Well, that's two of my top three favourite composers. But I think I used to be more "Mahlerian" in spirit, and these days I'm much more "Brucknerian". That doesn't take anything away from Mahler, though.

 

Mahler by a landslide.

 

I love the work of both but it has to be Mahler for me. Bruckner scores points for his masses, Te Deum and motets and Mahler does the same for his songs seeing this is where their output parts company category-wise. However, when it comes to the symphonies Mahler hit his stride straight away and are multi-faceted and individual. However, if I was to compile a favourite 50 symphonies list I would expect at least two of Bruckner's to feature which would be no less than Mahler's representation.

 

If Mahler never existed, I'm sure Bruckner would have done better in this poll.

 

For me Mahler is a long series of so-so experiences interspersed with sublime moments. Bruckner is a shorter series of slightly less so-so moments interspersed with sublime moments. I voted "about the same."

 

I only know some Mahler and very little Bruckner so obviously Mahler is better...

 

Going mano-a-mano, it's Bruckner all the way. Personal preference, of course. But I think Mahler's the bee's knees also.

 

I refuse to make the Hobbson's choice. Mahler has more talent; Bruckner has more tremendous climaxes. I cherish them both to death.

 

Bruckner's symphonies are very outwardly logical. Their development is usually displayed right on the surface as one version of a motif turns, by steps, into another version. The rather harsh sound of his orchestration is part of the single-mindedness of his music, which is always doing just what it appears to be (although that is sometimes more complicated than others, as in the funereal chorale/polka second theme group of the finale of the third). His music is like Baroque music in that it represents nothing less than a thorough working-out of the motifs that he uses, often by combination with other motifs and presentation of those motifs in various key areas.

I think one of the obstacles to people's appreciation of Bruckner is the relative lack of perfect authentic cadences, and the way these are used within the music. The opening of the Fourth, for example, is a single melody that cadences plagally a few times before finally reaching its first V7-I at the first tutti, and even there, it is not stated outright so much as implied, and the key immediately begins to move off towards the dominant. The first movement actually ends with a plagal cadence from the minor IV, and the finale, even more oddly, from the flatted II, which can make the listener not accustomed to Bruckner's harmony feel like the music suddenly comes to a stop without having resolved. He treats pretty much every passing key as if it were stable, which gives the construction of his music something of a block-like feel at times (but this is also related to the Baroque elements mentioned above), and his treatment of dissonance is idiosyncratic (he had a particular fondness for the flatted second, melodically and harmonically).

Overall, Bruckner's music is solid and sturdy. There are folk-like moments in his works, but their tone is overwhelmingly reverent and, despite their outward bursts of violence, inwardly quite contented.

Mahler, on the other hand, is not any of the above. His music is worked out underneath the surface, and its logic is usually not immediately apparent. His orchestration is micro-managed to a degree far surpassing even Strauss and Wagner, and he even goes so far as to distribute parts of a single line across different instruments and instrumental groups. His music feels spontaneous and "classical" where Bruckner's is measured and "baroque". Mahler wrote (decidedly secular) lieder as his important secondary genre, while Bruckner wrote masses and motets.

I think that there are several obstacles to people appreciating Mahler's music, and the outward contrasts he employs are actually among the least of them (they are simply the thing that people notice). The first, and most important, is the lack of literal repetition. Mahler would develop his motifs over the course of a movement, and whole sections will be based on a derivation rather than the original, so if the connection is not sensed (consciously or unconsciously), these might seem like unconnected asides. The thing is that these derivations are not worked out in steps, but they tend to happen simultaneously with other important musical events and all at once. Formally, Mahler's music is based upon classical models, but these were always adapted rather than used as strict templates, and the adaptation might extend so far as to open a movement in the "wrong" key (like the Seventh or the Fourth), or even to end a work in a different tonal center from that of its first movement (like the Second, the Fifth, or the Ninth).

Overall, Mahler's music is searching and spontaneous. There is a sense of play in all of his works (even or especially at their most cynical and sarcastic), and an innate lyricism that proliferates throughout even the subordinate lines in any of his prismatic textures.

 

Seriously good, man.
Now, with one of the major things done which you were put on this planet to do -- what's next?

 

Thanks, Mahlerian. That one's a keeper.

 

I voted for Bruckner entirely on the strength of his 4th symphony, that's how impressed I am by it. It's like discovering a concrete heaven, one that exists for real, and has a great many wonderful attributes to be discovered.

 

Bruckner: What's the fuss about?

 

Bruckner. What's the fuss about?

You never take off your TC hat do you?

 

If Beethoven had never written his 9th symphony, I wonder if we would have even heard of Bruckner?

 

That's like saying if nobody had written the Bible, man could not have reached the moon.

 

Both about equal for me, I couldn't pick one definitively over the other. :tiphat:

 

Overall, Bruckner's music is solid and sturdy. There are folk-like moments in his works, but their tone is overwhelmingly reverent and, despite their outward bursts of violence, inwardly quite contented.

Your description reminds me of the manner in which Camille Paglia described Cezanne: sturdy, stolid solid workmanship. Akin to the product of good old American Protestant work ethic. I quite like Cezanne... but give me the virtuosity of Degas or even Van Gogh any day. I feel the same about Bruckner. I can't imagine being without his 7th symphony or his great masses... but Mahler is so much more to me.

 

Haven't really gotten into either. Maybe some time in the future. I do remember liking the intro to Bruckner 4th Symphony though. And Mahler's 1st Symphony is pretty good. Also heard a pretty good movement in Mahler's 7th Symphony.

 

In fairness I can't vote because I don't know the music of Bruckner to make a measured comparison.

 

I like both, but I think i'm more a Bruckner guy.
I love the feeling of his positive faith and awesome spirituality.
His awe in the face of the heavens.
He makes me feel good.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

 

As a Sibelian [and Wagnerian and Brahmsian and...] traag in La Planète sauvage
I like them both about equal, Bruckner being more inclined to classical-logical-unity-strings-flute-brass while Mahler being more expansive-exploratory-expressive-colourful. Both of them have an impressive structural and technical foundation. I think that overall Mahler is greater but only by a hair, biographically it probably has to do with Mahler being an overworked conductor.

 

*Edit* In the light of Lope de Aguirre's objection, this post has been deleted so that I may consider the matter more thoroughly.

 

Along these lines, I would say:

Bruckner is the enjoyment of a cold, refreshing dunkel lager with friends on a sunny autumn afternoon, whereas Mahler is a summer night of moody solitude with a highly rated bolero wine. I wouldn't be without either experience.

Of course, for the sake of my health I can't partake of either too often, and often stick to a regular diet of piano and chamber works.

Summer and Mahler don't mix. Mahler is an Autumn/Winter composer. At least that's my opinion.

 

As for influences while Beethoven was an influence, so was Schubert, and Schubert of course was influenced by Mozart and not just Beethoven. Schubert also had that lighter Austrian/Viennese sensibility, a singing warm style that can link to both later composers at times.

 

Cheers for people who hate both Bruckner and Mahler for not showing up!

 

Zero in the poll.

You wake up tomorrow, you will find 3 of them!

 

Mahler, all the way.

 

Welp, I'm enjoying Mahler much more recently. But if you were to ask this a couple months ago, it would've been Bruckner for sure. Opinions vary like the wind. Don't expect consistency.