Classical Music Forum banner

Bruckner vs. Mahler

50K views 134 replies 66 participants last post by  joen_cph 
#1 · (Edited)
Inspired by Tapkaara's thread *contrasting* Sibelius to Mahler, I'd like to pose the question to this board. Of the following supremely self-conscious symphonists, whose music do you prefer?:
.... or ....

*The obsessive-compulsive, devoutly religious, socially inept Anton Bruckner, or...

*The anxious, thrice-homeless, irredemiably nostalgic Gustav Mahler.

Both wrote 9 (+ 2-3 depending on who you ask) symphonies and varying amounts of large scale vocal music. Both inhabit basically the same stylistic idiom (atonal hints in late Mahler 9 notwithstanding) and share many of the same aesthetic preoccupations. And it's certainly not hard to hear the influence of the former on the latter. So what draws you to one over the other (even if you can't get enough of both!).

I'd like to emphasize the personal preference angle for this thread. Sure I'm interested in hearing whose symphonies you think are objectively better, but I'm more curious in hearing what you think it says about you that you prefer one to the other. For example (all things being equal), what is it in your musical taste or personality that leads you to treasure, say, the jagged scherzi of Bruckner or the Ländler-infused fast movements in Mahler? I think because there is such respect and love for these two on these boards, we could keep this a largely positive thread. If you hate one or both, perhaps suggest another late romantic composer of similar style (Zemlinsky, Strauss, Schmidt, Hausseger, Elgar, Langgaard, Atterberg come to mind).

For me, the broad, slow waves of Bruckner tap something deeper in me than generally does Mahler. That is not to say I don't adore Mahler's symphonies, especially moments of the eerie calm he is able to achieve throughout his work. I think what I like in Mahler is the morbidity -- constant funeral marches, weird orchestrations, snatches of melodies he wrote 20 years ago now cloaked in bitter irony and regret. But sometimes the irony in Mahler is too much to take. At no point (even in the ridiculous scherzo of the 9th) do I think Bruckner isn't being upfront and honest with me. Perhaps that means at the core I prefer straightforward emotion to masked or layered emotion. But I'm not trying to say Bruckner's naive (although perhaps I am!). More, I find his inability to lie musically very appealing.

I'm also drawn to his colossal and sturdy grasp of form, his harmonic gravitas, and those goddamn aching slow movements -- I'll take the Adagio of the 8th over the Adagietto of the 5th any day. I'm not sure I would take him over Mahler as a spinner of tunes, but as a spinner of *sequences* there is surely no better.

So what do you all think?
 
See less See more
2
#2 ·
Playing Bruckner's 6th as I am reading this (as part of my re-play all bruckner symphonies within a few days project), I still prefer Mahler. I find him more emotional and in the end that is what good music is about for me: it touches me inside. I also notice in my current project that when I really really like Bruckner (a lot of times), it is in the passages that foreshadow Mahler.
 
#3 ·
I prefer Mahler.

***And by the way, I was not so much "comparing" Sibelius to Mahler in an earlier thread, but contrasting them more than anything. They are very different composers with different ideas to express. The premise of the thread was based on a famous conversation they had on the nature of the symphony. Their ideas were in sharp contrast to each other.***
 
#86 ·
The Mahler is standard repertoire and has been for decades ; but the Bruckner 1st is sadly neglected . And it's
a marvelous work too, the shortest of the nine symphonies by far , no longer than the ultra familiar Brahms 1st . It has all the typical characteristics of Bruckner's mature symphonies . The last performance anywhere in America I can recall in recent years was as part the historic Bruckner cycle Daniel Barenboim gave in Carnegie hall recently , the first of its kind in America .
 
#5 ·
Mamamamamammhler.

How many times did I share my dislike to Bruckner and even greater dislike to Mahler which eventually turned into indescribable admiration and love for the latter?

I don't think Bruckner is more difficult than Mahler, so I guess that appreciating him after understanding Mahler is unlikely.

Except of stricte-musical aspects of Bruckner's music that I dislike so much I may also be repulsed by it's background, ideas and Bruckner himself. I'm sure that if I wouldn't know any of them and if I would get two short notes about their lifes and music, then just after comparing them I would know for sure that I want to listen to Mahler, not Bruckner.
 
#109 ·
Sebastian, Bruckner's music can be quite "nervous and unhinged ", such as the scherzo of the 9th and elsewhere , but his music it's not "stolid " even though it can seem that way if it's conducted too slowly . The first movements of his 8th and 9th are extremely nervous too !
And there there is a lot more calm, serene and seemingly naive music in Mahler's symphonies , specially the 4th than many people seem to realize .
 
#8 ·
Bruckner 3
Bruckner 4
Mahler 5
Bruckner 6
Mahler 7
Mahler 9
Overall: = a draw
Although the funereal Adagio of Bruckner's No. 4 is exquisite, overall Mahler's No. 4 is a superior work.

Bruckner's No. 5 beats Mahler's No. 5 hands down.

Important critics rate Mahler's No. 6 as his greatest (non-vocal) symphony.

Bruckner's No. 7 is superior to Mahler's No. 7.

Bruckner's No. 9 is superior to Mahler's No. 9.
 
#10 · (Edited)
Although the funereal Adagio of Bruckner's No. 4 is exquisite, overall Mahler's No. 4 is a superior work.

Bruckner's No. 5 beats Mahler's No. 5 hands down.

Important critics rate Mahler's No. 6 as his greatest (non-vocal) symphony.

Bruckner's No. 7 is superior to Mahler's No. 7.

Bruckner's No. 9 is superior to Mahler's No. 9.
These are just my preferences, and I´m not pretending to be magisterical here. So won´t discuss the details or the exact criteria for each valuation here, like you aren´t doing either ... :).
But as regards VII for instance, I´ve heard both the Anton and the Gustav perhaps at least 40 times, and I have come to the conclusion that I would prefer to keep the varied and original sound world in Gustav´s work, especially the Nachtmusiks (the Kubelik recording), provided that I could keep the other symphonies on the list. Agree that the Bruckner is a luminous and serene work in his oeuvre, but it is slightly too simple in its material - IMHO - if compared to the other selected symphonies on the list. Obviously the Mahler has some very weak points, the Finale is nowhere near to Bruckner´s, I agree.
As the regards IV, I disagree with you explodingly, though - like it was the case of the evaluation of Michael Nyman as one of today´s finest composers ... :)
 
#11 ·
It's difficult to understand why or how these composers are bracketed together these days for any kind of comparison. Based on my limited analytical knowledge of Mahler's symphonies, they are stylistically different. I have yet to make sense of any Mahler symphony - considering one need devote a fair amount of time. The 8th makes vague sense and does seem to portray Mahler caught between the humanist and the ecclesiastical. He doesn't seem to have quite the command of counterpoint that Bruckner enjoyed and until late in life, didn't display Bruckner's skill with the orchestra - but then Bruckner spent time studying both form and orchestration before penning his "Study symphony". On the other hand, Mahler is somewhat more adventurous and exciting than Bruckner.

I have no trouble with Bruckner's symphonies except in the sense of the "Bruckner problem", the revisions, editions; and I'm in two minds about "Bruckner's first thoughts" as the original versions are claimed to be. There's a body of opinion that suggests Bruckner was right to make certain revisions.

Bruckner's symphonic music allows a fair latitude of interpretation so listeners inevitably gravitate toward their favourite conductors/orchestras. I have yet to find a conductor able to give excellent recorded performances of all the symphonies so I pick and choose among single issues. Although older recordings, Horenstein seems to be the most consistently satisfying.
 
#12 ·
I love both composers, and there's no use comparing apples and oranges.
There are definite similarities and close connections between the music of both composers, despite the vast differences.
The symphonies of both composers are full of the influence of Austrian folk music .
Mahler's orchestration is on a superficial level more colorful,perhaps.
Mahler was not strictly speaking a pupil of Bruckner, but he did frequently attend the older composers lectures at the conservatoire in Vienna, and the two spent time together conversing about musical matters.
I just can't choose between the two. They're not at all mutually exclusive, and I love all their symphonies, as well as the songs of Mahler, and the great choral works of Bruckner.
 
#13 ·
I don't know either of their works as well as I do other favourite composers. But well enough. Probably lean towards Mahler. (At least Mahler didn't get turned on by corpses ...)
 
#15 ·
I like both very much. Bruckner kind of makes more sense to me than does Mahler, though, or at least recently he has. The thing with Bruckner is that, like the music of Arvo Part (whom I also very much like), he lets the music breath and does not let religion get in the way; actually, I'd compare Bruckner to Bach in their "religion-that-transcends-religion" thing. Mahler I like a lot especially once he actually lets the music breath (2nd, 8th, 10th symphonies and Das Lied) but otherwise he can sound a bit cluttered or too "big".

If forced to choose between the two I'd actually have to choose Bruckner.
 
#22 ·
Silence may be more part of Bruckner's work than Sibelius, though a piece like Sibelius 4 might have some ominous pauses during it. The big loud tutti followed by the silent void is more Bruckner.
 
#25 · (Edited)
Both are great composers that I rate highly, but if I had to choose between the two I would probably have to go with Bruckner. His music just brings me to that "place" much more naturally then Mahler does. Both make grand, sweeping statements in their works, but in his more bombastic moments Bruckner tends to bring me there "the right way" instead of pushing it all into my face, and this kind of honesty is something I admire. The structural intelligence with which Bruckner works is also more exquisite. I personally find that the Mahler "high" often wears off after repeated listens, while Bruckner tends to be just as good every single time. I realize that some people may actually like Mahler more for his extroverted style, but in the long run, it is Bruckner's symphonies that I feel lead to greater fulfillment. And mathematically, it's Bruckner's music that I seem to have a deeper attachment to (his 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 as opposed to Mahler 2, 3, 5, 6, Das Lied, 9)

But very close it is - and I could not live without both in my collection.
 
#27 ·
Many I think do prefer composers whose style isn't so homogenic, this may be why some have problems with the baroque or even Haydn. Beethoven isn't really like that and Mozart's style is a little varied though not as much as Beethoven perhaps.
 
#28 ·
I can't really say which one I like the most, I'm not the biggest fan of either. In one of the other threads I was talking about the 'straightjacket' of the symphonic form, and this applies to both Bruckner & Mahler, imo. I don't know why they just concentrated on writing works in this format, when there are so many possiblities out there (eg. neither wrote a concerto, tone poem or piano sonata). I'm just a bit bored with listening to only works in one genre by the same composer. That's why I've begun listening to works like Bruckner's Mass in E minor, that work interests me more, exactly because it is not yet another symphony.

However, I think that both of their slow movements strike something deep within me. There are so many emotions there, sadness, hope, melancholy, resignation, the list can go on. It's these movements that grab me the most, pity about the contexts which they are in, which I often find long-winded & too complex for their own good. Reflecting on that, I think that most of the times I prefer say Brahms to either of them - his symphonies are compact, relatively concise & he basically gets to the point without faffing about. Not to speak of his chamber works, which perhaps surpassed all of those of his contemporaries. Maybe I'm a bit of a "classicist" after all...
 
#31 ·
Bruckner's Mass in E minor interests me
That e-minor Mass is interesting for its excellent vocal work supported exclusively by winds.
Bruckner's unique harmonics are apparent here (something he shares with fellow countryman Schubert, whose work he knew in piano score).
Yesterday evening I heard the e-minor Mass in a very fine performance with Rilling et alii.

http://www.amazon.com/Bruckner-Miss...=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1274098867&sr=1-2

The f-minor Mass also has much to offer as a reflection of Bruckner's ethos.
 
#29 ·
Andre there is a time for Brahms and there is a time for Bruckner and Mahler. When it comes to symphonies, they both approached it from their own unique point of view. When I want to hear a classicist I listen to Brahms, when I want to hear something cosmic and universal I listen to Bruckner and Mahler.

That being said, the last movement of Mahler's 3rd, and the 2nd movement of Bruckner's 5th, easily squashes anything that Brahms wrote in terms of the orchestral. And they reveal Brahms to be nothing more than a stoic conservative who wanted to freeze music in time. What these two slow movements reveal (last movement of Mahler 3rd, and 2nd movement of Bruckner's 5th) is that music is much bigger than Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven.
 
#32 ·
Bruckner's 5th, easily squashes anything that Brahms wrote in terms of the orchestral. And reveal Brahms to be nothing more than a stoic conservative who wanted to freeze music in time...much bigger than Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven.


Wow: strong sentiments! Admirable enthusiasm!

Much as I admire and enjoy Bruckner, I equally admire Brahms, Schumann, Wagner and Beethoven.

Brahms' symphony No. 4 is fairly hefty; ditto Schumann's Nos. 1-4.
Bruckner's starting point was Beethoven's No. 9, while Wagner's expansive music-dramas were a further example for him. Indeed, he utilized the Wagner tubas in the elegaic Adagio of No. 7--an homage to Wagner's passing.
 
#35 ·
Never understood the comparison of Bruckner to Mahler. THe only possible connection I can see is that they are primarily known for their symphonies, of which the mature examples usually last over an hour. That's it.
Bruckner's contemporaries were Suppe, Raff, Franck, Lalo, Smetana, Brahms, Strauss J, Borodin.
Mahler's were Elgar, Puccini, Wolf, Debussy, Delius, Strauss R, Nielsen, Sibelius.
They're a full generation apart, not to mention that Mahler was a 'student' of Bruckner.
You might as well compare Mendelssohn to Dvorak...
cheers,
G
 
#38 ·
I would be torn between these two composers. I would not be without either one. Considering his choral works I'd almost give the nod to Bruckner... but then again... there is perhaps no single work from the last century that has effected me as profoundly as Der Abschied... the final songs from Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde... especially in the version performed by Kathleen Ferrier. Perhaps the only thing to come close is Strauss' Four Last Songs.
 
#40 ·
. but then again... there is perhaps no single work from the last century that has effected me as profoundly as Der Abschied... the final songs from Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde.
I think your example StlukesguildOhio homes in on something in Mahler that's hard to find in Bruckner -- that sense of lonely, nostalgic resignation achieved through astonishingly generous heaps of melody. I agree, I would never wish to part with Der Abschied!
 
#41 ·
...there are reasons I made this a Bruckner/Mahler thread rather than a Suppe/Lalo or Puccini/Sibelius (now that would be interesting!) thread.

Suppe vs Lalo? Hmmm?:confused:

Puccini vs Sibelius? No competition at all there. I'd take the Italian without a second thought.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top