# More Exciting: Mahler or Bruckner



## LKB (Jul 27, 2021)

A straightforward comparison of visceral excitement. Who shall it be?


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

When comparing overall body of work, Mahler, no contest. 

Bruckner has his moments, for sure, but toe to toe, I lean toward Mahler.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

No contest as far as excitement goes. I won't even both to give my answer! But excitement in music is not that important to me. Excitement in a musical discovery on the other hand ....


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Completely different composers, personalities and compositional methods.
When Bruckner's music is exciting (and it often is!), it's when the romantic content cuts loose of its classical forms. In this respect he resembles Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann, who created boundaries for themselves - just to be able to break them.
And curiously enough, I find Mahler most exciting when he's at his least rhapsodic and free-form. His forms don't constrain his musical inventions, they add another layer. Of excitement, if you will.
So these two composers couldn't be more different in this respect!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Mahler, I think. But some of those codas of Brucker...wow! The end of the first movement of symphony 6 and the coda to the finale of the 3rd send thrills throughout the body that surpass anything in Mahler. And I've been listening to them for 50 years!


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Apples and oranges


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

_*More Exciting: Mahler or Bruckner*_

I think it depends on what you are smoking while listening. 

Besides, it depends on your antennas for excitements. If you could describe a little what tunrs you on, there could be an answer. 

For me, within Bruckner and Mahler, it is diffcult to find more excitement than in the finale of Mahler 6 or in the first movement of Mahler 8, but tastes diverge ... however, the Scherzo of Bruckner 9 isn't too bad in terms of excitement, as well as the finale of Bruckner 5.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

For me, Mahler is the more dramatic -- then again I find especially the rhythms of the symphonies 6-8 boring. I have never ever been bored listening to Bruckner. Still I could not choose.


----------



## LKB (Jul 27, 2021)

As previously stated, apples and oranges. They had differing motivations and objectives, with Mahler always aiming to express a human perspective regarding nature, the universe and man's role within it. 

Bruckner, on the other hand, was continually seeking a better understanding of his creator, which is why his symphonies _seem _to resemble each other. He asks the same questions in no. 9 as he did in no. 4, but by no. 9 he's getting more truthful answers ( or at least more useful ones ).

Who is more exciting? In the short term, Bruckner imho. But over the full length of their respective masterpieces, Mahler has always proven ( for me ) more fulfilling.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Neither of these composers is exciting in a way I think of Beethoven or Schumann or Mendelssohn being. Those composers can be exciting from get-go to end. Not this pair.

Bruckner isn't very exciting though I've always considered the finale of Symphonies 1 and 2 exciting as well as the coda to finale of Symphony No. 5 which builds to a monumental conclusion.

I think Mahler has exciting moments but they don't last or build very long. The opening pages of Symphony No. 7's finale are typical; it opens with Wagnerian flourish but gets bogged down in typical Mahlerian development and doesn't come back. It's even worse in the finale of Symphony No. 2 where it once comes to a natural conclusion ... then goes on another 25 minutes.

I was once stuck in the concert hall for 85 minutes listening to the Mahler Resurrection symphony. The final moments, far from being exciting, were more like nuclear holocaust. To me it was more the sensation of being inside a tornado or flood or cyclone or earthquake than listening to music.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Tchaikovsky.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Mahler, of course. Bruckner's music moves at a slow pace and seems content with itself even when it's dark. Mahler's music is unsettled, searching.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I have never ever been excited listening to Bruckner.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*More Exciting: Mahner or Bruckler*

That's a tough one. But ... I'll go with the one who wrote nine symphonies -- even if he wrote _more_ than nine symphonies.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Highwayman said:


> I have never ever been excited listening to Bruckner.


Have you listened around the first 3 minutes of the first movement of the 9th symphony? At least it’s around 3 minutes on the Guilini/VPO recording. That’s as exciting as it gets IMO


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Probably Mahler. Both very challenging music. I have to be in the right mood.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Why not both?


----------



## Georgieva (7 mo ago)

Mahler for me. 
His music is full of secrets ... you are always like an exam. 
For instrumentalists and conductors' excellent performance is a must.


----------



## Tarneem (Jan 3, 2022)

when it comes to excitement, Bruckner's scherzos wins the day


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

LKB said:


> A straightforward comparison of visceral excitement. Who shall it be?


Both, It can you know, if you let yourself.


----------



## GingerOpera (3 mo ago)

It's a strange question because I personally wouldn't use the epithet "Exciting" for either Bruckner or Mahler. Sorry if I come across as high handed or rude here.
To me the terms "Awe Inspiring" "Messianic" or "Transcendental" could apply to both of these gas giants. Well one of them anyway.
I am biased heavily toward Bruckner. (The Master). It took me a few decades to get there though. When I was a student at the RCM our lecturer for History in 2nd year was the beautifully eloquent Mr Jeremy Dale Roberts. He would wax lyrical about Bruckner and we had to study his 4th and 7th which I now realise are the two most approachable Symphonies
In those days 30 years ago as a young man in my early 20s Bruckner just seemed like a big lot of nothing. Dull as dishwater. My first ever professional job was with the Monteverdi Choir. We toured and recorded Bruckner's Mass In D Minor and I remember thinking then "What's the big fuss? This sounds like Michael Haydn" (!)
Now of course the D Minor Mass is my all time favourite of all of Bruckner's Sacred works. It's a strangely neglected work. Also the DG recording that I'm singing on is I think the finest. The tempi are fast but Gardiner gets it just right. Curiously he never recorded Bruckner ever again. Probably because its beyond him...
Then 9 years ago I became suddenly obsessed with Bruckner after the death of my mother. My way in was by listening repeatedly to the Scherzo from the EMI Rattle recording of the 4 movement version of the 9th. A controversial choice perhaps but I found the Scherzo truly EXCITING! In a strangely dark and menacing way.
My new found infatuation with Bruckie was such that I now own over 60 recordings of #00 - #9 and these encompass every possible variant of each and every Symphony. New editions are being released all the time and I lap it all up. Letting Bruckie into my life was such a balm and a complete Volte Face. Never in my life had a made such a spectacular U Turn. From finding Bruckner boring as hell to worshiping his music.
With Mahler I have great difficulties. And I've tried...believe me. There are Symphonies of his that I enjoy (#1 #4 #8 #10) but I can never say I ever truly LOVE Mahler like I do Bruckie.
I know I will make many enemies here but I often find Mahler DISTURBING. To the very real extent that I simply need to turn the music off on my stereo after about 20 minutes. Some say Bruckner wrote the same 9 Symphonies 11 times (well not that exactly but I'm being a smartarse). I would posit that it was in fact Mahler who (with the exception of #8) endlessly repeated himself. And in the guise of ever more paranoid, over orchestrated and long winded emptiness.
I just think Mahler mostly tried TOO HARD to achieve something over the course of an 80 miniute epic that (for me) Bruckner could express in one page. I guess I find most of Mahler pretentious and overblown. I'm sorry. Beneath all of the brilliantine orchestration I just feel there is a significant famine going on. Mahler is perhaps so popular today because his neurotic music reflects the society of competition and violence that we live in. It mirrors the agonies we witness every day.
Mahler was a genius don't get me wrong. It's just that for me I have enough trauma in my life and I don't want to be reminded of it over and over. This is the same reason why I respect Shosty enormously but his orchestration is battleship grey which reflects the Stalinist terror he was living through. I know its there but I just don't want to hear it. Its just all too black.

If I have offended anyone here with what are only my opinions then I apologise well in advance!


----------

