Some describe his music as over-embellished, melodramatic and even 'cheap' - and that is a perfectly understandable point of view for one only casually acquainted with Mahler's music - but the music's apparently naively grandiose veneer veils a canon of masterworks that somehow manages to encapsulate the wit of Mozart, the majesty of Beethoven, the tunefulness of Schubert, the grace of Tchaikovsky, the refulgence of Puccini, the irreverence of Berlioz, the delicacy of Mendelssohn, the spontaneity of Dvorak, the passion of Richard Strauss, the playfulness of Ravel, the drama of Verdi, the glitter of Poulenc, the mysticism of Delius, the solemnity of Bruckner, the chromaticism of Wagner and the keen intellect of Schoenberg - the biting sense of humour that pervades his scherzos, the unfathomably deep emotional impact of his adagios, and the towering passions of his other symphonic movements.......all these disparate elements are bound by Mahler's incredible sophistication and all cloaked in bitter irony.

Many see Mahler's death in 1911 as coinciding with the end of Romanticism and the advent of atonalism and all of its experimental offshoots. It's as though the passing of such a revered master of his craft emboldened those around him, such as Schoenberg and the rest of the Second Viennese School to embark on an experiment in 'intellectual' music-making that would gradually submerge the world of 'classical music' composition into a seventy-year depression. With 'intellectual' music replacing 'emotion' in the concert hall, combining with the phenomenal rise of popular music idioms, 'classical music' quickly became marginalized during the 1920s......and to this day, the general public's perception of all 'classical' music has been coloured by the damaging inaccessibility of Schoenberg's twelve-note system and all of its advocates - and this despite Debussy's valiant efforts to evolve into atonalism without abandoning tonality altogether. It was as though anything remotely 'tonal' in music suddenly became anathema, and was regarded by the fashionable intelligentsia as being mawkishly sentimental or frivolous. Don't get me wrong, there is much excellent atonal music, but it is less accessible than tonally based music and my gripe is that atonality in the concert hall almost replaced, rather than complemented tonally based compositions during the 20th century.

Until only recently, when people thought of 'classical music', they either thought of tuneful but old-fashioned music from a bygone age (Mozart, Beethoven et al) or the 'soulless' intellectalizing of the mid-20th century avante garde. The problem is that most people see jazz, rock 'n roll and any other form of 'popular' music as being quite distinct from 'classical' or so-called 'serious' music. The reason for this is simple. With the end of the 'Romantic' tradition at the beginning of the last century, 'orchestral music' ceased to evolve, it merely stagnated and even began to devolve. Up until the beginning of the 20th century each new 'classical' composition from the popular composers of the day, be it Richard Strauss or Elgar, was 'an event' keenly anticipated by the public. With the advent of atonalism and the rise of jazz, classical music ceased to become relevant to the 'masses' and therefore failed to grow and develop with contemporary society. The world moved on leaving classical music languishing in the shadows, surviving only on the continued performance of its vast pool of pre-20th century masterworks. Indeed, by far the most interesting orchestral works of the second half of the 20th century involved jazz and soul artists composing and arranging crossover tracks.

In truth of course, popular music owes a massive debt to classical music and was largely developed from classical forms. Indeed, 'classical music' always had the potential to maintain its popularity and relevance with the bulk of society beyond the early 1900's. Gottschalk was incorporating syncopated rhythm forty years before jazz was invented, and 20th century composers such as Villa-Lobos, Shostakovich, Arnold, Weill, Lehar, Kalman and Gershwin have attempted to bridge the gap between 'serious' music and 'popular' music' with some success. But it didn't quite stick. Classical music as a popular, relevant and accessible art form ceased a century ago and was replaced by jazz and rock 'n roll as the musical idioms closest to the public's heart. It's not surprising that people perceive a yawning chasm between classical/serious music and jazz/rock 'n roll. The ongoing use of romantic music at the cinema has done little to dispel the illusion.

Thankfully, we now live in the Post-Modern age where the 'classical' composers of today are returning to tonality and rediscovering the art of writing music that is emotionally involving and therefore more easily accessible by the average music-lover - Rautavaara's 7th is a good example. This is aligned to the welcomed broadening scope of popular music and its incorporation of all forms of world music and overt recognition and incorporation of classical and jazz forms - jazz and popular musicians continue to incorporate classical music ideas with far greater success than vice versa.

However, as I said a moment ago it must be said that film music has done little or nothing to rejuvenate interest in 'serious' music. Indeed, for many decades it has actually proven to be a major stumbling block in the way of any greater acceptance of serious music. The critics and intelligentsia have merely pointed to film music as being a prime example of 'insipid', old-fashioned and out-moded 'Romantic' music, whereas the public have failed, with only one or two notable film score exceptions to accept film music as anything other than background music. The greater recognition today's film composers are receiving is because society's attitude towards music has become more broad-minded, not necessarily because film composers have actively succeeded in reaching-out to the public, although James Horner and John Williams consistently prove themselves to be the greatest ambassadors for their art.

Korngold is a case in point. A more prodigious musical talent never existed (except Mozart perhaps) - even Mahler called him a genius when he was just a boy, and yet with the death of Romanticism Korngold's so-called conservatism went out of fashion overnight so he sought refuge in the Hollywood movie industry only for his work there to be constantly sniffed at by the world of serious music. When Korngold finally got around to writing his lone symphony just a few years before his death it was too late and nobody really cared.

One of the great benefits of our growing maturity in musical appreciation (from composers, critics and public alike), is the rediscovery of so much wonderful 'Romantic' music composed during the 20th century.

You see, the 'Romantic' movement didn't die with Mahler, it was merely suppressed. The increasing interest in 'late-Romantic' music during the past couple of decades has uncovered a wealth of great 'Romantic' music written just prior to and after Mahler's death. As we know, not only did well-known composers like Elgar, Strauss, Shostakovich, Rachmaninov, Prokofiev, Vaughan Williams, Nielsen and Delius famously continue to successfully write in a richly tonal and often Romantic mode, but so too did a whole raft of lesser known composers such as Arnold Bax and Herbert Howells......men whose work almost disappeared off the face of the planet until the recent revival in interest. Not only that, throughout the age of Serialism, eclipsed English composers such as Edmund Rubbra and Robert Simpson were proving that fantastic 'tonal' music could be written that was neither grandiose nor dripping with sentiment, and nor was it austere in a possibly Stravinskian way. It is only sad that Rubbra did not live to witness the growing appreciation of his symphonic cycle (written between the 1930s and 1980s). And it's great to see Delius's phenomenal 'Mass of Life' getting the recognition it deserves these days - I can thoroughly recommend this pagan choral masterpiece. But all of the accepted and popular 'classical' works after Mahler tended to return to a far less progressive style - in other words, although tonal music continued to be written, all of the famous pieces, such as Prokofiev's 'Romeo and Juliet' were not particularly groundbreaking - this isn't a criticism because I love much of Prokifiev's work, it's just that Mahler's experimentations with expanding the limits of tonality were far from complete when he died - and other composers did take up his mantle.

So what of Mahler's music? All of the great composers of the 20th century I listed above (Vaughan Williams, Rachmaninov etc) continued to write music that was tonal and inventive and yet it was music that did not necessarily strive to break down barriers as Mahler's did. Mahler was keen to develop and exploit tonality to its absolute limits, and had he lived who knows what profound musical treasures he would have gifted us, as his unfinished tenth tantalisingly indicates. Indeed, for all its tonal ambiguity Mahler's later works prove that he had no intention of abandoning tonality all together. But sadly, at the time of his death in 1911, his was the only 'romantic' musical voice breaking new ground (within a 'romantic' context) that also commanded the respect and adoration of 'enfant terribles' such as Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg, thus it seems with Mahler's passing Schoenberg shuffled off the 'tonal' cloak that had distinguished his earlier works. Even Richard Struass tended to retreat into a safer tonal world after his magnum opus, the opera 'Die Frau ohne Schatten'.

But today, as the experiments in atonality and serialism of the mid-20th century continue to be rejected and invalidated by today's more broadminded composers, public and critics, the work of a number of Mahler's contemporaries is rapidly gaining popularity.

The music of late-Romantics such as Josef Suk, Franz Schmidt, Braunfels, Havergal Brian, Alexander Zemlinsky, Alexander Scriabin, Max Reger (though he wouldn't like being referred to as 'romantic'!), Franz Schreker (very much in the Debussy vein of tonal/atonal blending) and Hans Pfitzner are now being rediscovered and appreciated by performers and public hungry for fresh romantic music. All of these men continued the 'Mahler tradition' of the further growth and development of Romantic music (some quite independent of Mahler's influence), and all refused to abandon tonality whilst remaining fervently progressive. And let's not forget Schoenberg's breathtakingly romantic ventures prior to Mahler's death, such as Transfigured Night, Pelleas and Melisande and his simply wonderful Gurrelieder - an astonishing romantic work that itself is rapidly gaining popularity. Many of the best conductors of the day are clamouring to perform it, Rattle did it with the Berliners last year, and it was performed at last year's Proms. It has even been suggested that Schoenberg abandoned tonality because he was hurt by criticism of his Transfigured Night - 'pages from Tristan with the ink smudged' said one critic.

Largely ignored in their day, the work of such late-romantic composers as these is now receiving its just recognition. Though all of them are Mahlerian to varying degrees (in other words, if you like Mahler the chances are you'll like these composers), each has his own voice, and Schmidt for example was openly critical of Mahler's symphonic output. This just goes to show that romanticism cannot be pigeonholed, and illustrates how short-sighted some composers and most critics were to reject Romanticism altogether.

So what of these 'forgotten' romantics? How does their music actually shape up?

Zemlinsky's Lyric Symphony (1923), operas (especially The Dawrf) and orchestral song cycles contain the same beauty and emotional power of Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde and Kindertotenlieder. In addition he wrote numerous other orchestral works such as the tone poem Die Seejungfrau - a Mahlerian masterpiece. Much of his work has recently been released on EMI, conducted by James Conlon. Don't go mad and buy it all - start off with the Lyric Symphony, Die Seejungfrau and the orchestral songs, and see what you think. A warning though, Zemlinsky did brush with atonalism in his later compositions (after 1925) - avoid those at first.

Soon after Franz Schmidt's death in the late 1930s, his music was branded conservative and virtually disappeared from the repertoire outside of Vienna. A Romantic yes, but he was anything but conservative. His four symphonies nicely span his entire composing career, culminating in the magnificently Brucknerian 4th. This symphony is an absolute joy for any lovers of Romantic music. The symphony incorporates all of those elements that fans of Bruckner and Mahler love - achingly beautiful adagios, demonic scherzos and enormously powerful climaxes. Schmidt's final work, a setting of Das Buch mit sieben Siegeln (The Book with seven Seals), for soloists, choir, organ and massive orchestra provides the pinnacle of his achievement. This is a work that is rapidly gaining in popularity, Nicholas Harnoncourt being its latest advocate. The oratorio is one of the last great romantic expressions of religious faith. Rooted in the tradition of Bach, Beethoven, Dvorak and Mahler it may be, but this is tonal music at its most fully mature.

And then there's Josef Suk. His massive Asrael Symphony (The Angel of Death) is as profoundly moving and complex as any Mahler symphony. However, Suk's work isn't burdened with Mahler's neurosis, and much of it is as pure and uncluttered as Bruckner. Check out Kubelik's classic 1981 recording of this romantic masterpiece. Suk followed up the Asrael Symphony with three other works of similarly gigantic proportions - Suk spent much of the rest of his life composing Summer Tale, Ripening and Epilogue - each is a magical work, Epilogue movingly incorporating choir and soloists.

Franz Schreker's remarkably Mahlerian opera 'The Stigmatised Ones' is right up there with the best of late-Romantic extravaganzas. Check out my 'recommended listening' thread for more details of post-Mahler late-Romantic works.

All of the other 'forgotten' composers I've mentioned are there waiting to be discovered, and it is particularly satisfying to witness Korngold's beautifully romantic and Mahlerian symphony finding its way into the repertoire these days whilst much of the tediously atonal and serialist garbage that he vainly fought against throughout his lifetime is properly being discredited.

The idea that 'the masses' are incapable of comprehending 'classical' music is not only elitist it is simply wrong.

You may like to think that you are a member of an exclusive and privileged bracket of society who are the only ones 'capable' of understanding and appreciating 'serious' and 'complex' and 'beautiful' music.....but such a belief does not correspond with reality.

To be honest, I find your apparent dismissal of all forms of popular music just as heinous as the music critics who played such a big part in suppressing the development of Romantic music in the concert hall throughout much of the 20th century.

Much of today's popular music has a sophistication and complexity that is obviously lost on you.

You may feel able to dismiss the 'jack off music critics', but the fact remains that the music critics have historically wielded an enormous amount of power. Indeed, it was the music critics who helped wreck Korngold's reputation as a serious composer when he was working in Hollywood......so I expect he 'cared'.

And what about Sibelius? I can't mention every single 'classical' composer who made an impact during the 20th century. The fact is that whilst Sibelius continued to compose in tonality after Mahler's death, he did not seek to expand the frontiers of Romanticism in the same way Schreker and Zemlinsky did. Indeed, following the onset of throat cancer in 1908 (which deprived the composer of his beloved tobacco and alcohol), Sibelius pared down his orchestration dramatically, and hardly composed anything at all during the final forty years of his life.

I'd just like to take up a couple of points you have made.

I understand what you mean about music's ability to express agenda and emotions......however, I believe there is a place for music that does fly in the face of the Establishment and does bring to the surface deep-seated resentment amongst the population. Music is a powerful political tool, and this aspect of music is a very important part of music's purpose. Think back to Nina Simone in the '60s, revisit Marvin Gaye's seminal 70's album 'What's Going On' and check out Stevie Wonder's early '70s work and you'll find very eloquent political statements backed up by great music.

Okay, so you may think that Punk Rock (especially British Punk) may be lacking in artistic merit, but the very fact that the music (and the messages it comminunicated) struck a chord with so many people is proof enough of the music's artistic merit to my mind. Furthermore, I believe many of today's Rap artists are getting a bad rap, so to speak, usually from the older generation and middle-aged politicians who miss the point of much of the lyrics. When rap stars start banging on about gun culture, they are not necessarily glorifying it, they are merely commenting on society as it is. Rap music didn't create a gun culture, and far from being nihilistic much Rap music provides inspiration and often wry comment. Ironically, Rap itself, as espoused by the likes of Eminem is now considered somewhat passé amongst a large proportion of young people. Eminem has, sadly, been largely responsible for Disneyfying the idiom. As to Hip Hop and the like, I couldn't disagree with you more. There is much impressive Hip Hop out there, especially when fused to other fashionable genres such as Trip Hop. And Trip Hop itself, a musical idiom invented in Bristol, just a few miles down the road from where I live is one of my favourite forms of music at the moment......a quick glance at my 'recommended listening' thread will illustrate this.

I wasn't confusing elitism with snobbery......you can have snobbish elitists, you know. And classical music is not elitist. The ability to appreciate and comprehend 'complex', 'beautiful' and 'serious' music is in each and every one of us. Mario Lanza started life as a furniture remover.....what does that tell you? I've been a garbage man all my life, but I feel able to enjoy and appreciate (to varying degrees) a whole range of music, some of which is fairly complex, such as Berg's 'difficult' violin concerto. No, you cannot pigeonhole people in this way. Doubtless there are many brain surgeons and stock market wizards out there who have no interest in classical music whatsoever.

The reason why I'm writing these posts is to hopefully spread awareness of some of the music that means so much to me.....I'm not directing these posts at a specific audience, which is partly why I have placed an emphasis on 'crossover' works at my recommended listening thread.

Your attitude towards music critics is very healthy and laudable. However, many composers have been hurt and hurt badly by the power of the critics. In turn the listening public has been deprived of much great music that remained locked away in the composer's critic-stifled imagination.

Korngold was forced to flee Europe mainly because of anti-Semitism......yes, he impacted on the film world in a big and positive way, but one only has to listen to his opera 'The Miracle of Heliane' to realise the true potential of his genius that was never fully realised in movies. By the time he returned to Vienna in 1949, Korngold was as much disparaged by critics for his involvement in cinema as he was for the so-called 'old-fashioned' romanticism of his music.

I've seen plenty of adverts for James Horner's Titanic music as well as Howard Shore's symphonic work on the Tolkien epics. However, I concede that these instances are unusual......but so what? Yes, the target demograph may be young adults, but what is wrong with that? You yourself have recognised that Romantic music is back in fashion.......and it's not as if 'orchestral' music at the cinema or elsewhere is dying. Soundtracks still feature prominent orchestral elements, and many of today's finest jazz and popular musicians are utilising both electronics and acoustic instrumentation, from solo guitar to full symphony orchestras. Again, take a look at my recommended listening thread for details of such crossover projects. Bob Belden's 'Black Dahlia', for instance, is a prime example of a new composition written for jazz soloists and orchestra......the results are spellbinding.

And in the world of 'serious' music, composers such as Ades, Torke, Turnage, MacMillan, Maw, Lindeberg, Ruders and Tavener are freely incorporating Romantic expressiveness into their music. Indeed, the very boundaries between musical idioms are once again becoming less and less distinct.