Mahler

[JamesS]

What do you guys think of Mahler? I have always liked his music a lot, ever since hearing his first symphony when I was 12. Last year I was lucky enough to be able to hear Haitink and the LSO do Mahler 6 live in London, it was in fact the first time I had heard this incredible work. What do you think about the idea of Mahler predicting his own future with the three hammer blows of fate in the finale? I have to say I'm not sure but it certainly adds something more to the work and is certainly quite a coincidence if nothing else. There are of course other explanations. It is also interesting to hear people's reaction to this symphony, some see it as being bleak and pessimistic whereas some find it oddly uplifting. Anyway I could chatter on about Mahler for a long while so I'll leave it there. Would be interested to hear people's thoughts about him.

J

[Bob]

Too bad he didn't write piano music. 

[SteinwayTony]

It's good that there's another Mahlerian on the board.  Most people here tend to ignore him the very reason posted above -- no piano music (excluding the lieder and chamber music).  Recently I've spent more time listening to historical recordings of Mahler and Bruckner than solo piano music.  I can't stand it when people are so closed-minded that they overlook absolutely brilliant composers just because they did not compose for the instrument they play.  Seems a bit self-centered. 

[JamesS]

It's good that there's another Mahlerian on the board.  Most people here tend to ignore him the very reason posted above -- no piano music (excluding the lieder and chamber music).  Recently I've spent more time listening to historical recordings of Mahler and Bruckner than solo piano music.  I can't stand it when people are so closed-minded that they overlook absolutely brilliant composers just because they did not compose for the instrument they play.  Seems a bit self-centered. 

Yes I agree with this. Quite a number of people that I know don't really know much muisc outside of the repetoire for their own instrument, which I can't really understand. I think I probably have more recordings of orchestral music than I do piano, the orchestra is so much more colourful than the piano and has a much greater range of possiblities, this is something I think Mahler is great at showing.

[Aniam]

Mahler always seems to me to repeat himself multiple times throughout his symphonies. They go on and on, always saying the same things.

[Floristan]

Mahler always seems to me to repeat himself multiple times throughout his symphonies. They go on and on, always saying the same things.

If you listen to Mahler with a Mozartian (Classical)ear, he's might seem repetitious.  The Classical composers used forms that were well defined and compact.  The forms started to loosen up with the Romantics (especially the Liszt-Wagner group with the concept of "tone poems" and music telling stories and evoking feelings).  By Mahler's time, composition had moved beyond the classical forms and had become free form.  Some composers (like Stravinsky and Prokofiev) did some neo-classical pieces, but Mahler grew out of the Liszt-Wagner tradition (as did R. Strauss).

Mahler's symphonies are extended tone poems.  If, as a listener, one is not used to totally abandoning oneself to the composer's concept of music, then Mahler can be difficult, I'd imagine.  But if one can just let go and let the music propel you, Mahler makes more sense.  I started getting Mahler the first time I heard him stoned  .   It was the 5th Symphony, as I recall.  Marijuana helped me just let the music happen without mental resistance.  After that I didn't need the drug anymore to "get" Mahler; then I couldn't get enough of his music, and soon owned recordings of all the symphonies.  I immersed myself in them for a while.  Much the same thing happened with me and Bruckner (talk about repetitive -- he wrote the same symphony 8 3/4 times, but every time a little more glorious and a little more mad).

I think Mahler's a genius at what he does, but I understand why he's not to everyone's taste.

[JamesS]

Yes I agree. As with any composer, though particular relevance to late romantic early twentieth century, you have to learn how to listen to Mahler so as to make sense of his music. Some of his muisc does follow classical forms, the sixth is quite conventional in form as is the first. The thing about Mahler is that the interest lies not only in the music but also in his orchestration and use of the orchestral forces, as well as his manipulation of tonality.