Is Gustav Mahler really a profound composer??

...or to call the whole thing off, Naupilus. We make circles, repeating almost the same arguments on a subject that, in any case, does not affect the status of a composer like Mahler. The only one affected might be the initiator of the thread.

Oscar, if you believe that Mahler is not that profound composer, it is fine with all of us, as long as it is your conviction. However, if you believe it goes beyond your belief or opinion, then you should have a good argumentation on that and you have to develop it. So far, you have failed to convince anyone of us with your random arguments. So, make up your mind.

Parla

On the contrary, Oscar. I'm quite happy that it was a joke. We need you here, while your sense of humour might help you to find some sort of profundity in Mahler's music too.

Cheers!

Parla

Dear Oscar, if the "profundity" was in the score, as a quality feature of the compositional skill of a composer, then, we will have "experts" on the levels of profundity of a work. However, the all kind of "experts" (musicians, professors, scholars, etc.) deal with the harmony, form, structure, orchestration etc., not with how profound a work or much more a composer is.

Profundity has to do with the emotional situation, depending, of course, on the depth of intellect or knowledge and the state of mind of each listener. So what I might find profound in one piece of music is not necessary to be found by others. It belongs to the "emotional" reaction of the listener and it is highly personal, i.e. subjective.

As for Beethoven's "Fur Elise", I can find some profundity in a very cleverly written bagatelle by the master of compositional form. While the piece starts in a easy come-easy go a minor poco moto theme, the concealed difficulties and smartness start with the left hand arpeggios alternating between the tonic major and E major. Then, it comes a brief genius quick section in the relative major (modulating or alternating to the dominant G major). Then, we have a light return to the theme, but this time to a supposedly remote key (F major). Eventually, we reach the turbulent agitated and highly virtuosic middle section in d minor before amazingly passing from different keys and compositional forms to reach the original ease come-easy go theme with a bonus of a true cadence! And all these in less than three minutes! For someone, following the music closely, this is a clearly profound work of Art. By all means, for those who are carried away by the first a minor theme, the bagatelle is what the name (bagatelle) implies...only.

Concerning the Minute Waltz by Chopin, its profundity lies in the relentless virtuosic game of the highly pianistic writing, which should be sustained, in the most melodic and rhythmically correct way throughout the piece. It is written in the unusual and rather difficult key of D flat major and, despite its relentless rhythmic pattern and repeated quarter notes, the compositional writing is highly refined throughout. If we take into account the story of Chopin's lover George Sand that the composer inspired the work by watching a small dog chasing its tail (follow the right hand writing), one can trace the profundity of this minature piece transforming such a trivial matter to a perennial masterwork of the piano literature.

I hope you might sleep better tonight, Oscar (unless you have to find the profundity in Mozart's Eine kleine Nacht Musik).

Parla

Actually, dear Oscar, you're talking about the "former", if you're referring to the "content" (to describe the work) and not "its effect on you" (as Chris suggested).

In that case, you have to analyse, to describe the work of Mahler in order to prove your claims. For the moment you mentioned only about "collages of diverse elements without cohesion". So go for it: give us your detailed musical and technical analysis where the "collage" exactly takes place, the lack of cohesion, the actual structure, the form of the composition, the orchestration (what's wrong with what you call as "fanfare"?) and so on.

Otherwise, you refer to the "latter", namely the "effect of Mahler's music on you". Nothing else.

Parla

Oscar, tonight I 'dusted off' Gielen's recording of the seventh symphony and listened very carefully, trying to hear what you hear. I remain perplexed. It seems to me that the seventh really is one of Mahler's great symphonies - but it has to be played as it was intended. I would argue that there is great poetry in this music, particularly the second nachtmusik with the beautiful touch of the mandolin (which always reminds me of 'Don Giovanni' - it is easy to forget Mahler was primarily a man of the opera house). The three middle movements are all masterpieces of mood, sublty and detail. It is pretty clear that Mahler was trying to encapsulate something about the night in this work - the second movement was inspired in part by Rembrant's 'The Nightwatchmen' which is of course extraordinary, and it is easy to see the fourth movement serenade as an illustration of a twilight seduction (all the time slightly undercut by Mahler's knowing smile - I feel he learned this from Mozart, who did irony very well).

As for the final movement I have always felt it needs to be played straight up, with no holds barred and no embarassment at the sudden contrast to the last four movements. When I first heard the piece I felt it out of place but now, after many years, I see and hear its sunshine, its optimism. In fact I would even suggest that had Mahler gone for tragedy he would have lessened the piece as a whole. The light starts to appear in the serenade and the fanfare (all echoes of Wagner) rondo style riot is just as it should be. The four movements prior to this are very much chamber music on the largest possible canvas and it seems only right that in the end every individual voice amongst the orchestra should come together. It is interesting to note that Mahler sometimes programmed the seventh with the Meistersingers Overture. There is clearly a musical link, but is there something else? Maybe, as Wagner's opera is about music, so Mahler's symphony is about music. Music of the night perhaps, inevitably followed by the daylight? If it is then it is a very different daylight to Strauss, where nature is in the forefront - Mahler's daylight is very much human in scale, though so bright as to make one sit up and take notice.

I have to say the Gielen recording is a wonderful performance. It will ring in my ears for a long time.