1,909 words
One hundred years ago today, on May 18, 1911, Gustav Mahler died in Vienna. Born on July 7, 1860, Mahler is one of the great composers of the late Romantic era, along with such figures as Edward Elgar (1857–1934), Giacomo Puccini (1858–1924), Richard Strauss (1864–1949), Jean Sibelius (1865–1957), Ralph Vaughan Williams (1872–1958), and Sergei Rachmaninoff (1873–1943).
Mahler is also the only Jewish composer among the first rank of European classical composers. One might argue that Felix Mendelssohn (1809–1847) also belongs on that list, but as much as I enjoy some works by Mendelssohn, I am not buying it.
Richard Wagner’s notorious essay “Jewishness in Music” (1850), published ten years before Mahler’s birth, offers a profound explanation for why the Jewish composers of his time were at best second raters like Mendelssohn: Jews, who were only recently emancipated from their ghettos, were essentially foreigners to European civilization and European music in particular.
For European composers, European music was as close to them as their mother European languages. For Jews, European music was as foreign to them as European languages, which they learned largely for practical purposes such as commerce and generally spoke with a distinct Yiddish accent.
It is almost impossible to compose first rate literature in any language other than one’s mother tongue. Joseph Conrad and Vladimir Nabokov are among the very few exceptions. (Heinrich Heine’s native tongue was German.) For the same reasons, Jewish forays into European classical music tended toward superficiality, inauthenticity, and crass commercialism.
However, as Bryan Magee points out in his classic defense of Wagner’s “Jewishness in Music” in his slender gem of a book Aspects of Wagner
I think that Magee’s list of Jewish creative geniuses is heavily padded, but he was at least partly right. Magee mistakenly believes that Jews are not a genetically distinct group. Nor does he believe that genes shape culture and that genetic differences limit one’s ability to assimilate an alien culture. But genetic traits that might limit Jewish assimilation fall on bell curves, thus there will always be a few Jews who are able to genuinely absorb and constructively participate in European civilization. Mahler was such a Jew.
Despite the titanic efforts of Jews to claim Mahler as one their own (an effort eagerly abetted by anti-Semites who want to drive him back into the ghetto), Mahler’s music belongs to the tradition of Austro-German late Romanticism, and no convincing case has been made that Mahler’s compositions contain distinctly Jewish musical elements, with the possible exception of the third movement of first Symphony. Furthermore, Mahler’s music is fundamentally earnest and sincere, even in his settings of naïve folk songs, rather than the typically Jewish alienation and irony that one would expect in such contexts.
Mahler was also a convert to Catholicism. He married a Christian woman, had his children baptized, and most importantly, to my mind, wrote music that expresses explicitly Christian ideas, such as his settings of the Wunderhorn Lieder and his Symphony no. 2, “Resurrection,” which would be utterly grotesque and absurd if it were not so heartfelt.
One can always, of course, raise doubts about the sincerity of Jewish converts to Christianity, and from a racial perspective holy water alone changes nothing. But conversion can be indicative of a genuine desire to reject Jewish tradition and ethnocentrism and embrace the surrounding culture. One has to judge by the convert’s subsequent behavior, and in a case like Mahler, who made genuine contributions to European culture, the conversion seems sincere. Even in cases when a Jew becomes a bad or indifferent Christian, conversion may be indicative of a desire to be a good European, and as a non-Christian that is what matters most to me anyway.
Mahler had a successful career as a conductor and composer. His works were controversial and had their critics, but so did other Romantic pioneers. After Mahler’s death, his works fell into relative obscurity, but this was part of a wider cultural rejection of Romanticism after the Great War.
Leonard Bernstein is famous for claiming that he single-handedly rescued Mahler from obscurity in the 1950s and ’60s, which is rubbish. Mahler’s work was kept alive by such non-Jewish conductors as Willem Mengelberg, Leopold Stokowski, Dimitri Mitropoulos, and John Barbirolli, as well as Jewish advocates like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, and Aaron Copland.
Yes, Mahler benefited greatly from Jewish ethnic promotion and hype, the most ridiculous excesses of which are ably chronicled by Brenton Sanderson at The Occidental Observer. But more objective Mahlerians also credit such factors as the waning of inter-war anti-Romanticism and the rise of the LP record.
Hype can account for brief and ephemeral fame. But the main reason that Mahler has remained among the mostly widely conducted and recorded of composers for the last 50 years is that his music is good. He has stood the test of time. But don’t take my word for it. Listen to Mahler’s music.
Last year was the 150th anniversary of Mahler’s birth, which prompted the major labels to release a number of excellent boxed sets of his major works. I recommend EMI’s Mahler: The Complete Works, a 16 CD set which contains some of the greatest Mahler recordings of all time, including such conductors as Furtwängler, Barbirolli, Klemperer, and Rattle and singers like Kathleen Ferrier, Janet Baker, Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, Christa Ludwig, Elisabeth Schwartzkopf, and Fritz Wunderlich. Deutsche Grammophon also released a highly competitive Gustav Mahler: Complete Edition, this one in 18 CDs. Although in my opinion, the singers in this edition are slightly less desirable than in the EMI collection, the symphony recordings are slightly better, including Rafael Kubelik’s Symphony no. 1 and Herbert von Karajan’s reading of the 9th. Both sets are available new for less than $3/disc.
I want to conclude with four YouTube videos of excerpts from Mahler’s Symphony no. 2, “Resurrection,” which is the first Mahler symphony I heard, and the one that remains my favorite. The first movement is an anguished funeral march. The second movement is pastoral, an escape from grief into nature. The third movement is swirling urban night music, another attempt at worldly diversion which collapses into an outburst of anguish. The fourth movement, “Urlicht” (Primal Light) is a song from the Wunderhorn Lieder, a collection of German folk songs, this particular song about the suffering of earthly life and the joys of heaven. This points the way to the fifth and final movement, in which grief is conquered by Christian faith in the Resurrection of the dead.
The recording is conducted by Leonard Bernstein, whom I usually find annoying. But the orchestra (the London Symphony Orchestra), the soloists (particularly Dame Janet Baker, the mezzo soprano), the setting (Ely Cathedral), and the direction and picture quality are just too good to pass up. Bernstein’s mugging, moreover, is at a comparative minimum, and his tempos are dead right.
The first excerpt is from the opening of the first movement:
The second excerpt is the brief fourth movement, “Urlicht,” sung by Janet Baker. These are the words:
Original German
Urlicht
O Röschen rot!
Der Mensch liegt in größter Noth!
Der Mensch liegt in größter Pein!
Je lieber möcht’ ich im Himmel sein.
Da kam ich auf einen breiten Weg:
Da kam ein Engelein und wollt’ mich abweisen.
Ach nein! Ich ließ mich nicht abweisen!
Ich bin von Gott und will wieder zu Gott!
Der liebe Gott wird mir ein Lichtchen geben,
Wird leuchten mir bis in das ewig selig Leben!
In English
Primeval Light
O red rose!
Man lies in greatest need!
Man lies in greatest pain!
How I would rather be in heaven.
There came I upon a broad path
when came a little angel and wanted to turn me away.
Ah no! I would not let myself be turned away!
I am from God and shall return to God!
The loving God will grant me a little light,
Which will light me into that eternal blissful life!
The third excerpt is the beginning of the fifth movement:
The fourth excerpt is the finale of the fifth and final movement. These are the words, written by Mahler himself:
Original German
O glaube, mein Herz, o glaube:
Es geht dir nichts verloren!
Dein ist, ja dein, was du gesehnt!
Dein, was du geliebt,
Was du gestritten!
O glaube
Du wardst nicht umsonst geboren!
Hast nicht umsonst gelebt, gelitten!
Was entstanden ist
Das muß vergehen!
Was vergangen, auferstehen!
Hör’ auf zu beben!
Bereite dich zu leben!
O Schmerz! Du Alldurchdringer!
Dir bin ich entrungen!
O Tod! Du Allbezwinger!
Nun bist du bezwungen!
Mit Flügeln, die ich mir errungen,
In heißem Liebesstreben,
Werd’ich entschweben
Zum Licht, zu dem kein Aug’gedrungen!
Mit Flügeln, die ich mir errungen
Werde ich entschweben.
Sterben werd’ich, um zu leben!
Aufersteh’n, ja aufersteh’n
wirst du, mein Herz, in einem Nu!
Was du geschlagen
zu Gott wird es dich tragen!
In English
O believe, my heart, O believe:
Nothing to you is lost!
Yours is, yes yours, is what you desired
Yours, what you have loved
What you have fought for!
O believe,
You were not born for nothing!
Have not for nothing, lived, suffered!
What has risen
must pass away.
What has passed,
rise again!
Cease from trembling!
Prepare yourself to live!
O Pain, You piercer of all things,
From you, I have been wrested!
O Death, You masterer of all things,
Now, are you conquered!
With wings which I have won for myself,
In love’s fierce striving,
I shall soar upwards
To the light which no eye has penetrated!
Its wing that I won is expanded,
and I fly up.
Die shall I in order to live.
Rise again, yes, rise again,
Will you, my heart, in an instant!
That for which you suffered,
To God will it lead you!
Now, to end on a slightly ironic touch, Mahler’s “Resurrection” symphony has been resurrected in the most unlikely place, in Laibach’s song “Das Spiel ist Aus” (The Game is Up). Here is a video, followed by the lyrics in German and in English translation. I have rendered the lines that have been adopted from the Resurrection symphony in bold. Their originals in the Mahler symphony reprinted above have also been rendered in bold.
Original German
Die Zeit ist fast vorbei
Die Freiheit ist nicht mehr frei
Still ist unser Herz
Und kurz ist unser Tod
Der Mensch liegt in grosser Pein!
Der Mensch liegt in grosser Not!
Die Zeit is fast heraus
Und unser Spiel ist aus.
Raus! Das Spiel ist aus!
Raus! Das Spiel ist aus!
Was erstanden ist,
das muss vergehen.
Was vergangen ist,
muss auferstehen!
Wir der Böse sind,
und wir sind Gott.
Wir sind zeitlos.
Und du bist tot!
Raus! Das Spiel ist aus!
Raus! Das Spiel ist aus!
In English
The time is nearly past
Freedom is no longer free
Our hearts are still
And swift is our death
Man lives in great pain!
Man lives in great need!
The time is nearly here
And our game is up.
Out! The game is up!
Out! The game is up!
What has risen
must pass away.
What has passed
must rise again!
We are the Devil,
and we are God.
We are timeless.
And you are dead!
Out! The game is up!
Out! The game is up!
8 comments
Thanks for that great tribute to Mahler. This settles the record straight. As a reaction to Jewish hyper-promotion there is a great deal of ignorance and prejudice towards his music among some people of the Right.
I disagree with this article. And I’m shocked it came from a WNist like YOU, Mr. Johnson.
Mahler is NOT worthy of European classical composers and any one who thinks Mahler’s music is good also has some serious psychological issues. Further, to claim that a jew has the same level of creativity because of the time spent in a European environment, religious conversion, marrying a goyim, etc, is the same ridiculous assumption that a left winger would make in disregarding genetic influence in musical capability.
I suppose you even think that Mahler was better than Beethoven too eh?
You claim that:
“no convincing case has been made that Mahler’s compositions contain distinctly Jewish musical elements, or indeed that he had even been exposed to them.”
All of you musically MIS-informed WNists on this blog desperately need a musicologist, who KNOWS music inside-out and can analyze the MUSIC itself to find that there ARE indeed jewish elements in Mahler’s music that are totally foreign to European music and culture. I’m willing to bet that most, if not, ALL musicologists are entirely oblivious to the jewish question, and hence the reason why there is no evidence, YET! Not one PURELY musical analysis has been done, probably for fear of losing academic career. This is what is needed.
Looking at it from a purely socio-historical-political perspective is NOT the entire picture and is totally inaccurate.
I suggest you start scouting academia for an accomplished musicologist who can look into these critical issues from a musical perspective.
One of my favorites is the “Adagietto” of the 5th symphony that Visconti adapted with such mastery for Death in Venice in 1971.
I think that’s a lovely piece as well.
I take your point about the third movement of the first Symphony. According to Mahler’s notes, the music is a funeral march for a hunter followed by a cortège of animals. The main melody is “Frère Jacques,” played in a minor key, and the animals seem to be characterized by a pastiche of whimsical, dance-like music. What would be Jewish about that?
But if one sets those suggestions aside and just listens to the music, it sounds like a nocturnal promenade (hence “Frère Jacques”), first through a city, in which one hears a pastiche of urban night music, including some music that does sound klezmerish. (Perhaps, though, Mahler thought that klezmer-like clarinets would be perfect for the squawking of animals.) Then the walk leaves the city for the countryside (with pastoral music from the last of Mahler’s “Songs of the Wayfarer,” “Die zwei blauen Augen”). The music is almost cinematic in the way that the tunes fade into one another as if one is passing the doors of successive nightclubs.
Some of Mendelssohn’s music is first rate, like the Violin Concerto and the Octet, but a lot of it strikes me as uninspired. I do love the early String Symphonies. Mendelssohn was a magnificent orchestrator and tone painter, and Wagner learned many lessons listening to Mendelssohn. Just listen to Mendelssohn’s “Calm Sea and Prosperous Voyage” then to Wagner’s Overture to “The Flying Dutchman.” Wagner takes Mendelssohn’s inspired sea orchestration and ramps it up to gale force. But listening to them side by side, there is no question of who was the greater composer.
Here is the image that served as the likely basis of the third movement of Mahler’s Symphony no. 1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Schwind_Begraebnis.jpg
I must say that music from the late Romantic period makes be bilious. Huge sections of strings careening around the deck causing maddening tilts and letting green waves of sentimentality swamp over the gunnels. At it’s best it is merely useful as suspense music in cinematic melodramas.
I really have no stomach for anything composed after about 1820 (or earlier than that actually.) Give me the crystal clear counterpoint point of Bach if you please.
Rudel: If this is your own subjective experience about classical music it’s ok. But other people are structurally constructed differently.
When I was a child my favorite was Mussorgsky’s Kovanchina prelude. In my teens I discovered Beethoven, Wagner and Richard Strauss, but it depends on the current wavelength we live the music we like.
Presently my solitude in the peculiar country where I live makes me identify myself with György Ligeti’s atonal Lux Æterna for 16 voices that—speaking of talented Jews—Kubrick used to describe the ultimate loneliness in 2001: as the moon-bus floats on the Moon en route from Clavius base to crater Tycho.
Tell me which music you like and I’ll tell you who you are.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.