The Great Mahler Debate

Started by Greta, April 21, 2007, 08:06:00 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mahlertitan

Quote from: 71 dB on April 30, 2007, 03:44:55 PM
I clearly pay attention to different things than you. In that sense I am not limited at all.

dude, i gave you a huge HINT, but you still don't get it, so it tells me that you are not a good listener at all.

DavidW

Quote from: 71 dB on April 30, 2007, 12:43:40 PM
Changing timbre is a long event if it happens rarely. Slow movements can have some short events as long as most of the events are long. Sorry David, but that was a pathetic try to make me look stupid.

I'm hurt that you thought that I was trying to make you look stupid.  If you want to turn the conversation into slinging insults then I'm done.  I'm not here to argue with you, I'm here to have a conversation with you.  I questioned your notion of density of musical events because I don't think that it's sound.  The fact that you have been evasive and dodgy about it, redefining what you mean, making provisions here and there, should suggest to you that you're on shaky ground.


71 dB

Quote from: O Mensch on April 30, 2007, 03:54:32 PM
But you have evidently missed numerous blatantly obvious elements of Mahler's work and content yourself with a very superficial understanding of what you think you heard. That is limited, when it comes to engaging your interlocutors on this forum. It would be one thing if you were capable of providing a detailed musical analysis and then said that you still find it inadequate compared to to the great Elgar. But it's quite another to claim Mahler's supposed vast inferiority and not even be able to accurately describe the works you claim are so inferior.

So I can't have opinions about any music because I don't have a degree in music? Don't you understand that even if I don't know every small aspect in music theory music can move me and I can enjoy it. If Elgar moves me more than Mahler then my opinion is that Elgar is a better composer. Simple as that!
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

71 dB

Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 30, 2007, 04:07:48 PM
dude, i gave you a huge HINT, but you still don't get it, so it tells me that you are not a good listener at all.

If I was a bad listener I would listen to only crappy pop music! I can enjoy complex classical works so I am a good listener.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

mahlertitan

#224
Quote from: 71 dB on April 30, 2007, 04:41:51 PM
So I can't have opinions about any music because I don't have a degree in music? Don't you understand that even if I don't know every small aspect in music theory music can move me and I can enjoy it. If Elgar moves me more than Mahler then my opinion is that Elgar is a better composer. Simple as that!

      You do have to justify your beliefs. You can hate Mahler if you want, it's none of my business. I can't make you like Mahler, but, you can't come to a thread that's dedicated to thoughtful discussions on this composer's music without having any sound arguments. You can hate Mahler passionately, and that's alright, but since you dropped in your line, you need to prove it why it is so.
      I understand your passion for Elgar, i've been through the same thing; only a few years ago, i thought that Mahler's music is the Greatest, far better than any composer ever lived.... because i was "in the moment", i was in the "Mahler phase", i can't get his music out of my head. When you are crazy about certain composer's works, it clouds your judgment, so, be careful about what statement you make, because it can really make you look foolish.

i felt that this thread has lost it's essence, it's no longer about Mahler's music, but rather "Everybody vs. 71 dB".

let's talk about Mahler.

71 dB

Quote from: MahlerTitan on April 30, 2007, 04:59:22 PM
      You do have to justify your beliefs. You can hate Mahler if you want, it's none of my business. I can't make you like Mahler, but, you can't come to a thread that's dedicated to thoughtful discussions on this composer's music without having any sound arguments. You can hate Mahler passionately, and that's alright, but since you dropped in your line, you need to prove it why it is so.

Wait a second! I don't hate Mahler! Where have I said something like that? I have been only critical. Mahler enjoys a reputation of beeing one of the greatest symphonist and I have just questioned that. He is definitely a fine composer. I like the hooking aspect in his music but in my opinion for example Elgar, Nielsen and Saint-Saƫns wrote better (=greater musical impact) symphonies.

I don't hate any classical composer but I hate how some composers are overvaluead and others are undervalued/ignored.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

MishaK

Quote from: 71 dB on April 30, 2007, 04:41:51 PM
So I can't have opinions about any music because I don't have a degree in music? Don't you understand that even if I don't know every small aspect in music theory music can move me and I can enjoy it. If Elgar moves me more than Mahler then my opinion is that Elgar is a better composer. Simple as that!

We've been over this before: You can like Elgar better than Mahler all you want. But you can't make absolute statements like "Elgar is a better composer" or "Mahler's ideas are limited" or "his melodies are bad" without some supporting logic. Nobody is going to take you for task for saying "I like Elgar better than Mahler". But as soon as you start making qualitative judgements (as opposed to pure expressions of preference) people will ask you for supporting evidence and logical argumentation in support of your claims. Without some musical knowledge your ability at providing these will be limited. My questions here were initially directed at prodding you to learn what you are obviously missing about Mahler. In the end, this additional technical understanding would help you to better understand Elgar and others as well. But I can't help you if you refuse.

71 dB

Quote from: O Mensch on April 30, 2007, 06:00:06 PM
We've been over this before: You can like Elgar better than Mahler all you want. But you can't make absolute statements like "Elgar is a better composer" or "Mahler's ideas are limited" or "his melodies are bad" without some supporting logic. Nobody is going to take you for task for saying "I like Elgar better than Mahler". But as soon as you start making qualitative judgements (as opposed to pure expressions of preference) people will ask you for supporting evidence and logical argumentation in support of your claims. Without some musical knowledge your ability at providing these will be limited. My questions here were initially directed at prodding you to learn what you are obviously missing about Mahler. In the end, this additional technical understanding would help you to better understand Elgar and others as well. But I can't help you if you refuse.

I try my best to present evidence for my claims. I have read some music theory and it seems to give names to things and not much else. From my point of view "academic" things are favored for no rational reason. I don't care if a development of thematic material goes "by the book" or a movement is perfectly in sonata form if it does not sound good. Music theory should be only a help to get music that sounds good.

I have different understanding of musical structures which comes from electronic (dance) music. I'd say I am one of the few (if not the only) person on this forum who has a clear understanding of how breakbeat should be done. These things can't be studied in universities. These things are learned listening to that kind of music and making music. I have been finetuning loops and creating rhythms for 15 years.

I have been listening to classical music for 10 years now. I have been expanding my understanding of electric music to classical music. Due to the lack of formal education I don't use the academic terms but I think I am talking about relevant things using my own terms.

Yes, perhaps I am missing something in Mahler's music but please, give me some time to find it. When I tell what wrong with Mahler in my opinion, others can tell what I am doing wrong.   
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

from the new world

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 01:44:49 AM
Yes, perhaps I am missing something in Mahler's music but please, give me some time to find it. When I tell what wrong with Mahler in my opinion, others can tell what I am doing wrong.  

If you have only heard each symphony once, or even a few times then I doubt that you really have much idea what is going on. I know that I certainly didn't, and there are still, after 4 years, some movements that I do not really follow. It was only a few weeks ago that I actually understood the connections between the adagietto and rondo of the 5th.

Quote from: 71 dB on April 30, 2007, 04:41:51 PM
If Elgar moves me more than Mahler then my opinion is that Elgar is a better composer. Simple as that!

There is every chance that Mahler will move you more than Elgar, given time, and you do seem willing to explore Mahler, even if you are not that impressed at the moment. The point is that you know Elgar, but not Mahler and until you do actually know the works your opinions are based on what you thought you heard, and certainly not on what you hear after you get to know the works well.

71 dB

Quote from: from the new world on May 01, 2007, 02:33:17 AM
If you have only heard each symphony once, or even a few times then I doubt that you really have much idea what is going on. I know that I certainly didn't, and there are still, after 4 years, some movements that I do not really follow. It was only a few weeks ago that I actually understood the connections between the adagietto and rondo of the 5th.

There is every chance that Mahler will move you more than Elgar, given time, and you do seem willing to explore Mahler, even if you are not that impressed at the moment. The point is that you know Elgar, but not Mahler and until you do actually know the works your opinions are based on what you thought you heard, and certainly not on what you hear after you get to know the works well.

It's also possible Mahler moves me less when I listen to him more. I haven't had a promising feeling with Mahler. I don't feel that further listening with make me enjoy Mahler more. I have heard Adagietto from the fifth many many times and I think it's getting less interesting with each listening. I fear the same happens with other movements and symphonies.

When I heard Elgar's symphonies the first time I knew I didn't get everything and I was very interested to hear them again. After 5 or 6 listenings I feld I understand everything.

But, before I have heard Mahler's work several times I don't say anything... ...if Mahler hits me then there is Bruckner to be understood...  ;D
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

karlhenning

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 03:36:56 AM
When I heard Elgar's symphonies the first time I knew I didn't get everything and I was very interested to hear them again. After 5 or 6 listenings I feld I understand everything.

Actually, from what I read of your posts on this forum over time, I am not at all confident that you understand everything about (say) any of Elgar's symphonies.

But if you feel you understand everything, why, you just go right ahead.

greg

Quote from: from the new world on May 01, 2007, 02:33:17 AM
There is every chance that Mahler will move you more than Elgar, given time, and you do seem willing to explore Mahler, even if you are not that impressed at the moment. The point is that you know Elgar, but not Mahler and until you do actually know the works your opinions are based on what you thought you heard, and certainly not on what you hear after you get to know the works well.
Time is definetely a factor, since it took me months before I could say "Mahler is my favorite composer" from the time I first started getting into his music. Now he's been my favorite for 2 years, and probaby for the rest of my life (i say probably, but i'm almost 100% sure about it).


71 dB

Quote from: karlhenning on May 01, 2007, 04:46:03 AM
Actually, from what I read of your posts on this forum over time, I am not at all confident that you understand everything about (say) any of Elgar's symphonies.

But if you feel you understand everything, why, you just go right ahead.

Funny, I feel I am one of those few people who understand everything about Elgar's symphonies.
Spatial distortion is a serious problem deteriorating headphone listening.
Crossfeeders reduce spatial distortion and make the sound more natural
and less tiresome in headphone listening.

My Sound Cloud page <-- NEW Jan. 2024 "Harpeggiator"

knight66

The claims being made of not needing to understand the formal structures of music to be able to compose great works, better perhaps than Mahler seemingly, reminds me of a parallell.

Picasso eventually was producing semi abstract figurative work with the most economical number of strokes of the brush. There was very little there, yet there was in fact so very much there.

However, this was a distillation from years of long and close study of anatomy and of methods of producing work.

He made it look easy and spawned a number of half-assed semi-immitators who felt they could ignore the sweat involved in learing the basic craft, and go straight to the distillation. It was a best a pale moon up against the burning sun of Picasso's originality.

There are no shortcuts, unless you happen to be a bone fide genius.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

knight66

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 05:08:35 AM
Funny, I feel I am one of those few people who understand everything about Elgar's symphonies.

If you understand everything, then you are in fact unique.

Mike
DavidW: Yeah Mike doesn't get angry, he gets even.
I wasted time: and time wasted me.

greg

Last night I listened to that incredible opening movement of the 9th symphony, and just realized more than ever how complex it really is. I'd say it's one of the hardest scores to "figure out" that I've ever studied. And yeah, I'm comparing it to Webern and Schoenberg, too. Even compared to a hyper-complex score like Ligeti's Lontano- with Lontano, you can break it down and realize there is a very simple idea going on harmonically, but it's made complex by having so many different instruments play through in a different way, and also, nearly the whole piece is quiet. With Mahler, you have so many instruments playing figures that aren't related at all rhythmically, but also, you have fragments of themes used as counterpoint going on, too. And that's just the beginning...

greg

Quote from: 71 dB on May 01, 2007, 05:08:35 AM
Funny, I feel I am one of those few people who understand everything about Elgar's symphonies.
and you said you didn't have the scores?
uhhhhhh....
trust me, if you get the scores, you'll learn stuff you never knew

karlhenning

Quote from: greg on May 01, 2007, 05:13:42 AM
and you said you didn't have the scores?
uhhhhhh....
trust me, if you get the scores, you'll learn stuff you never knew

No, Greg, the key is feeling that you know the music better than anyone else.

Debussy was already taken, so he's latched onto Elgar  ;D

greg

Quote from: karlhenning on May 01, 2007, 05:16:10 AM
No, Greg, the key is feeling that you know the music better than anyone else.

Debussy was already taken, so he's latched onto Elgar  ;D
Wagner was already taken, too..... so now we have three composers that are understood better than any conductor in the world who has studied their scores- what should we do now? Not let them make any more recordings? I mean, if they don't understand them better than 71 db or The Pink Harp, why bother?  :-\

Greta

QuoteI haven't had a promising feeling with Mahler. I don't feel that further listening with make me enjoy Mahler more.

To each his own, of course, but for me I had a promising feeling even at the beginning of listening to Mahler, that really special rare feeling that this is a composer you could fall in love with. That sparkle of excitement of how much fun it's going to be to discover their work and what a journey.

I started with Mahler's 5th actually, and spent a long time with it. The Adagietto didn't really hit me the first time, or the second either, I thought it was beautiful but it didn't just slay me like it does now. It just breaks me down in tears. For me it's close to the Tristan Liebestod, Barber's Adagio, Elgar's Nimrod, and others, as one of the most sublime slow pieces ever written. So nostalgic and longing and filled with overwhelming love and beauty and pain.

Mahler wrote the most gorgeous Adagios, so poignant. I also really love the 4th's (3rd mvmt), we were driving home a few days ago listening to it and I was looking out the window at the ink black sky, twinkling stars, and moon perched above and suddenly had this powerful realization of how small we are on this little blue planet in this grand universe...breathtaking.

His music can run very deep. But for me, I find it kind of comes up and hits me when I'm not looking! I think you have to be in the right mood for him to really speak to you. On the surface his music is obviously pretty stuff, but I think, like with any composer, some people just connect with the deep ideas he tried to express and others don't. There are certainly many composers I don't "get" that a lot of other people do!

There's no need to contradict any of the above, 71dB, we know you're giving him a try and that's the most you can do. Leave him for a while, come home after a long day and throw on one of his symphonies on a whim and see what happens. In any case, you'll have gotten to know the music of another great composer. And thanks for stimulating our discussion. ;)