100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: chb on June 17, 2008, 02:22:12 AM

Title: Gustav Mahler
Post by: chb on June 17, 2008, 02:22:12 AM
What's your opinion on this composer? We can all agree on Beethoven's works being brilliant art but opinions on Mahler should be a bit more varied. I greatly enjoy his symphonies but I understand why some people might dismiss them as schmaltz.

Mahler's work seems very metal to me. I've heard the 6th being described as "the first nihilistic piece in music history" and I think it fits.

His best qualities are the broad spectrum of emotions he conveys, his sense of humour, and his ability to write movements of epic proportions which still have a logical and clear structure. I find him to be easier to follow than Bruckner, whose symphonies somtimes seem a bit confounding and unwieldy to me.

Maybe my opinion will change when I've listened to more classical music but I would place him right along Beethoven and Bruckner as one of the greatest composers of symphonies.

Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Goluf on June 17, 2008, 04:28:43 AM
His symphonies are "cheap novels". As such, they posses all of the terrible, yet intoxicating qualities of bad literature (think of all those fantasy books you read years ago).
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: E on March 19, 2013, 03:27:54 PM
I'm going to give these symphonies a serious (re)listen. When I started exploring classical, I got the impression of defeatism, cynicism and other flaws in later Mahler, and I remember disliking the First for being a rickety bore.

However, I recently heard the 2nd Symphony (Bruno Walter, N.Y.Ph. 1958) and it amazed me. Not unlike Bruckner, but more spacious and broader in emotional scope. More...humanist, yes, but in a sincere, universal way. I doubt I'll get bored with this one quickly.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 02:23:40 PM
You want an opinion on this?
Since I see opinions as comments devoid of any actual knowledge or understanding, I feel well-placed to give mine.
Gustav Mahler is great, man!

On the other hand, had you asked for considered observations about Gustav Mahler, I would have had none to offer.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Tralfamadorian on March 21, 2013, 03:12:55 PM
Crow, I must say, your ascetic posturing is really of no value.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 03:31:36 PM
Posturing is what you do. That is why you see it in others.
I have no need to posture. Why would I? It's been a long time since I was an insecure, immature idiot.

I am what I seem - to you - to be posturing as.
Whereas you - as you again mirror in me - have nothing of any value to contribute.
Which is actually one reason I remain: to identify those who do nothing but attempt to tear down the contributions of real contributors, thus restricting this forum to little more than a minuscule club of offer-nothing-douchebags that drive anyone else away.

Prior to the grand spring-clean. Who will still be here afterwards?

Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Tralfamadorian on March 21, 2013, 04:09:06 PM
Eh, I doubt a truly enlightened person would be so defensive, nor would they be so keen on putting down the "un-enlightened", nor would so flagrantly disregard the virtue of humility.

You act as though this forum has never seen anyone with intelligence or wisdom until you came around. This is false: there have been substantive contributions to Metal Hall before your arrival, and there will be substantive contributions after you leave when you realize that your goal of turning everyone into a crow-bot  is unrealistic.


Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 04:19:48 PM
I wonder how you can possibly imagine you might know how an enlightened person might behave.
You gratuitously insulted me.
Insult people, and they either don't respond, which is a major problem on forums, leaving only the unchallenged insulters, or they give it right back, like I sometimes do.

Defensive, not. Derisive, yes.

Who are you to judge the value of things you clearly do not understand?
Your own dire lack of humility is reason enough why you feel so comfortable accusing others of it.
You recognize this thing in yourself and assign it to others.
I feel like annihilating you, for this and previous slights.
Engage at your peril.
Or be unusually clever and STFU.


Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on March 21, 2013, 07:32:58 PM
I don't mean to interrupt the bickering, but a few observations:

1. Anyone who has come here has come here for something they think is of value, like smart people.

2. Smart isn't a form, it's the ability to figure stuff out.

3. Smart in itself isn't a goal. Lots of smart people died without doing anything important.

4. Dumb isn't a goal either. All dumb people die without doing anything important.

5. If you behave like bickering 10-year-old girls, you will drive away anyone from the forum.

As a long time lurker I appreciate crow's contributions, although about half the time I think he's probably just high and/or playing. He's keeping this forum alive by injecting a steady line of interesting ideas and topics.

If he's ruined someone's in group well that's too fucken bad. Attitudes like that kill forums like this.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 07:41:49 PM
I'm never high, but I often play.
Interrupt any time you like. Astute observations!
I aim to coax the lurkers out, once the battlefield is won.
Lurkers often have the most interesting things to say.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Tralfamadorian on March 21, 2013, 09:17:38 PM
I wonder how you can possibly imagine you might know how an enlightened person might behave.
You gratuitously insulted me.
Insult people, and they either don't respond, which is a major problem on forums, leaving only the unchallenged insulters, or they give it right back, like I sometimes do.

Defensive, not. Derisive, yes.

Who are you to judge the value of things you clearly do not understand?
Your own dire lack of humility is reason enough why you feel so comfortable accusing others of it.
You recognize this thing in yourself and assign it to others.
I feel like annihilating you, for this and previous slights.
Engage at your peril.
Or be unusually clever and STFU.

Perhaps I was a tad harsh in accusing you of hubris. I am usually not one to pick fights, but my nerves were frayed all day due to my efforts to quit smoking, which makes me a bit testy.

Allow me to explain why I leveled such a charge against you. When someone disagrees with you, you do not respond with reason. In fact, you often use ad hominem in place of explaining yourself. Take this  (http://www.deathmetal.org/forum/index.php/topic,16917.msg80438.html#msg80438)post, for instance, in which Transcix wrote up some ruminations on the gestalt nature of reality. Instead of offering a alternate viewpoint, as is the norm around these parts, you mock him. Where is the humility in that? You are implicitly saying with that post, "you don't agree with me, therefore you're a lunatic". Sorry, but in my eyes, that's not humility -- that's the opposite of humility: hubris.

You simply can't expect people to see things your way when you act like your theories are above explaining. You are especially guilty of this with the whole "no thinking" spiel.  You have to respect the fact that people have a diversity of outlooks which may contradict with your own. And even if a person's outlook is deranged or retarded, you're not going to change their mind by being passive aggressive. You must use REASON. I know this probably contradicts your no thought philosophy, but I think I am speaking for the majority here when I say that we will not hold a conclusion to be true unless it is predicated upon sound premises. This means you may have to go a little more in depth than your cryptic poems. You seem intelligent; I know you're capable of being reasonable, you just have to let go of this notion that your ideas are immune to criticism.

Crow, in order to get respect, you have to give it.  I'm sure you already know this, but we all need reminders friendly reminders sometimes  :)

Edit: Also, "previous slights"? I don't recall ever slighting you in the past. In fact, we haven't interacted much at all.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 09:25:02 PM
You started this. Not me.
Read all the above again and apply it to yourself.
Then try a simple apology.
It's easy.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Cheeseburger Zombie on March 21, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
I am usually not one to pick fights, but my nerves were frayed all day due to my efforts to quit smoking, which makes me a bit testy.

The only way to quit smoking is pie. Seriously, buy a bunch of pies and keep them around. Eat as much as you want. This way, you don't punch out your family and rape your bluetooth headset.

You are implicitly saying with that post, "you don't agree with me, therefore you're a lunatic". Sorry, but in my eyes, that's not humility -- that's the opposite of humility: hubris.

Gotta seperate the poster from the message. If the message is right, he's right in doing this. In that case it's not really his message even.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 21, 2013, 09:58:33 PM
Hats off to you. You are right.
Nothing I write - with the exception of when I get peeved - comes from me.
I don't know where it comes from.
But it can only happen in the absence of thought.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Humanicide on March 22, 2013, 06:10:22 AM
You are implicitly saying with that post, "you don't agree with me, therefore you're a lunatic". Sorry, but in my eyes, that's not humility -- that's the opposite of humility: hubris.

Gotta seperate the poster from the message. If the message is right, he's right in doing this. In that case it's not really his message even.

That's a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card. The message is his (in the context of this forum), whether or not he came up with it, 'cause he posted it. I would agree with it more if it didn't seem like a good excuse.

Back on track - what's a good work to introduce myself to Mahler?
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: fallot on March 22, 2013, 06:17:30 AM
Another thread ruined by crowsturbation.

"Musical opinion? Opinions aren't real bro"

On the other hand, had you asked for considered observations about Gustav Mahler, I would have had none to offer.

Then don't pollute.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: lost_wanderer on March 22, 2013, 08:44:45 AM
Try Edgard Grieg instead.

It's more simple and organic.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: crow on March 22, 2013, 09:25:46 AM
Another thread ruined by crowsturbation.

"Musical opinion? Opinions aren't real bro"

On the other hand, had you asked for considered observations about Gustav Mahler, I would have had none to offer.

Then don't pollute.

That's yet more gratuitous insult, faggot.
My contribution was humour, of which you demonstrably have none.
While yours was the usual sniping valueless vomit, auto-initiated by mob instinct.

Humour doesn't wreck threads.
Witless assaults, like yours, do.
Cause and effect, see? Simple stuff. Insult people, for zero reason, and you start a war.
This little entrenched mob is really going to have to be disbanded. Examples made. That sort of thing.
So much for 'uber-men'.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: E on March 22, 2013, 12:29:10 PM
Try Edgard Grieg instead.

It's more simple and organic.

Possibly a good advice to newcomers, but I suspect that comparing Mahler's symphonies may be comparing apples/oranges as it is, with Grieg offering something entirely different (and, as far as symphonies are concerned, nothing spectacular).

Quote from: Humanicide
Back on track - what's a good work to introduce myself to Mahler?

Aforementioned Symphony 2 'Resurrection'. See Audiofile.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: Humanicide on March 22, 2013, 05:42:05 PM
Cheers, just grabbed it. Thanks!
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: WAAAAAAGH! on March 22, 2013, 06:20:07 PM
I once listened to Mahler and nothing but Mahler for a week, a similar procedure I use for most music, and I haven't found much impetus to return. I can't help but feel like ultimately, his work comes across as empty, even though initial listens appear to be profound. Certainly not the worst thing in the world, nothing to celebrate either.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: aquarius on April 01, 2013, 06:33:28 PM
Mahler always grabs my attention but fails to connect on the deep level of Bruckner, Schubert or Beethoven. Some of his melodies are magnificent, but it also has the annoying tendency to stay in my head like pop music for the coming days. After hearing a Bruckner symphony, I forget it immediately but it leaves such a grand feeling in my soul.
Title: Re: Gustav Mahler
Post by: anal_rapist on April 04, 2013, 06:38:23 AM
I didn't like Mahler. Too obvious, too please with itself. I listened, I zoned out.