How did'ya discover Mahler?

[stillivor]

Visit no.1000 to this thread.

I.

[James Meckley]

Visit no.1000 to this thread.

Congratulations!

James

[john haueisen]

There have been some fascinating responses to Leo K's subject question.  I hope more will continue to share their recollections of what first attracted them to Mahler.

In my case it was not my first Mahler recording which was M1.  I generally liked it, but was then more attracted to the music of Wagner, Puccini and Mozart.  (I wondered why they had added all those vocal bits to spoil the pretty orchestral music.)

Then, much as was the case for Jot N Tittle, late one night I was surfing the classical music stations and I heard some marvelous music that first struck me as the epitome of the word "nostalgic."  Yes, it was the "Posthorn Serenade" from M3.  The symphony held me spellbound as it culminated in the most powerful finale I'd ever heard.  It felt as if the planets were all moving in a gigantic symphony of the cosmos.  I was surprised to notice that my eyes had begun to fill with tears.  It left Wagner far behind.  Eagerly, I rushed to buy an M3 to hear the whole symphony.  The one that attracted my attention first was James Levine and the CSO with Marilyn Horne.  I loved the cover art (by illustrator Maurice Sendak) showing a composing hut in the forest at night, with animals gathered around, listening, and an angel offering a bouquet of roses to the composer working at his desk.

To my amazement as I read the program notes, the “nostalgic” portion I had heard was indeed Mahler’s musical capturing of the story of an old coachman, who used to ride his route with his friend, and both would regularly stop at a hillside above a meadow to enjoy the moonlit natural beauty below.  The friend had now passed away, but the coachman would always stop at the meadow to blow a nostalgic salute to his old friend.

I went on to meet each other symphony and the lieder, and got to know them as new friends.  Every time I hear a new performance, it is like learning something new about a dear friend.  It makes them more and more a part of my life.  I’m sure others here at the board have similar feelings, and I hope you'll share them.

John Haueisen

[John S]

Like many on this thread, my Mahler epiphany was a gradual one spread over many years.  In the mid 1960s I found Mahler’s Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen on a supplemental listening list when I was in music school.  I dutifully listened to it with absolutely no lasting effect.  At that time, Mahler was barely mentioned in any class.  I do remember hearing some buzz amongst students regarding Bernstein’s Mahler advocacy, but again, nothing clicked with me.

A few years later, I found myself in the record business (nothing glamorous, just wholesale distribution).  I could buy any record at significant discount, so I took advantage of the situation.  I remember being able to buy any Vanguard record for literally pennies.  One I bought was Mahler’s Fifth with Vaclav Neumann, with Berg’s excerpts of Wozzeck on the fourth side, by another conductor as I recall.  I liked M5 -- especially the trumpet intro, which seemed novel to me at the time.  But it was the Wozzeck I was really interested in, so once again Mahler had to wait.

I then became aware of M1 and M4 via the radio.  Remember back when public radio played entire symphonies?  I consequently bought cheapie Laserlight-like copies of  these two Mahler symphonies, which helped lay some foundation.  I liked both, especially M4.  But still no big bright light appeared sending me over the edge.

Then, one day in the mid-nineties I happened to take home Solti’s CSO recording of the "Resurrection."  I saw the light.  I was delighted to see the Dover score at my local Barnes & Noble bookstore.  For the next five years, I obsessed over this piece.  I didn’t spread out into the other Mahler works, even though I bought some of the other symphonies.  But for quite a while it was M2 and M2 only that occupied my Mahler time.  I bought  multiple versions on CD…a strange thing for me to do as I was always a one copy and move on kind of collector: after all there was only one A Love Supreme, wasn’t there?

Just lately I have embarked on my serious Mahler journey.  I have bought multiple copies of all the symphonies, plus all the scores.  I am now in the middle of some serious study.  I’ve been through all 10 and Das Lied, and am starting over with M1.  I am forcing myself to put some thoughts down on each -- this of course forces me to make this music mine.  That said, I shall not become as familiar as some with not only this music, but also all the recorded performances of it.  That is why I’m here.

Just as he predicted, Mahler’s time has come.  

[stillivor]

Greetings John and a most interesting start.

It is so interesting to see how individual all our paths are.



    Ivor

[john haueisen]

John and Ivor,

Yes, it is so interesting to hear how each of us "comes to Mahler."
Yes, I'm a bit obsessive about this music, but I still feel as if I have been blessed by the gods to have been allocated the grace to appreciate and come to love Mahler's connection that is for me above and beyond our daily world.

John Haueisen

[Phoenix]

It's funny, but I was actually thinking of posting a queston just like this when I saw Leo's post.  I have certainly enjoyed reading the responses.  Many of which have brought tears to my eyes. 

Back in 1968 when I was 18 when I babysat for a coworker.  She had a RCA classical sampler that contained Leinsdorf's M1, 2nd movement.  I had read about Mahler in Stereo Review so was intrigued to hear what he sounded like.  I was so taken by the music that I immediately ordered the Solti M1 & M9 (the recordings had received a "Recording of Special Merit" in Stereo Review).  Now, can two symphonies be so different?  However, I loved both of them.  "And the rest is history," as they say.

There is an antedote I would like to share, however.  While in Vietnam in '69/70, the Armed Forces Radio and Television (AFRTS - we pronounced it "A-FARTS") would run some classical program that would start with a collage of music.  A very short segment of the collage was Lennie conducting something that was fantastic.  Didn't know what the music was from, but knew I had to find out.

While home on leave from 'Nam, I decided to pull out one of the Mahler symphonies I had purchased before going to 'Nam, the 4th.  Now, I hadn't gotten into the 4th like I had the 1st, 2nd, 7th, & 9th.  The 4th was, well...b-o-r-i-n-g.  (Keep in mind that at the time I listened to my LPs on a tiny Arvin (I think that was the brand name) record destroyer.)  So, here I was listening to the 4th while catching up on my Stereo Review reading when suddenly, there it was, the music I had heard Lennie conduct on AFRTS!    It was the coda to the 3rd movement!  Needless to say, I listened to the 4th with new ears from that point onward. 

[ysph]

My discovery of Mahler happened about a decade ago when I was in my late teens. Prior to that time, I had begun my exploring of music online with the intent of expanding my knowledge from a historical as well as technical standpoint. I sampled music from a variety of genres, and "classical" was on my list of things to try. At the time, I enjoyed novelty and chromaticism. Recently I heard discussion on radiolab of research that indicates our brains have certain features which seek to make sense out of even the most discordant patterns in music, and it is that process of making sense that some people find exhilarating. To give an idea of my musical sensibilities, I greatly enjoy late era Coltrane with all of its seemingly chaotic and frenetic structures.

Back to the topic at hand, my first Mahler purchase was almost Kubelik's M1, due to the raving reviews on Amazon, but I was intrigued by the differences of opinion regarding Boulez's CSO M1, with some regarding it as cold and analytical and others finding it to be cathartic. And so it was, my first exposure to Mahler came through Boulez's interpretation of M1. Like others, I too was fascinated by the grotesque nature of the third movement and found it delightful. Back then, I was only interested in symphonies, and I had an aversion to vocal and choral pieces. Therefore, I avoided M2, 3, 4, and 8, plus the songs. Looking back, how foolish of me! For M5, 6, 7, and 9, I decided to stick with Boulez. They were only digested in small pieces. I remember particularly enjoying the first movement of M9. Over the years my musical tastes evolved, and I went through any number of fads, but I always came back to Mahler.

Over the past two years I've started to develop a more serious appreciation and a closer relationship to his music. For the first time, I was brought to tears by M2 and M3, (Walter NYP and Chailly RCO), and Boulez's M6. I recently received the EMI 150th anniversary box set, and have made it just to M3, but will press on. If I am ever to learn any music in great depth, I think it should be Mahler. My thoughts aren't well organized, but it is hard to imagine a more genuine expression of hope in the face of reality than I've found in Mahler. It is heartwarming to know that people from many different backgrounds have found a common source of joy in experiencing this music.

[waderice]

Over the past two years I've started to develop a more serious appreciation and a closer relationship to his music. For the first time, I was brought to tears by M2 and M3, (Walter NYP and Chailly RCO), and Boulez's M6. I recently received the EMI 150th anniversary box set, and have made it just to M3, but will press on. If I am ever to learn any music in great depth, I think it should be Mahler. My thoughts aren't well organized, but it is hard to imagine a more genuine expression of hope in the face of reality than I've found in Mahler. It is heartwarming to know that people from many different backgrounds have found a common source of joy in experiencing this music.

You're doing fine - just keep headed in the direction you're going, but don't let it stop with Mahler.  You'll eventually need to learn about what composers influenced Mahler, particularly Wagner.  And you need to learn about Mahler's contemporary, Richard Strauss.  All of the big names who wrote classical orchestral music worked off of their forebears and went down their own roads in their contributions to that genre.

Wade

[ysph]

Hi Wade,

Your advice is appreciated. I have started to research Mahler's musical contemporaries and forebears, as well as other prominent conductors and their stylistic progeny. This will certainly keep me busy for quite some time! I cannot however imagine a better hobby. As a programmer and web developer, I hope that my studies will eventually allow me to construct a resource that will prove valuable to others in navigating the same territory.

[Clov]

I'd discovered classical music at 15 years old. Though as a child with a good ear, I'd find myself immersed in the music from films, at about six years of age the ape scene in 2001 playing R. Strauss made a overpowering euphoria throughout my body. When the Cape Fear remake came out on cable, I made a crude recording of the score directly from the tv speakers. At 15, after discovering much such music existed, I'd bought some very inexpensive import cds under the Pilz label, Mahle's Titan was one of them. I instintly loved the light waltzlish movement and upon memorizing the furious opening to the finally, loved it also. The next thing I'd heard from Mahler was the opening to the fifth.  I new Mahler was profoundly grave and highly idiosyncratic a composer. He became my favorite rather quickly. Though it was his bombastic side and sensual klessmeresque nature I'd liked initially, I've learned to love all of his sound universe.

[Constantin]

Wade, ysph, and Clov:  Good points about the benefits of hearing the music of Mahler's contemporaries.

As you did, Clov, the first time I heard Strauss' Also Sprach Zarathustra (2001), I was struck by the idea that the music was saying something important.
I'm still trying to articulate the similarities between Strauss and Mahler.  So far, the best I can do is to suggest that for me at least, Mahler is much more personal in what he speaks.

Does anyone else have any ideas concerning the similarities and differences between Mahler and Strauss?

[waderice]

I'm still trying to articulate the similarities between Strauss and Mahler.  So far, the best I can do is to suggest that for me at least, Mahler is much more personal in what he speaks.

Yes, virtually all of Mahler's music came from within.  Though both were composition masters, Strauss didn't have the personal issues that Mahler did when it came to composition.  As a result, Strauss tended to compose and orchestrate moreso to impress, as opposed to wanting to deliver a profound statement, as did Mahler.  It wasn't until about the last decade of Strauss' life that the impending aura of taking leave of this world affected his compositional outlook.  One example of a work he wrote in his last decade was Metamorphosen, for strings, which contains a quote from his earlier tone poem, Death and Transfiguration.  The signature work he wrote as his farewell to the world was the Four Last Songs.

Years ago, I had the privilege of hearing renown German soprano, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, sing the Four Last Songs in a live concert here in Washington, DC, with Antal Dorati conducting the National Symphony Orchestra.  That concert also featured the legendary Also sprach Zarathustra.  If you want a famous recording of the Four Last Songs, get the EMI one with Schwarzkopf singing them with George Szell conducting.  Also, there is the recording of the premiere performance of the work shortly after Strauss' death, with Kirsten Flagstad singing and Wilhelm Furtwangler conducting.

Wade

[Constantin]

I'm still trying to articulate the similarities between Strauss and Mahler.  So far, the best I can do is to suggest that for me at least, Mahler is much more personal in what he speaks.

Yes, virtually all of Mahler's music came from within.  Though both were composition masters, Strauss didn't have the personal issues that Mahler did when it came to composition.  As a result, Strauss tended to compose and orchestrate moreso to impress, as opposed to wanting to deliver a profound statement, as did Mahler.  It wasn't until about the last decade of Strauss' life that the impending aura of taking leave of this world affected his compositional outlook.  One example of a work he wrote in his last decade was Metamorphosen, for strings, which contains a quote from his earlier tone poem, Death and Transfiguration.  The signature work he wrote as his farewell to the world was the Four Last Songs.

Years ago, I had the privilege of hearing renown German soprano, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, sing the Four Last Songs in a live concert here in Washington, DC, with Antal Dorati conducting the National Symphony Orchestra.  That concert also featured the legendary Also sprach Zarathustra.  If you want a famous recording of the Four Last Songs, get the EMI one with Schwarzkopf singing them with George Szell conducting.  Also, there is the recording of the premiere performance of the work shortly after Strauss' death, with Kirsten Flagstad singing and Wilhelm Furtwangler conducting.

Wade

You've expressed that very well, Wade.  I agree about how Strauss wrote more to impress audiences (and to make money!), until his later years.
His final opera, Capriccio (1942) was a mature look back on his long, successful career as a composer, and on what opera (and life?) was all about.

I can imagine what delight you have to have a memory of Schwarzkopf singing his Four Last Songs.

[barry guerrero]

I'm not sure I agree with these generalities. Strauss took the Nietzsche business quite seriously. Furthermore, I think he took the whole concept of 'tone poems' quite seriously as well. As opposed to Mahler, Strauss was trying to present 'late romantic' orchestral writing in a more concentrated form. I really don't belive that this is something that Strauss took lightly at all. There's no question that he meant to shock with both "Salome" and "Elektra". The "Alpen Sinfonie" - a work that is often time poo-poo'd as a lightweight - is now thought to be something of a tribute to Mahler. There's no question that Strauss bordered on the frivolous from time to time (Rosenkavalier comes across that way to me), but Mahler built his frivolous moments into his symphonies. Furthermore, Mahler also became quite concerned about money himself, once he finally started earning some serious coin (and had a family to care for). I think far too much has been made of this idea that Strauss was in it, 'mostly for the money'. That also begs the question, what's wrong with that?

I think a more accurate description of the Mahler/Strauss relationship came from Mahler himself, when he stated that he and Strauss were boring tunnels towards the same goal from opposite ends of a mountain (something along those lines).

Barry