Hans Rott - novel

[nordanland]

Rotts symphony was completed 1879. Mahlers first symphony was completed 1888. So who plagiarised who is maybe a delicate question. We know that Mahler and Rott were mates. Students of the same class. Of course they had much in common and of course they inspired eachother. But as said - Rotts symphony was completed some 9 years before Mahlers ...

Reagrding Rotts fatal mishap compeeting for the national scholarship where Brahms, Hanslick and Goldmark formed the jury - the biographies just give you the protocols from the jury session. Rott does not write much about it in his letters. It is rather between the lines. Anothger interesting thing is that Rott in the end got the state scholarship despite the harsh verdict of Brahms and Hanskick. My guess - and in my novel - I assume this is the work of Goldmark. On the other hand. When Rott got the the state scholarship it was too late. He was in a mess, locked up in a asylum.

[eschiss1]

Mahler 1 wasn't "completed" in 1888 (it only reached its final form in 1896- or perhaps later), though its first version was. Do we know that Brahms knew Mahler's first in either form?

[eschiss1]

At least the basic outline seems to be supported by pp 51-52 of Peter Franklin's The Life of Mahler (1997) & footnote, I see...

[matesic]

In 1880 Mahler's status can have been no higher than Rott's and even if he detected similarities Brahms would not have known (or probably cared) who stole from whom! A detailed comparison of Rott's symphony with Das Klagende Lied would be revealing. I don't know the latter well enough, but if there are close parallels that might indicate that Rott and Mahler were truly "drawing from the same well". If, on the other hand, the similarities are few it would suggest that Mahler drew on Rott's themes for his later works.

[jimsemadeni]

The biography I read of Brahms of course reinforced what I already knew of his genius, but it was sad that he was kind of mean to those who didn't reach his standards. Of course poor Bruckner tried and tried, but maybe his obsequity was offputting along with his "Wagnerism". Brahms despised Herzogenberg's music (some of which is pretty to me) and put up with him in his social circle because he liked his wife Elisabet, some said it was jealousy that he didn't marry her instead, but he eventually said "Herzogenberg is able to do more than any of the others." (wiki) I felt sorry for
Joachim, too, who seemed to have to "earn" his approval from Brahms, none of which has anything to do with Hans Rott, I wish I could read not only the new novel but also the German biographies, such a sad story, and then there were Hugo Wolf, and even Robert Schumann himself who spent their last days in mental hell, and back then the "treatments" were non-existent or more than hellish themselves. And I would like to kick Hanslick in the seat of his pants, or other nether regions.

[nordanland]

I might add that Mahler once played Rotts symphony on the piano for all Rotts friends (Rott was at the asylum). One of Rotts best friends (Joseph Seemuller) told Rott when he visited him at the asylum. Rott was by this time quite confused and absent. His answer or reaction might be of interest. He only said "Yes, Mahler is a genius." Mahler also later planned to perform the symphony as conductor at Hof Opera - I think it was in 1900 - but he never did. This also has created some speculations and discussions of course  ... But all this talk about Mahler stealing "everything" from Rott. Especially Paavo Järvi seems to be totally convinced of that. But I think it is of course pretty unfair. Mahler and Rott were mates for some time. They had very different personalities but they shared the same passion for the same kind of music and they were both as young students fascinated by Wagner and enthusiastic members of the Wagner society in Vienna. At school they later participated in a kind of competition and examination work. Mahler got the first prize and they laughed at Rott. Eight pupils in the class. Seven prizes and Rott got none. He found comfort though in two things. Bruckner stood up for him at the examination and he also had another very unexpected supporter: When Mahler got home with his prize his mother was very angry with him and said that Rotts piece of music was much better than his! Nice compliment indeed ...  Well ...  ;-)

[Double-A]

I am sorry I brought up the topic of plagiarism.  The most natural explanation is probably the simplest:  We have two very young men (20 something) who share an intense enthusiasm.  They would talk for countless hours about their musical ideas, in the process sharing a lot of them.  At least this is how I remember being young felt like.  Then they would go on and write their works, not even remembering any more which ideas were whose.  This idea is also compatible with Mahler's "obituary",  which I think is a little weird--expressing emotional closeness:

Indeed, he is so near to my inmost self that he and I seem to me like two fruits from the same tree which the same soil has produced and the same air nourished. He could have meant infinitely much to me and perhaps the two of us would have well-nigh exhausted the content of new time which was breaking out for music.

while at the same time not forgetting to indicate:

To be sure, what he wanted is not quite what he achieved.

I only brought it up because Brahms seems to have brought it up in that infamous jury session.  (It is highly unlikely he had any concrete evidence of course other than the fact that a 20 year old was the author of the symphony in question.)  But I should have left the topic alone.

[Alan Howe]

I'm not sure how much further we're going to get with this topic - so much is sheer speculation. A novel is certainly one way of treating the subject; however, the danger is surely that we mix the little we actually know with mere guesswork. And then everyone's got a point of view...

[eschiss1]

Brahms and Mahler were, iirc, friends even already at the time; if a judgment of plagiarism was made by Brahms (and I'm not convinced one was), that might be a reason why, even though Mahler and Rott were, agreed, equally known so far as the wider public was concerned.

[ncouton]

Concerning the so-called "plagiarism" of Rott's theme in Mahler's 2nd, I have another opinion.

So I'd like to point out this fact:
in this movement Mahler quoted, but transforming them, many themes from different composers:
- the Trio of the Scherzo from  Bruckner's Fourth symphony
- the Trio of the Scherzo from Beethoven's 10th Violin Sonata
- the end of the ninth lied from Dichterliebe by Schumann

to this list one can add... the theme from the Scherzo of Rott's Symphony.

That would not be a plagiarism but a quotation. 

[Alan Howe]

How do you know that Mahler is quoting these themes by other composers if he is transforming them, M. Couton? Transformed themes are not quotations because quotations cannot be so unless they are left untransformed.
For example, if I say I am quoting somebody's words but actually change them, I am not quoting them at all...

[ncouton]

Well, it sounds obvious to me... Just listen and compare:

Bruckner 4th, Trio of the Scherzo
https://youtu.be/7S6MsieXCp4?t=4m30s

Mahler, Scherzo
https://youtu.be/8ZGra5BL6-k?t=49s

Beethoven, Violin Sonata n°10, Trio
https://youtu.be/hca8kQjB6no?t=19m

Mahler, Scherzo, first Trio
https://youtu.be/8ZGra5BL6-k?t=1m51s

Schumann, end of Dichterliebe n°9
https://youtu.be/L-Nkm8cBLgE?t=11m16s

Mahler, end of the Scherzo
https://youtu.be/8ZGra5BL6-k?t=10m13s

Moreover, it fits very well with the parodic mood of the original Lied (St. Anthony Preaches to the Fishes).

By the way, there is no surprise that Berio chose this very movement as a basis to create his collage masterpiece: Berio quotes Ravel, Debussy, Boulez, himself, Stockhausen... and Mahler quoting himself quoting Bruckner, Beethoven, Schumann... Rott... and others??

[Double-A]

How do you know that Mahler is quoting these themes by other composers if he is transforming them, M. Couton? Transformed themes are not quotations because quotations cannot be so unless they are left untransformed.
For example, if I say I am quoting somebody's words but actually change them, I am not quoting them at all...

I don't think it matters for the question of plagiarism:  Quotation, allusion, transformation:  Each of these are not plagiarism.
I also doubt we can take criteria for quotes in language and use them unmodified for musical quotations.  Shostakovich does not belong here (though he admired Mahler), but he is maybe the most famous quoter.  And his "quotes" (designated as such by everybody, including apparently himself) are almost always transformed, just listen to the Moonshine Sonata in his viola sonata.

[Alan Howe]

So, quotations that are soon transformed and merged into a bigger picture all of his own. Interesting. So, does Mahler make similar use of Rott anywhere (I'm thinking in particular of the scherzo of Rott's Symphony)?

[eschiss1]

"Moonshine Sonata"?... (There's a reason that title, not Beethoven's own, was "Mondschein"- yes, Moonshine is a clever mixing of Moon and "Schein"... but still...)\

(Re Rott, finally heard his string quartet, via Naxos Music Library, though a recording of it was available here in our Uploads for some time. Lovely!!!!)