Posted by JohnKoehler on October 31, 19102 at 20:20:02:

In Reply to: Mahler's meddlings with Bruckner's sixth posted by Ara A. on October 31, 19102 at 00:05:11:

According to the exhaustive multi-volume biography of Mahler by Henry-Louis de la Grange, Mahler felt that Bruckner lacked a clear sense of structure; that Bruckner's ideas were well founded, but sometimes poorly developed. Many learned, influential critics agreed, others did not.

Yet Mahler always remembered to pay his dues to a man who was certainly of some influence in his life. The Sixth was chosen by Mahler to open a concert which also featured 3 numbers from Beethoven's Egmont, and the Schubert Rosamunde overture. The Sixth was played first.

Critic Helm condemned Mahler's revision, critic Shoenaich thought it helped the work. In either case, the music was finally heard. It had not even been published. Mahler conducted from mcript. According to de la Grange, most critics agreed that the performance had been admirable due to Mahler's "burning artistic conviction" (Kauders).

Still, as Mahler was one for restoring cuts to works ed by others, this may seem strange. He thought he was helping Bruckner's cause. Had I been there, I would have tried to talk him out of it! Bruckner needed a champion, not an editor. I would be happier had Mahler been that for his artistic forebear. On the other hand, he had to get Bruckner performed, and this may have been his compromise. This was all done in an atmosphere characterized by something of a consensus among some musical minds that Bruckner required editing to be accepted by a wider audience.

Finally, as critics like Krause noted the influence of Bruckner in Mahler's own works, perhaps Mahler was trying to dissociate himself from such notions, though they be true enough. Thus his falling in with the editing crowd.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Mahler's meddlings with Bruckner's sixth Ara A. 16:40:42 11/02/102 (0)

Post a Followup