I'm sort of with you, I'm not a Mahler fanatic, but I didn't skip, and relistened again and again. I was moved by the 9th a few weeks ago, and wanted to be again, and I put it on, but the next two times didn't work out. I put the 5th on after and it did work out. I don't think you need to pressure yourself to like anything, and it just makes it worse if you do.

 

Okay, how to start listening to Mahler:

Start with No. 4. My favorite is Abbado, even though many people think it has a dry sound. Before you listen, read about the fourth. There is so much hidden in Mahler's music, little clues about his life, his music, that makes it so much more meaningful. For instance, the slow movement begins with the same chords as the Act 1 Fidelio Quartet in the same key- and probably on purpose. So is that irony then? Since the person who begins the Quartet thinks she's getting married to the man she loves, but... well... he's not a man! The fourth is about childlike innocence, but it is one of Mahler's most mature works, personally.

The first movement:

Listen to it once. Try to pick out the melodies, the countermelodies, development, all of that... you probably won't like it on first listen, just like me. But for me, Mahler is about repetition, and this is especially for the first movement of the fourth. The more you listen to it, the more you hear, the better you can understand it. For instance, Mahler even quotes his own fifth symphony in the first movement of the fourth.

The second movement:

A haunting "death fiddler" movement, where there is a beautiful violin solo contrasting with a lively dance. Here is Mahler at his most sarcastic, I think. Especially the end of this movement, which is on a major note, but leaves, quoting a book I have on Mahler, "a sulfurous aftertaste."

The third movement:

Heaven meets Earth... Especially in the climax. That's all that needs to be said.

The fourth movement:

The soprano solo is quite lovely, and the ending chords give me chills up my spines.

Start with that, I guess. I hope Mahler works for you soon.

 

Why force yourself, if you do not like the music just don't start with it, your subconscious maybe saying otherwise but do not force yourself, to any kind of music you do not like for that matter

 

My thoughts exactly Pugg. Don't like it, then get away from it. Try other composers. One day, sooner or later, you will return to Mahler for another listen, but don't demand anything of yourself. If it still doesn't say anything to you or you don't connect with it, leave it alone once again. Try approaching something different with an open mind. It took me many years before I came to enjoy chamber music or Haydn or Mozart....And I'm still not that enamoured with Beethoven, except for his "Eroica" Symphony and Triple Concerto. Trust your own feelings. Don't insist you must like a composer's music simply because others do.

 

And I know what a lot of you are thinking. A few minutes? Skipping around? I should just sit there, focus, and get through more than a few minutes before skipping. But see, I don't know about everyone else, but for me, listening to three to five minutes of the music really does give a strong sense of the composer's and the piece's style, though I'd like to think, you know, don't judge a book by a cover, and all that. When I'm unimpressed by a few minutes, I may skip around and end up listening to nine minutes elsewhere, and most if not all the time, I'm not moved there either. Not enough changes.

The highlighted part is the fundamental flaw in the argument as any composer whose style can be sensed within 3 to 5 minutes is not someone who can think in terms of large scale symphonic structure. I can think of any number of works where by the end of the first movement I was thinking that this piece does nothing for me and isn't 'going' anywhere, but where continuing to listen to the end I began to see that there was an interesting musical argument taking place. It happened just this evening with a Prokofiev symphony which I had never listened to before (7th). Mahler's symphonies cover such a diverse range of emotions that there is no way that you can grasp them in small chunks. Now I am not saying that you will ever come to like his symphonies but I am fairly certain that you won't with your approach to them. An analogy to this would be looking in isolation to a few small parts of a painting and deciding from them whether the entire canvas is of interest. Any significant work, be it painting or symphony, is greater than the sum of its parts.

 

I can take or leave Mahler he is not at the top of my list, but I can and do listen to the complete work.

 

My Mahler enthusiasm started with a rather unorthodox way: I just listened to the symphonies in background while doing other things. I know this is just a personal view of things, but for me it seems to be easier to absorb the overall structure and "drama" if I'm not just sitting and trying to understand each and every nuance. So, what happened is that eventually these massive pieces started to grow, and then I got hooked. I guess this just reflects my more generic way of learning: I like to understand big picture before going to the details. Then go back to big picture, and to the details, and... kind of iterative approach.

Actually, if I listen to the any piece of music very conciously, just "letting it sink", I don't undestand at all what is going on. I completely lose the red line. Get lost to the music.

 

I really didn't care about Mahler and then I went to a performance of Beethoven's 5th and Mahler's 1st was also on the program. I really enjoyed the Mahler part, but didn't think about it much after that. Then some months later I pulled out a Mahler symphony 5 disk that I had laying around from a garage sale or somewhere and played it. I was hooked and quickly purchased a full cycle and other miscellaneous Mahler symphony recordings.

 

I feel the same. For me his music is rather blaha. Not bad but not something I want to listen a lot to.

 

My first exposure was to his fifth and I loved it. I enjoy the different feels he flows in and out of and how unique they sound melodically.

It's not worth trying to force yourself to like something, but at the same time, there are certain moods that make you more receptive to different types of music. I'd say Mahler is good for thought provoking times to stimulate creative thinking.

 

I don't know what to say.

First, there's nothing that says you have to like Mahler. If it doesn't speak to you, go on to something else and come back in a year, and then a year later still . . . or not at all.

You don't want us to suggest another way of listening, so I won't. But I don't know what you're going to do about Tristan und Isolde, or Peleas et Melisande, or Bruckner . . .

I admit that I've never been able to get past page 10 of The Sound and the Fury, but figure that's my problem.

You might ocassionally try putting a symphony on in its entirety in the background, while you're making dinner, or reading a book, or fixing your bicycle, and just absorb it osmotically. Although he's long-winded, most of his arguments play out better across the whole structure. But they are wildly different -- and coming to terms with one doesn't mean you're home free with the others.

Do what works for you.

 

Perhaps Mahler himself can help you understand how to listen to his music. He said "A symphony must be like the world. It must contain everything." We move through the world slowly, a moment, an hour, a day at a time, experiencing what is around us as it happens, not knowing where the future leads and with only a feeble grasp of what lay behind, by way of (often faulty) memory or (often skewed or biased) history. Yet riches lie all round, and we can only scrape the surface of it all, meeting moments of surprise and wonder, terror and delight, joy and sadness ... in other words, life.

In his hour plus long symphonies, Mahler provides us a microcosm of life itself. Not all of life is satisfying, or delightful, or comprehensible, or meaningful. But it is vibrant and energizing, revealing and informative. It is experience. It is living. It is like the world, containing everything.

 

If I like it, I listen. If I don't,I don't. I'm not forcing it. Mahler is one of the composers that is hit or miss for me.

Don't have me thrown off the forum, but even Beethoven has pieces I don't care for.

 

I don't really know Mahlers' work but if you're so keen to get into the hype put some work in it man!

First, do some research about which symphony is the most important. Then pick yourself a symphony purely on personal preference.

Then, listen to them completely (not 10 minutes man, c'mon), not once but 3, 4, 6, 7 times as long as needed (of course that also depends on your devotion). Then after al that suffering you either give up or the symphonies will reveal themselves. In the latter case: congratulations! You can use this forum to declare the genius of Mahler. In the former case: there's two approaches. One is to declare Mahler to be an overrated composer. You can do this on this forum, lot's of interesting debate will follow and you can start a quest to try to prick the Mahler bubble. The other approach is to be humble about it and accept that you're just not artistically mature enough (and probably will never be) to understand Mahler.

As for Mahler, my listening experience is equal to yours, so I just shut up about him until I decide to go through some more suffering.

As for Bach, my listening experience is somewhat more extensive but in order not to get lynched by the TC community I describe my lack of Bach admiration to be the result of my own personal preference and definitely not a "sane" opinion. Sometimes, when I'm sitting alone in some bar drinking my 3th whisky I stare before me and mumble "Bach is overrated". "What's that you're saying" the bartender says "Oh nothing...." I say.

 

I don't agree that not getting into Mahler (or any other major composer) is a sign of lack of artistic maturity. Vaughan Williams heartily disliked Beethoven's music, but wrote an essay which lays out the greatness of the Choral Symphony. As it happens that's pretty much how I view Mahler - I simply don't enjoy the sounds he puts together, but I can recognise the immense craft that went into doing so.

 

That's exactly right, I think. I have never warmed to Mahler but readily acknowledge his significance.

 

^^ Sounds like some cult stuff

Is it really so that Mahler is untouchable in TC?

I'd love to hate Mahler and to say it proudly in this thread.. but can't lie about it . Is it okay to say Tschaikovsky sucks?

 

^^ Sounds like some cult stuff

I'd love to hate Mahler and to say it proudly in this thread.. but can't lie about it . Is it okay to say Tschaikovsky sucks?

I have never understood why so many music lovers hate Tchaikovsky, but it's not an uncommon sentiment.

 

Mahler is my 2nd favourite composer after Bach, but if you don't enjoy him, so be it. Nobody enjoys everything. No need to use words like "hype" or "overrated" though - tastes differ.

 

To be fair, "overrrated" doesn't refer to intrinsical musical value, just to reception. And yes, I think Mahler is overrated, in the sense of: over-represented in the orchestral repertoire relative to equally worthy peers. Just as Volkmar Andreae is underrated.

 

I was exactly the same, didn't like Mahler at first, had to skip through his Symphonys to find anything of interest as there is a lot of development in his music, but first came to the point of LOVING Mahler once I listened to the first movement of his 10th Symphony, "Adagio."

It's much different than the rest of his music I think, personally, and a lot more emotional / personal. I think it's a great starting point when first listening to Mahler. It's what got me into him, the sublime beauty of this first movement if beyond anything else he composed in my opinion.

 

To be honest, you haven't given his music a fair chance.
You're listening to fragments of 1-1,5 hour long symphonies.
Do you judge a book by a few pages or a painting by only looking at one corner?
The way I get into such big works is by listening to each movement seperately at least a couple of times. Slowly getting to know them. Then I'm ready to listen to the entire work a few times. It does take serious time and effort before you can have a proper "mental picture" of big and complex works like this. During this process you will gradually find out whether you like his music or not.

 

This topic has come up before, so the OP shouldn't feel bad. Mahler appreciation is an acquired taste that once acquired becomes addictive.
It should be kept in mind that the Mahler sound world of Symphonies 1-4 is very different from that of 5&6, and 7-9 and Das Lied Von Der Erde show a further evolution. You may find yourself liking one phase more than another and if that happens for a given piece you may want to stay within that period before moving on.
I initially didn't like Mahler but my gateway work was the First Symphony. It does take some patience but I love the way that I slowly germinates, feeling like an early morning stroll in the woods outside a provincial town in the summer. The third movement is one of GM's most striking creation, setting Frere Jacques as a Funeral March, with a klezmer outburst in the middle that does not sound out of place. Mahler's music is Universal and thrives under many approaches, but I feel that Symphonies 1 and 4 (the other gateway work) come off best with Jewish Conductors who can ladle out the schmaltz, such as Leonard Bernstein or Bruno Walter. That may reflect my Jewish upbringing, so be advised.

 

With a composer like Mahler, you need a road map to get you to see what's going on. Personally, I'd recommend David Hurwitz's The Mahler Symphonies, An Owner's Manual. He clearly loves these pieces, and he writes in a very relatable manner. He takes each symphony in order and explains step by step what is happening.

If you still don't like them, at least you'll know why, like the famous old lawyer responding to a judge who said, "Mr. Smith, I have read your case, and I am no wiser then when I began it." His remark: "Perhaps not, but you are better informed."

 

I feel like I'm missing something. I've been trying to listen to the symphonies, or at least get a taste of each of one piece's movements, to try and experience this incredible music, but the fuse doesn't light. After a few minutes of the first or fourth symphony, I'll then skip ahead to the second movement. A few more minutes there, skip ahead in that movement, and onto the third, and . . . well, I guess it's that nothing happens for me........
I've done this with, like I said, the first symphony, the second, I believe the fourth, and the fifth. I just now listened to eleven minutes of the ninth symphony, the one I had the most faith in because of what I've heard about it,

As an approach to listening to music, I don't think exposing yourself to short segments and jumping around is really a very fruitful method. It's rather like trying to read a novel by just reading a page or so here, jumping to the next chapter, reading a page or so, again jumping ahead, again short segment - you will get no flow, no continuity, no sense of the form of the work...It doesn't surprise me that the music does not come across favorably to you.
Might I suggest a different approach?? - try one movement at a time - a shorter mvt - one that is straight ahead in a readily discernible form - say movement II of Symphony #1 - the "scherzo" - very clear form ABA -main section, slower middle section, repeat of main section....Don't skip around, just let the music play...see if that works for you...

It's perfectly OK it it doesn't work, nobody has to like anything....but at least you'll be giving the composer and his music a fair hearing.

 

The first Mahler symphony that I listened to was the 3rd and I still like it a lot to this day. Before that, I didn't really get the Mahler hype, either. I still don't, actually, but I do appreciate his works for what they are and respect others to whom Mahler is an important composer.

Give it more tries, I guess, but don't feel let down if you still don't like it. Disliking music to which you have honestly put an effort into listening is not a weakness.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone who gave me input. Maybe it wasn't exactly correct to say that I skip around, it's generally that I give each movement a chance, and maybe I just lack patience but not enough seems to happen, not even in a measurement of time, but sort of in music as well. So much music has gone by and there's no feeling. As lots of you have said, that's ok, I shouldn't force myself into it, but as more have said, I should give the symphonies a fair chance.

I definitely agree I haven't, and I guess I should, though it's going to really try my patience. Does anyone else agree that making yourself listen to a piece in its entirety just for the chance you gain a moving new perspective on it then is not necessarily worth considerably disliking the parts that comprise it? And of course I don't mean a matter of minutes. I mean movements. Maybe that doesn't seem like a 'mature' look on it, as a lot of replies seem to coin it when you're able to sit yourself down and listen to the entirety while doing nothing else, but could something not be said for the small parts that seem to drag on?

And I don't mean three minutes, because that's not a real gauge of how much I listen to before declaring an opinion. I don't know who in their intelligent mind could declare an opinion that quickly. I listen for contrast and primarily I try to decide if I'm feeling it. I generally am not with these symphonies. I'm currently listening to the first symphony and I plan to re-listen to the fifth and ninth as well.

I guess my method of listening wasn't one that warranted judgement, and maybe I'm not patient enough, but I suppose I believe something is could be said about the level of interest can invoke in parts of the work less than the entirety of it. I don't mean a matter of minutes, I mean a matter of movements. Of course I've listened to full movements of Mahler, I'm not THAT impatient.

I have to disagree with the portrait analogy, though. The idea it seeks to portray, I definitely agree with - I shouldn't make a judgement so quickly in. Still, a brushstroke, or a series of brushstrokes, of negative space in, say, a portrait of a person is not necessarily meant to invoke the emotion invoked when you look at the entire work. With music, however, how much negative space do you appreciate? (please don't take that literally. I'm not calling an iota of Mahler negative space just because I'm not riveted by it thus far. I just mean how much of it that you personally do not understand, is acceptable for you personally to listen to just in order to get all the way through?)

Anyway, this post was really meant to update on my new goal to give myself more time to listen and appreciate. I myself think my judgement sounds immature, but I decided not to try to hide it. I need time to give it more of a chance. I need time to gain maturity, and not only in the way I listen to music. Patience may come with time, or it could come with the eventual termination of this time in my life in which high school demands considerable time and focus and energy, especially with APs and testing and having to balance academic stability with a very demanding musical commitment, of which several performances are coming up quick, and then balancing that with the need to tend to your own basic needs and those of other people. and of your own emotional stability, which for me has never been so steady in my older years. It's a time that tries my patience each day.

I am onto a ways through the second movement of The Titan, and willing to continue here. Some pretty cool things happening. Thank you for all your input. :tiphat:

 

I am onto a ways through the second movement of The Titan, and willing to continue here. Some pretty cool things happening. Thank you for all your input. :tiphat:

P.S. Forget the 'Titan' nonsense, that was something that Mahler attached to a very early version of the symphony before he made some major changes including dropping the Blumine movement. He dropped the title by the time the final version of the symphony was published and (I believe) was quite specific about not wanting it used. It should be noted that 'Titan' had not been intended as descriptive, rather as referring to a book of that name which had given him some inspiration.

 

A similar thing happened to me with Mahler (except I liked the 1st symphony from the beginning), I couldn't get into the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th at all. What did I do? I tried the 7th, the one considered the weirdest and/or his worst, it turns out it's great and I loved it at first listen.

So you may want to try that. Also recordings can make a huge difference with their diverse approaches, from Bernstein to Boulez , and everyone has different tastes, so you have to find the ones that are right for you.

 

Perhaps before suggesting what symphonies you might like and how you might go about it, we should ask what composers/symphonies you do enjoy. Also have there been cases where it did take time for you to come to like them?