Our fascination with Mahler.

[Toblacher]

How much of our fascination with GM has to do with his personal life?  Comparing him with, say Bruckner, and we have polar opposites.  Bruckner's life history was probably the most boring and uninteresting of all composers, whereas GM's life history makes for volumes of discussion.  If Mahler's life was like Bruckner's (but all of GM's music would remain the same) would we still have the same interest in his music?  I say yes, but his life history adds to the music.  Thoughts?

[waderice]

I think it has to do with the fact that Mahler was primarily an artist consummate and an intellectual.  I perceive that most of us here at the Gustav Mahler Board are of the same ilk.  Bruckner was a spiritual man, to the extreme in the traditional sense (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church), and what flowed from his pen was guided by that spirituality.  We may throw J.S. Bach in here, along with Bruckner, but Bach's spirituality was guided by what Sir Thomas Beecham called "Protestant counterpoint".

In his personal life, there was certainly more to have interest in as far as Mahler was concerned, and there are too many issues with him as to where to begin.  At least, as far as success with the opposite sex was concerned, Mahler was more successful than Bruckner, to a limited degree.  Thus the lack of acted-out drama with the opposite sex with Bruckner, and more so with Mahler.  As an individual, Mahler knew what he wanted, and set out to try to achieve his desired goals.  Bruckner didn't; thus that's why he was the continual revisionist of his works.

Wade

[Roffe]

I got addicted to Mahler's music long before I got interested in the man and his life. But getting to know about his life and getting maybe an idea of how he was thinking and working surely adds a new dimension to his music. Just my 2 cents.

Roffe

[barry guerrero]

"If Mahler's life was like Bruckner's (but all of GM's music would remain the same) would we still have the same interest in his music?"

I don't mean to sound pedantic, but I think that's a bit of a 'slippery slope'. I think the differences between Mahler and Bruckner get exaggerated as much as their similarities do. I think just how boring Brucikner's life supposedly was, must be an exaggeration. And while Mahler's life may have been rather sensational in comparison, it also involved an awful lot of hard work and travel. Both were ambitious, hard workers. Their life styles might have differed greatly, but there's probably much about Bruckner's life that simply didn't get recorded or publicized. The overly pious image of him conveniently fits the, "church mouse that roared" concept about Bruckner. I don't know - that's a bit of head-scratcher.

[waderice]

"church mouse that roared" concept about Bruckner.

    That's a good one I'll have to remember!

Wade

[john haueisen]

Although I'm always eager to learn more about Mahler's personal life, it is only because of interest created by his music.
His music captivated me.  Starting with the non-vocal works, I was attracted to the music.  Interest in the music led me to wonder about what the words were saying in these marvelous musical statements.  Putting the words together with the music caused me to want to know more about the man who achieved this vocal and symphonic synthesis.

Learning of Mahler's working years--earning a living by attracting more and more "customers" to orchestra houses, helped him refine his abilities to look at a composer's work, and try to determine what he thought was being said, and then getting the orchestra, singers, and stage people, to work together to bring off the best representations of what each composer was working towards.

Our fascination with Mahler is similar to what the public sees in a star athlete:  the ability to "do the job" as well or better than anyone has done it before.  But concerning Mahler, his thematic subject is loftier than athletics.  It is confronting the great artistic and spiritual values such as the meaning of life, man's yearning to understand more about God and death.  It takes a far braver man than an athlete, to dare to consider such transcendental issues.

John Haueisen

[Damfino]

I agree with those who say they were interested in the music first and foremost. I have only read one biography of Mahler. Most of the info I have gleaned on Mahler (aside from the one book) and other composers has been from liner notes of LPs and CDs.

Dave

[mahler09]

I have to agree with the earlier sentiments in that Mahler's music was what first made me interested in him.  That being said, he is (was?) a fascinating personality and by reading his letters and learning about him I am able to better understand his music.  He's opened me up to an entire world of philosophy, literature, and history.  

Getting back to what was said on Bruckner... there is some of his music that I like a lot, but other pieces don't have the same magic for me.  Personality isn't everything... I guess that also works vice versa for composers like Wagner.  His personality isn't 'bland' like Brukner's but it has its uglier aspects.  

[stillivor]

It all began and long continued with the music for me too. Knowing about his life and opinions has filled out what he did. Knowing how many composers he subsequently influenced has been another part of the story.

Bruckner's my 3rd favourite composer  . The lack of interestingness  of his life hasn't lessened the pleasure i get from his symphonies especially. I just wish bruckner was played more often. Still, plenty of recordings.

Ivor