[asdf]

First of all, I don't consider myself a classical music newb--just ignorant (and seemingly becoming more ignorant as the years pass). I played timpani in the orchestra through sophomore year in university. I've listened to (and enjoyed) "classical" music all of my life. Part of the reason I stuck with orchestra was because I enjoyed listening to what was played (I never found timpani particularly interesting).

Anyway, to my question: Do you need to understand music theory to properly appreciate Mahler? I keep reading that Mahler is very difficult for the masses (paraphrasing). I have virtually no knowledge of music theory (other than what is necessary for a reasonably proficient percussionist).

Second question: Can anyone recommend a BASIC introduction to music theory book?

 

[rocdoc]

I am probably even more of a newb. I am an avid consumer of music, but producing any is beyond my abilities.
Mahler is certainly not a place to start in classical music, and takes more than one listen to enjoy. But that is usually a sign of a profound and rewarding experience awaiting, isn't it? I started enjoying the best known pieces before I knew a cadenza from the end of a trombone, so no, you do not need solid music theory to enjoy it. That said, it goes for all music that knowledge of theory enhances your experience tremendously.
How deep a music theory do you mean? One book on the basics of more intellingent enjoyment of music is a very old one, that really surprised me. Aaron Copland's "What to Listen for in Music", first written in 1939, updated a couple of times. Amazon carries if for about $8. The best I have seen to date, interesting perspective from the composer's side, easy to read and a wealth of information. Also the mastery of the language and the good writing are a breath of fresh air. Try it.

 

[asdf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocdoc /img/forum/go_quote.gif How deep a music theory do you mean? One book on the basics of more intellingent enjoyment of music is a very old one, that really surprised me. Aaron Copland's "What to Listen for in Music", first written in 1939, updated a couple of times. Amazon carries if for about $8. The best I have seen to date, interesting perspective from the composer's side, easy to read and a wealth of information. Also the mastery of the language and the good writing are a breath of fresh air. Try it.

That might be a good place for me to start. I have a fairly good ear, and I can appreciate and identify many of the differences between various performances of the same piece. My exposure to music theory, however, pretty much began and ended with the "circle of fifths", which made about as much sense to me as number theory.

 

[Cool_Torpedo]

Hi mate,

I don't think that to appreciate Mahler you need to know music, basics or advanced theory. If you're music knowledgeable then you'll appreciate the complex elaboration of Mahler's music, but it's a different appreciation level which in fact could "distract" you from the emotional, esthetic and intelectual meanings into Mahler's music. Like watching a movie just following the action and enjoying the basics of the actors interpretation, or being aware of the director's work, paying attention to photography, and everything related to the movie's making on.

IMHO the "problem" with Mahler is that many recorded versions of his music suck, sometimes for the lack of understanding from the conductor's part, sometimes for the own poor recording quality, and others for the orchestra being not skilled enough. Mahler was a complex man, full of contradictions, emotional insecurities... His works show that and can go from an outburst of joy to a deep darkness almost scaring. Some renditions are like an emotional rollercoaster that misses the whole point of the thing. Others are too flat to show some purpose.

I started to get Mahler comparing these two recordings of his 3rd Symphony:

Bernstein conducting the NY Philharmonic

Klaus Tennstedt conducting the LPO and Choir (it's just available at Amazon UK)

Once you notice the differences between those two renditions, and you perceive for yourself how different Mahler can sound and be understood, then you realize that you just need to find the rendition that "makes sense". Not an easy task considering the many different renditions of his works.

Rgrds

 

[scompton]

I don't know much of anything about music theory and I love Mahler. I also find his music fairly accessible. Not as accessible as Mozart, Beethoven, etc, but a lot more accessible than a lot of 20th century composers. I think you have to understand music theory to get some 20th century music. It probably doesn't make it any more listenable though.

I'm going to the Kennedy Center tonight and I believe their gift shop has the Copeland book. I may buy it.

 

[bralk]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdf /img/forum/go_quote.gif Anyway, to my question: Do you need to understand music theory to properly appreciate Mahler? I keep reading that Mahler is very difficult for the masses (paraphrasing). I have virtually no knowledge of music theory (other than what is necessary for a reasonably proficient percussionist).

I can recommend recordings of Mahler on Telarc with conductor Benjamin Zander.
On the CDs Zander explains and analyzes Mahler`s music in terms that does not require any theoretical knowledge.

cheers

 

[Kees]

Quote:

Originally Posted by asdf /img/forum/go_quote.gif First of all, I don't consider myself a classical music newb--just ignorant (and seemingly becoming more ignorant as the years pass). I played timpani in the orchestra through sophomore year in university. I've listened to (and enjoyed) "classical" music all of my life. Part of the reason I stuck with orchestra was because I enjoyed listening to what was played (I never found timpani particularly interesting). Anyway, to my question: Do you need to understand music theory to properly appreciate Mahler? I keep reading that Mahler is very difficult for the masses (paraphrasing). I have virtually no knowledge of music theory (other than what is necessary for a reasonably proficient percussionist). Second question: Can anyone recommend a BASIC introduction to music theory book?

I don't find I need any music theory to understand and enjoy music.
Mahler is not difficult to understand at all.
Especially the first and the fourth symphony are relatively easy to grasp, at least to my ears. But I practically grew up in the Concertgebouw, so that may have helped a bit.

 

[Sordel]

Mahler is not an especially "technical" composer: there aren't really details in his music that you need to understand intellectually before you can "get" him. In fact, it's the emotional directness of his music that's made him so popular. Some of the harmonies are bittersweet and this makes him less accessible than the majority of earlier composers.

If you want to try a composer where theory is really important, try the Second Viennese School. Otherwise, you should be alright without relying too much on books and liner notes.

 

[DavidMahler]

This is an interesting thread because a lot of the Mahler biographies I've read feel the need to explain all of Mahler's musical decisions with theory and lingo that wouldn't be understood by the masses. BUT! I think unless you are study composition for your own advanced understanding, this approach is unnecessary. Mahler is not as accessible I suppose as some of the earlier composers, but I'm not sure what accessible means in this case. For instance, I think Mahler would be a lot more interesting and emotional to the modern music listener than possibly Mozart. His music is far more dynamic and far more expressive and colorful. But it doesn't possess the same "restrictions" that we all associate with classical music.

In my opinion the earlier Mahler symphonies are more instantly accessible. The later ones (6 and beyond) take some time to get into.

 

[asdf]

I have what seems to be a fairly common bias towards the more traditional names in classical music. While I have a number of modern composers in my collection, I've not given them the same effort towards understanding and appreciating them that I have towards Mozart or Beethoven.

For me, Mahler was one to be lumped with the other "modern" composers that my musician friends are passionate about, but which laymen are not. I think it's time for me to start examining some of my biases (I haven't been fair with modern art in general--theater, cinema, painting, etc., either).

I'm a little surprised (pleasantly) with the responses on this thread. I was under the impression that Mahler could not really be appreciated without a certain level of musical knowledge. I will be definitely be ordering some music, soon.

 

[DavidMahler]

I feel that once you understand Mahler he has the likelihood of becoming your favorite composer.

 

[Tyson]

Mahler is pretty easy to understand, IMO, particularly from a modern perspective. His world view is much more in touch with how we see things today than many other composers. Couple that with the fact that he wrote direct, emotional music, and its easy to see why Mahler has had a huge surge in popularity over the last 50 years.

The one thing you need with Mahler is a little bit of patience, because his works are so long. I suggest listening to a bunch of Bruckner, and after that tackling Mahler. Nothing teaches patience like a Bruckner symphony

 

[scompton]

Quote:

For me, Mahler was one to be lumped with the other "modern" composers that my musician friends are passionate about, but which laymen are not. I think it's time for me to start examining some of my biases (I haven't been fair with modern art in general--theater, cinema, painting, etc., either).

Before conducting Mahler's 9th last year, Leonard Slatkin talked about it. He told a story about going to a master class by Leonard Bernstein where Bernstein said that he felt that Mahler was among the first of the modern composers.

 

[tev]

I good place to start with Mahler is his 4th symphony. It's perhaps his most accessible and the shortest in the cycle. Some see it as a bridge between classical symphonic style and his longer more developed works because it has a clearer concise structure. It's where I started, and I must have listened to it 20 or 30 times before moving on to his next work. The 1st and 2nd are also good initial forays, so if one doesn't grab you the other may.

Mahler's creativity bears itself out on repeated listenings. An understanding of structure and music theory are not really that essential for appreciating his music because he defied most classical conventions and in fact was strongly criticized for this in his time. But knowledge will deepen your appreciation. Deep down I believe that Mahler really desired to communicate to the masses. Reading a short biography of his life may be more fruitful IMO than reading a music text book.

If you take the time, and if you connect with his sound world, Mahler can become a life long exploration that never seems to wear thin. One reason for this is that his works are so subject to interpretation. Just when you think you have heard it all, you'll stumble open a recording that offers a new perspective that'll draw you back in.

 

[Ansel]

Music theory websites to check out:

teoria.com

emusictheory.com

good info/tutorials. Also has interactive exercises to try.