# Mahler and Bruckner



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm sorry, I've tried over 40 years of listening to come to grips with these musical windbags - but this is all FILM MUSIC. Full of atmospherics, meandering, lack of a sense of structure.... waiting for the murder to be committed, the lover to be found out, the heist to go wrong.... perfect accompaniment for narrative cinema - well, even silent cinema - but for the concert hall? I don't think so.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

A couple of months ago, I would have agreed with you, but I have since made a bit of headway with Bruckner (Mahler remains a no-hope case  ). It was the Scherzo of his 9th that sucked me in - come on, if _I_ can do it, anyone can!


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

Thanks, but I'd rather have root canal therapy! Same goes for Wagner, BTW, except the "Siegfried Idyll".


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> these musical windbags


Indeed, Mahler is a bag full of winds - learn to open it in your soul so the winds of his will blow upon you, bringing exultation.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Indeed, Mahler is a bag full of winds - learn to open it in your soul so the winds of his will blow upon you, bringing exultation.


He's been working on it for 40+ years; the learning thing ain't going to happen.

For me, Mahler's music is pretty distant from Bruckner's. M's symphonies are analogous to a _train_ of thoughts, each one stemming from its predecessor, regrouped in movements/chapters. The finale arrives at a conclusion, but not necessarily a satisfactory one. B's symphonies are a _chain_ of thoughts, their interrelationships unclear; the movement breaks break the chain. The finale eventually presents a conclusion, emphatic and intended to be satisfying.

I enjoy Mahler and tolerate+ Bruckner, but see no 'automatic' reason _CA_ should do either thing. There are aspects of each composer's 'language' that can reasonably be turn-offs.

:tiphat:


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Thanks, but I'd rather have root canal therapy! Same goes for Wagner, BTW, except the "Siegfried Idyll".


My first use of the "unlike". I was in total agreement with the first post. Now I see you're just deaf.


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

> He's been working on it for 40+ rears; the learning thing ain't going to happen.


I thought so too, but wanted to come out with smart transformation of insult against Mahler into positive.


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

*Bruckner/Mahler*

I have only listened with any frequency to Bruckner's 4th and 8th symphonies - in the main these are wonderful works, though he has problems juxtaposing trite secondary/tertiary melodic material between primary themes of of great beauty and/or majesty, even. The 4th is probably the most concise, but the 3rd and 4th movements of #8 are sublime and terrifying, respectively.

Mahler, however is a very great composer who made music fit for the times in which he lived - all that sabre-rattling and the raspy last gasps of Imperial Austria. He is morbid, ribald, tender, nostalgic, militant, and all drowning in _Weltsmerz(en?)_ and transcendental. the song, 'Ich bin der Welt abhanden gekommen' 'I am lost to the world' from the Ruckert-Lieder is a description of his life. He has 'one foot in the 19th century and one in the 20th' I read somewhere and also one foot in this world and one in the next and I love the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Symphonies, Songs of a Wayfarer, Ruckert-Lieder and Das Lied von der Erde best of all.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Aramis said:


> I thought so too, but wanted to come out with smart transformation of insult against Mahler into positive.


Understood. And accomplished. But _I_ wanted to be long-winded - er, I mean go into detail.

Never understood why those two guys are constantly shoved together, then dumped on. [If dumping on is necessary, it ought to be separately.] So I took the opportunity to point out their separateness.

:devil:


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree that they are associated with each other for no good reason - both wrote long, massive symphonies in more or less similiar period but that's all. Debussy and Ravel are other example of the same phenomena. The key to understand Mahler is, IMO, much diffrent that to understand Bruckner (the latter I can't say I've found, or perhaps I didn't have to) and they are as diffrent as it's possible for two composer bound together by time of their lifes and cultural background from which they both came.


----------



## Guest (Oct 23, 2011)

jdavid, I'm glad you so obviously enjoy Mahler - God knows I've tried for decades but, honestly, I just can't stay awake!!

Oh, and thanks Couchie for those kind words - NOT.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I'm sorry, I've tried over 40 years of listening to come to grips with these musical windbags - but this is all FILM MUSIC. Full of atmospherics, meandering, lack of a sense of structure.... waiting for the murder to be committed, the lover to be found out, the heist to go wrong.... perfect accompaniment for narrative cinema - well, even silent cinema - but for the concert hall? I don't think so.


I think both composers music has very good structure. For Mahler, listen for themes that are shared among the movements. Mahler's symphonies are very narrative and the binding themes are the hint to the narration. Bruckner I am not as experienced with. Just remember that with Bruckner's sonata forms and what not, you are likely to have 3 or 4 themes to keep track of instead of 1 or 2 as in the classical period, and all the sections are elongated pretty much to twice the length of normal sonata form sections.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

They're difficult composers. Mahler is really just crazy, throwing stuff together and kinda hoping the listener gets it while making it dramatically as intense as he can. Bruckner I think is totally opposite, everything very patient and methodical, working out a huge structure before figuring out how best to make sense of it.

They both have their big flaws, and I can understand anyone who's turned off by them.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

With Mahler one needs to turn off their brain.....forget about what makes something a symphony....forget about the exposition and development....it's there but if you spend your time looking for it, surely it won't be as satisfying as listening without having your brain intervene. 

Mahler is not a movie composer.....nor is Bruckner.... the movies took from Mahler's sound of course, because of it's ability to stir emotions, not because it's great background music.

Mahler's achievements all come to full bloom in the 9th. It's the most moving piece of music I've ever heard, and it's a perfectly written piece of work. I feel slightly sad for anyone who doesn't get it. 

PS, Polednice.....skip over the early works and try the 9th... Even though it is more harmonically complex and more modern, it is more important and more gorgeous work than the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th which everyone tends to gravitate toward.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Oh, and thanks Couchie for those kind words - NOT.


Sorry if I offended you, it was a joke, in time you will see that nothing I say should be taken too seriously.  I do like Wagner a bit.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Aramis said:


> Indeed, Mahler is a bag full of winds - learn to open it in your soul so the winds of his will blow upon you, bringing exultation.


Not the smelly type of wind from him, I hope. I think I prefer Mahler's music overall out of these two. And I also think he was the greater symphonist compared with old Bruckner, who tended to write better church music. Mahler strikes me as the more youthful of the two, judging by the music to my ears.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Thanks for the comments. I take all these points on board. Of course, Mahler cannot be a cinema composer as this is anachronistic. What I meant was that his "flaccid" style suits the 'atmospherics' required by music for the cinema perfectly. I just don't like grandiloquence, whether it's in words or music, and this is how both Mahler and Bruckner appear to me. I don't actively listen for structure, but I certainly know if it isn't there. Well, it MAY be there in composers such as Mahler or Bruckner, but if it goes on and on and on and is all about self-indulgence, suffering, the divine etc. then I quickly lose interest. I'm afraid this is what has happened. The 'brief' is too big and it's just ended up being pompous!!! I suppose I could compare Mahler's music to a huge house - a bit like the mansion in "Citizen Kane"; has structure, yes, but is over-the-top. I prefer the architecturally concise construction: the clever use of space, and originality. That's the best metaphor I can use.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Thanks for the comments. I take all these points on board. Of course, Mahler cannot be a cinema composer as this is anachronistic. What I meant was that his "flaccid" style suits the 'atmospherics' required by music for the cinema perfectly. I just don't like grandiloquence, whether it's in words or music, and this is how both Mahler and Bruckner appear to me. I don't actively listen for structure, but I certainly know if it isn't there. Well, it MAY be there in composers such as Mahler or Bruckner, but if it goes on and on and on and is all about self-indulgence, suffering, the divine etc. then I quickly lose interest. I'm afraid this is what has happened. The 'brief' is too big and it's just ended up being pompous!!! I suppose I could compare Mahler's music to a huge house - a bit like the mansion in "Citizen Kane"; has structure, yes, but is over-the-top. *I prefer the architecturally concise construction: the clever use of space, and originality.* That's the best metaphor I can use.


So, if you know that that's what you prefer why did you make this thread?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

violadude said:


> So, if you know that that's what you prefer why did you make this thread?


Yes, Countenance, I'm not sure if you're searching for a new way of approaching B&M or if you're just looking for who to stand next to in a classical music death match.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

I posted the thread so that I'd get comments like yours - something which would show me what I'm missing in the music of Mahler and Bruckner. It was all about discussing why I think they are over-rated. So far I haven't been convinced of the opposite. Sorry if this offends, but I still think it a legitimate topic of discussion. "The classical music death march" Polednice? I think I'll take Mahler for that dubious honour!!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> I posted the thread so that I'd get comments like yours - something which would show me what I'm missing in the music of Mahler and Bruckner. It was all about discussing why I think they are over-rated. So far I haven't been convinced of the opposite. Sorry if this offends, but I still think it a legitimate topic of discussion. "The classical music death march" Polednice? I think I'll take Mahler for that dubious honour!!


Well, I know that this kind of thing gets into very subjective waters sometimes, so excuse me if I come off as harsh, but I think you are just flat out wrong when you say Mahler's music is cinematic or atmospheric. Movie composers may have borrowed some techniques from him, but Mahler's music is extremely purposeful. Every movement and every moment has an unmistakable place in the grand design of each symphony and it is always driving forward to a definite goal or conclusion.

Gee, now I'm starting to sound like a fanboy


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Violadude I do appreciate your comments. I'm bereft when it comes to these 2 composers having tried again and again and again and found nothing of interest. I'm staggered that I cannot find a single redeeming feature when I know and love music as diverse as Leonin and Perotin, through Machaut, Josquin, Jannequin, Dunstable, Tallis, Monteverdi right up to the most modern compositions. Sorry, but it still reminds me of film music. When I listen I cannot shake myself from the belief that I'm in the cinema. I understand what you say, but I think M and B essentially atmospheric - just like film music. This is just what I hear. But, above all, I think their music inflated and pompous. And I consider myself a very knowledgeable and discerning music-lover, with university qualifications in music to boot!! But you can call me ignorant if that's what you think.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

One thing TC has taught many of us is that there are plenty of composers who are adored by critics, most TC members, conductors, and performers the world over but who are simply not enjoyed by others. There are TC members who do not like Mozart, Bach, or Beethoven. Obviously even those composers almost universally considered great do not appeal to everyone. If someone has listened attentively to a modest amount of a composer's music and does not enjoy it, so be it. Maybe enjoyment will come later or maybe it will never come. 

Personally, I enjoyed Mahler from the moment I heard his symphonies. I understand that some would view them as difficult since they seem to "wander". In another thread I said listening to them is like going on a journey, but it's a lovely, fascinating journey. I am not very knowledgeable about theory or structure so I generally do not analyze music. I simply try to enjoy it. For me Mahler has been easy to enjoy. For some reason when I started Bruckner, I didn't respond positively. I started with 4 and 8 (both considered popular). I fairly recently bought the Wand set of 9 and listened to all of them. I now view them as filled with beauty.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

@mmsbls - It is fortunate that you obtained the Wand set of Bruckner symphonies. He was the conductor best able to understand Bruckner's thoughts and the one best able to communicate that understanding. Another conductor I like in Bruckner is the American born Swedish conductor Herbert Blomstedt.

@ca (and others) - The Supreme gods of music have not laid down any law that you are required to like any composer's music just because some others do. We each have our own particular tastes and that is good. I do agree that there is no good reason to group Mahler and Briuckner together and attempt to compare them.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> But, above all, I think their music inflated and pompous.


I can see how you hear that. The term I'm more familiar with is "monumental." Alexander Rehding has written on that, the function of this music in its time, using grand sound effects to overwhelm audiences and uplift them to another realm of experience, even helping to establish a national identity.

I suppose in our postmodern culture such gestures can come off as overblown, even invalid for our time. But still, they do speak to me.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

GoneBaroque, this is a valid point about their being no law prescribing somebody should like this composer or that. But since M and B seem to have experienced increased exposure and 'popularity' (due to 2011 as the Mahler anniversary), I feel there is something I should know that I don't - hence my comments. There are considerable musical talents and minds who advance the causes of both composers but I just don't get it, and it bugs me!! What's going on, I ask? It's not for the want of trying, I assure you. But I cannot avoid the inescapable conclusion that if there WAS something special there I would surely have found it.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Manxfeeder said:


> I can see how you hear that. The term I'm more familiar with is "monumental." Alexander Rehding has written on that, the function of this music in its time, using grand sound effects to overwhelm audiences and uplift them to another realm of experience, even helping to establish a national identity.
> 
> I suppose in our postmodern culture such gestures can come off as overblown, even invalid for our time. But still, they do speak to me.


I wouldn't call them pompous, but, still in line with CA (but less pejoratively!), I'd say that they are very melodramatic. When you think how the likes of Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov were accused of this, Mahler takes it to a whole new level. For some, I can understand how it might uplift them to another realm of experience, but to others it all sounds a little bit self-indulgent - for these others, shorter, more intricately wrought pieces are better.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Apposite, Polednice. Thanks!!


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

I am of the believe that one should approach Mahler backwards.


I think the 9th and Das Lied are better for newcomers than the Titan and Resurrection. I believe it's just more profound and less "cinematic"


If I were to introduce an eager friend to Mahler, I'd tell them to go this order:

9
Das Lied von der Erde
5
4
7
6
2
3
Kindertotenlieder
10
8
1
Ruckertlieder
Wayfarer


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Question to the OP..... do you really think the 9th and Das Lied sound atmospheric and cinematic?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'm wondering if your approach, DavidMahler, is only good in hindsight (and therefore not to a newcomer). Mahler's earlier works - certainly the Piano Quartet and the First Symphony - have a more obvious, tightly-packed structure. Certainly for CA and me, it seems more appropriate to work chronologically.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I'm wondering if your approach, DavidMahler, is only good in hindsight (and therefore not to a newcomer). Mahler's earlier works - certainly the Piano Quartet and the First Symphony - have a more obvious, tightly-packed structure. Certainly for CA and me, it seems more appropriate to work chronologically.


Mahler's 1st doesn't have a tight packed structure in my opinion.....It attempts to and certainly demonstrates it well. The 9th and 6th have a tighter structure.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I'm wondering if your approach, DavidMahler, is only good in hindsight (and therefore not to a newcomer). Mahler's earlier works - certainly the Piano Quartet and the First Symphony - have a more obvious, tightly-packed structure. Certainly for CA and me, it seems more appropriate to work chronologically.


also, i don't even value the piano quartet movement he wrote when he was 16 as a real Mahler work.

The 1st symphony is the easiest listening....and the least Mahlerian of all his major works.

If I may....

Consider the 9th to be to Mahler what the 4th is to Brahms

Consider the 2nd to be to Mahler what the Piano Concerto No. 1 is to Brahms

Consider the 1st to be essentially like the Piano Concert No. 3 of Brahms....its essential listening but it doesn't sum up the composer.


----------



## Guest (Oct 24, 2011)

Brahms called Bruckner's symphonies "symphonic boa constrictors."

What neither he nor very many other people have noticed since then is that in terms of development, Bruckner's symphonies are actually more concise than Brahms'. That's because Brahms started out with very small cells and then developed the hell out of them. Bruckner started out with much longer motifs, so even developing them more concisely still makes for longer pieces overall.

Another thing, that more people have noticed, is that most of Bruckner's symphonies aren't all that long. 00, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9. Not all that much longer than Brahms 1 or 4 any of them. (And, depending on performance, a few of those are shorter than either the Brahms 1 or 4.)

For the larger ones, 5 and 8 are almost universally considered to be models of tight construction. So neither "inflated" nor "on and on and on" seem to be quite apt.

As for "self-indulgence, suffering, the divine," that's just the autobiographical fallacy at work, I think. Best to ignore what composers thought they were doing, certainly best to ignore the details of their lives. Best to listen to what's actually sounding, without any preconceptions. Impossible? Of course. But a good goal to aim for, I think.

And, finally, as for the reputations of either Bruckner or Mahler, what does it matter how large those reputations are? (I think it does matter, but I suspect my answer would be different from yours, so I'm holding on to mine, at least for the nonce.)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DavidMahler said:


> Mahler's 1st doesn't have a tight packed structure in my opinion.....It attempts to and certainly demonstrates it well. The 9th and 6th have a tighter structure.


And yet the 9th Symphony comes in around 30 mins longer than the 1st. That doesn't suggest a conciseness of vision...


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

DavidMahler said:


> also, i don't even value the piano quartet movement he wrote when he was 16 as a real Mahler work.


I also think that Mahler wasn't Mahler when he was 16.

As for his 1st, though it's hardly essence of his style I find it to be one of those works that make one regret that the composer abandoned some things in his later career, things that he could do great.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DavidMahler said:


> also, i don't even value the piano quartet movement he wrote when he was 16 as a real Mahler work.


That's why it's enjoyable.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Mahler's 1st =









Mahler's 9th =


----------



## Guest (Oct 25, 2011)

Thanks everyone for these great comments!! someguy: you make a terrific point - forget the autobiographical stuff, yes!! When I was an English teacher in high school I used to ask my students (particularly in teaching GB Shaw) "whom do you believe: the tale or the teller?" This was particularly relevant because Shaw complained about the over-romanticization of "Pygmalion" by many theatre directors and actors and he wrote an extensive 'postlude' to the work to explain why this wasn't possible. My argument was then, and is now, that the work, once in the public domain, must stand alone and be judged on its own merits - irrespective of anything "said" or done by the composer regarding the work before or since. I still believe that.


----------



## JimC (Oct 27, 2011)

The young Mahler championed Bruckner when the latter was being bashed by the Viennese critical establishment (which was pro-Brahms). Apart from length, their symphonies are quite different. To me, Mahler sprawls and is often repetitive (most of his quick themes are march-derived, 2/4 time). But Mahler blooms when he has an inspiring poem, so his works for voice are concise and very moving.

Bruckner is altogether something else. The abstraction of the symphony was his life's work. It's taken me a long time to understand them but (if and) when it happens, the breakthrough is unforgettable. I was on a long night drive listening to the Fourth -- completely mesmerized. The complexity of the voicing, the instrumentation and the thematic material all came together in a dramatic lightning bolt. The final pages of the symphony were so spine-tingling it was as if someone had poured cold water down my back. I had to pull off to the shoulder. 

Bruckner was an inventor of gigantic stature who used music to express a philosophy and spirituality that were unique in his time, if not of all time. His symphonies make those of Brahms seem like idle, pleasant entertainment, similar to Mendelssohn. 

All of Bruckner's great symphonies end, invariably, as if one is stepping across a threshold where human life is both created and destroyed. The monumental codas, with their powerful reiteration of the tonic, prepare you to come face to face with the origin of the universe.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

JimC said:


> Bruckner was an inventor of gigantic stature who used music to express a philosophy and spirituality that were unique in his time, if not of all time. His symphonies make those of Brahms seem like idle, pleasant entertainment, similar to Mendelssohn.


Watch your mouth when you're talking about Mendelssohn, fool! You're comparing the incomparable.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

I must admit out of the two I much prefer Mahler he seems to take you on a journey. 
Whereas Bruckner takes you on a journey and you get lost and don’t know were you’re going!


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

While I truly love Bruckner, it's no secret that a lot of his symphonies start to sound the same. He had a great grasp on ideas, but he had a far limited pallet compared to Mahler.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

presto said:


> Whereas Bruckner takes you on a journey and you get lost and don't know were you're going!


Hmm. Personally, I don't get that from Bruckner. When I hear his music, it's like he's taking you from darkness to light, hiking from peak to peak. Sure, there are side trails, but you eventually end up where you want to be.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Calling Mahler and Bruckner film music is like calling Mozart pop music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 28, 2011)

JimC I must totally disagree about Brahms. His symphonies are absolutely stunning and speak very directly to the listener, without pomposity or meanderings. Thanks for your very thoughtful comments about Bruckner and Mahler. I am willing to give it another go based solely on what you have said, but I cannot abide Mahler.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

The last symphony which Mahler completed during Brahms lifetime was the 2nd (he actually completed the 3rd but it wasn't performed)... Brahms felt the 2nd (particularly the scherzo) was a brilliant work.

Mahler's strongest work comes from the 20th Century. No one wrote symphonies like the 5th through 10th before or since.

The earlier Mahler sounds less personal, more public and therefore less intense. With every symphony minus the 8th (which in my opinion sticks out like a sore thumb), Mahler got more and more personal


----------



## Guest (Oct 30, 2011)

Brahms also thought the music of Johann Strauss was excellent too, though how much credibility one can ascribe to those comments is anybody's guess. He is actually said to have written on one of Strauss' waltz manuscripts "not by JB, unfortunately". I've always thought his waltz parody in the 3rd symphony 1st movement was far superior to anything written by a 19th century Strauss anyway!! Who knows, Johannes could have been playing politics and/or was simply being ironic. Same with his comments about Mahler? In any case, saying something is "good" isn't the same as saying you like it. I think Richard Strauss' "Ariadne auf Naxos" is good but I don't particularly like the work. And I think "Paradise Lost" is brilliant but I don't particularly like reading it.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Brahms also thought the music of Johann Strauss was excellent too, though how much credibility one can ascribe to those comments is anybody's guess. He is actually said to have written on one of Strauss' waltz manuscripts "not by JB, unfortunately". I've always thought his waltz parody in the 3rd symphony 1st movement was far superior to anything written by a 19th century Strauss anyway!! Who knows, Johannes could have been playing politics and/or was simply being ironic. Same with his comments about Mahler? In any case, saying something is "good" isn't the same as saying you like it. I think Richard Strauss' "Ariadne auf Naxos" is good but I don't particularly like the work. And I think "Paradise Lost" is brilliant but I don't particularly like reading it.


As far as I know both Brahms and Berlioz were genuinely impressed by Strauss' waltzes for their rhythmic vitality, but I doubt either of them admired Strauss in the same way the admired Beethoven or Mozart. They recognised his music for what it was: excellent entertainment.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Brahms and Strauss were genuine friends. I've never read anything to the contrary despite the occasional cynicism of those who don't appreciate the Strauss waltzes as anything other than inferior fluff. The Strauss waltzes were perfect as Viennese dance music--melodic, well orchestrated, and well performed. A New Year's celebration in Vienna without the Strauss waltzes would be unthinkable, with many of those concerts easily available online where these delightful waltzes as DANCE music can still be seen & heard. The music was never intended just for couch potatoes as concert pieces only-and so they're quite often misunderstood. Brahms unquestionably admired Strauss, and there's really no guesswork or speculation about it:



> Widmann has recorded the great liking the master had for Der Fledermaus, the most famous of the Strauss operettas. Brahms spent a summer with Widmann, who tells us that "Brahms was very partial to the summer theatre on the Schänzli, where operas and operettas were frequently given, mostly with pianoforte accompaniment. Above all he would never miss a performance of the Fledermaus, which was given several times that summer; but he would often exclaim, "Could you but see and hear this played and sung in Vienna!"
> 
> Dr. George Henschel (now Sir George, by the way) has told us in his "Recollections of Brahms that the composer of The Academic Overture and the famous Symphony in D often declared that he would have given much to have been the composer of Strauss's Blue Danube waltz. It is also related that the wife of Johann Strauss once asked Brahms for his autograph to put on her fan. He immediately complied with her request, writing the opening measure of the Blue Danube waltz, and putting under it, "not, alas, by Johannes Brahms." [unquote]
> 
> http://etudemagazine.com/etude/1914/10/johannes-brahms-and-johann-strauss-jr.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> > Brahms and Strauss were genuine friends. I've never read anything to the contrary despite the occasional cynicism of those who don't appreciate the Strauss waltzes as anything other than inferior fluff. The Strauss waltzes were perfect as Viennese dance music--melodic, well orchestrated, and well performed. A New Year's celebration in Vienna without the Strauss waltzes would be unthinkable, with many of those concerts easily available online where these delightful waltzes as DANCE music can still be seen & heard. The music was never intended just for couch potatoes as concert pieces only-and so they're quite often misunderstood. Brahms unquestionably admired Strauss, and there's really no guesswork or speculation about it. Widmann has recorded the great liking the master had for Der Fledermaus, the most famous of the Strauss operettas. Brahms spent a summer with Widmann, who tells us that "Brahms was very partial to the summer theatre on the Schänzli, where operas and operettas were frequently given, mostly with pianoforte accompaniment. Above all he would never miss a performance of the Fledermaus, which was given several times that summer; but he would often exclaim, "Could you but see and hear this played and sung in Vienna!"
> > [unquote]
> 
> 
> ...


----------

