Mahler, are you really that great?

Gustav Mahler. Master of the symphony, master of orchestration, and pioneer of 20th century music. He has established a firm position in the history of music, and is now treated as if to say, "Don't talk about symphonies without knowing Mahler. But let us pause for a moment to consider this. Is Mahler's reputation really justified?

Of course, there are many wonderful things about Mahler's music. But, on the other hand, there may be parts of his music that make you think, "Isn't this a bit excessive?" But, on the other hand, there may be some parts of his music that are a little too much. In this section, we would like to take a cool look at Mahler's music and consider Mahler from a slightly different angle.

(1) Anyway, it's long: Couldn't you have made it a little simpler?

Mahler's symphonies are all of great length and scale. Take Symphony No. 3, for example. The length of the performance is over an hour and a half, which is more than just classical music; it is like a movie in volume.

Of course, the length itself is not the problem. Wagner's and Bruckner's works are long enough, and magnificent music is worth the time. But in Mahler's case, the length is not so much a necessity as a fact that there are moments that make one wonder, "Couldn't the composition have been a little more organized?" It is also true that there are moments that make one wonder, "Couldn't he have organized the structure a little better? New themes appear one after another, modulating and developing, but one wonders a bit if they are all essential. If it had been compressed into 45 minutes, it would have been a more refined masterpiece, wouldn't it?

2) Flood of emotions: I need more space.

One of the major characteristics of Mahler's music is its thorough expression of emotion. The finale of No. 2 "Resurrection" features a magnificent chorus that rings out to a spectacular climax that seems to touch upon the truth of the universe. However, when the dramatic climax continues so dramatically, there is a moment when one feels as if one is being strongly insisted, "This is where you should be moved!" There are moments when it feels as if the audience is being strongly insisted upon to be moved.

Sometimes music has more depth when it is left open to the listener's interpretation. For example, Kyoto cuisine is less seasoned and emphasizes bringing out the natural flavors of the ingredients, but Mahler is more the type to go all out and add more flavors. Of course, many people are attracted by the sumptuous flavors, but if a little understatement were added, the music might have had the potential to resonate with a wider audience.

(iii) Are other musical influences too strong?

Mahler often quotes other music. Folk songs, Jewish music, German songs, and even Mozart and Wagner. While these quotations can be described as Mahler's individuality, they also raise the question, "What is originality? What is originality?

Take, for example, the third movement of Symphony No. 1. The original melody is so familiar that it is difficult to accept it as "Mahler's original idea. In addition, the "Night Music" from Symphony No. 7 sounds somewhat like the soundtrack to a western movie, giving the impression that too many wide-ranging elements are mixed together.

Of course, incorporating diverse music is never a bad thing. However, one must carefully discern whether they are organically integrated or merely crammed together.

4) Is it really "Bruckner's evolution"?

Mahler's symphonies are often referred to alongside Bruckner's. Both composers are known for their use of large-scale orchestration, their religious depth, and their ability to expand the possibilities of the symphony. However, their essence is very different.

Bruckner's music sounds like a serene prayer, giving the listener room for reflection. Mahler, on the other hand, is more dramatic and has a greater emotional swing. Whether one sees this as "rich expressiveness" or "a torrent of emotions" is up to the individual, but I feel a little uncomfortable with the idea that Mahler is an "evolution of Bruckner. Rather, it would be more natural to view it as music with a different direction.

5) Why has the evaluation increased so much?

When one considers the reasons why Mahler's reputation has grown so much, several factors emerge.

◆ Conductors' thrust
　Mahler's symphonies are often a "show of skill" for conductors. Many conductors like to perform Mahler's symphonies because they can be interpreted differently in each performance, depending on the detailed changes in expression and the way the bold climaxes are created. However, isn't it possible that these works are highly evaluated because they are "interesting for conductors"?

◆The consciousness that "difficult = lofty" ◆The music of Mahler is complex in structure.
　Since Mahler's music is complex in structure and has a long scale, it is easy for people to think that "those who can understand it are true music fans. However, isn't truly good music something that resonates with the mind in a more intuitive way?

Conclusion: Is Mahler really a "master"?

Of course, Mahler's music has its own unique charm. The delicate expression of emotion, the dynamic orchestration, and the profound philosophical message ...... are all characteristics not found in other composers.

But is all of it unconditionally "the best" or is there room for a more careful reexamination? Mahler's music is certainly special, but we may want to rethink whether we can say that it is "the one and only art by an overwhelming genius.

Well, let's see,


Is Mahler really that far out there?"



What do you think?



(Please note: The author of this blog is not anti-Mahler.)