# Mahler vs. Bruckner



## mahlernerd

The two big symphonic giants of the Late Romantic period.

For me it’s Mahler, my all-time favorite composer. And for me, there is just something unsatisfying about Bruckner’s symphonies, just my opinion, though.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Mahler, but only because his cycle to me seems more multi-faceted. That's not a criticism of Bruckner as if to say that all of his are too similar, I just think those of Mahler represents a broader worldview. Had Bruckner composed another five symphonies in similar vein and scale to his others I wouldn't have minded at all.


----------



## DavidA

Senseless comp[arison. Like comparing chalk and cheese. Just enjoy both


----------



## Bulldog

mahlernerd said:


> The two big symphonic giants of the Late Romantic period.
> 
> For me it's Mahler, my all-time favorite composer. And for me, there is just something unsatisfying about Bruckner's symphonies, just my opinion, though.


I"m very satisfied with Bruckner's symphonies but more so with Mahler's.


----------



## flamencosketches

Give me Mahler any day but this is more a statement on me than on either Mahler or Bruckner. One thing I will say is that Mahler was by far the more modern composer. His music presaged a lot of what would come later in music. I could never say that about Bruckner.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> Senseless comp[arison. Like comparing chalk and cheese. Just enjoy both


You Brits seem to eat a lot of chalk. Is that a holdover from WW II?


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> You Brits seem to eat a lot of chalk. Is that a holdover from WW II?


And you told me he wasn't overrated here... The dunce triumphs!


----------



## Red Terror

Woodduck said:


> You Brits seem to eat a lot of chalk. Is that a holdover from WW II?


Chalk is too good for you Yanks. You ain't got no class, see?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

If I could take only the Adagios of Bruckner 8 and Mahler 9 to that proverbial desert island along with all of Bach, I'd be set up for life. The rest of their cycles both have high and low points, though I will say I think Bruckner was more consistent. There's a man who knew what he wanted to compose and did it. Mahler changed his approach in every symphony. But there I go again, falling into this proposterous trap of comparing peppers and poodles, or hens and hotdishes, or whatever!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Mahler v. Bruckner? Well, I have two Mahler cycles and 10 Bruckner cycles. If both stacks collapsed on each other, Mahler would be crushed. That leaves Bruckner the last man standing.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Manxfeeder said:


> Mahler v. Bruckner? Well, I have two Mahler cycles and 10 Bruckner cycles. If both stacks collapsed on each other, Mahler would be crushed. That leaves Bruckner the last man standing.


What are the 2 Mahler cycles? With Mahler I find it next to impossible to choose a complete cycle since individual performances vary so widely. I guess Bernstein/NY and Kubelik are the closest to consistency I've found.


----------



## Woodduck

Red Terror said:


> Chalk is too good for you Yanks. You ain't got no class, see?


How veddih veddih chahming.


----------



## starthrower

Manxfeeder said:


> Mahler v. Bruckner? Well, I have two Mahler cycles and 10 Bruckner cycles. If both stacks collapsed on each other, Mahler would be crushed. That leaves Bruckner the last man standing.


I would have assumed you slogged through ten Bruckner cycles trying to hear what all the fuss is about? At least you had the good sense to pick up a couple of Mahler sets!


----------



## Woodduck

starthrower said:


> I would have assumed you slogged through ten Bruckner cycles trying to hear what all the fuss is about? At least you had the good sense to pick up a couple of Mahler sets!


Perhaps he's looking for the Bruckner cycle that will finally crack the code to the pearly gates. I assume that when we no longer see him on the forum he will have succeeded.


----------



## Art Rock

Bulldog said:


> I"m very satisfied with Bruckner's symphonies but more so with Mahler's.


This. Both top five symphonists for me (with Brahms, Sibelius and Shostakovich), but Mahler is #1.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahler for me. ---


----------



## Manxfeeder

Allegro Con Brio said:


> What are the 2 Mahler cycles? With Mahler I find it next to impossible to choose a complete cycle since individual performances vary so widely. I guess Bernstein/NY and Kubelik are the closest to consistency I've found.


I started with Benjamin Zander. It's not really a cycle, because they pulled the plug on it midway, but he was a good introduction because of his instructional CDs that accompanied the pieces. Then I added Abbado's cycle.

Of course, I have individual recordings by Horenstein, Bernstein, Karajan, Abravanel, Boulez, Klemperer, Pesek, Litton, and basically whatever pops up in my used CD store.


----------



## mahlernerd

Allegro Con Brio said:


> What are the 2 Mahler cycles? With Mahler I find it next to impossible to choose a complete cycle since individual performances vary so widely. I guess Bernstein/NY and Kubelik are the closest to consistency I've found.


Try MTT and the San Francisco Symphony's Cycle. They also include Blumine, DLVDE, and the other song cycles as well (the Blumine is in a separate set then the Mahler cycle.


----------



## flamencosketches

Art Rock said:


> This. Both top five symphonists for me (with Brahms, Sibelius and Shostakovich), but Mahler is #1.


That's a good list.


----------



## Oortone

DavidA said:


> Senseless comp[arison. Like comparing chalk and cheese. Just enjoy both


I've never eaten chalk so that I've never really enjoyed both.


----------



## Oortone

mahlernerd said:


> The two big symphonic giants of the Late Romantic period.
> 
> For me it's Mahler, my all-time favorite composer. And for me, there is just something unsatisfying about Bruckner's symphonies, just my opinion, though.


I feel the same way. I must admit, I'm a bit late in the game started to listen to both just a few years ago but I really don't get Bruckner. However Mahler quickly became a favourite. Very different styles although belonging to the same genre and age.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Mahler's music can bring tears to my eyes; Bruckner's music does not.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> Senseless comp[arison. Like comparing chalk and cheese. Just enjoy both


Don't like eating chalk.


----------



## Guest

EdwardBast said:


> Mahler for me. ---


_*I'd rather open a vein*_ than agree with you on this one, Edward!!


----------



## bz3

Bruckner. I only return to the 3rd, 8th, and 9th symphonies and the songs in Mahler. Bruckner remains a fixture in my symphonic listening and unlike some listeners I love his sacred works.


----------



## Manxfeeder

bz3 said:


> Unlike some listeners I love his sacred works.


It seems when people mention Bruckner they only refer to his symphonies. His mature sacred output is impressive.


----------



## Woodduck

I have to be in a rare mood to want to hear either of them. But I prefer the abstractness and impersonality of Bruckner over Mahler's exposed nerves, at least in principle.


----------



## Dimace

I love both of them and for this reason I didn't vote. This comparison reminds me the dilemma faces someone who must choose between to super beautiful women. The most reasonable (for me) is to pick both and make his best with them… :lol:


----------



## starthrower

Dimace said:


> I love both of them and for this reason I didn't vote. This comparison reminds me the dilemma faces someone who must choose between to super beautiful women. The most reasonable (for me) is to pick both and make his best with them… :lol:


I'm wishing you luck, my friend!


----------



## Bulldog

So far, the results are surprising in that Mahler polled greater numbers than Bruckner in the two previous TC polls pitting these two against one another.

I did get to read a funny comment in one of those threads, dismissing both composers as "musical windbags".


----------



## Fabulin

Dimace said:


> I love both of them and for this reason I didn't vote. This comparison reminds me the dilemma faces someone who must choose between to super beautiful women. The most reasonable (for me) is to pick both and make his best with them… :lol:


I somehow find this comparison (in relation to the short, limping Mahler, and an even shorter, hunchbacked Bruckner) hilarious :lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Fabulin said:


> I somehow find this comparison (in relation to the short, limping Mahler, and an even shorter, hunchbacked Bruckner) hilarious :lol:


And of course they both adored the short, big-headed (in both senses) Wagner. But don't sell any of these guys short.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Allegro Con Brio said:


> What are the 2 Mahler cycles? With Mahler I find it next to impossible to choose a complete cycle since individual performances vary so widely. I guess Bernstein/NY and Kubelik are the closest to consistency I've found.


Agree with the Bernstein/NY and Kubelik, but more recently I've found the Bertini, Chailly and Gielen cycles pretty consistent. I also love Boulez's cycle. Some find his way with Mahler somewhat dry, but I very much like his Mahler style; he lets the music speak for itself.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> Agree with the Bernstein/NY and Kubelik, but more recently I've found the Bertini, Chailly and Gielen cycles pretty consistent. I also love Boulez's cycle. Some find his way with Mahler somewhat dry, but I very much like his Mahler style; he lets the music speak for itself.


I was a Mahler freak for a year about eight years ago, then I burned out. I'm looking for something to reignite the flame. I like Abbado because he's not so extreme. But if the price drops, I'd eventually like to acquire Bertini or Gielen.

I'm curious about the 150th Anniversary Box. Is anyone familiar with that?


----------



## Sad Al

I've just listened to Alcerl's Mahler 9. Not all of it because I find it so boring. I listened to first 30 minutes and found out that Mahler's ideas are always dull and not worth hearing. I skipped the Rondo and tolerated 10 minutes of the sonic torture that is the Adagio of Mahler 9. Before my masochistic attempt to listen to Mahler I listened to Bruckner 8 and I found out that it's all right. For example, like Richard Strauss, Bruckner understood how to use horns. Mahler obviously had no clue, his music is incoherent, it's pompous muzak, it's all over the place.


----------



## Oortone

Sad Al said:


> I've just listened to Alcerl's Mahler 9. Not all of it because I find it so boring. I listened to first 30 minutes and found out that Mahler's ideas are always dull and not worth hearing. I skipped the Rondo and tolerated 10 minutes of the sonic torture that is the Adagio of Mahler 9. Before my masochistic attempt to listen to Mahler I listened to Bruckner 8 and I found out that it's all right. For example, like Richard Strauss, Bruckner understood how to use horns. Mahler obviously had no clue, his music is incoherent, it's pompous muzak, it's all over the place. My final decision is that Mahler is for those who have underwent a lobotomy.


Probably true. Here in Stockholm, Sweden Mahler concerts often draw full houses (Bruckner not so much) and it's a well established fact that we are all lobotomized.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Sad Al said:


> I've just listened to Alcerl's Mahler 9. Not all of it because I find it so boring. .


I didn't know Ancerl recorded the 9th. He usually finds a way to make anything interesting. If he recorded a dud, that's interesting. I'll have to look that one up.


----------



## starthrower

Manxfeeder said:


> I didn't know Ancerl recorded the 9th. He usually finds a way to make anything interesting. If he recorded a dud, that's interesting. I'll have to look that one up.


It's not a dud. Sad Al is just grinding his axe.


----------



## Bigbang

Well, I read the post of Sad Al--is clearly is pointing his finger at Mahler and not the conductor so Ancerl is off the hook for now. Whether it is a dud or not is not the issue of Sad Al is bringing up.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Bigbang said:


> Well, I read the post of Sad Al--is clearly is pointing his finger at Mahler and not the conductor so Ancerl is off the hook for now. Whether it is a dud or not is not the issue of Sad Al is bringing up.


What I was thinking is, usually a good conductor can make even a boring piece interesting. Ancerl has done that for me a few times.

Of course, personally, I don't find the 9th boring; to me, it starts by describing a heart murmur/afib (the first page could be mistaken for early atonal Webern) and ends with a depiction of dying. That's quite a broad spectrum to explore musically.

And I think Ancerl sounds great. Just my opinion, though.

And he likes Bruckner, so I have no quarrel with that.


----------



## starthrower

The idea that Mahler 9 is boring muzak is not an opinion I can entertain seriously.


----------



## Becca

So TC now has a "composer" who thinks that Bruckner had no clue what he was doing in comparison to Mahler, and now one who thinks the opposite. Isn't it fun!


----------



## Becca

Sad Al said:


> Bruckner understood how to use horns. Mahler obviously had no clue, his music is incoherent, .


I suggest that you talk to some horn players from major orchestras and see what they have to say. The response that you will almost certainly get is that you obviously have no clue.


----------



## mbhaub

Becca said:


> I suggest that you talk to some horn players from major orchestras and see what they have to say. The response that you will almost certainly get is that you obviously have no clue.


Spot on! Horns love to play Mahler - especially the 4th and 5th with that wonderful obbligato part. Several Mahler excerpts are standard fare for horn auditions. Bruckner not.

Is there anything as glorious as the ending of the 1st Mahler symphony where the horns (all 7!) stand up, bells up and wail!


----------



## Bigbang

Manxfeeder said:


> What I was thinking is, usually a good conductor can make even a boring piece interesting. Ancerl has done that for me a few times.
> 
> Of course, personally, I don't find the 9th boring; to me, it starts by describing a heart murmur/afib (the first page could be mistaken for early atonal Webern) and ends with a depiction of dying. That's quite a broad spectrum to explore musically.
> 
> And I think Ancerl sounds great. Just my opinion, though.
> 
> And he likes Bruckner, so I have no quarrel with that.


I thought that was where you were going with your post. This is one of the reasons I like Beethoven (straight shooter) Mozart (divine melodies) Bach (OK, outside my ability to say), I mean why should I torment myself to listen to every piece of music? I will take in small doses the works that are more difficult for me to get or enjoy.


----------



## Becca

mbhaub said:


> Spot on! Horns love to play Mahler - especially the 4th and 5th with that wonderful obbligato part. Several Mahler excerpts are standard fare for horn auditions. Bruckner not.
> 
> Is there anything as glorious as the ending of the 1st Mahler symphony where the horns (all 7!) stand up, bells up and wail!







During a rehearsal for the first time that Abbado conducted the Mahler 1st after becoming the BPO chief conductor, the horns automatically stood up at that point, he stopped the proceedings and said something like "I know that is common practice but we won't be doing it."


----------



## NLAdriaan

Becca said:


> During a rehearsal for the first time that Abbado conducted the Mahler 1st after becoming the BPO chief conductor, the horns automatically stood up at that point, he stopped the proceedings and said something like "I know that is common practice but we won't be doing it."






This is the hilarious moment with the BPO horns and Abbado rehearsing the Titan for his inaugural concert, in a highly entertaining documentary, making clear the differences between Karajan and Abbado.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> This is the hilarious moment with the BPO horns and Abbado rehearsing the Titan for his inaugural concert, in a highly entertaining documentary, making clear the differences between Karajan and Abbado.


Of course the beginning is nonsense as first Karajan was not dead yet and second the orchestra wanted C Kleiber initially


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Of course the beginning is nonsense as first Karajan was not dead yet and second the orchestra wanted C Kleiber initially


Karajan died in July 1989, Abbado's election/appointment was announced on October 8, 1989 and Abbado's inaugural BPO concert was in December 1989.

Carlos Kleiber, after many failed requests (including reportedly by von Karajan), had first conducted the BPO at the annual Benefit Concert in March 1989, at the personal request of Bundespesident von Weiszacker.














How much Karajan and the BPO (and likely anyone with a serious interest in classical music) would have wanted it, Kleiber would never have accepted any principal conductors position. He knew he wasn't capable of dealing with the structural obligations and the politics involved with such a position. Also artistically, he was past his prime. His first Viennese New Year's concert, recorded on January 1, 1989, marked his last recorded musical highlight. Kleiber was very much a man of the seventies and eighties.

Abbado received both praise and criticism in equal portions in his BPO years. Abbado the socialist and master of the live concert, was in many ways the opposite of the authoritarian Karajan, king of rehearsal. But after the Karajan era, likely any successor would have experienced the same.


----------



## Skakner

I love them both. Depending on the phase I am in, I could choose either of them.
Last months I'm in Mahler mood so I voted for him.


----------



## mparta

Mr. Wolf: Lots of cream, lots of sugar

Who would choose?


----------



## haziz

Neither. The big symphonic late Romantic giant is Tchaikovsky!

I do at least find a couple of Mahler symphonies listenable. I enjoy is 4th and enjoy parts of the 2nd symphony (essentially the instrumental only movements). I find the rest of his symphonies too long, and often unpleasant. I never understood or appreciated Bruckner, despite trying a few times. After a while I wonder why I am listening to music I dislike and slink back to the comfort of a Tchaikovsky symphony or concerto.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Mahler vs. Bruckner*

I do believe that in a fist fight, Mahler would win.

But if I want to hear Bruckner's Seventh Symphony (which I often do), nothing by Mahler will replace it.

Likewise, if I'm in the mood for the Mahler Third, not even my beloved Bruckner Seventh will satisfy.

So ... did I mention my opinion of the winner in a fist fight?

How about who would have the better shot at getting a GQ cover?

There are so many things one could compare between Bruckner and Mahler, Mahler and Bruckner .... Why choose music? They both did a great job. Let them alone. Just listen to the music.


----------



## Agamenon

Woodduck said:


> You Brits seem to eat a lot of chalk. Is that a holdover from WW II?




Chalk and cheese, yes. But some people prefer chalk, and some people prefer cheese. It´s a valid poll.


----------



## Agamenon

Interesting to see that many living composers prefer Mahler. Why? reasons? .

Go to the greatest composers poll, conducted by BBC, and you ´ll find their reasons.

On the contrary, I prefer Bruckner.


----------



## HenryPenfold

Becca said:


> During a rehearsal for the first time that Abbado conducted the Mahler 1st after becoming the BPO chief conductor, the horns automatically stood up at that point, he stopped the proceedings and said something like "I know that is common practice but we won't be doing it."


And then he smiled and looked skywards, and said something along the lines that he hopes Karajan isn't watching! In good humour of course. A lovely moment.


----------



## ORigel

Bruckner because I find him more accessible, though Mahler is greater.


----------



## Simon23

Both composers are in my Top-5. They are very often compared to each other - on the one hand, this is logical, since their work, in my opinion, together with Wagner, is the quintessence of the development of classical music. On the other hand, there are also quite a lot of differences between them. I see in Bruckner a much greater influence of Wagner than in Mahler. Bruckner is more religious. Mahler is more emotional, Bruckner more contemplative. Personally, I listen to Bruckner more often than Mahler.


----------



## thejewk

I'm going through a big Mahler period at the moment, and threads like this make me excited to give some time to Bruckner in the future, who I haven't heard a note of.


----------



## Roger Knox

Different backgrounds, 36-year age gap, contrast in temperaments, but one thing they share is that both names end in "-er." I think I'll do the Canadian thing and sit on the fence, like your poll results.


----------



## Xisten267

I think that Mahler has more stylistic variety and is more consistent in the overall quality of his symphonies than Bruckner. Yet, Bruckner's last three symphonies move me in a way that no Mahler does, so my vote is for him.


----------



## BoggyB

Mahler seems to get slightly more praise from the people who write replies, and yet Bruckner - the one for whom I voted - is winning (narrowly) in the poll. I'm reminded of the Brexit polls in the UK.

I think of Bruckner as late romantic and Mahler as romantic/modern (don't ask me what "modern" means).


----------



## jdec

Again?

Bruckner vs. Mahler

Bruckner v Mahler

Bruckner Symphonies Or Mahler Symphonies?


----------



## HenryPenfold

BoggyB said:


> Mahler seems to get slightly more praise from the people who write replies, and yet Bruckner - the one for whom I voted - is winning (narrowly) in the poll. I'm reminded of the Brexit polls in the UK.
> 
> I think of Bruckner as late romantic and Mahler as romantic/modern (don't ask me what "modern" means).


What do you mean by modern?


----------



## jdec

BTW, I suspect a different result would have come here if this poll was posted on the more visited Classical Music Discussion forum.


----------



## Superflumina

I can't answer, these guys are too evenly matched.


----------



## Rogerx

jdec said:


> Again?
> 
> Bruckner vs. Mahler
> 
> Bruckner v Mahler
> 
> Bruckner Symphonies Or Mahler Symphonies?





jdec said:


> BTW, I suspect a different result would have come here if this poll was posted on the more visited Classical Music Discussion forum.


Amen.......................................


----------



## adam78

Not surprising given that Mahler was a generation younger than Bruckner.


----------



## Haydn70

Bruckner. I just voted and broke a 48/48 tie.


----------



## cybernaut

I like them both equally.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Allerius said:


> I think that Mahler has more stylistic variety and is more consistent in the overall quality of his symphonies than Bruckner. Yet, Bruckner's last three symphonies move me in a way that no Mahler does, so my vote is for him.


I think a big reason a lot of people find Bruckner dull is because he's not a very colorful or dynamic orchestrator. If you compare Bruckner's orchestration with that of Mahler, Brahms, Dvorak, it's like night and day. I think of Bruckner as more of an architecht assembling building blocks to his cathedral of sound, to regurgitate some clichéd remarks about his music.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I prefer Mahler but both rate fairly high with me, Mahler around #10, Bruckner still top 20, I'd say. I tend to listen to more Lieder than choral church music, so some points for Mahler here, but Bruckner's quintet is far more important than the early piano quartet fragment by Mahler.


----------



## Kreisler jr

GucciManeIsTheNewWebern said:


> I think a big reason a lot of people find Bruckner dull is because he's not a very colorful or dynamic orchestrator. If you compare Bruckner's orchestration with that of Mahler, Brahms, Dvorak, it's like night and day. I think of Bruckner as more of an architecht assembling building blocks to his cathedral of sound, to regurgitate some clichéd remarks about his music.


There is some truth about these blocks. But I thought that Brahms was more maligned for supposedly "bad" orchestration than Bruckner. I always thought that unlike some hermetic subtleties of counterpoint or motivical connection, orchestration was "on the surface". If Brahms or Bruckner or Beethoven (or even Schumann) would have been so obviously bad at orchestration it would be rather miraculous that their orchestral works were so popular. (As the critics would usually also say that none of the above was melodically as immediately appealing as Mozart, Schubert or Tchaikovsky). So it seems at least good enough not to get into the way.


----------



## GucciManeIsTheNewWebern

Kreisler jr said:


> There is some truth about these blocks. But I thought that Brahms was more maligned for supposedly "bad" orchestration than Bruckner. I always thought that unlike some hermetic subtleties of counterpoint or motivical connection, orchestration was "on the surface". If Brahms or Bruckner or Beethoven (or even Schumann) would have been so obviously bad at orchestration it would be rather miraculous that their orchestral works were so popular. (As the critics would usually also say that none of the above was melodically as immediately appealing as Mozart, Schubert or Tchaikovsky). So it seems at least good enough not to get into the way.


Yeah, I don't think of it as a flaw in his music at all. It's just his style


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think you are right insofar that the often brassy orchestra and the block structure is another *polarizing* feature of Bruckner. I am myself divided. In some live experiences it is overwhelming but I can get tired of the brass on records. (Although overall positive, I do have a bit of a love-hate-relation to Bruckner, sometimes exacerbated by the craziness of some of his disciples.)


----------



## Enthusiast

I love quite a lot of Bruckner but he is a side road while Mahler is a central composer in the tradition and a big one. With Sibelius, the last of the really great symphonists.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

My Bruckner vote ties the score at 57!

I love both composers' music with Bruckner having a slight edge. I wish both were more aggressive editors, though. I find long passages in both to outstay their welcome. Still, overall a lot of great music packed in their symphonies.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Enthusiast said:


> I love quite a lot of Bruckner but he is a side road while Mahler is a central composer in the tradition and a big one. With Sibelius, the last of the really great symphonists.


I think that this was seen very differently at least in some places for the better part of the last 100 years. E.g. in Austria and Germany until the 1970s or so. Mahler was a "too late" oddball, Sibelius a second rate regional composer (like Elgar or so) and Bruckner was for his adherents the Über-Beethoven, the symphonic version of Wagner and even for saner minds the final of the tradition since Haydn.
Of course, such attitudes have changed for good reasons. But that's why we should not make similar errors. It seems that Mahler is by now pretty international and the other two have also broader appeal than even 30-35 year ago when I got into classical music (back then, all three would have been considered acquired tastes compared to e.g. Brahms or Ravel). But Sibelius (except the violin concerto) is still not standard concert fare in Vienna and neither is Bruckner in Milano, I think. All three are far less popular with the general concert audience than one would expect from reading internet fora (because they are dispropotionately favorites of both audiophiles and the people who hang out in such internet places).


----------



## Enthusiast

^ It is certainly true that Mahler was widely seen as rather vulgar by many for much of the first fifty years after his death. And I guess this was felt most strongly in Vienna where Mahler's Jewishness wouldn't have helped his cause. As for Sibelius, well, he remains a composer revered by some and disparaged by many others ... in much the same way that Dvorak was for quite some time. But fashions are one thing and the place that composers slot into when we have enough years to look back and see things clearly and in perspective is a different issue. It is in this latter way that I see Mahler as having been far more important (and significantly greater) than Bruckner.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Berg and schönBerg revered and were somewhat influenced by mahler. But the other, maybe overall more important strains of early modernity were not. I.e. the French, the Russians, janacek, bartok, hindemith... neither was Strauss. and of course bruckner was a major influence on mahler as well as on now almost forgotten ones like Schmidt or von hausegger. TBH I think both are a bit overrated these days.


----------



## RogerWaters

Mahler has never struck me as coherent (choppes and changes moods like a carnival) and often as melodromatic. 

Bruckner all the way.


----------



## Kreisler jr

To be clear, I don't want to bash either. But while I thought for a long time that their treatment as a bit of niche that apparently dominated until the 1970s was wrong, I now think that both are side roads and that there were quite plausible reasons for the niche treatment. E.g. when we got some tour of music history in 11th grade or so, these two would be skipped.


----------



## EdwardBast

Kreisler jr said:


> Berg and schönBerg revered and were somewhat influenced by mahler. But the other, maybe overall more important strains of early modernity were not. I.e. the French, the Russians, janacek, bartok, hindemith...


Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich were clearly influenced by Mahler.



Enthusiast said:


> ^ It is certainly true that Mahler was widely seen as rather vulgar by many for much of the first fifty years after his death.


Mahler _is_ a bit vulgar. So was Strauss. And Stravinsky. It's not a bug. It's a feature.



RogerWaters said:


> Mahler has never struck me as coherent (choppes and changes moods like a carnival) and often as melodromatic.
> 
> Bruckner all the way.


Both of them had trouble with coherence. Bruckner's competing editions prove his case. Mahler at least was grappling with the difficult problem of integrating whole worlds into unified wholes. Some of his solutions are ingenious. Some fail. More composition time and less conducting might have helped. Bruckner, in my exceedingly unpopular opinion, just wasn't a very good composer. This seems to be a deaf spot for me, given how much others praise him. But I don't understand how anyone is impressed with Bruckner.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Bruckner, in my exceedingly unpopular opinion, just wasn't a very good composer. This seems to be a deaf spot for me, given how much others praise him. But I don't understand how anyone is impressed with Bruckner.


https://pianobynumber.com/blogs/readingroom/film-music-is-bad-bruckner


----------



## Kreisler jr

I am not too keen on rachmaninov and I am only familiar with the most famous pieces but they don't seem too mahlerian to me. 
DSCH yes but he is too late for what I meant with early modernist. I wrote above that mahler was important for the 2nd viennese school but I doubt that this is related to his popularity. Reger also was admired by schoenberg and is very niche today.


----------



## Enthusiast

EdwardBast said:


> Rachmaninoff and Shostakovich were clearly influenced by Mahler.
> 
> Mahler _is_ a bit vulgar. So was Strauss. And Stravinsky. It's not a bug. It's a feature.
> 
> Both of them had trouble with coherence. Bruckner's competing editions prove his case. Mahler at least was grappling with the difficult problem of integrating whole worlds into unified wholes. Some of his solutions are ingenious. Some fail. More composition time and less conducting might have helped. Bruckner, in my exceedingly unpopular opinion, just wasn't a very good composer. This seems to be a deaf spot for me, given how much others praise him. But I don't understand how anyone is impressed with Bruckner.


1. Yes, Mahler's influence on the music of the 20th century has been huge. Shostakovich and Rachmaninov, yes, Britten also. And many others.

2. I agree there may be nothing wrong with tasteful vulgarity but when the term was applied to Mahler something totally ugly - overblown and lacking in structure and (forgive me but it a view I saw quite often in my younger days) _too Jewish_ - was meant. It went on for some time in some places. There is a film that shows Bernstein rehearsing Mahler 9 (I think) with the Vienna Philharmonic and many orchestral members being quite unwilling to go with Lennie because the music was so ugly and he wanted to make it "worse".

3. I am not sure I understand your point on coherence. I can think of less strong Mahler works but is it coherence or something else that is missing? I do recognise that many Mahler _performers and performances _fail to find a coherent shape in Mahler works. But, having shopped around a lot for Mahler performances that work for me I cannot think of any major Mahler work that lacks coherence. The challenge seems to be for performers to find that coherence.


----------



## Merl

So, at half-time honours are even (an interesting, high-scoring draw). Are there 5 substitutes available for the 2nd half or is this just an old-style 1970s one-substitute game? Maybe subs won't be needed. Who knows. The 2nd half has commenced so I'm sitting down with my half-time, cold meat and potato pie eagerly awaiting the first red card. It will happen. In a game of such magnitude tempers are inevitably going to come into play.


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> 2. I agree there may be nothing wrong with tasteful vulgarity but when the term was applied to Mahler something totally ugly - overblown and lacking in structure and (forgive me but it a view I saw quite often in my younger days) _too Jewish_ - was meant. It went on for some time in some places. There is a film that shows Bernstein rehearsing Mahler 9 (I think) with the Vienna Philharmonic and many orchestral members being quite unwilling to go with Lennie because the music was so ugly and he wanted to make it "worse".


IIRC, it was quite a scene when Bernstein wanted to conduct Mahler with the VPO initially....the VPO hated Mahler, and his music <<Scheisse-musik>>, <<Juden-musik>> and so forth...Lennie had to really get in their faces - challenge them...something on the line of <<you can't play this music?? Is it too difficult for you??>> I guess he really pissed them off.. anyway, they did get with it. The VPO could be a very tough outfit...but when challenged, they produce - ie - Bernstein, Reiner, Solti....


----------



## EdwardBast

Enthusiast said:


> 1. Yes, Mahler's influence on the music of the 20th century has been huge. Shostakovich and Rachmaninov, yes, Britten also. And many others.
> 
> 2. *I agree there may be nothing wrong with tasteful vulgarity but when the term was applied to Mahler something totally ugly *- overblown and lacking in structure and (forgive me but it a view I saw quite often in my younger days) _*too Jewish*_ - was meant. It went on for some time in some places. There is a film that shows Bernstein rehearsing Mahler 9 (I think) with the Vienna Philharmonic and many orchestral members being quite unwilling to go with Lennie because the music was so ugly and he wanted to make it "worse".


I see your point. I was referring primarily to the excess of waltzes and marches.



Heck148 said:


> IIRC, it was quite a scene when Bernstein wanted to conduct Mahler with the VPO initially....the VPO hated Mahler, and his music <<Scheisse-musik>>, <<Juden-musik>> and so forth...Lennie had to really get in their faces - challenge them...something on the line of <<you can't play this music?? Is it too difficult for you??>> I guess he really pissed them off.. anyway, they did get with it. The VPO could be a very tough outfit...but when challenged, they produce - ie - Bernstein, Reiner, Solti....


Hardly surprising and probably some bad conscience at work there. Didn't the VPO lose ten or eleven Jewish members to the camps? And didn't they keep the Nazi donor who sent them there on their wall of distinguished patrons into this century?


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> Hardly surprising and probably some bad conscience at work there. Didn't the VPO lose ten or eleven Jewish members to the camps? And didn't they keep the Nazi donor who sent them there on their wall of distinguished patrons into this century?


Yes, very strong anti-semitic feelings in that orchestra....I used to lol at the comments that the VPO had this great "Mahler tradition"!! Really?? They hated Mahler, his music....


----------



## arpeggio

I like both...................


----------



## tdc

I quite enjoy Mahler's DLVDE and Bruckner's 9th (unfinished). Those works I can listen to in their entirety. Aside from that most of their works have parts I like and parts I don't. I think they composed works that are too long. 

So for me it is a tie.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think the hatred of mahler in the Vienna Phil had been exaggerated, either by LB or his fans. It''s true that there was no grand mahler tradition and the occasional antisemitic remarks might be true as well. Apparently they preferred Franz schmidt... but they had played mahler regularly before Lennie taught them. In general, mahler was not as popular in the 1950s, not only in Vienna. And mostly 1st, 2nd, 4th and lvde. The only orchestra with a great mahler tradition since the early 20th century was maybe the concertgebouworkest.


----------



## Saturn

I like both but if I had to vote then I vote Bruckner.


----------



## Enthusiast

Kreisler jr said:


> I think the hatred of mahler in the Vienna Phil had been exaggerated, either by LB or his fans. It''s true that there was no grand mahler tradition and the occasional antisemitic remarks might be true as well. Apparently they preferred Franz schmidt... but they had played mahler regularly before Lennie taught them. In general, mahler was not as popular in the 1950s, not only in Vienna. And mostly 1st, 2nd, 4th and lvde. The only orchestra with a great mahler tradition since the early 20th century was maybe the concertgebouworkest.


Maybe. But there is substantial documentation and even film that demonstrates the VPO carrying some fairly heavy anti-Semitic baggage. It wasn't only with Bernstein that they seem to have had some problems. Solti (also Jewish) also had difficulties (even as he made his seminal Wagner recordings with them). Despite all the stories, though, they made some great records with both conductors so the suggestion that the stories are exaggerated does have some evidence behind it.


----------



## Heck148

Kreisler jr said:


> The only orchestra with a great mahler tradition since the early 20th century was maybe the concertgebouworkest.


NYPO, also........


----------



## Saturn

That's interesting, I didn't know about that.


----------



## Heck148

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe. But there is substantial documentation and even film that demonstrates the VPO carrying some fairly heavy anti-Semitic baggage. It wasn't only with Bernstein that they seem to have had some problems. Solti (also Jewish) also had difficulties (even as he made his seminal Wagner recordings with them). Despite all the stories, though, they made some great records with both conductors so the suggestion that the stories are exaggerated does have some evidence behind it.


It seems that there has been substantial anti-semitic feeling in the VPO....However, musicians will respect (perhaps grudgingly) a great conductor who knows what he's doing...Solti, Bernstein certainly made outstanding recordings with VPO...so did Reiner (also Jewish)...he produced some stellar recordings in the mid -50s with Vienna...VPO will certainly test a conductor, but they do respond to an a*s-kicker who knows his stuff....Reiner/VPO Till Eulenspiegel was recorded on one take - straight thru...


----------



## Parley

Enthusiast said:


> Maybe. But there is substantial documentation and even film that demonstrates the VPO carrying some fairly heavy anti-Semitic baggage. It wasn't only with Bernstein that they seem to have had some problems. Solti (also Jewish) also had difficulties (even as he made his seminal Wagner recordings with them). Despite all the stories, though, they made some great records with both conductors so the suggestion that the stories are exaggerated does have some evidence behind it.


There were certainly ex-members of the Nazi Party in the VPO post war but that didn't stop them making the classic Lied Von der Erde with Walter and Ferrier.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I actually never heard about them having problems or showing open antisemitism with Bernstein but against Mahler''s music.


----------



## Celloman

I voted Mahler. It's a tie at 65-65.

Photo finish?


----------



## dko22

no, it's not. I just voted for Bruckner so 66-65! 

I liked Mahler when I was younger, esp. no. 3 which I still like a good deal but Bruckner soon took over and I'd still rate 6 and 9 as the greatest symphonies ever written (together with Suk's Asrael). But Mahler gets very close with no.10. It's a clear advance on 9 in every respect other than the unfortunate small fact that he didn't actually finish it and thus we're obviously missing orchestration and probably counter-melodies. But the level of emotional intensity of the coda of both the 1st and final movements comes close to the sheer horror and finally despair of Bruckner 9. Many have rightly said that Mahler are Bruckner are like chalk and cheese but seem to me in their final masterpieces to come much closer together.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Don't really understand the need for this comparison, but Mahler is my favorite and this is no slight against Bruckner. Mahler's _Symphonies No. 3-7 & 9_, _Das Lied von der Erde_ and the song cycles (i. e. _Kindertotenlieder_ et. al.) are some of the most magnificent music ever composed. Bruckner's 6th, 8th and 9th are quite special to me as well, but it is Mahler that continues to grow in stature in my own personal listening.


----------



## Radames

Celloman said:


> I voted Mahler. It's a tie at 65-65.
> 
> Photo finish?


I joined in and went Mahler. I need my sturm und drang. Gotta have it!


----------



## GraemeG

The comparison makes no sense. Are they just bracketed together because their works are long?
Bruckner was born in 1824, which makes him older than Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Saint-Saens, Bizet. 
Mahler (1860) is a contemporary of Nielsen, Sibelius, Glazunov, Janacek, Debussy.
Mahler attended Bruckner's lectures at the Conservatory.
There's almost nothing contemporaneous about them as composers.

Asking 'Brahms or Bruckner?', 'Mahler or Sibelius?' would make more sense from a 'music period' perspective.


----------



## Neo Romanza

GraemeG said:


> The comparison makes no sense. Are they just bracketed together because their works are long?
> Bruckner was born in 1824, which makes him older than Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Saint-Saens, Bizet.
> Mahler (1860) is a contemporary of Nielsen, Sibelius, Glazunov, Janacek, Debussy.
> Mahler attended Bruckner's lectures at the Conservatory.
> There's almost nothing contemporaneous about them as composers.
> 
> Asking 'Brahms or Bruckner?', 'Mahler or Sibelius?' would make more sense from a 'music period' perspective.


I certainly agree. I'd like to strangle the music historian that thought these two composers should be lumped together. It was probably the same person who always put Debussy and Ravel together. Both of these composers couldn't be any more different from each other. Debussy was born in 1862 and Ravel in 1875. They are 13 years apart and this age divide couldn't be any more greater. Ravel was absolutely enthralled by _Pelléas et Mélisande_ and it was an influence on him much like Bruckner was an influence on Mahler. But despite the influence, Ravel, like Mahler, was his own man and a completely different composer to Debussy just as Mahler was completely different from Bruckner. I also dislike the premise of this thread with the whole 'vs.' thing --- like it's some kind of cage match. I'm with Bartók when he said "Competitions are for horses, not artists."


----------



## PeterAccettola

I have a long standing love of Mahler's symphonies. For me, he is just monumental. It is as if he had one foot in the 19th Century and the other in the 20th. 
He puts the entire universe into each work, covering every human emotion and thought.
I especially love the 5th, 4th, 9th and 10th. I have also been listening to the 8th, Symphony of a Thousand. Still feeling my way into that one. 
Anyway, these are just my feelings.


----------



## Radames

GraemeG said:


> The comparison makes no sense. Are they just bracketed together because their works are long?


Sure. What's wrong with that?


----------



## Kreisler jr

Austrian, very long symphonies, historically quite close, both were rather niche/acquired taste until the 1960s/70s. I don't think it is a bizarre bracketing. Neither Debussy and Ravel.
There was once a humorous book of the kind "who is afraid of classical music?" where the author wrote "Bruckner and Mahler" sounded like a staid Viennese law firm...


----------



## hammeredklavier

GraemeG said:


> Asking 'Brahms or Bruckner?' would make more sense from a 'music period' perspective.


Agreed. Brahms and Bruckner have more in common.
-Both were Austro-German.
-Both have BR as the first two letters in their surnames.


----------



## EdwardBast

GraemeG said:


> Asking 'Brahms or Bruckner?', 'Mahler or Sibelius?' would make more sense from a 'music period' perspective.


Brahms or Bruckner? Brahms was a well rounded composers who wrote great works in many genres. Bruckner and Mahler were both narrower specialists and both concentrated on large orchestral works, so that comparison makes more sense. More important, Brahms is too much better than Bruckner to take the comparison seriously.


----------



## Kreisler jr

But Brahms and Bruckner were actually put up as alternatives/competitors by the contemporaries/critics such as Hanslick (pro Brahms contra Bruckner) and Wolf (vice versa), of course mostly/only wrt symphonies. 

The "Mahler and Bruckner" combination mentioned above was not meant as competition but as the main/only symphonists that often needed two LPs for one symphony


----------



## Aries

EdwardBast said:


> Brahms or Bruckner? Brahms was a well rounded composers who wrote great works in many genres. Bruckner and Mahler were both narrower specialists and both concentrated on large orchestral works, so that comparison makes more sense. More important, Brahms is too much better than Bruckner to take the comparison seriously.


Nah, Brahms was a mediocre composer. Brahms vs. Bruckner is a more interessting/relevant comparison, because they are more different and they were in actual in competition historically. Darling of the critics vs. idiosyncratic true genius.


----------



## tdc

Aries said:


> Nah, Brahms was a mediocre composer. Brahms vs. Bruckner is a more interessting/relevant comparison, because they are more different and they were in actual in competition historically. Darling of the critics vs. idiosyncratic true genius.


Brahms has four complete symphonies widely regarded as among the finest works in their genre. Bruckner has a bunch of gargantuan revised works where it becomes difficult to tell what are Bruckner's ideas, and what are revisions made by someone else. Bruckner relies on repetition and loud brassy climaxes much more (which is why as observed earlier this thread, audiophiles attracted to that sort of thing make Bruckner's reputation seem greater than it actually is on this forum.) I do think Bruckner has his moments, I quite like his unfinished 9th, but a competition with Brahms is not one in which Bruckner fares well.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Mahler over Brahms over Bruckner. Bruckner has some beautiful moments but not so wonderful quarter hours to me.


----------



## Woodduck

Bruckner and Mahler have something in common besides length: Hans Rott. Student of Bruckner and friend of Mahler, his sprawling symphony is reminiscent of the former and a source of inspiration - and more - for the latter.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Both Bruckner and Mahler (and maybe a few others) clearly got a popularity boost in the 60s and 70s because of stereo LPs. Whereas Brahms had been established long before. Furthermore there is a small distinction to be hoped for anytime one prefers comparably niche (which Bruckner and Mahler were to some extent even in the 1980s, not only compared to Brahms but also e.g. Strauss or Rimsky-Korsakov etc. in the "orchestral spectacular" department) artists to well established ones. (If you want to crank this refinement up you e.g. prefer Couperin's or Byrd's keyboard music to Bach's. ) And there have of course been some rather prominent outspoken anti-Brahmsians since his lifetime although not all of them cared for Bruckner either.


----------



## Aries

tdc said:


> Brahms has four complete symphonies widely regarded as among the finest works in their genre.


Not by me.



tdc said:


> Bruckner has a bunch of gargantuan revised works where it becomes difficult to tell what are Bruckner's ideas, and what are revisions made by someone else. Bruckner relies on repetition and loud brassy climaxes much more (which is why as observed earlier this thread, audiophiles attracted to that sort of thing make Bruckner's reputation seem greater than it actually is on this forum.)


Bruckners music has a distinct character unlike Brahms. Because of that he polarizes more than Brahms. Brahms music is kinda average music for average listeners.

I don't know what the revisions matter here. The music is the music with its quality no matter what kind of revision it is. And most of the time it is not hard to tell what came from others. Its not that much. Bascially some very late revisions that are not played often anymore are affected. Most of the versions are true Bruckner versions. But I guess that is a problem for the haters too. Who cares.



tdc said:


> I do think Bruckner has his moments, I quite like his unfinished 9th, but a competition with Brahms is not one in which Bruckner fares well.


It mattered more and tells much more about the voter.


----------



## Aries

Kreisler jr said:


> Both Bruckner and Mahler (and maybe a few others) clearly got a popularity boost in the 60s and 70s because of stereo LPs. Whereas Brahms had been established long before. Furthermore there is a small distinction to be hoped for anytime one prefers comparably niche (which Bruckner and Mahler were to some extent even in the 1980s, not only compared to Brahms but also e.g. Strauss or Rimsky-Korsakov etc. in the "orchestral spectacular" department) artists to well established ones. (If you want to crank this refinement up you e.g. prefer Couperin's or Byrd's keyboard music to Bach's. ) And there have of course been some rather prominent outspoken anti-Brahmsians since his lifetime although not all of them cared for Bruckner either.


Bruckner had a great reputation in Germany after some of his original versions were discovered in the 1930s and 1940s. Beethoven, Wagner and Bruckner were seen as the greatest german composers. That was approriate. Wagner and Bruckner just suffered by allied reeducation after the war.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Bruckner was popular throughout in Austria up to rivalling Beethoven's symphonies. In Germany not so much although of course we was not such a niche taste as almost everywhere else (and still is in southern and most of eastern Europe). 
Brahms was certainly a far higher respected and valued composer in 1920s Germany. This simply follows from the narrowness of Bruckner. 4,7,8 and maybe 9 were quite popular, the rest less so and the choral music does not figure much in normal concerts.

I grew up in 70s/80s West Germany and when I got into classical music in the late 1980s both Bruckner and Mahler were rather niche, for "advanced listeners" (they were also skipped in your typical high school music history class) and many regular concertgoers disliked at least one of them as much as many people don't like Hindemith or Stravinsky or other "moderns". This does not mean anything about their quality, but about popularity.


----------



## Aries

Kreisler jr said:


> Bruckner was popular throughout in Austria up to rivalling Beethoven's symphonies. In Germany not so much although of course we was not such a niche taste as almost everywhere else (and still is in southern and most of eastern Europe).


Most of eastern europe? Is there a subdivision in eastern europe regarding Bruckners popularity?

Does Bruckners music sound more national than Brahms music? I think yes. I can't see a strong national characteristic in Brahms music. Bruckners music sounds southern german. Bruckner belonged to the neudeutschen Schule. Their style was german national romantic. Brahms style was conservative, sorather directed towards a supranational aristocracy instead of a nation.

That explains geographical differences in popularity.

That Bruckner focused on symphonies isn't a bad thing imo. Its better to do one thing right than anything a little bit.


----------



## tdc

Aries said:


> Bruckners music has a distinct character unlike Brahms. Because of that he polarizes more than Brahms. Brahms music is kinda average music for average listeners.


So you think Brahms music is average, and it is just happenstance or perhaps some kind of favoritism or indoctrination as to why he is generally considered far above average?

Perhaps you are mainly only paying attention to the surface, or the externalities of the music and aren't really hearing the subtle details or inner logic of the pieces. For those are the things that make Brahms unique.

Bruckner is highly influenced by Wagner that is certain, I don't see him as being so much more distinct than Brahms, except in a surface way. Yes he is more idiomatic in a sense, and more extroverted in expression. Brahms is more subtle, and confident in his procedures. He knows how to develop a large scale work in compelling ways. Structurally Bruckner has some issues, relying more on repetition and loud climaxes, and looking at the revisions he seemed to be aware that he was on shakier ground in this area.

If someone is amateurish in an area and therefore attempt to do the best they can based on their own intuition, it can lead to a 'distinct' sound. That in itself is not necessarily a strong point compositionally.


----------



## Aries

tdc said:


> So you think Brahms music is average, and it is just happenstance or perhaps some kind of favoritism or indoctrination as to why he is generally considered far above average?


Maybe.



tdc said:


> Perhaps you are mainly only paying attention to the surface, or the externalities of the music and aren't really hearing the subtle details or inner logic of the pieces. For those are the things that make Brahms unique.


Can you name an specific unique thing about Brahms?



tdc said:


> Bruckner is highly influenced by Wagner that is certain


There is an influence, but its not that strong. It is an harmonic influence. But Bruckners form, his terrace dynamics, his rather strict periodicity, his intensification waves, his general pauses, his polyphonism, his instrumentation with rather separated blocks of instruments (organ influence), that is all different to Wagner. Sadly, I didn't found a composer yet who is like Bruckner. Martin Scherber is a bit similar, but his symphonic macro form is very different.



tdc said:


> I don't see him as being so much more distinct than Brahms


Who is like Bruckner?



tdc said:


> Structurally Bruckner has some issues, relying more on repetition and loud climaxes, and looking at the revisions he seemed to be aware that he was on shakier ground in this area.


Your are talking about loud climaxes as if they were a problem. With repetition I think you mean micro repetition, because Bruckner rarely repeats large sections like Mozart did for example. Micro repitition isn't a problem for me neither, but I can see that some people don't like it. I think they search for something different than what is the point of Bruckners music. Imo "repetition" is a really superficial critic.



tdc said:


> If someone is amateurish in an area and therefore attempt to do the best they can based on their own intuition, it can lead to a 'distinct' sound.


It looks like that was what Bruckner did. But for me its the very best sound. So I call him a genius.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Aries said:


> Can you name an specific unique thing about Brahms?


What you described as "pseudo-drama" in Brahms.



Aries said:


> It is an harmonic influence. But Bruckners form, his terrace dynamics, his rather strict periodicity, his intensification waves, his general pauses, his polyphonism, his instrumentation with rather separated blocks of instruments (organ influence), that is all different to Wagner.


I think Bruckner is essentially grounded in the combination of Schubert + Wagner (with some influences of Beethoven and liturgical music).
Requiem (Bruckner)
[There] are many passages reminiscent of what was even then, in 1848/49, a past age (the very opening points irresistibly to Mozart's Requiem in the same key), and though the very inclusion of a figured bass for organ continuo strikes one as backward looking, there are already several flashes of the later, great Bruckner to come.
[Despite it] is by no means a perfect masterpiece... [it] can be said to be the first full demonstration that the young man was a composer of inestimable promise. ... [The] expressively reticent opening of the opening of the Requiem, with his softly shifting syncopations in the strings ... already faintly anticipates one or two of his own symphonic passages in the two earlier D minor symphonies, for instance Nos. '0' and 3... [We] cannot escape the solemn beauty of this music, which already has the authentic atmosphere of natural genius.



Aries said:


> Bruckner rarely repeats large sections like Mozart did for example.


But how many symphonists of the time wrote "repeat signs" in their music in the Classical style though? I don't buy into the term "micro repetition". With Bruckner, repetition is "embedded" into his "argument" (I understand that it is a part of the appeal), but with Classical period composers, it is not. (It's not even mandatory)


----------



## tdc

Aries said:


> Can you name an specific unique thing about Brahms?


The way he develops ideas from small cells, his innovative use of rhythm, his fusing of ancient and romantic music. These topics are covered in more detail in the Swafford bio.

Also:

"Schoenberg begins his Brahms discussion with harmonic structure analysis, using examples to show that Brahms was at least an equal of Wagner in extending harmonic freedoms. In his songs, Brahms moved harmonies more expansively than did Wagner in his arias, and Brahms repeatedly provides examples where he avoids establishing a tonality, modulating essentially throughout. Wagner was somewhat freer in introducing harmonic vagrants and unprepared dissonance."

"Schoenberg observes that Brahms' musical vocabulary results from compressing musical ideas into their most efficient expression and eliminating the redundant prolixity that was characteristic of previous classical ("serious") music. In this regard, Brahms was a progressive classicist. Further, Brahms created asymmetrical and irregular meter constructions and employed polyrhythm throughout his career, providing interest and ambiguity, and taking this freedom farther than had Haydn and Mozart."

https://friedfoo.wordpress.com/musi...ble/arnold-schoenberg-brahms-the-progressive/


----------



## Aries

hammeredklavier said:


> What you described as "pseudo-drama" in Brahms.


Ok, I did some comparisons with others like Schumann and Gernsheim, and Brahms' drama sounds indeed more pseudo.



hammeredklavier said:


> I think Bruckner is essentially grounded in the combination of Schubert + Wagner (with some influences of Beethoven and liturgical music).


Yes, I can agree.



hammeredklavier said:


> But how many symphonists of the time wrote "repeat signs" in their music in the Classical style though?


That was normal. But later Bruckner only repeated his Scherzos da capo. (What is a good thing compared to a shortened version imo.) So where is the repetition in Bruckner?



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't buy into the term "micro repetition". With Bruckner, repetition is "embedded" into his "argument" (I understand that it is a part of the appeal), but with Classical period composers, it is not. (It's not even mandatory)


What kind of repetition do you mean?

He didn't repeated the exposition, and the reprise is different to the exposition. He repeated bars for instruments. For example here: 




The tremolo of the violas and timpani gets repeated. The motif of the double bass gets repeated, is picked up by the basson and repeated and is finally picked up by the trombone and extended. The motif of the violins gets repeated. The motif of the trumpet gets answered/repeated lower by the trombones and gets repeated, is then scaled down and repeated more, then scaled down again and repeated, and is then "set out of sync" with the bars and repeated more. So overall there is a lot of small repetition, but it is necessary for the overall architecture. It is like ornaments in gothic architecture. Who complains about repetition there?

And this style is very unique Bruckner. It was influenced by this from Beethoven but thats it: 



 Bruckner cared more about the overall architecture, less about single bars or notes I would say, compared to Beethoven, but that is what makes it great and unique.

You could say Bruckner develops an architecture from small cells.



tdc said:


> The way he develops ideas from small cells


But isn't that "bad" repetition?



tdc said:


> Also:
> 
> "Schoenberg begins his Brahms discussion


Well, that guy thought twelve-tone-technique is a good idea. I wouldn't put Brahms in such a bad light.


----------



## fluteman

For me, Mahler v. Bruckner is like a tennis match between Novak Djokovic and my late grandmother, RIP. After she passed away. The best I can say about Bruckner is that he had a thorough understanding of his limitations, and was highly skilled at making the most of his narrow range of abilities. Sadly, some of his contemporaries took this admirable modesty as license to 'edit' his work, in some cases even while he was still alive.

Sigh. It goes to show that artistic ego and arrogance are necessary in some contexts.


----------



## Aries

fluteman said:


> Sadly, some of his contemporaries took this admirable modesty as license to 'edit' his work, in some cases even while he was still alive.


I don't think you really know what you are talking about. The 9th was the only symphony that was edited after his death by a contemporary.

I think it is hypocritical to accuse these editors while comparing Bruckner to the tennis skills of your grand mother after she passed away. These editors tried to help Bruckner in an environment full of hostile attitudes towards Bruckner like this. They mostly deliberated with Bruckner. And Bruckner had the last word in the late revisions of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Then they got kinda annoyed by Bruckners idiosyncrasy, and did some unauthorized changes in the 8th and especially the 5th. The 5th is really the biggest issue, some movements got defaced. But now we have the earlier versions for a long time already, and this all isn't such big of a deal.

The Brahms followers and critics like Hanslick did much more damage to Bruckner than his scholars.

And btw I think comparing Gustav Mahler to Novak Djokovic is a bit weird. Mahler was a very creative composer, while Djokovics creativity kinda sucks compared to Nadal and Federer. At least Djokovic doesn't play against Murray anymore. That combination was so dreadful.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Surprised (or not?) by the sudden wrong turn this thread has taken with the Brahms bashing party chiming in. Let me be the first to say that I’m not biggest fan of Brahms, but never would I make an ignorant statement like his talent was ‘mediocre’. But, it’s fine as his place in musical history is already secured and he's placed amongst the greatest composers that ever lived and rightfully so I say.


----------



## tdc

@ Aries you asking if building structures from small cells equates to 'bad repetition' means you have no clue what that means. Also one doesn't have to enjoy Schoenberg's compositions to know that he knew a lot about music.

This thread has been derailed long enough. I won't be replying to anymore posts regarding Bruckner and Brahms.


----------



## Neo Romanza

tdc said:


> @ Aries you asking if building structures from small cells equates to 'bad repetition' means you have no clue what that means. Also one doesn't have to enjoy Schoenberg's compositions to know that he knew a lot about music.
> 
> This thread has been derailed long enough. I won't be replying to anymore posts regarding Bruckner and Brahms.


Indeed. A nasty turn this thread has taken. Oh and I LOVE Schoenberg of all periods (i. e. Late Romantic, Free Atonality and Serialism). The man was a genius.


----------



## Aries

tdc said:


> @ Aries you asking if building structures from small cells equates to 'bad repetition' means you have no clue what that means.


I don't know if I have a clue what you meant. That is why I asked. The second reason why I asked is that Brahms music actually often seems to me out of very small partitions that gets repeated with some changes. Kinda fells like getting shown around as a bear with a nose ring. Beethoven did it somewhat similar but much better imo, like with a direction instead of in a circle.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I feel Brahms' music can be highly contradictory (as was his personality supposedly) in style. But I wouldn't doubt his importance as a bridge to Modern music. Brahms music doesn't have the grace that Beethoven's does to me, nor the all-out in-yer-face of 20th Century music. For me it's an uncomfortable mix. But if the mix works for most listeners then great.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Phil loves classical said:


> I feel Brahms' music can be highly contradictory (as was his personality supposedly) in style. But I wouldn't doubt his importance as a bridge to Modern music. Brahms music doesn't have the grace that Beethoven's does to me, nor the all-out in-yer-face of 20th Century music.


But who has either such grace or self-secure brashness in the 1880s? Certainly not Bruckner, neither Franck or a bit later Mahler or Fauré. 
The only great somewhat "naive" composer of instrumental music from this time for me, is Dvorak (sometimes great, sometimes a bit too "naive" and to much relying on catchy bohemian tunes and moods).


----------



## EdwardBast

Aries said:


> Can you name an specific unique thing about Brahms?


That Brahms' style is immediately identifiable on hearing proves that his is a unique voice. It settles the case whether or not a listener can state what makes it unique.



Aries said:


> There is an influence, but its not that strong. It is an harmonic influence. But Bruckners form, his terrace dynamics, his rather strict periodicity, his intensification waves, his general pauses, his polyphonism, his instrumentation with rather separated blocks of instruments (organ influence), that is all different to Wagner. *Sadly, I didn't found a composer yet who is like Bruckner. *Martin Scherber is a bit similar, but his symphonic macro form is very different.


And you think that list of traits is desirable and appealing in a composer? Especially in one who cultivated such a narrow range of genres? With the exception of polyphonic writing, to me that sounds like a list of things any good symphonic composer would struggle to avoid. On second thought, most composers don't have to struggle with those things. Avoiding them is instinctive to those with a modicum of good taste.



Aries said:


> With repetition I think you mean micro repetition, because Bruckner rarely repeats large sections like Mozart did for example. Micro repitition isn't a problem for me neither, but I can see that some people don't like it.


If by micro repetition you mean multiple sequential statements of the same phrase or motive, that is another trait I associate with the least interesting music of the era.


----------



## Woodduck

Aries said:


> Brahms music is kinda average music for average listeners.


As a young person new to classical music I didn't care for Brahms. I didn't think of myself as an average listener then.

In my college years the depth and mastery of Brahms broke through to me and I realized that I was more average than I thought. I spent many wonderful years as an average listener, passionate about Brahms, particularly the chamber music but also the symphonies, concertos, piano music, choral works... The combination of deep feeling and structural strength in his music gave me one of the greatest experiences of averageness I've ever had.

I don't listen to Brahms too often now. Actually, I listen to music in general less frequently than formerly. But when I do return to Brahms the pleasure I feel reassures me that the old averageness is still there, deep in my soul. This allows me to listen to Bruckner and play at being exceptional without having an identity crisis.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> "Schoenberg begins his Brahms discussion with harmonic structure analysis, using examples to show that Brahms was at least an equal of Wagner in extending harmonic freedoms. In his songs, Brahms moved harmonies more expansively than did Wagner in his arias, and Brahms repeatedly provides examples where he avoids establishing a tonality, modulating essentially throughout. Wagner was somewhat freer in introducing harmonic vagrants and unprepared dissonance."
> 
> https://friedfoo.wordpress.com/musi...ble/arnold-schoenberg-brahms-the-progressive/


Schoenberg's special pleading - aka ax-grinding - is too obvious here. We have to wonder why he compares Brahms songs to Wagner's "arias," given that Wagner's mature opera contain few passages that fit that description. "Examples where he avoids establishing a tonality, modulating essentially throughout," here ascribed to Brahms, are basic to Wagner's "non-aria" scores, where the modulation is freer, faster and more far-ranging than anything I can bring to mind from Brahms.

This looks like just another example of Schoenberg contriving self-justifying ideologies, in this case designed to distance himself from Wagner and the heavy Wagnerian influence in his earlier work.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> If someone is amateurish in an area and therefore attempt to do the best they can based on their own intuition, it can lead to a 'distinct' sound. That in itself is not necessarily a strong point compositionally.


This insightful observation does suggest the question of how much of Bruckner's peculiar, episodic approach to form resulted from a difficulty in creating long-range continuity through uninterrupted development. Whatever the case, I concede to him considerable, but variable, success in making his approach work for him; it can evoke an effect of timelessness and transcendence, replacing the quasi-dramatic narrativity the Romantic symphony inherited from Beethoven with a more static architecture that can expand long-range while subordinating the sense of time and its tensions. I think this is an essential part of the "religious" quality people hear in his music; it suggests a vast dimension of existence fundamentally untroubled by passion, even when the melodic and harmonic substance of the music are deeply expressive.

Although the influence of Wagner can be heard in Bruckner's harmony and in his sense of scale, that influence is much exaggerated. His episodic approach to form and the "Olympian" emotional perspective that results are distinctly opposed to the fluid, passionate, "oceanic" continuity of Wagner, which he called "endless melody." Wagner also called his the "art of transition." Bruckner's might be called an art of accumulation.


----------



## Kreisler jr

EdwardBast said:


> That Brahms' style is immediately identifiable on hearing proves that his is a unique voice. It settles the case whether or not a listener can state what makes it unique.


This criterium is difficult to apply, I think. Many listeners would not be able to "immediately identify" unknown pieces (especially if the setup was with say five pieces by conservative/traditional contemporaries of Brahms, all unknown). When I was a 16 year old newbie new to both Wagner and Bruckner I struggled not to confuse the beginning of Bruckner's 4th the the Tannhäuser Ouverture. At the same time I was also utterly puzzled by the claim that Brahms was close to or the "continuation" of Beethoven, I found the symphonies very different.

Anyway, there seem to be quite a few musicians and critics, even beyond hardcore Bruckner aficionados who think that Bruckner really turned his limitations into virtues. And while not always coupled with a fondness for Bruckner there have been also many who found Brahms staid or mediocre or too conservative.


----------



## Aries

EdwardBast said:


> But Bruckners form, his terrace dynamics, his rather strict periodicity, his intensification waves, his general pauses, his polyphonism, his instrumentation with rather separated blocks of instruments (organ influence), that is all different to Wagner. Sadly, I didn't found a composer yet who is like Bruckner. Martin Scherber is a bit similar, but his symphonic macro form is very different.
> 
> 
> 
> And you think that list of traits is desirable and appealing in a composer? Especially in one who cultivated such a narrow range of genres? With the exception of polyphonic writing, to me that sounds like a list of things any good symphonic composer would struggle to avoid.
Click to expand...

Bruckners form convinces me. It is one of the best or the best implementation of the sonata form. His third themes are a good idea. The exposition is a presentation of the themes. The development is some kind of struggle. The reprise shows the material in a changed state after that struggle. The coda is a quintessence of the material and of what happened. And it is also a good idea by Bruckner to bring the main theme up in the Finale again.

I don't mind terraced dynamics. I would rather say they are a secondary effect of something good, the way Bruckner handles themes. They make it possible to show contrasts and have a wide expression range.

His rather strict periodicity is a good idea, yes. It makes music more structured and consequently.

I really love the intensification waves. Why would someone avoid it? They are so great.

The general pauses are good for the structure and the expression of calmness.

His polyphonism is great.

His instrumentation helps to emphasize the polyphonism and contrasts.

I find Bruckner very appealing. But I know that he polarizes. My own mother can't stand him (and Mahler even less.) On the other hand he was the favorite composer of my grand father. I think there is a thin line if you love or hate him.


----------



## fluteman

Aries said:


> I don't think you really know what you are talking about. The 9th was the only symphony that was edited after his death by a contemporary.
> 
> I think it is hypocritical to accuse these editors while comparing Bruckner to the tennis skills of your grand mother after she passed away. These editors tried to help Bruckner in an environment full of hostile attitudes towards Bruckner like this. They mostly deliberated with Bruckner. And Bruckner had the last word in the late revisions of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th. Then they got kinda annoyed by Bruckners idiosyncrasy, and did some unauthorized changes in the 8th and especially the 5th. The 5th is really the biggest issue, some movements got defaced. But now we have the earlier versions for a long time already, and this all isn't such big of a deal.
> 
> The Brahms followers and critics like Hanslick did much more damage to Bruckner than his scholars.
> 
> And btw I think comparing Gustav Mahler to Novak Djokovic is a bit weird. Mahler was a very creative composer, while Djokovics creativity kinda sucks compared to Nadal and Federer. At least Djokovic doesn't play against Murray anymore. That combination was so dreadful.


CASG. We'll have to agree to disagree about everything in your post, except for Hanslick. He could be a harsh critic, no doubt about it. Too bad, as if only he had moderated some of his harshest language, I think he would get more respect today, rather than certain of his most vicious passages concerning now-standard repertoire requoted over and over.

As for Djokovic, SMH. He wouldn't have the resume he has without amazing creativity. His pinpoint accurate drop shot and lob game, his court sense, his positioning and anticipation, his shot selection, are all off the charts. He can look a bit boring and mechanical because he is so rarely challenged seriously. You may have forgotten that the young Federer often played a boring and methodical baseline game against lesser players because they couldn't force him into a lower percentage strategy. It hurt him when he passed 30 because it took him too long to transition to the aggressive style he has today. He lost a lot of slam finals, and then semis, especially to Rafa and the Djoker.

Bruckner could have learned from Rafa, Fed and the Djoker. They all have a lot of tools they can use.


----------



## Woodduck

And here I thought I was the only person thinking about tennis while listening to long Germanic symphonies.


----------



## BachIsBest

fluteman said:


> Bruckner could have learned from Rafa, Fed and the Djoker. They all have a lot of tools they can use.


As much as I like tennis, you don't think this is a bit silly?


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> And here I thought I was the only person thinking about tennis while listening to long Germanic symphonies.


Yes, to me there is a lot more variety and breadth of interesting ideas to be found in Mahler than in Bruckner. More theatrical and poetic subtlety and depth. Bruckner carefully stuck to what he did best, and brought that out with fine craftsmanship, but less imagination. Mahler is to the late romantic period what Schubert was to the early romantic period, brilliant and wide-ranging.

In other words, Mahler had a great drop shot and lob game.



BachIsBest said:


> As much as I like tennis, you don't think this is a bit silly?


No.


----------



## jegreenwood

Woodduck said:


> And here I thought I was the only person thinking about tennis while listening to long Germanic symphonies.


You could listen to The Ring while watching Isner/Mahut.


----------



## fluteman

jegreenwood said:


> You could listen to The Ring while watching Isner/Mahut.


Or Tristan while watching the end of Fed's last match. Six-love death.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Yes, to me there is a lot more variety and breadth of interesting ideas to be found in Mahler than in Bruckner. More theatrical and poetic subtlety and depth. Bruckner carefully stuck to what he did best, and brought that out with fine craftsmanship, but less imagination. Mahler is to the late romantic period what Schubert was to the early romantic period, brilliant and wide-ranging.
> 
> In other words, Mahler had a great drop shot and lob game.


I agree completely, even while I personally prefer art that drills down on a more limited set of ideas. In the famous argument between Mahler and Sibelius, I come down on the side of the latter. I don't care for the "everything including the kitchen sink, and preferably the bathroom sink too" approach to the symphony (although, to be fair, Mahler goes to an intolerable extreme only in the third). My favorite Mahler has always been _Das Lied von der Erde,_ which has a nice set of poems and solo voices to give it unity, along with some of those gorgeous orchestral songs which provide no opportunity for extended breast-beating and thrashing about.

I love the deep repose which undergirds even the violence in Bruckner, and I enjoy him in certain movements and when I'm in that particular mood, but his limitations are pretty severe; he's one of those artists (and it is a type) who obsessively creates fundamentally the same work over and over, but hopefully with enough fresh twists to keep himself and his listeners interested.


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> Or Tristan while watching the end of Fed's last match. Six-love death.


I love both _Tristan_ and Federer too much to mix them. The one is Dionysus, the other Apollo.


----------



## Aries

Mahler shared with Bruckner the monumentalism, it is maybe even more excessive in Mahlers case. What makes Mahler unique is a very wide range of expressions. No other composer I know comes close to this. Mahler had really big ideas. His weakness is the compositorial craftsmanship. The implementation of his ideas is often gestural and rather shrill. There are great inspirations in many moments but with an unclean continuation or a filler continuation. In comparison to other composers the expressions in his symphonies are not that consistent. This all contributes to a less tasteful, vulgar aspect in his music. On the other hand there is always a whiff of the greatness of his ideas, which makes me overlooking it. His music is always interessting, while many other composers wrote rather trivial stuff, even if it is technically much better.


----------



## fluteman

Aries said:


> Mahler shared with Bruckner the monumentalism, it is maybe even more excessive in Mahlers case. What makes Mahler unique is a very wide range of expressions. No other composer I know comes close to this. Mahler had really big ideas. His weakness is the compositorial craftsmanship. The implementation of his ideas is often gestural and rather shrill. There are great inspirations in many moments but with an unclean continuation or a filler continuation. In comparison to other composers the expressions in his symphonies are not that consistent. This all contributes to a less tasteful, vulgar aspect in his music. On the other hand there is always a whiff of the greatness of his ideas, which makes me overlooking it. His music is always interessting, while many other composers wrote rather trivial stuff, even if it is technically much better.


But don't underestimate Mahler technically. His skill as an orchestrator, his skill with vocal music, and his remarkable ability in the song cycles to enhance his literary material without overwhelming or distracting from it all contributed to the final result. Little wonder some of the most important early major film composers of the mid-20th century were his disciples.


----------



## Neo Romanza

fluteman said:


> But don't underestimate Mahler technically. His skill as an orchestrator, his skill with vocal music, and his remarkable ability in the song cycles to enhance his literary material without overwhelming or distracting from it all contributed to the final result. Little wonder some of the most important early major film composers of the mid-20th century were his disciples.


All it took was for me to really give a thorough listen to _Das Lied von der Erde_ to recognize that this man's talent was not of this earth. Mahler and Bruckner were phenomenal composers and while they have their critics, I believe their music once absorbed and understood, can change people's lives for the better and, for this, I'll never say anything disparaging again about either composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Neo Romanza said:


> All it took was for me to really give a thorough listen to _Das Lied von der Erde_ to recognize that this man's talent was not of this earth.


So his song was of this earth, but his talent was not?


----------



## amfortas

hammeredklavier said:


> So his song was of this earth, but his talent was not?


Not all of his songs. Sometimes, he was lost to the world.


----------



## fluteman

Neo Romanza said:


> All it took was for me to really give a thorough listen to _Das Lied von der Erde_ to recognize that this man's talent was not of this earth. Mahler and Bruckner were phenomenal composers and while they have their critics, I believe their music once absorbed and understood, can change people's lives for the better and, for this, I'll never say anything disparaging again about either composer.


One of the great things about art is how it can make vastly different impressions on different people. I'm not bothered by classical music fans who do not like Mahler's or Bruckner's music, and there are more than a few. But I say, if you're going to make disparaging comments, as to some extent I did above about Bruckner, and could have done about Mahler too, I suppose, back them up with a brief, non-technical explanation. You may agree or not, but at least you'll see in brief, general terms the basis for my opinions, or some of it. That's why I never just vote on the poll questions.


----------



## JackRance

It was soo difficult to respond...


----------



## superhorn

I wouldn't want to be without the music of either composer . Each so great in his own way . Which is the "superior " dog breed ? German shepherds or beagles ? Is Italian cuisine "preferred;e " to Chinese cuisine ?


----------



## gnail

Both are my favourite composers but somehow I listen Bruckner a little more casually than to Mahler and also more frequently with less fatigue.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

gnail said:


> Both are my favourite composers but somehow I listen Bruckner a little more casually than to Mahler and also more frequently with less fatigue.


What???

I didn't know this was possible.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bruckner's music is one of the main reasons there's more to music than "enjoyment"


----------



## starthrower

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Bruckner's music is one of the main reasons there's more to music than "enjoyment"


So I haven't been wasting my time after all? On the whole I do struggle to enjoy most of his symphonies, but each one has its special moments.


----------



## ansfelden

listening to Bruckner for me is pure joy any time, listening to Mahler is a burden.


----------



## Subutai

Mahler. Because he composed, printed it, played it, and moved on to the next one. 
Not to say I don't enjoy Bruckner, but for me he seems to have composed one gigantic Symphony in 35 parts.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Bruckner's music is one of the main reasons there's more to music than "enjoyment"


Of course, Mahler 8th is all about enjoyment (for you).


----------



## Waehnen

I voted for Mahler because at this time I see more deeply experienced and well contemplated and expertly executed variety in his music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

hammeredklavier said:


> Of course, Mahler 8th is all about enjoyment (for you).


It's about Good Taste!


----------



## Crudblud

I am a Mahlerian at heart, if I must be one or the other. There is little of Mahler's I dislike, and much of what I do like I love as well. Of his opponent here I admire the 5th greatly, the deep thematic unity Bruckner achieves across those four movements is a genuine marvel.


----------

