Mahler was a gasbag

[Elgarian]

What always worries me in these situations, is that if I went to a lecture on, let us say, Advanced Pre-binary Meluptuous Dynarhythmic Analysis, the lecturer would sound to me like a gasbag, no matter how truly expert and insightful he was towards things meluptuously dynarhythmic. So when I listen to Mahler (rarely), and feel much the same, I can't figure out what's really going on.

[Lethevich]

BTW, I think the old GMG's hosting used to have something to do with this site:

http://www.gasbag.net/

I may be remembering incorrectly, though.

[Bunny]

Why is he popular?

Mahler is not universally popular; he wasn't the Michael Jackson of his era or even the Johann Strauss or the John Phillip Sousa.  Only small parts of his works have penetrated the consciousness of the masses.  He has an audience, which is composed of serious classical music lovers, which loves his works because it pushes all the right buttons in their brains so that listening to his works becomes a transcendental experience.  This audience can be very fanatical.  I know, because I'm part of it.

Not every composer produces great music that can be appreciated by everyone who hears it because human beings are all different.  You don't care for Mahler?  I know people who hate Bach ("too cold and rigid"), despise Beethoven ("it's only scale-work"), and think Mozart and Haydn's music is just "tinkle, tinkle" tune smithing, and that Brahms and Wagner are just "too loud."  I also know people who think that Michelangelo's fresco of the Creation of Man is "trite" and Andy Warhol was the greatest artist of the 20th century.  Tastes differ.

Rather than brood over why something doesn't appeal to you, linger on what does appeal and let it nourish you.

[karlhenning]

Really won't do, every time a member of GMG feels that so-&-so composer is overrated, to start a hater thread.

Just saying.

If you don't like Mahler, well, listen to the music which you prefer.  Seems obvious, doesn't it?

Crossed with this post:

Rather than brood over why something doesn't appeal to you, linger on what does appeal and let it nourish you.

[Dr. Dread]

Rather than brood over why something doesn't appeal to you, linger on what does appeal and let it nourish you.

What planet are you from? That's not the way things work here. 

[lisa needs braces]

shorter Bunny: Failing to like Mahler is like failing to like Beethoven or Bach.

[bhodges]

This seems like a good moment to mention something a friend who doesn't like Mahler said awhile back: "Why don't you just take a Seconal™ and be done with it!"  (I just love that. )  There is definitely something angst-ridden and neurotic in the music that one may or may not go for.

But to put this in larger terms, any composer--including Mahler, including the three B's, including anyone--can be crossed off one's personal listening.  If Mahler doesn't speak to you, I wouldn't worry about it for more than a few minutes.  There are far too many composers to listen to--thousands--including many living ones who would be extremely grateful if you were to try out some of their music, rather than spending huge amounts of time trying to "get" Mahler.

What I get out of Mahler: a keen understanding of how to harness and unleash an orchestra's full power, extremes of emotion, brilliant and unusual orchestration, and an overall feeling of exhilaration.  But if you don't experience any of these things (or others), I say don't worry about it.

--Bruce

[Dr. Dread]

My three main problems with post-Romantic music:

1. The neurotic-sounding stuff.

2. The smarmy stuff. (Sounds like the music that would eventually be used in Westerns.)

3. Pieces longer than Beethoven's Ninth.  

[Elgarian]

Rather than brood over why something doesn't appeal to you, linger on what does appeal and let it nourish you.

Yes, of course let's do that lingering-on-what-appeals thing, but sometimes important things also spring from the brooding about stuff that seems out of reach. I used to brood a bit (in a very different way) about the whole baroque period, but now I have Handel playing all over the house most of the time.

[Lethevich]

He didn't write any string quartets either. Like Bach, a minor talent.

[Bunny]

What planet are you from? That's not the way things work here. 

Planet Utopia?  Planet Peace and Love?  Chacun à son gout, and live and let live.

[DavidRoss]

Re: Mahler was a gasbag

Well, the impish gadfly in me wants to agree (adding, "but what a marvelous gasbag!"), just because I agree with you that some folks go overboard in their praise for him. However, to me a gasbag is full of naught but hot air, but Mahler's gasbag--though overinflated a bit--still brims with substance...the power, depth, and beauty of which few other composers ever equalled.

Perhaps Abe's ability to appreciate Mahler has been compromised by the inflated claims of some of his devotees?  Like Wagnerites, Mahlerroids (often the same people) seem to think that, because they like him so much, he is therefore the greatest composer, artist, craftsman, and genius (!) of all time.  I suspect their hyperbolic rants turn most people off to their idol's merits, rather than kindle interest in further investigation of his music.

Even though I love Mahler's music, ranking him unhesitatingly as one of my three favorite symphonists (with Sibelius and Beethoven) and among my dozen or so personal faves among all composers, I do not think he was the greatest of craftsmen and I believe that his symphonies suffer from bloat.  I understand that his late-Romantic aesthetic worshipped artistic self-indulgence and excess of all sorts.  I also understand that the dramatic scope of his symphonies owes more to opera than to the symphonic tradition, and that compared to a four-hour opera (especially one of Wagner's, Mahler's model in his youth) a ninety-minute symphony may seem downright pithy.  But in spite of understanding the underlying causes of what--to my personal aesthetic sense--is excess and bloat, I still think his symphonies suffer from it, insofar as it creates an impediment to their appreciation and enjoyment. 

To me, a great symphony, like a great novel or play or movie, should be so compelling and enthralling that it's over scarcely after it seems to have begun.  When the audience starts checking its watches and wondering how much more of this they have to endure before it gets interesting again--or ends!--the fault more likely lies with the creative artist's editing (if not the original conception), and not with the audience.  Mileage varies, of course.  (I saw a review recently of the film Doubt which found it tedious, whereas I was captivated right up to the seemingly abrupt end.)  But when viewed from a Modernist or even post-Modernist aesthetic whose credo Mies stated as "Less is more," Mahler's "more" too often seems "too much."

[ChamberNut]

It took me a long time to enjoy even one symphony of his.  I also thought, "What's the big deal here?"  Quite frankly, that was when I first started listening to classical music, and anything outside of the classical/late classical period sounded very wonky to my ears, let alone a 85 minute sweeping late-romantic symphony!

However, I kept revisiting Mahler, at first focusing on the 1st and 5th symphonies, and finding that enjoyed certain movements a great deal.  Each time, I got more and more out out of his music.  Now, I really, really, really enjoy his 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 9th symphonies, and moderately enjoy the 3rd and 4th.  The 7th is still a bit of a head scratcher for me.  And never mind about the 8th, I just don't like it (but who knows?  Someday I might). 

[Dr. Dread]

This is the Mahler-haters thread. What's your problem?

[ChamberNut]

Even though I love Mahler's music, ranking him unhesitatingly as one of my three favorite symphonists (with Sibelius and Beethoven)

I don't think I'd rank Mahler in my top 3 symphonists, however, I could see the day where that might eventually happen.  For now, in order it's Bruckner, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky (Brahms symphonies have slid down a few notches  )

[ChamberNut]

This is the Mahler-haters thread. What's your problem?

Well, I used to be one of them. 

[Opus106]

For now, in order it's Bruckner, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky (Brahms symphonies have slid down a few notches  )

Wha...!
...
...
...
I meant, Wha...!

[DavidW]

I like how people post to explain to Abe how taste is relative, subjective.  He's not 5, I think he gets it.  He just started this thread to shake things up.  You know I just caught Oliver Sacks on the Daily Show and he was illustrating how his brain lights up (little brain map showing neuron activity) when he listens to Bach, but there's absolutely nothing when he listens to Beethoven.  I'm guessing Abe's brain doesn't light up for Mahler.  You know he also said that training makes a big difference in how engaging music is, so maybe Karl's brain does light up when he listens to Mahler, even though he doesn't like his music.  And I bet Karl would be ashamed to admit that he has any level of engagement with Mahler!

[ChamberNut]

Wha...!
...
...
...
I meant, Wha...!

Yes, I knew you'd be shocked.    Brahms is still my 2nd overall favorite composer though. 

[bhodges]

You know I just caught Oliver Sacks on the Daily Show and he was illustrating how his brain lights up (little brain map showing neuron activity) when he listens to Bach, but there's absolutely nothing when he listens to Beethoven.

Great that you mentioned this (and Sacks's book is excellent, BTW).  As an aside, while I might be worried if no brains at all, anywhere lit up for either Bach or Beethoven--or Mahler--at the moment that seems to be so unlikely as to make the anxiety moot.  All the more reason to focus on those composers who *do* fire up the neurons.

--Bruce