# Is Mahler's Third making fun of Nietsche?



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

_I'm not sure if this subject instead should be placed under "Politics and Religion in Classical Music". Moderators please move it there if it's where it belong._

OK, so here it goes:

Nietzsche was not especially fond of religion and definitely not Christianity. I'm not going to elaborate on this further since Nietzsche is so complex. Anyway, in Mahler's Third, one of the most central passages of "Also Sprach Zaratustra" is quoted; "Zarathustra's roundelay" - _O Mensch! Gib Acht!
_
This section of the symphony, where Nietzsches words are sung by an alt, is truly powerful, mysterical and emotional.

I'm sure there are a thousand interpretations of Nietzsches words, so I'm not going to start recite all that is written I can dig up. Anyway we have Nietsche's ideas about the self-mastered Übermensch and passages in the book stating "God is dead" and so on. So I conclude "O Mensch! Gib Acht!" in the rough is about man waking up from deep slumber and becoming the Übermensch.

But right after this mysterious and "deep" passage in Mahlers symphony the next passage starts with a children's choir immitating church bells and a somewhat naive and very merry song about angels celebrating Petrus, one of the founders of Christianity.

I find this very amusing, it's a great idea, great art and great music but I have a hard time believing Nietzsche would have approved. Or maybe he would have found it hilarious? Übermensch is born and what do we get, angels celebrating that Petrus has repented his denial of Christ, is free from sin and the joyous birth of Christianity?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I don't think it's meant to be amusing, in fact, it's deeply philosophical. The contrasting and developing style is somewhat similar to Dostoevsky's novels that are also deeply rooted in theology and philosophy - it's contrasting, but not amusing at least to me  . I'm also not sure whether Mahler agreed with Nietzsche, if he didn't he wouldn't have even wanted Nietzsche to approve. You might find this paper interesting, it analyses the philosophy (focusing on Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) of Mahler's third.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

annaw said:


> I don't think it's meant to be amusing, in fact, it's deeply philosophical. The contrasting and developing style is somewhat similar to Dostoevsky's novels that are also deeply rooted in theology and philosophy - it's contrasting, but not amusing at least to me  . I'm also not sure whether Mahler agreed with Nietzsche, if he didn't he wouldn't have even wanted Nietzsche to approve. You might find this paper interesting, it analyses the philosophy (focusing on Nietzsche and Schopenhauer) of Mahler's third.


Thanks for the link to the paper.
I actually find Nietzsches poem beautiful whatever the meaning.
The comparison to Dostoevsky was interesting. That's a writer I really love and I believe you are pointing in an interesting direction: _contrasting themes_. Maybe the case here is that Mahler is an artist while Nietzsche is more a philosopher using art. So for Mahler like many other great artists, the contrasts might be more interesting and important than building a coherent philosophy/religion.

From a philiosophical point of view I bet Nietzsche would have found the juxtaposition strange but maybe he would have appreciated it like a work of art?

I'm actually a bit new to Mahler and maybe this is me trying to get accustomed to his way of putting themes and perspectives in contrast to one another. Especially when there are texts involved.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

From the thesis and analysis of the 4th movement's quotation of "Also Sprach...":

_"Precisely because Zarathustra is between two states of consciousness, he is able to grasp a deeper truth and bring to the surface an insight that goes beyond what we think possible in broad daylight. [---] both stanzas begin with 'O Mensch!' and end with the same soaring melody. By simplifying the form in order to foreground the text, Mahler emphasized the centrality of language in the fourth movement. [---] Compared to the clear declamation of text in 'Midnight Song,' the words in the fifth movement are not foregrounded. Mahler uses an abundance of voices in this movement, including boys' choir, women's choir, and the returning alto soloist. Even the instrumentation of the orchestra vastly differs from the previous movement:"_

So far I agree with the thesis but then...

_"The immense change from the somber fourth to the joyful fifth illustrates the continued presence of Nietzsche's philosophies."
_

No. 
Rather the opposite. Nietsche disappears to the sound of church bells I would say. :lol:
The writer's actually fails completely to even mention the obvious conflict between Nietzsches "Übermensch" and the naive Christianity presented in the 5th movement.

But then comes to a conclusion somewhat similar to mine anyway (me underlining the crucial word):

_"Though Nietzsche is not normally associated with Christian humility and penance, Mahler perhaps ironically connects Nietzsche's philosophies to both the fourth and fifth movements while simultaneously separating the sections through his treatment of language."_

That's not far from my own conception of this ingenious transition between two movements.

The thesis in question (linked by annaw) is:
Mahler's Third Symphony and the Languages of Transcendence
by Megan H. Francisco


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

From Mahler's Ruckert Lieder:

I am lost to the world
with which I used to waste so much time,
It has heard nothing from me for so long
that it may very well believe that I am dead!

It is of no consequence to me
Whether it thinks me dead;
I cannot deny it,
for I really am dead to the world.

I am dead to the world's tumult,
And I rest in a quiet realm!
I live alone in my heaven,
In my love and in my song.

Listen to the music put to it and you'll understand the artist. 


Nietzsche's work is also somewhat artistic rather than philosophical in that he seeks to connect with the world, to explain what he is to the world, and that's what he does. The Übermensch is Nietzsche simultaneously wanting others to understand him and wanting others to be like him, just like the composer writes to communicate his thoughts and feelings to others.

A pure philosopher like Plato explains how the world works, not himself. It's no surprise that Nietzsche was also a composer: he was an artist at heart.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

I don't know the Mahler piece BUT among intimate friends I'm known as a die-hard Nietzsche admirer so here are some personal thoughts regarding Nietzsche's (complete) work:

Although Nietzsches critiques christianity he doesn't hesitate to point out the genius aspect of it. In fact, when reading Nietzsche, the admiration of christianity (and in part judaism) comes along with the sense of the unhealthy nature of that same religion. So you could say his main concern is the unhealthy nature of certain religions (probably in those days much more relevant) but at the same time you can read another concern between the lines, namely the concern to critique without proper historical knowledge about what you are critiquing and even love for that what you want to fight. 
Also Nietzsche says in various ways: don't take me as a leader. Of course his whole of works shouts out: I'm the leader of the new era, but at the same time he knows that's a stupid idea and refers to each one of us as powerful human beings of our own. Also stating that we're only in the possibility to stand IN BETWEEN man and the übermensch. The übermensch is only there as an ideal.

So I don't see a real problem in a slightly ironic note (or even a serious hommage to christianity) after the passage "O Mensch! Gib acht!"

And despite his style of writing clearly implies a desire to be taken seriously, which us admirers fondly do, there's at the same time the underlying opposite message to NEVER forget that grain of salt.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

1996D said:


> From Mahler's Ruckert Lieder:
> 
> I am lost to the world
> with which I used to waste so much time,
> ...


Seems to me you are discussing something else than the Third.
I find nothing of substance for the topic here.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

Razumovskymas said:


> I don't know the Mahler piece BUT among intimate friends I'm known as a die-hard Nietzsche admirer so here are some personal thoughts regarding Nietzsche's (complete) work:
> 
> Although Nietzsches critiques christianity he doesn't hesitate to point out the genius aspect of it. In fact, when reading Nietzsche, the admiration of christianity (and in part judaism) comes along with the sense of the unhealthy nature of that same religion. So you could say his main concern is the unhealthy nature of certain religions (probably in those days much more relevant) but at the same time you can read another concern between the lines, namely the concern to critique without proper historical knowledge about what you are critiquing and even love for that what you want to fight.
> Also Nietzsche says in various ways: don't take me as a leader. Of course his whole of works shouts out: I'm the leader of the new era, but at the same time he knows that's a stupid idea and refers to each one of us as powerful human beings of our own. Also stating that we're only in the possibility to stand IN BETWEEN man and the übermensch. The übermensch is only there as an ideal.
> ...


Yes, I agree with most of your view of Nietzsche. However, given the severity (hope it's the right word) of his poem and the lightweight childlike Christianity presented by Mahler in the movement following "O Mensch...", couldn't that be interpreted as an example of "unhealthy nature of [Christianity]"? From Nietzsches point of view I would assume he thinks it's just plain stupid...?

But since I'm pretty sure Nietzsche also had a sense of humor maybe it was in tune with him anyway. I mean, there is some kind of humor here don't you think?

If you listen from 59:55, the Nietzsche part and then what follows at 1:09:20


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Oortone said:


> Seems to me you are discussing something else than the Third.
> I find nothing of substance for the topic here.


If you don't understand the artist you can't understand what he meant in the 3rd, you're moving blindly.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

1996D said:


> If you don't understand the artist you can't understand what he meant in the 3rd, you're moving blindly.


Of course no person can completely understand another person whether that person is an artist or not. You are qouting some passages - giving me your interpretation of Mahler, Plato and Nietzsche - somehow claiming to understand in a better way than me. That's plain stupid.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Oortone said:


> Of course no person can completely understand another person whether that person is an artist or not. You are qouting some passages - giving me your interpretation of Mahler, Plato and Nietzsche - somehow claiming to understand in a better way than me. That's plain stupid.


Simply look at the purpose of things, what does it accomplish? In the third Mahler makes a tribute to Nietzsche, but there is a contradiction because he's a Christian yet still identifies with the former. In the previous post I mentioned how Nietzsche was an artist at heart and how his Übermensch is him confessing himself to the world, like an artist expresses himself in his works. There is a synergy between Mahler and Nietzsche but because of his faith he must make light of it.

That's basically it, it's not that complex.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

By saying "God is dead," Nietzsche was simply saying that our heretofore Man-made conception of God was dead; the "ubermensch" was simply the reconnection of God to Man's being. This is the reversal of the pathway to the "objective God out there" to the inner connection with God, more Eastern, which is heresy to orthodox Christians. "Through the Vanishing Point."


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

1996D said:


> Simply look at the purpose of things, what does it accomplish? In the third Mahler makes a tribute to Nietzsche, but there is a contradiction because he's a Christian yet still identifies with the former. In the previous post I mentioned how Nietzsche was an artist at heart and how his Übermensch is him confessing himself to the world, like an artist expresses himself in his works. There is a synergy between Mahler and Nietzsche but because of his faith he must make light of it.
> 
> That's basically it, it's not that complex.


I don't really see a way how you could be a Christian while cherishing Nietzsche so deeply that you devote a whole symphony to him (Nietzsche called Christian moral a "slave morality", how would you cope with that)... I don't think that's the case. Also, you must consider the order of the passages - the Christian theme seems to be a reflection of salvation. Nietzsche was a talented writer but in my opinion he's still rather a philosopher than an artist. He spent most of his time thinking and writing not composing. Don't compare him to Plato, take someone from nearer future (it's just difficult to see the similarities if the people belong to two totally different eras) - Kant, or even better, Sartre or Camus. Camus won a Nobel in literature but his novels were also his way of conveying his philosophical thought. He still was a philosopher...

_For example, his doubts about the viability of Christian underpinnings for moral and cultural life are not offered in a sunny spirit of anticipated liberation, nor does he present a sober but basically confident call to develop a secular understanding of morality; instead, he launches the famous, aggressive and paradoxical pronouncement that "God is dead" (GS 108, 125, 343). The idea is not so much that atheism is true-in GS 125, he depicts this pronouncement arriving as fresh news to a group of atheists-but instead that because "the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable", everything that was "built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it", including "the whole of our European morality", is destined for "collapse" (GS 343). Christianity no longer commands society-wide cultural allegiance as a framework grounding ethical commitments, and thus, a common basis for collective life that was supposed to have been immutable and invulnerable has turned out to be not only less stable than we assumed, but incomprehensibly mortal-and in fact, already lost. The response called for by such a turn of events is mourning and deep disorientation. _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

I just don't see a way of combining these two - Nietzsche's philosophy and Christianity if they are contradicting. Being against Christianity was one of the main characteristics (or at least one of the most famous ones) of Nietzsche - how could a Christian then so deeply sympathise with something that's almost by definition against his moral values? I also stick to my earlier opinion that it's also not supposed to be amusing.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Is Mahler's Third making fun of Nietzsche? *

Whether or not Mahler intended any comment directed towards Nietzsche, one way or the other, through the vehicle of the majestic Third Symphony I cannot say.

But, musically, if one compares _any_ of the compositions of Nietzsche (who did write music) with _any bar_ of music from the Mahler Third, one will definitely have an answer. Mahler likely didn't consciously intend to make Nietzche's music laughable; that Nietzsche accomplishes all on his own (in comparison to Mahler).














Not _bad_ … but certainly not Mahler.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> By saying "God is dead," Nietzsche was simply saying that our heretofore Man-made conception of God was dead; the "ubermensch" was simply the reconnection of God to Man's being. This is the reversal of the pathway to the "objective God out there" to the inner connection with God, more Eastern, which is heresy to orthodox Christians. "Through the Vanishing Point."


Sorry Nietzsche was saying more than that. 
"No-one has dared before look so unblinkingly at what the 'death of God' might involve for civilisation. 'When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet.' Nietzsche's loathing for those who thought otherwise was intense. Philosophers he scorned as secret priests. Socialists, communists, democrats- all were equally deluded! 'Naïveté- as if morality could survive when the God who sanctions it is missing!' Enthusiast for the enlightenment and self-proclaimed rationalists to imagine that men and women possessed inherent rights, Nietzsche regarded with contempt." (Tom Holland)
Of course then we see the logical working out of this in the Russian gulags, the Nazi extermination camps, the killing fields of Cambodia and the estimated 100 million deaths attributed to Mao. There is no logical morality.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Sorry Nietzsche was saying more than that.
> "No-one has dared before look so unblinkingly at what the 'death of God' might involve for civilisation. 'When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet.' Nietzsche's loathing for those who thought otherwise was intense. Philosophers he scorned as secret priests. Socialists, communists, democrats- all were equally deluded! 'Naïveté- as if morality could survive when the God who sanctions it is missing!' Enthusiast for the enlightenment and self-proclaimed rationalists to imagine that men and women possessed inherent rights, Nietzsche regarded with contempt." (Tom Holland)
> Of course then we see the logical working out of this in the Russian gulags, the Nazi extermination camps, the killing fields of Cambodia and the estimated 100 million deaths attributed to Mao. There is no logical morality.


Oh, you're exaggerating, as if orthodox religion (namely, Christianity) was the only thing that made Men moral, and kept them from being fascists, murderers, or worse. All it is is a reversal of objectivity/subjectivity. That's what "Through the Vanishing Point" means, like looking in the wrong end of a telescope. You're stuck in the Western perspective. It's not really a matter of religion. Of course, I might have known that the very mention of Nietzsche would give you an allergic reaction.

In this cosmopolitan view, popular in the 19th century, Wagner's era, there is still spirituality, but now Man has the responsibility of acting right. It's still free choice. So what if it's not your grandfather's Christianity, as long as it produces a more spiritual, moral, ultimately more 'religious' Man? Lighten up, dude.

As to your over-the-top exaggerations above, I might add that it was your "good old fashioned Christians" who dropped 2 atomic bombs on innocent civilians.

There may be no "logical morality," but there is right thought, right speech, and right action. You got something against free choice and logic?


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

SONNET CLV said:


> *Is Mahler's Third making fun of Nietzsche? *
> 
> Whether or not Mahler intended any comment directed towards Nietzsche, one way or the other, through the vehicle of the majestic Third Symphony I cannot say.
> 
> ...


Nietzsche certainly isn't a great or very good composer, but his piano works are very decent as a structure and quite pleasant for the listener. I have heard much worse piano works from ''big'' names. Respect.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

annaw said:


> I don't really see a way how you could be a Christian while cherishing Nietzsche so deeply that you devote a whole symphony to him (Nietzsche called Christian moral a "slave morality", how would you cope with that)... I don't think that's the case. Also, you must consider the order of the passages - the Christian theme seems to be a reflection of salvation. Nietzsche was a talented writer but in my opinion he's still rather a philosopher than an artist. He spent most of his time thinking and writing not composing. Don't compare him to Plato, take someone from nearer future (it's just difficult to see the similarities if the people belong to two totally different eras) - Kant, or even better, Sartre or Camus. Camus won a Nobel in literature but his novels were also his way of conveying his philosophical thought. He still was a philosopher...
> 
> _For example, his doubts about the viability of Christian underpinnings for moral and cultural life are not offered in a sunny spirit of anticipated liberation, nor does he present a sober but basically confident call to develop a secular understanding of morality; instead, he launches the famous, aggressive and paradoxical pronouncement that "God is dead" (GS 108, 125, 343). The idea is not so much that atheism is true-in GS 125, he depicts this pronouncement arriving as fresh news to a group of atheists-but instead that because "the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable", everything that was "built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it", including "the whole of our European morality", is destined for "collapse" (GS 343). Christianity no longer commands society-wide cultural allegiance as a framework grounding ethical commitments, and thus, a common basis for collective life that was supposed to have been immutable and invulnerable has turned out to be not only less stable than we assumed, but incomprehensibly mortal-and in fact, already lost. The response called for by such a turn of events is mourning and deep disorientation. _Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
> 
> I just don't see a way of combining these two - Nietzsche's philosophy and Christianity if they are contradicting. Being against Christianity was one of the main characteristics (or at least one of the most famous ones) of Nietzsche - how could a Christian then so deeply sympathise with something that's almost by definition against his moral values? I also stick to my earlier opinion that it's also not supposed to be amusing.


Nietzsche explains a certain aspect of humanity, which Mahler identified with, and that's the creative will to power.

This and Christendom are not at odds, actually quite the opposite.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, you're exaggerating, as if orthodox religion (namely, Christianity) was the only thing that made Men moral, and kept them from being fascists, murderers, or worse. All it is is a reversal of objectivity/subjectivity. That's what "Through the Vanishing Point" means, like looking in the wrong end of a telescope. You're stuck in the Western perspective. It's not really a matter of religion. Of course, I might have known that the very mention of Nietzsche would give you an allergic reaction.
> 
> In this cosmopolitan view, popular in the 19th century, Wagner's era, there is still spirituality, but now Man has the responsibility of acting right. It's still free choice. So what if it's not your grandfather's Christianity, as long as it produces a more spiritual, moral, ultimately more 'religious' Man? Lighten up, dude.
> 
> ...


You misread me. It wasn't me who said it. It was Nietzsche. They were his words not mine and his reasoning not mine. His reasoning was once we 'kill God there is no reference point for morality. So who his to say Hitler and Stalin or Pol Pot weren't right? Who's to say Mao's 'great leap forward' which cost an estimated 35 million lives wasn't right? 
As for the atomic bomb you mention if you read history, it was designed a response to the fact that the allies believed the Nazis, with Scientists like Heisenberg in their team, were developing a weapon. Obviously if Hitler had a develop some sort of nuclear weapon one could have only imagined the consequences. We now know that Heisenberg considered such a weapon unattainable but obviously that was not known during the war So the Manhattan Project went ahead
The choice to drop an untried weapon on Japan was the choice between sacrificing an estimated 100,000 allied lives (in addition to Japanese lives) in taking a Japan which insisted on fighting on or dropping the bomb. Sadly after the Hiroshima attack the hawks still chose to fight on and it took the intervention of the Emperor himself to negotiate a surrender. Even then an assassination attempt was made on his life by the hawks. So there is rather more to it than just dropping bombs! I'm not saying whether this will justified the decision to drop the bombs but history reveals it was rather a more complicated decision than just going ahead. In fact far more people were killed by conventional bombing them by nuclear bombing. It was actually nuclear bombing that brought the war to an end. Looking back when he's just thankful sometimes that one did not have to make the decisions
It always amuses me when guys like you tell guys like me to 'lighten up dude' when you are faced with history! Is it some nervous reaction? I'm quite lightened up thank you very much:lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Mahler wasn't a systematic philosopher, his "conversion" to Catholicism was probably mostly for reasons of expediency, and as an artist he was as deeply subjective - as concerned with the expression of emotion - as they come. I don't think we should take either the Nietzschean or the Christian elements in Mahler's works too seriously, or assume that they represent any clear ideological beliefs, much less worry about whether they contradict each other. What are we to make of angels baking bread in the 4th symphony, or the notion of resurrection in the 2nd, or the jumble of religious imagery and Goethe in the 8th - or, for that matter, the Chinese poems in _Das Lied?_ Mahler made art, not sermons or treatises, and like other composers he set texts that aroused certain feelings in him and proved musically inspiring.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Mahler wasn't a systematic philosopher, his "conversion" to Catholicism was probably mostly for reasons of expediency, and as an artist he was as deeply subjective - as concerned with the expression of emotion - as they come. I don't think we should take either the Nietzschean or the Christian elements in Mahler's works too seriously, or assume that they represent any clear ideological beliefs, much less worry about whether they contradict each other. What are we to make of angels baking bread in the 4th symphony, or the notion of resurrection in the 2nd, or the jumble of religious imagery and Goethe in the 8th - or, for that matter, the Chinese poems in _Das Lied?_ Mahler made art, not sermons or treatises, and like other composers he set texts that aroused certain feelings in him and proved musically inspiring.


That;s simply not true, each of his symphonies has a meaning. Read his writings, he makes it clear.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

1996D said:


> Simply look at the purpose of things, what does it accomplish? In the third Mahler makes a tribute to Nietzsche, but there is a contradiction because he's a Christian yet still identifies with the former. In the previous post I mentioned how Nietzsche was an artist at heart and how his Übermensch is him confessing himself to the world, like an artist expresses himself in his works. There is a synergy between Mahler and Nietzsche but because of his faith he must make light of it.
> 
> *That's basically it, it's not that complex*.


Precisely! 
For us who actually know all the answers, the true interpretations of art and also the inner thoughts of the artists themselves (whether living more than 100 years ago or not) nothing is ever complex. It's very convenient. What's the fuzz? Really?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

We should take the religious content in Mahler as seriously as we've seen it taken in Wagner, unless Wagner is "just an artist" too. To say that Christian content in Mahler is "expedient" is confusing his biographical details with his artistic intent, which is wrong and ultimately discriminatory, based on Mahler's roots as being of Jewish descent. Mahler should be taken as seriously as we've seen Wagner taken, in terms of Christian content, imagery, and symbolism. Do we have to copy & paste the _reams_ of evidence biased towards Wagner on this issue?

Also, an introspective Eastern perspective connecting Man to the sacred directly could naturally and easily include Christian ideas, since it's "all sacred" in such an outlook, as long as the result is right.

I.e., the "performer" becomes more important than the "composition;" Man as moral actor becomes more important than doctrine or dogma. Personal responsibility.

"Personal responsibility" applies to Hiroshima/Nagasaki, events which are always "depersonalized" in terms of personal action and responsibility.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> We should take the religious content in Mahler as seriously as we've seen it taken in Wagner, unless Wagner is "just an artist" too. To say that Christian content in Mahler is "expedient" is confusing his biographical details with his artistic intent, which is wrong and ultimately discriminatory, based on Mahler's roots as being of Jewish descent. Mahler should be taken as seriously as we've seen Wagner taken, in terms of Christian content, imagery, and symbolism. Do we have to copy & paste the _reams_ of evidence biased towards Wagner on this issue?


I don't know about Wagner in this respect (wasn't he supposed to be contemplating Buddhism?) but the simple fact of Mahler is that he did not sustain any religious vein in his music. He sometimes showed us something religious and then moved on to show us something completely different. As we know (from his famous discussion with Sibelius), he wanted his music to contain everything.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know about Wagner in this respect (wasn't he supposed to be contemplating Buddhism?) but the simple fact of Mahler is that he did not sustain any religious vein in his music. He sometimes showed us something religious and then moved on to show us something completely different. As we know (from his famous discussion with Sibelius), he wanted his music to contain everything.


The same thing applies to Wagner. Why should Christian imagery be taken more seriously in Parsifal than it is in Mahler? Because he was of Jewish descent?

Besides, if Wagner was 'contemplating Buddhism,' he was following the same nineteenth century trend in thought as Mahler was.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> That;s simply not true, each of his symphonies has a meaning. Read his writings, he makes it clear.


Mahler's Christian convictions have always been doubtful. If he wanted to work in the heavily antisemitic environment of Vienna, he had little choice but to convert; he said that it "cost me a great deal," and he joked about it with his Jewish friends. Such conversions of convenience had long been common among ambitious Jews. When he was asked why he never composed a mass, he said that he couldn't sincerely believe in the words of the Credo.

Mahler was never comfortable with either his Jewishness or his Christianity - or, probably, with much of anything in his life. He would probably best be described as an agnostic seeker. It's futile to look to his work for a clear expression of philosophical convictions. And why would we want to in any case?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> We should take the religious content in Mahler as seriously as we've seen it taken in Wagner, unless Wagner is "just an artist" too. To say that Christian content in Mahler is "expedient" is confusing his biographical details with his artistic intent, which is wrong and ultimately discriminatory, based on Mahler's roots as being of Jewish descent. Mahler should be taken as seriously as we've seen Wagner taken, in terms of Christian content, imagery, and symbolism. Do we have to copy & paste the _reams_ of evidence biased towards Wagner on this issue?
> 
> Why should Christian imagery be taken more seriously in Parsifal than it is in Mahler? Because he was of Jewish descent?


This is empty protestation. We take all art as seriously as we feel it warrants. We don't "confuse" it with the artist's biography, but if the question is whether it represents the artist's personal convictions, we can look at the biography for insight. That is the question raised by this thread, and I've offered an answer based on what I know of Mahler's life. We would do the same in the case of Wagner, and this has already been discussed in some detail in another thread.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Mahler's Christian convictions have always been doubtful. If he wanted to work in the heavily antisemitic environment of Vienna, he had little choice but to convert; he said that it "cost me a great deal," and he joked about it with his Jewish friends. Such conversions of convenience had long been common among ambitious Jews. When he was asked why he never composed a mass, he said that he couldn't sincerely believe in the words of the Credo.
> 
> Mahler was never comfortable with either his Jewishness or his Christianity - or, probably, with much of anything in his life. He would probably best be described as an agnostic seeker. It's futile to look to his work for a clear expression of philosophical convictions. And why would we want to in any case?


given the 8th symphony, ie the Veni creator spiritus + the ending from the Faust, I would guess that Mahler was a pantheist or something similar.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Jacck said:


> given the 8th symphony, ie the Veni creator spiritus + the ending from the Faust, I would guess that Mahler was a pantheist or something similar.


I guess if we have to assign him a specific belief, pantheism - the least specific form of theism - will do!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Mahler's Christian convictions have always been doubtful. If he wanted to work in the heavily antisemitic environment of Vienna, he had little choice but to convert; he said that it "cost me a great deal," and he joked about it with his Jewish friends. Such conversions of convenience had long been common among ambitious Jews. When he was asked why he never composed a mass, he said that he couldn't sincerely believe in the words of the Credo.


Still, these biographical details are distracting, and avoids directly addressing the Christian content in the music he wrote, which can be safely assumed to reflect what he himself was in accord with.

Later edit: Oh, I get it.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Still, these *biographical details are distracting*, and avoids directly addressing *the Christian content in the music he wrote, which can be safely assumed to reflect what he himself was in accord with*. *It's condescending, because it implies that Mahler put Christian imagery in his symphonies just to make the Viennese impact congruent and effective.*




Mahler's known (stated) beliefs may be "distracting" to you, but the OP's question, "Is Mahler's Third making fun of Nietzsche?", can hardly be addressed properly without reference to them. There's nothing "condescending" about it; it's part of what historians and musicologists do for a living.

Nothing can be "safely assumed" about Mahler's, or any artist's philosophical views, based solely on their work. Many composers have set religious texts without endorsing every idea they contain. Vaughan Williams, an avowed atheist, wrote some of the most beautiful religious-themed works in the repertoire, and I'm sure his motives were not cynical. There is no implication that Mahler had no better reason for setting Christian imagery to music than the one you state.



> So he never composed a mass? Did Wagner ever compose a Mass?


Did you miss the point on purpose? Mahler said explicitly that he didn't do so because he didn't believe in the doctrinal content of the text. Wagner has nothing to do with this.



> He loved his family, and he seems to me to have been a man who was full of love...unlike Wagner. Oh, Wagner was maybe more confident...for obvious reasons: he was a "good German."


Now you're just bullspinning.



> Why? you seem to have done so, extensively, with Wagner.


What I said is that it would be futile to look to Mahler's work for a clear expression of philosophical convictions. Your attempted tit-for-tat fails; I have _not_ looked to Wagner's operas for a clear expression of philosophical convictions. My approach to both composers is identical: I regard them as artists whose beliefs found their way into their works, but I don't see their works as manifestos, and I certainly don't see them as self-explanatory. The lives, words and actions of the composers are relevant in helping to interpret their works.



> Concerning opinions on Mahler, these biographical details are distracting,


I've addressed that. If you're "distracted," it's your problem.



> and I think it would be unfair to other members to 'authorize' your opinion on Mahler as indicative of your 'credentials' or 'superior knowledge of music and history,'


I have never claimed any credentials or superior knowledge. And since when is expressing a view "unfair to other members"?



> or to view it as anything other than a simple dislike.


Presumptuous and impertinent, aren't you? What I have a simple dislike for is ignorant people trying to discredit me and questioning my integrity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Woodduck said:


> Presumptuous and impertinent, aren't you? What I have a simple dislike for is ignorant people trying to discredit me and questioning my integrity.


Yes, I "get" it now.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I "get" it now.


You "get" nothing. If you did you wouldn't even have responded - misguidedly - to my thoughts here.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Mahler wasn't a systematic philosopher, his "conversion" to Catholicism was probably mostly for reasons of expediency, and as an artist he was as deeply subjective - as concerned with the expression of emotion - as they come. I don't think we should take either the Nietzschean or the Christian elements in Mahler's works too seriously, or assume that they represent any clear ideological beliefs, much less worry about whether they contradict each other. What are we to make of angels baking bread in the 4th symphony, or the notion of resurrection in the 2nd, or the jumble of religious imagery and Goethe in the 8th - or, for that matter, the Chinese poems in _Das Lied?_ Mahler made art, not sermons or treatises, and like other composers he set texts that aroused certain feelings in him and proved musically inspiring.


Yes, this is very much my view too. Mahler is making art and art cannot fullty be explained by words. Especially not music. I asked this question - starting the thread - because i was interested in hearing various interpretations of what i regard as a contradiction.

Mahlers inner thoughts in the matter will never be revealed to us anyhow. Regardless if some posters here believe otherwise.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> I don't know about Wagner in this respect (wasn't he supposed to be contemplating Buddhism?) but the simple fact of Mahler is that he did not sustain any religious vein in his music. He sometimes showed us something religious and then moved on to show us something completely different. As we know (from his famous discussion with Sibelius), he wanted his music to contain everything.


Where can I read about this discussion with Sibelius? It sounds interesting.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Oortone said:


> Yes, this is very much my view too. Mahler is making art and art cannot fullty be explained by words. Especially not music.
> 
> I asked this question - starting the thread - because i was interested in hearing various interpretations of what i regard as a contradiction.
> 
> Mahlers inner thoughts in the matter will never be revealed to us anyhow. Regardless if some posters here believe otherwise.


When I first saw the thread title,  "Is Mahler's Third making fun of Nietzsche?," I raised an eyebrow. The question trivializes Mahler's intent, whatever it was. I'll not go in to further detail.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Oortone said:


> Yes, this is very much my view too. Mahler is making art and art cannot fullty be explained by words. Especially not music. I asked this question - starting the thread - because i was interested in hearing various interpretations of what i regard as a contradiction. Mahlers inner thoughts in the matter will never be revealed to us anyhow. Regardless if some posters here believe otherwise.


From this, it sure sounds like you were interested in knowing about other "various interpretations" of "the contradiction" which you failed to mention as such until now. Why does it even matter to you?

If it's "just art" which, by your description, was just "contradictory religious words" simply thrown together by Mahler as "art," and not indicative of "Mahler's inner thoughts in the matter (which) will never be revealed to us anyhow," then the whole thread premise is artificial, disigenuous, and indicative of eliciting responses, as you yourself admitted later.

My eyebrow is still raised.


----------



## Oortone (Mar 27, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> From this, it sure sounds like you were interested in knowing about other "various interpretations" of "the contradiction" which you failed to mention as such until now. Why does it even matter to you?
> 
> If it's "just art" which, by your description, was just "contradictory religious words" simply thrown together by Mahler as "art," and not indicative of "Mahler's inner thoughts in the matter (which) will never be revealed to us anyhow," then the whole thread premise is artificial, disigenuous, and indicative of eliciting responses, as you yourself admitted later.
> 
> My eyebrow is still raised.


You're entitled to your raised eybrow.
I didn't start the thread to please you.

Religious themes in art is still art.

I'm also in favour of starting discussions without knowing exactly the absolute reasons and premises in advance. If someone (like you) find the whole thread artificial because one posted sentence from me then that's not really my problem. I can't see how the discussion becomes irrelevant just because you find one interpretation from me doubtful.

I noticed a contradiction in Mahlers Third, found it interesting, started a discussion.
That's all there is to it really.
The discussion is the interesting thing, not my personal grounds for starting it.


----------

