The Great Mahler Debate

[71 dB]

This is actually not quite as stupid as it sounds, fraught as it is with confusing vocabulary and a number of misperceptions. But from a purely intuitive approach to music, it is not entirely wrong. What you describe as "gravitational fields" bounded by different variables are actually more important for analyzing the quality of a performance than for analyzing the quality of a work as such. You speak of anticipating the next note. Bernstein used to say that you have to play each note such that it sounds unexpected but in retrospect seems like that is the only way it could have been played - an initial surprise that sounds inevitable in retrospect. Barenboim likes to point out that you can't play an exposition repeat or a restatement in a classical sonata form the same way as the first exposition, because of all the stuff that happened in between - the restatement or repeat must contain within it a memory of what preceded and an anticipation of what is yet to come. But all of these are considerations for the performer in answering the question "how do I make this piece of music make sense to the audience'? It is akin to the actor playing Hamlet who has to portray a plausible character development over the course of the performance. Just reciting the text in monotone won't cut it. This is why earlier in the thread I asked you why you refuse to read scores, because that is the way of checking whether the flaws you hear are flaws of performance or composition.

You can't have surprises without expectations. Note D surprises if you anticipated C. Another things is that I don't think every note should surprise. Who wants 100 surprises every minute? Maybe bigger blocks and structures should be surprising. A surprising melody perhaps? The retrospective aspect is very important. Surprises that sound inevitable in retrospect are very satisfying.

I don't have scores, that's why I can't study them. Buying them is way beyond my financial possibities.

But at any rate, how a given composer realizes his artistic vision will vary and the tools of analysis for one may not be appropriate for another. Harmonic development may be irrelevant in a piece by Debussy, who likes to stay within the same harmonically unaltered and undefined sphere from beginning to end. thematic development is irrelevant in Messiaen with his blocks of sound. You can't therefore speak of one single set of laws that apply across the board. Music theory certainly does not chop things up into distinct elements. Variables like pitch (which includes harmonic relationships), dynamics, rhythm and tempo are quite simply the basic variables of musical notation. How they interrelate in a given piece is certainly what matters, but to say that music theory doesn't recognize this is really showing a lack of understanding of music theory. But again, ultimately it is up to the performer to make sense of these interrelationships.

Composers weight different dimensions. They use subspaces or limited spaces of the real space. That's not a big problem as long as they manage their selected dimensions well.

Finally, complexity as such cannot be a positive in and of itself. Take Prelude No.1 from Book 1 of the Well Tempered Clavier. A paragon of simplicity, yet a world of wonder is contained within the minute harmonic shifts of this simple work. Conversely, superficially complex works can actually have very simple frameworks. E.g. Strauss' Till Eulenspiegel. Sounds very dense but is built entirely out of two simple themes, one ascending, one descending, but very cleverly orchestrated to vividly paint the adventures of the main character in all teh colors of the orchestra. Likewise, complexity may be excess. Did Rachmaninov really need all those notes to make his point? I don't think you really have any idea of what is going on in Mahler yet.

Prelude No.1 from Book 1 of the Well Tempered Clavier is not simple in the form of vibrational fields.

[71 dB]

Btw, I listened Mahler 6 today. It's one of my favorites so far. I especially liked the third movement.

[Choo Choo]

I don't have scores, that's why I can't study them. Buying them is way beyond my financial possibities.

Is it?  That's a pity.  Over here you can get a "study score" of most works for about the price of 1-2 CDs.

I have to say, I've learned a hell of a lot from scores - even (or especially) about works which I thought I knew well - and even if I don't understand everything that's going on - it's amazing what you can pick up that you hadn't realised.

[karlhenning]

Karl, it was meant as a joke.  Not a very good one.  Sorry. 

No worries!

I don't have scores, that's why I can't study them. Buying them is way beyond my financial possibities.

That's why God made libraries.

[Israfel the Black]

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.

I'm sure the book was able to draw on comparisons throughout all of classical music to Bruckner's work. I read one article where Schoenberg was compared to that of Bruckner in his attempt to invoke an almost religious, euphoric like statement through his music. Although I wouldn't exactly call that particular Schubert excerpt a comparison of their music so much as drawing on a similarity in Bruckner's use of key for a particular symphony (I assume this is what you were saying). I would agree that Sibelius development, particularly the Seventh, however, inclines to draw on the influence of Bruckner.

[Choo Choo]

I'm sure the book was able to draw on comparisons throughout all of classical music to Bruckner's work. I read one article where Schoenberg was compared to that of Bruckner in his attempt to invoke an almost religious, euphoric like statement through his music. Although I wouldn't exactly call that particular Schubert excerpt a comparison of their music so much as drawing on a similarity in Bruckner's use of key for a particular symphony (I assume this is what you were saying). I would agree that Sibelius development, particularly the Seventh, however, inclines to draw on the influence of Bruckner.

No no no - this is not the same.  Simpson is just making some observations about common pieces of vocabulary to be found in Bruckner's work as in Schubert's.  You seem to wish to deny this.  I really could not care less either way, I am simply reporting what I have read.  As I said many posts ago:  have it your own way.  I wish I had stopped then - and I certainly will stop now.

[71 dB]

Is it?  That's a pity.  Over here you can get a "study score" of most works for about the price of 1-2 CDs.

I have to say, I've learned a hell of a lot from scores - even (or especially) about works which I thought I knew well - and even if I don't understand everything that's going on - it's amazing what you can pick up that you hadn't realised.

Perhaps I could try to get the score for Elgar's 2nd symphony and see if I can understand anything about it.

[karlhenning]

Perhaps I could try to get the score for Elgar's 2nd symphony and see if I can understand anything about it.

Yes, you might learn something.

[mahlertitan]

I took my physics in highschool. It was one of my favorites. I had top grades in it. In university I naturally had many physics courses as part of my M. Sc. degree. 

it's confusing, if you want to come up a theory describing music, don't use "gravitational field", because that is a topic in physics, and you are confusing me over the two. Come up with another name for it, more musical.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Consider a C Dominant Seventh chord, which is spelled C, E, G, B-flat.  It is a major triad (C, E, G) plus a minor seventh above C (B-flat).  Normally it functions as that chord built on the fifth (dominant) degree of F Major, and resolves to the I (tonic).

There arose a group of chords of the augmented sixth (which is enharmonically equivalent to the interval of a major seventh -- that is, they sound the same, only notationally they are 'spelled' differently).  I won't detail the differences between the Italian, French and German [augmented] Sixth chords, but the German Sixth is enharmonically equivalent to the dominant seventh chord.  Only, in the case of the dominant seventh chord built on C, it is not spelled with a B-flat, nor does it function in the key of F, but it is spelled (say) C, E, G, A#, and C and A# resolve in contrary motion to B's, that is, to the tonic chord of E Minor in second inversion: B, E, G, B.

For fear of being any more confusing, I will stop.

So the same chord (C- E -G -A#/B-b) resolves either into F major or E minor. Doesn't your ear pick up the fact that the resolution into E-minor is "wrong"? The natural resolution is into F-major right?

[karlhenning]

So the same chord (C- E -G -A#/B-b) resolves either into F major or E minor. Doesn't your ear pick up the fact that the resolution into E-minor is "wrong"?

Interesting question.  Certainly you hear that the resolution is otherwise than V₇-I in F Major.  Is that "wrong"? . . .

The natural resolution is into F-major right?

Not sure that any one resolution is more natural than another; that's out of my text :-)

In any event, one hears examples of both resolutions in the literature.

[Florestan]

it's confusing, if you want to come up a theory describing music, don't use "gravitational field", because that is a topic in physics, and you are confusing me over the two. Come up with another name for it, more musical.

May I suggest gravicemballical field?

[PerfectWagnerite]

it's confusing, if you want to come up a theory describing music, don't use "gravitational field", because that is topic in physics, and you are confusing me over the two. Come up with another name for it, more musical.

I agree. There are terms that you think sound "cool" but in physics and mathematics has very precise definitions. You can argue that "but I want term xyz to mean this or that" but that is like pointing to a pig and saying "I want to call it a cow".

[karlhenning]

I agree. There are terms that you think sound "cool" but in physics and mathematics has very precise definitions. You can argue that "but I want term xyz to mean this or that" but that is like pointing to a pig and saying "I want to call it a cow".

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

[PerfectWagnerite]

Interesting question.  Certainly you hear that the resolution is otherwise than V₇-I in F Major.  Is that "wrong"? . . .

Not wrong by any means, certainly more daring harmonically.

Not sure that any one resolution is more natural than another; that's out of my text :-)

In any event, one hears examples of both resolutions in the literature.

I suppose a better question to ask would be would the resolution into F-major be more commonplace? What would a composer like Schubert or Beethoven have done?

[71 dB]

May I suggest gravicemballical field?

I use vibrational field.

[karlhenning]

I suppose a better question to ask would be would the resolution into F-major be more commonplace? What would a composer like Schubert or Beethoven have done?

Good, that is right.  Schubert and Beethoven [would have] used the augmented-sixth chords quite sparingly.

[karlhenning]

I use vibrational field.

You haven't paid attention, have you?

[uffeviking]

The structural arrangement define how much you have music per note.

As an admirer of Gustav Mahler's music I can't resist joining here. I watched the very educational DVD about György Kurtág and Peter Eötvös. In the Kurtág section he demonstrates what is music by tapping one key on his keyboard, which move is music, so he states. Listening to it, all I heard was the sound of one note no music. If this is what you advocate with your 'theory', I am so grateful Mahler used more than one note to create his beautiful music! 

[71 dB]

You haven't paid attention, have you?

I haven't paid attention because I was watching TV.