Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
In regard to James Lileks' unexpected and fantastic question to Dennis Prager, I'm truly suprised no one has started this conversation. It is noteable that these two are always compared. Probably the most legitimate reason for comparing these two has something to do with their respective positions in the Austro-Germanic symphonic tradition. Much has been written in praise of the symphony as an art form and it is true that no form of music, or perhaps any sort of art, so well displays a dynamic multi-themed working out of an artist's musical talents and ideas on such an impressive and moving scale. By saying a symphony is dynamic, I mean that it carries the listener on a journey from point A to point B, as opposed to virtually all musical forms today, which only convey one static attitude, pose, or emotion.
Bruckner and Mahler are the last symphonists of the Austo-Germanic tradition. Whatever one thinks of the New Vienna School, it is accurate to say that a Grand Arc, extending from Haydn, through Beethoven, Schumann, etc., etc., ended with Bruckner and Mahler. It seems that both pushed to the limits the sonic capacites of concert halls (I have heard a Bruckner 8th performed in which there was distortion in the concert hall) and the time limits of audience patience (New York audiences still routinely walk out of Brucner symphonies during the slow movement, to their eternal shame). Indeed, symphonies in this tradition after Mahler seem ridiculous, bloated caricatures of Bruckner and Mahler. Listening to Shoenberg's Gurrelieder, one walks away impressed, but with the a feeling of overindulgence and a desire to not listen to any music until tomorrow. Attend it if your local orchestra ever performs it. It's just an assault on the ears and it's too much.
All of that is to say that Bruckner and Mahler symphonies are clearly the pinnacle- the crowning jewel, of a musical form and tradition that is perhaps the West's greatest contribution to human art.
So, to put it crudely, who was better? Or rather, whom do you prefer? Mahler is moving, inspiring, and his symphonic corpus so large and impressive that the years it takes to get to know him are a joy. However, one has to choose Bruckner. Here's why:
1) Mahler's symphonies are ultimately self-referencial. Bruckner's are universal. Mahler, like any good neurotic narcissist, universalizes the particular in his life. He is the hero in his first symphony who overcomes all. He is the wounded artist in the 6th symphony who suffers the axe-blows from critics and fate. His is the faltering heartbeat to open the 9th and his is the actual heart-attack later in the piece. There are times when we identify with his particular experience. The joy and buoyancy of the 5th's finale are infectious and thrilling, but it is because we revel in this shared human emotion, not in the biographical detail.
In contrast, Bruckner's symphonies are essentially Platonic. They are like a musical Allegory of the Cave. Hearing them for the first time is so unnerving in the same way that Plato's cave-dwellers are unnerved when dragged from the shadows into the bright sunlight of the Forms. Bruckner's symphonies are a journey from interesting particular themes to a slow, but inevitable, coalescence of all things in a unified, transcendant peroration. In the end, the Form, the Universal is revealed. We stand in awe. We are hearing, for the first time, something like the Music of the Spheres. His ability to convey this is uncanny and hair-raising; both beautiful and disorienting. As he pits massive, terraced orchestral blocs against each other, juxtaposing repeating polyrhythms, we can see planets, systems, galaxies, and all Creation in its ineffable dance. Bruckner's music is so God-besotted in this regard that the cliche is true: it will always be far more accessible to the believer.
I have written far too much, so congratulations to all three of you who are still reading! Whom do you prefer?
- Comment (44)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments:
Aug '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
I dislike both Bruckner and Mahler to varying degrees. But I attribute that to the fact that I have never studied an instrument or music in my life. My conversations with other classical music enthusiasts leads me to conclude that these two composers are intellectually attractive.
Being someone who cannot distinguish between a major or a minor key, I have no alternative but to approach music emotionally. Hence, I am unable to appreciate the intellectual side of Bruckner and Mahler. Both composers (what the heck, throw Wagner in as well) give me the sensation of being clubbed over the head with their themes. Bruckner's music literally leaves me nauseous and with a headache. I feel no side effects with Mahler, just worn out.
I sense these composers took the Austro-Germanic to its pinnacle and then over the edge.
(By-the-bye, I do enjoy music written after these composers: Shostakovich, Bartok and Corigliano's Symphony No. 1 is wonderful, if depressing.)
May '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
I've never been able to give Mahler my 100% seal of approval, and as I get older I'm more aware of a diseased sensibility driving the music. The guy was unhinged.
Mammas, don't let your babies grow up to be Mahlers.
So, that means I love Bruckner, right? No. His motifs are boring. All his creativity went into his architecture. Hey, I love architecture; I'm a big musical architecture guy. But, sheesh: you can't neglect the note-to-note aspect of composing like Bruckner did and expect many people to like it.
Try Sibelius, folks. He has the right balance. Start with #5.
Nov '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Bach. It's all downhill from there.
Alma Mahler was kinda cool though.
Oct '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
I confess to being a rookie on this particular topic, but I did have the good fortune to attend a Vienna Philharmoniker concert with the great Georges Pretre conducting Mahler's Symphonie #1. The 'warm-up' was Sibelius' Symphonie #1.
Talk about beginner's luck! I've been hooked on both composers since.
Interesting post...
Dec '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Mozart of course ... the always modest Beethoven while listening to a Mozart symphony told Hayden, "ah, listen, you and I could never do that".
Jun '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
As between the two, I go for Bruckner (though both are great). Bruckner requires patience though.
There is misconception out there that no great symphonic music was written in the 20th Century. Kinda true, but go try anything by Vaughan-Williams (British--I love him); Haward Hanson (good old boy from Nebraska--very tuneful), and Gorecki,
Aug '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Some more great 20th century symphonies. Copland's 3rd symphony is truly wonderful. Shostakovich's 5th symphony is fantastic. Corigliano's 1st symphony is sublime. And I do love Vaughan Williams pastoral symphony as well.
May '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
For the classical music beginners, there's no other composer working today who is more accessible than Michael Daugherty. (He's a local boy, so I gotta give him a plug.) He's accessible, but not simplistic; each of his compositions tie into some icon of popular culture. For a symphony work, see the Metropolis Symphony (inspired by Superman comics). For a shorter work, see Dead Elvis. There used to be a video on the internet of a group playing that piece with a bassoon soloist dressed as an Elvis impersonator.
Oct '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
WFB would agree with you, I'm sure! :)
Aug '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Seeing as how I have an actual degree in music (education) and have worked as a musician for 3+ decades, I should have an opinion on Bruckner v. Mahler. But the depth of my classical music knowledge is sadly lacking. My work has been almost entirely in commercial music forms. (A guy's gotta pay the bills and feed his kids, you know)
However, like virtually all the Ricochet posts regarding music (both serious and pop music), this one has no lack of thoughtful, informed responses. And that leads me to wonder about the general level of music education in the Ricochet membership.
Are there a lot of us who studied music? Or perhaps just a significant number of music lovers, both classical and pop, who have taken the time to learn about their favorite composers?
This in no attempt to hijack the thread. Like I said, just wondering...
Edited on October 30, 2011 at 5:26pmJun '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Totally agree re Copland and Shostakovich. Have never heard Coriglianio, but will very soon. There was a lot of crap written in the last century, but some absolutely wonderful stuff as well.
Jun '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Songwriter: that leads me to wonder about the general level of music education in the Ricochet membership.
Are there a lot of us who studied music? Or perhaps just a significant number of music lovers, both classical and pop, who have taken the time to learn about their favorite composers?
Songwriter: I haven't a musical bone in my body in the sense of being able to play an instrument (I tortured a trumpet for a year or two), and I can't carry a tune (nor can the rest of my family: when "Happy Birthday" is sung, we go for speed, given the lack of harmony).
However, somewhere in my mid-twenties, I discovered classical music. I've studied it and listened to it a lot (even developing a great love for opera). Most of my family think I'm nuts.
So I think I fall into the category of a relatively knowledgeable listener, to the point that I think I know what's good and what isn't even though I lack the musical vocabulary to say why.
May '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Songwriter: Seeing as how I have an actual degree in music (education) and have worked as a musician for 3+ decades, I should have an opinion on Bruckner v. Mahler. But the depth of my classical music knowledge is sadly lacking. My work has been almost entirely in commercial music forms. (A guy's gotta pay the bills and feed his kids, you know)
However, like virtually all the Ricochet posts regarding music (both serious and pop music), this one has no lack of thoughtful, informed responses. And that leads me to wonder about the general level of music education in the Ricochet membership.
Are there a lot of us who studied music? Or perhaps just a significant number of music lovers, both classical and pop, who have taken the time to learn about their favorite composers?
Edited on Oct 30 at 09:26 am
I didn't get a degree but I was a music major in college. Play semi-professionally. Like you I also should know more about classical music but my passions lay more in jazz and rock. I appreciate Mahler and Bruckner as composers but I don't particulary enjoy listening to their works. Beethoven Rules!
Oct '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
I've been fortunate to have performed both composers. I could never discard one for the other, any more than tossing Messiaen (a 20thC French Bruckner if you will) for...Bartok. As I get older, I marvel at Mahler's composer chops more than the way his music takes me emotionally. It DOES have his personal messiness all over it, but is is truly greatly crafted music on the level of the greatest composers, yeah, even Bach IMHO. I actually think his personality if anything, gets in the way of it...but it is truly intertwined in the product. Hard as hell to play too...
Bruckner is not as great a technician, but it works at such an unexplainable level. I can believe the above post about the 8th distorting in the hall, Bruckner is one of the first headbangers going through to Led Zepplin.
Feb '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Violist here--studied music from eight through college. My teachers and professional musicians raved about Mahler; many called him the greatest symphonist--greater even than Haydn and Beethoven. But I rebelled and it took me years to warm to Mahler, although I used to listen to the first movement of his Second Symphony to get "pumped" before my little league games. I revisited him after reading Alex Ross' wonderful study of twentieth century classical music "The Rest is Noise". I've learned to appreciate him and I particularly admire his Fourth Symphony.
But I know next to nothing about Bruckner. It seems he is neglected. Classical stations always seem to prefer Brahms, Tchaik, Wagner, Mahler to Bruckner. I never performed one of his symphonies. And I came to regard him as second rate. So Mr. Prager's comments absolutely shocked me. It took me fifteen years to warm to Mahler--now I'm told that it's Bruckner's symphonies that bear up the soul toward the heights?
Dear classical cognoscenti of Ricochet: with which Bruckner symphony should I begin my discovery?
Jan '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Great idea for a Sunday post!
First off, I LOVE both Bruckner and Mahler so this is a really fun question for me. I also have a degree in music composition, so I like to think I have an informed perspective. I like, and largely agree with, what was said in the original post, but I have some technical thoughts to add. Although Mahler was clearly the better orchestrator, perhaps the best orchestrator ever, Bruckner was by far the greater compositional innovator. His radical use of time, repetition, sequencing, and modulation, including phrase by phrase "micro-modulations" were unprecedented then and, as far as I can tell, have yet to be fully assimilated by later composers (except for the repetition), whereas most of Mahler has been assimilated into 20th century film music. But more to the point, Bruckner's brilliant innovations work. He created a transcendent music that was a century ahead of its time.
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
I can’t decide, and I don’t want to. Mahler is human with occasional moments of transcendence; Bruckner, vice versa. Each Mahler symphony is a novel with its own plot and characters, and you can not only hear the composer’s story but the unravelling of the culture in which he lived. (The First is formal and full of energy; the last is an exhausted farewell - and if you count the Tenth, a farewell with a terrible moment that seems to anticipate the 20th century and all its horrors.) I can dip right into a Mahler symphony. I almost have to steel myself for Bruckner.
Not to make it sound like a chore or a duty. Listen to the Fourth, if you’re just starting. The third movement, if you have a good stereo, will pulverize any china in a six-block radius.
By the way, I'll bet most of you have heard Howard Hanson, and didn't know it. They used his "Romantic Symphony" as the closing music . . . .for "Alien."
Nov '10
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Discomfiting/controversial (or perhaps just trivial) question: does Bruckner's somewhat obscured notoriety possibly have something to do with the fact that he was Hitler's favorite composer -- indeed, that one of his pieces was played to mark his death?
Oct '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Michael Schulkins: Great idea for a Sunday post!
His radical use of time, repetition, sequencing, and modulation, including phrase by phrase "micro-modulations" · Oct 30 at 2:14pm
Indeed, you ever check out Phillip Glass?
Oh for Mahler's great composing chops, I can't get over the 4th, even w/o trombones! I also think it has the least personal baggage in it. But man, the Scherzo from the 9th...
Let me add to Sibelius, the 2nd cuts me like no other music.
Oct '11
Re: Bruckner versus Mahler: Whose Symphonies are Better?
Not to mention those piccolos!!