# Mahler vs Tchaikovsky



## BenG (Aug 28, 2018)

I know lots of people detest these 'someone vs someone else' threads but I just want to compare these two great composers. I consider Mahler and Tchaikovsky both great orchestrators and symphonists. I think Mahler wrote the greater symphonys excluding the 6th symphony.
Well.. What do you think. Mahler or Tchaikovsky?


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

BenG said:


> I know lots of people detest these 'someone vs someone else' threads but I just want to compare these two great composers. I consider Mahler and Tchaikovsky both great orchestrators and symphonists. I think Mahler wrote the greater symphonys excluding the 6th symphony.
> Well.. What do you think. Mahler or Tchaikovsky?


Mahler. And I assume you're excluding Tchaikovsky's 6th, not Mahler's.


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

I would probably go with Mahler, his symphonies tower over Tchaikovsky's. However, Tchaikovsky wrote beautiful works that weren't symphonies, like the Violin and Piano Concertos, String Quartets, Operas, and much more. Mahler would probably barely edge it out for me.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I'd probably go with Tchaikovsky. He outperformed Mahler in all genres except symphonies and lieder


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I like Tchaikovsky. A lot. But I love Mahler more than any other composer (except Bach). My 10 favourite works from their combined oeuvre would be all-Mahler.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Gee, two of my favorite composers and for a long, long time. Tchaikovsky symphonies are less probing and maybe not as "deep" as Mahler's, but they sure are entertaining - and that's something too often overlooked in the classical arena. Mahler's are more profound and deeply moving, but I have to be in the mood for him these days. Tchaikovsky was a thorough professional and wrote masterpieces in every genre. Mahler wrote only in three: symphonies, cantata, song. Tchaikovsky did a lot of note-spinning to fill a commission or produce something rapidly for some occasion. But I can't think of anything he wrote that doesn't bear the stamp of a consummate professional. At his best, the Russian is superb. And maybe his other 6 symphonies don't have the emotional gravitas of Mahler but they do have something else Mahler rarely achieved: a unbridled joy and exuberance. Mahler could never have written something as thrilling as the finale of the 4th or as original as the3rd movement of the same symphony. Think of the march movement of the Pathetique and the finale of the 1st Piano concerto. They produce so much excitement - the adrenaline surges. Not in Mahler's repertoire. So while I wouldn't want to be without Mahler, I really think Tchaikovsky was the greater composer.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

This is sort of an unfair question since Tchaikovsky's output is much more wide-ranging and diverse than Mahler's (by choice, one can argue, but still....). But putting that aside for the moment, I find Tchaikovsky to be the greater talent of the two. 

Mahler's music, searching, spontaneous, philosophical, speaks of the world and to the world. Such a quality can be life-altering to a person (the coda of the Third Symphony, the slow movement of the Sixth, the finale of the Ninth are frankly indescribable, but they speak in ways no other works of others do). Tchaikovsky's music, likewise searching and spontaneous, is more personal, yet relatable. He was the type who was not afraid to let himself go, and his music reflects that.

In essence, two great but vastly different musical personas in the final analysis.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Tchaikov6 said:


> I would probably go with Mahler, his symphonies tower over Tchaikovsky's.


In length only.


----------



## Gallus (Feb 8, 2018)

Mahler might win as a symphonist (although the Pathetique is as good as any of Mahler's 10 imo), but Tchaikovsky's multiple masterpieces outside of the symphony form means I don't think this is really a fair contest. Mahler has nothing like the ballets, the violin concerto, the string quartets, Souvenir de Florence, Capriccio Italien...


----------



## Tchaikov6 (Mar 30, 2016)

eugeneonagain said:


> In length only.


Length and most often quality. Mahler's second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and ninth symphonies are in my opinion all masterpieces that are better than any symphonies Tchaikovsky wrote (except maybe the sixth). The first, seventh, and eighth are weaker but I think overall Mahler was better writing for the orchestra. But that's just my opinion, of course it's not an objective fact that they are better. Tchaikovsky used to be my favorite composer (hence my username), and my opinions have changed over time to liking a lot of other composers just as much as him. There's no right or wrong answer.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I can't compare them. Totally different. I love both in many works.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I much prefer Tchaikovsky because of his gorgeous, beautiful melodies, and dramatic appeal (for me at least). Also, I think that Tchaikovsky is a much more versatile composer that worked in a much more wide range of genres.



mbhaub said:


> Tchaikovsky symphonies are less probing and maybe not as "deep" as Mahler's, but they sure are entertaining - and that's something too often overlooked in the classical arena. Mahler's are more profound and deeply moving, but I have to be in the mood for him these days.


Interesting. For me most of the time the opposite is true. I might reconsider on Mahler's part though.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Probably a silly question, but I used to listen to a lot of Tchaikovsky works I now haven't put on in years. If I used as my criterion, how many works would I miss if the composer's output were to disappear, Mahler would probably win by something like 7 to 4, for what that's worth.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I'm a big Mahler fan and rarely listen to any Tchaikovsky.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Respect them both, but don't listen to either very often. They both have one or two works I love, but over all I am not drawn to their (very different) styles.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Tchaikovsky easily over Mahler. I find his music way more coherent, beautiful, gripping, and easy to digest.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

I have to roll with Pyotr on this one. In general, it seems to me that melody, orchestration, and emotional directness came more naturally to Tchaikovsky than to Mahler. The latter category is a difficult comparison, but Tchaikovsky wins it for me, simply because I feel like he could pack a lot more of a punch in a smaller amount of time than Mahler.
Symphonies are the only area where I would give the nod to Mahler. In my humble, and likely controversial opinion: Tchaikovsky's best symphony is better than Mahler's best symphony, but Mahler has more great symphonies than Tchaikovsky.

Other than that, it's hard for me to side with Mahler, because he didn't really do much besides symphonies and vocal songs. Tchaikovsky did basically everything else- ballets, operas, piano music, chamber music, concerti- and he was good at them all, too. There's simply not anything from Mahler to compare to it.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

For symphonies I overally prefer Mahler (although I love Tchaikovsky's too).

For Concerti and Ballet I usually prefer Tchaikovsky over Mahler. :lol:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

BenG said:


> I know lots of people detest these 'someone vs someone else' threads but I just want to compare these two great composers. I consider Mahler and Tchaikovsky both great orchestrators and symphonists. I think Mahler wrote the greater symphonys excluding the 6th symphony.
> Well.. What do you think. Mahler or Tchaikovsky?


Mahler.
I can't bear what I perceive as Tchaikovsky's sentimentality.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

janxharris said:


> Mahler.
> I can't bear what I perceive as Tchaikovsky's sentimentality.


Tchaikovsky is often accused of this, but in many of his best works it would be hard to argue for any facile, unseemly or unjustified wallowing in emotion. I find Mahler at least as self-indulgent, and on a scale that makes Tchaikovsky seem modest and innocent. Maybe Mahler's emotional complexity, his self-awareness, his irony, the sense of inner conflict and impending crisis that can reach a pitch of desperation only exhaustion and collapse can relieve, offers (sometimes) a more profound experience. But often I find the intense self-searching, the reaching for maximum effect, the psychic megalomania, and the sheer on-and-onness of it all, irritating or repellent, and on the whole I prefer the lighter touch of Tchaikovsky, especially in those works - the ballets, the orchestral suites, the Serenade for Strings, and the Souvenir de Florence - whose melodic charm and rhythmic exhilaration is actually rather classical in inspiration and feeling (remember that he venerated Mozart above all composers). Tchaikovsky does much more than weep; he sings and dances as few other composers can.

I really don't turn to either of these composers very often nowadays, but I'm more apt to put on "The Sleeping Beauty" than the "Symphony of a Thousand." A Tchaikovsky ballet, entrancing in its sheer melodic inspiration and endlessly inventive orchestration, is almost always a more welcome prospect than an hour of metaphysical bombast with Goethe. If I want Mahler it's most likely to be the songs or "Das Lied von der Erde," where the composer was compelled to pare his thinking down to the requirements of a single vocal line.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Mahler.
> I can't bear what I perceive as Tchaikovsky's sentimentality.


I don't find Tchaikovsky sentimental. I however find Mahler navel-gazing to the point of self-obsession and narcissism


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Jacck said:


> I don't find Tchaikovsky sentimental. I however find Mahler navel-gazing to the point of self-obsession and narcissism


That actually made me laugh out loud. 'Navel-gazing'!!! Hahaha.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Can't compare as both had their own styles and own way of composing. Love both


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I don't find either of them sentimental, at least not in any negative sense. I do find them both appealing. Mahler is an all-time favourite and one of the composers most important to me in terms of my own musical development, but there is also plenty of space in my life for Tchaikovsky.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Orfeo said:


> Mahler's music, searching, spontaneous, philosophical, speaks of the world and to the world. . . . Tchaikovsky's music, likewise searching and spontaneous, is more personal, yet relatable. He was the type who was not afraid to let himself go, and his music reflects that.


Interesting. I would have said--and others in the posts above *have* said--that Mahler's music is intensely, perhaps sometimes excessively, personal.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> In length only.


A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey:

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


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

Wow!!!!

This is something I can not decide or resolve.

My favorite Symphony is Piotr's 5th and my second favorite (very close to 5th) Mahler's 2nd!!! I love profoundly both composers and I don't know so much music to say who of these titans was better. God bless them both!


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

jdec said:


> A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey:
> 
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> ...


The 3rd above the 9th, the 7th nowhere, the Bruckner absent etc... After all the music taste and choices are very personal. Something like the women...


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Dimace said:


> The 3rd above the 9th, the 7th nowhere, the Bruckner absent etc... After all the music taste and choices are very personal. Something like the women...


Well, even for Beethoven himself, the Eroica was his personal favorite.

As much as I love some of Bruckner symphonies, I would not put any of then in a top 10 list. His 8th made it to the top 20 on this survey though, which I think is fair.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

jdec said:


> A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey:
> 
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> ...


I don't care what the conductors think. Anyone who votes to put Brahms at number 6 needs psychiatric help.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

jdec said:


> A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey:
> 
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> ...


Berlioz's first symphony is very beautiful indeed, but nevertheless so overrated in my opinion. I wonder if these maestros that voted for this poll have listened to a good performance of _Roméo et Juliette_ and the _Grande symphonie funèbre et triomphale_ yet.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Tchaikovsky by a mile. He wrote operas, songs, concertos, symphonies, suites, serenades, chamber music and more -- all at the highest level. Mahler wrote symphonies and songs and there is debate as to the greatness of many of his symphonies.

In my composer ranking Tchaikovsky came in No. 6 and Mahler No. 28. This wasn't personal, I used criteria from musicological guides. If it were me Tchaikovsky would be about No. 8 and Mahler about No. 50.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey..._

That survey was taken for BBC Music Magazine a year or two ago. Had it been taken 50 years ago nothing of Mahler's would have shown up. He had grown enormously with conductors and audiences since the 1970s.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

larold said:


> In my composer ranking Tchaikovsky came in No. 6 and Mahler No. 28. This wasn't personal, I used criteria from musicological guides. If it were me Tchaikovsky would be about No. 8 and Mahler about No. 50.


I'm curious. Which are the top ten composers according to your ranking and which criteria did these musicological guides use?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> I don't care what the conductors think. Anyone who votes to put Brahms at number 6 needs psychiatric help.


Oh yes, all of these subpar surveyed conductors like Mariss Jansons, Simon Rattle, Neeme Jarvi, Ashkenazy, Dutoit, Mehta, Petrenko, Temirkanov, Tortelier, Papano, Gilbert, Vanska, and many more, should get that psychiatric help per your advice. What were they thinking geez!


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

larold said:


> That survey was taken for BBC Music Magazine a year or two ago. *Had it been taken 50 years ago nothing of Mahler's would have shown up.* He had grown enormously with conductors and audiences since the 1970s.


Correct. Excellent observation. I would add that had it been taken 300 years ago, nothing of Beethoven or Mozart would have shown up either! :lol:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

larold said:


> Tchaikovsky by a mile. He wrote operas, songs, concertos, symphonies, suites, serenades, chamber music and more -- all at the highest level. Mahler wrote symphonies and songs and there is debate as to the greatness of many of his symphonies.
> 
> In my composer ranking Tchaikovsky came in No. 6 and Mahler No. 28. This wasn't personal, I used criteria from musicological guides. If it were me Tchaikovsky would be about No. 8 and Mahler about No. 50.


In the Bulldog guide, Mahler is at no. 3 and Pyotr is a few numbers below Boris. :tiphat:


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> In the Bulldog guide, Mahler is at no. 3 and Pyotr is a few numbers below Boris. :tiphat:


Entertainingly put, and not completely unreasonable. 
I'll have to reflect a bit further on though, whether I fully agree with you


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey:
> 
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> ...


Why would you think conductors' opinions on this matter of taste are better than anyone else's? If anything I would be inclined to pay less attention to them because they have purely professional concerns - what makes them look good - that aren't of interest to the rest of us.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

joen_cph said:


> Entertainingly put, and not completely unreasonable.
> I'll have to reflect a bit further on though, whether I fully agree with you


I can't help it that I prefer Boris to Pyotr - it's coded into my DNA.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

jdec said:


> Oh yes, all of these subpar surveyed conductors like Mariss Jansons, Simon Rattle, Neeme Jarvi, Ashkenazy, Dutoit, Mehta, Petrenko, Temirkanov, Tortelier, Papano, Gilbert, Vanska, and many more, should get that psychiatric help per your advice. What were they thinking geez!


Heavens! What an illustrious list. I suppose that should make me change my mind... which it won't.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> Why would you think conductors' opinions on this matter of taste are better than anyone else's?


Where/when did I say that?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

jdec said:


> Where/when did I say that?


By obvious implication!


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> By obvious implication!


And that answer is correct!

The list in question aligns with my own tastes. Therefore I believe these conductors are mostly right.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> A survey of 151 leading conductors on the greatest symphonies ever seems to disagree with you. This is the top 10 that resulted from that survey:
> 
> 1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
> 2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
> ...


I'm never impressed with surveys, especially of the "greatest" this or that. These are all great works, no doubt, but is Mahler's garrulous and sprawling third really more admirable than any of several superbly wrought symphonies of Sibelius or Bruckner, or others of Beethoven? Mahler's ninth, no doubt a favorite of conductors because it's a challenge to them (if only to get through the requisite hour without keeling over from nervous exhaustion), strikes me as somewhat short of the fourth greatest symphony in existence; I doubt that it's even Mahler's best. I detect a bias in favor of "big" statements of a "serious" nature - not an unimportant factor, but easily overrated as a criterion of greatness. I suspect that few people here would have a list very much like this one.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> I'm never impressed with surveys, especially of the "greatest" this or that. These are all great works, no doubt, but is Mahler's garrulous and sprawling third really more admirable than any of several superbly wrought symphonies of Sibelius or Bruckner, or others of Beethoven? Mahler's ninth, no doubt a favorite of conductors because it's a challenge to them (if only to get through the requisite hour without keeling over from nervous exhaustion), strikes me as somewhat short of the fourth greatest symphony in existence; I doubt that it's even Mahler's best. I detect a bias in favor of "big" statements of a "serious" nature - not an unimportant factor, but easily overrated as a criterion of greatness. I suspect that few people here would have a list very much like this one.


I hadn't seen that Mahler's Third was on the list. IMO the only Mahler symphony that _might_ rate inclusion would be the Sixth. The Third would probably be about #300 on my list - if I made lists like that.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I hadn't seen that Mahler's Third was on the list. IMO the only Mahler symphony that _might_ rate inclusion would be the Sixth. The Third would probably be about #300 on my list - if I made lists like that.


Mahler 3rd in the #300 spot? Lol... What would your top 10 be then? 

Yes, the 6th is also one of the best, but is not unreasonable at all to see the 9th occupying a spot on this list.

On the 9th:

"_I believe it to be not only his last but also his greatest achievement_." - Otto Klemperer

"_It is music coming from another world, it is coming from eternity_" . - Herbert von Karajan


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Mahler 3rd in the #300 spot? Lol... What would your top 10 be then?
> 
> Yes, the 6th is also one of the best, but is not unreasonable at all to see the 9th occupying a spot on this list.
> 
> ...


I don't make lists like that. My subjunctive #300 rating was just me trying to be nice. I think it is a bad piece of music. My reaction to being stuck in a concert hall with it would be to open a vein.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't make lists like that. My subjunctive #300 rating was just me trying to be nice. I think it is a bad piece of music. My reaction to being stuck in a concert hall with it would be to open a vein.


An artery would be more effective and quicker, though the folks sitting around you might be irritated by the spray. 

Either way, you'll be finished LONG before Mahler is.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't make lists like that. My subjunctive #300 rating was just me trying to be nice. I think it is a bad piece of music. My reaction to being stuck in a concert hall with it would be to open a vein.


Come on, what's wrong with sharing your ten favorite symphonies here, don't be ashamed of your selections.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I think it is a bad piece of music. My reaction to being stuck in a concert hall with it would be to open a vein.


Truly a Mahlerian response.

It's not often appreciated that Mahler stole one of the marching themes in the first movement from a vintage TV commercial:






Mahler's work is considerably less concise, of course.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Sorry to tell you guys but if you are not able to appreciate some of Mahler's good music (his 3rd sy. for example), I assure you that is not the music's fault.


----------



## Dimace (Oct 19, 2018)

I'm very happy because I don't worry about lists. In my lists are ONLY Beethoven, Bruckner, Mahler, Tschaikowsky, Liszt, Scriabin, Hanson, Steinberg and Wallace. This makes my life easy because in the top 10 I can easily have Beethoven's 9 symphonies and only one from the other guys. Listing at its best! :lol:

*A fellow user has written something about Brahms placement in the ...famous list. I agree with him! The German is a super special composer, but, for me at least, it should be easier to have a symphony of Vaughan Williams or Charles Ives there... It isn't a matter of quality but of novelty.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

jdec said:


> Come on, what's wrong with sharing your ten favorite symphonies here, don't be ashamed of your selections.


I don't have a list of ten favorite symphonies. But If I began listing every symphony I preferred to Mahler's Third, there would be at least forty before we got out of the Classical Era. And given the thread title, I should mention the list would include seven by Tchaikovsky as well.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that few people here would have a list very much like this one.


I wonder if anyone here would have a list very much like anyone's.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

amfortas said:


> I wonder if anyone here would have a list very much like anyone's.


It's probably been tested somewhere on this forum, given all the listing/ranking fanatics hereabouts.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't have a list of ten favorite symphonies. *But If I began listing every symphony I preferred to Mahler's Third, there would be at least forty before we got out of the Classical Era.* And given the thread title, I should mention the list would include seven by Tchaikovsky as well.


I see. Well, like I said, that you consider it a "bad piece of music" is not really the music's shortcoming.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

jdec said:


> I see. Well, like I said, it's not Mahler's shortcoming.


Maybe it's Mahler's longcoming.


----------

