# Brahms and Bruckner - what's the difference?



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Both major figures of the Romantic period, both employing classical forms - however obviously quite different to one another in what they express. 

I'm interested in how you would describe the differences in analytic terms ('syntax')? How did Bruckner's compositional style differ from Brahms, including large scale form, harmony, development.

:tiphat:


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Recently there has been a good discussion about Bruckner's style in:
Mahler vs. Bruckner


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

It has often been said that Brahms was essentially a composer of chamber music (sometimes meant as criticism of his symphonies). Maybe a slight exaggeration but I think there is truth in it and it sets him apart not only from Bruckner but other contemporaries like Tchaikovsky and Dvorak. (They also wrote good chamber music but it was not there fundamental way of thinking.)

Brahms also usually abhors demonstrative displays. There is an interchange of letters discussing the use of the harp in some piece and Brahms supposedly wrote that if a harp was to be used it should play along from the beginning, so it would not appear as a special effect at one passage (He nevertheless did exactly this in the Requiem (ii) at the passage "morning rain and evening rain" but maybe he was not as strict when he was younger, the Alphorn theme in the 1st seems also a fairly special effect). Maybe he also used the possibilities of valved brass sparingly because of this.

The piano concertos are supposedly two of the hardest to play in the standard rep but they rarely sound "flashy". And it is even true in composition. Brahms wrote some very complex polyphonic pieces and even in lighter textures he is usually thinking in a contrapuntal way but he never wrote display pieces like the finales of Mozart's K 551, Beethoven's op.106 or Bruckner's 5th. It's usually hidden underneath, subtle, giving a frame and shape but rarely at the surface. Like the finales of his 4th symphony or the Haydn variations.

The German poet and dramatist Schiller made in the late 18th century a distinction between "naive" and "sentimental" (sentimentalisch) poetry (or art in general). According to Schiller, almost anyone in his (or our) era was "sentimental" which for him means being acutely aware of both the history and maybe also theory of his art, reflect their position in history and present society etc. whereas in antiquity we have still naive poets, especially Homer who bring forth their art like nature brings forth flowers. (And of course it is a little sad that we cannot make art like this anymore etc.) 

If we allow degrees, Brahms is about the least naive composer we could imagine. Technically very capable, painstakingly selfcritical, extremely aware of history and his position, weighed down by the Greats of the past but also feeling the duty to continue the great heritage to the best of his abilities. 

Whereas Bruckner was comparably naive, if not to the extent often caricatured. Sure, he was also influenced by Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner and catholic church music but he didn't seem too burdened by that (although he probably was hampered by his non-musical personal quirks) didn't care much about the surroundings, just monomanically wrote his huge symphonies according to a rather strict scheme he rarely changed. 
He seems to achieve quite precisely what he wants whereas with Brahms one sometimes gets the impression of the sad sentimental artist who longs to write "naively" like Homer/Beethoven/Schubert but knows that it is impossible in his day and age and he has to do strive to emulate the past Greats but still do it differently. 

So this was a bit rambling and untechnical but I tried to get at some differences and characteristics.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Bruckner was protected from the social game of appearances by the innocence of his conviction that he wrote not for his own glory, but for the glory of God (and Wagner). Brahms didn't care too much about praising anything in particular, so he didn't see a reason to be flashy.

We can hear a mirror of this contrast in the music of John Williams. Privately: a fan of Haydn and Brahms; his "personal" music is usually written for a soloist + orchestra, rather humble, not too flashy.





But when the dramatic need calls for a dramatic effect, he can be like Bruckner:


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Jerry Seinfeld needed 15 letters to explain the difference between a sadist and a dentist ("better magazines") — I can do Brahms and Bruckner with fewer: taste and skill.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

Bruckner is, generally speaking, a "symphonist" version of Richard Wagner, plus the influence of organ music and Beethoven's 9th on his mature works. Brahms uses music materials in a more economical way and he tries to put Classism and Romantism together. Brahms excelled at almost all genres in which he composed and seems to received more acclaims than Bruckner.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I'd say the difference is about 40 minutes.

edit: I kid. I enjoy both. It seems to me that Brahms is more classically structured in terms of introducing, developing, and recapitulating a theme (despite being firmly in the romantic mode). Bruckner seems to follow themes in a more repetitive, intensity-building sort of way. Bruckner seems to be more ecstatic, in a religious/spiritual sense, where Brahms is more intellectual. But in terms of symphonies, duration certainly is a difference as well.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Jerry Seinfeld needed 15 letters to explain the difference between a sadist and a dentist ("better magazines") - I can do Brahms and Bruckner with fewer: taste and skill.


What was different composition techniques did they employ?

I prefer Bruckner over Brahms, but that's not what this thread is intended to be about.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Brahms and Bruckner - what's the difference?*

Though both names start with a B (as in Bang!), Bruckner has two more letters in the spelling of his name than does Brahms. Bruckner also has a few more symphonies than does Brahms.

That said, both merit hearing.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Bruckner Anton said:


> Brahms excelled at almost all genres in which he composed and seems to received more acclaims than Bruckner.


Though this part isn't a difference between the two, it's a subjective opinion/appeal.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Earlier recordings of the Brahms piano concertos tend to be quite flashy and probably illustrate the original way of playing them (Horowitz + Rubinstein, even Backhaus, pre-1950).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Bruckner was repetitive, while Brahms developed his material more.

Bruckner relied to a great deal on his brass-heavy orchestration to achieve his effects; Brahms didn't.

Brahms was more versatile, even when only considering symphonies. Bruckner used the same structure each time for his symphonies-- his template was Schubert's Great C Major Symphony.

And finally, Brahms wrote better finales whilst Bruckner wrote better slow movements.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

joen_cph said:


> Earlier recordings of the Brahms piano concertos tend to be quite flashy and probably illustrate the original way of playing them (Horowitz + Rubinstein, even Backhaus, pre-1950).


One can play them faster, but the very music is different and will never become as flashy as Liszt or Saint-Saens. Similiarly for the symphonic structure and scale of these concertos.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'd say the difference is about 40 minutes.


More like 20-25 min. Bruckner's 5th and 8th can last over 80 min (but can also be done in about 70), but the others are around 55-65 min while Brahms' symphonies (except for the somewhat shorter 3rd) are 40-45 min (Giulini brought 1 and 2 to 50-55 min).


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Kreisler jr said:


> The German poet and dramatist Schiller made in the late 18th century a distinction between "naive" and "sentimental" (sentimentalisch) poetry (or art in general). According to Schiller, almost anyone in his (or our) era was "sentimental" which for him means being acutely aware of both the history and maybe also theory of his art, reflect their position in history and present society etc. whereas in antiquity we have still naive poets, especially Homer who bring forth their art like nature brings forth flowers. (And of course it is a little sad that we cannot make art like this anymore etc.)


An interesting idea, though in much early music up through the baroque, the music does not sound naive to me, (though it can vary on the composer, Handel sounds relatively 'naive' compared to J.S. Bach, Frescobaldi, or Purcell). This naiveté seems to be a feature of classical era music, indeed the composers you listed as examples further down your post as 'naive' were classical. Perhaps in music these things are cyclical. Rosen suggests the classical era in music was actually neo-classical in the sense of being influenced by ancient Greek art, but representing it in a somewhat idealistic and artificial way.

As far as Bruckner his music does not sound particularly naive to me, though that may be applied to him as a person to a degree. Some aspects of Bruckner's approach to structure are relatively simplistic, but that does not create an aural effect of naiveté to me. Of course I think Brahms is not particularly naive either, but his drawing on classicism does at times perhaps leave a hint of it here and there.

Perhaps Schiller's definition differs somewhat from mine, as a kind of acute awareness of the past, or being prolific in an un self conscious way. I'm just referring to what I hear in the music.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX (Apr 18, 2020)

MatthewWeflen said:


> I'd say the difference is about 40 minutes.
> 
> edit: I kid. I enjoy both.


This made me laugh. Honestly I've only listened to Bruckner like once or twice because his symphonies require so much time.

Eta: I'll get around to it at some point but the length of his symphonies has been a major factor in why I'm waiting to explore his music.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Kreisler jr said:


> One can play them faster, but the very music is different and will never become as flashy as Liszt or Saint-Saens. Similiarly for the symphonic structure and scale of these concertos.


The Finale of the 1st Concerto is an obvious example of flashiness. Try Horowitz/Walter for example, if not allergic to the historical sound. It's a way of playing Brahms that has been largely forgotten.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

joen_cph said:


> The Finale of the 1st Concerto is an obvious example of flashiness. Try Horowitz/Walter for example, if not allergic to the historical sound. It's a way of playing Brahms that has been largely forgotten.


You are almost making want to go revisit the Brahms Piano Concertos. Brahms is one of my favorite composers, and I do love his symphonies, and like his Violin Concerto, although it is not one of my absolute favorites. The Piano Concertos are his two orchestral/concertante works that I never understood or liked. They always seemed to me to be long, rambling symphonies with piano obbligato that I found boring, extremely boring. This despite the fact that I do love his Symphonies Nos. 1 to 4. At least in theory, some extra flash in them would be quite welcome. I will try to dig up the recordings by Horowitz and Rubinstein. As someone who is often bothered by recording sound quality, or the lack of it, do you have any suggestions for a "flashy" modern recording of the concertos.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Not really, but Manz/Mandeal are among the quicker in both, however not in bravura style. The 1st Concerto, but in the more subdued Woodward/Masur recording, quite rare these days, was my introduction to Brahms, and I surely never tired of it.

For other, feverish early recordings, Horowitz/Toscanini in the 2nd, and Rubinstein/Coates, ditto.

I never really fell under the alleged spell of Edwin Fischer/Furtwangler in the 2nd. I prefer early Backhaus, but his late recordings lacked interest for me, and therefore I haven't heard much of his early stuff.

Obviously, a lot of people have a different taste.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The difference (to me): I like Brahms. I don't particularly like Bruckner.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

That's the majority view actually. Brahms appeals to a wider public. If forced to choose, I'd take Anton. Luckily, there's no such obligatory choice.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Brahms and Bruckner - what's the difference?_

Both use classic styles but Brahms looked to the past -- even to the Renaissance -- for forms as late as his 4th symphony. Brahms wasn't just as classicist in the romantic era; he was a throwback.

Meanwhile Bruckner, who started using classical styles, was influenced indirectly by Liszt and directly by Wagner and his mature style is closer to those two -- Liszt for distending development through repetitive devices and Wagner for use of new instruments and late 20th century forms of expression.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

A better question would be: What are the similarities between the two? Which other than the decades they both composed in, and that both composed things they called symphonies, is pretty much an empty set.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

deleted duplication


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_A better question would be: What are the similarities between the two?_

The only similarity I can find is a certain likeness between each of their first symphonies.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Is it accurate to say that Brahms introduces new material at the earliest opportunity he can? No sooner is an idea presented as a theme than it is transitioned into something else... like his expositions are quasi-developments all of their own? Bruckner on the other hand can sit on something for longer (much longer!) and let it breathe, take flight.

Questions:

-Are themes in Mozart and Beethoven, for instance, just as 'unstable' as Brahms? 

-Are there just as many ideas in a Mozart or Beethoven piece as a Brahms one?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Of those, Mozart is the composer with the most material. There are expositions with half a dozen distinguishable "themes" or more (esp. in some piano concerti), and often only one or two of them are really "developed", the others are just there, e.g. for melodic contrast, for "transition sections" or so where other composers would not use new material.

Brahms certainly does in a sense expand the development of motives over the whole movement (there are already similar things in Beethoven (and Haydn and Mozart) but Brahms overall pushed it to another level, I'd say, this is supposedly one of the points Schoenberg wanted to make with his "Brahms the progressive" essay). But this also means that it is often not really something "new" that is introduced. Therefore it seems wrong that he introduces new material at the earliest opportunity. (The most obvious case for introducing highly contrasting material (beyond some non-jarring "call-response" contrasts like the beginning of Mozart's K 271 or 551) within seconds is the beginning of Beethoven's quartet op.95. I don't think Brahms has such lightning changes anywhere, whereas they are frequent in Beethoven.)
That said, I rarely had a problem with "graspable" themes or melodies in most large scale Brahms pieces and compared to Haydn or some Beethoven the scale and the speed of "unfolding" is not too fast either. There are differences, of course, the 1st mvmt of Brahms 2nd symphony is maybe the most expansive and relaxed and even in the tempestous 3rd the 2nd theme gets 

The reason of the contrast seems more that Bruckner is really extreme in his broadness and expansiveness; with a few exceptions by Schubert I think this is unprecedented and overall quite rare in music between baroque and early modernity, even in comparably large scale pieces like late Beethoven or Mahler or Strauss or other late romantics.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

joen_cph said:


> The Finale of the 1st Concerto is an obvious example of flashiness.


I disagree. It is virtuosic but not brilliant and flashy compared to a lot of other 19th century piano music. It is also mighty long (almost as long as a whole Konzertstück could have been) and screams louder: "I am the disciple of Bach and Beethoven (the sections of the movement, including some tonal relationships and the appearance of fugato are modelled after the finale of Beethoven's c minor concerto)" than: "I am the greatest pianist in town".


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Kreisler jr said:


> I disagree. It is virtuosic but not brilliant and flashy compared to a lot of other 19th century piano music. It is also mighty long (almost as long as a whole Konzertstück could have been) and screams louder: "I am the disciple of Bach and Beethoven (the sections of the movement, including some tonal relationships and the appearance of fugato are modelled after the finale of Beethoven's c minor concerto)" than: "I am the greatest pianist in town".


I'm not sure we really disagree that much about this, it's rather a question of the glass being half full or half empty, but there's a display of pianistic brilliance/'tons-of-notes' for sure. Btw, like you could say of Bach's d-minor concerto too. However, what pianists choose to display or focus on may vary, including the degree of virtuoso display, novelistic drama, or contrasting features, for example.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> It is also mighty long (almost as long as a whole Konzertstück could have been) and screams louder: "I am the disciple of Bach and Beethoven (the sections of the movement, including some tonal relationships and the appearance of fugato are modelled after the finale of Beethoven's c minor concerto)" than: "I am the greatest pianist in town".


To me, it just screams; _"GUTEN TAG!"_


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> What was different composition techniques did they employ?
> 
> I prefer Bruckner over Brahms, but that's not what this thread is intended to be about.


In my view it's not primarily different techniques that are at issue or that differentiate their styles. First, and most obviously, Brahms mastered all instrumental genres, Bruckner was a narrow specialist. The implications of this for his understanding of instrumentation and orchestration are apparent in the superiority of Brahms's orchestration and his writing for solo instruments. Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's. Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms was a master of variations. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't. Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner … .

So, for me, it's not so much about employing different techniques, it's about my appraisal of their relative mastery of every compositional technique I care about.

In more general terms, making superficially impressive sounding music for large orchestra always struck me as relatively easy and cheap compared to writing good chamber music.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

EdwardBast said:


> In my view it's not primarily different techniques that are at issue or that differentiate their styles. First, and most obviously, Brahms mastered all instrumental genres, Bruckner was a narrow specialist. The implications of this for his understanding of instrumentation and orchestration are apparent in the superiority of Brahms's orchestration and his writing for solo instruments. Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's. Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms was a master of variations. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't. Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner … .
> 
> So, for me, it's not so much about employing different techniques, it's about my appraisal of their relative mastery of every compositional technique I care about.
> 
> In more general terms, making superficially impressive sounding music for large orchestra always struck me as relatively easy and cheap compared to writing good chamber music.


But how do you *really* feel?


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> In my view it's not primarily different techniques that are at issue or that differentiate their styles. First, and most obviously, Brahms mastered all instrumental genres, Bruckner was a narrow specialist. The implications of this for his understanding of instrumentation and orchestration are apparent in the superiority of Brahms's orchestration and his writing for solo instruments. Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's. Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms was a master of variations. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't. Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner … .
> 
> So, for me, it's not so much about employing different techniques, it's about my appraisal of their relative mastery of every compositional technique I care about.
> 
> ...


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> In my view it's not primarily different techniques that are at issue or that differentiate their styles. First, and most obviously, Brahms mastered all instrumental genres, Bruckner was a narrow specialist. The implications of this for his understanding of instrumentation and orchestration are apparent in the superiority of Brahms's orchestration and his writing for solo instruments. Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's. Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms was a master of variations. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't. Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner … .
> 
> So, for me, it's not so much about employing different techniques, it's about my appraisal of their relative mastery of every compositional technique I care about.
> 
> In more general terms, making superficially impressive sounding music for large orchestra always struck me as relatively easy and cheap compared to writing good chamber music.


Brahms was a great melodist? Are you kidding? His tunes are often vapid and/or saccharine when they aren't being twisted left right and centre as though it was a gymnastics class as opposed to music.

Bruckner engages in long sequential repetitions of trivial ideas and his music is 'easy'? Well then why aren't there tons of bruckners like there Brahms wannabes (Reger, faure to some degree, schoenberg…)? Because Brahms is all about formal technique as opposed to profundity, which cannot be imitated.

See how easy it is to wax subjective?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Kreisler jr said:


> Of those, Mozart is the composer with the most material. There are expositions with half a dozen distinguishable "themes" or more (esp. in some piano concerti), and often only one or two of them are really "developed", the others are just there, e.g. for melodic contrast, for "transition sections" or so where other composers would not use new material.
> 
> Brahms certainly does in a sense expand the development of motives over the whole movement (there are already similar things in Beethoven (and Haydn and Mozart) but Brahms overall pushed it to another level, I'd say, this is supposedly one of the points Schoenberg wanted to make with his "Brahms the progressive" essay). But this also means that it is often not really something "new" that is introduced. Therefore it seems wrong that he introduces new material at the earliest opportunity. (The most obvious case for introducing highly contrasting material (beyond some non-jarring "call-response" contrasts like the beginning of Mozart's K 271 or 551) within seconds is the beginning of Beethoven's quartet op.95. I don't think Brahms has such lightning changes anywhere, whereas they are frequent in Beethoven.)
> That said, I rarely had a problem with "graspable" themes or melodies in most large scale Brahms pieces and compared to Haydn or some Beethoven the scale and the speed of "unfolding" is not too fast either. There are differences, of course, the 1st mvmt of Brahms 2nd symphony is maybe the most expansive and relaxed and even in the tempestous 3rd the 2nd theme gets
> ...


Thanks for this. I get the difference between extended development of an idea vs introduction of a new idea, and that Brahms went nuts with the former as opposed to the latter. Perhaps this constant development gives his themes an instability I (subjectively) find pensive and tiring - however i love this kind of thing in haydn and Beethoven so the issue remains opaque to me.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I`m hearing the word "religious" when describing to Bruckner`s music more and more recently and I kinda agree. I think he was somehow trying to find/reach God through his music and I believe he might have thought he has succeeded at it. But when I hear his music I imagine someone scrupulously examining an empty wall with astonishment. I would never say that the onlooker is not genuinely interested in the wall but I might suspect that they might be subconsciously projecting some ideas over it. In other words, if you really want to hear God, you will hear God.

The difference with Brahms is, the only god you might hear in Brahms` music is Brahms himself.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Brahms was a great melodist? Are you kidding? His tunes are often vapid and/or saccharine when they aren't being twisted left right and centre as though it was a gymnastics class as opposed to music.
> 
> ....


He wasn't the greatest melodist of all time, but he certainly was competent. Take a listen to his Hungarian Dances; yes a lot of it is a reworking of folk dances and songs, but his working of them is certainly masterful. His symphonies are also certainly not lacking melodically.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

amfortas said:


> But how do you *really* feel?


You *RLY* don't know how Eddie *RLY* feels, even when you hear his lamentations?:
_"Bruckner ... "
"Bruckner ..." 
"Bruckner ... "
"Bruckner ... "
"Bruckner ... "_



Ned Low said:


> Are you sure you're not Hanslick in disguise???


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> Brahms was a great melodist?


BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

RogerWaters said:


> Brahms was a great melodist? Are you kidding? His tunes are often vapid and/or saccharine when they aren't being twisted left right and centre as though it was a gymnastics class as opposed to music.


Could you give an example or two of what you're referring to? How vapid and saccharine does Brahms get?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

"Brahms is so dependable." (Overheard by Virgil Thomson leaving Carnegie Hall behind two matrons.)

"I don't know if a definitive Bruckner performance can exist, or if anyone would recognize it if it did ..." (Boston Herald critic Harry Neville after a BSO performance, 1969.)


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Botschaft said:


> Could you give an example or two of what you're referring to? How vapid and saccharine does Brahms get?


That was just me excogitating subjective remarks as an illustration of its pointlessness.

In this thread I was more interested in objective, formal, comparisons between Bruckner and Brahms. The end result is to better understand my own preference for Bruckner, but that is orthogonal.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's.


But surely, the use of the common tone diminished 7th chord ( I -> CTº7 -> I ) in the opening of Op.90 does sound like Brahms' homage to Schubert.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

RogerWaters said:


> Thanks for this. I get the difference between extended development of an idea vs introduction of a new idea, and that Brahms went nuts with the former as opposed to the latter. Perhaps this constant development gives his themes an instability I (subjectively) find pensive and tiring - however i love this kind of thing in haydn and Beethoven so the issue remains opaque to me.


I don't think you need to apologize for preferring Haydn or Beethoven; they have a kind of clarity and drive Brahms is probably not even striving for, he is a late romantic after all. However, he wrote many pieces I find either rather "haydnesque" or at least not overly pensive. Obviously the two early serenades, the Haydn variations, the last two movements of the 2nd symphony, the B major Trio op.8, the 2nd violin sonata op.100 etc. But except for a few pieces when I was a total newbie and had skewed expectations (because esp. the 1st Brahms symphony was supposed to be "very similar" to Beethoven) I never had the impression that Brahms was dreary or pensive. 
Bruckner was considerably less accessible for me and even 30 years later I am still in two minds about some of his music (I also cannot really be bothered to deal with the many different revisions).


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> he wrote many pieces I find either rather "haydnesque" or at least not overly pensive. Obviously the two early serenades, the Haydn variations, the last two movements of the 2nd symphony, the B major Trio op.8, the 2nd violin sonata op.100 etc.


I don't know what's particularly "Haydnesque" about those. The theme of the Haydn variations is believed to be not written by Haydn at all.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Not exactly like Haydn, but broadly (neo)classicist. The main movement of the first serenade basically quotes the finale of Haydn's last symphony, its scherzo is a combination from Beethoven's septet and second symphony, the minuet also harks back to Viennese classicism and maybe Schubert etc. And of some movements, such as 3 and 4 of the 2nd symphony and a few other pieces (op.67 quartet) at least several themes could have occurred in Haydn or Mozart.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Ned Low said:


> EdwardBast said:
> 
> 
> > *In more general terms, making superficially impressive sounding music for large orchestra always struck me as relatively easy and cheap compared to writing good chamber music.[/QUOTE*]
> ...


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't.


Sort of gives away your game just with this statement. Bruckner was one of the best melodists in the symphonic genre, even detractors can admit that.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

as "melodist" is hardly a well-defined term, I doubt that there is a fruitful debate to be had here. I think Bruckner has some very good melodies (esp. in the 7th symphony) but as his forms are a bit stiff and schematic many of his themes share this feature. (Which is not necessarily a bad thing, the "craggy" shape seems part of the attraction, especially in his 8th and 9th.)
That Brahms was composing "without ideas" ("ohne Einfälle", and if we encounter a theme, it is taken from Beethoven...) was already a criticism (or rather an exaggerated polemic) by the Wagner/Wolf etc fraction during Brahms' lifetime.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

bz3 said:


> Sort of gives away your game just with this statement. Bruckner was one of the best melodists in the symphonic genre, even detractors can admit that.


I don't have a game. I've just never heard a melody by Bruckner I found interesting.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I've just never heard a melody by Bruckner I found interesting.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Ned Low said:


> Are you sure you're not Hanslick in disguise???


I see Eddie as "Hanslick Reincarnated". They even have the same name.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think Bruckner is probably a better orchestrator, but I find Brahms symphonies more interesting overall. I think this is probably my favourite work of either composer that I would listen to more often.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> I see Eddie as "Hanslick Reincarnated". They even have the same name.


Ah, but not all screen names are real names. Edward Bast is the "hero" of William Gaddis's comic novel, _JR_, a fictional composer who in one of the early chapters is found directing an elementary school production of Das Rheingold.  JR, an eleven year old, steals the gold.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)




----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

RogerWaters said:


> Both major figures of the Romantic period, both employing classical forms - however obviously quite different to one another in what they express.
> 
> I'm interested in how you would describe the differences in analytic terms ('syntax')? How did Bruckner's compositional style differ from Brahms, including large scale form, harmony, development.


Bruckner came from the organ, and was a great organ improviser, Brahms came from chamber music. This causes a lot of differences, for example in instrumentation.

A big differences is imo that Bruckner applyed a static superordinated form, but filled it in very creative ways, while Brahms seems to have conceived the music from the details in a rigidly thought through and controlled manner. For me this makes Bruckners music much more appealing because the details are more free and interessting but overall everything makes sense, while Brahms music makes me rather feel like getting lead around like a bear with the nose ring without overall sense.

Another big difference is that Bruckner is more about expression of feelings or an athmosphere, while Brahms is more about entertaining with something like a melody.


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

Aries said:


> ... while Brahms is more about entertaining with something like a melody.


I listen to at least an hour of Brahms every day, but I don`t feel very entertained. Gimme my money back you beardy ol` crook!


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Aries said:


> Bruckner came from the organ, and was a great organ improviser, Brahms came from chamber music. This causes a lot of differences, for example in instrumentation.
> 
> A big differences is imo that Bruckner applyed a static superordinated form, but filled it in very creative ways, while Brahms seems to have conceived the music from the details in a rigidly thought through and controlled manner. For me this makes Bruckners music much more appealing because the details are more free and interessting but overall everything makes sense, while Brahms music makes me rather feel like getting lead around like a bear with the nose ring without overall sense.
> 
> Another big difference is that Bruckner is more about expression of feelings or an athmosphere, while Brahms is more about entertaining with something like a melody.


Personal tastes will always differ and that's fine - mine happens to be the opposite of yours in this case, but _vive la différence_. What I do find puzzling about your post is your final paragraph with its suggestion that Brahms' greater enphasis on melody makes his music less of an "expression of feelings". AFAIC nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Aries said:


> A big differences is imo that Bruckner applyed a static superordinated form, but filled it in very creative ways, while Brahms seems to have conceived the music from the details in a rigidly thought through and controlled manner. For me this makes Bruckners music much more appealing because the details are more free and interessting but overall everything makes sense,


What would be an example for the "creative filling" of a "stative superordinated form" or "free and interesting details"? 
I am not saying that this is a fault but it seems to me that Bruckner follows for many details also usually a fairly narrow scheme.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Animal the Drummer said:


> What I do find puzzling about your post is your final paragraph with its suggestion that Brahms' greater enphasis on melody makes his music less of an "expression of feelings". AFAIC nothing could be further from the truth.


I think one quality of music is just stimulating something in our brain with melody and rhythm. I think it is not that strong connected to feelings and an athmosphere. Its rather a pure musical thing. I guess feelings and athmosphere are more connected with harmony and instrumentation. Regarding this there is not just a difference between Brahms and Bruckner but also between the Vienna Classic and the Romantic. Haydn for example is even more about stimulating with melodies/rhythms. I find the Vienna Classic before Beethoven emotionally week.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Kreisler jr said:


> What would be an example for the "creative filling" of a "stative superordinated form" or "free and interesting details"?


In general his practice to use augmentations, diminutions, shortenings, inversions and different recombinations of themes/motifs. He was very playful with these techniques.

The creative filling of static superordinated structures is best to be detected by comparing different versions of his works.

For example begin of the development of the 4th symphony:

2nd version (5:43-9:13): 



1st version (5:05-7:53): 




In both version this section has the same function, a point of calmness to a climax of the first group. But Bruckner found two different creative ways.

Bruckner was known for his improvisation on the organ, and I think this influenced his composing, and I think it is one reason why he rewrote so many symphonies. Bruckner had always a big idea for his symphonies, but he was flexible regarding detail solutions which are closer to improvisations than the detail solutions of Brahms, Beethoven or Wagner for example. I think there was more than just one right way for Bruckner to write his symphonies. Because of that I think its wrong to see the multiple versions as a drawback. They are all enrichments.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

The influence of Schumann vs the influence of Wagner.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

so I found this 2-hour long music video with absolutely fabulous music:


----------



## Doublestring (Sep 3, 2014)

Both wanted to be the new Beethoven. Brahms succeeded; Bruckner didn't.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Competence. .


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Doublestring said:


> Both wanted to be the new Beethoven. Brahms succeeded; Bruckner didn't.


Would you elaborate on Bruckner wanting to be the new Beethoven?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Doublestring said:


> Both wanted to be the new Beethoven. Brahms succeeded; Bruckner didn't.


Amazing insight! You should get a salary for such penetrating efforts.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Doublestring said:


> Both wanted to be the new Beethoven. Brahms succeeded; Bruckner didn't.


I think they were both unwillingly pushed into this position by some supporters although everyone involved, most certainly the two composers themselves knew they could not really be expected to fill these shoes. 
Besides, Wagner already was the new Beethoven


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think they were both unwillingly pushed into this position by some supporters although everyone involved, most certainly the two composers themselves knew they could not really be expected to fill these shoes.
> Besides, Wagner already was the new Beethoven


I know that Bruckner was influenced by the adagio of Beethoven's 9th, but beyond that, I think he was more rooted in Schubert and Wagner. That's why I'm curious about the statement that he wanted to be the new Beethoven, and not only that but that he failed at it.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I'd say the first movement and scherzo of Beethoven's 9th were probably even more important for Bruckner. I agree that the Beethoven connection that could be found for virtually any composer before Debussy or others who intentionally distanced themselves from this tradition, is hardly the unique or special thing about Bruckner. Overall, I think what strikes most people in addition to the "primeval fog" beginnings that originated in Beethoven's 9th is the scale. With the exception of very few unique-ish and usually programmatic works by Mendelssohn, Berlioz, Liszt only Bruckner wrote on the >1 hour scale of Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Btw, here's an obscure composer Bruckner was interested in:



hammeredklavier said:


> Franz Joseph Aumann (1728~1797)
> Aumann's music was a large part of the repertoire at St. Florian in the 19th century, and Anton Bruckner availed himself of this resource for his studies of counterpoint. Bruckner focused a lot of his attention on Aumann's Christmas responsories and an Ave Maria in D major.
> Bruckner, who liked Aumann's coloured harmony, added in 1879 an accompaniment by three trombones to his settings of Ecce quomodo moritur justus and Tenebrae factae sunt.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I'm unaware that Bruckner aspired to be the new Beethoven, so I'm curious about the statement. 

He did aspire to be accountable to God for what he did, since God is the one who gives gifts, as evidenced by this quote: "They want me to write differently. Certainly, I could, but I must not. God has chosen me from thousands and given me, of all people, this talent. It is to Him that I must give account. How then would I stand there before Almighty God if I followed the others and not Him?"


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Kreisler jr said:


> Only Bruckner wrote on the >1 hour scale of Beethoven's 9th.


I mentioned his Schubert influence, and it is interesting that Schubert's 9th almost cracks the hour mark.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> I think they were both unwillingly pushed into this position by some supporters although everyone involved, most certainly the two composers themselves knew they could not really be expected to fill these shoes.
> Besides, Wagner already was the new Beethoven


I think Brahms is more like Schubert than Beethoven - like a Schubert who was better at counterpoint.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

But Brahms was clearly pushed into the rôle of continuing the tradition of Beethoven symphonies. 

He has some rather Schubertian pieces: The sextets, especially the first (the variations must have been a nod to D 810), the B major trio, the A major piano quartet, a minor string quartet (cf. D 804), even the horn call at the beginning of the 2nd piano concerto echoes Schubert's Great C major. 

But I think he was not only different in counterpoint but overall a far more concentrated composer, relying much less on expansive melodies etc. While it can hardly be denied that Brahms took a lot of influences and models for his works from Beethoven and Schubert, he has a distinctive style for me and it seems misleading to listen to Brahms mostly from such a perspective


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I think Bruckner may have been slightly taller. He was Austrian, too.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> He has some rather Schubertian pieces: The sextets, especially the first (the variations must have been a nod to D 810), the B major trio, the A major piano quartet, a minor string quartet (cf. D 804), even the horn call at the beginning of the 2nd piano concerto echoes Schubert's Great C major.


+++++++++++++++


hammeredklavier said:


> the use of the common tone diminished 7th chord ( I -> CTº7 -> I ) in the opening of Op.90 does sound like Brahms' homage to Schubert.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Manxfeeder said:


> Schubert's 9th almost cracks the hour mark.


Cobra disagrees:
I. Andante, Allegro Ma Non Troppo (36:05)
II. Andante con Moto (26:22)
III. Scherzo, Allegro Vivace (29:00)
IV. Finale, Allegro Vivace (30:28)


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> Cobra disagrees:
> I. Andante, Allegro Ma Non Troppo (36:05)
> II. Andante con Moto (26:22)
> III. Scherzo, Allegro Vivace (29:00)
> IV. Finale, Allegro Vivace (30:28)


Holy smokes! I guess we've gone full circle; Cobra has Brucknerized Schubert.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think Furtwängler and Giulini already did that. But at least Furtwängler was rather fast in Bruckner.


----------



## Aries (Nov 29, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> Holy smokes! I guess we've gone full circle; Cobra has Brucknerized Schubert.


I'm not sure what is worse, Cobras tempi or the comments of this Brahms advocat. Both is really terrible.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Aries said:


> I'm not sure what is worse, Cobras tempi or the comments of this Brahms advocat. Both is really terrible.


Who is the Brahms advocate you're referring to?


----------



## perempe (Feb 27, 2014)

High pitch string tremolos (Bruckner).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Kreisler jr said:


> But Brahms was clearly pushed into the rôle of continuing the tradition of Beethoven symphonies.
> 
> He has some rather Schubertian pieces: The sextets, especially the first (the variations must have been a nod to D 810), the B major trio, the A major piano quartet, a minor string quartet (cf. D 804), even the horn call at the beginning of the 2nd piano concerto echoes Schubert's Great C major.
> 
> *But I think he was not only different in counterpoint but overall a far more concentrated composer, relying much less on expansive melodies etc. While it can hardly be denied that Brahms took a lot of influences and models for his works from Beethoven and Schubert, he has a distinctive style for me and it seems misleading to listen to Brahms mostly from such a perspective*


You're right of course, but no one seems to emphasize what Brahms has in common with Schubert, so I threw that out to balance the picture.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Kreisler K, Bruckner did not compose his symphonies according to a "strict scheme ". Yes, I know , there's that old canard about him supposedly having "composed the same symphony nine times ," but nothing could be farther from the truth .
Those who claim Bruckner just kept on writing the same symphony nine times have only a superficial familiarity with his music . 
Despite superficial similarities such as beginning each of his symphonies quietly , each one is vastly different form the others in mood, character , structurally and harmonically .
Bruckner's use of harmony, particularly in his last two symphonies , is far more complex and chromatic than Brahms . In the ninth, he goes beyond even the influence of Wagner to anticipate the music of Schoenberg and Berg to a starling degree !
Here are some features you can find in individual Bruckner symphonies which are not found in the others . Slow introductions in the first and last movements of the fifth ; a duple meter scherzo in the fourth ( the scherzo in the original is not and is a completely different composition ).
Use of the harp in the 8th symphony in the adagio and the trio of the scherzo . A fast trio in the scherzo of the 9th rather than a slower tempo in the opening section . And so on .


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

for small values of "vastly different" you are correct... I never reproduced the old canard you quote, but the differences you mention in your last paragraph are slight and superficial and contradict not at all the claim that Bruckner usually kept to a fairly strict scheme. If having an harp or a 12/8 scherzo instead of 3/4 were the main differences among Bruckner's symphonies, the canard would be pretty much true.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

If you can't hear the difference, I have an extended warranty for your car to sell you.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

One difference is that I listen to Brahms often, and never listen to Bruckner.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> In my view it's not primarily different techniques that are at issue or that differentiate their styles. First, and most obviously, Brahms mastered all instrumental genres, Bruckner was a narrow specialist. The implications of this for his understanding of instrumentation and orchestration are apparent in the superiority of Brahms's orchestration and his writing for solo instruments. Brahms's fluent harmonic language, especially his use of modal mixture and his extension of Schubert's language in that regard is more interesting to me than Bruckner's. Brahms was a great melodist. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms was a master of variations. Bruckner … wasn't. Brahms had a thorough command of structure and his music always knows where it's going. Bruckner didn't and his music doesn't. Brahms doesn't tend to engage in long, sequential repetitions of trivial ideas. Bruckner … .
> 
> So, for me, it's not so much about employing different techniques, it's about my appraisal of their relative mastery of every compositional technique I care about.
> 
> In more general terms, making superficially impressive sounding music for large orchestra always struck me as relatively easy and cheap compared to writing good chamber music.


Not only do I agree completely with all of this, there is good reason to believe Bruckner himself would have too. One thing I'd say in Bruckner's favor is that he seemed to have not only the humility, but also the insight, to understand his limitations.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Cobra disagrees:
> I. Andante, Allegro Ma Non Troppo (36:05)
> II. Andante con Moto (26:22)
> III. Scherzo, Allegro Vivace (29:00)
> IV. Finale, Allegro Vivace (30:28)


Celibidache in Munich comes in at 58 minutes but Dausgaard (in a performance that sounds very fast) at 59. Menuhin (who sounds very fast indeed) took 48 minutes.


----------



## JTS (Sep 26, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Cobra disagrees:
> I. Andante, Allegro Ma Non Troppo (36:05)
> II. Andante con Moto (26:22)
> III. Scherzo, Allegro Vivace (29:00)
> IV. Finale, Allegro Vivace (30:28)


I don't know how these cranks get a hearing by anyone. Maybe people are equally stupid


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Celibidache in Munich comes in at 58 minutes but Dausgaard (in a performance that sounds very fast) at 59. Menuhin (who sounds very fast indeed) took 48 minutes.


Abendroth and Mengelberg are about 48 - 50 minutes totally each. Munch is 45 minutes. I didn't check about repeats, but those are also very fast.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^ Yes, I think my timings are partly down to the presence or absence of repeats. Certainly, I doubt anyone has done it faster than Menuhin and few faster than Dausgaard.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

JTS said:


> I don't know how these cranks get a hearing by anyone. Maybe people are equally stupid


I think it's like slowing down to see a wreck. We just can't help ourselves.


----------

