# How do you feel about Brahms's earlier piano music?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

A question that I'm curious about is which people tend to prefer in Brahms' piano music, his, the earlier half of his output, or the later half? For me, it is hard to decide. The later half of his output has some spectacular things, but sometimes acquires a stateliness that I don't always have the feel for. The earlier works however, always impassion me in a cold and fierce sort of way, they are evocative of something. But they are weird, lets face it. Not pianistic in the least, but maybe that's why I like them, they are so hard to interpret and it really brings the best out of greats like Gilels when he plays the op. 10 ballades. Am I more infatuated with the musical excellence that these pieces ultimately require from a great performer who's willing to give it, to give, or do I like the pieces themselves for their structures? This is a question to wonder about with any piece, but these pieces in particular really stretch the question for me and place emphasis on the performing aspect. True, later Brahms often requires the same golden touch, but I think the earlier stuff is particularly weird. 

When both are played exceptionally well, I am in more in awe of a few works from his earlier period, namely the 3rd sonata and his op. 10 ballades. How could he have been so dark at such a young age? If music says anything about personality, Brahms might have been a very "dark" and even miserable young adult. I think the later works, though better formed, don't have quite this edge. What do you think?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Shall I be brutally honest? I've never enjoyed the piano sonatas, except maybe the second movement of Op. 5. I wish he'd written a piano sonata in his late period, actually. I think it would have helped his reputation. As for the Ballades, I don't much like them either, except the last one. After the Ballades he didn't produce any new works for a couple of years, and during that period he must have read a lot of Beethoven scores or something, because when he came back he published the Serenade No. 1, which in my opinion is a much more professional piece of work than anything he'd written earlier...


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

It's all good. Brahms is one of my favorites. I still haven't heard a piece of his that I can truly say I disslike.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I don't actually hear a disconnect between them. I feel like Op. 5 could have been written in the 1890s, and Op. 118 in the 1850s.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I don't actually hear a disconnect between them. I feel like Op. 5 could have been written in the 1890s, and Op. 118 in the 1850s.


I agree about Op. 5 (and Op. 1 for that matter) being 1890s possible, but not by Brahms. Op. 118 is 'unthinkable' before circa 1860, for both aesthetic and material reasons.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Interesting Webernite. I'm curious to see where people stand relative to late and early Brahms. I know that some people find early Brahms clunky or forced or even cold, would you agree with those descriptions for your own impression?

@ Polednice, sure op. from all periods of Brahms life sound unmistakeably him, he's remarkably stylistically consistent. But would you agree that there is perhaps an irregularity and jaggedness about the earlier works that they later works have somehow refined(or in some cases smoothed over, depending on the work)?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I haven't read a biography of Brahms, so I can't answer about light and dark relating to opus. I have read that Mahler often wrote the opposite to what he was feeling.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Polednice said:


> I don't actually hear a disconnect between them. I feel like Op. 5 could have been written in the 1890s, and Op. 118 in the 1850s.


Really? I feel that if op. 118 were written in the 1850s, it would be quite the feat. But I do agree op5 could have been written in 1890 but Brahms was very far along, and other than the second mvmt it doesn't mesh with anything he did later on


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> @ Polednice, sure op. from all periods of Brahms life sound unmistakeably him, he's remarkably stylistically consistent. But would you agree that there is perhaps an irregularity and jaggedness about the earlier works that they later works have somehow refined(or in some cases smoothed over, depending on the work)?


I've never noticed that. Can you give a specific example?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Polednice said:


> I've never noticed that. Can you give a specific example?


In the early sonatas, you can tell that Brahms didn't fully understand the different types of cadence, and there inadvertent parallel octaves and fifths everywhere. I'm not going to claim that the Op. 5 sonata sounds any more _jagged_ than, for instance, Op. 116 No. 1. But in Op. 116 it's a result of deliberate rhythmic and harmonic effects, whereas in Op. 5 it sounds more like he's still learning how to compose. Not to mention that the harmony in the early sonatas is incredibly dry and percussive compared with the later works.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> In the early sonatas, you can tell that Brahms didn't fully understand the different types of cadence, and there inadvertent parallel octaves and fifths everywhere. I'm not going to claim that the Op. 5 sonata sounds any more _jagged_ than, for instance, Op. 116 No. 1. But in Op. 116 it's a result of deliberate rhythmic and harmonic effects, whereas in Op. 5 it sounds more like he's still learning how to compose. Not to mention that the harmony in the early sonatas is incredibly dry and percussive compared with the later works.


I'm not one to hear parallel octaves and fifths. Could you point me to an actual passage in one of the early pieces where you can hear clunkiness?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Well, I'm not saying I can _hear _ parrelel fifths, but I think they're indicative, and they make it possible to distinguish between early Brahms and late Brahms relatively easily.

As for clunkiness, what about the development in Ballade No. 3? Practically the whole first part of the piece is in octaves, so there's vey little sense of harmonic motion, then you get a brief lyrical section and that's the end of the piece...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> As for clunkiness, what about the development in Ballade No. 3? Practically the whole first part of the piece is in octaves, so there's vey little sense of harmonic motion, then you get a brief lyrical section and that's the end of the piece...


I don't think the first part of that Ballade lacks harmonic motion - the melody may be played in octaves, but the speed and nature of the notes means they are basically broken chords, so the harmony is clear. The general development is also not what I think you may typically anticipate, so it is interesting. I suppose Brahms is usually thicker in texture, guiding the ear more, and his structures can be more interesting even in the short pieces, but I don't think that necessarily leaves this work sounding particularly immature or jagged.

Certainly in the context of the early sonatas which are amazingly proficient, I think any perception of uninspired writing in something like the Op. 10 Ballades is evidence of Brahms experimenting with his style rather than muddling his way to greater things.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

His earlier piano music sounds like he was attempting to create symphonic level music with just a piano. His later piano music sounds very private and looser.

I'll admit that I personally feel Op. 5 is the last _Great_ piano sonata, so I don't intend to criticize young Brahms. But I do think, as he aged and was able to write symphonies and large scale works, he stopped putting the kind of weight into his piano music and reserved it for the symphony and concerto. Maybe this is why Clavichorder likes the early Brahms so much. I know Claudio Arrau prefer younger Brahms too. But the Way I see it...

Young Brahms wanted to adapt the symphonic scale ideas into the solo piano, really pushing the limit

Old Brahms wanted to re-evaluate the shades and highlights of piano writing, really breaking boundaries which haven't been heard before or since


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

DavidMahler said:


> I'll admit that I personally feel Op. 5 is the last _Great_ piano sonata


I think the Liszt Sonata may have been published later than the Brahms. Not certain, though. Both seem to have been published some time in 1854.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DavidMahler said:


> His earlier piano music sounds like he was attempting to create symphonic level music with just a piano. His later piano music sounds very private and looser.
> 
> I'll admit that I personally feel Op. 5 is the last _Great_ piano sonata, so I don't intend to criticize young Brahms. But I do think, as he aged and was able to write symphonies and large scale works, he stopped putting the kind of weight into his piano music and reserved it for the symphony and concerto. Maybe this is why Clavichorder likes the early Brahms so much. I know Claudio Arrau prefer younger Brahms too. But the Way I see it...
> 
> ...


The structures of the late Klavierstucke may not be symphonic in their scope, but the sound of those pieces is still immensely weighty - large scale short pieces, really.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I've never noticed that. Can you give a specific example?


I take it you've listened to his op. 10 ballades. Its hard to give a specific example, but do you know his 1st and 2nd? The second in particular bombastically hammers out chords with the same treble note and underlying modulations that almost don't work in the main rhythmic motif of the faster section of the piece, it just sounds raunchy and I really like it. Webernite hears the same thing and doesn't like it, I think. The 1st one has a similar bombastic shape shifting repetition that seems to transform in crude and forced ways but feels highly passionate to my ears, that's why I find it so dark. In a way, I think Brahms had his own ideas of music theory going for him at a younger age and his genius was such that it worked in its own quirky way and Beethoven's influence almost impaired his originality for some of the time(not all the time in a few wonderful exceptions, and this isn't to say that I think his later works are bad at all, they are awesome). I hope at least the reference to the parts helped a little bit if you can think of what I'm trying to refer too. I don't have headphones so I can't point out a particular section in a youtube vid at the moment. If you demand this, I will do so later.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Webernite said:


> Well, I'm not saying I can _hear _ parrelel fifths, but I think they're indicative, and they make it possible to distinguish between early Brahms and late Brahms relatively easily.
> 
> As for clunkiness, what about the development in Ballade No. 3? Practically the whole first part of the piece is in octaves, so there's vey little sense of harmonic motion, then you get a brief lyrical section and that's the end of the piece...


See Webernite, somehow I feel that though the early music is ripe with flaws, in many cases it has greater strengths that MOST of the later music. It is thematically bolder and somehow more inspired, I think. I am most fond of the finale and middle section of Brahms op. 5 and also I love Ballade number 1 and 4 especially.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> I'll admit that I personally feel Op. 5 is the last _Great_ piano sonata, so I don't intend to criticize young Brahms. But I do think, as he aged and was able to write symphonies and large scale works, he stopped putting the kind of weight into his piano music and reserved it for the symphony and concerto. Maybe this is why Clavichorder likes the early Brahms so much. I know Claudio Arrau prefer younger Brahms too.


That is indeed a thought. That his grandiosity found its outlet in the symphonic works later, I think I agree. Perhaps it is the grandiosity/storminess of the early piano works that I'm so impressed with. They are indeed STORMY.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> His earlier piano music sounds like he was attempting to create symphonic level music with just a piano. His later piano music sounds very private and looser.
> 
> *I'll admit that I personally feel Op. 5 is the last Great piano sonata*, so I don't intend to criticize young Brahms. But I do think, as he aged and was able to write symphonies and large scale works, he stopped putting the kind of weight into his piano music and reserved it for the symphony and concerto. Maybe this is why Clavichorder likes the early Brahms so much. I know Claudio Arrau prefer younger Brahms too. But the Way I see it...
> 
> ...


Awww this statement saddens me  what about Prokofiev? Scriabin? Szymanowski? Berg? Medtner? Rachmaninov?


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

I love Brahms Piano Sonatas, and the Ballades. The 3rd Sonata was performed in the first ever solo recital I attended, by Piers Lane. It really blew me away. The whole work is terrific, but the first couple minutes are particularly breathtaking!

I was 16 at the time and went with my mother. The program also included Chopin's 24 preludes, which Mum thought would be the highlight of the night for me. It wasn't however. The Brahms Sonata was.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> Awww this statement saddens me  what about Prokofiev? Scriabin? Szymanowski? Berg?


And Rachmaninoff's second+several Medtner sonatas are 1st degree awesome too!


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> See Webernite, somehow I feel that though the early music is ripe with flaws, in many cases it has greater strengths that MOST of the later music. It is thematically bolder and somehow more inspired, I think.


I dunno. I'd agree that in the early works he was much less stingy with melody. In the Op. 5 sonata and the Serenades there are dozens of good motifs in every movement; in the later works he limits himself to about one good motif in each piece. But other than that, I don't really agree with you. I wouldn't even agree that the early works are consistently stormier than the later ones.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> And Rachmaninoff's second+several Medtner sonatas are 1st degree awesome too!


Edited  ...............


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Webernite said:


> I dunno. I'd agree that in the early works he was much less stingy with melody. In the Op. 5 sonata and the Serenades there are dozens of good motifs in every movement; in the later works he limits himself to about one good motif in each piece. But other than that, I don't really agree with you. I wouldn't even agree that the early works are consistently stormier than the later ones.


Personally, I think I prefer it when Brahms is melodically stingy. In the early works, you're right that there are lots of wonderful motifs throughout the pieces, but I almost wish that he had devoted a separate piece to each theme. In the later works, the melodic restraint pushes the development in more interesting directions, and makes them feel less disjointed.

Oh look, you just got me to admit to something being better in the later pieces.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

I don't know about publishing dates but I do know liszt played brahms the b minor sonata in 1853 when Brahms had only written 2 movements to the f minor sonata. They actually have a similar vibe about then tho, no?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> I don't know about publishing dates but I do know liszt played brahms the b minor sonata in 1853 when Brahms had only written 2 movements to the f minor sonata. They actually have a similar vibe about then tho, no?


I think there is something to be said for a similarity between the two works. For one, they are both early attempts that attempt to unify massive piano pieces under very elemental strings of motifs and they are certainly grandiose. The Liszt is probably undeniably the better work, but I like the Brahms more. Going back to our talk of keys though, B minor and F minor are different keys that contribute to the already different moods of the pieces, the Brahms is "blacker" and the Liszt, though just as stormy, is not so dark, but more grand. The Liszt is more unified, the Brahms more compartmentalized.

Not the first time two enemy composers end up sounding like each other. Almost sounds like an idea for a thread.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

violadude said:


> Awww this statement saddens me  what about Prokofiev? Scriabin? Szymanowski? Berg? Medtner? Rachmaninov?


aw, I don't mean any disrespect to those awesome sonatas. I think in my heart I only look at a few sonatas as top tier:

Probably about a third of Beethoven
The last few of Schubert
Two of Chopin
One of Liszt
And the last of Brahms.

That's it 

Not even the Haydn and Mozart make it into the top tier for me, but I often listen to Haydn's

I would say the Russian masters of the sonata are a whole different animal.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Haydn's last few are top tier!


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Webernite said:


> Haydn's last few are top tier!


And all three of Schumann's! And Prokofiev's War Sonatas!


----------

