(originally posted here∞)

My taste in symphonies is practically defined by Mahler and Strauss -- call me crazy, but I find most of Beethoven's 9th quite boring -- the two are equally skilled, yet in many ways foils of each other.

Strauss was the absolute master of a broad sheen of sound that modulates effortlessly (who else could make the chord changes in Rosenkavalier danceable?). Like Mozart he had a special affinity for the soprano voice, reviving the tradition of the "pants role" and giving it the deservingly careful treatment. The two also share a love of the alto instruments: horn and clarinet.

Mahler shares with Strauss a mastery of post-Romantic harmony and a programmatic conception of the orchestra, but his program is not abstract (like, say, Death & Transfiguration) nor mythic (Don Juan) but intensely personal. Mozart could compose a cheerful piano concerto while sickly and destitute; Strauss, while successful, kept an extremely private persona far removed from the grandiose topics his larger works tackled (Nietzsche on the humanistic side, mountains the naturalistic); but with Mahler, his daily struggles (1st symph III), recollections of childhood (Wunderhorn cycle, march motif of 3rd symph), and so on always came to the forefront. If Strauss ever displayed reverence it was in portraying the piety of others almost mockingly (Zarathustra first theme), or a generalized, distant view of nature (Alpensinfonie); even if Mahler was never a very good Jew (or later, Christian), his compositions are deeply imbued with spirituality, from his treatment of nature as something personally signifant (countless lieder) to frequently invoking the power of the god(desse)s in the latter symphonies.

Musically, instead of the broad strokes of a Strauss string section you find sparse textures of exposed winds -- the bare minimum needed to present a theme and context. Of course, when the need for a climax arises this makes the contrast (up to the so-called "Thousand") that much stronger. His preferred register is lower -- tenor/baritone voices (Lied von Erde), trombones (3rd symph I), bassoons (every symph) -- and when he does call for sopranos it is not as a delicate character but an instrument of power (4th symph) or otherworldly wonder (mezzo in 2nd symph, boy choir in 8th symph, flute in 1st symph I). Not that Strauss doesn't develop his themes expertly, but once he gets going he never holds anything back; Mahler is reserved to the distant but well-reserved end.

In all, can I call them two sides of the same coin? Probably not without sacrificing some intellectual honesty, but for me they are the twin masters of the late Romantic orchestra. What better recommendation can a guy with my tastes provide?

Edit: several example pieces cited where appropriate. It's hard to give specific recommendations because he doesn't really think in soundbites; I can point you to times on the dial that I think are brilliant, but they won't be anything impressive on their own, unlike the ones coming to mind from Strauss literature (the "everything crashes and burns" coda of Zarathustra, the "silver" theme of Rosenkavalier, the moment when the first "doubletime" chorus of Festmusik goes into triplets...). Ok now I'm contradicting my real opinions because I think Strauss' mastery also comes in fitting these special tidbits into the larger work...

Go pick any symphony, read the liner notes, and listen to it straight through. (Ok maybe not any: #3 is very typically Mahlerian, but too long for demo purposes; #8 is great fun to listen to but not a good example of his style; #10 is incomplete so you miss the point). You're a singer so maybe hit one of the choral ones, or have some musicological fun comparing a song cycle (Wayfarer, perhaps) to Strauss' Vier Letze Lieder.


Back to MusicPhilosophy