Unpopular Opinions

[knight66]

SG, We are not going to see eye to eye. Libraries have been written trying merely to define the words being tossed about here. I think the opera argument is a canard, as though adding voices somehow turns the music into something else. Just another kind of sound after all. If the words are in a foreign language to that the hearer understands, that listener can often define roughly what is being conveyed. Words are themselves abstract until imbued with an agreed meaning. Music likewise is sound unless imbued with meaning. In the latter it is the interaction of the composer, the musician and the listener, but to an extent by conditioning and tacit agreement in the West emotions have been attached to specific sounds. Partly subjective I am sure. But equally, much meaning is ascribed in subtext to Shakespear's lines and I am sure he never intended half of what is dug out of them. Going back to music, I don't claim the emotions are universal. We have constructed an approximate lexicon of sound meanings that would not translate say in traditional Indonesia.

I do believe music is a constructed language of a kind and can therefore contain and express more than sound.

In one school on this, emotion literally has physical manifestations, not side effects, but part and parcel of the emotion sits in chemistry and biology and is physiological. So, not perhaps an abstraction.

And, sorry, Mahler did much, but his music solved no philosophical conundrums.

Mike

[knight66]

I don't think these are philosophical problems- more like displaying his own philosophy in music.

Yes, I pretty much buy that, though I think it was possibly more difuse than that for him.

Mike

[knight66]

In many ways, in most ways, scissors are much less real than emotions.

Mike

Rereading.......that's a nice thought. Somewhat like the pen, (word), being mightier than the sword.

Mike

[mszczuj]

Somewhat like the pen, (word), being mightier than the sword.

You know, sword is absolutely useless without emotion.

[Mirror Image]

I would have hammer you John, but then I saw this...

The two last statements I kind of agree with... but the first one... I shall now send a massive Mahlerian hammering your way....

Well Mahler's music doesn't bore me. It's exciting stuff to be sure. I'm just going to have to give him more time. I do remember being enthralled with Symphony No. 2 when I first heard it with Leonard Bernstein conducting the NY Philharmonic on Sony. Man, this is such an amazing performance all-around. I think I'm going to have a Mahler marathon either tomorrow or Tuesday. I just need to give ol' Mahler another chance. My Dad, you, Ilaria, many others on this forum love his music so it must mean something!

[Mirror Image]

     I hear you, but that quality that grates on you grates on me, too. That's the quality that I came to like, though I admit that Mahler is not an all occasions composer. Come to think of it, would it matter if there were no all occasions composers? Are there any?

     I do think Mahler is hard to take in a particular way. Part of it is the sheer mockery of a musical tradition that he also displayed uncommon mastery of. Among the radicals of the late 19th century he was the one who stood up to Beethoven. He did not avoid the issue by rejecting symphonic form, he remade it in his own way and changed it profoundly. Still, based on sound his music often sucks. I mean, the composer is trying to piss you off, right? So, sometimes I don't want to hear that, just like I don't always want to see a Cronenberg film. Well, not just like, but maybe a little like that.

Some good points. As I was telling MadAboutMahler (Daniel), I just need to give Mahler more time. I went through a small Mahler phase when first got into classical music but that was soon subsided when Bruckner's music clicked for me.

[ibanezmonster]

I'm just going to have to give him more time.

That's definitely the key to him- it takes a while. Of course, it could just end up that his flavor of music just isn't suited to your taste buds. We're not obligated to enjoy every great composer.

[Mirror Image]

That's definitely the key to him- it takes a while. Of course, it could just end up that his flavor of music just isn't suited to your taste buds. We're not obligated to enjoy every great composer.

Well we're all wired differently that's sure, but I have been moved by Mahler's music. In fact, when I first heard the Adagietto from the 5th symphony, I busted out in tears. It was one of the most revealing moments in classical music I've ever heard.

[ibanezmonster]

Well we're all wired differently that's sure, but I have been moved by Mahler's music. In fact, when I first heard the Adagietto from the 5th symphony, I busted out in tears. It was one of the most revealing moments in classical music I've ever heard.

Hmm... then what's the problem? Is it that you can't listen to a whole symphony of his straight through? Honestly, I can't even do that any more. I just listen to one movement at a time, or skim through. Maybe you should try doing something else while listening.
Or is it just that you have to be in the right mood to listen to it?

[Mirror Image]

Hmm... then what's the problem? Is it that you can't listen to a whole symphony of his straight through? Honestly, I can't even do that any more. I just listen to one movement at a time, or skim through. Maybe you should try doing something else while listening.
Or is it just that you have to be in the right mood to listen to it?

I usually try and listen to the whole symphony, which I guess could be apart of the problem. I'll try the one movement at a time strategy. It seems like I've done this before and I recall it being much more successful. I remember just listening to the first movement of the 3rd and it's a symphony within itself lasting over 30 minutes.

I hardly ever listen to music based on my mood. I listen, as I'm sure everyone does, for enjoyment and to find something within the music. There are different ways people can listen to music, I tend to listen to music in phases. One week it might be Bartok, the next week it might be Thelonious Monk, etc...

[ibanezmonster]

I usually try and listen to the whole symphony, which I guess could be apart of the problem. I'll try the one movement at a time strategy. It seems like I've done this before and I recall it being much more successful. I remember just listening to the first movement of the 3rd and it's a symphony within itself lasting over 30 minutes.

I hardly ever listen to music based on my mood. I listen, as I'm sure everyone does, for enjoyment and to find something within the music. There are different ways people can listen to music, I tend to listen to music in phases. One week it might be Bartok, the next week it might be Thelonious Monk, etc...

Seems like you just need a Mahler week. 

[Mirror Image]

Seems like you just need a Mahler week. 

[Brian]

I usually try and listen to the whole symphony, which I guess could be apart of the problem. I'll try the one movement at a time strategy. It seems like I've done this before and I recall it being much more successful. I remember just listening to the first movement of the 3rd and it's a symphony within itself lasting over 30 minutes.

This one movement at a time approach did wonders for me with Bruckner. Still is, in fact, as I'm conquering some of his more titanic symphonies one movement at a time even now. Love your example of the 3rd - one of just two Mahler symphonies I really love - and that first movement really is a complete symphony in its own right, though the first time I heard the piece was live (Warsaw/Wit) and when the final movement came along... it was like he'd been holding back from saying what he really meant to say all along. A couple of the inner movements make me wonder why they're there and then at the end all is explained.

[Mirror Image]

This one movement at a time approach did wonders for me with Bruckner. Still is, in fact, as I'm conquering some of his more titanic symphonies one movement at a time even now. Love your example of the 3rd - one of just two Mahler symphonies I really love - and that first movement really is a complete symphony in its own right, though the first time I heard the piece was live (Warsaw/Wit) and when the final movement came along... it was like he'd been holding back from saying what he really meant to say all along. A couple of the inner movements make me wonder why they're there and then at the end all is explained.

The 3rd is a beautiful work, Brian. Is this one of the more underrated symphonies of his cycle? I seem to recall many Mahlerians debating what their favorite symphony was and the 3rd seemed to be the least liked. I'm not sure why.

Bruckner was a beast I tackled head-on, lost the first round, but came back for a second round and won. His Symphonies Nos. 4-9 are not of this world.

[Brian]

The 3rd is a beautiful work, Brian. Is this one of the more underrated symphonies of his cycle? I seem to recall many Mahlerians debating what their favorite symphony was and the 3rd seemed to be the least liked. I'm not sure why.

I got the same sense and I shared your confusion. I think possibly because it's less angsty and more nature-filled, more optimistic; its closest cousin might therefore be No 1. Whereas most people who really love Mahler seem to love most the Mahler they hear in Nos 2, 6, and 9.

[Mirror Image]

I got the same sense and I shared your confusion. I think possibly because it's less angsty and more nature-filled, more optimistic; its closest cousin might therefore be No 1. Whereas most people who really love Mahler seem to love most the Mahler they hear in Nos 2, 6, and 9.

The 7th also seems to not get that much attention. I think it's a fine work. Perhaps a little on the odd side? Maybe, but that finale is something else!

[DavidRoss]

I got the same sense and I shared your confusion. I think possibly because it's less angsty and more nature-filled, more optimistic; its closest cousin might therefore be No 1. Whereas most people who really love Mahler seem to love most the Mahler they hear in Nos 2, 6, and 9.

I had a hard time with the 3rd for a long time.  Now it might be my favorite and I love it so much that I can't imagine why it took me so long to appreciate it.

[Ten thumbs]

Almost, but not quite. Scarlatti's genius rested in his infinite wealth of invention in regards to harmony and modulation. This at times pushed his sonatas towards unorthodox directions. His late sonatas are proof that you can write harmonically daring compositions without relying on chromaticism. Sometimes context alone can suffice.

BTW, Scarlatti's father is way, way below his son in terms of genius. Just wanted to say that.

The Six did say that he liked chromaticism. Anyway, the point I was making is that in Scarlatti we find reduction to one key to a bar and phrase repetition, two of the hallmarks of Classicism. I wonder whether or not he also dislikes the Classical architectural style of Palladio.

[starrynight]

I think there is some universality to music and the relation of emotions to music or sounds.   And of course as time has gone on with the increasing globalisation this universality has been more and more evident.  Also I don't think emotion is an abstraction, it's a very real thing with which we react to something.  Emotions can combine our senses with an intellectual response to something.   If we are talking about very precise meanings then obviously that may not specifically apply to a particular listener, but a general feeling can still apply and link composer, performer and listener.  That's why you don't necessarily have to read music critics and understand all about a composer's life to enjoy music.  I still think the best way is to just listen to more of a composer's or a particular period's music to get more inside it and past its surface sound to its intent.

Really I think music touches on emotions and the intellect, both are combined.  It may well be the same with other arts too, though the intellectual side is more to the surface perhaps in most other cases.  With music, initially at least,  we take it more directly as its pure state (sound) rather than as just an artwork.  And music is enjoyed by most people, it is easy to take in somehow compared to other arts, maybe because it is so uniquitous now and we are so used to hearing it all the time thanks to recording and transmitting technology.  This is a positive in that people can be more open to music, but might be a negative as people take it for granted without thinking about it more.  Food I think is different, to most people it is largely sustenance (and purely sensory and not intellectual) and not a particular expression of intent.

[Superhorn]

  Maria Callas is the most overrated opera singer of all time, a caricature of a diva.  Her hideously ugly voice makes fingernails on
a chalkboard sound pleasant by comparison . 
Enrico Caruso is also highly overrated. Compared to Pavarotti , he's  the proverbial bull in a china shop .
Toscanini  is the most overrated conductor of all time, particularly his NBC symphony recordings .  These  performances are almost with
out exception coarse, choppy , hectic, punchy, nervous,rushed, metronomically rigid .  and insensitive  .
  These performances are mechanical, joyless and stiffly regimented .
The late Sir Reginald Goodall was considered by many critics and fans to have been the greatest Wagner conductor of  the late 20th century.  But he didn't have a clue as to what Wagner's music is about .  His Ring ,Tristan and Parsifal recordings are impossibly lethargic and sluggish , without a shred of momentum ,let alone  the hair-raising intensity  and sweep of  Solti, who was THE Wagner conductor .
Goodall made a hash of the tempo relations in the operas,  reducing  everything to basically one impossibly sluggish tempo ,making Wagner's surgingly powerful music fall flat as the proverbial pancake .  He made Knappertsbusch seem like a speed demon in Wagner .