# I cannot understand why some who loves Wagner would dislike Mahler



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Mahler extracted from Wagner so much of what made Wagner's writing great and then improved it. Gave it much more form, more counterpoint, more emotion, and toward the end of his life, more dissonance. He also removed the distraction of opera and got to the music much more directly. In my eyes, Wagner is Copernicus and Mahler is Galileo.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Can you figure out why I dislike Wagner's music and like Mahler's? Could help your ciphering.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

Hitler loved Wagner but disliked Mahler. I think I know why. One would hope that such racists aren't around any more, but ... who knows!


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

I agree that the drama in Wagner can get in the way of the wonderful music, the abominable Tannhäuser being a prime example, but I really don't think there is that much similarity musically between the two composers.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

There are others who cannot understand why someone would love Mahler but not Wagner.

This argument cuts both ways.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

DavidMahler said:


> Mahler extracted from Wagner so much of what made Wagner's writing great and then improved it.


No.



DavidMahler said:


> Gave it much more form,


A bad thing.



DavidMahler said:


> more counterpoint,


Who gives a ****.



DavidMahler said:


> more emotion,


No.



DavidMahler said:


> and toward the end of his life, more dissonance.


A bad thing.



DavidMahler said:


> He also removed the distraction of opera and got to the music much more directly.


He removed the thrust of the drama, the humanity of the passion, and the literary critical interest.



DavidMahler said:


> In my eyes, Wagner is Copernicus and Mahler is Galileo.


In my eyes, Wagner is a mountain and Mahler is a mountain goat.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Couchie said:


> In my eyes, Wagner is a mountain and Mahler is a mountain goat.


lol, but Lisztian shouldn't have liked it


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> lol, but Lisztian shouldn't have liked it


I actually disagree with him, but I always tend to laugh at Couchie's posts...I'm a huge Mahler fan. I wouldn't call one better than the other though. I love them both.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

By the way couchie,

Mahler's music is inward, specifically the final works - where he wrote his life, his struggle, he wrote himself. Wagner was writing plays.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

DavidMahler said:


> By the way couchie,
> 
> Mahler's music is inward, specifically the final works - where he wrote his life, his struggle, he wrote himself. Wagner was writing plays.


Blahdeeblahdeeblah  Apples and oranges, my friend. Plays can be very evocative and humanistic as well.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Blahdeeblahdeeblah  Apples and oranges, my friend. Plays can be very evocative and humanistic as well.


Yes and no, but not to me.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> There are others who cannot understand why someone would love Mahler but not Wagner.
> 
> This argument cuts both ways.


Guys, guys.

http://mahler.universaledition.com/daniel-barenboim-on-gustav-mahler/

Daniel Barenboim loves Wagner, used to hate Mahler.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Many reasons, as Hilltroll suggests, it could be any reason depending on the individual listener.

The thing I can think of is that Wagner was telling these epic stories, not really related to his own life, whereas Mahler was essentially telling his own story (very autobiographical).

Obvious elephant in the room is that Wagner mainly did opera, while Mahler's forte was the symphony. They are different things, though both of them broke down conventions of these genres, thus the stricter boundaries between them of the past really began to vanish during their time & in their music. Eg. Wagner's gesamkunstwerk thing kind of has a counterpart in Mahler view of the symphony containing the whole world. But they just did things their own way, that's it I guess...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Many reasons, as Hilltroll suggests, it could be any reason depending on the individual listener.
> 
> The thing I can think of is that Wagner was telling these epic stories, not really related to his own life, whereas Mahler was essentially telling his own story (very autobiographical).
> 
> Obvious elephant in the room is that Wagner mainly did opera, while Mahler's forte was the symphony. They are different things, though both of them broke down conventions of these genres, thus the stricter boundaries between them of the past really began to vanish during their time & in their music. Eg. Wagner's gesamkunstwerk thing kind of has a counterpart in Mahler view of the symphony containing the whole world. But they just did things their own way, that's it I guess...


Epics are impersonal? Just like oratorios and masses, I think they can be very personal.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

I don't hear truth (whatever it may be) in Wagner's music. I hear every other great artistic miracle in Wagner tho.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

DavidMahler said:


> I don't hear truth (whatever it may be) in Wagner's music. I hear every other great artistic miracle in Wagner tho.


What is that supposed to mean?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> What is that supposed to mean?


No warm tingly feeling.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Warm tingly feeling is a good way to describe it actually!

I don't think Wagner gets to truth. I don't think he was searching for truth. It doesn't sound as though he was pained or reflecting the overcoming of inner struggle. His compositions sound wholly removed from introspection.

But he was capable of great music and beauty and, at least on the exterior, great pathos.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> Warm tingly feeling is a good way to describe it actually!
> 
> I don't think Wagner gets to truth. I don't think he was searching for truth. It doesn't sound as though he was pained or reflecting the overcoming of inner struggle. His compositions sound wholly removed from introspection.
> 
> But he was capable of great music and beauty and, at least on the exterior, great pathos.


The attributes you ascribe to Mahler is what turned Barenboim off to Mahler. He thought him pretentious, overwrought, etc.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Amfibius said:


> Hitler loved Wagner but disliked Mahler. I think I know why. One would hope that such racists aren't around any more, but ... who knows!


It's because Wagner wrote German music. Mahler only wrote Austrian music.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> The attributes you ascribe to Mahler is what turned Barenboim off to Mahler. He thought him pretentious, overwrought, etc.


Yet Barenboim loved Liszt. Take that haters.

Continue.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The thing I can think of is that Wagner was telling these epic stories, not really related to his own life, whereas Mahler was essentially telling his own story (very autobiographical).

So to once again play the devil's advocate, you are suggesting that some self-centered git relating the boring personal details of his autobiography is more interesting than a narrative exploring issues and ideas beyond those of the self?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The thing I can think of is that *Wagner was telling these epic stories, not really related to his own life, whereas Mahler was essentially telling his own story* (very autobiographical).
> 
> So to once again play the devil's advocate, you are suggesting that some self-centered git relating the boring personal details of his autobiography is more interesting than a narrative exploring issues and ideas beyond those of the self?


That's why I like Wagner better than Mahler.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Sid James said -

The thing I can think of is that Wagner was telling these epic stories, not really related to his own life, whereas Mahler was essentially telling his own story (very autobiographical).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> So to once again play the devil's advocate, you are suggesting that some self-centered git relating the boring personal details of his autobiography is more interesting than a narrative exploring issues and ideas beyond those of the self?





Lukecash12 said:


> Epics are impersonal? Just like oratorios and masses, I think they can be very personal.


Again, people putting words into my mouth here, which makes me wonder why I come here in the first place.

I was stating what's obvious. Of course, it's basic and it's not very "advanced" musicology, but to boil it down (one more time for the dummies?) -

- Wagner did opera, which is itself a medium for telling stories, in his case, his greatest (well known, etc.) operas have a mystical theme. Like Weber, for example. That kind of thing. Going back to the past. Not like Beethoven for example, with _Fidelio_, talking to the issues of revolutionary Europe of his own time in that, the struggle for democracy against the _ancien regime_ coming just after the French REvolution, etc. So get it? Or are you going to put more words in my mouth that I'm not saying?

- Mahler mainly the symphony was his forte. In his case in particular, he told his life's story through these works. Berlioz did a similar thing with _Symphonie Fantastique _& also _Harold in Italy _(which had little to do with the original source, Byron's travels in Italy, it had much more to do with Berlioz's travellings there). So again, is this too simple for you people?

& apart from this, things I'd add, things Wagner and Mahler had in common -

- Both were difficult to get along with. Wagner his huge ego, Mahler his super sensitivity and neuroses (he had some psychoanalysis sessions with Sigmund Freud).

- Both admired Bizet, Wagner liked _CArmen_, Mahler liked _Djamileh_. A commonality I thought I'd just throw in.

- Both excellent writers for the human voice. Not only in their big works, but in art-song, in which both excelled.

- & the obvious, both expanded the scale of their genres, opera and the symphony. As a result, it's expensive to perform their works due to the massive forces required (again, generalising there).

- Talking to classical music lovers I know, neither are universally accepted among them. Eg. probably both due to their length, intensity, testing people's endurance, etc. Composers like J.S. Bach and Mozart are as universally admired in the Western world - and beyond - as you can get, not so for Wagner or Mahler (who do have large followings as well, but it's not across the board as for some other "big names" out there). Wagner may be due to his politics, but I'd guess not solely, and Mahler due to his emotionalism, which some think of as self-indulgent...


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

brianwalker said:


> The attributes you ascribe to Mahler is what turned Barenboim off to Mahler. He thought him pretentious, overwrought, etc.


Barenboim is a lackluster Mahler conductor. Ive seen him conduct the 1st, 5th, 7th, 9th, Das Lied, Kindertotenlieder.

Zzzzz except for the 7th, and his performance of the 9th was the worst I have ever heard or seen.

Actually, when I saw him conduct the 9th, I was sitting with David Hurwitz and we were both checking our watches.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't understand when Wagner fans complain about the length and overblowness of Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I don't understand when Wagner fans complain about the length and overblowness of Mahler's symphonies.

Ummm.... when do Wagner fans do this? Of course I'm speaking for myself here, but as a fan of Wagner I'm also quite enamored of Mahler, Richard Strauss, Bruckner, Puccini, and many others who might be seen as heirs of Wagner.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I don't understand when Wagner fans complain about the length and overblowness of Mahler's symphonies.
> 
> Ummm.... when do Wagner fans do this? Of course I'm speaking for myself here, but as a fan of Wagner I'm also quite enamored of Mahler, Richard Strauss, Bruckner, Puccini, and many others who might be seen as heirs of Wagner.


I can't pick out specific examples, but I've come across some who do.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I think neither are typical of their time. Wagner especially, who else wrote operas like him, esp. in German? (eg. the length as well as other things). Mahler too, the only guy nearest to him is Bruckner, but of course he is different. In the late c19th, in terms of the symphony, there were guys like Tchaikovsky and Brahms to name two biggies, who didn't write hour long symphonies. As for opera, it's similar thing, Wagner is atypical of the operas produced in his time. There were some composers who did Wagner rehash after, but they are small fry now. The big impacts where by guys who took Wagner's ideas on board in opera and did their own thing with them, not just glorified rehash. Two biggies there are R. Strauss and Berg. But their things came after 1900, in the case of Berg's _Wozzeck_, in the 1920's.

So both Mahler and Wagner revolutionised their genres, but they were pretty unique in what they did. By the time their innovations and refinements became more kind of mainstream or understood (well, by composers at least), the whole ball game had changed. The era of mammoth things was over, basically. For one example, none of the 20th century Viennese School wrote a symphony, and they pared things down (eg. Schoenberg's _Chamber Symphonies _for 15 instruments). Berg's Lulu symphony or suite doesn't strictly count, it was extracted from the opera, but one can argue, in any case, it's the only "symphony" from those three guys (correction, there's also Webern's one, but at 8 minutes and in two short movements, hardly comparable to a Mahler symphony in many ways).

Eg. By the time Schoenberg's _Gurre-lieder _was premiered, 10 years after being written, the era of big things was over. The audience who Schoenberg saw as being stuck in the past cheered, and he thought they were dinosaurs, he only reluctantly went to the stage to acknowledge their applause. Music had moved on in 10 years, the era of bigger being better was larely over, seen as an anachronism...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Another point is that Wagner has good, accessible melody. Arguably up there with Mozart and Tchaikovsky. Mahler, not so much.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> Another point is that Wagner has good, accessible melody. Arguably up there with Mozart and Tchaikovsky. Mahler, not so much.


I lol'ed at this.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> Another point is that Wagner has good, accessible melody...


The famous highlights, yes. Many people know them, know those tunes. How many brides have walked down the aisle to you know what?

Most classical fans, incl. myself, have at least these highlights on record, even though they don't own a whole opera of his.

As for Wagner's operas as a whole, it's a different story. But I've come across people into Wagner, yes. But I've not met a Wagnerite yet, somebody almost exclusively into him. They seem rare to me.



> ...Arguably up there with Mozart and Tchaikovsky. Mahler, not so much.


Wagner is up there but so is Mahler. Think the _Adagietto_, used in Visconti's film _Death in Venice_, but the opening funeral march of that 5th symphony has been used on TV ads and was even the theme tune for a show I remember ages ago. Stuff like that.

Both Wagner and Mahler have entered the popular culture. Most people would be probably okay with some of their music, not necessarily the whole extravaganza.

For "hard core" listeners or fans of each or both, it's a different ball game, that's probably where the polarities and antagonisms come up to the surface. Sadly, it's probably human nature to do that, to split into groups...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Sid James said:


> As for Wagner's operas as a whole, it's a different story. But I've come across people into Wagner, yes. But I've not met a Wagnerite yet, somebody almost exclusively into him. They seem rare to me.


Maybe this guy...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Maybe this guy...


Well I meant people I've come across personally in the flesh . But I do know older guys from the generation who bought the first Wagner cycle on stereo done by Maestro Solti. It was exciting for them back then, very exciting and a new experience. But they are not Wagnerites, but they do like his music deeply, but not to the exclusion of other things...


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

1. Read thread
2. Hope for unbiased discussion
3. See username David*Mahler*
4. See Couchie
5. Cry


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Wagner is atypical of the operas produced in his time. There were some composers who did Wagner rehash after, but they are small fry now. The big impacts where by guys who took Wagner's ideas on board in opera and did their own thing with them, not just glorified rehash. Two biggies there are R. Strauss and Berg. But their things came after 1900, in the case of Berg's Wozzeck, in the 1920's

Wagner's impact was immense... and in no way limited to opera. Yet I agree that he had no clear immediate heirs in the field of opera. It is later composers such as Richard Strauss, Debussy, and in his own way, Puccini, who took the ideas of Wagner further... in their own unique manner. Of course this might be said of most major influential figures. Beethoven has no immediate clear heir (although some might suggest Schubert... who was really but a younger peer). Brahms is the most obvious composer who builds upon Beethoven... but Brahms is later and like Strauss and Mahler, has his own unique voice and vision.

So both Mahler and Wagner revolutionised their genres, but they were pretty unique in what they did. By the time their innovations and refinements became more kind of mainstream or understood (well, by composers at least), the whole ball game had changed. The era of mammoth things was over, basically... the era of bigger being better was larely over, seen as an anachronism...

I don't know if I would agree with this. While later composers may not have rivaled Wagner's operas in terms of scale, you do recognize a similar richness and grandeur of orchestration in Tchaikovsky, Mahler, Debussy, Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Rachmaninoff, Korngold, Zemlinsky, Szymanowski, and even Stravinsky. I agree that there was a certain intimacy of scale... born of chamber music and the cabaret as well as (in part) an intentional rejection of the extremes of Romanticism. One sees the same thing in early Modernism... in the small cubist paintings of Picasso and Braque, and the initial abstractions of Mondrian, Kandinsky, and Klee... but Modernism soon reveals an audacity and grandeur of intention equal to Romanticism. Richard Strauss' works are no less rich and lush than those of Wagner. Benjamin Britten's War Requiem and a good many of his operas are no less ambitious. Nor are Shostakovitch' operas and a number of his symphonies, or Prokofiev's ballets. Taken into the late 20th century we find a certain irony involved in the fact that the composer often seen as the epitome of Minimalism, Philip Glass, has produced some of the longest and least "minimal" operas. Scale and ambition seems to be something that continually wavers in the arts. Today, the visual arts are dominated by a grandeur of scale which in many ways in contrasted by the vapid and shallow vision. It is as if all this bluster was but a bluff for lacking anything of substance to say. This most certainly was not true of Wagner and the greatest of the Romantics. In a contrary manner, we should recognize that the intimacy and diminutiveness of works by Satie, Debussy, Stravinsky, Shostakovitch (the Preludes and the Quartets), Berg, etc... should not be confused with a lack of ambition.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I can agree that Wagner's drama or story can kind of get in the way of enjoying the music sometimes. When I listened to T&I all the way through with the translation of the libretto in my hand, I loved the music, but the libretto got really annoying. It was like Wagner just sat down and said "hmm now how many annoyingly nauseating ways can I make these characters say they love each other?" 

In fact, this is a breif summary of Act II as I remember it:

Tristan: I love you!
Isolde: I love you more!
Tristan: I love you the most
Isolde: I love you the mostest!
Tristan: No I love you the mostest
Isolde: OMG there are people after us!
Tristan: Oh no! well its ok cause I love you
Isolde: No I love you more!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

violadude said:


> I can agree that Wagner's drama or story can kind of get in the way of enjoying the music sometimes. When I listened to T&I all the way through with the translation of the libretto in my hand, I loved the music, but the libretto got really annoying. It was like Wagner just sat down and said "hmm now how many annoyingly nauseating ways can I make these characters say they love each other?"
> 
> In fact, this is a breif summary of Act II as I remember it:
> 
> ...


That sounds lovely. It's what I imagine true love to be like.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> That sounds lovely. It's what I imagine true love to be like.


I would kill myself if that's what true love was like


----------



## Sofronitsky (Jun 12, 2011)

violadude said:


> I can agree that Wagner's drama or story can kind of get in the way of enjoying the music sometimes. When I listened to T&I all the way through with the translation of the libretto in my hand, I loved the music, but the libretto got really annoying. It was like Wagner just sat down and said "hmm now how many annoyingly nauseating ways can I make these characters say they love each other?"
> 
> In fact, this is a breif summary of Act II as I remember it:
> 
> ...


Ahh, yes.

Now we await the wrath of Couchie.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

I hope there will be blood.

Grabs my popcorn...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> I can agree that Wagner's drama or story can kind of get in the way of enjoying the music sometimes. When I listened to T&I all the way through with the translation of the libretto in my hand, I loved the music, but the libretto got really annoying. It was like Wagner just sat down and said "hmm now how many annoyingly nauseating ways can I make these characters say they love each other?"
> 
> In fact, this is a breif summary of Act II as I remember it:
> 
> ...


I always tune out at the end of Act I. Seems to be a good thing judging by that very detailed and exhaustively researched summary.

I _do_ like Wagner though.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

When dialogue is sung, I feel disconnected from it. That's why I'm not a huge opera fan. Lieder is more abstract and because of this, I connect to it much more. The final movement of Mahler's 8th by the way is really well done considering I don't enjoy sung dialogue.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I like both Wagner and Mahler, but I listen to them quite differently. Mahler is a more abstract sort of emotion, while Wagner is contextual. Also, at least in Wagner's less internal dramas, the variety of emotions is varied in a less "hill and dale" way than Mahler. Bruckner is even more up and down in his contrasts than Mahler. That's quite different from Wagner. Also, Wagner's complex use of leitmotifs is totally unique. I don't know any other composer who structures things that way.

But as someone already mentioned, the big difference is that Wagner's music supports a theatrical drama and Mahler's comes from the symphonic tradition. That is totally apples and oranges.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

This is an interesting thread. Why not ask the question: "why do people like some works of one particular composer and not like many others pieces by the same composer"? Why should there be an assumption that liking Wagner's music implies liking Mahler's?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Sid James said -
> 
> The thing I can think of is that Wagner was telling these epic stories, not really related to his own life, whereas Mahler was essentially telling his own story (very autobiographical).
> 
> ...


Hmmm... It appears you've mistaken Stluke's coy humor and my lighthearted suggestion, for an assessment of your views.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

violadude said:


> I can agree that Wagner's drama or story can kind of get in the way of enjoying the music sometimes. When I listened to T&I all the way through with the translation of the libretto in my hand, I loved the music, but the libretto got really annoying. It was like Wagner just sat down and said "hmm now how many annoyingly nauseating ways can I make these characters say they love each other?"
> 
> In fact, this is a breif summary of Act II as I remember it:
> 
> ...


That's a highly inaccurate account.

ACT 1:
Isolde: I hate you. Drink to that?
Tristan: Sure
Isolde: I love you.
Tristan: I love you.
END SCENE

ACT 2:
Isolde: I must see Tristan!
Brangäne: Careful! Melot is onto you guys!
Isolde: Bitch, what do you know, you're just a maid. Go keep watch.
Tristan: I love you!
Isolde: I love you!
Tristan: I love you so much I must die!
Isolde: I'm on board with this!
King Marke: What the ****? How could my forcibly taken enemy bride cheat on me?
Melot: Take this, Tristan!
Tristan: K.
END SCENE

ACT 3:
Tristan: IS THAT ISOLDE'S SHIP?
Kurwenal: No.
Tristan: NOW?
Kurwenal: No.
Tristan: NOW?
Kurwenal: Yes.
Tristan: *dies*
Melot and Kurwenal kill each other.
Brangäne: Ah, all this senseless death right after I finally told a completely understanding Marke about the love potion I gave them. Aren't I just the worst?
Isolde: *dies*
FIN


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

What a fantastic interview!!! Thanks for posting that link...totally absorbing.



brianwalker said:


> Guys, guys.
> 
> http://mahler.universaledition.com/daniel-barenboim-on-gustav-mahler/
> 
> Daniel Barenboim loves Wagner, used to hate Mahler.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> That's a highly inaccurate account.
> 
> ACT 1:
> Isolde: I hate you. Drink to that?
> ...


:lol: Well done Couchie! :clap: That is most accurate summary of one of the greatest Wagner music-drama I have seen.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I agree wholeheartedly - there is genius music in Wagner, but I don't care for much for the mythology and romances. Btw, listened to 'Prologue' and liked it, especially from 8:57 to the end with great liking for about 9:25 when the contrabassoon and trombone and clarinet sounds begin to squawk about - _very_ engaging to listen to. I'll try to check out more of your stuff. Also, btw...if you didn't read that interview w Barenboim re Mahler in this thread posted by 'brianwalker' on first page, you should give it a look. I thought it was great.



Crudblud said:


> I agree that the drama in Wagner can get in the way of the wonderful music, the abominable Tannhäuser being a prime example, but I really don't think there is that much similarity musically between the two composers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hmmm... It appears you've mistaken Stluke's coy humor and my lighthearted suggestion, for an assessment of your views.


Well maybe I went overboard. But I don't get humour on the internet well. Sometimes I don't know whether people are serious or not.

But anyway, take that long-winded post as just a clarification, whether it was needed or not...


----------



## Glissando (Nov 25, 2011)

I do agree that Mahler and Wagner have way more in common than a comparison of any other two random composers would usually lead to. For example, try comparing Bach and Wagner. There are so many differences: Bach was a devout Lutheran who fathered 20 children, lived in abject conditions, was considered little more than a servant kapellmeister by his employers and peers, and yet still wrote hundreds of pieces that exhausted the range of musical invention that existed during is life (except for opera). Wagner, on the other hand, was not religious -- could maybe even be considered anti-Christian -- wore silks and ermine furs for the rest of his life after working as a writer of petty jingles and other trifles, and after reaching success, attained a godlike fame. And unlike Bach, he only really worked in one genre for the most part: opera, the one that Bach never touched. 

Mahler and Wagner share many similarities. For one, Wagner was a huge influence on Mahler, both as a conductor and as a composer. Mahler was actually a Wagnerian conductor: he did conduct sections of the Ring for the Metropolitan Opera, if I remember correctly. Neither men were actively religious, and both were interested in atheist German philosophers like Nietzsche. This leads to another likeness: both were radical experimentalists in their music. They expanded the orchestra to include new instruments and grew it to a huge force. Both wrote on a huge scale, and both worked with dissonance, chromaticism, rapid shifts in mood and volume, and super-slow tempos. 

While it is true that the key difference is that Wagner wrote operas and Mahler wrote symphonies, it's also true that Wagner was an opera composer like no other. The voices were not considered more important the orchestra -- rather, they participated in a symbiotic relationship, such that a Wagner opera can at times sound like a symphony with vocals on top of it. 

Another point linking the two men is that both were somewhat mentally unstable and had tumultuous lives that involved infidelities.

To my ear, Wagner is more conventionally enjoyable on an immediate melodic level than Mahler is. I have found that it takes me more listens to Mahler's music before I can get my bearings. That is understandable, because I think of Mahler as being midway between Wagner and Schoenberg. Both composers are great, and at this point I could not choose between them.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

*Mahler's camp..*

Wagner operas are overblown piece of #!?&...
*
Wagner's camp..*

Mahler's symphonies are overblown piece of #!?&...

Me.. (hides in the corner..)


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

peeyaj said:


> *Mahler's camp..*
> 
> Wagner operas are overblown piece of #!?&...
> *
> ...


I think I'm with you peeyaj. Although there should be a *Ligeti/Nyman/Farrenc/C. Schumann* camp too.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I think I'm with you peeyaj. Although there should be a *Ligeti/Nyman/Farrenc/C. Schumann* camp too.


Both camps are calling out each other.. *It's the pot calling the kettle black. *


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^& the world is ripe for false dichotomies...black and white thinking...

_"Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black." _- Henry Ford...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Glissando said:


> ...
> To my ear, Wagner is more conventionally enjoyable on an immediate melodic level than Mahler is. I have found that it takes me more listens to Mahler's music before I can get my bearings. That is understandable, because *I think of Mahler as being midway between Wagner and Schoenberg*. Both composers are great, and at this point I could not choose between them.


An interesting thought there, what you say is food for thought...


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm in both camps, drivin' round the German Alps with my BMW (Bruckner, Mahler, Wagner). Long story short, Wagner and Mahler share many similarities, but enough differences that I do understand why someone would love one and hate the other. But not me, I love them both equally!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> This is an interesting thread. Why not ask the question: "why do people like some works of one particular composer and not like many others pieces by the same composer"? Why should there be an assumption that liking Wagner's music implies liking Mahler's?


Because there's an affinity between them in terms of harmony and orchestration and the general tenor of their music, a very close bond.

If someone adored Opus 131 and then spat on Opus 135 I, too, would raise a quizzical brow.

Lots of people tend to squeeze Mahler and Wagner in the same nutshell, so it's of course fascinating that two who are purportedly by many to be "the same" are, in fact, very distinct, that there is no "Mahler/Wagner" camp, but Mahler camp and Wagner camp, and that *those who think that the two are identical are missing on something. *

I love them both but they mean different things for me.

I don't think of Mahler as a symphonist in the vein of the Haydn-Mozart-Beethoven-Brahms symphony, but his "symphonies" as a Wagner-orchestral-Schubert-song synthesis. Symphony is a broad enough word to cover what he's doing, but to call his works symphonies strictly speaking is to equate Wagner's operas with Italian bel canto opera.

I think the problem Barenboim had is that he judged Mahler's symphonies as symphonies, while I judge them differently.

Consider "symphony" as one sport in the Music Olympics - say, archery, and song writing as discus throwing. Mahler did something innovative by combining the elements - like, discus throwing that aimed at objects. By the standards of archery he is not the greatest archer, and by the standards of discus throwing he may have not thrown the farthest.

Now the real question becomes whether discus archery is a "worthy" sport. I can't decide that, but I find it fruitful.

For example, often times in the discussion of the Mahler symphony Mahler's absolutely gorgeous, sublime orchestration is brought up, but it's almost always haughtily dismissed as having nothing to do with "the music" and "just orchestration", as if form and content were not one.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Wagner lovers, like Wagner himself, fully feel that the most meaning from music comes when it is allied with theater - something Wagner held so high as to be 'holy.'

Mahler never wrote theater work in his entire career - maybe he'd had enough conducting operas, including those of Wagner, and having dealt with all the kerfuffle of Divas, Divos, set designers and stage machinery to turn him off it completely.

So with Wagnerites, I am venturing a rather precarious guess that it is not wholly about music, or a similar musical vocabulary, but attachment to theater, and the import of the psychology of the literal drama which holds them in thrall, and also often enough makes them 'certain' that nothing else comes anywhere close.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Wagner lovers, like Wagner himself, fully feel that the most meaning from music comes when it is allied with theater - something Wagner held so high as to be 'holy.'
> 
> Mahler never wrote theater work in his entire career - maybe he'd had enough conducting operas, including those of Wagner, and having dealt with all the kerfuffle of Divas, Divos, set designers and stage machinery to turn him off it completely.
> 
> So with Wagnerites, I am venturing a rather precarious guess that it is not wholly about music, or a similar musical vocabulary, but attachment to theater, and the import of the psychology of the literal drama which holds them in thrall, and also often enough makes them 'certain' that nothing else comes anywhere close.


There are disputes among Wagnerites over what his music "means" and which aspect is paramount and which aspects should be emphasized, which is why you have the Karajan/Solti divide and their partisans. Some Wagnerites emphasize the theater aspect, but that has changed over time - apparently while Wagner was alive the performers were zen like and didn't move around much. Again, I think Wagner is too rich and Wagnerites too diverse and divergent to fit into these nutshells.

http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2005/06/a_discussion_on.html



> Richard Loeb's comment (in another post in this thread) that,
> 
> >I think we get closer to what this work [_Tristan_] ...
> >with Flagtad and Melchior giving us the essence of these characters
> ...


http://www.soundsandfury.com/soundsandfury/2008/08/oh-dear-here-we-go-again.html



> Responding to an eMail of mine on a Wagner list wherein, with the exception of Das Rheingold, I declared the Karajan recording of Wagner's Ring a "perverse joke" because of Karajan's bizarre conceit that Wagner - even mature Wagner - should be made to sound as intimate and lyrical as Verdi, a TOF (True Opera Fan; like a teenage movie fan, only worse - much worse) lodged objection, and went on to cite his reasons, all of which had to do with the singers involved.
> 
> How did I know the responder was a TOF? He went on, and on, and interminably on about the singers and the singing, that's how. The principal (but not sole) distinguishing hallmark of the TOF is that he's convinced opera means Italian-form opera, and is therefore about one thing and one thing only: the singers and the singing. Whenever one encounters a critique of a performance of a mature Wagner work (i.e., those works post-Lohengrin) that dwells interminably on the singers and the singing, one can be certain one is dealing with a TOF, and safely dismiss the critique as being near-worthless. TOFs imagine that the works of the mature Wagner are nothing more than Italian opera writ large and sung in German; a bit like saying the noble elephant is merely a piddling rock hyrax, only bigger and with a trunk.
> 
> ...


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

For those of you who find Wagner to* "drag". Try Barenboim's Tristan and Tannhauser. *


----------



## Taneyev (Jan 19, 2009)

I don't like any of them.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Amfibius said:


> Hitler loved Wagner but disliked Mahler. I think I know why. One would hope that such racists aren't around any more, but ... who knows!


Perhaps you would like to spell out what you mean by this?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

moody said:


> Perhaps you would like to spell out what you mean by this?


Mahler hate = anti-semites is his subtext.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> That sounds lovely. It's what I imagine true love to be like.


I can quite imagine that you would say that.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Mahler hate = anti-semites is his subtext.


The point was that I wanted to hear his answer, all you've done is to put words into his mouth.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

brianwalker said:


> I think the problem Barenboim had is that he judged Mahler's symphonies as symphonies, while I judge them differently.


its an easy mistake to make!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

reminds me of Mahler


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Couchie said:


> He removed the thrust of the drama, the humanity of the passion, and the literary critical interest.


A good thing. Drama and passion expressed in non-music are boring. And who gives a **** about literacy critical interest. if I wanted this, I'd read Dickens or Dostoevsky.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I like both composers. Both would have benefited from a very aggressive editing post-creation step. 
Wagner's operas are filled with beautiful music but there is so much non-musical boring stuff, I end up skipping 80% of his operas. The 20% that I like is superb, though.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> For those of you who find Wagner to* "drag". Try Barenboim's Tristan and Tannhauser. *


I really like Tannhauser (Paris version) but still I find it gets boring for long stretches.

And I cannot make sense of Tristan und Isolde. Maybe one day I'll get to appreciate it but today there is almost nothing in it to hold my interest.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I cannot make sense of Tristan und Isolde. Maybe one day I'll get to appreciate it but today there is almost nothing in it to hold my interest.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Even my favorite scenes from Wagner, come across more like single statements than actual paragraphs or stories. It's like the definition of insanity, doing the same thing for hours expecting different results. I don't know if that video is a good exposition, but I overall don't hear the subtlety, creativity and mastery. For its time perhaps.

Edit: If we want to talk about chords and theory, it just intuitively feels like a good idea to not blast piercing screams over them so that the rest of the music is inaudible.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


>


Knowing that Wagner paved the way for modern music and that a chord he invented has pages devoted to it does not increase my ability to appreciate Tristan und Isolde, unfortunately.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

To explain some attention Wagner receives, it's first interesting that Mahler's 2nd alone is considered greater to most people on this forum than Der Ring des Nibelungen, as well as Mahler's 9th greater. The popularity of Wagner is represented in some way by an upside to Science's project where Wagner actually gets attention and people actually listen to his works and place them above Mahler's. However, I don't think this has any merit according to better tabulation, like the above the 50 works submission requirement of Periphery's tally: In other words this is just speculation, but the true downside to Science's ranking of Der Ring des Ninelungen is described *here*, and because of that, I don't think many people really _like_ his works as much as they vote, or listen to them as though they're longing, wistful Tier 2 works like they voted (not saying some don't,) but that's what that link means by 'lukewarm voting' in Science's tab, the praise of Wagner is not _strongly_ felt by most. Instead, it seems like more of a reflex of convention.

Now, this has nothing to do with the subjective or actual qualities of the composers, but rather why Wagner and Mahler may get compared as equals more than is logical. Mahler is definitely much more popular, so the popularity of Wagner isn't as warranted.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> To explain some attention Wagner receives, it's first interesting that Mahler's 2nd alone is considered greater to most people on this forum than Der Ring des Nibelungen, as well as Mahler's 9th alone. That upside to Science's project where Wagner actually gets attention and people actually listen to his works and place them above Mahler's, I don't think has any merit above the 50 works submission requirement of Periphery's tally: In other words, this is just speculation, but the true downside to Science's ranking of Der Ring des Ninelungen is described here, and because of that, I don't think many people really _like_ his works as much as they say or listen to them as though they're longing Tier 2 works like they vote. That's what that link means by 'lukewarm voting' in Science's tab, the praise of Wagner is not _strongly_ felt by most--instead it may be more of a reflex of convention.
> 
> Now, this has nothing to do with the subjective or actual qualities of the composers, but rather why Wagner and Mahler may get compared as equals more than is logical. Mahler is definitely much more popular, so the popularity of Wagner isn't as warranted.


I think you're forgetting to take into account that many members of the opera subforum rarely come here at the main forum, and that Wagner's works are probably much more popular among them. So, to have a big picture of a Wagner vs Mahler in terms of popularity here at TC, it would be needed to consider the results of a poll/project in that subforum as well. Also, Periphery's results represent a single moment here in these forums (July of 2020), while Science's project has been running for years and received the attention of far more members and, therefore, has yes more merit in terms of statistical relevance in my opinion.

You may be interested *in the results of this poll*. Wagner eclipses Mahler in it (at least for now), and it has more than three hundred votes.

*This poll* shows how popular Wagner is among the members of the opera subforum.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Both composers are like Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde to me. Some of what Wagner wrote is among my favourites yet I dislike a lot of his output. 

I love Mahler's 1st, 2nd and 5th symphonies, really like the 3rd but his later symphonies leave me cold. I don't see what the big deal about his 9th is, which for many is his best. It bores me to death; actually worse, it makes me want to turn it off as it begins to irritate me 10 minutes in. It sounds like the mad ravings of a schizophrenic.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Xisten267, while it's noted the project took place at one time, and is the one project that required one to list more than 50 greatest pieces (a task many can't do with conviction), the other polls you link, similar to Science's and *this poll,* aren't qualitative polls. They don't measure actual _strength_ of opinions. Most polls that get created don't. This is why they're less relevant no matter how long you run them. I made an analogy once with a Shostakovich vs Prokofiev poll. Prokofiev won by a hundred votes, but when people actually listed how strongly they liked the composers, the results shifted the other way. The Mahler/Wagner question is even more obvious. I don't believe it has anything to do with actual quality in their music, just that people like Mahler a lot more on average. The popularity of Wagner here is a bit of an illusion, kind of like Chopin or Vivaldi, where more threads get made more than people actually care.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Xisten267, while it's noted the project took place at one time, and is the one project that required one to list more than 50 greatest pieces (a task many can't do with conviction), the other polls you link like Science's, aren't qualitative polls. They don't measure actual _strength_ of opinions. Most of the polls in the opera forums don't. This is why they're less relevant no matter how long you run them. I made an analogy once with a Shostakovich vs Prokofiev poll. Prokofiev won the poll by a hundred votes, but when people actually listed how strongly they liked the composers, the results shifted the other way. The Mahler/Wagner question is even more obvious. I don't think it has anything to do with actual quality in their music, just that people like Mahler a lot more on average. The popularity of Wagner is a bit of an illusion.


Frankly, I don't believe that these results are so obvious. I, at least, cannot tell which of the two is the most popular at the moment - there's no data available aside from Science's project, the polls and Periphery's project and, as I told you, the latter isn't really representative of TC as a whole because it didn't cover an important portion of it's members. Perhaps you may want to create a project simultaneously in the opera subforum and here to test your hypothesis that Mahler is much more popular than Wagner. My two cents is that he probably isn't.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Well you're probably correct on an opera forum (which is 85% smaller than the main forums.) It wouldn't be fair to add that information to the main forum, because the main forum already included those people. A global poll is just that. This is why opera-lovers already voted him into these global polls, we don't re-add their information twice. A baroque forum might say Wagner is a great composer but Vivaldi is better :lol:. Either way this subject is not too important. But I do think certain composers get discussed more than people will actually listen to them. Wouldn't be surprised if there's a Wagner bible of eternal salvation sitting in many members' rooms, probably collecting some of his dust.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Well you're probably correct on an opera forum. A baroque forum might say Wagner is a great composer but Vivaldi is better :lol:


Ok, but there's no baroque subforum here at TC, and most users of other subforums tend to come here at the main one anyway, contrary to what seems to happen with those of the opera subforum that, by the way, is the larger of all subforums here aside from the main one. You can't just ignore it if you want to talk about popularity of something in TC as a whole.

Besides, it makes even more sense to take into account what the people that like operas think in this case because Wagner is mainly a composer of operas. Your data is biased if you don't.

It's reasonable to think that Mahler is more popular than Wagner among people who doesn't like opera, and that the opposite is true among people who like. So, both parts must be considered if one wants to know their overall popularity.



Ethereality said:


> Well you're probably correct on an opera forum (which is 85% smaller than the main forums.)


Why 15% of your universe of possibilities should be ignored? To me it looks like an important portion of this universe.



Ethereality said:


> It wouldn't be fair to add that information to the main forum, because the main forum already included those people.


Actually, no. Most users of the opera subforum don't come here frequently. Take a look at the non-anonymous polls or in the many rounds of Science's project and you'll see this.



Ethereality said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if there's a Wagner bible of eternal salvation sitting in many members' rooms, probably collecting some of his dust.


All great composers have their obsessed fans. This includes Mahler, Wagner or any other of them.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Xisten267 said:


> Actually, no. Most users of the opera subforum don't come here frequently. Take a look at the non-anonymous polls or in the many rounds of Science's project and you'll see this.


Not true. I don't really read the opera forum, but I recognize almost everyone there. If someone doesn't want to participate in a project hosted for a month on the main forum called "Classical Music," no problem. Most people didn't have the patience to sit down and do it. I know you did! It was a quality-based project, one of the only quality-based projects ever done, and it's all thanks to you participants. We should do something like accept more submissions soon. Still I don't think it says anything about how great Wagner or Mahler are, if anything you should be happy with the result, and that Wagner is not understood by everyone. Maybe you can change that.



> Why 15% of your universe of possibilities should be ignored? To me it looks like an important portion of this universe.


It's an unneeded extra data set to add to a forum called "Classical Music." So many biases that project considered and escaped. We (or someone else) might continue some more of these thoughtful projects so please still lend us your suggestions for changes. You and I want to go with what makes sense.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> ...
> 
> All great composers have their obsessed fans. This includes Mahler, Wagner or any other of them.


That's true; Mahler and Scriabin have the most "cultish" followings of any composers I can think of.

Still, I prefer Mahler, Bruckner and Strauss to Wagner.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I don't know about Scriabin but I didn't realize Mahler had a cultish following, the most cultish following I encountered with some frequence was Wagner, then Bruckner.

As someone wrote above or in a similar thread, it is only from a very skewed perspective in the age of internet fora that someone could think Mahler was more popular than Wagner. While the popularity of Mahler has exponentially increased in the last 50 years and both have been controversial figures since their lifetime, Wagner is a different order of magnitude. 
I am too young to recall that Mahler's symphonies were rare occurences but old enough to remember that they were still considered a bit of a niche in the late 1980s. Of course, some Wagner operas were also considered heavy and for dedicated listeners but you have all these famous bleeding chunks and preludes and at least, Holländer, Lohengrin and Tannhäuser have been quite popular even with the average opera buff, not Wagnerians only.

Anyway, they are rather different composers, so it is not unlikely that many will like one but not the other.


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

One person on this site says there is a Joseph Haydn cult.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Though Wagner and Mahler worked in different genres and though their music reflects rather different personalities, in the whole context of music's possibilities they are much more similar than different. They both epitomize the Romantic idea that music is primarily a vehicle of expression - the expression of emotions, feelings, sensations, impressions, atmospheres, etc. The main difference is that Wagner gives us a plot and dialogue to provide an explicit context for understanding what his music is about, while Mahler's symphonies (traditionally a fundamentally "abstract" form) don't tell explicit, sequential stories. But Mahler felt the need to incorporate words in many of his works, and whether with words or without, his kaleidoscopic, impulsive flow of musical ideas often conveys an intense sense of narrative and characterization, even within the frame of a predetermined form. We feel a drama transpiring without a literal stage.

We can speculate on what Wagner would have produced had he lived long enough to compose the symphonies he said he wanted to write after _Parsifal,_ but he remarked that writing symphonies and writing for the theater involved different thinking and procedures, and he cautioned against trying to incorporate into the latter the kinds of ideas appropriate to the latter. We'll never know exactly what he meant by that, but I wonder what he would have thought of some of Mahler's highly dramatic symphonic movements. My suspicion is that he would have been somewhat dubious about the programmatic feel of some of them, and there may be support for this in the tight thematic construction of some of his own overtures and other orchestral passages, not to mention the _Siegfried Idyll._


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I cannot describe this in any technical language but I think that we can glimpse from Wagner's Ouvertures, orchestral interludes (like Dawn and Rhine Journey) and Siegfried Idyll, that mature Wagner symphonies or tone poems would be quite different from Mahler's symphonies. They would be more "seamless", gradual, organic, less use of pre-shaped material (like recognizable (pseudo) folk/march/dance/chorale tunes), they would have fewer jarring contrasts. If one compares the beginning of Rhinegold or "Forest murmurs" to "nature music" by Mahler like the beginning of the 1st or some passages in the 3rd symphony, the contrast seems quite clear to me. (Mahler is alsp more raw, less romantically idealizing 
It's a very clumsy description but a Wagner symphonic poem or symphony might have been some mix between a more smoothly orchestrated and less four-square Bruckner and Smetana or Richard Strauss tone poems.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Kreisler jr said:


> I cannot describe this in any technical language but I think that we can glimpse from Wagner's Ouvertures, orchestral interludes (like Dawn and Rhine Journey) and Siegfried Idyll, that mature Wagner symphonies or tone poems would be quite different from Mahler's symphonies. They would be more "seamless", gradual, organic, less use of pre-shaped material (like recognizable (pseudo) folk/march/dance/chorale tunes), they would have fewer jarring contrasts. If one compares the beginning of Rhinegold or "Forest murmurs" to "nature music" by Mahler like the beginning of the 1st or some passages in the 3rd symphony, the contrast seems quite clear to me. (Mahler is alsp more raw, less romantically idealizing
> It's a very clumsy description but a Wagner symphonic poem or symphony might have been some mix between a more smoothly orchestrated and less four-square Bruckner and Smetana or Richard Strauss tone poems.


That sounds plausible. If I recall correctly, Wagner did say something to Liszt about a "new" kind of symphonic development based on the metamorphosis of themes. That's certainly consistent with his endlessly resourceful transformation of the leitmotivs in his operas in order to suit every dramatic situation, and it also brings Sibelius to mind. Then there's that Strauss piece titled, aptly, _Metamorphosen._


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

I'm happy Wagner stuck mainly to opera then. I feel orchestral composers like Ravel, Karayev and Schreker have more of that 'space' and 'narrative I enjoy from Wagner that I don't get as much from Mahler. Sucks because I enjoy Mahler's orchestration, just wish it was a little more visionary, less symphonic.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

dissident said:


> That's true; Mahler and Scriabin have the most "cultish" followings of any composers I can think of.


Perhaps, but I'm not aware of this. Personally I've never had any problem with enthusiasts of these two composers.



Xisten267 said:


> ...
> 
> All great composers have their *obsessed fans*. This includes Mahler, Wagner or any other of them.


Maybe my usage of words here was poor, but I meant "obsessed fans" in a good way, like "ardent admirers." My point was that great composers other than Wagner also have their fervent supporters, and this came in response to what was said before by another member (below).



Ethereality said:


> Wouldn't be surprised if there's a Wagner bible of eternal salvation sitting in many members' rooms, probably collecting some of his dust.


----------



## Machiavel (Apr 12, 2010)

They are probably jealous that Mahler did better with and without the voice:devil:


----------

