The Great Mahler Debate

[71 dB]

Elgar do you mean in your example that events = notes?  In fact why not just say that so there is no ambiguity.

So are we talking about Mahler's density of notes per second here?  If you played a Mahler symphony by shortening the duration of the notes and playing at a faster tempo then the density of notes per second will go up, but does that make the symphony better?  I would say that it wouldn't, because you would lose the emotional impact of the symphony.

I'm not surprised that you can turn what appears on the surface to be a quite reasonable statement on Mahler's music on it's head.  If it couldn't be turned on it's head, then you would have just invented a quantitative measure of quality.  And we know that such a notion does not make sense in the arts.

I am not trying to invent objective measure for quality in music but certain things can be measured mentally. Events = notes pretty much but also the way the notes are played. Fading sound in and out is an event. Changing the timbre of an intrument during a (long) note is an event too. Everything that has musical relevance and information is an event.

This is not about the quality. I am just explaining why Mahler's slow and fast movements differ less than those by many other composers.

[DavidW]

Well okay that would seem to suggest that then by you saying that Mahler's slow movements are as eventful as his fast movements, you are paying Mahler a compliment then right?

I certainly don't think that slow movements should be uneventful, I think that they should be as meaningful as the fast movements, just expressing different moods.

[71 dB]

Well okay that would seem to suggest that then by you saying that Mahler's slow movements are as eventful as his fast movements, you are paying Mahler a compliment then right?

I certainly don't think that slow movements should be uneventful, I think that they should be as meaningful as the fast movements, just expressing different moods.

This isn't that simple. I talked about "spectrum of events". Slow movements should have lots of long events (most instruments play long notes) and only a few short events if any. For fast movements it should be the other way around, of course.

Mahler uses the same kind of spectrum for all movements. The spectrum is only scaled by tempo. This is because Mahler seems to have had a rigid system for composing causing an almost constant balance between short, medium and long notes.

I am not paying Mahler a compliment yet. It seems my understanding of his music is not good enough and I need to listen more.

[mahlertitan]

I am not trying to invent objective measure for quality in music but certain things can be measured mentally.

it's the first time in my life that i have hear that statement. I have taken countless courses in physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, from high school to college, this is the first time i have encounter the phrase "measured mentally".

how persuasive do you think your arguments are, if your evidence came from you "mentally". You can never prove, persuade anything, anyone if you don't have HARD, OBJECTIVE, EVIDENCE.

My conclusion so far is, you must be one one of the following:
either you're
trying to mess with our heads intentionally
or
15 years old

[DavidW]

This isn't that simple. I talked about "spectrum of events". Slow movements should have lots of long events (most instruments play long notes) and only a few short events if any. For fast movements it should be the other way around, of course.

Ah but you counted things such as changing timbre as an event.  That is a short event.  That means that you think that slow movements should not have any nuances such as that?  That sounds pretty boring to me!   I can't think of any great composer that would write such bland slow movements.

[71 dB]

Mahler 5 listened. The first two movements are stormy, relatively complex but messy. I have heard Adagietto many many times before on radio. My opinion about Mahler have been based on that. It's beautiful music and a good slow movement but frankly nothing mindblowing. The final movement was uninteresting.

Mahler's thematic material is not that strong and he plays with it a lot trying to get something out of it. Mahler is complex sometimes but in a boring way. Maybe he had a poor imagination?

Ah but you counted things such as changing timbre as an event.  That is a short event.  That means that you think that slow movements should not have any nuances such as that?  That sounds pretty boring to me!   I can't think of any great composer that would write such bland slow movements.

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.

[Florestan]

I have heard Adagietto many many times before on radio. My opinion about Mahler have been based on that.

It's like an opinion about Beethoven based on Fuer Elise, or about Mozart based on Marcia alla Turca.

[karlhenning]

It's like an opinion about Beethoven based on Fuer Elise, or about Mozart based on Marcia alla Turca

Or even, like an opinion about Elgar based on The Starlight Express 

[71 dB]

It's like an opinion about Beethoven based on Fuer Elise, or about Mozart based on Marcia alla Turca.

That's why I listen to the symphonies now that I can.

Or even, like an opinion about Elgar based on The Starlight Express 

I wonder if anyone has heard The Starlight Express but nothing else by Elgar? I don't understand why you mock that work. Musical cheese? So what? We all like cheese don't we? Elgar had the guts to compose lighter things too. I like the work a lot.

[MishaK]

Mahler 5 listened. The first two movements are stormy, relatively complex but messy. I have heard Adagietto many many times before on radio. My opinion about Mahler have been based on that. It's beautiful music and a good slow movement but frankly nothing mindblowing. The final movement was uninteresting.

OK, just small test of your listening skills: the main theme of the Adagietto, did you happen to hear it resurface somewhere else outside of that movement? Oh, BTW, Streng wie ein Kondukt = stormy? I don't think so.

Mahler's thematic material is not that strong and he plays with it a lot trying to get something out of it.

Just what do you mean by "strong"?

[71 dB]

OK, just small test of your listening skills: the main theme of the Adagietto, did you happen to hear it resurface somewhere else outside of that movement? Oh, BTW, Streng wie ein Kondukt = stormy? I don't think so.

Yes, I think I heard it before the Adagietto. Second or third movement.

Just what do you mean by "strong"?

Simply put: no good melodies.

[MishaK]

Yes, I think I heard it before the Adagietto. Second or third movement.

Interesting. Can you be more precise?

Simply put: no good melodies.

Define "good". Also, need a theme necessarily be melodic to be "good"? (C.f., e.g., Beethoven Sym. No.5, 1st mov't.)

[71 dB]

Interesting. Can you be more precise?

Sorry, I don't remember better than that.

Define "good". Also, need a theme necessarily be melodic to be "good"? (C.f., e.g., Beethoven Sym. No.5, 1st mov't.)

I can't define that. Mahler's thematic material is just relatively boring. Period. I don't consider that Beethoven theme good either but it's used well.

[MishaK]

Sorry, I don't remember better than that.

I am asking you to re-listen and re-check. If you can figure out where that theme appears, you will need to revise a few of your earlier statements. I will leave it at that.

I can't define that. Mahler's thematic material is just relatively boring. Period.

You do realize you just went from defining one relative and subjective term with another relative and subjective term, which inturn you defined with yet another relative and subjective term. Not very helpful, nor applicable, really, considering that literally thousands will play top dollar to hear the world's best orchestras and maestros perform this stuff and all of them will be at the edge of their seats.

I don't consider that Beethoven theme good either but it's used well.

Which raises the question whether a theme needs to be "good" at all.

[mahlertitan]

Sorry, I don't remember better than that.

I can't define that. Mahler's thematic material is just relatively boring. Period. I don't consider that Beethoven theme good either but it's used well.

listen to the last movement of Mahler's fifth, and try to make a connection between the 4th movement and fifth movement!

it's not that simple!

[MishaK]

listen to the last movement of Mahler's fifth, and try to make a connection between the 4th movement and fifth movement!

it's not that simple!

Dude! Don't give it away!

[71 dB]

I won't be listening to Mahler 5 in near future.
I just listened it and now it's turn to listen something else!

[MishaK]

I won't be listening to Mahler 5 in near future.
I just listened it and now it's turn to listen something else!

Then you don't really have any basis for making any such universal pronouncements, as your ability to comprehend at first listen is clearly very limited.

[71 dB]

Then you don't really have any basis for making any such universal pronouncements, as your ability to comprehend at first listen is clearly very limited.

I clearly pay attention to different things than you. In that sense I am not limited at all.

[MishaK]

I clearly pay attention to different things than you. In that sense I am not limited at all.

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.