This strikes me as a tad shallow for The N.Y. Times but its content doesn't surprise me either. In N.Y., it has become fashionable to present a sort of 'revisionist' account of what happened to Mahler there. While it's true that Mahler enjoyed a great amount of artistic freedom with the N.Y. Phil., it's also true that he was cornered by the women who ran the board; so much so, in fact, that a lawyer was present - hidden behind a screen, really - to record what Mahler had said when he became hot under the collar. In short, they set a trap. How was that so much better than how he was treated in Vienna? Further more, he was pushed into doing more work with the N.Y. Phil. because Toscanini wasn't content with performing just the Italian repertoire at the Met: he wanted the German literature as well. Again, explain to me how he was treated so much worse in Vienna? Throughout his entire career, Toscanini hardly ever even acknowledged the existence of Gustav Mahler, much less perform his works.
It's also not true that Alma said all kinds of horrible things about N.Y. In fact, quite the opposite was true. Alma acknowledged that people in N.Y. were, in general, more 'open' than their Viennese counterparts. When Mahler became gravely ill, she acknowledged that everybody in their N.Y. hotel, as well as the N.Y. medical community, were most helpful to them. This can all be easily verified by reading Alma's allegedly faulty memoirs (it's true that she made a habit of embellishing the truth).
While the New Yorkers may not have used antisemitism as a weapon (for obvious reasons, most likely), they were, in fact, more brutish towards Mahler when they wanted him to change his ways, or to simply get out of the way. This statement is a fact, and not just an opinion on my part. Nothing quite so horrible happened to Mahler in Vienna. The truth is, he was fully in charge there - with full support from the crown - and Mahler's brutish behavior towards his staff and other musicians was what sparked many of the antisemitic comments to begin with. They may have 'dogged' Mahler when he was in command in Vienna, but few people really wanted to see him go. Many in Vienna knew that it was an end of era. The prime motivating factor for Mahler going to New York - aside from having to deal with antisemitic comments - was money, pure and simple. Mahler said as much himself.
Topic: When Mahler took Manhattan (Read 7753 times)