Is Gustav Mahler really a profound composer??

Naupilus, even if I called the Sixth "uneven", "disproportional or noisy", I always recognise it as a "masterwork", anyway. However, you may admit that it is not a "perfect" one.

-Noisy: The orchestration is truly heavy (a huge array of all kind of instruments for what purpose?). The Symphony was repeatedly revised by the composer which fact may indicate even his sort of questioning about the orchestration too.

-Disproportional: The duration of the movements is not always justified judging from the way they are developed (in the First Movement we have a full repetition of the whole exposition), while the Final movement goes beyond any clear understanding and justification of its actual form (an extended Sonata form?).

-Uneven: The four movements have a strange coherence and the debate on the inner movement sequence means something to that end as well. The Finale goes much beyond the preceding movements both in length as well as the thematic material and its treatment.

Having said that, I cannot exclude the fact that people can find the work profound enough. I believe Bosco2 gives a fair account of the subjectivity of the profundity in relation to the individual listener, regardless of the actual musical greatness of the work. In any case, profundity is not a musical feature; it is mostly an emotional and, to some extent, an intellectual one.

So, Oscar, do not misread me. I always claimed I find Mahler profound but for different reasons than other posters. The fact that I find his late Symphonies less than perfect, still it does not mean they are less than masterworks. I just do not find them as great and influential as the early ones and his Songs.

Parla

Parla

Thank you for expanding your reasoning. While I see you genuinely find grounds for your view I still think we will differ.

In the case of noisy orchestration I cannot help the feeling that there was a reason why Mahler went for such a large orchestra, including the blows in the fourth movement which he never found the perfect solution for. Noisy implies to me that the orchesration is a distraction, but I don't find that. I see it all as part of the same argument that underpins the symphony's muscularity and message. Mahler's changing of orchestration was I thin a part of his whole style as a conductor and composer - he often looked for better ways to make the effect he wanted. I don't think he was as gifted in this area as say Richard Strauss, who usually had a innate sense of what might work. The music itself is pretty brutal, so for me the orchestration works. And in the scherzo the orchestration is often rich and sometimes delicate, looking back to the fifth and forward to the seventh.

As for proportion well of course you have me on musical analysis, so I have to go off what I hear. I am never bored by the first movement, which I always see as a prologue, similar in context to the first movements of the second and fifth symphonies (and also, less in character than style, the third). The whole work seems to operate on a vast landscape (which is sometimes enhanced by effects of orchestration) and that needs time and space. Mahler's music has not always got the certainty of Bruckner or the poise of Brahms, but I don't think he was striving for that... As for the final movement, yes it may be extended sonata form but for me it is just a drama played out in five parts. The opening descent onto a devasted landscape, followed by three episodes of mortal conflict, followed by a short coda into a martial last rites. The inevitability of tragedy seems to be a theme in the piece (something I think is pointed out by the first movement). As I wrote in an earlier post the ninth seems to me to end with a gesture of farwell, whereas the sixth is more more public. Why does it remind me of the fate of Coriolanus so much? 

The debate regarding the sequence of the inner movements seems to me to be a matter of stylistic choice. The fact is that Mahler altered the sequence of the movements from scherzo/andante to andante/scherzo at the first performance. It was Alma who then made the reverse after Mahler's death. In a sense the former is the first version of the work, the latter the revised sequence. Again, from a personal perspective, I find it much harder to cope with the force of the final movement if I have just experienced the scherzo - the andante seems to somehow set up the opening bars of final movement more effectively. But in the end I think whatever the choice the key factor is the performance - it must be a convincing whole.

Good debate!

I guess I can go along the wise points on Bosco's post ("The best parts of Mahler are much larger than his mistakes. It is a work of a man like us, unlike...").

However, I would not compare him with Homer or his work with Iliad despite its epic proportions. Neither I would compare the gargantuan movements of Mahler's Symphonies (with the exception of the slow movement of the Fourth) with Beethoven's op.130 or Hammerklavier's slow movement. Nor would I call the latter works as those of "bad" proportions. Their form and structure never fails to justify their length (like the slow movement of Beethoven's op.132 as well).

Parla

I don't think, Naupilus, Bosco wished to "ascribe any extraterrestrial/supernatural/divine qualities" to any of those composers. I presume he used the expression "from another planet" as a metaphor: Some composers were more solid (close to perfect), while others were more "human" (with some...flaws).

Parla

Thank you, Naupilus, for still being interested to know where I feel the orchestration of the Sixth is noisy.

Well, in the first place, this huge array of 4 woodwinds each and in some cases extra piccolo, English horn, two bass- clarinets and a contrabassoon is a burden even in the lyrical parts of the work. Then, the Brass: 8 horns, 6 trumpets, 4 trombones and this enormous set of percussion, plus the "additional" (sort of optional) ones (extra celestas, double side drums, various cymbals, more harps in the Andante and so on) is a very difficult task to handle throughout the quite long Symphony.

Wagner used also a sort of "noisy" orchestration, but it fit like a glove in the narrative of his Gesamtwerke. Bruckner was much wiser in his orchestration and he was a pure master of the much less instruments he chose to use.

With the exception of the Andante, where, however, even the rather spare orchestration sounds heavy on the big variety and quantity of the woodwinds, the other three movements sound at times too brutal, raw, loud (these blazing brass in the First movement and the Finale are a bit over the top). The Scherzo is more cleverly scored but, still, Mahler cannot avoid the temptation to make use, at times and often abruptly, of his abundant instrumental arsenal.

It is not surprising that his Sixth, Seventh and Eighth are much less popular, well accepted and performed than the early ones and the Fifth. The Ninth is very much revered (I respected as much as it can get), but it is not loved as the early ones again (probably, because of the huge depressing burden on the shoulders of the average and general audience).

Anyway, Naupilus, I trust Bosco said it very wisely: Mahler's achievements are larger than his mistakes. So, whether I (and Oscar or my wife and friends) find Mahler's late Symphonies more noisy (at times), it does not make them lesser masterpieces as musical works. They might be less approachable, lovable and eventually popular.

Parla

Profundity is not quantifiable; it is entirely a matter of personal taste. There are plenty of things which others think profound, which I find trashy and shallow. Mahler is not amongst these things...

My experience was that I moved away from Mahler, and then came back when I was older and found there was so much more there than what had initially impressed me. Apparently I am not the only one this has happened to. I used to think Mahler spectacular and extravagantly emotional - now I think he is a master composer on every level.

Sibelius on the other hand has paled for me. His works are so complete that there is no room for the listener's imagination. Hermetically sealed.

What is Mahler trying to say? EVERYTHING! There is also a huge amount of irony in Mahler (happy/sad, triumphant/defeated, world-bliss/alienation, glorious/sordid, joyous/doomed), and if you don't appreciate irony, you won't appreciate Mahler.

(It's also ironic that the Mahler symphonies regarded as his most accessible (1 and 5) are probably his least successful. OTOH, I love the (widely misunderstood) 7th - it is the ultimate Serenade. (Tennstedt studio is my benchmark for this.))

Parla's point about the Mahler 6th orchestration.

Parla, I too share the view that the 6th is too over-orchestrated. In the wrong hands it can sound overblown on a 2 channel CD recording. I have only seen it once in concert (Frankfurt RSO in Leeds Town Hall), but even then the experience was not comfortable. As for the 5th, the adagietto is played too often, but the opening 2 funeral march movements are superb

Moving on to Bruckner, I agree he uses fewer instruments more efficiently, particularly in the 5th. But even then the much larger orchestra in the 8th can sound a bit thick in some recordings. I think there is a tendency here to take things to the limit, whilst still rejecting the now rejected Shalk "improvements" (just).

DSM