Mahler Mania, Rebooted

[Madiel]

I hope no-one gets offended by what I am about to say. After having listened to that giant last movement of 8th, I start to get one of my problems with Mahler: he just keeps hammering the same point in over and over and over again: God is mighty etc. I have no problem with religion itself, several of my favorite operas and books are religious, but the point is: they have other messages too. Mahler mostly adds human voice to his symphonies only to sing always about the exact same thing. And Mahler seems to forget that there are other aspects in religion too which could be explored. But no, almost always the same thing. Erde is one of the exceptions where it gets a little more varied. Sure, it has its religious tones too (especially the last movement) but that is much more subtle and varied and in general it's more about the aspects of life rather than after-life. No wonder it's the song of the earth since it explores about what happens here on earth rather than in heaven. But for ex. in 8th symphony, like someone here already said, he shouts for 55 minutes in a row about the same thing. At those moments Mahler reminds me of those people who come to ring my doorbell and want to talk about religion. Of course, with Mahler, I am the one who makes the decision to listen to his music. And I do want to listen to his music, he is a genius. But at times he seems repetitive and bombastic and too drawn-out (yes, ironic for a Wagner fan to say that), which is not helped by the fact that I often have hard time hearing clear melodies in his works at first.

I haven't heard the 8th enough times to say whether I like it or not. There were moments so beautiful it was spine-tingling.

So far, the 8th is the only place that I've had this kind of reaction.

Mind you, I still have about 6.5 numbered symphonies to go. There was a blind listening of the 2nd that told me enough to know that not all Totenfeiers or Urlichts are created equal, without telling me the identity of the Totenfeiers and Urlichts that I liked. The worst of all possible results?

But yes, I like the 5th, and Das Lied von Erde, and the three shorter song cycles I have, and the two movements of the 2nd that I know. At this stage I assume I basically have a problem with the 8th, not with Mahler.

[calyptorhynchus]

I think a lot of negative reactions to the 8th are caused by not being German/Austrian and therefore not having any exposure to the whole Faust thing.

I've read translations of Faust (both parts) and I can't see what the fuss is about. Ergo I'm a bit cool on the 8th.

[Jo498]

Your second statement seems to contradict the first, or what am I missing? Do you think that the translation is the problem?

I do not think readers of German do love the final scene from Faust II (a very "esoteric" piece, although the words of the very last "chorus" are well known, the first part of Faust is much better known and usually read in school) so much that they THEREFORE love Mahler's 8th.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Intriguing. I like the second part of Faust probably more.

[calyptorhynchus]

I think a lot of negative reactions to the 8th are caused by not being German/Austrian and therefore not having any exposure to the whole Faust thing.

I've read translations of Faust (both parts) and I can't see what the fuss is about. Ergo I'm a bit cool on the 8th.

What I meant in my second statement was I have read translations of Faust, I don't think it's a great piece of literature therefore I don't listen the 8th very often, or enjoy it much when I do.

There is a phenomenon of a work of literature which really only works in the language it was written in, because the beauty of the language conceals the problems with it. Specifically with Faust, if Goethe wanted to write a complex neo-platonic allegory, why use a creaky old medieval morality play as the framework?

[Jo498]

It's certainly not my call to defend Goethe's Faust as my only qualification is that of German speaker who has read both parts.
But it has a long and complex history. There was an "Urfaust" Goethe had sketched in the 1770s, even closer to the medieval play and the first part in its final form was written 2 decades before the second part was finished. The first part is not all that allegorical and in any case neo-platonist elements would not be out of place for a renaissance magician and alchemist like Faust.

But this was not really my point. Rather that I do not think that Mahler's 8th can draw all that much on the popularity of the final scene of Faust II in Germany or Austria. Because that final scene is not very famous (compared to lots from the first part), except for the words of the finale chorus.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Faust should have been titled Mephistofeles, because he is clearly a superior character to Faust. Not that Faust himself is bad one, in any way.

[Leo K.]

(In posts I've collected over years from the Mahler Board, here are some interesting thoughts regarding the Mahler 8th, all written by Barry Guerrero)

In many ways, the 8th summarizes everything that had happened in western music up to that very moment. At the very least, that's certainly true for the Austro-German line of composers. In a way, the 8th is the Beethoven's 9th of the Belle Epoch, or Art Nouveau ear. At the start of Part II, Mahler is "tone painting" in the classic way that Schubert or others would have. He's setting the scene for Goethe's text. But then the music shifts into Wagner-like episodes, beginning with the first loud outburst, and going all the way until the first entrance of the children's chorus (right after the bass baritone solo). At the point Mahler switches to Mendelssohn, with strong overtones of his "Midsummer Night's Dream". At the very least, you could certainly argue that the text for the three penitent women is well worth ignoring, unless you take the whole issue of  redemption quite seriously, or literally.

Mahler tried to express all this in a letter to wife his; one in which he became a bit tongue-tied. He tried to make it clear that the focus was on the "Chorus Mysticus" and what it was that Goethe was attempting to express with it. It's little wonder that "cosmic", psychedelic children of the '60s could relate so easily relate to Mahler. Goethe and Mahler are sort of making an acid trip of the soul. As with so many other "heaven storming" moments throughout his entire oeuvre, Mahler reveals heaven as little more than sheer energy - a much more medieval idea of what heaven is about. It's simply too bright and powerful to observe or comprehend from Earth.

So what am I saying?   .    .     .   forget the text, once you've read the bloody thing. All that truly matters is the tone painting aspects of Part II, and then the final "Chorus Mysticus".
In the 8th symphony, it's the very beginning. It becomes much more obvious during the big double fugue. The inversion of the "Veni, Creator Spiritus" theme is used as a second subject during the fugue. Deryck Cooke made the interesting observation that in Mahler's 8th, it's the liturgical text that receives the march treatment, while the secular text - Goethe's text - receives the chorale treatment (for the most part). That's just the opposite of what one would expect.


I had stated that there was no more "heaven storming" a composer than Gustav Mahler. I think it's interesting to note how heaven is musically represented by Mahler. At the end of the "Resurrection" symphony, the church organ and pious-sounding brass are accompanied by the tolling of deep bells and tam-tams (large gongs of unspecified pitch). This sort of brings the temple to the church, as the gongs introduce an Asiatic flavor. In the fourth symphony, the child's view of heaven is, indeed, sitting around on puffy white clouds; but with plenty of earthly food to devour, and with earthly games to play as well. If Mahler's piano rolls are to be taken seriously, those clouds float along at a fairly good clip, too. But before we get to the fourth movement of the fourth symphony, the climax of the slow movement is the second of Mahler's several portrayals (sp?) of heaven being little more - from the human perspective, that is (hence, existentialist) - as a blinding source of energy - something that can not be fully perceived or viewed by mere mortals. Mahler gives us his first "heavenly portrait" - one in which heaven is sheer, blinding energy - at the climax of the long brass chorale in M3/6. Right at the last cymbal crash, Mahler writes a fully harmonized, fortissimo brass chorale with a pedal point "D" in the bass - the home key of the sympony. Musically speaking, it's as though Bach meets Wagner.

But the greatest of these "sheer energy" portraits of heaven is at the end of the eighth symphony. Here, Mahler brings back the church organ (a huge one!); brings back the gong and cymbals; brings back the solid, fixed pedal point in the bass (accompanied with a bass drum roll, no less), and divides his brass between onstage and offstage forces. In many ways, it sums up all of Western music up to that pre-WWI (pre-disullusionment) point.

[amw]

Belated update on my ~Mahler Journey~ *w*

I have kept the Leonard Bernstein (NYPD) version of No. 6 on standby in case I ever feel like coming back to it. (the piece—I have not heard the recording, but apparently it literally changed Jay F's life and can cure cancer and improve your car's fuel efficiency) So far, not yet.

No. 7 is a mixed bag and I admit I got a bit bored at various points in the first movement and Nachtmusiken. That said the second movement gets stuck in one's head very easily, so that's a plus. The finale is kind of bombastic, but yknow, Mahler. (I sort of liked it actually, though I sort of wish it had a less generic main theme instead of Standard Mahler Main Theme Involving Descending Fourths #27)

I liked No. 8 quite a bit actually. It's the Mahler opera we never got and, particularly in Part II, it can abandon symphonic logic for the pacing of the theatre (something that would have greatly benefited the finale of the Resurrection tbh). Musically it doesn't at all come across as a loose series of episodes due to the fact that the musical materials generating the entire symphony are few in number and extremely simple—he's no longer trying to stuff 62 different main ideas into a symphony à la Wagner, but instead looking back at Beethoven who generally used no more than three. This creates a sense of unity even where none exists that can be 'proven by analysis'. Anyways if I could find a recording with 8 solo singers with acceptable voices, I'd probably get it and listen to it like, once every 5 years or something.

Next time: 9 and 10

[Cato]

I liked No. 8 quite a bit actually. It's the Mahler opera we never got and, particularly in Part II, it can abandon symphonic logic for the pacing of the theatre (something that would have greatly benefited the finale of the Resurrection tbh). Musically it doesn't at all come across as a loose series of episodes due to the fact that the musical materials generating the entire symphony are few in number and extremely simple—he's no longer trying to stuff 62 different main ideas into a symphony à la Wagner, but instead looking back at Beethoven who generally used no more than three. This creates a sense of unity even where none exists that can be 'proven by analysis'.

Allow me to quote this from earlier: Specht would probably disagree with your last statement.

Have you followed it with a score?  Perhaps that would help?  The only thing I can say is that the musical structure is cohesive: through the miracle of Google Books, musicologist Richard Specht's famous analysis demonstrates this quite clearly, and he addresses right at the beginning the objections to the  work as a "symphony."

https://books.google.com/books?id=DUdGAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=thematic+analysis+mahler%27s+Eighth+Symphony&source=bl&ots=E_QndDq3sg&sig=TrB2W8UVEd5b98thFQPb2AujaGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=zVyQVfjhLMSyggTIj7PABg&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=thematic%20analysis%20mahler's%20Eighth%20Symphony&f=false

[amw]

Fair enough! I didn't analyse the thing at all, just listened to it. Certainly the ear hears the relationships between sections even when a quick glance at the score doesn't reveal anything that initially looks like a relationship. The structure makes sense when you're listening.

(Also to whoever said it was loud and shouty, that honestly applies to about 10 minutes in total of a 90 minute piece. It's not any worse than any other Mahler symphony in that regard. Just happier and less angry and depressed and stuff)

[Sergeant Rock]

(Also to whoever said it was loud and shouty, that honestly applies to about 10 minutes in total of a 90 minute piece.

Thank you. I've never understood that criticism (that the Eighth is a bombastic 90 minute scream fest). It's like they're hearing a totally different work, one I've never heard.

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

(Also to whoever said it was loud and shouty, that honestly applies to about 10 minutes in total of a 90 minute piece. It's not any worse than any other Mahler symphony in that regard. Just happier and less angry and depressed and stuff)

Thank you. I've never understood that criticism (that the Eighth is a bombastic 90 minute scream fest). It's like they're hearing a totally different work, one I've never heard.

Sarge

Oh, agreed.  At this point I can tolerate Part I (if I don't think of the text as an ancient hymn, for instance);  but at first listen, yes, I was so put off by the initial shouts, that it was a couple of years before I even tried Part II.

Part II is so exquisite, that if I tolerate Part I, it is because Part II is too wonderful to do without   0:)

[Cato]

Fair enough! I didn't analyse the thing at all, just listened to it. Certainly the ear hears the relationships between sections even when a quick glance at the score doesn't reveal anything that initially looks like a relationship. The structure makes sense when you're listening.

(Also to whoever said it was loud and shouty, that honestly applies to about 10 minutes in total of a 90 minute piece. It's not any worse than any other Mahler symphony in that regard. Just happier and less angry and depressed and stuff)

Thank you. I've never understood that criticism (that the Eighth is a bombastic 90 minute scream fest). It's like they're hearing a totally different work, one I've never heard.

Sarge

Amen!  I first heard the Eighth via the London Philharmonic/Leonard Bernstein performance from 1966.  The waves of sound were just great, even on a crappy 1960's stereo, and I never found the work oppressive in any way.   

[calyptorhynchus]

I've been listening to this.



I think the Wheeler performing version of 10th is more Mahlerian than the Cooke version.

What do other people think?

[kishnevi]

I've been listening to this.



I think the Wheeler performing version of 10th is more Mahlerian than the Cooke version.

What do other people think?

Not sure it is more Mahlerian (and what exactly does "Mahlerian" mean?), but it is a good recording, worth having in one's CD racks.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

(and what exactly does "Mahlerian" mean?)

Yelling about the exactly same thing in almost every work for hour and a half? 

[calyptorhynchus]

Yelling about the exactly same thing in almost every work for hour and a half? 

What I mean by "mahlerian" above is if you listen to the Ninth, then listen to a performing version of Tenth, whichever version sounds more like something that Mahler would have written next (the Wheeler version in my view).

[bhodges]

A friend alerted me to this video, recorded live at Tanglewood on July 25: Michael Tilson Thomas and the Boston Symphony Orchestra, in an apparently tremendous Mahler Fifth Symphony, plus Emanuel Ax in Mozart Piano Concerto No. 14.

http://www.wgbh.org/programs/The-Boston-Symphony-Orchestra-in-Concert-1641#63792

--Bruce

[Maestro267]

A thought I just had while listening to Mahler 6 at the Proms. The Ninth is (as far as I'm aware) the only one of Mahler's symphonies not to have a theme/motif that recurs in a later movement.