Gustav Mahler

[urtextmeister]

I used to listen to Mahler's sixth in the car and I would keep turing the volume up higher and higher to hear that little whispers...
Wham! There is that huge blast that always caught me by surprise. I had to stop listening to that in the car for the safety of myself and other drivers.
Now I try to listen to either pop music or harpsichord music while driving. They both maintain about the same decibel level.

lvbfanatic,

I agree that the value of recordings should not be discounted. I have gotten great enjoyment out of LPs, CDs and tapes during my lifetime. Some of my best experiences have been with scratchy, low fidelity audio. I'm not sure how to explain that, but I think we can appreciate recordings more when we don't consider them only a pale imitation of real life. It is not unlike looking at a faded black and white photograph and only thinking how unlike real life it is. There is a value to the photograph itself, not only that moment it is trying to capture, true? This is getting a bit philosophical.

Your facile analysis of composers bothers me a little. Mahler and Chopin are both masterful composers who each represent a world of culture, sensibility and tradition. It seems to me they giving them 10 or 20 turns on the CD player and then kicking them out is a little harsh.

[Haffner]

Originally posted by lvbfanatic:


There are several intersting points made by Haffmner and equally interesting questions asked...

The advent of the MP3 technologies applied to CD burning has changed the way in which we can enjoy the massive amounts of music that have been recorded. It's quite a blast to cram up to 8.5 hours of musical favourites on a single disc thanks to the compression technology...

But what do you put on it?

I decided on those bits of music which could be heard repeatedly wothout cloying, paling, or losing flavour. Mahler's major works just couldn't make it. Some of them sound really great (like the 1st and the 2nd and the 5th... but not in frequently repeated stretches... they cloy... after a while Mahler comes out as a composer with some good ideas... but not really great music)... Chopin never makes the great and perhaps that is why Haffner was so disappointed with the live performance.

A lot of LVB,s output stands very well the test of frequent repetitions... and in fact that is the best way of really wrapping your soul around his music... and of course there's also that last movement of Mozart's 41st symphony... and so on...

But getting back to the live vs recorded performance... the recorded performance is really the best way of getting to know anything about the music... in live perfs it might sound like *hey I really like that!* but in recorded form ... repeated often... the reality of the musical fit and yourself really comes through.

Well, first of all, quite interesting that you can write off two of the greatest composers in the history of music. Chopin is my favourite composer and to me, he is the greatest who has ever lived. He was as great an innovator as any but I shall restrain myself from combating your statement about his music "never making the great". I disliked the performance due to the pianist, not the composer, but even though I strongly disagree with your points concerning Chopin and Mahler, I suppose I can respect them.

I wonder though, what makes music re-listenable in your opinion? Only when I enjoy solely melodic material do I find the music wears out very quickly. I think the composer who wears most on me is Rossini; ah, dreadful! As Berlioz said, he wrote music to please the ear which has nothing to do with emotional expression. I can understand tiring of music such as this, but genuine, personal music like Chopin's and Mahler's, I don't understand why this wears on you.

Returning to the topic of recorded music, I was just thinking that aside from it being a fickle representation of real sound, it poses a great problem to the way we view live performance. Recordings can easily be made perfect through editing and splicing separate takes and this in turn forces the audience to place great pressure on performers. Recordings have made us expect perfect performances and in a way I think this has cheapened the entire live experience. Don't get me wrong, recordings have made life a lot more convenient but I think they have done so in a negative way.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by Haffner:
Well, first of all, quite interesting that you can write off two of the greatest composers in the history of music. Chopin is my favourite composer and to me, he is the greatest who has ever lived. He was as great an innovator as any but I shall restrain myself from combating your statement about his music "never making the great". I disliked the performance due to the pianist, not the composer, but even though I strongly disagree with your points concerning Chopin and Mahler, I suppose I can respect them.

I wonder though, what makes music re-listenable in your opinion? Only when I enjoy solely melodic material do I find the music wears out very quickly. I think the composer who wears most on me is Rossini; ah, dreadful! As Berlioz said, he wrote music to please the ear which has nothing to do with emotional expression. I can understand tiring of music such as this, but genuine, personal music like Chopin's and Mahler's, I don't understand why this wears on you.

Returning to the topic of recorded music, I was just thinking that aside from it being a fickle representation of real sound, it poses a great problem to the way we view live performance. Recordings can easily be made perfect through editing and splicing separate takes and this in turn forces the audience to place great pressure on performers. Recordings have made us expect perfect performances and in a way I think this has cheapened the entire live experience. Don't get me wrong, recordings have made life a lot more convenient but I think they have done so in a negative way.

I think one problem people have in terms of labeling composers as Mahler and Chopin among the greatest is that they primarily composed in limited mediums. There are no operas, oratorios, nor much chamber music (I think Mahler has some) to speak of. While Mahler's contributions to orchestration and to the symphony are important, as well as Chopin's style to piano they are not regarded in the same class as those who composed in a vaster range of mediums and styles.

[Haffner]

Originally posted by Sorrano:

I think one problem people have in terms of labeling composers as Mahler and Chopin among the greatest is that they primarily composed in limited mediums. There are no operas, oratorios, nor much chamber music (I think Mahler has some) to speak of. While Mahler's contributions to orchestration and to the symphony are important, as well as Chopin's style to piano they are not regarded in the same class as those who composed in a vaster range of mediums and styles.

And yet who would argue Verdi's greatness even though all he wrote were operas?

[Peter]

Originally posted by Haffner:
And yet who would argue Verdi's greatness even though all he wrote were operas?

And Wagner!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Sorrano]

Both Verdi and Wagner are considered as great in terms of their medium, even though they did write outside of that genre (not much, as it is). One does not compare either of these with Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky although they are pretty much incomparable in their own genre.

Getting back to Mahler ;-) I have mixed feelings in regards to his music. Sometimes I like it a lot and other times I feel like he is way excessive. Perhaps the best way to experience his music is live (I caught the Resurrection Symphony live and that was a tremendous experience).

[This message has been edited by Sorrano (edited 10-14-2004).]

[spaceray]

Originally posted by Haffner:
And yet who would argue Verdi's greatness even though all he wrote were operas?

And one string quartet.

[Peter]

Originally posted by spaceray:
And one string quartet.

Also a Requiem, Stabat Mater and Te deum!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[urtextmeister]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Both Verdi and Wagner are considered as great in terms of their medium, even though they did write outside of that genre (not much, as it is). One does not compare either of these with Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky although they are pretty much incomparable in their own genre.

Getting back to Mahler ;-) I have mixed feelings in regards to his music. Sometimes I like it a lot and other times I feel like he is way excessive. Perhaps the best way to experience his music is live (I caught the Resurrection Symphony live and that was a tremendous experience).

[This message has been edited by Sorrano (edited 10-14-2004).]

I agree that Mahler is excessive, but I think he played with that. It seems like he was aware of his classic/romantic predecessors and the hyper expressionist composers to come and tried to make sense of it. At times he was excessive and at times, spare and understated.
I guess I am interpreting "excessive" as musical language rather than actual length.

Haffner,

Thank you for your comments about Chopin and Mahler.

Now about that Rossini comment....

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Both Verdi and Wagner are considered as great in terms of their medium, even though they did write outside of that genre (not much, as it is). One does not compare either of these with Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky although they are pretty much incomparable in their own genre.

'One does not?' 'One' may not, but another 'one' may.

Aside from the realm of opera, Wagner brought the orchestra in general to its late-romantic peak, having a decisive influence on the later development of the symphony, as in Mahler. Also, his chromaticism and polytonalism in Tristan and Parsifal heavily influenced Impressionism and the later modern musical mainstream through to atonalism (though some might say that this finally became pernicious). What other composer of his period influenced future classical music, both operatic and non-operatic, as much?

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 10-15-2004).]

[Haffner]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Both Verdi and Wagner are considered as great in terms of their medium, even though they did write outside of that genre (not much, as it is). One does not compare either of these with Beethoven, Mozart, or Stravinsky although they are pretty much incomparable in their own genre.

Getting back to Mahler ;-) I have mixed feelings in regards to his music. Sometimes I like it a lot and other times I feel like he is way excessive. Perhaps the best way to experience his music is live (I caught the Resurrection Symphony live and that was a tremendous experience).

[This message has been edited by Sorrano (edited 10-14-2004).]

I would have to disagree with the statement that Mahler is excessive mostly because I do not know in what respect you are using the term. If the music and expression are genuine, to me crashing and booming like Beethoven or Mahler is not excessive even though both do crash and boom quite a bit. But I am not sure what it is that you think is excessive so I can't really comment, just inquire.


As for Verdi I mentioned him and not Wagner because everyone seems to love Verdi. I am not one of these people and I am certainly more of a Wagnerian but I think in this, an interesting point arises; are some composers considered great too hastily? Verdi comes immediately to mind, what makes him great? Yes, he has some wonderful melodies that are certainly catchy but what innovations did he introduce? Brahms as well, though he did some interesting things harmonically, his innovations in this respect cannot compare with his rival Wagner's. But both wrote very pleasing music, and a lot of music; is that all it takes? I don't mean to suggest that neither should be considered great but it slightly irritates me that a composer like Carl Maria von Weber is less well know than Brahms and Verdi. Weber changed far more and because his musical output is not as vast or as immediately pleasing he is not as well recognized?

Chaszz put it quite well when he argued Wagner's case, now let me argue Mahler's and Chopin's. Both wrote in the medium that each felt most comfortable writing in but both introduced vast innovations not only to their medium of choice but to music in general. Debussy claimed that his concept of harmony owed everything to Chopin and Mahler's intensely introspective focus certainly was the inspiration for the expressionist music of the early 20th century, and yet neither, in some eyes, are considered great! What about Tchaikovsky? I adore his music but what did he do that was in anyway new? Yes there are some innovations such as his very unique counterpoint and colourful orchestration but these pale in comparison to those of the two composers just discussed. So, because he wrote in every medium, he is great? Mendelssohn, how is his music innovative?

Though this may seem to be an attack on individual composers, it is not. There is more to music than that which is pleasing or catchy; one has greatly corrupt taste if one rates composers in such a way. It just frustrates me that’s all, people often only like something because it is pleasing , and that’s fine, but that does not make it great, at least in my opinion.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Haffner:
I would have to disagree with the statement that Mahler is excessive mostly because I do not know in what respect you are using the term. If the music and expression are genuine, to me crashing and booming like Beethoven or Mahler is not excessive even though both do crash and boom quite a bit. But I am not sure what it is that you think is excessive so I can't really comment, just inquire.


As for Verdi I mentioned him and not Wagner because everyone seems to love Verdi. I am not one of these people and I am certainly more of a Wagnerian but I think in this, an interesting point arises; are some composers considered great too hastily? Verdi comes immediately to mind, what makes him great? Yes, he has some wonderful melodies that are certainly catchy but what innovations did he introduce? Brahms as well, though he did some interesting things harmonically, his innovations in this respect cannot compare with his rival Wagner's. But both wrote very pleasing music, and a lot of music; is that all it takes? I don't mean to suggest that neither should be considered great but it slightly irritates me that a composer like Carl Maria von Weber is less well know than Brahms and Verdi. Weber changed far more and because his musical output is not as vast or as immediately pleasing he is not as well recognized?

Chaszz put it quite well when he argued Wagner's case, now let me argue Mahler's and Chopin's. Both wrote in the medium that each felt most comfortable writing in but both introduced vast innovations not only to their medium of choice but to music in general. Debussy claimed that his concept of harmony owed everything to Chopin and Mahler's intensely introspective focus certainly was the inspiration for the expressionist music of the early 20th century, and yet neither, in some eyes, are considered great! What about Tchaikovsky? I adore his music but what did he do that was in anyway new? Yes there are some innovations such as his very unique counterpoint and colourful orchestration but these pale in comparison to those of the two composers just discussed. So, because he wrote in every medium, he is great? Mendelssohn, how is his music innovative?

Though this may seem to be an attack on individual composers, it is not. There is more to music than that which is pleasing or catchy; one has greatly corrupt taste if one rates composers in such a way. It just frustrates me that’s all, people often only like something because it is pleasing , and that’s fine, but that does not make it great, at least in my opinion.

This raises the interesting issue of whether
great art must necessarily be innovative. It often is. But is it possible that Weber was more innovative than Brahms and yet Brahms was a greater composer? He is undoubtedly more popular, and I don't believe because of pretty melodies only, because his works are
structurally complex, not simple and melodious primarily, as are Rossini's.

Bach in a sense was the opposite of innovative, in that he further perfected a style that was fading from fashion already in his young adulthood.

I think an artist who does not change musical history with his influence, can still be innovative within the range of his own aims and development. Brahms did not change history but certainly had a powerful unique vision, style and concepts of rhythm and orchestration such that he is a great master anyway.

[Sorrano]

And don't forget Berlioz for innovation. If innovation were the only criteria for greatness I would agree 100% with what has been stated on the subject. However, the ability to write in various mediums successfully, in various styles successfully have to have merit as well. Orchestral abilities, contrapuntal and harmonic abilities, too have bearing on greatness. Was Bach innovative? Rather, he was conservative (although his contributions to the concerto as we have it today are nice) and wrote the things that were popular in his own time. With the exception of the piano/keyboard concerto I do not know of any other form that he "created".

As for Mahler and his excessiveness, I should have clarified that in terms of expressionism. Expressionism tends towards excess--things out of balance.

When one compares contributions made by various composers, such as Chopin, I would ask who contributed more? Chopin or Berlioz? Berlioz's contributions in terms of orchestration and programming music are extensive. But who's to judge which one is greater? I care more for what appeals to me than to who someone else thinks is greater or lesser. All the composers mentioned composed music I like. Chopin may be among the ones I like least but I also understand that he is among the ones I understand the least (among those discussed in this thread). But I do not judge him as lesser. But that his focus was on one particular medium limits the way that critics might judge his greatness in respect to others who's music was more flexible.

[urtextmeister]

Sorrano,

I would like to pick up on your last point a bit. You like Chopin the least, but you understand him the least.

I was sent to a teacher when I was about 14. He was born and educated in Poland. My lessons were usually Bach and Chopin or Beethoven and Chopin or Mozart and Chopin. I loved Chopin before I went to him, but I grew to know him more.

I have known many Russian people who have no doubt in their mind that Tchaikowsky is the greatest composer of all time. They are taught that from an early age in conservatories (or were). --please note. I am not saying all Russian people feel this way--

Music taste is often caught up with our life histories. We can talk like we there is a scientific method of judging a composer's greatness, but I doubt there is.

As Shostakovitch said,
Maybe there is no good or bad music. Just music that excites us and music that leaves us cold.

[Sorrano]

Originally posted by urtextmeister:
Sorrano,

I would like to pick up on your last point a bit. You like Chopin the least, but you understand him the least.

I was sent to a teacher when I was about 14. He was born and educated in Poland. My lessons were usually Bach and Chopin or Beethoven and Chopin or Mozart and Chopin. I loved Chopin before I went to him, but I grew to know him more.

I have known many Russian people who have no doubt in their mind that Tchaikowsky is the greatest composer of all time. They are taught that from an early age in conservatories (or were). --please note. I am not saying all Russian people feel this way--

Music taste is often caught up with our life histories. We can talk like we there is a scientific method of judging a composer's greatness, but I doubt there is.

As Shostakovitch said,
Maybe there is no good or bad music. Just music that excites us and music that leaves us cold.

You are absolutely right! I recognize that I do not understand Chopin hardly at all. Listening to his music does not stir me at all, but I have found much greater enjoyment when I've played his music (or tried--some of his irregular rhythms I find impossible).