Roger Hecht writes:

>...Bruckner is in my pantheon.  He speaks to me in a way Mahler doesn't
>quite manage.  And that, I think, is the basic difference betweenthe two,
>as far as I can describe it for me without going into all kinds of pained
>comparisons.

Yes, indeed.  The reason why Mahler, who is great, doesn't rate as highly
with me as does Bruckner is that the latter strikes me as the more cogent
composer of the two.  Compared to Bruckner, Mahler is prolix; he undertakes
too many things, for stretches of time that are overlong, and thereby
obscures his purpose.  Bruckner, though less brilliant, is more purposeful
in making his meaning clear.  I like that.

Denis Fodor                     Internet:[log in to unmask]