Hello from Barcelona In 1993 I gave my grandfather a performance of Beethoven's third symphony on CD. It was his 93rd birthday. He was still an active fisherman at that age. He loved the Costa Brava and the sea, but his other hobbies were literature and music; he could read it and played the guitar. I was so very fond of that symphony at that time, that I waited anxiously for his reaction while he listened attentively to the first movement. And finally, when it ended, he thought for a while, and then he looked at me and said: 'It's a waltz.'
No. Mahler has not eclipsed Beethoven. And I absolutely love Mahler. There is no Mahler without Beethoven. You may prefer Mahler’s music to Beethoven, and that is purely a matter of taste. But Beethoven’s music was a revolution.
By that measure, there was no Beethoven without Haydn and Mozart. Mahler is my favorite symphonist, but I greatly enjoy Beethoven's symphonies as well. All of them readily acknowledged that they built and expanded on what had come before.
This is no disrespect to Mahler. To me, the only piece of music that exceeds Mahler 1 is Beethoven. To me the difference is that Beethoven was revolutionary. His music was just a big jump from what was being done at the time. That’s just not a common occurrence
How times have changed! When I read my high school library’s monograph on classical composers and their music (this was in the late 60s and that book was a couple of decades old at that time, I’m sure), the rather brief discussion of Mahler stated that he had been a noted conductor and composer of the German lied, as well as big symphonies that were ambitious but weak in structure/organization and rather meandering. The record library had Klemperer’s “Resurrection“ and that was about it (I listened to it, and was hooked). Now we are having a serious discussion about Mahler having displaced at least two of the “Three Bs”. Shows what a different world it is now!
I wonder if that’s the same thing I read back then. It wasn’t a monograph, though. It might have been Paul Henry Lang. He referred to a growing interest in Mahler’s music but said he found it hard to credit the idea that Mahler would prove to be of lasting importance.
@@hendriphile That was definitely the book I had, whether or not it's where I read the comment. I'm not a saver, and that book was let go decades ago. It's only in my eighth decade (N.B.-- that's YOUNGER than 80) that I've made a concerted effort to delve into Mahler beyond the 4th Symphony and parts of the 2nd. I feel much smarter than PHL! 😁
Mahler hasn’t replaced Bach, and while his symphonies are probably greater than Brahms he didn’t write chamber music nor solo piano music that could touch Brahms.
In my own personal journey (not quite the topic of this video, but mine and others may contribute interestingly to this discussion): for a long time I've considered Beethoven my "favorite " composer, while recognizing that that's just a label to create interesting conversation: we don't need to limit ourselves to just one. Beethoven has so much of both range and depth. But I realized recently: it's really Mahler's works--recorded and in concert--that have really impacted my life. That have been there for me when and in ways that I needed them. That they are close to me, in ways whereas that I appreciate Beethoven from a bit more of a distance.
If I had to choose between the two, I would have to go with the Mahler symphonies. I love each one of rgem. The 3rd movement from the 4th symphony might be my favorite piece of music of all time. It blows me away every time I listen to it.
In a way this is also a story about architecture and the evolution of the concert program. The modern symphony hall of 2000 seats or so is optimally designed for a 100-piece symphony orchestra with eight horns. As you point out, many of Mahler’s symphonies are the optimum concert length. Musician’s unions love them because they offer full employment, and box offices love them because they sell tickets; even in an age of digital recording and incredible headphones and speakers there is still a thrill to hearing a Mahler symphony live that can’t be adequately duplicated at home. You make this point when you say that they’re perfectly designed for the modern orchestra, but that’s also a byproduct of these other factors that essentially keep the orchestra in that state of Mahler-ness. (Though it should also be pointed out that before Mahler had his great resurgence starting in the 1960s, Jean Sibelius occupied his position as the most popular 20th century symphonic composer who’s also tailor made for the modern orchestra. But Mahler seems to have decisively beat him on that front; a Sibelius-sance keeps threatening to happen but never quite does.) As for Beethoven, I think his trajectory is somewhat akin to Shakespeare’s in the culture. Both artists were burdened not only with representing their art forms but justifying human civilization. I think it has served the study of both artists’ body of work to be taken down a notch and appreciated for who they actually were and what they actually did instead of fetishizing them. Hamlet’s a damn good play whether or not you think it is the ultimate depiction of our collective existential crisis, and the Ninth is a great symphony even if playing it at the United Nations or at the Berlin Wall doesn’t succeed in ridding the world of tyranny and prejudice. Both composers were very important to me as a kid getting into classical music despite living in a home unwelcoming of my interest in it. I was orphaned at age eight and was a weird kid with some issues even before that. What you call Mahler’s “indulgence” was deeply moving and therapeutic for me as an adolescent, and in Beethoven I heard the voice of someone who, like me, was determined to transcend his isolation, grief, anger, and physical limitations to reveal his inner spirit and beauty despite all the damage. And it is evident that I’m not the only one who feels that way. They will both remain popular as long as people turn to music to heal their souls.
What an intriguing topic, I had a similar thought about symphonies lasting for over an hour being perfect for a modern concert. They fill up the entire program, whereas shorter works are paired up with something else and I feel like that "something else" doesn't always correspond to the big final work. Mahler 2, 5, 6 or 9 are perfect concert reportoire, whereas only Beethoven's 9th is in the same group in terms of length. It doesn't matter if the other piece accompanying them is equally good for the concert to be attractive. And secondly, the musical instruments evolved and so did the music to showcase their new abilities. So in terms of orchestral colour, Mahler has something that Beethoven doesn't and the change doesn't come from composers' imagination, but its source is in purely technical advancement.
A great question and discussion. I could also see this coming down to what people (including composers since both of them) say and what they actually do. The idea of Beethoven being supplanted as THE symphonist seems impossible, however, in terms of how much time people spend listening to the works, the influence of the works on future composers, and indeed our current conception of what a symphony cycle by a single composer could and should do, our concept of the symphony these days seems quite "Mahlerian." I also wonder how quickly Beethoven supplanted his symphonic forebears in the minds of audiences and critics. Mozart and Haydn cast a long shadow, even though Haydn was criminally under-appreciated throughout the centuries.
One could argue that Beethoven opened up whole new possibilities and vistas to reinvigorate the Austro-German symphony whereas Mahler, arguably, wrote the grand and glorious finale to that tradition.
@@bbailey7818 Absolutely and that would be completely true if he stopped with the 8th. However with the 9th and the fragments of the 10th there are some new doors being opened for the 20th Century composers that followed.
This is absolutely brilliant analysis. Especially the part about period-instrument trends making Beethoven less overwhelming and more a quaint little figure of his times - boo hiss to that
In a way for sure. I learned that Mahler himself was concerned about the small forces Beethoven used and reorchestrated the sinfonies. And we are living today in a total different harmonic world. Mahler is so far more modern and Beethoven is getting a little bit in the background as the canon of classical music isn't so clear anymore. But we still have Beethoven in our bones and not ony the sinfonies as you pointed out, so you are right
I'm almost unbearably passionate about all the Mahler symphonies in every way, but Beethoven's reign supreme despite the HIP challenges & other issues that Dave mentions. Beethoven's symphonies alone kick started the need for symphony orchestras to proliferate in the first place to show what they could do & communicate with larger & larger audiences. Within each symphony is something so incredibly special, powerful & involving it has probably changed & influenced more people upon hearing them (musicians or listeners of all kinds) than any other symphonist, so I don't think that Beethoven's place can be realistically supplanted. All the great symphonists since have emulated Beethoven in one way or another (even by repudiating aspects of him) by using the platform of the large scale symphony & the symphony orchestra to communicate their ideas, sometimes extra-musical ones just like Beethoven's.
I listen to Beethoven more because of his wider scope of form; piano sonatas, concertos, string quartets, piano trios, etc., whereas Mahler’s world is the symphony.
Love them both and couldn't really live without either. But if I had to pick one set over another then I would reluctantly choose Mahler's and that's partly because they are more consistent but also because when I first got into classical music I nearly played Beethoven's symphonies to death. And I think Beethoven is more intoxicating in that way, while it's much harder to overplay Mahler. After listening to a Mahler symphony, usually the last thing on your mind is any urgent desire for more music. You feel sated. Whereas, with Beethoven that's exactly how it gets you - in fact, I once listened to all five piano concertos in a single sitting - bingeing on Beethoven is just so tempting, but unfortunately (as with all bingeing) it comes at a cost.
Good thing we can listen to both. A sure sign civilization is still with us and sometimes does advance! A game: if you could take one composer of each genre, and you couldn't choose that composer again, who would you take? Well, I'd take Mozart's Piano Concertos, Haydn's String Quartets, Beethoven's Piano Sonatas and...Mahler's Symphonies. Then there's all the other genres and it gets tricky (Schubert's or Brahms' Piano Trios? But I want Brahms' Piano Quartets! What about Dvorak?). In all cases you could conceivably choose Beethoven, but for sheer variety, outrageousness, experimentation, humor, epic catharsis etc. (ie. the world), Mahler's symphonies have got it. Beethoven did so much and is the Shakespeare of all music. He advanced every genre, be it the symphony, the piano/violin concerto, the piano/violin/cello sonata, the string quartet, the mass, the piano trio etc. etc. (Opera? Maybe not). But for a desert island moment, as described above, I'd take Mahler's 9, and hopefully The Song of the Earth gets thrown in as the 10th for good measure.
When I was young, all the books on classical music my dad got me just assumed Beethoven was the ultimate. He was music’s Shakespeare, so to speak. And I think you’re right that he feels slightly less “ultimate” today. It seems silly to think of composer acclaim moving up and down like share prices on the stock market, but if we allow that, I think Bach’s acclaim has risen a lot against Beethoven. When Harnoncourt and Leonhardt made their pioneering complete Bach cantata cycle, who would have guessed that it would be just one of many? As far as I know (and Dave will know better than I), we now have four complete sets to choose from. And this has expanded our understanding of Bach, from being primarily a composer of keyboard music to arguably the most important composer of religious music in the western tradition. Every violinist has to record the solo Sonatas and Partitas (and the violin concertos); every cellist the Suites; every pianist the Goldbergs; every baroque orchestra sooner or later has to record the Brandenburgs, and the four Orchestral Suites. Within Beethoven appreciation, it feels that people increasingly care more for the late period masterworks (e.g. the late piano sonatas and string quartets), rather than the mid period classics. And, of course, it’s the late works where Beethoven is most obviously in dialogue with Bach.
Great question! I've often wondered about this. Even better is the answer, pinpointing the downside of the HIP movement. The fact is that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven sound splendid on modern instruments and it would be terrible to lose that experience. P.S. One historical measure of change. 1945: FDR died. Orchestras and broadcasters everywhere did the Eroica. 1963: JFK died. Bernstein and others did the Resurrection Symphony.
What do we think of the rise of the LP and better recording technology as a fuel for the popularity of Mahler? A kind of corollary for the rise of the modern symphony, and in some sense the best way to show off all its shiny bits and pieces. There's a sense in which this has reverberated backwards and forwards. The Period instrument movement is to no small degree a revolution in timbre, which modern recording is great at highlighting and anatomizing. And of course the most visible pieces for contemporary composers are those that lend themselves to spectacular recordings. Both Mahler and Beethoven are hinge figures in the sense of a fundamental change of sound production.
In 1970, my father followed the recommendation of a perceptive friend and gave me Mahler 1 as my 15th birthday present and first classical LP (still have it and love it!). My impression at the time was that Beethoven was widely regarded as the greatest composer. Only much later did I notice Mozart rising to an almost godlike status in so many people's estimation.
@@hillcresthiker Thanks for your reply, made me think more deeply! No, I don't personally think ANY composer is godlike. Mahler is not even my favourite composer (since about 1975 anyway!); but (a) my experience somewhat relates to the topic of the video, re the changing reputation of different composers (b) comments help with the YT algorithm!
Fabulous discussion! Although I accept Dave’s reasoning and conclusion, I’m not sure that I completely agree. I think Mahler’s symphonies speak to audiences today in ways Beethoven’s do not: I think in some way listeners hear themselves and their lives and struggle in Mahler with a contemporary connection that they don’t have with Beethoven’s, which feel historical somehow. That’s an important reason Mahler is so popular in the 21st century: the music has greater meaning and maybe even emotional impact. Tar conducts Mahler because she’s, among many other things, contemporary. If I was to argue the other side, I’d say that for the broadest audience, Beethoven is quickly recognizable in several signature moments in ways Mahler isn’t.
I think this is highly subjective! Beethoven speaks to me intrinsically in a way Mahler does not even touch me. Few composers really, but Mahler in particular I find very little I can relate to even if I love his music. His works give me too sinister vibes. There are composers said to be "Mahlerian" that do touch me, however, like Shostakovich.
This is an interesting topic. I am a huge fan of Mahler, so one would think that I would want to see Mahler supplant Beethoven as an iconic exemplar of the form, but I have a hard time justifying this. Beethoven's symphonies were both a culmination of the work that was done in the latter half of the 18th century and a turning point that strongly influenced the composers of the century to come, including Mahler. Beethoven is an evolutionary choke point in the development of the symphony. How would the 19th century symphony have developed if Beethoven had stuck to the formula of the first and second symphonies and hadn't gone nuts with the Eroica? Even the absence of this one symphony would likely have had a profound impact on the history of the form. By the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, the symphony had fragmented, with different composers going off in all directions and doing their own thing with it. Raff took the form in a pleasant, pastoral direction, creating works that are not weighty but can be delightful to listen to. Brahms worked to keep the conventions of the form mostly intact while bringing the full power of late romanticism into it. Dvorak and Tchaikovsky brought in a healthy dose of romantic nationalism, and Tchaikovsky in particular took the form to glorious histrionic heights. Bruckner and Mahler strained at the boundaries of the form and came close to blowing it up completely. All of these composers, and many others, did great things with the symphonic form, but can any of them be regarded as evolutionary choke points or turning points in the way that Beethoven can? None of these later romantic composers had a level of influence on the form as universal as Beethoven's. In the 20th century, music fragmented and went down numerous twisty little paths, and it is now hard to imagine that there can ever again be another iconic example of any form. Conditions no longer allow for it. As far as I can tell, as the 21st century wears on, it is hard to even find a workable technical definition of a symphony. The only definition that works now is as follows: A piece of music is a symphony if the composer declares it as such. There is no other requirement.
This is spot on. Beethoven did a lot at once for his time. Similar to the Beatles in the 60s. Also mahler always takes longer than beethoven to make his point.
As for Maher, what I find astonishing is the enormous proliferation of recordings. In the days of mono you had one or two recordings from Walter, Adler, Horenstein, etc. for each symphony. Today I have six feet of Mahler CDs, including nine complete sets. Still, he doesn't eclipse Beethoven.
I was reading some old copies of Gramophone magazine the other week, and one review started "Do we really need another recording of Mahler's first symphony?" It was from 1990.
We are so lucky to have both. Part of the status of Beethoven and Bach could be their era. It may be impossible for anyone to ever take Beethoven's place in our minds. But had Beethoven seen the level of expression and emotions present in Mahler symphonies or Sibelius or others after him, he surely would have thought of them as very wonderful and would have wanted to be influenced by them.
Really interesting viewpoint, thank you. It’s interesting to look at impressive conductors with large legacies who nonetheless seem to be overlooked when listeners discuss the ‘great’ conductors of history. So often, Mahler was missing from their repertoire, at least at scale. Muti and Previn only recorded one Symphony a piece and seem to dart around from label to label. Even the great Mackerras only ‘officially’ recorded 1 and 5. He, too, was never given the attention by a single label he deserved. Wand didn’t record any Mahler and only broke through because of his Bruckner later on. Although correlation doesn’t imply causality, it’s hard to ignore your point that Mahler seems to be a right of passage. There are many, many exceptions, of course, but any conductor active in the 60s - 90s who didn’t do Mahler seems to have been more likely to endure obscurity.
Possibly your best, most original, and most mind-opening sermonette yet. The kicker was the bit about the effect of the period-instrument recordings of Beethoven symphonies-he's no longer quite the same unique heroic epic wild beast snorting and charging out of those genteel drawing rooms into the Nineteenth (and Twentieth) Centuries; he's been tamed and made to sit down and sip tea with Haydn,. Mozart and the fifteen sons of Bach, and their aristocratic masters. As for Mahler, I just wish you'd sometimes give a little more credit to his Tenth which to some of us is worth all the rest of his work put together-that's my conclusion after almost sixty years of Mahler obsessing and I think one that may one day be more widely shared.
Please don't get me wrong--I love the 10th. It's just that the better I grew to know Mahler the more dissatisfied I have become with the various completions, and I think it's important that we not make unfounded claims for a work that (for me) has some major problems that Mahler undoubtedly would have resolved had he lived.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks-your ears are trained to hear problems that I can tolerate or just not notice. I suppose if we were talking about a subject I understand, a "performing version" of a masterpiece would offend my eyes. Come to think of it, seeing magazine photos of freshly "restored" Sistine frescos was probably what erased "Visit Rome" from my to-do-before-I-die list.
The other important factor is that Beethoven's symphonies evolve - there is a huge 'gap' between the 1st and the 9th - but Mahler's symphonies seem like different aspects of the same world view......
I completely disagree. Every Mahler symphony is completely unique to every other. I would say that Beethoven's symphonies are actually more similar to each other, although you are right that they're still all distinct.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Beethoven was revolutionary. The third has a unique place in the history of music - in my opinion - because of the enormous step forward in a single music. Or the ninth in terms of the impact on all the 18th century symphonists composers - until Mahler himself encompass everything.
Another point that helps further entrench Beethoven's symphonies is that they're now the province of at least three ensemble types: the symphony orchestra, the 'standard' chamber orchestra, and period instrument ensembles. You can like this or not (I actually love Beethoven in all three guises, and think all three have given rise to fantastic, mediocre and dreadful performances), but either way, it's an undeniable reality. And Beethoven remains firmly entrenched in the symphony orchestra; the other two types have taken him up in addition to, not instead of, the symphony orchestra. Mahler, of course, cannot be similarly diverse; some small-scale arrangements aside (and these are treated as curious sidelines even by those who promote them), he can only be sustained by the symphony orchestra (even with so-called period instruments, it's still pretty much a symphony orchestra)
Yes, well, maybe! Four of Beethoven's symphonies are rarely played (except in Cycles) and Mahler is the greatest box office certainty in concert halls today. It has NOTHING to do with a question of quality as many of the comments below seem to believe. The Eroica is still the greatest symphonic music ever written. If you want bums on seats in my neck of the woods, you programme Beethoven's Third or Ninth or Mahler. Virtually ANY Mahler. Having said that, Dave makes very good points and it's true that you need both to really encompass both to get a taste of the full flavour of classical music. Remember that Beethoven has had 100 years start on Mahler. Ask again in another century 🙂PS. Dave, you forgot to wear a tie for the video.....
I started with Beethoven, and I loved his symphonies, especially no.6. My ears having since been exposed to Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich, his music does sound a bit dated, at least in some aspects. The same happened to Brahms.
I totally agree with you...and while Shosty almost seems to continue along the lines of Mahler, Sibelius is in a world of his own- and a magnificent world it is!
Most of Mahler's music does not speak to me, sounding hollow, hysterical and derivative TO MY ears, but some works seem genius and are among my favorite works: the 1st, parts of the 5th, the 6th symphony and most of his Lieder. I sometimes wonder whether they are other selective Mahler fans out there.
I have a question that I think could be interesting for an "Ask Dave": is there a point to 'classical crossover' cover groups? By classical crossover cover groups I mean musical groups that makes these hybrid songs covers between well-known classical and pop pieces (take, for example, 2Cellos). I've seen people say these groups help to raise awareness of classical pieces to the general population, but experience tells me the vast majority of people that listen to such groups never go on to even try listening to classical music. Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
It's all in the listening, as you so often, so wisely say. The following is personal and entirely subjective. Both Beethoven and Mahler move one, shake up one's world, but in very different ways. Beethoven for all his fury and despair, had an idea of order, of balance, even in his last quartets and piano sonatas. This is what I value in Beethoven, for all he moved the musical world beyond classicism towards romanticism, he knew what he was fighting against, and boy, could he fight! With Mahler, it seems that one could step off into the abyss. It feels dangerous, as if there may not be a vision of safety: there are visions of glory, but they are not enough. The ninth and tenth give the lie to that. But, as you also say, music is entertainment, and I agree. So we play with nihilism, fury, with despair, with the abyss, and with glory, in Mahler, and we play with rage and insurrection, and most wonderfully, compassion for all in Beethoven. What a blessing they both are! And what a fascinating talk this is! Thank you Dave.
In “The Life and Death of Classical Music,” author Norman Lebrecht addressed this topic when he wrote, “In 1900 Beethoven was the most important composer that ever lived. By 2000 he had given way to Mahler [page 3]…” When I read this, I did not think it was a positive development because I don’t care for Mahler’s music. I’m glad to see that Lebrecht’s pronouncement isn’t the consensus in the classical music business.
I discovered Mahler with a Sixth by a female conductor, don't remember the name, in Lyon, France, in 2009. And it's hard to evaluate when the new hype for Mahler started? Maybe I was part of this wave? I feel like the 2nd symphony is played much more than the rest and i'ts a pity because I have waited so long to hear a 3rd or a 7th or even a 9th in concert.
Thank you for discussing how the period instrument movement has diminished Beethoven's Universal Appeal. Hard to imagine the period instrument people having a similar impact on Mahler's reputation.
I remember an older book saying the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms make up the very core of concert hall programming. I'm not a concertgoer, so has Mahler overtaken Brahms?
Mahler is certainly popular and for good reasons. What puzzles me is that in the USA every year there are Beethoven festivals where all the symphonies or concertos are played. But where are the Mahler festivals like they have in Amsterdam or Leipzig? When will we have a two-week summer festival with several top-notch orchestras doing all the symphonies and DLVDE? Expensive, sure, but it would sell out in short order.
I remember when the New York Philharmonic played them all at Carnegie Hall while Fisher Hall was being revamped. It was a big sold out event. I believe there were even ticket scalpers in front of the hall for the Mahler 8th. 😎🎹
@@hillcresthiker Yes, but they only do one symphony each year: this year the 4th. And the orchestra is not a professional one; it's a pick up group with musicians from the Front Range and no one would mistake them for the Chicago Symphony. Their music director, Kenneth Woods, is excellent and has a real feel for Mahler.
For me, Mahler's use of counterpoint, say from the 5th Symphony onward, is remarkable and overlooked especially in the 8th and 9th symphonies. His content might be open to criticism, but his technique is top-drawer.
Adding another perpective to the ones you already presented: Todays perception of a good conductor. It seems to me that many of these Mahler performances we hear in the concert halls have a ring of "having to prove something". Conductors of today learn the classics, go on with Brahms, Tchaikovsky and so on, and finally, when they reach Bruckner and Mahler, they have proven themselves to be world class conductors. Are we deceived by this phenomenon? In "the old days", conductors performed what was their strengths, and left the rest to others. I love these performances where you can feel that the conductor isn´t only professionally capable of making a good result, but where you feel that the conductor and the music is ONE. But these experiences are, sadly enough, fewer and fewer, because the conductors all have to perform the standard repertoire again and again.
I think they have, but some caveats need to be added: not ALL of the Mahler symphonies are ubiquitous - the 7th is a bit of a Cinderella, the 8th rarely gets an outing due to size and expense and performances of the 3rd are relatively rare, too. We’re all very familiar with Beethoven and it’s becoming difficult to say new things about them. We may have had sixty plus years of the so-called ‘Mahler boom’ but he’s still being discovered.
On a similar subject, why has Bruckner eclipsed Tchaikovsky among conductors today. Every conductor worth his salt used to do Tchaikovsky back in the day, but now it's Bruckner. Why?
Yeah, I also find that very head scratching. Maybe Tchaikovsky is not considered to be "serious" enough? God forbidden music has beautiful melodies and is very enjoyable to listen to.
I've discussed this frequently. It's because conductors today are uncomfortable with Tchaikovsky's emotional intensity and formal structures, whereas Bruckner is far simpler and less expressively complex.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Specially, the fugal finale of Bruckner's 5th Symphony , far simpler than any finale of Tchaikovsky has ever composed. If emotional intensity is mushy tear-jerking, then, doubtless, Tchaikovsky.
Okay. I'll ask. What's with the "Beethoven's Ninth" insertion? I'm still catching up on back videos, and clearly I have missed something. (Still mostly searching for videos on composers I have too long neglected after having my world changed by the Vasks and Holmboe videos.)
Dave always joked about the fact that you can't talk about Beethoven's ninth without being properly dressed. So everytime he needs to mention this piece, he inserts a clip of him saying "the ninth" in which he wears a tie.
No, he hasn't replaced Beethoven. But from watching Dave's videos, I have come to believe that Beethoven didn't replace Haydn as the true iconic exemplar of the form.
A few generatipns back, there was a rivalry between the fans of Wagner and Brahme. That was already dated by the time i was becoming a classical music lover in the 1970s. But it might be interesting to hear a review of what they were thinking, and how their arguments hold up today. I like both, but I don’t find Wagner's music to be "deep," as many would say. I consider Wagner to be "high concept," in the sense that.the concept of leitmotives can be explained in under ten seconds.
Me oh my, I had a friend/nemisis in music school that only played the Beethoven piano works. I still get cringes at the opening bars of the Appassionata.
One other way that Beethoven's position has become somewhat undermined recently is in the history of ideas. Beethoven does not do that well in a postmodern environment. His music is tied up with liberalism and a progressive view of history, the notion that all men (note the gender) would become brothers one day. In a world of postmodern culturally relative values, Beethoven can seem a bit anachronistic. Mahler, on the other hand, said that he tried to represent the entire world in his symphonies, and the eclectic approach seems to me more amenable to this postmodern environment. That said, it is impossible to escape the fact that modern concert-going and classical music experience since the 19th century was basically shaped by the simultaneous rise of the municipal symphony orchestra and the staple of its repertoire--the Beethoven Symphony. Once Beethoven is supplanted, then we really no longer have a classical music environment in its purest sense, we have something else.
Perhaps we are not as 'romantic' in the way Beethoven was, and Mahler is a little more cynical and realistic and therefore sounds more contemporary, although he too reaches for the stars in his own more tortuous way.
To me, Beethoven's greatness relies on the way he constructed very complex structures from playing a simple diatonic game Wagner and Mahler took complexity of structure to an even higher level. Referring to the recent Schoenberg videos, Schoenberg created highly complex structures by playing a complex chromatic game.
Interesting. There are several strains of thought in here. Cutural reputation and musical merit. I like the historical context better but it's really about the music. A third one is popularity which I also found really only temporal. Having had youngsters around Mahler like Klemperer and Walter, well, there's the real reason for me for his gaining reputation. Van Beethoven is great (oh yes, the Ninth et al.) but Mahler rightly gains in weight. Has anyone on here heard of the research of last year pointing to the uncertain origine of Beethoven's father? And no, I don't hate Beethoven's music. Au contraire
Really? How many people can hum a few bars of Mahler versus Beethoven? Everyone* knows those 8 notes of Beethoven. That said , Mahler is a perfectly fine composer.
Brilliantly argued, Dave. I really enjoyed this video and the clarity and sensibility of logic and historical knowledge was virtuosic. For me, I think Beethoven is still a cultural phenomenon and the poster boy of western historical music. To the general public, that is. For us die hard classical nerds, Mahler’s place in the hierarchy of dead symphonists, period performance standards and all that stuff is important and common knowledge. To the general public, any mention of these topics which we fight over are met with a frown and a who-gives-a-shit smirk. 😂 So I think Beethoven will be very difficult to knock off his perch for the vast majority of the human race. To them, Mahler is a nobody. 😢 That said, Mahler in my personal view of the genre of symphonies, has replaced Beethoven’s nine efforts. Every single one of them. But that’s just me. 😅
@@DavesClassicalGuide Horowitz never publicly played chamber music that I know of after leaving Russia. Why should his opinion of orchestral music be repeated when his entire performing life centered on solo piano where the orchestra is only for accompaniment?
Mahler will never replace Beethoven. However, he made such great progress over the last decades. Just think how commonly heard Mahler was during the 1960s. Not! Now every conductor and orchestra wants to play Mahler. Bruckner will never attain that kind of popularity.
Hello from Barcelona
In 1993 I gave my grandfather a performance of Beethoven's third symphony on CD. It was his 93rd birthday.
He was still an active fisherman at that age. He loved the Costa Brava and the sea, but his other hobbies were literature and music; he could read it and played the guitar.
I was so very fond of that symphony at that time, that I waited anxiously for his reaction while he listened attentively to the first movement. And finally, when it ended, he thought for a while, and then he looked at me and said:
'It's a waltz.'
A wonderful story, and he was basically right too (at least as regards the first movement).
😂
No. Mahler has not eclipsed Beethoven. And I absolutely love Mahler. There is no Mahler without Beethoven. You may prefer Mahler’s music to Beethoven, and that is purely a matter of taste. But Beethoven’s music was a revolution.
By that measure, there was no Beethoven without Haydn and Mozart. Mahler is my favorite symphonist, but I greatly enjoy Beethoven's symphonies as well. All of them readily acknowledged that they built and expanded on what had come before.
And there is no Beethoven without Haydn.
This is no disrespect to Mahler. To me, the only piece of music that exceeds Mahler 1 is Beethoven. To me the difference is that Beethoven was revolutionary. His music was just a big jump from what was being done at the time. That’s just not a common occurrence
Why choose? They are all brilliant!
@@stevieb6368Yep, I listen to all
How times have changed! When I read my high school library’s monograph on classical composers and their music (this was in the late 60s and that book was a couple of decades old at that time, I’m sure), the rather brief discussion of Mahler stated that he had been a noted conductor and composer of the German lied, as well as big symphonies that were ambitious but weak in structure/organization and rather meandering. The record library had Klemperer’s “Resurrection“ and that was about it (I listened to it, and was hooked).
Now we are having a serious discussion about Mahler having displaced at least two of the “Three Bs”.
Shows what a different world it is now!
I wonder if that’s the same thing I read back then. It wasn’t a monograph, though. It might have been Paul Henry Lang. He referred to a growing interest in Mahler’s music but said he found it hard to credit the idea that Mahler would prove to be of lasting importance.
PHL was certainly active then, it could have been his “Music in Western Civilization.“
@@hendriphile That was definitely the book I had, whether or not it's where I read the comment. I'm not a saver, and that book was let go decades ago. It's only in my eighth decade (N.B.-- that's YOUNGER than 80) that I've made a concerted effort to delve into Mahler beyond the 4th Symphony and parts of the 2nd. I feel much smarter than PHL! 😁
Mahler hasn’t replaced Bach, and while his symphonies are probably greater than Brahms he didn’t write chamber music nor solo piano music that could touch Brahms.
@@samgibb-randall5743 "probably greater" in size, but by no means in depth, richness, organicity.
In my own personal journey (not quite the topic of this video, but mine and others may contribute interestingly to this discussion): for a long time I've considered Beethoven my "favorite " composer, while recognizing that that's just a label to create interesting conversation: we don't need to limit ourselves to just one. Beethoven has so much of both range and depth. But I realized recently: it's really Mahler's works--recorded and in concert--that have really impacted my life. That have been there for me when and in ways that I needed them. That they are close to me, in ways whereas that I appreciate Beethoven from a bit more of a distance.
Beethoven is still the "reference".
If I had to choose between the two, I would have to go with the Mahler symphonies. I love each one of rgem. The 3rd movement from the 4th symphony might be my favorite piece of music of all time. It blows me away every time I listen to it.
For me it’s whichever slow movement I’m listening to at the moment. That certainly includes the 4th, but more often the 6th.
In a way this is also a story about architecture and the evolution of the concert program. The modern symphony hall of 2000 seats or so is optimally designed for a 100-piece symphony orchestra with eight horns. As you point out, many of Mahler’s symphonies are the optimum concert length. Musician’s unions love them because they offer full employment, and box offices love them because they sell tickets; even in an age of digital recording and incredible headphones and speakers there is still a thrill to hearing a Mahler symphony live that can’t be adequately duplicated at home. You make this point when you say that they’re perfectly designed for the modern orchestra, but that’s also a byproduct of these other factors that essentially keep the orchestra in that state of Mahler-ness. (Though it should also be pointed out that before Mahler had his great resurgence starting in the 1960s, Jean Sibelius occupied his position as the most popular 20th century symphonic composer who’s also tailor made for the modern orchestra. But Mahler seems to have decisively beat him on that front; a Sibelius-sance keeps threatening to happen but never quite does.)
As for Beethoven, I think his trajectory is somewhat akin to Shakespeare’s in the culture. Both artists were burdened not only with representing their art forms but justifying human civilization. I think it has served the study of both artists’ body of work to be taken down a notch and appreciated for who they actually were and what they actually did instead of fetishizing them. Hamlet’s a damn good play whether or not you think it is the ultimate depiction of our collective existential crisis, and the Ninth is a great symphony even if playing it at the United Nations or at the Berlin Wall doesn’t succeed in ridding the world of tyranny and prejudice.
Both composers were very important to me as a kid getting into classical music despite living in a home unwelcoming of my interest in it. I was orphaned at age eight and was a weird kid with some issues even before that. What you call Mahler’s “indulgence” was deeply moving and therapeutic for me as an adolescent, and in Beethoven I heard the voice of someone who, like me, was determined to transcend his isolation, grief, anger, and physical limitations to reveal his inner spirit and beauty despite all the damage. And it is evident that I’m not the only one who feels that way. They will both remain popular as long as people turn to music to heal their souls.
What an intriguing topic, I had a similar thought about symphonies lasting for over an hour being perfect for a modern concert. They fill up the entire program, whereas shorter works are paired up with something else and I feel like that "something else" doesn't always correspond to the big final work. Mahler 2, 5, 6 or 9 are perfect concert reportoire, whereas only Beethoven's 9th is in the same group in terms of length. It doesn't matter if the other piece accompanying them is equally good for the concert to be attractive. And secondly, the musical instruments evolved and so did the music to showcase their new abilities. So in terms of orchestral colour, Mahler has something that Beethoven doesn't and the change doesn't come from composers' imagination, but its source is in purely technical advancement.
A great question and discussion. I could also see this coming down to what people (including composers since both of them) say and what they actually do. The idea of Beethoven being supplanted as THE symphonist seems impossible, however, in terms of how much time people spend listening to the works, the influence of the works on future composers, and indeed our current conception of what a symphony cycle by a single composer could and should do, our concept of the symphony these days seems quite "Mahlerian." I also wonder how quickly Beethoven supplanted his symphonic forebears in the minds of audiences and critics. Mozart and Haydn cast a long shadow, even though Haydn was criminally under-appreciated throughout the centuries.
One could argue that Beethoven opened up whole new possibilities and vistas to reinvigorate the Austro-German symphony whereas Mahler, arguably, wrote the grand and glorious finale to that tradition.
@@bbailey7818 Absolutely and that would be completely true if he stopped with the 8th. However with the 9th and the fragments of the 10th there are some new doors being opened for the 20th Century composers that followed.
This is absolutely brilliant analysis. Especially the part about period-instrument trends making Beethoven less overwhelming and more a quaint little figure of his times - boo hiss to that
In a way for sure. I learned that Mahler himself was concerned about the small forces Beethoven used and reorchestrated the sinfonies. And we are living today in a total different harmonic world. Mahler is so far more modern and Beethoven is getting a little bit in the background as the canon of classical music isn't so clear anymore. But we still have Beethoven in our bones and not ony the sinfonies as you pointed out, so you are right
I'm almost unbearably passionate about all the Mahler symphonies in every way, but Beethoven's reign supreme despite the HIP challenges & other issues that Dave mentions. Beethoven's symphonies alone kick started the need for symphony orchestras to proliferate in the first place to show what they could do & communicate with larger & larger audiences. Within each symphony is something so incredibly special, powerful & involving it has probably changed & influenced more people upon hearing them (musicians or listeners of all kinds) than any other symphonist, so I don't think that Beethoven's place can be realistically supplanted. All the great symphonists since have emulated Beethoven in one way or another (even by repudiating aspects of him) by using the platform of the large scale symphony & the symphony orchestra to communicate their ideas, sometimes extra-musical ones just like Beethoven's.
Always a joy! Thank you, mr Hurwitz!
I listen to Beethoven more because of his wider scope of form; piano sonatas, concertos, string quartets, piano trios, etc., whereas Mahler’s world is the symphony.
Love them both and couldn't really live without either. But if I had to pick one set over another then I would reluctantly choose Mahler's and that's partly because they are more consistent but also because when I first got into classical music I nearly played Beethoven's symphonies to death. And I think Beethoven is more intoxicating in that way, while it's much harder to overplay Mahler. After listening to a Mahler symphony, usually the last thing on your mind is any urgent desire for more music. You feel sated. Whereas, with Beethoven that's exactly how it gets you - in fact, I once listened to all five piano concertos in a single sitting - bingeing on Beethoven is just so tempting, but unfortunately (as with all bingeing) it comes at a cost.
Good thing we can listen to both. A sure sign civilization is still with us and sometimes does advance! A game: if you could take one composer of each genre, and you couldn't choose that composer again, who would you take? Well, I'd take Mozart's Piano Concertos, Haydn's String Quartets, Beethoven's Piano Sonatas and...Mahler's Symphonies. Then there's all the other genres and it gets tricky (Schubert's or Brahms' Piano Trios? But I want Brahms' Piano Quartets! What about Dvorak?). In all cases you could conceivably choose Beethoven, but for sheer variety, outrageousness, experimentation, humor, epic catharsis etc. (ie. the world), Mahler's symphonies have got it. Beethoven did so much and is the Shakespeare of all music. He advanced every genre, be it the symphony, the piano/violin concerto, the piano/violin/cello sonata, the string quartet, the mass, the piano trio etc. etc. (Opera? Maybe not). But for a desert island moment, as described above, I'd take Mahler's 9, and hopefully The Song of the Earth gets thrown in as the 10th for good measure.
When I was young, all the books on classical music my dad got me just assumed Beethoven was the ultimate. He was music’s Shakespeare, so to speak. And I think you’re right that he feels slightly less “ultimate” today. It seems silly to think of composer acclaim moving up and down like share prices on the stock market, but if we allow that, I think Bach’s acclaim has risen a lot against Beethoven.
When Harnoncourt and Leonhardt made their pioneering complete Bach cantata cycle, who would have guessed that it would be just one of many? As far as I know (and Dave will know better than I), we now have four complete sets to choose from. And this has expanded our understanding of Bach, from being primarily a composer of keyboard music to arguably the most important composer of religious music in the western tradition. Every violinist has to record the solo Sonatas and Partitas (and the violin concertos); every cellist the Suites; every pianist the Goldbergs; every baroque orchestra sooner or later has to record the Brandenburgs, and the four Orchestral Suites.
Within Beethoven appreciation, it feels that people increasingly care more for the late period masterworks (e.g. the late piano sonatas and string quartets), rather than the mid period classics. And, of course, it’s the late works where Beethoven is most obviously in dialogue with Bach.
Well said.
Great question! I've often wondered about this. Even better is the answer, pinpointing the downside of the HIP movement. The fact is that Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven sound splendid on modern instruments and it would be terrible to lose that experience.
P.S. One historical measure of change. 1945: FDR died. Orchestras and broadcasters everywhere did the Eroica. 1963: JFK died. Bernstein and others did the Resurrection Symphony.
No, as the answer to this question is the title of Dave's next video in his "Reference" series: "Beethoven: The Reference Composer".
Him or Mozart
What do we think of the rise of the LP and better recording technology as a fuel for the popularity of Mahler? A kind of corollary for the rise of the modern symphony, and in some sense the best way to show off all its shiny bits and pieces. There's a sense in which this has reverberated backwards and forwards. The Period instrument movement is to no small degree a revolution in timbre, which modern recording is great at highlighting and anatomizing. And of course the most visible pieces for contemporary composers are those that lend themselves to spectacular recordings. Both Mahler and Beethoven are hinge figures in the sense of a fundamental change of sound production.
I agree with that. The long playing record and tape recording certainly also spurred the Baroque Revival.
In 1970, my father followed the recommendation of a perceptive friend and gave me Mahler 1 as my 15th birthday present and first classical LP (still have it and love it!). My impression at the time was that Beethoven was widely regarded as the greatest composer. Only much later did I notice Mozart rising to an almost godlike status in so many people's estimation.
So- what is your point? Is Mahler godlike?
@@hillcresthiker Thanks for your reply, made me think more deeply! No, I don't personally think ANY composer is godlike. Mahler is not even my favourite composer (since about 1975 anyway!); but (a) my experience somewhat relates to the topic of the video, re the changing reputation of different composers (b) comments help with the YT algorithm!
The algorithm thanks you, and so do I.
Fabulous discussion! Although I accept Dave’s reasoning and conclusion, I’m not sure that I completely agree. I think Mahler’s symphonies speak to audiences today in ways Beethoven’s do not: I think in some way listeners hear themselves and their lives and struggle in Mahler with a contemporary connection that they don’t have with Beethoven’s, which feel historical somehow.
That’s an important reason Mahler is so popular in the 21st century: the music has greater meaning and maybe even emotional impact.
Tar conducts Mahler because she’s, among many other things, contemporary.
If I was to argue the other side, I’d say that for the broadest audience, Beethoven is quickly recognizable in several signature moments in ways Mahler isn’t.
I think this is highly subjective! Beethoven speaks to me intrinsically in a way Mahler does not even touch me. Few composers really, but Mahler in particular I find very little I can relate to even if I love his music. His works give me too sinister vibes. There are composers said to be "Mahlerian" that do touch me, however, like Shostakovich.
This is an interesting topic. I am a huge fan of Mahler, so one would think that I would want to see Mahler supplant Beethoven as an iconic exemplar of the form, but I have a hard time justifying this. Beethoven's symphonies were both a culmination of the work that was done in the latter half of the 18th century and a turning point that strongly influenced the composers of the century to come, including Mahler. Beethoven is an evolutionary choke point in the development of the symphony. How would the 19th century symphony have developed if Beethoven had stuck to the formula of the first and second symphonies and hadn't gone nuts with the Eroica? Even the absence of this one symphony would likely have had a profound impact on the history of the form.
By the latter part of the 19th century and into the 20th century, the symphony had fragmented, with different composers going off in all directions and doing their own thing with it. Raff took the form in a pleasant, pastoral direction, creating works that are not weighty but can be delightful to listen to. Brahms worked to keep the conventions of the form mostly intact while bringing the full power of late romanticism into it. Dvorak and Tchaikovsky brought in a healthy dose of romantic nationalism, and Tchaikovsky in particular took the form to glorious histrionic heights. Bruckner and Mahler strained at the boundaries of the form and came close to blowing it up completely. All of these composers, and many others, did great things with the symphonic form, but can any of them be regarded as evolutionary choke points or turning points in the way that Beethoven can? None of these later romantic composers had a level of influence on the form as universal as Beethoven's. In the 20th century, music fragmented and went down numerous twisty little paths, and it is now hard to imagine that there can ever again be another iconic example of any form. Conditions no longer allow for it. As far as I can tell, as the 21st century wears on, it is hard to even find a workable technical definition of a symphony. The only definition that works now is as follows: A piece of music is a symphony if the composer declares it as such. There is no other requirement.
This is spot on. Beethoven did a lot at once for his time. Similar to the Beatles in the 60s. Also mahler always takes longer than beethoven to make his point.
@@ctrlzyx2Concision: the neglected virtue
(Also a major virtue of the Beatles, compared to Mahleresque sprawl of, say, Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd)
As for Maher, what I find astonishing is the enormous proliferation of recordings. In the days of mono you had one or two recordings from Walter, Adler, Horenstein, etc. for each symphony. Today I have six feet of Mahler CDs, including nine complete sets. Still, he doesn't eclipse Beethoven.
I was reading some old copies of Gramophone magazine the other week, and one review started "Do we really need another recording of Mahler's first symphony?" It was from 1990.
We are so lucky to have both. Part of the status of Beethoven and Bach could be their era. It may be impossible for anyone to ever take Beethoven's place in our minds. But had Beethoven seen the level of expression and emotions present in Mahler symphonies or Sibelius or others after him, he surely would have thought of them as very wonderful and would have wanted to be influenced by them.
Really interesting viewpoint, thank you. It’s interesting to look at impressive conductors with large legacies who nonetheless seem to be overlooked when listeners discuss the ‘great’ conductors of history. So often, Mahler was missing from their repertoire, at least at scale. Muti and Previn only recorded one Symphony a piece and seem to dart around from label to label. Even the great Mackerras only ‘officially’ recorded 1 and 5. He, too, was never given the attention by a single label he deserved. Wand didn’t record any Mahler and only broke through because of his Bruckner later on. Although correlation doesn’t imply causality, it’s hard to ignore your point that Mahler seems to be a right of passage. There are many, many exceptions, of course, but any conductor active in the 60s - 90s who didn’t do Mahler seems to have been more likely to endure obscurity.
Possibly your best, most original, and most mind-opening sermonette yet. The kicker was the bit about the effect of the period-instrument recordings of Beethoven symphonies-he's no longer quite the same unique heroic epic wild beast snorting and charging out of those genteel drawing rooms into the Nineteenth (and Twentieth) Centuries; he's been tamed and made to sit down and sip tea with Haydn,. Mozart and the fifteen sons of Bach, and their aristocratic masters. As for Mahler, I just wish you'd sometimes give a little more credit to his Tenth which to some of us is worth all the rest of his work put together-that's my conclusion after almost sixty years of Mahler obsessing and I think one that may one day be more widely shared.
Please don't get me wrong--I love the 10th. It's just that the better I grew to know Mahler the more dissatisfied I have become with the various completions, and I think it's important that we not make unfounded claims for a work that (for me) has some major problems that Mahler undoubtedly would have resolved had he lived.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks-your ears are trained to hear problems that I can tolerate or just not notice. I suppose if we were talking about a subject I understand, a "performing version" of a masterpiece would offend my eyes. Come to think of it, seeing magazine photos of freshly "restored" Sistine frescos was probably what erased "Visit Rome" from my to-do-before-I-die list.
The other important factor is that Beethoven's symphonies evolve - there is a huge 'gap' between the 1st and the 9th - but Mahler's symphonies seem like different aspects of the same world view......
I completely disagree. Every Mahler symphony is completely unique to every other. I would say that Beethoven's symphonies are actually more similar to each other, although you are right that they're still all distinct.
I would say that both of your are correct--both composers were "evolutionary."
@@DavesClassicalGuide Beethoven was revolutionary. The third has a unique place in the history of music - in my opinion - because of the enormous step forward in a single music. Or the ninth in terms of the impact on all the 18th century symphonists composers - until Mahler himself encompass everything.
Another point that helps further entrench Beethoven's symphonies is that they're now the province of at least three ensemble types: the symphony orchestra, the 'standard' chamber orchestra, and period instrument ensembles. You can like this or not (I actually love Beethoven in all three guises, and think all three have given rise to fantastic, mediocre and dreadful performances), but either way, it's an undeniable reality. And Beethoven remains firmly entrenched in the symphony orchestra; the other two types have taken him up in addition to, not instead of, the symphony orchestra. Mahler, of course, cannot be similarly diverse; some small-scale arrangements aside (and these are treated as curious sidelines even by those who promote them), he can only be sustained by the symphony orchestra (even with so-called period instruments, it's still pretty much a symphony orchestra)
A good reply to an interesting question.
Mahler regarded Beethoven and Wagner as the two greatest composers.
He also held J.S. Bach in reverential regard.
Yet his last word before dying were: "Mozart - Mozart!"
@@jovidec6274 He also liked Mozart and conducted his operas many times.
Yes, well, maybe! Four of Beethoven's symphonies are rarely played (except in Cycles) and Mahler is the greatest box office certainty in concert halls today. It has NOTHING to do with a question of quality as many of the comments below seem to believe. The Eroica is still the greatest symphonic music ever written. If you want bums on seats in my neck of the woods, you programme Beethoven's Third or Ninth or Mahler. Virtually ANY Mahler. Having said that, Dave makes very good points and it's true that you need both to really encompass both to get a taste of the full flavour of classical music. Remember that Beethoven has had 100 years start on Mahler. Ask again in another century 🙂PS. Dave, you forgot to wear a tie for the video.....
No, I didn't.
I started with Beethoven, and I loved his symphonies, especially no.6. My ears having since been exposed to Mahler, Sibelius and Shostakovich, his music does sound a bit dated, at least in some aspects. The same happened to Brahms.
I totally agree with you...and while Shosty almost seems to continue along the lines of Mahler, Sibelius is in a world of his own- and a magnificent world it is!
Beethoven’s symphonies are more refined if that’s what you mean. They achieve greater heights while seeming less.
Most of Mahler's music does not speak to me, sounding hollow, hysterical and derivative TO MY ears, but some works seem genius and are among my favorite works: the 1st, parts of the 5th, the 6th symphony and most of his Lieder. I sometimes wonder whether they are other selective Mahler fans out there.
I have a question that I think could be interesting for an "Ask Dave": is there a point to 'classical crossover' cover groups? By classical crossover cover groups I mean musical groups that makes these hybrid songs covers between well-known classical and pop pieces (take, for example, 2Cellos).
I've seen people say these groups help to raise awareness of classical pieces to the general population, but experience tells me the vast majority of people that listen to such groups never go on to even try listening to classical music.
Would be interested in hearing your thoughts.
It's all in the listening, as you so often, so wisely say. The following is personal and entirely subjective. Both Beethoven and Mahler move one, shake up one's world, but in very different ways. Beethoven for all his fury and despair, had an idea of order, of balance, even in his last quartets and piano sonatas. This is what I value in Beethoven, for all he moved the musical world beyond classicism towards romanticism, he knew what he was fighting against, and boy, could he fight! With Mahler, it seems that one could step off into the abyss. It feels dangerous, as if there may not be a vision of safety: there are visions of glory, but they are not enough. The ninth and tenth give the lie to that. But, as you also say, music is entertainment, and I agree. So we play with nihilism, fury, with despair, with the abyss, and with glory, in Mahler, and we play with rage and insurrection, and most wonderfully, compassion for all in Beethoven. What a blessing they both are! And what a fascinating talk this is! Thank you Dave.
In “The Life and Death of Classical Music,” author Norman Lebrecht addressed this topic when he wrote, “In 1900 Beethoven was the most important composer that ever lived. By 2000 he had given way to Mahler [page 3]…” When I read this, I did not think it was a positive development because I don’t care for Mahler’s music. I’m glad to see that Lebrecht’s pronouncement isn’t the consensus in the classical music business.
Lebrecht is wrong, as usual. He just makes things up as he goes along.
I discovered Mahler with a Sixth by a female conductor, don't remember the name, in Lyon, France, in 2009. And it's hard to evaluate when the new hype for Mahler started? Maybe I was part of this wave? I feel like the 2nd symphony is played much more than the rest and i'ts a pity because I have waited so long to hear a 3rd or a 7th or even a 9th in concert.
I adore Mahler, but that’s a quick no.
Thank you for discussing how the period instrument movement has diminished Beethoven's Universal Appeal.
Hard to imagine the period instrument people having a similar impact on Mahler's reputation.
They're trying.
Norrington did. Guess Schoonderwoerd is on the way...
I remember an older book saying the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms make up the very core of concert hall programming. I'm not a concertgoer, so has Mahler overtaken Brahms?
Mahler is certainly popular and for good reasons. What puzzles me is that in the USA every year there are Beethoven festivals where all the symphonies or concertos are played. But where are the Mahler festivals like they have in Amsterdam or Leipzig? When will we have a two-week summer festival with several top-notch orchestras doing all the symphonies and DLVDE? Expensive, sure, but it would sell out in short order.
I remember when the New York Philharmonic played them all at Carnegie Hall while Fisher Hall was being revamped. It was a big sold out event. I believe there were even ticket scalpers in front of the hall for the Mahler 8th.
😎🎹
I think there is an annual Colorado Mahlerfest!
Yes, among others.
@@hillcresthiker Yes, but they only do one symphony each year: this year the 4th. And the orchestra is not a professional one; it's a pick up group with musicians from the Front Range and no one would mistake them for the Chicago Symphony. Their music director, Kenneth Woods, is excellent and has a real feel for Mahler.
@@martinhaub6828 Ken is indeed an excellent Mahler conductor. I had the pleasure of playing a couple of the symphonies under him many moons ago.
Perfectly reasoned!
For me, Mahler's use of counterpoint, say from the 5th Symphony onward, is remarkable and overlooked especially in the 8th and 9th symphonies. His content might be open to criticism, but his technique is top-drawer.
Adding another perpective to the ones you already presented: Todays perception of a good conductor. It seems to me that many of these Mahler performances we hear in the concert halls have a ring of "having to prove something". Conductors of today learn the classics, go on with Brahms, Tchaikovsky and so on, and finally, when they reach Bruckner and Mahler, they have proven themselves to be world class conductors. Are we deceived by this phenomenon? In "the old days", conductors performed what was their strengths, and left the rest to others. I love these performances where you can feel that the conductor isn´t only professionally capable of making a good result, but where you feel that the conductor and the music is ONE. But these experiences are, sadly enough, fewer and fewer, because the conductors all have to perform the standard repertoire again and again.
Slatkin conducted 3 and 6 (at least) with the NSO
I think they have, but some caveats need to be added: not ALL of the Mahler symphonies are ubiquitous - the 7th is a bit of a Cinderella, the 8th rarely gets an outing due to size and expense and performances of the 3rd are relatively rare, too. We’re all very familiar with Beethoven and it’s becoming difficult to say new things about them. We may have had sixty plus years of the so-called ‘Mahler boom’ but he’s still being discovered.
On a similar subject, why has Bruckner eclipsed Tchaikovsky among conductors today. Every conductor worth his salt used to do Tchaikovsky back in the day, but now it's Bruckner. Why?
Yeah, I also find that very head scratching. Maybe Tchaikovsky is not considered to be "serious" enough?
God forbidden music has beautiful melodies and is very enjoyable to listen to.
I've discussed this frequently. It's because conductors today are uncomfortable with Tchaikovsky's emotional intensity and formal structures, whereas Bruckner is far simpler and less expressively complex.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Specially, the fugal finale of Bruckner's 5th Symphony , far simpler than any finale of Tchaikovsky has ever composed. If emotional intensity is mushy tear-jerking, then, doubtless, Tchaikovsky.
Okay. I'll ask. What's with the "Beethoven's Ninth" insertion? I'm still catching up on back videos, and clearly I have missed something. (Still mostly searching for videos on composers I have too long neglected after having my world changed by the Vasks and Holmboe videos.)
Dave always joked about the fact that you can't talk about Beethoven's ninth without being properly dressed. So everytime he needs to mention this piece, he inserts a clip of him saying "the ninth" in which he wears a tie.
@@MisterPathetique Aha. Thank you. There must be a batch of these. Someone should compile an "Ultimate Hurwitz Guide" for us relative newbies.
Well, when you've done 3600+ videos it's kind a hard to start indexing from scratch. You'll pick it up as you go, or you can just ask me.
No. Time will not change this. Frequency of performance is no measure of quality.
Quality is not what is being measured here.
And how is the quality of music measured?
@@DavesClassicalGuide It is though. If you are discussing which symphonies are exemplars of form, quality is undeniably a key component.
I’m using quality in the sense of an attribute of ‘exemplary’.
No, he hasn't replaced Beethoven. But from watching Dave's videos, I have come to believe that Beethoven didn't replace Haydn as the true iconic exemplar of the form.
Yay!
A few generatipns back, there was a rivalry between the fans of Wagner and Brahme. That was already dated by the time i was becoming a classical music lover in the 1970s.
But it might be interesting to hear a review of what they were thinking, and how their arguments hold up today.
I like both, but I don’t find Wagner's music to be "deep," as many would say. I consider Wagner to be "high concept," in the sense that.the concept of leitmotives can be explained in under ten seconds.
Wagner was not nearly as deep as he wanted to be and thought he was.
Me oh my, I had a friend/nemisis in music school that only played the Beethoven piano works. I still get cringes at the opening bars of the Appassionata.
As … BEETHOVEN’S NINTH! (with costume change) 😂😂😂
One other way that Beethoven's position has become somewhat undermined recently is in the history of ideas. Beethoven does not do that well in a postmodern environment. His music is tied up with liberalism and a progressive view of history, the notion that all men (note the gender) would become brothers one day. In a world of postmodern culturally relative values, Beethoven can seem a bit anachronistic. Mahler, on the other hand, said that he tried to represent the entire world in his symphonies, and the eclectic approach seems to me more amenable to this postmodern environment. That said, it is impossible to escape the fact that modern concert-going and classical music experience since the 19th century was basically shaped by the simultaneous rise of the municipal symphony orchestra and the staple of its repertoire--the Beethoven Symphony. Once Beethoven is supplanted, then we really no longer have a classical music environment in its purest sense, we have something else.
Soooo.....when will the HIPsters attack Mahler. Oh! the horror.
Norrington have done this ...😮
@@RecordGuyBln That causes me great distress.
Lol.
Perhaps we are not as 'romantic' in the way Beethoven was, and Mahler is a little more cynical and realistic and therefore sounds more contemporary, although he too reaches for the stars in his own more tortuous way.
To me, Beethoven's greatness relies on the way he constructed very complex structures from playing a simple diatonic game Wagner and Mahler took complexity of structure to an even higher level. Referring to the recent Schoenberg videos, Schoenberg created highly complex structures by playing a complex chromatic game.
Oh thank goodness celibidache didn't touch Mahler. Can't imagine the insult to the ears that would have been....
Can you imagine him doing Mahler 3?
He'd still be doing it. Third movement coming any day now...
@@DavesClassicalGuide 🤣🤣🤣
Interesting. There are several strains of thought in here. Cutural reputation and musical merit. I like the historical context better but it's really about the music. A third one is popularity which I also found really only temporal. Having had youngsters around Mahler like Klemperer and Walter, well, there's the real reason for me for his gaining reputation. Van Beethoven is great (oh yes, the Ninth et al.) but Mahler rightly gains in weight. Has anyone on here heard of the research of last year pointing to the uncertain origine of Beethoven's father? And no, I don't hate Beethoven's music. Au contraire
Really? How many people can hum a few bars of Mahler versus Beethoven? Everyone* knows those 8 notes of Beethoven. That said , Mahler is a perfectly fine composer.
You'd be surprised. Mahler is very hummable.
I'm sure Mahler will disagree if people said his music supplanted Beethoven's
Brilliantly argued, Dave. I really enjoyed this video and the clarity and sensibility of logic and historical knowledge was virtuosic.
For me, I think Beethoven is still a cultural phenomenon and the poster boy of western historical music. To the general public, that is.
For us die hard classical nerds, Mahler’s place in the hierarchy of dead symphonists, period performance standards and all that stuff is important and common knowledge. To the general public, any mention of these topics which we fight over are met with a frown and a who-gives-a-shit smirk. 😂
So I think Beethoven will be very difficult to knock off his perch for the vast majority of the human race. To them, Mahler is a nobody. 😢
That said, Mahler in my personal view of the genre of symphonies, has replaced Beethoven’s nine efforts. Every single one of them. But that’s just me. 😅
I cannot listen to Mahler's symphonies because of their neurotic nature.
No, because of YOUR neurotic nature. Mahler's symphonies are not neurotic at all.
"You can't get away with not doing Beethoven." ...tell that to Boulez. Thanks Dave for more great insight.
He did Beethoven just to prove that he shouldn't.
@@DavesClassicalGuideI think he should have left Berlioz aline, too. But that's just me.
@@DavesClassicalGuide 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Horowitz said:you can find more music in a bar of Chopin than in whole Mahler symphony …
Artists say stupid things all the time.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Horowitz never publicly played chamber music that I know of after leaving Russia. Why should his opinion of orchestral music be repeated when his entire performing life centered on solo piano where the orchestra is only for accompaniment?
Comparing Beethoven to Mahler is a mute point. I find Mahler s music as absolutely Heavenly. Just my opinion of course
I don't usually do this because I hate it when others do it to me, but it's "moot," not "mute." They're not even pronounced the same.
Mahler will never replace Beethoven. However, he made such great progress over the last decades. Just think how commonly heard Mahler was during the 1960s. Not! Now every conductor and orchestra wants to play Mahler. Bruckner will never attain that kind of popularity.