Unpopular Opinions

[Madiel]

Well Mahler DID designate it as "Part One". He must have meant something by that.

[Lisztianwagner]

Well Mahler DID designate it as "Part One". He must have meant something by that.

Maybe it was because of the original programme, then dropped, Mahler had created for the symphony; the first movement, Part One, was originally divided in two sections "Pan awakes" and "Summer marches in".

[Spotted Horses]

The first movement of Mahler 3 should be playable and programmed as an independent work, without the other five movements. It could fit into the normal "symphony" slot of a concert program after overture, concerto, and intermission, and its epic span as a single movement forms a satisfying whole. Though of course I love the whole piece, it is sprawling and difficult for many smaller orchestras to put on more than once a decade or so. And it does have some central bits that aren't as inspired as the beginning and finale.

I routinely skip all movements of Mahler 3 that have caterwauling of any kind.

[vers la flamme]

I routinely skip all movements of Mahler 3 that have caterwauling of any kind.

Which is what ones? 

[Karl Henning]

"caterwauling" ... I do love that word. It does have kind of a Mahler vibe .... j/k

[Brian]

I routinely skip all movements of Mahler 3 that have caterwauling of any kind.

I spend an excessive amount of time contemplating how all the endings of the first five movements could possibly segue into the finale, and what the proper order would be if you cut the two singing movements. Maybe I, III, II, VI would be satisfying, although then the symphony would get progressively slower with each passing section.

[Spotted Horses]

I spend an excessive amount of time contemplating how all the endings of the first five movements could possibly segue into the finale, and what the proper order would be if you cut the two singing movements. Maybe I, III, II, VI would be satisfying, although then the symphony would get progressively slower with each passing section.

I more or less listen to each of the individual movements as a separate piece. I can't find time for more than that. At least it ends with an instrumental movement. I also listen to the second symphony as a suite of individual movements, from which I generally omit any with singing. But that is unsatisfactory since the finale has singing. Maybe once a decade I commit to listening to the second symphony finale. I think most recently I listened to Boulez.

[Jo498]

The first movement of Mahler 3 should be playable and programmed as an independent work, without the other five movements. It could fit into the normal "symphony" slot of a concert program after overture, concerto, and intermission, and its epic span as a single movement forms a satisfying whole. Though of course I love the whole piece, it is sprawling and difficult for many smaller orchestras to put on more than once a decade or so. And it does have some central bits that aren't as inspired as the beginning and finale.

I would not pay a penny for such a separate movement in concert. A main point of Mahler's 3rd seems to be the overall extension and that it "contains the world", including cuckoos and boy's choirs. The first movement alone would be largely pointless and in every way less satisfying than a 40 min complete symphony or tone poem that would usually require roughly the same effort in preparation (although often not such a large orchestra).

There are such races and nothing against them but it would be a bit like a 30-35 km race instead of a full marathon. It would require close to the same effort in preparation both for the athletes and the race organizers but it would have nothing like the nimbus and reputation of a marathon race.

The idea with piano versions of Mahler symphonic movements is even worse (I'd probably pay not to have to listen to that...). As if there wasn't enough good and demanding piano literature!

[Wanderer]

I would not pay a penny for such a separate movement in concert. A main point of Mahler's 3rd seems to be the overall extension and that it "contains the world", including cuckoos and boy's choirs. The first movement alone would be largely pointless and in every way less satisfying than a 40 min complete symphony or tone poem that would usually require roughly the same effort in preparation (although often not such a large orchestra).

There are such races and nothing against them but it would be a bit like a 30-35 km race instead of a full marathon. It would require close to the same effort in preparation both for the athletes and the race organizers but it would have nothing like the nimbus and reputation of a marathon race.

The idea with piano versions of Mahler symphonic movements is even worse (I'd probably pay not to have to listen to that...). As if there wasn't enough good and demanding piano literature!

Agreed on both counts.

[Florestan]

Agreed on both counts.

+ 1.

As if there wasn't enough good and demanding piano literature!

Hear, hear!

[Jo498]

I could imagine having the "Totenfeier" (original version of the Mahler 2nd 1st movement) in a concert but I think that this would also feel strange and incomplete because everyone encountered this first as part of the 2nd symphony.

FWIW I think the orchestral versions of Mahler Lieder are also far superior, so much that I welcome the orchestrations of some of his early lieder made by Berio and some others.

I used to have more interest in arrangements vs. originals but I almost always prefer original versions and I suspect that many of the arrangements are recorded because of  oversaturation with standard versions.

[Todd]

The idea with piano versions of Mahler symphonic movements is even worse (I'd probably pay not to have to listen to that...). As if there wasn't enough good and demanding piano literature!

I thought the same until I heard Mikhail Kazakevich play his own arrangement of the Scherzo from the Mahler First or Zlata Chochieva's take on Ignaz Friedman's transcription of the Tempo di Menuetto from Mahler's Third.  I doubt Mahler symphony transcriptions become as popular as Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven - though I find the few transcriptions of Mahler I've heard to be better than the Beethoven ones - but they can be exceptionally well done. 

[LKB]

The first movement of Mahler 3 should be playable and programmed as an independent work, without the other five movements. It could fit into the normal "symphony" slot of a concert program after overture, concerto, and intermission, and its epic span as a single movement forms a satisfying whole. Though of course I love the whole piece, it is sprawling and difficult for many smaller orchestras to put on more than once a decade or so. And it does have some central bits that aren't as inspired as the beginning and finale.

Certainly an unpopular opinion with me, and generates the following, possibly equally unpopular response:

VETO VETO VETO VETO VETO... 

[JBS]

There are at least a couple of two piano (or four handed) transcritpions that derived, if not from Mahler, then at least from his publishers. And there are a couple of piano roll recordings of Mahler himself playing transcriptions of movements from the symphonies.
But those reflect the days when there were no audio recordings and such transcriptions were the best way to access the music for most people.

[Jo498]

I thought the same until I heard Mikhail Kazakevich play his own arrangement of the Scherzo from the Mahler First or Zlata Chochieva's take on Ignaz Friedman's transcription of the Tempo di Menuetto from Mahler's Third.  I doubt Mahler symphony transcriptions become as popular as Liszt's transcriptions of Beethoven - though I find the few transcriptions of Mahler I've heard to be better than the Beethoven ones - but they can be exceptionally well done.

I don't care about the Liszt/Beethoven either. I have one disc with Scherbakov, one with Katsaris and the 5th with Gould and for me they are mere oddities, for some reason, I'd rather listen to Gould playing Wagner than Beethoven. (And I don't care for the two Mahler movements mentioned in their original form, despite not wanting Mahler 3,i on its own, I do think the following movements should have been condensed a bit).

The main composers I sometimes enjoy transcriptions are Bach, Schubert songs by Liszt and some Brahms and I agree that they can sometimes offer interesting alternative views. I have a bunch of the Matthies/Köhn Brahms series on Naxos (this is partly because I have met Christian Köhn several times socially a few years ago and also heard the duo perform live) but I strongly disagree with the sometimes heard opinion that Brahms' orchestral and chamber sounds better on piano (duo).
(The exception for me are only the hungarian dances but this was their original form and most of the orchestrations are not by Brahms anyway.)

[Florestan]

the sometimes heard opinion that Brahms' orchestral and chamber sounds better on piano (duo).

Utter nonsense, of course.

Piano (solo or duet) transcriptions were useful back then when there were no recordings and the only way to hear (especially new) operatic, symphonic or chamber compositions was either live or by way of transcriptions. Today they are relics of the past and should be treated as such.

In general, I'm not keen on transcriptions that were not made by the composers themselves, save for song transcriptions or operatic fantasies.

[Jo498]

Utter nonsense.

I have heard/read the preference for Brahms orchestral music on piano as a serious opinion, and I am pretty sure it wasn't a provocation and not always or entirely meant mainly as criticism of Brahms' instrumentation.

[Florestan]

I have heard/read the preference for Brahms orchestral music on piano as a serious opinion

Well, a madman claiming he is Napoleon is dead serious but shouldn't be taken seriously. 

[Madiel]

My views on transcriptions are well known. I need not repeat them.

[Todd]

I strongly disagree with the sometimes heard opinion that Brahms' orchestral and chamber sounds better on piano (duo).

I've never heard or read that, and it strikes me as impossible.  That written, Max Reger's solo piano transcriptions of the Poco Allegretto from the Third and the Andante sostenuto of the First sound sumptuous, languid, and occasionally elegiac as played by Evgeni Bozhanov.  A good portion comes from Reger, and a good part comes from the pianist, whose style and delivery work wonderfully.  They are not standard bravura virtuoso fare one often encounters with transcriptions.  They do not and cannot match the original scores, but they aim for something different and succeed.

I'm game for listening to transcriptions, especially with certain pianists.  I could listen to Volodos or Schuch or Fray or YES performing all types of transcriptions.