This is a tricky one, because Mahler didn't actually write all that much, but there is a fair answer to this tantalizing question. I won't give it away here. You'll have to watch!
As a Mahler addict I take this fantastic observation from you as an opportunity to tell you Dave, you are a teacher and a companion in the journey of great music consumption, and the only advice or request I have is: talk more about the greatest of all musicians, there is so much to find in Mahler and you are such an excellent guide to everything that is music, and your love and admiration to Mahler are coming through magnificently.
I see I'm not the only one thinking this is one of your very best videos. Whenever your talks center around historical matters, they really shine. This one was especially thought-provoking. By the way, you've just shown the Internet how to APPROPRIATELY use a click-bait title! 😀
Mahler started breaking into the Classical Music Canon in earnest in the 1960's with Leonard Bernstein's NY Philharmonic recording cycle. That began a slow process of Mahler recordings starting to pop up more often. In the 60's and 70's it started to become more common to encounter Mahler in the concert hall. It was still an event but becoming more standard. By the 1990's, Mahler was standard fare at the concert hall, and an almost expected rite of conductorial passage for recording maestros. Mahler is a great example of the idea that sometimes a culture catches up with the music they ignored when it was first made. Someday I hope a similar thing happens to Martinu.
When a former colleague developed an interest in classical music, I was an early adviser, suggesting composers and recordings. His take on Mahler: "His music seems to be saying, 'F---- you and your problems -- I've got problems of my own.'" I love a lot of Mahler, but my friend's assessment still makes me laugh.
Good answer! ...I wondered if it could possibly be that string quartet movement, but there's nothing embarrassing about it. My vote is -- bless his heart -- NOT embarrassing! But how incredible it is that he was willing to bare it all throughout his amazing output. We get to experience his entire soul through his music. He treads where none dared to go. Listening to his music is the equivalent to watching a horror film or -- let's say it -- a movie about a very embarrassing situation we are happy not to have been in, but enjoy watching anyway. His multiple universes are like the entire output of Hollywood, all from a single director. I'd say he got it right.
An intriguing premise and argument; a deft way to tie Mahler to the theme of this series despite the difficulty. Funny that the initial critics heard other composers when hearing Mahler when most of us hear Mahler and instantly know its Mahler and no one else.
I think one of the reasons Mahler is so popular is that more recent audiences are distanced from the inspirations he used. We are not familiar with klezmer, funeral march, street bands, and the like, and they sound fresh and not derivative.
I mean, even if we weren't, I still think people would be astounded by his orchestration skills and how he integrates all these disparate quotations into a pretty successful formal canvas. He isn't just quoting tunes, he develops them and calls them back later.
Great point! I’m actually thinking the opposite: people today are so used to all kinds of noise and unpleasant sounds (many from other music genres) that they are not appalled by Mahler’s sound effects.
I agree. Dave sort of made this point, and I find it very thought-provoking. I think, for instance, of my aversion to Leonard Bernstein's Mass. I'm not suggesting that it will eventually be regarded as a masterpiece that was sadly rejected by its contemporary audience, but future listeners will certainly be able to hear it without its "baggage" and judge it accordingly. All of that might blend into the musical fabric, or it might make the work sound more dated than ever.
What an interesting talk! You quasi explained, why I find a certain work of Mahler, well, not embarrassing, but somewhat disappointing, and it's the 8th symphony, because it contains in my view less of the "musica impura", through which Mahler speaks in all of his other works.
Embarrassingly marvelous music for those of us who didn't get it at first. And this was a really interesting, pertinent and enriching talk about one of my great heroes! Thank you!
This might be a good opportunity to thank you for your Telarc-Video of the complete Mahler Symphonies. I ordered it just after that upload and had to wait about half a year. It's available now again! The price was less than 30 bucks (for the whole box!) It's a gem! Thank you again.
I admit to being a complete schizophrenic when it comes to Mahler. There are times when I play his music a lot, going through all his symphonies in particular. And there are times when I can't play him for months. Sometimes I think I never want to hear 6, 7, and 8 again for the rest of my life. But then a few months later, I play them again.
This series of videos is great, not only for your own take, but also to see the comments and what they show about how varied listeners' tastes and attitudes are (who knew there were so many advocates for "La Clemenza di Tito?). I actually find it nice to see so many critical comments of Mahler's symphonies. I love them all, but based on their ubiquity on programs and recordings, it seemed like many were beginning to take his genius for granted. The fact that his music still provokes strong reactions and opinions is heartening. They should elicit these responses and stir emotions, both positive and negative. I fear the day we start listening to Mahler with indifference.
Mahler was one of my idols as a student, then I lost my taste in Mahler as a young professional. Then I revisited the symphonies this year, while reading David Vernon's lovely book, Beauty and Sadness: Mahler's 11 Symphonies. I don't find his work consistently overhwleming, but the man had chops for days. And the ecclecticism is, indeed, the point. It's unsurprising that an American composer/conductor like Bernstein would find a kindred spirit in him and help make him so influential.
I started listening to Mahler in the early 70s after seeing Ken Russell's film "Mahler" with Robert Powell (the actor took on the role of Jesus of Nazareth for Zefirelli after this filming) and after reading the book by Marc Vignal from Editions Seuil, Solfeges. A greatest hits by RCA, a first symphony by Abravanel, a 3rd by Horenstein, etc., and I did not realize that this Mahlerian universe was going to follow me to this day .reading a book by Henri Louis de la Grange (Fayard) would enlighten me in a new way.Mahler modern, innovative, complex composer, whose works have marked the history of music by their content, yes, but also from this human side, and which announced Shostakovich say.....
I find Mahler's music absolutely Heavenly! The ending of his mammoth 3rd Symphony with 2 timpanists pounding away epitomises his muscicality depicting this Heavenly realm.
Speaking of Mahler's "spirituality" one might say (to use a theological term) he "incarnates" spirit into the everyday, mundane world -- sometimes that sounds beautiful, sometimes grotesque, and maybe at times almost incomprehensible -- just like life. Thanks for this discussion. Your approach here would be nice for readers to find in a new book of your authorship.
At 65, when I was a kid I started checking out Mahler albums from the library. Mahler was not recommended by my musical mentors, particularly my grandad. I was Mahler before Mahler was cool. I sat grandad down to listen to the #4. He loved it.
Many thanks for your very interesting videos. I have an off topic question: what kind of equipment and environment you use to listen to your CDs? Many of the details you mention can only be noticed with a good system and a suitable room.
The best instalment in this series so far - and, as some other commentators propose, among one of the most intriguing in your output as such! Bravo! I think, the reason, why Mahler's music, contrary to Richard Strauss (whose output, by the way, to modern ears, contains a riches of embarrassement), never caught fire with his contemporaries, and by many was considered embarrasing and banal, lays in the fact, as you point out, that he, sometimes chaleidoscopically, juxtaposed the most lofty with what was considered utmost lowbrow music of the people, folktunes or folktune-inspired music. And I guess the Kletmer-inspired passages didn't go down too well, either, when the prevalent antisemtism of the time is taken into consideration! I guess the inherent neuroticism of the juxtapositions of high and low (brow) and Mahler's tonal language as such, where one often is left uncertain, whether a conflict is genuinely resolved or just seems to be, probably didn't help the digestion of the concert-attending 'Hoch-bürgeliche' (bourgeois) audiences in his time. I guess, they could tolerate conflict up to a point, as long as it got properly (hamoniously) resolved, but the splitting contrasts of Mahler's music, not to speak of all that emotionality worn on the outside of the sleeve cuffs... Your pointing out the family resemblance between Haydn-Mahler is spot on. Might one extend the genealogy to Haydn-Mahler-Shostakovich?
This was fun because I came late to Mahler, largely because the most important guides to classical music that I had (my parents) hate his music and he’s also seldom played on classical radio (aside from the famous Adagietto, aired without the rest of the Fifth). But not just that, his symphonies are so long and the smaller ones I tried early on (1st and 4th) didn’t grab me. Long story short, I got there eventually and love it all, but what you say illuminates for me a bit of what I think my parents see in his music.
Mostly this is because many classical radio stations program hour by hour, and rarely program something that crosses an hour mark. That said, I've heard both his 1st and 4th on radio within the last two weeks. (Unsurprisingly, the two that can fit within a 1-hour window.) My local station also sometimes plays single movements of other symphonies. Oddly, my local classical station does occasionally program symphonies longer than an hour, but none of them have been Mahler in the 13 years I've lived here (confirmed by one of their hosts). In that time they've played Beethoven 9 in full several times, and Bruckner 8 and Gliere 3 once each.
Good points all around, but I’ll offer a different take. I quite enjoy his musical style, but for me what makes his symphonies embarrassing (“cringe,” if you will) is their megalomaniacal length. To me, it indicates an ego out of control, a child who never learned how to share. I think you’re spot on that the argument about sensuality v abstemiousness has continued under different guises up until the present day. It seems to me that most of the 20th century avant garde was fully on the side of abstemiousness (taken to a much farther degree) and they also lost the argument.
I've never understood the length issue. Yes, they are long, but the length is always justified by their content and scope. I mean, who wants a "Resurrection" that lasts only 20 minutes? And after all, there aren't many of them--Mahler packed a lifetime of music into a small number of works. He had very limited time to composer, so each one had to count. That doesn't mean, of course, that you have to like them, but to call Mahler "a child who never learned how to share" strikes me as very odd. Few composers were, expressively speaking, more "giving." But you do raise an interesting point, which is that many listeners (and others) object to the very idea of grandeur and "bigness" of vision. It makes them uncomfortable.
Why is length an issue? By that metric, all those operas of Wagner and Verdi would be cringe as well, as would Bach's Mass in B Minor. It seems to me that people like to object to Mahler's lengths because they define a symphony to not embrace bigness, which is completely arbitrary.
@@antiksur8883 Length is a real problem if there is too much repetition and unmemorable music. That is why I never really enjoy an uncut Tristan und Isolde. Cuts would also help making Mahler more palatable to me.
@antiksur8883 Why Verdi? I can't think of any opera composer who was more concise. But as Janacek said, Wagner had a genius for expansion, and Verdi had a genius for compression. I think Mahler also had a genius for expansion and far more so than Bruckner.
I "grew up" musically in Tel Aviv, where the Israel Philharmonic plays Mahler endlessly. At least 3 symphonies per season, so I know them pretty well. I don't particularly like his music as I have a hard time with all the self-pity, but I don't find it "embarrassing" as such. But if there's one embarrassing piece, it has to be the 8th symphony in my opinion. I've even sung it in a choir.
I love Mahler but someone I used to know loathed his music, he couldn't take the cow bells in the 6th Symphony, but I also think some people don't respond to the sentimentality in some of Mahler's music. BBC Radio 3 once aired an interview with the daughter of Hans Richter, she was about 90 and it was either the 1940s or 1950s -when asked about Mahler she said, simply 'this isn't music'.
That's a really interesting point, that all of his works express the same basic musical worldview. Periodically, I'll go on a Mahler binge (particularly of the vocal works) and find it the most amazing music. But sooner or later, the binge ends, for much of his music sounds sort of the same.
Hmm. They sort of have the same methods of composition, but I find them much more diverse than the symphonic canon of most other famous composers, like Beethoven or Brahms or Bruckner or even Sibelius (who is probably my favorite symphonist).
@@laurentcompagna6166 I’m an opera person primarily, and I’d say actually there is quite a bit of variety and development in Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, and even Wagner in a way. The bel canto composers are pretty consistent though, as is Strauss (excluding Salome and Elektra).
@philipedschWhich is true, however we're not of that time. For us, Beethoven's symphonies do not seem that much more diverse than Mahler, in my opinion.
Thanks, David. Very well presented and discussed, as usual. As a Mahler devotee since the late 1960's, I am firmly in the "no problem" camp. I've listened to something by Mahler almost every day for many years. His works are like old lifelong friends. However, I do understand why some don't enjoy his music, and perhaps never will. It's a personal preference, to which we are all entitled.
Of course it's personal, but I am struck by the hostility and nastiness (and lack of musical substance) coming from the mostly-deleted (for that reason) naysayers posting here. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
Thank you so much, Dave. What a penetrating insight into what makes Mahler tick. I really enjoyed that overview about how Mahler conceived his symphonies. By the way, I miss seeing Finster. He was getting to be like watching for a Hitchcock cameo! I hope to see him again soon.
George Szell, admittedly a late convert to Mahler's music, once said that some of the movements in Mahler's symphonies were "hypertrophic and not worthy of salvation." I can see his point but for me the good far outweighs the bad and Mahler's music is always a source of great enjoyment.
I find Ives attempting to "embrace the world" in his symphonies in his own iconoclastic way. Maybe that's why Mahler supposedly was interested in Ives' 3rd and, if he'd lived, might have conducted it.
I think it would be fascinating to analyze the ways in which Ives and Mahler were “kindred spirits”. I’m sure there are some strong contrasts between them but as I’ve listened more to both of them I have this sense of a connection between the two. Certainly there is the common use of “corrupting” material in, to me, an effective manner. But it would be interesting to try to identify how much deeper the connection is between the two might be.
To me, Mahler is more Eastern European than German, and like Janacek, Dvorak and Smetana, it often brings tears, as you asked about in a previous posting, and I find traces of Mozart and Verdi in it (and my tears) not at all embarrassing.
It's a historical misconception to think of Böhmen-Mähren, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. as Eastern European countries....yes, they were called so, when the ironcurtain divided Europe, but they are (and were before that): Central Europe. Hence Dvorak, Smetana and Janacek are all Central European composers, though clearly inspired by and steeped in the sound scape of the folk music of their area. The more Eastern twang to some passages in Mahler's music stems from his paraphrasing Kletzmer music here and there (and from the orientalism that colours Das Lied von der Erde, of course)....otherwise his music to my ears are solidly rooted in the Austro-Germa, romantic tradition, albeit, as befits one of the representatives of its last days, with the borders of that tradition being constantly challenged!
@@jensguldalrasmussen6446 Point well taken, I should have written Austro-Hungarian or Central European, but Mahler is far less reminiscent of Beethoven and Brahms than of those composers I mentioned.
@clintonslayton4512 I'm just very sorry, that you happened to run, frontally and head first, into a longtime, idiosyncratic hobbyhorse (or maybe rather an old/cold warhorse) of mine. I hope, I didn't sound too much like the Grumpy ol' gid, I sometimes am - and that the encounter didn't leave you with too many bruises! What the essence of your argument otherwise pertains, I can only concur. Maybe not so strange, when taking into consideration the fact, that Mahler, untill at least the tender age of 15, had ample opportunity to roam 'Bohemia's Woods and Fields'! 🙂
Mahler is a proto-modernist in the ways you point out. One thread running through the art of the 20th century is the cooption of everyday things into works of art. Duchamp's use of an ordinary urinal as the material basis of the artwork he named “Fountain”. Warhol's “ Brillo Boxes”. T. S. Eliot's use of low rhyme in serious poetry (“Mrs Sweeney and her daughter / wash their feet in soda water”). Arthur Danto called this “The Transfiguration of the Commonplace,” the title of one of his books. The military marches in the symphonies become something more universal than a military band playing in a patriotic parade.
As an extreme Mahler fanatic, I find criticism of his music inexplicable. It has been a huge part of my life, and I would be poorer without it. In my opinion, he is the greatest orchestrator who ever lived, rivaled only, perhaps by Ravel.
Great chat, thanks ! Curious do you feel as I do that the very eclecticism which (anti-Semitic?) nationalists view as corrupting is nothing but a different, global kind of romanticism, with the same celebration of the individual artist genius, albeit with undeniable Jewish characteristics?
True. Instead of global I should have said universal and instead of Jewish I might have said judaic or better still, Jew as everyman. As an aside it's also fun to speculate how it is that modern nationalist cultures (like German) which claim to be a fulfillment of sorts of Christianity are inherently anti-Christian precisely in their antipathy towards universalism @@DavesClassicalGuide
This is the first thing I ever read about Mahler in a 1978 book on Classical Music by British critic Lionel Salter:" Mahler's essentially pessimistic nature and the self-pitying emotionalism of his music, which was the expression of an intensely personal philosophy, his use of deliberately banal material (especially quasi-military marches) and of rather sinister distortions, and his penchant for inflated length and for enormous resources-as in the second "Resurrection " Symphony and more especially, the so-called "Symphony of a Thousand""(no.8), which requires eight solo voices,a double chorus and a boy's choir in addition to a very large orchestra- have provoked some opposition, but he is now generally accepted as the last of the great Viennese symphonists." I vote yes, for all those "faults " or maybe because of them , his music is great.
Lionel Salter was a persuasive enthusiast for the music of Roussel, as in his review of a recording of the 'Suite in F' in 1950. "Play the Prelude of this exhilarating suite to an unsuspecting musical friend, and ask him to guess the composer: if he is discerning, he may reply "Prokofiev - nearly". Indeed, the jaunty high spirits, the melodic angularity and the mordant orchestration almost out-Prokofiev Prokofiev - save that, allied to the taut, elliptical musical language there is an unmistakably Gallic flavour". The review concluded "I find the suite immensely exhilarating, with its dry wit and invigorating lack of sentimentality, and these records most attractive."
In order to come up with actual work that fits the title, I would suggest that perhaps we look into his reorchestration of such things as Beethoven's 5th (and 9th?) Symphony, at least on the basis of what I have read (I haven't ever heard a performance of his orchestration of the 5th). It sounds like he tried to recreate the piece in his own massive image and sound world.
He's a one off late romantic genius. Very sui generis. Which is why for me he's so wonderful and exciting. I can't imagine music without him. And there are things here and there that I don't care for. But the good fat outweighs the bad. Like so many young people in the 60's, when I "heard" it, I just fell in love. Thank you Leonard Bernstein! What with the Vietnam war and the Cold war et. al. his late arrival on the scene was very important. We needed his eclectic voice! He is a bridge between the romantic and modern worlds. Aaron Copeland: M was a great actor playing a great composer. Ouch!!! Andre Previn: His music is like being in a loud cocktail party. He didn't like it. A very young Stravinsky after the premiere of the eight: 2 plus 2 equals 4...ouch! Lots of derision. I understand Sibelius' comments. That sensibility reminds me of Baudelaire and the ultra negative reaction to the impressionist painters. It was an eclectic time. And there was a schism between the traditional values and the "new". Mahler seems to have had one foot in the past and one foot in the future. How do you appeal to your times and reject those values without causing consternation? And alienation for yourself. M brings up issues that certainly make the art world more interesting. In my view. Because of a couple of new movies, a younger generation is being introduced to his music. And the amazing world of classical music. That's so important! I love you Gustav Mahler! I've heard a lot of negative stuff over the years.
I find the people who dislike Mahler are too serious and proud of themselves. They are those whose egos clash with Mahler’s. The only way to appreciate Mahler is to open your heart to his music
I like Mahler's music because inside of it, there's always a story somehow. I have the same with Vaughn Williams's music and Shostakovich's. And I like movie soundtracks. So there's clear line through my favourites. Since I'm not a musician or a musicologist, I have about zero interest in the technical side of music. I have learned a lot about it since I found your channel though. 😉 But the nuts and bolts of, no thank you.
I absolutely love Mahler and find his symphonies if not embracing the whole world as Mhale intended, then at least embracing Mahler's mind, which was extraordinary. Mahler seemed to have a photographic memory of all the music he conducted but of all of his memories in life and the feelings attached to them. He embraced the whole of Classical, from Bach to Beethoven, to Wagner in a cohesive and mind blowing way. As great as Beethoven and the rest remain (they all have their weaknesses), Mahler is the GOAT of the symphony composers.
I had a friend and coworker, a passionate and erudite music lover, who opined that, unlike Beethoven, whose second, fourth, and eighth symphonies are lesser works (so he thought) to the other six, all nine of Mahler's completed and numbered symphonies are masterpieces.
An interesting conundrum: all or nothing! I wonder if Mahler himself would have seen it this way. For my part, the work that sticks out from the others is the first symphony, which seems really clunky and weak in a way most of the later symphonies do not, even though Mahler had numerous opportunities to perform and revise the work and thus having auditioned what worked in the concert hall, and what did not. One of the curious things is that in the course of his revisions (and after three or so full performances including it) he jettisoned the "Blumine" Andante, which actually is a delightful little movement when performed on its own. Of course, a talented conductor will give a convincing reading that makes the best of the material, but I tend to think this is quite a harder proposition with this particular work compared with the others of similar form (the nine and a half other symphonies).
Also I should say, thanks for this new series of video essays. I can tell already you’ll have a field day when you get to Berlioz (and I love Berlioz’s work, but so very often he lacked a filter).
maybe someone answered this in the comments already, but perhaps Mahler can be seen as one of the earliest musical Postmodernists? Hmm..maybe even Haydn could be seen as one?
The 'most embarrasing' work of his would be the piano quartet. Which is a nice piece but it's a shame he never wrote a slow movement, scherzo, and finale for it. He destroyed all his other early works so it's plausible he wrote worse.
I have a different opinion based on my subjective view of quality. I find find most of Mahler overly emotional/excessive/ hysterical and often trite, except for 1, parts of 5, 6 (with reservations about the finale), and most of his Lieder ... all of which I love. I wonder whether there are other selective Mahler fans out there
@philipedsch Not Kullervo, but perhaps his 8th Symphony, which might have been one of the manuscripts that he threw into the fireplace (no one knows for sure). Or more realistically, some of his minor piano or vocal works.
If I were forced to choose Mahler's most embarrassing composition, I would pick the 8th symphony. Yes, yes...I know it's beloved by many, and even I can appreciate it to some extent, but still...within his symphonic output, it's just an outlier...overly bombastic and lacking in the structure one finds in the 6th, 7th, and 9th. This is not to say I don't like the 8th, but I find myself returning it much less often than the rest.
Please. Lacking in structure? The work is one of the most closely knit, thematically coherent pieces of music by anybody. It is formally brilliant. As I've said many times to various commenters, I get that you may not like it for whatever reason, but to use that one simply betray a lack of understanding.
@LyleFrancisDelp I actually thought the same when I first head Mahler 8th. I remember thinking to myself why does this thing just keep going on and on? But with time I realized that the 8th is such a forward looking piece ever did by anybody that it took me a lot of time to understand it. But indeed, like Dave said, when it comes to forms, and I would add that when it comes to orchestration, the 8th is a colossal achievement of western art. In fact, I am amazed that anybody could even write such a thing at all. My only regret that it was not even longer and bigger!
The world (of music) needed Mahler. Either you love him or you don't, but we needed him & I embrace his music & humanity...Great Stuff 👍 I'm thinking over my Christmas break I will have my own little Haydn/Mahler music festival 👍
That is very similar to what Tovey said: that Mahler's music is antiseptic against snobs, and that others will benefit from being shocked by him. It was, as always with Tovey, a very sharp observation.
He isn't really. He's just someone whom you perceive as one of the best composers. He's actually near the bottom of the greats. Oh, and I do love Maher's music by the way.
I'm glad I'm in the same company as other composers who see Mahler's music as problematic. This is not without trying. I see Mahler's music as a cautionary tale. One of hubris. The sheer audacity in attempting to encompass the entire musical universe could only ever result in failure, frustration and annoyance - surely. Nothing is ever developed, or explored in depth before the next random interjection intrudes. Its like flicking through an encyclopedia expecting to learn anything. Its similar to the difference between gleaning one's knowledge of the world mainly from newspapers (once removed breadth) or books (first hand depth). Hence my vote is that it is *all embarrassing*.
I respect your vote, but at the same time it's very clear that you have not understood Mahler at all, because your description of the music is completely without factual foundation. I question your claim that your dislike of Mahler comes "not without trying." It's one thing to say, "I have listened and the music disgusts me." It's quite another to falsify the evidence to support your distaste. Of course, this being music, it happens all the time.
I think Mahler actually incorporates 'failure' as a theme into his works ss much as he makes a mockery of triumphant, egotistical success. Things always fail in Mahler, sometimes pathetically, but he successfully dramatizes such failures and turns them around.
I feel there is something decadent and self-pitying and occasionally notice a rambling-tendency in Mahler's work. But I am consistently moved by, and enjoy a lot of his work. His first symphony, the 1st movement of his second one, the slow one of his fourth...and of course his songs. I, for one, can say that he has enriched my existence with his works.
Can I recommend the Ken Russell film 'Mahler'. Great film with a Haitink/RCOA soundtrack. As a Brit, I think it should be made more known to US audiences. Eccentric, wild & informative - I saw it years ago on bbc tv. Enjoy
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm with you, David. I've seen the film and didn't care for it. A few facts, not very well mixed with a great deal of fantasy. Very little to do with the real Mahler.
Great piece! But I must be antihistorical, I would choose the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and eighth symphonies. At anybody's choice. I just don't get them. After hearing them, I long for a Webern bagatelle or a Monteverdi madrigal : something short, or sunny. Actually I feel the same with the other symphonies but at least I take pleasure in them.
I especially like the last bit when you compared Mahler to Haydn. Personally I always find that Mahler's music is far more in tune with Haydn and Beethoven's concepts of a symphony then most symphonists that I'm aware of. Heck I would go so far to say that Mahler is far more Beethovenian than Brahms ever was, as absolutely brilliant and creative as Brahms is.
No, if there is any hysteria it's the hysteria of unearthly, unabashed joy, and Mahler somehow gets away with it. He was not one for holding back when he felt the time was right.
Oh! this is such rubbish. I wonder whether critics of the 8th have ever really listened to it. The first part is so exhilarating I feel like cheering every time I hear it. As for loud and hysterical part two has many moments that are magically quiet and the great peroration at the end is uplifting not hysterical. As for being sentimental whatever is wrong with sentimentality, only a cold fish never experiences sentimentality, the rest of us are often prone to it and I for one embrace it.
Whether I‘m talking „rubbish“ remains to be Seen! In any case, i think i hit a sore Spot! A Great Problem is, that Mahlers music unfortunately still mostly not musically related, but is discussed in a psychoanalytic context, the inner neuroses interpreted according to the theories of Siegmund Freud.
In the hands of a less talented composer, Mahler's approach to symphonic composition certainly would have produced embarrassing works.
As a Mahler addict I take this fantastic observation from you as an opportunity to tell you Dave, you are a teacher and a companion in the journey of great music consumption, and the only advice or request I have is: talk more about the greatest of all musicians, there is so much to find in Mahler and you are such an excellent guide to everything that is music, and your love and admiration to Mahler are coming through magnificently.
I see I'm not the only one thinking this is one of your very best videos. Whenever your talks center around historical matters, they really shine. This one was especially thought-provoking. By the way, you've just shown the Internet how to APPROPRIATELY use a click-bait title! 😀
Gosh, thanks!
Mahler started breaking into the Classical Music Canon in earnest in the 1960's with Leonard Bernstein's NY Philharmonic recording cycle. That began a slow process of Mahler recordings starting to pop up more often. In the 60's and 70's it started to become more common to encounter Mahler in the concert hall. It was still an event but becoming more standard. By the 1990's, Mahler was standard fare at the concert hall, and an almost expected rite of conductorial passage for recording maestros.
Mahler is a great example of the idea that sometimes a culture catches up with the music they ignored when it was first made. Someday I hope a similar thing happens to Martinu.
When a former colleague developed an interest in classical music, I was an early adviser, suggesting composers and recordings. His take on Mahler: "His music seems to be saying, 'F---- you and your problems -- I've got problems of my own.'"
I love a lot of Mahler, but my friend's assessment still makes me laugh.
Good answer! ...I wondered if it could possibly be that string quartet movement, but there's nothing embarrassing about it. My vote is -- bless his heart -- NOT embarrassing! But how incredible it is that he was willing to bare it all throughout his amazing output. We get to experience his entire soul through his music. He treads where none dared to go. Listening to his music is the equivalent to watching a horror film or -- let's say it -- a movie about a very embarrassing situation we are happy not to have been in, but enjoy watching anyway. His multiple universes are like the entire output of Hollywood, all from a single director. I'd say he got it right.
An intriguing premise and argument; a deft way to tie Mahler to the theme of this series despite the difficulty. Funny that the initial critics heard other composers when hearing Mahler when most of us hear Mahler and instantly know its Mahler and no one else.
I think one of the reasons Mahler is so popular is that more recent audiences are distanced from the inspirations he used. We are not familiar with klezmer, funeral march, street bands, and the like, and they sound fresh and not derivative.
I mean, even if we weren't, I still think people would be astounded by his orchestration skills and how he integrates all these disparate quotations into a pretty successful formal canvas. He isn't just quoting tunes, he develops them and calls them back later.
Great point! I’m actually thinking the opposite: people today are so used to all kinds of noise and unpleasant sounds (many from other music genres) that they are not appalled by Mahler’s sound effects.
I agree. Dave sort of made this point, and I find it very thought-provoking. I think, for instance, of my aversion to Leonard Bernstein's Mass. I'm not suggesting that it will eventually be regarded as a masterpiece that was sadly rejected by its contemporary audience, but future listeners will certainly be able to hear it without its "baggage" and judge it accordingly. All of that might blend into the musical fabric, or it might make the work sound more dated than ever.
What an interesting talk! You quasi explained, why I find a certain work of Mahler, well, not embarrassing, but somewhat disappointing, and it's the 8th symphony, because it contains in my view less of the "musica impura", through which Mahler speaks in all of his other works.
There we go! Someone who accurately pinpoints the work's possible weaknesses (and why it's premiere was Mahler's greatest success).
His greatest work imo
The Orff entry in this series should be interesting.
This is one of your most interesting talks. Going to listen again to the individual symphonies talks. Thanks Dave
Embarrassingly marvelous music for those of us who didn't get it at first. And this was a really interesting, pertinent and enriching talk about one of my great heroes! Thank you!
This might be a good opportunity to thank you for your Telarc-Video of the complete Mahler Symphonies. I ordered it just after that upload and had to wait about half a year. It's available now again! The price was less than 30 bucks (for the whole box!) It's a gem! Thank you again.
Dave the critical genius at work and in all his glory! Thank you again, Mr. Hurwitz, for all the mind opening insights!
I admit to being a complete schizophrenic when it comes to Mahler. There are times when I play his music a lot, going through all his symphonies in particular. And there are times when I can't play him for months. Sometimes I think I never want to hear 6, 7, and 8 again for the rest of my life. But then a few months later, I play them again.
Same here!
How many times do you have to listen to the 7th to get it to make sense. I think I am on about the 15th and it still sounds like sonic diarrhea.
Beethoven could be considered 'embarrassing' as well for bringing dramatic effects into 'pure music.'
And he was taken to task for just that.
This series of videos is great, not only for your own take, but also to see the comments and what they show about how varied listeners' tastes and attitudes are (who knew there were so many advocates for "La Clemenza di Tito?). I actually find it nice to see so many critical comments of Mahler's symphonies. I love them all, but based on their ubiquity on programs and recordings, it seemed like many were beginning to take his genius for granted. The fact that his music still provokes strong reactions and opinions is heartening. They should elicit these responses and stir emotions, both positive and negative. I fear the day we start listening to Mahler with indifference.
Interesting, that remark by Rautavaara on Mahler. It reminds me of Ralph Vaughan Williams, he described Mahler as 'a good imitation of a composer'.
Mahler was one of my idols as a student, then I lost my taste in Mahler as a young professional. Then I revisited the symphonies this year, while reading David Vernon's lovely book, Beauty and Sadness: Mahler's 11 Symphonies. I don't find his work consistently overhwleming, but the man had chops for days. And the ecclecticism is, indeed, the point. It's unsurprising that an American composer/conductor like Bernstein would find a kindred spirit in him and help make him so influential.
My problem with Mahler is his "too much" - nevertheless: a tremendous composer.
I started listening to Mahler in the early 70s after seeing Ken Russell's film "Mahler" with Robert Powell (the actor took on the role of Jesus of Nazareth for Zefirelli after this filming) and after reading the book by Marc Vignal from Editions Seuil, Solfeges. A greatest hits by RCA, a first symphony by Abravanel, a 3rd by Horenstein, etc., and I did not realize that this Mahlerian universe was going to follow me to this day .reading a book by Henri Louis de la Grange (Fayard) would enlighten me in a new way.Mahler modern, innovative, complex composer, whose works have marked the history of music by their content, yes, but also from this human side, and which announced Shostakovich say.....
Great talk!
I find Mahler's music absolutely Heavenly! The ending of his mammoth 3rd Symphony with 2 timpanists pounding away epitomises his muscicality depicting this Heavenly realm.
Speaking of Mahler's "spirituality" one might say (to use a theological term) he "incarnates" spirit into the everyday, mundane world -- sometimes that sounds beautiful, sometimes grotesque, and maybe at times almost incomprehensible -- just like life. Thanks for this discussion. Your approach here would be nice for readers to find in a new book of your authorship.
At 65, when I was a kid I started checking out Mahler albums from the library. Mahler was not recommended by my musical mentors, particularly my grandad. I was Mahler before Mahler was cool. I sat grandad down to listen to the #4. He loved it.
I listened to this commentary with an enormous, knowing grin. Bravo!
Many thanks for your very interesting videos. I have an off topic question: what kind of equipment and environment you use to listen to your CDs? Many of the details you mention can only be noticed with a good system and a suitable room.
No, they can all be noticed on any system at all. I never discuss audio. I don't think it's helpful.
Many thanks!
The best instalment in this series so far - and, as some other commentators propose, among one of the most intriguing in your output as such! Bravo!
I think, the reason, why Mahler's music, contrary to Richard Strauss (whose output, by the way, to modern ears, contains a riches of embarrassement), never caught fire with his contemporaries, and by many was considered embarrasing and banal, lays in the fact, as you point out, that he, sometimes chaleidoscopically, juxtaposed the most lofty with what was considered utmost lowbrow music of the people, folktunes or folktune-inspired music. And I guess the Kletmer-inspired passages didn't go down too well, either, when the prevalent antisemtism of the time is taken into consideration!
I guess the inherent neuroticism of the juxtapositions of high and low (brow) and Mahler's tonal language as such, where one often is left uncertain, whether a conflict is genuinely resolved or just seems to be, probably didn't help the digestion of the concert-attending 'Hoch-bürgeliche' (bourgeois) audiences in his time. I guess, they could tolerate conflict up to a point, as long as it got properly (hamoniously) resolved, but the splitting contrasts of Mahler's music, not to speak of all that emotionality worn on the outside of the sleeve cuffs...
Your pointing out the family resemblance between Haydn-Mahler is spot on. Might one extend the genealogy to Haydn-Mahler-Shostakovich?
This was fun because I came late to Mahler, largely because the most important guides to classical music that I had (my parents) hate his music and he’s also seldom played on classical radio (aside from the famous Adagietto, aired without the rest of the Fifth). But not just that, his symphonies are so long and the smaller ones I tried early on (1st and 4th) didn’t grab me. Long story short, I got there eventually and love it all, but what you say illuminates for me a bit of what I think my parents see in his music.
Mostly this is because many classical radio stations program hour by hour, and rarely program something that crosses an hour mark. That said, I've heard both his 1st and 4th on radio within the last two weeks. (Unsurprisingly, the two that can fit within a 1-hour window.) My local station also sometimes plays single movements of other symphonies.
Oddly, my local classical station does occasionally program symphonies longer than an hour, but none of them have been Mahler in the 13 years I've lived here (confirmed by one of their hosts). In that time they've played Beethoven 9 in full several times, and Bruckner 8 and Gliere 3 once each.
Good points all around, but I’ll offer a different take. I quite enjoy his musical style, but for me what makes his symphonies embarrassing (“cringe,” if you will) is their megalomaniacal length. To me, it indicates an ego out of control, a child who never learned how to share.
I think you’re spot on that the argument about sensuality v abstemiousness has continued under different guises up until the present day. It seems to me that most of the 20th century avant garde was fully on the side of abstemiousness (taken to a much farther degree) and they also lost the argument.
I've never understood the length issue. Yes, they are long, but the length is always justified by their content and scope. I mean, who wants a "Resurrection" that lasts only 20 minutes? And after all, there aren't many of them--Mahler packed a lifetime of music into a small number of works. He had very limited time to composer, so each one had to count. That doesn't mean, of course, that you have to like them, but to call Mahler "a child who never learned how to share" strikes me as very odd. Few composers were, expressively speaking, more "giving." But you do raise an interesting point, which is that many listeners (and others) object to the very idea of grandeur and "bigness" of vision. It makes them uncomfortable.
Why is length an issue? By that metric, all those operas of Wagner and Verdi would be cringe as well, as would Bach's Mass in B Minor. It seems to me that people like to object to Mahler's lengths because they define a symphony to not embrace bigness, which is completely arbitrary.
@@antiksur8883 Length is a real problem if there is too much repetition and unmemorable music. That is why I never really enjoy an uncut Tristan und Isolde. Cuts would also help making Mahler more palatable to me.
@antiksur8883 Why Verdi? I can't think of any opera composer who was more concise. But as Janacek said, Wagner had a genius for expansion, and Verdi had a genius for compression. I think Mahler also had a genius for expansion and far more so than Bruckner.
Anyone who thinks 90-100 minutes is too long to sit through the most gripping music imaginable has a horrible attention span.
I "grew up" musically in Tel Aviv, where the Israel Philharmonic plays Mahler endlessly. At least 3 symphonies per season, so I know them pretty well. I don't particularly like his music as I have a hard time with all the self-pity, but I don't find it "embarrassing" as such. But if there's one embarrassing piece, it has to be the 8th symphony in my opinion. I've even sung it in a choir.
I hear no self-pity at all in his music.
I love Mahler but someone I used to know loathed his music, he couldn't take the cow bells in the 6th Symphony, but I also think some people don't respond to the sentimentality in some of Mahler's music. BBC Radio 3 once aired an interview with the daughter of Hans Richter, she was about 90 and it was either the 1940s or 1950s -when asked about Mahler she said, simply 'this isn't music'.
As if she would know.
Mahler’s an embarrassment of riches!!
That's a really interesting point, that all of his works express the same basic musical worldview. Periodically, I'll go on a Mahler binge (particularly of the vocal works) and find it the most amazing music. But sooner or later, the binge ends, for much of his music sounds sort of the same.
Hmm. They sort of have the same methods of composition, but I find them much more diverse than the symphonic canon of most other famous composers, like Beethoven or Brahms or Bruckner or even Sibelius (who is probably my favorite symphonist).
@@laurentcompagna6166 I’m an opera person primarily, and I’d say actually there is quite a bit of variety and development in Verdi, Puccini, Mozart, and even Wagner in a way. The bel canto composers are pretty consistent though, as is Strauss (excluding Salome and Elektra).
@@laurentcompagna6166 Same with Shostakovich.
@philipedschWhich is true, however we're not of that time. For us, Beethoven's symphonies do not seem that much more diverse than Mahler, in my opinion.
Thanks, David. Very well presented and discussed, as usual. As a Mahler devotee since the late 1960's, I am firmly in the "no problem" camp. I've listened to something by Mahler almost every day for many years. His works are like old lifelong friends. However, I do understand why some don't enjoy his music, and perhaps never will. It's a personal preference, to which we are all entitled.
Of course it's personal, but I am struck by the hostility and nastiness (and lack of musical substance) coming from the mostly-deleted (for that reason) naysayers posting here. I shouldn't be surprised, I suppose.
anti-semitism? That certainly was the case when he was alive. @@DavesClassicalGuide
@@DavesClassicalGuide Me, too. I think perhaps his music sometimes pushes sensitive emotional buttons that can evoke hostile responses.
Thank you so much, Dave. What a penetrating insight into what makes Mahler tick. I really enjoyed that overview about how Mahler conceived his symphonies. By the way, I miss seeing Finster. He was getting to be like watching for a Hitchcock cameo! I hope to see him again soon.
George Szell, admittedly a late convert to Mahler's music, once said that some of the movements in Mahler's symphonies were "hypertrophic and not worthy of salvation." I can see his point but for me the good far outweighs the bad and Mahler's music is always a source of great enjoyment.
I find Ives attempting to "embrace the world" in his symphonies in his own iconoclastic way. Maybe that's why Mahler supposedly was interested in Ives' 3rd and, if he'd lived, might have conducted it.
I think it would be fascinating to analyze the ways in which Ives and Mahler were “kindred spirits”. I’m sure there are some strong contrasts between them but as I’ve listened more to both of them I have this sense of a connection between the two. Certainly there is the common use of “corrupting” material in, to me, an effective manner. But it would be interesting to try to identify how much deeper the connection is between the two might be.
Imagine calling Mahler unoriginal!
To me, Mahler is more Eastern European than German, and like Janacek, Dvorak and Smetana, it often brings tears, as you asked about in a previous posting, and I find traces of Mozart and Verdi in it (and my tears) not at all embarrassing.
It's a historical misconception to think of Böhmen-Mähren, Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc. as Eastern European countries....yes, they were called so, when the ironcurtain divided Europe, but they are (and were before that): Central Europe. Hence Dvorak, Smetana and Janacek are all Central European composers, though clearly inspired by and steeped in the sound scape of the folk music of their area.
The more Eastern twang to some passages in Mahler's music stems from his paraphrasing Kletzmer music here and there (and from the orientalism that colours Das Lied von der Erde, of course)....otherwise his music to my ears are solidly rooted in the Austro-Germa, romantic tradition, albeit, as befits one of the representatives of its last days, with the borders of that tradition being constantly challenged!
@@jensguldalrasmussen6446 Point well taken, I should have written Austro-Hungarian or Central European, but Mahler is far less reminiscent of Beethoven and Brahms than of those composers I mentioned.
@clintonslayton4512 I'm just very sorry, that you happened to run, frontally and head first, into a longtime, idiosyncratic hobbyhorse (or maybe rather an old/cold warhorse) of mine. I hope, I didn't sound too much like the Grumpy ol' gid, I sometimes am - and that the encounter didn't leave you with too many bruises!
What the essence of your argument otherwise pertains, I can only concur. Maybe not so strange, when taking into consideration the fact, that Mahler, untill at least the tender age of 15, had ample opportunity to roam 'Bohemia's Woods and Fields'! 🙂
Mahler is a proto-modernist in the ways you point out. One thread running through the art of the 20th century is the cooption of everyday things into works of art. Duchamp's use of an ordinary urinal as the material basis of the artwork he named “Fountain”. Warhol's “ Brillo Boxes”. T. S. Eliot's use of low rhyme in serious poetry (“Mrs Sweeney and her daughter / wash their feet in soda water”). Arthur Danto called this “The Transfiguration of the Commonplace,” the title of one of his books. The military marches in the symphonies become something more universal than a military band playing in a patriotic parade.
As an extreme Mahler fanatic, I find criticism of his music inexplicable. It has been a huge part of my life, and I would be poorer without it. In my opinion, he is the greatest orchestrator who ever lived, rivaled only, perhaps by Ravel.
Great chat, thanks ! Curious do you feel as I do that the very eclecticism which (anti-Semitic?) nationalists view as corrupting is nothing but a different, global kind of romanticism, with the same celebration of the individual artist genius, albeit with undeniable Jewish characteristics?
I'm really not sure. There are a lot of loaded terms in that statement!
True. Instead of global I should have said universal and instead of Jewish I might have said judaic or better still, Jew as everyman. As an aside it's also fun to speculate how it is that modern nationalist cultures (like German) which claim to be a fulfillment of sorts of Christianity are inherently anti-Christian precisely in their antipathy towards universalism @@DavesClassicalGuide
This is the first thing I ever read about Mahler in a 1978 book on Classical Music by British critic Lionel Salter:" Mahler's essentially pessimistic nature and the self-pitying emotionalism of his music, which was the expression of an intensely personal philosophy, his use of deliberately banal material (especially quasi-military marches) and of rather sinister distortions, and his penchant for inflated length and for enormous resources-as in the second "Resurrection " Symphony and more especially, the so-called "Symphony of a Thousand""(no.8), which requires eight solo voices,a double chorus and a boy's choir in addition to a very large orchestra- have provoked some opposition, but he is now generally accepted as the last of the great Viennese symphonists." I vote yes, for all those "faults " or maybe because of them , his music is great.
Salter's understanding of Mahler was about a half century behind the times.
Lionel Salter was a persuasive enthusiast for the music of Roussel, as in his review of a recording of the 'Suite in F' in 1950. "Play the Prelude of this exhilarating suite to an unsuspecting musical friend, and ask him to guess the composer: if he is discerning, he may reply "Prokofiev - nearly". Indeed, the jaunty high spirits, the melodic angularity and the mordant orchestration almost out-Prokofiev Prokofiev - save that, allied to the taut, elliptical musical language there is an unmistakably Gallic flavour". The review concluded "I find the suite immensely exhilarating, with its dry wit and invigorating lack of sentimentality, and these records most attractive."
In order to come up with actual work that fits the title, I would suggest that perhaps we look into his reorchestration of such things as Beethoven's 5th (and 9th?) Symphony, at least on the basis of what I have read (I haven't ever heard a performance of his orchestration of the 5th). It sounds like he tried to recreate the piece in his own massive image and sound world.
He's a one off late romantic genius. Very sui generis. Which is why for me he's so wonderful and exciting. I can't imagine music without him. And there are things here and there that I don't care for. But the good fat outweighs the bad.
Like so many young people in the 60's, when I "heard" it, I just fell in love. Thank you Leonard Bernstein! What with the Vietnam war and the Cold war et. al. his late arrival on the scene was very important. We needed his eclectic voice! He is a bridge between the romantic and modern worlds.
Aaron Copeland: M was a great actor playing a great composer. Ouch!!!
Andre Previn: His music is like being in a loud cocktail party. He didn't like it.
A very young Stravinsky after the premiere of the eight: 2 plus 2 equals 4...ouch!
Lots of derision.
I understand Sibelius' comments. That sensibility reminds me of Baudelaire and the ultra negative reaction to the impressionist painters. It was an eclectic time. And there was a schism between the traditional values and the "new". Mahler seems to have had one foot in the past and one foot in the future. How do you appeal to your times and reject those values without causing consternation?
And alienation for yourself.
M brings up issues that certainly make the art world more interesting. In my view.
Because of a couple of new movies, a younger generation is being introduced to his music. And the amazing world of classical music. That's so important!
I love you Gustav Mahler!
I've heard a lot of negative stuff over the years.
I find the people who dislike Mahler are too serious and proud of themselves. They are those whose egos clash with Mahler’s. The only way to appreciate Mahler is to open your heart to his music
I like Mahler's music because inside of it, there's always a story somehow. I have the same with Vaughn Williams's music and Shostakovich's. And I like movie soundtracks. So there's clear line through my favourites. Since I'm not a musician or a musicologist, I have about zero interest in the technical side of music. I have learned a lot about it since I found your channel though. 😉 But the nuts and bolts of, no thank you.
I absolutely love Mahler and find his symphonies if not embracing the whole world as Mhale intended, then at least embracing Mahler's mind, which was extraordinary. Mahler seemed to have a photographic memory of all the music he conducted but of all of his memories in life and the feelings attached to them. He embraced the whole of Classical, from Bach to Beethoven, to Wagner in a cohesive and mind blowing way. As great as Beethoven and the rest remain (they all have their weaknesses), Mahler is the GOAT of the symphony composers.
I had a friend and coworker, a passionate and erudite music lover, who opined that, unlike Beethoven, whose second, fourth, and eighth symphonies are lesser works (so he thought) to the other six, all nine of Mahler's completed and numbered symphonies are masterpieces.
An interesting conundrum: all or nothing! I wonder if Mahler himself would have seen it this way. For my part, the work that sticks out from the others is the first symphony, which seems really clunky and weak in a way most of the later symphonies do not, even though Mahler had numerous opportunities to perform and revise the work and thus having auditioned what worked in the concert hall, and what did not. One of the curious things is that in the course of his revisions (and after three or so full performances including it) he jettisoned the "Blumine" Andante, which actually is a delightful little movement when performed on its own. Of course, a talented conductor will give a convincing reading that makes the best of the material, but I tend to think this is quite a harder proposition with this particular work compared with the others of similar form (the nine and a half other symphonies).
Also I should say, thanks for this new series of video essays. I can tell already you’ll have a field day when you get to Berlioz (and I love Berlioz’s work, but so very often he lacked a filter).
Nominated for Top 5 Dave Vids.
maybe someone answered this in the comments already, but perhaps Mahler can be seen as one of the earliest musical Postmodernists? Hmm..maybe even Haydn could be seen as one?
The 'most embarrasing' work of his would be the piano quartet. Which is a nice piece but it's a shame he never wrote a slow movement, scherzo, and finale for it. He destroyed all his other early works so it's plausible he wrote worse.
I have a different opinion based on my subjective view of quality. I find find most of Mahler overly emotional/excessive/ hysterical and often trite, except for 1, parts of 5, 6 (with reservations about the finale), and most of his Lieder ... all of which I love. I wonder whether there are other selective Mahler fans out there
It prompts the question what YOU think is Sibelius' most embarrasing work... 🤔
Stay tuned...
@philipedsch Not Kullervo, but perhaps his 8th Symphony, which might have been one of the manuscripts that he threw into the fireplace (no one knows for sure). Or more realistically, some of his minor piano or vocal works.
If I were forced to choose Mahler's most embarrassing composition, I would pick the 8th symphony. Yes, yes...I know it's beloved by many, and even I can appreciate it to some extent, but still...within his symphonic output, it's just an outlier...overly bombastic and lacking in the structure one finds in the 6th, 7th, and 9th. This is not to say I don't like the 8th, but I find myself returning it much less often than the rest.
Please. Lacking in structure? The work is one of the most closely knit, thematically coherent pieces of music by anybody. It is formally brilliant. As I've said many times to various commenters, I get that you may not like it for whatever reason, but to use that one simply betray a lack of understanding.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I will have to take your word for that. I find it rather sprawling, to be honest. I guess, to each his own.
@@LyleFrancisDelp I will never understand those who say they "love Mahler" except for the 8th. Why? Too much singing?
@@pauldrapiewski6761 I'll never understand those who think that "bombastic" is a negative quality in music.
@LyleFrancisDelp I actually thought the same when I first head Mahler 8th. I remember thinking to myself why does this thing just keep going on and on? But with time I realized that the 8th is such a forward looking piece ever did by anybody that it took me a lot of time to understand it. But indeed, like Dave said, when it comes to forms, and I would add that when it comes to orchestration, the 8th is a colossal achievement of western art. In fact, I am amazed that anybody could even write such a thing at all. My only regret that it was not even longer and bigger!
The world (of music) needed Mahler. Either you love him or you don't, but we needed him & I embrace his music & humanity...Great Stuff 👍
I'm thinking over my Christmas break I will have my own little Haydn/Mahler music festival 👍
That is very similar to what Tovey said: that Mahler's music is antiseptic against snobs, and that others will benefit from being shocked by him. It was, as always with Tovey, a very sharp observation.
Dave is a musical treasure! He nails it over & over & over & over.........
Mahler is one of the greatest composers ever.
He isn't really. He's just someone whom you perceive as one of the best composers. He's actually near the bottom of the greats. Oh, and I do love Maher's music by the way.
I'm glad I'm in the same company as other composers who see Mahler's music as problematic. This is not without trying. I see Mahler's music as a cautionary tale. One of hubris. The sheer audacity in attempting to encompass the entire musical universe could only ever result in failure, frustration and annoyance - surely. Nothing is ever developed, or explored in depth before the next random interjection intrudes. Its like flicking through an encyclopedia expecting to learn anything. Its similar to the difference between gleaning one's knowledge of the world mainly from newspapers (once removed breadth) or books (first hand depth). Hence my vote is that it is *all embarrassing*.
Interesting but false dichotomy between newspapers and books as an analogy.
I respect your vote, but at the same time it's very clear that you have not understood Mahler at all, because your description of the music is completely without factual foundation. I question your claim that your dislike of Mahler comes "not without trying." It's one thing to say, "I have listened and the music disgusts me." It's quite another to falsify the evidence to support your distaste. Of course, this being music, it happens all the time.
I think Mahler actually incorporates 'failure' as a theme into his works ss much as he makes a mockery of triumphant, egotistical success. Things always fail in Mahler, sometimes pathetically, but he successfully dramatizes such failures and turns them around.
That is a rather narrow ,self-limiting view ! What DO you like ?
A cautionary tale? Lest a composer suffer Mahler's posthumous fate? More like a Siren's Song! 😄
This talk made my day. Thanks, Dave.
I feel there is something decadent and self-pitying and occasionally notice a rambling-tendency in Mahler's work. But I am consistently moved by, and enjoy a lot of his work. His first symphony, the 1st movement of his second one, the slow one of his fourth...and of course his songs. I, for one, can say that he has enriched my existence with his works.
...one of your utterly splendid videos, David. Thank you.
Can I recommend the Ken Russell film 'Mahler'. Great film with a Haitink/RCOA soundtrack. As a Brit, I think it should be made more known to US audiences. Eccentric, wild & informative - I saw it years ago on bbc tv. Enjoy
I found it stupid, factually inaccurate, and often ridiculous. The portrait of Alma was beyond silly.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm with you, David. I've seen the film and didn't care for it. A few facts, not very well mixed with a great deal of fantasy. Very little to do with the real Mahler.
Great piece!
But I must be antihistorical, I would choose the 2nd, 3rd, 7th and eighth symphonies. At anybody's choice. I just don't get them. After hearing them, I long for a Webern bagatelle or a Monteverdi madrigal : something short, or sunny. Actually I feel the same with the other symphonies but at least I take pleasure in them.
The First and Fourth are my favourites. The others are a challenge. Symphonies 5-8 are especially trying.
I'm between the two extremes. I've come to terms with all the Mahler symphonies, except for number 8. That one's just too much.
I think the 8th is his greatest achievement.
The 8th is what got me into Mahler, lol. I had no idea music like that even existed coming from my piano background.
Your best ever, in my view.
I especially like the last bit when you compared Mahler to Haydn. Personally I always find that Mahler's music is far more in tune with Haydn and Beethoven's concepts of a symphony then most symphonists that I'm aware of. Heck I would go so far to say that Mahler is far more Beethovenian than Brahms ever was, as absolutely brilliant and creative as Brahms is.
Dave, your eloquence is a joy to listen to
The Eight Symphony is Mahlers most emberrassing Work.‘It is loud and sentimental and hysterical!
Nah, not a bit. Indeed, if it has a fault, it's the lack of hysteria.
No, if there is any hysteria it's the hysteria of unearthly, unabashed joy, and Mahler somehow gets away with it. He was not one for holding back when he felt the time was right.
I can't stand Eight. It's just dreadful racket.
Oh! this is such rubbish. I wonder whether critics of the 8th have ever really listened to it. The first part is so exhilarating I feel like cheering every time I hear it. As for loud and hysterical part two has many moments that are magically quiet and the great peroration at the end is uplifting not hysterical. As for being sentimental whatever is wrong with sentimentality, only a cold fish never experiences sentimentality, the rest of us are often prone to it and I for one embrace it.
Whether I‘m talking „rubbish“ remains to be Seen! In any case, i think i hit a sore Spot!
A Great Problem is, that Mahlers music unfortunately still mostly not musically related, but is discussed in a psychoanalytic context, the inner neuroses interpreted according to the theories of Siegmund Freud.