Which M6 has the best hammer blows?

[john haueisen]

Absolutely!  It's always good to rein in our unbridled speculations (if something unbridled can be reined in).
But bearing in mind that the important thing is the music, we still must not deny ourselves the opportunity to think about what was going on in Mahler's world--things that may have helped make the man who wrote the music:  things like the development of theories of evolution, Freud and psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and the theories of evolving humans, all the new technological innovations, like telegraph and telephone, automobiles, a brave new world.

Yes, thank you for a reminder that the only thing certain is the music.  But perhaps some of us  can better appreciate it by allowing our imagination to join our intellect to aid our ears (always bearing in mind that we may be going astray).
John H 

[Polarius T]

...we still must not deny ourselves the opportunity to think about what was going on in Mahler's world--things that may have helped make the man who wrote the music...

This rings especially true in the case of Mahler, given that if there was one composer who managed to "attain the universal through the lens of the personal," it was Mahler -- this is indeed where his greatness lies in in the annals of music. The records kept by Natalie Bauer-Lechner are therefore very valuable as they provide us with perhaps the most trustworthy access to M's personal and even private world. And she is quite reliable, as proven by research done afterwards by others; moreover, Mahler was apparently quite aware that Bauer-Lechner was so copiously recording his words and details of his life for posterity, so he may in fact have used her as a channel to explain his thinking more broadly (M always worked with the posterity in the back of his mind, as we know from other sources too). So to suspect her for having been a "pushy broad looking for juicy quotes" appears more than an overstatement. Rather, she was a close friend and a confidant and also a personal assitant working intensely with Mahler for a period. She certainly was no Alma.

So I'd say the personal you are talking about remains vital for our understanding of Mahler's music without having to necessarily dissolve itself to mere biographical trappings -- and without our having to take everything at the face value (we know Mahler was prone to getting carried away on occasion). And Bauer-Lechner's reports serve us as an important source not just of musicological and music-historical facts but also for more personal and philosophical reflection on this great music.

Methinks,

-PT

[Dave H]

I agree that Bauer-Lechner is an important and valuable (and reliable) source--but that isn't really the issue. The issue is, even assuming that she reported everything accurately, what did Mahler MEAN by what he said--how was it uttered? In what tone of voice? Under what circumstances? How serious was he? We simply can't know.

I also agree with John--that knowing something of the composer and, more importantly, the historical context can be valuable, though I think the insights gained shed more light on the biography than on the music itself. I do think it's a big, big mistake to read into a piece of music some sort of theoretical "Zeitgeist," unless we know for a fact that the composer was aware of the "Geist of the Zeit." Again, if the desire is to put things in context, then we first must be sure that the context we see today, what we have singled out as historically significant, is also what Mahler would have recognized and acknowledged.

Music can be used as historical evidence in studying non-musical intellectual trends, but only in certain circumstances, and in a very specific and limited way. I do have some experience in this field--it's what I taught when I was a fellow in the history department at Stanford (the most memorable and productive outcome of which was my friendship with Barry!). 

One of the subjects we studied was, for example, changing attitudes toward the Orient in French music of the 19th century, from works such as Delibes' Lakme to Ravel's Chansons Madecasses. Here you can see the change in the Western view of itself from colonialist (the West representing nobility and virtue) to decadent (the West as the agent of corruption and decay). But note: the music must have a text. Otherwise there is no way to link it to any other intellectual trend (whose means of articulation necessarily is written language). Using "abolute" music in such a way is very difficult, and in both cases we are putting the music in a larger context. Going the other way--trying to put the context into the music, is virtually impossible as anything other than wishful thinking.

Dave H

[Polarius T]

Yes, but you are talking about history of ideas; this is not what is referred to by Zeitgeist, at least not by anyone who knows his German, philosophy, or history. The concept is philosophical and sociological, and it talks about the state of the world, of Life if you wish (or even Weltlauf in a way, if you want to use another Hegelian term), and that's what John's comment was aimed at, I believe: Mahler as an index of his times. Accordingly it is perfectly relevant to state things like (I'm not quoting directly) whoever doesn't hear the victorious forward march of the bourgeoisie in Beethoven's Eroica isn't really listening to it. In a similar fashion, in the case of Mahler and his music, Zeitgeist makes itself felt in the dissolution of the received sonata form, his Weltschmerz, etc. And it's not something that the composer needs to be conscious of at all; just the opposite, this is something that can only be understood in hindsight (ever heard of Minerva's owl?). At best, a person can become one with "Zeitgeist," expressing the historical movement, like Mahler; but it's not about some ideas residing in his head. The term as cultivated in popular parlance today refers to something completely different: it's usually about fashion, trends, signs of the times, that sort of things.

The challenge for source criticism that you mention applies to every existing historical record and is in no way limited to or more topical in the case of Bauer-Lechner's reports. In fact her notes form probably one of the more reliable Mahler testimonies we have whose veracity owes a lot not only to Bauer-Lechner's closeness to and respect of Mahler but also her unique ability to understand what the composer was after (in speaking as in writing, both personally and as a trained musician). In this sense I don't think we find many misrepresentations in the book and the questions you pose sound a bit academic and like something that appliy to any and all records of anything we ever take. I would tend to think Bauer-Lechner was herself capable of being critical already at the source to ensure that nothing less than the most truthful portrayal possible would emerge. If we are to try and gain a better insight into the very spheres inhabited by Mahler, I don't think we have a better place to start.

-PT

[Dave H]

I am puzzled why you still feel the need to defend Bauer-Lechner. I agree that she is probably a reliable source about what Mahler said. We have no evidence to the contrary. The question, though is not what Mahler said, but what he MEANT when he said it, because the words themselves are just the beginning of subsequent discussion. You go too far in defending her ability to interpret and characterize what she heard. The truth is, neither you nor anyone else has the ability to judge her in this respect. The most we can say is that we trust the sincerity of her intentions. Beyond that, it's all guesswork, and it's perfectly reasonable to sound a caution in this respect, even if the same caution is applicable to other situations, circumstances, or sources. Unfortunately music history (and criticism) suffers from a particularly accute lack of rigor in considering the value of sources and weighing evidence, and I am merely pointing out this fact.

Dave H

[Polarius T]

I am puzzled why you still feel the need to defend Bauer-Lechner.

Sorry if you feel like I was repeating what you had already understood, but I have no way of telling how much you know, not really having that much to go by from these debates apart from some questionable claims. At some point I did ask you to reciprocate in "playing with an open hand," as I think you put your initial request to me, but so far you've preferred not to.

The most we can say is that we trust the sincerity of her intentions. Beyond that, it's all guesswork

Sorry, but I'm not sure what are you talking about here. That's why we have musicology, music history, biography, cultural history, art history, philosophy, all the different fields of study working in tandem to figure out what he meant with different things. This research has pretty well validated the Bauer-Lechner's accuracy (which then is an indication of her sincerity). Let me counter: I'm puzzled why you would still want to debate this point. As was already stated, your point is something that applies to every single historical record existing in the world. (And some would claim to every single speech situation going on in daily life as well.) So why bring Bauer-Lechner up in this connection? The point was about whether we can access something larger through the spectre of the personal.

...the same caution is applicable to other situations, circumstances, or sources.

Indeed, so why bring any of this up? If I may return one of your compliments, that was all then but the longest truism I've seen in a while.

-PT

[Dave H]

I don't want to belabor this further, and am not going to get into a tit-for-tat exchange of insults with you. Sticking with the topic at hand, I would conclude by simply pointing out that the fact that an observation has general applicability does not make it a truism. I raise the issue precisely because it has direct bearing on attempting to access the work "through the spectre of the personal" (as you put it). The very notion presupposes we have a reliable way of knowing what "the spectre of the personal" is--that means in this case going to a variety of sources, most of which are second-hand. There is no definitive statement on what Mahler had in mind with respect to the hammer blows--at least as John framed the original question. Too often, biographical sources (or local influences, or ideological constrocts) are given far more weight then they deserve. I used the example of Bauer-Lechner precisely because she is a good source, and so makes an apt illustration of the issues that should be considered. These may be obvious points to you. If so, then I offer them to anyone for whom they are not.

Dave H

[Polarius T]

am not going to get into a tit-for-tat exchange of insults with you.

So that forces me to conclude that what I took for a compliment in the past you meant as an insult instead.
That would kind of confirm your own point, though; from your words I may have misread your intentions.

an observation has general applicability does not make it a truism.

You are right in that the observation that we cannot get inside another person's head has very general applicability indeed.

attempting to access the work "through the spectre of the personal" (as you put it)...

See above: of course we cannot get inside Mahler's head and start being Mahler suddenly (which we would really have to do in order to be able to know "definitively" what he "meant" exactly with this and that word of his: what thoughts and feelings were enlivening him at the time, what his general mood was, what bodily functions and external observations might have affected his judgment and reactions that very moment, were there any memories surging up in his mind or impromptu associations forming that affected those observations, what was his experience of his own health around that time, did he feel himself at ease or under pressure of, say, time constraints, etc. -- all these would have a bearing that wouldn't show on paper). But we can still learn quite a bit about the world he was inhabiting and from which his work stemmed. That world we can perhaps most directly access through Bauer-Lechner's recollections.

Your problem with this statement?

I think you were trying to argue for the argument's sake here but now don't know how to get out of it any longer. Unless initially it was your sincere intention to cast doubt on Bauer-Lechner's character or something, with your "pushy broad looking for juicy quotes" comment. I leave that for you to decide.

-PT

[stillivor]

I would not say the way to get closest to Mahler is via Bauer-thingy; I would take the direct route, via the music.

There are a couple of total stumbling-blocks to full understanding.

One is that the person I might wish to understand fully doesn't understand themselves fully. I take that as a fact of life personally, and as true of composers as anybody.

Again, the work is often richer than the artist knows. I seem to remember it was C.Day Lewis who thanked a critic of some of his work for drawing to his attention things in the work that he (C.D.L.) hadn't realised were there.

So the work can mean more than its creator realised.

There are any number of artists who had no B-L; or even of whom we know little. There just remains the work. It's just like the story about someone asking Beethoven what one of his symphonies (the 'Eroica?') meant. His response was to sit down at the piano and start to play it.

Hope that helps.

   Ivor

[Dave H]

Ivor--excellent points all. I couldn't agree more. Mahler and many other artists have spoken of the fact that even they do not understand the creative process fully, and often cannot comprehend the full import and richness of their creations. Recall, for example, Stravinsky's description of himself as "the vessel through which the Rite of Spring passed," (or words to that effect).

Dave H

[Polarius T]

I would not say the way to get closest to Mahler is via Bauer-thingy; I would take the direct route, via the music.

No, not to Mahler, but perhaps to his world: the sociocultural milieu in which he moved and his psychological, philosophical, and political surroundings so to speak. That's the whole trouble in what I was trying to point out: there is no way of "getting inside Mahler's (or anyone else's) head." But we can study the circumstances surrounding the creation of his works. Understanding (the "greatness" of) the music is a totally different from figuring out the intentions or self-understanding of the composer regarding this music, and may not need to have any link to the composer's person at all, as you say:

...the person I might wish to understand fully doesn't understand themselves fully. I take that as a fact of life personally, and as true of composers as anybody.

Latest since Freud we've understood how pertinent that statement is. And not just "not understanding fully," but also "misunderstanding".

Again, the work is often richer than the artist knows. I seem to remember it was C.Day Lewis who thanked a critic of some of his work for drawing to his attention things in the work that he (C.D.L.) hadn't realised were there. ... So the work can mean more than its creator realised.

One of the most notoriously unreliable sources for art criticism, by the way, is the artist's own understanding of what she or he is doing. I know of this a little bit, first hand, too, as over the years I've contributed some pieces on the work of living artists. What they themselves thought about their own work was quite disarming at best and really pathetic or affected at worst.

...like the story about someone asking Beethoven what one of his symphonies (the 'Eroica?') meant. His response was to sit down at the piano and start to play it.

Precisely, and for this reason even trying to make an objection to the effect that no, we cannot learn much about Mahler's work since we cannot definitively establish what he himself really meant by it, is just plain silly. And almost totally irrelevant. (I know you are not saying this.)

But we can still learn something about that body of work by examining its birth context and its place in the broader canvas of musical and cultural history (or social evolution, or history of ideas even). It's important not to subjectivize the point too much: we're not so much into studying Mahler's head but have an overarching interest in his work and the by extension also the forces that brought it about.

So, the composer's own "ideas" about himself and his work are almost always irrelevant. But those are not what we are trying to get at when studying records like Bauer-Lechner's. Words like Stravinsky's (or Schoenberg's, or...) in this respect precisely serve to explain that we should not worry about the composer as much his times, so we can understand the work better.

Nice to see that at the end of the day we all found ourselves agreeing after all. 

-PT

[john haueisen]

Well-said, PT!

This thread has certainly become more heated and more thought-provoking than I had imagined when I phrased the original (and inadequate!) question.
When I asked about "best hammer blows" I was actually hoping to elicit opinions as to why Mahler had sought this sound, and what it contributes to the work.  (I should have asked that.)

Dave H has stressed that we have the music, and must be wary of reading more into it.
Polarius T has reminded us that everything we can learn has relevance, and may augment our understanding and appreciation.

At the risk of being simplistic, could I say that we're trying to compare music and writing, which is akin to describing the color or taste of an orange in words. 
I would postulate that each can add to the other.  We can describe a piece of music as "sounding sad," or we can use some musical phrases to illustrate "sadness."  Like verbal and non-verbal communication, music and words can work together to enlarge each other.
That is what I find most endearing about Mahler.  More than any composer before, he used words to express some of what his music was saying, and music to soar beyond the limitations of mere language.

It was certainly daring, when Beethoven put his Ode to Joy into a traditionally instrumental symphony.  But Mahler went far beyond Beethoven, drawing on his experience "getting to the nut" of each of the many operas he conducted, AND utilizing his amazing capacity for musical invention.

Am I way off-base, in suggesting that Mahler combined the best of both worlds?
--John H 

[barry guerrero]

No, you're not off base, John. As I consider myself a greater Mahler know-it-all than any of these folks  , I'd like to point out that I have often spoke of Mahler symphonies as being Opera For Orchestra, with the instruments themselves taking on the various roles of human characters (think of the trombone solo near the start of M3, or the lonely posthorn player), as well as describing the forces of nature, etc.

[stillivor]

Again, the work is often richer than the artist knows. I seem to remember it was C.Day Lewis who thanked a critic of some of his work for drawing to his attention things in the work that he (C.D.L.) hadn't realised were there. ... So the work can mean more than its creator realised.

One of the most notoriously unreliable sources for art criticism, by the way, is the artist's own understanding of what she or he is doing. I know of this a little bit, first hand, too, as over the years I've contributed some pieces on the work of living artists. What they themselves thought about their own work was quite disarming at best and really pathetic or affected at worst.

...like the story about someone asking Beethoven what one of his symphonies (the 'Eroica?') meant. His response was to sit down at the piano and start to play it.

Precisely, and for this reason even trying to make an objection to the effect that no, we cannot learn much about Mahler's work since we cannot definitively establish what he himself really meant by it, is just plain silly. And almost totally irrelevant. (I know you are not saying this.)


Since we agree we can't Know what Mahler had in , well, in himself, then how is the accuracy of Bauer-Lechner vital? Isn't that all about trying to understand what M. meant.

I know I must be missoing something (like I doubt if I understand the right way to quote posters).(Oh, saw preview - might have got it)   

    Ivor

[stillivor]

Oh, I quoted but I didn't do the purply thing. Hm.

  Ivor