I can recommend the Rosenzweig book, "Gustav Mahler: New Insights into His Life, Times and Work" only to die-hard fans who must get their hands on everything that's out there. It's too odd to be used as a basic biography (it ends at Leipzig), and the "new insights" are neither plentiful or 'deep' enough to warrant the time and expense in acquiring this book, except for us die-hard types. (Guildhall School of Music & Drama, Research Studies 5). Therefore, I will try to share its highlights for those who would like to decide for themselves. I want to acknowledge that this book was hand delivered to me, from London, by a very close friend. I want that friend to know that I am very grateful and am not in the least bit sorry for having read it. On the contrary, in was nice to see a couple of my own strong opinions reinforced. But first off, it must be understood that Rosenzweig's opinions were greatly colored by the fact that he had escaped the Nazis and landed in London after the war.
Rosenzweig embarked on this attempt at a large-scale study in 1933. Obviously, his worked had been greatly interrupted by the terrible events in Europe. Hence, the somewhat hodge-podge nature of what there is. As a biography, Rosenzweig ended close to the time where Mahler made the jump to Leipzig. One positive aspect is that Rosenzweig is extremely detailed about Mahler's early years, and about the events that led up to his Leipzig appointment (Leipzig was prior to Prague, Budapest, Hamburg and Vienna). He does a far better job of painting the geo-political influence upon Mahler's upbringing near the Bohemian/Moravian border than Jens-Malte Fischer does. However, incorporating that geo-political sphere is where, IMHO, Rosenzweig runs into some problems.
Rosenzweig, over and over, emphasizes that Mahler was something of a rebel who ran counter to the more conservative wishes of Cosima Wagner (Bayreuth). However, he gives scant evidence that Mahler was politically opposed to Cosima, or was trying to distance himself from more northern, Hohenzollern influenced, pan-German politics. Mahler was simply, first and foremost, interested in doing what he felt best served Wagner's music. There's no evidence that Mahler was attempting to create a southern 'Hapsburg' art as opposed to a northern influenced, pan-German art that pleased Prussians. For one thing, it needs to be remembered that Mahler's first great success as a composer was with his "Resurrection" Symphony in Berlin. Hohenzollern or Prussian politics played no part in the matter. Rosenzweig reads way too far into other matters as well, such as lumping Mahler into a class of Austrian composers (Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Wolf and Bruckner), while coloring Schumann and Mendelssohn as being more northern 'German' composers. This is incredibly arbitrary.
First off, neither Beethoven or Brahms were native Austrians. Other than the Vienna Woods, Beethoven had no great love for Vienna as opposed to any place else. He was constantly on the move. Brahms - who might very have had some Jewish blood in his background (Abrahms?) - hailed from Hamburg. Schubert was a true Viennese, but there wasn't a whole lot in common, musically speaking, between Schubert and Mahler. Obviously, country dances - Laendler in particular - is what Mahler had in common with both Schubert and Bruckner. After that, the similarities fade very quickly. Schumann may be a more 'northern' German composer, but he strikes me as having far more in common with Mahler than Schubert does (obviously, that's just an opinion). Regardless of where he came from, or where he spent his career, Mendelssohn was a Jewish composer who was also banned by the Third Reich. It seems to me that Rosenzweig is running fanciful with his Austrian vs. German comparisons of various composers. One point that he is flat-out wrong about, is the notion that Mahler performed ALL of the Bruckner symphonies in the U.S. Mahler performed only Bruckner symphonies 4, 5 and 6, and none of them in the U.S. However, he is correct in stating that, in essence, Mahler paid for the first unified printing of Bruckner symphonies 1-9 by forgoing the first 50,000 crowns in royalties for his own works (Universal Edition). Since Mahler passed away not long after that, it was Alma and their daughter, Anna, who would have felt that shortcoming in funds.
One point that I do agree with Rosenzweig upon - only because it seems so obvious to me - is that Mahler was as much a Czech/Moravian composer as he was Austro/German. Rosenzweig goes into some good detail in regards to Mahler's musical relationship to Smetana and Dvorak. For example, he points out that Mahler tried very hard to get an Austrian premiere for Dvorak's great opera, "Resulka" (it didn't materialize for somewhat mysterious reasons on Dvorak's part). As with the case regarding Mahler's musical relationship to Bruckner - or with R. Strauss, for that matter - all this gets a bit nebulous because Mahler spent such a great amount of time and energy in getting his own works performed. Had Mahler had lived longer and with good health, he might have had time to champion these other truly great composers. But as we all know, he faded very quickly at age 50. Penicillin might have checked all that. The ISBN number is 9780754653530.
Topic: quick report on Rosenzweig book (Read 6852 times)