Why Mahler?

[nickmolland]

Norman Lebrecht's book is now out, and looks to be a good read for what it is - an attempt to answer the question (from a sympathetic perspective) of Mahler's present day pre-eminence. I've flipped through it, and the blurb description of it as 'part-biography, part-travelogue and part-hitchiker's guide' seems to be about right. Being Lebrecht, though, it's spiced with gossip (some of which might even be true) and anecdote. I wonder what  others think of it?

[mister bob]

I would read an article by Lebrecht if it were in a magazine I had already purchased, or listen to him in the car on the radio, but would not buy a book of his.  I would classify Lebrecht as the classical music world equivalent to a 'shock jock', whose main aim is to provoke and perhaps scandalise.  I find him primarily interested in the promotion of Lebrecht, and is happiest when putting others down, rather than finding any joy in new discoveries or celebrating the creative impulse.  In recent years I have personally found the writings of Barenboim and Said [sadly departed] to be more likely to make me rush and and by a CD, or listen afresh to an established classic.  Lebrecht might have something of note to say about Mahler, but I am concerned about a critic who seems to court controversy for the sake of it.

[vvrinc]

Geraldo wrote something about Mahler?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/20/arts/music/20lebr.html?_r=1

“...accuracy-challenged,” and he writes books. Does he also write speeches for BP executives?

[Matthew]

I'm intrigued, but I'll probably give it a miss, as I find Lebrecht's flights of fantasy a bit too much to swallow. There's too much speculation and gossip for my liking and not enough objectivity, but he's out to sell books. I'm currently on Vol. 3 of de La Grange and find it riveting -- I think it tells us a lot more about the real Mahler in all his facets. Here's a review of the Lebrecht book (although the writer "went off" Mahler....):

http://www.spectator.co.uk/books/6098728/fate-death-and-alma.thtml

[GL]

Why spend precious time on a Lebrecht "book" or on a review about it? Life is too short for all this garbage!

Regards,
Luca

[barry guerrero]

You can argue that Naxos has undermined the whole system of performers expecting royalty payments. But on the other hand, thanks to Naxos, tons of classical performers and orchestras get distribution who would otherwise - most likely - never would  have seen the light of day beyond their immediate neighborhoods. They would have remained unknown, in other words. 

[Constantin]

Here I am, coming out of a time warp, on this topic that started to get discussed almost 10 years ago.
Knowing my love for "everything Mahler," a friend gave me Lebrecht's "Why Mahler?  How One Man and 10 Symphonies Changed the World."
Has anyone else read this book, and what do you think of it?  My first impression, after the 80 pages, is that Lebrecht seems influenced quite a bit by his own views and what he wants to believe.
I'm fairly indulgent about the thoughts of anyone who appreciates Mahler's work, but I'd welcome hearing the thoughts of others on the subject of Lebrecht and his perspective on Mahler.

Constantin (a.k.a. John Haueisen)

[barryguerrero]

Lebrecht is a little bit 'all over the map' and not the best at checking facts. However, there's no denying his enthusiasm, nor his more 'man on the street' approach to writing about Mahler.

[Constantin]

Thanks Barry.   That pretty much describes my impression of the first 80 pages I've read of Lebrecht.
He grabbed my attention with his title:  "WHY MAHLER?  HOW ONE MAN AND 10 SYMPHONIES CHANGED THE WORLD.
Lebrecht seems to see things he wants to see, like Mahler as an early environmentalist and inspiration to Mikhail Gorbachev.
I check most of his footnotes and often find myself questioning whether they support the claims he makes.
But Lebrecht does have a great affection for Mahler, so I can't help being more indulgent than usual.