IMSLP Forums

I was about to make that some point about Schoenberg pertaining to the Brahms group.

Let me say this, Mahler is so overrated, this frivolous thread is one of the most popular ones on this forum!

P.S. Schoenberg adored Brahms.

and Walter Piston is so underrated, his thread received no comments. My points proven!

I still can't understand anyone saying (and with utmost confidence almost implying it a fact) a popular composer is overrated, be it Brahms or Mahler. No-one here (or, for that matter in the world) who is an authority on the matter. There are many that enjoy just Brahms and many who enjoy just Mahler, but the overwhelming majority (of whom like at least one of these two) would enjoy both. To say that one of them is overrated is a huge statement and it needs to be backed up with something other than personalised (or emotionalised) rhetoric. What I mean, is if you don't like one of the composers, stating that said composer is overrated is completely groundless and fallacious.

frivolous

If this thread is frivolous, why make such poignant (and large) statements such as you (and the alternate party) have?

What really drives me nuts is that some people insist upon making Mahler the missing link between Wagner and Schoenberg (even though the links were written...after the pieces to which they connect???)

Schönberg was influenced by Mahler, but I definitely agree that making Mahler the connecting link is silly, Schönberg was just as influenced by Brahms. In reality , Schoenberg's early works are more-so the connecting link between the (in)famous Schönberg and Wagner. Obviously if anyone were forced to pick, you'd pick the Brahms camp, but to pick any camp is fruitless, Schönberg was at the beginning of the rush of [more] experimental music (for its time) and while influenced by both camps he really is the New Viennese School and not a High Romantic school at all. Shostakovich on the other hand is a huge Mahlerian.

Mahler if anything took a step back from Wagner. Mahler's music is (generally) much more tonally unambiguous than Wagner's (and certainly contains many more perfect cadences). Schönberg's early thick pieces such as Gurrelieder and Verklärte Nacht are direct links from Wagner, and they themselves then lead to is experiments with a lack of tonality completely and eventually (after getting high), serialism*.

*I hate serialism, atonal music without the restriction of serialism is much more musical IMO.

The main reason I think Mahler is overrated is because of these fan clubs (which perlnerd666 and I seem to loathe) are musically clueless. All they seem to listen to is Mahler, Bruckner, or Shostakovich and pretty much nothing else. They like it so much because it is so much easier to listen to than, let's say Brahms's Piano Quintet in f. Similar to what I said before, listening to Mahler is like watching TBS or Saturday Night Live and listening to Brahms is like viewing The History Channel. It is much deeper. You really have to see these kinds of fan boys to believe that they exist. I do not know if they are present "downunda," but they are at large in the U.S. If it weren't for them, I would be more tollerant of Mahler's popularity. I also believe that there is so much more music out there that is better and more lyrical than Mahler's. I frankly do not want to sit down for two hours listening to music blasting in your face. Like Oskar Wilde said, "The thing I love about Wagner's music is that you can talk to somebody next to you during a concert and nobody else would hear it (it goes something like that)."



Come on people, The "Resurrection" Symphony, really?

Okay!

Declaration of personal blind spot: Mahler's Knabenhorn symphonies (1 to 4) don't float my boat at all, as I don't regard any of the ones before the fifth worthy of such frequent performance as they get, but I'd counter allegroamabile's comment by remarking that on any objective musical grounds, the second symphony is a better constructed work than the insipid, immature, bloated, and derivative symphonies that immediately flank it (Nºs 1 and 3).

The first three movements are the most convincing movements of their kind to be found in early Mahler: e.g. an enlarged sonata-form first movement that doesn't collapse under it's own weight (as the first movement of Nº 3 definitely does); a rather Schubertian but successful Ländler; and a superb moto perpetuo Scherzo (neither the scherzos ‘Full Sail’ in Nº 1 or ‘Posthorn’ in Nº 3 really cut the mustard like this one, in my opinion).

If I'm listening to Nº 2 at home I tend to skip Urlicht or make a cup of tea, and whether you like the inherent bad taste in the final movement and the over-the-top climax or not is really whether you like Mahler's wearing of his heart on his sleeve. Personally I think the finishes of Nºs 8 and 9 achieve much more than the rather humdrum hymn quoting here, but it's not that bad. By the way, the title »Auferstehungs-Symphonie« derives from the Klopstock hymn. It's akin to people referring to the final movement of Beethoven's Choral Symphony as the Ode to Joy, you know?

PML

Plus, Mahler stole the theme of his First Symphony, second movement from Hans Rott's Symphony in E, third movement.

Has anyone noticed that the big chorale theme which climaxes the finale of Mahler's First, and which is forshadowed in the minor in the opening bars of the work, is "stolen" from the bass of Pachelbel's Canon in D? "Immature artists borrow, mature artists steal." (Attributed to several composers, hence probably apocryphal.) For all that, I love the work, and the Third; when I first heard the latter, at a live performance by the Boston Symphony under Leinsdorf about 1965 (and it was not even available on records then (remember records?)) I was left totally breathless by the Posthorn movement. It absolutely must be heard live to fully appreciate it, which is also true of the chorus entry in the Second, the cymbal stroke in Bruckner's Seventh, and "let there be LIGHT" in The Creation by Haydn. Fortunately for us all, there is more than enough music out there to satisfy any taste.
Speaking of stolen tunes and Brahms (in this dicussion), here's an amusing conundrum, again probably apocrphal: After the premier of the Brahms Fourth, a friend came up to him and said, "Well, Herr Brahms, your next three symphonies will have to be in A." Brahms thought a moment, then laughed. "You're right," he replied. What's the joke?

I am tired of people saying how breathtaking Mahler's music is. Carl Maria von Weber's Missa Sancta No. 1 is so breathtaking, it leaves you on the floor gasping for air. This piece has true beauty and is never played, and scarcely recorded! It contains real emotions. It has pauses, places of silence!, that leaves you with goosebumps (especially in the Kyrie). And what can you say about Mahler, his music has big, grand finales and finishes. The Reformation Symphony has really cool and neat dotted eighths and sixteenth note-like figures in the first movement..... That's nothing!........ Weber's Mass ends on a beautiful, tranquil, quiet chord played by the low brass in the Agnus Dei.... That's it..... No cymbal crashes with timpani.... That's the type of music that sticks with you. Sure you may like listening to Mahler every day for about month but you will eventually get tired of it. You can listen to the Weber day by day and still find something new and beautiful in it. This will be my job when I become a conductor of an orchestra (and hopefully will be well-known) to shun out the Mahler and play beautiful music that is rooted with real passion and beauty!

Wouldn't you like to listen to something that is that powerful.....

tickle88 wrote:Has anyone noticed that the big chorale theme which climaxes the finale of Mahler's First, and which is forshadowed in the minor in the opening bars of the work, is "stolen" from the bass of Pachelbel's Canon in D? "

It's highly unlikely Mahler ever heard Pachelbel's piece.

That said, it's a pretty common bass line.

Yeah - Bach, Brahms, Mozart, and Beethoven all "quote" it. I don't even believe that Pachelbel invented it.

Example: 4th Movement of Beethoven Op.28 - the Arpeggiated chords are exactly the same.

There was a comedian, and I can't remember his name, but he did a very funny sketch where he got out his cello and started playing the bass line to Pachelbel's Canon. He said that in high school he decided to become a rock musician because he was so bored with always having to do that *!I)^&% piece. He proceeds to play Pachelbel for the whole sketch, saying that just when he thinks he's managed to finally avoid the piece, another rock tune comes out that rips it off, and then he sings the rock tune over the Canon. Very funny sketch.

Point being -- EVERYONE rips off Pachelbel, so don't hold it against Mahler.

Quick replies to replies: notice the " " on stolen; Mahler may have heard the Pachelbel, but it is unlikely he consciously imitated it. There are only so many notes. Handel did not write Joy to the World. Mendelssohn, Schumann, and Wagner did not rip off Beethoven's Les Adieux (Elgar is another story). And I did not write that Mahler was breathtaking, but that I was breathless. One statement is about the music, the other about myself (and it was as literally true as that statement ever is). A critic who cannot recognize the difference will never be taken seriously. History has been full of them. Read The Lexicon of Musical Invective by Nicolas Slonimsky. (Be prepared to die laughing.)

Anyone willing to take on my conundrum? Another hint: it involves a motive used by two Classical composers, and goes back further to a plain chant called tonus peregrinus, which they may or may not have heard.

Monsieur Tickle, the apocryphal Brahms story is probably a concoction, as that particular motif was re-used by the composer several times: as well as his last symphony, it appears in the second movement of his first, where it is written out as C D F E, F G AGF E. In the masses where he quotes the motif, one is F G Bb A DDD DC – very similar to the final symphony motif; in the other mass it starts C D F E, EFG G#AA and reappears a couple of bars later as C D F E, ECB BAA. As for the tonus peregrinus: this composer quotes it prominently in his last composition, sung in the exact manner one would expect for the accompanying text, which to my mind confirms that he knew precisely what the t.p. was, and when and where to use it!

PS Allegroamabile: Reformation Symphony ? Mendelssohn's use of the "Dresden" Amen and "Ein feste Burg" in his D minor symphony. Otherwise, I wasn't aware Mahler had contributed a "Reformation" Symphony to the genre also?

The main reason I think Mahler is overrated is because of these fan clubs (which perlnerd666 and I seem to loathe) are musically clueless.

I mean this not derogatorily, but shouldn't whether a composer is overrated or not be based on the music and not the supporters – overzealous they still may be.

I do not know if they are present "downunda,"

They aren't at my uni, I know of no one that is as single/narrow minded as you described. Luckily.

It is much deeper.

Compositionally it, without doubt, is the other way round. The harmonies and orchestral colours have much more longevity (in terms of learning) than Brahms. Emotionally, it really is in the eye of the beholder.

Come on people, The "Resurrection" Symphony, really?

What do you mean? The name of it is a problem? I don't understand.

In an interesting coincidence: Mozart's finale of his 41st uses the motive C D F E, the keys of Brahms's symphonies spells the same three keys and the letters are also the melody of Schicksalslied.

Plus, Mahler stole the theme of his First Symphony, second movement from Hans Rott's Symphony in E, third movement.

Brahms stole the melody in his first from Ode to Joy. Doesn't really mean anything, composers quote, steal and borrow all the time.

The Reformation Symphony has really cool and neat dotted eighths and sixteenth note-like figures in the first movement..... That's nothing!........ Weber's Mass ends on a beautiful, tranquil, quiet chord played by the low brass in the Agnus Dei.... That's it..... No cymbal crashes with timpani....

With respect, Maher 3, 4, 6(?) 9 and 10 all end quietly and softly. That is half of the symphonies.

Wouldn't you like to listen to something that is that powerful.....

I'd rather listen to both, in their own different ways both are extremely powerful and moving.

From what I've seen in real life from people who don't appreciate Mahler, is that they all complain that all Mahler does, is grand, big and loud. I can't emphasise enough how much of a false generalisation that is. Mahler 8 might have 1000+ people in it, but it has many delicate moments, and the second half rarely utilises a large percentage of the orchestra. The last movement of Mahler's 1st being the black duck, it is cymbals and loud noise for 20 minutes - but it is an early work.

Yagan Kiely wrote:shouldn't whether a composer is overrated or not be based on the music and not the supporters – overzealous they still may be.

Well, the supporters are the ones rating him/her, so 'overrated' could just mean that there's too much jingoism surrounding the music of that composer. I would include Bach in this category; a fair amount of people seem to regard him (and his music) as being the closest musician (and music) there ever was to God...which is frankly ridiculous. That's not to say it isn't good (I won't get into my own opinion of Bach because everyone will accuse me of musical immaturity and etc. etc. etc.)...just that it's music, and just like any other music in that...it's music, not a connection to one's beliefs.

(IMHO, overrated) Beethoven

if you don't like one of the composers, stating that said composer is overrated is completely groundless and fallacious.

I interpret that to mean that everyone who responded with their opinion is fallacious, since this thread asked us in the first place if he was overrated. And you yourself said that Beethoven was overrated, adding 'IMHO'. While that certainly made it kinder, I feel that it was implied that this entire thread was in one's opinion because even a world-class authority is only a respectable opinion.
In addition, you give reasons for not liking the music of Mahler (and of Brahms), and conceded that I, too, gave reasons (at least for Mahler). So the only real difference in what we have said in that particular area (besides the wording of the reasons) was the tone of the response, which in your case was reasonable and in my case was raging. However, if I did have reasons that were in and of themselves halfway reasonable, then there's not much reason to call me (or anyone else who gave reasons) fallacious, especially since you replied with your opinions as well.

I can't emphasise enough how much of a false generalisation that is.

Agreed, but in his symphonies at least, even the quiet, transparent passages tend to be rather blunt. IMO, his song cycles are his best works because they don't have that trait so much. (Actually, I feel that his Tenth doesn't too much either, which is why I consider it the best of his symphonies.)

In general, I realize that my original posts were quite hot-headed, and I apologize for that.