On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 10:08:03 AM UTC-7, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success. The
gist seems to me just long periods of very soft but agreeable noodling
by the horns and woodwinds and muted strings punctuated by episodes of grandiloquent bombast. I mildly like the early Bernstein (with NYP)
from the sixties because he doesn't dawdle (though he did when older),
though even Lenny can't juice up the charm much. What am I missing?

Thanks.

According to this:

- Mahler's appeal among the Viennese was broad, but the disparate elements of his works, the extremes between philosophical pretension and wry humour, between cultured restraint and rustic sentimentality, could be alienating.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-civCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&dq=%22mahler%27s+appeal%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMxt2p6cD7AhW2JkQIHXOyDTM4ChDoAXoECAwQAg#v=onepage&q=%22mahler's%20appeal%22&f=false

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 2:51:19 AM UTC+9:30, Herman wrote:

On 30 mai, 19:18, herman <her...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I'd say the intense emotionalism and the counter-grandiloquent bits
(the weirdo marching bands etc) are essential to Mahler.

And, obviously, the exquisite, infinitely subtle orchestration.

Mahler is overrated, an assertion that I am sure many will consider heresy. But the reason I feel this way is quite simply that the quality of Mahler’s music is uneven because Mahler was not a good editor of his music and did not have the detachment
and/or discipline to delete sequences that should have been excised. The result is instances in his oeuvre of truly sublime sections of symphonic writing followed by a connective series of bars of pedestrian quality that linger until inspiration
reemerges in the next great section. Mahler frequently signals his awareness of these mediocre sections of music with the use of the glockenspiel, xylophone and triangle; they are the default instrumentation that he seems to go to when inspiration and
editing insight fail him. And then there is the banality. The beloved Adagietto movement of the 5th Symphony would be so much more effective, in my opinion, it were shorter and if Mahler did not pursue the melodic line’s sentimentality to the point of
cloying (and to these ears nauseating) sweetness.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, May 31, 2012 at 2:48:58 AM UTC+9:30, M forever wrote:

On May 30, 1:08 pm, Miranda <mirandama...@gmail.com> wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success. The
gist seems to me just long periods of very soft but agreeable noodling
by the horns and woodwinds and muted strings punctuated by episodes of grandiloquent bombast. I mildly like the early Bernstein (with NYP)
from the sixties because he doesn't dawdle (though he did when older), though even Lenny can't juice up the charm much. What am I missing?

Just about everything. Don't waste your time anymore. If you don't get
the music after 50 years, you never will. Based on your descriptions,
you are a very superficial listener, and there is plenty of music to
satisfy that level of listening.

Or..... Mahler's music itself is superficial.....
And maybe there is nothing groundbreaking in Mahler to be understood?
It is nice music, but it isn't amazing or even remotely unforgettable.
The huge orchestras needed and the super-long compositions under Mahler are quite frankly a waste of resources and the listener's time.
If he had focused more on shorter quality works instead things might have been better.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 18:08:03 UTC+1, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success.
Thanks.

You were right 50 years ago when you found that you didn't like Mahler.

You just wasted 50 years on a fruitless quest to like the unlikeable.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 11/25/2022 4:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 18:08:03 UTC+1, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success.
Thanks.

You were right 50 years ago when you found that you didn't like Mahler.

You just wasted 50 years on a fruitless quest to like the unlikeable.

And all the people who do like Mahler are idiots, or tasteless. Right.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op vrijdag 25 november 2022 om 04:35:09 UTC+1 schreef Manypeopletrytosee99:

If he had focused more on shorter quality works instead things might have been better.

I doubt it. Listen to the transcriptions for piano solo of Mahler's music. There is more music in a Chopin mazurka than in a whole movement of one of his symphonies.

Henk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 13:22:47 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:

On 11/25/2022 4:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 18:08:03 UTC+1, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success.
Thanks.

You were right 50 years ago when you found that you didn't like Mahler.

You just wasted 50 years on a fruitless quest to like the unlikeable.

And all the people who do like Mahler are idiots, or tasteless. Right.

Mahler has his fans, and I'm sure they are sincere. There are also those like me who simply don't like his music. I once spoke to an orchestral musician who ran off stage in one of his symphonies because it disturbed her emotions more than she could
ensure. I find his music creepy. The sight of Bernstein fawning and emoting over what I'm sure he feels is grandiose and important music just makes me laugh. Mahler is a serious blind spot, but that goes for any grandiose music, particularly of the
German kind. I would turn to a work like Stravinsky's Symphony in C for much needed relief.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 26 November 2022 at 02:34:40 UTC+11, Andy Evans wrote:

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 13:22:47 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:

On 11/25/2022 4:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 18:08:03 UTC+1, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success.
Thanks.

You were right 50 years ago when you found that you didn't like Mahler.

You just wasted 50 years on a fruitless quest to like the unlikeable.

And all the people who do like Mahler are idiots, or tasteless. Right.

Mahler has his fans, and I'm sure they are sincere. There are also those like me who simply don't like his >music. I once spoke to an orchestral musician who ran off stage in one of his symphonies because it disturbed her emotions more than she could

ensure. I find his music creepy. The sight of Bernstein fawning and emoting over what I'm sure he feels is grandiose and important music just makes me laugh. Mahler is a >serious blind spot, but that goes for any grandiose music, particularly of the
German kind. I would turn to a ?>work like Stravinsky's Symphony in C for much needed relief.

From heated to cool seems logical. However, I will never disregard Mahler so easily. There are times when he gets closer to the earth and nature than any other composer, and this juxtaposition of the real and the unreal (the spooky stuff) is part of the
fascination. Nobody could have produced a work like Das Lied and whilst seriously expressive, it certainly isn't grandiose. I find symphonies 2,3,5,8 too grandiose, and maybe why I prefer the other symphonies (with more of the grotesquery).

I'd like to know Andy if you feel the same way about Shostakovich? I find the two composers very similar in certain ways. Shosty was never grandiose, but he could be a bit bombastic. But then I love Shostakovich also.

Ray Hall, Taree

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Saturday, 26 November 2022 at 03:07:05 UTC+11, hvt...xs4all.nl wrote:

Op vrijdag 25 november 2022 om 04:35:09 UTC+1 schreef Manypeopletrytosee99:

If he had focused more on shorter quality works instead things might have been better.

I doubt it. Listen to the transcriptions for piano solo of Mahler's music. There is more music in a Chopin mazurka than in a whole movement of one of his symphonies.

Henk

Chopin only affected a very small and very delicately personal part of this world. Mahler strove for much much more.

Ray Hall, Taree

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Op vrijdag 25 november 2022 om 22:15:24 UTC+1 schreef raymond....@gmail.com:

On Saturday, 26 November 2022 at 03:07:05 UTC+11, hvt...xs4all.nl wrote:

Chopin only affected a very small and very delicately personal part of this world. Mahler strove for much much more.

And he achieved it, and proved (again) that in aesthetics quantity is a quality.

Henk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 21:09:39 UTC, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:

I'd like to know Andy if you feel the same way about Shostakovich? I find the two composers very similar in certain ways. Shosty was never grandiose, but he could be a bit bombastic. But then I love Shostakovich also.

Ray Hall, Taree

That's an interesting question, Ray. I don't find Shostakovich creepy in the same way as Mahler. But I don't have an enduring affinity for his music either. I wouldn't call Shosty grandiose, more very serious. I don't think he was pretentious in any way.
I quite like his "circus music" like the end of the 6th Symphony which I think is terrific. Just me being lowbrow I suppose. Again, I think Bernstein ruins Shostakovich - he tries to big it up and add drama, which is not what it needs. Give me Mravinsky,
who gets the music as it is.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2022-11-25 2:09 p.m., raymond....@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, 26 November 2022 at 02:34:40 UTC+11, Andy Evans wrote:

On Friday, 25 November 2022 at 13:22:47 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:

On 11/25/2022 4:12 AM, Andy Evans wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 May 2012 at 18:08:03 UTC+1, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success.
Thanks.

You were right 50 years ago when you found that you didn't like Mahler. >>>>
You just wasted 50 years on a fruitless quest to like the unlikeable.

And all the people who do like Mahler are idiots, or tasteless. Right.

Mahler has his fans, and I'm sure they are sincere. There are also those like me who simply don't like his >music. I once spoke to an orchestral musician who ran off stage in one of his symphonies because it disturbed her emotions more than she could

ensure. I find his music creepy. The sight of Bernstein fawning and emoting over what I'm sure he feels is grandiose and important music just makes me laugh. Mahler is a >serious blind spot, but that goes for any grandiose music, particularly of the
German kind. I would turn to a ?>work like Stravinsky's Symphony in C for much needed relief.

From heated to cool seems logical. However, I will never disregard Mahler so easily. There are times when he gets closer to the earth and nature than any other composer, and this juxtaposition of the real and the unreal (the spooky stuff) is part of

the fascination. Nobody could have produced a work like Das Lied and whilst seriously expressive, it certainly isn't grandiose. I find symphonies 2,3,5,8 too grandiose, and maybe why I prefer the other symphonies (with more of the grotesquery).


I think he is at his best in the song cycles where he is constrained by
the lyrics.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Friday, November 25, 2022 at 3:19:50 PM UTC-8, Graham wrote:

I think he is at his best in the song cycles
where he is constrained by the lyrics.

Last I heard Mahler's appeal was rejected
by SCOTUS.

dk

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sunday, September 20, 2020 at 5:36:30 PM UTC-7.@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, May 30, 2012 at 10:08:03 AM UTC-7, Miranda wrote:

Can anyone explain to me the appeal of Mahler's symphonies? I have
been trying to like them for about 50 yrs now, without success. The
gist seems to me just long periods of very soft but agreeable noodling by the horns and woodwinds and muted strings punctuated by episodes of grandiloquent bombast. I mildly like the early Bernstein (with NYP)
from the sixties because he doesn't dawdle (though he did when older), though even Lenny can't juice up the charm much. What am I missing?

Thanks.

https://books.google.com/books?id=-civCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA223&dq=%22mahler%27s+appeal%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRz_GmxfbrAhVG_KQKHbvnAREQ6AEwCHoECAkQAg#v=onepage&q=%22mahler's%20appeal%22&f=false

Concerning the popular appeal of Mahler's music:

https://books.google.com/books?id=fJqGM12FvckC&q=%22popular+appeal+of+Mahler%27s%22&dq=%22popular+appeal+of+Mahler%27s%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiJhb6sgPnrAhVHsp4KHRc-C2EQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg

Does Mahler's work lack an erotic dimension?:

https://books.google.com/books?id=nFpgYpUfv7sC&pg=PA229&dq=%22the+absence+of+an+erotic+dimension+in+Mahler%27s+work%22&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijlrOs-sr7AhXwL0QIHYk-B5AQ6AF6BAgHEAI#v=onepage&q=%22the%20absence%20of%20an%20erotic%
20dimension%20in%20Mahler's%20work%22&f=false

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)