# Brahms symphonies



## violadude

I saw a thread on here just now about how someone thought they were missing something in Bruckner's symphonies and thought he should like them more but didn't and wanted people to explain to him what he was missing. I feel the same way about Brahm's symphonies. I think they are pretty good, but I would never go on about them like some people do. Am I missing something? Would you guys say he's the best symphonist second to Beethoven and I am just crazy? I really like his chamber music but there's something about his symphonies that just kind of bore me. Someone try and convert me!


----------



## Aramis

> Would you guys say he's the best symphonist second to Beethoven and I am just crazy?


Certainly not.

Two latter symphonies - #3 and #4 are great masterpieces, yes, but it doesn't mean they are peaks of romantic symphonic music. Perhaps they are one of the best, but not best after Ludwig Van.

If you're asking about what makes them attractive to us, then my answer would be that they have specific shade of dramaticism, grey, cloudy and heavy, mixed with melancholy - it's very "serious" music, there is no fun in it and you won't be satisfied with them if you will expect to be entertained. The 4th can be overwhelming experience. Perhaps you went to wrong recordings? Try Karajan and Solti.


----------



## Sid James

The topic of Brahms came up in a recent conversation I was having with someone who had worked as a professional musician. This person said something I kind of balked at at first, but then I realised what he was saying. He said that Brahms basically didn't make any technical innovations with his music at all, he just kind of "did his own thing" and did it very well. I'd add to this that innovation isn't necessarily about the technical issues, it's also about other equally important things, which I can only vaguely name as the kind of "vibe" that each composer's unique style has. Even though Brahms was nowhere near like some top-end innovators like, say, Wagner, listen to say a minute of a Brahms work and it definitely sounds like no other composer on the planet.

In short, you just have to take all composers kind of on your own terms. At a time, I was kind of worried about things like innovation, and whether a composer's music "really mattered." The more I have come to explore classical - and non-classical - musics of all types, the more I have realised that it's the "vibe" or unique "it" factor, the "headspace" of these guys that you have to come to terms with, one by one, person to person, it's like a "meeting of the minds." What you bring to the table will be different to me or basically any other listener. The more you worry about specific technical or "hard core" issues you lose sight of the things that matter. You get out of touch with the "big picture" because all you can see is all the "devil in the detail." It's more of a personal philosophical kind of thing than something one can narrow down on the page in words (or musical notation, for that matter).

These are the kinds of ideas that I come to when approaching the music of any composer or work that is new to me. My aim is to have the widest range possible, at least in terms of attitudes and flexibility. It's not a matter of "hard knowledge, the facts" but of things that everyone can become sensitive to, if you learn to kind of pick up each composers (or performers for that matter) unique "vibes." Anyone can do this, from someone who knows very little about music to someone who knows it at a professional level. Classical music isn't about niches, stereotypes or labels, it's about deeper things, one of them is empathy to appreciate the unique vision/s of every composer or musician. "Big words" - yes - but this is not a technical issue as I said, it's much more ephemeral than that...


----------



## Oskaar

It is easy to be very intellectual about Brahms. He is not the entertaining componist, but you have to love him, when you get into him. At least I do. But the performance-artist-conductor makes half the experiance. Start with the chamber works, Then concertos, and then symphonies...My advice


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Consider Brahms as more of a "perfector" rather than an innovator. He didn't make it his goal to be a revolutionary, but instead polish what had been already set down. That, plus his introverted, intellectual approach, made him write music that represented the Romantic style and put it in gold, while not building a completely new thing. Personally, I like that kind of mentality, because I find it sincere.


----------



## superhorn

Brahms was no conservative stick-in-the-mud as a composer. You should read Schoenberg's famous essay "Brahms the progressive" to find this out.
Schoenberg had great admiration for Brahms and admitted that he learned a lot
from his intensive study of his music. 
You can probably find this essay on the internet,so just google it.
Brahms differed from the "progressives" of the 19th century in that he avoided opera
and programmatic music, but was not really all THAT conservative.


----------



## Webernite

I liked the symphonies before the chamber music, so I'm probably not the best person to answer your question. Still, as Aramis says, it might just be that you're listening to the wrong recordings, or that you haven't got good enough speakers/headphones or something like that. These things make a big difference.

I like all the symphonies of Brahms and wish he had written more (he was going to, but changed his mind). The Third and Fourth are probably the best, but I think the last movement of the First is as good as anything in those later two. The movement I find most difficult to like is the first movement of the First, which sounds to me like an earlier work than the rest of the symphony. 

My advice is not to listen to his symphonies the same way you would listen to Beethoven's. Brahms cherry-picked a lot of little fragments from Beethoven, but structurally their symphony movements have very little in common. In my opinion, this is Brahms at his most Wagnerian.


----------



## clavichorder

I actually prefer symphony 1 to three and four, I consider that one his most enjoyable symphony. Its not an uncommon choice actually. I'm not sure which is more accessible, 1 or 4. Basically, I agree with what's been said, he's very dark and stormy and THICK, his music evokes a mood and if you listen to it enough, you will begin to buy it. Sometimes the orchestration is interestingly blended that it takes a very good recording to make it fun for a beginner to listen to. 

Brahms is only the beginning of this "thick" compositional style. Medtner and Elgar(in his symphonies) are even more so. I still don't quite get the Elgar symphonies, though I'm working on it.


----------



## clavichorder

I also want to express that I had similar trouble with Brahms in the start. His music would actually make my throat feel kind of funny listening to it, because it irritated my preconcieved sense of anticipation and the orchestral textures were too challenging. I was honestly surprised when he clicked for me so well.


----------



## Polednice

Of course you're entitled to your own opinion about Brahms! But you'll suffer for it too 

If you're already a fan of Brahms's chamber music, then I'd suggest that you find a decent recording of the symphonies (I'd suggest Haitink with the LSO, but other suggestions on this thread are good too), and then focus on the 2nd and 3rd movements of the 3rd symphony, which are incredibly chamber-like in their character and style. Hopefully, if you use that as a way in, you might gradually come to appreciate them more


----------



## Romantic Geek

clavichorder said:


> I actually prefer symphony 1 to three and four, I consider that one his most enjoyable symphony. Its not an uncommon choice actually. I'm not sure which is more accessible, 1 or 4. Basically, I agree with what's been said, he's very dark and stormy and THICK, his music evokes a mood and if you listen to it enough, you will begin to buy it. Sometimes the orchestration is interestingly blended that it takes a very good recording to make it fun for a beginner to listen to.
> 
> Brahms is only the beginning of this "thick" compositional style. Medtner and Elgar(in his symphonies) are even more so. I still don't quite get the Elgar symphonies, though I'm working on it.


I find Brahms 1 the least accessible of the 4 - although it's right up there with 2. That monster first movement is enough to turn a significant chunk of listeners away. I personally think 3 is the most accessible as I think it has the best movement of any of his symphonies (the 3rd movement).

As far as all of this nonsense that Brahms "wasn't an innovator" - I'll gladly take you up on that challenge. Harmonically, no he wasn't innovative. But there were few composers who could manipulate structures and form as well as Brahms. I second superhorn's comments - read Schoenberg's "Brahms the progressive." If Brahms wasn't innovative - then I'll make the argument that Wagner wasn't either. But it is correct that Brahms was a perfector. Everything in Brahms' music has a purpose. For that reason though, I think some people have trouble listening to it, and that's understandable. I have no qualms of people having trouble listening to it. But the people who have trouble listening to it are the last people to jump to conclusions that Brahms was anything but a great symphonist.

I personally think Brahms' symphonies are the best after Beethoven. I love Mahler. I'm meh on Bruckner - but Brahms' 4 symphonies can compete with all of their symphonies in complexity and innovation to any 19th century symphonist after Beethoven.

As far as how they should rank - I personally like 3 better, but I think 4 is the better symphony. Then 3. Then 1. Then 2. I also wish Brahms wrote more and was less self-conscious about Beethoven's influence on the genre. Brahms was good in his own right, with or without Beethoven.


----------



## clavichorder

The only thing I'd challenge you, Romantic Geek on, is that Brahms Symphony 1 is one of the most epic pieces of music ever written, a powerful work in its own right and not to be thought superior or inferior to the others(except 2), just different and more epic. That first movement is awesome, there isn't anything like it! I don't know if you were referring to me as the one who you'd challenge in Brahms not being an innovator, but I wasn't even a part of that debate just to be clear. I agree that he innovated like mad, he had such a voice. 

But to the original poster, you will have to see that for yourself, and I'm confident you will in time. Just listen to him more. And I'd agree with Romantic Geek that 3 is accessible(and now that I think about it, perhaps 1 is less so), and it is a bottomless pit of subtlety too; start with that one. Work up to the great One or four, depending on what you like. The third movement of 4 is very nice to the new listener, and so is the first movement of 4. The finale to the third is very subdued and dark, that is my second favorite movement after movement 1 of the first. Also, you can't forget his piano concertos. The first D minor concerto is more like Beethoven in orchestration, a very different style and almost a symphonic work itself.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Oh, don't get me wrong clavichorder...I like Brahms 1...I really like it - but you must understand how much I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Brahms 3 and 4


----------



## clavichorder

Romantic Geek said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong clavichorder...I like Brahms 1...I really like it - but you must understand how much I LOOOOOOOOOOOOVE Brahms 3 and 4


Can't argue with love. (If there was a smiley for an overappreciation of my own wit, I'd use it.)


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Aramis said:


> If you're asking about what makes them attractive to us, then my answer would be that they have specific shade of dramaticism, grey, cloudy and heavy, mixed with melancholy - it's very "serious" music, there is no fun in it ...


A good answer. I would only add that the symphonies _appear_ to be very "serious" music. Pretend Brahms was having an emotionally heavy day and pretend he wanted to share something deep with you, and go in there listening with that in mind. That works well I think, as bombastic moments can then be acceptable. John Eliot Gardiner's version is excellent in that the orchestral textures are clearer without excessive vibrato that other versions have.

His chamber music has a much more concise and transparent texture than the big orchestral works.


----------



## Webernite

Re: Whether Brahms was a conservative or a progressive.

It's true that Brahms's music isn't very advanced in terms of chromaticism, but chromaticism is only one aspect of harmony. There's a _lot_ of dissonance in Brahms (probably more than there is in Wagner). This was a man who, having found an instance of parallel fifths in a score by Bach, scribbled "How lovely" in the margin. He liked dissonance and the use of unconventional, even eccentric harmonic progressions and developments, and it shows especially in the piano music from Op. 76 onwards. That, along with all the rhythmic messing that goes on, is what makes his music difficult to follow and why many people don't like it, but it's also his main claim to modernity.

Unlike your average 20th-century composer, though, Brahms deliberately conceals his innovations by making them seem either melancholy or playful in character. The best example of "playful" I can think of is Op. 76 No. 2.


----------



## Polednice

Webernite said:


> Re: Whether Brahms was a conservative or a progressive.
> 
> It's true that Brahms's music isn't very advanced in terms of chromaticism, but chromaticism is only one aspect of harmony. There's a _lot_ of dissonance in Brahms (probably more than there is in Wagner). This was a man who, having found an instance of parallel fifths in a score by Bach, scribbled "How lovely" in the margin. He liked dissonance and the use of unconventional, even eccentric harmonic progressions and developments, and it shows especially in the piano music from Op. 76 onwards. That, along with all the rhythmic messing that goes on, is what makes his music difficult to follow and why many people don't like it, but it's also his main claim to modernity.
> 
> Unlike your average 20th-century composer, though, Brahms deliberately conceals his innovations by making them seem either melancholy or playful in character. The best example of "playful" I can think of is Op. 76 No. 2.


TL;DR: Bach is God


----------



## haydnfan

To the OP you are missing something, his symphonies are some of the finest written. Keep at it! I don't know why so many struggle with his symphonies, it's not Brahms fault though that is for sure. The very first work I heard by Brahms was the third symphony, and it was love at first listen.


----------



## Polednice

:O :O :O :O :O

Thank you Webernite for bringing my awful previous post to my attention! I'll leave that atrocious slip there, but make it clear now that I meant to say Brahms is God. I hate Bach!!!!


----------



## tdc

Polednice said:


> :O :O :O :O :O
> 
> Thank you Webernite for bringing my awful previous post to my attention! I'll leave that atrocious slip there, but make it clear now that I meant to say Brahms is God. I hate Bach!!!!


Ahhh, you should've just quit while you were ahead... the 'freudian slip'
showed your true feelings!


----------



## Webernite

Any way, I'd agree with HarpsichordConcerto that the OP should try John Eliot Gardiner's period-instrument recordings. It's not that those recordings are better, but they give a different view of the works in question.


----------



## Pieck

I agree that the OP is missing something, I think Brahms' symphonies are the best in the 19th century. Actually, Brahms is the one who made me mad about classical music. I started with the Double Concerto (in my first days in CM) and loved it, then the 3rd symph loved it, it's so epic, then chamber music. I went to explore all of his symphs and still like the 3rd the most. I think the 4th is the most accesible one, the first definitely not. I agree that the first mov. of the first is the best in this symph, really a masterpiece. Yada, yada, yada Brahms is the best.


----------



## Art Rock

All four are amongst my favourite symphonies, and I like them far more than any of Beethoven's, except the sixth.


----------



## Pieck

Art Rock said:


> All four are amongst my favourite symphonies, and I like them far more than any of Beethoven's, except the sixth.


for me it's the 5th I enjoy approximately as much as Brahms' symphs.


----------



## Vaneyes

Re symphonies, I think Mahler, Brahms, and Schumann are the only ones who get perfect scores.


----------



## Romantic Geek

If we're talking about dissonance, it's hard to find anyone with more rhythmic dissonance than Brahms pre-20th century.


----------



## Tapkaara

I, too, do not find much enjoyment in Brahms. It's not becasue his symphonies were not meant as entertainment; I can sit through dark, melancholy works as long as there is a connection. I just don't connect with him.

Perhaps if his music were more agressive I could appreciate it. I see him as someone who wanted to be all dark and stormy and grumpy in his music, but stayed pretty genteel about it. while I am not the biggest Mahler fan, at least not anymore, I can admire his "screw it" attitude to write music of great tempest, and make you sit through 70 minutes of it! I feel that Brahms could have written music like this if he wasn't such an old stodge.

I feel the same about Rachmaninov, by the way. It's like he could not make up his mind if he was a dark and heavy Russian or a light and airy composer of elevator music. So he stayed, safely, somewhere in the middle.

I do not think "missing" something in Brhams is indictive of missing a piece of the grand classical music puzzle. We have always been trained that Brahms is one of the three Bs. Is this because he really is the equal of Beethoven and Bach, or is it just a matter of convenience that his last name also begins witha B?


----------



## GraemeG

Brahms isn't heart-on-sleeve (except very rarely). It's all between the lines. I think he writes for the players, myself. It's so fantastic to play. No-one has boring parts in Brahms symphonies.

He has no weaknesses. Everything fits; you take something away, it would demean the whole; add anything and it would be superfluous. His music exudes a mastery that you find with almost no-one else.
GG


----------



## Ukko

Tapkaara said:


> [...]
> We have always been trained that Brahms is one of the three Bs. Is this because he really is the equal of Beethoven and Bach, or is it just a matter of convenience that his last name also begins with a B?


Brahms doesn't need to be 'the equal of Beethoven and Bach', only the _composer-without-parallel_* of his time. Actually he's one of the 5 Bs; Berlioz and Bartók are also on that pedestal.

*whose surname starts with 'B'.


----------



## TxllxT

GraemeG said:


> Brahms isn't heart-on-sleeve (except very rarely). It's all between the lines. I think he writes for the players, myself. It's so fantastic to play. No-one has boring parts in Brahms symphonies.
> 
> He has no weaknesses. Everything fits; you take something away, it would demean the whole; add anything and it would be superfluous. His music exudes a mastery that you find with almost no-one else.
> GG


Actually with Brahms I've got the impression like a beautiful castle with all entrance gates being pulled up; once you're inside (like the players) , it's OK, but from the outside quite well enclosed...


----------



## Webernite

Hilltroll72 said:


> Brahms doesn't need to be 'the equal of Beethoven and Bach', only the _composer-without-parallel_* of his time. Actually he's one of the 5 Bs; Berlioz and Bartók are also on that pedestal.
> 
> *whose surname starts with 'B'.


I dunno. I've come to view Brahms and Wagner as the equals of Beethoven and Mozart.


----------



## Serge

Hilltroll72 said:


> Actually he's one of the 5 Bs; Berlioz and Bartók are also on that pedestal.


Huh? Bruckner???

Or is he a composer from some _parallel_ Universe, not being considered here?


----------



## tdc

Webernite said:


> I dunno. I've come to view Brahms and Wagner as the equals of Beethoven and Mozart.


I could see Wagner being placed as an equal ~maybe~ but that is really comparing apples to oranges. The reason I see Brahms as below Beethoven and Mozart, is he lacked the prolific output of both. He didn't seem to be able to write great compositions from the soul as much as 'thinking up' great compositions (hard to prove this, but that is how his music sounds albeit - well thought out). He lacked the memorable melodies and flowing compositional style of Mozart. His music often feels a little disjointed - The same couldn't be said for Wagner, Beethoven or Mozart.

Brahms music does feel very well thought out and at times incredibly well structured and layered, I would rank him as an important composer, even one of the great composers, but not in the handful of the best of all time. Though his contributions are massive, and in ways he is in a league of his own, he does not display adequate originality, natural ability or foresight to be considered among the best of all time imo.


----------



## Polednice

tdc said:


> I could see Wagner being placed as an equal ~maybe~ but that is really comparing apples to oranges. The reason I see Brahms as below Beethoven and Mozart, is he lacked the prolific output of both. He didn't seem to be able to write great compositions from the soul as much as 'thinking up' great compositions (hard to prove this, but that is how his music sounds albeit - well thought out). He lacked the memorable melodies and flowing compositional style of Mozart. His music often feels a little disjointed - The same couldn't be said for Wagner, Beethoven or Mozart.
> 
> Brahms music does feel very well thought out and at times incredibly well structured and layered, I would rank him as an important composer, even one of the great composers, but not in the handful of the best of all time. Though his contributions are massive, and in ways he is in a league of his own, he does not display adequate originality, natural ability or foresight to be considered among the best of all time imo.


Of course, we're all entitled to perceive music differently, but, unsurprisingly, I completely disagree! 

I certainly believe that Brahms is one of _the_ greats just as much as Beethoven and Mozart, and, to begin with, I think the number of works a composer writes bears little relevance to how great they are. Brahms was a perfectionist, destroying many of his early works; incessantly revising his mature pieces; and spending a great deal of time on his masterpieces. That is why they are so sublime. There are few other composers who have written as much as Mozart, but that doesn't mean they are lesser musicians.

As for the melodies, it is always Brahms's beautifully crafted, heart-warming melodies that I love the most! Just think of his more famous melodies, such as the third movement from the third symphony. And what of the late Klavierstucke - some of the best pieces in the piano repertoire, and that's not just because of their gorgeous themes. But, of course, his stunning melodies simply abound throughout his chamber music (Piano Trios? Cello Sonatas? Clarinet Sonatas? Piano Quintet? It's all there!); his magnificent songs; and still in his grander works such as the piano concertos, symphonies and Deutsches Requiem. Truly, the only greater melodist I can think of is Tchaikovsky.

I could perhaps understand why his music may sound disjointed at first, but I think this is something that vanishes with repeated exposure. His layerings and developments are evidently complex, but that doesn't mean they are not as flowing and intuitive as with Beethoven or Mozart - once you get a feel for his compositional style, everything appears wonderfully natural.

As for his originality, that is an issue on which he always has an unfair reputation, but it has been commented on elsewhere in this thread, so I won't repeat it. Suffice to say that you could not find music like Brahms in any other composer's output, and you can always tell when a piece is by him, so is that not the definition of originality? I think the artistic temperament is exemplified in him as much as it was in the likes of Schumann (minus the suicide!). As such, I think he really is the equal of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. His music is, to me, the closest mankind has ever come to musical perfection - but then I am a melancholy person


----------



## Webernite

Well, I agree with tdc that Brahms's music has its problems. His music lacks what someone once called the "all-through sweep" that you get in Beethoven - the way that the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, for example, carries the listener from beginning to end in a linear way. That's why, for most people, it's easy to get distracted when listening to Brahms. A lot of other criticisms can be made of his music as well. But the thing is, I view Mozart and Beethoven as _also_ having flaws.


----------



## TxllxT

Webernite said:


> Well, I agree with tdc that Brahms's music has its problems. His music lacks what someone once called the "all-through sweep" that you get in Beethoven - *the way that the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, for example, carries the listener from beginning to end in a linear way*. That's why, for most people, it's easy to get distracted when listening to Brahms. A lot of other criticisms can be made of his music as well. I guess it's just that I view Mozart and Beethoven as _also_ having flaws.


Beethoven for me is a complete standstill. Hearing the 5th's beginning or the 3rd's beginning.... I'm waiting for something to begin.................................... still waiting...............


----------



## Webernite

Fair enough, but I suspect you're in a minority. Hence Beethoven's much greater popularity than Brahms.


----------



## TxllxT

I think Brahms' music is hermetic in character; every musical argument is brought to such a conclusion, that it gets somehow too 'conclusive'. The perfectionist eating his own tail (like a snake). I like Brahms, but not for a whole evening.


----------



## haydnfan

Webernite said:


> Well, I agree with tdc that Brahms's music has its problems. His music lacks what someone once called the "all-through sweep" that you get in Beethoven - the way that the first movement of the Fifth Symphony, for example, carries the listener from beginning to end in a linear way. That's why, for most people, it's easy to get distracted when listening to Brahms. A lot of other criticisms can be made of his music as well. But the thing is, I view Mozart and Beethoven as _also_ having flaws.


The "linear" "all-through sweep" is called sonata form, and Brahms uses it too. I'm all for comparing and contrasting composers, but not using made up words to try to objectively justify what is nothing more than subjective preference. By the way, you would have as much trouble following Beethoven in the late string quartets and piano sonatas as you might in a Brahms symphony.

Besides is the ease with which you personally can follow a work have anything to do with the value of the work? Bach's Art of the Fugue just blows my mind with how complex it is. He weaves and inverts themes in this dense polyphonic texture that is quite challenging to listen through. The problem is that you are identifying the homophony of the classical era as some kind of superior property of music, when it is merely an attribute that some great music might or might not have.


----------



## Webernite

haydnfan said:


> The "linear" "all-through sweep" is called sonata form, and Brahms uses it too. I'm all for comparing and contrasting composers, but not using made up words to try to objectively justify what is nothing more than subjective preference.


 I'm not referring to sonata form when I say "all-through sweep." It's a term I borrowed from a music article called "The Meaning of Beethoven," written in 1934. It is a "made up" term, just as "sonata form" is a made up term.



haydnfan said:


> By the way, you would have as much trouble following Beethoven in the late string quartets and piano sonatas as you might in a Brahms symphony.
> 
> Besides is the ease with which you personally can follow a work have anything to do with the value of the work? Bach's Art of the Fugue just blows my mind with how complex it is. He weaves and inverts themes in this dense polyphonic texture that is quite challenging to listen through. The problem is that you are identifying the homophony of the classical era as some kind of superior property of music, when it is merely an attribute that some great music might or might not have.


It's a fact that Beethoven's symphonies have always been much more popular than Brahms's, and I can't think of a better explanation for that than a certain bird's-eye-view sense of structure that Beethoven had and Brahms didn't have. Personally I'd take any one of Brahms's symphonies over all of Beethoven's, but I still feel that Beethoven was better at ordering his ideas in a coherent, linear way. Not everyone shares that feeling, but I think a large majority of people do, although they might not put it in exactly those words. I agree with you that great music isn't always linear and easy to follow, but Beethoven's sense of linear structure was probably his greatest skill and he has to be given some credit for it when we judge his works.


----------



## clavichorder

Webernite said:


> It's a fact that Beethoven's symphonies have always been much more popular than Brahms's, and I can't think of a better explanation for that than a certain *bird's-eye-view* sense of structure that Beethoven had and Brahms didn't have. Personally I'd take any of Brahms's symphonies over all of Beethoven's, but I still feel that Beethoven was better at ordering his ideas in a coherent, linear way. Not everyone shares that feeling, but I think a large majority of people do, although they might not use exactly my words. I agree with you that great music isn't always linear and easy to follow, but Beethoven's sense of linear structure was probably his greatest skill and he has to be given some credit for it when we judge his works.


Interesting stuff. I like the birds eye view analogy, I can relate to that.


----------



## pjang23

I consider Brahms as the Bach of his time (and Wagner as the Beethoven). My favorite symphony cycle hands down.

Symphony No.1 is a pretty difficult place to start because the first movement lacks melody (although the glorious second movement is dripping in melody) and I agree that the inner movements of the Symphony No.3 much better places to start.

I also found that Symphony No.2 sounds very beautiful as a piano duet, and listening to the arrangement really cleared the fog and helped my understanding of the piece. I didn't really like Symphony No.2 until I heard it played by Matthies and Kohn.


----------



## violadude

pjang23 said:


> I consider Brahms as the Bach of his time (and Wagner as the Beethoven). My favorite symphony cycle hands down.
> 
> Symphony No.1 is a pretty difficult place to start because the first movement lacks melody (although the glorious second movement is dripping in melody) and I agree that the inner movements of the Symphony No.3 much better places to start.
> 
> I also found that Symphony No.2 sounds very beautiful as a piano duet, and listening to the arrangement really cleared the fog and helped my understanding of the piece. I didn't really like Symphony No.2 until I heard it played by Matthies and Kohn.


It's funny you say that about the first movement of the first symphony pjang because that's actually one of the few movements of the Brahms Symphonies that I DO really like.


----------



## Aramis

One of my favourite moments is 4th is "gathering of the winds" after last thematic enterance of trombone in last movement, it sounds like cold, stormy winds would gather around the protagonist of this symphony shattering his hair around his martial brow, check it in this video at 9:20-9:30:


----------



## Ukko

Aramis said:


> [...] shattering his hair around his martial brow [...]


Great phrase, though highly unlikely.

I recently gave away (to an admiring fan) a tee shirt harboring the message:

I started with *nothing* and still have most of it.

That also conveys a message while being essentially meaningless.


----------



## anshuman

I guess that people who have a problem appreciating Brahms can try some of his shorter symphonic pieces like the two overtures and the serenade.


----------



## Laudemont

Hilltroll72 said:


> Brahms doesn't need to be 'the equal of Beethoven and Bach', only the _composer-without-parallel_* of his time. Actually he's one of the 5 Bs; Berlioz and Bartók are also on that pedestal.
> 
> *whose surname starts with 'B'.


Franz Berwald? Georges Bizet? Anton Bruckner? Arnold Bax? Havergal Brian? to name a few more.


----------



## Bobotox

I used to like Brahms a lot when i first started listening to classical. Suddenly I found the music of his unsung contemporaries and they are FAR better than anything Brahms wrote. Like Raff for example and many, many others.


----------



## Webernite

Yeah... I've always found the idea that Raff is better than Brahms slightly comical.


----------



## Polednice

Bobotox said:


> I used to like Brahms a lot when i first started listening to classical. Suddenly I found the music of his unsung contemporaries and they are FAR better than anything Brahms wrote. Like Raff for example and many, many others.


Damn, I really need to get to know this music seeing as Brahms only wrote the greatest music ever written! Always fashionable to bash the (worthy) giants


----------



## Bobotox

I can name two others whose music is better. Listen to Gernsheim's 2nd symphony and the symphonic masterpiece that it is Lachner's 5th.


----------



## Polednice

Bobotox said:


> I can name two others whose music is better. Listen to Gernsheim's 2nd symphony and the symphonic masterpiece that it is Lachner's 5th.


Yeah, don't forget to listen to all my music too. I'm definitely better than Brahms.


----------



## Bobotox

Have you actually listened to them? If you have you would not be joking around. I uploaded them a while back. Listen for yourself.





 Lachner's 5th




 Gernsheim's 2nd


----------



## Polednice

Bobotox said:


> Have you actually listened to them? If you have you would not be joking around. I uploaded them a while back. Listen for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lachner's 5th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gernsheim's 2nd


I need to sleep soon, so I'll listen to these more when I get the chance. On first hearing though, I suppose it just depends what you're looking for in music - the Lachner doesn't have any of the tremendous monumentalism (or alternative lyricism) of Brahms's music, and sounded even more conservative in style to my untrained ears.


----------



## Webernite

Bobotox said:


> Have you actually listened to them? If you have you would not be joking around. I uploaded them a while back. Listen for yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lachner's 5th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gernsheim's 2nd


Sometimes I wonder about people's aesthetic standards...

There was certainly mutual influence between Brahms and Gernsheim, and Gernsheim's more worthy of comparison to Brahms than Lachner is, but even so, both of these composers produced symphonies that are similar in _character_ to Brahms's without having any of the musical sophistication to back it up. Nobody's going to write _Lachner the Progressive_ or study the influence of Renaissance polyphony on Gernsheim's counterpoint. Most of their music is firmly stuck in the 19th-century, and people seem to have realized that even then. I think you just dislike Brahms's heavy orchestration - and there's nothing wrong with that, but why you'd rather listen to Lachner than to Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, etc. is beyond me.


----------



## Laudemont

I listened to Bobotox's two uploads - Lachner and Hernsheim -- with interest. My reaction? These composers are both entirely competent, writing listenable music with an occasional touch of special interest. But, frankly, neither of these excerpts suggested the intellectual and emotional depth of Brahms' music, nor is their musical idiom distinctive and easily identified. Perhaps that is why they, and scores (pun intended) of their nineteenth century contemporaries, have been forgotten while Brahms has endured. When you hear Brahms you know it's Brahms -- the same for Bruckner, Schubert, Haydn, Bach or most other well-known composers. I understand that occasionally one turns up a composer with a distinctive, recognizable sound (two of my favorite examples are Alberic Magnard and Franz Schmidt). But I didn't react that way to Lachner and Hernsheim, nor do I respond that way to Raff, Rubinstein or others in that host of romantic-period composers whose works are coming to light through recordings.


----------



## Webernite

To be fair, it's never a good idea to judge music on just one recording, and sometimes large modern orchestras can make 19th-century works sound worse than they actually are (as happens with the Schumann symphonies). But you can tell pretty early on that Gernsheim's 2nd isn't suddenly going to turn into improved version of Brahms's E minor half way through. Still, Gernsheim's 1st is a worth a listen, if only to hear where Brahms (maybe) got the idea of using the Fate Motif in his own first symphony.


----------



## Guest

Brahms' symphonies are absolutely to-die-for!! These are my 'desert island discs'.


----------



## GKC

violadude said:


> I really like his chamber music but there's something about his symphonies that just kind of bore me.


I love his chamber music (he is one of my favorite composers because of it) and am lukewarm about symphonies 1 thru 3. But no. 4; man, that's on an altogether higher plane than the 1st three. I think you could learn to love it. What recording(s) do you have?

GKC


----------



## Guest

My 4th is Carlos Kleiber and the Vienna Philharmonic, the first three are by von Karajan and the Berlin Philharmonic. It just worked out that way, but I normally wouldn't buy symphonic works performed by the same orchestra. The Kleiber is a fabulous performance, but the sound quality (early digital) is harsh and dry and leaves a lot to be desired. But the playing is incandescent! I've been to the Musikverein recently and the VPO hasn't played with that kind of 'electricity' (for me) since that symphony. There would be a new generation of musicians, mostly, in the ranks since then anyway. But it goes to show the impact a great conductor will have upon players in an orchestra! I think of Rattle and the BPO, who are just sensational.


----------



## Guest

Brahms' symphonies didn't initially connect with me the way his other works did - I love his violin concerto, violin sonatas, cello sonatas, double concerto, piano trios, string quartets, piano quartets . . . really, most of his chamber music. For some reason, though, the piano concertos and symphonies have been a bit rougher going. I started with the Klemperer recordings on EMI of the symphonies, and while I generally love Klemperer, there was no connection like I had with, say, Beethoven, or Schubert, or Tchaikovsky, or Bruckner, or Mahler, or Dvorak. But I recently bought Gardiner's cycle, and have to say that, while these recordings may not get the high praise that others do, their fresh approach has drawn me in a bit more, and I am starting to appreciate Brahms ever more for his symphonies.

I also recently bought the Serenades recorded by Beecham, and love them.

Brahms is definitely more intense, and takes more out of you to hear - like Mahler - but I don't think it is an exaggeration to place him up higher than many of his contemporaries. Time is the great judge of merit - while there will always be other composers that may be unfairly overlooked, those that truly have merit tend to rightfully stand out. Brahms is one of those.


----------



## GKC

@ *CountenanceAngaise*

That's the recording I learned the 4th from, except I got it on LP when it first came out (early 1980's?), and then got it on CD. It sounded warmer on LP. A beautiful performance (in beautiful sound) is the one on Harmonia Mundi label, Kent Nagano conducting the Deutches Symphonie Orchester, Berlin. I have several recordings of the 4th, and this one is the most gorgeous by far. I love it as an alternative to the intense Kleiber.

If you've been to the Musikveriensaal, you're a lucky (glucklich?) man indeed.

GKC


----------



## Polednice

I don't know if I've done my usual peddling on this thread, but in case not, then Kleiber is indeed perfect for the 4th, but otherwise I always turn to Haitink/LSO. Get it. NOW.


----------



## Guest

I am a female, and I am lucky to have been to the Musikvereinsaal - the harder I work, the luckier I get too. I have until Christmas before we return to Australia so I have lots more concerts to attend and have already bought my ticket to see Helene Grimaud at the Wienerkonzerthaus in September. I have enjoyed these comments about the Brahms. Keep them coming. Yesterday on the high speed train in Switzerland I listened more closely to the Stephen Kovacevich late Brahms piano pieces I have complained about. I keep waiting for the orchestra to join with these pieces and cannot separate them from the Concertos. The sound of the piano is always BIG, and Brahms' piano is always showing its teeth, as it were. But I enjoyed the pieces better this time round. There's hope.....


----------



## CostaSimpson

Celibidache conducting Brahms' is a spiritual experience. With his notably slower tempos he brings an element which so many conductors fail to read.


----------



## GoneBaroque

I agree with CountenanceAnglaise about the Kleiber recording. My first exposure to the Brahms symphonies was through a boxed seet of lps with Von Karajan and the Berlin. The set I now have is the Mackerras with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra. Sir Charles was a marvelous conductor and the smaller orchestra seem to ring out details which are often masked. But Rattles with Berlin is on my want list as well.


----------



## Polednice

Btw, folks, although I'm not sure if there's an official release of it on a CD, there is a similarly amazing rendition of Kleiber conducting the 2nd symphony on film. You can see it in high definition on yewtewb.


----------



## brianwalker

The finale of Brahms 2nd is probably my second favorite symphonic movement after the 2nd movement of the Eroica with the finale of Mahler 6 a close third. My record of choice is Kubelik with the BSO. I was rudely surprised by the dismal performance of the 2nd in the Brahms symphony poll and regretted my premature vote for the Third.

My preferences place him as the second greatest symphonies without question, and this is coming from someone who owns Mahler cycles in the double digits and old, mono Bruckner records from the 40s. The music is unbelievably rich, there's just so much in there, which makes it easy for many conductors to gloss over, as even half the music is even to sustain a performance.

The finale of the 2nd is such a perfect work that is at the same time exuberant, wild, fantastic, synthesizing two qualities--perfection and exuberance, that unpredictable excitement--that rarely go together. Brahms lets his hair down but at once the hair magically straightens itself.


----------

