Mahler vs. Dvorak!!!

[Roasted Swan]

I'll keep the door cracked for Brahms, but that's about all I'm willing to do at this juncture.

I don't listen to a huge amount of Brahms but goodness me when he does hit my musical funny-bone he is GREAT!!  Particularly the chamber works for me - the string sextets or the clarinet quintet.....  But then again some of the moments in the symphonies are nailed-on brilliant!

[Pohjolas Daughter]

Dvorak is one of my favorite composers--period, so I, of course, voted for him. 

PD

[Lisztianwagner]

I love Dvořák's compositions, especially Symphonies N. 7 and 9, and Slavonic Dances, but I'll certainly vote for Mahler.
His works has great intensity, stunning orchestral color, harmonic richness and a tonal language taken to extremes of its expressive possibilities. His music is absolutely overwhelming and it contains everything, love, tragedy, passion, irony, the beauty of nature, etc.; it evokes powerful images and strong emotions in their deep essence that completely strikes.

[Olias]

Dvorak is one of my favorite composers--period, so I, of course, voted for him. 

PD

Ditto.

[Olias]

I know this might be heresy to say but here goes...

...and this is only my personal opinion so no offense if you have a different viewpoint.

I've never made it all the way through a Mahler symphony, and I've tried all of them.  They're just too long, overly pretentious, needlessly bombastic, self-indulgent, and way too preoccupied with death.

If YOU like Mahler's music, that's totally fine with me, I just find it unappealing along with Bruckner, Wagner, and R. Strauss.

[Mirror Image]

I know this might be heresy to say but here goes...

...and this is only my personal opinion so no offense if you have a different viewpoint.

I've never made it all the way through a Mahler symphony, and I've tried all of them.  They're just too long, overly pretentious, needlessly bombastic, self-indulgent, and way too preoccupied with death.

If YOU like Mahler's music, that's totally fine with me, I just find it unappealing along with Bruckner, Wagner, and R. Strauss.

To the bolded text, these are fighting words! Put up your dukes! But, in all seriousness, Mahler wasn't necessarily 'easy' for me, but there was always something within his music that reached my soul and wound up touching me deeply. He's quite simply one of my favorites now and I honestly don't think I could live without his music. As for Wagner, I don't listen to him too often, but gosh...I do LOVE so much of his music, especially Parsifal and Der Ring des Nibelungen (esp. Das Rheingold!). Bruckner is unbelievably great and I've loved him for years --- actually, my love for Bruckner goes back to when I was just getting into classical music. As for Strauss, he's another I couldn't live without. There's something about his music that just touches me deeply and whether it's an opera, tone poem, his lieder or one of his chamber works, there's always something I find enjoyable in the music.

I completely understand where you're coming from and can sympathize with your viewpoint even if I don't share it. Some people think it's blasphemy because I don't listen to Bach or Mozart religiously, but that's okay. We all have our own tastes and preferences. There's enough music to go around for everybody!

[Jo498]

The German poet and dramatist Schiller (who wrote the plays several operas e.g. Don Carlo, Luisa Miller, Guillaume Tell... are based on) made the distinction between "naive" and "sentimental" poetry/art. The latter is a technical term, not meant in the common sense. Roughly, "sentimental" is art that reflects the artist's position in history, including the history of the genre whereas "naive" is immediate, "instinctive" production like birds sing or flowers are beautiful. It gets a bit less interesting because for Schiller almost everyone after Homer (or maybe a few more Greeks) is, of necessity, "sentimental" because the naive immediacy is not possible anymore. It's of course rather different for music because before the early/mid 19th century music was hardly burdened by tradition at all and the tradition usually only reached back to Bach or maybe Palestrina, not 2000+ years to the Greeks.

Mahler and Dvorak are very hard to compare because Dvorak might be the closest one can get to a "naive" composer in the (mid/late) 19th century whereas Mahler is both among the most sentimental (in that Schillerian sense of being keenly aware of the huge history of the symphony as both a source to draw upon and a legacy to live up to) and one who often seems to long for the (apparent) naivety of Mozart, Beethoven or Schubert (Brahms is similar to Mahler in this respect). Whereas Dvorak just does it. Sure, this means that there will be some pieces a bit rough around the edges, but almost all will appear fresh, "natural", unfettered by concerns of living up to Beethoven.

[Florestan]

The German poet and dramatist Schiller (who wrote the plays several operas e.g. Don Carlo, Luisa Miller, Guillaume Tell... are based on) made the distinction between "naive" and "sentimental" poetry/art. The latter is a technical term, not meant in the common sense. Roughly, "sentimental" is art that reflects the artist's position in history, including the history of the genre whereas "naive" is immediate, "instinctive" production like birds sing or flowers are beautiful. It gets a bit less interesting because for Schiller almost everyone after Homer (or maybe a few more Greeks) is, of necessity, "sentimental" because the naive immediacy is not possible anymore. It's of course rather different for music because before the early/mid 19th century music was hardly burdened by tradition at all and the tradition usually only reached back to Bach or maybe Palestrina, not 2000+ years to the Greeks.

Mahler and Dvorak are very hard to compare because Dvorak might be the closest one can get to a "naive" composer in the (mid/late) 19th century whereas Mahler is both among the most sentimental (in that Schillerian sense of being keenly aware of the huge history of the symphony as both a source to draw upon and a legacy to live up to) and one who often seems to long for the (apparent) naivety of Mozart, Beethoven or Schubert (Brahms is similar to Mahler in this respect). Whereas Dvorak just does it. Sure, this means that there will be some pieces a bit rough around the edges, but almost all will appear fresh, "natural", unfettered by concerns of living up to Beethoven.

An excellent point.

[Olias]

I completely understand where you're coming from and can sympathize with your viewpoint even if I don't share it. Some people think it's blasphemy because I don't listen to Bach or Mozart religiously, but that's okay. We all have our own tastes and preferences. There's enough music to go around for everybody!

Very true, and although I'm not a fan of the aforementioned composers, I do recognize their genius and influence.  FWIW, I'm not a massive Bach listener either other than the Coffee Cantata and Brandenburg Concerti, again though I acknowledge the genius of his work.

I guess I'm just happiest when I'm stuck in 1780s Vienna or 1880s Prague. 

[Mirror Image]

Very true, and although I'm not a fan of the aforementioned composers, I do recognize their genius and influence.  FWIW, I'm not a massive Bach listener either other than the Coffee Cantata and Brandenburg Concerti, again though I acknowledge the genius of his work.

I guess I'm just happiest when I'm stuck in 1780s Vienna or 1880s Prague. 

What do you think of Smetana?

[aukhawk]

I do like Dvorak's music, but I find the unrelenting cheerfulness rather hard to relate to.  I voted Mahler.

I've never made it all the way through a Mahler symphony, and I've tried all of them.  They're just too long, overly pretentious, needlessly bombastic, self-indulgent, and way too preoccupied with death.

I think Mahler is ideal for cherrypicking.  His 1st Symphony was originally presented as a suite of 5 tone poems, and I think some of his other symphonies can be viewed in this way too.
Symphony 1 - I like it all although I agree the Finale is rather bombastic and I sometimes stop before this - but often I listen to just the 1st movement in isolation, in the right interpretive hands it is very special 'dawn of everything' music - the recent recording by Roth and Les Siecles nails it, as does the less recent Honeck/Pittsburgh.
No.2 - I only ever listen to the 1st movement in isolation - never to any of the rest of it.
No.3 - I like it all but the first movement is indeed over-long.  I generally just listen to the 3rd, 4th and 5th movemnts only.
No.4 - It amuses me that people judge No.4 by the qualities (or not) of the sung contribution in the last movement - as though the other 45 miinutes don't matter.  I like it all but often stop at the end of the 3rd movement.
I rarely listen to any part of No.5 and never to any of Nos.6 or 8 or 10.
No.7 - contains IMHO both the best and the worst of Mahler.  I frequently listen to the middle 3 movements, and never to the outer ones.
No.9 - I like it all, but will often opt to just listen to the 1st movement.
DLvdE - I only ever listen to the final movement 'Der Abscheid' in isolation - never to any of the rest of it.  I also like the Kindertotenlieder.

Overall my favourite and frequently-played Mahler is 7-2,3,4: 9-1: 1-1,3: 2-1:   in about that order.  If you find Mahler indigestible, I see nothing wrong with bite-sized chunks like this.

[Mirror Image]

DLvdE - I only ever listen to the final movement 'Der Abscheid' in isolation - never to any of the rest of it.  I also like the Kindertotenlieder.

I've done this before, but I love the entire work and it's a shame that you don't. I find Der Einsame im Herbst even more moving than Der Aschied (and Der Abschied is extremely moving).

[MusicTurner]

I do like Dvorak's music, but I find the unrelenting cheerfulness rather hard to relate to.  I voted Mahler.

I think Mahler is ideal for cherrypicking (...).
Symphony 1 - I like it all although I agree the Finale is rather bombastic and I sometimes stop before this - but often I listen to just the 1st movement in isolation, in the right interpretive hands it is very special 'dawn of everything' music  (...)
No.2 - I only ever listen to the 1st movement in isolation - never to any of the rest of it.
No.3 - I like it all but the first movement is indeed over-long.  I generally just listen to the 3rd, 4th and 5th movemnts only.
No.4 - It amuses me that people judge No.4 by the qualities (or not) of the sung contribution in the last movement - as though the other 45 miinutes don't matter.  I like it all but often stop at the end of the 3rd movement.
I rarely listen to any part of No.5 and never to any of Nos.6 or 8 or 10.
No.7 - contains IMHO both the best and the worst of Mahler.  I frequently listen to the middle 3 movements, and never to the outer ones.
No.9 - I like it all, but will often opt to just listen to the 1st movement.
DLvdE - I only ever listen to the final movement 'Der Abscheid' in isolation - never to any of the rest of it.  I also like the Kindertotenlieder.
(...)

Except for the less positive remark on the Finale of No.7, the leaning towards the 1st movement of No.9, and perhaps a slight preference for Mahler in stead of Dvorak, my views are more or less exactly the opposite of yours, and this all the way through, including as regards favourite moments in his oeuvre 

[LKB]

Except for the less positive remark on the Finale of No.7, the leaning towards the 1st movement of No.9, and perhaps a slight preference for Mahler in stead of Dvorak, my views are more or less exactly the opposite of yours, and this all the way through, including as regards favourite moments in his oeuvre 

We are a diverse bunch here at GMG... 

[Jo498]

I do like Dvorak's music, but I find the unrelenting cheerfulness rather hard to relate to.  I voted Mahler.

I don't think the cello concerto, 7th symphony, last two quartets, f minor trio, noonday witch, water goblin are that cheerful throughout but I'd agree that Dvorak overall is uncommonly cheerful for a (lateish) romantic composer. Certainly he is cheerful compared to Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler.

It's quite amusing that you like about half of Mahler in bleeding chunks but still prefer this to Dvorak

I think Mahler is ideal for cherrypicking.  His 1st Symphony was originally presented as a suite of 5 tone poems, and I think some of his other symphonies can be viewed in this way too.

It wasn't a suite of 5 (separate) tone poems but a symphonic poem in two parts ([1, Blumine, 2] [3+4]) with programmatic comments, i.e. it was a "closed" work like the symphony in its final form (with the program abandoned and Blumine cut out).

No.4 - It amuses me that people judge No.4 by the qualities (or not) of the sung contribution in the last movement - as though the other 45 miinutes don't matter.  I like it all but often stop at the end of the 3rd movement.

I don't think anyone who focusses on the singer thinks that the first 45 minutes don't matter. It's like the proverbial curate's egg, or a decent soccer team that cannot score any goals, 5/6 great don't mean much if an essential part is foul.

[Roasted Swan]

The German poet and dramatist Schiller (who wrote the plays several operas e.g. Don Carlo, Luisa Miller, Guillaume Tell... are based on) made the distinction between "naive" and "sentimental" poetry/art. The latter is a technical term, not meant in the common sense. Roughly, "sentimental" is art that reflects the artist's position in history, including the history of the genre whereas "naive" is immediate, "instinctive" production like birds sing or flowers are beautiful. It gets a bit less interesting because for Schiller almost everyone after Homer (or maybe a few more Greeks) is, of necessity, "sentimental" because the naive immediacy is not possible anymore. It's of course rather different for music because before the early/mid 19th century music was hardly burdened by tradition at all and the tradition usually only reached back to Bach or maybe Palestrina, not 2000+ years to the Greeks.

Mahler and Dvorak are very hard to compare because Dvorak might be the closest one can get to a "naive" composer in the (mid/late) 19th century whereas Mahler is both among the most sentimental (in that Schillerian sense of being keenly aware of the huge history of the symphony as both a source to draw upon and a legacy to live up to) and one who often seems to long for the (apparent) naivety of Mozart, Beethoven or Schubert (Brahms is similar to Mahler in this respect). Whereas Dvorak just does it. Sure, this means that there will be some pieces a bit rough around the edges, but almost all will appear fresh, "natural", unfettered by concerns of living up to Beethoven.

thankyou for this analysis - I found this very interesting and thought provoking - in a good way!!

[staxomega]

If YOU like Mahler's music, that's totally fine with me, I just find it unappealing along with Bruckner, Wagner, and R. Strauss.

Richard Strauss might be the one odd duck in that list? I'd always associated him more with tone poems, and miscellaneous symphonic works than the deeply probing music of Mahler, Bruckner, and Wagner. Maybe I should explore his operas, the last time I attempted to I was not too impressed by them.

Just speaking for myself I could go completely in the zone, fully attentive listening/be completely transfixed by all Mahler, vast majority of Wagner, and Bruckner. I feel I am still learning and hearing new things in Wagner some 25 years later. Bruckner I still don't think I have a full understanding of with a similar ~ two decade time frame. Mahler I like to think I have fully absorbed, but I might be a fool for thinking that.

All three of these composers give me really deep satisfaction. Contrast this to most of Mozart or Haydn's symphonies and I always consider these more for background listening. Dvorak's symphonies not to such a great extent but more along the lines of these two than with Wagner, Mahler, and Bruckner.

I've never made it all the way through a Mahler symphony, and I've tried all of them.  They're just too long, overly pretentious, needlessly bombastic, self-indulgent, and way too preoccupied with death.

What else is there, enjoying the maya that is life? 

No.2 - I only ever listen to the 1st movement in isolation - never to any of the rest of it.

I like to talk classical with one of my friends from high school who is just getting into classical. I sent him the fourth movement of symphony 2 one late night when he was woken up by his newborn. He said it was one of the most beautiful things he had ever heard.

[Olias]

What do you think of Smetana?

Smetana wrote some orchestral music but he was mainly an opera and piano guy.  Nothing wrong with that but I tend to prefer the more orchestral genres of symphony and concerto.  However, I do enjoy Ma Vlast (all of it, not just the Moldau) and also The Bartered Bride.

[Mirror Image]

Smetana wrote some orchestral music but he was mainly an opera and piano guy.  Nothing wrong with that but I tend to prefer the more orchestral genres of symphony and concerto.  However, I do enjoy Ma Vlast (all of it, not just the Moldau) and also The Bartered Bride.

I love him. He wrote some exquisite chamber music, too.

[Roasted Swan]

I love him. He wrote some exquisite chamber music, too.

Absolutely!  He didn't write that much chamber music but what his did do is absolutely top drawer.  One of those Artists who manages to create great work in the midst of harrowing personal adversity......