# Why is Mahler's music style so different from oter musics in same period?



## snoozer (Dec 2, 2014)

As far as I know, his music is inherited from musicians like Bruckner, but even his first symphony is so different compared to other music in same era. Did I miss something? or what happened?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Interesting observation...BUT, Mahler was obsessed with the music and sounds that surrounded him and the cultures he was exposed to and this was one of the main reasons why a "direct link" to Bruckner or Wagner isn't evdient. He was certainly inspired by the cultures, art, music and land of his heritage, but in a different way to other composers of the time. 

You also may need to consider his work as a conductor and how that influenced his orchestration just as much as you should consider what orchetsras and instruments were available to him at the time. 

One last thing, he was really just as unique as Bruckner and other great symphonists of the time like Dvorak for example, but he was unique in a very different way probably because he just wanted to create a certain sound in his music that he liked very much himself.


----------



## snoozer (Dec 2, 2014)

thanks a lot! would you suggest any good musicians with similar style as Mahler or Shostakovich?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

You might enjoy Schoenberg. Have a listen to "A Survivor from Warsaw" if you don't already know it.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

snoozer said:


> As far as I know, his music is inherited from musicians like Bruckner, but even his first symphony is so different compared to other music in same era. Did I miss something? or what happened?


In short, Mahler happened.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

You could ask the same question of Debussy, Mussorgsky, R. Strauss . . . Every great composer is different in his own unique way, and to try to explain it is pretty much impossible.

(Same for listeners. I, for instance, find the idea that Mahler was influenced by, or somehow grew out of, Bruckner to be absurd. But what do I know?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why? Because Mahler was one of the greatest musical geniuses who ever lived, on the level of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven and the other composers of his era weren't.


----------



## snoozer (Dec 2, 2014)

okay.. then who would you suggest after Mahler?


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

> okay.. then who would you suggest after Mahler?


Hmm, interesting question. On one level I'd be tempted to say Prokofiev; on another, Ives.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mahler's music was unique, but I don't think as unique as some others from around the same time period such as Debussy, Schoenberg, Bartok etc. There is a much stronger link to pure Romanticism in Mahler's music compared to these other composers. I can't say I agree Mahler was on the level of a Bach or Mozart but I think it would be fair to say he was one of the greatest symphonists.


----------



## snoozer (Dec 2, 2014)

tdc said:


> Mahler's music was unique, but I don't think as unique as some others from around the same time period such as Debussy, Schoenberg, Bartok etc. There is a much stronger link to pure Romanticism in Mahler's music compared to these other composers. I can't say I agree Mahler was on the level of a Bach or Mozart but I think it would be fair to say he was one of the greatest symphonists.


I admit Schoenberg is very unique. But look at other musicians in same era like Brahms, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov... they kinda have something in common, contrast to Mahler(or etc) Well 'ComposerOfAvantGarde' has given me an explanation.. but I still find this subject puzzling and interesting


----------



## Skilmarilion (Apr 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Because Mahler was one of the greatest musical geniuses who ever lived, on the level of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven *and the other composers of his era weren't.*


That's highly subjective, to say the very least.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

snoozer said:


> As far as I know, his music is inherited from musicians like Bruckner, but even his first symphony is so different compared to other music in same era. Did I miss something? or what happened?


You can't quantify the differences. It is probably possible musicologically to focus on this or that aspect, as many of the responses to your post have. For whatever reasons, Mahler was different in his mind from Bruckner.

To borrow a phrase: Viva la difference.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Dunno, they quite good man.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Why is my posting style different from anyone else's on TC? Thankfully, we are all different!!


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

Skilmarilion said:


> That's highly subjective, to say the very least.


As are all of these musical discussions, by the very nature of the subject itself.
In the final analysis, I really believe that is the listener's perception of and reception to the music 
to which he/she is listening-extremely subjective in each individual--that then goes into the equation of deciding exactly whom is a "great composer", or not.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

From the beginning of his work (starting with Das Klagende Lied), there are a few things that set Mahler apart from his predecessors and his contemporaries:

1) Use of folk and popular musics (marches, laendler, brass bands), almost as if raw rather than fully homogenized into the style of the work
2) Lack of literal repetition, replacing it with constant development
3) A refusal to use formulas - every single one of Mahler's sonata form movements is structured differently
4) An orchestral texture that is constantly varied, frequently employed in small chamber-like groups
5) Fusion of sung and instrumental forms
6) Counterpoint consisting of highly independent lines, with most of them having thematic/motivic importance

Mahler didn't have many direct successors, though many in the 20th century were influenced by his music, including Shostakovich, Britten, Copland, and the Second Viennese School. If I had to name the one who comes closest to Mahler's style and aesthetic, I would choose Alban Berg, whose opera Wozzeck has all (or at least most) of the above features. Berg was also one of Shostakovich's biggest influences, along with Mahler and Stravinsky. If you haven't heard it, listen to his Violin Concerto:


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Why? Because Mahler was one of the greatest musical geniuses who ever lived, on the level of Mozart, Bach and Beethoven and Schubert and the other composers of his era weren't.


Very astute, old man


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

snoozer said:


> I admit Schoenberg is very unique. But look at other musicians in same era like Brahms, Schumann, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninov... they kinda have something in common, contrast to Mahler(or etc)


These composers aren't the same era. Rachmaninoff's first symphony was about half a century after Schumann died.

Personally, I don't see Mahler as winning any special prizes for uniqueness (which isn't to say he was derivative of anyway else). Debussy was way more of a departure from those who preceded.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

tdc said:


> ... I can't say I agree Mahler was on the level of a Bach or Mozart but I think it would be fair to say he was one of the greatest symphonists.


May I ask for any reasons why, I'm genuinely curious as to any musical reasons why you say this. I think of Mahler's status as indisputable, just like the other greats, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc. etc. For instance, any one of these aforementioned composers may not be someone's cup of tea, but that has no effect whatsoever on their well established "status". Perhaps my assumption about Mahler has been off base. I don't know.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> Very astute, old man


Sneaky sneaky. Well done.


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Dunno, they quite good man.


Who knew you could train otters to play Boulez?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Who knew you could train otters to play Boulez?


Don't you mean the piece that was described in this manner?



> "I believe that I could write tomorrow something similar, inspired by my cat walking down the keyboard of the piano."





> "tumultuous, deafening, infernal. Here are exasperated trebles, enraged cymbals, chapeaux chinois in delirium. It produces the same effect upon you, and gives you the same pain, as if a hundred needles should enter your ear at once."





> "In order to reveal its secrets, it imposes mental tortures that only algebra has a right to inflect. The unintelligible is its ideal."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> From the beginning of his work (starting with Das Klagende Lied), there are a few things that set Mahler apart from his predecessors and his contemporaries:
> 
> 1) Use of folk and popular musics (marches, laendler, brass bands), almost as if raw rather than fully homogenized into the style of the work...


You mean, they stick out like a sore thumb, and are obvious?

Such as the "minor" treatment of _Frère Jacques _in the First Symphony_?__
_
Francesca Draughon and Raymond Knapp argue that _Frère Jacques_ originally was a song to taunt Jews (WIK).

Was this Mahler's "revenge,'" to "minor-ize" the tune and make it sound Jewish? It was noted in some liner notes that the Viennese audience was "shocked" by the appearance of this "street tune" tune in the second movement. This is a nice way of putting it.

I contend that what made Mahler's music style "different" was his awareness, however much downplayed by him, unspoken, or denied, that he was of Jewish descent.

This tension was even greater in the Viennese social environment; and we have seen how he was eventually "run out of Germany" and was forced to quit the Vienna Opera, and come to America, land of immigrants.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Who knew you could train otters to play Boulez?


Hm, sounds nothing like any Boulez piece I've ever heard.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

DrMike said:


> Who knew you could train otters to play Boulez?


Isn't that cute? The otters, I mean.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> You mean, they stick out like a sore thumb, and are obvious?
> 
> Such as the "minor" treatment of _Frère Jacques _in the First Symphony_?__
> _
> Francesca Draughon and Raymond Knapp argue that _Frère Jacques_ originally was a song to taunt Jews (WIK).


Others claim it was intended to mock the Jacobins.



millionrainbows said:


> Was this Mahler's "revenge,'" to "minor-ize" the tune and make it sound Jewish?


I'm gonna say "no."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> Others claim it was intended to mock the Jacobins.


 Several claims are made, and to mock Jews is one of them.

Was this Mahler's revenge?


GreenMamba said:


> I'm gonna say "no."


With no reason why? Poor argument. Well, the result sure sounds Jewish, especially the part after the main theme. And you never did address the "audience shock" account. That's a supporting point in my argument.

Mahler was an outsider, man. He was in Vienna, for God's sake. They eventually made him resign! Duhhh....


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Several claims are made, and to mock Jews is one of them.
> 
> Was this Mahler's revenge?
> 
> ...


Near as I can tell in my inattentive way, the pogroms and near-pogroms came and went, with interludes of moderate tolerance. Mahler worked in the declining part of an interlude, eh?


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Several claims are made, and to mock Jews is one of them.
> 
> Was this Mahler's revenge?
> 
> ...


The fact that the audience was shocked by this street tune isn't the same as saying it was intended as revenge for anti-Semitism. I believe Mahler said his inspiration was a painting, and the point of the vulgarity/irony was to set up the real emotions in the last movement. Did he ever mention "revenge"?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> May I ask for any reasons why, I'm genuinely curious as to any musical reasons why you say this. I think of Mahler's status as indisputable, just like the other greats, like Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Stravinsky, etc. etc. For instance, any one of these aforementioned composers may not be someone's cup of tea, but that has no effect whatsoever on their well established "status". Perhaps my assumption about Mahler has been off base. I don't know.


Well if you look at the variety of lists that have ever been assembled at any website ranking composers try and find me one that ranks Mahler as first. The last time I checked there was only one list I came across that had him in the top ten. I would say anyone who claims Mahler was as great as Bach or Mozart would then be in the position to have to give musical reasons why.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A pretty typical list. Mahler does well.

1 - Beethoven
2 - Bach
3 - Mozart
4 - Haydn
5 - Mahler
6 - Schubert
7 - Brahms
8 - Stravinsky
9 - Handel
10 - Tchaikovsky


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

tdc said:


> Well if you look at the variety of lists that have ever been assembled at any website ranking composers try and find me one that ranks Mahler as first. The last time I checked there was only one list I came across that had him in the top ten. I would say anyone who claims Mahler was as great as Bach or Mozart would then be in the position to have to give musical reasons why.


Well, the reason why I asked is because as I stated, I've kinda been under the impression that he was in the established greats, along with Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. That is not to say I have any reasons (musical or otherwise) to say he was _AS_ great as those three I mentioned. (the three composers that have been respectively touted as the greatest composer ever an uncountable amount of times, meaningless as that may be). To me, it's not a question of Mahler being as great, but just a certain level of greatness that has been attained. For instance, I think Brahms and Schubert as being one of the established greats, they don't need to be compared to the "Big Three". Their greatness is without question and well-established. Their status isn't dependent on whether they were _as_ great as Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. They stand on their _own_ (as one of the greats).


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2014)

violadude said:


> Hm, sounds nothing like any Boulez piece I've ever heard.


Ah, I seem to have stumbled into one of those all too serious threads that will not stand for any breach in stodginess.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

KenOC said:


> A pretty typical list. Mahler does well.
> 
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Bach
> ...


Well can you reference where that list came from and identify any other "typical" lists that have Mahler placed in the top 5?


----------



## Guest (Dec 2, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A pretty typical list. Mahler does well.
> 
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Bach
> ...


Sorry, couldn't help but notice that you got Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky switched there. Understandable, as both end in -sky.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> For instance, I think Brahms and Schubert as being one of the established greats, they don't need to be compared to the "Big Three".


Exactly, and I completely agree. I wasn't disagreeing with anyone saying Mahler was an established great I was disagreeing with someone comparing him directly to the big 3.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

KenOC said:


> A pretty typical list. Mahler does well.
> 
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Bach
> ...


When it comes to those top three, I think it's nearly futile to put them in kind of meaningful order. Each one has been ranked countless times as _the_ greatest. From there, I think it boils down to favorites/biases. One person puts Bach at the top and Beethoven 2nd (Anthony Tommasini in his top-10 list), another puts Beethoven at the top (Leonard Bernstein, on multiple occasions), another puts Mozart at the top. It's all rather silly, don'tcha think? (but still tons of fun!  )


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Sorry, couldn't help but notice that you got Tchaikovsky and Stravinsky switched there. Understandable, as both end in -sky.


Not surprising because they are, in fact, the same person. This is not widely known, and I'd appreciate your not passing it along.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

For the record I don't think the top 3 are necessarily unchallengeable in their positions, but stating another composer is of that caliber requires some solid musical reasoning as to why. I've never thought of Mahler as being quite that high in the rankings, and was just simply saying I disagree - not that my opinion is an objective fact. If someone was to provide substantial reasons as to why Mahler achieved as much musically, I'm all ears.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

It's sort of like the Holy Trinity. Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet all three answer to The Schubert. It is perhaps the one thing we can ALL agree on.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

tdc said:


> For the record I don't think the top 3 are necessarily unchallengeable in their positions, but stating another composer is of that caliber requires some solid musical reasoning as to why. I've never thought of Mahler as being quite that high in the rankings, and was just simply saying I disagree - not that my opinion is an objective fact. If someone was to provide substantial reasons as to why Mahler achieved as much musically, I'm all ears.


"Achieved as much musically"? What criteria would be used for that?

Mahler was one of the 'New Path" guys. In his time he was no more, maybe less successful at it than was Reger, or Debussy.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

His orchestration is unbeatable. I'm pretty sure that's a fact. I'll have to check my sources.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

tdc said:


> I would say anyone who claims Mahler was as great as Bach or Mozart would then be in the position to have to give musical reasons why.


"_You have the greats: Bach of course, Mozart, Beethoven. And I think Mahler belongs in this group. But his vocabulary is so modern that people don't fully understand it yet..._" - Ivan Fischer, Music Director of the Konzerthaus Berlin

[13:50]


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DrMike said:


> Ah, I seem to have stumbled into one of those all too serious threads that will not stand for any breach in stodginess.


Ya but your joke has to make sense...You might as well have replaced Boulez with Mozart in that joke, it would make as much sense.

You should have gone with Orenstein. He was known for large use of cluster tones, which is what the otters were mostly playing, not Boulez though.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Ukko said:


> "Achieved as much musically"? What criteria would be used for that?


Well for one, and maybe this is just a personal and unfair bias, but I think any composer that could rival the top 3 should have some impressive keyboard or solo instrument pieces. It is the most intimate and personal form of musical expression. "The 3" could all do large scale and small scale extremely well. For this reason I personally could not consider Mahler, Wagner, or Stravinsky (great as they were) as quite the same caliber as "the 3". Debussy and Bartok on the other hand - I think stronger arguments could be made there.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> His orchestration is unbeatable. I'm pretty sure that's a fact. I'll have to check my sources.


I'm pretty sure if you double check those sources they will confirm Mahler's orchestration was indeed excellent, but it is in fact Ravel's orchestration that is unbeatable.

Ravel also did small scale and large scale works extremely well. I don't think I could ever be convinced Mahler was a greater composer than Ravel.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

If I were to choose the primary criteria for greatness in a composer (or any artist), I would choose two, and both would come under the idea of _range_: range of skills, and range of expression. Bach , Mozart, and Beethoven are supreme for me in that they all fulfill these criteria to a simply staggering degree. I think there are other criteria of excellence and certainly many great composers, Mahler among them, who may compare on one criteria or the other, but none who equal the "big three" on both counts. Of others, I suspect Schubert may have challenged them had he lived long enough. Maybe.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> If I were to choose the primary criteria for greatness in a composer (or any artist), I would choose two, and both would come under the idea of _range_: range of skills, and range of expression. Bach , Mozart, and Beethoven are supreme for me in that they all fulfill these criteria to a simply staggering degree. I think there are other criteria of excellence and certainly many great composers, Mahler among them, who may compare on one criteria or the other, but none who equal the "big three" on both counts. Of others, I suspect Schubert may have challenged them had he lived long enough. Maybe.


Stockhausen-

Stimmung (vocal overtone/harmonic music- wonderful clarity)
Ensemble (recorded instruments plus live instruments in an extremely creative sound structure)
Kontrapunkte (for 10 acoustic instruments i.e. piano, strings, winds... exceeds even the intense zen energy of Webern)
Mantra (for two pianos and percussion: otherworldly)
Luzifers Abschied (an amazing part of a _really_ long opera cycle)
Momente (for solo soprano, choir, and ensemble)
Hellicopter string quartet (a breathy, floaty atmosphere)
Cosmic Pulses (the last piece he wrote before he died in 2007: a high energy purely electronic piece with a completely unique sound)
Mixtur 2003 (one of my favorites: for orchestra and electronics)


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

^ I would also second with Messiaen.

Messiaen wrote a lot of music, but at the very least, these two masterpieces: Des Canyons and Eclairs. They exceed the summit of even the Mahler symphonies.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

jdec said:


> "_You have the greats: Bach of course, Mozart, Beethoven. And I think Mahler belongs in this group. But his vocabulary is so modern that people don't fully understand it yet..._" - Ivan Fischer, Music Director of the Konzerthaus Berlin
> 
> [13:50]


Uugh I hate that presenter so much. I stopped watching that show because of him.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

tdc said:


> Well for one, and maybe this is just a personal and unfair bias, but I think any composer that could rival the top 3 should have some impressive keyboard or solo instrument pieces. It is the most intimate and personal form of musical expression. "The 3" could all do large scale and small scale extremely well. For this reason I personally could not consider Mahler, Wagner, or Stravinsky (great as they were) as quite the same caliber as "the 3". Debussy and Bartok on the other hand - I think stronger arguments could be made there.


Stravinsky wrote some pretty strong keyboard works:





As well as some for other solo instruments:





But I consider Wagner and Chopin, among others, great composers, despite their focus on a single genre. Mahler excelled in two genres, song and symphony. The diversity argument seems silly, because a great composer can focus his or her attention and still be great, just as many mediocre or worse composers have worked in every genre known to humanity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> From the beginning of his work (starting with Das Klagende Lied), there are a few things that set Mahler apart from his predecessors and his contemporaries:





> 1) Use of folk and popular musics (marches, laendler, brass bands), almost as if raw rather than fully homogenized into the style of the work


 Typical of all German music; Beethoven, Mozart



> 2) Lack of literal repetition, replacing it with constant development


 Brahms



> 3) A refusal to use formulas - every single one of Mahler's sonata form movements is structured differently


 Wagner



> 4) An orchestral texture that is constantly varied, frequently employed in small chamber-like groups


 Wagner



> 5) Fusion of sung and instrumental forms


 Wagner



> 6) Counterpoint consisting of highly independent lines, with most of them having thematic/motivic importance


 Brahms


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Perhaps these things are true to some degree of the composers you've cited, but not nearly to the same degree. 1) There is no Mozart or Beethoven work in which a march texture enters the music in the manner of the Third Symphony.

2) There is no Brahms work which contains so little literal repetition as the Andante of the Sixth Symphony (in which the "main theme" is never played the same way twice!).

3) Wagner didn't write in sonata form in any of his significant works.

4) Wagner's texture, also, is not nearly so varied as Mahler's. He doesn't use nearly the same level of independence for as long periods of time. While there are moments in, say, the Meistersinger overture that have three or four leitmotiv in the orchestra in counterpoint, this is not sustained, and the parts are not given nearly the same kind of individual weight (separate from their orchestral "groups") one sees here, for a purely random example:









5) Wagner, once again, did not fuse song and instrumental forms, but rather create a sung form with an important instrumental component.

6) As for Brahms, see again the above, where we have three or four motifs played simultaneously, the significance of each part shifting bar by bar. Is there anything remotely similar in any of Brahms' works?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

tdc said:


> I'm pretty sure if you double check those sources they will confirm Mahler's orchestration was indeed excellent, but it is in fact Ravel's orchestration that is unbeatable.
> 
> Ravel also did small scale and large scale works extremely well. I don't think I could ever be convinced Mahler was a greater composer than Ravel.


I'll have my people contact your people.


----------

