# Brahms in Perspective



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The industrial revolution in Europe gave rise to a new middle class, and a bourgeoisie introspection which gave rise to the idea of "art" as an object of divine contemplation. It was the age of Beethoven, and of heroes. This created the perception of an "invisible museum" of Western music. Ironically, this only lasted a few decades until it began to play itself out in the advent of the new consumer culture which had been created. Recording technology turned music into a commodity. It was no longer "in time" but became "of time" as a history frozen like an object, a commodity, product.

Brahms managed to get in on the tail-end of this age of heroes, but by this time he too realized it was an age whose time had passed. Brahms himself talked of "hearing the tread of a giant" behind him, referring to Beethoven.

Brahms symphonic works are the most appropriate for scrutiny; these are the "public persona" of Brahms, not the intimate chamber works. In the public symphonies, we see the bombast on display, like grand portraits; the self-aware persona of "genius" in all its awkward glory; pompous portraits of bearded men gazing off into the distance, posed on horses, heroes of some war or another; Wagner's stern gaze, Beethoven's angry countenance staring back at us, immersed in humorless self-importance, seen as they wished to be seen, writing history in their own terms, leaving out the embarrassing parts, the weaknesses, the indulgences, the character flaws. This was "History" with a capital "H," written by "geniuses."

It was all artifice, we know it now, in this age of "no more heroes." Brahms' symphonies sound artificial now, forced, with a curious lack of emotion and a strange detached otherworldly sense that we are behind a wall of thick glass. The phrases, the themes, are perfectly balanced, almost artificially perfect, as if extensive study of computer-data had gone into the formulation of these specimens. A cool objectivity, always calculated, never "on the edge of losing control" or being swept away in a storm of emotion.

At one time, I chalked this up to some sort of character quirk of Brahms...was he gay, celibate, who knew? But, no, now I see it as the last gasp of a dying age; a futile attempt to extend the heroic age.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Very interesting to read. I like the way you describe the Romantics and their distant stares. "Humourless self importance," and writing history on their own terms." Strong characters indeed!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"Brahms in Perspective"? You must have picked up the wrong pair of specs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> "Brahms in Perspective"? You must have picked up the wrong pair of specs.


Yeah, I thought he was a hillbilly at first.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

Brahms doesn't deserve to be analyzed outside of the confines of what he composed in this way. It is unfair to evaluate a composer based on what you are reading into his music. Brahms loved tradition, and the Symphonic genre "is no joke for him", but think about how ridiculous your post reads when you realize the hysteric intensity of the First Symphony, and the transcendence of the finale of the First, or the neo-Baroque of the Finale of the 4th, or the overwhelming intimacy of the 3rd Symphony. It simply doesn't makes sense and for me is somewhat wrong to evaluate his music based on some theory you made up and are forcing Brahms music to fit. 

It's strange, because I don't feel any of the detachment or artificiality that you say Brahms music embodies, not even the heroism that you claim is the essential quality of Brahms work. I see the Symphonies just as greatly intimate and personal than any of the Chamber Music is. Brahms loved the tradition that he was a part of, but this by no means meant that he was trying to grasp on to a dying style; read Schoenberg's "Brahms the Progressive if you want to". This Boulezian kind of talking is really abhorrent to me, and I feel that if this was the way that we evaluated a composer's work, it would be the death of art.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

No joke indeed! See my signature. And who is this person, and why is he going on about me?


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Rainbows --

I find that your posts often inspire in me a sense of deja vu. In my student cohort (late '60s, early '70s) there was a species of professional contrarian whose principal mode of expression was disdain. Whether fueled by one species or another of Marxist ideology, anti-estalishmentism, bourgeoise rebellion, or just indigestion, a common theme was elitism, a misreading of history according to ideological principles, imputing of anachronistic motives, and a general need to be combative. There's nothing wrong with any of the above, but I've just heard it all before.

I think Brahms was merely writing the best music he could in the style he was most comfortable with (as did most composers). And I think your post earlier in the weekend about elitism mistook the trappings (concert deportment) for the thing itself (the music). I gravitated to classical music on my own relatively early because for one reason or another it spoke to me. And the fact that I liked it, and for the most part disliked most of the music that my generation worshipped (rock and roll, hard rock) made me feel not elite, but an outcast. I was willing to live with liking what I liked, but it never really got any easier.

Without meaning to sound condescending, your fulminations entertain me. But if I have time, I'll engage you.

Cheers --

george


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Brahms's music is full of passion, emotion and it's beautifully crafted. He was absolutely one of the great masters of transition and of symphonic thinking. Beethoven-Brahms-Sibelius. That about covers it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SottoVoce said:


> ...
> It's strange, because I don't feel any of the detachment or artificiality that you say Brahms music embodies, not even the heroism that you claim is the essential quality of Brahms work. I see the Symphonies just as greatly intimate and personal than any of the Chamber Music is.


Well I'd add to that the fact that several Brahms chamber works where projected symphonies. For example, the piano quintet went through various permutations (eg. I think there's a version for two pianos, and it was also worked out as a string quintet, but Joachim advised Brahms to make it into the present form it is now). Brahms most likely had in mind a symphony when he wrote this work, but being in Beethoven's shadow (which is one of the reasons Brahms didn't produce a symphony before the age of 40 - Bruckner had similar reasons), he published it as a chamber work.

& interesting how you mention Schoenberg, who orchestrated Brahms' Piano Quartet #1, which is also likely to have been another work Brahms would have made into a symphony, but didn't. Schoenberg's brilliant orchestration is indeed dubbed by some 'Brahms' 5th symphony.'

But I think that Brahms' chamber works do show a very intimate side to the man, but so what? Same can be said about any great composer's music who wrote both symphonies and chamber works. Eg. Shostakovich, or indeed Beethoven, or say Elgar. In terms of Brahms symphonies though, you often got that same sort of narrative, that same inner struggle I hear in his chamber pieces. I always got that in many of his works regardless of genre. This was a guy who grew up in poverty and 'made it' - this is unusual for most composers, who where and are mainly middle class. I always connected with that sense of struggle, and even technically you got that in his music, the tonal qualities and rhythms would have made any of the wigs (even Beethoven maybe?) balk. Brahms often goes into ambigious tonal areas and only resolves them later into the piece, his pieces push classical forms to their limits.

I agree though that his chamber works are more personal, eg. in terms of the 'Agathe' motto in his String Sextet #2 and also the Piano Quartet #3, started when Schumann was going downhill rapidly, its a very tortured and dark work. But then again, generally that Hungarian flavour in much of Brahms music (including the symphonies, not to speak of the concertos) can be attributed to him knowing Hungarian musicians such as Remenyi and of course Joachim.

& he was among the first bourgeois composers, but so what? Don't people think its about time composers broke away from the courts and wrote the music for the masses? Even Haydn and Mozart went freelance late in their careers. They where among those composers who started the first public concerts. So? What's wrong with publishing music, getting it performed, and later recorded, all that? I mean is this just ideology again? (see below)



> ...This Boulezian kind of talking is really abhorrent to me, and I feel that if this was the way that we evaluated a composer's work, it would be the death of art.


Same to me, but let's not pull down the high priest of Modernism, the guy who put virtually everyone's nose out of joint in the 1940's and '50's with his aggressive ideology (nay, dogma or religion). Even his teacher Messiaen was not immune from Pierre's wrath. But now Pierre is capital E Establishment. I don't even think Pierre is a true believer in all this type of thing now, he kind of stopped doing that and wisened up to reality decades ago. But who cares? I just think that on this forum there are various sacred cows one cannot touch. Its like the inner sanctum of some religion or political party. We just can't go there, can we?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I thought your essay most amusing,I presume you wrote it to stir up reaction.If not I am amazed to read a picture that certainly does not tally with the composer I have enjoyed for years.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Oh, don't get me wrong, I like Brahms; I listened to the Second Symphony today...but now I appreciate the distance, the artifice, the sense of emotional disconnect. He no longer intimidates me, or mystifies me; the wizard of Oz has been exposed. As GGluek said, "I think Brahms was merely writing the best music he could in the style he was most comfortable with..." and that's about it. No more genius, no more mysterious hero, he was a craftsman, nothing less, nothing more. It's as if I have "lost my religion' when it comes to Brahms...I'm no longer a true believer, if I ever was. At least, I was a potentiate, but no more. It's beautiful, but it no longer has the potential of being "sacred" in any way, if it ever was. I've grown up & away from Brahms; I see him with a satified detachment, very satisfied. This is the best way to describe my experience of Brahms now, as very "satisfying," because I am no longer in debt to any "genius" which demands my compliance; I listen to Brahms on my terms now, not his.

I can see how his music might evoke emotion, but I think this comes more from interpretation. When I say I hear a "detachment," it's the musical phrases and ideas themselves that sound detached, logical, and calculated. I can see how Schoenberg would admire this; it's immaculate in its construction, but it seems to come from a logical area of the brain rather than an intuitive area. The overall connections, the relations between ideas, the overview, all seem calculated in some strangely satisfying way. The music is a "replica" in some way. It "simulates" emotion in a very exacting way. If this is "love," then it's "tough love." I don't think it is "inspired" unless you admire the sheer tenacity and exacting effort to simulate "inspiration." I don't think Brahms was expressing "his soul," whatever you take that to mean. He was constructing something, consciously; it shows in small ways. Tidy phrases, carefully balanced, never faltering, never out of control. Did you ever know a person like that? Something is not quite sincere...like something out of The Matrix. 

This music is not about me, I can tell...I should not empathize with this music, it was not meant to be smothered with my dependence. It is self-sustaining in its distance, self-contained in its detachment. It does not crave my friendship or worship. It is like a statue of marble, beautiful in its depiction of human form, but ultimately unreal. And for that reason, I simultaneously crave its presence, yet I resent its lack of real touch, like some mythological presence which I have finally come to terms with. It was just a dream, nothing more. My poor, chaste Brahms...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Look guy, it's music. I write it for a living -- everybody knows that. If you need an epiphany every day, drugs may work better. Now where'd I put that crossbow Antonin gave me...there's a cat outside on the fence...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The basic flaw with this sort of malcontent agitprop fulmination (typical of, as someone said, academia of the 60's, 70's, and I suppose even more egregiously, thereafter) is the focusing of a voguish modernist mentality upon a past era.

That is very like a wildly mistaken malcontent agitprop feminist take upon Oedipus Rex.

What is wrong? Even the most forward looking man or woman in ancient Greece had nothing near 20th century feminism anywhere in their sensibility, Ergo, applying the contemporary thought as relevant to the literature of Antique Greece just don't hold any water.

Sure, someplace it might earn you a 4.0 on that paper, and if extended as a paper into a thesis or published essay, either keep your post secure in tenure, or gain you that master's or doctorate degree, no matter that the institution so granting those is doing no one -- let alone history or antique literature -- any good service.

From Beethoven forward, both composer and public became enormously aware of self, ergo massively self-conscious. The more overt works of many a later romantic composer are (to me) horribly self-conscious, and by later sensibilities, seem terribly 'overblown.' That, however was the ethos of the age: it was both spontaneous and sincere.

_I have been waiting for someone to dare to say what the real cause of this supposed problem is_, and you have provided the opportunity: _It is the bourgeois consumer crowd, which were then and are,now currently, US_. That is right. *The educated, working class, blue / white collar public who became the majority of the paying / consuming audience of the time (vs. the generation prior Beethoven of 'the elite / cognoscenti") are the cause for the conditions you are so ready to blame on 'politics,' or some such.*

That public, like the public of today, are, well, 'pedestrian / plebes, and any other apposite term deemed politically incorrect or not, that you wish to call them. They like what they like, and somewhat if not entirely dictate what does and does not get accepted.

We have, therefore, only "ourselves" to blame, then and now, not the composers, nor the music institutions.

Elsewhere, while deploring the active stranglehold of the old Romantic European tradition upon the 'progress' of music, you then swing to advocating 'we' "Look to the European Avant Garde" for direction and a model. Nice one. That is as egregiously snobbish, elitist as what you seem to be vehemently against, and it implies that those not in or on the Euro Avant Garde bandwagon have not enough stuff of their own to be worthy without -- ta da, signing up for the current vogue / vague of "european tradition."

There are tremendous conflicts within your posts, and from one to the next. May you sort them out.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PETRB.
All I can say is ...MY GOODNESS and hope you feel better after that !


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

moody said:


> PETRB.
> All I can say is ...MY GOODNESS and hope you feel better after that !


Really! I've never been more eloquently ad-hominemed! :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> ... the distance, the artifice, the sense of emotional disconnect... he was a craftsman, nothing less, nothing more. ... I see him with a ... detachment, .... When I say I hear a "detachment," it's the musical phrases and ideas themselves that sound detached, logical, and calculated. ...it's immaculate in its construction, but it seems to come from a logical area of the brain rather than an intuitive area. ... I don't think ... was expressing "his soul," whatever you take that to mean. He was constructing something, consciously; it shows in small ways. Tidy phrases, carefully balanced, never faltering, never out of control. Did you ever know a person like that? Something is not quite sincere...like something out of The Matrix.


From my point of view, those words would apply to Webern, not Brahms. Only one work by Webern has engaged me emotionally. Those words describe Webern to a tee (again, its MY opinion I'm talking about, I'm not inferring others opinions here or elsewhere).



> ...
> ... I simultaneously crave its presence, yet I resent its lack of real touch, like some mythological presence which I have finally come to terms with. It was just a dream, nothing more. My poor, chaste Brahms...


Again, I wouldn't say Brahms is chaste. I mean the guy openly slept with prostitutes. Once he and colleagues where walking home from somewhere (maybe a concert, or a late night at the university) and Brahms stopped to talk to some of the working girls soliciting on the street. He didn't hide what he was doing. He comes across as quite direct, so too in his music. Look at that second string sextet I mentioned, its got Agathe in it as a motto, he was dating Agathe von Siebold, but it came to nothing (in terms of marriage). He never felt comfortable with high class women. It may be his childhood in poverty, which included playing piano in rough taverns frequented by prostitutes. I mean to support his family, to put food on the table. He wasn't chaste, are you kidding?

As for again Webern, his death as a martyr is the stuff of mythological proportions, now that made the guy a patron saint for the post 1945 avant garde. I'm not pushing this in your face, I care less whether you put Webern above Brahms (I'm fine if you do that, whatever). I'm just saying, to me Webern is the epitome of what you're talking about. I don't hate Webern's music but the stuff you're saying for me applies to Anton, NOT Johannes!


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

millionrainbows said:


> But, no, now I see it as the last gasp of a dying age; a futile attempt to extend the heroic age.


There was plenty of heroic, in its way, sounding music from the first half of the twentieth century, for example in American and Soviet orchestral music. Post WWII perhaps it had finally had it's day.

As for Brahms not being full of wild abandon, well obviously he wouldn't be, most of the music of his era wasn't. People like Liszt and Wagner were surely more the exception than the rule.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Really! I've never been more eloquently ad-hominemed! :lol:


My esteemed colleague: It is not rocket science to readily recognize that post is not "all about you," but it has everything to do with addressing the posits you have made.

As always, 
Best regards.


----------



## Bone (Jan 19, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> The industrial revolution in Europe gave rise to a new middle class, and a bourgeoisie introspection which gave rise to the idea of "art" as an object of divine contemplation. It was the age of Beethoven, and of heroes. This created the perception of an "invisible museum" of Western music. Ironically, this only lasted a few decades until it began to play itself out in the advent of the new consumer culture which had been created. Recording technology turned music into a commodity. It was no longer "in time" but became "of time" as a history frozen like an object, a commodity, product.
> 
> Brahms managed to get in on the tail-end of this age of heroes, but by this time he too realized it was an age whose time had passed. Brahms himself talked of "hearing the tread of a giant" behind him, referring to Beethoven.
> 
> ...


I am in complete disagreement with your opinion. Brahms' symphonies sound like the finest expression of Romantic melody and phrasing with Classical form and sensibility. Not sure what exactly you are hearing, sir or ma'am, but I suggest you RUN to the nearest recording of Brahms 3 and do your penance.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Bone said:


> I am in complete disagreement with your opinion. Brahms' symphonies sound like the finest expression of Romantic melody and phrasing with Classical form and sensibility. Not sure what exactly you are hearing, sir or ma'am, but I suggest you RUN to the nearest recording of Brahms 3 and do your penance.


Right now, I'm listening to Brahms 2, and that's a great idea with those minor chords. But, as was referred to earlier, "Brahms doesn't give good epiphany." If you feel it, more power to you, but for me it's rather like sex with an inflatable doll (not that I would know).


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I am working with some thoughts on the Brahms symphonies, and I'll put them forth in an effort to help me better understand myself and if anyone wants to offer honest comment...

I sort of think that, despite a composers ideas getting in the way, the heart of the musical genius will be there can be buried deep. Brahms was a musical genius for sure, definitely in those symphonies, even though "the heart" of it is not so accessible to many.

There is a reason though, in my opinion, that Tchaikovsky didn't like Brahms so much. Berlioz also thought Wagner stifled by his 'calculating' approach(although some of that may be his own ego). 

These days I'm trying to open my ears up though, because a musicological perspective will only get you so far. When I first heard the Brahms symphonies, I had such a bizarre mixed reaction. Here this guy, who wrote the Hungarian dances which I always liked, has these works that sound like a precise and codified version of Beethoven on a grander orchestral scale. 

If you just "go with the artifice" there is plenty of great music to be had there, is my current consenus. Its just all "worked over." Means the mind has to work on it before the music is better understood, perhaps?

Sometimes, I think Brahms's stuffiness is just a trademark of the pitfalls of being a German composer, both in general and in the time he was from. There are some amazing ups and some lack of spontaneity downfalls?

I am only being critical because I had a mixed first impression of 'serious' Brahms. I felt like my throat had a lump in it when I first heard his 4th symphony, for some reason, even though I was interested. When I want to refine my tastes, I'll weigh the 'bad' against the good, but for the time being, I take 'the good' and Brahms symphonies have tremendous amounts that are 'Great.'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> I am working with some thoughts on the Brahms symphonies, and I'll put them forth in an effort to help me better understand myself and if anyone wants to offer honest comment...
> 
> I sort of think that, despite a composers ideas getting in the way, the heart of the musical genius will be there can be buried deep. Brahms was a musical genius for sure, definitely in those symphonies, even though "the heart" of it is not so accessible to many.
> 
> ...


I can agree with what you've said. Speaking of Wagner, what about the "division into camps" of the Wagnerites vs. Brahmsians? Which side would you choose?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I can agree with what you've said. Speaking of Wagner, what about the "division into camps" of the Wagnerites vs. Brahmsians? Which side would you choose?


Neither. But I have taken more time to freely understand Brahms's music.

Mahler put it simply, "Brahms was in the casting ladle too long. Bruckner was not in long enough." I think the first part is true, and the second part is entirely untrue and true at the same time(poor man spent so much time learning music theory and revising his works).

I might be more in the Bruckner camp, lol, who only admired Wagner and was in no camp of his own. Johann Strauss is also nice too, I like that camp.

Brahms and Wagner need to air out sometimes.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Whether he approved of it or not at least Brahms was aware that the musical climate was incrementally changing as the 19th c. wore on. If his ardent admirer and Godfather of Reaction Eduard Hanslick had his way it would have stayed 1865 for ever.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I enjoy the discussing and will continue to watch it from the background, if nobody minds :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It is rather refreshing to see _tonal_ music defended for a change. :lol: ...with the difference that *I *show restraint and respect. Perhaps this can serve as a model for future generations of grouchy old cranks.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> Here this guy, who wrote the Hungarian dances which I always liked, has these works that sound like a precise and codified version of Beethoven on a grander orchestral scale.


I know this is the standard thing that probably just gets repeated on forums, but surely he had other influences as well (for example Schumann).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

The quartets in A minor and C minor
The Violin Concerto
The Double Concerto
The Requiem
The Intermezzos for Piano
The Piano Concertos 
The Clarinet Quintet
The Piano Quintet
The Symphonies

When you know them all well then talk to me about putting that genius 'in perspective'.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> When you know them all well then talk to me about putting that genius 'in perspective'.


The quartets in A minor and C minor: Alban Berg Quartett (EMI 2-CD). These aren't bad. Interesting rhythmically...
The Violin Concerto: Complete Concertos (Philips 3-CD)
The Double Concerto...Stern, Yo-Yo Ma, Abbado. Does that come with fries and a drink?
The Requiem: Blomstedt, SFO
The Intermezzos for Piano...Glenn Gould
The Piano Concertos: Complete Concertos (Philips 3-CD)
The Clarinet Quintet: Gautier Capucon, Myung-Whun Chung (EMI). I don't like clarinets, even the Mozart one.
The Piano Quintet...Pollini, Quartetto Italiano (DG)
The Symphonies: Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full: Mackerras (Telarc), Gustav Kuhn (Col Legno), Muti, PO (Philips)

Okay, I'm ready to talk.

What about the violin and cello sonatas? And the leider?

As I already grudgingly admitted in my opening salvo, the chamber works do have a bit more humanity. He definitely needs to lose the beard. He's trying to look like a "wise ancient."

Brahms said of his _Piano Quartet No. 3, Op.60:_ "You can put a picture on the title-page, namely of a man with a pistol held to his head. Now you get an idea of the music. I will send you my photograph for this purpose."

Hmm...maybe this is something I should try.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I repeat, who is this person? It's irritating, like having a gnat buzzing in one's ear. Particularly when I'm trying to compose. And I still can't find that ^%$%^ crossbow!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I repeat, who is this person? It's irritating, like having a gnat buzzing in one's ear. Particularly when I'm trying to compose. And I still can't find that ^%$%^ crossbow!


Tsk, tsk...I know the feeling exactly. Maybe you should try that gun-to-the-head thing again, Johannes. :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Maybe you should try that gun-to-the-head thing again, Johannes. :lol:


I'm thinking exactly that. But it won't be *my *head. And if I can find that crossbow, it won't be a cat...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

starry said:


> I know this is the standard thing that probably just gets repeated on forums, but surely he had other influences as well (for example Schumann).


Yeah, that was laziness on my part, sorry.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

KenOC said:


> I repeat, who is this person? It's irritating, like having a gnat buzzing in one's ear. Particularly when I'm trying to compose. And I still can't find that ^%$%^ crossbow!


Stay away from my cat!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> The quartets in A minor and C minor: Alban Berg Quartett (EMI 2-CD). These aren't bad. Interesting rhythmically...
> The Violin Concerto: Complete Concertos (Philips 3-CD)
> The Double Concerto...Stern, Yo-Yo Ma, Abbado. Does that come with fries and a drink?
> The Requiem: Blomstedt, SFO
> ...


Very good sir.
Now all you need to do is unwrap them and stick 'em in the machine.



Don't know the lieder-shame on me!


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> And I still can't find that ^%$%^ crossbow!


Antonin lent it to Karlheinz, who wrote a concerto for it.

As for Brahms, he's one of my favourite composers, but I can't really quite comment on the OP's ideas because I can't make head or tails of them.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Very good sir.
> Now all you need to do is unwrap them and stick 'em in the machine.
> 
> 
> ...


Just unwrap 'em and stick 'em in the machine...like a microwavable snack.

*BRRR*ahms: I just listened to Brahms' _Violin Sonata No. 3 Op.108._ Interesting, but over-the-top dripping with sticky Romanticism. With Johaness, I don't get the strength of Beethoven, or the harmonic adventurousness of Robert Schumann; it's just homophonic melodies punctuated occasionally by bursts of piano, and that strange little two-note "motive" that keeps reappearing. It keeps an "Energizer Bunny" sort of momentum going, I'll grant you that.

I'm sure fiddle-players love to overdo this one. It sounds middle-of-the-road to me, as if Brahms was trying to please an audience or prove something about himself. It never takes chances, none that I can hear, anyway. It's pretty, like a good painting, but nothing challenging or unique-sounding. What is "The Brahms Sound?" I still can't define it. I listened, I lost interest, until it faded into the background. I got up, and cooked breakfast while it kept _going, and going, and going..._


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> Antonin lent it to Karlheinz, who wrote a concerto for it.
> 
> As for Brahms, he's one of my favourite composers, but I can't really quite comment on the OP's ideas because I can't make head or tails of them.


What are they gonna do, kill some rabbitts for supper?

I suppose my OP was rather vague, but the music is vague, to me. As for Brahms, why do you like the music? Be succinct and clear, now.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I suppose my OP was rather vague, but the music is vague, to me. As for Brahms, why do you like the music? Be succinct and clear, now.


How can one possibly be succinct or clear about music?

I guess I like Brahms because I grew up with it, especially his third symphony and Tragic Overture. It always envelops me in the soft glow of nostalgia. I also like his classical restraint. You seem to experience his music differently.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> How can one possibly be succinct or clear about music?


Exactly. So why say "I can't really quite comment on the OP's ideas because I can't make head or tails of them."? Hmmm? We're waiting for the explanation. Be clear, now.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Exactly. So why say "I can't really quite comment on the OP's ideas because I can't make head or tails of them."? Hmmm? We're waiting for the explanation. Be clear, now.


I couldn't work out what you are really saying in the OP. If I have time, I'll go read your comments again and see if I can make some lengthy and intelligent sounding comments on the comments. Going through a bit of a hectic time at work at the moment though.

It seems to me music and art criticism are weird creatures that are serious and non-serious at the same time. At first glance they LOOK quite serious, filled with more terminology than a paper on quantum physics. But then, with quite a lot of it, however much I read through them, I cannot work out how they make any actual contribution to music or art. But at the same time, the use of language is often wonderfully clever and/or poetic.

I nowadays see criticism as a creative act in itself, which can be enjoyed for its own sake, even if one has never heard or seen the art being criticized.

Anyway, I'm rambling. Will perhaps be back later to continue my attempt at looking profound.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

IT'S all politics, anyway...listening to Brahms Piano Quartet No. 3, Op.60. 'Snot bad...still that overly dramatic atmosphere, but it's drama with no real power like Beethoven, all bluster and crying. Brahms' libido must have been destroyed by some lost love...I can relate, but get over it, Johannes.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> ...listening to Brahms Piano Quartet No. 3, Op.60.


And did you pay for that? Buy some of my scores, dude, and then whine all you like. And watch out, I found that @$%#$% crossbow...


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> And did you pay for that? Buy some of my scores, dude, and then whine all you like. And watch out, I found that @$%#$% crossbow...


Karlheinz wants it back: he wants to experiement now with a concerto for prepared crossbow.

I'm still thinking about Millionrainbows' thoughts on Brahms. I find it surprising that he feels the music is overly dramatic. It seems to me that of all the composers of the second half of the 19th century, Brahms is by far the most restrained in his emotional expression. But it just goes to show how differently individuals can experience the same music.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> I'm still thinking about Millionrainbows' thoughts on Brahms. I find it surprising that he feels the music is overly dramatic. It seems to me that of all the composers of the second half of the 19th century, Brahms is by far the most restrained in his emotional expression. But it just goes to show how differently individuals can experience the same music.


It sounds pretty dramatically saccharine to me, especially the chamber works. If you are saying Brahms was a Classicist, I think a better term might be "academic." He was highly influenced by Schumann and Schubert as well.

You're correct, though; the idea of holding a pistol to one's head is decidedly "Romantic," but not pulling the trigger shows great "Classical restraint." :lol:


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> You're correct, though; the idea of holding a pistol to one's head is decidedly "Romantic,"


And thus we can conclude that Beethoven's nephew was the great romantic of the age. 

And Schumann and Tchaikovsky both threw themselves into a river; very romantic. Not to mention Chopin dying of consumption.

Sigh. They don't make romantics like they used to...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> And thus we can conclude that Beethoven's nephew was the great romantic of the age.
> 
> And Schumann and Tchaikovsky both threw themselves into a river; very romantic. Not to mention Chopin dying of consumption.
> 
> Sigh. They don't make romantics like they used to...


Yeah, it's that Tristan & Isolde "love-death" thing, very trendy in the nineteenth century.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I disagree with the ludicrous claim of "The Three B's." Brahms is not worthy of that degree of canonization. This is not only because he was _not_ a "natural genius" like Bach & Beethoven, but also because he was somewhat of a politician with an agenda, definitely not an "innocent."

According to WIK:

[His works were labelled *old-fashioned* by the 'New German School' whose principal figures included *Liszt* and *Richard Wagner*. Brahms admired some of Wagner's music and admired Liszt as a great pianist, but the conflict between the two schools, known as the War of the Romantics, soon embroiled all of musical Europe.]

[In 1860, *Brahms attempted to organize a public protest against some of the wilder excesses of the Wagnerians' music. *_(the nerve of that guy!-ed.) _This took the form of a *manifesto,* written by Brahms and Joachim jointly. The manifesto, which was published prematurely with only three supporting signatures, was a failure, and he never engaged in public polemics again.]

*[...Brahms considered giving up composition when it seemed that other composers' innovations in extended tonality would result in the rule of tonality being broken altogether.] *

In other words, if you don't play by the old rules, *I quit!* :lol: Hmmph! This is a great impetus for me to become a pro-Wagnerian/pro-Lisztian!

*No wonder the old grump only wrote four symphonies; *he was too busy campaigning against "distant key areas" of Liszt and Wagner, whose harmonic innovations were making music more chromatic, more evolved towards modern developments, and which were "eroding tonality." God forbid that Brahms' precious "tonality" should ever be disturbed....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

There is no universal agreement on Brahms, but I do "get" him when it is played properly. 

That means, "with restraint when he's too Romantic," and when he's "too detached," I don't know if there's a remedy for that. 

When he's "too bombastic," I want to go in and re-orchestrate that "burst" he always does. 

What is that, tympani and horns? It's horrible, and he uses it over and over. Don't get me started...


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with the ludicrous claim of "The Three B's." Brahms is not worthy of that degree of canonization. This is not only because he was _not_ a "natural genius" like Bach & Beethoven, but also because he was somewhat of a politician with an agenda, definitely not an "innocent."


You would no doubt prefer Bach, Beethoven and Bartok. 



> *No wonder the old grump only wrote four symphonies; *he was too busy campaigning against "distant key areas" of Liszt and Wagner, whose harmonic innovations were making music more chromatic, more evolved towards modern developments, and which were "eroding tonality."


I doubt that. After his youthful venture into polemics, he mostly lost interest in it, and composed few symphonies probably partly because he preferred chamber music, and partly because to him, a symphony was really, really, really serious, and not the kind of thing of which you wrote three in an afternoon like Haydn.

In any event, I am perfectly happy to let the fate of composers in the able hands of posterity.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree with the ludicrous claim of "The Three B's." Brahms is not worthy of that degree of canonization. This is not only because he was _not_ a "natural genius" like Bach & Beethoven, but also because he was somewhat of a politician with an agenda, definitely not an "innocent."
> 
> According to WIK:
> 
> ...


Liszt's music is to Brahms's music as a puddle is to a lake. Shallow by comparison. 
I do like the sound of some of Liszt's music and the B minor sonata is an exciting work but my word, Brahms's understanding and command of the sonata far surpassed Liszt's. The B minor sonata is episodic and fails to hang together in a convincing manner. It has wonderful passages but just like Tchaikovsky admitted of his own symphonies, one can "hear the seams".

It _is_ possible to be a great fan of Wagner and Brahms and I wouldn't want to be without either.

Why do you think that being a 'progressive' trumps any other quality?
Beethoven, by the end of his life was a crusty old conservative you know. Everyone thought so. He objected to Spohr's music as being too chromatic.
It might have been better had Wagner not engaged in public polemics. At least he should have stuck to musical topics eh?

I take it you've read Schoenberg's essay 'Brahms the progressive'


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

brianvds said:


> You would no doubt prefer Bach, Beethoven and Bartok.


*No wonder the old grump only wrote four symphonies; *he was too busy campaigning against "distant key areas" of Liszt and Wagner, whose harmonic innovations were making music more chromatic, more evolved towards modern developments, and which were "eroding tonality."



> I doubt that. After his youthful venture into polemics, he mostly lost interest in it, and composed few symphonies probably partly because he preferred chamber music, and partly because to him, a symphony was really, really, really serious, and not the kind of thing of which you wrote three in an afternoon like Haydn. In any event, I am perfectly happy to let the fate of composers in the able hands of posterity.


That's not what I heard. Supposedly he was such an **** perfectionist that he tore up as much stuff as he kept; and yes, he does sound, uhh, "really, really serious" in those symphonies.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> Beethoven, by the end of his life was a crusty old conservative you know. Everyone thought so. He objected to Spohr's music as being too chromatic.


Clearly the old grump never actually LISTENED to any of it! :devil:



millionrainbows said:


> That's not what I heard. Supposedly he was such an **** perfectionist that he tore up as much stuff as he kept;


That's one of the qualities in him that I admire most.



> and yes, he does sound, uhh, "really, really serious" in those symphonies.


For the most part yes. But it has nothing to do with him supposedly being too much of a polemicist to have time to compose. His life would strike most people as boringly routine: get up at pretty much the same time every morning, compose until afternoon, go for a long walk, go to bed at pretty much the same time every evening. Weekends off. Basically the kind of thing that we expect of professionals in all fields, except, for some reason, the arts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

If memory serves, Beethoven said he thought _Weber's _music was too chromatic, not Spohr's. And it wasn't in his old age but earlier. Nobody has a clue why he made this remark. Anyway, for a "crusty old conservative," he was the darling of the modernist set in Vienna in the last few years of his life.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

KenOC said:


> If memory serves, Beethoven said he thought _Weber's _music was too chromatic, not Spohr's. And it wasn't in his old age but earlier. Nobody has a clue why he made this remark. Anyway, for a "crusty old conservative," he was the darling of the modernist set in Vienna in the last few years of his life.


Yup. His last works are in fact so daring that much of it sounds avant garde to this day.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Listening to Brahms: _Four Ballades, Op.10;_ Emil Gilels, piano (YEDANG Classics); recorded in 1977, live.

These I like; they seem very low-key, intimate, and not at all bombastic. Perhaps these might be best heard in a small chamber setting, not a concert hall.

The first one starts us out with a slow, pondering theme in D minor, then to A major, i-V; no surprise. 
Then it varies this, doing a i-IV, D min-G min; then Eb-Eb7, treating the Eb it as the flatted sub-mediant of the G minor.

A dropping seventh in the Eb changes its meaning to being a V7 chord, but it goes to Bb Major as a IV, so how can it be a V7? IV chords are not sevenths...how is it a V7?

...it must be "hinting" via tritone-relation to be an A7 b9....the dominant of D minor after all...and then we suddenly realize this Bb is right above the original V7 (A) of D minor, and it drops down chromatically to A7, leading in a V7-i back to home, D minor...and this is just the first few measures.

Admittedly, Brahms has some interesting themes, and some interesting harmonic jumps, but you can bet he'll never go wildly chromatic like Liszt. All of it is still analyzable tonally, without difficult ambiguities.

Later, Richard Strauss retreated back into conservative Mozartian classicism _(Oboe Concerto, Four Last Songs)_ after the radical _Elektra_ days. _Metamorphosen_ is his last harmonically challenging piece. Was he inspired to backslide in this manner by you-know-who? A distinct possibility, in light of the "politics of tonality" at the time: "Modernism is degenerate," tonality is safe and State-sponsored. So much for "art."


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

brianvds said:


> Yup. His last works are in fact so daring that much of it sounds avant garde to this day.


My impression (could be wrong) is that Beethoven is often spoken of as being "out of touch" in his later years because music was moving toward Romanticism and he was not. But among much of the musical public, some of the more "Romantic" composers weren't seen as being "serious," and LvB was definitely that. He was going his own direction, as always, and the audiences followed. There was a very healthy buying audience for his late quartets, for instance.

In any event, Beethoven had established his Romantic credentials years earlier, and he seemed no longer interested in that sort of thing. It could be that it took a few years more for the musical public to recognize that Romantic music could be serious music as well.

Oh, this is a Brahms thread? Sorry...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Uh-oh! Speaking of Late Beethoven, in this second Ballade (II. Andante), Brahms seems to be stuck on this "da-da-da-da-da" rhythmic motive. Whatever it was, appears to have been contagious.

Oh, this III. Intermezzo: Allegro is *much* nicer.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Was he inspired to backslide in this manner by you-know-who? A distinct possibility, in light of the "politics of tonality" at the time: "Modernism is degenerate," tonality is safe and State-sponsored. So much for "art."


One should keep in mind that under the Nazis, you could have far more than merely your career ruined if you stepped out of line...

Still, through the centuries, lots of composers (and visual artists) worked for audiences or for sponsors, and it did not necessarily prevent them from doing good work. Bach was basically a civil servant who wrote music like today's government officials write reports, but something tells me we are going to keep on listening to his documents for a while to come. Palestrina followed the pope's guidelines in much of his choral work. Shostakovich had to use as much of his creative energy to get around the state's incomprehensible rules as he did for his composition.

The list goes on: few creative artists have had the luxury to literally do whatever they pleased, except ones who had a day job and could afford to do so. I'm not sure this is necessarily a bad thing. I have to work for a living; it is not clear to me why musicians should be exempt. It seems to me that limits often inspire more creativity than complete freedom.

But then, I am turning into the same sort of grumpy old conservative as Brahms.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

So, Beethoven said he thought Webern's music was too chromatic, not Spohr's. Why does that not surprise me?


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> View attachment 17288
> 
> 
> So, Beethoven said he thought Webern's music was too chromatic, not Spohr's. Why does that not surprise me?


He couldn't possibly have heard Webern's music. None of it is loud enough.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows*


> So, Beethoven said he thought Webern's music was too chromatic, not Spohr's. Why does that not surprise me?






brianvds said:


> He couldn't possibly have heard Webern's music. None of it is loud enough.


Hey, don't blame it on Webern's music; blame it on syphillis.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* [/FONT]
> 
> Hey, don't blame it on Webern's music; blame it on syphillis.


Um... there are at least three possible syphilis possessors in that post (Schubert ain't in it, so he doesn't count). We can't 'blame' the disease, its only intent being survival.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Um... there are at least three possible syphilis possessors in that post (Schubert ain't in it, so he doesn't count). We can't 'blame' the disease, its only intent being survival.


Wow, talk about impartial objectivity. You should be on the Supreme Court. :lol:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Speakong of Spohr, he was pretty much 'out there' in his own time, in one thing by him I've heard at least. One of his symphonies (I think the 4th) ends on a slow movement. This was something like over half a century before Tchaikovsky's Pathetique (not to diminish that masterpiece, of course).


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> If memory serves, Beethoven said he thought _Weber's _music was too chromatic, not Spohr's. And it wasn't in his old age but earlier. Nobody has a clue why he made this remark. Anyway, for a "crusty old conservative," he was the darling of the modernist set in Vienna in the last few years of his life.


Who were the members of the modernist set?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Who were the members of the modernist set?


Not the Rossini crowd; the _others_.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Beethoven on Spohr "He is too rich in dissonance; pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody"

Late Beethoven can indeed seem way ahead of it's time and even modern. But _not_ because of chromaticism.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Beethoven on Spohr "He is too rich in dissonance; pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody"
> 
> Late Beethoven can indeed seem way ahead of it's time and even modern. But _not_ because of chromaticism.


Major pardon request! I said earlier that Beethoven was speaking of Weber. WRONG!!!! :scold:I should really check my sources...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Beethoven on Spohr "He is too rich in dissonance; pleasure in his music is marred by his chromatic melody"
> 
> Late Beethoven can indeed seem way ahead of it's time and even modern. But _not_ because of chromaticism.


Not overt chromaticism, but tritone relations which were one step way from chromaticism. I call this the "chromatic/fifths" connection, and it's based on diminished sevenths/altered dominants, which consist of minor third projections, and which, unlike fourths and fifths, are "recursive" and cycle-back within the octave, and are therefore "inward" directed rather than encouraging root movement. In this sense, your statement is...misleading.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> Who were the members of the modernist set?


Can't really name names, sorry. But the publishers were evidently inundated with requests for new Beethoven music, especially quartets, the more "modern" the better. They bid against each other and upped the price per quartet to where Beethoven could write nothing else for almost three years. Cooper has a nice comparison: Beethoven was paid 600 florins for his Ninth Symphony, which took two years to write (longer actually, but there were other things in there), and then 360 florins per quartet, each of which took about six months. Beethoven said "Doh!" and wrote quartets.

And here we thought he was just communing with the infinite!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Maybe Beethoven was in one of those "God wants you to prosper" churches...























Stranger things have happened...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Spohr, huh?.....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hmmmm.........interesting.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Not overt chromaticism, but tritone relations which were one step way from chromaticism. I call this the "chromatic/fifths" connection, and it's based on diminished sevenths/altered dominants, which consist of minor third projections, and which, unlike fourths and fifths, are "recursive" and cycle-back within the octave, and are therefore "inward" directed rather than encouraging root movement. In this sense, your statement is...misleading.


Do you mean he cadenced in more 'remote' keys? I'm not sure what you are saying and I would need some bar numbers!!

I think his late music is often stripped back to the barest tonic-dominant relationship. To me, what is so remarkable about Beethoven is his non-reliance on chromaticism (colour) as a means of expression. He can say more with three or four diatonic triads than Wagner and for that matter Brahms could say with all their ' advanced' harmony.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Hmmmm.........interesting.


...........Very.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Major pardon request! I said earlier that Beethoven was speaking of Weber. WRONG!!!! :scold:I should really check my sources...


I'll let you off this time, but don't let it happen again or I shall have to be very stern!!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Do you mean he cadenced in more 'remote' keys? I'm not sure what you are saying and I would need some bar numbers!!
> 
> I think his late music is often stripped back to the barest tonic-dominant relationship. To me, what is so remarkable about Beethoven is his non-reliance on chromaticism (colour) as a means of expression. He can say more with three or four diatonic triads than Wagner and for that matter Brahms could say with all their ' advanced' harmony.


Okay, I'll move to another aspect of chromaticism, since the "chromatic/fifths" idea doesn't seem to be flying, and go to Root Movement by Thirds, a major step towards chromaticism, away from V-I movement. I hope you appreciate these "different views of a diamond" I'm explaining, because it involves work, and I hope you appreciate the fact that I'm doing you a favor by going over this again, from a different angle.

The Second Movement (Scherzo) of Beethoven's Ninth has some transitional material right before the modulation to E minor that involves root movement in thirds. The movement starts in D minor.

Then, the transition:

(1) CMaj-Amin-FMaj-Dmin...
(2) Dmin-BbMaj-Gmin-EbMaj...
(3) Ebmaj-Cmin-AbMaj-Fmin...
(4) DbMaj (F bass)-Bbmin (Db bass)-GbMaj (Bb bass)-Ebmin (Gb bass)...
(5) BMaj-G#min-EMaj-C#min- 
Then (in octaves, not triads):[A-Bb-B]...into E minor.

Does that ring a bell? They fly by pretty quick.

This chord sequence, in which different key areas are briefly touched on, goes by as quickly as a bebop chord sequence. I hesitate to call these brief resting points "key centers", as they have not settled down into the key area yet, as finally happens in the E minor section which follows, so I would characterize the sequence as "transitional" material.

Notice how Beethoven is playing with both major thirds and minor thirds. The minor third root movements could be seen as I-vi, as in the first CMaj-Amin. The movement from Amin to Fmaj could be seen as a iii min-I Maj. This allows him to quickly establish new "tonic" chords (also, chords are constructed using major and minor thirds). Would anyone classify these as true modulations? If so, they are very compact.

The root movement of these chords in minor and major thirds also outlines chords, like a

(1)D minor seventh, outlined by C-A-F-D, and

(2)Eb major seventh, outlined by D-Bb-G-Eb,

(3)Fmin7 outlined by Eb-C-Ab-F,

(4)GbMaj7, outlined by F-Db-Bb-Gb,

(5)C#min7, outlined by B-G#-E-C#

...then the C#min7 is seen as iii min of A Major, then a chromatic climb to B (V of V in A), which is the V of the new key, E minor.

Could this "outlining of chords" also be seen as a "root movement" in its own right? If so, we start out in D minor, which is then seen as the ii minor of C Maj, through G7. Then we have C major-D minor (seen now as a iii minor in Bb major)-Eb major(IV in Bb)-F minor(v minor in Bb)-Gb major(b vi in Bb and V in Db minor (C#)-C#minor(iii in A)-A major-(Bb)-B, finally to E minor.

If so, look how brilliant the "double meaning" of chords outlining other chords by their predominant note is.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Now I'm listening to 4 Piano Pieces, Op.119. These are the last things Brahms wrote. He had intended to stop at Op.111, his Piano Quintet, perhaps in homage to Beethoven's last Piano Sonata Op.111.

But Brahms continued with four sets of small, intimate piano pieces, Op.116 to 119. These are introspective and intimate. These are the best Brahms, in my opinion.

The late Beethoven sonatas mentioned above: Op.129-132, make use of little 2-unit motives, and this influenced Brahms similarly in his "motivic" ideas. This aspect is what Schoenberg meant by his essay "Brahms The Progressive," not any "radical" aspect of Brahms. I suspect that Schoenberg was aligning himself with tradition when he said this, as if to imply conversely "Schoenberg The Conservative."


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> This aspect is what Schoenberg meant by his essay "Brahms The Progressive," not any "radical" aspect of Brahms. I suspect that Schoenberg was aligning himself with tradition when he said this, as if to imply conversely "Schoenberg The Conservative."


Quite the contrary: the essay is designed to show that Schoenberg was as much a progressive as Brahms, with "progress" being defined quite narrowly as the elevation of motivic saturation over more traditional structural concerns like phrase symmetry. That's why one of the Brahms examples he cites is the finale of the Fourth Symphony, whose structural integrity is based not on the apparently unimportant passacaglia theme borrowed from Bach but in the way the melody on top of the passacaglia is motivically related to the opening melody of the first movement. This fixation with motivic unity consequently validated Schoenberg's own preoccupation with recurring motives. The very last thing Schoenberg was trying to claim was that he or Brahms were musically "conservative." The essay is a defense of Brahms against conventional charges (often parroted on this forum, amusingly) that Brahms was a backward-looking composer when compared with Wagner; and, by extension, Schoenberg was continuing Brahms's legacy of misunderstood progressivism. In Schoenberg's own words, and appropriating the "historical inevitability" argument that had been invented by Brahms's enemies: "I had to express what was necessary to be expressed and I knew I had the duty of developing my ideas for the sake of progress in music, whether I liked it or not."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> Quite the contrary: the essay is designed to show that Schoenberg was as much a progressive as Brahms, with "progress" being defined quite narrowly as the elevation of motivic saturation over more traditional structural concerns like phrase symmetry. That's why one of the Brahms examples he cites is the finale of the Fourth Symphony, whose structural integrity is based not on the apparently unimportant passacaglia theme borrowed from Bach but in the way the melody on top of the passacaglia is motivically related to the opening melody of the first movement. This fixation with motivic unity consequently validated Schoenberg's own preoccupation with recurring motives. The very last thing Schoenberg was trying to claim was that he or Brahms were musically "conservative." The essay is a defense of Brahms against conventional charges (often parroted on this forum, amusingly) that Brahms was a backward-looking composer when compared with Wagner; and, by extension, Schoenberg was continuing Brahms's legacy of misunderstood progressivism. In Schoenberg's own words, and appropriating the "historical inevitability" argument that had been invented by Brahms's enemies: "I had to express what was necessary to be expressed and I knew I had the duty of developing my ideas for the sake of progress in music, whether I liked it or not."


Oh, agreed, but I don't consider "motivic saturation" at this juncture in history, to be as "progressive" as harmonic considerations, which are the crux of the whole Wagner-Liszt/Brahms debate.

Contrapuntalism is quite conservative. Like I said, Schoenberg was "spinning" the term "progressive" to suit his own agenda.

Plus, 12-tone writing is primarily contrapuntal.



Eschbeg said:


> In Schoenberg's own words, and appropriating the "historical inevitability" argument that had been invented *(not invented-ed.)* by Brahms's enemies: "I had to express what was necessary to be expressed and I knew I had the duty of developing my ideas for the sake of progress in music, whether I liked it or not."


Schoenberg said this because he knew the 12-tone method was primarily contrapuntal, and that harmonically, he would have no leg to stand on. Besides, if harmony totally broke down anyway as the result of historical inevitability, then Wagner and Liszt's examples would be of no help to his position.



Eschbeg said:


> The essay is a defense of Brahms against conventional charges (often parroted on this forum, amusingly) that Brahms was a backward-looking composer when compared with Wagner; and, by extension, Schoenberg was continuing Brahms's legacy of misunderstood progressivism.


Again, this is Schoenberg's spin, because he knew "harmony" was ending and would not be a credible defense, and so he was compelled to hide behind counterpoint: melodic/motivic factors, and thematic considerations.



Eschbeg said:


> In Schoenberg's own words, and appropriating the "historical inevitability" argument that had been "invented"* (not)* by Brahms's enemies: "I had to express what was necessary to be expressed and I knew I had the duty of developing my ideas for the sake of progress in music, whether I liked it or not."


In other words, "I saw that, harmonically, I had painted myself into a corner with my 12-tone method, and besides that, harmony was used-up, and that "harmony" would from now on be the result of whatever I could consequently squeeze out of these tone-rows, and so I had no other choice but to take the dive...I was unsure of what the future would hold, so I grabbed on to Brahms' coat and took him down with me."

Perhaps, but not in the way you intended, this idea of Schoenberg/Brahms in a love-death dive over the Niagra Falls of chromaticism towards oblivion is ironically accurate; they both saw that "expanding tonality towards chromaticism" would ultimately result in a dead-end to harmony; but Schoenberg had to forge on, and with tonal function dead, counterpoint was the only tool left to work with.

Perhaps, ironically, Brahms was as brilliant as Schoenberg in seeing the end of tonal harmony on the horizon; and his "backward-looking" perspective (as you call it, not me) was simply in knowing that there was nowhere else for tonal function to go but into oblivion, over the falls...



Eschbeg said:


> The essay is a defense of Brahms against conventional charges (often parroted _*(BAWK!!)*_ on this forum, amusingly) _*(HA HA!!) *_that Brahms was a backward-looking composer when compared with Wagner; and, by extension, Schoenberg was continuing Brahms's legacy of misunderstood progressivism.


...or perhaps Schoenberg knew how to swim, and Brahms did not.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

So, in the end, my criticism of Brahms is not as simplistic as my opponents would have it be. I do not fault Brahms simply for being "too conservative" or "harmonically unadventurous;" these were just the reactions of a scared man, who saw a great era ending, and wanted to secure his place in it; and by most intents and purposes, he succeeded.

No, I fault Brahms only for actively *opposing* the impending flow of tonal harmony as it was inexorably drawn by historic/musical inevitability toward the "Niagra Falls" of chromaticism, and ultimately, the "playing out" and end-limits of CP tonal function and harmony as we knew it.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Oh, agreed, but I don't consider "motivic saturation" at this juncture in history, to be as "progressive" as harmonic considerations, which are the crux of the whole Wagner-Liszt/Brahms debate.


I don't either. But Schoenberg definitely gave equal weight to both.



> Contrapuntalism is quite conservative. Like I said, Schoenberg was "spinning" the term "progressive" to suit his own agenda.
> 
> Plus, 12-tone writing is primarily contrapuntal.


Agreed on all fronts except the first. I don't think contrapuntalism, by itself, can be labeled progressive or conservative. Much more context is needed before one can meaningfully make such a judgment.



> Schoenberg said this because he knew the 12-tone method was primarily contrapuntal, and that harmonically, he would have no leg to stand on.


Basically, yes. The way he presented it was that the 12-tone method unified counterpoint and harmony in the sense that a tone row is a tone row whether it appears as a harmony or as contrapuntally woven melodies (i.e. it doesn't matter how the pitches of the row are presented, as long as they are presented), and that consequently he was expanding the dimensions in which musical motives operate. (He made an oft-quoted comment to that effect; I don't think it's from "Brahms the Progressive"... I'll have to dig it up.) That, so the argument went, is why 12-tone method is "progressive."


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> I don't either. But Schoenberg definitely gave equal weight to both.
> 
> Agreed on all fronts.
> 
> Basically, yes. The way he presented it was that the 12-tone method unified counterpoint and harmony in the sense that a tone row is a tone row whether it appears as a harmony or as contrapuntally woven melodies (i.e. it doesn't matter how the pitches of the row are presented, as long as they are presented), and that consequently he was expanding the dimensions in which musical motives operate. (He made an oft-quoted comment to that effect; I don't think it's from "Brahms the Progressive"... I'll have to dig it up.) That, so the argument went, is why 12-tone method is "progressive."


HOORAY! WE AGREE! That's a good thing. :lol:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> No, I fault Brahms only for actively *opposing* the impending flow of tonal harmony as it was inexorably drawn by historic/musical inevitability...


Aside from the quasi-Marxian cant, I find it difficult to see how Brahms "actively opposed" changes in music by writing his own music in his own way.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Aside from the quasi-Marxian cant, I find it difficult to see how Brahms "actively opposed" changes in music by writing his own music in his own way.


If music was changing and carrying everybody else along with it, then Brahms' remaining the same was _by definition_ in opposition to this current of change by being static; and to resist a natural force requires effort.

But Brahms couldn't help it, could he?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The 12 steps to expanded taste in music

1. We admitted that we were powerless over the inevitable dissolution of tonality - that our CP tonal music had become increasingly ambiguous, chromatic, and unmanageable.

2. Came to believe in a power greater than ourselves or our personal expectations and already-defined taste, and that the historical direction of musical thought had caused this inevitability, and that no one "destroyed" CP tonality.

3. Made a decision to change and expand our ideas about music, and to seek appreciation and knowledge of the ideas of chromaticism, and later, serialism, as we understood it, however rudimentary our knowledge.

4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of our musical expectations and thought.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and any listeners who remained, the exact nature of our inflexible expectations about what music is "supposed" to be.

6. Were entirely ready to remove all these intolerant biases, and refrain from ad hominem insults.

7. Humbly asked for expansion and flexibility in our listening habits.

8. Keep a list of all radical or conservative listeners we might alienate in the future, and become willing to say "Who cares if you dislike it or not?" without attacking them.

9. Engage in direct discussions with such people wherever possible, except when to do so would be harmful to us, or them.

10. Continue to listen to both tonal and non-tonal music, and when it was below par, promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through humbleness and study, and recommendations, to improve our range of taste in music.

12. Having had a musical and artistic awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other narrow-minded listeners.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> If music was changing and carrying everybody else along with it, then Brahms' remaining the same was _by definition_ in opposition to this current of change by being static; and to resist a natural force requires effort.
> 
> But Brahms couldn't help it, could he?


Yes, but this is no different from Beethoven, who was going against every current of his own time, and even moreso for Bach, who was writing fugues when they were seen as hugely archaic. How can this be even close to a legitimate reason to downplay Brahm's orginality? He doesn't have to follow "the current of history", whatever that means. Is the current of history some metaphysical force, just like the Rosseauian "general will", that all composers have to follow if they want to be considered original? Or maybe, there is no current of history; it's just something we've made up in retrospect to polish and refine the tradition that people are ascribed to, and leave out anyone who doesn't participate in that tradition. Either way, it doesn't matter because Brahms wasn't reactionary in the remotest sense; the Second Viennese School all highly respected Brahms and saw him as relevant.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> 2. Came to believe in a power greater than ourselves or our personal expectations and already-defined taste, and that the historical direction of musical thought had caused this inevitability, and that no one "destroyed" CP tonality.


I'm sold. Listeners of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your tonality. And struggle resolutely against the arch-reactionary Brahms; sweep him onto the ash-heap of history!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'm sold. Listeners of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your tonality. And struggle resolutely against the arch-reactionary Brahms; sweep him onto the ash-heap of history!


No, I wouldn't want to see that happen to Brahms, or any other major, recognized-by-history composer, and I find it rather touching to see you defend Brahms in this hearty manner; I consider loyalty to be one of the most noble of human character traits.

You don't have to "lose" tonality; only admit that Brahms was powerless to stop it, and recognize that it was an inevitability. Harmony did "end" as a system which had exhausted all its possibilities, and I think Brahms knew this; tonality created his works, and can create more. Whomever continues, however, had better have some sort of trick up their sleeve.

But don't ask "why," just accept it, and move on...one work at a time.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Harmony did "end" as a system which had exhausted all its possibilities, and I think Brahms knew this...


Which is why, I suppose, non-tonal music now commands only a sliver of classical music's 2-3% market share, and almost all non-classical music (and essentially the entirety of "new music") is purely tonal. I guess Brahms wasn't the only one who missed that "historical inevitability" bit.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Which is why, I suppose, non-tonal music now commands only a sliver of classical music's 2-3% market share, and almost all non-classical music (and essentially the entirety of "new music") is purely tonal. I guess Brahms wasn't the only one who missed that "historical inevitability" bit.


This might be relevant if even a small portion of that music being written today were common practice tonal as Brahms would have recognized it. It isn't. Minimalism, Neoromanticism, Jazz, Rock, Metal, all flouting those tonal rules which Brahms was loath to see go.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Originally Posted by *millionrainbows* 
If music was changing and carrying everybody else along with it, then Brahms' remaining the same was _by definition_ in opposition to this current of change by being static; and to resist a natural force requires effort.

But Brahms couldn't help it, could he?


SottoVoce said:


> Yes, but this is no different from Beethoven, who was going against every current of his own time, and even moreso for Bach, who was writing fugues when they were seen as hugely archaic. How can this be even close to a legitimate reason to downplay Brahm's orginality?


Different time, different era, different elements in play. Beethoven was going against every current of his own time because he was expanding the harmonic possibilities of tonality, which was not exhausted of its possibilities yet. Bach, who was writing fugues when they were seen as hugely archaic, was exploiting what was then known about the harmonic limits of his time, and pushing those limits, but your "fugue" example is not to the point, because that's a form, or style; I speak of harmonic function in a larger sense.



SottoVoce said:


> He doesn't have to follow "the current of history", whatever that means. Is the current of history some metaphysical force, just like the Rosseauian "general will", that all composers have to follow if they want to be considered original?


Again, musical thought is similar to development in many other areas of human endeavor; it develops over long periods. Just as refrigeration was perfected, it had a period of development, and has now been "tweaked" to its most efficient. We can now flash-freeze fresh vegetables, preserve meat and fruit, and have iced beverages in the summer. Isn't that wonderful?



SottoVoce said:


> ...it doesn't matter because Brahms wasn't reactionary in the remotest sense; the Second Viennese School all highly respected Brahms and saw him as relevant.


Yeah, me and Eschbeg already covered that, and we both agree on it.

Still, I do see Brahms as a conservative, but nonetheless, I still like much of his music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> This might be relevant if even a small portion of that music being written today were common practice tonal as Brahms would have recognized it. It isn't. Minimalism, Neoromanticism, Jazz, Rock, Metal, all flouting those tonal rules which Brahms was loath to see go.


I'm listening to Reich's "Different Trains" as I write this. Brahms would certainly have recognized the harmonies though he may not have liked the music much! And outside of CM, CPT still rules the roost for the most part. I was responding to MR's odd statement that the system "had exhausted all its possibilities," with which most of the population of world seems to disagree.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'm listening to Reich's "Different Trains" as I write this. Brahms would certainly have recognized the harmonies though he may not have liked the music much! And outside of CM, CPT still rules the roost for the most part. I was responding to MR's odd statement that the system "had exhausted all its possibilities," with which most of the population of world seems to disagree.


No he would not.

The harmonies in Brahms' day are founded on their relationship to the tonic. This is functional tonality. Reich does not use this system. His free-floating triadic patterns are closer to world or Jazz music, in which he found his inspiration.

A D minor triad in the context of a C major piece in Brahms' day serves a particular role. A D minor triad in Reich can do things that Brahms would not have even considered, much less desired.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I repeat that Brahms would have recognized the harmonies. I didn't say he used them.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, I'll move to another aspect of chromaticism, since the "chromatic/fifths" idea doesn't seem to be flying, and go to Root Movement by Thirds, a major step towards chromaticism, away from V-I movement. I hope you appreciate these "different views of a diamond" I'm explaining, because it involves work, and I hope you appreciate the fact that I'm doing you a favor by going over this again, from a different angle.
> 
> The Second Movement (Scherzo) of Beethoven's Ninth has some transitional material right before the modulation to E minor that involves root movement in thirds. The movement starts in D minor.
> 
> ...


Thanks for that but I don't think I would attach such importance to that passage as any sort of precursor to the breakdown of tonality.
It is indeed a transition to E minor and because of its instability it doesn't actually prepare E minor as an important secondary key area but just appears to end up there. It is developmental and sequential but does not to me represent chromaticism in the way that some of Mozart's 'purple patches' do.
(slow movement of Jupiter symphony has such a patch)
Beethoven was capable of the most abrupt key changes such as the descending sequence towards the end of Mov 1 of Eroica where he states the theme down a tone then down a semitone. I don't think that is something that you would find in Haydn, Mozart, Brahms or Wagner!
I'm not convinced by the view of music's inevitable march through greater chromaticism to atonality and serialism. Rather, that is just one trajectory. The descendants of Beethoven are also Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Poulenc et al.

Getting back to Brahms:
I'd call him a classicist in the same way I'd call Ravel one. I think terms like ultra-conservative and reactionary are unnecessarily derogatory.
This view of Brahms is one made with historical hindsight. It is as if there were two trajectories- one for the academic/historian to get their teeth into and one for the concert going public who 'vote with their feet'. I believe any student of composition will do well to scrutinise Brahms's scores-possibly even more so than Wagner's. *Brahms is about architecture as much as expression*.

*Breaking ground* is what you do before laying the foundations of a new structure. You do not break ground just for the hell of it or you will be left with only a big hole!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I repeat that Brahms would have recognized the harmonies. I didn't say he used them.


Harmony is not something that exists in a vacuum. A triad in functional harmony is predicated on the things around it, while a triad in minimalism is not, or at least not in the same way, and not in any way Brahms would have recognized.



Petwhac said:


> Beethoven was capable of the most abrupt key changes such as the descending sequence towards the end of Mov 1 of Eroica where he states the theme down a tone then down a semitone. I don't think that is something that you would find in Haydn, Mozart, Brahms or Wagner!


A sequential repetition is not necessarily a change of key. Also, I'm sure that you can find such passages in Wagner, and possibly in Mozart as well...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Which is why, I suppose, non-tonal music now commands only a sliver of classical music's 2-3% market share, and almost all non-classical music (and essentially the entirety of "new music") is purely tonal. I guess Brahms wasn't the only one who missed that "historical inevitability" bit.


Well, you "suppose" wrong.*

Market share: *Classical music itself has been removed from its former position of dominance by the rise of consumerism. mass-marketing, mass-media, and recording technology. "New music" is a small but viable niche market.

*"Almost all non-classical music i**s purely tonal": Not* for the reason you think, which appears to be that "tonality" is to be taken in the Western Classical sense, as being "in opposition" to non-tonal or serial music of the Western "high art" tradition.

Outside the Western "high art" tradition, almost all "folk," indigenous, and popular musics from their inception have been "tone centric" and harmonically-based around the way the ear hears. Thus has it always been, even in pre-functional Gregorian Chant before Western harmony developed.

As "world" cultures assimilate new forms of popular music and jazz, it becomes assimilated into these cultural traditions and retains the tone-centric nature of those cultures.

The folk and popular music of the West is a "tone-centric" culture as well.

Formal "tonality" as system of harmonic function, forms, equal temperament tuning, and instruments invented especially for the Western Classical "art" tradition, _developed alongside and/or after this fact_ _of universal folk/cultural "tone-centricity,"_ as do most new "developments" of music in other cultures.

Plus, as the entire "third world" becomes more Westernized, and due to the increasingly availability of mass-produced electronic keyboards in ET tuning, the entire world is becoming more similar to the West, if not overtly mimicking the West in the quest for economic equality.

So, the world has always been "tone-centric." This in no way undermines "non-tonal art music" and serial developments and offshoots, which must properly be seen in relation to the Western "art" music model, _not_ in relation to the universal "tone centric" folk music model.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> I'm listening to Reich's "Different Trains" as I write this. Brahms would certainly have recognized the harmonies though he may not have liked the music much!


Then again, Brahms certainly recognized the harmonies of Liszt and Wagner, although he openly opposed them, not to mention he may not have liked their music much!

Reich and Minimalists are properly seen as being aligned with the "tone-centricity" of "world" music, not the Pelleas und Mellisande CPT tonality of art music.



KenOC said:


> And outside of CM, CPT still rules the roost for the most part.


No. CPT tonality is a product of CM art music.

"Tone centric" music always existed, in other cultures as well. This has nothing to do with the demise of Western art music CPT tonal system of harmonic functions.



KenOC said:


> I was responding to MR's odd statement that the system "had exhausted all its possibilities," with which most of the population of world seems to disagree.


That's a ridiculous, irrelevant argument. One can't use folk, world, and "tone centric" music, which has always existed in other cultures as well, to argue that the Western art music CPT tonal system of harmonic functions finally exhausted its options. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

The arguments of KenOC underscore how Westerners always seem to see other cultures through the lens of their own ethnocentric biases, even defining other cultures in relation to our traditions which are unrelated.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> No he would not.


Yes he would, because Minimalism is based on the "tone-centricity" inherent in all harmonic music.



Mahlerian said:


> The harmonies in Brahms' day are founded on their relationship to the tonic.


So is tone-centric music; it's founded on a harmonic relation to a fundamental tone. That's the same harmonic principle.



Mahlerian said:


> This is functional tonality. Reich does not use this system.


He's beginning to use function a lot more, which is why I don't care too much for his later stuff. Now there's too much progression going on.



Mahlerian said:


> (Reich's) free-floating triadic patterns are closer to world or Jazz music, in which he found his inspiration.


Harmonically, Reich is tone-centric.

Jazz might be a bad analogy, since its harmonic functions are derived from popular song "standards" and in many cases function is the same. Jazz uses "altered dominants," and Roman numeral nomenclature such as ii-V7-I.



Mahlerian said:


> A D minor triad in the context of a C major piece in Brahms' day serves a particular role. A D minor triad in Reich can do things that Brahms would not have even considered, much less desired.


True, as far as functional progression through time, but harmonically/vertically, a D minor triad sounds the same to the ear.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *KenOC*
> I repeat that Brahms would have recognized the harmonies. I didn't say he used them.


In this case, I agree with KenOC. Harmonically, Brahms' ears would have recognized the vertical harmonic constructs of Minimalism, since they are based on universally-acknowledged and understood tone-centric elements. Just as we all respond to rhythm.



Mahlerian said:


> Harmony is not something that exists in a vacuum. A triad in functional harmony is predicated on the things around it, while a triad in minimalism is not, or at least not in the same way, and not in any way Brahms would have recognized.


I think that horizontal "function" through time is dependent on vertical harmonic factors, and was derived from vertical considerations of consonance/dissonance.

Remember that old Harry Partch quote I keep repeating:

"The steps of our scale, and the "functions" of the chords built thereon, are the direct result of interval ratios, all in relation to a "keynote" or unity of 1; the intervals not only have a dissonant/consonant quality determined by their ratio, but also are given a specific scale degree (function) and place in relation to "1" or the Tonic. This is where all "linear function" originated, and is still manifest as ratios (intervals), which are at the same time, physical harmonic phenomena."

And this chart:

Most dissonant intervals to most consonant intervals, within one octave:
1. minor seventh (C-Bb) 9:16
2. major seventh (C-B) 8:15
3. major second (C-D) 8:9
4. minor sixth (C-Ab) 5:8
5. minor third (C-Eb) 5:6
6. major third (C-E) 4:5
7. major sixth (C-A) 3:5
8. perfect fourth (C-F) 3:4
9. perfect fifth (C-G) 2:3
10. octave (C-C') 1:2
11. unison (C-C) 1:1


I think everybody else is seeing the universal meanings of music in this discussion, while Mahlerian is clinging tenaciously to his narrowly-defined, apparently inflexible concept of "function equals tonality" while ignoring the vertical aspects of tone-centricity, from which these "functions" were derived after the fact of "instantaneous universal vertical truth."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes he would, because Minimalism is based on the "tone-centricity" inherent in all harmonic music.


So is Indian music, and I'm pretty sure he would have found that rather different from his own experience of music.



> So is tone-centric music; it's founded on a harmonic relation to a fundamental tone. That's the same harmonic principle.


It really isn't. Any common-practice tonal piece of music is based on a tonic-dominant polarity. Have you ever tried to put a dominant chord into a song in the aeolian mode? It sounds exceedingly foreign. Likewise, minimalist music is at a remove from tonal principles.



> Harmonically, Reich is tone-centric.
> 
> Jazz might be a bad analogy, since its harmonic functions are derived from popular song "standards" and in many cases function is the same. Jazz uses "altered dominants," and Roman numeral nomenclature such as ii-V7-I.


But the correlation of the vertical to the horizontal is handled quite differently, with notes that would be seen as unresolved dissonances used more freely than is possible within the common practice system.



> True, as far as functional progression through time, but harmonically/vertically, a D minor triad sounds the same to the ear.


This has little to do with the way music is heard, which is inevitably contextual.

Is an F-sharp major triad dissonant because it strikes the ear as dissonant in a C major piece? No, but we cannot hear it except as in context.



> Mahlerian is clinging tenaciously to his narrowly-defined, apparently inflexible concept of "function equals tonality" while ignoring the vertical aspects of tone-centricity, from which these "functions" were derived after the fact of "instantaneous universal vertical truth."


Okay, then, tonal just means "music that uses pitch in some ordered fashion". I'm fine with that definition. As long as we try to separate "tonal" from "atonal", though, we need to realize that tonal needs to have a very narrow definition indeed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Thanks for that but I don't think I would attach such importance to that passage as any sort of precursor to the breakdown of tonality.
> It is indeed a transition to E minor and because of its instability it doesn't actually prepare E minor as an important secondary key area but just appears to end up there. It is developmental and sequential but does not to me represent chromaticism in the way that some of Mozart's 'purple patches' do.
> (slow movement of Jupiter symphony has such a patch)
> Beethoven was capable of the most abrupt key changes such as the descending sequence towards the end of Mov 1 of Eroica where he states the theme down a tone then down a semitone. I don't think that is something that you would find in Haydn, Mozart, Brahms or Wagner!
> I'm not convinced by the view of music's inevitable march through greater chromaticism to atonality and serialism. Rather, that is just one trajectory. The descendants of Beethoven are also Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner, Richard Strauss, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Prokofiev, Poulenc et al.


You base your rejection on the fact that these sequences of thirds are not "true, prepared" modulations, which I acknowledge in my exposition. To accept it, you have to acknowledge the underlying principle which was emerging; the use of movement by thirds rather than fourths/fifths, but I will not expound, since you will invalidate it.



Petwhac said:


> Getting back to Brahms:
> I'd call him a classicist in the same way I'd call Ravel one. I think terms like ultra-conservative and reactionary are unnecessarily derogatory.


Brahms' compositions tended to adhere more strongly to the Classical ideal, contrary to the programmatic style of symphonies that was becoming the standard. Consequently, Brahms spent the best part of his 20's fighting to gain recognition as a composer while contradicting the aesthetic principles of those composers who were celebrated during that time. That sounds pretty reactionary to me. He was an "outsider," almost a freak.

He was an anomaly then, if not now, and was consciously and actively a reactionary conservative. He now stands as a symbol of all those qualities to current listeners whose listening habits seem to end at the early twentieth century or before.



Petwhac said:


> This view of Brahms is one made with historical hindsight.


No, it was occurring during his career: Brahms' compositions tended to adhere more strongly to the Classical ideal, contrary to the programmatic style of symphonies that was becoming the standard. Consequently, Brahms spent the best part of his 20's fighting to gain recognition as a composer while contradicting the aesthetic principles of those composers who were celebrated during that time. He also opposed the "New German School" at the time.



Petwhac said:


> It is as if there were two trajectories- one for the academic/historian to get their teeth into and one for the concert going public who 'vote with their feet'.


You mean, "historical truth vs. commercial viability?" :lol: BTW, audiences sit in chairs, so they vote with their...never mind.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Harmony is not something that exists in a vacuum. A triad in functional harmony is predicated on the things around it, while a triad in minimalism is not, or at least not in the same way, and not in any way Brahms would have recognized.


I think Ken is saying that Brahms would recognise the harmonies being used in a lot of minimalist music-ie major and minor triads. I'm sure he would not have understood their application, indeed why should he appreciate a piece that hammers out one chord for a length of time.

He would have struggled far more with Schoenberg (the early stuff excepted). Recognising the complete lack of major and minor triads.



Mahlerian said:


> A sequential repetition is not necessarily a change of key. Also, I'm sure that you can find such passages in Wagner, and possibly in Mozart as well...


Well the Eroica example is definitely _not_ what I would call modulation in the classical sense but it is a sudden shift by very uncommon intervals (2nds). 
If you can point to a similar occurrence in Mozart I would be interested.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Minimalism, Neoromanticism, Jazz, Rock, Metal, all flouting those tonal rules which Brahms was loath to see go.


They all use major and minor triads in very similar ways to Brahms, ways which he would understand.
It is the structural use of harmony not the moment to moment sequence of chords that separates CPT from the others listed.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> It is the structural use of harmony not the moment to moment sequence of chords that separates CPT from the others listed.


What does that mean?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I think Ken is saying that Brahms would recognise the harmonies being used in a lot of minimalist music-ie major and minor triads. I'm sure he would not have understood their application, indeed why should he appreciate a piece that hammers out one chord for a length of time.
> 
> He would have struggled far more with Schoenberg (the early stuff excepted). Recognising the complete lack of major and minor triads.


I'm not sure Brahms was that deaf. He would have recognized that Schoenberg's music is filled with triadic sonorities.

Take this example, from the 3rd Quartet, which is mostly tertian, aside from a quartal chord:












I have not removed or added any notes to the harmonic reduction above. I have merely revoiced them and slowed them down significantly (the chords above cover the first 11 seconds).



> Well the Eroica example is definitely _not_ what I would call modulation in the classical sense but it is a sudden shift by very uncommon intervals (2nds).
> If you can point to a similar occurrence in Mozart I would be interested.


Jupiter symphony, first movement, in the recapitulation leading to the dominant, there's a descending sequence by minor seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=zK5295yEQMQ#t=642s

The only real difference is that the steps aren't emphasized like Beethoven's.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

_Originally Posted by Mahlerian 
*Minimalism, Neoromanticism, Jazz, Rock, Metal, all flouting those tonal rules which Brahms was loath to see go.*_

_ Originally Posted by Petwhac 
*It is the structural use of harmony not the moment to moment sequence of chords that separates CPT from the others listed.*
_

_ Originally Posted by millionrainbows 
*What does that mean?*_

I'm trying to say this: The 'nuts and bolts' of tonal music are major and minor triads. Rock, Jazz and Folk and Minimalism are made with the same nuts and bolts as Mozart and Brahms. 
Mahlerian states that those popular genres flout tonal rules. I wonder which rules he refers to. 
The foundation of Classical (and Baroque) music is the establishment of a key and the move away from it. This is not something of great _importance_ in Rock, Jazz and other genres although there are of course plenty of examples where it occurs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> _Originally Posted by Mahlerian
> *Minimalism, Neoromanticism, Jazz, Rock, Metal, all flouting those tonal rules which Brahms was loath to see go.*_
> 
> _ Originally Posted by Petwhac
> ...


Then I agree that (vertical) 'harmonic aspects' like triads are universally understood, although I'm still confused by the phrase "not the moment to moment sequence of chords," which to me defines (horizontal) function in time, travel to other key areas, etc.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> I'm not sure Brahms was that deaf. He would have recognized that Schoenberg's music is filled with triadic sonorities.
> 
> Take this example, from the 3rd Quartet, which is mostly tertian, aside from a quartal chord:
> View attachment 17456
> ...


I think your Schoenberg example is implausible to say the least. You have had to re-voice and slow down the example which is not what Brahms would have been hearing. I'm aware that he wasn't deaf and neither am I.
Not taking into consideration the speed, the voicing and even more importantly the harmonic rhythm of the original, ignores what is actually being presented. The ear, mine and I think Brahms's too, would be drawn to the Hauptstimme as I'm sure AS intended, with it's dissonant D sharp against a C6 chord, and major seventh leaps (Bar 1). This all points to the conclusion that whatever triadic (tonal) movement one can dig up if one want's to, it is overstating the case to think that it would be in the slightest way comprehensible to JB.

Your Jupiter example is better and I take your point. In listening again to that movement I am drawn to the conclusion that Mozart was often far more daring than Beethoven in his use of chromaticism. Quite how anyone can describe WAM as not being innovative is now a puzzle to me. 
I still maintain that my LvB example is of a different ilk. Though they are both transitionary the Beet is abrupt and blatant whereas the Moz is more slippery and chromatic (Brahmsian/Wagnerian?)


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I am unconvinced by the Schoenberg example as well. I don't even recognize the reduction, and did not the last time Mahlerian used it. A triad is a triad, and counterpoint is counterpoint. As the comment below the video states:

"The themes of this work seem to consist mainly of rhythmic patterns rather than pitch, which are reused in variation just as in Classical music (and even though it is not used as thematic material, there is also considerable motivic use of pitch)."

That's what I'm hearing as well; if there are themes, I don't hear them. Bear in mind this was composed at the inception of the 12-tone period, so it might be motivic because he was not stretching-out yet.

The "Jupiter" excerpts, if you mean at 1:38-2:00, and again at 5:20 (thanks for specifying times) are diminished-seventh related, which supports my "chromatic-fifths" idea, accomplished with dim7ths used as altered dominants.

I think better example of chromaticism in Mozart might be the Fantasias, or even Symphony No. 40:






...at 4:13, the descending tritones, proof that Mozart understood the chromatic-fifths idea, which uses the tritone of all dom 7s (third-seventh) and relates them to tritones in dim 7ths.

Petwac said


> "I am drawn to the conclusion that Mozart was often far more daring than Beethoven in his use of chromaticism,"


 but as far as I can see, they're both using the same dom7/dim7 method.

And although the G minor symphony uses the minor second often, true chromaticim as I speak of is not found in chromatic melody, which is just passing-tones, but in chromatic root movement.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

> Yes _(Brahms would hear it)_ he would, because Minimalism is based on the "tone-centricity" inherent in all harmonic music.





Mahlerian said:


> So is Indian music, and I'm pretty sure he would have found that rather different from his own experience of music.


I don't, especially since in Indian music there is always reference to the "drone" or root. This is "tonality" at its most obvious (but not functional CP tonality). Remember that Brahms was also a musicologist, and studied Hungarian gypsy music, as well as early music and chant. I'm sure he would have been well-acquainted with a "drone" or _basso ostinato_.

The ideas of "CP tonality" and "tone centricity" are easily confused, so I'd appreciate it if you would specify "CP tonality" or "functional tonality" in the context of discussing tone-centricity, and leave "tonality" as an inclusive umbrella term;_ except as a convenience in the context of a "tonal/atonal" comparison. _Then, I'll give you some slack.

BTW, don't miss my newest thread on this subject, which will hopefully clear-up this ambiguity once and for all. And I'd like to add, I'm very disappointed in Mahlerian for disputing the idea of "tonality" in its broad sense.



> So is tone-centric music; it's founded on a harmonic relation to a fundamental tone. That's the same harmonic principle.





Mahlerian said:


> It really isn't. (?) Any common-practice tonal piece of music is based on a tonic-dominant polarity. Have you ever tried to put a dominant chord into a song in the aeolian mode? It sounds exceedingly foreign. Likewise, minimalist music is at a remove from tonal principles.


No, it's tone-centric. The tonic-dominant polarity you refer to is dependent on progression-through-time; I'm speaking of instantaneous harmonic phenomena, which are universal to all "harmonic" or tone-centric forms of music.



> Harmonically, Reich is tone-centric. Jazz might be a bad analogy, since its harmonic functions are derived from popular song "standards" and in many cases function is the same. Jazz uses "altered dominants," and Roman numeral nomenclature such as ii-V7-I.





Mahlerian said:


> But the correlation of the vertical to the horizontal is handled quite differently, with notes that would be seen as unresolved dissonances used more freely than is possible within the common practice system.


But vertically and functionally, they are more similar than different. Plus, the "unresolved dissonances" you mention are "tonal" if regarded as vertical polychords, which to the ear, and in jazz, need no resolution. Example: C-E-G-B-D-F#-A, which can be heard as a C major seventh chord with a D major on top.



> True, as far as functional progression through time, but harmonically/vertically, a D minor triad sounds the same to the ear.





Mahlerian said:


> This has little to do with the way music is heard, which is inevitably contextual.
> 
> Is an F-sharp major triad dissonant because it strikes the ear as dissonant in a C major piece? No, but we cannot hear it except as in context.


But music is not inevitably contextual, which involves progression through time, but vertical, based on the harmonics of one tone. This came first; functions were derived from vertical considerations, and are ultimately cerebral, based on memory. Vertical harmony is instantaneous.



> Mahlerian is clinging tenaciously to his narrowly-defined, apparently inflexible concept of "function equals tonality" while ignoring the vertical aspects of tone-centricity, from which these "functions" were derived after the fact of "instantaneous universal vertical truth."





Mahlerian said:


> Okay, then, tonal just means "music that uses pitch in some ordered fashion". I'm fine with that definition. As long as we try to separate "tonal" from "atonal", though, we need to realize that tonal needs to have a very narrow definition indeed.


Yes, in the context of "tonal vs. atonal," I agree; but we are discussing "tonality" in the context of its universal sense. Don't miss my thread, now in progress.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> "The themes of this work seem to consist mainly of rhythmic patterns rather than pitch, which are reused in variation just as in Classical music (and even though it is not used as thematic material, there is also considerable motivic use of pitch)."
> 
> That's what I'm hearing as well; if there are themes, I don't hear them. Bear in mind this was composed at the inception of the 12-tone period, so it might be motivic because he was not stretching-out yet.


I've studied the work, and there are certainly themes, but they are consistently varied. Note the swaying major 7th/minor 9th motion (which also becomes a minor second at times) or the succession of two fourths/fifths in the bass a tritone apart. Yes, a lot of the time these are mixed up with rhythmic motifs as well as pitch-derived ones, but the "recapitulation" of the rondo at 2:41 is obvious, despite the fact that the minor ninth motif has now become a double stop on the second violin.



millionrainbows said:


> Plus, the "unresolved dissonances" you mention are "tonal" if regarded as vertical polychords, which to the ear, and in jazz, need no resolution. Example: C-E-G-B-D-F#-A, which can be heard as a C major seventh chord with a D major on top.


My whole point was that in common practice tonality, these _DO_ need resolution.



Petwhac said:


> This all points to the conclusion that whatever triadic (tonal) movement one can dig up if one want's to, it is overstating the case to think that it would be in the slightest way comprehensible to JB.


You're changing the boundaries of your argument. You originally stated that Schoenberg would have been alien to Brahms _because_ he would have recognized _"the complete lack of major and minor triads"_. I have shown you that these things are present beyond any manner of a doubt, whether or not you think anyone can hear them.



Petwhac said:


> Not taking into consideration the speed, the voicing and even more importantly the harmonic rhythm of the original, ignores what is actually being presented.


This is actually a good argument _against_ your own Reich example. Either these things don't matter in whether Brahms would have been able to recognize tertian harmony, or they do. You know that there are people out there to whom Glass, Adams, and Reich sound atonal, right?


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> You're changing the boundaries of your argument. You originally stated that Schoenberg would have been alien to Brahms _because_ he would have recognized _"the complete lack of major and minor triads"_. I have shown you that these things are present beyond any manner of a doubt, whether or not you think anyone can hear them.


But hearing is what music is for isn't it? If the triads are present but can't be heard then their presence, by definition cannot be comprehensible.



Mahlerian said:


> . You know that there are people out there to whom Glass, Adams, and Reich sound atonal, right?


There are?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> My whole point was that in common practice tonality, these _DO_ need resolution.


Well, the original statement you made was "...But the correlation (in jazz) of the vertical to the horizontal is handled quite differently, with notes that would be seen as unresolved dissonances used more freely than is possible within the common practice system.

True, but conversely, my whole point is that Brahms would have easily recognized Steve Reich's music, which you said is related to jazz, because of the universal vertical harmonic aspects common to all tonal music. I use that term broadly, now, after posting my thread.



Mahlerian said:


> You're changing the boundaries of your argument. You originally stated that Schoenberg would have been alien to Brahms _because_ he would have recognized _*"the complete lack of major and minor triads"(?)*._ I have shown you that these things are present beyond any manner of a doubt, whether or not you think anyone can hear them.


You'll have to find a quote on that, because after a careful search, I can't find where I previously said that.

Later edit: After a complete key word search, I think you are referring to Petwac's post #106, his words, not mine. I _did _respond to your Schoenberg reduction, and while the triads you refer to may be spelled somewhere in the voicings, they are not audible to my ear; and you had to do a reduction and change the registers to demonstrate this.



Mahlerian said:


> This is actually a good argument _against_ your own Reich example. Either these things don't matter in whether Brahms would have been able to recognize tertian harmony, or they do.
> 
> You know that there are people out there to whom Glass, Adams, and Reich sound atonal, right?


Minimalism's repetition bothers some people. but otherwise, rhythmically and harmonically, it appeals to the most universal aspects of hearing music: tonality (in the broad sense) and rhythm. And I remind you again, Brahms was a musicologist.

The Schoenberg, by contrast, consists of "hidden" processes which aren't always audible.

Actually, I'd only use the term "atonal" in the context of CP tonal function vs. serialism.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> But hearing is what music is for isn't it? If the triads are present but can't be heard then their presence, by definition cannot be comprehensible.


To my ears, the reduction I made sounds like the quartet, just much slower.



Petwhac said:


> There are?


Yes. Haven't you ever been on Youtube?

Here's a quote from Reddit:
"[-]WDE10 1 point 3 months ago
One of my favorite pieces is atonal. John Adams Harmonielehre Mvmt. III"



Millionrainbows said:


> You'll have to find a quote on that, because after a careful search, I can't find where I previously said that.


I was responding to Petwhac.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> To my ears, the reduction I made sounds like the quartet, just much slower.


Now put your hand on your heart and tell me that you, on hearing the quartet, and without studying the score, would or could have made such an harmonic analysis as in your reduction. If so I congratulate you on having far better ears than I and I suspect also Brahms. Can you also see through walls? 
:tiphat:



Mahlerian said:


> Yes. Haven't you ever been on Youtube?
> 
> Here's a quote from Reddit:
> "[-]WDE10 1 point 3 months ago
> One of my favorite pieces is atonal. John Adams Harmonielehre Mvmt. III"


Oh yes, I take all youtube comments very seriously indeed!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> I was responding to Petwhac.


Ahh, I see...hidden processes. That Petwac post was cleverly embedded amongst those responses to me. I'll go do a re-arrangement of it so this will be clear. :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I love Schoenberg, but I swear I cannot hear the themes in this. I'm going with the YouTube comment that says the themes are rhythmic.

I'll rationalize this by saying "This was an early 12-tone piece and Schoenberg was afraid to use themes any longer than a 2-note motive."

Or, alternatively, his Expressionist aesthetic compelled him to create a piece that would confuse and befuddle the listener. Yeah, that's the ticket...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I love Schoenberg, but I swear I cannot hear the themes in this. I'm going with the YouTube comment that says the themes are rhythmic.


Rondo-Sonata

Exposition
0:00~0:23 Theme 1
0:23~0:54 Theme 2
0:54~1:14 Codetta

Development
1:14~2:41 Variations on themes and motives taken from them

Recapitulation
2:41~3:12 Theme 1 recapitulation, first with the parts flipped (cello->1 Violin, etc.), then as before
3:12~3:30 Theme 2 recapitulation
3:30~4:28 Codetta

4:28~5:59 Coda


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> Now put your hand on your heart and tell me that you, on hearing the quartet, and without studying the score, would or could have made such an harmonic analysis as in your reduction. If so I congratulate you on having far better ears than I and I suspect also Brahms. Can you also see through walls?


Whether I could or not is irrelevant to whether or not the reduction (since when does re-voicing chords affect whether or not they are triads????) accurately represents the harmonic content of the passage.



Petwhac said:


> Oh yes, I take all youtube comments very seriously indeed!


........on second thought, I realized there is nothing the rules allow me to say here.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Rondo-Sonata
> 
> Exposition
> 0:00~0:23 Theme 1
> ...


Okay, thanks Mahlerian, if you say there are themes, then By God, I'm gonna find those suckers! I'll issue a full report later. BTW, I assume these timings are based on the long out-of-print La Salle version...:lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Okay, thanks Mahlerian, if you say there are themes, then By God, I'm gonna find those suckers! I'll issue a full report later. BTW, I assume these timings are based on the long out-of-print La Salle version...:lol:


It's from the version I linked to earlier on Youtube, rather than the New Vienna Quartet version I usually listen to. La Salle? Why not the Kollisch Quartet, who recorded it back in the 30s?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Rondo-Sonata
> 
> Exposition
> 0:00~0:23 Theme 1
> ...


Many thanks! I'll give a careful listen! We need more like this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Many thanks! I'll give a careful listen! We need more like this.


This way, the listener will be able to identify the themes, and appreciate the _full ugliness_ of these Schoenbergian themes. He was an Expressionist, after all. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> This way, the listener will be able to identify the themes, and appreciate the _full ugliness_ of these Schoenbergian themes. He was an Expressionist, after all. :lol:


To me, the impression is more strange than ugly, like that part in the recapitulation where the cello and viola have a duet against violin accompaniment figures, but the cello takes the top voice. It's a very weird prolonged moment.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> To me, the impression is more strange than ugly, like that part in the recapitulation where the cello and viola have a duet against violin accompaniment figures, but the cello takes the top voice. It's a very weird prolonged moment.


Well, I'm glad you took no offense. Schoenberg did create some strange moments, but that was the goal of Expressionism, to be hyper expressive. If I may say, I always think of those garish bright greens and sulphur yellows of Expressionist painters, Munch's _The Scream,_ Nolde, Kandinsky, Egon Schiele...


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Whether I could or not is irrelevant to whether or not the reduction (since when does re-voicing chords affect whether or not they are triads????) accurately represents the harmonic content of the passage.


I think it is relevant since we were debating whether or not Brahms would struggle with 'getting' Schoenberg harmonically.
I still think he would not hear that passage as you have it in your reduction whether or not it represents the harmonic content.
Since he is not around to ask, perhaps we should leave it there.


----------



## Kazaman (Apr 13, 2013)

Petwhac said:


> I think it is relevant since we were debating whether or not Brahms would struggle with 'getting' Schoenberg harmonically.
> I still think he would not hear that passage as you have it in your reduction whether or not it represents the harmonic content.
> Since he is not around to ask, perhaps we should leave it there.


I don't understand why we're handicapping him by barring him from listening with the score.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Kazaman said:


> I don't understand why we're handicapping him by barring him from listening with the score.


Fine, let him have the score.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Petwhac said:


> Fine, let him have the score.


The whole point of _mr_'s argument is that Br didn't know the score.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The whole point of mr's argument is that Br didn't know the score.


Didn't know the score? He must have picked up the wrong pair of specs.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Brahms: Rhapsody Nos. 1 & 2, Op.79. Martha Argerich, piano (DG). This is the way Brahms can be rendered palatable: by filtering him through the head, heart, and hands of a consummate female pianist. I specify "female" especially for Brahms. The more beautiful, the better.
Included on this disc are works by Chopin and Liszt. As it should be.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> Brahms: Rhapsody Nos. 1 & 2, Op.79. Martha Argerich, piano (DG). This is the way Brahms can be rendered palatable: by filtering him through the head, heart, and hands of a consummate female pianist. I specify "female" especially for Brahms. The more beautiful, the better.
> Included on this disc are works by Chopin and Liszt. As it should be.


And your sexism may be rendered palatable if filtered through a layer of irony. At least I assume you are being ironic and deliberately provocative.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> And your sexism may be rendered palatable if filtered through a layer of irony. At least I assume you are being ironic and deliberately provocative.


No, I'm being serious. I really like "a woman's touch" on Brahms. That's just what Brahms needs, is Argerich's hot hands all over the quivering body of his works....and I think they have emotional capacities which men lack, because of the reverse-sexist way that men are reared.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm being serious. I really like "a woman's touch" on Brahms. That's just what Brahms needs, is Argerich's hot hands all over the quivering body of his works....and I think they have emotional capacities which men lack, because of the reverse-sexist way that men are reared.


Oh come now. At least you claim it's nurture not nature but you view is hopelessly old fashioned. Join us in the 21st Century it's not at all bad.
Can you really tell from just listening if the player has a y chromosome or not? Are you not merely projecting?
What about a gay man's interpretation of Brahms. LOL.


----------



## astronautnic (Mar 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> No, I'm being serious. I really like "a woman's touch" on Brahms. That's just what Brahms needs, is Argerich's hot hands all over the quivering body of his works....and I think they have emotional capacities which men lack, because of the reverse-sexist way that men are reared.


Yeah, true, the few Beethoven sonatas Argerich has recorded are just about bearable due to her hot hands. The rest of the cycle is pathetic when played by machos like Brendel, Gulda, Arrau, Buchbinder, not to mention Mr testosteron himself, Andras Schiff!! Simply awful!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

astronautnic said:


> Yeah, true, the few Beethoven sonatas Argerich has recorded are just about bearable due to her hot hands. The rest of the cycle is pathetic when played by machos like Brendel, Gulda, Arrau, Buchbinder, not to mention Mr testosteron himself, Andras Schiff!! Simply awful!


"Too much coffee, man..." And who mentioned Beethoven? This is a Brahms thread.

The above is a reference to Argerich's hopped-up recording-session performance of Chopin's A-flat Polonaise, after she consumed a pot of coffee...freaked the engineers out!  :lol:


----------



## astronautnic (Mar 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> "Too much coffee, man..." And who mentioned Beethoven? This is a Brahms thread.
> 
> The above is a reference to Argerich's hopped-up recording-session performance of Chopin's A-flat Polonaise, after she consumed a pot of coffee...freaked the engineers out!  :lol:


No man, you? Yes, i realised this is the Brahms thread, but as you mentioned the "female touch" of Matha that rendered Brahms otherwise miserable works bearable, i noticed you are absolutely right as she turns even the awfully pathetic Beethoven sonatas into listenable music with her "hot hands". Thanks man for that recommendation anyway!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

astronautnic said:


> No man, you? Yes, i realised this is the Brahms thread, but as you mentioned the "female touch" of Matha that rendered Brahms otherwise miserable works bearable, i noticed you are absolutely right as she turns even the awfully pathetic Beethoven sonatas into listenable music with her "hot hands". Thanks man for that recommendation anyway!


Don't mention it. You're beautiful, let's do lunch sometime!


----------



## astronautnic (Mar 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Don't mention it. You're beautiful, let's do lunch sometime!


Difficult to "measure" your beauty but a good idea that one.....


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Another example of how the female sensibility salvages Brahms:

Johannes Brahms (1833-1897): Sonata in F minor Op.120, No. 1 for Viola and Piano; Sonata in E-flat Op.120, no. 2 for Viola and Piano; Barbara Westphal, viola; Ursula Oppens, piano (Bridge). Recorded in 1990.


In the hands of the native West German violist Barbara Westphal, a member of the Delos Quartet from 1978-1985, and Julliard-trained Ursula Oppens, who usually devotes her energies to modern music, the results here are spectacular.


Both of these sonatas were originally inspired by, and written for, the clarinet, but were re-written for viola, which I much prefer. The viola's voice-like range and expressivity is perfect for these, as opposed to the clarinet, which always seems out-of-tune (flat) to me, not to mention "tight" and squeaky sounding.


I feel these chamber works are a "key" into Brahms' emotional being, being very sensual and rich. They tell me that "developing variation" is taking place here, but I don't explicitly hear it, except maybe as a sense of continuity and organic unity.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Another way in to Brahms is via his songs. In fact, songs constitute the vast majority of his output, yet are rarely mentioned as panaceas to "Brahms dysfunction syndrome."

Here are some general guidelines for "getting into" Brahms:

1. Avoid looking at photographs of him.
2. Avoid writings, aphorisms, or sayings by him.
3. Avoid any detailed study of his biographical history or "movements" he was involved in.
4. Avoid the Symphonies.
5. Avoid the Concertos.
6. Avoid, at all costs, the Academic Festival Overture.
7. Concentrate on the chamber works, for solo piano and strings.
8. Concentrate on the Songs.
9. Whenever possible, choose female performers.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Getting into brahms, millionrainbow style.

For the rest of us, the symphonies are just fine 

(I do get what you say about brahms "calculated" style though, I just think it's a cool calculated style )


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Lorraine Hunt Lieberson, mezzo-soprano; Wigmore Hall Live Archive (BBC RADIO):

Robert Schumann (1810-1856): _Four Lieder from Goethe's Wilhelm Meisters Lehrjahre Op.98a (1849)_

Johaness Brahms (1833-1897): _8 Songs Op.57 (1867-71) (Daumer)_

These Op.57 songs are undeniably the most overtly sensual, even explicit, of Brahms' output. His friends were opposed to their being performed, deeming them 'not suitable for family entertainment.'

"Unbewegte laue Luft" is the most egregious of the bunch, according to the booklet notes; the liner notes also declare that nineteenth-century sensibilities were offended by the imagery in _Die Schur, die Perl' an Perle: 
_
"That necklace, pearl on pearl, ranged around your neck, how happily it rocks upon your fair breast! Endowed with mind and soul, elated with ecstacy, this is delight for the gods," which the notes say seems "innocuous" today.

Apparently, the author of these notes was unfamiliar with rock music. The imagery of a pearl necklace lost all its innocence for me in 1981, with the release of ZZ Top's _El Loco_ and its song _Pearl Necklace._ I'll leave it to your imagination (or see WIK) as to what this "pearl necklace" is in reference to. 
Brahms, you naughty boy!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I just listened to Brahm's Third Symphony, along with the Tragic Overture, and a horribly cold chill engulfed me. Too much bombast! Why couldn't Brahms have been more minimalist, more natural? I'd rather look at a pile of firebricks than endure another one of his overwrought, overdone symphonic farces!


----------



## Geo Dude (May 22, 2013)

What recording of the third were you listening to?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Geo Dude said:


> What recording of the third were you listening to?


Brahms: 3rd Symphony in F Major, Op. 90 / Variations on a Theme of Haydn, Op. 56/A by Brahms, Jascha Horenstein and The symphony Orchestra of the Southwest Germamn Radio Baden-Baden (1958). Vinyl LP


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I just picked up a manuscript volume of all four Brahms symphonies, glanced inside, and it was just as I suspected: a bunch of little black dots!


----------



## Geo Dude (May 22, 2013)

Try the recordings by Harding, Mackerras, and/or Manze. Odds are that it's the interpretation that is bothering you and not the symphony itself.



millionrainbows said:


> Here are some general guidelines for "getting into" Brahms:
> 
> 1. Avoid looking at photographs of him.
> 2. Avoid writings, aphorisms, or sayings by him.
> ...


Well...err...I can agree with #6 and the first half of #7.:tiphat:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Geo Dude said:


> Try the recordings by Harding, Mackerras, and/or Manze. Odds are that it's the interpretation that is bothering you and not the symphony itself.


_I've got the Mackerras, and although I admit that it's an improvement, I think it's a combination of factors: the orchestration, the homophonic style, the bombast, the lack of truly adventurous harmonic ideas, the intuitive sense that Brahms is holding something back in order to preserve some sort of reactionary conservatism. *Blah!

*Maybe, just maybe, if Boulez would give it a try, or Stockhausen...
_


----------



## Brahmatist (Jul 27, 2013)

Oh, millionrainbows. You construct a baseless, ill-informed perspective of Brahms as a means of putting your perfunctory familiarity with the Romantics on display for us to admire. Kind of a pointless exercise, isn't it? I don't mean to sound hostile, but you can't expect a jovial response to this kind of smug, superficial tripe. You start with the glib summation of the era as "heroic", while you fail to demonstrate how this applies to Brahms. It's not enough to say that his symphonies are big and loud, therefore they exude a heroic quality. The kind of pompous detachment you describe could accurately be applied to Bruckner, but not to Brahms.

Look, I get that people experience music differently, but this seems a little forced. Just as Mozart fanatics fail to comprehend my polite indifference to their messiah, I find your reading of Brahms puzzling, to say the least. You seem to be viewing him too much through a historic lens, while ignoring the qualities that set him apart from his contemporaries. Above all, it is _intimacy that defines the man's output, from the biggest orchestral opus to the smallest piano piece. It is music that reveals itself in pieces; the whole must be discovered after you familiarize yourself with the layout. Maybe this is the disconnect you are referring to. Except that it could only be experienced as such if Brahms wasn't such a master of enticement. Passages that seem strange or out of place reveal themselves over time as expertly crafted pieces of a marvelous whole. A phrase repeats itself while its meaning is completely altered (as an example of the latter, consider the "heroic" opening of the third symphony, and its beautiful whisper of an echo that closes the final movement). There is a depth, a melancholy yearning and beauty of the most un"detach"able kind on display in virtually all of Brahms output.

"Humorless self-importance"?

Please._


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I just listened to Brahm's Third Symphony, along with the Tragic Overture, and a horribly cold chill engulfed me. Too much bombast! Why couldn't Brahms have been more minimalist, more natural?


To please the rest of us, obviously!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

GGluek said:


> I find that your posts often inspire in me a sense of deja vu.


I feel the same way--though in this case, perhaps it's because I've been reading too much George Bernard Shaw!


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Brahmatist said:


> It's not enough to say that his symphonies are big and loud, therefore they exude a heroic quality. *The kind of pompous detachment you describe could accurately be applied to Bruckner*, but not to Brahms.


No it can't  All the Bruckner hate..



Blancrocher said:


> I feel the same way--though in this case, perhaps it's because I've been reading too much George Bernard Shaw!


You mean mr Corno di Basetto?


----------

