The Great Mahler Debate

[knight66]

And those changes in the timbre, harmonic tension, rhythm, etc....may well be written into the score, if not then they are interpretation and listening only will not therefore tell you what the composer wrote and intended.

Mike

[BachQ]

Analyzing the score may tell irrelevant things while what is heard is always relevant.
A score with infinite complexity is worthless if it sounds bad.

Analysing a score must be clever as the number of notes per bar does not equal complexity. One has to see how much musical information is "coded" in to the score. One note for flute may seem simple but the change in the timbre, harmonic tension, rhythm, etc. may have tons of musical relevance if the composer is a genius.

Let there be no doubt: You have a very bright future as an instructor of music theory . . . . . . .

[71 dB]

And those changes in the timbre, harmonic tension, rhythm, etc....may well be written into the score, if not then they are interpretation and listening only will not therefore tell you what the composer wrote and intended.

Mike

Of course but in a compressed "projected" format. All abstract musical dimensions are coded with ink on white paper. It is a known fact that many Elgar's themes sound less promising when played on piano but sound wonderful with orchestra. One of Elgar's genius is the ability to write music for orchestra even if the thematic material is created with a piano/violin or/and in the head.

[MishaK]

Analyzing the score may tell irrelevant things while what is heard is always relevant.
A score with infinite complexity is worthless if it sounds bad.

But only from looking at the score can you tell whether what you hear is what the score says or just the incompetence of the performers.

[71 dB]

But only from looking at the score can you tell whether what you hear is what the score says or just the incompetence of the performers.

A good score makes things happen. A good conductor understands the "hidden" dimensions and tries to make the players bring them alive.

[Que]

I have the funny feeling this thread is NOT about Mahler....

Q

[karlhenning]

Of course but in a compressed "projected" format. All abstract musical dimensions are coded with ink on white paper.

Fascinating.

It is a known fact that many Elgar's themes sound less promising when played on piano but sound wonderful with orchestra.

So for which did he write the music on white paper with ink? Piano or orchestra?

I have the funny feeling this thread is NOT about Mahler....

Q

Hey, but maybe Gustav's themes sound less promising when played on piano, too!?

[jwinter]

so you are saying you have a better way to analyze music than analyzing the score?

I can't side with 71db on the whole Mahler vs Elgar thing.  But, speaking as someone who can't read music, and presumably not as the only such person here, I feel compelled to point out that I think it's perfectly possible to analyze music structurally based entirely on what you hear, and opinions on "complexity" shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand solely based on that criteria. 

Can music be analyzed aurally as easily or as thoroughly as by following a score?  Nope.  I'll grant that score-reading is superior in that regard.  That said, alternative methods of musical analysis are also valid, as 71db is trying to demonstrate.  I can't speak for his musical ideas, but for myself, I can easily hear and enjoy the interplay between the melodic lines of a violin and piano in a violin sonata, and with a bit more effort I can follow the voices in a string quartet, and with a lot more effort I can hear them (well, many of them anyway) in Mahler's complex orchestration.  Likewise I can usually hear how those voices harmonize, how the music develops and moves from key to key, etc. -- that's precisely the type of complexity we're talking about, isn't it?  I may not be able to articulate what I'm hearing as clearly as a literate musician can, but that doesn't mean that my ears are plugged up, or that they aren't connected to a half-way intelligent brain.

Sorry, just felt the need to point that out.  Please feel free to pile back on 71db now -- anybody who posts that Mahler's 3rd symphony is simplistic deserves some good-natured abuse. 

[karlhenning]

That's all fine, jwinter;  and partly because you refrain from such peculiar statements as, that the score is supposedly burdened with irrelevancies 

[mahlertitan]

I can't side with 71db on the whole Mahler vs Elgar thing.  But, speaking as someone who can't read music, and presumably not as the only such person here, I feel compelled to point out that I think it's perfectly possible to analyze music structurally based entirely on what you hear, and opinions on "complexity" shouldn't be dismissed out-of-hand solely based on that criteria. 

Can music be analyzed aurally as easily or as thoroughly as by following a score?  Nope.  I'll grant that score-reading is superior in that regard.  That said, alternative methods of musical analysis are also valid, as 71db is trying to demonstrate.  I can't speak for his musical ideas, but for myself, I can easily hear and enjoy the interplay between the melodic lines of a violin and piano in a violin sonata, and with a bit more effort I can follow the voices in a string quartet, and with a lot more effort I can hear them (well, many of them anyway) in Mahler's complex orchestration.  Likewise I can usually hear how those voices harmonize, how the music develops and moves from key to key, etc. -- that's precisely the type of complexity we're talking about, isn't it?  I may not be able to articulate what I'm hearing as clearly as a literate musician can, but that doesn't mean that my ears are plugged up, or that they aren't connected to a half-way intelligent brain.

Sorry, just felt the need to point that out.  Please feel free to pile back on 71db now -- anybody who posts that Mahler's 3rd symphony is simplistic deserves some good-natured abuse. 

the reason we analyze the score is because our natural aural perception is exetremely limited. Analyzing score gives a quantitative approach in understanding the workings of the music.

[MishaK]

A good score makes things happen. A good conductor understands the "hidden" dimensions and tries to make the players bring them alive.

How do you know you are hearing a bad score and not a bad conductor?

[Don]

How do you know you are hearing a bad score and not a bad conductor?

By hearing other conductors perform the same score.

[karlhenning]

By hearing other conductors perform the same score.

What of cases where even generally good conductors make a bad job of a good score?

[Valentino]

I think I like Boulez' conducting (and his engineers) because he makes me believe I hear the score (Still saving up for his Mahler 3. Pretty expensive I think).

[71 dB]

the reason we analyze the score is because our natural aural perception is exetremely limited. Analyzing score gives a quantitative approach in understanding the workings of the music.

I don't know about your aural perception but mine isn't that limited. I have been listening to complex music (classical/electronic) for about 20 years. Be it complex rhythm, harmony or counterpoint I can take it. In order to understand music more complex than Mahler one has to train his/her ears with music more complex than Mahler.

How do you know you are hearing a bad score and not a bad conductor?

From the type of the musical problems. In a bad score the next note is badly chosen. A bad conductor makes the violinists play it too loud or quiet. At least my brain has musical calculation power to deduct these things.

[MishaK]

From the type of the musical problems. In a bad score the next note is badly chosen. A bad conductor makes the violinists play it too loud or quiet. At least my brain has musical calculation power to deduct these things.

What if "the next note" is a matter of interpreting polyphonic voicing correctly? What if the mood or atmosphere elicited by the conductor is something entirely different than what the composer meant, thus making what would have been a "good choice of next note" a "bad" one?

[71 dB]

What if "the next note" is a matter of interpreting polyphonic voicing correctly? What if the mood or atmosphere elicited by the conductor is something entirely different than what the composer meant, thus making what would have been a "good choice of next note" a "bad" one?

In that case the conductor is an idiot.

[MishaK]

In that case the conductor is an idiot.

No doubt, but how would you be able to tell?

[Steve]

No doubt, but how would you be able to tell?

By chatting up the composer.. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Haven't heard the Horenstein, but I have the Bernstein set, and I don't think one could do too wrong just grabbing the Bernstein (that is, if one isn't quite the collector we are, Sarge!).


Sometimes the Bernstein set isn't completely satisfactory recording wise. But I really have grown to adore the performances, especially the 8th and 9th...fantastic and emotion provoking.

Just my opinion!

Are we talking about the DG set, Andy? The finale of the Second disappoints me (the peroration just too damn slow; it fails to lift off the ground as it should). The Fourth is ruined by that boy brat soprano...I really hate it. The other symphonies I like, especially 1, 5, 6 and 9. The Eighth I don't have (I didn't buy the box; I bought each symphony as it was released and somehow missed that one).

Sarge