Last night I went on a date with Gretchen (a fellow mathematics graduate student). She needed someone to go with, and I guess I was a safe choice since my missionary comes back in a few weeks. I’m very glad she felt comfortable enough to ask me, because I had a great time. But more on that subject later.

We went to the BYU Philharmonic Symphony’s production of Mahler’s Resurrection. It was excellent. Anything that gets that many strings together in one place can’t be bad. I think there must have been 40 violins/violas (not that I could tell the difference), and about half that many cellos/string basses. Apparently Mahler called for twice as many musicians as Beethoven did for his 9th.

There were so many people that huge ranges in volume were possible. Not just possible, but executed. I think dynamics is one of the things that pop songs really lack. When was the last time you heard a pop song where you strained to hear it one moment and were afraid your eardrums would burst the next. I can’t remember either. The only drawback is that listening to Classical music in my car is difficult because it’s so noisy. Certainly not enough reason to like pop music.

Pop music, with it’s extremely short songs, has also caused me to have a short attention span when it comes to music, and in fact anything in general. I had a hard time focusing for the whole concert. This has nothing to do with the quality of the music, or the comfort of the seats, but is a reflection on my weakness. I swear that I used to have a much better attention span. Now I am nothing short of pathetic. :-(

Mahler was born in Bohemia (I was just there), and lived a troubled life. Several of his family died and he tried to make some sense out of it through his music. Therefore the first movement of Resurrection represents funeral rites (according to one of the three programs that Mahler wrote). It was haunting and beautiful. For parts of it the strings would be playing very softly a sort of drone in the background. So many violins playing softly was delightful to hear. The first movement alone was enough to convince me that I needed to buy a recording of it.

After the first movement there was a five minute pause. Not an intermission it was pointed out, but a break dictated by Mahler so that the next movement wouldn’t be too abrupt a change. I can see why he was concerned with this. The next movement was very lighthearted. Also enjoyable, but without the depth of the first. Worth buying, but for a different mood. The third movement was a sort of parody of the second, and rather interesting.

What I thought was most impressive was his use of the choir. In the fourth act Mahler introduces a contralto soloist. Then in the fifth and final movement he calls for a huge choir and a soprano soloist. Since the choir was so large it allowed for them to sing very quietly and still be heard. I really enjoyed this. I think I like when people sing quiet better than when they sing loud. I don’t know why, but there you have it. I also thought the choir was used well. Just enough to be enjoyable, but not enough to become annoying, as choirs often do.

Another thing I realized was that the experts are right. Sopranos, and violins are better than everything else. My whole life I thought that it was cool, and cultured to not like Sopranos and violins because they were the most popular. But they are the most popular because they are the best. At least they can be. I will be the first to admit that there are few things worse than a bad soprano, or a poorly-played violin, but likewise there are fewer things that are better than virtuosi in the aforementioned areas. Sort of the opposite of pumpkin pie ;-) And let me say that last night both were excellent. I need to find a recording or two of sopranos that are as good as Itzhak Perlman.

Kay Kirkpatrick told me long ago that Mahler was very good, but I never got around to listening to him. I’m glad that I did now because I enjoyed it immensely. I keep telling myself that I need to go to more concerts. Anyway this performance made me wonder if having the answers decreases one’s creativity. For example Poe and Van Gogh (among others) had very difficult lives, and they produced wonders. It seems to be rather common. It seems most good artists had “issues”. Is that perhaps why there few good Mormon artists? Not enough angst to inspire them? Then the question becomes, is it worth it? Is being a genius worth giving up your sanity? Or at the very least experiencing a good deal of pain? I think it might be. I think I would be willing to suffer a little to be a genius. Maybe if I were in the situation I would think differently though. If Mahler was anything like I am, he probably didn’t view his music as masterpieces, and therefore not really worth having written.