# Composers on another level



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Do you consider Mahler & Beethoven to be..

1. On the same level roughly, just as good as one another, or just as bad as one another.
2. Worlds apart, one being so much greater than the other, if so which and why?

The reason I haven't done a poll is because I'm more interested in your comments.


----------



## Jen L (Sep 1, 2021)

I’m intrigued why you’ve chosen Beethoven and Mahler (but imagine you’ll keep that to yourself for now)?
In my view both are great in different ways: Beethoven for his huge strides forward in the development of musical structure and harmonic language, and Mahler for his extraordinary use of orchestral colour. I guess, though, that history is more likely to remember Beethoven than Mahler?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I'd say an ocean apart. Beethoven's historical status is like Dante or Shakespeare, Mahler's is more like Henry James or Thomas Mann. Mahler is one of the greatest composers of his time, Beethoven is one of the greatest of human history.

Viewing history and genius like that has fallen out of fashion and it is of course dubious. But I don't think the contemporary supposedly more neutral or sober view, is any less dubious.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

Both composers, by the time of their respective late styles, attain a staggering command over tonal-motivic processes. Beyond that be wary of discussing which is greater than the other, for to pronounce sensibly upon the subject one would have to "see their limits".


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Be wary of discussing which is greater than the other, for to pronounce sensibly upon the subject one would have to "see their limits".


I'm not sure I understand your point, we've seen their limits.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Aaron Copland once wrote something to the effect of the difference between Beethoven and Mahler is like the difference between watching a great man walk down the street and watching a great actor playing the part of a great man walking down the street.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> I'm not sure I understand your point, we've seen their limits.


So- you have dwelled in the strange and non-Euclidean fire-worlds of Beethoven's late counterpoint! You have witnessed, from the ideas of Mahler, the lightning leap and unfurl in hidden tonal orbits- charted their courses, lived their lives! No-one has seen their limits; few that are not already great composers themselves have even the power of seeing into the motive-worlds.

P.S. Certainly not Copland, or Vaughan Williams, or any of those shallow gnats.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Isaac Blackburn said:


> So- you have dwelled in the strange and non-Euclidean fire-worlds of Beethoven's late counterpoint! You have witnessed, from the ideas of Mahler, the lightning leap and unfurl in hidden tonal orbits- charted their courses, lived their lives! No-one has seen their limits; few that are not already great composers themselves have even the power of seeing into the motive-worlds.
> 
> P.S. Certainly not Copland, or Vaughan Williams, or any of those shallow gnats.


As a shallow gnat  all I can do is listen to their music an judge.

You have judged that Mahler is better than Copland and VW, so why cant we judge between Beethoven and Mahler?

Do you place them as equals?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I think Mahler was the only post-Beet Symphonist to ever equal Beet in that front.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> You have judged that Mahler is better than Copland and VW, so why cant we judge between Beethoven and Mahler?
> 
> Do you place them as equals?


I do not know. I believe Beethoven to be in possession of a greater strength (that is, if you imagine, the _weight_ behind each note). On the other hand Mahler's _style_ is more advanced- observe how, as classical music progresses, the motives develop increasingly inward, into their own nature and potential. And both are strong far beyond the measure of their nearest foes (Wagner and Mozart and perhaps even Brahms and Bach), strong as stone.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

MarkW said:


> Aaron Copland once wrote something to the effect of the difference between Beethoven and Mahler is like the difference between watching a great man walk down the street and watching a great actor playing the part of a great man walking down the street.


What a BS quote from Copland who has had a long history of saying negative things about other composers. I know a lot of composers trash each other, but I've never agreed with it and I think, if anything, it shows that composer in a negative light.

On topic, I'm not going to make any comparisons between Beethoven and Mahler, because at the height of their powers, there's nothing like either one of them. They're both incredible in their own way. The whole of idea of pitting them against each other to find out who is better or greater has never done any composer any favors. I think time is better spent _listening_ to their music than putting the composer up on some kind of pedestal.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Neo Romanza said:


> The whole of idea of pitting them against each other to find out who is better or greater has never done any composer any favors. I think time is better spent _listening_ to their music than putting the composer up on some kind of pedestal.


Is it just these two composers you don't think should be compared? I assume there are composers who you think are not as great as these two?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

MarkW said:


> Aaron Copland once wrote something to the effect of the difference between Beethoven and Mahler is like the *difference between watching a great man walk down the street and watching a great actor playing the part of a great man walking down the street.*


Both scenarios can be equally convincing though.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Purely on personal taste, they are worlds apart. In spite of a relatively small output, I choose Mahler since he is for me far more consistent than Beethoven. If we look at favourite works, I prefer Mahler's 4th, 6th, 9th, Das Lied von der Erde, Kindertotenlieder and Ruckertlieder all over my personal best of Beethoven (his 6th). And I rate none of the published Mahler works lower than "desirable", whereas I rate plenty of Beethoven's works (including famous ones) much lower than that.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

In terms of the number of works I would really miss if their oeuvre were to disappear, Beethoven wins roughly 15 to 7, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't really miss the works I would really miss.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I view the "another level" as an artistic peak - Verdi in his middle trilogy (and arguably his late trilogy), Beethoven late, Schubert just before his death - where it seems like they're a batter on a hot streak and everything they touch is out of the park. 

Oddly enough I don't view Mahler that way - he's more someone who was just consistently very good over his career, even if I don't like all his symphonies.

To put it another way: Beethoven is Sandy Koufax, Mahler is Greg Maddux.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

I much prefer Beethoven, especially due to quantity and variety (of quality works) in his oeuvre.

But I wouldn't say Mahler is below Beethoven as a composer. Both were masters who got to find their own artistic voice and delivered some of the best (aka, my favorites) works in classical music.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I love them both, and regard them both at the top of the heap of composers....I don't express a preference for either one, it depends upon that to which I'm listening!!
For me, any list of top favorite composers, is always going to contain Beethoven and Mahler.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

fbjim said:


> I view the "another level" as an artistic peak - Verdi in his middle trilogy (and arguably his late trilogy), Beethoven late, Schubert just before his death - where it seems like they're a batter on a hot streak and everything they touch is out of the park.
> 
> Oddly enough I don't view Mahler that way - he's more someone who was just consistently very good over his career, even if I don't like all his symphonies.
> 
> *To put it another way: Beethoven is Sandy Koufax, Mahler is Greg Maddux*.


The moment I read this I thought of Bill James' superb book 'The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract' in which he presents two lists of all-time Top 100 players, one list evaluated by career value, the other by peak value. In explaining the difference between career and peak value he uses Warren Spahn (superior career value) and Sandy Koufax (superior peak value).

I know this is off-topic but I just had to comment on fbjim's post! I will delete it if requested.

P.S. Actually I rate Beethoven higher in both peak and career value. :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I prefer Mahler to Beethoven. Which is greater? Don't know and not interested.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Beethoven, because without him there may never have been a Mahler. If you've ever heard or played the end of Beethoven's Op. 111 you may hear the blueprint for the ending of Mahler's 9th and Das Lied. That's what I hear anyway.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Strictly in terms of my personal taste I think that they aren't on the same level, yet they aren't "worlds apart" also. Beethoven is my favorite musician and idol and I prefer him over Mahler, yet I must say that I hear greatness in both composers. Surely I wouldn't want to be without either.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I recall someone here once commenting that Mahler is like an extension of Beethoven, perhaps meaning that the logical extension of where Beethoven was going would have ultimately ended up something like Mahler, maybe if Beethoven had lived long enough (2 or 3 lifetimes). I have no idea but it sounded good at the time.

I like them both. I am more comfortable listening to Beethoven, but would not want to be without Mahler.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Both composers seemed partial to making 'big' musical statements that often seem somewhat auto biographical, with both often having sections in their works that are very different in character. Extreme contrasts of mood within the same work. 

Another similar trait is both composers were known for using at times very long thematic material (think first movement of Beethoven's 3rd and last movement of Mahler's 3rd).

I do see them as having similar compositional personalities. I am more impressed with Mahler's individual works, or isolated moments of works, where Beethoven showed more range, in terms of producing more works of sturdy quality in a variety of different forms.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I want to know how the f*%# RVW is a "shallow gnat"?!


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I pick 2. For me, Beethoven is much greater in terms of:
1. Mastered in more genres, including chamber music, concerti and solo piano works. More works in the repertoire.
2. Greater historical influence: seen a lot in books/papers throughout the entire 19th-20th centuries. Works have been performed more frequently in general.
3. More acclaims from professional musicians in general.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner], and after them - nobody." - Gustav Mahler.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Haydn70 said:


> The moment I read this I thought of Bill James' superb book 'The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract' in which he presents two lists of all-time Top 100 players, one list evaluated by career value, the other by peak value. In explaining the difference between career and peak value he uses Warren Spahn (superior career value) and Sandy Koufax (superior peak value).
> 
> *I know this is off-topic but I just had to comment on fbjim's post! I will delete it if requested.
> *
> P.S. Actually I rate Beethoven higher in both peak and career value. :tiphat:


NFL fans might now try to get this thread closed or at least moved to the baseball section of TC.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I think Mahler was the only post-Beet Symphonist to ever equal Beet in that front.


....not Brahms?


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

One was a great composer, and the other was an OK composer, and I actually like works by both of them.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

I like apples and I like oranges - I like apples because they taste like apples and I like oranges because they taste like oranges.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ....not Brahms?


I disagree with Wrahms there, I think a lot of post-Beet symphonists equaled Beet on that front. But no one did it quite like Beethoven, so if that style is what one likes best, then I can understand why one would think no one ever equaled Beethoven. In some areas like counterpoint and harmony I think Brahms was better. In terms of orchestral color Mahler, Sibelius, Prokofiev and Stravinsky among others are all better to my ears.

If one thinks that Beethoven's style of contrasting themes battling out and unifying in classical sonata form marks the peak of the genre, so be it. To me it is boring.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ....not Brahms?


This is a common opinion: I'd say the rather worse part of Brahms output includes his symphonies, much has been said about and against them. The better part is most of his chamber music.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> "There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner], and after them - nobody." - Gustav Mahler.


before them there is somebody, or even somebodies.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> This is a common opinion: I'd say the rather worse part of Brahms output includes his symphonies, much has been said about and against them. The better part is most of his chamber music.


Much nonsense has been said against them, including the above.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

MarkW said:


> Aaron Copland once wrote something to the effect of the difference between Beethoven and Mahler is like the difference between watching a great man walk down the street and watching a great actor playing the part of a great man walking down the street.


This quote was a bit problematic. I recall it from German language concert guides from the 1970s and 80s that had been the umpteenth editions of stuff originally published in the 1950s or sometimes even 1930s and apparently had replaced the worst antisemitic clichées against Mahler with a quote from a famous Jewish American 20th century composer that was not so far from said clichées...

I don't think Mahler was a poseur; he obviously was genuinely expressing himself. But he is rather overrated today and was a great but quite (spatiotemporally) local and limited composer. Nothing of this applies to Beethoven, who was of a different order of classicality/universality.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Haydn70 said:


> The moment I read this I thought of Bill James' superb book 'The Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract' in which he presents two lists of all-time Top 100 players, one list evaluated by career value, the other by peak value. In explaining the difference between career and peak value he uses Warren Spahn (superior career value) and Sandy Koufax (superior peak value).


When I read this and have to look up these names I never heard before, I am never sure if I should be happy that the US has retained its preference for that strange boring game or be sad that the rest of the world, namely us soccer fans have no clue what you are talking about...


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> "There are only him [Beethoven] and Richard [Wagner], and after them - nobody." - Gustav Mahler.


I think Mahler (and also Brahms and many others, not quite sure about Wagner, he was a megalomaniac after all) would have been deeply embarrassed if anyone had compared them favorably with Beethoven. They knew their relative place in history quite well and not because they were particularly modest (they weren't at all shy about their status compared to contemporaries).


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Mahler lacked just a few thousand experience points - had he lived a little longer he might have made it to a level 20 composer like Beethoven


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> When I read this and have to look up these names I never heard before, I am never sure if I should be happy that the US has retained its preference for that strange boring game or be sad that the rest of the world, namely us soccer fans have no clue what you are talking about...


Football/soccer fans must never ever point fingers and talk about "boring". :lol:


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Seriously, both were the greatest composers of their generation and Mahler had a similar influence on the 20th century as Beethoven did on the 19th

Mahler is way underrated as a contrapuntalist. The Rondo Burleske from the 9th symphony, for example, stands up to anything in the repertoire


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think Mahler (and also Brahms and many others, not quite sure about Wagner, he was a megalomaniac after all) would have been deeply embarrassed if anyone had compared them favorably with Beethoven. They knew their relative place in history quite well and not because they were particularly modest (they weren't at all shy about their status compared to contemporaries).


Wagner would have laughed at such favourable comparisons. Even though he viewed himself as the greatest composer of his times, a view that Tchaikovsky "a towering figure" and Brahms (calling himself "first among Wagnerians") more or less shared, the only one he considered to be like Beethoven (sometimes), was Bruckner.

And Mahler wasn't the greatest composer of his generation. Debussy was on another level.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

tdc said:


> If one thinks that Beethoven's style of contrasting themes battling out and unifying in classical sonata form marks the peak of the genre, so be it. To me it is boring.


That's too much of a cerebral and disingenious description of why people like Beethoven's symphonies.

It's much more about how Beethoven is able to keep forward momentum despite how much he stretches form, and how he delivers exciting climaxes, and then those beautiful slow movements. Above all else, there's also a lot of "quirkness" in Beethoven's best compositions, thus many of his symphonies feel like unique colorful characters -- something rare to achieve.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

"You have the greats: Bach of course, Mozart, Beethoven. And I think Mahler belongs in this group".

13:50...


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> And Mahler wasn't the greatest composer of his generation. Debussy was on another level.


According to whom?


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I never like when composers are called prophets, at best they were intelligent people who had an eye open.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

jdec said:


> "You have the greats: Bach of course, Mozart, Beethoven. And I think Mahler belongs in this group"


.....do you agree?


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> .....do you agree?


I do.

..............


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think Mahler (and also Brahms and many others, not quite sure about Wagner, he was a megalomaniac after all) would have been deeply embarrassed if anyone had compared them favorably with Beethoven. They knew their relative place in history quite well and not because they were particularly modest (they weren't at all shy about their status compared to contemporaries).


I'm not so sure, Brahms infatuation with Beethoven seemed to be waning in his later years, he seemed to imply that some of Beethoven's reputation had been hyped, because of the 'novelty' of it.

Brahms is not the only person to level that charge against Beethoven. It makes sense to me. It seems being 'overblown' is built into the music itself somehow with Beethoven.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

The styles are different. I even like Mahler's style a bit more probably. But Beethovens mastered his style much more than Mahler his. Beethoven is perfection in his style. Mahler has colossal ideas but is much less clean and consistent. I say Beethoven is on a higher level.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

tdc said:


> I'm not so sure, Brahms infatuation with Beethoven seemed to be waning in his later years, he seemed to imply that some of Beethoven's reputation had been hyped, because of the 'novelty' of it.
> 
> Brahms is not the only person to level that charge against Beethoven. It makes sense to me. It seems being 'overblown' is built into the music itself somehow with Beethoven.


From the quotes I've read of Brahms' in regards to Beethoven, what you're mentioning is a misunderstanding based on Brahms' opinions exclusively on Beethoven's 1st Symphony and 3rd Piano Concerto compared to, respectivelly, Mozart's last three symphonies and his 20th Piano Concerto. Brahms considered these Mozart's pieces to be superior... and that's not an unpopular opinion. Another thing Brahms claimed was that Mozart's -- and especially Bach's -- use of _true dissonance_ was better than Beethoven's... which is more controversial, perhaps, because of the Grosse Fugue and some other late pieces (but I'd agree that Bach was the king).

However, those specific points don't reflect Brahms' overall opinion on Beethoven, who Brahms still had on the highest esteem due to his greatest masterpieces like the _Rasumovsky Quartets_ and later symphonies (from the 2nd onwards).


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

tdc said:


> I'm not so sure, Brahms infatuation with Beethoven seemed to be waning in his later years, he seemed to imply that some of Beethoven's reputation had been hyped, because of the 'novelty' of it.


This is just plain wrong. Brahms had Beethoven in high regard until the end. Perhaps you may want to read him praising the composer of Bonn in the very interesting book "Talks With Great Composers", that has a transcription of a conversation between him, his friend Joseph Joachim and a certain Arthur M. Abell in 1896, just a few months before his (Brahms') death. Here is the *link* to it.

Some of Brahms' own words:

"Beethoven has always been my guiding star. The few words, of which we have records as to how he was inspired by the Creator Himself, have been of incalculable aid to me. Bach and Mozart are great sources of inspiration too, but Beethoven is more universal in his appeal to humanity.

(...)

Beethoven made other similar declarations, (...) notably to Bettina von Arnim in 1810; to that remarkable woman, he confessed that he was concious of being closer to his Creator than other composers were, declaring: 'I know that God is nearer to me than others of my craft; I consort with Him without fear.'

That is a remarkable assertion from the greatest of all composers..."


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Do you consider Mahler & Beethoven to be..
> just as bad as one another.


Yes, I consider the music by both of them to be avoided. They can be on whichever level - as long that level is far away from me.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

jdec said:


> According to whom?


I don't know, some days I overrate Mahler other days I underrate him. But one thing's for sure his music is very understated and advanced.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I enjoy Beethoven more, and obviously Beethoven has a bigger historical footprint.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Xisten267 said:


> This is just plain wrong. Brahms had Beethoven in high regard until the end. Perhaps you may want to read him praising the composer of Bonn in the very interesting book "Talks With Great Composers", that has a transcription of a conversation between him, his friend Joseph Joachim and a certain Arthur M. Abell in 1896, just a few months before his (Brahms') death. Here is the *link* to it.
> 
> Some of Brahms' own words:
> 
> ...


That is interesting, thanks for posting it. I don't share Brahms opinion, but I respect it and I wasn't aware of these comments.

All this said I don't consider Beethoven's music poor, and many of Beethoven's ideas and words I agree with. I would personally place Beethoven in a top ten list of composers. But for some reason his music doesn't sound as impressive to me as others hear it, and when I hear musicians (such as Bernstein, who loved Beethoven) openly admitting Beethoven wasn't the greatest harmonist or contrapuntist that basically he struggled with everything other than form, it seems to me further evidence that Beethoven objectively was not the greatest composer.

I don't have a problem with people admiring or loving Beethoven's music, but attitudes I often come across that Beethoven is on some exalted level far above other composers (or even the claim he along with Bach and Mozart are on this exalted level) to me feels so wrong. It feels objectively wrong. It seems I cannot be convinced otherwise.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

What is your Top 10? Ravel to me understood form and space the most out of any.


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

tdc said:


> That is interesting, thanks for posting it. I don't share Brahms opinion, but I respect it and I wasn't aware of these comments.
> 
> All this said I don't consider Beethoven's music poor, and many of Beethoven's ideas and words I agree with. I would personally place Beethoven in a top ten list of composers. But for some reason his music doesn't sound as impressive to me as others hear it, and when I hear musicians (such as Bernstein, who loved Beethoven) openly admitting Beethoven wasn't the greatest harmonist or contrapuntist that basically he struggled with everything other than form, it seems to me further evidence that Beethoven objectively was not the greatest composer.
> 
> I don't have a problem with people admiring or loving Beethoven's music, but attitudes I often come across that Beethoven is on some exalted level far above other composers (or even the claim he along with Bach and Mozart are on this exalted level) to me feels so wrong. It feels objectively wrong. It seems I cannot be convinced otherwise.


I understand that you're not as passionate about Beethoven as many others -- and you shouldn't be if that's how you feel. In fact, you don't have to be convinced of anything because there's nothing inexorably objective about art.

That said, if you allow me this advice, you shouldn't seek approval to your feeling from the wrong sources -- like how you believed that Brahms got tired of Beethoven when he got older. And now you're citing Bernstein to sell your point. Well, I can tell you that Bernstein loved to be theatrical and to play with his listeners in order to create an engaging story, even if he needed to distort some parts for greater effect... and I'm pretty sure that he was being facetious whenever he said Beethoven wasn't the greatest harmonist or contrapuntist or melodist or whatever... _because you'll also see Bernstein saying the opposite elsewhere_ -- saying that Beethoven had great tunes and great counterpoint and great harmony, etc. That's Bernstein! And I know that because I went through _many_ of his lectures.

You're right that Beethoven has an invincible _Myth_ around him, so it's arguable that the _Legend_ is bigger than the _Man_ -- but most people are earnest about their feelings. Beethoven just knew how to sway hearts, and it happens that many of his biggest fans were among the greatest composers and performers ever, so it's impossible to dodge Beethoven if you're into classical music. But you don't need to be annoyed by it. People are just stating their feelings, which you don't need to agree with.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> Here is the *link* to it.
> Some of Brahms' own words:
> That is a remarkable assertion from the greatest of all composers..."


I actually went into the link and read the section of the book, but the use of quotations is confusing and it's unclear which are things said by Brahms and things said by the author;
[ That is a remarkable asseration from the greatest of all composers, and it corroborates what that God-intoxicated Nazarene said in John 14:10:
"'Not I, the Father that dwelleth within me, He doeth the works.' Jesus proclaimed a great truth when he said that, and when I am at my best while composing I too feel that a higher power is working through me."
It is interesting to note that those words of Beethoven, spoken 145 years ago, are still quoted. For instance, Ernest Newman, England's leading musicologist, cites them in an article on Beethoven that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly of March, 1953. ]

Did Brahms really talk like this?


----------



## Livly_Station (Jan 8, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> Did Brahms really talk like this?


Well... there was no tape recorder, so I guess the author was writing from memory, probably slightly changing the phrasing and condensing the dialogue in general. Besides, it's a translation, so more alterations...


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Beethoven is much greater than Mahler. That's not to say that Beethoven is better than Mahler in all areas. Mahler is one of the best orchestraters and lieder composers. They are also on the same tier, in symphonies.

However, Beethoven not only composed more works in more genres, his late piano sonatas and late string quartets are the most sublime works of music ever created, IMO.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> ....not Brahms?


I prefer Schubert 9, Bruckner 7-9, and Tch 6 over Brahms' symphonies. Several by Mahler and Beethoven are better than his.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Livly_Station said:


> That's too much of a cerebral and disingenious description of why people like Beethoven's symphonies.
> 
> It's much more about how Beethoven is able to keep forward momentum despite how much he stretches form, and how he delivers exciting climaxes, and then those beautiful slow movements. Above all else, there's also a lot of "quirkness" in Beethoven's best compositions, thus many of his symphonies feel like unique colorful characters -- something rare to achieve.


Heck, even his three Razumovskies have different personalities.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

We were being asked whether they are both "on the same level" - which I think they were (along with a precious few others) - and then how we might compare them, which is a question that I cannot properly answer, not even to myself. Some of us might have a preference for one or the other and might even feel we have a reason for that. But the historical context - the roles of composers within society and their opportunities - make those judgments very personal. Of course, Beethoven composed great music in a great variety of genres and a comparison between them can either focus on the gap (all the things that Beethoven could do that Mahler could not or did not) or on their achievement as symphonists. As symphonists they seem to me to be on a par with each other in very different ways. 

It comes down to how much it matters to you that Mahler did not write, say, a series of great piano sonatas or string quartets. And how much slack we cut him for being busy being one of the great conductors of his generation. Whatever, Mahler was one of the greatest symphonists ever and on the same level as Mozart, Beethoven and Brahms before him in this endeavour.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

Of all the greatest composers lists I've seen I don't remember ever seeing Mahler in the top ten and Beethoven is most of the time first or second. Not that this means anything definitive, but its people making these lists and this seems to be the general consensus.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Of all the greatest composers lists I've seen I don't remember ever seeing Mahler in the top ten and Beethoven is most of the time first or second. Not that this means anything definitive, but its people making these lists and this seems to be the general consensus.


In the most recent TC effort (2019, link), based on the personal top 30 composers of 56 TC members, Beethoven came in 1st and Mahler 4th.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Of all the greatest composers lists I've seen I don't remember ever seeing Mahler in the top ten and Beethoven is most of the time first or second. Not that this means anything definitive, but its people making these lists and this seems to be the general consensus.


Mahler is of course harder work than Beethoven. There may be many voting in those polls who haven't yet mastered Mahler but all will be well acquainted with Beethoven or they probably wouldn't be here.


----------



## whispering (Oct 26, 2013)

Dear All

Please forgive what might be a foolish comment but here goes. There are clearly many members of this forum with much greater knowledge of classical music than I will ever have. From a human plain John point of view I would make two observations.

1) History moves on, instruments change, tastes develop over periods of time, historical context needs to be remembered. I suggest it is unwise to judge one composer against another. Both Beethoven and Mahler are worthy of great merit. I suggest each individual commenting here may well change their views over the passage of more years. Surely it is not important what rank composers are placed in by individuals, but the pleasure they bring to us. I love Beethoven’s music, but also Mozart and Schubert. I rejoice in hearing all three, with no desire to list them in terms of who is greater than who. Ultimately what of true value is gained in doing so.
2) I know far less about classical music than other members on this forum, but you know what part of me secretly rechoices in a perverse way. You see I have not yet heard Bruckner's symphonies, Borodin remain a present I have not yet opened, etc. Can you remember when you first moved through such musical treats for the first time. Those pure pleasures still await me. As I do so I will just enjoy the music, avoid listings which will no doubt change over time in my mind even if I did so. Opinions make the world go round at one level, but it’s the music which captivates.

This is a great forum. I just sometimes find the need to list things a little baffling. Where I find this forum is at its best is when a thread talks about a rather unknown composer and opens up new possibilities to me and others. Others have answered my queries very generously letting me draw on their knowledge and kindly making recording recommendations. I am very grateful for all that help. I humbly suggest that is the great strength of this forum, people exchanging information and experience of classical music.

Best wishes from a relative novice.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I actually went into the link and read the section of the book, but the use of quotations is confusing and it's unclear which are things said by Brahms and things said by the author;
> [ That is a remarkable asseration from the greatest of all composers, and it corroborates what that God-intoxicated Nazarene said in John 14:10:
> "'Not I, the Father that dwelleth within me, He doeth the works.' Jesus proclaimed a great truth when he said that, and when I am at my best while composing I too feel that a higher power is working through me."
> It is interesting to note that those words of Beethoven, spoken 145 years ago, are still quoted. For instance, Ernest Newman, England's leading musicologist, cites them in an article on Beethoven that appeared in The Atlantic Monthly of March, 1953. ]
> ...


I agree that the use of quotation marks in the book is confusing. The portion you quoted and I marked in purple above is clearly by it's author, not by Brahms. What comes before seems to be by the composer though.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

whispering said:


> Dear All
> 
> Please forgive what might be a foolish comment but here goes. There are clearly many members of this forum with much greater knowledge of classical music than I will ever have. From a human plain John point of view I would make two observations.
> 
> ...


Nicely said. I agree with a lot of what you said. The only thing I would say is that it is true that some composers are greater than other composers. There's nothing wrong with that. A lot of the time it is obvious and no one has a problem with it. Dvorak for example, who I like a lot, wouldn't be in the same league as some other composers. I think its ok to recognise varying degrees of talent. Someone like Mahler is very popular but I wouldn't say hes been put in the top tier of composers by a lot of people so I wanted to see what the TC gang thought.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Wilhelm Theophilus said:


> Of all the greatest composers lists I've seen I don't remember ever seeing Mahler in the top ten and Beethoven is most of the time first or second. Not that this means anything definitive, but its people making these lists and this seems to be the general consensus.


I put Mahler in my top 10. In a consensus list, he may even crack the top 15.


----------

