Talk:Gustav Mahler/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Beyond symphonies and Lieder?

What about his early chamber music and his violin concerto [1]?

Has anybody ever listened to them?

And what about his piano quartet in A minor? Is it an incomplete work with only one movement? (Frigoris 03:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC))

I've never heard any of those, and in my studies barely heard even any mention of them. I think that they're academic works from his student days, and so probably aren't worth discussing in an article of this length. Blintz 15:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Read carefully: the review about the alleged Mahler violin concerto is dated April 1, 1999. I think that says enough. - The piano quartet movement is indeed an early work from Mahler's student days, dated 1876 and widely influenced by Brahms. --FordPrefect42 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Quartet movement is a beautiful piece of writing showing a great deal of promise. It has achieved a great deal of popularity in this country. JackofOz 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Dividing sections

I think some of these sections are a little long. I began dividing some sections already. A. Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 16:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cornet in Symphony No. 7

Is there a cornet in the seventh? There is no mention in the Orchestration section of that article. However, there was a cornet mentioned in this article in the ===Symphonies=== section. (under ==Music==). A. Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question. A cornet appears on the instrumentation list in the front of the score (Dover's reprint of it, anyway), but in five minutes of flipping through the score itself I failed to find a single note actually assigned to the cornet. I won't swear there isn't one -- but if there is, its a small and obscure part. If I have a chance to listen to the whole thing with the score I'll check, but if I had to put money down today I'd guess it is a misprint in the instrumentation list. TaigaBridge 09:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. I also have that Dover score, and I see it mentioned only on the "Instrumentation" page. It's nowhere to be found in the score itself. Especially in the fortissimo tutti passages it would make no sense to leave one brass player sitting there twiddling his thumbs; it must be a misprint. Antandrus (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not I was actually able to find it. At rehearsal number 275 in the 5th movement, a passage in the 1st trumpet in F is given the instruction "auf einem kleinen Piston" (on a small cornet). So technically the 1st trumpet is intended to double on cornet for that short time. However I am unsure if this is actually done today. 24.91.251.238 04:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, right you are; and it goes on for seventeen bars, past rehearsal 276. I completely missed it. Last time I played this piece I don't remember if the trumpet player switched or not (I rather doubt it). Good catch! Antandrus (talk) 04:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow indeed! Good catch on the details. For what it's worth, as a graduating master's student in trumpet from a leading conservatory (NEC), I don't think trumpet players will typically honor this marking. The markings indicate using a "small (cornet a) piston in F", but we just don't have cornets in that key... so we'd use a B-flat cornet if anything. But by that point we're already using modern C trumpets to play the old long romantic F trumpets and the difference in tone is at least as much as the trumpet/cornet differenc. Unless the music director makes a fuss about it. Also as I'm looking around for info on the romantic f trumpet, I found this post by Manny Laureano, principal trumpet of the Minnesota Orchestra who interprets the "kleine piston" marking to mean smaller trumpet, rather than small cornet. Also, Here's some good pictures of the romantic F trumpet I was talking about. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred sienkiewicz (talk • contribs) 02:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Recordings

I wanted to add a paragraph such as

Completing a Mahler cycle has become for conductors an aim as wished for as a Beethoven cycle.

The conductor whose complete Mahler has dominated recordings is perhaps Leonard Bernstein.

Conductors such as Pierre Boulez, Sir Simon Rattle and Claudio Abbado have completed their own celebrated cycles. Michael Tilson Thomas with San Francisco Symphony and Riccardo Chailly with the Concertgebouw have also completed their own interpretations of Mahler. Two conductors, who have in the past put their own mark on Mahler's symphonies are Sir John Barbirolli and Herbert von Karajan.

somewhere in wikipedia, but don't know where. Does anyone have any suggestions? --Atavi 12:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a paragraph like this one in place of the "Interpreters" paragraph currently in the main article. "Interpreters" is just a huge pile of names, with no indication which ones are strongly associated with him vs. which have merely conducted some Mahler at some point but aren't famous for it.

While we are on the subject, how come Klaus Tennstedt isn't mentioned either in Atavi's paragraph OR the Interpreter's list? He is who I would name (and have often heard named) as the #1 Mahler conductor, ahead of Solti and Bernstein. "Celebrated" seems a trifle strong in reference to the other cycles named.

Bernstein might better belong in the "influence" section -- at least if you subscribe to the theory that Bernstein believe Mahler to be the pinnacle of symphonists, whom he desperately wanted to imitate as a composer and never did succeed in doing.

--TaigaBridge 03 Sep 06

I wasn't aware of the Tennstedt cycle; I don't claim to be a Mahler expert. I've searched a bit, and it seems to have received favourable comments. I think it should be added right away in the interpreters list, and should be included in a potential paragraph about recordings.

I also think, after having searched a bit more, that conductors such as Mitropoulos and Kubelik could be included.

I agree that the Interpreters paragraph is a huge pile of names, and could be improved. Of course my own paragraph could be a start, but I've been reluctant to make such an edit, before anyone appeared to concur with me. I hope more people could write their opinion on the subject and perhaps make their own suggestions about potential text changes.

As far as Bernstein goes, Mahler's influence to Bernstein as a composer should also be mentioned. About conducting, I await the opinions of more people.

--Atavi 12:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

And of course, Willem Mengelberg and Bruno Walter as historical choices, which I completely neglected to mention. I think that the text of the interpreters section could be expanded to say a few words about the most important conductors --Atavi 12:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose that the following text should replace the current interpreters section:

In the late twentieth century, new musicological methods led to the extensive editing of his scores, leading to various attempts to complete the tenth symphony, such as by Deryck Cooke, and improved version of the others.

--Recordings--

Over the years, Mahler symphonies have gained immense popularity, so that there is a wide array of available recordings aside from frequent live performances. Historical choices would be Willem Mengelberg and Bruno Walter, both of whom worked with Mahler himself. Dimitri Mitropoulos is a conductor who contributed greatly to the spread of Mahler premiering some of the composer's works in the U.S. He recorded all of Mahler's symphonies. Conductors who in the past have put their own mark on certain Mahler symphonies are Herbert von Karajan, Otto Klemperer and Sir John Barbirolli. Leonard Bernstein, Bernard Haitink and Klaus Tennstedt have completed their Mahler cycles to high acclaim. Claudio Abbado, Sir Simon Rattle, Pierre Boulez and Michael Tilson Thomas have more recently worked on their own cycles, all of them very successful. Mahler symphonies have developed a popularity among conductors comparable to Beethoven's symphonies, so the list of interpreters is long and includes Oskar Fried, Hermann Scherchen, Riccardo Chailly, who has completed his own cycle, Sir Georg Solti, Rafael Kubelík, whose interpretation of the first symphony dominates the scene, Gilbert Kaplan -an amateur whose second is celebrated- Carlo Maria Giulini, Jascha Horenstein, Lorin Maazel, Zubin Mehta, Markus Stenz, Christoph von Dohnányi, Benjamin Zander, Antoni Wit, Uri Caine, Daniele Gatti.

--Atavi 13:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of Mahler etymology discussion

I think we should discuss whether the etymology of the name Mahler should be discussed in the article. My opinion is that it's interesting information, but it is a burden on the article. Perhaps we could find another way of including it?-Atavi 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not go overboard, if we're going to start discussing the origins of the surname "Mahler" then there's no reason not to argue doing the same for Stravinsky, Chopin, Mozart, and Beethoven. Biographical pages should stick to the person in question and their work. If there was a separate article called Mahler, perhaps there we could have some info on the origins and use it as a disambig page. Antidote 08:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of extended information about Alma Mahler

It seems to me that although the text written by User: Pfistermeister and removed by User:Antidote is about Alma Mahler, it is relevant to Gustav, and should infact be included in the Gustav article, along perhaps with a more detailed discussion in the Alma article --Atavi 08:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the article already needs to be pruned down a bit, especially the "Influence" section as it appears to be one big commentary rather than a voice-less biographical reciting. We shouldn't add sections which really have little relevance. For example, I'm sure there's some great anecdote about Mahler and another composer, but we're not going to create a whole 'nother information section just for that, so there's no reason to add this. Antidote 08:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Some of the information in the Alma text indeed seems anecdotal, but the text also contains some interesting and important insight into the relationship between Gustav and Alma. Perhaps the text could be condensed into two or three lines, with the rest going to the Alma entry.-Atavi 09:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yea, sure. Antidote 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I will do that, as soon as I find an opportunity. -Atavi 13:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather than 3 lines, it turned out to be 8 in the later life section. However, I think that they are as concise as they can be.--Atavi 13:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Language

Is this page translated from an original German article - it reads as though it is. The English is clumsy and overstated.

For example:

Critics are no longer to be found who will insist that Mahler's popularity is a fad or a craze that will shortly pass; ...

and note also:

Schoenberg, for example, almost a full generation younger than Mahler, came to venerate the older man as a "saint": an exemplary figure, selfessly devoted to art, generous to younger composers, and badly treated in the same way he himself was badly treated; Schoenberg could still, however, display a complicated attitude to the music and even speak of having had an "aversion" to it.

Is this second example a World record attempt for either the longest possible sentence - or for the most frequent use of punctuation?

Thanks for picking up on interpretive comment! (Mahler)

Hi Atavi

I think I'm posting in the right place to send you a message - I'm a new user, so many apologies if I'm in the wrong place (and feel free to delete if I am).

Just wanted to say thanks for picking up on my edit - yes it is pretty interpretive: I hadn't noticed because I was aiming at undoing the presentation of the opposing view as unquestioned fact.

I'm worried though that you will think I'm either an Alma-fan or simply a feminist, with no musical/biographical interest in Mahler - and that I'm posting with removing misogynist views as my only agenda. Actually I have no interest in Alma - I'm writing my Musicology PhD on Gustav. I just believe that the traditional musicological attitude towards Alma actually gets in the way of any kind of sensible understanding of Gustav's life - and music. I think the accusation that Alma's behaviour is meddling and petty either needs to be seen as a historical phenomenon itself --- and needs contextualizing, or should be felt to be too messy an issue to handle in a short biography of Gustav.

So I've gone back and suggested losing the description "petty" altogether - as I think it's probably simplest. What do you think?

multi-wall

Hi multi-wall

I've decided to reply in the Mahler talk page, so other interested parties will have the opportunity to participate.

You're right about deleting "petty". It's a strong word. I wrote it, searching for a word to describe things like this:

From Alma_Problem#Letters: Thus her deletion of Mahler's references to the presents he bought or offered her protected her claims that he hardly ever gave her gifts

But I think the text is better without the word. Interested people will read the Alma Problem article if they want to find details.

Regards

--Atavi 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Atavi

Yes, I think you’re right – and the Alma Problem page is already well linked to from the Gustav Mahler page.

Hmm, I don’t think I’ve ever collaborated on writing about music (collaborative playing and composing, yes) – but it works, doesn’t it!

By the way, I do also really recognize what you were getting at with “petty” – and the whole Alma/Gustav situation is an interesting one (complicated further I think by late nineteenth century (German-language) modes of talking and behaving – especially in artistic circles). A lot of what they did/said sounds somewhat diva-ish/histrionic by today’s standards. But, context not withstanding, from what I can work out they did both hurt each other, and did both behave like children. Just very talented ones.

multi-wall

Yes multi-wall,

It does work quite well.

--Atavi 10:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)