# Brahms versus the Russians



## Kieran

Two days ago, I made a couple of purchases:

















HTML:




I bought these based on recommendations from this forum, in the top 100 PC's thread. Now, my difficulty isn't Brahms, as such, but that his music - to me - isn't as expressive, sensuous or dramatic as the Russians, who I've been playing non-stop. Compared to the organic music of Rachmaninov, in particular, Brahms sound programmatic and formal. I'm going to persevere, of course, because obviously his PC's are excellent and also, he didn't write them in response to the Russians any more than they composed theirs as a reply to his. They stand separately, and each should be judged on its own merits.

But is there a lack of excitement in Brahms, and a surplus of easy sentiment in the Russians which makes them more accessible? Or am I looking for the wrong things in Brahms?


----------



## Mahlerian

Kieran said:


> I bought these based on recommendations from this forum, in the top 100 PC's thread. Now, my difficulty isn't Brahms, as such, but that his music - to me - isn't as expressive, sensuous or dramatic as the Russians, who I've been playing non-stop. Compared to the organic music of Rachmaninov, in particular, Brahms sound programmatic and formal. I'm going to persevere, of course, because obviously his PC's are excellent and also, he didn't write them in response to the Russians any more than they composed theirs as a reply to his. They stand separately, and each should be judged on its own merits.
> 
> But is there a lack of excitement in Brahms, and a surplus of easy sentiment in the Russians which makes them more accessible? Or am I looking for the wrong things in Brahms?


Germanic music has a tendency to be a little dryer and more hard-edged, especially on the surface. All the focus on counterpoint and development over melody can give an impression of academicism. But Brahms's music is very passionate and dramatic, and under that colder surface is a center of Romantic warmth.

Russian music (and French music, too) is indeed more sensuously appealing. There is a wealth of sound and color not found in Brahms's relatively homogeneous use of the orchestral ensemble. It also tends to be less thickly textured in both orchestration and composition, which (and this is not any indication of quality either way) can make it easier to understand on a first listen. I find it rather easy to recognize Russian music, even though, in his time, Tchaikovsky was criticized for being overly Germanic in his orientation compared to the overt nationalism of "The Five".


----------



## Kieran

The Five! Sounds like a cabal. Who were they, if you don't mind me to impose?

That's a very good way of expressing my conundrum, Mahlerian, by the way. There is an accessibility to the Russians, an immediate appeal, that I might have to work harder to find in Brahms, who sounds on the surface more academic. But he came second in our poll, so I have a good time ahead of me! :tiphat:

EDIT: Just looked up The Five! Cheers!


----------



## Truckload

Kieran said:


> Two days ago, I made a couple of purchases:
> 
> I bought these based on recommendations from this forum, in the top 100 PC's thread. Now, my difficulty isn't Brahms, as such, but that his music - to me - isn't as expressive, sensuous or dramatic as the Russians, who I've been playing non-stop. Compared to the organic music of Rachmaninov, in particular, Brahms sound programmatic and formal. I'm going to persevere, of course, because obviously his PC's are excellent and also, he didn't write them in response to the Russians any more than they composed theirs as a reply to his. They stand separately, and each should be judged on its own merits.
> 
> But is there a lack of excitement in Brahms, and a surplus of easy sentiment in the Russians which makes them more accessible? Or am I looking for the wrong things in Brahms?


When I attended music school in the 1970's my musicology professor (and many others) considered Brahms to be one of the four greatest composers of all time (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms). I always considered him a great master, but like you, Brahms does not excite me.

So what did these folks back in the 1970's find so admirable about Brahms? They admired his mastery of the craft of composition. His use of form, manipulation of motives, mastery of Tonal Harmony, mastery of both polyphonic and homophic technique, and in general the cerebral content of his works. Brahms was very influential in his day, both as a composer and as a writer about music and a music critic. Brahams was considered the leading figure in the "conservative" crowd in opposition to the Wagnerian "liberals" who felt all is acceptable in service of art.

So, just my opinion, but I think Brahms music may have been given greater prominence than it might deserve because many poeple admired his "conservative" musical philosophy. One flaw even his most ardent admirers admit, Brahms was not an inspired orchestrator.

Brahms did write a lot of wonderful music, but emotional impact is certainly not his strength. One exception that comes immediately to mind is perhaps his greatest achievment "A German Requiem" which is very emotional, at least to me.


----------



## Flamme

In my opinion and i compared it for my account Germans are more precise ''surgically'' almost and sterile and Russians are more vivid wild and chaotic but also more ''emotional'' slav soul like they would say...


----------



## Hausmusik

Mahlerian said:


> Germanic music has a tendency to be a little dryer and more hard-edged, especially on the surface. All the focus on counterpoint and development over melody can give an impression of academicism. But Brahms's music is very passionate and dramatic, and under that colder surface is a center of Romantic warmth.


Yes, I don't know why it is Brahms can strike some as cold and academic when, for me, his music totally breaks my heart. I've written elsewhere about this, but there is something about his writing for winds, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd symphonies and the chamber works for clarinet, that, for me, evokes the feelings I associate with falling in love. If I have a problem with Brahms it is that, sometimes, I find his emotionalism a little too heart-on-sleeve, as in the third Piano Quartet.


----------



## starthrower

I have the Brahms/Gilels CD. I've tried to listen to it a few times now, but I can't get into it.


----------



## Hausmusik

Which Gilels CD are you referring to? EDIT: Never mind, I see, the piano concertos. If it helps, I don't think Brahms is necessarily at his best in his piano concertos (despite their fans), and his solo piano music I do not care for at all. Even though Brahms was a pianist, I don't think he is an idiomatic composer for the piano; his piano music always sounds clunky to my ears (and fingers!)--fistsfull of notes. 

Those finding Brahms lacking in sensuousness, I would not write off Brahms until you have given the following works a shot:

Violin Concerto
Clarinet Quintet & Trio
Symphonies 2, 3, and perhaps 4 (though this one can give the impression of severity)

You also have to make sure you hear an inspired performance, because there is a lot of mediocre Brahms in the catalog, as there is a lot of mediocre everything.

If after hearing the slow movements of the second and third symphonies, the clarinet trio and quintet, and the Violin Concerto, you still don't find Brahms human or warm enough, then you've probably given him your best shot.


----------



## Ukko

Truckload said:


> [...]
> Brahms did write a lot of wonderful music, but emotional impact is certainly not his strength. One exception that comes immediately to mind is perhaps his greatest achievment "A German Requiem" which is very emotional, at least to me.


This supposed dearth of 'emotional impact' is a mystery to me. The 1st mvt of Piano Concerto No. 1 - the entire 4th Symphony - those do not have this 'emotional impact'? Clearly, I don't recognize the way you are using the term. And there is another 'impact', the deep, slow pulling on the 'strings of the soul' that much of his late piano music possesses... ah well, it takes all kinds.


----------



## Hausmusik

Haitink and the COE perform the Third Symphony. This is an excellent performance. Kieran, if after listening to this, especially to the inner movements, you still believe Brahms is not "expressive or sensuous" enough, then we'll just have to agree to disagree! 

And do not mistake the quiet ending for lack of drama, any more than you would the quiet ending of Tchaikovsky's Pathetique.


----------



## Mahlerian

The Symphony No. 4 in E minor is a particular favorite of mine. There is definitely a severe atmosphere about it, but also certain lilting air, especially in the undulations of the first movement.



Truckload said:


> So what did these folks back in the 1970's find so admirable about Brahms? They admired his mastery of the craft of composition. His use of form, manipulation of motives, mastery of Tonal Harmony, mastery of both polyphonic and homophonic technique, and in general the cerebral content of his works. Brahms was very influential in his day, both as a composer and as a writer about music and a music critic. Brahms was considered the leading figure in the "conservative" crowd in opposition to the Wagnerian "liberals" who felt all is acceptable in service of art.


Much the same used to be said about Bach. People felt his music was too dry and uninvolving. Fewer people say that now. Today people say these things about Schoenberg or Webern or Stravinsky, that they are perhaps masters of their craft, but too dry or rigid to enjoy properly. I disagree, and find emotional vitality throughout their music.

Edit: I love how the thread title sounds like a 50s B movie, and would fully support the making of such a movie.


----------



## Kieran

Mahlerian said:


> Edit: I love how the thread title sounds like a 50s B movie, and would fully support the making of such a movie.


I think if it was a movie it'd be a rip-roaring action movie, with Brahms formal, academic symphs lined up on the border, trying to repel the sensuous melancholic attack of the Russkies piano music!


----------



## Manxfeeder

Hausmusik said:


> Yes, I don't know why it is Brahms can strike some as cold and academic when, for me, his music totally breaks my heart.


I have a similar problem, in that as I look through my collection, Brahms isn't the one I usually go to for an emotional experience. But it turns out in reality, many of his pieces connect with me on a deep, even spiritual level. I think I have a subconscious prejudice working there that I need to get over.


----------



## Truckload

Hilltroll72 said:


> This supposed dearth of 'emotional impact' is a mystery to me. The 1st mvt of Piano Concerto No. 1 - the entire 4th Symphony - those do not have this 'emotional impact'? Clearly, I don't recognize the way you are using the term. And there is another 'impact', the deep, slow pulling on the 'strings of the soul' that much of his late piano music possesses... ah well, it takes all kinds.


Please re-read my post. "not his strength" is clearly not equivalent with a "dearth of".


----------



## Vaneyes

starthrower said:


> I have the Brahms/Gilels CD. I've tried to listen to it a few times now, but I can't get into it.


I had a similar experience with this "highly-recommended" Gilels recording twenty years ago, but unlike the OP, I didn't equate it with composer deficiency. I also found the other recording he mentioned lacking (Shostakovich/Tchaikovsky). There's plenty to choose from for those works, so that Rudy would never have to be considered. Of course we should often take people's listening and collecting habits into mind, when voicing such opinion.

Brahms versus the Russians? Like so many TC versus/best threads, it rings hollow.:tiphat:


----------



## Kieran

I'm not saying _Brahms versus the Russians_ as a comparison of who's better - I'm just discussing a contrast between them as a new listening experience. It's interesting what you say about the Gilels recording, however. I'll have a look at that. I had a voucher, as I said, and so I was able to get both discs, and they contained music I'd heard of before and read about here. I wouldn't know enough to be able to pick one pianist over another.

I'm enjoying the Russian music more, but that doesn't mean I won't eventually get Brahms, like a bolt of lightning between the eyes.


----------



## moody

Kieran said:


> Two days ago, I made a couple of purchases:
> 
> View attachment 12082
> 
> 
> View attachment 12083
> 
> 
> HTML:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I bought these based on recommendations from this forum, in the top 100 PC's thread. Now, my difficulty isn't Brahms, as such, but that his music - to me - isn't as expressive, sensuous or dramatic as the Russians, who I've been playing non-stop. Compared to the organic music of Rachmaninov, in particular, Brahms sound programmatic and formal. I'm going to persevere, of course, because obviously his PC's are excellent and also, he didn't write them in response to the Russians any more than they composed theirs as a reply to his. They stand separately, and each should be judged on its own merits.
> 
> But is there a lack of excitement in Brahms, and a surplus of easy sentiment in the Russians which makes them more accessible? Or am I looking for the wrong things in Brahms?


Yes ,you are looking for the wrong thing in Brahms who if full of romance and passion.
The comparison is not one that you should be making--it's rather like comparing an Englishman with a Mexican.


----------



## moody

Hausmusik said:


> Which Gilels CD are you referring to? EDIT: Never mind, I see, the piano concertos. If it helps, I don't think Brahms is necessarily at his best in his piano concertos (despite their fans), and his solo piano music I do not care for at all. Even though Brahms was a pianist, I don't think he is an idiomatic composer for the piano; his piano music always sounds clunky to my ears (and fingers!)--fistsfull of notes.
> 
> Those finding Brahms lacking in sensuousness, I would not write off Brahms until you have given the following works a shot:
> 
> Violin Concerto
> Clarinet Quintet & Trio
> Symphonies 2, 3, and perhaps 4 (though this one can give the impression of severity)
> 
> You also have to make sure you hear an inspired performance, because there is a lot of mediocre Brahms in the catalog, as there is a lot of mediocre everything.
> 
> If after hearing the slow movements of the second and third symphonies, the clarinet trio and quintet, and the Violin Concerto, you still don't find Brahms human or warm enough, then you've probably given him your best shot.


Now you've spoiled it with these remarks about Brahms' piano music !!


----------



## Hausmusik

Flamme said:


> In my opinion and i compared it for my account Germans are more precise ''surgically'' almost and sterile and Russians are more vivid wild and chaotic but also more ''emotional'' slav soul like they would say...


Is Schumann Russian then? In my opinion, this is not really a useful categorization system, but a false dichotomy premised upon popular stereotypes.

I understand Kieran's point about Austro-Germanic composers being as a whole more likely to be concerned with the rigors of musical development, but this is hardly a German v. Russian thing. Few composers are more enshrined in the Austro-German musical tradition than Schubert, yet Schubert is more concerned with melody and hypnotic repetition and exploring distant key areas than rigorous development of musical ideas.

And being interested in the development of a musical idea does not equate to cold emotional sterility and aloofness--I just don't accept that at all. I find carefully crafted development sections can be totally overwhelming in an emotional sense--conveying passionate struggle like no other form of music quite can.


----------



## drpraetorus

For me, Brahms is too academic in his approach to music. It is all expertly crafted but he never really commits to the emotion. He always seem to be standing back a bit as if the full emotional expression is a bit embarrasing or distasteful.


----------



## Hausmusik

drpraetorus said:


> For me, Brahms is too academic in his approach to music. It is all expertly crafted but he never really commits to the emotion. He always seem to be standing back a bit as if the full emotional expression is a bit embarrasing or distasteful.


It is difficult to know what to say in response to this, Dr. P. I just do not hear this at all. I also am not even sure how one would be able to quantify lack of "commit[ment] to the emotion" in a composition, as opposed to a particular performance of a composition. (i.e. Schiff's Schubert 960 is quite aloof, but Goode's is emotionally overpowering; I suppose if you had only ever heard Schiff's interpretation you might mistake his lack of emotional investment in the music he is performing for something lacking in the music itself.) Perhaps you are listening to less than fully committed performances.


----------



## moody

Manxfeeder said:


> I have a similar problem, in that as I look through my collection, Brahms isn't the one I usually go to for an emotional experience. But it turns out in reality, many of his pieces connect with me on a deep, even spiritual level. I think I have a subconscious prejudice working there that I need to get over.


Listen to his Alto Rhapsody, preferably with Ferrier, that'll get your lip trembling.


----------



## moody

Germanic emotions ? What about Schubert , what about Beethoven and Mozart and what about Wagner? fairly emotional lot I would say.


----------



## Ukko

moody said:


> Listen to his Alto Rhapsody, preferably with Ferrier, that'll get your lip trembling.


Ferrier's voice is so affecting/effective that it could be weaponized. In some laboratory, hundreds of feet below Trafalgar Square, government scientists are analyzing, concentrating, optimizing. Sidetracked by that plane tree for awhile, but eventually...


----------



## clavichorder

It can be extremely hard to reconcile the differences between Brahms and more sensuous, Russian, Italian, or even cosmopolitan Germanic Classicists and romantics composers of high caliber. But over time I have come to understand them as just that, differences. Brahms is some kind of extreme that you could call Germanic, but there is also a Hungarian melodic and chordal influence that somehow makes him in a way, less German than Wagner to my min, and almost more "modernist" in how dry he first seems in many works. After all, Shostakovich is a Russian, Bartok is hungarian, and yet to my mind, they are perhaps just as stiff on the surface as Brahms in some ways(though I find more satisfying passion lurking under the surface of Brahms, and certainly more bombast in Shosty)

Brahms has his own consistency that will sound more fluid and have a powerful emotional shape. Somehow these days I can listen to Tchaikovsky and feel a high degree of passion, and Brahms and feel another kind of passion, and I still can't compare them very well on an emotional level. Its like I have two brains/hearts/mindsets/whatever for them each, and there is some overlap but no unified approach or policy by which to evaluate them both the same way. 

I used to feel a stiff curiosity about Brahms's 3rd Symphony, but I kept coming back to it because it was weird and that interested me. Now I hear very shapely phrases that evoke a very unique mood. 

The thing Brahms's music seems to project to me these days is a sort of painful emotional ambiguity coupled with a fierce sort of determination to move on. Because this is such a vivid perception, it makes me wonder whether there really is something psychological to be found in much music.


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> [...]
> The thing Brahms's music seems to project to me these days is a sort of painful emotional ambiguity coupled with a fierce sort of determination to move on. Because this is such a vivid perception, it makes me wonder whether there really is something psychological to be found in much music.


Certainly there is "something psychological to be found in much music". Except that it isn't really in the music. Music gets into your mind and messes with it, but it's your mind that is taking non-specific cues and extrapolating them into stuff you can ratiocinate about. Don't be blaming Brahms for that urge to build a bomb.


----------



## clavichorder

Hilltroll72 said:


> Certainly there is "something psychological to be found in much music". Except that it isn't really in the music. Music gets into your mind and messes with it, but it's your mind that is taking non-specific cues and extrapolating them into stuff you can ratiocinate about. Don't be blaming Brahms for that urge to build a bomb.


So, building a bomb, or joining the Peace Corps as an alternative, or both...can't be specifically attributed to Brahms, I have no trouble buying that. And I can also readily draw a comparison to folks who over interpret the bible.

But I did feel for a moment there that potentially my psychological assessment of Brahms was digging into a simplified but true element about his music and how it can affect your mood if you are receptive. Maybe not.


----------



## Ukko

clavichorder said:


> So, building a bomb, or joining the Peace Corps as an alternative, or both...can't be specifically attributed to Brahms, I have no trouble buying that. And I can also readily draw a comparison to folks who over interpret the bible.
> 
> But I did feel for a moment there that potentially my psychological assessment of Brahms was digging into a simplified but true element about his music and how it can affect your mood if you are receptive. Maybe not.


Effect your mood? Sure. But, based entirely on the impression that the music apparently doesn't affect me hardly at all the way it does you, I stand by my scientific analysis of both you and Brahms, and the guy who started this thread. And I would invoke _DrMike_, but right now I don't see how.


----------



## Flamme

When i listen to some german composers like Furtwangler, Raff and many others you can hear the Discipline the Order The Work...When you listen to Russkies all you can hear is a lot of variants of Dreaming...


----------



## Manxfeeder

moody said:


> Listen to his Alto Rhapsody, preferably with Ferrier, that'll get your lip trembling.


Actually, that's one of the pieces I was speaking of which I really connect with. It was written for a wedding, but it's as if he's speaking of himself, as if it were a prayer request.


----------



## Manxfeeder

moody said:


> Listen to his Alto Rhapsody, preferably with Ferrier, that'll get your lip trembling.


Yeah, that's one of the pieces I was speaking of which I really connect with. It was written for a wedding, but it's as if he's speaking of himself, as if it were a prayer request.


----------



## Truckload

Hilltroll72 said:


> Effect your mood? Sure. But, based entirely on the impression that the music apparently doesn't affect me hardly at all the way it does you, I stand by my scientific analysis of both you and Brahms, and the guy who started this thread. And I would invoke _DrMike_, but right now I don't see how.











Emotion and Meaning in Music by Leonard B. Meyer

Meyer has done some really interesting work in this area. If interested in the topic, I recommend his book.


----------



## Arsakes

*Baritone / Russian Accent* Ze Russians!


----------



## celegorma

All music speak emotions. Its just the language is different. Brahms's music speaks no less emotions than Russian music, but one has to understand what he is trying to say.


----------

