What I did find myself responding to this morning was the manner in which the composer infuses the symphony with various kinds of musics from the world that surrounded him – the oompah-oompah bands so loved in Germany then and now, the languorous melodies of the piano playing in the parlour, the sentimental yearning of Jewish folksong. I found myself trying, sometimes succeeding, to put myself in that sound-world feeding the symphony. Melodies were more long-breathed then, more sinuous in nature. I suppose people listened better, or at least with greater patience.
I’m thinking of working through a kind of Mahler cycle. Over the years I’ve listened fairly regularly to Mahler’s 1, 2, 5 and 9, the ones I own. But it’s time to dig into my pockets for the rest. Actually I’ve heard them all, except 8, in the concert hall and always intended to listen further knowing there were riches to drown in, but I suppose it has been that sense of the work that the listener needs to do that has somewhat put me off. After all, I’ve owned Mahler 1 since 1989 and am only now genuinely beginning to appreciate it.
This also put me in mind of the first time I really listened to it, or at least a bit of it. This was back in England, sometime in the mid-eighties, and I’d gone round to David Kerr’s house (the HOD of the department I was then working in.) He had an amazingly good stereo system and a quiet room for listening in and proceeded to play the opening of the symphony as a kind of demo. Those faint wisps of melody coming together over the magical sustained strings struck me as some of the most gorgeously refreshing sounds I’d ever heard. And some twenty-five years later I’m hearing them again.
2 comments:
just curious: here's a facebook meme that has been circulating around. how many books out of this list of 100 have you read?
http://mcfear.com/post/81775806/the-bbc-believes-most-people-will-have-only-read-6
Seventy-one.
Post a Comment