# Why is Brahms so great?



## flamencosketches

For a long time, I "just didn't get Brahms". That's in quotation marks because I'm quoting, word for word (aside from a change of verb tense), myself and so many other people who say this. Now that I've seen the light, so to speak, it's difficult for me to understand how I could have ever said something like this, and yet it's also not easy for me to put into words just what it is that makes Brahms such a great composer, and why his music is so important to me on a personal level. 

So the reason I'm making this thread is that I want to know (a) what, in your opinion, makes Brahms a great composer; and/or (b) why you love Brahms. 

I don't know if I'll be able to sum it up in any meaningful way, so I'll just throw some ideas at the wall, here. One of the things that makes Brahms great is the way that he understands the interactions of different instruments. It seems in some of his scores, especially the chamber music, that each instrument is having a conversation with each other instrument, almost like call and response. It makes the music feel very intimate. There are all these little episodes of canonic writing, fugato/imitative counterpoint, stuff that sometimes is just going on in the background. There's always another layer to unearth and appreciate. 

Being that that's somewhat of a technical consideration, I want to also add simply that he was a brilliant melodist. He wrote melodies of such songlike purity that they hit right to your soul, not unlike those of Schubert or Schumann. The Violin Concerto, for example, is brimming with examples of this nature. 

Anyway, what do you think? Am I onto something, or do you love Brahms for reasons entirely different?


----------



## aioriacont

it's the beard and the BAM BAM BAM bam bam bam from his first symph


----------



## Manxfeeder

Brahms is always difficult for me on first listen. I have to hear a piece a few times, and then everything comes together. But darn it, Brahms also writes earworms, little melodic motifs/cells, that burrow into my skull. The nice thing about that is, the more I hear the earworm, the more I get out of what he is doing with the motifs, so I get a deeper appreciation. Brahms is the only composer that does that to me.


----------



## Dimace

You like Brahms (not you personally, generally speaking) because is a mixture of Mozart and Beethoven. His melodic lines are from the Austrian. His structure a mixture of Mozart and Beethoven. And his spirit direct given from the Greatest. 

It isn't well known, but Johannes had real love and admiration for Mozart. He considered him the greatest in music history. But, this is strange, his ideas, the way he composed, his true inspiration was the Beethoven. Brahms's ladder has two ways: Upward to meet the Austrian. (windy) Down to meet Beethoven (stable) It is very logical (I don't know a lot of people who don't like Mozart & Beethoven at the same time) all to love Brahms, because is the PERFECT mixture of these composers AND (this is very important) with very steady, Bachian (sic), technic in his composition.


----------



## aioriacont

Dimace said:


> You like Brahms (not you personally, generally speaking) because is a mixture of Mozart and Beethoven. His melodic lines are from the Austrian. His structure a mixture of Mozart and Beethoven. And his spirit direct given from the Greatest.
> .


Yeah, that's very precise and sums up pretty well Brahms' sound. It has this interesting fusion of both worlds.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> There's always another layer to unearth and appreciate.


This nails it for me. The music is so richly composed and so opulently expressive that you can discover something new every time. Bach aside, Brahms's music leaves me with the greatest sense of satisfaction out of all the music I've ever heard, like I've just eaten a multi-course, multi-flavored meal from one of the greatest chefs in the world.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Arnold Schonberg has this view that Brahms was not only progressive and innovative, but also radical (for his time) in the sense that he wanted to acomplish innovation within the Beethovenian idea of unifying musical elements by simple ideas through forms.

There is no dud in Brahms's work, he wasn't the most prolific, but everything he wrote was "gold". The harmonic language of Brahms are dark, brooding, unexpected but very satisfying. I think you need to be at certain age to start fully appreciate Brahm's music, the pathos of Brahms' best work are often not the pathos of a youngster. I can't speak for others but this is certainly true for me.


----------



## mbhaub

Everything he wrote, that he didn't burn, seems perfect. There's not a wasted note, not a misstep anywhere. Every thing seems to be exactly right. The music has a deep sense of integrity, nobility, and honesty. He never went for cheap tricks. His compositional skills in harmony, counterpoint, voice leading, modulation are exemplary and at times awe inspiring. His orchestration may seem somewhat backwards by the standards of his time, but it is absolutely flawless. Not bad for a composer who never went to a conservatory and was essentially self-taught!

For many decades a way of summing up the great composers was "Bach, Beethoven and Brahms". I don't listen to his music as often as I used to (or should!) but every time I do I am instantly reminded: this is what great music is all about. I don't like everything he wrote: the German Requiem I find tedious and dull, I can't stand the Tragic Overture. But those symphonies, the chamber music, the 2nd piano concerto...genius!


----------



## MarkW

mbhaub said:


> Everything he wrote, that he didn't burn, seems perfect. There's not a wasted note, not a misstep anywhere. Every thing seems to be exactly right. The music has a deep sense of integrity, nobility, and honesty. He never went for cheap tricks. His compositional skills in harmony, counterpoint, voice leading, modulation are exemplary and at times awe inspiring. His orchestration may seem somewhat backwards by the standards of his time, but it is absolutely flawless. Not bad for a composer who never went to a conservatory and was essentially self-taught!
> 
> For many decades a way of summing up the great composers was "Bach, Beethoven and Brahms". I don't listen to his music as often as I used to (or should!) but every time I do I am instantly reminded: this is what great music is all about. I don't like everything he wrote: the German Requiem I find tedious and dull, I can't stand the Tragic Overture. But those symphonies, the chamber music, the 2nd piano concerto...genius!


What he said .


----------



## Simplicissimus

I've always loved Brahms and never had to struggle to find musical meanings in his works. As mentioned, his melodies and orchestration are so wonderful, with that distinctive interplay among the instruments. But what makes Brahms special for me is that his music is so _memorable_. With his four symphonies and two piano concerti, I can close my eyes and replay the music in my imagination. I don't have an especially good musical mind or memory, yet these orchestral works have somehow made such deep impressions on me that I can actually play them back more or less in their entirety in my imagination. I definitely cannot do that with much other music. Just some Bach.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Brahms is single my favorite composer, perhaps tied with Bach. A lot of the major points that come to mind in terms of what makes him a great composer have already been mentioned, but I notice no one's really brought up his sense of rhythm. In my opinion this is one of the most striking and innovative features of his music. His use of syncopation and metric dissonance, his juxtaposition of melodic and harmonic rhythms, and the rhythmic interdependence of the voices in his contrapuntal writing give his music a fluid, protean and ultimately _natural_ sense of time that somehow remains firm and grounded in a pervasive sense of structural integrity. Time is the essence of music, and Brahms understood it in such a beautiful and unique way.

I'll mention one other thing for now (I could go on for ages) that relates more to why I personally love Brahms rather than the qualities which make him great. I find his compositional development fascinating: the exuberant, almost Schumann-esque Romanticism of his youth, the balance he struck between structure and expression in his middle years, and the profound, ripened wisdom of his late works. His oeuvre taken as a whole tells a beautiful and inspiring story, a story of passion, love, joy, sorrow, discovery, resignation, and acceptance. His biography may not be the most interesting of the great composers', but his musical odyssey speaks to me like no other.


----------



## consuono

> Not bad for a composer who never went to a conservatory and was essentially self-taught!


Was he self-taught though? I thought he studied with Marxsen, Schumann and others.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Brahms does have all the strengths that folks have referred to above and I admire them too, but they aren't the reasons why I love his music. For me it was more visceral than that - when I was still young and starting to get into classical music, there were a couple of his works (the Violin Concerto and the Third Symphony) whose mood and idiom resonated very, very strongly with me. Interestingly this was not the case with a number of other pieces of his which I now love dearly (the piano concertos for example) but which I had to work quite hard to get to like. Now I do in a big way, though, and as indicated it's not an intellectual thing, though there's certainly plenty of food for thought in Brahms (and, if you're a pianist, plenty of exercise for the fingers - I'm currently working on the Rhapsody in G minor, Op.79 no.2 and loving it).


----------



## aioriacont

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Arnold Schonberg has this view that Brahms was not only progressive and innovative, but also radical (for his time) in the sense that he wanted to acomplish innovation within the Beethovenian idea of unifying musical elements by simple ideas through forms.
> 
> There is no dud in Brahms's work, he wasn't the most prolific, but everything he wrote was "gold". The harmonic language of Brahms are dark, brooding, unexpected but very satisfying. I think you need to be at certain age to start fully appreciate Brahm's music, the pathos of Brahms' best work are often not the pathos of a youngster. I can't speak for others but this is certainly true for me.


nah, many younger people do manage to appreciate amazing and deep art like Brahms' and other composers'. 
The point is that *you *only managed to get it when older, certainly listening only to AOR crap while younger.


----------



## starthrower

Right now I'm listening to some of his piano music on the Glenn Gould 2 disc set. 4 Ballades op. 10; 2 Rhapsodies op. 79; 10 Intermezzi. I'm a very slow Brahms collector. It took me 30 years to pick up something besides a symphony and the piano concertos but I'm getting there.


----------



## Strange Magic

Wonderful melodies, incredibly rich texture, a sense of powerful and irresistable motion and emotion just below the surface, an occasional sparkle of pure musical fun/joy (as in the last movement of the 2nd PC), Brahmsian sonority--as distinctive as Sibelius', only earlier. My favorite composer.


----------



## hammeredklavier

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Arnold Schonberg has this view that Brahms was not only progressive and innovative, but also radical (for his time) in the sense that he wanted to acomplish innovation within the Beethovenian idea of unifying musical elements by simple ideas through forms.







I don't particularly find this to be a defining characteristic of Beethoven. In fact, one thing that differentiates Brahms from Beethoven is that Brahms did not follow the practice of programmatic music that dates back as early as J.H. Knecht's Le portrait musical de la nature, ou Grande sinfonie (1784).


----------



## hammeredklavier

Dimace said:


> Brahms's ladder has two ways: Upward to meet the Austrian. (windy) Down to meet Beethoven (stable)


Mozart wasn't really more "Austrian" than the other two though, he was "Bavarian" to be precise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart's_nationality


----------



## poconoron

Dimace said:


> You like Brahms (not you personally, generally speaking) because is a mixture of Mozart and Beethoven. His melodic lines are from the Austrian. His structure a mixture of Mozart and Beethoven. And his spirit direct given from the Greatest.
> 
> It isn't well known, but Johannes had real love and admiration for Mozart. He considered him the greatest in music history. But, this is strange, his ideas, the way he composed, his true inspiration was the Beethoven. Brahms's ladder has two ways: Upward to meet the Austrian. (windy) Down to meet Beethoven (stable) It is very logical (I don't know a lot of people who don't like Mozart & Beethoven at the same time) all to love Brahms, because is the PERFECT mixture of these composers AND (this is very important) with very steady, Bachian (sic), technic in his composition.


What he said.................encapsulates it perfectly for me......


----------



## Caryatid

I think what initially appealed to me about Brahms is that he combines Beethovenian forms with a rich Romantic harmony. It gives his music a certain gloss lacking in Beethoven, who relies more heavily than Brahms on diminished seventh chords and the like.


----------



## Judith

Brahms is my favourite composer along with Schumann(they go together). For me, easy to listen, very melodic, his works are individual not sounding alike and not too much percussion unlike some works. His compositions are individual, not all the same


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I can certainly agree with some of the nice things others have said about Brahms, so there's little need for me to engage in repetition. If any of you ever get the chance, try spending some moments amid the sights and sounds of Looking Glass Falls in Brevard, N.C. Also, take a stroll or ride through the eye candy of some of western North Carolina's sun dappled forests in spring and especially autumn. These adventures seem to breathe some of the most wonderful Brahmsian melodies.


----------



## Caryatid

Judith said:


> Brahms is my favourite composer along with Schumann(they go together). For me, easy to listen, very melodic, his works are individual not sounding alike and not too much percussion unlike some works. His compositions are individual, not all the same


Interesting. I too greatly enjoy both Brahms and Schumann, and they certainly complement each other (Op. 119 No. 4 is the Marche from _Carnaval_, after all!). But in my experience you and I are a bit unusual. Schumann fans, including Tchaikovsky and some notable French composers, often seem to find Brahms dry.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> Mozart wasn't really more "Austrian" than the other two though, he was "Bavarian" to be precise.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart's_nationality


I thought the composers all lived on a fantasy planet of our reimagining.


----------



## flamencosketches

Brahmsian Colors said:


> I can certainly agree with some of the nice things others have said about Brahms, so there's little need for me to engage in repetition. If any of you ever get the chance, try spending some moments amid the sights and sounds of Looking Glass Falls in Brevard, N.C. Also, take a stroll or ride through the eye candy of some of western North Carolina's sun dappled forests in spring and especially autumn. These adventures seem to breathe some of the most wonderful Brahmsian melodies.


I definitely have the chance to do that as Brevard is only a few hours from me. Sounds like a good weekender for October.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Caryatid said:


> Interesting. I too greatly enjoy both Brahms and Schumann, and they certainly complement each other (Op. 119 No. 4 is the Marche from _Carnaval_, after all!). But in my experience you and I are a bit unusual. Schumann fans, including Tchaikovsky and some notable French composers, often seem to find Brahms dry.


I'm a Brahms fan who found Schumann unbearably dry until only a month ago, where after repeated listening his music finally clicked for me. Previously I guess I was looking for long-breathed Brahmsian melodies, while Schumann's melodies are perhaps more "concentrated" (have no idea what that means, it's the best word to express what I'm trying to say). Schumann's use of form IMO was not as advanced as Brahms - some of his music is somewhat repetitive, with exceptions like the Fantasie in C - but I've learned to discover the poetry and beauty of his music by ceasing to compare him to his contemporaries and just enjoying him on his own terms.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

Brahms is the Brahmin, my favorite composer for over three decades running. His mastery of counterpoint rivals Bach's and the variety of variations he weaves never ceases to astound. But most of all it is the tension between the starkly emotional quality of his writing and its brainy packaging that keeps me coming back to him; he is both psychologically and intellectually satisfying. Many composers can evoke all sorts of feelings; for me, he is one of the few who elicit goosebumps, repeatedly, particularly his PCs and solo piano works. I've often heard it said that musicians themselves "have one favorite composer _and Brahms_," so great a respect does he inspire among practitioners. That said, he often presents a challenge to those new to classical music who frequently complain about "the density or thickness" of his writing; a book might be written about his many U.S. detractors during his lifetime. As late as 1900, some wag on the occasion of the opening of Symphony Hall in Boston cracked that the "Exit in Case of Fire" signs should more appropriately read "Exit in Case of Brahms." They can leave if they want, expose me to fewer viruses.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

flamencosketches said:


> I definitely have the chance to do that as Brevard is only a few hours from me. Sounds like a good weekender for October.


My wife and I previously lived just outside of Asheville. We visited Looking Glass Falls a number of times for grandeur and refreshment. Since we were also near one of the main entrances to the Blue Ridge Mountains, we also made trips when the riot of colors would appear each fall. Simply magnificent!


----------



## MarkW

Re: His rhythmic complexity. It took me a few years of getting quickly lost trying to follow his scores to realize how obsessively (and successfully) he tried to write through, and obscure, the bar line.


----------



## Room2201974

A few thoughts (some amounting to Summer reruns).

When Schoenberg wrote _Brahms The Progresive_ he was a composer desperately in search of an audience. What he was saying basically was: "Hey, you know that developing variation thing that Brahms always does? See how close an idea that is to my own new system where we develop variations from tone rows? Brahms was really pointing the way to my own wonderful technique. Therefore, you have another reason to appreciate my progressive music." Okay, that's not a quote, but its kind of a paraphrase.

*************

Other composers, notable Schubert and Mozart, had played with the idea of developing variations in a few pieces, but with Brahms *it becomes the compositional method*. He takes the smallest germ or cell and creates whole themes and structures based on it, including contrasting themes. Listen to that wonderful opening theme in the first movement of the Fourth Symphony. It's thirds!!!! That's it folks! That gorgeous opening theme is composed of nothing but intervals of a third.

************

Brahms Double Selection Composition Process:

1. Burn between 1/3 - 1/2 of your output because it's not up to your high "unassailable" standards. (Unassailable being Brahms' own word when it came to composition.)

2. Submit all finished work to the greatest concert pianist of a generation for proof reading and critique *prior to publication*.

**************

I've said it before in here and I'll probably say it again, but Brahms is the most progressive composer in the latter half of the 19th century when it comes to rhythm and meter. He loved to notate over the bar line, was famous for his hemiola, and anticipated Braque and Picasso by ripping melody away from meter to show it to you in another view. Its fascinating that Schoenberg, whose music is pretty boring rhythmically, wasn't interested in that progressive point!

***************

"In fact Brahms never accepted a musical commission in his adult life, something that would have been incomprehensible to Mozart's generation." ~ Jan Swafford, _Johannes Brahms, a Biography_.

***************

"To a degree perhaps beyond any composer up to his time-and like most to come-he was obsessed by the past. He was personally involved with the development of musicology in his era, and counted among his friends several of the figures who shaped that new discipline. He owned an important private collection of composers' manuscripts, including their sketches and letters.

Already a constant reader, Johannes was becoming a bibliophile and collector, haunter of second-hand bookshops in search of rarities. Prowling bookstalls that year, he found a 1743 treatise on figured bass. Bound in the back of it was another old tome on keyboard playing by Johann Mattheson, biographer and friend of Handel from their Hamburg days. Brahms not only collected old volumes and music and manuscripts, he also studied them as living texts. As he was someday to inform Richard Wagner: "I do not collect 'curiosities.' " ~ Jan Swafford, _Johannes Brahms, a Biography_.

***************

Oh, and then there's Opus 118, No 2!


----------



## Ethereality

Brahms's music is very generous on the ears because he guides the basic principles of composition to perfection. I'm going to be honest. If Brahms had a weakness, that weakness is brilliantly improved and even masked by all the things he does so right to reguide us. That weakness is melody and melodic development. When you study and compare the man to others, you really cannot deny, that his excellence in all other aspects makes the melodies incredibly enjoyable, as he's delivering a full package with melody inseparable from the greater forms, developmental rhythms, orchestration and dynamics he uses. These are where he starts rebuilding the experience for me... my top composers where Brahms is usually not included, are all about expressivity and melodic and thematic development. Brahms becomes the door of _expressivity_ to bridge the gap to a new world, to lure me into a new sense organ of interpreting sound; where usually a strong thematic development would expand my contraflow to the novel, with Brahms I don't feel exceptional melodic or thematic development is necessary to totally relish the experience, or to do the opposite, enjoy all the thematic touches he does have through the lens of his grander construct.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Room2201974 said:


> Other composers, notable Schubert and Mozart, had played with the idea of developing variations in a few pieces, but with Brahms it becomes the compositional method. He takes the smallest germ or cell and creates whole themes and structures based on it, including contrasting themes. Listen to that wonderful opening theme in the first movement of the Fourth Symphony. It's thirds!!!! That's it folks! That gorgeous opening theme is composed of nothing but intervals of a third.


But I failed to see what's innovative about it. Haven't Beethoven perfected motivic developement already?



Room2201974 said:


> I've said it before in here and I'll probably say it again, but Brahms is the most progressive composer in the latter half of the 19th century when it comes to rhythm and meter. He loved to notate over the bar line, was famous for his hemiola, and anticipated Braque and Picasso by ripping melody away from meter to show it to you in another view. Its fascinating that Schoenberg, whose music is pretty boring rhythmically, wasn't interested in that progressive point!


But he pales in comparison with Stravinsky. Obscuring the downbeat was also the innovation of Beethoven. Is Brahms really innovative with rhymes and meters? I can't hear it.

I have to say Brahms' best works (intermezzos) are just as harmonically adventurous as his nemesis Wagner but in a different way. There are more harmonic consistencies within formal units in Brahms than Wagner's overt chromaticism but Brahms can take you to pretty far away places too.


----------



## millionrainbows

I don't think it should be "the Three Bs" of Classical music. What about R. Strauss, Mahler, Wagner? In that sense, I feel Brahms has been overrated.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think it should be "the Three Bs" of Classical music. What about R. Strauss, Mahler, Wagner? In that sense, I feel Brahms has been overrated.


For Classicists he is in a league above Strauss, Mahler and Wagner.

But Classicists tend to rank Mozart higher than Beethoven so it's just one way to look at things.


----------



## Ethereality

'The Two Ms of Austria,' Mozart and Mahler, and there is everybody else.


----------



## hammeredklavier

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But he pales in comparison with Stravinsky.





UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For Classicists he is in a league above Strauss, Mahler and Wagner.
> But Classicists tend to rank Mozart higher than Beethoven so it's just one way to look at things.


But remember, being Classicist doesn't necessarily equate to being "not innovative".
For example, Mendelssohn is generally regarded as being conventional, but look how his third symphony anticipates Wagner's Hollander in certain parts. I once pointed out that Beethoven's use of rhythm feels strict, but the his particular way to combine it with dynamics creates an unique effect (ex. string quartet in F minor)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

hammeredklavier said:


> But remember, being Classicist doesn't necessarily equate to being "not innovative".
> For example, Mendelssohn is generally regarded as being conventional, but look how his third symphony anticipates Wagner's Hollander in certain parts. I once pointed out that Beethoven's use of rhythm feels strict, but the his particular way to combine it with dynamics creates an unique effect (ex. string quartet in F minor)


Thank you for sharing this amazing insight!


----------



## Caryatid

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> But he pales in comparison with Stravinsky. Obscuring the downbeat was also the innovation of Beethoven. Is Brahms really innovative with rhymes and meters? I can't hear it.


This is like saying, "Stravinsky pales in comparison with Ferneyhough." It's true, but it misses the point. Brahms was born 50 years before Stravinsky.








Paganini Variations, Book 2, Variation 7








Piano Trio No. 3, 3rd movement








Capriccio Op. 76 No. 5


----------



## Open Book

mbhaub said:


> Everything he wrote, that he didn't burn, seems perfect. There's not a wasted note, not a misstep anywhere.


It would be interesting to hear some of his works that he deemed unworthy and destroyed by fire. Would we agree with his judgment that they should never even see the light of day? Too bad he didn't publish them under a pseudonym.


----------



## Guest

Allegro Con Brio said:


> This nails it for me. The music is so richly composed and so opulently expressive that you can discover something new every time. Bach aside, Brahms's music leaves me with the greatest sense of satisfaction out of all the music I've ever heard, like I've just eaten a multi-course, multi-flavored meal from one of the greatest chefs in the world.


Well put. I feel exactly the same. It's Bach, Beethoven and Brahms for me; each one so different yet so wonderful.


----------



## aioriacont

Brahms has mindblowing stuff


----------



## Guest

mbhaub said:


> Everything he wrote, that he didn't burn, seems perfect. There's not a wasted note, not a misstep anywhere. Every thing seems to be exactly right. The music has a deep sense of integrity, nobility, and honesty. He never went for cheap tricks. His compositional skills in harmony, counterpoint, voice leading, modulation are exemplary and at times awe inspiring. His orchestration may seem somewhat backwards by the standards of his time, but it is absolutely flawless. Not bad for a composer who never went to a conservatory and was essentially self-taught!
> 
> For many decades a way of summing up the great composers was "Bach, Beethoven and Brahms". I don't listen to his music as often as I used to (or should!) but every time I do I am instantly reminded: this is what great music is all about. I don't like everything he wrote: the German Requiem I find tedious and dull, I can't stand the Tragic Overture. But those symphonies, the chamber music, the 2nd piano concerto...genius!


Completely agree about the German Requiem; it is leaden and I've never liked it.


----------



## aioriacont

I love most of Brahms' music, but I also don't like his German Requiem. 
I do believe it is a deep and a grower work which will require more listens to really appreciate, so I'll never stop giving it a try. 
Maybe I'm also listening to not so good renditions of the piece.


----------



## Guest

This is good for whatever ails you, every time:


----------



## DavidA

Christabel said:


> Completely agree about the German Requiem; it is leaden and I've never liked it.


I love it. Really tuneful work


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I’m convinced that Brahms wrote the German Requiem as a humanitarian work. Its encapsulation of the spirit of human grief is overwhelming. Even before I lost a dear loved one I thought it was one of the most beautiful things I’ve ever heard, but ever since then the work has become indelibly associated in my head with that event and I only play it once a year or so because it’s just that special, and I don’t want to wear it out. How anyone could find its amazing melodies and warmth, not to mention the theatrical drama of the third and sixth movements, “boring,” is beyond me. It’s certainly a candidate for my favorite all-time composition.


----------



## Guest

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm convinced that Brahms wrote the German Requiem as a humanitarian work. Its encapsulation of the spirit of human grief is overwhelming. Even before I lost a dear loved one I thought it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard, but ever since then the work has become indelibly associated in my head with that event and I only play it once a year or so because it's just that special, and I don't want to wear it out. How anyone could find its amazing melodies and warmth, not to mention the theatrical drama of the third and sixth movements, "boring," is beyond me. It's certainly a candidate for my favorite all-time composition.


I prefer the Biber Requiem to Brahms; any day. It has that translucence which I just adore with Baroque music.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm convinced that Brahms wrote the German Requiem as a humanitarian work. Its encapsulation of the spirit of human grief is overwhelming. Even before I lost a dear loved one I thought it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard, but ever since then the work has become indelibly associated in my head with that event and I only play it once a year or so because it's just that special, and I don't want to wear it out. How anyone could find its amazing melodies and warmth, not to mention the theatrical drama of the third and sixth movements, "boring," is beyond me. It's certainly a candidate for my favorite all-time composition.


What is/are your favorite performance(s)?


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> What is/are your favorite performance(s)?


Absolute favorite is Kempe '55 - great late mono sound and just gorgeous singing and interpretation. Then Klemperer and Sinopoli. Gardiner is worth hearing for a more "Baroque" sounding approach.


----------



## Open Book

Ethereality said:


> Brahms's music is very generous on the ears because he guides the basic principles of composition to perfection. I'm going to be honest. If Brahms had a weakness, that weakness is brilliantly improved and even masked by all the things he does so right to reguide us. That weakness is melody and melodic development. When you study and compare the man to others, you really cannot deny, that his excellence in all other aspects makes the melodies incredibly enjoyable, as he's delivering a full package with melody inseparable from the greater forms, developmental rhythms, orchestration and dynamics he uses.


I don't know about the development part, but there's a member here named BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist and he's right on. Brahms not only wrote beautiful melodies, they pierce you to your very core.

I always find it strange when great composers are said to be weak on anything.


----------



## Woodduck

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I'm convinced that Brahms wrote the German Requiem as a humanitarian work. Its encapsulation of the spirit of human grief is overwhelming. Even before I lost a dear loved one I thought it was one of the most beautiful things I've ever heard, but ever since then the work has become indelibly associated in my head with that event and I only play it once a year or so because it's just that special, and I don't want to wear it out. How anyone could find its amazing melodies and warmth, not to mention the theatrical drama of the third and sixth movements, "boring," is beyond me. It's certainly a candidate for my favorite all-time composition.


The _German Requiem_ was my gateway to Brahms, a composer I had trouble liking at first (this was in ancient times, when I was a teenager). I had an algebra teacher who asked me what I thought of Brahms. I said I didn't much care for him. Mr. Novelli asked, "Too emotional for you?", and I answered "Not emotional enough." Once the light dawned for me, Brahms became one of a handful of favorite composers, especially the chamber music, of which I couldn't get enough.

I suspect that the need to grow into this composer's music is a common experience for young people, and I think it's related to the increasing ability to respond to his intellectual qualities, which are not unique to him but are explicitly audible in a way that they are not for many Romantic era composers. If Tchaikovsky wore his heart on his sleeve, Brahms wore his brain on his fedora. Tchaikovsky himself found Brahms dry and frustrating for his inabilty or unwillingness to let melody slip free of what sounded like academic constraints, and I think this, along with the dark sobriety of his typical orchestration, is what put me off during my teenage years. Whether we hear the disciplined intellectuality of Brahms as complementing his emotionality or as conflicting with it may be a matter of how we experience this duality in ourselves. I have heard it both ways.


----------



## Judith

Caryatid said:


> Interesting. I too greatly enjoy both Brahms and Schumann, and they certainly complement each other (Op. 119 No. 4 is the Marche from _Carnaval_, after all!). But in my experience you and I are a bit unusual. Schumann fans, including Tchaikovsky and some notable French composers, often seem to find Brahms dry.


Brahms's works were different to Tchaikovsky and others but I don't find him dry


----------



## MarkW

On another thread, someone (maybe it was me) quoted Albert Einstein as saying he didn't like Brahms because he was "too complex." (Einstein!) In the context, I suppose, of complexity for complexity's sake. I get it, but find a rigor in the complexity that absolutely engages -- in the way a well explained philosophical idea, however complex, broadens one's view.


----------



## consuono

> quoted Albert Einstein


That seems to be a thing that's always fraught with peril, along with quoting Lincoln or Churchill.


----------



## Guest

MarkW said:


> On another thread, someone (maybe it was me) quoted Albert Einstein as saying he didn't like Brahms because he was "too complex." (Einstein!) In the context, I suppose, of complexity for complexity's sake. I get it, but find a rigor in the complexity that absolutely engages -- in the way a well explained philosophical idea, however complex, broadens one's view.


Brilliant comment in your last sentence.


----------



## hammeredklavier

The Brahms German requiem, to me, is as only about as significant in Brahms's oeuvre as Schumann's, Dvorak's, and Liszt's requiems are in their respective oeuvre. (It's good, but not exceptional.) Actually, it's a problem I have with the general 19th century "liturgical" music (except maybe certain parts of the Verdi requiem). 
It's hard to describe, but I feel that a lot of the music is "drawn-out" with sustained tones, like early music, (ex. Bruckner's motets) slightly lacking ways to evoke tension or drama. Overall, it feels "dreamy" with occasional moments of loud outbursts, but the general impression I get is that the overall expression is only "conciliatory", trying to convince the listeners that there is no suffering in the afterlife.
I think that the composers (many of whom weren't "religious", unlike those of the previous eras) tried to develop expression from the previous eras to come up with a "Romantic expression" in the genre but they seem to have "struggled" a bit, to me. (ex. Dvorak's confutatis). There is always something missing, to me.

Ironically, the 18th century precedents are more "sincere in expressing honest feelings"; they speak more directly to me. For example, Hasse's Misereres, 
"Quando corpus morietur" -"Amen..." from Pergolesi's Stabat mater, 
Gratias agimus tibi from J. Haydn's Theresienmesse, 
Dies irae from M. Haydn's Requiem move me more than 19th century liturgical music does. 
The baroque period saw the refinement of polyphonic texture and the creation of large monumental masterpieces such as Bach's B minor mass, and Handel's Messiah. (whereas the lengths of Berlioz's and Dvorak's requiems aren't justified, in my view.) and the classicists sought emancipation from the baroque "doctrine of the affections" and emphasis of certain "dionysian" qualities (ie. operatic drama), for example, the dissonant strettos of "Et vitam venturi" in Mozart's missa longa imply original expression, to me.
And then came the 19th century where composers are back to doing stuff like long drawn-out sustained tones like early music, and often using loudness to create contrast, like Bruckner's F minor mass. 
Sorry about my rant, it's just my opinion (I know many people will not sympathize with me): I still regard the Brahms German requiem as a fine work. It's just that it feels a bit long and I regard his instrumental music more highly, where his "wild imaginations" seem to be more fully realized.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> The Brahms German requiem, to me, is as only about as significant in Brahms's oeuvre as Schumann's, Dvorak's, and Liszt's requiems are in their respective oeuvre. (It's good, but not exceptional.) Actually, it's a problem I have with the general 19th century "liturgical" music (except maybe certain parts of the Verdi requiem).
> It's hard to describe, but I feel that a lot of the music is "drawn-out" with sustained tones, like early music, (ex. Bruckner's motets) slightly lacking ways to evoke tension or drama. Overall, it feels "dreamy" with occasional moments of loud outbursts, but the general impression I get is that the overall expression is only "conciliatory", trying to convince the listeners that there is no suffering in the afterlife.
> I think that the composers (many of whom weren't "religious", unlike those of the previous eras) tried to develop expression from the previous eras to come up with a "Romantic expression" in the genre but they seem to have "struggled" a bit, to me. (ex. Dvorak's confutatis). There is always something missing, to me.
> 
> Ironically, the 18th century precedents are more "sincere in expressing honest feelings"; they speak more directly to me. For example, Hasse's Misereres,
> "Quando corpus morietur" -"Amen..." from Pergolesi's Stabat mater,
> Gratias agimus tibi from J. Haydn's Theresienmesse,
> Dies irae from M. Haydn's Requiem move me more than 19th century liturgical music does.
> The baroque period saw the refinement of polyphonic texture and the creation of large monumental masterpieces such as Bach's B minor mass, and Handel's Messiah. (whereas the lengths of Berlioz's and Dvorak's requiems aren't justified, in my view.) and the classicists sought emancipation from the baroque "doctrine of the affections" and emphasis of certain "dionysian" qualities (ie. operatic drama), for example, the dissonant strettos of "Et vitam venturi" in Mozart's missa longa imply original expression, to me.
> And then came the 19th century where composers are back to doing stuff like long drawn-out sustained tones like early music, and often using loudness to create contrast, like Bruckner's F minor mass.
> Sorry about my rant, it's just my opinion (I know many people will not sympathize with me): I still regard the Brahms German requiem as a fine work. It's just that it feels a bit long and I regard his instrumental music more highly, where his "wild imaginations" seem to be more fully realized.


Bravo and amen to that re the 18th century!!!!


----------



## Guest

This is a very moving work by Brahms ("Schicksalslied"). From memory, I think he wrote it to mark the passing of Julie Schumann (but I cannot rely on this being accurate):


----------



## Enthusiast

hammeredklavier said:


> The Brahms German requiem, to me, is as only about as significant in Brahms's oeuvre as Schumann's, Dvorak's, and Liszt's requiems are in their respective oeuvre. (It's good, but not exceptional.) Actually, it's a problem I have with the general 19th century "liturgical" music (except maybe certain parts of the Verdi requiem).
> It's hard to describe, but I feel that a lot of the music is "drawn-out" with sustained tones, like early music, (ex. Bruckner's motets) slightly lacking ways to evoke tension or drama. Overall, it feels "dreamy" with occasional moments of loud outbursts, but the general impression I get is that the overall expression is only "conciliatory", trying to convince the listeners that there is no suffering in the afterlife.
> I think that the composers (many of whom weren't "religious", unlike those of the previous eras) tried to develop expression from the previous eras to come up with a "Romantic expression" in the genre but they seem to have "struggled" a bit, to me. (ex. Dvorak's confutatis). There is always something missing, to me.
> 
> Ironically, the 18th century precedents are more "sincere in expressing honest feelings"; they speak more directly to me. For example, Hasse's Misereres,
> "Quando corpus morietur" -"Amen..." from Pergolesi's Stabat mater,
> Gratias agimus tibi from J. Haydn's Theresienmesse,
> Dies irae from M. Haydn's Requiem move me more than 19th century liturgical music does.
> The baroque period saw the refinement of polyphonic texture and the creation of large monumental masterpieces such as Bach's B minor mass, and Handel's Messiah. (whereas the lengths of Berlioz's and Dvorak's requiems aren't justified, in my view.) and the classicists sought emancipation from the baroque "doctrine of the affections" and emphasis of certain "dionysian" qualities (ie. operatic drama), for example, the dissonant strettos of "Et vitam venturi" in Mozart's missa longa imply original expression, to me.
> And then came the 19th century where composers are back to doing stuff like long drawn-out sustained tones like early music, and often using loudness to create contrast, like Bruckner's F minor mass.
> Sorry about my rant, it's just my opinion (I know many people will not sympathize with me): I still regard the Brahms German requiem as a fine work. It's just that it feels a bit long and I regard his instrumental music more highly, where his "wild imaginations" seem to be more fully realized.


I know what you mean but am slowly arriving at a different view (it has taken me 50 years!). The big choral pieces of the Romantic were certainly much more important to the people of the time. The German Requiem, for example, did much to make Brahms financially independent. Berlioz and Bruckner also wrote stunning liturgical works. The Dvorak's works (the Requiem and Stabat Mater) are also fine works. And then there is Elgar. His liturgical works are among his greatest (and he didn't write that much). And Mahler (8th) and the lovely Petite Messe of Rossini.

But what is it that makes them seem a little dully and woolly compared to the Baroque and Classical masterpieces? The choral writing does seem to be missing something - purity? - and even when you have got past that I think the choral sound often fails to become lovable in itself.


----------



## Guest

I've actually thought about that quite a lot over the years, but I do have to say my interest in orchestra and choir pretty much ended after those incredible masses by Haydn. The symphony orchestra grew larger, the instruments more sophisticated and in order for the choir to be heard over that the forces had to become more substantial. Something was, therefore, lost. It became (for me, at least) a 'wall of sound' and this was never a characteristic of choral music before Haydn. I've never really liked Beethoven #9 last movement, thinking he got that wrong. The orchestral writing was so fine that it always grates when the singing starts. And those sappy Enlightenment ideals; there is no 'brotherhood' of man (as we can see in modern politics). And I'm not partial to the Missa Solemnis, but I don't mind the earlier Beethoven Mass in C. It's the large choral forces which are the turn-off (and equally the case with Berlioz). 

So, I think 'woolly' is an excellent description of the sounds of those inflated works. But lots of people like these, so it's entirely a matter of taste. My thinking has always been "less is more".


----------



## millionrainbows

Brahms and his noncommittal, emotionally reserved rationalism, is perfect for these modern secular times.

The German Requiem is a 'secular' requiem in many ways, if you choose to see the reasons why.

From WIK: 
_Brahms told Carl Martin Reinthaler, director of music at the Bremen Cathedral, that he would have gladly called the work "Ein menschliches Requiem" *(A human Requiem).*

Although the Requiem Mass in the Roman Catholic liturgy begins with prayers for the dead ("Grant them eternal rest, O Lord"), A German Requiem focuses on the living... Although the idea of the Lord is the source of the comfort, *the sympathetic humanism persists through the work.*

*Brahms purposely omitted Christian dogma.* In his correspondence with Carl Reinthaler, when Reinthaler expressed concern over this, *Brahms refused to add references to "the redeeming death of the Lord", *as Reinthaler described it, such as John 3:16.

Most critics have commented on the high level of craftsmanship displayed in the work, and have appreciated its quasi-Classical structures (e.g. the third and sixth movements have fugues at their climax). But not all critics responded favourably to the work. *George Bernard Shaw, an avowed Wagnerite, wrote that "it could only have come from the establishment of a first-class undertaker." 
*
_*Some commentators have also been puzzled by its lack of overt Christian content, though it seems clear that for Brahms this was a humanist rather than a Christian work..

*Maybe my previous harping on "art is expression of being" is the key to many people's resistance to Brahms: his music is an expression of his being, and this comes through on a subtle level. Perhaps a "lack of spiritual awareness" and a lack of "transcending one's ego by belief in a higher connection to the sacred."

On the surface, Brahms (of the "three B's") appears to be a firm exponent of the overall Western tradition in the arts (espousing religious concepts in masses and requiems), but turns out upon closer examination to be a humanist. People sense this, perhaps seeing Brahms as "joyless" or "overly rational," or just as a good old-fashioned non-believer in anything transcendent.

As many here know, my argument is not for religion or religious dogma _per se,_ but for Man's primary "spiritual" awareness; a connection to the 'sacred' which came before all dogma and all religion, thus including all religions as extensions of this awareness (while rejecting their dogma, if any).

Perhaps what we perceive intuitively in Brahms is his failure to compensate his rejection of dogmatic religion with an awareness which is connected to "the sacred" and to his "being" or "spirit."

In other words, Brahms had a hard time "letting go" or "surrendering" his ego.


----------



## Enthusiast

There are just a few composers who regularly make me wonder "where did he get _that _from?" when I am listening to them. They are all composers who I never ever get tired of. They are all the biggest names (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and a couple of others) and Brahms is one of them. Why Brahms and not so many others? I don't know. It is just how it is for me.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

hammeredklavier said:


> The Brahms German requiem, to me, is as only about as significant in Brahms's oeuvre as Schumann's, Dvorak's, and Liszt's requiems are in their respective oeuvre. (It's good, but not exceptional.) Actually, it's a problem I have with the general 19th century "liturgical" music (except maybe certain parts of the Verdi requiem).
> It's hard to describe, but I feel that a lot of the music is "drawn-out" with sustained tones, like early music, (ex. Bruckner's motets) slightly lacking ways to evoke tension or drama. Overall, it feels "dreamy" with occasional moments of loud outbursts, but the general impression I get is that the overall expression is only "conciliatory", trying to convince the listeners that there is no suffering in the afterlife.
> I think that the composers (many of whom weren't "religious", unlike those of the previous eras) tried to develop expression from the previous eras to come up with a "Romantic expression" in the genre but they seem to have "struggled" a bit, to me. (ex. Dvorak's confutatis). There is always something missing, to me.
> 
> Ironically, the 18th century precedents are more "sincere in expressing honest feelings"; they speak more directly to me. For example, Hasse's Misereres,
> "Quando corpus morietur" -"Amen..." from Pergolesi's Stabat mater,
> Gratias agimus tibi from J. Haydn's Theresienmesse,
> Dies irae from M. Haydn's Requiem move me more than 19th century liturgical music does.
> The baroque period saw the refinement of polyphonic texture and the creation of large monumental masterpieces such as Bach's B minor mass, and Handel's Messiah. (whereas the lengths of Berlioz's and Dvorak's requiems aren't justified, in my view.) and the classicists sought emancipation from the baroque "doctrine of the affections" and emphasis of certain "dionysian" qualities (ie. operatic drama), for example, the dissonant strettos of "Et vitam venturi" in Mozart's missa longa imply original expression, to me.
> And then came the 19th century where composers are back to doing stuff like long drawn-out sustained tones like early music, and often using loudness to create contrast, like Bruckner's F minor mass.
> Sorry about my rant, it's just my opinion (I know many people will not sympathize with me): I still regard the Brahms German requiem as a fine work. It's just that it feels a bit long and I regard his instrumental music more highly, where his "wild imaginations" seem to be more fully realized.


I see where you're coming from even if I disagree with you on most of the Romantic choral works you mention. However, I feel exactly that way about Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. It's just too bombastic, too repetitive, too long even though there are parts that I like. Very similar feelings about the Verdi Requiem. If a choral work is going to be long, I want it to be meditative, not bombastic. That's why I love the Brahms Requiem!


----------



## Luchesi

Why did composers say sharp, emotional things about each other ==> Passionate people.

Brahms was justified in his admiration 
of Mendelssohn, when he wrote (September 1874): 
‘I would sacrifice all my works to have been able to 
compose an overture like the Hebrides of Mendelssohn.'


----------



## Eclectic Al

I'm with Woodduck's algebra teacher: Brahms is all about emotion.

My feeling about emotion in music is like my feeling about a pressure cooker. If you let all the steam out all the time you will never reach high temperature and pressure. If you hold it in through a wealth of technique then it builds and either (i) you can let it out at a much higher pressure as a result, or (ii) you can keep it in and someone watching can sense the pent up energy. Either (i) or (ii) can be tremendous.

So Brahms is a pressure cooker. (Tchaikovsky is a pan bubbling away without the lid on in comparison - although quite a nice pan.)


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm with Woodduck's algebra teacher: Brahms is all about emotion.
> 
> My feeling about emotion in music is like my feeling about a pressure cooker. If you let all the steam out all the time you will never reach high temperature and pressure. If you hold it in through a wealth of technique then it builds and either (i) you can let it out at a much higher pressure as a result, or (ii) you can keep it in and someone watching can sense the pent up energy. Either (i) or (ii) can be tremendous.
> 
> So Brahms is a pressure cooker. (Tchaikovsky is a pan bubbling away without the lid on in comparison - although quite a nice pan.)


Wonderful analogy.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> The _German Requiem_ was my gateway to Brahms, a composer I had trouble liking at first (this was in ancient times, when I was a teenager). I had an algebra teacher who asked me what I thought of Brahms. I said I didn't much care for him. Mr. Novelli asked, "Too emotional for you?", and I answered "Not emotional enough." Once the light dawned for me, Brahms became one of a handful of favorite composers, especially the chamber music, of which I couldn't get enough.
> 
> I suspect that the need to grow into this composer's music is a common experience for young people, and I think it's related to the increasing ability to respond to his intellectual qualities, which are not unique to him but are explicitly audible in a way that they are not for many Romantic era composers. If Tchaikovsky wore his heart on his sleeve, Brahms wore his brain on his fedora. Tchaikovsky himself found Brahms dry and frustrating for his inabilty or unwillingness to let melody slip free of what sounded like academic constraints, and I think this, along with the dark sobriety of his typical orchestration, is what put me off during my teenage years. Whether we hear the disciplined intellectuality of Brahms as complementing his emotionality or as conflicting with it may be a matter of how we experience this duality in ourselves. I have heard it both ways.


Yes. When I read the biographical material about him I get some notions about why he 'sounds' like he does. He's quite reserved!

Imagine the impossible love affair in his mind. Being around and being in love with a woman who's 14 years older, for so long. He was 7 yrs old when she married Robert.


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "As many here know, my argument is not for religion or religious dogma per se, but for Man's primary "spiritual" awareness; a connection to the 'sacred' which came before all dogma and all religion, thus including all religions as extensions of this awareness (while rejecting their dogma, if any).
> 
> Perhaps what we perceive intuitively in Brahms is his failure to compensate his rejection of dogmatic religion with an awareness which is connected to "the sacred" and to his "being" or "spirit."
> 
> In other words, Brahms had a hard time "letting go" or "surrendering" his ego."


If Brahms' music derives its power and its hold over many listeners because of his difficulty in "letting go" or "surrendering" his ego, as you believe is the case, by all means let us have more of the same difficulty in composers' personalities. It sure worked for Brahms.


----------



## Guest

I've read a great deal on the subject of Brahms and the Schumann clan. He seems to have been smitten with Clara at the start but their relationship developed into platonic love; frankly, he just wasn't there for her when it counted and I felt she loved him till the day she died. (He didn't even make it to her funeral, falling asleep on the train from Bad Ishl to Bonn and ending up in Cologne and only getting back when it was over!) And then he also fell in love with her daughter, Julie Schumann (amongst many other crushes). 

Brahms was emotionally immature and ambivalent, but I don't think this comes across in his music - which became a proxy for his other 'relationships'. The music became the vessel into which he poured himself and if some people find it dry and academic then this is partially explained by the man himself and his 'bearded' emotions.


----------



## Xisten267

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I see where you're coming from even if I disagree with you on most of the Romantic choral works you mention. However, I feel exactly that way about Beethoven's Missa Solemnis. *It's just too bombastic, too repetitive, too long even though there are parts that I like*. Very similar feelings about the Verdi Requiem. If a choral work is going to be long, I want it to be meditative, not bombastic. That's why I love the Brahms Requiem!


I don't agree with the use of the term "bombastic" in this context. Bombastic means "high-sounding but with little meaning", and this is absolutely not the case with the Missa Solemnis, "written from the heart" (and I don't think that it's that hard to listen that Beethoven was being sincere). Perhaps the performance you like to listen makes it feel bombastic, but certainly it's not the music. Also, calling the work repetitive is a bit of nonsense in my opinion, considering that it is through-composed and has zero repeats. I can understand if the seventh or fourth Beethoven symphonies are called repetitive, but not the Missa Solemnis.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Christabel, I disagree with a good deal of your first para. The admittedly unfortunate business over Clara's funeral is in no way representative of Brahms' attitude and actions towards her during life, when he was repeatedly there for her in ways from small (babysitting) to large (visiting Robert for her at his asylum). He was at least as much in love with her as she was with him.

By contrast I reckon you characterise Brahms' music very well, which in a way makes your first para all the more surprising to me, because AFAIC it's the same emotional repression one can hear in his music which held him back from Clara even when the coast was clear following Robert's death.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> I've read a great deal on the subject of Brahms and the Schumann clan. He seems to have been smitten with Clara at the start but their relationship developed into platonic love; frankly, he just wasn't there for her when it counted and I felt she loved him till the day she died. (He didn't even make it to her funeral, falling asleep on the train from Bad Ishl to Bonn and ending up in Cologne and only getting back when it was over!) And then he also fell in love with her daughter, Julie Schumann (amongst many other crushes).
> 
> Brahms was emotionally immature and ambivalent, but I don't think this comes across in his music - which became a proxy for his other 'relationships'. The music became the vessel into which he poured himself and if some people find it dry and academic then this is partially explained by the man himself and his 'bearded' emotions.


There's so much time in the life of a single man to be a cad. I've read that she cooled his heels because she wanted to circulate and champion her husband's works and she was thinking of the propriety of it all, in the public spotlight.

Robert Schumann had gone off in a romantic art direction and no one was playing his works?


----------



## Strange Magic

There must be more than one Brahms. The one I listen to overflows for me in emotion--joy, exultation, "turmoil". Mind you, there is little Tchaikovskian _Pathetique_ morbidity (should one choose to label it so), but maybe Brahms just never ranged that far into that end of the spectrum. Emotional repression? I don't hear it.


----------



## Guest

Luchesi said:


> There's so much time in the life of a single man to be a cad. I've read that she cooled his heels because she wanted to circulate and champion her husband's works and she was thinking of the propriety of it all, in the public spotlight.
> 
> Robert Schumann had gone off in a romantic art direction and no one was playing his works?


But Brahms wasn't a 'cad'; he didn't have the requisite interest in females at any serious level to qualify as such and there is precious little evidence that he was a seducer. His infatuations were fleeting, ambivalent and always the subject of an immature wallowing in the sentiment of it all. In short, he grew bored by the prospect of a regular relationship. Jan Swafford observed that the beautiful face of Johannes Brahms soon became obscured by a beard and dour clothing which made him seem years older than he actually was. This is not the livery of a successful womanizer!!


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> But Brahms wasn't a 'cad'; he didn't have the requisite interest in females at any serious level to qualify as such and there is precious little evidence that he was a seducer. His infatuations were fleeting, ambivalent and always the subject of an immature wallowing in the sentiment of it all. In short, he grew bored by the prospect of a regular relationship. Jan Swafford observed that the beautiful face of Johannes Brahms soon became obscured by a beard and dour clothing which made him seem years older than he actually was. This is not the livery of a successful womanizer!!


I've always thought that the shadow of Beethoven kept him in his place and eventually he just became that persona. What else could he do? 
How would we describe the shadow of Beethoven in psychological terms?


----------



## Ethereality

Open Book said:


> I don't know about the development part, but there's a member here named BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist and he's right on. I always find it strange when great composers are said to be weak on anything.


BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist is a reactionary username. However, I actually agree with you and BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist. My point was merely about melody within the sphere of the great composers: Melody writing by far is not Brahms _greatest_ asset, and even though he's wonderful at it, I described how this effectiveness therein is not necessarily due to the line writing itself, but everything else enhancing the final melodic effect: temporal form, development, etc. It's not hard to take the greats and order them by what they're best at; I think Allerius once made a composer chart with points for each category of composition. When a Brahms melody affects you deeply, ask yourself if it's mainly because of the line-writing, or something else special he's doing.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> Christabel, I disagree with a good deal of your first para. The admittedly unfortunate business over Clara's funeral is in no way representative of Brahms' attitude and actions towards her during life, when he was repeatedly there for her in ways from small (babysitting) to large (visiting Robert for her at his asylum). He was at least as much in love with her as she was with him.
> 
> By contrast I reckon you characterise Brahms' music very well, which in a way makes your first para all the more surprising to me, because AFAIC it's the same emotional repression one can hear in his music which held him back from Clara even when the coast was clear following Robert's death.


Hi Animal the Drummer (boy, I didn't ever think I'd use those words in the same sentence!), I didn't see these comments of yours.

Initially Brahms was very much in thrall to Clara but after the passing of Robert Schumann he slowly let go of his previous commitments and family intimacy. Clara never did let go of her love and affection and Brahms knew this; he even had to go to lengths to hide his 'engagement' to (oh, I've forgotten her name) so that Clara wouldn't find out. By the time Clara Schumann died their relationship had been on a more distant footing for some years. Like Beethoven before him, the idea of love was more powerful than the reality of the subsequent relationships for Johannes Brahms. I have seen him described as an "impotent" on more than one occasion; if I'm not mistaken it was Wagner who first used this term - but it's entirely possible I'm mistaken about who it was.

I have read two books on Schumann and all the Clara Schumann letters/diary entries and even the diary of Eugenie Schumann. What is very interesting about the personal missives is their formal treatment of matters to do with the heart, as though they have a conscious eye on the future and, of course, the very human tendency towards self-protection.


----------



## millionrainbows

Luchesi said:


> I've always thought that the shadow of Beethoven kept him in his place and eventually he just became that persona. What else could he do?
> How would we describe the shadow of Beethoven in psychological terms?


I'd describe it this way: Johnny Cash, the man you'll never be! :lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> If Brahms' music derives its power and its hold over many listeners because of his difficulty in "letting go" or "surrendering" his ego, as you believe is the case, by all means let us have more of the same difficulty in composers' personalities. It sure worked for Brahms.


Don't get me wrong; I do like Brahms. The piece that initially won me over was what I call his "fifth symphony," the Schoenberg-orchestrated version of the Piano Quintet in G minor (I think that's right...).

I can see how he appeals to a balanced rationality. I don't care for his use of timpani. That's bombastic-sounding.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Judith said:


> not too much percussion unlike some works





millionrainbows said:


> I don't care for his use of timpani. That's bombastic-sounding.


Well, which one is it? I think the only time where Brahms approaches anything resembling "bombast" is in the opening of the 1st symphony, but even that has compositional depth as the strings and winds play in counterpoint - I've heard it said that this was inspired by the opening chorus of the St. Matthew Passion.


----------



## RogerWaters

millionrainbows said:


> Brahms and his noncommittal, emotionally reserved rationalism, is perfect for these modern secular times.
> 
> On the surface, Brahms (of the "three B's") appears to be a firm exponent of the overall Western tradition in the arts (espousing religious concepts in masses and requiems), but turns out upon closer examination to be a humanist. People sense this, perhaps seeing Brahms as "joyless" or "overly rational," or just as a good old-fashioned non-believer in anything transcendent.


You seem to imply that 'humanists' are not exponents of the overall Western tradition! Atheism was relatively widespread in high society as early as the early 1700s. I don't think the Western tradition ended then.



millionrainbows said:


> Perhaps what we perceive intuitively in Brahms is his failure to compensate his rejection of dogmatic religion with an awareness which is connected to "the sacred" and to his "being" or "spirit." In other words, Brahms had a hard time "letting go" or "surrendering" his ego.


People who believe in 'the sacred' are displaying their ego in so believing just as much, even more, than an atheist who dedicates his life to writing amazing music which raises the spirits of billions over the ages.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Christabel said:


> Hi Animal the Drummer (boy, I didn't ever think I'd use those words in the same sentence!), I didn't see these comments of yours.
> 
> Initially Brahms was very much in thrall to Clara but after the passing of Robert Schumann he slowly let go of his previous commitments and family intimacy. Clara never did let go of her love and affection and Brahms knew this; he even had to go to lengths to hide his 'engagement' to (oh, I've forgotten her name) so that Clara wouldn't find out. By the time Clara Schumann died their relationship had been on a more distant footing for some years. Like Beethoven before him, the idea of love was more powerful than the reality of the subsequent relationships for Johannes Brahms. I have seen him described as an "impotent" on more than one occasion; if I'm not mistaken it was Wagner who first used this term - but it's entirely possible I'm mistaken about who it was.
> 
> I have read two books on Schumann and all the Clara Schumann letters/diary entries and even the diary of Eugenie Schumann. What is very interesting about the personal missives is their formal treatment of matters to do with the heart, as though they have a conscious eye on the future and, of course, the very human tendency towards self-protection.


You have the advantage of me in having read Clara's letters, so thanks for the above.

My only comment would be that Brahms is unlikely to have been, shall we say, "technically" impotent given that he's known to have used prostitutes in his Vienna years, albeit not frequently. Perhaps whoever said that had something more like "repressed" in mind, or perhaps it's a quirk of translation.


----------



## Guest

In all the books I've read about Brahms I haven't come across anything which talks about prostitutes in any city, only that Brahms played in that seedy Hamburg bar when still a teenager.

I'm sure the person who made the comment about Brahms being an "impotent" was speaking metaphorically but with an eye on the fact that he wasn't ever married and looked old before his time!!


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I can only assume then that you haven't yet read Swafford's magisterial biography, because it's in there. Brahms apparently felt it was an after-effect of his days playing in those bars in the Hamburg stews.


----------



## BlackAdderLXX

It took me a little bit to start to get Brahms. I can't describe why it was difficult to get into him at first except that as a newer listener I guess I found other major composers more 'catchy' upon first listening. As I continue to listen to his works I am really finding them beautiful.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> I can only assume then that you haven't yet read Swafford's magisterial biography, because it's in there. Brahms apparently felt it was an after-effect of his days playing in those bars in the Hamburg stews.


I most certainly have read the Swafford and I have no recollection of reading about Brahms using prostitutes in Vienna or elsewhere; in fact, I looked specifically for that reference. My recollection is that Swafford suggested Brahms was mistrustful of women possibly because of his years playing in those seedy dives in Hamburg - but prostitution didn't come up at all. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's no evidence of that at all - unlike Beethoven and "the fortresses"!!


----------



## millionrainbows

RogerWaters said:


> You seem to imply that 'humanists' are not exponents of the overall Western tradition! Atheism was relatively widespread in high society as early as the early 1700s. I don't think the Western tradition ended then.


My point was that Western Classical music, and all art, emerged from the Church.



> People who believe in 'the sacred' are displaying their ego in so believing just as much, even more, than an atheist who dedicates his life to writing amazing music which raises the spirits of billions over the ages.


You don't believe in it, you just "be" it. I think if Brahms had connected more positively to some sort of spiritual awareness, his music would have been even richer.

Also, I thought it needed clarifying that Brahms' Requiem was not a religious work.


----------



## Guest

That last claim of yours is extremely tendentious. But I do agree with your comment about western classical music emerging from the Church. It most certainly did. 

RogerWaters claims that 'people who believe in "the sacred' are displaying their ego (sic) in so believing...". I can assure you that Bach would have thought ego and hubris were incompatible with his devout Lutheranism. (Read John Eliot Gardiner's book on Bach). Bach wrote for the glory of God as he was paid to do, but his 'ego' is most certainly found in his secular offerings.
Perfectionism isn't necessarily ego, any more than god-given talent and genius. We shouldn't apply the narcissistic tropes of the 21st century to earlier centuries - especially in the case of Bach when so very little is actually known about him.


----------



## janxharris

Apparently it was Nietzsche who suggested that Brahms's music betrayed 'the melancholy of impotence'.
That he used prostitutes is, as far as I am aware, speculation.


----------



## RogerWaters

janxharris said:


> Apparently it was Nietzsche who suggested that Brahms's music betrayed 'the melancholy of impotence'.
> That he used prostitutes is, as far as I am aware, speculation.


Out of interest, do you know where N discussed Brahms?


----------



## millionrainbows

Christabel said:


> That last claim of yours is extremely tendentious. But I do agree with your comment about western classical music emerging from the Church. It most certainly did.
> 
> RogerWaters claims that 'people who believe in "the sacred' are displaying their ego (sic) in so believing...". I can assure you that Bach would have thought ego and hubris were incompatible with his devout Lutheranism. (Read John Eliot Gardiner's book on Bach). Bach wrote for the glory of God as he was paid to do, but his 'ego' is most certainly found in his secular offerings.
> Perfectionism isn't necessarily ego, any more than god-given talent and genius. We shouldn't apply the narcissistic tropes of the 21st century to earlier centuries - especially in the case of Bach when so very little is actually known about him.


"Ego" in this context would be "not surrendering." All those Christian hymns reinforce this: "I Surrender All," etc.

When you say "I can assure you that Bach would have thought ego and hubris were incompatible with his devout Lutheranism," he would agree, and would expect Brahms to surrender.

You seem to be missing the point of "surrender" and confusing it with some egotistical, narcissistic belief in one's own ego. Isn't that the danger of all Humanists, that the belief in Man is essentially egotistical?

"Surrendering your ego" is not some pie-in-the-sky Eastern philosophy. It's essential for a belief in the sacred.



> RogerWaters claims that 'people who believe in "the sacred' are displaying their ego (sic) in so believing..."


Well, if you're more comfortable with Brahms being an atheist and believing in nothing (as far as the metaphysical), then so be it. Myself, I'm a little uncomfortable with "higher art" having no connection with "spirit" or the realm of the sacred, since I feel all "higher art" emerges from that wellspring of being, whatever you want to call it.
Maybe Brahms was just unaware of what he was doing "on a higher plane" and it managed to work anyway.
Still, I am wary of "believers in Man," especially after the events of WWII and the atom bomb.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

The reference to Brahms' penchant for prostitutes _is_ in the Swafford biography, pages 546-7.


----------



## RogerWaters

millionrainbows said:


> I think if Brahms had connected more positively to some sort of spiritual awareness, his music would have been even richer.


It's possible Brahms' music would have been better had he believed in Jehova. However, it's also possible it would have been worse, loosing the sense of longing and slight sadness that lies at the heart of much of it. I.e. more existential security (illusionary or otherwise) might have turned him into his friend Strauss. Brahms might have been a _waltzer_.


----------



## janxharris

RogerWaters said:


> Out of interest, do you know where N discussed Brahms?


https://www.jstor.org/stable/733704?seq=1

Nietzsche and Brahms: A Forgotten Relationship
David S. Thatcher - Music & Letters

You will need to become a member and pay for the full article.


----------



## millionrainbows

RogerWaters said:


> It's possible Brahms' music would have been better had he believed in Jehova. However, it's also possible it would have been worse, loosing the sense of longing and slight sadness that lies at the heart of much of it. I.e. more existential security (illusionary or otherwise) might have turned him into his friend Strauss. Brahms might have been a _waltzer_.


It's not a matter of 'believing in Jehova" but in a more primary spiritual awareness. However, Brahms apparently hasn't lost anything by being a humanist; his music is fine the way it is. This is all speculation.

I do think it's necessary to be aware that Brahms' Requiem was secular, and that this humanism is a departure from the Western tradition of church-oriented music, which makes him different from Bach and Beethoven.


----------



## annaw

janxharris said:


> https://www.jstor.org/stable/733704?seq=1
> 
> Nietzsche and Brahms: A Forgotten Relationship
> David S. Thatcher - Music & Letters
> 
> You will need to become a member and pay for the full article.


Nietzsche discussed Brahms in _The case of Wagner_. The "impotence" quote is from that work as well. It's available for free through Gutenberg project.


----------



## Strange Magic

> millionrainbows: "You seem to be missing the point of "surrender" and confusing it with some egotistical, narcissistic belief in one's own ego. Isn't that the danger of all Humanists, that the belief in Man is essentially egotistical?
> 
> "Surrendering your ego" is not some pie-in-the-sky Eastern philosophy. It's essential for a belief in the sacred.
> 
> Still, I am wary of "believers in Man," especially after the events of WWII and the atom bomb."


It never stops. The ceaseless fishing in troubled waters continues. Questions arise: Is a belief in the sacred essential? Is such a belief justified? Are genuine Humanists ("all Humanists") to blame for WWII and the atom bomb? Were no adherents of a belief in the sacred involved, or even complicit? Poor Brahms! Sturdy as he seems, is he capable, like Atlas, of bearing the weight?


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> You seem to imply that 'humanists' are not exponents of the overall Western tradition! Atheism was relatively widespread in high society as early as the early 1700s. I don't think the Western tradition ended then.
> 
> People who believe in 'the sacred' are displaying their ego in so believing just as much, even more, than an atheist who dedicates his life to writing amazing music which raises the spirits of billions over the ages.


I can't see for the life of me how anyone believing in the sacred is 'displaying their ego'. The first requirement of the Christian faith at least is to let go your ego! I believe btw it was a certain Mr Nietzche who advocated 'superman'


----------



## annaw

DavidA said:


> I can't see for the life of me how anyone believing in the sacred is 'displaying their ego'. The first requirement of the Christian faith at least is to let go your ego! I believe btw it was a certain Mr Nietzche who advocated 'superman'


MR is now psychoanalysing Brahms. In psychoanalysis ego is seen as the centre of consciousness, so it's not necessarily strictly connected with the normal definition of egoism. (I'm not sure if the thread begs for psychoanalysis though, even if it could help to explain why Brahms was great... At least some elaboration from MR would be helpful.)

It took me some time to begin to appreciate Brahms deeply because chamber music didn't appeal to me much in the beginning of my classical music journey and my taste has been shaped rather strongly by the open emotionality of the late-Romantics which I, at first, found to be missing in Brahms. I really love his _German Requiem_ and symphonies, but I think I was finally converted after hearing Brahms's two cello sonatas - wonderful works! It was their depth, darkness and inward-looking nature which moved me deeply. Brahms's intellectuality served him well in chamber music, where he could show his understanding of complex musical structures and compositional techniques. His music is probably more introverted than that of many of his contemporaries but that's also one of its many appeals. I think it talks to the listener on a highly personal level.


----------



## Strange Magic

A list, please, of low-ego or no-ego sorts of any religious or non-religious persuasion here on TC.:lol:


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> A list, please, of low-ego or no-ego sorts of any religious or non-religious persuasion here on TC.:lol:


Opinionated? Me? :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> A list, please, of low-ego or no-ego sorts of any religious or non-religious persuasion here on TC.:lol:


Religious theorizers even have stories to curb their egotistic ideas of self. Endlessly interesting.


----------



## Guest

annaw said:


> Nietzsche discussed Brahms in _The case of Wagner_. The "impotence" quote is from that work as well. It's available for free through Gutenberg project.


Thank you; I knew Wagner had something to do with it.


----------



## flamencosketches

annaw said:


> MR is now psychoanalysing Brahms. In psychoanalysis ego is seen as the centre of consciousness, so it's not necessarily strictly connected with the normal definition of egoism. (I'm not sure if the thread begs for psychoanalysis though, even if it could help to explain why Brahms was great... At least some elaboration from MR would be helpful.)
> 
> It took me some time to begin to appreciate Brahms deeply because chamber music didn't appeal to me much in the beginning of my classical music journey and my taste has been shaped rather strongly by the open emotionality of the late-Romantics which I, at first, found to be missing in Brahms. I really love his _German Requiem_ and symphonies, but I think I was finally converted after hearing Brahms's two cello sonatas - wonderful works! It was their depth, darkness and inward-looking nature which moved me deeply. Brahms's intellectuality served him well in chamber music, where he could show his understanding of complex musical structures and compositional techniques. His music is probably more introverted than that of many of his contemporaries but that's also one of its many appeals. I think it talks to the listener on a highly personal level.


Interesting-I haven't even heard the cello sonatas. I need to change that.


----------



## Guest

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> The reference to Brahms' penchant for prostitutes _is_ in the Swafford biography, pages 546-7.


OK, I've found it!! Thanks for the page references.


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> MR is now psychoanalysing Brahms. In psychoanalysis ego is seen as the centre of consciousness, so it's not necessarily strictly connected with the normal definition of egoism. (I'm not sure if the thread begs for psychoanalysis though, even if it could help to explain why Brahms was great... At least some elaboration from MR would be helpful.)


"Surrender" doesn't need much explanation. Actually doing it, however, is another thing.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> "Ego" in this context would be "not surrendering." All those Christian hymns reinforce this: "I Surrender All," etc.
> 
> When you say "I can assure you that Bach would have thought ego and hubris were incompatible with his devout Lutheranism," he would agree, and would expect Brahms to surrender.
> 
> You seem to be missing the point of "surrender" and confusing it with some egotistical, narcissistic belief in one's own ego. Isn't that the danger of all Humanists, that the belief in Man is essentially egotistical?
> 
> "Surrendering your ego" is not some pie-in-the-sky Eastern philosophy. It's essential for a belief in the sacred.
> 
> Well, if you're more comfortable with Brahms being an atheist and believing in nothing (as far as the metaphysical), then so be it. Myself, I'm a little uncomfortable with "higher art" having no connection with "spirit" or the realm of the sacred, since I feel all "higher art" emerges from that wellspring of being, whatever you want to call it.
> Maybe Brahms was just unaware of what he was doing "on a higher plane" and it managed to work anyway.
> Still, I am wary of "believers in Man," especially after the events of WWII and the atom bomb.


I do not understand your concept of "ego" as written. It's a little too Freudian for me which, you when think about it, is anachronistic for Bach anyway.

But your comments about the metaphysical, spiritual; I completely agree with you. This is why I've always been skeptical about Beethoven's "brotherhood of man". But Brahms wasn't unaware of what he was doing "on a higher plane": he was a nature-lover and enjoyed long walks and was inspired by nature (as many composers were) for some of his works. At those times - in that space - he would have had opportunities to consider metaphysical things (as many of us would). Here is a rough (Google) translation of his words for Song of Destiny (Schicksalslied): it 'reads' something like a Casper David Friedrich painting and I've highlighted the religious allusions:

You walk up in the light on soft ground,* blessed* geniuses! 
Shining *gods* breathe lightly, like the fingers of the artist *sacred* strings. 
Fateless, like the sleeping infant, the *heavenly* breathe; 
Chastely preserved In modest bud, the *spirit* blooms forever for you, 
And the *blessed* eyes gaze in silent eternal clarity.

But we are given not to rest in any place, it is disappearing, 
the *suffering people* are blindly falling from one hour to the next, 
like water thrown from cliff to cliff, down into the unknown for years.


----------



## Strange Magic

Brahms did not write the lyrics. They are by Holderlin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schicksalslied


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> Brahms did not write the lyrics. They are by Holderlin.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schicksalslied


It does not matter who wrote the lyrics, Brahms set them to music as they meant something to him; something of the spiritual, metaphysical and, arguably, divine. The music reflects all that.

What we have today is a world without conventional religion (except in non-Christian cultures) where people have turned to other political and scientific doctrines to find meaning. Most of them are hideous. The cult of climate change, identity politics and now other grotesque forms of public group-think are no substitutes for the common bonds of religion, community and spirituality. Suggest you read some of the plays of Beckett and Pinter to see what a world without spirituality and belief, replaced by nihilism and the existential crisis, looks like!! Ugly indeed.


----------



## Strange Magic

It never stops. The ceaseless fishing in troubled waters continues. Questions arise: Is a belief in the sacred essential? Is such a belief justified? Are genuine Humanists ("all Humanists") to blame for WWII and the atom bomb? Were no adherents of a belief in the sacred involved, or even complicit? Poor Brahms! Surely truth matters, and the truth is that Brahms did not write the lyrics. "Cult of climate change"? You must move this drivel down into the newly-re-energized Political Groups (or, better, the Religious Discussion Group). Your nonsense here is ugly indeed!


----------



## RogerWaters

DavidA said:


> I can't see for the life of me how anyone believing in the sacred is 'displaying their ego'. The first requirement of the Christian faith at least is to let go your ego! I believe btw it was a certain Mr Nietzche who advocated 'superman'


Yes, but he thought christians were displaying their egos (their will to power) just as much as his 'supermen'. It's just the mode that differs. Christians, according to Nietzsche, advance their will(s) to power by championing peace, the weak before the strong, the herd, etc. (because they are biologically/spiritually impoverished) while 'supermen' advance their will(s) to power by championing struggle, the strong before the weak, the individual, etc.

Now I don't buy this (there were plenty of Christian warriors in Western history and today many evangelical christians show their selfishness and warped views - see the lack of mask wearing and the equation of faith with wealth in the United States). I do, however, think that all human beings fulfill their desires in different ways. I don't see how the choice to be Christian as opposed to atheist is the result of a different psychological faculty ('non-ego') from one that produces the choice to be an atheist as opposed to Christian ('ego'): you might _rate_ the desire to become Christian more highly than the desire to be a slovenly atheist, but this is different from saying that the choice to be Christian is the result of 'ego' vs some other mental process.

The psychological category of 'ego' vs some other psychoanalytic mental faculty does not track any real part of mental functioning. It's mumbo jumbo.


----------



## RogerWaters

millionrainbows said:


> Brahms apparently hasn't lost anything by being a humanist; his music is fine the way it is. This is all speculation.


Agreement with this I am in.



millionrainbows said:


> I do think it's necessary to be aware that Brahms' Requiem was secular, and that this humanism is a departure from the Western tradition of church-oriented music, which makes him different from Bach and Beethoven.


I didn't realise Beethoven was writing church music when he wrote his symphonies, piano trios, string quartets, piano sonatas, violin sonatas and piano concertos?!


----------



## RogerWaters

Christabel said:


> What we have today is a world without conventional religion (except in non-Christian cultures) where people have turned to other political and scientific doctrines to find meaning. Most of them are hideous. The cult of climate change, identity politics and now other grotesque forms of public group-think are no substitutes for the common bonds of religion, community and spirituality. Suggest you read some of the plays of Beckett and Pinter to see what *a world without spirituality and belief, replaced by nihilism and the existential crisis*, looks like!! Ugly indeed.


I don't really get your reasoning. If the 'cult' of climate change and identity politics are indeed cults, i.e. widereaching belief systems backed by strong emotional commitment, why do you say the people signing up to such 'cults' don't believe in anything (are 'nihilists', in your words)?

Identity politics involves a view of good and evil, a view of original sin, and view of salvation...

They are just different beliefs to your own, yet you are calling them 'non-beliefs' as though in some unconscious attempt to avoid battle with them on equal terms with your own beliefs..


----------



## Die Forelle

Would this not be better discussed in a Religious Thread?


----------



## hammeredklavier

Eclectic Al said:


> I'm with Woodduck's algebra teacher: Brahms is all about emotion.
> My feeling about emotion in music is like my feeling about a pressure cooker. If you let all the steam out all the time you will never reach high temperature and pressure. If you hold it in through a wealth of technique then it builds and either (i) you can let it out at a much higher pressure as a result, or (ii) you can keep it in and someone watching can sense the pent up energy. Either (i) or (ii) can be tremendous.
> So Brahms is a pressure cooker. (Tchaikovsky is a pan bubbling away without the lid on in comparison - although quite a nice pan.)


*[ 11:20 ]*





Brahms is also like something that can taste dull at first but grow on you with time


----------



## Guest

RogerWaters said:


> I don't really get your reasoning. If the 'cult' of climate change and identity politics are indeed cults, i.e. widereaching belief systems backed by strong emotional commitment, why do you say the people signing up to such 'cults' don't believe in anything (are 'nihilists', in your words)?
> 
> Identity politics involves a view of good and evil, a view of original sin, and view of salvation...
> 
> They are just different beliefs to your own, yet you are calling them 'non-beliefs' as though in some unconscious attempt to avoid battle with them on equal terms with your own beliefs..


You're missing the point; the acolytes for these new religions are one and the same cohort who despise religion and constantly criticize it. And here they are submerged in a new 'belief' system.

Your glib definition of identity politics belies its completely divisive ideologies, its us against them paradigm and the truncheons necessary to shut down 'non-believers'. Just like the old Catholic church and Copernicus: not a single bit different.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> It never stops. The ceaseless fishing in troubled waters continues. Questions arise: Is a belief in the sacred essential? Is such a belief justified? Are genuine Humanists ("all Humanists") to blame for WWII and the atom bomb? Were no adherents of a belief in the sacred involved, or even complicit? Poor Brahms! Surely truth matters, and the truth is that Brahms did not write the lyrics. "Cult of climate change"? You must move this drivel down into the newly-re-energized Political Groups (or, better, the Religious Discussion Group). Your nonsense here is ugly indeed!


I must say you have a Commodore 64 processing skill there. Well, not skill so much.


----------



## Room2201974

Brahms was so "great" because he spent 0% of his time thinking about the silliness this thread has descended to while spending plenty of time thinking about music organization.


----------



## RogerWaters

Christabel said:


> You're missing the point;
> Your *glib definition* of identity politics belies its completely *divisive ideologies*, its us against them paradigm and the truncheons necessary to shut down 'non-believers'.


Are you by chance implying that its only modern secular 'religions' that are divisive, and not traditional christian ones as well?!

It's funny that the most divise posters in _this thread_ are the 'transcendentalists' making spurious claims about Brahms' spirtuality, about politics or about other members' "processing skills". Actions do speak louder than words, it seems.


----------



## Luchesi

Christabel said:


> It does not matter who wrote the lyrics, Brahms set them to music as they meant something to him; something of the spiritual, metaphysical and, arguably, divine. The music reflects all that.
> 
> What we have today is a world without conventional religion (except in non-Christian cultures) where people have turned to other political and scientific doctrines to find meaning. Most of them are hideous. The cult of climate change, identity politics and now other grotesque forms of public group-think are no substitutes for the common bonds of religion, community and spirituality. Suggest you read some of the plays of Beckett and Pinter to see what a world without spirituality and belief, replaced by nihilism and the existential crisis, looks like!! Ugly indeed.


How do you think religion has failed us?


----------



## Luchesi

Die Forelle said:


> Would this not be better discussed in a Religious Thread?


There is free will.


----------



## violadude

Christabel said:


> You're missing the point; the acolytes for these new religions are one and the same cohort who despise religion and constantly criticize it. And here they are submerged in a new 'belief' system.
> 
> Your glib definition of identity politics belies its completely divisive ideologies, its us against them paradigm and the truncheons necessary to shut down 'non-believers'. Just like the old Catholic church and Copernicus: not a single bit different.


Not to flame the fires but...

There are plenty of Christians and Muslims and other people of other religious beliefs who care about climate change and racial/LGBT issues too so....


----------



## Guest

violadude said:


> Not to flame the fires but...
> 
> There are plenty of Christians and Muslims and other people of other religious beliefs who care about climate change and racial/LGBT issues too so....


Quite true, but they don't hold hatreds towards the idea of 'religion' as those other cohorts do. It is precisely because they're capable of belief that they are willingly supportive. I was particularly speaking about that group which hates religion but has signed onto a new version of belief, with all the Old Testament fire and brimstone tropes. That's the point I'm making and it's one that Brahms never had to worry about!!:lol:

You're not 'flaming fires' when speaking truth; only people who fear alternate opinions are afraid and *have* to shut down opposing views!! Yours are valid comments. And a not insignificant point of difference: Christianity preaches love and community and not divisiveness and resentments. So, it's "bless me, father, for I have sinned" and not "shut up, father, your people have sinned".

But, getting this back to Johannes Brahms; he mostly behaved as though he was a Christian as he lived in a Christian-dominated culture. He was a fairly contented man who enjoyed food, drink, cigars and very good company!! (And a few females on the side!!) He could be lachrymose in his music and genial in his entertainments.


----------



## Die Forelle

It’s my firm belief that his compositions were great because of his fantastic facial hair. I’m not taking questions.


----------



## Die Forelle

Luchesi said:


> There is free will.


Was merely a suggestion


----------



## Red Terror

RogerWaters said:


> It's possible Brahms' music would have been better had he believed in Jehova. However, it's also possible it would have been worse, loosing the sense of longing and slight sadness that lies at the heart of much of it. I.e. more existential security (illusionary or otherwise) might have turned him into his friend Strauss. Brahms might have been a _waltzer_.


There's plenty of longing and 'slight' sadness in Bach's music.


----------



## Guest

Die Forelle said:


> It's my firm belief that his compositions were great because of his fantastic facial hair. I'm not taking questions.


Swafford says Brahms deliberately obscured his boyish beauty with lots of facial hair! Those eyes of his were something else. Why would a man go out of his way to cover up his beautiful face? It's an interesting question.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Christabel said:


> I do agree with your comment about western classical music emerging from the Church. It most certainly did.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Christabel said:


> Swafford says Brahms deliberately obscured his boyish beauty with lots of facial hair! Those eyes of his were something else. Why would a man go out of his way to cover up his beautiful face? It's an interesting question.


Because his beard was even more magnificent.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Because his beard was even more magnificent.


He got fat and used to beard to cover up.


----------



## Ethereality

1996D said:


> He got fat and used to beard to cover up.


I think we answered why he was so great.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> He got fat and used to beard to cover up.


Plump was the ideal body type back in the days.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Plump was the ideal body type back in the days.


You really believe that? Girls say that all the time lol


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> You really believe that? Girls say that all the time lol


It's not a belief it's a fact I've learned somewhere. It's a sign of power and wealth because the food industry had not revolutionized calorie production yet during the late 19th century. Fat Brahms with the Gandalf beard was quite the lady's magnet, I have visual evidences

















Just don't try this at home.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> It's not a belief it's a fact I've learned somewhere. It's a sign of power and wealth because the food industry had not revolutionized calorie production yet during the late 19th century. Fat Brahms with the Gandalf beard was quite the lady's magnet, I have visual evidences
> 
> View attachment 140589
> 
> 
> View attachment 140590
> 
> 
> Just don't try this at home.


Nice find I'd not seen those.

I read Brahms was an alcoholic who visited prostitutes and said he'd never corrupted a girl of good family. I guess those were the daughters of the town's executioner...


----------



## Ethereality

The strings in Brahms music always sounds like it's having a seizure or mental breakdown.


----------



## flamencosketches

Ethereality said:


> The strings in Brahms music always sounds like it's having a seizure or mental breakdown.


:lol: Example?

@Turing, great photos!


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

> the pathos of Brahms' best work are often not the pathos of a youngster. I can't speak for others but this is certainly true for me.





aioriacont said:


> nah, many younger people do manage to appreciate amazing and deep art like Brahms' and other composers'.
> The point is that *you *only managed to get it when older, certainly listening only to AOR crap while younger.


That's weirdly aggressive and presumptuous. If you don't believe that your appreciation for Brahms will grow with age, then I feel sad for you. A teenager can appreciate Mahler for sure, but one only starts to appreciate certain dimensions of Mahler if he/she has lost loved ones. In the same way, you can't fully appreciate Tristan and Isolde if you have never experienced intense longing and erotic love.

But I am sure fine young people these days have experienced everything there is in life because they don't listen to "AOR crap" (whatever that means).


----------



## millionrainbows

RogerWaters said:


> Yes, but he thought christians were displaying their egos (their will to power) just as much as his 'supermen'. It's just the mode that differs. Christians, according to Nietzsche, advance their will(s) to power by championing peace, the weak before the strong, the herd, etc. (because they are biologically/spiritually impoverished) while 'supermen' advance their will(s) to power by championing struggle, the strong before the weak, the individual, etc.
> 
> Now I don't buy this (there were plenty of Christian warriors in Western history and today many evangelical christians show their selfishness and warped views - see the lack of mask wearing and the equation of faith with wealth in the United States). I do, however, think that all human beings fulfill their desires in different ways. I don't see how the choice to be Christian as opposed to atheist is the result of a different psychological faculty ('non-ego') from one that produces the choice to be an atheist as opposed to Christian ('ego'): you might _rate_ the desire to become Christian more highly than the desire to be a slovenly atheist, but this is different from saying that the choice to be Christian is the result of 'ego' vs some other mental process.
> 
> The psychological category of 'ego' vs some other psychoanalytic mental faculty does not track any real part of mental functioning. It's mumbo jumbo.


I don't think of these things in historical contexts like you do; for me, this is based in personal experience. It has nothing to do with God or religion, and everything to to with "being." I think the term "ego" is an obstacle for most people, because they've never been outside of it. To them, it's just some guy spouting mumbo jumbo.


----------



## millionrainbows

Christabel said:


> Swafford says Brahms deliberately obscured his boyish beauty with lots of facial hair! Those eyes of his were something else. Why would a man go out of his way to cover up his beautiful face? It's an interesting question.


His head looks too big for his body.


----------



## millionrainbows

aioriacont said:


> nah, many younger people do manage to appreciate amazing and deep art like Brahms' and other composers'.
> The point is that *you *only managed to get it when older, certainly listening only to AOR crap while younger.


I think there is some truth to what UniversalTuringMachine said. There are certain sex acts that I did not fully appreciate or indulge in until I got older.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think of these things in historical contexts like you do; for me, this is based in personal experience. It has nothing to do with God or religion, and everything to to with "being." I think the term "ego" is an obstacle for most people, because they've never been outside of it. To them, it's just some guy spouting mumbo jumbo.


Translation here:


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> Yes, but he thought christians were displaying their egos (their will to power) just as much as his 'supermen'. It's just the mode that differs. Christians, according to Nietzsche, advance their will(s) to power by championing peace, the weak before the strong, the herd, etc. (because they are biologically/spiritually impoverished) while 'supermen' advance their will(s) to power by championing struggle, the strong before the weak, the individual, etc.
> 
> Now I don't buy this (there were plenty of Christian warriors in Western history and today many evangelical christians show their selfishness and warped views - see the lack of mask wearing and the equation of faith with wealth in the United States). I do, however, think that all human beings fulfill their desires in different ways. I don't see how the choice to be Christian as opposed to atheist is the result of a different psychological faculty ('non-ego') from one that produces the choice to be an atheist as opposed to Christian ('ego'): you might _rate_ the desire to become Christian more highly than the desire to be a slovenly atheist, but this is different from saying that the choice to be Christian is the result of 'ego' vs some other mental process.
> 
> The psychological category of 'ego' vs some other psychoanalytic mental faculty does not track any real part of mental functioning. It's mumbo jumbo.


I could never see why people think so much of Nietzsche, seeing the guy was obviously bonkers! But he did point out the obvious fact that without the Christian God you can't logically have a basis for Christian morality, something that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot showed only too well, and a certain guy in China is now currently demonstrating.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> I could never see why people think so much of Nietzsche, seeing the guy was obviously bonkers! But he did point out the obvious fact that without the Christian God you can't logically have a basis for Christian morality, something that Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot showed only too well, and a certain guy in China is now currently demonstrating.


There are the Sick and the Well. Here is a tiny sampling of Sick Christians, though we know we could fill volumes.....

Francisco Franco
Radovan Karadžič 
Fulgencio Batista
Juan Perón 
Vlad Dracul

We also know, don't we, that these "discussions" should not be here but rather in the Groups. Why people continue to drag their personal religious obsessions into these threads is actually not surprising; the urge to proselytize is sometimes overpowering. It's that Ego thing again....


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> There are the Sick and the Well. Here is a tiny sampling of Sick Christians, though we know we could fill volumes.....
> 
> Francisco Franco
> Radovan Karadžič
> Fulgencio Batista
> Juan Perón
> Vlad Dracul
> 
> We also know, don't we, that these "discussions" should not be here but rather in the Groups. Why people continue to drag their personal religious obsessions into these threads is actually not surprising; the urge to proselytize is sometimes overpowering. It's that Ego thing again....


Funny I do not realise any of them followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. Can you point out how their actions demonstrated they were his disciples as he said it is acting not professing that are the signs of discipleship? Or are you one of these people who believes that by living in a garage you become a car? Interesting that people like you are allowed to drag out their irreligious obsessions btw! :lol:

But as you say this discussion should be in the groups as we are a long way from old Brahms who obviously felt much comfort in the words of the Lutheran text, whatever you might think! I think I would take his word for it against yours as he actually set the text. 
'All flesh is as grass' Maybe you're not but he was!


----------



## DavidA

Ethereality said:


> The strings in Brahms music always sounds like it's having a seizure or mental breakdown.


What in the slow movement of the piano concerto 2?


----------



## janxharris

Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


----------



## PierreN

millionrainbows said:


> His head looks too big for his body.


In older age he developed the opposite problem.


----------



## Strange Magic

> DavidA: "Funny I do not realise any of them followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. Can you point out how their actions demonstrated they were his disciples as he said it is acting not professing that are the signs of discipleship? Or are you one of these people who believes that by living in a garage you become a car? Interesting that people like you are allowed to drag out their irreligious obsessions btw!"


I get it now. I see how it works. Say you are Christian (or any anything) and do Good and you are legit; the real deal. Say you are a Christian (or any anything) and do Evil, and you are declared Not a Christian (or whatever); Never Were; Never Heard of You. And let's be clear and honest: people like me only react to the dragging of religious dogma, etc., into these discussions, with the attendant ritual denunciations of non-Christians and/or non-believers. You win no converts and contaminate your cause. Take it downstairs to the Groups.


----------



## Die Forelle

Christabel said:


> Swafford says Brahms deliberately obscured his boyish beauty with lots of facial hair! Those eyes of his were something else. Why would a man go out of his way to cover up his beautiful face? It's an interesting question.


Agreed. Not to say that his beard took away from his looks! His eyes are quite nice.


----------



## mmsbls

This thread is about Brahms and why his music is so wonderful. Please refrain from discussions of religion and politics or other topics not directly related to Brahms and his music.


----------



## flamencosketches

mmsbls said:


> This thread is about Brahms and why his music is so wonderful. Please refrain from discussions of religion and politics or other topics not directly related to Brahms and his music.


Thanks, mmsbls. I didn't want to be the one to say it  Perhaps Brahms's love of prostitutes (or lack thereof), his unwillingness to relinquish his ego, his beard, or his atheism had something to do with what makes his music so great, but somehow I doubt it. Hmm...


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> Thanks, mmsbls. I didn't want to be the one to say it  Perhaps Brahms's love of prostitutes (or lack thereof), his unwillingness to relinquish his ego, his beard, or his atheism had something to do with what makes his music so great, but somehow I doubt it. Hmm...


Yes it suits me fine. Just wish that people who give tirades themselves then tell others to take it down to the groups would take their own advice. But getting back to Brahms, The requiem in my opinion is wonderful music whether or not Brahms had any sort of Faith. One of my points that was not answered in the tirade was that Brahms found great comfort in the words of the Lutheran Bible, of which I have read he was a student. Of course Brahms set the text himself from the German Bible although he deliberately chose texts which concerned the living rather than the dead. Interesting that an acquaintance of mine who was an atheist chose to have 'Ihr habt nun Traurgkeit' played at her funeral. AsBrahms said it is a human requiem. It is said that Brahms wrote the requiem in remembrance of his mother so thIs text might figure. Just do it how anyone can listen to this music and not be moved is beyond me. It is so beautiful in its simplicity.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Yes it suits me fine. Just wish that people who give tirades themselves then tell others to take it down to the groups would take their own advice. But getting back to Brahms, The requiem in my opinion is wonderful music whether or not Brahms had any sort of Faith. One of my points that was not answered in the tirade was that Brahms found great comfort in the words of the Lutheran Bible, of which I have read he was a student. Of course Brahms set the text himself from the German Bible although he deliberately chose texts which concerned the living rather than the dead. Interesting that an acquaintance of mine who was an atheist chose to have 'Ihr habt nun Traurgkeit' played at her funeral. AsBrahms said it is a human requiem. It is said that Brahms wrote the requiem in remembrance of his mother so thIs text might figure. Just do it how anyone can listen to this music and not be moved is beyond me. It is so beautiful in its simplicity.


Tendentious: Adjective

tendentious (comparative more tendentious, superlative most tendentious)

Having a tendency; written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one. Implicitly or explicitly slanted.

"As a supporter of the cause, his reports were tendentious in the extreme."

...............................................................................................................................................

Another view of the Requiem is that of the acerbic duo of Brockway and Weinstock, who neither care for it nor attribute it to any enduring faith on Brahms' part:

"The whole _Requiem_ is instinct with earnestness, with a genuine reverence for the sacred texts that makes one wish the results were better. Yet the total effect is one of noble dreariness. There are factors quite independent of Brahms' musical limitations that had their part in flawing the _Requiem_. No soul-lifting faith in the transcendental aspects of religion shines from it. Brahms had no such faith. At best, he had a homely respect for the Good Book. He repeatedly stated, for instance, that he had no belief in life after death."

Brockway and Weinstock assert that Brahms began the requiem, not because of his mother's death, but while still affected by Schumann's. It was not until later, 1868, that Brahms wrote a new section for soprano solo, now the fifth part of the piece, to commemorate his mother.

Brahms is my favorite composer.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^ "Brahms is my favorite composer."

Whoa!


----------



## Machiavel

Strange Magic said:


> Brahms did not write the lyrics. They are by Holderlin.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schicksalslied


I always thought the words were by him.

If only Wagner did the same, just wrote the music and let someone competent to wrote the libretto, lyrics...:devil:


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Tendentious: Adjective
> 
> tendentious (comparative more tendentious, superlative most tendentious)
> 
> Having a tendency; written or spoken with a partisan, biased or prejudiced purpose, especially a controversial one. Implicitly or explicitly slanted.
> 
> "As a supporter of the cause, his reports were tendentious in the extreme."
> 
> ...............................................................................................................................................
> 
> Another view of the Requiem is that of the acerbic duo of Brockway and Weinstock, who neither care for it nor attribute it to any enduring faith on Brahms' part:
> 
> "The whole _Requiem_ is instinct with earnestness, with a genuine reverence for the sacred texts that makes one wish the results were better. Yet the total effect is one of noble dreariness. There are factors quite independent of Brahms' musical limitations that had their part in flawing the _Requiem_. No soul-lifting faith in the transcendental aspects of religion shines from it. Brahms had no such faith. At best, he had a homely respect for the Good Book. He repeatedly stated, for instance, that he had no belief in life after death."
> 
> Brockway and Weinstock assert that Brahms began the requiem, not because of his mother's death, but while still affected by Schumann's. It was not until later, 1868, that Brahms wrote a new section for soprano solo, now the fifth part of the piece, to commemorate his mother.
> 
> Brahms is my favorite composer.


Tendentious! Take your own advice mate! But people like you never see it! :lol:

As Brockway and Weinstock have cloth ears it doesn't bother me what they think! I do wish sometimes you would read before you trot these things out willy nilly. I never said that Brahms had any faith and in fact it is pretty obvious he didn't. What I did say is that he found comfort in the text that he set and he had respect for the text. For goodness sake you can find comfort in words whether you are a believer or not! Yes I know what these two say and I do know some reckon on the Schumann theory. But my assertion that he wrote the part in commemoration of his mother still stands so I don't know what you're being tendentious about, If Brahms is your favourite composer I'm sorry you're so miserable you have to read Brockway and Weinstock! :lol:


----------



## DavidA

Machiavel said:


> I always thought the words were by him.
> 
> If only Wagner did the same, just wrote the music and let someone competent to wrote the libretto, lyrics...:devil:


Agreed! OrifWagner had an editor to curb his verbosity. But that is off subject!


----------



## annaw

Machiavel said:


> I always thought the words were by him.
> 
> If only Wagner did the same, just wrote the music and let someone competent to wrote the libretto, lyrics...:devil:


(I do not wish to go too off-topic, but I must say that, while Wagner's use of German might not be equal to Schiller's or Goethe's, his libretti are certainly witty, beautiful and deeply philosophical. I haven't yet read a libretto that would compete in its profoundness with those of Wagner. Their content is a huge part of their appeal which Wagner wouldn't have been able to communicate if he hadn't written his libretti himself.)


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

annaw said:


> (I do not wish to go too off-topic, but I must say that, while Wagner's use of German might not be equal to Schiller's or Goethe's, his libretti are certainly witty, beautiful and deeply philosophical. I haven't yet read a libretto that would compete in its profoundness with those of Wagner. Their content is a huge part of their appeal which Wagner wouldn't have been able to communicate if he hadn't written his libretti himself.)


I can barely read German but judging from the English translations, Wagner's libretti are poetic, thoughtful, and generally great.


----------



## Guest

I just had another thought (which I considered years ago but had forgotten). Brahms's father was over a decade younger than his mother and the fact that Brahms loved the more senior Clara Schumann therefore comes as little surprise given his family background. It wasn't typical for men in the early 20s then (or now) to fall in love with a much older woman - especially one with children and a husband. I'm not making a judgment about it, merely trying to explain something which prima facie might seem odd to others. There was their musical connection, and that was front and centre of that relationship. It does demonstrate the power of shared interests and passions to create a strong glue in relationship formation. The whole story is a fascinating one.


----------



## flamencosketches

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I can barely read German but judging from the English translations, Wagner's libretti are poetic, thoughtful, and generally great.


I'm new to Wagner but as far as I can tell, his libretti are really great, very poetic, and quite enjoyable (though I think the English translation I'm reading is quite bad, faux-King-James type of stuff). That being said, I agree with David; Wagner was extremely verbose and could have benefitted from an editor.

Back to Brahms... how good is the first symphony? Man, there is something special about it, especially the outer movements.


----------



## Guest

flamencosketches said:


> I'm new to Wagner but as far as I can tell, his libretti are really great, very poetic, and quite enjoyable (though I think the English translation I'm reading is quite bad, faux-King-James type of stuff). That being said, I agree with David; Wagner was extremely verbose and could have benefitted from an editor.
> 
> Back to Brahms... how good is the first symphony? Man, there is something special about it, especially the outer movements.


I agree with you about Brahms Symphony #1. Actually, I cannot decide which of his 4 I like best - but possibly 4 itself. This one in particular:


----------



## Guest

As someone who has yet to discover anything about Brahms worth listening to twice (lullaby aside ), I was hoping not just for enthusiasm and analysis (plenty of that, thanks to the OP and some of the early posts) but also some clear recommendations/references to where one can hear, for example:



> Brahms also writes earworms, little melodic motifs/cells, that burrow into my skull. The nice thing about that is, the more I hear the earworm, the more I get out of what he is doing with the motifs, so I get a deeper appreciation.





> I want to also add simply that he was a brilliant melodist. He wrote melodies of such songlike purity that they hit right to your soul


There have been a few recommendations - Violin concerto, the piano concerto, Requiem - but in forms I don't care to listen to. (That's my issue, not anyone else's, so I can't complain about that).

[edit]Searching from the beginning, I lost the will to live, so overlooked the last two posts referring to his symphonies. But two posts out of 160+ is not a strong recommendation for his symphonies. Did I overlook where someone enthused about them?


----------



## DavidA

annaw said:


> (I do not wish to go too off-topic, but I must say that, while Wagner's use of German might not be equal to Schiller's or Goethe's, his libretti are certainly witty, beautiful and deeply philosophical. I haven't yet read a libretto that would compete in its profoundness with those of Wagner. Their content is a huge part of their appeal which Wagner wouldn't have been able to communicate if he hadn't written his libretti himself.)


While not wanting to wander off topic, da Ponte for Mozart, Brito for Verdi and Piave also for Verdi express humanity wonderfully.


----------



## DavidA

A couple of things I was reading about Brahms. First the story about him playing the piano around brothels is doubted by some biographies, although if he did it might explain his precarious and fruitless relationships with women in later years.
The second is about the writing of the Requiem. Although apparently the idea came to Brahms after the death of Schumann in 1856, the intention lapsed until 1865, when he was deeply affected by the death of his mother. He completed the requiem as a tribute to her four years later.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> As someone who has yet to discover anything about Brahms worth listening to twice (lullaby aside ), I was hoping not just for enthusiasm and analysis (plenty of that, thanks to the OP and some of the early posts) but also some clear recommendations/references to where one can hear, for example:
> 
> There have been a few recommendations - Violin concerto, the piano concerto, Requiem - but in forms I don't care to listen to. (That's my issue, not anyone else's, so I can't complain about that).
> 
> [edit]Searching from the beginning, I lost the will to live, so overlooked the last two posts referring to his symphonies. But two posts out of 160+ is not a strong recommendation for his symphonies. Did I overlook where someone enthused about them?


I tend to be with you in that I am picky about Brahms and his music and certainly the way it's played. People who played Brahms to slowly are a bit of a menace to me. Why I prefer performances that get on with it. You might try Michelangeli's performance of the Paganini Variations or Fleisher in th3 Handel Variations and see if it floats your boat


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> As someone who has yet to discover anything about Brahms worth listening to twice


So, I found on YTB, two live performances of his Symphony No 4 (BBC Music's poll of conductors' 6th greatest, apparently) and listened to the first movement through once from each. A not unpleasant experience. 

Anyone care to comment on these two performances as examples of Brahms' greatness?

Haitink and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe






Carlos Kleiber and the Bayerische Staatsorchester






(Interesting that the camera watches Kleiber much more often than we watch Haitink. Mustn't let that distract from the music!)


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> As someone who has yet to discover anything about Brahms worth listening to twice (lullaby aside ), I was hoping not just for enthusiasm and analysis (plenty of that, thanks to the OP and some of the early posts) but also some clear recommendations/references to where one can hear, for example:
> 
> There have been a few recommendations - Violin concerto, the piano concerto, Requiem - but in forms I don't care to listen to. (That's my issue, not anyone else's, so I can't complain about that).
> 
> [edit]Searching from the beginning, I lost the will to live, so overlooked the last two posts referring to his symphonies. But two posts out of 160+ is not a strong recommendation for his symphonies. Did I overlook where someone enthused about them?


Favourite Brahms:
- Clarinet Quintet
- Piano Quintet
- Late Piano Pieces (Ops 116-119)
- Symphonies 3 and 4
- Variations on a Theme of Haydn (for fun)
- Piano Concerto No 2

I rank Brahms as one of my favourite composers, but don't listen to much early Brahms. Nor do I like the Violin Concerto much. I prefer the Double Concerto - it seems more "innig".

You've probably heard all the above, but they are the heart of my Brahms experience.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> You've probably heard all the above, [...]


No, none of the above...but thanks.



Manxfeeder said:


> But darn it, Brahms also writes earworms, little melodic motifs/cells, that burrow into my skull.


Well, after watching the two YTB clips posted above, I went to make breakfast.

I found myself humming bits - even though this was only the first and second time I'd listened!


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> So, I found on YTB, two live performances of his Symphony No 4 (BBC Music's poll of conductors' 6th greatest, apparently) and listened to the first movement through once from each. A not unpleasant experience.
> 
> Anyone care to comment on these two performances as examples of Brahms' greatness?
> 
> Haitink and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carlos Kleiber and the Bayerische Staatsorchester
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Interesting that the camera watches Kleiber much more often than we watch Haitink. Mustn't let that distract from the music!)


The Kleiber: *the camera always loved Kleiber*. Look at all his performances and you'll see the same thing. Musicians have said (including Placido Domingo) that the audience was always wanting to see more of Kleiber and his facial expressions. I feel this 1996 performance lacks some of the zing of his famous Vienna Philharmonic recording (which was found in the CD player of his Audi when he made that last trip from Munich, through Austria and onto Slovenia where he took his own life 16 years ago last month).

I've always found Haitink dull in comparison with Kleiber, to be honest.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> The Kleiber: *the camera always loved Kleiber*. Look at all his performances and you'll see the same thing. Musicians have said (including Placido Domingo) that the audience was always wanting to see more of Kleiber and his facial expressions. I feel this 1996 performance lacks some of the zing of his famous Vienna Philharmonic recording (which was found in the CD of his Audi when he made that last trip from Munich, through Austria and onto Slovenia where he took his own life 16 years ago last month).
> 
> I've always found Haitink dull in comparison with Kleiber, to be honest.


Interesting comment about Kleiber...

But this doesn't quite answer my question...



> Anyone care to comment on these two performances _as examples of Brahms' greatness?_


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> A couple of things I was reading about Brahms.... about the writing of the Requiem. Although apparently the idea came to Brahms after the death of Schumann in 1856, the intention lapsed until 1865, when he was deeply affected by the death of his mother. He completed the requiem as a tribute to her four years later.


My Post #154:



> "Brockway and Weinstock assert that Brahms began the requiem, not because of his mother's death, but while still affected by Schumann's. It was not until later, 1868, that Brahms wrote a new section for soprano solo, now the fifth part of the piece, to commemorate his mother."


Good to see you paying attention!:lol:


----------



## millionrainbows

mmsbls said:


> This thread is about Brahms and why his music is so wonderful. Please refrain from discussions of religion and politics or other topics not directly related to Brahms and his music.


Thanks, mmsbls. That goes especially for you, StrangeMagic. Of course, I am exempted, since my concept of "spirit" and "being" are primary, and came _before_ all religion.

I do see a contradiction here, since a requiem or "requiem mass" is essentially religious in nature:

WIK: A *Requiem or Requiem Mass, also known as Mass for the dead (Latin: Missa pro defunctis) or Mass of the dead(Latin: Missa defunctorum), is a Mass in the Catholic Church offered for the repose of the soul or souls of one or more deceased persons, using a particular form of the Roman Missal. It is usually, but not necessarily, celebrated in the context of a funeral.*


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Thanks, mmsbls. I didn't want to be the one to say it  Perhaps Brahms's love of prostitutes (or lack thereof), his unwillingness to relinquish his ego, his beard, or his atheism had something to do with what makes his music so great, but somehow I doubt it. Hmm...


Or maybe it was his use of a _specifically religious form,_ the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great.


----------



## flamencosketches

Christabel said:


> I agree with you about Brahms Symphony #1. Actually, I cannot decide which of his 4 I like best - but possibly 4 itself. This one in particular:


This CD is out for delivery  Very excited to spend a lot of time with it.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Or maybe it was his use of a _specifically religious form,_ the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great.


Brahms's German Requiem is _not_ a requiem mass by any means.


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> Brahms's German Requiem is _not_ a requiem mass by any means.


Of course it is a requiem. Just not a Catholic requiem.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> Thanks, mmsbls. That goes especially for you, StrangeMagic. Of course, I am exempted, since my concept of "spirit" and "being" are primary, and came _before_ all religion.


I agree: you, DavidA, I all ought to be more mindful of not injecting religious doctrine and criticism into places where they do not belong. Luckily for you, nobody but yourself has figured out what you are talking about in your years of discussing "being". But whatever you mean by "being", you insist that it precedes and perhaps supersedes religion, and so escapes censure. And that's fine by me.

Do carry on.


----------



## Eclectic Al

One thing that puzzles me about this thread is that it is supposed to be about why Brahms is great, but we seem to have ended up spending most of the time on his German Requiem (with subsequent forays into religion). His German Requiem is one piece, and I don't think that if it vanished that would change the assessment that he was a great composer. On the other hand, the loss of Symphonies 3 and 4, the late piano stuff, various chamber pieces. Lose any of those and his legacy would be severely depleted.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> My Post #154:
> 
> Good to see you paying attention!:lol:


I do. I also don't believe everything I read. I believe Brockway and Weinstock were also the gentlemen who said that Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 was "plain dull" because it supposedly does not contain any of the stylistic 'trademarks' that the composer was famous for. Such is the 'expert' opinion! They were wrong in their assessment of Brahms' requiem too including why it was written, which should give you comfort. Happy reading friend!


----------



## hammeredklavier

DavidA said:


> Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 was "plain dull" because it supposedly does not contain any of the stylistic 'trademarks' that the composer was famous for


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> I do. I also don't believe everything I read. I believe Brockway and Weinstock were also the gentlemen who said that Beethoven's Symphony No. 6 was "plain dull" because it supposedly does not contain any of the stylistic 'trademarks' that the composer was famous for. Such is the 'expert' opinion! They were wrong in their assessment of Brahms' requiem too including why it was written, which should give you comfort. Happy reading friend!


I think that, with experience, you will find that much writing about the arts is opinion, pure and simple. There is no way that opinions about works of art are "right" or "wrong" other than whether we agree with them or not--I exclude here references to matters of demonstrable fact, such as the authorship of the _Schicksalslied_'s lyrics, the timeline for the composition of the _Requiem_, the trigger for its composition, etc. As far as comfort, we all derive comfort from those whose opinions match ours. I too do not believe everything I read, so we're in lock step there.


----------



## JAS

The only thing I ask about art criticism is that it embody some sense of consistency and internal logic (which might evolve over time, as long as that is acknowledged). By this measure, most art criticism still fails, and is worth reading only for entertainment value.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> [...]


Proof that the 6th is dull? Or what?


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> I think that, with experience, you will find that much writing about the arts is opinion, pure and simple. There is no way that opinions about works of art are "right" or "wrong" other than whether we agree with them or not--I exclude here references to matters of demonstrable fact, such as the authorship of the _Schicksalslied_'s lyrics, the timeline for the composition of the _Requiem_, the trigger for its composition, etc. As far as comfort, we all derive comfort from those whose opinions match ours. I too do not believe everything I read, so we're in lock step there.


My dear old chap, having been reading and writing about the arts for many years, I know that much is opinion, pure and simple. However, there are matters of demonstrable fact, such as the date Brahms actually began his requiem, the fact we are talking about the requiem at the moment and not the authorship of the _Schicksalslied's_ lyrics, and from knowledge of humanity it is a good bet that though the thought of a requiem may have been awakened by Schumann's death the actually composition was more likely triggered by the death of his mother. And although we may derive comfort from those whose opinion match ours that is also the way to drive ourselves into a narrow corridor!


----------



## Strange Magic

Yes. We are in lock step as to what is historical fact and what is opinion. Thank you for essentially confirming my views as to which is which and for reasserting points I've made several times. I am certainly a dear old chap, too, and appreciate the warmth of your affection for me, as I know you value my greater experience. I am only sorry that you do not derive the comfort of my esthetic opinions as I feel you might. Rather than a narrow corridor, they are a glowing path toward ecstasy.:lol:


----------



## Luchesi

It's appropriate that New Jersey means New (land of) Caesar.


----------



## Strange Magic

Yes. We remember Caesar even today, who gave us all Gaul (and, later, modern France) as an early and longtime part of the Romanized West, with enormous repercussions to the present day. Shakespeare's play is one of his best IMO; the film, with Brando, James Mason, John Gielgud, and an all-star cast is one of the best film realizations of a Shakespeare play--highly recommended! I could go on about Caesar--the salad, the section, and about Nova Caesarea. But I won't.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Yes. We are in lock step as to what is historical fact and what is opinion. Thank you for essentially confirming my views as to which is which and for reasserting points I've made several times. I am certainly a dear old chap, too, and appreciate the warmth of your affection for me, as I know you value my greater experience. I am only sorry that you do not derive the comfort of my esthetic opinions as I feel you might. Rather than a narrow corridor, they are a glowing path toward ecstasy.:lol:


Well thanks for accepting my corrections to your points you got out of some misguided tome. Glad you note that historical fact goes by what actually happened and not what a couple of journeyman imagine. I'm glad you see that your greater experience is sometimes misdirected and the greater knowledge will help you on the path to your personal utopia with Messrs Brockway and Weinstock lighting your path! :lol:

Seriously if Brahms is your favourite composer I don't know why you read such opinionated tosh as that let alone quote it! :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

I read all sorts of opinions on all sorts of subjects. Brockway and Weinstock are treasures in music criticism, and enormous fun! I often do not agree with them, but what a boring world that would be! Wisdom and often stinging wit. I recommend their _Men of Music_ to anyone looking for great writing and sometimes surprising views. Even you, DavidA, might learn to enjoy and value such. Brahms is indeed, as I've often posted, my favorite composer, but one of B&W's least favorite, and yet we get along just fine.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> I read all sorts of opinions on all sorts of subjects. Brockway and Weinstock are treasures in music criticism, and enormous fun! I often do not agree with them, but what a boring world that would be! Wisdom and often stinging wit. I recommend their _Men of Music_ to anyone looking for great writing and sometimes surprising views. Even you, DavidA, might learn to enjoy and value such. Brahms is indeed, as I've often posted, my favorite composer, but one of B&W's least favorite, and yet we get along just fine.


Trusting music criticism which always proves that as our bluffers guide states, critics know nothing about music! I mean anyone who can call Beethoven's ninth a 'cataclysmic anticlimax' has got to have his mufflers on! Bit short on Mahler as well I believe. But then I read allsorts but I doubt whether these guys will be on my list as I've got a stack of books to read which are of rather more value than the musical prejudices of a past generation. 
I'm glad that Brahms is your favourite composer and that the old boy at least has some supporters. Must confess I've never really taken to the symphonies but the concertos are okay as long as people get a move on with them. He was a bit like your B&W really - carrying on the traditions of a past generation.


----------



## Strange Magic

On retrospection, I'll counsel that you avoid Brockway and Weinstock. You may find them disturbing and disorienting--not what you're familiar with. Safety First!


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> On retrospection, I'll counsel that you avoid Brockway and Weinstock. You may find them disturbing and disorienting--not what you're familiar with. Safety First!


My dear old pal, when one has been in the middle of a civil war wondering if the shooting will start then B&W don't represent much threat to safety! :lol:

On the other hand you could try Heifetz and Feuermann's Brahms's Double to put some zest into your existence?

You will be pleased to know btw that I am paying tribute to your dear old pal Johann by playing The Handel Variations.


----------



## flamencosketches

DavidA said:


> Of course it is a requiem. Just not a Catholic requiem.


Read my post again. It is not a requiem _mass_


----------



## DavidA

flamencosketches said:


> Read my post again. It is not a requiem _mass_


It comes with the label 
Ein deutsches Requiem
A German Requiem
Choral composition by Johannes Brahms
Johannes Brahms 1866.jpg
The composer c. 1866
English	A German Requiem, to Words of the Holy Scriptures
Full title	Ein deutsches Requiem, nach Worten der heiligen Schrift
Catalogue	Op. 45
Text	from the Luther Bible

As I say it is a requiem - just not a Catholic setting. Please read my post


----------



## Strange Magic

''My dear old pal", "My dear old chap"; was there an Old Bean somewhere back also?--maybe; I don't recall. But I think love is in the air! I'm becoming excited.:lol: It can't be my physical beauty, so it's likely the beauty of my ideas.

FWIW, B&W observe that the Requiem "is not a Requiem in the traditional sense: that is, it does not follow the specific liturgical text of a Requiem Mass. It is a Protestant work built on words chosen by Brahms himself from the German Bible, which he knew intimately from cover to cover." They also reference Bernard Shaw's dictum that listening to the Requiem was a sacrifice that should be asked of a man only once in his life. Note that I only quote here; the words are not mine. But this is why Brockway and Weinstock are not for the faint of heart or the delicate of mind.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> ''My dear old pal", "My dear old chap"; was there an Old Bean somewhere back also?--maybe; I don't recall. But I think love is in the air! I'm becoming excited.:lol: It can't be my physical beauty, so it's likely the beauty of my ideas.
> 
> FWIW, B&W observe that the Requiem "is not a Requiem in the traditional sense: that is, it does not follow the specific liturgical text of a Requiem Mass. It is a Protestant work built on words chosen by Brahms himself from the German Bible, which he knew intimately from cover to cover." They also reference Bernard Shaw's dictum that listening to the Requiem was a sacrifice that should be asked of a man only once in his life. Note that I only quote here; the words are not mine. But this is why Brockway and Weinstock are not for the faint of heart or the delicate of mind.


Yes, those Protestants are our heroes.


----------



## flamencosketches

DavidA said:


> It comes with the label
> Ein deutsches Requiem
> A German Requiem
> Choral composition by Johannes Brahms
> Johannes Brahms 1866.jpg
> The composer c. 1866
> English	A German Requiem, to Words of the Holy Scriptures
> Full title	Ein deutsches Requiem, nach Worten der heiligen Schrift
> Catalogue	Op. 45
> Text	from the Luther Bible
> 
> As I say it is a requiem - just not a Catholic setting. Please read my post


I never said it was not a Requiem. I am in full agreement with you. I was speaking to Million Rainbows, who called it specifically a Catholic Requiem Mass, which it is not.


----------



## Guest

Strange Magic said:


> On retrospection, I'll counsel that you avoid Brockway and Weinstock. You may find them disturbing and disorienting--not what you're familiar with. Safety First!


(Don't you mean "trigger warning"?)

I'd counsel you about going out on a limb, risking all you own to start a business, provide employment and create wealth - there's no safety net. This was a risk Brahms took, in small part, when he decided to 'go it alone' and rely upon himself to earn his living and his reputation. This took courage and self-belief, which the vast majority of people don't have. He didn't get the gig in Leipzig but he was undeterred about his ability to make good.

So Brahms had a genius for composition, a head for 'business' (as Beethoven sometimes demonstrated) and he largely knew what the public wanted and liked; his music was wonderful AND accessible. All important ingredients for success. And he left this world with money in the bank. A composer and largely self-employed capitalist.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Interesting comment about Kleiber...
> 
> But this doesn't quite answer my question...


This would require a great deal of thought and analysis!! Here's yet another example of the camera loving Carlos Kleiber - and with Brahms Symphony #2:


----------



## Strange Magic

Christabel said:


> I'd counsel you about going out on a limb, risking all you own to start a business, provide employment and create wealth - there's no safety net. This was a risk Brahms took, in small part, when he decided to 'go it alone' and rely upon himself to earn his living and his reputation. This took courage and self-belief, which the vast majority of people don't have. He didn't get the gig in Leipzig but he was undeterred about his ability to make good.
> 
> So Brahms had a genius for composition, a head for 'business' (as Beethoven sometimes demonstrated) and he largely knew what the public wanted and liked; his music was wonderful AND accessible. All important ingredients for success. And he left this world with money in the bank. A composer and largely self-employed capitalist.


I quite agree--some of the additional reasons besides his wonderful music that make Brahms my favorite composer.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I quite agree--some of the additional reasons besides his wonderful music that make Brahms my favorite composer.


Yes, Brahms was well-centered in these things, but why? considering his young years? Perhaps he's a good example of the arising of excellence. Where does this come from? We search for these examples, and here's one, quite famous too! 'Above Mozart and Beethoven for very subtle reasons?


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> This would require a great deal of thought and analysis!!


Of course. That's what is sometimes in short supply here. A lot of tangential posting about why a composer is someone's favourite, but little about what it is about their music that "makes them great" (which is the OP's actual question after all).

I suppose the fact that a YTB search brings performances by two highly respected conductors easily to the fore is testament to Brahms' reputation, if nothing else.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> Of course. That's what is sometimes in short supply here. A lot of tangential posting about why a composer is someone's favourite, but little about what it is about their music that "makes them great" (which is the OP's actual question after all).
> 
> I suppose the fact that a YTB search brings performances by two highly respected conductors easily to the fore is testament to Brahms' reputation, if nothing else.


Years ago I would have obliged you with a serious analytical answer to your question, but I agree with you about respected conductors performing the work being one of these considerations. Clara Schumann's continued support of Brahms and her critiques of his work meant that he always composed to a high benchmark.

The four symphonies each inhabit a different psycho-musical world. The first is grand and sometimes a little bombastic, looking back to Beethoven but not in a happy demeanour. But this one soars after sublime inner movements which are sheer lyricism. I'm going to let Leonard Bernstein do my talking for me - he was an incredible pedagogue who produced similar programs for each of the four symphonies of Brahms.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> *''My dear old pal", "My dear old chap"; was there an Old Bean somewhere back also?-*-maybe; I don't recall. But I think love is in the air! I'm becoming excited.:lol: It can't be my physical beauty, so it's likely the beauty of my ideas.
> 
> FWIW, B&W observe that the Requiem *"is not a Requiem in the traditional sense: that is, it does not follow the specific liturgical text of a Requiem Mass. It is a Protestant work built on words chosen by Brahms himself from the German Bible, which he knew intimately from cover to cover." *They also reference Bernard Shaw's dictum that listening to the Requiem was a sacrifice that should be asked of a man only once in his life. Note that I only quote here; the words are not mine. But this is why Brockway and Weinstock are not for the faint of heart or the delicate of mind.


Oh sorry, I didn't realise you might be ignorant of British cricket commentary where such phrases are used quite frequently between friends without the bent you appear to put on them. Don't worry, it certainly is not because I am enamoured with the beauty in your ideas! So if such mild leg pulling excites you unnecessarily I will refrain. 
I thought if you actually read my posts you'd have noticed I'd covered that. Glad to see even B&W get things right. As for Shaw, well he was being Shaw, wasn't he? One could say the same thing about Shaw's plays! Enough said! Thanks for informing me of things I have known for years! 

Did you enjoy Heifetz / Feuermann in theDoubleConcerto? I actually found Fleisher quite stunning in the Handel variations.


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Of course. That's what is sometimes in short supply here. A lot of tangential posting about why a composer is someone's favourite, but little about what it is about their music that "makes them great" (which is the OP's actual question after all).
> 
> I suppose the fact that a YTB search brings performances by two highly respected conductors easily to the fore is testament to Brahms' reputation, if nothing else.


btw your question about why the camera follows Kleiber could be seen as a 'tangential posting' in this thread!


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> btw your question about why the camera follows Kleiber could be seen as a 'tangential posting' in this thread!


I'm guilty of that too!!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> His head looks too big for his body.


It didn't in any other photographs, which is weird.


----------



## Guest

DavidA said:


> btw your question about why the camera follows Kleiber could be seen as a 'tangential posting' in this thread!


What question ? I didn't ask a question. If you can't quote my 'tangential' post and show how it is 'tangential' (in the pejorative sense you seem to imply), please withdraw or acknowledge your error.


----------



## hammeredklavier

It's not a protestant requiem, it's a "German" requiem. So "German", in fact, it is as if the composer wanted to include _"Guten Tag!"_ in the text.


----------



## Donna Elvira

Don't have too much time right now but I'm very glad this thread was started because, like so many others, Brahms (along with Mozart, J. S. Bach, Beethoven and Verdi) is my favorite composer.
I'll just post what I wrote for myself, quite a few years ago, when listing my ten favorite composers.

"Brahms- disciplined, every instrumental work a masterpiece, complete knowledge of music of the past which is reflected in his output, if that’s not enough a 2nd life in his late piano pieces which will point to the future"


----------



## Enthusiast

The German Requiem was his breakthrough piece. It made him quite rich and famous. Much that followed banked on that comfort. It is also a great work.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> I never said it was not a Requiem. I am in full agreement with you. I was speaking to Million Rainbows, *who called it specifically a Catholic Requiem Mass,* which it is not.


False! I did not call it specifically a Catholic Requiem Mass. All I did was publish the definition from WIK. Read it carefully.

WIK: A *Requiem or Requiem Mass, also known as Mass for the dead (Latin: Missa pro defunctis) or Mass of the dead(Latin: Missa defunctorum), is a Mass in the Catholic Church offered for the repose of the soul or souls of one or more deceased persons, using a particular form of the Roman Missal. It is usually, but not necessarily, celebrated in the context of a funeral.*



flamencosketches said:


> ...Catholic Requiem Mass, which it is not.


Then it should not have been called a "Requiem." A "Requiem" IS a Mass. Plus, Brahms' Requiem IS a requiem for the dead, so it has the same function as a mass.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> False! I did not call it specifically a Catholic Requiem Mass. All I did was publish the definition from WIK. Read it carefully.
> 
> WIK: A *Requiem or Requiem Mass, also known as Mass for the dead (Latin: Missa pro defunctis) or Mass of the dead(Latin: Missa defunctorum), is a Mass in the Catholic Church offered for the repose of the soul or souls of one or more deceased persons, using a particular form of the Roman Missal. It is usually, but not necessarily, celebrated in the context of a funeral.*
> 
> Then it should not have been called a "Requiem." A "Requiem" IS a Mass. Plus, Brahms' Requiem IS a requiem for the dead, so it has the same function as a mass.


That would all be quite well and good if it were true, which it is not. Is Takemitsu's Requiem a Mass? Is Max Reger's Requiem a Mass? No, they just called it that.

To clarify, just because Wikipedia allows that Requiem Mass is often shortened to simply Requiem, that does not mean the two terms are one and the same.


----------



## flamencosketches

To clarify further, this is the post I was replying to:



millionrainbows said:


> Or maybe it was his use of a _specifically religious form,_ the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great.


You stated that Brahms is making use of a specifically religious form, the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, which he is not.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> False! I did not call it specifically a Catholic Requiem Mass. All I did was publish the definition from WIK. Read it carefully.
> 
> WIK: A *Requiem or Requiem Mass, also known as Mass for the dead (Latin: Missa pro defunctis) or Mass of the dead(Latin: Missa defunctorum), is a Mass in the Catholic Church offered for the repose of the soul or souls of one or more deceased persons, using a particular form of the Roman Missal. It is usually, but not necessarily, celebrated in the context of a funeral.*
> 
> Then it should not have been called a "Requiem." A "Requiem" IS a Mass. Plus, Brahms' Requiem IS a requiem for the dead, so it has the same function as a mass.


Sorry mate but post 175 (by you) says:

'Or maybe it was his use of a specifically religious form, the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great.'


----------



## Strange Magic

After all this, I think I'll stick with Brockway and Weinstein's brief definition/explanation of the Brahms Requiem, previously quoted. But I need to get on with familiarizing myself with British cricket terms of address--such appear to be key to understanding Brahms.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> Sorry mate but post 175 (by you) says: 'Or maybe it was his use of a specifically religious form, the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great.'





flamencosketches said:


> You stated that *Brahms is making use of a specifically religious form*, the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, *which he is not.*


Why not? I think it could be easily argued that what I said is true:

"_Or maybe it was *his use of a *__*specifically religious form*, the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great."

*My statement does not call Brahms' German Requiem "a Mass;" it simply says that he used the Requeim Mass as a FORM.*
_
The NET RESULT is that Brahms _was using the Catholic Requiem Mass as_ _a traditional Western musical form, as part of the Western musical religious tradition._

*The fact that it's not actually a "Mass" proper is irrelevant,* since it is drawn from the same mold.

So what is its relevance? If a casual listener did not know it, they would think Brahms was ascribing a religious dimension to his work.

I think it's important to note that Brahms' German Requiem is NOT a religious work, _yet at the same time it is using that form as its vehicle. _

The ultimate point being that Brahms was pushing his own Humanist agenda, by masquerading it as a "Requiem Mass."

Brahms was "playing" with a centuries-old Western musico/religious tradition and form, and changing it to suit his own agenda. That's hubris, if you ask me.

*Sorry, mates, but you need to read my posts carefully.*


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> The NET RESULT is that Brahms was using the Catholic Requiem Mass as _a traditional Western musical form, as part of the Western musical religious tradition._
> 
> The fact that it's not actually a "Mass" proper is irrelevant, since it is drawn from the same mold.
> 
> So what is its relevance? If a casual listener did not know it, they would think Brahms was ascribing a religious dimension to his work.
> 
> I think it's important to note that Brahms' German Requiem is NOT a religious work, _yet at the same time it is using that form as its vehicle. _
> 
> The ultimate point being that Brahms was pushing his own Humanist agenda, by masquerading it as a "Requiem Mass."
> 
> Brahms was "playing" with a centuries-old Western musico/religious tradition and form, and changing it to suit his own agenda. That's hubris, if you ask me.


The point was that Brahms was NOT using the Catholic requiem mass. He didn't call it a mass. Of course it is a religious work as it sets texts from the Bible some of which refer to a God. Whether Brahms believed them is of course another matter!


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> Why not? I think it could be easily argued that what I said is true:
> 
> "_Or maybe it was *his use of a *__*specifically religious form*, the Requiem Mass of the Catholic Church, that made his music so great."
> 
> *My statement does not call Brahms' German Requiem "a Mass;" it simply says that he used the Requeim Mass as a FORM.*
> _
> The NET RESULT is that Brahms _was using the Catholic Requiem Mass as_ _a traditional Western musical form, as part of the Western musical religious tradition._
> 
> *The fact that it's not actually a "Mass" proper is irrelevant,* since it is drawn from the same mold.
> 
> So what is its relevance? If a casual listener did not know it, they would think Brahms was ascribing a religious dimension to his work.
> 
> I think it's important to note that Brahms' German Requiem is NOT a religious work, _yet at the same time it is using that form as its vehicle. _
> 
> The ultimate point being that Brahms was pushing his own Humanist agenda, by masquerading it as a "Requiem Mass."
> 
> Brahms was "playing" with a centuries-old Western musico/religious tradition and form, and changing it to suit his own agenda. That's hubris, if you ask me.
> 
> *Sorry, mates, but you need to read my posts carefully.*


Except that the "form" of the German Requiem has absolutely nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass. Literally, the only similarity is that it uses choral singing. You state in another post that Brahms's German Requiem has the same function as the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass, which again, is not true. The German Requiem is a sacred, but _non-liturgical_ work. While a Requiem Mass is to be played at a church service for the dead, Brahms's is a concert work based on similar themes, with texts from scripture on themes of mourning.

Anyway, I'm quite burnt out on the subject. Surely there is quite a bit more to Brahms than the German Requiem...


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Except that *the "form" of the German Requiem has absolutely nothing to do with the Roman Catholic Requiem Mass*.


I think that's misleading. I think Brahms wrote his Requiem in the great Western tradition of Requiems and Masses.



> Literally, the only similarity is that it uses choral singing. You state in another post that Brahms's German Requiem has the same function as the Roman Catholic *Requiem* Mass, which again, is not true.


It is *in remembrance of the dead,* so in that large sense, *it is the same function. *That's what *"requiem"* means:


A mass (especially Catholic) to honor and remember a dead person.
A musical composition for such a mass.
A piece of music composed to honor a dead person.


dirge, elegy, threnody - funeral songs



> The German Requiem is a sacred, but _non-liturgical_ work. While a Requiem Mass is to be played at a church service for the dead, Brahms's is a concert work based on similar themes, with texts from scripture on themes of mourning.


Of _course_ it's non-liturgical; Brahms was a non-believer. But the net result is the same: a remembrance of those departed.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> *The point* was that Brahms was NOT using the Catholic requiem mass. He didn't call it a mass.


I disagree; *the point* was that Brahms was using the form of the Catholic Requiem Mass as his vehicle or model, to do the same thing: mourn the dead.



> Of course *it is a religious work *as it sets texts from the Bible some of which refer to a God. Whether Brahms believed them is of course another matter!


Flamencosketches calls it a "non-liturgical" work, which is literally true, since it does not involve Church ritual. That says nothing about it being a "religious" work, which can't be demonstrated except for its inclusion of religious texts, and is therefore also a misleading characterization.

*It's a secular work,* modeled on the Catholic Church form of the Requiem Mass.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I think that's misleading. I think Brahms wrote his Requiem in the great Western tradition of Requiems and Masses.
> 
> It is *in remembrance of the dead,* so in that large sense, *it is the same function. *That's what *"requiem"* means:
> 
> 
> A mass (especially Catholic) to honor and remember a dead person.
> A musical composition for such a mass.
> A piece of music composed to honor a dead person.
> 
> 
> dirge, elegy, threnody - funeral songs
> 
> Of _course_ it's non-liturgical; Brahms was a non-believer. But the net result is the same: a remembrance of those departed.


You are wrong in this. The Catholic Requiem is the form of prayers and intercession for the dead. It is not in memory of the dead.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> I disagree; *the point* was that Brahms was using the form of the Catholic Requiem Mass as his vehicle or model, to do the same thing: mourn the dead.
> 
> Flamencosketches calls it a "non-liturgical" work, which is literally true, since it does not involve Church ritual. That says nothing about it being a "religious" work, which can't be demonstrated except for its inclusion of religious texts, and is therefore also a misleading characterization.
> 
> *It's a secular work,* modeled on the Catholic Church form of the Requiem Mass.


For crying out loud! It is NOT modelled on the Catholic church form of the requiem mass at all! It has no resemblance to it. Of course it is religious as the text is taken from the Bible. You bandy words sir to try and prove the unprovable.


----------



## hammeredklavier

millionrainbows said:


> It is *in remembrance of the dead,* so in that large sense, *it is the same function. *That's what *"requiem"* means:
> A mass (especially Catholic) to honor and remember a dead person.
> A musical composition for such a mass.
> A piece of music composed to honor a dead person.
> 
> dirge, elegy, threnody - funeral songs
> Of _course_ it's non-liturgical; Brahms was a non-believer. But the net result is the same: a remembrance of those departed.











The Maurerische Trauermusik (Masonic Funeral Music) in C minor, K. 477 (K. 479a), is an orchestral work composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in 1785 in his capacity as a member of the Freemasons. Mozart's own entry into his catalogue under the heading "July 1785" may be an error; he most likely forgot to enter a new heading for November. It was performed during a Masonic funeral service held on 17 November 1785 in memory of two of Mozart's Masonic brethren, Duke Georg August of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and Count Franz Esterházy von Galántha, members of the Viennese aristocracy.
The work uses the Gregorian chant psalm-tone, tonus peregrinus. The work is scored for strings; woodwind instruments including two oboes, a clarinet, three basset horns and a contrabassoon; and two horns. The basset horn parts were written for fellow Freemasons Anton David and Vincent Springer.






The String Quartet No. 6 in F minor, Op. 80 was composed by Felix Mendelssohn in 1847. It was the last major piece he completed before he died two months later on 4 November 1847. He composed the piece as an homage to his sister Fanny who had died on 17 May of that year and it bore the title "Requiem for Fanny."






Adagio and Allegro in F minor for a mechanical organ, K. 594, is a composition by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, completed in late 1790. It was originally written as a funeral mass to be played on a mechanical organ clock for Field Marshal Gideon Baron of Laudon, but was later rededicated to Count Joseph Deym's Müllersche Kunstgalerie in Vienna.


----------



## millionrainbows

DavidA said:


> It is NOT modelled on the Catholic church form of the requiem mass at all! It has no resemblance to it. Of course it is religious as the text is taken from the Bible.





DavidA said:


> You are wrong in this. The Catholic Requiem is the form of prayers and intercession for the dead. It is not in memory of the dead.


That depends on what your definition of "is" is. 
-Bill Clinton


----------



## Highwayman

millionrainbows said:


> Brahms was "playing" with a centuries-old Western musico/religious tradition and form, and changing it to suit his own agenda. *That's hubris*, if you ask me.


This, among multitudinous other things, is why I consider Brahms so great. Thanks for pointing it out!


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
> -Bill Clinton


Perhaps it's just a 'known known'!!:lol:


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

As this seems to have morphed into a general Brahms discussion thread, I find it interesting how the Clarinet Quintet seems to be so beloved by the TC community. Don’t get me wrong, it is a fantastic work, certainly among my favorite of his chamber works. But it came in at No. 3 on the old ranking of works and is on the fifth tier of the current list. What makes it so universally attractive compared to other chamber jewels like the piano trios and string sextets?


----------



## flamencosketches

Allegro Con Brio said:


> As this seems to have morphed into a general Brahms discussion thread, I find it interesting how the Clarinet Quintet seems to be so beloved by the TC community. Don't get me wrong, it is a fantastic work, certainly among my favorite of his chamber works. But it came in at No. 3 on the old ranking of works and is on the fifth tier of the current list. What makes it so universally attractive compared to other chamber jewels like the piano trios and string sextets?


Probably has something to do with the "late works" effect. It's Brahms's last published piece of chamber music. Think about it, people are always saying Beethoven's op.111 is his greatest piano sonata, or Mahler's 9th is his greatest symphony, or whatever the case may be. It seems to ultimately come from that lazy heuristic.

edit: I forgot the Sonatas for Piano & Clarinet came later. Well, in any case, the Clarinet Quintet could be called Brahms's last large-scale chamber work.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

flamencosketches said:


> Probably has something to do with the "late works" effect. It's Brahms's last published piece of chamber music. Think about it, people are always saying Beethoven's op.111 is his greatest piano sonata, or Mahler's 9th is his greatest symphony, or whatever the case may be. It seems to ultimately come from that lazy heuristic.
> 
> edit: I forgot the Sonatas for Piano & Clarinet came later. Well, in any case, the Clarinet Quintet could be called Brahms's last large-scale chamber work.


True. "Autumnal" seems to be a word that is thrown around often to describe late Brahms. I wouldn't disagree with that - in those clarinet works and Opp. 116-119 there is a sense I get of a seasoned old man looking back on life; on his youthful passions, on his triumphs and pitfalls, and viewing them from a position of solemn, stoic, wistful acceptance. But also we should be willing to recognize there is more to the music than that, and that the circumstances of a composer's life shouldn't be the only factor in how we evaluate value in their works.


----------



## Guest

hammeredklavier said:


> The Maurerische Trauermusik (Masonic Funeral Music) in C minor, K. 477 (K. 479a), is an orchestral work composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in 1785 in his capacity as a member of the Freemasons. [etc]


You are quoting Wikipedia, or some other source, aren't you? Only, you don't say so.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Allegro Con Brio said:


> True. "Autumnal" seems to be a word that is thrown around often to describe late Brahms. I wouldn't disagree with that - in those clarinet works and Opp. 116-119 there is a sense I get of a seasoned old man looking back on life; on his youthful passions, on his triumphs and pitfalls, and viewing them from a position of solemn, stoic, wistful acceptance. But also we should be willing to recognize there is more to the music than that, and that the circumstances of a composer's life shouldn't be the only factor in how we evaluate value in their works.


I'm not very musicologically inclined, and with me it usually goes the following way round: I listen to a piece of Brahms (paying no attention to Opus numbers or that sort of stuff), and if I particularly like it I might then notice after the event that it's a late (or late-ish) work. Often it is. And the other way round works too. If I listen to some Brahms and it doesn't really resonate with me, then it often turns out to be an earlier work. I think it's the circumstances of my life that make me respond to "autumnal works" (if you want to call them that), and it is incidental to me whether the composer was old or young - that's their problem, not mine. If an apparently autumnal work is written by a young composer then that's fine by me. Can't think of many though: any suggestions?

On late works generally, I wish marketing stuff didn't emphasise matters such as Beethoven's late quartets, etc. I really want to listen to anything I haven't heard before without being aware of any background. I used to listen fairly randomly when I was even less "well-listened" than I am now, but I was doubtless manipulated.


----------



## DavidA

millionrainbows said:


> That depends on what your definition of "is" is.
> -Bill Clinton


We are scraping the barrel now! :lol:


----------



## NLAdriaan

Brahms just isn't so great. I find his music very nice and sometimes great, but Brahms sounds to me like a work in progress, a melting pot of ideas that is not yet ready. At some stage, a beautiful idea pops up, but the structure of putting it all together into a great work, seems missing.

But anyhow, there is a lot to enjoy in Brahms work. But it isn't my desert island music.


----------



## Botschaft

NLAdriaan said:


> Brahms just isn't so great. I find his music very nice and sometimes great, but Brahms sounds to me like a work in progress, a melting pot of ideas that is not yet ready. At some stage, a beautiful idea pops up, but the structure of putting it all together into a great work, seems missing.
> 
> But anyhow, there is a lot to enjoy in Brahms work. But it isn't my desert island music.


Your incapacity to comprehend Brahms' greatness merely reflects on your own limitations, not those of Brahms.


----------



## janxharris

Waldesnacht said:


> Your incapacity to comprehend Brahms' greatness merely reflects on your own limitations, not those of Brahms.


It's also possible to argue that Brahms 'failed' to compose music that connected with (whomever).


----------



## NLAdriaan

Waldesnacht said:


> Your incapacity to comprehend Brahms' greatness merely reflects on your own limitations, not those of Brahms.


Your incapacity to comprehend different viewpoints from your own merely reflects on your own limitations, not those you project on me.


----------



## NLAdriaan

janxharris said:


> It's also possible to argue that Brahms 'failed' to compose music that connected with (whomever).


Which is the case for any composer


----------



## Room2201974

Brahms "autumnal" in part explained: why modulate up a fifth when you can modulate down a fourth?


----------



## Guest

Room2201974 said:


> Brahms "autumnal" in part explained: why modulate up a fifth when you can modulate down a fourth?


It's a question I ask myself every night just after blessing myself and turning into bed!!


----------



## Luchesi

People make fun of musicology and then they complain that they don't get Brahms because he doesn't speak to them directly like Beethoven, who was 60 odd years earlier in the development of music.


----------



## Ethereality

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For Classicists he is in a league above Strauss, Mahler and Wagner.
> 
> But Classicists tend to rank Mozart higher than Beethoven so it's just one way to look at things.


Which Classicists?

I know according to some data and quotes from famous composers of the Romantic and Contemporary periods, they preferred Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Mendelssohn over > Brahms. They consider Mahler about equal to = Brahms. But it's the public who decides who is famous/knowledgable. If the public likes x famous composers, then these composers' ignorance will naturally be reflected in books and articles, ie. Wagner and Tchaikovsky are already of the most famous and performed composers $-wise, reflecting what people already like. Thus who are the Classicists? If they're who the more musically invested and experienced back, then they simply reflect what that group already thinks they know. Nothing more advanced can be learned because their fame is determined by popularity.

I'm not convinced that there's more for older individuals to take away from in Brahms, than there isn't in say Tchaikovsky or Mahler. They've reached a stage that they can appreciate Brahms better, but there's no evidence of a completion of knowledge. Instead it might mean that now is a better time than ever to revisit other potentially overlooked composers, like Tchaikovsky and honestly a lot of famous Russian composers.



Luchesi said:


> People make fun of musicology and then they complain that they don't get Brahms because he doesn't speak to them directly like Beethoven, who was 60 odd years earlier in the development of music.


Beethoven was also '60 years' before Borodin. I guess music had to keep on improving?


----------



## lowgold

For me its a mixture of the complexity of his music and his ability to communicate what it feels like to be in love. I can't listen to Brahms without thinking that each piece of music was about someone. Or that each piece is a message to someone he is deeply, chronically in love with. I may be completely off the mark I don't know. 

There are things I don't like so much too. I sometimes find parts of Brahms too extravagant, even a bit silly. I think he can sound a bit flat. George Bernard Shaw said something about Brahms clattering around on the piano aimlessly trying to sound like Beethoven, and I think he was ninety-nine percent wrong about that. Though even when I find the music 'flat' (Sorry I don't know how else to describes it) the complexity of it is always dazzling enough to keep listening. 

I'm no music theorist but that's my two-penneth.


----------



## Room2201974

Christabel said:


> It's a question I ask myself every night just after blessing myself and turning into bed!!


Wow, every night you have to ask that question? If you are still having ongoing modulation issues I would refer you to a Tchaikovsky thread.


----------



## Fabulin

Christabel said:


> It's a question I ask myself every night just after blessing myself and turning into bed!!


Blessing yourself and turning into bed? Are you a wizard?


----------



## flamencosketches

lowgold said:


> For me its a mixture of the complexity of his music and his ability to communicate what it feels like to be in love. I can't listen to Brahms without thinking that each piece of music was about someone. Or that each piece is a message to someone he is deeply, chronically in love with. I may be completely off the mark I don't know.


I hear much of his music the same way. I also think his music is, generally speaking, highly charged with sexual tension, more than any other composer I know (except perhaps Wagner). I hardly ever hear people comment on this dimension of his music, and it's validating to know that I'm not the only one that hears it that way.


----------



## Fabulin

flamencosketches said:


> I hear much of his music the same way. I also think his music is, generally speaking, highly charged with sexual tension, more than any other composer I know (except perhaps Wagner). I hardly ever hear people comment on this dimension of his music, and it's validating to know that I'm not the only one that hears it that way.


I'd say the most sexual tension is in Bruckner's music. His endless proposals to young women, rejecting female pupils because he couldn't focus, and underlying puritanian views all place him further down the tension road than the public house visitor Brahms - not to mention the womanizer Wagner.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> I hear much of his music the same way. I also think his music is, generally speaking, *highly charged with sexual tension,* more than any other composer I know (except perhaps Wagner). I hardly ever hear people comment on this dimension of his music, and it's validating to know that I'm not the only one that hears it that way.


I don't think I'd call it "sexual tension." I'd stick with low gold's more emotionally-centered description: 


lowgold said:


> For me its a mixture of the complexity of his music and his ability to communicate what it feels like to be in love. I can't listen to Brahms without thinking that each piece of music was about someone. Or that each piece is a message to someone he is deeply, chronically in love with.


----------



## 1996D

There is a lot more romance in Chopin, Liszt, and Schubert. Brahms is darker, barely romantic at all; like a disillusioned Mozart. He was great but he stayed angry at the world and perhaps rightly so, the ending of his 4th says it all.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think I'd call it "sexual tension." I'd stick with low gold's more emotionally-centered description:


Thanks for sharing. Personally, I hear the aforementioned sexual tension all over his music, in addition to/separately from the love-feelings.



Fabulin said:


> I'd say the most sexual tension is in Bruckner's music. His endless proposals to young women, rejecting female pupils because he couldn't focus, and underlying puritanian views all place him further down the tension road than the public house visitor Brahms - not to mention the womanizer Wagner.


I didn't mean to imply that Brahms wasn't getting laid. I'll have to listen out for it in Bruckner's music. Though I am aware of those biographical details of his life, I can't say that's something I ever picked up in his works.


----------



## Guest

Fabulin said:


> Blessing yourself and turning into bed? Are you a wizard?


There was one important word missing from my comment which should have alerted you to the fact that I'm *NOT* a wizard:
"....turning into A bed".


----------



## Botschaft

What makes Brahms stand out in my mind even among his peers is the ability of his works to continuously grow and deepen even when you've heard them many times and thereby to not only excellently withstand repeated listening but to greatly reward it. Brahms might be the most consistently profound composer.



janxharris said:


> It's also possible to argue that Brahms 'failed' to compose music that connected with (whomever).


He didn't fail since he never tried in the first place. Brahms didn't compose for the rabble. It is therefore only natural that his music doesn't speak to some people.



NLAdriaan said:


> Your incapacity to comprehend different viewpoints from your own merely reflects on your own limitations, not those you project on me.


I understand your viewpoint all too well.


----------



## Guest

Waldesnacht said:


> What makes Brahms stand out in my mind even among his peers is the ability of his works to continuously grow and deepen even when you've heard them many times and thereby to not only excellently withstand repeated listening but to greatly award it. Brahms might be the most consistently profound composer.
> 
> He didn't fail since he never tried in the first place. Brahms didn't compose for the rabble. It is therefore only natural that his music doesn't speak to some people.


I'd have to agree with this and I loved your comments that you are rewarded with repeatedly listening. Yes, Brahms was a master - one of the "Big 3" for me, along with the other two B's. His *Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel* are absolutely devastating, always bringing me to my knees by the time the Fugue has arrived - and yet it was a 'young' work. It took me a while to come to grips with the solo piano music of Brahms - and not all of it is of the highest quality - but I have been rewarded time and again for the most part.


----------



## JeffD

Brahms is the first answer to the question: "Between Beethoven and Mozart is there anything else to say?" Yes, there is Brahms.


----------



## janxharris

Waldesnacht said:


> What makes Brahms stand out in my mind even among his peers is the ability of his works to continuously grow and deepen even when you've heard them many times and thereby to not only excellently withstand repeated listening but to greatly award it. Brahms might be the most consistently profound composer.
> 
> He didn't fail since he never tried in the first place. Brahms didn't compose for the rabble. It is therefore only natural that his music doesn't speak to some people.


I did use scare quotes round 'failed'.

Brahms did not compose for the rabble? Is that an assumption? (I wonder how you are defining 'rabble'?)


----------



## Guest

janxharris said:


> (I wonder how you are defining 'rabble'?)


Oh, let me count the ways!!!!!


----------



## Dimace

Only two things about Brahms:

1. (I have red some very interesting opinions about his DR, all of them very OK) In Germany we consider this work as the only Requiem written not for those who have passed away, but for these have left behind (family, friends etc) A consolation effort to ease the loss and the pain.
2. Brahms, when he made money, he was collecting Scarlatti's music scores (manuscripts) He was admiring very much the Italian and in some of his works the influence of Domenico is profound.


----------



## Botschaft

Christabel said:


> I'd have to agree with this and I loved your comments that you are rewarded with repeatedly listening. Yes, Brahms was a master - one of the "Big 3" for me, along with the other two B's. His *Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel* are absolutely devastating, always bringing me to my knees by the time the Fugue has arrived - and yet it was a 'young' work. It took me a while to come to grips with the solo piano music of Brahms - and not all of it is of the highest quality - but I have been rewarded time and again for the most part.


Yes, _reward_ is the right word. I edited my post.


----------



## millionrainbows

"Brahms, not bombs"- 1960s anti-war slogan

​









​


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> "Brahms, not bombs"- 1960s anti-war slogan
> 
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​


21 years too late.


----------



## hammeredklavier

JeffD said:


> Brahms is the first answer the question: "Between Beethoven and Mozart is there anything else to say?" Yes, there is Brahms.


He's also the first to answer the question: "I'm starving, what's for breakfast?"


----------



## NLAdriaan

Waldesnacht said:


> What makes Brahms stand out in my mind even among his peers is the ability of his works to continuously grow and deepen even when you've heard them many times and thereby to not only excellently withstand repeated listening but to greatly reward it. Brahms might be the most consistently profound composer.
> 
> He didn't fail since he never tried in the first place. Brahms didn't compose for the rabble. It is therefore only natural that his music doesn't speak to some people.
> 
> I understand your viewpoint all too well.


How cute, this is the first time a Brahms fan attempts an elitist claim, where of course the fanboy is a good man, obviously in the know, and all others with a different taste belong to the rabble. I always thought this kind of supremacy twists were Wagner territory. I do believe Brahms really doesn't fit into this.


----------



## Botschaft

janxharris said:


> I did use scare quotes round 'failed'.
> 
> Brahms did not compose for the rabble? Is that an assumption? (I wonder how you are defining 'rabble'?)





NLAdriaan said:


> How cute, this is the first time a Brahms fan attempts an elitist claim, where of course the fanboy is a good man, obviously in the know, and all others with a different taste belong to the rabble. I always thought this kind of supremacy twists were Wagner territory. I do believe Brahms really doesn't fit into this.


In fact Wagner accused Brahms of elitism for his first symphony, which he considered impenetrable to ordinary people. Maybe it is. Brahms himself described it as "long, difficult and in C minor".


----------



## annaw

Waldesnacht said:


> In fact Wagner accused Brahms of elitism for his first symphony, which he considered impenetrable to ordinary people. Maybe it is. Brahms himself described it as "long, difficult and in C minor".


Those two seemed to have a bitter-sweet relationship. Brahms had a part of Wagner's autographed _Tannhäuser_ score (Venusberg music) which Wagner wanted back. Brahms insisted that if Wagner wants to rob him of such treasure then he has to send another score as an exchange because he wants to have a score of some Wagner's composition. Wagner sent him a gold-stamped first edition of _Das Rheingold_ and as a final reconciliation, Wagner and Cosima attended the premiere of Brahms' third piano quartet.


----------



## 1996D

Waldesnacht said:


> In fact Wagner accused Brahms of elitism for his first symphony, which he considered impenetrable to ordinary people. Maybe it is. Brahms himself described it as "long, difficult and in C minor".


The last movement is superb, what an ending. All of Brahms' works are too long for most people, his form is tedious, he takes too long to make his point. One of my favourites but he has his weaknesses.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Those two seemed to have a bitter-sweet relationship. Brahms had a part of Wagner's autographed _Tannhäuser_ score (Venusberg music) which Wagner wanted back. Brahms insisted that if Wagner wants to rob him of such treasure then he has to send another score as an exchange because he wants to have a score of some Wagner's composition. Wagner sent him a gold-stamped first edition of _Das Rheingold_ and as a final reconciliation, Wagner and Cosima attended the premiere of Brahms' third piano quartet.


Did Wagner like it? It's a great piece, the 3rd movement is beautiful.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

1996D said:


> The last movement is superb, what an ending. All of Brahms' works are too long for most people, his form is tedious, he takes too long to make his point. One of my favourites but he has his weaknesses.


How can anyone know whether "most people" find "all of Brahms' works" too long?


----------



## Strange Magic

When music is as richly satisfying as is Brahms', then one wishes it to go on and on..... Normally I am all for tightening up endlessly meandering or repetitive works, but Brahms' music, for me, lies beyond such criticisms.


----------



## 1996D

Animal the Drummer said:


> How do you know whether "most people" find "all of Brahms' works" too long?


By length I mean the form, its academic nature, which is a common critique. Beethoven is the perfect example of perfect form that flows effortlessly and is never dull; he worked at it tirelessly and achieved what gave him his fame and reputation to this day as the best along with Mozart.

Brahms tried and he has great moments, but overall his pieces end up being tedious. Every single one of them has a movement of genius but more often than not the others do not hold up; they are overworked, laboriously constructed. In his moments of inspiration he's second to none but his form is not natural enough, the intuitive mastery is not there. Great melody, great counterpoint, great form at times, but not Beethoven.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> When music is as richly satisfying as is Brahms', then one wishes it to go on and on..... Normally I am all for tightening up endlessly meandering or repetitive works, but Brahms' music, for me, lies beyond such criticisms.


My old grandfather used to say about Brahms: "That's the sort of music that goes on and on and on......" :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> By length I mean the form, its academic nature, which is a common critique. Beethoven is the perfect example of perfect form that flows effortlessly and is never dull; he worked at it tirelessly and achieved what gave him his fame and reputation to this day as the best along with Mozart.
> 
> Brahms tried and he has great moments, but overall his pieces end up being tedious. Every single one of them has a movement of genius but more often than not the others do not hold up; they are overworked, laboriously constructed. In his moments of inspiration he's second to none but his form is not natural enough, the intuitive mastery is not there. Great melody, great counterpoint, great form at times, but not Beethoven.


An excellent presentation of an opinion! And I agree: Brahms is not Beethoven, nor is Beethoven Brahms.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> An excellent presentation of an opinion! And I agree: Brahms is not Beethoven, nor is Beethoven Brahms.


Mozart is another with superior form, even Schumann has better form. Chopin too, their pieces have a natural essence, a genuine expression and flow.

Maybe Brahms suffered under the pressure that was put on him by Schumann. He destroyed many of his works and laboured too much on unimportant elements, a perfectionist, almost OCD in his approach. Ironically it's when his pieces show the least craft that his genius shows. The melodic and contrapuntal moments of inspiration, where he described the complete idea coming to him already finished. Where the counterpoint equals the main melody in its beauty and complexity as they both fit so perfectly because they came together in a moment of inspiration.

There he shines, but the form to put together those great moments of inspiration is lacking.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Did Wagner like it? It's a great piece, the 3rd movement is beautiful.


Haven't found a direct reference to that sadly. But their relationship began very well. Once Wagner invited Brahms to come and visit him, it had been a festive evening. Brahms had played piano and Wagner, "with the most unaffected warmth, overwhelmed Brahms with appreciation of his work". Their fall out seems to have been partly a consequence of some events not straightly connected with music.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

1996D said:


> By length I mean the form, its academic nature, which is a common critique. Beethoven is the perfect example of perfect form that flows effortlessly and is never dull; he worked at it tirelessly and achieved what gave him his fame and reputation to this day as the best along with Mozart.
> 
> Brahms tried and he has great moments, but overall his pieces end up being tedious. Every single one of them has a movement of genius but more often than not the others do not hold up; they are overworked, laboriously constructed. In his moments of inspiration he's second to none but his form is not natural enough, the intuitive mastery is not there. Great melody, great counterpoint, great form at times, but not Beethoven.


I would agree that at times Brahms gives up his secrets less easily than some, but that's a very different matter from the sweeping claims you made previously about "all of Brahms' works" (even the Lullaby or any individual Hungarian Dance, to name just two?) and "most people" (I wouldn't presume to speak for even a tiny fraction of other people in their experience of Brahms, let alone the majority of them) or the similarly comprehensive judgments in your post above about "overall his pieces/more often than not the others" etc.

Nor would I agree with the suggestion which seems to underlie your posts that the quality of a composer's output can be gauged by how easy it is on the ear. For example, in common with Vaughan Williams I don't find Beethoven's Ninth Symphony particularly enjoyable but I'm quite willing to accept that the fault, if there is any, lies with me and not with the music.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> Mozart is another with superior form, even Schumann has better form. Chopin too, their pieces have a natural essence, a genuine expression and flow.
> 
> Maybe Brahms suffered under the pressure that was put on him by Schumann. He destroyed many of his works and laboured too much on unimportant elements, a perfectionist, almost OCD in his approach. Ironically it's when his pieces show the least craft that his genius shows. The melodic and contrapuntal moments of inspiration, where he described the complete idea coming to him already finished. Where the counterpoint equals the main melody in its beauty and complexity as they both fit so perfectly because they came together in a moment of inspiration.
> 
> There he shines, but the form to put together those great moments of inspiration is lacking.


Again, a wonderful flow of opinion that certainly will not be mistaken for fact.


----------



## 1996D

Animal the Drummer said:


> I would agree that at times Brahms gives up his secrets less easily than some, but that's a very different matter from the sweeping claims you made previously about "all of Brahms' works" (even the Lullaby or any individual Hungarian Dance, to name just two?) and "most people" (I wouldn't presume to speak for even a tiny fraction of other people in their experience of Brahms, let alone the majority of them) or the similarly comprehensive judgments in your post above about "overall his pieces/"more often than not the others" etc.
> 
> Nor would I agree with the suggestion which seems to underlie your posts that the quality of a composer's output can be gauged by how easy it is on the ear. For example, in common with Vaughan Williams I don't find Beethoven's Ninth Symphony particularly enjoyable but I'm quite willing to accept that the fault, if there is any, lies with me and not with the music.


It's more to do with analysis than individual taste, and of course I'm always looking at what the general public finds attractive in music, and determined to get to the bottom of why classical music isn't universally appreciated, and solve that conundrum.

Because Brahms' ideas came already with counterpoint maybe that exhausted his creativity so he couldn't see what came next, and instead had to rely on industry to work out the in-between - I think this is why he has dull, tedious moments. As more time is allowed to pass it's harder to remember the original inspiration, it might never come back; that's why writing fast and explosively is crucial.

I know that Mozart composed entire pieces in as little as weeks and his creativity did not exhaust, so the next phrase would be the right one because the idea was always fresh; he never forgot the intention. There is great congruence in his music because of this. With Brahms you have puzzling moments of dishonesty, of break of inspiration, and people hate him for that.

I'll never forget the day I went to see a Schoenberg and Brahms concert, it was Transfigured Night and Brahms' sextet, and half the audience showed up after the Brahms ended, maybe more than half. Some even waited in the corridor as Brahms was played to have a chat.

They were mostly students but this was very telling of the tediousness of Brahms to people in general, and I see their point.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

1996D, care to point out what you consider to be a couple of these "dull, tedious moments" of "dishonesty, break of inspiration..." in Brahms's major works?


----------



## Strange Magic

> 1996D: I'll never forget the day I went to see a Schoenberg and Brahms concert, it was Transfigured Night and Brahms' sextet, and half the audience showed up after the Brahms ended, maybe more than half. Some even waited in the corridor as Brahms was played to have a chat.
> 
> They were mostly students but this was very telling of the tediousness of Brahms to people in general, and I see their point.


It was certainly telling of the audience. An audience of mature and omnivorous music lovers would perhaps had a different reaction. But, of course, your anecdote is...anecdotal.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> It was certainly telling of the audience. An audience of mature and omnivorous music lovers would perhaps had a different reaction. But, of course, your anecdote is...anecdotal.


They were advanced music students at a top university.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> They were advanced music students at a top university.


'Nuff said! :lol:


----------



## 1996D

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> 1996D, care to point out what you consider to be a couple of these "dull, tedious moments" of "dishonesty, break of inspiration..." in Brahms's major works?


Compare him to Tchaikovsky or Schumann and you'll see my point. The music is too demanding, the form doesn't flow. If Wagner said it was elitist I'll say that it's misguided and comes from an insecure man with a desire to live up to and secretly to surpass Beethoven. It's overambitious, over-academic, and doesn't come naturally as Mozart does, even if he's even more complex.

With Mozart the complexity feels completely natural and somehow isn't demanding.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

1996D said:


> Compare him to Tchaikovsky or Schumann and you'll see my point. The music is too demanding, the form doesn't flow. If Wagner said it was elitist I'll say that it's misguided and comes from an insecure man with a desire to live up to and secretly to surpass Beethoven. It's overambitious, over-academic, and doesn't come naturally as Mozart does, even if he's even more complex.
> 
> With Mozart the complexity feels completely natural and somehow isn't demanding.


I mean specific excerpts. So much of TC is just opinionated babbling, and people very rarely actually refer to the music they're talking about.


----------



## Fabulin

Strange Magic said:


> It was certainly telling of the audience. An audience of mature and omnivorous music lovers would perhaps had a different reaction. But, of course, your anecdote is...anecdotal.


Absolute omnivorousness is hardly a virtue.


----------



## Strange Magic

Fabulin said:


> Absolute omnivorousness is hardly a virtue.


Absolute anything is hardly a virtue. But I do not consider musical omnivorousness remotely a vice but rather quite a virtue. How about you?


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> Compare him to Tchaikovsky or Schumann and you'll see my point. The music is too demanding, the form doesn't flow. If Wagner said it was elitist I'll say that it's misguided and comes from an insecure man with a desire to live up to and secretly to surpass Beethoven. It's overambitious, over-academic, and doesn't come naturally as Mozart does, even if he's even more complex.
> 
> With Mozart the complexity feels completely natural and somehow isn't demanding.


I don't see your point. The point is, I think, that some like Brahms more than you, and probably some like his music less. I like Mozart's music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I must admit that it had never occurred to me that it was characteristic of Brahms that he produced overlong, over-academic, difficult works.

From a young age I always found many of his major works to be readily accessible, delightful pieces which did not ramble on.

He's hardly Bruckner or Wagner on length, and Schubert could teach him a thing or two about rambling. Nor was he heading off in the direction of Schoenberg when it comes to an academic approach. For people with a liking for the classical and romantic periods he was a pivotal figure who balanced them marvellously (if you like him) or fell between two stools (if you don't).

But demanding????? Doesn't flow????? I'm scratching my head.


----------



## 1996D

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I mean specific excerpts. So much of TC is just opinionated babbling, and people very rarely actually refer to the music they're talking about.


I love Brahms so I don't really want to deconstruct him, but the 3rd piano quartet was mentioned here and that's a good example. A beautiful 3rd movement sandwiched by uninspired ramblings. The opening movement is promising but is followed by a horrible Scherzo that would prevent most from getting to the beautiful 3rd movement. When the beauty ends, it's followed by a tedious final movement with a only a few good moments that almost spoils what you've just listened.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> I love Brahms so I don't really want to deconstruct him, but the 3rd piano quartet was mentioned here and that's a good example. A beautiful 3rd movement sandwiched by uninspired ramblings. The opening movement is promising but is followed by a horrible Scherzo that would prevent most from getting to the beautiful 3rd movement. When the beauty ends, it's followed by a tedious final movement with a only a few good moments that almost spoils what you've just listened.


I see an excellent thread here: Deconstructing Brahms.


----------



## 1996D

Other than the 2nd and 4th movements from 4:34 to 4:53 I don't know what he was thinking, it's completely out of place. Then from 6:40 to 7:26 it's simply unnecessary stalling instead of getting to the beautiful theme.

The 3rd movement is perfect.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

"Out of place", "simply unnecessary"? What you mean is you don't like them, which is your privilege, but there's no standard by which those personal reactions of yours are remotely objective in the way you appear to be claiming.


----------



## 1996D

Animal the Drummer said:


> "Out of place", "simply unnecessary"? What you mean is you don't like them, which is your privilege, but there's no standard by which those personal reactions of yours are remotely objective in the way you appear to be claiming.


I already gave you the context, it's to study what makes music great to the point that a large number of people can enjoy it. Brahms is not Mozart, people don't generally like him and the why is the interest here.

In Mozart everything fits, it's like Italian architecture, nothing is out of place. The beauty of the themes is not the point because both have beautiful themes, it's obviously to do with the construction and Brahms does have out of place and unnecessary material.


----------



## Botschaft

1996D said:


> Mozart is another with superior form, even Schumann has better form.


Simpler form maybe. Compare the opening movement of Brahms' third symphony with that of Schumann's third: Brahms clearly has a better sense of architecture, like Beethoven.



1996D said:


> Compare him to Tchaikovsky or Schumann and you'll see my point. The music is too demanding


For you. That's the problem. In the opening movement of Brahms' fourth symphony there is for me a sense of flow and congruence quite unlike anything else.


----------



## janxharris

1996D said:


> I already gave you the context, it's to study what makes music great to where a large number of people can enjoy it. Brahms is not Mozart, people don't generally like him and the why is the interest here.
> 
> In Mozart everything fits, it's like Italian architecture, nothing is out of place.


Your argument is a well known logical fallacy.


----------



## 1996D

Waldesnacht said:


> For you. That's the problem. In the opening movement of Brahms' fourth symphony there is for me a sense of flow and congruence quite unlike anything else.


I prefer Brahms to Schumann and Tchaikovsky but most people don't, the latter certainly is much more loved. Brahms does have great movements but it's as a whole that his pieces are lacking, the ratio of great themes to what most would hear as filler material is not good. I really don't know why anyone would write longer pieces than Mozart. Are you more creative than Mozart? There is no one more creative, so it's simply arrogant to write longer pieces.


----------



## 1996D

janxharris said:


> Your argument is a well known logical fallacy.


OI'm only interested in what the people like, we're in a democracy we have no choice but to adapt.


----------



## Botschaft

1996D said:


> I prefer Brahms to Schumann and Tchaikovsky but most people don't, the latter certainly is much more loved. Brahms does have great movements but it's as a whole that his pieces are lacking, the ratio of great themes to what most would hear as filler material is not good. I really don't know why anyone would write longer pieces than Mozart. Are you more creative than Mozart? There is no one more creative, so it's simply arrogant to write longer pieces.


You do know that Beethoven wrote longer pieces than Mozart, right? Moreover, you aren't supposed to listen to large-scale works such as those of Beethoven and Brahms like collections of individual themes patched together. There is no "filler material" in Beethoven or Brahms.


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> I already gave you the context, it's to study what makes music great to the point that a large number of people can enjoy it. Brahms is not Mozart, people don't generally like him and the why is the interest here.
> 
> In Mozart everything fits, it's like Italian architecture, nothing is out of place. The beauty of the themes is not the point because both have beautiful themes, it's obviously to do with the construction and Brahms does have out of place and unnecessary material.


I don't generally like Mozart - and I'm people.

I started a thread on my problem with Mozart - and it is clearly my problem.

The truth is that people are different: some find Brahms naturally appealing and Mozart not so much; some are the other way round; some like both; and some doubtless dislike both. Many are probably entirely oblivious to their works.

It's a wonderful world.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> I prefer Brahms to Schumann and Tchaikovsky but most people don't, the latter certainly is much more loved.
> 
> *******************************************************************
> 
> I'm only interested in what the people like, we're in a democracy we have no choice but to adapt.


Do these two quotes go together? If so, how?


----------



## 1996D

Waldesnacht said:


> You do know that Beethoven wrote longer pieces than Mozart, right? Moreover, you aren't supposed to listen to large-scale works such as those of Beethoven and Brahms like collections of individual themes patched together. There is no "filler material" in Beethoven or Brahms.


Beethoven was the master of form, nothing is ever out of place, he can get away with long works because of it. Mahler in his first 4 symphonies gets away with incredible length because the music is not demanding, and later on he makes it work because of the unpredictability and wild form, with a roller coaster of emotions that demand attention. With traditional form you simply can't do what Brahms does, it's boring to people; he was hated for a long time by critics and is still not as popular as his talent should merit.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> Do these two quotes go together? If so, how?


I'm looking to write music that's appropriate for right now, and rationalizing it. I'm sure there will come a time where demanding music is in high demand (a dictator maybe?) but right now all that matters is what the people like. We don't have a king and aristocrats, music must be for everyone yet new and engaging, at a level higher than money oriented movie scores.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> Beethoven was the master of form, nothing is ever out of place, he can get away with long works because of it. Mahler in his first 4 symphonies gets away with incredible length because the music is not demanding, and later on he makes it work because of the unpredictability and wild form, with a roller coaster of emotions that demand attention.....
> 
> **********************************************************
> 
> I really don't know why anyone would write longer pieces than Mozart. Are you more creative than Mozart? There is no one more creative, so it's simply arrogant to write longer pieces.


Do these two quotes go together? If so, how?


----------



## Caryatid

1996D said:


> Beethoven was the master of form, nothing is ever out of place, he can get away with long works because of it. Mahler in his first 4 symphonies gets away with incredible length because the music is not demanding, and later on he makes it work because of the unpredictability and wild form, with a roller coaster of emotions that demand attention. With traditional form you simply can't do what Brahms does, it's boring to people; he was hated for a long time by critics and is still not as popular as his talent should merit.


Of course, you are entitled not to like Brahms, but you have made some astounding empirical claims. Brahms isn't popular? Brahms's works are long? I mean, what are you talking about?

As for the moments you dislike in the third piano quartet, they are transitional passages. You use the phrase "unnecessary stalling." Have you not heard the second movement of the _Waldstein _sonata? Or the openings of Beethoven's Seventh and Ninth? This is a basic musical technique. There is nothing objectively wrong with it, but in any case it is far more frequent in Beethoven and Haydn than in Brahms.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> Do these two quotes go together? If so, how?


Best of both worlds.


----------



## 1996D

Caryatid said:


> Of course, you are entitled not to like Brahms, but you have made some astounding empirical claims. Brahms isn't popular? Brahms's works are long? I mean, what are you talking about?
> 
> As for the moments you dislike in the third piano quartet, they are transitional passages. You use the phrase "unnecessary stalling." Have you not heard the second movement of the _Waldstein _sonata? Or the openings of Beethoven's Seventh and Ninth? This is a basic musical technique. There is nothing objectively wrong with it, but in any case it is far more frequent in Beethoven and Haydn than in Brahms.


But Brahms isn't writing classical ideas, there is incongruence in his form and what he's trying to convey. His music requires freer form, the language is saying something else yet he tries to use classical forms with a stick up the butt academical approach.

Beethoven's form was much better too, he simply knew what came next. Brahms is awkward in his decision making, the first part I highlighted is terribly awkward, as are the 2nd and 4th movements. Mozart used to release just a single movement or a couple if he couldn't find the inspiration to finish - Brahms should've done the same.


----------



## Caryatid

1996D said:


> But Brahms isn't writing classical ideas, there is incongruence in his form and what he's trying to convey. His music requires freer form, the language is saying something else yet he tries to use classical forms with a stick up the butt academical approach.
> 
> Beethoven's form was much better too, he simply knew what came next. Brahms is awkward in his decision making, the first part I highlighted is terribly awkward, as are the 2nd and 4th movements. Mozart used to release just a single movement or a couple if he couldn't find the inspiration to finish - Brahms should've done the same.


In some sense Brahms's music is "awkward", but is that entirely a failing? At the very least one can say that it often seems to be deliberate. And the passage you call awkward is one of the most _memorable _in the whole movement, at least to me. I prefer the awkwardness of Brahms to the bland four-bar phrases and rhythmic homogeneity of so many earlier composers, including some great ones.


----------



## Ethereality

1996D said:


> But Brahms isn't writing classical ideas, there is incongruence in his form and what he's trying to convey. His music requires freer form, the language is saying something else yet he tries to use classical forms with a stick up the butt academical approach.
> 
> Beethoven's form was much better too, he simply knew what came next. Brahms is awkward in his decision making, the first part I highlighted is terribly awkward, as are the 2nd and 4th movements. Mozart used to release just a single movement or a couple if he couldn't find the inspiration to finish - Brahms should've done the same.


You're correct that Brahms isn't Classical.

_"Brahms' favorite composer was not Beethoven, but Mozart, though he deeply admired Beethoven as well. Next to Mozart, *Bach* was his favorite."_

The Baroque era had amazing qualities, but some awkward forms. The Classical period much improved upon them, it was extremely focused on traditional form as the very foundation of how a piece should be composed. Mozart and Beethoven's response to these forms was almost essentially rebellious; they clearly held a double standard between Ego and Super-Ego, thus their music was elevated twice beyond Classical of its time, for both fitting the rules and breaking out of them. Brahms on the other hand came to a more open stance on form that hadn't any influence of growing up within the Classical period. The Romantic era was fine with completely altering these forms or brushing them aside.



Caryatid said:


> In some sense Brahms's music is "awkward", but is that entirely a failing?


Maybe? As Ravel says, every composer makes mistakes, there is no perfect music. I'm not dogging on Brahms at all. Critiquing him or anyone for that matter can be a valid and respectful perspective to take.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> Other than the 2nd and 4th movements from 4:34 to 4:53 I don't know what he was thinking, it's completely out of place. Then from 6:40 to 7:26 it's simply unnecessary stalling instead of getting to the beautiful theme.
> 
> The 3rd movement is perfect.


Does it look like I'm stalking you, Dave? Haha. I like the 2nd and 4th movements over the 3rd. Those 2 movements are brilliant in my view. Great motivic development. The 3rd movement is a longer theme, and which I feel is more predictable, but the piano accompaniment is great.


----------



## Guest

Sometimes the piano writing of Brahms (except in the two concertos) can be quite clunky and naive, but quite a lot of it is really excellent. Isn't it amazing how we instantly recognize the sound world of composers; a brief hearing of this Piano Quartet No. 3 in C also immediately yells "Brahms".

Here's a very good example of Brahms' excellent integration of piano and strings:


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Does it look like I'm stalking you, Dave? Haha. I like the 2nd and 4th movements over the 3rd. Those 2 movements are brilliant in my view. Great motivic development. The 3rd movement is a longer theme, and which I feel is more predictable, but the piano accompaniment is great.


You're known to like experimental music Phil, most people can't stand it and just want to be inspired, to have that moment where the world stops that the likes of Mozart bring. To be honest I'm over the former, there is a point where you mature and accept conventional beauty, the goodness of it, and wild experimentation ends as you find what you like and what you're capable of; building on your strengths further.

Maybe it's also because I'm realizing that the people matter and that we're all equal in a sense, and that writing for nobody is a waste of time.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> You're known to like experimental music Phil, most people can't stand it and just want to be inspired, to have that moment where the world stops that the likes of Mozart bring. To be honest I'm over the former, there is a point where you mature and accept conventional beauty, the goodness of it, and wild experimentation ends as you find what you like and what you're capable of; building on your strengths further.
> 
> Maybe it's also because I'm realizing that the people matter and that we're all equal in a sense, and that writing for nobody is a waste of time.


Yeah, but those 2nd and 4th movements of the Brahms is not experimental, but fully fleshed-out music.


----------



## RogerWaters

1996D said:


> there is incongruence in his form and what he's trying to convey. His music requires freer form, the language is saying something else yet he tries to use classical forms.


Musical language doesn't 'say' anything. It isn't a language in the sense English is, which uses words with semantic content (i.e. 'says' something!). Hence, the problem you find with Brahms isn't accurately captured, I don't think anyway, by some incongruence between form and what the music is 'saying'.

Interpreting what you saying(!) charitably, you think there is a mismatch between Brahm's strict use of form and... something. Emotional content? I'm not sure what it is, and perceive no such mismatch. I don't think Brahms would have even half the appeal he does to me if he wasn't a master of form.


----------



## Ethereality

I can understand 1996D's point honestly when it comes to form. I think others could analyze it more, but comparative to others, Brahms drags on. He's already written a perfectly valid statement 5 minutes in, ready for a new turn of development and variation, but suddenly the changes and contrasts lack for a bit and he keeps going-- it's almost like he's being... _different_, building on all his hard work in larger layers and expressions. To me honestly it's as though he's revolutionizing development even more, and he's doing this all without forcefully pushing anything onto the listener. The only thing that's driving a piece, aren't 'big changes' and 'major events', but it's the listener's invested interest that's driving his music forward. An esoteric curiosity for what happens next.


----------



## Guest

Ethereality said:


> I can understand 1996D's point honestly when it comes to form. I think others could analyze it more, but comparative to others, Brahms drags on. He's already written a perfectly valid statement 5 minutes in, ready for a new turn of development and variation, but suddenly the changes and contrasts lack for a bit and he keeps going-- it's almost like he's being... _different_, building on all his hard work in larger layers and expressions. To me honestly it's as though he's revolutionizing development even more, and he's doing this all without forcefully pushing anything onto the listener. The only thing that's driving a piece, aren't 'big changes' and 'major events', but it's the listener's invested interest that's driving it forward.


Ask 151 of the world's conductors for their symphony recommendations, and Brahms has two in the top 10, the same number as Beethoven, whereas Mozart has only one, and Mahler has three. (Berlioz and Tchaikovsky are the others in the top ten.)

Whatever he lacks in 'form', he holds his own wrt symphonies in this poll at any rate.

https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/


----------



## DavidA

MacLeod said:


> Ask 151 of the world's conductors for their symphony recommendations, and Brahms has two in the top 10, the same number as Beethoven, whereas Mozart has only one, and Mahler has three. (Berlioz and Tchaikovsky are the others in the top ten.)
> 
> Whatever he lacks in 'form', he holds his own wrt symphonies in this poll at any rate.
> 
> https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/


Yes but we happen to be listeners not conductors!


----------



## NLAdriaan

Through all the usual noise, I think it is fair to say that we have some sort of common playground on the Brahms situation. Those who think Brahms is the #1 and those who don't. Actually this is the case in almost any thread. 

The title of the thread is already suggestive in creating polarisation. This is harmful to the level of discussion, as we also can see in this thread. Brahms as the subject of a controversy, it was new to me. 

Anyhow, the side with a somewhat subtle opinion on Brahms (AKA the 'haters') somehow managed to stay in one piece against the less subtle (AKA the admirers) side that doesn't accept any reasoning why Brahms might not be the greatest of all time.

It is quite tiring to find that time and time again, this forum mistakens a discussion of pros and cons with a fight on live an death.


----------



## Eclectic Al

This thread is indeed par for the course for TC. A question is asked: Why is Brahms so great? Some people seek to address this question. Then others, who don't think he was great try to derail the discussion by introducing a different question: Why is Brahms not so great? Well fine, but that wasn't the question, and it is mischievous or malicious to raise it.

I can imagine 3 threads:
1) Why is Brahms so great?
2) Why is Brahms not so great?
3) What are the strengths and weaknesses of Brahms?

If you don't want to address question (1) then start a separate thread on questions 2 or 3. This thread is on question (1). You might believe that Mozart was vastly superior to Brahms. Fine, but this is not the thread for that.

It's much like someone turning up at a meeting of a Liverpool supporters club, and spending their time explaining why Manchester City are better (- replace with the Packers and the Steelers if you're from the US). It's a view, but it's not the place for it.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Mijnheer Adriaan, there are times when that does happen, but I don't agree that this thread is an example of it. The posters who have taken issue with 1996D have not made any claims about "the greatest of all time", and the idea that the "haters" have expressed "a somewhat subtle opinion" on Brahms is nonsense twice over. One: there are no "haters" here - even 1996D has said he likes Brahms. Two: far from being "subtle", he's made sweeping statements about (a) the supposed inadequacies of Brahms' music, and (b) the way he claims "everyone" reacts to it, without one single shred of evidence to support either, presenting his personal reactions and his assumptions about the views of others as objective fact when they are nothing of the kind. It's been about as "subtle" as a charging rhino.


----------



## Eclectic Al

NLAdriaan said:


> Through all the usual noise, I think it is fair to say that we have some sort of common playground on the Brahms situation. Those who think Brahms is the #1 and those who don't. Actually this is the case in almost any thread.


I don't think that's what's going on. For myself, I think Brahms was great, but I wouldn't place him as my #1 (if I was into that).

To the extent that I have another composer as my #1, I suppose I could try and describe why my #1 is better than Brahms, but that wouldn't be an answer to the question of why Brahms is so great. In this thread I would only make remarks which relate to the strengths of Brahms - the reasons why I think he is great. To provide posts which focus on reasons why I don't think he is great (or why others are greater) is rude. The question posted (and the accompanying original post) clearly requests discussion of what people find to be the positives in Brahms, and it is only polite to respond in that vein.


----------



## Guest

NLAdriaan said:


> The title of the thread is already suggestive in creating polarisation.


Well, yes...and no. You're right that the word 'great' is a regular trigger, and sure enough, it's triggered some polarisation. However, the writer of the OP posted intelligently, I thought. It can be difficult to ignore those whose instinct is to react by saying (in effect, not necessarily in so many words) that Brahms isn't great - though this doesn't happen until #33. Almost all posts prior to that responded as much to the OP as to the title, and, IMO, intelligently so. There's almost 50 more posts that follow which focus on his works and members' largely positive reactions to them.

So, detours aside (which weren't, on the whole, in opposition to the premise of the OP, whatever the negative impact on the thread) there's been some very positive discussion.

One of the intentions behind my last post was to show that whatever personal opinions are expressed here, pro or con, there is some substance to the assertion that Brahms is regarded as a great composer, and the thread ought to be uncontroversial.


----------



## Guest

Animal the Drummer said:


> Mijnheer Adriaan, there are times when that does happen, but I don't agree that this thread is an example of it. The posters who have taken issue with 1996D have not made any claims about "the greatest of all time", and the idea that the "haters" have expressed "a somewhat subtle opinion" on Brahms is nonsense twice over. *One: there are no "haters" here *- even 1996D has said he likes Brahms. Two: far from being "subtle", he's made sweeping statements about (a) the supposed inadequacies of Brahms' music, and (b) the way he claims "everyone" reacts to it, without one single shred of evidence to support either, presenting his personal reactions and his assumptions about the views of others as objective fact when they are nothing of the kind. It's been about as "subtle" as a charging rhino.


There have been some 'lukewarmers', whose view is that Brahms is overrated.

I took 'haters' to mean those with some agenda other than wishing to discuss Brahms' greatness, rather than posters who are explicitly anti-Brahms. There has been plenty of evidence of that, as you rightly say.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> I don't think that's what's going on. For myself, I think Brahms was great, but I wouldn't place him as my #1 (if I was into that).
> 
> .


The problem with the title is that it does tend to produce polarisation. Do I believe Brahms was a musical genius? Yes! Anyone who can write music like the piano or violin concertos has to be some sort of genius in my book. Is he the greatest? No. Others do far for me than Brahms, which is not to say I don't enjoy listening to the old boy sometimes in the works that connect with me. Do I believe his violin concerto is the equal Beethoven? No Never. Do I enjoy it? Yes of course I do. So with all his music. I might not think it's the greatest but that doesn't stop me enjoying it.


----------



## Strange Magic

The problem so often begins here on TC when posters attempt to elevate their preferences and what are actually their favorites onto a higher plane, a more "objective" plane, into Greatness. It seemingly is not sufficient, not enough, to have a favorite something--not valid enough. But there is no Greatness in the arts--there is only what you and I prefer. Heartbreaking for some: dreams shattered that there is some Platonic Ur-World where Greatness (or Badness) in the arts is manifest to all (or to all those properly attuned). Brahms is my favorite composer, but no more than that. But, for me, it's all the reward I need.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> The problem so often begins here on TC when posters attempt to elevate their preferences and what are actually their favorites onto a higher plane, a more "objective" plane, into Greatness. It seemingly is not sufficient, not enough, to have a favorite something--not valid enough. But there is no Greatness in the arts--there is only what you and I prefer. Heartbreaking for some: dreams shattered that there is some Platonic Ur-World where Greatness (or Badness) in the arts is manifest to all (or to all those properly attuned). Brahms is my favorite composer, but no more than that. But, for me, it's all the reward I need.


I agree. However, as long as "great" is interpreted as meaning that it is great for you - ie you get great satisfaction from the music then I don't object to the word. Brahms isn't my favourite composer, but he is one of them, and I would count any of my favourites as great, in the sense of great for me.

That's why I don't understand why the title would be seen as polarising. A title asking for reasons why people find Brahms great does not prompt me to think that I must chip in by noting why he is not great or why someone else is greater. The OP has expressed no interest whatsoever in reasons why I might think that Brahms is not great, nor why I might think that Mozart (or whoever) is better, so I don't feel it would be appropriate to post on those separate questions.

The least congenial aspect of the TC discussions is that many posts address questions different from those asked, and do so in a way which is only likely to provoke or to irritate.


----------



## Botschaft

NLAdriaan said:


> Through all the usual noise, I think it is fair to say that we have some sort of common playground on the Brahms situation. Those who think Brahms is the #1 and those who don't. Actually this is the case in almost any thread.
> 
> The title of the thread is already suggestive in creating polarisation. This is harmful to the level of discussion, as we also can see in this thread. Brahms as the subject of a controversy, it was new to me.
> 
> Anyhow, the side with a somewhat subtle opinion on Brahms (AKA the 'haters') somehow managed to stay in one piece against the less subtle (AKA the admirers) side that doesn't accept any reasoning why Brahms might not be the greatest of all time.
> 
> It is quite tiring to find that time and time again, this forum mistakens a discussion of pros and cons with a fight on live an death.


You seem to suggest that it's somehow controversial to assert that Brahms was a great composer, when in fact he has been generally held as one of the greatest composers of all time continuously since his own day. I wonder what Carlos Kleiber, the man in your avatar, thought of Brahms.


----------



## Enthusiast

1996D said:


> You're known to like experimental music Phil, most people can't stand it and just want to be inspired, to have that moment where the world stops that the likes of Mozart bring. To be honest I'm over the former, there is a point where you mature and accept conventional beauty, the goodness of it, and wild experimentation ends as you find what you like and what you're capable of; building on your strengths further.


Aside from wondering how you know what most people want - presumably it is by watching the pop charts or some vaguely classical version of them - this had me wondering how you got over your once liking what you call experimental music. Before you got over that unfortunate taste what "experimental" music did you get to know and enjoy? You often come over as someone who knows little about contemporary music ... so that you seem to have rejected the idea of it rather than the experience.



1996D said:


> Maybe it's also because I'm realizing that the people matter and that we're all equal in a sense, and that writing for nobody is a waste of time.


That's all well and fine as a personal manifesto. I imagine you are now writing pop songs. Any that we might know?


----------



## Phil loves classical

^^ You voiced my exact thought. I hadn't seen any evidence of openness on the part of Dave born in 1996 when it comes to more experimental or modern sort of stuff. It seemed to me he barricaded himself from it before he got the chance to really explore or see what makes it tick. His grounds for dismissing Brahms' 2nd and 4th movements of the piano quartet seem kind of thin.


----------



## Guest

Waldesnacht said:


> You seem to suggest that it's somehow controversial to assert that Brahms was a great composer,


I didn't read his post that way. It seemed to me he was not objecting to the idea that Brahms was great (not "the greatest", as soem seem to have read it), but to the title of the thread as a potentially provocative one. In fact, he said



> Brahms as the subject of a controversy, it was new to me


In other words, his view about Brahms is the same as yours and mine.


----------



## SanAntone

NLAdriaan said:


> The title of the thread is already suggestive in creating polarisation.


I don't agree. This is a thread for admirers of Brahms to express why they think he is among the great composers.

For myself, an admirer of most of his works, Brahms combined 1) a command of form and development of his materials with 2) sophisticated melodic and harmonic gifts, all resulting in expressive music that is very moving at times.


----------



## Botschaft

MacLeod said:


> I didn't read his post that way. It seemed to me he was not objecting to the idea that Brahms was great (not "the greatest", as soem seem to have read it), but to the title of the thread as a potentially provocative one. In fact, he said
> 
> In other words, his view about Brahms is the same as yours and mine.


But then how is "Why is Brahms so great" provocative? If it were questioning Brahms' greatness (which I initially suspected) it would have been provocative, but now it's clearly presupposing it. It's not inviting people to weigh in on whether Brahms is great or how great.


----------



## Guest

Waldesnacht said:


> But then how is "Why is Brahms so great" provocative? If it were questioning Brahms' greatness (which I initially suspected) it would have been provocative, but now it's clearly presupposing it. It's not inviting people to weigh in on whether Brahms is great or how great.


_Potentially _provocative. As I argued already, it's not just what the title _appears _to invite, but how some gatecrash on what they might think it _ought _to be about: often, that there are no agree standards of 'greatness', so who's to say. In fact, I already argued that this didn't seem to have happened in this particular case.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> _Potentially _provocative. As I argued already, it's not just what the title _appears _to invite, but how some gatecrash on what they might think it _ought _to be about: often, that there are no agree standards of 'greatness', so who's to say. In fact, I already argued that this didn't seem to have happened in this particular case.


I think if we can agree that a symphony passes a standard of 'greatest' then what are we comparing it to? Is it so difficult to discover the achievements (at least for ourselves personally)? It's an important question because it's so much a part of the appreciation process.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> I think if we can agree that a symphony passes a standard of 'greatest' then what are we comparing it to? Is it so difficult to discover the achievements (at least for ourselves personally)? It's an important question because it's so much a part of the appreciation process.


Greatest is beyond greater, and both inherently involve comparison.
However, great does not inherently involve comparison.

I can say that one symphony is great because it moves me, and another symphony is not because it doesn't. In order to do that I do not need to compare them, although I might deduce after the event that it is rational to believe that the one is better than the other (to me). (Of course this is not mathematically necessary: in the game of rock, paper, scissors, rock > scissors, scissors > paper and paper > rock.)

If I want to say one is greater than the other as the point of my thinking, then I am comparing them. However, this thread was about why Brahms was so great, and not about whether he was greater than anyone else.


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> Greatest is beyond greater, and both inherently involve comparison.
> However, great does not inherently involve comparison.
> 
> I can say that one symphony is great because it moves me, and another symphony is not because it doesn't. In order to do that I do not need to compare them, although I might deduce after the event that it is rational to believe that the one is better than the other (to me). (Of course this is not mathematically necessary: in the game of rock, paper, scissors, rock > scissors, scissors > paper and paper > rock.)
> 
> If I want to say one is greater than the other as the point of my thinking, then I am comparing them. However, this thread was about why Brahms was so great, and not about whether he was greater than anyone else.


Yes, you're just spinning your wheels, as they say.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> ^^ You voiced my exact thought. I hadn't seen any evidence of openness on the part of Dave born in 1996 when it comes to more experimental or modern sort of stuff. It seemed to me he barricaded himself from it before he got the chance to really explore or see what makes it tick. His grounds for dismissing Brahms' 2nd and 4th movements of the piano quartet seem kind of thin.


It has no purpose, no audience, it's solipsistic.


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> Aside from wondering how you know what most people want - presumably it is by watching the pop charts or some vaguely classical version of them - this had me wondering how you got over your once liking what you call experimental music. Before you got over that unfortunate taste what "experimental" music did you get to know and enjoy? You often come over as someone who knows little about contemporary music ... so that you seem to have rejected the idea of it rather than the experience. That's all well and fine as a personal manifesto. I imagine you are now writing pop songs. Any that we might know?


To elaborate further on contemporary music, I think it not only has no audience but that it can become a bubble for people to delude themselves into thinking they're superior - it's quite dangerous. Mike is a good example, who thinks Boulez is better than Mozart and has created an entire fantasy world around music, where the power of music to inspire people doesn't matter. It's escapism.

As far as pop music goes, it definitely has some merit and I respect those in that industry. It's a different skill set; having a great voice is the most important thing, and there are some very talented singers out there who deserve the audience they have.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> To elaborate further on contemporary music, I think it not only has no audience but that it can become a bubble for people to delude themselves into thinking they're superior - it's quite dangerous. Mike is a good example, who thinks Boulez is better than Mozart and has created an entire fantasy world around music, where the power of music to inspire people doesn't matter. It's escapism.
> 
> As far as pop music goes, it definitely has some merit and I respect those in that industry. It's a different skill set; having a great voice is the most important thing, and there are some very talented singers out there who deserve the audience they have.


Contemporary music does have an audience, which just doesn't include you. I never got the impression that Mike said Boulez is better or superior to Mozart, except that they're different, and that music has evolved since Mozart's time. I get a feeling you will say it hasn't, at least in a good way.

So pop music has more merit than contemporary Classical because it's more popular...


----------



## Luchesi

When Grunge came out it seemed to me to be the minimalist response to the Rock of the 80s. So I was intrigued that the 50s might be early classicism, the 60s were late classicism. The 70s were early romanticism, the 80s were late romanticism. Minimalism of Grunge was the natural reaction of that generation of enthusiasts.


----------



## mikeh375

I have no desire to engage with you 1996D, but just to set the record straight, I've never said that Boulez is better than Mozart and I actually own the complete works of Mozart on CD but not the complete Boulez. I can also play many of his piano sonatas and enjoy them immensely. 
I also strongly urge you to learn your craft if you intend to compete with Alma Deutscher or are trying to compete with Mozart himself. 

Kindly leave me out of your delusions from now on.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> Contemporary music does have an audience, which just doesn't include you. I never got the impression that Mike said Boulez is better or superior to Mozart, except that they're different, and that music has evolved since Mozart's time. I get a feeling you will say it hasn't, at least in a good way.
> 
> So pop music has more merit than contemporary Classical because it's more popular...


He actually wrote those exact words and I'm sure he believes it.

I do think pop has more merit that contemporary classical, it has infinitely more reach and is culturally significant just as Mozart was culturally significant in his time. Someone like Einaudi has some cultural influence but I think it can be expanded, and more complex music can once again be relevant.


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> He actually wrote those exact words and I'm sure he believes it.
> 
> I do think pop has more merit that contemporary classical, it has infinitely more reach and is culturally significant just as Mozart was culturally significant in his time. Someone like Einaudi has some cultural influence but I think it can be expanded, and more complex music can once again be relevant.


"...and more complex music can once again be relevant."

From what I see, I don't think there's enough education for that.

What turned you on to serious music? Can you remember what helped?


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> I have no desire to engage with you 1996D, but just to set the record straight, I've never said that Boulez is better than Mozart and I actually own the complete works of Mozart on CD but not the complete Boulez. I can also play many of his piano sonatas and enjoy them immensely.
> I also strongly urge you to learn your craft if you intend to compete with Alma Deutscher or are trying to compete with Mozart himself.
> 
> Kindly leave me out of your delusions from now on.





tdc said:


> And Boulez doesn't sell much, because he is no where near the composer Mozart was, and he will never be considered so. But it was nice of him to do it, it must've been a real chore for him.





mikeh375 said:


> and Mozart of course will never ever be the composer Boulez was....just sayin"


Own up to your beliefs mate.


----------



## mikeh375

1996D said:


> Own up to your beliefs mate.


You have no "mate" here.
Context is everything. Comparing eggs to apples works both ways. You are p***ing in the wind. This is my last response to your delusional toxicity.


----------



## 1996D

mikeh375 said:


> You have no "mate" here.
> Context is everything. Comparing eggs to apples works both ways. You are p***ing in the wind. This is my last response to your delusional toxicity.


You're the perfect example, thanks for proving my point.


----------



## 1996D

Luchesi said:


> "...and more complex music can once again be relevant."
> 
> From what I see, I don't think there's enough education for that.
> 
> What turned you on to serious music? Can you remember what helped?


Einaudi and Rieu prove it can be done.

I think you underestimate people's ability to learn, it just needs to be presented in a way that's accessible, yet gradually demands more.

Contemporary music is a bubble of delusion that is completely disconnected to society and its values - it has aura of elitism yet it bothers no one because it's so irrelevant. Art that has no connection to society and has no ability to influence fails at the core.


----------



## Ethereality

Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, Debussy, Stravinsky, aren't Classical composers. They're pop music of the time. Not always the most popular, but they're firmly in the group. Today, most great Classical composers if you want to call them that, are not popular.

Some make the argument that pop music like Beethoven, J. Strauss, and Brahms was never 'great.' It's just what people tend to like.


----------



## 1996D

Ethereality said:


> Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Brahms, Debussy, Stravinsky, aren't Classical composers. They're pop music of the time. Not always the most popular, but they're firmly in the group. Today, most great Classical composers if you want to call them that, are not popular.
> 
> Some make the argument that pop music like Beethoven, J. Strauss, and Brahms was never 'great.' It's just what people tend to like.


The truth is contemporary music is not the natural progression of classical music. Since pop took over cultural relevancy classical music has had no role, and no public to keep it humbled or to demand anything from it, and so has been allowed to degenerate into what it is.

All the great composers of the past had large audiences and whole cities that would quickly show their disapproval if a piece wasn't to their liking, and in that way kept music from going of the rails - there were very demanding audiences. Very much like if today a pop act starts writing bad music and quickly sees that there are 100 people at his stadium show. This actually happens quite often and artists quickly see that they need to adjust.

But if you have no audience in the first place, nothing will matter, and you can continue living in this bubble. Institutions will give grants and awards to these irrelevant artists to avoid facing the truth that classical music is dead.


----------



## Eclectic Al

I find the way this discussion has gone disappointing. I have some sympathy with the idea that music which appeals to a smaller and smaller proportion of the population has questions to answer. In that sense I have some sympathy with 1996D. However, the relevance to Brahms escapes me.


----------



## Ethereality

NLAdriaan said:


> The title of the thread is already suggestive in creating polarisation. This is harmful to the level of discussion, as we also can see in this thread. Brahms as the subject of a controversy, it was new to me.
> 
> ... the less subtle (AKA the admirers) side that doesn't accept any reasoning why Brahms might not be the greatest of all time.


I already know this thread is not about why Brahms is the best, those opinions are up to individuals to hold. Most listeners in this day and age have pigeonholed certain composers in their mind without truly grasping their depth and talents for form and development, that is, I know Brahms was misunderstood because he was 'inaccessible,' and Tchaikovsky was misunderstood because he's 'immediately accessible' and that is how people think of him. But it's such a lie, it's an illusion. Tchaikovsky is perhaps the most misunderstood composer currently, and there is much more depth therein to be found than you could in a Brahms once you remove the incepted early misconception that he is 'accessible.' Tchaikovsky's _surface level_ is 'accessible.'


----------



## Eclectic Al

Ethereality said:


> I already know this thread is not about why Brahms is 'the best.' Most listeners in this day and age have pigeonholed certain composers in their mind without truly grasping their depth and talents for form and development, that is, I know Brahms was misunderstood because he was 'inaccessible,' and Tchaikovsky was misunderstood because he's 'immediately accessible' and that is how people think of him. But it's such a lie, it's an illusion. Tchaikovsky is perhaps the most misunderstood composer at this current point in time, and you will find much more depth therein than you could in a Brahms once the inherent, incepted lie is removed.


Now I'm more disappointed. Whether Brahms is "greater" than Tchaikovsky was never the point of this thread. Not a bone of contention here.


----------



## Ethereality

No contention here either. I'm politely responding to an opinion made about Brahms and Tchaikovsky.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Ethereality said:


> No contention here either. I'm responding to statements made about Brahms, and likewise Tchaikovsky wearing his 'heart on his sleeve.' There's nothing wrong with saying those things, but I personally believe that's a huge illusion and misconception.


There is, of course, plenty of great Tchaikovsky. And plenty of great Brahms. There may even be some OK Bach. :lol:


----------



## 1996D

Eclectic Al said:


> I find the way this discussion has gone disappointing. I have some sympathy with the idea that music which appeals to a smaller and smaller proportion of the population has questions to answer. In that sense I have some sympathy with 1996D. However, the relevance to Brahms escapes me.


To bring it back to Brahms a lot of his music was poorly received, including his excellent first piano concerto, and both people and critics disliked him for many years and even today many don't like him, but in spite of that he filled venues and generated discussion, so even if people disliked his music they still paid attention and he made a cultural impact. That goes to show that even a disliked artist isn't a failure as long as people care, which is not something you can say about contemporary music.

My criticism of Brahms arose from comparing him to Mozart and Beethoven which is another level, and to Tchaikovsky as far as popularity goes, who was much better received at the time, and who skilfully avoided having awkward moments in his music.

Chopin and Schumann are also more attuned to people's tastes and the former continues to have great appeal and brings many to classical music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> To bring it back to Brahms a lot of his music was poorly received, including his excellent first piano concerto, and both people and critics disliked him for many years and even today many don't like him, but in spite of that he filled venues and generated discussion, so even if people disliked his music they still paid attention and he made a cultural impact. That goes to show that even a disliked artist isn't a failure as long as people care, which is not something you can say about contemporary music.
> 
> My criticism of Brahms arose from comparing him to Mozart and Beethoven which is another level, and to Tchaikovsky as far as popularity goes, who was much better received at the time.
> 
> Chopin and Schumann are also perhaps more attuned to people's tastes and the former continues to have great appeal and brings many to classical music.


So much of this is just personal taste. I like little Schumann apart from the Cello concerto. Chopin moves me as salon music. Mozart is my missing piece - a few lovely slow movements but otherwise not so much. Tchaikovsky is a few pieces when I'm in the mood. Brahms, for me, is naturally appealing, as is Bach. Beethoven is great, but less readily appealing. I don't expect anyone to share my biases.

In this thread, though, all that matters is the positive feelings I have about Brahms. Anything else is irrelevant,


----------



## Ethereality

Brahms - Brilliant and inspiring
Tchaikovsky - In the Big 4 and entirely misinterpreted by most people
Chopin - Salon music, yes


----------



## 1996D

Eclectic Al said:


> So much of this is just personal taste. I like little Schumann apart from the Cello concerto. Chopin moves me as salon music. Mozart is my missing piece - a few lovely slow movements but otherwise not so much. Tchaikovsky is a few pieces when I'm in the mood. Brahms, for me, is naturally appealing, as is Bach. Beethoven is great, but less readily appealing. I don't expect anyone to share my biases.
> 
> In this thread, though, all that matters is the positive feelings I have about Brahms. Anything else is irrelevant,


I love Brahms too, guess just on a mission to find out why he isn't liked by many and the reasons are there. He's awkward and difficult, his form doesn't flow, his pieces become demanding and inaccessible and heavy: that's the conclusion.


----------



## Botschaft

1996D said:


> My criticism of Brahms arose from comparing him to Mozart and Beethoven which is another level, and to Tchaikovsky as far as popularity goes, who was much better received at the time, and who skilfully avoided having awkward moments in his music.
> 
> Chopin and Schumann are also more attuned to people's tastes and the former continues to have great appeal and brings many to classical music.


Can you stop this? If not you will be reported. And make no mistake: Mozart and Beethoven are most definitely _not_ on "another level" in any way whatsoever.



1996D said:


> I love Brahms too, guess just on a mission to find out why he isn't liked by many and the reasons are there. He's awkward and difficult, his form doesn't flow, his pieces become demanding and inaccessible and heavy: that's the conclusion.


That is _your_ baseless and erroneous conclusion. Off with you!


----------



## 1996D

Waldesnacht said:


> Can you stop this? If not you will be reported. And make no mistake: Mozart and Beethoven are most definitely _not_ on "another level" in any way whatsoever.


Reported for saying that Mozart and Beethoven are on another level? This is common knowledge, they are the best.



> That is your baseless and erroneous conclusion. Off with you!


"Why is Brahms great?" That's the topic of discussion, it's a question, it's not "Praises you have for Brahms". Deconstruction is an important aspect of understanding music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> Reported for saying that Mozart and Beethoven are on another level? This is common knowledge, they are the best.


Well, I think Bach fans may have a different opinion.

But it's not really relevant here. The thing that puzzles me is that you say you love Brahms, but you seem to think he is problematic in some way. I found him congenial from the start - his works that I like. Other works of his I don't love so much. That's not a problem - I don't love all Bach and he is my number 1. Why are you ambivalent about someone whose work includes stuff you love?


----------



## Ethereality

I can't speak for others, but I for one am quite confused at why honest criticisms and discussions on a said composer isn't allowed in a thread on said composer. Should it not be a given?

As someone pointed out:


1996D said:


> "Why is Brahms great?" That's the topic of discussion, it's a question, it's not "Praises you have for Brahms". Deconstruction is an important aspect of understanding music.


Maybe we need a new thread instead. If I'm mistaken, please disregard this comment.


----------



## 1996D

Eclectic Al said:


> Well, I think Bach fans may have a different opinion.
> 
> But it's not really relevant here. The thing that puzzles me is that you say you love Brahms, but you seem to think he is problematic in some way. I found him congenial from the start - his works that I like. Other works of his I don't love so much. That's not a problem - I don't love all Bach and he is my number 1. Why and you do ambivalent about someone whose work includes stuff you love?


No one is above criticism, again deconstruction is a key to understanding anything.


----------



## Botschaft

1996D said:


> Reported for saying that Mozart and Beethoven are on another level? This is common knowledge, they are the best.


It's not "common knowledge"; it's not even vaguely accurate.



> "Why is Brahms great?" That's the topic of discussion, it's a question, it's not "Praises you have for Brahms". Deconstruction is an important aspect of understanding music.


Nor is the topic why Brahms is so defective and inferior to other composers. And guess what? He isn't.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Ethereality said:


> I can't speak for others, but I for one am completely confused at why honest criticisms and discussions on a said composer isn't allowed in a thread on said composer. Should it not be a given? Maybe we need a new thread instead. If I'm mistaken, please disregard this comment.


I think that's spot on. A new thread is the place for discussion of whether Brahms is great. This is the place for sharing why he is great - starting from the assumption that he is.


----------



## 1996D

Waldesnacht said:


> Nor is the topic why Brahms is so defective and inferior to other composers. And guess what? He isn't.





Eclectic Al said:


> I think that's spot on. A new thread is the place for discussion of whether Brahms is great. This is the place for sharing why he is great - starting from the assumption that he is.


No, this is the right thread, a mixture of what makes him great and where he comes short. "Why is Brahms so great" is the perfect title for such discussion. It is a question after all, not a pronouncement.


----------



## Botschaft

1996D said:


> No, this is the right thread, a mixture of what makes him great and where he comes short. "Why is Brahms so great" is the perfect title for such discussion. It is a question after all, not a pronouncement.


He doesn't "come short" except in your warped imagination.


----------



## Guest

Eclectic Al said:


> So much of this is just personal taste. I like little Schumann apart from the Cello concerto. Chopin moves me as salon music. Mozart is my missing piece - a few lovely slow movements but otherwise not so much. Tchaikovsky is a few pieces when I'm in the mood. Brahms, for me, is naturally appealing, as is Bach. Beethoven is great, but less readily appealing. I don't expect anyone to share my biases.
> 
> In this thread, though, all that matters is the positive feelings I have about Brahms. Anything else is irrelevant,


No, that isn't correct about Schumann being (perhaps) 'more attuned to personal tastes'. His piano music was often 'difficult' and his wife became the major exponent of it - without that, *and the support of Liszt* it probably would have languished for many years. And don't forget that Schumann was dead at 46 and not able to enjoy the 'success' that other composers enjoyed.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> No one is above criticism, again deconstruction is a key to understanding anything.


Yes, especially post-modern deconstruction where there is no one body of work any better than any other. Didn't you mean 'ANALYSIS'?


----------



## 1996D

Waldesnacht said:


> He doesn't "come short" except in your warped imagination.


Stop being such a fanboy and be open to the discussion.


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> I love Brahms too, guess just on a mission to find out why he isn't liked by many and the reasons are there. He's awkward and difficult, his form doesn't flow, his pieces become demanding and inaccessible and heavy: that's the conclusion.


He's merely beyond Mendelssohn and Tchaikovsky. It was intentional. It's so important to have artistically constrained ambiguity of form and the other elements.


----------



## 1996D

Christabel said:


> Yes, especially *post-modern deconstruction where there is no one body of work any better than any other.* Didn't you mean 'ANALYSIS'?


Well you can see it as that but it's wiser to see it as viewing everyone and their work as that of a flawed human, which it is, and we are. The most important thing that deconstructionism brought is making everyone look ridiculous, including some men with quite dangerous and twisted ideas, but also levelling the field and making everyone and anything open to critique and discussion, which of course is essential to understanding.

It's ironic that now everyone is PC about everything but that shouldn't be for more intellectual discussions.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Well you can see it as that but it's wiser to see it as viewing everyone and their work as that of a flawed human, which it is, and we are. The most important thing that deconstructionism brought is making everyone look ridiculous, including some men with quite dangerous and twisted ideas, but also levelling the field and making everyone and anything open to critique and discussion, which of course is essential to understanding.
> 
> It's ironic that now everyone is PC about everything but that shouldn't be for more intellectual discussions.


"A flawed human". Ooooh; you mean 'the Fall'.


----------



## 1996D

Christabel said:


> "A flawed human". Ooooh; you mean 'the Fall'.


The whole movement is about that. Nietzsche made it seem like every human could be his own god until WW2 blatantly proved that wrong; we then had to be brought back down to earth philosophically.


----------



## Fabulin

Waldesnacht said:


> He doesn't "come short" except in your warped imagination.


Neither Brahms himself nor the greatest composers would have put him in the top 10. And he certainly would have objected to the statement that he "doesn't come short".

To the greatest composer! - "Yes, here is to Mozart!"
Or how he would give all his works for the Hebrides overture.
Or how he thought himself "the first Wagnerite".
Or what he thought of Schumann's music.

Don't be silly.


----------



## flamencosketches

Fabulin said:


> Neither Brahms himself nor the greatest composers would have put him in the top 10. And he certainly would have objected to the statement that he "doesn't come short".
> 
> To the greatest composer! - "Yes, here is to Mozart!"
> Or how he would give all his works for the Hebrides overture.
> Or how he thought himself "the first Wagnerite".
> Or what he thought of Schumann's music.
> 
> Don't be silly.


Brahms's own humility doesn't detract anything from his great talent, nor should it decrease anyone's appreciation of his music.


----------



## Botschaft

Fabulin said:


> Neither Brahms himself nor the greatest composers would have put him in the top 10. And he certainly would have objected to the statement that he "doesn't come short".
> 
> To the greatest composer! - "Yes, here is to Mozart!"
> Or how he would give all his works for the Hebrides overture.
> Or how he thought himself "the first Wagnerite".
> Or what he thought of Schumann's music.
> 
> Don't be silly.


Brahms was indeed outwardly self-deprecating, while considering himself the last great composer. What the greatest composers would have thought of him we have no means of knowing since all of his equals, save arguably Wagner, were all dead before he was even born.


----------



## Luchesi

I wonder what listeners are thinking of. Which works by others are better than his mature works, when they were written? I'm trying to list them for myself. Nothing stands out. After Brahms we have some better works, in my estimation.


----------



## Botschaft

Luchesi said:


> I wonder what listeners are thinking of. Which works by others are better than his mature works, when they were written? I'm trying to list them for myself. Nothing stands out. After Brahms we have some better works, in my estimation.


Better than Brahms? What could that possibly even mean? It's a contradiction in terms.


----------



## Ethereality

Waldesnacht said:


> Brahms was indeed outwardly self-deprecating, while considering himself the last great composer. What the greatest composers would have thought of him we have no means of knowing since all of his equals, save arguably Wagner, were all dead before he was even born.


I touched on this topic on page 17. Essentially, what composers think is of little import, because they're the composers the public already chooses as being authoratative. A circular issue:



Ethereality said:


> I know according to some data and quotes from famous composers of the Romantic and Contemporary periods, they preferred Tchaikovsky, Wagner and Mendelssohn over > Brahms. They consider Mahler about equal to = Brahms. But it's the public who decides who is famous/knowledgable. If the public likes x famous composers, then these composers' ignorance will naturally be reflected in books and articles, ie. Wagner and Tchaikovsky are already of the most famous and performed composers $-wise, reflecting what people already like. Thus who are the Classicists? If they're who the more musically invested and experienced back, then they simply reflect what that group already thinks they know. Nothing more advanced can be learned because their fame is determined by popularity.
> 
> I'm not convinced that there's more for older individuals to take away from in Brahms, than there isn't in say Tchaikovsky or Mahler. They've reached a stage that they can appreciate Brahms better, but there's no evidence of a completion of knowledge. Instead it might mean that now is a better time than ever to revisit other potentially overlooked composers, like Tchaikovsky and honestly a lot of famous Russian composers.


But I am most sure of the last paragraph here. Tchaikovsky is highly misinterpreted by the Classical community, passed off as a young man's 'surface enjoyment.' I'm sure he has more layers of subtley and development than Brahms does. He's not like Chopin who is mostly all on the surface. Most people decide to pigeonhole Tchaikovsky early on but haven't done their homework, understandably so, as it's easy to write off the composer's top-most layer of sound. He gives no indication that you have to 'dig deep,' while Brahms does, but whether the indication is there or not, has no bearing on what's actually going on in the music.


----------



## SanAntone

Brahms was highly regarded during his lifetime, and Schoenberg held him in high regard. I haven't devoted any time to the question of how other composers thought of Brahms, so I can't name others although I am sure there are some. It is obvious that Schumann thought Brahms was a great composer. His music is performed and recorded enough to indicate that he is considered to be among the premiere composers by several generations of artists and conductors.

But I am not here to defend Brahms against those who wish to make a case that he is not a "great" composer. I don't use that term, and don't think in those terms; I don't say more than who are my favorites. And my enjoyment is not increased or hampered if someone tells me that a composer I like is not a "great" composer, or vice versa.

I think it was Bartok who said that music is not a horse race.


----------



## 1996D

SanAntone said:


> Brahms was highly regarded during his lifetime, and Schoenberg held him in high regard. I haven't devoted any time to the question of how other composers thought of Brahms, so I can't name others although I am sure there are some. It is obvious that Schumann thought Brahms was a great composer. His music is performed and recorded enough to indicate that he is considered to be among the premiere composers by several generations of artists and conductors.
> 
> But I am not here to defend Brahms against those who wish to make a case that he is not a "great" composer. I don't use that term, and don't think in those terms; I don't say more than who are my favorites. And my enjoyment is not increased or hampered if someone tells me that a composer I like is not a "great" composer, or vice versa.
> 
> *I think it was Bartok who said that music is not a horse race.*


He is a great composer but that doesn't exempt him from discussion about his shortcomings, and he acknowledged he had many simply by destroying most of his works because of dissatisfaction. He did so verbally also.

The point is leaving the door open to improvement in music and that past figures are not untouchable and neither their music perfect. The fact that music is in the gutter right now shouldn't prevent from positive thinking.


----------



## Botschaft

Ethereality said:


> But I am most sure of the last sentence here. Tchaikovsky is highly misinterpreted, passed off as a young man's 'surface enjoyment.' I'm very sure he has more layers of subtley and development than Brahms does.


If so then surely he has "more layers of subtlety and development" (whatever that really means) than any other composer. I somehow doubt it.


----------



## Ethereality

Waldesnacht said:


> If so then surely he has "more layers of subtlety and development" (whatever that really means) than any other composer.


Actually, this might be true.


----------



## Luchesi

Waldesnacht said:


> Better than Brahms? What could that possibly even mean? It's a contradiction in terms.


I think Mahler and Ravel, and the later famous guys, have more effective tools and techniques for expression. It's not Brahms' fault.


----------



## annaw

Luchesi said:


> I think Mahler and Ravel, and the later famous guys, have more effective tools and techniques for expression. It's not Brahms' fault.


The "tools" didn't really differ so much. Notes are still notes. Brahms _could_ have written the same music Mahler wrote but don't you think he simply didn't want nor needed to? I think what Brahms expressed was very different from what Mahler wanted to express. They were different people communicating different things. I can but trust that Brahms tried to choose the best ways for conveying his personal self-expression. I think he did that marvellously well!


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> The "tools" didn't really differ so much. Notes are still notes. Brahms _could_ have written the same music Mahler wrote but don't you think he simply didn't want nor needed to? I think what Brahms expressed was very different from what Mahler wanted to express. They were different people communicating different things. I can but trust that Brahms tried to choose the best ways for conveying his personal self-expression. I think he did that marvellously well!


Brahms didn't have the strength or the flair for the dramatic that Mahler had. You know they call Mahler a whiner but there is none whinier than Brahms, he just doesn't have the emotional range.


----------



## Die Forelle

annaw said:


> I think what Brahms expressed was very different from what Mahler wanted to express. They were different people communicating different things. I can but trust that Brahms tried to choose the best ways for conveying his personal self-expression. I think he did that marvellously well!


This needed to be said! I quite agree.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Brahms didn't have the strength or the flair for the dramatic that Mahler had. You know they call Mahler a whiner but there is none whinier than Brahms, he just doesn't have the emotional range.


Wrong. Brahms did not whine. There is nothing self-indulgent in Brahms - as there is in both Bruckner and Mahler. In fact, apart from those early naive piano works, the music of Brahms is tight, concise and there's not a note too many nor too much. His music follows a scheme of logic that you just don't find in those two I mentioned. Even the (for me) too-dense texture of his German Requiem flows with logical precision.

This is a personal response; Mahler and Bruckner always sound like they are being made up as they go along. Or, another analogy; the pages of script arriving on the set of "The Big Sleep" while the film was in production and even its director not understanding any internal logic!! Mahler and Bruckner are the Raymond Chandler of the music world.


----------



## 1996D

Christabel said:


> Wrong. Brahms did not whine. There is nothing self-indulgent in Brahms - as there is in both Bruckner and Mahler. In fact, apart from those early naive piano works, the music of Brahms is tight, concise and there's not a note too many nor too much. His music follows a scheme of logic that you just don't find in those two I mentioned. Even the (for me) too-dense texture of his German Requiem flows with logical precision.
> 
> This is a personal response; Mahler and Bruckner always sound like they are being made up as they go along. Or, another analogy; the pages of script arriving on the set of "The Big Sleep" while the film was in production and even its director not understanding any internal logic!! Mahler and Bruckner are the Raymond Chandler of the music world.


That's not true, his 3rd piano quartet was shown here to be all over the place if compared to the perfection in form of Beethoven and Mozart; there are plenty out of place, erratic, awkward moments. Brahms is an inbetweener.

I think Mahler is the superior artist; Brahms hides under the classicism as an effort to imitate Beethoven; he lived in his shadow.

And by the way Mahler and Bruckner have very little in common, the latter is a midget in comparison.


----------



## Die Forelle

1996D said:


> Brahms didn't have the strength or the flair for the dramatic that Mahler had. You know they call Mahler a whiner but there is none whinier than Brahms, he just doesn't have the emotional range.


On this I disagree. It's out of the question that he doesn't have emotional range. As for dramatics...there are a few little known pieces by Brahms that you may not have heard of...called the Hungarian Dances.


----------



## Guest

Of course, a 'schism' in music occurred in his lifetime around Brahms versus Wagner, Mahler (and Bruckner). Brahms couldn't stand the music of Bruckner and made his feelings known, quite boorishly I feel, to that composer on occasion. Mostly this took the form of condescension or outright avoidance of Bruckner.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> That's not true, his 3rd piano quartet was shown here to be all over the place if compared to the perfection in form of Beethoven and Mozart; there are plenty out of place, erratic, awkward moments. Brahms is an inbetweener.
> 
> I think Mahler is the superior artist; Brahms hides under the classicism as an effort to imitate Beethoven; he lived in his shadow.
> 
> And by the way Mahler and Bruckner have very little in common, the latter is a midget in comparison.


Yours is a controversial viewpoint. Brahms did not imitate Beethoven; the latter was his hero. Shakespeare is my hero but I make no attempt to imitate him - nobody could. No writer ever did.

If you like your emotion sprawled all over the page, sappy and melancholic, grinding on and on then Mahler is your man. BUT his songs are a different matter altogether. I should qualify my comments by adding "*symphonic Mahler*".

I've just found this chamber music by Mahler and right away there's this lugubrious mien to the music:


----------



## 1996D

Christabel said:


> Yours is a controversial viewpoint. Brahms did not imitate Beethoven; the latter was his hero. Shakespeare is my hero but I make no attempt to imitate him - nobody could.
> 
> If you like your emotion sprawled all over the page, sappy and melancholic, grinding on and on then Mahler is your man. BUT his songs are a different matter altogether. I should qualify my comments by adding "symphonic Mahler".


Brahms is just as melancholic, he lived in his own past, his music full of regret. Mahler's 6th and 7th show a real maturity, they are really sober works and teach about life, about excess and the consequences.

He's a much deeper artists than Brahms philosophically, although Brahms is just as enjoyable.


----------



## Guest

1996D said:


> Brahms is just as melancholic, he lived in his own past, his music full of regret. Mahler's 6th and 7th show a real maturity, they are really sober works and teach about life, about excess and the consequences.
> 
> He's a much deeper artists than Brahms philosophically, although Brahms is just as enjoyable.


On this we will have to disagree. Brahms didn't live in his own past since so much of it was unpleasant - particularly those Hamburg whorehouses where he had to play the piano. The earlier years with the Schumann family were his most happy and contented. And his music is not full of regret; in fact, there is so little of him in it at all that he really does qualify in that respect as a 'classicist' - in form and content.

I also qualify my own comments by suggesting that it's impossible for any composer to remove himself completely from his work, since the act of composing is one of putting to paper ideas about the universe seen from a single point of view. But as the 19th century progressed and the Romantic movement gathered a head of steam composers felt they had a new license for self-indulgence. This was the inherent philosophy behind that 'schism' I spoke about; Brahms was not like this and the others in the opposition were. Wagner was the Leader of the Opposition!!


----------



## 1996D

Christabel said:


> On this we will have to disagree. Brahms didn't live in his own past since so much of it was unpleasant - particularly those Hamburg whorehouses where he had to play the piano. The earlier years with the Schumann family were his most happy and contented. And his music is not full of regret; in fact, there is so little of him in it at all that he really does qualify in that respect as a 'classicist' - in form and content.


He's about as pure a Romantic as you can find, whining, regretting, longing. His life is a tragedy.


----------



## RogerWaters

1996D said:


> No, this is the right thread, a mixture of what makes him great and where he comes short.


There are two issues here.

1. Whether this is the thread to criticise Brahms, and if so:
2. Whether sweeping assertions like "his form was awkward" are misguided: the dressing of personal preferences up the garb of objectivity to stoke an argument. Many of us do not find his form awkward, so the least you could do is provide a reasoned and considered post for your assertion. I attempted to engage you on this issue in more detail earlier.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> He's about as pure a Romantic as you can find, whining, regretting, longing. His life is a tragedy.


Again, maybe there's another Brahms that 1996D got involved with--a musical cousin perhaps? I don't hear whining, regretting.
Longing, yes, some. Adds a bit of spice to the music. But a life of tragedy? How about a _Life of Agony_--why not go whole-hog on the hyperbole.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Phil loves classical said:


> Contemporary music does have an audience, which just doesn't include you. I never got the impression that Mike said Boulez is better or superior to Mozart, except that they're different, and that music has evolved since Mozart's time. I get a feeling you will say it hasn't, at least in a good way.
> So pop music has more merit than contemporary Classical because it's more popular...


I still think that a lot of contemporary music is a different genre from classical music as much as jazz is from classical music. Different timelines, different philosophies, different approaches to creating music. Take John Cage, for example. He considered the sound of traffic noise his ideal, and disowned the classical music tradition. ("If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different.") 
MR said that Cage still belongs in the classical practice because he studied with Schoenberg.
But a jazz musician can be classically-trained, yet can still pursue a musical career in jazz and not classical.
That's what a lot of contemporary composers have done. They belong in a genre separate from classical music.


----------



## Ethereality




----------



## 89Koechel

Geez, can't we just ACCEPT that Brahms was able to overcome, a potential-dominating influence of Beethoven, and went AHEAD with his own originality? The "great ones" of the 19th Century, incl. Schumann, Schubert ... even the somewhat-forgotten Swede/Franz Berwald (and am NOT forgetting the others - von Weber, et. al.) ... forged their own musical STAMP, for all time. Of course, Brahms was great, as were others - let's enjoy.


----------



## Guest

> Neither Brahms himself nor the greatest composers would have put him in the top 10.


Composers - pah! What do they know?? 

There is 'informed' opinion (still just opinion of course) that puts Brahms symphonies up with 'the greats'. Apologies for repeating myself but...



MacLeod said:


> Ask 151 of the world's conductors for their symphony recommendations, and Brahms has two in the top 10, the same number as Beethoven, whereas Mozart has only one, and Mahler has three. (Berlioz and Tchaikovsky are the others in the top ten.)
> 
> Whatever he lacks in 'form', he holds his own wrt symphonies in this poll at any rate.
> 
> https://www.classical-music.com/features/works/20-greatest-symphonies-all-time/





NLAdriaan said:


> The title of the thread is already suggestive in creating polarisation. This is harmful to the level of discussion, as we also can see in this thread. Brahms as the subject of a controversy, it was new to me.


As this thread continues, it seems you have a point.



1996D said:


> Tchaikovsky as far as popularity goes, who was much better received at the time, and who *skilfully avoided having awkward moments* in his music.


"What does this even mean?"


----------



## Eclectic Al

Came back to this thread after a bit of shut eye. How depressing.
The question was "Why is Brahms so great?" and this has barely featured for pages. This is because it has got sucked into the juvenile business of "X is all very well, but I prefer Y". All this detour has achieved is to waste everyone's time, and get people a bit tetchy.

Someone joining this discussion now would expect to see points trying to explain the greatness of Brahms. For the last few pages that has not been the topic. If people want to have a thread about which composers may be greater than Brahms then start one. I won't be participating in it, because it will likely just turn into the nonsense of the past few pages here. The original discussion about why Brahms is great was, on the other hand, interesting. It's a shame it has been hijacked.

Here's a question: "Why is apple crumble so great?".
Sensible response: "Because the texture of the crumble provides a lovely contrast to that of the cooked apple."
Irrelevant response: "Well it's all right, but tortilla chips are a greater foodstuff."


----------



## Art Rock

This happens very often, because:

[1] some people apparently feel that they need to do it;
[2] others react on these hijacks, rather than sensibly ignoring them

Now if we stop doing [2] we're already more than half way there. It's basically "don't feed the trolls", which also works for notorious hijackers who may not even be trolling on purpose - although the effect of their posts is similar.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Brahms didn't have the strength or the flair for the dramatic that Mahler had. You know they call Mahler a whiner but there is none whinier than Brahms, he just doesn't have the emotional range.


Oh for crying out loud this is absolutely ridiculous. Stop this silly nonsense of calling Brahms a 'whiner'. That is certainly one thing he wasn't in his music at least. And are you telling me that a piece like the first piano Concerto doesn't have emotional range? I'd ask you to take the cloth out of your ears. Brahms was different to Mahler and unless we see this we keep making these ridiculous comparisons.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eclectic Al said:


> Came back to this thread after a bit of shut eye. How depressing.
> The question was "Why is Brahms so great?" and this has barely featured for pages. This is because it has got sucked into the juvenile business of "X is all very well, but I prefer Y". All this detour has achieved is to waste everyone's time, and get people a bit tetchy.
> 
> Someone joining this discussion now would expect to see points trying to explain the greatness of Brahms. For the last few pages that has not been the topic. If people want to have a thread about which composers may be greater than Brahms then start one. I won't be participating in it, because it will likely just turn into the nonsense of the past few pages here. The original discussion about why Brahms is great was, on the other hand, interesting. It's a shame it has been hijacked.
> 
> Here's a question: "Why is apple crumble so great?".
> Sensible response: "Because the texture of the crumble provides a lovely contrast to that of the cooked apple."
> Irrelevant response: "Well it's all right, but tortilla chips are a greater foodstuff."


OMG. What have you got against tortilla chips? They are crunchy all the way through. Crumble is soggy except for the surface.


----------



## millionrainbows

Eclectic Al said:


> Came back to this thread after a bit of shut eye. How depressing.
> The question was "Why is Brahms so great?" and this has barely featured for pages. This is because it has got sucked into the juvenile business of "X is all very well, but I prefer Y". All this detour has achieved is to waste everyone's time, and get people a bit tetchy.
> 
> Someone joining this discussion now would expect to see points trying to explain the greatness of Brahms. For the last few pages that has not been the topic. If people want to have a thread about which composers may be greater than Brahms then start one. I won't be participating in it, because it will likely just turn into the nonsense of the past few pages here. The original discussion about why Brahms is great was, on the other hand, interesting. It's a shame it has been hijacked.


What a boring forum this would be if everyone stayed on topic!


----------



## Eclectic Al

Enthusiast said:


> OMG. What have you got against tortilla chips? They are crunchy all the way through. Crumble is soggy except for the surface.


I guess some people just have superficial tastes. If you are superficial though that's fine - go with it.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> What a boring forum this would be if everyone stayed on topic!


In your opinion...some of us might find it quite refreshing.


----------



## Guest

Art Rock said:


> This happens very often, because:
> 
> [1] some people apparently feel that they need to do it;
> [2] others react on these hijacks, rather than sensibly ignoring them
> 
> Now if we stop doing [2] we're already more than half way there. It's basically "don't feed the trolls", which also works for notorious hijackers who may not even be trolling on purpose - although the effect of their posts is similar.


Wise advice. Difficult to follow, however, as it only takes one to reply and away we go.

Sorry...I know I'm sometimes that one.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Oh for crying out loud this is absolutely ridiculous. Stop this silly nonsense of calling Brahms a 'whiner'. That is certainly one thing he wasn't in his music at least. And are you telling me that a piece like the first piano Concerto doesn't have emotional range? I'd ask you to take the cloth out of your ears. Brahms was different to Mahler and unless we see this we keep making these ridiculous comparisons.


All Romantic music whines and complains, that's its nature, save for Beethoven who triumphs. The movement was a movement of complaint against industrialization and the ills of that world. The fact that Brahms focused on classical form doesn't exclude him from the movement; he exemplifies it.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> *All Romantic music whines and complains*, that's its nature, save for Beethoven who triumphs. The movement was a movement of complaint against industrialization and the ills of that world. The fact that Brahms focused on classical form doesn't exclude him from the movement; he exemplifies it.


Funny that you are the only one who hears it! :lol:


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> All Romantic music whines and complains, that's its nature, save for Beethoven who triumphs. The movement was a movement of complaint against industrialization and the ills of that world. The fact that Brahms focused on classical form doesn't exclude him from the movement; he exemplifies it.


German Romantic movement elevated and valued pure emotion. That doesn't mean all Romantic composers were constantly depressed and regretting their existence. The importance of music started increasing during the Romantic era with writers, such as Schopenhauer and Wagner, who elevated it and saw the greatness of music's expressiveness. I would say that the opposition camp, lead by Liszt and Wagner, nurtured the ideology of German Romanticism even more than Brahms did. Whining is really not some characteristic of Romantic music. The reaction against industrialisation was only one part of Romantic movement - there was a lot more to it. Herder, Fichte, Goethe, Mereau, Schiller, Friedrich - they were not collectively whining... Romantic movement was full of praises and heroism, sadness, yeaning and regret.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Funny that you are the only one who hears it! :lol:


You don't hear the discontent? It's not Mozart, it's sad music from a sad period in history. All of them had horrible lives and you can hear it in the music. Tchaikovsky is one that could keep it light and uplifting for the most part which is why he was and is so popular. Strauss Jr. is another that keeps it light and is universally loved, Mendelssohn and Schubert too, even if they all come short in other areas, at least they don't whine.


----------



## Eclectic Al

1996D said:


> Strauss Jr. is another that keeps it light and is universally loved, .


Well I'm part of the universe, and don't love J Strauss, so that statement is objectively false.

Interestingly, though, I think Brahms did like J Strauss' music. Perhaps someone could confirm.

Still not really on the topic of why Brahms is great, though.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> German Romantic movement elevated and valued pure emotion. That doesn't mean all Romantic composers were constantly depressed and regretting their existence. The importance of music started increasing during the Romantic era with writers, such as Schopenhauer and Wagner, who elevated it and saw the greatness of music's expressiveness. I would say that the opposition camp, lead by Liszt and Wagner, nurtured the ideology of German Romanticism even more than Brahms did. Whining is really not some characteristic of Romantic music. The reaction against industrialisation was only one part of Romantic movement - there was a lot more to it. Herder, Fichte, Goethe, Mereau, Schiller, Friedrich - they were not collectively whining... Romantic movement was full of praises and heroism, sadness, yeaning and regret.


I've changed my mind about Geothe, there's an argument that he ended up converting to Islam ideologically because he couldn't take the progressive nature that the West was on. That or he became disillusioned with progress, which is completely ridiculous but that's where his philosophy leads. Goethe was fond of nature and the Romantic in him hated industrialization so much that he was willing to give everything up to return to the German medieval romanticism.


----------



## 1996D

Eclectic Al said:


> Well I'm part of the universe, and don't love J Strauss, so that statement is objectively false.
> 
> Interestingly, though, I think Brahms did like J Strauss' music. Perhaps someone could confirm.
> 
> Still not really on the topic of why Brahms is great, though.


The flaws and excesses of the Romantic movement apply to Brahms. Why or why not applies to every question.


----------



## NightHawk

Hahahahahahahaha! 

(Re "the beard and the BAM BAM BAM bam bam bam")


----------



## Luchesi

NightHawk said:


> Hahahahahahahaha!
> 
> (Re "the beard and the BAM BAM BAM bam bam bam")


The beard makes him look more like a great composer to children. When I was young we would go to a neighbor's house and play cards with their grandmother. The deck of cards had portraits of great composers instead of the usual artwork on playing cards. I was only about eight years old and I still remember sickly Chopin and Brahms with the beard at least.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> All Romantic music whines and complains, that's its nature, save for Beethoven who triumphs. The movement was a movement of complaint against industrialization and the ills of that world. The fact that Brahms focused on classical form doesn't exclude him from the movement; he exemplifies it.





> You don't hear the discontent? It's not Mozart, it's sad music from a sad period in history. All of them had horrible lives and you can hear it in the music. Tchaikovsky is one that could keep it light and uplifting for the most part which is why he was and is so popular.





> [Brahms is] about as pure a Romantic as you can find, whining, regretting, longing. His life is a tragedy.


I stay away from this forum for a week, I get a renewed hankering for some insightful conversation about music, and when I come back I find truckloads of pseudo-philosophical silliness such as the above, and I know why I stayed away as long as I did.

1. Romantic music expresses a vast range of feeling. That is it's "nature," that was a primary goal of the movement we call "Romanticism," and that was the collective achievement of the highly diverse composers we classify as "Romantic.".

2. Brahms doesn't "exemplify" Romanticism. His consciously cultivated neo-Classicism is not intrinsically Romantic; its coexistence, in his work, with qualities of feeling we think of as Romantic exemplifies only Brahms himself, not any larger aesthetic movement. If we're looking for "pure" Romantics, we'd do better looking at Berlioz or Wagner, and the sort of music Brahms signed a manifesto against.

3. Beethoven is not a "Romantic" composer. Classicism, Romanticism and other "isms" are cultural constructs applied after the fact.

4. Who did or didn't have a "horrible" or "tragic" life is not for us to decide, and irrelevant in any case. Art is not a diary of the artist's life, nor is it his psychiatrist's case file.

5. Tchaikovsky is popular because he wrote distinctive and accessible music, with great tunes, strong rhythms, rich and piquant orchestration, a sense of drama, and plenty of heart-on-sleeve, emotional storm and stress. Sometimes he is "light," sometimes he's downright lugubrious - and often in the same work.

I've never observed Brahms whining. I'm not sure what musical whining would sound like (outside of some popular singers, I mean). But if I were to imagine it, I think it would sound more like Tchaikovsky's 6th or Mahler's 9th than Brahms's 4th.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> 1. Romantic music expresses a vast range of feeling. That is it's "nature," that was a primary goal of the movement we call "Romanticism," and that was the collective achievement of the highly diverse composers we classify as "Romantic.".
> 
> 2. Brahms doesn't "exemplify" Romanticism. His consciously cultivated neo-Classicism is not intrinsically Romantic; its coexistence, in his work, with qualities of feeling we think of as Romantic exemplifies only Brahms himself, not any larger aesthetic movement. If we're looking for "pure" Romantics, we'd do better looking at Berlioz or Wagner, and the sort of music Brahms signed a manifesto against.
> 
> 3. Beethoven is not a "Romantic" composer. Classicism, Romanticism and other "isms" are cultural constructs applied after the fact.
> 
> 4. Who did or didn't have a "horrible" or "tragic" life is not for us to decide, and irrelevant in any case. Art is not a diary of the artist's life, nor is it his psychiatrist's case file.


Yes I'm aware of your stubborn, unchanging opinions, you've voiced them plenty already.



> I stay away from this forum for a week, I get a renewed hankering for some insightful conversation about music, and when I come back I find truckloads of pseudo-philosophical silliness such as the above, and I know why I stayed away as long as I did.


You come back to predictably voice what I already know you to believe.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Brahms remains great, though.


----------



## Woodduck

............................................


----------



## 1996D

Eclectic Al said:


> Brahms remains great, though.


Yes, and the point I made remains valid. The Romantic movement as a whole was deeply flawed and is irrelevant today; an erratic reaction to industrialization that was taken too far, and Brahms is not Beethoven whose light shines much brighter.

The question is why is he so great, I'd say he's great but no so great.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Yes I'm aware of your stubborn, unchanging opinions, you've voiced them plenty already.
> You come back to predictably voice what I already know you to believe.


Thanks for the prompt reply. But didn't you have anything substantial you wanted to say? (Sorry. Rhetorical question.)

You really needn't go on proving the emptiness of your positions and indulging your compulsion to state personal impressions of music as if they were considered ideas possessing any actual merit. It seems from the responses you get that just about everyone has your schtick figured out already.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Yes, and the point I made remains valid.


What point?



> The Romantic movement as a whole is deeply flawed


By what criterion?



> and irrelevant today,


Irrelevant to whom? Are the Baroque and Classical movements more "relevant"? Need they be?



> and Brahms is not Beethoven


Obviously...



> whose light shines much brighter.


Very original!



> The question is why is he so great, I'd say he's great but no so great.


Impressive formulation. Would you be impressed if I told you that I'm tall but not so tall?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

1996D said:


> I've changed my mind about Geothe, there's an argument that he ended up converting to Islam ideologically because he couldn't take the progressive nature that the West was on. That or he became disillusioned with progress, which is completely ridiculous but that's where his philosophy leads. Goethe was fond of nature and the Romantic in him hated industrialization so much that he was willing to give everything up to return to the German medieval romanticism.


Something about this post just encapsulates the nature of TC discussions so well. And it's not even about music!


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> Yes, and the point I made remains valid. The Romantic movement as a whole was deeply flawed and is irrelevant today; an erratic reaction to industrialization that was taken too far, and Brahms is not Beethoven whose light shines much brighter.
> 
> The question is why is he so great, I'd say he's great but no so great.


How is it not relevant? A huge part of European culture was shaped by it. It was _not_ all about industrialisation as I stated earlier.


----------



## 1996D

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Something about this post just encapsulates the nature of TC discussions so well. And it's not even about music!


That's true, Goethe did go off the rails as did that entire movement, it's an interesting discussion that's very relevant to today and should be something we can all learn from.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> That's not true, his 3rd piano quartet was shown here to be all over the place if compared to the perfection in form of Beethoven and Mozart; there are plenty out of place, erratic, awkward moments. Brahms is an inbetweener.
> 
> I think Mahler is the superior artist; Brahms hides under the classicism as an effort to imitate Beethoven; he lived in his shadow.
> 
> And by the way Mahler and Bruckner have very little in common, the latter is a midget in comparison.


That Brahms 3rd piano quartet is no less 'perfect' in form than late Beethoven. You seem to be dismissive of something when you just don't get it, and using it as justification.



hammeredklavier said:


> I still think that a lot of contemporary music is a different genre from classical music as much as jazz is from classical music. Different timelines, different philosophies, different approaches to creating music. Take John Cage, for example. He considered the sound of traffic noise his ideal, and disowned the classical music tradition. ("If you listen to Mozart and Beethoven, it's always the same. But if you listen to the traffic here on Sixth Avenue, it's always different.")
> MR said that Cage still belongs in the classical practice because he studied with Schoenberg.
> But a jazz musician can be classically-trained, yet can still pursue a musical career in jazz and not classical.
> That's what a lot of contemporary composers have done. They belong in a genre separate from classical music.


I'd agree the aesthetic had changed drastically. Would Mozart have been horrified to hear what's become of Classical if he has actually been frozen for last 200+ years and just woke up? Likely, at least at the beginning. But I think it's also possible he could become genuinely intrigued. I'd say Contemporary Classical is still closer to the spirit of Classical than Jazz. Jazz is more on certain set patterns, while Classical was always further ranging and progressive, at least technically.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> How is it not relevant? A huge part of European culture was shaped by it. It was _not_ all about industrialisation as I stated earlier.


WW2 destroyed that culture and postmodernism further deconstructed the nonsense that many of those thinkers believed. We're living in a new world, Romantic thought has very little influence today.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> WW2 destroyed that culture and postmodernism further deconstructed the nonsense that many of those thinkers believed. We're living in a new world, Romantic thought has very little influence today.


(Let's try to get this back to Brahms)

Culture doesn't deconstruct that way because even if all Schiller's poems were destroyed, his influence would live on. Brahms' compositions haven't deconstructed. Goethe's _Faust_ hasn't disappeared anywhere. We really shouldn't mistake the response to something for an inherent or even subjective quality of art. I think it's very relevant today but even if it wasn't, would Brahms' music be any less great because it was irrelevant? No.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> That Brahms 3rd piano quartet is no less 'perfect' in form than late Beethoven. You seem to be dismissive of something when you just don't get it, and using it as justification.







This is more Brahms than Brahms in essence, and Beethoven's form completely outclasses. You add some winds and some brass and many would mistake it for a Brahms symphony, only he wished his form was that good.

He was a fanboy, he'd tell you the same thing. Beethoven is another level, he's very rightfully considered the greatest.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> WW2 destroyed that culture and postmodernism further deconstructed the nonsense that many of those thinkers believed. We're living in a new world, Romantic thought has very little influence today.


I have bad news for you: "living in a new world" is a very Romantic notion. Change, progress, revolution, the autonomy of the individual, democracy - all Enlightenment/Romantic concepts of human life that continue to shape the lives and thought of people today. Romanticism is very much a living heritage, a permanent enrichment of human life.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> This is more Brahms than Brahms in essence, and Beethoven's form completely outclasses. You add some winds and some brass and many would mistake it for a Brahms symphony, only he wished his form was that good.
> 
> He was a fanboy, he'd tell you the same thing. Beethoven is another level, he's very rightfully considered the greatest.


What is this "essence of Brahms" you think Beethoven's Op. 131 expresses? No one who knows either composer would confuse Beethoven's language with Brahms's. Who are the "many" who would do that?


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> I have bad news for you: "living in a new world" is a very Romantic notion. Change, progress, revolution, the autonomy of the individual, democracy - all Enlightenment/Romantic concepts of human life that continue to shape the lives and thought of people today. Romanticism is very much a living heritage, a permanent enrichment of human life.


Enlightenment is one thing, Romanticism another. Goethe ended up rejecting the idea of progress and went backwards. Romanticism was largely a reaction to industrialization and some took it very far.


----------



## Dimace

Brahms is great, because the music history has decided to be great. This is the German view, or, at least, my personal experience from the German Conservatories, Orchestre Programms and sometimes (as I listen into the German Radio Stations) the public opinion. 

(when I was young, in conservatory exams (music theory and history for future music teachers in elementary schools and conservatory classes) they asked me about some great composers or great symphony composers, I can't remember right now. (it was an opinion question, who I consider to be such composers). I answered generally correctly (Liszt, Chopin etc. :lol: ) but the jury (or one member) wasn't satisfied and wanted from me to say one very important composer I had forgotten. I was unable to find the composer (maybe I didn't consider Brahms as great...) and that moment, one other member, to help me, asked me: Have you seen the movie '' Do you like XX?'' (Lieben Sie XX? Aimez-vous XX? ) Because I'm cinefile, I remembered the great movie and I answered the question. But, as has been expected, I didn't receive a perfect mark in this lesson).


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

1996D said:


> That's true, Goethe did go off the rails as did that entire movement, it's an interesting discussion that's very relevant to today and should be something we can all learn from.


That's not what I meant...


----------



## Fabulin

Waldesnacht said:


> Brahms was indeed outwardly self-deprecating, while considering himself the last great composer. What the greatest composers would have thought of him we have no means of knowing since *all of his equals, save arguably Wagner, were all dead before he was even born.*


Wagner (Brahms~'hunting cats with a Bohemian crossbow, skinning them alive, and incorporating the resulting noise into music')
Tchaikovsky (Brahms="giftless *******" writing ugly music)
Debussy (Brahms=... ... ....<no mention of Brahms whatsoever?>)
Berlioz (Brahms="I was very impressed by his Scherzo and his Adagio."[1853])
Mendelssohn had no chance to hear Brahms's music.

Oh well, Williams admires Brahms' music and considers him TOP5. That's _one_ out of 6.


----------



## 1996D

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> That's not what I meant...


TC goes off the rails because all humans are flawed and tend to go off the rails... Get it? It's very natural.

Goethe's not the genius everyone makes him out to be, he's a flawed human that went as far as converting to Islam because of his over romantic tendencies. That whole movement was based on emotions, not on logic.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Enlightenment is one thing, Romanticism another. Goethe ended up rejecting the idea of progress and went backwards. Romanticism was largely a reaction to industrialization and some took it very far.


 "Romanticism" was a very diverse phenomenon, embracing significant contradictions and paradoxes (e.g., "progress" versus "going backwards"). You have a narrow conception of it, and so everything you've said is misleading.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> "Romanticism" was a very diverse phenomenon, embracing significant contradictions and paradoxes (e.g., "progress" versus "going backwards"). You have a narrow conception of it, and so everything you've said is misleading.


 It wasn't based on reason, of course it's full of contradictions.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> It wasn't based on reason, of course it's full of contradictions.


The fact that it was, in part, focused on emphasising emotions doesn't mean it wasn't based on reason. Romantics could be very reasonable in their ideas while not necessarily always praising reason itself.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> The fact that it was, in part, focused on emphasising emotions doesn't mean it wasn't based on reason. Romantics could be very reasonable in their ideas while not necessarily always praising reason itself.


Reason was always second to emotions, it was there to justify the feelings instead of the emotions working under the higher brain power. It's no surprise the great wars followed all that prancing.

People had a very hard time adjusting to industrialization, it can be seen as coping, but they took it farther than it should have been taken.


----------



## Simplicissimus

1996D said:


> TC goes off the rails because all humans are flawed and tend to go off the rails... Get it? It's very natural.
> 
> Goethe's not the genius everyone makes him out to be, he's a flawed human that went as far as converting to Islam because of his over romantic tendencies. That whole movement was based on emotions, not on logic.


Meta-commentary is not my thing, but because I know pretty much about Goethe I have to contribute this: Goethe did not "convert to Islam." As a signal polymath, he read a lot about Islam, discussed Islam with other scholars, and admired Persian poetry and literature. He did not convert to or practice Islam.


----------



## Guest

Simplicissimus said:


> Meta-commentary is not my thing, but because I know pretty much about Goethe I have to contribute this: Goethe did not "convert to Islam." As a signal polymath, he read a lot about Islam, discussed Islam with other scholars, and admired Persian poetry and literature. He did not convert to or practice Islam.


Don't feed the trolls!!


----------



## 1996D

Simplicissimus said:


> Meta-commentary is not my thing, but because I know pretty much about Goethe I have to contribute this: Goethe did not "convert to Islam." As a signal polymath, he read a lot about Islam, discussed Islam with other scholars, and admired Persian poetry and literature. He did not convert to or practice Islam.


http://http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/convert_goethe.htm


----------



## Botschaft

Fabulin said:


> Wagner (Brahms~'hunting cats with a Bohemian crossbow, skinning them alive, and incorporating the resulting noise into music')
> Tchaikovsky (Brahms="giftless *******" writing ugly music)
> Debussy (Brahms=... ... ....<no mention of Brahms whatsoever?>)
> Berlioz (Brahms="I was very impressed by his Scherzo and his Adagio."[1853])
> Mendelssohn had no chance to hear Brahms's music.
> 
> Oh well, Williams admires Brahms' music and considers him TOP5. That's _one_ out of 6.


And then we have Schumann, Dvořák, Elgar, Reger and Schönberg and a bunch of later composers who greatly admired Brahms. But yes, he had a few detractors even among his fellow composers, perhaps for the same reasons that he has few even in this very thread, supposedly concerning why he is as great as he is.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Luchesi said:


> The beard makes him look more like a great composer to children.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> That whole movement was based on emotions, not on logic.


What broad cultural movement is "based on logic"? What does "based on" mean? Cultural change normally spawns intellectuals who try to "explain" and justify the emerging sensibility, but they don't create the sensibility, although they may influence the forms in which it expresses itself.

We need to be careful about dichotomies between "reason" and "emotion." In this context it's worth remembering that the term "romantic" first became popular in the "rational" 18th century, not the "emotional" 19th, and that the revolutionary movements of the period roughly between 1775 and 1848, encompassing the rise and heyday of Romanticism in the arts, were products of Enlightenment thought. Ideas such as democracy, individual liberty, freedom of expression and the eradication of religious authority are "based" on both reason and emotion, and provided both a precondition and a strong intellectual grounding for the artist's explorations of the subjective life of the human spirit, which may be considered the essential Romantic project in music.

Returning to the thread topic: how does Brahms fit in here? Does he "exemplify" Romanticism, as you claim? Or does he exemplify a reactionary response to it? I think Brahms is exactly what he tried to be, and what he's ordinarily considered to be. If Beethoven was a Classical composer informed - and transformed - by the Romantic sensibilities of the Age of Revolution, Brahms was a Romantic informed by neo-Classical ideals. The latter's art was thus, inevitably, both contemporary and backward-looking. That dualism posed enormous aesthetic challenges, and in my estimation his production of a stream of masterpieces which held in fascinating tension ideals of both subjective sentiment and objective beauty was a heroic achievement.

The nostalgia and sadness that increasingly colors Brahms's late music reflects the anachronism of living at a time when the Classical era was but a memory and Romanticism itself was no longer a generative movement. Talk of his "tragic" life and his "whining" is demeaning and silly.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Talk of his "tragic" life and his "whining" is demeaning and silly.


I'm not sure why whining had to be mentioned, but I generally agree that Brahms sounds like the ultimate Romantic (to my ears.) Yet I can derive a very close parallel between his music and Bach's, which is kind of to the point: a composer like Tchaikovsky sounds more within Classical sensibilities, where a lofty mix of Lisztian and Beethovean influence both trace their steps back to Mozart. Brahms by contrast sounds like a fresh, neo-expressive take on Bach and Schumann, and both of those composers' strongest influences go back_ much further_ than Mozart. Classical sounds like Brahms, but it's because it's derived from older music, music that wasn't 'Classical' at all. Classical represents a main evolutionary change and contribution, wholly new and different. I don't believe Brahms represents this period's ideals and stances very well, he sounds like a hardcore scholar of a plethora of other traditional music as well, earlier, from Early Baroque to Early Romantic.


----------



## Woodduck

Ethereality said:


> I'm not sure why whining had to be mentioned, but I generally agree that Brahms sounds like the ultimate Romantic (to my ears.) Yet I can derive a very close parallel between his music and Bach's, which is kind of to the point: a composer like Tchaikovsky sounds more within Classical sensibilities, where a lofty mix of Lisztian and Beethovean influence both trace their steps back to Mozart. Brahms by contrast sounds like a fresh, neo-expressive take on Bach and Schumann, and both of those composers' strongest influences go back_ much further_ than Mozart. Yes Classical sounds like Brahms, but that's due to being derived from older music, music that wasn't 'Classical' at all. Classical represents a main evolutionary change and contribution to earlier music, a new interpretation. I don't believe Brahms represents this period's ideals and stances very well, I think he was a hardcore scholar of all traditional music, earlier, from Early Baroque to Late Romantic.


Honestly, I can't make sense of this.

In what way is Brahms "the ultimate Romantic"? Compared to Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner? What is "a fresh, neo-expressive take on Bach and Schumann"? How is Brahms a "take" on Bach? Does that describe a Romantic aesthetic approach, much less an "ultimate" one? Does "Classical sound like Brahms," or does that reverse and deny the obvious causal sequence?

How is Tchaikovsky's music "more within Classical sensibilities"? What are those sensibilities? Is there anything particularly "Classical" about his last three symphonies? His tone poems? His ballets? His operas? His songs? The road from "None but the Lonely Heart," "Winter Daydreams" and "Swan Lake" to "The Queen of Spades," the "Pathetique" symphony and "The Nutcracker" may include some grateful, stylized tributes to a bygone age, but Tchaikovsky had no illusions. His nostalgia for the Classical sensibility must have been felt by many educated Russians aspiring to full acceptance by European civilization, which the elegant perfection of Mozart would have embodied. But can you imagine Mozart weeping while composing, as Tchaikovsky apparently did?


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> Honestly, I can't make sense of this.
> 
> In what way is Brahms "the ultimate Romantic"? Compared to Berlioz, Liszt, Wagner?


Firstly, I give my own impression here: your response has a strictly reactionary tone, therefore is difficult to interpret correctly. If you're saying to yourself in fact Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner are more in the Romantic spirit than Brahms, then I say, on a more obvious level, I can agree with you. That's in fact why I'm illuminating that there other ways to view this puzzle however. One must _expand_ their understanding of what constitutes Romanticism and its era, from all angles, and then compare those similarities to Classical's musical ideals. Really look at _all the things_ the early Classicists came to change, and you may be more surprised, in light of your first sentence above, to find out equating Brahms evenly to all earlier music of Baroque, Classical, and Early Romanticism, isn't so nonsensical, and on the opposite spectrum, similarities between Tchaikovsky and Beethoven are too innumerable to deny. Let's proceed.



Woodduck said:


> How is Brahms a "take" on Bach? Does that describe a Romantic aesthetic approach, much less an "ultimate" one?


Let's ask Brahms and Schumann this question.



Woodduck said:


> How is Tchaikovsky's music "more within Classical sensibilities"? What are those sensibilities? Is there anything particularly "Classical" about his last three symphonies? His tone poems? His ballets? His operas? His songs? The road from "None but the Lonely Heart," "Winter Daydreams" and "Swan Lake" to "The Queen of Spades."


So, people might be expecting specific technical terms, for example, Tchaikovsky is such a great Classical champion that he could effectively utilize intricate structures of that of a Classical symphony _predominant_ to some areas of their music, obvious things we associate to _popular_ Classical music. But am I in any way implying (a) Classical music was the source of those small building blocks, or even _the point_ of it coming into existence? and (b) that Tchaikovsky could utilize those specific structures as ingeniously as Brahms could? To both answers, not at all. For point (a), I think you're largely confusing the influence of Baroque concert music as a 'revival' of the Classical spirit of symphony. There never was such a revival, but a continuation:

In analyzing the difference between the popular late Baroque forms and the new Classical spirit, some stark differences come to mind that perhaps might not cater to my knowledge of technical explanation. What Classical music came to do is define a whole new interest for _how_ to interpret these forms, that when we look at all the early Classical composers (which I can only assume you're overlooking,) a much larger emphasis was put onto theme-enhancing, developmental contrasts, tight structures and movements and succinct _rephrasing_ used only as a foundation to endorse a larger artistic statement from that was geared crowd-pleasing, suspense and _surprise._ It was in a chief respect, a whole new _spin_ of previous music that aimed to spark fundamental_ emotional and dramatic_ enhancement, through new methods. I can keep explaining how what made Classical 'popular' has nothing to do with how Classical_ sounds_ on the surface (whatever it took over from Baroque form was not it's own mark or definition), and in fact I'm not the best at explaining it. It's something you have to investigate yourself and give your opinion on.



Woodduck said:


> But can you imagine Mozart weeping while composing, as Tchaikovsky apparently did?


To this last statement, I can picture Brahms weeping more to his music than Wagner, Tchaikovsky or Berlioz. I think (as of your first post) your questions are overlooking some answers already there. This is considering that the point of me posting isn't to construe some black-and-white ultimatum on which Romantic composers are more Classical, but instead to look at larger perspectives some unversed are missing: all Early Romantic composers branched off from Classical music. Thus the inquiry is not into how _one_ is closer to Classical influence than another, but it's in which elements from the prior period they endorsed and how they each proceeded to reach their unique image. If you're missing what those Classical influences even are, by limiting or misdefining its genre, *that may be the inherent problem you're facing with these questions.*

In effect, I'm not here to disagree with your perspective on Brahms and Classicism, because I already know it's the popular perspective that most people can first hear at a surface level. I respect the opposite perspectives where people say Brahms stole some of his instrumental patterns directly from Mozart. But there are deeper elements about Classical's interpretation people are clearly missing from the predominant influences of_ Haydn and Beethoven._ I can start posting all these Beethoven-Tchaikovsky construction similarities, but we don't live in a vacuum where Haydn and Beethoven are all there is in Classical.



Woodduck said:


> If Beethoven was a Classical composer informed - and transformed - by the Romantic sensibilities of the Age of Revolution, Brahms was a Romantic informed by neo-Classical ideals.


 I fully agree with your statement here. He was informed by many aesthetic intuitions about Classical and Baroque music, that someone like Tchaikovsky was not attuned to; and visa versa. These statements though, I certainly want to address if you care expand on what you're actually asking:



Woodduck said:


> What is "a fresh, neo-expressive take on Bach and Schumann"? How is Brahms a "take" on Bach?


I said this because it seems very obvious to a lot of people.



Woodduck said:


> Does "Classical sound like Brahms," or does that reverse and deny the obvious causal sequence?


Did I say Brahms largely studied and was influenced by Classical music? If I did say that above, then we can't argue this question. But if you rephrase it I could try reinterpreting it.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Woodduck

^^^Thank you for that effort, but I really can't follow your line of reasoning, or come away understanding better why you think Brahms is the ultimate Romantic or Tchaikovsky exhibits more Classical sensibilities. Those are interesting ideas, and there may be _something_ to them, but I don't think you've supported them in a comprehensible way.

To make the case for Brahms as the ultimate Romantic, you would have to say, at a minimum, what the distinguishing qualities of Romanticism in music are, and then show how Brahms exhibits them in a more fundamental or conspicuous way than do other composers of his time, particularly those composers (most notably Liszt and Wagner) whom Brahms himself, in agreement with other artistic conservatives of the time, regarded as representing new directions which he did not wish to take. Similarly, Tchaikovsky's Classical "sensibility" must be described with specific references to his music; I cited a number of his works in which I find him venturing far from Classical ideals of form and/or expression, but I acknowledge a strain of Classicism in his music which he sometimes chose to emphasize: his Rococo Variations, Serenade for Strings, orchestral suites, chamber works and dance music exhibit a clear melodiousness and a sense of ease and emotional restraint which remind us of his stated love of Mozart. These qualities are not rare in Romantic music, however, and don't suffice to define a "Classical sensibility," and against them we have the elements of picturesque fantasy, the emotional extravagance, angst and passion, and the strain of Russianness which have no source in a late 18th-century aesthetic. Parallel to this, there are works of Brahms (e.g. the _Alto Rhapsody_ and some songs and choral works) in which Classically-derived formal ideals are relatively inconspicuous. But there is no _Francesca da Rimini_ or _Siegfried Idyll _among the works of Brahms. That kind of freewheeling Romanticism was not in his bailiwick.

Pitting Brahms and Tchaikovsky against each other, or against other 19th-century composers, in a contest of "who is the ultimate Romantic or Classicist" seems a not very profitable thing to do. What's certainly worthwhile is to point to specific features and qualities in their music which we might call Romantic or Classical (or neo-Classical).


----------



## Caryatid

Insulting Brahms, of course, has a long and distinguished history. The likes of Nietzsche, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Bernard Shaw, Stravinsky and even Edward Said all had a go. But if this thread is any indication, the once-noble tradition seems to have suffered intellectual degeneration. Reading the incoherent and bizarre attacks on Brahms in this thread has only reaffirmed my respect for his music!


----------



## 1996D

Caryatid said:


> Insulting Brahms, of course, has a long and distinguished history. The likes of Nietzsche, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Bernard Shaw, Stravinsky and even Edward Said all had a go. But if this thread is any indication, the once-noble tradition seems to have suffered intellectual degeneration. Reading the incoherent and bizarre attacks on Brahms in this thread has only reaffirmed my respect for his music!


Who's attacking him? It's always been a light discussion, you fanboys are hilarious.


----------



## DavidA

Caryatid said:


> Insulting Brahms, of course, has a long and distinguished history. The likes of Nietzsche, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Bernard Shaw, Stravinsky and even Edward Said all had a go. But if this thread is any indication, the once-noble tradition seems to have suffered intellectual degeneration. Reading the incoherent and bizarre attacks on Brahms in this thread has only reaffirmed my respect for his music!


Brahms was up for it too. Falling asleep when Liszt was playing the piano!


----------



## Caryatid

1996D said:


> Who's attacking him? It's always been a light discussion, you fanboys are hilarious.


Fair enough. I wasn't trying to say that the criticisms have been ill-tempered or in bad faith. I just haven't found them very convincing.



DavidA said:


> Brahms was up for it too. Falling asleep when Liszt was playing the piano!


Yes. Not to mention poor Hans Rott...


----------



## Strange Magic

Brahms also got on the wrong side of Hugo Wolf. And Wolf became so mad......


----------



## 1996D

Caryatid said:


> Fair enough. I wasn't trying to say that the criticisms have been ill-tempered or in bad faith. I just haven't found them very convincing.


The issue is with the movement as a whole, Brahms is the best thing that came out of it.

Late romanticism (and all its derivatives) is extreme, overindulgent, and lacks reason. Mahler manages to make timeless art because his music encompasses all emotions, the lessons are there, it's never pure intoxication.

Brahms contains it through classicism and tries to be Beethoven but comes short. The ones that kept it light, Tchaikovsky and Strauss Jr., stand out.

It's no wonder we've moved away from that type of music but the reaction was quite extreme and it destroyed classical music's ability to influence culture - it was completely replaced by pop. The future is tonal but definitely not in a Romantic style, the ideology behind that movement has already been deconstructed.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> The issue is with the movement as a whole, Brahms is the best thing that came out of it.
> 
> Late romanticism (and all its derivatives) is extreme, overindulgent, and lacks reason. Mahler manages to make timeless art because his music encompasses all emotions, the lessons are there, it's never pure intoxication.
> 
> Brahms contains it through classicism and tries to be Beethoven but comes short. The ones that kept it light, Tchaikovsky and Strauss Jr., stand out.
> 
> It's no wonder we've moved away from that type of music but the reaction was quite extreme and it destroyed classical music's ability to influence culture - it was completely replaced by pop. The future is tonal but definitely not in a Romantic style, the ideology behind that movement has already been deconstructed.


Why make these meaningless statements?


----------



## Botschaft

DavidA said:


> Why make these meaningless statements?


Do we really want to know? Maybe it would be better not to ask.


----------



## Woodduck

Waldesnacht said:


> Do we really want to know? Maybe it would be better not to ask.


It was a rhetorical question, answer not required or wanted. Probably not even possible. Hopefully not forthcoming.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Why make these meaningless statements?


They lived in an ideological bubble. Not that we don't today but it's very different from theirs and it'll continue to change. Culture is so important and is what inspires art; their bubble went crashing with ww1 and then ww2 completely erased it.

Music has near infinite possibilities, some ridiculous number, so it certainly isn't over.


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ Love your posturing. Keep it coming! Haha.


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> ^ Love your posturing. Keep it coming! Haha.


You wonder why there are so few classical music listeners and why all orchestras need government assistance, and their lack of financial viability, but it's not because there is anything wrong with the form of the music, or that people can't enjoy the complexity, but because its ideas are antiquated and people today can't relate to them.

The intoxication of the Romantic movement has no relevance to the realism of today.


----------



## 1996D

The baroque and classical movements sound even more antiquated, and of course atonal music will always hear crickets. Maybe pop music is the future, even film scores are going electronic and using non-orchestral sounds.


----------



## Manxfeeder

[Post deleted. I'll sleep better remaining outside this kerfuffle. ]


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> You wonder why there are so few classical music listeners and why all orchestras need government assistance, and their lack of financial viability, but it's not because there is anything wrong with the form of the music, or that people can't enjoy the complexity, but because its ideas are antiquated and people today can't relate to them.
> 
> The intoxication of the Romantic movement has no relevance to the realism of today.
> 
> The baroque and classical movements sound even more antiquated


And of course the Renaissance is superantiquated, and medieval music is virtually incomprehensible in its alienness.

When, oh when, will I wake up and realize that Josquin and Tallis, Purcell and Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, Wagner and Brahms, and all the rest of those dead men I imagine as speaking to me so eloquently of the experience of being human, are really just making charming but obsolete noises of no relevance to my life or the world I live in?

God, what a waste of a life, singing and playing and composing! I should have spent it running for the senate, doing crossword puzzles, or cooking with Julia Child. Food is never antiquated, after all.


----------



## millionrainbows

If Brahms has somehow fallen short of the Bach/Beethoven paradigm of greatness for some, it must be because he was the last in line. There is some chronological reason behind it. I view Rachmaninoff the same way, as a throwback to an earlier age, but I attribute this to the isolation of Russia. I can't explain how this would apply to Brahms. Maybe it's just the end of a tradition which had nearly exhausted its resources.


----------



## millionrainbows

1996D said:


> You wonder why there are so few classical music listeners and why all orchestras need government assistance, and their lack of financial viability, but it's not because there is anything wrong with the form of the music, or that people can't enjoy the complexity, but because *its ideas are antiquated and people today can't relate to them.
> *
> The intoxication of the Romantic movement has no relevance to the realism of today.


You mean as in "Where's the beat?" I don't see how musical ideas can become "antiquated" if seen as ideas in themselves; perhaps what you mean is that the form in which they are presented is outdated. No drums, no electric guitar...


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

What happened to the notion that "All music is new until you've heard it"? (I remember that was the tag line of an American Public Media-produced, I think, classical program). It's something I personally subscribe to.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I think people are too obsessed to attempt to categorize and "pigeonhole these artists into either the "neo-Classical" or "Romantic" camps", which I don't think is a very meaningful exercise. There are so many elements of neo-Classicism and Romanticism working at different levels it's hard to categorize them in a strict way like that. In the end, Brahms is Brahms, and Tchaikovsky is Tchaikovsky. 
I think Wagner is also like Mendelssohn in some respects in that both were attentive to traditional form. (I can feel it in Wagner's early works such as the overture, symphony, piano sonatas) Albeit Wagner lived longer and took the "Romantic expression of chromaticism" to unprecedented heights, he also shows he is capable of working with traditional form and devices in Die Meistersinger. 
I think that behind all the intense emotionalism in the Tristan prelude, Wagner's ideas are driven by logic and reason. Some people ( 1996D, NLAdriaan, consuono, etc ) who prefer other Romantic composers ( like Mahler and Chopin ) tend to dismiss Wagner as being bombastic and egotistical, or "incapable of working with form" but I don't think that's a fair assessment of his work.

*[ 5:05 ]*


----------



## Phil loves classical

^ I agree with Hammeredklavier. Wagner was tighter in form earlier in his career. Even in the Ring, Das Rheingold is quite different than the others.


----------



## 1996D

millionrainbows said:


> You mean as in "Where's the beat?" I don't see how musical ideas can become "antiquated" if seen as ideas in themselves; perhaps what you mean is that the form in which they are presented is outdated. No drums, no electric guitar...


No, I think it's the feeling, what it expresses.


----------



## Guest

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> What happened to the notion that "All music is new until you've heard it"? (I remember that was the tag line of an American Public Media-produced, I think, classical program). It's something I personally subscribe to.


Shouldn't that be "all music is new *to the listener* until you've heard it". There's a big difference in those two statements; one is true and the other is sophistry.


----------



## millionrainbows

I think the saying is "all music was once new."


----------



## 1996D

Christabel said:


> Shouldn't that be "all music is new *to the listener* until you've heard it". There's a big difference in those two statements; one is true and the other is sophistry.


It's a new experience but the ideas are antiquated, from a vastly different time.


----------



## Guest

millionrainbows said:


> I think the saying is "all music was once new."


That seems axiomatic!!


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> It's a new experience but the ideas are antiquated, from a vastly different time.


That's what I want from Brahms, so that the future of music from that point is clearer for everyone.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's a new experience but the ideas are antiquated, from a vastly different time.


Music capable of providing aesthetic delight and evoking human feelings in a significant way is not antiquated so long as people hearing it can still experience those things. The fact that a thing was produced by an earlier cultural milieu and would not be produced now doesn't render that thing antiquated. Not even antiques are antiquated.

Maybe you just can't get much out of Brahms. Well, that's your misfortune, isn't it?


----------



## Luchesi

Brahms was one of the Three Bs!

More universal sounding than;

Boccherini
Berlioz
Bizet
Borodin
Bruckner
Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Music capable of providing aesthetic delight and evoking human feelings in a significant way is not antiquated so long as people hearing it can still experience those things. The fact that a thing was produced by an earlier cultural milieu and would not be produced now doesn't render that thing antiquated. Not even antiques are antiquated.
> 
> Maybe you just can't get much out of Brahms. Well, that's your misfortune, isn't it?


Antiquated like Shakespeare; he don't even speak nice!!


----------



## RogerWaters

I listened to Motorhead and Bach yesterday, each appealed equally in different ways, despite the stark time period and stylistic differences.


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> I listened to Motorhead and Bach yesterday, each appealed equally in different ways, despite the stark time period and stylistic differences.


I don't think appeal is the measure of anything.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> I don't think appeal is the measure of anything.


I think his point was that Bach, who according to 1996D is "antiquated," can still appeal greatly to us after three centuries. The degree of Bach's present-day appeal is surely a measure of something. But then I'm not a proponent of the "all artistic values are subjective" school of thought.


----------



## RogerWaters

Luchesi said:


> I don't think appeal is the measure of anything.


What _is_ the measure of music, then, according to Sir Luchesi?

If you say something like 'form' or 'complexity' or 'symmetry' or 'motific development' or anything high-minded like that, I will then ask you the following:

Why do you value _that_. The answer will, at some point, come down to your chosen 'measure' _appealing_ to you.

In short: your first-order measure of music might not be 'appeal', but your second-order measure* (of first-order measures!) _will be_ appeal.

---

*appeal might actually be your third or fourth- order measure (for instance you may measure (first-order) the quality of music in terms of counterpoint because (second-order) many distinguished muscians did the same), but the point is that things will eventually bottom out at personal, subjective, arbitrary, appeal: in this case, the appeal of following the measure employed by distinguished musicians.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I think his point was that Bach, who according to 1996D is "antiquated," can still appeal greatly to us after three centuries. The degree of Bach's present-day appeal is surely a measure of something. But then I'm not a proponent of the "all artistic values are subjective" school of thought.


The two thoughts--Bach appealing greatly, and the subjectivity of artistic values--are neither mutually exclusive nor are they linked. Bach appeals greatly to me, and if he does not appeal greatly to X or to Y, that is to be expected. All esthetics are subjective, personal, and valid.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> The two thoughts--Bach appealing greatly, and the subjectivity of artistic values--are neither mutually exclusive nor are they linked. Bach appeals greatly to me, and if he does not appeal greatly to X or to Y, that is to be expected. All esthetics are subjective, personal, and valid.


"All esthetics are subjective, personal, and valid" is not as meaningful a formulation as you may think it is. A stated, it implies that subjective valuation is completely independent of and unrelated to objectively existing characteristics of both valuers and things valued - that, in other words, it comes out of nowhere or, at best, is equivalent to a hallucination or dream. In dismissing as meaningless, or as nonexistent, the _reasons_ why humans value the things they do, you ignore objective reality and causality. Terribly unscientific.

No music is enjoyed by everyone. NOTHING is enjoyed by everyone, including life itself. In relation to the question of whether Bach is a great composer, the taste and judgment of Aunt Agatha is irrelevant - but the collective tastes and judgments of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries is highly relevant. It could have us looking at realities, or it might simply have us grunting with the inarticulate pleasure of a Neanderthal (apologies to sensitive cave men) licking the buffalo fat off his lips.

You don't have to care that Bach is commonly spoken of with awe and reverence by musicians and non-musicians alike. You don't have to wonder what objective realities have caused that to happen. I do care and wonder. I believe that there is actually a there there, and that I'm not dreaming, hallucinating, or licking buffalo fat.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> the taste and judgment of Aunt Agatha is irrelevant - but the collective tastes and judgments of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries is highly relevant.


You're quite taken with the caveman and his buffalo fat lips...and Aunt Agatha

...but it doesn't really get us very far. Consider the individual tastes and judgements of the musically senstitive which you've aggregated up, to create some objective criteria. What are they (re Bach)?

These worthies have evolved a set of criteria over the centuries which bind them all together in an estimable club. Some young poppinjay comes along and declares that the criteria used by this club are old-fashioned fogeydom, and composes something that shocks the established order, but gains its own club. Whose to arbitrate in this clash? Who's to say that god-inspired counterpoint is the One Rule to Bind Them All no longer: thou shalt follow Chromaticism all thy Life!


----------



## Luchesi

RogerWaters said:


> What _is_ the measure of music, then, according to Sir Luchesi?
> 
> If you say something like 'form' or 'complexity' or 'symmetry' or 'motific development' or anything high-minded like that, I will then ask you the following:
> 
> Why do you value _that_. The answer will, at some point, come down to your chosen 'measure' _appealing_ to you.
> 
> In short: your first-order measure of music might not be 'appeal', but your second-order measure* (of first-order measures!) _will be_ appeal.
> 
> ---
> 
> *appeal might actually be your third or fourth- order measure (for instance you may measure (first-order) the quality of music in terms of counterpoint because (second-order) many distinguished muscians did the same), but the point is that things will eventually bottom out at personal, subjective, arbitrary, appeal: in this case, the appeal of following the measure employed by distinguished musicians.


No matter what I say about subjectivity, it only seems to make listeners dig in deeper into relativism.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Brahms was one of the Three Bs!
> 
> More universal sounding than;
> 
> Boccherini
> Berlioz
> Bizet
> Borodin
> Bruckner
> Jakob Ludwig Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy?


A German who was more universal sounding to you! Just a highly subjective judgment.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> In relation to the question of whether Bach is a great composer, the taste and judgment of Aunt Agatha is irrelevant - but the collective tastes and judgments of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries is highly relevant.


(Reversing my previous post somewhat):

Your point depends I think on whether adherence to the "collective tastes and judgements of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries" is part of the meaning of 'Great'. If it is, then Bach is 'objectively' great. If not, then Bach may not be.


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> You're quite taken with the caveman and his buffalo fat lips...and Aunt Agatha
> 
> ...but it doesn't really get us very far. Consider the individual tastes and judgements of the musically senstitive which you've aggregated up, to create some objective criteria. What are they (re Bach)?
> *
> These worthies* have evolved a set of criteria over the centuries which bind them all together in an *estimable club*. Some *young poppinjay* comes along and declares that the criteria used by this club are *old-fashioned fogeydom*, and composes something that shocks the established order, but gains its own club. Whose to arbitrate in *this clash*? Who's to say that god-inspired counterpoint is *the One Rule* to Bind Them All no longer: thou shalt follow Chromaticism all thy Life!


You're assuming that one set of criteria for excellence cancels out another. History is a long succession of young poppinjays. Old fogey Bach and poppinjay Wagner both endure, neither is threatened by the other, and members of the estimable club of worthies (I'm a proud member) recognize the excellence of both. (Do note that young poppinjay Wagner revered his old fogey ancestors. He knew what excellence looked like; he wasn't the fool you think poppinjays are.)

But more to the point, you and Stange Magic are both avoiding the question of WHY human beings value the things they do. THAT is the attitude that really "doesn't get us very far." In fact it gets us nowhere at all. Of course you're fully within your rights not to want to go anywhere, to ask no questions, and simply to enjoy that buffalo fat.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> (Reversing my previous post somewhat):
> 
> Your point depends I think on whether adherence to the "collective tastes and judgements of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries" is part of the meaning of 'Great'. If it is, then Bach is 'objectively' great. If not, then Bach may not be.


That's vague. What do you mean by "part of the meaning of"?

I would say that the "collective tastes and judgements of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries" is an invaluable indicator of where to look for qualities of excellence. It helps us direct our focus in a way that's productive of deeper insight. We owe a great deal to those tastes and judgments as we develop and refine our own musical sensitivity and understanding. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> *You're assuming that one set of criteria for excellence cancels out another.* History is a long succession of young poppinjays. Old fogey Bach and poppinjay Wagner both endure, neither is threatened by the other, and members of the estimable club of worthies (I'm a proud member) recognize the excellence of both. (Do note that young poppinjay Wagner revered his old fogey ancestors. He knew what excellence looked like; he wasn't the fool you think poppinjays are.)
> 
> But more to the point, *you and Stange Magic are both avoiding the question of WHY human beings value the things they do*. THAT is the attitude that really "doesn't get us very far." In fact it gets us nowhere at all. Of course you're fully within your rights not to want to go anywhere, to ask no questions, and simply to enjoy that buffalo fat.


No, I'm assuming nothing of the sort. You correctly point out the succession of popinjays and how, over time, shifts in judgements take place that do not wholly reject all that has gone before, but nevertheless lead to a redefining of the criteria for judgement.

As for 'me and Strange Magic' (I don't think we do think quite the same, actually) I've not yet got to the question of why we value what we value, because whenever this kind of question comes up, there is never agreement on the criteria for judgement of what is and isn't of value. I like some Bach, I like some Satie - both are, to me valuable, but they are distinctly different composers with different appeal. But as we creep closer to comparing these two, the risk is that someone jumps in and declares one to be 'greater' than the other, because they believe what they value - counterpoint - is intrinsically more valuable than 'not-counterpoint'.

It's that rush to elevation (and, by implication, the dismissal of those who like buffalo fat) that stymies progress. And see - we've _both _gone part way there - you with your bufflao fat and me with my old fogeys.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> That's vague. What do you mean by "part of the meaning of"?
> 
> I would say that the "collective tastes and judgements of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries" is an invaluable indicator of where to look for qualities of excellence. It helps us direct our focus in a way that's productive of deeper insight. We owe a great deal to those tastes and judgments as we develop and refine our own musical sensitivity and understanding. This is pretty obvious, isn't it?


Take the analogy with morality: just because a bunch of people agree that some action is moral, does that make it moral? I don't think mere shared assent is part of the meaning of a 'moral' action. Is shared assent part of the meaning of 'Great' music? A thought experiment might help probe intuitions about the concept 'Great':

Imagine Bach's music remained exactly the same, but yet most musically sensitive people on planet earth suddenly became indifferent to Bach's music (include the opinions of dead ones changing suddenly too, reflected in changes in their written words etc). Do you think Bach's music has suddenly become ordinary? If not, then you do not think the meaning of 'Great' is captured merely by the shared assent of musically sensitive people.

Then there is the problem that many people use the term 'Great' differently. So even if the tastes of sensitive and knowledgeable people over the centries is part of the meaning of your concept 'Great', it may not be of someone else's. For instance, many people use the term 'Great' to mean "instills awe in _me_", and don't give a damn about dead musicians and critics. I don't know how to arbitrate this issue.


----------



## RogerWaters

I completely agree with your point about anaylsing _why_ certain composers appeal over others. This is important, yet compatible with a relaxed attitude towards musical 'objectivity'.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> A German who was more universal sounding to you! Just a highly subjective judgment.


It was a question.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> It was a question.


Sorry I didn't see the question mark. Anyway I answered it


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Take the analogy with morality: just because a bunch of people agree that some action is moral, does that make it moral? I don't think mere shared assent is part of the meaning of a 'moral' action. Is shared assent part of the meaning of 'Great' music? A thought experiment might help probe intuitions about the concept 'Great':


The analogy with morality is tempting but certainly incomplete and fraught. I'd rather not get into analyzing it right now.



> Imagine Bach's music remained exactly the same, but yet most musically sensitive people on planet earth suddenly became indifferent to Bach's music (include the opinions of dead ones changing suddenly too, reflected in changes in their written words etc). Do you think Bach's music has suddenly become ordinary? If not, then you do not think the meaning of 'Great' is captured merely by the shared assent of musically sensitive people.


First of all, that isn't going to happen. Nothing can be concluded by hypothesizing something inconceivable or impossible. You may as well ask whether everyone could suddenly become indifferent to love, logic or grammar. An individual might at some point decide not to care about these things (and some apparently don't care), but that doesn't mean we can no longer say that they're objectively good things for humans or manifestations of human excellence. We don't judge health by the standards of the hopelessly ill.

There are days when Bach's Art of Fugue strikes me as fascinating, and other days when it would be torturous to sit through. It doesn't lose its excellence on days of the latter sort.



> Then there is the problem that many people use the term 'Great' differently. So even if the tastes of sensitive and knowledgeable people over the centries is part of the meaning of your concept 'Great', it may not be of someone else's. For instance, many people use the term 'Great' to mean "instills awe in _me_", and don't give a damn about dead musicians and critics. I don't know how to arbitrate this issue.


I don't think it's particularly important whether we call Bach or Brahms "great," or any other adjective for that matter. Words have varied meanings, and we don't need to "arbitrate" between usages or users. What matters is that we can hear and comprehend what Bach and Brahms are doing, and that we're conscious enough to know how extraordinary it is.


----------



## DavidA

RogerWaters said:


> Take the analogy with morality: just because a bunch of people agree that some action is moral, does that make it moral? I don't think mere shared assent is part of the meaning of a 'moral' action. Is shared assent part of the meaning of 'Great' music? A thought experiment might help probe intuitions about the concept 'Great':
> 
> Imagine Bach's music remained exactly the same, but yet most musically sensitive people on planet earth suddenly became indifferent to Bach's music (include the opinions of dead ones changing suddenly too, reflected in changes in their written words etc). Do you think Bach's music has suddenly become ordinary? If not, then you do not think the meaning of 'Great' is captured merely by the shared assent of musically sensitive people.
> 
> Then there is the problem that many people use the term 'Great' differently. So even if the tastes of sensitive and knowledgeable people over the centries is part of the meaning of your concept 'Great', it may not be of someone else's. For instance, many people use the term 'Great' to mean "instills awe in _me_", and don't give a damn about dead musicians and critics. I don't know how to arbitrate this issue.


Well the only way to arbitrate the fact that someone deserves the title great is the fact that many informed people describe the title to him. Also that history agrees with them. For example 'Herod the Great' was a great builder but there was nothing else particularly great about him. We know that Alexander the great was a great general but a lunatic in most other regards. Many of the people we regard as great we're not particularly great as people, including the 'great' composers. But if what we are assessing is there extraordinary musical talent then we can apply the word


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> What matters is that we can hear and comprehend what Bach and Brahms are doing, and that we're conscious enough to know how *extraordinary *it is.


Whether we use the term 'great' (implying significantly superior to the run-of-the-mill) or 'extraordinary' (implying the same), we still have the same problem.

I agree that we should keep well away from analogies with morality!


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> No, I'm assuming nothing of the sort.


Well it certainly seems that way to me. But I'll take your word for it.



> You correctly point out the succession of popinjays and how, over time, shifts in judgements take place that do not wholly reject all that has gone before, but nevertheless lead to a redefining of the criteria for judgement.


I'd go just a little farther and say "shifts in judgment rarely reject what's gone before if the music in question is good." Using the perception of Bach's music again as an example, general esteem for his work seems to have risen over time despite subsequent developments which have produced music having nothing in common with his. Time opens up new possibilties, but doesn't erase old standards and are likely, in fact, to shed new light on them and solidify their value. We can still be awed by the creative genius of Josquin Desprez, and understand the esteem in which his own era held him.



> As for 'me and Strange Magic' (I don't think we do think quite the same, actually) I've not yet got to the question of why we value what we value, because whenever this kind of question comes up, there is never agreement on the criteria for judgement of what is and isn't of value.


On the contrary, there is an extraordinary amount of agreement. It's just that taste and judgment are not the same thing, and subjective tastes are more obvious and easier to talk about than perceptions of deeper principles.



> I like some Bach, I like some Satie - both are, to me valuable, but they are distinctly different composers with different appeal. But as we creep closer to comparing these two, the risk is that someone jumps in and declares one to be 'greater' than the other, because they believe what they value - counterpoint - is intrinsically more valuable than 'not-counterpoint'.


That trivializes the reasons why virtually all musicians and probably most non-musicians would judge Bach a greater compose than Satie. Bach's art is richer by far than Satie's, technically and expressively; it reveals a vastness of musical imagination and a level of control of the materials of music that Satie nowhere suggests. Satie does what he does well, but what he does is far less impressive.



> It's that rush to elevation (and, by implication, the dismissal of those who like buffalo fat) that stymies progress.


I haven't "dismissed" anyone. And I can't see how anything I've said "stymies progress" (what is that, by the way?).



> And see - we've _both _gone part way there - you with your bufflao fat and me with my old fogeys.


Part way where?


----------



## RogerWaters

> Imagine Bach's music remained exactly the same, but yet most musically sensitive people on planet earth suddenly became indifferent to Bach's music (include the opinions of dead ones changing suddenly too, reflected in changes in their written words etc). Do you think Bach's music has suddenly become ordinary? If not, then you do not think the meaning of 'Great' is captured merely by the shared assent of musically sensitive people.





Woodduck said:


> First of all, that isn't going to happen. Nothing can be concluded by hypothesizing something inconceivable or impossible.


This is actually a very standard method for analysing our intuitions about concepts (specifically, their meaning) in analytic philosophy. And the situation I described is not inconceivable. I can easily imagine a world in which bach's music remained the same yet widespread indifference greeted it - I could write a book or a movie about this world, with no logical contradictions: certainly my readers wouldn't be faced with something inconceivable. A square circle, on the other hand, is inconceivable.

If you don't think bach becomes ordinary in an imaginary (but clearly not inconceivable) world in which everyone thinks/thought his music wasn't great, then it seems you just don't believe the meaning of 'great' involves merely shared assent to his greatness.



Woodduck said:


> I don't think it's particularly important whether we call Bach or Brahms "great," or any other adjective for that matter. Words have varied meanings, and we don't need to "arbitrate" between usages or users. *What matters is that we can hear and comprehend what Bach and Brahms are doing, and that we're conscious enough to know how extraordinary it is.*


Then I don't know why we are disagreeing. I agree with the bold bit - but it's a personal preference, that happens to be shared (thankfully).


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> Whether we use the term 'great' (implying significantly superior to the run-of-the-mill) or 'extraordinary' (implying the same), we still have the same problem.
> 
> I agree that we should keep well away from analogies with morality!


"Great" is one of those words that means anything positive that people want it to mean. It may be no more meaningful than "Wow!" "Extraordinary" means "out of the ordinary." So are you saying that the art of Bach and Brahms is NOT extraordinary? Can't you hear what's extraordinary about it?


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> This is actually a very standard method for analysing our intuitions about concepts (specifically, their meaning) in analytic philosophy. And the situation I described is not inconceivable. I can easily imagine a world in which bach's music remained the same yet their was indifference to it - I could write a book or a movie with no logical contradictions. A square circle, on the other hand, is inconceivable.
> 
> I don't think your examples of love, lgoci or grammar are good examples for your argument. They are cerainly _not_ objective goods - in the sense that if someone was perfectly happy to get by without them, there would be no objective basis to way there were doing sometihng bad!


If "objective goods" included only things everyone needed and wanted in all times and places, it would be pointless to discuss goods at all. Obviously music is not, by that standard, an objective good. I'm not arguing that it is. I'm only arguing that along certain parameters music may be evaluated as good, and that degrees of excellence - or "greatness," or "genius," or whatever - are perceptible. Perfect, universal agreement is neither necessary nor possible.

I want to choose my words carefully, but I don't want to get bogged down. Erase "inconceivable," then, and leave it at "impossible" (I did say "or"). Your Bach-less world isn't going to happen. Humans as we know them are inherently, neurologically capable of perceiving the extraordinary qualities of Bach's music. They do so routinely, they've been doing so for three centuries, and our understanding of his music and our appreciation of it has arguably grown. I said at the outset that this ought to tell us something. The specifics of that "something" could occupy us for a long time and take us through sleepless nights and many pots of coffee.



> I don't know why we are disagreeing. I agree with the bold bit - but it's a personal preference, that happens to be shared (thankfully).


I don't know either. I think you started it.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Well it certainly seems that way to me. But I'll take your word for it.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> I'd go just a little farther and say "shifts in judgment rarely reject what's gone before if the music in question is good." Using the perception of Bach's music again as an example, general esteem for his work seems to have risen over time despite subsequent developments which have produced music having nothing in common with his. Time opens up new possibilties, but doesn't erase old standards and are likely, in fact, to shed new light on them and solidify their value. We can still be awed by the creative genius of Josquin Desprez, and understand the esteem in which his own era held him.
> 
> Yes, of course, but the kind of public spats there have been between, say, composers, over what counts as the way forward (eg Brahms v Liszt) are at least one indicator that the criteria for judging the worth of music has evolved, and continues to evolve over time.
> 
> On the contrary, there is an extraordinary amount of agreement. It's just that taste and judgment are not the same thing, and subjective tastes are more obvious and easier to talk about than perceptions of deeper principles.
> 
> By 'agreement' I was referring to 'agreement' among TC members whenever this question has come up. I may be mistaken and you may be able to point to the thread where a set of criteria were finally generally (if not unanimously) agreed to. What I _wasn't_ referring to was agreement among the wider cognoscenti that Bach is a great composer.
> 
> That trivializes the reasons why virtually all musicians and probably most non-musicians would judge Bach a greater compose than Satie. Bach's art is richer by far than Satie's, technically and expressively; it reveals a vastness of musical imagination and a level of control of the materials of music that Satie nowhere suggests. Satie does what he does well, but what he does is far less impressive.
> 
> How does it trivialise? All I'm doing is pointing out that the criteria one might use to judge the greatness of one composition is not *necessarily *relevant to making a judgement for another, and this is one of the obstacles to formulating a set of agreed criteria. Pick any Gymnopedie or Gnossienne and it would be silly to say that because it doesn't startle with extraordinary counterpoint, it is of lesser value than Toccata and Fugue in D.
> 
> I haven't "dismissed" anyone. And I can't see how anything I've said "stymies progress" (what is that, by the way?).
> 
> Well it certainly seems that way to me. But I'll take your word for it. 'Stymies progress' towards agreement here at TC.
> 
> Part way where?
> 
> Part way towards the same kind of disagreement here that stymies progress. If you want to make your points about judgement, do you need to make the humorous (but nevertheless  disparaging remarks) about the inarticulate? Similarly, did I need to be disparaging about those who, over time, have provided a degree of consensus about orthodox standards?





Woodduck said:


> "Great" is one of those words that means anything positive that people want it to mean. It may be no more meaningful than "Wow!" "Extraordinary" means "out of the ordinary." So are you saying that the art of Bach and Brahms is NOT extraordinary? Can't you hear what's extraordinary about it?


You said, _"I don't think it's particularly important whether we call Bach or Brahms "great," or any other adjective for that matter."_ but you still wish to apply the qualitative 'extraordinary'. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Whether we apply 'great' (in the sense that I'm sure we know is meant here - 'superior' - not merely a rough synonym for 'I really like it a lot') or 'extraordinary', we end up trying to say the same thing. What I think about the works of Bach or Brahms doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the discussion about what criteria we are going to use to agree that something is superior to something else.

Just to be clear. I'm already on record in this thread as declaring that I have yet to listen to enough Brahms often enough to pass legitimate judgement (though I didn't use those precise words). I did take the trouble to post two clips of performances of his symphonies and ask for some insights into his greatness. None was forthcoming as the discussion headed off in other directions. (One poster replied that it would take a lot of analysi that they weren't prepared to go into.)

I also took the trouble to post the outcome of the BBC Music poll of conductors' 'greatest' symphonies to point out to at least one member here who claimed that Brahms isn't one of the greats, that he had more symphonies in the top 20 than Mozart - only Mahler had more.

As for Bach, I like some of his organ music and the Brandenbergs and of course, am happy to accept the judgement of the "collective tastes and judgments of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries" (and about Brahms too.)

I didn't rejoin this thread to claim that Bach and Brahms are not great. I joined it to raise again the question about the _criteria _for greatness (or extraordinariness if you prefer).


----------



## Strange Magic

> Woodduck: "In dismissing as meaningless, or as nonexistent, the reasons why humans value the things they do, you ignore objective reality and causality. Terribly unscientific."


I note, first, that this marks the 27th time we have had this discussion.

A) In discussing the esthetics of art, I embrace all of the science and reasons why humans value the art they do. It is all very scientific and valid and interesting. But it tells us nothing about greatness.

B) Once we strip away the objective reality and causality, we are left with two questions or issues: 1) Do I like this work? and 2) Ought I like this work? What the science tells us is why a certain tested population responds positively to ("likes") an art experience (Bach, for instance, and not Journey). Is Bach indeed "greater" than Journey, or is he preferred by an audience different from Journey's? Is Journey's audience having a valid, authentic, meaningful art experience?

C) However much it is ignored or denied, the inference then drawn is that superior people like superior art and inferior people like inferior art. And thus esthetics becomes a voting, a polling process, that _ex post facto_ will reveal, uselessly, who likes what, and, more importantly, what one ought to like. In other words, whose selections are more valid, meaningful, authentic.

D) Basically, again once the outer husk of objective (and it is objective) science is removed from esthetics, one is left with the practical questions of 1) What do I like? (easily answered), and B) What should I like, based on my supposed peer group? We are left then with the tautology that the Greatest Art is that voted so by the Best People. If one is satisfied with this tautology, then one must choose one's preferences with care, if being associated with Greatness in one's tastes is important.

E) None of the above invalidates the notion of tastes shared within peer groups of like-minded individuals. But both thought and experience convince me that all esthetics is personal and subjective.


----------



## millionrainbows

The problem here is that both sides are overlooking the fact that the experience of music is inter-subjective. There can be no "objective" gauge of "greatness" in the subjective experience which applies to other experiences. All experience is therefore "invisible" to all others, except in the most rudimentary way of empathy.
There can be "data" extrapolated from the consensus of experience, but it is only data, not objective fact, or even close to it.



Woodduck said:


> I'm only arguing that along certain parameters music may be evaluated as good, and that degrees of excellence - or "greatness," or "genius," or whatever - are perceptible. Perfect, universal agreement is neither necessary nor possible...Humans as we know them are inherently, neurologically capable of perceiving the extraordinary qualities of Bach's music. They do so routinely, they've been doing so for three centuries, and our understanding of his music and our appreciation of it has arguably grown. I said at the outset that this ought to tell us something.


Then that could be valuable data, in one sense. But it certainly does not represent any kind of "objective" fact about anything. I think the search for "the objective" in art is a fruitless pursuit, only used by humans to deny or confirm their own experience.

Experience MUST remain unique, because it has no other choice. Each individual's experience MUST be seen as unique and essentially impenetrable; otherwise the "wall" which separates subjectivity and objectivity has been "breached" by a supposed objectivity, which is impossible.


----------



## annaw

MacLeod said:


> You said, _"I don't think it's particularly important whether we call Bach or Brahms "great," or any other adjective for that matter."_ but you still wish to apply the qualitative 'extraordinary'. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Whether we apply 'great' (in the sense that I'm sure we know is meant here - 'superior' - not merely a rough synonym for 'I really like it a lot') or 'extraordinary', we end up trying to say the same thing. What I think about the works of Bach or Brahms doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the discussion about what criteria we are going to use to agree that something is superior to something else.


I don't think that saying something is "great" (in this context "superior", as you point out) is equal to saying that something is "extraordinary". The latter is a pure description, like saying that [something] is blue. With such statement you don't intend to say that [something] is bluer than something else, you're just making an independent observation. Saying that Brahms and Bach are extraordinary doesn't mean that they are more so than for example Beethoven. Personally, I strongly prefer descriptive comparison of composers without really ranking them according to their "greatness".

I have a feeling that this "greatness" is actually a collection of such descriptive words. Whether I personally think this or that composer is "great" depends on how much I value the compositional techniques they were good at. Let's say that composer X was a good melodist and composer Y was a good harmonist. If I value a skilful use of harmony more than melodies, I'm more likely to say that composer Y was greater than composer X. That's why it's important to at least try to comprehend the things which I appreciate the most about the music and composers I like.

There are specific things that make Brahms and Bach so popular and these are the certain qualities of their music which a lot of people are likely to value very highly.


----------



## millionrainbows

annaw said:


> I don't think that saying something is "great" (in this context "superior", as you point out) is equal to saying that something is "extraordinary". The latter is a pure description, like saying that [something] is blue. With such statement you don't intend to say that [something] is bluer than something else, you're just making an independent observation. Saying that Brahms and Bach are extraordinary doesn't mean that they are more so than for example Beethoven. Personally, I strongly prefer descriptive comparison of composers without really ranking them according to their "greatness".
> 
> I have a feeling that this "greatness" is actually a collection of such descriptive words. Whether I personally think this or that composer is "great" depends on how much I value the compositional techniques they were good at. Let's say that composer X was a good melodist and composer Y was a good harmonist. If I value a skilful use of harmony more than melodies, I'm more likely to say that composer Y was greater than composer X. That's why it's important to at least try to comprehend the things which I appreciate the most about the music and composers I like.
> 
> There are specific things that make Brahms and Bach so popular and these are the certain qualities of their music which a lot of people are likely to value very highly.


So you seem to be saying that preferences are determined by "qualities" which exist as "pure descriptions" such as "the color blue."
This might be as close as we dare to venture to "objective" aspects of art. Still, this is an area which the artist chooses to communicate with, and is very general, so these "qualities" might exist as 'objective' aspects of a work, but they are part of an inter-subjective matrix which is created by the artist to convey an experience to us, and is the result of human experience.

If you like it when an artist "homes-in" on a _particular aspect _of human experience, such as Dostoyevsky's focus on particular aspects of human experience, or Picasso's "Blue-ness," then this becomes a matter of subjective preference again, not really dependent on the "blueness" or any "objective" quality of the work, but on _artist's choices and our preferences,_ both subjective, and the result of shared experience.


----------



## Guest

annaw said:


> I don't think that saying something is "great" (in this context "superior", as you point out) is equal to saying that something is "extraordinary". The latter is a pure description, like saying that [something] is blue.


I think that to label something as 'extraordinary' is to make a qualitative judgement, and not just a 'pure description'. It means that the music of Bach is 'outside' the ordinary. I'm not disgreeing with the claim itself, just that it is any different than claiming it is 'great' where great has a specified meaning in this thread.



annaw said:


> *Whether I personally think this or that composer is "great" depends on how much I value the compositional techniques they were good at*. Let's say that composer X was a good melodist and composer Y was a good harmonist. If I value a skilful use of harmony more than melodies, I'm more likely to say that composer Y was greater than composer X. That's why it's important to at least try to comprehend the things which I appreciate the most about the music and composers I like.


Yes, which is what I think I said in the last part of my post. However, I think Woodduck goes further than you and me, as he believes there is something more objective in the accumulated wisdom of the centuries that enables it to be said not just what you and I prefer, but what is objectively demonstrable.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> There are specific things that make Brahms and Bach so popular and these are the certain qualities of their music which a lot of people are likely to value very highly.


They are not so popular, Bach was ignored for 100 years and Brahms was heavily criticized for just as long, and is today not as performed and can be neglected by audiences. Bach wrote a lot for solo instrument and musicians enjoy playing his music but people are not exactly lining up to hear his music live.


----------



## annaw

MacLeod said:


> I think that to label something as 'extraordinary' is to make a qualitative judgement, and not just a 'pure description'. It means that the music of Bach is 'outside' the ordinary. I'm not disgreeing with the claim itself, just that it is any different than claiming it is 'great' where great has a specified meaning in this thread.


If we used the normal definition of 'great', which does not imply any quantifiable superiority, I'd have no problem, although 'extraordinary' is just more informative than merely 'great'. Nevertheless, being a qualitative statement, 'extraordinary', even in the context of this thread, is not synonymous to quantifiable 'greatness' or superiority.



> Yes, which is what I think I said in the last part of my post. However, I think Woodduck goes further than you and me, as he believes there is something more objective in the accumulated wisdom of the centuries that enables it to be said not just what you and I prefer, but what is objectively demonstrable.


I think these two things _might_ be connected and thus I don't disagree with Woodduck. In fact, I find his theory very fascinating. (Woodduck, I recall that in another thread you allowed to consider such collective evaluation of greatness subjective. Is that still so?)

Even the way we ask "who is the greatest composer?" assumes the existence of collective evaluation of greatness because I haven't yet encountered anyone pointing out one problem with the question. Apparently, I cannot say composer X is the greatest, if I haven't heard the compositions of all composers who have ever lived. Why don't we have a problem with that? Because we assume we would have heard of her/him if the composer was a candidate for the title of greatest composer. Thus, we trust that the society around us is able to spot "greatness" and that this 'greatness' is similar to our own understanding of it (of course there are always exceptions). I think this could be in part biological and connected with neurobiology and things which provide enjoyment (certain melodies for example) for humans in general (things which cause certain hormone production for example). If it's biological, it's also to some extent shared by different people and thus increases the likelihood that my personal taste overlaps with someone else's. On such basis, it's reasonable to assume that collective evaluation reflects my personal one to some extent at least. (Woodduck didn't say there couldn't be exceptions.)


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I note, first, that this marks the 27th time we have had this discussion.


I admire your dedication in keeping track. But are you sure it isn't the 28th?



> A) In discussing the esthetics of art, I embrace all of the science and reasons why humans value the art they do. It is all very scientific and valid and interesting. But it tells us nothing about greatness.


What does it tell us about? I gather you think it tells us nothing worth knowing. I've said that it can tell us where to look for qualities of excellence (I think we're better off leaving the term "greatness" behind. I use it sparingly, and I know what I mean by it, but I can't expect others to accept my meaning).



> B) Once we strip away the objective reality and causality, we are left with two questions or issues: 1) Do I like this work? and 2) Ought I like this work?


I'm not interested in stripping away objective reality and causality. As for question #1, the answer is of interest to no one but me, and as for question #2, I don't consider it a meaningful question. The concept of "ought" is irrelevant to artistic appreciation and enjoyment.



> C) However much it is ignored or denied, the inference then drawn is that superior people like superior art and inferior people like inferior art.


I don't understand why you draw that inference or imagine it should be drawn. I certainly don't draw it it or think it implicit in the simple realities of artistic excellence and artistic discrimination. Speaking for myself - and, I would imagine, for just about everyone - I enjoy art at many levels of quality and distinction. I don't disparage Strauss waltzes for not being _Tristan und Isolde_; I relish both (so did Wagner, by the way), and feel no need to don a hair shirt and keep a volume of Heidegger by the toilet as penance for having hummed along with _Tales from the Vienna Woods._ I take some pleasure, in fact, in being able to tell when Johann strauss was at the top of his modest game and when he was just going through the motions. Some of his waltzes are better than others. None of them get beyond the doorstep of the artistic edifice that Wagner erected, and both Strauss and Wagner knew it, but as far as pleasure is concerned, who the hell cares?



> And thus esthetics becomes a voting, a polling process, that _ex post facto_ will reveal, uselessly, who likes what, and, more importantly, what one ought to like. In other words, whose selections are more valid, meaningful, authentic.


No.



> D) Basically, again once the outer husk of objective (and it is objective) science is removed from esthetics, one is left with the practical questions of 1) What do I like? (easily answered), and B) What should I like, based on my supposed peer group? We are left then with the tautology that the Greatest Art is that voted so by the Best People. If one is satisfied with this tautology, then one must choose one's preferences with care, if being associated with Greatness in one's tastes is important.


No.



> E) None of the above invalidates the notion of tastes shared within peer groups of like-minded individuals. But both thought and experience convince me that all esthetics is personal and subjective.


I can tell a raven from a writing desk.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> They are not so popular, Bach was ignored for 100 years and Brahms was heavily criticized for just as long, and is today not as performed and can be neglected by audiences. Bach wrote a lot for solo instrument and musicians enjoy playing his music but people are not exactly lining up to hear his music live.


Uh, I'm willing to rephrase it to deliver my point to you more effectively...

"There are specific things that make *Beethoven* and *Mozart* so popular and these are the certain qualities of their music which a lot of people are likely to value very highly."

Better  ?


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> Uh, I'm willing to rephrase it to deliver my point to you more effectively...
> 
> "There are specific things that make *Beethoven* and *Mozart* so popular and these are the certain qualities of their music which a lot of people are likely to value very highly."
> 
> Better  ?


I think people here value Bach and Brahms the highest because they are technically proficient and as musicians we tend to be impressed by that, but it adds very little to the artistry. Mozart and Beethoven are the superior artists; emotionally they connect with people on a deeper level and their art is uplifting in the way art should be. They fulfill the purpose of art better.


----------



## annaw

1996D said:


> I think people here value Bach and Brahms the highest because they are technically proficient and as musicians we tend to be impressed by that, but it adds very little to the artistry. Mozart and Beethoven are the superior artists; emotionally they connect with people on a deeper level and their art is uplifting in the way art should be. They fulfill the purpose of art better.


While I disagree, I see that my rephrasing was at least effective . Beethoven is my favourite among 3Bs and Mozart but I value them all very very highly. They are certainly all among my favourite composers.


----------



## 1996D

annaw said:


> While I disagree, I see that my rephrasing was at least effective . Beethoven is my favourite among 3Bs and Mozart but I value them all very very highly. They are certainly all among my favourite composers.


I also think they're all great, you'll tend to rank the one you're listening to at the moment highest. They all have similar minds too, it's like they're brothers.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I think people here value Bach and Brahms the highest because they are technically proficient and as musicians we tend to be impressed by that, but it adds very little to the artistry. Mozart and Beethoven are the superior artists; emotionally they connect with people on a deeper level and their art is uplifting in the way art should be. They fulfill the purpose of art better.


Is this from the Klingon Dictionary of Music?


----------



## Guest

annaw said:


> If we used the normal definition of 'great', which does not imply any quantifiable superiority, I'd have no problem, although 'extraordinary' is just more informative than merely 'great'. Nevertheless, being a qualitative statement, 'extraordinary', even in the context of this thread, is not synonymous to quantifiable 'greatness' or superiority.
> 
> I think these two things _might_ be connected and thus I don't disagree with Woodduck. In fact, I find his theory very fascinating. (Woodduck, I recall that in another thread you allowed to consider such collective evaluation of greatness subjective. Is that still so?)
> 
> Even the way we ask "who is the greatest composer?" assumes the existence of collective evaluation of greatness because I haven't yet encountered anyone pointing out one problem with the question. Apparently, I cannot say composer X is the greatest, if I haven't heard the compositions of all composers who have ever lived. Why don't we have a problem with that? Because we assume we would have heard of her/him if the composer was a candidate for the title of greatest composer. Thus, we trust that the society around us is able to spot "greatness" and that this 'greatness' is similar to our own understanding of it (of course there are always exceptions). I think this could be in part biological and connected with neurobiology and things which provide enjoyment (certain melodies for example) for humans in general (things which cause certain hormone production for example). If it's biological, it's also to some extent shared by different people and thus increases the likelihood that my personal taste overlaps with someone else's. On such basis, it's reasonable to assume that collective evaluation reflects my personal one to some extent at least. (Woodduck didn't say there couldn't be exceptions.)


I'm afraid in your first para, you've lost me. The whole point of the OP was to ask why Brahms is 'so great' - he doesn't know why, so asks for our help. He also offers one or two ideas of his own. It was this use of 'great' that I was trying to refer back to when I spoke about the way it was being used in this thread. Perhaps I've not succeeded in making a clear enough distinction.

Even Woodduck baulks at a declaration of 'greatest' - see his answer to the question in another thread. I agree that for those who don't have a problem with the question, they generally take into account both the historical, the collective and the personal judgements, regardless of how much they have actually listened to themselves.


----------



## annaw

MacLeod said:


> I'm afraid in your first para, you've lost me. The whole point of the OP was to ask why Brahms is 'so great' - he doesn't know why, so asks for our help. He also offers one or two ideas of his own. It was this use of 'great' that I was trying to refer back to when I spoke about the way it was being used in this thread. Perhaps I've not succeeded in making a clear enough distinction.


Oh, sorry, my bad. Forget it. I thought we were still talking about the second definition which Strange Magic proposed.



> Even Woodduck baulks at a declaration of 'greatest' - see his answer to the question in another thread. I agree that for those who don't have a problem with the question, they generally take into account both the historical, the collective and the personal judgements, regardless of how much they have actually listened to themselves.


Agreed. Although I still don't think there has been anyone in this thread who finds it problematic that no one has actually listened to everything. But I don't find problem there because I do believe that our collective understanding is effective in filtering out the most talented composers who also realised their talent.


----------



## Coach G

For some reason classical music enthusiasts seem to "connect" with Beethoven and Mozart more than others, as if Beethoven and Mozart are the dog and cat of classical music. And while there are dog people and cat people, you also have a few others who do connect with birds, fish, rodents, and reptiles. Likewise, there are Bach people, Brahms people, Wagner People, Mahler people, Shostakovich people, etc.


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> You said, _"I don't think it's particularly important whether we call Bach or Brahms "great," or any other adjective for that matter."_ but you still wish to apply the qualitative 'extraordinary'. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding. Whether we apply 'great' (in the sense that I'm sure we know is meant here - 'superior' - not merely a rough synonym for 'I really like it a lot') or 'extraordinary', we end up trying to say the same thing. What I think about the works of Bach or Brahms doesn't seem to me to be relevant to the discussion about what criteria we are going to use to agree that something is superior to something else.
> 
> Just to be clear. I'm already on record in this thread as declaring that I have yet to listen to enough Brahms often enough to pass legitimate judgement (though I didn't use those precise words). I did take the trouble to post two clips of performances of his symphonies and ask for some insights into his greatness. None was forthcoming as the discussion headed off in other directions. (One poster replied that it would take a lot of analysi that they weren't prepared to go into.)
> 
> I also took the trouble to post the outcome of the BBC Music poll of conductors' 'greatest' symphonies to point out to at least one member here who claimed that Brahms isn't one of the greats, that he had more symphonies in the top 20 than Mozart - only Mahler had more.
> 
> As for Bach, I like some of his organ music and the Brandenbergs and of course, am happy to accept the judgement of the "collective tastes and judgments of musically sensitive and knowledgeable people over the last three centuries" (and about Brahms too.)
> 
> I didn't rejoin this thread to claim that Bach and Brahms are not great. I joined it to raise again the question about the _criteria _for greatness (or extraordinariness if you prefer).


Greatness in any of the arts is the total package of human achievement and cleverness, spinning of the notes (or other techniques) and employing a harmony that lends momentum. Also, a place in history with integrity, a development fron the preceding generations, effective use of form for the expression and originality everywhere. In musical analysis you can find parallels and divirgences among scores, and the nuts and bolts of how expression was achieved within the limitations of the work.. This search for greatness is what's explored in music classes.

Is there room for subjectivity in these conclusions? Aren't they just facts?


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Greatness in any of the arts is the total package of human achievement and cleverness, spinning of the notes (or other techniques) and employing a harmony that lends momentum. Also, a place in history with integrity, a development fron the preceding generations, effective use of form for the expression and originality everywhere. In musical analysis you can find parallels and divirgences among scores, and the nuts and bolts of how expression was achieved within the limitations of the work.. This search for greatness is what's explored in music classes.
> 
> Is there room for subjectivity in these conclusions? Aren't they just facts?


Wha5 you have missed out is the ability to communicate. There are plenty who can do what you say - in fact, as Andre Previn says, any competent music student. Greatness lies in the ability to communicate to the heart of the listener. Explored n music classes? Never! It cannot be taught.


----------



## Woodduck

The aesthetic response sits uniquely at the intersection of objective perception and subjective valuation. It isn't one or the other, though the two can be separated somewhat for purposes of analysis, and simple, nonjudgmental enjoyment is always possible. Those who choose this latter option cannot define the field for everyone.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Wha5 you have missed out is the ability to communicate. There are plenty who can do what you say - in fact, as Andre Previn says, any competent music student. Greatness lies in the ability to communicate to the heart of the listener. Explored n music classes? Never! It cannot be taught.


Whether a work of art communicates to you depends upon your life experiences and your mental state. WHY this communication happens generally across populations is reducible from the interesting things we learn from evolutionary psychology. 'Theoretical, but it's the best theory for now.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Whether a work of art communicates to you depends upon your life experiences and your mental state. WHY this communication happens generally across populations is reducible from the interesting things we learn from evolutionary psychology. 'Theoretical, but it's the best theory for now.


You are of course wrong here. It cannot be defined like this. Brave words but it's just not so. It can't be explained in terms of atoms and molecules


----------



## Strange Magic

> Strange Magic: "A) In discussing the esthetics of art, I embrace all of the science and reasons why humans value the art they do. It is all very scientific and valid and interesting. But it tells us nothing about greatness."





> Woodduck: "What does it tell us about? I gather you think it tells us nothing worth knowing. I've said that it can tell us where to look for qualities of excellence (I think we're better off leaving the term "greatness" behind. I use it sparingly, and I know what I mean by it, but I can't expect others to accept my meaning)."


No, when you substitute "qualities of excellence" for "greatness" and think we have sidestepped my main point, you have done no such thing; you have merely swapped terms. All the science, all the excellent work also of Meyer, is fascinating, useful, relevant in explaining how and why we are moved by music (and presumably congruent arts) but "excellence", like "greatness" is not there; it does not inhere in the artwork or in its analysis. All we are left with is the judgment via "voting", "polling", the defining of the groups to which the analysis is applied that something is "good', Great, Excellent. Bach Lovers will invariably love Bach--it is in their nature to do so--in fact, they define what it is to be a Bach Lover. The structures of his music doth please them mightily, and we can "prove" it.

The succession of your "Nos" following my other points demonstrates, by assertion, the same rejection of my central point. Wishing No will not make it So.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> No, when you substitute "qualities of excellence" for "greatness" and think we have sidestepped my main point, you have done no such thing; you have merely swapped terms. All the science, all the excellent work also of Meyer, is fascinating, useful, relevant in explaining how and why we are moved by music (and presumably congruent arts) but "excellence", like "greatness" is not there; it does not inhere in the artwork or in its analysis. All we are left with is the judgment via "voting", "polling", the defining of the groups to which the analysis is applied that something is "good', Great, Excellent. Bach Lovers will invariably love Bach--it is in their nature to do so--in fact, they define what it is to be a Bach Lover. The structures of his music doth please them mightily, and we can "prove" it.
> 
> The succession of your "Nos" following my other points demonstrates, by assertion, the same rejection of my central point. Wishing No will not make it So.


It is surprising to me that all the boxes are checked in great works. This is accomplished in different ways, but most of them need to be checked. We have objective lists.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> You are of course wrong here. It cannot be defined like this. Brave words but it's just not so. It can't be explained in terms of atoms and molecules


Why not? We're not angels.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Why not? We're not angels.


No more than that :lol:


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> It is surprising to me that all the boxes are checked in great works. This is accomplished in different ways, but most of them need to be checked. We have objective lists.


Where are they? I haven't seen one yet.


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog said:


> Where are they? I haven't seen one yet.


Start with my #525. That's a big list already.


----------



## Strange Magic

I can see the mob of Bach enthusiasts--torches and pitchforks in hand--shouting through foam-flecked lips : "Liar! LIAR!" as they pursue the Jeff Buckley or Luther Allison or even Ravel fan down the street, who claimed he was having a deeply moving musical experience. "All the boxes have not been checked!''


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> I can see the mob of Bach enthusiasts--torches and pitchforks in hand--shouting through foam-flecked lips : "Liar! LIAR!" as they pursue the Jeff Buckley or Luther Allison or even Ravel fan down the street, who claimed he was having a deeply moving musical experience. "All the boxes have not been checked!''


Personal experiences? Can you see how they're irrelevant? Young, old, subjects of personal interest, interest levels, lucky experiences. It's endless.


----------



## Itullian

Because his music has stood the test of time


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> Start with my #525. That's a big list already.


Ah, your very own subjective list - not bad, but where's the priority on counterpoint?


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog said:


> Ah, your very own subjective list - not bad, but where's the priority on counterpoint?


Heh. Counterpoint is one of many techniques. 
You have a different list? Does it help you save time?


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> You have a different list? Does it help you save time?


No, I don't have a list. Can't see the point of having one.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Personal experiences? Can you see how they're irrelevant? Young, old, subjects of personal interest, interest levels, lucky experiences. It's endless.


But how meaningful is it to you if The Boys and Girls say Bach is Best, but you prefer Handel? If esthetics isn't personal, with personal resonance, then it sits out there, floating in Platonic space, a thing of crystalline beauty but little practical utility. My esthetics is like a body suit fitting me perfectly and conforming to my every move. It is not an Iron Maiden into which I am to be squeezed or a Procrustean Bed to which I must be stretched or shrunk to fit.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> But how meaningful is it to you if The Boys and Girls say Bach is Best, but you prefer Handel? If esthetics isn't personal, with personal resonance, then it sits out there, floating in Platonic space, a thing of crystalline beauty but little practical utility. My esthetics is like a body suit fitting me perfectly and conforming to my every move. It is not an Iron Maiden into which I am to be squeezed or a Procrustean Bed to which I must be stretched or shrunk to fit.


That doesn't help anyone who's not you. In geology and astronomy we have the same conflict. Pretty things matter too much, out of all proportion vs reality.
Do you care about other people's preferences? Why?


----------



## Luchesi

Bulldog said:


> No, I don't have a list. Can't see the point of having one.


As with any serious subject, if you want to continue to learn you categorize objectively. Preferences are transient, for whatever reasons.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> That doesn't help anyone who's not you. In geology and astronomy we have the same conflict. Pretty things matter too much, out of all proportion vs reality.
> Do you care about other people's preferences? Why?


There is no correspondence between the sciences and questions of esthetics, Greatness, etc. in the arts. There are far more replicable data sets in the sciences, especially the ''hard sciences", but no issues of inherent greatness. The only analogous situation might be where scientists or others discuss, in often a playful way, whether Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection might be a greater theory (more impactful, more "elegant") than, say Copernicus' heliocentric theory or Hubble's expanding universe. Meanwhile, all are encouraged to study all the laboratory and theoretical (Meyer's work) thinking on how music acts upon our neurological/psychological natures--how and why music moves us. Ditto any of the arts.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> The aesthetic response sits uniquely at the intersection of objective perception and subjective valuation. It isn't one or the other, though the two can be separated somewhat for purposes of analysis, and simple, nonjudgmental enjoyment is always possible. Those who choose this latter option cannot define the field for everyone.


This statement seems to me to be a euphemistic way of saying "it's not all subjective". But you could say what you said above about the idea that faries exist:

"The response (the belief that faries exist) sits uniquely at the intersection of objective perception and subjective [response]". i.e. The person who subjectively believes faries exist responds to something objective (light waves being reflected off some surface in a way that looks vaguely 'fairy like') and from this a subjective judgement occurs (the belief that faries exist).

---

Musical judgement is subjective in a relatively unimportant sense: You are responding to stuff that objectively exists (soundwaves), but what objectively exists is, *it itself*, neither good bad nor in between.

It is also subjective in a more important sense, in that it often fails to be the object of intersubjective agreement. Your individual judgement about what music is good might cohere with the judgements of others who you respect, but there is no way of adjudicating between this group and some other group who might denounce the music your group judges to be good. *This is because the concept of 'musical goodness' doesn't adjudicate between the objective stuff in the world (i.e. different musical performances/works).*

Compare to the concept 'water', which does adjudicate our subjective interactions with the objective stuff. Because the meaning of water is something like 'the transparent liquid you can drink and which freezes at so-and-so temperature on earth', all we need to do is go out into the world and find what substance is such a transparent liquid. This happens to be H20. Because there is little divergence in the use of the concept 'water', there is little room for disagreement on what water is. On the other hand, because there _is_ divergence in the use of the concept 'good/great music', there is huge room for disagreement when we go into the world (the objective stuff) to see what falls under the concept.

In the case of 'good/great music', it's like searching for toads using a detector that activates in response to both toads and frogs. In the case of 'water', we're searching for toads using a detector that activates only in response to toads and not frogs. It's a question of fineness of grain. Our shared concept of 'good/great music' is too course-grained to be of total intersubjective ('objective') use.

The most we can do is find a limited group of people who use aesthetic concepts as we ourselves do, and enjoy agreement, growth, and learning accordingly. Alternatively, we can try to convince those in the out-group to use aesthetic concepts as we ourselves do - for instance through convincing others to incorporate the description 'is respected by X group of historical people' into the meaining of their concept of 'musical goodness'.


----------



## Woodduck

All judgments, including aesthetic ones, rest on certain premises. This is not equivalent to, and does not support, the claim that "all aesthetics are subjective." An awkwardly composed painting or fugue is one that fails to uphold its own premises - to carry through with its own aesthetic assumptions and solve the problems it sets for itself. When it fails in this way we call it a poor painting or fugue. Whether or not someone likes it anyway is irrelevant. You can find someone to like any sort of atrocity.

There are other premises underlying aesthetic judgments, but that one - call it "the integrity of the artwork" - will do to make the point. (Anyone who now wishes to stand up and say that a lack of integrity is perfectly fine, that the preference for integrity is purely arbitrary, and that his "taste" is what ought to define the nature of aesthetics, is welcome to do so, and probably will.)

The artists we admire knew when they were doing poor work and put it out of its misery rather than inflict it on the world. Brahms consigned his failures to the fireplace, and didn't give a damn whether anyone might "like" them or not. Any artist worth his salt does the same, and when he puts before the public works that meet his threshold of success he is apt to know better than anyone how much of the praise they receive is actually deserved. But we, his audience, if we are alert and aware and have cultivated the skill of discrimination - as most of us have to one degree or another - can also distinguish degrees of excellence. That ability is built in to the human brain, and it's what makes the pursuit of artistic excellence possible and something more than a matter of "taste." It's also what enables human beings from the most diverse cultures, practicing art with dissimilar styles and principles, to attain deep enjoyment of, and skill in practicing, arts not their own.

Aesthetic judgments are not purely accidental, arbitrary, or "subjective." We are quite capable of appreciating art we don't personally like - not fully, since art is meant to appeal to feeling and personal feelings affect aesthetic judgment to one degree or another - but significantly, depending on the nature of the artwork. To claim that all aesthetic judgment is a matter of taste is as arbitrary as to claim that none is - a claim that no one, to my knowledge, makes. I repeat my statement that "the aesthetic response sits uniquely at the intersection of objective perception and subjective valuation." We are entitled to make any personal judgment of _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ we care to, but to deny that it's a work of extraordinary genius and importance is a manifestation of deafness or idiocy.

I am forever amazed at how intelligent people can be so entranced by the ideological lint they find while engaged in philosophical navel-gazing that they can deny the common experience of mankind. We may find it impossible to explain fully why great art is great and how we know that it is, but to live in denial of the existence and discernibility of greatness is to live in an epistemic gopher hole.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> All judgments, including aesthetic ones, rest on certain premises. This is not equivalent to, and does not support, the claim that "all aesthetics are subjective." An awkwardly composed painting or fugue is one that fails to uphold its own premises - to carry through with its own aesthetic assumptions and solve the problems it sets for itself. When it fails in this way we call it a poor painting or fugue. Whether or not someone likes it anyway is irrelevant. You can find someone to like any sort of atrocity.
> 
> There are other premises underlying aesthetic judgments, but that one - call it "the integrity of the artwork" - will do to make the point. (Anyone who now wishes to stand up and say that a lack of integrity is perfectly fine, that the preference for integrity is purely arbitrary, and that his "taste" is what ought to define the nature of aesthetics, is welcome to do so, and probably will.)
> 
> The artists we admire knew when they were doing poor work and put it out of its misery rather than inflict it on the world. Brahms consigned his failures to the fireplace, and didn't give a damn whether anyone might "like" them or not. Any artist worth his salt does the same, and when he puts before the public works that meet his threshold of success he is apt to know better than anyone how much of the praise they receive is actually deserved. But we, his audience, if we are alert and aware and have cultivated the skill of discrimination - as most of us have to one degree or another - can also distinguish degrees of excellence. That ability is built in to the human brain, and it's what makes the pursuit of artistic excellence possible and something more than a matter of "taste." It's also what enables human beings from the most diverse cultures, practicing art with dissimilar styles and principles, to attain deep enjoyment of, and skill in practicing, arts not their own.
> 
> Aesthetic judgments are not purely accidental, arbitrary, or "subjective." We are quite capable of appreciating art we don't personally like - not fully, since art is meant to appeal to feeling and personal feelings affect aesthetic judgment to one degree or another - but significantly, depending on the nature of the artwork. To claim that all aesthetic judgment is a matter of taste is as arbitrary as to claim that none is - a claim that no one, to my knowledge, makes. I repeat my statement that "the aesthetic response sits uniquely at the intersection of objective perception and subjective valuation." We are entitled to make any personal judgment of _Der Ring des Nibelungen_ we care to, but to deny that it's a work of extraordinary genius and importance is a manifestation of deafness or idiocy.
> 
> I am forever amazed at how intelligent people can be so entranced by the ideological lint they find while engaged in philosophical navel-gazing that they can deny the common experience of mankind. We may find it impossible to explain fully why great art is great and how we know that it is, but to live in denial of the existence and discernibility of greatness is to live in an epistemic gopher hole.


I feel you didn't really engage with the substance of what I said, and just picked one line to respond to, but be that as it may:

Your comments above seem to be a re-iteration of a very questionable assertion and it don't really add much to what you've said previously. I've discussed Wagner with a music lover, though not classical, and raised in a working-class rural area but doing a PhD. He is appauled by Wagner, and dismisses it as artistically barren. I disagree with him, *but that's because I have a different concept of musical greatness*.

You can bang on as much as you like, but nothing you can say makes him 'wrong' in his judgement. This is because our shared (community-wide) concept of musical goodness is not fine-grained enough to differentiate Wagner from Metallica. It's that simple.

You can try to _convince_ me that 'music goodness/greatness' _should_ include the features you pack into it - but you're preaching to the converted. The important point remains that these features are not among the contents of *the shared concept of musical greatness* as used by the entire community of music listeners.


----------



## Bulldog

Luchesi said:


> As with any serious subject, if you want to continue to learn you categorize objectively. Preferences are transient, for whatever reasons.


We are on entirely different wavelengths - adios.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> All judgments, including aesthetic ones, rest on *certain premises*. This is not equivalent to, and does not support, the claim that "all aesthetics are subjective." An awkwardly composed painting or fugue is one that fails to uphold its own premises - to carry through with its own *aesthetic assumptions *and solve the problems it sets for itself. When it fails in this way we call it a poor painting or fugue. Whether or not someone likes it anyway is irrelevant. You can find someone to like any sort of atrocity.
> 
> There are *other premises *underlying aesthetic judgments, but that one - call it "the *integrity of the artwork*" - will do to make the point. (Anyone who now wishes to stand up and say that a lack of integrity is perfectly fine, that the preference for integrity is purely arbitrary, and that his "taste" is what ought to define the nature of aesthetics, is welcome to do so, and probably will.)


But what are these premises and assumptions? Aren't they the same criteria for judging 'great' (or 'extraordinary') that no one here at TC has yet agreed upon? Or even put into a checklist?

(I assume you're getting round to at least a fleeting acknowledgement of my answers to your questions from yesterday's exchange.)


----------



## Guest

Itullian said:


> Because his music has stood the test of time


So have Czerny's and Hummel's (to the extent that you can still buy their music on Amazon). Are they just as great?


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I feel you didn't really engage with the substance of what I said, and just picked one line to respond to, but be that as it may:
> 
> Your comments above seem to be a re-iteration of a very questionable assertion and it don't really add much to what you've said previously. I've discussed Wagner with a music lover, though not classical, and raised in a working-class rural area but doing a PhD. He is appauled by Wagner, and dismisses it as artistically baron. I disagree with him, *but that's because I have a different concept of musical greatness*.
> 
> You can bang on as much as you like, but nothing you can say makes him 'wrong' in his judgement. This is because our shared (community-wide) concept of musical goodness is not fine-grained enough to differentiate Wagner from Metallica. It's that simple.
> 
> You can try to _convince_ me that 'music goodness/greatness' _should_ include the features you pack into it - but you're preaching to the converted. The important point remains that these features are not among the contents of *the shared concept of musical greatness* as used by the entire community of music listeners.


I wasn't trying to answer your post, so it isn't surprising that I failed to. 

About your friend who appreciates Metallica but not Wagner, I would have to ask what it is he fails to find in Wagner. Does he think that Wagner failed to do what he was trying to do? Does he have any idea what Wagner was up to? Is he able to hear the formal coherence beneath the wide-ranging chromaticism of the _Tristan_ prelude, and understand what a tour de force of composition it represents? There's too little information here to justify any conclusions about the case, much less about aesthetic appreciation in general. The fact is that not everyone is going to understand or appreciate every artistic style and product. In fact, no one does. That should be obvious, and it proves nothing about the excellence of either Wagner or Metallica.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't trying to answer your post, so it isn't surprising that I failed to.


Fair enough. My bad.



Woodduck said:


> About your friend who appreciates Metallica but not Wagner, I would have to ask what it is he fails to find in Wagner. Does he think that Wagner failed to do what he was trying to do? Does he have any idea what Wagner was up to? Is he able to hear the formal coherence beneath the wide-ranging chromaticism of the _Tristan_ prelude, and understand what a tour de force of composition it represents?


He wouldn't give a damn about any of this - form (understood broadly) over substance kind of critique.



Woodduck said:


> There's too little information here to justify any conclusions about the case, much less about aesthetic appreciation in general. The fact is that not everyone is going to understand or appreciate every artistic stytle and product. In fact, no one does. That should be obvious, and it proves nothing about the excellence of either Wagner or Metallica.


I think you're missing my point, if you happened to read it previously. I might not be explaning myself well. I'm actually talking about concepts more than music. This is because concepts refer to certain things in world or not (including music), depending on their contents/meaning. Take the community-wide concept of 'musical excellence'. This concept does _not_ pick out Wagner over Metallica. It's meaning/content is not fine-grained enough to split the two artists. Your own private concept of 'musical excellence' (which you share with *some *other people) might, but that's not the concept as employed by everyone. Hence disagreement, and, moreover, disagreement that simply cannot be bridged by you insisting that people just _pay more attention to what Wagner is doing_. If a concept doesn't pick out what Wagner was doing as 'excellence' over what Metallica do, then focusing on Wagner can be done until blue in the face but it won't make it intersubjectively ('objectively') excellent - because the intersubjective community does not employ the concept of musical excellence that you do.

Concepts and their contents/meaning matter, because it it such contents that direct the mind/language towards certain objective features of the world over others (counterpoint over heavy riffing, say), and also the sociological details of who is using a particular variant of a shared concept matter greatly.

If you look at it this way, the issue becomes disagreement about what concept of musical excellence to employ. You insist on one that picks out Wagner's music. Others insist on one that leaves him to rot. Who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' here is not a disagreement about Wagner, at all, but rather about terms/concepts! (Although, i suspect that people's choice of concepts is largely driven by feels: they will choose a concept of musical excellence that picks out those artists who give them good feelings).


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> But what are these premises and assumptions? Aren't they the same criteria for judging 'great' (or 'extraordinary') that no one here at TC has yet agreed upon? Or even put into a checklist?
> 
> (I assume you're getting round to at least a fleeting acknowledgement of my answers to your questions from yesterday's exchange.)


You misunderstand the way I've used the term "premises," which is not your fault. The language of aesthetics must often be metaphorical.

A piece of music has "premises" in the sense that its contents set up certain expectations and preferred possibilities which other elements in the work must fulfill if the work is to be experienced as having integrity - as being consistent with itself, as not undermining or dissipating its own form and intent. This is metaphorically equivalent to the consistency of an argument's conclusions with its premises, and we do frequently speak of the "logic" of a piece of music. In creating a work the artist is conscious at all times of extrapolating "logically" from his "premises," and is in constant pursuit of an integral whole which generates our sense of satisfaction with the work's "rightness." I don't know how comprehensible this will be to anyone not engaged intimately with the creative process, but I think it's probably intuitively understood by anyone who has struggled to find the exact spot where a painting should hang on a wall.

Leonard Bernstein spoke admiringly of Beethoven's ability to find exactly the "right" notes to follow one another. He was enunciating the principle of the integrity of the artwork. In one of his TV lectures, Bernstein had the NY Phil. play some of the composer's rejected sketches for the first movement of the 5th symphony, inserting them into the movement at places for which they seemed intended, and comparing their effect with that of Beethoven's ultimate solutions. In every case we could hear Beethoven's power of discrimination at work in creating the flawless movement we know, and Bernstein offered perceptive assessments of the relative success or failure of the rejected bits. I heard this lecture as a teenager and was thunderstruck. I knew first hand from my own creative work - I did a lot of drawing and painting - what the process of discrimininating and rejecting in pursuit of artistic integrity was like, and to hear Beethoven engaged in it, and Bernstein articulating what Beethoven and I were both doing in the process of creation, was profoundly moving.

The argument that "all aesthetics is subjective" would have to regard Beethoven's rejected sketches as equal in artistic value to his final choices, and the composer's choices as mere matters of "taste" or "subjective preference." Every artist knows that this is nonsense.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> The argument that "all aesthetics is subjective" would have to regard Beethoven's rejected sketches as equal in artistic value to his final choices, and the composer's choices as mere matters of "taste" or "subjective preference." Every artist knows that this is nonsense.


Not so. I think most people concept of 'musical greatness' would value an artist's final product over their drafts. However, most people's concept of musical greatness does not pick out Beethoven over other artists. If it did, Beethoven would be getting a lot more Spotify listens.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Woodduck said:


> I wasn't trying to answer your post, so it isn't surprising that I failed to.
> 
> About your friend who appreciates Metallica but not Wagner, I would have to ask what it is he fails to find in Wagner. Does he think that Wagner failed to do what he was trying to do? Does he have any idea what Wagner was up to? Is he able to hear the formal coherence beneath the wide-ranging chromaticism of the _Tristan_ prelude, and understand what a tour de force of composition it represents? There's too little information here to justify any conclusions about the case, much less about aesthetic appreciation in general. The fact is that not everyone is going to understand or appreciate every artistic stytle and product. In fact, no one does. That should be obvious, and it proves nothing about the excellence of either Wagner or Metallica.


There is no scientific, objective method to define musical quality and, no matter how long someone has studied any musical subject, it doesn't earn him the right to judge what others might think or like. I am afraid no one will get the absolute reassurance, not even with the most extensive vocabulaire. It is nicer for everyone if we all would just accept the relativity of our own taste. And if we would stop attacking anyone for expressing his or her taste, even if it is different from your own.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Fair enough. My bad.
> 
> He wouldn't give a damn about any of this - form (understood broadly) over substance kind of critique.
> 
> I think you're missing my point, if you happened to read it previously. I might not be explaning myself well. I'm actually talking about concepts more than music. This is because concepts refer to certain things in world or not, depending on their contents/meaning. Take the community-wide concept of 'musical excellence'. This concept does _not_ pick out Wagner over Metallica. It's meaning/content is not fine-grained enough to split the two artists. Your own private concept of 'musical excellence' (which you share with *some *other people) might, but that's not the concept as employed by everyone. Hence disagreement, and, moreover, disagreement that simply cannot be bridged by you insisting that people just _pay more attention to what Wagner is doing_. If a concept doesn't pick out what Wagner was doing as 'excellence' over what Metallica do, then focusing on Wagner can be done until blue in the face but it won't make it intersubjectively ('objectively') excellent - because the intersubjective community does not employ the concept of musical excellence that you do.
> 
> Concepts and their contents/meaning matter, because it it such contents that direct the mind/language towards certain objective features of the world over others (counterpoint over heavy riffing, say), and also the sociological details of who is using a particular variant of a shared concept matter greatly.
> 
> If you look at it this way, the issue becomes disagreement about what concept of musical excellence to employ. You insist on one that picks out Wagner's music. Others insist on one that leaves him to rot. Who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' here is not a disagreement about Wagner, at all, but rather about terms/concepts! (Although, i suspect that people's choice of concepts is largely driven by feels: they will choose a concept of musical excellence that picks out those artists who give them good feelings).


Ae we not talking about the same thing, then? The idea that different forms of art have different criteria of excellence is not incompatible with anything I'm saying. Art is to be judged on its own terms (its own "premises"). I have not "picked out what Wagner was doing as 'excellence' over what Metallica does." I don't know what Metallica does, but I'm quite open to the possibility that it does what it sets out to do brilliantly, as Wagner did what he set out to do brilliantly, and that if I did take an interest in Metallica I could come to appreciate its brilliance.

Similarly, I wouldn't suggest that your friend needs to care about what makes Wagner a great composer, but I would suggest that he jolly well ought not to be calling Wagner artistically "barren" if he isn't willing or able to take Wagner on Wagner's own terms. If he "doesn't give a damn about any of this" then he should just keep quiet until he does give a damn. He may never actually like Wagner's music, but there is the potential for acquirng an appreciation of the achievement it represents. People do that sort of thing all the time.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> Not so. I think most people concept of 'musical greatness' would value an artist's final product over their drafts. However, most people's concept of musical greatness does not pick out Beethoven over other artists. If it did, Beethoven would be getting a lot more Spotify listens.


This isn't a question of "most people valuing" anything. The question is whether Beethoven's final choices are actually better and can be perceived as better. I say they are and can. I've said nothing here about picking out Beethoven over other artists. That might be an interesting conversation - is Ethelbert Nevin as great a composer as Beethoven and how do we know? - but it isn't what I'm talking about right now. I'm trying to zero in on the most basic and universally experienced criterion of excellence in the arts, which I've called "the integrity of the artwork." As an artist I find this both fundamental and perfectly comprehensible, but I seem to be having difficulty getting anyone to recognize it. The experience is, frankly, weird.

A view that "all aesthetic value is subjective" would indeed have to rank all Beethoven's sketches, and all artworks, as objectively equal in quality - or, to be more exact, it would have to regard the concept of "quality" as erroneous, irrelevant or nonexistent, and an artist's conviction that it can be pursued and attained as an obsessive delusion. Speaking again as an artist, I find this to be contrary to experience. Quality is real, and it isn't a product of popularity polls.


----------



## Bourdon

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> There is no scientific, objective method to define musical quality and, no matter how long someone has studied any musical subject, it doesn't earn him the right to judge what others might think or like. I am afraid no one will get the absolute reassurance, not even with the most extensive vocabulaire. It is nicer for everyone if we all would just accept the relativity of our own taste. And if we would stop attacking anyone for expressing his or her taste, even if it is different from your own.


No one here has attacked anyone else for their tastes. And theoretical arguments are not attacks.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Woodduck said:


> I'm trying to zero in on the most basic and universally experienced criterion of excellence in the arts, which I've called "the integrity of the artwork." As an artist I find this both fundamental and perfectly comprehensible, but I seem to be having difficulty getting anyone to recognize it. The experience is, frankly, weird.


This isn't an area I've thought about much, but I'm not finding it difficult to understand the point. 

It's very similar to mathematics. In maths your premises are axioms that define how the objects in the chosen structure behave or relate to each other, and you also have some rules of reasoning concerning how you can progress to determine what the axioms imply (tautologically, but non-obviously) in terms of the relevant set of objects. All you can really ask of a mathematical theory in one sense is that it is properly argued: that is, it is consistent with the premises (or axioms and reasoning rules). Bach or Metallica could do this.

However, more subjectively: (1) you can disagree about the rules of reasoning, and (2) you can feel that it is not interesting (even though it may be valid).

In maths, your reasoning rules let you progress in developing your theory, according to steps with are either valid or not (and there can be disagreement about what is valid reasoning), and in music you have some noises and you can produce a piece according to progressions which are valid or not. Their validity, though, is not absolute outside those rules. A good example might be a set of variations, where different ways of developing the starting theme are explored, or a piece of counterpoint where different ways of fitting things together are exhibited. These can be right or wrong according to the agreed rules, but it is meaningless to say they are right or wrong without those rules. In a looser sense, the rules might be fairly unexplored (maybe culturally determined) expectations, but someone experienced in the culture might have a strong feeling that something is right or wrong.

A maths example of (2) might be the silly games people play about things like determining pi to ever more ridiculous degrees of precision. You can go on for ever finding the next digit, but it's not interesting. A related point, though, which is really interesting is the distribution of prime numbers. At an individual level prime numbers are apparently randomly distributed among the positive integers, but statistically there are properties about the proportion of numbers up to a particular number which will be prime. Finding the next prime number is in itself dull, but exploring the properties of their distribution is not, because there is a structure to investigate.
Maybe not a good parallel, but in maths there are quite simple algebraic structures called groups. I would claim that groups are quite dull, because there is not enough structure to them. However, you can look at different types of group (- what types of group are there, and what characterises those types?) or you can look at how groups form part of more complex structures such as what are called rings or fields (embed groups in wider contexts outside group theory), and knowledge of groups helps you prove results in more complex structures. In music, I guess a piece of music which is too repetitive (like getting the next digit, and the next, and the next, in pi) or too simple (like simply playing twinkle twinkle) is not very interesting. However, if there is a wider pattern above the repetition to reveal (like the distribution of primes), or if you can demonstrate what you can do with twinkle twinkle as a base, then you might be on to something.

Hence, I think it is reasonable to note that a minimum standard for a great piece of music is that it fulfils its own premises, along the lines (although more musically!) of the maths example. Beyond that it also needs to be interesting (and that's a bit more subjective).


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> You misunderstand the way I've used the term "premises," which is not your fault. The language of aesthetics must often be metaphorical.
> 
> A piece of music has "premises" in the sense that its contents set up certain expectations and preferred possibilities which other elements in the work must fulfill if the work is to be experienced as having integrity - as being consistent with itself, as not undermining or dissipating its own form and intent. This is metaphorically equivalent to the consistency of an argument's conclusions with its premises, and we do frequently speak of the "logic" of a piece of music. In creating a work the artist is conscious at all times of extrapolating "logically" from his "premises," and is in constant pursuit of an integral whole which generates our sense of satisfaction with the work's "rightness." I don't know how comprehensible this will be to anyone not engaged intimately with the creative process, but I think it's probably intuitively understood by anyone who has struggled to find the exact spot where a painting should hang on a wall.
> 
> Leonard Bernstein spoke admiringly of Beethoven's ability to find exactly the "right" notes to follow one another. He was enunciating the principle of the integrity of the artwork. In one of his TV lectures, Bernstein had the NY Phil. play some of the composer's rejected sketches for the first movement of the 5th symphony, inserting them into the movement at places for which they seemed intended, and comparing their effect with that of Beethoven's ultimate solutions. In every case we could hear Beethoven's power of discrimination at work in creating the flawless movement we know, and Bernstein offered perceptive assessments of the relative success or failure of the rejected bits. I heard this lecture as a teenager and was thunderstruck. I knew first hand from my own creative work - I did a lot of drawing and painting - what the process of discrimininating and rejecting in pursuit of artistic integrity was like, and to hear Beethoven engaged in it, and Bernstein articulating what Beethoven and I were both doing in the process of creation, was profoundly moving.
> 
> The argument that "all aesthetics is subjective" would have to regard Beethoven's rejected sketches as equal in artistic value to his final choices, and the composer's choices as mere matters of "taste" or "subjective preference." Every artist knows that this is nonsense.


OK. If I accept your explanation about 'premises' this presumably means that a symphony has to meet both the external specifications (within limits of permitted variation) and the internal logic that LvB 'must' follow. In effect, "This is what a symphony is supposed to sound like - and this is how my symphony must sound, given the external expectations and my own internally derived choices."

Someone brought up the Bernstein just now in another thread. I've heard the quote before, but not seen the programme. If I can find it, I'll watch it. But in the meantime, I'll still make a similar observation. The 'flawless' first symphony is only 'flawless' in relation to the premises Beethoven set himself. That makes it 'great', to the exent that it achieved exactly what LvB wanted it to achieve. And, remembering this a thread about Brahms, he rejected (as did LvB) work that didn't come up to scratch as he saw it. And, to the limited extent that this gets us anywhere near understanding what 'great' might look like, Bernstein's words are acceptable.

Have I understood this correctly?

But, presumably, it could be argued that Schoenberg's Piano Concerto is also flawless - he too knew exactly which note came next, according to the premises he determined. (I realise that in this specific case, Arnold might actually have stated his unhappiness with the work, but I'm using this as an example of another composer, another form, another possibility of judging a work 'great' though it sounds not a lot like Beethoven or Brahms.)

Lastly, I note that you refer to the "all aesthetics is subjective" argument. I don't think that is what I'm saying, so you might direct that point to others. What I have been trying to determine - and am still failing in - are the criteria by which Brahms, Satie's, Schoenberg's and LvB's 'great' pieces are being judged, aside from any internal logic or premises, so that we might be able to declare that LvB's 5th is indeed great, and greater than anything by the other aforementioned composers.


----------



## DavidA

_I'm trying to zero in on the most basic and universally experienced criterion of excellence in the arts, which I've called "the integrity of the artwork." *As an artist I find this both fundamental and perfectly comprehensible*, but I seem to be having difficulty getting anyone to recognize it. The experience is, frankly, weird._

You say 'as an artist'. Can we ask you what sort of an 'artist' you are and at what level? Composer? Concert pianist? Opera singer? Or what is there as an artist which puts you above the common herd and makes you see things the rest of us cannot?


----------



## Strange Magic

> Woodduck: "The view that "all aesthetic value is subjective" would indeed have to rank all Beethoven's sketches, and all artworks, as objectively equal in quality - or, to be more exact, it would have to regard the concept of "quality" as erroneous, irrelevant or nonexistent, and an artist's conviction that it can be pursued and attained as an obsessive delusion. Speaking again as an artist, I find this to be contrary to experience. Quality is real, and it isn't a product of popularity polls."


My thesis is that all esthetics is personal and subjective. As is exactly what goes on inside any particular artist's head at any particular time. We can't see what Beethoven or Brahms threw away. Some of us may have thought it fine material. And many widely held as gripping, moving works--I am thinking of _Moby Dick_--are a stew of multiple ingredients often without discernable artistic or thematic pattern. Or with multiple patterns often irregularly executed. Some things, certainly in music, we think sound just wrong: too long, too often repeated, improper development, etc., while others think things are "perfect".

No, esthetics is a mire of subjectivity. And it's all personal. Until we vote/poll and find out what audience we can find that will give us a majority.


----------



## Simplicissimus

Woodduck said:


> This isn't a question of "most people valuing" anything. The question is whether Beethoven's final choices are actually better and can be perceived as better. I say they are and can. I've said nothing here about picking out Beethoven over other artists. That might be an interesting conversation - is Ethelbert Nevin as great a composer as Beethoven and how do we know? - but it isn't what I'm talking about right now. I'm trying to zero in on the most basic and universally experienced criterion of excellence in the arts, which I've called "the integrity of the artwork." As an artist I find this both fundamental and perfectly comprehensible, but I seem to be having difficulty getting anyone to recognize it. The experience is, frankly, weird.
> 
> A view that "all aesthetic value is subjective" would indeed have to rank all Beethoven's sketches, and all artworks, as objectively equal in quality - or, to be more exact, it would have to regard the concept of "quality" as erroneous, irrelevant or nonexistent, and an artist's conviction that it can be pursued and attained as an obsessive delusion. Speaking again as an artist, I find this to be contrary to experience. Quality is real, and it isn't a product of popularity polls.


I do recognize "the integrity of the artwork" as a universal and preeminent criterion of excellence in music, literature, and the visual arts. I'm not an artist, just a consumer of artistic productions, but I have some sense of an artistic work's integrity that develops in my mind as an automatic response to my experience of it. My recognition of a work's integrity is of course heightened by teachers' and experts' exegesis. Interesting questions that occupy some psychologists are the extent to which perceptions of integrity (or call it coherence, balance, proportion, etc.) are innate human faculties of mind versus learned cultural norms, and the extent and sources of individual differences. I enjoy and value many works of art that I recognize are somehow deficient in integrity because they nevertheless evoke pleasurable associations and memories, make me feel safe and comfortable, and that kind of thing. I try to trust my gut and not to become defensive if someone points out objective deficiencies in music or other art that I like. Individuals have a variety of reasons for liking works of art, and they don't always track with theories of aesthetics, yet the theories do, IMO, provide objective criteria for evaluating the quality of the products.


----------



## millionrainbows

> I'm trying to zero in on the most basic and universally experienced criterion of excellence in the arts, which I've called "the integrity of the artwork." As an artist I find this both fundamental and perfectly comprehensible, but I seem to be having difficulty getting anyone to recognize it. The experience is, frankly, weird.


Yes, if you both have the same criteria. That doesn't make it any more "real" or "objective" than a thought in your mind.

Maybe it exists as a consensus attitude. If so, it's already recognize. This is just the internet, why worry about getting anything recognized? History doesn't exist for them, since they are narcissistically hypnotized by the illusory power of having an opinion which they can post.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> If this is a quote, who said it? I can't find it anywhere.


Woodduck

................


----------



## millionrainbows

janxharris said:


> Woodduck
> 
> ................


You're a little late.


----------



## janxharris

millionrainbows said:


> You're a little late.


Apologies Sir MR. I will do better next time.


----------



## millionrainbows

When I first glanced at this thread title in the index, I thought it said "Why is Brahms So Grating?" ha haa...


----------



## Strange Magic

> Simplicissimus: "I do recognize "the integrity of the artwork" as a universal and preeminent criterion of excellence in music, literature, and the visual arts."


This is one of those phrases that, when boiled down, turns out to mean in practical terms whatever we choose it to mean. And we can all summon up whatever examples to support an argument for "the integrity of the artwork". Back to the certainties of judging ice cream or the tasting of fine wines. And back into the voting booth.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This is one of those phrases that, when boiled down, turns out to mean in practical terms whatever we choose it to mean. And we can all summon up whatever examples to support an argument for "the integrity of the artwork". Back to the certainties of judging ice cream or the tasting of fine wines. And back into the voting booth.


On the contrary, integrity is a quality routinely recognized, even if not consciously identified (because we aren't being aesthetic philosophers while listening or looking) in the experience of art, both in its creation and in its consumption. Speaking again as an artist, I can tell you that the pursuit of it can cost a great deal of sweat and sleep. Sometimes the curve of a line, or the choice of a chord or a word, can feel like a matter of life and death, but getting it right at last can have the force of a mystical revelation and is the greatest possible reward for all the pain. The appreciation and appraisal of art consists in very large part of cultivating the ability to recognize the rightness of the artist's choices in dimensions large and small.

There's more to evaluating an artist's achievement than this, but this is basic.


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> _Can we ask you what sort of an 'artist' you are and at what level? Composer? Concert pianist? Opera singer? Or what is there as an artist which puts you above the common herd and makes you see things the rest of us cannot?_


_

Sure. I've been a painter, a composer, a singer, a pianist, an organist, and a voracious consumer of the art of others and writings about the arts since before I knew what the word "art" meant.

I don't think about any "common herd" or concern myself with being "above" one, nor do I beleve that "the rest of you" cannot see what I see. It's precisely my belief that human beings, by and large, DO "see" the nature of art and DO sense degrees of artistic excellence, but not everyone thinks about these things in certain ways. I'm glad to share my own way of thinking and my experience as a practicing artist._


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> This is one of those phrases that, when boiled down, turns out to mean in practical terms whatever we choose it to mean. And we can all summon up whatever examples to support an argument for *"the integrity of the artwork"*. Back to the certainties of judging ice cream or the tasting of fine wines. And back into the voting booth.


We are talking about something that the early composers would have not recognised. I don't know whether someone like JS Bach even considered himself an 'artist' - he probably just thought of himself as an employed craftsman, turning out music for the church. I know when someone asked him how he did it he merely said that 'anyone who works as hard as me could do the same!' Well, get the point! :lol: Haydn didn't consider himself any more than an employee of the noble lord's house and was amazed when he came to London at his celebrity. The fact that both men had tremendous genius of course is another matter - that is what elevated them from craftsmen to great artists. Of course, if these men were slow to apply the term 'artist' to themselves, how much slower should we small fry be! I know when someone compared Bernstein to Mozart, Lenny simply said, "Who's in that league, anyway!"
It was of course with the advent of Beethoven that the romantic image of the 'artist' in music really came into being - but then whose in that league either! :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> On the contrary, integrity is a quality routinely recognized, even if not consciously identified (because we aren't being aesthetic philosophers while listening or looking) in the experience of art, both in its creation and in its consumption. Speaking again as an artist, I can tell you that the pursuit of it can cost a great deal of sweat and sleep. Simetimes the curve of a line, or the choice of a chord or a word, can feel like a matter of life and death, but getting it right at last can have the force of a mystical revelation and is the greatest possible reward for all the pain. The appreciation and appraisal of art consists in very large part of cultivating the ability to recognize the rightness of the artist's choices in dimensions large and small.
> 
> There's more to evaluating an artist's achievement than this, but this is basic.


Some beautiful posts in here..

I can always reconsider, ...perhaps we're deluded. What we've learned of and then discovered for ourselves in the history of music (and similarly in all the serious arts) is a grand illusion! Could we merely be mesmerized by what we've found? The artifice of art extends beyond the theories and categories?


----------



## Woodduck

DavidA said:


> We are talking about something that the early composers would have not recognised. I don't know whether someone like JS Bach even considered himself an 'artist' - he probably just thought of himself as an employed craftsman, turning out music for the church. I know when someone asked him how he did it he merely said that 'anyone who works as hard as me could do the same!' Well, get the point! :lol: Haydn didn't consider himself any more than an employee of the noble lord's house and was amazed when he came to London at his celebrity. The fact that both men had tremendous genius of course is another matter - that is what elevated them from craftsmen to great artists. Of course, if these men were slow to apply the term 'artist' to themselves, how much slower should we small fry be! I know when someone compared Bernstein to Mozart, Lenny simply said, "Who's in that league, anyway!"
> It was of course with the advent of Beethoven that the romantic image of the 'artist' in music really came into being - but then whose in that league either! :lol:


I doubt that you're in a position to know what early composers would have recognized. If the matter under dispute is the concept of "the integrity of the artwork," which you've put in bold, your response is irrelevant to it. A composers's position in society, with which you appear to be concerned, doesn't normally determine whether the modulation to the subdominant key should take two bars or four.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Some beautiful posts in here..
> 
> I can always reconsider, ...perhaps *we're deluded.* What we've learned of and then discovered for ourselves in the history of music (and similarly in all the serious arts) *is a grand illusion! Could we merely be mesmerized by what we've found? *The artifice of art extends beyond the theories and categories?


Isn't art just one great grand illusion which mesmerises us? The main thing is we don't delude ourselves.


----------



## Woodduck

Eclectic Al said:


> This isn't an area I've thought about much, but I'm not finding it difficult to understand the point.
> 
> It's very similar to mathematics. *In maths **your premises are axioms that define how the objects in the chosen structure behave or relate to each other, and you also have some rules of reasoning concerning how you can progress to determine what the axioms imply (tautologically, but non-obviously) in terms of the relevant set of objects. All you can really ask of a mathematical theory in one sense is that it is properly argued: that is, it is consistent with the premises (or axioms and reasoning rules). Bach or Metallica could do this*.
> 
> *However, more subjectively: (1) you can disagree about the rules of reasoning, and (2) you can feel that it is not interesting (even though it may be valid).*
> 
> In maths, your reasoning rules let you progress in developing your theory, according to steps with are either valid or not (and there can be disagreement about what is valid reasoning), and in music you have some noises and you can produce a piece according to progressions which are valid or not. Their validity, though, is not absolute outside those rules. A good example might be a set of variations, where different ways of developing the starting theme are explored, or a piece of counterpoint where *different ways of fitting things together are exhibited. These can be right or wrong according to the agreed rules, but it is meaningless to say they are right or wrong without those rules. In a looser sense, the rules might be fairly unexplored (maybe culturally determined) expectations, but someone experienced in the culture might have a strong feeling that something is right or wrong.
> *
> 
> Maybe not a good parallel, but in maths there are quite simple algebraic structures called groups. I would claim that groups are quite dull, because there is not enough structure to them. However, you can look at different types of group (- what types of group are there, and what characterises those types?) or you can look at how groups form part of more complex structures such as what are called rings or fields (embed groups in wider contexts outside group theory), and knowledge of groups helps you prove results in more complex structures. *In music, I guess a piece of music which is too repetitive (like getting the next digit, and the next, and the next, in pi) or too simple (like simply playing twinkle twinkle) is not very interesting. However, if there is a wider pattern above the repetition to reveal (like the distribution of primes), or if you can demonstrate what you can do with twinkle twinkle as a base, then you might be on to something.
> *
> Hence, *I think it is reasonable to note that a minimum standard for a great piece of music is that it fulfils its own premises, along the lines (although more musically!) of the maths example. Beyond that it also needs to be interesting (and that's a bit more subjective).*


Thank you! Analogies are generally imperfect, but this may be as good a one as could be adduced, and it seems very nicely set forth, although I know approximately nothing about mathematics.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Isn't art just one great grand illusion which mesmerises us? The main thing is we don't delude ourselves.


Yes, we continually search for meaning, but we're not evolutionarily equipped to find it. 
They say we're energy beings which emerged out of the energy of this universe, so the meaning of anything substantial is a mesmerizing contradiction.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Yes, we continually search for meaning, but we're not evolutionarily equipped to find it.
> They say we're energy beings which emerged out of the energy of this universe, so the meaning of anything substantial is a mesmerizing contradiction.


Well if you believe that there is no meaning in life anyway. We're then just a collection of atoms and molecules awaiting recycling! :lol:


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> Well if you believe that there is no meaning in life anyway. We're then just a collection of atoms and molecules awaiting recycling! :lol:


We've been given a great gift. The gift of awareness. Change one thing in the past and we as individuals probably wouldn't be here. That's how complex and interconnected things are. Did Brahms know this? I hope he did, but I think it was only discovered much later..


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> OK. If I accept your explanation about 'premises' this presumably means that a symphony has to meet both the external specifications (within limits of permitted variation) and the internal logic that LvB 'must' follow. In effect, "This is what a symphony is supposed to sound like - and this is how my symphony must sound, given the external expectations and my own internally derived choices."


I'll buy that, adding only that it's the internally derived choices that matter greatly. Beethoven expanded the common concept of "symphony" in a number of ways, as did other composers, but that has little to do with the quality of the product, although it may initially have seemed important to people unused to the innovations.



> Someone brought up the Bernstein just now in another thread. I've heard the quote before, but not seen the programme. If I can find it, I'll watch it. But in the meantime, I'll still make a similar observation. The 'flawless' first symphony is only 'flawless' in relation to the premises Beethoven set himself. That makes it 'great', to the exent that it achieved exactly what LvB wanted it to achieve. And, remembering this a thread about Brahms, he rejected (as did LvB) work that didn't come up to scratch as he saw it. And, to the limited extent that this gets us anywhere near understanding what 'great' might look like, Bernstein's words are acceptable.
> 
> Have I understood this correctly?


I think so.



> But, presumably, it could be argued that Schoenberg's Piano Concerto is also flawless - he too knew exactly which note came next, according to the premises he determined. (I realise that in this specific case, Arnold might actually have stated his unhappiness with the work, but I'm using this as an example of another composer, another form, another possibility of judging a work 'great' though it sounds not a lot like Beethoven or Brahms.)


This may be true. Schoenberg may or may not have worked out the implications of his material in an aesthetically satisfying way (but I'm not weighing in since I don't know the work well)



> Lastly, I note that you refer to the "all aesthetics is subjective" argument. I don't think that is what I'm saying, so you might direct that point to others.


We have a bunch of people here, so I may not be addressing only your points when i talk to you. It can get confusing. But this post is definitely for you, lucky guy. The rest of them are mere eavesdroppers. (Has anyone else wondered how it feels to drop eaves?)



> What I have been trying to determine - and am still failing in - are the criteria by which Brahms, Satie's, Schoenberg's and LvB's 'great' pieces are being judged, aside from any internal logic or premises, so that we might be able to declare that LvB's 5th is indeed great, and greater than anything by the other aforementioned composers.


I'll reiterate my conviction that the integrity of a work of art is fundamental, but I fully acknowledge that our sense of what makes it admirable (let's leave off "great" for the moment) goes far beyond that. Just as important as whether an artist has worked out his aesthetic premises in an effective way is the question of what _kind_ of thing he is trying to do. "Mairzy Doats" may be a perfectly shaped melody and damned catchy, but no one thinks it's as impressive or significant a work of art as Brahms's _Alto Rhapsody._ I think here are two basic reasons for this: 1.) "Mairzy Doats"has little to say; it isn't about anything of any consequence to human life; it expresses no depth of ideas or feelings. 2.) The creation of "Mairzy Doats" represents an achievement of sorts, in that it's a catchy tune with a funny text and lots of people have found it fun to sing. Many a song writer would kill to have a hit like that, even a silly one. But the _Alto Rhapsody_ aspires to more, technically and expressively, and its success represents an achievement of a different order of magnitude. I think it's possible and important to recognize these two dimensions of artistic achievement regardless of our preference for one work or the other.


----------



## Strange Magic

> Woodduck, himself quoting and bolding Eclectic Al: "A good example might be a set of variations, where *different ways of developing the starting theme are explored, or a piece of counterpoint where different ways of fitting things together are exhibited. These can be right or wrong according to the agreed rules, but it is meaningless to say they are right or wrong without those rules. In a looser sense, the rules might be fairly unexplored (maybe culturally determined) expectations, but someone experienced in the culture might have a strong feeling that something is right or wrong.*"


This merely restates what all affirm is true: that there are rules that those experienced in a culture agree upon so that "they" can determine ("have a strong feeling") that something is right or wrong. But this, again, is no more (or no less, really) than voting, polls, "consensus" about what is to be within and what without the bounds within the peer group. It tells us nothing about any objective quality or quantity within the the artwork, just whether it fits within the Pale, and, if so, who will like it and praise it to the skies. Few were more "sensitive" esthetes than J. Robert Oppenheimer--theoretical physicist, no mean mathematician, connoisseur, cultural omnivore--and he could do no better than to assert that the Best Art was that deemed so by the Best People. To the extent that esthetic theory explains to both the converted and to the uninitiated the rationale for why certain peer groups of enthusiasts for certain composers, artists, artworks, schools like what they do, it is useful and interesting. But, to repeat, Bach lovers (or any like enthusiasts) are a self-selecting, self-identifying group, and serve to define what it is that one should pay attention to in Bach's music--what is Right to focus on; what is Wrong.


----------



## Strange Magic

It is easy to compare and contrast Mairzy Doats with Brahms' _Alto Rhapsody_. It is easy to thus compare and contrast all sorts of apples, oranges, durians, honeydews, bananas, in order to make a point about the "demonstrable, objective(?) superiority" and even "greatness" of Art A over Art B. But, again, it is irrefutable that our reactions to art are individual, subjective, unique, in a sense arbitrary: we recognize this with the phrase _de gustibus non est disputandum_. Who here on TC would willingly surrender their individual sense of preference to the mechanical grinding of an esthetic "theory" at variance with their own experience? It will not do to cringe and say "There must be some gap or flaw or error in my neurological or philosophical makeup that renders me incapable of properly appreciating the genius of X. My peer group says it's Great, and so it is I who err." I hold with the validity of each person's experience of art. This does not, as often implied, reduce all art to total equality--a featureless plain of mere phenomena. Instead it expands artistic choice infinitely--everybody can have any sort of lists of Greatness that they will, and talk about them.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Strange Magic said:


> This merely restates what all affirm is true: that there are rules that those experienced in a culture agree upon so that "they" can determine ("have a strong feeling") that something is right or wrong. But this, again, is no more (or no less, really) than voting, polls, "consensus" about what is to be within and what without the bounds within the peer group. It tells us nothing about any objective quality or quantity within the the artwork, just whether it fits within the Pale, and, if so, who will like it and praise it to the skies. Few were more "sensitive" esthetes than J. Robert Oppenheimer--theoretical physicist, no mean mathematician, connoisseur, cultural omnivore--and he could do no better than to assert that the Best Art was that deemed so by the Best People. To the extent that esthetic theory explains to both the converted and to the uninitiated the rationale for why certain peer groups of enthusiasts for certain composers, artists, artworks, schools like what they do, it is useful and interesting. But, to repeat, Bach lovers (or any like enthusiasts) are a self-selecting, self-identifying group, and serve to define what it is that one should pay attention to in Bach's music--what is Right to focus on; what is Wrong.


If I am living within a culture (A) and there are shared musical expectations within that culture then I don't think that it appears to me (as a person within it) that it is just a popularity contest; rather, it appears natural that certain norms apply when things are worked out. The same is true of a separate culture (B), which may have different norms. I don't see that there is any problem with this situation, where conflicting norms each seem natural to a group of people. And I don't see that it is reasonable to say that A is better than B because more people follow the norms of B. In that sense it is not a popularity contest.

I think it is also quite possible for me to recognise a work as of A and appreciate it, and another work as of B and appreciate that. Furthermore, I don't have to be able to say good A works are better then good B works: there is no obligation on me to compare them in that way. Why should I? I might simply prefer A works to B works, but that doesn't mean I think they are better in their own terms. I may be able to make a (fairly objective?) assessment that A works are more complex than B works, and some may think that means they are better - but other people might regard simplicity as better. We're more into judgement and preference at that point, although with some objective underpinning and possibility of analysis of why I have certain preferences.

I do think, though, that it may be reasonable to say that I can decide that one A work is better than another in reflecting the norms of A, and ditto for B. Others may disagree, of course - but I think rankings make more sense here, because the works are supposed to comply with the same norms. At this point it may be more of a popularity contest (at least among those learned in the norms of A or B respectively) for works within the same culture.

(Note: By culture, here, I may be accepting that rock is a different culture from classical. I would want to be leaving the definition of culture quite vague!)


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> This merely restates what all affirm is true: that there are rules that those experienced in a culture agree upon so that "they" can determine ("have a strong feeling") that something is right or wrong. But this, again, is no more (or no less, really) than voting, polls, "consensus" about what is to be within and what without the bounds within the peer group. It tells us nothing about any objective quality or quantity within the the artwork, just whether it fits within the Pale, and, if so, who will like it and praise it to the skies.


Since you and I both enjoy the poetry of Robinson Jeffers, let me ask you a couple of questions. Consider the last part of his poem, "Flight of Swans,"

_Sad sons of the stormy fall, 
No escape, you have to inflict and endure; surely it is time for 
you
To learn to touch the diamond within to the diamond outside,
Thinning your humanity a little between the invulnerable dia- 
monds,
Knowing that your angry choices and hopes and terrors are in
vain, 
But life and death not in vain; and the world is like a flight of 
swans._

Would this poem be just as fine had the last lines read,"and the world is like a flight of pigeons"?

Since you know as well as I do that the answer is "no," my question is, "Why not?"

Shall we vote on it? Take a poll? Get the consensus of our peer group? Ask the "best people"?


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> It is easy to compare and contrast Mairzy Doats with Brahms' _Alto Rhapsody_. It is easy to thus compare and contrast all sorts of apples, oranges, durians, honeydews, bananas, in order to make a point about the "demonstrable, objective(?) superiority" and even "greatness" of Art A over Art B. But, again, it is irrefutable that our reactions to art are individual, subjective, unique, in a sense arbitrary: we recognize this with the phrase _de gustibus non est disputandum_. Who here on TC would willingly surrender their individual sense of preference to the mechanical grinding of an esthetic "theory" at variance with their own experience? It will not do to cringe and say "There must be some gap or flaw or error in my neurological or philosophical makeup that renders me incapable of properly appreciating the genius of X. My peer group says it's Great, and so it is I who err." I hold with the validity of each person's experience of art. This does not, as often implied, reduce all art to total equality--a featureless plain of mere phenomena. Instead it expands artistic choice infinitely--everybody can have any sort of lists of Greatness that they will, and talk about them.


Strip away the rhetoric here and what do we have? "Individual preference is the sole criterion of artistic quality." I have yet to figure out how saying this in fifty ways is anything but a perpetual evasion of all the questions of aesthetics.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Strip away the rhetoric here and what do we have? "Individual preference is the sole criterion of artistic quality." I have yet to figure out how saying this in fifty ways is anything but a perpetual evasion of all the questions of aesthetics.


Another idea is that the allegedly "objective" esthetics of Art is but a perpetual evasion of the fact that individual preference is the rule, not the exception, in the universal approach to and enjoyment of the arts. Esthetics can be considered in this case as a constructed membrane serving to separate the primacy of the artwork, the experience of that artwork, and the individual receptor. It does no harm, and often helps, but it cannot be substituted for the validity of the personal response to Art.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Since you and I both enjoy the poetry of Robinson Jeffers, let me ask you a couple of questions. Consider the last part of his poem, "Flight of Swans,"
> 
> _Sad sons of the stormy fall,
> No escape, you have to inflict and endure; surely it is time for
> you
> To learn to touch the diamond within to the diamond outside,
> Thinning your humanity a little between the invulnerable dia-
> monds,
> Knowing that your angry choices and hopes and terrors are in
> vain,
> But life and death not in vain; and the world is like a flight of
> swans._
> 
> Would this poem be just as fine had the last lines read,"and the world is like a flight of pigeons"?
> 
> Since you know as well as I do that the answer is "no," my question is, "Why not?"
> 
> Shall we vote on it? Take a poll? Get the consensus of our peer group? Ask the "best people"?


I always enjoy Jeffers, but the post within which it is enclosed does not invalidate my thesis--it is a variant of the Mairzy Doats/Brahms rejoinder: a damp squib, alas. We could vote on it, though.

Edit: If the poem's title had been _Flight of Pigeons_....... We agree in this case that a work's title should match its subject. But sometimes not: _A Modest Proposal_ by Swift comes to mind.


----------



## Strange Magic

P.S. I know my position is unpopular; a minority view, and likely subject to all sorts of "Really, how could SM hold such absurd and contrarian (deliberately contrarian?) views of Art and artists and composers "universally" judged to be objectively The Greatest?" But, upon closer examination, it is seen that I dispute no one's individual choices--I celebrate them. Uhuru! Freedom! to like what you like, and no need to look over your shoulder.

And I do love Bach! (and so many other things.)


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I always enjoy Jeffers, but the post within which it is enclosed does not invalidate my thesis--it is a variant of the Mairzy Doats/Brahms rejoinder: a damp squib, alas. We could vote on it, though.


Evasion upon evasion. You never really address my specific points. Does this mean you don't _know_ why "swans" works better than "pigeons" - or "ducks," or "vultures," or "B-52s"? Or that you really believe artistic choices are simply a matter of taste, with no choice "better"or "worse"? Isn't the latter your thesis, which you say I've failed to invalidate?

You can turn up your nose at my examples - "Mairzy Doats" vs the "Alto Rhapsody" and "swans" vs "pigeons" - but I chose obvious examples as an assist to people for whom finer contrasts, requiring more elaborate explanations, might be difficult to discern. It should be fairly easy to find several reasons why "Flight of Swans" could not ever be "Flight of Pigeons," but the easiness of the task shouldn't inspire such contemptuous dismissal.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> P.S. I know my position is unpopular; a minority view, and likely subject to all sorts of "Really, how could SM hold such absurd and contrarian (deliberately contrarian?) views of Art and artists and composers "universally" judged to be objectively The Greatest?" But, upon closer examination, it is seen that I dispute no one's individual choices--I celebrate them. Uhuru! Freedom! to like what you like, and no need to look over your shoulder.
> 
> And I do love Bach! (and so many other things.)


Impractical. Are preferences all that we need for teaching and developing world-class artists to play your Bach? and all the rest of what CM offers..


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> This merely restates what all affirm is true: that there are rules that those experienced in a culture agree upon so that "they" can determine ("have a strong feeling") that something is right or wrong. But this, again, is no more (or no less, really) than voting, polls, "consensus" about what is to be within and what without the bounds within the peer group. It tells us nothing about any objective quality or quantity within the the artwork, just whether it fits within the Pale, and, if so, who will like it and praise it to the skies. *Few were more "sensitive" esthetes than J. Robert Oppenheimer*--theoretical physicist, no mean mathematician, connoisseur, cultural omnivore--and he could do no better than to assert that the Best Art was that deemed so by the Best People. To the extent that esthetic theory explains to both the converted and to the uninitiated the rationale for why certain peer groups of enthusiasts for certain composers, artists, artworks, schools like what they do, it is useful and interesting. But, to repeat, Bach lovers (or any like enthusiasts) are a self-selecting, self-identifying group, and serve to define what it is that one should pay attention to in Bach's music--what is Right to focus on; what is Wrong.


As when he reported the Atomic bomb dropped over Hiromshima was a resounding success, killing 70,000+ people!


----------



## DavidA

There seems to me that people are making a contradiction of two complementary things - one os the nuts and bolts required to produce works of genius but the other is the actual genius itself. If you look at the figure of Michelangelo's David you will see it reproduced a few times to size in the city but only one is by the great man himself. So there are plenty of sculptors who have the craftsmanship but only one with the genius to make the original.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> As when he reported the Atomic bomb dropped over Hiromshima was a resounding success, killing 70,000+ people!


Surely you can do better than this, DavidA! Anyone familiar at all with the man, the time, the issues would not trot out such a sad rejoinder. Your squib is far damper than the one I previously identified.. Remind me to recommend several fine biographies of Oppenheimer to you!


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Surely you can do better than this, DavidA! Anyone familiar at all with the man, the time, the issues would not trot out such a sad rejoinder. Your squib is far damper than the one I previously identified.. Remind me to recommend several fine biographies of Oppenheimer to you!


I've got one thanks! Just you missed that bit out. Your problem is somewhat misguided idealism I think. Your problem is that your initial firework is a misguided missile if you quote Oppenheimer out of context which you did of course. As a historian it is a fatal error. We paint pictures warts and all. We do history a disservice if we do not point out contradictions within the humanity of the man


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Evasion upon evasion. You never really address my specific points. Does this mean you don't _know_ why "swans" works better than "pigeons" - or "ducks," or "vultures," or "B-52s"? Or that you really believe artistic choices are simply a matter of taste, with no choice "better"or "worse"? Isn't the latter your thesis, which you say I've failed to invalidate?
> 
> You can turn up your nose at my examples - "Mairzy Doats" vs the "Alto Rhapsody" and "swans" vs "pigeons" - but I chose obvious examples as an assist to people for whom finer contrasts, requiring more elaborate explanations, might be difficult to discern. It should be fairly easy to find several reasons why "Flight of Swans" could not ever be "Flight of Pigeons," but the easiness of the task shouldn't inspire such contemptuous dismissal.


I will, as you say, "turn up my nose". The dismissal was not contemptuous in intent, unless one seeks to find same. Your posts fail to address my criticisms of the limitations of esthetic theory as applied here; one might even speak of evasion. And let's not quarrel over which of Jeffers' poems are "best"--you clearly have your choices and I mine. And there are millions of well-educated people who I would be glad to have as friends who either never heard of Robinson Jeffers or who loathe his poetry. An objective fact.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> I've got one thanks! Just you missed that bit out. Your problem is somewhat misguided idealism I think. Your problem is that your initial firework is a misguided missile if you quote Oppenheimer out of context which you did of course. As a historian it is a fatal error. We paint pictures warts and all.


I am indeed fortunate to be instructed by DavidA in what my problem is. Why do you not explain in detail about our shared sin of quoting Oppenheimer out of context? Real mirth is nearby. You do need more input on Oppenheimer biographies; I'll put a list together.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> I am indeed fortunate to be instructed by DavidA in what my problem is. Why do you not explain in detail about our shared sin of quoting Oppenheimer out of context? Real mirth is nearby. You do need more input on Oppenheimer biographies; I'll put a list together.


Where did I say it was shared sin? You just said he was a man of his time. Never mind - you can't see it! :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> Impractical. Are preferences all that we need for teaching and developing world-class artists to play your Bach? and all the rest of what CM offers..


Not relevant. Composers and musicians can and doubtless are taught by all sorts of mentors with all sorts of personal preferences of their own. And those mentors can editorialize all they like, in word and print, over who or what they consider Great without deviating from their instructive role.

I think the kitchen sink is being considered now among my critics as a potential rejoinder. I will remain unmoved as the sink shatters around me.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> Where did I say it was shared sin? You just said he was a man of his time. Never mind - you can't see it! :lol:


Dave, back to the drawing board! It was I who said, accurately, that it was a shared sin. Anyway, these brief posts of yours are enjoyable.


----------



## Strange Magic

DavidA said:


> There seems to me that people are making a contradiction of two complementary things - one os the nuts and bolts required to produce works of genius but the other is the actual genius itself. If you look at the figure of Michelangelo's David you will see it reproduced a few times to size in the city but only one is by the great man himself. So there are plenty of sculptors who have the craftsmanship but only one with the genius to make the original.


This reminds me: Were you part of our long-running discussion of the _Davids_ of Donatello, Verrocchio, Bernini, and Michelangelo? I'll have to dig that one up out of the archives. A lot of fun. People had all sorts of opinions. It was Real Life people discussing Real Life preferences, likes, dislikes.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Dave, back to the drawing board! It was I who said, accurately, that it was a shared sin. Anyway, these brief posts of yours are enjoyable.


As are yours. Keep safe friend!


----------



## Strange Magic

Here are suggestions for Oppenheimer:

_J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds_, by Peter Goodchild.

_American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer_, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin.

_Robert Oppenheimer: A Life inside the Center_, By Ray Monk.

And of course, Richard Rhodes' classic _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Here are suggestions for Oppenheimer:
> 
> _J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds_, by Peter Goodchild.
> 
> _American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer_, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin.
> 
> _Robert Oppenheimer: A Life inside the Center_, By Ray Monk.
> 
> And of course, Richard Rhodes' classic _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_.


And of course









How Fermi nearly burned down a city! But Brahms is the subject!


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Not relevant. Composers and musicians can and doubtless are taught by all sorts of mentors with all sorts of personal preferences of their own. And those mentors can editorialize all they like, in word and print, over who or what they consider Great without deviating from their instructive role.
> 
> I think the kitchen sink is being considered now among my critics as a potential rejoinder. I will remain unmoved as the sink shatters around me.


It indicates what an easy target your assertions are about this. What are the ramifications of your views? What about the future of CM, music education and schools of playing. Who would put in the effort of so many decades, like Serkin and Horowitz, all those old guys? if it's merely a field of "I like this", "I don't like that".


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Strange Magic said:


> Here are suggestions for Oppenheimer:
> 
> _J. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds_, by Peter Goodchild.
> 
> _American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer_, by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin.
> 
> _Robert Oppenheimer: A Life inside the Center_, By Ray Monk.
> 
> And of course, Richard Rhodes' classic _The Making of the Atomic Bomb_.


John Adams wrote an opera about Oppenheimer during the episode of Los Alamos test, Dr. Atomic. It has some interesting music and clever moments but the whole thing is hackneyed and dry, IMO.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> It indicates what an easy target your assertions are about this. What are the ramifications of your views? What about the future of CM, music education and schools of playing. Who would put in the effort of so many decades, like Serkin and Horowitz, all those old guys? if it's merely a field of "I like this", "I don't like that".


Fire away! You're right: too wide a spread of my views will destroy CM, close music schools, and have people throw their instruments into bonfires and others become bartenders. Actually, seriously, I think artists press on in their enthusiasms without giving a lot of thought to esthetic theory. I could be wrong (but I don't think so).


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Fire away! You're right: too wide a spread of my views will destroy CM, close music schools, and have people throw their instruments into bonfires and others become bartenders. Actually, seriously, I think artists press on in their enthusiasms without giving a lot of thought to esthetic theory. I could be wrong (but I don't think so).


You don't address the question of Who would put in the effort of so many decades, like Serkin and Horowitz, all those old guys?, because it's outside of or beyond your experience and conception of music, and the motivations. This should be a clue to you, logically.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Fire away! You're right: too wide a spread of my views will destroy CM, close music schools, and have people throw their instruments into bonfires and others become bartenders. Actually, seriously, I think artists press on in their enthusiasms without giving a lot of thought to esthetic theory. I could be wrong (but I don't think so).


That's funny, classical artists talk about esthetics in the music they play all the time.


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> That's funny, classical artists talk about esthetics in the music they play all the time.


Dave, could you expand on that? Your post contains some ambiguities though it may be perfectly clear to you.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi said:


> You don't address the question of Who would put in the effort of so many decades, like Serkin and Horowitz, all those old guys?, because it's outside of or beyond your experience and conception of music, and the motivations. This should be a clue to you, logically.


I honestly don't know how to reply. Sorry! All that comes to me is that maybe they loved CM and wanted to hear it and play it. And people still do.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> Are we not talking about the same thing, then? The idea that different forms of art have different criteria of excellence is not incompatible with anything I'm saying. Art is to be judged on its own terms (its own "premises"). I have not "picked out what Wagner was doing as 'excellence' over what Metallica does." I don't know what Metallica does, but I'm quite open to the possibility that it does what it sets out to do brilliantly, as Wagner did what he set out to do brilliantly, and that if I did take an interest in Metallica I could come to appreciate its brilliance.


I don't think so. I'm not saying different *forms of art *have different criteria of excellence - as if the different forms of excellence are objectively _in_ the different artforms themselves and as if this excellence, while relative to the different artforms, is not relative to the individuals encountering these forms.

I think different human subjects have different criteria of excellence (in fact, I don't know how this could be refuted - it seems obvious to me). Instead of focusing on individual human subjects, you seem to stress looking at the works of art themselves. In so doing, to the exclusion of differences in human concept use, I fear you are ignoring those people who simply would not agree with you that a fugue, for instance, is excellent art simply because it is 'worked out' according to the internal logic of a fugue (is there only one logic of a fugue, anyhow?!). You seem committed to the idea that such people are mistaken, in some objective sense, when, really, they simply identify excellence using different criteria to you. Some people don't care for art that lays down premises and then 'fulfills' them, as it were, in such a systematic way as a fugue. Some people like abstract expressionism, or noise music. There is some tiny amount of 'internal logic' to this art, but when we're getting to noise music, it ain't much.



Woodduck said:


> I wouldn't suggest that your friend needs to care about what makes Wagner a great composer, but I would suggest that he jolly well ought not to be calling Wagner artistically "barren" if he isn't willing or able to take Wagner on Wagner's own terms. If he "doesn't give a damn about any of this" then he should just keep quiet until he does give a damn. He may never actually like Wagner's music, but there is the potential for acquirng an appreciation of the achievement it represents. People do that sort of thing all the time.


As a parallel, some people have spend many hours understanding the 'grammar' of serialism and, despite recognising the internal grammar, _continue to find it aesthetically lacking_. Roger Scruton would be one such critic. If all you mean is that, the understanding of a work's internal coherence would lead to some kind of intellectual _appreciation_, then I wouldn't disagree with you, however this falls short of aesthetic approval, for me. Music isn't mathematics or logic. I would seriously question whether rigorous 'internal logic' is sufficient for excellence (at least, as I apply this concept!). Coming round full circle, _different people have different concepts of artistic excellence_.



Woodduck said:


> The argument that "all aesthetics is subjective" would have to regard Beethoven's rejected sketches as equal in artistic value to his final choices, and the composer's choices as mere matters of "taste" or "subjective preference." Every artist knows that this is nonsense.


My argument is that people employ different criteria of artistic excellence. In this sense aesthetics is subjective. This means that some people might, on a case by case basis, find Beethoven's rejected passages better than his final choices! This is not at all an absurd conclusion. For instance, I would have loved a slow movement in Symphony No. 8. I find the symphony lacks weight or balance because of this, and is his weakest symphony partly as a result. That's just me.


----------



## DavidA

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> John Adams wrote an opera about Oppenheimer during the episode of Los Alamos test, Dr. Atomic. It has some interesting music and clever moments but the whole thing is hackneyed and dry, IMO.


Listened to one John Adams opera. Never again!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I chose obvious examples as an assist to people for whom finer contrasts, requiring more elaborate explanations, might be difficult to discern.


It's all very well being so helpful, but you might address the audience that speaks with you, not some imagined lesser listener. (Unless you do have a lesser listener in mind among those speaking with you...?)



Woodduck said:


> *I'll buy that, adding only that it's the internally derived choices that matter greatly.* Beethoven expanded the common concept of "symphony" in a number of ways, as did other composers, but that has little to do with the quality of the product, although it may initially have seemed important to people unused to the innovations.
> 
> [...]
> 
> *This may be true. Schoenberg may or may not have worked out the implications of his material in an aesthetically satisfying way (but I'm not weighing in since I don't know the work well)*
> 
> We have a bunch of people here, so I may not be addressing only your points when i talk to you. It can get confusing. *But this post is definitely for you, lucky guy.* The rest of them are mere eavesdroppers. (Has anyone else wondered how it feels to drop eaves?)
> 
> I'll reiterate my conviction that the integrity of a work of art is fundamental, but I fully acknowledge that our sense of what makes it admirable (let's leave off "great" for the moment) goes far beyond that. Just as important as whether an artist has worked out his aesthetic premises in an effective way is the question of what _kind_ of thing he is trying to do. *"Mairzy Doats" may be a perfectly shaped melody and damned catchy, but no one thinks it's as impressive or significant a work of art as Brahms's Alto Rhapsody. I think here are two basic reasons for this: 1.) "Mairzy Doats"has little to say; it isn't about anything of any consequence to human life; it expresses no depth of ideas or feelings. 2.) The creation of "Mairzy Doats" represents an achievement of sorts, in that it's a catchy tune with a funny text and lots of people have found it fun to sing. Many a song writer would kill to have a hit like that, even a silly one. But the Alto Rhapsody aspires to more, technically and expressively, and its success represents an achievement of a different order of magnitude.* I think it's possible and important to recognize these two dimensions of artistic achievement regardless of our preference for one work or the other.


If it's the individual - and internal to the composer - choices that matter most, then that seems to suggest that any external and verifiable 'objective' criteria are inapplicable. Brahms is 'great' - when he is - because he fully meets his own choices, and not because he matches up to any external standard.

I'm disappointed that instead of considering other 'worthy' works, you decide to offer a crude alternative, for altruistic reasons, you say. But I'd rather test out your theory with something more obviously comparable. Still, if we must use the simple, how about _Happy Birthday_? Perfect form, perfectly matched to its purpose, much more applicable than any deep, meaningful, saying-something-about-the-universe symhony. It's 'great' by its own standards.

As for the bit that you confirm is directed at me, I don't get why. I don't think I have ever claimed that 'all aesthetics is subjective', so why direct your comment at me?

What I think I _do _claim is that precisely because _Mairzy Doats _and Brahms's _Alto Rhapsody _are such different works serving different purposes, their 'greatness' are not the same, are 'in-comparable'. So, comparisons to weigh the greatness is irrelevant. You may as well ask, "Which is greater, the electronic calculator or the tractor?"


----------



## Woodduck

MacLeod said:


> It's all very well being so helpful, but you might address the audience that speaks with you, not some imagined lesser listener. (Unless you do have a lesser listener in mind among those speaking with you...?)
> 
> If it's the individual - and internal to the composer - choices that matter most, then that seems to suggest that any external and verifiable 'objective' criteria are inapplicable. Brahms is 'great' - when he is - because he fully meets his own choices, and not because he matches up to any external standard.
> 
> I'm disappointed that instead of considering other 'worthy' works, you decide to offer a crude alternative, for altruistic reasons, you say. But I'd rather test out your theory with something more obviously comparable. Still, if we must use the simple, how about _Happy Birthday_? Perfect form, perfectly matched to its purpose, much more applicable than any deep, meaningful, saying-something-about-the-universe symhony. It's 'great' by its own standards.
> 
> As for the bit that you confirm is directed at me, I don't get why. I don't think I have ever claimed that 'all aesthetics is subjective', so why direct your comment at me?
> 
> What I think I _do _claim is that precisely because _Mairzy Doats _and Brahms's _Alto Rhapsody _are such different works serving different purposes, their 'greatness' are not the same, are 'in-comparable'. So, comparisons to weigh the greatness is irrelevant. You may as well ask, "Which is greater, the electronic calculator or the tractor?"


Too many fallacies here for this late at night. Tne insulting tone isn't encouraging either. I'd expect better from you.

Good night.


----------



## Woodduck

RogerWaters said:


> I don't think so. I'm not saying different *forms of art *have different criteria of excellence - as if the different forms of excellence are objectively _in_ the different artforms themselves and as if this excellence, while relative to the different artforms, is not relative to the individuals encountering these forms.


This is hard to parse. Maybe I'm just tired.



> I think different human subjects have different criteria of excellence (in fact, I don't know how this could be refuted - it seems obvious to me).


Sure...



> Instead of focusing on individual human subjects, you seem to stress looking at the works of art themselves.


Isn't that the question? Can works of art be said to have quality, and degrees of quality?



> In so doing, to the exclusion of differences in human concept use, I fear you are ignoring those people who simply would not agree with you that a fugue, for instance, is excellent art simply because it is 'worked out' according to the internal logic of a fugue (is there only one logic of a fugue, anyhow?!). You seem committed to the idea that such people are mistaken, in some objective sense, when, really, they simply identify excellence using different criteria to you.


So there are no better fugues and worse fugues? Would that idea fly in any couterpoint or composition class? Why do people bother to study composition, or any art? Just to learn how to conform to some musty formula? I don't think so.



> Some people don't care for art that lays down premises and then 'fulfills' them, as it were, in such a systematic way as a fugue.


I don't claim otherwise.



> Some people like abstract expressionism, or noise music. There is some tiny amount of 'internal logic' to this art, but when we're getting to noise music, it ain't much.


That's all fine.



> As a parallel, some people have spend many hours understanding the 'grammar' of serialism and, despite recognising the internal grammar, _continue to find it aesthetically lacking_.


I'm one of them, and with time and effort i could tell you why.



> Roger Scruton would be one such critic. If all you mean is that, the understanding of a work's internal coherence would lead to some kind of intellectual _appreciation_, then I wouldn't disagree with you, however this falls short of aesthetic approval, for me. Music isn't mathematics or logic. I would seriously question whether rigorous 'internal logic' is sufficient for excellence (at least, as I apply this concept!). Coming round full circle, _different people have different concepts of artistic excellence_.


If you've been following my posts here, you know that I have never claimed that aesthetic integrity is eqivalent to "rigorous internal logic," or that this alone is the sole criterion of quality in art. In fact, I've said that there are other factors and even named a couple of them.



> My argument is that people employ different criteria of artistic excellence. In this sense aesthetics is subjective.


I'm fine with that.



> This means that some people might, on a case by case basis, find Beethoven's rejected passages better than his final choices! This is not at all an absurd conclusion.


They might. People might do anything. I've listened to Bernstein's lecture-demonstration. His assessments of the rejects are on target. He can tell, and I can tell. I'll bet thousands of people can tell. Rgardless of what "some people" might do, some artistic choices are better than others, and many, many people can tell. Disagreement doesn't equal invalidation, and the exception proves the rule.



> For instance, I would have loved a slow movement in Symphony No. 8. I find the symphony lacks weight or balance because of this, and is his weakest symphony partly as a result. Tan 7thahat's just me.


I can understand missing a slow movement. On the other hand, Beethoven was clearly paying tribute to the Classical tradition he was born into. The Haydnesque quality of the symphony, with added Beethovenian brusqueness, is essential to it (that ticking clock!). B knew what he was doing, and as a respite between the Dionysian 7th and the heaven-storming 9th, it was just the light-hearted refreshment he wanted. I find no weakness or flaw in it. But I respect your, or anyone's, subjecive response.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Woodduck said:


> Too many fallacies here for this late at night. Tne insulting tone isn't encouraging either. I'd expect better from you.
> 
> Good night.


Interesting aspect of TC: one can insult another member (instead of reacting to probably inconvenient arguments) and if the reaction is not appreciated, with the help of the mods, the entire discussion is being whitewashed as if it never happened. Of course, this all happens without even a PM to the 'other side' or a notification in the thread. Fascinating!

Yes, let's talk about tiring fallacies:lol:

How about falsifying some history and keeping up some appearances.

BTW, good old Brahms has already left this thread about his own greatness.

Good night indeed


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I think different human subjects have different criteria of excellence (in fact, I don't know how this could be refuted - it seems obvious to me). Instead of focusing on individual human subjects, you seem to stress looking at the works of art themselves. In so doing, to the exclusion of differences in human concept use, I fear you are ignoring those people who simply would not agree with you that a fugue, for instance, is excellent art simply because it is 'worked out' according to the internal logic of a fugue (is there only one logic of a fugue, anyhow?!). You seem committed to the idea that such people are mistaken, in some objective sense, when, really, they simply identify excellence using different criteria to you. Some people don't care for art that lays down premises and then 'fulfills' them, as it were, in such a systematic way as a fugue. Some people like abstract expressionism, or noise music. There is some tiny amount of 'internal logic' to this art, but when we're getting to noise music, it ain't much.


This is a fine point. Formalism (as in literary and art criticism) is not the only way to approach music. In fact, it could be a bad way to approach precisely because of neglecting "human subjectivity" that is essential to music.

One should also be aware that "logic" works on different levels (which depends on how "meta" you are, or what is the "zero point" for your analysis, which is where you impose all your presuppositions). The music of the second Wiener school can be indistinguishable from "random music" from various measures (micro and macro harmony) but they do have strong internal logic.



RogerWaters said:


> As a parallel, some people have spend many hours understanding the 'grammar' of serialism and, despite recognising the internal grammar, _continue to find it aesthetically lacking_. Roger Scruton would be one such critic. If all you mean is that, the understanding of a work's internal coherence would lead to some kind of intellectual _appreciation_, then I wouldn't disagree with you, however this falls short of aesthetic approval, for me. Music isn't mathematics or logic. I would seriously question whether rigorous 'internal logic' is sufficient for excellence (at least, as I apply this concept!). Coming round full circle, _different people have different concepts of artistic excellence_.


"Aesthetically lacking" could mean many things that has nothing to do with aesthetics (whether it pleases the senses, for example), or it could presuppose a latent aesthetic standard such as the one you referred to, Roger Scruton. Roger Scruton is an intelligent conservative but his aesthetics are rather extreme, or ultra-conservative. There is nothing new in his aesthetics, his aesthetics does not empower his reader to explore into the future nor does it faciliate you to look at old master works with fresh eyes. He is not a great aesthetic philosopher.

I do admit that "serialism" has probably gone too far (from general human psychology and ability to process musical information) but contemporary music has already moved on. The landscape is incredibly diverse, daring and it has absorbed the useful elements from serialism and left out the rest.


----------



## Woodduck

NLAdriaan said:


> Interesting aspect of TC: one can insult another member (instead of reacting to probably inconvenient arguments) and if the reaction is not appreciated, with the help of the mods, the entire discussion is being whitewashed as if it never happened. Of course, this all happens without even a PM to the 'other side' or a notification in the thread. Fascinating!
> 
> Yes, let's talk about tiring fallacies:lol:
> 
> How about falsifying some history and keeping up some appearances.
> 
> BTW, good old Brahms has already left this thread about his own greatness.
> 
> Good night indeed


Isn't there a word for people who wander around town, drop into parties unannounced to make a few snarky remarks, then move on to the next gathering? Last time it was quoting Jesus. This time, hard to tell what it's about.


----------



## Guest

Enough with the Beethoven already! (The 8th is one of my favourites, though)

Why does no-one want to talk about Brahms' symphonies?

[add]

In fact, he can't be great, can he? Otherwise everyone would be falling over themselves to discuss his wondrous works and he'd be constantly brought up in threads about the other three greats.

Sorry, I know I've contributed to the discussion on 'great', but we've spent a lot of time on that in the abstract, or how it applies to other composers...but to Brahms, not so much.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> My argument is that people employ different criteria of artistic excellence. In this sense aesthetics is subjective. This means that some people might, on a case by case basis, find Beethoven's rejected passages better than his final choices! This is not at all an absurd conclusion. For instance, I would have loved a slow movement in Symphony No. 8. I find the symphony lacks weight or balance because of this, and is his weakest symphony partly as a result. That's just me.


This point is fairly "post-modern". Given how much you seem to hate "post-modernism" (your interpretation of it), I am surprised that you are suggesting here that established aesthetic standards are essentially "social constructs" and people can impose whatever aesthetic standard they want.

I highly doubt that Beethoven's late work lack "weight" and "balance", two hallmarks of Beethoven, but it's you being you so let's leave it at that.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Woodduck said:


> Isn't there a word for people who wander around town, drop into parties unannounced to make a few snarky remarks, then move on to the next gathering? Last time it was quoting Jesus. This time, hard to tell what it's about.


You forgot what you did yesterday? There is a word for that.


----------



## DavidA

NLAdriaan said:


> Interesting aspect of TC: one can insult another member (instead of reacting to probably inconvenient arguments) and if the reaction is not appreciated, with the help of the mods, the entire discussion is being whitewashed as if it never happened. Of course, this all happens without even a PM to the 'other side' or a notification in the thread. Fascinating!
> 
> Yes, let's talk about tiring fallacies:lol:
> 
> How about falsifying some history and keeping up some appearances.
> 
> BTW, good old Brahms has already left this thread about his own greatness.
> 
> Good night indeed


Prerogative of those who call themselves artists! Just reading Swafford's Beethoven - he was pretty good at it. And Chopin and Brahms never gave a compliment when an insult would do either. And Michelangelo never appeared to have a good word for anyone - even Leonardo!:lol:


----------



## Eclectic Al

MacLeod said:


> Enough with the Beethoven already! (The 8th is one of my favourites, though)
> 
> Why does no-one want to talk about Brahms' symphonies?
> 
> [add]
> 
> In fact, he can't be great, can he? Otherwise everyone would be falling over themselves to discuss his wondrous works and he'd be constantly brought up in threads about the other three greats.
> 
> Sorry, I know I've contributed to the discussion on 'great', but we've spent a lot of time on that in the abstract, or how it applies to other composers...but to Brahms, not so much.


The first fairly large number of pages here were about Brahms, and then it got hi-jacked. It's a shame, but it seems to be the natural dynamic on TC. You get a few pages of relevant stuff, and then it drifts off.

Going back to Brahms and greatness, one of my thoughts was that to be among the "greatest" composers they should have produced works which are ranked among the best of their type in a range of forms. According to that criterion I think Brahms does pretty well.

Symphonies: he's up there. Recent polls on TC have suggested that Beethoven's Eroica is about the best symphony, but a separate poll of 3rd symphonies had Brahms 3 beating it! Go figure, but it suggests that Brahms 3 is up there - and many would say Brahms 4 is better.

Clarinet Quintets: Brahms and Mozart - top 2.

Short piano pieces: Take you pick from Brahms Op 116-119.

Piano Quintets: Brahms and Schumann - top 2.

Violin concertos: It's not one of my favourite Brahms pieces, but it's up there. (I actually prefer the double concerto.)

Piano Quartets: Different preferences, but he's got top ones to offer.

Clarinet Sonatas: They're up there.

Piano Concertos: I love No 2, some like No 1. They're up there though.

I can't comment on vocal stuff (as I rarely partake, but I believe he did some well-regarded lieder, and there's the Alto Rhapsody, and for choral stuff you have Ein Deutsches Requiem).

I came up with that lot without trying. Now you can disagree about some, but that's a pretty impressive range of achievement. You might have expected more in the way of string quartets, but apart from that he is excellent across a really wide range.

Now think who can match this. I think you'll end up with the acknowledged greats: Beethoven, Bach (but focused on different forms given the period he worked in), Mozart, Haydn (for actually creating many of the main forms as well). You're going to lose Mahler, Wagner, Sibelius and various others for narrowness of range - despite great achievements in particular genres. You may want to bring in figures like Schumann and Mendelssohn or Dvorak, but I just don't listen to them anything like as much.

There you go: back to why Brahms is so great: it's because his achievement is excellent in so many areas, like the other greats.


----------



## DavidA

Eclectic Al said:


> The first fairly large number of pages here were about Brahms, and then it got hi-jacked. It's a shame, but it seems to be the natural dynamic on TC. You get a few pages of relevant stuff, and then it drifts off.
> 
> Going back to Brahms and greatness, one of my thoughts was that to be among the "greatest" composers they should have produced works which are ranked among the best of their type in a range of forms. According to that criterion I think Brahms does pretty well.
> 
> Symphonies: he's up there. Recent polls on TC have suggested that Beethoven's Eroica is about the best symphony, but a separate poll of 3rd symphonies had Brahms 3 beating it! Go figure, but it suggests that Brahms 3 is up there - and many would say Brahms 4 is better.
> 
> Clarinet Quintets: Brahms and Mozart - top 2.
> 
> Short piano pieces: Take you pick from Brahms Op 116-119.
> 
> Piano Quintets: Brahms and Schumann - top 2.
> 
> Violin concertos: It's not one of my favourite Brahms pieces, but it's up there. (I actually prefer the double concerto.)
> 
> Piano Quartets: Different preferences, but he's got top ones to offer.
> 
> Clarinet Sonatas: They're up there.
> 
> Piano Concertos: I love No 2, some like No 1. They're up there though.
> 
> I can't comment on vocal stuff (as I rarely partake, but I believe he did some well-regarded lieder, and there's the Alto Rhapsody, and for choral stuff you have Ein Deutsches Requiem).
> 
> I came up with that lot without trying. Now you can disagree about some, but that's a pretty impressive range of achievement. You might have expected more in the way of string quartets, but apart from that he is excellent across a really wide range.
> 
> Now think who can match this. I think you'll end up with the acknowledged greats: Beethoven, Bach (but focused on different forms given the period he worked in), Mozart, Haydn (for actually creating many of the main forms as well). You're going to lose Mahler, Wagner, Sibelius and various others for narrowness of range - despite great achievements in particular genres. You may want to bring in figures like Schumann and Mendelssohn or Dvorak, but I just don't listen to them anything like as much.
> 
> There you go: back to why Brahms is so great: it's because his achievement is excellent in so many areas, like the other greats.


Pretty good round-up here! Well done sir!
I'd agree with most of this. Just to add the Handel Variations are a favourite with me although they don't match Beethoven's or Bach's imo.
Can't stand the Alto Rhapsody but do like the Requiem.
The concertos are right up there although not quite up to the Beethoven or Mozart piano concertos imo but thoroughly enjoyable.
Where I do have more of a problem is the symphonies which are a bit dull apart from no 4 which Stokowski really knew how to conduct. Or perhaps so many people want to go slow out of reverence which kills them. 
Go-slow in Brahms is no-go in my book. Why I love Heifetz / Feuermann in the Double Concerto


----------



## Strange Magic

> RogerWaters: "My argument is that people employ different criteria of artistic excellence. In this sense aesthetics is subjective."





> Woodduck: "I'm fine with that."





> RogerWaters: "This means that some people might, on a case by case basis, find Beethoven's rejected passages better than his final choices! This is not at all an absurd conclusion."





> Woodduck: "They might. People might do anything. I've listened to Bernstein's lecture-demonstration. His assessments of the rejects are on target. He can tell, and I can tell. *I'll bet thousands of people can tell. Regardless of what "some people" might do, some artistic choices are better than others, and many, many people can tell.* Disagreement doesn't equal invalidation, and the exception proves the rule."


I think we're all on the same page now. My only comments would be A) to extend RogerWaters' first remark by inserting the word all before people so that the sentence reads "all people". That there may be/will be shared criteria is just happenstance and shared backgrounds.

And B) Woodduck invokes the opinion of thousands, and that's just fine by me. Esthetics is all about voting and polls and shared opinions.


----------



## Strange Magic

People will hate this, but reflecting again upon our fine TC discussion of back when on statues of David, I would urge all interested to use the wonder of the Internet and look at those four works: Verrocchio, Donatello, Michelangelo, Bernini. There are no reliable photographs of the biblical David but we do have the story. It seems to me that each sculptor chose to emphasize a particular trait of David--accomplishment, youth, adolescent(?) male beauty, determination--in his work. And so we have four wonderful, evocative statues, any one of which could be anybody's favorite. Is one statue objectively "greater" than the rest? Are any of them a perfect simulacrum of the real David? Is that important? I like them all--sometimes preferring this, sometimes that. But that's just me.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> People will hate this, but reflecting again upon our fine TC discussion of back when on statues of David, I would urge all interested to use the wonder of the Internet and look at those four works: Verrochio, Donatello, Michelangelo, Bernini. There are no reliable photographs of the biblical David but we do have the story. It seems to me that each sculptor chose to emphasize a particular trait of David--accomplishment, youth, adolescent(?) male beauty, determination--in his work. And so we have four wonderful, evocative statues, any one of which could be anybody's favorite. Is one statue objectively "greater" than the rest? Are any of them a perfect simulacrum of the real David? Is that important? I like them all--sometimes preferring this, sometimes that. But that's just me.


It is indeed pointless to compare incommensurate things, except on certain common features, which on closer inspection may prove not to be common anyway. That's the problem with most of the threads on this forum that ask who and what is the greatest this or that. Fond delusions and bloody waste of time. Most people just end up saying what their favorites are, and that's how most such threads should be defined at the outset.

That is not to say that there is no better and worse, greater and lesser, genius and talent. The blend of fastidious craftsmanship and deep sentiment in Brahms is not quite a match for the miraculous fluency and easy mastery of Mozart or the gobsmacking paradigm-shifting of Beethoven. He, one of the most discriminating of musical minds, knew this quite well and admitted it. He even studied the scores of Wagner when no one was looking.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> I think we're all on the same page now. My only comments would be A) to extend RogerWaters' first remark by inserting the word all before people so that the sentence reads "all people". That there may be/will be shared criteria is just happenstance and shared backgrounds.
> 
> And B) Woodduck invokes the opinion of thousands, and that's just fine by me. Esthetics is all about voting and polls and shared opinions.


Woodduck may invoke the judgment of thousands, but he doesn't rely on it.


----------



## Strange Magic

As usual, my friend, we agree to disagree (on this one subject). TC would be poorer without us!:tiphat::lol::angel:


----------



## Strange Magic

Getting back to Brahms, his second piano concerto is The Greatest Ever. I think so, and so it shall be.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> People will hate this, but reflecting again upon our fine TC discussion of back when on statues of David, I would urge all interested to use the wonder of the Internet and look at those four works: Verrocchio, Donatello, Michelangelo, Bernini. There are no reliable photographs of the biblical David but we do have the story. It seems to me that each sculptor chose to emphasize a particular trait of David--accomplishment, youth, adolescent(?) male beauty, determination--in his work. And so we have four wonderful, evocative statues, any one of which could be anybody's favorite. Is one statue objectively "greater" than the rest? Are any of them a perfect simulacrum of the real David? Is that important? I like them all--sometimes preferring this, sometimes that. But that's just me.


We have no idea of what the real David actually looked like except the description given of him that he was 'Ruddy' - the Hebrew word 'admoni' can mean of reddish complexion or more likely he had red hair. He was also 'handsome' (yapheh) and had obviously great physical strength for his size.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> Getting back to Brahms, his second piano concerto is The Greatest Ever. I think so, and so it shall be.


It is very enjoyable even if I can't agree that it is the greatest ever. I bought a cheap Fontana LP when I was a lad with Serkin and Ormandy which still is one of the best performances of the piece.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> One should also be aware that "logic" works on different levels (which depends on how "meta" you are, or what is the "zero point" for your analysis, which is where you impose all your presuppositions). The music of the second Wiener school can be indistinguishable from "random music" from various measures (micro and macro harmony) but they do have strong internal logic.


"Logic" in music is of course metaphorical, though it's a useful metaphor. Art and the cognition of aesthetic qualities occupy a unique ground which defies the rules governing scientific knowledge. The struggle to talk meaningfully and with assurance about what can be known but cannot be proved tempts people to the extremes of dogmatism and skepticism, the latter being more fashionable in a Postmodern age.

Serialism is a product of Modernism, not Postmodernism, and its attempt to create a "logic" out of whole cloth has lost its prestige. Experiments have shown that even experienced musicians often cannot follow the "logic" thus created. That is problematic for both the music and the metaphor.

Needless to say there is no such problem in listening to Brahms. If his "logic" ever fails him (which it rarely does), we will know it. He was logical enough to keep a fiery grave burning in the hearth.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Getting back to Brahms, his second piano concerto is The Greatest Ever. I think so, and so it shall be.


It is indeed the greatest Brahms Second Piano Concerto ever.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Woodduck said:


> It is indeed the greatest Brahms Second Piano Concerto ever.


To increase the competitive field a little more, would anyone care to suggest a better Second Piano Concerto?

(I guess Rachmaninov's is better known.)


----------



## Art Rock

Eclectic Al said:


> To increase the competitive field a little more, would anyone care to suggest a better Second Piano Concerto?


As much as I love Brahms, I'd say Ravel's for the left hand.


----------



## Jacck

Eclectic Al said:


> To increase the competitive field a little more, would anyone care to suggest a better Second Piano Concerto?
> 
> (I guess Rachmaninov's is better known.)


Bartók's Piano Concerto No. 2


----------



## Luchesi

MacLeod said:


> It's all very well being so helpful, but you might address the audience that speaks with you, not some imagined lesser listener. (Unless you do have a lesser listener in mind among those speaking with you...?)
> 
> If it's the individual - and internal to the composer - choices that matter most, then that seems to suggest that any external and verifiable 'objective' criteria are inapplicable. Brahms is 'great' - when he is - because he fully meets his own choices, and not because he matches up to any external standard.
> 
> I'm disappointed that instead of considering other 'worthy' works, you decide to offer a crude alternative, for altruistic reasons, you say. But I'd rather test out your theory with something more obviously comparable. Still, if we must use the simple, how about _Happy Birthday_? Perfect form, perfectly matched to its purpose, much more applicable than any deep, meaningful, saying-something-about-the-universe symhony. It's 'great' by its own standards.
> 
> As for the bit that you confirm is directed at me, I don't get why. I don't think I have ever claimed that 'all aesthetics is subjective', so why direct your comment at me?
> 
> What I think I _do _claim is that precisely because _Mairzy Doats _and Brahms's _Alto Rhapsody _are such different works serving different purposes, their 'greatness' are not the same, are 'in-comparable'. So, comparisons to weigh the greatness is irrelevant. You may as well ask, "Which is greater, the electronic calculator or the tractor?"


My working definition for great or greatness is an exemplary piece, a quintessence, crème de la crème for the time. Surpassed later (in expressive power) by such outside thinkers as Schubert and Chopin, Schumann, Scriabin.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Two more of my favourites in the 2 posts above Ravel Left Hand and Bartok). Wow there are some good second piano concertos (if the Ravel squeezes in). Still love the Brahms, though - right from that magical opening.


----------



## Luchesi

His first concerto was blah (and a personal crisis) so we can think of the Rach 3 as his second.


----------



## Woodduck

Some people feel that the fourth movement of the Brahms 2nd concerto is too lightweight for the rest. I think that makes some sense; it's certainly my least favorite part of the work. Brahms seems to have been harking back to the pattern of Classical period multi-movement works in which the last movement was conventionally light and cheerful; his violin concerto is similar. Beethoven smashed that paradigm; Brahms was more conservative than Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

Luchesi said:


> His first concerto was blah (and a personal crisis) so we can think of the Rach 3 as his second.


No-o-o-o-o-o! (That's all. Just "no-o-o-o-o-o!)


----------



## Eclectic Al

Woodduck said:


> Some people feel that the fourth movement of the Brahms 2nd concerto is too lightweight for the rest. I think that makes some sense; it's certainly my least favorite part of the work. Brahms seems to have been harking back to the pattern of Classical period multi-movement works in which the last movement was conventionally light and cheerful; his violin concerto is similar. Beethoven smashed that paradigm; Brahms was more conservative than Beethoven.


Yes, I recall (after all these years) that I found that movement odd the first time I heard the piece. Now, I like it if I consider it in isolation (- I think it's gorgeously insouciant), and I think that he gets away with it in the context of the whole, given the existence of the second movement: somehow, for me, that makes the light final movement more appropriate in relation to the balance that it provides.


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> We have no idea of what the real David actually looked like except the description given of him that he was 'Ruddy' - the Hebrew word 'admoni' can mean of reddish complexion or more likely he had red hair. He was also 'handsome' (yapheh) and had obviously great physical strength for his size.


Interesting. It seems it was important in those days to have a underdog hero unselfishly trying to help the masses, so vulnerable ..and with the weight of the world on his shoulders. The power of mythos. The top ape scenario, over and over in the stories. We don't get disappointed. It's so deep in us.


----------



## Luchesi

Woodduck said:


> No-o-o-o-o-o! (That's all. Just "no-o-o-o-o-o!)


Okay, you're right.. Rach 3 as a title has such a nice ring to it!


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> Interesting. It seems it was important in those days to have a underdog hero unselfishly trying to help the masses, so vulnerable ..and with the weight of the world on his shoulders. The power of mythos. The top ape scenario, over and over in the stories. We don't get disappointed. It's so deep in us.


Of course you are somewhat wrong-thinking in what you say. The giant actually didn't stand a chance, particularly as he seems to have left his helmet off. That lad was one of the slingers of Israel who could hit anything. If you bet on Goliath you bet a wrong-un'! Things are not what they appear!


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Getting back to Brahms, his second piano concerto is The Greatest Ever. I think so, and so it shall be.


It's not any better than any other concerto and no skill was required composing it. It's only that you like it that distinguishes it.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Eclectic Al said:


> Yes, I recall (after all these years) that I found that movement odd the first time I heard the piece. Now, I like it if I consider it in isolation (- I think it's gorgeously insouciant), and I think that he gets away with it in the context of the whole, given the existence of the second movement: somehow, for me, that makes the light final movement more appropriate in relation to the balance that it provides.


I have the same with the Andante of Brahms 3rd symphony, which also stands on his own feet as a complete work.


----------



## NLAdriaan

DavidA said:


> Prerogative of those who call themselves artists! Just reading Swafford's Beethoven - he was pretty good at it. And Chopin and Brahms never gave a compliment when an insult would do either. And Michelangelo never appeared to have a good word for anyone - even Leonardo!:lol:


I also know square and sad people with anger management problems. Nothing artsy involved. Just a lot of frustration and insulting others as a defense mechanism.

The personality of a composer has nothing to do with his work.


----------



## DavidA

DaveM said:


> It's not any better than any other concerto and *no skill was required composing it. *It's only that you like it that distinguishes it.


I'm assuming you will be putting pen to paper and producing one as acclaimed then?


----------



## Strange Magic

DaveM said:


> It's not any better than any other concerto and no skill was required composing it. It's only that you like it that distinguishes it.


Alas, my message just is not understood (and it's so simple). It is, *for me*, better than any other piano concerto, and great skill is often required to produce works that please me. Little question that the same thinking is true for everyone here on TC as they contemplate their very own favorite pieces of music or art.


----------



## Strange Magic

Prokofiev's mighty second PC must not be passed by, as we discuss the category.


----------



## DaveM

DavidA said:


> I'm assuming you will be putting pen to paper and producing one as acclaimed then?


Was being facetious given that SM believes (as indicated in SM's post above) that no work of art is objectively greater than any other work -which pretty much dismisses the skill of composers based on objective parameters.

In fact, the Brahms 2nd is one of the great works and, as with the 1st concerto, skill at the level of a Beethoven was required to compose it.


----------



## Luchesi

Strange Magic said:


> Alas, my message just is not understood (and it's so simple). It is, *for me*, better than any other piano concerto, and great skill is often required to produce works that please me. Little question that the same thinking is true for everyone here on TC as they contemplate their very own favorite pieces of music or art.


OK. Do young people realize that everyone is at a different stage of perception in their long (hopefully) lives? You probably do.. I'm so much older than LvB ever got to be that I catch myself looking back at him. How about you?


----------



## 1996D

Luchesi said:


> OK. Do young people realize that everyone is at a different stage of perception in their long (hopefully) lives? You probably do.. I'm so much older than LvB ever got to be that I catch myself looking back at him. How about you?


Technically Brahms is at Beethoven's level, the difference is with the essence; that the latter made a breakthrough in thought, a triumph, that Brahms never accomplished. Beethoven's 5th concerto shows a philosophical victory much beyond Brahms.

Beethoven the artist is superior and that's much more important than anything else.


----------



## Strange Magic

Luchesi, I again am somewhat stymied by the "elliptical" nature of many of your posts, and am thus often at a loss as to how best to reply. The fault, I'm sure, is mine.

Looking at 1996D's ease of response, I suggest you further query him rather than me.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> Luchesi, I again am somewhat stymied by the "elliptical" nature of many of your posts, and am thus often at a loss as to how best to reply. The fault, I'm sure, is mine.
> 
> Looking at 1996D's ease of response, I suggest you further query him rather than me.


Beethoven is proof of the peace and philosophical well-being a human is capable of, he's the Mount Everest for any artist or any human being wishing to excel, and unlike Mozart he started from the bottom and worked his way to victory. Brahms is full of ambiguity, grief, desire, longing, regret. He finds peace only temporarily, in short moments, and never triumphs. His 4th symphony ends in a bitter fit, acknowledging that he never achieved what he wanted.

We all have to strive for Beethoven, you can't stay satisfied with the longing Brahms or you'll end up like him.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> Beethoven is p*roof of the peace and philosophical well-being a human is capable of,* he's the Mount Everest for any artist or any human being wishing to excel, and unlike Mozart he started from the bottom and worked his way to victory. Brahms is full of ambiguity, grief, desire, longing, regret. He finds peace only temporarily, in short moments, and never triumphs. His 4th symphony ends in a bitter fit, acknowledging that he never achieved what he wanted.
> 
> We all have to strive for Beethoven, you can't stay satisfied with the longing Brahms or you'll end up like him.


Is this a joke? Do you actually know anything about the way Beethoven lived and the tortured soul he actually was? Or are we taking a Victorian idealistic view? The one person I wouldn't have liked to live my life like is Beethoven.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Is this a joke? Do you actually know anything about the way Beethoven lived and the tortured soul he actually was? Or are we taking a Victorian idealistic view? The one person I wouldn't have liked to live my life like is Beethoven.


His life was judged by the high standards of his day, where you had to kiss the *** of every noble. By today's standards he's a saint.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> His 4th symphony ends in a bitter fit, acknowledging that he never achieved what he wanted.


So did you once shoot a 900 series at your local Hyperbowl?

After opus 98, Johannes created his chamber and solo piano masterpieces.....every work filled with Angostura bitters! So say ALL the theory and history books. Ah, but the very essence of Brahms' bitterness can be found in the development section of the 2nd movement of the 4th Symphony. You should check it out.


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> So did you once shoot a 900 series at your local Hyperbowl?
> 
> After opus 98, Johannes created his chamber and solo piano masterpieces.....every work filled with Angostura bitters! So say ALL the theory and history books. Ah, but the very essence of Brahms' bitterness can be found in the development section of the 2nd movement of the 4th Symphony. You should check it out.


His op. 119 ends similarly to his 4th symphony.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> His life was judged by the high standards of his day, where you had to kiss the *** of every noble. By today's standards he's a saint.


Oh for goodness sake go away and read a decent biography of him. Like Swafford's. There was nothing saintly about Beethoven poor guy except the music.


----------



## JAS

It might be interesting to talk to Beethoven (if he spoke good English, or I good German), but I get the impression that I would not actually like him very much, nor especially want him as a friend. (That impression might well be mutual.)


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Oh for goodness sake go away and read a decent biography of him. Like Swafford's. There was nothing saintly about Beethoven poor guy except the music.


He was beaten by his father, disrespected by almost everyone, and had to deal with nobles in a system that was becoming more corrupt by the day. If you look at the way he behaved himself towards women the man was as innocent as they come, writing love letters... he was like a puppy.

You mentioned his nephew before but he grew up fine, married and had a large family.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Technically Brahms is at Beethoven's level, the difference is with the essence; that the latter made a breakthrough in thought, a triumph, that Brahms never accomplished. Beethoven's 5th concerto shows a philosophical victory much beyond Brahms.


Philosophy has nothing to do with it.

Your attempts to integrate _your perceptions_ of people's music with what you _think_ you understand of their personalities, characters, philosophies and biographies are simplistic. There are several reasons why such easy equations between artists and their art are misguided. For one thing, the way you hear a composer's music is not necessarily the way others hear it. Different people enjoy the same music for different reasons, responding to different aspects of it or to the same aspects in different ways. For another thing, artists are complex and contradictory, and their work can be quite incongruous with who they appear to be as people. Art may proceed from parts of a person's psyche that find little expression in the life that person lives, or in any conscious ideas he holds. The idea that we can understand a person by listening to his music, or understand his music by reading his biography, is tempting, but it's largely a romantic fantasy.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> It might be interesting to talk to Beethoven (if he spoke good English, or I good German), but I get the impression that I would not actually like him very much*, nor especially want him as a friend.*


I might have wanted him as a friend if he might have thrown an original manuscript my way now and then...


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Philosophy has nothing to do with it.
> 
> Your attempts to integrate _your perceptions_ of people's music with what you _think_ you understand of their personalities, characters, philosophies and biographies are simplistic. There are several reasons why such easy equations between artists and their art are misguided. For one thing, the way you hear a composer's music is not necessarily the way others hear it. Different people enjoy the same music for different reasons, responding to different aspects of it or to the same aspects in different ways. For another thing, artists are complex and contradictory, and their work can be quite incongruous with who they appear to be as people. Art may proceed from parts of a person's psyche that find little expression in the life that person lives, or in any conscious ideas he holds. The idea that we can understand a person by listening to his music, or understand his music by reading his biography, is tempting, but it's largely a romantic fantasy.


Composers are philosophers, music reflects the state of the mind.


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> I might have wanted him as a friend if he might have thrown an original manuscript my way now and then...


Have you seen his manuscripts? They look as if he was trying to get a modern pen to work, and losing the battle. (Yes, I presume that the value is more than its appearance.) What you might really want to be is his trash man.


----------



## Room2201974

Luchesi said:


> Interesting. It seems it was important in those days to have a underdog hero unselfishly trying to help the masses, so vulnerable ..and with the weight of the world on his shoulders. The power of mythos. The top ape scenario, over and over in the stories. We don't get disappointed. It's so deep in us.


Top Apes can commit adultery and murder and still be lovingly quoted eons later*. Bottom apes do the same exact thing...they be Charlie Mansion. Although, in all fairness to Charlie, by comparison, he never did the mass murder bride price thing.

*Yes, even by Brahms.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Composers are philosophers, music reflects the state of the mind.


Composers work with sounds, not ideas, and the expressive content of a piece may have no relation to the composer's state of mind.


----------



## JAS

More specifically, perhaps, composers work with ideas about sounds.


----------



## Woodduck

JAS said:


> More specifically, perhaps, composers work with ideas about sounds.


I would say "sound-ideas" rather than ideas _about_ sounds.


----------



## JAS

Except that "sound-ideas," even hyphenated, seems like an evaluation of those ideas rather than a description of their subject matter.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Composers work with sounds, not ideas, and the expressive content of a piece may have no relation to the composer's state of mind.


Music is emotion based, and emotions are easily identifiable. It's a language like English and French, you just seem to be unable to read it.


----------



## DavidA

Room2201974 said:


> Top Apes can commit adultery and murder and still be lovingly quoted eons later*. Bottom apes do the same exact thing...they be Charlie Mansion. Although, in all fairness to Charlie, by comparison, he never did the mass murder bride price thing.
> 
> *Yes, even by Brahms.


Well if you want to make a monkey out of yourself....:lol:


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> He was beaten by his father, disrespected by almost everyone, and had to deal with nobles in a system that was becoming more corrupt by the day. If you look at the way he behaved himself towards women the man was as innocent as they come, writing love letters... he was like a puppy.
> 
> You mentioned his nephew before but he grew up fine, married and had a large family.


he was a damaged, disturbed man - the sort of damaged man that damages other people. Sorry to delude you, but you wouldn't have liked him. He was not likeable. It wasn't his fault he was like he was but he was an impossible character. His nephew was only fine when he got Beethoven off his back and then he was damaged goods.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> Composers are philosophers, music reflects the state of the mind.


No, composers are musicians who (sometimes) metaphorically embody fictions about states of mind in sequences of sounds.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> he was a damaged, disturbed man - the sort of damaged man that damages other people. Sorry to delude you, but you wouldn't have liked him. He was not likeable. It wasn't his fault he was like he was but he was an impossible character. His nephew was only fine when he got Beethoven off his back and then he was damaged goods.


He had a heart of gold and lived in a system where he had to bow to morally inferior people with titles that said the contrary, of course he was mean to them, it was an unfair system.

Despite of that he overcame everything, he didn't whine like Brahms who also had to deal with the same nonsense.


----------



## 1996D

EdwardBast said:


> No, composers are musicians who (sometimes) metaphorically embody fictions about states of mind in sequences of sounds.


That's true of most modern and contemporary composers, but they're not artists, they're deconstructionists.


----------



## Woodduck

JAS said:


> Except that "sound-ideas," even hyphenated, seems like an evaluation of those ideas rather than a description of their subject matter.


Not to me. "Ideas about sounds" is not what composers are concerned with, except maybe in their off hours. They don't think _about_ sounds; they think _in_ sound.


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> He had a heart of gold and lived in a system where he had to bow to morally inferior people with titles that said the contrary, of course he was mean to them, it was an unfair system.
> 
> Despite of that he overcame everything, he didn't whine like Brahms who also had to deal with the same nonsense.


Sorry but you seem to have been reading some romanticised account.


----------



## 1996D

DavidA said:


> Sorry but you seem to have been reading some romanticised account.


His music says a million words. Stop believing that rotten to the core, incompetent Swafford... Read his letters, he was a fine man with a naivete that's rarely seen today.

Swafford is full of envy and has a hyper-materialistic world view. He's everything that's wrong with his generation and that rotten essence still plagues us to this day, although it's on its way out.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Music is emotion based, and emotions are easily identifiable. It's a language like English and French, you just seem to be unable to read it.


Music is not a language. It does not represent concepts as language does. The relationship of musical sounds to emotion is non-specific and abstract. There is no one-to-one correspondence beteen a musical idea and any emotion. The feelings music is intended to express (wnen it does) are not "easily identifiable,"and if you think they are you're kidding yourself.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Music is not a language. It does not represent concepts as language does. The relationship of musical sounds to emotion is non-specific and abstract. There is no one-to-one correspondence beteen a musical idea and any emotion. The feelings music is intended to express (wnen it does) are not "easily identifiable,"and if you think they are you're kidding yourself.


If music's emotions weren't easily identifiable then there would be no pop music because writing something that almost everyone can love would be impossible.

Music is a language as clear and easily read as English, actually, even easier.


----------



## JAS

Woodduck said:


> Not to me. "Ideas about sounds" is not what composers are concerned with, except maybe in their off hours. They don't think _about_ sounds; they think _in_ sound.


I was tempted to say that this seems a bit like saying that historians don't think about history, but think in history. Then I thought that you had a point in that composers aren't thinking their thoughts in words (as others might for a broad range of subjects), but in notes, chords, instruments and related things. But now you say that music is not like language, which I think is true in the sense that the mechanism by which it communicates is not language, or even a close mirror of language. (Notes are not the same as letters, and bars are not the same as words, etc.) I still prefer my ideas about sounds, but you are perfectly within your rights to be just as stubborn in your own preference.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I was tempted to say that this seems a bit like saying that historians don't think about history, but think in history. Then I thought that you had a point in that composers aren't thinking their thoughts in words (as others might for a broad range of subjects), but in notes, chords, instruments and related things. But now you say that music is not like language, which I think is true in the sense that the mechanism by which it communicates is not language, or even a close mirror of language. (Notes are not the same as letters, and bars are not the same as words, etc.) I still prefer my ideas about sounds, but you are perfectly within your rights to be just as stubborn in your own preference.


There are differences but it is a language, Bernstein did a lecture on musical syntax.


----------



## Woodduck

JAS said:


> I was tempted to say that this seems a bit like saying that historians don't think about history, but think in history. Then I thought that you had a point in that composers aren't thinking their thoughts in words (as others might for a broad range of subjects), but in notes, chords, instruments and related things. But now you say that music is not like language, which I think is true in the sense that the mechanism by which it communicates is not language, or even a close mirror of language. (Notes are not the same as letters, and bars are not the same as words, etc.) I still prefer my ideas about sounds, but you are perfectly within your rights to be just as stubborn in your own preference.


Just looking for precision about what composers are doing when they're putting sounds together. If I were to tell someone, "I have an idea about a sound," the normal response would be, "What's your idea?" A composer in the heat of it is not prepared to answer such a question. I have composed a good deal of music - mostly as improv, but sometimes in written form - and it wouldn't have occurred to me that I was having ideas about sounds. Indeed, for the most part I wasn't; I was merely imagining sounds and either playing them or writing them down. A composer thinks in sounds, and only occasionally do ideas _about_ them come into play. I'd say that the more inspired a composer is, the less he needs to think at all. One of the pleasure of music, for composer or listener, is the respite it provides from compulsive ideation.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> I'd say that the more inspired a composer is, the less he needs to think at all.


That's true of all art, poetry included, which is language based. Chomsky sees language as something natural to humans and music is the same, of course thought is not necessary for something so deeply ingrained in the brain. You think a pro golfer thinks when he swings? Of course not, it's all second nature.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> There are differences but it is a language, Bernstein did a lecture on musical syntax.


Music is a "language" by analogy. Analogies have their limits. Language is a conventional system of symbols representing concepts. The meaning of those symbols is fixed by the need for precise thought and communication. Music is under no such strictures, and its symbols - its configurations of sound - do not have precise definitions and do not communicate meanings understood uniformly by all listeners.

If we're going to philosophize about music we need to define exactly what it is we're talking about. Music as a "universal language" is a cliche that will not do for the philosophically serious.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Music is a "language" by analogy. Analogies have their limits. Language is a conventional system of symbols representing concepts. The meaning of those symbols is fixed by the need for precise thought and communication. Music is under no such strictures, and its symbols - its configurations of sound - do not have precise definitions and do not communicate meanings understood uniformly by all listeners.
> 
> If we're going to philosophize about music we need to define exactly what it is we're talking about. Music as a "universal language" is a cliche that will not do for the philosophically serious.





Woodduck said:


> I'd say that the more inspired a composer is, the less he needs to think at all.





1996D said:


> That's true of all art, poetry included, which is language based. Chomsky sees language as something natural to humans and music is the same, of course thought is not necessary for something so deeply ingrained in the brain. You think a pro golfer thinks when he swings? Of course not, it's all second nature.


Not only is music a universal language, but it's even understood by animals (the same way we share kinesthetics) there's a whole field that studies that. Schopenhauer's claim that it's 'the metaphysical principle to physical world' is not unfounded and has not been disproved.


----------



## Luchesi

Room2201974 said:


> Top Apes can commit adultery and murder and still be lovingly quoted eons later*. Bottom apes do the same exact thing...they be Charlie Mansion. Although, in all fairness to Charlie, by comparison, he never did the mass murder bride price thing.
> 
> *Yes, even by Brahms.


I think I know what you mean


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Not only is music a universal language, but it's even understood by animals, there's a whole field that studies that. Schopenhauer's claim that it's 'the metaphysical principle to physical word' is not unfounded and has not been disproved.


It's good policy not to make pronouncements we can't back up with reason and evidence. Things that are "not unfounded" and "not disproved" don't carry much weight.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> It's good policy not to make pronouncements we can't back up with reason and evidence. Things that are "not unfounded" and "not disproved" don't carry much weight.


There is ample evidence, it just can't be brought up in this climate because that would break postmodernism's claims and we're not ready for that yet.


----------



## JAS

Woodduck said:


> Just looking for precision about what composers are doing when they're putting sounds together. If I were to tell someone, "I have an idea about a sound," the normal response would be, "What's your idea?" A composer in the heat of it is not prepared to answer such a question. I have composed a good deal of music - mostly as improv, but sometimes in written form - and it wouldn't have occurred to me that I was having ideas about sounds. Indeed, for the most part I wasn't; I was merely imagining sounds and either playing them or writing them down. A composer thinks in sounds, and only occasionally do ideas _about_ them come into play. I'd say that the more inspired a composer is, the less he needs to think at all. One of the pleasure of music, for composer or listener, is the respite it provides from compulsive ideation.


Ideas are also not words, until we start to think about them. ("Sound-ideas" is no more precise than "ideas about sound." I would certainly not go so far as 1996D, however, and insist that music is, generally, about concepts outside of the realm of notes and sounds. Here, I suspect, you and I are at least approaching common ground.) I concede your expertise as someone who is experienced with composing. You might consider conceding my expertise as a literary scholar and a published author. Language is complicated, no doubt about it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> Music is not a language. It does not represent concepts as language does. The relationship of musical sounds to emotion is non-specific and abstract. There is no one-to-one correspondence beteen a musical idea and any emotion.


I once had this debate with an East Asian/Indian Philosophy scholar, who insisted that music is just a different form of language, a set of structures and signifiers to convey meanings aurally. His point is that language is even more abstract than music we are just too "conditioned" and "trained" to realize it. That's one of the reasons why language is regarded as deceptive in Hinduism, Buddhism, and late Zen Buddhism because early Sanskrit poetry had a lot of "wordplays".

The relationship between linguistic sounds to emotions "is also non-specific and abstract". There is also no apriori "one-to-one correspondence between a word and any emotion".



Woodduck said:


> The feelings music is intended to express (wnen it does) are not "easily identifiable,"and if you think they are you're kidding yourself.


That's a bit of exaggeration, the general intended feeling of a piece is "easily identifiable" in many works. No one is kidding himself when he feel the intimate whispers, melancholy, sighs, and fleeting thoughts in Chopin's Mazurka in A minor, or the power, the excitement, the humor, and rambunctious fun in Khachaturian's Sabre dance. Whether or not that's what the composer's intention both unknowable and irrelevant so there is no neutral reference point.

"Identification" is not the same as "Identification with words" or "Identification with other's words describing their identification". There are various modes of "identifying with what the music is trying to express" and various degrees of that.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> There is ample evidence, it just can't be brought up in this climate because that would break postmodernism's claims and we're not ready for that yet.


 ..................


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> It's good policy not to make pronouncements we can't back up with reason and evidence. Things that are "not unfounded" and "not disproved" don't carry much weight.


This very pronouncement you made cannot be backed with reason and evidence, it is both not unfounded and not disproven, so it does not carry much weight by your own logic. You have created a paradox with this statement.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Ideas are also not words, until we start to think about them. ("Sound-ideas" is no more precise than "ideas about sound." I would certainly not go so far as 1996D, however, and insist that music is, generally, about concepts outside of the realm of notes and sounds. Here, I suspect, you and I are at least approaching common ground.) I concede your expertise as someone who is experienced with composing. You might consider conceding my expertise as a literary scholar and a published author. Language is complicated, no doubt about it.


The reason you can't acknowledge the philosophical nature of music is because the world today is almost purely concerned with the material, with what you can consume, and all else is irrelevant because you can't monetize what isn't material. So something as rooted in emotion is materialized, systematized, and sold as product, but that doesn't change what came before these materialistic ideas.

Classical music is deep and philosophical, just as a great poem is, and it conveys a whole world with layers that are progressively more discriminatory with who gets to understand them.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I once had this debate with an East Asian/Indian Philosophy scholar, who insisted that music is just a different form of language, a set of structures and signifiers to convey meanings aurally.


"Conveying meanings" is so broad a concept as to be useless. Anything can "convey meanings." This is just an attempt to obscure important differences, which is death to clear thinking. Language exists primarily to specify and convey _concepts_. That is not the primary purpose or effect of music, which can only suggest concepts, and need not do so at all.



> His point is that language is even more abstract than music we are just too "conditioned" and "trained" to realize it. That's one of the reasons why language is regarded as deceptive in Hinduism, Buddhism, and late Zen Buddhism because early Sanskrit poetry had a lot of "wordplays".


Language can be "deceptive" or purposely ambiguous, but its goal is ordinarily the opposite - clear communication - and it serves us well.



> The relationship between linguistic sounds to emotions "is also non-specific and abstract". There is also no apriori "one-to-one correspondence between a word and any emotion".


Words correspond to _concepts_ of emotion - not, for obvious reasons, to any individual's unique emotional or mental state. "Anger" and "fear" are clear enough concepts. Music, however, can't designate these concepts with certainty. It can only create images of tension, agitation and ambiguity which can be _read_ as anger and fear, but may be read differently by different listeners. Music is both more and less specific than language. It's essentially different in how it conveys meaning, and in the kinds of meaning it can best convey.



> The general intended feeling of a piece is "easily identifiable" in many works. No one is kidding himself when he feel the intimate whispers, melancholy, sighs, and fleeting thoughts in Chopin's Mazurka in A minor, or the power, the excitement, the humor, and rambunctious fun in Khachaturian's Sabre dance. Whether or not that's what the composer's intention both unknowable and irrelevant so there is no neutral reference point.


Music expresses things through forms and energies _analogous to_ "whispers,""sighs,""humor," etc. These analogous gestures can be interpreted in different ways. Language, however, is not _analogous_ to experience but _conventional,_ and the conventional signs, words like "whispers,""sighs" and "humor," are precise in what they represent: concepts. No one who speaks the language has to guess or debate what is specified by the word "humor." If the next question is "What kind of humor?" - wit, satire, slapstick, etc. - more words are brought in until understanding is attained.



> "Identification" is not the same as "Identification with words" or "Identification with other's words describing their identification". There are various modes of "identifying with what the music is trying to express" and various degrees of that.


I don't follow this. How do you define "identify," and what modes are you referring to?

I have no problem calling music a "language" as long as the quotation marks are in place. My objection was to 1996D's statement that "it's a language like English and French." It certainly is not.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> The reason you can't acknowledge the philosophical nature of music is because the world today is almost purely concerned with the material, with what you can consume, and all else is irrelevant because you can't monetize what isn't material. So something as rooted in emotion is materialized, systematized, and sold as product, but that doesn't change what came before these materialistic ideas.
> 
> Classical music is deep and philosophical, just as a great poem is, and it conveys a whole world with layers that are progressively more discriminatory with who gets to understand them.


I don't think that this is true, and that the matter is much more vague and complicated than you seem to believe. Joy, as an example, is an emotional state and an idea. The word "joy" is merely what we assign to refer to the idea, which allows us to communicate with others who share the same language. Music can convey the idea of joy, generally, with notes that embody the kind of energy and pleasure that joy makes us feel. Thus, music can invoke joy just as words can, but through its own means. The difference comes in the fact that words can express far more complicated ideas, in general, than can music. There is a reason that books explaining and exploring ideas tend to be written in words and not in music. (The old saw that a picture is worth a thousand words, is also false. At best, a picture _can_ be worth a thousand words, if the purpose is to communicate something that is inherently visual to begin with. I could describe my house, but a photograph of it does the same much more readily. On the other hand, if I want to point out specific features about the house, words can supplement the photograph and words can greatly expand on what the images present.)


----------



## annaw

^^^ A good way to emphasise the difference between the abstractness of music and that of language is to imagine how Woodduck would have conveyed the exact same ideas as he did in his above answer through a musical composition (Woodduck, a challenge for you ).


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> The reason you can't acknowledge the philosophical nature of music is because the world today is almost purely concerned with the material, with what you can consume, and all else is irrelevant because you can't monetize what isn't material. So something as rooted in emotion is materialized, systematized, and sold as product, but that doesn't change what came before these materialistic ideas.


Horse pucky. You haven't the slightest idea about what anyone else understands or can do. You need to learn to keep your two-bit psychologizing to yourself until you're old enough to see how juvenile and lame it is.



> Classical music is deep and philosophical, just as a great poem is, and it conveys a whole world with layers that are progressively more discriminatory with who gets to understand them.


I don't need your lectures about the "depth" of any category of art. As for it being "philosophical," scholars and music listeners may philosophize about music's effect on them, and every listener is entitled to read anything he wishes into the experience. What he is not entitled to do is tell others what the music must mean to them and the rest of the world. Only arrogant little fools presume to do that.


----------



## Woodduck

annaw said:


> ^^^ A good way to emphasise the difference between the abstractness of music and that of language is to imagine how Woodduck would have conveyed the exact same ideas as he did in his above answer through a musical composition (Woodduck, a challenge for you ).


Of course that challenge is properly met - and the difference illustrated - by not attempting to meet it.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> The reason you can't acknowledge the philosophical nature of music is because the world today is almost purely concerned with the material, with what you can consume, and all else is irrelevant because you can't monetize what isn't material. So something as rooted in emotion is materialized, systematized, and sold as product, but that doesn't change what came before these materialistic ideas.
> 
> Classical music is deep and philosophical, just as a great poem is, and it conveys a whole world with layers that are progressively more discriminatory with who gets to understand them.


Though I don't fully agree, I am very sympathetic to this view. Materialism is, without doubt, the dominant ideology of the current era, but people are far less materialistic than you realize.

What the advertisement industry demonstrates is that people don't really care about the "material" per se, but their symbolic value imposed on them, or the excess enjoyment associated with rituals of consumerism. Look at how much of a premium that big brand and big personalities and cultural identities can charge on top of the consumer goods, how people buy things to "keeping up with the Joneses", it's never really about the product itself, but what the product means and what the act of consumption means for you. The word you are looking for is "objectify" not "materialize" but this draws you much closer to your sworn enemies of the left so you have to make the call.

What Mr. Woodduck meant, in my view, is that music is not narrowly defined like "language", which is compatible with your interpretation here. But he has a narrow view of "language", and he is apparently is allergic to metaphysics due to his analytical philosophical and empiricist tendencies and hostile to religious ideas. For him, the highest level of philosophical sophistication is perhaps someone like Bertrand Russell, or Steven Pinker, or Richard Dawkins so your philosophical musings will appear no more than a naivete for him.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I don't think that this is true, and that the matter is much more vague and complicated than you seem to believe. Joy, as an example, is an emotional state and an idea. The word "joy" is merely what we assign to refer to the idea, which allows us to communicate with others who share the same language. Music can convey the idea of joy, generally, with notes that embody the kind of energy and pleasure that joy makes us feel. Thus, music can invoke joy just as words can, but through its own means. The difference comes in the fact that words can express far more complicated ideas, in general, than can music. There is a reason that books explaining and exploring ideas tend to be written in words and not in music. (The old saw that a picture is worth a thousand words, is also false. At best, a picture _can_ be worth a thousand words, if the purpose is to communicate something that is inherently visual to begin with. I could describe my house, but a photograph of it does the same much more readily. On the other hand, if I want to point out specific features about the house, words can supplement the photograph and words can greatly expand on what the images present.)


You seem to have an ease with words then, but to a painter a painting does convey the equivalent of a great deal of poetically arranged words, and to the composer music conveys a feeling to an even greater degree, to what words wouldn't be able to evoke.

All art forms are philosophical to the philosopher, maybe that's my bias, but certainly the content that books hide and that can only be accessed by those who reach a certain level can also be applied to music and all art.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> You seem to have an ease with words then, but to a painter a painting does convey the equivalent of a great deal of poetically arranged words, and to the composer music conveys a feeling to an even greater degree, to what words wouldn't be able to evoke.
> 
> All art forms are philosophical to the philosopher, maybe that's my bias, but certainly the content that books hide and that can only be accessed by those who reach a certain level can also be applied to music and all art.


I think one of our problems is that you tend to speak in "does" where "can" or "might" would better apply. That is, you make broad _absolute_ statements about things that are only _sometimes_ applicable. (In logic, this is considered a fallacy, and quite reasonably so.) A painting _might_ contain a number of ideas and _might_ be aligned with philosophies, but these tend to require words to make the connection, especially as time separates us from the conventions employed. An ermine, for example, often appears in old paintings, because it represented purity and virginity. (Various explanations have been offered for this connection, all absurd.) That assumption of meaning has generally been lost in common society, and requires words to re-establish. (Even when the idea was in general circulation, it almost certainly required words to tell people about it, since there is nothing inherent in an ermine that would suggest purity, as a lion might inherently imply strength or fierceness.)


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> What Mr. Woodduck meant, in my view, is that music is not narrowly defined like "language", which is compatible with your interpretation here. But he has a narrow view of "language", and he is apparently is allergic to metaphysics due to his analytical philosophical and empiricist tendencies and hostile to religious ideas. For him, the highest level of philosophical sophistication is perhaps someone like Bertrand Russell, or Steven Pinker, or Richard Dawkins so your philosophical musings will appear no more than a naivete for him.


I'm astonished by the readiness of some to analyze other people they don't know. You have no noticeable qualifications for commenting on the extent of my view of language, my "allergy" to metaphysics, my affinity with Russell, or anything else i might be able to enlighten you about if you would deign to speak directly to me rather than about me. How about it?


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> The word you are looking for is "objectify" not "materialize" but this draws you much closer to your sworn enemies of the left so you have to make the call.


It's not that they're my enemies it's that I can't get over the way they're trying to take down the hyper-materialist or how you say 'objectivist' culture. It might be the only way but they still become repugnant by violating so many rules of nature.

I'll let them do it but take no part in it, which I assume you're doing also.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

JAS said:


> I don't think that this is true, and that the matter is much more vague and complicated than you seem to believe. Joy, as an example, is an emotional state and an idea. The word "joy" is merely what we assign to refer to the idea, which allows us to communicate with others who share the same language. Music can convey the idea of joy, generally, with notes that embody the kind of energy and pleasure that joy makes us feel. Thus, music can invoke joy just as words can, but through its own means. The difference comes in the fact that words can express far more complicated ideas, in general, than can music. There is a reason that books explaining and exploring ideas tend to be written in words and not in music. (The old saw that a picture is worth a thousand words, is also false. At best, a picture _can_ be worth a thousand words, if the purpose is to communicate something that is inherently visual to begin with. I could describe my house, but a photograph of it does the same much more readily. On the other hand, if I want to point out specific features about the house, words can supplement the photograph and words can greatly expand on what the images present.)


This is a great description. But the language in the broad, modern sense, is not just words. Mathematics and programming languages are also languages, there are film language, visual language, architectural language. These are not simply analogy. If one truly wants to rigorously formalize about this problem, then there are two ways to start

1. "Formal system" which generalizes all of these "languages", including music (but awkward for analysis).
2. "Structuralism" jazzed up with Natural Language Processing and Bayesian networks (nascent but all of which have been applied to the analysis of music).

But IMO, these analyses are promising (and inevitable) but insufficient because the approach is logocentric and dualistic, which does not confront with human subjectivity in music in a direct way. Human subjectivities are treated as by-products of some underlying physical process in a materialistic interpretation of the world. Here is what music should be treated differently from speech.


----------



## JAS

I have always been amused by the idea, often repeated in film and bad science fiction, that mathematics is some kind of universal language. Even if some of the principles might apply in diverse and literally alien cultures, the ability to communicate them would still be limited by practical matters of representation. We have adopted Arabic symbols, in part for their compactness, but these would be unintelligible to the ancient Romans, just as Mayan characters took decades just to decipher something as simple as counting and dates. (And we have not even gotten into more complicated matters such as indications for mathematical operations, and conventions for order of events.)


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I think one of our problems is that you tend to speak in "does" where "can" or "might" would better apply. That is, you make broad _absolute_ statements about things that are only _sometimes_ applicable. (In logic, this is considered a fallacy, and quite reasonably so.) A painting _might_ contain a number of ideas and _might_ be aligned with philosophies, but these tend to require words to make the connection, especially as time separates us from the conventions employed. An ermine, for example, often appears in old paintings, because it represented purity and virginity. (Various explanations have been offered for this connection, all absurd.) That assumption of meaning has generally been lost in common society, and requires words to re-establish. (Even when the idea was in general circulation, it almost certainly required words to tell people about it, since there is nothing inherent in an ermine that would suggest purity, as a lion might inherently imply strength or fierceness.)


But music is connected to emotions by an unexplainable phenomena, it's not by cultural context if it has a timeless essence such as Mozart and Beethoven, it just speaks to the soul.

It's a mystery that materialism can't explain and neither can its corporation backed science that wishes nothing more than to turn you into mindless consumer. It's certainly a subject that's out of touch with current mainstream thought.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> But music is connected to emotions by an unexplainable phenomena, it's not by cultural context if it has a timeless essence such as Mozart and Beethoven, it just speaks to the soul.
> 
> It's a mystery that materialism can't explain and neither can its corporation backed science that wishes nothing more than to turn you into mindless consumer. It's certainly a subject that's out of touch with current mainstream thought.


The genuine connection of music to emotions, when it has them, is a power and a limitation. Move beyond the gut reaction of emotions, and what ideas does music convey? (There was a very good reason that I used an emotion as an example in my comment.)

I think this point is one of the reasons that music that strives for a _purely_ intellectual response tends to fail (at least in my opinion).


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> The genuine connection of music to emotions, when it has them, is a power and a limitation. Move beyond the gut reaction of emotions, and what ideas does music convey? (There was a very good reason that I used an emotion as an example in my comment.)


What do words convey? They require cultural reference too, most don't have a clue what the Bible says because it's a 2000 year old book.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> What do words convey? They require culture reference too, most don't have a clue what the Bible says because it's a 2000 year old book.


Which is why that 2000 year old book, actually older if you include the Old Testament, is generally read in relatively modern translations, and why so many words have been written precisely in an attempt to explain it. The whole value of language, in the sense of words, is shared understanding. That understanding shifts over time and requires constant renewal, or it gets lost.

The closest equivalent in music is that we tend to know certain conventions that have meaning in a current context (even if they might be intended to relate to older things). We have an idea of what French music sounds like, in a very general sense, and Chinese music, and Russian music. Adopting these conventions can invoke the associations if it is well done and they are widely recognized. The _why_ of it can become a problem, unless we have someone who knows and uses words to explain it to us. The use of words has the advantage of being suited to complex explanation, and it works as long as it is in common use. The number of languages that we no longer understand is substantial. (A few prominent examples: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/12884/8-ancient-writing-systems-havent-been-deciphered-yet)

Is there any culture that has ever communicated primarily by music? If not, why do you think that is?


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Which is why that 2000 year old book, actually older if you include the Old Testament, is generally read in relatively modern translations, and why so many words have been written precisely in an attempt to explain it. The whole value of language, in the sense of words, is shared understanding. That understanding shifts over time and requires constant renewal, or it gets lost.


You're not getting what I'm saying, the philosophical meaning of the Bible is not found because the ideas come from a vastly different perspective. It takes great intelligence to decipher the Bible because we're so disconnected from the ideas it tries to convey.

Actually some materialist modern thinkers say that the Bible is reality inverted; that it encourages pain and discourages material pleasure, which to them is the greatest sin imaginable. But that is what it says, that the world offers no satisfaction and will never, no matter what we do.


----------



## RogerWaters

Woodduck said:


> I'm astonished by the readiness of some to analyze other people they don't know. You have no noticeable qualifications for commenting on the extent of my view of language, my "allergy" to metaphysics, my affinity with Russell, or anything else i might be able to enlighten you about if you would deign to speak directly to me rather than about me. How about it?


I have Mr Machine Head on my 'ignore' list, precisely because of this reason. It's a pity he's not actually a Turing Machine, as then there would be an 'off' button!


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> You're not getting what I'm saying, the philosophical meaning of the Bible is not found because the ideas come from a vastly different perspective. It takes great intelligence to decipher the Bible because we're so disconnected from the ideas it tries to convey.
> 
> Actually some materialist modern thinkers say that the Bible is reality inverted; that it encourages pain and discourages material pleasure, which to them is the greatest sin imaginable. But that is what it says, that the world offers no satisfaction and will never, no matter what we do.


No, I am not "getting what you are saying" because I think you are simply wrong. The problem with the Bible as an example is that we will _never_ really know what it means. All of the people who wrote it are long dead, and they were lots of different people who did not even necessarily mean the same thing in the first place. The Bible that we know today wasn't even written with the intent of being a single book, nor were the sections attributed to certain authors necessarily even written by them, although they might embody some sense of a line of tradition that dates back to them. (This is further complicated by the fact that we have lost the common sense of context, although much of that is known and can be explained. I think you touch on this in your reply, but err in assuming that it _can_ be understood, in some definitive way.) All we can really hope to understand is what various people _think_ it means, and that is a very different thing. It is also what leads to so many doctrinal disagreements, which will probably never be resolved. No amount of intelligence can really overcome the problem. For one thing, even if one did decipher a truth, how would it be verified?

(One might suggest that the world does offer satisfaction, but that such satisfactions are mostly temporary and not sustained. That is why temptation is so powerful. Getting what you want often just leads to wanting more, which is hardly very satisfying in a real sense. Immediate pleasures are also often followed by serious consequences that are not good. More esoteric promises of greater satisfaction have the advantage of being proclaimed and never having to be tested. Is there life after death? All of those who really know can no longer tell us. The idea of spending eternity in the presence of a benevolent deity may be compelling, but it cannot be proven.)


----------



## RogerWaters

1996D said:


> You're not getting what I'm saying, the philosophical meaning of the Bible is not found because the ideas come from a vastly different perspective. It takes great intelligence to decipher the Bible because we're so disconnected from the ideas it tries to convey.


I agree. Serious intellectual gynamistcs are needed to start with the written idea that, say, the universe was created in six days or that adam and eve were the first human beings, and to end with some grain of truth.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> No, I am not "getting what you are saying" because I think you are simply wrong. The problem with the Bible as an example is that we will _never_ really know what it means. All of the people who wrote it are long dead. (This is further complicated by the fact that we have lost the common sense of context, although much of that is known and can be explained.) All we can really hope to understand is what various people _think_ it means, and that is a very different thing. It is also what leads to so many doctrinal disagreements, which will probably never be resolved. No amount of intelligence can really overcome the problem. For one thing, even if one did decipher a truth, how would it be verified?


It's not the only book, Plato is even more misunderstood. What I'm saying is that words are by no means more exact than music; the deeper philosophically they go the more selective the audience that will decipher them.

Music is in many ways simpler, even though it's more abstract. The peace, harmony, and perfection that Mozart conveys is enjoyed by even small children, even if it's at a surface level, yet the depth is great. It's as if Plato's philosophy brought great joy to children yet made grown men think and awe - music's power is unique.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I'm astonished by the readiness of some to analyze other people they don't know. You have no noticeable qualifications for commenting on the extent of my view of language, my "allergy" to metaphysics, my affinity with Russell, or anything else i might be able to enlighten you about if you would deign to speak directly to me rather than about me. How about it?


Sure, I apologize and I can withdraw from my offending comments. These speculations could be impertinent and insensitive but sadly that's the honest impression I am getting from you. I may be guilty of being impolite but it is absurd to suggest that I need qualifications for that. You yourself are pretty quick and ruthless judging, analyzing, and insulting others and what can one do about them but to "knock it off and grow up"?

You have made many great points and defense already which I am still digesting. I have no doubt (without evidence) about your wealth of insights and your immense knowledge and your potential to enlighten me about music and life and you are a respectable member of the profession and community etc. But since you speak as a seasoned professional, it is only natural that you should be held to a much higher standard than other random internet dudes when it comes to music.

You also have this attitude of demanding "clarity", "reason", and "evidence" from others, and I happen to know a thing or two about them. A wise man once enlightened me that no one should be exempt from these demands so I take that to heart. Without a question that someone as erudite as you can rise up to any intellectual challenge.


----------



## RogerWaters

1996D said:


> It's not the only book, Plato is even more misunderstood. What I'm saying is that words are by no means more exact than music; the deeper philosophically they go the more selective the audience that will decipher them.


The complete equation of music with words is highly questionable, as other poster have already mentioned.

Language has both syntax (rules of combination) and semantics (representational capacity). Music arguably has syntax, but it largely lacks semantics (unless we stipulate that a b flat played by a piano 'means' lunch is ready - that's nothing special about music - we can say the same about ringing a bell or flatulating).

But of course words are more exact than music. The most one can say about music's semantic/representational capacity is that you can vaguely evoke a mood: triumph (last movement of Beethoven's 5th) or autumnal sadness (some late brahms). But I can represent a mood in much more detail with words. Perhaps (perhaps - there are great novelists in the Western Cannon) the _impact_ is stronger with music, but that's got nothing to do with exactness or fineness of grain.

You can't specify triumph, offset by the artist's future worries about the state of world politics, felt on a saturday morning at 5pm, with music. You'd have to READ about the composers intentions in writing the piece of music to glean content of this grain.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I have Mr Machine Head on my 'ignore' list, precisely because of this reason. It's a pity he's not actually a Turing Machine, as then there would be an 'off' button!


I shall forever mourn the loss of a brave intellectual opponent like you.


----------



## 1996D

RogerWaters said:


> The complete equation of music with words is highly questionable, as other poster have already mentioned.
> 
> Language has both syntax (rules of combination) and semantics (representational capacity). Music arguably has syntax, but it largely lacks semantics (unless we stipulate that a b flat played by a piano 'means' lunch is ready - that's nothing special about music - we can say the same about ringing a bell or flatulating).


Bernstein has a lecture titled 'musical semantics' you should watch it. Also, you should give the kid a chance, he's smart and has a good heart, I'm sure he's trying to help you.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> It's not the only book, Plato is even more misunderstood. What I'm saying is that words are by no means more exact than music; the deeper philosophically they go the more selective the audience that will decipher them.
> 
> Music is in many ways simpler, even though it's more abstract. The peace, harmony, and perfection that Mozart conveys is enjoyed by even small children, even if it's at a surface level, yet the depth is great. It's as if Plato's philosophy brought great joy to children yet made grown men think and awe - music's power is unique.


They are, or can be, more exact. (Our chief problem in understanding Plato is that we no longer have Plato himself to ask. That may further be complicated by the probability that even Plato didn't always understand what he meant, could be contradictory, or change his mind. If we _could_ ask him, he would likely reply using words, and not music, unless perhaps music was the topic and he provided examples.) Again, this is a problem of absolutes. The fact that there are limitations to the understanding of words is even greater when applied to the understanding of music in the way that you are asserting.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I shall forever mourn the loss of a brave intellectual opponent like you.


Don't rub it in now... What did you say to him? I know you to be exceptionally kind, though you challenge your intentions are always lacking in malice.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> They are, or can be, more exact. (Our chief problem in understanding Plato is that we no longer have Plato himself to ask. That may further be complicated by the probability that even Plato didn't always understand what he meant, could be contradictory, or change his mind. If we _could_ ask him, he would likely reply using words, and not music, unless perhaps music was the topic and he provided examples.) Again, this is a problem of absolutes. The fact that there are limitations to the understanding of words is even greater when applied to the understanding of music in the way that you are asserting.


Perhaps, but the composer is in many ways more alive than the man who writes because music is "different from all of the other arts in that it is not a representation of the event or more exactly the adequate objectivity of the will, but rather the immediate replica of the will".

Schopenhauer says that music is a replica of the will, but I'll say that certain music conveys reason or as Plato would say logos rather than will or thymos. Why is it that music makes you think and conveys a sense of order and high reason? It's a replica of both the will and the logos of the mind - the children understand the will, the adults the reason.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> Perhaps, but the composer is in many ways more alive than the man who writes because music is "different from all of the other arts in that it is not a representation of the event or more exactly the adequate objectivity of the will, but rather the immediate replica of the will".


I have no idea what this statement intends to mean, especially in terms of your use of the word "alive." (Maybe you could explain it better in music.) I suppose it might be said that music is closer, in some direct form, to the idea from which it originated, but I do not see how that would imply greater meaning. Try writing a novel, or a scholarly article of any substance. I can assure that both require the application of will.



1996D said:


> Schopenhauer says that music is a replica of the will, but I'll say that certain music conveys reason or as Plato would say logos rather than will or thymos. Why is it that music makes you think and conveys a sense of order and high reason? It's a replica of both the will and the logos of the mind - the children understand the will, the adults the reason.


Music can make me think, and a painting can make me think, and any good writing can make me think. Even seeing an amazing natural scene can make me think. Making me think is not necessarily a profound act. The question might be how closely what thoughts I have corollate to those of the person who created the work in question. That is the test of communication.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> Don't rub it in now... What did you say to him? I know you to be exceptionally kind, though you challenge your intentions are always lacking in malice.


I thought we were friends, you know, best forum buddy. We just had some friendly banters over someone who is, shall I say, less "materialist" in his way of thinking.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> Music can make me think, and a painting can make me think, and any good writing can make me think. Even seeing an amazing natural scene can make me think. Making me think is not necessarily a profound act. The question might be how closely what thoughts I have corollate to those of the person who created the work in question. That is the test of communication.


Exactly, but it's the combination of logos and will that makes music great. You feel and think at the same time, it's tremendous stimulation, and when done masterfully has an ability to elevate unlike anything else.



JAS said:


> I have no idea what this statement intends to mean. (Maybe you could explain it better in music.) I suppose it might be said that music is closer, in some direct form, to the idea from which it originated, but I do not see how that would imply greater meaning. Try writing a novel, or a scholarly article of any substance. I can assure that both require the application of will.


It means that musical language comes from a more natural place than language, it's more ancient, which might be true; there are neanderthal flutes, that's fact, but whether they had complex language is doubtful.

The tonal noises we make are very likely a precursor to language, which would mean we understand tone and process it to emotions much more naturally than words, which even today are indeed second to tone of voice and body language as a way to communicate.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> Exactly, but it's the combination of logos and will that makes music great. You feel and think at the same time, it's tremendous stimulation, and when done masterfully has an ability to elevate unlike anything else.


It can elevate, and it can be powerful, which is not to say that it can convey greater meaning. (I think that this is a basic part of our disagreement. The strength of that gut reaction is not the same as profundity or expanded meaning.) I might also note that reading Dickens also makes me feel and think.



1996D said:


> It means that musical language comes from a more natural place than language, it's more ancient, which might be true; there are neanderthal flutes, that's fact, but whether they had complex language is doubtful.


All of which suggest that it has a more primitive, and thus more limited, connection. (That is not to say that it cannot be powerful, as I have already readily admitted, but that power comes from the focus of its limited form. That is not a mechanism for greater meaning.)



1996D said:


> The tonal noises we make are very likely a precursor to language, which would mean we understand tone and process it to emotions much more naturally than words, which even today are indeed second to tone of voice and body language as a way to communicate.


I am familiar with the claims, which Bernstein promoted. But it seems self-evident that language therefore came into being because music was not enough.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> I thought we were friends, you know, best forum buddy. We just had some friendly banters over someone who is, shall I say, less "materialist" in his way of thinking.


On second thought he should probably keep you blocked, you're the only member that makes me think 'how much does he understand?'. You have great perception, you see through people.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> I am familiar with the claims, which Bernstein promoted. But it seems self-evident that language therefore came into being because music was not enough.


Tonal growls are not enough to communicate intricacies, but tone of voice is still the way we recognize emotion, and therefore music will always cause a deeper emotional connection than any other form. The way a symphony can cause one emotion after the other, something very tangible can be portrayed, that reaches deeper into the soul that words or paintings or anything else, into what becomes philosophy and pure will mixed together.

Now you combine that with an order, logic, and complexity, and you create another world. The reason we enjoy movies so much is undoubtedly because of the music, watch any old movie without it and it's something completely different.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> Schopenhauer says that music is a replica of the will, but I'll say that certain music conveys reason or as Plato would say logos rather than will or thymos. Why is it that music makes you think and conveys a sense of order and high reason? It's a replica of both the will and the logos of the mind - the children understand the will, the adults the reason.


For Schopenhauer, music IS the will, not a replica. I have mentioned this idea in several discussions but most people hated it. Anything metaphysical is fishy except what has been taken for granted, that is the default reaction. I am not committed to the idea at all but I do think it is an important and recurrent idea about music.

For a musician, having an internal intuition of such an idea can be very powerful. But to introduce it to others is quite tricky, and requires a lot of hard works. If you frame it as something similar to an absolute religious idea, then you will fail. The point is not to "preach" it or to believe in it but to be able to shift perspectives and provides new meanings to old things.

Rationalism, empiricism, and materialism are "sanctified" and protected for very good reasons and rightly so. They are in decline not just because of the influences of the "other", so call "irrationalists", "post-modernists", or "fundamentalists" etc. but radical rationalism and materialism are in fact very rare, they function only within a limited and regulated space because rational thinking is an expensive and limited resource. There is a tremendous spiritual vacuum in secularism that has to be filled but I am afraid that the filler is something entirely different under the guise of rationalism that most people don't entirely understand. (Yes it's an extraordinary claim but I am here sharing ideas rather than fully developed cases). It might pain you to hear it, but IMO the critical theorists are more aware of "the vacuum and the filler" than the mainstream neoliberal economics and scientific-based social science in the Anglosphere. (please be careful of what I am saying here).

The attitude toward music is a reflection of our time, the ideas of "materialization of the musical content", "commodification of music-making", "diversity of genres", "plurality of aesthetics", "specialization of the music professions" are all inscribed in how we approach music. The influences are also diverse ranging from socio-economic forces to politics, from neoliberal conservatism to post-modernism. One of the biggest trends is the study of consciousness in neuroscience and cognitive science, and I think you will find the ghost of Schopenhauer hovering there, idealism is coming back for sure, for theoretical reasons. Scientific journal articles about neuroscience and music never fail to surprise.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> For Schopenhauer, music IS the will, not a replica. I have mentioned this idea in several discussions but most people hated it. Anything metaphysical is fishy except what has been taken for granted, that is the default reaction. I am not committed to the idea at all but I do think it is an important and recurrent idea about music.
> 
> For a musician, having an internal intuition of such an idea can be very powerful. But to introduce it to others is quite tricky, and requires a lot of hard works. If you frame it as something similar to an absolute religious idea, then you will fail. The point is not to "preach" it or to believe in it but to be able to shift perspectives and provides new meanings to old things.
> 
> Rationalism, empiricism, and materialism are "sanctified" and protected for very good reasons and rightly so. They are in decline not just because of the influences of the "other", so call "irrationalists", "post-modernists", or "fundamentalists" etc. but radical rationalism and materialism are in fact very rare, they function only within a limited and regulated space because rational thinking is an expensive and limited resource. There is a tremendous spiritual vacuum in secularism that has to be filled but I am afraid that the filler is something entirely different under the guise of rationalism that most people don't entirely understand. (Yes it's an extraordinary claim but I am here sharing ideas rather than fully developed cases). It might pain you to hear it, but IMO the critical theorists are more aware of "the vacuum and the filler" than the mainstream neoliberal economics and scientific-based social science in the Anglosphere. (please be careful of what I am saying here).
> 
> The attitude toward music is a reflection of our time, the ideas of "materialization of the musical content", "commodification of music-making", "diversity of genres", "plurality of aesthetics", "specialization of the music professions" are all inscribed in how we approach music. The influences are also diverse ranging from socio-economic forces to politics, from neoliberal conservatism to post-modernism. One of the biggest trends is the study of consciousness in neuroscience and cognitive science, and I think you will find the ghost of Schopenhauer hovering there, idealism is coming back for sure, for theoretical reasons. Scientific journal articles about neuroscience and music never fail to surprise.


As I see it, from the primitive and emotionally touching tonal growls, we've built an art form that can reach us at our deepest part. Whether we decipher or not what it made us feel depends on our introspective abilities, so in a way deep music is designed for highly introspective philosophically minded people, even though it can be appreciated at a surface level because of its primitive origins.

It's both the most simple and the most complex thing at the same time, because as you say rational thinking is expensive, so it's beauty and aesthetics that must carry the music and the rational part remains invisible to the children and adults that do not posses it.

This is why I compared it to books that carry hidden meanings, it's exactly the same, although the music carries a simplicity that can touch a greater amount of people. These things can't be discussed today because we're destroying this culture with irrationalism; to move forward first the materialism has to go.


----------



## Woodduck

.................................


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> As I see it, from the primitive and emotionally touching tonal growls, we've built an art form that can reach us at our deepest part. Whether we decipher or not what it made us feel depends on our introspective abilities, so in a way deep music is designed for highly introspective philosophically minded people, even though it can be appreciated at a surface level because of its primitive origins.
> 
> It's both the most simple and the most complex thing at the same time, because as you say rational thinking is expensive, so it's beauty and aesthetics that must carry the music and the rational part remains invisible to the children and adults that do not posses it.


That's a great Schopenhauerian view on music. But again, pardon me for the patronizing tone, you seem very ideological about it. You are a composer, are you not. Then aren't you the one who is the agent for change, not "materialism" that "has to go"?

I don't see how we can return to some idealized past unless the entire west goes full neocon, which is very unlikely to happen in my opinion. The real problem as I see it is that we can't go back, it won't work with the global market and the defunct global order. All of these are connected. The notion of new stability and order in music and in society cannot be established by rationalism alone. We have to be honest about how we are pretending to be rational most of the time and to embrace the existing irrationalities instead of hyper-regulating them through digital social engineering. There has to be some kind of peaceful co-existence and recognition of both rational thinkings and irrational impulse for us to function.

You have read Plato and in the Republic, he talked about his model, that human mind has three parts, the intellect, the will, and the drive, and the ideal society must mirror it to achieve a harmonious balance. The desire/drive and the will are not rational but they are important for humans to function properly. I tend to think that our minds and our society are codeveloped and simultaneously determined. So I don't think it's possible to ignore irrationality or destroy irrationality, they will just manifest in "rationality" (it is your desire and unconsciousness that drives your so-called rational thinking not the other way round) in more pathological ways.

The trick IMO is to balance between irrationality expressed through rationality (Beethoven) and rationality expressed through irrationality (Mahler somewhat). Schoenberg for me is the disintegration of the will as a construct and a glimpse into the void that is the ultimate reality (if you are a Buddhist). The benefit of this is that you can rebuild anything, the price you pay is that there is no absolute and eternity.


----------



## Woodduck

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Sure, I apologize and I can withdraw from my offending comments. These speculations could be impertinent and insensitive but sadly that's the honest impression I am getting from you. I may be guilty of being impolite but it is absurd to suggest that I need qualifications for that. You yourself are pretty quick and ruthless judging, analyzing, and insulting others and what can one do about them but to "knock it off and grow up"?


I'm not sure whether that's an apology or a further putdown, but let that go. One thing I don't tolerate on this very public forum is unsolicited and uninformed assesments of my thinking, personality or character, offered up for general consumption, by people who don't know me and don't seem to know where the boundaries of proper discourse lie. A rule I try to follow: we should talk TO each other, not ABOUT each other.

You are wrong in saying that I'm quick to insult others. You haven't been here very long, probably not long enough to notice the habits of certain members who are in fact quick to judge others - not merely to judge their ideas, which is appropriate, but to make outrageous personal remarks to or about them. I've been here for over six years and have experienced some astonishing displays of presumptuousness. The longer I'm here, the less I'm likely to let it pass without comment. I don't come here to have anyone tell me, and the rest of the forum, all about some unrecognizable character known as Woodduck. Being publicly mischaracterized can really wear a person down, and although that may be the norm for politicians, it shouldn't be normalized here.

If you read through my posts in this thread, you may be able to perceive the patience with which I've dealt with a great deal of ideological, and often frustratingly dogmatic, opposition. At times I've felt like a fox being hunted by a pack of bloodhounds. That patience has been broken only a few times; in one case of out-and-out trolling, I asked that the offender be dealt with by the moderators, and the obnoxious remarks were removed. But a post like the following, while it may not be an instance of premeditated trolling, can certainly put a beleaguered guy in a bad mood: _"Music is emotion based, and emotions are easily identifiable. It's a language like English and French, *you just seem to be unable to read it.*"_ It isn't the first time that this seventy-year-old career musician and artist (singer, pianist, organist, composer, painter, writer) has been told that he doesn't understand music by a person who himself clearly doesn't know what he's talking about but thinks he has the answers to all of life's important questions. Considering how many times the author of this absurd putdown has responded to arguments with similar condescending, ad hominem, halfassed assessments of me and others during his relatively short time on the forum, I think "knock it off and grow up" is quite a mild response. Perhaps if you stick around here long enough you'll be treated to a similar display of juvenile superciliousness and know better what I'm talking about.

Enough of this. I just wanted to make clear where I'm coming from. I see no need for any further friction. You strike me as a bright and interesting person with whom it's possible to converse and disagree in a civil manner. I'll be counting on it.

:tiphat:


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> I have Mr Machine Head on my 'ignore' list, precisely because of this reason. It's a pity he's not actually a Turing Machine, as then there would be an 'off' button!


As I have posted elsewhere, I think he is a bot, occasionally nudged into more credible posts by human intervention. He's just better programmed than Mr 1996. You must be aware of the Sokal, SciGen - that sort of thing. Try this link if not: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> His music says a million words. Stop believing that rotten to the core, incompetent Swafford... Read his letters, he was a fine man with a naivete that's rarely seen today.
> 
> Swafford is full of envy and has a hyper-materialistic world view. He's everything that's wrong with his generation and that rotten essence still plagues us to this day, although it's on its way out.


I can't see that a biography who paints a man as he really was is rotten to the core. Your problem is you have come up with no grounds for contradicting it apart from the fact the Beethoven wrote wonderful music, which of course he did. But there are many other composers who wrote wonderful music whose lives were not particularly wonderful. Beethoven had wonderful ideals which were drilled into him by his teacher Neefe and his connections with the Illuminatti, but sadly his personality was so damaged that he could never fulfil them in terms of relationships. Beethoven basically remained a teenager, unable to see anyone else's point of view, all his life. That sadly is history


----------



## DavidA

1996D said:


> You're not getting what I'm saying, the philosophical meaning of the Bible is not found because the ideas come from a vastly different perspective. *It takes great intelligence to decipher the Bible because we're so disconnected from the ideas it tries to convey*.
> 
> Actually some materialist modern thinkers say that the Bible is reality inverted; that it encourages pain and discourages material pleasure, which to them is the greatest sin imaginable. But that is what it says, that the world offers no satisfaction and will never, no matter what we do.


Actually one of the lead characters in the Bible said, 'Unless you become as a little child you will never enter the kingdom of God'. 
And frankly I think you've got the wrong idea of it especially if you're reading it through the eyes of a materialist thinker! But I think the subject is Brahms not the Bible


----------



## DavidA

Well we’ve had Beethoven, the Bible, Schopenhauer (old misery) Plato, Bernstein, And others all trotted out. Most of which is incomprehensible and has nothing to do with Brahms. Don’t you think in a thread about Brahms we should at least give the old boy a look in?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Woodduck said:


> I'm not sure whether that's an apology or a further putdown, but let that go. One thing I don't tolerate on this very public forum is unsolicited and uninformed assesments of my thinking, personality or character, offered up for general consumption, by people who don't know me and don't seem to know where the boundaries of proper discourse lie. A rule I try to follow: we should talk TO each other, not ABOUT each other.
> 
> You are wrong in saying that I'm quick to insult others. You haven't been here very long, probably not long enough to notice the habits of certain members who are in fact quick to judge others - not merely to judge their ideas, which is appropriate, but to make outrageous personal remarks to or about them. I've been here for over six years and have experienced some astonishing displays of presumptuousness. The longer I'm here, the less I'm likely to let it pass without comment. I don't come here to have anyone tell me, and the rest of the forum, all about some unrecognizable character known as Woodduck. Being publicly mischaracterized can really wear a person down, and although that may be the norm for politicians, it shouldn't be normalized here.
> 
> If you read through my posts in this thread, you may be able to perceive the patience with which I've dealt with a great deal of ideological, and often frustratingly dogmatic, opposition. At times I've felt like a fox being hunted by a pack of bloodhounds. That patience has been broken only a few times; in one case of out-and-out trolling, I asked that the offender be dealt with by the moderators, and the obnoxious remarks were removed. But a post like the following, while it may not be an instance of premeditated trolling, can certainly put a beleaguered guy in a bad mood: _"Music is emotion based, and emotions are easily identifiable. It's a language like English and French, *you just seem to be unable to read it.*"_ It isn't the first time that this seventy-year-old career musician and artist (singer, pianist, organist, composer, painter, writer) has been told that he doesn't understand music by a person who himself clearly doesn't know what he's talking about but thinks he has the answers to all of life's important questions. Considering how many times the author of this absurd putdown has responded to arguments with similar condescending, ad hominem, halfassed assessments of me and others during his relatively short time on the forum, I think "knock it off and grow up" is quite a mild response. Perhaps if you stick around here long enough you'll be treated to a similar display of juvenile superciliousness and know better what I'm talking about.
> 
> Enough of this. I just wanted to make clear where I'm coming from. I see no need for any further friction. You strike me as a bright and interesting person with whom it's possible to converse and disagree in a civil manner. I'll be counting on it.
> 
> :tiphat:


Thank you for this thoughtful and sincere explanation (and a bit paternalistic, but you make a great paternalistic figure nonetheless, be aware of virtual Oedipus though, they are undead.). It is quite clear where you are coming from. I appreciate all your friendly gestures. I was not condemning you but to point out a partial fact. I have been on the Internet long enough not to "condemn" anyone but to treat everything as a live performance. I welcome civilized discourses under certain enforced protocols for a change.

I do regret if I have judged you unfairly without being more responsible for what I have spewed. The thought of trolling you at your age physically disturbs me. I am in the middle of reading your terrific analysis of Wanger's Parsifal, very thorough, full of wonderful insights, and highly enjoyable. I am new here (due to COVID) but your contribution clearly seems to be a reason that I stay. :tiphat:


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Eclectic Al said:


> As I have posted elsewhere, I think he is a bot, occasionally nudged into more credible posts by human intervention.


How dare you assume the gender of a bot, my feminine module just took over.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> I have Mr Machine Head on my 'ignore' list, precisely because of this reason. It's a pity he's not actually a Turing Machine, as then there would be an 'off' button!


Turing Machine is a mathematical model, it cannot possibly have an "off" button.

Human beings are in some sense equivalent to universal turning machines, they don't have "off" buttons.


----------



## Eclectic Al

RogerWaters said:


> But of course words are more exact than music. The most one can say about music's semantic/representational capacity is that you can vaguely evoke a mood: triumph (last movement of Beethoven's 5th) or autumnal sadness (some late brahms). But I can represent a mood in much more detail with words. Perhaps (perhaps - there are great novelists in the Western Cannon) the _impact_ is stronger with music, but that's got nothing to do with exactness or fineness of grain.


For me the impact can be greater with words (or indeed with drama) precisely because you can represent more detail. Dickens was mentioned in another post, and I am tempted to think of Sidney Carton: "It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known". The details of the journey he has been on are needed to create the impact. I also recall watching "The Lost Prince", which was a drama by Steven Poliakoff about Prince John (son of George V and Queen Mary). I was a wreck by the end, for reasons I can't quite recall. There are some films I would never watch twice (Bridge to Terabithia, Up!) because they are too much - interesting (to me) that those are both children's films.

With music you get an abstract emotional reaction: in a sense it is more pure, because it is indeed abstract, but that limits the possible impact (for me). I guess that is why some people like to explore the background (eg in Shostakovich), because that can strengthen the reaction by making it more specific - similarly perhaps the appeal of opera and works like requiems.

Getting back to Brahms, I love his work because it is richly emotional, but highly abstract (linked to the classical formalism that he favoured). If I think of most of my favourites, they tend to be the less "heart on their sleeve" composers, because I enjoy the combination of constraint and emotion. I perhaps don't like books or dramas which engage me fully, because it can be too much.


----------



## DavidA

Post deleted. .


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> Tonal growls are not enough to communicate intricacies, but tone of voice is still the way we recognize emotion, and therefore music will always cause a deeper emotional connection than any other form. The way a symphony can cause one emotion after the other, something very tangible can be portrayed, that reaches deeper into the soul that words or paintings or anything else, into what becomes philosophy and pure will mixed together.
> 
> Now you combine that with an order, logic, and complexity, and you create another world. The reason we enjoy movies so much is undoubtedly because of the music, watch any old movie without it and it's something completely different.


There is no one in these threads with a greater appreciation of film music than I have. A good score can work both within and outside of a film, although hearing it in the context of the film can bring different meaning to the music. A well wrought score can assist us in interpreting a mood, and it can connect parts of a film beyond what is shown (which is basically how leitmotif works when it is properly used, and by properly I mean effectively). But it is one thing to say that music communicates, at some level (and we keep showing a kind of gut emotional reaction as the example of that communication), and quite another to assert greater extents of meaning. We merely need to look at recorded history to see the differences in what music and words are capable of communicating. You seem to be determined to assert a theory that flies in the face of all of the actual evidence we have at our disposal. That is an insurmountable problem.


----------



## 1996D

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> You have read Plato and in the Republic, he talked about his model, that human mind has three parts, the intellect, the will, and the drive, and the ideal society must mirror it to achieve a harmonious balance. The desire/drive and the will are not rational but they are important for humans to function properly. I tend to think that our minds and our society are codeveloped and simultaneously determined. So I don't think it's possible to ignore irrationality or destroy irrationality, they will just manifest in "rationality" (it is your desire and unconsciousness that drives your so-called rational thinking not the other way round) in more pathological ways.


It's eros, thymos, and logos. Or the feminine, the masculine, and reason. Freud renamed them id, ego, and super-ego. And yes, an ideal society must embrace all three, but in correct order, with logos above thymos and thymos above eros. Thinkers like Nietzsche thought that will (thymos) was above logos.

I know we can't go back, the way forward is what the far leftists are doing, but I won't participate in it and I hope you don't either; they are toxic low value people that are sacrificing their humanity for their cause. Fighting against them would also be the wrong thing to do because they can't be stopped.

The solution is to do nothing, live your life and ignore politics.


----------



## 1996D

JAS said:


> There is no one in these threads with a greater appreciation of film music than I have. A good score can work both within and outside of a film, although hearing it in the context of the film can bring different meaning to the music. A well wrought score can assist us in interpreting a mood, and it can connect parts of a film beyond what is shown (which is basically how leitmotif works when it is properly used, and by properly I mean effectively). But it is one thing to say that music communicates, at some level (and we keep showing a kind of gut emotional reaction as the example of that communication), and quite another to assert greater extents of meaning. We merely need to look at recorded history to see the differences in what music and words are capable of communicating. You seem to be determined to assert a theory that flies in the face of all of the actual evidence we have at our disposal. That is an insurmountable problem.


The feeling of perfection that the music of Mozart brings is beyond anything anyone could write with words, it's like an exact copy of the feeling of the balanced, morally justified society he lived in, where everyone's rank was appropriate to their ability and morality. The Classical era of music, and Mozart specifically, displays a perfection that has been shown to even completely calm heavily distressed dogs locked in cages.

It's the sound of living in harmony, and you can directly compare it to the atonal monstrosities that reflect the wretchedness of our times. Or to the Nietzschean inspired will and lust of Wagner (or the other way around).


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> The feeling of perfection that the music of Mozart brings is beyond anything anyone could write with words, it's like an exact copy of the feeling of the balanced, morally justified society he lived in, where everyone's rank was appropriate to their ability and morality.


I think you're going off the deep end. With little exception, rank was determined by birth.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

1996D said:


> It's the sound of living in harmony, and you can directly compare it to the atonal monstrosities that reflect the wretchedness of our times. Or to the Nietzschean inspired will and lust of Wagner (or the other way around).





1996D said:


> The feeling of perfection that the music of Mozart brings is beyond anything anyone could write with words, it's like an exact copy of the feeling of the balanced, morally justified society he lived in, where everyone's rank was appropriate to their ability and morality.


I wonder how Mozart would be ranked in that utopian society, given your implied Christian morality.


----------



## Presence

As a late reply to this ever-perplexing ancient story of tastes, objective-ness, and superiority of one school of philosophy to another, it is a humane story of conflicts and irresolute problems that have never repaired, open wounds, rejected by ones that simply thought differently, lived differently, and were of a different conviction. Never are able to resolve the olden debate between empiricism and rationalism, between theism and atheism, between mystery and reason. 

From Plato to Aristotle, from Aquinas to Occam, from Hegel to Marx, from Husserl to Heidegger, from Russell to Whitehead, from classical American pragmatism to Existential commitments, the question of being, to the question of truth, numbers, logic, mathematics, arithmetic, nothing is settled. Neither proof theory, nor symbol logic, or foundations of language has been found or will find "firm" foundations. All have prime representative works, all of value and use to the suitable person. 

Nothing of such claims can ever be settled because we are human and we err greatly even in our greatest ambitions, our greatest aspirations, in our greatest intellectual heights. If these questions become settled, both philosophy and music would become profoundly boring. We would die of boredom. Questions about the precision of language, the objectivity of taste, the superiority of one school over another is really at the end: inquiries of preference, methods of exploration, cultures of choice, and of up-bringing. It is much more a socio-cultural problem, than it is in the actual "validity" of schools, fronts, and of tastes. 

We need both logic and mathematics, both belief and rationality, and all sorts of taste in music. This lack of toleration breeds an extreme pestilence against others, whom differ from us. This delusion of superiority only speak of others' inferiority, and truly reveals a lack of true moral imagination. It cannot be taken personally.


----------



## 1996D

Bulldog said:


> I think you're going off the deep end. With little exception, rank was determined by birth.


Yes but the education and environment was so that the nobles acted morally. This quickly deteriorated; by Beethoven's time it was already dying and there was growing moral corruption. By Brahms' death the system was totally collapsing.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> The feeling of perfection that the music of Mozart brings is beyond anything anyone could write with words, it's like an exact copy of the feeling of the balanced, morally justified society he lived in, where everyone's rank was appropriate to their ability and morality. The Classical era of music, and Mozart specifically, displays a perfection that has been shown to even completely calm heavily distressed dogs locked in cages.
> 
> It's the sound of living in harmony, and you can directly compare it to the atonal monstrosities that reflect the wretchedness of our times. Or to the Nietzschean inspired will and lust of Wagner (or the other way around).


I still think you're reading too much into the circumstantial aspects of musical works. Artists can and some have transcended the circumstances they were in. Sometimes they reacted completely against the trend.


----------



## Bulldog

1996D said:


> Yes but the education and environment was so that the nobles acted morally.


Where did you come up with that conclusion?


----------



## 1996D

Phil loves classical said:


> I still think you're reading too much into the circumstantial aspects of musical works. Artists can and some have transcended the circumstances they were in. Sometimes they reacted completely against the trend.


In Mozart there is hardly anything to surmount, it's perfection; in Beethoven there is clear hardship and oppression that he triumphs over; in Brahms the wretchedness is beyond his ability to see beyond of: he sees no happy ending.

Richard Strauss is one of your examples of a composer that triumphed over the circumstances, but there aren't many, and Strauss had an ability to ignore the world, a quite remarkable one.


----------



## RogerWaters

Presence said:


> As a late reply to this ever-perplexing ancient story of tastes, objective-ness, and superiority of one school of philosophy to another, it is a humane story of conflicts and irresolute problems that have never repaired, open wounds, rejected by ones that simply thought differently, lived differently, and were of a different conviction. Never are able to resolve the olden debate between empiricism and rationalism, between theism and atheism, between mystery and reason


I am of the view that it is obvious, pragmatically, i.e. from their real-world success or failure, that some schools of thought are better than others when it comes to truth claims about the world.

This 'positivism' does not translate to aesthetics, however, so I don't think it threatening to letting a thousand flowers bloom in the land of melody, hamony and rhythm.

So Brahms.... I have been listening for the first time to Levin's version of the German Requiem and thoroughly enjoying.


----------



## 1996D

Presence said:


> Never are able to resolve the olden debate between empiricism and rationalism, between theism and atheism, between mystery and reason


Atheism as reason... that's a funny one.

Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why,
For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel "I am I"?

Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,
Making Him broken gleams and a stifled splendour and gloom.

Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet-
Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.

God is law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice,
For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.

Law is God, say some; no God at all, says the fool,
For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;

And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;
But if we could see and hear, this Vision-were it not He?


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Try running a space program or medical trial on apriori rationalism.


They are run on a priori rationalism.

Navigation systems use Bayesian filtering methods that have elements of "prior knowledge" built into them. Newtonian physics is also assumed a priori instead of the more precise theory of Einstein because it's less computationally taxing.

Experiment designs and causal inference also have a priori reasonings built into them, without them, you cannot interpret what, say a difference in difference estimate means (average treatment effect? conditional average treatment effect? local average treatment effect? etc).

On the other hand, positivism can be introduced into aesthetics, just not in its current form. The fact you can tell Mozart is better music than caveman hitting bones is an indication that there are empirical bases for aesthetics.

Don't get me wrong, what you say is close to being true, but they are not true.


----------



## RogerWaters

1996D said:


> Atheism as reason... that's a funny one.
> 
> Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why,
> For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel "I am I"?
> 
> Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,
> Making Him broken gleams and a stifled splendour and gloom.
> 
> Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet-
> Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.
> 
> God is law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice,
> For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.
> 
> Law is God, say some; no God at all, says the fool,
> For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;
> 
> And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;
> But if we could see and hear, this Vision-were it not He?


Atheists just take the attitude towards your God that you take to most of the other Gods that are worshipped around the world. Think about that for a minute, objectively and in good faith.


----------



## 1996D

RogerWaters said:


> Atheists just take the attitude towards your God that you take to most of the other Gods that are worshipped around the world. Think about that for a minute, objectively and in good faith.


 Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.

He chooses, I chose nothing.


----------



## RogerWaters

1996D said:


> Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.
> 
> He chooses, I chose nothing.


Thanks for considering what I wrote in good faith(!). What a useless response from you?


----------



## 1996D

RogerWaters said:


> Thanks for considering what I wrote in good faith(!). What a useless response from you?


I think nothing of them because I didn't find them, which is what you're thinking, which is fine, but it's not because of reason. Reason is actually a path to finding what you're rejecting.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> Where did you come up with that conclusion?


Careful, Bulldog. The worst thing you can do for the forum is to ask this ivory-tower genius a question.

On second thought, we're likely to have to endure The Truth whether we ask for it or not.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

RogerWaters said:


> Atheists just take the attitude towards your God that you take to most of the other Gods that are worshipped around the world. Think about that for a minute, objectively and in good faith.


Not really, there are different ways to approach Atheism.

There are Atheists who believe in the big ideological constructs such as rationalism and reductionism, and scientific authority as the ultimate guarantee of meaning for everything, with a religious and belligerent position against other forms of beliefs without giving anything much thought.

Then there are other Atheists who realize there are no ultimate guaranteed of meaning but one can still practically obtain meaning by traversing through the symbolic world and belief systems without treating everything as "us vs them".


----------



## Presence

1996D said:


> Atheism as reason... that's a funny one.
> 
> Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why,
> For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel "I am I"?
> 
> Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,
> Making Him broken gleams and a stifled splendour and gloom.
> 
> Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet-
> Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.
> 
> God is law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice,
> For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.
> 
> Law is God, say some; no God at all, says the fool,
> For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;
> 
> And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;
> But if we could see and hear, this Vision-were it not He?


Composed on the spot? Or quotation from another poet?

Indeed, some schools of thought are obviously more successful than others. This is from the straight-forwardness manner of expression and clarity; for the distinctiveness and the existence of clear-cut purposes of designated works. This is, however, not the case for some other philosophies, and therefore, fall victim to lack of vividness of thinking. And rightfully so. Although this cannot be taken for the advantageousness of one "over" another. Simply a poor, and unfortunate deficiency of clarity. From this follow whole movements, wholes genres, whole historical changes and changes in ideals, apparent irreversible alterations, and significant shifts in consciousness that seem to be permanent. The vast majority of these generalities are biases which simply signifies time not spent, properly, earnestly and sincerely in the consideration of systems, thoughts and events. It personifies an absence of authenticated and genuine understanding. This is true for major schools and the endless games of superiority and inferiority. The problem with objective consciousness is that it simply does not exist. Verification and falsification are ultimately preferential. It cannot be free of biases and prejudices. Ultimately it is about value and that in itself is not static but fluid. It is historical rather than eternal.


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Presence said:


> As a late reply to this ever-perplexing ancient story of tastes, objective-ness, and superiority of one school of philosophy to another, it is a humane story of conflicts and irresolute problems that have never repaired, open wounds, rejected by ones that simply thought differently, lived differently, and were of a different conviction. Never are able to resolve the olden debate between empiricism and rationalism, between theism and atheism, between mystery and reason.
> 
> From Plato to Aristotle, from Aquinas to Occam, from Hegel to Marx, from Husserl to Heidegger, from Russell to Whitehead, from classical American pragmatism to Existential commitments, the question of being, to the question of truth, numbers, logic, mathematics, arithmetic, nothing is settled. Neither proof theory, nor symbol logic, or foundations of language has been found or will find "firm" foundations. All have prime representative works, all of value and use to the suitable person.
> 
> Nothing of such claims can ever be settled because we are human and we err greatly even in our greatest ambitions, our greatest aspirations, in our greatest intellectual heights. If these questions become settled, both philosophy and music would become profoundly boring. We would die of boredom. Questions about the precision of language, the objectivity of taste, the superiority of one school over another is really at the end: inquiries of preference, methods of exploration, cultures of choice, and of up-bringing. It is much more a socio-cultural problem, than it is in the actual "validity" of schools, fronts, and of tastes.
> 
> We need both logic and mathematics, both belief and rationality, and all sorts of taste in music. This lack of toleration breeds an extreme pestilence against others, whom differ from us. This delusion of superiority only speak of others' inferiority, and truly reveals a lack of true moral imagination. It cannot be taken personally.


Yes, I would defend the idea of superiority but one should be extremely careful to establish any kind of superiority (except for military superiority). It is the undeserved and self-proclaimed superiority that is problematic.


----------



## Phil loves classical

1996D said:


> In Mozart there is hardly anything to surmount, it's perfection; in Beethoven there is clear hardship and oppression that he triumphs over; in Brahms the wretchedness is beyond his ability to see beyond of: he sees no happy ending.
> 
> Richard Strauss is one of your examples of a composer that triumphed over the circumstances, but there aren't many, and Strauss had an ability to ignore the world, a quite remarkable one.


Thanks for your incredible insight.


----------



## Strange Magic

UniversalTuringMachine said:


> Not really, there are different ways to approach Atheism.
> 
> There are Atheists who believe in the big ideological constructs such as rationalism and reductionism, and scientific authority as the ultimate guarantee of meaning for everything, with a religious and belligerent position against other forms of beliefs without giving anything much thought.
> 
> Then there are other Atheists who realize there are no ultimate guaranteed of meaning but one can still practically obtain meaning by traversing through the symbolic world and belief systems without treating everything as "us vs them".


Then there are other atheists who just never saw either any requirement that there be trans-physical, non-detectable phenomena nor saw any evidence that trans-physical, non-detectable phenomena actually did exist. They never got caught up in the loop. Ursula Le Guin observed that children are born atheists, and almost always acquire their religion from their parents or other early influencers. We might call this the Ur-state or ground state of atheism that seeks not to look beyond what is. There is no religious or belligerent position against other forms of belief but merely a profound disinterest that can lapse into annoyance when others seek to drag atheists of this stripe into literally meaningless discussions. As Sam Goldwyn famously said in another context: "Include me out."


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine

Strange Magic said:


> Then there are other atheists who just never saw either any requirement that there be trans-physical, non-detectable phenomena nor saw any evidence that trans-physical, non-detectable phenomena actually did exist. They never got caught up in the loop.


Of course, but this popular cliche of Atheists as hardcore materialists, reductionists, or empiricist is simply not true and not representative, even among the scientific community.



Strange Magic said:


> Ursula Le Guin observed that children are born atheists, and almost always acquire their religion from their parents or other early influencers. We might call this the Ur-state or ground state of atheism that seeks not to look beyond what is.


I am afraid that this is not a great point for several reasons.

First, this is simply not a scientific fact and the idea that children are born with certain ideological alignment is suspicious at best.

Second, Ursula Le Guin was a, dare I say, naive Taoist. Her understanding of Taoism lacks historical perspectives. Her talk of ying and yang is clearly metaphysical because Taoism was the biggest school of metaphysics in ancient China and later became the source of prevalent superstitions. Even if this is ad verecundiam, it's not a great one (but I enjoyed it).

Third, the statement "we might call this the Ur-state or ground state of atheism" is a metaphysical one. For "Atheism" as a concept to have a quality called "state" you are already deep in the metaphysical territory, by presupposing a "ground state" you are doing ontology far and beyond.



Strange Magic said:


> There is no religious or belligerent position against other forms of belief but merely a profound disinterest that can lapse into annoyance when others seek to drag atheists of this stripe into literally meaningless discussions. As Sam Goldwyn famously said in another context: "Include me out."


There certainly are. Just look at the heroes of the New Atheism movement, the so-called four horsemen of Atheism: Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Daniel Dennett. I have read the key works of all of them except CH and admire them as scientists, but they were clearly overstepping their expertise and were not smart (even foolish and unscientific) at all in their attacks of religions and believes (except Dennett).

I can only speak from my personal experience but many Atheists of this sort I have encountered are a proud bunch and are far too quick to attack philosophy, religion, qualitative social sciences, customs, and rituals, etc. and far too stubborn to admit ignorance and factual errors when they are challenged and far too dogmatic about scientific methods. This is a sign of ideology, not enlightenment.

Let me remind you that most people from the communist bloc were Atheists and they were some of the biggest ideologues the world has ever seen. They are closer to religious fundamentalists than theists. Rejecting God, fairies, black magic, and psedo-scientific ideas are neither necessary nor sufficient to be a "good" Atheist.


----------



## RogerWaters

Strange Magic said:


> Then there are other atheists who just never saw either any requirement that there be trans-physical, non-detectable phenomena nor saw any evidence that trans-physical, non-detectable phenomena actually did exist. They never got caught up in the loop. Ursula Le Guin observed that children are born atheists, and almost always acquire their religion from their parents or other early influencers. We might call this the Ur-state or ground state of atheism that seeks not to look beyond what is. There is no religious or belligerent position against other forms of belief but merely a profound disinterest that can lapse into annoyance when others seek to drag atheists of this stripe into literally meaningless discussions. As Sam Goldwyn famously said in another context: "Include me out."


Well said. To criticise atheists here instead of the religious lunatic (1996D) going round ranting and raving is a bit rich.


----------



## mmsbls

The thread has diverted toward religious discussion. Such discussion should be reserved for the Groups area and not on the main forum. Please return to Brahms and his music.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Listened the the St Anthony Variations yesterday.
What a lovely enjoyable work. Immensely cheering.
One to add to the list of Brahms works which are among the best of their type: orchestral variations.


----------



## JAS

1996D said:


> The feeling of perfection that the music of Mozart brings is beyond anything anyone could write with words, it's like an exact copy of the feeling of the balanced, morally justified society he lived in, where everyone's rank was appropriate to their ability and morality. The Classical era of music, and Mozart specifically, displays a perfection that has been shown to even completely calm heavily distressed dogs locked in cages.
> 
> It's the sound of living in harmony, and you can directly compare it to the atonal monstrosities that reflect the wretchedness of our times. Or to the Nietzschean inspired will and lust of Wagner (or the other way around).


This is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a perfection beyond words since the concept identified by the word perfection cannot actually exist in the real world. Words can describe things that exist, and things that do not exist. This conception is entirely in your own head, and not in the music of Mozart (or Brahms if we are to somewhat address what was supposed the topic of this thread). That is not to suggest that the word is misapplied in speaking of music.

Perhaps, being generous, what you are aiming for is the concept that an idea forms in someone's head, and the desire to communicate that idea to someone else creates a problem as there is no means of simply transferring that idea precisely as it exists in the originator's mind. Depending on the nature of that idea, music might convey it more immediately than words, but that would be under very limited circumstances, and probably chiefly deal only with emotional responses. (And such emotional responses would depend on a host of other factors that may or may not be present for individuals who receive the attempt.)


----------



## RogerWaters

JAS said:


> This is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a perfection beyond words since the concept identified by the word perfection cannot actually exist in the real world. Words can describe things that exist, and things that do not exist. This conception is entirely in your own head, and not in the music of Mozart (or Brahms if we are to somewhat address what was supposed the topic of this thread). That is not to suggest that the word is misapplied in speaking of music.
> 
> Perhaps, being generous, what you are aiming for is the concept that an idea forms in someone's head, and the desire to communicate that idea to someone else creates a problem as there is no means of simply transferring that idea precisely as it exists in the originator's mind. Depending on the nature of that idea, music might convey it more immediately than words, but that would be under very limited circumstances, and probably chiefly deal only with emotional responses. (And such emotional responses would depend on a host of other factors that may or may not be present for individuals who receive the attempt.)


You are feeding an ugly troll.


----------



## Strange Magic

UTM, with my usual luck, the moderator(s) has/have chosen to intervene and admonish just before I get a chance to reply in the thread wherein the issue is being discussed. And so I will reply in th Religious Discussion Group Downstairs where this thread should have been directed a while back. This may actually all be Providential(!) in bringing renewed interest Downstairs to the Groups where already the Political and some other Groups are enjoying renewed interest.

https://www.talkclassical.com/groups/religious-discussion-group-d1927-atheism-part-two.html


----------



## JAS

^^^ we will just assume that it would have been brilliant, and it will probably benefit from not actually being tested by reading.


----------



## JAS

RogerWaters said:


> You are feeding an ugly troll.


Only to the extent that it entertains me.


----------



## Room2201974

RogerWaters said:


> You are feeding an ugly troll.


I keep thinking that a cross between a musical Kimmie Schmitt and Chicken Little doing acid could not exist in this universe. So, it's someone pulling our collective leg. If this shtick could be turned into a Netflix series, trust me, I'd be providing the laugh track (because I've been laughing all the way through the cartoonish pronouncements from on high).

Someone is seriously short-changing their talents in posting here; Hollywood beckons.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> That's true of most modern and contemporary composers, but they're not artists, they're deconstructionists.


No, it's true of composers from Beethoven on. Assuming the states metaphorically exemplified in musical works bear some direct and necessary connection to the extramusical inner life of composers is naive and baseless in any era.


----------



## Luchesi

1996D said:


> Atheism as reason... that's a funny one.
> 
> Dark is the world to thee; thyself art the reason why,
> For is He not all but thou, that hast power to feel "I am I"?
> 
> Glory about thee, without thee; and thou fulfillest thy doom,
> Making Him broken gleams and a stifled splendour and gloom.
> 
> Speak to Him, thou, for He hears, and Spirit with Spirit can meet-
> Closer is He than breathing, and nearer than hands and feet.
> 
> God is law, say the wise; O soul, and let us rejoice,
> For if He thunder by law the thunder is yet His voice.
> 
> Law is God, say some; no God at all, says the fool,
> For all we have power to see is a straight staff bent in a pool;
> 
> And the ear of man cannot hear, and the eye of man cannot see;
> But if we could see and hear, this Vision-were it not He?


I wish a religionist could convince me.


----------



## DavidA

Luchesi said:


> I wish a religionist could convince me.


No you don't! Please note the moderator has asked the thread to be about Brahms!


----------



## Luchesi

DavidA said:


> No you don't! Please note the moderator has asked the thread to be about Brahms!


I don't?
I wish I was as ridiculously self-confidant.


----------



## OperasAndPassions

The first movement of the first symphony already reveals all his genius. Notice how amazing the rhythm is there, how rich is the theme evolution, and how the other symphony's movements are all so different from the first, but in the end it all becomes so cohesive.
It is clearly one of my favorite composers, and I feel uncomfortable when I remember he destroyed a lot of his works due to his perfectionism. Probably there were many other masterpieces by him, which we'll never have the chance to know.


----------



## Luchesi

OperasAndPassions said:


> The first movement of the first symphony already reveals all his genius. Notice how amazing the rhythm is there, how rich is the theme evolution, and how the other symphony's movements are all so different from the first, but in the end it all becomes so cohesive.
> It is clearly one of my favorite composers, and I feel uncomfortable when I remember he destroyed a lot of his works due to his perfectionism. Probably there were many other masterpieces by him, which we'll never have the chance to know.


How did he know what was good and what was bad?


----------



## EdwardBast

Luchesi said:


> How did he know what was good and what was bad?


He didn't. He thought the Piano Quartet Op. 60 was of little value.


----------



## OperasAndPassions

Luchesi said:


> How did he know what was good and what was bad?


No idea. Given the overall consistency of high quality works he composed, I bet most of those music he destroyed surely would be wonderful to our ears.


----------



## Luchesi

EdwardBast said:


> He didn't. He thought the Piano Quartet Op. 60 was of little value.


Little value, hmmm. Here's a piano quartet from Beethoven's 15th year. What do I think of it?


----------



## Luchesi

OperasAndPassions said:


> No idea. Given the overall consistency of high quality works he composed, I bet most of those music he destroyed surely would be wonderful to our ears.


Welcome to the forum.

It might be unfair, but I get the sense that Schumann led Brahms to be so 'shy'. Schumann shocked everyone.

And if the music didn't fit with his vision (Brahms') of where music should go, in his hands, he was dissatisfied, and didn't want to be misunderstood.. And also there were little technical things which irritated him, as they did to Chopin.


----------



## OperasAndPassions

Luchesi said:


> Welcome to the forum.
> 
> It might be unfair, but I get the sense that Schumann led Brahms to be so 'shy'. Schumann shocked everyone.
> 
> And if the music didn't fit with his vision (Brahms') of where music should go, in his hands, he was dissatisfied, and didn't want to be misunderstood.. And also there were little technical things which irritated him, as they did to Chopin.


thanks!

I can see your point. I'd like to add that Brahms also felt shy because of Beethoven. He felt the pressure, due to the high standards that Beethoven has set. It took a long while for him to make his first symphony due to this.


----------



## julide

nobles acted morally............... a professed mozart fan does not even get the point of figaro..........


----------



## julide

Bulldog said:


> Where did you come up with that conclusion?


nobles acted morally............... a professed mozart fan does not even get the point of figaro..........


----------



## wormcycle

millionrainbows said:


> I don't think it should be "the Three Bs" of Classical music. What about R. Strauss, Mahler, Wagner? In that sense, I feel Brahms has been overrated.


The same way as Ferrari Testarosa is overrated comparing to the Mercedes ML350 truck. Yes, it is, if you are into towing. 
First it would be very difficult to find more contrasting approach to what music is about than Brahms vs Strauss and Wagner.
If you like 500 people orchestras and enjoy landscapes painted with sound, or operas then Strauss and Wagner.
If you like 45 minutes of boredom for every 15 minutes of excitement then Strauss and Wagner.
But if you like to be excited, and on edge with wonderful surprises everywhere, from the first to the last bar of almost every composition then Brahms.


----------



## Eclectic Al

wormcycle said:


> The same way as Ferrari Testarosa is overrated comparing to the Mercedes ML350 truck. Yes, it is, you are into towing.
> First it would be very difficult to find more contrasting approach to what music is about than Brahms vs Strauss and Wagner.
> If you like 500 people orchestras and enjoy landscapes painted with sound, or operas then Strauss and Wagner.
> If you like 45 minutes of boredom for every 15 minutes of excitement then Strauss and Wagner.
> But if you like to be excited, and on edge with wonderful surprises everywhere, from the first to the last bar of almost every composition then Brahms.


A bold entry for your first post. But I would agree.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

wormcycle said:


> The same way as Ferrari Testarosa is overrated comparing to the Mercedes ML350 truck. Yes, it is, you are into towing.
> First it would be very difficult to find more contrasting approach to what music is about than Brahms vs Strauss and Wagner.
> If you like 500 people orchestras and enjoy landscapes painted with sound, or operas then Strauss and Wagner.
> If you like 45 minutes of boredom for every 15 minutes of excitement then Strauss and Wagner.
> But if you like to be excited, and on edge with wonderful surprises everywhere, from the first to the last bar of almost every composition then Brahms.


Welcome to TC! Great first post, although you were too generous in assessment of Wagner and Strauss


----------



## Luchesi

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Welcome to TC! Great first post, although you were too generous in assessment of Wagner and Strauss


That's right. Brahms wasn't as concerned with what audiences could follow (hearing the large works only a few times). So his level of artistically constrained ambiguity was higher.


----------



## Axter

Brahms was a brilliant composer and I always enjoy listening to all his works quite frankly!
What I like in particular is the mixture between “drama, melancholy and joy” that is blended so well in his works, by that I mean in the same piece of music. As an example the 1st mvmt of his 2nd Symphony reflects that very well, and its just so soothing to listen to. Or the Tragic Overture, same expressions. 
I find it simply brilliant and skillful.


----------



## SearsPoncho

Brahms is on my Mt. Rushmore of top 4 classical composers. If I had to only consider my favorite 5 or 6 pieces from those top 4, he would probably be #2. He obviously wrote great music. As a mid-late Romantic composer, he combines the rich expressionism or emotionalism of the Romantic age with the tried and true forms and discipline (mathematically so!) of the Classical age. The combination of thick, aggressive power with tender lyricism is very moving. I loved his music immediately. As someone else said, it was a visceral reaction; I'm only thinking of these things now because of the title of this thread. He was also the first Romantic composer I heard. I bought a budget cassette tape of Brahms' 1st and 4th after being smitten with my first purchases of Beethoven and Mozart and put it in a cassette player, maybe a Walkman, and heard that explosive introduction to the 1st Symphony. It remains one of my greatest musical memories. Having only listened to Mozart and Beethoven, I was "blown away" (the title of another thread) and thought that I must have accidentally started the tape in the middle of the symphony. Symphonies don't start like that, right? I checked the tape and, no, it was indeed the beginning. I was hooked! The cassette tape I bought also had a performance of the 4th that emphasized the more tragic, or possibly tragic, elements of the 4th. I consider the 4th probably the greatest composition, and definitely the greatest symphony, written by anyone not named Beethoven or Bach. Even including Beethoven and Bach, I would put the 4th in my top 5 pieces of music.


----------



## Guest002

Axter said:


> Brahms was a brilliant composer and I always enjoy listening to all his works quite frankly!
> What I like in particular is the mixture between "drama, melancholy and joy" that is blended so well in his works, by that I mean in the same piece of music. As an example the 1st mvmt of his 2nd Symphony reflects that very well, and its just so soothing to listen to. Or the Tragic Overture, same expressions.
> I find it simply brilliant and skillful.


I wish I knew what Britten found so loathsome -or even comically bad- about Brahms. There's the famous story about him 'taking out the Brahms every few years and giving him a play-through, just to make sure he really was as bad as I thought he was', but I don't know what he found so dreadful.

I know he found Vaughan Williams comically amateurish, for example. But... no idea what was so bad about Brahms for him.

I hasten to add, lest I ruffle any feathers, that I quietly enjoy quite a bit of Brahms. I'd just like to know what Britten found so wrong about him...


----------



## julide

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I wish I knew what Britten found so loathsome -or even comically bad- about Brahms. There's the famous story about him 'taking out the Brahms every few years and giving him a play-through, just to make sure he really was as bad as I thought he was', but I don't know what he found so dreadful.
> 
> I know he found Vaughan Williams comically amateurish, for example. But... no idea what was so bad about Brahms for him.
> 
> I hasten to add, lest I ruffle any feathers, that I quietly enjoy quite a bit of Brahms. I'd just like to know what Britten found so wrong about him...


Those orally trasmited anectodes with no sources are always greatly exeggerated...


----------



## Guest002

julide said:


> Those orally trasmited anectodes with no sources are always greatly exeggerated...


That one certainly isn't. He hated (too strong: "disliked", then) Brahms, certified, by his own diaries amongst other things.

The First Symphony is "ugly and pretentious"; his Second, "dull, ugly, gauch" [sic]; his Trio in A Minor, "foul - I can scarcely bear to play it." And so on.

And in 1970: "The same applies to my opinion of Brahms. When we were in Adelaide recently, I was asked to say a few words on what I thought about Brahms. I suppose I know his work as well as anyone living and until I was about 16 or 17 he was one of my major passions. Then I suddenly found that his music didn't contain what I needed at that moment. I love the early works still - the D minor Concerto and the Piano Quintet, for instance. He saw that these didn't quite work but in striving for formal perfection, I feel that he somehow lost something and that something is what I miss in his later music. After saying this, I had a heartbroken letter from a student who had been very upset by what I said. I wrote back at length pointing out that this was my own reaction, and that I don't particularly like tomatoes and mushrooms but that didn't mean they were wicked or anything."


----------



## annaw

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Welcome to TC! Great first post, although you were too generous in assessment of Wagner and Strauss





wormcycle said:


> If you like 45 minutes of boredom for every 15 minutes of excitement then Strauss and Wagner.
> But if you like to be excited, and on edge with wonderful surprises everywhere, from the first to the last bar of almost every composition then Brahms.


*Cough, cough* First, Wagner and Strauss themselves were quite different but let's forget about that for a moment.

Comparing operatic genre to chamber is very very difficult. Wagner had to follow his very detailed plots. He wasn't in for surprises on every corner and I am not entirely sure what that in the case of opera would really mean. (Wotan turns out to be a dwarf in _Die Walküre_ or Tristan kills Isolde?) Wagner goes for emotional intensity, philosophical complexity and achieves this through his huge orchestral forces. Wagner and Strauss were masters in reflecting the text through music, something Brahms only engaged in during lieder composition. I guess that for most Wagnerites, every hour of his operas is enjoyable. I recall listening to _Die Meistersinger_ when I was quite in the beginning of my classical music journey and simply marvelling over Wagner's rhythmic use of German. I also think I enjoy Wotan's monologue in _Die Walküre_ Act II much more than the Flight of the Valkyries, which, I assume, is more conventionally "exciting". It's the philosophical depth and dramatic intensity that I enjoy about Wagner. Strauss is more entertaining and focuses less on philosophical depth. PS! This all doesn't mean I don't enjoy Brahms immensely.

Anyway, pardon the opinionated tractatus and welcome to TC  !


----------



## Axter

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> I wish I knew what Britten found so loathsome -or even comically bad- about Brahms. There's the famous story about him 'taking out the Brahms every few years and giving him a play-through, just to make sure he really was as bad as I thought he was', but I don't know what he found so dreadful.
> 
> I know he found Vaughan Williams comically amateurish, for example. But... no idea what was so bad about Brahms for him.
> 
> I hasten to add, lest I ruffle any feathers, that I quietly enjoy quite a bit of Brahms. I'd just like to know what Britten found so wrong about him...


In the end of the day it comes down to taste and one's personal connection to certain type of music I guess. Britten's music philosophy probably didn't respond well to Brahms. Same as Weber, who was no Beethoven fan and criticized Beethoven's 4th, that actually I love very much.

I do hope though these criticisms among composers/colleagues were just based on music preferences and not jealousy tough, that would be a pity.


----------



## wormcycle

annaw said:


> *Cough, cough* First, Wagner and Strauss themselves were quite different but let's forget about that for a moment.
> 
> Comparing operatic genre to chamber is very very difficult. Wagner had to follow his very detailed plots. He wasn't in for surprises on every corner and I am not entirely sure what that in the case of opera would really mean. (Wotan turns out to be a dwarf in _Die Walküre_ or Tristan kills Isolde?) Wagner goes for emotional intensity, philosophical complexity and achieves this through his huge orchestral forces. Wagner and Strauss were masters in reflecting the text through music, something Brahms only engaged in during lieder composition. I guess that for most Wagnerites, every hour of his operas is enjoyable. I recall listening to _Die Meistersinger_ when I was quite in the beginning of my classical music journey and simply marvelling over Wagner's rhythmic use of German. I also think I enjoy Wotan's monologue in _Die Walküre_ Act II much more than the Flight of the Valkyries, which, I assume, is more conventionally "exciting". It's the philosophical depth and dramatic intensity that I enjoy about Wagner. Strauss is more entertaining and focuses less on philosophical depth. PS! This all doesn't mean I don't enjoy Brahms immensely.
> 
> Anyway, pardon the opinionated tractatus and welcome to TC  !


Thank you, and for very interesting comments. 
I am fascinated by the Wagner dramatic impact myself, my great regret is not understanding and speaking German. And, from what I read, Brahms greatly appreciated Wagner as a composer. 
I was reacting to the absurd proposition of any of those composers being overrated vs any other. They were representing different genres, had very different approach to the meaning, and the role of music, to the role of a composer etc... And I fully agree, weighting them on the same scale indicates some fundamental misunderstanding.


----------



## Animal the Drummer

I believe Britten actually loved Brahms' music in his younger days though. Tastes can change over time of course, but this has always seemed to me like a love/hate tightrope walk on Britten's part and I have a bit of a theory that he might have returned to Brahms' music, possibly in a big way, if he'd lived longer.


----------



## Guest002

Animal the Drummer said:


> I believe Britten actually loved Brahms' music in his younger days though. Tastes can change over time of course, but this has always seemed to me like a love/hate tightrope walk on Britten's part and I have a bit of a theory that he might have returned to Brahms' music, possibly in a big way, if he'd lived longer.


He did love Brahms in his youth. Indeed, the quote I provided of his trip to Adelaide (which must date from the late 1950s, I would think) indicated that he "still love[d] the early works still", and he mentions the D minor Concerto and the Piano Quintet as examples of the work he still loved. I believe he may have played Brahms at the Aldeburgh Festival on a number of occasions (but don't quote me on that!)

But he insists that "I suddenly found that his music [apart from the early works] didn't contain what I needed at that moment"... and I just don't know what he really meant by that -what it was that he "needed at that moment", in other words. It does sound quite fundamental, on Britten's part.

*Edited to add*: Britten and Pears both visited the Adelaide Festival in 1970. Should have researched that earlier: tsk! So, the quote comes from 1970: pretty late for him to still be loving early Brahms but not liking the later stuff!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

I don't see how any trained musician can find Brahms' music "comically bad" or "loathsome" unless they are motivated by non-musical factors. I can understand being left emotionally untouched or just not finding any enjoyment in it but comically bad?


----------



## Guest002

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't see how any trained musician can find Brahms' music "comically bad" or "loathsome" unless they are motivated by non-musical factors. I can understand being left emotionally untouched or just not finding any enjoyment in it but comically bad?


Those were my words. The actually quoted Britten says it much milder than that. (Which is not to say there isn't a Britten quote somewhere which is worse!). In any event, my apologies for supplying my take on Britten's thoughts, rather than just Britten's thoughts.

In my defence, I think I had in mind the 'I take it out once a year just to check it is as bad as I remember, and usually find it worse' statement, which sounds somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and hence the 'comically' I assigned to it.


----------



## Luchesi

AbsolutelyBaching said:


> Those were my words. The actually quoted Britten says it much milder than that. (Which is not to say there isn't a Britten quote somewhere which is worse!). In any event, my apologies for supplying my take on Britten's thoughts, rather than just Britten's thoughts.
> 
> In my defence, I think I had in mind the 'I take it out once a year just to check it is as bad as I remember, and usually find it worse' statement, which sounds somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and hence the 'comically' I assigned to it.


Was it an interview? As with today, when a person (with a reputation to safeguard) is put on the spot in an interview, they'll say things which are exaggerated or emotional. The interviewer will then latch onto what makes good copy, for their purposes.


----------



## Jacck

Why is Brahms great? Because he has an almost perfect balance between emotion and intellectualism, between melody and counterpoint, between accessibility and complexity.


----------



## Luchesi

Jacck said:


> Why is Brahms great? Because he has an almost perfect balance between emotion and intellectualism, between melody and counterpoint, between accessibility and complexity.


Yes, he worked hard at those, I would guess, and I think he did very well. LvB wasn't 'working hard' on intellectualism, big melodies or accessibility.


----------



## wormcycle

annaw said:


> *Cough, cough* First, Wagner and Strauss themselves were quite different but let's forget about that for a moment.
> 
> Comparing operatic genre to chamber is very very difficult. Wagner had to follow his very detailed plots. He wasn't in for surprises on every corner and I am not entirely sure what that in the case of opera would really mean. (Wotan turns out to be a dwarf in _Die Walküre_ or Tristan kills Isolde?) Wagner goes for emotional intensity, philosophical complexity and achieves this through his huge orchestral forces. Wagner and Strauss were masters in reflecting the text through music, something Brahms only engaged in during lieder composition. I guess that for most Wagnerites, every hour of his operas is enjoyable. I recall listening to _Die Meistersinger_ when I was quite in the beginning of my classical music journey and simply marvelling over Wagner's rhythmic use of German. I also think I enjoy Wotan's monologue in _Die Walküre_ Act II much more than the Flight of the Valkyries, which, I assume, is more conventionally "exciting". It's the philosophical depth and dramatic intensity that I enjoy about Wagner. Strauss is more entertaining and focuses less on philosophical depth. PS! This all doesn't mean I don't enjoy Brahms immensely.
> 
> Anyway, pardon the opinionated tractatus and welcome to TC  !


Thank you, I am not underestimating for a moment Wagner intellectual intensity and the dramatic effect the Ring has on me. 
And Brahms respected Wagner as a composer, although Clara Schumann could not stand Wagner in any capacity. 
Wagner as I understand did not consider Brahms to be a major "problem" until the success of Brahms symphonic works, but later he was just pure venom. 
Your comments about comparing an operatic genre with chamber music, or chamber music to sound poems, are right on, and in my post I was reacting mostly to pretty ridiculous idea of putting those three composers on a single scale.
Their approach to what music is, its role in the society, the role of a composer etc was so different that it makes very little sense. 
On Wagner music and language: not be being able to read and understand German is a great regret of my life. German music and literature, in translation unfortunately, is 80% of what I listen to and 50% of what I read.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

I've always admired Brahms's sense of rhythm. He can construct a melody out simple cells through rhythmic variation that on the surface sounds free yet in reality is highly disciplined and grounded in motivic development. Take the famous 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony and notice on which beat he chooses to play the dotted motif, and then notice how he augments the dotted rhythm as the melody goes on. It almost sounds free, and yet behind the surface-level rhythmic freedom the melody can be divided into four bar* phrases!

I love the first movement of the 2nd cello sonata especially - not only is it even more rhythmically and melodically angular, but it makes rhythmic displacement an element of the formal structure. The first theme cello melody is already extremely rhythmically displaced, but the piano accompaniment is entirely regular and provides grounding for two four bar phrases. In the more dynamic second theme, however, the entire ensemble gets rhythmically displaced, not just the cello. The second theme is accented so that it appears to enter on beat 2, and this instability is carried out throughout the entire second theme group as there are tons of rhythmic displacements throughout. At the coda at the end of the piece, the second theme appears again with a beautifully different accompaniment and the second beat accent disappears, structurally resolving the rhythmic tension.

*Although the accompaniment in measure 8 seems to belong to the next phrase, which provides destabilizing energy.


----------



## wormcycle

This is just a test. I wrote two responses to this thread but the posts disappeared, ok this one did not


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Brahms's music also has a sense of heaviness, or better, _forward inertia_. By heaviness/inertia, I don't mean banging out _fff_ chords or layering lots of contrapuntal lines, rather, I mean a constant Fuxian cantus firmus motion based on his romantic chromatic harmonic vocabulary combined with a refusal to be rhythmically square.

This cantus firmus motion isn't easy to stop or get away from, hence in inertia in the sense of Newtonian physics - a massive body maintains its velocity unless subjected to a force, and the greater the mass the greater the force required to change its velocity by an amount. There's always a grave danger as Brahms composes of falling into monotony especially because Brahms had little interest in "theatrical" dramatic elements, but Brahms always comes up with solutions, with "forces" that prevent the monotony. Often these forces are just his very rhythmic creativity. Sometimes Brahms's forces are so particular and brilliant that it's a wonder that he came up with them - take e.g. the accompaniment in measure 8 in the 3rd symphony 3rd movement, plus the subsequent augmentation of the dotted motif in the melody, that I mentioned in the above post!

Further, because Brahms is so committed to organic developing variation in melody and accompaniment, and yet is committed to his Fuxian progression, he is all the time forced to be original in his musical development (again, see the 3rd symphony and 2nd cello sonata examples in the above post). This is probably why he threw a bunch of failed works in the fire that the couldn't get quite right.

Brahms cannot pull the sudden agile musical textural shifts of Haydn and Beethoven - their music is much lighter. Mozart's music has more inertia than Haydn and Beethoven, but is still way harmonically simpler than Brahms and therefore still lighter. And Wagner's and Mahler's basslines and/or tonal chromatic motion progress much slower than all the above, allowing the "upper parts" to move around as see fit, or else the music is more rhythmically square (this rhythmic squareness is why I don't get a sense of Brahmanism inertia from, say, the Tristan prelude - the music works here because of its theatrical sense).

Brahms uniquely has that sense of inertia, and that's why some people do not like his music. And even for people who like do like the music, Brahms is very few people's absolute favorite composer, he's usually "only" in people's top 5 or top 10 - this is also because of said inertia. But then again, just look at what he could accomplish with this inertia - I would argue that inertia, when done right, is unparalleled excitement!


----------



## Luchesi

SeptimalTritone said:


> Brahms's music also has a sense of heaviness, or better, _forward inertia_. By heaviness/inertia, I don't mean banging out _fff_ chords or layering lots of contrapuntal lines, rather, I mean a constant Fuxian cantus firmus motion based on his romantic chromatic harmonic vocabulary combined with a refusal to be rhythmically square.
> 
> This cantus firmus motion isn't easy to stop or get away from, hence in inertia in the sense of Newtonian physics - a massive body maintains its velocity unless subjected to a force, and the greater the mass the greater the force required to change its velocity by an amount. There's always a grave danger as Brahms composes of falling into monotony especially because Brahms had little interest in "theatrical" dramatic elements, but Brahms always comes up with solutions, with "forces" that prevent the monotony. Often these forces are just his very rhythmic creativity. Sometimes Brahms's forces are so particular and brilliant that it's a wonder that he came up with them - take e.g. the accompaniment in measure 8 in the 3rd symphony 3rd movement, plus the subsequent augmentation of the dotted motif in the melody, that I mentioned in the above post!
> 
> Further, because Brahms is so committed to organic developing variation in melody and accompaniment, and yet is committed to his Fuxian progression, he is all the time forced to be original in his musical development (again, see the 3rd symphony and 2nd cello sonata examples in the above post). This is probably why he threw a bunch of failed works in the fire that the couldn't get quite right.
> 
> Brahms cannot pull the sudden agile musical textural shifts of Haydn and Beethoven - their music is much lighter. Mozart's music has more inertia than Haydn and Beethoven, but is still way harmonically simpler than Brahms and therefore still lighter. And Wagner's and Mahler's basslines and/or tonal chromatic motion progress much slower than all the above, allowing the "upper parts" to move around as see fit, or else the music is more rhythmically square (this rhythmic squareness is why I don't get a sense of Brahmanism inertia from, say, the Tristan prelude - the music works here because of its theatrical sense).
> 
> Brahms uniquely has that sense of inertia, and that's why some people do not like his music. And even for people who like do like the music, Brahms is very few people's absolute favorite composer, he's usually "only" in people's top 5 or top 10 - this is also because of said inertia. But then again, just look at what he could accomplish with this inertia - I would argue that inertia, when done right, is unparalleled excitement!


Inertia is the better term I was looking for. Thanks. As opposed to being cautious, caring to find melodies worthy of larger structures, worrying about being in good taste with always an eye backward into history. The tyranny of good taste... with all the advanced musical tools he had, compared to Mozart and LvB.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SeptimalTritone said:


> Brahms cannot pull the sudden agile musical textural shifts of Haydn and Beethoven - their music is much lighter. Mozart's music has more inertia than Haydn and Beethoven, but is still way harmonically simpler than Brahms and therefore still lighter.


I don't know what's the point of using "lighter/heavier" to compare harmonic aesthetics of composers who are almost a century apart. But one thing I do know, Brahms' harmonic style is nowhere as varied as Mozart's. This is something Brahms would have agreed himself. ("Ganz recht; auf Mozart's Wohl") I'm also not sure what you mean by saying Beethoven has less "momentum" than Brahms.



> "In his later works Mozart also came to rely more and more on the dissonant value of suspensions to create harmonic interest. The slow introduction of his String Quartet in C Major, K 465 (the Dissonance Quartet; 1785), consists of a string of long-delayed suspensions so that the harmonic definition at any given instant is as blurred as anything in Wagner."







Alfred Brendel: "I know of no other composer as fundamentally transformed while writing in minor keys, and none except Gesualdo and Wagner, who made such unforgettable use of chromaticism. (For Wagner himself, Mozart was 'the great Chromatiker'.)"


----------



## Xisten267

Luchesi said:


> Yes, he worked hard at those, I would guess, and I think he did very well. *LvB wasn't 'working hard' on intellectualism, big melodies or accessibility.*


I disagree, and I don't know why the need to bring Beethoven to this discussion about Brahms. Beethoven's music can be very complex and intellectual - think in the late quartets -, can have great and memorable melodies (Examples: the romances for violin nd orquestra, the first movement of _Moonlight_ sonata, the second of the _Pathètique_, the second movement of the Violin Concerto, the second movement of the _Emperor_ concerto, some movements of the _Pastoral_ symphony etc.), and can be very accessible (even those who know little of classical music have heard about _Für Elise_, _Moonlight_ sonata, _Ode to Joy_, the first movement of the fifth symphony etc.).


----------



## wormcycle

Luchesi said:


> Yes, he worked hard at those, I would guess, and I think he did very well. LvB wasn't 'working hard' on intellectualism, big melodies or accessibility.


That would be interesting if it was correct. But Beethoven left a lot of sketches and notebooks illustrating that he worked laboriously, and sometimes would go through many drafts and corrections, of to turn initial themes and motives into a full composition.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't know what's the point of using "lighter/heavier" to compare harmonic aesthetics of composers who are almost a century apart. I'm also not sure what you mean by saying Beethoven has less "momentum" than Brahms.


The comparison of harmonic aesthetics is interesting because out of the romantics, Brahms attempted Viennese classical structures the best. Brahms's works modeled after classical structures - his symphonies, chamber music, and concertos, are outstanding. But because Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven and Brahms had different harmonic vocabularies, their music will naturally feel different from each other. Some people who don't like Brahms (not on this thread, I mean more generally) say that Brahms's music is like Beethoven's but more turgid, heavy, dense, and joyless. I was trying to explain the musical reasons why some people might make that assessment, and yet, defend Brahms as being great for what he did chose to do.

I never said that Beethoven's music has less momentum (his music can carry huge amounts of momentum, take the first movement of the 5th symphony at minimum) - rather it has less inertia. This means that Beethoven's music can support starker and more frequent _textural shifts_. This is a good thing! The first movements of the 5th and the Appassionata are great examples, as are the first movements of his A minor and B flat major quartets even greater examples, among many many other works. The rapid-fire textural shifts in these masterpieces and the personal narrative that Beethoven creates using said textural shifts - Brahms could have never written anything like that because his musical language does not support it. His musical language doesn't support it because it's too harmonically advanced! This means that Brahms had to shine in ways different from Beethoven.

Regarding harmony, even Mozart's dissonance quartet opening, fugue, gigue, minuet in D, C minor or B flat major piano concertos, and Beethoven's Hammerklavier and Grosse Fugue at the very least, as chromatic and dissonant as they are - even they are less harmonically advanced than Brahms (or Schubert etc.). Brahms may be not be as ear-splitting and chromatically dense as those Mozart and Beethoven examples, but the kinds of romantic-era harmonic progressions Brahms wrote just wouldn't work in a classical-era piece.

Dominants, secondary dominants, secondary diminished sevenths, augmented fifths, augmented sixths, etc. as set up and resolved in classical-era works, sound lightweight and direct, even in highly chromatic passages. This directness supports agile textural shifts, not just in the Beethoven works I mentioned above, but in everything Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven wrote. Brahms took on a bigger burden, so to speak, with his more advanced harmony, and had to continually come up with innovate solutions to his compositional problems to avoid monotony and turgidity - hence his sophisticated developing variation and rhythmic genius.


----------



## Luchesi

^^^^^^
Yes, every generation or so there has been a new, more dissonant level of harmony which becomes accessible to an audience. In Bach’s time it took about 40 or 50 years. In Mozart's time it was less. In the time after Beethoven it was probably 25 years.


----------



## Luchesi

wormcycle said:


> That would be interesting if it was correct. But Beethoven left a lot of sketches and notebooks illustrating that he worked laboriously, and sometimes would go through many drafts and corrections, of to turn initial themes and motives into a full composition.


I've never thought and I didn't say that Beethoven didn't work laboriously. From what we can read about him, he never stopped.. Think about his publishers and benefactors and his audience compared to those of Brahms.


----------



## EdwardBast

SeptimalTritone said:


> Dominants, secondary dominants, secondary diminished sevenths, augmented fifths, augmented sixths, etc. as set up and resolved in classical-era works, sound lightweight and direct, even in highly chromatic passages. This directness supports agile textural shifts, not just in the Beethoven works I mentioned above, but in everything Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven wrote. Brahms took on a bigger burden, so to speak, with his more advanced harmony, and had to continually come up with innovate solutions to his compositional problems to avoid monotony and turgidity - hence his sophisticated developing variation and rhythmic genius.


I've enjoyed your comments on Brahms. To the above I'd add one thing I particularly value in his harmonic language, his total fluency and mastery of modal mixture, particularly the borrowing of mediant and submediant harmonies from parallel keys.


----------



## Luchesi

Imagine how much time it would take to explain or teach the differences between Brahms and Beethoven in music theory class.


----------



## Guest

Our community music group has been cancelled this year (since March) because of Covid-19 and I've not had the opportunity to discuss any musical issue in any depth, so I've been reliant upon this board much more. The comments about Brahms have been pretty insightful, particularly the theoretical ones. This is my absolutely fave pieces by Brahms, apart from the 4 symphonies: this is a recording by my beloved Stephen Kovacevich, who recently turned 80.






That last Variation - number 25 - is absolutely bloody fantastic!!! Ecstasy.


----------



## hammeredklavier

SeptimalTritone said:


> The comparison of harmonic aesthetics is interesting because out of the romantics, Brahms attempted Viennese classical structures the best. Brahms's works modeled after classical structures - his symphonies, chamber music, and concertos, are outstanding. But because Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven and Brahms had different harmonic vocabularies, their music will naturally feel different from each other.


I get what you're saying, but I always take a grain of salt when people say these things like that - cause saying that Brahms' music is an advancement from Classicism is like saying Schoenberg's music is an advancement from Brahms'. 
I can see the strengths of Brahms' kind of Romantic harmony (about how it deals with harmony in terms of mediant modulations and all that) in being "fantastic" and "dreamy", but at the same time I think it lacks the "abstractedness" of pre-Romantic and post-Romantic music. To me, it mostly circles around moods of extreme emotionalism (to me, Brahms is no exception). Romantic "absolute music" has never felt "abstract" enough to me. It might be because of the strong sense of sentimentalism of the idiom. I consider Brahms a great composer and I also appreciate his music, but his sort of harmony is "just one of many types" in classical music, and just like all the other types, it gets tiring if taken in overdoses (I don't think there's any need to "overhype" it.)
Also I still maintain what I've said, "Brahms's style is not as varied as Mozart's". Exactly the type of style you described is in all his pieces. We sort of know what to expect from Brahms in all his pieces, and he doesn't offer us anything much else other than that. The "post-Schubertian", conciliatory German requiem is probably the closest thing to being "something atypical" in Brahms, even that doesn't elicit a reaction "Wow! I can't believe Brahms wrote something like this!" from us.






Glenn Gould: "I think this is gorgeous music, but if you haven't told me, I would never have guessed that it was Mozart".

"the fact remains that the "Great Fugue" is "a controlled violence without parallel in music before the twentieth century and anticipated only by Mozart in the C minor fugue for two pianos (K.426)"
<Opera's Second Death, By Slavoj Žižek, Mladen Dolar, Page 128>








Luchesi said:


> The tyranny of good taste... with all the advanced musical tools he had, compared to Mozart and LvB.


So Mr. Luchesi, how long must you continue on with your agenda of trying to tell everyone "Music advances as time progresses. Chopin came later than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, so he surpassed them in expression"; time and time again, using provocative terms like "the *tyranny* of good taste"? 
Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think Chopin simply wrote "different" music from his precursors?
How many times do I have to remind you - Chopin envied this sort of harmony:

























"With regard to counterpoint in Chopin's music, you might be interested in the conversation that Chopin had not long before his death with the painter Eugène Delacroix. Delacroix was one of a handful of quite intimate friends of Chopin's. In his diary, he mentions how he had picked Chopin up in a carriage, and they had ridden out beyond the Arc de Triomphe and gone to a café. Chopin then began to speak about music. What makes logic in music, Chopin said, is counterpoint, getting notes to sound against each other. *He said the problem with the way they teach nowadays is that they teach the chords before they teach the movement of voices that creates the chords.* That's the problem, he said, with Berlioz. He applies the chords as a kind of veneer and fills in the gaps the best way he can. Chopin then said that you can get a sense of pure logic in music with fugue and he cited not Bach-though we know that he worshiped Bach-but Mozart. He said, in every one of Mozart's pieces, you feel the counterpoint." <The Art of Tonal Analysis: Twelve Lessons in Schenkerian Theory, By Carl Schachter, Page 57>


----------



## flamencosketches

^Is that the only Mozart work you like?


----------



## Luchesi

hammeredklavier - You don't think music advances with each generation of composers?


----------



## Animal the Drummer

Certainly not. Change does not automatically entail improvement.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Animal the Drummer said:


> Certainly not. Change does not automatically entail improvement.


Indeed:
Is contemporary literature more advanced than Jane Austen, George Eliot, Tolstoy, Henry James?
Is contemporary art more advanced than Rembrandt, Vermeer, Turner?
Is contemporary music more advanced than Bach, Beethoven, Brahms?

To be honest, I don't even know what that would mean. What I do know, though, is that contemporary art forms are not "better" than their predecessors, nor are they necessarily worse. They're just, on average, different.


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> Indeed:
> Is contemporary literature more advanced than Jane Austen, George Eliot, Tolstoy, Henry James?
> Is contemporary art more advanced than Rembrandt, Vermeer, Turner?
> Is contemporary music more advanced than Bach, Beethoven, Brahms?
> 
> To be honest, I don't even know what that would mean. What I do know, though, is that contemporary art forms are not "better" than their predecessors, nor are they necessarily worse. They're just, on average, different.


These differences of views (of music history) help me understand some of the more mysterious ways I appreciate music. You too?

…more to follow


----------



## Eclectic Al

Luchesi said:


> These differences of views (of music history) help me understand some of the more mysterious ways I appreciate music. You too?
> 
> …more to follow


Well, I don't know about "understand".


----------



## Ethereality

It's interesting to think that Brahms studied Romanticism not only as an influence, but as an example of what not to do. Or that he heard modern music quite differently than others, containing too many 'mistakes' in his knowledge. Either way, these bigger, more provocative composers of his time must have had a major influence on him, in harmony, motive, and scope of orchestration, whether positive or negative.


----------



## Luchesi

Eclectic Al said:


> Well, I don't know about "understand".


You 'understand' music by exploring its details, but first you analyze it and reduce it to its intervals and harmonies. Makes it easier to compare with similar works and with older works. Then you can appreciate it as a creation. It's not subjective. The art of it all is mostly subjective and that's what people experience as 'music'.

This is what composers and performers do, so that's a hint for new listeners.


----------



## ORigel

Because of his Cello Sonata No. 1


----------

