# Beethoven versus Mahler



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

I was thinking of posting a poll on this topic, but it seems quite obvious what the results would be. Beethoven versus Mahler in what sense?

*1.* Who reaches greater climactic heights Beethoven or Mahler?

Ans: Mahler

*2.* Who has greater symmetry Beethoven or Mahler?

Ans: Beethoven

Does anyone see it differently?


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Climactic heights in what, though? That's pretty vague. Emotional heights?

Symmetry as in "D-G-E flat-B flat-G-D"? Or the "sense" of symmetry and proportion?


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I think both reached climactic heights for their respectable times...and the only reason I would say Mahler did "greater" in that respect to Beethoven was because the bar was set higher for Mahler and his contemporaries. If anything it's the same bar that Beethoven set as the standard, which is why so many Romantics trembled under the discouraging giant that is the 9th

And yeah, I don't know what you mean by symmetry. If it's a theory thing, then disregard what Im' going to say, but it seems to me that both Beethoven and Mahler focus on contrast, both inter-movements and intra-movements


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Climactic heights simply refers to the ever rising progression of a theme, but for both Beethoven and Mahler this always has to do with emotion. 

Symmetry is a reference to overall consistency, how well the piece develops within itself.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I think both Beethoven and Mahler reach climactic heights with the developments of their themes in their symphonies also...so I wouldn't say for these two its always about the emotion. Emotion is subjective anyway; there are people who shrug off Beethoven and prefer Mahler, and vice versa

Why do you say Mahler is less consistent in his development?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> Why do you say Mahler is less consistent in his development?


you mean, "in contrast to Beethoven." Just take Mahler No.5 versus Beethoven No.5, the motif in the first movement is developed along symmetrical lines. If I remember correctly Bernstein said the first movement to Beethoven's 5th Symphony was so perfect that one couldn't even change a note without destroying the piece... _sh--t I can't remember exactly what he said_, but it was something about every note being vital to the overall perfection of the structure. So here I can more clearly define what I mean by symmetry: how well the notes fit together, naturally, without being forced, in order to make up a whole. I don't think this is rocket science, is it not literally obvious that Beethoven is more symmetrical than Mahler? Mahler, whom I love ever so deeply, seems to have more internal clashes within his music, his resolution (in contrast to Beethoven) is far more violent. But for me personally, I enjoy that kind of thing.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I think Beethoven could easily take Mahler. Big, tough German against delicate, sensitive Bohemian? No contest.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

If by symmetry you mean like a Classical approach to precision an balance, ok yeah of course Beethoven is more symmetrical. 

By the definition you write, no I don't think it's obvious. Mahler doesn't sound forced to me


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> no I don't think it's obvious. Mahler doesn't sound forced to me


obvious in contrast to Beethoven.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Klassic said:


> obvious in contrast to Beethoven.


Yeah even in contrast to Beethoven, Mahler doesn't sound more or less "forced"


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Klassic said:


> I was thinking of posting a poll on this topic, but it seems quite obvious what the results would be. Beethoven versus Mahler in what sense?
> 
> *1.* Who reaches greater climactic heights Beethoven or Mahler?
> 
> ...


Do you see no fault in comparing a classicist/pro-Romanticist with a Late-Romanticist/Mahler-esque symphonist?

(See what I did there? Ha!)*



*Mahler symphonies are an entire genre unto themselves.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Herrenvolk said:


> *Mahler symphonies are an entire genre unto themselves.


I'll second this.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Mahler reaches greater climactic heights because he uses more instruments.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

dsphipps100 said:


> I'll second this.


I didn't mean it as a fanboy statement. Sure there's that but also the fact Mahler was the only one who could successfully pull off these gigantic conceptions without an inch of excess. Very original works.
All others who have tried have mostly failed and more often than not have ended up with works which meandered endlessly and were rather desperately trying to emulate Mahler. The few that succeed are Mahler symphonies [Suggestions welcomed.]

Of course there's Bruckner but his style's different and his genre's different - Bruckner symphonies. (Not very creative, I know.)


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

1. Mahler explores many more emotions in his symphonies than Beethoven does. Beethoven usually picks a theme and sticks with it whereas Mahler incorporates a whole wide range of feelings. Of course there are exceptions.

2. Beethoven is more symmetrical in form. Mahler's form is all over the place while Beethoven's is more focused.

Now the more interesting question for me is whose symphonies hit more of our listening needs in this generation. I'd have to go with Mahler. We tend to think of symphonies as being large, all-encompassing works even though Classical period and even early Romantic symphonies don't go for that approach. Beethoven's symphonies were enormous at the time, but Mahler has surpassed him in that respect.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

EarthBoundRules said:


> Now the more interesting question for me is whose symphonies hit more of our listening needs in this generation. I'd have to go with Mahler. *We tend to think of symphonies as being large, all-encompassing works* even though Classical period and even early Romantic symphonies don't go for that approach. Beethoven's symphonies were enormous at the time, but Mahler has surpassed him in that respect.


I thought we'd moved beyond that at some point during the 20th century.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

As a fan of both I don't think there is anything that makes Mahler symphonies any more categorically emotional than Beethoven's. More melodramatic in parts sure, more disjointed too, and more sweeping - perhaps. But Beethoven was more precise and focused, in form and emotional content IMO. I don't see how one or the other is any more or less expressive than the alternative.

And as for composers trying and failing at Mahler - who do we mean? Some have leveled that accusation at Shostakovich but I think that is agenda-driven more than anything. Personally I like Mahler better but I like Shostakovich a lot too, and even see him as perhaps more talented as a composer. If he's a 2nd or 3rd pressing of Mahler like Boulez said, then is Mahler a 2nd or 3rd pressing of Wagner and Bruckner? Themselves a pressing of Beethoven, and he of Haydn and Mozart?


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

GreenMamba said:


> I thought we'd moved beyond that at some point during the 20th century.


I can pinpoint the exact day: April 30, 1902.


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

GreenMamba said:


> I thought we'd moved beyond that at some point during the 20th century.


I think the average concertgoer still expects symphonies to be large. Composers are a different matter.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Herrenvolk said:


> I didn't mean it as a fanboy statement.


Neither did I.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

EarthBoundRules said:


> Now the more interesting question for me is whose symphonies hit more of our listening needs in this generation.


Well actually, Mahler would be the opposite of meeting the needs of this generation, Webern meets the needs of this generation, but Mahler seems to demand too much from the modern listener (pop-culture-consciousness lacks the tools required to assimilate his music i.e. no attention span, Mahler requires a long attention span, as well as the ability to pay attention to details).


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Would Mahler's music sound as it does if Beethoven had never existed?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Triplets said:


> Would Mahler's music sound as it does if Beethoven had never existed?


Certainly not. On several different occasions Talk Classical polls have established Beethoven as the most important symphonist to ever exist.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Klassic said:


> Well actually, Mahler would be the opposite of meeting the needs of this generation, Webern meets the needs of this generation, but Mahler seems to demand too much from the modern listener (pop-culture-consciousness lacks the tools required to assimilate his music i.e. no attention span, Mahler requires a long attention span, as well as the ability to pay attention to details).


I can agree with the attention span thing, but Webern meeting this generation's needs? If I were to generalize, I'd say the kids want something with melodies they can whistle after the concert.

Maybe Vivaldi suits them, or, if we're sticking in the 20th century, Prokofiev's first symphony


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> If I were to generalize, I'd say the kids want something with melodies they can whistle after the concert.


The kids want, among other things, Kanye West and Kendrick Lamar, who don't exactly deliver that. (And Taylor Swift, who does, but it's her words that make her bigger than the competition.)


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Harold in Columbia said:


> The kids want, among other things, Kanye West and Kendrick Lamar, who don't exactly deliver that. (And Taylor Swift, who does, but it's her words that make her bigger than the competition.)


They don't deliver for you nor I, but I see people jamming to them anyway :shrug emoji:


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> I'd say the kids want something with melodies they can whistle after the concert.


Agreed. My reference to Webern is only a reference to his maximized-minimalism.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Well actually, Mahler would be the opposite of meeting the needs of this generation, Webern meets the needs of this generation, but Mahler seems to demand too much from the modern listener (pop-culture-consciousness lacks the tools required to assimilate his music i.e. no attention span, Mahler requires a long attention span, as well as the ability to pay attention to details).


Mahler is way bigger than Webern with the kids - as he's bigger with everybody, justly or not.

And Mahler "meet the needs of this generation" somewhat better, because Mahler's eclecticism and campiness can be and often are misunderstood as anticipating Postmodernism (just as the Modernists were able to persuade themselves that Bach anticipated them). (Webern on the other hand can currently only be heard as occupying a point somewhere on the continuum between Romanticism and Modernism.)

Of course, the composer who really "meet the needs of this generation" is Steve Reich, for better or worse (probably mostly worse).


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> They don't deliver for you nor I, but I see people jamming to them anyway :shrug emoji:


They do "deliver for me." People should jam to them. They're good. But they're not jamming to them for the melodies, which in West's and Lamar's cases are totally undistinguished, their talents being for other things (and I already addressed the case of Swift).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Mahler is way bigger than Webern with the kids - as he's bigger with everybody, justly or not.
> 
> And Mahler "meet the needs of this generation" somewhat better, because Mahler's eclecticism and campiness can be and often are misunderstood as anticipating Postmodernism (just as the Modernists were able to persuade themselves that Bach anticipated them). (Webern on the other hand can currently only be heard as occupying a point somewhere on the continuum between Romanticism and Modernism.)
> 
> Of course, the composer who really "meet the needs of this generation" is Steve Reich, for better or worse (probably mostly worse).




Too bad we don't have Webern's own interpretations of Mahler's music preserved for our younger generations to enjoy both great artists at once.

(Campiness? Really?)


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Of course, the composer who really "meet the needs of this generation" is Steve Reich...




This sucks because 1) it's probably true and 2) I don't like Reich.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

dsphipps100 said:


> I'll second this.


And I second this then :tiphat:


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Mahler's eclecticism and campiness...


"Campiness", not a word I would of conjured up myself - but now you mention it, yes, I quite agree, you're quite right. It fits just as much as "eclecticism" and matches my psychological profile of this tragically neurotic and paranoid composer.

Thank you


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KRoad said:


> "Campiness", not a word I would of conjured up myself - but now you mention it, yes, I quite agree, you're quite right. It fits just as much as "eclecticism" and matches my psychological profile of this tragically neurotic and paranoid composer.
> 
> Thank you


Why is it that everyone seems to get their idea of Mahler's personality from Alma? She is the _least_ reliable witness in that regard.

Mahler had some neurotic traits, it is true, but not nearly so much as composers like Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich. He was a warm friend, a devoted father, and a conductor fully dedicated to his art. He had a very stable personality and did not ever lose a job because of emotional instability.

Much of what people call "neurotic" in his music is simply the variety and juxtaposition of emotions and textures, but why is the same not said of Beethoven or Mozart or Wagner, who also used violent and sudden juxtapositions of disparate elements to drive the musical argument forward?

I think it is the mistaken idea that Mahler's music is a direct transcription of his emotional state, or indicative of some specific program which must be followed for comprehension. Mahler's music was written to be heard as, and should be listened to as, absolute music. His symphonies are symphonies in the same sense as Beethoven, Brahms, and Bruckner, and should be followed as we follow their works.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> Why is it that everyone seems to get their idea of Mahler's personality from Alma? She is the _least_ reliable witness in that regard.
> 
> Mahler had some neurotic traits, it is true, but not nearly so much as composers like Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich. He was a warm friend, a devoted father, and a conductor fully dedicated to his art. He had a very stable personality and did not ever lose a job because of emotional instability.
> 
> ...


And what's more, Mahler certainly didn't write any of his symphonies to be listened to while smoking anything untoward. (I'm looking at _you_, Hector Berlioz and Alexander Scriabin.







)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> Why is it that everyone seems to get their idea of Mahler's personality from Alma? She is the _least_ reliable witness in that regard.
> 
> Mahler had some neurotic traits, it is true, but not nearly so much as composers like Tchaikovsky or Shostakovich. He was a warm friend, a devoted father, and a conductor fully dedicated to his art. He had a very stable personality and did not ever lose a job because of emotional instability.
> 
> ...


I suspect that Bernstein also has a lot to do with that attitude.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Who, come to think of it, was also simultaneously a highly functional member of society and a major drama queen as an artist (unfortunately with a minor talent compared to Mahler's).


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Harold in Columbia said:


> *Who, come to think of it, was also simultaneously a highly functional member of society and a major drama queen *as an artist (unfortunately with a minor talent compared to Mahler's).


I like her already. . . minor talent or not.

Its enough to be beautiful- its the job of 'others' to be witty and smart and to entertain us.










_;D_


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Becca said:


> I suspect that Bernstein also has a lot to do with that attitude.


Yes, and Bernstein's statements on Mahler interest me very little, although he could certainly get fine performances of Mahler's works.


----------

