The Great Mahler Debate

[Greta]

Ken Russell's movie? I did see a funny clip on YouTube of it, the part about Cosima Wagner!

I want to see it very much, but it's pretty hard to get and quite expensive now. Hmm, maybe my rental store would have it, a long shot though.

[71 dB]

Why would that be the definition of complexity? Wouldn't one have to consider the structural arrangement of those notes?

Calling Mahler simple and tedious.... I'm dumbfounded.

Well, musical complexity is a complex thing. 

The structural arrangement define how much you have music per note. I have my theory of music. I call it the theory of "gravitational fields of sounds."

According to this theory every sound causes a multidimensional  (the dimensions are musical dimensions like timbre, melody, harmony, rhythm, development, etc.) mental gravitational fields in our head. One of these dimension is time. Gravitational fields stretches out in to the past (what just happened) and in the future (what's going to happen). This makes us anticipate certain things from the next sounds. However, the gravitational fields are extremely complex in nature and they work in a multidimensional space.

Good music follows the complex behavior of gravitational fields of sound.

The better a composer is the better he/she understands the nature of these gravitational fields and can use them in sophisticated ways. So, complex music does not mean many notes but sophisticated use of gravitational fields. Sometimes many notes are needed, sometimes not. Because gravitational fields of sounds are so complex and operate in a multidimensional music space, music theories try to chop it up to smaller part in space of fewer dimensions. For example, the theories about counterpoint is just a simplified part of the gravitational fields projected into three-dimensional space (harmony, melody and time).

Mahler seems to have had a not-so-strong understanding of these gravitational fields. That's why he's music can't be extremely complex even if he had million notes per page.

I need a better name for "gravitational fields of sounds". vibrational fields?

[Florestan]

Well, musical complexity is a complex thing. 

The structural arrangement define how much you have music per note. I have my theory of music. I call it the theory of "gravitational fields of sounds."

According to this theory every sound causes a multidimensional  (the dimensions are musical dimensions like timbre, melody, harmony, rhythm, development, etc.) mental gravitational fields in our head. One of these dimension is time. Gravitational fields stretches out in to the past (what just happened) and in the future (what's going to happen). This makes us anticipate certain things from the next sounds. However, the gravitational fields are extremely complex in nature and they work in a multidimensional space.

Good music follows the complex behavior of gravitational fields of sound.

The better a composer is the better he/she understands the nature of these gravitational fields and can use them in sophisticated ways. So, complex music does not mean many notes but sophisticated use of gravitational fields. Sometimes many notes are needed, sometimes not. Because gravitational fields of sounds are so complex and operate in a multidimensional music space, music theories try to chop it up to smaller part in space of fewer dimensions. For example, the theories about counterpoint is just a simplified part of the gravitational fields projected into three-dimensional space (harmony, melody and time).

Mahler seems to have had a not-so-strong understanding of these gravitational fields. That's why he's music can't be extremely complex even if he had million notes per page.

I need a better name for "gravitational fields of sounds". vibrational fields?

If this is free-thinking, then I confess I am a slave... and proud of it.

[karlhenning]

Good music follows the complex behavior of gravitational fields of sound.

What a hoot!

[Choo Choo]

What's confusing me - well, one of the things confusing me - is this notion of complexity, and why it should matter so much.

If what you're saying is that sometimes more can be achieved through economy of (focussed) effort rather than a flurry of (unfocussed) activity, I have no problem with that.  I suspect that isn't what you're saying though... 

[karlhenning]

If what you're saying is that sometimes more can be achieved through economy of (focussed) effort rather than a flurry of (unfocussed) activity, I have no problem with that.  I suspect that isn't what you're saying though... 

That seems to be sort of what he's saying, sometimes.

Only he still wants that to count as "musical complexity" 

"Musical complexity" is such a dizzyingly complex affair, you basically have to be 71 dB to understand it.  But the advantage is, when you are 71 db, you understand it completely  

[71 dB]

What's confusing me - well, one of the things confusing me - is this notion of complexity, and why it should matter so much.

If what you're saying is that sometimes more can be achieved through economy of (focussed) effort rather than a flurry of (unfocussed) activity, I have no problem with that.  I suspect that isn't what you're saying though... 

Economy is an important part of sophisticated use of "vibrational fields."

"Musical complexity" is such a dizzyingly complex affair, you basically have to be 71 dB to understand it.  But the advantage is, when you are 71 db, you understand it completely  

I doubt I understand everything about it. Just an early theory really.

[Choo Choo]

So is it like, say, the contrast between a line drawing by Picasso or Matisse - which manages to create a strong image through the use of a few extremely well chosen and drafted lines - compared with the sort of pencil drawing that I might produce, which might contain a lot of lines but end up not conveying much of an image at all?

[karlhenning]

I doubt I understand everything about it.

An unusually sensible statement, for you.

Again, you have this hang-up on the notion of "complexity" as though that intrinsically means superiority.  That is a peculiar obsession, which is actually antithetical to freethinking, BTW.

[karlhenning]

Economy is an important part of sophisticated use of "vibrational fields."

This is arrant poppycock; you're slinging verbiage around without holding yourself in the least intellectually accountable.

Define for us "vibrational fields," please, so that we can attempt a rational discussion of this.

Thanks in advance.

[Choo Choo]

Or is it, say, the contrast between the "complexity" of a Rothko painting versus ... oh I don't know ... a Pollock?

Something like the "Seagram" Rothkos which we have here in London, each painting could be described as a very simple pattern of coloured blocks, but both singly and in combination they have the power to evoke complex reactions in the viewer.

I'm trying to understand what the point is here.

[71 dB]

So is it like, say, the contrast between a line drawing by Picasso or Matisse - which manages to create a strong image through the use of a few extremely well chosen and drafted lines - compared with the sort of pencil drawing that I might produce, which might contain a lot of lines but end up not conveying much of an image at all?

Partly it's like that but in music things are very complex. Economy may contradic certain musical dimensions. Say you need an epic ending to your symphony. Economic use of orchestral forces may not give you the result you are after but perhaps it's a good idea to have an economic penultimate movement for dynamic contrast?

[Florestan]

I'm trying to understand what the point is here.

Good luck!

[lukeottevanger]

71 dB, please could you describe in more detail what these 'gravitational fields' are, why a certain approach to them is indicative of quality, how in practical terms they are to be seen in action, and in what ways Mahler fals short in his use of them, whilst Elgar (presumably) is supreme above all other composers?

I'm assuming, naturally, that no musically specific answer will be forthcoming, because it never has been in the past. And of course that is partly because isn't such an answer available, and partly because the whole thing smacks of your making up theories after the fact, to fit with and 'justify' your tastes.

[71 dB]

Define for us "vibrational fields," please, so that we can attempt a rational discussion of this.

Thanks in advance.

I defined it above. Please read what I write if you want to be so critical!

[karlhenning]

I defined it above. Please read what I write if you want to be so critical!

Defined it where?  It should be easy for you to furnish a link.  Should have been easy for you to paste it in afresh.

[karlhenning]

The structural arrangement define how much you have music per note. I have my theory of music. I call it the theory of "gravitational fields of sounds."

According to this theory every sound causes a multidimensional  (the dimensions are musical dimensions like timbre, melody, harmony, rhythm, development, etc.) mental gravitational fields in our head. One of these dimension is time. Gravitational fields stretches out in to the past (what just happened) and in the future (what's going to happen). This makes us anticipate certain things from the next sounds. However, the gravitational fields are extremely complex in nature and they work in a multidimensional space.

Is this what you referred to? Because nothing here defines what a "vibrational field" is.

Still waiting . . . .

[mahlertitan]

Well, musical complexity is a complex thing. 

The structural arrangement define how much you have music per note. I have my theory of music. I call it the theory of "gravitational fields of sounds."

According to this theory every sound causes a multidimensional  (the dimensions are musical dimensions like timbre, melody, harmony, rhythm, development, etc.) mental gravitational fields in our head. One of these dimension is time. Gravitational fields stretches out in to the past (what just happened) and in the future (what's going to happen). This makes us anticipate certain things from the next sounds. However, the gravitational fields are extremely complex in nature and they work in a multidimensional space.

Good music follows the complex behavior of gravitational fields of sound.

The better a composer is the better he/she understands the nature of these gravitational fields and can use them in sophisticated ways. So, complex music does not mean many notes but sophisticated use of gravitational fields. Sometimes many notes are needed, sometimes not. Because gravitational fields of sounds are so complex and operate in a multidimensional music space, music theories try to chop it up to smaller part in space of fewer dimensions. For example, the theories about counterpoint is just a simplified part of the gravitational fields projected into three-dimensional space (harmony, melody and time).

so, what does it have to do with gravity? or what does it have to do with gravitational field? since when is music related to gravitational fields?
it's bad enough you give really bad "arguments", now you are bringing pseudo-science to aid your argument? if none of the above idea has ever been published in any scientific journal, how can anyone believe anything that you are saying?

just one more quesiton: you took physics in highschool right?

[Choo Choo]

Now that this thread has given up all pretence of dealing with Mahler, I feel entitled to post that last night I dipped in (yet again) to Robert Simpson's indispensable book on Bruckner complete with blow-by-blow account of the symphonies.  It's laced with references to Schubert:  not so much (indeed, not at all) in the sense of this Brucknerian theme deriving from that Schubertian one - as in certain distinctive features shared by both.  E.g. in the context of the 6th Symphony, Simpson writes of "Bruckner's beloved strategem of treating a dominant seventh as a German sixth in a new key, a delight he shares with Schubert." (I have no idea what this means.)  The idea of shared background or vocabulary is made more strongly again in his analysis of the String Quintet.

But then, in the section dealing with the E Minor Mass, you find this:  "So far forward does the Sanctus look, that we can find something very like it in Sibelius's Seventh Symphony."  Now there's a connection I'd never have thought of.

[71 dB]

71 dB, please could you describe in more detail what these 'gravitational fields' are, why a certain approach to them is indicative of quality, how in practical terms they are to be seen in action, and in what ways Mahler fals short in his use of them, whilst Elgar (presumably) is supreme above all other composers?

I'm assuming, naturally, that no musically specific answer will be forthcoming, because it never has been in the past. And of course that is partly because isn't such an answer available, and partly because the whole thing smacks of your making up theories after the fact, to fit with and 'justify' your tastes.

These "gravitational fields of sounds" or "vibrational fields" are a simple and complex thing. Our brain creates and processes them automatically. we don't even notice how much calculations is beeing done. It's like face recognition. Our brain needs to do VERY complex calculations in order to recognise a familiar face but we don't notice anything. It's all automatic. Some people can't recognise faces because the part of the brain is damaged.

Okay, I try to explain. Pictures would help but I don't have any. Let's say a C-note is being played on cello. This sound creates a "vibrational field" in our head in many musical dimensions. For example, if we are in C major, the harmonic dimension of this field makes us "expect" perhaps notes E and G being played on other instruments. If some other notes are played, the situation is more complex musically but most probably easily explained somehow. The cello may be playing a certain rhythm. All the notes before this C-note did create their "vibrational field" which are still in effect in time dimension.

Because the "vibrational fields" operate in a multidimensional space the relations between them can be very complex even if the score was simple. It's all about how musically talented the composer is. Conducors and musicians use "vibrational fields" in order to blow life into score. Visually a similar thing happens when we watch stereo images (two 2-dimensional pictures). Our brain is able to calculate a 3-dimensional image out of the compressed information.