# I just don't 'get' Brahms



## Ravellian

Whenever I try to play or listen to a large-scale Brahms piece, it just sounds like one meaningless figuration after another. There's no feeling. There's no substance. There are very few memorable melodies. It's like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important. Yes there may be a very logical, well-thought-out structure behind everything, but the details of the music itself have a complete lack of appeal to me.

I get absolutely nothing from his symphonies, chamber pieces, sonatas, and concerti. The only pieces I've heard from him that I like are the smaller-scale piano intermezzi.

It surprises me that I haven't been able to enjoy Brahms, since I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, and other composers of large-scale works. If you like Brahms, then why??


----------



## Conor71

It took me a while to get to grips with Brahms music, but not excessively long I guess .
The obvious questions first are which pieces and recordings have you been listening to specifically?.
Brahms is a composer worth getting to know I think - His finest pieces for me are the Violin Concerto (Jury's still out on the Piano Concerti although I am not totally unconvinced), Clarinet Quintet, String Quartets, Violin Sonatas and Symphony No. 3.
I dont have a WHOLE ot of Brahms when I think about it really but I do really enjoy what I have now.
Some recordings I could recommend if you want to keep trying:

























Also check out the Alto Rhapsody too and the Deutsches requiem - sublime! .


----------



## Ukko

Ravellian said:


> I get absolutely nothing from his symphonies, chamber pieces, sonatas, and concerti. The only pieces I've heard from him that I like are the smaller-scale piano intermezzi.
> 
> It surprises me that I haven't been able to enjoy Brahms, since I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, and other composers of large-scale works. If you like Brahms, then why??


You don't mention Schumann; their modus operandi are different, but there are similarities in moods evoked. That 'mood language' is present in some of the Brahms intermezzi.

If you enjoy mid-to-late Beethoven, you should find connections in Brahms' 1st symphony.

Brahms' melodies tend to track differently than 'standard practice'. They start out normal enough, but then head off on an oblique; It maybe takes some getting used to.

BTW (and irrelevant) I can not tolerate Wagner's orchestral music.


----------



## World Violist

You might actually want to try some smaller-scale recordings of Brahms' symphonies. I generally used to find Brahms' music somewhat silly, mushy, dark, and also without much inspiration. However, after hearing some chamber orchestral recordings (especially the HIP guys' recordings, much to my surprise), I had this feeling of something immense and ingenious being hidden under the surface, which had been covered by the grime of earlier practice (Karajan, Bernstein, etc.). The earlier recordings don't offer nearly enough detail to flesh out the entirely of Brahms' vision is the problem.

Favorite recordings of Brahms' orchestral music that I've heard so far:

German Requiem - Philippe Herreweghe (Harmonia Mundi), possibly the single most revelatory experience I've had with Brahms. Clarity does not get in the way of the emotions in this work; indeed, they come through like never before, and it's unforgettable.

As for the symphonies, I haven't listened to any complete symphony under John Eliot Gardiner, but I've heard bits of them, and they're truly remarkable. Every preconceived notion I had about Brahms in general was blown out the window by the first three minutes of the second symphony conducted by JEG. Plus, the packaging is apparently exceedingly nice.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Personally, I am a sworn Wagnerian... but I greatly admire Brahms... and find much of his music marvelous. While his German Requiem may be his greatest work and his symphonies are magnificent, I would suggest his chamber music as the core of his oeuvre (and I say this as someone for whom chamber music is not near the top of my listening rotation). I would agree with Conor71's suggestion of his violin sonatas and his clarinet quintet. To this I would add his clarinet trio and clarinet sonatas, the piano trios, quartets, and quintets, the cello sonatas, the string quartets, and certainly the piano concertos... but also his pieces for solo piano and his lieder.


----------



## Guest

For me, the work that sold me on Brahms was his first piano trio. The Beaux Arts Trio does a wonderful job with this piece, but I actually prefer this recording:









After that, it would have to be the Deutsches Requiem (German Requiem). There are two recordings I enjoy greatly for this:

















The recommendations for the violin concerto and violin sonatas are also excellent. I don't care much for the other large orchestral works (piano concerti and symphonies), and find that Brahms, for me, excels in the chamber works.


----------



## Sid James

If you want to get to grips with Brahms I'd suggest the same thing as with any music - go to see it live. If that is feasible and within your means, it's probably the best thing to do. I have been getting back into concert-going after a decade's hiatus, and have been surprised at how much I like composer's music who I had kind of dismissed in the past - with you it's Brahms, with me it was Chopin (& to a lesser extent, Ravel). I think that to appreciate these guy's music to the max, it's best to get a few good recordings, familiarise yourself with the repertoire, and then go to a few concerts. Doesn't really matter who is playing, it doesn't have to be a "big name" performer, just seeing & hearing the music done live is an experience in itself. The thing that I was most surprised with when seeing the orchestral music of Beethoven & Brahms done live is how loud and almost dissonant parts of them are. It all gets smoothed over and condensed on a cd, but live you hear the music, warts and all so to speak...


----------



## Weston

I think it was his 1st Symphony, being a sort of homage to Beethoven, that got me first hooked. I have a little trouble with his piano music. I find it bottom heavy and therefore muddy, though I do appreciate the motivic acrobatics and polyrhythms.

But now if I were really trying to sell Brahms' music, I'd start with the String Sextet No. 1:


----------



## Delicious Manager

I too struggle with a lot of Brahms. His problem was that he was a Classical-period composer born into the Romantic era. Also, he developed this fixation with the past (in particular, Beethoven) which, to my ears, prevented him from giving full rein to his obvious mastery as a composer. I find his earlier (pre-Beethoven obsession) works far better, such as the First Piano Concerto, the String Sextet, the two Serenades for orchestra, the first two Piano Quartets, the Piano Quintet and some of his earlier piano music.

The German Requiem bores me to tears (even live), but his symphonies contain some marvellous things. However, they can easily sound turgid and uninspired in the wrong hands. Try Charles Mackerras's recordings with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra - he plays them with a large-ish chamber orchestra of the size Brahms would have been writing for in Meiningen. They gain so much clarity and 'air' - especially in interpretations as faithful and unfussy as Mackerass's.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I think with Brahms' orchestral music, the conductor should keep the sound lean and brisk. (Gut strung string instruments do a great job for that, which Brahms would have conducted, for example). Otherwise, played by old school grand maestros, these become a bore. Several members have already mentioned this above.

Overall, his chamber music does much better for me.


----------



## GraemeG

Brahms' orchestral works should also be played with the fiddles divided across the podium; ie. compared to the 'majority view' these days, the cellos+basses should swap places with the 2nd violins.
That's how he wrote.
Baffles me that anyone who likes Beethoven can't find good things to say about Brahms 1.
cheers,
G


----------



## Aramis

My relationship with Brahms had it crisis when I got bored with his orchestral works. His symphonies and concertos still happen to bore me. 

The cure was to dig more of his chamber music. It lacks all those things that made his orchestral stuff unlistenable for me.

And I don't mean solo piano music and violin sonatas. Listen to his strung quartets (or quintets like Weston suggested), clarinet quintet (I guess you already know this one), piano quintets and horn trio.

If after this you will still dislike him then nothing else can be done.


----------



## Ravellian

Hilltroll72 said:


> You don't mention Schumann; their modus operandi are different, but there are similarities in moods evoked. That 'mood language' is present in some of the Brahms intermezzi.
> 
> If you enjoy mid-to-late Beethoven, you should find connections in Brahms' 1st symphony.
> 
> Brahms' melodies tend to track differently than 'standard practice'. They start out normal enough, but then head off on an oblique; It maybe takes some getting used to.
> 
> BTW (and irrelevant) I can not tolerate Wagner's orchestral music.


Interesting you say that, because I rather dislike Schumann as well. His piano miniatures lack the same kind of Chopinesque appeal I've come to expect.. and the piano is simply not the best instrument for making musical characterizations. That's what orchestration is for!


----------



## Romantic Geek

Ravellian said:


> Whenever I try to play or listen to a large-scale Brahms piece, it just sounds like one meaningless figuration after another. There's no feeling. There's no substance. There are very few memorable melodies. It's like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important. Yes there may be a very logical, well-thought-out structure behind everything, but the details of the music itself have a complete lack of appeal to me.


I have to disagree with every single point here. ESPECIALLY on substance. Brahms was the single greatest composer when it came to motivic expansion in the CPE (much helped by also having the most expansive music library at his time.) He could take a half measure segment and turn it into a 4 minute piece (see his piano pieces.)

My suggestion, if you like the intermezzi (and I just don't know how you can say anything bad of Brahms after listening to Op. 118/2) start with the rhapsodies. I think then it will be easier to bridge from the rhapsodies (which are very formulaic) to his other sonata form pieces (symphonies, etc.)

Personally, I haven't gotten into Brahms 1 and Brahms 2, but 3 and 4 are masterpieces. Particularly, the middle movements in 3 and the outer movements in 4...a fantastic collection. I have the complete symphonies on Deutsche Grammaphone with Eugene Jochem conducting. It took me a while to warm up to his interpretation of Brahms 4, but now I don't think I would want to hear it another way. If you want to find emotion in Brahms' pieces, I think Jochem does a mighty fine job in doing so.

I don't mean to come off as rude. I just personally cannot picture how my awe for music would be formed without Brahms much like others with Bach and Beethoven. All I have to say is try, try again. His writing is somewhat unconventional at times -- but if you dive into the scores, you'll find there is usually some motivic reason as to why things are notated as such.


----------



## superhorn

Try the two sereandes for orchestra, early works which are unfortunately not performed nearly as often as his symphonies,concertos etc. 
They are lighter and more relaxed, and not at all lacking in melody. The first is in D major and the second in A major. The second is written for a rather small orchestra without violins curiously.
Even confirmed Brahms haters often find these two works highly appealing. 
The Telarc CD with both of them led by the late,great Sir Chalres Mackerras with the Scottish Chamber orchestra is superb. Do try it. Othe rconductors who have made fine recordings of them include Jiri Belohlavek, Istvan Kertesz, and Sir Adrian Boult. 
Keep listening to the Brahms symphonies and concertos etc, and they just might click with you.
There are so many works which I now love which I just didn't get until I gave them repeated hearings on recordings.


----------



## Lukecash12

> It surprises me that I haven't been able to enjoy Brahms, since I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, and other composers of large-scale works. If you like Brahms, then why??


This is most likely because you like dramatic instrumentation and musical effects in general, I think? The composers you listed were obsessed with arrangement, voicing, and orchestration in general, so sadly these wonderful composers do end up only truly appealing to something of an "in-crowd". All one can ask is that you don't give up on these composers that are so sentimental to us.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I like Brahms because he is so unpretentious. He's not trying to save the world, or even make a name for himself. He just wanted to make great music!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I couldn't care less whether the composer were the biggest, egotistical ******* who ever lived... it's the music that counts. That's why I probably prefer Wagner to Brahms.

By the way... Brahms was quite skillful at being a pretentious ******* himself... especially if asked to comment on any music that leaned toward the Wagnerian.


----------



## Air

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I couldn't care less whether the composer were the biggest, egotistical ******* who ever lived... it's the music that counts. That's why I probably prefer Wagner to Brahms.
> 
> By the way... Brahms was quite skillful at being a pretentious ******* himself... especially if asked to comment on any music that leaned toward the Wagnerian.


When did personality come into this debate? 

I think Huilunsoittaja was talking more of the music than the man himself.


----------



## Air

For me, Fritz Reiner's recording of the 4th Symphony with the RPO is second to none. Clean and crisp, it lacks no drama either, and the sound of the recording is particularly warm. No sluggishness here, definitely.

What is your opinion of his other piano works besides the Intermezzi and Sonatas, such as the three sets of Variations, the Ballades, and the later piano works (op. 116-119)?

I urge you to not give up Brahms, nor on Schumann either.


----------



## ElgarJim

It's ok not to like Brahms! I love it but how can this be explained. Enjoy your other music. brahms may come back and surprise you some day!


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Air said:


> When did personality come into this debate?
> 
> I think Huilunsoittaja was talking more of the music than the man himself.


That is true. There are a lot of pretentiously-acting composers who made unpretentious music, and vice versa. For me, Brahms' music feels completely at ease, and that's probably because of his abstract opinion on music. He was only interested in things like form, melody, etc., not some deep message or huge expression of emotion. And yet, wonderful emotion/expression comes from his music anyway, without him even _trying_! Brahms isn't unemotional for me.

I dislike composers that try to rip emotions out of themselves too much. It starts to sound insincere.


----------



## Ravellian

I do not find any emotion in Brahm's large-scale works. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it had other redeeming qualities.. Haydn's works are usually unemotional but witty, humorous and inventive; Mozart sometimes lacked emotion in his instrumental work but always made up for it with beautiful or catchy melodies. To me, Brahms seems to lack both a degree of humor/wit and consistent melodic charm. It's big, extended music, sometimes grandly conceived, but with nothing extraordinary about it. Listening to his Ballade No. 4, for example, the melody just sounds like a series of notes chosen for their individual consonance with the underlying harmony.

I actually like his Variations on Schumann, probably because it's not a Brahms melody. The Brahms Sonatas and Rhapsodies I found generally heavy and unpleasant and lacking any genuinely beautiful moments.


----------



## Very Senior Member

It seems like only yesterday that this Board was awash with commendatory remarks about Brahms. I'm thinking about THIS thread in particular where most of T-C's "regulars" lined up to pay their respects. I see that the last post on that thread was quite recent. The negative comments expressed at the beginning of this thread would look very funny indeed if they had been tagged onto the end of the previous thread referred to.

I would only say that from my experience it normally takes time for people to come to terms with Brahms, and I reckon that many people here have only just started, relatively speaking. OK, one gets the odd exception where someone may cotton on quite quickly to Brahms' mastery, but I would suggest that he is not usually among the first bunch of top flight composers that people become attached to. For my part, I love Brahms and rate him above his broad contemporary, Wagner.


----------



## Webernite

Ravellian said:


> I do not find any emotion in Brahm's large-scale works. This wouldn't be a bad thing if it had other redeeming qualities.. Haydn's works are usually unemotional but witty, humorous and inventive; Mozart sometimes lacked emotion in his instrumental work but always made up for it with beautiful or catchy melodies. To me, Brahms seems to lack both a degree of humor/wit and consistent melodic charm. It's big, extended music, sometimes grandly conceived, but with nothing extraordinary about it. Listening to his Ballade No. 4, for example, the melody just sounds like a series of notes chosen for their individual consonance with the underlying harmony.
> 
> I actually like his Variations on Schumann, probably because it's not a Brahms melody. The Brahms Sonatas and Rhapsodies I found generally heavy and unpleasant and lacking any genuinely beautiful moments.


I'm confused. Are you sure you mean "large-scale" works?


----------



## Il Seraglio

I loved Brahms' string quartets and violin sonatas almost instantly. The Double Concerto took a couple of listens, but it's beautiful and my favourite of his 'large scale' works, not to mention an awesome virtuoso showpiece.

The clarinet quintet and his symphonies leave me cold, sadly.


----------



## Xaltotun

As a newbie to classical music (with now a couple of months of intense listening), Brahms was one of the first composers that I "got". I still struggle with many (Sibelius, Mahler, early Beethoven, etc etc), but Brahms clicked with me immediately. 

His first symphony is the most perfect classical composition that I've ever heard - no other piece pleases my ear as much. It addresses both the mind and the heart, without being corny or sentimental. It has this feeling of enormous struggle, a heroic wrestling match against the Titans. It seems to be about Life and Art in general - a very "existential" feeling. In the beginning, an individual is in conflict with society, and tries hard to find a channel for expression - in other words, a means how to be himself. He is almost crushed by the struggle, because he is determined not to give up. He is alienated, but then finds solace in Nature, finds a sense of belonging, and finally accepts the World as it is, with all its problems and suffering, finding happiness despite of these things.

Romantic heroism at its best, I think! Well, those are just some of the thoughts that begin to drift in my head whenever I hear this piece. If I had to describe it in one word, it would be "profound". The opposite of emptiness and meaninglessness. I have heard all his other symphonies a couple of times as well, and while I like them, they do not make me feel the same way - yet.

I like his other works, too - like his first and second piano concertos. In these works, I can hear some of the same things that attract me in the first symphony: precision, emotion. These things heighten each other. The precision forces emotion to a certain form, and on the surface seems to restrict it - but really, it makes the emotion all the more blazing. Just think of all those costume dramas about women in old Europe and their repressed emotions. This sort of gives Brahms' music a feminine feel. He isn't just out there to blaze and blast like a man - he has all this masculine power, certainly, but he chooses to tie the power down and lets it thrash its fury in the iron chains. He is both feminine and masculine at the same time (which is very important for any artist).

One more thing that I could mention: the way he writes melodies is interesting. I often expect a note, but Brahms does not give me that note, he gives something else. And, while being surprising, it gives a feeling that this surprising note is actually even better than the easy, pleasing note that I imagined in my head. It is even more pleasurable. Sort of like, while caramel fudge is good and immediate, dark chocolate is more pleasurable in the long run. And it also underlines that feeling of being restricted and tied down that I wrote about.

Again, I apologise for not talking like a musician, I would if I could. But because I am not, I have to try to find other ways of expressing myself.


----------



## Ukko

Xaltotun said:


> As a newbie to classical music (with now a couple of months of intense listening), Brahms was one of the first composers that I "got". I still struggle with many (Sibelius, Mahler, early Beethoven, etc etc), but Brahms clicked with me immediately.


I have quoted just enough to show _who_ I am quoting.

You have expressed (quite well) one of the most important and attractive things about non-vocal classical music: its potential for emotional feedback to the rational brain, and what the brain does with it.

Your particular rationalizations gained from Brahms' 1st symphony may not occur to anyone else who hears it (certainly not Ravelian), but they are as valid, as 'true' as anybody's. Sometime when the appropriate occasion arises, I may tell you about what I 'hear' in Bartók's Concerto For Orchestra.

BTW Sibelius' symphonies, Nos. 2, 3 and 4 anyway, seem to me to present a wilderness environment - first a wide view, perhaps from above - and then gradually brings me into that environment with increasing intimacy; temperature, scents, etc. Stuff happens, and I am affected. No particular reason that should work for you, but ... who knows.


----------



## Xaltotun

That was extremely encouraging. Thank you kindly, Hilltroll72! Sibelius is one of those composers that I'd really, really like to learn to understand, and I'll keep your words in mind.


----------



## Ukko

Xaltotun said:


> That was extremely encouraging. Thank you kindly, Hilltroll72! Sibelius is one of those composers that I'd really, really like to learn to understand, and I'll keep your words in mind.


You are welcome. I don't want to run on here, but 'understanding' doesn't quite fit the situation. It suggests an active cognition, and that isn't what needs to happen for Sibelius' symphonies and tone poems to cause sympathetic vibrations in your mind. Straining at it is not going to work; let the music in, let it move around in your head and find connections.

?? I may be getting in trouble with mods here, but a couple tokes of cannabis sometimes opens channels that were clogged with the day's cares. I t helped me, once upon a time.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I myself had initial difficulty with Brahms' orchestral works - my early impressions were that most of them were too stodgy and lacked both the 'spring in the step' that endeared me to other romantic orchestral works of Dvorak and Mendelssohn and also the emotional power which was infused into those of Berlioz and Bruckner. The rewards did come for me by slowly peeling away at the layers but even now my favourite works of his are predominantly of the chamber variety - some of the later ones such as the clarinet quintet and string quintets seemed to completely bring out the best in him. Perhaps the fact that he wrote far more chamber and piano works than orchestral ones is an indication that he felt more comfortable composing for smaller forces.


----------



## scytheavatar

I think the biggest problem of Brahms is usually the conductor; because Brahms is seen by many as the quintessential romantic era composer far too many conductors feel the need to make Brahms as heavy as possible; that makes music which can be draggy at times feel even more draggy. I highly recommend that you grab a copy of Abbado's Brahms symphony cycle; I never truly appreciate Brahms until I heard Abbado's take. He is usually reference class in any orchastral work he does, but I think his Brahms is a strong contender for the best he has ever recorded:

http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Sympho...12V3/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286160116&sr=8-1


----------



## Xaltotun

scytheavatar,

many thanks for your recommendation of Claudio Abbado! I just listened to his Brahms 1 on Spotify, and it was wonderful. Much "lighter" than any other version I've heard, but awesome in its own way. Sure it lacks the "dark thunder" of for example Barenboim's version, but it's something else entirely - I was reminded of Mozart's symphony 41 and its luminous, unstoppable power.


----------



## Bbarbara

I just now joined this site. I've had very few friends, over my lifetime, with whom I could talk about music. (The people I know all seem to prefer Rock 'n Roll.) So I was astounded to see this post (the first I've read on this site) that contains less than positive comments about Brahms. I remember that as a child I found Brahms to be one of the most delightful composers to listen to...really accessible and lovely at time when I was too young to appreciate Bach. In Brahms I hear romantic melodies much like Schubert, Strauss, Borodin...Try the horn trio..It's just full of passion, dialogue and development.


----------



## Ukko

*Mileages vary*



Bbarbara said:


> I just now joined this site. I've had very few friends, over my lifetime, with whom I could talk about music. (The people I know all seem to prefer Rock 'n Roll.) So I was astounded to see this post (the first I've read on this site) that contains less than positive comments about Brahms. I remember that as a child I found Brahms to be one of the most delightful composers to listen to...really accessible and lovely at time when I was too young to appreciate Bach. In Brahms I hear romantic melodies much like Schubert, Strauss, Borodin...Try the horn trio..It's just full of passion, dialogue and development.


That dearth of discussion re classical music is common out here in the sticks; is why we talk to ourselves.

The OP (Ravelian) expresses a big preference for Chopin's music, which as you know puts the melody on top, and focuses on what the piano can make of it. Brahms' orchestral music has other aims, some of which you mention. His 'romantic' melodies may start like those of the composers you mention, but they almost never go where they 'are supposed to'. Some melody-focused listeners can be frustrated by this contrariness.


----------



## motpasm23

I can't stand Brahms. A former music professor of mine told me that Benjamin Britten became "nauseated" looking at Brahms score so I was in good company, but I've never been able to find that referenced anywhere else. This was after we had to study the first movement of Brahms 2, I believe, and I wanted really badly to like it. But reading the score was beyond dull and listening to it was so painful I couldn't bear listening past the exposition. I was told I'd eventually like him but...I don't see it happening anytime soon. I like his Violin Concerto all right, but everything else I've heard I just can't stand. No need to like everyone.


----------



## TresPicos

I also have a hard time appreciating Brahms. I always get the feeling that his works are twice as long and twice as dense as they should have been. 

To me, Brahms pieces are like towering impenetrable walls, so I tend not to engage in them anymore. Like someone wrote earlier, it's "like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important". 

But to be fair, I prefer the Classic and Modern eras. Romanticism is not really my cup of tea. I like bits here and there, like Schubert, Chopin and the symphonies of Dvorak, but I don't get Schumann, Liszt, Bruckner or Wagner or other stuff by Dvorak.


----------



## Norse

I can see how Brahms can have this "dusty" quality that turn some people off. I can feel that way myself sometimes. On the other hand, if I were to make a list of my top ten works, there's a good chance three of them would be by Brahms; the Requiem and both of the piano concertos. So I can hardly say I dislike Brahms. I also like some of the piano music and chamber works. Of the symphonies, the first and fourth are the ones I at least so far have a real "relationship" to.. (I'm not sure I've given the two in the middle a "fair chance" yet..)


----------



## science

I enjoyed reading over this old discussion (sorry to bump the old thread, but it was still on the first page at least) because recently I've heard a lot of discussion about this, and I fall on the side of being stunned that it is possible not to enjoy Brahms. He has wonderful, powerful, moving works in every genre except maybe songs. Yes, he's always a bit dark, but not everyone can be Satie. 

(I don't mind Satie. Just saying.) 

Anyone suffering from not getting Brahms, here is a the medicine:

- hear the violin sonatas (Perlman/Ashkenazy on EMI GROC, pictured in the 2nd post) 
- hear the cello sonatas (bothDu Pre/Barenboim or Rostropovich/Serkin are wonderful)
- hear the piano trios (as someone said above, Katchen/Suk/Starker is a good choice, and so are the Beaux Arts)
- hear the clarinet music 
- hear the piano quintet
- hear the sextets (for the last three, the Amadeus Quartet has a small box on DG that also includes the string quartets; a good deal) 
- hear Symphony #1 (Karajan's from the 1970s is my favorite, but there are many good ones)
- hear the piano concertos (Gilels/Jochum is good; I don't have the one yet that won a Grammy a couple years ago)
- hear the violin concerto (Joshua Bell is my first choice, but others are fine too) 
- hear the double concerto (the EMI GROC is the only good one I have, but I'd guess others are good too) 
- hear the German Requiem (Klemperer on EMI GROC is a great choice) 

Repeat that process about five times, and you'll find yourself loving Brahms. After Beethoven, my favorite composer.


----------



## Bobotox

Brahms is ok. His contemporary Joachim Raff is far more engaging and wrote way better music.


----------



## Webernite

Bobotox said:


> Brahms is ok. His contemporary Joachim Raff is far more engaging and wrote way better music.


Everything I have heard of Raff's seems absurdly lightweight next to Brahms. There are moments that sound more like Haydn than the work of a Late Romantic composer. I don't deny that Raff wrote some very good and enjoyable music, but Brahms always comes across as a thousand times more sophisticated.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*mmm...Martin write the simplest answer!*

I will!

I like Brahms,
I am not stupid!

Bravo Martin, that was cool!!!!!!!

Martin saying bravo to Martin

:lol:


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*no hay...*

No hay respuestas estúpidas, solamente pregunstas estúpidas.

Martin


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

myaskovsky2002 said:


> martin saying bravo to martin


wooooooooow.


----------



## scytheavatar

If Tchaikovsky couldn't learn to like Brahms I don't see why everyone has to like Brahms. Many people dislike the music of Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Mozart, Schubert, Mahler etc too, and they are no less a great composer than Brahms. Then there are some who just flat out hate any music from the romantic period. It's all about how we define good music, and to many people the music of Brahms is just too long winded and meandering to interest them.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

Brahms (like Bruckner) has a deep center of gravitas.

Most people perfer light frivolity over heavy gravitas.

It hurts so much to think.


----------



## Webernite

The real problem with Brahms, I think, is not that his music is "boring" - i.e. that nothing exciting happens. The problem is that he was basically avant-garde. Although his music is old-fashioned harmonically, it's full of unpredictable turns, rhythmic syncopations, weird sudden outbursts and weird chord progressions. Much of it, as the musicologist Charles Rosen has pointed out, is also deliberately uncomfortable to play. The result is that nearly everything he wrote has a straitjacketed quality, which I can't quite describe. It's as though there's a conflict between the classical and modernist tendencies in his music. 

I can only think of one other pre-20th century composer whose music does such bizarre and seemingly arbitrary things, and that is C. P. E. Bach, particularly in his fortepiano works. In both cases, the music is not boring, but can be disconcerting.


----------



## Ukko

Except for your usage of 'weird' and 'straitjacketed', I agree with you about Brahms' music. Well, the 'conflict' thing is dubious too. And C.P.E.'s music was a shrugging off of what he felt was the Baroque 'straitjacket', whereas Brahms was only exerting some Classical control on Romanticism.

I'm pretty sure I agreed with _something_ you wrote.


----------



## Webernite

Don't get me wrong, I love many of Brahms' works. But I can understand why so many people struggle with him.


----------



## Eusebius12

World Violist said:


> As for the symphonies, I haven't listened to any complete symphony under John Eliot Gardiner, but I've heard bits of them, and they're truly remarkable. Every preconceived notion I had about Brahms in general was blown out the window by the first three minutes of the second symphony conducted by JEG. Plus, the packaging is apparently exceedingly nice.


JEG is the maestro of our generation, everything he does is to a greater or lesser degree, revelatory e.g. his Schumann symphonies blow the rest of the competition out of the water (as, on the whole, do his Bach cantatas)


----------



## Eusebius12

Schumann's music is not about 'making characterizations', despite whatever musicologists in their long (and often tedious) monologues might tell you. They are less characteristic than Debussy's preludes, who characteristically placed the titles *after* the music, demonstrating their relative (lack of) importance. The music itself stands scrutiny, and has the grandeur and visionary quality of Beethoven (at its best, viz. the Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, the Symphonic Etudes, the Davidsbuendlertaenze) with something very nearly approaching the lyricism and pianistic fitness of Chopin (and no-one equals the pianistic fitness of Chopin). For me, the medium is unimportant, indeed the lushness and somtime lack of subtlety in orchestral music make me a tad suspicious. Notwithstanding 'mediums' (I don't like to waste my money and don't really rate Menotti) I am an avid proponent of the contention that the lieder and piano music of Schumann are 2 colossal peaks in the history of music.
By the same token, I must acknowledge also that Brahms' chamber music is his finest contribution and contain works of great mastery and beauty, and are the summit of his output (much much finer than his orchestral works, although I deeply admire his sym. 4). The piano quintet is the finest of its type IMO, a work of mystery, rich lyricism and translucent beauty. The Clarinet Quintet is fairly universally loved, and I also really admire the 3rd Piano Trio with its restless, passionate declamatory exposions. Several others of his chamber works easily fit the descriptor 'great'


----------



## Eusebius12

I don't get this analogy, at all. In any case, CPE Bach's unpredictability can become a little, well predictable.


----------



## Webernite

I suppose what I am referring to was quite well expressed by Tchaikovsky in one of his letters:

"[Brahms's] musical thoughts are never spoken out to their conclusion; no sooner has one heard a suggestion of a melodic form that can be easily appreciated, than the latter has already sunk into a whirlpool of meaningless harmonic progressions and modulations. ... what he does is precisely to tease and irritate one's musical feeling."

If you really love Brahms, you won't agree with this. You might not even understand what Tchaikovsky's getting at, but the fact is that many people _will_ understand it, because many people find Brahms impossible to like for these very reasons. As I have said, I myself do like Brahms. He's one of my favorite composers. But I still understand what Tchaikovsky means here, and I can think of a number of examples.

Take a famous work like the Clarinet Quintet. Within the first ten seconds of the first movement, before the violins have even done stating the theme, a viola enters and changes the character of the music. It is a genius idea, but also for some people a subconsciously irritating one:






And musical devices like this are used repeatedly throughout nearly every piece of music that Brahms wrote.


----------



## Ukko

Webernite said:


> I suppose what I am referring to was quite well expressed by Tchaikovsky in one of his letters:
> 
> "[Brahms's] musical thoughts are never spoken out to their conclusion; no sooner has one heard a suggestion of a melodic form that can be easily appreciated, than the latter has already sunk into a whirlpool of meaningless harmonic progressions and modulations. ... what he does is precisely to tease and irritate one's musical feeling."


Except that what Tchaikovsky hears as "whirlpool" is not meaningless, and The "musical thought" is often carried _almost_ to conclusion. That Tchaikovsky doesn't get the point of all this is evidenced by how he tends to drag his own 'musical thoughts' out to tedious length, as in his 4th symphony. That pizzicato seems to go on forever.


----------



## Webernite

Hilltroll72 said:


> Except that what Tchaikovsky hears as "whirlpool" is not meaningless, and The "musical thought" is often carried _almost_ to conclusion. That Tchaikovsky doesn't get the point of all this is evidenced by how he tends to drag his own 'musical thoughts' out to tedious length, as in his 4th symphony.


Well, I agree. It's not meaningless, and can be enjoyed. But nevertheless not everyone does enjoy it, especially on their first try. _That's_ my point.


----------



## Ukko

Webernite said:


> Well, I agree. It's not meaningless, and can be enjoyed. But nevertheless not everyone does enjoy it, especially on their first try. _That's_ my point.


And now, if the doubters read our posts in the aggregate, they will understand Brahms' genius, and enrich their lives. We have accomplished a fine thing, Webernite.


----------



## Webernite

Perhaps Tchaikovsky is reading this from up above.


----------



## Eusebius12

Hilltroll72 said:


> Except that what Tchaikovsky hears as "whirlpool" is not meaningless, and The "musical thought" is often carried _almost_ to conclusion. That Tchaikovsky doesn't get the point of all this is evidenced by how he tends to drag his own 'musical thoughts' out to tedious length, as in his 4th symphony. That pizzicato seems to go on forever.


Yes, Brahms is often a composer of understatement, at least in the exploitation of his themes, which are used with prodigality, whereas Tchaikovsky is often overblown (not just in his worrying of the themes themselves, but also the emotional content- at times Brahms and Tchaikovsky have this in common  ). 
Although I don't agree with PIT here (but I do understand where he is coming from, from my POV Brahms often fails to take wing and soar as he perhaps could, he becomes narrow unlike the Aufschwung one often experiences in Schumann, but that is just Brahms) I feel more sympathy with his statement regarding the Brahms vc, which he likens to pedestals on pedestals, without a statue, each grand statement leading to another grand statement, with no real climax. That is one work in Brahms where I feel style (and 'substance') is a cover for content, to a degree (although the slow movt is lovely). On the whole though, I find many of Brahms works cherishable (although not so much the symphonies, except for the 4th and to a lesser extent, the 3rd).


----------



## Xaltotun

Intermission: musical newbie comments on his new findings.

I've been digging into Brahms' Piano Concertos 1 and 2 more heavily recently, and I'll just have to say that those two are such massive and monumental human achievements, that I sort of wonder how Reality can support their metaphysical weight at all without cracking.

It's hard to believe such awe-inspiring music can even exist. I feel both extremely small and insignificant, and strangely, almost quasi-divinely empowered, when I'm listening to them. 

Intermission over. Carry on.


----------



## Musobooks

*#Metoo*



Xaltotun said:


> Intermission: musical newbie comments on his new findings.
> 
> I've been digging into Brahms' Piano Concertos 1 and 2 more heavily recently, and I'll just have to say that those two are such massive and monumental human achievements, that I sort of wonder how Reality can support their metaphysical weight at all without cracking.
> 
> It's hard to believe such awe-inspiring music can even exist. I feel both extremely small and insignificant, and strangely, almost quasi-divinely empowered, when I'm listening to them.
> 
> Intermission over. Carry on.


I found this forum after Googling "Why don't I like Brahms?"

For me, Brahms is the Pink Floyd of Classical music. I'm going to hazard a guess that most Brahms lovers don't have much time for Stravinsky, Britten, Copland, James Macmillan, Jazz or rock music.

As somebody above said, "you don't have to like Brahms". Neither do you have to like Stravinsky. But I would sooner send a Classical music newbie to Stravinsky than Brahms!


----------



## Ingélou

Musobooks said:


> I found this forum after Googling "Why don't I like Brahms?"
> 
> For me, Brahms is the Pink Floyd of Classical music. I'm going to hazard a guess that most Brahms lovers don't have much time for Stravinsky, Britten, Copland, James Macmillan, Jazz or rock music.
> 
> As somebody above said, "you don't have to like Brahms". Neither do you have to like Stravinsky. *But I would sooner send a Classical music newbie to Stravinsky than Brahms!*


Why? Just interested to know.


----------



## eugeneonagain

So they would make a second trip to the concert hall.

That's the implication anyway.


----------



## Enthusiast

Musobooks said:


> I found this forum after Googling "Why don't I like Brahms?"
> 
> For me, Brahms is the Pink Floyd of Classical music. I'm going to hazard a guess that most Brahms lovers don't have much time for Stravinsky, Britten, Copland, James Macmillan, Jazz or rock music.
> 
> As somebody above said, "you don't have to like Brahms". Neither do you have to like Stravinsky. But I would sooner send a Classical music newbie to Stravinsky than Brahms!


I am not sure your theory holds water and I know there are many here who have tastes that align quite well with mine. I love Brahms greatly. But I also love Stravinsky (especially the mature neoclassical and serial works) greatly and Britten (who famously hated Brahms) as well. All three are very great composers to me (along with Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Schumann. Schubert, Bartok, Schoenberg, Boulez and many others). But I don't much care for today's neo-Romanticism, including MacMillan.

Also, as someone who has tried to help several classical music newbies to find music they like, I have learned that all come to it with different tastes and that to get good recommendations for them you have to listen to what they like and to help them plan their own exploration.

Of the pre-1900 greats, I found Brahms the most difficult. The trouble was that he wasn't giving me what I was expecting from him (powerful and exciting Romantic music). Brahms was a rather disciplined and classically-minded composer, I think. Klemperer's Brahms bridged the divide for me in the symphonies but now I much prefer those who recognise that warmth is an (the?) important keynote - Walter, Abbado and many others.


----------



## flamencosketches

Xaltotun said:


> Intermission: musical newbie comments on his new findings.
> 
> I've been digging into Brahms' Piano Concertos 1 and 2 more heavily recently, and I'll just have to say that those two are such massive and monumental human achievements, that I sort of wonder how Reality can support their metaphysical weight at all without cracking.
> 
> It's hard to believe such awe-inspiring music can even exist. I feel both extremely small and insignificant, and strangely, almost quasi-divinely empowered, when I'm listening to them.
> 
> Intermission over. Carry on.


They are huge works. The first movement of the 2nd piano concerto is hard hitting. That's not something I always say about Brahms' music, especially his orchestral music.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^I also have zero trouble enclosing both Brahms and any other kind of music in my tent--he is, with Prokofiev, among my very favorite composers. Some name Brahms the Pink Floyd of classical music; he could just as well be the Led Zeppelin of music due to the richness of texture of his major orchestral works. But Brahms is really _sui generis_, I find ( but then aren't all the great composers?)


----------



## eugeneonagain

With Brahms I'm limited in what I can listen to. I like his piano music; his string quartets; German Requiem (only recently) and sundry bits and pieces. The quintets are okay, but I find them flatter than the quartets. That clarinet quintet bores me stiff. The piano concertos don't interest me that much nor do the symphonies. This may or may not change in the future.

In general I think of him as the gentleman of music. His classically constrained style with bursts of stiff-upper-lip passion, which is supposed to be his downfall as a composer of the romantic era, is something I rather like.


----------



## flamencosketches

^Couldn't have put it better myself, except I like the piano concertos. Some of his music is extremely passionate (the late piano works), but it still has a feeling of restraint to it all, as if he could really let go if he wanted to but knows better. I would keep trying with the piano concertos. They're quite good (if massive).


----------



## Littlephrase

Brahms’ music is a very personal love of mine; he’s perhaps the only composer that I love unconditionally. 

Boring? Stiff? I don’t get the complaints.


----------



## philoctetes

Brahms is one of the few composers whose chamber music I mostly avoid. With others I'm usually the opposite.


----------



## AeolianStrains

His cello sonatas are among the very best in my opinion. I can understand someone not liking work _X_ or _Y_, but I don't get this vague criticism. "Brahms is the Pink Floyd of classical music." OK, and? In what ways? For the only real criticism in that post, it doesn't actually say anything at all!


----------



## flamencosketches

One thing I find slightly hard to believe is just how widely appreciated Brahms' music is, when just about everyone will agree that his music is "difficult", or at least "less immediately accessible" compared to other giants. Yet his name is mentioned not just as a famous composer, but right up there with Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.

Brahms fan or not, everyone should hear the piano works opus 116, 117, 118, 119. Phenomenal stuff. Brahms may not be known as a piano composer, but all of these works stand alongside those of Chopin, Liszt, late Schubert and Schumann as the absolute peak of Romantic piano music.






This is still the quintessential recording (for me anyway) of opus 117.

I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but hearing this LP for the first time was a major revelation. Saved my life, one might say.


----------



## philoctetes

Not Pink Floyd, more like Journey.


----------



## AeolianStrains

flamencosketches said:


> One thing I find slightly hard to believe is just how widely appreciated Brahms' music is, when just about everyone will agree that his music is "difficult", or at least "less immediately accessible" compared to other giants. Yet his name is mentioned not just as a famous composer, but right up there with Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart.
> 
> Brahms fan or not, everyone should hear the piano works opus 116, 117, 118, 119. Phenomenal stuff. Brahms may not be known as a piano composer, but all of these works stand alongside those of Chopin, Liszt, late Schubert and Schumann as the absolute peak of Romantic piano music.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is still the quintessential recording (for me anyway) of opus 117.
> 
> I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir, but hearing this LP for the first time was a major revelation. Saved my life, one might say.


Or op. 10 his Ballades, or the Hungarian Dances, which I think I might like as piano pieces more than orchestrations. Brahms had no problem making beautiful music with the piano.


----------



## jegreenwood

Each to her/his own. I fell in love with Brahms' music the first time I heard it (Piano concertos with Rubinstein followed by the Piano Trio Op. 8 as revised). I never found his work inaccessible. I was deeply moved by it. I just added another symphony cycle (HvK 60's) to my collection. Off the top of my head that makes 9 cycles plus numerous individual discs. I have multiple recordings of all of his chamber music. I've studied the clarinet, and it gives me great joy to stumble through the two clarinet sonatas.

Brahms has been among my top 5 composers since the time I could intelligently put such a list together.


----------



## flamencosketches

^Brahms, von Weber and Mozart make me wish I could play the clarinet. Beautiful instrument.


----------



## Littlephrase

philoctetes said:


> Not Pink Floyd, more like Journey.


Now that's an insult!


----------



## Rubens

Consistent top quality writing but inconsistent inspiration level, IMO.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ And most great composers were consistent in their inspiration? Unless you mean that works considered to be major are overrated Brahms is no different to other masters in not being consistent.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Littlephrase1913 said:


> Now that's an insult!


To Journey?>>>>>>>>>>


----------



## apricissimus

Brahms does almost nothing for me. And I find it a little annoying when people say to those who don't enjoy Brahms that it must be because his music is too rich, too deep, too complex and difficult for a puny brain like mine to appreciate it.


----------



## Littlephrase

eugeneonagain said:


> To Journey?>>>>>>>>>>


You just have to trash on all of my favorite composers, don't you?


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Rubens

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And most great composers were consistent in their inspiration? Unless you mean that works considered to be major are overrated Brahms is no different to other masters in not being consistent.


Did I say anything about 'most great composers'?
A few great composers were very consistent in their inspiration. Brahms is not one of them.


----------



## tdc

I understand why some people don't like Brahms, because I didn't enjoy his music initially either. For me it wasn't the kind of music that jumped out at me with brilliant flowing melodies or flashy orchestration, but when I started to understand the music's strong points it became immensely enjoyable. The depth of the counterpoint, the intricate layers and harmonies, it is the kind of music that ages well and reveals more of itself on repeated listening. I find the music has a comforting quality, and it has an earnestness to it revealing a composer that cared deeply about his craft and created his music from a perspective of very high artistic integrity.


----------



## paulbest

apricissimus said:


> Brahms does almost nothing for me. And I find it a little annoying when people say to those who don't enjoy Brahms that it must be because his music is too rich, too deep, too complex and difficult for a puny brain like mine to appreciate it.


 Brahm's 4th. This sym and the VC is what made the Viennese name their main concert hall
Brahms Hall

The Brahms 4th and VC fascinates the germans and Austrians. It offers something much greater than Beethoven.
I also have never come around to Brahms. But had you lived 150 yrs ago, you'd have thought he was greater than Beethoven.


----------



## Blancrocher

Rubens said:


> Did I say anything about 'most great composers'?
> A few great composers were very consistent in their inspiration. Brahms is not one of them.


Agreed. In fact, I'm only _really_ absorbed by about half his compositions (all the instrumental music).


----------



## Strange Magic

My Greatness Meter remains broken, but I still prefer the music of Brahms to that of Beethoven. What this means in practical terms--terms we all face every day --is that if I had to live on the desert island with the music of the one and not the other, I would pick Brahms. Personal taste rules all.


----------



## Larkenfield

Brahms gives you your money's worth, full value for his creative efforts without cheating you, and there's often a beauty of structure that's exquisitely well-crafted. His 3rd Violin Sonata is melodically beautiful, sensuous and passionate… Rhythmically vital, I find it ravishing, thoughtful... gorgeous. There's nothing dull, heavy or uninspired that I can hear. He's at his best with such a beautiful interplay between the violin and piano as if it's music at its exalted best:






I get shivers of ecstasy with the violinist and her thrilling sound that soars through the air. What a woman!


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Rubens said:


> Consistent top quality writing but inconsistent inspiration level, IMO.


This is the only fair criticism that I've found going through this thread (besides people naming pieces they don't like personally, which is of course totally fine).

I actually think Beethoven may have had a similar problem (and he ranks #1 or #2 in my book). Listen to some of his lesser known, shorter scale works (or Wellington's Victory). Some of them are beautiful, to be sure, but others sound, well... uninspired. I rarely (if ever) get that sense when listening to lesser-known music by Bach, Mozart, Ravel, Debussy, Chopin, and Schubert (among others). I think Brahms was actually more consistent than Beethoven in this regard.

However, when Brahms was inspired (piano concertos, symphonies, piano trios, quartets, and quintet, clarinet trio, clarinet quintet, late solo piano works, the piano rhapsodies, violin concerto, A German Requiem, string quintets, many short songs, piano pieces, and choral works scattered throughout his career, etc, etc)... the result is simply stunning. Needless to say, same goes for Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

tdc said:


> I understand why some people don't like Brahms, because I didn't enjoy his music initially either. For me it wasn't the kind of music that jumped out at me with brilliant flowing melodies or flashy orchestration, but when I started to understand the music's strong points it became immensely enjoyable. The depth of the counterpoint, the intricate layers and harmonies, it is the kind of music that ages well and reveals more of itself on repeated listening. I find the music has a comforting quality, and it has an earnestness to it revealing a composer that cared deeply about his craft and created his music from a perspective of very high artistic integrity.


Well said. This was my experience too, and that of many others, I suspect. In my freshman year of college one of my professors said that Brahms was for people who have lived a little. I proceeded to prove her right.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Littlephrase1913 said:


> You just have to trash on all of my favorite composers, don't you?


My dear fellow, I am not _trashing_ Brahms. I even listen to his music.


----------



## Rubens

To me Brahms' music is like those 3D stereograms that were popular a few years back. At first all you hear (see) is intricate motifs woven together artfully with nothing standing out. Then, after a few repeated listenings (viewings), the "secret picture" suddenly pops out, and you understand the point of the piece.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Oh no...not more secret magic revealed to the initiated.


----------



## Larkenfield

Strange Magic said:


> My Greatness Meter remains broken, but I still prefer the music of Brahms to that of Beethoven. What this means in practical terms--terms we all face every day --is that if I had to live on the desert island with the music of the one and not the other, I would pick Brahms. Personal taste rules all.


 Yes, but who would win in a fistfight between them?


----------



## apricissimus

Woodduck said:


> Well said. This was my experience too, and that of many others, I suspect. In my freshman year of college one of my professors said that Brahms was for people who have lived a little. I proceeded to prove her right.


This is the sort of thing I get annoyed about. I guess my lived experience just doesn't measure up!


----------



## flamencosketches

apricissimus said:


> This is the sort of thing I get annoyed about. I guess my lived experience just doesn't measure up!


Don't worry. You'll get there some day. 

No, I'm with you. I don't really "get" Brahms either beyond the amazing piano music. But when people say things like that, it makes me want to try again later on in life, because that's not the kind of thing someone would say out of pettiness. Well, maybe it is, but I don't think Woodduck's professor was just being petty. It sounds to me like people don't want other people to miss out on some great music. But what do I know.


----------



## Woodduck

apricissimus said:


> This is the sort of thing I get annoyed about. I guess my lived experience just doesn't measure up!


Would you be happier if she'd said that Brahms was for lonely, cynical, sexually unfulfilled old grouches in nursing homes?


----------



## paulbest

Does David Oistrakh own the Brahms violin concerto?
Which recording of his?

https://www.google.com/search?q=dav...gILA&biw=1536&bih=770#spd=4283869069733096571


----------



## Phil loves classical

I don't agree with the general idea of Brahms as a conservative Classicist in terms of expression (in form only). He did stuff that was inexcusably ugly to me, like the diminution in the melody from 1:00 to 1:10 of the Violin Concerto here:






It sounds really bombastic to me. If the diminution was the accompaniment only and not in the main melody it would work great. I see it as a shortcoming of him as an orchestrator. While in the book by Musgrave: The Music of Brahms, he states "That Brahms was a poor orchestrator is one of the more tenacious fallacies of nineteenth-century criticism". Britten called Brahms first 2 symphonies ugly and pretentious. Pretty divisive in that department.

The OP suggested "It's like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important", which is similar to what a critic said according to 50 Greatest Composers by Phil Goulding: "musical small talk; meaningless twaddle". Also in the book, Mahler called Brahms "a mannequin with a somewhat narrow heart". I used to share those views, but Haitink presents his symphonies in much better light to me, while most conductors present him as a temperamental maniac (or imitative Romantic phony), especially Klieber's version of the 4th.

Also his music can be quite adventurous, the way he manipulates motifs, etc. Schoenberg says "Brahms, the classicist, the academician, was a great innovator in the realm of musical language, that, in fact, he was a great progressive."

Anyway, I think his chamber and piano music is very well written. He could be a top 20 composer on those alone. I just can't accept him as a top 5 composer with his orchestral music. That's just me.


----------



## millionrainbows

apricissimus said:


> Brahms does almost nothing for me. And I find it a little annoying when people say to those who don't enjoy Brahms that it must be because his music is too rich, too deep, too complex and difficult for a puny brain like mine to appreciate it.


True; to say "because his music is too rich, too deep, too complex and difficult for a puny brain like mine to appreciate it" places the emphasis on the music, as if it were too complex.

Art can not be objectified in this way. It is a two-way engagement with the "medium" of music. It maps the composer's experience (subjective) onto the listener or viewer's experience (also subjective). The only "objective" thing is the syntax or language used to communicate it, which embodies innate (because we are human) and agreed-upon "meanings" or affects, which again are artifacts of experience.

The subjective can never be proven or judged; it is metaphysical by nature.

The reason "Brahms does almost nothing for me" says nothing about the music; it is a failure to engage, which is totally subjective.

There is truth in the statement "Brahms (is) for people who have lived a little," since this recognizes that our own subjectivity and experience is what enables us (or impairs us) to engage with the music.

To take this to the extreme, this is exactly what keeps many from engaging with John Cage's works.


----------



## KenOC

From GB Shaw, an inveterate Brahms detractor: "His wantonness is not vicious: it is that of a great baby, gifted enough to play with harmonies that would baffle most grown-up men, but still a baby, never more happy than when he has a crooning song to play with, always ready for the rocking horse and the sugar-stick, and tiresomely addicted to dressing himself up as Handel or Beethoven and making a prolonged and intolerable noise."


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> True; to say "because his music is too rich, too deep, too complex and difficult for a puny brain like mine to appreciate it" places the emphasis on the music, as if it were too complex.
> 
> Art can not be objectified in this way. It is a two-way engagement with the "medium" of music. It maps the composer's experience (subjective) onto the listener or viewer's experience (also subjective). The only "objective" thing is the syntax or language used to communicate it, which embodies innate (because we are human) and agreed-upon "meanings" or affects, which again are artifacts of experience.
> 
> The subjective can never be proven or judged; it is metaphysical by nature.
> 
> The reason "Brahms does almost nothing for me" says nothing about the music; it is a failure to engage, which is totally subjective.
> 
> There is truth in the statement "Brahms (is) for people who have lived a little," since this recognizes that our own subjectivity and experience is what enables us (or impairs us) to engage with the music.
> 
> To take this to the extreme, this is exactly what keeps many from engaging with John Cage's works.


Well, the problem isn't always a deficiency in the listener. There's music I can't engage with because I don't think it has much content, or because it sounds trite or shallow, or because I don't think it's well-composed. However, I wouldn't say that Brahms often had those problems. And if he did, the results certainly ended up in the fireplace. Citing John Cage makes for a very odd comparison.


----------



## Woodduck

Phil loves classical said:


> I don't agree with *the general idea of Brahms as a conservative Classicist* in terms of expression (in form only). He did *stuff that was inexcusably ugly* to me, like the diminution in the melody from 1:00 to 1:10 of the Violin Concerto here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It sounds really bombastic to me. If the diminution was the accompaniment only and not in the main melody it would work great. I see it as a shortcoming of him as an orchestrator. While in the book by Musgrave: The Music of Brahms, he states "That Brahms was a poor orchestrator is one of the more tenacious fallacies of nineteenth-century criticism". *Britten called Brahms first 2 symphonies ugly and pretentious.* Pretty divisive in that department.
> 
> The OP suggested *"It's like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important"*, which is similar to what a critic said according to 50 Greatest Composers by Phil Goulding: *"musical small talk; meaningless twaddle"*. Also in the book, Mahler called Brahms *"a mannequin with a somewhat narrow heart"*. I used to share those views, but Haitink presents his symphonies in much better light to me, while most conductors present him as a temperamental maniac (or imitative Romantic phony), especially Klieber's version of the 4th.
> 
> Also his music can be quite adventurous, the way he manipulates motifs, etc. Schoenberg says "Brahms, the classicist, the academician, was a great innovator in the realm of musical language, that, in fact, he was a great progressive."
> 
> Anyway, I think his chamber and piano music is very well written. He could be a top 20 composer on those alone. I just can't accept him as a top 5 composer with his orchestral music. That's just me.


I have to say I can't understand most of this. No one calls Brahms a conservative Classicist. He was a _conservative Romantic_ at a time when Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner were departing radically from Classical formal concepts and the primacy of absolute (non-programmatic) music. But his Romantic side is as basic to him as his love of Classical models, and he certainly did things with those that Mozart wouldn't recognize.

I don't see what's ugly about that bit from the Violin Concerto, but to each his own. I don't see where it has anything to do with orchestration either.

Should we take Britten's word for how "ugly and pretentious" Brahms is? Tchaikovsky once called Brahms a "talentless b*stard." Composers say interesting things about each other, things interesting not so much for their content as for who says them. When critics say such things, they're apt not even to be interesting.

Brahms has pretty well proved himself by now. He isn't beyond criticism, but comments such as those quoted here are just unhelpful.


----------



## Larkenfield

There’s a rarely mentioned phenomenon called luck with regard to certain composers: Luck is when the planets magically line up properly and you hear the right composer being played by the right people at exactly the right time and the connection is made and all is illuminated. It happens. But some may never have that experience and they may think it’s the composer’s fault for being lousy, when actually it’s the luck of the draw. In other words, sometimes timing is everything. The worst case scenario is hearing the wrong composer being played by the wrong people at the wrong time, but you’ll never know that was the case because your luck just ran out. Fortunately for some, their synchronicity hasn’t magically lined up yet.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Woodduck said:


> Well, the problem isn't always a deficiency in the listener. There's music I can't engage with because I don't think it has much content, or because it sounds trite or shallow, or because I don't think it's well-composed. However, I wouldn't say that Brahms often had those problems. And if he did, the results certainly ended up in the fireplace. Citing John Cage makes for a very odd comparison.


This is exactly my (objective) view of Schubert, but to have that opinion here means one must employ a bodyguard.


----------



## millionrainbows

Woodduck said:


> Well, the problem isn't always a deficiency in the listener. There's music I can't engage with because I don't think it has much content, or because it sounds trite or shallow, or because I don't think it's well-composed. However, I wouldn't say that Brahms often had those problems. And if he did, the results certainly ended up in the fireplace. Citing John Cage makes for a very odd comparison.


I dis not say that failure to engage was a deficiency in the listener. It is simply a failure to engage, and has nothing to do with the music_ per se.
_"Odd comparison" is the same principle.
See Larkenfield's post #104 in support of this view. He has a grasp of reality, not the abstractions of his own paradigms.


----------



## Strange Magic

Larkenfield said:


> There's a rarely mentioned component called luck with regard to certain composers: Luck is when the planets magically line up properly and you hear the right composer being played by the right people at exactly the right time and the connection is made and all is illuminated. It happens. But some may never have that experience and they may think it's the composer's fault for being lousy, when actually it's the luck of the draw. In other words, sometimes timing is everything. The worst case scenario is hearing the wrong composer being played by the wrong group at the wrong time, but you'll never know that was the case because your luck just ran out. Fortunately for some, their synchronicity may not have magically lined up yet.


There may be something to this. Brahms was opaque to me until I heard the Richter/Leinsdorf LP of the Brahms PC 2 one day and my head exploded. Serendipity! It's been Love ever since.

Another big plus for me is that Brahms can be one of the most musically cheerful of composers at times, like Bach. Cheer, Joy, Happiness--a side of music's emotional coin that is often lost sight of, yet one I greatly appreciate.


----------



## Enthusiast

.......................................


----------



## Guest

Brahms wasn't among the first group of composers I was interested in, but after a few years I became quite a devotee. I happen to like Romantic music, which obviously helps. I'm not greatly fussed about opera, so a gap there doesn't bother me. In most other genres he wrote a lot of good material. He created many very good melodies, that appeal to me anyway. His piano work is also very good, being a master of variations. The chamber piece that I most admire is his Piano Quintet, which I'd place in my top 10 of all chamber works. I think it was that which most impressed me upon first hearing.


----------



## millionrainbows

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And yet when I read that I wondered how can Woodduck be so sure that in his case a difficulty in finding value in a piece is the piece's fault rather than his own failure to engage with the piece? Why do we need to insist that things we don't like must be poor music when we know that lots of other serious music lovers and musicians find much merit in them?


I think it's just habit, the way we phrase things and the way we objectify things. Maybe it has to do with being hunters.


----------



## apricissimus

I don't think it's necessarily either the "fault" of the music _or_ the listener if some music fails to click. Maybe I'll come around to appreciate Brahms some time in the future, I don't know. But I'm pretty sure that it's okay if I don't, and it's not any kind of deficiency on my part if I don't. I'm sure there's also music that I appreciate greatly that very astute and insightful Brahms fans do not, and that's fine too.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> This is exactly my (objective) view of Schubert, but to have that opinion here means one must employ a bodyguard.


And yet when I read that I wondered how can Woodduck be so sure that in his case a difficulty in finding value in a piece is the piece's fault rather than his own failure to engage with the piece? Why do we need to insist that things we don't like must be poor music when we know that lots of other serious music lovers and musicians find much merit in them?


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> And yet when I read that I wondered how can Woodduck be so sure that in his case a difficulty in finding value in a piece is the piece's fault rather than his own failure to engage with the piece? Why do we need to insist that things we don't like must be poor music when we know that lots of other serious music lovers and musicians find much merit in them?


In defense of Woodduck (though he hardly needs my help) maybe this is an example of what he had in mind:


----------



## paulbest

Brahms 4th, 9:29- say 9:37,,,He had nothing better to say, loss of creativity,,,the 4th offers many dull, whipsy, fillers, fluffiness throughout the entire sym. And this is the Kleiber/Vienna, as mentioned above as *the great 4th*,,,carlos Kleiber has a solid reputation in all things from that era, so the recording can be trusted. But its chock full of mediocre passages, at least in todays world, back then , his music far surpassed Beethoven's, which is why he was a over night sensation, the Berliners/Viennese were just tired of Beethoven, and the new kid on the block gave the elite what they wanted, the new sound.Brahms made the top of the chart's and stayed there ,,,until something better came along, Like Richard Wagner. 
(I am making all this up as I go along,,,but parts may very well be true...), I mean , compare Brahm,s 4th is best sym,,with say Shostakovich's, 5th or 7th....now you see what I mean,

On his Vioin Concerto, phil has issues at 1-1:10, I don't hear a weakness there or anywhere,,,so long as Oistrakh is on the stage. I loved ,,scratch that, I once liked the Brahms VC more for Oistrakh's deep love for the work, which comes through in all his recordings. Oistakh takes the concerto to a whole new level. No others can compete with Oistrakh. Plus he had the superior conductors along side him. 
The whole was a perfect success.

Yet once again , we have the Shostakovich 1st Violin Concerto with us today, and so there goes Brahm.s , back to the cellar vaults.


----------



## Enthusiast

Strange Magic said:


> In defense of Woodduck (though he hardly needs my help) maybe this is an example of what he had in mind:


Thanks for the awful clip! But I wasn't attacking Woodduck so much as trying to take away the apparent excuse for disliking Schubert from eugeneonagain! That and making a general point about how we all _feel _that our prejudices are genuine measures of merit.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Brahms's lack of opera is for me an attraction. Nevertheless, having put all his efforts into pure music there are some duds there, but they are still good music.

With Brahms I have felt encouraged to always carry on listening. Over the last two decades I have changed my opinion and now listen to many more works than I did. The description of his character and the kind of man he was also encourages me. I sort of want his music to be great. I'm also attracted by his structural craftsmanship.


----------



## Enthusiast

paulbest said:


> I mean , compare Brahm,s 4th is best sym,,with say Shostakovich's, 5th or 7th....now you see what I mean,


Firstly, who say 4 is Brahms's best? Secondly, the comparison with Shostakovich is all in favour of Brahms to my ears. Is that what you wanted me to hear.

And, please do stop harping on with your idea that music written 50 years ago has replaced very different music written 150 years ago. It's a dumb idea and one you can sum up as "I don't like Brahms/Beethoven ... whoever".


----------



## Strange Magic

Enthusiast said:


> Thanks for the awful clip! But I wasn't attacking Woodduck so much as trying to take away the apparent excuse for disliking Schubert from eugeneonagain! That and making a general point about how we all _feel _that our prejudices are genuine measures of merit.


I do not share this feeling. I know very well what music I like. But rather than disliking other music, I find myself just ignoring it, being unmoved, unengaged by it. And that I put down to the primacy of (one's own) personal preference--I feel no obligation to like or dislike anything in music beyond its own direct interaction with me; merit (other than it appeals to me) has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Larkenfield

According to PDQ Bach, science is working on a computer chip with all the immortal composers that can be worn subcutaneously by infants to get them off on the right foot, but in a pinch possibly the left. If the person isn’t able to deal or appreciate certain composers, a buzzer goes off and the person is artistically and creatively quarantined. It’s being tested at the Mayo Clinic and so far the results look promising.


----------



## MarkW

I won't get into the debate per se (I like most of Brahms, but there's nothing requiring anyone else to, and I have my own hangups about other composers). But I'll add an amusing quote I remember: Some unidentified conductor once told the former music critic of the Boston Globe (Rochard Dyer): "My arms aren't long enough to conduct Brahms."


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> Firstly, who say 4 is Brahms's best? Secondly, the comparison with Shostakovich is all in favour of Brahms to my ears. Is that what you wanted me to hear.
> 
> And, please do stop harping on with your idea that music written 50 years ago has replaced very different music written 150 years ago. It's a dumb idea and one you can sum up as "I don't like Brahms/Beethoven ... whoever".


My bad, his 1st sym is his greatest, Followed by the 4th,,I was only off 1 sym

I am in the 2nd category, allergic, mild dose..

I have never seen anyone saying they are allergic to Shostakovich, have you?

https://www.gramophone.co.uk/editorial/the-best-of-brahms-a-top-ten-of-his-essential-works


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I don't know about allergic but I can't really get behind the idea that Shostakovich and Brahms are of equal standing. My favourite Brahms symphony is probably his 3rd.


----------



## paulbest

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't know about allergic but I can't really get behind the idea that Shostakovich and Brahms are of equal standing. My favourite Brahms symphony is probably his 3rd.


The Brahms VC with Oistrakh was something of a jewel, for decades now. 
I was mostly referring to the Passacaglia in Shostakovich's 1st VC. It really is a something incredibly beautiful, which Brahms does not offer = dated.

I will go hear Brahms 3rd a work I may have heard decades ago, can not recall.

Does the Brahms 3rd offer anything like Bruckner's codas 1st/4th movement 7th sym?


----------



## apricissimus

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't know about allergic but I can't really get behind the idea that Shostakovich and Brahms are of equal standing. My favourite Brahms symphony is probably his 3rd.


I prefer Shostakovich to Brahms, by a wide margin.

But I suspect you're really talking about which composer is "greater" in some other sense.


----------



## paulbest

apricissimus said:


> I prefer Shostakovich to Brahms, by a wide margin.
> 
> But I suspect you're really talking about which composer is "greater" in some other sense.


How are orchestras going to fill the seats with Brahms over the next 100 years? 
The youths prefer Shostakovich over Brahms, 
Just got back from YT, 
Furtwangler/Berlin /1949 live Brahms 4th, offers more dynamics, energy, than Klemperer/Philharmonia. 
Good sym I'd say. If you are into that eras music, a fine symphony indeed. I agree, Brahms, 3rd is his best symphony. 
So 3rd, 1st, 4th, then his 2nd.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I don't know about allergic *but I can't really get behind the idea that Shostakovich and Brahms are of equal standing*. My favourite Brahms symphony is probably his 3rd.


Why not? How is either better or worse than the other, considering you've already stated above that the music is not to be faulted, but (perhaps) the listener? Which probably is just a reformulation of: 'tastes differ'.

Shostakovich is certainly more exciting as a composer, with a much wider palette because of his tendency to polystylism and obviously his place in time. That's not knocking Brahms.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> And yet when I read that I wondered how can Woodduck be so sure that in his case a difficulty in finding value in a piece is the piece's fault rather than his own failure to engage with the piece? Why do we need to insist that things we don't like must be poor music when we know that lots of other serious music lovers and musicians find much merit in them?


Certainly there are purely personal and completely legitimate reasons for liking and disliking things which have nothing to do with artistic merit, and it isn't always easy to know to what degree our response to a piece of music is based on objective versus subjective factors - it may be a mixture of both - but we can learn to discern when those factors are playing a part in our response.

In the case of Brahms, my youthful dislike/indifference was entirely subjective; even as a beginner in classical music I sensed that the music was well-composed, though a fuller admiration for its powerful craftsmanship couldn't come until I was interested in spending more time with it.

Poorly composed music does exist. A lack of harmonic logic, an ill-timed climax, a trite or clumsy melody, a stylistic incongruity - there are plenty of possible faults that can turn us away from a work.


----------



## tdc

Shostakovich is exciting? Well, not especially in my view. Prokofiev is definitely exciting. Shostakovich I perceive as more like a war-torn battlefield, I think the 'battleship grey' comment is pretty accurate. Anyway he is hardly a substitute for Brahms. Weird comparison.


----------



## eugeneonagain

tdc said:


> Shostakovich is exciting? Well, not especially in my view. Prokofiev is definitely exciting. Shostakovich I perceive as more like a war-torn battlefield, I think the 'battleship grey' comment is pretty accurate. Anyway he is hardly a substitute for Brahms. Weird comparison.


I didn't make the comparison, someone else brought DS into the discussion (Paul Best I believe). What I was reacting to was the idea that the two are incomparable as equally good.

Plus the 'DS is battleship grey' idea is a worn-out trope by now; as much as the idea that Brahms is only 'conservative'. To not find any of Shostakovich's music stirring and exciting a person would need to be almost dead.


----------



## apricissimus

tdc said:


> Shostakovich is exciting? Well, not especially in my view. Prokofiev is definitely exciting. Shostakovich I perceive as more like a war-torn battlefield, I think the 'battleship grey' comment is pretty accurate. Anyway he is hardly a substitute for Brahms. Weird comparison.


I think some of his works are very exciting, and I've always thought of his music as very colorful. But that's just my subjective experience, obviously.

I agree that's he's hardly a substitute for Brahms, but Shostakovich has moved me in a way that Brahms never has.


----------



## Guest

I'm somewhat puzzled as to why Musobooks hasn't come back to make any further comments following his post #60 (his only post I believe) which picked up a thread last accessed some 9 years ago.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Shostakovich is exciting? Well, not especially in my view. Prokofiev is definitely exciting. Shostakovich I perceive as more like a war-torn battlefield, I think the 'battleship grey' comment is pretty accurate. Anyway he is hardly a substitute for Brahms. Weird comparison.


I agree that Brahms and Shostakovich are not viewed as being close substitutes at the present time or at any time in the past. Their styles are too far apart. But I'm not sure that's the point at issue ....

I may have misread what Paul was suggesting earlier but I thought that his argument was that at some stage in future he reckons that Shostakovich (as an example of more modern music) will become more popular than Brahms (as an example of older music). If this wasn't clear in this thread, I think he has made similar comments in other threads, that it's only a matter of time before a lot of the 19th C music will become passe. It would seem that he thinks that the music of Mozart (18th C) will survive, because it's far superior to that of any of its close neighbours.

My view is that the point in the future when Shostakovich overtakes Brahms, if this happens at all, is likely to be some considerable way off because Brahms seems to have quite a strong lead at present over Shostakovich in the popularity stakes, as far as one tell of course given the weaknesses of the yardsticks we have available for measuring these things.

For the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding, I happen to like both Brahms and Shostakovich, but Brahms more so.


----------



## Enthusiast

apricissimus said:


> I prefer Shostakovich to Brahms, by a wide margin.
> 
> But I suspect you're really talking about which composer is "greater" in some other sense.


Not really, no. I just mean that I get so much more out of Brahms than I do Shostakovich. For example, I have listened to the Brahms symphonies hundreds of times and they still wow me. I cannot say the same for most - or probably any - Shostakovich symphonies even though I do generally like Shostakovich.


----------



## Enthusiast

eugeneonagain said:


> Why not? How is either better or worse than the other, considering you've already stated above that the music is not to be faulted, but (perhaps) the listener? Which probably is just a reformulation of: 'tastes differ'.
> 
> Shostakovich is certainly more exciting as a composer, with a much wider palette because of his tendency to polystylism and obviously his place in time. That's not knocking Brahms.


I guess my response just above answers that. I don't have a problem with saying "it isn't my cup of tea" when I don't get the same enjoyment as many other classical fans do from a given composer. And I'm happy enough to describe what gets in the way of my enjoyment if I can identify that. But why blame the music? That's all I meant.

I don't know if I agree that Shostakovich is so exciting - brooding and intensity are the key notes I get from a lot of his music - but I don't know that I value excitement in music that highly, anyway.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> Certainly there are purely personal and completely legitimate reasons for liking and disliking things which have nothing to do with artistic merit, and it isn't always easy to know to what degree our response to a piece of music is based on objective versus subjective factors - it may be a mixture of both - but we can learn to discern when those factors are playing a part in our response.
> 
> Poorly composed music does exist. A lack of harmonic logic, an ill-timed climax, a trite or clumsy melody, a stylistic incongruity - there are plenty of possible faults that can turn us away from a work.


It does often seem that our subjective feelings about a piece are penetrating and objective observations but when we know that a good proportion of experienced classical music fans like something I can't get on with I do usually feel that it is me who is currently unable to tap into that. I have changed my mind about many composers and pieces over the last 20 years! But, strangely, the reverse situation - I like a piece that most classical devotees don't like - probably leaves me feeling that my valuing of the thing is objective! But I do sometimes relegate composers and pieces that I once liked more than I do now.

And, *yes*, there certainly is bad music! And some people like it and even rave about it. But I can't think of an example that is enjoyed by a good proportion of classical fans. If experienced listeners find real value in something my default position is that there must be something there ... even if it is not something for me.


----------



## paulbest

Partita said:


> I agree that Brahms and Shostakovich are not viewed as being close substitutes at the present time or at any time in the past. Their styles are too far apart. But I'm not sure that's the point at issue ....
> 
> I may have misread what Paul was suggesting earlier but I thought that his argument was that at some stage in future he reckons that Shostakovich (as an example of more modern music) will become more popular than Brahms (as an example of older music). If this wasn't clear in this thread, I think he has made similar comments in other threads, that it's only a matter of time before a lot of the 19th C music will become passe. It would seem that he thinks that the music of Mozart (18th C) will survive, because it's far superior to that of any of its close neighbours.
> 
> My view is that the point in the future when Shostakovich overtakes Brahms, if this happens at all, is likely to be some considerable way off because Brahms seems to have quite a strong lead at present over Shostakovich in the popularity stakes, as far as one tell of course given the weaknesses of the yardsticks we have available for measuring these things.
> 
> For the avoidance of any possible misunderstanding, I happen to like both Brahms and Shostakovich, but Brahms more so.


Yes, I did note Brahms continues to command great attention here and on YT, at concert halls. My views are invalid, as it is too early to say which composers the wider classical public will demand on program schedules. 
Brahms may continue on for who knows how long. 
Yes I feel Mozart has a certain strength to his best music, it is uplifting and joyful. Qualities folks in the distant future may need to hear, as therapy and calming of the nerves/forgetting this world, if only for a moment. 
Brahms may not offer such balm for the woes. 
Its anyones guess.


----------



## Larkenfield

There are many sides to Shostakovich and they are not all battleship grey. I do not see Brahms and Shostakovich in competition, ever. What's played in the concert halls is not the entire determining factor in what people like and what endures. I believe that Shostakovich is important if for no other reason than he's been a doorway for many listeners into an appreciation of 20th-century music. He was a brilliant composer and orchestrator who, though rare, was capable of being quite exciting in a way that is modern, unexpectedly constructive and positive:


----------



## Botschaft

How could one not like Brahms' Schicksalslied? One of his best and most accessible works, it might be a suitable introduction to the composer.


----------



## Botschaft

Woodduck said:


> Would you be happier if she'd said that Brahms was for lonely, cynical, sexually unfulfilled old grouches in nursing homes?


Hey, wait a minute! Brahms never lived in a nursing home...


----------



## KenOC

According to my info, in the latest season I have Brahms was programmed 150 times by US orchestras. Shostakovich was programmed 85 times. Brahms still has a big lead, but I think it's shrinking.


----------



## Gallus

I think Brahms is the greatest exponent of the directioned harmonic tension and resolution which defines common practice classical music.


----------



## Oortone

Intersting thread, I've always felt the same way. Seems I'll never get into Brahms, and not so much Schumann either. I agree with the almost ten year old thred start.


----------



## Mandryka

Gallus said:


> I think Brahms is the greatest exponent of the directioned harmonic tension and resolution which defines common practice classical music.


And apparently anticipated serial music to boot in the 4th -- from Werner Pfister's essay for Thomas Zehetmair's recording of all the symphonies



> The principal motif of the first movement,
> for example, can be understood as a succession
> of every conceivable interval of the tonic key of E
> minor. This already anticipates Schönberg's serial
> technique.


For some reason that recording has quite captured my imagination and I've enjoyed revisiting the Braahms symphonies with Zehetmair. It may be he is really benefiting from his less casual, more informed and researched, ideas about expression and balance. I particularly appreciate Zehetmair's incisive articulation, and an orchestral balance which makes the music sound tough. Again, from the booklet



> Fritz Steinbach was Director of the Meiningen Court Orchestra between 1886 and 1903, and conducted 183 concerts featuring one or sometimes several works by Brahms during this period. It therefore comes as no surprise that Brahms considered him the best interpreter of his symphonies and personally gave him detailed information regarding questions and problems of interpretation. However, he did not wish to include these tips in the printed scores. Steinbach's conducting student Walter Blume faithfully collected them, later publishing them in book form under the title Brahms und die Meininger Tradition (Brahms and the Meiningen Tradition). The work is a veritable treasure trove for conductors of Brahms's works.
> 
> Thomas Zehetmair describes how, as long as fifteen years ago, he began to explore "this source, which is really important in terms of performance practice. We're extremely interested in Fritz Steinbach's Meiningen concept, recorded by Walter Blume, because it throws doors wide open - rather than closing them. The great Brahms, the classicist, the strict guardian of ancient forms, thus descends from his pedestal and reveals stark truths and emotions. That beautiful, dense Brahms sound disintegrates, new aspects come to light, and everything suddenly indeed becomes much more than the sum of its parts. Although Brahms was keen to stage his compositions with a large orchestra in Vienna, he was less than satisfied with the carelessness of many performances, whereas he was always highly enthusiastic about the art of the orchestra in Meiningen, which was trained in the discipline of chamber music. He felt considerably greater affinity with the precise disclosure of structure and rhythmical freedom that were easier to achieve with this slightly smaller orchestra."


----------



## larold

_It surprises me that I haven't been able to enjoy Brahms, since I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, and other composers of large-scale works._

Not sure if this is part of the answer but I just listened to an interview with a well-known conductor who was going to lead the Brahms 4th symphony with my nearest international orchestra. She said Brahms showed disdain in his day for other certain other composers, was "at war" with Tchaikovsky and his music, was an unpleasant person, went out of his way to not make friends, and once left and returned to a party to apologize for not offending anyone.

Before the conductor led the symphony (a radio replay of a live event from a couple nights ago) the announcer said this about the Brahms 4th: the first movement is based in classical writing and themes akin to what Mozart may have used; the second movement goes further back to the Renaissance for its form, the third movement is Brahms having a lot of fun and the fourth movement passacaglia is him trying to tell us something, maybe about his own mortality -- the idea of the "autumnal" Brahms of older age.

Ergo Brahms was a complicated guy and something of a throwback as a composer who looked backward in form -- a classicist writing in the Romantic age. Compared to the other composers you say you enjoy, all of whom seem to be fairly straightforward the way they write music and all of whom were revolutionaries in one way or another, Brahms may simply be too conservative for you.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan

Brahms´ 3rd Symphonie is one of my all time favorites!!!

It is slow and beautiful, and the last movement is epic and kicks ***!


----------



## Guest

I can never decide which Brahms symphony I like best. All of them.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

larold said:


> _It surprises me that I haven't been able to enjoy Brahms, since I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, and other composers of large-scale works._
> 
> Not sure if this is part of the answer but I just listened to an interview with a well-known conductor who was going to lead the Brahms 4th symphony with my nearest international orchestra. She said Brahms showed disdain in his day for other certain other composers, was "at war" with Tchaikovsky and his music, was an unpleasant person, went out of his way to not make friends, and once left and returned to a party to apologize for not offending anyone.
> 
> Before the conductor led the symphony (a radio replay of a live event from a couple nights ago) the announcer said this about the Brahms 4th: the first movement is based in classical writing and themes akin to what Mozart may have used; the second movement goes further back to the Renaissance for its form, the third movement is Brahms having a lot of fun and the fourth movement passacaglia is him trying to tell us something, maybe about his own mortality -- the idea of the "autumnal" Brahms of older age.
> 
> Ergo Brahms was a complicated guy and something of a throwback as a composer who looked backward in form -- a classicist writing in the Romantic age. Compared to the other composers you say you enjoy, all of whom seem to be fairly straightforward the way they write music and all of whom were revolutionaries in one way or another, Brahms may simply be too conservative for you.


Let the music alone speak to you, not all the tales, speculations and technical explanations.:tiphat:


----------



## Merl

Of all the 'big' name romantics, Brahms was the hardest for me to get into. Many years ago, I often thought that his music was meandering, at times or seemed overtly fussy and complex. However, as the years passed his music increasingly grew in my estimation. Now I view gim as one of my favourites. Some great comments .......ive really enjoyed the resurrection of this old thread.


----------



## Larkenfield

I never had a problem with Brahms, I’m glad to say, starting at a relatively young age when I first heard his 3rd Symphony and loved it. I felt there was a tremendous sincerity and warmth to him and inside he was like a big teddy bear who wouldn’t harm anyone. I also had the sense that he was giving the best of himself at all times. I think he’s a composer who can bring great comfort and solace to his listeners, especially if they are under stress or have experienced a great loss or tragedy. His music says, “I’ve been there.”


----------



## Larkenfield

Entry on *BRAHMS* from the classic 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, only 14 years after his death, (which I greatly enjoyed reading) - nice for some historical perspective and the fact that Brahms' success may have owed a great deal to a piano that was a semi-tone flat but which led to an introduction to the great violinist Joseph Joachim that led to a lifelong friendship... Sometimes bad fortune ends up being good fortune.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Brahms,_Johannes

(I would suggest looking up your favorite composers in this famous EB edition if they happen to be listed, though some of the facts pertaining to their lives will of course have been updated in later editions.)


----------



## Musobooks

Ravellian said:


> Whenever I try to play or listen to a large-scale Brahms piece, it just sounds like one meaningless figuration after another. There's no feeling. There's no substance. There are very few memorable melodies. It's like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important. Yes there may be a very logical, well-thought-out structure behind everything, but the details of the music itself have a complete lack of appeal to me.
> 
> I get absolutely nothing from his symphonies, chamber pieces, sonatas, and concerti. The only pieces I've heard from him that I like are the smaller-scale piano intermezzi.
> 
> It surprises me that I haven't been able to enjoy Brahms, since I love Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner, Mahler, and other composers of large-scale works. If you like Brahms, then why??


I agree with every word. I’m currently embarking on my second attempt to understand Brahm’s prominence in the musical pantheon. Listening to the Piano Quintet Op.34 just now. There have been one or two “moments” but a quote I’ve just come across on this forum made me laugh with instant recognition and agreement: “compositional incontinence” . I’ll look for further advice on here but what it would be good to see is a list of Brahms fans’ other favourite composers to give me some clue. Or on second thoughts, a list of a few composers that they struggle with might be more revealing. Brahms to me is the Pink Floyd of Classical music and perhaps Brad Mehldau from my jazz listening.


----------



## Art Rock

Musobooks said:


> ... but what it would be good to see is a list of Brahms fans’ other favourite composers to give me some clue. Brahms to me is the Pink Floyd of Classical music and perhaps Brad Mehldau from my jazz listening.


Brahms is one of my favourite composers, others would be Bach, Mahler, Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Dvorak, Wagner, Bruckner, and Ravel, to keep it at 10. I also love Pink Floyd. 

You might want to try some of the chamber music other than the piano quintet. I would start with the violin sonatas, cello sonatas, clarinet sonatas, then move on to the trios, then to the piano quartets, then the clarinet quintet (my favourite), string quintets and string sextets.


----------



## larold

Anyone that doesn't "get" Brahms should listen to the *Alto Rhapsody* and the *Clarinet Quintet *or *Sonatas.*. The first Brahms wrote in heartbreak when Clara Wieck, his beloved, chose to marry Robert Schumann. It is full of the longing and heartbreak he felt at the time -- perhaps the greatest example of his personal melancholy transmitted via music. The second is from the end of his life when, as an old man, he wrote some music for a clarinetist friend of his. It reflects his old age wisdom and experience tied to his friendship. He didn't have a lot of the latter.

I think people that don't understand Brahms do so based on his big, what I call his large "public" pieces like the symphonies and concertos. Brahms was bound by aged forms in those and he was very conservative in composition, taking none of the risks other composers of the time did. To hear Brahms the man listen to his late works and the Alto Rhapsody. If you still don't get him he probably isn't for you.


----------



## EvaBaron

I hear a lot of people saying they have trouble getting into Brahms, luckily I have never had that problem. When I heard the 4th symphony I immediately loved it, as with the the 3rd. The 2nd and 1st were harder but I know love them both. And his other music so far hasn’t been a problem as well


----------



## Kreisler jr

Clara had been long widowed by then (1869) but one of her daughters (Julie) with whom Brahms' apparently had also fallen in love had become engaged/married, so Brahms bitterly called the Alto rhapsody a "bridal song for the countess Schumann" (Brautlied für die Schumannsche Gräfin, she married a piemontese nobleman) in a letter to the publisher Simrock. It's a great piece but not really one I'd recommend to newbies.


----------



## Musobooks

Art Rock said:


> Brahms is one of my favourite composers, others would be Bach, Mahler, Schubert, Shostakovich, Sibelius, Dvorak, Wagner, Bruckner, and Ravel, to keep it at 10. I also love Pink Floyd.
> 
> You might want to try some of the chamber music other than the piano quintet. I would start with the violin sonatas, cello sonatas, clarinet sonatas, then move on to the trios, then to the piano quartets, then the clarinet quintet (my favourite), string quintets and string sextets.


I have the Clarinet Sonatas - I’ll dig them out again. I went through a Piano Trio phase last year which didn’t admit Brahms but during a quick iTunes review the other night this recording sounded promising:










My descending order of preference from your composer list would be something like: Bach, Mahler, Sibelius, Ravel, Shostakovich, Wagner, Dvorak, Schubert….(big gap)….Bruckner (maybe last equal with Brahms  ).

My own list would be, off the top of my head chronologically (ish): Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann (orchestral), Puccini, Stravinsky (in top 3), Britten (might be No.1), Copland, Lutoslawski, Arvo Part, John Adams, James Macmillan.

Thanks for your prompt reply!


----------



## dko22

my first attempts with Brahms -- who, after Dvorak and Tchaikovsky was one of the first composers I had a serious look at -- were not too encouraging. I found him pompous and pedantic. Then I heard Kertesz in the symphonies and his fresh approach converted me. For a long time, I was indifferent to much of the chamber music though I always liked the early sextets, but gradually more of the other works have started to win me over. He's still not quite a top 10 composer but not far away. I suspect that, as was suggested in some of the early posts, those who dislike Brahms might try different sort of interpretations.Or perhaps earlier works.


----------



## Musobooks

EvaBaron said:


> I hear a lot of people saying they have trouble getting into Brahms, luckily I have never had that problem. When I heard the 4th symphony I immediately loved it, as with the the 3rd. The 2nd and 1st were harder but I know love them both. And his other music so far hasn’t been a problem as well


It’s not just that we have trouble getting into him but also the fact that he is so highly regarded. That’s what I find puzzling.


----------



## Musobooks

dko22 said:


> my first attempts with Brahms -- who, after Dvorak and Tchaikovsky was one of the first composers I had a serious look at -- were not too encouraging. I found him pompous and pedantic. Then I heard Kertesz in the symphonies and his fresh approach converted me. For a long time, I was indifferent to much of the chamber music though I always liked the early sextets, but gradually more of the other works have started to win me over. He's still not quite a top 10 composer but not far away. I suspect that, as was suggested in some of the early posts, those who dislike Brahms might try different sort of interpretations.Or perhaps earlier works.


So that’s one person saying try earlier works and another saying later works 😃


----------



## EvaBaron

Musobooks said:


> So that’s one person saying try earlier works and another saying later works 😃


I would just say, if you love symphonies, then try the 3rd movement of his 3rd symphony. Bruno Walter with the Colombia symphony orchestra is good because Brahms is often accused of being heavy and thick but this performance is quick and well recorded. Then if you like that, which is hard not to, try the other movements. If after 4 times of listening you still don’t understand why people like this symphony then I can’t help you any further


----------



## jegreenwood

Musobooks said:


> So that’s one person saying try earlier works and another saying later works 😃


A quick note in that regard - his Trio No. 1 Op. 8 is really a late work, as he did a major revision in his later years. That was my introduction to his chamber music, and I fell in love with it instantly.

In fact I fell for Brahms instantly. IIRC, my first purchase was a vinyl twofer of Rubinstein playing the concertos. Then the violin concerto, then the symphonies . . .


----------



## Kreisler jr

The common version of the trio op.8 is not a late work. It's a revised version of an early work. The 2nd movement was hardly changed and a lot of the core material of the other movements were preserved although all of them were tightened up and cut considerably.
But I certainly agree with the recommendation of op.8. I also liked it immediately.
I don't know what to say to someone who finds *all *of Brahms "pointless noodling". His music is obviously strongly rooted in the tradtion from Bach (or Schütz) through Schumann and Mendelssohn and most listeners seem to find that it holds up well against this heritage (or contemporaries like Tchaikovsky or Dvorak). Even someone who find Brahms a poor, epigonal version of Beethoven or Schumann should not find the music pointless figurations but recognize the close similarities (I mean, that's basically the definition of "epigonal").


----------



## PlaySalieri

I get Brahms symphonies concerti chamber.
I do not get Brahms solo piano


----------



## Coach G

It took me a long time to "get" Brahms. I look at before and after pictures of Brahms and I see that the grumpy and disheveled old man we see smoking cigars and drinking whisky; was once a handsome and passionate young man who was probably full of passion for life. The music is thick and layered but underneath there is warmth and the essence of the Romantic era. Brahms was also one the finest craftsmen in music. As different as they are from one another, I think of Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, as the best craftsmen in music. Instead of looking for catchy melodies to hold on to, or the "special effects", look at Brahms as a sturdy German craftsman who places such love and care in the foundations, layers, and arches, that make up the musical vision.


----------



## jegreenwood

PlaySalieri said:


> I get Brahms symphonies concerti chamber.
> I do not get Brahms solo piano


Have you listened to Op. 116-119?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Coach G said:


> I look at before and after pictures of Brahms and I see that the grumpy and disheveled old man we see smoking cigars and drinking whisky; was once a handsome and passionate young man who was probably full of passion for life.


I'm reminded of the article "Bach was handsome once" The Passions of Bach


----------



## Ethereality

Judas Priest Fan said:


> Brahms´ 3rd Symphonie is one of my all time favorites!!!
> 
> It is slow and beautiful, and the last movement is epic and kicks ***!


I don't know about epic, but the finale sure does kick a lot of ***, and roundhouse kicks a lot of people. I go up to strangers to tell them 'your *** has just been kicked by Johannes' and they don't even know it or know what to think besides that he's too quick for them.


----------



## Musobooks

Coach G said:


> It took me a long time to "get" Brahms. I look at before and after pictures of Brahms and I see that the grumpy and disheveled old man we see smoking cigars and drinking whisky; was once a handsome and passionate young man who was probably full of passion for life. The music is thick and layered but underneath there is warmth and the essence of the Romantic era. Brahms was also one the finest craftsmen in music. As different as they are from one another, I think of Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, as the best craftsmen in music. Instead of looking for catchy melodies to hold on to, or the "special effects", look at Brahms as a sturdy German craftsman who places such love and care in the foundations, layers, and arches, that make up the musical vision.


I can hear that he is a craftsman but I just don’t like almost all of what he crafts. And perhaps it is my conscious hearing of him crafting (“I am composing”) that is part of my problem. I’m learning his Intermezzo No.2 Op.118 just now, which I do like, but surely it’s written by another composer? I can remember passages when lying in my bed!


----------



## Musobooks

PlaySalieri said:


> I get Brahms symphonies concerti chamber.
> I do not get Brahms solo piano


Try this. It’s the only composition of his that has moved me in any way so far. But it’s early days for me as I’ve always put him on the back burner (Perhaps to soften the treacle).


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I just don't get not getting Brahms.


----------



## Highwayman

Musobooks said:


> My own list would be, off the top of my head chronologically (ish): Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Schumann *(orchestral)*, Puccini, Stravinsky (in top 3), Britten (might be No.1), Copland, Lutoslawski, Arvo Part, John Adams, James Macmillan.


Mate, are you for real? A unique list for sure. May I ask what are your favourite works by Lutosławski and Mendelssohn?



Musobooks said:


>


This is not necessarily directed at you but this is not a recording I`d recommend. MJP is not really a Brahms pianist and this recording is heavily lopsided in favour of the strings.


----------



## Neo Romanza

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I just don't get not getting Brahms.


Hmmm...well, I don't _get_ Brahms yet, but I'm making progress. I revisited his _Clarinet Quintet_ earlier today and rather enjoyed. I looked outside at the weather, it was raining and this seemed to go hand-and-hand with the music.


----------



## Ethereality

Neo Romanza said:


> I looked outside at the weather, it was raining and this seemed to go hand-and-hand with the music.


Only in the sense that for some reason not many composers seem to enjoy fun counter rhythms? And both the rain and Brahms are full of fun counter rhythms.



Highwayman said:


> Mate, are you for real? A unique list for sure. May I ask what are your favourite works by Lutosławski and Mendelssohn?


It's rare to meet such genius who grasps the context of great jokes!


----------



## cybernaut

I love Brahms and have since I was a child and first heard his Symphony No. 1

For a long time, he was my favorite symphony composer. Now he is joined by Mahler and Bruckner, with Tchaikovsky running close behind.

We all have different tastes. Just listen to what you enjoy. Life can be short.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Ethereality said:


> Only in the sense that for some reason not many composers seem to enjoy fun counter rhythms? And both the rain and Brahms are full of fun counter rhythms.


I'm not sure about this, but I enjoyed what I've heard and this is what counts.


----------



## Neo Romanza

cybernaut said:


> We all have different tastes. Just listen to what you enjoy...


If I just listened to what I enjoyed then I would've never unlocked Schoenberg and Penderecki for example (two composers I absolutely adore now). I think there's a reason _why_ we continue to come back to composers that have given us problems and that reason is we sometimes feel a certain obligation to understand a composer that is well-loved by so many others. This is what I imagine drives a lot of listeners to give Brahms, in particular, chance after chance.


----------



## cybernaut

Neo Romanza said:


> If I just listened to what I enjoyed then I would've never unlocked Schoenberg and Penderecki for example (two composers I absolutely adore now). I think there's a reason _why_ we continue to come back to composers that have given us problems and that reason is we sometimes feel a certain obligation to understand a composer that is well-loved by so many others. This is what I imagine drives a lot of listeners to give Brahms, in particular, chance after chance.


 I guess you need to listen to some more Glass and Reich then.


----------



## Ethereality

Neo Romanza said:


> I'm not sure about this, but I enjoyed what I've heard and this is what counts.


That's just what rain reminds me of. A first choice wouldn't be Brahms or his Clarinet quintet, but I thought of what musical qualities rain has and it doesn't seem gloomy on its own but rather very spirited, lively and rhythmic, like a Stravinsky movement or something.


----------



## Neo Romanza

cybernaut said:


> I guess you need to listen to some more Glass and Reich then.


Ummm....NOPE!


----------



## golfer72

PlaySalieri said:


> I get Brahms symphonies concerti chamber.
> I do not get Brahms solo piano


Handel Variations for Solo Piano. One of my favorite piano pieces from any composer.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

^ In addition to the Handel Variations, i would recommend these 3:

Waltzes, Op 39 




2 Rhapsodies Op. 79 




3 Intermezzi Op. 117


----------



## Kreisler jr

Brahms' solo piano music is a bit oddly distributed as there are mostly early and late works. The few "middle" works are the Handel and Paganini variations (although both stilly earlyish), the waltzes and rhapsodies mentioned and the short pieces op.76; of these few, only the variations seem major works to me (and the Paganini sticks out as being Brahms' most demonstratively virtuoso piece). The piano music is also different from the rest of his oeuvre in that Brahms' abolished sonatas after three very early works in favor of shorter pieces or variations while he stuck to rather traditional sonata form in all of his orchestral and chamber music.
I doubt that this will change minds about Brahms but one could also note that a large proportion of his oeuvre is choral music and lieder both of which are quite niche (only few of his lieder are as well known as plenty of Schubert's or Schumann's).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I didn't get Brahms either until I really sat down with a complete set of his chamber music, and that really opened my eyes to his genius. His brilliance for motivic development was nearly unparalleled, as was his sense of structural unity and rhythmic variety; and these things are much easier to hear when the textures are more pared down in chamber music than trying to hear them through the thickness of an orchestra. However, what keeps me coming back to Brahms is how combined that intellectual craftsmanship with emotional substance, and tonal evocation. I never get the impression that I'm just listening to a compositional exercise with no feeling or a sense of a life lived. Early Brahms is a bit more fiery in this regard, more willing to go for grandeur, power, and drama (even in his chamber works I think of the Piano Quintet); while later Brahms is all autumnal meditations on what the Japanese call Mono no aware (especially the great Clarinet Quintet). It took me a while to be able to hear these same qualities in his orchestral music, which I do now appreciate while still preferring his chamber works; though I do love the two Piano Concertos and the 1st and 4th Symphonies a great deal (never quite got the love for his Violin Concerto; it's one of my least favorite in the repertoire). 

As for the rest of his output, I do think his choral music is rather underrated (as is most romantic choral music). His lieder are pretty good, but a step down from Schubert and Schumann. I really love his late piano music, and while there's some fine pieces in his early piano music I generally find it lest interesting than Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, etc.


----------



## Ethereality

I find the autumnal descriptor for Brahms to be a bit (I can't think of the word, a polite way of saying this association is often) empty or incorrect. I think it's understandable as an impression to categorize the mood of his music within a limited box as some profound autumnal expression, but the actual substance therein, the mode of comprehensive reflection, it isn't quite purely imo. His famous example the Poco Allegretto for instance, if I had to attribute possible seasonal archetypes, autumn's archetypes would be the least meaningful here to me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Certainly "atumnality" (which is not a word, but it works) is not the be-all, end-all descriptor of late Brahms, which is still plenty diverse in aesthetic modes and tones; but I find it fits well with many of his late works that utilize his unique meditative and oftentimes wistful approach to music that maintains its rigorous formal logic. It's really that combination of the wisdom that comes from a lifetime of experience (represented in Brahms by his technical mastery) and the tonality that makes me think of autumn so much. I don't know if I'd use that label for the Poco Allegretto, but it certainly fits with most of the Clarinet Quintet:


----------



## Ethereality

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's really that combination of the wisdom that comes from a lifetime of experience (represented in Brahms by his technical mastery)


A normative, composer sentiment.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> and the tonality that makes me think of autumn so much.


The clarinet and an amazing gift I do agree with your example that this is the one that marks the yearend.


----------



## That Guy Mick

Ravellian said:


> Whenever I try to play or listen to a large-scale Brahms piece, it just sounds like one meaningless figuration after another. There's no feeling. There's no substance. There are very few memorable melodies. It's like somebody talking and talking and talking without ever saying anything important.?


The 3rd movement of the 3rd Symphony is to die for, but that's just me. Divine, swaying melody. When coupled with a well-aged single malt and fine cheroot it becomes a religious experience. Even for an atheist. ;^)


----------



## Kreisler jr

I love most of Brahms but I rather dislike that 3rd movement of the 3rd of "Aimez-vous, Brahms?" fame. Like "heroic" for Beethoven "autumnal" is true only for a bunch of works but still not totally wrong as a general characterization. With a few exceptions, and this is also shown by comments and letters of Brahms, it seems clear that Brahms' keenly felt not only the weight of tradition but that he was "late" in the history of music (according to his understanding). This frequently shows through in his music, not necessarily as general melancholy or nostalgia but as all kinds of allusions, veiled (or open) references to other music etc. 

I dont think he was quite such a disagreeable character as claimed above. He had lots of friends and acquaintances and despite some quarrels he generally seems to have gotten along well with them. And while he could be scathing in his criticism towards other composers he was also generous in patronage for others, e.g. Dvorak.


----------



## Ethereality

I can counter that argument pretty easily but I'd rather not since these arguments tend to sound relativistic. You have a good working idea on its way imo, but throw excess orthogonal associations in there such as traditionalism and tribute.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Let me ask all of you Brahmsians a question, what do you think of Geoffroy Couteau's traversal of the solo piano music?

The box set in question - 










A worthwhile acquisition?


----------



## Musobooks

Highwayman said:


> Mate, are you for real? A unique list for sure. May I ask what are your favourite works by Lutosławski and Mendelssohn?
> 
> 
> 
> This is not necessarily directed at you but this is not a recording I`d recommend. MJP is not really a Brahms pianist and this recording is heavily lopsided in favour of the strings.


I’m at home in Lutoslawski’s “soundworld” in general but amongst my go-to compositions would be the Partita for Violin and Orchestra and his Paroles Tissees (which sits comfortably alongside Britten’s “Les Illuminations” and War Requiem). Mendelssohn: Overture to “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” (the flighty strings do it for me) and perhaps the Piano Trio No.2. I like his light and airy orchestrations (the opposite of Brahms).

I’ve listened to the Pires et al recording of the Brahms Trio and enjoyed it. But I will try others on your recommendation. I think it was the overall quality of the recorded sound that drew me to it. I prefer those recordings where it sounds as though the ensemble is in the room with you rather than on a stage some distance away.


----------



## Chat Noir

Looks like an old thread which has been warmed-up a couple of times. Not a bad thing.

I've had a cool attitude towards Brahms for years. He's a composer whose works I feel I'd want to enjoy. Like many I arrived at Brahms via the late piano music, liked it and then felt greatly disappointed moving beyond that. As in the OP's remarks I really get that sense of nothing really happening and eventually I decided that Brahms was such a perfectionist that he ended up smoothing out every kink until the music becomes what Erik Satie called _musique d’ameublement. _

However, I always take a trip back to a composer who hasn't worked for me, because things can change as time rolls on. Again like others writing above I've had more luck via his chamber music and I do like his SQ 3 and the quintet no.2 and also the 2nd cello concerto (even though the last movement is weird). Quite a lot of his slow movements sound like funeral marches, but I actually like these.

It's quite popular to say 'originally I didn't like Brahms, but after [X, whatever] 'I now see the genius'. Well no, I don't really see that actually. some of the works and movements seem overcooked to me and that a composer with less of an urge to emotional profundity would do it differently. And yet there are moments of great beauty in Brahms, joy and even playfulness. I doubt he'll ever be a 'go to' composer for me, but I don't believe in that idea that you must find all a composer's works marvellous because he/she is 'great'. Also art strikes different people in different ways and I find it's more about having the right circumstances, some familiarity and the right frame of mind come together to create what is thought to be the 'spark' of realisation.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Chat Noir said:


> Like many I arrived at Brahms via the late piano music, liked it and then felt greatly disappointed moving beyond that. As in the OP's remarks I really get that sense of nothing really happening and eventually I decided that Brahms was such a perfectionist that he ended up smoothing out every kink until the music becomes what Erik Satie called _musique d’ameublement. _


For me Brahms is about as far from Satie and that inobtrusive music as it gets, or at least pretty far away (Beethoven or Bartok and a few others might be still further away).



> However, I always take a trip back to a composer who hasn't worked for me, because things can change as time rolls on. Again like others writing above I've had more luck via his chamber music and I do like his SQ 3 and the quintet no.2 and also the 2nd cello concerto (even though the last movement is weird). Quite a lot of his slow movements sound like funeral marches, but I actually like these.


Which one do you have in mind? I cannot think of a single Brahms movement sounding like that (there is a march-like section in the piano quartet g minor but not funeral).


----------



## Chat Noir

Kreisler jr said:


> For me Brahms is about as far from Satie and that inobtrusive music as it gets, or at least pretty far away (Beethoven or Bartok and a few others might be still further away).


Okay. As I said music strikes people differently. It isn't a completely objective matter. Though I think that arguably the unobtrusive, wallpaper-like feeling is something quite a few listeners report.



Kreisler jr said:


> Which one do you have in mind? I cannot think of a single Brahms movement sounding like that (there is a march-like section in the piano quartet g minor but not funeral).


It's not that they're specifically marches, more like dirges, though I didn't want to use that word it has negative connotations. Slow movement of that very 3rd quartet I mentioned is like this. I don't really like piano trios/quartets of any kind, so I don't know that.


----------



## ansfelden

it´s ok not to get Brahms, i don´t get Mahler.


----------



## Neo Romanza

I started off my classical journey nearly 15 years ago with an understanding of Brahms, but then I lost touch and remained indifferent to his music for more than a decade. Now, I'm beginning to get into his music again and I think one of the problems people have with his music who don't enjoy too much is the fact that he rarely goes for the "grand statement" (there are exceptions to this of course), but his art lies in nuance, subtlety but also a carefully organized structure. People expecting more rhapsodic and just rubato in general, won't find much to savor here. I have always kept Brahms in the back of my mind, because I know he's a phenomenal composer and I know that he's highly revered. But if you don't respond to the music even after repeated listenings then it's best not worry about it. There's enough music out there for everyone of all tastes.


----------



## Highwayman

Neo Romanza said:


> Let me ask all of you Brahmsians a question, what do you think of Geoffroy Couteau's traversal of the solo piano music?
> 
> The box set in question -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A worthwhile acquisition?


There aren`t _bad_ Brahms box sets that I know of. Even the notorious Detlef Kraus set ticks some of the boxes imo. But this one is almost immaculate. Couteau`s playing is sensitive and gentle but not without a touch of French quirkiness. His interpretations are well-thought-out but never glacial. I think there is very little to dislike here unless you specifically look for Katchen-like hyper-impulsive playing. His touch is a little bit on the lighter side for my liking but that`s hardly a vice. But I must say the late works are probably not the highlights of this set. They are mostly very good but not really "game-changers". Interestingly, I find his earlier recording of opp. 116,118-9 (Intrada) more convincing.

Anyways, I`m not sure if it is a "must-have" but it`s definitely worthwhile.


----------



## Neo Romanza

Highwayman said:


> There aren`t _bad_ Brahms box sets that I know of. Even the notorious Detlef Kraus set ticks some of the boxes imo. But this one is almost immaculate. Couteau`s playing is sensitive and gentle but not without a touch of French quirkiness. His interpretations are well-thought-out but never glacial. I think there is very little to dislike here unless you specifically look for Katchen-like hyper-impulsive playing. His touch is a little bit on the lighter side for my liking but that`s hardly a vice. But I must say the late works are probably not the highlights of this set. They are mostly very good but not really "game-changers". Interestingly, I find his earlier recording of opp. 116,118-9 (Intrada) more convincing.
> 
> Anyways, I`m not sure if it is a "must-have" but it`s definitely worthwhile.


Thanks for your feedback, but I ended up buying the five volume set of the solo piano music with Jonathan Plowright on BIS. Looking forward to it, too!


----------



## Neo Romanza

Ethereality said:


> I find the autumnal descriptor for Brahms to be a bit (I can't think of the word, a polite way of saying this association is often) empty or incorrect. I think it's understandable as an impression to categorize the mood of his music within a limited box as some profound autumnal expression, but the actual substance therein, the mode of comprehensive reflection, it isn't quite purely imo. His famous example the Poco Allegretto for instance, if I had to attribute possible seasonal archetypes, autumn's archetypes would be the least meaningful here to me.


This is true --- trying to contain Brahms in single word descriptor like "autumnal" hardly does the composer any favors. I hear heartbreak, joyful exuberance, a lust for life, etc. in his music. Trying to box it up to suit whatever the Classic FM corporate group speak is in order to sell the composer's music to an audience doesn't do justice to this man's music.


----------

