Talk:Symphony No. 3 (Mahler)

Combined amateur orchestras

I think it's interesting to note that, sometime in the 1970s, two amateur orchestra/chorus combinatins in San Diego, California--The San Diego Community Orchestra and chorus from San Diego Mesa College and the orchestra and chorus from the music department at the Universigy of California at San Diego--once combined forces for a single reading of Mahler's 3rd. I played string bass (Community Orchestra) at this reading. I fell in love with the work and it is still one of my favorites. Too bad we never carried through with a concert. Rsduhamel 22:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Orchestration

I updated the orchestration section to great detail. I have the score for reference. Justin Tokke 04:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A recent edit at 11:48, 12 September 2006 by Rsholmes is weird. Some instruments are capitalized while others are not. They are either all lower case or all capitalized (what Mr. Tokke recommends). The edit should be reverted or progressed further. Any comments?A Wang ^{(talk/contrb.)} 21:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest all capitals because that is what the score indicates. All instruments are capitalized except two-word instruments like "English horn" where "horn" is not capitalized. I will change it back the way it was. Justin Tokke 23:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Longest of all symphonies?

Not that I’d want them to be known for their length, but there is at least one, if not a few, longer... Schissel‐bowl listen 03:56, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed the comment that it is "the longest of all symphonies". I admit I can't think of a longer one myself (out of interest, what is it that you're thinking of?), but the problem is we can't really know whether it's true or not unless one of us knows every single symphony ever composed by everyone ever (I, at least, do not). --Camembert

I certainly don't, though I know everything about every other field. Hrmph. *vbg* Brian's Gothic sym is as long, I believe and I wouldn't be surprised if one of Sorabji's two orchestral syms will prove longer in performance. (And I wouldn't like them - one of them I know, the other not so - to be known leave alone foremost for such Gu. Book trivia either..) Schissel : bowl listen 01:16, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Bruckener 8th Symphony, depending on the recording (Munich Phil live 12-13/9/93 EMI CD 5566962 ................. 104:13) can be around 1hour 40 minutes.

I've read somewhere that Guinness names this as the longest regularly performed symphony. Alcuin 19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The longest known symphony, when last I heard, was Richard Rodgers' symphonic arrangement of his film music Victory at Sea, which totals at about thirteen hours. I believe you can look it up on the Guinness World Records website. -- 5-27-06

It is the longest Symphony in the standard repertoire for orchestras. There are absolutely crazy long symphonies, but they are never performed as a whole or on a concert. They are performed on special occasions or in parts. This one, Mahler's third, usually amounts to 100 mins. or more (1 hr and 40 mins.). I have the Philharmonia recording and Benjamin Zander, the director, does mention this topic to quite detail in the commentary. Justin Tokke 04:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

the first symphony by Havergal Brian: almost 2 hours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.119.16 (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Brian's "Gothic" is not standard repertoire. It has only been performed a few hundred times in its existence. Justin Tokke (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources Needed

I have seen this piece of music performed live 3 times (Lucerne Festival Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, and Boston Symphony Orchestra). In these 3 performances and the numerous DVD performances that I have seen, never have I seen a flugel horn used to substitute for the posthorn. Can anyone cite a performance by a major orchestra who used a flugel horn in place of the posthorn?

OK, if no one objects, I am going to be deleting the "posthorn solo usually played on flugel horn" bit (as it is incorrect information). I'll give it another day before I do. --Sully2302 23:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Horenstein recording uses flügelhorn, but it's not at all a common substitution...although rumor has it that the first edition of the score lists flügelhorn rather than posthorn. I've not seen it, though. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 11:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I've seen this but I'm not sure it's the original first edition. I'll look into it.Justin Tokke 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, this needs some serious clarification (orchestration section), as it only makes sense to trumpet players: "4 Trumpets in F, B-flat (2 or more high parts may be reinforced with E-flat Trumpets.)" Again, in all of the performances I have seen of Mahler 3 that I can recall, the entire trumpet section was using C rotary trumpets except for trumpet 1 who I have seen use Eb in place of or in addition to C. I would propose changing this to: 4 trumpets, in F and B-flat (usually played on C or Eb rotary trumpets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully2302 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

No! This is not what is in the score. The usage of transpositions unwritten my Mahler varies from player to player. If a trumpetist wants to play an F Trumpet part on an E or even D-flat Trumpet, it's up to the player. Unwritten doublings should not be written for this reason. Justin Tokke 19:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Justin for the input. So would you agree with me that the part in the instrumentation section, "2 or more parts may be reinforced with Eflat trumpets" is cumbersome and unnecessary"? --Sully2302 21:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

No. This is actually written in the score.Justin Tokke 15:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Structure

I changed "What God tells me" back to "What Love tells me". Afaik God is completely out of place here. It has been introduced by an ip, reverted by user Andy_M._Wang, but then strangely reverted back by the same user!? I could not find any trace in a talk page why user Andy_M._Wang has been convinced that God is appropriate. Brontosaurus (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I can accept. Sorry if I messed up on all of that. Thanks for that note. — Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

See Carnegie Hall's program notes. That being said, he did label it "What love tells me" and only commented in a letter that it could be given the other name. Perhaps this quotation should be added to the article somewhere (and it would also be the article's first citation).NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

MIDI FILES

about the Midi Files that I removed, see "discussion " in Mahler 9th symphony.

NPOV?

A lot of this article strikes me as being quite far from NPOV. While I may agree with certain descriptions such as its "construction...is masterful" and that certain things are done with "perfect grace and poise," they really aren't reporting fact. These should probably be sourced ("So-and-so praised this symphony for its..." would work). Thoughts? NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 07:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Length of First Movement

These two statements cannot both be true.

(under "Structure") "The first movement alone, with a normal duration of a little more than thirty minutes"

(under "Performance") "When it is performed, a short interval is sometimes taken between the first movement (which alone lasts around half an hour)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.56.190 (talk) 18:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why cannot both statements be true? I don't see the conflict. Supposing all known performances of this movement lasted between 29 and 34 minutes, would these not all satisfy both conditions, allowing for perhaps one abnormally short version?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 19:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lavish Praise

From the article: "It is in the finale, however, that Mahler reveals his true genius for stirring the soul. The construction of it is masterful, and the interplay of a developing chromatic harmony and sonorous string melody, developed and re-orchestrated with perfect grace and poise builds to a conclusion that, though seemingly overblown when heard in isolation, is, in the wider context of the symphony, both musically justified and emotionally overwhelming."

This is so utterly not the kind of thing that should be in Wikipedia, in my opinion. I don't think I need to argue for it, it speaks for itself. Can anyone think of a good reason not to delete that bit of overwrought subjective critique? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.174.243 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You're completely right. I commented on this a few months ago, but I haven't had the time to properly research a rewrite. It wouldn't be so bad if it was of the form "Sir Nigel Twitt-Thornwaite, dean of British conductors, said of the last movement etc." But as it stands now it is nowhere near neutral POV and full of uncorroborated (and uncorroboratable) statements.NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 16:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"Serious works of reference"

This edit troubles me a little. This very article starts out by referring to is as a symphony in D minor. That can only mean that WP is not a "serious work of reference", so it really doesn't matter what we say. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The New Grove table of titles and keys can be followed as a guide. The current WP entries on Mahler symphonies are not properly researched, sourced, or edited. They are in fact very poor. I have just noticed that the one on Mahler 9 even credits Schoenberg with a quote he never said. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue for me is this gap between the publications that are "serious works of reference" and those that are not. Who makes the decision that any particular publication is a "serious work of reference", and on what basis? I've seen Mahler's 7th referenced under various keys in Grove, so that means it's not a "serious work of reference" any more? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm told that the New Grove second edition is the wiki standard. I trust you will happily stick to what appears in its tables...? Pfistermeister (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me, I think. I have no plans to spurn Grove. I just intensely dislike this talk of what "serious works of reference" do or not do. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

How sweet. I myself intensely dislike wrong and misleading information proudly displayed in encyclopaedias. Now sit back and watch as a load of amateur assholes all start reverting the New Grove quotes I've put in these symphony articles... Pfistermeister (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Spanish tune quote

The posthorn solo (in the 3rd movement) includes a large fragment of a popular Spanish tune that is the main theme of Glinka's Jota Aragonesa, and also appears in Liszt's Spanish Rhapsody' - [1]

So, what was Mahler up to in quoting a Spanish folk song? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 04:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a typical example of amateur over-interpretation. Mahler's long solo merely resembles part of the harmonically primitive 'popular Spanish tune' in a few of its phrases: there is no justification in saying that he 'quoted a Spanish folk song'. Don't muddy the water with amateurish pseudo-analysis. Pfistermeister (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No, Pfistermeister: it is your comment that is a typical example of cavalier rebuffing. Mahler's quote of that Spanish tune in the posthorn solo is evident to anyone with a pair of good and attentive ears. To be sure, others have singled this out before. So, the "muddying" here is only in your mind. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

So go on then, cupcake: produce a musical example in which the fleeting and fortuitous resemblance *doesn't* vanish into accidental insignificance when you lay it out clearly. Go on: I challenge you. Show me how one theme 'quotes' the other. Pfistermeister (talk) 20:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your gross manners and aggressive stance are well known here, Pfistermeister, as is your addiction to grandstanding. What is perhaps a surprise is that you're also tone-deaf. But then, it's easy to be bullish when you hide behind a pseudonym. So, speaking of challenges, I have one for you: let's drop the covers and arrange a meeting. Then let's see if you have the nerve to call me cupcake to my face. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please. Let us discuss matters civilly or not at all.
"... anyone with a pair of good and attentive ears" - indeed, Musikverein. I happened to be listening to this symphony on the radio on Sunday, having not heard it in around 5 years, and the resemblance to a theme from Glinka's Jota Aragonesa struck me for the first time (I did not know at that time that the tune was not Glinka's own, but a folk tune he quoted). But was it just my ears playing tricks? Clearly others agree with me. I found ample confirmation of the resemblance, but nothing about why Mahler used this theme. Maybe it was entirely unconscious on his part. But I sort of doubt he was unfamiliar with the Glinka work or perhaps even the Liszt work. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. It's always good to have you on board. As to the theme, it may have been unconscious on Mahler's part. However, I do think it's unlikely that such a musically cultivated composer and conductor would have been unfamiliar with Glinka's and Liszt's works, which renders the "unconscious" quoting improbable (though it doesn't rule it out). In any event, whatever the reason for Mahler's quoting that Spanish tune, unsconsciously or not, the point first made here, with which I agree, is that he apparently did it. It is certainly interesting to inquire as to the motivations for the quote in that part of the symphony, if any. But that's a different side of the matter. I merely wanted to support the notion that the quote is there, which is clear to my ears. Best regards, MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I seriously misunderstand wikipedia policy, "clear to [your] ears" is original research. In other words, can somebody please find a citation? NeverWorker (Drop me a line) 14:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, it would be original research if I were advocating the inclusion of this point as information in the relevant article, which is not the case. As you can see, I just added my opinion to an ongoing discussion on this talk page. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Structure" section rife with POV and peacocks...

I'd just love to plaster the section with ""...:

The opening movement, grotesque in its conception (much like the symphony itself)... (Now, now!) ...the themes are varied and developed with each presentation, and the typical harmonic logic ... is replaced here by something new. (What is it? Is it really new? If so, how?) The slow opening can seem to evoke... (Weasel) Innovation is present everywhere... (such as?)"

Really, this is quite unencyclopedic... wish I knew more about the symphony... -- megA (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree; for all its brevity this article contains a remarkable amount of pferdescheiss. --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 16:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I tried to remove some of the blatant examples, and in the process expanded the description of the second part movements. Anyone feel free to work on the text... -- megA (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Premieres

Okay, so the list seems a little ridiculous. Is the list exhaustive? (i.e. have only the countries and orchestras listed in the section ever performed the piece?) I seriously doubt that, and I can't imagine why the premieres in Thailand, Singapore, and definitely Regina, Saskatchewan are more noteworthy than other performances. The others I can understand. Chuborno (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is one of the most ludicrous lists of performances I have seen. Regarding Saskatchewan, however, I do not see any other claim for Canada at all, so perhaps until an earlier performance is documented in Toronto, Coquitlam, Moose Jaw, or some other metropolis, this performance in Regina must stand as the Canadian premiere of the symphony, eh?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

PIcture

It would be really nice to see a picture (or more than one!) of the composer that is contemporary with the the composition. Does such a thing exist? And if so, perhaps it could be used in the article? quota (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Done, but you see less face. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)