in any case.


----------



## Malx

janxharris said:


> I keep trying DeepR but it's not happening,


For someone that doesn't care for this Symphony a recording I often put forward is Vaclav Neumann's with the Czech PO on Supraphon.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Some off-topic posts have been removed.

Please focus your posts on the thread topic - Mahler's second symphony and relevant music-related links and associations.


----------



## janxharris

The thread asks this:
Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it?


----------



## Zhdanov

janxharris said:


> The thread asks this: Do you like this work? Do you love it?


look, Mahler was a genius, he wrote music of highest quality ever imaginable, no opinion should count here, so we move on to what is behind his work as a composer and the real meaning of his music.


----------



## janxharris

Zhdanov said:


> look, *Mahler was a genius*, he wrote music of highest quality ever imaginable, no opinion should count here, so we move on to what is behind his work as a composer and the real meaning of his music.


Yes.

.....................................


----------



## GraemeG

It's usually a pretty special work in concert. Needs to be a dud performance not to catch fire - had I not still a program of Tilson Thomas conducting the LSO I would have denied having heard them play it.

And yet I can still hear the VPO with Levine, Battle & Ludwig thirty years ago as if it were yesterday.

The first movement is a grand tone poem - let's have the long break Mahler specified afterwards too please. The off-stage brass can be wonderful if the audience can behave quietly. And the end is all goose-bumps if done properly.

Love to play in it one day.
Graeme


----------



## techniquest

> And the end is all goose-bumps if done properly.


Doing the end properly (and recording the end properly) is a real tricky one to pull off; for me many a big-name recording is spoiled by the ending not having the clarity to enable all the instruments to shine (organ, bells and tam-tams especially), or just going too fast. 
For me one of the better recordings that does this well is the Oleg Caetani live recording on ARTS. It's never anyone's 'go-to' for the whole work quite understandably, but my word the ending gives goose-bumps a-plenty.


----------



## Larkenfield

techniquest said:


> Doing the end properly (and recording the end properly) is a real tricky one to pull off; for me many a big-name recording is spoiled by the ending not having the clarity to enable all the instruments to shine (organ, bells and tam-tams especially), or just going too fast.
> For me one of the better recordings that does this well is the Oleg Caetani live recording on ARTS. It's never anyone's 'go-to' for the whole work quite understandably, but my word the ending gives goose-bumps a-plenty.


Yes, one can hear all the qualities of the instruments that you mention. What an ecstatic ending by Mahler! I felt that I was ready to levitate.


----------



## Azol

I would say the performance isn't a ground-breaking one (referencing Caetani above) and the balance not ideal (capturing M2 Finale is every sound engineer nightmare), for example you can easily miss the first organ entry and it's buried somewhere deep in the mix later on.
Once again I recommend to try Ozawa recording. He goes definitely faster, but this Sony CD is a master-class of playing and capturing huge symphonic and choral forces at full stride. Check out the glorious organ, bells and tam-tam splashes!


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

I quite like the symphony. Don't agree about Symphony 3, I quite dislike that one.

I do have a reservation about Symphony 2, which I have about most Mahler (and Bruckner!). Way too long for the likes of amateur listener me.


----------



## Heck148

Oldhoosierdude said:


> I quite like the symphony. Don't agree about Symphony 3, I quite dislike that one.
> 
> I do have a reservation about Symphony 2, which I have about most Mahler (and Bruckner!). Way too long for the likes of amateur listener me.


just listen to one or two mvts st a time.


----------



## science

Re: the length: 

Years ago, a younger, handsomer, more naive, less restrained, version of myself bought a recording of this symphony - one of the first times I did so on CD! - and it was my first 2-CD work of classical music. I was like, "What is this beast?"


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Heck148 said:


> just listen to one or two mvts st a time.


I must admit to doing this.

That said, Mahler 2 is a fav of mine.


----------



## DavidA

Heck148 said:


> just listen to one or two mvts st a time.


And why not???????


----------



## techniquest

Azol said:


> I would say the performance isn't a ground-breaking one (referencing Caetani above) and the balance not ideal (capturing M2 Finale is every sound engineer nightmare), for example you can easily miss the first organ entry and it's buried somewhere deep in the mix later on.
> Once again I recommend to try Ozawa recording. He goes definitely faster, but this Sony CD is a master-class of playing and capturing huge symphonic and choral forces at full stride. Check out the glorious organ, bells and tam-tam splashes!


Video unavailable  Bah!


----------



## Azol

Oops. Plays for me though. It references the Finale of this recording: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Symphony-No-Ozawa-Gustav-Mahler/dp/B0000560OO/


----------



## RockyIII

I haven't heard any of the recordings mentioned above, but I like the live recording by the Cologne Radio City Orchestra (now known as the WDR Symphony Orchestra) with Gary Bertini conducting.


----------



## Larkenfield

My favorite recording after the Otto Klemperer/Symphonieorchester des Bayerischen Rundfunks, at least the most played and enjoyed, is by the Dutch conductor _Hans Vonk: Residentieorkest Den Haag._ I find something warm, glowing and luminescent about it even if the sound quality is not the best. Only the 1st movement is available online but it can be found in the Brilliant Classics collection of Mahler symphonies. I find the sound quality better on the lp despite the CD still being acceptable. It's not a flashy performance, but genuinely real.


----------



## 89Koechel

Well, after so-MUCH is said, 'bout the performances/recordings of this remarkable work … I've noticed that the 1970 performance (Bernstein) is now, available. A person can be quite-FINE with the Solti version, but the Mahler 2nd can have different, but equal .. or better … ways, in the hands of orchestras, or the batons, of a few. As can happen with Mahler, I'm truly willing to bet that there are very-FEW performances of any of his Symphonies, that are consensus-types of choices … from the many of us listeners.


----------



## flamencosketches

This is an excellent symphony. Perhaps my favorite of Mahler's symphonies, yet 4 and 5 are also very close. I have not yet heard 7, 9, or DLvdE, but I find it difficult to imagine that any of them might top 2. 

I love the Leonard Bernstein/NYPO recording, particularly because of the slow final movement. It's my go-to. But I also like the Solti/London Symphony with Heather Harper, which is the first I heard.


----------



## Xisten267

*Do you like this work? Do you love it? Why? What do you like about it? Do you have any reservations about it? *

I like it, but I have difficulty to understand how so many people can rank it so high. Perhaps I may reconsider in the future, but at the moment I prefer other Mahler symphonies such as Nos. 6, 8 and 9 to No. 2. The fact that the composer only decided the theme of this symphony after the death of Hans von Bülow in 1891, when he had finished most of the work already, suggests to me a lack of cohesion in it's meaning, despite it's obvious superb purely musical qualities. My favorite movements are the first and the third, and I do like the masterful use of a Schubert melody withing a mahlerian style in the second.

*And of course, what are your favorite recordings?*

I have it with Mehta, Svetlanov, Haitink and Bernstein. I have only acquired the latter's set of Mahler symphonies recently and have not yet listened to it, and from the other three I prefer Mehta.


----------



## Oortone

Allerius said:


> ... The fact that the composer only decided the theme of this symphony after the death of Hans von Bülow in 1891, when he had finished most of the work already, suggests to me a lack of cohesion in it's meaning...


I find the idea of "meaning" hard to apply when it comes to music, even in a work containing words like "Resurrection". What's the meaning of a musical work? Any answer, no matter how long, is trivial in comparison to the actual music.

The fact that some elements came late doesn't necessarily mean they are inferior, rather that they where the missing pieces for Mahler to finish the work. Anyone who has ever been involved in creative work knows there never exist a real master plan and that creativity often take turns one never anticipated from the beginning. The "idea" or "plan" behind a work is merely a way to get things done. I'm pretty sure a genius like Mahler knew the version completed was the best realization of his musical vision.


----------



## starthrower

Just got my Walter Columbia fatboy CD of 1-2 in the mail. I love both of these symphonies. Can't wait to put this on the stereo this weekend.


----------



## flamencosketches

starthrower said:


> Just got my Walter Columbia fatboy CD of 1-2 in the mail. I love both of these symphonies. Can't wait to put this on the stereo this weekend.


Yeahh enjoy!! I listened to both earlier in the week. Amazing recordings, especially the 2nd.


----------



## Guest

I still prefer the first recording I heard, Maazel/WPO, then on Columbia, now Sony. I more recently listened to Boulez' recording, which was very good. I especially like the first movement. The big choral finale is a once per decade listen, for me.


----------



## mbhaub

Baron Scarpia said:


> I still prefer the first recording I heard, Maazel/WPO, then on Columbia, now Sony. I more recently listened to Boulez' recording, which was very good. I especially like the first movement. The big choral finale is a once per decade listen, for me.


Wow. There are two of us in the world who actually like the Maazel. I think it's terrific. Beautifully played, not rushed, very powerful. But...it is one of Norman Lebrecht's most hated recordings. In his book Who Killed Classical Music? he lists it among the recordings that should never have been made. He was at the recording sessions and says the climate was tense - no one wanted to be there. I like most of the Maazel/Sony set.


----------



## Larkenfield

Bruno Walter was a marvelous conductor but I feel he was also something an arch-conservative in Mahler. He never performed or recorded the third, sixth, seventh or eighth that I know of. I don’t think he liked them. That’s almost half of Mahler’s symphony output, excluding the 10th for a moment. So while I believe he genuinely loved Mahler, I believe he also judged him rather severely. He never recorded the sixth because he thought it was too tragic and discouraging. But he could have tried and seen what effect it had on others. I think it’s one hell of a great symphony. The third is long but has a great deal of charm. The seventh is rather complex compared to the others but still reveals something unique about Mahler, perhaps related to the night and the dream world. The eighth was one of Mahler's most successful symphonies during his lifetime, but Walter never conducted it, perhaps because of religious reasons: the first movement was based on a Catholic Latin text and not Jewish in nature—both Mahler and Walter were Jewish—and perhaps he felt that Mahler’s conversion to Catholicism wasn’t genuine or sincere but mainly political so he would be better accepted in the community. In any event, I felt that Walter very much objected to or disapproved of a number of Mahler)s symphonies. Otto Klemperer also knew Mahler, but he played more of them, such as the seventh in his remarkable performance.


----------



## Guest

mbhaub said:


> Wow. There are two of us in the world who actually like the Maazel. I think it's terrific. Beautifully played, not rushed, very powerful. But...it is one of Norman Lebrecht's most hated recordings. In his book Who Killed Classical Music? he lists it among the recordings that should never have been made. He was at the recording sessions and says the climate was tense - no one wanted to be there. I like most of the Maazel/Sony set.


I also like the Maazel/Orchestre National de France Planets. Top that! 










I get that Maazel was a jerk. Was there ever a good-natured conductor? (Well besides Barbirolli.)


----------



## flamencosketches

Larkenfield said:


> Bruno Walter was a marvelous conductor but I feel he was also something an arch-conservative in Mahler. He never performed or recorded the third, sixth, seventh or eighth that I know of. I don't think he liked them. That's almost half of Mahler's symphony output, excluding the 10th for a moment. So while I believe he genuinely loved Marler, I believe he also judged him rather severely. He never recorded the sixth because he thought it was too tragic and discouraging. But he could have tried and seen what effect it had on others. I think it's one hell of a great symphony. The third is long but has a great deal of charm. The seventh is rather complex compared to the others but still reveals something unique about Mahler, perhaps related to the night and the dream world. The eighth was one of Mahler's most successful symphonies during his lifetime, but Walter never conducted it, *perhaps because of religious reasons: *the first movement was based on a Catholic Latin text and not Jewish in nature-both Mahler and Walter were Jewish-and perhaps he felt that Mahler's conversion to Catholicism wasn't genuine or sincere but mainly political so he would be better accepted in the community. In any event, I felt that Walter very much objected to or disapproved of a number of Mahler)s symphonies. Otto Klemperer also knew Mahler, but he played more of them, such as the seventh in his remarkable performance.


Sounds like a reach to me. Perhaps, like so many of us, he just did not like the work. Plus, wasn't Walter involved in the première of the 8th, a director of one of the choruses or some such?


----------



## Oortone

flamencosketches said:


> Sounds like a reach to me. Perhaps, like so many of us, he just did not like the work. Plus, wasn't Walter involved in the première of the 8th, a director of one of the choruses or some such?


Agree, Walter has also recorded a lot of Christian music, like Mozart's Requiem and such so it's more plausible he just wasn't interested in recording the 8th for artistic reasons or lack of time for that particuilar project. No conductor has the time to record every major work.

Also, there's no reference to Christ in the text unless "O Röschen rot!" is. The rest is about resurrection and angels which are ideas from the Old Testament, common to both religions.


----------



## Oortone

mbhaub said:


> Wow. There are two of us in the world who actually like the Maazel. I think it's terrific. Beautifully played, not rushed, very powerful. But...it is one of Norman Lebrecht's most hated recordings. In his book Who Killed Classical Music? he lists it among the recordings that should never have been made. He was at the *recording sessions and says the climate was tense - no one wanted to be there*. I like most of the Maazel/Sony set.


Isn't that often the case with great recordings?


----------



## mbhaub

Larkenfield said:


> Bruno Walter was a marvelous conductor but I feel he was also something an arch-conservative in Mahler. He never performed or recorded the third, sixth, seventh or eighth that I know of. I don't think he liked them. That's almost half of Mahler's symphony output, excluding the 10th for a moment. So while I believe he genuinely loved Mahler, I believe he also judged him rather severely. He never recorded the sixth because he thought it was too tragic and discouraging. But he could have tried and seen what effect it had on others. I think it's one hell of a great symphony. The third is long but has a great deal of charm. The seventh is rather complex compared to the others but still reveals something unique about Mahler, perhaps related to the night and the dream world. The eighth was one of Mahler's most successful symphonies during his lifetime, but Walter never conducted it, perhaps because of religious reasons: the first movement was based on a Catholic Latin text and not Jewish in nature-both Mahler and Walter were Jewish-and perhaps he felt that Mahler's conversion to Catholicism wasn't genuine or sincere but mainly political so he would be better accepted in the community. In any event, I felt that Walter very much objected to or disapproved of a number of Mahler)s symphonies. Otto Klemperer also knew Mahler, but he played more of them, such as the seventh in his remarkable performance.


Klemperer too had problems with Mahler - he thought the First was horrible, dreadful music and wouldn't do it. Walter was scheduled to record the Third, but the grim reaper had different plans, unfortunately. And I know we'll always disagree on Klemperer's 7th, but I think it is utterly boring. I wish he had recorded it some 20 years earlier when he was so disabled.


----------



## Oortone

Allerius said:


> ...My favorite movements are the first and the third, and I do like the masterful use of a *Schubert melody withing a mahlerian style in the second*.
> ...


Is that an actiual quote from Schubert you mean, if so which song?
Or did I misunderstand what you mean.


----------



## Oortone

Jacck said:


> that is my problem with Mahler. His music is all about his pathetic "me". "MY remembered childhood", "what love tells ME". It is one overblown pathetic narcissistic morbid preoccupation with his own self, torturing the listeners for 1.5 hours with Mahlerian musical self-indulgent whining and self-pitying. Sibelius composed about the Finnish nature, Shostakovich about the absurdly-grotesque life under Stalin, Bruckner about God or nature, but Mahler about his "me"...


One could argue that songs about "me" becomes songs about the listener hence songs about "you", the audience, when actually performed. At least that how I often feel when reading books written in first person perspective, that I'm the person in the story.


----------



## Xisten267

Oortone said:


> I find the idea of "meaning" hard to apply when it comes to music, even in a work containing words like "Resurrection". What's the meaning of a musical work? Any answer, no matter how long, is trivial in comparison to the actual music.
> 
> The fact that some elements came late doesn't necessarily mean they are inferior, rather that they where the missing pieces for Mahler to finish the work. Anyone who has ever been involved in creative work knows there never exist a real master plan and that creativity often take turns one never anticipated from the beginning. The "idea" or "plan" behind a work is merely a way to get things done. I'm pretty sure a genius like Mahler knew the version completed was the best realization of his musical vision.


"Meaning" for me is the logic that exists within a piece, not necessarily from extra-musical sources, and I understand that it is a quite subjective word, but I believe that it's fundamentally important for any composition and for performance nevertheless. To create or perform meaningless music is nothing more than "the art of making musical skeletons" in my opinion.



Oortone said:


> Is that an actiual quote from Schubert you mean, if so which song?
> Or did I misunderstand what you mean.


Mahler quotes a theme from the trio of the third movement of Schubert's String Quartet No. 13 "Rosamunde", D. 804.


----------



## Oortone

Allerius said:


> "Meaning" for me is the logic that exists within a piece, not necessarily from extra-musical sources, and I understand that it is a quite subjective word, but I believe that it's fundamentally important for any composition and for performance nevertheless. To create or perform meaningless music is nothing more than "the art of making musical skeletons" in my opinion.


Yes, but Büwlows death and your knowlege about how that influenced how Mahler completed the symphony are extra-musical facts. So the lack of logic you write about are constructed in your own mind from these facts you've read about in a book some hundred years later. I don't see how that can prove some kind of lack of consistency within Mahlers own musical vision. The fact that the symphony lay unfinished for years rather proves Mahler was waiting for some idea to complete it. Anyway we can never know for sure because we are not Gustaf Mahler.

Thanks for the source of the Schubert quote.


----------



## Xisten267

Oortone said:


> Yes, but Büwlows death and your knowlege about how that influenced how Mahler completed the symphony are extra-musical facts. So the lack of logic you write about are constructed in your own mind from these facts you've read about in a book some hundred years later. I don't see how that can prove some kind of lack of consistency within Mahlers own musical vision. The fact that the symphony lay unfinished for years rather proves Mahler was waiting for some idea to complete it. Anyway we can never know for sure because we are not Gustaf Mahler.


Mahler started his second symphony in 1888, composing first the Totenfeier. By 1893 he had finished the second and third movements of it, and knew that he wanted a choral ending for his symphony, but hadn't decided yet what was the overall theme of it and hadn't selected the text for it's finale (extra-musical sources of inspiration are common in Romanticism). This happened only in 1894 after the death of Hans von Bülow, when Mahler decided to use the text he heard at the funeral of his friend as the source for the final movement of his symphony. The last two movements of it were then composed, and Mahler decided that it's theme was redemption and resurrection. He even wrote a narrative programme for his symphony to try to explain it's meaning.

Considering what is written above, I believe that it's clear that Mahler had a structural plan in terms of macro for his new symphony, but I think that the link of meaning between the three first movements and the last two is tenuous simply because Mahler had not decided what his symphony was about when he composed the former parts.

That said, I would like to express that I really like this symphony. Perhaps due to TC's influence, it's one of my favorite Mahler symphonies at the moment.


----------



## Oortone

Allerius said:


> Mahler started his second symphony in 1888, composing first the Totenfeier. By 1893 he had finished the second and third movements of it, and knew that he wanted a choral ending for his symphony, but hadn't decided yet what was the overall theme of it and hadn't selected the text for it's finale (extra-musical sources of inspiration are common in Romanticism). This happened only in 1894 after the death of Hans von Bülow, when Mahler decided to use the text he heard at the funeral of his friend as the source for the final movement of his symphony. The last two movements of it were then composed, and Mahler decided that it's theme was redemption and resurrection. He even wrote a narrative programme for his symphony to try to explain it's meaning.
> 
> Considering what is written above, I believe that it's clear that Mahler had a structural plan in terms of macro for his new symphony, but I think that the link of meaning between the three first movements and the last two is tenuous simply because Mahler had not decided what his symphony was about when he composed the former parts.
> 
> That said, I would like to express that I really like this symphony. Perhaps due to TC's influence, it's one of my favorite Mahler symphonies at the moment.


One interesting thing about the theme about resurrection and redemption given what *Jacck* wrote earlier that there's a lot of "me" (which can be interpreted as "you" if we conclude Mahler is directing the work to the listeners) in Mahler's work. There's absolutely no doubt that the "me" in the text will be given a place in heaven. There are no doubts about the remission of sins, it's not even mentioned. That is very unlike the catholic Requiem Mass, another work on the resurrection theme, where there are numerous pleas asking for forgiveness. In my view that indicates Mahler's work is not especially religous.

By the way, I don't think it's uncommon at all not knowing what a work "is about" when starting up. So for me that's really no issue. I think the pieces fits very well together compared to many less interesting works, even by Mahler.


----------



## janxharris

I think I need to eat some humble pie - I think the first movement is excellent.

Listening to Klemperer's reading:


----------



## Tsaraslondon

janxharris said:


> I think I need to eat some humble pie - I think the first movement is excellent.
> 
> Listening to Klemperer's reading:


Klemperer is usually criticised for his slow speeds, but the first movement here is pretty fast, and a good deal faster than Rattle's Gramophone Award winning CBSO account, which strikes me as too slow.


----------



## DBLee

Oortone said:


> There's absolutely no doubt that the "me" in the text will be given a place in heaven. There are no doubts about the remission of sins, it's not even mentioned. That is very unlike the catholic Requiem Mass, another work on the resurrection theme, where there are numerous pleas asking for forgiveness. In my view that indicates Mahler's work is not especially religous.


That's a somewhat perplexing conclusion. Who except the religious hold "absolutely no doubt" that they will be given a place in heaven?


----------



## 1996D

This is a very interesting subject on what makes a great piece of music. Mahler got considerably better the older he got so the 2nd shouldn't be as renown but that's where thematic material comes in, and the 2nd has the most powerful and beautiful thought behind it. He converted to Christianity a couple of years after the performance of this symphony and while people now say that he was 'forced' to do so this symphony says otherwise. It was Mahler's redemption.

Technically it shouldn't be up there but themes make music just as much as craftsmanship.


----------



## Totenfeier

Tsaraslondon said:


> Klemperer is usually criticised for his slow speeds, but the first movement here is pretty fast, and a good deal faster than Rattle's Gramophone Award winning CBSO account, which strikes me as too slow.


I have said this before, but it bears repeating: for what Rattle has decided to do to the climax of the first movement, I work hard every day to restrain myself from getting onto a plane, flying to wherever he might be at the moment, marching up to him and, without a word on my lips, but implacable hatred in my heart, punching him right in the snoot. I would then kiss the hand of Magdalena Kozena, Lady Rattle, get back on a plane, fly home, and _enjoy_ Klemperer.


----------



## Oortone

DBLee said:


> That's a somewhat perplexing conclusion. Who except the religious hold "absolutely no doubt" that they will be given a place in heaven?


It might be me not expressing this the right way in English.

What I mean is that since the text completely lacks any doubt that the "me" will enter heaven and be with God, I don't think the person who wrote it (Mahler) was especially preoccupied with religious thoughts. That's what I mean when I write he has "absolutely no doubt" he will come to heaven. That's a bit like hybris.

If he'd been a true believer in God, he would have confessed his sins and plead for forgiveness. I mean, isn't that a central obligation (sacrament?) for a true believing catholic? At least that's a very important aspect of the Requiem Mass which is also about Judgement Day and Resurrection.

In my interpretation this text is not really about resurrection in the biblical sense.


----------



## 1996D

Oortone said:


> It might be me not expressing this the right way in English.
> 
> What I mean is that since the text completely lacks any doubt that the "me" will enter heaven and be with God, I don't think the person who wrote it (Mahler) was especially preoccupied with religious thoughts. That's what I mean when I write he has "absolutely no doubt" he will come to heaven. That's a bit like hybris.
> 
> If he'd been a true believer in God, he would have confessed his sins and plead for forgiveness. I mean, isn't that a central obligation (sacrament?) for a true believing catholic? At least that's a very important aspect of the Requiem Mass which is also about Judgement Day and Resurrection.
> 
> *In my interpretation this text is not really about resurrection in the biblical sense.*


The whole work is steeped in religious musical tradition, it was the final destination in Mahler's journey of conversion to Christianity. Of course today everyone wants to call every composer they can an 'atheist' or a 'humanist' but the truth is that were all deeply religious by today's standards. It was the culture that Christianity brought that allowed them to compose in the first place, and they all knew this.


----------



## Oortone

1996D said:


> The whole work is steeped in religious musical tradition, it was the final destination in Mahler's journey of conversion to Christianity. Of course today everyone wants to call every composer they can an 'atheist' or a 'humanist' but the truth is that were all deeply religious by today's standards. It was the culture that Christianity brought that allowed them to compose in the first place, and they all knew this.


I definitely agree they where more religious in general than people today, and of course the whole developmenet of Europe is grounded in Christianity. But the fact thtat there is no plea for forgiveness, don't you find that a bit contradictory if Mahler was "deeply religous"? How would you explain him being certain he's going to heaven and at the same time being truly religious?

Remember that the late 19th century we had many thing challenging religion, Darwin and philosophers like Nietzsche and others.
Maybe the difference between our time and Mahler's is not so big as between Mahler's and some 100 years earlier, the time of Bach and Mozart.


----------



## 1996D

Oortone said:


> I definitely agree they where more religious in general than people today, and of course the whole developmenet of Europe is grounded in Christianity. But the fact thtat there is no plea for forgiveness, don't you find that a bit contradictory if Mahler was "deeply religous"? How would you explain him being certain he's going to heaven and at the same time being truly religious?
> 
> *Remember that the late 19th century we had many thing challenging religion, Darwin and philosophers like Nietzsche and others.
> Maybe the difference between our time and Mahler's is not so big as between Mahler's and some 100 years earlier, the time of Bach and Mozart.*


Yes, this is true, but Mahler wrote his 8th about the eternal feminine, about the mother of God, which really can't get any more Catholic since this alludes to the fact that Christ was God. If Mahler had any Judaism left in him he couldn't have written this piece.

While the society around him was indeed losing faith, the evidence that he was a true Catholic is irrefutable. From the 8th:

"Virgin, pure in fairest mind,
Mother, worthy of reverence,
Our chosen Queen,
Equal to God."

"You who do not avert your gaze
From women who have sinned
Raise into eternity 
The victory gained by repentance,
Grant also this poor soul,
Who only once forgot,
Who did not know that she erred,
Your forgiveness!"

"Look up to the redeeming sight,
All you who repent,
That tries to bring you
To a blessed fate.
That every better sense
May serve you;
Virgin, Mother, Queen,
Goddess, be gracious to us!"


----------



## Oortone

1996D said:


> Yes, this is true, but Mahler wrote his 8th about the eternal feminine, about the mother of God, which really can't get any more Catholic since this alludes to the fact that Christ was God. If Mahler had any Judaism left in him he couldn't have written this piece.
> 
> While the society around him was indeed losing faith, the evidence that he was a true Catholic is irrefutable. From the 8th:
> 
> "Virgin, pure in fairest mind,
> Mother, worthy of reverence,
> Our chosen Queen,
> Equal to God."
> 
> "You who do not avert your gaze
> From women who have sinned
> Raise into eternity
> The victory gained by repentance,
> Grant also this poor soul,
> Who only once forgot,
> Who did not know that she erred,
> Your forgiveness!"
> 
> "Look up to the redeeming sight,
> All you who repent,
> That tries to bring you
> To a blessed fate.
> That every better sense
> May serve you;
> Virgin, Mother, Queen,
> Goddess, be gracious to us!"


I think you're missing my point.
It doesn't matter what he wrote or quoted later either. Even though at least what you quote here seems more religious. Interpreting Goethe's Faust is beyond me anyway,

I'd say Mahler uses the religious and famous motifs, which are familiar to the audience, to tell other things about life.
The Eight I know nothing of but the fact that there is absolutely no plea for forgiveness or confession of sins indicates the "story" in the Resurrection Symphony is not really the true religious meaning of Resurrection. Stating the opposite requiers some explanation on how it's possible to "forget" this extremely important detail - asking God to forgive him and save him.

Just to be clear, I'm not religious myself and I don't judge Mahler in any way. I just find it hard to believe a deeply religious person would forget to ask for forgiveness if indeed the work was about Judgement Day in the biblical sense.


----------



## 1996D

Oortone said:


> I think you're missing my point.
> It doesn't matter what he wrote later either.
> 
> I'd say he uses the religious motifs, which are familiar to the audience, to tell other things about life.
> The Eight I know nothing of but the fact that there is absolutely no plea for forgiveness or confession of sins indicates the "story" in the Resurrection Symphony is not really the true religious meaning of Resurrection.
> 
> Just to be clear, I'm not religious myself and I don't judge Mahler in any way. I just find it hard to believe a deeply religious person would forget to ask for forgiveness if indeed he the work was about Judgement Day in the biblical sense.


The 8th is based on Goethe's Faust, Mahler didn't write the words, but he chose to focus on certain things, and the music he puts to the words further clarifies his intention. The last part of the 2nd he did write himself:

O Pain, You piercer of all things,
From you, I have been wrested!
O Death, You conqueror of all things,
Now, are you conquered!

With wings which I have won for myself,
In love's fierce striving,
I shall soar upwards
To the light which no eye has penetrated!

Die shall I in order to live.
Rise again, yes, rise again,
Will you, my heart, in an instant!
That for which you suffered,
To God shall it carry you!

This is directly referencing Christ. The central theme of Christianity is that man ought to aspire to be like Jesus and woman like Mary. In the 2nd he writes about the former while in the 8th the latter.


----------



## Tchaikov6

1996D said:


> The 8th is based on Goethe's Faust, Mahler didn't write the words, but he chose to focus on certain things, and the music he puts to the words further clarifies his intention. The last part of the 2nd he did write himself:
> 
> O Pain, You piercer of all things,
> From you, I have been wrested!
> O Death, You conqueror of all things,
> Now, are you conquered!
> 
> With wings which I have won for myself,
> In love's fierce striving,
> I shall soar upwards
> To the light which no eye has penetrated!
> 
> Die shall I in order to live.
> Rise again, yes, rise again,
> Will you, my heart, in an instant!
> That for which you suffered,
> To God shall it carry you!
> 
> This is directly referencing Christ. The central theme of Christianity is that man ought to aspire to be like Jesus and woman like Mary. In the 2nd he writes about the former while in the 8th the latter.


Interesting, but I'd agree that the second symphony at least is more religious for Mahler himself... meaning it is not religious in the Christian sense, but a sort of Resurrection for Mahler himself. The references to Christianity were basically nothing but symbolism for his own resurrection, or the resurrection of his Titan in the first symphony.


----------



## 1996D

Tchaikov6 said:


> Interesting, but I'd agree that the second symphony at least is more religious for Mahler himself... meaning it is not religious in the Christian sense, but a sort of Resurrection for Mahler himself. The references to Christianity were basically nothing but symbolism for his own resurrection, or the resurrection of his Titan in the first symphony.


The focus on forgiveness is a very peasant-like interpretation of Christianity, conversely, Mahler understood it as Goethe did, which has an important element of humble submission to the Natural Law and the Laws of Nature, but is in essence a realization that man can be like God, that we were created in his image. This goes back to Plato and the tripartite soul, in which logos represents the part of man that is like God, while thymos and eros represent what we have in common with animals.

Christianity is about submission but also about being as much like God as possible, the proof that we can be, being Christ, who is both man and God--that's the interpretation that Goethe writes beautifully in Faust.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't criticize Mahler for using the idea of resurrection; he was cosmopolitan, so he had new ideas. Christ would represent a bridge to God, as Mary did, so this also has a "humanistic" element.

If Bruno Walter had some reservations, I think that should be seen not as a "stretch" but in the context that this was post-WWII holocaust, and Walter had an agenda to promote Mahler and all things Jewish. If he was "conservative," this makes even more sense.

Some off-topic posts have been removed, which deal with religion, despite the fact that this symphony is the "Resurrection" symphony, and is full of religious references.

Please focus your posts on the thread topic - Mahler's second symphony (ignore the religious content) and relevant music-related links and associations. Stay away from religion. Ignore all elephants in the room.


----------



## DBLee

Oortone said:


> It might be me not expressing this the right way in English.
> 
> What I mean is that since the text completely lacks any doubt that the "me" will enter heaven and be with God, I don't think the person who wrote it (Mahler) was especially preoccupied with religious thoughts. That's what I mean when I write he has "absolutely no doubt" he will come to heaven. That's a bit like hybris.
> 
> If he'd been a true believer in God, he would have confessed his sins and plead for forgiveness. I mean, isn't that a central obligation (sacrament?) for a true believing catholic? At least that's a very important aspect of the Requiem Mass which is also about Judgement Day and Resurrection.
> 
> In my interpretation this text is not really about resurrection in the biblical sense.


One can read large portions of the Bible that make no specific mention of confession of sins. Many sermons have been preached in which the focus is on something other than confession of sins. The thought of being resurrected and entering into heaven is every bit as religious a thought as is confessing one's sins. While I do not think that Mahler himself was a particularly religious person (in the sense of being a devout believer and practitioner), he obviously incorporated very religious thoughts into his compositions--none more obviously so than in the "Resurrection" Symphony.


----------



## Tchaikov6

millionrainbows said:


> I don't criticize Mahler for using the idea of resurrection; he was cosmopolitan, so he had new ideas. Christ would represent a bridge to God, as Mary did, so this also has a "humanistic" element.
> 
> If Bruno Walter had some reservations, I think that should be seen not as a "stretch" but in the context that this was post-WWII holocaust, and Walter had an agenda to promote Mahler and all things Jewish. If he was "conservative," this makes even more sense.
> 
> Some off-topic posts have been removed, which deal with religion, despite the fact that this symphony is the "Resurrection" symphony, and is full of religious references.
> 
> Please focus your posts on the thread topic - Mahler's second symphony (ignore the religious content) and relevant music-related links and associations. Stay away from religion. Ignore all elephants in the room.


lol I thought for a sec they actually promoted you to mod.


----------



## Tchaikov6

1996D said:


> The focus on forgiveness is a very peasant-like interpretation of Christianity, conversely, Mahler understood it as Goethe did, which has an important element of humble submission to the Natural Law and the Laws of Nature, but is in essence a realization that man can be like God, that we were created in his image. This goes back to Plato and the tripartite soul, in which logos represents the part of man that is like God, while thymos and eros represent what we have in common with animals.
> 
> Christianity is about submission but also about being as much like God as possible, the proof that we can be, being Christ, who is both man and God--that's the interpretation that Goethe writes beautifully in Faust.


idk what you are saying, man. I think you might be reading more into it than what's actually there.


----------



## Merl

Tchaikov6 said:


> lol I thought for a sec they actually promoted you to mod.


What a scary thought...... :lol:


----------



## Oortone

millionrainbows said:


> I don't criticize Mahler for using the idea of resurrection; he was cosmopolitan, so he had new ideas. Christ would represent a bridge to God, as Mary did, so this also has a "humanistic" element.
> 
> If Bruno Walter had some reservations, I think that should be seen not as a "stretch" but in the context that this was post-WWII holocaust, and Walter had an agenda to promote Mahler and all things Jewish. If he was "conservative," this makes even more sense.
> 
> Some off-topic posts have been removed, which deal with religion, despite the fact that this symphony is the "Resurrection" symphony, and is full of religious references.
> 
> Please focus your posts on the thread topic - Mahler's second symphony (ignore the religious content) and relevant music-related links and associations. Stay away from religion. Ignore all elephants in the room.


I completely agree we shouldn´t dig too deep into the religious aspect since it´s a sensitive aspect.
Might I also suggest you remove your own religious quotes (Confucius) ending your own posts?


----------



## Oortone

DBLee said:


> One can read *large portions of the Bible that make no specific mention of confession of sins*. Many sermons have been preached in which the focus is on something other than confession of sins. The thought of being resurrected and entering into heaven is every bit as religious a thought as is confessing one's sins. While I do not think that Mahler himself was a particularly religious person (in the sense of being a devout believer and practitioner), he obviously incorporated very religious thoughts into his compositions--none more obviously so than in the "Resurrection" Symphony.


Yes, but the symphony references Judgement Day.


----------



## Oortone

Tchaikov6 said:


> Interesting, but I'd agree that the second symphony at least is more religious for Mahler himself... meaning it is not religious in the Christian sense, but a sort of Resurrection for Mahler himself. The references to Christianity were basically nothing but symbolism for his own resurrection, or the resurrection of his Titan in the first symphony.


I make an interpretation similar to yours. That goes for a lot of art referencing to God, Jesus and angels from the 19th century and onwards. I don´t think those artists where atheists in a modern sense but the focus is not really on the religion either. They use stories the audence is familliar with and feel for. Sometimes it´s the Bilbe, sometimes it´s pagan stories from Rome or Grece, and even the old Nordic religions. And like all great works of art, the artists leaves a lot of room for interesting interpretations. In this case "Resurrection" can mean o lot of things in parallell with the obvious interpretation.


----------



## 1996D

Tchaikov6 said:


> idk what you are saying, man. I think you might be reading more into it than what's actually there.


You'd have to read Faust. In any case it's quite obvious that Mahler's 2nd and 8th are highly religious (albeit somewhat esoteric), for a non religious work of his listen to Das Lied von der Erde, which is about the various aspects of life and the beauty of nature.

All works of art have a philosophical meaning, and that's why art is culture, and not just decoration.


----------



## Tchaikov6

1996D said:


> You'd have to read Faust. In any case it's quite obvious that Mahler's 2nd and 8th are highly religious (albeit somewhat esoteric), for a non religious work of his listen to Das Lied von der Erde, which is about the various aspects of life and the beauty of nature.
> 
> All works of art have a philosophical meaning, and that's why art is culture, and not just decoration.


What?! How do all works of art have a philosophical meaning? What is the philosophical meaning of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier or Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20?

Anyways, I've watched the movie Faust... it's okay, wouldn't really recommend it, but I don't tie that in to the second symphony (although obviously it's the basis of the eighth). I still maintain that Mahler 2 is far more music-based than religion/philosophy based than you say.


----------



## 1996D

Tchaikov6 said:


> What?! How do all works of art have a philosophical meaning? What is the philosophical meaning of Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier or Mozart's Piano Concerto No. 20?
> 
> Anyways, I've watched the movie Faust... it's okay, wouldn't really recommend it, but I don't tie that in to the second symphony (although obviously it's the basis of the eighth). I still maintain that Mahler 2 is far more music-based than religion/philosophy based than you say.


Bach and Mozart represent how society was in their time, the order and spiritual enrichment of Germanic Christian culture, just as Michelangelo and da Vinci represent the high culture of Renaissance Italy.

The artist feeds off the culture; there always needs to be something to inspire greatness. Mahler represents nature for most of his works but the 2nd, 8th, Kindertotenlieder, and Das Lied von der Erde (which has philosophical elements in addition to the inspiration by nature).

Then you have those who feed off of other composers, artists, or philosophers when their society isn't inspiring enough.

*I didn't know there was a movie about Faust but it's a must read, it's philosophy disguised as art.


----------



## Tchaikov6

1996D said:


> Bach and Mozart represent how society was in their time, the order and spiritual enrichment of Germanic Christian culture, just as Michelangelo and da Vinci represent the high culture of Renaissance Italy.
> 
> The artist feeds off the culture; there always needs to be something to inspire greatness. Mahler represents nature for most of his works but the 2nd, 8th, Kindertotenlieder, and Das Lied von der Erde (which has philosophical elements in addition to the inspiration by nature).
> 
> Then you have those who feed off of other composers, artists, or philosophers when their society isn't inspiring enough.
> 
> *I didn't know there was a movie about Faust but it's a must read, it's philosophy disguised as art.


If you mean by philosophy a style of living then I'd agree. You made it sound like every piece has some deep philosophical message to say.

Yes, the movie is a silent film from 1926 that is more of an entertaining horror fantasy. I think I've seen bits of the Gounod opera too?


----------



## Oortone

1996D said:


> The focus on *forgiveness is a very peasant-like* interpretation of Christianity, conversely, Mahler understood it as Goethe did, which has an important element of humble submission to the *Natural Law and the Laws of Nature*, but is in essence a realization that *man can be like God*, that we were created in his image. This goes back to Plato and the tripartite soul, in which logos represents the part of man that is like God, while thymos and eros represent what we have in common with animals.
> 
> Christianity is about submission but also about being as much like God as possible, the proof that we can be, being Christ, who is both man and God--that's the interpretation that Goethe writes beautifully in Faust.


I also clearly hear Nietzsche speaking here. And Mahler also quoted him in his Third so there you go. That's what I said initially, Mahler is not deeply religious. A deeply religious person would never quote Nietzsche unless he was criticizing him. This is the era when mankind truly broke free from Christianity although they would still use a lot of it's myths, together with other non-biblical myths, stories and philosophies. And many traditions still prevail for a lot of non religious people of course, even some hundred years later.

Although the 2nd and 8th in one sense is about God it's not really about God in a religious way. For me as a non religious person I might say their concept and what they are trying to grasp is bigger than religion.


----------



## Oortone

1996D said:


> ...
> 
> All works of art have a philosophical meaning, and that's why art is culture, and not just decoration.


Art and philosophy can be connected but to say art always has a philosophical meaning is a completely meaningless statement as far as I can see. It requires some kind of united definition of "meaning".

Also there's no obvious and clear ditinction between art and decoration, or art and rubbish for that matter, either. A group of people, like us who loves classical music, can have pretty clear distinctions but from a philosophical and universal point of view that's arbitrary.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Oortone said:


> Art and philosophy can be connected but to say art always has a philosophical meaning is a completely meaningless statement as far as I can see. It requires some kind of united definition of "meaning".
> 
> Also there's no obvious and clear ditinction between art and decoration, or art and rubbish for that matter, either. A group of people, like us who loves classical music, can have pretty clear distinctions but from a philosophical and universal point of view that's arbitrary.


Thanks for the misquote


----------



## 1996D

Oortone said:


> I also clearly hear Nietzsche speaking here. And Mahler also quoted him in his Third so there you go. That's what I said initially, Mahler is not deeply religious. A deeply religious person would never quote Nietzsche unless he was criticizing him. This is the era when mankind truly broke free from Christianity although they would still use a lot of it's myths, together with other non-biblical myths, stories and philosophies. And many traditions still prevail for a lot of non religious people of course, even some hundred years later.
> 
> Although the 2nd and 8th in one sense is about God it's not really about God in a religious way. For me as a non religious person I might say their concept and what they are trying to grasp is bigger than religion.


There are many interpretations to Christianity and people of mental quality will have their own personal interpretation. It's no mistake that Mahler, Goethe, and Nietzsche all had things in common in their understanding. It's a mistake to disregard religion, and there is nothing bigger than it.

Christ represents the pinnacle of what a man can be, so much so that the people who saw him live could only conclude that he was God in the flesh. If God cares enough about man as to become one, then he is both powerful and good, and it's our understanding of events that's flawed, that we must strive to better understand.

The conclusion of all this theology is that the world is essentially good and that we can be good by following Christ or as Plato describes it, logos; which is reason and love. Thymos and eros are the 7 deadly sins, they are the desires and unruly passions that enslave us, the animal in us.

The big focus on forgiveness is felt deepest by those who can relate to having killed Christ, because that's what happened, he was killed. If however you follow logos and have good control over your disruptive passions, there is no need to focus on that; Christ is your friend who you love, not someone you bow down to.


----------



## Malx

I was at one point enjoying this thread about the music of one of my favourite Symphonies - if anyone ever hears me letting over analysis of conjuctural points about the meaning of musical pieces come into my posts, you have my permission to put a hit out on me.

In the meantime I will continue to use the time I have left on this earth to listen, wonder at and enjoy the fabulous music that composers such as Mahler took the trouble to create for us all.


----------



## Oortone

Tchaikov6 said:


> Thanks for the misquote


Whoops, sorry about that.
Corrected.


----------



## Oortone

1996D said:


> There are many interpretations to Christianity and people of mental quality will have their own personal interpretation. It's no mistake that Mahler, Goethe, and Nietzsche all had things in common in their understanding. It's a mistake to disregard religion, and there is nothing bigger than it.
> 
> Christ represents the pinnacle of what a man can be, so much so that the people who saw him live could only conclude that he was God in the flesh. If God cares enough about man as to become one, then he is both powerful and good, and it's our understanding of events that's flawed, that we must strive to better understand.
> 
> The conclusion of all this theology is that the world is essentially good and that we can be good by following Christ or as Plato describes it, logos; which is reason and love. Thymos and eros are the 7 deadly sins, they are the desires and unruly passions that enslave us, the animal in us.
> 
> The big focus on forgiveness is felt deepest by those who can relate to having killed Christ, because that's what happened, he was killed. If however you follow logos and have good control over your disruptive passions, there is no need to focus on that; Christ is your friend who you love, not someone you bow down to.


From a philosophical point of view can a person who is immortal really be killed? 
Whatever...

I'm amazed some people can combine a religious Christian faith with appreciation to Nietzsche but maybe that's what Mahler actually did. I guess you do that too and that's ok.

Maybe I'm more interested in the historical aspect here than the inner meaning of the religious thoughts expressed. What I see in the text of Resurrection Symphony (and also in Nietzsche) is the birth of the modern man, equal to and not really in need of God. Even if he in some part still believes in him.


----------



## Oortone

Malx said:


> I was at one point enjoying this thread about the music of one of my favourite Symphonies - if anyone ever hears me letting over analysis of conjuctural points about the meaning of musical pieces come into my posts, you have my permission to put a hit out on me.
> 
> In the meantime I will continue to use the time I have left on this earth to listen, wonder at and enjoy the fabulous music that composers such as Mahler took the trouble to create for us all.


In a musical piece with lyrics, do you find the text completely uninteresting?

I know many people do, and of course that's ok. Myself I listened to and enjoyed Mozart's Requiem for 20 years without having the slightest clue what the latin words where about. But then I was curious... And of course the text has a "meaning", and I find that interesting to know.


----------



## 1996D

Oortone said:


> From a philosophical point of view can a person who is immortal really be killed?
> Whatever...
> 
> I'm amazed some people can unite a religious Christian faith and still appreciate Nietzsche but maybe that's what Mahler actually did. I guess you do that too and that's ok.
> 
> Maybe I'm more interested in the historical aspect here than the inner meaning of the religious thoughts expressed. What I see in the text of Resurrection Symphony (and also in Nietzsche) is the birth of the modern man, equal to and not really in need of God. Even if he in some part still believes in him.


You can be equal to God only if you follow reason at all times--the death of Christ actually represents the opposite--he was killed because we are prone to act irrationally. When it's said that he died for us, it really means that he died to show us how stupid we are as a species, so much that we killed God in the flesh.

Reason and love are a rarity while emotion and desire abound; most people are not beings of reason and do not follow the good; being more akin to animals than to God. In other words, Nietzsche is only for a few, to help them understand themselves, and shouldn't be applied in a broader sense.

But yes, the 2nd is Mahler saying that he strives to be like Christ, and in a way he accomplished it, not nearly at the scale of the latter, but he is very much alive in his music, so for now he is resurrected.


----------



## Oortone

1996D said:


> You can be equal to God only if you follow reason at all times--the death of Christ actually represents the opposite--he was killed because we are prone to act irrationally. When it's said that he died for us, it really means that he died to show us how stupid we are as a species, so much that we killed God in the flesh.
> 
> Reason and love are a rarity while emotion and desire abound; most people are not beings of reason and do not follow the good; being more akin to animals than to God. In other words, Nietzsche is only for a few, to help them understand themselves, and shouldn't be applied in a broader sense.
> 
> But yes, the 2nd is Mahler saying that he strives to be like Christ, and in a way he accomplished it, not nearly at the scale of the latter, but he is very much alive in his music, so for now he is resurrected.


I'm pretty sure your own interpretation of Christianity - which you here present as some kind of Truth - are not shared accross the whole Christian community and probably not even with Mahler. But the Übermensch angle you present is definitely an interesting viewpoint given the time Ressurrection was composed. Mahler was for sure struggling with these questions.


----------



## 1996D

Oortone said:


> I'm pretty sure your own interpretation of Christianity - which you here present as some kind of Truth - are not shared accross the whole Christian community and probably not even with Mahler. But the Übermensch angle you present is definitely an interesting viewpoint given the time Ressurrection was composed. Mahler was for sure struggling with these questions.


The view is that Christ died for our sins, and sin can only be stupidity, because the root of all wickedness is reason failing to control emotion and desire. No matter how strong the latter two are, reason should rise above them, we should have the mental fortitude to do that. Composition is a good way to exercise that; great compositions show the greatness of the man, as does philosophy.


----------



## Malx

Oortone said:


> In a musical piece with lyrics, do you find the text completely uninteresting?
> 
> I know many people do, and of course that's ok. Myself I listened to and enjoyed Mozart's Requiem for 20 years without having the slightest clue what the latin words where about. But then I was curious... And of course the text has a "meaning", and I find that interesting to know.


I do want to know what the text/lyrics mean as they are often critical to a better appreciation of the music but I find the micro-analysis of what the composer may or may not have intented them to mean can become tedious.
I do appreciate that other people see it differently and will stand up for their right to do so - but I feel a thread that was primarily concerned about Mahlers's music has veered off onto an entirely different area of debate.

I will leave you guys to your deliberations - have fun.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Oortone said:


> I'm pretty sure your own interpretation of Christianity - which you here present as some kind of Truth - are not shared accross the whole Christian community and probably not even with Mahler. But the Übermensch angle you present is definitely an interesting viewpoint given the time Ressurrection was composed. Mahler was for sure struggling with these questions.


Each religion ultimately claims to monopolize the absolute truth, in doing so implying that all other religions must be wrong. This contest will never end, because only after you die, you get to experience if you followed the right path. Until then, you will be judged by other mortals. This IMO is the most uncomfortable aspect of religion.

Goethe, Nietzsche, Shakespeare, Freud are among the writers that questioned the position of traditional powers of religion and royalty/nobility in the 19th century, and to replace them with individual empowerment. No wonder many artists incl. many composers were influenced by them. Schumann, Berlioz, Wagner, Mahler were among them as they all clearly absorbed these storylines and theories in their work. This may clarify the unorthodox or even revolutionary mixes and re-interpretations of religious values and conventions.

To me, it is only refreshing if anyone takes a personal look onto traditions and I find it pretty tiring if traditions are being defended, often in the most humiliating ways. Funny enough, we not only have defendants of Christianity or other religions everywhere, but also defendants of anything traditional, be it the interpretation of a Wagner opera or the interpretation of a certain school of conducting or recording.


----------



## DBLee

NLAdriaan said:


> Goethe, Nietzsche, *Shakespeare*, Freud are among the writers that questioned the position of traditional powers of religion and royalty/nobility in the 19th century, and to replace them with individual empowerment.


He seems out of place among those names; but whatever Shakespeare did or didn't do, he certainly didn't do it in the 19th century.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude

Malx said:


> I do want to know what the text/lyrics mean as they are often critical to a better appreciation of the music but I find the micro-analysis of what the composer may or may not have intented them to mean can become tedious.
> I do appreciate that other people see it differently and will stand up for their right to do so - but I feel a thread that was primarily concerned about Mahlers's music has veered off onto an entirely different area of debate.
> 
> I will leave you guys to your deliberations - have fun.


It gets over my poor hillbilly head.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enough of religion and philosophy!

Can't any of you music-lovers get your heads around the idea of "resurrection" in a non-religious context? It happens every Spring!

My choice lately is Klemperer for Mahler's second, because the Klemperer/Mahler Warner 6-CD sounds great and it's cheap, plus I found out that Klemperer was bi-polar! That, and that he was Jewish makes it even better: no old nazi baggage like with Karajan or Fürtwangler (if that ol' Fürt did any Mahler).


----------



## Oortone

Malx said:


> I do want to know what the text/lyrics mean as they are often critical to a better appreciation of the music but I find the micro-analysis of what the composer may or may not have intented them to mean can become tedious.
> I do appreciate that other people see it differently and will stand up for their right to do so - *but I feel a thread that was primarily concerned about Mahlers's music has veered off onto an entirely different area of debate*.
> 
> I will leave you guys to your deliberations - have fun.


Yes, I agree and unfortunately I was involved in starting this detour from post #109 and onwards.

So I'll try to put the wagon back on it's track by talking music again:

Just last week I saw a performance of "Resurrection" in Stockholm. For me this was the first time with this symphony in concert and it was absolutely fantastic. Although the orchestra definitely could have used some more rehersals, especially the brass had a bit too many errors, the overall experience was one of my best concert experiences anyway. What great music.

Orchestra: Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra (Stockholms Filharmoniska Orkester)
Conductor: Christoph Eschenbach
I really liked his interpretation. Everthing was very distinct and clear, and the tempos spot on. The powerful passages where indeed powerful without being fatiguing although the acoustics of the venue are less than ideal.

I don't know if there are any recordings of this symphony made by Eschenbach though.

Soloists where: Marisol Montalvo (sop) & Anna Larsson (mezzo sop) and both did a great job. Marisol was partly singing "to the sky" instead of to the audience. A bit strange but at the same time adequate. I think it was a great idea. Anna seems to be a veteran on "Resurrection", her interpretation of "Urlicht" was very touching.

I can't wait to hear this masterpiece in concert again. This will be one of my must-go-every-time symphonic works. And I really only started listening to this symphony for real a few weeks ago. It has really made an impact on me.


----------



## Barbebleu

Oortone said:


> Yes, I agree and unfortunately I was involved in starting this detour from post #109 and onwards.
> 
> So I'll try to put the wagon back on it's track by talking music again:
> 
> Just last week I saw a performance of "Resurrection" in Stockholm. For me this was the first time with this symphony in concert and it was absolutely fantastic. Although the orchestra definitely could have used some more rehersals, especially the brass had a bit too many errors, the overall experience was one of my best concert experiences anyway. What great music.
> 
> Orchestra: Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra (Stockholms Filharmoniska Orkester)
> Conductor: Christoph Eschenbach
> I really liked his interpretation. Everthing was very distinct and clear, and the tempos spot on. The powerful passages where indeed powerful without being fatiguing although the acoustics of the venue are less than ideal.
> 
> I don't know if there are any recordings of this symphony made by Eschenbach though.
> 
> Soloists where: Marisol Montalvo (sop) & Anna Larsson (mezzo sop) and both did a great job. Marisol was partly singing "to the sky" instead of to the audience. A bit strange but at the same time adequate. I think it was a great idea. Anna seems to be a veteran on "Resurrection", her interpretation of "Urlicht" was very touching.
> 
> I can't wait to hear this masterpiece in concert again. This will be one of my must-go-every-time symphonic works. And I really only started listening to this symphony for real a few weeks ago. It has really made an impact on me.


Is this the same Christoph Eschenbach that used to be the concert pianist?


----------



## Oortone

Barbebleu said:


> Is this the same Christoph Eschenbach that used to be the concert pianist?


Yes, he's now 79 years old.
I didn't know of him until now.


----------



## Malx

Oortone said:


> Yes, I agree and unfortunately I was involved in starting this detour from post #109 and onwards.
> 
> So I'll try to put the wagon back on it's track by talking music again:
> 
> Just last week I saw a performance of "Resurrection" in Stockholm. For me this was the first time with this symphony in concert and it was absolutely fantastic. Although the orchestra definitely could have used some more rehersals, especially the brass had a bit too many errors, the overall experience was one of my best concert experiences anyway. What great music.
> 
> Orchestra: Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra (Stockholms Filharmoniska Orkester)
> Conductor: Christoph Eschenbach
> I really liked his interpretation. Everthing was very distinct and clear, and the tempos spot on. The powerful passages where indeed powerful without being fatiguing although the acoustics of the venue are less than ideal.
> 
> I don't know if there are any recordings of this symphony made by Eschenbach though.
> 
> Soloists where: Marisol Montalvo (sop) & Anna Larsson (mezzo sop) and both did a great job. Marisol was partly singing "to the sky" instead of to the audience. A bit strange but at the same time adequate. I think it was a great idea. Anna seems to be a veteran on "Resurrection", her interpretation of "Urlicht" was very touching.
> 
> I can't wait to hear this masterpiece in concert again. This will be one of my must-go-every-time symphonic works. And I really only started listening to this symphony for real a few weeks ago. It has really made an impact on me.


He did record Mahler 2 with the Philadelphia Orchestra but it is a recording I haven't heard.









Going by the timings of the movements he wasn't in a hurry, but timings don't tell all.


----------



## Oortone

Malx said:


> He did record Mahler 2 with the Philadelphia Orchestra but it is a recording I haven't heard.
> 
> View attachment 126713
> 
> 
> Going by the timings of the movements he wasn't in a hurry, but timings don't tell all.


Oh, there it is. Strange I thought I made a search on Spotify without finding anything but piano music with Eschenbach. That I will listen to. 
Thanks.

According to Discogs it's released 2009. So ten years ago.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DBLee said:


> He seems out of place among those names; but whatever Shakespeare did or didn't do, he certainly didn't do it in the 19th century.


Absolutely right of course as to the timing, I was thinking about the influence of Shakespeare on Berlioz in the 19th century. It seems that Berlioz got to know the plays of Shakespeare in France in the nineteenth century. I also think S belongs in the list, because he put a lot of psychological thoughts in his plays and he was and still is a influencer.


----------



## brunumb

Oortone said:


> Oh, there it is. Strange I thought I made a search on Spotify without finding anything but piano music with Eschenbach.


There is also a Philadelphia/Eschenbach M6 on Ondine.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

To help get this thread back on-topic, I have removed any posts that discuss only religion without also discussing Mahler, the process of composition and / or music in general. Clearly it would be very odd to discuss Mahler#2 without also having some discussion of the religious inspiration of the composer but this is not a thread for the discussion of religious philosophy per se. If anyone wants to do that then they're welcome to do so but discussion of purely religious topics is restricted to the social groups on TC.

I hope that's sufficient explanation for those whose posts I have deleted.


----------



## Oortone

Malx said:


> ...
> Going by the timings of the movements he wasn't in a hurry, but timings don't tell all.


The final on this recording is a bit too slow for my liking. I believe he was faster on the concert I visited but there's also the difference between listening at home and in concert. His performance in Stockholm was probably quite slow to.


----------



## NLAdriaan

A video of a Mahler 2 concert in memory of the bombing of Rotterdam in may 1940, taped in may 1990, released in substitute of a cancelled may 2020 concert.

The Rotterdam Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Bernard Haitink, at that time the Dutch master of Mahler.

I was in the audience, managed to get one returned ticket. It was clear that Haitink strongly accentuated the percussion and fortissimo's to resemble the bombs falling. It was a memorable concert, also because this was Haitink's first Mahler concert in the Netherlands after he left the RCO after +25 years for Chailly to take over. Haitink felt terribly insulted by this move. And now he would return to the Rotterdam Philharmonic, with the Queen in the audience. It must have been a consideration, as Rotterdam (blue collar) and Amsterdam (white collar) are 'rivals'. Johan Cruyff did the same after he left Ajax (Amsterdam) for an international soccer career and would spend his last active soccer season in the Netherlands with arch rival Feyenoord, promptly making them champion.

But all local color aside, I hope you enjoy this special concert.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The 2nd was the first Mahler symphony that I truly fell in love with and the only one I listened to for a long time before I decided to start branching out. To this day the final climax is perhaps my favorite moment in all music, always inevitably leading me to tears and goosebumps. Absolutely transcendental. Such an epic, ambitious symphony for its time. Of course there are certainly interesting points to make about Mahler's beliefs and why he would write with such a program, but the music stands on its own methinks. I do, however, think it may be a tad overrated here as it shows up in the top 10 most recommended works in all classical music in both the old and new lists - I would put that honor to the 9th or Das Lied, and I still rate the 4th higher than the 2nd. Still there's not a weak movement and I can see why it is so highly recommended. The finale in particular is quite amazing in how Mahler integrated an operatic/oratorio structure into the work and created a "symphony within a symphony." My only reservations come from recording deficiencies - the coda absolutely _needs_ to have a huge, jaw-rattling organ on full stops and resounding church bells that drown out everything else. Anything less diminishes the effect IMO.

My gold standard for this symphony has always been the original Bernstein/NY on Sony/Columbia. The palpable excitement, discovery, and dynamism makes every bar of this huge work mean something; and the final climax sounds like the heavens being torn asunder. I also like the very close early stereo miking, "artificial" as it may be to audiophiles. But then there is also Tennstedt which is a real heavy-hitting account, and Rattle/CBSO which deserves all its accolades IMO; thoroughly intense and committed. Abbado, despite his relative straightforwardness, also delivers a convincing reading in Lucerne (I've had an affinity for Abbado's Mahler ever since I learned the symphonies from his wonderful YouTube videos where his expert conducting and enthusiasm is tangible). A little beneath that level for me is Klemperer (studio, haven't heard the live or the earlier mono) who just lets the inexorable force of the music wash over you without much intervention - an approach I sometimes appreciate though I'm pretty disappointed by his finale. Then finally Walter/Columbia which is perfectly paced and conducted but simply lacks the requisite angst and drama for Mahler. Note to self: check out Mehta, Kubelik, mono Klemperer, Scherchen in the future.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Klemperer’s live 1965 Bavarian 2nd is the best of all his recordings of the work, IMO. The 1951 mono Concertgebouw has some intense orchestral sections and the incomparable Ferrier, but the choral finale is not as powerful as in his last recording.


----------



## Simplicissimus

There are several interesting ideas in this thread. I’m coming in late but feel like contributing now.

Mahler 2 is among my favorites of his symphonies, the others being 4, 6, 10, and DLvdE. I am interested in the Austria-Hungary Dual Monarchy in all respects, so I’ve followed Mahler for a long time, even when I was younger and found some of his music hard to appreciate. His self-absorption doesn’t bother me. It is characteristic of his cultural and artistic milieu, and anyway, the emotional and intellectual experiences that underlie his creation of the music are at least genuine IMV.

Like some other Mahler enthusiasts, I have developed the approach to the symphonies in which I listen to one movement at a sitting. I used to think this would ruin the overall artistic statement, but I can experience what one movement has to communicate and be satisfied. For Symphony No. 2, I most often listen to the first movement as a stand-alone tone poem. I listen to “Röschen rot” pretty often as a Lied. If I feel like an intense experience, I listen to the last movement. I know where these movements fit into the whole symphony with its resurrection theme, but I don’t feel I need to listen to the whole thing at once.

Apparently nobody thinks much of Stokowski’s 1974 recording of Symphony No. 2 with the London SO and Brigitte Fassbaender singing the mezzo part. I’m wondering whether people even take this recording seriously. I listen to it and feel like Stoki had something to say. I listen to Michael Gielen’s 1996 recording with the SWR Sinfonieorchester when I want a more straightforward reading. I also like the mezzo, Cornelia Kalisch, who was a favorite of Gielen.


----------



## flamencosketches

Simplicissimus said:


> There are several interesting ideas in this thread. I'm coming in late but feel like contributing now.
> 
> Mahler 2 is among my favorites of his symphonies, the others being 4, 6, 10, and DLvdE. I am interested in the Austria-Hungary Dual Monarchy in all respects, so I've followed Mahler for a long time, even when I was younger and found some of his music hard to appreciate. His self-absorption doesn't bother me. It is characteristic of his cultural and artistic milieu, and anyway, the emotional and intellectual experiences that underlie his creation of the music are at least genuine IMV.
> 
> Like some other Mahler enthusiasts, I have developed the approach to the symphonies in which I listen to one movement at a sitting. I used to think this would ruin the overall artistic statement, but I can experience what one movement has to communicate and be satisfied. For Symphony No. 2, I most often listen to the first movement as a stand-alone tone poem. I listen to "Röschen rot" pretty often as a Lied. If I feel like an intense experience, I listen to the last movement. I know where these movements fit into the whole symphony with its resurrection theme, but I don't feel I need to listen to the whole thing at once.
> 
> Apparently nobody thinks much of Stokowski's 1974 recording of Symphony No. 2 with the London SO and Brigitte Fassbaender singing the mezzo part. I'm wondering whether people even take this recording seriously. I listen to it and feel like Stoki had something to say. I listen to Michael Gielen's 1996 recording with the SWR Sinfonieorchester when I want a more straightforward reading. I also like the mezzo, Cornelia Kalisch, who was a favorite of Gielen.


I'm sure I've read before that Stokowski did the Resurrection Symphony, but reading it now it strikes me again as a surprise. It just seems like a work that would be so far outside of his wheelhouse. I ought to check it out sometime.

As for Klemperer, his studio second (Philharmonia) is just about my ideal though sometimes I do prefer slower tempi, and both Walter/NY & Bernstein/NY/Sony vie for the top spot in my estimation as well. But the '51 Klemperer/Concertgebouw is quite interesting too. It's the fastest Resurrection on record I think. But in the end I generally prefer better sound for Mahler. I hate the feeling that I'm missing out on so many layers of the music.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

First movement of that 1951 Klemp is intense.

There’s a legendary 1948 Walter NYPO in English I’ve never been able to track down anywhere.


----------



## helenora

> you are probably right. Schubert's Winterreise is similar, it portrays the journey of a lonely man in a winter landscape desparately searching for love and is preoccupied with death (Der Lindenbaum), but for some reason or other Schubert does not provoke me the same way Mahler does.
> 
> Mahler said that his symphonies contain the whole world. To me it feels like his ego is bigger than the world and like all narcissists, he is preoccupied with his own death, hence all the rambling about death and ressurrection and similar topics. I am also in a minority, because the Mahlers best symphony to me is the 8th. I find it beautiful, although I dislike its theme. Again this narcissistically bombastic "bigger than world" theme - final scenes from Goethe's Faust about personal salvation and such grandiose bombast.


yeah, just musically me too I enjoy finale of 8th symphony. If we don't think about a program (Goethe's Faust) he takes as a basis for this symphony then it is really enjoyable to listen to.


----------



## annaw

helenora said:


> yeah, just musically me too I enjoy finale of 8th symphony. If we don't think about a program (Goethe's Faust) he takes as a basis for this symphony then it is really enjoyable to listen to.


I love Mahler's 8th as well but its themes are certainly a thing I wouldn't separate from its music. For me, personally, it makes it only better although I consider it a part of the work as a whole. Goethe's _Faust_ is an immensely important work of literature which, while it may be called "grandiose bombast" though I myself wouldn't, isn't tasteless and dives deep into human psychology. It has had an enormous significance for the Western art as a whole. Personal preferences, I guess, though it's always an interesting question whether music that's dramatic and goes hand in hand with the drama, can and should be separated from the text. The composer probably didn't mean it to be so... 
I think Mahler was one of a few who had the abilities to do Goethe's work justice and he certainly used his skill well. It's a wonderful symphony (and so is the 2nd)!

(I certainly do not wish to criticise the way others listen but I'm just trying to provide a different perspective.)


----------



## regnaDkciN

flamencosketches said:


> Sounds like a reach to me. Perhaps, like so many of us, he just did not like the work. Plus, wasn't Walter involved in the première of the 8th, a director of one of the choruses or some such?


Plus, although it may be hard for those younger then myself to imagine it now, until Bernstein took up the "cause" of Mahler in the 1960s, Gustav was considered pretty much an obscure second-tier (at most) composer. Whatever Walter or Klemperer's opinion of the works of their old mentor, I think it's safe to say that very few record company executives in the 1950s or even early 1960s would be too enthusiastic about the commercial prospects of a recording of a Mahler symphony (especially since many of them required supplemental forces and would necessarily be two-LP sets with higher production costs and a price tag that would scare away all but the most devout consumers), when there were lots of Beethoven, Mozart, etc. of which there were still only a relative handful of LPs out, particularly in "newfangled" stereo.

I remember the bemused attitude among critics in the early '70s when Kubelik, Solti, and Haitink joined Bernstein in issuing complete sets of the Mahler symphonies. Surely, the thought went, there weren't that many people interested in those works who hadn't already filled the need with Bernstein's set. How on earth could you expect more than a few devout fans to purchase multiple cycles, especially with the cost of 16 LPs per box? Nowadays, of course, it's hard to find a modern-day "name" conductor who doesn't have a complete set out.


----------



## Barbebleu

It’s a joy that the eighth gets some love and respect on this thread. It and the second are my two favourite Mahler symphonies but only marginally over the other eight.


----------

