Mahlerly Challenged

[MDL]

Wrong information!

The first (wearisome prentice work) was completed in 1888;
the second (more wearisome prentice work) was completed in 1894;
the third (further wearisome prentice work) was completed in 1896;
the fourth (yet more wearisome prentice work) was completed in 1900;
the fifth was completed in 1902 - Mahler was at last up to speed;
the sixth was completed in 1905;
the seventh was also completed in 1905;
the eighth was completed in 1907;
and the ninth was completed in 1910.

The so-called tenth was left incomplete at the time of Mahler's unfortunate death in 1911.

Remember that mere revisions cannot change the fundamental wearisome concept and nature of a work!

"the fundamental wearisome concept and nature" of your contributions to this thread. Plonker.

[knight66]

No name calling please, if you don't like views expressed, don't use personal insult as a way of combating them. Also don't let Mr Grew's passive/aggressive stance rile you.

Mike

[PSmith08]

No name calling please, if you don't like views expressed, don't use personal insult as a way of combating them. Also don't let Mr Grew's passive/aggressive stance rile you.

Mike

I cannot help but be riled by his rejection of the first-person singular pronoun. Why, it as though he eschews the very principium individuationis, as Nietzsche discussed in Die Geburt der Tragödie.

[greg]

And others too.

I think it has to end soon.  You can't get any quieter than 4'33" and you can't get any more um...piercing than Threnody.

So what's left? 

i guess everything inbetween, which is what they're all doing 

[BachQ]

No name calling please, if you don't like views expressed, don't use personal insult as a way of combating them. Also don't let Mr Grew's passive/aggressive stance rile you.

Mike

Don't use "don't" with such frequency ........... We don't like it ..........

[MDL]

No name calling please, if you don't like views expressed, don't use personal insult as a way of combating them. Also don't let Mr Grew's passive/aggressive stance rile you.

Mike

Oops. Well, I did use what I consider to be mildest insult I could muster. Had I been genuinely riled, I would have blurted out something far worse. (As I have done recently, but that's another story.) Had Mr Grew contributed anything worthwhile to this thread, I would have replied in a more thoughtful manner. But I didn't want to waste my time with somebody who is obviously not up to speed. Happy New Year, by the way. x

[knight66]

Don't use "don't" with such frequency ........... We don't like it ..........

Is that the Royal 'we'?

MDL, Thanks.

Mike

[not edward]

Is that the Royal 'we'?

Presumably followed by a Royal Flush.

[PSmith08]

Presumably followed by a Royal Flush.

One may only hope.

[greg]

Finally, a Royal Poopy Flying Monkey uses the toilet, and FLUSHES it! 

[knight66]

For any who are curious; Mr Grew was formerly known as, 'The Egregious Professor' on another site. I assume 'Egregious' was being used in its outmoded sense of, 'set aside from the common herd', rather than in the contemporary sense of 'conspicuously reprehensible.'

I do like to know who I am dealing with; or rather, with whom I am dealing.

Mike

[knight66]

I cannot help but be riled by his rejection of the first-person singular pronoun. Why, it as though he eschews the very principium individuationis, as Nietzsche discussed in Die Geburt der Tragödie.

Yes, I can quite see why this riled you; I am thinking about getting militant about it myself.

Mike

[greg]

Yes, I can quite see why this riled you; I am thinking about getting militant about it myself.

Mike

"DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even."

[longears]

Aw, let him enjoy his little affectation.  We let dj get away without using upper case.  Such stuff reminds me of the girls in junior high who dot their "i"s with little hearts.  If these guys want to think such things distinguish them in a positive way, who are we to destroy their illusions? 

[Sydney Grew]

For any who are curious; Mr Grew was formerly known as, 'The Egregious Professor' on another site. I assume 'Egregious' was being used in its outmoded sense of, 'set aside from the common herd', rather than in the contemporary sense of 'conspicuously reprehensible.'

You might add that it was a pun, old chap - and a frightfully amusing one we find: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regius_Professorships

But do let us return to the music of Mahler - otherwise we might be compelled to shunt this entire thread off to the coffee-bar (or "diner" as it is here so quaintly termed) and that would never do would it.

One of the reasons we say Mahler only got into his stride in 1902 with the Fifth Symphony is that prior to that time his harmony was really rather elementary. But the moment he found himself married to the twenty years younger Miss Schindler he began to use what is called "progressive tonality" and even a sort of pan-tonality as Schoenberg termed it. This admirable trend continued and grew until of course it culminated in that famous chord in the unfinished "Tenth Symphony" where all twelve notes of the chromatic scale are sounded together - and jolly inspiring it is too!

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

This admirable trend continued and grew until of course it culminated in that famous chord in the unfinished "Tenth Symphony" where all twelve notes of the chromatic scale are sounded together - and jolly inspiring it is too!

So is the Apocalypse.

[not edward]

But the moment he found himself married to the twenty years younger Miss Schindler he began to use what is called "progressive tonality"

Really? In what way do the Second and Fourth symphonies--and, for that matter, a work as early as the Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen--not use progressive tonality?

[greg]

This admirable trend continued and grew until of course it culminated in that famous chord in the unfinished "Tenth Symphony" where all twelve notes of the chromatic scale are sounded together - and jolly inspiring it is too!

i love that chord, too.

But does it use all 12 notes? I heard it only uses 7 or 8, although it sounds like 12. I have a page here, although i can't tell since the piano reduction doesn't have treble or bass clefs.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

i love that chord, too.

But does it use all 12 notes? I heard it only uses 7 or 8, although it sounds like 12. I have a page here, although i can't tell since the piano reduction doesn't have treble or bass clefs.

It's a nine-note chord. And it's terrifying.

[greg]

It's a nine-note chord. And it's terrifying.

yes, and much more.....

$#!#, now i'm about to listen to it again, thanks to this thread. The 10th is the deepest, darkest thing ever to the human psyche, i swear..... in the 1st movement, listening to that 9-note explosion and then having the theme return in modulations in the most gentle, quiet and beautiful way possible is like being stuck in hell and seeing heaven through a small window, realizing you can't get to it. So I can relate to this music