Talk:Symphony No. 9 (Mahler)

Many more additions must be made. Instrumentation, more description of the background, etc.


 * I've added instrumentation. Do feel free to add whatever else you can. --Camembert

"The work's ending was for many years interpreted as being a self-conscious farewell to the world—until increased knowledge of the draft of the unfinished Tenth Symphony made this interpretation untenable."

That statement is utterly ridiculous. Mahler's 10th has been well-known (and performed) for decades. There is nothing in the 10th that nullifies the interpretation that the 9th is a farewell to life. Much of the rest of what the article states is ludicrous as well. This entry needs a serious overhaul. Right now it should be taken with a grain of salt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.189.193 (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The new category added by Lbark
The Romantic symphonies category seems to fit, but why wouldn't the user add this to the other symphonies of Mahler? The symphony fit better under a post-romantic category. I will remove the category for now. A. Wang (talk/contrb.) 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This article is a DISGRACE...
Readers should be aware that almost nothing in this article is true. The page appears to have been written by a deluded fantasist. I have deleted the first falsehood, which was a chronologial impossibility; many others remain to be corrected. A real shocker. Can we make this article 'Z-class', please...? Pfistermeister (talk) 01:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply: "And can you provide us some prove?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.104.100 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a QED. "Mahler was at this time a champion of the emerging avant-garde movement, most notably Arnold Schoenberg..." Really? You know, Mahler never, ever conducted any non-tonal works. He took an interest in the music and in the composers themselves, but one can hardly say he championed the music. There are all sorts of things like that in this article. I'd fix it myself but it would put me in too bad a mood. Gingermint (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed the offending sentences, as (whether true or not) they really don't/didn't belong here. As for the rest of the article....I really have no idea where to start. A real shame; this Symphony and Mahler deserve better. -- Mahlerlover1 (talk &#124; contributions) 22:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I lied. I did have an idea about where to start, or at least I got one. What do you think now? Still needs work, though. Mahlerlover1 (talk &#124; contributions) 00:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MIDI
I don't think this link should be there, "Kunst der Fuge: Mahler's 9th Symphony (MIDI files)", the sound is awful. there are good record on YOU TUBE much better than this sample, with such bad sounds. It's not its place here. I took it off, and someone put it back. Denis


 * And I will continue to put it back, you vandalistic bastard. Pfistermeister (talk) 22:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

hoo, I'm very afraid, such an agressive man. You do really like this sound. I see.

He's right, this link has nothing to do here, it's just rubbish, and Wikipedia is not to advertise for commercial purpose. John


 * Why are you posting pseudonymous replies to yourself? Do you really not understand that the system *traces your postings*...? Pfistermeister (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What???

look Pfistermeister: who knows everything and does not hesitate to insult anybody, this is mine: User talk:92.6.250.69

and this is the other one User talk:62.200.52.25. I happen to have some friends who are musician, I guess one of them wrote this after I told them about it. you can check yourself. So now, give me a good reason to put this link, do you own the website, do you hope to make money with this, can't you hear a difference between a good orchestra and this Midi file, if you liked Mahler, you would not want to play this kind of stupid recording, unless you are deaf, don't piss everybody off with with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.250.69 (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We do not need a 'discussion' here. All that is happening is that some semi-literate fruit-cake with a bee in his bonnet about MIDI-files has decided he needs to slice a perfectly adequate link from a page -- and then gets a 'friend' to support him, posting from the same IP address! -- so that instead of us listening to MIDI he can refer us to a selection of Youtube videos every one of which is an actionable copyright violation.


 * The MIDI link is perfectly respectable and in some circumstances will be more useful than a video clip. Wikipedia does not have a policy regarding MIDI-files. The file itself is non-commercial. Removing it is vandalism, and inconveniences the normal user. It stays. Pfistermeister (talk) 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe this, not only did you not see that the IP was different, but you seem not capable to hear a difference between a MIDI rubbish file and a good orchestra, and besides you are talking non sense regarding the Copyright Violation,  as a musician, I do prefer people to listen to any version on You Tube than a midi file, even the orchestra I play in, and any musician think the same, except those ( you said "Bastard" I think) so bastard as you said who might be incapable of seeing a difference between a painting and a poster. by the way, I DID NOT put any You Tube link on any Mahler page, I assume people would try to find a recording by themselves, on You Tube. And the link you put HAS a commercial purpose, as it is said "Download MIDI / ZIP & sheet music books with no daily limits (from 15 euros once for all)" right at the top of the page, Are you pulling my leg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.119.16 (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against MIDI files, in fact I'm quite fond of them. Whether Mahler's orchestration is a suitable subject for MIDI sequencing is another matter — in my opinion, it's not. But that's my personal point-of-view and has no bearing on the suitability of this particular link. However, what makes the link wholly unsuitable is that the MIDI files carry a copyright and, as has been observed above, the web site is thoroughly commercial. Not only do they ask for paid subscription to download ZIPed collections, they also allow only access to five MIDI files in one session. That totally fails the requirements of WP:EL. The link must be removed, and the blacklisting of this particular web site should be considered. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Look, I LOVE Mahler's 9th. It is absolutely beautiful. This article, though, is almost totally CRAP. Horrible! Can someone fix it? Let me rephrase that: Can someone who is smart fix it? Like I said a few months ago, I'd do it myself, but messing with this disaster of an article would just put me in a bad mood. And I'm grumpy enough of a person. Gingermint (talk) 05:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Since the topic of this post is MIDI, I would like to make a comment about this. I have not seen or heard the original MIDI file which had been posted here, so I cannot comment on that particular file. But I can make a general case for MIDI: a MIDI file is not supposed to be a replacement of a performance, but can be used very well for educational purposes: it shows the notes, shows the tempo, and is basically a subset of the music score. Its disadvantages are of course obvious: the standard MIDI file is limited to 16 tracks (I think that has not changed since 1990), which has the implication of limiting the number of instruments to be played. Therefore, one track in a MIDI file not necessarily corresponds to one instrument in the music score, especially not for those more complex late-Romantic ones. This unfortunately reduces the usefulness for educational purposes. Also the MIDI standard does not cover all possible things that are usually in a music score. Tempo, volume, and note duration (leading to staccato and legato) can be encoded, but trills and special playing techniques cannot be represented in a MIDI file. The most obvious disadvantage of a MIDI file is of course its awful sound. The reason for this is that MIDI does not specify the synthesizer, but relies on the user to have a synth. In most cases this is a standard preconfigured FM synthesizer from the user's soundcard, unless the user has configured his/her system with something more sophisticated. These FM-synthesis sounds are indeed awful. But even if wavetable sounds are used, the sound will not be good, for several reasons: due to a mechanical play of the same sample and its looping, fine details of the music get lost. Also, in case of the same note with the same sample being played, this causes acoustic artefacts through wave interference, leading to phasing effects which sound awful. In order to avoid this, the MIDI file creator has to take care in removing duplicate notes, which then in turn compromises the integrity of the original music representation. Due to the inability (or lazyness) of the MIDI file creator, often no expression controls are added, leading to long notes with constant volume. The same lazyness also leads to MIDI files lacking proper tempo controls, and therefore not having proper ritardando/accelerando values. These negative aspects of MIDI have prompted that MIDI files have been removed on Wikipedia. But in my opinion, this is because of wrong expectations. A MIDI file in most cases is not there to show a pleasing musical performance - only an audio recording would be able to do this. But despite the above mentioned limitations, MIDI allows an insight into the structure of a piece, into its orchestration, as it contains basically most of the information that is denoted in a music score. For conveying this information, MIDI is currently still the most cross=platform-compatible standard. Other standards such as MusicXML or similar, which would be actually better than MIDI, are not yet widespread - I am not aware of many people having a reader for such files. (There may be some work for software developers, to work on a browser plugin so that standardised music score files can be displayed and played through a web browser.) Just clicking on a MIDI file and listening to it can at least give a rough overview and understanding of the music, and when then using a MIDI editor to look at the inside of the file can reveal insights into the composition. Therefore I would plead for having MIDI files on the Wikipedia classical music pages, maybe with a disclaimer that the MIDI file does not really represent a musical performance, but is there rather for an academic study of the composition. BTW, I did post two audio music recordings on another Wikipedia Mahler page: about his Symphony No.1. The two recordings there (2nd and 3rd movement) have been entirely made with MIDI - each note is a MIDI event. Naturally this exceeds the capabilities of a "standard MIDI file", there are more than 16 tracks, and I used more than one instrument samples for each voice which allows to render different playing techniques and encapsulates basically everything that is in the score (except the glissando - I have to work on that to make it sound properly and realistically). I hope that my posting of these audio files is not seen as a commercial advertisement - I am making the recordings available for free to anyone. Reinholdbehringer (talk) 09:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

UK premiere was on 27 February 1930 by the Halle Orchestra in Manchester under Hamilton Harty (source: The Halle Tradition by Michael Kennedy) The orchestra did not play it again for over 22 years94.192.68.44 (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I second the above -I was at the second Halle performance in 1952. I will sleep on it, and then edit the text. Incidentally, the analysis of the first movement offered here ignores the fact that, harmonically, it resembles a rondo, in that its episodes always emphatically collapse on D.Delahays (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In Popular Culture
Mahler's Ninth Symphony is referenced in St. Elmo's Fire Time: 1:19:17 You can't have the Pretenders album. - That's mine. - I bought it. You did not! You can have all the Billy Joels, Except The Stranger. I'm taking Thriller......and Mahler's Ninth. Kevin is so fond of Mahler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.243.180 (talk) 09:18, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment from 173.70.131.243
Regarding the text near "The work opens with a hesitant, syncopated motif (which some, including Leonard Bernstein, have suggested is a depiction of Mahler's irregular heartbeat", states in this edit "Bernstein says it at 3:39 of this video http://www.youtube.com/v/-SjAgSo7uro&fs=1&source=uds&autoplay=1". I leave it to the regular editors of this article to determine whether the video is a reliable source and supports the text. Anomie⚔ 14:03, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of "original research" I would suggest that this passage is, in fact, an introduction of a rather special kind - following the precedent of the "Overtura" by which Beethoven opens his Grosse Fuge. The opening of the exposition follows it, with the "lebewohl" tag. The thematic scraps which precede it are essential to the texture, as well as the imagery, of what follows.Delahays (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing -even belatedly - to be provocative, I'd now suggest that the openings of all four movements can be (even the three note trumpet phrase of the third, which is ambiguous,as much a final as an opening phrase, and exploited as both immediately in the consequent quotation and resolution of a disparate element from the opening of the second movement of the Fifth) heard as "introductory gesture (alla overtura) followed by theme " (perhaps this is one of the features which led Mahler to explain to Bruno Walter that the Ninth he was writing had most in common with the Fourth Symphony of all his others - though it was also different).Delahays (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Bruckner 9
I listened to Mahler 9 recently, and when the adagio started, I thought for a moment that I'd loaded the adagio of Bruckner 9 by mistake -- but I hadn't! Perhaps the fact that Mahler copied the opening of the corresponding movement in the corresponding symphony by Bruckner should be mentioned in the article. I haven't found much on Google, but I presume this is a tribute by Mahler to a fellow composer whom he knew and admired. Custardslice7 (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC) The above may point to another feature of this Ninth - that Mahler was a) fully aware of the background to the idea of a "Ninth" symphony written by a composer of his own time, b) that his own conscious self-quotations ( particularly in the Rondo Burleske) are part of a web of quotations and self-quotations which even go as far as the structure - for example Beethoven's exposition in the first movement of his Ninth veers toward B flat, which becomes an important key throughout the whole work - the first new key Mahler establishes structurally in his first movement is also B flat (I'm not sure this is original research, either).Delahays (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Deems Taylor
This quotation is presented as merely being "less favourable". It is also dated, and expresses a view no serious music writer would now espouse. Perhaps some historical context could be added here? Stevouk (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I would not think that there is a historical context to one's sole opinions. And what do you mean that the quotation is not one a "serious music writer" would "now" deem fit? Are you trying to say that the views on the symphony nowadays is not relevant to this quotation? If so, could you verify that with sources? Thanks. NetHelper (talk) 20:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Taylor's quote is from 1932 (one year after its US premiere) which by any measure puts it into the historical category - not that this is obvious from the main text. I'm stumped to find anything remotely comparable and recent, so as such, sources are tricky. --Stevouk (talk) 11:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyright Violation in Mahler 9:3rd Movement
Dear editors,

The section for the 3rd movement of Mahler 9 has been removed due to a possible copy-and-paste copyright violation issue. Please do not edit the blanked section until further notice. If you are a OTRS Agent, Copyright Clerk, or otherwise just an administrator, please leave a message on my talk page to discuss possible solutions. The article has been added to the Copyright violations page: April 21.

NetHelper (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * NetHelper, thank you for identifying the issue. It has been resolved in accordance with copyright policy. See below for the specific remedy applied. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.gustav-mahler.eu/index.php/werken/95-symphony-no-9/858-movement-3-rondo-burleske-allegro-assai-sehr-trotzig. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Earlier content of the tagged section has been restored. See the copyright listing: 21 April 2018. Some of the content in the section clearly evolved within the article, as it was present from very early in the article's history and in nascent form. However, after the identified 19 January 2015 creation of the external site, this article was modified to match. Since this is inconsistent with our copyright policy, the form of the article that existed prior to the creation of the 19 January 2015 source has been restored. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Section on "Mahler's death"
There are at least two seriously misleading statements in this brief section. 1) Mahler's heart condition had been with him from his birth, through a very strenuous life filled with hard work. The discovery of it in the summer of 1907 (through a routine medical examination) was an unpleasant surprise, but there is no evidence that it was progressively fatal in itself. Mahler could have lived with it until the age of eighty without any real trouble, as far as doctprs were concerned it was a "sleeper condition", not an active disease grinding down his health.

2) Mahler stopped work on his draft for the 10th symhony around September 1910, and seems not to have clocked any substantial work on it afterwards (no doubt he was hoping to return to it in the summer of 1911). At this point he was busy with two things, first off, the grand premiere of his 8th Symphony at Munich in October - a big event with famous musicians, composers and writers frpm all over Europe in attendance - and then preparing his 1910-11 New York season. But he also undertook some revisions of the score for the 9th (this is mentioned in several biographies, for example Peter Franklin's eminent The Life of Mahler and La Grange's great biography, and also in the article on the 10th here at Wikipedia). So he left the score for the 10th to rest at that point and never worked on it again. The wording of the article here suggests the melodramatic notion that he was working on it in a race against ill-health and impending death right up to his passing in May 1911, which is nonsense. 188.150.64.57 (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2023 (UTC)