It doesn't take this site to experience what I call the Mahler hype. Mahler seems to have an incredibly high level of admiration and respect from musicians that's distinct from the rest. Maybe it's that there seems to be so much to say about each of his nine symphonies, and how they're so distinct from one another, so provoking, such incredible works of art.
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, I regret to say I cannot hum a single motif from those save the trumpet flourish from the fifth symphony, and that is 90% because I've been exposed to trumpet players in my ensembles long enough to hear that motif eagerly played many times.
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.
Maybe I'm being dramatic, but honestly, I feel like I'm missing something. I want to experience the deep appreciation so many people have for his music because I've never seen another composer who has so much of his symphonic work so deeply respected, except for, I guess, Beethoven, but then, I understand why in terms of his music.
What is it about Mahler that is so brilliant to very many people? I feel like the quality the makes it so impressive to people is that there's . . . a lot going on? It's vivacious and it has edge. But it's so lackluster to me.
Anyone have thoughts?
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, I regret to say I cannot hum a single motif from those save the trumpet flourish from the fifth symphony, and that is 90% because I've been exposed to trumpet players in my ensembles long enough to hear that motif eagerly played many times.
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.
Maybe I'm being dramatic, but honestly, I feel like I'm missing something. I want to experience the deep appreciation so many people have for his music because I've never seen another composer who has so much of his symphonic work so deeply respected, except for, I guess, Beethoven, but then, I understand why in terms of his music.
What is it about Mahler that is so brilliant to very many people? I feel like the quality the makes it so impressive to people is that there's . . . a lot going on? It's vivacious and it has edge. But it's so lackluster to me.
Anyone have thoughts?
