I keep trying other composers and their CD's but . . .

[barry guerrero]

.    .    .   they all just 'suck' one way or another. Mahler rules but Mahler also raises the bar tremendously. Anybody have an interesting candidates?  .   .    .   

[waderice]

Barry, how about a change of pace and try something other than orchestral music?  How about the organ?  The organ is the one instrument that comes closest to reproducing the orchestra in texture, scope, and power.

The one composer of the organ I have in mind is Julius Reubke.  Tragically, Reubke lived a short life, and had a paltry output.  But the one work he wrote that is one of the most powerful I've ever heard, and which comes very close to Mahler in vision and scope, is his Sonata on the 94th Psalm.  From the opening notes of the work, you know that Reubke is going to deal with profound issues that Mahler did, particularly in M2.  But Reubke, in the short half hour of his Sonata, essentially presents many of the same questions that Mahler does in M2, but unfortunately, doesn't totally resolve the issue(s), as Mahler did.

I heard this work many years ago at an organ recital, and the work shook me to the very depths of my being, similar to how Mahler does in M2.  I have the Simon Preston recording mentioned in the below Wikipedia link, but it doesn't come close to reproducing the power of the work as does a hard-to-get recording that never appeared on CD, but on LP.  That one was by David McVey, playing the Moller-Rosales organ in the Bridges Hall of Music at Pomona College, Claremont, CA.  Record label is Orion ORS 78282.  This particular recording is considered one of the finest ever made of a large organ (sound-wise), but opinion on the quality of performance could be debatable, as I'm not an expert on organ music literature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonata_on_the_94th_Psalm

Wade

[merlin]

I have been enjoying some of Shostakovich's symphonies (especially 4, 5, 8, 10, 15) and concertos.  Petrenko/RLPO on Naxos have incredible sonics and interpretation for the most part, and the cello and violin concertos are very interesting.

[barry guerrero]

Speaking of the organ, in addition to the usual suspects (S.-S. "Organ" Symphony, Poulen'c Organ Cto., etc.)  I do like that big, noisy work by Jongen for organ and orchestra. I also very much like the Petrenko cycle of Shostakovich symphonies. Thanks guys.

[ChrisH]

When I'm not listening to Mahler I find myself heading right toward Wagner and the Ring, Meistersinger or Tristan. Then maybe some Janacek, Scriabin or Rachmaninov. Mozart and his operas really do it for me too. When I feel the need to head back to my trumpet playing days I'll put on something by Hakan Hardenberger, Stephen Burns or a friend of mine who is a baroque trumpet specialist. Also the German Brass, if you're interested in brass ensemble work. They are incredible.

Hans Gal sounds interesting to me as well. I'll be picking up his 4 symphonies sometime in the near future.

[barry guerrero]

You know, it's funny: I like Scriabin quite a bit, but a lot of classical pianists seem to have an aversion to him. I can't figure that out. His music can't be that much harder to play than Rachmaninoff's. I too love "The Ring", and act two of "Tristan" is amazing. I have an orchestral synthesis made of music from "Meistersinger" which is quite fun. Thanks guys, these are all great suggestions. I do love Janacek, and pretty much have everything that he composed. I even have the Naxos series of orchestral suites from the Janacek operas. Good stuff.

[Penny]

I know this is going to sound biased (I live in Worcester UK) but I just love Elgar, or as I think of him, the Mahler of the Malvern Hills.  A near-contemporary of our hero, he had much in common with him - he was a moody, intense creature, a hill walker and a keen cyclist.  (As far as I know, he didn't compose in a shed, though!)  More to the point, he wrote some wonderful works, including his masterpiece "The Dream of Gerontius", and the "Enigma Variations" but only two completed symphonies unfortunately, of which my favourite is his First.  I must admit to having a soft spot for his early cantata, "Caractacus".

For what it may be worth, I also love some of the works of Bach, and Chopin.  (I play the piano badly!)

[barry guerrero]

Among English composers, I tend to like Vaughan Williams and Britten best. Then again, I play tuba and there's that fabulous concerto for Tuba by V-W. Most of the V-W symphonies have healthy tuba parts. Elgar: I like best the "Enigma" Variations - especially when they add the organ pedals at the end - and the second symphony. The first symphony might be stronger overall, but the second has one of THE great adagio movements of all time (along with the slow movements from Dvorak 3 & 9; the adagios from Bruckner symphonies 6 - 9 ((and particularly 6)), and, of course, Mahler's great slow movements). I like Elgar's violin concerto more than his cello concerto, but the cello one is certainly more succinct. I don't know any of his chamber music, but I do like the chamber music from both V-W and Britten (particularly the Britten quartets). I actually think Elgar's second symphony might work better with the order of the two inner movements switched. A friend of mine from London agrees with me. I've played it back on my stereo that way and it works fine.

I just picked up a GREAT cd on Hyperion of the two Kodaly string quartets played by the Dante Quartet. They're the house quartet at King's College Cambridge, and have even done some interesting collaborations with the famous boy's choir there. The two Kodaly quartets sound like what the famous Bartok ones SHOULD sound like (just an opinion). Kodaly's "Peacock" Variations is one of my very favorite orchestral works. His Concerto for Orchestra is underrated, and should get coupled with the well known Bartok one some day (or with the lesser known Lutoslawski one).

Chopin. Well  .     .    .    I'm not a pianist. If I was a pianist I would want to sound more like Bill Evans or Oscar Peterson. I personally prefer the more 'masculine' style of Liszt (love "Totentanz"), although Chopin was certainly more consistent. I'll finish by telling a story.

Once upon a time, a man came into a Tower Records shop and was annoyed that I was playing Mahler (perhaps I had it up a tad  loud, I don't remember). He told me that he'd rather have one Nocturne (Prelude, Etude; I dont' remember) from Chopin than ALL of the symphonies by Mahler. I told him that I didn't view it as an either/or situation, and that there's plenty of room in the world for all kinds of music. Then I said the following:

"But, if somebody put a gun to my head and told me that I had to choose or die, I would take one movement of Mahler than ALL of the piano music of Chopin".  Needless to say, he had no sense of humor.

[Sturmisch Bewegt]

I personally prefer the more 'masculine' style of Liszt (love "Totentanz"), although Chopin was certainly more consistent.

Some "consistent " works of Chopin : the four ballads for their epic, imaginative and dramatic content, the four scherzos for their fantastic and diabolic side, the two sonatas, very different from each other and original , the polonaise-fantaisie formally and harmonically audacious , the fantaisie. op 49.

To me, the most interesting of Chopin to recommend to a mahlerian (or not). Unfortunately Chopin still remains better known of the general audiance for his nocturnes and walzes and a few etudes and preludes  contributing to convey this image of "ethereal" to his music.

[David Boxwell]

Across 15 symphonies (well, 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15 are the greats), only Shostakovich comes close to Mahler to satisfying that desire: and, of course, the influence of GM is imprinted all over them. (Bonus: 15 quartets, 2 fab operas, and astounding sonatas, concertos, vocal, and piano works).

[techniquest]

Hey, Barry - ever tried any Havergal Brian? He wrote some pretty massive music, especially the 1st symphony "The Gothic", but some of his other symphonies are well worth exploring too. Try no.6 "Sinfonia Tragica" in particular.

[barry guerrero]

I know the "Gothic". It's a bit over-the-top for me. But hey, I'll give #6 a spin. Thanks.

[akiralx]

Once upon a time, a man came into a Tower Records shop and was annoyed that I was playing Mahler (perhaps I had it up a tad  loud, I don't remember). He told me that he'd rather have one Nocturne (Prelude, Etude; I dont' remember) from Chopin than ALL of the symphonies by Mahler. I told him that I didn't view it as an either/or situation, and that there's plenty of room in the world for all kinds of music. Then I said the following:

"But, if somebody put a gun to my head and told me that I had to choose or die, I would take one movement of Mahler than ALL of the piano music of Chopin". Needless to say, he had no sense of humor.

He wasn't related to Sir Thomas Beecham was he?  I recall TB said he would willingly trade one entr'acte by Massenet for all Bruckner's symphonies, and would have considered he had benefitted greatly by the exchange… at least I think it was Massenet but you get the idea…

I too am a great lover of Elgar's Second symphony, and tend to collect recordings - if you are greatly moved by the wonderfully spiritual Adagio I recommend Jeffrey Tate's LSO recording on EMI, probably my favourite for the whole work. 

The Elgar violin concerto must be the greatest ever - though I love the cello concerto, and as a cellist I used to battle my way through it.

One 'rare' work I'm very fond of is Tubin's melodious Fourth Symphony, the 'Lyric' - Volmer's CD on Alba is the one I have and I like it a lot though Jarvi recorded it for BIS and that is the usual library recommendation.  It is a lovely piece and very uplifting.

[barry guerrero]

Thanks for the Tubin recommendation. Now that makes may 'wish list' Brian #6 and Tubin #4. Yes, I could very well imagine Beecham having said something like that. Thanks again.

[Dal Segno]

.    .    .   they all just 'suck' one way or another. Mahler rules but Mahler also raises the bar tremendously. Anybody have an interesting candidates?  .   .    .

I'm sorry, but this has to dumbest post I've read in a very, very long time. In fact, this seems to be symptomatic for the "Mahler Problem." Because of the spectaculair nature of his music (on the surface at least), Mahler attracts many listeners who simply don't have a clue about music (as mr. guerrero's post so aptly proves). Arguably, a contemporary like Debussy was a much greater composer than Mahler, certainly of greater importance historically, but he doesn't have a following of dimwitted groupies who make outrageous statements about other composers whose music "sucks" compared to that of their guru.

I'll probably have my head bitten off for this, and I really do love Mahler. In fact, I love Mahler so much that I felt compelled to reply to Mr. Guerrero's monumentally stupid post because if there is one composer who needs to be saved from his "friends", it's Mahler (not that I could save him, only orchestra's and record companies and conductors could do that).

(Oh, and, in answer to your question, there ARE other composers who are worth investigating and who really do not "suck," ever heard of Bach, Mozart, Schubert, Haydn, Beethoven, Brahms, Schumann, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Liszt, Berlioz, Wagner, Verdi, Bruckner, R. Strauss, Elgar, Sibelius, Schönberg, Berg, Webern, Stravinsky, to name just a few??)