Mahler-related comments by one who knows

[john haueisen]

Recently, a kind friend shared with me a video of Henry-Louis de La Grange's May 7, 2008 address to the Gustav Mahler Society of New York.

As most reading at this website are well aware, Henry-Louis is the brilliant scholar who has spent most of his life researching everything related to Gustav Mahler.

As most of us agree, the most important thing to us is Mahler's music with the special meanings and qualities that move us.  But I just wanted to pass along here a few of Henry-Louis' remarks--remarks that may help us better understand the man and his music.

(speaking about Mahler's music:)  "the more you study it, the more you discover."

(about Alma:)  "She was born jealous;  totally self-centered."  "her vicious and nearly pathological jealousy."
She "usually liked to help people as long as they were not in need of her assistance."

(about Henry Krehbiehl, the critic who so mercilessly attacked Mahler:)  "Krehbiehl was an idiot, a real Beckmesser."

(about Walter Gropius:)  Gropius had "several affairs with married women, but always wanted to meet the husband...and naturally this created ghastly situations."

(about Mahler's tendency to go to the extreme:)  "I like only people who exaggerate;  those who do not interest me much less!"

(demolishing the myth that Mahler was neurotic:)  Neurosis is a "mental illness that causes depression."  It would have been impossible for a neurotic to handle for nearly a decade, the complex demanding duties of the directorship of the Vienna Opera. 

(and finally, his comments on Mahler, which I find to be among the finest articulation of what it is about Mahler that draws many of us to him:) 
  "Mahler was not only a musician, but also an intellectual, a passionate reader, a thinker, a philosopher, a believer, a God-seeker, a metaphysical composer.  Schoenberg called him a saint, and there was indeed something holy about him."

As you know very well, we can all enjoy Mahler's music without knowing any of the above information.  Yet somehow I think it helps to understand a bit more about Mahler's life.   I will be eternally grateful to Henry-Louis de La Grange, for the immense labor and scholarship he has put forth towards providing us with a better view of Mahler--what he was searching for, and his world's attitude towards him.

--John Haueisen

 

[John Kim]

Well done, John.

Yes, I have learned about him almost w/o reading any book about him, only through his music, nothing else.

These comments, however, confirm what I think I learned about Mahler.

Regards,

John,

[Mackjay]

Thanks John--it sounds like a fascinating thing to have seen.

The point that De La Grange makes about a neurotic being incapable of running the Vienna Opera for 10 years is interesting. It makes sense, I guess, but I think we all know about famous, difficult people who sustained control over institutions or their own careers for long periods.
In the case of Mahler, I think an obsessive determination was a key. As I read Vol 2 of De La Grange, I get an detailed view of Mahler's approach to the Opera: he insisted always on quality, as he perceived it. He insisted on good singers, and making fair ones better by giving them opportunities, the same went for the Opera  orchestra, and the Philharmonic orchestra--pushing everyone to their artistic limits at the service of the music. Always at the service of the music. Even critics who disliked the man, often had to admit he achieved incredible results as a conductor and producer. Mahler made plenty of enemies in Vienna, but he left an indelible artistic mark there. Being despised did bother him quite a bit, as we often read in this account, but his determination kept him going.

I recently had some brief discussion about why we like Mahler's music so much. There are as many opinions as there are contributors. It seems impossible to put in simple, easily defined terms. All I could say for myself is that, like you and the other John here and others, I take the music mosty on its own terms. The life is interesting, but for me it adds little to how I experience the music. For me, Mahler's work exemplifies the best of everything I like about music. Around the same time I discovered Mahler, I also discovered Wagner. While I think Wagner is one of the all-time greatest, I still enjoy Mahler more. Listening recently to Die Meistersinger, I was astonished to note how often the music reminds me of Mahler. (The "peasant dance" in Act III, for example, sounds like a powerful influence for The Resurrection Symphony, Movement II, but there are many other, subtle examples). Mahler loved this work and insisted on performing in without cuts in Vienna (to great success).  Sometimes Mahler sounds to me like a more modern Wagner. While I still have a high regard for Wagner, I admit he has sometimes goes on too long for my taste. That's something I could never say about Mahler--

Thanks again for you contribution
Jay

[barry guerrero]

Great comments guys! Thanks. How could anybody add further to that? And I certainly agree about Wagner's profound influence upon Mahler. To my ears, other influences include Beethoven (obviously); Smetana; late Dvorak (the late tone poems); Berlioz (he loved Symphonie Fantastique and the "Damnation Of Faust"); Bach (for contrapuntal ideas), among others (but not so much Bruckner, I must say). But lately, I've been noticing a strong similarity to Haydn; not just in terms of form and structure, but also the constant coming and going of humorous ideas.

Barry

[Mackjay]

Yes, Berlioz is often overlooked in connection with Mahler. He was a champion of the Fantastique when Vienna audiences were walking out on it after the 4th movement....apparently a common occurance! It's very interesting to hear this work and think of Mahler, in terms of personal, idiosyncratic musical expression, characteristic use of instruments, and structure (5 movements). It's also easy to see why the same audiences had a hard time with Mahler's own music if Berlioz was a challenge for them.

As for Bach, I sometimes wonder how many composers after him were not influenced...it's incredible how often admiration for Bach's contrapuntal skill comes up with other composers. Even Verdi and Puccini pay homage in certain passages of their operas

**

On another note, I was reading last night about how Mahler felt he needed to start all over again with each new symphony. He had no desire to repeat himself and each new work required a completely fresh approach. This is why he sometimes took a while to get going (and perhaps why he did not produce more music).