Mahler, Overrated?

[vinteuil]

Brahms is very good.
George Bernard Shaw is a brilliant man (a bit of a character too) - he once suggested spelling "fish" "ghoti" - gh as in enough, o as in women, and ti as in -tion.
He also said that "We learn from experience that we learn nothing from experience." - a delightful chiasmus.

In response to the site, I challenge anyone not to be able to think of that many quotes praising Brahms or Beethoven, Bach, or Mozart - the fact that some website has put them together means little - they could be going for a very specific audience, which is a decent-sized one. Then again, they alienate the rest. Poorly thought-out, if not "sickening."

[Yagan Kiely]

Incidentally, to sidetrack just a bit - Feldmaler with no h means field-painter in German...it could be some sort of pun.

Take no offense Feldmahler.

Don't worry, Feldmahler got his name from an interview between Morton Feldman and someone else. Feldmahler came up at one point. You can find the conversation here.

How do those who don't find Mahler to be in there uppermost favourite composers find Wagner or R.Strauss?

Also, how many symphonies have those listened to of Mahler, in entirety?

Personally, the only thing I don't like about Brahms is it's predictability. The rhythms and form are very classically predictable (harmonies less so). Apart from that though, amazing composer and his chamber works are some of the best ever composed.

With Mahler, I love the interplay of themes (which, he shamelessly stole from the (IMHO, overrated) Beethoven). The way he develops the themes, and recapitulates themes I find really exciting - I don't know anyone better.

This George Bernard Shaw guy must be a real loser.

George Bernard Shaw is regarded by many as a genius (not me, I don't believe in genius), but I do have a lot of respect for him.

I'd also like to use this as a warning. If people have a differing point of view, do NOT use ad hominem arguments (which most here are, be it thinly veiled)

"I don't like it, therefore God doesn't like it"

Bah! What a dumb argument by atheists! There are so many other logical ways to approach it.

Let's had politics! Who like Israel vs. Palestine!!!! (This is a joke, don't talk about it in here).

[allegroamabile]

I did not even know who George Bernard Shaw was. I deleted the comment, now thinking it was shallow. If I knew he was respected by musicians I would have never made that comment. Plus, I was not actually being serious. Though if he were truely a genius, I think somehow he would find some kind of beauty in Brahms's work. I mean the remarks he said were degrading.

Wow, all this time I thought his last name was Feldmahler. I assumed he was a German Canadian so it is pretty intresting to me to find out that he is of Chinese descent.

[steltz]

I didn't put my preference down, simply because I don't have one. If I'm in the mood for huge orchestral extravaganza, Mahler will do the trick just fine. If I'm in the mood for more intimate Classicism, Brahms will do just fine. Both are excellent at their chosen styles. I think I would be a boring person if I only had one preference, and my mood never changed, or I never wanted anything different.

A couple of other observations, though.

Brahms is evi because of what he did to people that DID have ALOT of musical talent, especially Hans Rott and Bruckner.

I'm a firm believer that one musician on his own can't permanently destroy another's reputation. Bruckner is just as much a household name to orchestral musicians today as Brahms is, so Brahms didn't bury him (and I'm not sure he was trying to, he just voiced his opinions).

I will see what I can find of Rott, but I suspect his obscurity might have more than just Brahms behind it.

Tchaikovsky notoriously said, "I played over the music of that scoundrel Brahms. What a giftless bastard! It annoys me that this self-inflated mediocrity is hailed as a genius."

Tchaikovsky's comment is ironic because of the amount of time Tchaikovsky spent "developing" things through mere repetition, which one might consider "giftless". Although there are moments of true beauty in his music (and the Pathetique is one of my favorites of his), there are also long stretches of kitsch.

“The Detroit String Quartet played Brahms last night. Brahms lost.”~ Bennett Cerf

I always thought this comment had to do with the quartet being played badly, not that the quartet itself was bad.

[Yagan Kiely]

Shaw is a writer, critic, and political activist. I'm not shaw (lol pun!) if he's respected by musicians, but he is well respected.

Though if he were truely[sic] a genius, I think somehow he would find some kind of beauty in Brahms's work. I mean the remarks he said were degrading.

It's a matter of opinion.

Glen Gould (Bach, Goldberg Variations) said that Mozart '...died too old'. He clearly didn't like Mozart at all, arguably the greatest composer (not necessarily everyone's favourite though) to have lived. He is entitled to his opinion, though I personally believe he failed to back it up with any credibility past his name.

Also, I find Dvorak and Vaughan-WIlliams to be two of the most boring composers in existence, yet others find them to be great. The main problem with people here, is that they criticise composers by saying they are bad, but not why they think they are bad. Same goes for differing opinions.

I always thought this comment had to do with the quartet being played badly, not that the quartet itself was bad.

Indeed.


Ooh! I just realised I'm at 1002 posts.

[imslp]

Since this thread has part of my name in it, I thought I'd just poke my head in and drop my 2 cents.

Don't know how common it is, but I like both Brahms and Mahler (well, some). Grew up listening to Brahms' 1st, 3rd and 4th (especially like the strange and wonderfully bold introduction to the 1st) and Dvorak's 7th, 8th and 9th. Don't think I like Dvorak nearly as much as I used to (Dvorak seems to be pretty popular with new classical music listeners though), but I still like Brahms quite a bit.

Later discovered Mahler, and proceeded to hate him at first until I listened to his 6th. I still don't particularly like some of his music, but that's to be expected for most composers I think. I even ended up quoting Mahler's 6th in my first symphony (among a few other composers).

Listen to Mahler's 6th before deciding to hate him entirely

[allegroamabile]

I think perlnerd666 very accurately describe these groups of faithful Mahler enthusiasts which I am aiming at using the phrase, "raging fanboys." Let me point this out before I continue; there are some Mahler out there which I really do enjoy, for instance his Symphony No. 1 and the terrific and engaging opening of the last movement in his Seventh Symphony. I just think there is so much out there which deserves more attention than Gustav Mahler's music. I know what you are thinking Yagan Kiely, it is a matter of opinion (which it is) but it seems like these "disciples" trash other music that is not like their particular taste and simply will not give it a chance. I will compare this with an anology involving Cesar Franck's Violin Sonata in A. It is a very pretty piece but there is a large amount of repotoire that does not get praised nearly enough as that work does (e.g. Bernstein's Clarinet Sonata, Brahms's Piano Quintet, etc.). I personally do not think it deserves the attention that it gets.

[vinteuil]

How do those who don't find Mahler to be in there uppermost favourite composers find Wagner or R.Strauss?

Also, how many symphonies have those listened to of Mahler, in entirety?

1. I respect both of them a great deal more. Wagner is definitely a genius - not my favorite, but he's clearly got something. Strauss is slightly overcooked, but his orchestration more than makes up for it.
2. All of his works. I try to know the composers I dislike as well as the ones I like. It makes me feel better about disliking them. Then again - I've only heard the complete outputs of 7 other composers (Bach, Mozart, Chopin, Corelli, Varese, Stravinsky, Webern)

[KGill]

Mahler is definitely overrated. He's much better than Bruckner (who couldn't even orchestrate and should also be added to the list of most boring composers ever), but not even close to the level of the more subtle and imaginative Richard Strauss (or a bunch of others, for that matter). I'd like to see Mahler turn out something like Also Sprach! As for Wagner, he was pretty good, but probably not up to the astronomical praise he is commonly awarded. (Although take that with a grain of salt since I have only heard a couple things by him.)
Brahms was very good (although not quite first-rate)- harmonic innovation (I don't know where one gets the idea that he stole everything from Beethoven, that's kind of absurd), great melodic ideas, structural precision yet flexibility, etc. The only thing (IMO) is what Yagan said- his rhythms can get tiresome, though not always.
'The musical equivalent to Satan'? Frankly, I hate to say things like this, but you should be ashamed of yourself. I for one hope that we can talk about music without bringing religion into it. Religion and similarly emotional perspectives should be completely irrelevant to this. And anyway, if you're talking about what he did to other composers, that's not exactly the musical equivalent.
Also (@allegroamabile), (at least some of) the lieder of Mahler and most late Shostakovich (as well as selections from his middle period) can be quite tranquil and deep, I can see where you're going with your criticism for many of their symphonies, but...DS's late string quartets, outer movements of Violin and Viola Sonatas, Michelangelo Suite...Mahler's Kindertotenlieder and Das Lied von der Erde...I don't agree in cases like those.
Mendelssohn is the one with no talent, his harmonies are plain, driveling, and indubitable, most of his themes are pedestrian, his structures are conventional and walled in. Another one of the most boring composers in existence.
Chaikovsky had a great capacity for inventing melodies and the like, but he forced everything into the mold (e.g. his Fourth Symphony- you can fully analyze it while listening for the first time). "Stretches of kitsch"- a perfect description. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Shostakovich was by no means a complete disciple of Mahler. Other chief influences on him were Bartok, Hindemith, Bach, and especially Stravinsky. In fact, he regarded the Symphony of Psalms as the greatest work ever written. (That's in Wilson 2nd Edition [as well as several other places], not Volkov, BTW.)
Signing off- just because you don't relate to something as much as something else doesn't mean it's better, it just means...you personally relate to it more. For instance, given the choice, I probably wouldn't listen to the music of any of the composers I just mentioned, no matter how good I think they are. I would much rather listen to Varese, Lutoslawski, Berio, Webern, or possibly Penderecki. (I also intensely dislike the music of Messiaen, but the reasoning is irrelevant here.) At least try to think up a rational, musical argument. 'Evil' is also not rational, because it has no true single definition, and it's no indication of talent anyway (Hitler and Stalin were both brilliant politicians).

[ZacPB189]

Here is a list of quotes that bash Brahms. It is very painful for me to look at them.

"There are some experiences in life which should not be demanded twice from any man, and one of them is listening to the Brahms Requiem.”~ George Bernard Shaw

“The real Brahms is nothing more than a sentimental voluptuary, rather tiresomely addicted to dressing himself up as Handel or Beethoven and making a prolonged and intolerable noise.”~ George Bernard Shaw

“The Detroit String Quartet played Brahms last night. Brahms lost.”~ Bennett Cerf

Here is a webpage with a list of quotes that praise Mahler. There was simply too many to copy on this page. This is truely mind-bottling and it is making me sick.

BRAHMS is the BEST

http://thinkexist.com/search/searchquot ... rch=mahler

WRONG SIR! Brahms is the [only] worst composer to ever exist.......

Also, how many symphonies have those listened to of Mahler, in entirety?

I have!

I also remember that one nineteenth century music critic compared one cymbol crash of Bruckner being better than all of Brahms's Symphonies and Serenades put together.

That was Hugo Wolf

I really appreciate the passion and fire ZacPB189. I am also an impassioned person and yes, emotion is everything. Too bad our musical taste differ.

I will stand strongly by my word of Mahler being extremely overrated.

Fine with me. Not everybody can handle empassioned music about death and God himself. (the latter being the music of Bruckner….the biggest thing the Brahms lacks and the biggest thing I look for in a composer)

Anyway, I'm done here unless anyone wants to PM me replies or anything.... Tschuess!

[KGill]

Not everybody can handle empassioned music about death and God himself. (the latter being the music of Bruckner….the biggest thing the Brahms lacks and the biggest thing I look for in a composer)

I don't agree that you're done here. You still haven't provided a rational argument as to why Brahms is so bad and Mahler is so good.
Music is fundamentally abstract and has nothing whatsoever to do with either of the two topics you mentioned- I won't even go into the unknown existence of the latter. Even Bach's cantatas are just music with words, there's nothing special (apart from being good music), it's not like someone can listen to it without understanding a word or knowing its historical context and think instantly, "That music is not separable from the concept of God." And most (maybe all?) of Mahler's music does not carry such overt connotations (meaning the title and words). You feel a spiritual connection to his music, and regard it as the greatest there is. That's kind of like some other people who feel a spiritual connection to the Bible and regard it as the greatest work of literature there can ever be. What that fails to assess is the actual literature, or in your case, the actual music. From a purely musical standpoint (and hopefully a rational one), what should be done is to try to actually judge the music of Mahler in terms of the most basic categories one can think of. If that is done, and emotion and belief left out of the picture, we might ascertain that it is not as good as...whoever. Similarly, I hope that it can be agreed that the Bible is not the greatest literary work ever- that position might be held by, say, King Lear, or War and Peace, or The Possessed, or...I don't know...Inferno. That much is irrelevant to this. What is relevant is that death and God are irrelevant to music, and that any attempt to judge music religiously (as you seem to be doing) is irrational. If God is the biggest thing you look for in a composer, I'm sort of surprised you listen to much music at all.
And in closing, since you apparently dislike Brahms because he was a jerk (which I completely agree he was), I'd like to point out that Mahler was an inveterate cuckold. That's bad, right?...

[Carolus]

Someone above mentioned the writer (and music critic) George Bernard Shaw (whose pen-name was Cornetto di Bassetto). One of my very favorite quotes about music comes from his fellow writer Mark Twain, who remarked that "Wagner's music is much better than it sounds." With that, I'll join Aldona in the popcorn gallery.

[Yagan Kiely]

I've heard that quote being from WIlde and Rossini also... so IS it Twain?

You still haven't provided a rational argument as to why Brahms is so bad and Mahler is so good.

He certainly is not at all. But neither have you for 'he is definitely overrated'. Overrated means everyone is wrong, and you are right. Big statement, and it needs a good argument. So far we have worked out that you have you reasons for not liking Mahler as much as others, but that is far from an adequate argument for him being overrated.

In terms of orchestration, Mahler's orchestration may not be as imaginative or delightful as R.Strauss or Stravinsky, but it is simple and very effective in regard to the music. It is a well rounded orchestration, and something that I feel R.Strauss doesn't have as much - continuity. Plus, R.Strauss focuses a lot on Strings, while Mahler tends to be a little more balanced, possible leaning towards winds (relatively).

Zac, you've got to remember, Mahler wanted (most) of his symphonies to be absolute music, not program music. He hid, or tried to forbid the 'story' coming out so that people could appreciate the music for music's sake.

. If that is done, and emotion and belief left out of the picture, we might ascertain that it is not as good as...whoever. Similarly

Emotion can't be taken out of music however. If we organise all emotions into two categories, good and bad, the simplicity of a minor chord vs. a major chord (in the western world) can easily be categorised as bad and good respectively - this is universal.

Similarly, I hope that it can be agreed that the Bible is not the greatest literary work ever- that position might be held by, say

Regardless of any beliefs, it is a very poorly written book, I'd like to ad Nabakov's Lolita to a list of great books. War and Piece may be an epic book, but I'd never list it any-where near the top.

If God is the biggest thing you look for in a composer, I'm sort of surprised you listen to much music at all.

R.Strauss was an Atheist after all.

What is relevant is that death and God are irrelevant to music

They can be relevant, it depends. Because of the connection between the words and music, masses must take religion in regard, somewhat.

And in closing, since you apparently dislike Brahms because he was a jerk (which I completely agree he was), I'd like to point out that Mahler was an inveterate cuckold. That's bad, right?...

Mahler was stupidly superstitious. Just look at his 6th and Das Lied von der Erde.

Backtracking a bit:

(I don't know where one gets the idea that he stole everything from Beethoven, that's kind of absurd)

Brahms 1, really was just a pastiche of Beethoven.

Religion and similarly emotional perspectives should be completely irrelevant to this

Again, emotion is what both composers are aiming to achieve. I don't think it completely wise to omit the primary aims of each composer's works.

not Volkov, BTW.)

Should always cite reputable sources, so good choice!

(Hitler and Stalin were both brilliant politicians).

And it's a shame both of them kinda went of the track a little bit... they both had great prospects.

[allegroamabile]

However can you (Zac) not think Brahms's music is not emotional? That's like saying the Pope isn't Catholic. Well you stated that you listen to all of Mahler's Symphonies, so now try exploring Brahms's chamber music. What music by Brahms do you even know? A composer that I would think lacks emotion would be somebody like Arthur Sullivan or Jacques Offenbach.

How can you, Yagan say Hitler and Stalin "kinda" went off track? Hitler was not even listening to his generals towards the end of the war.

[steltz]

A couple people who are writing here argue passionately for a composer they like to the point of idolatry. (Forsaking all others . . . . . -- well, almost)

I find idolatry to be mere mindless following, and because of this, dangerous.

I agree that Brahms' First Symphony was a pastiche of Beethoven, and he wasn't particularly young at the time, but it was his first symphony, and he had been searching for a symphonic language, as well as dealing with society's expectation that he would be the next Beethoven. Fortunately, he grew as a composer so that the other three symphonies are not pastiches of anyone.

And look at it this way. Debussy idolized Wagner in his youth. When he grew up and got out of that way of thinking, he developed a personal language that was to change (along with Stravinsky and others) 20th century musical language.

There are advantages to growing out of idolatry . . . . .