I'm sharing one of Mahler's symphonies. They are often considered complex. They represent a rift in the great German-speaking continuum of classical music, but not a reversal.
In their entirety, these symphonies may be difficult for a wide audience to grasp. This is mostly due to a kind of 'delirium' that runs through them, a disjointed set of motives that often resemble irregular and undefined tonal order.
Today, there are only a few orchestras that perform these highly complex works. Since the 1960s, when Bernstein brought Mahler back to attention, there have been few conductors who have dared to associate their name with that of the great Austro-Bohemian composer, among the most notable being Abbado, Barbirolli, and Ozawa.
Many consider Gustavo Dudamel to be one of today's most accomplished conductors. "If you listen to his compositions, you will find that this statement holds true."
Just listen to how he creates harmony between different, almost incompatible forms in the play I shared, which comes from the first symphony, where he starts with dramatic motifs that are transformed into folk-Hebrew ones (in the Klemzer tradition). The motifs then turn into a waltz and finally, in an almost Beethovenian lyricism, all the motifs follow each other, overlap, and fade away. Just listen to it, and you'll understand the profound modernism that this composer's genius embodied.
this territory is moderated
This is mostly due to a kind of 'delirium' that runs through them, a disjointed set of motives that often resemble irregular and undefined tonal order.
This really is a great description of Mahler. Thanks for putting that down as it describes what I've felt about him but haven't had the ability to properly formulate.
Because of that "disjointedness", Mahler often leaves me cold. Whereas I love Beethoven and Wagner -- Mahler leaves me fairly unmoved. I can intellectually appreciate it but somehow it never resonates like Beethoven or Wagner does.
reply