# Bruckner and Mahler



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Although the names of these two composers are often linked, their music is very different. Curious if anybody out there likes the music of one but not of the other -- ?


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I have a life long love affair with Mahler's music but my appreciation for Bruckner is more muted. I've never been motivated to add any of his works to my music collection over the course of 43 years of record and CD buying. I find Bruckner's music a bit overstated, lacking in subtlety and repetitive. I completely get the kinship of Mahler to Bruckner and at times I'm thrilled by various parts of the Bruckner symphonies, it's just that Bruckner sounds somewhat crude compared to Mahler to me.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

I like both, but I prefer Mahler any day.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

both are appreciated here in my house


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I like both.

One thing is that although they revolved around the same circles, eg. both where at Vienna conservatory of music, my understanding is that Bruckner never actually taught the young Mahler. But of course, Mahler and others of the younger generation of composers in Vienna like Hugo Wolf revered Bruckner to no end.

But due to both composing mammoth symphonies and things like being in that late Romantic Viennese era/style, they get lumped together sometimes like Siamese twins. But in recent decades that has been done less. I read once that, in the opinion of a certain writer of music, the big difference between Bruckner and Mahler is that the former has more certainty than the latter. Bruckner displays a rock solid belief in the power of God, nature and the power of good to overcome evil, also things in Christian theology like spirituality and an afterlife in heaven. However Mahler is often full of doubt about the world, has these neuroses and obsession with death, and often reflects on the fleeting and temporary nature of happiness.

I personally think that what that writer said does have more than a grain of truth in how I differentiate these two guys, apart from things like more formal issues, or the vast differences between them as men.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Bruckner's music just makes me wiggle anguishly in my seat, he just writes long transitional string passages in between perfectly formatted brass fanfares, I can stand the latter but not the meaningless half hour coming there.

I much prefer Mahler's musical poking at the world and times that surrounded him. His music in its simplest form encourage emotions in a way that Bruckner wouldn't have thought of even in his wildest moments!

/ptr


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andolink said:


> I find Bruckner's music a bit overstated, lacking in subtlety and repetitive. I completely get the kinship of Mahler to Bruckner and at times I'm thrilled by various parts of the Bruckner symphonies, it's just that Bruckner sounds somewhat crude compared to Mahler to me.





ptr said:


> Bruckner's music just makes me wiggle anguishly in my seat, he just writes long transitional string passages in between perfectly formatted brass fanfares, I can stand the latter but not the meaningless half hour coming there.
> 
> I much prefer Mahler's musical poking at the world and times that surrounded him. His music in its simplest form encourage emotions in a way that Bruckner wouldn't have thought of even in his wildest moments!
> 
> /ptr


I can understand these criticism of Bruckner and seeing how Mahler comes out better given these types of comparisons. There is that aspect of Bruckner's repetitiveness, and also the ways he creates these voids, eg. by stopping and then resuming the music within a movement. Another writer said that this was like climbing some mountain in the alps and then stopping to look back at the view, then you continue with the journey upwards. Its true though that Bruckner in terms of his interests was not as sophisticated, or intellectual and cerebral like Mahler was. Bruckner was not much interested in literature for example, unlike Mahler who was. Mahler was a cosmopolitan figure, travelling as far as New York. Bruckner also travelled, but within Europe as an organist - he was considered among the greatest players of the instrument in his day - but hey, being an organist is not as 'sexy' as a conductor, is it? So its true I think that there is that more wordly aspect to Mahler which maybe in our own times is more relevant to many people. Also, his interest in psychology, Mahler had some sessions of psychoanalysis with Freud. It is interesting to contrast the two guys and their music for sure.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

I was an enthusiastic Mahler fan long before I even appreciated Bruckner. I can still remember how baffled i was listening to CSO and Solti play Bruckner: it seemed like nothing but clipped phrases and blasting brass (mind you, I love loud brass). Hearing HvK years later with VPO convinced me otherwise. Now, I think I probably enjoy listening to Bruckner more than Mahler.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm definitely in the Mahler camp, not the Bruckner one - not that I dislike Bruckner's music. When I started listening to classical music I saw that Bruckner and Mahler were indeed bracketed together but it was very quickly obvious that their music was very different. So, aside from whatever geographical and career proximity they may have had, I wonder why they were ever linked - is it just laziness on the part of people lumping "composers of big long symphonies" together?


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

Sid James said:


> I can understand these criticism of Bruckner and seeing how Mahler comes out better given these types of comparisons.


I don't see it as "Criticism"! I don't think Mahler is a "better" composer than Bruckner, both know their craft well above par. I can admire the craft when reading Bruckner's music of the sheet but it leaves me unemotional and the only thing that matters for me is what emotions the result of listening/reading any music creates.



> but hey, being an organist is not as 'sexy' as a conductor, is it?


Sexy or not, I'll take an organist over a conductor any day!

/ptr


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mahlers music is shrill, distracted, monumental and gesticulative. Bruckner is also monumental, but less shrill, and much less distracted and gesticulative. I like Bruckner much more than Mahler, but Mahlers music is distinctive and i don't want to miss it.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I’ve tried with Bruckner but he seems dull in comparison with Mahler.
With Mahler you seem to be going places, the climaxes are simply overwhelming the whole experience is more emotional.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ptr said:


> Bruckner's music just makes me wiggle anguishly in my seat, he just writes long transitional string passages in between perfectly formatted brass fanfares, I can stand the latter but not the meaningless half hour coming there.
> 
> I much prefer Mahler's musical poking at the world and times that surrounded him. His music in its simplest form encourage emotions in a way that Bruckner wouldn't have thought of even in his wildest moments!
> 
> /ptr


Our 'problems' with Bruckner are sort of similar. I actually am OK with the 'half-hour coming there'; it's development, of sentiment as much as material. But after the 'brass fanfare' comes another episode - development followed by loud denouement; and then yet another sequence... . Many Romantic period symphonies have a pattern that vaguely resembles that, in that multiple subjects are introduced, developed and at least partially summed up - but not resolved with multiple exclamation points. It all seems rather juvenile, a metaphor for meeting life's problems, beating them down and stomping on them, and moving on to the next one.

[Yeah, I know: Hilly the metaphor nut.]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I love both Bruckner and Mahler, and I wouldn't be without their music. That said, Andolink is right that Bruckner's music is less subtle and refined. That's not to say that subtlety is entirely lacking from Bruckner's music, of course. There's a passage in the finale of the 3rd where you have a solemn chorale in the winds and a polka in the strings! There's a similar moment in the finale of the fourth where a slow funeral dirge morphs into a rustic dance tune.

That said, they're entirely different composers, as Sid James was saying, both in temperament and in practice. Bruckner's music is more conscious and deliberate, taking a clear path from point A to point B. Mahler will take the byroads in a more direct, winding, yet still logically coherent manner. The former says one thing at a time, and alternates between disparate statements, while the latter says disparate things simultaneously. Part of the problem with Bruckner, for many, is that he usually insisted on a classical balance in his works. If there are three subjects, they have to take up a good part of the exposition and recapitulation, and Bruckner adheres to the standard Romantic era proportions for his movements (33/33/33 Ex/Dev/Recap). He gets away with his eccentricities because the form is relatively standard, just expanded. Mahler's movements are more heavily slanted towards the development, which leads to more variety and less similarity.

They both revised their works throughout their lives, but Mahler only touched up the orchestration, whereas Bruckner would change the structure of a movement considerably from version to version (as is by now well-known).

There is a book called Bruckner and Mahler by Redlich, and then there's the one by Dika Newlin: Bruckner, Mahler, Schoenberg. I wonder if anyone else groups the names that way!

(As a side note, I'm going to see the Boston Symphony play Bruckner's 4th under Dohnanyi this weekend. It'll probably be the Haas edition, for the 1.5 people interested.)


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Both were keen on the symphonic 'grand statement' but used different ways to achieve it. I like both approaches - Mahler is more multi-faceted with more twists and turns but I appreciate Bruckner's monumental slabs of sound and thematic emphasis.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

I prefer Bruckner, but wish I could like Mahler more. When I first started out I found that all the symphonies sounded long and meandering, but I am drawn to Bruckner's meandering more. I find Mahler more obvious in his musical language and straight forward, whereas Bruckner seems more organic in his structure and for me very powerful.
If I had to boil my favourite symphoines down to numbers, I would choose 2 of Mahler's, but 5 of Bruckner's; all their other output I probably listen to on an equal basis.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

I do not know the two composers' music very well, but judging by what I have heard so far, I do not like Bruckner very much. I should give him another try, however.  

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Alydon said:


> I prefer Bruckner, but wish I could like Mahler more. When I first started out I found that all the symphonies sounded long and meandering, but I am drawn to Bruckner's meandering more. I find Mahler more obvious in his musical language and straight forward, whereas Bruckner seems more organic in his structure and for me very powerful.
> If I had to boil my favourite symphoines down to numbers, I would choose 2 of Mahler's, but 5 of Bruckner's; all their other output I probably listen to on an equal basis.


This is the opposite of the way I feel. Bruckner is the far more straightforward composer, Mahler the more reticent. Neither seems meandering to me any more than Beethoven.



DrKilroy said:


> I do not know the two composers' music very well, but judging by what I have heard so far, I do not like Bruckner very much. I should give him another try, however.
> 
> Best regards, Dr


Maybe I should do a series on him after I'm done with Mahler. He seems equally misunderstood around here.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

I've never understood why they're bracketed together -- except maybe by people who don't understand either of them. I've never quite understood, or had the patience for Bruckner. Except for his Ninth, which, to me, sounds more like real music.

I've described listening to a typical Bruckner scherzo as sort of like watching Sysiphus. 

For me, listening to one of his symphonies is sort of like watching an army of ancient Egyptians move a huge block of sandstone from a barge on the Nile across the plain to where they're building the Great Pyramid. You're aware of tremendous effort being employed to complete a great task -- but the journey isn't particularly interesting.

Nevertheless, people whose opinions I respect think highly of him, so I never duck listening to one of his symphonies when it comes lumbering my way.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Two of my favourite composers. Mahler's music tells me how it feels to be a human being in the world, and Bruckner's music tells me how it feels to believe in something grander than human beings and this world. But there's some significiant overlap between them in this regard, I think.

I prefer Bruckner slightly these days, because I am a crazy idealist. I've never found Bruckner repetitive, he always has just the right amount of repeats. The repeats instill in me a sense of ritual, of awe, of stupefied amazement in face of something that perhaps cannot be described in other terms.

The Egypt & Pyramids association always hits home with Bruckner for a lot of reasons: 1) Death. 2) Immortality and afterlife. 3) Preserved corpses. 4) Architechture. 5) Megalomania. 6) Masses of people. 7) Toil and suffering, etc. I think his symphony #5 is the best to fit this bill of associations.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Bruckner is like Schubert in steroids 100 times. I like Mahler though. Bruckner' Te Deum is just heavenly.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

While the music of other composers is like a singer, an actor, a dancer or a *****, who actively tries to entertain you, Bruckner's music is like a rock, that does nothing for you. But you can climb it, and it's the best of everything. Bruckner didn't wrote his music to entertain people or to please people, but for god.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I like Mahler because he was searching for God and I like Bruckner because he found Him. Though I've noticed I spend more time with the latter than the former.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> (As a side note, I'm going to see the Boston Symphony play Bruckner's 4th under Dohnanyi this weekend. It'll probably be the Haas edition, for the 1.5 people interested.)


Mahlerian....That's great. I'll be seeing Dohnanyi/Philadelphia in a few weeks. Maybe you could write a review on your blog.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

My love of Bruckner came quickly probably because his music is very structured. Bruckner was so spiritual and felt connected to God, but needed to think linearly and follow the classical form; possibly his OCD was also a hindrance in his composing. I think Mahler was a very abstract thinker and the music poured out from his soul. 
I feel the Nowack versions show the true writing by Bruckner, it is more sensitive, more subtle. Also, IMO his adagios are among the best ever written.
I love both composers, but it was a longer, more complex journey to explore Mahler.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

davinci said:


> Mahlerian....That's great. I'll be seeing Dohnanyi/Philadelphia in a few weeks. Maybe you could write a review on your blog.


I'll be sure to let people know what I thought, if they're interested.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

davinci said:


> I love both composers, but it was a longer, more complex journey to explore Mahler.


That applies to me in some ways. With Bruckner, since he stuck to the same kind of template - eg. all his symphonies except the ninth having four movements - and the changes between his symphonies being more gradual/incremental compared to Mahler, I knew what to expect of Bruckner, more or less. With Mahler its been harder to a degree, I have to flex myself, but its been a joy recently getting into him more than ever before.

I'd add that ironically with Bruckner, if ever I feel he expresses doubt, its in his sacred works. The motets especially and the Mass in E minor, I feel there a kind of doubt, but of course its more my perception than anything concrete. But his symphonies inevitably end in triumph after all that struggles, maybe similar to Brahms and Beethoven in that way. But with Mahler, you got many doubts and more questions than answers, and I think with that, he sows the seeds of Modernism. So in a way Bruckner is the end of an era, Mahler the beginning of another.


----------



## Guest (Feb 13, 2013)

I go for both................depends what mood I am in


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

I can't choose between the two . I have two nieces who are the sweetest,most angelic and charming girls in the world , and there's no way I could choose between them . It's just like this with the two composers .
Bruckner and Mahler do have more in common than many realize; their music is deeply imbued with the spirit of Austrian folk music and culture .
One canard about Bruckner is that he wrote the same symphony nine times . Wrong ! If it seems this way to certain people, it shows that they have only asuperficial familiarity with his music and haven't lived with it for more than 40 years like myself since I was just a teenager . 
I fail how anyone could say that there is little or no difference between Bruckner's first and ninth . The difference is just as great as between Beethoven's first and ninth symphonies .
Many of those who claim that the symphonies are just copies of each other probably don't even know the rarely performed but undeservedly neglected first and second . 
Here are some distinctive features of the different Bruckner symphonies : The first shows the Bruckner style in chrysalis but is the shortest, only about the length of the Brahms first . The second is the most gentle and pastoral of the symphonies , and seems more like an evocation of the rolling Austrian countryside than a Gothic cathedral or mountain tops . 
The schero of the fourth is in 2/4 instead of the usual 3/4( the scherzo of the Mendelssohn Scottish symphony is also ) . The first movement of the fifth has the only slow introduction among the nine . 
The eight and ninth place the scherzo in the second movement rather than the third .
Superficially, there is greater variety of orchestral color in the Mahler symphonies , but that does not mean that ther eis any lack of color at all in Bruckner .
The Mahler symphonies are more openly emotional, but accusations of maudlin sentimentality and emotional self-indulgence are the fault of CONDUCTORS, not the music . Unfortunately, it's very easy to exaggerate the emotional element in Mahler . 
His music is NOT unrelieved gloom and doom and self pity . Only the tragic sixth ends in deep despair after a fierce struggle . 
And Bruckner's music is not all calm , reflection and beatific joy . The first movewments of the 8th and 9th are filled with existential anguish and terror . The 9th contains fierce dissonances which could have come right out of the 20th century and which would have filled 19th century audiences with horror . Fortunately, it was not premiered until many years after Bruckner's death, and in bowdlerized form by a well-meaning but misguided pupil .
I say, let's be profoundly grateful for th emusi cof both composers . Apples and oranges .


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Oops. That should read "I fail to see how " . Sloppy fingers .


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I'd add that ironically with Bruckner, if ever I feel he expresses doubt, its in his sacred works. The motets especially and the Mass in E minor, I feel there a kind of doubt, but of course its more my perception than anything concrete. But his symphonies inevitably end in triumph after all that struggles, maybe similar to Brahms and Beethoven in that way. But with Mahler, you got many doubts and more questions than answers, and I think with that, he sows the seeds of Modernism. So in a way Bruckner is the end of an era, Mahler the beginning of another.


*Sid*, that is such a keen observation.

And *superhorn*....

_I fail how anyone could say that there is little or no difference between Bruckner's first and ninth . The difference is just as great as between Beethoven's first and ninth symphonies .
Many of those who claim that the symphonies are just copies of each other probably don't even know the rarely performed but undeservedly neglected first and second ._

I feel the same way.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Here's Bruno Walter's thoughts on the matter: http://www.uv.es/~calaforr/walter.html

I tend to prefer Bruckner, that elegiac wandering, especially when it is by Celibidache.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Mahler said about Bruckner *" half simpleton,half God"*.


----------



## mgj15 (Feb 17, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I'll be sure to let people know what I thought, if they're interested.


I thought about it but couldn't do this weekend. Would love to hear how it sounded. Enjoy.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Along with Richard Strauss, these are the hardest composers in the canon for me to appreciate.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Bone said:


> I was an enthusiastic Mahler fan long before I even appreciated Bruckner.


Mirrors my experience. I think the consensus view is that Mahler's achievement is more consistent. Furthermore (at least in my earlier listening years), there was more energetic 'PR' (for lack of a better expression) around Mahler. Lots of Mahler Champions on major American podiums- the most self-consciously open of whom was Bernstein.


Bone said:


> I can still remember how baffled i was listening to CSO and Solti play Bruckner: it seemed like nothing but clipped phrases and blasting brass (mind you, I love loud brass). Hearing HvK years later with VPO convinced me otherwise.


At this point, we'll have to 'agree-to-disagree.' However, in my experience, I'd say I'm less likely to satisfied with a single conductor's Bruckner symphonies box than I would be with a single conductor's Mahler symphonies box. In the former case, I think individual perfomances (or better yet, multiple boxed sets) yields outsized benefit with Bruckner.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> [...]
> However, in my experience, I'd say I'm less likely to satisfied with a single conductor's Bruckner symphonies box than I would be with a single conductor's Mahler symphonies box. In the former case, I think individual perfomances (or better yet, multiple boxed sets) yields outsized benefit with Bruckner.


In my limited experience with Bruckner, I suspect you are right. Kubelik and Walter handle all of Mahler; Barenboim doesn't interpret all of Bruckner the way it needs to be to please me.


----------

