Richard Morrison wrote in The Times:

>Mahler, after all, is a teenagers' composer.  His music is best savored
>when you are 18, at which point it exactly fits your world-view:  that
>love and death are heroic adventures, worthy to be celebrated in music
>heaven-storming grandeur.

I'm very skeptical of the above view and consider it highly personal and
without any documented verification.  First, the percentage of teenagers
who have even heard of Mahler must be miniscule.  Second, teenagers are
in a difficult time period where responsibility is growing but only for
him/herself, and most teenagers have great trouble approaching these
responsibilites in a reasonable fashion.  Third, any heroic notions of the
world are based on immaturity and an idealism that's very easy to maintain
because of lack of adult responsibilities.  Fourth, this view is offensive
in that it assumes that as we get older we forget the exuberance of youth
and just get bogged down by adult pressures.

I was a teenager in the late 60's - I protested in the streets, got
arrested, took mega drugs - it was so easy.  I simply had nothing to lose.
Then, I got married, had children, secured a full-time job.  That's real
life - not teenager world.  However, I don't forget my past, I just reflect
on it.  Funny thing, I never heard Mahler at all when I was 18 years old;
neither did anybody else I knew at that time.  Mahler, in practical terms,
did not exist.

I know I'm rambling here.  My point really is that each of us is unique.
Mahler can appeal to an individual in any age group.  What we appreciate
of Mahler may well change as we age, but that's a very personal experience
as well.

Some folks, having access to the written page, come up with all kinds of
personalized notions which they subsequently promote as the "norm." I feel
that Mr.  Morrison easily falls into this category.

Don Satz
[log in to unmask]