Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

[jochanaan]

In many ways it's unfortunate that Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler are so often spoken of as a sort of trinity, since they are so different spiritually.  Both Mahler and Bruckner revered Wagner, of course, and you hear the Bayreuth master's influence all over their music--but the other two are too strongly individualistic to be classed as mere Wagner disciples.

Lately when I hear Bruckner, what strikes me is just how much the old Renaissance polyphonists influenced him.  He would have grown up with this music, of course, and you can hear it echoing in his choral music and even his symphonies.  This and his faith give his music a deeply "grounded" yet transcendent feel even at its most extreme (think the final climax of the Ninth Symphony's Adagio).

Mahler, though, was most strongly influenced by folk music and the "pop" music of his time.  Des Knaben Wunderhorn, the German folk poetry collection, was his Bible for a time as a child, and the fantasy element in his music is very strong even in the "realistic" middle-period symphonies; but he was too sensitive to the world's unhappiness to be as grounded and transcendent as Bruckner.  His music IS violent and crass, but still filled with longing for a better world--and that's why I still love his music as much or more as I ever did; it's a synthesis of heavenly aspirations and earthly emotions.  He said to Jean Sibelius, "A symphony must be like the world; it must embrace everything", and I feel his music does.  ("Boring" is definitely the wrong word.  His music is many things, but never boring. )

As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer.  He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen.  But I may be wrong.

[71 dB]

As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer.  He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen.  But I may be wrong.

I couldn't care less about Victorian positivism and sentimentality. I don't care if Elgar sounds "Victorian" or whatever because it just sounds so awesome!  As for the claims that Elgar could not be a truly great composer that's complete BS. His music is increadible rich with influences from Bach to Brahms yet he was able to develop his distinctive sound (That "Victorian" sound if you will). He was an amazing orchestrator and his music is structurally very complex. I just listened to Bruckner 8. So simple compared to Elgar's symphonies! Bruckner and Mahler show the same kind of complexity level as Elgar does in his lighter orchestral works.

Sibelius sounds very Finnish/scandinavian and the music is filled with Finnish national romantism. Why is he taken seriously?

[mahlertitan]

I just listened to Bruckner 8. So simple compared to Elgar's symphonies! Bruckner and Mahler show the same kind of complexity level as Elgar does in his lighter orchestral works.

see, if you continue to make immature statements like those, you just gonna get yourself into another heated argument. Of course, an argument that you have yet won.

Please, don't let it start all over again, it's getting old...

[jochanaan]

...He was an amazing orchestrator and his music is structurally very complex...

You're right there.  I do love Elgar's way with orchestras and form.  But I guess I'm too depressive to really like music that doesn't have a "heart of darkness."  Bruckner and Mahler (and Sibelius) have such a heart; I don't see it at all in Elgar except in the Cello Concerto and (very slightly) the Enigma Variations.  That may be a failing on my part--but a lot of people here seem to feel the same way.

see, if you continue to make immature statements like those, you just gonna get yourself into another heated argument...

Not as long as I'm doing the "arguing."

[mahlertitan]

In many ways it's unfortunate that Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler are so often spoken of as a sort of trinity, since they are so different spiritually.  Both Mahler and Bruckner revered Wagner, of course, and you hear the Bayreuth master's influence all over their music--but the other two are too strongly individualistic to be classed as mere Wagner disciples.

Lately when I hear Bruckner, what strikes me is just how much the old Renaissance polyphonists influenced him.  He would have grown up with this music, of course, and you can hear it echoing in his choral music and even his symphonies.  This and his faith give his music a deeply "grounded" yet transcendent feel even at its most extreme (think the final climax of the Ninth Symphony's Adagio).

Mahler, though, was most strongly influenced by folk music and the "pop" music of his time.  Des Knaben Wunderhorn, the German folk poetry collection, was his Bible for a time as a child, and the fantasy element in his music is very strong even in the "realistic" middle-period symphonies; but he was too sensitive to the world's unhappiness to be as grounded and transcendent as Bruckner.  His music IS violent and crass, but still filled with longing for a better world--and that's why I still love his music as much or more as I ever did; it's a synthesis of heavenly aspirations and earthly emotions.  He said to Jean Sibelius, "A symphony must be like the world; it must embrace everything", and I feel his music does.  ("Boring" is definitely the wrong word.  His music is many things, but never boring. )

As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer.  He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen.  But I may be wrong.

I agree wholeheartedly. People always put Mahler and Bruckner together, making up some sort of magical relationship. But, I have never detected anything substantial in their music to support that wild claim. Sure, Mahler was a student and a good friend of Bruckner, so? Bruckner's music was barely even performed in his day, and Mahler had his own symphonic language. They are different people, with different musical goals.
Like Jochanaan said, stylistically, the two can not be more different. Bruckner has a cathedral, pre-classical sound. Mahler was more in tune with "folk music and the 'pop' music". Furthermore, two men had different backgrounds, different upbringings. Mahler had an extremely messed up life, (dysfunctional family, anti-semitism, marriage issues, personal tragedies, etc....). All of that was reflected in his music to some extend. On the other hand, Bruckner, who had a "normal" upbring, and a relativiely "decent" life (not saying it's a great one), wrote music to praise his lord.
We have here, two very different individuals; One who continues to question, and to search for God, and the other who always praised, believed in God. How can the two share anything in common? 

[BachQ]

As for Elgar, 71dB, I feel he's too tainted by Victorian positivism and sentimentality to be a truly great composer.  He's more than competent, and the Cello Concerto shows what he could do when he opened up his heart--but he doesn't maintain that level consistenly, at least from what I've seen.  But I may be wrong.

I'll buy into this ........

[71 dB]

You're right there.  I do love Elgar's way with orchestras and form.  But I guess I'm too depressive to really like music that doesn't have a "heart of darkness."  Bruckner and Mahler (and Sibelius) have such a heart; I don't see it at all in Elgar except in the Cello Concerto and (very slightly) the Enigma Variations.  That may be a failing on my part--but a lot of people here seem to feel the same way.

What the hell is "heart of darkness."? Sounds like something that belongs to heavy metal!

Does Mozart have "heart of darkness."?

[BachQ]

[Elgar's] music is structurally very complex. I just listened to Bruckner 8. So simple compared to Elgar's symphonies! Bruckner and Mahler show the same kind of complexity level as Elgar does in his lighter orchestral works.

Bruckner 8 is anything but "simple" ........ Elgar is pure horseshit compared to Bruckner 8 ........

[mahlertitan]

What the hell is "heart of darkness."? Sounds like something that belongs to heavy metal!

Does Mozart have "heart of darkness."?

dare I say this? well, you asked for it anyway. Heart of darkness=quality?

[Keemun]

When I first discovered Mahler, I found his symphonies to be incredible and wonderful.  A little while later I noticed that people seemed to rave a lot about Bruckner's symphonies, so I gave Bruckner a try.  I just didn't "get" Bruckner's symphonies, they seemed boring and repetitious.  But I wasn't ready to give up, so I kept trying.  I finally had my Bruckner revelation when I listened to Karajan's last recording of Bruckner 7.  Since my Bruckner revelation, my interest in Mahler's symphonies has declined (I never really liked his non-symphony output).  I still listen to Mahler 2 and Mahler 9 quite a bit.  But I find myself listening to Bruckner (especially his late symphonies) more often than I listen to Mahler.  I wouldn't describe Mahler's symphonies as boring, they're hardly that.  I just find Bruckner's symphonies more satisfying.  I don't find comparing the two composer's music to be all that useful.  That said, there is an interesting article written by Bruno Walter comparing and contrasting the two composers HERE.

[71 dB]

Bruckner 8 is anything but "simple" ........ Elgar is pure horseshit compared to Bruckner 8 ........

Bruckner 8 is simple compared to Elgar. That does not mean it's simple.

[BachQ]

That said, there is an interesting article written by Bruno Walter comparing and contrasting the two composers HERE.

That is interesting, and well written .......

[Scriptavolant]

I think it's quite obvious to prefer Bruckner, and I share this preference so far. My first impression (I know only the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th) is that Bruckner is someway less problematic, more country/rustic flavoured. Mahler on the other hand is more enigmatic, disturbing and more modern surtout.

[lisa needs braces]

I've heard only two of Bruckner's symphonies, and I adored them. And I've heard only three by Mahler, and I found them dreadful. Yes, Bruckner good, Mahler bad.

[greg]

I think it's quite obvious to prefer Bruckner, and I share this preference so far. My first impression (I know only the 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th) is that Bruckner is someway less problematic, more country/rustic flavoured. Mahler on the other hand is more enigmatic, disturbing and more modern surtout.

so that's the explanation about how someone can not like Mahler, right?
i've always wondered what it is one could not like..... add to that the overall heaviness and length in many of his symphonies, i guess.

as for this:

Bruckner good, Mahler boring?

using the adjective "boring"
ok...... wtf?!!
i need an explanation for that. You mean boring boring or confusing boring? That latter would make more sense

[Que]

Jeeeeez.
First, comparing Mahler and Bruckner is a ludricous idea - they are totally different composers.
I like both, but it quite clear to me who of the two was the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally.
But this is no pissing contest - both are unique in character.

Q

[BachQ]

but it quite clear to me who of the two was the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally.

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

[greg]

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

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. 

[johnQpublic]

correction by PC cop 

Elgar is pure horseshit flying poopy compared to Bruckner 8 ........

[max]

Jeeeeez.
First, comparing Mahler and Bruckner is a ludricous idea - they are totally different composers.
I like both, but it quite clear to me who of the two was the most talented composer and wrote the most versatile and most multi-faceted music - intellectually as well as emotionally.
But this is no pissing contest - both are unique in character.

Q

So true! but that won't prevent idiotic comparisons from going into 30 pages.