# ...so I don't like the Brahms Symphonies



## radiohlite

I keep trying to get into these.

love the concertos, chamber music, & piano stuff, but the Symphonies just turn me off. I've heard the Klemperer, Karajan, Abbado, Sanderling, & Szell cycles, but i can only 'appreciate' them without really liking the music, except for most of the 4th symphony.

are there some performances that may still change my mind? with Szell i came close to enjoying them. also Kleiber & Karajan's [70s] 4th.

the sort of ponderous, thick textured reading is what especially exasperated me hearing these...so i'm looking for good performances that don't sound like mush


----------



## Guest

For the 4th you have to go with Kleiber. http://www.amazon.com/Tribute-Unique-Artist-Vienna-Schubert/dp/B0002QXRM0/ref=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1297914480&sr=1-3

For the 2nd and 3rd I'd go with Karajan's earliest recording of the works. http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symphonies-Nos-2-3/dp/B000W99IJ8/ref=sr_1_3?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1297914529&sr=1-3

The 1st is a more difficult beast to tackle. I own recordings by Walter, Dorati, and Szell, but Szell is the one I prefer. Still looking for a definitive recording of the piece, but for my money I'd stick with Szell. The 1st symphony is a very "classical" piece, which suits Szell's style. http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symphony-Variations-Hungarian-Dances/dp/B0000027AH/ref=sr_1_5?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1297914709&sr=1-5

Normally I'd be appalled to hear that someone doesn't like the Brahms symphonies, but I've seen a lot of people express the same feelings you have so it must be a common occurrence. I got into classical music through those pieces and they're still my favorites. Don't give up on them! Sometimes a good recording and repeated hearings is all that's needed to change one's mind. If I were you, I'd start with the 2nd and 3rd symphonies, then the 1st and 4th.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Don't feel too bad, radiohlite, because you're definitely not alone. I don't care much for Brahms' symphonies either. 

I feel like he is constantly trying to justify his intelligence within his music by being obsessively intellectual all the time (especially with something as grand as a symphony), and that can be the quickest way to lose sight of the overall picture. It's like the painter who forgets to step back from his up-close-and-personal brushstrokes to see what the painting actually looks like from a distance.

So, as as result, Brahms ends up just meandering forever with his development. That would be fine for some pieces, but if the motifs are just not that interesting to begin with, then developing and contrapuntalizing them to infinity in attempt to prove how smart you are doesn't really accomplish anything, and has absolutely nothing to do with actually making music _sound_ good.

I've talked with many musicians about this topic in general (i.e. not necessarily just about Brahms), and this seems to be a very common mistake, and one that is made by lots of composers. It would seem that to a lot of classical music fans, music is just an intellectual exercise, and they've lost all sight of the fact that if it were truly that simple, then computers - _not humans_ - would be able to write the best music.

Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. There is an _art_ to crafting great melodies/harmonies/chord progressions and making them sound coherent within a larger context, and if that were consistently ignored in favor of the obsessive development of what are just lackluster motifs to begin with, then all of classical music would be as boring as watching paint dry.

Getting back to Brahms, don't worry about his symphonies. If you ask me, his chamber work is where he truly shined.


----------



## Sid James

Some people around here have talked about Gardiner's HIP recordings of Brahms being a revelation. I haven't heard them, but I've read about them being good, so maybe it's worth you giving them a try.

But I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that you don't like Brahms' symphonies. You know & like his works in other genres, and that's a good thing. I tend to agree with Jacob that he really shone in his chamber music. Many people skip straight to the symphonies & concertos and never get to his chamber music, the fact that you have done that & get something out of them is great.

I've got the same kind of issue with J. S. Bach. I can stomach & enjoy his solo instrumental music - for organ, cello, violin, pianoforte/harpsichord - to a degree, but when I hear his works in other genres I just go blah. I particularly hate the choral song _Jesu, joy of man's desiring_. The _Brandenburgs_ I am lukewarm on. The _Air on the G string_, however, moves me deeply, more than anything else I've heard by him. I don't necessarily think it's a bad or wrong thing of me not to like or get some of old J.S.'s compositions. But leaving the door open to new experiences or interpretations is the most important thing, I think. If you completely close the door, you perhaps won't discover things that you might have never thought could move & engage you on a deeper level...


----------



## radiohlite

yeah, i've got the same issue with Bach. I didn't get the Brandenburgs till i heard Britten's recording. but i do like the cantatas besides his instrumental music.

about Brahms, yes. I feel he's cramming too much material into the symphonies to the point where they just meander enlessly, the 3rd & 4th less than the first 2. on a good day i can have a deep understanting of what he was trying to do, but most of the time i feel like he could have made 6 or 7 symphonies out of all that.

i'll check out those Gardiner recordings. sounds like my cup of tea


----------



## science

Isn't it interesting how differently people respond to things? For me, from the first time I heard them, Brahms' symphonies (especially 1 and 4) were mind-blowing experiences.


----------



## radiohlite

well, all his Concertos were pretty shattering for me first time around, especially the PC #2 with Brendel/Abbado.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

There were similar threads recently on Brahms and "not getting" his music. You might find the comments etc. useful from those threads. I noticed most people who appear to enjoy Brahms find his chamber music appealing, more so than his large scale instrumental works.


----------



## elgar's ghost

I do sympathise with the OP. There's not much (if any) symphonic output from the 19th century I don't like but the specific gravity of the Brahms symphonies have made them a tougher than usual nut to crack - at least for me. I DO like them, but it's taking time to really get the best out of them and I'm not on the home straight yet. Perhaps that what some music is all about - having to earn one's listening pleasure?


----------



## Delicious Manager

I'm not a Brahms fan, but I find the cycle conducted by Sir Charles Mackerras with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra on Telarc to be a revelation. Mackerras performs the symphonies with an orchestra the size of which Brahms would have heard his orchestral music played in Meiningen - ie with a string section of only around 34 players.


----------



## Webernite

I think I'm unusual in that I enjoy his symphonies much more than this chamber music. I do understand the problems people have with them, though. Somehow they're a lot less attention-grabbing than Beethoven's symphonies, despite being full of dramatic effects. You have to give them your undivided attention, particularly in the slow movements, or else they simply wash over you without leaving any impression. In addition to not letting yourself get distracted, it helps to play them at quite a high volume and to listen to recordings with modern (studio) sound quality, so that you can hear everything that's going on.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Now I do like them but my particular fave cycles are the Solti, Harnoncourt and Rattle. I guess if these dont float your boat either then you'll probably never like them


----------



## starry

Jacob Singer said:


> Don't feel too bad, radiohlite, because you're definitely not alone. I don't care much for Brahms' symphonies either.
> 
> I feel like he is constantly trying to justify his intelligence within his music by being obsessively intellectual all the time (especially with something as grand as a symphony), and that can be the quickest way to lose sight of the overall picture. It's like the painter who forgets to step back from his up-close-and-personal brushstrokes to see what the painting actually looks like from a distance.
> 
> So, as as result, Brahms ends up just meandering forever with his development. That would be fine for some pieces, but if the motifs are just not that interesting to begin with, then developing and contrapuntalizing them to infinity in attempt to prove how smart you are doesn't really accomplish anything, and has absolutely nothing to do with actually making music _sound_ good.
> 
> I've talked with many musicians about this topic in general (i.e. not necessarily just about Brahms), and this seems to be a very common mistake, and one that is made by lots of composers. It would seem that to a lot of classical music fans, music is just an intellectual exercise, and they've lost all sight of the fact that if it were truly that simple, then computers - _not humans_ - would be able to write the best music.
> 
> Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. There is an _art_ to crafting great melodies/harmonies/chord progressions and making them sound coherent within a larger context, and if that were consistently ignored in favor of the obsessive development of what are just lackluster motifs to begin with, then all of classical music would be as boring as watching paint dry.
> 
> Getting back to Brahms, don't worry about his symphonies. If you ask me, his chamber work is where he truly shined.


Good, some thoughts for me to respond to. I think classical music is partly about the intellectual side of being inventive and clever. It is a more complex area than most popular music which in general is more direct, economical and simpler. Both are great in their own ways, but I think you have to accept them for what they are and judge them on what they are trying to do. Some pieces of course might have relatively uninteresting ideas, not the case with the Brahms symphonies though in my opinion. Often it matters as much what is done with those ideas though and if the ideas *really* are boring they probably won't develop them interestingly anyway as there is little potential in them. Pieces that just meander are more likely in the romantic period or if later to have been influenced by the weaker aspects of that style.

Of the symphonies I would have thought 1 isn't that difficult to get, but that 3 might be the hardest as it isn't easy to find a performance that makes it flow well in parts like its first movement. And 2 shouldn't be performed in too relaxed or slack a way.


----------



## Webernite

I don't really agree with Jacob Singer's assessment either. I don't think it's Brahms's motifs that cause people to struggle with his symphonies. His motifs are usually far more melodic than Beethoven's.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*You don't have to!*

I love Brahms' symphonies...But how can communicate to somebody the pleasure you feel...I'm sorry guys you're trying to convince this guy...I think you're wasting your time.

You cannot force somebody to like something...

This thread seems useless to me...

"Vaya con Dios"

Martin

P.S. How can I start liking Berlioz, I find him unpleasant????


----------



## Edward Elgar

I can't believe how many Brahms-haters are on this site! Maybe I have a bias view considering Brahms' 3rd is my favorite symphony and I have a strong emotional connection with the three other symphonies.

This music is really worth "getting into". I used to regard Brahms with indifference until something just clicked and I fell totally in love with his music. I just "got" his musical ideas. He's the subject for my 3rd year dissertation.

I implore the right honorable gentlemen of this forum to whack some Brahms on and just let it stimulate both your mind and emotions in equal measure. Believe me, for your own good, Brahms is boss!


----------



## Edward Elgar

myaskovsky2002 said:


> P.S. How can I start liking Berlioz, I find him unpleasant????


The power of Christ compels you.
The power of Christ compels you.
The power of Christ compels you.


----------



## science

Edward Elgar said:


> I can't believe how many Brahms-haters are on this site! Maybe I have a bias view considering Brahms' 3rd is my favorite symphony and I have a strong emotional connection with the three other symphonies.
> 
> This music is really worth "getting into". I used to regard Brahms with indifference until something just clicked and I fell totally in love with his music. I just "got" his musical ideas. He's the subject for my 3rd year dissertation.
> 
> I implore the right honorable gentlemen of this forum to whack some Brahms on and just let it stimulate both your mind and emotions in equal measure. Believe me, for your own good, Brahms is boss!


It's not just this site. I've encountered this on other forums as well.

I can't explain it.


----------



## radiohlite

i don't 'hate' Brahms. I just feel that he's playing with way too many things at once, mostly in the 1st & 2nd symphonies.

but the OP was actually meant more as critique of big, germanic performances that make the symphonies sound rather square and lifeless imo. it's the same issue i tend to have with Beethoven symphonies that are taken too slow and heavy.

i'll be checking out the Rattle recordings too, and the Mackerras


----------



## Conor71

I think I found Brahms Symphonies hard to make sense of at first - A bit obvious maybe but all it took for me was repeated listening to begin to appreciate them .
Im not sure but it may have taken me about 10 listens?.


----------



## tdc

Conor71 said:


> Im not sure but it may have taken me about 10 listens?.


As a general rule I try to listen to all the classical music (key word 'try') I have at least around this many times. I feel it takes around this many listens before a piece really starts to sink into memory, and I'm able to really pick up on the nuances and subtleties.


----------



## Conor71

tdc said:


> As a general rule I try to listen to all the classical music (key word 'try') I have at least around this many times. I feel it takes around this many listens before a piece really starts to sink into memory, and I'm able to really pick up on the nuances and subtleties.


For sure tdc - I dont feel I am ready to make a judgement about a work until Ive begun to understand it .
I undertsand not everyone has the time or inclination to re-listen to a work many times though - there is plenty of music to explore and much which may be more instantly gratifying .


----------



## scytheavatar

radiohlite said:


> i don't 'hate' Brahms. I just feel that he's playing with way too many things at once, mostly in the 1st & 2nd symphonies.


That's the whole point of Brahms's music really, as Tchaikovsky puts it, "to tease and irritate one's musical feeling. He does not wish to satisfy the latter's needs". You need to learn to listen to his music in a macroscopic way and to immerse yourself in the emotions of his music rather than to follow his melodies. In any case, I am of the opinion that his symphonies are good but far from the best orchestral compositions he has made, and I suggest that you start from his concertos instead, especially his piano concertos.


----------



## opus55

His 1st symphony by Karajan was my first recording of Brahms and enjoyed it right away. It wasn't until recently that I discovered his chamber works are really very fine music as well. I listen to his chamber music a lot more these days than symphonies or concertos.


----------



## radiohlite

scytheavatar said:


> That's the whole point of Brahms's music really, as Tchaikovsky puts it, "to tease and irritate one's musical feeling. He does not wish to satisfy the latter's needs". You need to learn to listen to his music in a macroscopic way and to immerse yourself in the emotions of his music rather than to follow his melodies. In any case, I am of the opinion that his symphonies are good but far from the best orchestral compositions he has made, and I suggest that you start from his concertos instead, especially his piano concertos.


I tend to agree with Pyotr Ilyich there. I've been living with the symphonies for about 10 years now, and whenever I put one on it just never really goes to my heart, as much as I can recognize how 'good' it is a composition.

the concertos [all of them], on the other hand, I think are among the best things written in the Romantic era.


----------



## starry

radiohlite said:


> I tend to agree with Pyotr Ilyich there. I've been living with the symphonies for about 10 years now, and whenever I put one on it just never really goes to my heart, as much as I can recognize how 'good' it is a composition.
> 
> the concertos [all of them], on the other hand, I think are among the best things written in the Romantic era.


The 4th symphony goes to most people's heart (listen to Furtwangler maybe). There is as much pathos in it as Tchaikovsky's 6th. Indeed Tchaikovsky even used the abrupt shift from joyous 3rd movement to tragic last that Brahms used. The last movement of the second is exhilarating.



opus55 said:


> His 1st symphony by Karajan was my first recording of Brahms and enjoyed it right away. It wasn't until recently that I discovered his chamber works are really very fine music as well. I listen to his chamber music a lot more these days than symphonies or concertos.


But isn't there alot more chamber music than orchestral music with him anyway? I'd put the symphonies at the top of his orchestral music, with 4 and 2 the greatest and 4 the peak.


----------



## opus55

starry said:


> ..But isn't there alot more chamber music than orchestral music with him anyway? I'd put the symphonies at the top of his orchestral music, with 4 and 2 the greatest and 4 the peak.


Yes, but my collection doesn't represent the composer's entire works yet. I now have slightly more chamber works than orchestral(symphonies+concertos+overture). I'm changing my opinion of Brahms after listening to many chamber pieces - his chamber works are at least as good as his orchstral works.


----------



## GraemeG

Brahms is a musicians' musician. He could do the lot. The remarkable thing about playing one of his symphonies, is that everyone has a 'great part'. You sit there playing your part, thinking "man this is fantastic". And then you talk to the second oboe, or 3rd horn, or contrabassoon at the break, and they all say 'oh, my part's fantastic'.
I think Brahms understood music better than almost anybody.
GG


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Brahms always has been criticized for his conservative, abstract approach at music. He wasn't as verbal when it came to emotions, but that doesn't mean the emotion isn't there. His introversion is what makes him very unique. As I have heard from other people I know, Brahms is loved for his *sincerity*. He didn't need to explode with emotion, nor did he want to, so he didn't. Otherwise, he would have just been following the fashion along with the rest of the other Romantics.

Perhaps if one looks at his music (Symphonies) as a more introverted, perhaps intimate(?) expression of his self, and look for the details that reveal his inner emotion, maybe one can crack into the code. For example, I love it when he does big contrasts of tone or speed, or recapitulation (both things I look for in music in general).


----------



## radiohlite

i was just listening to the 1st symphony [Abbado/BPO] and i think i can pinpoint a little better what it is: i keep feeling like i'm underwater [!]. like i'm trapped in this mass [literally] of sound and can't get out. i don't know exactly why i get this feeling, but it's only with the first 3 symphonies. maybe it's the way they're orchestrated so richly & every part of the orchestra is playing with some motivic fragment or other through the whole thing. also, i get very uncomfortable with the 'emotional content', which is strange since i love Mahler. i dunno...i feel this great crushing sadness listening to 3/4 of the 1st and 2nd symphonies [the finales are something else!]. The 3rd symphony i actually love, but only with a swift, dynamic performance [Karajan's 80s for example].


----------



## Webernite

The last two symphonies have always sounded to me as though they're richer harmonically than the first two. I don't mean that they sound more _chromatic_; just that there's a greater density of exotic, beautiful chords. (The late piano music gives me the same impression, compared with the earlier stuff.) Perhaps Brahms suddenly realized that part of what makes Bach and Wagner enjoyable is that they _guide_ their counterpoint so that it creates hundreds of really pretty chords as it goes along.

Only a theory, though. :tiphat:


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

There is a great old book about Brahms by *Karl Geiringer.* A book can't cange someone's mind esp. about music, but maybe it will help the topic-strarter to understand Brahms better.

By the way, my favorite Brahms piece is his Doppelkonzert op 102 (Cello-Violin).


----------



## Josiah

I really like Brahm's symphonies. To me they are so far divorced from emotions that they are so interesting...


----------



## Toccata

Josiah said:


> I really like Brahm's symphonies. To me they are so far divorced from emotions that they are so interesting...


I can't imagine why any serious lover of classical music would dislike Brahms symphonies, except maybe they haven't progressed very far up the learning curve and are still stuck in all the newbie stuff like Beethoven and Tchaikovsky symphonies.

The only "bad" thing I would say about Brahms works is that some of them have a rather over-polished feel to them, in comparison with certain other composers like Schubert or Mozart who were clearly more able composers in regard to producing high quality work virtually at the drop of a hat and without undue time spent on correction and editing etc. Another such pedant was of course Beethoven. Possibly it's because I know that Brahms was an absolute perfectionist that I find this aspect of his works slightly offputting, but this is only a small ***** in his overall armour.


----------



## Webernite

Yeah. 

I say this in all seriousness: the problem with Brahms is that his music sounds as though it has been composed.


----------



## radiohlite

Webernite said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I say this in all seriousness: the problem with Brahms is that his music sounds as though it has been composed.




i heard the 3rd with Bernstein/VPO and it suddenly 'clicked'. he takes a very extreme view, and it wouldn't be my first choice, but for the first time i _felt_ this music. i think the problem i have with most performances is that they're too clean. i get the impression that there's all this turbulence just under the surface but i don't get to experience it unless _I_ consciously try to go inside Brahms' head, and it feels like a lot of work.


----------



## peeyaj

I share the author's review regarding Brahm's symphonies. God forbid! But, Herr Brahm's symphonies are rambling! It's like I'm drowning in a glass of water whenever I hear the 3rd movt. of the Symphony no. 4. I have all the 4 symphonies conducted by Karajan. On, the other hand, Herr Brahm's Clarinet Quintet is the most perfect ever written.

I take Schubert's Unfinished and Great, everytime, compared to Herr Brahms. The Schubert's symphonies are more engaging, rich, melodic and lovable, imho.


----------



## radiohlite

i just heard Wand's live 1st on youtube, and it's what i've been missing all these years!

unspeakably moved.
awed.
teary-eyed.

gotta check out the rest of his cycle...


----------



## emiellucifuge

I would also like to say that Mariss Jansons is worth checking out.

Like Webernite pointed out, this music feels _composed_. Brahms forces things to take a certain direction and doesnt often allow it to progress how you would expect it to. Mariss Jansons manages perfectly to make everything sound logical and smooth.


----------



## Ravellian

I used to hold a negative view towards Brahms's large scale works, but I've recently come to see them in a more positive light. I just had to appreciate it from a different perspective, since his compositional style is much different from most other romantic-era composers. 

Brahms's music displays emotional control, order, and clear-mindedness. Nothing is overstated. Both he and Tchaikovksy were fully capable of communicating what they felt; the difference is merely that Brahms preferred to keep his emotions in check, while Tchaikovksy (and Mahler, for that matter) felt the need to scream and cry and go nuts. Both are effective at what they set out to do; their goals are simply very different.


----------



## radiohlite

but Brahms really lets go [imo] in the piano concertos and the 4th...


----------



## SixFootScowl

I like Brahms' symphonies, but they don't speak to me near as much as do Beethoven (of course they wouldn't), Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, or Franz Berwald's symphonies. Just thought I would say that and maybe someone who really knows a lot about this stuff will tell me why I favor the latter three over Brahms. But seriously, it is such that I am removing Brahms' symphonies from my MP3 player for the time being.


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> I like Brahms' symphonies, but they don't speak to me near as much as do Beethoven (of course they wouldn't), Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens, or Franz Berwald's symphonies. Just thought I would say that and maybe someone who really knows a lot about this stuff will tell me why I favour the latter three over Brahms. But seriously, it is such that I am removing Brahms' symphonies from my MP3 player for the time being.


Perhaps not in the right mood whilst listening?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Pugg said:


> Perhaps not in the right mood whilst listening?


I'll come back to it at a later date. I like it, but seem to be overwhelmed with other symphony cycles right now and my latest is to pursue Mahler's symphonies.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

Webernite said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I say this in all seriousness: the problem with Brahms is that his music sounds as though it has been composed.


Although I love Brahms, I agree with this 100%.


----------



## Strange Magic

EarthBoundRules said:


> Although I love Brahms, I agree with this 100%.


Odd, but I have the exact opposite reaction. To me, Brahms' music sounds like a powerful yet sustained creative utterance of a deep musical intellect--like water from a spring or fountain. Much of the music of his immediate predecessors, in contrast, seems composed.


----------



## Balthazar

With the exception of certain field recordings and related works, I've never heard a piece of classical music that didn't sound composed.


----------



## Merl

As I said on another thread, I didn't like Brahms and had about 3 full cycles on disc (HvK, Szell and Abbado) and a few on the hard drive (Chailly, Klempy) and used to only like his 3rd symphony. I've collected many more since and my opinion has changed considerably. I was having Mahler and Bruckner moments for a while but I came back to Mr B further down the road and it paid dividends. Chailly's account of the 3rd sounds really good.


----------



## starthrower

Merl said:


> As I said on another thread, I don't dislike Brahms but, apart from his 3rd, nothing 'grabs me' and shouts "listen, to me you bald old *******"!


Brahms doesn't shout indignantly and grab you by the collar. That's not his style. He speaks firmly in an extremely rich language and vocabulary with fine articulation, which might bore you if you're not listening closely. He's steeped in the tradition, and he's very refined. His music doesn't employ cheap attention grabbing devices. There's no bells and whistles. It's just pure music. So I suppose it's easy to say ho hum a hundred and thirty years on. But I find his orchestral music more satisfying than Mendelsssohn, Schumann, or Liszt.


----------



## KenOC

starthrower said:


> Brahms doesn't shout indignantly and grab you by the collar. That's not his style.


Well, perhaps Herr Brahms should try that once in a while! :lol:


----------



## starthrower

KenOC said:


> Well, perhaps Herr Brahms should try that once in a while! :lol:


He knew better than to try and out do Beethoven! But he did do a good job on the opening of the first symphony. But that's more of a whirlwind than a collar grab.


----------



## Strange Magic

starthrower said:


> Brahms doesn't shout indignantly and grab you by the collar. That's not his style. He speaks firmly in an extremely rich language and vocabulary with fine articulation, which might bore you if you're not listening closely. He's steeped in the tradition, and he's very refined. His music doesn't employ cheap attention grabbing devices. There's no bells and whistles. It's just pure music. So I suppose it's easy to say ho hum a hundred and thirty years on. But I find his orchestral music more satisfying than Mendelsssohn, Schumann, or Liszt.


Very well put! Old Johannes just may be my favorite composer--no, wait, he's in the top five!


----------



## Johnnie Burgess

starthrower said:


> He knew better than to try and out do Beethoven! But he did do a good job on the opening of the first symphony. But that's more of a whirlwind than a collar grab.


Beethoven did set the bar high in composing of Symphonies.


----------



## SixFootScowl

So I have this set from78, 87, 89 and did not care for it all that much:









I thought it might be Brahms, but there is a thread about Karajan being the problem (in general, not just with Brahms) because of the way he conducted, so I wanted to try a different conductor. What do you think of this set, will it give me a significantly different take than Karajan:


----------



## majlis

Why worry for dislike Brahm's symphonies? I don't like any symphony done by a German or Austrian composer. Beginning with LvB.


----------



## SixFootScowl

majlis said:


> Why worry for dislike Brahm's symphonies? I don't like any symphony done by a German or Austrian composer. Beginning with LvB.


What is your point? That you don't like German or Austrian symphonies is no help to the question asked.


----------



## jegreenwood

Florestan said:


> So I have this set from78, 87, 89 and did not care for it all that much:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought it might be Brahms, but there is a thread about Karajan being the problem (in general, not just with Brahms) because of the way he conducted, so I wanted to try a different conductor. What do you think of this set, will it give me a significantly different take than Karajan:


FWIW - I love Brahms, but do not like HvK's 1970's cycle, which just seems uninspired. I would like to hear the 60's cycle. My current favorites are Klemperer, Szell and Abbado, although (or perhaps because) they are quite different from one another. I need to give a close listen to Walter, which I added recently.


----------



## tdc

To the Strange Magic, Starthrower and Balthazar comments on page 4 of this thread - thank you. 


:clap:


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

radiohlite said:


> i was just listening to the 1st symphony [Abbado/BPO] and i think i can pinpoint a little better what it is: i keep feeling like i'm underwater [!]. like i'm trapped in this mass [literally] of sound and can't get out.


You mean that great alpine horn call following the passage of the storm clouds at the beginning of the last movement doesn't give you a jolt of fresh air?


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Webernite said:


> I say this in all seriousness: the problem with Brahms is that his music sounds as though it has been composed.


Did you mean to say contrived instead of composed? Contrived is precisely the word used by music critic, B.H. Haggin, a number of years ago while expressing his opinion of Brahms' music. I can't say I agree with _that_.


----------



## fluteman

Several good comments here. Huilunsoittaja mentions "sincerity", starthrower says "refined" and "no cheap attention-grabbing devices." I think those are good ways to think of Brahms. I also think it best not to think of Brahms as a second (and unavoidably lesser) Beethoven. Brahms himself seems to have fallen into this trap on occasion, but I think it does justice to neither composer.

For me Brahms is far and away the greatest late romantic composer. He alone (to my knowledge) was consistently able to take the innovative and highly sophisticated classical structural innovations of Mozart and Beethoven and adapt them to the lyricism and lush harmonies of the late romantic era with scrupulous integrity, or sincerity if you will. There are indeed no cheap tricks in Brahms' music. There are also no ballets or operas, as his music is as fundamentally non-theatrical as Tchaikovsky's is fundamentally theatrical.
One can only accept his music on his terms. But the rewards for doing so are rich.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^One can become weary of some composers, or of certain of their works. The peculiarity of Brahms for me is that I never have had such a reaction to his music; I never tire of hearing it, and am always struck by how richly, satisfyingly, it completes me to experience it.


----------



## Merl

Another old thread gets an outing.


----------



## skywachr

This is a thread worth bringing to life every once in a while. I came upon it on Google just now as a result of searching about why Brahms' symphonies seemed so stodgy compared to his chamber pieces. I have been listening to Brahms chamber music and solo works for many years with great pleasure. I recently found a set of his symphony cycle on vinyl by HvK from the 60s. 

Brahm's chamber pieces are what years brought me to a love of chamber music decades ago. Along with the symphony cycle I acquired a new to me chamber piece, his clarinet quintet in B minor. By comparison this piece is so fresh and inventive. Early in this thread someone mentioned that Brahms symphonies are much admired by musicians because he gave each instrument such wonderful parts. I'm wondering if stretching out the musical performance opportunity over so many instruments in a relatively brief time frame ultimately leads to to less depth in the piece overall. I appreciate all that was said here and hope the encouragement will lead me to discover more from the symphonies in future listenings. Had I not read what was said I might have been led to never pull them out again. Thanks for the wonderful comments.


----------



## SONDEK

For years, I felt the same way as the OP about Brahms symphonies. I simply couldn't understand what all the fuss was about.

I think I was doing some interior decorating at home - with music playing over and over (on repeat) - and I stumbled upon the last movement of the Brahms First Symphony. I soldiered through it several times and found myself looking forward to the big sweeping melody that eventually emerges.

This piece just seemed to unlock Brahms' symphonic voice for me, to the point that the Brahms Symphony No. 1 would now rate as my favourite First Symphony - by any composer. (Prokofiev No. 1 and Sibelius No. 1 not very far behind...) I have since fallen for the Brahms Third also. (Working on 2 and 4)

On this basis, I recommend that you give Brahms Symphony 1 (4th movement) a good long listen - when you are in no rush and have the time to let the music develop. It unfolds quite slowly.

Here are my favourite versions of Brahms Symphony No. 1. Great sound is important to me.









View attachment 162164


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

A few recommendations that don't sound too "heavy":

Symphony #1...Van Beinum/Amsterdam (Royal) Concertgebouw
Symphony #3...Kempe/Berlin Philharmonic
Symphony #3...Weingartner/London Philharmonic (mono only)


----------



## BoggyB

SONDEK said:


> [...] I recommend that you give Brahms Symphony 1 (4th movement) a good long listen - when you are in no rush and have the time to let the music develop. It unfolds quite slowly.


I am not a fan of the Brahms symphonies, but I agree with this. Quite early in my years of listening to classical music I was blown away by this movement. Here if nowhere else, Brahms is the "son of Beethoven".

My favourite of his symphonies is the 2nd, because even though it's quite light, it isn't overworked like the rest of his symphonic output (to my ears).


----------



## Waehnen

Last night I listened to the 1st Piano Concerto. I was thrilled by the beautiful transparency and textures and colours of the orchestration compared to the symphonies. (It was kind of like an extended Piano Quartet, works I adore). I do not listen to the symphonies because of their orchestration but despite the orchestration. The sound is too thick for me to enjoy in itself. Like a heavy baroque velvety curtain that blocks out the light.


----------



## BoggyB

I'm glad you've mentioned the 1st Piano Concerto, because in my previous post I was only talking about symphonies. This concerto is probably, of all Brahms' orchestral works, the one where the "son of Beethoven" epithet applies (okay, excepting the slow movement).

Here's a newspaper article where Stephen Hough discusses the two piano concertos.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/musicblog/2014/jan/06/brahms-piano-concertos-stephen-hough

Edit: I forgot to say that the violin concerto is also a "son of Beethoven" work.


----------



## Heck148

Waehnen said:


> ....I do not listen to the symphonies because of their orchestration but despite the orchestration. The sound is too thick for me to enjoy in itself. Like a heavy baroque velvety curtain that blocks out the light.


Hmmm.....you might try some different renditions - Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux achieved wonderful clarity in these scores....the plentiful and crucial inner lines are brought forth....the texture is not thick or muddy...Solti is very good, also.


----------



## Waehnen

Heck148 said:


> Hmmm.....you might try some different renditions - Toscanini, Reiner, Monteux achieved wonderful clarity in these scores....the plentiful and crucial inner lines are brought forth....the texture is not thick or muddy...Solti is very good, also.


Damn! So many good recommendations on this forum. I took a quick listen on the Solti version of the 4th and it did not sound like a thick baroque curtain. So thank you again!


----------



## SanAntone

Symphony sets that adopt a HIP approach with a smaller orchestra and a more transparent texture:

*John Eliot Gardiner
Mario Venzago
Andrew Manze
Thomas Dausgaard
Thomas Zehetmair*

These are the only versions I listen to.


----------



## fluteman

SanAntone said:


> Symphony sets that adopt a HIP approach with a smaller orchestra and a more transparent texture:
> 
> *John Eliot Gardiner
> Mario Venzago
> Andrew Manze
> Thomas Dausgaard
> Thomas Zehetmair*
> 
> These are the only versions I listen to.


You might also try Philippe Herreweghe and the Orchestre des Champs-Elysees. Not only do they feature clarity, transparent textures and smaller than conventional orchestral forces, but their French record label Harmonia Mundi has a well-deserved (imo) reputation for clarity and high fidelity among audiophile folks (of whom I am not one, but I do pay attention to this aspect).


----------



## SanAntone

fluteman said:


> You might also try Philippe Herreweghe and the Orchestre des Champs-Elysees. Not only do they feature clarity, transparent textures and smaller than conventional orchestral forces, but their French record label Harmonia Mundi has a well-deserved (imo) reputation for clarity and high fidelity among audiophile folks (of whom I am not one, but I do pay attention to this aspect).


All I find on Spotify is the 4th symphony as well as _Ein Deutches Requiem_ and other works for choir and orchestra. I like all of those, but I would be more interested in a complete cycle of the symphonies.


----------



## Highwayman

SanAntone said:


> Symphony sets that adopt a HIP approach with a smaller orchestra and a more transparent texture:
> 
> *
> Thomas Dausgaard
> *


I`m anti-HIP when it comes to Brahms but I must confess the Dausgaard cycle is very good by any standard.


----------



## pianozach

*...so I don't like the Brahms Symphonies*

It's OK. He doesn't like _YOURS_ either.


----------



## Heck148

SanAntone said:


> Symphony sets that adopt a HIP approach with a smaller orchestra and a more transparent texture:
> 
> *John Eliot Gardiner
> Mario Venzago
> Andrew Manze
> Thomas Dausgaard
> Thomas Zehetmair*
> 
> These are the only versions I listen to.


I remember hearing Brahms #2/I with Zehetmair.....didn't care for it much....too many clipped phrases, abrupt cutoffs, separations...the orchestra sound, to me, was anemic...Brahms needs substance to the sound, albeit, with a clarity to the texture....thick and muddy isn't good, for sure, but a healthy sound does not preclude clarity.


----------



## Merl

SanAntone said:


> Symphony sets that adopt a HIP approach with a smaller orchestra and a more transparent texture:
> 
> *John Eliot Gardiner
> Mario Venzago
> Andrew Manze
> Thomas Dausgaard
> Thomas Zehetmair*
> 
> These are the only versions I listen to.


I have all those and Zehetmair is still my preference (also a minor shout for Ticciati's cycle which unfortunately is not as superb. as his Schumann but its still good). I knew you'd bite on the Zehetmair, Heck, lol. As a midway between the likes of Venzago and Bohm some people find Mackerras a highly enjoyable set. HIP styling yet authoritative enough and with enough clout to keep the big band Brahms fans happy.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

I thought HIP was supposed to be the way Brahms would have heard it


----------



## Kreisler jr

I don't know but the closest to Brahms would probably be some historical recordings by people educated before WW I or when Brahms was still alive. Weingartner or Busch (who studied with Steinbach who was one of the major Brahms conductors in the late 19th century). (Of course, many others like Toscanini, Monteux, Walter, Klemperer, Mengelberg, Furtwängler etc. are also "old enough" but I am not sure how close the connections to Brahms and his circle were. Their rather different styles could be an argument for admitting that there were quite different approaches even in Brahms's lifetime (as is documented by the reports of different interpretive styles of von Bülow, Steinbach, Joachim, Brahms himself...).


----------



## jegreenwood

My first exposure to HIP Brahms was Gardiner live in an extremely resonant concert hall, and I was put off. However, I do like Mackerras with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra, Because it’s my alternative to the nine big band Brahms cycles I own, it gets more play than any of them. I have the Herreweghe German Requiem as part of a big box set, but haven’t yet listened to it.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

View attachment 162337

Drink 2 of these and try again!


----------



## hammeredklavier

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I thought HIP was supposed to be the way Brahms would have heard it


If only Furtwangler had done HIPs of Brahms...


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

hammeredklavier said:


> If only Furtwangler had done HIPs of Brahms...


They just didn't have the scholarship back then, poor souls. Even Brahms didn't know how Brahms should be played. They were clueless.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Brahmsianhorn said:


> I thought HIP was supposed to be the way Brahms would have heard it


Then is HIP Beethoven silence?


----------



## PlaySalieri

Just to add my voice. I like Brahms 1 and 4 - fabulous works. 2 and 3 - no.


----------



## hammeredklavier

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Then is HIP Beethoven silence?


What would HIP Cage be then?


----------



## geralmar

radiohlite said:


> the sort of ponderous, thick textured reading is what especially exasperated me hearing these...so i'm looking for good performances that don't sound like mush


I agree with the "ponderous, thick", which is why I like the bracing, astringent sound of Kondrahin and the Moscow RTV Orchestra.


----------



## GraemeG

I wrote this somewhere else on TC, but I'll repeat it here.
We're really not that far from Brahms, even for a sub-60yo like me.
I've played in the Brahms double concerto under Wilfred Lehmann.
He studied with Alfred Hill, who actually played in the Gewandhaus orchestra under Brahms himself.

Furtwangler was around 10 when Brahms died. Apart from anything he might have imposed on the music, it would have been pretty easy early in his career to find lots of people who knew how things were played by Brahms himself in the last twenty years of his life.


----------



## Waehnen

The 3rd Symphoby had been the only one I didn’t relate to. So I picked up a Furtwängler version yesterday. Problem solved! There is something about this conductor’s abilty to make the music flow naturally. It tremendously helps in getting the spirit or soul of the music free! 

How many boring ”This is how Brahms is played yet I am not myself really interested in this bourgois stuff” -versions of the 3rd I have heard? Sometimes it takes just one Furtwängler to make it right.


----------



## Tarneem

try Celibidache conducting the 2nd symphony


----------



## Kreisler jr

GraemeG said:


> I wrote this somewhere else on TC, but I'll repeat it here.
> We're really not that far from Brahms, even for a sub-60yo like me.
> I've played in the Brahms double concerto under Wilfred Lehmann.
> He studied with Alfred Hill, who actually played in the Gewandhaus orchestra under Brahms himself.
> 
> Furtwangler was around 10 when Brahms died. Apart from anything he might have imposed on the music, it would have been pretty easy early in his career to find lots of people who knew how things were played by Brahms himself in the last twenty years of his life.


Yes, while there can be a lot of changes in performance and style within 30-50 years and it's likely that recordings did also bring some changes from the 1930s onwards, I always found it a bit preposterous that people like Norrington claimed in the 1980s or 2000s to reconstruct 1880-90s Brahms better than people who had been kids when Brahms was still alive, and/or had played or studied with friends of Brahms or in general grew up and learned their music in a culture very close to Brahm's own and only a generation later. I also wonder why there seems so little commentary, debate or conflict in the 1920s and 30s about performances of late 19th century music if there had been a lot of changes since the 1900s. How would these changes come about, why and why would most musicians go along, instead of splitting into schools of performance, some "old school", some modern.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Waehnen said:


> The 3rd Symphoby had been the only one I didn't relate to. So I picked up a Furtwängler version yesterday. Problem solved! There is something about this conductor's abilty to make the music flow naturally. It tremendously helps in getting the spirit or soul of the music free!
> 
> How many boring "This is how Brahms is played yet I am not myself really interested in this bourgois stuff" -versions of the 3rd I have heard? Sometimes it takes just one Furtwängler to make it right.


We get so wrapped up in silly debates over styles and tempos…at the end of the day, music is music. There is no substitute for musicianship. It doesn't matter the era one was born in.


----------



## Wigmar

radiohlite said:


> I keep trying to get into these.
> 
> love the concertos, chamber music, & piano stuff, but the Symphonies just turn me off. I've heard the Klemperer, Karajan, Abbado, Sanderling, & Szell cycles, but i can only 'appreciate' them without really liking the music, except for most of the 4th symphony.
> 
> are there some performances that may still change my mind? with Szell i came close to enjoying them. also Kleiber & Karajan's [70s] 4th.
> 
> the sort of ponderous, thick textured reading is what especially exasperated me hearing these...so i'm looking for good performances that don't sound like mush


The Weingartner recordings should give a good impression of the brahmsian nature, certainly also the Decca recordings by Kertezs. Klemperer is another very good Brahms interpreter.


----------



## RobertJTh

Kreisler jr said:


> Yes, while there can be a lot of changes in performance and style within 30-50 years and it's likely that recordings did also bring some changes from the 1930s onwards, I always found it a bit preposterous that people like Norrington claimed in the 1980s or 2000s to reconstruct 1880-90s Brahms better than people who had been kids when Brahms was still alive, and/or had played or studied with friends of Brahms or in general grew up and learned their music in a culture very close to Brahm's own and only a generation later. I also wonder why there seems so little commentary, debate or conflict in the 1920s and 30s about performances of late 19th century music if there had been a lot of changes since the 1900s. How would these changes come about, why and why would most musicians go along, instead of splitting into schools of performance, some "old school", some modern.


The classic example is Monteux, who met/knew Brahms and played for him (violin). That makes people like Hurwitz think that Monteux' recordings of Brahms 2, made 65 years later, tells you how Brahms wanted his music to be performed. Pretty ridiculous, but I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.


----------



## geralmar

I am somewhat neutral on his symphonies; but whatever reservations I have about Brahms are swept away by his gorgeous Serenade #1-- which might as well be a.six-movement symphony.


----------



## hammeredklavier

geralmar said:


> Serenade #1-- which might as well be a.six-movement symphony.


So Mozart wrote 50+minute long symphonies




(K.203 even has the andante of the first movement returned in a later movement; like Brahms's 3rd)


----------



## Forster

> the Symphonies just turn me off. I've heard the Klemperer, Karajan, Abbado, Sanderling, & Szell cycles,


This thread is 11 years old, and the OP hasn't posted since 2011, so they're probably not around now.

My observation on this is less to do with Brahams, but the idea that one might go to the trouble of listening to 5 different cycles of Brahms before concluding that one didn't like his symphonies.

I could understand listening to one cycle 5 times (at least) or one symphony 10 times before making such a decision.


----------



## haziz

Listen a few times to various recordings and styles, and if it still does not click, move on. It is not "wrong" to dislike works by composers you otherwise like.


----------



## hoodjem

radiohlite said:


> I keep trying to get into these.
> 
> love the concertos, chamber music, & piano stuff, but the Symphonies just turn me off. I've heard the Klemperer, Karajan, Abbado, Sanderling, & Szell cycles, but i can only 'appreciate' them without really liking the music, except for most of the 4th symphony.
> 
> are there some performances that may still change my mind? with Szell i came close to enjoying them. also Kleiber & Karajan's [70s] 4th.
> 
> the sort of ponderous, thick textured reading is what especially exasperated me hearing these...so i'm looking for good performances that don't sound like mush


It's okay.
I don't really like almost everything by Mozart.
We all have our foibles.


----------



## hammeredklavier

hoodjem said:


> I don't really like almost everything by Mozart.


You haven't changed since the last time we met years ago. I still remember how much you loved to post in every thread how much you disliked Mozart. Not that it's a bad thing, hahaha.


hoodjem said:


> I have a "friend" who adored Bach in his 20s. The last time I saw him, I asked about his love of Bach. He said he didn't listen to Bach much any more. He found him too simple. Now, he said he adores Mozart.
> (As I've aged, I find I cannot stand most of Mozart's music. I used to find it lovely and abstractly interesting, but not particularly deep. Now it all seems too light, too flimsy, too facile, too Rococo, too contrived, too speciously lovely, and full of too much aristocratic foppishnesss. As someone said earlier, too much foolishness. Perhaps ironically, I really like Haydn.)





hoodjem said:


> RobertJTH: "Mozart wrote more bland/mediocre works than any other composer in the history of music."
> You are a genius. Truer words were never spoken. I love you. Here's mine: J. Haydn is the most under-rated classical composer ever.





hoodjem said:


> I very much like most Baroque music. I appreciate some Classical music that I have heard, particularly that by Joseph Haydn and Beethoven. I change the channel if they start playing stuff by Krommer, Danzi, Ditters von Dittersdorf, Pergolesi, and most especially Mozart. Such vapid, simpering, mellifluous, lovely, facile drivel!


----------



## Abdel ove Allhan

I don’t dislike Brahm’s symphonies but I believe his buddy Schumann’s are quite a bit better. His 2nd symphony (in reality his 4th) is the greatest Romantic symphony in my estimation. Szell’s box set with the Cleveland Orchestra is still the best. There is also a “stealth” symphony named Overture, Scherzo and Finale which is kind of like Mozart’s ‘Italian’ symphonies where Mozart eliminated the minuet. It is a wonderful work every bit as worthy to be included in his list of symphonies.


----------

