Mahler's music

[Wunderhorn]

To me, it is quite impossible to describe not only Mahler, the man, but also Mahler the music. I've read considerable biographical information, but this still only partially unmasks what Mahler's music does. Perhaps the most fitting definition is that in the sound of Mahler, Western Theory had it first composer actually being able to incorporate 'pain' in his music beyond a mere characterization or description. The actual sound of lamentation and suffering is paramount in even jovial moments of his music. With Mahler we come across a composer unable to compose conventionally, unable to stray from personalizations which go far beyond being stylized. It sometimes hurts to listen to his music, but it is a healthy hurt. Not everything is beautiful in a 'pretty' way.

[barry guerrero]

"It sometimes hurts to listen to his music, but it is a healthy hurt. Not everything is beautiful in a 'pretty' way".

I think these last two sentences get more to the point. "Pain" in music is nothing new - there's tons of it in baroque period laments, for example. "Dido's Lament" is nothing but one big pain (more ways than one, in my book). As I've said, there's no more "heaven storming" composer than Mahler. But to get there, you have to the price. In short, Mahler drags you through the mud first. I also feel that the opposite of what you say is sort of true as well: in the most "painful" moments in Mahler (usually in minor, right?), there's always that "knowing" that things are going to get better - you can just sense it. But Mahler was no fool. Like any great thinker, he knew that life was basically a death sentence. That's why I feel that he sort fits the definition of an existentialist - at least to some degree. For him, the point (I think) is to define the human experience - describing, in great musical detail, all that being a human entails.

For me, "secular humanism" and "agnostic existentialism" (not the Sartrian, strictly atheist brand of existentialism) are pretty much the same thing - perhaps two sides of the same coin. That's what I project on to Mahler: I see him as being one of these two very similar "isms". He also toyed with "pantheism", which can easily be thrown into this kind of mix as well. Since Mahler worshiped nature (supposedly - in truth, he wasn't all that kind to the birds around his composing huts), if he had lived longer, he might have dabbled into paganism as well. Regardless, we'll never know.

[Wunderhorn]

I relate everything of Mahler to his Thirds' opening theme of a desolate earth which culminates eventually into the marching theme. The marching theme represents life, the fact that it is a variation on the opening theme seems to represent that mankind can't shake off the dirt from which he was made. That's exactly what I hear in all of Mahler.  life not only of man and nature, but the underlining 'bone' and 'flesh' forced to dirt by 'gravitational force' and eventually by 'death itself'. And I must disagree, I do not think pain was actually granted musically until Mahler. I simply can't hear it anywhere; not the second movement of Beethoven's 7th, and not in Mozart's Requiem. In these works it appears more picturesque or contrived rather then purely natural.

[barry guerrero]

Well, OK ; I guess. I don't see that big of a difference. But if you do, that's fine with me. How pain is expressed, musically speaking, doesn't mean that it's any less sincere, or less difficult to endure. I do agree that it may be better integrated into the overall narrative of each work by Mahler. The sort of struggling that you describe, is often attributed to the influence of Schoepenhauer upon Mahler. To me, it's just a classic trademark of most Austro/German music of that time. Anyway, there's quite a bit of mentioning of Schoepenhauer on the DVD that came out on Mahler's 3rd symphony (I forgot what it's called). Certainly all of that is true.

[Vatz Relham]

Like any great thinker, he knew that life was basically a death sentence. That's why I feel that he sort fits the definition of an existentialist - at least to some degree. For him, the point (I think) is to define the human experience - describing, in great musical detail, all that being a human entails.

For me, "secular humanism" and "agnostic existentialism" (not the Sartrian, strictly atheist brand of existentialism) are pretty much the same thing - perhaps two sides of the same coin. That's what I project on to Mahler: I see him as being one of these two very similar "isms". He also toyed with "pantheism", which can easily be thrown into this kind of mix as well. Since Mahler worshiped nature (supposedly - in truth, he wasn't all that kind to the birds around his composing huts), if he had lived longer, he might have dabbled into paganism as well. Regardless, we'll never know.

Barry,

I like what you wrote above, and agree with it. I would only say that I think Mahler did more than toy with "pantheism" not only because DLVDE strongly points that way, but also his very many references to nature in his music throughout his works.
We have a tendancy to project our own beliefs on Mahler and I suppose that may be understandable.
Mahler appeals to me on many levels, not least of which is his philosophical side.

Vatz

[Wayfarer]

To me, it is quite impossible to describe not only Mahler, the man, but also Mahler the music. I've read considerable biographical information, but this still only partially unmasks what Mahler's music does. Perhaps the most fitting definition is that in the sound of Mahler, Western Theory had it first composer actually being able to incorporate 'pain' in his music beyond a mere characterization or description. The actual sound of lamentation and suffering is paramount in even jovial moments of his music. With Mahler we come across a composer unable to compose conventionally, unable to stray from personalizations which go far beyond being stylized. It sometimes hurts to listen to his music, but it is a healthy hurt. Not everything is beautiful in a 'pretty' way.

I found this to be so true I had to register so I could respond.

I became a Mahler devotee when I heard his first symphony (Walter, conductor) for the first time. I was about twenty (this was twenty or so years ago), but the music brought me to tears on the very first go - something which hardly ever happens to me. I was an instant fan and over the years I listened to his music and bought recordings when I was able, both on LP and CD. I had one recording of the first on cassette which was so horrible I threw it away in disgust, and a box-set of all nine symphonies on LP which was also horrible; but since I am not an audiophile nor a music expert by any means I was able to make due with what I could get my hands on. My favorite symphonies are the eighth and ninth.

What does any of this have to do with the post I quoted? Well, my re-discovery of the ninth happened to coincide with a painful separation from my wife of ten years and my dealing with the fact that my two sons are no longer living under my roof. Added to this was a career crisis which lasted over a year and had me to the point of suicidal thoughts. Things are better now but not great, and now that I've hit middle age I recognize myself as a mere mortal more than ever, and a mortal whose youthful dreams didn't exactly pan out.

It had been a few years since I'd listened to the ninth symphony but when I decided to listen to it again it absolutely floored me. It was one of the most "spiritual" experiences I've ever had. The version I listened to was Murai's, with the PSO (which is offered in its entirety as a legal mp3 download on their website and is mentioned on another thread here). I was almost literally in tears during the entire first movement (bear in mind that I'm not so much praising the Murai version as simply attesting to the power of the music itself. I've only heard a handful of recordings of the ninth symphony and I'd be delighted to get some suggestions on the very best recordings available). What I feel the most are strong sensations of grief, resignation (but not complacency or apathy!), and acceptance; moments of fierce anger, and moments of sheer, ecstatic joy.

I've had strong emotional responses to the music of various other composers, particularly Beethoven, Brahms, R. Strauss, Shostakovitch, and Schubert (opening of his ninth is also gorgeous and almost painful to hear), but nothing comes close to Mahler. Not any where near it. There are certain moments when I am listening to Mahler (and I'm hearing the ninth's first movement in my head as I type this) when I am transfixed, absolutely still, wanting nothing whatsoever but to continue the experience of listening to something so beautiful and yet at the same time deeply humbling and even terrifying, because of the nagging thought that such experiences, all experiences, must come to an end. It is painful to hear such music, even when the emotions being conveyed by the music are emotions of ecstasy and joy.

There is a part in that first movement of the ninth where the opening theme comes striding back but with most of its doubtful, fearful melancholy stripped away and renewed with strength and resolve and triumph and acceptance - it's the most exquisite and rewarding gift I have ever received at the hands of a musician, composer, or any artist period. I wish I could speak in technical terms here but my knowledge of music is limited. All I know is, I plan on going back to the version of the ninth I am most familiar with (Bernstein), to see why I wasn't absolutely bowled over by this particular moment before. I have always loved the ninth but I don't recall being quite so moved, so disturbed, so devastated, and yet so refreshed and rewarded, by it before.

What the above poster wrote really resonated with me and my listening experiences lately, particularly this: It sometimes hurts to listen to his music, but it is a healthy hurt. Not everything is beautiful in a 'pretty' way. That's a beautiful (and accurate) commentary on the power of Mahler's music. I recall reading somewhere that Mahler believed the symphony should (and I'm paraphrasing, probably badly) "be everything", and "encompass the whole world". In this he succeeded; and in relation to the original post, not everything in the world is pretty, and sometimes it hurts. It hurts a lot.

Sorry for babbling. I'm completely and utterly in love with Mahler's music and I'm glad I found this board.

[Leo K]

Wayfarer, thank you for that fantastic post, and I'm glad you're here.  Wow.

I had an experience with Das Lied Von Der Erde in December of 05, during the holidays.  It was a particularly difficult Christmas vacation back home in Minnesota.  It had been along time since I'd been home, and emotions (good and bad) took me by suprise...I physically got sick and was out of it for a week...with bad nausea and some terrible shoulder pain. 

I had bought Kurasawa's film, Ran, a couple days before Christmas, and was suprised to learn that Kurasawa wanted the score to be like Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde.  While viewing the film and listening to the Mahler-like score, I felt a distance, a feeling of peaceful space, appear between my internal chaos and my self...a peace and healing ensued all over. I had not listened to Mahler for a couple of years, had even sold my whole collection in 04.  But the 'Das Lied-like' score got me yearning for Mahler's sound world like I've never felt before.  Strange, because I've never loved Das Lied before.

It's hard to explain why I didn't like Das Lied Von Der Erde...in every movement (except maybe the first) I felt a 'distance' in the music...a kind of looking at joy/sorrow/death objectively, and I didn't like that. Because of this I really felt it sounded unlike Mahler's other works...especially the 9th, indeed Das Lied was the opposite of the 9th...yet it existed as the other side of the same coin...a western point-of-view (the 9th) contrasting with the eastern point-of-view (Das Lied) to life itself and the end of life. 

After the viewing the film I ran out and bought a copy of Das Lied (Boulez/VPO) and the 9th Symphony (Karajan/Berlin), and once again found myself emersed within Mahler's sound world.  Now I appreciate that 'distance' I thought I heard in Das Lied...and feel this quality makes this work unique. It's what I look for in performances of this piece.  Kurasawa's film, Ran, also shows a distance, or objectivity from the action as the characters live out the tradegy at hand.

As I said the score to Ran was influenced by Das Lied Von der Erde at Kurasawa's request (who loved Mahler). The ending of the movie is devastating...and the music reflects on the action from an icey distance, or vastness, that is compelling. Indeed, the singers in Das Lied could be outwardly acting out the dilemma in the mind of the mad King in Ran, as if we are witness to his mind. Only a witness to the tragedy...observing the worst tragedy unfold through the uncompassionate eyes of clarity and distance...gazing apathetically over a universe, with no judgement or conceit or morals.  This appealed to me.  On hearing Das Lied again after Christmas, I found the music to be objective in a Spiritual sense...it is all about space and breath in a way, or beyond time, beyond consoling beauty...more sublime.  This could explain the "healing" and at "peace" state I found myself living during the music. 

I rediscovered how each Symphony holds a gift envolving different aspects of life.  In my own experience, a good performance of the Mahler 6th (at least the kind I'm most attracted too) brings up the dark side of existence.  Take the Barbarolli 6th on EMI.  It is bleak to the extreme, and glorious in the evocation of mother earth's darkness (or Mother Kali in the eastern tradition).  It has none of the panic and hysteria heard in the Bernstein DG account. This interpretation is depression itself, and serious as a heart attack. Even the pastoral sections are heavy with a large burden, sinking with the heaviness of the hero. Barbirolli pulls the threads that should hold everything together…and suddenly, there is something wonderful in hearing existence fall apart emotionally…the grief, the sadness, the disillusionment. 

Of course, this is my perception, and another person may have a totally different experience.  I find it facsinating to hear other points of view on this board here.  It is a great place indeed.

 

[Wunderhorn]

In my teenage years I wished to be a composer and I was wholly addicted to the fiery aspects of Mahler at that time. I did have several quite hilarious incidents that Mahler influenced back in those days. I knew Mahler was a Catholic, so I decided to go to a neighboring church and see if it inspired me. When I went into the chapel, I remember eyeing a yamaha keyboard in the cathedral that the church probably used for the organ. I remember envying the keyboard and how superior it was to the one I owned, I even thought, 'There is no one around, I can take it and no one would notice'. Quite a spiritual moment indeed. I also remember listening to the 'Faust' finale of the 8th, I remember getting so excited that I had to run into the alleyway near my house and calm my nerves with a cigarette. I remember saying to myself then, trying to settle my nerves, 'It simply can't be surpassed.'

[Wunderhorn]

"It sometimes hurts to listen to his music, but it is a healthy hurt. Not everything is beautiful in a 'pretty' way".

I think these last two sentences get more to the point. "Pain" in music is nothing new - there's tons of it in baroque period laments, for example. "Dido's Lament" is nothing but one big pain (more ways than one, in my book). As I've said, there's no more "heaven storming" composer than Mahler. But to get there, you have to the price. In short, Mahler drags you through the mud first. I also feel that the opposite of what you say is sort of true as well: in the most "painful" moments in Mahler (usually in minor, right?), there's always that "knowing" that things are going to get better - you can just sense it. But Mahler was no fool. Like any great thinker, he knew that life was basically a death sentence. That's why I feel that he sort fits the definition of an existentialist - at least to some degree. For him, the point (I think) is to define the human experience - describing, in great musical detail, all that being a human entails.

For me, "secular humanism" and "agnostic existentialism" (not the Sartrian, strictly atheist brand of existentialism) are pretty much the same thing - perhaps two sides of the same coin. That's what I project on to Mahler: I see him as being one of these two very similar "isms". He also toyed with "pantheism", which can easily be thrown into this kind of mix as well. Since Mahler worshiped nature (supposedly - in truth, he wasn't all that kind to the birds around his composing huts), if he had lived longer, he might have dabbled into paganism as well. Regardless, we'll never know.

As far as Paganism is concerned. It isn't necessarily the idea of 'adoration of greater forces' that defined paganism, but instead something quite entirely different. It is actually more their  belief that all things came from dark forces. Not dark as in Evil necessarily, but more as in grave or treacherous; Even in the bible it describes 'God' as the light, being 'surrounded' by darkness which could not understand it. All early religion dealt with famine, disease, and mother nature. They also were incomprehensibly brutal and savage in many cases. Perhaps they had a better understanding of truth then us 'pamper idlers' of today. I would go so far as to say they might have known more about the mystery of 'God' then we do. Anyway, this 'darkness' is absolutely realised in Mahler's music.

[barry guerrero]

Well, they - scientists - are on a chase to uncover the "dark matter" that makes up so much of the unvierse. Maybe they'll find god hanging out there.

[Ivor]

       I can only have a first stab at my response to Mahler's music.

       IMO,we can't talk about what his music does,because each person's experience and response will be different. So I can only write about what he does for me.


       For me,the first attraction was his melodiousness. I gave a talk at the school music society in about 1963 when I made that point with the opening of the 4th as my example. A teacher asked if I thought that was a good enough way to compose. I said Mozart had done the same thing in the openings of his piano concerti.

       Then the 6th grabbed me. Partly,it was because I found (and find) the music so emotional. I'm an emotional type, and I think Mahler was,too. So his music reached in a place that hadn't been reached before,tho' nearly by Beethoven andTchaikovsky.

       Then it was (and still is) that Mahler's goes about its business in a quite different way from other composers. What I think that is, is that it is as if Mahler is talking,albeit in music,rather than constructing or even composing. I seem to remember reading once that he goes in for continuous development. That is more like talking, or directly expressing. However much Mahler 'constructed' and used existing forms,it rarely sounds like that to me. That's a reason I'm rather ambivalent about formal repeats,as in the first movement of the 6th, for example.

        And I feel like I go on a journey in the symphonies; in that way,they are somewhat (only somewhat) like novels, or perhaps better, like narrative poems.

        So i get to the place where his music enables me,if I sing/play them to myself (in my 'interpretations'( !!!!)), then I feel at one with what Mahler was,as it were, getting at. That's why he's my favourite. I feel more at one with what is going on than with any other composer. (Tho' with Bruckner,it's sometimes close.)


       And they are such imaginative,original,personal,sensitive,(usually) well-put-together works that by turns excite me, move me, thrill, amuse, thwart my expectations satisfyingly (just as Hans Keller said the best music should do).

       But all of the previous paragraph rather moves away from the particularity of his individual qualities for me. I don't know another composer who writes music the way he does.

       In the end,his special tone and manner resonates with me. And he's more of a warts-and-all composer than others,which is more honest and very,very human.




                Ivor

       

[barry guerrero]

"he's more of a warts-and-all composer than others,which is more honest and very,very human".

I think that this is an important point. In his day, Mahler was often times not always a nice person - far from it, even. In fact, he was sometimes accused of being inhuman. As we know, he was a driven man. But he put so much of himself into those symphonies, that he sort of expected - or at least, hoped - that other people would see that he was being totally honest, and terribly human - a straight shooter, if there ever was one.

Your point about Mahler's narrative stlye is also right on the money. Pierre Boulez uses that word - narrative -  in discussing Mahler's music. He said that Mahler was both epic and narrative in style, or quality - whatever. Anyway, I like to think that Mahler actually composed opera for orchestra, as opposed to just concerti for orchestra. By that, I mean that Mahler takes his orchestration to the point where the individual instruments themselves (or blocks of instruments), take on a life and character of their own. He was a master of exploiting specific characteristics of any orchestral instrument. Then he put that ability to exploit these characteristics, to even greater use by composing in a more "through-composed" manner - just as you mentioned; constantly variating as he goes. Even when Mahler suddenly includes the human voice, it's as though that voice were simply part of the team; as opposed to the orchestra merely accompanying them. The focus is still on the narrative, not on the vocal qualities of that particular singer (and I'm not saying that good singing doesn't matter!). Mahler's ability to peg climaxes so masterfully, doesn't hurt either. All those huge dynamics actually build up to something, so we're not constantly being disappointed. That's where his expert understanding of the full potential of percussion comes into play. In fact, he was simply waaaay ahead of the curve when it came to the percussion department. It's through all these tools - not to mention great melodies; rich harmonies; solid counterpoint; unpredictability via asymmetrical phrases, etc. - that Mahler makes his symphonies both epic and narrative. That's how he's able to "speak to us" - just as he wanted it.

Good points, all of them.

[Wunderhorn]

I remain somewhat of a mystic about Mahler. I believe Mahler was in complete control over his output. It is completely possible that it was not a 'warts-and-all' scenario, but his aesthetics as an immortal statement made by his psyche. This so called picture perfect music before Mahler seems quite lifeless in its unwillingness to drop into the more hideous realms that actually speak more about our all too human condition.

[barry guerrero]

Wunderhorn,

What I'm getting at, is that these things don't happen by mistake. As you stated yourself, "
Mahler was in complete control over his output". I'm simply trying to look at that "complete control" in a more musical, objective manner - what's on the written page, and what it is that makes it tick. As for your next two sentences; man, they're so subjective, that I honestly can't figure what it is your saying; or, more to the point, what it is that your protesting about from the previous postings. Perhaps you could humor my dense mind by trying to clarify your point a bit.


Barry

[Wunderhorn]

Believe me, I'm no rocket scientist myself; But what I'm trying to say, if I'm understanding the statement 'wart-and-all' is that there is something grotesque or homely about Mahler's music whether implied or not implied. I am trying to say, more rationally that it was neither implied or not implied, but a direct link to the exact nature of his personality if not mind and body entirely. It really isn't weighty at all, of you think about it. Bye doing this Mahler has detached himself from Western Theory. As I said before my views take up a mystical quality somewhat. It raises a very good question though. 'Exactly how much of himself can a composer put into his music?'