Why do people like Mahler??
David P Thurmaier
I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
David Thurmaier
University of Illinois
Composition/Theory student
William Herndon
David P Thurmaier <dthu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
>too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
>they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
>and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
>
Because the 1st movement of his Second Symphony is one of the most
painful, sad, happy, uplifting, excruciatingly beautiful pieces of
music I've ever heard; as is his Fourth Symphony, as his Ninth Sym-
phony, as is the unfinished Tenth Symphony...
- Max
| William R. Herndon \ The MITRE Corporation, Dept. G023 |
| EMail: wher...@mitre.org \ Secure Information Technology |
| NeXTMail: bi...@pandora.gcr.com \ MS-Z231, 703.883.6393 |
| |
| "Necessity is the mother of strange bedfellows." |
Jon Bell
Duane Starcher <du...@morgan.ucs.mun.ca> wrote:
> [...] Give yourself a few years and experience and then give Mahler
>another try in a couple of decades.
And then wait another couple of decades and give _Bruckner_ another try. :-)
--
Jon Bell <jtb...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
(who's liked Mahler for years, but has just recently started liking
Bruckner, thanks to the Jochum/Dresden cycle on EMI.)
Eric Schissel
the lovely themes, the wonderful and almost excessive counterpoint,
the feeling for structure that makes the finale of the 6th symphony so
thrilling, the constant invention, the fine handling of voices musical
and human...
Hrm, question to me is why at one point in my life, I .didn't. like Mahler.
Ah well. De gustibus...
-Eric Schissel
--
1.The most common mistake of young thieves is stealing complimentary copies.
2.Read misc.activism.progressive. (Std disc).
es...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu Eric Schissel, at least once in a while.
DAVID M. COOK
>
>
> I often wonder why people like Mahler.
If you have to ask...
C D I Bertram
: I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
: and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
: but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
: without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
: too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
: they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
: and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
When I started to become interested in "classical" music about 4 years ago
I was very surprised to discover that I liked Mahler (and then Wagner and
Shostakovich and now Britten), since I had thought of myself as
subscribing to an aesthetic ideal that is very different (I ought to like
and not just admire Bach more than I do). One of the things that pulls me
to these composers, I suspect, is that they articulate strongly depressive
feelings that I too am sometimes prone too. They also offer hope, of
course, but they don't always provide a Beethoven-like happy end.
I'm with you on Bruckner though. I just can't see the attraction.
--
Christopher Bertram *... the point, however,
Department of Philosophy * is to change it
University of Bristol *****************************
Internet: C.Be...@bristol.ac.uk Janet: C.Be...@uk.ac.bristol
George Carter
(David P Thurmaier) writes:
>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
>too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
>they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
>and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
My experience is that this is a good test of temperament.
Optimistic men of action like Bruckner and despise Mahler's
music, although there were good points to his character.
Mahler aficionados then to be pessimistic depressives.
Duane Starcher
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
The best quote I have heard, though I don't recall the source,
is, "Never trust anyone under the age of 40 who likes Mahler." I am
over sixty and still can't stand Bruckner, but I do like Mahler most of
the time. Give yourself a few years and experience and then give Mahler
another try in a couple of decades.
duane duane
S @ @
T morgan. morgan.
E ucs. ucs.
R mun. mun.
E ca ca
O ( Virtual ( Virtual
Juggler ) Juggler )
Klaus Gaarder
...simply because he's one of the greatest composers who ever lived. AND simply because his
music is NEVER BORING, not one instant of it! And nowhere else do you find lovelier songs....
Besides, Mahler is clearly one of the best stepping stones from the 18-19th
century and into the 20th century composers. Mahler has had huge influence on 20th century
composers.
--
K. #8-) "Det er haaploest
og vi gir oss ikke!" - Jan Erik Vold
-----------------------------
| Klaus Gaarder |
| Norwegian Telecom Research|
| P.o. Box 83 |
| N-2007 Kjeller |
| NORWAY |
-----------------------------
Ernst 'pooh' Mulder
Mahler... His music the most emotional I've ever known. And its emotions
are so extreme. And that's why I like Mahler's music so much. The extreme
emotions just take a grip on me.
I especiallty like his 6th (dir. Haitink), the 4th (dir. Haitink) and the
2nd (dir. Kaplan) symphonies, and love the Lieder.
After hearing the last song of Das Lied... by de Ferrier (dir. Walter)
there is nothing much I can do but sit for an hour or so in silence and
darkness...
pooh
----
/* internet: po...@stack.urc.tue.nl * i'd rather be with you than fly *
* po...@es.ele.tue.nl * _ ____ tru space *
* phone: +31 40-572314 * /( ) _ \ *
* s-mail: Hoogstraat 214 * / // /\` \, ||--||--||- *
* 5615 PX Eindhoven * \| |/ \| ||--||--||- *
* The Netherlands * ~^~^~^~~^~~~^~~^^~^^^^^^^^^^^^ *
Ross Vicksell
that it takes great men to make great music. I sort of agree, although
there have been exceptions, e.g. Bach was a great musician but no mental
giant. To me a "great man" must be of superior intelligence. Bruckner was
a rather simple-minded man: Bruno Walter referred to him as a "primitive."
Ross Vicksell
Andrew Herd
have to say that say Mahler's second symphony does have its attractions.
I think its the very large scale of the works. The problem with Mahler is
that he takes a lot of getting to like. A friend of mine played nothing
else but Mahler all the way though medical school and I hated it then.
Took about another ten years to like him. I reckon I'd put the Simon
Rattle recording of 2 in my top ten.
As per Bruckner - I *know* he's not very subtle, and certainly not a
great composer, but I'd suggest listening to his symphony no 4 very late
at night after a hard day. Try the Jansson's recording. The appeal of
Bruckner must be the way he builds up to those huge brass sets. In the
long run, this *does* get a bit tedious, I agree.
Andrew =:^)
Jonathan Cook
>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
>too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
>they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
>and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
I have no comment on the last: I can't stand Bruckner.
But, to the question of Mahler: I think that your comment about
"fashionable" listening is off-mark. Mahler takes a good deal of
concentration and dedication to get into, IMO. I found that I only came
to him after progressing through the more immediately listenable, less
dense stuff [NOTE that this is no comment on how good it is]: Mozart,
Beethoven, Brahms. Stuff that you can hum.
Whereas Mahler is just so dense: his symphonies are jammed with ideas,
themes, folk melodies, counterthemes, etc. It takes a lot of listener
input to really appreciate. That's just my two cents, expressed rather
unarticulately I'm afraid.
-jon
Roger Lustig
>In article <mhRjtAs...@system.bac.com> gca...@bac.org writes:
>>My experience is that this is a good test of temperament.
>>Optimistic men of action like Bruckner and despise Mahler's
>>music, although there were good points to his character.
>>Mahler aficionados then to be pessimistic depressives.
>Ahem. You don't leave a heck of a lot of room for people who like
>*both*, do you? :-)
Indeed, it was the Bruckner Society of America that was the
leading source of enthusiasm for Mahler over here for decades.
As for those "pessimistic depressives," does that accurately
characterize Leonard Bernstein, Herbert von Karajan, Bruno
Walter, Jascha Horenstein, Bernard Haitink, Rafael Kubelik,
Georg Solti, James Levine, and all the other great Mahler
conductors?
The above drivel is not new. One heard things much like it
in German musical writings of the 1930's.
Roger
>------
>Dale Atems
>Wayne State University, Detroit, MI
>Department of Physics and Astronomy
>at...@physics.wayne.edu
Bernie Gilbert
Now THERE'S a startling over-generalization.
I'm a generally cheerful, agressively smart-ass type who loves whitewater
kayaking only second to great music. I LOVE Mahler, simply because of the
romantic extremes of his music. Whether it's heaven-storming stuff like
the 2nd and the 8th, or more intimate music like the 5th's adagietto or a
lot of the 8th, or pour-out-my-wretched-anguish stuff like the 6th or the
9th, he pushes the limits of the orchestra's expressivity. And his music
has a point. Unlike Bruckner. Synopsis of a typical Bruckner first movement:
DO WHILE (TIME < 17 MINUTES)
DO Quiet_mysterious_tremelo_on_strings ("good - anticipation of
something big to come")
DO Gradual_crescendo ("okay, building up to something here...")
DO Big_brass_fanfare ("all right! Gonna see the gates of Heaven!")
DO Insipid_stupid_toodling_on_winds ("Damn! Coitus interruptus again!")
END DO
A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Incredibly overrated composer.
Someone once told Richard Strauss that Bruckner found composing difficult.
"Why then, does he bother?", Strauss supposedly asked.
Why, indeed?
--
-- Bernie
-- bgi...@ukelele.gcr.com
-- Springfield, VA
DAVID M. COOK
>[...]people think it's "fashionable" to say they like Mahler also.
>Optimistic men of action like Bruckner and despise Mahler's
>music, [...]Mahler aficionados [tend] to be pessimistic depressives.
Damn. Now I know what's wrong with me. I'm a trendy 30-year old
who is both an optimistc man of action and a pessimistic depressive!
Hmmm...actually, except for the trendy part,
it does seem to apply somewhat...
Dave Cook.
Steiff Shahar
>> I often wonder why people like Mahler.
I never met him, so I can't tell if I like HIM or not.
I love his music though...
--
/=== Shahar Steiff - Computing and Process Control Engineer ===\
/ Chemical Engineering, Technion , Haifa, ISRAEL 32000 (room 318) \
\ Ph.(+)972-4-293420 Fx.(+)972-4-230476 | cer...@tx.technion.ac.il /
\==Home:Ramat Yochanan 30035 04-459536 | cer...@technion.bitnet==/
Gerard Henri Rene Milmeister
>David P Thurmaier <dthu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>>without becoming bored. ...
>
> The best quote I have heard, though I don't recall the source,
>is, "Never trust anyone under the age of 40 who likes Mahler." I am
>over sixty and still can't stand Bruckner, but I do like Mahler most of
>the time. Give yourself a few years and experience and then give Mahler
>another try in a couple of decades.
>
So I am 24 and I like both Bruckner and Mahler. I had some difficulties
with Mahler's 6th but now this one is my favourite Mahler symphony.
But still I like Bruckner more, if it is only for its 9th which is
sublime, and no Mahler symphony can stand the comparison. I believe that
much more people like Mahler, and don't understand Bruckner, but it
contrast to what most people say, Mahler symphonies are EASIER to
listen to, because there is everything in them: tragedy, humor,
sentimentality, kitsch and sometimes very great moments. For Bruckner
you need to listen to one of its symphonies a lot of times, until you
discover its beauty.
(I hear the flame-throwers switching on)
Gerard
Bruno Cornec
> I agree; I like Mahler but not Bruckner. H.L. Mencken was of the opinion
> that it takes great men to make great music. I sort of agree, although
> there have been exceptions, e.g. Bach was a great musician but no mental
> giant.
Can you really say that !!
Bach was playing many instruments, teaching latin , mathematics, music
and he made so much children -:) How can you say he was no mental giant
Of course he was. Please Hear and/or look the Art of the fugue and tell us after
> To me a "great man" must be of superior intelligence. Bruckner was
> a rather simple-minded man: Bruno Walter referred to him as a "primitive."
>
> Ross Vicksell
BTW are you obliged to be be a mental giant to be able to feel and express yourself through the music. OK Brukner couldn't be in Harvard. But great
conductors didn't hesitate to direct his works, and I feel happy with a lot
of them (as well as with Mahler's ones which I love)
Would you say that Schumann was a mental giant ? (or Gesualdo if you prefer murdrerers -:) And even that I love their works. So for me there's no so easy link between their composer's capacities and their "human" capacities.
Just my 0.02 (because I really think Bach is a great man)
Bruno.
--
Bruno Cornec E-mail : cor...@stna7.stna.dgac.fr Phone : (33 1) 60 79 82 28
Services Techniques de la Navigation Aerienne
95, Rue Henri Rochefort 91000 Evry - FRANCE
Dale Atems
>Optimistic men of action like Bruckner and despise Mahler's
>music, although there were good points to his character.
>Mahler aficionados then to be pessimistic depressives.
Ahem. You don't leave a heck of a lot of room for people who like
*both*, do you? :-)
------
Donald Pajerek
>
>
>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
>they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
>and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
>
>
>
>University of Illinois
>Composition/Theory student
>
People like (more like 'worship') Mahler because of the beauty
and power of his music. That's all there is to it.
I should point out that Mahler is probably the single most
discussed composer in this newsgroup, and the general tone
of opinion is overwhelmingly positive. For some (many?) listeners,
a Mahler symphony virtually a religious experience.
Don Pajerek
Standard disclaimers apply.
Kevin Powell u
I am sorry but I must take issue with this statement. Whether or not
Bruckner was a "mental giant" is not the point, his musical output is. I
would also like to as Mr.Vicksell how he defines "superior intelligence"
and how that relates to an art like music.
Admittedly, Bruckner was not among the intellectual elite of Vienna,
but he did have his disciples.His knowledge of counterpoint and harmony
was quite beyond any composer or academic of his day. He may have been a
simple, provincial man, but I wouldn't under estimate his intelligence.
Although I am very fond of the work of Bruckner as well as Mahler, I
would have to say that I prefer Bruckner. His music sounds much more
sincere and even more subtle. I find that Mahler gets bogged down with
philosphical issues that get clouded when he tries to present them in musical
terms.
kevin
Richard Wang
George Carter <gca...@bac.org> wrote:
>My experience is that this is a good test of temperament.
>Optimistic men of action like Bruckner and despise Mahler's
>music, although there were good points to his character.
>Mahler aficionados then to be pessimistic depressives.
Oh, *now* I understand. Since I like Britten and Beethoven, I'm gay and
deaf. Thanks for clearing that up.
--
Richard Wang
rw...@husc.harvard.edu
"Eve was not the first to pluck and sample the apple. Adam was first and
he learned by this to put the blame on Eve."--Leto II,
_God_Emperor_of_Dune_, Frank Herbert
Richard Wang
John Holcombe Rousse Lanou <jh...@Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>jc...@husc8.harvard.edu writes:
>> Whereas Mahler is just so dense: his symphonies are jammed with ideas,
>> themes, folk melodies, counterthemes, etc. It takes a lot of listener
>> input to really appreciate. That's just my two cents, expressed rather
>> unarticulately I'm afraid.
>I concur. Mahler is amazingly dense. And that's exactly what
>makes him the greatest composer that ever lived. There is not
I like Mahler too--but could you please stop referring to him as
"dense"? Maybe you could say that his music is complex and has uncharted
depths, or something like that. When you hear a big discordant brass
fanfare, do you refer to the composer as "confused"?
Thomas J. Trebisky
dthu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (David P Thurmaier) writes...
>
>
>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
>too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
>they like Mahler also.
Beethoven was my introduction to Classical Music many years ago
(in fact I am listening to Kleiber's rendition of Beethoven's 3rd
as I type this). For many years my approach to classical music was
looking for another/more Beethoven. I finally matured beyond this.
I used to look at the Mahler Symphony of a Thousand in a record store
and wonder how such a lengthy monstrous thing could be called a
symphony... But I never listened to any Mahler. People told me that
Bruckner was just more of the same, so I never listened to that either.
Then, a couple years ago, I checked out some Mahler from the public
library (It was his 3rd symphony, performed by Bernstein and the NYPO).
I was immediately transported. I remember raving to my wife (who is
only marginally tolerant of classical music at all).
Well, to make a long story short, I am quite a Mahler addict now.
He has certainly become my favorite composer. I just find his music
the most consistently ... interesting would probably be the best word.
As for Bruckner, I find him to be less and less like Mahler the more
I listen to both composers music. I am not so taken with Bruckner, tho
I do find that his music grows on me.
Why like Mahler's music? Well, if you can't listen to it and know why,
I suppose there isn't any explaining. I certainly don't like his music
because it is fashionable (there is noone in my circle of friends that
could tell Mahler from Bach for the most part).
--
Tom Trebisky ttre...@as.arizona.edu
I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of
something and knowing something. --R. P. Feynman
Deryk Barker
[....]
: As per Bruckner - I *know* he's not very subtle, and certainly not a
: great composer,
It must be nice to be so positive about highly contentious issues.
Would you care to adduce some evidence for your 'knowledge'?
: but I'd suggest listening to his symphony no 4 very late
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
To compound the issue you cite one of his weakest symphonies as
evidence.
: at night after a hard day. Try the Jansson's recording.
Janssons? Bruckner?
--
Deryk.
=================================================================
|Deryk Barker, Computer Science Dept. | Without music, life |
|Camosun College, Victoria, BC, Canada | would be a mistake |
|email: dba...@camosun.bc.ca | |
|phone: +1 604 370 4452 | (Friedrich Nietzsche).|
=================================================================
Bradford Kellogg
In article <2mgh4b$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, dthu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (David P Thurmaier) writes:
|>
|>
|> I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
|> and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
|> but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
|> without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
|> too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
|> and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
Yes, Mahler's 1st is quite good, so is his 5th, and the 9th as well.
I know I have heard some of the others, but my recall is not so good
on them, so I can't say anything other than there are vocals in some
of them.
I used to not like Mahler, thinking that his music was interminable,
incoherent, and disjointed. For some reason I don't feel that way now.
I still don't call him one of my special favorites, but every so often
I am in the mood for his simultaneous delivery of lightness and heaviness,
if that makes any sense, combined with a seemingly infinite supply of
scattered themes and melodies that drift in and out of an undercurrent of
intensely comtemplative moods.
I don't know how "fashionable" it is to like Mahler, and I don't care. One
of his more popular works, Das Lied von der Erde, still doesn't thrill me,
but it isn't the form, because I very much enjoy R. Strauss's lieder for
soprano and orchestra.
It's interesting that you group Mahler and Bruckner together. Although
I find Mahler had a sense of melody and texture, I find Bruckner to be
devoid of both. Perhaps I should re-evaluate my response to Bruckner, but
my most recent recollection is of dull, insipid, plodding, irritatingly
repetitive claptrap.
- BK
Bradford Kellogg
In article <1994Mar21....@cenaath.cena.dgac.fr>, cor...@stna.dgac.fr
|> In article <codfishC...@netcom.com>, cod...@netcom.com (Ross Vicksell) writes:
|> > I agree; I like Mahler but not Bruckner. H.L. Mencken was of the opinion
|> > that it takes great men to make great music. I sort of agree, although
|> > there have been exceptions, e.g. Bach was a great musician but no mental
|> > giant.
|>
|> Can you really say that !!
|> Bach was playing many instruments, teaching latin , mathematics, music
|> and he made so much children -:) How can you say he was no mental giant
|> Of course he was. Please Hear and/or look the Art of the fugue and tell us
|> after
|>
|> > To me a "great man" must be of superior intelligence. Bruckner was
|> > a rather simple-minded man: Bruno Walter referred to him as a "primitive."
|> >
|> BTW are you obliged to be be a mental giant to be able to feel and express
|> yourself through the music. OK Brukner couldn't be in Harvard. But great
|> conductors didn't hesitate to direct his works, and I feel happy with a lot
|> of them (as well as with Mahler's ones which I love)
|>
|> Would you say that Schumann was a mental giant ? (or Gesualdo if you prefer
|> murdrerers -:) And even that I love their works. So for me there's no so easy
|> link between their composer's capacities and their "human" capacities.
I think you have to separate the artist from the art. Wagner was an
insufferable, pompous ass -- I like his music anyway. According to
Rimsky-Korsakov, Balakirev was a neurotic sociopath -- I like his music
as well. Bartok has been described as "haughty" -- no matter, I like his
music too. Hey, Beethoven was no sweetheart, either. If I were to read
between Mencken's lines, I would conclude that great music must come
from a man or woman who has a greatness of talent and spirit, but not
necessarily a great personality or intellect as is conventionally defined.
- BK
Thomas P.
I'm looking for the 'Overtuer to the sun' by Terry Tucker...anybody knows
where to find this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Pri Schlumpf UUCP: p...@prism.incubus.sub.org -
- Z-Netz: pri%pr...@incubus.zer -
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Where do dreams go when they die, mummy? -
- They go to dreams of menstrual winters yet to come, beloved. -
- And do dead gods smell? -
- Of dust and must and reaping time. -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
## CrossPoint v3.0 ##
Jim J Moskowitz
>Not as many posters here, I have discovered Mahler through its first symphony
>12 years ago (I was 18 - now you know my age-:). And it was the greatest choc
>I ever had in music:
>So for me you can really love Mahler's music even young, it's just a matter of
>correspondances between minds. And that's probably why some don't like his music
>
>Bruno.
>
Well, I know how much the phrase "I haven't been following this thread, but I
want to jump in" strikes terror in people's hearts, but...
I just wanted to agree with Bruno (if I understand him correctly -- I think
the word in that second sentence is 'shock'); I became addicted to M's 2nd
as a senior in high school. The themes were so great - long and unexpectedly
changing, and very, very dramatic. At the same time I was going wild for
Busoni's piano concerto and Elgar's 2nd symphony, to give you an idea of why
Mahler fit right in. Then next year I disocovered the 6th, and later the
9th and 10th... and although he's no longer at the top of my pantheon
(Nielsen's holding that spot quite well), I'm still a fan.
-Jim
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Moskowitz (jim...@eniac.seas.upenn.edu) Space within lines not dedicated
Dale Atems
>I just wanted to agree with Bruno (if I understand him correctly -- I think
>the word in that second sentence is 'shock'); I became addicted to M's 2nd
>as a senior in high school. The themes were so great - long and unexpectedly
>changing, and very, very dramatic.
My first exposure to Mahler was also in high school. It was -- believe
it or not -- the *Third* (yes!) and I was immediately hooked. A
strange thing, as today I don't even consider #3 one of his better
symphonies, but something about that big, colorful canvas really
clicked for me.
Of course I quickly moved on to his other symphonies. So quickly, in
fact, that I don't even remember in what order.
> At the same time I was going wild for
>Busoni's piano concerto and Elgar's 2nd symphony, to give you an idea of why
>Mahler fit right in. Then next year I disocovered the 6th, and later the
>9th and 10th... and although he's no longer at the top of my pantheon
>(Nielsen's holding that spot quite well), I'm still a fan.
>
>-Jim
Dale (also a Nielsen fan)
Quek Chin Joo
: > The best quote I have heard, though I don't recall the source,
: > is, "Never trust anyone under the age of 40 who likes Mahler." I am
This quote got me thinking seriously. I'm 25.
: It's difficult to articulate just why I like Mahler (and Bruckner), but I can't
: imagine anyone not responding to the last movement of the 5th symphony with
: delight, or to the heartbreaking beauty of the 6th's slow movement.
Yes, the last movement of Mahler 5. I think it is still the movement I
like best. I was quite afraid of Mahler at first. But he really takes
some time to get used to. Beware, for you may not look back after that.
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
>
> Iain
> iwi...@molbiol.ox.ac.uk
Well, I'm only 32, but Mahler and Bruckner both top my list of favorite
composers. Why? This is hard to say (why do I like asparagus?--another
tough question), but the keywords are *substance*, *depth*, *profundity*,
*vision*....
Both Bruckner's 8th and Mahler's 9th are about 80 minutes long, but there
are no wasted notes and no wasted minutes. Both are at once personal yet
universal, both are about life and death (mostly death), both scale the
peaks and plunge into the depths of misery and despair. Stuff like this takes
time to develop and unfold.
If you're *not ready* for music this great, so
be it. Live a little, then try it again in a few years.
Tae H Kang
>
>
>I often wonder why people like Mahler. For me, being a horn player
>and a composer, I admire and respect many of the advances he made,
>but I have never been able to sit through a complete Mahler symphony
>without becoming bored. I do like the 1st, perhaps because it's not
>too long. I think a lot of people think it's "fashionable" to say
>they like Mahler also. Anyway, I'm interested in people's opinions
>and reactions. The same goes for most of Bruckner's music also..
>
>
>
>University of Illinois
>Composition/Theory student
were peculiar moments in all of his pieces, no special background in music
was necessary to enjoy his 1st, 2nd or 4th symphonies. In fact, I even had
a performance of his 3rd, 5th and 6th symphonies before I owned even two
albums of Bach's music (the one I had was a collection of Bach's melodies
with mass-appeal transcribed for orchestra...imagine the Minuet in G played
by the entire Philadelphia SO).
I think that people like Mahler's music for the same reason that
they like the music of any other very talented composer. He came upon some
very effective melodies and was quite innovative in so many areas of
composition.
On the other hand, I found the less accessible symphonies to be just
plain boring. I don't doubt that there is a wealth of a certain kind of beauty
in all of Mahler, but that kind of beauty does not necessarily appeal to me.
So, I think that the question is why do some people LOVE Mahler.
My opinion is that Mahler was able to express certain deep emotions
which mirror the spiritual state of modern man. A netter mentioned that for
some, listening to Mahler is like a religious experience. I agree. I would
classify Mahler's soul as a mixture of agnostic and atheist and pantheist,
and definitely not Christian, although having an unmistakable form of
Christianity. I would say the same of Western man. The result is an
existentialistic longing for wholeness found only in a God that is as yet
unknown. Mahler, more than any other composer, is able to delve into his
own fragmented psyche and express in music all of the lostness, anxiety
and inner longing which haunt him. He is able to say that which modern
man feels.
As for Bruckner, a more or less pious Catholic, I think that people
enjoy his music for reasons opposite to Mahler. Bruckner's is music that
tries to express the divine knowledge that he has experienced. Unfortunately,
he is not as talented as Mahler in many ways, especially melodically and in
pure inventiveness. This is why most people find him boring. But for those
who can appreciate the beauty of his message, all the rest seems to dwindle
into nothingness.
Tae
IguanaD
Kang) writes:
I response to the above, and being a Mahler/Bruckner fan I must say that
devling into Mahler 6,7 or 9 is akin to reading Ulysses by James Joyce. Either
you follow the line of thought or you don't. (I've never gotten past page 47 of
Ulysses...)
I also think that one needs to know more about Mahler, the man, before
listening to the music. He was a very dark person from what I've read and it
showed in his music. What kind of title is 'Songs on the Death of Children'?
(Kindertotenleider) unless you're a dark person?
To David P. Thurmaier: as a horn player and composer, how could you not relish
the audacity of Mahler when he opens up his third symphony with that huge tutti
horn call?
Sincerely,
Darryl Gregory
Composer/teacher
NYC
Karl Snow
[Mahler comments deleted]
>
> As per Bruckner - I *know* he's not very subtle, and certainly not a
> great composer, but I'd suggest listening to his symphony no 4 very late
> at night after a hard day. Try the Jansson's recording. The appeal of
> Bruckner must be the way he builds up to those huge brass sets. In the
> long run, this *does* get a bit tedious, I agree.
Although this writer clearly has some appreciation for the music of Bruckner I
have generally been dismayed at the negative Bruckner tone of this thread.
Some have recently expressed their appreciation and admiration of Bruckner's
music. Clearly that which constitues "greatness" is a relative and personal
matter. I would like to express the opinion that Bruckner certainly is a great
composer.
Karl Snow
ks...@dsd.es.com
r0ch...@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
In article <2mssdu$o...@argo.unm.edu>, hba...@unm.edu writes:
> In article <2mgh4b$9...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>,
> David P Thurmaier <dthu...@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>
>>without becoming bored.
>>
> reaction to the 1st, but that was not a careful listen ...
>
> But, try listening to some of his songs. I have 5 or 6 of them on an
> el cheapo "Digital Concerto" reissue of Kathleen Ferrier from the late
> 40s or early 50s (mono, but quite listenable sound), and they are
> beautiful. They are from either the "kindertotenlieder" or perhaps
> the "ruckert-lieder", both of which I intend to check out in depth
> as a result of hearing this recording. And, taken individually,
> they're short!
>
> Howard Barnum
> hba...@tangelo.unm.edu
>
>
That last sentence gave me an idea: Why don't the skeptics try out Mahler and
Bruckner one movement at a time? My suggestions would be Mahler's 5th, III or
IV; Mahler1st, I; Bruckner's 7th, II. Just to get used to their highly
individual styles (I'm not suggesting a particularly strong link between the
two composers here--they just happen to be tpoints of controversy). I'd
avoid Bruckner and Mahler 2,3,6,7 in the early stages. Those hungering for
more might "graduate" to Mahler's 9th I or IV; Bruckner's 8th, III. And then
go on to hear the whole works. Then they would see that listening to only
one movement does not do the work justice at all.
Dale Atems
>Humm I also read that Mahler composes its most darkest symphonies when
>everything arund him was fine, and the reverse for more smiling parts.
If his widow Alma is to be believed, the first part of this statement
is definitely true as regards Kindertotenlieder and Symphony #6. Also
I recall reading that the 4th Symphony was written at a particularly
unhappy time in his life, though I don't recall the details. OTOH, Das
Lied von Der Erde and Symphonies 9 and 10 (dark works all) were
written after Mahler's mortally serious heart condition was diagnosed
and his activities were severely restricted.
Bruno Cornec
> In article <2nb4f7$r...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, thk...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tae H
> Kang) writes:
I also think that one needs to know more about Mahler, the man, before
> listening to the music. He was a very dark person from what I've read and it
> showed in his music. What kind of title is 'Songs on the Death of Children'?
> (Kindertotenleider) unless you're a dark person?
>
everything arund him was fine, and the reverse for more smiling parts.
Any comment from specialists ?
Eric Schissel
There are, after all, some works of Mahler's about which I, well,
have doubts from time to time; symphonies 1-3,5,7-8, das Lied, 10, and
the song cycles. But they're not of the "this is bad" variety, my doubts,
they're the "if you knew more music of the time, would you find this
at all exceptional" kind...
but about symphs. 4, 6 and 9 i have nothing but unalloyed
enjoyment. And, increasingly, no. 3 as well.
_Eric Schissel
--
1.The most common mistake of young thieves is stealing complimentary copies.
2.Read misc.activism.progressive. (Std disc).
es...@crux2.cit.cornell.edu Eric Schissel, at least once in a while.
pinky and the brain
I listened to the 2nd symphony and was over come with emotions
to this day I cannot put into words...even my style of
composition is much like his, I feel that he opened many doors
in my mind allowing me to feel secure about experimenting with
various musical ideas and motives...
--
They're Pinky and the Brain | To prove their mousey worth
Pinky and the Brain | They'll over take the earth
One is a genius | They're Pinky
The other's insane | Pinky and the Brain
jl...@opal.tufts.edu
> Humm I also read that Mahler composes its most darkest symphonies when
> everything arund him was fine, and the reverse for more smiling parts.
>
> Any comment from specialists ?
I'm not a specialist, but I do know that Mahler was dying from endocarditis
when he wrote the 9th symphony and Das Lied. Not exactly smiling music. On
the other hand, he was living in relatively idyllic bliss when he wrote the
Kindertotenlieder, with a bizarre premonition. The premonition bore itself
out: his daughter died within a year of the music's coming out.
/James
Manuel Pagan
> On the other hand, I found the less accessible symphonies to be just
>plain boring. I don't doubt that there is a wealth of a certain kind of beauty
>in all of Mahler, but that kind of beauty does not necessarily appeal to me.
>
I can't say I find ANYTHING Mahler wrote boring!
> So, I think that the question is why do some people LOVE Mahler.
>
I do. Because there is such a wealth of variety, because he uses
the orchestra like a thousand little chamber groups, making a
coherent whole of these thousand parts, because I identify with
his emotions, from ecstasy to devastation. I have felt those in my
own life.
> My opinion is that Mahler was able to express certain deep emotions
>which mirror the spiritual state of modern man. A netter mentioned that for
>some, listening to Mahler is like a religious experience. I agree. I would
>classify Mahler's soul as a mixture of agnostic and atheist and pantheist,
>and definitely not Christian, although having an unmistakable form of
>Christianity. I would say the same of Western man. The result is an
>existentialistic longing for wholeness found only in a God that is as yet
>unknown. Mahler, more than any other composer, is able to delve into his
>own fragmented psyche and express in music all of the lostness, anxiety
>and inner longing which haunt him. He is able to say that which modern
>man feels.
>
Amen.
> As for Bruckner, a more or less pious Catholic, I think that people
>enjoy his music for reasons opposite to Mahler. Bruckner's is music that
>tries to express the divine knowledge that he has experienced. Unfortunately,
>he is not as talented as Mahler in many ways, especially melodically and in
>pure inventiveness. This is why most people find him boring. But for those
>who can appreciate the beauty of his message, all the rest seems to dwindle
>into nothingness.
>
I do not agree tha Bruckner was less talented. Just different.
Instead of composing a thousand chamber works and melding them
into one symphony he chose to unfold his music over long periods if
time. With Bruckner, time seems to stand still, and music seems
to emanate from air. He is even more of a religious experience
than Mahler is, and less well understood. Our modern, fast food
society cannot seem to stand still for even the short time his
music demands. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we
just had a little more patience.
Thanks,
Manuel Pagán
iwi...@molbiol.ox.ac.uk
> thk...@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tae H Kang) writes:
>
>
>>classify Mahler's soul as a mixture of agnostic and atheist and pantheist,
>>and definitely not Christian, although having an unmistakable form of
>>Christianity.
>
> order to be able to receive a position in the antisemmitic Germany of
> that time.
> As I understand it, his Christianity wasn't a matter of faith but a
> matter of need.
>
>
> Shahar.
>
> --
> /=== Shahar Steiff - Computing and Process Control Engineer ===\
> / Chemical Engineering, Technion , Haifa, ISRAEL 32000 (room 318) \
> \ Ph.(+)972-4-293420 Fx.(+)972-4-230476 | cer...@tx.technion.ac.il /
> \==Home:Ramat Yochanan 30035 04-459536 | cer...@technion.bitnet==/
Perhaps his conversion was not merely a matter of need - there was some
spiritual longing. The Symphonies 2 and 8 (and their texts) should indicate
this. His Catholic conversion did not stop the eventual ending of some of his
Vienna appointments, though.
iwilson_molb...@mmbbs.mn.org
Donald Pajerek
>
[snip]
>I do not agree tha Bruckner was less talented. Just different.
>Instead of composing a thousand chamber works and melding them
>into one symphony he chose to unfold his music over long periods if
>time. With Bruckner, time seems to stand still, and music seems
>to emanate from air. He is even more of a religious experience
>than Mahler is, and less well understood. Our modern, fast food
>society cannot seem to stand still for even the short time his
>music demands. Perhaps the world would be a better place if we
>just had a little more patience.
>
>Thanks,
>Manuel Pagán
>
Even so, when the '9 by 9' thread ran last year, Bruckner's 9th received
more votes for the '9th symphony' slot than any other, including Beethoven
and Mahler (though they were, of course, well represented). So Bruckner
is not going entirely unappreciated.
David Murawski
: I love Mahler, I never even hear his mentioned in my childhood,
I do not know much of Mahler's music, but I can't forget his 2nd Symphony,
and I don't think I could agree more were I drunk. The schizophrenic section
after (or in) the second movement, with the brass band offstage playing a
march while the onstage orchestra plays a mellow line, was (and still is)
phenomenal and, for me, the most memorable section of the hellishly long
Symphony.
I also remember hearing the Cleveland Orchestra play his 9th,
and being moved to tears--it was just that god-awful! Of course, it was
the first time I'd heard any of his music... and it took a huge effort
for me to persuade myself into checking out any more of his music ever
again. Perhaps it is only fitting that I reaffirmed my interest in his
music while listening to his Ressurection, picked blindly off of the
shelf at the library. All that asceticism on his part surely paid off.
PalaceFC
Mahler, more or less all of which I agree with.
Just to add a simple penny's worth to what's already been said.
I think Mahler's beauty also develops from the fact that he speaks a language
all of us can understand. Whether it's using Frere Jacques (the most obvious
example), or the landler movements throughout the symphonic cycle, the fact is
that this is the most protean of music; something that speaks to everyone and
something which can provoke a strong response in even the novice listener. The
fact that Mahler was able to compose thusly, without ever becoming coarse or
uninteresting, is further proof of his genius. Mahler's symphonic world, more
than that of almost any other composer, mirrors the basic emotional variety of
our daily lives.
One last comment. Perhaps another thread worth starting. Did anyone else in
St. Louis, New York, or DC, hear the Remo Mazetti performing version of the
Tenth? What did you think of it? In particular, did you prefer it to Cooke?
To start the ball rolling (and without going into details which I'll post only
if there's a response), I thought...a). Good performance, almost great (a few
problems in the Orchestra). 2. Clearly draws a different conclusion to Cooke,
but one which is undeniably valid, nevertheless. 3. Ultimately, I prefer
Cooke's argument, or at least prefer to believe it reflects Mahler's state of
mind which, of course, we'll never know.
Keith
Reuben Settergren
> I am 36, and I didn't really appreciate Mahler until about two years ago.
> I have always loved the 4th, since I first heard it at the age of 16,
> but I thought of it as the exception; I used to say "Here, *this* is what
> Mahler could do when he properly disciplined himself."
I'm only 23, so what do I know, but last month I was at the Peabody
Symphony's performance of Mahler's 4th (which, incidentally, I am
rehearshing right now (second violin, last stand, (outside))), and
couldn't repress the heretical thought, during the magical Scherzo,
"Why, this is pure Danny Elfman!"
(Oh, God, I'm soooo sorry! May I live a thousand years, and have to
listen to the entire western musical tradition second-hand, through
John Williams movie scores, if I ever think that again!)
---Second to Last of the Violins
Dale Matthews
the first time. It engages me. Mixes with my melancholy mood. Mahler keeps
me growing.
Richard Wang
of the 2nd symphony deserves all the acclaim Mahler got, plus interest.
--
Richard Wang
rw...@husc.harvard.edu
"Eve was not the first to pluck and sample the apple. Adam was first and
he learned by this to put the blame on Eve."--Leto II,
_God_Emperor_of_Dune_, Frank Herbert