Template talk:Mahler symphonies

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

New line for the 10th?[edit]

Why does the 10th have to be on a new line? I know it's unfinished, but e.g. {{Schubert symphonies}} doesn't do that. If this is corrected, there is also an extraneous </small> tag. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


I would rather not have the additional titles such as "Titan", "Song of the Night" included, as none of them are given by Mahler himself (at least not in the definitive versions of the respective symphonies). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

And why does that matter? The point of these navboxes is to make it easy for readers to browse between his symphonies. We cannot expect all our readers to know which symphony a nickname refers to. Suppose a hypothetical reader is trying to find Mahler's Tragic Symphony - they can just skip straight to the Symphony No. 6 (Mahler) page and read how that name was not given by Mahler. However, if we remove them, then the reader will have to search and find out himself that the symphony he is looking for is No. 6. Centyreplycontribs – 14:11, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The point is valid for names such as "Resurrection" and "Symphony of a Thousand" which, though non-Mahlerian in origin have wide general currency. The name "Tragic" for the Sixth originated with Mahler, and although he later withdrew it, is still often applied to the work. The subtitle "Song of the Night" for the Seventh has no authenticity and is not that widely in use—none of my several recordings use it and it is mentioned neither by Mitchell nor de La Grange in their extensive analyses. "Titan" was withdrawn by Mahler before the First Symphony achieved its present four-movement form, and has no validity. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
In my eyes it is a different matter with the 8th. "Symphony of a Thousand" not only does not originate from Mahler, he actively disapproved the title. The composer's wish should be obeyed (cf. the point that Pfistermeister made below about the key designations). – The other titles are arguable. There is one single source that suggests the title "Tragic" might be Mahler's own choice: Bruno Walter's memoirs. It is not used in any printed source of the work. "Titan" was a title Mahler used once for the Hamburg performance on 27 October 1893, when he considered his work a symphonic poem, or piece of program music. When Mahler dropped the program, he had dropped the title long ago as well, never to use it again. "Resurrection" ("Die Auferstehung") is the title of Klopstock's chorale that Mahler used in the last movement, but was never the title of the entire symphony. Concerning the 7th, we agree totally. But I have to understand that obviously in English-speaking countries there is a striking need to refer to pieces of music by nickname. None of these symphonies are noteworthy referred to by these names in German (except the 2nd possibly). --FordPrefect42 (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear folks,
The only authentic source I've ever seen for the 'Tragische' nickname is the programme for Mahler's Vienna performance of Jan 4, 1907. It's not on the other programme I've seen (Munich, 1906), or on any of the various manuscript and printed scores that I've seen reproduced. Pfistermeister (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Absolutely true, and it is unclear whether Mahler himself put the nickname on the program. The only thing that can be said for sure is, that Mahler knew about the nickname being used in that performance. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Keys and Idiots[edit]

We've been through this so many times before. Most of the tonalities listed in connection with the titles of the symphonies are misleading and idiotic falsifications of what the music actually does. They don't stem from the composer, they don't feature in serious writing on the works, and they are made up by people who don't know what they're talking about but like to see 'every symphony having a key'. These wrong keys regularly get deleted from the page, in line with scholarly practice in the New Grove and elsewhere. Yet there's always some idiot who prefers imaginary knowledge to mere factuality, and puts the damn things back again. From what source does such sub-musical stupidity flow...? How tone-deaf, how musically idiotic, does someone have to be to think that Mahler's Seventh can be said to be 'in E minor'...? Pfistermeister (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)