# Oh, and S. J. Perelman didn't "steal" from Mark Twain



## csoforever (Jan 28, 2015)

A couple friends who, to varying degrees, have been influenced by the theory that Mahler artistically purloined or was at least significantly aesthetically formed by Hans Rott's one symphony persuaded me to listen to that Rott symphony. I listened and liked it -- the symphony, that is. But reading through a number of comments buying in to the notion that Mahler's symphonies are actually derivative of Rott -- gifted but tragically circumscribed Rott -- compelled me to post a comment at a YouTube-reproduced recording of the Rott First. I'm copying my comment here for whatever interest it might be to any of you.

This is an extremely good symphony, and a remarkable first symphony. And let's stipulate that strong admirers of composers can in a sense conflate the emotional and artistic character of a composer's work with the admirer's own emotions and aesthetics. But the internet-fed line that Mahler largely adapted or even "stole" the essence of his work from Rott strikes me as overheated musical revisionism . . . to put it mildly. In fact, ambitious, accomplished and original as this symphony is, Rott's approach and themes sound (to me, OK, this is subjective) more like Bruckner, and at times like Wagner, than Mahler's celestially far-ranging symphonies sound like Rott's one. That's not to say that Rott "stole" from Bruckner, but that composers (and writers and painters, etc.) of any given era reflect and refract art that has very public cross-currents. This is not the same thing as John Williams recycling Richard Strauss; now THAT'S stealing! The strongest thematic and stylistic resemblance to Rott's First would be in Mahler's "Wunderhorn" symphonies, but these affinities strike me as being by-products of the background, training, and significant musical sensibility the two shared. When Mahler praised Rott as "the founder of the new symphony ... as I understand it" he was obviously sincere. But so many specific stylistic and artistic aspects of Mahler's eleven symphonies (ten with completed orchestration) could only have come from Mahler, and could never have been, as Leonard Bernstein noted, produced by anyone else. "Das Lied von der Erde" is just an ignoble echo of Hans Rott? Really? Get a grip, revisionists.﻿


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

"Wait, someone has got something wrong on the internet."

I'm prone to that myself, but, in all earnest sympathy, dropping any comment in on a youtube thread is a waste of time, let alone posting an essay there.


----------



## csoforever (Jan 28, 2015)

Recognizing the prevalence of internet babble is not a difficult insight, PetrB, nor that YouTube threads tend to be reductive. But that's exactly why I copied it here, where better-informed classical music followers might comment. And actually, as I've looked around today, I've found that that notion of Mahler having artistically appropriated Rott does haver a fair amount of support. Heck, there are discussions on sites like this one asking whether Shostakovich was a second or third "pressing" of Mahler (!) I only hoped to get some intelligent opinion on a subject that seems to me to be attracting lots of . . . other opinion.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

csoforever said:


> Heck, there are discussions on sites like this one asking whether Shostakovich was a second or third "pressing" of Mahler (!)


That was a thread intentionally designed as a parody of anti-modern music threads.

Anyway, claims that Mahler's music makes use of borrowed sources have followed him since his music first premiered. There are some similarities one can find between certain parts of Beethoven, Wagner, and Schubert and certain passages in Mahler's works, but today people are more likely to hear Mahler's own personality rather than his inspirations (which were in almost all cases likely unconscious). As for Rott, we have to remember that he may have been paying homage to his friend, and I agree that his symphony sounds, on the whole, far more like Bruckner than Mahler.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

My theory: It wasn't Brahms that packed Rott's train with dynamite in 1880. It was the 20 year-old Mahler, determined to eliminate a rival and incorporate his music style into his own.

In a Clintonesque move, Mahler left one of Brahms' half-smoked cigars in the dynamite to shift the blame. Although the dynamite didn't go off, the nefarious plot succeeded nevertheless.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

csoforever said:


> Recognizing the prevalence of internet babble is not a difficult insight, PetrB, nor that YouTube threads tend to be reductive. But that's exactly why I copied it here, where better-informed classical music followers might comment. And actually, as I've looked around today, I've found that that notion of Mahler having artistically appropriated Rott does haver a fair amount of support. Heck, there are discussions on sites like this one asking whether Shostakovich was a second or third "pressing" of Mahler (!) I only hoped to get some intelligent opinion on a subject that seems to me to be attracting lots of . . . other opinion.


No composer comes from nowhere and then proceeds to work in a vacuum. These allegations, I find, gain little real tread with anyone who is truly familiar with the music, and further, to be completely an elitist snob, makes me wonder more and more what many a supposed devoted listener actually hears.

That has me thinking that whether such allegations reach an extreme, like the Mozart Conspiracy nutters who have decent IQs yet whose egos are so crushed by _the fact of Mozart_ that they then can begin to believe that other people _just had_ to have written a lot of Mozart, and cry that from the mountaintops, other similar allegations are simply impoverished attempts to discredit real creative genius. (I'm sure that would go down _really well_ as a Youtube comment


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Although I agree that Mahler is not "derivative" of Rott, my hearing (three times several years ago) of Rott's symphony did produce some wide-eyed moments as very recognizable bits of early Mahler (Symphony #1 and maybe #2, I forget now) flowed by. Yes, there was a little cribbing there. I wish I could remember the passages better. I don't make a big deal out of this; composers do it all the time. But I do regret that Rott's fate was so sad, and that he and Mahler didn't get to "grow up together" as friends and fellow musicians. I enjoyed Rott's symphony greatly.


----------

