Talk:Gustav Mahler/Archive 1

Re: Stupid Nicknames and False Titles.
Am I the only person here who can *read sufficiently well* to be able to see that when Gabriel Engel writes -

"The mood at this point [in the Sixth Symphony] is closely akin to the finale of the Fourth, Mahler's Ode to Heavenly Joy"

- he is (i) referring merely to the *finale*, and (ii) not presenting or referring to any kind of 'title' *at all*?

I have to say: I find it DEEPLY SHOCKING that the above quotation is being offered as the sole justification for giving this work an *utterly spurious* 'title' which has *absolutely no documentary support* and *is not found in the Mahler literature*. To be brutally frank, people *should not be attempting to contribute to an 'online encyclopedia'* if they lack basic reading comprehension skills to the extent that they are unable to see that Engel is merely *characterising the movement* by means of a reference to the last movement of Beethoven's Ninth - a '4th-movement' vocal finale that is referred to - for perfectly understandable reasons - as the 'Ode to Joy'.

For crying out loud, people, how much *clearer* could Engel possibly have made it that he is merely asserting that the Mahler 4 finale can be felt to be, can be characterised as, the composer's 'Ode to Heavenly Joy' -- and NOT that the movement (or the whole symphony!) is somehow 'called' 'The Ode To Heavenly Joy'...???

Listen: if you people cannot see how your joyful ineptitude is polluting the wiki project through the accidental fabrication of spurious information, then I really don't want any more to do with it.

P.
 * It's not fabricated. As stated in the conversation below, the title can also be found most notably in Britannica.  Whine and cry about how Britannica, for some reason or another, should be anathema to all of us, but they can't be discounted as a reputable source simply because of personal resentments some people here seem to hold about their philosophy in contrast with Wikipedia's.  I must additionally note that I have to disagree with your assessment that Engel was "characterizing" the movement when he capitalized "Ode to Heavenly Joy."  I also don't understand why you removed the information about the title "The Giant" as you gave no rationale for its excision.  Furthermore, I would like, as politely as I possibly can, to ask that you refrain from the belittling remarks which you have intended for us to be demoralized by in respect to our confidence in our literacy.  Batman Jr. 06:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

"in order to secure a post as artistic director of the prestigious Vienna Opera (Jews were prohibited from holding the post at that time)."

I'm not sure there was an official policy that said that, but there was a huge influence from Cosima Wagner, Richard's widow, that held the antisemitic oppinions of her late husband.


 * I think you're right (it's ages since I read a Mahler biog) - I'll insert the word "virtually" to be going on with. Expand it if you can --Camembert


 * Jews were converting to Catholicism in spades also to get appointed as professors of science in those final years of the Austro-Hungarian empire. So Cosima does not explain everything.


 * Anti-semitism wasn't an official policy, but it was effective enough to first force Mahler to convert in order to be employed, and later intensified to an extent that forced him out of Vienna entirely (to the States). Blintz 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lots to clean up in my recent spate of edits. Will get to this tomorrow."

 * In that case, I won't edit the article until you've had a chance to look at it again, but if you get the chance could you double check something: were Klemperer and Walter really the "pupils" of Mahler? They were helped by him, certainly, but as far as I know, Mahler didn't have any formal pupils. --Camembert

Walter was Mahler's assistant at the Vienna State Orchestra starting in 1901, and conducted the premieres of both Das Lied and the 9th Symphony. He was entrusted with editting both scores for publication.

Klemperer might be better described as some one influenced by Mahler - he formed a friendship with Mahler 1906. Klemperer studied under Pfitnzer in Berlin formally.

Stirling Newberry


 * Yes, you've not really told me anything I didn't already know there :) Did Klemperer and Walter actually study under Mahler or not? And if not, did Mahler have any pupils at all? If you don't have anything to hand to check this, that's fine, I just thought you might be able to. --Camembert

Maurice Leonard characterized the relationship as Walter being Mahler's pupil. As has Michele Selvini, who wrote a short biographical sketch on Walter. I can find other examples of the characterization. Given that this is how people have written about it before - what makes you say he wasn't.

Klemperer is a more distant case, and some other word could be used.

But since we are split hairs - I will say that Walter was definitely Mahler's pupil, studying both his conducting and composing methods directly from the master.
 * I suppose we're using the word "student" in different ways. When I read in the article that Walter was a "student" of Mahler, I took that to mean that they had regular hour-long sessions together in which Mahler said "this is how you hold a baton, and this is how you beat time, and this is how you apporoach the business of putting an interpretation together". Of course, I don't dispute that Walter learned a lot from Mahler and that he was in some sense his "pupil", but I do think the wording of the article was potentially confusing (it confused me, anyway). It is a bit like saying that Mahler was a student of Wagner, which is true in a sense, but gives a misleading impression of what their relationship was. I'll alter the article slightly. --Camembert


 * Are you interested in drilling down into articles on the symphonies? Stirling Newberry
 * Well, we've already got articles started on each of the symphonies (though not yet Das Lied) - they're all linked from the "List of works" section in this article (Symphony No. 6 (Mahler) and so on). They just cover the basics, really, at the moment - do feel free to expand them. --Camembert

The Giant ??
Since when has Mahler's 5th been known as the Giant?? For that matter, since when has the 4th been known as the Ode to Heavenly Joy?? JackofOz 06:40, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, strange. I have never heard of these names either.  I'm taking the liberty of removing these two subtitles (someone correct me if I'm wrong, and point me to a source).  Antandrus 04:34, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * These nicknames are used on a basis that is somewhat regular, although they are quite often omitted when a person makes reference to either the 4th or 5th. The validity of the "Ode to Heavenly Joy" moniker is supported by this article from the Mahler Archives.  The 5th is called "The Giant" in this disparaging review written in 1907 about the symphony.  The review was also obtained from the Mahler Archives.


 * Upon further scrutiny of the wording of the article in which "Ode to Heavenly Joy" is found, I have concluded that it is somewhat ambiguous from that as to whether the name applies to the entire 4th or just the finale, so I will also provide further examples of mentions of the name I was able to find:
 * This piano reduction of a movement from the 4th
 * Encyclopedia Britannica ("The Giant" is also mentioned)
 * Even with the possibility of all the other sources being impugned, I should think Britannica alone would assure us enough of the titles not being fictitious. I shall take it upon myself to add them back.  Batman Jr. 06:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have in my possession several major, authoritative, scholarly works on Mahler and on Mahler symphonies and none of them list these titles for the 4th and 5th. Nor do any recordings I've ever seen.  Furthermore, I have heard these two symphonies in concert in the past few years, and the program notes also did not mention these titles, and the program notes were prepared by experts on symphonic music.  So I think these titles should be removed.  However, to avoid impolite editing, I will not remove them in the near future.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is true that these titles are seldom used and are certainly less commonplace than "The Titan" for the 1st or "The Tragic" for the 6th. I should think, however, that Britannica would be an authoritative enough source for demonstrating the correctness of these titles regardless of how often people acknowledge their existence.  Batman Jr. 21:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree for the following reasons:


 * 1) In general I would go with the work of recent and reliable scholarly monographs about a topic over the Encyclopedia Brittanica.


 * 2) It is not as though Mahler himself liked or advocated the use of titles in his work. In fact, what I have read in general (including the program notes of the Mahler concert I went to by the N. Y. Philharmonic last Saturday) indicates that Mahler really was a partisan of absolute over program music, and that the programs, narratives, or titles he even used were concessions to the public rather than his own view of his own music.


 * 3) In general, it seems to me that, on any topic in Wikipedia or any general encyclopedia, one of the important functions of an editor is to make judicious decisions about what is essential and important about a topic and what are little niggling details that, if included, would give inappropriate weight to something minor and therefore give the reader an unbalanced view of the topic.  For example, in the Wikipedia article about Henry Miller, someone had added that he was 5'8" tall, and another editor just took it out, with the explanation "trivia".  And rightly so, because if someone wanted to read a full biography or do advanced research about Henry Miller, that might be of some relevance, but not in a general article with limited space.  For example, it is well-known that Mahler walked with a slight limp, or peculiar motion of one of his legs.  Theodor Reik discusses this at great length in one of his books.  Should it be in the WP article about Mahler?  I don't think so, it seems too trivial.  So to me, the fact that someone, somewhere, once called these symphonies by those names, when the overwhelming majority of books, concert programs, etc. don't call them that, would be giving too much weight to something essentially trivial.  By contrast, "Titan", "Tragic", and "Symphony of a Thousand", even though they're not essential, are at least common appelations for symphonies 1, 6, and 8.  I genuinely appreciate your concern with getting the facts right and wanting to not neglect this information.  Your concern is NOT trivial but rather shows you to have the concern for the facts that we all should have as Wikipedia editors.  But I think listing them that way in Wikipedia would make the article unbalanced, unless you put in a long footnote about how rare they are except for the Brittanica.  For me, the question is always, what will a general reader, who doesn't know about the topic, learn from a particular Wikipedia article.  If a general reader read the Mahler article and thought that those names for the 4th and 5th had the same standing as the ones for the 1st, 6th, and 8th, she/he would actually go away with a false idea.  That, to me, is the ultimate question, not what is in the Brittanica.  I thought I have read on Wikipedia that we are trying to be better than the Brittanica. Jeremy J. Shapiro 22:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from. Even though there appears to be some historical basis for the use of the sobriquets in question, we need to consider how extensive their history actually is and judge from that whether they are really noteworthy enough to be included in a brief overview of Mahler which attempts to concentrate only on the most important aspects of his life and work.  With that in mind, I feel the best solution to this problem might be the compromise of adding a footnote explaining the limited number of sources which use the titles.  I'm unsure as to whether we should omit the titles altogether in the case that one doing research on Mahler may come across documentation which makes reference to either the 4th or 5th by title only and would not know what symphonies these titles are in reference to.  It is, of course, possible to interpret the situation as being to the contrary as well by observing the dearth of documentation where the titles are mentioned at all, but even for those rarest instances of conjecture, it may be wise to take the precaution of amending their ambiguities when such precaution doesn't require that great of an expenditure of effort.  Batman Jr. 00:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought you'd find the following excerpt from http://www.mahlerfest.org/notes_myth_reality.htm to be of interest: "It's nonetheless odd to think that in 1907 Mahler would be returning to titles and programs. For its 1893 Hamburg performance, he gave his First Symphony (which at the time was still a "tone poem in symphonic form") the name "Titan," after the Romantic novel by Jean Paul, and a detailed program, but by 1896 he had withdrawn it. The "Auferstehung" subtitle for No. 2 comes from the Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock text, but Mahler was not responsible for "Lied der Nacht" (No. 7) or "Sinfonie der Tausend" (No. 8), and in any case he had disavowed subtitles and programs by 1900. One can imagine his acceding to the suggestion of a plausible and promotable name like "Tragische" for the Vienna première, but the fact remains that he did not so title this symphony when he composed it."

Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you directing me to the article. It's very interesting.  Thanks.  Am I right that you brought up the excerpt because it systematically goes through all the titles except the ones for the 4th and 5th?


 * Now, about what we should do with the nicknames, you have quite a bit more experience than I do as a Wikipedia editor as I'm still sort of a newbie, so I'd really like to hear your input on what we should do. Should we add footnotes or get rid of the titles altogether?  Batman Jr. 05:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and added the footnotes as a tentative compromise until you give me your input on what we should do. Batman Jr. 00:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

As the initiator of this debate, I'm not altogether happy about showing 'The Giant' next to Symphony #5, but I accept the footnote solution as a reasonable one for now. But if a more recent source than 1907 can't be found, I might be tempted to make further changes. I've made a change to the footnote to make it read better. JackofOz 06:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's good. Batman Jr. 21:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, this evening I looked through the book Gustav Mahler: The Symphonies, by Constantin Floros, translated from the German by Vernon and Jutta Wicker (Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1993).  The German original was published in 1985.  The book is a very detailed,  complete book about Mahler's symphonies, including the history of their composition, Mahler's own statements and correspondence about them, some things about the response to them, and detailed analyses of each movement of each symphony.  The author is or was chair of musicology at the University of Hamburg in Germany.  What I gather from the book is this.  Although Mahler apparently was ambivalent about the use of programs and titles to describe his symphonies, and went back and forth about some of them, i.e. publishing the program (i.e. narrative or meaning) and then withdrawing it, same with the titles, the only titles for which there is evidence that he used or accepted them during his lifetime or which are legitimate because of their content or composition history, are those for the 1st ("Titan", which he used for a performance of the 1st but then withdrew, but Floros thinks that it is legitimate because of what is known about his ideas about it while composing it as well as the musical content), the 2d (which Mahler didn't himself call "Resurrection Symphony" but which can legitimately be called that because the last movement is based on a poem about resurrection), and the Sixth ("Tragic, which Bruno Walter said came from Mahler himself and was performed under that title during Mahler's lifetime, even though there's no other corroborating information about Mahler calling it that), as well as "The Song of the Earth", which Floros, like various other authors and interpreters, considers a symphony.  There is no evidence of any other title used or approved of by Mahler for any of the other symphonies, even though clearly several of them have "programs" or "themes", e.g. the Third and Eighth.  "Symphony of a Thousand" was a phrase used by a concert promoter named Emil Gutmann, and is just a catchphrase that doesn't have much to do with the content, which Mahler called his "Mass".  Mahler referred to the LAST MOVEMENT of the Fourth as Das Himmlische Leben ("the heavenly life"), and Floros emphasizes that that song (previously composed by Mahler to a poem from Des knaben Wunderhorn) was the inspiration for both the Third and Fourth Symphonies.  But Mahler never thought of it as the title for either, since the point of the two symphonies was to describe the entire process of cosmic evolution that led from plant life to heavenly life, which he identified with love.  So "Heavenly Life" is correct as a title for the last movement of the Fourth, but not for the symphony itself.  With regard to the Fifth, there is no evidence of Mahler ever using or approving of a title or theme, and Floros says Walter, Mahler's friend and disciple, said that Mahler never suggested that any "extra-musical thoughts or emotions" had exerted any influence on the Fifth, and he also doesn't mention "Giant" or any other title.  However, Floros believes that it has certain meanings having to do with death and love, and based on his analysis, "Giant" would be a weird and rather inappropriate title even for these themes.  Since I (JJS) have never seen any other reference to such a title for the Fifth (nor honestly does it make sense to me in terms of the symphony itself), I consider both it and the "Ode to Heavenly Joy" as inappropriate for the Wikipedia article to refer to the 5th and 4th respectively.  The titles for the Seventh and Eighth aren't really accurate either (Mahler referred to two MOVEMENTS of the 7th as Nachtmusik (night music) but not the symphony itself and explicitly rejected the title for the symphony as a whole.  But I suppose these titles for the 7th and 8th are more acceptable just for the reason that they have become catchphrase, even if erroneous.  But the same does not hold for those titles for the 4th and 5th, since they're not even popular.  My own preferred solution (it would be useful to know what other editors think) would be as follows, given that we're trying to produce a really accurate encyclopedia article:  1) preface the list of symphonies by a statement that, despite the fact that Mahler was inspired by various ideas and images during the composition of his symphonies, nevertheless he disassociated himself from the use of titles and programs for them. 2) State that nevertheless there is historical precedent from Mahler's statements or performance practice for the use of titles for 1, 2, and 6.  3) State that there is a convention sometimes to refer to 7 and 8 by titles, even though Mahler did not use or condone these.  This could also be indicated typographically if someone thinks it's useful, e.g. parentheses, asterisks, or whatever.  Jeremy J. Shapiro 06:12, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The Three Pintos
Does anyone care about this? Should we add Mahler to the Opera composers category? The connection to the Webers is at least interesting. --Chinasaur 04:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

His completion of the Weber opera is interesting, but putting him in the category of Opera composers insinuates a reputation greatly different from his actual one, which is that of a symphonist. He primarily concerned himself with the composition of abstract and large-scale orchestral works; his work on the opera is marginalized as a consequence of this. Batman Jr. 05:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Tradition is sloppiness"
According to the German Wikiquote and other books, the quotation ("tradition is sloppiness") is incomplete. The full sentence translates roughly into "What you theater people call tradition is in fact laziness and sloppiness" ("Was ihr Theaterleute Tradition nennt, das ist Bequemlichkeit und Schlamperei", which has been shortened in the Wikiquote). Mahler did in fact honor tradition, as long as it meant keeping the spirit of the music alive, which he expressed in another famous sentence: "Tradition is the preservation of the flame, not adoration of the ashes" ("Tradition ist Bewahrung des Feuers, nicht Anbetung der Asche").
 * Who cares what German Wikipedia says about him? He wasn't German, Austrian, Swiss or even a decendant of a German family.
 * Reply to the above comment: I read both English and German and find the German version of Wikipedia to be often quite dependable. So it does matter what the Germans say about Mahler, for they sometimes have access to German sources fairly unknown in the English speaking world. -anonymous

Keys of Mahler symphonies
I changed the way the keys are listed for the symphonies as an attempt to compromise with an anon user who wanted to remove the key only for the 5th symphony, and I like being consistent wherever possible. Since Mahler often ended in a key other than the one in which he began, I put in both keys (this the method adopted in the New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians). Anyone feel free to suggest another way. Antandrus 19:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Can I add an objection, albeit six months late: many classical works begin and end in different keys, but they always have generally one accepted key. For example, Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto Nos. 2 and 3, beginning in c minor and d minor, respectively, end in C major and D major; both are listed in their respective minor keys. Similarly, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 is advertised in c minor and ends in C major. Mind you, it's not necessarily the starting key all the time, and while an alert reader might notice that these are all cases of modulating to the tonic major at the end, I point out that Chopin's Scherzo No. 2 begins and is generally listed in b-flat minor, but ends in D-flat major. TheProject 16:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, most music publishers defer to the will of the composer when it comes to listing the key (ex. Barber, &c.) of a piece. Blintz 09:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mahler's 9th symphony has often been listed as being simply in D, as it begins in D major and ends in D-flat major. Also, it is not clear that the key for his 10th symphony should be given as F-sharp major - several sources give it as F-sharp major/minor and some simply as F-sharp (neither major or minor) ... note, however, the symphony does end in F-sharp major (reworked from a B-flat major ending).  Chuck 20:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes--the convention is usually to use the opening key, e.g. E minor for the 7th, D major for the 9th and F-sharp minor for the 10th. Like you, I've seen the 10th listed as minor, major/minor and just F-sharp.  Listing it as F-sharp major is a bit misleading.  None of my recordings have it that way.  Antandrus  (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As a conservatory-trained musician I'd like to add two cents here -- there's a good musical reason to adopt the two-key designation for Mahler's symphonies which New Grove (the authoritative source on Musical issues) has seen the need for here. Whereas the some of the examples given of prior examples of works which start and end in different keys were all examples of pieces starting in one key and then ending in a different mode of that key (C minor -> C major is just a mode shift)  and others are connected by the very close minor-relative major relationship (D-flat major is the most closely related key to B-flat minor - they both share the same exact collection of notes for their scale), Mahler's music pioneered new ground in "progressive tonality", where it progresses from one key to a more distantly key that is more remotely related.  The fifth progresses from C-sharp minor to D major.  The ninth progresses from D major to D-flat major. Both of these are non-obvious and non-trivial progressions given the nature of common practice rules of harmony and there is real merit to including both in the title  (Indeed, the sense behind including the opening key when symphonies have movements in many different keys is because all of them are somehow clearly related to that opening key... it is a home that it goes from and comes back to; but often in Mahler's work the ending key, the destination, or the progression from start to finish is what actually drove all those decisions and the opening key simply isn't as singularly important as it used to be).  I'm not a historian, but this kind of knowledge is common among people who know and understand his symphonies from a musical point of view.  For what it's worth, I've seen the 5th referenced as "Symphony No. 5 in C-sharp Minor/D Major" on CD cover or liner somewhere with a note discussing this.  (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2007 EDT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fred sienkiewicz (talk • contribs) 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

Das Lied von der Erde
An anon editor moved Das Lied from song cycles to symphonies; I'm moving it back. I recognize that the German title contains the word Symphonie Das Lied von der Erde: Eine Symphonie für eine Tenor- und eine Alt- (oder Bariton-) Stimme und Orchester (nach Hans Bethges "Die chinesische Flöte") -- but the Library of Congress catalogues it under symphonies, and by Mahler's own numbering he avoided counting it as a symphony. I think it fits better under song cycles, but I'm open to comment. Antandrus 04:07, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Formally, Das Lied is in fact both a song cycle and a symphony. Mahler's main reason for not counting the opus as a symphony was his own superstition to deliver a ninth. Both categorisations make sense, but one should note, that Das Lied is not a mere song cycle: it satisfies the form of the symphonic cycle as much as any of the other late Mahler symphonies. -- 85.180.137.57 14:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a good point; I added a note to this effect on the works list. Antandrus  (talk)  14:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Last word
The article says that Mahler's last word was "Mozart". Do we have a source for this? Everything on Google that indicates that this might be true has been copied off the WP article. In the meantime, I've taken it out; somebody can please put it back in if we can confirm the source. TheProject 00:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I have a source in a book written by a dutch Mahler-specialist, Eveline Nikkels (title: Mahler, een leven in tien symfonieën, 2003, Bluestone Publishers, p.95). But no reference as to where she got the fact from. 27 Apr 2006 -Magic Neophyte
 * And, somehow, neither of you thought of looking in the obvious place. By which I mean Alma's 'Gustav Mahler: Memories and Letters'. For heaven's sake, the relevant extract is even on the web: http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/127/9/841        -Pf.