CMV: The symphonist Anton Bruckner is superior to his contemporary Gustav Mahler, despite the latters greater popularity

The symphonist Anton Bruckner is superior to his contemporary Gustav Mahler, despite the latters greater popularity, when judging based on their symphonies that they have both written. Both wrote incredibly long symphonies with bold and daring choices (Mahler using a hammer as an instrument and Bruckner adding Wagner Tubas to the score)

I would say Mahler is a great symphonist indeed but Bruckner reached higher heights and most importantly was more sincere. Mahler often engaged in jokes and irony in his symphonies but Bruckner was 100% serious all the way through. I feel that a medium with as much gravitas as the symphony shouldn’t entertain cheap humor.

When it comes to grand, epic moments. Bruckner has Mahler beat quite badly. The ending of Bruckner symphony 4 is only rivaled by the end of Mahlers symphony 2, and I would say the latter is cheapened by the use of choir which I feel does not really fit well into the symphonic format. Mahler uses the choir in quite a few symphonies whereas Bruckner uses them in none, which I really do appreciate. The place for the choir is the opera, not the symphony.

So why is Mahler more popular than Bruckner despite the latter being better overall? I would argue that the one thing Mahler is better at is writing catchier melodies which casual listeners can more easily appreciate. Bruckner is more about the rhythm and counterpoint than melody. And more generally it requires more focus to be able to appreciate Bruckner than Mahler. For example the last movement of Bruckner 5 is a complex double fugue which the untrained listener could not even begin To understand.