# Comparing Beethoven to Mahler



## IAmKing

Hello all,

I'm currently working towards my IB (International Baccalaureate) diploma, and as a part of which I need to write what is called an Extended Essay. The Extended Essay is a lengthy research essay on a topic of my choice. 

One of the possible topics I've come up with is comparing the Symphonies of Beethoven to the music of Mahler, the biggest trouble at the moment being that I am really rather unfamiliar with both. I've heard most of Beethoven's symphonies, but have only listened to his 5th Symphony in depth. Mahler, on the other hand, I've only heard his 3rd and 5th Symphonies, but I've studied his 3rd Symphony for quite some time and have a brilliant CD which includes Benjamin Zander talking about each movement. 

So I have a few questions that I hope someone with a larger knowledge of the music of these two composers will be able to help me with.

1. Is this comparison worthy of a 4000 word essay? The idea came to me when I read that Mahler considered his music to have real progression, and that he thought the only other composers who had real progression within their music were Wagner and Beethoven. So I'm not even sure whether there is enough to compare between the two.

2. If I were to choose 2 symphonies for each composer in addition to Mahlers 3rd and Beethoven's 5th so as to narrow the scope of my essay, which symphonies would you recommend?

Thanks!

King.


----------



## linz

Of course comparing them is worth 4000 words! First of all Mahler believed he would one day be perfomed as often as Beethoven, which turned out prophetic. Mahler 2nd 'The Ressurection' is typically thought of as his most famous symphony and his first great success. His 8th symphony influenced the German writer Thomas Mann and was a smashing success at its premiere in Munich. Anton Bruckner should probably be mention in your essay as linking symphonic development from Beethoven to Mahler. Bruckner and Mahler were both very influenced by the harmonies of Wagner. Mahler was influenced as a child by Marching bands and folk music, (perhaps Jewish folk music). In Mahler's 9th we see an increase in Atonality and extreme 'Chromatism'. Mahler was a supporter of Arnold Schoenberg, Alban Berg, and Anton Webern, (The Second Vienna School). Alban Berg was highly influenced by Gustav Mahler.


----------



## Hexameron

1. I share linz's enthusiasm: this kind of comparison is both feasible and worthy. You can find countless sources on comparisons, criticisms, and analysis of Mahler's symphonies and how he progressed the entire symphony as a form better than anyone else in his time.

2. This is a tough one... For Beethoven I would first *listen* to these and pick one in addition to the fifth: 3rd, 6th, 7th or 9th. Here's my suggestion - With Mahler, you could choose Symphony No. 2 to compare with Beethoven's 9th as they both have choral parts, which could be used as a springboard for comparison.

Some further comments - A comparison sounds like a fine topic for an essay but it seems like your unfamiliarity with all of Beethoven's and Mahler's symphonies might prove to be a handicap. If you're going to write on such a matter, I think it would help to hear all of these symphonies at least once. And when you say, "comparison," do you mean the fundamental compare/contrast essay, or something more abstract? You can chose from a vast array of theses: How did both Mahler and Beethoven push the symphony further than anyone else in their time? What does the spiritual/emotional content of each symphony have in common; ie. Beethoven's 5th wrestling with fate and triumphant in the end as opposed to one of Mahler's? What patterns do both symphonists use in their symphonies with the bricks and mortar as far as tonality, rhythm, melody, texture, and harmony etc..?

Well, I can't give you my own personal opinions of each of Mahler's symphonies because I uh *cough* haven't heard them all (too busy with Brahms and Mendelssohn atm) but I can at least declare you have plenty of resource material. Bruno Walter would be the ultimate reference for Mahler (he arranged some of Mahler's symphonies for piano and he has some authority in analyzing those symphonies very deeply). For Beethoven, just search "beethoven symphonies" in the Book category of Amazon and you'll find many "companions," and study material.


----------



## Topaz

*IAmKing:* My advice is not to compare Beethoven with Mahler, but to take a much more general swipe at this in terms of the "Development of the Symphony" from Haydn through to Sibelius or possibly Shostakovich. This is a much more interesting story, and one very much easier to write about given the body of literature that exists.

There's tons of stuff to crib from on Wikipedia alone. Also, if you click on the link in Kurkikohtaus's posts (here) this will take you to the "Sibelius forum" of which he is the Administrator. There is a discussion of the development of the symphony on there, although I haven't looked at it.

If you merely compare Beethoven with Mahler you would be making things difficult for yourself. First, you would be missing out on the opportunity to explain how Mozart improved upon the basic Haydn model, and how Beethoven made a very significant step forward with the "Eroica" (No 3). Second, you might give the reader (and yourself) the wrong impression that there was nothing much in between Beethoven and Mahler, or after Mahler.

Although I very much like some Mahler, I think you would making a big mistake to suggest that he is the next best symphonist after Beethoven. I would very much disagree with such a view, as too would many others. I think there are better (or as good) symphonists both before and after Mahler. Among earlier composers, Schumann, Brahms, Tchaikovsky are better in my view. Some would say Bruckner was better too. As for later composers, in my view Sibelius was better, and some would say Shostakovich (even later) was better still, although I find much of the latter's symphonic output lack lustre, too long, too varied or cacophonous (film music).

Finally, you ought at least to have heard a few of these symphonies!!!

Try:

Haydn S 45
Mozart S 41
Beethoven S 1, S 3, S 5
Schumann S 3
Bruckner S 4
Brahms S 3
Tchaikovsky S 6
Mahler S 1, 2, 5
Sibelius S 5
Shostakovich S 5

This lot say it all (to all intents and purposes). You'll see the development.

Topaz


----------



## IAmKing

Linz and Hexameron: Thanks so much! Great posts. Lots of points that I can look into with regards to research. Also, Hexameron, yes, the topic is very much open to being refined and/or reduced to provide something a little more specific.

Topaz: Thanks also. However, I was not at all indicating that Beethoven and Mahler were all one needs to consider with regards to the symphony. While the topic you suggested would probably be easier with regards to FINDING sources, and probably be more interesting, it would also be far too broad a topic to justify with merely 4000 words. 

Thanks all of you for your replies. Can't say I was expecting anything that constructive


----------



## Tapkaara

This is an old discussion, but I could not resist.

Linking Mahler directly to Beethoven is a hard one for me. Don't get me wrong, I like Mahler, but Mahler did not do as much as Sibelius did to take symphonic form and move forward with it. Sibelius, in my most humble and human opinion, is a much better "link" to the Beethoven legacy.

This is always such an interesting (and sometimes heated) discussion and Sibelius and Mahler were, in a sense, arch rivals who had very different views on the substance of a symphony. (Insert quote about their famous discussion here.)

Mahler's symphonies play better on a viceral, emotional level, more than Sibelius. But on a substantive, structural level, Sibelius has him beat. The "organic" growth of Sibbe's material and the concision of his idiom certainly cannot be compared to Mahler's structures, which, perhaps, collapse undert their own sprawling weight.

Sibelius once remarked that "every note should live" within a work. Does every note really live in Mahler? I'm not sure. I think Mahler could have cut off a lot of excess from his symphonies and they wouldn't lose any power or impact. Perhaps, they would gain some.

Please everyone, I am down putting Mahler down. I enjoy Mahler immensley. But as a true link to the structure and innovations of Beethoven...I think it's a dubious statement at best.


----------



## purple99

IAmKing said:


> Is this comparison worthy of a 4000 word essay?


Should that read '40,000'?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Finally, you ought at least to have heard a few of these symphonies!!!


Surely, he should listen to all the Mahler and Beethoven symphonies? And also listen to any relative works (With Mahler that would mean his entire opus), with Beethoven dunno, probably his early sketches of the Ode to Joy etc.


----------



## Lang

I think it is an interesting subject, but I think you should have a great knowledge of the two composers before attempting it.

To me the essential difference between the composers is that despite what he said, there was no significant progression in the musical language of Mahler, apart from the fact that his later music became more complex. Beethoven, however, developed both a new musical aesthetic (subjective rather than objective) and also a whole new musical language which started in the classical period and went through to the late romantic in his later works.


----------



## shsherm

Mahler was the end product of Germanic symphonic music and bridged the music of the 
19th and 20th century. Beethoven or perhaps late Mozart began this evolution and Mahler completed it. Not everyone can appreciate the music of Mahler but pity those who do not. They are missing the end product of symphonic music development. The first time I heard the music of Mahler was when I took a course in music appreciation in college in 1961. I instantly realized that he had written among the greatest music ever composed.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Beethoven or perhaps late Mozart began this evolution and Mahler completed it. Not everyone can appreciate the music of Mahler but pity those who do not. They are missing the end product of symphonic music development. The first time I heard the music of Mahler was when I took a course in music appreciation in college in 1961. I instantly realized that he had written among the greatest music ever composed.


I believe late Mozart began the "tradition". His music started getting very emotional and grand.

It could be argued that although (obviously) influenced strongly by Russian music, Shostakovich took the German tradition even further. It is well known how his symphonies are influenced by Mahler.


----------



## David C Coleman

I love both composers, I probably can't add anything that hasn't already been said here except they were both revolutionary in their own way. Mahler influenced twentieth century thinking in music as Beethoven did to nineteenth. They were seperated, roughly by a complete century. Mahler, I would say brought the Romantic Symphonic form to a pinnacle, being influenced greatly by Beethoven's Ninth....


----------



## Zombo

ah I remember the EE, I did my own 5 years ago I think on spywares.

You don't have to worry too much about the length. Usually people think it's a lot, then they start writing and they realize they have too much most of the time.

How much effort you put on it will depend largely on your supervisor I think. Mine mostly had a laissez-faire attitude so I wrote what I want very quickly.

Also you can pick your own topic, so maybe you should pick something you're more knowledgable about? Unless you're willing to put the effort to know these two composers.


----------



## World Violist

Yagan Kiely said:


> It could be argued that although (obviously) influenced strongly by Russian music, Shostakovich took the German tradition even further. It is well known how his symphonies are influenced by Mahler.


I was very tempted to mention Shostakovich actually. His symphonies, I think, are the continuation, as you suggest, of the expressionistic symphonists (from late Mozart/Beethoven through to Schumann and then Mahler), and he takes it in an entirely different direction as well. As Vladimir Ashkenazy once said in an interview, the Shostakovich symphonies are not at all self-pitying, like some of Mahler; rather, they are hardened, more determined. And yet still, like Beethoven, Shostakovich wrote much of his most expressive work in the string quartets.


----------



## aaroncopland

I honestly think it would be more productive to compare Schubert and Mahler. Mahler edited and arranged many of his pieces and drew a lot of inspiration from his music versus he feared comparison to Bethoveen, especially with his 2nd symphony.


----------



## Andreas

Whenever I listen to Mendelssohn's second symphony, I always feel that of all pre-Mahler symphonies, it sounds the most mahlerian. Nothing Beethoven ever wrote seems as related.

One thing Beethoven and Mahler have in common is that they both mark spectral ends of what one generally thinks of as the main era of classical music. That is, if modern (as in post-absolutist), secular classical begins with Mozart and ends with Schoenberg.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Andreas said:


> Whenever I listen to Mendelssohn's second symphony, I always feel that of all pre-Mahler symphonies, it sounds the most mahlerian. Nothing Beethoven ever wrote seems as related.
> 
> *One thing Beethoven and Mahler have in common is that they both mark spectral ends of what one generally thinks of as the main era of classical music*. That is, if modern (as in post-absolutist), secular classical begins with Mozart and ends with Schoenberg.


Interesting observation. These two generally bracket my area of listening, with the exception of occasional older works especially Handel's Messiah.

I just got into Mahler and did not pick up any connection with Mendelssohn's second symphony. I'll have to give it another listen.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Beethoven's drawing on the sounds of nature and folk melody, particularly in his "Pastoral" symphony, has synergies with Mahler. Both composers wove biographical themes into their symphonies - e.g. Beethoven's gastric problems reflected in his 2nd symphony, Mahler's cardiac condition portrayed in his 9th; Beethoven's struggles against the world in his 3rd and 5th symphonies, Mahler as the tormented hero of the 6th and (unfinished) 10th. There are arguable formal parallels: neither composer adhered rigidly to the 4-movement symphonic form; both used voices and choruses in their symphonic works; both incorporated funeral march rhythms into their symphonies (Beethoven 3 [and 7?], Mahler 1, 2, 3, 5, perhaps 10)

I'm sure there are other potential parallels.


----------



## Mahlerian

Florestan said:


> Interesting observation. These two generally bracket my area of listening, with the exception of occasional older works especially Handel's Messiah.
> 
> I just got into Mahler and did not pick up any connection with Mendelssohn's second symphony. I'll have to give it another listen.


I don't consider Mendelssohn's second particularly Mahler-like, personally. Better precursors are Bruckner's symphonies (much as Mahler came to dislike many things about them), Schumann's symphonies, and Beethoven's, particularly the Third, Fifth, and especially the Ninth.


----------



## bz3

Mahlerian said:


> I don't consider Mendelssohn's second particularly Mahler-like, personally. Better precursors are Bruckner's symphonies (much as Mahler came to dislike many things about them), Schumann's symphonies, and Beethoven's, particularly the Third, Fifth, and especially the Ninth.


I'll direct some general Mahler bio questions I have on this topic at you since you're clearly very learned on the subject.

First, what did Mahler come to dislike (in general) about Bruckner's symphonies?

Second, do you think the similarity between the opening themes of the third movement of Bruckner's 9th and fourth movement of Mahler's 9th is a coincidence, overt homage, or something in between? I love both those symphonies deeply and I think it's very interesting how they do different things with that theme in each of those movements.


----------



## Mahlerian

bz3 said:


> I'll direct some general Mahler bio questions I have on this topic at you since you're clearly very learned on the subject.
> 
> First, what did Mahler come to dislike (in general) about Bruckner's symphonies?


The problem he had with Bruckner, and a number of other Romantic composers, including Brahms and Schubert, was that he considered their development mere note-spinning without the forward motion of a Beethoven or a Wagner, whom he believed to be the true masters of the 19th century.

A note must be made that he continued to occasionally conduct Bruckner's works, if not particularly often, and he had had a great deal of enthusiasm for them early on in life. In that connection, we can note his sticking around for the end of the Third, even though the audience was leaving in droves and the performance was a disaster, and his effusive praise of the Te Deum. He did continue to admire Bruckner's themes, with their noble and forthright character.

Probably the most Brucknerian movement in his entire oeuvre is the scherzo of the First:






It's worth noting how _different_ it is from any of Mahler's later scherzos. It has a repeat of the opening section (not taken in the above video) and a very clear ABA'CDA'' structure. Mahler's later scherzos featured longer development and compound structures with multiple trio sections, whereas this one is very traditional in outline. It's only the foreshortening of the repeat which differentiates it significantly from a Bruckner scherzo in form, although Mahler may have even picked that up from the first published version of Bruckner's Fourth.



bz3 said:


> Second, do you think the similarity between the opening themes of the third movement of Bruckner's 9th and fourth movement of Mahler's 9th is a coincidence, overt homage, or something in between? I love both those symphonies deeply and I think it's very interesting how they do different things with that theme in each of those movements.


In short, I don't know, and don't think we can know.

It is a very close similarity, for sure. He had certainly heard Bruckner's Ninth, and although his stated opinion on it was not especially favorable, that part could have stuck with him either consciously or unconsciously. There are more exact quotes of previous composers in Mahler's works, like Liszt's Piano Concerto (forget which one) in the first movement of the Sixth, or Wagner's Meistersinger in the finale of the Seventh, and both of these were definitely conscious borrowings.


----------



## R3PL4Y

I am doing a very similar topic for my extended essay this summer, except I am comparing Bruckner and Beethoven instead of Mahler and Beethoven.


----------



## Oliver

​​​​​​​​​​Let it rest.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Mahlerian said:


> The problem he had with Bruckner, and a number of other Romantic composers, including Brahms and Schubert, was that he considered their development mere note-spinning without the forward motion of a Beethoven or a Wagner, whom he believed to be the true masters of the 19th century.
> 
> A note must be made that he continued to occasionally conduct Bruckner's works, if not particularly often, and he had had a great deal of enthusiasm for them early on in life. In that connection, we can note his sticking around for the end of the Third, even though the audience was leaving in droves and the performance was a disaster, and his effusive praise of the Te Deum. He did continue to admire Bruckner's themes, with their noble and forthright character.
> 
> Probably the most Brucknerian movement in his entire oeuvre is the scherzo of the First:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth noting how _different_ it is from any of Mahler's later scherzos. It has a repeat of the opening section (not taken in the above video) and a very clear ABA'CDA'' structure. Mahler's later scherzos featured longer development and compound structures with multiple trio sections, whereas this one is very traditional in outline. It's only the foreshortening of the repeat which differentiates it significantly from a Bruckner scherzo in form, although Mahler may have even picked that up from the first published version of Bruckner's Fourth.
> 
> In short, I don't know, and don't think we can know.
> 
> It is a very close similarity, for sure. He had certainly heard Bruckner's Ninth, and although his stated opinion on it was not especially favorable, that part could have stuck with him either consciously or unconsciously. There are more exact quotes of previous composers in Mahler's works, like Liszt's Piano Concerto (forget which one) in the first movement of the Sixth, or Wagner's Meistersinger in the finale of the Seventh, and both of these were definitely conscious borrowings.


You are going to get me into Bruckner yet. I was actually toying with Bruckner symphonies before I decided to skip them and look elsewhere and ended up with Mahler. I got the impression that Bruckner was going to sit with me as did Brahms--nice but not quite what I wanted, but really I should listen to a couple Bruckner symphonies before I write it off.


----------



## Mahlerian

Florestan said:


> You are going to get me into Bruckner yet. I was actually toying with Bruckner symphonies before I decided to skip them and look elsewhere and ended up with Mahler. I got the impression that Bruckner was going to sit with me as did Brahms--nice but not quite what I wanted, but really I should listen to a couple Bruckner symphonies before I write it off.


I would say with Bruckner it's best to start at the end of the cycle and then work your way back. Not everyone agrees where the great works begin (I say with the first version of No. 3), but pretty much all agree that Bruckner improved as he continued to write (he was the definition of a late bloomer as an artist).


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Second, do you think the similarity between the opening themes of the third movement of Bruckner's 9th and fourth movement of Mahler's 9th is a coincidence, overt homage, or something in between?


That reaching, yearning, octave-spanning motif in the strings may descend from Weber's _Der Freischutz_ overture, occurs in Wagner's _Faust Overture_, and is heard again in the "Adagio" of Mahler's 10th. I doubt there's any intentional imitation in any of these cases.


----------



## Pugg

Oliver said:


> Let it rest.


You are right , Beethoven and Mahler, it's both delicious fruit but different taste.


----------



## MrRayHairWeave

May the fifth be with you!


----------



## MrRayHairWeave

I'm going to this concert in Barcelona:
http://www.palaumusica.cat/en/beethoven-and-mahler-fifth-duel_396132

PROGRAM

Beethoven: Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67
Mahler: Symphony no. 5 in C minor

Question: I see Mahler's variously referred to as in C# minor and C minor. Which is it?


----------



## Heck148

MrRayHairWeave said:


> I'm going to this concert in Barcelona:
> http://www.palaumusica.cat/en/beethoven-and-mahler-fifth-duel_396132
> 
> PROGRAM
> 
> Beethoven: Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67
> Mahler: Symphony no. 5 in C minor
> 
> Question: I see Mahler's variously referred to as in C# minor and C minor. Which is it?


Mahler #5 = c# minor


----------



## Pugg

MrRayHairWeave said:


> I'm going to this concert in Barcelona:
> http://www.palaumusica.cat/en/beethoven-and-mahler-fifth-duel_396132
> 
> PROGRAM
> 
> Beethoven: Symphony no. 5 in C minor, op. 67
> Mahler: Symphony no. 5 in C minor
> 
> Question: I see Mahler's variously referred to as in C# minor and C minor. Which is it?


Have fun and do enjoy.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Wow, what's with this Mahler craze lately?


----------



## MarkW

From "Copland on Music" (1941) 

"The difference between Beethoven and Mahler is the difference between watching a great man walk down the street and watching a great actor act the part of a great man walking down the street. Those who dislike Mahler do not enjoy play-acting. One wishes they had the wit to see the fact and not continue to explain that Mahler was no Beethoven."


----------



## Art Rock

It's no comparison. One is probably the greatest symphonies composer of all time, the other was born in Bonn.


----------



## PeterAccettola

Quite a task you have embarked upon ....
My choice for Beethoven would be his 9th symphony. It has in some ways all of his great qualities; nobility, strength, optimism, tenderness and some sense of a spiritual connection, to name but a few.
For Mahler I would choose, what in many ways is my favorite, his 5th. 
Both are without a doubt great composers by any definition, but very different. They are both men of their time, and also artists who transcend their time in very special ways.
I am not particularly fond of comparing composers or great painters in any qualitative sense. Each must be take on his or her own terms.
But looking and listening to them side by side can be very illuminating, as long as you keep certain judgments out of the way.
I hope this offers some help.
Best of luck ...
But 

For me, Mahler puts the entire universe into his symphonies; including all the heart breaking human emotions as well as musings about the nature of existence. He is so great.


----------



## Gargamel

PeterAccettola said:


> For me, Mahler puts the entire universe into his symphonies; including all the heart breaking human emotions as well as musings about the nature of existence. He is so great.


Maybe you were trying to be poetic, but I favor a more analytic approach. Think of a monolithic dickensian adventure novel versus a historical novel. In the adventure novel, everything that happens is more or less developed from the original scheme of the novel. In a historical novel, you might want to drop in real historical events and characters, which will be developed, but they're not necessarily reductible to the original scheme of the novel, and they do not define the texture of the plot. They only have connecting points to the main plot, sort of like Mahler's integration of popular songs and foreign elements into his musical texture. If Beethoven found a popular song that he liked, it would delineate his entire work, no?


----------



## Fabulin

like a giant marble statue vs a giant inflated duck :devil:

imperial purple vs a purple face because of trying to inflate said duck


----------



## Parley

Why compare them? They are completely different and complementary


----------



## EdwardBast

Parley said:


> Why compare them? They are completely different and complementary


The factual answer seems to be: Because someone no one's heard from in fifteen years had to write a paper about it.  In any case, it's a little weird phrasing the title as "comparing Beethoven to Mahler," since the order of the names would usually be determined by historical precedence.


----------



## neofite

_It's no comparison. One is probably the greatest symphonies composer of all time, the other was born in Bonn._

I agree. There is no comparison, So the answer to question 1. (_ Is this comparison worthy of a 4000 word essay?_) is clearly *No*.

I don't know much about music history, but wasn't the greatest composer (including of symphonies) born in Bonn?


----------



## Bulldog

Fabulin said:


> like a giant marble statue vs a giant inflated duck :devil:


I don't appreciate a great composer like Beethoven being referred to as an inflated duck.


----------



## Manxfeeder

EdwardBast said:


> The factual answer seems to be: Because someone no one's heard from in fifteen years had to write a paper about it.


Wow, so many questions. Did they write the paper? Did they graduate? Are they now chained into a dead-end job that sucks the life out of them? Are they still comparing Beethoven to Mahler or are they reduced to comparing apples to oranges? Or was that the original point of the paper?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Beethoven: the greatest symphonist ever.
Mahler: a great symphonist among several peers.


----------



## AlexD

I think it is a good topic. 

I think comparing all the symphonies will be too much for a 4,000 word essay.

10% for an introduction
10% for a conclusion

leaves you with 3,200 words - 2 symphonies is 1,600 words on each, 4 - 800 words on each.


I would suggest maybe getting an overiew - are there any thematic links between specific symphonies that would allow you to make a comparison? (For example - romanticism). An alternative might be to look at the first and last (complete) symphonies and compare how the two composers developed. You might also want to conside technical developments too - Mahler had a bigger tool box than Beethoven, so what could he do that Beethoven couldn't? Also, what did Mahler learn from Beethoven?


----------



## Kreisler jr

The most (only?) instructive comparison would probably Beethoven's 9th and Mahler's 2nd as this is the case where Mahler directly took a Beethovenian model.


----------



## Symphonic

Kreisler jr said:


> The most (only?) instructive comparison would probably Beethoven's 9th and Mahler's 2nd as this is the case where Mahler directly took a Beethovenian model.


Yes, a good essay would select Beethoven's 9th and Mahler's 2nd and compare them. Even better would be a more specific point of comparison. E.g. the approach to vocal forces in the works. Or, an comparison of structure. The key is specificity, rather than broad generalisation.


----------



## Bwv 1080

I think the apt comparison would be how Clockwork Orange would have been different had Alex been a Mahler fan, maybe

_Oh melancholy! melancholy and purgatory! Oh, it was irony and ennui made flesh. It was like a rat of rarest-spun heaven metal or like fine wine flowing in a hearse, propriety all nonsense now. As I slooshied, I knew such sardonic pictures!"_


----------

