Overblown great music?

[MartinH]

At least in the US, a large reason for the rise in popularity of Mahler, and better appreciation and consumption of classical music in general was the printed magazine. Fifty years ago there were three I read regularly: Hi Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Musical America. The first two, while primarily aimed at hardware nonetheless had a lot of music articles, classical reviews, and interviews. There was a famous article penned by Leonard Bernstein in Hi Fidelity about Mahler, His Time Has Come. I still have a copy of a nearly 50 year old Stereo Review with Gottschalk on the cover and a long article by Robert Offergeld about his music. Well, those days are long gone. I don't know if these magazines still exist, but they long ago got rid of the classical reviews, deciding to cover pop-rock-jazz and such. And I stopped reading. Musical America still sort of exists as a small section in the bi-monthly American Record Guide. But compare that to my 1955 edition of MA that I kept and it's a staggering difference. Back then it was a large magazine - large page size and a large number of pages. The advertisements are fascinating to read. The quality of the writing puts today's magazines to shame. Newspapers used to have classical reviews - concerts and records. No more. Now, if it's not a rock or pop concert, there's no interest and no reporting. It's quite sad, really. You may have a conductor who wants to promote a work or a composer, but without the press there's no public awareness. And the internet with it's unending information is no substitute for the printed word. Having said that, there's also the nagging possibility that there is no undiscovered composer who will ever be embraced as enthusiastically and universally as Mahler - he was the last. Maybe we're just too far from the "golden age" of composing to ever have another tidal wave like Mahler brought us.

[Alan Howe]

You're probably right. Sigh...

[Double-A]

All probably true.

I am intrigued however by the question:  Why Mahler?  Why did all those conductors more or less at the same time champion Mahler?  Nobody knows better than the people on this forum that there were other worthy candidates:  Draeseke or Raff for example.

Or is it the very overblown quality of his music that drew them:  The biggest orchestra (which enhances the status of conductors like a big company enhances the status of its CEO), music written by  somebody who was a great conductor himself, superbly orchestrated?

[adriano]

Frankly, Mahler's music is much more original, interesting, emotional variated and "erlebnisreich" ("eventuful?") - which also means more "personal" in style than Raff and Draeseke: as an agent I would not ignore the latter two, of course, but give a larger prefrence to Mahler. Music of the turn of the 19th century is more experimental, sanguine, colorful in instrumentation and has gone rid of some over-used Romantic clichés. Mahler even dared to ridicule them, or to use deliberate "kitsch". The same goes for Richard Strauss: such music is for an unprepared classical amateur less "boring" than Raff and Draeseke. On the other hands, we have "classical" giants like Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart etc. whose music is not depending from particular historical "changes" and still "works" in every epoch, apart from the usual "commercial" aspects. In other words, they delivere a more "universal" message. Look at the "absolute" and "emotionally powerful" character of Brahms and Raff: both are great, but worlds apart. Raff remains mostly a composer of (excellently orchestrated) Romantic character pieces, even in his Symphonies. Good tunes, sometimes over repeated and with no excting developments, other than within traditional limits. Raff and Draeseke were excellent composers, but no geniuses, and could not make their music reach more dimentions. It is not always the concert agents, conductors and orchestras who make wrong decision by preferring Mahler, for example. Hope not to shock my fellow-members and sorry for perhaps not using right terminologies...

[Alan Howe]

You can't compare Mahler with Raff and Draeseke - they're from very different generations. It would be like comparing Puccini with Verdi or Respighi with Martucci.

The most helpful way of approaching the unsungs is to see what happens when you immerse yourself in their music for a period of time. I have done so with Rufinatscha, Raff, Draeseke and Berger (my own top four unsungs) and find that, when one fully enters their world, other composers - and the memory of the impact of their music - recedes to a place which then affords room for the appreciation of a wider range of music overall. So, try a Draeseke week or somesuch! You may surprise yourself!

[matesic]

Sorry, but I finally can't resist having my two-penn'orth. For me the difference is very simple - a good performance of Mahler (when I'm in a receptive mood myself) makes my blood run hot in a way that I've never experienced with any of these neglected figures. Alan is surely right that one's appreciation and admiration of any composer is likely to increase as a result of deep immersion and that this can actually have the effect of temporarily eclipsing their rivals, but has performance of Draeseke ever blown his socks off? Even for the greatest of works this unfortunately happens less and less frequently as time goes on, but I'd hate to think I'll ever be left with just "the memory of the impact".

[Alan Howe]

but has performance of Draeseke ever blown his socks off?

Oh, absolutely: his Tragica Symphony. And I remember vividly the first time I heard Rufinatscha's 6th (now 5th). And I don't believe that it takes the most gargantuan late-romantic music to achieve this effect. For me, it's the law of diminishing returns. So, to return to Mahler, it's hard to disagree that his marvellous music can have a uniquely powerful effect. But, again in my view, it's like indulging in a super-rich 5-course meal: it's wonderful every once in a while, but too much too often is bad for you. So, as I said, I want to keep Mahler in his proper place, performed with a frequency which (a) permits his music to make its mark to the full and (b) affords the emotional and intellectual space for the music of other composers to take their rightful place in the public consciousness.

[adriano]

You are right, Alan! And it always depends on the interpretation/playing. Perhaps Draeseke is one dimension more than Raff, so there are more interesting possibilities. Raff, you just can lean back and enjoy lovely tunes, nice developments and atmospheres, but with Mahler & Co you must participate while listening: if you are not prepared, or not in the right mood, it does not work - or you have to leave. These days I am just listening Markus Stenz's Mahler Symphonies box, and yesterday it was the case of his 1st and 4th Symphonies. It's really incredible, I was totally involved and shocked from the very beginning of the Fourth. It's absolutely fantastic and emotionally done, with a lot of espressivo-rubato, very original/personal dynamic, balance and tempi changes. In a way, at last, another excellent Mahler! Of all 28 complete Mahler "boxes" I have, this version of the Fourth may surpass Bernstein's, Solti's and Tennstedt, so I am impatienly looking forward for more!

[matesic]

Exactly - for Mahler you have to be in the mood! When he fails to make an impact it's not Mahler that needs a rest, it's you!

[Alan Howe]

No, we all need a rest from a particular composer, even Mahler - from time to time. When Mahler's music is over-performed, which was my original point, more is definitely less...

So my contention is that less is actually more. Oh, and there's far more to Raff than one might imagine. Try immersion, as I suggested - especially in the chamber music...

[adriano]

Right, Alan. I admit that quite a few chamber music works by Raff are more valuable than his Symphonies :-)

[Gareth Vaughan]

I am of the same opinion. I am fond of Raff's symphonies but I do think that some of his very best music is found in the chamber works.

[Alan Howe]

We are of one accord.

So: can chamber music 'blow one's socks off'? I contend: Yes!!

[matesic]

Chamber music to blow your socks off? Intellectually speaking I'd agree (albeit with the metaphor several stages removed), but for obvious reasons there is no chamber piece that packs the same physical impact as a great symphony. With all due respect, Draeseke's Symphonica Tragica doesn't do that to me, probably doesn't even aim to be physically overwhelming, which is why Mahler (not to say Brahms and Bruckner) will always trump him in the concert hall.

[Alan Howe]

Draeseke's Symphonica Tragica doesn't do that to me

It does to me. So does Mahler, of course. But that wasn't my original point at all. I was complaining about the ubiquity of performances of Mahler and the law of diminishing returns, especially with regard to such overwhelmingly powerful late-romantic music when it is played too often. Sometimes - to name two of Mahler's contemporaries - I just yearn to breathe the clearer air of Sibelius or have the cobwebs blown away by Nielsen.

So, can great chamber music make a huge impact? Of course it can, on its own terms, which is all that matters. Comparison with orchestral works is pointless. I remember when I heard Wilhelm Berger great Piano Quintet for the first time; and Raff's 1st String Quartet too. And Draeseke's magnificent Cello Sonata. And many other pieces. I remember being enchanted for days by one of Röntgen's Violin Sonatas - and so it went on...