Gustav Mahler's Second and Eighth Symphonies

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ed,

I need to sit down and listen to another Mahler Symphony without distraction. Blow out the spiritual tubes, so to speak. I just might soon. I envy you your experiences (in the good sense).

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Do you like classical music?

Michael

Very much. But I find my taste subjective. I enjoy what I like and I don't listen to what I don't like. One thing I do not do is attribute ethical or moral inclinations to music which is just organized sound. Music has not denotative content (except for clearly imitative pieces) and surely no conotative content. It is sound, pure and simple.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Do you like classical music?

Michael

Very much. But I find my taste subjective. I enjoy what I like and I don't listen to what I don't like. One thing I do not do is attribute ethical or moral inclinations to music which is just organized sound. Music has not denotative content (except for clearly imitative pieces) and surely no conotative content. It is sound, pure and simple.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Can you distinguish between good music and bad music, or would you state that the difference between Liszt's piano compositions and Nietzsche's, or the works of Mozart and Saliari, or the songs of Tin Pan Alley hacks and Gershwin is merely subjective?

There are universal values present. How do you account for them? Statistics of subjectivity?

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Ed; On standing by your musical tastes. Good for you!

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Can you distinguish between good music and bad music, or would you state that the difference between Liszt's piano compositions and Nietzsche's, or the works of Mozart and Saliari, or the songs of Tin Pan Alley hacks and Gershwin is merely subjective?

There are universal values present. How do you account for them? Statistics of subjectivity?

Michael

I distinguish between music I like and music I don't like. What does "good" mean in this context? Is there an objective measure of what "good" music is? If so, could you state it or give a hint or produce a reference to some article on the matter?

The meanings of good I recognize are

1. good as in a correct solution to a well stated problem

2. a match between means and ends. Means A is good for achieving end B.

3. Conformance to agreed upon ethical or moral codes. Hence Good acts and Bad acts.

What do you mean by good?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I could give you a whole college curriculum on this issue and several different parameters of "good." Music was my major at Boston University in addition to my career for half of my professional life. I even once projected a work on musical epistemology in my youth and I have been "namorando" the idea (literally "courting it" in my mind) of actually doing it in a year or two. Then there is musical therapy with scientifically controlled experiments and recorded results.

We should take this to a new thread. There are Mahler lovers around here and they can get pretty touchy when someone messes with their angst.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I could give you a whole college curriculum on this issue and several different parameters of "good." Music was my major at Boston University in addition to my career for half of my professional life. I even once projected a work on musical epistemology in my youth and I have been "namorando" the idea (literally "courting it" in my mind) of actually doing it in a year or two. Then there is musical therapy with scientifically controlled experiments and recorded results.

We should take this to a new thread. There are Mahler lovers around here and they can get pretty touchy when someone messes with their angst.

Michael

I have no doubt you can justify your subjectivities grandly! Now produce a mathematically based testable theory theory and subject it to rigorous experimental test to see if it is right. When you have let me know. I will be fascinated to see your work. I am more modest. I like what I like and I dislike what I dislike and I make no pretense that my -preferences- are hard objective issues. My taste is in my mouth. When aesthetics is as well founded as physics we can talk seriously about aesthetic facts.

As to musical therapy, I have no doubt that a sequence of sounds can have a neurological effect. So does massage. So does physical exercise. Do you have a physiologically sound basis for musical therapy? Or is it just empirical i.e. it happens to work but you don't know exactly why. Musical therapy is as old as the bible. David (before he became King of Israel) calmed down that maniac Saul, by playing music on his lute. So what? Physical input put in, physical effects out. It happens every day.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (and aesthetic judgement is exactly that -- opinion). No one is entitled to his own facts.

I happen to like rigorous well tested theories, such as physical theories are. When you get one, let the world know.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 12, 2007 by BaalChatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Your challenges are not all that difficult and there is plenty of testable, mathematical stuff out there to suit any scientist's fancy. (Not surprisingly, a lot of interesting experiments were carried out by companies like Muzak, which furnishes music for workplace environments.)

I don't have much time right now, though. Seeing as how you already know everything worth knowing anyway, there's no real rush.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

Your challenges are not all that difficult and there is plenty of testable, mathematical stuff out there to suit any scientist's fancy. (Not surprisingly, a lot of interesting experiments were carried out by companies like Muzak, which furnishes music for workplace environments.)

I don't have much time right now, though. Seeing as how you already know everything worth knowing anyway, there's no real rush.

Michael

Let us see some references from refereed scientific journals. We can talk more about it after I have read them. And I know very little. But what I do know is soundly based. I know I am a pain in the ass when it comes to physics and mathematics. And I know that skeptics (which is just another word for careful, critical and cautious thinker) are as welcome in philosophical circles as Banquo's Ghost at Macbeth's feast. But physics and mathematics -work-! They have made the modern world as we know it and live in it. Why settle for a lesser standard of excellence than the best?

You have made some claims. Now pray do back them up. Where are the facts? Where are the theories? And most important, where are the experiments that reveal the facts that back the theories up? Is it unreasonable to ask?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I have to dig that stuff up. I will. Later. You can call me on it if you wish if too much time passes. I have some pressing priorities right now.

For an assertion right now, I can assure you that rational (and testable) standards of excellence in music most definitely exist for an enormous amount of parameters.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob,

I have to dig that stuff up. I will. Later. You can call me on it if you wish of too much time passes. I have some pressing priorities right now.

For an assertion right now, I can assure you that rational (and testable) standards of excellence in music most definitely exist for an enormous amount of parameters.

Michael

Any data you wish to provide would be useful and interesting. Thank you.

Ba'al Chatazaf

[Judith]

I just saw Slatkin do Mahler's 1st with the National Symphony at the Kennedy Center. I had seen him do it at Wolf Trap a few years ago but this time I was in a stage box seat overlooking the orchestra, the best seat in the house! That blur in the photo is the ever-in-motion Slatkin who just about danced through the performance.

The National Symphony kicked ass in this performance. The brass were excellent, especially good the lead French horn.

Just say "Yes" to Mahler!

Nice going, Ed! It's been a while since I heard the First live.

The Philadelphia Orchestra is doing the Eighth next May. I have a seriously tight schedule conflict, but I'm hoping to make it to that concert; the Eighth is a rarity, and I've been waiting to hear it live for over half my life.

Judith

[Wrighty]

My one and only Mahler 1st live was back in the mid 70's with Temirkanov (I'm almost certain) as guest conductor. Totally memorable, exciting and revealing - matching well the reading on the one recording I had at the time - Horenstein/LSO on Unicorn. Not their best, unlike the same artists doing No.3 which was (in my opinion) one of the best pre-digital recordings of anything!

I've never heard 6,7, or 8 live - the 8th will have to be a once in a lifetime (if ever) because it is so rare in the concert hall, certainly over here.

The 2nd by comparison is performed more often - and I'd recommend it to anyone. You can grasp the sense of "musical journey" as it bears you along and there are a miriad of the most awesome moments in symphonic music all bound up within one work. I've always felt the first movement was inspired by the first movement of Beethoven's 9th (but I could be way off the map here). Compare in each the atmosphere, the way the main theme unfolds, and notice other similarities .........then later there's Uhrlicht, and you have to ask yourself why Mahler included this song in this position in such a large scale work? And why did he put the Nietzsche Midnight Song in almost the same position in Symphony 3? Are they mere episode pieces, or something more significant?

And then there's that glorious Finale, which was (it is said) inspired by Beethoven's 9th. It says so much musically and live in the concert hall the effects and forces are quite stunning.

Some works are are an emotional as well as a sonic experience and as each year goes by and I get to know the work more and more, I am totally convinced of its true greatness. By all means get to know it through recordings - but if you can get to hear it live it will surely change your life in some way.

Ed, that is such a good slogan....."Say YES to Mahler" !

Peter

[Ed Hudgins]

Judith -- Yes, if you can get down to Philadephia to see Mahler's 8th, do so! While it's not my favorite Mahler symphony, all of his works are impressive and, as I say earlier in this post, it's a true experience, so do it!

Peter, I saw Temirkanov do the Mahler 2nd when he joined as conductor at Baltimore and when he played his final concert there last year. Most impressive indeed!

MSK and Baal -- I think when dealing with music we can acknowledge objective standards -- see Rand's essays in The Romantic Manifesto. And I think we can distinquish better from worse music within genres. But the function of music is personal, giving us joy, accompanying a contemplative mood, etc. Thus, while classical music and opera are my favorites, sometimes I'll listen to classic rock. And within that genre, while the Beatles are my favorite and I think objectively their work is more inventive, sophisticated and beautiful than most others, I can listen to works that I acknowledge as not up to that standard but works that I still enjoy.

So guys--and gals in the case of Judith!--enjoy!

[Wrighty]

Away from the sports hall- and into the concert hall....for more Mahler!

I had the pleasure last month of being at the refurbished Royal Festival Hall, London for a concert including Mahler 1. For the first time ever I sat in the choir seats and it was absolutely riveting, especially as they are the cheapest seats in the house! The conductor was Neeme Jarvi - who is something of a legend anyway. But to watch him at work face on was spellbinding.

A real and added pleasure was the inclusion of the "Blumine" movement in its proper place in the Symphony. Since its discovery it has appeared on recordings usually as an afterthought - but here it was in a public concert neatly shoehorned in between the first movement and the (previous) 2nd - landler - movement. And it made total sense - plus the lyrical passages in the finale clearly refer back to it as well.

Have any of you heard the symphony recently in this "complete" version? If so how did it come across to you?

For me it was a totally memorable evening - and my heartiest thanks go to Neeme Jarvi in so many many ways -

the sad thing is that if I have to wait another 30+ years before hearing Mahler 1 live, I probably wont be around!!

Peter

[Judith]

Away from the sports hall- and into the concert hall....for more Mahler!

I had the pleasure last month of being at the refurbished Royal Festival Hall, London for a concert including Mahler 1. For the first time ever I sat in the choir seats and it was absolutely riveting, especially as they are the cheapest seats in the house! The conductor was Neeme Jarvi - who is something of a legend anyway. But to watch him at work face on was spellbinding.

A real and added pleasure was the inclusion of the "Blumine" movement in its proper place in the Symphony. Since its discovery it has appeared on recordings usually as an afterthought - but here it was in a public concert neatly shoehorned in between the first movement and the (previous) 2nd - landler - movement. And it made total sense - plus the lyrical passages in the finale clearly refer back to it as well.

Have any of you heard the symphony recently in this "complete" version? If so how did it come across to you?

For me it was a totally memorable evening - and my heartiest thanks go to Neeme Jarvi in so many many ways -

the sad thing is that if I have to wait another 30+ years before hearing Mahler 1 live, I probably wont be around!!

Peter

Good job, Peter! I can't imagine why those seats would go cheaply; I agree, when I'm in the chorus I believe that I have the best seats in the house.

I've never heard the "complete" version that I can recall. My recordings collection may include one of these versions, but the First isn't one I've listened to over and over and over, so I wouldn't be sure on that.

Judith

Edited November 29, 2007 by Judith

[Ed Hudgins]

Twice in less than a year I got to see Mahler's 2nd Symphony performed, this time by the National Symphony under Iván Fischer at the Kennedy Center.

The bottom line here is, Mahler rocks!!! A standing O!

[Barbara Branden]

Ed, just a few nights ago a friend invited me to his home -- he has a very large TV set and an excellent sound system -- to see and hear Mahler's Eighth, (conducted by Leonard Bernstein) which I'd never heard before. Conservatively, and with all due respect to the other composers I love, my reaction was that it's the most glorious, exalted, overwhelmingly beautiful music I've ever heard -- or even imagined. I don't think I moved during the entire hour-and-a-half, and at times I had to remind myself to breathe. It has a size, a majesty, a consummate, shattering beauty that's far beyond any words I know to describe.

I understand that it's said to be religious music. I don't think it is. Rather, it's the dream of religiion realized. If I were religious, it's what I would hope to hear when the gates of heaven, of a perfect existence, opened before me.

It was an experience I've had only twice before in my life. The first was when I was fourteen, and heard the music of Tristan and Isolde. The second was years later, when I first saw Turandot. In all three cases, I felt that there was nowhere to go from there, nothing on earth that could surpass it.. And I don't think there is.

When the Mahler symphony ended, I said to my friend, with a sense of awe: "Mahler heard this in his head!" And I felt as if I never wanted to hear the work of any other composer, ever, because nothing could compare with this. I've come down just a bit from the high I was on -- and still am on -- to grant that I might one day want to hear a few selected other composers. That's just as well, since tomorrow I'm going to my third of the Met's "Live in HD" series, through which the Met transmits live performances to selected movie theaters around the world. Tomorrow is La Boheme. Earler, I've seen Manon Lescaut and Tristan and Isolde, both beautiful performances with wonderful singers.

You wrote: "Back-to-back evenings of Mahler, each symphony an hour and a half long: Too much Mahler? Never! I’d like to try all nine symphonies, one each for nine nights in a row. That would separate the true from the fair-weather fans!" Clearly, the friend who played the Eighth symphony for me is not a fair-weather fan. He had intended to hear a minute or two of it that afternoon, just to check that the sound settings were as he wanted them to be -- and he of course listened to it from beginning to end. And that evening, with as much or more pleasure, he listened to it again with me. As for myself, I could happily have heard it again then and there. I can't imagine ever tiring of such a miracle.

Barbara

[Ed Hudgins]

Barbara –So glad you so enjoyed Mahler’s wonderful 8th Symphony, a truly monumental piece! If you’re not familiar with Mahler and hear that piece it really does blow you away, but it does that even for someone who is familiar with Mahler. Mahler was a Jew who converted to Catholicism (probably for political reasons so he could be named conductor of the Vienna Opera). But I love the way you describe the music, as “the dream of religion realized” and what you would hope to hear at the gates of heaven. Since Mahler and the best of music deals with emotions, it can communicate exaltation which is what some people say they get from religion but which your can find most validly in the best things secular. (Beethoven’s 9th is another great example of music that expresses that joy.)

I’m glad to hear that two other pieces that hit you that way were Tristan and Turandot. And I’m glad to hear you’ve been going to the Met’s HD theater broadcasts. I’ve seen all of them this year. Tristan indeed gives us some of the most moving and revolutionary music. Wagner’s technique of building up tension with cadences and not resolving them is one of only a few examples of where we can say “the music world changed this night.” (The premier of Beethoven’s 3rd Symphony was another example.) I think the Liebestod is probably the best German language aria in all music. And it is dramatically as well as musically powerful, with Isolde over the body of Tristan describing the what she’s is seeing, her living, smiling, joyous love.

Speaking of moving opera, hope you enjoyed the Met’s La Boheme. Rodolfo and Mimi meeting, with “Che gelida manina,” “Mi chiamano Mimì” and “O soave fanciulla” is perhaps the best “love blooms” scenes in opera. And the death of Mimi is one of the best tear-jerkers, again musically and dramatically. I think I recall from your book that you attended La Boheme with Rand and that she love it. I’m curious: it’s a tragedy so didn’t Rand see it has having a malevolent sense of life? I understand that you can have a tragic ending to a story—We the Living, for example—and still have a story with a good sense of life, but I’m always curious how Rand made that distinction.

Ed

[Barbara Branden]

Ed, I loved La Boheme, and especially the voice of Angela Gheorghiu. I'd seen the opera before, but not a Met performance nor Zeffirelli's production, both of which were magnificent. It's such a treat to be able to attend the Met in Los Angeles!

It wasn't I who saw La Boheme with Rand. Here's what I wrote in The Passion of Ayn Rand:

"David Dawson, a former NBI student married to Joan Kennedy Taylor, was able to persuade Ayn to attend a performance of La Boheme at the Metropolitan Opera House. ...during the performance...she was raptly silent. As she and Frank walked along Broadway afterward, David recalled, 'she was as happy as a chlld. She was skipping along the street. She kept saying, "I haven't seen it since Russia -- and I've always loved it so. It's wonderful!""

I understand why you might be puzzled at her reaction, granted the ending. But I think that in this case the beauty of the arias would have had a more powerful emotional power than the tragedy. Tragic as Boheme is, it isn't malevolent; one leaves it uplifted by the glorious sounds one has heard.

Barbara