Hans Rott - novel

[Alan Howe]

I'm afraid I'm not expert enough. I need concrete audio examples, as offered by N. Couton. Can't be too much to ask, surely.

[Gareth Vaughan]

Thanks for the link, Paul. Having read the article and seen the music examples I'm convinced.

[Mark Thomas]

It's also very clear from listening to Rott's Suite, I must say.

[Alan Howe]

Trouble is, I don't have Rott's Suite in E, so I can't judge for myself. As far as I can see, it's only been recorded once - and that's now unavailable.

[Mark Thomas]

I've emailed you, Alan. 

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Mark. I need more time to digest this.

[matesic]

I've finally figured out how ncouton manages to enter youtube videos at a specific time point. Is there a Windows program to do it less laboriously?

Mahler Symphony No5 Movement III
https://youtu.be/vOvXhyldUko?t=32m12s

Rott Symphony in E Movement III
https://youtu.be/SxjLWC1aTh8?t=30m5s

Not an exact quotation of course, but I'd say Mahler's debt to Rott's idea goes far deeper than with the little phrases he appropriated from other composers. He often uses those in a context completely different from that of the originals, whereas these two scherzi movements are clearly out of the same box. Mahler can't have expected his "tribute" to be discovered during his lifetime, so I'd be much more inclined to call it "creative exploitation" after Paul Banks.

[Alan Howe]

Very interesting indeed - thanks. Just what I was looking for. I'm convinced.

So do we now say that Mahler was indeed plundering Rott for his own purposes? And if so, was this grand larceny or creative borrowing?

[Mark Thomas]

But why would he feel the need to do so? His imaginative resources seem to have been extraordinary without resorting  to "plundering" from contemporaries. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that these are unconscious "borrowings".

[matesic]

Of course Mahler never heard Rott's symphony played by an orchestra, just in piano reduction. Mahler's composed his 5th shortly after reacquainting himself with Rott's score with a view to a performance that never took place. In the excerpts above even the orchestration is similar. If this was an unconscious "borrowing" Mahler must have had a pretty leaky conscious memory!

[Mark Thomas]

  I take your point. But I still don't understand why, apart from it being a "tribute", he felt the need to.

[matesic]

This was the time Mahler wrote the accolade that jdperdrix quotes on page 1 above, suggesting that his feelings of 20 years earlier had been rekindled. My best guess is that his sense of bromantic kinship was such that he came to feel almost as one being with his long-lost classmate, whose death he may even have experienced some guilt over. Having failed to get Rott's symphony performed (apparently the technical difficulties due to Rott's inexperience were the major stumbling block) maybe Mahler felt he owed it to Rott to bring his music back to life in another way?

I notice from some more-than-usually perceptive comments on the youtube performance I excerpted above that somebody else has been inspired to write a novel about it! Unfortunately (?) it doesn't seem to have been published online.

[Alan Howe]

At a slight tangent, I note that a study of Rott was published in 1999 in German ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Hans-Rott-Begr%C3%BCnder-symphonie-Musik-Konzepte/dp/3883776084/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1478543858&sr=1-1&keywords=hans+rott
...which, when translated, means:'Hans Rott: Founder of the New Symphony'.

I was wondering what 'New Symphony' means here. Was Rott, as Mahler himself proclaimed, any more the founder of a new concept of symphony than, say, Berlioz, Liszt, Bruckner or Draeseke? After all, in a sense, every generation has renewed the concept...

By the way, friends may find the following paper of interest:
http://www.mtosmt.org/issues/mto.99.5.1/mto.99.5.1.james.pdf

[Double-A]

This was the time Mahler wrote the accolade that jdperdrix quotes on page 1 above, suggesting that his feelings of 20 years earlier had been rekindled. My best guess is that his sense of bromantic kinship was such that he came to feel almost as one being with his long-lost classmate, whose death he may even have experienced some guilt over. Having failed to get Rott's symphony performed (apparently the technical difficulties due to Rott's inexperience were the major stumbling block) maybe Mahler felt he owed it to Rott to bring his music back to life in another way?

If Mahler wanted to "bring back (Rott's) music in another way" wouldn't he have had to mention him somewhere (e.g. as part of the German tempo marking?) since nobody had heard Rott's work and very few had even seen the score?  Or was this just aimed at Rott's soul in heaven--in which Mahler did not believe?  One has to remember that creating a work of art is a conscious activity, especially if the work is as complex as a great symphony.

The last sentence of the "accolade" (which points out that Rott didn't quite get to the "New Symphony" yet) seems to match the difference between the two movements (which are substantial despite the "common" roots) quite precisely.  The whole thing seems weird to me.

[semloh]

This is a fascinating and enlightening discussion. Thank you to everyone contributing. The expertise on UC never fails to amaze me. As a lifelong fan of Mahler, my first encounter with Rott's music obviously impressed me, but I had no idea that his work preceded Mahler. I just foolishly assumed that he was an imitator. I certainly know better now! 

'Tribute', 'conscious' or 'unconscious' 'quotation', 'borrowing', 'plagiarism' - I suppose that in the end it will come down to a matter of interpretation rather than an in controvertible fact.