Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Is knowing about a composer's life useful...

A word of advice, dullsf: don't even try having a substantive conversation about Mahler with argerichfan. As you can see, argerichfan thinks that anyone who dares to like Mahler is akin to religious extremists/zealots. Of course, argerichfan is blind to the extremism/zealotry within himself.

Oy vey.

The incredibly intricate counterpoint in the development section of the first movement is certainly not the product of an emotionally immature being.

The problem with the Sofronitsky example is that he was equally astonishing in other composers' music, so it is very hard to say that his special Scriabin connection helped him play that music any better than he would have otherwise.

Some of us (like me) wallow on the bios of a favourite composer ... in a devotee’s attempt to gain insight into the genius prompting of a special piece under hands .

IMHO failure to adopt this course ... can only result in a second-rate rendition.

Here is the abbreviated/paraphrased discussion of the question in my OP from the latest issue of International Piano magazine. I should add that the magazine discussion was only about Schumann, but I think the viewpoints can be generalized.

"Does knowledge of his life help?"

Imogen Cooper:There are two things one must know about...his mental/physical health and the huge importance in his own life of his writings.

Ashkenazy:The whole biographical question is very personal. Of course, it's very helpful for some but for others everything you need to know is in the music. The biography isn't so much irrlelevant as unnecessary....certainly as a route to musical truth.

Kuerti:Fascinating as it is to know about a composer's life, I've always questioned its relevance to performance(part of a composer's genius is his ability to put his life into those curious blacks marks in the score). In Schumann's case it may play more an important a role than for other composers.


"What about reading the literary works that inspired him(Schumann)?"

Kissin: One can gain certain insight into the character and mood of the music, the literary world that Schumann lived in. But the contrived, artificial character I find in a lot of Romantic literature I never find in Schumann. I think his music is always better than the literature that inspired it.

Kuerti: I don't see any tangible correlation between Hoffmann's Kappelmeister and Schumann's Kreisleriana.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just some opinions by a few terrific pianists. It would be interesting to see what 100 of the top pianists had to say about this topic. There obviously is no correct answer to this question.

pianoloverus -- thanks for a fascinating thread.

I have subscribed to International Piano Magazine today.
How did you find out about International Piano Magazine?
Reason: Other (please describe below)
"Recommended in a pianoworld.com forum"

Up to a maximum of three, are there any especially good back issues that you can recommend, please?

I think that would depend on one's personal interests. Maybe there's a listing of the main articles in each issue at the IP site?

There doesn't appear to be, but I will hunt around.

One thing I have learned here: don't EVER question Mahler's greatness. That is a sin against the Holy Grail. It's always okay to dislike Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Liszt or Wagner, but Mahler? No other composer has such Messianic significance.

If there ever was a greater orchestrator, I'd like to know. His music has a technical address which would probably amaze Mozart, Brahms and Wagner.

I'm just questioning the ultimate result. We don't see it the same way.

I guess I'm a blasphemer, since I dislike Mahler a great deal. Genius? Yes. Composer I want to listen to daily? No.

I find your Elgar much more congenial.

they all share the same heaven, those old catholics, haha

I like to think the composers themselves would say no to this question. They want their music to be remembered and not their personal lives.

Well I love Mahler, but I don't think I've ever accused you of a mortal sin for not sharing that, have I Jason? (I was a bit upset when you bagged Schubert, however... )

It's perfectly fine to dislike Mahler. What is not fine is implying that anyone who likes Mahler is a misguided religious zealot who unthinkingly worships the composer as a messiah figure.

Useful or not, there seems to be an academic factor in playing classical music, so I like knowing about the composer's life and intentions on composing his/her music.

It's fascinating how Mahler's music attracts such divergent views. I love his music - but then I love Bach, Schubert, Messiaen, Shostakovich, etc, etc.

I'm old enough to remember the days when Mahler was definitely not a main stream composer. When performances were very rare indeed. When many critics looked down their noses at his music. When the only conductors who championed his music (apart from Walter and Klemperer who both knew and worked with Mahler) were Bernstein (in the US) and Barbirolli (in the UK). It's also fascinating that Barbirolli introduced Mahler to the Berlin Philharmonic and that Karajan only took up Mahler with that orchestra after Barbirolli was off the scene.

People associate Mahler with massive forces, and he does use a very large orchestra, but much of the writing has an almost chamber quality to it. Also, I strongly believe that his symphonies should be heard in the concert hall and that CDs give a pale reflection of the reality (but then that is true of most music).

Incidentally, his Symphony No 8 is a curious beast. Some very respected Mahler conductors (e.g. Haitink) don't get on with it at all, whereas some less successful Mahler conductors excel in it. (As far as I am concerned it's my least favourite symphony.)

[Not sure why I made this rambling contribution - but I will let it stand.]

In the case of Mozart I would disagree. I would agree to the extent that his scores seem to be very clear in that the dynamic markings generally convey the mood. But his life went through incredible ups and downs - from superstar to has-been who could barely put food on the table. My impression is that for the most part he was a guy who wanted much of his music to be happy. Not tritely so but I do get the sense of a guy who loved life from, for example, most of the Sonatas. There's an adagio for the piano from 1788 - a bad year - that is a marked contrast in this regard. To me, knowing that he had hit the skids in a big way contributes.

Though of course, maybe it just contributes to my enjoyment. Maybe it isn't necessary but it is useful....