# Johannes Brahms



## World Violist

Brahms probably published the highest percentage of great music as compared to almost anyone (with the probable exception of Bach and maybe Beethoven). He mastered almost every form of composition available to the previous generation (the exception being opera), and many of his own. He wrote probably at once the most hugely anticipated and greatest first symphony in history and one of the most crushing and despairing last symphonies. Every concerto he ever published, every symphony, every piano piece, many of his over 200 songs - all have left a huge mark on today's repertoire of any kind of classical musician, and about all the other pieces of his that haven't... their day will come as well, I think.

As for my favorites of Brahms:
The Symphonies
The Concerti

Whatever else I've missed, please correct me!


----------



## ChamberNut

Incredible! The music Brahms' left us, in spite of the huge pressure of living under the shadow of being dubbed "The Next One". His chamber music to me, shows his 'signature stamp', more so than his orchestral works.

He is second only to LVB in my eyes, and not by far.


----------



## World Violist

I think the music Brahms left us is partly if not mostly because of the looming shadow of Beethoven. Brahms destroyed nearly everything he composed before about age 20, so that might give one a clue...


----------



## Ephemerid

I adore Brahms' "Liebeslieder" waltzes which I sang in chorus when I was in university back in the early 90s. Melody, melody, melody! Schmaltzy to the Nth degree (which is something I normally wouldn't care much for) but I have a real soft spot for it. 

His string quartets are quite good too...


----------



## opus67

I'm just getting to know Brahms' music better. I like his symphonies 3 and 4, piano concerti and the double concerto. Of course, the Hungarian Dances are always fun to listen to. 
Not very familiar with his chamber works, though. ( but I've just a bought a CD with his string quartets) His violin sonata No.2(or was it 3?) is good too.

Has anyone else noticed that Brahms' orchestration has a tendency to "scream"? The strings section going at it at very high pitches. I think I can hear hints of it in some of Dvorak's works also.


----------



## World Violist

Brahms' worst aspect was in his orchestration, but it's excellent anyway. It's just his worst. He wasn't trained as an orchestrator, he was trained as a pianist. I'm wondering if the "screaming violins" isn't partially thanks to Josef Joachim. After all, Joachim was one of Brahms' main helpers when it same to orchestration.


----------



## opus67

World Violist said:


> I'm wondering if the "screaming violins" isn't partially thanks to Josef Joachim. After all, Joachim was one of Brahms' main helpers when it same to orchestration.


Could be. I've heard Joachim's second violin concerto only once and I don't remember much of it.

Another aspect I like about Brahms: he (or his extreme self-criticism) has made life easy for the CD collector.  He's not my favourite composer, but somehow or the other I now have "complete sets" of his piano concerti, string quartets and cello sonatas. It won't be long before I get a complete set of symphonies, too.


----------



## World Violist

Karajan made great recordings of the symphonies (I think).


----------



## opus67

Last time I was at the store, I saw a two-CD set (at a price a little more than one CD) with symphonies 1-3 and the usual Brahms add-ons - the two overtures and the variations. Jochum and LPO (EMI). Symphony 4 and the Requiem are in another two-fer. Has anyone here heard these performances?


----------



## Lexophile

I have the Brahms Clarinet Quintet in B minor on CD, only it is arranged for viola, so, (naturally), it's performed by the Moscow Soloists and Yuri Bashmet. I have so much Brahms in my collection. Definately one of my favourite composers. =]


----------



## opus67

Having had re-runs of the 4th movement of the 4th symphony in my head for about 24 hours, I think it's high time I changed my avatar, to reflect my tastes.


----------



## ChamberNut

opus67 said:


> Having had re-runs of the 4th movement of the 4th symphony in my head for about 24 hours, I think it's high time I changed my avatar, to reflect my tastes.


Cool!  The bearded Brahms finally made his way into your mosaic.


----------



## David C Coleman

Brahms; probably the most "natural" successor to Beethoven, But not as innovative or as revolutionary.. fav. works are the Symphonies and Concerti. Also the German Requiem..

But didn't like his dig at Bruckner (especially over the 3rd Symphony)...:angry:


----------



## World Violist

Oh, I never really liked Bruckner very much. After all, when you get to be as established at your style as was Brahms when Bruckner started his ascent, you get to be stubborn about it. It's a natural thing, and music history hasn't suffered anything for it, anyway. Bruckner still wrote 10-11 symphonies.


----------



## opus67

David C Coleman said:


> But didn't like his dig at Bruckner (especially over the 3rd Symphony)...:angry:


Could you please elaborate?


----------



## David C Coleman

opus67 said:


> Could you please elaborate?


Sure! he (Brahms) said that Bruckner was a swindler and his musical example would be dead in a couple of years..The premier of Bruckners Third symphony was one of the biggest disasters in musical history.. Most of the audience (including Brahms left the auditorium before the end of the piece.... Maybe Bruckners music is difficult to access at the best of times..But that was just too harsh I feel.....


----------



## opus67

David C Coleman said:


> Sure! he (Brahms) said that Bruckner was a swindler and his musical example would be dead in a couple of years..The premier of Bruckners Third symphony was one of the biggest disasters in musical history.. Most of the audience (including Brahms left the auditorium before the end of the piece.... Maybe Bruckners music is difficult to access at the best of times..But that was just too harsh I feel.....


Ah. Harsh, indeed.


----------



## World Violist

But, then again, one must remember Brahms' own baptism of fire: the premiere of the D minor piano concerto. The audience was stone silent throughout the whole performance, and at the end hissed at him (he was soloist). There were a few applauders, but they were quickly silenced. This was, after all, Leipzig, and they didn't want anyone to compromise dear, dear Mendelssohn's stature.


----------



## David C Coleman

World Violist said:


> But, then again, one must remember Brahms' own baptism of fire: the premiere of the D minor piano concerto. The audience was stone silent throughout the whole performance, and at the end hissed at him (he was soloist). There were a few applauders, but they were quickly silenced. This was, after all, Leipzig, and they didn't want anyone to compromise dear, dear Mendelssohn's stature.


I actually didn't know that!, that happens to be one of my favourite works as well.. I expect that it was a revolutioanry piece for the era...

A similar thing could be said about Beethovens Eroica... The premier of that didn't go down too well either with that first audience!....


----------



## World Violist

That was the problem... it was revolutionary.


----------



## Edward Elgar

World Violist said:


> That was the problem... it was revolutionary.


Stravinsky's Rite springs to mind.

I have the score for the piano concerto, and I don't rate it as one of his best works. Saying that, it is pretty good!


----------



## SamGuss

One of my latest purchases was a 3 CD set: Brahms the Concertos which include:

Piano Concerto #1
Waltzes 1-16
Piano Concerto #2
Klavierstucke
Violin Conerto in D major
Concerto for Violin, Cello & Orchestra in A minor

I have really gotten into all of it, but for now, Piano Concerto #2 and Concerto for Violin, Cello & Orchestra have become quick favorites.

Outstanding stuff and further along I intend on finding better recordings of all of this.


----------



## opus67

SamGuss said:


> One of my latest purchases was a 3 CD set: Brahms the Concertos which include:
> 
> Piano Concerto #1
> Waltzes 1-16
> Piano Concerto #2
> Klavierstucke
> Violin Conerto in D major
> Concerto for Violin, Cello & Orchestra in A minor


Which one's that? I acctually saw the 3-fer from EMI at the store recently and for a moment I almost decided to purchase it for the really low price, but then I already have other performances of the concerti (except for the violin). In fact, the one with Oistrakh and Klemperer has been in my wishlist for quite a while, and I hope to acquire that CD soon.



> I have really gotten into all of it, but for now, Piano Concerto #2 and Concerto for Violin, Cello & Orchestra have become quick favorites.
> 
> Outstanding stuff and further along I intend on finding better recordings of all of this.


I began listening to more Brahms thanks to the 'Double' Concerto. His first piano concerto is among my most favourite.

Check out this powerhouse of a performance of the concerto
http://www.youtube.com/results?sear...akh+rostropovich+double+concerto&search_type=
I have a recording with the same soloists playing with the Cleveland Orchestra under George Szell. Wonderful stuff!


----------



## SamGuss

opus67 said:


> Which one's that? I acctually saw the 3-fer from EMI at the store recently and for a moment I almost decided to purchase it for the really low price, but then I already have other performances of the concerti (except for the violin). In fact, the one with Oistrakh and Klemperer has been in my wishlist for quite a while, and I hope to acquire that CD soon.


Here's a link to the particular set I got:

http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=138823&album_group=14


----------



## ChamberNut

I could have also posted this in the "Today I discovered...." thread.  

Well, last night I discovered Brahms' Rhapsody for piano, No. 2 in G minor, Op. 79. It was marvellous, one of the best solo piano pieces I've heard.


----------



## opus67

And I discovered his clarinet sonata no.2. I seem to like his chamber works with a piano in it. 

In fact, the satellite radio station I listen to will be celebrating Brahms and Tchaikovsky, on Tuesdays and Thursdays, throughout this month. (Both composers were born on May 7.) Today was a double-play, with the Symphony No.1 (LAPO/Guilini), which I caught from close to the end of the third movement, and the clarinet sonata (I don't remember the names of the soloists.  ) mentioned earlier.


----------



## ChamberNut

opus67 said:


> And I discovered his clarinet sonata no.2. I seem to like his chamber works with a piano in it.


That is still on my _Brahms to do list._  I have however heard the viola version of these sonatas and thought they were exceptional!

I agree with your comment regarding his chamber works with a piano in it. From the Piano Trios, Quartets and Quintet in particular.


----------



## opus67

ChamberNut said:


> I have however heard the viola version of these sonatas and thought they were exceptional!


Oh, I didn't know the viola works were transcriptions. This morning I was listening to Op.120 No.1, in the viola version!  (It sounded more like a violin, though.)


----------



## World Violist

Yes, I think Brahms transcribed the clarinet sonatas for viola to get Joachim to play viola more or something to that effect... can someone verify please?

I've recently gotten annoyed with the screaming violins in the symphonies... I may listen to the German Requiem more often now with Mahler and Debussy... and Ravel... and Sibelius...


----------



## confuoco

World Violist said:


> Yes, I think Brahms transcribed the clarinet sonatas for viola to get Joachim to play viola more or something to that effect... can someone verify please?


I have information, that viola transription was request of Brahms' publisher Simrock to make bigger sales...clarinet pieces weren't very popular in the late romantism. But it is not guaranteed.


----------



## Bach

ChamberNut said:


> Incredible! The music Brahms' left us, in spite of the huge pressure of living under the shadow of being dubbed "The Next One". His chamber music to me, shows his 'signature stamp', more so than his orchestral works.
> 
> He is second only to LVB in my eyes, and not by far.


I think this is a silly response. Brahms is a powerful composer who wrote works of great emotional depth but to compare him to Beethoven is slightly misguided. Beethoven did one enormous think that Brahms failed to do - INNOVATE.

Brahms was too fixed on the notion that he was to be the next Beethoven - so fixed on that idea, infact, that he ended up copying Beethoven's style too closely.

The true genius of Beethoven lies in his unbelievable musical imagination. He took music from Haydnesque classicism, through Mahlerian romanticism to nigh on atonality and abrasive dissonance as exemplified in his late quartets (in particular the Grosse Fuge Op. 131)

Brahms was almost quite backward as a successor to Beethoven. A far more realistic successor, in my opinion, is Richard Wagner - who shared Beethoven's colourful imagination and innovative determination. Something that Brahms lacked, perhaps..


----------



## Artemis

Bach said:


> I think this is a silly response. Brahms is a powerful composer who wrote works of great emotional depth but to compare him to Beethoven is slightly misguided. Beethoven did one enormous think that Brahms failed to do - INNOVATE.
> 
> Brahms was too fixed on the notion that he was to be the next Beethoven - so fixed on that idea, infact, that he ended up copying Beethoven's style too closely.
> 
> The true genius of Beethoven lies in his unbelievable musical imagination. He took music from Haydnesque classicism, through Mahlerian romanticism to nigh on atonality and abrasive dissonance as exemplified in his late quartets (in particular the Grosse Fuge Op. 131)
> 
> Brahms was almost quite backward as a successor to Beethoven. A far more realistic successor, in my opinion, is Richard Wagner - who shared Beethoven's colourful imagination and innovative determination. Something that Brahms lacked, perhaps..


I think you are too dismissive of Brahms. To say that he failed to innovate, even if true, doesn't mean that this is necessarily a major failing. J S Bach (presumably your namesake) wasn't a particularly great innovator, and yet is still widely considered to be among the top 3 composers.

Beethoven was a really great composer but some would say that he had certain weaknesses relative to other greats: he wasn't brilliant a composing for the voice, and his melodic gifts were not a par with those of Schubert or Mozart. Moreover, in terms of musical form, Beethoven didn't really depart all that much, if any, from the Classical mould of the day, even if one or two pieces have a romantic flavour. Weber and Schubert were the true founders of Romanticism, not Beethoven, and of these Schubert was by far the greater.

Brahms wrote a lot of wonderful music across quite a wide spectrum and developed sonata form to a peak level. His Symphony No 4 is the equal of any of Beethoven's, and his Piano and Clarinet Quintets are at least a match for any chamber piece written by Beethoven. He was also incredibly gifted in the art of variations. All or most of his works are highly polished with hardly a note out of place, rather like Mozart's.

I would agree that Wagner is probably the greatest 19th C innovator, next to Beethoven, but many would say he suffered from over-specialisation, leaving behind virtually nothing in the sphere of chamber and non-vocal orchestral works.

Leaving aside technicalities, many people come to appreciate Brahms much more as they mature in their listening experience. For my part, while I once adored Beethoven, I have moved on and generally listen to other composers these days.


----------



## Bach

Artemis said:


> I think you are too dismissive of Brahms. To say that he failed to innovate, even if true, doesn't mean that this is necessarily a major failing. J S Bach (presumably your namesake) wasn't a particularly great innovator, and yet is still widely considered to be among the top 3 composers.


I couldn't agree less. Bach was an majestic innovator - take the Cello suites is a top-of-the-head example. Nobody wrote for the cello in that manner until the suites were rediscovered in the late 19th century when composers such as Britten payed homage to his style. 


Artemis said:


> Beethoven was a really great composer but some would say that he had certain weaknesses relative to other greats: he wasn't brilliant a composing for the voice, and his melodic gifts were not a par with those of Schubert or Mozart.


I don't necessarily agree with that, (although I certainly see your angle) I suppose it's besides the point.


Artemis said:


> Moreover, in terms of musical form, Beethoven didn't really depart all that much, if any, from the Classical mould of the day, even if one or two pieces have a romantic flavour. Weber and Schubert were the true founders of Romanticism, not Beethoven, and of these Schubert was by far the greater.


That's quite a controversial statement and goes against about a century and a half of scholarship on the subject - I think the romantic style began with Beethoven's 3rd. After all, there is not a huge harmonic difference between Beethoven's 3rd and Brahms' 1st.


Artemis said:


> Brahms wrote a lot of wonderful music across quite a wide spectrum and developed sonata form to a peak level. His Symphony No 4 is the equal of any of Beethoven's


Brahms' symphony No. 4 is a masterwork, absolutely, but I don't necessarily think it bares comparison to Beethoven's great symphonies - it's really a different style of composition. Brahms was a traditionalist, Beethoven was radical. (yet still popular in his time which is slightly unusual.) Although admittedly his more abrasive quartets were never fully understood in Beethoven's lifetime.



Artemis said:


> and his Piano and Clarinet Quintets are at least a match for any chamber piece written by Beethoven. He was also incredibly gifted in the art of variations. All or most of his works are highly polished with hardly a note out of place, rather like Mozart's.


Okay, now that was going a little far - the late quartets are beyond comparison in (almost) all musical composition. To quote Wikipedia, they are "widely considered to be among the greatest musical compositions of all time" and Stravinsky is reputed to have believed the Grosse Fuge to be the greatest piece of music ever written.



Artemis said:


> I would agree that Wagner is probably the greatest 19th C innovator, next to Beethoven, but many would say he suffered from over-specialisation, leaving behind virtually nothing in the sphere of chamber and non-vocal orchestral works.


I'm actually inclined to agree with you here, I feel slightly cheated of some more great Wagner! (not that his operas weren't enough, they are just so good, you want to hear some different genres) However, Mr. Wagner did dream of becoming a playwright and never considered composition until much later, so you can understand where he's coming from. I also believe that Wagner considered instrumental music inferior - it is not in-keeping with his 'Gesamtkunstwerk'.



Artemis said:


> Leaving aside technicalities, many people come to appreciate Brahms much more as they mature in their listening experience. For my part, while I once adored Beethoven, I have moved on and generally listen to other composers these days.


It takes years to fully appreciate how deep and wonderful Beethoven's music is - and unless you're over 150 I don't think you should have deviated from Beethoven for a second. Obviously explore others too 

Don't get me wrong, I love Brahms - I just don't find that a comparison to Beethoven particularly convincing.


----------



## David C Coleman

I was reading some info. about Brahms recently and although, he was obviously, a fine composer, we was a nasty piece of work at times when criticising other composers!
About Bruckner, I've already mentioned about him saying that he was a swindler, he thought Tchaikovsky's music was meaningless. And about another up and coming composer, Hans Rott, he said "you are talentless and should give up composition" causing the guy to have a mental breakdown and eventually die at the early age of 25....(naughty, naughty)!!....shame on you JB...


----------



## World Violist

Yes, he was indeed very critical of other composers, but Hans Rott I think took it all far too personally and did not realize that Brahms was not THE great composer. It was only Brahms' opinion. So really, Brahms didn't drive Rott insane, Rott drove himself insane over Brahms' imperfect judgement of his talent. Just thought I'd make this point...

Not that I'm defending Brahms or anything, it's just that I like to make arguements fair.


----------



## Elaryad

Brahms is the reason I'm here talking about classical music and listening to it every day. I think it's all said...
I love his cello sonatas. But I would like to have much much more of his works.


----------



## confuoco

David C Coleman said:


> I was reading some info. about Brahms recently and although, he was obviously, a fine composer, we was a nasty piece of work at times when criticising other composers!
> About Bruckner, I've already mentioned about him saying that he was a swindler, he thought Tchaikovsky's music was meaningless. And about another up and coming composer, Hans Rott, he said "you are talentless and should give up composition" causing the guy to have a mental breakdown and eventually die at the early age of 25....(naughty, naughty)!!....shame on you JB...


This was nothing exceptional in that time...and probably you dont know what Tchaikovsky said about Brahms: *"What an untalented *******!"* So I think they were equal  .

And finally, there were some composers that used to be much more critical, for example Debussy.


----------



## David C Coleman

confuoco said:


> This was nothing exceptional in that time...and probably you dont know what Tchaikovsky said about Brahms: *"What an untalented *******!"* So I think they were equal  .
> 
> And finally, there were some composers that used to be much more critical, for example Debussy.


Remeniscent of the slanging matches you get on YouTube!!...


----------



## confuoco

David C Coleman said:


> Remeniscent of the slanging matches you get on YouTube!!...




And another thing I can say to defence of Brahms is that he was also very critical to himself...some composers were critical to others, but not so much to themselves (Wagner). But, no doubt, Brahms really hadn't any diplomatic talent or something like tact or empathy...


----------



## David C Coleman

confuoco said:


> And another thing I can say to defence of Brahms is that he was also very critical to himself...some composers were critical to others, but not so much to themselves (Wagner). But, no doubt, Brahms really hadn't any diplomatic talent or something like tact or empathy...


Well, I think that anyone who realises that they have been blessed with an exceptional gift, whether it be in the arts or a sport etc, needs that element of self-criticism to keep their "cutting edge".
I get the impression, though that music in the 19th century was somekind of "competition" between composers and even conductors to gain as many advocacies as possible.


----------



## Canaan

For me, dear Johannes opens the doorway to the spiritual like no other. I'm mostly into his piano music. On two occasions, I've had peak experiences that were otherworldly. All I can say is that momentarily I was palpably in heaven. Both times I was mobile, once at the shore, a flock of gulls hovering over my head, the wild birds looking me right in the eyes. I was listening to the Handel Variations and the door to heaven opened. Another time I was walking in the woods, it was his Romance from Op. 118 (Rubinstein) and again -- a beauty outside my expectations of reality. And both times, very simple prayer-like piano passages.

Beethoven is still the greatest. With dear Johannes, the affection is so personal. Brahms was an adored child. I think we love him like his mother loved him.


----------



## confuoco

Canaan said:


> Another time I was walking in the woods, it was his Romance from Op. 118 (Rubinstein) and again -- a beauty outside my expectations of reality. And both times, very simple prayer-like piano passages.


Op. 118 are the most beautiful solo piano pieces I know.


----------



## Weston

I hate to necropost, but this seems the most appropriate place.

Today I listened to the Piano Quartets and paid particular attention to the no. 3, op. 60 "Werther." This is a sublime piece. I think I would go so far as to say it equals or surpasses Beethoven's chamber works in my experience. (You may have no idea how difficult a leap that is for me.) I believe I am hearing strains of the Symphony No. 4 in the fourth movement here. I don't know if they are just similar or if it's an actual quote, but it's wonderful in either event.

My only complaint -- I was listening to Artur Rubinstein and the Guarneri Quartet, a remastered recording, and the violin vibratos and warbles its way through the entire piece. It sounds almost like what you would expect on an old filmstrip that has stretched giving the strings that underwater sound.

Is it normal to play romantic works with so much vibrato? Did they in Brahms' time? I know this is a world renowned group, but I'd like to hear this beautiful piece with more subtle vibrato. Are there any performances that would suit me better?


----------



## confuoco

Weston said:


> My only complaint -- I was listening to Artur Rubinstein and the Guarneri Quartet, a remastered recording, and the violin vibratos and warbles its way through the entire piece. It sounds almost like what you would expect on an old filmstrip that has stretched giving the strings that underwater sound.
> 
> Is it normal to play romantic works with so much vibrato? Did they in Brahms' time? I know this is a world renowned group, but I'd like to hear this beautiful piece with more subtle vibrato. Are there any performances that would suit me better?


We know very little about authentic romantic interpretation, much less than we know about baroque. 
I think this vibrato is somehow result of remastering, another atribute of old recordings is that it often sounds flat a bit, like as players had problems with intonation. I hear it also in this Rubinstein-Guarneri recording. Anyway I like it, because it has strength and originality. If you want some more "civil", but still beautiful recording, you can try *Domus* (Virgin label) - they won Gramophon award and much more awards for their Fauré quartets and at Brahms they did very good job, too.


----------



## David C Coleman

Regarding the symphonies, well..he may have had a traditional sound, but he did dispense with the traditional scherzo and trio in favour of a more intermezzo type movement..


----------



## Weston

confuoco said:


> originality. If you want some more "civil", but still beautiful recording, you can try *Domus* (Virgin label)


Thanks much. I think it well worth my time and funds to find a more modern recording.


----------



## confuoco

Weston said:


> Thanks much. I think it well worth my time and funds to find a more modern recording.


But in the case of Piano Quartet *No. 1* I prefer recording Argerich, Kremer, Bashmet, Maisky to one by Domus (though it is excellent, too). But this quartet by Argerich and Co. isn't just one of the best recordings of this work, not just of Brahms work, but one of the best ever made I think.


----------



## Weston

If this is the Argerich, Kremer, Bashmet, Maisky that also includes the Schumann Fantasiestücke, Op.88 I'll put it on my want list. I do not have and have not heard that Schumann piece. It is out of stock at Amazon at the moment, but I'll keep my eyes on it. The excerpts sound great - like you are in the midst of them. Far better than the Rubinstein / Guarneri.

Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Mirror Image

Has anyone heard Riccardo Chailly's readings of Brahms' symphonies? I was just curious if they're good or not.


----------



## Bach

I've got Daniel Barenboim and Celibidache (which is old) - they're good.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I've got Daniel Barenboim and Celibidache (which is old) - they're good.


I own the Bohm, Karajan, Wand, Davis, and now Bernstein, Solti and Chailly.


----------



## Lisztfreak

confuoco said:


> This was nothing exceptional in that time...and probably you dont know what Tchaikovsky said about Brahms: *"What an untalented *******!"* So I think they were equal  .
> 
> And finally, there were some composers that used to be much more critical, for example Debussy.


Fascinating how great composers (and other musicians) seem to be just ordinary people. Many had dismissive comments on other people's music, comments they would have done better to had kept for themselves, I think.

''A very good imitation of a composer.'', RVW about Mahler

''A second-rate Brahms.'', Karajan about Elgar

''Sinfoniettas.'', Bruckner about Schumann's symphonies (I mean, what _isn't_ a sinfonietta compared to Bruckner's bloody mastodonts - you know I like Bruckner, btw)

''An alchemist! (said scornfully)'', Stravinsky about Bártok

... and so on and on.


----------



## Bach

Some of those comments are very accurate.


----------



## Herzeleide

Lisztfreak said:


> ''A second-rate Brahms.'', Karajan about Elgar


*cough**********cough*

I think there's just as much, if not more, Wagner in Elgar. Elgar is English all over, I don't sense anything Viennese (or trying to be Viennese) about him.


----------



## Bach

WAGNER? Are you quite mad? Elgar has far more in common (harmonically and melodically) with Brahms. His orchestration is very slightly Wagnerian.. but only slightly.


----------



## Mirror Image

Lisztfreak said:


> Fascinating how great composers (and other musicians) seem to be just ordinary people. Many had dismissive comments on other people's music, comments they would have done better to had kept for themselves, I think.
> 
> ''A very good imitation of a composer.'', RVW about Mahler
> 
> ''A second-rate Brahms.'', Karajan about Elgar
> 
> ''Sinfoniettas.'', Bruckner about Schumann's symphonies (I mean, what _isn't_ a sinfonietta compared to Bruckner's bloody mastodonts - you know I like Bruckner, btw)
> 
> ''An alchemist! (said scornfully)'', Stravinsky about Bártok
> 
> ... and so on and on.


This is why I don't read too much into what other composers have said about other composers. It really doesn't mean that much to me. What's important is the music.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> WAGNER? Are you quite mad? Elgar has far more in common (harmonically and melodically) with Brahms. His orchestration is very slightly Wagnerian.. but only slightly.


Not at all. I hear quite a bit of Parsifal in Elgar... Elgar is more luscious than Brahms, more generous perhaps. When Elgar is nostalgic it's for an old, idealised England, not for old musical forms.


----------



## EarlyCuyler

I will preface this by saying, i've really tried to like Brahms. Honestly I have. But this weekend, the Cincinnati Symphony performed the Brahms Piano Concerto No.1. I have never wished for anything more intently than the 50-minutes of my life that I wasted sitting through that. The soloist was very technically good, Nicholas Angelich, and perhaps musically as well. People say that you have to be a musician to get Brahms, I am a musician, and I don't. Try as I might. I guess i'm too much of a musical Philistine to comprehend it. Thankfully, the Prokofiev Symphony No.6 on the second half of the concert was AMAZING.


----------



## Mirror Image

EarlyCuyler said:


> I will preface this by saying, i've really tried to like Brahms. Honestly I have. But this weekend, the Cincinnati Symphony performed the Brahms Piano Concerto No.1. I have never wished for anything more intently than the 50-minutes of my life that I wasted sitting through that. The soloist was very technically good, Nicholas Angelich, and perhaps musically as well. People say that you have to be a musician to get Brahms, I am a musician, and I don't. Try as I might. I guess i'm too much of a musical Philistine to comprehend it. Thankfully, the Prokofiev Symphony No.6 on the second half of the concert was AMAZING.


Both Brahms' Piano Concertos are just beautiful. You may not have liked it, but I would have loved to see that, especially the Prokofiev Symphony No. 6. I'm jealous!


----------



## Bach

Herzeleide said:


> Not at all. I hear quite a bit of Parsifal in Elgar... Elgar is more luscious than Brahms, more generous perhaps. When Elgar is nostalgic it's for an old, idealised England, not for old musical forms.


Yes, the orchestration is similar.

Elgar's melodic language is more Brahmsian.

Brahms's fourth symphony is very luscious.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Mirror Image said:


> This is why I don't read too much into what other composers have said about other composers. It really doesn't mean that much to me. What's important is the music.


'Exactement, mon ami,' Poirot would say, 'doze composeurs verre very strange, n'est-ce-pas?'. Really, music is the thing, and we the listeners have exactly the same amount of competence to say what is good or bad as those composers of yore. They were just people like we are, in that respect.


----------



## Herzeleide

Bach said:


> Yes, the orchestration is similar.
> 
> Elgar's melodic language is more Brahmsian.
> 
> Brahms's fourth symphony is very luscious.


Page fifteen of the book _Elgar Studies_. The passages mentioned are from _The Apostles_:

"The parallels of harmonic technique and expressive import in the three passages place Elgar firmly in the orbit of the Wagnerian and post-Wagnerian musical worlds."

Elgar almost quotes a passage near the end of the _Tristan_ prelude in his second symphony and parallels have been pointed out between the famous melody which opens Elgar's first symphony and the opening melody of _Parsifal_. Incidentally, following this very expansive melody (rather unBrahmsian I would say: Brahms is altogether tighter) in A flat the music abruptly heads into a theme in D minor; the (tri-)tonal rupture this causes in the structure of the music is something Brahms would never try; curiously enough, it is a Mahlerian idea, and whilst Wagner too hadn't tried it, the idea of tonal ambiguity nonetheless places Elgar within the same ball park as Wagner.


----------



## ladyrebecca

I would list Brahms as my favorite composer at the moment. The Brahms Double (Op. 102) is stunning to me. I keep listening to it performed by so many greats. Of course my favorite is only the one I've seen live, though twice, with Janine Jansen and Alisa Weilerstein and the BSO conducted by Hans Graf. I also saw the BSO recently do Symphony No. 4. Since then I've been trying to listen to everything I can that Brahms wrote. Of course, playing Brahms is another matter. Some friends of mine and I tried to get through a Brahms piano trio with limited success, and while the orchestral violin parts are not so bad, the solo part for the double is quite challenging.


----------



## confuoco

Weston said:


> If this is the Argerich, Kremer, Bashmet, Maisky that also includes the Schumann Fantasiestücke, Op.88 I'll put it on my want list.


Yes, that's it. You will never regret this purchase.


----------



## confuoco

EarlyCuyler said:


> I will preface this by saying, i've really tried to like Brahms. Honestly I have. But this weekend, the Cincinnati Symphony performed the Brahms Piano Concerto No.1. I have never wished for anything more intently than the 50-minutes of my life that I wasted sitting through that. The soloist was very technically good, Nicholas Angelich, and perhaps musically as well. People say that you have to be a musician to get Brahms, I am a musician, and I don't. Try as I might. I guess i'm too much of a musical Philistine to comprehend it. Thankfully, the Prokofiev Symphony No.6 on the second half of the concert was AMAZING.


Wau, did you see and hear Nicholas Angelich? He is one of the best living Brahms pianist.

I am not musician and I get him.


----------



## Aramis

Am I the only one who hears Beethoven's Ode to Joy in the last movement of Brahms 1st symphony?


----------



## Bach

no, jeder Esel can see that..


----------



## bdelykleon

Aramis said:


> Am I the only one who hears Beethoven's Ode to Joy in the last movement of Brahms 1st symphony?


This is mentioned since the première of the symphony. This is one of the reasons it got the nick "Beethoven's tenth".


----------



## Bach

mine was funnier.


----------



## nickgray

bdelykleon said:


> This is mentioned since the première of the symphony. This is one of the reasons it got the nick "Beethoven's tenth".


I never saw the reason why it did. Sure, it does have some minor similarities, but all in all, it is Brahms's first, not Beethoven's tenth.


----------



## World Violist

Aramis said:


> Am I the only one who hears Beethoven's Ode to Joy in the last movement of Brahms 1st symphony?


Not really; I'm more apt to hear the finale of Brahms' first in the opening of Mahler's third... still, point taken.

And still it's Brahms' first symphony.


----------



## Efraim

David C Coleman said:


> But didn't like his dig at Bruckner (especially over the 3rd Symphony)...:angry:


What did he do? I didn't hear that. I read somewhere that once he met Bruckner and told him: "_You are the greatest symphonist since Beethoven._" (I strongly disagree with him.) Now he couldn't say that out of politeness since Brahms was notoriously uncouth and managed to insult almost everybody. (Suk dedicated a work to him; Brahms said: "Of course, you can not dedicate to me something like Beethoven's Fifth symphony.") He was filled with admiration for Beethoven and … Johann Strauss. Of himself he thought that his importance in the history of music would be like Cherubini's. I wonder if he liked his own works. I do. I mean, about 25 of them, which is a lot.

I have been a big "brahmin" for nearly 50 years. I have on LPs and/or on CDs practically everything he wrote and didn't destroy, a lot of his works in several interpretations, about a dozen of them even in his own transcription for four-hand-piano (maybe it sounds strange but I like some of them very much in this unfamiliar version too, first of all the two quartets of Op. 51, the 2d and 3d symphony… And the Concerto in D Minor, but that is less surprising. You can buy them on the cheap on Naxos CDs). But I am not uncritical at that. For example I find both String quintets and both String sextets boring; the two Sonatas for Viola or his very last Opus, the 11 Choral Preludes, are not fantastic either…


----------



## Efraim

Bach said:


> no, jeder Esel can see that..


Actually he [Brahms] said "Ochs" (but I am not sure; are you sure that he said "Esel"?). (Well, I know that in this matter these two animals are one single species.)


----------



## ozradio

I'm late to this Brahms party but just this past week I've discovered his chamber works. I especially enjoy the clarinet pieces, the sonatas and quintet. I was also pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed his solo piano work. His symphonies and concertos are some of the works that got me into classical music; I can't believe it took me this long to stumble on these chamber treasures. These are all from the DG complete set which I got over the summer.


----------



## Artemis

ozradio said:


> I'm late to this Brahms party but just this past week I've discovered his chamber works. I especially enjoy the clarinet pieces, the sonatas and quintet. I was also pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed his solo piano work. His symphonies and concertos are some of the works that got me into classical music; I can't believe it took me this long to stumble on these chamber treasures. These are all from the DG complete set which I got over the summer.


I see that I have previously commented on Brahms as a composer in this thread. That was in regard to his alleged failure to innovate.

Regarding his chamber works, I think that for many people chamber music may be one of the last genres they get into, if at all. I know I shouldn't generalise but from my experience and some friends' it took a few years to say that I began to really chamber music. At the start I was more into Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak. It took a while longer to get into Brahms chamber music.

The first piece of Brahms chamber mfollwed closely by the Piano Quintet. In my estimation the Piano Quintet is one of Brahms best works. It's quite amazing how some of the versions vary, and how poor some are in relation to the best. My favourite by far among several I have is by Alfredo Perl (piano) who weaves such gorgeous textures. The Piano Quartet No 1 is another favourite, and the version I like most is with Rubinstein. The Horn Trio (Op 40) is also very good. I like the Florestan Trio performing this work. There's so much more wonderful material.

As an aside, Schumann's chamber music is definitely worth exploring by anyone who has recently "discovered" Brahms chamber music and skipped over Schumann. Brahms chamber style is quite similar to Schumann's, and there are some jewels among the latter, not least the Piano Quintet (Op 44, try the Andsnes version).


----------



## ozradio

Thanks for the tip. I have Schumann's symphonies and solo piano work but no chamber work. I do have some on my Amazon wishlist, however.


----------



## AussieGuy

World Violist said:


> Brahms' worst aspect was in his orchestration, but it's excellent anyway. It's just his worst. He wasn't trained as an orchestrator, he was trained as a pianist. I'm wondering if the "screaming violins" isn't partially thanks to Josef Joachim. After all, Joachim was one of Brahms' main helpers when it same to orchestration.


Why does everyone say Brahms worst aspect was his orchestration? What was wrong with it? Can someone explain this to the layman?


----------



## alfine

Somebody said it was like "mud" because its so thick in the middle - lots of string double stops and clusters of middle woodwind with incrediably high and low passages above and below - he doesn't let instruments whizz off on their own solos - they move in packs, not lone hunters. And when they do "escape" this for me is where is music really glitters. He was also a big fan of Bach so has a lot of complexity in different lines in the middle which adds to the "mud". He also likes deep slow moving cellos and basses. Sometimes strings or woodwind swap parts note for note and move in an unbending harmonic progession - critics say that this is a sign that he didn't understand the difference between wood wind writing and string writing (personally I think this is not right: I think we was just trying to create contrast by which often does not quite work and sounds awkward). The brass sections also give harmonic filling and link sections of music together with horn calls and themes which seem to get lost in the mix. This is criticised as "predictable". He isn't really into surprises or orchestral/instrumental effects. This *might be* because he was primarily a pianist with agile middle fingers that could strike interesting and for him important harmonies and he loved the lower register of the piano. So perhaps the situation is that he transferred or transcribed too literally his ideas from his own instrument where he worked them out, trying to retain the depth of tone he could get from the keyboard onto an orchestra where there are so many different timbres and colours which he simply didn't need to explore.

However Brahms is one of the few composers you can forgive for his orchestration because the musical ideas are so interesting. And I think a lot of the dislike of Brahms's orchestration has been exacerbated by the practice of "doubling" woodwind in the mid 20th century (in an attempt (I suppose) to force the woodwind sound through the strings) and the ponderous tempi that some conductors adopted. Now doubling is practically unheard of and a fresher, crisper sound is coming out - I particular like the tone in the German Requiem by Simon Rattle and the Berlin Phil. 

I am sure several other forum-ers will disagree with me!


----------



## Edward Elgar

alfine said:


> I am sure several other forum-ers will disagree with me!


I agree with you! His material is gold, which makes any orchestration blemishes insignificant. In fact I like them! I think "mud" can be translated to "Germanic richness" which I very much prefer.

One of my old teachers said he didn't like Brahms because the melodies didn't go where he wanted. This is no criticism and devalues Brahms' attempt to develop his melodies to fit in with Beethoven's tradition.

Brahms is one of the greats imo; the link between Beethoven and Schoenberg.


----------



## Polednice

I can understand the criticisms levied against Brahms's orchestration, but he is certainly not as bad as other composers have been at the task - it's not just forgiveable, it's so utterly unobtrusive that I hardly ever notice because of how wonderful his actual _music_ is. If only he could read this guestbook! He should know that he has affected me more than any other person to have lived  And in his music, there seems to be nowhere he failed - piano solo works are small and complex masterworks; chamber music is so incredible I can hardly describe it, it just makes me brim with joy at his beautiful control of the music; and his orchestral/choral could win any contest. Ultimately - just as is often said of Beethoven - his deep sense of humanism is so dazzlingly clear through his music that it immediately grips you and has you view life from a new perspective. Music perfected.


----------



## starry

There is an intimacy to his music which is why he did some great chamber music, even parts of his symphonies can have a chamber music like intimacy at times.


----------



## Edward Elgar

That's the genius of the man, he could turn his hand to anything, popular or serious, intimate or intimidating, or all together!

His symphonies do have a perfection about them, as if they have been galvanised in platinum! They are what Beethoven was trying to say in his middle period, but more Romantic.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Brahms was a perfectionist, and a great orchestrator. But if Beethoven was alive, he would have preferred Wagner, Dvorak and Bruckner.


----------



## Polednice

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Brahms was a perfectionist, and a great orchestrator. But if Beethoven was alive, he would have preferred Wagner, Dvorak and Bruckner.


How can you say such terrible things?! If Beethoven _would_ have preferred other composers, it would only have been because he would have recognised that Brahms was his superior - a fact he could not face!


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> How can you say such terrible things?! If Beethoven _would_ have preferred other composers, it would only have been because he would have recognised that Brahms was his superior - a fact he could not face!


If one day in XIXth century, while Brahms was writing one of his works, Ludwig Van would appear, Brahms would kneel and bow to him. And they would eat fishes, fresh fruits, bread, shrimps, sloths and cornflakes.

Do you think that you're smarter than Brahms?

Do you think you know better?

He? He? To the snout?


----------



## Guest

I'm rather late to this discussion, but I thought I would contribute something. I hold Brahms among my top 3 favorite composers - Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms. The order there is not intentional. Each takes their turn at the top spot, depending on my mood.

While I am trying to gain an appreciation for Brahms' larger orchestral works, my first and lasting love for his works lies in his chamber music. At the top I would put his Piano Trio No. 1 - absolutely amazing. His piano quartets are also not something to be missed. String quartets, piano quintets, sextets, etc. You name it, you will see that they register with some of the highest play counts in my library.

I really do need to pay more attention to his orchestras. I have recordings of all 4 by Klemperer and the Philharmonia Orchestra (along with the "Haydn" Variations, the Alto Rhapsody, the Academic Festival and Tragic Overtures).

My collection also includes:
Violin Concerto - Mutter/Karajan; Oistrakh/Szell
Piano Trios - Suk/Katchen/Starker; Beaux Arts Trio
Piano Concertos - 1 & 2 Gilels/Jochum; 2 Backhaus/Bohm
Serenade No. 2 - Haitink/LSO
Sextets - Stern/Lin/Laredo/Tree/Ma/Robinson
Double Concerto - Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera; Oistrakh/Rostropovich/Szell
Clarinet Quintet - Shifrin/Emerson String Quartet
Violin Sonatas - 1-3 Perlman/Ashkenazy; 3 Oistrakh/Yampolsky
Piano Quintet - Pollini/Quartetto Italiano; Hough/Takacs Quartet
String Quartets, Op. 51, Op. 67 - Takacs Quartet
Piano Quartets - Walter Trampler/Beaux Arts Trio
Cello Sonatas - Ma/Ax
Ein Deutsches Requiem - Gardiner/Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique

I am open to suggestions regarding what is missing from this collection.
Piano Music - Lupu (Op. 79, Opp. 117-119); Gilels (Op. 116)


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> If one day in XIXth century, while Brahms was writing one of his works, Ludwig Van would appear, Brahms would kneel and bow to him. And they would eat fishes, fresh fruits, bread, shrimps, sloths and cornflakes.


It wouldn't be so simple as that. One day, Brahms might spot Beethoven in a street, but he'd hide in embarrassment. But, soon, he'd start following him, but stay well back. From then on, Brahms would turn into Beethoven's full-time stalker without the latter knowing. Meanwhile, Beethoven would be coming to terms with this music being created by his 'successor', and he would be feeling immense pain; "Why couldn't I ever write anything like this?!" Brahms is, of course, completely oblivious to his anguish, because he's too busy eating his left-overs and rummaging through his bins. Eventually, Beethoven becomes so depressed at his inadequacy that he kills himself. Having seen such a tragedy, Brahms is left so traumatised and heart-broken that he, too, takes his own life. Kind of like an extremely twisted Romeo and Juliet.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I'm rather late to this discussion, but I thought I would contribute something. I hold Brahms among my top 3 favorite composers - Beethoven, Mahler, Brahms. The order there is not intentional. Each takes their turn at the top spot, depending on my mood.
> 
> While I am trying to gain an appreciation for Brahms' larger orchestral works, my first and lasting love for his works lies in his chamber music. At the top I would put his Piano Trio No. 1 - absolutely amazing. His piano quartets are also not something to be missed. String quartets, piano quintets, sextets, etc. You name it, you will see that they register with some of the highest play counts in my library.
> 
> I really do need to pay more attention to his orchestras. I have recordings of all 4 by Klemperer and the Philharmonia Orchestra (along with the "Haydn" Variations, the Alto Rhapsody, the Academic Festival and Tragic Overtures).
> 
> My collection also includes:
> Violin Concerto - Mutter/Karajan; Oistrakh/Szell
> Piano Trios - Suk/Katchen/Starker; Beaux Arts Trio
> Piano Concertos - 1 & 2 Gilels/Jochum; 2 Backhaus/Bohm
> Serenade No. 2 - Haitink/LSO
> Sextets - Stern/Lin/Laredo/Tree/Ma/Robinson
> Double Concerto - Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera; Oistrakh/Rostropovich/Szell
> Clarinet Quintet - Shifrin/Emerson String Quartet
> Violin Sonatas - 1-3 Perlman/Ashkenazy; 3 Oistrakh/Yampolsky
> Piano Quintet - Pollini/Quartetto Italiano; Hough/Takacs Quartet
> String Quartets, Op. 51, Op. 67 - Takacs Quartet
> Piano Quartets - Walter Trampler/Beaux Arts Trio
> Cello Sonatas - Ma/Ax
> Ein Deutsches Requiem - Gardiner/Orchestre Revolutionnaire et Romantique
> 
> I am open to suggestions regarding what is missing from this collection.
> Piano Music - Lupu (Op. 79, Opp. 117-119); Gilels (Op. 116)


Just to talk about really central works, seeing as you like his chamber music, I'd definitely get his Clarinet Sonatas/Trio - they're fantastic (I have Martin Frost [Clarinet], Roland Pontinen [Piano] and Torleif Thedeen [Cello]).

Also, for the piano, absolutely _no_ collection is complete without the _Hungarian Dances_! And, to appreciate them properly, you should go for a piano-for-four-hands version, not one of the silly orchestrations  (For that I have James & Kathryn March).

Then, of course, there are his piano sonatas, which are intriguing because they are some of the earliest things he wrote. I have a version recorded by Idil Biret, but I've been looking for a better one - his 16 waltzes are good too.

Talking about orchestral pieces, if you like the variations on Haydn, you should try the variations on Handel (I have Vladimir Ashkenazy/Cleveland), and then - if you haven't already - you should listen to alternatives for the Symphonies and the _Deutsches Requiem_ (my favourites are Haitink and Sir Rattle, respectively).

I still need to do a lot of collecting myself! I haven't broken into his mountain of Lieder yet, I should do that next...


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Polednice said:


> How can you say such terrible things?! If Beethoven _would_ have preferred other composers, it would only have been because he would have recognised that Brahms was his superior - a fact he could not face!


LOL. that's not terrible. Brahms is great, but Beethoven loves someone who is daring. Remember he only played Mozart's Piano concertos no 20&24 (new works that pointed into a new direction).

Beethoven would have said, "Brahms nothing new but good listening nonetheless"


----------



## Edward Elgar

When Beethoven was going through his middle period, Brahms _would_ have been Beethoven's superior _at that point_. It's only because of Beethoven's late period that no other composer can touch him.


----------



## Polednice

I think that far too much emphasis is placed on innovation - you don't automatically become a better composer because you're the starting point of new developments in music, and I doubt we can say that Beethoven would have preferred others over Brahms just because they were being original! We have to remember much more important things such as personal artistic philosophy - I'm not suggesting that Beethoven's was either in line with Brahms or anyone else, but while we praise him for being the greatest genius simply because he was innovative, that doesn't mean that it was his priority to be original for originality's sake.

While Brahms wasn't the source of as much musical 'evolution' as other composers, he represents musical perfection at its height - beyond anything Beethoven did. And it's more than that 'innovators vs. summarisers' - Brahms transcends such a generalised distinction.


----------



## Guest

In searching iTunes for various recordings of Ein Deutsches Requiem, I stumbled across Klemperer's recording (EMI-GROC). I can't believe I didn't see this one there before - actually, I can, since they have the info a bit long, and don't list Klemperer as the conductor, rather Schmidt, so a simple search didn't yield it. And the whole thing was under 5 minutes. I am a huge fan of Klemperer, and throw in Fischer-Dieskau, and it is a wonder I didn't own this recording first. I know what is immediately going to the top of my playlist.


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> In searching iTunes for various recordings of Ein Deutsches Requiem, I stumbled across Klemperer's recording (EMI-GROC). I can't believe I didn't see this one there before - actually, I can, since they have the info a bit long, and don't list Klemperer as the conductor, rather Schmidt, so a simple search didn't yield it. And the whole thing was under 5 minutes. I am a huge fan of Klemperer, and throw in Fischer-Dieskau, and it is a wonder I didn't own this recording first. I know what is immediately going to the top of my playlist.


That's the one I definitely like the most.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> That's the one I definitely like the most.


Thus far I am thoroughly enjoying it. I know that Klemperer isn't universally loved, but I have not yet been disappointed by the recordings of his that I own.

I initially thought that Requiems would not interest me. My only exposure to this genre, or religious themed classical music, prior to my increased interest in classical was Handel's Messiah (which I ignored, due to its overexposure), and a recording of Mozart's Requiem conducted by Karajan, which bored me so much, I dismissed all other Requiems.

Well, a friend who helped me in my initial exploration of classical in depth suggested I try Brahms' German Requiem. He knew I was really enjoying Brahms' chamber music, and also that I enjoyed Mozart's Magic Flute, even more so because I spoke some German and could somewhat follow along. He recommended the Gardiner recording, and I fell in love with it immediately. After that, I began exploring various masses, and several are now among my favorites (Beethoven's Mass in C and Missa Solemnis, Mozart's Mass in C Minor, and Haydn's Missa in Angustiis, and Bach's Mass in B Minor). So Brahms opened up this genre for me. Incidentally, I have since re-visited Mozart's Requiem, and found that it was not the piece itself, rather the performance. I have since acquired recordings by Gardiner and Bohm, and now love it. Bohm's recording is my favorite, thus far.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Incidentally, I have since re-visited Mozart's Requiem, and found that it was not the piece itself, rather the performance. I have since acquired recordings by Gardiner and Bohm, and now love it. Bohm's recording is my favorite, thus far.


For a proper transcendental musical experience, if you feel familiar with Mozart's _Requiem_, try to make some time to actively listen to Celibidache's recording. You'd probably only listen to his version once, but it's a tremendous experience!


----------



## starry

It would have been interesting if Brahms had lived in an earlier period such as when Beethoven was alive. He would probably have left more music, but maybe he would have been more tied to Beethoven's style.

Beethoven I think would have liked some of the music of Brahms for sure. Not sure he would have liked Wagner though.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> I think that far too much emphasis is placed on innovation - you don't automatically become a better composer because you're the starting point of new developments in music, and I doubt we can say that Beethoven would have preferred others over Brahms just because they were being original! We have to remember much more important things such as personal artistic philosophy - I'm not suggesting that Beethoven's was either in line with Brahms or anyone else, but while we praise him for being the greatest genius simply because he was innovative, that doesn't mean that it was his priority to be original for originality's sake.
> 
> While Brahms wasn't the source of as much musical 'evolution' as other composers, he represents musical perfection at its height - beyond anything Beethoven did. And it's more than that 'innovators vs. summarisers' - Brahms transcends such a generalised distinction.


I don't think anyone represents musical perfection. You simply contribute to the art form. Yes, there are those who have contributed more. But you can't contribute better than someone else. That's far too inconclusive and subjective a concept. I wouldn't even begin to compare Beethoven to Brahms. Two entirely different composers. But you and I have already discussed why we have our preferences between the two. 

Suffice to say, Brahms was a wonderful composer. Isn't that enough?


----------



## Lukecash12

starry said:


> It would have been interesting if Brahms had lived in an earlier period such as when Beethoven was alive. He would probably have left more music, but maybe he would have been more tied to Beethoven's style.
> 
> Beethoven I think would have liked some of the music of Brahms for sure. Not sure he would have liked Wagner though.


The thing is, Beethoven isn't exactly the universal authority on what is good and what is bad in music. I'd probably go at it with him, and he'd either hate me or love the arguments. Maybe a little of both


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> Suffice to say, Brahms was a wonderful composer. Isn't that enough?


Indeed, I just get overwhelmed and illogical when it comes to defending him  Although, I think there is an important link between the aesthetics of Romanticism, the structure in Brahms's music and the evolution of the human mind and its cognition of sound. That's an _entirely_ different discussion, but it's why I think Brahms at least comes _closest_ to perfection


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> Thus far I am thoroughly enjoying it. I know that Klemperer isn't universally loved, but I have not yet been disappointed by the recordings of his that I own.
> 
> I initially thought that Requiems would not interest me. My only exposure to this genre, or religious themed classical music, prior to my increased interest in classical was Handel's Messiah (which I ignored, due to its overexposure), and a recording of Mozart's Requiem conducted by Karajan, which bored me so much, I dismissed all other Requiems.
> 
> Well, a friend who helped me in my initial exploration of classical in depth suggested I try Brahms' German Requiem. He knew I was really enjoying Brahms' chamber music, and also that I enjoyed Mozart's Magic Flute, even more so because I spoke some German and could somewhat follow along. He recommended the Gardiner recording, and I fell in love with it immediately. After that, I began exploring various masses, and several are now among my favorites (Beethoven's Mass in C and Missa Solemnis, Mozart's Mass in C Minor, and Haydn's Missa in Angustiis, and Bach's Mass in B Minor). So Brahms opened up this genre for me. Incidentally, I have since re-visited Mozart's Requiem, and found that it was not the piece itself, rather the performance. I have since acquired recordings by Gardiner and Bohm, and now love it. Bohm's recording is my favorite, thus far.


 Klemperer has long been one of my favourite conductors. Apart from the German Requiem, I also like all the Brahms symphonies by Klemperer.

You may have spotted recently on a Beethoven thread that I commented that it was one of Klemperer's Ninths which was the most favoured version in a group comparison on a recent BBC Radio 3 "Building a Library" programme. There are several versions of this work by Klemperer, so one has to be careful in selecting the right one.

I reckon that if Beethoven could survey all the 19th C works that came after him he would pick out Brahms as his favourite, because of similarity in coverage by genre, style and the fact that Brahms, like Beethoven, was meticulous in his work leaving no rough edges and no unnecessary notes. I really can't see that Wagner would get a look in, as suggested by one or two others above somewhere. Beethoven's style was for much tighter composition than became fashionable with Wagner/Bruckner. For a long while I adored Brahms, still do but I don't listen to much of it these days as there's too much else to try to accommodate.

I have all the Haydn Masses, a few by his bother Michael, and all of Mozart's. It's pity that LvB only wrote two. Of these, Mozart's Requiem has got to be my favourite and I like Herbert von Karajan's version best of all.

But maybe you can guess which composer's corpus of sacred works I like the most: Schubert. Of these for me the most beautiful is his last Mass No 6 in E flat, D 950. This was among the works he wrote in his final year, and like so much else was not performed until after his death. Mass 6 is his most liturgically grand work, the _Gloria_ and _Credo_ being especially magnificent. The _Et Incarnatus Es_t section of the Credo is among the most sublimely beautiful pieces ever written by Schubert.

Schubert was not, as far as is known, a particularly religious man and his church attendance is unclear. The rather curious thing about all of Schubert's Mass settings is that they always omitted the words "_et in unum sanctam catholicam ecclesiam_ " ("and I believe in One Holy, Catholic, and ApostolicChurch") in the Credo. I gather that Beethoven did the same in his Missa Solemnis, but I'm not sure about this. This omission by Schubert caused some bother with the Catholic Church at the time for obvious reasons, but it would be extremely fussy to suggest that it makes any difference to the beauty of the music, even if one is R.C.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Indeed, I just get overwhelmed and illogical when it comes to defending him  Although, I think there is an important link between the aesthetics of Romanticism, the structure in Brahms's music and the evolution of the human mind and its cognition of sound. That's an _entirely_ different discussion, but it's why I think Brahms at least comes _closest_ to perfection


If you keep broadening your knowledge of different types of music, it will start to wash together like watercolors. For me, I might have called this perfection not so long ago: 




It's a summary of the far eastern perspective on war. You can hear everything from the armor donning, the march, the battle, the respites and tactical maneuvers, to the concluding moments and the horses sweeping over the dead looking for survivors. It's just riveting. So Brahm's isn't exactly summarizing anything, he's just taking his respective part in it.


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> If you keep broadening your knowledge of different types of music, it will start to wash together like watercolors. For me, I might have called this perfection not so long ago:


I certainly believe that. I'm not nearly as much of a Brahms-purist as I used to be, having been open to more different styles, but I nevertheless always find myself thinking that there is a special property in Brahms's music that takes it above (and always will) the music of anyone else. Of course, I don't in the least suggest that this is an _objective_ suggestion, but it's a complex discussion!


----------



## Romantic Geek

Wait, Brahms is being called uninnovative? I have yet to see a composer who milks more out of themes and motives like Brahms. He did what many composers didn't (and still can't.) The amount of motivic parallelism in his pieces is absolutely absurd. The guy was a brilliant composer and really took it to the next level as far as tonal motive development.


----------



## Polednice

I think people probably don't realise how innovative his music is because he's not as often praised as other composers for their contribution to 20th century music - Lo! The Angelic Tristan Chord! 

Yet, it was Schoenberg who wrote about Brahms being 'progressive', and I think it was Webern who even said that Brahms anticipated the second Viennese school.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

the pieces of Brahms that Beethoven would love are his 3rd Symphony and his 1st Cello Sonata. Other than that Old man Beeth would be gawking over the scores of Wagner and Bruckner, and he would delight himself in the sweet melodies of Dvorak.

Brahms is a perfectionst/comes across as a perfectionist because he destroys all his inferior works. If Brahms had published all his works as other composers would have done, we would get a true picture of him. But he ain't superior to Beethoven in any facet of composition.


----------



## Polednice

The serious point to make is that you can't make quality-comparisons between composers - composers aren't better or worse than each other, just _different_ (assuming we're talking about the 'greats', which is in itself subjective! It's a minefield!). I also hope your comment about the _specific_ works of Brahms that Beethoven would have liked was tongue in cheek  If not, do explain how you know!

So, I think it's best if we just leave it at this: Brahms was the best, and everyone else sucked


----------



## hankz

On the subject of Brahms:
What I think about on occasion, is what a huge cloud was hanging over Brahms during his days of struggle with his Symphony #1: That horrible, critical Vienese public; and the music critics! All seemingly ready to ounce on Brahms with reactions to his creativity. As such, after 1o years of incubation, Brahms ultimately let his listener hear the enormity of the impact that Beethoven's Symphony # 5 had on all those who wrote music thereafter...

Hank


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

actually by the time of the premeire of his first symphony, Brahms had Eduard Hanslick and Hans Von Bulow in his corner. He could have written garbage and it would have been celebrated as a master work. But thankfully Brahms greatly respected the great composers of old and wrote a true masterpiece for his first symphony, albeit modelled after Beethoven's 5th whilst stealing a theme from Beethoven's 9th for his land movement. (which shows Brahms as a great composer who brought nothing new to the table).

Compare Brahms 1st to Bruckner's 4th.


----------



## Guest

> modelled after Beethoven's 5th whilst stealing a theme from Beethoven's 9th for his land movement. (which shows Brahms as a great composer who brought nothing new to the table


And Brahms would have said, "any *** can see that."

Also, I think Schoenberg would argue with your point about Brahms not bringing anything new to the table. His harmonic language was arguably as groundbreaking as that of the New German School represented by Wagner and Liszt.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Jeff N. said:


> And Brahms would have said, "any *** can see that."
> 
> Also, I think Schoenberg would argue with your point about Brahms not bringing anything new to the table. His harmonic language was arguably as groundbreaking as that of the New German School represented by Wagner and Liszt.


I'm a mere casual observer of these issues, anxious to learn more.

Could you therefore possibly elaborate somewhat on your last assertion? What exactly was "groundbreaking" about Brahms harmonic language, which musicological references can you provide that support this view, and who might argue that they were as groundbreaking as those of Wagner/Liszt?


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andy Loochazee said:


> I'm a mere casual observer of these issues, anxious to learn more.
> 
> Could you therefore possibly elaborate somewhat on your last assertion? What exactly was "groundbreaking" about Brahms harmonic language, which musicological references can you provide that support this view, and who might argue that they were as groundbreaking as those of Wagner/Liszt?


Why does it have to be harmonic language that was ground-breaking? How about the construction of the piece? As I just mentioned before, the amount of motivic parallelism and transformation in his pieces is absolutely insane. I don't know of any composer that did a better job than he did with that aspect.

His compositions were very educated ones. He was one of the first composers to really have access to a wide variety of compositions and he was known to study many of these earlier compositions.

But if you're obsessed with harmonic language, why don't you just look at the Tristan chord and then never look anywhere else? A lot of people do it seeking the true meaning of the chord, but just only get short sighted later at the brilliance and ground breaking nature of other composers, like Brahms.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Jeff N. said:


> And Brahms would have said, "any *** can see that."


he did say it but it didn't change the fact. I don't find Brahms harmony ground breaking. I find Wagner's quite ground breaking.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Because harmony is the "end-all, be-all"....


----------



## Polednice

Taking a theme (not 'stealing') from another composer's work is hardly new anyway, even if it's not announced in the piece's title. You can't accuse him of being unoriginal because he deliberately paid homage to Beethoven in one of his symphonies.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Romantic Geek said:


> Why does it have to be harmonic language that was ground-breaking? How about the construction of the piece? ....


Thank you for that, but I was hoping to elicit a response from the newcomer here "Jeff N." with regard to his very bold assertion that "His [Brahms] harmonic language was arguably as groundbreaking as that of the New German School represented by Wagner and Liszt."

I am not saying that I disbelieve it but I would like clarification of exactly what he means by this statement, and what evidence there might be to support it from any reputable sources. Call me a pedant if you like but I don't always trust mere assertions from people whose credentials I can't check out, or who haven't provided any evidence of their musical knowledge.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Andy Loochazee said:


> Thank you for that, but I was hoping to elicit a response from the newcomer here "Jeff N." with regard to his very bold assertion that "His [Brahms] harmonic language was arguably as groundbreaking as that of the New German School represented by Wagner and Liszt."
> 
> I am not saying that I disbelieve it but I would like clarification of exactly what he means by this statement, and what evidence there might be to support it from any reputable sources. Call me a pedant if you like but I don't always trust mere assertions from people whose credentials I can't check out, or who haven't provided any evidence of their musical knowledge.


I know Jeff pretty well actually. I told him to come here from another forum.

I think as far as what he meant, the actual construction of the harmonies are not like what was seen much beforehand. Particularly, if you look at any of his piano pieces and the left hand, sometimes you end up with pretty strange or uncommon inversions of harmonic chords. Sometimes you have sliding chords where you'll have some root positions back to back (implying parallel 5ths). He did it much more than composers like Chopin did.

Also, you have some strange tonicizations or modulations in several of his pieces, or just strange harmonic areas. For instance, his Rhapsody in G minor starts on Eb moving essentially to B major through G major...which seems relatively odd progression wise. That's a great example of looking at octave divisions as key schemes, which was more of a thing in later Romantic harmony moving towards Debussy.

Using the motive as key schemes also introduced some strange modulations as well...or ones that aren't nearly as common as before Brahms was composing.

It was a different kind of harmonic groundbreaking. It's not the same as Wagner's Tristan chord, et. al. I don't know how you classify Liszt as being more groundbreaking than Brahms though (I don't really think of Liszt as an important Romantic composer, especially in the actual composition of his pieces).

Now, as I said, I know Jeff. Jeff loves Brahms...a lot. The statement might have been somewhat over emphatic, but I don't think it lacks in truth. It really depends on how you look at Brahms. Schoenberg for one thought he was an innovator. There's an entire essay on that.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Polednice said:


> Taking a theme (not 'stealing') from another composer's work is hardly new anyway, even if it's not announced in the piece's title. You can't accuse him of being unoriginal because he deliberately paid homage to Beethoven in one of his symphonies.


How would it be unoriginal too? Then wouldn't that make Mozart unoriginal for writing Variations on A Vous Dirais-je Maman?


----------



## Air

Romantic Geek said:


> It was a different kind of harmonic groundbreaking. It's not the same as Wagner's Tristan chord, et. al.


You mean Liszt's Tristan chord (with the exception of a changed diminished seventh)?



Romantic Geek said:


> I don't know how you classify Liszt as being more groundbreaking than Brahms though (I don't really think of Liszt as an important Romantic composer, especially in the actual composition of his pieces).


Faust Symphony? Annees de pelerinage? These are not groundbreaking? They have influenced everyone from Wagner to Debussy to Schoenberg.

Do not doubt the power of the 'Music of the Future', my dear Clara.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Air said:


> You mean Liszt's Tristan chord (with the exception of a changed diminished seventh)?


You mean a normal half-diminished 7 chord? 



> Faust Symphony? Annees de pelerinage? These are not groundbreaking? They have influenced everyone from Wagner to Debussy to Schoenberg.
> 
> Do not doubt the power of the 'Music of the Future', my dear Clara.


As a theory nerd, Brahms is more fun to analyze than Liszt simply because there's a lot of really advanced things going on there. I'm not saying that Liszt doesn't have things going on, because he does, but volume wise, Brahms is more bang for the buck. The fact he was able to do that stuff while staying within the language of 19th century tonality is simply mind-blowing to me.

I love Liszt for the creation of the symphonic poem, one of my favorite genres of music. But groundbreaking as far as harmony, I dare not say he is more than Brahms. Of course, Liszt enthusiasts will have my head for that statement, but I stand by it. If you reread my statement on Liszt...I think this explanation will clarify why I said what I said.


----------



## Air

Romantic Geek said:


> You mean a normal half-diminished 7 chord?


 Thanks for the fix. I read it from a book so I didn't really delve into the exact details. Apparently Chopin used something much like 'The Tristan Chord' as well in one of his works.



Romantic Geek said:


> As a theory nerd, Brahms is more fun to analyze than Liszt simply because there's a lot of really advanced things going on there. I'm not saying that Liszt doesn't have things going on, because he does, but volume wise, Brahms is more bang for the buck. The fact he was able to do that stuff while staying within the language of 19th century tonality is simply mind-blowing to me.
> 
> I love Liszt for the creation of the symphonic poem, one of my favorite genres of music. But groundbreaking as far as harmony, I dare not say he is more than Brahms. Of course, Liszt enthusiasts will have my head for that statement, but I stand by it. If you reread my statement on Liszt...I think this explanation will clarify why I said what I said.


It's fine. I like Brahms (and Schumann) way better than Liszt (and Wagner) too.


----------



## Polednice

Romantic Geek said:


> Jeff loves Brahms...a lot.


Well then, that means I love Jeff!  [It's all right, don't be scared ]


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Romantic Geek said:


> I know Jeff pretty well actually. I told him to come here from another forum.
> 
> ...
> 
> Now, as I said, I know Jeff. Jeff loves Brahms...a lot. The statement might have been somewhat over emphatic, but I don't think it lacks in truth. It really depends on how you look at Brahms. Schoenberg for one thought he was an innovator. There's an entire essay on that.


Thank you for your explanation. I see that your colleague is still a little shy himself about attempting to justify his assertion that Brahms "harmonic language was arguably as groundbreaking as that of the New German School represented by Wagner and Liszt".

I must say that I am still perplexed by this claim and the various points you mentioned to try to justify it. I thought that I had read fairly widely on the subject (as a non-expert, that is), and I wasn't aware that Brahms was generally viewed as a major innovator in quite the outstanding manner claimed for him here.

I thought that Wagner was way out in front in terms of introducing new music at that juncture of musical history, and that in comparison Brahms was merely hacking out the same old stuff, albeit with considerable ability and possible refinement in some areas. I was also hoping to see some supporting modern musicological opinion on the subject, not some 70-od year relic from history by Schoenberg that, as far as I am aware, few people take seriously these days.

I won't argue further with your disposition on the matter, especially as it matters very little to me since I don't much care for any music from that era.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Well, to put it in simple matters, it's much easier for someone to recognize the innovativeness behind Wagner versus Brahms, especially at first glance.


----------



## Guest

Which one was more innovative, I couldn't really say. Both have left a lasting impression on the world of (quality) music. Personally, I prefer Brahms. Why? I don't know. Just sounds better to me. I don't care for opera as much as other musical forms, with a few exceptions (Mozart's Magic Flute), so that might partially explain it. For me, though, the innovativeness of the composer is of secondary concern compared to whether or not it sounds good. But given how many composers there have been over the centuries, and so few continue to stand out, it really comes down to arguing over which musical genius was better. 

And if I haven't said it before, the Piano Trio No. 1 is heavenly. Oh, and so is "Ein deutsches Requiem." And I'm also quite partial to his Violin Concerto. And the Double Concerto. And . . .


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Dr.Mike but Liszt and Wagner sound good and they are innovative.


----------



## Guest

I have some recordings of Liszt's works, and am listening to them, but they have not yet grabbed me like Brahms has. I have the Piano Sonata (Arrau), and the Piano Concertos (Richter), as well as some assorted orchestral works conducted by von Karajan. For Wagner, I have the Ring cycle (Bohm, with Bayreuthe Festspiele), and Lohengrin (Kempe). I am trying with them all, but simply have not appreciated their works as I have Brahms'.


----------



## Polednice

Considering my long-term ultra Brahmsism, I think I've been making a bit of ground with Wagner's work having listened to parts of the Ring cycle. However, I've also been listening to Liszt a lot lately, and I just can't get through - I know people will think I'm a fool for saying it, but it all sounds shallow and I _hate_ his orchestration :/

I also watched an LSO-made video podcast about Brahms this morning and it just reaffirmed my feelings about his supremacy. Ahh, Brahms... *dreams*


----------



## tenor02

just finished a read of the requiem today...sung it two semesters ago and decided to pull the piece back out for some fun. 

love it.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Considering my long-term ultra Brahmsism, I think I've been making a bit of ground with Wagner's work having listened to parts of the Ring cycle. However, I've also been listening to Liszt a lot lately, and I just can't get through - I know people will think I'm a fool for saying it, but it all sounds shallow and I _hate_ his orchestration :/
> 
> I also watched an LSO-made video podcast about Brahms this morning and it just reaffirmed my feelings about his supremacy. Ahh, Brahms... *dreams*


I wouldn't call Liszt shallow, rather that he sternly orchestrates music that isn't all that stern. Fret not, once you hear the Baroque air of meditation contradicting the Romantic bravura, you just might see what he was getting at.


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> I wouldn't call Liszt shallow, rather that he sternly orchestrates music that isn't all that stern. Fret not, once you hear the Baroque air of meditation contradicting the Romantic bravura, you just might see what he was getting at.


It's not his orchestration that I find shallow; it's the general sense I get of his artistic purpose. His orchestration is just _crap_


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Polednice said:


> It's not his orchestration that I find shallow; it's the general sense I get of his artistic purpose. His orchestration is just _crap_


Ugly low blow. You really are Brahmslike  didn't he tell Hugo Wolff that he didn't want to make a symmetry of his song 
Liszt's Hamlet, Hungaria, Hunns and Mazeppa are quite good. And the Magnificat movement of his Dante symphony is more beautiful than anything Brahms ever composed. Its a good thing Wagner urged him to drop the Paradisio movement otherwise Brahms would have died from a fit of jealousy. Him and Clara of course


----------



## Polednice

ScipioAfricanus said:


> And the Magnificat movement of his Dante symphony is more beautiful than anything Brahms ever composed.


I'm taken aback by such a repulsive comment!  All I can do is scream at you the climax from the second movement of the _Deutsches Requiem_ - DENN ALLES FLEISCH ES IST WIE GRAS! (Or, in other words, Liszt sucks!)


----------



## Lukecash12

How's about we all agree that this is heads and shoulders above Brahms and Liszt?






You can't beat that incredible marriage of folk music and concert scale piano music.


----------



## Polednice




----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


>


Nah, that's just all the awesomeness of Cziffra rubbing off on it.


----------



## Polednice

Damn, you caught me out! Well, in that case:


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Damn, you caught me out! Well, in that case:


Now that's some damn fine music. It sounds almost as if it were orchestrated a jury of Handel, Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Mozart. Or at least, that's what I'd imagine to be the product of such a mind screwing experience.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Ugly low blow. You really are Brahmslike  didn't he tell Hugo Wolff that he didn't want to make a symmetry of his song
> Liszt's Hamlet, Hungaria, Hunns and Mazeppa are quite good. And the Magnificat movement of his Dante symphony is more beautiful than anything Brahms ever composed. Its a good thing Wagner urged him to drop the Paradisio movement otherwise Brahms would have died from a fit of jealousy. Him and Clara of course


the second movement of his Reuquiem is good but not as good as Liszt's Magnificat. Now you are bringing Hungarian Dances. Liszt was the first one to bring the Hungarian Thingie into classical music. and the variations on a theme by paganini. 
enjoy 




even Bugs Bunny and Tom and Jerry paid homage to this hungarian rhapsody.


----------



## Polednice

Well, bringing in folk tunes was a common thing in the Romantic era, but seeing as Brahms wasn't even Hungarian, he must have been saving the folk songs from the likes of Liszt!

But, seeing as you've turned it into a game of popular references, I'll match your Tom and Jerry Rhapsody and raise you one sublime piece of music used to great (and tacky!) effect many times on film and TV!


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

that Brahms piece is quite popular, but Liszt Rhapsody takes the cake in terms of popularity. you still haven't come up with a beautiful piece by Brahms that matche's Liszt's Magnificat.


----------



## Polednice

ScipioAfricanus said:


> that Brahms piece is quite popular, but Liszt Rhapsody takes the cake in terms of popularity. you still haven't come up with a beautiful piece by Brahms that matche's Liszt's Magnificat.


I already did, but you denied it in a moment of foolishness  If the 2nd movement is a bit overwhelming, try the beauty of the 4th! Or the 3rd! Or the 1st, 5th, 6th or 7th!

EDIT --- And to go back to the popularity competition, I bet Brahms's 5th Hungarian Dance is more popular. It was even used in a Pringles advert


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

the opening theme is Wagner and the music is Liszt.





Tom got into the act too.





Liszt wins hands down for popularity.


----------



## Polednice

You don't prove its popularity by citing the same source over and over 

Besides, I really didn't want to have to do this, but I'll have to play my ace and blow you out of the water! Proof that Brahms has reached more ears than Liszt:


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> I already did, but you denied it in a moment of foolishness  If the 2nd movement is a bit overwhelming, try the beauty of the 4th! Or the 3rd! Or the 1st, 5th, 6th or 7th!
> 
> EDIT --- And to go back to the popularity competition, I bet Brahms's 5th Hungarian Dance is more popular. It was even used in a Pringles advert


I'm sorry, but if it was the theme of an episode of Tom and Jerry, and Bugs Bunny, than it is much more popular than a diddy in a Pringles advert.


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> I'm sorry, but if it was the theme of an episode of Tom and Jerry, and Bugs Bunny, than it is much more popular than a diddy in a Pringles advert.


_cf._ Post #143, I win


----------



## Lukecash12

You're right there. But this kicks Brahms pants right off. No one writes such crazy variations as this:


----------



## Polednice

They may be canonical and not quite so mental, but these are both crazy and bloody annoying!




 (couldn't find a better clip)


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> They may be canonical and not quite so mental, but these are both crazy and bloody annoying!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (couldn't find a better clip)


Bah, Esope's Feast wins hands down.


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> Bah, Esope's Feast wins hands down.


Even if that's the case, Alkan is immediately disqualified for being a mere piano composer


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Polednice said:


> You don't prove its popularity by citing the same source over and over
> 
> Besides, I really didn't want to have to do this, but I'll have to play my ace and blow you out of the water! Proof that Brahms has reached more ears than Liszt:


ok I will concede this once since I stand guilty of putting my kid to sleep with it when he was 2.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Even if that's the case, Alkan is immediately disqualified for being a mere piano composer


Actually, he wrote a symphony in B minor that is still missing. Also, he wrote for organ: 



 , harpsichord, piano pedalier, several piano/string quartets, several Jewish Psalms that are famous today: 



 (they're basically the Hebrew version of Rach's Vespers), an amazing trio in G minor: 



 , his Grand Duo concertant: 



 (with it's picturesque second movement), a Sonate de Concert for cello and piano: 



 , several Concerto da Cameras: 



 , and finally, his hilarious Funeral March on the Death of a Parrot: 




Not to mention all of the pieces that have gone missing. He nearly finished paraphrasing the entire bible into music.

And to take the cake, a piece that almost sounds like Bartok!


----------



## Polednice

Yes, but Chopin tried works out of his depth too - they're both still piano composers


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Yes, but Chopin tried works out of his depth too - they're both still piano composers


I'll give you that, Alkan was definitely more of a piano composer, but I doubt *anything* was out of his depth. Just listen to the fourth movement of his trio in G minor, and tell me he doesn't have an amazing grasp on chamber music:


----------



## Polednice

In all seriousness, I haven't known of Alkan for that long, but I am really enjoying his music. I keep meaning to explore it properly when I get the chance.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> In all seriousness, I haven't known of Alkan for that long, but I am really enjoying his music. I keep meaning to explore it properly when I get the chance.


You can actually draw a lot of comparisons between Alkan and Brahms, such as arrangement, thematic and motivic development (both of them really like to exhaust the possibilities), their stricter classical take on Romantic music, and the incredible variety in their works. With either composer, each piece is a world unto itself.

I'm guessing that once you get into Alkan, he will definitely be your kind of composer.

And as for Brahms, I'm puzzled as to why he isn't more popular. Really it seems more like the composers who try hard to progress the periods end up being famous. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, Schoenberg? They're big names because of the influence they had. And is influence really he measure of good music? Is U2 great because they have so much influence and platinum records? Are the B52's genial composers because they entertained a bunch of wild teenagers (that being said, I'm a bit of a hippie myself)?

That is probably why Brahms isn't performed constantly, studied constantly, and written about constantly. Maybe if things were different his name would have been as much of a cliche as Beethoven?


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> You can actually draw a lot of comparisons between Alkan and Brahms, such as arrangement, thematic and motivic development (both of them really like to exhaust the possibilities), their stricter classical take on Romantic music, and the incredible variety in their works. With either composer, each piece is a world unto itself.
> 
> I'm guessing that once you get into Alkan, he will definitely be your kind of composer.


Sounds good to me!  Can you recommend one/a few of his most characteristic pieces to start with?



Lukecash12 said:


> And as for Brahms, I'm puzzled as to why he isn't more popular. Really it seems more like the composers who try hard to progress the periods end up being famous. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, Schoenberg? They're big names because of the influence they had. And is influence really he measure of good music? Is U2 great because they have so much influence and platinum records? Are the B52's genial composers because they entertained a bunch of wild teenagers (that being said, I'm a bit of a hippie myself)?
> 
> That is probably why Brahms isn't performed constantly, studied constantly, and written about constantly. Maybe if things were different his name would have been as much of a cliche as Beethoven?


I know _exactly_ what you mean. I think it seems to be a fairly modern (20th-21st century) phenomenon that 'non-ground-breaking' composers (Brahms being debatable!) are somewhat sidelined, even if it's obvious that they created beautiful masterpieces. In the past century, the art-world developed such an _obsessive_ preoccupation with newness and originality. If only we could go back to the days of Anglo-Saxons when all art was anonymous and the whole point of it was to build on tradition in repetitive ways!

I just don't understand it... When I hear Brahms's music, I'm just lost for words to try to describe how perfect it is...


----------



## Romantic Geek

Polednice said:


> Sounds good to me!  Can you recommend one/a few of his most characteristic pieces to start with?
> 
> I know _exactly_ what you mean. I think it seems to be a fairly modern (20th-21st century) phenomenon that 'non-ground-breaking' composers (Brahms being debatable!) are somewhat sidelined, even if it's obvious that they created beautiful masterpieces. In the past century, the art-world developed such an _obsessive_ preoccupation with newness and originality. If only we could go back to the days of Anglo-Saxons when all art was anonymous and the whole point of it was to build on tradition in repetitive ways!
> 
> I just don't understand it... When I hear Brahms's music, I'm just lost for words to try to describe how perfect it is...


Well, revivals are popping up everywhere and will be gaining popularity in the next few years I think.

I know that I'm on a mission to create a revival of American classical music in the Romantic Era. There is very little of it and it typically gets sha* on, but there are some wonderful pieces in that repertoire.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> Sounds good to me!  Can you recommend one/a few of his most characteristic pieces to start with?
> 
> I know _exactly_ what you mean. I think it seems to be a fairly modern (20th-21st century) phenomenon that 'non-ground-breaking' composers (Brahms being debatable!) are somewhat sidelined, even if it's obvious that they created beautiful masterpieces. In the past century, the art-world developed such an _obsessive_ preoccupation with newness and originality. If only we could go back to the days of Anglo-Saxons when all art was anonymous and the whole point of it was to build on tradition in repetitive ways!
> 
> I just don't understand it... When I hear Brahms's music, I'm just lost for words to try to describe how perfect it is...


Ask, and you shall receive. I'll message you a few good pieces to get yourself started with


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

And as for Brahms, I'm puzzled as to why he isn't more popular. Really it seems more like the composers who try hard to progress the periods end up being famous. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, Schoenberg? They're big names because of the influence they had. And is influence really he measure of good music?

That's one measure, certainly... but the fact of the matter is that Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc... all wrote a good deal of brilliant music. The fact that you may prefer other music is neither here nor there. We all have personal tastes.

Is U2 great because they have so much influence and platinum records?

Now we're comparing Bach and Mozart's popularity to that of pop music? Luke it often seems that your monomania for lesser-known composers (Scriabin, Alkan...) is not unlike that of the pop music aficionados who assume a superior air because they follow this or that more obscure group (the Velvet Underground, the Sex Pistols, or the Cure) as opposed to the big names such as the Rolling Stones. Ive listened to your beloved Alkan (who seems to have replaced your previous obsession with Scriabin), and I'll admit I quite like what I've heard... but is he really one of the musical giants, let alone on the level of Beethoven or Mozart? That's highly debatable. Indeed, one might name any number of other lesser-known composers equally (or more) worthy of greater recognition: Bruckner, Szymanowski, Koechlin, Scarlatti, Wolf, Nielsen, Sibelius, Dutilleux, Gluck, Buxtehude, C.P. E. Bach, Léonin, Pérotin, Monteverdi... hell, most medieval and Renaissance composers...

Alkan may deserve greater recognition... but just to what extent is arguable... not that such should stop anyone who personally enjoys his music from continuing to do so. Brahms, on the other hand, is far from being under-recognized. Most critics and historians and serious followers of classical music would place him somewhere within the top ten composers... lower down than the three immortals (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart)... and in a varying position in relationship to Schubert, Wagner, Haydn, Handel, and Schumann... (I'd personally take all excepting Schumann over Brahms) but certainly not underrated. Should he be higher up still in the "canon"? Should Alkan also be there? It is slightly humorous that you repeatedly challenge the notion of the status, the importance, or the merits of this or that composer... except when this involves championing your own favorites.

I'm currently enamored of Debussy... especially his works for solo piano and his melodies (art songs)... but I have no need to imagine that he is grossly underrated or that it is an abomination that he is not thought of as equal or superior to Bach or Mozart. He probably isn't... and that's OK. It doesn't lessen my pleasure any.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Lukecash12 said:


> And as for Brahms, I'm puzzled as to why he isn't more popular. Really it seems more like the composers who try hard to progress the periods end up being famous. Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Debussy, Schoenberg? They're big names because of the influence they had. And is influence really he measure of good music?


You don't think he's popular? I would think as a whole from the Romantic era, he IS the most popular. Every one of his symphonies are standards. Most of his piano works is standard. His vocal rep isn't the same as Schubert's or Schumann's but it isn't terrible. Wonderful quartets...the clarinet sonata...

I've always thought of him as the king of them all when it comes to Romanticism.

Also, I think Schoenberg is more popular in theory than he is really. Performance wise, Brahms gets way more airtime on the radio and way more time in ensembles around the world. I would even go so far to say the same for Debussy.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I've always thought of him as the king of them all when it comes to Romanticism.

I've always been a Wagnerian myself... but I must certainly grant Brahms the breadth: marvelous symphonies, the Deutsches Requiem, the works for clarinet, the cello suites... indeed the whole of his chamber works, the works for solo piano, the piano concertos, the lieder, etc... Of the Romantics Wagner is surely his only serious rival (unless we count Schubert).


----------



## Romantic Geek

Well, Wagner certainly has the vocal rep (opera) covered. Something obviously Brahms lacks. But Wagner's instrumental works were mostly overtures. Not much rep as far as piano goes - nothing that certainly is standard. I'd put Brahms just ahead of Wagner just because of the reach to different mediums that he had versus Wagner, but certainly, Wagner is close.


----------



## Polednice

Romantic Geek said:


> Well, Wagner certainly has the vocal rep (opera) covered. Something obviously Brahms lacks. But Wagner's instrumental works were mostly overtures. Not much rep as far as piano goes - nothing that certainly is standard. I'd put Brahms just ahead of Wagner just because of the reach to different mediums that he had versus Wagner, but certainly, Wagner is close.


I think that perfectly demonstrates how Wagner's immense reputation as someone who shaped the music to come after him totally eclipses his comparatively narrow output concerning the media he wrote for, however large-scale his operas are. I think, because of this, even though we can't really 'compare' any composers, Brahms and Wagner are _truly_ incomparable. We have to accept that they were both giants of their era, and one's view of which is the greatest is dependent on what you value in music more.


----------



## Lukecash12

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Now we're comparing Bach and Mozart's popularity to that of pop music? Luke it often seems that your monomania for lesser-known composers (Scriabin, Alkan...) is not unlike that of the pop music aficionados who assume a superior air because they follow this or that more obscure group (the Velvet Underground, the Sex Pistols, or the Cure) as opposed to the big names such as the Rolling Stones. Ive listened to your beloved Alkan (who seems to have replaced your previous obsession with Scriabin), and I'll admit I quite like what I've heard... but is he really one of the musical giants, let alone on the level of Beethoven or Mozart? That's highly debatable. Indeed, one might name any number of other lesser-known composers equally (or more) worthy of greater recognition: Bruckner, Szymanowski, Koechlin, Scarlatti, Wolf, Nielsen, Sibelius, Dutilleux, Gluck, Buxtehude, C.P. E. Bach, Léonin, Pérotin, Monteverdi... hell, most medieval and Renaissance composers...
> 
> Alkan may deserve greater recognition... but just to what extent is arguable... not that such should stop anyone who personally enjoys his music from continuing to do so. Brahms, on the other hand, is far from being under-recognized. Most critics and historians and serious followers of classical music would place him somewhere within the top ten composers... lower down than the three immortals (Bach, Beethoven, Mozart)... and in a varying position in relationship to Schubert, Wagner, Haydn, Handel, and Schumann... (I'd personally take all excepting Schumann over Brahms) but certainly not underrated. Should he be higher up still in the "canon"? Should Alkan also be there? It is slightly humorous that you repeatedly challenge the notion of the status, the importance, or the merits of this or that composer... except when this involves championing your own favorites.
> 
> I'm currently enamored of Debussy... especially his works for solo piano and his melodies (art songs)... but I have no need to imagine that he is grossly underrated or that it is an abomination that he is not thought of as equal or superior to Bach or Mozart. He probably isn't... and that's OK. It doesn't lessen my pleasure any.


I'll try to be dignified as I can in response. You would like to assume that I have a monomania for lesser known composers, and that I find myself superior in taste because I supposedly possess this monomania. I have always, and will always, firmly contend that a good composer is relative to any other good composer. I have challenged no one composer at any time. If anything, I've done my best to compliment each and every composer. For example: Someone says Brahms is a better orchestrator than Tchaikovsky, I give clear evidence that neither is superior to the other, and that they simply have different perspectives. Tchaikovsky is entirely devoted to atmosphere and role manipulation, and Brahms is mostly devoted to organization, cohesiveness, and harmonic quality. And so on and so forth with every other comparison. Notice that I don't make my favorite composers seem better, rather that they are "worth their weight in salt" too.

Also, I would appreciate it if you contended over the topics rather than the people debating them. I have done nothing to deserve the accusation that I have been in any way arrogant, or an elitist of any kind. Every thing I decide to say is well thought out, and regardless of whether or not it earns your respect, I never fail to present evidence to support my case.

As for popularity, I have adopted the well supported claim that history determines popularity more than does quality.

What is the difference between Beethoven and Alkan (aside from Alkan's dominant predisposition to the piano, of course)? Both were brisk, rough composers, with incredible talents in theme and motif development, both poignant and timely in their enlightening musical illustrations, with a strict adherence to form.

Beethoven composed concertos and symphonies for powerful peoples of the time, and became a strong figure in the history of Germanic music. Alkan, on the other hand, was a shy Jewish man with an intimidating intellect and oddly satirical humor, all of this in the midst of a country ruled by social butterflies and antisemitic individuals. So, of course, Beethoven is a great name that has been tossed around with hubris, and Alkan is, _supposedly_, a strange, acquired taste with no real musical substance, more of an exciting phase than a great composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

As for popularity, I have adopted the well supported claim that history determines popularity more than does quality. 

What causes certain composers to be embraced over time more than others? Why are Léonin, Orlande de Lassus, Pérotin among the most respected medieval/Renaissance composers? Do you honestly believe that there is something of a popularity factor _ala_ popular music in effect when so few people even listen to any music from the era? Or might it be just perhaps (hold on to your hat) that these composers were actually among the finest of that period and as such they are recognized and appreciated by those who seriously follow music? What you seem to forget is that the majority of the audience of the music of the age of Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Alkan is not made up by the disinterested masses as it is with popular music... and popular culture in general. The majority of this audience is made up of those who have elected to invest the time and effort into the study, promotion, preservation, and appreciation of classical music. It may just be a possibility that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are generally ranked as the unassailable giants of classical music because that audience has found them to have produced the greatest body of music, and not just because they have jumped on the bandwagon of popularity and the cult of personality... and not because they have been simply swayed by the smoke and mirrors of "novelty".

The suggestion that this or that artist has attained a certain status as a result of little more than political or social advantages is far from well supported. Rather it is absolute nonsense and the typical crap churned out by certain schools of critical "thought" commonly referred to as the "school of resentment" by the great literary critic, Harold Bloom. Michelangelo is commonly embraced as THE giant of the visual arts... at least in the West. And yet what do we find with him?: a frustrated homosexual whose paintings unquestionably presented a serious challenge for the very institution that supported him. Why did history and the institutions that you suggest decide such matters not elect to promote the far less controversial Raphael? Why not the morally upstanding John Milton instead of the morally ambiguous Shakespeare with his skeletons in the closet (a probable gay lover and a possible black mistress both canonized in his sonnets)? Why has William Blake risen to such a reputation in spite of his lack of any powerful friends, his blasphemous and traitorous writings? How is it that the rather conservative United States should have elected Aaron Copland, Virgil Thompson, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Ned Rorem, and other figures to be among the most respected of American composers... in spite of falling clearly outside of the conservative ideal macho American: homosexual, Jewish... or both? And how do we explain Mahler? It seems you have forgotten that this composer was Jewish, working and living in a rather antisemitic time and place immediately followed by the rise of Hitler who one would suppose should have wiped his name out of all serious consideration... and yet...? Again, it is possible that Alkan is underrated. Time has uncovered forgotten masters any number of times. Blake would be one... Vermeer... Thomas Traherne... etc... But don't bandy about this nonsense suggesting that the greatest masters are somehow frauds... mere cult celebrities... little different from pop stars.


----------



## Lukecash12

StlukesguildOhio said:


> As for popularity, I have adopted the well supported claim that history determines popularity more than does quality.
> 
> What causes certain composers to be embraced over time more than others? Why are Léonin, Orlande de Lassus, Pérotin among the most respected medieval/Renaissance composers? Do you honestly believe that there is something of a popularity factor _ala_ popular music in effect when so few people even listen to any music from the era? Or might it be just perhaps (hold on to your hat) that these composers were actually among the finest of that period and as such they are recognized and appreciated by those who seriously follow music? What you seem to forget is that the majority of the audience of the music of the age of Bach or Mozart or Beethoven or Alkan is not made up by the disinterested masses as it is with popular music... and popular culture in general. The majority of this audience is made up of those who have elected to invest the time and effort into the study, promotion, preservation, and appreciation of classical music. It may just be a possibility that Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart are generally ranked as the unassailable giants of classical music because that audience has found them to have produced the greatest body of music, and not just because they have jumped on the bandwagon of popularity and the cult of personality... and not because they have been simply swayed by the smoke and mirrors of "novelty".
> 
> The suggestion that this or that artist has attained a certain status as a result of little more than political or social advantages is far from well supported. Rather it is absolute nonsense and the typical crap churned out by certain schools of critical "thought" commonly referred to as the "school of resentment" by the great literary critic, Harold Bloom. Michelangelo is commonly embraced as THE giant of the visual arts... at least in the West. And yet what do we find with him?: a frustrated homosexual whose paintings unquestionably presented a serious challenge for the very institution that supported him. Why did history and the institutions that you suggest decide such matters not elect to promote the far less controversial Raphael? Why not the morally upstanding John Milton instead of the morally ambiguous Shakespeare with his skeletons in the closet (a probable gay lover and a possible black mistress both canonized in his sonnets)? Why has William Blake risen to such a reputation in spite of his lack of any powerful friends, his blasphemous and traitorous writings? How is it that the rather conservative United States should have elected Aaron Copland, Virgil Thompson, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein, Ned Rorem, and other figures to be among the most respected of American composers... in spite of falling clearly outside of the conservative ideal macho American: homosexual, Jewish... or both? And how do we explain Mahler? It seems you have forgotten that this composer was Jewish, working and living in a rather antisemitic time and place immediately followed by the rise of Hitler who one would suppose should have wiped his name out of all serious consideration... and yet...? Again, it is possible that Alkan is underrated. Time has uncovered forgotten masters any number of times. Blake would be one... Vermeer... Thomas Traherne... etc... But don't bandy about this nonsense suggesting that the greatest masters are somehow frauds... mere cult celebrities... little different from pop stars.


Once again, I don't seek to discredit anyone. I merely credit musicians and composers as a whole. Music is good because it is music, because it illustrates a sentiment very well.

The lyre is no worse than the piano, the violin, the lute, the recorder, or the clarinet. Therefore, Beethoven is fantastic, Bach is fantastic, Mahler is fantastic, Mozart is fantastic, but so is Haydn, Handel, Scarlatti, Kuhnau, Honneger, Poulenc, Bantock, Elgar, Satie, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Respighi, Berio, Holst, Antonio Salieri, Carl Czerny, Scharwenka, etc. These also were entire lives devoted to music.

By the same token, how many other Anglo Saxon tales were there aside from Beowulf? And might they have been just as descriptive of the people and cultures of that region? Any person may just be seen as another perspective. Forgive me if I'm not completely word accurate, but in a Midsummer Night's Dream, it a character says, "Each person is like an actor in a play. He walks unto/into center stage, shouts his lines like a stark raving idiot, and then stomps off."

Maybe you are right and circumstance doesn't always decide popularity, but I can tell you from experience that it definitely isn't this notion of "greatness".


----------



## Polednice

Lukecash12 said:


> By the same token, how many other Anglo Saxon tales were there aside from Beowulf?


LOADS  _The Seafarer_ and _The Wanderer_ are delightful elegies, and let's not forget the action-packed _Battle of Maldon_. Then, of course, there are the innumerable poems that spark with the fire of the Apocalypse they foretell, not to mention a vast set of _hilarious_ (and rather crude!) riddles. It's just a shame _Waldere_ doesn't exist in full any more, as that might have easily rivalled _Beowulf_


----------



## Lukecash12

Some great quotes from Einstein to support my point:

"The ordinary surroundings of life which are esteemed by men (as their actions testify) to be the highest good, may be classed under the three heads — Riches, Fame, and the Pleasures of Sense: with these three the mind is so absorbed that it has little power to reflect on any different good. "

"I call him free who is guided solely by reason"

"In so far as we are intelligent beings, we cannot desire anything save that which is necessary, nor yield absolute acquiescence to anything, save to that which is true: wherefore, in so far as we have a right understanding of these things, the endeavour of the better part of ourselves is in harmony with the order of nature as a whole."

And most importantly:

"Schisms do not originate in a love of truth, which is a source of courtesy and gentleness, but rather in an inordinate desire for supremacy."


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Once again, I don't seek to discredit anyone. I merely credit musicians and composers as a whole. Music is good because it is music, because it illustrates a sentiment very well.

The lyre is no worse than the piano, the violin, the lute, the recorder, or the clarinet. Therefore, Beethoven is fantastic, Bach is fantastic, Mahler is fantastic, Mozart is fantastic, but so is Haydn, Handel, Scarlatti, Kuhnau, Honneger, Poulenc, Bantock, Elgar, Satie, Grieg, Mendelssohn, Respighi, Berio, Holst, Antonio Salieri, Carl Czerny, Scharwenka, etc. These also were entire lives devoted to music.

I don't question the sentiment with regard to our own personal listening enjoyment. I am currently enthralled with the _Mélodie_ or French "art songs". I am listening to Reynaldo Hahn, Debussy, Ravel, Delage, Jaubert, Chausson, Faure, Saint-Saëns, Massenet, etc... There are works by the more obscure of these composers that I find as ravishing as the works of Debussy... or even (dare I say it?) Schubert and Schumann. The appreciation of music or any art isn't a competition... but I do recognize that certain artists are far more influential, have a greater depth, have a greater body of masterful works, and have impacted more subsequent artists. This all may mean nothing to me as an individual. No matter how brilliant and influential Schoenberg may be... no matter how many subsequent composers he has impacted... his work (with the exception of a few early pieces) fails to speak to me. But again I recognize that my opinion is not the only one. While all opinions in art are essentially subjective (albeit some opinions are better than others) the closest we come to an objective facts in art can be found within the collective opinion. Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart (by collective opinion) are the three towering figures of music. You and I may disagree... and we are entitled to our opinion... but when we seek to pass our opinion off as objective fact... then we enter the realm in which we must offer up logical reasons and proofs for our argument.

By the same token, how many other Anglo Saxon tales were there aside from Beowulf? 

LOADS The Seafarer and The Wanderer are delightful elegies, and let's not forget the action-packed Battle of Maldon. Then, of course, there are the innumerable poems that spark with the fire of the Apocalypse they foretell, not to mention a vast set of hilarious (and rather crude!) riddles. It's just a shame Waldere doesn't exist in full any more, as that might have easily rivalled Beowulf

Actually, there is very little in existence from the era. David Crystal, in his book upon the development of the language, The Stories of English notes that according to the University of Toronto there are just over 3000 documents dating from 600-1150 written in Old English or Anglo-Saxon in existence totaling some 3 million words. Little of this body of texts is of a literary nature. By way of comparison, the _oeuvre_ of Charles Dickens alone totals over 4 million words.

And might they have been just as descriptive of the people and cultures of that region?

*Might have been* and *is* are two different concepts. Aeschylus is known to have written over 70 plays and Sophocles over 90... and yet but 7 have come down to us in totality by either writer. We cannot even know if these were the best of their plays. What if they were among the worst? They "might" conceivably have been playwrights far beyond the merits of Shakespeare. By same token... little or nothing has come down to us by way of Greek painting and few certain autograph works by the greatest of the Greek sculptors (Myron, Praxiteles, etc...). They "might" have been artists to put Michelangelo to shame. The reality, however, is that we can only deal with that which has survived.

Any person may just be seen as another perspective.

A great Egalitarian thought... and one that Emerson and Whitman would both have embraced... but then again... whether we like it or not both Emerson and Whitman have survived and their art continues to resonate profoundly while others have been completely forgotten.

Forgive me if I'm not completely word accurate, but in a Midsummer Night's Dream, it a character says, "Each person is like an actor in a play. He walks unto/into center stage, shouts his lines like a stark raving idiot, and then stomps off."

Actually... I believe you are thinking of the great lines from _Macbeth_:

_Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing._

although surely the lines from _As You Like It_ are a bit more positive with regard to the notion of us each playing a role in the drama of life:

_All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances,
And one man in his time plays many parts_

Maybe you are right and circumstance doesn't always decide popularity, but I can tell you from experience that it definitely isn't this notion of "greatness".

What then, pray tell, is it?


----------



## Lukecash12

> Actually... I believe you are thinking of the great lines from Macbeth:
> 
> Out, out, brief candle!
> Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
> That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
> And then is heard no more. It is a tale
> Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
> Signifying nothing.


Thanks. I was probably thinking of A Midsummer Nights Dream because I just enjoyed it much more than Macbeth. Less dominated by the mellow-dramatic, more rhythmic and witty lines, humorous illustrations, interesting characters, just a more telling example (for me) of both Shakespeare's idiosyncracies and insights.



> What then, pray tell, is it?


Any and every single composer is subject to others' opinions. Many misinformed, many blindly trusting, and many driven by political agenda. Wagner is fantastic, but why is he such a towering giant? He was a grand nationalistic figure. Kuhnau wrote wonderful biblical fantasies, loads of miscellaneous dances and suites of dances, triumphantly melodic (very ornamental too) lute pieces, and colorful operatic paraphrases and recitations of biblical Psalms. His musical language is fully matured, yet somehow it's sub par when compared to Bach (his relatively close contemporary)?

Mastery over music isn't exactly an achievement, but a lifestyle. Once a composer has fully matured in his/her language and expression, the following output is just as valuable a study/set of studies as any other. There isn't, won't, and shan't ever be a science to determine which composition is inherently better. Some have historic value, some are stark, profound, unique, strict, stern, gay, humorous, etc. It's like asking who makes the best jokes. No one has a clue.


----------



## Polednice

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Actually, there is very little in existence from the era. David Crystal, in his book upon the development of the language, The Stories of English notes that according to the University of Toronto there are just over 3000 documents dating from 600-1150 written in Old English or Anglo-Saxon in existence totaling some 3 million words. Little of this body of texts is of a literary nature. By way of comparison, the _oeuvre_ of Charles Dickens alone totals over 4 million words.


Aye, that I know. I was not speaking in comparison to modern authors' works, however; I was speaking relative to _Beowulf_ which contains 3182 lines of poetry. Along with this single poem, the Old English corpus comprises four manuscripts which contain up to 200 poems, plus many other poems that rest alongside prose works in other manuscripts, and then there are a plethora of homilies, Saints' lives, sermons, annals from the _Chronicle_ and fragmentary analogues to other poems. It is a very small amount if we speak absolutely, but it is a _lot_ to consider when thinking about the period in terms other than _Beowulf_, which itself is more preoccupied with the Anglo-Saxons' Germanic heritage than it is with contemporary social values.


----------



## jurianbai

Brahms music networking, list of Brahms friends :

Robert Schumann
Clara Schumann
Johann Strauss
Listz (but about the incident where Brahms felt asleep during Listz presentation)
Joachim Raff
Dvorak
Max Bruch
Wagner

I wonder if he also friend or at least a letter correspondence with:
Camille Saint-Saens
Debussy
Ravel


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Wagner as Brahms' friend???????????????? I don't think so. Brahms developed a deep seated hatred for anything Wagnerian, Lisztian and even Brucknerian, eventhough late in life he reconciled with Bruckner.

Other really close friends of Brahms were
Von Herzogenberg
Joseph Joachim
Frederich Gernsheim
Hans Von Bulow
Eduard Hanslick


----------



## jurianbai

Maybe Brahms had contact with Wagner will be more correct term to represent the situation.



> On the only occasion on which Brahms and Wagner met, Brahms played these variations for the older master. And despite the aesthetic gulf that separated these two giants of nineteenth-century music, Wagner grudgingly admitted that the work shows "what could still be done with the old forms."


http://www.netnebraska.org/extras/composer/cmbrahmsday5.html


----------



## Mr Chewie

jurianbai said:


> Maybe Brahms had contact with Wagner will be more correct term to represent the situation.
> 
> 
> 
> On the only occasion on which Brahms and Wagner met, Brahms played these variations for the older master. And despite the aesthetic gulf that separated these two giants of nineteenth-century music, Wagner grudgingly admitted that the work shows "what could still be done with the old forms."
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.netnebraska.org/extras/composer/cmbrahmsday5.html
Click to expand...

Brahms' music moves quite freely, despite using classical forms. It sounds so natural, it's as if he wasn't using any form.


----------



## CostaSimpson

His Clarinet Sonata's are my favourite pieces written for Clarinet. They are MAGNIFICANT.


----------



## Guest

CostaSimpson said:


> His Clarinet Sonata's are my favourite pieces written for Clarinet. They are MAGNIFICANT.


I just picked up the recording of these and the clarinet trio by Frost, Pontinen, and Thedeen on BIS. Hopefully I'll get to listen to them soon.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> I just picked up the recording of these and the clarinet trio by Frost, Pontinen, and Thedeen on BIS. Hopefully I'll get to listen to them soon.


That's the same recording of the sonatas I have - I must admit, I didn't shop around quite so much as I usually do with Brahms, but the playing is truly fantastic. I love it!


----------



## Lukecash12

> I don't question the sentiment with regard to our own personal listening enjoyment.


Yet you question it's reference to a composer's value? I wouldn't mind comparing that contention to a theologian who decides to take just a few verses from the scriptures out of context, and then go and write out a doctrine to ensnare people into his own little ideology. It simply isn't a legitimate claim when it is taken out of context and lorded over the rest. You see what I am illustrating?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

His Clarinet Sonata's are my favourite pieces written for Clarinet. They are MAGNIFICANT.

What is it about the clarinet that motivates so many composers to virtually surpass themselves. Brahms' clarinet works are certainly marvelous... but Mozart, Weber, Bruch, Spohr, Stamitz, on into any number of Impressionists and Modernists have composed some of their most marvelous works for clarinet.


----------



## starry

Mozart wrote for a clarinetist from what I remember and that player obviously helped inspire him as well as his own imagination. Then subsequent composers were inspired by Mozart's works and so on.


----------



## Lukecash12

StlukesguildOhio said:


> His Clarinet Sonata's are my favourite pieces written for Clarinet. They are MAGNIFICANT.
> 
> What is it about the clarinet that motivates so many composers to virtually surpass themselves. Brahms' clarinet works are certainly marvelous... but Mozart, Weber, Bruch, Spohr, Stamitz, on into any number of Impressionists and Modernists have composed some of their most marvelous works for clarinet.


Ah yes, and let's not forget *Glenn Miller* of all people


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> That's the same recording of the sonatas I have - I must admit, I didn't shop around quite so much as I usually do with Brahms, but the playing is truly fantastic. I love it!


It got great reviews on Classics Today, and I am really coming to enjoy the output of the BIS label.

I meant to listen to it today, but got into some renaissance choral pieces - Ockeghem's Requiem and Tallis' Spem in Alium, then Tilson Thomas' recording of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.

This will be the first thing on the playlist tomorrow. I also enjoy his clarinet quintet. I have a recording with Shiffrin and the Emerson String Quartet. I might need to look into other recordings as well.


----------



## Guest

DrMike said:


> It got great reviews on Classics Today, and I am really coming to enjoy the output of the BIS label.
> 
> I meant to listen to it today, but got into some renaissance choral pieces - Ockeghem's Requiem and Tallis' Spem in Alium, then Tilson Thomas' recording of Berlioz' Symphonie fantastique.
> 
> This will be the first thing on the playlist tomorrow. I also enjoy his clarinet quintet. I have a recording with Shiffrin and the Emerson String Quartet. I might need to look into other recordings as well.


Took an initial listen to the Clarinet Sonatas - wonderful. I have to admit, with Brahms I am not that taken with his works for large ensembles (with the noted exceptions of his "Ein deutsches Requiem," violin concerto, and double concerto). It his his chamber music that shines for me.

I thought I would ask some advice. I currently have, of his chamber music, the following:
Complete Trios - Beaux Arts Trio (Philips)
Piano Quintet - Pollini, Quartetto Italiano (DG)
Clarinet Quintet - Shifrin, Emerson String Quartet (DG)
Clarinet Sonatas & Trio - Frost, Pontinen, Thedeen (BIS)
Quintets Opp. 111 (String) & 115 (Clarinet) - Causse, Portal, Melos Quartett (Harmonia Mundi)
Violin Sonatas Nos. 1-3 - Perlman, Ashkenazy (EMI)
21 Hungarian Dances - James and Kathryn March (Centaur)
Piano Trios Nos. 1-3 and Cello Sonata No. 2 - Suk, Katchen, Starker (Decca)
Cello Sonatas - Rostropovich, Serkin (DG)
Rhapsodies Op. 79, Piano Pieces Opp. 117-119 - Radu Lupu (Decca)
Complete Piano Quartets - Trampler, Beaux Arts Trio (Philips)
Cello Sonatas Opp. 38, 99, 108 - Ma, Ax (Sony Classical)
Sextets Opp. 18 & 36 - Stern, Lin, Laredo, Tree, Ma, Robinson (Sony Classical)
String Quartets Op. 67, Op. 51 No. 1 - Takacs Quartet (Hyperion)
String Quartet Op. 51 No. 2, Piano Quintet Op. 34 - Hough, Takacs Quartet (Hyperion)

I love his chamber works. What am I missing that I absolutely need in this collection? Either works that I do not yet have, or better recordings of works I already have? The Shiffrin/Emerson Clarinet Quintet is fine, but is there a better recording I should look for, or is the Melos Quartett one I have sufficient?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

DrMike said:


> I love his chamber works. What am I missing that I absolutely need in this collection?


Bruckner's F major string quintet that Brahms was jealous of and couldn't match.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I have to admit, with Brahms I am not that taken with his works for large ensembles (with the noted exceptions of his "Ein deutsches Requiem," violin concerto, and double concerto). It his his chamber music that shines for me.

My preferences are similar. I probably listen to Bruckner's symphonies more than Brahms'. I quite like the German Requiem... but as a great choral fan there are any number of other choral works I quite prefer... even Requiems... beginning with Mozart's and Faure's. I am greatly enamored of his piano concertos... especially performed by Emil Gilels... but his chamber works are something of another order altogether. I have long been enamored of his works for clarinet, his cello and violin sonatas, and any number of other works.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I have to admit, with Brahms I am not that taken with his works for large ensembles (with the noted exceptions of his "Ein deutsches Requiem," violin concerto, and double concerto). It his his chamber music that shines for me.
> 
> My preferences are similar. I probably listen to Bruckner's symphonies more than Brahms'. I quite like the German Requiem... but as a great choral fan there are any number of other choral works I quite prefer... even Requiems... beginning with Mozart's and Faure's. I am greatly enamored of his piano concertos... especially performed by Emil Gilels... but his chamber works are something of another order altogether. I have long been enamored of his works for clarinet, his cello and violin sonatas, and any number of other works.


His Requiem is pretty high up for me among choral works. I really like his concertos for violin and the double concerto. The piano concertos I could take or leave. They have simply never moved me. The same goes for the symphonies, no matter how many times I listen to them. I agree that I much prefer Bruckner's symphonies.

For his chamber music, his Piano Trio No. 1 reigns supreme for me. I also enjoy his Piano Quartet No. 1, and the clarinet works. The violin sonatas are also beautiful.


----------



## Conor71

DrMike said:


> Took an initial listen to the Clarinet Sonatas - wonderful. I have to admit, with Brahms I am not that taken with his works for large ensembles (with the noted exceptions of his "Ein deutsches Requiem," violin concerto, and double concerto). It his his chamber music that shines for me.
> 
> I thought I would ask some advice. I currently have, of his chamber music, the following:
> Complete Trios - Beaux Arts Trio (Philips)
> Piano Quintet - Pollini, Quartetto Italiano (DG)
> Clarinet Quintet - Shifrin, Emerson String Quartet (DG)
> Clarinet Sonatas & Trio - Frost, Pontinen, Thedeen (BIS)
> Quintets Opp. 111 (String) & 115 (Clarinet) - Causse, Portal, Melos Quartett (Harmonia Mundi)
> Violin Sonatas Nos. 1-3 - Perlman, Ashkenazy (EMI)
> 21 Hungarian Dances - James and Kathryn March (Centaur)
> Piano Trios Nos. 1-3 and Cello Sonata No. 2 - Suk, Katchen, Starker (Decca)
> Cello Sonatas - Rostropovich, Serkin (DG)
> Rhapsodies Op. 79, Piano Pieces Opp. 117-119 - Radu Lupu (Decca)
> Complete Piano Quartets - Trampler, Beaux Arts Trio (Philips)
> Cello Sonatas Opp. 38, 99, 108 - Ma, Ax (Sony Classical)
> Sextets Opp. 18 & 36 - Stern, Lin, Laredo, Tree, Ma, Robinson (Sony Classical)
> String Quartets Op. 67, Op. 51 No. 1 - Takacs Quartet (Hyperion)
> String Quartet Op. 51 No. 2, Piano Quintet Op. 34 - Hough, Takacs Quartet (Hyperion)
> 
> I love his chamber works. What am I missing that I absolutely need in this collection? Either works that I do not yet have, or better recordings of works I already have? The Shiffrin/Emerson Clarinet Quintet is fine, but is there a better recording I should look for, or is the Melos Quartett one I have sufficient?


Thats a cool collection you have there  - I think if I had the cash I would get this Box of Brahms complete chamber works:










http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Complete-Chamber-Music-Box/dp/B001F4YGU0/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1268737728&sr=1-6


----------



## Guest

Conor71 said:


> Thats a cool collection you have there  - I think if I had the cash I would get this Box of Brahms complete chamber works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Complete-Chamber-Music-Box/dp/B001F4YGU0/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1268737728&sr=1-6


Oooh, that does look tempting. I have enjoyed most recordings on the Hyperion label that I have listened to. Initially I preferred DG and Philips and EMI - but lately I have noticed that most of my acquisitions have been from Hyperion, BIS, and Harmonia Mundi. I'll have to check that box set out - I do have a birthday approaching!


----------



## Lukecash12

Ha! 




Take that Brahms!


----------



## mueske

Lukecash12 said:


> Ha!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take that Brahms!


One of the worst things Tchaikovsky ever wrote. I can appreciate the andante, but the outer movements are, to me, completely unexciting and plain dull.

Anyway, what has this to with Brahms? Am I missing something? Do they share a history with this piece or something?


----------



## Lukecash12

mueske said:


> One of the worst things Tchaikovsky ever wrote. I can appreciate the andante, but the outer movements are, to me, completely unexciting and plain dull.
> 
> Anyway, what has this to with Brahms? Am I missing something? Do they share a history with this piece or something?


No, I just like to challenge Polednice every now and then 

As for that movement of Tchaikovsky grand sonata, I am taken aback at how well he associated three starkly different themes with one another. It's almost like listening to an eclectic set of variations. The piece is very sentimental to me.


----------



## mueske

Lukecash12 said:


> No, I just like to challenge Polednice every now and then
> 
> As for that movement of Tchaikovsky grand sonata, I am taken aback at how well he associated three starkly different themes with one another. It's almost like listening to an eclectic set of variations. The piece is very sentimental to me.


Oh, yeah, likewise..


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

> what has this to with Brahms?


I think Brahms and Tchaikovsky expressed mutual antipathy towards one another's music.

As for old Papa Brahms, I adore his three String Quartets--and wish he hadn't destroyed the others. (He is reputed to have written something like 20 SQs.)

Very fond of his Violin Sonatas as well.

And the Clarinet Sonatas?--well, need one say more?


----------



## Efraim

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> As for old Papa Brahms, I adore his three String Quartets


I adore only the first and the second.



Sebastien Melmoth said:


> and wish he hadn't destroyed the others. (He is reputed to have written something like 20 SQs.)


That's correct, but he might have had good reasons for destroying them. One work he didn't publish but forgot to destroy, a piano trio, survived. It is quite boring, indeed.

Brahms was not always old and Papa, he was young and beardless when he wrote such masterpieces as eg the Piano Trio in B Flat, the Piano Quintet, the First Piano Concerto… Do you know (and like) them?

Of his two 'Cello sonatas the first was written in youth and the second when Brahms was some 50 years old or more, but when you listen to them, it seems it was the other way round…


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

I'm very fond of Brahms' three Violin Sonatas; and of course, his two Clarinet Sonatas.

Of his early work, I really enjoy the two String Sextets and the two Serenades.

Also his three early Piano Sonatas occasionally get a spin.
(Unfortunately, Krystian Zimerman's exquisite Brahms Sonata cycle is OOP.)
Also Brahms' wrote a cycle of Waltzes early on.

The Piano Quintet is a fairly early work, but classic Brahms; however, I really only love Glenn Gould's version of this work.

The Piano Trios and Quartets have their moments, but meh...

The Bb-major String Quartet recalls Mozart's 'Haydn' Quartet in the same key.


----------



## Guest

Sebastien Melmoth said:


> I'm very fond of Brahms' three Violin Sonatas; and of course, his two Clarinet Sonatas.
> 
> Of his early work, I really enjoy the two String Sextets and the two Serenades.
> 
> Also his three early Piano Sonatas occasionally get a spin.
> (Unfortunately, Krystian Zimerman's exquisite Brahms Sonata cycle is OOP.)
> Also Brahms' wrote a cycle of Waltzes early on.
> 
> The Piano Quintet is a fairly early work, but classic Brahms; however, I really only love Glenn Gould's version of this work.
> 
> *The Piano Trios and Quartets have their moments, but meh...
> *
> The Bb-major String Quartet recalls Mozart's 'Haydn' Quartet in the same key.


Wow, the Piano Trios and Quartets are some of my favorite works of Brahms. I agree about the Violin Sonatas, but his 1st Piano Trio is still at the top of my list.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

I really like the _*s l o w*_ movements of the Trios & Quartets.


----------



## Serenade

Just registering as a huge Brahms fan, especially his chamber music! Ask me to pick a favouirite piece though and I think my head might go bang. My favourite task of all in my degree was writing a movement of a Piano Trio in the style of Brahms. Utter bliss!


----------



## Polednice

Jess said:


> Just registering as a huge Brahms fan, especially his chamber music! Ask me to pick a favouirite piece though and I think my head might go bang. My favourite task of all in my degree was writing a movement of a Piano Trio in the style of Brahms. Utter bliss!


Congratulations, you're my new best friend


----------



## Serenade

Polednice said:


> Congratulations, you're my new best friend


Care to elucidate?


----------



## Polednice

Jess said:


> Care to elucidate?


Well anyone who even dares to mention a liking for Brahms is immediately in my good books!


----------



## Serenade

Well, it appears I have made a new friend. 

Brahms is in my top 3, along with Elgar and Vaughan-Williams.


----------



## Il Seraglio

I think I am slowly becoming a fan of the portly German. I love his third String Quartet.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

*Brahms*' three splendid String Quartets are absurdly underrated and little-known even amongst classical aficionados, probably because they don't fit a preconceived mold of what they should be i.e., they're not really Beethovenish and only marginally Mozartean or Haydnesque.

In fact, they are Schubertian in style as Brahms had owned and closely studied the original manuscript of Schubert's c-minor Quartet (the _Quartettsatz_ D. 703); indeed, *Brahms* edited the manuscript for publication in 1870.


----------



## Guest

Whether he becomes your favorite composer or not, I find it hard to fathom people not being impressed with a great deal of Brahms' works. So many of his works appealed to me immediately, which usually does not happen. Beethoven and Schubert had similar impacts on me. The Piano Trio No. 1 (which I repeatedly talk about) was like love at first hearing.


----------



## Polednice

I think the thing with Brahms is that he can appeal to varying levels of interest. Like you said, a lot of his music has immediate appeal - it's astounding how someone couldn't be moved by it straight away - while it has also been said that "he created music that continually grows in beauty as it is better known". It's true of a lot of classical music that repeated listening can really, _really_ transform your experience of a piece, but I think the gradual revelation of craftsmanship is especially true for Brahms.


----------



## Mozartgirl92

I have been listening a lot to mr Johannes Brahms lately, it´s possible that he has become one of my new favorites.


----------



## starry

It helps if the performer has a feeling for the music, same with any music. Some pieces though such as the violin sonatas are quite easy to like for most people I would guess. Haven't yet heard a performer that makes me like the quartets.


----------



## Lukecash12

Polednice said:


> I think the thing with Brahms is that he can appeal to varying levels of interest. Like you said, a lot of his music has immediate appeal - it's astounding how someone couldn't be moved by it straight away - while it has also been said that "he created music that continually grows in beauty as it is better known". It's true of a lot of classical music that repeated listening can really, _really_ transform your experience of a piece, but I think the gradual revelation of craftsmanship is especially true for Brahms.


That and Bach, Alkan, Monteverdi, so many others that really epitomize that ideal.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

If you like *Brahms*, check *Reger*--an harmonically more advanced 'Brahms'.


----------



## Guest

Lukecash12 said:


> That and Bach, Alkan, Monteverdi, so many others that really epitomize that ideal.


All very excellent composers!

Regrettably my library has too few of Alkan's works - I only have the Grande Sonate and Symphony for Solo Piano recordings from Hamelin on Hyperion. I have my eye on the Concerto for Solo Piano, as well as the Esquisses.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Happy Birthday, Johannes Brahms!

♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫♫


----------



## Il Seraglio

I've moved onto listening to his E-minor cello sonata. Also very "Schubertian", but with far greater ambition and sense of scope. Really wonderful.


----------



## Weston

Help! I ran across the Brahms String Sextet No. 1 tonight. The second movement is driving me nuts. I have heard this theme many times before, I know. But I'm certain it was in an orchestral setting. I can't have heard the sextet (it being an unusual format) often enough to have this theme lodged in my memory like this.

Did he re-use the theme in a larger work, like a symphony? Or was it used in pop culture somehow? 





Maybe I really am just remembering this sextet. (I hate these mental hiccups.) It's stunningly gorgeous at any rate.


----------



## Argus

Weston said:


> Help! I ran across the Brahms String Sextet No. 1 tonight. The second movement is driving me nuts. I have heard this theme many times before, I know. But I'm certain it was in an orchestral setting. I can't have heard the sextet (it being an unusual format) often enough to have this theme lodged in my memory like this.
> 
> Did he re-use the theme in a larger work, like a symphony? Or was it used in pop culture somehow?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I really am just remembering this sextet. (I hate these mental hiccups.) It's stunningly gorgeous at any rate.


Well, first I watched this video and noticed a Spock comment:






Then saw that this was a related video:






Mystery solved, possibly.

The second movement is good but I can't help think the later variations in major don't live up to the minor ones they are sandwiched by.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

I just started reading " Johannes Brahms: A Biography by Jan Swafford" Its quite a good read and I highly recommend it.


----------



## tahnak

*Serenade in D Major. Op.11*

I have heard this after almost thirty four years. It is still as fresh and the recording is superb.
Istvan Kertesz with the London Symphony. 1968.









Brahms composed his two orchestral serenades between 1857 and 1860.They were his first purely orchestral works to be published. The D Major Serenade was first intended to be a chamber work like an octet or a nonet. Then Brahms converted that to a work for small orchestra. He laid the orchestra out as fifteen strings, single woodwinds, two french horns, trumpet and timpani. 
This Serenade respects musicians like Haydn, Beethoven and early symphonies of Schubert. The first movement that I have posted here pays homage to the finale of Haydn's D Major 'London' Symphony with its main theme and the 'drone' bass in open fifths by which it is supported and set for Brahms' favourite orchestral instrument, the french horn. Brahms had himself played the horn in his early days in Hamburg. The second subject is a string theme that breaks out into triplets. These triplets develop a third theme that brings back the exposition. The movement ends with a poetic coda where the flute takes over from the horn.
The second movement, Scherzo in D Minor, reminds us of the D Minor Piano Concerto and also of the scherzo of the B Flat Major Piano Concerto. The Adagio Non Troppo third movement in B Flat Major is rich and in sonata form and evokes memories of the 'Scene by the Brook' of Beethoven's 'Pastoral'. The fourth movement is a minuet with G Major and G Minor alternates. In this, we are reminded of the original instrumentation of the serenade. The fifth movement is the second Scherzo in D Major and is again dominated by the first french horn. This reminds us of the third movement of Beethoven's Second Symphony. It has a trio in D Major with a quaver motion in the accompaniment. The finale is a rondo which bounces a lot with a refrain and expansive subsidiary themes that ultimately find their way into the french horns and trumpet bringing the Serenade to its majestic close.
An Excellent reading by Kertesz. A great conductor with a great work. Purely Pastoral. The painting brings out the emotion perfectly in the video.


----------



## Sebastien Melmoth

If you like Brahms's Serenades, there's an 'original' version for Nonet:
http://www.amazon.com/Horn-Trio-Op-...6877501?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1300634449&sr=1-1


----------



## Efraim

Dear Argus, where is Mancunia?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Although Brahms was a great composer, his music can sometimes very boring.


----------



## Pieck

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Although Brahms was a great composer, his music can sometimes very boring.


Dude, Just dont. Dont.


----------



## Polednice

Pieck said:


> Dude, Just dont. Dont.


Hey, I'll back you up if you want to pick a fight with this geezer. No one blasphemes Brahms and gets away with it...


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Polednice said:


> Hey, I'll back you up if you want to pick a fight with this geezer. No one blasphemes Brahms and gets away with it...


Excuse me I can say whatever I want about Brahms.

He was a great composer but sometimes he can be very boring, darn just listen to the first concerto for piano in D minor, How many times did you listen to that Symphonic Stretched -up of a concerto?

He did a better job with his Piano Waltzes and Piano concerto No. 2.


----------



## Guest

geezer said:


> the first concerto for piano in D minor, How many times did you listen to that Symphonic Stretched -up of a concerto?


Well, I *can* listen to it everyday for the rest of my life and never get tired of it. Same with all of his other pieces. Honestly, there isn't one Brahms piece I don't like.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Jeff N said:


> Well, I *can* listen to it everyday for the rest of my life and never get tired of it. Same with all of his other pieces. Honestly, there isn't one Brahms piece I don't like.


Well that's you...


----------



## Pieck

And me :tiphat:


----------



## pjang23

And also me.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

You can also mean plural ! :lol:


----------



## Toccata

I used to like Brahms a great deal, but I'm now inclining towards the view of who needs Brahms when you can get all you want of this type of music from Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann in better quality. 

Brahms isn't the only such composer with which I've had this experience. After many years of acquiring just everything there is in the standard 18th/19th Century repertoire, I'm now beginning to implode somewhat. 

The same thing happened with 20th century music (up to about 1970, that is). I was very keen on a lot of it, and acquired all the well-known material, but these days I scarcely give it a glance. It's OK if it comes on the radio. I'll happily listen to any of it, but given the choice I'm more or less devoted to Schubert, Mozart, Beethoven, Schumann almost exclusively. 

I would be interested to hear if anyone else has experienced anything similar, i.e. a concentration of interest towards old favourites, or are you all still in expansive phase and can't wait to move on to your next composer?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili

Toccata said:


> this type of music


Even if Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann wrote the 'same type of music' , it doesn't mean that Brahms' music has nothing unique to offer.


----------



## Toccata

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> Even if Beethoven, Schubert and Schumann wrote the 'same type of music' , it doesn't mean that Brahms' music has nothing unique to offer.


I accept that fully. All I meant was that I went through a long period of time wanting to acquire as much material as I could by as many composers as I thought I liked, but at the end of the process (now that my collection is pretty full) I don't find that I play sizeable chunks of it to anything like the extent I thought I would. After a "honeymooon" period with a lot of these composers - Brahms being only one example - I concentrate on only a few of them, given a choice.


----------



## tdc

Toccata said:


> I accept that fully. All I meant was that I went through a long period of time wanting to acquire as much material as I could by as many composers as I thought I liked, but at the end of the process (now that my collection is pretty full) I don't find that I play sizeable chunks of it to anything like the extent I thought I would. After a "honeymooon" period with a lot of these composers - Brahms being only one example - I concentrate on only a few of them, given a choice.


I see what you mean - I'm definetely still in my expansive phase, but I can already tell there are going to be a certain amount of composers that I'll end up eventually refining down to like yourself. But I think they'll stretch across a much wider expanse of time then what you've come down to. The composers you named are all fairly similar (with the exception of Mozart perhaps but even he does not differ from the rest tremendously) and all within a fairly narrow time frame. I'd say your tastes are quite conservative?

For example among the composers I always come back to Bach, Ravel and Mahler are definetely three of the staples of my listening. The disadvantage with newer composers being the newer you go, the less output they will generally have which can possibly lead one to grow tired of their available works.

(off topic -Anybody else think maybe _time itself is speeding up_? How else would you explain the vast differences in compositional output in a given lifetime?)


----------



## Orange Soda King

I prefer Brahms's piano concerti to the piano concerti of Beethoven, and even the same with symphonies.

I am currently learning Brahms' first piano concerto and it is an absolute revelation for me!

His chamber music is amazing, too. I need to hear his songs!


----------



## TrazomGangflow

You make fantstic dramatic music even though classical music would soon wane in popularity. I love your Symphony No. 3 in F major and who could forget your Hungarian dance.


----------



## Weston

So I listened to Brahms' Serenade No. 1 in D, Op. 11 today at work. Is it me, or does part of the 5th section Scherzo/Allegro sound like "Bring back, bring back - oh bring back my Bonnie to me?" Now I'll hear it that way all the time!


----------



## Sonata

I'm definitely enjoying Brahms. Love his German Reqiuem. And I think every piece of music that he writes for the clarinet is beautiful.


----------



## Arsakes

Brahms, Dvorak and Sibelius are the greatest composers of all time.

Brahms greatest works as I've heard:

- Clarinet Quintet (his first work)
- Symphonies No.1, 3, 4
- Violin Concerto & Double Concerto
- Cello Sonata & Violin Sonata
- Piano Works like: Quintet, Sonata, Concerto No. 1, 2 and Trios
- Academic Festival Overture
- Hungarian Dances


----------



## Webernite

Arsakes said:


> Brahms, Dvorak and Sibelius are the greatest composers of all time.


Let's not get carried away...


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> Let's not get carried away...


Yeah, I mean... _Sibelius_?!


----------



## neoshredder

I could never get into him. I just think boring when I think of Brahms.


----------



## Raymond

A large part of Brahms' appeal arises from his intense self-critical approach to composing. Just think about it, he destroyed the drafts of 20 string quartets before he ever permitted one to go to publication. Not many composers, classical, modern or contemporary, can bring themselves to just eject their music so readily. Think of Aaron Copland who almost endlessly recycled the melodies he employed in his earliest (student) works as the bases for later pieces. At least with Copland we have the legacy of his retired compositions; with Brahms we can only wonder what it was that he considered too unimportant to say.


----------



## Webernite

Polednice said:


> Yeah, I mean... _Sibelius_?!


Ha, Sibelius's music is too consonant for me, I find. Who are your favorite composers at the moment, Polednice? I noticed you mentioned Shostakovich in another thread. That's surprising.

(This is off-topic but the thread is ancient, so.)


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> Ha, Sibelius's music is too consonant for me, I find. Who are your favorite composers at the moment, Polednice? I noticed you mentioned Shostakovich in another thread. That's surprising.
> 
> (This is off-topic but the thread is ancient, so.)


Well, everyone already knows that my all-time favourite composers are Brahms and Dvorak, but, yes, one of my current fancies is Shostakovich, and I'm developing quite a taste for Ravel and Nielsen.


----------



## Webernite

Shostakovich is too dissonant for me, I find.


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> Shostakovich is too dissonant for me, I find.


Well you're mighty picky then, aren't you?


----------



## Cnote11

Finally you're coming around to Ravel... I find that your tastes in classical are unknown to me though, Polednice, outside of Brahms and Dvorak. I don't ever see you posting about classical on this site :lol: Not since the atonal vs tonal debate when I came around.


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Finally you're coming around to Ravel... I find that your tastes in classical are unknown to me though, Polednice, outside of Brahms and Dvorak. I don't ever see you posting about classical on this site :lol: Not since the atonal vs tonal debate when I came around.


I believe the wisest answer I've seen to the accusation that I don't post about music on this forum would be:

"Okay"


----------



## Cnote11

Funny, that's the same thing I say to people :lol:

I take my wording back though.. You do post quite often in the music forum but my point was I never see you really talking about your favorites, that I notice at least. I suppose you got that out of your way when you came here. I wouldn't have really known your favorite composer was Brahms if other people didn't mention it. I would have guessed Dvorak. It seems you post more on the "concept" threads in that section more than anything is all I was trying to say. (Can music be bad? Does anybody really like atonal? How important is popularity? What qualifies as composition as "Good"? etc. etc.)


----------



## Polednice

Cnote11 said:


> Funny, that's the same thing I say to people :lol:
> 
> I take my wording back though.. You do post quite often in the music forum but my point was I never see you really talking about your favorites, that I notice at least. I suppose you got that out of your way when you came here. I wouldn't have really known your favorite composer was Brahms if other people didn't mention it. I would have guessed Dvorak. It seems you post more on the "concept" threads in that section more than anything is all I was trying to say. (Can music be bad? Does anybody really like atonal? How important is popularity? What qualifies as composition as "Good"? etc. etc.)


For the first year or so I was here, I maintained a Brahms avatar, which let everyone know I was quite the zealot. For reference (write this down in your Polednice stalking book), my six favourite composers are: Brahms, Dvorak, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, Grieg, and Mendelssohn. That apparently makes me quite the conservative, but I have no aversion to 20th century music with a few exceptions such as dodecaphonic serialism (I actually prefer 20th century to Baroque and early Classical). You're right that I prefer to talk on conceptual topics rather than discuss polls or questions of "Greatest X" (or, as I like to call them, the inane threads), though I have a few entries on "Current Listening" from when I've stumbled across something pleasantly surprising. I also like moonlit strolls on the beach, nature documentaries, and bondage.


----------



## Cnote11

That would make you hated even by the conservatives.  I will commit this to memory. Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, and Dvorak rank among some of my favorites as well. I certainly do like Schubert and Mendelssohn a great deal as well. Some other favorites of mine are Ravel, Beethoven, Stockhausen, Glass, Reich, Schonberg, Vivaldi, Crumb, Stravinsky, and Satie. Recently, my affection for Debussy has been growing more than ever. Also, I haven't listened to any composer recently, besides Satie, more than Giuseppe Torelli. I also really like Saint-Saens, Rameau, Bartok, Shostakovich, Messiaen, Boulez, Milhaud, Poulenc, Rimsky-Korsakov, Penderecki, Gorecki, Mussorgsky, and stuff like that. I'm rambling on a bit here... as can see I lean towards Easter European (mainly Russian <3<3 and Polish), French, and Italian (I didn't mention Scarlatti or any of the baroque/opera composers). I also really like Asian composers (Yung, Takemitsu, Yushimatsu, Chen, Hashimoto, Ohguri, and some Japanese film composers as well) Now we know a little about each other musically. I also enjoy moonlit strolls in the rain, nature documentaries with Philip Glass soundtracks, and BDSM.


----------



## Cnote11

Oh yes, I really like types like Gesualdo, Perotin, and Monterverdi as well.


----------



## neoshredder

By the way I'm about to eat my words. I listened to Brahms today. I found it more interesting listening to his best of collection. Even though I didn't enjoy his Symphony that much I found his violin concerto and some of the pieces interesting. I should just listen to the best of before I put judgement. Brahms will never be on top of my list but I think he is still worth checking out.


----------



## clavichorder

Polednice, I think you should assimilate Saint Saens into your "classically informed romantic canon." Piano Concerto 4 will convert you.


----------



## Cnote11

Neoshredder, I don't listen to Brahm's symphonies as much as I do his other work. I get great joy from his piano music, chamber music, and concertos. If you haven't, you could check out works such as "Sixteen Waltzes for piano, four hands", "Six Pieces, Op. 118", "Double Concerto Op. 102", a few of his violin, cello, and piano sonatas, quartets, quintets, and sextets. I also love the Hungarian Dances very much.

Clavi, I find that to be a fantastic idea.


----------



## Polednice

clavichorder said:


> Polednice, I think you should assimilate Saint Saens into your "classically informed romantic canon." Piano Concerto 4 will convert you.


I already adore the 2nd, though I haven't listened to much else by him. I'll give the 4th a whirl - any recommended recordings?


----------



## Mesa

Brahms wrote his astounding section of the F-A-E Sonata when he was my age. When i was my age my greatest achievement is getting 475 lines on Tetris.

Sod you, Brahms, and also the conventions of tenses in writing 

Also, while we're at it, can any Brahmsonites (POOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIEEE) recommend more Brahms within the same ballpark of awesome as aforementioned Sonata mvt? Much of his earlier material, i should imagine, but you could speed up the glorious wading process.


----------



## Polednice

Mesa said:


> Brahms wrote his astounding section of the F-A-E Sonata when he was my age. When i was my age my greatest achievement is getting 475 lines on Tetris.
> 
> Sod you, Brahms, and also the conventions of tenses in writing
> 
> Also, while we're at it, can any Brahmsonites (POOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIEEE) recommend more Brahms within the same ballpark of awesome as aforementioned Sonata mvt? Much of his earlier material, i should imagine, but you could speed up the glorious wading process.


I'm not sure what pieces by Brahms you're familiar with, but the most obvious next stop after his contribution to the F-A-E Sonata would be the Op. 4 Scherzo.


----------



## Mesa

_This_ is what i'm talkin' bout. I retract my mild outburst at this wonderful man.


----------



## neoshredder

Tetris was a fun game.


----------



## Cnote11

_Is_ a fun game.


----------



## Webernite

Mesa said:


> Brahms wrote his astounding section of the F-A-E Sonata when he was my age. When i was my age my greatest achievement is getting 475 lines on Tetris.
> 
> Sod you, Brahms, and also the conventions of tenses in writing
> 
> Also, while we're at it, can any Brahmsonites (POOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIEEE) recommend more Brahms within the same ballpark of awesome as aforementioned Sonata mvt? Much of his earlier material, i should imagine, but you could speed up the glorious wading process.


Violin sonatas, although they're not early.


----------



## Arsakes

Answer to some of the posts above:

Well, I still consider Dvorak, Brahms and Sibelius the best in the history ... It's like my creed!

Also I like some of Shostakovitch works (some of his symphonies, Fall of Berlin, Jazz Suites etc.). 
I find Saint Saens piano works brilliant.


----------



## Webernite

It was Brahms's birthday yesterday...


----------



## eorrific

Webernite said:


> It was Brahms's birthday yesterday...


OOPS! Missed it. No wonder my soul has had an unquenchable Brahmsian thirst recently (probably akin to what Poley experiences every day )


----------



## Sonata

I find with Brahms music that there's a fragment of a piece that hooks me quickly....but then it takes some work on my part to get more involved with the music. When I do though, it tends to be very rewarding. My favorite Brahms works:

The German Requiem
Horn Trio
Piano Quartet #1
Clarinet chamber works

I haven't even looked into his symphonies or piano concertos yet. I most certainly will do so, but I'm working my way through getting to know all of his chamber music really well first. Perhaps down the line I may look into his lieder, solo piano works, or additional choral music. I'm happy to take recommendations regarding the critical recordings, if any, from the latter three genres. Or for that matter, the best symphony and concerto recordings.


----------



## pjang23

I'm quite happy with Abbado's symphony cycle. It also includes the short orchestral choral works (Alto Rhapsody, Nanie, Schicksalslied and Gesang der Parzen, all highly recommended obscure gems!) and the Haydn Variations, though if you go for someone else's symphony cycle you could get the choral works on a separate CD.

















Gilels & Jochum is the most famous recording for the piano concerti, though I'm also fond of Brendel & Abbado for No.1 and Richter & Leinsdorf for No.2. The Gilels recording also includes a fantastic rendition of the Op.116 piano pieces.









Julius Katchen is standard for the solo piano pieces, and I enjoy Fischer-Dieskau & Norman with Barenboim for lieder (I recommend starting with Op.91, Op.105/1, Op.121, Op.86/2, Op.3/1, and of course Op.49/4).


----------



## mtmailey

World Violist said:


> Brahms probably published the highest percentage of great music as compared to almost anyone (with the probable exception of Bach and maybe Beethoven). He mastered almost every form of composition available to the previous generation (the exception being opera), and many of his own. He wrote probably at once the most hugely anticipated and greatest first symphony in history and one of the most crushing and despairing last symphonies. Every concerto he ever published, every symphony, every piano piece, many of his over 200 songs - all have left a huge mark on today's repertoire of any kind of classical musician, and about all the other pieces of his that haven't... their day will come as well, I think.
> 
> As for my favorites of Brahms:
> The Symphonies
> The Concerti
> 
> Whatever else I've missed, please correct me!


 yes you are missing something like his string sextets op.18 & 36 to me the best one is #1 in b flat-also his dances are great as well.


----------



## mtmailey

Polednice said:


> I already adore the 2nd, though I haven't listened to much else by him. I'll give the 4th a whirl - any recommended recordings?


his symphony #1 on cd by SONY CLASSICAL seems to be the cd of it to me.


----------



## Guest

The best recording of the 4th is Kleiber and the VPO, quite possibly one of the best recordings of all time. For the 1st you have a veritable pick of the litter, can't really go wrong with Szell, Walter, Karajan, Solti, none of them really stands out a head above the rest. For the 2nd and 3rd you have to go with 1960s Karajan. There is a remastered disc of both symphonies that can't be missed.
















Also, don't go for Gilels/Jochum as your first Brahms concerti. Try Serkin/Szell first, then go for Gilels.


----------



## Vaneyes

Most 4's (incl. Kleiber, Klemperer, Walter, Abbado) are too lyrical for me. I prefer HvK's 1964 hell-bent-for-leather continuance.

Klemperer's wife died before EMI 4's recording sessions. To me, it seems out of character with 1 - 3, and I've occasionally wondered if it was cause-effect.


----------



## Guest

Vaneyes said:


> Most 4's (incl. Kleiber, Klemperer, Walter, Abbado) are too lyrical for me. I prefer HvK's 1964 hell-bent-for-leather continuance.
> 
> Klemperer's wife died before EMI 4's recording sessions. To me, it seems out of character with 1 - 3, and I've occasionally wondered if it was cause-effect.


yeah you can't really go wrong with 1960s Karajan, those were the golden years. But I don't think Kleiber's 4 is too lyrical, I think it's just right. I think he actually gives a rather straight-forward rendition with some wonderful playing from the VPO. For me it's the most powerful performance of the 4th.


----------



## Sonata

My favorite  My knowledge so far extends to the Requiem, Piano concerto #2, and the chamber works. I've decided to start listening from Op. 1 and listening to 1-2 new pieces per week and thus work through his catologue  I look forward to it.


----------



## Ondine

Sonata said:


> [...]the Requiem,[...]


Agree. That is one of the most beautiful and touching oeuvres I have heard along Classical music.


----------



## Novelette

It always interested me how the piano concerto is so widely regarded as among Brahms' weakest works.

That is also how I hold it. While I realize that there are those for whom it is among their favorites, and I can see the appeal, it's not so common that a work is disapproved of by such a great margin.

I like it, but #2 seems the stronger work.


----------



## Vaneyes

Novelette said:


> It always interested me how the piano concerto is so widely regarded as among Brahms' weakest works.
> 
> That is also how I hold it. While I realize that there are those for whom it is among their favorites, and I can see the appeal, it's not so common that a work is disapproved of by such a great margin.
> 
> I like it, but #2 seems the stronger work.


Re PCs 1 & 2, I can't remember the first recs. I heard. Didn't satisfy. Moved on to the highly-acclaimed Gilels. Didn't satisfy.

Took a break. Came back to them. Sampled many.

Finally settled on Douglas/Skrow.(RCA) for 1, and Kovacevich/Davis (Philips) for 2. Been happy since.

Most often, it takes a particular recording to get the message. However, there are occasions when no thing or mind bending will unlock the work. Not the end of the world.


----------



## Vaneyes

Ondine said:


> Agree. That is one of the most beautiful and touching oeuvres I have heard along Classical music.


And works equally well on a small or large soundstage. Herreweghe vs HvK or Klemps, for examples.


----------



## Ukko

Novelette said:


> It always interested me how the piano concerto is so widely regarded as among Brahms' weakest works.
> 
> That is also how I hold it. While I realize that there are those for whom it is among their favorites, and I can see the appeal, it's not so common that a work is disapproved of by such a great margin.
> 
> I like it, but #2 seems the stronger work.


The 1st has annoyed me since first I heard Rubinstein's 'Rose on the Keyboard' recording, when that was new. The 1st movement is fine, deep and strong. And then the message gets lost, and I have to exercise my will to listen to the end.


----------



## Guest

Novelette said:


> It always interested me how the piano concerto is so widely regarded as among Brahms' weakest works.
> 
> That is also how I hold it. While I realize that there are those for whom it is among their favorites, and I can see the appeal, it's not so common that a work is disapproved of by such a great margin.
> 
> I like it, but #2 seems the stronger work.


The first pc was only really disapproved of at its premier. It has since become widely considered one of the great pc's in the literature and a standard for every concert pianist. It really is a remarkable work for as young a composer he was when he wrote it. It's easy to say the second pc is "stronger" because he was a much more mature composer when he wrote that particular piece, with a much greater grasp of orchestration and such. But I honestly don't think that one is better than the other. Both two of the greatest concerti out there.


----------



## clavichorder

I think the 1st has a killer 1st movement; such passion and drama that the 2nd can't rival, being a very different piece. For that movement alone, I am very glad that Brahms wrote it, for it contains brilliant music.


----------



## Ravndal

I agree. That first movement is amazing.


----------



## niv

There is something about Brahms that just hits me in all the right spots. Right now I only know a fraction of his oeuvre and it sounds quite magical to me, I can't stop wanting more instead of listening to different composers!


----------



## Brahmatist

In his chamber music repertoire, the sole piece that I failed to connect with is the posthumously published piano trio. Besides that, his is the single most astonishing collection of consecutive masterpieces that has ever been conceived in the history of chamber music (and I'm not one for hyperbole). 

The brightest gems for me are the two string sextets. Beyond words.


----------



## Guest

Outside of the Kleiber 4th, I'm not terribly impressed with the recordings I have of Brahms' symphonies so far. Anyone have any recommendations for 1-3?


----------



## mtmailey

SONY CLASSICAL has some fine brahms cds


----------



## Cheyenne

arcaneholocaust said:


> Outside of the Kleiber 4th, I'm not terribly impressed with the recordings I have of Brahms' symphonies so far. Anyone have any recommendations for 1-3?


Furtwängler 1952, 1951 and 1945 are my favorite performances of the first - the last only features the finale, but is one of Furtwängler's finest performances. For 2, I prefer Bernstein and Furtwängler (the 1945 performance, right before he fled from Germany); Szell/RCO is the greatest 3 I've heard. Toscanini, Kempe, Klemperer (especially for 4) and Karajan/60s are also worth a look, and Haitink appears to have been received positively too, but I haven't listened to his performances yet.


----------



## niv

arcaneholocaust said:


> Outside of the Kleiber 4th, I'm not terribly impressed with the recordings I have of Brahms' symphonies so far. Anyone have any recommendations for 1-3?


have you heard this one?

http://www.amazon.com/Brahms-The-Symphonies-Johannes/dp/B0000041Z5 
Orchestra: Chicago Symphony Orchestra
Conductor: Georg Solti

It's the only one I've got but I think it sounds pretty nice.


----------



## richstieg

yes.. please elaborate..


----------



## spradlig

I think Brahms probably published a _higher_ percentage of great music than Bach and Beethoven. Brahms is infamous for destroying pieces he was dissatisfied with. Beethoven was a great composer but his output varies in quality. Bach had jobs that required him to churn out tons of music. A lot of it, such as many cantatas and so forth, are not well known and I suspect that this is maybe they are simply not very good. I do like Bach and I think he wrote tons of great music, but I am talking about percentages.

I suspect Ravel's "great music percentage" is even higher than Brahms's. Almost everything he wrote was a masterpiece. Of course, he was much less prolific than Brahms.


----------



## spradlig

I recommend his piano music. Some people complain that it is not "pianistic", but I think it is more important that it be enjoyable to listen to than be convenient to play.


----------



## neoshredder

I've tried to get into his music. It's alright. Just not my style. The same goes for Bruckner.


----------



## neoshredder

I don't dislike the music. But based on the hype he gets around here, I expected more.


----------



## Piwikiwi

neoshredder said:


> I don't dislike the music. But based on the hype he gets around here, I expected more.


Nothing ruins a musical experience more for me than my expectations. I actually ended up being disappointed by great concerts because I was expecting to see the most wonderful concert of my life.


----------



## mstar

Brahms's fourth symphony is amazing! I was listening to it, and between intervals of about 20 minutes, I had to stop the music just to check that it was still the Brahms symphony playing.... :lol: 

And I'm not going to talk about the violin concerto, because we've all heard of that one....  (excellent one, though!)


----------



## Guest

There is so much of Brahms' works that is wonderful. His piano works for 4 hands, his serenades, his string sextets, the clarinet quintet, the 1st piano trio, the German Requiem, the violin concerto, the double concerto. For the longest time, I didn't care for the symphonies, but they have been growing on me.


----------



## Cheyenne

The chamber music is of such consistent quality, it's unbelievable; and Mencken may have been right when he questioned if there was anything in Beethoven's symphonies that could not be found in the four Brahms composed. He's become one of my favorite composers, and I still listen to him the most of all. Even the the most fiery piece of him has a soft and sentimental side, but it is never too exaggerated: he indulges in it without ruining it by overexposure. Some call his music emotionless or academic, but for me it is far too elegant to be pedantic, and not even close to restrained.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

I like both his symphonies and his chamber music (especially, his Piano Trios, his Clarinet Quintet op. 115, String Quartet op. 67, Second String Sextet op. 36 and String Quintet op. 111). 

Several months ago, I was watching "The Point of Vanishing" episode of "LEWIS" (a British television detective drama) and found that they used the second movement of the String Quartet op. 67 in the episode in which the heroine enters the garden on the wheelchair. As far as I remember Wiki and other resources do not mention this fact.

Sollertinski, a Russian musicologist and a friend of Shostakovich called Brahms' music "the music of the passionate THOUGHT".


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

Tchaikovky did not like Brahms music. He was more into Schumann. But Tchaikovsky and Brahms got buzzy together once. And Tchaikovsky said that Brahms was quite good and friendly guy, not so arrogant as he imaged him.


----------



## dgee

Brahms is really consistently good - but really in all the 120-odd opuses there must be some dreck. I seem to recall some bland choral music? But not much that I've come into contact with. I find the Piano Concertos uninteresting personally but they must have fantastic qualities otherwise people wouldn't listen to them as much as they do

The one big problem with Brahms for me is that the "in my head" Brahms is so fearfully intense and gut-wrenching that I'm often a bit let down by the way it's played. Incidentally the orchestral music is worse for me in this regard than the chamber, which is regularly given the right sort of rough treatment


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

"Rinaldo" is quite boring.


----------



## Avey

Moscow-Mahler said:


> Tchaikovky did not like Brahms music. He was more into Schumann. But Tchaikovsky and Brahms got buzzy together once. And Tchaikovsky said that Brahms was quite good and friendly guy, not so arrogant as he imaged him.


Oh, wow, so they got _busy_ together? That's very interesting.


----------



## Moscow-Mahler

> Oh, wow, so they got busy together? That's very interesting.


They got *buzzy*, not busy. They just drank some beer, nothing more.


----------



## Vaneyes

I like his orchestral, chamber, solo piano, Ein Deutsches Requiem.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Brahms is definitely an arrogant prick to those not in his inner circle. People like that are loving to those whom they care about, and are brutal, rude and harsh to those who they do not. 
For me, if I was alive then, I wouldn't have gone within 10 feet of Brahms or I would have been alive then. Bruckner was the more approachable. Wagner loved to be worship, I wouldn't be able to be within 100 feet of him. Chopin and Liszt are more to my tastes.


----------



## Centropolis

SamGuss said:


> Here's a link to the particular set I got:
> 
> http://www.arkivmusic.com/classical/album.jsp?album_id=138823&album_group=14


I know you are planning to get better recordings of these concertos but I am looking into getting this exact set and wondering if you think the performances on this set is generally good for a newbie like myself who is trying to buy sets rather than individual discs that have one piece on it.


----------



## Vaneyes

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Brahms is definitely an arrogant prick to those not in his inner circle. People like that are loving to those whom they care about, and are brutal, rude and harsh to those who they do not.
> For me, if I was alive then, I wouldn't have gone within 10 feet of Brahms or I would have been alive then. Bruckner was the more approachable. Wagner loved to be worship, I wouldn't be able to be within 100 feet of him. Chopin and Liszt are more to my tastes.


Where did you get those ideas? References, please, which I hope would include his integrity, charity, influences, and loyal friendships.


----------



## mstar

Moscow-Mahler said:


> They got *buzzy*, not busy. They just drank some beer, nothing more.


WHAT IS THIS CONVERSATION?? I really do think that choosing between buzzy and busy is bad enough, though I just can't imagine either. I do find the former more believable, though. Blech.


----------



## senza sordino

Does anyone know about the two serenades for orchestra? Are they worth a purchase? I know his symphonies, concerti and some chamber work, but I don't know Serenade #1 or #2 Any thoughts? Are they large scale orchestra works or for smaller ensembles?


----------



## KenOC

senza sordino said:


> Does anyone know about the two serenades for orchestra? Are they worth a purchase?


Answer: Yes. They are full-scale orchestral works, quite striking and memorable. I'm unclear why they're not more popular than they seem. Others may want to suggest specific performances. They seem to me a bit lighter than his later symphonies, no bad thing.


----------



## Guest

senza sordino said:


> Does anyone know about the two serenades for orchestra? Are they worth a purchase? I know his symphonies, concerti and some chamber work, but I don't know Serenade #1 or #2 Any thoughts? Are they large scale orchestra works or for smaller ensembles?


Both are definitely worth obtaining in due course, but when depends on what else you have and your budget. Generally speaking it's worth getting as much you can of each major composer's output.

These two serenades are among the earliest of Brahms' orchestral works. Serenade No 1 was written in 1857 (age 24), and is his Op 11. Serenade No 2, Op 16, was written in 1859, and in the same year appeared Brahms' PC No 1, Op 15.

Serenade No 1 is the longer of the two works and is scored for full orchestra in six movements. Serenade No 2 is scored for a chamber orchestra in five movements.

If you want recommendations, I have two versions of each Serenade. For Serenade No 1 I have Claudio Abbado conducting the BPO, and another conducting the Mahler Chamber Orchestra. Take your pick as they're both good. For Serenade No 2 I have a version by Adrian Boult conducting the London Philharmonic Orchestra, and another Bernard Haitink conducting the London Symphony Orchestra, both of which are good.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

These recordings are quite old dating from about 1976 but warm sounding and were still a Penguin Guide rosette winner at the turn of the millennium. I prefer the Karajan set I also have which was recorded a few years later BUT the same guide didn't and only gave his 3* ... you won't go far wrong with the Jochum set as recording quality isn't everything ;-)


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I also have a Previn 4th which is on Telarc and brilliantly recorded and also 3* but no cigar and a Tennstedt 1st which are both DDD unlike the Karajan and Jochum which are ADD though the latter of these recorded at The Kingsway Hall show that performance trumps production.


----------



## Avey

Heard the Third Symphony earlier today, after a few months or so. 

Brevity and beauty. Not many symphonies are better than this. Technical preciseness and emotional power at once, confined within such a tight frame.


----------



## Cadenza

The Serenades are delightful way to spend an afternoon at my desk, real day-brighteners for me.

The symphonies, however, those are reserved for periods of dedicated listening, usually after dinner and even into bed with my headphones. My wife reads, I hum along.


----------



## hpowders

I'm really sorry you never found a woman who would love you unconditionally. Clara would have been the one, but you played second fiddle to Robert. She was so beautiful and talented. I could have fallen in love with her too, Johannes!


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> I'm really sorry you never found a woman who would love you unconditionally. Clara would have been the one, but you played second fiddle to Robert. She was so beautiful and talented. I could have fallen in love with her too, Johannes!


What about Alma? See you on the Mahler guestbook.


----------



## mstar

hpowders said:


> I'm really sorry you never found a woman who would love you unconditionally. Clara *would have been the one, but you played second fiddle to Robert*. She was so beautiful and talented. I could have fallen in love with her too, Johannes!


:lol: What can I say? 
About the works, Brahms's compositions are wonderful. I am just quite dismayed that Brahms and Clara had to destroy (most of) poor Schumann's last works.... Wife or not, friend or not, they had no right to do so.


----------



## hpowders

Schumann's revenge on Clara and Johannes was to say "You tried to get rid of me but I'll be Bach!" Of course, it loses something from the original German.


----------



## Vaneyes

"Get it right."

View attachment 31113


----------



## KenOC

mstar said:


> I am just quite dismayed that Brahms and Clara had to destroy (most of) poor Schumann's last works.... Wife or not, friend or not, they had no right to do so.


Clara may have been more hidebound about this than Brahms. Late in the century, Brahms oversaw a complete edition of Schumann's works. He wanted to include the original 1841 version of the 4th Symphony as well as the later and more thickly orchestrated 1851 version that is still usually played. Clara opposed this vehemently. But Brahms went ahead and included both versions.

They are both included in Gardiner's excellent Schumann cycle. For my money, I'll take the 1841 version.


----------



## Blake

Brahms was one of the first composers I knew of, but I've been ignoring him for some reason... not anymore. Great composer, wonderful stuff.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

It took me a lot of listenings to get into his symphonies, probably because I'm not a fan of Beethoven's "I'll build up tension then destroy it with a tutti-staccato-fff thingy" and "let the flute double the violins when they got nothing else to do for a while". I finally got it after repeated listenings to the 3rd symphony and now my favorite is the 4th. I still find the introduction of the first 'too good' for the rest of the symphony of which ugly string writing I very much dislike.

Brahms's chamber and concertante works are much more accessible, sometimes "relaxed" and still got that very refined counterpoint-development-variation so characteristic of him. My favorites are the string sextet no.1, string quintet no.2 and the piano concerto no.2. On the other hand, most of his sonatas and choral works are somewhat too nice.


----------



## Chad

He was one of the first composers to enjoy a good amount of fame during his most productive years and also managed to make a good living at it


----------



## hpowders

Hey Johnnie. hpowders here. The others are all busy putting down Lang Lang elsewhere.
Is heaven real? I mean did you actually get Clara's love "up there" in the end after all?


----------



## neoshredder

I gotta say all that facial hair makes Brahms look the coolest of 19th Century Composers.


----------



## Blake

A mighty beard. A mightier compositional ability.


----------



## jlaw

I particularly enjoy the Ein Deutsches Requiem, probably his greatest. I also like Sonata No. 1 Op. 78, tender and moving.


----------



## hpowders

If Brahms shaved all that facial hair, he may have had a better chance with Clara.
Hey Johannes!!! Robert Schumann was CLEAN SHAVEN!!!! HINT!! HINT!!


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> What about Alma? See you on the Mahler guestbook.


I went to a fine seafood place for dinner. The fillet of Alma was terrific.


----------



## clara s

hpowders said:


> I'm really sorry you never found a woman who would love you unconditionally. Clara would have been the one, but you played second fiddle to Robert. She was so beautiful and talented. I could have fallen in love with her too, Johannes!


thanks for the compliment hahaha

and you know, Johannes was 13 years younger than Clara

but he was so dedicated to her


----------



## hpowders

clara s said:


> thanks for the compliment hahaha
> 
> and you know, Johannes was 13 years younger than Clara
> 
> but she was so dedicated to her


My pleasure, madame! 

I've always felt bad for Johannes. I have a sensitive spot for a man who lost out in love to a rival.


----------



## clara s

Vaneyes said:


> What about Alma? See you on the Mahler guestbook.


Alma's was a story that will never bore you


----------



## hpowders

I'm interested as long as she wasn't my Alma Mater.


----------



## clara s

hpowders said:


> I'm interested as long as she wasn't my Alma Mater.


no wonder why Mahler was a regular client of Freud


----------



## hpowders

Good thing Freud didn't fix him, otherwise his music might have all of a sudden sounded like Mozart.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> Good thing Freud didn't fix him, otherwise his music might have all of a sudden sounded like Mozart.


He had composed his last note already by the time he met with Freud.


----------



## clara s

Mahlerian said:


> He had composed his last note already by the time he met with Freud.


It is true that the 4-hour session with Freud in Leyden, was in 1910 and Mahler died 9 months later, in 1911.

I was reading again Mahler's life and I was very much touched

His music is a mirror of his life

I would definitely like to meet him


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> He had composed his last note already by the time he met with Freud.


I would have loved to be a fly on the wall, a German one of course.


----------



## Avey

Going to see _Ein Deutsche Requiem_ accompanied by piano, four hands, _see_ post under Religious Music.

I was unaware of this version. And I'm thoroughly excited.


----------



## hpowders

You seem to get excited very easily.


----------



## Oskaar

I have added Brahms symphony 1 in my new thread CURRENTLY LISTENING revisited. You can go there if you want to suggest a good reccording of this fine symphony. Link


----------



## hpowders

Best Brahms First Symphony I know of is Charles Munch leading the Boston Symphony Orchestra.


----------



## Oskaar

thank you hpowders I take it as a suggeston, and cut and past your entry into the thread. If you dont mind, it would be nice if you post into the thread! It brings more life to it!


----------



## Vaneyes

This week,* Brahms Symphony 1* is under The Guardian's microscope.

My favorite rec. is BPO/HvK (DG, 1964). Others that should be heard--Klemperer, Harnoncourt, Muti, Suitner, Walter, Szell, Jochum. :tiphat:

http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/mar/25/symphony-guide-brahms-first-tom-service


----------



## hpowders

Don't forget Munch/ BSO. Prime!


----------



## Cheyenne

Furtwängler gentlemen, Furtwängler! 1945 finale only BPO, 1951 North German Radio Symphony Orchestra, 1952 BPO.


----------



## millionrainbows

Give him another jelly doughnut, and run for cover!


----------



## Skilmarilion

So I have discovered Brahms' Alto Rhapsody recently and my goodness it's fantastic.

You have this powerful contrast between the dark, 'low-end' heavy opening and the brighter, more operatic later parts. When the male chorus comes in it's one of _those_ musical moments where you feel as if time has just stood still.


----------



## Op.123

Op. 8 is among his best works, IMO


----------



## Cheyenne

Burroughs said:


> Op. 8 is among his best works, IMO


I love it too. Mencken called the opening theme "the loveliest tune, perhaps, in the whole range of music." Both the 1854 and the 1889 are enjoyable, though I think the latter superior. The former has more of his young frenzy, though that also makes the work lack focus and plod around inefficiently: the former is the work of a youthful soul, the latter that of an experienced composer. Joseph Swensen has orchestrated and conducted the 1854 version efficiently. The Parnassus Trio (lofty name!) has a nice rendering of it in the original version. My favorite performance of the 1889 version is definitely that by Fischer, Schneiderhan and Mainardi.


----------



## schuberkovich

I think the revised version is way above the original version. Everyone goes on about the opening theme of the first movement - what about the second(?) theme? It's one of my favourite passages in music:
at 2:38


----------



## hpowders

Good to see Eugene Istomin, Leonard Rose and Issac Stern again.


----------



## Itullian

hpowders said:


> Good to see Eugene Istomin, Leonard Rose and Issac Stern again.


I love their recordings.


----------



## hpowders

Itullian said:


> I love their recordings.


They played with honest passion.


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> They played with honest passion.


Not your fault that I now cringe at the word *honest*. A lot of water has flowed since that Trio's heyday.

As Carlin said, "If honesty were suddenly introduced into American life, the whole system would collapse."


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> Not your fault that I now cringe at the word *honest*. A lot of water has flowed since that Trio's heyday.
> 
> As Carlin said, "If honesty were suddenly introduced into American life, the whole system would collapse."


Okay. How about, they were "reliable". You could always count on them to give fine, convincing performances of the trio repertoire. That performance of the Brahms B Major Trio captured them at their very best, IMO.


----------



## Blancrocher

hpowders said:


> Okay. How about, they were "reliable". You could always count on them to give fine, convincing performances of the trio repertoire. That performance of the Brahms B Major Trio captured them at their very best, IMO.


If you really want to sell it, go with "dishonest."


----------



## KenOC

Vaneyes said:


> As Carlin said, "If honesty were suddenly introduced into American life, the whole system would collapse."


There's a name for when a politician tells the truth. It's called a "gaffe."


----------



## Oskaar

I get new kicks all the time, discovering music. My new one is to find quality videos with living pictures from as many of the composers works as possible.
And Brahms is one of my favourite composers so I start with him.

*Kyung Wha Chung plays Brahms violin sonata No.1*

Kyung-Wha Chung plays Brahms violin sonata No.1 with Itamar Golan at the piano. This recital, which took place in March 1997, was to celerbrate her own 30th anniversary since her internatinal debut in 1967. - youtube info

A lovely sonata, and I think Chang plays it very well.
Not the best sound and picture, but not bad eather.


----------



## Oskaar

I will post another sonata, and then wait a little, so that I dont ocupy the thread completely. Talk and discussion arround this granddad of classical music is the most important. What is your favourite works by the way, in different subgenres? I have learned to love his chamber work, then piano, and so choral. I have struggled a bit with symphonies and the orkestral, feeling it was to serious, but getting more into it now. He is a master of several genres.

And here is the brilliant presentation of op 38:

*Johannes Brahms, Sonata for cello and piano n. 1
Ophélie Gaillard, cello
Ferenc Vizi, piano
Live at Abbaye de Fontevraud November 2012*






And.... Is Brahms the greatest romantic composer?


----------



## schuberkovich

Brahms is so good!

I've been listening to his 4th symphony for ages but I always felt slightly unsure of the 3rd movement. However, I was listening to it again and the sheer joy in it made me cry. Its so wildly energetic and happy and just amazing in general.
If there's anyone who thinks that Brahms is stodgy, listen to it:


----------



## Vaneyes

Service finally adds a big gun to his symphonic lineup, Brahms Symphony 4. My preferred rec. is BPO/HvK (DG, 1964).

http://www.theguardian.com/music/tomserviceblog/2014/may/13/symphony-guide-brahms-fourth-tom-service


----------



## Op.123

My favourite brahms op. In the order they appear

83 + 15 = 98


----------



## Blake

Wake up! Listen.


----------



## zvioliny

Brahms is one of my favorite composers of all time. His chamber music is amazing, especially the piano quintet, piano trio in b, and piano quartets.


----------



## Cosmos

I'm not too big on Brahms, but I'm slowly getting more and more into his music. So far, I find his chamber works to be better than his more large scale pieces

My favs:
Piano Quartet no. 3 c minor
Piano Concerto 1
Symphonies 2 and 3
Violin Concerto
The op. 79 Rhapsodies
Violin Sonatas and Cello Sonatas


----------



## hpowders

My favorite Brahms work is his first violin sonata in G. What a beauty!


----------



## Blake

He's one of those composers whom I like everything he's done. I've found him to be that good.


----------



## Vaneyes

Vesuvius said:


> He's one of those composers whom *I like everything he's done*. I've found him to be that good.


Even Academic Festival Overture?


----------



## Blake

Vaneyes said:


> Even Academic Festival Overture?


Can't remember, but I'm sure I do.


----------



## KenOC

Vaneyes said:


> Even Academic Festival Overture?


I love it. A welcome change from his usual wearying earnestness.


----------



## MagneticGhost

The Academic Festival Overture is a gem of a piece. The Tragic Overture on the other hand is a little....erm....... tragic.


----------



## hpowders

Yes, but that wonderful lyrical tune played by the strings is magical in that Tragic Overture. Worth waiting for.


----------



## KenOC

Question for the Brahms cognoscenti: What was his middle name?


----------



## Blake

He was too much of a loner to carry around a middle name.


----------



## milanrehak

Hungarian dance no. 5 for accordion - virtuoso arrangment


----------



## LarryShone

Brahms is a composer that for some reason I have largely ignored. Maybe I felt that he doesnt compare the great Beethoven or Mozart, I dont know. But last night I played his Sym#3 accompanied by the Schikislieder and St Anthony variations. Superb.
I shall want to discover more now!


----------



## hpowders

Plenty left to discover:

The piano trios. The piano quartets. The piano quintet. The string quartets. The string quintets. The string sextets. Piano Concertos #1 and 2, Double Concerto, Violin Concerto, Late Piano Pieces, Ballades, Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Symphonies # 1, 2 and 4.


----------



## LarryShone

hpowders said:


> Plenty left to discover:
> 
> The piano trios. The piano quartets. The piano quintet. The string quartets. The string quintets. The string sextets. Piano Concertos #1 and 2, Double Concerto, Violin Concerto, Late Piano Pieces, Ballades, Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, Symphonies # 1, 2 and 4.


I do have other Brahms pieces on no-name disks. I just have to dig em out. Im sure I have the double concerto.


----------



## hpowders

LarryShone said:


> I do have other Brahms pieces on no-name disks. I just have to dig em out. Im sure I have the double concerto.


Put your glasses on. It might actually be a single concerto.


----------



## hpowders

LarryShone said:


> I do have other Brahms pieces on no-name disks. I just have to dig em out. Im sure I have the double concerto.


You won't really know these great composers until you explore their chamber music. Brahms is no exception.


----------



## LarryShone

hpowders said:


> Put your glasses on. It might actually be a single concerto.


One of my old brahms disks Im about to put on my ipod.


----------



## LarryShone

Track listing according to itunes/Gracenote (there was no booklet with it)


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> You won't really know these great composers until you explore their chamber music. Brahms is no exception.


Yes, Brahms was a master chamber composer. I'm waiting for this fire in my belly to wear out when it comes to his music, but it's just too good... too damn good.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Yes, Brahms was a master chamber composer. I'm waiting for this fire in my belly to wear out when it comes to his music, but it's just too good... too damn good.


He wrote a lot of great chamber music. I don't care much for his string quartets, but I love the string sextets.
The three piano quartets and the piano quintet are all terrific.

Shows what one can do when television isn't a distraction.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> He wrote a lot of great chamber music. I don't care much for his string quartets, but I love the string sextets.
> The three piano quartets and the piano quintet are all terrific.
> 
> Shows what one can do when television isn't a distraction.


Check out his piano trios, as well. Trio Wanderer does an excellent job.


----------



## Mahlerian

hpowders said:


> Shows what one can do when television isn't a distraction.


Or web forums...


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Check out his piano trios, as well. Trio Wanderer does an excellent job.


Yes. I have his piano trios in multiple versions.


----------



## hpowders

Mahlerian said:


> Or web forums...


I do not sit here all day. I break for lunch from 12 to 12:30 and dinner from 5:30 to 6.


----------



## LarryShone

His violin concerto is superb!


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> I do not sit here all day. I break for lunch from 12 to 12:30 and dinner from 5:30 to 6.


Haha, we should make you head of security 'round here.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, we should make you head of security 'round here.


I got a letter from the CEO in Sweden concerning Security Chief Position, but I turned down the offer because it might cut into my lunch and dinner times.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> I got a letter from the CEO in Sweden concerning Security Chief Position, but I turned down the offer because it might cut into my lunch and dinner times.


Oh, just up the fees.

Keeping the thread on topic, as well. Brahms... yup, he's great.


----------



## LarryShone

Did Brahms and Liszt ever collaborate? They are used in a kind of funny drinking term over here...


----------



## Blake

I'm sure they've met each other before, because Litz was quite fond of Schumann when he was performing, and Brahms was around as his beloved pupil. Any lengthier information would have to be imparted by a more knowledgable chap. And I'm quite keen.


----------



## hpowders

I couldn't see Brahms liking Liszt's music, but then again, I also thought the Titanic would float.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> I couldn't see Brahms liking Liszt's music, but then again, I also thought the Titanic would float.


Didn't think you were that old... Regardless, most people had a certain level of respect for Liszt. He held an image for a while that was quite like the modern-day rockstar. Whether composers of such disposition as Brahms were impressed by that is questionable, but he was known to have the skill to rival other pianists of his day... namely, Chopin. Chopin was known to say that Liszt could play one of his etudes better than he. But technique is only one side of the shiny coin that we like to pocket.


----------



## Avey

Legend has it that Brahms visited Liszt in his early days. Brahms, being reluctant to play his work in front of the "master," allowed Liszt to sight-read his op. 4 Scherzo. As Liszt played, he glanced over at Brahms, to get a sense of the young man's sentiments. Brahms was asleep.


And much of the literature relays that Brahms disliked Liszt's music. That being related to the whole "Wagnerian" gestalt that encroached upon his work later in his life? One may surmise.


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Didn't think you were that old... Regardless, most people had a certain level of respect for Liszt. He held an image for a while that was quite like the modern-day rockstar. Whether composers of such disposition as Brahms were impressed by that is questionable, but he was known to have the skill to rival other pianists of his day... namely, Chopin. Chopin was known to say that Liszt could play one of his etudes better than he. But technique is only one side of the shiny coin that we like to pocket.


Many folks think Lincoln spoke in a manly baritone. I'm here to tell you it was more like a shaky weak tenor.


----------



## hpowders

Avey said:


> Legend has it that Brahms visited Liszt in his early days. Brahms, being reluctant to play his work in front of the "master," allowed Liszt to sight-read his op. 4 Scherzo. As Liszt played, he glanced over at Brahms, to get a sense of the young man's sentiments. Brahms was asleep.
> 
> *And much of the literature relays that Brahms disliked Liszt's music.* That being related to the whole "Wagnerian" gestalt that encroached upon his work later in his life? One may surmise.


My respect for Brahms just went up a mega-lot!!!


----------



## Vaneyes

Ivan Hewett of The Telegraph explores some of the Brahms conceptions or misconceptions. Maybe one's better off just listening to the music, rather than considering tales passed on through many generations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/...is-a-prickly-composer-but-a-powerful-one.html


----------



## ArcticFox

The only Brahms piece that I've heard completely is the song Sonntag, which I'm singing in a recital next month, and I really like it  Hopefully, I can hear more of his music.


----------



## Vaneyes

ArcticFox said:


> The only Brahms piece that I've heard completely is the song Sonntag, which I'm singing in a recital next month, and I really like it  Hopefully, I can hear more of his music.


Break a leg.

Re exploring Brahms works...so as not to immediately bombard your senses, I'd recommend beginning with Piano Pieces, then working your way in orderly fashion through the Sonatas, Trios, Quartets, Quintets, Sextets, Concerti, and finally the massive Symphonies, preferably the 60's cycle with BPO/HvK. :tiphat:


----------



## Haydn man

ArcticFox said:


> The only Brahms piece that I've heard completely is the song Sonntag, which I'm singing in a recital next month, and I really like it  Hopefully, I can hear more of his music.


No being hopeful about it. 
Get yourself some Brahms.....beg, borrow or steal if necessary
After that get some more


----------



## JACE

Vaneyes said:


> Break a leg.
> 
> Re exploring Brahms works...so as not to immediately bombard your senses, I'd recommend beginning with Piano Pieces, then working your way in orderly fashion through the Sonatas, Trios, Quartets, Quintets, Sextets, Concerti, and finally the massive Symphonies, preferably the 60's cycle with BPO/HvK. :tiphat:


This was the first recording of Brahms' music that I ever heard:










I loved it from the moment I heard it, and I still do!

I heard the chamber works and solo piano works later.

I guess everyone's path is different. :cheers:


----------



## Vaneyes

JACE said:


> This was the first recording of Brahms' music that I ever heard:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I loved it from the moment I heard it, and I still do!
> 
> I heard the chamber works and solo piano works later.
> 
> I guess everyone's path is different. :cheers:


Marvellous Bruno cycle.

My previous recommendation was for an individual I gathered to be mostly involved in a gentler (and maybe, genteel) genre.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> Marvellous Bruno cycle.
> 
> My previous recommendation was for an individual I gathered to be mostly involved in a gentler (and maybe, genteel) genre.


He had a real warmth about him when conducting. The fact that he was confined to the "Columbia Symphony Orchestra" in his later years, instead of with any of the big 5 American orchestras or those of Berlin, Vienna and Amsterdam is practically a crime!

This was the great Bruno Walter! Not some hack!!


----------



## JACE

hpowders said:


> He had a real warmth about him when conducting. The fact that he was confined to the "Columbia Symphony Orchestra" in his later years, instead of with any of the big 5 American orchestras or those of Berlin, Vienna and Amsterdam is practically a crime!


But he made the Columbia SO sound pretty dog-gone GOOD, hp!!! 

For example, I don't hear a drop-off in orchestral quality between his Mahler with the Columbia SO and his Mahler with the NYPO. Do you?

BTW: Agree 100% about the warmth that Walter brought to the music. Very lyrical. Very _Gemütlichkeit_.


----------



## hpowders

JACE said:


> But he made the Columbia SO sound pretty dog-gone GOOD, hp!!!
> 
> For example, I don't hear a drop-off in orchestral quality between his Mahler with the Columbia SO and his Mahler with the NYPO. Do you?
> 
> BTW: Agree 100% about the warmth that Walter brought to the music. Very lyrical. Very _Gemütlichkeit_.


Can you even imagine a Bruno Walter Beethoven and Brahms Symphonies set and last 3 Mozart Symphonies with the Vienna Philharmonic recorded in halfway decent sound?


----------



## Vaneyes

"I don't hear a drop-off in orchestral quality between his Mahler with the Columbia SO and his Mahler with the NYPO."

That's because his East Coast and West Coast orchestras players were largely from NYPO and LAPO.

Too, his player counts were smaller, but he (and his engineers) knew the tricks for sound expansion.

Let's not forget the magnificent Bruckner 9 with the West Coast.


----------



## DeepR

I don't get Brahms. I'm not hearing it. I hear notes but not music. I have sat through some of his pieces, don't even remember which ones, without hearing a single passage, theme or melody that spoke to me. It seems so redundant. What is he saying? I've heard music from every major romantic composer that I like, except for Brahms. I guess my brain isn't wired correctly for his music. It does fascinate me that I don't get it, so I'm not giving up.


----------



## Blake

DeepR said:


> I don't get Brahms. I'm not hearing it. I hear notes but not music. I have sat through some of his pieces, don't even remember which ones, without hearing a single passage, theme or melody that spoke to me. It seems so redundant. What is he saying? I've heard music from every major romantic composer that I like, except for Brahms. I guess my brain isn't wired correctly for his music. It does fascinate me that I don't get it, so I'm not giving up.


He tends to be my most listened to Romantic... because he's not so romantic.

I didn't always like him either, as he use to seem a bit dense and analytical, but times have changed. Keep at it a bit... something may open up, and you'll have that moment of "oh yes, I understand now." Great moments.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock

DeepR said:


> I don't get Brahms. I'm not hearing it. I hear notes but not music. I have sat through some of his pieces, don't even remember which ones, without hearing a single passage, theme or melody that spoke to me. It seems so redundant. What is he saying? I've heard music from every major romantic composer that I like, except for Brahms. I guess my brain isn't wired correctly for his music. It does fascinate me that I don't get it, so I'm not giving up.


Yes, I've had a phase like that with Brahms - he can be a bit 'stubborn' at times, but overall he was a very original composer - just listen to the beginning of Symphony No. 1 in C minor - you know the guy's out to get you! Very intense stuff. I'd say keep cracking at it, you might eventually 'discover' him.


----------



## abraham

Brahms is often considered both a traditionalist and an innovator Brahms always shows himself a most sympathetic friend. He does not say much, but one can see in his face … how he grieves with me for the loved one whom he so highly reveres.Brahms wrote a mumber of music in which some are serenades and Symphonies.


----------



## hpowders

DeepR said:


> I don't get Brahms. I'm not hearing it. I hear notes but not music. I have sat through some of his pieces, don't even remember which ones, without hearing a single passage, theme or melody that spoke to me. It seems so redundant. What is he saying? I've heard music from every major romantic composer that I like, except for Brahms. I guess my brain isn't wired correctly for his music. It does fascinate me that I don't get it, so I'm not giving up.


I've never heard this before from anyone into classical music. Okay. Plenty of other composers to spend time with. Not a crime.


----------



## Mandryka

DeepR said:


> I don't get Brahms. I'm not hearing it. I hear notes but not music. I have sat through some of his pieces, don't even remember which ones, without hearing a single passage, theme or melody that spoke to me. It seems so redundant. What is he saying? I've heard music from every major romantic composer that I like, except for Brahms. I guess my brain isn't wired correctly for his music. It does fascinate me that I don't get it, so I'm not giving up.


Lots of people agree with you and you're in some very good company. Right from the start, Brahms was criticised negatively as either too sentimental or too cold and dry.


----------



## hpowders

Name 10........


----------



## tdc

I agree with those suggesting to keep trying with Brahms - he is worth it. I initially found his music labored and lacking any spontaneous qualities. Now he is probably my favorite Romantic era composer. For me the late piano works seemed to be "gateway" pieces that helped me understand his compositional voice.


----------



## Triplets

Vaneyes said:


> "I don't hear a drop-off in orchestral quality between his Mahler with the Columbia SO and his Mahler with the NYPO."
> 
> That's because his East Coast and West Coast orchestras players were largely from NYPO and LAPO.
> 
> Too, his player counts were smaller, but he (and his engineers) knew the tricks for sound expansion.
> 
> Let's not forget the magnificent Bruckner 9 with the West Coast.


 The "Columbia Symphony" was basically either the NY Phil or the LA Phil, depending upon which coast Walter was recording.
They would be augmented by free lancers, and both New York and LA had a lot of good free lancers, particularly in those two decades after WWII. The columbia SO was a lot finer ensemble than the Halle was for Barbirolli, or Abravanel's Utah Orchestra, just to name two other great Conductors that recorded extensively around the same time.


----------



## Triplets

hpowders said:


> Name 10........


Well, there was the guy that placed a sign under the axe at the Boston Symphony that was to be used in case of fires that said..."use in case of Brahms".
Brahms may take some work to get to appreciate. Fortunately, the effort, once made, is usually rewarded 100 fold. I wish my retirement portfolio would perform like that.


----------



## hpowders

Triplets said:


> Well, there was the guy that placed a sign under the axe at the Boston Symphony that was to be used in case of fires that said..."use in case of Brahms".
> Brahms may take some work to get to appreciate. Fortunately, the effort, once made, is usually rewarded 100 fold. I wish my retirement portfolio would perform like that.


It can if you use futures.


----------



## Kobak

Brahms is one of my favs. In all honesty, I think his symphonies are unmatched in the romantic era, and his piano works are ingenius jewels.


----------



## hpowders

Yes. My favorite is the Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel.


----------



## Lunasong

George Henschel, the first music director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra, was a good friend of Johannes Brahms, but was terrified by Brahms' loud and unmusical snoring and wrote: "We retired to No. 11, and it was my instant and most ardent endeavour to go to sleep before Brahms...my delight at seeing him take up a book and read in bed was equaled only by my horror when, after a few minutes, I saw him blow out his candle. A few seconds later the room was fairly ringing with the most unearthly noises...what should I do? I was in despair...I went downstairs to the porter, whom, not without some difficulty, I succeeded in rousing from a sound sleep...I made him open room No. 42 for me...I returned, early in the morning, to the room in which I had left Brahms...he was awake and, affectionately looking at me, said 'Oh, Henschel, when I awoke and found your bed empty, I said to myself, There! He's gone and hanged himself! But really, why didn't you throw a boot at me ?' 
The idea of my throwing a boot at Brahms!"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I've been finally getting into Brahms's symphonies and concertos and other orchestral music. I like his 4th but the last movement has always let me down.....the first symphony is the most original thing I've heard from any German composer writing big muscular german music.


----------



## tdc

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've been finally getting into Brahms's symphonies and concertos and other orchestral music. I like his 4th but the last movement has always let me down.....the first symphony is the most original thing I've heard from any German composer writing big muscular german music.


Really? At this moment I really like all the movements in Brahms Symphonies. I think the only other composer I can say that about is Ives.


----------



## hpowders

For me the Fourth is glorious from first note to last. The fourth movement is absolutely cataclysmic.

An astonishing masterpiece!


----------



## Haydn man

Like others it took me time to appreciate Brahms. Initially I thought it would be Beethoven continued but not so.
Now all 4 symphonies would be high on my favourites list.
The Violin Concerto I would rank as my favourite work by Brahms with its power and drama.


----------



## violadude

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've been finally getting into Brahms's symphonies and concertos and other orchestral music. I like his 4th but the last movement has always let me down.....the first symphony is the most original thing I've heard from any German composer writing big muscular german music.


I'm the opposite. I'm dissapointed by the finale of the 1st.


----------



## starthrower

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I've been finally getting into Brahms's symphonies and concertos and other orchestral music. I like his 4th but the last movement has always let me down.....the first symphony is the most original thing I've heard from any German composer writing big muscular german music.


The 1st & 4th are the only Brahms symphonies I own. I haven't listened to no. 1 in almost 30 years. I have it on cassette tape, lol! I don't know if my recording of the 4th is any good? It's a LaserLight CD by the Netherlands Philharmonic. Never heard of the conductor, Hartmut Haenchen. I probably should update my collection!


----------



## Blake

I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


----------



## Bas

Blake said:


> I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


I want a better recording than my current Von Karajan (that is not too bad musically, but sonically not what I'd like)

That however, was not why I came to write here. It was to channel, share the overwhelm I feel now that I am enjoying the second movement of Johannes' 2nd piano concerto. Wow!


----------



## BartokPizz

Blake said:


> I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


My favorite is Klemperer.


----------



## Mandryka

Blake said:


> I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


Abbado live with Bryn Terfel.


----------



## Vaneyes

Blake said:


> I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


La Chapelle Royale/Herreweghe for intimate. VPO/HvK '83 for full monty.


----------



## Blake

Thanks for all the suggestions fellas. My mission became that much harder, as everyone seems to have a different favorite, haha.


----------



## MagneticGhost

Blake said:


> I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


You were thinking right. Gardiner is supreme.


----------



## Mandryka

The VPO had been rehearsed by Furtwangler for the 1947 Karajan Requiem, the one on EMI. I'm not sure why Legge decided to give the recording to Karajan. You may be especially interested to hear it if you like Furtwangler, Karajan, the VPO, Hotter or Schwarzkopf. 

One reason I recommend Abbado/Terfel over Karajan and Klemperer is that Terfel is extremely emotional. And somehow Abbado avoids being too heavy. 

I didn't enjoy Gardiner as much as Abbado I'm afraid. But another one to consider is Toscanini, 1943.


----------



## aajj

Has anyone heard Murray Perahia's disc of Brahms piano music on Sony from 3-4 years ago? Absolute perfection. The two Rhapsodies, Op. 79, etc., all wonderful, but his Handel Variations is mind-blowing.


----------



## Lunasong

Currently listening to _Requiem._


----------



## aajj

The Tragic Overture came on the radio while i was driving the other day. Sounded great!


----------



## aajj

hpowders said:


> He had a real warmth about him when conducting. The fact that he was confined to the "Columbia Symphony Orchestra" in his later years, instead of with any of the big 5 American orchestras or those of Berlin, Vienna and Amsterdam is practically a crime!
> 
> This was the great Bruno Walter! Not some hack!!


Totally see your point and i wish he had spread himself around to the other orchestras. Don't know if this was his choice or the dictates of his record company. But for what exists with Columbia, i have no complaints. In addition to Brahms, i regard his recordings of the late Mozart symphonies, with the Columbia band, as _supreme_.


----------



## nightscape

Blake said:


> I need to get my hands on a good recording of his requiem. Any recommendations? I was thinking Gardiner....


Blomstedt/San Francisco


----------



## Avey

Lunasong said:


> Currently listening to _Requiem._


This is a profound statement. Because, let us be real, the Requiem is special.

If someone were to ask me what I am listening to, and I were listening to this piece, I would remark the same, and they would respond: by whom?

I would then shake my head, walk away, stare with indignation, sneer, or simply laugh to myself.

This is my fantasy.


----------



## hpowders

aajj said:


> Totally see your point and i wish he had spread himself around to the other orchestras. Don't know if this was his choice or the dictates of his record company. But for what exists with Columbia, i have no complaints. In addition to Brahms, i regard his recordings of the late Mozart symphonies, with the Columbia band, as _supreme_.


He was excellent in Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mozart and R. Strauss. He seemed a natural for the music directorship of the NY Philharmonic. Perhaps he didn't want to be tied down with that heavy a commitment.


----------



## classicalremix

As a classical pianist I totally agree with you.


----------



## Blake

I've yet to grasp the full impact of his piano concertos. Amazing pieces of music, no doubt. But I haven't been able to see the whole of it. Anyone else been in this boat?


----------



## Vaneyes

Blake said:


> I've yet to grasp the full impact of his piano concertos. Amazing pieces of music, no doubt. But I haven't been able to see the whole of it. Anyone else been in this boat?


Yup, they're brutes, as can be some other Brahms--String Quartets, Piano Quartets, Piano Quintet. Stick with it. Keep listening, Something will eventually click.:tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> He was excellent in Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner, Mozart and R. Strauss. *He seemed a natural for the music directorship of the NY Philharmonic*. Perhaps he didn't want to be tied down with that heavy a commitment.


He was offered it in 1942, but declined. Accepted it in 1947, but changed the title to Music Advisor and left a year later. At this stage in life he preferred freelancing, such as music festivals and guest conducting.:tiphat:


----------



## CMonteverdi

Blake said:


> I've yet to grasp the full impact of his piano concertos. Amazing pieces of music, no doubt. But I haven't been able to see the whole of it. Anyone else been in this boat?


I think this is a common experience with Brahms... At the same time, I find this is the key to start loving Brahms: accept that you can somehow loose the "control" while following him...

LK


----------



## Albert7

Schoenberg in some essay wrote about Brahms being a radical composer? Any ideas where I can locate this article?


----------



## Dim7

Albert7 said:


> Schoenberg in some essay wrote about Brahms being a radical composer? Any ideas where I can locate this article?


http://db.zti.hu/ba_ftp/Schoenberg/Schoenberg_Brahms.pdf


----------



## clara s

cheers Johannes for your birthday

a glass of your favourite beer for you

tonight I will listen to your 3rd sonata as I am the only one that remembered you

clara


----------



## pianississimo

Yeah. Happy Birthday beardy Brahms. Don't listen to Mr Tchaikovsky. You're not a giftless ******* at all. He's just a grumpy bugger!


----------



## pianississimo

ooohh! I was censored! 

I was just quoting - honest!!


----------



## Blake

Albert7 said:


> Schoenberg in some essay wrote about Brahms being a radical composer? Any ideas where I can locate this article?


It still bewilders me when I hear people speak of Brahms as some kind of hard conservative.


----------



## hpowders

Just as I do regarding Mendelssohn, I prefer Brahms' chamber music to his orchestral works.


----------



## EdwardBast

Blake said:


> It still bewilders me when I hear people speak of Brahms as some kind of hard conservative.


I don't believe guestbooks are an appropriate place for negative comments, but since I don't believe being called a conservative composer is in any way pejorative, I'll ask - and not just you, Blake, but all above expressing this point of view: What genre, formal tendency or approach to composition did Brahms cultivate that was on the cutting edge of his era or, indeed, on the cutting edge even thirty years before he cultivated it? Did I miss something?

And just so you know, I greatly enjoy and listen to works in every genre he tried. I just don't see any reason to make him into something he wasn't. Who cares if he was a traditionalist this far after the fact? After all, he was.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> I don't believe guestbooks are an appropriate place for negative comments, but since I don't believe being called a conservative composer is in any way pejorative, I'll ask - and not just you, Blake, but all above expressing this point of view: What genre, formal tendency or approach to composition did Brahms cultivate that was on the cutting edge of his era or, indeed, on the cutting edge even thirty years before he cultivated it? Did I miss something?
> 
> And just so you know, I greatly enjoy and listen to works in every genre he tried. I just don't see any reason to make him into something he wasn't. Who cares if he was a traditionalist this far after the fact? After all, he was.


In Schoenberg's essay "Brahms the Progressive" he felt that Brahms was at least Wagner's equal in "extending harmonic freedoms" in music. In addition to this:

_Schoenberg observes that Brahms' musical vocabulary results from compressing musical ideas into their most efficient expression and eliminating the redundant prolixity that was characteristic of previous classical ("serious") music. In this regard, Brahms was a progressive classicist. Further, Brahms created asymmetrical and irregular constructions in meters and polyrhythms throughout his career, providing interest and ambiguity, and taking this freedom farther than had Haydn and Mozart_.

https://friedfoo.wordpress.com/musi...ble/arnold-schoenberg-brahms-the-progressive/


----------



## Blake

EdwardBast said:


> I don't believe guestbooks are an appropriate place for negative comments, but since I don't believe being called a conservative composer is in any way pejorative, I'll ask - and not just you, Blake, but all above expressing this point of view: What genre, formal tendency or approach to composition did Brahms cultivate that was on the cutting edge of his era or, indeed, on the cutting edge even thirty years before he cultivated it? Did I miss something?
> 
> And just so you know, I greatly enjoy and listen to works in every genre he tried. I just don't see any reason to make him into something he wasn't. Who cares if he was a traditionalist this far after the fact? After all, he was.


I would certainly say his harmonic language is uniquely his own. So much so that I never feel comfortable calling him something he wasn't - a strict conservative. He was somewhere between traditionalism and the cutting edge.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> In Schoenberg's essay "Brahms the Progressive" he felt that Brahms was at least Wagner's equal in "extending harmonic freedoms" in music. In addition to this:
> 
> _Schoenberg observes that Brahms' musical vocabulary results from compressing musical ideas into their most efficient expression and eliminating the redundant prolixity that was characteristic of previous classical ("serious") music. In this regard, Brahms was a progressive classicist. Further, Brahms created asymmetrical and irregular constructions in meters and polyrhythms throughout his career, providing interest and ambiguity, and taking this freedom farther than had Haydn and Mozart_.
> 
> https://friedfoo.wordpress.com/musi...ble/arnold-schoenberg-brahms-the-progressive/


So people really take Schoenberg's essay at face value? Even after he prominently quotes Marc Antony's "Brutus is an honorable man" as an example of making a point through repetition (as if mere repetition were the issue!)? Schoenberg discusses Brahms's innovations, each time citing a long-standing precedent, a century in the past in the case of the several examples from Mozart(!) or mere decades in the case of Wagner. This repeated rhetorical device underlining Brahms's "innovations," not coincidentally like Antony's repetition and likewise written for a memorial event, had an effect on me the very opposite of the literal meaning. Antony was being sarcastic!


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> So people really take Schoenberg's essay at face value? Even after he prominently quotes Marc Antony's "Brutus is an honorable man" as an example of making a point through repetition (as if mere repetition were the issue!)? Schoenberg discusses Brahms's innovations, each time citing a long-standing precedent, a century in the past in the case of the several examples from Mozart(!) or mere decades in the case of Wagner. This repeated rhetorical device underlining Brahms's "innovations," not coincidentally like Antony's repetition and likewise written for a memorial event, had an effect on me the very opposite of the literal meaning. Antony was being sarcastic!


So you are suggesting that Schoenberg was being sarcastic?

I don't know - the part italicized seems to sum up Brahms contributions nicely. I don't think there was really a precedent for a lot of what he was doing harmonically and rhythmically in his Symphonies, even if he was using older forms. What about those introspective late piano pieces? They sure don't sound like anything Beethoven composed to me. In fact I can't think of any composer they sound like other than Brahms. Their serious and subtle tone does seem to be something that caught on with a lot of early 20th century composers. Brahms clearly seemed to have some influence on composers like Schoenberg and Bartok. For these reasons I really don't think the label of "hard conservative" fits here.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms was indeed conservative. He was a Romantic operating within the well-established classical forms. Nothing ground-breaking about him.

Doesn't mean his music wasn't great.


----------



## tdc

hpowders said:


> Brahms was indeed conservative. He was a Romantic operating within the well-established classical forms. Nothing ground-breaking about him.
> 
> Doesn't mean his music wasn't great.


Form is not the only element of music that it is possible to tread new ground in. There are other elements such as harmony and rhythm.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> So you are suggesting that Schoenberg was being sarcastic?
> 
> I don't know - the part italicized seems to sum up Brahms contributions nicely. I don't think there was really a precedent for a lot of what he was doing harmonically and rhythmically in his Symphonies, even if he was using older forms. What about those introspective late piano pieces? They sure don't sound like anything Beethoven composed to me. In fact I can't think of any composer they sound like other than Brahms. Their serious and subtle tone does seem to be something that caught on with a lot of early 20th century composers. Brahms clearly seemed to have some influence on composers like Schoenberg and Bartok. For these reasons I really don't think the label of "hard conservative" fits here.


Hard to say. But if he was seriously trying to make his case for Brahms's progressive techniques by demonstrating that Mozart preceded him by a century in several of them, then he is a uniquely inept essayist. The alternative is that he was consciously, if not quite purposely, undermining his own thesis. I don't think sarcasm is an all or nothing proposition, nor do I believe writers are always able to draw a line between supporting a position they only halfheartedly believe and purposeful sarcasm; There is a fluid boundary between those verbal acts. Putting the best face on it, Schoenberg, who seems to have considered innovation and progressive tendencies to be signal musical values, might well have been trying generously to attribute these values to Brahms in whatever measure he could, as befitted the occasion. But, of course, the line between damning with faint praise and sarcasm is a fine one as well. As I suggested, the quote of Marc Antony's speech from Julius Caesar was either tone deaf or suspicious, take your pick.

Yes, Brahms had a strong personal voice. But serious and introspective piano pieces had a long history (Schubert, Schumann, Liszt, Chopin and no doubt numerous lesser figures) before Brahms took up the genre. And it is hard to overstate the conservative nature of Brahms's approach to form and orchestration. James Webster, a respected writer on Brahms, compared his stiff treatment of sonata recapitulations unfavorably with that of Haydn. (In "The Form of Tragedy," an essay on The Tragic Overture.)

None of this is meant to denigrate Brahms, whose music I greatly respect and enjoy. I just don't understand why anyone feels a need to miscast him as a progressive. To do so just sounds like kowtowing to values Brahms didn't embrace and which poorly represent his historical position.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> As I suggested, the quote of Marc Antony's speech from Julius Caesar was either tone deaf or suspicious, take your pick.


Neither.

"Even Antony, when addressing the Roman people, realizes that he must repeat his '...and Brutus is an honorable man' over and over, if *this contrast* is to penetrate into the minds of simple citizens."

Clearly he understands the point of the line rhetorically and dramatically.


----------



## EdwardBast

Mahlerian said:


> Neither.
> 
> "Even Antony, when addressing the Roman people, realizes that he must repeat his '...and Brutus is an honorable man' over and over, if *this contrast* is to penetrate into the minds of simple citizens."
> 
> Clearly he understands the point of the line rhetorically and dramatically.


Of course he understood it. That isn't at issue.

I was first calling into question the quotation's dubious relevance to musical repetition. Comprehension of a complex reflexive notion like sarcasm is nothing like merely recognizing or comprehending a repeated phrase. It is not a matter of the audience being unable to get it the first time; not an issue of brute repetition for the dull witted. Antony's rhetorical purpose requires understanding his characterization of Brutus within the broad context of historical events and the structure of the speech. Thus tone deaf because Schoenberg apparently can't hear that his is a really bad analogy. I am inclined to give Schoenberg more credit as a writer and thinker, in which case the choice was presumably made in spite of his hearing the bad analogy. The fact that he is undercutting his characterization of Brahms's innovations by demonstrating their century old precedents in Mozart made me wonder if the Antony example was there because it is a classic example of sarcasm enforced through a repeated trope - like Schoenberg's comparisons.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Of course he understood it. That isn't at issue.
> 
> I was first calling into question the quotation's dubious relevance to musical repetition. Comprehension of a complex reflexive notion like sarcasm is nothing like merely recognizing or comprehending a repeated phrase. It is not a matter of the audience being unable to get it the first time; not an issue of brute repetition for the dull witted. Antony's rhetorical purpose requires understanding his characterization of Brutus within the broad context of historical events and the structure of the speech. Thus tone deaf because Schoenberg apparently can't hear that his is a really bad analogy. I am inclined to give Schoenberg more credit as a writer and thinker, in which case the choice was presumably made in spite of his hearing the bad analogy. The fact that he is undercutting his characterization of Brahms's innovations by demonstrating their century old precedents in Mozart made me wonder if the Antony example was there because it is a classic example of sarcasm enforced through a repeated trope - like Schoenberg's comparisons.


No, it isn't an example of repetition for the sake of simple understanding of a phrase. As Schoenberg says, it is a matter of pointing up the contrast between the apparent meaning of the words and their actual application in context. In his writings as in his music, he tended to explore all of the possibilities of an idea as far as possible, in this case the various uses of repetition.

As for undermining the essay's apparent intent by reference to the tradition in which Brahms' progressive tendencies were embedded, you must realize that for Schoenberg, progress in music was not simply a matter of doing something outwardly new, but also of extending the old. Even as he did the former, he continued to emphasize the latter with reference to his own music, including in those aspects for which he praises Brahms. In that context, I fail to see how mentioning that Brahms' tendencies being in line with Mozart undermines his point about their extending art.


----------



## EDaddy

MagneticGhost said:


> You were thinking right. Gardiner is supreme.


I second that. Shaw & the ASO from the late 80's is at the very top as well. If only the recording didn't sound so wooly.


----------



## EDaddy

His late piano music is truly some of his best works and I really have enjoyed this disc. FWIW.


----------



## tdc

EdwardBast said:


> None of this is meant to denigrate Brahms, whose music I greatly respect and enjoy. I just don't understand why anyone feels a need to miscast him as a progressive. To do so just sounds like kowtowing to values Brahms didn't embrace and which poorly represent his historical position.


I remember when Elliott Carter analyzed Schoenberg's music he made the comment along the lines of "well its just more of that Brahms stuff". Note he didn't say more of that _Chopin_ stuff, or _Beethoven_ stuff or any other composer that preceded Brahms - this in itself suggests Brahms had his own unique approach to structuring music and that it was influential on Schoenberg.

I don't think anyone here is taking the stance that Brahms was a completely radical composer with very little ties to tradition, just pointing out that viewing him as a "hard conservative" (as Blake pointed out in post 456 which you seemed to take issue with) is not really an accurate portrayal either.


----------



## EdwardBast

tdc said:


> I remember when Elliott Carter analyzed Schoenberg's music he made the comment along the lines of "well its just more of that Brahms stuff". Note he didn't say more of that _Chopin_ stuff, or _Beethoven_ stuff or any other composer that preceded Brahms - this in itself suggests Brahms had his own unique approach to structuring music and that it was influential on Schoenberg.
> 
> I don't think anyone here is taking the stance that Brahms was a completely radical composer with very little ties to tradition, just pointing out that viewing him as a "hard conservative" (as Blake pointed out in post 456 which you seemed to take issue with) is not really an accurate portrayal either.


Well, really I have been over-complicating the issue. Schoenberg's real motivations are much simpler. It is just more of the usual Germanic megalomaniacal twaddle after Wagner: "I am the future, and everything that seems to point toward me is therefore progressive." Just as Wagner appropriated Beethoven's Ninth as the sign post to his Music Drama, so Schoenberg appropriates Brahms and his methods of dense motivic manipulations to retrospectively justify his position as the anointed child of history and Destiny. But Schoenberg's retrospective self-justification and aggrandizement has nothing to do with Brahms, who was just about as conservative as a composer could be.


----------



## Mahlerian

EdwardBast said:


> Well, really I have been over-complicating the issue. Schoenberg's real motivations are much simpler. It is just more of the usual Germanic megalomaniacal twaddle after Wagner: "I am the future, and everything that seems to point toward me is therefore progressive." Just as Wagner appropriated Beethoven's Ninth as the sign post to his Music Drama, so Schoenberg appropriates Brahms and his methods of dense motivic manipulations to retrospectively justify his position as the anointed child of history and Destiny. But Schoenberg's retrospective self-justification and aggrandizement has nothing to do with Brahms, who was just about as conservative as a composer could be.


Couldn't the reason at root be as much his love for Brahms, who personally encouraged him when he was starting out, and Brahms's music, as it is for positioning himself within a tradition? It's not as if he discovered Brahms later in life and then found a justification for his own techniques; he had developed as a composer alongside Brahms's work, and it remained influential on him throughout his life.

Did he see himself as being a composer who was moving the history of music forward? Yes. But in his writings, he tended to want to justify himself, not as a radical, but as a traditionalist, one who, not unlike Brahms, took the forms and techniques of the past and used them in an entirely new and individual way.


----------



## Guest

Well...

I keep chipping away at my little accrued pile of CDs by The Usual Suspects and suddenly...Brahms' 4 symphonies are really clicking with me. It's gone from repeatedly playing various composers so that a little familiarity might breed...something...but now with Brahms his symphonies are taking up residence in my CD player.









Just a little love here for the man. 

And that beard. 

I can see I'll be looking into his other works more.

:tiphat:


----------



## dzc4627

Just getting into Brahms. Really fantastic, powerful music. I can't count on my fingers how many times I have listened to Symphony 4, and I just finished his 1st today. Emotional, yet very calculated and intricate stuff. Going to be one of my favorites, I just know it. If anyone has any essential recommendations, send them my way.


----------



## Zarathustra

There was a time when I found Brahms quite boring but I too warmed up to his works. Today I was listening to one of his symphonies and I was amazed at how much I was reminded of Mahler at some points, when allegedly there was some antipathy between them.


----------



## Mahlerian

Zarathustra said:


> There was a time when I found Brahms quite boring but I too warmed up to his works. Today I was listening to one of his symphonies and I was amazed at how much I was reminded of Mahler at some points, when allegedly there was some antipathy between them.


They were personal friends for a few years before Brahms' death, and Brahms made some ambivalent comments about Mahler's Second Symphony. Mahler, for his part, conducted Brahms' works until the end of his life, although a read-through of the piano quartets prompted him to make the comment "There are Beethoven and Wagner, and after them, nobody!" and there is plenty of other evidence of his own strained love of the older master's music.


----------



## Dim7

I love the coda of the 1st movement of the 4th symphony.


----------



## Mal

dzc4627 said:


> Just getting into Brahms. Really fantastic, powerful music. I can't count on my fingers how many times I have listened to Symphony 4, and I just finished his 1st today. Emotional, yet very calculated and intricate stuff. Going to be one of my favorites, I just know it. If anyone has any essential recommendations, send them my way.


Which conductors of #4 do you enjoy the most? I've just listened to a cycle and what really stood out this time was Walter's #3 with the Columbia orchestra. It's an emotional and romantic version, but he keeps it together well. Plus great recorded sound.


----------



## Chronochromie

Mahlerian said:


> They were personal friends for a few years before Brahms' death, and Brahms made some ambivalent comments about Mahler's Second Symphony. Mahler, for his part, conducted Brahms' works until the end of his life, although a read-through of the piano quartets prompted him to make the comment "There are Beethoven and Wagner, and after them, nobody!" and there is plenty of other evidence of his own strained love of the older master's music.


Considering what he thought of Rott, it's no surprise that he didn't like Mahler's music.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Symphonies

1. Beethoven is great, I'm great, Beethoven is great...
2. Remember those faux Mozart Serenades I wrote a while ago?
3. Schuman is great, I'm great, I love you Clara
4. I'm finally great I think, thank you Bach


----------



## dzc4627

Mal said:


> Which conductors of #4 do you enjoy the most? I've just listened to a cycle and what really stood out this time was Walter's #3 with the Columbia orchestra. It's an emotional and romantic version, but he keeps it together well. Plus great recorded sound.


Abbado! Absolutely amazing... so lush...


----------



## bharbeke

dzc4627 said:


> Just getting into Brahms. Really fantastic, powerful music. I can't count on my fingers how many times I have listened to Symphony 4, and I just finished his 1st today. Emotional, yet very calculated and intricate stuff. Going to be one of my favorites, I just know it. If anyone has any essential recommendations, send them my way.


Scherzo in E flat minor (heard the Claudio Arrau version)
Violin Concerto (heard live at the Phoenix Symphony; any recommendations for recordings?)
Piano Concerto No. 2 (the Zimerman/Bernstein/VPO version is great)


----------



## dzc4627

bharbeke said:


> Scherzo in E flat minor (heard the Claudio Arrau version)
> Violin Concerto (heard live at the Phoenix Symphony; any recommendations for recordings?)
> Piano Concerto No. 2 (the Zimerman/Bernstein/VPO version is great)


Thanks! Will listen


----------



## chesapeake bay

dzc4627 said:


> Abbado! Absolutely amazing... so lush...


I'm so glad you posted this, I saw it in the "Examples of classical music that give you goosebumps?" thread". Its one of my favorites and I have 4 recordings of it but this one is by far the best. Abbado keeps it so smooth it just washes over you. My copy of the cd is on its way to me now


----------



## MagneticGhost

I'm just listening to the Dorati readings (of the symphonies) that have just arrived in my Mercury Living Presence boxset. 
Just sets the Lush bar a little bit higher. The sound quality is astounding - the excitement is palpable.


----------



## Pugg

MagneticGhost said:


> I'm just listening to the Dorati readings (of the symphonies) that have just arrived in my Mercury Living Presence boxset.
> Just sets the Lush bar a little bit higher. The sound quality is astounding - the excitement is palpable.


Very good choice :tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

I prefer Brahms' chamber music and solo piano works to his symphonic music.

Favorites include the Piano Trios, Sextets, Clarinet Quintet and Variations on a Theme by Handel.


----------



## pjang23

dzc4627 said:


> Just getting into Brahms. Really fantastic, powerful music. I can't count on my fingers how many times I have listened to Symphony 4, and I just finished his 1st today. Emotional, yet very calculated and intricate stuff. Going to be one of my favorites, I just know it. If anyone has any essential recommendations, send them my way.


All of the piano chamber music (esp. the Piano Quintet, but also Piano Quartets, Piano Trios, Clarinet Trio/Sonatas, Horn Trio, Violin Sonatas, Cello Sonatas), plus the Clarinet Quintet and String Sextets. His best piano writing was definitely in his chamber music rather than solo music.


----------



## dzc4627

chesapeake bay said:


> I'm so glad you posted this, I saw it in the "Examples of classical music that give you goosebumps?" thread". Its one of my favorites and I have 4 recordings of it but this one is by far the best. Abbado keeps it so smooth it just washes over you. My copy of the cd is on its way to me now


It really is great


----------



## tdc

pjang23 said:


> All of the piano chamber music (esp. the Piano Quintet, but also Piano Quartets, Piano Trios, Clarinet Trio/Sonatas, Horn Trio, Violin Sonatas, Cello Sonatas), plus the Clarinet Quintet and String Sextets. *His best piano writing was definitely in his chamber music rather than solo music.*


I agree that one should check out all of those works, but the late solo piano pieces are some of my favorite Brahms works. Personally I prefer them even to his chamber works.

His piano writing was definitely _different_ in the chamber music, compared to his solo piano music. But I think his unique compositional voice and personality really come to the surface in the latter - they seem quite personal and intimate compositions. I can't think of any piano pieces in the entire Romantic era that are much like them. As great as those chamber works are I don't think they are quite as distinct in this sense.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

bharbeke said:


> Scherzo in E flat minor (heard the Claudio Arrau version)
> Violin Concerto (heard live at the Phoenix Symphony; any recommendations for recordings?)
> Piano Concerto No. 2 (the Zimerman/Bernstein/VPO version is great)


I've loved the Violin Concerto longer than most anything else in the whole of the classical repertoire. My top recommendation for a recording would be Grumiaux' version conducted by van Beinum on Decca Australian Eloquence. For a more modern version (if perhaps missing that last touch of sheer distinction) try Julia Fischer's recording.


----------



## pjang23

tdc said:


> I agree that one should check out all of those works, but the late solo piano pieces are some of my favorite Brahms works. Personally I prefer them even to his chamber works.
> 
> His piano writing was definitely _different_ in the chamber music, compared to his solo piano music. But I think his unique compositional voice and personality really come to the surface in the latter - they seem quite personal and intimate compositions. I can't think of any piano pieces in the entire Romantic era that are much like them. As great as those chamber works are I don't think they are quite as distinct in this sense.


Very true, I couldn't be without the late solo piano pieces either. Definitely some of the most personal music he wrote.

Just wanted to be sure the listener wouldn't fall into the trap of beelining for the solo piano sonatas and string quartets, since those two forms get the lion's share of attention for Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven and Schubert (with less attention to piano chamber and other solo piano pieces), while Brahms did his best solo and chamber music outside of those two forms.


----------



## Barbebleu

I'm very partial to his lieder and all the rest of his vocal output, particularly the Volkslieder.


----------



## arnerich

I made a pilgrimage of sorts to murzzuschlag austria where he composed the fourth symphony. They have a very nice Brahms museum there, highly recommend it!


----------



## eorrific

His fourth symphony has always been one of my favourites, especially when it is played on full blast during a storm.


----------



## helenora

eorrific said:


> His fourth symphony has always been one of my favourites, especially when it is played on full blast during a storm.


exactly! love it too, but yesterday while listening to it, storm(thunderstorm) began and and I had to turn it off as my choice was for a thunderstorm


----------



## Judith

Just been to an interesting talk about Brahms at our local music society given by the conductor of a local Orchestra. Played an excerpt from each of his symphonies as well as other pieces. I knew his music was distinct but couldn't see how until he explained how the trumpet is not prominent and because of that, I think the music has a smooth effect. Can't wait for the album "For the Love of Brahms" released at the end of this month performed by Joshua Bell, Steven Isserlis, Jeremy Denk and Academy of St Martin in the Fields.


----------



## silentio

Brahms' works for _acappella_ chorus are amazing. Just got to know them recently.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

silentio said:


> Brahms' works for _acappella_ chorus are amazing. Just got to know them recently.


You're right, they _are_ amazing; this motet ("Warum ist das Licht gegeben") in particular is almost a premonition of Schoenberg's choral works, which I love.

Thanks for introducing me to a Brahms I never knew.


----------



## silentio

You are welcome Licht.

I highly recommend this album. In addition to some great acapella, we also get a thrilling _Schicksalslied_ arranged for two piano and chorus.

Another "hidden gem" moved me every time is the Intermezzo Op.119 No.1 which was inserted into the album right after the intense, lamenting atmosphere of the _Warum_. I have to confess that although I always highly treasure the late _Klavierstücke _, I never paid as much attention to Op.119 as to it peers. This album got me kind of obsessed with that haunting B minor Intermezzo.


----------



## AlanB

I love many composers but Brahms has to be my all time favourite.
Symphonies, Piano Concerti, Violin Concerto, Double Concerto, German Requiem, Clarinet Quartet, String Sextets, Piano Quartets, Lieder, Solo Piano.
Try his own transcriptions of the symphonies for two pianos. Yet another world.


----------



## hpowders

For me it is Brahms' chamber music that contains his greatest music, not the symphonies.


----------



## Pugg

AlanB said:


> I love many composers but Brahms has to be my all time favourite.
> Symphonies, Piano Concerti, Violin Concerto, Double Concerto, German Requiem, Clarinet Quartet, String Sextets, Piano Quartets, Lieder, Solo Piano.
> Try his own transcriptions of the symphonies for two pianos. Yet another world.


Great recommendation, thank you .


----------



## hpowders

AlanB said:


> I love many composers but Brahms has to be my all time favourite.
> Symphonies, Piano Concerti, Violin Concerto, Double Concerto, German Requiem, Clarinet Quartet, String Sextets, Piano Quartets, Lieder, Solo Piano.
> Try his own transcriptions of the symphonies for two pianos. Yet another world.


Brahms is whom I'm playing the most these days, chamber music exclusively. He speaks to me. My current favorite among all composers.


----------



## Judith

Head has always said Tchaikovsky but recently my heart has screamed Brahms. I have most pieces composed him and love his style!


----------



## Pugg

Judith said:


> Head has always said Tchaikovsky but recently my heart has screamed Brahms. I have most pieces composed him and love his style!


Any favourite springs out? 
I love the chamber music and his piano solo works.


----------



## sbmonty

I love all three of Brahms piano quartets, but no. 3 the most.


----------



## hpowders

sbmonty said:


> I love all three of Brahms piano quartets, but no. 3 the most.


I like No. 2 in A Major the most. I wish Brahms wrote more A Major chamber music.

For me Brahms is definitely A Major composer par excellence.


----------



## silentio

hpowders said:


> I like No. 2 in A Major the most. I wish Brahms wrote more *A Major* chamber music.
> 
> For me Brahms is definitely A Major composer par excellence.


hpowders, again I share your taste in chamber music! The first is more decorated with exotic flavor, the last is full of hair-raising pathos, but I find myself attracted the most to the pastoral quality of the second (although the least performed out of the three, probably due to its unusual length?)

And regarding the A Major, I'm sure we all love _that_ Intermezzo op.118 no.2


----------



## hpowders

silentio said:


> hpowders, again I share your taste in chamber music! The first is more decorated with exotic flavor, the last is full of hair-raising pathos, but I find myself attracted the most to the pastoral quality of the second (although the least performed out of the three, probably due to its unusual length?)
> 
> And regarding the A Major, I'm sure we all love _that_ Intermezzo op.118 no.2


What a gorgeous first movement exposition in the A Major! It's a long piece, but I love it!

Yes. I love that Intermezzo too. I played it between marriages to kill time.

Glad we enjoy some of the same works. A lot of the time, I feel like I'm alone out there!


----------



## silentio

hpowders said:


> What a gorgeous first movement exposition in the A Major! It's a long piece, but I love it!
> 
> Yes. I love that Intermezzo too. I played it between marriages to kill time.
> 
> Glad we enjoy some of the same works. A lot of the time, I feel like I'm alone out there!


Oh right, and I forgot another A major Intermezzo. Op.76 no.6. Sheer ecstasy here:


----------



## Janspe

Just listened to the Alto Rhapsody, Op. 53 - and what a gorgeous work it is! Such a lovely little gem.

My love for Brahms comes and goes in a way - more so than with other composers, I sometimes find myself obsessing over his music intensely and then after some time I feel reluctant to continue delving into his music that can occasionally feel quite intellectual and cold (not that there's anything wrong with those qualities - ugh, this is rather hard to explain...) But I still count him as one of my absolutely favourite composers, I just need to make sure not to explore his work too much when I'm not in the right mood.


----------



## Sonata

Janspe said:


> Just listened to the Alto Rhapsody, Op. 53 - and what a gorgeous work it is! Such a lovely little gem.
> 
> My love for Brahms comes and goes in a way - more so than with other composers, I sometimes find myself obsessing over his music intensely and then after some time I feel reluctant to continue delving into his music that can occasionally feel quite intellectual and cold (not that there's anything wrong with those qualities - ugh, this is rather hard to explain...) But I still count him as one of my absolutely favourite composers, I just need to make sure not to explore his work too much when I'm not in the right mood.


I understand, I feel the same way about Mozart. In the right mood, his music is incandescent, and beautiful. But if I'm not in a Mozart mood, he grates on me a little. And he's still one of my favorites. So I know what you're getting at


----------



## Bettina

Janspe said:


> Just listened to the Alto Rhapsody, Op. 53 - and what a gorgeous work it is! Such a lovely little gem.
> 
> My love for Brahms comes and goes in a way - more so than with other composers, I sometimes find myself obsessing over his music intensely and then after some time I feel reluctant to continue delving into his music that can occasionally feel quite intellectual and cold (not that there's anything wrong with those qualities - ugh, this is rather hard to explain...) But I still count him as one of my absolutely favourite composers, I just need to make sure not to explore his work too much when I'm not in the right mood.


I think I know what you mean about Brahms. Sometimes I find it hard to lose myself emotionally in his music, because I'm so busy marveling at his craftsmanship. His incredible technical grasp of compositional skills ends up grabbing my attention, and I click into an analytical rather than an emotional mode of listening. He is one of my favorite composers because I love the way that he engages my brain, but I don't usually turn to him when I'm in need of a cathartic emotional experience.


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> I think I know what you mean about Brahms. Sometimes I find it hard to lose myself emotionally in his music, because I'm so busy marveling at his craftsmanship. His incredible technical grasp of compositional skills ends up grabbing my attention, and I click into an analytical rather than an emotional mode of listening. He is one of my favorite composers because I love the way that he engages my brain, but I don't usually turn to him when I'm in need of a cathartic emotional experience.


No comment....

Well maybe a little.

Seems like Brahms and I may have shared similar experiences, a similar "Gestalt" and I will leave it there, because it can get very personal. Therefore, I have no problem reacting emotionally from listening to Brahms' music. I identify with it, especially the mature Brahms of the String Quintets, the Clarinet Sonatas, the Clarinet Quintet and some of his late solo piano pieces.


----------



## Bettina

hpowders said:


> No comment....
> 
> Well maybe a little.
> 
> Seems like Brahms and I may have shared similar experiences, a similar "Gestalt" and I will leave it there, because it can get very personal. Therefore, I have no problem reacting emotionally from listening to Brahms' music. I identify with it, especially the String Quintets, the Clarinet Sonatas, the Clarinet Quintet and some of his late solo piano pieces.


I have to admit, my difficulties with Brahms might be a result of my music theory studies! He sends my mind into analytical overdrive (a tendency that I often have anyway)...


----------



## hpowders

Bettina said:


> I have to admit, my difficulties with Brahms might be a result of my music theory studies! He sends my mind into analytical overdrive (a tendency that I often have anyway)...


Plenty of theory there to digest, as his music was so rhythmically complex. What a genius!


----------



## Pugg

Janspe said:


> Just listened to the Alto Rhapsody, Op. 53 - and what a gorgeous work it is! Such a lovely little gem.
> 
> My love for Brahms comes and goes in a way - more so than with other composers, I sometimes find myself obsessing over his music intensely and then after some time I feel reluctant to continue delving into his music that can occasionally feel quite intellectual and cold (not that there's anything wrong with those qualities - ugh, this is rather hard to explain...) But I still count him as one of my absolutely favourite composers, I just need to make sure not to explore his work too much when I'm not in the right mood.


That's counts for me also, but with all composers.


----------



## bharbeke

After listening to The Complete Brahms Edition from DG, here are my top recommendations from the output I've heard (still need to catch some of the supplemental, WoO, and Anh. compositions):

Op. 4 Scherzo in E-flat minor
Op. 55 Triumphlied
Op. 68 Symphony No. 1
Op. 77 Violin Concerto
Op. 83 Piano Concerto No. 2
Op. 90 Symphony No. 3
Op. 98 Symphony No. 4
WoO 1 21 Hungarian Dances (especially No. 5)


----------



## Tallisman

Adoring his Violin Concerto and piano trio no. 1. How people can think those two pieces are stale or emotionless is a total mystery to me...


----------



## Jacred

Just attended a live performance of his Fourth Symphony last week. What a work! The passacaglia 4th movement had me transfixed.

I have listened to recordings of the symphony before but it is nice to hear it live.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Tallisman said:


> Adoring his Violin Concerto and piano trio no. 1. How people can think those two pieces are stale or emotionless is a total mystery to me...


Those are wonderful pieces (the concerto especially IMHO). If anyone really does hear them as stale or emotionless, my bet would be that that's what they were expecting beforehand, because the music is anything but.


----------



## chalkpie

I'm VERY late to the Brahms party. I've owned the 4 symphonies for a long time (even played one of them in a community orchestra - I think it was B2), the Requiem, and maybe the violin concerto. I have always loved the Requiem, but the symphonies usually leave me cold. 

Well, I was "Spotifying" some Brahms the other day on a whim, and checked out Liebeslieder (and neue). Wow. Instantly the best music I have heard by JB along with the Requiem. Then last night I was also Spotifiying a "This is Brahms" Playlist and on comes Ballade No. 4....another WOW moment and instantly in my 'masterpiece' pile. Just gorgeous beyond words. 

So its been a Brahms day. I read the chapter on Brahms in the Jan Swafford Vintage Guide, and I am in full blown Brahms mode. Its always fun and exciting exploring composers whom you previosly thought were merely OK, but that one piece or musical moment hits you, and then everything changes. Its happened with me with Mahler, Sibelius, Ives, Ravel, and a few others. 

Anyway, just wanted to share with you Brahmsians that I am on my way, and think about how jealous you are of me right now, as I have an entire universe of JB to learn and explore! What's better than that?!

Any other suggestions or ideas are welcome. I do enjoy Brahms when he employs some interesting harmonic ideas/climates, and when he is at his deeply passionate self.


----------



## bharbeke

I wrote in my notes that the Gilels/Jochum/Berlin Philharmonic performance of the first piano concerto has lots of interesting ideas in the first movement. You could try that.


----------



## lextune

bharbeke said:


> Gilels/Jochum/Berlin Philharmonic performance of the first piano concerto


This recording of both Brahms' piano concerti has no equal.


----------



## hpowders

I don't care for it.

I would rather buy individual performances-Leon Fleisher/George Szell in Brahms 1 and say, Maurizio Pollini/Claudio Abbado in Brahms 2.


----------



## bharbeke

I can second your Pollini/Abbado recommendation, and I've put the Fleisher in the listening queue.


----------



## hpowders

Leon Fleisher is the "gold standard" for the Brahms 1.


----------



## Judith

In the process of writing a small blog about the Double Concerto as it is part of my obsession for the Brahms, Schumanns and now Joachim has come into the equation!!


----------



## Melvin

I bow upon my knee in awe Herr Brahms


----------



## Merl

Anyone got any views on Krivine's Brahms Symphony cycle on Denon? I'm listening to it right now and I'm impressed up to now. It aint as good as his Beethoven cycle but it would have to be pretty special to top that.


----------



## MusicSybarite

lextune said:


> This recording of both Brahms' piano concerti has no equal.


How true! Gilels/Jochum/BPO is a perfect combination.


----------



## DavidA

MusicSybarite said:


> How true! Gilels/Jochum/BPO is a perfect combination.


Must confess I prefer Gilels earlier version of 2 with Reiner. The whole thing is more taut and the speeds are just a little faster.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I'm torn between the two. Your description of the earlier recording is spot on, but there are times in the later recording when its greater sense of spaciousness suits the music very well, IMHO of course.


----------



## Judith

According to book "Trio" by "Boman Desai", Brahms was made by his father to play piano in such seedy establishments. What sort of a father would do that to his son???


----------



## Merl

Judith said:


> According to book "Trio" by "Boman Desai", Brahms was made by his father to play piano in such seedy establishments. What sort of a father would do that to his son???


That's nothing. One of the kids in my class is forced, by his father, to attend Middlesborough FC home games. In my book that's just child abuse.


----------



## Ravel

Oh the Horn Trio! And the 2nd string quartet of course. And those are only the works that stand out - all of his chamber music is fantastic.


----------



## senza sordino

I've been listening to his second symphony and following along with the score. My local library is full of resources for such a listening project. I got two books Notes on Brahms 20 Crucial Works by Conrad Wilson and Brahms The Four Symphonies  by Walter Frisch

The past ten days I listened to Brahms' second symphony five times, and here are my observations:

Karajan and Berlin, CD from the library, 40 minutes 23 seconds, recording from 1986
Lovely string sound that is always prominent, slow and stately. Very good. No repeat on the first movement and the first movement starts and stops as it should. But sometimes the winds are under the strings too much. Good horn playing.









Mackerras and Scottish Chamber Orchestra, 42:31, recorded 1997. CD from my collection 
First movement repeat is done. The first movement is a bit disappointing compared with the rest of the music. The other three movements are full of life and brisk. The ending is brilliant, with the wind up and release glorious. But overall perhaps mixed because of the first movement.









Harnoncourt and Berlin 45:27 Recording 1996, from my collection 
A somewhat brisk first movement with repeat. But the last movement is too slow, so overall, the piece loses momentum toward the wonderful ending 









Andris Nelsons and Boston 41:19 recording 2017
No first movement repeat. A bit slow but momentum holds. Well recorded and individual parts shine through. The ending is glorious with the trumpets blaring above all. Very good clarity throughout, quite enjoyable 









Fritz Reiner New York Philharmonic recording from 1950 (I think), 40:01
An old recording and live, plenty of coughing, it sounds like they played for an emphysema convention. No first movement repeat. Nice brisk ending, the ending especially fast. At times the orchestra has some tuning issues. Not good balance of parts, the flutes sound like they're offstage and the microphone placed in front of the oboes. The strings don't articulate the dotted rhythms well, and tremolo parts aren't clear, though this might be a function of the hall, the old recording and reverb. This is the only picture I could find.


----------



## whispering

To be honest IMHO Brahms is at his very best in his piano trios and piano quartets. The piano quintet is another favourite of my own. It took me a while to really start to enjoy Brahms but once the penny dropped I have been hooked. I agree again the piano concertos and the double concerto are great pieces, but it is in the chamber music where I believe the real gems are found.


----------



## tdc

Love Brahms chamber music, and lets not forget about those string quintets...

@Senza interesting information thanks, but a thorough survey of Brahms 2nd Symphony should also include listening to readings by Klemperer, Bohm and Levine. IMO


----------



## Genoveva

Brahms has always been well inside my "top 10" composers, regardless of how many new composers I've become familiar with. His works exude high quality, polish and close attention to detail, across more or less the whole range of his output. 

In general I rather prefer Brahms' chamber works to the other genres in which he wrote. It's difficult to pick an overall favourite chamber work but I've always found the Piano Quintet (Op 34) to be especially enchanting.


----------



## senza sordino

Continued:

I've been reading Notes on Brahms 20 Crucial Works by Conrad Wilson and Brahms The Four Symphonies by Walter Frisch. I have been listening to works leading up to each symphony and then listening to each symphony about five times. I'm not very good at differentiating between different versions but I'm learning.

This week I listened to the *third symphony* five times recorded by five different conductors.

Harnoncourt and Berlin, my cd. 37 minutes 1997. The first movement repeat is taken. I have found this his set generally disappointing. This is too slow for my taste. And the recording seems a little too distant. 









Karajan and Berlin, from the library 33 minutes 28 seconds, 1988. No first movement repeat and about the same pace as the Harnoncourt. I prefer this version to Harnoncourt because the strings are so lush, and the recording sounds great. 









Mackerras and Scottish Chamber Orchestra, my cd. 35:34 1997. Th repeat is taken in the first movement. A brisk opening movement and start of fourth movement. The ending is nice, very calm. Some big contrasts to the recording, I like this version.









Jansons and Bayerischen Rundfunks 38:52 and recording from 2010. From Spotify. The repeat is taken. Quite slow, even slower than Harnoncourt. The sound is good, all parts are clear, but it's too slow for me, I feel it starts to sound like it loses momentum 









Norrington Stuttgart Radio Orchestra 34:50 recording from 2005. From Spotify. What a terrific reading. Very clear, fast and lots of life. 1st movement repeat is taken. All trills and ornaments clearly articulated. I read along while I listened to each recording. I can tell who is playing their part well. A brisk ending until the coda, which is slower and nice and quiet. My favourite of the five versions.









I read the score as I listened. I have also dug out my orchestra books and played a bit of the music on my violin. I really want to get to know the symphonies of Brahms. I admit, before I embarked on this listening project I couldn't remember which symphony was which. There is a certain sameness to them, I think. I have generally preferred the Concertos and Chamber music of Brahms to that of his symphonies.


----------



## Genoveva

senza sordino said:


> This week I listened to the *third symphony* five times recorded by five different conductors.


Another version you might want to try is by Andris Nelsons/Boston Symphony Orchestra who recorded all 4 symphonies live in November 2016 and issued in 2017. This set was one of Presto editorial team 's "Top 10 Discs of 2017". [The other 9 winners are worth looking at too, as are the winners for previous years]. The set also achieved a Gramophone Editor's Choice award in September 2017. Although they are live recordings the sound is very clear and I hardly noticed any audience noises, except the applause at the end. I find them all to be very impressive.


----------



## kyjo

Brahms used to be a composer I didn't really care much for. I used to find much of his music tedious and boring. But, over the years, I've really grown to love his music and he now has a firm place as one of my top 10 composers. I love nearly all of his music, and, as some have said before in this thread, his chamber music represents the pinnacle of his output for me. Indeed, it represents one of the pinnacles of classical music. Works such as his first two piano trios, 3rd string quartet, 1st and 3rd piano quartets, Piano Quintet, 2nd string quintet, Clarinet Quintet, and both sextets are all sublime masterworks of masterful partwriting and invention, gorgeous melodies, and rich emotional content.


----------



## senza sordino

Genoveva said:


> Another version you might want to try is by Andris Nelsons/Boston Symphony Orchestra who recorded all 4 symphonies live in November 2016 and issued in 2017. This set was one of Presto editorial team 's "Top 10 Discs of 2017". [The other 9 winners are worth looking at too, as are the winners for previous years]. The set also achieved a Gramophone Editor's Choice award in September 2017. Although they are live recordings the sound is very clear and I hardly noticed any audience noises, except the applause at the end. I find them all to be very impressive.


I did listen to Nelson's recording of Brahms' first symphony. I really liked this version. I own two sets of Brahms' symphonies: Mackeras and Harnoncourt. I got the Karajan 1988 from the library and I've been listening to two other versions to complete the five different versions. I know there are dozens and dozens of recordings of every symphony of Brahms. I couldn't listen to anymore than about four to six versions of each symphony in a short time.

The fourth symphony is next (and last). Do you have any recommendations for the fourth symphony? (I couldn't find Carlos Klieber on Spotify, I know this is a famous recording) I've got Ivan Fischer and Bernard Haitink lined up on Spotify. I'd appreciate any other recommendations.


----------



## bharbeke

For the fourth, I was floored by Munch and the Boston Symphony. The Kleiber is also great, and it is on Spotify. Just search Kleiber Brahms, and pick the first album choice (the 1981 release with the Vienna Philharmonic).


----------



## senza sordino

bharbeke said:


> For the fourth, I was floored by Munch and the Boston Symphony. The Kleiber is also great, and it is on Spotify. Just search Kleiber Brahms, and pick the first album choice (the 1981 release with the Vienna Philharmonic).


I cannot find the Kleiber on Spotify. I did find the fourth movement of the Fourth Symphony conducted by Kleiber on a best of Brahms album, but that's not good enough. I wonder if it's because I'm north of the USA border. Much like Netflix Canada which has less than Netflix USA. Spotify came relatively late to Canada, I bet there is less here. I did find Munch and it's now saved in my list. I'll definitely listen to this.


----------



## Josquin13

"Do you have any recommendations for the fourth symphony? (I couldn't find Carlos Klieber on Spotify, I know this is a famous recording) I've got Ivan Fischer and Bernard Haitink lined up on Spotify. I'd appreciate any other recommendations."

I agree that Carlos Kleiber's 4th in Vienna is very good. Others that are worthwhile are Eugen Jochum's two 4ths, one with the Berlin Philharmonic on DG (excellent mono sound), and a later one with the London Philharmonic on EMI forte (even better analogue sound), as well as a 4th from Istvan Kertesz, with the Vienna Philharmonic (originally released by Decca). The 4th in the early Haitink Philips cycle with the Concertgebouw Orchestra is good too. Historically, both Wilhelm Furtwangler and Bruno Walter are excellent in Brahms 4th as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-4-Sym...&qid=1518226590&sr=1-3&keywords=Jochum+brahms
https://www.amazon.com/Symphony-Ger...ords=eugen+jochum+brahms+4+symphony+tennstedt
https://www.amazon.com/Eugen-Jochum...51%2BJgNzEtqL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=detail
https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symph...rd_wg=0avF1&psc=1&refRID=KFAFR66MKZRWC9HKVAJM
https://www.amazon.com/Johannes-Bra...rd_wg=T19G1&psc=1&refRID=G5XJHW0Z0G2D6QAZ7QMV

However, Brahms himself said that he disliked the way the German conductors of his day conducted his symphonies, adding that the French conductors knew how to conduct his symphonies. Unfortunately, I can't find the quote at the moment. But it may have been in a comment Brahms made to Pierre Monteux? Which means that yes, the older French conductors, such as Monteux, & perhaps Charles Munch, are essential listening in Brahms. I haven't heard Munch's Boston 4th myself, but think very highly of Monteux's Brahms, and Brahms was Monteux's favorite composer. The only Brahms symphony that Monteux recorded commercially was the 2nd (four times), but there is a 4th recorded in stereo in 1960 with the Boston Symphony Orchestra from a Tanglewood concert (& a 1st from Tanglewood in 1962 as well). (There are also live BBC Northern Symphony Orchestra, New York Philharmonic, & Concertgebouw 3rds from Monteux as well.) If anyone thinks all Brahms 4ths sound the same, have a listen to this one:


----------



## Genoveva

senza sordino said:


> I did listen to Nelson's recording of Brahms' first symphony. I really liked this version. I own two sets of Brahms' symphonies: Mackeras and Harnoncourt. I got the Karajan 1988 from the library and I've been listening to two other versions to complete the five different versions. I know there are dozens and dozens of recordings of every symphony of Brahms. I couldn't listen to anymore than about four to six versions of each symphony in a short time.
> 
> The fourth symphony is next (and last). Do you have any recommendations for the fourth symphony? (I couldn't find Carlos Klieber on Spotify, I know this is a famous recording) I've got Ivan Fischer and Bernard Haitink lined up on Spotify. I'd appreciate any other recommendations.


I have seven versions of Brahms' Symphony No 4. I didn't acquire them all myself, as five were given to me by a relative. The two versions that I have personally acquired over the past two years happen to be my favourites, as listed in order of preference below:

- Kleiber/VP0 (this is a well-known and highly-regarded version; I bought it 2 years ago)

- Nelsons/Boston S O (I especially like the open spacious sound of this one; I bought the complete set of 4 recently)

- Chailly/Leipzig Gewandhaus (sounds very good to me)

- Gardner/Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique (a live recording that's well regarded)

- Barenboim/Chicago SO

- Harnoncourt/BPO

- Szell/Cleveland​
I'm pretty sure there must be some other good recordings, but these happen to be mine. I doubt that I'll be adding any more. The first two are pretty much the same in overall quality, although I have a slight bias in favour of the Kleiber version, partly because he was an extremely highly regarded conductor and my favourite orchestra happens to be the VPO.

The first two above in are in WAV format, as I ripped the CDs myself. The others are in MP3 320 kbps format, except for Harnoncourt/BPO which is MP3 192 kbps. That's the way they came to me. I can't normally tell the difference between WAV and MP3 (320), but at 192 kbps things can begin to sound just slightly less crisp, especially with high pitched percussion. I use Foobar2000 to play the music.


----------



## jdec

senza sordino said:


> Continued:
> 
> I've been reading Notes on Brahms 20 Crucial Works by Conrad Wilson and Brahms The Four Symphonies by Walter Frisch. I have been listening to works leading up to each symphony and then listening to each symphony about five times. I'm not very good at differentiating between different versions but I'm learning.
> 
> This week I listened to the *third symphony* five times recorded by five different conductors.
> 
> Harnoncourt and Berlin, my cd. 37 minutes 1997. The first movement repeat is taken. I have found this his set generally disappointing. This is too slow for my taste. And the recording seems a little too distant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Karajan and Berlin, from the library 33 minutes 28 seconds, 1988. No first movement repeat and about the same pace as the Harnoncourt. I prefer this version to Harnoncourt because the strings are so lush, and the recording sounds great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mackerras and Scottish Chamber Orchestra, my cd. 35:34 1997. Th repeat is taken in the first movement. A brisk opening movement and start of fourth movement. The ending is nice, very calm. Some big contrasts to the recording, I like this version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jansons and Bayerischen Rundfunks 38:52 and recording from 2010. From Spotify. The repeat is taken. Quite slow, even slower than Harnoncourt. The sound is good, all parts are clear, but it's too slow for me, I feel it starts to sound like it loses momentum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Norrington Stuttgart Radio Orchestra 34:50 recording from 2005. From Spotify. What a terrific reading. Very clear, fast and lots of life. 1st movement repeat is taken. All trills and ornaments clearly articulated. I read along while I listened to each recording. I can tell who is playing their part well. A brisk ending until the coda, which is slower and nice and quiet. My favourite of the five versions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the score as I listened. I have also dug out my orchestra books and played a bit of the music on my violin. I really want to get to know the symphonies of Brahms. I admit, before I embarked on this listening project I couldn't remember which symphony was which. There is a certain sameness to them, I think. I have generally preferred the Concertos and Chamber music of Brahms to that of his symphonies.


Good choices of the 3rd. I actually prefer Karajan's version from the 70's to the above one due to the brisker tempo of the 4th movement (although the 1st mov. is a bit slower). Check it out if you get a chance:


----------



## Larkenfield

senza sordino said:


> I cannot find the Kleiber on Spotify. I did find the fourth movement of the Fourth Symphony conducted by Kleiber on a best of Brahms album, but that's not good enough. I wonder if it's because I'm north of the USA border. Much like Netflix Canada which has less than Netflix USA. Spotify came relatively late to Canada, I bet there is less here. I did find Munch and it's now saved in my list. I'll definitely listen to this.


Here's Kleiber's Brahms 4th with the Vienna Phil if that's what is being looked for:


----------



## jdec

Here's Kleiber's Brahms 4th in Spotify:


----------



## Merl

Check out Janowski's 4th on Pentatone, Levine and The CSO and Gardiner. All excellent 4ths.


----------



## Fletcher

Nelsons and Boston is my go to Brahms because of the superb sound and mid-20c performance practice. Also Kleiber. Britten Sinfonia have just embarked on an excellent Brahms cycle with Mark Elder so watch out for them.

Yes to Haitink. Never Gardiner's Brahms.

Collegium Vocale Ghent for the Deutsche Requiem. Very Classical, Bachian, beautiful singing.

Interestingly, Rattle too.

Just when everyone had forgotten about his B1, BIS have just released Thomas Dausgaard and the [fabulous] Swedish Chamber Orch's Brahms 2. Surprise surprise, it's quick - blink and you'll miss climax movement 2! The 1st movement development is electrifying, otherwise avoid.

https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symph...rd_wg=fCzNE&psc=1&refRID=ZKQ38DKJ2FVK754S7TWV


----------



## Merl

Fletcher said:


> Just when everyone had forgotten about his B1, BIS have just released Thomas Dausgaard and the [fabulous] Swedish Chamber Orch's Brahms 2. Surprise surprise, it's quick - blink and you'll miss climax movement 2! The 1st movement development is electrifying, otherwise avoid.
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Brahms-Symph...rd_wg=fCzNE&psc=1&refRID=ZKQ38DKJ2FVK754S7TWV


I find Dausgaard's recordings very hit and miss. Some of his Beethoven is very good (e.g.. the 8th) but I'm not overly-enamoured with his Schubert barring the final two. I've yet to hear his Brahms. The jury is out.


----------



## senza sordino

Brahms Fourth Symphony

I listened to five different versions of the Fourth Symphony. And here are my comments. I know there are dozens of more recordings. The Karajan came from the library, which I had to return today. Harnoncourt and Mackerras are in my collection and the Munch and Fischer are from Spotify.

Karajan and Berlin, 1978. 39:55
A huge string sound and very grand. A bit slow for my taste, and a bit disappointing after the recordings of the first three symphonies.









Harnoncourt and Berlin, 1997. 40:24
The sound just isn't adequate. The pace is fine but slow. I've been disappointed with all four symphonies, and I own this set.









Mackerras and Scottish Chamber Orchestra, 1997. 38:51
Terrific. A clear sound from the winds and strings, a good balance from everyone. And a clear separation of the first and second violins. I followed along with the score as I listened to each version. Terrific. A good brisk coda.









Munch, Boston, 1959. 39:44
Such an exciting opening, brisk. All the players are clearly heard including the voices in the middle of the orchestra. The winds don't sound like they're relegated to the rear, but play as prominent a role as the strings. The whole piece is quite lively. The third movement was a bit slower than I expected when listening to the rest, but overall terrific. My favourite of the five.









Fischer and Budapest Festival Orchestra, 2015. 41:39
While slow I quite liked this recording. A clear sound and the strings sound great. The final movement has enough pace to keep up momentum throughout the piece. The coda was particularly effective.









I don't consider this symphony to be a triumphant, grand symphony. But instead it's a solid work of invention and tradition. There is some lovely orchestration. And there is some clear rhythmic devices and plenty of times two beats is set against three.

Of his symphonies, I think I like the first two above the last two. Perhaps my preference is: 2nd, 1st, 4th, 3rd.

My favourite recordings are Mackerras, Karajan, Nelsons, and Munch.


----------



## brahmsgirl

Oh hello Dear B (I've let myself taking a nickname after you)
And hello Dear Talk Classical Forum Members, so nice to "meet" you all! I've only read a couple of threads, but I already feel inspired - thank you!  :tiphat:


----------



## Merl

I play a different Brahms set in the car, every week (as i have lots). This week its been Gielen. His 4th is very good but i still prefer Levine /CSO, Kubelik/BRSO, Kleiber/VPO, Szell, Wand, Munch, Walter, etc. Ive always thought the 4th movement lets the whole symphony down. Or is that just me?


----------



## jim prideaux

Merl said:


> I play a different Brahms set in the car, every week (as i have lots). This week its been Gielen. His 4th is very good but i still prefer Levine /CSO, Kubelik/BRSO, Kleiber/VPO, Szell, Wand, Munch, Walter, etc. Ive always thought the 4th movement lets the whole symphony down. Or is that just me?


Interesting post Merl.......

I am currently reading Jan Swafford's apparently definitive biography of Brahms and that is perhaps a reflection of just how much I am enjoying his music these days.I read in various contexts just how impressive and significant the final movement of the 4th is, both in relation to the structure and its emotional/philosophical significance.....and yet like you I personally derive little enjoyment from it and it leaves the 4th feeling somewhat disjointed.....heresy possibly but there you have it.In contrast the 2nd and 3rd symphonies conclude in a logical and complete sense and that contributes to their place in my personal 'pantheon'

Notice that you do not mention Sanderling-alongside Gielen now established as my favourite.
I have Jansons BRSO 2nd and 3rd in the car at the moment-the speed at which he takes the last movement of the 2nd is really disconcerting but other than that.....


----------



## Merl

jim prideaux said:


> Interesting post Merl.......
> 
> I am currently reading Jan Swafford's apparently definitive biography of Brahms and that is perhaps a reflection of just how much I am enjoying his music these days.I read in various contexts just how impressive and significant the final movement of the 4th is, both in relation to the structure and its emotional/philosophical significance.....and yet like you I personally derive little enjoyment from it and it leaves the 4th feeling somewhat disjointed.....heresy possibly but there you have it.In contrast the 2nd and 3rd symphonies conclude in a logical and complete sense and that contributes to their place in my personal 'pantheon'
> 
> Notice that you do not mention Sanderling-alongside Gielen now established as my favourite.
> I have Jansons BRSO 2nd and 3rd in the car at the moment-the speed at which he takes the last movement of the 2nd is really disconcerting but other than that.....


Oops, sorry I didn't mention Sanderling. Just overlooked it. Cracking account.


----------



## flamencosketches

Just wanted to write a note in the guestbook that over the past month, I think, I have begun to really "get" Brahms. He really was one of the greats... everything he wrote was damn good, even his symphonies, which I had really struggled with until now. Oddly, I think it took me getting into Schumann to really get into Brahms. I read someone say here that "everything I like about Brahms comes from Schumann, and everything I don't like about Brahms comes from Beethoven". I don't fully agree with this, but I think it does get to the middle of the issue I had with understanding his music. I think I was comparing it too much against Beethoven, and Brahms' music really just doesn't stand up to that model. But he's his own animal, and definitely no lesser a voice. 

I am looking to explore further his piano music and his chamber music, after slightly over-saturating myself with the symphonies for the past few weeks. I am really enjoying the violin sonatas so far and have ordered a disc with the string quartets (from the Amadeus Quartet) and I'm really looking forward to hearing it. I also ordered a CD of Ivo Pogorelich playing the late piano works, and that guy is a maniac. I really love Glenn Gould, Maria Yudina, and Wilhelm Kempff in these works, but I think these works reward a variety of interpretations. Another I intend to check out soon is Murray Perahia. 

I'm happy to finally understand his music.


----------



## millionrainbows

I like the piano music a lot more, and the chamber music in general. If "everything I don't like about Brahms comes from Beethoven," then this must surely mean the symphonies.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I like the piano music a lot more, and the chamber music in general. If "everything I don't like about Brahms comes from Beethoven," then this must surely mean the symphonies.


Even within the symphonies, I think there is much content and development that I wouldn't describe as purely Beethovenian. Though it's totally fair for people to call Brahms' 1st Beethoven's 10th, I think.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> Even within the symphonies, I think there is much content and development that I wouldn't describe as purely Beethovenian. Though it's totally fair for people to call Brahms' 1st Beethoven's 10th, I think.


You are attributing a mystical status to Beethoven. There is much content and development in Beethoven which is _Haydnian_.

I listened to Brahms 1 recently after relatively long interval of not listening to it. Yes, there is the theme in the finale which is a hat-tip to Beethoven, and the bit of da-da-da-daaa motif turns up in the first movement. But I regard Brahms' style as very different from Beethoven, very eclectic, incorporating elements from Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and contemporary romanticism (Schumann, etc). Beethoven, for all his rebellion, dissonance and banging, wrote in a harmonically stable style. Brahms harmony is constantly shifting and ambiguous. Listening to Brahms 1 with more weathered ears I heard things that I could have mistaken for Tchaikovsky.

So no, I am not one that is inclined to call Brahms' 1st Beethoven's 10th.


----------



## flamencosketches

Baron Scarpia said:


> So no, I am not one that is inclined to call Brahms' 1st Beethoven's 10th.


Nor am I, but I don't think it's totally unfair to describe it as such. I think if nothing else, it's obvious to anyone that he composed it with Beethoven's shadow looming large over him.

I agree with the rest of your assessment, and that is exactly what I meant when I said there is much in Brahms' symphonies that is not purely Beethovenian. I had no intention of ascribing a mystical status to Beethoven in what I said, though perhaps I might in other contexts! Beethoven was a major, major figure, just like Haydn! Worthy of his cult status, I say.

When you say that Brahms' harmony is constantly shifting and ambiguous, I think this reflects the problem that I had with his music for so long, before it finally "clicked" with me. It is not always as direct in its approach as Beethoven's music.

Interesting thoughts, all in all.


----------



## perempe

there's a train in the finale of his Symphony No. 2., isn't it?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

perempe said:


> there's a train in the finale of his Symphony No. 2., isn't it?


If you mean that the finale can sound like a runaway freight train, I very much agree! You should hear Bruno Walter's old performance of it (for stereo, try Solti, and, believe it or not, Klemperer, who has a jolly 'ol time with it). Possibly the most reckless music Brahms ever wrote- and that's a good thing! You can really tell he's letting his hair down here, and it's a wonderful treat at the end of this gloriously radiant symphony. This movement, the scherzo of the 4th, the finales of the 1st Piano Quartet and the Violin Concerto are the rare moments where Brahms lets himself have fun.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Allegro Con Brio said:


> If you mean that the finale can sound like a runaway freight train, I very much agree! You should hear Bruno Walter's old performance of it (for stereo, try Solti, and, believe it or not, Klemperer, who has a jolly 'ol time with it). Possibly the most reckless music Brahms ever wrote- and that's a good thing! You can really tell he's letting his hair down here, and it's a wonderful treat at the end of this gloriously radiant symphony. This movement, the scherzo of the 4th, the finales of the 1st Piano Quartet and the Violin Concerto are the rare moments where Brahms lets himself have fun.


God damn, Brahms 2 last movement is my go-to feel good piece. So f**king fun!


----------



## juliante

flamencosketches said:


> Just wanted to write a note in the guestbook that over the past month, I think, I have begun to really "get" Brahms. He really was one of the greats... everything he wrote was damn good, even his symphonies, which I had really struggled with until now. Oddly, I think it took me getting into Schumann to really get into Brahms. I read someone say here that "everything I like about Brahms comes from Schumann, and everything I don't like about Brahms comes from Beethoven". I don't fully agree with this, but I think it does get to the middle of the issue I had with understanding his music. I think I was comparing it too much against Beethoven, and Brahms' music really just doesn't stand up to that model. But he's his own animal, and definitely no lesser a voice.
> 
> I am looking to explore further his piano music and his chamber music, after slightly over-saturating myself with the symphonies for the past few weeks. I am really enjoying the violin sonatas so far and have ordered a disc with the string quartets (from the Amadeus Quartet) and I'm really looking forward to hearing it. I also ordered a CD of Ivo Pogorelich playing the late piano works, and that guy is a maniac. I really love Glenn Gould, Maria Yudina, and Wilhelm Kempff in these works, but I think these works reward a variety of interpretations. Another I intend to check out soon is Murray Perahia.
> 
> I'm happy to finally understand his music.


So what's the verdict on the quartets.?I love most of Brahms but have yet to explore his quartets. Their relatively low standing has meant I have not got round to it.


----------



## jegreenwood

juliante said:


> So what's the verdict on the quartets.?I love most of Brahms but have yet to explore his quartets. Their relatively low standing has meant I have not got round to it.


Brahms published 24 pieces of chamber music, and in my opinion they range from good to magnificent. The string quartets are good. I've listened to them many times over the past 40+ years, but I've listened to most of his other chamber music more.

I have the Melos Quartet recordings, where they are coupled with the Schumann quartets; this set may have been the first version released on CD, so I picked it up. I also have the Quartetto Italiano. On LP, I had the Cleveland Quartet.


----------



## flamencosketches

juliante said:


> So what's the verdict on the quartets.?I love most of Brahms but have yet to explore his quartets. Their relatively low standing has meant I have not got round to it.


The seller ended up cancelling my order, so I never got around to them back when I made that post. I ended up later getting the Alban Berg Quartett, but I haven't spent much time with it. I like the first quartet a lot but haven't heard the others. As far as his chamber music, what I most love is the violin sonatas. I recently got a disc with his clarinet sonatas and those are damn fine too.


----------



## jegreenwood

flamencosketches said:


> The seller ended up cancelling my order, so I never got around to them back when I made that post. I ended up later getting the Alban Berg Quartett, but I haven't spent much time with it. I like the first quartet a lot but haven't heard the others. As far as his chamber music, what I most love is the violin sonatas. I recently got a disc with his clarinet sonatas and those are damn fine too.


Have you listened to the clarinet quintet? A disc pairing that with Mozart's clarinet quintet would certainly be one of my desert island discs.


----------



## flamencosketches

jegreenwood said:


> Have you listened to the clarinet quintet? A disc pairing that with Mozart's clarinet quintet would certainly be one of my desert island discs.


I have, though the disc I have (Tokyo String Quartet + Richard Stoltzman) pairs it with the Weber clarinet quintet, rather than the Mozart. The Mozart is damn good, I might have to listen to it tonight. I have the Martin Fröst/Vertava Quartet recording on BIS (though mine is the MHS bootleg). Anyway, I was less than totally blown away by the Brahms, though I love the clarinet trio and I like the sonatas. I will surely need to listen again at least a few more times to wrap my head around the music all the way.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

juliante said:


> So what's the verdict on the quartets.?I love most of Brahms but have yet to explore his quartets. Their relatively low standing has meant I have not got round to it.


Brahms treated the string quartet with the same "sacred aura" that he did the symphony, so he poured all of his intellectual rigor into them. The first two are probably his most austere works- very tightly and even miraculously composed, but I find it hard to really connect with them. I would also agree with Schoenberg who called them his most "progressive" works in their treatment of chromaticism and counterpoint. I prefer the 2nd, which is a bit warmer and more attractive to my ears. The 3rd, written many years later, is, ironically enough, one of his most lighthearted compositions. Overall I rate the quartets as good and even great in parts, but I do have to say they are my least favorite of his chamber works. Brahms was definitely a bipolar composer, but one thing he never sacrificed was quality of craftsmanship.


----------



## flamencosketches

Funny that Brahms' string quartets, piano sonatas and (to some—not me) the symphonies are considered lesser aspects of his output — the very three categories in which his idol Beethoven excelled. Perhaps he was able to work more freely in genres less explored by the old master.


----------



## rice

The 4th symphony. Kleiber's interpretation was terrific. However my favourite goes to Mravinsky's. The maestro put fire and dynamite in this elegant, lyrical symphony. I think this approach is much more satisfying especially for the finale. I'd prefer the taste of immense power in it over Kleiber's softer, lighter end to this piece.
Any thought?


----------



## Classical Playlists

I think that can be explained by the more intimate nature of brahm's output. The piano sonatas for example are early works, from the time when Brahms was still searching for his own voice. He stil wrote in a way beethoven would have written, but he's not Beethoven, he is Brahms. During the search to his own voice, he came to shorter forms (intermezzi, fantasias, variations ...), in which he could express intimate feelings, while he doesn't need to be extravert (that's often the case in the former piano sonata writing). And that's how we know Brahms, one of the best intimate, introvert writers of classical music! That's also the same for his symphonies, while the first 2 are very much Beethoven-like, the 3th and 4th show the voice of Brahms, intimate tone, introvert... This music would never be written by Beethoven, that's for sure. So he doesn't need to be seen as a master of extravert forms, simply because he is the master of introvert music.


----------



## jegreenwood

Classical Playlists said:


> I think that can be explained by the more intimate nature of brahm's output. The piano sonatas for example are early works, from the time when Brahms was still searching for his own voice. He stil wrote in a way beethoven would have written, but he's not Beethoven, he is Brahms. During the search to his own voice, he came to shorter forms (intermezzi, fantasias, variations ...), in which he could express intimate feelings, while he doesn't need to be extravert (that's often the case in the former piano sonata writing). And that's how we know Brahms, one of the best intimate, introvert writers of classical music! That's also the same for his symphonies, while the first 2 are very much Beethoven-like, the 3th and 4th show the voice of Brahms, intimate tone, introvert... This music would never be written by Beethoven, that's for sure. So he doesn't need to be seen as a master of extravert forms, simply because he is the master of introvert music.


Although he did pretty well with concertos. And I find all four symphonies marvelous.


----------



## Blancrocher

Grieving with Brahms

There is enormous sadness in his work, a sadness that glows with understanding.

By Alex Ross

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/grieving-with-brahms?


----------



## flamencosketches

Blancrocher said:


> Grieving with Brahms
> 
> There is enormous sadness in his work, a sadness that glows with understanding.
> 
> By Alex Ross
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/grieving-with-brahms?


Great article! Thanks. I just finished Mr. Ross's great _The Rest is Noise_ & find myself wishing I had more of his writing to read.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Blancrocher said:


> Grieving with Brahms
> 
> There is enormous sadness in his work, a sadness that glows with understanding.
> 
> By Alex Ross
> 
> https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/grieving-with-brahms?


I agree with every word of this article. Excellent writing from Mr. Ross. I've said it before and I'll say it again - Brahms's late piano works are some of the most deeply psychological music I know. It's like Brahms's version of Beethoven's late quartets - this music can be hard to understand, but well worth the effort do so. It seems to be beckoning us from another world, fusing pure poetry into sound.


----------



## Caryatid

Baron Scarpia said:


> You are attributing a mystical status to Beethoven. There is much content and development in Beethoven which is _Haydnian_.
> 
> I listened to Brahms 1 recently after relatively long interval of not listening to it. Yes, there is the theme in the finale which is a hat-tip to Beethoven, and the bit of da-da-da-daaa motif turns up in the first movement. But I regard Brahms' style as very different from Beethoven, very eclectic, incorporating elements from Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven and contemporary romanticism (Schumann, etc). Beethoven, for all his rebellion, dissonance and banging, wrote in a harmonically stable style. Brahms harmony is constantly shifting and ambiguous. Listening to Brahms 1 with more weathered ears I heard things that I could have mistaken for Tchaikovsky.
> 
> So no, I am not one that is inclined to call Brahms' 1st Beethoven's 10th.


I agree with the gist of this. Listening to Brahms is such a different experience from listening to Beethoven, it must be confusing to newcomers that they are constantly linked. The violin concertos, for example, are similar in concept, but if you expect the same sort of experience from both, one of them will inevitably disappoint. They are written in completely different harmonic languages. Brahms, for all his musical borrowings, seems never to have made the slightest attempt to compose something that an experienced listener could mistake for Beethoven. Even the early piano sonatas are distinctly virutuoso romantic works.

Of course he revered Beethoven, knew his music intimately and wrote under his influence. But the same can be said for Mozart, Bach, Schumann and even Cherubini. The critics and musicians who promoted Brahms in his day saw publicity in presenting him as a second Beethoven, and it worked almost too well. Generations of casual listeners have unthinkingly accepted the advertising. As for the comments he himself made about Beethoven's example, they are a bit more ambiguous than is usually recognized. To say that someone is a hard act to follow is not quite to say that you are planning to repeat their act. Brahms had his own ideas.


----------



## Guest

rice said:


> The 4th symphony. Kleiber's interpretation was terrific. However my favourite goes to Mravinsky's. The maestro put fire and dynamite in this elegant, lyrical symphony. I think this approach is much more satisfying especially for the finale. I'd prefer the taste of immense power in it over Kleiber's softer, lighter end to this piece.
> Any thought?


I'd have to disagree about this. I think Kleiber's is the most intense, driven, white-heat performance I've ever heard. The CD incarnation it (1983 I think) was harsh and seemed to hit a sound wall. No matter how much I've updated my sound systems it has never improved. Turn it up and it only distorts. Ergo, the original recording quality was rubbish. But the performance is superb and Kleiber knew it too. His performance was found in the CD player of his Audi, in Slovenia, just a day or so after he died. (He drove from Munich to that little village and died in debatable circumstances.) I have a mental image of him listening to that as he was on that last road trip. It's a glorious work and a wonderful performance.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Christabel said:


> I'd have to disagree about this. I think Kleiber's is the most intense, driven, white-heat performance I've ever heard. The CD incarnation it (1983 I think) was harsh and seemed to hit a sound wall. No matter how much I've updated my sound systems it has never improved. Turn it up and it only distorts. Ergo, the original recording quality was rubbish. But the performance is superb and Kleiber knew it too. His performance was found in the CD player of his Audi, in Slovenia, just a day or so after he died. (He drove from Munich to that little village and died in debatable circumstances.) I have a mental image of him listening to that as he was on that last road trip. It's a glorious work and a wonderful performance.


The Kleiber is certainly exhilarating, definitely my favorite of his (vastly overrated IMO) catalog. But the most "intense, driven, white-heat performance" I've heard is the 1944 (?) Furtwangler. The first movement is incredibly gripping in its spontaneity, and by the time we get to the coda it's like he's literally opening the floodgates of hell; those guys play like they're possessed. The Andante is opulently phrased and the structure of the finale is communicated perfectly. An _amazing_ experience on record that just might be my favorite Brahms symphony recording ever (and I'm a hardcore Brahms fiend).


----------



## Guest

Allegro Con Brio said:


> The Kleiber is certainly exhilarating, definitely my favorite of his (vastly overrated IMO) catalog. But the most "intense, driven, white-heat performance" I've heard is the 1944 (?) Furtwangler. The first movement is incredibly gripping in its spontaneity, and by the time we get to the coda it's like he's literally opening the floodgates of hell; those guys play like they're possessed. The Andante is opulently phrased and the structure of the finale is communicated perfectly. An _amazing_ experience on record that just might be my favorite Brahms symphony recording ever (and I'm a hardcore Brahms fiend).


OK, I hope I can find that version on U-Tube. You've obviously got a passion for Brahms so I'm definitely taking notice of you!!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahms Piano Quintet. The best Piano Quintet of all? (I will admit the Schumann one is quite good, and I don't really go for Schumann generally.)
Brahms Clarinet Quintet. The best Clarinet Quintet of all? (I will admit the Mozart one is quite good, and I don't really go for Mozart generally.)
Does anyone have any recommendations for best recording of the above two works?


----------



## Guest

I like the Melos Ensemble for the Clarinet Quintet. Also Thea King's recording on Hyperion.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Eclectic Al said:


> Brahms Piano Quintet. The best Piano Quintet of all? (I will admit the Schumann one is quite good, and I don't really go for Schumann generally.)
> Brahms Clarinet Quintet. The best Clarinet Quintet of all? (I will admit the Mozart one is quite good, and I don't really go for Mozart generally.)
> Does anyone have any recommendations for best recording of the above two works?


Yes and yes, they are the greatest of their genres Schumann and Mozart do come very close for me though. For the Piano Quintet, Rubinstein/Guarneri and Fleisher/Emerson (the former is more lyrical, the latter more epic) are great bets. For the Clarinet Quintet there is a must-hear recording from 1937 with Reginald Kell and the Busch Quartet, but otherwise I like all of them with Karl Leister, especially his seemingly underrated one with the Vermeer Quartet, which is a meltingly lovely and tender interpretation, preferable to the one he did with Amadeus for me.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> I play a different Brahms set in the car, every week (as i have lots). This week its been Gielen. His 4th is very good but i still prefer Levine /CSO, Kubelik/BRSO, Kleiber/VPO, Szell, Wand, Munch, Walter, etc. Ive always thought the 4th movement lets the whole symphony down. Or is that just me?


For me, it's important to remember that Brahms Symphony No. 4 is fundamentally a tragic symphony. The last movement is the cathartic final act of something like a great Shakespeare tragedy, maybe King Lear. Performances that go for grandiose in this movement are fundamentally misconceived (looking at you, Bernstein.) Not sure this helps, nor am I assuming you misunderstand this symphony. But many people do.

I'm listening to Skrowaczewski's gripping Brahms 4 from the big 90th anniversary box on Oehms, and wow oh wow is it good, the highlight of a superb Brahms cycle!


----------



## flamencosketches

It's the Klemperer/Philharmonia Brahms 4 for me at the moment. What a piece... and what a recording. "Monumental" Klemperer at his best. That being said I think it's high time I get another recording of the symphonies... There's a few I'm torn between.


----------



## thejewk

Listening to a bit of Brahms today, and I've particularly enjoyed Bruce Hungerford's performances of the two books of his Variations on Paganini, and now his rather beautiful Violin Sonata No 1.


----------



## haziz

Ah, Brahms! I try very hard to like his music, but somehow often struggle with the task. I don't "dislike" his music per se, but have never enthusiastically embraced it the way I do Tchaikovsky's or Beethoven's. You would think he wrote very little music from the few pieces I play frequently.

The works that I play frequently and enjoy:
Hungarian Dances - A rollicking good fun! The one set of works I can wholeheartedly play, enjoy and recommend.
Symphony No. 2
Violin Concerto

I do in fact dislike his piano concerti. I find them long winded and unpleasant. I could not even warm up to one of them in a live performance! During live performances, I am usually much more tolerant of music I dislike.

I do play the other symphonies occasionally, but only after I had listened to Beethoven's or Tchaikovsky's symphonies dozens of times, just to inject a little variety.

Sorry for the rant. I just somehow feel internally "obligated" to like his music, when I do often find it hard to do so.


----------



## julide

Can anyonone recommend me a great symphony 1. recording. That's the only major work of his that i still have reservations for.


----------



## haziz

julide said:


> Can anyonone recommend me a great symphony 1. recording. That's the only major work of his that i still have reservations for.


Considering the rant I just wrote about not warming up to Brahms' music, I am not sure I am the best qualified to answer any question regarding Brahms, but that has never stopped me in the past! So here goes:

The 1956 or 57 recording of the 1st Symphony by the Philharmonia Orchestra under Otto Klemperer has been well regarded over the years, it is playing for me right now as I type this.

I find Andris Nelsons' recent recording with the Boston Symphony Orchestra, of live performances of the symphonies to be well done. I usually play the second, since that is the Brahms symphony I usually go for, but I think they did a good job with the whole cycle. You could try and see if it is to your liking.


----------



## bharbeke

julide said:


> Can anyonone recommend me a great symphony 1. recording. That's the only major work of his that i still have reservations for.


Here are the three I have liked the most so far:

Abravanel with Utah Symphony Orchestra (found in the Big Brahms Box)
Bernstein with the Vienna Philharmonic
Jochum with the London Philharmonic

I hope one of these works for you.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Karajan's 1960s recording with the Berlin Phil. I know of no more impressive recording of any symphony by any composer.


----------



## julide

Who is your favorite soloist in the Alto Rhapsody?


----------



## cheregi

After seeing the username BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist so frequently around here... I'm finally starting to think, you know what, Brahms _was_ a great melodist!


----------



## Marc

julide said:


> Who is your favorite soloist in the Alto Rhapsody?


Aafje Heynis.


----------



## Sid James

*A Brahms diary* - music I've listened to last fortnight

*Piano Quartet #3*

There is a consoling quality to this work. The lyrical theme coming after the stark and urgent opening is like a warm embrace. A variation of it returns in the slow movement. The second and final movements have an edgy quality. If I had the vocabulary of a poet, I could perhaps begin to adequately describe what I feel about the last movement.

I like how the wide emotional contrasts are struggling to be contained within the traditional quartet structure. Brahms started to compose this piece when his mentor Robert Schumann was in his final mental decline, and only finished it almost twenty years later. It is an intensely personal work.

*Double Concerto*

I have read the opinion that this is Brahms' weakest concerto. Nevertheless it may well be my favourite, and I listen to it often.

The heroic introduction sweeps me away and the subsequent cello solo just oozes pure soul. The slow movement provides a nice nostalgic interlude before the fiery conclusion which overflows with gypsy spirit.

*Academic Festival & Tragic Overtures*

These two concert overtures are just as satisfying and as rigorously composed as anything else by Brahms. They are as different as night and day. The _Academic Festival_ is in effect a medley of popular songs and the _Tragic_ is in a similar mould to the symphonies. One critic said that it's the best first movement to the symphony that Brahms never composed. Whether or not it's the best, to me its indispensable and I listen to it more than any of the symphonies.

*Recordings:*
Quartet - Pro Arte Piano Quartet, Decca 4803523
Concerto - David Oistrakh, v./Mstislav Rostropovich, vc./Cleveland O./George Szell, Warner 6787052
Overtures - Concertgebouw O./Eduard van Beinum, Decca 4429788


----------



## golfer72

Always surprised when people dont appreciate Brahms and especially the Piano Concertos. Gun to my head ill pick Cto 2 as my favorite classical work. And there is doubt about Brahms as a melodist? really? really? Oh and the Handel variations is probably my favorite piano work so maybe i just love Brahms!


----------



## cheregi

golfer72 said:


> And there is doubt about Brahms as a melodist? really? really?


Actually I have no idea if that doubt is widespread; until recently I had very little knowledge of Romanticism as most of my interest is in Baroque and earlier. I'd believe you if you told me Brahms is universally acknowledged as a master melodist. It's just that I assumed user 'BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist' must have felt himself to be stating an under-recognized truth if he went as far as to use that as a display name...


----------



## haziz

golfer72 said:


> Always surprised when people dont appreciate Brahms and especially the Piano Concertos. Gun to my head ill pick Cto 2 as my favorite classical work. And there is doubt about Brahms as a melodist? really? really? Oh and the Handel variations is probably my favorite piano work so maybe i just love Brahms!


Actually I love Brahms' symphonies and like the violin concerto. I absolutely love the Hungarian Dances. I don't listen as often to chamber music so I have not explored his as extensively. The two orchestral works of his that I dislike are in fact the piano concertos, even though the piano concerto, particularly romantic era piano concertos is a favorite genre of mine. I find his piano concertos to be long, plodding and uninspired. Sorry, of his orchestral works these are my least liked compositions.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

How long have you given them to grow on you? I ask because they were the last of his major orchestral works to catch fire for me, but I love them now.


----------



## juliante

Animal the Drummer said:


> How long have you given them to grow on you? I ask because they were the last of his major orchestral works to catch fire for me, but I love them now.


Ditto for me. I'll bet you fall in love with them in the end Haziz. Gilels changed my mind.


----------



## wkasimer

juliante said:


> Ditto for me. I'll bet you fall in love with them in the end Haziz. Gilels changed my mind.


Strangely, what changed my mind was a recording of the B-flat concerto with Backhaus and Böhm, two musicians who normally don't appeal to me at all.


----------



## GraemeG

There is no 'dud' Brahms. In any genre he turned his hand to, he wrote amongst the best examples of the form. But never the worst. The sheer quality control he exercised over his published work is remarkable. I wonder how far along he ever got with a fifth symphony?


----------



## tdc

Love Brahms, listen mostly to op.76, op.79, op. 116-119, Handel Variations, the symphonies and chamber music. Rarely listen to the concertos.


----------



## EdwardBast

GraemeG said:


> There is no 'dud' Brahms. In any genre he turned his hand to, he wrote amongst the best examples of the form. But never the worst. *The sheer quality control he exercised over his published work is remarkable.* I wonder how far along he ever got with a fifth symphony?


I don't trust Brahms' evaluation of his own work. He claimed the Piano Quartet no. 3 was of little value and seems to have preserved it largely for sentimental reasons. There is a broad consensus that he was grossly mistaken. I shudder to think how much excellent music Brahms destroyed.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> I don't trust Brahms' evaluation of his own work. He claimed the Piano Quartet no. 3 was of little value and seems to have preserved it largely for sentimental reasons. There is a broad consensus that he was grossly mistaken. I shudder to think how much excellent music Brahms destroyed.


I agree with this. If Brahms failed in evaluating his own work, it took the form not of issuing weak or flawed work but of excessive self-criticism. We have the original version of his Piano Trio No. 1 in B Major, Op. 8, and although the revised version is tighter there is lovely material in the original that I'd be sad not to have heard. His fireplace must have burned brightly with the discarded flames of inspiration.


----------



## Botschaft

From what I've read it seems that Brahms destroyed not only works he considered imperfect but also ones he thought were insufficiently interesting or enjoyable. He was initially going to burn the last piece of op. 76 before being dissuaded by a friend.


----------



## Sid James

He not only destroyed entire scores but also sought to decrease any clues as to the gestation of the published ones. Draft manuscripts and even printed ones with corrections and revisions by Brahms are rare as hen's teeth. Much of what remains is held at the Brahms Institute in Germany https://www.brahms-institut.de/index.php?cID=612

This differentiates him from Beethoven, whose sketchbooks are there for future generations to study.

The exact reason is unclear, perhaps Brahms wanted to downplay the painstaking nature of his compositional process. This is a valid conclusion given other facts we know, not only the amount of music he destroyed but also his substantial recasting of certain works (one which comes to mind is the Piano Quintet, which could have become a symphony). There's also the tendency of Brahms to consult trusted colleagues (such as Joachim) about technical matters concerning works in progress and inviting a select group of friends and colleagues to his home for private performances of works like the symphonies in two piano reduction form.


----------



## Machiavel

GraemeG said:


> There is no 'dud' Brahms. In any genre he turned his hand to, he wrote amongst the best examples of the form. But never the worst. The sheer quality control he exercised over his published work is remarkable. I wonder how far along he ever got with a fifth symphony?


His second string quintet was originally intended to be his fifth. Peter klatzow as orchestrated it in the style of brahms as close as he could. 3 movements are on his youtbe channel https://www.youtube.com/user/peteklat/videos


----------



## Machiavel

Woodduck said:


> I agree with this. If Brahms failed in evaluating his own work, it took the form not of issuing weak or flawed work but of excessive self-criticism. We have the original version of his Piano Trio No. 1 in B Major, Op. 8, and although the revised version is tighter there is lovely material in the original that I'd be sad not to have heard. His fireplace must have burned brightly with the discarded flames of inspiration.


Brahms had a sense of humor also. WHen speaking about his fourth to a friend he said he composed 4 litle interludes to be played in between a play about the tragedy of life. Four litle interludes , off course :lol:


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Indeed. He called that dark scherzo of his 2nd piano concerto "a tiny, tiny wisp of a scherzo" if I remember rightly.


----------



## perempe

In the last bars of the 1st symphony the 1st violins play C BC C BC, and then they play it an octave higher twice. I really like it.

Is it nice or banal?


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

....................


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Eclectic Al said:


> Brahms Piano Quintet. The best Piano Quintet of all? (I will admit the Schumann one is quite good, and I don't really go for Schumann generally.)
> Brahms Clarinet Quintet. The best Clarinet Quintet of all? (I will admit the Mozart one is quite good, and I don't really go for Mozart generally.)
> Does anyone have any recommendations for best recording of the above two works?


Karl Leister has made several recordings of the Brahms Clarinet Quintet. His best, I feel, is the one with the Leipzig String Quartet---just flat out wonderful.


----------



## perempe

perempe said:


> In the last bars of the 1st symphony the 1st violins play C BC C BC, and then they play it an octave higher twice. I really like it.
> 
> Is it nice or banal?


No opinions?????


----------



## Woodduck

perempe said:


> In the last bars of the 1st symphony the 1st violins play C BC C BC, and then they play it an octave higher twice. I really like it.
> 
> Is it nice or banal?
> 
> No opinions?????


It's exactly the right thing to do. The alternation of the tonic note with its leading tone is the initial melodic germ of the movement. The employment of it to bring the movement to a close is completely apt and satisfying.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Eclectic Al said:


> Brahms Clarinet Quintet. The best Clarinet Quintet of all? (I will admit the Mozart one is quite good, and I don't really go for Mozart generally.)
> Does anyone have any recommendations for best recording of the above two works?


For the Brahms: Karl Leister, clarinet with the Leipzig String Quartet









For the Mozart: Anthony Pay, clarinet with the Academy of St. Martin in the Fields


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think Leister made 5 or more recordings of the Brahms 
Amadeus DG
One on Orfeo?
Berliner Solisten Teldec
Brandis Nimbus, later on Brilliant
Leipzig MDG

I have the ones on TelDec which was my first CD of the piece and the Brilliant, so I am not getting another with the same artist...


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I have the Amadeus/DG, Brandis/Nimbus and the Leipzig. I prefer the Brandis and Leipzig versions, though my top choice as already mentioned is the Leipzig.


----------



## SanAntone

For a few more recent recordings of the quintet:

Martin Fröst
Sabine Meyer
Sharon Kam 
Anthony McGill
Laura Ruiz Ferreres (includes all of the chamber music for clarinet)

The first two I think are especially fine, but they all have their worthwhile qualities.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Machiavel said:


> Brahms had a sense of humor also.


----------



## ando

I wasn't aware that Brahms only wrote one violin concerto.

_"The Germans have four violin concertos. The greatest, most uncompromising is Beethoven's. The one by Brahms vies with it in seriousness. The richest, the most seductive, was written by Max Bruch. But the most inward, the heart's jewel, is Mendelssohn's."_ - wikipedia 















*Op. 77 Violin Concerto in D Major*
*Salvatore Accardo, violin 
Gewandhausorchester Leipzig 
Kurt Mazur
*


----------



## ando

ando said:


> I wasn't aware that Brahms only wrote one violin concerto.
> 
> _"The Germans have four violin concertos. The greatest, most uncompromising is Beethoven's. The one by Brahms vies with it in seriousness. The richest, the most seductive, was written by Max Bruch. But the most inward, the heart's jewel, is Mendelssohn's."_ - wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Op. 77 Violin Concerto in D Major*
> *Salvatore Accardo, violin
> Gewandhausorchester Leipzig
> Kurt Masur
> *


Speaking of Op. 77, Dave Hurwitz just dropped this video today...


----------



## perempe

Can't wait for Sunday's Hungarian Radio SO concert (Violin Concerto, Symphony No. 4).


----------



## whispering

Dear Mr Brahms I have just reactivated myself on this forum. Had a rough year following the death of my mother. Back in 2006 I was in your debt, sitting in a hospital room for 6 hours whilst my mum had major heart surgery. Your piano concerto number 2 played on repeat throughout that wait. Mum came through okay and forever that music will gladden my heart whenever I hear it.

I would dearly liked to have asked you a question but you had moved onto pastures new before I was born. Perhaps a more informed person can answer in your place. You see I love your violin concerto, but I am puzzled by the second movement. Why do you start with I believe an Oboe and not a violin. It is a hauntingly beautiful piece of music, but is there any significance to what you did in those opening bars? Perhaps someone else can answer in your absence. Just a musical master stroke or some type of tribute to a person or event. Any answers most welcome. Any way Mr Brahms love the chamber music, particularly the piano quintet and violin sonatas. Thank you for giving me such beauty and forget the critics over the years, they are like rain against the window, always heard but very rarely valued. Best wishes and please rest easy where ever your spirit has gone to,


----------



## Highwayman

whispering said:


> You see I love your violin concerto, but I am puzzled by the second movement. Why do you start with I believe an Oboe and not a violin. It is a hauntingly beautiful piece of music, but is there any significance to what you did in those opening bars? Perhaps someone else can answer in your absence. Just a musical master stroke or some type of tribute to a person or event.


I`m sure Brahms just loved the idea of making the violinist stare at the oboe for 3 minutes. :lol:


----------



## Kreisler jr

Supposedly, Sarasate refused to play the Brahms concerto with a comment like: It takes 20 min until the first melody and then it is played by the oboe.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Machiavel said:


> Brahms had a sense of humor also. WHen speaking about his fourth to a friend he said he composed 4 litle interludes to be played in between a play about the tragedy of life. Four litle interludes , off course :lol:


"a tiny little piano concerto with a tiny little wisp of a scherzo"


----------



## 89Koechel

hammeredklavier - ("tiny ... concerto ... wisp of scherzo") - Excellent excerpt of the self-critical fellow (Brahms, of course). I've begun to wonder if he, and the other self-critical composers of the 19th Century were maybe, too-modest for us (following decades) to truly acknowledge, or assess ... especially, even, the excellent musicians of OUR age. There WAS a "canvas"/schematic/groundwork that Brahms, Schubert, von Weber, Mr. Beethoven, Schumann and many others USED, or devised, w/in the basic constructions of works ... whether pianistic, chamber music, orchestral, choral, dances/folk music, operatic (in a limited sense ... before Verdi, Puccini, Wagner) et. al. ... Well, the Brahms' Violin Concerto has had many, fine interpretations ... and I, for one, do NOT know why the 2nd movement begins with an OBOE. and not a violin. Maybe it's great that Brahms, Beethoven and others could USE those great, wind instruments, in an unconventional way. Original - eh? Thanks!


----------



## GraemeG

The VC had a bit work done to it though - it started out with two middle movements (so a 4 movement piece) which were both junked, and replaced by the current slow movement. As for the oboe - well, all his concertos are pretty 'symphonic' anyway. The philosophic opposite of the Paganini concertos, then.


----------



## Wigmar

World Violist said:


> Brahms probably published the highest percentage of great music as compared to almost anyone (with the probable exception of Bach and maybe Beethoven). He mastered almost every form of composition available to the previous generation (the exception being opera), and many of his own. He wrote probably at once the most hugely anticipated and greatest first symphony in history and one of the most crushing and despairing last symphonies. Every concerto he ever published, every symphony, every piano piece, many of his over 200 songs - all have left a huge mark on today's repertoire of any kind of classical musician, and about all the other pieces of his that haven't... their day will come as well, I think.
> 
> As for my favorites of Brahms:
> The Symphonies
> The Concerti
> 
> Whatever else I've missed, please correct me!


I would not be without his chamber music, as e.g. the clarinet quintet op 115, the string quartets op 51, the piano trio op 8 and the cello sonata op 38, to name some of these works.


----------



## 4chamberedklavier

Amazing music by this guy. Almost everything he made passes my "test". You can listen to a random piece and still have a good time.
Though what they say is true, his music isn't appealing at first, and takes some listens before you start to appreciate.

The thing about Brahms is his music is so densely packed that if there's a portion of a piece that you don't find interesting, there's bound to be another portion that you will.

Though it does help that I relate with Brahms the person, in terms of disposition & what he was like (obviously not in terms of talent).


----------



## regenmusic

It took his piano music to hook me on him as a composer. I wasn't that impressed for a long time until I started to listen to it more closely.


----------



## DanielP

If you are interested in a very intimate, personal take on Brahms from a man who studied composition with him during the last ten years of his life, I have completed the first commercially available English translation of "Brahms as Man, Teacher and Artist" by Gustav Jenner.

Johannes Brahms as Man, Teacher and Artist


----------

