# Bruckner vs. Mahler



## Falstaft

Inspired by Tapkaara's thread *contrasting* Sibelius to Mahler, I'd like to pose the question to this board. Of the following supremely self-conscious symphonists, whose music do you prefer?: 







.... or ....







*The obsessive-compulsive, devoutly religious, socially inept *Anton Bruckner*, or...

*The anxious, thrice-homeless, irredemiably nostalgic *Gustav Mahler*.

Both wrote 9 (+ 2-3 depending on who you ask) symphonies and varying amounts of large scale vocal music. Both inhabit basically the same stylistic idiom (atonal hints in late Mahler 9 notwithstanding) and share many of the same aesthetic preoccupations. And it's certainly not hard to hear the influence of the former on the latter. So what draws you to one over the other (even if you can't get enough of both!).

I'd like to emphasize the personal preference angle for this thread. Sure I'm interested in hearing whose symphonies you think are objectively better, but I'm more curious in hearing _what you think it says about *you*_ that you prefer one to the other. For example (all things being equal), what is it in your musical taste or personality that leads you to treasure, say, the jagged scherzi of Bruckner or the Ländler-infused fast movements in Mahler? I think because there is such respect and love for these two on these boards, we could keep this a largely positive thread. If you hate one or both, perhaps suggest another late romantic composer of similar style (Zemlinsky, Strauss, Schmidt, Hausseger, Elgar, Langgaard, Atterberg come to mind).

For me, the broad, slow waves of Bruckner tap something deeper in me than generally does Mahler. That is not to say I don't adore Mahler's symphonies, especially moments of the eerie calm he is able to achieve throughout his work. I think what I like in Mahler is the morbidity -- constant funeral marches, weird orchestrations, snatches of melodies he wrote 20 years ago now cloaked in bitter irony and regret. But sometimes the irony in Mahler is too much to take. At no point (even in the ridiculous scherzo of the 9th) do I think Bruckner isn't being upfront and honest with me. Perhaps that means at the core I prefer straightforward emotion to masked or layered emotion. But I'm not trying to say Bruckner's naive (although perhaps I am!). More, I find his inability to lie musically very appealing.

I'm also drawn to his colossal and sturdy grasp of form, his harmonic gravitas, and those goddamn aching slow movements -- I'll take the Adagio of the 8th over the Adagietto of the 5th any day. I'm not sure I would take him over Mahler as a spinner of tunes, but as a spinner of *sequences* there is surely no better.

So what do you all think?


----------



## Art Rock

Playing Bruckner's 6th as I am reading this (as part of my re-play all bruckner symphonies within a few days project), I still prefer Mahler. I find him more emotional and in the end that is what good music is about for me: it touches me inside. I also notice in my current project that when I really really like Bruckner (a lot of times), it is in the passages that foreshadow Mahler.


----------



## Tapkaara

I prefer Mahler.

***And by the way, I was not so much "comparing" Sibelius to Mahler in an earlier thread, but contrasting them more than anything. They are very different composers with different ideas to express. The premise of the thread was based on a famous conversation they had on the nature of the symphony. Their ideas were in sharp contrast to each other.***


----------



## starry

Most would probably think Mahler's 1st is better than Bruckner's (I'm not counting his symphony No0), but from then on it's probably a matter of taste.


----------



## Aramis

Mamamamamammhler. 

How many times did I share my dislike to Bruckner and even greater dislike to Mahler which eventually turned into indescribable admiration and love for the latter?

I don't think Bruckner is more difficult than Mahler, so I guess that appreciating him after understanding Mahler is unlikely. 

Except of stricte-musical aspects of Bruckner's music that I dislike so much I may also be repulsed by it's background, ideas and Bruckner himself. I'm sure that if I wouldn't know any of them and if I would get two short notes about their lifes and music, then just after comparing them I would know for sure that I want to listen to Mahler, not Bruckner.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

*Mahler*, _nervous and unhinged_; *Bruckner*, _sane and stolid_.


----------



## joen_cph

Bruckner 00
Bruckner 0
Mahler 1
Mahler 2 
Bruckner 3 
Bruckner 4 
Mahler 5 
Bruckner 6
Mahler 7
Bruckner 8
Mahler 9
Mahler 10
Vocal works: Mahler
Chamber + instrumental: Bruckner

Overall: Bruckner wins 7 posts, Mahler wins 7 posts = a draw


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

joen_cph said:


> _Bruckner 3
> Bruckner 4
> Mahler 5
> Bruckner 6
> Mahler 7
> Mahler 9
> Overall: = a draw_


Although the funereal Adagio of Bruckner's No. 4 is exquisite, overall Mahler's No. 4 is a superior work.

Bruckner's No. 5 beats Mahler's No. 5 hands down.

Important critics rate Mahler's No. 6 as his greatest (non-vocal) symphony.

Bruckner's No. 7 is superior to Mahler's No. 7.

Bruckner's No. 9 is superior to Mahler's No. 9.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

it depends on the mood I'm in. Currently I am not in either a Bruckner or Mahler mood. But I did name my 7 yr old after Bruckner.
That being said, because Bruckner sticks to the classical structure much more than Mahler I will give him the edge in preference.


----------



## joen_cph

> Although the funereal Adagio of Bruckner's No. 4 is exquisite, overall Mahler's No. 4 is a superior work.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 5 beats Mahler's No. 5 hands down.
> 
> Important critics rate Mahler's No. 6 as his greatest (non-vocal) symphony.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 7 is superior to Mahler's No. 7.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 9 is superior to Mahler's No. 9.


 These are just my preferences, and I´m not pretending to be magisterical here. So won´t discuss the details or the exact criteria for each valuation here, like you aren´t doing either ... . 
But as regards VII for instance, I´ve heard both the Anton and the Gustav perhaps at least 40 times, and I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer to keep the varied and original sound world in Gustav´s work, especially the Nachtmusiks (the Kubelik recording), provided that I could keep the other symphonies on the list. Agree that the Bruckner is a luminous and serene work in his oeuvre, but it is slightly too simple in its material - IMHO - if compared to the other selected symphonies on the list. Obviously the Mahler has some very weak points, the Finale is nowhere near to Bruckner´s, I agree. 
As the regards IV, I disagree with you explodingly, though - like it was the case of the evaluation of Michael Nyman as one of today´s finest composers ...


----------



## Frasier

It's difficult to understand why or how these composers are bracketed together these days for any kind of comparison. Based on my limited analytical knowledge of Mahler's symphonies, they are stylistically different. I have yet to make sense of any Mahler symphony - considering one need devote a fair amount of time. The 8th makes vague sense and does seem to portray Mahler caught between the humanist and the ecclesiastical. He doesn't seem to have quite the command of counterpoint that Bruckner enjoyed and until late in life, didn't display Bruckner's skill with the orchestra - but then Bruckner spent time studying both form and orchestration before penning his "Study symphony". On the other hand, Mahler is somewhat more adventurous and exciting than Bruckner.

I have no trouble with Bruckner's symphonies except in the sense of the "Bruckner problem", the revisions, editions; and I'm in two minds about "Bruckner's first thoughts" as the original versions are claimed to be. There's a body of opinion that suggests Bruckner was right to make certain revisions. 

Bruckner's symphonic music allows a fair latitude of interpretation so listeners inevitably gravitate toward their favourite conductors/orchestras. I have yet to find a conductor able to give excellent recorded performances of all the symphonies so I pick and choose among single issues. Although older recordings, Horenstein seems to be the most consistently satisfying.


----------



## superhorn

I love both composers, and there's no use comparing apples and oranges. 
There are definite similarities and close connections between the music of both composers, despite the vast differences.
The symphonies of both composers are full of the influence of Austrian folk music .
Mahler's orchestration is on a superficial level more colorful,perhaps.
Mahler was not strictly speaking a pupil of Bruckner, but he did frequently attend the older composers lectures at the conservatoire in Vienna, and the two spent time together conversing about musical matters. 
I just can't choose between the two. They're not at all mutually exclusive, and I love all their symphonies, as well as the songs of Mahler, and the great choral works of Bruckner.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I don't know either of their works as well as I do other favourite composers. But well enough. Probably lean towards Mahler. (At least Mahler didn't get turned on by corpses ...)


----------



## motpasm23

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> Although the funereal Adagio of Bruckner's No. 4 is exquisite, overall Mahler's No. 4 is a superior work.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 5 beats Mahler's No. 5 hands down.
> 
> Important critics rate Mahler's No. 6 as his greatest (non-vocal) symphony.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 7 is superior to Mahler's No. 7.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 9 is superior to Mahler's No. 9.


Having to pick one of each I'd probably go with Mahler through Symphony 3, and Bruckner sweeps after there except for 6.

That doesn't mean I prefer Bruckner necessarily. I don't like that Bruckner sticks to the same tired format in each and every symphony he wrote, but I also don't like that Mahler recycled themes like no other. Mahler 3, 7, 9, and 10 (if you will) are Frankenstein pieces. Not to say there aren't original parts of them that aren't incredible, but as a whole I think his legacy would be better if he never wrote them. Well maybe not 9. So Mahler was far more innovative than Bruckner, and Bruckner could write a heart-melting adagio like no other, I still have to say

Mahler


----------



## World Violist

I like both very much. Bruckner kind of makes more sense to me than does Mahler, though, or at least recently he has. The thing with Bruckner is that, like the music of Arvo Part (whom I also very much like), he lets the music breath and does not let religion get in the way; actually, I'd compare Bruckner to Bach in their "religion-that-transcends-religion" thing. Mahler I like a lot especially once he actually lets the music breath (2nd, 8th, 10th symphonies and Das Lied) but otherwise he can sound a bit cluttered or too "big".

If forced to choose between the two I'd actually have to choose Bruckner.


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> I like both very much. Bruckner kind of makes more sense to me than does Mahler, though, or at least recently he has. The thing with Bruckner is that, like the music of Arvo Part (whom I also very much like), he lets the music breath and does not let religion get in the way; actually, I'd compare Bruckner to Bach in their "religion-that-transcends-religion" thing. Mahler I like a lot especially once he actually lets the music breath (2nd, 8th, 10th symphonies and Das Lied) but otherwise he can sound a bit cluttered or too "big".
> 
> If forced to choose between the two I'd actually have to choose Bruckner.


OK Violist...Bruckner or Sibelius??


----------



## Il Seraglio

That's a pretty tough one for me. I prefer Bruckner's vocal music (I've never found this to be Mahler's strong point *flameshield up* sorry) and hated Mahler's 1st and 6th symphony, but when he is at his best, as in his 3rd symphony or his 9th, Bruckner can't touch Mahler.


----------



## World Violist

Tapkaara said:


> OK Violist...Bruckner or Sibelius??


I might need to go for Sibelius... I'm not sure though, I might have to cop out on this one. Granted, Sibelius has much more variety and tone painting, but doesn't quite match Bruckner at his most inspired (although Sibelius' 6th and 7th get very close IMO).

I dunno, just say that I cop out.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Consolation Prize:

Much as I enjoy and admire Bruckner's *Nos. 1, 2 & 3*, would _definitely_ give the prize to Mahler's *Nos. 1, 2 & 3* as the greater works of art.

Edit: oh, that reminds me: there is an exquisite two piano version of Bruckner's *No. 3* _prepared by Mahler_. You must hear this!

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Symp...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274017081&sr=1-4


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

joen_cph said:


> Bruckner 00
> Bruckner 0
> Mahler 1
> Mahler 2
> Bruckner 3
> Bruckner 4
> Mahler 5
> Bruckner 6
> Mahler 7
> Bruckner 8
> Mahler 9
> Mahler 10
> Vocal works: Mahler
> Chamber + instrumental: Bruckner
> 
> Overall: Bruckner wins 7 posts, Mahler wins 7 posts = a draw


That's so close to the way I see it, it's almost spooky. A couple of points, though- first, I prefer Bruckner's 7th to Mahler's 7th. Secondly, the Mahler non-entries for the "study symphony" and _Die Nullte_ are more than offset by the Mahler 10 fragment and subsequent performing editions. [And this is before taking into account _Das Lied von der Erde_.]


Tapkaara said:


> ...Bruckner or Sibelius??


Funny you should mention that... 'cause here's Washington Post Music Critic *Tim Page* on this general issue:


> In the years before Bruckner was routinely (if bizarrely) twinned to Gustav Mahler, Bruckner was usually linked to Richard Wagner... If we must compare Bruckner to any of his near contemporaries, a better candidate might be the Finnish symphonist Jean Sibelius. The best works of both men seem not only interruptions but defiant negations of silence- an element that is nonetheless _felt_, to an unusual degree, throughout their sounding music.


Now, with the generous proviso that Mr. Page isn't really saying that "Bruckner is like Sibelius" as much as he's saying "Bruckner is _more like_ Sibelius than like Mahler or Wagner," the question is- are we willing to buy what he's selling??


----------



## scytheavatar

Falstaft said:


> Both wrote 9 (+ 2-3 depending on who you ask) symphonies


Whether or not Bruckner wrote 9 symphonies is highly debatable; there's a strong case that he wrote the same symphony 9 times.


----------



## starry

Silence may be more part of Bruckner's work than Sibelius, though a piece like Sibelius 4 might have some ominous pauses during it. The big loud tutti followed by the silent void is more Bruckner.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

scytheavatar said:


> _There's a strong case that he [Bruckner] wrote the same symphony 9 times._


This is an oft-repeated canard.

Each of Bruckner's symphonies is *an unique individual*; however, his _*style and technique*_ remained uniform.


----------



## starry

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> his _*style and technique*_ remained uniform.


I was actually thinking about this issue, but not concerning Bruckner.


----------



## Air

Both are great composers that I rate highly, but if I had to choose between the two I would probably have to go with Bruckner. His music just brings me to that "place" much more naturally then Mahler does. Both make grand, sweeping statements in their works, but in his more bombastic moments Bruckner tends to bring me there "the right way" instead of pushing it all into my face, and this kind of honesty is something I admire. The structural intelligence with which Bruckner works is also more exquisite. I personally find that the Mahler "high" often wears off after repeated listens, while Bruckner tends to be just as good every single time. I realize that some people may actually like Mahler more for his extroverted style, but in the long run, it is Bruckner's symphonies that I feel lead to greater fulfillment. And mathematically, it's Bruckner's music that I seem to have a deeper attachment to (his 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 as opposed to Mahler 2, 3, 5, 6, _Das Lied_, 9)

But very close it is - and I could not live without both in my collection.


----------



## Falstaft

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> This is an oft-repeated canard.
> 
> Each of Bruckner's symphonies is *an unique individual*; however, his _*style and technique*_ remained uniform.


Thank you for this comment Sebastien. I find the question of stylistic homogeneity interesting, as long as it isn't invoked as an excuse not to get to know a composer's output better. But Bruckner does garner that line more than others, and I wonder if it has something to do with more than just a steady technique and consistent style?

For (very horribly crude) example -- while it seems unthinkable to me that any Mahler movement from one symphony could be interchanged with one from another, the thought gives me slightly (slightly!) less horror for Bruckner. Forgetting the importance of Bruckner's inter-movement key relations and possible motivic connections (which may be there, I haven't inspected them all thoroughly), I don't find it quite so appalling to imagine switching...say... the fast movements of the 6th, 7th, and 8th around. That *only* goes for those specific variety of fast movement however, which do tend to be the most formulaic (in no negative sense) of his cycle.

But on a whole, I recoil at the idea of "writing the same thing x times" -- Bruckner's his symphonies all have distinct personalities, if not quite the parade of personality disorders that populate Mahler's cycle


----------



## starry

Many I think do prefer composers whose style isn't so homogenic, this may be why some have problems with the baroque or even Haydn. Beethoven isn't really like that and Mozart's style is a little varied though not as much as Beethoven perhaps.


----------



## Sid James

I can't really say which one I like the most, I'm not the biggest fan of either. In one of the other threads I was talking about the 'straightjacket' of the symphonic form, and this applies to both Bruckner & Mahler, imo. I don't know why they just concentrated on writing works in this format, when there are so many possiblities out there (eg. neither wrote a concerto, tone poem or piano sonata). I'm just a bit bored with listening to only works in one genre by the same composer. That's why I've begun listening to works like _Bruckner's Mass in E minor_, that work interests me more, exactly because it is not yet another symphony.

However, I think that both of their slow movements strike something deep within me. There are so many emotions there, sadness, hope, melancholy, resignation, the list can go on. It's these movements that grab me the most, pity about the contexts which they are in, which I often find long-winded & too complex for their own good. Reflecting on that, I think that most of the times I prefer say Brahms to either of them - his symphonies are compact, relatively concise & he basically gets to the point without faffing about. Not to speak of his chamber works, which perhaps surpassed all of those of his contemporaries. Maybe I'm a bit of a "classicist" after all...


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Andre there is a time for Brahms and there is a time for Bruckner and Mahler. When it comes to symphonies, they both approached it from their own unique point of view. When I want to hear a classicist I listen to Brahms, when I want to hear something cosmic and universal I listen to Bruckner and Mahler.

That being said, the last movement of Mahler's 3rd, and the 2nd movement of Bruckner's 5th, easily squashes anything that Brahms wrote in terms of the orchestral. And they reveal Brahms to be nothing more than a stoic conservative who wanted to freeze music in time. What these two slow movements reveal (last movement of Mahler 3rd, and 2nd movement of Bruckner's 5th) is that music is much bigger than Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Falstaft said:


> _imagine switching...say... the fast movements of [Bruckner's] 6th, 7th, and 8th around._


I could see switching the scherzi of Bruckner's Nos. 00-3 without much issue.
Nos. 4-9 take on more individual eccentricities, while Nos. 5 & 9 strike me as especially unique.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Andre said:


> _Bruckner's Mass in E minor_ interests me


That *e-minor Mass* _is_ interesting for its excellent vocal work supported exclusively by winds.
Bruckner's unique harmonics are apparent here (something he shares with fellow countryman Schubert, whose work he knew in piano score).
Yesterday evening I heard the e-minor Mass in a very fine performance with Rilling et alii.

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Miss...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274098867&sr=1-2

The *f-minor Mass* also has much to offer as a reflection of Bruckner's ethos.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

ScipioAfricanus said:


> _Bruckner's 5th, easily squashes anything that Brahms wrote in terms of the orchestral. And reveal Brahms to be nothing more than a stoic conservative who wanted to freeze music in time...much bigger than Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven._




Wow: strong sentiments! Admirable enthusiasm!

Much as I admire and enjoy Bruckner, I equally admire Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven.

Brahms' symphony No. 4 is fairly hefty; ditto Schumann's Nos. 1-4.
Bruckner's starting point was Beethoven's No. 9, while Wagner's expansive music-dramas were a further example for him. Indeed, he utilized the Wagner tubas in the elegaic Adagio of No. 7--an homage to Wagner's passing.


----------



## Lukecash12

Tapkaara said:


> I prefer Mahler.
> 
> ***And by the way, I was not so much "comparing" Sibelius to Mahler in an earlier thread, but contrasting them more than anything. They are very different composers with different ideas to express. The premise of the thread was based on a famous conversation they had on the nature of the symphony. Their ideas were in sharp contrast to each other.***


The nature of the symphony? The chamber instruments all meet together to make something loud, and raucous. That's the spirit of the symphony


----------



## hankz

For me, personally, I'll stick with Mahler!!! I have trouble connecting with Bruckner, and find his music somewhat stiff, and also in cases way too long. Resolution of conflict or passion takes the listener to the edge many times, and then continues...

For more on music, see my Blog:
http://www.myclassicalnotes.com


----------



## GraemeG

Never understood the comparison of Bruckner to Mahler. THe only possible connection I can see is that they are primarily known for their symphonies, of which the mature examples usually last over an hour. That's it.
Bruckner's contemporaries were Suppe, Raff, Franck, Lalo, Smetana, Brahms, Strauss J, Borodin.
Mahler's were Elgar, Puccini, Wolf, Debussy, Delius, Strauss R, Nielsen, Sibelius.
They're a full generation apart, not to mention that Mahler was a 'student' of Bruckner.
You might as well compare Mendelssohn to Dvorak...
cheers,
G


----------



## starry

GraemeG said:


> Never understood the comparison of Bruckner to Mahler. THe only possible connection I can see is that they are primarily known for their symphonies, of which the mature examples usually last over an hour. That's it.
> Bruckner's contemporaries were Suppe, Raff, Franck, Lalo, Smetana, Brahms, Strauss J, Borodin.
> Mahler's were Elgar, Puccini, Wolf, Debussy, Delius, Strauss R, Nielsen, Sibelius.
> They're a full generation apart, not to mention that Mahler was a 'student' of Bruckner.
> You might as well compare Mendelssohn to Dvorak...
> cheers,
> G


Bruckner was a great fan of Wagner though and perhaps he is his nearest contemporary.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Musicologist Dika Newlin published an influential tome wherein she explicates the lines of influence between Bruckner-Mahler-Schönberg (title of the book).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I would be torn between these two composers. I would not be without either one. Considering his choral works I'd almost give the nod to Bruckner... but then again... there is perhaps no single work from the last century that has effected me as profoundly as _Der Abschied_... the final songs from Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_... especially in the version performed by Kathleen Ferrier. Perhaps the only thing to come close is Strauss' _Four Last Songs_.


----------



## Falstaft

GraemeG said:


> Never understood the comparison of Bruckner to Mahler. THe only possible connection I can see is that they are primarily known for their symphonies, of which the mature examples usually last over an hour. That's it.
> Bruckner's contemporaries were Suppe, Raff, Franck, Lalo, Smetana, Brahms, Strauss J, Borodin. Mahler's were Elgar, Puccini, Wolf, Debussy, Delius, Strauss R, Nielsen, Sibelius.
> They're a full generation apart, not to mention that Mahler was a 'student' of Bruckner.
> You might as well compare Mendelssohn to Dvorak...
> cheers,
> G


Graeme, I think you raise a valid concern. But there are reasons I made this a Bruckner/Mahler thread rather than a Suppe/Lalo or Puccini/Sibelius (now that would be interesting!) thread. I'm not sure the generational issue is crucial -- to my ears, Nielsen and Sibelius have less in common than AB/GM, though that too would be a productive discussion for another thread. I think there's a bit more of a connection than "just are primarily known for their symphonies."

At times the compositional similarities between AB and GM are so transparent I want to cry foul. For example, the adagio from Mahler's 9 (the _last _movement of Mahler's last published score, not some juvenalia!) seems like a direct transplant from themes from Bruckner 8/IV. But Mahler draws from others too (Beginning of the 3rd Brahms 1/IV anyone?), so I want to reiterate that there's more to the pairing than direct influence. I'd say both are probably equally close to the style of Wagner, who was their fountainhead for sure, as Starry notes. Both took the questions posed by Wagner's innovations in form, harmony, orchestration and program and directly strove to accommodate them into symphonic form somehow -- I feel this is true only of them from your list (even Franck's cyclical symphony draws more from the Liszt-line than Wagner). Again, it's no difficult feat to find allusions to RW in either of these guys' symphonies; I'm sure we can all come up with allusions and references till the cows come home, in a way I doubt is possible for any of the other composers you mentioned.

I guess I inadequately explained in my first post, I think no two (long) C19 artists seem so similar in A) their aesthetic goals, to produce entire "worlds" in post-Wagnerian idiom; B) their eventual oeuvres are so damn comparable (scale, number, sound-world), allowing for GM's interest in song vs. AB's interest in choral writing; C) they are firmly in the "New German" camp, even ex post facto in GM's case, and were criticized for many of the same reasons by Hanslick and his progeny; D) they're working within the same Viennese institutions and culture, and dwelling under the same Austro-German-Wagner/Beethoven-shadow; E) both are of similar prestige *today*, if not the whole C20.

Now, I may have played down the justification of comparability, because I wanted the point of this thread to be on our different reactions to these artists, not weighing in on how one sounds like the other. To that end, I'd be very curious how you respond to AB and GM (I would guess very differently!) 

(and I'd be happy to discuss Mendelssohn and Dvorak! No harm in playing interesting composers off one another)


----------



## Falstaft

StlukesguildOhio said:


> . but then again... there is perhaps no single work from the last century that has effected me as profoundly as _Der Abschied_... the final songs from Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_.


I think your example StlukesguildOhio homes in on something in Mahler that's hard to find in Bruckner -- that sense of lonely, nostalgic resignation achieved through astonishingly generous heaps of melody. I agree, I would never wish to part with _Der Abschied_!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...there are reasons I made this a Bruckner/Mahler thread rather than a Suppe/Lalo or Puccini/Sibelius (now that would be interesting!) thread.

Suppe vs Lalo? Hmmm?

Puccini vs Sibelius? No competition at all there. I'd take the Italian without a second thought.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> Wow: strong sentiments! Admirable enthusiasm!
> 
> Much as I admire and enjoy Bruckner, I equally admire Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven.
> 
> Brahms' symphony No. 4 is fairly hefty; ditto Schumann's Nos. 1-4.
> Bruckner's starting point was Beethoven's No. 9, while Wagner's expansive music-dramas were a further example for him. Indeed, he utilized the Wagner tubas in the elegaic Adagio of No. 7--an homage to Wagner's passing.


Brahms 4th is hefty but its a dwarf compared to Bruckner's 5th. Compare the last movement of Brahms 4th and Bruckner 5th. Both final movements pay homage to Bach but somehow Bruckner's turns out to be memorial, gigantic and heroic, whereas Brahms' turns out merely perfect.
ps. I love Schumann.
Also I don't consider my sentiments to be that strong. The last movement of Mahler's 3rd and the 2nd movement of Bruckner's 5th, are cosmic, universal and outer worldly. Brahms never wrote anything like it. The closest he ever came was probably the slow movement of his first piano concerto, and that fails miserably when comparison.


----------



## Sid James

Let's not forget the HUGE influence early & Renaissance music had on Bruckner (not only in his sacred choral works, but also the symphonies). Palestrina comes to mind. Also, as is probably well known by the members here, Bruckner was the finest organist of his generation, traveled Europe as an organist. His knowledge of counterpoint and improvisation was second to none. No wonder his symphonies are sometimes called "cathedrals in sound." Mahler's background was totally different - he would directly quote popular melodies (like frere jacque in the Symphony No. 1), which would seem almost vulgar in a Bruckner symphony. On the whole, I find much of Bruckner's music to be quite triumphant and life-affirming (despite some traces of doubt and despair), whilst Mahler seems more ambigious and less self-assured (a pessimist rather than an optimist?). But this is generalizing, I hear much doubt and even questioning of faith in Bruckner's sacred music. By the way, has anyone heard Bruckner's early _Requiem_?...


----------



## joen_cph

> By the way, has anyone heard Bruckner's early Requiem?...


Have it, old nonesuch-recording, I think there´s a hyperion also, found it rather immature, nothing like the _Te Deum_. A bit chamber-like.


----------



## Sid James

I personally think that the _Te Deum_ is a bit over the top. As I said, I have been enjoying his earlier _Mass in E minor_ (contemporaneous with Symphonies 0-2, so this is Bruckner before the influence of Wagner took hold of him). So maybe I would like the more intimate "chamber-like" atmosphere of the _Requiem_? It's probably one of his most obscure works, though. The early _Libera me_ is on the same cd as the mass, and although there is next to no counterpoint, this work has many things going for it (eg. a sense of a kind of 'serene tragedy' which I read in relation to a work by Mendelssohn, but it applies equally to this work by Bruckner. It's also very lyrical in some ways)...


----------



## joen_cph

Must confess that the masses haven´t caught that much of my attention. Have the Jochum and Rilling sets. As far as I remember, there are few memorable themes, a bit like in the early-early symphonies, but I also remember a review text, I think it may have been in Gramophone or Fanfare:"one of the banal Requiems ever written". However, such a valuation is perhaps not the best point of departure for a reviewer to embark on reviewing an issue at all ... The liner notes talk of the chosen d-minor as inspired by the Beethoven IX and Mozart Requiem. They talk mainly of Mozart inspiration and specify it, likewise of some traits of the later Bruckner. It was composed in 1848-49. According to the notes, Bruckner still liked the work in the 1890s.


----------



## Sid James

Well, I don't think that his sacred works can be described exactly as "banal" but he was certainly going against the trend of the times. Some of the masses of Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven & Schubert have this very grand, almost "operatic" feel (perhaps prefiguring what Gounod, Puccini, Verdi were to do with the medium in the latter part of the C19th). But Bruckner was not interested in this aspect, he was more interested in reinvigorating traditions that had been dormant since the times of Palestrina. In a way, he was out of step with the times, but I think this is a positive rather than a negative, and would undoubtedly have a great impact on the composition of his later symphonies...


----------



## joen_cph

Just a few sketchy remarks. I think you have made interesting points and that you are probably quite right as regards Bruckner´s intentions here, but I´m not really qualified to comment on the technical matters as regards the music. 

A discussion of "extrovert" effects, "subjectivity" versus "universalism" and the "content" in Bruckner is a very complicated, but interesting one, not at least as regards the cultural context of the time ... Also, as regards the reference to Palestrina, I think it would be interesting to check out for instance why he was favoured later on as a subject for a (very, very long ...) opera by Pfitzner, and how Palestrina was viewed in general. Was he mainly emblematic for a sort of musical conservatism, perhaps for the downplaying of individualism or the contemporary as a subject, or were there other currents as well ... ? 

As regards the Bruckner chronology, I guess that most would agree that at least some of the larger vocal works - like the Te Deum - can be said to resemble the later symphonies much more, in spite of the underlying textual patterns. Also, that they have more extrovert effects. However today´s view of the works is different from the originally intended one, though some of the original traditions or undercurrents partly live on, no doubt. One could ask what is left of his original intentions in today´s audiences, among which not many adhere strictly to the Catholic or Christian dogmas. Rather, his works - especially the symphonies - are probably more experienced as a series of emotional states, not necessarily much verbalized, or as some sort of experiencing the cosmos around us, in vaguely half-religious or philosophical terms, through such complicated musical constructions or worlds ... 

Well, anyway, I´m very, very glad that Bruckner didn´t choose to become a Verdi epigone in stead ...


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Andre said:


> _By the way, has anyone heard Bruckner's early Requiem?..._


If you can find a copy of this 4CD set of Bruckner's sacred vocal works with Jochum/BPO et al., it'd be a worthy find.

http://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Works-...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274274144&sr=1-3


----------



## toucan

Surprising similarities between Mahler and Bruckner, considering the difference in age (Mahler is a generation younger) - and in temperament. Bruckner was a simple man, Mahler was complicated. Bruckner composed in and with God, spontaneously, as if it were easy; Mahler had to struggle and torture himself to attain brief glimpses of eternity. Bruckner in this respect (in terms of personality type) descending from Bach, while Mahler descends from Beethoven.

(Those with a literary bent might see a similarity between Bruckner and Victor Hugo, while Mahler compares best with Baudelaire.)


----------



## tgtr0660

I'm not much into lieder really so Mahler loses that for me. Bruckner's masses are among the best since the Grand Master Bach. 

But it's their symphonies that really make me love both of them. Bruckner ranks among my 5 favorite composers. Mahler among my 10 probably. The great architectures, the clear structures, the broad themes, the intimacy expressed in the harsh fortissimos, that signal he sends of a lone soul looking for redemption, that makes me like Bruckner the best. 

Incidentally, I own all Bruckner symphonies in at least two versions (except the first 4 - from 00 to # 2) and I count three of the last three. I only have 2 recordings of Mahler's 1, 5, 6 and 8. 

Choosing favorites as other did: 

Bruckner 00
Bruckner 0
Mahler 1
Mahler 2
Bruckner 3
Bruckner 4
Mahler 5
Mahler 6
Bruckner 7
Bruckner 8
Bruckner 9


----------



## superhorn

I love the symphonies and other works of both composers,and it's impossible to choose between them. Each is great in his own way. The two composers are vastly different yet have quite a lot in common.


----------



## johogofo

I'm listening to Mahler's 2nd by Bruno Walter and NYF as I'm writing this.
What a greate work it is!!
I like it more than Bruckner's 2nd.That goes for the 1st and the 5th also.I overall prefer :
1.Mahler
2.Mahler
3.Bruckner
4.Bruckner
5.Mahler
6.Tie
7.Bruckner
8.Bruckner
9.Bruckner
Although I admire Mahler, only Bruckner can send shivers down my spine with his massive build ups and to my opinion more passionet (wagnerian maybe) music.
He is one of the greatest symphonists along with Beethoven and Brahms.


----------



## Aramis

> Although I admire Mahler, only Bruckner can send shivers down my spine


No wonder, if you listen to music while being on the forum and writing posts it's obvious that the deeper one, that is: Mahler's won't speak to you as much as more superficial Bruckner does. For listening with divided, partial attention Bruckner is indeed better than Mahler, but Lady Gaga is even better in this case. Or Metallica.


----------



## superhorn

"Bruckner wrote the same symphony over and over again nine times".
" He just keeps repeating the same old tired formula".

WRONG !!!!!!!!!!! There is absolutely nothing formulaic about the Bruckner symphonies. In fact,all nine (and the two unumbered ones) are vastly different from each other. If you have only superficial familiarity with them,the symphonies may appear that way on the surface. But once you really get to know them,and I have exactly 40 years of listening to them since I first got an LP of the 9th, you realize the vast differences.
The first is the shortest,being no longer than the Brahms first, about 47 minutes long.
The second is more gentle and pastoral, evoking the rolling hills of Austria more than mountains. The fourth has a scherzo in 2/4 rather than the usual 3/4.
The fifth is the only one with a slow introduction in the first movement. 
The unfinished ninth contains radical dissonant harmonies which anticipate those of the 20th century. And so on. Many people who claim that Bruckner kept rewriting the same symphony have not even heard the first two,which are so different.


----------



## teccomin

Aramis said:


> No wonder, if you listen to music while being on the forum and writing posts it's obvious that the deeper one, that is: Mahler's won't speak to you as much as more superficial Bruckner does. For listening with divided, partial attention Bruckner is indeed better than Mahler, but Lady Gaga is even better in this case. Or Metallica.


I thought Bruckner is the one which you really have to sit in a quiet room, focus your attention and listen with full concentration to like it. While you can put on Mahler on the subway and still like it.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I can't choose between one or t'other - I play all their symphonies more than those by any other composer apart from Beethoven and nearly always as a cycle rather than in isolation. Nearly all of them are big on drama but drawing their inspiration from different emotional sources.

Favourite Mahler: 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, Kindertotenlieder. 
Favourite Bruckner: 5, 7, 8, 9, String Quintet, Te Deum. 

Can I take this opportunity to say that I would have loved to have had the chance to punch Eduard Hanslick? Thank you.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Bruckner...*

Bruckner was defined as " A devout Catholic who loved to drink beer", Mahler was the poor Jewish guy who said I'm three times a foreigner: Born In Tchakoslovakia, live in Austria and a Jewish....I am considered as a foreigner by everybody...add the luck he had to be married to a bitch (Alma Mahler)...we have enough reasons for making of him a very controversal composer....and Bruckner a conformist...with a belly....LOL (I don't know if this is tru, I can imagine).


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Mahler, Zemlinsky, Schreker...the trio!

Martin Pitchon


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Bruckner versus Mahler? One is often pictured as a geezer while the other is often pictured in typical black & white portrait photos. Both ugly. Besides that, I quite like their symphonies, although Mahler feels more epic and at times, bombastic.


----------



## Rondo

Aramis said:


> For listening with divided, partial attention Bruckner is indeed better than Mahler, but Lady Gaga is even better in this case. Or Metallica.


OK. I have to chime in at that response. Bruckner's music, at least in my listening experience, has required a much greater attention to detail than Mahler's. Both composers' symphonies may work well as "background" music. However, unlike _most_ of Mahler's symphonies (Mahlerites note emphasis), I find Bruckner's music as being more textured harmonically, requiring a listener's full attention.

Please tell me I misunderstood your comment.


----------



## World Violist

I think now I'll take another opportunity to order my favorite symphonies of each... probably not much change...

1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. Mahler
4. Bruckner
5. Bruckner
6. Bruckner
7. Mahler
8. Bruckner
9. tie


----------



## Aramis

> Please tell me I misunderstood your comment.


Nope.

Bruckner was more of a traditional romantic than Mahler - his music is more musical, everything you have to appreciate is in music itself. Mahler is well known for his symbolism, to understand his music it's not enough to listen and enjoy it on strictly musical level, one has to think about it in contexts diffrent than simply aesthetic pleasure. I never heard any conductor (or even common listener) making such in-depth analysis as Bernstein does in case of Mahler in order to show us extra musical values and aspects of his music for which Bruckner is not known at all.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Bruckner is generally more serene, whereas Mahler is prone to panic attacks.


----------



## Rondo

Aramis said:


> Nope.
> 
> Bruckner was more of a traditional romantic than Mahler - his music is more musical, everything you have to appreciate is in music itself. Mahler is well known for his symbolism, to understand his music it's not enough to listen and enjoy it on strictly musical level, one has to think about it in contexts diffrent than simply aesthetic pleasure. I never heard any conductor (or even common listener) making such in-depth analysis as Bernstein does in case of Mahler in order to show us extra musical values and aspects of his music for which Bruckner is not known at all.


Okay. I see your point. Now. Your previous comment about being able to enjoy Bruckner seemed a little rash. Musical (or aesthetic) or not, there are always plenty of things to _think_ about (as opposed to mearly "enjoy") in the music. That is what makes classical music so rich: every single note tells a story.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Aramis said:


> Nope.
> 
> Bruckner was more of a traditional romantic than Mahler - his music is more musical, everything you have to appreciate is in music itself. *Mahler is well known for his symbolism*, to understand his music it's not enough to listen and enjoy it on strictly musical level, one has to think about it in contexts diffrent than simply aesthetic pleasure. I never heard any conductor (or even common listener) making such in-depth analysis as Bernstein does in case of Mahler in order to show us extra musical values and aspects of his music for which Bruckner is not known at all.


Care to share your views on those so called symbolisms? It would be useful to have a succint discussion/what these symbolism are exactly. (All too often I read about these symbolisms and they verge on being bombastic. I'm not talking about your point, but discussions elsewhere about Mahler's symbolisms).


----------



## Enjoying Life

I am curious why people are comparing their symphonies by number (Bruckner #1 vs. Mahler #1 etc). Is there a pattern or reason for this? Could you not also compare other symphonies (#5 vs. #3 etc) with eachother and go that way?


----------



## Aramis

> Care to share your views on those so called symbolisms? It would be useful to have a succint discussion/what these symbolism are exactly.


What is this symbolism? In many cases it's reference to diffrent piece of music, more or less exposed (eg. 3rd movement, first symphony). I other cases it's all in form. From funeral march into choral, various dance forms brought into symphonies in unusual context and stuff - yes, one could say "but Bruckner (and even any other composer) also can be interpreted this way". Well, there's reason for which they all are not and Mahler is. Years of studies are best proof that Mahler's music has more than one face and there is much to make out of it in terms of symbolism, it hardly can be called absolute music. Not program music either, it's something between those two types. Bruckner's symphonies are "just" romantic pieces.

Also the words - Mahler uses them like no other composer did in these times. 2nd symphony is perhaps more conventional, but in 3rd, 4th, 8th - these symphonies are works of almost musical philosophy. What is the meaning of last movement of 4rd in context of previous movements? Or even in itself? Why he compiled "Veni creators spiritus" with Goethe's Faust in 8th? That's material for many thoughts and interpretations.


----------



## willig

*Bruckner and Mahler*



Sebastien Melmoth said:


> Although the funereal Adagio of Bruckner's No. 4 is exquisite, overall Mahler's No. 4 is a superior work.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 5 beats Mahler's No. 5 hands down.
> 
> Important critics rate Mahler's No. 6 as his greatest (non-vocal) symphony.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 7 is superior to Mahler's No. 7.
> 
> Bruckner's No. 9 is superior to Mahler's No. 9.


I guess there is lots of confusion. The funeral Adagio was written in Bruckner's 7th Symphony after Wagner's death. He introduced the Wagner tubas for this purpose and as homage.

Also, Mahler (1860-1911) was a young man when Bruckner (1824-1896) was already reasonably well known. In 1878 when Bruckner's 3rd Symphony was written (and was not very successful), Mahler started making a piano adaptation. 
Mahler greatly appreciated Bruckner and in my opinion was very strongly influenced by him. I shall go so far as to say, without Bruckner, Mahler would probably not have written his symphonies in his way, because at the time Brahms was much more influential in Vienna and European music in general.

I recently (last May) heard Mahler's 6th since years in Vienna in concert and was very impressed. Bruckner's 6th is one of his less played symphonies, although I appreciate it a lot - it is more bucolic - reminds a bit of Beethoven's 6th.

willig


----------



## willig

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Care to share your views on those so called symbolisms? It would be useful to have a succint discussion/what these symbolism are exactly. (All too often I read about these symbolisms and they verge on being bombastic. I'm not talking about your point, but discussions elsewhere about Mahler's symbolisms).


I guess you miss the point. Mahler knew Symbolism, since he was a contemporary of Klimt, Otto Wagner which represented the symbolistic movement in Vienna. Bruckner was already dead at this time. Bruckner is a pure Romantic, Mahler was Romantic Symbolist. And Schoenberg at his beginnings too, see "Gurrelieder" etc. and he saw that could not possibly continue in this way. Yes, it became too bombastic in music, and art in general. Schoenberg broke this up.

Another symbolistic composer is Debussy, who is not a Romantic. "Pellleas and Melisande" was premiered in 1902 ...


----------



## Crudblud

I like Mahler much more in general, though I will admit to preferring Bruckner's 5th and 8th.


----------



## Stargazer

I'm a huge Mahler fan, so he is definitely my favorite! I have only heard a handful of Bruckner's works (his mass and last 4 symphonies) so I can't comment as much on him, but the ones I did hear didn't really resonate with me nearly as much.


----------



## CanadianMaestro

Bruckner's a snooze for me, brass brass brass. 
The most beautiful mvts are the slow ones in #2 and 3. 
Prefer Mahler over Bruckner; M. holds my attention better even over the longest symphs.
cheers


----------



## millionrainbows

Bruckner is Brahms in slow-motion. Mahler has more contradiction, weirder harmonic elements. More Romantic, irrational, exaggerated. I like Mahler better.


----------



## larold

Someone probably already posted it but Bruno Walter -- Mahler's protégé who recorded both composers -- famously said Bruckner knew God and Mahler spent all his life searching for him. 

This is in essence my reaction to the two composers: Bruckner knew himself and projected himself and Mahler was endlessly confused about himself and the confusion runs through his symphonies. Mahler was a Jew that wrote a symphony about Christian resurrection. Jews don't believe in the resurrection and the New Testament of the Bible.

I find this in almost all his symphonies. Mahler's 1st has a movement called "Blumine" which may or may not be used. His 2nd runs on and on and on and the 3rd is the lengthiest symphony in existence, a symphony surrounding a cantata. The 4th is brief in comparison but its first movement rambles endlessly. The 5th is his best, most compact, a triumph of construction ... finally. The 6th can have two different endings. The 7th has 5 movements including two "night" movements. The vocal score of the 8th, especially the first part, is a laugh. Read it sometime. The 9th projects Mahler's own death with two lengthy laments surrounding two other movements.

By comparison, I find Bruckner almost direct. I also find Bruckner more genuine, less pretentious, with more appealing humanity.

It is often said Bruckner appeals to religious people; I am a religious practitioner though I don't consider myself particularly religious. But Bruckner's simplicity and sincerity appeals to me far more than Mahler's confusion.


----------



## DavidA

It's pretty ridiculous comparing two very different composers, but if you ask me or preference I'd say Bruckner every time.


----------



## jdec

Mahler every time (well except for the 8th). and I know my Bruckner very well.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Wow, the replies are all over the place on this one. 

Personally, I find Bruckner more interesting. Aside from the spiritual aspects of his music, which are fascinating in themselves, on the technical side, I find him compelling in how he mixes the archaic with the modern; there are reminiscences of Palestrina and Gabrieli but also Beethoven, Schubert, Berlioz, and Wagner, yet his music comes out uniquely his. He layers rhythms on top of rhythms, which can be missed on casual listening; his writing is not vertical but linear; his theme groups (in threes) feature sequences, harmonic movement, and evolving motifs which other composers usually reserved to the development sections. And he has a massive sense of architecture; his symphonies are constructed over carefully planned key schemes and strategically placed cadences. 

Having said that, I have a hard time comparing him to Mahler as far as preference. But I do have a ton of Bruckner symphony cycles and mass recordings, and I only have two Mahler cycles. I guess that could be considered voting with my pocketbook.


----------



## Granate

Gosh. A repeated thread. May I put here my previously posted thoughts on the issue as well? (with revisions, like Bruckner )



Totenfeier said:


> One of my very first posts on TC was a plea to help me "get" Bruckner. I was also, as others have been, blocked by the seemingly endless repetition and the sense that the music wasn't "going anywhere." Well, you know what else has repetitive design and doesn't go anywhere? The Empire State Building; the Chrysler Building; and yes, this is a Bruckner cliche - the great cathedrals of medieval Europe. All are stunning works of architectural art, but you have to meet them on their own terms. That is how I came to see Bruckner: he's not repetitive, but exquisitely balanced (see the Scherzo of the Eighth, the "Deutscher Michel" - hearing Celibidache conduct it with the Munich was my "conversion moment.") And architecture isn't supposed to move; _you're_ supposed to move _around_ and _through_ it, noticing and appreciating its harmonious structure from different angles (yep, getting a little mystical there).
> 
> Mahler, on the other hand, is a roller coaster through Hell - and Heaven. You strap in, and HE takes you through the whole journey, as you stare wildly around in fascinated horror or wonder.
> 
> Bruckner grounds you; Mahler moves you. At different times in our lives, we need both.


Then, let's start at how I got into the symphonies: no matter how good the recording is (say Karajan or Jochum), I can't say I like artistically Bruckner's No.1 & No.2, not to mention the "Null" and Study symphony. All these tries only served Bruckner to shape his Beethoven-Sonata style into something more ambitious. Of course the No.1 Scherzo is a good achievement but extremely repetitive. From the No.3 (for my taste, the 1889 Nowak and the 1878 Oeser editions), he makes major artistic improvements when he is composing the Adagio and the Scherzo (more complex in the third Nowak edition). And this feature will go on until the three mature symphonies: composing two splendid movements for each symphony, usually Adagios and Scherzos. The exception was No.4 where the balance goes towards the Bewegt and Finale. Good books and TV shows tend to get more praise when they are gripping in the beginning and the end (in my opinion this also applies to Mahler's No.2).

The point of this argument, and where I want to compare with Mahler, is that Bruckner's complete cycle is a journey that progresses, and tries to convey the same musical ideas into every symphony, perfecting his style at every turn.

You know I cannot talk so convincing about Mahler. In the same aspect, no matter if Bernstein or Kubelík for DG are at the helm. Mahler's Titan is distant from the others for me. And even the famous "Ressurection" is not one of my favourites except for recordings by Tennstedt, Rattle in Birmingham and Barbirolli. I could only get the first and last movements as real masterpieces. But it was his second try for a symphony, and quite successful. Let's notice that both composers were treated like dirt in their lifetime by the most influential critics in Vienna.

But the difference between them is that Mahler is at the same time perfecting his style over the time, but in every symphony he tries to convey a different message, there is not a real sense of progression but one of expectation and storytelling, which in some works is quite remarkable of him (No.3, No.7 and No.9 in my opinion).

I attended in Málaga the closing concert of *Mahler's No.3* with some friends: a young one not interested in Classical Music but curious, another who just wanted to do something as a group, and a Baroque lover who speaks German and says he doesn't get Mahler (but he had only listened to No.1). My impresion of the concert was that the first movement was epic and energetic (in performance, not in definition), quite remarkable for a third-rate orchestra. Then the energy flopped during the evening, as exhausting as the first movement is. The Mezzo struggled and her diction was not very pleasing. Well then, my friend's reactions were lukewarm but in a way I didn't expect: *it was too repetitive and used a female and boy chorus only for ten minutes in a symphony of an hour and a half.*

This recalled me of someting I wanted to point out: story-telling and precision versus wander and interpretation. For me, in many movements, Mahler is speaking to me in a language I don't understand. I am still a casual listener as I didn't study any Musical Theory. And that's why I think they also were puzzled. Mahler was the first composer I did a challenge about in Talk Classical because many of you were reccomending and prasing him. It has been the love of my two last summers.
But then Bruckner was different. One of the last Windows 10 updates had blocked my labtop and I spent days listening to Bruckner videos on Youtube (with Karajan and Jochum). I loved so many parts of him that I decided to do this great challenge I have already finished. *What got me into him was the sense of flow and the advantage that I didn't need to pay such a lot of attention.* Also, because of the precisely marked scores in Mahler and more ambiguous in Bruckner, conductors can interpret more the latter. A Venzago Bruckner cycle approach would be unthinkable in Mahler. Amazingly, conductors find a way to put their personal seal in both composers (Boulez vs Bernstein, Karajan vs Celibidache...).


----------



## larold

<<It's pretty ridiculous comparing two very different composers>>

I don't find it ridiculous and I don't see them as very different. They lived in similar eras, both wrote lengthy works unlike any others of the time (or since,) and Mahler was completely dedicated to playing Bruckner's music as a conductor. I find more similarities than dissimilarities.

It's like asking someone if they better like Mendelssohn or Schumann.


----------



## CanadianMaestro

*yawn* 
(Bruckner)


----------



## Michael Diemer

I need a Bruckner fix every 10 years or so. Mahler, I can go longer.

Seriously, they were both great composers. I have always liked Mahler's Titan symphony best of his ouvre. I like pretty much all of Bruckner's symphonies, even though they all sound pretty much the same. Both have wonderfully transcendent moments. Bruckner does suffer somewhat from his formulaic approach to form, while Mahler seems to have challenged himself more to individuate his works. Both went after the Big Sound of Romanticism in its heydey. Persoanlly, I like a more restrained sound. But I kind of went through a brief Bruckner period, where I was buying his symphonies back in the seventies, whereas I can only remember only buying Mahler's First, so I guess I have to choose Anton over Gustav.


----------



## Pugg

Can't wait for the Mahler year 2020 in Amsterdam. :angel:


----------



## Tallisman

I think I enjoy Bruckner more on the whole, but if I could save one for history, it would be Mahler. But even Mahler loved Bruckner, and people seriously underestimate Bruckner ('too repetitive, rhythmically uninteresting' etc) but there are moments of astounding invention and of divine orchestration, not to mention those surging Germanic fanfares that I can quite literally never get enough of.

I don't know of a single moment in Bruckner when I lose the flow and think he's 'going too far' down a particular path, whereas there are a few moments in Mahler when I feel totally alienated from the music. The Resurrection is free of this, though.


----------



## tdc

Over all I prefer Bruckner, but I prefer Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_ to all Bruckner works except Bruckner 9.

Maybe Bruckner's use of form is more simple and old fashioned, but I think that is what gives his works a cohesion Mahler symphonies generally don't have.

I don't think there is any accuracy at all to the above comment suggesting all of Bruckner's symphonies sound the same.


----------



## superhorn

starry said:


> Most would probably think Mahler's 1st is better than Bruckner's (I'm not counting his symphony No0), but from then on it's probably a matter of taste.


 The Mahler is standard repertoire and has been for decades ; but the Bruckner 1st is sadly neglected . And it's
a marvelous work too, the shortest of the nine symphonies by far , no longer than the ultra familiar Brahms 1st . It has all the typical characteristics of Bruckner's mature symphonies . The last performance anywhere in America I can recall in recent years was as part the historic Bruckner cycle Daniel Barenboim gave in Carnegie hall recently , the first of its kind in America .


----------



## Totenfeier

I yam who I yam, so...

However, this suddenly occurs to me. This is a raw, uncooked thought: feel free to savage me as you will.

Bruckner edges Mahler in slow movements (and no, I haven't forgotten about the last movement of the 3rd); Mahler edges Bruckner in scherzi. This, of course, makes absolute sense.


----------



## Larkenfield

They were contemporaries. Here's a letter from Bruckner to Mahler in thanks for performing his _Te Deum_ and _Mass in D Minor_, and for support against his critics... The critic Hanslick in Vienna was his great nemesis who caused him endless disappointment & grief.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> They were contemporaries. Here's a letter from Bruckner to Mahler in thanks for performing his _Te Deum_ and _Mass in D Minor_, and for support against his critics... The critic Hanslick in Vienna was his great nemesis who caused him endless disappointment & grief.
> 
> View attachment 103309


Interesting but why, I wonder, did he write in English?


----------



## EdwardBast

German/Austrian Post-Romantic music doesn't much appeal to me but I vastly prefer Mahler over Bruckner.


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> It's pretty ridiculous comparing two very different composers, but if you ask me or preference I'd say Bruckner every time.


They are not so different as you suggest. Both used extended structures (extended sonata form) and I hear shades of Bruckner in Mahler (and vice-versa, though I think the influence runs the other way). Their scherzos have similar juxtaposition of high drama and playfulness. There's nothing at all ridiculous about the comparison.


----------



## OperaChic

tdc said:


> Over all I prefer Bruckner, but I prefer Mahler's _Das Lied von der Erde_ to all Bruckner works except Bruckner 9.
> 
> Maybe Bruckner's use of form is more simple and old fashioned, but I think that is what gives his works a cohesion Mahler symphonies generally don't have.
> 
> I don't think there is any accuracy at all to the above comment suggesting all of Bruckner's symphonies sound the same.


I agree with pretty much everything you say here. As I've noted prefer I've always preferred Mahler's orchestral songs and Das Lied von der Erde to his symphonies.


----------



## eugeneonagain

EdwardBast said:


> German/Austrian Post-Romantic music doesn't much appeal to me but I vastly prefer Mahler over Bruckner.


I actually used to love a bit of Mahler; 5th and 6th symphonies really because Teutonic symphonies have also never been my bag, but as a youth I was seduced by the adagietto in Death in Venice. However Bruckner now appeals to me much more than Mahler, it has more solidity.


----------



## Tallisman

Revised statement... I couldn't believe it reading my old reply and saying I'd choose Mahler. I suppose that was before I had really listened to Bruckner enough. 

I accept the comparison, so I won't do that annoying and predictable thing of saying 'why should they be compared...' etc. Both of them express a certain type of that Austro-Germanic Romanticism, so from this point of view I think the comparison is valid. 
They each do different things for me, though. Mahler seems presents a profound picture of personal emotion and what it is like to be a human. Bruckner for me, on the other hand, is pure, impersonal beauty. It moves beyond internal emotion into a picture of the vastness of the world. It is more like a Caspar David Friedrich painting, and Mahler might be compared to a harsh self-portrait. 

I'd infinitely prefer to live with Bruckner's music for the rest of my life. I know myself enough not to need Mahler for sustenance (though he is very much in my big 3). Bruckner goes beyond an examination of himself or others, something beyond the subjective world of feelings into landscapes whose profound impact can't be expressed in emotional terms. 

That's my typically pretentious reading, anyway. I think there's some truth to that quotation (I've forgotten who from): "Mahler was searching for God; Bruckner had already found him."


----------



## Tallisman

Of the two sets of nine symphonies, these are the composers I'd choose for each:

1: Mahler
2: Mahler
3: Mahler
4: Bruckner
5: Mahler
6: Mahler
7: Bruckner
8: Bruckner 
9: Bruckner 

For consistency, then, Mahler edges out Bruckner, but Bruckner 7, 8, 9 are worth all of Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## Granate

^^

Hmmmm

1: Bruckner
2: Mahler
3: Mahler
4: Bruckner
5: Bruckner
6: Bruckner
7: Bruckner
8: Bruckner
9: Mahler

Ludwig van Beethoven was found dead


----------



## Bulldog

Nothing against Bruckner, I'll go with Mahler for all the symphonies except for no. 8. Then I factor in Mahler's Das Lied, lieder and orchestral songs - Bruckner doesn't come close.


----------



## DeepR

I haven't listened to all their symphonies yet, I'm very slow and spend a lot of time on each work, but it's Bruckner anyway. His best music exists on a different musical plane, it explores the depths and reaches out to the heavens in a very noble, more abstract and less personal way, detached from the time it was made in and the individual it was made by. I love his sound, his themes, his harmonies, his unique approach to building up his music and yes, I love the scherzo's too and of course the brass eruptions. I love some of Mahler too, by the way.


----------



## WildThing

Ok, I'll play. 

1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. Bruckner
4. Bruckner
5. Bruckner
6. Mahler
7. Bruckner
8. Bruckner
9. Mahler


----------



## Art Rock

1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. Mahler
4. Mahler
5. Mahler
6. Mahler
7. Mahler
8. Bruckner
9. Bruckner


----------



## jdec

Easy...

1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. Mahler
4. Mahler
5. Mahler
6. Mahler
7. Mahler
8. Bruckner
9. Mahler


----------



## Rogerx

Simple for me:
1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. Mahler
4. Mahler
5. Mahler
6. Mahler
7. Mahler
8. Mahler
9. Mahler


----------



## Enthusiast

Bulldog said:


> Nothing against Bruckner, I'll go with Mahler for all the symphonies except for no. 8. Then I factor in Mahler's Das Lied, lieder and orchestral songs - Bruckner doesn't come close.


Probably correct. But the Te Deum? The Masses? Not to be dismissed out of hand.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oh well, I'll play.

0. Bruckner (Mahler didn't show)
00. Bruckner (Mahler didn't show)
1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. draw
4. Bruckner
5. Mahler (quite a contest, this one)
6. Mahler
7. Bruckner
8. Bruckner
9. Mahler (again a tightly contested match)
10. Mahler (Bruckner didn't show - and Mahler didn't show that much)
DLvdE vs Te Deum - Mahler

Mahler wins the series 7-5.

Next year's series might see a reversal of Mahler's fortunes.


----------



## elgar's ghost

1. Mahler
2. Mahler
3. Mahler
4. Tie
5. Bruckner
6. Mahler
7. Bruckner
8. Bruckner
9. Tie

Bruckner's strong showing in the middle-to-late symphonies isn't a negative reflection on Mahler, though - the only symphony by Mahler I'm not overly keen on is the 8th. Perhaps I should have factored in _Das Lied von der Erde_ but that would have cocked the numbering up.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

1) Mahler
2) Mahler
3) Mahler
4) Mahler
5) Toss up
6) Mahler
7) Bruckner
8) Bruckner
9) Mahler


----------



## Nevum

Bruckner............................................


----------



## jdec

*3 Mahler* symphonies and *0 Bruckner* symphonies in the 'top 10 symphonies' from the BBC Music Magazine 151 conductors surveyed:

1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
*4. Mahler Symphony No 9 (1909)
5. Mahler Symphony No 2 (1894 rev 1903)*
6. Brahms Symphony No 4 (1885)
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
8. Brahms Symphony No 1 (1876)
9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
*10. Mahler Symphony No 3 (1896)*

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...oica-greatest-symphony-vote-bbc-mozart-mahler


----------



## superhorn

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> *Mahler*, _nervous and unhinged_; *Bruckner*, _sane and stolid_.


 Sebastian, Bruckner's music can be quite "nervous and unhinged ", such as the scherzo of the 9th and elsewhere , but his music it's not "stolid " even though it can seem that way if it's conducted too slowly . The first movements of his 8th and 9th are extremely nervous too ! 
And there there is a lot more calm, serene and seemingly naive music in Mahler's symphonies , specially the 4th than many people seem to realize .


----------



## Granate

superhorn said:


> Sebastian, Bruckner's music can be quite "nervous and unhinged ", such as the scherzo of the 9th and elsewhere , but his music it's not "stolid " even though it can seem that way if it's conducted too slowly . The first movements of his 8th and 9th are extremely nervous too !
> And there there is a lot more calm, serene and seemingly naive music in Mahler's symphonies , specially the 4th than many people seem to realize .












The user posted in 2010 :lol:


----------



## Terrapin

Love them both. Here's my ranking of all their symphonies:
1. Mahler 9
2. Mahler 1
3. Mahler 4
4. Mahler 2
5. Mahler 3
6. Bruckner 7
7. Mahler 6
8. Bruckner 8
9. Mahler 5
10. Bruckner 9
11. Bruckner 4
12. Bruckner 2
13. Bruckner 3
14. Mahler 7
15. Bruckner 5
16. Mahler 10
17. Bruckner 6
18. Bruckner 1
19. Bruckner 0
20. Bruckner 00
21. Mahler 8


----------



## Larkenfield

“*The obsessive-compulsive, devoutly religious, socially inept Anton Bruckner, or...”

“*The anxious, thrice-homeless, irredemiably nostalgic Gustav Mahler”
—-
I understand this is intended to be a positive thread on both, but neither of the above summaries seems exactly positive or complementary to either of them. With Mahler, there is virtually the entire range of human experience, and a tremendous serenity can be heard in his patented Adagios that are hardly “anxious”. He had a capacity for accepting the losses he experienced in life and also tremendous resilience in rising above them, including in his 10th symphony. Where’s the acknowledgment of that? 

With Bruckner, there’s a transcendental spiritual power that he continues to refine and develop in each symphony. Both of their worlds are far too big to be reduced to a brief (inaccurate) summary, and none of their symphonies are exactly alike. I find it easy to relate to their worlds because there’s a basic honesty and sincerity in both, an interest in dealing with the big issues related to life, such as death and mortality, and even beyond human life into the spiritual stratosphere. Each man was himself and cannot be simply contrasted with statements that IMO are so far off the mark and not exactly positive. I hate the ranking of symphonies like measuring the size of an orange or an apple. The minute one starts compulsively ranking these symphonies is the minute one stops hearing what makes each one unique.


----------



## Beet131

Larkenfield said:


> "*The obsessive-compulsive, devoutly religious, socially inept Anton Bruckner, or..."
> 
> "*The anxious, thrice-homeless, irredemiably nostalgic Gustav Mahler"
> --
> I understand this is intended to be a positive thread on both, but neither of the above summaries seems exactly positive or complementary to either of them. *With Mahler, there is virtually the entire range of human experience, and a tremendous serenity can be heard in his patented Adagios that are hardly "anxious". He had a capacity for accepting the losses he experienced in life and also tremendous resilience in rising above them, including in his 10th symphony. Where's the acknowledgment of that?
> 
> With Bruckner, there's a transcendental spiritual power that he continues to refine and develop in each symphony. *Both of their worlds are far too big to be reduced to a brief (inaccurate) summary, and none of their symphonies are exactly alike. I find it easy to relate to their worlds because there's a basic honesty and sincerity in both, an interest in dealing with the big issues related to life, such as death and mortality, and even beyond human life into the spiritual stratosphere. Each man was himself and cannot be simply contrasted with statements that IMO are so far off the mark and not exactly positive. I hate the ranking of symphonies like measuring the size of an orange or an apple. The minute one starts compulsively ranking these symphonies is the minute one stops hearing what makes each one unique.


Beautifully articulated, Larkenfield.


----------



## Konsgaard

As I have said elsewhere, I feel that Mahler's music is more earth-bound. He deals with the human passions, our inner demons, love, rejection, jealousy even. His music is passionate and I think some of his adagios are the epitome of late-romanticism. Mahler tries to understand what heaven is and whether it is attainable (the 3rd and 4th movements of the 4th symphony). Human suffering is a crucial element in his music and he seems to be drawn to instincts rather than ideas.

Bruckner is quite the opposite. If Mahler deals with the human realm and psyche, Bruckner deals with the realm of heavens. Human instincts don't seem to trouble him in his music. His adagios are not questioning whether we can reach God. But he shows us that we *can *reach God and this is what it feels like. He doesn't seem to care about love and hate and human suffering but more about the deepest philosophical and existential questions and our ability to embrace God.

For the above reasons even though I love the music of both composers I feel closer to Bruckner. To me he is the most spiritual composer (along with Bach and late Beethoven). It all comes down to how you define art. Tarkovsky used to say that the purpose of Art is to make us more spiritual. For me Bruckner achieves this perfectly.


----------



## PlaySalieri

The owner of a CD shop once said to me

"If you like Mahler you'll love Bruckner"

wrong!


----------



## Granate

^^
I love both but I agree that that is a daring assumption.


----------



## EdwardBast

One of the reasons I prefer Mahler is he had a more dramatic conception of counterpoint, one not limited to the traditional harmonious blending of lines. He often seemed to be striving for the tense interaction of opposing ideas and themes of very different character, creating great instability and tension, running on the border between order and chaos. My favorite example of this is the second movement of the Fifth Symphony. And I find his orchestration universally more interesting and imaginative. Mahler was also formally daring and experimental with, IMO, widely varying results as to quality and coherence.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Bruckner's scherzos are way more rousing and exciting though. This cannot be denied.


----------



## Azol

Interesting. It would be impossible for me to choose between the two, as I am a fan of both. Only in Second symphony I prefer Mahler (no big surprise). But deciding between Bruckner's First and Mahler's First, I would pick Rott's E-Major in a wink!


----------



## DeepR

Bruckner just keeps getting better the more I listen to his music. I've been listening to the 9th and especially the first movement almost daily in the last few months. When you reach that point where the music is pretty much engraved on your mind, I somehow get even more goosebumps with Bruckner. Maybe it's _because_ I know exactly what's coming at each given moment.
None of the aspects of his music that might bother some people bother me in the slightest anymore. Everything makes total sense if you just keep listening, listening and then some more.


----------



## Jacck

I have no idea why these two composers are compared and grouped together so often. Because they were both Austrian and have known each other? Their music is totally different imho. I think Shostakovich and Mahler have much more in common than Bruckner and Mahler. Bruckner's music is unique and wonderful, so is Mahler's. And don't make me choose between their symphonies


----------



## Enthusiast

stomanek said:


> The owner of a CD shop once said to me
> 
> "If you like Mahler you'll love Bruckner"
> 
> wrong!


I don't know when that was but in Britain that is how we - the general music loving public - felt. I guess we didn't know either very well. They both produced long works, many of which, that required a 2 LP box. Apart from Haitink, I think the conductors who were thought to lead the field for these composers (or got the job of recording sets) at the time (Karajan, Bohm, Jochum for Bruckner and Solti, Bernstein, Kubelik for Mahler) were different and that should have told us something.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> ...... Each man was himself and cannot be simply contrasted with statements that IMO are so far off the mark and not exactly positive. I hate the ranking of symphonies like measuring the size of an orange or an apple. The minute one starts compulsively ranking these symphonies is the minute one stops hearing what makes each one unique.


I totally agree with what you wrote in the part of your post that I have not included above. I also kind of agree about ranking. But it's just a game, isn't it? Does it really involve neglecting what we love in the works, even those we subjectively prefer less at the moment we play the game? It is flippant but does that matter?

I ask because I would once have felt so much more strongly that the game of ranking was a bizarre aberration in musical enjoyment.


----------



## Granate

*Slow movement question*

Hello again. I wanted to resurrect this thread for a while because of something that came to my mind yesterday night.

You know I've been a keen Brucknerian for these two years while each Summer I turn to Mahler cycles. In one week I'll start a new challenge with recording cycles I haven't listened to but that's not the topic. I don't have the exact quotes because I'm in a hurry and I need to finish my _Les Contes d'Hoffmann_ review before having dinner and watching Massenet's _Manon_: Leonard Bernstein once replied to a critic who said that while Mahler was searching for God, Bruckner had found it. He analysed on his piano Bruckner's Symphony No.8 in front of him to prove why musically Bruckner reached nowhere, essentially as far as I recall.

Yesterday night, looking the starry sky in my town after local celebrations _("cabalgata de feria")_, I played the Andante Moderato movement from Mahler's Symphony No.6, performed by the Wiener Philharmoniker under Leonard Bernstein for DG, one of my favourite recordings of the work.

The first thing that came to my head was how similar the repetition and tonal structure (A minor vs A major) was to Bruckner's Adagio (Sehr feierlich) from Symphony No.6. I don't have enough studies to describe how the main Mahler melody in the slow movement resembled the final coda of the Bruckner 6 Adagio, not in notes but in the particular structures of the two slow movements.

Here we have two examples that can compare: two celebrated recordings from almost the same age with the same recording techniques by the same label and the exact same orchestra: the two slow movements I could find in Youtube Music: Barbirolli's Mahler 6 and Klemperer's Bruckner 6 with the New Philharmonia Orchestra.










If you were an informed Mahlerite (or Mahler music fan rather than Brucknerian), *how would you describe the differences and similarities between these two slow movements? How would you argue that Mahler's Andante becomes more "meaningful" and "expressive" than the architectural Bruckner Adagio - Sehr feierlich?*


----------



## Open Book

I love both Bruckner and Mahler. I don't have anything against threads X vs. Y but I don't like to participate in them. That's because I don't like to make either/or choices between composers of such stature. But such threads can be fun to read.

This comparison by George Szell between the two is interesting:

https://www.abruckner.com/articles/articlesEnglish/szellgeorgecomment/

"In my time in Vienna - that is, at the beginning of the century where I grew up before the first World War (doesn't this make me sound terribly old?) - it would never have occurred to any sane-minded person to mention Bruckner and Mahler in the same breath. People associate them for superficial reasons. They both came from the territory of the old Austro-Hungarian empire, they both wrote long symphonies, they both wrote nine symphonies, and both names end on 'er' - maybe that has something to do with it - but they couldn't be more dissimilar. A phenomenon like Bruckner, whom we really can consider only as the innocent receptacle of divine grace and not equipped with very much or very high intelligence - was actually a very primitive, peasant-like person. One most beautiful story is that when he received a decoration from the old Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria and was received in audience too thank for it, very affably, the Emperor asked him whether there was anything he could do for him. So Bruckner naively said: "Yes, if your Majesty could do something about Hanslick, that he doesn't pan me all the time". Hanslick at that time being the most powerful music critic of the town and of the time. And, on the other hand, Gustav Mahler was exactly the opposite - a highly sophisticated intellectual - they couldn't be more dissimilar."


----------



## flamencosketches

That's a funny story, but I don't think Bruckner, for all his social missteps and the neuroses he'd experienced throughout his years, was really that much of a dingus. Szell's theory is nice and all, but divine grace on its own does not an artist make. 

Anyway, the music of Bruckner and Mahler have absolutely nothing to do with one another except that they'd known each other when Mahler was a young man. I really think Szell nailed it with the extremely superficial reasons that people compare the two (9 long symphonies, "-er" names, etc). I like Mahler a lot more than I like Bruckner, but I would never even think to compare them.


----------



## DeepR

There's no way Bruckner was really the simple minded peasant as described in that quote. Maybe if you judged him by his outward appearance and social behavior. Ok, so he wasn't a "sophisticated intellectual" but still, that music came from a highly intelligent mind and the idea of divine grace is quite frankly ridiculous.


----------



## Open Book

Yeah, I agree. One can be so extremely socially awkward that it hides one's intelligence. It was the Hanslick story I was looking for that was supposed to be one of Szell's favorites. I was googling around for it, and found it in this context. I am surprised that Szell would denigrate Bruckner's intelligence and I don't like the "divine grace" part, either.

You never hear Szell mentioned much when people make lists of the highest rated Bruckner conductors, do you?


----------



## Manxfeeder

Open Book said:


> You never hear Szell mentioned much when people make lists of the highest rated Bruckner conductors, do you?


Good point. I'm a big fan of Szell, but I was disappointed that his Bruckner was disappointing.


----------



## Open Book

I wasn't yet into Bruckner when I was doing my heaviest listening of Szell. I will have to listen to his Bruckner some time.


----------



## flamencosketches

Szell's CD with the Cleveland Orchestra "Wagner Without Words" is pretty damn good. I can see him being good with Bruckner too, maybe.


----------



## larold

_I have no idea why these two composers are compared and grouped together so often. Because they were both Austrian and have known each other? Their music is totally different imho._

Mahler didn't feel that way. He used his positions as music director in both Vienna and New York to promote Bruckner's music, that had been assailed by critics and the Brahms' camp. He found a natural kinship with Bruckner and did everything he could to popularize his music.


----------



## Arent

I'm also not sure why the two are so often paired. I think the key thing is that they were a whole generation - 36 years - apart. More salient comparisons would be between close contemporaries Bruckner and Brahms, or Mahler and Sibelius.

Bruckner honed his craft in a time when Schumann and Mendelssohn were the most recent symphonists, and added the influence of Wagner when his music was just sweeping Europe.

Mahler was of an age when Wagner had been digested and composers were approaching the modern era in that unique ferment of the years 1890-1910. Totally different atmosphere in the arts and culture.

edit: an aside, I find it useful to think of Bruckner's symphonies 0-2 in direct juxtaposition with Schubert 8-9 and Schumann's symphonies. Bruckner's early works become wonderful successors to this tradition.


----------



## Waehnen

In my ears Bruckner and Mahler are almost complete opposites.

When I listen to Bruckner, musically and aurally I enjoy every moment, and I trust the composer not to ruin the moment. And he never ruins the moment, and that says a lot. I love how he handles the music. I feel like "this is how it´s supposed to be done".

Mahler is unpredictable, sometimes the music is ugly, and occasionally he ruins the moment. Then again the scope of things that are being expressed is many times wider than with Bruckner. Mahler really knew how to express himself and he is exposed in the symphonies even further than Tchaikovsky in the Pathétique. Gotta appreciate that. And of course the orchestral imagination and insight.

I have much appreciation for both. If I had to choose, 55% Bruckner, 45% Mahler.


----------



## joen_cph

One's perceived 'ugliness' in Mahler can sometimes be revised when listening to different recordings, accentuating or changing various aspects of the work, so that the 'ugliness' becomes more meaningful or relevant. The 6th, 7th and the 9th contain obvious candidates as regards such music, for example


----------

