Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

[EmpNapoleon]

If only composers were as easy to compare as basketball players, then we could just look at how many championships each won.  I guess composers don't win championships.  This question reminds me of this: whose better, Jordan or Bird?

[greg]

hmmmmmmm Jordan, obviously?
how many championships did each win again?

[Que]

OK ......... which one was "the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally" ........ ? 

I had my reasons for not mentioning  :
1) no pissing contest;
2) it's my own perception and not a fact;
3) I'm sure you can decide for yourself 

If you're still interested in my personal preference after that: it's Mahler.
And I don't think he was "violent" as he is perceived by some here - that is all to blame on modern interpreters. Mahler was on the contrary a hyper-sensitive (and intelligent) man, and his music reflects that.

Q

[Renfield]

I'm not going to re-enter this topic (which will inevitably devolve into what is otherwise known as a "flame-fest"), but I would like to make an important clarification:

Someone mentioned Anton Bruckner's personality as being less problematic than Gustav Mahler's. Now, might I mention that, although Mahler was intensely troubled by many things, and profoundly "existentialist" in his concerns (as I mentioned above), it was Bruckner who was recorded as cradling Beethoven's newly-exhumed skull in his arms?

That it was Bruckner who kept making marriage proposals to various teenaged girls, out of the blue?


Don't get me wrong: I do not consider Bruckner's personality detrimental to my enjoyment of his music. But of the pair mentioned, he clearly surpassed Mahler in displaying overtly psychopathological traits, which I do repeat I do not denounce in any way. So the personalities of neither among the two were what you might call "normal".

[greg]

That it was Bruckner who kept making marriage proposals to various teenaged girls, out of the blue?

wow, really? At what age, 60?

i heard he was so poor he could only afford food by the money from teaching composition lessons.

[Bonehelm]

Goddamn it people, there is no "bad" or "good" composer; it depends on how much each of us like the composers. If you like Bruckner, he's good, if you don't, he's bad (for you). Same goes with Mahler.

But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.

[locrian]

Goddamn it people, there is no "bad" or "good" composer; it depends on how much each of us like the composers. If you like Bruckner, he's good, if you don't, he's bad (for you). Same goes with Mahler.

But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.

I am reporting you to the Elgar Society.

[greg]

I am reporting you to the Elgar Society.

you mean 71 dB?

[locrian]

you mean 71 dB?

No.

[mahlertitan]

I'm not going to re-enter this topic (which will inevitably devolve into what is otherwise known as a "flame-fest"), but I would like to make an important clarification:

Someone mentioned Anton Bruckner's personality as being less problematic than Gustav Mahler's. Now, might I mention that, although Mahler was intensely troubled by many things, and profoundly "existentialist" in his concerns (as I mentioned above), it was Bruckner who was recorded as cradling Beethoven's newly-exhumed skull in his arms?

That it was Bruckner who kept making marriage proposals to various teenaged girls, out of the blue?

Don't get me wrong: I do not consider Bruckner's personality detrimental to my enjoyment of his music. But of the pair mentioned, he clearly surpassed Mahler in displaying overtly psychopathological traits, which I do repeat I do not denounce in any way. So the personalities of neither among the two were what you might call "normal".

Bruckner was an odd ball. he counts and counts and counts... apparently for no reason, he proposed marriages to girls who would reject him anyways.... and he worshiped Beethoven, well, maybe a little too much.

I never heard anyone call Bruckner displaying "overtly psychopathological traits", that's new information to me. Neither were "normal" in the normal sense, but who didn't suffer from problems in those days? Compare them to Hugo Wolf, they are quite "sane". Mahler's music reflect more of his "state of mind" than Bruckner's. Consider the worst stage of Bruckner's life, when he moved to Vienna, and hated it, can't find a well paying job, etc.... he wrote his fifth symphony, in B-flat major! Of course, there were hints of his psychological state in that symphony, but i think much of the symphony had little to do with his own life at the time.

[greg]

No.

oh, i thought there was only one member.....

[johnQpublic]

The Elgar Society's Enforcement Patrol:

[greg]

The Elgar Society's Enforcement Patrol:

wow, there's more than one person! 

[greg]

finally someone agrees with me Mahler's 9th is the best symphony ever:

http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/tp/symphonylist.htm

1st place in "Top 10 Symphonies you should own"

[71 dB]

But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.

Seriously, what's wrong with you people? How can you see Elgar so bad? IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. I am blown away by his music! You people are CRAZY!

[Renfield]

finally someone agrees with me Mahler's 9th is the best symphony ever:

http://classicalmusic.about.com/od/classicalmusic101/tp/symphonylist.htm

1st place in "Top 10 Symphonies you should own"

As far as my personal taste is concerned, Mahler's 9th symphony is likely the best thing anyone ever composed.

So no, you're likely neither alone, nor alone with the guy who made that list.

[mahlertitan]

Mahler, obviously. Bruckner was known to struggle with orchestration, reworked his music even more probably, and took until his 4th symphony to write something that's considered a masterpiece. His earlier ones I haven't heard that they were all that great (though i haven't heard them anyways). His music is not nearly as versatile, meaning it doesn't have extremely different personalities from one symphony to the next. Compare Mahler 1 to 10 or even 3 to 4! This isn't say it's bad that Bruckner isn't as varied, cuz his music is still kewl, just a little bit more strict stylistically. 

Bruckner's style developed throughout his symphonic output. The 3rd was the actual turning point (not the 4th!). The finale of the 5th is another turning point.

I agree that Bruckner probably "recycled" some stuff in his music, but to me, that's neither good or bad.

[BachQ]

If you're still interested in my personal preference after that: it's Mahler.

Yeah, me too ...... but for me, Mahler's edge over Bruckner is very, very slight .......

[longears]

If you like Bruckner, he's good, if you don't, he's bad (for you). Same goes with Mahler.

But for Elgar, he's bad no matter who listens to him, at any given time. Especially bad when compared to Bruckner.

Uh...Bonehelm?  That's exactly what "good" and "bad" mean:  "I like" and "I don't like."  (Not in the dictionary, of course, but in the way people actually use the terms.  Natural language.)

I disagree about Elgar.  The VCC is very good (= I like very much), the VC good (= I like), and so are Sospiri and a few other works.  Don't let the mediocrity of much of his music dissuade you from enjoying the few treasures. 

[Josquin des Prez]

Mahler boring?

No.