Mahler vs. R. Strauss

[TheGSMoeller]

Nice marmot.

[Sergeant Rock]

I just can't pass up on a chance to quote Jeff Lebowski.

The words of the Dude are always welcome 

Sarge

[Karl Henning]

The sock monkey abides.

[eyeresist]

Oh, cool. The poll already exists. Okay, well my poll just went down.

Just want to mention - I wasn't saying that you should take your poll down, just pointing out that there was a previous one.

[Mirror Image]

Just want to mention - I wasn't saying that you should take your poll down, just pointing out that there was a previous one.

Yes, I know, but it's too late now.

[Johnnie Burgess]

I pick Mahler over Strauss.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

These two are among composers who I both love and yet at times I have hard time hearing clear interesting melodies in their works, which may have something to do with how contrapuntally complex their works are, which far be it from me to mention as a negative quality and in any case great works often need several listenings to "sink in", so to speak. But I still sometimes find some of their melodies dull, depending on the work, which may make listening of them exhausting.

I think I have to go with Strauss, maybe because of diversity.

[71 dB]

R. Strauss was the first Elgarian in Germany.   0:)

[Mahlerian]

I think Strauss was a fine composer, and he was to be sure quite fluent in writing music.  Certain of his pieces are quite beautiful, others thrilling, and he possessed an excellent command of orchestral sonority and color.  He was also a great composer for the opera and understood that very demanding genre's requirements better than many others who have tried.

In comparison to Mahler, though, his music strikes me as superficial and gaudy, its glittering surfaces painted over something that doesn't go very much deeper.  I am willing to accept that this reaction is in large part my own personal taste, but in every way, from his treatment of form to his handling of instrumentation and harmony, I find Strauss's music less well-made than Mahler's.

(Number of people surprised by opinions expressed in this post: 0)

[zamyrabyrd]

I concur with the last two opinions.

[San Antone]

I prefer Strauss's operas.  Oh, wait, Mahler didn't compose any.  I wonder is that even relevant?

[vandermolen]

A no-brainier for me as I consider Mahler a great composer and don't even like the music of R.Strauss, whilst respecting the views of those who have a much higher opinion of it.

[Kamisama]

Regarding Strauss's treatment of harmony, here's what Glenn Gould said in 1964:

"What Strauss did was to provide a method by which the chromatic language of late-Romantic tonality could be erected upon a more stable keel than that which Bruckner or Wagner laid. The harmonic sense that enabled Strauss to do this was absolutely unique within the annals of tonality. From his earliest works, teenage amusements like the Violin Sonata or the Wind Serenade, it is immediately apparent that whatever else this composer lacks or possesses, no surer ear for the centrifugal implications of the tonal cadence ever existed. The achievement of Strauss's harmonic development becomes really significant when you consider that he assimilated the vocabulary of Wagnerian chromaticism, put it to work within the extraordinary vertical organization that he developed, and made it supplement the particular expressive purposes that belonged to Strauss alone. In doing this, he developed an infallible instinct for the harmonic pace of his structure, for deciding upon those areas that must be affirmatively diatonic in order to compensate those in which the extravagant passions of the chromatic idiom had been indulged.  And he learned to build primary cadences of a unique cumulative power and resonance."

"There is an almost divisible unity about his bass lines, a kind of independent pride and purpose that is found nowhere else in late romantic music."


Strauss and the Electronic Future

[Florestan]

Tough choice, really...

Bottom line, Richard Strauss.

[James]

Strauss

[Florestan]

Regarding Strauss's treatment of harmony, here's what Glenn Gould said in 1964:

"There is an almost divisible unity [...]"

Is there any greater idiocy than that? 

Otoh, there is no greater performance of RS' piano sonata than Gould's.

[Kamisama]

Is there any greater idiocy than that? 

Otoh, there is no greater performance of RS' piano sonata than Gould's.

"There is an almost divisible unity about his bass lines..."

I'm going to assume he means that together they could be divided as a unity from the rest, rather than the unity itself is divisible.  (This is starting to resemble a scholastic debate ).

[Dancing Divertimentian]

(Number of people surprised by opinions expressed in this post: 0)

If you'd perhaps like someone to show surprise at your Strauss opinion I'll happily raise my hand.

For me, yes I'm firmly in the Strauss camp.

[Mirror Image]

I think people who believe there's a level of superficiality in Strauss' music have failed to understand that this music is not coming from anywhere else but Strauss' own thoughts and feelings and this shouldn't be held against him. If wearing your heart on your sleeve is a sign of superficiality, then I suppose Mahler should be accused of doing the same thing. What I love about Strauss is that he can turn banality into something extraordinary and actually make you feel that this moment in the music was supposed to be there all along. Another thing I love about his music is it's unwavering lyricism (not that Mahler's music doesn't have plenty of this) and a good example to listen for this lyricism is a work like Don Quixote where the cello part is like an extended voice conversing with the orchestra and the listener. I only like a few of Strauss' operas: Elektra, Salome, and Der Rosenkavalier, but have a good bit of love for Die Frau ohne Schatten.

[Mahlerian]

I think people who believe there's a level of superficiality in Strauss' music have failed to understand that this music is not coming from anywhere else but Strauss' own thoughts and feelings and this shouldn't be held against him.  If wearing your heart on your sleeve is a sign of superficiality, then I suppose Mahler should be accused of doing the same thing.

I don't hold that or anything else against Strauss.  His music doesn't strike me as especially heart on sleeve, though.

What I love about Strauss is that he can turn banality into something extraordinary and actually make you feel that this moment in the music was supposed to be there all along. Another thing I love about his music is it's unwavering lyricism (not that Mahler's music doesn't have plenty of this) and a good example to listen for this lyricism is a work like Don Quixote where the cello part is like an extended voice conversing with the orchestra and the listener. I only like a few of Strauss' operas: Elektra, Salome, and Der Rosenkavalier, but have a good bit of love for Die Frau ohne Schatten.

To get into a bit more detail, I find personally that Strauss's kind of lyricism comes off as glib and unctuous.  It's sleek and pretty and sparkly but lacks inner conviction and motivation.  His tendency to saturate the orchestral palette for a constant wall of sound that isn't related to the musical "argument" (in other words, filling up with subsidiary voices of little or no importance other than that thickness) goes against my sensibilities, and I fully accept that this is merely my taste as a Mahler lover who prefers that even the most insignificant background lines play a role in moving the piece forward.

Again, this is not to say that I dislike Strauss's music across the board, merely to explain why I find it significantly less appealing.