# Mahler or Bruckner, who wrote the finer Adagios?



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Opinion poll.
Close call, I suspect it will be evenly divided. 
But to my ears, I give the Gold to Bruckner. 
Bruckner seems to blend Beethoven and Mozart into a synthesis and only hints at both composers influences.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Mahler for me, as he wrote individual transcendental slow movements with the most beautiful titles in which you can dive deep and wonder round. Bruckner sure made beautiful slow themes, but they will often come back through the whole work and in all the slow movements are not as surprising, varied and convincing as Mahlers.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Bruckner is the better composer


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I prefer Bruckner. Mahler is lovely, though.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Bruckner's adagios are great. Mahler's are even better.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

I’d say Mahler is the stronger composer, both in general and in Adagios. The slow movs of 3,4,5,6, 9 and 10 make this clear to me. 

However, the slow movements of all of Bruckner’s symphonies are glorious and sublime, especially those from Symphony 6 onwards.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Jacck said:


> Bruckner is the better composer


No he isn't. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

I'm just waiting to see some guff along the lines of neither Bruckner nor Mahler being able to write an Adagio even remotely comparable in quality to those created by Henze, Pettersson or Elliott Carter....

My answer to the OP would be Mahler. Simples...


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> I'd say Mahler is the stronger composer, both in general and in Adagios. The slow movs of 3,4,5,6, 9 and 10 make this clear to me.
> 
> However, the slow movements of all of Bruckner's symphonies are glorious and sublime, especially those from Symphony 6 onwards.


Yes, I agree on all points. Ordinarily I'm not much for composer-ranking, but I think Mahler's work taken as a whole has a lot more to offer than Bruckner's. Mahler's extraordinary mastery of orchestration and vocal music, and his great dramatic instincts, among other things, gave him a much broader pallet to work with than an undeniably gifted and fine craftsman like Bruckner, though I do think his Adagios show Bruckner at his considerable best.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mahler wrote the finer, better, greater music - including the finer adagios - but Bruckner's adagios and mostly also great. No contest.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Definitely giving it to Mahler here. I won't pretend that I "get" Bruckner but I enjoy some of his music sometimes. The adagios are always my least favorite part of Bruckner's symphonies. Mahler's adagios are amazing. Look no further than "Urlicht" from symphony no.2, "Ruhevoll" from symphony no.4, and of course the Adagietto from symphony no.5.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I'd say Mahler wrote the best one in the 5th symphony … followed by those in Bruckner's 8th, 7th and 5th symphonies.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Bruckner is highly repetitive, and quite overrated. Mostly uncreative people seem to like him because they can tolerate his repetitiveness. Mahler makes him look like a pygmy, although only in his later works. As far as Adagios Bruckner is very good at them, but not close to Mahler.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

1996D said:


> Bruckner is highly repetitive, and quite overrated. Mostly uncreative people seem to like him because they can tolerate his repetitiveness. Mahler makes him look like a pygmy.


__________ is highly repetitive.

Imagine how long that thread could go on!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

1996D said:


> Bruckner is highly repetitive, and quite overrated. Mostly uncreative people seem to like him because they can tolerate his repetitiveness. Mahler makes him look like a pygmy, although only in his later works. As far as Adagios Bruckner is very good at them, but not close to Mahler.


I think Mahler may have been one of those uncreative people who liked Bruckner. Better check on that...


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

amfortas said:


> __________ is highly repetitive.
> 
> Imagine how long that thread could go on!


Analyze his scores if you can't hear it (which is unlikely). Bruckner is one of those composers you listen to his pieces once or twice and that's all you're going to get from them, because he already repeated his ideas so many times you have them clearly in your head by the second listen.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

I really am going to start that thread.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Bruckner is highly repetitive, and quite overrated. Mostly uncreative people seem to like him because they can tolerate his repetitiveness. Mahler makes him look like a pygmy, although only in his later works. As far as Adagios Bruckner is very good at them, but not close to Mahler._

Perhaps you didn't know it but Mahler adored Bruckner and played his symphonies often in concert wherever he was music director. Guess that makes him uncreative.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

There is Beethoven and Richard, and after them, nobody. -- Mahler


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Why, oh why, do we have to choose between composers?

Can't we just despise all music equally?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

1996D said:


> There is Beethoven and Richard, and after them, nobody. -- Mahler


"Mozart!" Legend has it, Gustav Mahler's last word. So maybe there were more than just your two.

I understand that for technical reasons Mozart was unable to repay the compliment......:tiphat:


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

1996D said:


> There is Beethoven and Richard, and after them, nobody. -- Mahler


You think Mahler only liked two composers? He adored Bruckner's music, period.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Mozart was before, he was referring to Beethoven and Wagner as the two romantic giants, which after the latter nobody equalled--which is true until Mahler. He might have enjoyed Bruckner, like most people, but he didn't think he was a great composer, like most people.

I know this site likes him a lot but he's a secondary composer, and I would very confidently rank him below Richard Strauss.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

1996D said:


> I know this site likes him a lot but he's a secondary composer, and I would very confidently rank him below Richard Strauss.


Perhaps. But if I'm in the mood for a Bruckner symphony, I won't get it from Richard Strauss.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

1996D said:


> Bruckner is one of those composers you listen to his pieces once or twice and that's all you're going to get from them


Well, that explains a lot.....
I can now safely ignore your ludicrous opinions on Bruckner.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bruckner 9th symphony
Adagio 
a massive 23 minute Adagio






Mahler's 5th Symphony
Adagietto 
@ 12 minutes in length






If this Adagietto is representative of other Adagios from Mahler.
Gold has to go to Bruckner.
I mean , no contest..
After a few minutes (actually less, then I began skimming through Mahler) , way too over sentimental and mushy. 
Bruckner delivers the goods.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn (Feb 17, 2017)

It's a draw to me. The two best are the Mahler 9th and the Bruckner 8th, and I can't decide between them.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

1996D said:


> Mozart was before, he was referring to Beethoven and Wagner as the two romantic giants, which after the latter nobody equalled--which is true until Mahler. He might have enjoyed Bruckner, like most people, but he didn't think he was a great composer, like most people.
> 
> I know this site likes him a lot but he's a secondary composer, and I would very confidently rank him below Richard Strauss.


Have you heard the Bruckner adagio/9th,,,honestly?
If answer is no, Please do,,,take 23 minutes and listen...Then come back with another opinion. please..

Look we all make rash opinionated comments, unfiltered ideas just spew at times, w/o thinking just is it we wrote...
Go back, listen to the adagio, give us your best and fair assessment. 
No need to apologize, as I say, we all make such hasty statements,,which can be overlooked, provided the sayer of such words can show he has heard the work , at least once more.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

1996D said:


> Analyze his scores if you can't hear it (which is unlikely). Bruckner is one of those composers you listen to his pieces once or twice and that's all you're going to get from them, because he already repeated his ideas so many times you have them clearly in your head by the second listen.


I had a friend who took a box set of Bruckner CDs on a driving trip to europe and back - said he wanted to finally get Bruckner.

I saw him two weeks later and asked him about the Bruckner

he looked at me - exasperated - "I played the whole lot through 3 times. Its all the same!"


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

paulbest said:


> Bruckner 9th symphony
> Adagio
> a massive 23 minute Adagio
> 
> ...


Paul, you must listen these before forming any opinion on Mahler:

Symphony No. 3 Finale 





Symphony No. 4 Ruhevoll 





Symphony No. 9 Adagio Finale


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Bruckner wrote the best adagios for the Bruckner symphonies and Mahler wrote the bests ones for the Mahler symphonies, end of story.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

P.S. The 4th movement of the Mahler 5th is NOT supposed to be 12 minutes long. It is an adagietto not a funeral march and is the right length for what it is intended to be.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Bruckner has the dramatic element to some degree, but he's so behind in counterpoint, craftsmanship, and creativity. He's like Liszt in many ways, actually his 9th just reminded me of the Faust symphony. These are both highly emotionally developed men that lacked the creative genius of the greats, so they have to resort to repetition.

Bruckner's 9th would be a nice film score, Mahler's 9th would not: there wouldn't be a film great enough to merit it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bruckner's 7th Adagio @ just under 20 minutes length. 
I prefer this adagio over his 8th symphony adagio.
Bruckner was at his best compositions when under the influnces of Wagner. 
Here in the 7th is perhaps more noticeable than in the 5th symphony.
Plus here in the 7th symphony, you get perhaps the finest codas in all post Mozart music.
Codas in the 1st movement, and then resurfaces at the 4th.

Mahler can't touch those 2 codas. Mahler did not rise to that level of craftmanship.






You Brucknerians should feel well pleased that Walter and his legendary orchestra the Columbia SO, recorded the Bruckner 7th.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

1996D said:


> Bruckner has the dramatic element to some degree, but he's so behind in counterpoint, craftsmanship, and creativity. He's like Liszt in many ways, actually his 9th just reminded me of the Faust symphony. These are both highly emotionally developed men that lacked the creative genius of the greats, so they have to resort to repetition.
> 
> Bruckner's 9th would be nice film score Mahler's 9th would not: there wouldn't be a film great enough to merit it.


Well even Beethoven's symphonies have some critics of certain elements / movements in all his 9.

Even Beethoven is not beyond reproach.

Now what about Bruckner's 7th?
The 2 codas, 1st/4th movements?
The adagio?
can he be forgiven of *issues* in his 9th by the wonders in his 7th?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

The OP has clearly not heard any of Mahler's longer Adagios (3,4,9 , pushing it 6). Adagietto surely means "a short or little Adagio"? Let's all make sweeping judgements of Bruckner based solely upon the second movement of his No.6.....

I'd probably say Mahler's greatest slow movement would be Der Abschied.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

CnC Bartok said:


> The OP has clearly not heard any of Mahler's longer Adagios (3,4,9 , pushing it 6). Adagietto surely means "a short or little Adagio"? Let's all make sweeping judgements of Bruckner based solely upon the second movement of his No.6.....
> 
> I'd probably say Mahler's greatest slow movement would be Der Abschied.


Indeed, Das Lied is probably Mahler's masterpiece, whatever that may mean.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

They just don't compare as composers. Lets not forget that Mahler's other movements match his Adagios while Bruckner's do not. Actually Mahler's Finale in his 5th is arguably better than the Adagietto, and the opening movement of the 9th better than the Adagio.

Mahler has just such craftsmanship, it's an unfair comparison. You could compare Bruckner to R. Strauss, Sibelius, but even they don't use repetition like he does.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Becca said:


> P.S. The 4th movement of the Mahler 3rd is NOT supposed to be 12 minutes long. It is an adagietto not a funeral march and is the right length for what it is intended to be.


The same can be said for the "Adagietto" of the 5th. Mahler certainly never intended for it to be dragged out to nearly a quarter of an hour the way Bernstein did it:






Willem Mengelberg, reportedly Mahler's favorite conductor for his music, probably got the word from the composer on what sort of piece this is:






Mahler is said to have conducted with freedom of tempo, as Wagner recommended, and as Mengelberg does here. The piece emerges as a sort of successor to _Tristan und Isolde_, albeit with a spoonful (at least) of sugar. It sounds more like a love song and less like a commemoration of the dead by the dying.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Please don't mention *Mengelburg* as he trashed hard, Vermeulen's 2nd symphony, after handing Mengelburg the score. 
Mengelburg came down hard on Vermeulen, perhaps Holland's best composer.
Unforgivable. So *Nazi* of Mengel.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

My Q , 
is there more Brucknerians who like Mahler
OR
More Mahlerians who love Bruckner...
This is what I'd like to know. 

My guess is the last scenario. 

I just don't see Brucknerians running to listen to Mahler, when they have the Wagnerian Bruckner's masterpieces.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

paulbest said:


> My Q ,
> is there more Brucknerians who like Mahler
> OR
> More Mahlerians who love Bruckner...
> This is what I'd like to know.


I'm a Brucknerian who likes Mahler. I don't listen to much Mahler anymore, but I do like it when I hear it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Please don't mention *Mengelburg* as he trashed hard, Vermeulen's 2nd symphony, after handing Mengelburg the score.
> Mengelburg came down hard on Vermeulen, perhaps Holland's best composer.
> Unforgivable. So *Nazi* of Mengel.


Yes, Vermeulen was a fine and interesting composer. And yes, imho, Mengelberg disgraced himself during the Nazi period, far worse than Strauss or Furtwangler. So I dispute no part of your post. But why must we discuss the Nazis yet again, and in a thread about Mahler and Bruckner? I'd rather read another 100 posts about John Cage.
So did Mahler or Bruckner have a greater influence on the post-modernists? I'd say Mahler, by a mile. His influence on Schoenberg and Webern is very direct and clear. Their influence in turn on some strands of post-modernism is also clear.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I think the time Mengel trashed Vermeulen was pre Nazi era.
I have no idea Mengel was a Nazi, as I say , this is olike 1920 or so, way long before the rize of Hitler. My *Nazi * was only I=as a reference,,as whena jew calls another jew *Nazi*. 
its only a expression of speech for a traitorous attitude. 
Agree Nazi should not be mentioned.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Yes, please leave Nazis out of this.

Mengelberg was an extraordinary conductor. His recording of Liszt's _Les Preludes_ is so good it's the only one I care to hear, despite the wretched sound. His Mahler 4th and the "Adagietto" from the 5th are exemplary and make the paucity of Mahler under his baton a major loss. I'm not a great lover of Bruckner or Mahler and really like only selected movements from their works, but for me Mengelberg does for Mahler what Furtwangler does for Bruckner: he makes me want to hear the whole symphony.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

fluteman said:


> Yes, Vermeulen was a fine and interesting composer. And yes, imho, Mengelberg disgraced himself during the Nazi period, far worse than Strauss or Furtwangler. So I dispute no part of your post. But why must we discuss the Nazis yet again, and in a thread about Mahler and Bruckner? I'd rather read another 100 posts about John Cage.
> So did Mahler or Bruckner have a greater influence on the post-modernists? I'd say Mahler, by a mile. His influence on Schoenberg and Webern is very direct and clear. Their influence in turn on some strands of post-modernism is also clear.


Who was it that said "Postmodernism in music is nothing but the reinvention of Mahler", or something to that effect? I found it an odd quote, but not without merit if you think about it. Mahler's music was way ahead of its time. I think composers were playing catch up for at least a couple decades after his time.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> Who was it that said "Postmodernism in music is nothing but the reinvention of Mahler", or something to that effect? I found it an odd quote, but not without merit if you think about it. Mahler's music was way ahead of its time. I think composers were playing catch up for at least a couple decades after his time.


I agree, and yet another reason to rank Mahler ahead of Bruckner, if we're still playing the ranking game. Also, though reportedly a high-strung, prickly and temperamental man, even before he was struck by major personal tragedy, I'd say Mahler was a far more interesting and compelling personality than Bruckner, based on what I've read.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Bruckner sure was an interesting guy, but I don't know about compelling. He is the kind of guy I would stay away from if I knew him. Seems he was kind of a creep when it came to women, and interpersonal relationships in general. Seems like he was nothing but trouble. Though he seemed well-enough intentioned, I guess. I don't know, but when I learned a bit more about his character it made me want to get more into his music; prior to reading about him a bit, I'd pictured him as a typical ugly geezer with a boring life and nothing to say musically. 

On the contrary, with Mahler, I'd known a bit about his life before I ever heard his music, and what I knew about him didn't make me particularly want to hear his music. He struck me as a bit of a whiner. Of course, now I don't believe that to be the case, and getting into his music changed the way I see him as a person. 

All right, rant over. I oughtn't say any more until I read a biography or two on each composer.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

These threads are stupid, why not just ask which you prefer? I don’t care much for Bruckner and love Mahler, but why waste time trying to argue about it? Diminishing Bruckner does not enhance Mahler


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

When listening to be moved emotionally and spiritually by the music, I'm not terribly interested in concerning myself with "what's finer or greater". I'll just say Mahler's adagios often bring tears to my eyes, Bruckner's adagios do not.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Bwv 1080 said:


> These threads are stupid, why not just ask which you prefer? I don't care much for Bruckner and love Mahler, but why waste time trying to argue about it? Diminishing Bruckner does not enhance Mahler


Like it or not, "Which composer is better?" in various forms and varieties, is really the main topic at talkclassical.com. I've often commented that to me, art is not a sport like tennis with rankings, seedings and tournaments. But that is the context that a lot of posters here are comfortable with.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bwv 1080 said:


> These threads are stupid, why not just ask which you prefer? I don't care much for Bruckner and love Mahler, but why waste time trying to argue about it? Diminishing Bruckner does not enhance Mahler


Why?...………..

Because I wanted to hear ideas from both camps, so as to know how to approach each composers music. I am in strange land with each. I've tried to enter both music, but seems I lost my ay , got scared , , lets say discombobulated , and ran off. This thread has helped me to find interest as a way to introduce the music to this Modernist. 
Seems I still can only look at the music, not enter in. 
I definitely made more progress inside Bruckner, to the Brucknerians delights.

There does seem to be 2 distinct , separate camps. Even though one groups claims they have no issues with the othesr music, and at one time or another actually was a fan of the other,,,,eventually that road separated and one or the other composer won out , at the end of the day,.

Seems the Mahlerians are completely convinced , that Mahler was the superior composer, *without question*.. I do not hear this from the more humble Brucknerians. 
My understanding here about this *adamant claim to be greater THAN B*, is some sort of , may I say, insecurity , on Mahler's music.

Perhaps there is some hidden , may I say, weakness, within Mahler's compositions, which they are afraid may unravel the whole claim of *greater than B*.

I should resist going further with this, as I really am not a part of either camp.

The Brucknerians seem to be secure with their composers works, so as not to put down Mahler. For what reason?

Bruckner's music stands as it is, and its power and beauty will not be diminished by any harsh, unfair judgements, the music is beyond criticism.

If you read through my comments you can decipher which camp I tent towards. 
I do not wish to take sides, until I become more familiar with Mahler's music. 
I will make more attempts later this week. 
Thank you for all who participated and shared with us their inner thoughts on both great composers.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

fluteman said:


> Like it or not, "Which composer is better?" in various forms and varieties, is really the main topic at talkclassical.com. I've often commented that to me, art is not a sport like tennis with rankings, seedings and tournaments. But that is the context that a lot of posters here are comfortable with.


Contrary. 
Read the post above your's as you were typing. 
Haydn67, feels Mahler is for him, the superior due to the depths Mahler's music brings to him, Whereas Brucknerians stand confused at this idea. Perplexed.

Something odd is going on here.
How can 2 folks who love classical react iin such completely opposite emotional impacts?

This is what is so , perplexing about the 2 composers. 
Are these 2 composers, so at odds , AGAINST , each other?

Seems we have others in history, 
The Mozart versus Beethoven. 
the ,,,well there are others,,I just can't recall at the moment.

Stravinsky versus Schoenberg is another. 
there are others,. You are in either camp 
A 
Or Camp 
B. 
Now why?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

WOW, are these 2 composers different, There is no more contrasting composers in pre 1900, than 
Mahler
Versus 
Bruckner.
I mean night/day, east./west, Light years apart.

I can now understand who each camp has such strong opinions, , feelings, commitments to THEIR composer as contrasted to the other.

I could never come to Mahler, his music is completely totally antithetical to my being. 
Antithetical , meaning, Mahler and I are at completely different odds at what we believe music should be, on how music should go forth.






Scratch this line, ,,,here I should show,,,restraint,,,before someone copies my comment, and then I am locked into a quote on TC records, which I will have a hard time defending,,,and ,,,that I may regret or get mods attentions....
pretend I never said anything....

.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

paulbest said:


> I could never come to Mahler, his music is completely totally antithetical to my being.
> Antithetical , meaning, Mahler and I are at completely different odds at what we believe music should be, on how music should go forth.
> 
> .


That's not an arguable point, everybody will connect differently to different music, my point was clarifying that Mahler and Bruckner although both symphonists and both Wagner lovers, don't compare well at all.

Mahler's counterpoint and craftsmanship compares to Brahms, that's a good comparison. Bruckner compares to Liszt, and even Dvorak, and Mendelssohn as less creative composers who nonetheless have their own talents, and who some deeply connect with.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

What's all this nonsense about "camps"? Where's the war? Having a preference doesn't put you in a "camp."

I have no preference. Both composers wrote magnificent adagios. Camp, schmamp.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Personally like Mahler's adagios more than Bruckner's. Bruckner's music in general seems more primal and clunky with larger contrasts. Mahler has smoother theme transitions.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Personally like Mahler's adagios more than Bruckner's. *Bruckner's music in general seems more primal and clunky with larger contrasts. Mahler has smoother theme transitions.*


That's a lack of creativity. As a composer I can tell you that the more inspired you are the larger phrases and sections you compose in one sitting, that's music that will have smooth transitions because it flows naturally from your head. Music that sounds clunky is music you write in different sittings, without the ideas naturally coming.

A very good example is Bach's Chaconne in D minor and Beethoven's op.111. These are both the highest form of creativity, large sections of complete improvisation in one sitting.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

1996D said:


> That's not an arguable point, everybody will connect differently to different music, my point was clarifying that Mahler and Bruckner although both symphonists and both Wagner lovers, don't compare well at all.
> 
> Mahler's counterpoint and craftsmanship compares to Brahms, that's a good comparison. Bruckner compares to Liszt, and even Dvorak, and Mendelssohn as less creative composers who nonetheless have their own talents, and who some deeply connect with.


OK, thanks for this insights,,which I was totally unaware of. Liszt (can;'t even spell his name right,,,like 4 times) is a composer that does not even exist for me, its like a total blind spot. 
Bruckner to Dvorak/Mendelssohn?

Never occurred to me, I brought up the Mahler vs Bruckner, due to the fact that both,,, at least I thought,,were contemporaries,,,let me ck,,,be right back.....Ok, not so contemporary,,,yet do overlap.

Hummm, well, you say Mahler vs Brahms. .

But that is a even more distant time frame...No I prefer Mahler vs Bruckner. As I have it in my head these 2 connected,s omehwo past 30 years, as *brothers in compostion*,,until today, I realize they are opposed to each's other compositions.

Bruckner to Mendelssohn?

Yes now there is a contrast, and if you will bring this up over at the new topic,
Composers, contemporary yet completely, totally opposed to each other.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

1996D said:


> That's a lack of creativity. As a composer I can tell you that the more inspired you are the larger phrases and sections you compose in one sitting, that's music that will have smooth transitions because it flows naturally from your head. Music that sounds clunky is music you write in different sittings, without the ideas naturally coming.
> 
> A very good example is Bach's Chaconne in D minor and Beethoven's op.111. These are both the highest form of creativity, large sections of complete improvisation in one sitting.


I tend to agree. But I also wonder if it is intentionally what I take as more modern or off-the-cuff on Bruckner's part.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> What's all this nonsense about "camps"? Where's the war? Having a preference doesn't put you in a "camp."
> 
> I have no preference. Both composers wrote magnificent adagios. Camp, schmamp.


Does this imply you will not be joining us over at the new divisive, topic, Contemporary, yet very distinct, , if not contrary and completely opposed to each other. Mahler and Bruckner are opposed. 
Thus the need for such allusions as *camps*.

Apparently you satnd unique among us, as you love both composers ,,equally. 
How is this possibly?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> Does this imply you will not be joining us over at the new divisive, topic, Contemporary, yet very distinct, , if not contrary and completely opposed to each other. Mahler and Bruckner are opposed.
> Thus the need for such allusions as *camps*.
> 
> Apparently you satnd unique among us, as you love both composers ,,equally.
> How is this possibly?


Aphorism for the day: CONTRAST IS NOT CONFLICT.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Aphorism for the day: CONTRAST IS NOT CONFLICT.


Absolutely right! We can (and will) all just get along.

Nonetheless, I have posted observers to report when the Bruckner people return to their bivouac. I expect the bombardment to begin at zero two hundred hours.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Why not just call it a dead heat?


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

DavidA said:


> Why not just call it a dead heat?


Sorry, but that never solves anything. This story still rumbles on at the relevant institutions, 142 years on.....

"The 34th Boat Race took place on 24 March 1877. The Boat Race is an annual side-by-side rowing race between crews from the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge along the River Thames. The race ended in a dead heat, the first and only time the event has ended in such a fashion. Despite the formal declaration of a tie, Oxford believed that they were the victors. The controversy surrounding the result led to significant changes to the way in which the race was conducted including the introduction of finishing posts and former Blues as umpires.

"The race was umpired by Joseph William Chitty who had rowed for Oxford twice in 1849 (in the March and December races) and the 1852 race, while the starter was Edward Searle. Chitty was assisted by "Honest" John Phelps who acted as the finishing judge. Phelps, a professional waterman, was over 70 years old and reportedly blind in one eye.

"Oxford firmly believed that they had won the race by feet, but following a subsequent meeting in a law court with representatives of both universities and the umpire, the official result was declared as "Dead Heat", although contemporary accounts claim Phelps himself called it a "dead-heat to Oxford by 5 feet".


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Bruno Walter on Bruckner and Mahler:
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/articles/bruckner/brucknerandmahler.php

Leonard Bernstein on Bruckner: https://www.abruckner.com/editorsnote/features/interestingbernste/

Bernstein on the Mahler Fifth Adagietto:


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

OK Guys I think Mahler's adagios are marvellous - sy 3 etc - mind blowing and very satisfying.

impress me with brucker then - what should I listen to? which sy and which mvt?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I'd start with 7 (mvmt 2 Adagio), 8 (Mvmt 3 Adagio) and 9 (Mvmt 3 Adagio).


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bruckner is more conservative, you can hear him develop steadily and smoothly, each idea's meaning is drawn-out so it is completely comprehensible. With Mahler there are more contrasts, which make him harder to grasp at first.

I think Bruckner is really more well-suited for large forms. Mahler seems more like a string of beads, ideas grafted together; perhaps this was because of his work methods, always interrupted by other duties, compartmentalized into his vacation times in his hut.

These contrasts of Mahler make him seem more 'mysterious.' With Bruckner, what you see is what you get.

If Bruckner was 'weird,' then Mahler was a Woody Allen nerd.

At the end, Mahler began to go outside normal harmonic practice with his weird, stabbing chords; this is either a plus or a minus to listeners, depending on their tolerance for dissonance and constant modulation.

I think Mahler had more emotion; this too can be seen as good or bad. With Bruckner, we have a more "secure investment" which is more stable over time, yet yields great benefits.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

1996D said:


> That's not an arguable point, everybody will connect differently to different music, my point was clarifying that Mahler and Bruckner although both symphonists and both Wagner lovers, don't compare well at all.
> 
> Mahler's counterpoint and craftsmanship compares to Brahms, that's a good comparison. *Bruckner compares to Liszt, and even Dvorak, and Mendelssohn* as less creative composers who nonetheless have their own talents, and who some deeply connect with.


I'd add Schubert.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Fine as they are, Bruckner's Adagios had already been surpassed by the time Mahler wrote his 3rd Symphony.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

I am still waiting for the 
Mahlerians
to respond to my request
Give me a section 
of any Mahler work
Where it at least comes close to 
Bruckner
s codas in the 7th symphony, 1st/4th movements..??
Comes close/equals/surpasses./
7th/codas 1/4 movements is the great challenge.

Bring it on, let Mahler trump Bruckner,,,if posible


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^I doubt that anyone here is interested in playing your silly game. They are just different, there is no equals or surpasses it is all in your personal preference, what connects with you.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

paulbest said:


> I am still waiting for the
> Mahlerians
> to respond to my request
> Give me a section
> ...


Please Paul, if you want to make these sorts of value judgments, it behooves you to actually listen and familiarize yourself with the symphonies of Mahler. You obviously haven't done this


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Another thread bites the dust, this time only in one day, quite an accomplishment, it usually takes longer.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Art Rock said:


> I'd start with 7 (mvmt 2 Adagio), 8 (Mvmt 3 Adagio) and 9 (Mvmt 3 Adagio).


ok - celibidache adagio 7 sy

some great moments in this mvt - really great - dont like the way the climactic passage near the end of the mvt resolves - seems to fade off without any proper resolution.

ok will give sy 8 a go next. impressed though - some more listenings and I might get than one.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

OK - dont say I dont give pieces and chance and just stick my mozart headphones on all the time.

so Bruckner 8 - Celibidache again - adagio - 12 minutes in and Im thinking - when is something good gonna happen - waiting waiting - at 19 min - thats it - cut. Life is too short - enough.

Now something truly spectacular maybe gonna happen later but 19 min in - nothing indicates anything big is going to come to pass.

so we've got a qualified like for Bruckner 7 but a fail for Bruckner 8, so far.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

If I want Wagner, I'll go to the source, But this 1.5 hour long , lalalt ti DI DA. I've skimmed through it,,,nothing I can find matches Bruckner's finer moments .
Mahler is as they say *acquired taste*.
Semi-Wagner, Wagner-Lite follows.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

paulbest said:


> Contrary.
> Read the post above your's as you were typing.
> Haydn67, feels Mahler is for him, the superior due to the depths Mahler's music brings to him, Whereas Brucknerians stand confused at this idea. Perplexed.
> 
> ...


That's fine, and I didn't mean my comment as an attack on you in particular. But, look at how you state the topic in your own original post -- "Who wrote the finer Adagios?", another variation on the "Which composer is better?" theme. That's the way most people here at talkclassical.com like to approach classical music. In my opinion that's not ideal, but at least you are all interested in classical music, and that's the main thing.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

paulbest said:


> I am still waiting for the
> Mahlerians
> to respond to my request
> Give me a section
> ...


One can only refer you to Furtwängler's extraordinary stereo recordings of the Mahler symphonies that include the 10th, though undoubtedly these are probably already in your extensive library.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^They are completely surpassed by Toscanini's set.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

fluteman said:


> That's fine, and I didn't mean my comment as an attack on you in particular. But, look at how you state the topic in your own original post -- "Who wrote the finer Adagios?", another variation on the "Which composer is better?" theme. That's the way most people here at talkclassical.com like to approach classical music. In my opinion that's not ideal, but at least you are all interested in classical music, and that's the main thing.


THANK YOU 
for understanding my position..You have blown my cover.
Yes I was trying to egg on towards a ~~Climax~~, I had a cassett tape I made of one of Mahler's early symphonies, this was my 1st few months in classical, recorded off a local FM station. 
Either Mahler's ,,,be right back....yes Sym 1. I used to listen to it every day.
For about 3 months. 
That was 35 yrs ago. There was nothing there which said, *gee I really need to look more at this composer*. 
I moved into better music, like Rachmaninov, Sibelius , Greig, Mozart.
fast forward to today.
Never had any desire to ck out Mahler.
Now I know why.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2008/jun/20/whyivemovedonfrommahler

Mahler - Love his music or hate it?


__
https://www.reddit.com/r/classicalmusic/comments/fcsgt

This list , of *Why I hate Mahler's music*

has no ends.

It is not just me, there are others. You can not find any other composer in history who arouses more haters. 
Mahler's music for some odd reason, reminds me of Trump's fans.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Larkenfield said:


> One can only refer you to Furtwängler's extraordinary stereo recordings of the Mahler symphonies that include the 10th, though undoubtedly these are probably already in your extensive library.


Furtwangler also has some Bruckner symphonies to his credit, but the sound suffers, = weakening the glorious sections of his finest passages. sadly Furtwangler's recordings have been surpassed, due to sound issues. 
I am a historic buff, but do draw limits. 
Even Furtwangler would not have me come around to Mahler,,,or amybe he would,,,let me go ck it out...at least some of Mahler, Not that 8th, with that chorus...yulchhhh


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

You really need to get past all this talk of hate, despise etc. as it is not at all helpful nor even particularly healthy especially when talking about something so subjective as musical taste.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

In addition to writing extraordinary symphonies, Bruckner was an extraordinarily sensible and wise man: instead of settling for a wife his own age, he held out for a 16-year-old virgin and consequently died one. Better to have your heart broken 1000 times by someone named Alma.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Becca said:


> You really need to get past all this talk of hate, despise etc. as it is not at all helpful nor even particularly healthy especially when talking about something so subjective as musical taste.


Yeah you are right . I think its deeper, it has something to do with The Establishment. 
FM CM radio, Mahler, The music elitist school, Mahler in the studies, library. 
Mahler in the concert programs.

Why does this world not come to life? Why remain stuck ina old past?
Which proves clearly Jung;s theory of the collective unconscious. It is lethargic, extremely conservative , acts like a herd of cows. and unimaginative.

Yet later composers, the collective classical community remains in the dark, like cavemen. 
This is my beef lately.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

paulbest said:


> If I want Wagner, I'll go to the source, But this 1.5 hour long , lalalt ti DI DA. I've skimmed through it,,,nothing I can find matches Bruckner's finer moments .
> Mahler is as they say *acquired taste*.
> Semi-Wagner, Wagner-Lite follows.


In all fairness you are picking what is, to me, one of Mahler's least inspired works. Try the adagio of no 3.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Thing is , I do not see many mahlerites posting much on Allan Pettersson's page, nor Henze page. 
A few, maybe 2 or 3. 
What happened with the other 1000 Mahlerites here? 
Are they afraid to look at modern composers?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Becca said:


> ^^I doubt that anyone here is interested in playing your silly game. They are just different, there is no equals or surpasses it is all in your personal preference, what connects with you.


That's right, and don't take candy from strangers.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Despite all the flak, or perhaps in addition to it, this is a very entertaining thread. NLArriaan ha already declared it "dead," Becca is shocked at Paul Best's "evil" and "hatred," and the subject matter? I almost forgot.

Paul Best's "hatred" is not personal; he always rails against some "status quo" or "establishment," or "FM CM radio, Mahler, The music elitist school, Mahler in the studies, library, Mahler in the concert programs."

He's not mean-spirited like I've seen some of YOU being.

Come on, stop being so negative! This is the stuff good discussions are made of! Take your attention off Paul Best and talk about something, anything! Just stop WHINING!


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DavidA said:


> In all fairness you are picking what is, to me, one of Mahler's least inspired works. Try the adagio of no 3.


Well at least this helps,,,I was thinking, *symphony 8, mature work, should be one of his finest scores**, Then you come and suggest *No, try Adagio 3rd symphony, as the 8th is one of his least inspired works*. 
What gives?
I though composers matured, and their finer scores usually, if not always came later?

I'll listen to the Adagio 3rd symphony. 
I am determined to find one symphony from Mahler to make it in my collection. 
You say it should be his 3rd symphony? 
Ok then , the 3rd it will be.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> Despite all the flak, or perhaps in addition to it, this is a very entertaining thread. NLArriaan ha already declared it "dead," Becca is shocked at Paul Best's "evil" and "hatred," and the subject matter? I almost forgot.
> 
> Paul Best's "hatred" is not personal; he always rails against some "status quo" or "establishment," or "FM CM radio, Mahler, The music elitist school, Mahler in the studies, library, Mahler in the concert programs."
> 
> ...


Mean-spirited? I agree, he's probably not. I also don't think anyone accused him of that.

The problem I (and probably many others here) have is with his opinions which are repeated often, in very strong terms as if they were undisputed truths, and supposedly well-informed, but are actually based on next to nothing. In another thread he was denigrating Beethoven's piano works, later stating that he did not know any of his sonatas. Here he is denigrating Mahler as a composer, based on having listened only to his 8th symphony. There is a word for that.

I've had enough of this.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> Despite all the flak, or perhaps in addition to it, this is a very entertaining thread. NLArriaan ha already declared it "dead," Becca is shocked at Paul Best's "evil" and "hatred," and the subject matter? I almost forgot.
> 
> Paul Best's "hatred" is not personal; he always rails against some "status quo" or "establishment," or "FM CM radio, Mahler, The music elitist school, Mahler in the studies, library, Mahler in the concert programs."
> 
> ...


Once again, Zoro to my rescue, Yes I am more railing against *The Sytem* than anything from Mahler, really, I mean, its not like the LP days, where we had little choice but to experiement. 
So I would buy this conductors record in this Mahler,,,nope, poor performance,,,let me try,,,,by the end of the month,,all my LP music funds was gone, just trying to find *good Mahler*,,which was not my music in the first place. 
But seems at every turn Maler's name was right there in front. 
Where was Pettersson, Henze? 
No where to be found, stuck in the vaults.

If I go to Tulane's music library, what will I find on the shelves, lots of studies in Mahler, nothing on Pettersson/Henze. 
I had to EDU the music librarian about Pettersson, and Lenny is usually up to date on his music. I was shocked. 
Tulane may have Henze cds now, not sure, But surely all the Mahler you could wish for.
This is some of my angst. 
Mahler I can take it or leave it,. But can we have The Musical Community step into the 20th C , por favor. 
You might actually like it, afterall.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Art Rock said:


> Mean-spirited? I agree, he's probably not. I also don't think anyone accused him of that.
> 
> The problem I (and probably many others here) have is with his opinions which are repeated often, in very strong terms as if they were undisputed truths, and supposedly well-informed, but are actually based on next to nothing. In another thread he was denigrating Beethoven's piano works, later stating that he did not know any of his sonatas. Here he is denigrating Mahler as a composer, based on having listened only to his 8th symphony. There is a word for that.
> 
> I've had enough of this.


For the most part, 
your comments are fair, I am biased, towards the Modern Composers. 
But see post #93 for some excuse for my irrational behaviors around here.

I did say , once upona time, I like Beethoven sonatas, only due to Schnabel's authentic and old world approach/old world sounding LP, of Beethoven. = I was more fascinated by Schnabel's playing than impressed by Beethoven's music.

I did listen often to Mahler's 1st symphony, in my earliest days. Nothing there to draw me further into Mahler. I always felt, from the very beginning that Mahler was too german for my taste, way too *Viennese*. 
Yulchhhh.. 
Wagner is Germanic, but the chromatic tones, the incredible modernistic textures, UNREAL,,,yet only for Keilberth, Knappertsbusch and the Gold Years at Bayreuth. 
Mahler next to Wagner. See what I mean.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

BREAKING NEWS FLASH
Just hitting on Symphony 3. 
Boulez/Vienna/DG,. 
Now this is not your *average Mahler*. 

There are 2 othesr I wish to compare,,,then make my choice in purchase of the cd.
Its either Boulez/Vienna
Bychkov/Koln SO


I think the Boulez may be top draw recording.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

How about the modernity of the sublime Adagio from Mahler's (unfinished) 10th Symphony? Surely this is some of Mahler's best music.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Bruckner takes a special conductor, a proper hq recording and a lot of patience. Contrary to what some people seem to think, his music grows on you over time; and you certainly haven't heard all there is to it after 1 or 2 listens. So, persevere.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

paulbest said:


> Once again, Zoro to my rescue, Yes I am more railing against *The Sytem* than anything from Mahler, really, I mean, its not like the LP days, where we had little choice but to experiement.
> So I would buy this conductors record in this Mahler,,,nope, poor performance,,,let me try,,,,by the end of the month,,all my LP music funds was gone, just trying to find *good Mahler*,,which was not my music in the first place.
> But seems at every turn *Maler's name was right there in front.
> Where was Pettersson,* Henze?
> ...


Mahler had a great influence on many composers. Petterson was only one of those composers Mahler influenced that most feel never or rarely rose to those heights in individuality or influence. Tubin was also influenced by Mahler, and is a more skilled composer than Petterson, as was Malcolm Arnold, Rubbra, and Britten.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Interesting notes for Mahler's 3rd symphony.

Mentions of Bruno Walter, Schoenberg
Being a fellow naturist, I should find something akin to me , in this *nature in symphonic form*.

https://cso.org/uploadedFiles/1_Tic...ogram_Notes/ProgramNotes_Mahler_Symphony3.pdf


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Well at least this helps,,,I was thinking, *symphony 8, mature work, should be one of his finest scores**, Then you come and suggest *No, try Adagio 3rd symphony, as the 8th is one of his least inspired works*.
> What gives?
> I though composers matured, and their finer scores usually, if not always came later?
> 
> ...


My dear friend, if you don't like Mahler please don't let anyone force him on you. Took me quite a while to come round to him and I still cannot stand no 8


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Mahler had a great influence on many composers. Petterson was only one of the few minor composers most feel never rose above his influence Mahler. Tubin was also influenced by Mahler, and is a more skilled composer than Petterson, as was Malcolm Arnold, Rubbra, and Britten.


No doubt, 
Schnittke, Pettersson, Henze, Carter knew Bruckner and Mahler quite well, in the early years.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2019)

Neither Bruckner nor Mahler would appear in my long term top 20 favourite composers. I much prefer the symphonies of the earlier "romantic" composers, Schumann and Mendelsssohn. 

I find as the 19th C progressed, following the deaths of Schumann and Mendelsssohn, 
"romantic" music went somewhat downhill as far as I'm concerned. Just as Beethoven went too fair in over-elaborating the "classical" model, so too did the likes of Bruckner, Wagner and Mahler in over-extending the romantic model, to the point where it became cloying, too bombastic and emotional for my tastes. 

Debussy and later Ravel provided a welcome relief from it all.


----------



## ECraigR (Jun 25, 2019)

paulbest said:


> I am still waiting for the
> Mahlerians
> to respond to my request
> Give me a section
> ...


How do you judge this? There aren't any quantitative methods of evaluating this? Is there a theory of the adagio we're relying on? Is there any way to account for chronological and societal differences? I don't get it.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

DavidA said:


> My dear friend, if you don't like Mahler please don't let anyone force him on you. Took me quite a while to come round to him and I still cannot stand no 8


Interesting that you also, have *issues* with symphony8,. May be different reasons why I dismiss the 8th, To me its too *music for The establishment*. Its like written for the grand concert halls throughout Europe. 
I prefer music for the *down-and-out common man. The disenfranchised , the ones life dealt a bad deck of m cards, yet are stuggling to finda new life, new meaning. Mahler at least in many places is like music disconnected from my living reality July 4th, 2019. Muisc that refolects a dying world, DEATH.

Which is why I am so drawn towards *death composers*, Shostakovich, Pettersson, Schnittke, even Henze speaks of death.

My composers are mostly *heavy metal/death metal/Seattle grunge* classical composers. 
I guess its all a carry over from my underground rock days. Mahler is Vienna, Berlin, Amsterdam. Not my people.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

ECraigR said:


> How do you judge this? There aren't any quantitative methods of evaluating this? Is there a theory of the adagio we're relying on? Is there any way to account for chronological and societal differences? I don't get it.


ahh you posted same time as I was writing, See my post #104
Hopefully your answer lies in there.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> Neither Bruckner nor Mahler would appear in my long term top 20 favourite composers. I much prefer the symphonies of the earlier "romantic" composers, Schumann and Mendelsssohn.
> 
> I find as the 19th C progressed, following the deaths of Schumann and Mendelsssohn,
> "romantic" music went somewhat downhill as far as I'm concerned. Just as Beethoven went too fair in over-elaborating the "classical" model, so too did the likes of Bruckner, Wagner and Mahler in over-extending the romantic model, to the point where it became cloying, too bombastic and emotional for my tastes.
> ...


Excellent comments, hard to argue with.

Seems you may have been a bit *over-reaching* yourself there in the comment on Beethoven, nervously mis-spelled *far*. 
But Wagner? How did he get in there?
With Wagner you get this incredible epic of love/sinister designs, / Germanic myths, with vocals undreamed of, The Golden Bayreuth years, who can resist these unsurpassable vocal gems?

Debussy and Ravel, the flowering and fruiting of the romantic tradition.

Compare Mahler to Ravel's Daphne.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Larkenfield said:


> One can only refer you to Furtwängler's extraordinary stereo recordings of the Mahler symphonies that include the 10th, though undoubtedly these are probably already in your extensive library.


Furtwangler didn't record any Mahler symphonies, or record anything at all in stereo. What conductor are you thinking of?

Furtwangler's Bruckner, however, is transcendental.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> Mahler had a great influence on many composers. Tubin was also influenced by Mahler, and is a more skilled composer than Petterson,.


Yes Mahler had influenced a whole host of later composers,
His greatest contribution to CM was his later influences.

Tubin, I am listening to his 2nd symphony, A fine work. 
Superior to Pettersson's 2nd symphony, for sure. 
But read Merrick's comment from 2008 Entitled *An Odd Mix*.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-...iewpnt?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000083MHD#R22BV48YLX7D2G

Besides, there are not many records offered. This is a sign, record labels are not willing to invest in music that may not have at least some break even points.

Pettersson got lucky, he now has, 2 complete serts, and Segerstam's /BIS offerings make another 5 symphony offerings. + a few other scattered rare OOP cds. 
Tubin is exteemely limited. 
I like this symphony 2 playing,,,but can not say it is finer than Pettersson;'s 1st great symphony, the 5th.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> OK - dont say I dont give pieces and chance and just stick my mozart headphones on all the time.
> 
> so Bruckner 8 - Celibidache again - adagio - 12 minutes in and Im thinking - when is something good gonna happen - waiting waiting - at 19 min - thats it - cut. Life is too short - enough.
> 
> ...


Celibidache's Bruckner is v-e-r-y s-l-o-w. Some people love it; they talk of "mystical rites" and such. I want more passion and drive. You should hear Furtwangler, who gets the mystery and passion together.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Furtwangler didn't record any Mahler symphonies, or record anything at all in stereo. What conductor are you thinking of?
> 
> Furtwangler's Bruckner, however, is transcendental.


I believe him,,,so I went searching and seeking Furtwangler/Mahler all over the Inet,.,,Joke is on me,.

Furtwangler's Bruckner seems potent, finely chisled and precise. 
But I have to struggle my ears to gather in the details. = won;'t work for me. Historic buff I am, I have limits as to what is acceptable. \
But agree, Furtwangler in DDD, Bruckner = Magisterial


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Celibidache's Bruckner is v-e-r-y s-l-o-w. Some people love it; they talk of "mystical rites" and such. I want more passion and drive. You should hear Furtwangler, who gets the mystery and passion together.


Yes, Celibidache's late perfrormances on YT uploads with the INCREDIBLE Munich, is too, laborious, *Bruckner a la Celibidache*
Some love it, ,,,why/how?


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Phil loves classical said:


> . Tubin was also influenced by Mahler, and is a more skilled composer than Petterson,.


Man , if one of the good things to come out of this thread, is your mentioning of 
Tubin
a composer who I had come across several times past 2 decades,,,but never invested the time.
This YT clip of portion of his 8th symphony,...I am hearing some *complaints* as *has a lot of Sibelius influences, * etc etc. Perhaps, but this Tubin is something, off the charts. Its my kind of dissonance , stringent , terse , with mystical resolutions. 
It will be on order todauy,,,the set is a bit pricey,,,back years ago, and still remains high. Why is this?
No one is willing to part with the set. Its a keeper = its solid music.






was not even thinking about fishing today,,,and look what I caught , and in Mahler's seas. 
Thanks Mahler.

EDIT

Hold up, Now in the 4th movement, 4th symphony, yes, Sibelius, not goung to work, unless I can get the Jarvi set for cheap, like $25,,,glad I did not pull the trigger at $60,,,justa minute ago,,I said, let me see what else YT has...the 4th seems to recall the Sibelius I heard previously in Tubin from research months and years ago.

I can buy a $60 set, just for a few great movements.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Just purchased Tubin symphonies 3,5,7,8
Again
I would like to thank Mahler for bringing me to Eduard Tubin's symphonies , 3,5,,7,8.
As well Phil Loves Classical.

Didn't even bring my fishing pole, and look what jump out the The Mahler River. 
Some nice beautiful Tubin *trout*.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DeepR said:


> Bruckner takes a special conductor, a proper hq recording and a lot of patience. Contrary to what some people seem to think, his music grows on you over time; and you certainly haven't heard all there is to it after 1 or 2 listens. So, persevere.


I will most likely listen to the whole of sy 7. Furtwangler - since everyone seems to be raving about him.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Just purchased Tubin symphonies 3,5,7,8
> Again
> I would like to thank Mahler for bringing me to Eduard Tubin's symphonies , 3,5,,7,8.
> As well Phil Loves Classical.
> ...


Have heard some Tubin - sounds quite impressive - epic endings etc.

But some critics on this board have said he is overblown and his big grandstanding finales soon lose their appeal after a few listens.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Have heard some Tubin - sounds quite impressive - epic endings etc.
> 
> But some critics on this board have said he is overblown and his big grandstanding finales soon lose their appeal after a few listens.


I have the complete Tubin set and am happy to have it, but I have to say that his themes are rather undistinguished - he's no melodist - and that his moods tend to sameness. His 4th symphony is poetic and beautiful and a good starting point. I prefer the more Romantic early symphonies to the later ones.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

paulbest said:


> THANK YOU
> for understanding my position..
> [ ....]
> It is not just me, there are others. You can not find any other composer in history who arouses more haters.
> Mahler's music for some odd reason, reminds me of Trump's fans.


You're welcome, though I'm not sure I understand your position. For example, I have no idea what any of this has to do with Trump or his fans. Is that humor? Or sarcasm? No matter. At least you're interested in classical music, which to me is a good thing. And if you hate Mahler's music, even that is not so bad. Plenty of passionate, strongly-felt opinions, negative as well as positive, mean that the work is having a significant impact. The only unsuccessful art is art that is ignored.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Suggestion, if you find Tubin interesting, try Edmund Rubbra or even George Lloyd. And for something much, much more recent, David Matthews - start with his 9th from about a year ago.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Furtwangler didn't record any Mahler symphonies, or record anything at all in stereo. What conductor are you thinking of?
> 
> Furtwangler's Bruckner, however, is transcendental.


It was said in jest with a wink. I would expect those who have actually heard Mahler would know that Furtwangler never recorded him and certainly never recorded him in stereo. Why not make up such an imaginary statement when such childish remarks continue to be made about his symphonies when one has apparently not heard them? Wink, wink, wink. Reviewing composers and recordings one has not heard is the worst sin by careless and impulsive listeners fueled only by their short-term impulsive emotions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Here’s to old Gustavus Mahler
Who would have been short, but was taller.
He sure got it on
When he waved his baton
But he never gave Richter a thaler.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2019)

paulbest said:


> Excellent comments, hard to argue with.
> 
> Seems you may have been a bit *over-reaching* yourself there in the comment on Beethoven, nervously mis-spelled *far*.
> *But Wagner? How did he get in there*?
> ...


Thanks. As you correctly surmised, I meant "far" not "fair". It's just as well I have a pedant for good spelling like you watching over me.

I included Wagner because they were all in bed with each other, so I thought I'd kill three birds with one stone, so to speak.

I'm less impressed with the entire "romantic" era encompassing these 3 composers than you are. As I said, I find the "romanticism" of this period to be overdone. I accept that all 3 were excellent composers, but for me personally they're not among my favourites.

I can quite happily make a big detour around these guys, and still find more than enough to listen to, from before and after themr, to keep me amused. It doesn't mean I totally dislike any of them. I have very many recordings of Bruckner and Mahler, but they're not frequently played.

With Wagner, as discussed in other recent threads, I can listen to so much and that's enough, never a whole opera. Some of it is good and I have found a way to enjoy it., but the full shebang of any entire opera is not my cup of tea.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Becca said:


> Suggestion, if you find Tubin interesting, try Edmund Rubbra or even George Lloyd. And for something much, much more recent, David Matthews - start with his 9th from about a year ago.


Are you an actual conductor? The two pictures you have don't look anything alike, that's a pretty funny troll.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> I will most likely listen to the whole of sy 7. Furtwangler - since everyone seems to be raving about him.


I've starined my ears as best I could,,,,you know what, a nice set of headphones would detect a much greater cast net of the entire orchestra's JAM SESSION there at the codas, 1st and 4th movement. Not sure, these 2 codas seems to be replicas of each others, with some slight alterations. can't tell.

Brucknerians: is the coda, 1st movement very close/exact as coda 4th movement?

Its one of the spectacular moments in musical compositiosn up to that time,,be right back,,,,written 1881- 1883/revised 1885, I am quite sure the revision upped the whirlwind codas 1st/4th movement,,had to be the purpose of the revision,,Bruckner must haves aw something more to add in the 2 glorious codas, had to be. 
Just think if he had not, revised the 2 codas,,We would have been left with a *Bruckner 7th, minus the masterful codas* = kind of a drag.

Furtwangler/Berlin , 1949(?) does wonders in the 2 codas, But for a live upfront view of what is actually taking place in those 2 codas, watch Maestro Orozco-Estrada with the pretty good Frankfurt/YT upload. maybe not the finest codas on record, at least in DDD sound.

I think of all, I'd go with the Bruno Walter/Columbia, over the Furtwangler,. I've not compared the 2, but with Walter you get superior sound, which in this case is a easy decision.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> Have heard some Tubin - sounds quite impressive - epic endings etc.
> 
> But some critics on this board have said he is overblown and his big grandstanding finales soon lose their appeal after a few listens.


Yeah , but he has sounds which captivate and are exemplary of early modern 20th C classical. IOW he's *in the groove*. I can overlook some *weaknesses/faults*
as long as it has this early modern style representative in the music.

hard to explain. Let me find a section of the 8th, that captures what I am referring to, and try to post it..... 
Textures like Szymanowski tends to offer through all his works, , hard to define exactly what I mean, for lack of musical expressiveness on my part., , *Modern LOOKING forward* type passages. 
Whereas Sibelius has too often *meanderings, sluggish * areas in his symphonies, Its a whirlwind of nice melodies and sound, but a lot of repetition.

The amazon comment, *wears thin after repetitive listens*. 
Yet my Q is, Exactlty what is he and others looking for?
If I find some nice modernistic, unique, individual *in the groove* passages/textures,,I can overlook and said *weakness/faults*.

I have 3 cds on order,,,will report back,,as YT has few uploads on Tubin.

My bet is , the 3 will be *winners* maybe not grand slams, but certainly out the ball park homers.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Yeah , but he has sounds which captivate and are exemplary of early modern 20th C classical. IOW he's *in the groove*.


That reminds me of Madonna's song "In the Groove" which I heartily enjoy as much as a Tubin symphony.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Partita said:


> Thanks. As you correctly surmised, I meant "far" not "fair". It's just as well I have a pedant for good spelling like you watching over me.
> 
> I included Wagner because they were all in bed with each other, so I thought I'd kill three birds with one stone, so to speak.
> 
> ...


Interesting approach to music, *holds some interest, hold on to it*. 
I used to be a sort of *cd collector*,,then about 2 years ago, I started giving all cds toa impoverished friend, who loves my freebies. Cds that don't fetch much on amazon. 
Like all my Janacek, like 10 cds, all gone, maybe a opera or two I still have, not sure.

I now only keep in my collection , music that I actually want to listen to/look forward to/really special/holds meaning.

Mahler may have some nice moments, but overall, I'm more inclined towards Bruckner's 7th. 
Take Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade , we all have/had at least 1 cd on our shelf, But how often to we actually visit the piece?
See what I mean, why keep it on the shelf. Why? just get rid of it. 
Its a good feeling, house cleaning every few years.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> That reminds me of Madonna's song "In the Groove" which I heartily enjoy as much as a Tubin symphony.


I am stringently avoiding all previous favs in pop/rock. Its a oath I've made. Goodbye to ….Moody Blues Tuesday Afternoon, etc. 
got to. I just can not allow anything in my mind except composers I am fond of. 
Madonna was important for a 80's generation.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

paulbest said:


> Take Rimsky Korsakov's Sheherazade , we all have/had at least 1 cd on our shelf, But how often to we actually visit the piece?


As infrequently as possible. Yet, I have more than 10 versions in my home. Why? You never know when your preferences might change. Also, Sheherazade is a great work that I've just grown tired of.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Here I posted this YT earlier,,,2nd encore, why not. 
8th symphony/1st movement. Just at the opening bars, 
CRUSHING!
My IMMEDIATE thoughts were
*If it stays as good as this, at least this good, it'll be a winner*. 
fact is , stayed on course and has even more *CRUSHING* powers.

The ending is 
Crushingly
good.
This is what I mean by *modern looking forward, new modern tonal textures/forms*.

Lets say its not like Tchaikovsky. and superior to anything you can find in Sibelius symphony;'s 1-7

Just cked, symphony 8, written in 1965-1966,,WOW I thought it was written in the 30's or 40's.

Cds arrive Saturday. we will see...….
Tubin's CRUSHING 1st movement /8th

Encore


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

Bulldog said:


> As infrequently as possible. Yet, I have more than 10 versions in my home. Why? You never know when your preferences might change. Also, Sheherazade is a great work that I've just grown tired of.


that's what I am getting at, I had like 2 Russian recordings, GORGEOUS violinists, authentic, nothing mushy. 
Yet both ,,,gone to the winds,,,,
I've dumped 50-100 cds to my friend,,a, few went straight to the trash can, some to Goodwill.

Trash can cds were , post modern*experimental* stuff. , and or cds I hope no one ever hears, at least if I can help it. 
Post modern and I , just don;'t get along.

In fact my end of life energy will be channeled to push the agenda to have that stuff , is a separate category from Modern classical. 
My put down of earlier composers/music is over, now my agenda is anti-post-modern.,
Starting today.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

1996D said:


> Are you an actual conductor? The two pictures you have don't look anything alike, that's a pretty funny troll.


My avatar picture is, as with most on TC, not me. In the current case it is Barbara Hannigan at last month's Ojai Festival


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Yeah , but he has sounds which captivate and are exemplary of early modern 20th C classical. IOW he's *in the groove*. I can overlook some *weaknesses/faults*
> as long as it has this early modern style representative in the music.
> 
> hard to explain. Let me find a section of the 8th, that captures what I am referring to, and try to post it.....
> ...


probably looking for something that one never tires of hearing.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

Brahms, obviously.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

stomanek said:


> probably looking for something that one never tires of hearing.


Yes, could not have said it better

OK,. no wait, you are answering to the amazon comment.

No, If its not thin ,as the amazon guy says it is, I will post a rebuttal.

I have syms 3,5,7,8 arriveing, Saturday or Monday.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

paulbest said:


> Yes, could not have said it better
> 
> OK,. no wait, you are answering to the amazon comment.
> 
> ...


If its not amazon prime - it will arrive monday - so find something else to do on the weekend. Discover the joy of Handel's organ concertos.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> It was said in jest with a wink. I would expect those who have actually heard Mahler would know that Furtwangler never recorded him and certainly never recorded him in stereo. Why not make up such an imaginary statement when such childish remarks continue to be made about his symphonies when one has apparently not heard them? Wink, wink, wink. Reviewing composers and recordings one has not heard is the worst sin by careless and impulsive listeners fueled only by their short-term impulsive emotions.


Yes, I wasn't going to say anything, but Furtwangler died in 1954, not long after the very first stereo commercial recordings were made -- but not by him. I like the Mahler of Kubelik, Tennstedt, and Walter, though most of the latter is recorded in poorer sound. I myself played in an orchestra that did Mahler's 4th, and that was a great experience.


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

I'll go with Gustav's on this one, but I am just a sucker for his slow stuff in general. Of Bruckner's I'm generally a fan too, but I feel like Mahler varies his slow themes more, and beyond just single movements I feel he moves more fluidly between his slow melancholys and his fast stressful needs-a-xanax sections. It feels more organic.

I always find themes from Mahler's slow movements in my head, can't say the same for Bruckner.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Minor Sixthist said:


> I'll go with Gustav's on this one, but I am just a sucker for his slow stuff in general. Of Bruckner's I'm generally a fan too, but I feel like Mahler varies his slow themes more, and beyond just single movements I feel he moves more fluidly between his slow melancholys and his fast stressful needs-a-xanax sections. It feels more organic.
> 
> I always find themes from Mahler's slow movements in my head, can't say the same for Bruckner.


That "organic" shifting between slow and fast music, as you put it, is a result of Mahler's great dramatic abilities, not necessarily always in service of a specific, literal dramatic program, but it's clear, certainly from his song cycles, he's a master of that as well. That's why Shostakovich frequently reminds me of Mahler, as odd as that may sound, as Shostakovich too had a keen dramatic sense. Of course, Shostakovich wrote a lot of music explicitly intended for the theater.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Whatever relative weaknesses Bruckner may have had as a composer, compared to Mahler or others, he more than made up for them with his strengths: the grand architecture of his music, the beauty and simplicity of his themes, the depth of his harmony... 
Bruckner builds his music in a different and unique way, with a relatively strong element of repetition of themes, but all of that is done to great effect and it certainly doesn't make his music inferior. Repetition in music isn't necessarily a weak point when it's applied as effectively as in Bruckner (besides his music isn't nearly as literally repetitive as some people make it out to be).
Those sudden transitions and short breaks between segments make the music seem disjointed at first, but the more you listen the more it becomes clear, natural even. It's a matter of listening, and listening a lot, to get used to his style.
The building blocks of his music may sometimes be a little rough, not always as refined and elegant, but with those blocks he creates musical structures of great beauty and cohesion and - in his finest moments - reaches heights where few if any composers have been.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

^^Although it takes a conductor who understands how to structure the performance, who can see the long term, and many can't - or not very well


----------



## Rach Man (Aug 2, 2016)

Becca said:


> My avatar picture is, as with most on TC, not me. In the current case it is Barbara Hannigan at last month's Ojai Festival


Hmmm, I may have to re-process this. I realize that most here, at TC, post their real name with a celebrity picture. But I thought that you did the opposite. I always thought that your avatar was the true you, and you hid your celebrity with the name.

Whereas many on here write words to explain their thoughts. Whenever I asked you a question, or read one of your posts, I didn't seem to read words, but I always heard a soprano singing a sort of academic opera.

Indeed, I now need to re-process this.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Remember that reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Becca said:


> Remember that reality is not only stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can imagine


So true given the state of affairs in our country.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

DeepR said:


> Whatever relative weaknesses Bruckner may have had as a composer, compared to Mahler or others, he more than made up for them with his strengths: the grand architecture of his music, the beauty and simplicity of his themes, the depth of his harmony...
> Bruckner builds his music in a different and unique way, with a relatively strong element of repetition of themes, but all of that is done to great effect and it certainly doesn't make his music inferior. Repetition in music isn't necessarily a weak point when it's applied as effectively as in Bruckner (besides his music isn't nearly as literally repetitive as some people make it out to be).
> Those sudden transitions and short breaks between segments make the music seem disjointed at first, but the more you listen the more it becomes clear, natural even. It's a matter of listening, and listening a lot, to get used to his style.
> The building blocks of his music may sometimes be a little rough, not always as refined and elegant, but with those blocks he creates musical structures of great beauty and cohesion and - in his finest moments - reaches heights where few if any composers have been.


Good comments, thanks. Repetition can indeed be used very effectively in music, Beethoven, and before him Haydn, knew that very well. And "grand architecture" is a good description for Bruckner's music.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

Greatest adagios: Mahler 5 followed by Bruckner 8, 7 and 5 … but none are as good as Khachaturian's for Spartacus.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

larold said:


> Greatest adagios: Mahler 5 followed by Bruckner 8, 7 and 5 … but none are as good as Khachaturian's for Spartacus.


I've heard a few folks state that the Spartacus Adagio affects them greatly including an urge to cry. Me, I find it irritating.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

larold said:


> Greatest adagios: Mahler 5 followed by Bruckner 8, 7 and 5 … but none are as good as Khachaturian's for Spartacus.


Except that the Mahler 5th is an adagietto which is not the same thing. At least it shouldn't be but some conductors didn't get the memo.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

larold said:


> Greatest adagios: Mahler 5 followed by Bruckner 8, 7 and 5 … but none are as good as Khachaturian's for Spartacus.


Wait, you're not kidding about the adagio from Spartacus?
Yeahhh, I'm going to have to say no......


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Khachaturian? Noooo… Try Shostakovich.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Or Samuel Barber, from 1962.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think Mahler's "Adagietto" in the fifth, conducted by Bernstein, is singular. I've heard that Bernstein did it "wrong." That must be the reason I like it, because the herd mentality rejects it...


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Mahler's "Adagietto" in the fifth, conducted by Bernstein, is singular. I've heard that Bernstein did it "wrong." That must be the reason I like it, because the herd mentality rejects it...


It's the most viewed version on youtube and Bernstein's version of Mahler's 5th was voted as the greatest recording of the piece in the People's Mahler boxed set put out by DG. I hardly think this qualifies as a rejection of the herd mentality.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Mahler's "Adagietto" in the fifth, conducted by Bernstein, is singular. I've heard that Bernstein did it "wrong." That must be the reason I like it, because the herd mentality rejects it...


Mentalities other than herd mentalities can reject Bernstein's singular approach (glacial tempo and the mood that results). Willem Mengelberg, who knew Mahler and could have asked what he intended, rejected it: 



 Bernstein had a right to his way, and we have a right to like it, but is it what Mahler meant? Not likely.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Mentalities other than herd mentalities can reject Bernstein's singular approach (glacial tempo and the mood that results). Willem Mengelberg, who knew Mahler and could have asked what he intended, rejected it:
> 
> 
> 
> Bernstein had a right to his way, and we have a right to like it, but is it what Mahler meant? Not likely.


Mahler's not around, so we really don't have to pay attention to him. I think it was Beecham, upon being criticized in rehearsal by a composer over his choice of tempo for a new work, who said, "Sir, it is evident that you are not sufficiently familiar with this music."


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Bit late to this. Mahler's are probably finer, but Bruckner's are satisfying without leaving you exhausted. Mahler's famous Adagietto, with those fleeting harp notes that you strain to preempt, leave me a bit exhausted.

I'm going to put in a word for Alberic Magnard who wrote a fine adagio for his 2nd symphony, which gives Bruckner/Mahler a run for their money. It also predates most of Mahler.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Mahler's not around, so we really don't have to pay attention to him. I think it was Beecham, upon being criticized in rehearsal by a composer over his choice of tempo for a new work, who said, "Sir, it is evident that you are not sufficiently familiar with this music."


Beecham was an a**h***.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

millionrainbows said:


> I think Mahler's "Adagietto" in the fifth, conducted by Bernstein, is singular. I've heard that Bernstein did it "wrong." That must be the reason I like it, because the herd mentality rejects it...


Agreed. There's something about Bernstein's recordings of the Adagietto that capture something in this piece that everyone else seems to miss... to hell with what Mahler "wanted" or "meant"!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Agreed. There's something about Bernstein's recordings of the Adagietto that capture something in this piece that everyone else seems to miss... to hell with what Mahler "wanted" or "meant"!


Bernstein typically captures the tragic, painful, neurotic, morbid, swooning, overwrought, self-indulgent side of Mahler that he thought was the essence of the composer's work. Maybe it was, but it turns some listeners off his music. I'm always pleased to hear Mahler performances that don't make his music sound like an epitaph on the tomb of Western civilization.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Bernstein typically captures the tragic, painful, neurotic, morbid, swooning, overwrought, self-indulgent side of Mahler that he thought was the essence of the composer's work. Maybe it was, but it turns some listeners off his music. I'm always pleased to hear Mahler performances that don't make his music sound like an epitaph on the tomb of Western civilization.


I much prefer conductors who bring out Mahler's breezy, jocular, devil-may-care side. Needless to say, such conductors are hard to find! :lol:


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> epitaph on the tomb of Western civilization.


Count me in for that :lol: I think you have summed up the appeal of Bernstein's Mahler for me pretty well.

I would agree with you that there is much more to Mahler's music than these mournful qualities that Bernstein loves to express, though. In my ongoing exploration of Mahler's music, I think I would do well to listen more to another conductor on the other side of the spectrum. Perhaps not KenOC's "devil-may-care" Mahler, but maybe someone who is a little antithetical to Bernstein... Boulez, Kubelik, Abbado maybe?

Having said that, I hear Bernstein's Mahler Adagietto as the love song it was meant to be, maybe a sad love song, but nonetheless. Not a funeral march.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

flamencosketches said:


> Count me in for that :lol: I think you have summed up the appeal of Bernstein's Mahler for me pretty well.
> 
> I would agree with you that there is much more to Mahler's music than these mournful qualities that Bernstein loves to express, though. In my ongoing exploration of Mahler's music, I think I would do well to listen more to another conductor on the other side of the spectrum. Perhaps not KenOC's "devil-may-care" Mahler, but maybe someone who is a little antithetical to Bernstein... Boulez, Kubelik, Abbado maybe?
> 
> Having said that, *I hear Bernstein's Mahler Adagietto as the love song it was meant to be, maybe a sad love song,* but nonetheless. Not a funeral march.


Lost love, i would say, or perhaps a memory of love in lonely old age. For Mengelberg, the message was that of a young man, probably sitting at his desk writing a reply to the love letter he'd just received. After all, Mahler was only 41. Hell, I can't even _remember_ 41.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

I think there is value in attempting to recapture as closely as possible the feelings experienced by the composer when the piece was first written, but I think that perspective is far from the last word on the way a piece should be played. This music is a living thing. It's not just written on a score one time and then never changes. Even within Mahler's lifetime, I imagine the Adagietto took on a different quality for him as the years wore on and his marriage began experiencing troubles. Mahler never made it to old age, but perhaps he would have understood longing for lost love later in life, and maybe this piece would have began to take on new depth, in later performance or in the life of his mind. Maybe this is what Bernstein was attempting to capture? 

Of course, maybe not. We have no way of knowing how a composer's feelings on a piece would have changed over time. And maybe the Adagietto does mean exactly the same thing now that it did 118 years ago, two world wars, a whole lot of lost love, and a hell of a lot of strife later on down the road. 

Going to hide behind my flame shield now, but that's the crux of my defense for Bernstein's sometimes freewheelin' interpretive choices, in this piece and many others.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

flamencosketches said:


> Going to hide behind my flame shield now, but that's the crux of my defense for Bernstein's sometimes freewheelin' interpretive choices, in this piece and many others.


Let's continue this discussion when you've had a chance to familiarize yourself with other views of the Mahler symphonies 

BTW: As to the 5th specifically, I would recommend Rudolf Barshai's recording with the Junge Deutsche Philharmonie.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

^I'll look into that. It looks like they have also recorded the completed 10th, and it's available dirt cheap. Have you heard that one? I can't remember if I've talked to you about your views on the 10th symphony, I know some people don't support performing the Deryck Cooke version at all.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I am very positive, even argumentative and long-winded about the value and merits of the 10th having been familiar with it since the Rattle/Bournemouth recording and a subsequent Rattle/Los Angeles performance. My preference remains the Cooke III version but the revised Mazzetti and Wheeler versions are also good. For recordings of the Cooke, either of the Rattle recordings or the Gielen/SWR. Some people feel strongly about Wigglesworth but I have not heard that one.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

You see, I prefer Bruckner's adagios, due to the influences from Wagner, I am a fan of most Wagner's operas, 
So this explains why I prefer Bruckner.

Note the Wagnerian influences, especially opening, and closing sections.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Beecham was an a**h***.


Well, I didn't know him, of course, but with all those great one-liners attributed to him (I presume accurately, unlike the bon mots of Yogi Berra, whom I once heard say, "I never really said most of the things I said" -- so we know at least Yogi really came up with that one), Beecham approaches the exalted status of the Groucho Marx of conductors. And that really is high praise, as Groucho Marx really did say the things he said. But Beecham came from a rich family and could do and say whatever he wanted.

As for Bernstein, he was as charismatic and theatrical as a conductor could be. But if he cared about what his reputation as a conductor would become decades after his death, he should have been far more conservative with his recordings. Some things may be exciting and fun to try once or twice on the stage, but hearing them ad infinitum on permanent recordings doesn't always work out as well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

fluteman said:


> ...Yogi Berra, whom I once heard say, "I never really said most of the things I said"...


Yogi on syncopation: "That's when the note that you should hear now happens either before or after you hear it. In Jazz, you don't hear notes when they happen because that would be some other type of music. Other types of music can be Jazz, but only if they're the same as something different from those other kinds."


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

fluteman said:


> As for Bernstein, he was as charismatic and theatrical as a conductor could be. But if he cared about what his reputation as a conductor would become decades after his death, he should have been far more conservative with his recordings. Some things may be exciting and fun to try once or twice on the stage, but hearing them ad infinitum on permanent recordings doesn't always work out as well.


Interesting and explains why I am not a big fan of his records.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

paulbest said:


> You see, I prefer Bruckner's adagios, due to the influences from Wagner, I am a fan of most Wagner's operas,
> So this explains why I prefer Bruckner.
> 
> Note the Wagnerian influences, especially opening, and closing sections.


The coda to this movement, with its Wagner tubas, was supposedly inspired by Wagner's death, but I think that Wagner's influence on Bruckner's music has been overstated. We can hear passages here and there, but Bruckner's episodic construction is un-Wagnerian, his use of chromaticism is limited, and his moods are much less varied. Wagner is volatile, fluid and sensual, while Bruckner is deliberate, solid and austere. In these ways Mahler is closer to Wagner.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

Also Wagner was the master of seamless transitions, whereas Bruckner was awkward in that particular area.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Also whereas Wagner was a master of seamless transition, Bruckner obviously had trouble in this area.


Good point.That would be the pitfall of his peculiarly episodic construction, in which he develops ideas by alternating them and varying them separately. The idea of parallel variation dates back to Haydn and Beethoven, but Bruckner makes it his normal method of composition. Sometimes it works well, sometimes less well. I think it's a barrier to some people getting into his music, especially his habit of working up to nonexistent climaxes.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> The coda to this movement, with its Wagner tubas, was supposedly inspired by Wagner's death, but I think that Wagner's influence on Bruckner's music has been overstated. We can hear passages here and there, but Bruckner's episodic construction is un-Wagnerian, his use of chromaticism is limited, and his moods are much less varied. Wagner is volatile, fluid and sensual, while Bruckner is deliberate, solid and austere. In these ways Mahler is closer to Wagner.


Well put, Mahler is indeed much closer to Wagner than to Bruckner, especially Wagner's overtures.


----------



## samm (Jul 4, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Good point.That would be the pitfall of his peculiarly episodic construction, in which he develops ideas by alternating them and varying them separately. The idea of parallel variation dates back to Haydn and Beethoven, but Bruckner makes it his normal method of composition. Sometimes it works well, sometimes less well. I think it's a barrier to some people getting into his music, especially his habit of working up to nonexistent climaxes.


The episodic construction is definitely there, but I wouldn't say he works up to non-existent climaxes. The climaxes are there, but instead of ending there on a high he takes you back down the mountain for another run up. There are actually multiple climaxes (if you know what I mean).

Bruckner's clear construction is what draws me to his music. I find it much more preferable to meandering themes.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

samm said:


> . I find it much more preferable to meandering themes.


Just curious, is this perhaps a reference to *the other composer* mentioned here?
If yes, then it aligns with my limited experience.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

samm said:


> The episodic construction is definitely there, but I wouldn't say he works up to non-existent climaxes. The climaxes are there, but instead of ending there on a high he takes you back down the mountain for another run up. There are actually multiple climaxes (if you know what I mean).


Sure there are climaxes. It's just the habit of breaking off when you think he might be heading toward one that's peculiar. We're supposed to read the climaxes he eventually reaches as the fulfillment of his previous coiti interrupti. That's the theory, anyway, but I think it works better in some cases than in others; his finales, in particular, don't always move forward as convincingly as his previous movements. The 8th symphony disappoints me that way; after the sublime adagio, the 4th movement starts off as if it's going to war but never finds a secure path to victory, and doesn't constitute a finale worthy of the symphony. It makes me doubtful that he could have finished the 9th satisfactorily. The various completions by others don't convince me, and I'm happy to end with the adagio.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Woodduck said:


> It makes me doubtful that he could have finished the 9th satisfactorily. The various completions by others don't convince me, and I'm happy to end with the adagio.


Hear hear. In its three movement version, I love the symphony. The completions really do not work for me.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Those interrupts in Bruckner's music where he is seemingly heading towards a climax are surprising at first, but after a while they become a natural part of the music... in fact it might make the real climax hit harder when it arrives. The adagio of the 8th builds towards a most glorious climax, I don't know of a better one in any slow movement. Hearing it live left me in shock. 
Günter Wand is where it's at!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Sure there are climaxes. It's just the habit of breaking off when you think he might be heading toward one that's peculiar. We're supposed to read the climaxes he eventually reaches as the fulfillment of his previous coiti interrupti. That's the theory, anyway, but I think it works better in some cases than in others; his finales, in particular, don't always move forward as convincingly as his previous movements. The 8th symphony disappoints me that way; after the sublime adagio, the 4th movement starts off as if it's going to war but never finds a secure path to victory, and doesn't constitute a finale worthy of the symphony. It makes me doubtful that he could have finished the 9th satisfactorily. The various completions by others don't convince me, and I'm happy to end with the adagio.


I agree with you about the 4th movement of Bruckner's 9th, and that isn't exactly a stunning new insight on either of our parts -- many others have reached the same conclusion. What has always puzzled me about Bruckner is his reported lack of self confidence and excessive deference to critics and would-be advisers who were not qualified to shine his shoes. The one thing nearly all great composers seem to have in common is an absolute belief in and commitment to their creative approach, so much so that it often seems arrogant and sometimes even foolhardy. But how else does the artist forge a new creative path in the face of criticism or lack of acclaim? Beethoven's riposte to a critic who was unimpressed with Wellington's Victory, a piece written for a friend's "mechanical orchestra" that Beethoven himself certainly knew was a very minor addition to his catalog, "What I **** is better than anything you could think of", is the perfect illustration of this attitude. Read the letters of subtle, elegant composers like Debussy and Ravel, who probably wouldn't make such a crass statement, and yet they show pretty much the same attitude towards anyone who would dare challenge their creative approach, even indirectly.

Yet Bruckner apparently managed to write great music without this self-confidence. Very odd.
edit: The asterisks above are not mine. I firmly believe in not using "dirty" words to express myself, but this is a direct quote from Beethoven:
"Was ich scheisse ist besser als du je gedacht!"
Edit him if you wish, moderators, but please don't imply I did.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

great post,,,I had no idea that Ravel and Debussy has such *elitist* attitudes about their creative genius. 

I am a big fan of both composers, and so can readily accept these seemingly , rigid postures to outside criticism. 
IMHO, perfection , as heard in both composers, raises this level of pride about ones work...
Neither's works has worn thin, not tarnished over the years I've loved their music. 
This is my opinion, ok lets say weak conjecture/guess, but in 100 years time
their music may still hold the same charms and beauty as the day it was composed.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

fluteman said:


> I agree with you about the 4th movement of Bruckner's 9th, and that isn't exactly a stunning new insight on either of our parts -- many others have reached the same conclusion. What has always puzzled me about Bruckner is his reported lack of self confidence and excessive deference to critics and would-be advisers who were not qualified to shine his shoes. The one thing nearly all great composers seem to have in common is an absolute belief in and commitment to their creative approach, so much so that it often seems arrogant and sometimes even foolhardy. But how else does the artist forge a new creative path in the face of criticism or lack of acclaim? Beethoven's riposte to a critic who was unimpressed with Wellington's Victory, a piece written for a friend's "mechanical orchestra" that Beethoven himself certainly knew was a very minor addition to his catalog, "What I **** is better than anything you could think of", is the perfect illustration of this attitude. Read the letters of subtle, elegant composers like Debussy and Ravel, who probably wouldn't make such a crass statement, and yet they show pretty much the same attitude towards anyone who would dare challenge their creative approach, even indirectly.
> 
> Yet Bruckner apparently managed to write great music without this self-confidence. Very odd.
> edit: The asterisks above are not mine. I firmly believe in not using "dirty" words to express myself, but this is a direct quote from Beethoven:
> ...


If you dig skin deep on Bruckner's personality, you might not understand how he ever composed such music. These notes seemingly carved in granite came from a quite obscure mind.

Apart from Bruckners problems, I think most creative peaks come with insecurity. On the other hand, absolutism, so often experienced here, in most cases also hides other stuff.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

CnC Bartok said:


> "Mozart!" Legend has it, Gustav Mahler's last word.


Actually, it was the other way around.

That Mozart was *way* ahead of his time.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

NLAdriaan said:


> If you dig skin deep on Bruckner's personality, you might not understand how he ever composed such music. These notes seemingly carved in granite came from a quite obscure mind.
> 
> Apart from Bruckners problems, I think most creative peaks come with insecurity. On the other hand, absolutism, so often experienced here, in most cases also hides other stuff.


Yes, I meant my comment as slightly ironic. Bruckner can't possibly have been the chump some writers seem to suggest, allowing others to rewrite his music for no obvious reason.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

BachIsBest said:


> It's the most viewed version on youtube and Bernstein's version of Mahler's 5th was voted as the greatest recording of the piece in the People's Mahler boxed set put out by DG. I hardly think this qualifies as a rejection of the herd mentality.


A little late, but as I just listened to it, Mahler's 5th Adagietto by Karajan has more than twice as many views as Bernstein. 
Karajan also takes it slowly, by the way.

Anyway, "adagietto" seems a little contradictory with "sehr langsam" (very slow), so I guess that leaves room for interpretation.


----------



## Euler (Dec 3, 2017)

DeepR said:


> A little late, but as I just listened to it, Mahler's 5th Adagietto by Karajan has more than twice as many views as Bernstein.
> Karajan also takes it slowly, by the way.
> 
> Anyway, "adagietto" seems a little contradictory with "sehr langsam" (very slow), so I guess that leaves room for interpretation.


It begins _sehr langsam_, but by measure 10 it's "Don't drag (more fluent than at the start)", and then it cycles through slow again, urgency, fluency, holding back etc. So it's _adagietto_ in sum. Phrasing and rubato can make long performances less draggy, but twelve minute versions sound lugubrious to me.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Thanks for clarifying. Being used to the +/- 12 minute versions I was a little shocked to hear the one from Mengelberg at about 7 minutes. In then listened to Gergiev and Rattle's 10 and 9,5 minute versions which are a nice middle ground.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I think that Walter's version is around the 8 minute mark, which is more typical of how it used to be performed. For some reason, some Mahler conductors have really slowed down, not just here but in other of the symphonies. Consider that Klemperer's 2nd is amongst the fastest at around 79" with some getting over 90"!!


----------



## MrMeatScience (Feb 15, 2015)

Becca said:


> I think that Walter's version is around the 8 minute mark, which is more typical of how it used to be performed.


Mahler conducted the Fifth in St. Petersburg in 1907 (incidentally, his last performance of that work). One of the bass players in that orchestra was kind enough to write down the timings for the movements on his part -- the Adagietto clocked in at 7 minutes that evening (assuming our bass player was accurate!).

On the other hand, the proofs for the first edition of the score indicate it's about 9 minutes long, which is also the timing we have from a rehearsal under Mahler from Hamburg in 1905. Gielen's recording (the one from the Mahler box) lasts 8:30, so quite brisk for a modern recording. I've never been able to appreciate this movement as much in its slower interpretations -- it strays too far from the "love song" idea for my tastes (all they are). And speaking of the Adagietto as love song, according to Alma (here there be dragons), Mahler had written a poem to accompany this movement and presented it to her, which she in turn presented to Willem Mengelberg.

Wie ich dich liebe, 
Du meine Sonne, 
ich kann mit Worten Dir's nicht sagen. 
Nur meine Sehnsucht 
kann ich Dir klagen und meine Liebe.

You can actually fit this text reasonably well to the melody of the Adagietto. I don't know that it's genuine, or if Alma's just muddying the waters again, but I think it's interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

I enjoy both composers tremendously for their contributions. I like to hear what each has to say. Many of the Mahler slow movements interest me but only the Adagio of Bruckner's 8th interests me, at least so far, and I do not necessarily find it melodically memorable but consider it warm, deep — tremendous... I love the raw power in his symphonies and do not mind Bruckner's upward climb, then his slide down the mountain only to rise again in his upward climb toward heaven with the emotional or spiritual faith that he's going to make it... There's so much more to them than their adagios and I've never considered them in competition with each other. But of the two, I consider Mahler the greater master because he wrote with greater self-confidence and accepted the pain and suffering that goes along with loving another human being. He had resilience and would rise again after a crushing defeat, and that's not pointed out enough his tremendous love of life and the bliss that can be heard in his symphonies... Bruckner seemed to live more according to a religious or philosophic ideal of love and died without experiencing the full measure of its physical side. For me, that counts for being a more well-rounded individual. Plus, Mahler revised his own works with greater self-assurance and without the help, interference or tampering from others in order to be heard. Nevertheless, they are highly different individuals with strong voices and Bruckner's success is just as well deserved. One of my favorites is Tintner's recording of the 9th. So is Boulez's performance of the 8th.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

DeepR said:


> A little late, but as I just listened to it, Mahler's 5th Adagietto by Karajan has more than twice as many views as Bernstein.
> Karajan also takes it slowly, by the way.
> 
> Anyway, "adagietto" seems a little contradictory with "sehr langsam" (very slow), so I guess that leaves room for interpretation.


Actually, I just looked at it and we're both wrong (I was just going off memory in the original post). Gergiev has the most viewed version from the BBC Proms. Not that it really matters


----------

