Mahler - Has His Time PASSED?
Markesten
what do you think?
Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion. A few
random thoughts:
In this day of a promised war without end, when the main casualties in such a
war are civilians on both sides, isn't Mahler's music a little too close to the
surface of the rattled nerves many of us suffer these days? Do I really need to
listen to the "Kindertotenlieder" after watching a TV report on the "collateral
damge" figures coming out of New York or Afghanistan to be made aware of the
sorrow that many in the world face these days as innocents are slaughtered? Do
I really need or want to have my feelings of hoplessness reinforced by music
that seems to dwell in a world of despair and nervosis?
When *is* the "best" time to listen to Mahler? Surely not *in the middle of the
game* while the world is living the horror that many would say his music
anticipated. Maybe Shostakovich, with his brilliant parodies of the empty
rhetoric of a bellicose military would better offer an antidote to the current
world situation. Maybe Bruckner whose structure serves in opposition to the
chaos surrounding us. Maybe French operetta with its typical dissection of
human foibles that allows us to not take ourselves so seriously. Maybe
*anything* that reflects true HOPE (as oppossed to empty, feel-good
slogannering): Fidelio comes to mind.
Throughout history, composers wrote much of their light-hearted fare during
times of personal or corporate angst, and some of their most dark-hued works in
times of prosperity. It's worth noting once again that Mahler wrote his
Kindertotenlieder *before* his children died, not after. One wonders if he
could have even approached the subject after the fact.
I can see how the Mahler revival happened in the 1960s. It was a time when much
of the civilized world was openly questioning the military-centered,
imperialistic policies of their governments. Mahler's music in such a time,
conducted by such avowed anti-war personalities as Leonard Bernstein, made a
great and timely statement, The music was virtually unknown at the time, and
its manic swings between euphoria and depression made a deep impression. But
back then, we were still observing war and destruction as something that
happened "over there," 20 years removed from WWII far from our own comfortable
little worlds. We had the time and the luxury of distance that allowed us to
consider the message of Mahler's music *in opposition* to our lives. We could
*feel* the tragedy that Mahler expressed, but as an intellectual exercise
rather than as a "first-hand" experience. An antidote to the age of free love
and flower power, as it were.
What I'm trying to say, and not very well, at that, is that Mahler's music may
be best appreciated when times are good, when one can step back and listen to
these works more objectively, as a *warning* of what could happen, rather than
a reflection of what *is* happening.
These days, I find myself listening more often to music that is more obviously
structured than Mahler. Ie: music that offers something as antidote to the
madness surrounding me. I don't know that I need a reinforcement of the horrors
that the world is producing right now.
I guess this was all prompted by my recent re-listening to all of the Mahler
symphonies over the last three weeks. The music didn't "hit" me the way it used
to. It was a rather numb experience, as in *lack of engagement.* I'm not sure
if that's due to the hypothesis I've laid out above, or if it's due to Mahler
being so over-exposed and over-played these days that his impact is quite
naturally muted, or if in my "older age" I'm finding the music is a little too
personalized to embrace the timeless appeal inherent in music as basic as
Beethoven's symphonies, but I do find myself less enamoured of Mahler's works
than I have at any time during the last 25 years.
Is it me, or is it the music?
Discuss...or flame, as you see fit.
John Grabowski
own feelings, though I haven't done anything as concentrated as a
listening cycle of the whole symphonic output in three weeks. It's
funny, though, that after the WTC bombings, all I wanted to listen to
for several weeks was the 6th symphony. It summed up how I think things
were going, though now I wouldn't paint the picture quite so simply.
But there are other times when Mahler's music, especially the later
symphonies, do NOT work for me. They can seem self-absorbed and
egotistical.
I've often wondered where history will ultimately place Mahler, who for
me can range from profound to pretentious. His devotees may say it
already has placed him, and placed him high, but I think it's still too
early to tell.
Anyway, just when I was about to check out of this newsgroup
permanently, dismayed with all the Jarl Sigurd nonsense postings, you
post something intelligent and relevant. Darn you! :)
J
--
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's
opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
--Oscar Wilde
Allan Burns
shops in this city are glutted with Mahler discs that only seem to be
accumulating dust. Personally, I've always had ambivalent feelings
about his music. I don't think he's nearly as universal or will prove
to be as permanent as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc. Besides,
he never wrote any piano music. ;-)
Allan
Samir Golescu
On 15 Feb 2002, Allan Burns wrote:
> I've entertained this thought as well, simply because the used CD
> shops in this city are glutted with Mahler discs that only seem to be
> accumulating dust. Personally, I've always had ambivalent feelings
> about his music. I don't think he's nearly as universal or will prove
> to be as permanent as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Chopin, etc.
I do. I re-heard today the Fifth with Scherchen in Vienna -- I prefer it
to the Philadelphia O-version, as the Viennese play their guts out for
Scherchen, all like on the verge of a righteous madness at the direction
humanity has taken, and are not so stuck in a limited concept of beautiful
sound as their Philadelphic (: counterparts seem to be.
What cheapens Mahler, I'm afraid, might be over-cinematized performances
that play out the latent psychedelic elements in his works, detrimental to
their "spiritual center", obviously different from (but not *radically*
so, i.e., rather sharing roots with) Brahms, Schubert or even Bach.
I remember a friend who told me once that Bach communicates to him the
truth of the afterworld in all its lucent glory. "But you're listening to
Mahler too?....." "Yes, Mahler expresses the truths I wouldn't want to
know about"....
> Besides, he never wrote any piano music. ;-)
I seem to remember that there are a couple of piano transcriptions
though... ( :
regards,
SG
Bruce Hodges
first became enamored of Mahler not because of any statements it might
be reflecting - political or otherwise - but simply because it was
such incredibly exciting music, of a type I had never encountered
before. The high contrasts - between large and small ensembles,
depression and joy, anger and compassion - were thrilling, since (to
my ears) I had rarely heard such a variety of emotions all in the same
piece.
And the sheer orchestral virtuosity required to bring off his works is
also invigorating. I still recall a performance of the Sixth Symphony
with Abbado and the Berlin Philharmonic at Carnegie: I invited a
friend with little classical experience, a listener more in tune with
jazz. She said afterward, clearly stunned, "I have never heard an
orchestra sound like that." She explained that she wasn't referring
to the Berlin ensemble as such, but WHAT they were playing and how it
made them shine.
In my current listening habits, I try to moderate Mahler a bit - to
walk a line between the urge to have a sonic apocalypse every day, and
the desire to "save" these pieces somewhat for special occasions - the
latter often a losing battle, I'll grant.
One brief example: After feasting on the Concertgebouw's recent
sublime performances of the Mahler Second (I heard it three times
live, and now have the CD that was just released.), I now feel like
hearing some other things that are completely different - no more
Mahler for awhile. (Well, at least for a few days.) The other night
I reveled in a live performance of Sofia Gubaidulina's "De profundis"
for solo accordion. Last night I finally got around to exploring some
more of Marc-Andre Hamelin's recent CD called "Kaleidoscope," a
collection of deliriously showy little pieces for solo piano.
But I know at some point I will crave the overwhelming experience that
Mahler offers (I should add, "when well-performed") whatever my
emotional state or the status of the world.
Oh, one last thought: last fall, Claudio Abbado and the Berlin
Philharmonic came to Carnegie Hall, originally to present the Mahler
Seventh. I was REALLY looking forward to this. As fate would have
it, they arrived a few weeks after September 11, and chose to change
the line-up to Beethoven's Fifth and Sixth Symphonies - the rationale
being, I assume, that the Beethoven works would give more solace than
the dark, rather strange M7. Well...even as a New Yorker who lives
fairly close to the W.T.C. site, I couldn't help but feel a bit
disappointed. I would love to have heard that Mahler at that time -
especially played by those forces. Granted, if you're going to hear
those Beethoven pieces, you could do far worse than Abbado and Berlin,
but still, I resented the implication that the Mahler Seventh offered
NO solace.
An interesting topic. Thanks for spurring all these thoughts.
Frank Berger
more Bach and Beethoven disks, generally, than Mahler. What do you want
to conclude about them?
Brian Cantin
I find your remarks ahistorical. Most of the 20th century was marked
by unimaginable horrors. It is true that most of those horrors did
not actually happen in the United States. However, during most of the
later part of the century, the United States lived under the threat of
nuclear annihilation. The threat posed by terrorists pales in
comparison.
Your remarks about Mahler being overplayed are more on the mark. It
has gotten to the point where Mahler is heard in the orchestra halls
as much as Beethoven and Brahms. The impact of these three composers
diminishes as a consequence of overplaying.
--
Brian Cantin
An advocate of poisonous individualism.
To reply via email, replace "dcantin" with "bcantin".
Alain Dagher
Auschwitz was barbaric.I don't agree with this view, in general. One
might just quote Emily Dickinson's poem "After great pain a formal
feeling comes ..." to refute the notion.
In the case of Mahler I also disagree. You are only focussing on one
aspect of Mahler - what one might call the death obsession. There are
many other emotional aspects in his work (in fact overall he has quite a
large emotional spectrum). The upliftingly positive is there in the
finales of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th for instance, and of course in the
incredibly beautiful final movement of Das Lied von der Erde.
But even ignoring that, Mahler will survive purely as a musical genius
and innovator, and as a supreme technician of orchestral writing. He
revolutionized classical music starting with the first note of the 1st
symphony.
cheers,
Alain
ulvi
> Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite view,
> what do you think?
>
> Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion.
Mahler's time has come and stayed. His revival is over simply because he
is revived. He is as much part of the "picture" as Brahms and Schubert.
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
ulvi
> I've often wondered where history will ultimately place Mahler, who for
> me can range from profound to pretentious. His devotees may say it
> already has placed him, and placed him high, but I think it's still too
> early to tell.
There is no permanent placement in history. Composers go in and out of
fashion all the time. For listeners, with the information revolution, almost
all music is timeless since recordings can now be preserved indefinitely.
Mahler has been "fashionable" in the last fifty years as his music underwent
a revival; now that the revival is over he may not be "all the rage" anymore,
but this doesn't mean he is out any more than Beethoven or Brahms are out.
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
Simon Roberts
>
>I do. I re-heard today the Fifth with Scherchen in Vienna -- I prefer it
>to the Philadelphia O-version, as the Viennese play their guts out for
>Scherchen, all like on the verge of a righteous madness at the direction
>humanity has taken, and are not so stuck in a limited concept of beautiful
>sound as their Philadelphic (: counterparts seem to be.
The Scherchen 5th's adagietto strikes me as making the best possible case
for a slow interpretation of that movement; at any rate, I find it more
moving than any other slow performance (indluding his Philadelphia
performance). I don't really care for the rest of it, though....
Simon
Samir Golescu
Funny. My favorite is the second mvt. It has an "aesthetically sound"
insanity and a masterfully controlled risque, even chaotic quality.
I also love the rough, shaky trumpet in the very beginning. A sound like
that you don't hear no more(: (or don't *want* to hear no more? (:). It
has a picturesque, adequate "creepiness".
In a quite different register I like Walter's "spiritualized" ways
with this symphony too.
I agree with your observation on the Adagietto, with the amendment that I
still prefer the fastest versions -- Mengelberg, obviously, and Walter,
particularly in his early ViennaPO recording. Scherchen is about the
slowest I can take (please, do not mention Bernstein (-:).
regards,
SG
Matthew B. Tepper
news:3C6D5C80...@dal.frb.org:
> I doubt anyone has spent more time in used CD shops than I. There are
> more Bach and Beethoven disks, generally, than Mahler. What do you want
> to conclude about them?
Actually, what I've been noticing lately in used CD stores is that more and
more copies are showing up of the various mockera issues. Still sealed.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
ESH Tooter
funny, though, that after the WTC bombings, all I wanted to listen to
for several weeks was the 6th symphony. It summed up how I think things
were going, though now I wouldn't paint the picture quite so simply. >>
Very interesting. I was in NYC the weekend before Sept. 11th and stopped at
Tower. The only CD I bought was Zander's Mahler's 6th. Then the awful event
happened, and I hadn't yet listened to my new CD - hadn't even unwrapped it. I
found I had a tremendous craving to hear the last movement, and when I put it
on, it was, as I expected, a musical painting of the catastrophe.
I listened to many other things that week, most were a balm to the event, but
the Mahler and Wolf's Feuerreiter answered different needs, like rubbernecking
at an auto accident.
In response to the question asked, for me the only problem with Mahler's music
as I get older is that there is not enough of it; it's all familiar.
Tooter
Tooter
ESH Tooter
for a slow interpretation of that movement; at any rate, I find it more
moving than any other slow performance (indluding his Philadelphia
performance). I don't really care for the rest of it, though....
>>
I think the biggest problem with the slow mvt in the Philadelphia performance
is the sound quality. I've never bought the notion that this movement can't be
both about love and death. Love is the balm that makes death bearable.
Tooter
Samir Golescu
On 15 Feb 2002, ESH Tooter wrote:
> I think the biggest problem with the slow mvt in the Philadelphia performance
> is the sound quality. I've never bought the notion that this movement
> can't be both about love and death. Love is the balm that makes death
> bearable.
Those who knew Alma might have argued that death was the balm that made
marriage bearable.
regards,
SG
Ward Hardman
: Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite view,
: what do you think?
: Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion. A few
: random thoughts:
: In this day of a promised war without end, when the main casualties in such a
: war are civilians on both sides, isn't Mahler's music a little too close to the
: surface of the rattled nerves many of us suffer these days? Do I really need to
: listen to the "Kindertotenlieder" after watching a TV report on the "collateral
: damge" figures coming out of New York or Afghanistan to be made aware of the
: sorrow that many in the world face these days as innocents are slaughtered? Do
: I really need or want to have my feelings of hoplessness reinforced by music
: that seems to dwell in a world of despair and nervosis?
Sibelius' 4th and Mozart's 40th, not to mention the funeral march of Beethoven's
3rd are profoundly pessimistic too. Have you found them too stark for
current listening? Sometimes something tragic will make the current travails
seem less oppressive, rather than more.
My own antidote for depression is to pull down my ancient copy of J.B. Bury's
"History of Greece," open it at random and read 20-40 pages of it. By then,
I have seen so many assassinations, battles, plagues, earthquakes,
conflagrations, floods, invasions, sieges, famines, etc. that I can replace
the book on the shelf and tell myself, "My own problems are nothing compared
to that!"
: When *is* the "best" time to listen to Mahler? Surely not *in the middle of the
: game* while the world is living the horror that many would say his music
: anticipated. Maybe Shostakovich, with his brilliant parodies of the empty
: rhetoric of a bellicose military would better offer an antidote to the current
: world situation. Maybe Bruckner whose structure serves in opposition to the
: chaos surrounding us.
Is free-form threnody less affecting than formal, abstract art which is not
specifically "telling a story"? When I first started listening to Mahler,
I was 16 and a senior in high school. All I could find was Walter's 1954
Mahler #1. When I was a junior in college it was still hard to find Mahler
recordings... I had to take the train from New Haven to New York to try to
find more Mahler (c. 1957). All I could find was Walter's 4 and 5, plus
Klemperer's Vox #2. (Sam Goody and the Record Hunter were just about the
only record stores in NYC in those days.) Later I found the Flipse #6 on
Epic. I never even *met* anybody who had ever laid eyes on some of the
rarer items, like F. Charles Adler's #3 and #6. Walter's Resurrection
came out around a year or so later, but it wasn't 'til the '60s that Mahler
could be found in any quantity. (A lot of this was due to Bernstein.
I don't think that he was doing his series because of opposition to the
Viet Nam war [take that for a long run of bad news!], but because there
was beginning to be a swell of interest in the music.)
I remember going to the start of the L.A. Philharmonic season in '69 and
seeing some demonstrators bearing picket signs outside: "For Shame -
No Mahler!"
: Maybe French operetta with its typical dissection of
In the '60s, Mahler was "anti-establishment." Some conductors, like Karajan
and Beecham had never played his music. In the '80s, Messaien's music was
in an analogous position (even though some of it was 40 years old).
: These days, I find myself listening more often to music that is more obviously
: structured than Mahler. Ie: music that offers something as antidote to the
: madness surrounding me. I don't know that I need a reinforcement of the horrors
: that the world is producing right now.
: I guess this was all prompted by my recent re-listening to all of the Mahler
: symphonies over the last three weeks. The music didn't "hit" me the way it used
: to. It was a rather numb experience, as in *lack of engagement.* I'm not sure
: if that's due to the hypothesis I've laid out above, or if it's due to Mahler
: being so over-exposed and over-played these days that his impact is quite
: naturally muted, or if in my "older age" I'm finding the music is a little too
: personalized to embrace the timeless appeal inherent in music as basic as
: Beethoven's symphonies, but I do find myself less enamoured of Mahler's works
: than I have at any time during the last 25 years.
Whose performances did you audition? I've never gotten through parts of the
DGG Bernstein box I got several years back for $40 (+S&H) from BMG. But their
time shall come!
: Is it me, or is it the music?
The music hasn't changed, it must be you. Don't worry though, you will
continue to change. ;-)
(Were you "engaged" with the music, or using it as background?)
I still say the best antidote to tragedy is more tragedy. Play Sibelius #4,
then go back to Mahler's 6th. (Don't forget to turn the volume *way* up!)
Or play the "Abschied" and think of a friend or love you've lost. :-(
--Ward Hardman
Classical Olympics Motto: "Delius, Sibelius, Stradivarius!"
Allan Burns
> I doubt anyone has spent more time in used CD shops than I.
> There are more Bach and Beethoven disks, generally, than
> Mahler. What do you want to conclude about them?
Proportionate to the # of both Mahler's works & the recordings of
them, the # of discarded Mahler discs (in this city at least, which
may or may not be representative in this instance) strikes me as
unusually high. My evidence is only anecdotal & was obviously not
intended in any way to be conclusive. I mentioned it only because: a)
the original post reminded me of a thought that had crossed my mind a
few times recently & b) my point was something that has to do with
classical recordings.
Let me add that I have no interest in entering a protracted debate
over Mahler's stature & reputation. Even if I were interested, this
forum would not be the appropriate place for such a debate.
Allan
Allan Burns
> I seem to remember that there are a couple of piano transcriptions
> though... ( :
I confess my ignorance (yet again). Can you comment on these & on any recordings?
Allan
Raymond Hall
news:20020215110029...@mb-cu.aol.com...
| Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite
view,
| what do you think?
|
| Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion. A
few
| random thoughts:
[thoughtful question, snipped .....]
Mahler's time (regarding the phrase purely in a fashion sense), has indeed
come and GONE. But his music will always remain, but may not strike us as
potently as it once did. Mahler is here to stay, but Bruckner will be the
more solidly enduring master.
I have to be in the right mood for Mahler (haven't listened to him for
months), and it is interesting what you say about his popularity in the
sixties. There are many reasons imho :-
Bernstein's advocacy (and of course, he wasn't the first, so don't get me
wrong), the advent of technology that could finally contain his long
symphonies, but primarily the fifties and sixties which were far more
frivolous and silly in mood, compared to the deadly serious "bottom line"
pragmatism of today. Indeed, euphoria that a World War had finished
permeated Western Europe especially (free love, the Hippies, Doris Day,
Brigitte Bardot, Woodstock, true Hollywood glamour and not the gruesome
photo opportunities of Melanie Griffiths or Madonna minutes after crawling
out of bed that permeate today's Women's magazines).
In those less troublesome but (poorer materialistically) days in Western
Europe, I believe people were generally happier. When generally happy,
something within our psyche seeks out adventure on the opposite side of the
emotional spectrum. There is a need to redress the balance. Horror movies
(who can forget the old Hammer horror films) were in abundance, and it seems
as if we catered more to attend to this self-driven need for emotional
balance and perspective.
It is my belief that Mahler was one composer who filled this need musically,
and for myself, if worried or stressed, I rarely turn to Mahler, but much mo
re to Mozart or the early polyphonists. With Bruckner, I can listen to him
at ALL times, because he was essentially at peace with himself, but more
importantly with his Maker. Just my 2c worth.
Regards,
# RMCR Contributor Links/Main Page :
# http://www.users.bigpond.com/hallraylily/index.html
< there is no such thing as a bad orchestra, only a bad conductor >: HvK
Ray, Sydney
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.323 / Virus Database: 180 - Release Date: 8/02/02
pat
1)The night of WTC tragedy I abruptly and completely stopped
listening to Mahler, and this continued until 3 or 4 weeks ago. I
had listened to more Mahler than all other composers combined for the
several months just preceding. There were two reasons for this:
A: It seemed ungestalt and disrespectful to our fallen heroes to
dwell in and on Mahler's seemingly narcisstic and neurotic angst &
torment that seemed to me to result from his survivor guilt secondary
to his brother's death in his childhood. I presume this is reflected
in his funeral march Frere Jacque, and similar musical themese which
long preceded any personal losses in his adult life. I turned instead
to Haydn, and then to a back to a variety.
B: I had only fallen under the spell of Mahler during the
preceding year, starting with Das Lied Von Erde, so Mahler was new to
me, contributing to my passion for him.
2) I agree with Mr. Carter's observations and then some. In a world
of six billion, our war and plague deaths have been trivial since
1945 compared to the preceding 57 years.
3)Like Mr. Hodges, even as the Chailly 2nd ended and I cheered @ the
Kennedy Center, I thought "I don't think I will listened to Mahler
for a while". I resumed last night, and maybe some lieder tonight.
4) When I reflected on the normalcy of childrens' death during
Mahler's time, I
considered that Kindertotenlieder was perhaps more of a helpful and
therapeutic tool to cope with part of the normal human experience at
that time than it was depressing, and I experienced it in a new way.
Any takers on this?
Marcus Maroney
> When *is* the "best" time to listen to Mahler? Surely not *in the middle of the
> game* while the world is living the horror that many would say his music
> anticipated. Maybe Shostakovich, with his brilliant parodies of the empty
> rhetoric of a bellicose military would better offer an antidote to the current
> world situation. Maybe Bruckner whose structure serves in opposition to the
> chaos surrounding us. Maybe French operetta with its typical dissection of
> human foibles that allows us to not take ourselves so seriously. Maybe
> *anything* that reflects true HOPE (as oppossed to empty, feel-good
> slogannering): Fidelio comes to mind.
I'd have to disagree with your feeling about Mahler not being
appropriate "during the game." It largely depends on the specific
piece. With one exception, the symphonies end either in triumph or
with some kind of metaphysical peace. I would probably sulk for days
if I listened to a really excellent performance of the sixth symphony.
On the other hand, I've found countless days of solace in listening
to the third. I've even had listenings where I've divorced it from
any "nature" connections and tried to listen abstractly. In these
cases, it has become necessarily associated to the turbulent state of
present affairs. The first three movements are so full of the
conflicting emotions--brutal outbursts, interruptions, banal
commentary, profound meditation, exuberance, hesitance, frustration,
impending doom, redemption. Then the fourth movement contains
countless textual images appropriate to the present situation, the
fifth movement gives us a respite from our guilt at feeling hatred
towards other "innocent bystanders", and the finale is, for me, one of
the most defiantly uplifting in all music. The second symphony seems
too superficially hopeful (I don't mean that as a bash--I love it, but
the "hope" in it seems too clearly presented for times like these).
I've always found the fourth *much* darker than most people, and have
also not listened to that piece often lately. The fifth and seventh
have always been very abstract for me. The ninth is another affirming
meditation that I have started turning to more and more often for
comfort.
Just my thoughts,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Markesten
shops in this city are glutted with Mahler discs that only seem to be
accumulating dust. >>
I know many collectors in the NYC area who will dump off their single-box
issues of symphonies when a box set comes out. Sometimes it's because there's a
good remastering. but often it's just a matter of conserving shelf space.
When DGG issued Bernstein's Mahler in a midline box I noticed a flood of the
2-CD sets at the used CD stores.
Samir Golescu
On 15 Feb 2002, Allan Burns wrote:
You don't want me to. Believe me.
regards,
SG
Markesten
Mahler's time, I
considered that Kindertotenlieder was perhaps more of a helpful and
therapeutic tool to cope with part of the normal human experience at
that time than it was depressing, and I experienced it in a new way.
Any takers on this? >>
You have a point, but believe me, there's nothing "normal" about losing
children. At one point, it was common, yes. People actually dressed up their
deceased children and had pictures taken of them as a way to remember. That
seems a bit macabre by today's zeitgeist.
My wife and I lost a baby 20-some weeks into the pregnancy. It was devastating.
It's only when you lose a pregnancy like this that the doctors inform you that
fully 25-percent of pregnancies in the USA don't come to term.
In any case, that was 6 years ago, and I haven't felt the urge to listen to the
Kindertotenlieder in all that time. I probably never will. One moves on, of
course. One must. But having been through it, Mahler's work on the subject
offers and no kind of solace or therapy.
Flambongoose
Either unknown (and deservedly so) works or played on questionable
instruments or by questionable interpreters.
"Frank Berger" <frank.d...@dal.frb.org> schreef in bericht
news:3C6D5C80...@dal.frb.org...
Markesten
<< Sibelius' 4th and Mozart's 40th, not to mention the funeral march of
Beethoven's
3rd are profoundly pessimistic too. Have you found them too stark for
current listening? Sometimes something tragic will make the current travails
seem less oppressive, rather than more.>>
No, those pieces haven't bothered me, but they're all easier to keep in a
structural perspective. I'm not one of those who finds the Sibelius 4th
devastating - but that's probably my Scandinavian heritage speaking (I have an
old photo of my great grandfather with Sibelius, BTW)! Why, it's just a
moderately cloudy day on the ice pack!
<<In the '60s, Mahler was "anti-establishment." Some conductors, like Karajan
and Beecham had never played his music.>>
I don't know about Beecham, but Karajan played Das lied on tour in Chicago back
in 1955 or so. He played Das lied often in the 1960s (once with Wunderlich as
soloist) and also did some of the orchestral songs. He didn't tackle the
symphonies until the 1970s, but I've read interviews where he claimed to have
long studied these works.
: I guess this was all prompted by my recent re-listening to all of the Mahler
: symphonies over the last three weeks. >>
<<Whose performances did you audition? >>
Symphonies 1, 3, 4 ,5 & 8 were Bernstein laserdiscs with the VPO on DG. Maazel
was 5, 6, 7 & 9; 2 was Mehta on Decca (an excellent recording, BTW). I found
myself liking the Maazel 5, 6 & 7 very much. Better than the Bernstein LDs
which seemed way over the top (the trumpet soloist in the 5th is particulary
weak on the Bernstein).
(Were you "engaged" with the music)
Oh, yeah - score in hand. It was loud, believe me.
Just for the record, I have the following complete cycles:
Bernstein I & II
Bernstein on laserdisc (missing Sym 2)
Kubelik
Abbado
Maazel
I've owned at one time but dumped off intergrales by:
Solti
de Waart
Ozawa
Tennstedt (in many different boxes!)
Any others I've missed?
Plus, quite a few single-issue versions - all of Karajan's most of Sinopoli's,
Giulini 9th, Szell 4th...the usual recommended versions.
Markesten
<< Mahler is here to stay, but Bruckner will be the
more solidly enduring master. >>
I would agree with this statement 100-percent.
mkperman
Precisely my experience. From the concert perspective, every
live Mahler performance in NYC that I've attended in recent years
has been sold out.
Marc Perman
Rodger Whitlock
> Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite view,
> what do you think?
>
> Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion. A few
> random thoughts:
>
> In this day of a promised war without end, when the main casualties in such a
> war are civilians on both sides, isn't Mahler's music a little too close to the
> surface of the rattled nerves many of us suffer these days? Do I really need to
> listen to the "Kindertotenlieder" after watching a TV report on the "collateral
> damge" figures coming out of New York or Afghanistan to be made aware of the
> sorrow that many in the world face these days as innocents are slaughtered? Do
> I really need or want to have my feelings of hoplessness reinforced by music
> that seems to dwell in a world of despair and nervosis?
Let me offer some food for thought. Seneca, the Roman author,
wrote:
"Ask me for a true image of human existence and I will show you
the sack of a great city."
[Quoted from "In Seach of the Trojan War" by Michael Wood (BBC,
London, 1985)]
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Markesten
<< I'd have to disagree with your feeling about Mahler not being
appropriate "during the game." It largely depends on the specific
piece. With one exception, the symphonies end either in triumph or
with some kind of metaphysical peace. I would probably sulk for days
if I listened to a really excellent performance of the sixth symphony.>>
Yes, his finales are generally very positive. I don't know what the finale of
the First is about. Mahler's quoting Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" has always
baffled me ("and He shall reign for ever and ever!").
The Second is, unfortunately, more over played these days than Beethoven's
9th. It gets trollopped out whenever a new concert hall is opened and seems to
turn up as a calling card with many conductors looking for fulltime work.
The Finale of the Third is the closest Mahler ever got to Bruckner...but
Bruckner's Adagios are, IMHO, much more beautiful and "deep."
The Fourth is the Fourth...very accessible to one and all. I really don't find
it dark at all, contrary to your thoughts.
The Finales to the 5th and 7th are by turns energetic and banal. I find the
finale of the 7th jocular to the point of being frivilous. It's really odd and
is quite possibly the hardest finale to pull off. Make that the hardest Mahler
symphony to pull off.
I've always liked the Sixth, and it makes a tremendous effect in the concert
hall. I heard Maazel do it at Carnegie with Cleveland and he flipped the Second
and Third movements as Mahler did on occassion. I prefer it that way - it's
more balanced (Fast-Slow-Fast-Slow (finale.. starts slow, gets fast, as
oppossed to Fast-Fast-Slow-Slow)
The 8th - I just don't get the 8th. It's a blind spot for me. I've heard it at
least 4 times in live performance, and while it's impressive, I've never
connected to the piece. I like the opening Hymn, but the Faust stuff doesn't do
it for me. Go figure.
The Ninth is simply his best work and the work I find paying the biggest
dividends. However, as I've now reached the ripe old age of 47, I find myself
preferring objective views like Dohnanyi on Decca to the heart-on-sleeve
performances of Bernstein. I've heard the Ninth live any number of times -
thrice with Cleveland (Haitink, Maazel, Dohnanyi) and once with Karajan.
Joshua Cheek
> Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite
view,
> what do you think?
>
> Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion. A
few
> random thoughts:
>
> In this day of a promised war without end, when the main casualties in
such a
> war are civilians on both sides, isn't Mahler's music a little too close
to the
> surface of the rattled nerves many of us suffer these days? Do I really
need to
> listen to the "Kindertotenlieder" after watching a TV report on the
"collateral
> damge" figures coming out of New York or Afghanistan to be made aware of
the
> sorrow that many in the world face these days as innocents are
slaughtered? Do
> I really need or want to have my feelings of hoplessness reinforced by
music
> that seems to dwell in a world of despair and nervosis?
Thank you for a very thoughtful post. You questions brought some very potent
memories back to mind for me. I had first encountered Mahler during
college... my first recording of his music was Bernstein doing the 7th. I
had NEVER heard such incredible sounds. I dutifully learned the rest of the
canon and that was that!
In the mid '80s my fiancé had died quite suddenly. To make a long a very
personal story short, my world had come crashing around me. My main solace
had become Mahler. In some strange way, I felt that Uncle Gus REALLY
understood. Many nights I cried as I listened to the closing 20 minutes of
the 8th Symphony and its celebration of the "Eternal Feminine." In the years
since then, my tastes have changed and changed back and changed again.
On the day of the recent tragedy I was actually listening to Gubaidulina's
St. John Passion. Talk about an intense emotional experience! In the months
since then, I must admit the only Mahler I have listened to was Das Klagende
Lied and the 7th Symphony. Most of my listening has been of Haydn and
Purcell, with a hearty measure of Gabrieli thrown in for good measure. Is it
a search for a sense of order? I really can't say, but in the case of both
the Haydn and Purcell it has provided me with a thrilling opportunity to
really LISTEN to their music. For this week... THEY are speaking to me.
Has Mahler's time passed? I doubt it. His music continues to influence young
composers (Adams' Harmonielehrer is inconceivable without Mahler... even
Daugherty's serio-comic Metropolis Symphony and Schoenfield's Parables for
Piano and Orchestra pay more than a passing debt).
Best wishes,
--
Joshua Cheek
email: rotwan...@mindspring.com
***NEW for 2002! Rihm and Golijov Passions Nominated for Grammys!***
*** Winner of the 2001 Grammy Award for Best Choral Performance (Penderecki:
Credo)***
Matthew B. Tepper
news:a4k2nn$bio$1...@gondor.sdsu.edu:
> I remember going to the start of the L.A. Philharmonic season in '69
> and seeing some demonstrators bearing picket signs outside: "For Shame
> - No Mahler!"
They were somewhat more successful a few years later. Around 1971 the
Los Angeles Philharmonic did a number of run-outs with a cute twist. The
first half of the program was set -- one of the Bach suites, the one with
all the squawky oboes in it, and something else, I forget what. But the
*second* part, ah, there was the twist!
Before the concert, ballots were passed out to the audience, which then
got to *vote* on which listed work would be presented after intermission.
In some of the suburban run-outs, pops-ish works like Ravel's "Bolero"
won out. But when this concert concept reached the UCLA campus, several
groups of students or other malcontents evidently felt it was a good idea
to rally for their favorite works. I remember a group for the Beethoven
7th, and one for one of the Schubert symphonies. But by far the most
persuasive was the Mahler contingent, because there on the ballot was the
Symphony #1. I guess they were persuasive, or else people wanted to get
their money's worth and a Mahler symphony offered the greatest "bang for
the buck" as we would now say. I remember hearing the announcement of
the winning work and muttering, "Titan your seatbelts." (You see, even
then I was a wit. Or maybe only halfway there, anyway.)
The whole thing must have been a nightmare for the orchestral librarian,
because they had to travel to all the locations with scores and full sets
of parts for every work on the ballot, naturally! And some staffers must
have had a fine time counting the ballots during the first half. The
conductor of the series, Gerhard Samuel, had spent some rehearsal time
just going over tricky transitions and the like, because he (and the
orchestra) knew all the music well enough to play it at no notice. And I
suppose the orchestra was travelling with eight horn players, since the
Mahler has parts for seven and you need to add one for an assistant to
the principal.
There was just a little bit of trouble at the outset, because one back-
desk first violinist had for some reason gotten the part from the
"Montagues and Capulets" movement of Prokofiev's "Romeo and Juliet" on
his desk, and sawed away vigorously at the opening measure whilst the
rest of the strings were playing the ethereal octaves that begin the
Mahler! There was some chortling in the audience, and I clearly recall
hearing the concertmaster, the late David Frisina growling, "It's not
funny, guys!" After a few moments, Samuel began again, and the
performance went off just fine, if a little rough and ready.
Ward Hardman
: Ward opined:
: << Sibelius' 4th and Mozart's 40th, not to mention the funeral march of
: Beethoven's
: 3rd are profoundly pessimistic too. Have you found them too stark for
: current listening? Sometimes something tragic will make the current travails
: seem less oppressive, rather than more.>>
: No, those pieces haven't bothered me, but they're all easier to keep in a
: structural perspective. I'm not one of those who finds the Sibelius 4th
: devastating - but that's probably my Scandinavian heritage speaking (I have an
: old photo of my great grandfather with Sibelius, BTW)! Why, it's just a
: moderately cloudy day on the ice pack!
OK, it's Allan Pettersson for you!
: <<In the '60s, Mahler was "anti-establishment." Some conductors, like Karajan
: and Beecham had never played his music.>>
: I don't know about Beecham, but Karajan played Das lied on tour in Chicago back
: in 1955 or so. He played Das lied often in the 1960s (once with Wunderlich as
: soloist) and also did some of the orchestral songs. He didn't tackle the
: symphonies until the 1970s, but I've read interviews where he claimed to have
: long studied these works.
I was going to cite Boehm instead, but recalled an early '60s set of song
cycles with Fischer-Dieskau, whereas HvK hadn't gone on disk with anything
by then.
: : I guess this was all prompted by my recent re-listening to all of the Mahler
: : symphonies over the last three weeks. >>
: <<Whose performances did you audition? >>
: Symphonies 1, 3, 4 ,5 & 8 were Bernstein laserdiscs with the VPO on DG. Maazel
: was 5, 6, 7 & 9; 2 was Mehta on Decca (an excellent recording, BTW). I found
: myself liking the Maazel 5, 6 & 7 very much. Better than the Bernstein LDs
: which seemed way over the top (the trumpet soloist in the 5th is particulary
: weak on the Bernstein).
I recall the reviewer for Fanfare saying something along the line of needing
to dig up the ground around the base of the Mahler totem pole to be able to
place Maazel at his correct level. ;-)
: (Were you "engaged" with the music)
: Oh, yeah - score in hand. It was loud, believe me.
Even a beautiful woman might not impress you if viewed through a flouro-
scope so that you could see her bone structure! Perhaps being too analytic
with Mahler detracts from the emotional experience.
: Just for the record, I have the following complete cycles:
: Bernstein I & II
: Bernstein on laserdisc (missing Sym 2)
: Kubelik
: Abbado
: Maazel
: I've owned at one time but dumped off intergrales by:
: Solti
: de Waart
: Ozawa
: Tennstedt (in many different boxes!)
: Any others I've missed?
: Plus, quite a few single-issue versions - all of Karajan's most of Sinopoli's,
: Giulini 9th, Szell 4th...the usual recommended versions.
I have some issues by Abravenel/Utah... the 7th isn't bad at all, while the
8th was my introduction to the work. A dLvdE by Nanut wasn't bad (specta-
cular tam-tam crash in the finale), but Ljubljana is in close proximity to
Austria. Various Horenstein and Walter issues are treasured, despite the
faded sound of the mono recordings. The only Solti I have is the 8th,
but there was an LPO #1 in my collection. Some of the Wyn Morris series
were pretty good. Why did you go for de Waart over Haitink/Concertgebouw,
if you wanted a Dutch view? My Mahler collection is quite eclectic, with
only Klemperer's 2nd and dLvdE, Barbirolli's 6th and 9th, Kubelik's 1st
and 8th, for example, which means I don't have one interpreter's vision of
the entire cycle (except for that DGG Bernstein, of which I haven't heard
2-4, 6-9 yet).
--Ward Hardman
"The older I get, the more I admire and crave competence, just simple
competence, in any field from adultery to zoology."
- H.L. Mencken
Samir Golescu
On Sat, 16 Feb 2002, Matthew B. Tepper wrote:
> Ward Hardman <har...@sciences.sdsu.edu> wrote in
> news:a4k2nn$bio$1...@gondor.sdsu.edu:
>
> > I remember going to the start of the L.A. Philharmonic season in '69
> > and seeing some demonstrators bearing picket signs outside: "For Shame
> > - No Mahler!"
>
> They were somewhat more successful a few years later. Around 1971 the
> Los Angeles Philharmonic did a number of run-outs with a cute twist. The
> first half of the program was set -- one of the Bach suites, the one with
> all the squawky oboes in it, and something else, I forget what. But the
> *second* part, ah, there was the twist!
>
> Before the concert, ballots were passed out to the audience, which then
> got to *vote* on which listed work would be presented after intermission.
[............]
Many thanks for sharing a fascinating bit of history I never knew about.
regards,
SG
Knudsen
sometime syou dont, but take Mahlers 5th for example, if that isnt timeless
music, what is?
---
http://members.aol.com/poshimon
Order your Poshy CD today! Samples of all tracks on the site!
The 2nd alt.music.4-track compilation 2-CD set
"GEAR ADDICTS ANONYMOUS"
is available for order. Check it out: http://xpub.com/AM4T/
Andrys Basten
Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>I remember a friend who told me once that Bach communicates to him the
>truth of the afterworld in all its lucent glory. "But you're listening to
>Mahler too?....." "Yes, Mahler expresses the truths I wouldn't want to
>know about"....
That was interesting to me since I had to fill out a
questionnaire which asked me, of all things, to list my favorite
composers. My top 2 were Bach and Mahler. '
>> Besides, he never wrote any piano music. ;-)
>
>I seem to remember that there are a couple of piano transcriptions
>though... ( :
;-) Also, there's that recording of Mahler playing piano (or
rolls) of his own symphonic music. Not your best pianist (!) but
fascinating to hear how he (maybe) heard his own music -- though
how you play something is not necessarily how you think you play
it. Intentions, etc.
- A
Eric Nagamine
>
> Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite view,
> what do you think?
>
> Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion. A few
> random thoughts:
>
> In this day of a promised war without end, when the main casualties in such a
> war are civilians on both sides, isn't Mahler's music a little too close to the
> surface of the rattled nerves many of us suffer these days? Do I really need to
> listen to the "Kindertotenlieder" after watching a TV report on the "collateral
> damge" figures coming out of New York or Afghanistan to be made aware of the
> sorrow that many in the world face these days as innocents are slaughtered? Do
> I really need or want to have my feelings of hoplessness reinforced by music
> that seems to dwell in a world of despair and nervosis?
>
> game* while the world is living the horror that many would say his music
> anticipated. Maybe Shostakovich, with his brilliant parodies of the empty
> rhetoric of a bellicose military would better offer an antidote to the current
> world situation. Maybe Bruckner whose structure serves in opposition to the
> chaos surrounding us. Maybe French operetta with its typical dissection of
> human foibles that allows us to not take ourselves so seriously. Maybe
> *anything* that reflects true HOPE (as oppossed to empty, feel-good
> slogannering): Fidelio comes to mind.
>
> to. It was a rather numb experience, as in *lack of engagement.* I'm not sure
> if that's due to the hypothesis I've laid out above, or if it's due to Mahler
> being so over-exposed and over-played these days that his impact is quite
> naturally muted, or if in my "older age" I'm finding the music is a little too
> personalized to embrace the timeless appeal inherent in music as basic as
> Beethoven's symphonies, but I do find myself less enamoured of Mahler's works
> than I have at any time during the last 25 years.
>
> Is it me, or is it the music?
It's you :) I think to some degree you're putting too much meaning into
the music and have been swayed by LB's propagandizing. Mahler's music
was never really revived, it grew from a dedicated core of devotees and
Bernstein just happen to come along when Long playing stereo LPs were
coming of age. Remember that Columbia approached Bruno Walter about a
complete cycle before they asked Bernstein and his influence on europe
wasn't great until the late 60's, by which time others also had paved
the pathway. Bernstein's 1967 article may have been great press back
then, but he had a way of putting his "spin" on what ever he was
evangelizing on, so one has to take his comments with a grain of salt.
Mahler's music isn't everything to every time or everyone anymore than
Beethoven or Bach is. I'd say you're going through a patch of over
exposure to his music and if you lay off for the next 12 months you'll
come back refreshed and discovering new things.
--
-----------
Aloha and Mahalo,
Eric Nagamine
Donald Rice
Markesten wrote:
> However, as I've now reached the ripe old age of 47, I find myself
> preferring objective views like Dohnanyi on Decca to the heart-on-sleeve
> performances of Bernstein.
I've found that Mahler goes down more comfortably if the performance is more
"objective" - for me Abaddo is more objective than Bernstein, whose performances
define "subjective". The histrionic exaggerations I hear in the music remind me,
in their effect, of Tchaikovsky's last three symphonies. They seem to be eternally
popular but because of my overexposure to them I can't listen to any of them more
than once in two years or so. Mahler has the same "heart-on-sleeve" quality though
his music is much more complex technically than Tchaikovsky's.
In thinking about Mahler, I am reminded of a Michael Smuin ballet that was set to
the Scherzo of the 5th Symphony with it's alternating moods. The "story" of the
ballet told of a formal ballroom with couples happily dancing. Death enters and
after observing the dancers, picks a partner, dances with her and carries her off.
The music and dance fit eerily and this scenario of grim death (or suffering)
interrupting seemingly innocent, content and joyful life in a very melodramatic
fashion has always summed up much of the content of Mahlers music. The
juxtaposition of the two states with little transition is what makes Mahler tough
for me to take repeatedly but if the histrionics are subdued in an "objective
performance", I'm better able to enter that world. I actually feel predisposed to
"objectivity" in Beethoven and Mozart and Haydn as well.
Even so, the subject matter of Kindertotenlieder and Das Klagende Lied are so grim
and melodramatic that I have trouble ever listening to them.
Just random thoughts stimulated by a very provocative set of observations by Mark.
Don
--
My true email address requires that you place a "1" between the "don" and the "
rice"
Jan Depondt
"Raymond Hall" <hallr...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:a4k6gs$u59d$1...@ID-101911.news.dfncis.de...
|
| I have to be in the right mood for Mahler (haven't listened to him for
| months), and it is interesting what you say about his popularity in the
| sixties. There are many reasons imho :-
|
| Bernstein's advocacy (and of course, he wasn't the first, so don't get me
| wrong), the advent of technology that could finally contain his long
| symphonies, but primarily the fifties and sixties which were far more
| frivolous and silly in mood, compared to the deadly serious "bottom line"
| pragmatism of today. Indeed, euphoria that a World War had finished
| permeated Western Europe especially (free love, the Hippies, Doris Day,
| Brigitte Bardot, Woodstock, true Hollywood glamour and not the gruesome
| photo opportunities of Melanie Griffiths or Madonna minutes after crawling
| out of bed that permeate today's Women's magazines).
In those days there was 'suddenly' that movie by Visconti ("Death in Venice")
AND the Bernstein recordings of Mahler symphonies available at that same time;
these were strong impulses, at least in Holland, for the 'younger' ones to
take up some interest.
|
| In those less troublesome but (poorer materialistically) days in Western
| Europe, I believe people were generally happier. When generally happy,
| something within our psyche seeks out adventure on the opposite side of the
| emotional spectrum. There is a need to redress the balance. Horror movies
| (who can forget the old Hammer horror films) were in abundance, and it seems
| as if we catered more to attend to this self-driven need for emotional
| balance and perspective.
|
| It is my belief that Mahler was one composer who filled this need musically,
| and for myself, if worried or stressed, I rarely turn to Mahler, but much mo
| re to Mozart or the early polyphonists. With Bruckner, I can listen to him
| at ALL times, because he was essentially at peace with himself, but more
| importantly with his Maker. Just my 2c worth.
I've some ideas about some aspects of Mahler's music that may be a little too
simplictic, but they don't do any harm.
As Mahler's music is about emotions and filled with emotions, it is
"reinforcing" ones emotions (if one has some strong ones, during a specific
period of great sorrow, specially when death is involced); I mean it makes you
feel those emotions again and
sometimes stronger (the music points you to your own emotions), but also gives
them something recognizable and something that can be 'feeled' outside
yourself, giving you an idea that you're not the "only one" with these
emotions; specially if you knew this music before, it gives some 'direction'
to your emotions, a kind of routing, an idea about "what's coming next" and
something of an idea that it will come right. This way this kind of music can
give some consolation to some people, specially to those who are afraid about
"what's coming next" or "how to go any further" in sorrowfull times.
Maybe it does not work this way at all; but it's how I've experienced it some
years back.
Just my 'eurocent'.
--
Jan Depondt
____________________________
mail: jdptATwanadoo.nl
Andrys Basten
Jan Depondt <j...@notmail.com> wrote:
>As Mahler's music is about emotions and filled with emotions, it is
>"reinforcing" ones emotions (if one has some strong ones, during a specific
>period of great sorrow, specially when death is involced); I mean it makes you
>feel those emotions again and
>sometimes stronger (the music points you to your own emotions), but also gives
>them something recognizable and something that can be 'feeled' outside
>yourself, giving you an idea that you're not the "only one" with these
>emotions; specially if you knew this music before, it gives some 'direction'
>to your emotions, a kind of routing, an idea about "what's coming next" and
>something of an idea that it will come right. This way this kind of music can
>give some consolation to some people, specially to those who are afraid about
>"what's coming next" or "how to go any further" in sorrowfull times.
>
>Maybe it does not work this way at all; but it's how I've experienced it some
>years back.
I've always wondered if those most drawn to his music weren't the
type to suppress those stronger emotions, especially sorrow, angst,
grief, etc. That would make them even more out-sized and his music
would mirror those emotions.
But, while this may be true for me, others will respond in
different ways of course.
What's interesting about his music for me is that with all that's
involved in the writing, his sound is often lean and almost
analytical in some key pieces. Right now I'm thinking of that
beautiful Ruckert piece 'Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen'
mkperman
"Eric Nagamine" <en...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3C6E24DC...@hawaii.rr.com...
>
> It's you :) I think to some degree you're putting too much
meaning into
> the music and have been swayed by LB's propagandizing. Mahler's
music
> was never really revived, it grew from a dedicated core of
devotees and
> Bernstein just happen to come along when Long playing stereo LPs
were
> coming of age. Remember that Columbia approached Bruno Walter
about a
> complete cycle before they asked Bernstein and his influence on
europe
> wasn't great until the late 60's, by which time others also had
paved
> the pathway. Bernstein's 1967 article may have been great press
back
> then, but he had a way of putting his "spin" on what ever he was
> evangelizing on, so one has to take his comments with a grain of
salt.
Wasn't it Mitropoulos who let a Mahler festival in NY in 1960?
Marc Perman
Arthur La Porta
I may be unsophisticated, but I do not consult the geo-political
situation when deciding what record to listen to on a given evening. I
don't see any evidence that Mahler is "going out of style" but if it is,
I assume it is because it is being played a lot and people are getting
tired of it.
Markesten
if you wanted a Dutch view? >>
You reminded me - I had the Haitink cycle in the black box "Haitink Symphony"
series that was put out by Philips. After it went out of print I was badgered
into selling it to a friend who had to have it. I'm not such a completist...I
tend to view my collection fluidly rather than as a library. Ergo, I dump
recordings rather regularly.
WFarrell421
>I'm not such a completist...I
>tend to view my collection fluidly rather than as a library. Ergo, I dump
>recordings rather regularly.
I'm the same way. But I let things get too fluid a few years back. After not
listening to classical at all for a few years, I sold a lot of my CDs, only to
end up buying back a lot of stuff.
WFarrell421
>situation when deciding what record to listen to on a given evening.
Thank you! I was thinking I must be stupid or something, not attaching all this
meeeeeeeannnnnnnning to what I play, and why and when I play it.
John Grabowski
> John Grabowski wrote:
>
>
>>I've often wondered where history will ultimately place Mahler, who for
>>me can range from profound to pretentious. His devotees may say it
>>already has placed him, and placed him high, but I think it's still too
>>early to tell.
>>
>
> There is no permanent placement in history. Composers go in and out of
> fashion all the time.
Yes and no. I seriously doubt, if you came back 100 years from now,
Beethoven would be relegated to second tier status (unless we're invaded
by a spaceship of Dan Koren clones) whereas I won't be so certain about
exactly where Mahler will be ranked. Still, I think he probably has
nothing to worry about. Still, there is a certain, dare I say it,
egotism and, for want of a better term, Mahler-centrism about his works,
especially the late ones. Sometimes it appeals to me, sometimes it does
not. I have a feeling I would not have been able to stand the guy had I
known him in person, based on what I've read.
J
--
All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.
Adlai Stevenson
John Grabowski
> In article <Pine.GSO.4.31.02021...@ux5.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>I remember a friend who told me once that Bach communicates to him the
>>truth of the afterworld in all its lucent glory. "But you're listening to
>>Mahler too?....." "Yes, Mahler expresses the truths I wouldn't want to
>>know about"....
>>
>
> That was interesting to me since I had to fill out a
> questionnaire which asked me, of all things, to list my favorite
> composers. My top 2 were Bach and Mahler. '
I was just today reading how Richter said Chopin, Debussy and Wagner
were his favorites, and along with Andrys' answer it got me thinking
about such things, so let's do this as a thread. Who are your favorite
composers?
Mine:
Beethoven--the big enchilada
after that it gets harder to rank ...
Bach keeps growing in my estimation
Haydn is in some ways superior to Mozart in my mind
And Mozart I feel is in some ways overrated. Yes the "biggies" are
sublime, but because of what I call "The Amadeus Syndrome" I think
there's a tendency to find "profundity" and "perfection" in everything
he wrote. And it's interesting what happens to a work once we find out
he didn't really write it (i.e., the "37th" symphony). Suddenly it's
not all that terrific after all, or at least it disappears.
Sibelius--another giant
Berg getting up there fast, though I still haven't heard a lot
Debussy--see Bach
John
Lena
> Markesten wrote:
>
> > Au contraire to a thread currently running that takes quite the opposite view,
> > what do you think?
> >
> > Has Mahler's time come and gone? I'd like to open it up for discussion.
>
> is revived. He is as much part of the "picture" as Brahms and Schubert.
This gets my vote for the most sensible comment in this thread.
I also don't quite understand why many people seem to give significant
weight to extramusical considerations when assessing a (great) composer.
(Most of these things are myths, someone else's liberal interpretations of
facts, or otherwise unreliable baggage.)
I'd simply ignore anything non-musical likely to detract from my enjoyment
of the thing (*even* if the offending items were inserted by the composer).
Lena
Knudsen
>
>Even a beautiful woman might not impress you if viewed through a flouro-
>scope so that you could see her bone structure!
What if you're a necrophiliac?
Knudsen
>come and GONE. But his music will always remain, but may not strike us as
>potently as it once did.
pfft.... a pal of mine just got into mahler. For him, it's just the
beginning, not the end of some trend. Whats important with hardcore music (that
is, the genius kind of music) is your listening experience, not some retarded
socio-political pretentious wankings. I discovered Beethoven a long time after
the guy was dead... so apparently I'm not supposed to like it? The way you're
talking, you might want to try some pop music which might appeal more to your
superficial fashion-centric mentality!
>Mahler is here to stay, but Bruckner will be the
>more solidly enduring master.
"MY composer is bigger than YOUR composer! WHINE WHINE WHINE"
>I have to be in the right mood for Mahler (haven't listened to him for
>months), and it is interesting what you say about his popularity in the
>sixties.
Since I wasn't alive in the 60's, and I still like Mahler, whats it all
mean? I picked up some of his works when an old guitar teacher of mine thought
I would like them, because he knew I liked massive works that lean towards the
dark side.
>Bernstein's advocacy
Well, Bernstein said the Manfred was trash, so he can just eat poop.
>but primarily the fifties and sixties which were far more
>frivolous and silly in mood, compared to the deadly serious "bottom line"
>pragmatism of today.
In real life, people are as frivilous as ever, except now they are even
more shallow, and feign interest, in world events suffering etc. Witness the
embarrasing behaviour after that skyscraper got trashed. Our entire country
goes out of its way to make a mockery of peoples deaths, yet peopel are such
media whores that they find solace in the bastardization... its appaling!
Nothing like a fake tear and show of bogus sympathy to tug at the hearts of an
american pop culture brainwashed zombie slut!
>It is my belief that Mahler was one composer who filled this need musically,
>and for myself, if worried or stressed, I rarely turn to Mahler, but much mo
>re to Mozart or the early polyphonists.
I take the more naive view that maybe music is about music.
Knudsen
I always thought it was about music. I feel emotions or states of mind in
great pieces that just dont occur in real life. Rather like a trippy dream ,
you wake up and realize just how limited and grey our reality is. Odd that our
conciousness has the ability (well some poeples anyway) to process these
impossible to define feelings, yet they dont occur in real life... very
strange. We have all this capacity for things that dont happen when you're
chillin at Wendy's slurpin a frosty.
>it is
>"reinforcing" ones emotions
Really? I get the feelings I get from them, who gives a fuck if im being
some stupid adjective sad, happy, glad mad whatever. This music is too potent
for out puny limited life emotions. If anything, from the first note my cheesy
life whining goes bye-bye, and I enter into the musical vortex.
>I mean it makes you
>feel those emotions again and
>sometimes stronger (the music points you to your own emotions)
If you're trying, you can make anything point to or reinforce your
emotions. To say Mahler is somehow specially designed to do this or that is
really belittling a dude who made some wicked stuff. How are my emotions
supposed to be 'reinforced" during the 3rd movement of the 5th? The finale of
the first? Screw that stuff, bring on the musical ultra-psycho juice! Id rather
get the musical juice than screw around trying to relate this note to someones
broken heart, a chord here to a constipated rabbit, a snare drum to a hot
orgasm into a giraffes rear... Its like reading an interview with a pretentious
wank in Rolling STone magazine "yes with this tune I am exploring the
correlation between the rancid decadence and the burning love in mammal disco"
"yes I wrote this out of my awesome deep expereince that I have because I take
so much acid and im really on a higher plane than all of you!"
Knudsen
>different ways of course.
yup. So why do people insint on saying such-and-such by who-and-who
means-this-and-that and does this-to-them
> What's interesting about his music for me is that with all that's
>involved in the writing, his sound is often lean and almost
>analytical in some key pieces
Some of it borders on "mozart with a huge orchestra and on crack", simply
because of the cutting clarity despite the big ensemble. Of course the musical
inspiration behind it is world apart from mozart, though I get somewhat similar
feelings from the finale of mahlers 5th and the finale of mozarts 41.
Knudsen
>too superficially hopeful (I don't mean that as a bash--I love it, but
>the "hope" in it seems too clearly presented for times like these).
Well, I like the piece right up until the big ending. Sure its
much-ballhooyed and people call it apocalyptic and all, but anytime you use a
big ass chorus and orchestra it sound apocalyptic. The actual music in the big
choral finish is pretty tame compared to the rest of the piece. Take away the
big ensemble, and play it on the piano... I can't hear much inspiration in the
big finish. Certainly solidly crafted but cmon, the entire finale building to
this point is REALLY inspired, why does Mahler cheap out at the end? Well, I'll
surely be flamed for this one! Granted some conductors can make the ending
tolerable. For me, if you're going to use a big ass chorus and orchestra, you
better fuckin hell have some bad-ass music to justify it instead of a mediocre
hymn. At least the friggin beethoven 9th has some interesting harmonic colour
in the choral parts. Of course mahler is funny about quality, he likes to go
from pure genius inspiration from above etc, to really cheap. More often than
not he makes the occaisional cheap parts work so it doesnt matter too much
(beethoven was also good at making his lesser ideas fun to listen to).
Knudsen
>the First is about. Mahler's quoting Handel's "Hallelujah Chorus" has always
>baffled me ("and He shall reign for ever and ever!").
Ive always experienced the finale of the first as a real mind-fuck, and when
performed correctly (a rare occurence thanks to the flood of robot conductors
with no musical sensitivity we have these days) holds you in a weird state of
"suspension" like youre floating around in some nether juice. It's also got
some visceral stuff, but not cheap stuff. Some people dont seem to "get" it,
but there isnt a single uninspired passage in the finale of the first. Just the
ideas taken on their own are all first-rate.
>The Fourth is the Fourth...very accessible to one and all. I really don't
>find
>it dark at all, contrary to your thoughts.
The 4th dark? Thats rich... some people insist on getting
psuedo-intellectual on everything to do with mahler, but the fourth is just for
fun. I think a booklet I had of a cheapie recording of it had it right "a solid
piece of work".
>The 8th - I just don't get the 8th. It's a blind spot for me. I've heard it
>at
>least 4 times in live performance, and while it's impressive, I've never
>connected to the piece. I like the opening Hymn, but the Faust stuff doesn't
>do
>it for me. Go figure.
The problem with the piece is that its harmonically incredibly drab.
There are only a few atmospheric spots in the first half, and the intro to the
second half is great, but it has alot of dull major sonorities. The melodic
lines are solid ideas... Not to say I dont like the piece, I do, I just think
it should be a little better to justify the massive ensemble. Whats the point
of using such a big band if you arent going to exploit the possiblities? In the
mahler 8th, the big band is just used for the sake of volume. Whopee. Playing
stuff ridiculously loud isnt going to magically give it more depth. Sure it
will be exciting in live performance just because a big ass ensemble sounds
awesome.
Knudsen
>"objective"
The thing is, the music already has the power, so why do these whiney
girly-boy conductors feel the need to try and wring some sappy sentiment out of
music that is too deep for them to even understand on a spirtual level. How do
these wankers end up with the batons? Self-glorifying arseholes!
Knudsen
" Hmm... what should I listen to today? I'd better check the news!
::click:: ::bzzt::"
;this just in reports of mass killings in bumfuck the capitol of
dorkenheimin;
"oh wow! I guess that means I shouldnt listen to mahler!"
;the horrible truth behind dairy products and carrots, a dateline
special, news YOU need to know!;
"holy shit! I guess this means no brahms tonight??"
"HEY MOM! IM AND INTELLECTUAL!"
Eric Nagamine
The 1960 festival was shared by Mitropoulos, Bernstein, and Walter
according to the Mahler performance history in the orchestra's Mahler
broadcast box.
mkperman
"John Grabowski" <jg...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C6EA9D5...@earthlink.net...
> >
> I was just today reading how Richter said Chopin, Debussy and
Wagner
> were his favorites, and along with Andrys' answer it got me
thinking
> about such things, so let's do this as a thread. Who are your
favorite
> composers?
Beethoven
Brahms
Mahler
Bruckner
Sibelius
Marc Perman
David Wake
Beethoven
Schubert
Debussy
Sibelius
Rachmaninov (sorry -- can't help it!)
David
Markesten
>>situation when deciding what record to listen to on a given evening.
>
>Thank you! I was thinking I must be stupid or something, not attaching all
>this
>meeeeeeeannnnnnnning to what I play, and why and when I play it >>
What do you think Mahler meant when he told Sibelius that he felt a symphony
"must encompass the entire world"?
Markesten
much-ballhooyed and people call it apocalyptic and all, but anytime you use a
big ass chorus and orchestra it sound apocalyptic. The actual music in the big
choral finish is pretty tame compared to the rest of the piece. Take away the
big ensemble, and play it on the piano... I can't hear much inspiration in the
big finish. >>
Why even bother playing it on the piano? A look at the orchestral score and one
can hear the harmonies in one's head.
As far as an "un-empty" gesture with chorus and orchestra, try "und das war
licht" from Haydn's Creation. His use of orchestra and chorus at this point is
certainly a magical statement of good old C major.
John Thomas
"mkperman" <mkpe...@rcn.com> wrote:
Bach
Beethoven
Chopin
Haydn
Mozart
Unable to like despite long-term and serious attempts:
Mahler
Bruckner
Sibelius
Dvorak
--
-Regards,
John Thomas
jwth...@sonic.net
Marcus Maroney
> Well, I like the piece right up until the big ending. Sure its
> much-ballhooyed and people call it apocalyptic and all, but anytime you use a
> big ass chorus and orchestra it sound apocalyptic. The actual music in the big
> choral finish is pretty tame compared to the rest of the piece. Take away the
> big ensemble, and play it on the piano... I can't hear much inspiration in the
> big finish. Certainly solidly crafted but cmon, the entire finale building to
> this point is REALLY inspired, why does Mahler cheap out at the end?
I'm sorry, but what kind of music would you expect at the
resurrection? I think a big, hymnlike choral finish is exactly what
is called for.
> Well, I'll
> surely be flamed for this one! Granted some conductors can make the ending
> tolerable. For me, if you're going to use a big ass chorus and orchestra, you
> better fuckin hell have some bad-ass music to justify it instead of a mediocre
> hymn. At least the friggin beethoven 9th has some interesting harmonic colour
> in the choral parts. Of course mahler is funny about quality, he likes to go
> from pure genius inspiration from above etc, to really cheap. More often than
> not he makes the occaisional cheap parts work so it doesnt matter too much
> (beethoven was also good at making his lesser ideas fun to listen to).
The harmonies of the finale to Mahler 2 (if you took the time to
actually analyze them) are also quite interesting. As for "pure
genius...to really cheap", that's a sophomoric way of summing up an
obvious and essential component to his aesthetic. The actual
emergence of the (comparatively) simple material that makes up the
final part of the 2nd symphony out of the semi-chaotic material at the
beginning of the movement is quite ingenious.
I think I'm just far too cynical right now to fully appreciate such a
blatant expression of death-->afterlife.
Cheers,
Marcus Maroney
marcus....@yale.edu
Roland van Gaalen
news:75e776be.0202...@posting.google.com...
> knuds...@aol.comERASEMME (Knudsen) wrote:
>
> > Well, I like the piece right up until the big ending. Sure its
> > much-ballhooyed and people call it apocalyptic and all, but anytime you
use a
> > big ass chorus and orchestra it sound apocalyptic. The actual music in
the big
> > choral finish is pretty tame compared to the rest of the piece. Take
away the
> > big ensemble, and play it on the piano... I can't hear much inspiration
in the
> > big finish. Certainly solidly crafted but cmon, the entire finale
building to
> > this point is REALLY inspired, why does Mahler cheap out at the end?
>
> I'm sorry, but what kind of music would you expect at the
> resurrection? I think a big, hymnlike choral finish is exactly what
> is called for.
Hypothetically, I'd prefer to hear generic background music suitable for
breakfast with coffee while I count or stretch my body parts.
--
Roland van Gaalen
Amsterdam
E-mail: R.P.vanGaalenATchello.nl (replace AT by @)
Jan Depondt
"Lena" <len...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6b33de45.02021...@posting.google.com...
OK, but that's you. Other people might have other 'experiences' or views or
opinions, sometimes after having listened to Mahler's music in some
circumstances. And there's nothing wrong in telling here how they feeled about
it, or what effect hearing some (not all) of Mahler's music had to them; even
if you don't understand it. It does not say anything about Mahler's intentions
either.
--
Jan Depondt
____________________________
mail: jdptATwanadoo.nl
Henk van Tuijl
"John Thomas" <no-...@sonic.net> schreef in bericht
news:no-spam-FB564B...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Bach
> Beethoven
> Chopin
> Haydn
> Mozart
>
> Unable to like despite long-term and serious attempts:
>
> Mahler
> Bruckner
> Sibelius
> Dvorak
Of course:
Bach
Beethoven
Mozart
Also:
Schumann
Scriabin
Unable to like:
Bruckner
Mahler
Richard Strauss
Wagner
Henk
Himadri
The sort of music that is discussed in rmcr usually demands a high
level of emotional engagement, and no composer demands a greater
degree of emotional engagement than Mahler. Speaking for myself, I
feel I have to mentally prepare myself before listening to a Mahler
symphony: this is not the kind of music that may be listened to
casually. It is, therefore, more than understandable that, for
whatever reason, one is not always in a frame of mind to be receptive
to this music. I don't really see what is so pretentious about this.
Regards, Himadri
WFarrell421
>>this
>>meeeeeeeannnnnnnning to what I play, and why and when I play it >>
>
>What do you think Mahler meant when he told Sibelius that he felt a symphony
>"must encompass the entire world"?
>
Certainly not that a listener had to sit down and actively consider
geopolitical reality each time he listened to music. To be honest, I don't
really care what he meant.
Analyzing things to death doesn't help me like music any more than I already
do. I like music on its own terms. You know, as music.
WFarrell421
Mahler and Brian Wilson in a two-way tie for first place, depending on my mood.
Miles Davis and Mozart in a two-way tie for third.
Everything else comes fifth.
Bringing up the rear are all rap and all techno, with Wagner not far ahead of
them.
Norman M. Schwartz
"Markesten" <mark...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020216222432...@mb-fi.aol.com...
"Summer marches in
What the flowers and meadows tell me
What the animals of the forrest tell me
What the night tells me
What the morning tells me
What love tells me"
That is what I think he meant.
WFarrell421
>What the flowers and meadows tell me
>What the animals of the forrest tell me
>What the night tells me
>What the morning tells me
>What love tells me"
>
>That is what I think he meant.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yes. That's it.
James Kahn
>ulvi <ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote in message news:<3C6D638B...@jpl.nasa.gov>...
>>
>> Mahler's time has come and stayed. His revival is over simply because he
>> is revived. He is as much part of the "picture" as Brahms and Schubert.
>This gets my vote for the most sensible comment in this thread.
>I also don't quite understand why many people seem to give significant
>weight to extramusical considerations when assessing a (great) composer.
>(Most of these things are myths, someone else's liberal interpretations of
>facts, or otherwise unreliable baggage.)
>I'd simply ignore anything non-musical likely to detract from my enjoyment
>of the thing (*even* if the offending items were inserted by the composer).
Yes, or to put it another way, the extra-musical baggage put on music
is usually a lot more ephemeral than the music itself (if it's good music).
I'm one of the many here who seem to be ambivalent about Mahler--sometimes
the music feels heavy-handed, sometimes it's just right. It may depend
on my mood as much as the music. As for Sept. 11, in those first
depressing weeks I found myself listening (and playing) Schubert's
D. 960 sonata. Don't ask me why, but it felt right.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
Markesten
<< To be honest, I don't
really care what he meant.
Analyzing things to death doesn't help me like music any more than I already
do. I like music on its own terms. >>
Re: I like music on its own terms. Since Mahler wrote the music, aren't you
saying that you have to take it on Mahler's terms after all?
As far as what he "meant," do you ignore what he meant when he quotes songs
that have words (ie: meanings) set to them? How do you feel about his quoting
"Ging huet' morgen," "Frere Jacques" and the "Hallelujah Chorus" in the First
Symphony; or quoting "St Padua talks to the fishes" in the Second; or quoting
his song "Ich bin der Welt abhanden bekommen" in the Adagietto and Finale of
the 5th Symphony?
Are you saying that Mahler didn't intend for his listeners to draw an inference
from such quotes, or do you just not care to dig beneath the surface, or what?
I'd be interested in how you approach the works of JS Bach, all of which he
wrote "to the glory of God." Absolute music? I don't think so.
Bob Lombard
wrote:
>Are you saying that Mahler didn't intend for his listeners to draw an inference
>from such quotes, or do you just not care to dig beneath the surface, or what?
>
>I'd be interested in how you approach the works of JS Bach, all of which he
>wrote "to the glory of God." Absolute music? I don't think so.
All of those 'inferences' in Mahler's non-vocal music are
irrelevant to _me_ on any conscious level. If connections
are made below that level, they are no more important than
those affected by key relationships, rhythm, etc.
bl
John Thomas
wfarr...@aol.com (WFarrell421) wrote:
> My favorite composers:
>
> Mahler and Brian Wilson in a two-way tie for first place, depending on my
> mood.
Perhaps I might finally have come to like Mahler if only he'd written
more surfer music.
Joshua Cheek
1. J.S. Bach: It ALL starts here. He's my first musical love and I still sit
in rapt wonder when I hear his music.
2. Joseph Haydn: There is no other composer I know who has paid such massive
dividends for taking the time to really LISTEN to his music.
3. Bernard Herrmann: Not only a great film composer but a great composer
PERIOD!
4. Ives: Yeah... I know ALL the criticisms, but his music opened up so many
new musical horizons for me.
5. Janacek: A late bloomer with a magnificent bloom! The last bars of
"Cunning Little Vixen" just break my heart.
6. Messiaen: I do not feel the need to defend this choice.
7. Scheutz: As Varese noted, 'even in the smallest work, his scores have
dignity'.
8. Telemann: He took the mundane and made it masterful. I am constantly
surprised at the high quality of his vast output.
9. Vivaldi: So what's NOT to like?!?
10. Wagner: Totally unavoidable.
11. Webern: As beautiful and as rarified as an Alpine mountainscape.
A different times the following were "faves":
Antheil, C.P.E. Bach, Biber, Bruckner, Handel, Langaard, Mahler, Puccini,
Purcell, Scriabine, Stravinsky and Varese.
Composers I have tried VERY hard to like but never succeeded:
Reger, Schumann and Johann Strauss
--
Joshua Cheek
email: rotwan...@mindspring.com
***NEW for 2002! Rihm and Golijov Passions Nominated for Grammys!***
*** Winner of the 2001 Grammy Award for Best Choral Performance (Penderecki:
Credo)***
"WFarrell421" <wfarr...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020217070315...@mb-fy.aol.com...
REG
eliminated Hermann though, and put in Handel, who captures for me an intense
sense of resurrection and spiritual triumph in all his greatest works.
"Joshua Cheek" <rotwangsmusic@mindspring> wrote in message
news:a4oih8$hkg$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Arthur La Porta
I never claimed that music has no meaning. It's meaning to me relates
to my own feelings and attitudes. To say that I must consult CNN to know
if Mahler's music is relevant to me is lunacy.
Rodger Whitlock
wrote:
> Since I wasn't alive in the 60's, and I still like Mahler, what's it all
> mean?
That the geezers will surround you (with much ringing of the
bells on their walkers and waving of their canes), stuff you into
the nearest coin-operated time machine, and send you back to 1961
if you're not a good boy.
--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Rodger Whitlock
wrote:
> That was interesting to me since I had to fill out a
> questionnaire which asked me, of all things, to list my favorite
> composers. My top 2 were Bach and Mahler. '
But "favorite" is different from "most profound" or "most
important."
I think Mahler's music's career resembles that of Sibelius. Thus,
following on an extended period of great popularity (not yet
over), we can expect Mahler's music to suffer a period of
reactionary rejection, then float back up to the level of
"top-quality music from a second tier composer."
[The first tier is the very elite stuff: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart
(late) for sure, possibly Haydn & Schubert, but not much else.]
[Also note: in my usage here, "second tier" doesn't make
second-rate.]
Sonarrat Citalis
like individual pieces of any composers' output, of course. These are just my
favorites on the whole.
--
-Sonarrat Citalis.
Email: Remove the fish, replace the net.
Signature at http://sonarrat.stormloader.com/sonarratsig.html
"Inspiration is drunken; execution is sober." -Alexander Scriabin
Andrys Basten
Rodger Whitlock <toto...@mail.pacificcoast.net> wrote:
>On 16 Feb 2002 09:09:18 GMT, and...@panix.com (Andrys Basten)
>wrote:
>
>> That was interesting to me since I had to fill out a
>> questionnaire which asked me, of all things, to list my favorite
>> composers. My top 2 were Bach and Mahler. '
>
>But "favorite" is different from "most profound" or "most
>important."
Sure, but my favorite composers are, to me, "most profound" and in
effect, "most important."
If you want to expand say 'most important in [x] way' you'd get
other responses.
>following on an extended period of great popularity (not yet
>over), we can expect Mahler's music to suffer a period of
>reactionary rejection, then float back up to the level of
>"top-quality music from a second tier composer."
I still am not a searcher for Sibelius. However, Mahler is
considered 2nd tier by many and also many have changed their minds
(already).
>[The first tier is the very elite stuff: Bach, Beethoven, Mozart
>(late) for sure, possibly Haydn & Schubert, but not much else.]
Bach is the one composer I can sit and hear/play and be in awe of
with countless pieces I haven't even heard yet, but even I think
it's time to get past anyone's "first tier"...
>[Also note: in my usage here, "second tier" doesn't make
>second-rate.]
Still an artificial grouping based on listeners' responses to the
music - witness Dan Koren's, who would not be placing Beethoven
first, and he is not entirely without ears :-)
- A
Andrys Basten
Knudsen <knuds...@aol.comERASEMME> wrote:
>>But, while this may be true for me, others will respond in
>>different ways of course.
>
> yup. So why do people insint on saying such-and-such by who-and-who
>means-this-and-that and does this-to-them
Maybe it's the Explore and Categorize impulse? That's what humans
tend to do, puzzle out and then label.
>> What's interesting about his music for me is that with all that's
>>involved in the writing, his sound is often lean and almost
>>analytical in some key pieces
>
> Some of it borders on "mozart with a huge orchestra and on crack", simply
>because of the cutting clarity despite the big ensemble. Of course the musical
>inspiration behind it is world apart from mozart, though I get somewhat similar
>feelings from the finale of mahlers 5th and the finale of mozarts 41.
I really liked your description! And the impact on me is similar
in both cases you cite.
- Andrys
Andrys Basten
Knudsen <knuds...@aol.comERASEMME> wrote:
>>As Mahler's music is about emotions and filled with emotions
>
> I always thought it was about music. I feel emotions or states of mind in
>great pieces that just dont occur in real life. Rather like a trippy dream ,
>you wake up and realize just how limited and grey our reality is. Odd that our
>conciousness has the ability (well some poeples anyway) to process these
>impossible to define feelings, yet they dont occur in real life... very
>strange. We have all this capacity for things that dont happen when you're
>chillin at Wendy's slurpin a frosty.
For me, they very much occur in real life. Usually not while
chillin at Wendy's slurpin a frosty, as you say, but if you've just
lost your closest person or your children you may well feel these
things while doing the most mundane things. His music includes a
lot of sardonic material, which I think you might gravitate toward
:-)
I've also wondered if the oversized (it would seem but maybe not)
angst in his music (more efficiently expressed than in Bruckner's,
for me) mirrors the age in that it was composed at a time when
many, in what is considered a more analytical and logical time,
were feeling a loss of 'faith' or belief in the more comforting
religious teachings of afterlife etc. Sometimes I feel he's
struggling with disbelief but longing for the old comforts. The
ending of the Resurrection symphony is often chilling in its
effect, maybe because it can bring back a feeling of that belief
many have dropped but wish had a basis in reality.
Allan Burns
interpreters of my favorite composers:
First Tier:
Bach (Fischer, Feinberg, Richter, Sokolov, Schepkin)
Mozart (Schnabel, Fischer, Gieseking, Casadesus, Moravec)
Beethoven (Walter, Schnabel, Furtwangler, Fischer, the Kleibers,
Richter, Gilels, Moravec, Gelber)
Second Tier:
Haydn (Dorati, Horowitz, Richter)
Schubert (Schnabel, Furtwangler, Sofronitsky, Hotter, Richter,
Wunderlich, Lupu)
Chopin (Cortot, Friedman, Rubinstein, Lipatti, Kapell, Moravec,
Sokolov)
Schumann (Cortot, Horowitz, Richter, Wunderlich)
Brahms (Walter, Furtwangler, Fischer, Rubinstein, Gilels, Lupu)
Third Tier:
Scarlatti (Horowitz, Michelangeli, Pletnev)
Dussek (Firkusny, Marvin)
Mendelssohn (Friedman, Gieseking, Richter, Frith)
Wagner (Muck, Walter, Furtwangler, Schorr, Leider, Melchior, Solti)
Bruckner (Furtwangler, Jochum)
Dvorak (Casals, Firkusny, Kertesz)
Grieg (Gieseking, Gilels, Michelangeli, Pletnev, Andsnes)
Faure (Long, Souzay, Sanchez)
Debussy (Cortot, Gieseking, Michelangeli, Moravec)
Granados (Larrocha)
Scriabin (Neuhaus, Feinberg, Sofronitsky, Horowitz, Richter)
Rachmaninoff (Rachmaninoff, Moiseiwitsch, Richter, Kapell, Janis,
Volodos)
Ravel (Gieseking, Casadesus, Simon)
Medtner (Medtner, Demidenko, Hamelin)
Subject to change (subtly) at any moment of course . . .
Allan
Andrys Basten
Knudsen <knuds...@aol.comERASEMME> wrote:
>>The second symphony seems
>>too superficially hopeful (I don't mean that as a bash--I love it, but
>>the "hope" in it seems too clearly presented for times like these).
> Well, I like the piece right up until the big ending. Sure its
>much-ballhooyed and people call it apocalyptic and all, but anytime you use a
>big ass chorus and orchestra it sound apocalyptic.
No. In this case, it's the chord changes and bass/pedal
movement, and the hushed beginning out of nowhere. Ethereal. We
performed this with the symphony and audience members could be seen
turning their heads around to see where the sound was coming from,
as we were trained to sing this at the lowest possible volume, and
as a massive chordal whisper it is really effective. There is no
obvious movement involved in this, so though we were right in front
of them, the sound did not appear to come from us.
This effect will not work with a CD, where the dynamic range
can't be the same or you'd be rushing up to your player to turn it
up or turn it down.
> The actual music in the big
>choral finish is pretty tame compared to the rest of the piece. Take away the
>big ensemble, and play it on the piano... I can't hear much inspiration in the
>big finish.
Might be the way you're playing it :-) The music can't be
separated from the 'instruments' for which it was written, however,
and judged from that alone. Nevertheless, after performing it (or
after rehearsing it, actually) I'd come home and play it on the
piano to see why it worked so well, and for me the chord changes
are incredibly beautiful. Simple, and yes, reminiscent of a hymn,
in modal form, which is part of its strength when belief is
strained in such things as resurrection. It's also the unexpected
lengths of the melodic elements over the bass. The lengths cannot
be so easily felt with a piano of course and with a pedal there is
blurring where that doesn't happen with the actual instrumentation.
Try playing it as if you were composing it. The opening pedal
points will come off 'simple' sounding on piano but not if you hear
the sound in your head as it would exist in a hall. I think you
might hear somewhat more clearly what -is- happening there that is
so effective for many of us who have not only heard it many times
but also performed it many times.
Matthew B. Tepper
news:20020217094728...@mb-mv.aol.com:
> I'd be interested in how you approach the works of JS Bach, all of
> which he wrote "to the glory of God." Absolute music? I don't think so.
But-but-but ... Deems Taylor SAID so!
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Top 3 worst UK exports: Mad-cow; Foot-and-mouth; Charlotte Church
WFarrell421
quotes songs
>that have words (ie: meanings) set to them? How do you feel about his quoting
>"Ging huet' morgen,"
Me: I don't know how this translates (my grandfather was Austrian and wouldn't
allow a word of German to be spoken in his presence).
But not knowing hasn't hampered my enjoyment one bit. As someone posted
earlier, Mahler said his music was "about" "what nature teaches me," "what the
animals teach me," and so on. That's nice. I can live with that. I don't have a
need to get any more subtexty with the music than these "programmes." (And now,
contradicting myself, I will say I *do* enjoy knowing that's Spring Marching In
in the first movement of the 3rd. But I love Spring.)
> "Frere Jacques"
I don't have feelings one way or another about his having quoted this.
>the "Hallelujah Chorus"
Never noticed it. If you have either Bernstein 1st (esp. the first CBS release,
my favorite 1st.), or the Boulez, could you please tell me what time this
begins? Again, enjoyment not lessened by not knowing this.
>; or quoting "St Padua talks to the fishes" in the Second;
Same response. But isn't it St. Anthony of Padua? And isn't that in the Fourth?
At least, without going and looking it up, I think I recall having read that
once.
>or quoting
>his song "Ich bin der Welt abhanden bekommen" in the Adagietto and Finale of
>the 5th Symphony?
Ditto. Ditto. Ditto.
>Are you saying that Mahler didn't intend for his listeners to draw an
>inference
>from such quotes, or do you just not care to dig beneath the surface, or
>what?
It's 2001. I've been listening to Mahler since 1988. Maybe it was easier to
draw inferences you'd like me to draw a hundred years ago, when the references
might have been more familiar than they are to someone who grew up in the
1960s, listening to rock and roll (and absorbing the rest of the popular
culture of that time).
Maybe if we were talking about a composer who quoted from "God Only Knows" or
"For No One" or "Then He Kissed Me," I'd have a meaningful reaction. But with
the exception of "Frere Jacques," Mahler is, to my knowledge, my first exposure
to your referenced songs. Oh, and the Hallelujah Chorus, which, as I said
above, I have never noticed in the First (which I've listened to probably
thousands of times).
It hasn't *ever* been necessary for me to dig "beneath the surface," to tell
you the truth, in order to enjoy music. That might make me odd man out here, in
a place where people gather to discuss classical music, but I enjoy what I
enjoy nonetheless. I don't want it to be any more complicated than it is. Music
is not an intellectual pursuit for me. It's not something I am able to create,
which may not be your story, so I just go with what I like.
>I'd be interested in how you approach the works of JS Bach, all of which he
>wrote "to the glory of God." Absolute music? I don't think so.
I don't listen much to Bach. (In fact, if it weren't for Mahler and Mozart, I
probably wouldn't listen to classical music at all.) I like the Cello Suite
everyone's heard, various Art of Fugues, and the Goldberg Variations. Beyond
that, I'm not much drawn to his music. I wouldn't say I "approach" any other
works of Bach at all.
Music for me is not this huge thing that has to be studied, or known, or
understood. Just enjoyed.
Chacun, man.
Knudsen
>resurrection? I think a big, hymnlike choral finish is exactly what
>is called for.
Sure, I just want the tune to be a little more exciting.
>The harmonies of the finale to Mahler 2 (if you took the time to
>actually analyze them) are also quite interesting.
Screw the analysis, I'm talking about the aural effect.
>As for "pure
>genius...to really cheap", that's a sophomoric way of summing up an
>obvious and essential component to his aesthetic
Yup. Except the 1st, but it's different enough from the rest of his
output that it doesn't really count.
>The actual
>emergence of the (comparatively) simple material that makes up the
>final part of the 2nd symphony out of the semi-chaotic material at the
>beginning of the movement is quite ingenious.
Its not the simplicity that bugs me, its just that I want a better
melody at the end!
>I think I'm just far too cynical right now to fully appreciate such a
>blatant expression of death-->afterlife.
Well, taken on its own the big finish is kewl enough, but it never
finishes the piece in a satisfying manner for me. Ive heard it a bazzilion
times and it still breaks the spell created for me by the rest of the work!
Maybe it's just an incredibly fickle ending that only works on good days when
the wind is right.
Knudsen
>> resurrection? I think a big, hymnlike choral finish is exactly what
>> is called for.
>
>Hypothetically, I'd prefer to hear generic background music suitable for
>breakfast with coffee while I count or stretch my body parts.
I think it would've been kool to end the ressurection with the chrous
shouting "DILDO DILDO! DILDO! DILDO!". It would be so artless and crappy that
it would almost work.
Knudsen
>egotism and, for want of a better term, Mahler-centrism about his works,
>especially the late ones. Sometimes it appeals to me, sometimes it does
>not.
Mahler certainly went through some stylistic changes. If a person were to
hear only the 1st, they would be expecting things very different from what the
rest of his pieces are like. You do gotta be in the right mood for some of his
works. Certain things always work for me... like the 3rd mov of the 5th. But to
listen to the finale of the 5th I need a few requirments: a performance that
burns through it, a naked lemur and a loaded shotgun. Its good to load your
guns for a movement like that otherwise you might run out of ammo! Thenagain
some prissy conductors try to take teh finale and turn it into a wussy
slow-as-molasses legato romp. I take the slam-the-bow and ripping rosin
chunkiness route. Whats this trend of blurring any articulations in the finale?
Knudsen
ones I dont like! But there are a few composers who I relate to in a special
way:
Mahler
Tchaikovsky
Beethoven
Mozart
Shostakovich
Holst (well, what little he did thats great)
Knudsen
>that have words (ie: meanings) set to them?
>inference
>from such quotes, or do you just not care to dig beneath the surface, or
>what?
So, for you only words have "meaning"?
>I'd be interested in how you approach the works of JS Bach, all of which he
>wrote "to the glory of God." Absolute music? I don't think so.
It's music and you listen to it, so it's absolutely music. I love it, and
"god" can suck my balls! I dont care if ol Bach had written for the glory of
footlong hotdogs as long as his music came out just as good!
Knudsen
>symphony
>> "must encompass the entire world"?
>"Summer marches in
>What the flowers and meadows tell me
>What the animals of the forrest tell me
>What the night tells me
>What the morning tells me
>What love tells me"
>That is what I think he meant.
Exactly.
will
> The sort of music that is discussed in rmcr usually demands a high
> level of emotional engagement, and no composer demands a greater
> degree of emotional engagement than Mahler. Speaking for myself, I
> feel I have to mentally prepare myself before listening to a Mahler
> symphony: this is not the kind of music that may be listened to
> casually. It is, therefore, more than understandable that, for
> whatever reason, one is not always in a frame of mind to be receptive
> to this music. I don't really see what is so pretentious about this.
>
> Regards, Himadri
Regards to you, too, Himadri.
I wonder how you "mentally prepare (your)self" for Mahler. What
process must you first go through? For me, it's the simplest matter in
the world: I go to the bookshelf, decide what I want to hear, put it
in the CD player, listen. Sometimes I become obsessive about one
particular version of one particular symphony (lately, the Rattle 2,
to which I am now listening).
Your statement that "no composer demands a greater degree of emotional
engagement than Mahler" may be the most important thing I've read so
far. Maybe this is the reason I don't like the rest of classical music
*nearly* as much as Mahler. (Mozart comes close, but definitely
*after* pop and jazz composers Brian Wilson, Phil Spector, and Miles
Davis.)
Someone -- Rodger with a "d"? one of the Johns? -- suggested I needed
to listen to more Beethoven (or to Beethoven more). And I have been.
But I don't love it any more than I ever did. (I like the second
movement of the Seventh, then the whole of the Ninth, then the string
quartets, but nothing else in Beethoven moves me emotionally nearly
the way Mahler does. No matter how many times I listen to the rest of
Beethoven, at some point I look to see how many minutes are left, so I
can put on something I *really* like.)
Maybe emotional engagement is what I bring to -- and get from --
music, if I am to say I love it. I know it ain't an intellectual
process. But neither is it something I need to "prepare" for. I just
jump in.
Thanks for your input.
ulvi
> Re: I like music on its own terms. Since Mahler wrote the music, aren't you
> saying that you have to take it on Mahler's terms after all?
Not necessarily. Everyone is free to listen on his/her own terms.
> As far as what he "meant," do you ignore what he meant when he quotes songs
> that have words (ie: meanings) set to them? How do you feel about his quoting
> "Ging huet' morgen," "Frere Jacques" and the "Hallelujah Chorus" in the First
> Symphony; or quoting "St Padua talks to the fishes" in the Second; or quoting
> his song "Ich bin der Welt abhanden bekommen" in the Adagietto and Finale of
> the 5th Symphony?
I for one ignore all that. Even if I read about these things in liner notes
or wherever, I soon forget (since I find most such info forgettable
to begin with); a piece of music stands (or doesn't) on its own entirely.
> Are you saying that Mahler didn't intend for his listeners to draw an inference
> from such quotes, or do you just not care to dig beneath the surface, or what?
Mahler seems to have been an exceptionally wooly-headed thinker on anything
beyond purely musical domains; I find his philosophical ramblings trite and corny
in the extreme. It's a good thing (for Mahler) that I concentrate exclusively on
his music (as far as I am concerned).
> I'd be interested in how you approach the works of JS Bach, all of which he
> wrote "to the glory of God." Absolute music?
You bet.
> I don't think so.
Do you listen to Bach as Lutheran sermon?
--
Ulvi
ulvi.yu...@jpl.nasa.gov
will
> In article <20020217070315...@mb-fy.aol.com>,
> wfarr...@aol.com (WFarrell421) wrote:
>
> > My favorite composers:
> >
> > Mahler and Brian Wilson in a two-way tie for first place, depending on my
> > mood.
>
>
> Perhaps I might finally have come to like Mahler if only he'd written
> more surfer music.
"My time will come" = "I Just Wasn't Made for These Times"
Mark K. Ehlert
Beethoven
Handel
Haydn
Mozart
Monteverdi
Honorable mentions:
Gabrieli (both of 'em)
Biber
Telemann
Brahms
On the other side of the coin (and liable to put me on The
Committee's s--t list):
J.S. Bach (but I'm still trying to wrap my brain around his music)
--
Mark K. Ehlert
To reply via e-mail, X = 3
A. Brain
"mkperman" <mkpe...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:a4n25k$le5$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Who are your
> favorite
> > composers?
>
> Beethoven
> Brahms
> Mahler
> Bruckner
> Sibelius
Here are my favorites, with comments on what I think are neglected or
overlooked works:
1. Bach, in a class by himself. Despite the attention his music has
received in the past thirty years or so, mostly because of the "HIPsters",
there are some relatively neglected works, like the
so-called "Lutheran Masses" and of course all of the cantatas. His Mass in
B Minor is perhaps the greatest work in all music.
2(tie) Handel, lately being revived in the opera houses, where he had been
too long neglected. And lots of overlooked music like the organ concertos,
well represented on record, but hardly ever played in concert that I know
of.
2 (tie).Haydn, not played often enough in concert. The masses are not that
well known, even though Bernstein promoted them well in the "radical chic"
days. The symphonies
should be played in concerts more often. The chamber works are ever-fresh.
2 (tie). Mozart, who wrote the greatest operas of all time, is fortunately
not overlooked in the concert hall or opera house, but there are some
neglected
works of his too, notably the concert arias. These should be regularly
programmed as
openers for soloists who are later singing in some Mahler symphony or
whatever, and should also
appear on records as fillers.
3. (tie) Schubert, Schumann, and Brahms probably are among my favorites
because of their songs in addition to their better known music. When I
listen to DFD singing these Lieder, I wonder if I ever want to hear anything
else.
4. (tie) Beethoven, , Dvorak and Tchaikovsky. Not much of Beethoven is
neglected.
Dvorak's earlier symphonies, violin concerto, and operas are neglected.
Tchaikovsky's Manfred
and some other orchestral works are neglected, as are his operas.
5. (tie) Mahler, Bruckner, Prokofiev. Mahler and Bruckner could probably
use a little "benign neglect", to resurrect a Nixon term. Prokofiev is
neglected in the opera house, but not
in the world of dance; his "Romeo and Juliet" is magnificent, probably my
favorite
20th century work.
A. Brain
Remove NOSPAM for email.