I was sorely tempted to review Elton John's fantastic Don't Let The Sun Go Down on Me, a truly beautiful work that can evoke tears.
No, instead I decided to expand our realm of artistics appreciation to an entirely new field: Classical music.
Alright. This is a piece I've been listening to for several months now. I don't understand any of the real notation for discussing classical--it started in B minor then switched to B flat.
I'm only discussing the emotional undertones and feeling that I see.
Without further adue: Mahler symphony no. 5, the first part.
It starts happily, with trumpets blasting. Then strings and percussion join the trumpets, setting an intense feel.
It slows down for a moment. The initial blasting is, imo, the exposition and hook. Now we slide into an almost purely 100% string segement, repeating the initial melody.
Still, the emotion and meaning is hard to find.
As the subtle string segement ends, we hit more trumpet blasts. The sudden intensification and brute strength of the trumpet signifes a major change--but what?
And yet again, the piece becomes quiet, slipping into the gentle strings. This continues for a long time, creating a base for the work.
What does it mean? No idea. We have to continue deeper to try and find out.
Finally, the piece shifts radically. After a brief trumpet blast, the strings take over--but in a very intense manner, quite opposed to the earlier calm. Then the trumpets come back, joining the strings.
In fact, the strings are overcome for several moments of pure blasting, though they quickly reply.
A strong percussion bong heralds a climax of the music. The music quickly descends in strength. Yes, moments later it erupts again, but then it falls again.
After a brief interlude of relative quiet, the strings slowly rebuild their earlier emotional hights, gradually becoming louder and more expressive.
It refuses to climax, however, and lowers its tone for a while longer, using strings and no trumpets.
Finally, even the strings die. For several oddly quiet moments, only subtle percussion pushes the piece along.
Then the strings join in, to be joined by the trumpet. Still, we have nothing like the sheer strength seen earlier.
Then we have complementary moments where the strings swell only to have the trumpets swell in response.
Around 10 minutes into the piece, we achieve another climax. The strings and trumpets fuse.
The climax is short lived, and the piece meanders to an end.
Even there we find a surprise: A string twangs just as we think it's all over.
Alright. We have the entire musical structure down. But does this have to do with emotion and meaning?
What does this work mean?
Obviously, clues could be gained by listening to the other tracks. We're not going to take the easy way out, though. (To be honest, I just don't feel like working through the other tracks.)
Alright, let's approach it.
We have two main themes: the strings and the horns. We have four different parts to the song: when the strings dominate, when the horns dominate, when they fuse, and when they're not even present.
What I get out of this piece is two lovers and their relationship. Yes, it's sterotypical, but it fits perfectly.
The trumpets represent the man and the strings the woman.
With that in mind, listen again.
---------------------------
However, while my approach seems valid, I'm sure there are other more exciting and exotic ways to look at the piece. After all, what is more hackneyed then the love relationship and its intensities? (Not to say it doesn't deserve all the attention it gets.)
[ May 28, 2004, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I've always liked the Shenkerian "Blooming of the tonic" type analysis, but yours is interesting too.
AJ
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The 4th movement has been argued as a love letter to Alma with some success. I don't think the 1st movement bears any relation, though. Notably, they were written at very different times, the first 2 being a reaction to severe sickness in Feb '01.
[ May 28, 2004, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by Dead_Horse (Member # 3027) on :
*rides tricycle in and gives Mr. Berg a ticket for lack of Y2k compliance*
Four digits, please, to avoid any confusion.
*Squeezes horn bulb and goes on to the next tread* Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*hums* Alma, tell us, all modern women are jealous . . . Posted by the Somalian (Member # 6557) on :
I *discovered* classical music last December, and have since then pretty much been focusing on the repertoire of Mozart and Beethoven, though I have been also listening to Dvorak, Tchaikovsky (violin concerto, anyone?), Mendelssohn and Schubert (just hours I ago I heard his "5th" symphony--I loved it) and Berlioz.
If this thread had been titled "Value Of Beauty: Mozart's Clarinet Concerto" I may have been able to contribute but I can only say that I know of Mahler, but don't know his music very well.
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
I absolutely adore the 4th movement of this symphony. It is so heartwrenching what with all the suspensions and unresolved harmonies. I love it!! It was one of the pieces that began my now pretty darned extensive classical CD collection. I also really really enjoy Mahler. He was such an interesting person and his music is all ALL wonderful.
I got to see his 2nd symphony live a couple weeks ago...*sigh* I highly recommend it.
Posted by the Somalian (Member # 6557) on :
What does everybody here think of the Symphonie Fantastique by Berlioz?
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
I love classical music... I always have! It always moves me greatly.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I saw the Seattle Symphnoy perform Mahler's 5th some years ago, which prompted me to run out and buy a CD. Wonderful, wonderful piece.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)