Why do people hate Mahler
Kastchei
> Explanations please!
> --
> Rod Cranston
i have yet to hear someone say that they hate him. but i'm sure that
there are ppl who do. but i don't think it's too widespead, at least not
from my experience.
mike
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
*^* *^* *^*
*^* *^* You can surrender without a prayer, *^*
*^* Michael Lee Cooney *^* But never really pray without surrender; *^*
*^* *^* You can fight without ever winning, *^*
*^* ml...@acpub.duke.edu *^* But never ever win without a fight. *^*
*^* *^* -Rush *^*
*^* *^* *^*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Robert John Guttke wrote:
>
> On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:17:04 +0100, Rod Cranston
> <ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >Explanations please!
> >--
>
What people hate Mahler? Let me at 'em!! I'll give 'em what-for!!
:)
(Actually, I shouldn't be so combative. I'm afraid my own mother is one
of them -- but she relents when she hears that famous Adagietto or the
whole 4th Symphony.)
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
av...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <19970405124...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, wjbal...@aol.com writes:
>
> > I'm getting a little tired of the inferiority complex that seems to surround
> >
> >Mahler and his fans.
>
> I CAN GIVE YOU THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF APPX. 5000 MAHLER FANS WHO HAVE NO INFERIORTY ANYTHING.
>
> avik-gms
Avik, don't shout. Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your
time and annoys the pig.
Con
Rod Cranston
Explanations please!
--
Rod Cranston
Robert John Guttke
>Explanations please!
>--
>Rod Cranston
He goes on and on and on in the endless pursuit of a final note which
seems to constantly elude him. Something starts, it gets nice- does
he expand it? No. Drops it and then starts something else up. it's
as if he was writing for the cinema, creating a series of fragments
and shoving them together- in the loooooongest faction.
I just don't GET what he's doing. I'm all for different, but this
guy's structure is so all over the place that NOTHING hooks me.
r...@grupo.bfe.pt
I'm sure Mahler wouldn't mind missing you at one of his
concerts... I for instance cannot stand The Rite of Spring, but would
never ever say that I HATE the work. It is a relevant work of Music.
And so is Mahler work, no matter what you may think. "The work of Art
pre-exists our presumption" said the friend of Gustav von Aschenbach
in the film Death in Venice by Visconti.
Anyway, Mahler's endless search for Beauty and Love was so
supreme that it became utopia.
Chailly says that the 8th Symphony is the one in which Mahler
best expresses his love for Alma. But of course the Adagietto (5th) is
the most known love letter that Mahler wrote to Alma, as far as
popular opinion is aware of.
I should really like to know more about the truthfulness of
these two opinions.
R.
John Grabowski
In <3345d0b2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> rjgu...@juno.com
(Robert John Guttke) writes:
>
>On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:17:04 +0100, Rod Cranston
><ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Explanations please!
>>--
>>Rod Cranston
>He goes on and on and on in the endless pursuit of a final note which
>seems to constantly elude him. Something starts, it gets nice- does
>he expand it? No. Drops it and then starts something else up. it's
>as if he was writing for the cinema, creating a series of fragments
>and shoving them together- in the loooooongest faction.
Funny, I don't hear that in Mahler at all. In fact, a surprising
number of his movements develop along fairly conventional lines.
John
DPBMSS
Gustav Mahler, one of my heroes, heard a lot of him while in high school
during the sixties, tried to get others interested, mostly couldn't stand
him, too long, too emotional, too..."pointless and overblown"...for most.
You ether like him or can't stand him, it's that kind of thing.
David Burton
"If the Truth be known..."
John Grabowski
In <19970405070...@ladder01.news.aol.com> dpb...@aol.com
Yeah, but even for people who think things like that there are works
like the 1st and 4th symphonies, for example. Actually, I think the
4th is really one of his greatest little miracles.
John
av...@aol.com
>Explanations please!
>--
>Rod Cranston
WHO SAID THEY DID?
avik-gms
Stoli60
Endless, self-pitying, egomaniacal, pretentious drivel. Okay for students
and conductors!
wjbal...@aol.com
Very few *hate* Mahler. Some dislike him (i.e. his music). I love Mahler myself,
but I'm getting a little tired of the inferiority complex that seems to surround
Mahler and his fans. A lot of people think it was only Leonard Bernstein that
finally gained Mahler a hearing and prevented his descent to obscurity. Baloney.
When Bernstein conducted Mahler at the VPO (claiming later that he'd *introduced*
Mahler there) they had played at least one piece by Mahler in over half of the
preceding 20 years. Before Bernstein there was Walter (among others) who studied under Mahler and relentlessly promoted his music. Mahler is a conductor's
composer -- his music actually responds well to podium histrionics and the grand
gesture, even needs those to make its point effectively. The public may have been a little slow to warm up, but the conductors' secret society loved him enough to schedule him -- if not constantly,
then as much as they dared. Slowly the public began to understand this effulgent, overblown, wonderful music. But part of the mystique that grew up is this "nobody likes or understands Mahler except
a few of us who've been initiated into the higher mysteries" cult. This cult needs to feel in the minority. It needs to feel that most people don't understand Mahler or value him properly. But the
truth is that the Mahler-lovers are in the vast majority. Mahler-haters and those indifferent to his music know they are in the minority and admit that (as I admit to being outnumbered when I say I
dislike Brahms). Most consider Mahler to be a composer of the first rank.
Robert John Guttke
On 5 Apr 1997 06:13:56 GMT, joh...@ix.netcom.com(John Grabowski)
wrote:
>In <3345d0b2...@netnews.worldnet.att.net> rjgu...@juno.com
>(Robert John Guttke) writes:
>>
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:17:04 +0100, Rod Cranston
>><ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Explanations please!
>>>--
>>>Rod Cranston
>>He goes on and on and on in the endless pursuit of a final note which
>>seems to constantly elude him. Something starts, it gets nice- does
>>he expand it? No. Drops it and then starts something else up. it's
>>as if he was writing for the cinema, creating a series of fragments
>>and shoving them together- in the loooooongest faction.
>
>Funny, I don't hear that in Mahler at all. In fact, a surprising
>number of his movements develop along fairly conventional lines.
>
>
You must have funny ears...... 8-)
Robert John Guttke
On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 06:56:31 GMT, r...@grupo.bfe.pt wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Apr 1997 04:12:46 GMT, rjgu...@juno.com (Robert John
>Guttke) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:17:04 +0100, Rod Cranston
>><ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Explanations please!
>>>--
>>>Rod Cranston
>>He goes on and on and on in the endless pursuit of a final note which
>>seems to constantly elude him. Something starts, it gets nice- does
>>he expand it? No. Drops it and then starts something else up. it's
>>as if he was writing for the cinema, creating a series of fragments
>>and shoving them together- in the loooooongest faction.
>>
>>I just don't GET what he's doing. I'm all for different, but this
>>guy's structure is so all over the place that NOTHING hooks me.
>
> I'm sure Mahler wouldn't mind missing you at one of his
>concerts...
And I would weep copiously at being left out. Then again, I could sit
at home and toss a handful of pennies in the clothes dryer... it would
be the same thing as attending one of his concerts....
I for instance cannot stand The Rite of Spring, but would
>never ever say that I HATE the work. It is a relevant work of Music.
Relevant? Oh ho!
>And so is Mahler work, no matter what you may think. "The work of Art
>pre-exists our presumption" said the friend of Gustav von Aschenbach
>in the film Death in Venice by Visconti.
> Anyway, Mahler's endless search for Beauty and Love was so
>supreme that it became utopia.
Endless is the word for it all right.....
.
Robert John Guttke
On 5 Apr 1997 09:10:39 GMT, sto...@aol.com (Stoli60) wrote:
>Endless, self-pitying, egomaniacal, pretentious drivel. Okay for students
>and conductors!
I'm having that needle pointed on a pillow. Should be great for the
next Mahler slug-fest. What a hoot1 And so on the money.
Robert John Guttke
In the play THE FIFTH OF JULY, the main character is studying a
recording of someone with mental and vocal diabilities. The tape of
this sluggish voice is played over and over again. At one point a
woman leand over and says:
"THAT and Mahler are in a place of their own."
How I laughed................
Rod Cranston
In article <19970405034...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
av...@aol.com writes
>>--
>>Rod Cranston
>
>
>avik-gms
other genius. Or maybe they just don't understand the great man and his
emotions.
--
Rod Cranston
mkol...@indiana.edu
Rod Cranston wrote:
>
> Explanations please!
> --
> Rod Cranston
expressiveness behind his music... Yet there are some people like me
that think that he is one of the greatest composers who ever lived.
av...@aol.com
> I'm getting a little tired of the inferiority complex that seems to surround
>
>Mahler and his fans.
I CAN GIVE YOU THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF APPX. 5000 MAHLER FANS WHO HAVE NO INFERIORTY ANYTHING.
avik-gms
av...@aol.com
>>WHO SAID THEY DID?
>>
>>avik-gms
>It must be the constant criticism he seems to attract, more than any
>other genius. Or maybe they just don't understand the great man and his
>emotions.
>
>--
>Rod Cranston
are you talking about me or about MAHLER?
avik-gms
Sara Freeman
In <19970405091...@ladder01.news.aol.com> sto...@aol.com
(Stoli60) writes:
>
>Endless, self-pitying, egomaniacal, pretentious drivel. Okay for
students
>and conductors!
You've been listening to too much Lenny the B.
--
"Come out and admire me now because I won't be back for 2,400 years."--Hale-Bopp
Sara Freeman
In <19970405070...@ladder01.news.aol.com> dpb...@aol.com
(DPBMSS) writes:
>
>Gustav Mahler, one of my heroes, heard a lot of him while in high
school
>during the sixties, tried to get others interested, mostly couldn't
stand
>him, too long, too emotional, too..."pointless and overblown"...for
most.
>You ether like him or can't stand him, it's that kind of thing.
>David Burton
>"If the Truth be known..."
Actually, I was ambivalent towards Mahler for a long time. I found that
I had to make an effort by listening with a good deal of concentration
and some background reading before I came to really like Mahler.
But all composers are hated by some people. I personnaly have a hard
time with Schumann's leathery symphonies, no matter how ell they are
performed. We have different tastes.
Eric Schissel
In article <5i4ucf$5...@dfw-ixnews12.ix.netcom.com>,
John Grabowski <joh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Actually, I think the
>4th is really one of his greatest little miracles.
>
Hrmph. We agree.
I first heard the 5th, found it pedestrian (yes! I did! I don't now. Of
course, considering that it was a Tanglewood concert and probably was
Ozawa conducting- anyone know for sure? It was summer of 1987.)
Next year I heard the 4th, tuning into the radio in the middle of that
weird scherzo. .That. I liked. Then some others; 2 didn't move me much
(still doesn't), 3 didn't (it does now), friend suggested the 6th,
I almost failed an exam out of love for the 6th...
(Yes. A friend actually said "If you like the 4th you'll probably like the
6th." Now in size and other respects- totally dissimilar. But ins ome
respects they are the most goal-directed, clearest, most classical-in-flow
(though not in form, esp. the finale of the 6th which is coherent but
totally original) of all his symphonies IMHO.)
-Eric Schissel
>
>
>John
>
Dan Qu
Excerpts from netnews.rec.music.classical: 5-Apr-97 Re: Why do people
hate Mahler by DPB...@aol.com
> during the sixties, tried to get others interested, mostly couldn't stand
> him, too long, too emotional, too..."pointless and overblown"...for most.
> You ether like him or can't stand him, it's that kind of thing.
> David Burton
> "If the Truth be known..."
This is really very interesting. I want to ask people how much you
think Wagner this way. Because for myself, both Mahler and Wagner, I
love and can't stand.
Dan
Paul mastr
I have divided feelings on Mahler, There are Mahler works I admire greatly
and some that no matter how much I try I cannot connect with. This is
comeing from someone who has spent 20 years listening to and studying
scores of Mahler's music! I admire the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 6th symphonies,
as well as parts of the 8th and 7th. I am one of those however who do find
his reputation a bit inflated in our time. I'm no musical arch
conservative either, I adore Bruckner, Ives, Shostakovitch, Berg etc,
maybe its a personal thing.
Bryan Ho
I think more people fear Mahler rather than hate him since, the
majority of self-avowed "mahler-haters" that I know actually haven't
really listened to his music. He really isn't that easy to "ease into"
(the sheer length of his symphonies is just daunting to the causal
listener) and you need a lot of patience to give any of his symphonies
a fair hearing.
Mark Starr
Sara Freeman wrote (with regard to Stoli60's comment that Mahler's music
was "endless, self-pitying, egomaniacal, pretentious drivel. Okay for
students and conductors!"):
> You've been listening to too much Lenny the B.
I respond:
When Sara Freeman ridicules Bernstein once again--after all of her posts
adoring Mahler's music and the VPO--she not only makes herself appear
foolish once more in public, but she also displays a callous ingratitude
for two of Bernstein's historical contributions: (1) to have lead the
VPO by its collective ear--while its members screamed and kicked every
step of the way--to re-learn, digest, play and eventually love all of
Mahler's music; and (2) to have forced, by his corageous example and
unique performing talents, other great orchestras around the world to
accept Mahler's music as a basic component of the standard repertoire.
I lived in several European countries during the Sixties, and I know
exactly how rarely great European orchestras ever performed Mahler's
works back then.
Undeniably, many other conductors and orchestras performed Mahler's
music both before and after Bernstein and the VPO (or the NYPO). Some
may have performed individual works, in your opinion or in mine, better
than Lenny. Indeed, I would say that the very finest performances I
ever heard of the First and the Ninth were conducted by Jascha
Horenstein. But no conductor--not Bruno Walter, not Otto Klemperer, not
Bernard Haitink, not Jascha Horenstein, not W. Mengelberg, not Georg
Solti, not von Dohnanyi (whom I heard conduct the Sixth in one of his
very first concerts), certainly not Boulez, and not even Gustav Mahler,
the conductor, himself--ever did as much to engender love (not mere
acceptance) among the world's musicians and music listener's for
Mahler's music than did Leonard Bernstein. And he won over the
world-wide musical public (in addition to the VPO and the NYPO) to
accept his vision--not with any political power or the advertising hype
of record companies--but with the sheer magnetism and fire of his
musical gifts. To ignore Bernstein's contribution to Mahler's current
acceptance and appreciation the world over is to mark oneself a
sniveling ingrate.
Regards,
Mark Starr
John Grabowski
In <19970405091...@ladder01.news.aol.com> sto...@aol.com
(Stoli60) writes:
>
>Endless, self-pitying, egomaniacal, pretentious drivel.
Remember, that was once said about Beethoven.
John
Craig
>
>>On Sat, 5 Apr 1997 00:17:04 +0100, Rod Cranston
>><ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Explanations please!
>>>--
>>Rod Cranston
A friend once walked into my apartment while I was playing Mahler's
Symphony No. 9 and said, "What's this? Sounds like blood letting.".
-Craig
Kastchei
> He goes on and on and on in the endless pursuit of a final note which
> seems to constantly elude him. Something starts, it gets nice- does
> he expand it? No. Drops it and then starts something else up. it's
> as if he was writing for the cinema, creating a series of fragments
> and shoving them together- in the loooooongest faction.
i think that's what makes it great. i think the music does flow nicely
from one section to another so i don't find value in the statement that
mahler sounds like he was shoving fragments together. also i think that
it is terrific that he does not expand several themes for 20 min. (like a
bruckner symphony) that would be incredibly boring. i think the
constant change is very appealing. i think it makes you want to listen
to the piece more because you didn't get your fill of the melodies etc.
> I just don't GET what he's doing. I'm all for different, but this
> guy's structure is so all over the place that NOTHING hooks me.
as far as listening enjoyment, do you ever sit back and let your mind
go? not think about the music but simply listen? with no analysis? i
think that if you do this and maybe not worry about whether or not mahler
is writing in sonata form, etc. that you would enjoy him more. after all
music doesn't have to be structured to be interesting. but that's just
my 2 cents.
mike
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
*^* *^* *^*
*^* *^* You can surrender without a prayer, *^*
*^* Michael Lee Cooney *^* But never really pray without surrender; *^*
*^* *^* You can fight without ever winning, *^*
*^* ml...@acpub.duke.edu *^* But never ever win without a fight. *^*
*^* *^* -Rush *^*
*^* *^* *^*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*
Kastchei
> Symphony No. 9 and said, "What's this? Sounds like blood letting.".
what in the world is "blood letting?"
Rod Cranston
In article <334633...@indiana.edu>, mkol...@indiana.edu writes
>Rod Cranston wrote:
>>
>> Explanations please!
>> --
>> Rod Cranston
>expressiveness behind his music... Yet there are some people like me
>that think that he is one of the greatest composers who ever lived.
I couldn't have put it better myself.
--
Rod Cranston
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
Kastchei wrote:
>
> > Symphony No. 9 and said, "What's this? Sounds like blood letting.".
>
> what in the world is "blood letting?"
>
was caused by "bsd" blood, which should be got rid of. They either
applied leeches to you to suck the blood out, or just simply cut you and
left you to hemorrhage. Obviously, the patient's death more frequently
resulted from the cure than from the original illness.
Really, Kastchei, with a handle like yours, you must know these things
for appearance's sake. How would it look if I were called "Merlin" and
asked "what is jousting"? Anyway, none of this is to be construed as
reflecting my own feelings about the Mahler 9, which I love
passionately.
Con
av...@aol.com
>>Some people do not appreciate the beauty, the hidden meaning, the
>>expressiveness behind his music... Yet there are some people like me
>>that think that he is one of the greatest composers who ever lived.
>
>I couldn't have put it better myself.
>--
>Rod Cranston
Thanks rodney and rod. may i join the ever growing chorus?!!!
avik-gms
Tord Kallqvist Romstad
John Grabowski (joh...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <19970405091...@ladder01.news.aol.com> sto...@aol.com
: (Stoli60) writes:
: >
: >Endless, self-pitying, egomaniacal, pretentious drivel.
: Remember, that was once said about Beethoven.
Some of us still say so. :-)
Tord
: John
Michael
A lot of people think Mahler's music is just overblown, Romantic,
formless symphonic poems with out any classical structure or cohesion.
They are very wrong. Just listen to the first movement of his 9th. The
entire half hour, sonata-form movement is made from a simple
two-note,rhythmic fragment. Absolutely amazing. Even Beethoven would
have trouble doing an entire half hour.(With such beautiful and powerful
melodies grown thoughout)
Michael
I would suggest for anyone who is a fan of Beethoven's string Quartets
to give Mahler a chance. The more I hear Mahler's symphonies, the more I
think Mahler was trying to capture the feel and atmoshere of Beethoven's
late quartets but on an enormous scale. Mahler was the first conductor
to arrange Beethoven's late quartets for string orchestra. Besides
Mahler refers (and steals) from these quartets in many places (the
adagietto from no.5 is Mahler's version of Beethoven's op.135's Adagio.)
Any thought? Does anyone else see a strong connection?
John Grabowski
There's an interesting lecture video by Leonard Bernstein that's
recently come out on the subject. He discusses what he believes made
Mahler the way he was, and his conclusions are interesting. I'd
recommend it...called "The Little Drummer Boy."
John
John Grabowski
In <334746...@inow.com> Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> writes:
>[...]To ignore Bernstein's contribution to Mahler's current
>acceptance and appreciation the world over is to mark oneself a
>sniveling ingrate.
>
>Regards,
>Mark Starr
Me, I'd just ignore Sara Freeman.
John
Sara Freeman
In <5i9n7d$j...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com> joh...@ix.netcom.com(John
when I contribute to those "10 best" threads.
David Bluestone
I accept wholeheartedly Bernstein's contribution to the Mahler revival,
whilst remaining a snivelling ingrate for many other reasons.
David
Jim_...@transarc.com
Rod Cranston <ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Explanations please!
> --
Perhaps you should first explain who these people are who hate Mahler.
******************************************************************
Jim Mann jm...@transarc.com
Transarc Corporation
Technical Writer -- Encina Programming Documentation
http://www.transarc.com/~jmann/
Where would conversation be, if we were not allowed to exchange our
minds freely and to abuse our neighbours from time to time?
-- Dr. Stephen Maturin
Mr. Mike
fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara Freeman) writes:
>That's a very good idea. But, hey, you're gonna miss some good stuff
>when I contribute to those "10 best" threads.
Personally, I am waiting for your opinion on the best recording of the diamond
music... ";-/
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out my home page: http://web20.mindlink.net/a4369 -- The home
of the award-winning Hawaii Five-O Home Page, X-Files stuff and more!
Michael A. Abelson
> acceptance and appreciation the world over is to mark oneself a
> sniveling ingrate.
>
for many of the same reasons. One must weigh the positive effect of
reaching a wider audience against the negative of wildly distorting the
composer's character, and using the music as a vehicle for the
conductor's pathological egomania.
Benstein does do the 3rd well, and the 7th almost as well. I wonder why?
Is it because these are the most objective works? Is it because the
human element (and opportunity for chest-beating and angst-flaunting) is
minimal in these pieces?
I don't hear any kicking and screaming in Walter's VPO performances of
the 4th, 9th, Das Lied, or the adagietto.
To me, the most successful Mahler interpreters seek the one emotion most
lacking in his art: nobility. (Think before you flame. There was much
that was noble in Mahler the man. That he was so conflicted is the
essence of his art.)
Mike Abelson
Chris Koenigsberg
My wife just asked if we could name our new kid Gustav, when it's born
soon (if it's a boy of course), after Gustav Mahler.
I must say that playing in an orchestra, going through rehearsals and
then having it all fall together at the concert in the end, helps you
appreciate a piece, in a way that goes far beyond just casual
listening. I had the good fortune some years ago to play in the bass
section for Mahler's Symphony #1, and #4 (two different orchestras,
different conductors, different years even).
Then there's the movie version of Thomas Mann's book "Death in
Venice", with Mahler excerpts as the soundtrack, and the book of pop
science/philosophy by (???) called "Late Night Thoughts While
Listening to Mahler Symphony #9"....
Chris Koenigsberg, c...@pobox.com, <http://www.pobox.com/~ckk>
Kristen Immoor
In article <334994f0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, rjgu...@juno.com
(Robert John Guttke) wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Apr 1997 21:16:55 GMT, c...@pobox.com (Chris Koenigsberg)
>wrote:
>>>>My wife just asked if we could name our new kid Gustav, when it's born
>>soon (if it's a boy of course), after Gustav Mahler.
>
>Might as well paint a bullseye on his back while you're at it.
Really! You should know better. I am going to name my son Glenn Herbert
North Goldberg Farhan Gould. That way, he will be adored the world over.
;-)
Mark Starr
Michael A. Abelson wrote:
> Bernstein did for Mahler pretty much what Mel Gibson did for Hamlet, and
> for many of the same reasons. One must weigh the positive effect of
> reaching a wider audience against the negative of wildly distorting the
> composer's character, and using the music as a vehicle for the
> conductor's pathological egomania.
>
> Benstein does do the 3rd well, and the 7th almost as well. I wonder why?
> Is it because these are the most objective works? Is it because the
> human element (and opportunity for chest-beating and angst-flaunting) is
> minimal in these pieces?
>
> I don't hear any kicking and screaming in Walter's VPO performances of
> the 4th, 9th, Das Lied, or the adagietto.
>
> To me, the most successful Mahler interpreters seek the one emotion most
> lacking in his art: nobility. (Think before you flame. There was much
> that was noble in Mahler the man. That he was so conflicted is the
> essence of his art.)
>
> Mike Abelson
I respond:
I'd say you missed my point. I didn't say that Bernstein's historical
contribution was to bring Mahler's music to the masses--like Mel Gibson
brought "Hamlet" to movie audiences. Bernstein put (and in one notable
case, put back) Mahler's music into the active repertoire of the world's
greatest orchestras--even those with whom he never performed Mahler's
music.
If you think the VPO did not bitterly resist playing Mahler's music,
especially after WWII, read Humphrey Burton's biography of Bernstein.
Just whom do you think it was who prodded the VPO into playing Mahler
once again? Von Karajan, during his umpteen post-WWII years with that
orchestra? Give me a break! Bruno Walter? Look at the date of his VPO
recording of "Das Lied" and compare it with the date of Walter's death.
Walter's final recordings of "Das Lied", the Ninth, and the First were
made with the New York Philharmonic and the Columbia Symphony Orchestra.
Where are the Mahler recordings with the VPO under the other great
Mahler conductors of the Forties, the Fifties and the early Sixties?
You will search in vain for post-War Mahler cycles with the VPO under
Jascha Horenstein, by Otto Klemperer, by Hermann Scherchen, by Wolfgang
Sawallisch, or by Igor Markevitch--despite the fact that all of these
conductors were performing and actively promoting Mahler's music at that
time with the few orchestras that would agree to play it.
By the way, what were the German and Austrian conductors WITH permanent
posts in Germany and Austria after WWII doing to perform Mahler's
music--conductors such as Furtwaengler, Celibidache, von Knappertsbusch,
Krauss, Boehm (who eventually did conduct the Ruckert Lieder), and
Karajan later in Berlin? Almost nothing!
Even if you cannot hear the nobility in Bernstein's conducting of
Mahler's music (not to mention his breath-taking piano accompaniments to
Mahler's songs,) you should at the very least be able to recognize the
nobility and courage of this American Jew who literally jumped into the
lion's den, teaching the VPO note-by-note how to play its own music.
And despite the musicians' hostility, they kept on re-inviting Bernstein
over and over for more of the same.
Regards,
Mark Starr
Justin Sulik
>expressiveness behind his music... Yet there are some people like me
>that think that he is one of the greatest composers who ever lived.
Robert John Guttke
Doctor Gonzo
Michael A. Abelson wrote:
>Mark Starr wrote:
>>
>> I respond:
>>
>> When Sara Freeman ridicules Bernstein once again--after all of her posts
>> adoring Mahler's music and the VPO--she not only makes herself appear
>> foolish once more in public, but she also displays a callous ingratitude
>> for two of Bernstein's historical contributions: (1) to have lead the
>> VPO by its collective ear--while its members screamed and kicked every
>> step of the way--to re-learn, digest, play and eventually love all of
>> Mahler's music;
Actually, Claudio Abbado deserves more credit than Bernstein for
restoring Mahler to the Vienna Philharmonic's repertoire! He beat
Bernstein to it and performed more Mahler with the VPO than Bernstein
(and I'm not including concerts after Bernstein's death).
>> and (2) to have forced, by his courageous example and
>> unique performing talents, other great orchestras around the world to
>> accept Mahler's music as a basic component of the standard repertoire.
Bernstein hardly deserves all the credit... remember Barbirolli (three
seasons of Mahler in Berlin in ar row), Maazel (regular performances
of Mahler in the early 1960s in the UK and Europe --- and more
frequent than Bernstein), and Solti (UK and Vienna, then Chicago),
just to name three?
>>[snip] ...But no conductor--not Bruno Walter, not Otto Klemperer, not
>> Bernard Haitink, not Jascha Horenstein, not W. Mengelberg, not Georg
>> Solti, not von Dohnanyi (whom I heard conduct the Sixth in one of his
>> very first concerts), certainly not Boulez, and not even Gustav Mahler,
>> the conductor, himself--ever did as much to engender love (not mere
>> acceptance) among the world's musicians and music listener's for
>> Mahler's music than did Leonard Bernstein.
If you'd take the time to review the facts --- and concert programming
information for major American and European orchestras --- you would
find this completely untrue. Many others have championed Mahler as
enthusiastically or more so than Bernstein; their publicists and
agents made less of a fuss about it. Maybe Bernstein dominated the
Mahler scene in all-important music-business capital New York, but I'd
venture to say that Solti had more to do with popularizing Mahler
during the late 1960s through the '70s in America --- at least among
the non-NY musicians and serious music enthusiasts. A source at
Decca-London told me that in the US, Solti's Mahler was outselling
Bernstein's by about 2 to 1 by the late 1970s --- and by a bigger
margin in Europe.
>> And he won over the
>> world-wide musical public (in addition to the VPO and the NYPO) to
>> accept his vision--not with any political power or the advertising hype
>> of record companies--but with the sheer magnetism and fire of his
>> musical gifts.
More like he convinced an influential portion of the audience to
accept his strategically calculated emotional excess in Mahler. I
hear too much Lenny and not enough Gustav (except for his fine early
recordings of 2 & 3 on Columbia and Das Lied on Decca-London).
>>To ignore Bernstein's contribution to Mahler's current
>> acceptance and appreciation the world over is to mark oneself a
>> sniveling ingrate.
You sound almost as if you're quoting a press release from Amberson or
DG!
>Bernstein did for Mahler pretty much what Mel Gibson did for Hamlet, and
>for many of the same reasons...[snip]
>Benstein does do the 3rd well, and the 7th almost as well. I wonder why?
>Is it because these are the most objective works? Is it because the
>human element (and opportunity for chest-beating and angst-flaunting) is
>minimal in these pieces?
One thing Bernstein did have a good grip on was carefully thinking
through large-scale structure, a key reason that his recordings of the
Shostakovich 7th are IMunHO so successful.
>I don't hear any kicking and screaming in Walter's VPO performances of
>the 4th, 9th, Das Lied, or the adagietto.
...and his 1948 Resurrection with the Vienna Philharmonic sounds just
even more convincing, played by an orchestra of true believers.
>To me, the most successful Mahler interpreters seek the one emotion most
>lacking in his art: nobility.
An interesting criterion for success... but one which is admittedly
overlooked too frequently!
The Doc
NEW! The Camden Papers... leaked to The Gonzo Report at
http://www.pipeline.com/~drgonzo
My email address is
| drgonzo |
| @pipeline |
| .com |
Doctor Gonzo
Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
>Where are the Mahler recordings with the VPO under the other great
>Mahler conductors of the Forties,
Forties? The VPO was banned from doing Mahler during WWII and
recorded _no_ postwar Mahler until late in the 40s (I'm not counting
the Sony Japan aircheck of the '48 Resurrection with Walter)! And why
are you blaming the ORCHESTRA when it was the LABELS that showed
little interest in Mahler until the mid-50s... and I ain't talkin' DG
or Electrola! Which is the REAL reason...
>You will search in vain for post-War Mahler cycles with the VPO under
>Jascha Horenstein, by Otto Klemperer, by Hermann Scherchen, by Wolfgang
>Sawallisch, or by Igor Markevitch--despite the fact that all of these
>conductors were performing and actively promoting Mahler's music at that
>time with the few orchestras that would agree to play it.
The Doc
Robert John Guttke
On Mon, 07 Apr 1997 21:25:09 -0400, N...@this.address (Kristen Immoor)
wrote:
>In article <334994f0...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, rjgu...@juno.com
>(Robert John Guttke) wrote:
>
>Really! You should know better. I am going to name my son Glenn Herbert
>North Goldberg Farhan Gould. That way, he will be adored the world over.
>;-)
>
>--
>kim...@mindspring.com
I LOVE YOU!
WILL YOU HAVE MY BABY?!?!
How you made me laugh................. 8-)
Jeremy Berman
>If you think the VPO did not bitterly resist playing Mahler's music,
>especially after WWII, read Humphrey Burton's biography of Bernstein.
>
>Where are the Mahler recordings with the VPO under the other great
>Mahler conductors of the Forties, the Fifties and the early Sixties?
>You will search in vain for post-War Mahler cycles with the VPO under
>Jascha Horenstein, by Otto Klemperer, by Hermann Scherchen, by
Wolfgang
>Sawallisch, or by Igor Markevitch--despite the fact that all of these
>conductors were performing and actively promoting Mahler's music at
that
>time with the few orchestras that would agree to play it.
>
>By the way, what were the German and Austrian conductors WITH
permanent
>posts in Germany and Austria after WWII doing to perform Mahler's
>music--conductors such as Furtwaengler, Celibidache, von
Knappertsbusch,
>Krauss, Boehm (who eventually did conduct the Ruckert Lieder), and
>Karajan later in Berlin? Almost nothing!
>
>Even if you cannot hear the nobility in Bernstein's conducting of
>Mahler's music (not to mention his breath-taking piano accompaniments
to
>Mahler's songs,) you should at the very least be able to recognize the
>nobility and courage of this American Jew who literally jumped into
the
>lion's den, teaching the VPO note-by-note how to play its own music.
>
Jeremy writes: Mark, I think you're close to why those orchestras and
permanent conductors didn't touch Mahler. (Or perhaps you said it
without being as obvious as I'm about to be)
I think the Austrian and German orchestras you mentioned, and Austrian
and German conductors didn't want to touch Mahler for the most obvious
of reasons. Despite converting from Judaism, I would have to think
Mahler was still thought of as a Jew. For this reason, the VPO wouldn't
quite see Mahler as "its own music." And yes, Bernstein was courageous,
as you state, as an American Jew to teach the VPO how to play Mahler.
(I'm not quite as positive towards his interpretations of Mahler,
though I'm not a virulent hater either. For instance, his CBS/Sony
Mahler First is THE First for me)
It's important to note that Klemperer, a Mahler student, did perform
Mahler in other European centers and tried to bring Mahler the larger
audience he deserved.
DPBMSS
Bernstein and Mahler,
I was in my teens when I went over big for Mahler. Nobody my age was
listening to him. Those I tried to get into listening to Mahler back then
didn't understand him... of course. Older people with few exceptions
didn't get him either... too much bombast, emotion, etc... especially too
long!
To me, Gustav Mahler was as much a prophet as anything else and of
all the interpreters, Bernstein captured more of the "dreadful imagry of
the future" that I believe Mahler saw coming ahead of his own time,
excluding his own death, which he also knew was coming, better than Solti,
better than Walter, better than Horensten. Yes, these conductors kept
things more "even", but there was something lost and I disagree that the
super emotionalism in Bernstein's renderings were just Bernstein. It
seems to me that the raw emotions were there in the music, I've checked
the scores.
There was something else Bernstein brought to his performances of
Mahler, a sense of sarcastic humor that Mahler clearly had. I don't hear
this in the same passages by other conductors either and it has seemed to
me essential to much of what makes Mahler Mahler.
As to who gets credit for bringing Mahler back? I don't know, but if
I had to decide, I'd give Bernstein the nod.
I like Abbado's Mahler 6th though. In fact Claudio Abbado and James
Levine both seem to understand Mahler, the super emotionalist who knew no
retraint, better than anyone else. So many conductors seem more
interested in "bottling it up" because much of it is too scary, which it
is, like the opening passage of the last movement of the 6th. It ought to
be, Mahler felt war and terror coming, I'm sure of it.
Incidently, for a number of reasons excluding his interest in
Mahler's music, Leonard Bernstein was at one time one of my childhood
heroes. That's before I found out more about him and what a miserable
human being he actually was. Nevertheless as has been stated in this
newsgroup here and there concerning music and personalities, it may be a
mistake to judge the music by the person connected with it.
Regards,
David Burton
"If the Truth be known..."
Mark Starr
With today's announcement that Wynton Marsalis has won the
1997 Pulitzer Prize for Musical Composition with "Blood on
the Field", the Pulitzer Board has removed any lingering
doubts that the Pulitzer Prize in Music has any credibility,
importance, relevance or prestige in the world of music.
Now, Marsalis is one helluva trumpet player--both in classical
music and jazz. And he is an interesting, if fledgling, creative
voice in jazz. But a Pultizer Prize-winning composer!
Michael Jackson deserves the award more than Marsalis.
For all those who scream "it's about time a jazzman won a Pultizer
Prize to honor this uniquely American art-form," just remember this:
about two decades ago, the Pulitzer music jury had recommended that
the prize be awarded to Duke Ellington--but the Pulitzer Board refused
to award Ellington the prize. If the Board had awarded this year's
Pulitzer in Music posthumously to Duke Ellington, you would never
hear a peep out of me.
But that's the way it has always been with the Pulitzer Prizes in
music. Look at the music awards throughout the prize's history.
With very few exceptions, the Pulitzer Prizes in Music have missed
almost of the great American musical works that have entered the
standard repertoire. And when the Pulitzer Board did award the prize
to worthy composers, it was usually for the wrong compositions.
Ives' "Three Places in New England"?, or Fourth Symphony? No!
Ives' was awarded a Pulitzer for his bland Symphony No. 3.
When Ives' award was announced in 1947, he refused to accept it,
saying publicly "Prizes are the badges of mediocrity."
"Fancy Free"?, "Jeremiah" Symphony?, "Prelude, Fugue and Riffs"?,
"Facsimile"? "Age of Anxiety." "On The Town," "West Side Story"?.
No! Bernstein never won a Pulitzer. Nor did Lou Harrison.
Nor did Harry Partch. But Leo Sowerby did!
Marc Blitzstein's "Regina"? Virgil Thompson's "Four Saints in Three
Acts" or "Lord Byron,"?, Carlyle Floyd's "Susannah"?, Sessions'
"Montezuma"?, Sondheim's "Sweeney Todd"?, Corigliano's "Ghosts of
Versailles"?, Glass' "Einstein on the Beach," or Adams' "Nixon in
China"?.
No! But Douglas Moore's "Giants in the Earth" did. (Even Moore wrote
a better opera than his plodding "Giants in the Earth"--that is, his
insipid "Ballad of Baby Doe.")
Del Tredici's "Final Alice"?", Karel Husa's "Music for Prague"?,
Barber's "Knoxville" Summer?, Sessions' "When Lilacs Last in the
Dooryard Bloomed" or any of his symphonies?, Corigliano's Clarinet
Concerto, "Etudes" Fantasy or "Poem in October"?, Adams "Harmonie"?,
No! But in 1982, the Pulitzer Board awarded Milton Babbitt a "special
citation". (Evidently, the Board could not remember the name of any
particular piece by Babbitt long enough to vote on it.)
Have the Pulitzer Prizes in music ever hit the nail on the head.
In 1945, the Board selected Copland's "Appalachian Spring." In 1955,
they selected Menotti's "Saint of Bleeker Street." In 1960, Elliot
Carter's String Qt. No. 2. In 1968, George Crumb's "Echoes of Time,"
And in 1985, Stephen Albert's "River Run." That is a pretty miserable
record for more than 50 years of prizes.
Regards,
Mark Starr
P.S. "Porgy and Bess" was premiered way before the Pulitzer Prize in
music began.
Robert Silverman
John LaMontaine won it for a fine (if conservative) piano concerto he
wrote in the 1950s.
I wish he'd spelled his name the French way. I could have gotten the
piece any number of performances (and prizes) in Canada.
rs
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail: rob...@unixg.ubc.ca
website: http://www.sloth.com/sloth/silverman/home.html
(lots to see and hear; nothing for sale)
Mark Starr
Mr. Mike wrote:
>
> fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara Freeman) writes:
>
> >That's a very good idea. But, hey, you're gonna miss some good stuff
> >when I contribute to those "10 best" threads.
>
> Personally, I am waiting for your opinion on the best recording of the diamond
> music... ";-/
How about her opinion of the only member of the Wagner family to
publicly denounce the Wagner family's long history of virulent
anti-Semiticism?
Regards,
Mark Starr
Sara Freeman (fre...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Gottfried is a piece of shit.
Sara Freeman
In <5idt26$d...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com> fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara
Freeman) writes:
>his relatives in the looks department.
>--
Furthermore, Lenny and Gotty were good friends. The very idea of
listening in on a conversation between these two monopolists of
morality makes me . . . well, I don't even want to think about it.
Sara Freeman
In <334A71...@inow.com> Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> writes:
>
>Mr. Mike wrote:
>>
>> fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara Freeman) writes:
>>
>> >That's a very good idea. But, hey, you're gonna miss some good
stuff
>> >when I contribute to those "10 best" threads.
>>
>> Personally, I am waiting for your opinion on the best recording of
the diamond
>> music... ";-/
>
>How about her opinion of the only member of the Wagner family to
>publicly denounce the Wagner family's long history of virulent
>anti-Semiticism?
>
>Regards,
>Mark Starr
>
>Sara Freeman (fre...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: Gottfried is a piece of shit.
He sure is . . . but I gotta admit that he's a 100% improvement over
his relatives in the looks department.
--
John Grabowski
In <19970408071...@ladder01.news.aol.com> dpb...@aol.com
(DPBMSS) writes:
> Incidently, for a number of reasons excluding his interest in
>Mahler's music, Leonard Bernstein was at one time one of my childhood
>heroes. That's before I found out more about him and what a miserable
>human being he actually was.
I'm curious...how was Bernstein any different from your average
egomaniacal, demanding artist? ;-)
John
CONSTANTIN MARCOU
DPBMSS wrote:
>
> Bernstein and Mahler,
> I was in my teens when I went over big for Mahler. Nobody my age was
> listening to him. Those I tried to get into listening to Mahler back then
> didn't understand him... of course. Older people with few exceptions
> didn't get him either... too much bombast, emotion, etc... especially too
> long!
> To me, Gustav Mahler was as much a prophet as anything else and of
> all the interpreters, Bernstein captured more of the "dreadful imagry of
> the future"
Personally, I tend to classify Bernstein's interpretations separately
from the other, more restrained ones, and approach themn the same way
that I approach "authentic" and "traditional" performances of early
composers: both approaches have merit and appeal, depending upon my mood
(like thick-crust vs. thin-crust pizza, as a friend of mine analogizes.)
> As to who gets credit for bringing Mahler back? I don't know
What I don't understand, is: did he really ever go away? I've read all
the postings about Germany in the '40s, but certainly we have recordings
of Mahler symphonies in the '50s, and Lenny didn't really become
influential until the '60s. I may be too young to remember any of these
events, but I do recall seeing re-runs of the "Young People's Concerts"
from the early '60s, and Bernstein appeared to be very young at the time
-- in fact, I think these may have launched his carreer as a celebrity
(given that he had already proved his mettle as a conductor). So,
wasn't there any Mahler before this?
Regards,
Con
Steve Ginsberg
In article <3349FB...@inow.com>, Mark says...
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Dear Mark,
PLEASE CALM DOWN. The world is not coming to an end.
Hitler was upfor the Nobel Peace Price. Or what i
like to say the Novel Award.
Now come on Mark, play four chords with the correct
tonic and inverted chords and you have Bernstein most
of which a freshman in compposition could write.
Lenny had good connections.
Now go home and think of anther opera quiz to boost
your ego and you will feel better right away. I will
just sit here and be bored with you.
Steve Ginsberg
Rod Cranston
In article <UnGEfAeSM...@transarc.com>, Jim_...@transarc.com
writes
>
>Rod Cranston <ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> Explanations please!
>> --
>
>Perhaps you should first explain who these people are who hate Mahler.
--
Rod Cranston
Eric Schissel
Mr. Starr,
Ives' 3rd symphony .bland.????
Hrmph. First time I ever heard it, the so-sad ending brought a tear to my
eye. And I still like it.
Bland indeed. "Not heavenstorming." An advantage, not a crime.
Babbitt, now- good that he got a Pulitzer. He, more than anything I've
heard from Corigliano, deserves it mightily.
-Eric Schissel
AusFootGuy
i agree with this fellow entirely.. as a composer who enjoys the wonderful
blessing of appreciative audiences and PLAYERS.. hence i get a lot of
performances.... i jhave completely decided and NOT just because of sour
grapes ( Ill NOT trade my performances for meaningless citations any day)
that virtually ALL composition prizes are decided bt OTHER composers...
dont people think that havign ahappy audiences and players is MUCH more
productive and conducive to more of the same than some somber bitter
commitee giving you a citation? ( BUt damn it would be nice to have one of
those CHECKS!)
Mark Starr
> Babbitt, now- good that he got a Pulitzer. He, more than anything I've
> heard from Corigliano, deserves it mightily.
>
> -Eric Schissel
And may you listen to Babbitt's music forever! (A Yiddish curse.)
Regards,
Mark Starr
Alex the purple monkey
mkol...@indiana.edu wrote:
>Rod Cranston wrote:
>>
>> Explanations please!
>> --
>> Rod Cranston
>Some people do not appreciate the beauty, the hidden meaning, the
>expressiveness behind his music...
Or maybe it's a thing of personal taste? ...just gessing...
"Just having thoughts of Marianne,
quickest girl in the frying pan..."
Alex the purple monkey
Rod Cranston
In article <19970406190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
av...@aol.com writes
>In article <VjgTgDAx...@mahler8.demon.co.uk>, Rod Cranston
>
>>>Some people do not appreciate the beauty, the hidden meaning, the
>>>that think that he is one of the greatest composers who ever lived.
>>
>>--
>>Rod Cranston
>
>Thanks rodney and rod. may i join the ever growing chorus?!!!
>
>avik-gms
avik,
I get great pleasure in reading your postings. Like the great man
himself, a genious at work.
Rod Cranston
Brian Newhouse
> With today's announcement that Wynton Marsalis has won the
> 1997 Pulitzer Prize for Musical Composition with "Blood on
> the Field", the Pulitzer Board has removed any lingering
> doubts that the Pulitzer Prize in Music has any credibility,
> importance, relevance or prestige in the world of music.
>
> Now, Marsalis is one helluva trumpet player--both in classical
> music and jazz. And he is an interesting, if fledgling, creative
> voice in jazz. But a Pultizer Prize-winning composer!
> Michael Jackson deserves the award more than Marsalis.
>
> For all those who scream "it's about time a jazzman won a Pultizer
> Prize to honor this uniquely American art-form," just remember this:
> about two decades ago, the Pulitzer music jury had recommended that
> the prize be awarded to Duke Ellington--but the Pulitzer Board refused
> to award Ellington the prize. If the Board had awarded this year's
> Pulitzer in Music posthumously to Duke Ellington, you would never
> hear a peep out of me.
Well, the Pulitzer people never award posthumous prizes--else the awarding
would never be done...still, a lifetime achievement award (like the one
proposed to Ellington) to, say, Ornette Coleman, or Dizzy Gillespie or
Miles Davis before their respective deaths, would have been very much in
order. Unfortunately, the Pulitzer Prize has a built-in bias toward
large-scale works or big collections, which militates against jazz
musicians as well as any composer who is more of a miniaturist, however
accomplished. (Yes, I _do_ mean Conlon Nancarrow. He would be my
unhesitating choice for a Lifetime Achievement Award. I suspect that
Milton Babbitt got his 1982 award on the same principles.)
But did you actually _hear_ the Marsalis work in question? Is it really
that undeserving?
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@mail.crisp.net
Eric Schissel
Ye gods, you want to listen to Corigliano's music forever, without any
Beethoven, Sessions, Alkan, Dohnanyi, Tschaikovski, Rubbra, Creston,
Legley, or anything else?
Do as you like...
I want to hear more by any composer who's got a half chance of pleasing
me. I try to give most plenty of chances.
-Eric Schissel
Walter C. Koehler
Mark Starr wrote:
>
> With today's announcement that Wynton Marsalis has won the
> 1997 Pulitzer Prize for Musical Composition with "Blood on
> the Field", the Pulitzer Board has removed any lingering
> doubts that the Pulitzer Prize in Music has any credibility,
> importance, relevance or prestige in the world of music.
Megadittos, as they say on the radio. The Pulitzers in other categories
count for something, but every composer, performer, music lover, opera
producer, symphony board member, and record buyer should stand up and
say that this emperor has no clothes.
On a parallel subject, has anyone noticed that the Grammy awards for
"best" *invariably* go to the one with the most sales?
Robert John Guttke
Like attracts like, I suppose.......
av...@aol.com
>avik,
>> I get great pleasure in reading your postings. Like the great man
>>himself, a genious at work.
>>
>>Rod Cranston
>
>
thank you so much. i am saving your remarks. upon reading them, my wife is sure to appreciate me more.
avik
Russell W. Miller
On Tue, 8 Apr 1997 22:54:28 GMT, newh...@mail.crisp.net (Brian
Newhouse) wrote:
[snip]
>Unfortunately, the Pulitzer Prize has a built-in bias toward
>large-scale works or big collections, which militates against jazz
>musicians as well as any composer who is more of a miniaturist, however
>accomplished. (Yes, I _do_ mean Conlon Nancarrow. He would be my
>unhesitating choice for a Lifetime Achievement Award. I suspect that
>Milton Babbitt got his 1982 award on the same principles.)
Maybe the folks who award the MacArthur Fellowships have got more on
the ball than the Pulitzer people; they gave Nancarrow a big award
some years back.
Modest proposal: wouldn't the world be a better place if we could
replace every instance of Pachelbel's Canon with Nancarrow's Canon
"X"?
Russell W. Miller
r...@miller.mv.com
wjbal...@aol.com
>If you think the VPO did not bitterly resist playing Mahler's music,
>especially after WWII, read Humphrey Burton's biography of Bernstein.
>Just whom do you think it was who prodded the VPO into playing Mahler
>once again?
Uh, no one. They had never stopped playing Mahler. Check out Norman Lebrecht's
The Maestro Myth for a helpful chart showing that the VPO had performed *at least*
one Mahler work in more than half of the 40 years preceding Bernstein's
"introduction" of Mahler into that orchestra. That's a better record than many modern
orchestras.
I said, and I repeat, Bernstein's contribution is overrated. And I'm talking as a
Bernstein lover here.
wjbal...@aol.com
>fre...@ix.netcom.com(Sara Freeman) writes:
>
>>That's a very good idea. But, hey, you're gonna miss some good stuff
>>when I contribute to those "10 best" threads.
>
>Personally, I am waiting for your opinion on the best recording of the
>diamond
>music... ";-/
Sara, if I may,... *Anybody* but Lenny the B. There! You see how easy that is?
wjbal...@aol.com
>> As to who gets credit for bringing Mahler back? I don't know
>
>What I don't understand, is: did he really ever go away?
No, he never did. The idea that Bernstein singlehandedly aroused (or restored) interest in Mahler where there had been none and heroically scheduled his pieces over the opposition
of anti-semites and low-brows is almost pure puffery and myth. It is also -- as you
can tell from the postings on this subject -- probably the most wildly successful PR
spin ever put on the facts in the world of classical music. And it was done with
the cooperation of a whole cadre of musical critics who swallowed the 90% fantasy
press releases and liner notes of Bernstein promoters and regurgitated them as
established fact.
Eric Schissel
In article <334A74...@unixg.ubc.ca>,
Robert Silverman <rob...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>John LaMontaine won it for a fine (if conservative) piano concerto he
>wrote in the 1950s.
>
The one coupled with sym. 5 by (I think) Gutsche on an old CRI LP?
You're right about fine, though I might contest conservative. Sure wasn't
written in the 19th century. Closer to Barber's piano concerto territory.
Anyhow, I hope to hear it again. The symphony was disappointing, and I say
this as someone whose taste usually runs to pieces "like" it; but better
than coupling it with something everyone else has done, so that .no one.
buys the recording. (Well, ok, there are differing theories on this...)
>I wish he'd spelled his name the French way. I could have gotten the
>piece any number of performances (and prizes) in Canada.
Are you at all involved with Pauk's Esprit Orchestra by chance?
-Eric Schissel
Tom Shaw
Russell W. Miller wrote:
> Modest proposal: wouldn't the world be a better place if we could
> replace every instance of Pachelbel's Canon with Nancarrow's Canon
> "X"?
>
anything.
Tom Shaw
> r...@miller.mv.com
Len Fehskens
On 9 Apr 1997 02:32:19 -0400, Eric Schissel at schi...@lightlink.com wrote
>
>In article <334A74...@unixg.ubc.ca>,
>Robert Silverman <rob...@unixg.ubc.ca> wrote:
>>John LaMontaine won it for a fine (if conservative) piano concerto he
>>wrote in the 1950s.
>>
>
>The one coupled with sym. 5 by (I think) Gutsche on an old CRI LP?
There's a more recent recording on CD with piano concertos by Hoiby and
Carpenter, sorry I don't recall the label.
len.
Benjamin E. Buck
Perhaps not by much, but when your average egomaniacal, demanding artist
produces excellent results because of his demanding, some of us like
what we hear ;-)
Saurav Misra
Mark Starr wrote:
>
> With today's announcement that Wynton Marsalis has won the
> 1997 Pulitzer Prize for Musical Composition with "Blood on
> the Field", the Pulitzer Board has removed any lingering
> doubts that the Pulitzer Prize in Music has any credibility,
> importance, relevance or prestige in the world of music.
>
> music and jazz. And he is an interesting, if fledgling, creative
> voice in jazz. But a Pultizer Prize-winning composer!
> Michael Jackson deserves the award more than Marsalis.
>
> For all those who scream "it's about time a jazzman won a Pultizer
> Prize to honor this uniquely American art-form," just remember this:
> about two decades ago, the Pulitzer music jury had recommended that
> the prize be awarded to Duke Ellington--but the Pulitzer Board refused
> to award Ellington the prize. If the Board had awarded this year's
> Pulitzer in Music posthumously to Duke Ellington, you would never
> hear a peep out of me.
>
Have you heard any of Wynton's long form compositions? I admit,
I have only heard excerpts of Blood on the Fields, but his previous
efforts in this direction ("In this house, on this morning", and
"CITI dreams") have been just short of stellar. There haven't been
compositions like this in Jazz since Ellington or Mingus - Wynton
makes a strong and convincing bid to be declared their heir.
If Blood on the Fields, as a whole, goes the extra inch over those
works I mentioned above, I'd say the Pulitzer is well merited.
-Saurav Misra
sau...@tgevax.life.uiuc.edu
Univ. of Illinois - Biophysics
Eric Schissel
In article <5ig63d$8t6$1...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>,
Len Fehskens <fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>There's a more recent recording on CD with piano concertos by Hoiby and
>Carpenter, sorry I don't recall the label.
John A. Carpenter?
Probably Bay Cities, whose catalog had better be taken up by some
non-defunct label soon. Their going under was a .big. loss.
-Eric Schissel
>
>len.
>
Mark Starr
Dr. Gonzo wrote:
> Forties? The VPO was banned from doing Mahler during WWII and
> recorded _no_ postwar Mahler until late in the 40s (I'm not counting
> the Sony Japan aircheck of the '48 Resurrection with Walter)! And why
> are you blaming the ORCHESTRA when it was the LABELS that showed
> little interest in Mahler until the mid-50s... and I ain't talkin' DG
> or Electrola! Which is the REAL reason...
This post is too dumb to deserve much of a response. Perhaps you didn't
know, WWII ended in 1945. And in your quote you snipped my following
words: Fifties and early Sixties. Moreover, after the war, a few
conductors were conducting Mahler in Europe wherever and whenever they
could convince the orchestras to play it--including Klemperer,
Scherchen, and above-all Horenstein (who is regarded by many
Mahlerites--including a large number of members of the American Mahler
Society--as one of the greatest of all interpreters of Mahler's music.)
And despite what you may think, most recordings get made just after an
orchestra has performed a work in concert. After the war, no label was
going to pay the VPO to rehearse from scratch a work by Mahler that
most of the then-current musicians had never played before. Had it
wanted to do so, the VPO could have begun performing Mahler's music once
again beginning from the day that Hitler shot himself. Walter tried to
re-intoduce it with the VPO but didn't get very far. The musicians'
residual Nazi sympathies and their distaste for Jewish music in general
and Mahler's music in particular doomed any revival effort at that
time.
Of course it was the fault of the orchestras, in particular the VPO.
There was no shortage of great Mahler conductors after the war to get
them started. By the time Bernstein arrived, many musicians in the VPO
knew that the orchestra's attitude toward Mahler's music had to change
and that Bernstein was the man to change it.
Regards,
Mark Starr
Doctor Gonzo
Tom Shaw <a000...@airmail.net> wrote:
>Russell W. Miller wrote:
>
>> Modest proposal: wouldn't the world be a better place if we could
>> replace every instance of Pachelbel's Canon with Nancarrow's Canon
>> "X"?
>I think the world would be a better place if you replaced it with
>anything.
...except the Diamond Music >;-)
The Doc
NEW! The Camden Papers... leaked to The Gonzo Report at
http://www.pipeline.com/~drgonzo
My email address is
| drgonzo |
| @pipeline |
| .com |
Robert Davidson
Tom Shaw wrote:
>
> Russell W. Miller wrote:
>
> > Modest proposal: wouldn't the world be a better place if we could
> > replace every instance of Pachelbel's Canon with Nancarrow's Canon
> > "X"?
> >
> I think the world would be a better place if you replaced it with
> anything.
>
> Tom Shaw
> > r...@miller.mv.com
But not "Memory" from "Cats" I hope!
av...@aol.com
> avik,
> I get great pleasure in reading your postings. Like the great man
>himself, a genious at work.
>
>Rod Cranston
YOU HAVE NOTICED?!
avik-gms
Opus47
People hate Mahler....well there are always people that can find something
to hate. There are things I hate but I don't air them etc...etc...etc...
It could be that in general that Mahler's huge expanses of time are too
much for some people to take.
Maybe the very reason some people enjoy Mahler other people dislike him.
As for me it is REQUIRED that I listen to Mahler. I am a great devotee of
Shostakovich. Besides being required to listen to Mahler I rather enjoy
his 5th and 9th symphonies more than his other symphonies. I don't know
why really.
Fred
Don Patterson
Doctor Gonzo wrote:
>
> Tom Shaw <a000...@airmail.net> wrote:
>
> >Russell W. Miller wrote:
> >
> >> Modest proposal: wouldn't the world be a better place if we could
> >> replace every instance of Pachelbel's Canon with Nancarrow's Canon
> >> "X"?
>
> >I think the world would be a better place if you replaced it with
> >anything.
>
> ...except the Diamond Music >;-)
>
BTW, who wrote the diamond commercial music? What
is it called? Where can I buy a recording? It really
sounds cool. Kind of like the Four Seasons, but more
cooler.
--
Don Patterson <don...@erols.com>
"The President's Own"
United States Marine Band
Concerned about the state of the Mac?
Visit: http://www.MacMarines.com
The views expressed are my own and in no way reflect
those of the U.S. Marine Band or the Marine Corps.
Sara Freeman
In <19970410164...@ladder01.news.aol.com> opu...@aol.com
--
"Come out and admire me now because I won't be back for 2,400 years."--Hale-Bopp
Eric Schissel
In article <5iiquu$h7d$1...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>,
Len Fehskens <fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, John Alden Carpenter. The label is Citadel. Great disk. BTW, I
>snapped up a bunch of Bay Cities disks from Berkshire Record outlet last
>year.
The prospect of a Carpenter piano concerto, and on a label which is still
a going concern, pleases. As to snapping up the Bay Cities CDs, I
didn't for a number of reasons, not least of which were lack of money
and having had (at the time) no idea what Berkshire was...
-Eric Schissel
>
>len.
>
Jeff Libman
I find your criticism rather useless, as you don't make it clear for one
moment whether you have heard Wynton's piece. I tried to see it in
Chicago and it was sold out. Those who attended said the work was
incredible. I won't use heresay to support the piece, but please,
criticize intelligently. Comparing Wynton with Michael Jackson?
Please, go hear the piece, as I will when I can. Or if you have heard
it, tell us why you don't like it.
--
Jeff Libman
Northwestern University School of Music
j-li...@nwu.edu
Rod Cranston
Rod Cranston
In article <19970410164...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Opus47
<opu...@aol.com> writes
>People hate Mahler....well there are always people that can find something
>to hate. There are things I hate but I don't air them etc...etc...etc...
>
>It could be that in general that Mahler's huge expanses of time are too
>much for some people to take.
>
>Maybe the very reason some people enjoy Mahler other people dislike him.
>
>As for me it is REQUIRED that I listen to Mahler. I am a great devotee of
>Shostakovich. Besides being required to listen to Mahler I rather enjoy
>his 5th and 9th symphonies more than his other symphonies. I don't know
>why really.
>
>Fred
>
I enjoy Shostakovich very much especially his 5th and am also a great
fan of Wagner,my favourite being the ring.But for pure emotion Mahler is
back tingling.
--
Rod Cranston
Len Fehskens
On 9 Apr 1997 16:08:58 -0400, Eric Schissel at schi...@lightlink.com wrote
>
>In article <5ig63d$8t6$1...@mrnews.mro.dec.com>,
>Len Fehskens <fehs...@pcbuoa.enet.dec.com> wrote:
>>There's a more recent recording on CD with piano concertos by Hoiby and
>>Carpenter, sorry I don't recall the label.
>John A. Carpenter?
>Probably Bay Cities, whose catalog had better be taken up by some
>non-defunct label soon. Their going under was a .big. loss.
Yes, John Alden Carpenter. The label is Citadel. Great disk. BTW, I snapped
up a bunch of Bay Cities disks from Berkshire Record outlet last year.
len.
Doctor Gonzo
Mark Starr <st...@inow.com> wrote:
>Dr. Gonzo wrote:
>> Forties? The VPO was banned from doing Mahler during WWII and
>> recorded _no_ postwar Mahler until late in the 40s (I'm not counting
>> the Sony Japan aircheck of the '48 Resurrection with Walter)! And why
>> are you blaming the ORCHESTRA when it was the LABELS that showed
>> little interest in Mahler until the mid-50s... and I ain't talkin' DG
>> or Electrola! Which is the REAL reason...
>This post is too dumb to deserve much of a response.
Then why such a detailed reply?
>Perhaps you didn't
>know, WWII ended in 1945. And in your quote you snipped my following
>words: Fifties and early Sixties. Moreover, after the war, a few
>conductors were conducting Mahler in Europe wherever and whenever they
>could convince the orchestras to play it--including Klemperer,
>Scherchen, and above-all Horenstein (who is regarded by many
>Mahlerites--including a large number of members of the American Mahler
>Society--as one of the greatest of all interpreters of Mahler's music.)
...but were any RECORD LABELS showing interest in recording Mahler?
In the post-WWII 40s? Or in the 50s, for that matter? With or
without the Vienna Philharmonic? It doesn't matter how fine the
conductor and orchestra are if nobody's interested in recording or
issuing the music, which was my point... and even after WWII, the
Vienna was programming around recording opportunities!
Rod Cranston
In article <334aeb0f...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>, Robert John
Guttke <rjgu...@juno.com> writes>>In article <19970406190...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
>>av...@aol.com writes
>>>In article <VjgTgDAx...@mahler8.demon.co.uk>, Rod Cranston
>>>
>>>>>Some people do not appreciate the beauty, the hidden meaning, the
>>>>>expressiveness behind his music... Yet there are some people like me
>>>>>that think that he is one of the greatest composers who ever lived.
>>>>
>>>>I couldn't have put it better myself.
>>>>--
>>>>Rod Cranston
>>>
>>>Thanks rodney and rod. may i join the ever growing chorus?!!!
>>>
>>>avik-gms
>>
>> I get great pleasure in reading your postings. Like the great man
>>himself, a genious at work.
>>
>>Rod Cranston
>
>
Good taste, intelligence, knowledge and a good bottle of French brandy
and of course Mahler No 8. You cant go wrong.Of course being Irish a
bottle of Black Bush is equally nice.
--
Rod Cranston
Robert John Guttke
On Fri, 11 Apr 1997 00:43:31 +0100, Rod Cranston
<ROD...@mahler8.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Driving nailsin your nose with a hammer can also be pleasurable....
and perhaps an alternative to listening to Mahler.... a more desirable
torture, I'd say.
av...@aol.com
> before I found out more about him and what a miserable
>> >human being he actually was.
why not say "different" rather than "miserable". had you spent any time with the man you would have called him something more charitable.
avik-gms
Mark Starr
> thank you so much. i am saving your remarks. upon reading them, my wife is sure to appreciate me more.
>
> avik
Evidently, your wife's unusual use of capital letters runs in the
family.
Regards,
Mark Starr