gustavmahlerboard.com
General Category => Gustav Mahler and Related Discussions => Topic started by: John Kim on March 01, 2010, 10:56:22 PM
-
Are they??
I don't see any of the highly esteemed politicians, world class university professors, world famous actors (except for Alec Baldwin), etc, being Mahler lovers. It seems whoever love Mahler, except for the musicians, are all losers one way or another. I know I am creating a huge controversy here, but cannot help but thinking this is the case. Those who are regarded as 'successful' men in the mundane world don't know about Mahler, never care about Mahler. Why is this? Is knowing Mahler and his music defeating, and going against being successful?
John,
-
Well, I've never been put down by anyone for liking Mahler, and I wouldn't think of myself as a loser because I have some culture, or at least know a thing or two about what's out there. If anything it's not Mahler as much as my CD and LP collection that turns heads...most think one recording of the M9 is enough. So yeah, in this case I'm seen as a Mahler "nerd" rather than a loser.
I think it is a the fact that not many folks have a deep knowledge of Classical Music to know much besides the usual Mozart and Ludwig Van or Bach...the world class professionals I happen to know at the hospital just seem to like lighter entertainment, broadway shows that end happily or comedy fare. Most of these folks have heard of Mahler but he just doesn't appeal to them. I think most would prefer not to have a large Mahler work on a program.
--Todd
-
Thanks Todd.
I should have used 'nerd' rather than loser. But my point was that I cannot seem to find a good intellect who enjoys Mahler within the area I can live. It's like running into a rat on a desert. I consider myself an intellect because I have a high tech job and make living based on that. I have a Ph.D. from MIT (to surprise some of you) in Engineering and I've been listening to Mahler since I was 14. But it's pretty darn difficult to find anybody around me with whom I can chat about Mahler and his music. As soon as I mention Mahler some would turn their heads away with Arggggggh (I guess at least they know who Mahler is, ah?). It's only through this faceless Internet that I am connected to my dear fellows. Try a CEO, a professor, a writer, an actor, I bet you'd never run into a true Mahlerite. I bet they don't even know classical music and yet consider themselves as elites. How embarrassing!
Blessed are thy not knowing Mahler!
John,
-
John, the ignorant are everywhere - poor souls :D
The Mahler evangelization society meets this evening in my living room - bring recordings. Strange, fermented fluids are acceptable...
dj
-
Try a CEO, a professor, a writer, an actor, I bet you'd never run into a true Mahlerite. I bet they don't even know classical music and yet consider themselves as elites. How embarrassing!
Blessed are thy not knowing Mahler!
John,
Generally speaking, I would not classify an actor as any sort of intellectual at all, so they are no loss, IMO. There is a talented sci-fi writer named Harlan Ellison who is a Mahlerian. In one of his books called Shatterday (His books are usually anthologies of his short stories) he included a semi-biographical story called All the Lies That Are My Life. The hero, based on Ellison is listening to a Mahler symphony in his car when he is killed in a traffic accident. I once attended a sci-fi convention because Ellison was there and he read that story aloud. Also, in the question and answer period, he mentioned liking Mahler and Charles Ives (sorry, can't agree on Ives-I've never cared for him).
I recommend Ellison's short stories. They are not strictly sci-fi (he hates the term). Ellison himself comes off as an obnoxious jerk in real life, and is always suing somebody. But he wrote some good stories. I do not always agree with his worldview, but can admire his work, nonetheless.
-
Even in my line of work (higher education), it's pretty rare to come across someone with an interest in classical music, let alone Mahler. And even when I do, they're nowhere near as crazy as I am (or anyone else on this board ;D).
Russell
-
Todd, David, Damfino, and Russell,
I agree with you all in your observations.
What really bothers me is that 99% of the individuals who are regarded as 'successful' in the mundane sense don't seem to have a clue about classical music, let alone Mahler. On the other hand, the Mahlerites I ran across (on rare occasions) aren't necessarily in this group of people in the society. Why is this? Are there 'defeating' or 'paralyzing' effects in Mahler's music? Is it that if I keep listening to Mahler I will be less successful in my career?
By the same token, if someone appreciates and enjoys reading classical literature will he be less successful?
It all seems so, based on what I have observed and experienced. Our society is so industrialized and mechanized that it shows little tolerances to people like us. That's what pisses me off.
John,
-
John,
Mahler was a nerd, and so was every other great composer. Nerds are the ones who have carried on with culture through generations. The uneducated people, unfortunately, leave behind only copies of themselves through procreation, or images of themselves in old tabloids and magazines.
The calamity of our civilization, is that the latter far outnumbers the former.
Nerd1952 (and proud of it.)
-
The calamity of our civilization, is that the latter far outnumbers the former.
And that the latter is what is seen to be preferable to aspire to.
I don't mind being a nerd - a Mahler nerd, an airplane nerd, a Shostakovich nerd, a train nerd, and computer nerd...I don't care.
It'd be nice to know one or two other nerds though :(
-
John, look around the next time you go to the symphony or the opera. Check out the people in the best seats. Look at the jewelry their wives wear. Look in the programs and see the list of well-heeled successful people who have made huge donations to the arts. There are certainly a great deal of successful people who are into classical music.
You are correct that most people are not into classical music, let alone Mahler. I read an article recently that showed how shockingly few copies of classical CDs sell. Classical Artists Such as Hilary Hahn Chart Big on Billboard With Little Sales (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904193.html)
We are living at a time when the most popular form of "music" does not even have any discernible musical content at all.
-
And that the latter is what is seen to be preferable to aspire to.
Preferable to who? Other imbeciles? The TV horde? Why do you care?
Do you want to end up with dumb-ass twits for friends? Do you want to marry or date one?
-
Absolutely, I do NOT think Mahlerites are losers!
Mahlerites are individuals who have an acute sense of what and how the world functions (or dysfunctions, if you want). They are all the more richer for what they see, experience, and know about life. If there were more individuals with sensibilities of Mahlerites, the world would be a much better place in which to live. That's not to say that everyone need have a bleak outlook on life. All people, regardless of where they come from, want to live happy, fulfilled lives. It's all a matter of peoples' origins and what they do (or don't do) to overcome the negative, or bad origins. Even Mahler himself, didn't consider himself a loser, but he had a tremendous number of psychological hurdles to overcome, which as everyone knows, he didn't. The ones who don't (or haven't) had negative life experiences to overcome are those who do not possess sensitivity to life's negative experiences.
Wade
-
The only true Mahlerite I've met, outside of the time I spent at boarding school, is the health inspector that stops by my restaurant. He's been listening and studying Mahler for over 50 years. He's all I can talk to in my little corner of Michigan.
-
Now, before this topic goes to even more self-deluding posts of what great bunch of people Mahler-listeners are, or some more unfounded elitism in the wrong sense, perhaps it's time to remember that someone's music listening habit doesn't say anything about its qualities as a person.
-
Now, before this topic goes to even more self-deluding posts of what great bunch of people Mahler-listeners are, or some more unfounded elitism in the wrong sense, perhaps it's time to remember that someone's music listening habit doesn't say anything about its qualities as a person.
I guess it depends on how you define "the qualities as a person".
Personality? Ability to succeed? His position in the society? How nice he is as a human being? etc.
John,
-
Speaking of personality vs. listening habit, I've seen classical music lovers with aggressive, nasty personalities whom on the surface it was pretty difficult to imagine as such. Even myself have often been criticized to be such :P :-[.
So, I guess there might not be all that much linear correlation between the two in that sense.
John,
-
I guess I'm lucky. I have several friends with whom I can talk classical music in general and Mahler in specific. And though none of them (us) is rich or famous, I wouldn't call us losers or even nerds (perhaps my accordion collection puts the lie to that).
A few weeks ago in the balcony of Carnegie Hall for Mahler 1 (Pittsburgh), the audience seemed to be filled with real enthusiasts who really "got" it.
db
-
In mathematical terms, if I define,
A: knowing classical music
B: being a nice person
then A is NEITHER a sufficient NOR a necessary condition for B.
I have just proved it could never be the sufficient condition by my own experience.
The reverse - the necessary cond. - is not true either in general. BUT IT WOULD BE nice if it were. That is, how nice it would be if a nice person always knows classical music!
John,
-
I think I'm a loser, to some extent, but I don't think that Mahler has anything to do with it. I've been "downsized", and have had my fair share of health problems. But on the plus side of the ledger, I've had a number of incredible experiences that were directly linked to Gustav Mahler - having to do with encounters that were pure coincidence, as well as some of the incredible "live performance" situations I've been involved in. Whatever faults and flaws I may possess, I can't blame them on Mahler.
San Francisco has become a big Mahler town - too much so, in some respects - and so it goes that a number of powerful and influential people very much like Mahler in this city. I find that to be a bit less true down the peninsula, as people's tastes are a bit more conservative around Palo Alto and San Jose. The "east bay" - forget it!
There's something wrong with the water from East Bay M.U.D., as I find that east bay people (Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, San Leandro, etc.) often times have emotional problems, and think nothing of acting their problems out on the streets, or in shops. There's a lot of bad, public theater. I think Mahler could actually help them, if they would just give it a chance. S.F. is a tougher city but in a different way, so there's just less time, room, and tolerance for such behavior. It's more like N.Y. in that sense.
Marin county (north of the G.G. Bridge) . . . forget it! Nice people, but they're still into New Age. Actually, jazz is fairly strong in Marin AND the east bay. I've got to applaud them for that.
-
Now, before this topic goes to even more self-deluding posts of what great bunch of people Mahler-listeners are, or some more unfounded elitism in the wrong sense, perhaps it's time to remember that someone's music listening habit doesn't say anything about its qualities as a person.
I guess it depends on how you define "the qualities as a person".
Personality? Ability to succeed? His position in the society? How nice he is as a human being? etc.
John,
Indeed, I wasn't clear enough! I was thinking of the latter; the way you wrote in a subsequent post.
-
Excellent comments by all posters!
If I can be permitted to be a real nerd, I would add that my relationship to Mahler's music is almost religious or at least mystical or spiritual, in that I thank God for the grace to allow me (and many of the folks here at the Board!) to appreciate Mahler's music as even more than music. For me, it is nearly a connection to God, however we may define him.
If this makes some of us appear as nerds or losers, it is only because we do not obsess over the values so important to many in our materialistic world.
OK. I realize that many are put off by any kind of mention of religion or a belief in a Higher Intelligence, but won't most of you at least agree that Mahler's music is unique especially in its capacity to mean more to some individuals than mere entertainment?
--John Haueisen
-
OK. I realize that many are put off by any kind of mention of religion or a belief in a Higher Intelligence, but won't most of you at least agree that Mahler's music is unique especially in its capacity to mean more to some individuals than mere entertainment?
--John Haueisen
Yes, indeed, even as an atheist there is something more in the sound world of Mahler that puts it above "mere entertainment" for me as well, but not exclusively so. There are quite a few composers and pieces of music that have the same effect on me in from a variety of time and style.
-
Yes indeed, Zoltan!
Continuing the religious metaphor, perhaps that it why there are so many religions--different voices to address similar concepts.
-
We are all losers one way or another. We never win. We always lose. Only the greedy corporations, murky conspirators, corrupt politicians, sly opportunists win in this world which has turned its back on people like us long time ago.
Mahler would be a very unhappy man were he alive today. He would compose a symphony with double the length of the Third, double the agony and sadness of the Sixth and Ninth, with a note on its final page, "Oh, Shit!"
John,
-
yes, but auf Deutsch, that would be "ach, scheisse!" ;)
John, lighten up. Three years after Mahler's death was the beginning of WWI. That wasn't exactly a jolly good time for everybody either. And don't forget the Spanish influenza of 1918.
-
I've been waiting to reply to this one until I had time to read all of the responses, just so I wouldn't miss anything. So, here goes.
As far as Mahlerites being "losers" I would passionately disagree. I would not mind the classification as a "nerd," but Loser...no...because there are all kinds of people who are passionate about one thing or another. Oh, and by the way, I'm glad I am not the only person who loves trains! ;-)
I have been put down in school for liking classical music, obviously in classes other than orchestra. (For those of you who didn't know already, I am a junior in high school.)
Classical music is one of those things that is not a part of the mainstream world; it requires explination, never more so than in the case of Mahler. One must have experience with the harder aspects of life to fully appreciate Mahler's music, especially the Sixth and the Ninth. As for me, I discovered Mahler at a turning point in my life, so...yeah...LOL
-
Classical music is one of those things that is not a part of the mainstream world; it requires explination, never more so than in the case of Mahler. One must have experience with the harder aspects of life to fully appreciate Mahler's music, especially the Sixth and the Ninth.
Precisely!
"The harder aspects of life"
Those who are so happy and successful in their lives simply won't need to listen to Mahler.
I know of no 'big figure' in my professional field who knows and listens to Mahler's music. It simply doesn't reach their minds. Doesn't need to.
John,
-
Classical music is one of those things that is not a part of the mainstream world; it requires explination, never more so than in the case of Mahler. One must have experience with the harder aspects of life to fully appreciate Mahler's music, especially the Sixth and the Ninth.
Precisely!
"The harder aspects of life"
Those who are so happy and successful in their lives simply won't need to listen to Mahler.
I know of no 'big figure' in my professional field who knows and listens to Mahler's music. It simply doesn't reach their minds. Doesn't need to.
John,
Listening to Mahler does not mean that you are a loser, or unsuccessful, or anything else negative. It means, most likely, that you are a sensative person who has had experience with hardships in life somewhere along the way. It *does not* mean that you are unsuccessful in a particular area of life or in life as a whole--please, trust me on that. Success is not always easy. In fact, in a lot of instances, it is downright difficult and seems impossible.
For some, true success is easy; for others, it is just the opposite. Please trust me on this, too--I can speak from experience. But it is attainable, of that I am sure. At the end of the day, success is success and ultimately it is in the eye of the beholder. Do you try to do the best you can? Do you try to achieve your goals? Are you happy with your life in general?
I would look to your answers to those questions to determine if you are a "loser" or not before I would look at whether you do or do not listen to Mahler. And, quite honestly, I would reserve the term "loser" for a criminal who has murdered people or something similar.
I hope this post isn't as disjointed as I feel it is. What I am trying to get across here John is that listening to Mahler's music does not make you a loser. You just have different priorities from those you know who do not listen to the stuff. That's all.
-
Michael,
I've been working this evening to come up with a response to this thread, the original premise of which I reject utterly, and while I've been struggling with words, you've just said everything that needs to be said. My hat is off to you and your remarkable maturity and insight.
James
-
Alright, alright, I was just whining ::) :-[ :(.
It's time for Mahlerites to be happy and successful!!! >:( :)
John,
-
Thank you, James!
What I say now I am not saying out of an attempt to brag or anything. People have told me that I have a lot of insight into things and life in general. I take meaning from everything, which I suppose comes from my blindness--and the effect it has had on my life--and is one of the reasons I do not particularly care for today's society where there seems to be a prevalence of meaningless interaction.
Last week I was in conversation with someone many years my senior, and he told me what I already mentioned above, but added this: having increased insight into things can lead to difficult findings.
Mahler was one of those people who, I think, looked deeply into the meaning behind everyday life and the complex questions associated with it.
I for one think the reason I enjoy Mahler's music is because it faces head-on the vital questions of life and death, love and loss, triumph and tragedy. It characterizes the human condition and only those people who are going through difficulties, or who can relate to his music in some way, will, I think, fully enjoy it. Case in point: I enjoy M6 and M9 because those questions are some of the types of questions I am dealing with. Well, not the life and death part, but the rest are very applicable. The others I have not explored yet really, because I honestly do not think I can ingest any more Mahlerian emotion quite yet. LOL!
-
Yes! ;D
Just kidding - no way man! We are a special breed - yes, we do tinker on a Star Trek like fanatisicm, but who cares?
There is more artistic value in 5 minutes of a Mahler symphony than what most folks listen to in an entire year. Don't believe me? Country and Western is the most popular form of music in the states....... 'Nuff said.
Having said all that, I do find that Mahler fans can be snobbish as hell when it comes to specific recordings/orchestras/conductors - way more than any other composer I can think of. I'm not sure exactly why, but all one needs to do is start reading reviews on Amazon and you'll see what I mean.
-
Right from the word go I took classical music to be serious stuff. Then i found that the mighty BBC devoted a whole radio station mostly to c.m. Next were my first visit to The proms in London, and I saw thousands of c.m. enthusiasts. I bought the Musical Companion edited by bacharach, which laid out the repertoire brilliantly. I became aware that c.m. was an important element of our civilisation, along with Literature, Art and rest of the Arts.
I never thought otherwise about c.m. until recent years when, owing to the increasing populism of the mass media, cl.m. seemed to be being sidelined. Yet concerts get attended, more and more ensembles form, CDs etc. pour from the 'press', we have the quite stunning revelation that is the Simon Bolivar Orchestra of venezuela. And we've had progs on the Beeb like The Choir , Singing estate, From Popstar to Opera-star, all showing that millions of people can find plenty in cl.m. given the right circs.
And have you played any of the videos of Mahler on YouTube performed by youngsters from around the world, and some of the tingl;ing comments that viewers post? (e.g."Mahler is so great it's not funny" - marvellous.)
I discovered Mahler about 3 years into my introduction to cl.m., and soon found, in a mostly emotional and hedonistic way, that G.M. grabbed me like I'd never been grabbed before.
No doubt it was my loner tendency that kept me from the snobbery and the nerdism for a long time. His music was simply top of the league for me.
Later i became aware that some Mahler scholars were taking immense pains to get all mahleriana as accurate as poss - I mean look at Cooke's tremendous pains and purity about the performing version of the 10th and de la Grange's extraordinary biographical labours.
Finally I discover writers who place Mahler centrally as a major influence.
I ignore the snobbery, the politics quite happily, except to see what i can learn from the preferences and passions of others. Mahler can take it all, he's bigger than most.
As long as people are interested in music as something far more than merely entertainment, then mahler will be played and listened to and studied and examined and then played some more. Those who don't like it, well there are lifetimes of other stuff. You can't please all the people all the time.
And goodness does he know how to entertain, too.
Ivor
-
Mahler addicts are 'likely' to 'become' losers for one very obvious reason:
Listening to the music for much of your time will rob you of valuable time that you could use towards advancing your career and promotion. This is why those who are most successful don't know, don't listen to classical music; they simply don't have time for all that.
It's just one reason and there are other reasons.
John,
-
Listening to the music for much of your time will rob you of valuable time that you could use towards advancing your career and promotion. This is why those who are most successful don't know, don't listen to classical music; they simply don't have time for all that.
Unless you can do the two things at the same time - listening & working - and keep your brain straight and sane ;D ;D.
John,
-
Listening to the music for much of your time will rob you of valuable time that you could use towards advancing your career and promotion. This is why those who are most successful don't know, don't listen to classical music; they simply don't have time for all that.
From this, it boils down to "balance of life" issues. If you don't experience life on "both sides of the fence", you haven't lived life.
Wade
-
Listening to the music for much of your time will rob you of valuable time that you could use towards advancing your career and promotion. This is why those who are most successful don't know, don't listen to classical music; they simply don't have time for all that.
From this, it boils down to "balance of life" issues. If you don't experience life on "both sides of the fence", you haven't lived life.
Wade
Right you are. But the world seems to favor those brainless, emotionless idiots, not us.
I mean, putting "I love and enjoy Mahler" in your resume doesn't help.
John, whining :P :-[.
-
John Kim wrote:
I mean, putting "I love and enjoy Mahler" in your resume doesn't help.
John, whining :P :-[.
[/quote]
But one good thing that can come from mentioning an appreciation of Mahler is that you can sometimes meet other people who share the joy that by the grace of God (or just pure chance) they've come to hear on a higher plane.
-
I've found this discussion interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, I don't think it has much to do with Mahler specifically. If you tell most people that you are a fan of any composer, or even just generally, that you love classical music, you'll likely get blank stares. You'd likely get the same kind of reaction by saying "I'm play World of Warcraft" or "I love bass fishing" or "I write poetry."
Second, the fact is, the majority of people go to work, eat some dinner, watch mindless crap on TV, the go to bed. Computer nerds will do stuff on their computer instead of watching TV. Politicians will be involved in social functions, then go to bed.
The vast majority of people do not and have never read Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or Goethe, do not and have never listened to Taneyev or Raff or Chausson, do not and have never see an exhibit of Chihuly or Frankenthaler or Dali, do not and have never enjoyed fine wine, artisan cheeses, gourmet meals.
In fact, I'd bet that the number of people on this board who have ever done any othese things is small. So, why would you expect people at your workplace to share your interest in Mahler?
Mahler fans are no more losers than fans of Chateau Montelena wines or Akira Kurosawa movies.
All that said, I do think mention of Mahler does raise specific images for some people. Those who have little patience for anything too intellectual, who escape into South Park and CSI, but who have heard Mahler, may think of Mahler as long, very long, slow moving, tedious, turgid and above all, *depressing*. You must remember that, fo most people, music is not all that important. Mahler requires time and attention, two commodities that many people value much more highly than sitting through a symphony, and especially a long, turgid, depressing symphony.
-
I've found this discussion interesting for a couple of reasons.
First, I don't think it has much to do with Mahler specifically. If you tell most people that you are a fan of any composer, or even just generally, that you love classical music, you'll likely get blank stares. You'd likely get the same kind of reaction by saying "I'm play World of Warcraft" or "I love bass fishing" or "I write poetry."
Second, the fact is, the majority of people go to work, eat some dinner, watch mindless crap on TV, the go to bed. Computer nerds will do stuff on their computer instead of watching TV. Politicians will be involved in social functions, then go to bed.
The vast majority of people do not and have never read Shakespeare or Dostoevsky or Goethe, do not and have never listened to Taneyev or Raff or Chausson, do not and have never see an exhibit of Chihuly or Frankenthaler or Dali, do not and have never enjoyed fine wine, artisan cheeses, gourmet meals.
In fact, I'd bet that the number of people on this board who have ever done any othese things is small. So, why would you expect people at your workplace to share your interest in Mahler?
Mahler fans are no more losers than fans of Chateau Montelena wines or Akira Kurosawa movies.
All that said, I do think mention of Mahler does raise specific images for some people. Those who have little patience for anything too intellectual, who escape into South Park and CSI, but who have heard Mahler, may think of Mahler as long, very long, slow moving, tedious, turgid and above all, *depressing*. You must remember that, fo most people, music is not all that important. Mahler requires time and attention, two commodities that many people value much more highly than sitting through a symphony, and especially a long, turgid, depressing symphony.
In other words, the world is wrong and we're right. ;D ;D
John,
-
My advice to all:
If you want to be "successful" in this mundane world, don't listen to Mahler too much.
John,
-
No, I wouldn't define Mahlerites as losers (although I can only speak for myself as literally nobody in high school has the faintest idea as to what classical music is- let alone Mahler- and am yet to meet anybody else with a similar passion for him). However, I will admit to being a big nerd. But even if people don't get my incessant ramblings about music, that is okay because I genuinely love the experiences that I have had. Ever since I discovered Mahler after hearing the first symphony performed a year ago I have been hooked! I have always been a huge fan of classical music but with Mahler it is different because there is so much honesty and beauty (et cetera!) in his work and his personality. Listening to his music and reading about him have vastly changed my perception of his time period and my taste in classical music.
-
I've been trying to stay out of this topic. But, for what it's worth, I think both John Kim AND Amphissa are correct in their observations. In my case, spending soooooo much time listening to music has certainly kept me from improving my brain in ways that could be a help to my pocketbook. Even worse, is the amount of time I spend blogging here about Mahler. Just think of the time YOU'RE wasting by reading my drivel. Sheeeeeeesh. :o
-
So, you're in high school, too? I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who loves Mahler! :)
-
Drivel??????
I would NEVER refer to Barry's insightful, enlightening, and informed comments as drivel.
Yes, we could all probably spend our time in directions that would lead to more financial rewards, but I would never want to trade my appreciation for Mahler's music for mere financial gain. A loaf of bread, a jug of wine, and Mahler and Mahlerians!
--John Haueisen
-
Yep!
-
What year?
That's awesome to see another Mahler fanatic in high school...
Do you have a favorite M6?
-
Sophomore. Oh that's a tough one... probably Chailly and RCO. But 6 isn't my favorite so I don't have quite as many recordings of it as I should. I'll have to investigate... any suggestions?
-
Sophomore. Oh that's a tough one... probably Chailly and RCO. But 6 isn't my favorite so I don't have quite as many recordings of it as I should. I'll have to investigate... any suggestions?
Mackerras/BBC Philharmonic (crops up on ebay occasionally)
Boulez/Vienna Philharmonic
Bernstein/Vienna Philharmonic (I can't abide the tempo of the first movement, but it is a vigorous performance)
Zinman/Zurich Tonhalle (for me the slow Scherzo is a negative, but I really like the first movement and overall sound)
Delfs/Milwaukee SO (mp3 download from MSO store)
-
Thanks; I'll check those out soon. (listening to the third movement now)
-
I was able to request the Boulez and the Bernstein from my library; I'll post when they come in and I have the chance to listen.
-
I won't claim to be a score purist or music theory scholar, but after listening to Abbado, Barbiroli, Cortese, Haenchen, Karajan, Levi, Levine/LSO, Herbig, Haitink/CSO, Fischer, Gergiev, Rattle, Segerstam, Tennstedt, Thomas, Wit, Zander, etc., I've settled on my preferences as listed (with versions by Jansons(LSO), Farberman, and Bertini in the 'honorable mention' category). My first recording of this symphony was the Abbado/CSO on LP. Over time I found that a 'bright' performance simply didn't work for me (though their M5 is still fine). The more recent Abbado/BPO or Abbado/LFO are held up as a models by some, but they, too, simply were not dark and angry enough. Instead, I think a deep, rich sound really suits the M6, hence the appeal of the Bernstein and Boulez recommendations. (The MSO recording satisfies in this regard, too.) The bells need to be really 'organic': if you've listened to a real herd of livestock with bells, you know what to listen for in the pastoral interludes: more clunk than ping and tinkle. Also, I'm a A/S and 3 hammers heretic/hypocrite: as quickly as I'll assert his own performances as justification for the A/S order, I'll cite my personal preference for the three-strikes-and-you're-out treatment for the hammer blows (especially since the last one comes unexpectedly and devilishly late upon the already-staggering victim). It's no small satisfaction that Mackerras, Bernstein(VPO), Schwarz, Levine(BSO), and Delfs all saw fit to include three hammer blows in their latter renditions.
-
...(especially since the last one comes unexpectedly and devilishly late upon the already-staggering victim). It's no small satisfaction that Mackerras, Bernstein(VPO), Schwarz, Levine(BSO), and Delfs all saw fit to include three hammer blows in their latter renditions.
This raises an interesting question. Yes, the third hammer blow is supposed to "come unexpectedly and devilishly late," at seven measures before figure [165]. So why did Bernstein in his 1988 Vienna recording put it ten bars too early, right at figure [164], exactly where it is expected? If you listen carefully, there's no doubt that he's done this—I've just never understood his reasoning.
James
-
Wish I had an answer, James. It's bothered me too.
-
As far as Bernstein's 1988 Vienna recording, I offer the following:
While Bernstein does make a lot of noise at figure 164, the place where the third hammer is to fall is marked by what sounds to me like a febal thump on a bass drum as well as the fate motif on timpani.
I personally am also a three hammer blow person in M6. In terms of recordings with all three hammers...Zander, Rattle, Levine (BSO), Solti, Bernstein (both), Schwarz, and oh don't let me forget the Delfs. Aside from Zander's Boston Philharmonic recording, the hammer blows in Delfs' MSO recording are some of the best I've heard--especially the last one! :D
How are the hammers in the Mackerras recording? I haven't heard much about that recording other than it's been out a while. As a general rule I wouldn't mind giving it a listen.
-
....the hammer blows in Delfs' MSO recording are some of the best I've heard--especially the last one! :D How are the hammers in the Mackerras recording?....
I think Mackerras' hammer blows are profound. I've just listened while referencing the Kahnt 1906 score in PDF that I downloaded. The first hammer is a powerful thud @ 12:37 (#129, hammer marked fff); the second is a deep thud with tam-tam @ 16:56 (#140 hammer marked ff); there's a broad, deep tam-tam @ 26:35 (#164) that is followed at 27:00 with a real deep explosion (hammer marked ff) with a rolling drum for the 3rd.
The Kahnt score shows the bass drum smack at #164 is marked forte with tam-tam and rolling timpani, and ten bar later the 3rd hammer blow is accompanied by a rolling snare while the timpani beats the fate motif. Could it be that the bass drum is simply too loud in Bernstein's recording?
-
The Kahnt score shows the bass drum smack at #164 is marked forte with tam-tam and rolling timpani, and ten bars later the 3rd hammer blow is accompanied by a rolling snare while the timpani beats the fate motif. Could it be that the bass drum is simply too loud in Bernstein's recording?
Russ,
I'm quite convinced that the extremely loud event at figure 164 in the Bernstein/Vienna recording is the third hammer blow. It exactly matches the tone quality of the earlier two hammer blows, and it doesn't sound anything like the Vienna bass drum even when that drum's played louder in other spots. Also, nothing happens seven measures before figure 165 in the recording which sounds anything like the earlier two hammer blows, even considering that the hammer might have been played at a lower dynamic level there (but of course hammer blow #3 is marked "fortissimo," so it should be just as loud as hammer blow #2—which the event at figure 164 is).
James
-
I just listened to the aforementioned passage of the Bernstein/Vienna recording. There is definitely some sort of a thud 7 measures before #165, right where that third hammer blow should be. It is almost inaudible but it is there--towards the right side, where as the timpani are on the left. It reminds me of Schwarz's third hammer blow in his version where I think he uses a bass drum, but again I am not sure.
-
I just listened to the aforementioned passage of the Bernstein/Vienna recording. There is definitely some sort of a thud 7 measures before #165, right where that third hammer blow should be. It is almost inaudible but it is there--towards the right side, where as the timpani are on the left. It reminds me of Schwarz's third hammer blow in his version where I think he uses a bass drum, but again I am not sure.
But all the hammer blows—including the third one at figure 164—are very clearly on the left side of the sound stage.
James
-
There may be something to John's idea because there is much mournfulness and nostalgia--generally not such adaptive emotions--and great inwardness in Mahler. These are not always the best orientations for getting on in that stupid world out there, where you have to make money, get along with people, etc.
-
That is a very good point. Mahler's music is so difficult to explain, or even understand, unless you have a bit of a background in the emotions he was dealing with.
I am in the process of writing a "farewell" editorial for my school's newspaper. I want to invoke Mahler's Ninth, especially since my feelings mirror those of the final movement, but I cannot seem to do it in under a page! ;-)
-
Exactly. When I first discovered Mahler after hearing his first symphony at a concert last May, I absolutely loved it. But now that he has become a full-blown obsession (sad but true) and I have done a considerable amount of reading, I understand where he is coming from and his music so much more.
Reading about editorials reminded of Mahler's quote “If a composer could say what he had to say in words he would not bother trying to say it in music.” :)
-
I don't see any of the highly esteemed politicians, world class university professors, world famous actors (except for Alec Baldwin), etc, being Mahler lovers.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/keating-promoted-culture-as-something-to-celebrate-20090915-fp5e.html
;)
-
Mahler addicts are 'likely' to 'become' losers for one very obvious reason:
Listening to the music for much of your time will rob you of valuable time that you could use towards advancing your career and promotion. This is why those who are most successful don't know, don't listen to classical music; they simply don't have time for all that.
It's just one reason and there are other reasons.
John,
HI John,
I'm a fellow MIT alum as well, although only for undergrad (course 2, I'm guessing you were course 6?), I was never the PhD let alone MS/MEng material! Not too many Mahler fans when I went there, sure, lots of musicians, but not too many Mahlerites.
I think you bring up a great point, and there have been great responses by Barry and Amphissa and everyone actually.
Without a doubt I agree with the observation that Mahlerites tend to be "losers". The activity of listening to music and collecting recordings of the same work is obsessive and at its very nature extremely anti-social. I think we can assume we all fall into this group since the threads here are comparative threads about Mahler recordings. Even if you go to concerts with other people, you're still going to experience something deeply personal that is not interactive.
While obsession can lead to success, in this specific case I don't think it does (unless your name is Tony Duggan and your only interaction is with Mahlerites!). Successful people and leaders usually don't spend time holed up in a room listening to music hours on hours comparing nuances between 10 recordings of the same piece. I do! I've been collecting music, specifically multiple recordings of the same piece, since I was about 16. I heard Mahler very young, around that age, and fell in love. I also loved Bruckner and Scriabin and Ravel. Classical music is already introspective, but these brutes take introspection to another level. And unfortunately introspection is rather anti-social, and at a young age won't bring you any closer to your goal of becoming a CEO, a business leader, or whatever you define as being a traditional embodiment of success.
As I've gotten older I have to admit that I am trying to shed this sort of behavior. It is very obsessive. My wife hates it when I put on headphones and listen to music, as she knows that I'm cutting myself off not only from her but from the real world. I also notice that very few women exhibit this sort of behavior (few? I've never heard of any to be honest), it is exclusively male. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it's ridiculous. I have at least 10 recordings of every Mahler symphony. Any normal person would say that is borderline crazy.
I also have a background in music, I studied music since 6, I wanted to become a pianist since high school, I just didn't have the discipline (listening to too many Mahler recordings when I should have been practicing!). None of my childhood friends who actually became professional classical musicians are obsessive about recordings or things like that. As a musician, I look at them as being successful - they are able to make a career out of the thing they love. They don't have their favorite Mahler this, conductor that, oh, nevermind... this topic is a whole different thread I think.
In a way music is not too dissimilar from drugs when taken to an extreme level. Mahler is extreme. Collecting Mahler is even more extreme. Seems like this board is a support group for our shared addiction. ;D ;D
-
As I've gotten older I have to admit that I am trying to shed this sort of behavior. It is very obsessive. My wife hates it when I put on headphones and listen to music, as she knows that I'm cutting myself off not only from her but from the real world. I also notice that very few women exhibit this sort of behavior (few? I've never heard of any to be honest), it is exclusively male. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it's ridiculous. I have at least 10 recordings of every Mahler symphony. Any normal person would say that is borderline crazy.
I had the rare and unusual treat of seeing Marin Alsop conduct the Baltimore Symphony in M9 two or three years ago, and I don't recall ever seeing any other female conductor (and I've seen a few women conduct symphony orchestras) put as much concentration, intensity, and sweat into conducting a work as difficult and all-consuming as this symphony is. Over the years in her development as a conductor, she's had to listen to numerous recordings of the work by various conductors, not to mention her teacher, Leonard Bernstein. And to top it all off, symphony management expected her to come back on stage after the concert to say a few words to the audience as well as to answer some questions, which she did. What dedication to her art and her career!
Wade
-
As I've gotten older I have to admit that I am trying to shed this sort of behavior. It is very obsessive. My wife hates it when I put on headphones and listen to music, as she knows that I'm cutting myself off not only from her but from the real world. I also notice that very few women exhibit this sort of behavior (few? I've never heard of any to be honest), it is exclusively male. I mean, in the grand scheme of things, it's ridiculous. I have at least 10 recordings of every Mahler symphony. Any normal person would say that is borderline crazy.
I had the rare and unusual treat of seeing Marin Alsop conduct the Baltimore Symphony in M9 two or three years ago, and I don't recall ever seeing any other female conductor (and I've seen a few women conduct symphony orchestras) put as much concentration, intensity, and sweat into conducting a work as difficult and all-consuming as this symphony is. Over the years in her development as a conductor, she's had to listen to numerous recordings of the work by various conductors, not to mention her teacher, Leonard Bernstein. And to top it all off, symphony management expected her to come back on stage after the concert to say a few words to the audience as well as to answer some questions, which she did. What dedication to her art and her career!
Wade
Wade, I talk about the negative effects of being an obsessive Mahlerite and you take the opportunity to share with us a story about a female conductor performing Mahler. I think the Mahleritis is strong in you!!!
-
I agree to some extent, but also disagree. "Anti-social" behavior is often times a label tossed around by people who take way too much time to communicate something simple, and also place a lot of value on yacking just for the sake of yacking - small talk, in other words. While not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, how's that being more productive than spending time on something that's an intellectual pursuit? As much as we talk about Mahler being 'emotional' music, it also has great intellectual appeal in my opinion. I think it's a mistake to begin discussing Mahler in purely emotional terms. That's just me.
If being a 'loser' means that one isn't spending ALL of their time either working, studying, or schmoozing with others, then I guess the world is full of all kinds of losers. At least 'Mahlerian' losers generally mind their own business and don't run around hurting others.
-
I agree to some extent, but also disagree. "Anti-social" behavior is often times a label tossed around by people who take way too much time to communicate something simple, and also place a lot of value on yacking just for the sake of yacking - small talk, in other words. While not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, how's that being more productive than spending time on something that's an intellectual pursuit? As much as we talk about Mahler being 'emotional' music, it also has great intellectual appeal in my opinion. I think it's a mistake to begin discussing Mahler in purely emotional tems. That's just me.
If being a 'loser' means that one isn't spending ALL of their time either working, studying, or schmoozing with others, then I guess the world is full of all kinds of losers. At least 'Mahlerian' losers generally mind their own business and don't run around hurting others.
While I may have painted in broad strokes to get my point across, I used anti-social to mean not being engaged with other human beings, I didn't mean not being overly talkative. Maybe overly withdrawn or overly introverted would be more accurate. My goal was to answer John's first post, the question of being a "loser" vs a "successful" person. Notice the use of quotes, these are all loosely defined terms with different meanings for different. Again, I am trying to make a point, so some hyperbole is used.
A "successful" (and I mean what is traditionally considered successful) person isn't necessarily intellectual, or smart, or whatever, but defined by one thing: achieving a certain level of status in society in a given field, whether that is through academia, entertainment, business. Often times it is associated with having influence and power over many other people and more often than not not it means having money. Most people would say that Kim Kardashian is not talented and has little to offer society, yet by many markers she is "successful".
Being a "loser" is NOT a bad thing! Embrace it, we are Mahlerites!
-
Wade, I talk about the negative effects of being an obsessive Mahlerite and you take the opportunity to share with us a story about a female conductor performing Mahler. I think the Mahleritis is strong in you!!!
Justin, you missed the point of my post completely. I was responding to your comment that you don't know of any women whatsoever who exhibit "Mahleritis". I made the point of telling the story about Marin Alsop, the female music director of the Baltimore Symphony, performing a wonderful Mahler 9th, as an exception to your comment. Though Mahler is my favorite composer, I do listen to others, and have made comments elsewhere here at the GMB about works by other composers.
Wade
-
Wade, I talk about the negative effects of being an obsessive Mahlerite and you take the opportunity to share with us a story about a female conductor performing Mahler. I think the Mahleritis is strong in you!!!
Justin, you missed the point of my post completely. I was responding to your comment that you don't know of any women whatsoever who exhibit "Mahleritis". I made the point of telling the story about Marin Alsop, the female music director of the Baltimore Symphony, performing a wonderful Mahler 9th, as an exception to your comment. Though Mahler is my favorite composer, I do listen to others, and have made comments elsewhere here at the GMB about works by other composers.
Wade
I was trying to be humorous. :P
Actually the point of my original post was not that there are no female Mahlerites, but that I've yet to come across females that exhibit this collecting syndrome - buying multiple recordings of the same piece. It's not just music, you see that in collecting in general. Of course that's just a generalization, there are always exceptions. Although I've seen this TV show called Hoarders where you see quite a few few individuals, both male and female, with quite robust collecting habits.
-
Wade, your post has brought me out of the woodwork - I’m that rare bird, a woman who likes Mahler, so I can identify with Marin Alsop to some extent. (When I first saw the name, I read it as Martin Alsop!)
Would anyone call Gilbert Kaplan a loser? What about Simon Rattle and the many people who have become musicians or achieved other things as a result of Mahler’s inspiration? For example, a friend of mine, Keith Clarke, an architect and long-time Mahler-enthusiast, was inspired to write a book about the places where Mahler composed. My discovery of Mahler came at a pivotal point in my life, and gave me the strength I needed to stand up and be counted – as the oriental saying goes, “When the student is ready, the teacher will appear”. I went on to study music at University and made a new life and many friends as a result – would you call that being a loser? How should success be defined – by the amount of money and material goods you have, or by living the life you want? Mahler has enriched my life immeasurably, and saved my (relative) sanity more than once – I feel immensely privileged and lucky to have discovered him.
To me, the “losers” are those people who spend all their time playing pointless computer games or going out on Saturday night and getting drunk out of their minds because it’s supposed to be fun and you’re supposed to enjoy it! (Is that all there is? I can now answer that question with a resounding NO!!!)
It’s probably true though that the collecting mentality is a man thing – I haven’t got the time, patience or resources for that!