# Definition of Mahlers style and comparison with Bruckner



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

I want to define Mahlers music with a few words.

Mahlers music is:

- shrill
- rough-coarse-rude-sturdy-tough (german: "derb")
- monumental-epic
- formless
- gesture-heavy (german: "gestenhaft")

As a result his music is expressive and sometimes tasteless. It is so expressive, that he is a really great composer imo. The expression is very great, but his tools are nonetheless often bad, I have to say very bad. Its crazy.

I want to compare his style to Bruckners.

Is Bruckner shrill? No, only exceptionally.
Is Bruckner rough-coarse-rude-sturdy-tough? Yes, but not as much as Mahler imo.
Is Bruckner monumental-epic? Yes. 
Is Bruckner formless? Not at all. His form is very tight.
Is Bruckner gesture-heavy? No. His music is much more absolute tool-wise.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Aries said:


> I want to define Mahlers music with a few words.
> 
> Mahlers music is:
> 
> - formless


This one is absolutely, positively wrong. Mahler's music is very neatly formed, often adding very unique twists on already established forms.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Aries said:


> I want to define Mahlers music with a few words.


Let me help you out here. Mahler's music is vulnerable and honest.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Klassic said:


> Let me help you out here. Mahler's music is vulnerable and honest.


Bruckner, then, is invulnerable and dishonest? Well, given the thread title...


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

When the Bruckner and Mahler will little-known they used to be coupled together for some reason. In fact the only thing they had in common was they wrote long symphonies.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

DavidA said:


> When the Bruckner and Mahler will little-known they used to be coupled together for some reason. In fact the only thing they had in common was they wrote long symphonies.


It is not just the length. They have a epic-heroic message. And they have a bavarian-austrian rough musical tone. Beside that there are big differences.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Klassic said:


> Let me help you out here. Mahler's music is vulnerable and honest.


Come to think of it, "vulnerable and _dis_honest" would be a very good description of what Mahler sounds like to me. (This in contrast to, say, Schumann, who is vulnerable and honest, and Richard Strauss, who is dishonest and utterly impervious.)



Aries said:


> It is not just the length. They have a epic-heroic message. And they have a bavarian-austrian rough musical tone.


I don't think Bruckner is essentially heroic, but rather religious (in that elephantine, knowing-on-some-level-that-they've-already-lost late 19th century Catholic way, see also César Franck), which isn't exactly the same thing. I don't think Mahler sounds Bavarian-Austrian in the same way, either. Bruckner's an Upper Austrian country boy, Mahler's Viennese.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> This one is absolutely, positively wrong. Mahler's music is very neatly formed, often adding very unique twists on already established forms.


Calling Mahler formless is like calling Schoenberg tuneless. It's one of those things that seems true only if you know nothing about the music.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

If you don't like Mahler, and you think Bruckner is way better, then good for you. That's your opinion. I.e. every point you made comparing Bruckner, while being your reasons for saying Bruckner did it better, could be another persons list of reasons they think Bruckner is worse. 

But to say Mahler is formless is wrong.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Now I wonder what would be actually formless music.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Now I wonder what would be actually formless music.


Eric Satie's early works. He rectified this with 3 Morceaux en forme de poire.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Dim7 said:


> Now I wonder what would be actually formless music.


Of course, it is true that nothing is truly without any kind of form (unless indeterminate or something), but there are certainly works that have a poorly defined or poorly executed form, such as this (also awful music):


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Dim7 said:


> Now I wonder what would be actually formless music.


I think I know how the original poster meant this... I think he meant it does not conform to classical form, Mahler wrote what he wanted to write how he wanted to write it, he did not restrict himself to a strict theory, hence free from the rules of form, hence formless, but not without form.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Klassic said:


> I think I know how the original poster meant this... I think he meant it does not conform to classical form, Mahler wrote what he wanted to write how he wanted to write it, he did not restrict himself to a strict theory, hence free from the rules of form, hence formless, but not without form.


With the provision that most music of his era did the same thing, Mahler's music is still based on classical forms, just with modifications. I really don't see a justification for saying Bruckner's music has "very tight" form while Mahler's is "formless."


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The OP seems to imply, beyond the explicit criticisms, a wastefulness in Mahler, that there is an (over)abundance of statements in want of a central thesis. This is not something borne out by certainly my experience and I dare say that of many others. I cannot claim to have studied the scores as some have here, but through my repeated listening, the forming gradually of a dialogue, almost, between the music and my ear, I can claim this notion of waste to be a falsehood. For example, in listening to the first movement of the seventh symphony, a personal favourite and one with which I am very well acquainted - at least by ear, I find such an economy of materials as to give the leading figures of minimalism a run for their money. Not only does Mahler construct the movement from a handful of basic units, the way in which he creates such a tonally and atmospherically far-reaching structure through their iteration and transformation throughout the movement is astonishing, and with attentive listening and patience the very elegant way in which they interact and develop is plain to hear.

The key difficulties in reaching this level of understanding ─ and I should point out that I by no means consider myself to be an enlightened listener or an expert on Mahler ─ are, as far as I can see, twofold. Firstly, the sheer density of our example movement is bewildering on the first listen, and this is only emphasised in the context of the full symphony which follows. Secondly, the number of recordings, despite the 7th being far from having the popularity of a 5th, 2nd, or 9th, and thus the statistical probability of first-timing with a "poor" recording (this is a separate discussion entirely, and one which Mahlerian would probably be far better suited for than I), is great, and since Mahler, any Mahler, can sound dramatically different between one recording and the next, to say nothing of live performances, this may well appear to be the pertinent issue. However, any cursory survey of Mahler recordings by different (sometimes even the same) conductors and orchestras will show the latter to be true easily enough, but the former is something that might appear to be an appeal to a phantom at first, because only when the movement is heard beyond its immediate surface qualities are the deeper truths of structure, development, etc. revealed. This may seem obvious, but it is routinely forgotten that what is actually depth can easily appear as incoherence or purposelessness, thus waste, on first impression. It's worth noting perhaps that this is equally true when inverted, that incoherence can initially be mistaken for depth, but that is, again, a separate discussion.

The people in this discussion with whom I tend to agree have so far offered simple one-line refutations, which is fair enough given the commonness of the complaints in the OP and their brevity, dare I say their paucity of substance. However, I find it's often the case that the more common the argument, the more keen we are to respond by means of auto-pilot, or perhaps it isn't keenness so much as an overfamiliarity which breeds a certain level of contempt for the question being asked or the statement being made. I can understand this, probably most of us can, especially those of us who have been here for a while, but through that continual recourse to our personal and increasingly communal phrasebooks of response in the affirmative or negative we can lose sight of why we respond in one mode or the other. I'm not saying, of course, that we should constantly strive to respond in ways that mask what might to us be a banality or redundancy, to sucker ourselves masochistically into giving money for old rope time and time again, but I do think that we, as "serious" music lovers and in many cases philosophers upon musical matters, have what could perhaps be deemed an "intellectual responsibility" to re-evaluate our positions once in a while, and to take threads like this, despite their inauspicious beginnings, as opportunities to do so.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Well, I disagree with just about all your adjectives regarding Mahler, and think his "tools" were as good as or better than anyone's (and _personall_y find Bruckner's symphonies to be plodding and pretty uninteresting -- but that's only _my_ taste). Otherwise we agree on almost everything.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Calling Mahler formless is like calling Schoenberg tuneless. It's one of those things that seems true only if you know nothing about the music.


Bruckners form is like this: http://www.lienhard-shop.de/media/images/org/SchreibunterlageMillimeterpapierrotHKS15Ausschnitt.jpg
Mahlers form is like this: https://t1.ftcdn.net/jpg/00/54/34/02/240_F_54340272_AjNylmKPbcOmByIwrSo2WBVZqTrjFfEG.jpg

Mahler had form concepts, but he was very free.



Mahlerian said:


> If you don't like Mahler, and you think Bruckner is way better, then good for you. That's your opinion. I.e. every point you made comparing Bruckner, while being your reasons for saying Bruckner did it better, could be another persons list of reasons they think Bruckner is worse.
> 
> But to say Mahler is formless is wrong.


It is not about who is better. It is just a characterization of Mahler. And I wanted to compare it to something, and Bruckner came to my mind. Both wrote long symphonies around the same time and came from the same country.

There are not much rules in Mahlers form. It is very noticeable. I don't know why you deny it. Every symphony is completely different. Every movement is different. Not just that.

I like Mahler. His music has a big message. But I also want to say, that many little things sound way under the level of other great composers. I want to give an example. His 5th symphony is great, the coda of the last set is really great, but in the last moments he uses woodwind instrument shrill and prominently. Beethoven, Bruckner or Wagner would never do this. It is bad, it is tasteless. Nonetheless the coda overall is great.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Mahler put a lot into his symphonies, the contrasts can be jarring but his music to me does seem to have a direction and a logical path leading to where it is going. Bruckner comes across more as writing music that is largely just a sequence of events. The individual moments can at times be very impressive, but his sense of direction can be difficult to follow and at times seem non existent, as he just stays in one area for a while and then floats somewhere else. This is perhaps why he stuck to more formal structures, without which his music would quickly lose meaning and direction.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

tdc said:


> Mahler put a lot into his symphonies, the contrasts can be jarring but his music to me does seem to have a direction and a logical path leading to where it is going. Bruckner comes across more as writing music that is largely just a sequence of events. The individual moments can at times be very impressive, but his sense of direction can be difficult to follow and at times seem non existent, as he just stays in one area for a while and then floats somewhere else. This is perhaps why he stuck to more formal structures, without which his music would quickly lose meaning and direction.


Bruckner has no direction. His music shows things that are timeless connected to a main idea. And the music ends with the beginning because it is within everything.

Mahler has a direction, not only in the content but in the form too.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Aries said:


> His music shows things that are timeless connected to a main idea. And the music ends with the beginning...


Yes, when I spin up a Bruckner symphony that seems to happen a lot.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Come to think of it, "vulnerable and _dis_honest" would be a very good description of what Mahler sounds like to me. (This in contrast to, say, Schumann, who is vulnerable and honest, and Richard Strauss, who is dishonest and utterly impervious.)


How can music be dishonest? A composer can be dishonest by claiming to write something he didn't, but apart from that?

Besides, music doesn't have to be honest to sound great! Like Messrs Mahler and Strauss do!


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Petwhac said:


> How can music be dishonest? A composer can be dishonest by claiming to write something he didn't, but apart from that? Besides, music doesn't have to be honest to sound great! Like Messrs Mahler and Strauss do!


I never said music needs to be honest to sound great, I was simply noting the fact that Mahler was a very honest composer, he did not hide behind theory or form.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Klassic said:


> Let me help you out here. Mahler's music is vulnerable and honest.


With more than a hint of melodrama...

I like Harold's assessment, vulnerable and dishonest. It can be very stimulating to listen to but it sickens my mood afterwards.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Now I wonder what would be actually formless music.


Musical blobs...even blobs have form. Hmm..


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

clavichorder said:


> With more than a hint of melodrama...
> 
> I like Harold's assessment, vulnerable and dishonest. It can be very stimulating to listen to but it sickens my mood afterwards.


Ya, because Mahler's life was totally lacking in tragedy and drama, what a faker.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Klassic said:


> I never said music needs to be honest to sound great, I was simply noting the fact that Mahler was a very honest composer, he did not hide behind theory or form.


I was actually addressing Harold's post where he said Mahler and Strauss were dishonest.

Likewise, I don't understand your point about Mahler being honest and not "hiding behind theory or form". Which composer does hide behind theory or form? Are their any dishonest composers?


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> With more than a hint of melodrama...
> 
> I like Harold's assessment, vulnerable and dishonest. It can be very stimulating to listen to but it sickens my mood afterwards.


Been listening to too much of Bernstein's Mahler lately?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

No, just not as big of a fan.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Crudblud said:


> The OP seems to imply, beyond the explicit criticisms, a wastefulness in Mahler, that there is an (over)abundance of statements in want of a central thesis. This is not something borne out by certainly my experience and I dare say that of many others. I cannot claim to have studied the scores as some have here, but through my repeated listening, the forming gradually of a dialogue, almost, between the music and my ear, I can claim this notion of waste to be a falsehood.
> 
> The key difficulties in reaching this level of understanding ─ and I should point out that I by no means consider myself to be an enlightened listener or an expert on Mahler ─ are, as far as I can see, twofold. Firstly, the sheer density of our example movement is bewildering on the first listen, and this is only emphasised in the context of the full symphony which follows. Secondly, the number of recordings, despite the 7th being far from having the popularity of a 5th, 2nd, or 9th, and thus the statistical probability of first-timing with a "poor" recording (this is a separate discussion entirely, and one which Mahlerian would probably be far better suited for than I), is great, and since Mahler, any Mahler, can sound dramatically different between one recording and the next, to say nothing of live performances, this may well appear to be the pertinent issue. However, any cursory survey of Mahler recordings by different (sometimes even the same) conductors and orchestras will show the latter to be true easily enough, but the former is something that might appear to be an appeal to a phantom at first, because only when the movement is heard beyond its immediate surface qualities are the deeper truths of structure, development, etc. revealed. This may seem obvious, but it is routinely forgotten that what is actually depth can easily appear as incoherence or purposelessness, thus waste, on first impression.


Great post (of which the above is only about half). I would like to suggest a third reason why Mahler's formal coherence can be difficult to grasp at first, and that is simply that his expressive aims tend to overwhelm it and distract from it. What Nietzsche (I believe) said of Wagner's _Tristan_ can be said of many of Mahler's movements: that "every moment almost chokes one." In other words, the expressive content is so dense, continuous, and ever-changing, that the classical basis of Mahler's forms become, for the listener not very familiar with the works, an inaudible scaffolding rather than an object of attention, and may seem hardly to be present at all. This is not unique to Mahler, this relationship of formal to expressive content, in which the formal design becomes a submerged anchor the function of which is to keep the ship of emotion from drifting away on a sea of incoherence. It was the trend of Romanticism, the trend which Wagner fulfilled, against which Hanslick inveighed and Brahms set up his practice, and which composers who couldn't swim in the waters of "endless melody" and "music-drama" either drowned in or rebelled against. Mahler, I think, was the greatest composer who succeeded in fusing classical concepts of symphony with the expressive goals of music-drama, and in the latter respect he is so relentlessly intense that the former can take time to appreciate.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

It seems to me that after Beethoven mankind had to wait for Mahler before one could get more of the quality of something like Beethoven. However, Bruckner is very nice as well, but he was more of a Wagnerite than a Beethoven disciple.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Bruckner was definitely a Beethoven disciple. The proof is the number of times he ripped off the adagio from the 9th.


----------



## sloth (Jul 12, 2013)

Bruckner's "composing strategy" is based on stretching to their maximum a few themes, denoting a strong faith in music as a language still capable of explaining reality. Mahler's instead is one of a conflictual man, he's always putting into question his material. we have here a 19th hundred man of faith vs a proto modernist neurotic. and I love both.
just my 2 cents here


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

In claiming that Bruckner was more of a Wagnerite than a Beethoven disciple, I specifically have sound in mind... think in terms of Wagner's Tristan and Isolde Prelude, Bruckner has so often mimicked this expanding and rising format in his music, trying to suck as much out of the music as possible, sustain and extend the melody as long as possible... in light of Wagner Bruckner's objective makes perfect sense.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Certainly Wagner was an important influence on Bruckner, though it's not clear to me that Bruckner ever assimilated Wagner's later innovations, meaning after _Siegfried_, act two.

This doesn't necessarily contradict your finding a similarity between Bruckner's music and the _Tristan_ prelude. As Joseph Kerman either observed or relayed somebody else observing, after the opening tremors, eruption, and receding (up through the cello solo), the rest of the _Tristan_ prelude sounds like _Lohengrin_.


----------

