# Ladder from Mozart to Mahler



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Thought this might be helpful. I guess I struggle with understanding Mahler. Incredibly dense music imo. So I thought I'd start from Mozart which is quite easy to understand for me. Feel free to change the order if you think a different order or lesser known Composers coud be added. Especially since I ripped the order from last.fm on Similar Artists to Mozart. Mainly Chamber and Orchestral Works are my main interest. 
Mozart->Beethoven->Schubert->Mendelssohn->Dvorak->Brahms->Tchaikovsky->Chopin->Schumann->Liszt->Mahler.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Mozart - Beethoven - Schubert - Schumann - Liszt - Wagner 

I think Wagner is probably the key


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I can change yours to two flexible ones: 

Mozart->Beethoven->Schubert->Berlioz-> Liszt, Bruckner & Wagner ->Mahler.

Mozart->Beethoven->Schubert-> Mendelssohn & Schumann -> Chopin & Brahms ->Dvorak & Tchaikovsky ->Mahler.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I think you can skip the Beethoven link. Mozart - Schubert directly works just as well, and Schubert is essential. I would throw in Bruckner before Mahler in any ladder.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2013)

I don't think you can throw out Beethoven - the combination of the choral and the orchestral from Beethoven's 9th is such an obvious influence on Mahler - Look at how many of his symphonies included something similar, which you don't see at all in Schubert. Certainly the Lieder of Schubert would work, but I don't think you can possibly skip Beethoven.

I agree, also, that Wagner is integral to bringing us to Mahler.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Mozart > Bartók > [anywhere you want to go]


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I think you can skip the Beethoven link. Mozart - Schubert directly works just as well, and Schubert is essential. I would throw in Bruckner before Mahler in any ladder.


I see your point. Schubert had more finesse similar to Mozart. So maybe put Schubert ahead of Beethoven. It didn't have to be exactly in order of how things happen. So maybe it would be...
Mozart->Schubert->Beethoven->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Brahms->Bruckner, Wagner->Mahler.
Actually you could put Beethoven farther down than Mendelssohn and Schumann as well.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> I see your point. Schubert had more finesse similar to Mozart. So maybe put Schubert ahead of Beethoven. It didn't have to be exactly in order of how things happen. So maybe it would be...
> Mozart->Schubert->Beethoven->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Brahms->Bruckner, Wagner->Mahler.


Bruckner comes after Wagner. He wrote all of his symphonies after first encountering Wagner's operas. Also, you can remove Brahms, as his influence on Mahler is negligible, and replace him with Berlioz. So,

Mozart->Schubert->Beethoven->Berlioz->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Wagner->Bruckner->Mahler


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

This thread is funny.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> This thread is funny.


Why is it funny?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Bruckner comes after Wagner. He wrote all of his symphonies after first encountering Wagner's operas. Also, you can remove Brahms, as his influence on Mahler is negligible, and replace him with Berlioz. So,
> 
> Mozart->Schubert->Beethoven->Berlioz->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Wagner->Bruckner->Mahler


Maybe not a direct influence but Brahms was heavily influenced by Beethoven. I still think he belongs in the chain or ladder after Schumann. Whatever way you put it. Btw I'll take the first 3 in the chain atm.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Well no.... Many composers were influenced by Beethoven but didnt 'lead' to Mahler...
Berlioz is a good addition!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> Well no.... Many composers were influenced by Beethoven but didnt 'lead' to Mahler...
> Berlioz is a good addition!


They don't have to be a direct influence to Mahler to be on here. I just think Brahms was part of a progression which ended with Mahler being the most dense. After Mahler (or during), music went a different direction. Impressionism and neo-classical movement came in which was much different. And I'm fine with Berlioz added.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> They don't have to be a direct influence to Mahler to be on here. I just think Brahms was part of a progression which ended with Mahler being the most dense. After Mahler (or during), music went a different direction. Impressionism and neo-classical movement came in which was much different. And I'm fine with Berlioz added.


Nah, there are plenty of composers denser than Mahler. Early Schoenberg (all Schoenberg, actually, but we're talking tonal or pseudo-tonal here), Zemlinsky, and later Reger come to mind immediately.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Nah, there are plenty of composers denser than Mahler. Early Schoenberg (all Schoenberg, actually, but we're talking tonal or pseudo-tonal here) and later Reger come to mind immediately.


I was considering the length of piece as well. The combination of length and density. I mean does anyone write longer Symphonies than Mahler?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> I was considering the length of piece as well. The combination of length and density. I mean does anyone write longer Symphonies than Mahler?


Some of Shostakovich's are as long or longer (the Leningrad is Mahler-length, but not nearly as dense), and there's always Havergal Brian, composer of the lengthiest symphony that's ever been recorded (maybe?). And Beethoven's 9th is just as long as any Mahler symphony with the exception of the 3rd.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Anyways the most significant Composers was my priority here. And yeah Shostakovich was heavily influenced by Mahler. So that makes sense. I'm not sure Berlioz comes before Mendelssohn. Seems more like a Mahler influence than influenced by Mozart.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

So I guess this is the most agreed upon list. Mozart->Schubert->Beethoven->Berlioz->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Wagner->Bruckner->Mahler


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Why is it funny?


Because The only progression I see is a chronological one, and it isn't at all a progression from low to high. It's like a list of non sequeters. All it's missing is bannana!


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Because The only progression I see is a chronological one, and it isn't at all a progression from low to high. It's like a list of non sequeters. All it's missing is bannana!


Yeah it's called evolution. Whether it is progression to the better or worse is up to you. For me, I prefer Composers closer to Mozart in style obviously but am interested and growing to appreciate Mahler and Composers similar to him.


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

For a more operatic ladder, I would suggest:

Mozart -> Rossini -> Meyerbeer -> Wagner -> Mahler

In terms of more orchestral works, I think a simple Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler progression is all that is required. Adding in all the well-known romantic composers just for completion's sake just seems strange to me (Berlioz and Mendelssohn?).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Trout said:


> For a more operatic ladder, I would suggest:
> 
> Mozart -> Rossini -> Meyerbeer -> Wagner -> Mahler
> 
> In terms of more orchestral works, I think a simple Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler progression is all that is required. Adding in all the well-known romantic composers just for completion's sake just seems strange to me (Berlioz and Mendelssohn?).


I mostly agree, but I think Berlioz is a good addition. My list would go like this.

Mozart - Schubert - Berlioz - Wagner - Mahler


----------



## Trout (Apr 11, 2011)

violadude said:


> I mostly agree, but I think Berlioz is a good addition. My list would go like this.
> 
> Mozart - Schubert - Berlioz - Wagner - Mahler


I suppose Berlioz is fairly related to both Wagner and Mahler, but I still think he is not quite necessary as Beethoven can be directly linked to Wagner in my opinion. Less so are Mendelssohn and Schumann who I think both relate to Brahms quite a lot more than they do to the heavier works of Wagner and Mahler. But then again, I am just basing this off of my listenings from these composers and therefore am not that knowledgeable on the actual music history.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I've read that Mahler considered himself as continuing in the musical tradition of Beethoven and Wagner, and was also heavily influenced by Bruckner, so going by this logic perhaps the most straight forward ladder to understanding Mahler would be:

Beethoven - Wagner - Bruckner - Mahler

Since I know you are already a big fan of Beethoven, no sense in starting before him.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahler denied being heavily influenced by Bruckner.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Why is it funny?


It is like trying to fabricate a genealogical tree to non-genetically related people 

*Mahler,* despite influence of preceding composers or his being categorized as 'romantic' -- and yes, also despite his naming those like Beethoven and Wagner as his influences, _*was a Romantic era composer of a classicist sensibility and aesthetic all the way through... clarity, lots of counterpoint.*_

_*That being the case: the thread of 'classicist sensibility' runs:
Mozart / Schubert / Schumann / Chopin / Brahms ~ Mahler.*_


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Bruckner doesn't fit anywhere. other than his works being symphonies, and lengthy, they've really nothing in common with Mahler. Sure, lots of us like both, but as far as symphonic progression goes, they're like a fork in the road, a "Y" if you like. One path leads to Bruckner / Sibelius and the other runs to Mahler / Shostakovich.
GG


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Mahler denied being heavily influenced by Bruckner.


That depends on which Mahler you're talking about. Mahler in the last decade of his career denied much influence and conducted Bruckner's works only rarely. Mahler before 1900 praised Bruckner effusively and called him a predecessor.

The influence Bruckner had on Mahler's work is undeniable, especially on the early works, but also on the later ones (the fourth movement of his 9th opens with a bare wide interval in a similar way to that the 3rd movement of Bruckner's 9th does).

I see Mahler as more closely connected to Bruckner than Shostakovich.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> ...The influence Bruckner had on Mahler's work is undeniable, especially on the early works, but also on the later ones (the fourth movement of his 9th opens with a bare wide interval in a similar way to that the 3rd movement of Bruckner's 9th does).


The seminal 'bare interval' opening of a symphonic work is Beethoven Symphony No. 9, brilliant, audacious, and nothing like it ever before. Next would have to be the four or so minutes of the extended Eb chord which is the commencement of Wagner's Das Rheingold, that really 'unthinkable' without the Beethoven as predecessor.

Those in place -- and those more than well-known of by Mahler -- Bruckner's 'bare interval' was already old news 

[P.s. an antecedent extended chord opening: Bartok ~ The Wooden Prince.]


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Those in place -- and those more than well-known of by Mahler -- Bruckner's 'bare interval' was already old news


Bruckner's opens with an upwards minor 9th from the 5th. Mahler opens with an octave moving up a minor second, which forms a minor 9th from the 5th.

Beethoven just begins with a descending fifth (to the dominant, rather than from, but still).

Now, if I were comparing symphonic openings, you're right that Beethoven's 9th's opening was imitated by Bruckner throughout his oeuvre, and Mahler more or less in his 1st.

(I think the problem was my use of the word "interval". I meant "unharmonized unison motion", not bare as in "bare fifth".)


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> It is like trying to fabricate a genealogical tree to non-genetically related people


Well, not meaning to derail the thread, all people are genetically related 

Back to the point...
*Weber * was very important to Wagner an I suspect Mahler too.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

GraemeG said:


> Bruckner doesn't fit anywhere. other than his works being symphonies, and lengthy, they've really nothing in common with Mahler. Sure, lots of us like both, but as far as symphonic progression goes, they're like a fork in the road, a "Y" if you like. One path leads to Bruckner / Sibelius and the other runs to Mahler / Shostakovich.
> GG


Well I have a hard time agreeing with this considering early Mahler listened to a lot of Bruckner, and called him a demi-god or something to that extent, and then went on to write heavily-Romantic symphonies, of comparable length, and in many cases a similar 'feel'. The fact that both composers claimed to draw influence by Wagner is not surprising. They were both drawing from similar areas of influence, clearly there are more similarities than both writing long symphonies. They are in fact very different composers, but I think the fact so many have grouped them together has caused some to over-state their differences claiming they are completely different. I disagree Sibelius is closer to Bruckner than Mahler. I would place Sibelius in a distinct group apart from Mahler, Bruckner and Shostakovich The latter 3 all sharing more similarities with each other than the first.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

tdc said:


> Well I have a hard time agreeing with this considering early Mahler listened to a lot of Bruckner, and called him a demi-god or something to that extent, and then went on to write heavily-Romantic symphonies, of comparable length, and in many cases a similar 'feel'. The fact that both composers claimed to draw influence by Wagner is not surprising. They were both drawing from similar areas of influence, clearly there are more similarities than both writing long symphonies. They are in fact very different composers, but I think the fact so many have grouped them together has caused some to over-state their differences claiming they are completely different. I disagree Sibelius is closer to Bruckner than Mahler. I would place Sibelius in a distinct group apart from Mahler, Bruckner and Shostakovich The latter 3 all sharing more similarities with each other than the first.


Their techniques are very different, though. In some ways the similarities are more superficial (i.e. the orchestra "sounding big"). Bruckner's music is always very consciously worked out, and this is apparent on the surface. He wants you to hear that this is the theme being played simultaneously with its inversion, that this chorale is progressing back towards the dominant, and so forth.

Mahler's music comes across as more subconsciously worked out, with many of the inner connections not the least bit obvious and requiring familiarity for recognition. He was also in possession of a developed technique, but this is sometimes purposefully obscured by a shifting surface.

Sibelius has elements of both, I feel, though he tends to use the orchestra more homogenously than Mahler (who doesn't?), which makes aspects of his sound closer to Bruckner's.



Petwhac said:


> Weber was very important to Wagner and I suspect Mahler too.


Yes. Also to Berlioz.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I consider Sibelius more similar to Mozart than Mahler. Sibelius was a little brighter imo with exceptions to Symphony 4.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Did Mahler leave any sketchbooks showing how he crafted his symphonies? I do not know the answer.

As a prominent conductor, he obviously heard and studied a lot of scores by a lot of composers. He had to do so to be one of the leading conductors of his age. His music is intensely original, but he surely benefited by his exposure to so much great music. Certainly he was a giant of orchestration, and his constant work with the orchestra had to have helped him in that area.

Thinking about the music, the emotional contant, the orchestration quality, I find only Richard Strauss to be on a similar level. Did they know each other?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> They don't have to be a direct influence to Mahler to be on here. I just think Brahms was part of a progression which ended with Mahler being the most dense. After Mahler (or during), music went a different direction. Impressionism and neo-classical movement came in which was much different. And I'm fine with Berlioz added.


I find Mahler far less 'dense' or 'thick' than Brahms. Compared to Mahler (and just about anyone else) Brahms wins the prize on heavy-duty engineering and construction, including 'thickness' of how many notes are in chords, doublings included.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Well, not meaning to derail the thread, all people are genetically related
> 
> Back to the point...
> *Weber * was very important to Wagner an I suspect Mahler too.


Well, yes, in the BIG picture. This is more like someone scrabbling to find immediate family within two generations 

and, good ole Carl Maria von Weber, near parallel dates to Beethoven, writing 'romantic' music from the get go while Luigi stayed with classicism, no matter how much he stretched and nearly shredded that envelope. Of course the first real Romantic should be at the head of this 'lineage.' Good call.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

This is like Six Degrees of Separation. Six Degrees of Mozart - to Mahler.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Truckload said:


> Thinking about the music, the emotional contant, the orchestration quality, I find only Richard Strauss to be on a similar level. Did they know each other?


Yes, rather well, although they had something of a rocky relationship. Mahler loved Salome (which he wanted to give the Vienna premiere of but was blocked by the censor) but didn't care for Elektra, and only rarely touched any of Strauss's tone poems. Strauss conducted Mahler's 1st and 4th symphonies, but did not find interest in anything after that. Mahler's famous line "My time will come when his is gone" refers to Strauss, and the latter once wondered out loud why Mahler found composing a struggle, so you can see they had different temperaments.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

Interesting that two masters of the highest calibre could not fully appreciate each other. I suppose it is because ego gets in the way. I much prefer stories like the mutual admiration of Brahms and Dvorak.

Is it any wonder that if Mahler and Strauss could not fully appreciate each other, that we on this forum would find so much to argue about?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Here is my latest list. Take it or leave it. Mozart, Haydn->Hummel->Field->Schubert->Beethoven->Weber->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Dvorak->Verdi->Brahms->Berlioz->Wagner->Bruckner->Mahler, Sibelius->Shostakovich. Anyways, this is a list moreso of transition from Late Classical to Late Romanticism rather than direct influences of Mozart and Mahler. And not all of it is in order from a timeline standpoint.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

At least the _listening path_ from Mozart to Mahler doesn´t need that many stages ... It´s a couple of sketchy, rather superficial and amateurish short-cuts no doubt, but:

Mozart Entführung "Hier Soll Ich" 



->
Mahler: Wunderhorn Lieder, "Antonius predigt" 




Mozart: "Haffner Symphony", 1st Mov. 



->
Mahler: Symphony 5, "Scherzo"


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Mozart > Teddy Roosevelt > Pol Pot > Robin Hood > artichoke > Bea Arthur > Mahler

There ya go!


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Shortest genealogy I can think of would be:

Mozart --> Schubert --> Bruckner --> Mahler


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I think a certain directness can be applied to M & M. Mahler's respect for, and perhaps learning some of Mozart's transition tricks. Both were masters of shortlining two opposing thoughts.

Related: Paul Schiavo program notes link.

http://www.seattlesymphony.org/symphony/buy/single/programnotes.aspx?id=10699


----------



## Charon (Sep 8, 2008)

I would suggest:

Mozart - Beethoven - Schubert - Mendelssohn - Schumann - Brahms - Bruckner - Wagner - Mahler


----------



## vertigo (Jan 9, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Mozart > Teddy Roosevelt > Pol Pot > Robin Hood > artichoke > Bea Arthur > Mahler
> 
> There ya go!


Close but no cigar. It's actually like this:

Mozart->Justin Bieber->Britney Spears->Nsync->new kids on the block->mili vanilli->MAHLER


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

An appreciation of a good Wagner overture might do the trick, but don't worry about whole operas in my opinion. You like symphonic music anyway. Bruckner might help. Also, getting on the Russian side of things can help, if you like that dramatic stuff. I wish I could be more linear about this, but I in general suffer from randomness. Do try Richard Strauss though, those tone poems can really open gates, so Mozart>Beethoven>Tchaikovsky(non ballet stuff)>Liszt>R. Strauss>Mahler>Bruckner>Brahms>Schoenberg>Mahler again?>Shostakovich? See, things get really weird. Goes in cycles.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

The idea of this thread was to branch out from Mozart. Ending with Mahler. 

No list has Wagner more similar to Mozart than Mahler. So here is the data from last.fm that I put together on 6 Composers similar to Mozart but of each having less listeners as the list goes on. (Mozart, Haydn, Telemann, Boccherini, CPE Bach, and Carl Stamitz) The Composers mentioned more than once have been taken out and only the first selection will be listed. So 1 is the most similar to Mozart and 13 is the least similar to Mozart with Mahler being the limit of ending. If you don't understand, just start at 1 (Mozart) and go to 13 (Mahler). This data wasn't used to find the most influential to Mahler though. Just farthur away from Mozart. 
1. Beethoven, Hummel
2. Schubert, Sor, Field
3. Mendelssohn
4. Dvorak, Granados, Borodin, Weber
5. Brahms, Giuliani
6. Schumann, Bruckner, Cherubini
7. Verdi, Donizetti
8. Tchaikovsky, Bruch
9. Berlioz, Busoni, Spohr
10. Rossini, Franck, Chabrier
11. Chopin, Gounod
12. Liszt, Sibelius, Nielsen
13. Mahler, Delibes, Alkan


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> The idea of this thread was to branch out from Mozart. Ending with Mahler.
> 
> No list has Wagner more similar to Mozart than Mahler. So here is the data from last.fm that I put together on 6 Composers similar to Mozart but of each having less listeners as the list goes on. (Mozart, Haydn, Telemann, Boccherini, CPE Bach, and Carl Stamitz) The Composers mentioned more than once have been taken out and only the first selection will be listed. So 1 is the most similar to Mozart and 13 is the least similar to Mozart with Mahler being the limit of ending. If you don't understand, just start at 1 (Mozart) and go to 13 (Mahler). This data wasn't used to find the most influential to Mahler though. Just further away from Mozart.
> 1. Beethoven, Hummel
> ...


I have no clue what kind of criteria one would have to use to find Mozart more similar to Verdi than Mahler.


----------



## davinci (Oct 11, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Here is my latest list. Take it or leave it. Mozart, Haydn->Hummel->Field->Schubert->Beethoven->Weber->Mendelssohn->Schumann->Dvorak->Verdi->Brahms->Berlioz->Wagner->Bruckner->Mahler, Sibelius->Shostakovich. Anyways, this is a list moreso of transition from Late Classical to Late Romanticism rather than direct influences of Mozart and Mahler. And not all of it is in order from a timeline standpoint.


Neo... I thought you were trying to find a listening route from Mozart to Mahler. There are way too many steps in your list; you wouldn't need to listen to all those composers to understand and appreciate Mahler. (Isn't that your goal?)

Charon's route is a good path, 
Mozart - Beethoven - Schubert - Mendelssohn - Schumann - Brahms - Bruckner - Wagner - Mahler

Although I don't think u need both Mendelssohn and Schumann. Berlioz would be a good addition, but why did you add so many more in your new list? I think Schumann->Dvorak->Verdi, Sibelius unnecessary to understand Mahler. And why now Shostakovich?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> I have no clue what kind of criteria one would have to use to find Mozart more similar to Verdi than Mahler.


Haven't listened to much Verdi. But Mozart and Mahler are quite different. Almost night and day. Thus the ladder of slight changes away from Mozart until you get to Mahler or those 2 other less familiar Composers. But you found a way to compare Mahler and Bach. So I don't know. And these lists aren't perfect. But it gives you an idea to work towards more dense music.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

davinci said:


> Neo... I thought you were trying to find a listening route from Mozart to Mahler. There are way too many steps in your list; you wouldn't need to listen to all those composers to understand and appreciate Mahler. (Isn't that your goal?)
> 
> Charon's route is a good path,
> Mozart - Beethoven - Schubert - Mendelssohn - Schumann - Brahms - Bruckner - Wagner - Mahler
> ...


Thought Shostakovich would be a good ending point as well. As he was influenced heavily by Mahler. And yeah I think my thread was misunderstood. I used Mahler as an ending point. But basically my interest was taking a favorite of mine and expanding from that through the whole Romantic Era. Mozart being one of my favorites. So the timeline is Mozart-Late Romanticism in order of most Mozart like to least Mozart like. I know there are Romantic Composers even less Mozart like than Mahler but I decided I didn't care about those Composers enough to go any deeper away from the Classical Era.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Thought Shostakovich would be a good ending point as well. As he was influenced heavily by Mahler.


Not as much as Berg or Schoenberg, who are closer to Mahler in style and practice. Shostakovich had many influences, including the aforementioned Viennese School composers as well as Bach, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, and Glazunov.



> Almost night and day. Thus the ladder of slight changes away from Mozart until you get to Mahler or those 2 other less familiar Composers. But you found a way to compare Mahler and Bach. So I don't know. And these lists aren't perfect. But it gives you an idea to work towards more dense music.


Density is hardly either a) definitive in Mahler's style as opposed to that of his contemporaries, many of whom wrote far denser music in terms of "stuff thrown at you at a given time" nor b) completely absent from Mozart, whose music is denser than many of his contemporaries' works. Shostakovich's music, also, is not usually very dense at all.

Mahler is influenced by Mozartian lightness, Beethovinian drama, Wagnerian chromaticism, and Bachian counterpoint. There's no precise ladder of gradations separating Mozart and Mahler, there are direct connections, merely transmuted into a later style.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

No precise ladder. But you can make a ladder out of many thing. Like from Mahler to Ligeti. Or Dowland to Vivaldi. The change in styles being the most noticeable way of making a ladder. Things evolve. So naturally something didn't come out of thin air. Small changes occurred over time though not everything was a breakthrough. Thus the label of conservative among some Composers (Sibelius and Nielsen possibly). So yes I still like the idea of the ladder.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

If anything, this ladder might help you adapt to more modern sounds more. Even though it is flawed as nothing in music follows a precise direction. But I guess I could make a thread from Mahler to Mozart as well. with getting people into the Classical Era through Mahler. As people that prefer Mahler can ease their way to the other direction. In a non-precise way of course.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

To be honest, as a primarily Classical listener, my Mahler appreciation basically began with listening to the 9th. I fell in love with it at once. Mahler remains the only Austro-German Romantic composer I really like.

That means I in general I don't massively like Wagner, Schumann, Brahms, and I have never heard much Bruckner, at least some of which would probably have to be crucial rungs in a ladder from Mozart to Mahler. I am now trying to use my appreciation of Mahler and Beethoven to approach composers like these from both sides, as it were.

So I can't really construct a realistic/helpful ladder, which is why I haven't contributed to this thread up till now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

I thought I'd open this thread, finally, just to avoid some work that has to be done now. Right now.

And what did I find? *That I agreed with every single one of bigshot's posts,* and was especially amused by his "ladder."

Comic genius, there.

Yesterday I would have voted him off the island. Today? Not a chance!!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have to admit, I'm regretting Pol Pot. Perhaps Che Guevara would be better. I'm not sure...


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I think I'll make my next ladder from Mahler to Ligeti should be interesting. And I encourage others to make more lists and polls.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I want to make a ladder from Ligeti to hell in a handbasket.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Whoops! Someguy doesn't like me again!


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Whoops! Someguy doesn't like me again!


:lol::lol::lol:

:tiphat:


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mozart > Beethoven > Wagner > Bruckner > Mahler


----------



## Guest (Feb 7, 2013)

[Admin note: Personal remark removed per TOS]

There may be good musical grounds for any of these ladders, though a ladder to Mahler that doesn't include Berlioz seems a pretty shaky sort of ladder. Probably disintegrate on you before you reached the eaves.

And speaking of eaves, isn't the whole ladder metaphor a bit off? Be fair. It does suggest that Mozart is somehow on ground level and Mahler is the roof. Or?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

The ladder was a metaphor for time and evolution. Not saying one is better than the other. But I thought I made that clear already. Btw I'm onto the Schubert part of the ladder.  Will go to Sor and Field after.


----------



## Guest (Feb 8, 2013)

Here is the deleted portion of my previous post--done up explicitly as a syllogism. The words are different, but the import is *exactly* the same.

So, except for bigshot's comedic gem:

All the ladders proposed so far have attempted to create a rational progression from Mozart to Mahler.

But, humans are not rational.

Neoshredder is a human.

Therefore, the ladders thus far proposed may not be useful to neoshredder at all in his quest to get from Mozart to Mahler. (I started my own journey in classical music with Rachmaninoff. By the time I got to where I could understand and enjoy Mahler, I had gone through Carter, Varese, and Xenakis, among others. How rational is that?*)

I would venture to guess that if neoshredder wants to like Mahler, he probably will end up liking Mahler some day. What one needs to like a composer is desire, not logic.

That is all I was saying in the deleted section of my earlier post. Period. Any other interpretations of what I might have meant are simply wrong. If you could read it, you might find that you agree. But you can't. Why, I could make any old claim about it, now, and no one could contradict me, hahahahaha!! (Diabolical laughter.)

*Not rational at all. It just happened.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Why I picked Mozart was to my ears Mozart was one of the easiest Composer to get into. Now skip 100 years and music got a lot harder to listen to. It takes more patience and multiple listenings to get the most out of them. As the Symphonies and Concertos got grander, the complexity grew. But yes this ladder was specifically geared for me to grow into more appreciation of the complex music. Not just stay in my comfort zone.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Why I picked Mozart was to my ears Mozart was one of the easiest Composer to get into. Now skip 100 years and music got a lot harder to listen to. It takes more patience and multiple listenings to get the most out of them. As the Symphonies and Concertos got grander, the complexity grew. But yes this ladder was specifically geared for me to grow into more appreciation of the complex music. Not just stay in my comfort zone.


What's preventing you from appreciating certain composers that you don't like has as much (if not more) to do with aesthetics as with complexity. Mozart may be easy to follow in outline, but some accustomed to late romantic music may miss the details. Conversely, Mahler's structures may be complex, but there are moments of utter simplicity and directness that no one could fail to miss. The main thing that changed was not length, nor the size of the orchestra, but the style and aesthetic; Mahler could write a short piece (his songs are usually not much longer than Schubert's), and it would still have a different feel from his predecessors. Mozart wrote a number of extended pieces that are utterly within his own style.

To me, the length of Mahler's symphonies simply is not an issue. They are just long enough for the content. A 70-minute symphony (Mahler's 6th) doesn't feel longer to me in any significant way than a 60-minute symphony (Beethoven's 9th), or even much more than a 40-minute symphony (Mozart's 41st). What does feel long are things that I either don't enjoy or don't understand.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> What's preventing you from appreciating certain composers that you don't like has as much (if not more) to do with aesthetics as with complexity. Mozart may be easy to follow in outline, but some accustomed to late romantic music may miss the details. Conversely, Mahler's structures may be complex, but there are moments of utter simplicity and directness that no one could fail to miss. The main thing that changed was not length, nor the size of the orchestra, but the style and aesthetic; Mahler could write a short piece (his songs are usually not much longer than Schubert's), and it would still have a different feel from his predecessors. Mozart wrote a number of extended pieces that are utterly within his own style.
> 
> To me, the length of Mahler's symphonies simply is not an issue. They are just long enough for the content. A 70-minute symphony (Mahler's 6th) doesn't feel longer to me in any significant way than a 60-minute symphony (Beethoven's 9th), or even much more than a 40-minute symphony (Mozart's 41st). What does feel long are things that I either don't enjoy or don't understand.


Yes the style plays a big part of it. And to be particular, Mahler's 3rd Symphony was the one that I got bored with. Just too long and seems scattered. Well I'm free to change my opinion as I may be more appreciative of this main event sound of Mahler as I move up the ladder. Though I did like Symphony 1 of Mahler. Thus I'll see if this ladder works. But I don't want to rush the progression. So I'm taking it slowly. Still on Schubert.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I've been on Schubert for thirty years.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Yes the style plays a big part of it. And to be particular, Mahler's 3rd Symphony was the one that I got bored with. Just too long and seems scattered. Well I'm free to change my opinion as I may be more appreciative of this main event sound of Mahler as I move up the ladder. Though I did like Symphony 1 of Mahler. Thus I'll see if this ladder works. But I don't want to rush the progression. So I'm taking it slowly. Still on Schubert.


Do you know the structure of Mahler's 3rd and what each movement is supposed to represent?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

The Atonal Ladder !!!


----------

