[eyeresist]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lex2 /img/forum/go_quote.gif But you may want to try listening to his more "accessible" symphonies first, such as the 1st or 4th. But yes, the music is bombastic and you're not alone in thinking that. But that is OK, I could never understand the 3rd, 8th, and 9th either. Most days I just listen to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th, with small doses of 6th and 7th.

I agree with this, except that I like to give the 9th a spin on occasion (the old Walter recording), and I've come to LOVE the 7th, especially in the Tennstedt performance.

 

[analogbox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nealric /img/forum/go_quote.gif A question for the Mahler fans out there: With all the love for Mahler on head-fi, I decided to go out and give some of the symphonies a listen (9th, 3rd, 8th) - and I'm just not feeling it. The music doesn't draw me in. It feels bombastic, but I'm not emotionally connecting to it. Was Mahler an immediate love for you guys, or more of an acquired taste?

Try 4th and 5th. I find them very romantic which I think, as lex put it, are more accessible.

 

[Jubei]

I started with the 5th - Dad bought the Sinopoli CD when I was around 15. Liked the 1st and 2nd movements immediately. The next one was Rattle's version of the 2nd, which I also liked immediately.

I have also developed a fondness for 9th and 10th as time grew on.

 

[radiohlite]

"Was Mahler an immediate love for you guys, or more of an acquired taste?"

The first Mahler I ever heard was at a local symphony concert my middle-school english teacher took me to. They played the 1st symphony. The first 3 movements were pleasant enough, I thought, but when the finale started my entire world changed, I was just about knocked sideways! By the time I was 13 I'd already been familiar with the standard repertoire (Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, Bach, Vivaldi, Handel, Tchaikovsky), but this Mahler guy was something else...I was speechless.

After that I checked out the 5th symphony from the library (Haitink/BPO), the 1st with Bernstein/RCO, and the 9th with Inbal/FRSO. The 5th and 9th are still two of the pieces that speak to my heart the most.

Then I heard the Solti/CSO 6th on the radio and was in disbelief for a couple days...how could a mere human write this stuff? It's another of my favorites.
I bought the 7th (Abbado/CSO) and still don't understand it to this day. I hear it once in a while, but it's just so strange. The 8th I like in parts, but it seems really inspired and boring in equal measure.

The 2nd and 3rd I find interminable, but ultimately rewarding. Mahler's language here seems really different from both the early and middle symphonies, and I tend to favor the later ones. The 4th symphony I'm just starting to reconsider after a decade or so of neglect, and it's emerging in my mind as his most cohesive and satisfying as a whole, at least from a structural perspective.

DLVDE I'm starting to think is his absolute masterpiece. Again, I relegated it to years on the shelf and I'm barely giving it attention, but it's REALLY great!

The 10th just scares me. It's a great piece, but whenever I summon the courage to listen to it I come away with this unbearable feeling. IDK.

IMO Mahler is one of those composers that really depends on the conductor to make an impression. If my introduction to his music would've been with certain performer(s) I don't wish to name, I would've turned around and never given it a second look. So you might wanna try some of the more celebrated recordings.

 

[Markhead]

I find this topic interesting and would like to hear more early experiences with Mahler. Also, when you recommended Mahler to friends what symphonies/performances do you start them with and how did they react to them initially?

As for me, I was very new to classical music but my ears were eager. My experience up to that point was Beethoven symphonies 6-9 that I dled free from the BBC. I was using it mainly for study music and I played the 6th the most.

I wanted more classical music so I stopped by my library and randomly checked out a handful of CDs. One of them was Mahler's 2nd symphony Mehta/VPO. I've never heard of Mahler at that time but the cover looked exciting so I grabbed it. How could I say no to something that said "Legendary Performance." I don't recall going gaga over it immediately but I do remember really enjoying and replaying the first few movements of the symphony. I didn't appreciate choral music just yet and didn't give the "singing" parts a chance.

Since I was familiar with Mahler i picked up the 5th Solti/CSO in my next trip and warmed up to it quickly as well. It seems at that time I was really drawn to dramatic/emotional classical music.

The more I got into classical the more important Mahler became. I enjoyed all of Mahler's symphonies quickly except the 4th and the 8th. Those warmed up to me last. I haven't heard the 7th yet (I'm avoiding it..I want to hear it live with fresh ears)

 

[mbhaub]

In my experience and opinion, the 7th is one of those orchestral works that was made for recordings. In a well-done recording you'll hear detail that you won't in a live performance. Also, the 7th is so difficult to play that live performances are going to have goofs that recordings shouldn't. I've heard the 7th live a number of times, and yes it's thrilling. But don't discount some of the better recordings to get familiar with the music before hearing it live. Every year it seems that at least one major conductor and orchestra take it on. Next year Paavo Jarvi is doing it with Cincinnati. Great orchestra, great conductor. What more could you want?

 

[Markhead]

No doubt I will own recordings of the 7th after watching it live. I've been avoiding listening to recordings of it for years because it will be my only opportunity to hear Mahler performed w/o having any idea how it will sound like. Basically, I don't want to have expectations and familiarity with the piece when I hear/see it to get in the way... I just want to be surprised.

 

[radiohlite]

oh, you'll be surprised. I still am whenever I hear it, years later.

 

[Ridleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiohlite /img/forum/go_quote.gif "Was Mahler an immediate love for you guys, or more of an acquired taste?".

It's a great question, and for me, I haven't yet acquired the taste!

Mahler doesn't instantly remind me of any other composer, and his music is so different from the main-stream classical repertoire and is not at all like progressing from Hayden, to Mozart, Brahms, Beethoven, Bach, etc. and his music is not even like Wagner, although the scale of Mahler's works seem similar to me.

I would be very interested in what attracts people to Mahler's music, as he seems to be one composer to me where you can spend a lifetime with classical music and either take him or leave him. That's not meant to be a criticism at all, but just to emphasize the point that his music seems to me at least to be distinct and different.

 

[radiohlite]

I always thought it was a pretty linear progression from Wagner to Bruckner to Strauss/Mahler and then the second viennese school.

But yeah, Mahler's music seems to be preoccupied with its own sound-universe. For me, at least, it never really recalls the tradition it was born into. Sometimes it seems like an alien (or demon, take your pick) came down to earth and wrote this stuff (I'm thinking of the opening of the 6th finale, the first movement of the 9th, 'Das Trinklied' from DLVDE).

What attracts me to it is the exposed emotion, the changes of mood, the sublime beauty coupled with the unbearable grotesque that often follows it. No other composer I know gives me the impression that what I'm hearing is his whole psychological truth, contradictions and all.

 

[Ridleyguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by radiohlite /img/forum/go_quote.gif I always thought it was a pretty linear progression from Wagner to Bruckner to Strauss/Mahler and then the second viennese school. But yeah, Mahler's music seems to be preoccupied with its own sound-universe. For me, at least, it never really recalls the tradition it was born into. Sometimes it seems like an alien (or demon, take your pick) came down to earth and wrote this stuff (I'm thinking of the opening of the 6th finale, the first movement of the 9th, 'Das Trinklied' from DLVDE). What attracts me to it is the exposed emotion, the changes of mood, the sublime beauty coupled with the unbearable grotesque that often follows it. No other composer I know gives me the impression that what I'm hearing is his whole psychological truth, contradictions and all.

Great descriptions. I see what you are saying and I will listen for it now. Interestingly I also never listened to Bruckner growing up, so that could also explain my progression - or lack thereof!

 

[radiohlite]

I rarely listen to German post-romantic music, too. Wagner, Bruckner, Bruch, Liszt, Richard Strauss, early Schoenberg. The lushness, chromaticism, and monstrous size of a lot of those works is too much for me.

Come to think of it, it's probably because I encountered Mahler young and it satisfied that 'urge' enough that I don't feel the slightest need to sit down for 'The Ring' or 'Das Heldenleben' or 'Salome'. I know music of this time-period/style as reference, but I don't listen to it for pleasure.

 

[Ridleyguy]

I wouldn't put Liszt in the same category though as he was part of the 'Romantic' era.

 

[mbhaub]

I think it's a big mistake to lump Bruckner and Mahler together. Bruckner was really quite conservative in many ways, especially regarding form. He used large orchestras, but not in the Mahler sense. Mahler used the larger group for the orchestral effects he wanted. Bruckner used it for the massive sound he wanted -- like an organ. You won't find Bruckner using english horns, tenor horns, guitar, mandolin, contrabassoon, xylophone, glockenspiel, and many more percussive instruments. Bruckner only rarely used harp, and once or twice a cymbal crash. Like one per symphony in 7 & 8.

It's also a mistake to say that Mahler wrote Wagnerian symphonies. No, he wrote uniquely and utterly original symphonies in a manner that no one else had ever conceived. He went his own way and that's what makes him a genius and great composer. He may have learned some orchestration effects from Strauss, but the two sound completely disimilar. Mahler's sound is instantly recognizable, like any great composer is. To my ear and mind, Mahler was inspired mostly by one unlikely composer: Liszt, specifically Lizst of the tone poems and the Faust and Dante symphonies. And from his firend Hans Rott.

 

[Ridleyguy]

I wish there were more discussions like this on Head-Fi. Very thoughtful comments mbhaub. Personally, I am starting to learn a lot about Mahler here. Great thread!

Is there a consensus view on his "best" symphonies here?