The Pelican book "The Symphony" (published 1949) has a section on Mahler written by Geoffrey Sharp in which his comments include the following :
"As a composer he seldom knew where he was going, neither can we; but it is worth while suggesting that the smaller the form in which he wrote the more convincing the result."
"Mahler's aim undoubtedly was "expression" but it is doubtful whether what he wanted to express was always worth the trouble he took over it."
"Mahler's attempts to come to terms with the realms of childlike fantasy were always childishly inadequate and there is no doubt at all that he was often vulgar."
"...some of the garrulous and fragmentary pasticcios he calls upon to serve as movements of symphonies."
"Mahler's music alternately fascinates and appals with its peculiar kaleidoscopic confusion of the ridiculous and the sublime, often on the same page."
The latter two remarks seem to foreshadow Noah's lament "Mahler seems scatterbrained and stylistically all over the place."
My typing finger now is demanding a rest but I shall look at the chapter on Bruckner and report on any opinions from the 1940s that I think might be of interest later.
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index | View thread »
Thank you for taking part in the MusicWeb International Forum.
Len Mullenger - Founder of MusicWeb