Gustav Mahler - Quartet in A minor for piano and strings

Viola wrote:

He is like his music (one cannot always say the same of a composer).

Curiously, Glenn Gould's opinion on the life-work relationship in Mahler (following de La Grange's biography) is the exact opposite: an ambitious and ruthless careerist whose music, a strange mixture of the naive and the spiritual, has little in common with the typically Viennese fin de siècle personality (see The Wing of the Intelligent Vortex).

Ah well . . . Glenn Gould . . . he certainly had "opinions" Glenn Gould

Thanks for the warning!

In any case, among all of Glenn Gould's opinions, this is certainly not the most unfounded one. To survive – and indeed to succeed, at least for a few years – in the Vienna of Mahler's era (as well as in today's Vienna), it was certainly not enough to be naive and spiritual; one also had to be ambitious and ruthless (at least a little).

The strange thing is that the same person can be naive and spiritual, and alternatively ambitious and ruthless – without becoming Jekyll & Hyde because of it. It is a curious aspect of the human soul (but here we are obviously venturing into the realm of personal opinions).

Let's say that for spam there are moderators. They are more than enough. Therefore, if one does not agree with a post, mostly with an author quotation, it is enough to argue. Thank you.

Viola wrote:

Dear Frank,

it is simply a witty way of responding to an idiotic quote.

(Red Scharlach is not at all, and has perfectly understood the meaning of my joke)

Such would define it:

Ugo Duse, Ernest Bloch, Alfredo Casella, Thomas Mann, Ernst Decsey, Stefano Zweig, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Leonard Bernstein, Bruno Moderna, Arnold Schönberg (just to name a few).

Frank wrote:

Let's say that for spam there are moderators. They are more than enough. Therefore, if one does not agree with a post, mostly with an author quote, it is enough to argue. Thank you.

Dear Frank, it was simply a witty way of responding to an idiotic quote.

(Red Scharlach is not at all; in fact, he has perfectly understood the meaning of my joke)

Such would define it:

Ugo Duse, Ernest Bloch, Alfredo Casella, Thomas Mann, Ernst Decsey, Stefano Zweig, Karlheinz Stockhausen, Leonard Bernstein, Bruno Moderna, Arnold Schönberg (just to name a few).

Viola wrote:

He is like his music (one cannot always say the same of a composer)

@Frank:

"[...] The fact that there exists no imitation of these symphonies that even remotely resembles their model, the fact that this music seems inimitable, demonstrates how Mahler succeeded in the greatest undertaking that an artist can set for himself: expressing himself.

He expressed ONLY HIMSELF, not death, fate, or Faust, because others can also set those to music. He expressed only that which, regardless of style and rhetorical ornaments, represents him and HIM ALONE, and which therefore remains forbidden to anyone who has attempted to express it solely through stylistic imitation. But his very style seems to exclude imitations in an enigmatic way never seen before. [...] "

(Arnold Schönberg - 1912)

@RedScharlach

RedScharlach wrote:

Thank you for the warning!

In any case, among all of Glenn Gould's opinions, this is certainly not the most unfounded one. To survive – and indeed to succeed, at least for a few years – in the Vienna of Mahler's era (as well as in today's Vienna), it was certainly not enough to be naive and spiritual; one also had to be ambitious and ruthless (at least a little).

The strange thing is that the same person can be naive and spiritual, and alternatively ambitious and ruthless – without becoming Jekyll & Hyde because of it. It is a curious aspect of the human soul (but here we are obviously venturing into the realm of personal opinions).

"Curious aspect of the human soul".

It's true. I hadn't actually thought of that. Thank you.

Excuse me, but... From Frank's post, I have the feeling that I've missed a piece or that something has escaped me

LucaCavaliere wrote:

... From Frank's post, I have the feeling that I've missed a piece or something has escaped me

Nothing serious, let's just say that I prefer to appear "more of an idiot" than Gould but avoid any kind of misunderstanding.

Discussion closed, also because replies to moderation interventions are handled privately; I am always available. In the event that someone does not agree with the regulations, they can always write to the administrator to protest.

As is already being done - well done - the topic of discussion is Mahler.

Viola wrote:

@Frank:

"[...] The fact that there is no imitation of these symphonies that even remotely resembles their model, the fact that this music seems inimitable, demonstrates how Mahler succeeded in the greatest undertaking that an artist can set for themselves: expressing himself.

He expressed ONLY HIMSELF, not death, fate, or Faust, because others can also set those to music. He expressed only that which, regardless of style and rhetorical ornaments, represents him and HIM ALONE, and which therefore remains forbidden to anyone who has attempted to express it solely through stylistic imitation. But his very style seems to exclude imitations in an enigmatic way never seen before. [...] "

(Arnold Schönberg - 1912)

@RedScharlach

Ok, I understand better what you meant. But in short, Schönberg maintains that Mahler's music is unique and an expression of himself. This criterion, for me, applies to all composers.

I don't understand at this point how Respighi doesn't fit into the discussion. Whose imitation would it be? Why should he have written something different from what he felt? I ask you this because composition is an art closely tied to one's own being and no less to one's own character. Technique and style in themselves do not create art; they are merely means to express something; a composer can express what he is... not what he is not. The opposite would result in only a technical demonstration for which the result would not be art and probably not even listenable.

I write in a certain way because I have my own personality and I will never write anything different from what belongs to me or what I am; but not because I choose it, because a composer can only write what belongs to him. The opposite would not be possible and I bet that any composer would maintain the same thing regardless of the result. In fact, the result is not a reinforcement of this condition (I would discuss this with Schönberg if he were still alive), rather it depends on artistic depth. And it goes without saying that Mahler is a great artist."} ,

No sane person can doubt what Schönberg writes. I, however, do not believe this.

Viola wrote:

It is impossible not to love Mahler, a delicate, profound and suffering creature. A simple man, of honest feelings.

Or rather, I do not believe that Mahler is only this. A little bit, for the historical and psychological reasons I alluded to. But above all because his music also says other things, beyond delicacy, depth, suffering, simplicity and honesty: which are undoubtedly there, but which also confront and clash with other things, perhaps less pleasant, but equally powerful and unsettling.

Impossible not to love Mahler? Of course it is impossible not to love his music. I doubt, however, that it would have been just as easy to love the person – and this doubt is reinforced the more composers (real composers) I happen to know.

That being said, I confess that last year I made a pilgrimage to Dobbiaco with my two-year-old child. In the car, we listened to the Ninth Symphony and Das Lied von der Erde at full blast – which would probably constitute for Adorno the highest degree of reification.

Open content (youtube)

RedScharlach wrote:

– and such doubt is reinforced the more composers (real composers) I happen to know.

Excuse me, but the expression "real composers" makes me smile. When you are elected a real composer, i.e., you cease being a fake, they even give you a tattoo that says "REAL."

Since it probably doesn't refer to people like Boulez, Part, Penderecki, Ferneyhough (whom I knew, an exquisite person. So what is the point?), why not, Gubajdulina or perhaps Messiaen or Berio (if one isn't top-tier) or even Morricone, John Williams, Chick Corea and I don't know who else one might have known... the statement that - excuse my frankness - smells a bit of "aesthete"phobia.

If you meant composers of a certain artistic depth, I know so many of them... more or less connected, more or less known. There are delightful people; one such gentleman was Castiglioni, for example. High-level music and an extremely cultured person.

To me, "real composer" is a fake concept, excuse my wordiness.

In fact, I am opening this topic... just to talk about the figure of the composer TODAY.

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/6074-chi-è-il-compositore-oggi/

RedScharlach wrote:

No sane person can doubt what Schönberg writes. I do not believe this, however.

Or rather, I do not believe that Mahler is only this. A little bit for the historical and psychological reasons I alluded to. But above all because his music also says other things, beyond the delicacy, depth, suffering, simplicity, and honesty: which are undoubtedly there, but which also confront and clash with other things, perhaps less pleasant, but equally powerful and unsettling.

One cannot be profound without having gone through "profound" disturbances.

Is it impossible not to love Mahler? Of course it is impossible not to love his music. I doubt, however, that it would have been just as easy to love the person – and this doubt is reinforced the more composers (real composers) I happen to know.

I would be pleased (sincerely) to hear the opinion of these people so well-informed about the "dark side" (are they referring to neurosis?) of Mahler.

But I want facts. If one speaks ill of a person, I do not accept opinions. Otherwise, it is just gossip, and gossip holds no interest for me.

That being said, I confess that last year I made the pilgrimage to Dobbiaco with my two-year-old child.

How beautiful!

In the car, we listened to the Ninth Symphony and Das Lied von der Erde at full blast – which would probably constitute for Adorno the highest degree of reification.

Open content (youtube)

Viola wrote:

> One cannot be profound without having gone through "profound" disturbances.

But who said that?

Truly a late-Romantic vision of the matter.

One can be profound without being raped, seeing one's children or parents killed, or other similar deeply disturbing situations.

Videoclip wrote:

But who said that?

Truly a late-romantic vision of the matter.

One can be profound without having been raped, seen one's children or parents killed, or other deeply disturbing analogous situations.

Excuse me, but why all this aggressiveness?

My answer is this:

NO. Obviously.

Viola wrote:

Sorry, but why all this aggression?

My answer is this:

NO. Obviously.

And I add: do you desire clarification or do you wish to ridicule your interlocutor?

In this case, I won't waste time clarifying.

I will follow you regardless with pleasure. Beyond the tone, your insights are interesting.

It would, however, be much more intelligent to leave the interlocutor the possibility to reply without making them feel like an idiot. Because then, even the desire to reply passes.

Videoclip wrote:

Ferneyhough (whom I have met, an exquisite person. So what is the point?)

I confirm, absolutely! An exquisite person, a boundless mind, with singularly open perspectives – and at the same time severe and highly selective.

I also gladly concede that calling someone a 'true composer' is nonsense. Either one is a composer, or one is not a composer. Let us say that those I am speaking of demonstrate the three characteristics I mentioned here

http://www.pianoconcerto.it/forum/index.php?/topic/6035-a-cosa-serve-la-musica-oggi/?p=43184

or rather – in increasing order – quality of work, strength of idea, will.

Sorry Viola,

[as section moderator]

but I didn't sense all this aggression in Videoclip's intervention.

In a live discussion, "But who said that?" would be perceived as a simple exclamation to intervene in disagreement with what was just heard.

Regarding "late romantic," used in that way, however, I agree with you.

Nowadays 'late romantic', 'post-romantic', 'neo-romantic' have all become veiledly derogatory expressions. Why?.

I dare to interpret: behind the expression "late romantic vision" I sense "naive vision". Is that so?

Then Videoclip wrote that "One can be profound without having been raped, seen one's children or parents killed, or other deeply disturbing similar situations". He wrote it without putting any question mark at the end. Therefore, he is certain of it. As is his right.

And it is your right to be certain of the contrary.

And now

[as a user in this discussion]

In principle, I agree with Videoclip. Heaven forbid that a more or less happy life should be a "curse" that precludes levels of depth in acting or creating. Personally, I feel "depth" in many of Mendelssohn's works despite his life being substantially devoid of upheavals.

But it is also true that a reflective soul (an artist, of any art) can only be marked by disturbing experiences. I wrote in my first post in this discussion that perhaps Mahler, at sixteen, despite himself, was already quite an adult. Well, I am rewriting it... removing the "perhaps".

Beethoven also posed the problem... giving his own answer.

"...and one could almost say that the best of us reach joy through suffering"

Goodnight. To you and to everyone

For me the issue is very simple, no one in the early '1900s' could have known about the value of psychology. In fact, sensitivity is a characteristic, no more and no less than any other. You either have it or you don't. A person faces life based on their own characteristics; if someone is sensitive, they will employ that sensitivity, otherwise they will play other cards to face life. Experiences are not the point.

Typically, the artist is angry and touchy; behind these two "behaviors" lie anger and sensitivity. If one channels these two resources well, they become creative and empathetic... vice versa, they waste energy uselessly and end up being touchy.

If I may, 'late romantic', 'post-romantic' and 'neo-romantic' have three different meanings, so they are not just a fashion; rather, a conscious use of them clarifies many things.

Late romantic is simply a historical period; I imagine that music video refers to certain myths that still survive after a century.

When the term neo-romantic is used, it refers to that circle of people who want to remake Romanticism (neo combines with remaking, e.g., Neo-Baroque, Neo-classical, etc.). Post-Romantic is when certain attitudes of Romanticism leave an evident mark on something that is not actually romantic; for example, some pieces by Ferneyhough can be classified as post-romantic.

LucaCavaliere wrote:

 

«...and one could almost say that the best of us achieve joy through suffering»

 

Joy or depth? A naive question

...does someone delude themselves into thinking they can read tone through a forum? Without knowing the interlocutor. Anyway, let's move on.

The term late Romantic has a meaning; it is good practice to think (especially if you don't know the interlocutor) that perhaps it was used intentionally and not randomly.

There are those who kill for a living and are as serene as a child. Therefore, the concept of profound disturbance is very personal; I would instead reflect on Frank's post. Sensitivity is certainly the subject.

Prompted by this, I did a little research, this article is nice:

http://www.angolopsicologia.com/2015/03/chi-sono-le-persone-altamente-sensibili.html