Mahler is Mahler. If you don't like his music, no requirement to listen.

 

You are, of course, absolutely correct. However, I probably didn't make this clear enough that, yes, I like Mahler's music and do listen and am familiar with most all his works - I have a particularly soft spot for "Das Lied von der Erde"

I suppose I can make the distinction between "hearing" and "listening". To "hear" Mahler is a great treat - sonically wonderful, brilliant orchestration, the ability to evoke all kinds of moods and emotions. I love to hear to a Mahler symphony and have the waves of sound wash over me.

But "listening", to me, implies something more - an appreciation and understanding of the structure of the music itself. And this is where I often fail when listening to some movements of Mahler symphonies.

I presume there is such a structure. I would hope if Mahler sat down with me for an hour or so, he could explain why he wrote any given passage this way and how it relates to everything else - what are the "connections" which I seem not to be able to spot.

An analogy (I admit, a rather poor one) is James Joyce's "Finnegan's Wake". I presume (or rather, I really hope) there is a structure and meaning to that whole work and not just some elaborate joke played on the reader. I can't find it though and therefore I have to conclude (only for myself, please understand) why take much more time on what I find so obtuse. So, as I asked originally, can a work of music, literature, art be of such complexity (actually, I like poster JohnO's use of the word "complication") that it is designed to show off the cleverness of the artist at the expense of making the "effect" or creator's intent clear to the listener or reader? I guess I am more old-fashioned in that I don't often stand in awe of the genius of a composer or author who tries to show off his complexity or "deepness" but appreciate rather an artist who can display his message in the most harmonious and economical fashion to a larger majority of listeners or viewers.

And again, although it might sound paradoxical, do I dislike Mahler? No, not at all.

 

Many people like the length and the complexity and the various effects that he uses. You don't get tired of it after repeated listenings.

You can listen and then listen again with the score - and now you can hear how they would sound on a piano thanks to YouTube.

 

I found myself thinking about this tautology recently when listening to Mahler's Fifth Symphony. Listening to the second and third movements in particular, I came to the realization that I just don't know what's going on here! Now, I have listened to his Fifth Symphony many times but, for the life of me, I just could not see the internal coherence or cohesiveness within each of these two movements. There just seem to be too many themes, motifs, changes in rhythm, stops and starts, moods, changes in direction in each movement. I re-listened again immediately afterward and I'll be darned if I hear the initial themes picked up again, developed or recapitulated at the end of each movement. (BTW, the first, fourth and fifth movements seem to be much more coherent for me)

The problem might not be with Mahler, but with your listening strategy. Some passages in the second movement develop and quote ideas from the first. And the major ideas of the second movement are revisited in the finale. The structure of the second movement might be characterized with this epigram from W. B. Yeats:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

Two main forces are played off against one another throughout the second movement, the principal stormy theme and the chorale theme (along with the precursors that struggle to produce it). The dramatic conflict between them reaches its greatest intensity in the last moments and it's only in the finale that any reconciliation or resolution occurs. That "things fall apart" in the second movement is the whole point! My point, is that the individual movements have to be heard in their complex relationships to one another for their full sense to become clear. Listen to the symphony as a whole, not to individual movements if you want to get the sense of it.

From the point of view of musical narrative theory, one might say the second movement sets the main problem of the plot exactly where one would expect, the end of the First Act. The problem? The first struggle out of darkness toward the end gives us a taste of the finale's glorious chorale coda, but then denies it, the storm returning and throwing us back into anarchy. Anything like a literal recapitulation of the main theme in its original setting would simply have been anticlimactic. Mahler's solution is brilliant and original. Your fussy demand for order where and as you like it . . . isn't.

 

Oh boy here we go! Wait till Waehnen sees this thread!

 

Yes! This member doesn't need any further encouragement in regards to Mahler.

 

Years ago, I worked with a woman who, when things got too hectic and too chaotic would just shake her head and say, "too much is too much!"

I found myself thinking about this tautology recently when listening to Mahler's Fifth Symphony. Listening to the second and third movements in particular, I came to the realization that I just don't know what's going on here! Now, I have listened to his Fifth Symphony many times but, for the life of me, I just could not see the internal coherence or cohesiveness within each of these two movements. There just seems to be too many themes, motifs, changes in rhythm, stops and starts, moods, changes in direction in each movement. I re-listened again immediately afterward and I'll be darned if I hear the initial themes picked up again, developed or recapitulated at the end of each movement. (BTW, the first, fourth and fifth movements seem to be much more coherent for me)

Mahler seems to throwing every trick in the book into the musical pot and stirring liberally. Perhaps "too much is too much"? I am guessing the musical organization and coherence IS there in each movement, but perhaps they are just too complex for the average mind to grasp and assimilate at over 15 minutes each in length? It's not just length, since there are other classical movements which are longer but just feel more "self-contained."

Anyone else feel that a shorter, tighter exposition, development, recapitulation might just be somewhat more satisfying emotionally and have greater appeal to a listener's sense of order and organization?

I don't need "Twinkle, twinkle, little star" or "Freres Jacques" to be happy but I have to admit to getting "lost in the weeds" in both the second and third movements of Mahler's Fifth. There is great beauty and fantastic orchestration there perhaps not enough organization for my taste.

I suppose I will incur the heaped abuse of Mahlerites and those accusing me of musical simpletonism, but my point here is to ask whether others feel that too much complexity and sheer musical length can lose the emotional sympathy and satisfaction of the listener? Anyone experience this in other works?

I'm not sure what you're even asking, but it is rather clear that you started this thread to vent a certain frustration you have with Mahler's music. Every listener is different and tastes change over time. If you don't like Mahler's music or don't want try to understand it, then simply stop listening. Come back in three weeks, a month, a year --- sometimes when we take long hiatuses from composers that give us certain problems, we gain more experience and something might just finally click for you. I honestly suggest reading about the composer and his own life. Granted, this won't help you fix the problems you have with the music, but understanding their life in relation to the music can open a door to a better understanding that you didn't previously anticipate.

It took me some considerable time to understand Mahler's music, but the work that opened the door for me was his 6th symphony. Once I unlocked this symphony, all of his other works became more accessible over time. The only work I still struggle with is his 8th symphony. I like the symphony, but I don't love it.

Anyway, good luck!

 

Mahler seems to throwing every trick in the book into the musical pot and stirring liberally. Perhaps "too much is too much"? I am guessing the musical organization and coherence IS there in each movement, but perhaps they are just too complex for the average mind to grasp and assimilate at over 15 minutes each in length? It's not just length, since there are other classical movements which are longer but just feel more "self-contained."

Some composers write complex music that indeed the average mind doesn't readily comprehend. There are many works that left me in the wildnerness, including some Mahler. But eventually the mind unravels the complexity, makes order of it and the clouds are lifted and a magnificent musical vista is unveiled. One of the first concerts I ever heard live was with the Stockholm Philharmonic, Antal Dorati conducting. The music? Mahler 5. I couldn't make heads or tails of it. Then I grabbed the Bernstein LP set and gave it a listen. And another and then it clicked. For me, the best way to understand and really hear a work is to put on the headphones, turn down the light, have no distractions and just listen. I'll study scores later. Another thing that helps: there are some recordings where the conductor does a better job of "explaining" the music than others. The Mehta/NYP Teldec recording is just superb - he really makes sense of the architecture Mahler created.

 

For me, at least, it all came with time and repeated exposure. I never had to consciously "try" to like Mahler, other than just making sure I revisited the symphonies now and then. I'm also not huge on the Eighth but again I do try to play it now and again. But don't try to force yourself to like it because other people like it; if it isn't for you, then there is surely plenty of other music that will please you more than Mahler.

 

I came the closest to really hearing everything in a Mahler symphony the other night when I went to the concert hall to experience no.2. The audience was very attentive and there were no distractions and the acoustics were amazing so I caught so many wonderful details in the score and picked up on many of the themes and recapitulations. It was a great experience!

 

I suppose I will incur the heaped abuse of Mahlerites and those accusing me of musical simpletonism, but my point here is to ask whether others feel that too much complexity and sheer musical length can lose the emotional sympathy and satisfaction of the listener? Anyone experience this in other works?

Can someone tell me when and where the auto-da-fé will be held?

 

I don't need …"Freres Jacques" to be happy

Have you tried Mahler’s first?

 

Yes, indeed. I have, in fact, listened to all the Mahler symphonies multiple times. And yes, I know what you are suggesting here and agree, the First Symphony is much "tighter" and thematically coherent.

 

Just going to be a normie and say the Adagietto is the only good thing about the 5th

 

Not to my ears.

 

Anyone else feel that a shorter, tighter exposition, development, recapitulation might just be somewhat more satisfying emotionally and have greater appeal to a listener's sense of order and organization?

Yes.

 

I understand what you mean. There was a time when I had a playlist version of the 5th Symphony, with only the first, fourth and the fifth movement.

Afterwards I have taught myself to accept the 2nd and the 3rd Movement. Some of the music is all over the shop — I do not have to deny it but to accept that is what Mahler wanted.

The way I see it

I — funeral march, sorrow
II — ambivalent bouncing between anxiety and trying to calm down
III — human being at the peak of their life
IV — love song with lots of emotion
V — joyous and glorious finale, the sun shines

The second movement is meant to create ambivalence and anxiety even. So actually you are getting it right! Without the 2nd Movement the 1st would be left too isolated in it’s darkness.

 

It is somtimes difficult to keep to remember all the different melodies and themes in your head at once especially of they come back in fragments with different orchestrations.

I would say that with Mahler you have 'complication' as well as 'complexity' . Complication being the shear number of themes thrown around: complexity being the counterpointing of these themes and the expanded sonata structures that Mahler uses.

I found Floros book The Mahler Symphonies useful.

 

Mahler thinks big. It's not complexity, just creation. Mahler does take time to get into, I think, and there was a time when I preferred Sibelius as a symphonist but that changed. When you have a sense of a whole Mahler work that work really becomes something very special. I started with the 5th, which I found easy and quite astonishing. Moving on to really getting to grips with the others took me some time. But it's worth it.

 

Problem is if you listen to enough Mahler other symphonies begin to sound thin. He does not get enough credit for his contrapuntal skills. In regards to other 19th century symphonists it’s like Vivaldi or Handel vs. Bach. However with Mahler it never becomes academic, the best example perhaps is the Rondo Burleske from the 9th Symphony

 

Delete post.

 

Did Mahler himself leave any commentary on his 5th symphony? I'm reminded of something I read about John Lennon. As you can imagine, fans and so-called music scholars alike listened to the Beatles over and over, looking for deep meaning and whatnot. One day a particularly "devoted" fan evidently approached Lennon at his estate and begged him for the meaning of I Am the Walrus. Lennon's reply was, I don't know, I just liked the sounds of the words. Point being, sometimes we read too much into things, and so the only real answer can only come from the composers themselves.

 

Mahler was a verbose author based on his letters. He mentions the Symphony No. 5 many times but usually in tactical ways rather than artistically. For example, complaining about how a player played something or being irate at a conductor's interpretation or something like that. You might want to check out Mahler's Letters to his Wife, it's quite interesting and revealing. His personal struggles, anxiety, and also philosophy and personality come through in richer and more complex ways.

 

Experience of art is individualistic varying in source of emotional motivations of binding to the work in question.

 

Experience of art is individualistic varying in source of emotional motivations of binding to the work in question.

Huh?

 

I found myself thinking about this tautology recently when listening to Mahler's Fifth Symphony. Listening to the second and third movements in particular, I came to the realization that I just don't know what's going on here! Now, I have listened to his Fifth Symphony many times but, for the life of me, I just could not see the internal coherence or cohesiveness within each of these two movements. There just seem to be too many themes, motifs, changes in rhythm, stops and starts, moods, changes in direction in each movement. I re-listened again immediately afterward and I'll be darned if I hear the initial themes picked up again, developed or recapitulated at the end of each movement. (BTW, the first, fourth and fifth movements seem to be much more coherent for me)

That second movement is one of my favorites and is the weightiest movement of the symphony, but also took me a long time to understand. And I think many others have initial difficulty with it. I recommend you keep trying because it's worth it - the key is to realize that the second movement builds on and develops the melodic material of the first movement, but continually reaches many climaxes, which get thwarted and peter out, as it strives to make its way through the turmoil.

As you become more familiar with the second movement and the preceding first movement, you'll be able to pick out the similarities. For example, one idea is the upward leap followed by a step down - this "striving" motif initiates many of the climaxes - it leads into the D major chorale of the second movement, the A flat recall of the Trauermarsch (in the second movement), and leads the main dissonant climax of the first movement. Many of the lyrical melodies in the first movement are recalled or transformed in the second movement (basically most of the lyrical string-oriented melodic stuff).

Mahler designated the first two movements as a part 1, and for me, this two movement complex acts as a single first mega-movement, and it's one of the most exciting "first" movements in the symphonic literature.

 

That second movement is one of my favorites and is the weightiest movement of the symphony, but also took me a long time to understand. . . .

As you become more familiar with the second movement and the preceding first movement, you'll be able to pick out the similarities. For example, one idea is the upward leap followed by a step down - this "striving" motif initiates many of the climaxes - it leads into the D major chorale of the second movement, the A flat recall of the Trauermarsch (in the second movement), and leads the main dissonant climax of the first movement. Many of the lyrical melodies in the first movement are recalled or transformed in the second movement (basically most of the lyrical string-oriented melodic stuff).

Mahler designated the first two movements as a part 1, and for me, this two movement complex acts as a single first mega-movement, and it's one of the most exciting "first" movements in the symphonic literature.

The second movement of the Fifth is my favorite movement of any Mahler symphony. That leap and descent figure always sounded to me like an attempt to reach up and pull oneself above the waves and out of chaos, an attempt which seems to succeed for a brief moment with the chorale.

Haven't seen you around here much lately ST!

 

While I do think there is coherence in Mahler's 5th (and Mahler in general), I will say that on the subject of "too much is too much" in general that it's really a taste thing. Some people appreciate music and art that's more concise, tightly and precisely sculpted and composed, with every piece in its right place, and its overall vision small enough to take in at a glance; others prefer art that's more sprawling, loose, messy, in which every part is its own unique world that may only be tangentially related to what's around it, and its overall vision large enough so that it's impossible to take in with a single experience. One can think of both views as different visions on life in general, with the former being what happens when we focus on a smaller group of elements and attempt to fully understand how everything works together, and the latter being what happens when we broaden our view and try to take in the full complexity of life and its often incoherent messiness.

In literature I think of something like the diametrically opposed styles of Tolstoy's War & Peace and Anna Karenina, with the former being the messy, sprawling, barely-coherent work that takes in so much of human life, and the latter being the focused, highly structured, super coherent work that focuses in on a handful of main characters and their psychology and relationships. I think both styles actually fit both works well. I think with Mahler his largeness is part of the appeal; he seems to be trying to represent so much of reality and experience in his symphonies that any reduction for the sake of coherence would also reduce the grandness of the vision to being something more mundane. Perhaps I could've seen this approach working in his more down-to-earth works like the 4th Symphony, but I think the 5th is as much as it needs to be. Perhaps if we're going to "too much is too much" of any Mahler it would be the 8th.

 

For me, Mahler is ”too much is too much” in these movements: 6/1, 6/4, 7/1, 8/1-2, 9/1

So for me the ”Too Much Era” only begun after the 5th Symphony. I just stay out of the too much and I am happy with my Mahler.

For me ”Too much” has got nothing to do with me not understanding the music. The ”too much” is just against my personal aesthetics in a way I cannot deal with no matter how hard I try.

 

Well said. 6 is redundant and ends up a mess.

 

I'm generally not a fan of the big late Romantic Austro-German aesthetic. Most of the symphonies of Mahler and Bruckner stretch out before me like the Sahara. Mahler has the added downside of focusing on symphonies and songs. He didn't compose any significant chamber music, at least Bruckner has the quintet. Strauss also has more variety, even though he was mainly an opera man.

At the same time, some of Mahler's symphonies have more thematic coherence than others. Try the 4th, all the themes derive from the last movement, and the orchestration is light and chamber like in texture. Even though I find the 9th and 10th overwhelming, and Das Lied too death laden, all of these three have links between them. The early symphonies also carry themes from his songs.

I think that this sense of continuity between his works and within his output as a whole counts as a plus. Getting at this might require the listener to be a bit more fanatical than someone like me who is content to listen to his pieces which I enjoy and mostly avoid the rest.

 

also just throwing it out there but the 5th is one of my lesser liked Mahler symphonies for the same reason as me not really caring for the Eroica - I just have a hard time putting the emotional/narrative arc of the symphony as a whole together

 

Strange, but the Fifth was the symphony of Mahler whose narrative arc made immediate sense to me, although the scherzo seemed a kind of divertimento within it. Different strokes, eh?

 

i always enjoy it when conductors have stories like that. Bruno Walter, one of the other big early Mahler proponents along with Klemperer apparently refused the 6th because it was too nihilistic, too.