Music Chat: Mahler vs Bruckner--Which Cult Is Worse?
Vložit
- čas přidán 21. 01. 2022
- Both Mahler and Bruckner have been the object of cult followings, but the results of this sometimes misguided enthusiasm have been very different. All of this was anticipated a century ago by no less a figure than British musical scholar and conductor Donald Francis Tovey. So let's lay out the facts and circumstances, and have a chat.
- Hudba
Excellent, and this from a devout Bruckerian. Just love the man. Can there ever be anything like the slow movements of the 4th or 8th? Of course I love Song of the Earth too, but it just seems to me that Bruckner at his best takes us somewhere no one else goes. IMHO.
Yeah, straight to sleep
@@metroidfoosion73 Clasp your ears and run out during a Bruckner performance? I could see it. Fall asleep? No chance in hell.
Maybe Aldebaran. It's not Betelgeuse, Holst's been there; can't be Sirius, that one's been colonized by Stockhausen. Humour aside, the finale of the 4th strikes me as more outlandish and original than the slow movement. Genius
I would love to be able to fall asleep to Bruckner, but, alas, his bombastic excesses make that impossible.
As part of the Schubert cult, I find all of this hilarious.
Schubert is Number 7 for me. Definitely above these two.
@@peace-now Beckham is the best 7.
I am a Mahler fan but would hardly say I am a cultist. A cursory look at my CD collection would tell you that. My take on the two is that Bruckner's was the music of piety, of the cathedral. Each symphony was a personal prayer, of sorts. Mahler's "cathedral" was the world, with all its sights and sounds, colors and richness. One looks at the beauty of the stained-glass window. The other looks at the beauty outside of that window. We desperately need both.
Well said being a Mahler fan I felt somewhat down letted with Bruckner’s climaxes that seemed to end nowhere until I appreciated his chordal composition and progression
Bottom line they are totally different
I started as a Bruckner listener, and then was wowed by Mahler. I never stopped listening to Bruckner. I feel that your comment describes the difference perfectly. And the preference, with me, is psychological. When I am darkly inward - Bruckner. When I am energetically outward and volatile - Mahler.
There’s no structural discussion in Mahler because everybody knows that Scherzo-Andante is the RIGHT order 😉
Bingo! I was referring to within movements anyway.
This is the annoying thing as I have the Levine recording with Scherzo then Andante but on tape!
So I cannot switch it even if I wanted to. Actually I prefer it that way as the contrast is better
Is it? I still have no clear preference. Scherzo Andante works better as a whole, but the Scherzo main theme is so similar to the first movement that it becomes uninteresting if it comes right after it. That Scherzo, comung at 2nd or 3rd place, is a huge problem, that’s for sure.
Valuable, insightful essay. Thank you. Back in my penurious record collecting days the only reason I could hold the two composers in the same thought was because they each wrote symphonies that required more than one L.P.
The Maria Callas Institute For The Deranged rang to register their impertinence for anyone but them being considered for the title of worst cult. Any other pretenders are but mere amateurs.
Of course. My sincere apologies. Opera nuts are in a class by themselves.
At least opera nuts are amusing in their (our) derangement. Try talking to a pianophile if you're keen to fall into a coma.
The Church of the Jolly Ghost of Renata Tebaldi is considering joining forces with the MC Institute on this fight. We'll resume our inner wars after defeating the symphonists.
@@davidbo8400 Well, now you've done it.
The Birgit Nilsson Society of Wailing Banshies has been put on high alert.
Yes, there is nothing worse than the opera cult, with its limited repertoire, ad nauseum repetition of the same arias (I never want to hear the Habanera from Carmen again in my life), and pathological devotion to the diva of choice (tenor cultists are far less annoying)
Fascinating. As always, I enjoy your talks on musical aesthetics. I think you are right about today's "Bruckner cult." There was more of an active "Mahler cult" when I was in college and that composer's music was just taking off in concerts and records in the USA. The chatter about the philosophical significance of his work was endless, largely prompted by Bernstein's obsession with Mahler as something like the fulcrum on which modern culture turns. Been there, done that. Today, I think both composers, great through they are, suffer from overexposure. Way too many recordings. Back when Bruckner's fifth, say was a rarity on record, it was quite a thrill to get to know that vast, complex work. Today, that vastness risks being trivialized by endless repetition -- of largely mediocre recordings. Ditto Mahler. Finally, I'd like to point out that these two composers, though often compared, are really operating in vastly different aesthetic universes. Yes, both wrote a limited number of important works, and that their symphonies tend to be very long in duration. In terms of form, orchestration, characteristic melodic shapes, motivic development, and (something that can't be pinned down exactly) musical "ethos," they are not strictly comparable. I love them both, but for very different reasons. I think it was Bruno Walter who opined, "Mahler was always searching for God, but Bruckner had found God." Well, that's one way of putting it and it may account for some of the rhetoric of "spirituality" that prevails in the Bruckner cult, or the rhetoric of "existential angst" that prevails in the Mahler cult. Maybe it's time to start a Telemann cult. Any takers?
Only if we do Zelenka too, so the two groups can hate each other.
Good point about differences. I fell out of love with Mahler. I find him too neurotic and wallowing. And undisciplined in his expressiveness. Which is why I scratch my head when people say he was the more "structured" of the two. To me, Bruckner was like a latter day Brahms: Keeper of the Flame. Whereas Mahler was more "out there" in terms of sound signature, i.e., flatout weird at times.
@@NN-df7hl None of which has anything to do with the handling of form.
@@NN-df7hl How could Bruckner be a "latter day Brahms" when they were contemporaries, and Bruckner had written his first four symphonies (and several unnumbered ones) before Brahms had even begun his first? Their music doesn't sound even remotely similar (to my ears).
As for Mahler's symphonies, the problem is that they tend to include a rather excessive amount of kitschy material, which ruins the good parts. Bruckner's symphonies may not be perfect, but they do not contain any kitsch.
@@grafplaten I stand corrected. ;) Forgotten they were contemporaries. I only meant Bruckner upheld the symphonic traditions like Brahms, though they sound nothing alike. I think Mahler was more radical in his way with form, but his style appeals to me less. That's all. Anyway, I'm just a lay listener. I'm sure a musicologist would be better qualifed to break down their use of "form." I would love hear more about that actually.
All the discusions of mahler versus bruckner are so irrelevant to myself because I love both their music as I love other composers music, I think that the differance between this two is at the end , is how you feel after listening to the music how ever musically its made , does it leave a sense of hopefullness , joy, are some sort of despair , for that matter I'd go for bruckner or mahler 2nd , mahler conducted the whole bruckner symphony cicle once. Dave your vídeos are so good thank you so much, I love classical music since some 70 years ago and you made me learn more and more, very gratefull
The Bruckner cult is far worse. No contest. An acquaintance, who was a committed Bruckner fanatic, stopped going to live performances of Bruckner's symphonies because he said he often had a "soul-exploding experience" during the music and it drained him. He could handle listening on records/cd at home. Good lord.
I can relate to that. Bruckner live can be energetically overwhelming. Depends on the occasion, of course.
I'm not a 'cultist'. I just respond very powerfully to music
I can relate as well. Bruckner can be transcendental, truly. No joke. But you just don’t want to see a grown man sobbing and shaking and speaking in tongues in the concert hall.
Oh wow! I want to have that exact same experience! Which performancies were those? :) It's hard to find good Bruckner performances (more than ever during Covid).
Very interesting and entertaining video as always. Thanks.
Excellent essay and wonderful points made!
All the points that you mentioned hint at why Bruckner seems to be having a moment, where everyone records him relentlessly (just like Mahler seemed to have a moment starting in the 90's). Bruckner's music lends itself to a certain kind of self-regarding (ie, egotistical) conductor:
- Bruckner, rightly or wrongly, gets labeled as "spiritual" music, and God knows any ego-maniacal conductor cannot resist the pull of "spiritual" music. It's not enough to be a miniature despot, they also have to be conduits for the divine! Plenty of other music is unquestionably "spiritual", but performances of late Beethoven and Bach have very high standards at this point. There's less of a chance that an audience is going to compare a version of Bruckner's 7th to ten recording they already have at home.
- There's a whole group of conductors who didn't go the HIP route, and still use big orchestras with all the usual trappings. But they're missing out on all the fun of arguing about irrelevant scholastic minutia! How will their egos survive? Insisting that they're using the correct version and everyone else (including Bruckner himself) is a moron allows them to get in on the action.
- Bruckner is cheaper to perform than Mahler. Back in the 90's, when record companies had money to burn, doing a million Mahler recordings with gigantic orchestras was a possibility. But who has the money to regularly perform Mahler's 4th or 8th anymore? The ego maniacal conductor will never admit it, but Bruckner's smaller orchestras make more sense in this day and age.
- There was once a point where Mahler was more like a cult-conductor, and audiences weren't terribly familiar with his symphonies. Their length and stylistic diversity were supposed to be barriers to entry. But, as your video numbers demonstrate, that has entirely changed now. Mahler is VERY popular. Complete beginners to classical music will earnestly talk about how much they love the Resurrection Symphony. His music's incredible range in mood and styles is no problem for today's listeners, who grew up listening to all kinds of different music and are perfectly comfortable with opposites living under the same roof. And to the ego-maniacal conductor, there is nothing worse than music that's popular with audiences.
The Mahler moment arguably started in the late sixties and has continued unabated.
I wasn't even aware such things as Bruckner and Mahler Cults existed prior to subscribing to your channel. Great recordings of their masterworks, the scores (eventually) and a little bit of enlightening historical context thrown in as a worthwhile bonus is all I need. Never cared much about biographies either (euphemism). Great music has been an essential component of my life experience (as early as I can remember), but I can survive not knowing which sorts of dessert Mahler liked or what glasses type he used. As for Bruckner, as you've said, we know which versions of his symphonies we should consider. End of story. These cults come across as both largely harmless and utterly pointless, all things considered. I'm way more concerned about the scientist cult (posing as science) and the technocratic cult (posing as a force of positive change). All cults are bad, those last 2 are the current worst.
I think Mr Hurwitz is somewhat over emphasizing the very few here. Of course he knows millions more classical fans than I do, so he's experience and opinions should be valued, BUT my feeling is that he's putting too much of a mission on himself to dispel all kinds of cults in classical world (Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner, Fuertwangler etc). Cults exist in all areas, it's a pattern of thinking and living, and has little to do with the object of the cult itself. The fact that some people care about Mahler's dessert and glasses neither increases OR decreases any value to/from Mahler's music
Never fear, Dave is here! In German we say „Nicht verzagen, David fragen“ 🎼🌟🙏 Many thanks again Dave for the incredibly informative video!
I always find it intriguing that when I've discussed Mahler, the people I talk to find my personal reacction that the real reason we love Mahler is that he is so conscious of ALL the trends in 19th century romanticism, comments on them, and is striving so fiercely to push into a new musical language that is still melodic and expressive and immediate for his audiences -- as you would expect from one of the greatest conductors who ever lived! -- and that you can hear in the music itself his deep frustration that the world he points to is going to be kinda, well, not what he intends. Bruckner always strikes me as having worked way too hard to rewrite Schubert's Great C Major Symphony with Wagnerian harmonies and theories -- that's why personally I always worship Bruckner's liturgical pieces and get really tired of a Bruckner symphony very quickly. I hope this makes sense, I wish you and I could expand on this chat for sure? Thanks for one of the best channels on CZcams right now, Dave!
Some 28 years ago I heard this exchange between Melanie Griffith and Paul Newman as they squeezed by me on a very cramped and crowded movie set in Beacon, NY:
Melanie: Is it true that listening to Mozart makes you more intelligent?
Paul: Whaddaya telling me? Now I feel like a dickhead, I've been listening to Mahler.
FWIW.
If true, this is marvelous. Paul was awesome.
@@OuterGalaxyLounge It is absolutely true. My son played "Will" in that flick (Nobody's Fool), the kid whom the Paul Newman character helps overcome his fears with the aid of a stopwatch.
There's a small Mahler subculture that's even worse than the Brucknerholics. They attend concerts of completed editions of the Tenth Symphony for the sole purpose of expressing their displeasure by getting up and walking out after the first movement. The concert is able to resume only after the ruckus has ended. Extremely poor manners!
I joined both cults. That way, I get to annoy as many people as possible.
the thing is, classical music is so not on most folks' radar screens, that even though I have loved classical music all my life, I have never experienced what it is like to have a friend, or simply a close acquaintance, to discuss or argue about Mahler's eyeglasses or Bruckner's structural oddities or anything of the sort - i think i would have liked that - but i guess i went to the wrong schools or did not make enough money in life to hob nob in such circles - i always feel like Steve Martin in "Plane, Trains & Automobiles" when he wants to sing "Three Coins in the Fountain" on the bus but instead everyone joins John Candy in a lusty rendition of the Flintstones theme song
haha! Yeah, love of classical music can be pretty isolationist. But, at the end of the day, you just want to listen to the music yourself, right? Trying to share it with someone else is a distraction. Unless you're in the audience at one of those 'special' performances where there is synergy between the audience, the conductor and the orchestra. It doesn't happen too often but when it does it's quite wonderful. Hob nobbing in 'high' circles wouldn't be any help. Most of those people attend concerts and opera because it's expected at a certain social level. They're probably bored stiff, but they have to be seen in their fineries. Kind of like golf. You're expected to play golf at a certain social level. I'm sure 90% of the people who play golf hate it.
You mean the fugue theme from Bruckner's Fifth Symphony finale!
@@DavesClassicalGuide Stop that! Please! I don't want to hear the Flintstones every time I hear Bruckner 5. LOL.
I rarely talk about my fondness for classical music to others. I assume most people are not interested. I share short pieces with my wife sometimes but, I agree with Vampire Skunk, classical music is isolationist.
Oddly, I did have these discussions with college mates in the dorm, and none of us were music students; there was no music college at our university. I was the only one at the outset, possibly at the entire university who cared about classical, but my engineering buddy who lived in the next unit came to his epiphanies on classical and jazz at the same fortuitous moment, providing me a classical-discussion pal. It is possible that me playing this stuff on my stereo planted the seed for him. From there, we "infected" others in the dorm to the point that we had a group of four who could discuss classical works and artists to various degrees. When I moved to a different dorm, I blasted Tchaikovsky and yes, even Bruckner, on my stereo to drown out the hair metal others were playing and, there too I gained some converts to classical. I had won the musical dorm wars. It was very satisfying.
Neither, the Wagner cult is the worst😂
Another gem from you Dave, while thanks for this thoughtful chat. I also think your 'friend', Teodor Currentzis needs to read Tovey's words. P.S. Wagner of course blows both M. and B. out of the water when it comes to cults, while it would be interesting to consider the health of that group of idolaters given the personalities that Wagner attracts, while Micheal Tanner in his book 'Wagner' has much to say about that.
The answer is the Wagnerians, of course!
true
That made me laugh because you are so right.
Oh dear. As a teenager, I lived in Munich for a brief stint in the late 1980s and went to quite a few classical concerts - which meant being sandwiched between Wagnerian lunacy and Celibidache's mad attempts to play Bruckner symphonies so slowly they rivaled complete Ring performances. Celibidache fans were a sight to behold too, by the way: loads of over-perfumed old ladies and over-dressed ancient men fainting at the purported mystical meaning of his every movement.
The Havergal Brian fanatics are right up there too.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee Cultish behavior is not dependent on the object of veneration's importance. And anyway, Bayreuth Wagnerism is its own thing entirely.
Thanks, David. I cannot agree more!
Bless them both!
I never thought of either composer as "easily digestible" though I understand your point. Your chat immediately bought to mind a Bruckner cultist I knew. Someone had formed a music listening group a dwelling in Andersonville, Chicago. One of these members was a Bruckner cultist who liked ONLY Bruckner and some Wagner. And he admitted he had to buy every single recording of Bruckner available. He just had to have them. I didn't care much for him. He was one of those pompous "experts" that we suffer with in classical music: completely uninterested in other's opinions.
Though Mahler’s music speaks to me more immediately, I should be identifying with the Bruckner cult on mannerisms alone (self conscious, indecisive, and a pathological fear of women).
When I think of Bruckner's symphonies, I think of phrases that begin quietly, with a few instruments playing, followed by a gradual piling up of instruments and increased volume, reaching a fantastic dynamic peak that isn't quite a climax, and then returning somewhat suddenly to a few instruments again and repeating the process several times, using a new motive each time; sort of like waves crashes on the beach, each one somewhat larger and slightly different from the preceding one. I love it !!! I wonder if I'm part of the cult. (I really like Mahler too, though.)
You kinda are. That whole thing you just described occurs in literally every one of his symphonies. His forms are more predictable than a moth and a lamp
Excellent video!
For "worse" on musical cults, I think you have to measure the impact on the music world for everybody else. In that sense, I definitely agree that the Mahler cult is basically harmless. The flavor of Mahler cult that does sometimes have a bad musical effect is the version that thinks that the most important thing about Mahler is he is deep and sad and about death, and therefore decides that everything should be played as slowly and sadly as possible. The Bruckner cult as noted tends to make performing and listening to Bruckner extra complicated and daunting. And the fact that some of them make arguments that boil down to "if you cut this bit and rearrange these pieces, this symphony is pretty good" does make you wonder if they actually like Bruckner.
Arguably the worst and longest lived (but basically dying out now) musical cult was the cult of Beethoven, which basically encouraged the belief that the "great" composers were the ones that mostly wrote symphonies and string quartets, and were ideally German (or German-ish). This tended to massively devalue some composers and push some really fine music into neglect, or dismissed as nothing but fluff. (Mind you, the fact that the Cult of Wagner included so many literal Nazis does mean that the average cult member was probably a worse human being than any other musical cult)
I think one thing that colors the discussion of Bruckner and Mahler is a question of personal identity and culture. Mahler is a sophisticated intellectual living in a big city and meeting the most interesting people. Bruckner is a naive, devout Christian who gets portrayed as sort of a hick. Most classical music nerds identify with that Mahler description (at least aspirationally), and distrust the Bruckner description. Sort of a blue state vs. red state thing, these days (which is both unfair to Bruckner and musically irrelevant).
It’s interesting you bring up identity here. When it comes to Mahler and identity, I usually think that he tends to be characterized as someone without a stable identity. He has his famous quote about being “thrice homeless” in terms of culture and heritage, and although he did work in upper-class big city environments like Vienna and New York, he would often spend his summers in his composing cabins in the woods and loved going out in nature. He also came from a very large middle-class family and ended up taking care of many of his (surviving) younger siblings after the deaths of his parents. In terms of religion, he was born Jewish and converted to Catholicism, but was mainly agnostic, although we also see elements of mysticism with him too- for example, his claims of having detailed visions or dreams. So I feel the common perception of Mahler being associated with big, existential things like the universe and intangible concepts such as life and death may even come from not just the music, but also the fact that in life, he didn’t fit quite neatly into the society he lived and worked in, so rather than belonging to any one culture, class, or musical time period (existing between the Romantic and 20th Century styles), Mahler is sometimes seen as someone who transcends all of these concepts. Is that necessarily true? Not exactly, but I think the complexity of his position in society certainly adds to that perception.
I agree. Thanks for the very insightful comment.
I don't really get the Mahler is sad and should be slow as possible. If anything he's often not taken frenetically enough ( particularly in the 7th.)
Mahler's "Drei Pintos" has disappeaed from CDs. I have just managed to get a second-hand copy of Gary Bertini's version with Hermann Prey and Lucia Popp, which is now out print. The Naxos recording is available for download with a libretto available for download, only in German. I heard performed in Oxford four and a half decades ago. But you don't see it performed much nowadays.
As a Mahlerite, I agree with much of what you say [for me the "eyeglass perscription" is the mentions of Mahler's hemorrhoids in the La Grange bio (too much information)]. As wildly popular as Mahler is now, I still think the songs are comparatively neglected. His small Lieder output contains a huge percentage of great songs. I'd even say that some of his earliest songs approach greatness. The Mahler argument that I don't like is the one about inner movement order in Symphony 6--I prefer Andante-Scherzo, but really don't care much which order a conductor chooses. Of course you know that Die Drei Pintos was recorded twice, but that gets to the thing about Mahler that even some fanatics don't connect with: the vocal music. That's one reason why Symphony 8 is always at the bottom of the list of favorite Mahler symphonies. Same goes for Das Lied von der Erde, a towering masterwork that some professed Mahler fans don't pay attention to. So, I do agree the Mahler cult is less crazy than the Bruckner one, but it has its idosyncracies
David's video ends and an ad for a TV show comes on, beginning with the line "This cult could come back at any time!"
LOL! Gotta love that algorithm or whatever it is.
Got an ad about detergents.
Reading your headline at the outset, before even watching the video, I correctly guessed that you'd pinpoint the reason for the Bruckner cult being worse -- or, as I would put it, more insufferable -- insistence on pushing one version or revision over another version, yadda yadda. I have tons of Bruckner recordings and to this day I have no idea which version of a particular work I'm listening to. I just don't care. I listen for the broader effect.
"...ineptitude is noble in itself." The more things change, the more they stay the same.
A choíce between the two cults or indeed between their cult figures is the most glaring application of the old one out of the 1001 Nights: "which will you choose, Ô Treble Accursed One, forty donkeys to stomp on you or forty scimitars to slice you?"
That said, both occasionally have interesting things to say, here and there.
I am, after a fair time of getting to be a Brucknerian, grateful for your talking sense about the obsession with Bruckner editions. Particularly nobody ever talked about the preferred editions he placed in the Vienna library. That would be that final word, right? Before you, Nobody ever talked about them.
Another great “Music Chat”. Many thanks. I’m not a cultist, thank goodness, but I see I’m more of a Mahlerian, than a Brucknerian. I play Mahler’s music more. I have quite a few versions of recordings by both composers, but it’s Mahler I listen to more. But I say, I’m no cultist, though.
My sense is that the Mahler cult is a bit more feverish. The debate isn't about the scores so much as it is about the conductors and the recordings. It is more a matter of interpretation. I don't know if this group is overly large, but for a long time they seemed very outspoken and passionate. Some also seem a bit obsessed with ranking the symphonies.
Bruckner rather has a (smaller) devout following. Just my observation.
I like Bruckner and Mahler. The AB 8th and the GM 6th are 2 of my favs all time. Im in the cult of BOTH. ;)
For more deliciousness, check out Tovey's comments at the beginning of each Beethoven sonata in his Oxford Press edition. Tremendous good sense! And many many helpful specific hints on performance
Was that Tovey's point? I thought he was saying that Mahler, more than Bruckner, would give contemporary British composers something to strive toward, that is was the British composers who were amateurish dilettantes. And there were plenty of those.
I think he said what he said and it meant what he said.
I’ve heard you mention Sir Donald Tovey a number of times with reference to his being a critic. That said, I have two CDs containing Tovey’s own compositions, including his “Symphony in D” on Toccata Classics and his “Piano Concerto in A Major” on Lyrita. How do you feel about the man’s music?
Dull as ditch water.
LOL! ‘Nuff said!
In all areas of art and philosophy (and even science!), I really hate these cults of personality. It's the music that matters, not whether Beethoven had Chron's disease and drank from a lead cup. On the other hand, there are facts that Mahler's music must have been profoundly influenced by the death of his siblings (eight brothers and sisters), and his failing heart. Those things are interesting insofar as they tell us something about the music. But who in the world cares that Bruckner had unrequited crushes on 17-year-old women? Does it influence his music? I don't think so. Mahler is a giant among the composers, but is it Mahler we care about or the music that he composed? Michelangelo said about David's form that it was 'already in the marble' and all he needed to do was remove the layers covering it. Intellectuals would do well to get some of that humility.
I was not aware of Tovey's remarks comparing the two cults, however I have read that Tovey greatly admired Bruckner's sixth symphony, and went as far as stating that the slow movement of that symphony was the most perfect slow movement since that of the Hammerrklavier sonata of Beethoven.
That's news to me. He admired the Sixth, but advocated for a cut in the Adagio.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Dave I was wrong about it being a remark of Tovey, in fact it was Robert Simpson the English composer and critic who made the comparison to Beethoven. However I understand that Tovey did admire the coda of the first movement which he compared in some way to Homeric seas.
Personally I have always loved the sixth symphony, how do you feel about this work?
As a fellow-traveler (literally!) and pal of some who might be called Bruckner cultists, I can attest that they make friendly and jolly companions. That said, I don't pay anywhere near as much attention to the matter of versions and editions as many of them do. I've seen the famous score of the Symphony No. 7 in the Austrian National Library with Bruckner's "gilt nicht" comment, but I've never lost sleep over whether a particular performance or recording includes the cymbal clash at the climax of the adagio of the 7th Symphony, nor whether conductor A uses the Haas edition and conductor B prefers Nowak in any given symphony. (The Penguin Guide always chided Giulini for using Nowak instead of Haas in his DG recording of the 8th, as if that was some great offense.) Nor does it much bother me that Knappertsbusch recorded the Schalk edition of Symphony No 5 or that Kubelik used the Oeser edition of the 3rd; it's what they had and knew at the time. Apart from distinctly preferring the Linz version of the 1st Symphony to the Vienna version, liking the second version (1878) of the 3rd, insisting on the final version of the 8th, and adhering to the three-movement version of the 9th--i.e., what Bruckner himself actually wrote--I'm agnostic when it comes to the whole version/edition thing. I've heard them all, but I don't get into arguments over them--so maybe I'm not a cultist after all?
Like some others here, I was around in the 1970s when the Mahler cult was at its height, with Bernstein as its high priest, and I partook of that cult at the time, albeit as a mere anonymous acolyte than as a manic proselytizer. (I had the great good fortune to be in the audience for Bernstein's famous Good Friday NYPO performance of the M2--the most overwhelming concert I've ever experienced.) The Mahler cult seemed to be more about Mahler's music and his genius than about textual questions. Besides, there weren't all that many recordings around--Bernstein, Haitink, and Abravanel were the only guys who had recorded all nine symphonies, with (if I recall correctly) Solti's and Kubelik's cycles still underway. Otherwise, in my neck of the woods, we were pretty much limited to a handful of one-off choices: Walter in 1, 2, 9, & DLvdE; Horenstein(!) in 3; Kletzki in 4 & DLvdE. One had even less choice in Bruckner: Haitink in everything; but otherwise, only Walter in 4 & 9; Rosbaud in 7; Schuricht in 3 & 9, and a couple of Vox LPs. So in both cases, there was less scope for "cultism", at least as far as I was aware at the time.
For those who haven't read it, I recommend Bruno Walter's essay "Bruckner and Mahler." Walter served both composers without making it an either/or proposition, and without being a cultist despite his close relationship to Mahler.
And Mahler loved Bruckner too.
This is fascinating, David, one of your best chats yet. Now I finally get the reason for all the yelling about the various editions, etc. Poor Bruckner. His stuff still mostly leaves me cold, but with devotees like these, who needs detractors? I'm reminded of Samuel Johnson's put-down of a young colleague: "Sir, your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good."
I don't know which is worse, but the Mahler cult seems either much larger, much louder, or both. I can't seem to get into an online classical music space without being piled on by a whole bunch of Mahler fanatics who are offended that my list of 10 favorite symphonies doesn't include at least seven of Mahler's. I've only ever encountered one Bruckner cultist who was that fanatical.
I like Mahler and Bruckner, though unevenly. For instance, I really like the first two movements of Bruckner 7, but can’t stand the scherzo and finale. I mostly just love the slow movements: the fast movements are too blocky/repetitive and there’s too much Lawrence Welk in his lighter moods. With Mahler, I find it unconvincing when he goes from a vision of the abyss to circus music in just a bar or two. With both composers it’s hot-cold for me.
To me the Mahlerites are worse than the Brucknerians. Yes, the latter can be irritating, but it’s a wonkish kind of irritating. My main gripe with the Mahlerites is that they have been trying for some time to elevate him to the position of “Greatest Composer Ever”. I don’t know who the Greatest is, or even if there is one, but it’s definitely not Mahler. From an aesthetic or technical point of view, no sensible person could possibly make the claim that he is. Nor from a position of influence. Yes Mahler was influential, but not in the same way as some others who shall remain nameless. Mahler acolytes also have a habit of elevating his less outstanding works to immortal status: “Not only is the 7th not bad, it’s actually the greatest Mahler symphony of them all, and thus by default the greatest symphony ever composed.” So much nonsense with the Mahlerites.
Shostakovich has similar fans - the “irony groupies” who I detest. Mahler doesn’t have them, but he has the “prophesy groupies”, who I also detest. These are the people who think Mahler’s music foretold every tragedy of the 20th Century, including the World Wars, the Holocaust, and environmental degradation. So, if you don’t bow at the knees to Mahler you are a fascist! It’s so absurd. So overblown and pretentious. Just read the comments on any CZcams Mahler performance. The emoting is hilarious, and I would bet 99% are from reading about Mahler, not actual responses to the music.
Nice points about Mahler. Question: what do you mean by "Lawrence Welk" in Bruckner? You mean he's apt to sound maudlin in the lighter sections? Interesting you like Bruckner for his slow mvts. I feel the same about Mahler: the Adagietto, the slow mvt from the 6th, those I can appreciate. But I can't handle, for instance, all that dreadful marching in the first two mvts (of the 6th) or the endless wallowing before the universe-shattering hammer blows of FATE, yadda, yadda... The Molto Adagio from the 9th has a searing climax but one has to wait a few years to get to it and afterwards it takes a few years to end: makes you feel like a therapist listening to a patient whine endlessly before getting to any juicy part. Ha! He'll take good ideas and stretch them to a point where you kind of hate them and that's what I hate. ;)
@@NN-df7hl Sorry I missed this for two years…I don’t think maudlin is the right word, though we may be thinking the same thing. Just imagine light-hearted singing and dancing accompanied by the accordion and some booze. Sentimental, though not necessarily dark or teary-eyed.
As for Mahler, yes I agree with you on the 6th - tiresome. I disagree on the Adagietto of the 5th - I find it overestimated and truly ‘maudlin’. The Adagio of the 4th is closely related, and to me more satisfying due to its lack of opulence, and despite that it contains some of that Looney Tunes / Circus music I mentioned. I love Mahler 3 and 4. I love the first two movements of Mahler 1, though I don’t care for the cheap trick of making ‘Frere Jacques’ sound macabre, or the vain, forced, repetitive braying of the finale. I love the first movement of the 5th. The rest of the Mahler symphonies I find equal parts inspired and stupendously flawed. Not from a technical POV, mind you of course, but aesthetically.
The Mahler cult is for those addicted to overambitious post-Romantic kitsch, and the Bruckner cult for those addicted to endless figuration leading to some sort of mystical epiphany in massive blocks of sound.
Good point
How about the “Furtwangler Cult” vs. the “Toscanini Cult”?
The guy gets a good idea then struggles to develop it. I was at a live performance of the 8th last night - a marathon of hope that ended in disappointment, not with the performance but frustrated by Bruckner's inability to make a coherent musical structure. Crescendi led promisingly to abrupt 'tacets', only to be followed by an unrelated theme/motif and another thematic ramble. The multiple fortissimo climaxes lose their impact by their frequency and I was minded, curiously and improbably, by Monteverdi and his constant musical hiccups and short-term musical ideas. The rapturous applause as the last brassy blast of the final movement sounded was an appreciation of Sir Mark Elder's sterling interpretation and the heroic playing of all sections of the orchestra. One man rose to lead what he hoped was to lead a standing ovation, only to turn round that his was a futile (but brave) gesture: he was the only one out of an audience of about 2,000. I haven't totally given up on Bruckner but maybe I need some help. Where am I going wrong? Am I alone in my bafflement? In the meantime, I shall turn to Mahler, Sibelius, Dvořák, Nielsen, Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich to assuage my appetite for a good symphony.
In your opinion what is the better of the Bruckner editions?
I couldn't care less.
I've had a run-in with a Mahler fanatic, who I believe lives in the Boston area but would travel to Chicago when the CSO performed a big Mahler symphony. Unfortunately for him (AND me), he would attend my pre-concert lectures, which he hated. He would then harass me by writing to me, the CSO management AND the Chicago Tribune (!)...how his wondrous Mahler experience was tainted only by my lecture, which he obviously felt was beneath his level of erudition (why the hell he just didn't STAY AWAY...but..you know the type). His big complaint about my Mahler 6 talk was the fact that I didn't say a word about the ORDER of the MIDDLE MOVEMENTS...which nearly caused him a feverish melt-down.
I wrote back in rather UN-empathetic terms: I use my 30 minutes of lecture time to do the most good for the greatest number of attendees, most of whom come to increase their basic understanding of the music and what to listen for...NOT to debate the obscure details of what they would NOT be hearing (ie: Andante before the Scherzo). I assured him that I could hold my own discussing the technical/historical issues with him or anyone else, but that my 30-minute public talk was not the time nor place (I think that's when he accused me of "intellectual dishonesty", which I "swatted aside",..or maybe that accusation was part of his weird attack on my Mahler 9th talk).
Yes, the fanatics are definitely out there. But this guy should consider himself lucky he didn't approach me in person. Who knows?....maybe my CSO pen-pal is reading this right now (I hope so). LR
I know...some people have far too much time on their hands.
I have overheard many obnoxious (often uninformed) comments from fellow attendees at a live performance of a Bruckner or Mahler work that are so off-putting and dismissive of other equally or even much greater composers or works on the program that night (not to mention the drivel on the various web interfaces) - to the extent I am really turned off by both camps and their idols. The fervor of both camps doesn't seem to match the talent of their subjects, the allure of their compositions, nor tempt me into diverting precious time from obsessing about some particular work(s). As you so often note, David, there is so much that is neglected, undiscovered or ignored. Mahler, Mahler Mahler! Bruckner, Bruckner, Bruckner! Both over hyped. Thankful for you David, for introducing unknowns to me which have perked my interests - just in the past few days we have Riisager and Lajtha (not to mention the Sibelius tone poems talk which was outstanding). Mahalo from Honolulu - Mark
They may be overhyped, but they are both very great composers, and you shouldn't let their fans get the way of listening to them for their very real qualities. Who is "better" is, I think, a pretty foolish game to get trapped into playing. I had the same experience with the Wagner nuts--there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
David, Is there any relationship of either the Haas editions or the Novak editions (or both) to what Bruckner put in his will?
Sure. Sort of. It's a complicated question discussed many times before. I can't go into it here. You can read reviews on CT.com
@@DavesClassicalGuide Thanks. I’ll do that.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I read through every Bruckner review I could and found no reference to Haas or Novak. I checked Editorials too. I’m not a CT insider (yet!). Do I need to be to get to the reviews you alluded to? If not, would you recommend a particular review?
@@carlconnor5173 Hang in there. I'm doing a video just for you.
@@DavesClassicalGuide Why, thank you very much! I’ll hang in there.
Clever way to maximize the viewers on this video by listing the two big guns Mahler and Bruckner:)
Never fails...
I'm glad that I can love Mahler, Bruckner and for that matter Wagner without relegating to cult like mentality. As you, I just prefer the music which Mahler and Bruckner approved themselves and that's it. But with the rising "popularity" of Bruckner comes grifters who will sell you every possible thing or version he ever did. And with the growing trend of being different for the sake of it, Bruckner's legacy gives them a huge playfield, so to speak.
Exactly.
I'm not sure where to ask this question: "Is there such a thing as being a great Bruckner conductor AND a great Mahler conductor? I'm trying to think of one....
Depends what you mean by "great." Haitink did great work in both, and so did Karajan. Honeck does both impressively as well.
Is there still a debate over the order of the Andante and the Scherzo in Mahler 6, or is the matter settled?
Oh no, it's not settled at all. And the scherzo should come first.
Not settled either historically or musically. I prefer the scherzo first but I have heard performances the other way around which are quite good as well.
The Scherzo follows more naturally, I think from the first movement, and the Andante is needed as a calm before the apocalypse that is the finale.
I was weaned on andante first, but in my maturity I now prefer scherzo first.
I love Bruckner's simplicity and purity. He's not pretentious and ambitious. Very naive. It's really great and beautiful music. Malher sounds more trivial and annoying to me. His music is more diversified but it has less signification and coherence to me. It's not a manner of culte. It's what i feel by listening these too composers. Moussorgsky and Rimsky Korsakov, idem : same thing. I prefere Moussorgsky either. Two different worlds.
There seem to be too many CD performances of both composers. We need quality, not quantity.
I wonder if ‘Triumph the Insult Comic Dog’ should hang with Bruckner cults.
The Donald Tovey you refer to is the same as the Donald Tovey the composer ?
Yes.
I started listening to Bruckner and Mahler when I was in my early 20s (about 40 years ago). I approached both with equanimity and no prejudice biases. I started with Mahler's Symphony No 2 and a few months later was exposed to Bruckner's Symphony No 5. Both Symphonies are heavy lifting for a newbie. I found myself blown away by Bruckner, but as for Mahler, there were moments, but upon exposure to other Mahler symphonies I found myself hearing Mahlerian idiosyncrasies which were unique to him and they started to annoy me. Other Brucknerian symphonies generally struck me impactfully. So I have knocked on the door of both camps. I have spent time in the Bruckner cult, sometimes I leave it for a few years then come back. I try, but I cannot get into Mahler. I hear insanity in his music.
But it's good insanity...
Wow.
I love Bruckner's and Mahler's music equally, and have for over 50 years. Mahler was first to appear on my radar, and getting to know his music occupied my junior high years. It was largely H.F. Redlich's book on Bruckner and Mahler(still a very fine and insightful volume) that sparked my interest in Bruckner, and becoming familiar with his symphonies and choral works took place during my early high school years. As far as cults pertaining to either composer, who the hell cares, and why is this even an issue worth bringing up? The whole issue and obsession with "cults" is a pop culture phenomenon; aren't we above this sort of thing?
No, we aren't above this sort of thing. Those cults are very real, and it's a fun subject to talk about. You don't have to watch.
@@DavesClassicalGuide I'm just amazed that people who love music actually care about this sort of thing. I'm much more interested in the music itself, and what it says to me, than what other people, mostly non-creative people(the ones who can't actually do it, but love to hear themselves talk about it), have to say.
Speaking of Tovey, his essays in the Craxton edition of Beethoven sonatas are also worth a read. In fact, the edition is actually referred to as Tovey and the reprint deleted Craxton's pedal marks. I read an interview with Egon Petri's wife where he prepared for a Beethoven cycle by reading those essays. Amazingly, various people object to those essays as Tovey has the audacity to criticise some performance practices. And he doesn't pull his punches. He also likes to indulge himself in literary flare.
Although I don't always agree with him, it's good to read his views as they are thought provoking.
Tovey’s essays are very interesting indeed. He also wrote some excellent music himself, particularly his Piano Quartet, Op.12.
Good thing the horses are hibernating when this video was made.
I’m curious if anyone else on your channel has found that most music lovers adore either Bruckner OR Mahler but rarely both? It’s like how most people who like animals are either cat people OR dog people, or whiskey drinkers who are either in the “smoke and leather” crowd or the “fruit and nuts” crowd. I feel like I’m one of the very few who adores both Bruckner AND Mahler, who loves cats AND dogs, and who enjoys both… okay, I admit that I am firmly in the “smoke and leather”crowd, at least when it comes to whiskey; however, that is one of the handful of areas where I do not swing both ways. Has anyone else experienced this as well?
Well, I love both, and I think the majority of viewers here do as well, whether or not they choose to comment.
i would have thought that liking one would inevitably lead to liking the other given that both were in thrall to Wagner. It seems to me there are many similarities. Could they even have been Wagner cultists themselves ?
Filmmaker Luchino Visconti used excerpts from Bruckner's 7th in his movie "Senso" and no one paid attention. Then he quoted Mahler's 3rd and 5th in "Death in Venice" and suddenly Mahler was a big thing. Isn't that telling?
Its true that Bruckner probably struggled to get his music accepted, but I think there are too many myths about the man. The guy was connected to almost all the important musical figures of the time and was a teacher at the Vienna conservatory. Bruckner was socially successful by most reasonable measures.
I think tales of him being some clueless bumpkin are exaggerated attacks by his critics that somehow stuck to this day.
He struggled with his music because its unorthodox and difficult listening. I find that to be completely normal.
They were not merely attacks by his critics. They were confirmed by his friends and propagated most of all by those who knew him.
You are right. Bruckner ended up recognized and appreciated: he was appointed a Knight of the Order of Francis Joseph and spent his last days in the premises of the Belvedere Palace, graciously provided by the Emperor (the dedicatee of his Eighth Symphony). I lived four years at the opposite side, in Prinz-Eugen Strasse.
@@alfredolabbe He was also awarded an honorary doctorate by the University of Vienna, the very institution which, in his earlier days, would not even employ him in a paid position.
Cults stink, in that they become blind to anything outside of their cave. Of the two under discussion, I find them equally annoying. I'm a strong Mahler devotee, but I also like Bruckner. With so much wonderful music to enjoy, whoever composed it, I wish the cultists would lighten up.
I'm no maven in either but I do like both. Bruckner's works are a bit disjointed but wonderfully big grand works painting beautiful pictures. Mahler's works tend to be an emotional rollercoaster. Sad one minute and happy the next even in the same movement of a symphony. My four favourite Mahler symphonies are 1, 2, 4 and 5. I have also had the pleasure on attending live concerts of 1 and 2. I'd be very interested if you could analyze, in a video, the third movement of Mahler's first symphony. You basically have dirge music and all of a sudden you get a few bars of Klezmer music. What was going on in his mind?
I have no idea what was going on in his mind! The music speaks for itself, I think--it's mostly parodistic and ironic.
I completely agree, Bruckner cult is worse. I'm 3 parts Mahler, 1 part Bruckner anyway but I can settle back with Mahler and a score and maybe and very rarely have to flip the order of the inner movements of 6. With Bruckner, say the 8th, why should I have to pick up and put down three different scores? Bruckner is the only great composer I can think of whose tragedy, to paraphrase Olivier on Hamlet, was that of a man who couldn't make up his mind. Mahler and other composers may have revised, rethought, rewrote but they knew what they were doing and rarely let other people tell them what they ought to do. If they did listen to someone else (Copland, finale of the 3rd, or Bruckner's revised ending to Concerto for Orchestra) they did it and that was that. (Opera is different, there you're dealing in theater and audience response, practical problems of performance, etc.). Tovey's comment about amateurishness is spot on. I immediately think of the Russian Kuchka who littered the landscape with broken and unfinished works. Rimsky was so smart to get out of that cult and learn his craft. Bottom line, for me it's partly Bruckner's fault who unlike composers from Bach through Wagner, and Strauss--and Mahler--knew exactly what they were reaching for and eventually found it if they lived long enough. Even Sibelius' many revisions and rewrites, or RVW's over the London Symphony, eventually found final forms that they and nobody else arrived at.
I have to confess - I’m in both Bruckner and Mahler cults.😅
As a fan of both (if than can be said), I just love the structures of the dynamics and big orchestral works no matter the lenght is 1 hour and half, because I'm very imaginative guy, whenever I'm listening to a big dramatic and epic orchestral work, an overture, symphonic poems or symphonies, my imagination is in top and I like that because I always have a movie in my mind while listening, like having my own adventrue with all it's melancholic falls, that's because I started to love big and epic orchestrations after studying movie soundtracks like John Williams Star Wars, so that's why I love composers such as Wagner, Bruckner, Strauss and Mahler, because they preceed movie scores forms, yes, I like austrian-germanic composers mostly romantic league (including Bach, Haydn and Mozart), Mahler is like a glue which joins my favorite composers influences from Beethoven to Wagner, from Liszt to Berlioz, he knew what he wanted, he was literally and orchestra man, like Stanley Kubrick movies, the fact that he controlled his productions because they were "their movies", he knew every aspect of them, he knew the result of what he wanted through hard work, but the fact that I'm a germanophile in music dosen't stop me from enjoying french symphonies (which are kinda influenced by germans) or russian music which I also love as much as germans, and England composers as you mentioned here they raised very high during the first half of 20th century (I would just love to travel through Europe at the time I'm writing this).
With all that said, those are my main tastes, but I love all Classical Music in all it's forms (I have my opera evenings and even if I'm not religious I listen to sacred works when I feel in a peace atmosphere), always depending of the performances, face the reality, when you discover some mediocre music with no base (not that I despise other genres, I love jazz, folk music, salsa and even classic rock) you discvoer that all Great Music is GREAT MUSIC, but I don't belong to cults, I know enough about Wagner's work and life and if I want to listen to his orchestral highlights I do it becaus I enjoy them, I don't have necessity of listening to a full Wagner Drama bacause I listen like dozens of times various recordings and I'm happy with that (it's more easy to get into Wagner orchestral highlights than starting with a full opera of him), but I don't consider myself wagnerian, every cult is bad, but if investigation is what motivates that cult, so WELCOME, investigation and knowledge must be sacred, but not taken to extremes to despise others beliefs with superiority airs, so when you love very much something, you need to keep the limits of your emotions about something, so control yourself my dear classical music fan and keep on listening and investigating.
While Sir Arnold Bax cannot match the public prominence of these two esteemed composers, as you know Dave we Baxians are the only musical cult that have our very own planet. I adore both Mahler and Bruckner, and even obsession isn’t innately harmful if it leads to, say, collecting extensively but still in a discerning fashion. Sir Donald Tovey’s statement about Mahler’s mastery was prescient and spot on however. I think I’ll go listen to Tovey’s 49-hour cello concerto by way of appreciation. The Bruckner cult I’m too dumb (or smart?) to join because I genuinely, in all seriousness, can’t keep all the different versions of the different symphonies straight. The little gray cells aren’t what they used to be.
Can one think both composers are amazing and like them and appreciate them equally well?
No. It's impossible1 You have to chose! Uh, sure you can like both. I like both. That has nothing to do with the topic of this video or the question posed.
In Bruno Walter's autobiography THEME AND VARIATIONS he describes what it was like to be a music student in the late 19th century, and get caught in the "food fight" of having to chose between the "Christ" of Brahms or the "Anti-Christ" of Wagner - or vice versa.
Well, what do you think about Bruckner asider from the cult? What would your opinion be if they fulfilled your ideas?
I'll ask straight - beyond comparisons, what are your thought son bruckners 9th, as it stands?
Watch the video about that work.
You know you've made it in the music business when people are discussing your eyeglass prescription. I doubt John Lennon could make the same claim.
No, but more people wear his style of frames than Mahler’s:)
Like World War II's Operation Market Garden, all of the commotion about the various versions of Anton's symphonies are "a 'Brucke' too far."
...and God bless John Addison!
@@andrewpetersen5272 You scored with that one.
This really clears things up for me. Its strange. I like Bruckner, but I always felt Mahler was more of a master in music even though I don't listen to him as much. Woody Allen pokes fun about insufferable Mahler fans in films like Manhattan and Miranda and Miranda. I know Mahler is a great composer but just don't get much out of it. Nonetheless I'm still going to try listening to Mahler The 5th symphony was pretty interesting. I'm going to try the 2nd symphony or something else
The miniscule Hans Rott gang is going crazy as you speak...but they blame it on Brahms. 🎶 🧨 🚂🚃🚃
LOL!
Somewhat irrelevant comment, but I agree with every point that has been made, and which at 22 minutes in length is about how long I would like to ever spend contemplating the Mahler and Bruckner cults for the rest of my life! Satisfied, and leaving further discussion to others.
I don't care about Mahler cults or Bruckner cults. Mahler is my favorite composer, has always been my favorite, and WILL always be my favorite. I love many many other composers, but I always come back to Mahler and love Mahler. That doesn't make me a cultist. I like certain things and think things should be played a certain way but that's the joy of having so many recorded performances to choose from. I listen to Bruckner too, but not so much. There are football cultists, and baseball cultists, and quilting cultists, and they can all do their thing without entering my consciousness. Same with musical cults, I agree, or disagree, or ignore. I like what I like. Interesting discussion I suppose, but not my thing. By the way 6th symphony, Scherzo first, Andante next.
Well, not everybody in Great Britain was a Toveyite. Allow me to quote from "The Musical Companion" edited by A.L. Bacharach, published 1934 by Victor Gollancz Ltd in London. "And much about this time Bruckner was busy with his nine Symphonies. Leaning heavily on his Wagnerian prop, he was at one time - and in certain parts of Austria and Germany, still is - spoken of in the same breath as Brahms. But the aesthetic judgment of most serious musicians has since decided that his symphonies, replete as they are with pedantic technicalities and self-conscious mannerisms, are in no wise worthy to rank with those of the great masters. Much the same can be said of the nine composed by Mahler: works of enormous size, interesting at times but laboriously put together and lacking that vital spark of inspiration that made Beethoven's nine springing direct from the nine Muses"
That's what happens when you talk before you listen.
I'm shocked to hear that Bruckner and Brahms were once spoken of in the same breath. Bruckner was a great composer whereas Brahms was ... well, wasn't.
Bruckner = CEO Mahler = Chief Innovation Officer
I belong firmly in the Bruckner club - pure music with no extra-musical pretensions or neuroticism.
Bruckner was far more neurotic than Mahler.
Translated: “I love listening to strictly formulaic music that literally never changes texture or instrumentation ever. I don’t like this music that is constantly active and innovative in orchestration and structure.”
Good Lord ! Bruckner is level 9 neuroticism distilled in musical form. Mahler is just level 5 like the rest fo us.
I find the Bruckner Symphonies so formulated. The Scherzo movements in all of his Symphonies are so predictably the same .
Bruckner’s formal approach to musical structure was radical but oft-repeated. Either you like the approach (I do) or you don’t. Either view is a matter of personal taste, and therefore neither is right or wrong. I think of Bruckner as a playlist composer: if one listens to a full cycle all the way through, the music can seem to be one large mass rather than 9 (or 10 or 11) symphonies. Which is an awful lot if Bruckner ain’t your bag.
It's a pretty good formula, though.
@@matthiasm4299 That's a euphemism I suppose
They are both in the 11-20 ranking for me in composers. That means they are both outstanding. I rate Rossini above both, and he is not in the Top 10 for me either. For me, there is Beethoven, and there is the rest.
I will get shot down in flames for writing this but hey, ho! I'm not into cults but for me I find some (but not all) of Mahler's work wonderful. Tuneful, dramatic, soulful, comical, brilliantly orchestrated and full of surprises. Bruckner leaves me pretty much stone cold. The slow movement of No.7 is superb but the rest does very little for me. It all sounds the same. It comes across like heavy footed organ music thickly orchestrated. Even his fast passages sound like slow movements played quickly if you get my drift. There's nothing mercurial about it. The stop go nature of the writing using vertical chunks of sound drives me potty and I hear very little horizontal development, just loud formulaic brass outbursts to grab your attention for a minute or two. I've tried. I really have. I own 4 Bruckner cycles and I still don't get it. It sounds all a bit amateurish. Oops, better get out of here pretty damn quick before I get eaten alive.......
I've never been a Bruckner fan, and it's possible, maybe even probable, that you have explained the reason why... Mahler grabbed me from the moment I started listening to his symphonies. Bruckner, on the other hand, has been more of a pill I can't seem to swallow easily... however, I've recently found myself getting into his symphonies, once I allow myself to really listen. So how do I distinguish which editions were approved by Bruckner himself? The ones you said he wrote in his will???
Go with the ones I recommend (see my reviews on ClassicsToday.com).
You're right. Brucknerians are in an abusive relationship with Bruckner.
Mahler and Brucker? I make that a draw. I think the best cult is that of Havergal Brian.
It’s hard to consider Bruckner on the same level. Mahler is in a whole other league
Where's the horse???
They only show up for bad Bruckner.
I just finished reading a pdf from william damrosch where he called Mahler "unoriginal" i actually got mad.
@@Spo-Dee-O-Dee Sick
I think that’s rather silly. Even for those who dislike Mahler’s music, claiming Mahler was a merely derivative scribbler is lazy and arrant nonsense.
I'm going through my ozawa with the bso box set. I'm going to crank the "9th". Which is the next one in line.
Like Bruckner very much, dislike every cult/fandom. I don't need to decide what's worse, they all are dangerous and deranged.
I think another factor to take into consideration is that Bruckner (1824-1896) was of a much earlier generation than Mahler (1860-1911), So Bruckner was coming off the back of Schubert, Mendelssohn and Schumann. Whereas Mahler I believe was heavily influenced by Bruckner. Especially in terms of vision and scale of his works.
Personally I find Mahler, just over the top. He wrote the epic 2nd symphony.... it's phenomenal...but then he tried it again in the 3rd. Why? It's no where near as good. But it's even longer. And then he tried it again in the 8th. Symphony. (of a thousand)....wow just how colossal can you get? Symphony of a hundred, two hundred, a thousand, whatever?;..
Bruckner was far more down to earth and "Classical" in his construction. His symphonies are, of course large. But I think that's just accidental and related to the structure and balance of each symphony....But really.... they are too similar to each other. At least in Beethoven, you had a wonderful variety of sounds and styles. But Bruckner? ....
I identify as an Ives cultist, with a little Cowell obsession on the side.
I am not a Mahler cultist but I enjoy many of his symphonies though if I am in a down mood a lot of Mahler is not s composer I want to hear. But I do find much of his music at least accessible. But except for theFourth I don’t relate to Bruckner at all. A friend told me a story that goes like this. You are walking down the street and meet a nice fat Austrian friend who says has a great story to tell. As a matter of fact its the best story you ever heard. So he goes on and on for an hour telling you how great the story is and then cheerfully says goodbye without really telling you anything!! And Im really sorry but thats how I feel about much of Bruckner. Perhaps some day I will get him. I occasionally try!!