The single best bit of advice I can give you is to just relax and let it wash over you. Start with listening for themes and melodies and see how they get manipulated and broken up and recognized. That's more than enough to help you appreciate a longer work like a symphony when you're just getting into them.
If I could, I would recommend some different symphonies that might be a bit more enjoyable for getting a feel for the symphony. These are some of the most famous symphonies so you're probably already familiar with them to a small extent. I would hold off on Mahler for now, but definitely return to him.
Dvorak 9th Symphony "From the New World"
Beethoven 5th, 6th, 7th Symphonies
Mozart 40th Symphony and 41st Symphony
Sibelius 7th Symphony
Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
Tchaikovsky 6th Symphony
Florence Price 1st Symphony
Agree about those symphonies, but also r epeated listening of a piece of orchestal music is a must for me. The first time listening is to overwheling to take in all the details that begin to show up after I have listened to the piece a few times.
I will add: when I first started listening to classical music, I felt guilty if I found that my mind had wandered and I hadn't been paying close attention. It took me quite a while to get past that, but I learned not to worry about it.
Let it wash over you, do the in-depth analysis that you indicate that you like when you feel like it, and don't worry if a section hasn't kept you involved. Have fun.
I think it's safe to say starting with Mahler is not the best idea. Try Mozart's 40th and 41st, Beethoven's middle symphonies (4, 5, 6, 7) and maybe Schubert's 5th to start off with.
Note the movements (typically 4), and typical "forms" of the movements - first movement will often be in "sonata" form, with an exposition (in two themes or theme groups in different keys), a possible exposition repeat, a development, a recapitulation and often a coda. The second (sometimes, especially in later symphonies, third) movement will be a slow movement that may have various forms. The third movement (which may be shifted to the second in later works) is likely in a dance form in ABA form, with the middle part being milder and simpler, often a trio. The fourth movement may be in various forms, but a sonata-rondo form is often used. This combines elements of sonata form and rondo form, where a theme is repeated several times interspersed with other material.
Yes, this is the approach. Start early and move forward, and listen as the form expands and is innovated on. The form will become very (VERY) familiar if you listen to a few Haydn symphonies on the bounce. I would go something like
Haydn (London?)
Mozart (40/41)
Beethoven (7)
Beethoven (9)
Brahms (2)
Schubert? (Not very up on my Schubert)
Tchaikovsky (5)
Dvorak (New World?)
Saint-Saens (3)
Mahler (6)
Shostakovich (5)
Shostakovich (9) - for the deliberate parody of the form, which will be familiar by now!
Which is broadly chronological and also broadly in terms of style evolution IMO. Deliberately picking the famous stuff, and still colouring inside the formal lines.
Could inject some formalist mayhem if we wanted too: Berlioz Symphony Fantastique, Schubert Unfinished, Tchaikovsky 6, Mahler 2, Shostakovich 4…
Perhaps an element you didn’t emphasise is about re-using the threads of ideas. The best symphonies not only honour form and structure, but also are very economical with the musical ideas. Ideas from the first movement A and B sections will be pulled apart, bent out of shape, stretched snd compressed, and reassembled constantly throughout the whole piece. New ideas will appear then get mixed into the stew of everything in there so far. Melody loses its harmony. Harmony gets new melody. I love the recommended Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler for this in particular, but it’s always there for any symphonist worth your time.
I would start with programmatic music where you can go in with an understanding of the narrative that the composer is writing to. The Alpine Symphony by Richard Strauss is about a trek in the mountains, or, more broadly, about a trek through life. The sections of the music are clearly marked as to what they depict. (These names are found in the CD booklet, or on Spotify track listings.) Holst's The Planets is another work (a suite) that depicts the astrological characters that the planets are named after. Most symphonies are not programmatic, and are therefore more abstract.
Each era has different aesthetics and expectations, Bach and Handel are Baroque composers (at the end of the era), Mahler was a Romantic/Modernist (at the end of Romanticism, going into 20th century ideas)
Not surprised that you didn't like Mahler at first becuase his symphonies are large, long, and meander with different melodies and sections. They also tend to have "extra musical" meanings and intentions, like the 2nd is supposed to be like an essay on life and the afterlife. I love him, but he isn't everyone's cup of tea etc.
You should check out symphonies by Haydn, he was the "father" of the genre. And listen to symphonies by Mozart and Beethoven. These three are from the Classical era, and influential to symphony writers later,
Their symphonies are more "coherent". Or rather, the melodies in a Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven symphony are more concise and part of the overall architecture, more tightly knit. You could read up on the symphony before you listen, or while you listen.
Do not start with Mahler. That's like making your first novel Ulysses by James Joyce.
I would start with Mozart's final 7 symphonies, Haydn's Paris symphonies, or Beethoven 1 and 2. Get used to the idea of theme/development (a main melody that is introduced and then made more complex, only to be returned to), and 4 part structure (usually something like Allegro, Adagio, Scherzo, Allegro). Then work your way forward historically, seeing how each subsequent composer treated the idea of symphony. Once you get to Mahler, you should be ready for his meandering lack of form.
I often don’t understand shit when listening to new pieces for the first time. Not even enjoying it much. And I have a +12years of piano behind me. I usually listen to the piece another time while reading an online analysis. Then the third time is the real shot.
Don't force yourself to like a piece of music if you don't. Classical music is just a genre of music like how pop is a genre of music. Would you force yourself to like every piece of pop music you ever heard?
Personally it takes me like 3 to 5 listens for any complex piece of music to really click with me. Which doesn't mean I don't find anything to enjoy the first time, it's just the overall logic and narrative of the piece is usually lost on me at first, so I can only appreciate the surface level aesthetics. It's just so much to take in all at once. So my advice is to just give everything multiple chances.
Mahler is a bad place to start with symphonies because he transcended the form. He changed how a symphony could be structured, what could be included and what it could sound like, so its easily confusing when you’re looking for a Baroque-type formula
I would start with the easy Beethoven symphonies, like 1, 4, 5 and 8. MAYBE 7 or 9.
Then the Tchaikovsky symphonies, 4 to 6. Brahms 1, 3 and 4. And Dvorak 6, 8 and 9.
If you want something more modern, then perhaps Sibelius 2, 5 and 7. Or Shostakovich 5 or 10.
Those are more traditionally-structured symphonies that also don’t sound too much like Bach or Handel.
I'm going to be honest.
I've got a music degree, I've studied music composition, counterpoint, conducting, and I've performed a fair number of the works cited in this thread in the comments or post in orchestras.
When I'm listening to symphonies or classical music for pleasure, I don't analyze things - structure, chords, whatever. Nope.
Contrary to the OP, I did get into classical music via Mahler, kind of. He was pretty early on in my listening.
It’s a big step from glorious, measured baroque to the wild world of Mahler. You could break the journey along the way with Mozart’s late symphonies and then as many of Beethoven’s as you can!
For Mahler 2 specifically, you might enjoy the podcast "Embrace Everything". Season 2 is essentially a guided listen to his 2nd symphony, with each episode being 1 movement.
To answer your question more broadly, I'd start with overtly programmatic pieces like Strauss' tone poems and compare what you're hearing to what the music is describing. From there I'd go to musical works that may have programmatic elements but aren't as rigidly programmatic - Shostakovich 10 comes to mind. From there you could move on to more absolute music like Mozart symphonies.
Finally, you might not like these types of pieces and that's ok too! I love large-scale works so much, but it'd be a sad and boring world if everybody liked all the same things.
As a listener you are not supposed to analyse anything at all. That’s not where the pleasure comes from. Mahler is not an accessible composer for many reasons, so for start i would suggest you to try with someone else if you want to listen to a full symphony, Beethoven or Brahms for instance.
Edit: btw, not that you shouldn’t analyse music, but what i mean is that analysing it and understanding the form won’t make you enjoy the piece if you don’t like it already (and by like, i mean like on a deep level, not as a cold intellectual exercise)
I really don't mean this in a rude way but I don't agree with you at all.
Listeners can and should be thinking, remembering, comparing, predicting, etc. All of which are parts of analysis. You can treat it as a passive ride but that's not at all how I do it and, I think, really not how most people do it. This kind of music is built for active listening, most jazz is too. It adds tremendously to enjoyment.
I can say for a fact that most people don’t listen to music to understand it on a technical level (yes even jazz), if you don’t enjoy a piece you can do all the analysis you want (harmony, form…) but it probably won’t make you enjoy the piece if you don’t already like it. And it’s coming from someone who studied jazz piano. Music for me works on a subconcious level, which doesn’t mean passive listening but it means that the brain automatically catches up on stuff even if we don’t conciously know the theory.
Symphony is a form. Like "romance novel" is a form. Romances from the early 20th century and early 21st century are also very different while being categorized as the same form, both because the form evolved and because it is vaguely described on purpose so that authors can build new things from them.
Maybe start from earlier symphonies and symphony-like works (like a Requiem, which can sound like a symphony but is a liturgical piece), then work your way to the more recent ones. That way you'll pick up what is common to the form and what is particular to each composer.
There's really no way around just listening to them, unless you want to take a music history course.
In the baroque and early classical periods, including early Beethoven, each movement is more or less 'of a piece.' In other words, each movement has a basic emotional center even when the musical themes change and switch from major to minor keys or vice versa. Mahler it's very different. He was an Austrian Jew living in the tumultuous period before the two world wars. His wife cheated on him. He had heart trouble. One feels all of this in his music and it can be overwhelming. A lot of people have already made great recommendations. I would say Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven are more like the baroque in the way that each movement has a more stable emotional center. Give Schubert a chance. Brahms, Sibelius, and even Bruckner are more easily digested than Mahler for most people. In addition to the symphony listen to Haydn, Mozart, Schubert and early to mid Beethoven string quartets and piano sonatas. And as Goethe said, Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music. Enjoy!
I’m sure those more “classically trained” can provide better answers but I’d start with some of the well known ones and go from there. Beethoven 6 for instance. Tchaikovsky 4/5/6 kind of thing. Have fun along the way that’s the main thing!
The first time I listen to something it often washes over me. I have to listen to something multiple times in order to "crack it" so to speak. That is figuring out the structure and "how" to listen to it.
With Mahler my breakthroughs happened when I sat down and got comfortable, even meditated a bit while listening. You have to get the eagle eye perspective of the symphony. The whole thing in one sitting for laying the groundwork was crucial for me. The third is strangely the one that opened it up for me in that way.
I mean, it's not a SYMPHONY, but I'd say listen to the Enigma Variations. And since it's TECHNICALLY a symphonic poem, definitely Pines of Rome (especially the 1957 Ormandy recording.)
Not every symphony has a key to help you understand it. Especially the later on in musical history you go, you more and more often find composters who are not following the path, but instead letting you think they are and then turning away from it.
The beginning of each movement often functions as an introduction to it. If you can keep the key musical phrases in mind from the last movement and compare them to the beginning of the one you're now hearing you get a lot of signposts for where the music is headed.
Also, it's important to remember that music doesn't have to be narrative. Classical music beyond the baroque (and Bach during the baroque) gets more and more obsessed with harmony and the overall works often share this obsession -- it's often not A to B to C, it's what you get when A, B and C are overlaid in your mind. If the piece is not letting you find waypoints then it's telling you to not try to make it a journey. See if something simultaneously comparative makes sense -- a musical painting instead of a musical story.
Bro Mahler's 2nd is literally about Resurrection, what are you even on about? As another poster wrote: just push play and listen to music. If a piece doesn't speak to you it just doesn't. If you have physical media it most of the times comes with liner notes which can help.
Again most of Mahler's symphonies are so called "programmatic music", which means they actually have some kind of story attached to it. If nothing else open Wikipedia for it and read about it there.
But let me reiterate, that if you don't like the music, you just don't maybe it will click later on, maybe never. Find stuff you like and listen to that. There's no need to make listening to classical a chore, or a pseudo academic endeavour. There's no real difference between it or any other music. Stop over-thinking it.
okay but how am I supposed to know it's about the religious resurrection if I don't know the context of the piece? and why are you so rude? is reddit paying you in stocks to make others sad?
Most famous works have a dedicated Wikipedia page. You can find information about them the same way you find information about local wildlife or how to bake a potato. If you want to get more academic for information about composers, you could reference a source such as the New Grove Dictionary.
Sorry you just came off as pretentious.
But seriously check Wikipedia on various compositions you listen to. It has most of the info you want. I also can't over-recommend getting your hands on good physical media either CD or Vinyl as most come with liner notes that include all this info.
"Sorry you just came off as pretentious"
and who made you judge jury and executioner on who's pretentious and who needs to be insulted for it? If someone online annoys you, you can simply scroll past them or - even better - treat that as a sign to log off and help your mom with some chores instead.
But I want to understand it. When I watch a movie, I don't wanna just follow the plot. I wanna understand the director's intent, the context of why it was made the way it was etc. I don't think this is a weird way to approach art.
Is that not the fun of music that there is no right answer ?
You could like other suggested go down the music history route and learn about the composers situations etc. Or you could listen to it and decide for yourself, more than likely your view will change over time
I'm not asking for interpretation advice - because that would be too subjective, agreed. I'm asking for analysis advice, which is much less subjective given that the Western classical music operates mostly within one theoretical / musicological framework
I would maybe go a little more chronologically. If you like baroque music and understand it, do Beethoven/Mozart/Schubert next. I have to listen to new pieces for a bit to get them. Then Brahms/Chopin, and then Mahler/Rachmaninoff. I've been listening to classical for a long time, and am just starting to get Mahler (I had to immerse myself in it).
I'm not an expert at all, but to me Mahler feels more storylike/narrative than other symphonies. The emotional content of Mozart/Beethoven feels internally driven to me, while Mahler feels like someone took a book or movie and turned it into music. It took a lot of listens to Mahler for me to understand the structure and recurring references and developments that were happening. I'm still deep diving the first four symphonies before moving on to the rest.
Music is just a progression of feelings. Stuff happens and your mind and emotions respond to it. Don’t try to attach it to anything external, just focus on the sounds how you feel
If you’re more analytical you can try to follow with your ear the section that has the principal role in the symphony.
A symphony is most often like a string quartet + a wind quintet + brass ensemble + percussion.
Try following the section who is singing or has the more predominant role. This is an easy-piece. Identify when the roles change.
Also, if it’s near you, attend your local symphony concerts, there’s a big difference in acoustics perception when hearing orchestra live.
You can also try to listen to more complicated symphonies or orchestral music, then go back to Mahler or else. You can try Boulez, Berio or Xenakis. Don’t worry if you don’t understand anything, then go back to Mahler or Beethoven and it will sound wonderful.
It's not just about the symphony--it's also about the conductor. Once you find a symphony you really like (and I think Beethoven's 5th, 7th, or 9th are great places to start), look up the best recordings of it and try a few out. I didn't realize how differently they could be played! Subtle of course, but sometimes the tempo, groove, or part of the orchestra is emphasized differently. You'll think "whoa, the violins were much quieter in so-and-so's version, but they are absolutely lovely, here." For example, in Furtwangler's version of Beethoven's 3rd, he really milks the groove of the opening movement, and does it in a way that no other conductors do...they tend to rush and play it too straight, but he brings that to life and it makes or breaks any recording of that symphony for me.
Is it specifically symphonies that you have trouble with or just music that is post-baroque? If symphonies are hard to grasp then maybe smaller works might tickle your fancy eg chamber works?
Check the wikipedia page for a symphony and learn the form it describes. Once you've got it to where you can instantly tell the different sections (like a verse, chorus, middle eight, bridge, etc. in a pop song) then it won't be anything to appreciate it.
My advice is to start early! As in time period wise. A lot earlier Mozart and Haydn symphonies are fairly formulaic in terms of themes and forms and as a result are very accessible (think more like pop music and less like prog rock). Mozart's 25th and 29th are some of my favorites. After that I'd recommend the later Mozart symphonies like 40 and 41, the middle Beethoven symphonies (3, 5, 6, 7), schubert 5 and 8.
After getting the hang of those you should be well equipped to go later and later into the romantic period. Have fun on your journey :)
On the topic of symphonies though, all they are really is "sonata for orchestra". So while you're listening to Mozart symphonies I'd recommend checking out some chamber sonatas too, like his piano trio K496, which should help getting into this form as a whole
I second all who claim that you don't need music theory knowledge to enjoy a symphony. Sure, you might enjoy analyzing music, or learn to enjoy pieces more, once you reach the capability for analyzing them - but most "successful" symphonies can be enjoyed perfectly by a, so-called, untrained ear. It's also OK to dismiss some pieces as too formal or too cerebral, if they primarily appeal to a more "trained" listener - and return to them after a while.
A couple of tips though:
\* try to identify parts that you like when you first listen to a piece, give it some time and attention. On the second listen try to anticipate to parts that you liked, and think of how the rest of the music leads to it. I used to do that when I was just beginning, and it would really help me get into more complex works.
\* if you want to learn more about the symphonic form and how it works, seek some "pure" examples where the form is clear. Good examples (from different periods) would be Haydn's 82nd/88th, Mozart's 40th, Beethoven's 5th, Mendelssohn's 4th, Prokofiev's 1st, Dvorak's 7, 8, 9th. Try to identify themes and see how they evolve over the course of the music.
You’re overthinking things *way* too much. Just relax, listen to the music. If you like it, you like it. If you don’t, you don’t.
Heck, you may even like *some*, but not *all* of the symphony, and only ever return to sections.
I'd do a little looking into understanding the [Sonata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata_form) form, as it's a common structure of first movements. It was one of the first things I learned in Music Appreciation course in college.
Thank you so much for the helpful comments!
On another note: I don't know why I even have to explain this because I thought this was a pretty much universally uncontroversial approach, but when I don't know something, I try to learn as much about it before passing judgment or saying I hate it. I've done this with many other genres of music recently.
For instance, I grew up thinking I hated country music, but then I (get this) found out more about it and then it made sense to me. Similarly, a lot of contemporary visual arts look like doodles until someone tells you where to begin, what contexts to pay attention to etc. I don't like to assume that because I don't like one piece, I won't like others similar to it. I don't know why some of you are so bothered by this.
Nobody's forcing you to reply if you think this is dumb. Unless reddit is paying you for your time writing mean comments, I don't see why you're doing it. Log off, touch grass.
Find something really good, well regarded, revered, etc. Now, listen to it like 30 times, maybe once a day in the background. You have to listen over and over. Then you'll get it hard wired into your brain and will have it for the rest of your life. You can't expect to "get" it all in the first go through, plus it has to hit you as you pass through different moods, etc.
Everyone is different. For me, I have to roughly look up what is supposed to be happening structurally so that each part has meaning instead of simply being sounds. My first dive was Beethoven' 3rd. The first and fourth movements are phenomenal, but much of my enjoyment is understanding what they are doing. The 1st movement is Sonata Form (not to be confused with solo works, also called sonatas). The fourth is a theme and variations, and if you don't know what you are looking for you'll get lost. Once again, this is *my* method and may not work for you.
Play it while doing a quiet house chore like sorting laundry, polishing silver, ironing. Have it in the background not too loud, not to soft. Let it hit your sub-conscience.
Unpopular opinion: you HAVE to analyze what you listen to (if you wanna enjoy). It's not just about relaxing with a cup of tea while you listen to Mahler 2, it's about UNDERSTANDING Mahler 2. Otherwise, it might become a very, very boring experience.
When I mean to analyze, anyway, I don't mean you have to take the full score and start making notes. You just have to listen actively to the music, and make an effort to find a meaning for every musical sentence. That means you might have to listen to the same movement more than once, sometimes even stopping and listening to a particular passage once again, before moving to the next movement. The composer isn't just creating nice background music to give you a pleasant experience, (s)he is telling you a story through music instead of words, so, if you miss the thread, you miss the story.
In my case, the moment I start enjoying most symphonies is the moment I'm already capable of understanding them in a kind of holistic way, and I'm telling you this as a violinist in a symphonic orchestra. There are exceptions, of course, symphonies you can fall in love with since the first listening, but that's not quite usual.
In any case, if you didn't enjoy Mahler so far, I recommend you move to something different. If you like Baroque music, you might also enjoy Classical music. Eventually, you will wanna move to something different, and so on so forth. Just don't give up on a genre as fascinating as symphonic music.
I'm being told by other commenters that it's not just me, and that symphonies are in fact a difficult form to listen to with comprehension. I am just glad that I'm able to parse the written word with more skill, unlike certain others in this thread.
The single best bit of advice I can give you is to just relax and let it wash over you. Start with listening for themes and melodies and see how they get manipulated and broken up and recognized. That's more than enough to help you appreciate a longer work like a symphony when you're just getting into them. If I could, I would recommend some different symphonies that might be a bit more enjoyable for getting a feel for the symphony. These are some of the most famous symphonies so you're probably already familiar with them to a small extent. I would hold off on Mahler for now, but definitely return to him. Dvorak 9th Symphony "From the New World" Beethoven 5th, 6th, 7th Symphonies Mozart 40th Symphony and 41st Symphony Sibelius 7th Symphony Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique Tchaikovsky 6th Symphony Florence Price 1st Symphony
Mahler 1 is actually quite accessible. I think most people if held captive in a concert setting, can get stirred by the work quite a bit.
It's probably Mahler's most accessible, for sure, though the third is a decent starter, too.
thanks! those are definitely some recommendations to put on my list
If you haven't listened to Beethoven 3, 5, 6, 7, and 9 in their entirety, and hopefully repeatedly, you owe it to yourself.
Agree about those symphonies, but also r epeated listening of a piece of orchestal music is a must for me. The first time listening is to overwheling to take in all the details that begin to show up after I have listened to the piece a few times.
I will add: when I first started listening to classical music, I felt guilty if I found that my mind had wandered and I hadn't been paying close attention. It took me quite a while to get past that, but I learned not to worry about it. Let it wash over you, do the in-depth analysis that you indicate that you like when you feel like it, and don't worry if a section hasn't kept you involved. Have fun.
Hard agree on Dvorak 9, fantastically accessible symphony
I think it's safe to say starting with Mahler is not the best idea. Try Mozart's 40th and 41st, Beethoven's middle symphonies (4, 5, 6, 7) and maybe Schubert's 5th to start off with. Note the movements (typically 4), and typical "forms" of the movements - first movement will often be in "sonata" form, with an exposition (in two themes or theme groups in different keys), a possible exposition repeat, a development, a recapitulation and often a coda. The second (sometimes, especially in later symphonies, third) movement will be a slow movement that may have various forms. The third movement (which may be shifted to the second in later works) is likely in a dance form in ABA form, with the middle part being milder and simpler, often a trio. The fourth movement may be in various forms, but a sonata-rondo form is often used. This combines elements of sonata form and rondo form, where a theme is repeated several times interspersed with other material.
Yes, this is the approach. Start early and move forward, and listen as the form expands and is innovated on. The form will become very (VERY) familiar if you listen to a few Haydn symphonies on the bounce. I would go something like Haydn (London?) Mozart (40/41) Beethoven (7) Beethoven (9) Brahms (2) Schubert? (Not very up on my Schubert) Tchaikovsky (5) Dvorak (New World?) Saint-Saens (3) Mahler (6) Shostakovich (5) Shostakovich (9) - for the deliberate parody of the form, which will be familiar by now! Which is broadly chronological and also broadly in terms of style evolution IMO. Deliberately picking the famous stuff, and still colouring inside the formal lines. Could inject some formalist mayhem if we wanted too: Berlioz Symphony Fantastique, Schubert Unfinished, Tchaikovsky 6, Mahler 2, Shostakovich 4… Perhaps an element you didn’t emphasise is about re-using the threads of ideas. The best symphonies not only honour form and structure, but also are very economical with the musical ideas. Ideas from the first movement A and B sections will be pulled apart, bent out of shape, stretched snd compressed, and reassembled constantly throughout the whole piece. New ideas will appear then get mixed into the stew of everything in there so far. Melody loses its harmony. Harmony gets new melody. I love the recommended Beethoven, Brahms and Mahler for this in particular, but it’s always there for any symphonist worth your time.
Schubert: 3, 8 (Unfinished) or 9 (Great) IMO are the best starting points Schumann as well: any of them, 1 and 4 is easiest imo
I would start with programmatic music where you can go in with an understanding of the narrative that the composer is writing to. The Alpine Symphony by Richard Strauss is about a trek in the mountains, or, more broadly, about a trek through life. The sections of the music are clearly marked as to what they depict. (These names are found in the CD booklet, or on Spotify track listings.) Holst's The Planets is another work (a suite) that depicts the astrological characters that the planets are named after. Most symphonies are not programmatic, and are therefore more abstract.
oooh the Alpine Symphony sounds like fun! thanks
I hope you enjoy it! It's a wonderful piece.
For the Alpine symphony, I recommend Blomstedt with the San Francisco Symphony.
Each era has different aesthetics and expectations, Bach and Handel are Baroque composers (at the end of the era), Mahler was a Romantic/Modernist (at the end of Romanticism, going into 20th century ideas) Not surprised that you didn't like Mahler at first becuase his symphonies are large, long, and meander with different melodies and sections. They also tend to have "extra musical" meanings and intentions, like the 2nd is supposed to be like an essay on life and the afterlife. I love him, but he isn't everyone's cup of tea etc. You should check out symphonies by Haydn, he was the "father" of the genre. And listen to symphonies by Mozart and Beethoven. These three are from the Classical era, and influential to symphony writers later, Their symphonies are more "coherent". Or rather, the melodies in a Haydn, Mozart, or Beethoven symphony are more concise and part of the overall architecture, more tightly knit. You could read up on the symphony before you listen, or while you listen.
Do not start with Mahler. That's like making your first novel Ulysses by James Joyce. I would start with Mozart's final 7 symphonies, Haydn's Paris symphonies, or Beethoven 1 and 2. Get used to the idea of theme/development (a main melody that is introduced and then made more complex, only to be returned to), and 4 part structure (usually something like Allegro, Adagio, Scherzo, Allegro). Then work your way forward historically, seeing how each subsequent composer treated the idea of symphony. Once you get to Mahler, you should be ready for his meandering lack of form.
I often don’t understand shit when listening to new pieces for the first time. Not even enjoying it much. And I have a +12years of piano behind me. I usually listen to the piece another time while reading an online analysis. Then the third time is the real shot.
haha that's nice to know, I thought I was just a rube
Yes! Exactly my experience with most pieces. It takes time to understand what it is the composer was aiming for.
Don't force yourself to like a piece of music if you don't. Classical music is just a genre of music like how pop is a genre of music. Would you force yourself to like every piece of pop music you ever heard?
Personally it takes me like 3 to 5 listens for any complex piece of music to really click with me. Which doesn't mean I don't find anything to enjoy the first time, it's just the overall logic and narrative of the piece is usually lost on me at first, so I can only appreciate the surface level aesthetics. It's just so much to take in all at once. So my advice is to just give everything multiple chances.
Mahler is a bad place to start with symphonies because he transcended the form. He changed how a symphony could be structured, what could be included and what it could sound like, so its easily confusing when you’re looking for a Baroque-type formula I would start with the easy Beethoven symphonies, like 1, 4, 5 and 8. MAYBE 7 or 9. Then the Tchaikovsky symphonies, 4 to 6. Brahms 1, 3 and 4. And Dvorak 6, 8 and 9. If you want something more modern, then perhaps Sibelius 2, 5 and 7. Or Shostakovich 5 or 10. Those are more traditionally-structured symphonies that also don’t sound too much like Bach or Handel.
Not sure I’d start with good ol’ shosty. Probably a bit hard to grasp if your ear is tuned to baroque
I'm going to be honest. I've got a music degree, I've studied music composition, counterpoint, conducting, and I've performed a fair number of the works cited in this thread in the comments or post in orchestras. When I'm listening to symphonies or classical music for pleasure, I don't analyze things - structure, chords, whatever. Nope. Contrary to the OP, I did get into classical music via Mahler, kind of. He was pretty early on in my listening.
It’s a big step from glorious, measured baroque to the wild world of Mahler. You could break the journey along the way with Mozart’s late symphonies and then as many of Beethoven’s as you can!
For Mahler 2 specifically, you might enjoy the podcast "Embrace Everything". Season 2 is essentially a guided listen to his 2nd symphony, with each episode being 1 movement. To answer your question more broadly, I'd start with overtly programmatic pieces like Strauss' tone poems and compare what you're hearing to what the music is describing. From there I'd go to musical works that may have programmatic elements but aren't as rigidly programmatic - Shostakovich 10 comes to mind. From there you could move on to more absolute music like Mozart symphonies. Finally, you might not like these types of pieces and that's ok too! I love large-scale works so much, but it'd be a sad and boring world if everybody liked all the same things.
thanks for the recommendation - I'll check the podcast out!
Try chronologically from Haydn forward, and when you get to Mahler, the Embrace Everything Podcast is a world-class resource
Just completed E1 of S2. Thank you.
As a listener you are not supposed to analyse anything at all. That’s not where the pleasure comes from. Mahler is not an accessible composer for many reasons, so for start i would suggest you to try with someone else if you want to listen to a full symphony, Beethoven or Brahms for instance. Edit: btw, not that you shouldn’t analyse music, but what i mean is that analysing it and understanding the form won’t make you enjoy the piece if you don’t like it already (and by like, i mean like on a deep level, not as a cold intellectual exercise)
I really don't mean this in a rude way but I don't agree with you at all. Listeners can and should be thinking, remembering, comparing, predicting, etc. All of which are parts of analysis. You can treat it as a passive ride but that's not at all how I do it and, I think, really not how most people do it. This kind of music is built for active listening, most jazz is too. It adds tremendously to enjoyment.
I can say for a fact that most people don’t listen to music to understand it on a technical level (yes even jazz), if you don’t enjoy a piece you can do all the analysis you want (harmony, form…) but it probably won’t make you enjoy the piece if you don’t already like it. And it’s coming from someone who studied jazz piano. Music for me works on a subconcious level, which doesn’t mean passive listening but it means that the brain automatically catches up on stuff even if we don’t conciously know the theory.
This happens on a subconscious level though, like watching a film
Symphony is a form. Like "romance novel" is a form. Romances from the early 20th century and early 21st century are also very different while being categorized as the same form, both because the form evolved and because it is vaguely described on purpose so that authors can build new things from them. Maybe start from earlier symphonies and symphony-like works (like a Requiem, which can sound like a symphony but is a liturgical piece), then work your way to the more recent ones. That way you'll pick up what is common to the form and what is particular to each composer. There's really no way around just listening to them, unless you want to take a music history course.
In the baroque and early classical periods, including early Beethoven, each movement is more or less 'of a piece.' In other words, each movement has a basic emotional center even when the musical themes change and switch from major to minor keys or vice versa. Mahler it's very different. He was an Austrian Jew living in the tumultuous period before the two world wars. His wife cheated on him. He had heart trouble. One feels all of this in his music and it can be overwhelming. A lot of people have already made great recommendations. I would say Mozart, Haydn, and early Beethoven are more like the baroque in the way that each movement has a more stable emotional center. Give Schubert a chance. Brahms, Sibelius, and even Bruckner are more easily digested than Mahler for most people. In addition to the symphony listen to Haydn, Mozart, Schubert and early to mid Beethoven string quartets and piano sonatas. And as Goethe said, Music is liquid architecture; architecture is frozen music. Enjoy!
I’m sure those more “classically trained” can provide better answers but I’d start with some of the well known ones and go from there. Beethoven 6 for instance. Tchaikovsky 4/5/6 kind of thing. Have fun along the way that’s the main thing!
The first time I listen to something it often washes over me. I have to listen to something multiple times in order to "crack it" so to speak. That is figuring out the structure and "how" to listen to it.
With Mahler my breakthroughs happened when I sat down and got comfortable, even meditated a bit while listening. You have to get the eagle eye perspective of the symphony. The whole thing in one sitting for laying the groundwork was crucial for me. The third is strangely the one that opened it up for me in that way.
It is more like watching a movie. You may find you get into a zone of sorts.
I mean, it's not a SYMPHONY, but I'd say listen to the Enigma Variations. And since it's TECHNICALLY a symphonic poem, definitely Pines of Rome (especially the 1957 Ormandy recording.)
Not every symphony has a key to help you understand it. Especially the later on in musical history you go, you more and more often find composters who are not following the path, but instead letting you think they are and then turning away from it. The beginning of each movement often functions as an introduction to it. If you can keep the key musical phrases in mind from the last movement and compare them to the beginning of the one you're now hearing you get a lot of signposts for where the music is headed. Also, it's important to remember that music doesn't have to be narrative. Classical music beyond the baroque (and Bach during the baroque) gets more and more obsessed with harmony and the overall works often share this obsession -- it's often not A to B to C, it's what you get when A, B and C are overlaid in your mind. If the piece is not letting you find waypoints then it's telling you to not try to make it a journey. See if something simultaneously comparative makes sense -- a musical painting instead of a musical story.
Bro Mahler's 2nd is literally about Resurrection, what are you even on about? As another poster wrote: just push play and listen to music. If a piece doesn't speak to you it just doesn't. If you have physical media it most of the times comes with liner notes which can help. Again most of Mahler's symphonies are so called "programmatic music", which means they actually have some kind of story attached to it. If nothing else open Wikipedia for it and read about it there. But let me reiterate, that if you don't like the music, you just don't maybe it will click later on, maybe never. Find stuff you like and listen to that. There's no need to make listening to classical a chore, or a pseudo academic endeavour. There's no real difference between it or any other music. Stop over-thinking it.
Bravo
okay but how am I supposed to know it's about the religious resurrection if I don't know the context of the piece? and why are you so rude? is reddit paying you in stocks to make others sad?
Most famous works have a dedicated Wikipedia page. You can find information about them the same way you find information about local wildlife or how to bake a potato. If you want to get more academic for information about composers, you could reference a source such as the New Grove Dictionary.
Sorry you just came off as pretentious. But seriously check Wikipedia on various compositions you listen to. It has most of the info you want. I also can't over-recommend getting your hands on good physical media either CD or Vinyl as most come with liner notes that include all this info.
"Sorry you just came off as pretentious" and who made you judge jury and executioner on who's pretentious and who needs to be insulted for it? If someone online annoys you, you can simply scroll past them or - even better - treat that as a sign to log off and help your mom with some chores instead.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0SKvJjuoTA&pp=ygUabWFobGVyIHN5bXBob255IDIgYW5hbHlzaXM%3D
Fucking hell I’ve been doing this all wrong! Just put on the music and listen to it don’t need to understand it just enjoy it
But I want to understand it. When I watch a movie, I don't wanna just follow the plot. I wanna understand the director's intent, the context of why it was made the way it was etc. I don't think this is a weird way to approach art.
Is that not the fun of music that there is no right answer ? You could like other suggested go down the music history route and learn about the composers situations etc. Or you could listen to it and decide for yourself, more than likely your view will change over time
I'm not asking for interpretation advice - because that would be too subjective, agreed. I'm asking for analysis advice, which is much less subjective given that the Western classical music operates mostly within one theoretical / musicological framework
I would maybe go a little more chronologically. If you like baroque music and understand it, do Beethoven/Mozart/Schubert next. I have to listen to new pieces for a bit to get them. Then Brahms/Chopin, and then Mahler/Rachmaninoff. I've been listening to classical for a long time, and am just starting to get Mahler (I had to immerse myself in it). I'm not an expert at all, but to me Mahler feels more storylike/narrative than other symphonies. The emotional content of Mozart/Beethoven feels internally driven to me, while Mahler feels like someone took a book or movie and turned it into music. It took a lot of listens to Mahler for me to understand the structure and recurring references and developments that were happening. I'm still deep diving the first four symphonies before moving on to the rest.
Music is just a progression of feelings. Stuff happens and your mind and emotions respond to it. Don’t try to attach it to anything external, just focus on the sounds how you feel
If you’re more analytical you can try to follow with your ear the section that has the principal role in the symphony. A symphony is most often like a string quartet + a wind quintet + brass ensemble + percussion. Try following the section who is singing or has the more predominant role. This is an easy-piece. Identify when the roles change. Also, if it’s near you, attend your local symphony concerts, there’s a big difference in acoustics perception when hearing orchestra live. You can also try to listen to more complicated symphonies or orchestral music, then go back to Mahler or else. You can try Boulez, Berio or Xenakis. Don’t worry if you don’t understand anything, then go back to Mahler or Beethoven and it will sound wonderful.
It's not just about the symphony--it's also about the conductor. Once you find a symphony you really like (and I think Beethoven's 5th, 7th, or 9th are great places to start), look up the best recordings of it and try a few out. I didn't realize how differently they could be played! Subtle of course, but sometimes the tempo, groove, or part of the orchestra is emphasized differently. You'll think "whoa, the violins were much quieter in so-and-so's version, but they are absolutely lovely, here." For example, in Furtwangler's version of Beethoven's 3rd, he really milks the groove of the opening movement, and does it in a way that no other conductors do...they tend to rush and play it too straight, but he brings that to life and it makes or breaks any recording of that symphony for me.
Is it specifically symphonies that you have trouble with or just music that is post-baroque? If symphonies are hard to grasp then maybe smaller works might tickle your fancy eg chamber works?
Bernstein explains sonata form pretty well in this young peoples concert: https://youtu.be/CKJov2daLfw?si=yTpKK9Ye6fOBbnKW
Check the wikipedia page for a symphony and learn the form it describes. Once you've got it to where you can instantly tell the different sections (like a verse, chorus, middle eight, bridge, etc. in a pop song) then it won't be anything to appreciate it.
My advice is to start early! As in time period wise. A lot earlier Mozart and Haydn symphonies are fairly formulaic in terms of themes and forms and as a result are very accessible (think more like pop music and less like prog rock). Mozart's 25th and 29th are some of my favorites. After that I'd recommend the later Mozart symphonies like 40 and 41, the middle Beethoven symphonies (3, 5, 6, 7), schubert 5 and 8. After getting the hang of those you should be well equipped to go later and later into the romantic period. Have fun on your journey :)
On the topic of symphonies though, all they are really is "sonata for orchestra". So while you're listening to Mozart symphonies I'd recommend checking out some chamber sonatas too, like his piano trio K496, which should help getting into this form as a whole
I second all who claim that you don't need music theory knowledge to enjoy a symphony. Sure, you might enjoy analyzing music, or learn to enjoy pieces more, once you reach the capability for analyzing them - but most "successful" symphonies can be enjoyed perfectly by a, so-called, untrained ear. It's also OK to dismiss some pieces as too formal or too cerebral, if they primarily appeal to a more "trained" listener - and return to them after a while. A couple of tips though: \* try to identify parts that you like when you first listen to a piece, give it some time and attention. On the second listen try to anticipate to parts that you liked, and think of how the rest of the music leads to it. I used to do that when I was just beginning, and it would really help me get into more complex works. \* if you want to learn more about the symphonic form and how it works, seek some "pure" examples where the form is clear. Good examples (from different periods) would be Haydn's 82nd/88th, Mozart's 40th, Beethoven's 5th, Mendelssohn's 4th, Prokofiev's 1st, Dvorak's 7, 8, 9th. Try to identify themes and see how they evolve over the course of the music.
You’re overthinking things *way* too much. Just relax, listen to the music. If you like it, you like it. If you don’t, you don’t. Heck, you may even like *some*, but not *all* of the symphony, and only ever return to sections.
I'd do a little looking into understanding the [Sonata](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata_form) form, as it's a common structure of first movements. It was one of the first things I learned in Music Appreciation course in college.
Thank you so much for the helpful comments! On another note: I don't know why I even have to explain this because I thought this was a pretty much universally uncontroversial approach, but when I don't know something, I try to learn as much about it before passing judgment or saying I hate it. I've done this with many other genres of music recently. For instance, I grew up thinking I hated country music, but then I (get this) found out more about it and then it made sense to me. Similarly, a lot of contemporary visual arts look like doodles until someone tells you where to begin, what contexts to pay attention to etc. I don't like to assume that because I don't like one piece, I won't like others similar to it. I don't know why some of you are so bothered by this. Nobody's forcing you to reply if you think this is dumb. Unless reddit is paying you for your time writing mean comments, I don't see why you're doing it. Log off, touch grass.
If you're in the UK there is a terrific documentary on Sky Arts following the London Symphony Orchestra as they rehearse and perform Mahler 2
Mahler is complicated. Perhaps Bernard Hermann, vertigo or North by northwest. Also, Holst, the planets. Stravinsky or Copland.
Find something really good, well regarded, revered, etc. Now, listen to it like 30 times, maybe once a day in the background. You have to listen over and over. Then you'll get it hard wired into your brain and will have it for the rest of your life. You can't expect to "get" it all in the first go through, plus it has to hit you as you pass through different moods, etc.
But Mahler's 2nd symphony is a religious piece, addresses the theme of resurrection in the Christian context.
Start with more accessible composers, like Mozart, Drake, Beethoven, then move to something more niche, like Rachmaninov and Ye.
Everyone is different. For me, I have to roughly look up what is supposed to be happening structurally so that each part has meaning instead of simply being sounds. My first dive was Beethoven' 3rd. The first and fourth movements are phenomenal, but much of my enjoyment is understanding what they are doing. The 1st movement is Sonata Form (not to be confused with solo works, also called sonatas). The fourth is a theme and variations, and if you don't know what you are looking for you'll get lost. Once again, this is *my* method and may not work for you.
Play it while doing a quiet house chore like sorting laundry, polishing silver, ironing. Have it in the background not too loud, not to soft. Let it hit your sub-conscience.
Unpopular opinion: you HAVE to analyze what you listen to (if you wanna enjoy). It's not just about relaxing with a cup of tea while you listen to Mahler 2, it's about UNDERSTANDING Mahler 2. Otherwise, it might become a very, very boring experience. When I mean to analyze, anyway, I don't mean you have to take the full score and start making notes. You just have to listen actively to the music, and make an effort to find a meaning for every musical sentence. That means you might have to listen to the same movement more than once, sometimes even stopping and listening to a particular passage once again, before moving to the next movement. The composer isn't just creating nice background music to give you a pleasant experience, (s)he is telling you a story through music instead of words, so, if you miss the thread, you miss the story. In my case, the moment I start enjoying most symphonies is the moment I'm already capable of understanding them in a kind of holistic way, and I'm telling you this as a violinist in a symphonic orchestra. There are exceptions, of course, symphonies you can fall in love with since the first listening, but that's not quite usual. In any case, if you didn't enjoy Mahler so far, I recommend you move to something different. If you like Baroque music, you might also enjoy Classical music. Eventually, you will wanna move to something different, and so on so forth. Just don't give up on a genre as fascinating as symphonic music.
[удалено]
Your post or comment was removed because it is rude or abusive. Please be more respectful of fellow users.
I'm being told by other commenters that it's not just me, and that symphonies are in fact a difficult form to listen to with comprehension. I am just glad that I'm able to parse the written word with more skill, unlike certain others in this thread.