Why Mahler?

(A gypsy fiddle in a symphony? Outrageous! What's next? A woman concertmaster?)

Sometimes Norman Lebrecht is the con-man/preacher of Classical Music - never missing a chance to exploit bad news to declare that classical music is dead. But then he writes articles like these, which explain the GREATNESS of MAHLER as pithily as could ever be put (uncalled for potshot at Elgar's Enigma Variations notwithstanding). Mahler belonged to the mid-20th century in the same way that did Webern and Shostakovich, Miles and Coltrane, the Beatles and Dylan. And in an era like the 50's and 60's when hundreds of nationalities were struggling to put together an uneasy but peaceful coexistence, Mahler's bifurcations made perfect sense to listeners in a way they never did to generations before. Now that Mahler is dead-center of the repertoire with a double-anniversary just beginning (1860-1911, do the math), it's inevitable that his stock will go down a bit. But still, I wonder if today's intelligentsia, with Tea Party sympathizers in America and Islamist-fellow-travellers in Europe, is any better equipped than culture lovers were 100 years ago to appreciate Mahler's message.


(The Scherzo of Mahler's Resurrection Symphony. Judaism and Christianity coexist, uneasily and always with the potential for violence.)

In any event, I'm definitely going to read his book when it comes out in September.