[mbhaub]

First off, I like steering people to the 6th first. It's not that long, it has ALL of the things in it that we all like so much about Mahler. It has great beauty, power and passion. And the orchestration is stunning. The ear really likes it. Just get a superbly recorded version. Like Bernstein (DG), Maazel (Sony), Boulez (DG), or my current favorites, Eschenbach (Ondine) and Fischer(Channel).
If you really want a THEORY book, "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory" is quite good for a one-volume, self-teaching book. I taught college theory classes for a few years, and I wish it were available back then.
If you want a book on Mahler's music, try David Hurwitz's book, Mahler Symphonies. Not too technical, but better than most cd booklets.

 

[gotflute]

Hi all,

I have to respectfully disagree with some of what has been posted here. I did not study the Harmony of Mahler until my last semester of Music Theory in college, and the harmonies can be quite complex. This is becuase Mahler, like others in the latter part of 19th century, were stretching the limits of tonality.

An analogy which will help you with Harmony: (disclaimer, this is very simplified, and not to be read by Music Theory Professors) There is a concept called "Tonal Center" in music, which is like being home. We start at home, travel around, then come back. Now, I can reference your home without actually being there, by looking at your mailbox, or your address. I could also know what your principal home is by knowing where your summer home is, then matching the two up. In music, once home is established, there are various ways to build tension that implies that you are going home, but then go in new direction. Mahler, like many of his conteperatires, would keep tension building by referencing more and more of these houses-- but never actually establishing a new home (modulation), giving the listener just enough to pull that pull home (really simplified). Mahler, on top of this, also liked to use very complex, stacked chords to color his music.

However, rather than get caught in the weeds with a harmonic analysis, an endeavor which would give you much more bang for your buck would be to study the history of Mahler, and the Form of the symphonies he wrote, especially as a reaction to the symphonies of Beethoven. There were two reactions to what Beethoven did to the symphony-- the symphony should tell a story (Mahler did this for the symphony, while Lizt and Strauss et al. came up with a new for, the tone poem as a reaction), or it should be a form to appreciate as just a formal structure (Brahms and Bruckner are good examples). This will give you a good idea of what's going on from a big picture standpoint, instead of the micro standpoint of harmonic analysis.

Anyway, there are many ways to appreciate Classical Music. Knowing more about it does not impede its enjoyment any more than an educated palate detracts from the application of wine. There are ground rules to various styles of art, grounded in the history and time period of its creation. Great artists see that there are more than one answer to the questions posed by the form, and great listeners to that art complate why the artist chose a particular answer.

Ok. Off the soapbox.

 

[tev]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mbhaub /img/forum/go_quote.gif First off, I like steering people to the 6th first. It's not that long, it has ALL of the things in it that we all like so much about Mahler. It has great beauty, power and passion. And the orchestration is stunning. The ear really likes it. Just get a superbly recorded version. Like Bernstein (DG), Maazel (Sony), Boulez (DG), or my current favorites, Eschenbach (Ondine) and Fischer(Channel).

Second on the Eschenbach! He digs deep and offers one of the most compelling 6ths I've heard in years. The sound quality is also quite good.

 

[Hadden]

Mahler seems immediately enjoyable to me; he really lays it right out there, and is a clear story teller, so to speak. I don't like the words accessible inaccessible. Sort of snob terms to me that always get hooked onto classical music.

 

[zumaro]

The massive popularity of Mahler since the 1960s (like the rise in popularity of Shostakovich) would tend to suggest that understanding of musical theory is in no way needed to get into Mahler. Like others I also find his symphonies very accessible - colorful, rich in incident, full of memorable ideas (sometimes cross-referenced between symphonies and songs as well to really rub the point in), emotionally direct, but also psychologically and musically deep if you wish to contemplate things further, rather than just listen to the glorious noise in front of you. The length may be off putting at first to those unused to classical music, but little else will scare them away. Mahler is, at this point, for the masses (particularly after years of Hollywood stealing from his ideas). Suggestion - go buy a copy of the 4th Symphony - there are many good versions, and enjoy a tuneful and relatively compact symphony that wouldn't tax anyone's understanding these days.

 

[Masonjar]

My path to Mahler was fairly direct, and since I got hooked almost immediately, it was a good path.. first I got into some basic stuff.. Overtures, short works, kind of getting the feel of how orchestras sounded and also, and I think this is important, a feel for musical history. Meaning, Bach is Baroque, Mozart is Classical, Beethoven is early Romantic, etc.. it's easier to appreciate Mahler when you know where his music fits into the big picture. After I started to appreciate some symphonies of Mozart, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, I took the Mahler plunge with Bruno Walter's 1st. From there it just kind of snowballed. Enjoy the journey!! you're in a unique position.. and if Mahler strikes the right chord with you, it's going to be an amazing experience, getting to know the Mahler symphonies. -Mason

 

[Masonjar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hadden /img/forum/go_quote.gif Mahler seems immediately enjoyable to me; he really lays it right out there, and is a clear story teller, so to speak. I don't like the words accessible inaccessible. Sort of snob terms to me that always get hooked onto classical music.

I'm not sure I know what "clear story teller" means as applied to Mahler.

If you have the programme or liner notes, sure, it's all going to make sense.

But if you go into it blind, with just the music, you can get a general feel.. "this is tragic" or "this is triumphant" but really, you can't get a "story" from music unless you're told what the story is first..

(I'm talking about the purely instrumental works.. it's a bit easier with the choral)

-Mason

 

[Hadden]

I meant it in a pretty broad sense. Not narrative in the way of notes that go with Prokofiev/Romeo and Julliet.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Masonjar /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not sure I know what "clear story teller" means as applied to Mahler. If you have the programme or liner notes, sure, it's all going to make sense. But if you go into it blind, with just the music, you can get a general feel.. "this is tragic" or "this is triumphant" but really, you can't get a "story" from music unless you're told what the story is first.. (I'm talking about the purely instrumental works.. it's a bit easier with the choral) -Mason

 

[Sordel]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gotflute /img/forum/go_quote.gif I have to respectfully disagree with some of what has been posted here. I did not study the Harmony of Mahler until my last semester of Music Theory in college, and the harmonies can be quite complex.

You have to know a fair amount of Physics to understand why an apple falls, but you don't have to know any to notice an apple fall.

 

[Agent Kang]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nothing teaches patience like a Bruckner symphony

Totally. Get a bruckner 8th with Celi.

 

[E.B.M.Head]

I think to get into Mahler you need some "fun versions" like No.1, No. 5 and No.6 conducted by Anton Nanut. They are very enjoyable even for someone who doesn't like classical. If you can't get the Nanut versions, try Bernard Haitink who also has a very "pop" interpretation. If you dig those, then throw yourself into the cold water and listen to some serious Mahler conducted by Leonard Bernstein or Kyrill Kondrashin... You will recognise the melody, but you also will hear much more detail and emotion in their interpretation. Thats how I got into Mahler.

 

[flitflint]

I love mahler.

his 9th touches me deeply. the 2nd is so incredibly uplifting.

i've played a number of his symphonies in orchestras.

 

[flitflint]

and the 6th shakes the earth.

do you like wagner? i don't. people say if you like mahler you probably like wagner. blah.

 

[ingwe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rocdoc /img/forum/go_quote.gif 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.

Per your recommendation, I'm now reading this. Thank you!

 

[PSmith08]

Quote:

Originally Posted by flitflint /img/forum/go_quote.gif and the 6th shakes the earth. do you like wagner? i don't. people say if you like mahler you probably like wagner. blah.

People say that? I guess I never heard it, since I came to Mahler and Wagner at roughly the same time, but I seem to recall Wagner coming first. At least I got seriously into Wagner before the Mahler bug bit.

Let me say that some of Mahler's musical grammar is made clearer by a basic understanding or familiarity with Wagner. Of course, in some cases, the same thing could be said about Mahler and Haydn or Mozart; or, in one notable case, Mahler and Bach. I don't think it's an if-then proposition, since Mahler clearly went his own way in the post-Wagnerian musical world.