Henry-Louis de La Grange: Does knowledge enhance appreciation of Mahler's music?

[john haueisen]

(This issue is prompted by my just having finished reading Henry-Louis de La Grange's 1758 page Gustav Maher: volume IV: a New Life Cut Short.)

I realize that many Mahler devotees are interested only in his music--no biographical or related facts.  That's perfectly acceptable and I believe biographical information is not required for an appreciation of music.

That said, I also believe that more knowledge enhances our appreciation for most things, and thus, learning the conclusions of a brilliant man who has devoted his life to the study of Mahler can help us grow in our appreciation.

La Grange does not just report that a certain concert in say, Munich was successful.  He presents the writings of various critics and other musically-knowledgeable people who attended that concert.  He even explains why certain Mahler symphonies were not always warmly received.

Henry-Louis' mammoth work totally demolishes the popular misconception that Mahler was, at the end of his life, a neurotic and broken man.  He shows from Mahler's letters and remarks he made to friends (which survive in letters) that he was optimistic and looking forward to a retirement in which he could spend more time at composing.  As La Grange's title puts it, Mahler's death was "a new life cut short."  I point out this example to make my case that popular (and Leonard Bernstein) attitudes that the 9th was a farewell to the world, may be tempting to believe, but the facts show that Mahler was in love with life, and had found that his heart condition did not stop him from composing or conducting.  He was looking forward to the years ahead.  This illustrates how biographical knowledge can impact, and in many cases enhance our appreciation of Mahler's music.

What do you think--does more knowledge help you appreciate the music a bit more?   

[John Kim]

I realize that many Mahler devotees are interested only in his music--no biographical or related facts.  That's perfectly acceptable and I believe biographical information is not Henry-Louis' mammoth work totally demolishes the popular misconception that Mahler was, at the end of his life, a neurotic and broken man.  He shows from Mahler's letters and remarks he made to friends (which survive in letters) that he was optimistic and looking forward to a retirement in which he could spend more time at composing.  As La Grange's title puts it, Mahler's death was "a new life cut short."  I point out this example to make my case that popular (and Leonard Bernstein) attitudes that the 9th was a farewell to the world, may be tempting to believe, but the facts show that Mahler was in love with life, and had found that his heart condition did not stop him from composing or conducting.  He was looking forward to the years ahead.  This illustrates how biographical knowledge can impact, and in many cases enhance our appreciation of Mahler's music.

What do you think--does more knowledge help you appreciate the music a bit more?   

"A new life cut short"

So, does this mean M9th recordings whose Finale's don't sound too pessimistic, e.g., Boulez, represent true Mahler spirit of this music??

John,

[Mackjay]

Hi John

It's funny you bring this up now. I have been reading Volume 2 of the same work. We learn so many details about Mahler's life (he suffered from hemmorrhoids!). Personally, I find it all interesting, especially the conducting work--the music Mahler liked and how his interpretations were perceived adds to the pleasure of reading. De La Grange really seems to capture the lost era of turn-of-the-century Vienna, and it's fascinating.

Does this add to appreciating Mahler's music? As a trained musicologist I want to say NO. Music should stand on its own terms. I personally have never wanted to think about Alma or anything else when listening to Mahler. However, I do think his personal emotions (in the completely abstract sense) enter into his music (and this likely happens with most composers). So sometimes I do think that the music is expressing how Mahller feels about life, the world, nature, etc... It's still very subjective, and sometimes I wonder what people who know nothing about the man think when they hear Mahler for the first time. For example, does it help to understand the possible meaning of Mahler's juxtapositions of musical images or styles? In the 4th movement of M4, for example, does the jangling 'refrain' seem oddly placed next to the lyrical vocal line, or does it make musical sense to someone who doesn't know about Mahler? The question you raise is a long-debated one, and I doubt it can ever be resolved. As a longtime Mahler fan, I always want to know more about his life---but mostly about his conducting and composing career, not so much about the personal details and romantic intrigues. When I listen to the music I hear it as pure, abstract emotion. Where Mahler sets words, as in the KINDERTOTENLIEDER, I think he seems to find words, though written by another, that give a new dimension to his always very strongly characterized music.

[Damfino]

Henry-Louis' mammoth work totally demolishes the popular misconception that Mahler was, at the end of his life, a neurotic and broken man.  He shows from Mahler's letters and remarks he made to friends (which survive in letters) that he was optimistic and looking forward to a retirement in which he could spend more time at composing.  As La Grange's title puts it, Mahler's death was "a new life cut short."

 

I have only read one biography of Mahler. I was also struck by how Mahler's life seemed to be on the upswing at the end of his Vienna tenure. One constantly hears that the end of the Vienna Opera post was a "severe blow", but in the book I read, it seemed that Mahler wanted to compose more, and needed a less demanding job, and he negotiated a very favorable end to the Vienna contract and was probably optimistic about his future at that point.

I agree that one need not read a great deal about a composer to appreciate the music. Most of my reading tends to be nonfiction/history, so I was interested enough in Mahler to read a one-volume biography. The book I read was by Egon Gartenberg, and was divided into two parts. The first part was straight bio, and the second part was about the music and how it may have related to his bio. I would not pursue a multi-volume bio on Mahler. I will count on those of you who do to provide us an occasional nugget of information.

[john haueisen]

 John Kim said:  
[/quote]
"A new life cut short"

So, does this mean M9th recordings whose Finale's don't sound too pessimistic, e.g., Boulez, represent true Mahler spirit of this music??
John,
[/quote]

John, couldn't we also point out that Mahler was very good at expressing the extremes of human emotions and aspirations.  What was going on in his life was not necessarily expressive of the music he wrote at that time.  For example, he wrote Kindertotenlieder at the time when he should have been happiest and most content.
--John H

[sperlsco]

We learn so many details about Mahler's life (he suffered from hemmorrhoids!).

So Mahler and I do indeed have things (thing?) in common!   

Personally, I began to enjoy Mahler's music much more as I read biographies and musical analysis.  This is perhaps due to the fact that I have little formal musical education.  However, it seems failry certain that Mahler wanted his music to stand on its own. 

[john haueisen]

Re: hemorrhoids,

In fact one flare-up of Mahler's hemorrhoid problem resulted in the loss of nearly a liter of blood, and very nearly could have been fatal.  This may have been one of the underlying reasons for his somewhat eccentric meal demands, which included special loaves of whole wheat bread and his fondness for lots of his favorite butter.

--John H

[john haueisen]

Scott is absolutely correct that Mahler wanted his music to stand on its own.  Having little formal musical education myself, I have also found that reading biographies and musical analysis helps me enjoy Mahler's music more.  Let remember too, that although Mahler wanted his music to stand on its own, he did in the early years, put out programs describing "what the music was about."  Perhaps like watching "The Media" today bungle the facts of a story, Mahler decided against further publication of programs or what the music was about.  Less publicly, he did still comment on what we might loosely call "the meaning" of his music.
We have the good fortune to be able to read the words of Mahler's devoted admirer, Natalie Bauer-Lechner, who went with him on his long walks, hanging on every word.  She then went home and reported them assiduously to her diary.   Clearly, from what she wrote, he had very clear feelings and intentions for a program-like idea behind his musical works, remarking frequently as Richard Wagner had, that the music fills in what the words alone cannot describe.
--John H

[john haueisen]

Mackjay said:
As a longtime Mahler fan, I always want to know more about his life---but mostly about his conducting and composing career, not so much about the personal details and romantic intrigues. When I listen to the music I hear it as pure, abstract emotion.

I would just like to add that many of us who read books ABOUT Mahler do not do it for all the personal details or romantic intrigues, but to find clues that might help us understand more about his music.
For example, Mahler was always fascinated by Richard Strauss' ability to write many types of splendid music with such ease.  Mahler seemed puzzled when he would ask Strauss about the ideas behind his music, and Strauss would reply to the effect, "Hey, I write music.  I'm good at it.  I make lots of money doing it."
Some of us who read about Mahler are interested in finding clues that might help us better understand his music, we hope with better results than Mahler had understanding Strauss.

There's also absolutely nothing wrong with approaching Mahler's music for its pure abstract emotion, or even just because it sound very pleasing to us, for whatever reasons. 

--John H

[Mackjay]

  Mahler was always fascinated by Richard Strauss' ability to write many types of splendid music with such ease.  Mahler seemed puzzled when he would ask Strauss about the ideas behind his music, and Strauss would reply to the effect, "Hey, I write music.  I'm good at it.  I make lots of money doing it."
--John H

I used to like to argue with friends who preferred Strauss to Mahler by saying that Mahler composed music because he wanted to do it, Strauss did it because he made money from it.

By the way, did anyone see the quote from Simon Rattle saying he was surprised to find a few Berlin Phil players who still think Strauss was a greater composer than Mahler? I heard him say this in his intro to the Carnegie Hall performance of M9. He also says that M9.II expresses "everything Mahler hated about the country" and III expresses "everything Mahler hated about the city"....does anyone know where he gets these ideas? They sound pretty odd to me.  Maybe I missed something

[john haueisen]

Sounds pretty odd to me too.  In all my readings about Mahler I haven't come across a hatred for the country or for New York City.  As to the city, he loved to look out his apartment windows for hours, watching Central Park.  Also, in America he, for the first time, had his own orchestra, that he was shaping up into an excellent instrument.
Perhaps the notion of dislike or hatred was started by Alma's remark that (the ladies committee of the Philharmonic of) New York killed him.  La Grange explains that Mahler's misunderstanding with the ladies committee of the Philharmonic resulted primarily from a matter of language--his limited understanding of English.  Minnie Untermeyer, who had usually been his helpful translator, and who usually explained his point of view to the Philharmonic Guarantors, was on vacation in Florida.  So when the orchestra sponsors held a meeting with Mahler, with a lawyer hidden behind a curtain taking notes, Mahler was rightfully offended.  Had Untermeyer been present, she likely would have explained to Mahler why the orchestra sponsors felt pressure to take more control away from him, in order to qualify from financing by the Pulitzer Foundation.  They were fighting the same battles we fight today to fund their symphony orchestra.  They recognized that Mahler was a brilliant conductor and a vital part of their organization.  Their lack of tact in this instance can at least be understood.

Additionally, Mahler was too big a human being to make NY, or even America, a part of an angry or depressed movement of M9.

Perhaps, again, it's Alma's handiwork.  The Philharmonic had demanded that Mahler conduct dozens of additional performances beyond what his contract had required, and they were quibbling over paying him for the additional work he had done.  Alma was probably indignant that they would ask so much more of him--and then balk at paying for it.   

Does anyone else have suggestions as to where Rattle might have gotten these notions?

--John H

[Jot N. Tittle]

By the way, did anyone see the quote from Simon Rattle saying he was surprised to find a few Berlin Phil players who still think Strauss was a greater composer than Mahler? I heard him say this in his intro to the Carnegie Hall performance of M9. He also says that M9.II expresses "everything Mahler hated about the country" and III expresses "everything Mahler hated about the city"....does anyone know where he gets these ideas? They sound pretty odd to me.  Maybe I missed something

This may have come from Bernstein's theories about M-9 that he put forth in his lecture on it. Anyone else recall that?

     . & '

[Mackjay]

Rattle never mentions NYC, only says "the country" and "the city". The country part is odd too, considering how much we do know about Mahler's love of nature.
I agree with your observations and thanks for the info from the latest LaGrange. I hope to get to that one someday.

As for the Bernstein theory, it does sound possible. As much as I like Bernstein's conducting I don't always share his views of composers and their music. Of course I am always grateful to him for the way he championed Mahler in the 1960s

[john haueisen]

I too enjoy some of Bernstein's Mahler performances, and I believe he really did enjoy Mahler, although Bernstein frequently appeared to be a bit of a prima donna.  And we all do need to remember how hard he worked to draw attention to Mahler's work (yes--while sharing the spotlight with himself).

As to "country" and "city," if he were not referring to NYC, I still can't imagine how he could have anything against cities per se.  After all, much of his fame he acquired while in Vienna, and again later he had his successes in New York.

As Jot N. Tittle suggested, perhaps we need to revisit Bernstein's comments about Mahler.
--John H

[stillivor]

Just been the repeat of an interesting prog on Mahler's health and his music, presented by Prof.Robert Winston.

For a few days, you might be able to hear it from :-

http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?q=robert+winston%27s+musical+analysis&Search=Search&uri=%2Fradio4%2Fschedule%2Fglance%2F

and click on 'listen again'.

I'll be interested to know, too, if peple in the US, e.g., were able to listen - I'm assuming you will.


   Ivor