After Mahler comes Sibelius ...

[mahlertitan]

Can I just say there seems to be an over-emphasis on the length of Mahler's symphonies, with which (in general) I have little difficulty. For me, it's more a question of 'density'. If I feel that Mahler would've benefitted from some editing, it would be in terms of thinning out, not shortening, his symphonic writing - and even then, only in places.

what? to repeat the "Bruckner" problem? to let some inferior musical minds to temper with his creations? Didn't Mahler himself edit his symphonies already (quite extensively)? Still not enough for you? maybe you can ask Longears to edit them.

[mahlertitan]

(sigh)

1. Mahler knew exactly what he was doing.

2. Mahler was one of the few composers in history that could successfully pull off an 90 minute symphony while maintaining the momentum and drama throughout.

3. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that Mahler "didn't understand" the editing function.  He was an extraordinarily meticulous composer ........ very careful, very exacting ........ In reality, he knew that, when done effectively, "more was more," and he gave us "more" ........ thankfully .........

exactly, it seems that some people on this forum (with no obvious credentials and accomplishments) sound as if they knew better than the master!

[Mark]

what? to repeat the "Bruckner" problem? to let some inferior musical minds to temper with his creations?

Glad you brought Bruckner into this. His symphonies: long, complex, deep, rich. Bit like Mahler's, really. But where Bruckner differs is that his works weren't in any way 'dense' - unlike some sections of Mahler's symphonies. I'm thinking (off the top of my head) of sections within the first and second movements of his Fourth Symphony, and the first and final movements of his Seventh. Everything's there, all right. But in my view, just a bit too much 'everything'.

... sound as if they knew better than the master!

Forgive me, but at best, that sounds like hero worship, and at worst, like fanboy-ism.

[mahlertitan]

Glad you brought Bruckner into this. His symphonies: long, complex, deep rich. Bit like Mahler's, really. But where Bruckner differs is that his works weren't in any way 'dense'. Unlike some sections of Mahler's symphonies. I'm thinking (off the top of my head) of sections within the first and second movements of his Fourth Symphony, and the first and final movements of his Seventh. Everything's there, all right. But in my view, just a bit too much 'everything.

Glad that you bought up Bruckner, but, I won't let you get away from calling Bruckner "not dense". His 4th symphony is to many, more appealing, "light" if you will. However, if you attempt to examine his later symphonies (or his overall symphonic output), the 4th stands out as an outlier. I can't not imagine the cosmic 8th as being anything but not "dense", or his 5th, or his 9th....

Perhaps you also need to explain to me what "dense" means, does it mean that too many notes are happening at once? or..... please do tell me.

[Lethevich]

Mahler definitely has a ton of non-dense moments (where most of the orchestra is not playing), but he may be referring to the rather hyper transitions between these different sections, and the segments where Mahler pretty much whips the orchestra up into a fury - something which Bruckner doesn't tend to do, his symphonies come across as more self-assured and inevitable, with less struggle.

[Mark]

Do try to keep in mind that each person's aesthetic will differ - sometimes greatly, sometimes only a little. With this in mind, consider also that all of my posts in this thread have been based upon my own emotional response to the music of the composers so far cited - rather than on technical knowledge or understanding, of which I possess next to nothing (the fact of which I've never made a secret).

This said, if I hear Bruckner as 'less dense' in orchestral texture (which is what I think I mean) than Mahler, and Sibelius as even less dense still, does that mean I'm wrong? Moreover, does my pondering about whether 'thinning out' some parts of Mahler's work to achieve something which would accord with my own sense of aesthetics (and clearly, those of other members here) imply that I'm attacking or trying to degrade Mahler, or deny him his rightful place as a great and original composer? I think not ... though it seems there are those who'd prefer to turn this into a battle. Needlessly, IMO.

[Mark]

Mahler definitely has a ton of non-dense moments (where most of the orchestra is not playing), but he may be referring to the rather hyper transitions between these different sections, and the segments where Mahler pretty much whips the orchestra up into a fury - something which Bruckner doesn't tend to do, his symphonies come across as more self-assured and inevitable, with less struggle.

Once again, I'm broadly in agreement here with Lethe, who's helped me by better expressing than I was able what I meant (in part, at least) by 'dense'.

[longears]

Thanks for sharing, everyone.  Y'all are entitled to your opinions--as are others, whether or not you approve or even care to consider them.  Personal attacks and childish baiting, however, fail to advance the exchange of ideas but rather discourage participation in a broader dialogue.

Thanks for trying to stimulate discourse, Mark. 

[Mark]

Personal attacks and childish baiting, however, fail to advance the exchange of ideas but rather discourage participation in a broader dialogue.

Couldn't agree more.

[jochanaan]

First, I love both composers--well, all three if you're counting Bruckner too.  But it's fruitless to compare them.

However, what has always impressed me about Mahler is how even in huge formats his style is clear, and how many intimate, chamber-music-style moments there are even in things like Symphony #8.  In this way, he's not so far from Sibelius as one might think.

(And wouldn't I love to have been a fly on the wall during that meeting of Mahler and Sibelius in Helsinki, 1907!)

I wonder how much the available resources had to do with each composer's development.  After all, Mahler had the Vienna Philharmonic to read his scores, while I'd guess that the Finnish orchestras of the time were rather less numerically and even technically proficient...

[Mark]

First, I love both composers--well, all three if you're counting Bruckner too. But it's fruitless to compare them.

Really?

However, what has always impressed me about Mahler is how even in huge formats his style is clear, and how many intimate, chamber-music-style moments there are even in things like Symphony #8. In this way, he's not so far from Sibelius as one might think.

If that's not making a comparison, I don't know what is.

In any case, why not compare two contrasting composers? And for that matter, why not deviate from the academically accepted, historically accurate version of musical chronology and instigate, as I have in this thread, a debate based solely on personal impression? It can raise some interesting points (and I believe it has over the course of the past five pages); and it beats simply Googling for matters of fact to confirm or contradict another's argument. If anything, I believe this discussion has been all the more original for not being something that's normally debated, and for taking an uncommon line by looking at comparisons (or not, as the case may be) between two unique and undisputedly talented individuals.

[Sergeant Rock]

In any case, why not compare two contrasting composers? And for that matter, why not deviate from the academically accepted, historically accurate version of musical chronology and instigate, as I have in this thread, a debate based solely on personal impression?

Well, I just hope you realize that's what dB does and he usually comes to grief after stating his "freely thought" thoughts. By the way, he claims Mahler is a simple composer, not dense and complex at all which contradicts your free-thinking assertion that he needs to be thinned out. Fascinating to see where all this free-thinking leads 

Seriously, Mark, I wonder if your problem with Mahler's "dense" orchestration isn't a product of head-phone listening (if I recall, most of your listening is done through head-phones). Mahler's music was intended for the wide open spaces of the concert hall. In our listening rooms at home, even the best equipment fails to make the music sound the way it's supposed too. That's not Mahler's fault.

Sarge

[Mark]

Well, I just hope you realize that's what dB does and he usually comes to grief after stating his "freely thought" thoughts. By the way, he claims Mahler is a simple composer, not dense and complex at all which contradicts your free-thinking assertion that he needs to be thinned out. Fascinating to see where all this free-thinking leads 

Heaven forbid that I should now be accused of 'free thinking'!

I believe I've made clear that I'm talking about personal impressions, my own emotional response - nothing more, nothing less. Actually, let me quote myself:

I'm not suggesting that my view is supported by facts, or that it is 'right' or 'true'.

With the fullest of respect to Poju, I wouldn't want to subscribe to his idea of 'free thinking' even if there was a fat cheque in it for me. Besides which, my personal impressions differ from his in that I accept that they're not necessarily a reflection of fact; Poju tends to assert his ideas (which, incidentally, I regard as very much his own personal impressions or emotional responses) with a tone that implies accuracy and authority, at least on some level.

Seriously, Mark, I wonder if your problem with Mahler's "dense" orchestration isn't a product of head-phone listening (if I recall, most of your listening is done through head-phones). Mahler's music was intended for the wide open spaces of the concert hall. In our listening rooms at home, even the best equipment fails make the music sound the way it's supposed too. That's not Mahler's fault.

While I take just a tad of exception to your final sentence, Sarge (implying, as it appears to be, that I'm wagging my finger at Mahler - not my intention at all), you make a good point about my predilection for headphone listening, and the potential incompatibility between listening this way as opposed to through speakers. Indeed, I might even be prepared to concede a certain amount of ground here, but I'd need to hear more Mahler played live to be able to revise my currently held view.

[Sergeant Rock]

Was meant to write? I don't follow. How do you know this?

Okay, let me revise my statement: Mahler wrote the symphonies he wasn't meant to write. Is that better? 

My thinking aloud aside, please don't imagine (as others appear to have done) that I intended this thread as a 'Sibelius vs Mahler' showdown. I love Mahler, I love Sibelius ... and I love how, after Mahler (and Wagner, Bruckner ... hell, even Brahms), Sibelius sounds so fresh, less emotional yet full of feeling despite his sparser writing style.

AFTER SIBELIUS COMES MAHLER

Sibelius is one of my favorite composers. In the top five actually. But after listening to long stretches of his emotionally constipated and far too terse music, Mahler comes as such a relief. Finally a complete cleansing of the system. Mahler's writing style is so rich, music glorious in it's wide-ranging colors and honest and fearless emotions. Mahler is not afraid to rage at the gods and Fate. He will not go gently into that good night. Sibelius tried emotion once, in his second symphony, but the results sound forced and banal and produce giggles in German audiences.

Mahler knew how to compose on larger than life canvases. Sibelius tried once (Kullervo) but it was such a failure he was embarrassed by it, refused to release it, and thereafter resorted to smaller scaled works, miniatures really compared to the truly great Romantic composers. These smaller-than-life forms he could handle with some competence because his actual life was much smaller than life (confined to a house in the woods for fifty years).

But even these works failed to take the world by storm and he's admired primarily today by the equally small-thinking, emotionally stunted English who are hugely embarrased by human feelings ("no sex please"). Sibelius is shunned by the vast majority of Europeans who can't understand why the cold, clipped music stops before it's even begun; why there's no satisfying emotional resolution. Even our resident Finn dislikes Sibelius.

Sarge, indulging in some free-thinking 

[Mark]

Sarge, I'm so pleased you've joined this discussion. Where have you, and your wicked sense of humour, been for the last 90-odd posts?

First, a quick rebuttal of the accusation (increasingly a stereotype in today's England, as a matter of fact ) that all English are repressed, sexually and otherwise. We're not. (There, rebuttal over. )

A shocker for me was this from you:

Sibelius is one of my favorite composers. But after listening to long stretches of his emotionally constipated and far too terse music, Mahler comes as such a relief. Finally a complete cleansing of the system.

Wow! That's cutting to the quick, all right. Interesting that you seem to take a completely converse view to that of myself and others here. Is it, perhaps, that your preference is for the 'big essay' of Mahler, rather than the poetry of Sibelius? (How's that for provocative? ) That Mahler knew how to compose on a big canvas surely doesn't negate what Sibelius did on much smaller ones? Cannot small be beautiful, too?

I find it particularly curious that you should choose Mahler to cleanse your musical palate after Sibelius. Do you normally follow dessert with a hog roast? Perhaps you do - but this certainly isn't my preference. Once I've dined a while on the meat of Mahler, I'm inclined to reach for the more delicate textures of Sibelius. Which is not, I hasten to add, to suggest that Mahler couldn't do subtle: there are, as has been observed at least once already in this thread, many moments in Mahler's symphonies where one can draw paralells with the music of ... well, what do you know, Sibelius! For me, and to give just two examples, these might range from those mysterious plucked strings in the middle of the Fifth Symphony's otherwise quite verbose third movement, to the sublime third movement of the Fourth Symphony.

And so, our free thinking continues ...

[Lethevich]

First, a quick rebuttal of the accusation (increasingly a stereotype in today's England, as a matter of fact ) that all English are repressed, sexually and otherwise. We're not. (There, rebuttal over. )

I think the teenage pregnancy figures long since debunked that one...

[Mark]

I think the teenage pregnancy figures long since debunked that one...

Tragically so.

[jochanaan]

...Interesting that you seem to take a completely converse view to that of myself and others here...

I think our esteemed sergeant was indulging in some satirical contrariness.

In a sense, Mark, you're right that we all tend to compare.  But it's still ultimately fruitless.  Mahler was a master at his art; Sibelius at his; but their arts had different goals, not as widely different as, say, Wagner and Webern, but very different nonetheless.

[Kullervo]

Even our resident Finn dislikes Sibelius.

That probably has more to do with Sibelius's popularity in Finland than anything in his music.

[karlhenning]

That probably has to do with the fact that Sibelius is viewed as a national hero.

But, so is Elgar!