The Great Mahler Debate

[zamyrabyrd]

When I talk about slow and fast music I don't mean only tempo but more importantly "spectrum of events". If you double the tempo but use twice longer notes there is still the same amount of event per second. Mahler's "spectrum of events" remains almost the same even if the tempo vary a lot.

There may be something to what you are saying about "spectrum of events" and it might even be a productive point of departure for a discussion--but with a few caveats. Such an idea usually raises its head in ethnomusicology. But more of that a little later.

First of all, it might seem that a piece with let's say a metre of 4/4 with four quarter notes to the beat and each one equal to MM 60 would be the same as turning the metre into 2/2 and each half note gets one beat. HOWEVER, the feel of a half note just simply is NOT the same as a quarter. The question, why most waltzes are 3/4 and not 3/8  is essentially the same process speeded up instead but doesn't pan out.

I think the best way to describe the "spectrum of events" in music is to use language as an example. Cross culturally, languages as a rule have one outstanding aspect of complexity. English has orthographic stumbling blocks; Chinese is relatively simple grammatically but has a few thousand characters; German has all those confounding endings, and so on.  Western tonal music has harmony and melody. "Events" are not necessarily measured in notes but underground even techtonic changes. (This is really such a large subject that I fain from even trying to describe it...)

The differences in Indian Ragas might microtonal; in African drumming, complex layered rhythms, Middle Eastern music, almost infinite variations of a melody (listen to Oum Khoulthum), and so on.

So an "event" in a Mahler Symphony may be a change of melody, or its fragmentation, or a different harmonization (think of the last movement of #1 where the last tattoo of the trumpet is harmonized in an utterly astounding change of key), or a contrasting counter melody, etc., etc, etc. Now, to wit, all these and more are not only linear but subject to multi layered structure. So one does not go from event to event but experiences them architecturally.

Regards,
ZB

[PerfectWagnerite]

First of all, it might seem that a piece with let's say a metre of 4/4 with four quarter notes to the beat and each one equal to MM 60 would be the same as turning the metre into 2/2 and each half note gets one beat. HOWEVER, the feel of a half note just simply is NOT the same as a quarter. The question, why most waltzes are 3/4 and not 3/8  is essentially the same process speeded up instead but doesn't pan out.

Well, when you have 4/4 there are four beats per measure and if you change it to 2/2 there are only 2 beats per measure so naturally the pulse of the music is going to be different. BUT, if you change the 4/4 to 2/4 but make every note half the note value, for example the quarter note in 4/4 to an eighth note in 2/4, THEN the pulse would be the same right? But somehow it STILL feels different. I notice that in the SLOW movements of almost all works it is always the eigth note and sometimes the 16th note that gets the beat. You wonder why the composer doesn't notate the entire movement so that the quarter note gets the beat, at least that saves a couple of slashes on music paper right?

[Guido]

Sorry, I've come to this discussion late, but I don't understand the obsession with complexity? Why not just listen to Boulez, Carter and Ferneyhough all the time. The Sarabande of the fifth cello suite by Bach is one of the simplest movements you're ever likely to hear (not harmonically...) but as Rostropovich says: It's worth more than many volumes by lesser composers.

I'm only just bigining to like Mahler, and understand his music. I'm not sure the sort of fetishism with size and grandiosity is totally my preferred aesthetic, but I can see its appeal, and am accepting the music on its own terms. Its hard work though!

[71 dB]

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!

Yes, I have to find the mood Mahler suites best. I don't have a clue what that mood would be.

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.

Some composers I start to like very fast, others take more time. I have a bad feeling about Mahler but we never know... ...at least I try. Actually Mahler is nice music but only nice. It does not blow me away!

You are welcome, it's good if I have contributed a stimulating discussion.

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? 

In what way conductors do not understand Elgar's music? How can they conduct it if there is something they don't get? Remember that what I understand completely is conductors interpretation of Elgar's scores.

[karlhenning]

Sorry, I've come to this discussion late, but I don't understand the obsession with complexity?

Yes, that is but one of 71 dB's dBêtes noires . . . .

[karlhenning]

Remember that what I understand completely is conductors interpretation of Elgar's scores.

How can you understand that "completely," if you do not read the scores, yourself?

Take your time.

[MishaK]

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.

Nothing in Mahler is "by the book" or "academic", really. Again, I am not questioning the sincerity of your preferences. But then state them as what they are: preferences, not erudite judgments on quality. You lack the technical understanding to make the latter.

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.

That's lovely, but completely irrelevant to analyzing and understanding Mahler.

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.   

Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to provide a Schenkerian analysis of Mahler's 9th by the end of the week. You can do with Mahler what you want, like it dislike it whatever. Just don't come here and post silly claims of Mahler's compositional inferiority when in fact you don't have the knowledge basis to make such claims. Say Mahler is not your cup of tea or you haven't yet found time to fully appreciate him or whatever. But don't say his melodies are poor and his ideas limited, when you don't know what is really going on.

[karlhenning]

That's lovely, but completely irrelevant to analyzing and understanding Mahler.

Honestly, I think breakbeat is completely irrelevant to analyzing and understanding Elgar, too . . . .

[71 dB]

How can you understand that "completely," if you do not read the scores, yourself?

Take your time.

If reading scores is the only way to understand music completely, what's the point of listening to it?

For me scores are the media for storing musical data in compressed format. Nothing more.

That's lovely, but completely irrelevant to analyzing and understanding Mahler.

Not irrelevant. Mahler didn't live in an isolated university of different musical laws. Rhythm and harmony are pretty much interchangeable musical dimensions. Our brain process these two things in the same area.

[karlhenning]

If reading scores is the only way to understand music completely, what's the point of listening to it?

Thank you for the strawman non-answer.

[karlhenning]

Rhythm and harmony are pretty much interchangeable musical dimensions.

It's not every day I read something this ridiculous!

[Florestan]

Jesus Christ and Holy Virgin, have mercy on us, poor sinners!

What's got breakbeat and meters and musical events and strong melodies and whatever... got to do with Mahler,  or Elgar or anyone for that matter?

I like what I like, I dislike what I dislike, I never pass judgment on any composer, so help me God!

Raum fuer alle hat die Erde! - Friedrich Schiller *

*) The Earth has room for everyone

[karlhenning]

What's got breakbeat and meters and musical events and strong melodies and whatever... got to do with Mahler,  or Elgar or anyyone for that matter?

:-)

And check PM, mon ami!

[Charles]

. Rhythm and harmony are pretty much interchangeable musical dimensions.

..... which led to .....

It's not every day I read something this ridiculous!

Seconded !!!

Charles

[71 dB]

It's not every day I read something this ridiculous!

You should read more things "this ridiculous". You could learn something new Karl!

What's got breakbeat and meters and musical events and strong melodies and whatever... got to do with Mahler,  or Elgar or anyone for that matter?

Everything's got to do with everything in the mind of a free-thinker! I look for logical connections between every possible things. That opens unbelievable possibilities for understanding things.

[Florestan]

Everything's got to do with everything in the mind of a free-thinker!

Ok, my friend! Please explain me the connection between Gustav Mahler,  Hans Memmling and Groucho Marx.

[MishaK]

If reading scores is the only way to understand music completely, what's the point of listening to it?

For me scores are the media for storing musical data in compressed format. Nothing more.

Sure, but unless you have perfect pitch and are completely "fluent" in solfege, the score does help massively in understanding what you're hearing and hearing things with new ears when you listen the next time.

Not irrelevant. Mahler didn't live in an isolated university of different musical laws. Rhythm and harmony are pretty much interchangeable musical dimensions. Our brain process these two things in the same area.

Stop! Wait a minute. Earlier you objected to things going "by the book", now you speak of musical laws? Apart from the physics of electromagnetic radiation in the audible spectrum over time, what are these? I don't doubt that all kinds of noise are analyzed by the same part of the brain, but structurally breakbeat will offer only a limited "vocabulary" for analyzing other forms and idioms of music.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Remember that what I understand completely is conductors interpretation of Elgar's scores.

And how do you know what Elgar's scores are if  you don't read them??? How do you know whether a conductor's intepretation is what the score says? Or do you just "free-think" your way again?

[71 dB]

Ok, my friend! Please explain me the connection between Gustav Mahler,  Hans Memmling and Groucho Marx.

Three things. That means 3 connections between 2 things:

Gustav Mahler - Hans Memmling
Gustav Mahler - Groucho Marx
Hans Memmling - Groucho Marx.

Unfortunately I don't know yet these connections. Life is too short and I need to prioritise.

I haven't even heard of Hans Memmling. Wikipedia knows Hans Memling (Menlinc), who was a 15th century Flemish painter.

[Florestan]

Three things. That means 3 connections between 2 things:

Gustav Mahler - Hans Memmling
Gustav Mahler - Groucho Marx
Hans Memmling - Groucho Marx.

Unfortunately I don't know yet these connections. Life is too short and I need to prioritise.

I haven't even heard of Hans Memmling. Wikipedia knows Hans Memling (Menlinc), who was a 15th century Flemish painter.

Precisely. Now, what's the connection between them?