Following-up on my post of a couple of days ago, where I described authors who did me some harm by being the wrong books at the worst time for me; the same can apply to music.
This is all-too-obvious with respect to pop music - especially because it is most targeted at youth, and adolescence is the time of greatest vulnerability.
From 1967 onwards, a great deal of pop music was calculated to manipulate youth into amplifying the spiritual harm of culture generally. This can clearly be seen in the lyrics, and even the music itself, of the most culturally significant group of that era in the UK, i.e. The Beatles.
But just as some people regard books as A Good Thing, so people regard Classical music as necessarily beneficial - yet this is absurdly untrue - at least for those who are engaged-with and sensitive to music.
The classical music culture in the UK is one in which it is regarded as high status to be able to appreciate all the great composers of all eras; and as a late teen and early adult I went along with this, such as always to be trying to appreciate all the high status composers - even when their music seemed to work on me like a poison, or made me (more or less) feel spiritually ill.
This was the case for Gustav Mahler. In the 1970s, he was being rediscovered as a composer (during his life he had been famous mainly as a conductor) - and promoted to the status of Great, as Wagner's premier successor.
But for all its musical excellences and strong effects; Mahler's music seemed to me then, as it still does when I occasionally hear it, toxic and cloying. Nonetheless I persevered, attentively working through his symphonies (especially) on LP, and attending a couple of live concerts.
This stopped after I had bought a recording of Mahler's Tenth Symphony (completed by Deryck Cook) and fell asleep while listening to the slow movement; waking with a profound and powerful mixture of revulsion and misery.
After this, I was forced to acknowledge that Mahler was bad for me. And that by persisting with listening I was pushing myself towards a feeling of hopelessness and despair.
This was a realization that all Great Composers were not good - some were harmful by my intuitive estimation!
More generally; this fits with the observation that anything which has a powerful enough effect that it might do good, for the same reason may do harm.
This applies to drugs (and other treatments) in medicine; which is why there is no qualitative distinction between therapeutic effects and "side effects" - to be of possible benefit, a drug must have an effects on the body, much change physiology; and because it has an effect, it will do harm to some people nearly-all the time, and other people some of the time.
It is only because Mahler is a powerful and effective composer, that his music was able to do me harm.
To generalize again; it is talented artists, authors, musicians; who can do us the most harm. So, for our own good; we need to be able to distinguish between matters of virtue, and matters of ability and effectiveness.
"So, for our own good; we need to be able to distinguish between matters of virtue, and matters of ability and effectiveness."
ReplyDeleteI don't know enough about Mahler to comment on him specifically, but I agree; this is one of the most important discernments to make about art.
It amazes me to see the scorn heaped upon amateurish art, whether music, literature, visual art, etc., when it is just not great, but not immoral. No one is obligated to pay attention to any art, but if something is just mediocre, what's the big deal, just ignore it or not.
On the other hand, if something is well done but intended to present a bad message, people will heap praise upon it. But no, something bad and well done is significantly worse than something mediocre but innocuous.
> toxic and cloying.
ReplyDeleteI’ve read your judgement on Mahler before, and of all your judgements its the one I have almost no comprehension for. Not that I cannot abstractly understand it. Mahler died a broken man and did not exactly triumph over life. It may be because I have little or no inclination to the vice of sentimentality (when people talk about “sentimentality” I’ve realized I’m not sure I know what they are talking about) and so cloying music can only do me good.
I couldn't agree more about Mahler. His music has a self-pitying, self-centred, self-indulgent quality. It is spiritually unhealthy. The second Viennese School tends in that direction though its intellectual bent makes it different. There is also something about Bartok whose music I've tried to get on with that doesn't sit right. In fact, there's more things wrong with 20th century music than right with it. And that's just classical music!
ReplyDeleteAt school we studied 'Educating Rita' which culminated in watching the film with Michael Caine and Julie Walters. A harmful piece of art if ever there was one, dressed up in literary artiness, humour and excellent theme music. Anyhow I remember one of the lines, 'Wouldn't you just die without Mahler!' from a character that later commits suicide.
ReplyDeleteAnd I read that Mahler's high blood pressure in his final months was treated with Radium: a medicine with good and bad uses, this being a bad one.
The basic trick seems to be to get the audience to open their hearts by the action of beauty, pathos, the lure of a glamorous hi-tech treatment, or whatever -- and then inject the poison. Later they will remember the lyrics, the attitude to life, or whatever the poison was, but they will do so uncritically. It has got past their defences. And so they enact it or recommend it to others and the damage may spread.
@Jim - It is not so much a "judgment" of Mahler, as a report of his effect on me. That it what matters, But you can see from William's comment that it is not an unique response.
ReplyDeleteTellingly, the first large scale awareness of Mahler was probably as lush and sensuous background music for the movie version of Thomas Mann's Death in Venice, which was an extremely creepy movie (and story) to say the least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_in_Venice_(film)#Plot
@NLR - I agree entirely. I am very tolerant of good hearted naive art and literature, of the kind that gets mercilessly lambased by critics. Whereas I have come to regard the critical promotion of accomplished, seductive evil as a high level form of sin.
ReplyDelete@William - There is very little I like A Lot in 20th century classical music, aside from a handful of pieces by early Michael Tippett (up to the middle 1950s) - but I loathe Tippet's later work (i.e. most of his work).
ReplyDelete@Ron - I know what you mean about ER.
ReplyDeleteAt the time, I soaked it up; but nowadays I find that sort of thing horrible - a sickly combination of condescending sentimentality and condescending social commentary; the product of upper-class champaigne communists, or their tame acolyte-puppets.
Unfortunately, this describes nearly all British theatre and movies since the 1950s!
Even ‘worse’ than Mahler: Scriabin.
ReplyDeleteI have a similar experience of Mahler (and Bartok). But I’m not that into music (a very uncool thing to say!) and refuse to subject myself to any that doesn’t please me. But after your book post I was similarly reflecting on music that pleased but harmed me, and there sure was plenty of it, especially during adolescence! Even some that I wouldn’t today consider very ill-intended by the composer, such as Mozart’s Don Giovanni.
ReplyDeleteIt’s strange that in my experience having listened to him extensively I don’t think I have even an inkling of this experience with Mahler. What I find in the music (if I can hazard an attempt at description) is an exquisite apocalyptic sense that synchronizes and objectifies the degenerative and tragic modern forces - so I get a sense of detachment and superiority to the decadence. I’m an American who has grown up in one of the most degenerate cultures in the history of the world so it may be necessarily that I am not too sensitive or else I would be immobilized by disgust (and the vulgar or cosmopolitan aspect of Mahler which was once off putting to classical audiences is something I must be quite comfortable with).
ReplyDeleteHowever I tend to instinctively dislike everything morbid or that feels like a draining of energy, so Klimt - and pretty much all of the visual art of that time/place I’ve been exposed to - I find more or less repulsive and wouldn’t exist if it was only up to me. The book Death of Venice does creep me out - and I say this not because the premise of the book is itself of course rather dubious, but having read it it gives me this sensation of “this is a draining of energy” which makes me dislike something. I like Mann’s writing but I think he was somewhat of a coward who took his own books too seriously, to their own detriment. It may be that with the productions of highly talented individuals the stakes are higher so any character flaws come to the surface and become more of a problem.
@Mia - As you may know from other blog posts; I am no longer actively engaged by music in th eway I used to be. However, I do retain an immediate poweful sensitivity to music that has moved me in the past. For instance, last week I looked at a live video of the Presentation of the Rose scene from Richard Strauss's Rosenkavalier (Lucia Popp, Brigitte Fassbaender) - and within less than 2 mins, tears were streaming uncontrollably.
ReplyDeleteRosenK is a pretty nasty plot and shallow characters, and is grossly overlong and tedious in performance; but has a couple of utterly sublime sections, that I find almost overpowering - including the finale trio/ duo/ sign-off.