# Social context and the reception of music



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

This is something I have been wondering over for a little while. I gave up the attempt to be exhaustively definite in my presentation, so I will just throw in a couple of questions that hopefully will result in a conversation that will enrich my thoughts on the matter.

1. If Sibelius were an Austro-German composer and Mahler were a Finnish composer, would their status be different nowadays in any way? If the answer is yes, in which way, you think?

2. To what lenght does the concencus of what is cool or hyped in music at a given time affect people? Are there a significant number of people, who for example state Mahler is the best symphonist that ever walked on earth — simply because very cool master musicians love the technical expertise of a master musician (Mahler) and hence in all their professional talk have praised Mahler above everyone else? In short: how much the opinion of cool and convincing musical professionals affects the common taste through social structures? (We wanna be cool too and join the club!)

Side note:
Mahler is just one example (maybe a bad one) because one forumist at TC has interestingly talked about how the appreciation of Mahler has changed tremendously over the decades. Nowadays it is almost sacred to admire Mahler and to criticise the maestro is considered somewhat heretic. Mahler is the social go-to, nowadays even on TC, no doubt.

Funnily enough, for me the key to really loving Mahler was the very wise advice from some of the TC forumists: I don’t have to love all Mahler. There is better and worse in his output. When I don’t have to praise someone for the sake of praising, I can truly appreciate and love the beauty and mastery and true accomplishment when I see it.

(I apologize in advance if some one is hurt by this thread. That is not the intention. I do not have answers ready for these questions, I certainly do not. Apologies also for my English typos. I just do not remember the right spelling always. Criticize or criticise for example. Maybe the latter.)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> 2. To what lenght does the concencus of what is cool or hyped in music at a given time affect people? Are there a significant number of people, who for example state Mahler is the best symphonist that ever walked on earth - simply because very cool master musicians love the technical expertise of a master musician (Mahler) and hence in all their professional talk have praised Mahler above everyone else? In short: how much the opinion of cool and convincing musical professionals affects the common taste through social structures? (We wanna be cool too and join the club!)


Joining the club isn't being cool - it's just following the herd.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> 1. If Sibelius were an Austro-German composer and Mahler were a Finnish composer, would their status be different nowadays in any way? If the answer is yes, in which way, you think?


You mean
Sibelius: Austro-German, Jewish
Mahler: Finnish, non-Jewish
or
Sibelius: Austro-German, non-Jewish
Mahler: Finnish, Jewish


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> You mean
> Sibelius: Austro-German, Jewish
> Mahler: Finnish, non-Jewish
> or
> ...


Excellent point! Mahler had some serious trouble at his lifetime because his origins were Jewish. That is unbelievably absurd from the Northern European point of view.

Honest answer: I did not take the aspect of being Jewish into consideration while stating the question. I have been listening to old recordings of Mahler lately, Mengelberg for example. But he is Dutch, not German! Sometimes I am happy to have been stupid but corrected.

This is why I love TC!


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It is usually easier for composers from border/fringe countries to establish a reputation and following (especially if there is a perceived need for a "national composer" or so, because there is none yet, or no great one). Of course, Sibelius was quite original and distinctive. But I think he would in any case have been more famous or have lasted longer than e.g. Schmidt, Von Hausegger, Medtner, Miaskowsky or whatever Austro-German or Russian composers that were perceived as the lesser colleagues of their contemporaries or predecessors in the early 1900s.

However, a case could probably also be made that Mahler was only possible within a very rich tradition of the Symphony, taking up and thwarting tradition and expections in similar measures. Like Brahms (although in a different manner) he had to face the burden of tradition and make something out of it and succeeded.

And maybe the original voice of Sibelius was facilitated by his relative "lack of tradition"; he could have either become a weak imitator or the Austrogermans or maybe Russians or French, or he had to become really original.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

2) A lot of very fine musicians program works by Schoenberg because they have meaning or interest to them (and not just to show up audiences). Nevertheless. this does not seem to have tilted many people in their favor.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> It is usually easier for composers from border/fringe countries to establish a reputation and following (especially if there is a perceived need for a "national composer" or so, because there is none yet, or no great one). Of course, Sibelius was quite original and distinctive. But I think he would in any case have been more famous or have lasted longer than e.g. Schmidt, Von Hausegger, Medtner, Miaskowsky or whatever Austro-German or Russian composers that were perceived as the lesser colleagues of their contemporaries or predecessors in the early 1900s.
> 
> However, a case could probably also be made that Mahler was only possible within a very rich tradition of the Symphony, taking up and thwarting tradition and expections in similar measures. Like Brahms (although in a different manner) he had to face the burden of tradition and make something out of it and succeeded.
> 
> And maybe the original voice of Sibelius was facilitated by his relative "lack of tradition"; he could have either become a weak imitator or the Austrogermans or maybe Russians or French, or he had to become really original.


Yeah, it is rather obvious that Sibelius would not have implemented Nordic and Finnic influences in his music had he not been from the north. Those influences formed an important element in Sibelius music: both a strong feeling for nature that is almost omnipresent and the folklore and folk music melodies/rhythms as inspiring sources.

My point however was that if Sibelius, with music as strong as it is, no matter what the inspiration, had been born into a dominant and larger culture and society, his position would arguably be more established. He would be praised as a follower of Beethoven and Brahms everywhere, no doubt about that.

With Mahler the other way around -- had he born into Finland or some other Nordic country, his position would not be as established as it is now. He would be viewed as a very interesting monumentalist from the North.

Both are great composers and would eventually find reception. With this mind game I am only trying to grasp, what has been the effect of the social context to the establishment and reception of a composer in this reality, and what it could have been in that speculative universe.


----------

