Mahler: 2,792 items
Wagner: 5,975 items
Brahms: 8,000 items
Beethoven: 15,544 items
Whatever these numbers tell us, they do seem at least to indicate that Brother Barry is correct in his sense that Beethoven still rules.
# Composer Recordings 1 Mozart, Wolfgang Amadeus 6427 2 Bach, Johann Sebastian 5652 3 Beethoven, Ludwig van 4791 4 Schubert, Franz 3263 5 Brahms, Johannes 3261 6 Verdi, Giuseppe 3171 7 Tchaikovsky, Peter Ilyich 2889 8 Handel, George Frideric 2410 9 Schumann, Robert 2224 10 Mendelssohn, Felix 2208 11 Wagner, Richard 2073 12 Chopin, Frédéric 2041 13 Debussy, Claude 2035 14 Puccini, Giacomo 1983 15 Liszt, Franz 1830 16 Haydn, Franz Joseph 1773 17 Vivaldi, Antonio 1756 18 Dvorák, Antonín 1700 19 Rossini, Gioachino 1629 20 Ravel, Maurice 1601 21 Rachmaninov, Sergei 1542 22 Strauss, Richard 1487 23 Bizet, Georges 1473 24 Saint-Saëns, Camille 1339 25 Donizetti, Gaetano 1297 26 Gounod, Charles 1217 27 Prokofiev, Sergei 1206 28 Fauré, Gabriel 1140 29 Massenet, Jules 1128 30 Shostakovich, Dmitri 1108 31 Grieg, Edvard 1102 32 Mahler, Gustav 1003 33 Strauss Jr., Johann 936 34 Elgar, Sir Edward 932 35 Stravinsky, Igor 887 36 Berlioz, Hector 790 37 Sibelius, Jean 777 38 Bellini, Vincenzo 756 39 Rimsky-Korsakov, Nikolai 752 40 Britten, Benjamin 747 41 Franck, César 747 42 Vaughan Williams, Ralph 711 43 Mussorgsky, Modest 710 44 Bartók, Béla 699 45 Gershwin, George 696 46 Weber, Carl Maria von 696 47 Purcell, Henry 688 48 Mascagni, Pietro 669 49 Leoncavallo, Ruggero 668 50 Telemann, Georg Philipp 647 51 Bruckner, Anton 618 52 Offenbach, Jacques 597 53 Falla, Manuel de 572 54 Gluck, Christoph W. 551 55 Poulenc, Francis 527 56 Copland, Aaron 492 57 Barber, Samuel 474 58 Scarlatti, Domenico 474 59 Villa-Lobos, Heitor 471 60 Pachelbel, Johann 468 61 Albeniz, Isaac 456 62 Bernstein, Leonard 452 63 Satie, Erik 450 64 Smetana, Bedrich 440 65 Monteverdi, Claudio 424 66 Hindemith, Paul 419 67 Borodin, Alexander 407 68 Holst, Gustav 406 69 Paganini, Niccolò 402 70 Granados, Enrique 398 71 Delibes, Léo 392 72 Boccherini, Luigi 382 73 Albinoni, Tomaso 372 74 Scriabin, Alexander 372 75 Janácek, Leos 362 76 Rodrigo, Joaquin 362 77 Byrd, William 353 78 Lehár, Franz 353 79 Bruch, Max 326 80 Walton, Sir William 326 81 Kreisler, Fritz 318 82 Respighi, Ottorino 318 83 Corelli, Arcangelo 292 84 Khachaturian, Aram 287 85 Nielsen, Carl 283 86 Glazunov, Alexander 271 87 Ives, Charles 245 88 Sarasate, Pablo de 221 89 Rameau, Jean-Philippe 220 90 Hummel, Johann Nepomuk 208 91 Bloch, Ernest 203 92 Ponce, Manuel 198 93 Delius, Frederick 195 94 Korngold, Erich Wolfgang 195 95 Pärt, Arvo 181 96 Arnold, Malcolm 140 97 Bach, Johann Christian 139 98 Marais, Marin 106 99 Lully, Jean-Baptiste 105 100 Rautavaara, Einojuhani 87 TOTAL 100577 |
I think this is correct. The absolute number of available recordings cannot be used as a measure, unless, for example, you specify a certain time-frame (recording began before Mahler's complete works had been written, after all, and if the question concerns their popularity today, then we should limite the discussion to, say, the past 20 years or so), make some correction for genre (no chamber music, no solo instrumental works), for total quantitative compositional output, for historical factors (Mahler being banned by the Nazis during WWII), and otherwise try to level the playing field. The popularity of Mahler can perhaps be better judged by looking at orchestral programming not just in major cities, but in small ones as well. Let me make some anecdotal observations along these lines that may offer some insights into the phenomenon.
1. Mahler is now routinely performed by community and youth orchestras. This started in the late 70s and early 80s, and in fact Barry G and I particpated in some performances of the First Symphony during this period. I have played the Sixth maybe a dozen times since, which is remarkable when you come to think about it. The reason Mahler is so popular at this "grass roots" level is that the parts are so rewarding to play that it's easy to get wind, brass, and percussion players who will volunteer their services. You would think that doing Mahler would be more difficult because the forces are so large, but this often turns out not to be the case. I've played all of the symphonies except the Eighth at the community level, and on multiple occasions. By contrast, works by, say, Bruckner or Sibelius are nearly impossible to program because string players often hate them (just try to do Sibelius' Fifth--half an hour of tremolos--and watch your string section vanish before your eyes).
2. For regular orchestras, Mahler symphonies offer the followning advantages:
a. They give today's large, permanent ensembles something for everyone to do. If you're doing to pay to keep 100+ people employed full time, you need to have large works on your program regularly.
b. They fill up an evening all by themselves--this is important because concerts are, on the whole, shorter than they used to be, so having one big, long symphony makes for a very satsifying program all by itself. Mahler's "worlds," particularly the symphonies with vocal soloists (Second, Third, Eighth) are particularly appealing in this respect.
c. The Second and Eighth are really great 'special occasion' pieces, particularly the Second, particularly after natural disasters, dedications of new concert halls, or splashy opening/farewell concerts.
d. They are actually MORE economical than you might think. Again, consider that the full orchestra is already getting paid, so if you don't want to incur the extra cost of a concerto soloist (and spend the rehearsal time on a mixed program), doing a single Mahler symphony is actually very efficient and cost-effective.
e. Similarly, they make great calling cards for orchestras on tour, and all of the above economic issues come into play even more forcefully for a travelling ensemble.
f. Finally, look at the move in Mahler performance away from the symphonies being the preserve of "specialists" to their being part of the basic repertoire of all major conductors active today. Of course, there will always be some exceptions--but the point is that they ARE exceptions.
3. The limited number of actual works makes Mahler's entire output manageable for both listeners and performing arts organizations (just as Beethoven's nine symphonies are), while the incredible variety from one work to the next makes hearing them all endlessly fascinating. There's value is scarcity! This also makes Mahler a perfect "festival" composer--ideal for themed surveys of his complete output over a season, or shorter period. Consider ventures as diverse as the Colorado MahlerFest devoted to single works, or the complete cycle being given at Carnegie Hall next season within a few short weeks.
4. Mahler's life makes a terrific story. Never underestimate the unfortunately large impact of extra-musical considerations on a composer's popularity. If Mozart hadn't died young, or had been wealthy and successful, would we care about the junk he wrote when he was a kid? I doubt it!
| Johann Sebastian Bach 7960000 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 7840000 Ludwig van Beethoven 6650000 Richard Wagner 5470000 Johannes Brahms 4150000 Fredéric Chopin 3940000 Franz Schubert 3730000 Franz Liszt 3040000 Claude Debussy 2910000 Richard Strauss 2850000 Robert Schumann 2720000 Gustav Mahler 2360000 Antonin Dvorak 2110000 Georg Friedrich Haendel + GF Handel 2074000 Hector Berlioz 1650000 Igor Stravinsky 1510000 Arnold Schoenberg 894000 Sergei Rachmaninov + S Rachmaninoff 558000 Dimitri Shostakovich 110000 |
Arnold Schoenberg 894000And Schoenberg ahead of Rachmaninov! As said, we're finally moving on!
Sergei Rachmaninov + S Rachmaninoff 558000
Arnold Schoenberg 894000And Schoenberg ahead of Rachmaninov! As said, we're finally moving on!
Sergei Rachmaninov + S Rachmaninoff 558000
:D
PT
But sorry, Schoenberg is nowhere near Rachmaninoff.
...But then, I love Brahms, so I'm not complaining. I was actually surprised to see Stravinsky so high up that list.