# Why don't I like Brahms (very much)?



## TurnaboutVox

Prompted by an interesting discussion on another thread, I'd like to explore a little my problem with the music of Johannes Brahms. It's clearly not him - there are too many people who love his music for that to be a possibility - so it must be me, and I accept that it is. Violadude, amongst others, has tried in the past to point me at pieces I might like, to little avail, really.

Amongst the most interesting ideas I've come across about this problem is Ukko's one of loops and hooks and mind-music:



Ukko said:


> ...I treat all nonvocal music 'effectually' i.e. it's all a matter of what it does in my head. Most classical music has length-with-links. The links are dependent on the effect of the music that precedes them. If the link is a hook, and it is preceded by a loop, no problem. If it's a hook the connection is chancy. If the link is a loop and the music preceding it is also a loop, there is no connection, and the music has a hiccup.
> 
> These hooks and loops are not present in the score, or even in the performance; they are in the 'mind music'. The listener has a partially volitionless influence in creating the mind music.
> 
> So, to sum up, If you "don't like [Composer X]", it's because you are messing up the mind music.
> 
> ...Music _may_ be considered to have three... modes of existence; on the paper, in the air, and in the mind. In a way, the mind has to translate the music as it receives it. Those hooks & loops are part of the job. If the mind can't get them done, you won't like [Composer X].


So the Brahms I hear isn't being satisfactorily linked to my mind music, and that rings a bell because I very rarely have anything Brahmsian as my internal "music stream" (I have one almost constantly, and it is usually heavily influenced by what I've been listening to over the past day or two).

I _*do*_ like some of Brahms' predecessors, contemporaries and successors very much - much of Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Alkan, Bruckner, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Grieg, Fauré, Mahler, Wolf, Debussy, Delius and Richard Strauss, and also early works by composers who started out in a post-Brahmsian idiom but went elsewhere (Schoenberg, Webern and Bridge to name but three).

However, I find it very hard to appreciate Brahms himself. I have been trying with the three string quartets for 30+ years and I do kind of like them now, but I still find them to be "curates' eggs" - awkward, sometimes infelicitous and good only in parts.

Let me tell you what Brahms I've heard so far (the string quartets, piano quintet and the late solo piano works are pretty familiar to me, the others less so):



> Op. 90, Symphony No. 3 in F major
> Op. 98, Symphony No. 4 in E minor
> Op. 15, Piano Concerto No. 1 in D minor
> Op. 77, Violin Concerto in D major
> Op. 83, Piano Concerto No. 2 in B-flat major
> Op. 102, Double Concerto in A minor
> Op. 82, Nänie, for mixed chorus and orchestra
> Op. 78, Violin Sonata No. 1 in G major
> Op. 100, Violin Sonata No. 2 in A major
> Op. 108, Violin Sonata No. 3 in D minor
> Op. 8, Piano Trio No. 1 in B major
> Op. 87, Piano Trio No. 2 in C major
> Op. 101, Piano Trio No. 3 in C minor
> Op. 51/1, String Quartet No. 1 in C minor
> Op. 51/2, String Quartet No. 2 in A minor
> Op. 67, String Quartet No. 3 in B-flat major
> Op. 34, Piano Quintet in F minor
> Op. 24, Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel
> Op. 35, Variations on a Theme of Paganini
> Op. 76, Eight Pieces
> Op. 79, Two Rhapsodies
> Op. 116, Seven Fantasias
> Op. 117, Three Intermezzi
> Op. 118, Six Pieces
> Op. 119, Four Pieces
> Op. 121, Vier ernste Gesänge (Four Serious Songs)


and (tonight as I sit composing this):
Op. 120/1, Clarinet Sonata No. 1 in F minor
Op. 120/2, Clarinet Sonata No. 2 in E-flat major
Op. 114, Clarinet Trio in A minor

So, come on everyone, your thoughts about my Brahms-phobia, or Brahms-indifference? Anything and everything considered.


----------



## Guest

This won't help....but you said everyone....

Would you care to try remorseless repetition? For me, although I can take or leave the piano stuff I've got (15, 83 and 116) I have come to love his symphonies. They're up there with Sibelius, wherever that is. They crept up on me, it wasn't love at first sight. The repetition ground me down!


----------



## Xenakiboy

I can't say he is a composer I'm familiar with but I fell in love with his third symphony a while ago and his piano Sonatas/Rhapsodies etc are very good. One of my go-to for moody, lyrical, expressive, 'tonal' music alongside Mendelssohn and Chopin!


----------



## TurnaboutVox

dogen said:


> Would you care to try remorseless repetition?


No, well, that's not so far from my own thinking about what it might take. However, see above for the Op. 51 and Op. 67 quartets. I can whistle good parts of them.

I do actually like some of the piano pieces from Op 116 - 119 rather a lot, which is why I don't just give up on Johannes B. I have a recording of Stephen Kovacevich playing them, which is rather poetic and does not dwell on the 'sentiment' I find clogs up so much of Brahms. Likewise for my rather 'robust' Quartetto Italiano interpretations / recordings of the quartets, I think.

Yes, I do mean everyone, and please have a go at my cultural philistinism if you think that's what I deserve.


----------



## EdwardBast

Try the Piano Quartet in C minor Op. 60. Brahms didn't like it much so you probably will.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

EdwardBast said:


> Try the Piano Quartet in C minor Op. 60. Brahms didn't like it much so you probably will.


Thank you, EdwardBast, I will. But I'm not just trying to find atypical Brahms works that I like because they're atypical of his oeuvre, I'm also curious to think about why I haven't found him at all easy to like. I caught myself off guard earlier in realising that I didn't enjoy his perceived sentimentality and harmonic 'sweetness', for instance.

But why I like Mozart and Schubert and Fauré but not Brahms is a bit of a mystery to me.


----------



## D Smith

I didn't see the Clarinet Quintet in B minor Op. 115 on your list which, for me, is one of the most sublime pieces of music ever written (but your mileage may vary .


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

ElmartThimpilc said:


> Brahms a terrible composer devoid of any sense of transparency or colour* whatsoever who in his most serious works suffered from compositional incontinence** and comes to the fore because of the general lack of genuine polyphony or form in the music of his era. He was a staunch conservative due to his limited imagination justified with an obstinate conception of tradition and perhaps because he realised his music being so saturated would become incomprehensible and sound even more awful had he gone fully chromatic which due to * he could only do by copying Chopin.
> 
> * the appearance of such being fortuitous events
> **wanted to do everything at the same time


. .


----------



## Weston

I don't care as much for Brahms' solo piano music. It strikes me as too thick in the left hand or lower notes, therefor a bit murky, but he really shines in the chamber music. Have you tried chamber works other than the string quartets? The three piano quartets and the piano quintet are pretty phenomenal and the first string sextet moves almost everyone to tears (rumor would have it).

It's not so much his motifs, phrases or expressions, but the marvelous chord structures. The pieces seem to go harmonically exactly where they should, but not necessarily where you would expect -- if that makes any sense. Also he has those signature polyrhythms, usually two against three or whatever, that can be fun to pick out when they occur.


----------



## clavichorder

I went through an ambivalent phase with Brahms.(now one of my all time favorites, I listen to him more than most) As a kid I knew of him as the composer of the Hungarian Dances(orchestral versions), which were among my favorite things to listen to. When I learned he wrote symphonies and picked the 4th as the first one to listen to, I heard things I liked, and other passages that sounded stuffy. That initial impression of the 1st movement of the 4th has not entirely worn off, and I actually felt something similar about Schumann's Rhenish Symphony, the 1st one I knew of him. I kind of liked the 3rd movement. The 3rd movement is now my least favorite movement, and I am thrilled by the finale and deeply moved by the 2nd movement, and when more patient, really stirred by the 1st. The 1st, the 3rd, the 2nd, Violin Concerto, and Piano Concerto 2 I enjoy entirely without any reservation now. I know the 4th is probably just as great(greater in the popular estimation), and I suspect my impression may even out one day. That was maybe a digression...

Anyway, that 1st movement of the 4th used to feel too cerebral to me. When I was a teen I went through a period where I could not stop thinking, and one of my symptoms was a tightening in my throat that didn't let up, and affected my speech. This is the feeling that the 4th gave me despite positive qualities I was perceiving around that. Bach Brandenburg Concertos used to do this to me too, particularly number 1. Nielsen Symphony 4 did as well. It was a feeling I describe as 'choked.' 

Also I was unimpressed with the late 118 intermezzo. And curiously I came to love the op 10 ballades for solo piano because they felt the most 'Brahmsian' to me of all, and produced the greatest 'choked' sensation, so I had to figure out why. The fact that the playing of Emil Gilels was able to cause the music to breath more to my ears, made me realize that these are fascinatingly tough nuts to crack. And now I can hear mediocre performances of Brahms works, but I know what he's about so I still enjoy them. But yes, there is a way to perform the pieces of composers like this, so that they breathe. I heard a recording of Schumann's Rhenish that opened my mind to how a properly paced version could hit you immediately. 

Eventually I got over it. It's partly based on a set of expectations that comes from phrase lengths of other music. But curiously, south europeans including the French, were very dismissive of Brahms well into the 20th century. Maybe still are.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Originally Posted by *ElmartThimpilc*
> Brahms a terrible composer devoid of any sense of transparency or colour* whatsoever who in his most serious works suffered from compositional incontinence** and comes to the fore because of the general lack of genuine polyphony or form in the music of his era. He was a staunch conservative due to his limited imagination justified with an obstinate conception of tradition and perhaps because he realised his music being so saturated would become incomprehensible and sound even more awful had he gone fully chromatic which due to * he could only do by copying Chopin.
> 
> * the appearance of such being fortuitous events
> **wanted to do everything at the same time


Er, thank-you, Richannes and your friend, I think...


----------



## clavichorder

So here is the Brahmsiest of Brahms for you, played by my favorite pianist of all time. 





If you play piano yourself, or like to watch pianists, watching Gilels in action may help. If you even like that, you might find yourself getting to know the pieces in an emotional way, and it could become a part of your 'mental music'(copyright of Ukko).

This one is probably the weirdest of the set:


----------



## clavichorder

TurnaboutVox said:


> Er, thank-you, Richannes and your friend, I think...


He's always showing us the light with these enigmatic masterpieces from unseen posters.


----------



## Biwa

This might sound silly (and perhaps you've already done this), but try listening to his music live. Seeing and hearing a piece performed live can help open you up to a piece of music.

I like pretty much everything he wrote. It all started when I was a kid with his Hungarian dances, which I still find delightful. The 4th Symphony and Haydn variations are favorite symphonic works. The 2nd piano & violin concerto are wonderful. His chamber works are incredible: string quartets & quintets, violin sonatas, piano trios, of course the clarinet pieces. And can't forget his late piano pieces and vocal works. Geez! What's not to like!? 

I'm just listening to the opening movement of his string quintet no.2 in G major.






I hope you find the key to unlocking the door to this wonderful world. :tiphat:


----------



## Bridge

Brahms is a monster when it comes to writing variations. One might even say with some humor that they are invariably masterful. I am especially fond of his Paganini Variations, which are in my opinion one of the most impressive sets of variations ever composed.






Otherwise, I think the same people who dislike Brahms are the ones who dislike Haydn and maybe the entirety of Renaissance music and much of contemporary music. This type of music really isn't about what is immediately obvious on the surface, although I would argue that that is not the case with any music. It's tempting to claim that music is beautiful because of such and such characteristics but the truth is (and I am not one to shove my opinion down people's throats, it is an observation which I have come to hold as fact) that beauty lies in the form - form here does not only mean macroform such as the separation of a work into smaller entities or the separation of smaller entities into even smaller ones, but all aspects of form. It is exactly like developing a fondness for people. One could hardly defend the opinion that beautiful people are the most interesting by default and that a person is boring because they are not beautiful (if you do, I question your judgement). Substance makes the ugly beautiful and lack of substance makes the beautiful ugly. Practically speaking it is not that simple, you need to have music with a solid architecture and appealing surface to have "great music" (depending on your definition of appealing surface and great music). But whatever the case, without substance you have something soft on the eyes that you will sooner or later lose interest in.

The "problem" then with Brahms and Haydn is that they write boring masterpieces. I say that with reservation, because I do not find their music boring, it's just that the excitement comes from the process the music goes through rather than immediate infatuation with the surface elements (that being said, there is no music without surface either and both composers write with much imagination and color when it comes to expressing the inner structure). Haydn especially uses some really lousy material at times, but without fault he manages to _make_ it riveting. It's quite a remarkable effect, how he can shine a particular light on "bad" themes and on future listenings make you admire them for their quirkiness rather than wish he had spent more time deciding on a theme.

Anyway, this is what goes on in my mind. I have a great admiration for Brahms as he writes excellent music. Check out the symphonies, piano and clarinet quintets, clarinet trio, his works for female choir (including the very impressive set of canons), horn trio and of course all his variations. I actually don't like the Deutsches Requiem that much, mainly because I think the final fugue is pathetic. I unfortunately haven't yet heard some of his most seminal works.


----------



## dieter

I've come to understand that one's appreciation of a composer - or writer, or wine, or food e.g.oysters - is a very personal and in the end an inexplicable phenomenon.
A music critic in Melbourne during the latter part of the 20th century - Ken Hince - hated every note of Brahms and the hatred infected his review of every performance he attended. His shtick was Prokofiev, why not play Prokofiev, he'd write, endlessly, ad nauseam.
A close friend who is as obsessive about music as I am can't stand a note of Bruckner. He loves Schoenberg, he loves Schoenberg so much he was invited to give a lecture at a Schoenberg conference in Canada not that long ago. He has a photo of himself and Schoenberg's children.
I hate Schoenberg's music. Some of it makes my skin crawl. I love Bruckner as much as he loves Schoenberg.
I don't like Mendelssohn either. And you know what, I've given up worrying about it. As Iggy Popp once said, You've got to deal with the real, and if Brahms isn't your cup of tea, don't worry about it, enjoy the music you love.


----------



## Weston

Violadude has done a wonderful analysis of one of Brahms short piano pieces on YouTube, a ballade I think. The analysis goes on about ten times longer than the actual piece because the work is *so* dense. Every motif, every phrase has a logical connection to the rest of the piece, fitting together M. C. Escher fashion, an amazing eye opener. If I could only find it again . . . . :-/


----------



## mmsbls

My wife and I absolutely adore Brahms, but we don't love everything he wrote. Just today she told me of all Brahms' works the string quartets don't really grab her. For me his late piano works are less enjoyable than most other works. You included those in your well known works of his. I'm not suggesting that listening to the other works will cure your Brahms' woes since we do both love the piano quintet. 

Others on TC have indicated they have no love for Brahms. It's always a mystery why people like some composers much more than others especially if they enjoy similar composers. Even if you could figure out exactly why you don't enjoy Brahms, it's not clear that knowledge would enable you to do much about it. For me, repeated listening is the only way I've been able to enjoy music I previously had not. 

One interesting feature of TC members' reactions to Brahms is that some believe his chamber music clearly was his best while others feel his orchestral work is phenomenal. And, of course, there are those like myself who feel almost everything he wrote was sublime. 

Maybe someone here can suggest something that can awaken a love for Brahms in you, but if you've heard enough of his music and still have no real connection, perhaps it's not meant to be.


----------



## Ukko

I don't enjoy some of Brahms' music hardly at all, but I do like some of it 'very much'. I'm guessing that Sym#4 is pretty easy to like, if you like Beethoven and/or Berlioz symphonic music. If you like late Liszt piano, there is an attitudinal connection with late Brahms, though it isn't direct. In Brahms it isn't all the way dark, there is a candle in an adjoining room, and the door is open. You can't go in there, but you can move near the doorway.

Those hooks and loops are down in the mind a ways; words can't get there to help much. Good luck with it, friend.


----------



## isorhythm

Ukko said:


> Those hooks and loops are down in the mind a ways; words can't get there to help much. Good luck with it, friend.


Can you explain what you mean by hooks and loops, specifically? Maybe you did somewhere and I missed it - I did read your post about hooks and loops in the Beethoven thread. I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.


----------



## senza sordino

I really like Brahms. 

Though I think his four concerti are more interesting than his four symphonies. I prefer his string quintets and sextets to his string quartets. The clarinet quintet, as mentioned previously is sublime, I heard it live last summer. Sublime. The piano quintet in Fm is terrific. I'm not really into choral music, but I like his German Requiem. It's a Protestant Requiem, without all the hell and fire some other composers wrote. 

I'm far from an expert here, but Brahms seems to write music without anything innovative in form, nothing innovative in orchestration. Still, I think he wrote nice music to listen to. Nice is well.............nice :  the music of Brahms is comfortable and not way out there. As I see and hear it.


----------



## Triplets

I think Brahms was a great Composer, but there are quite a few works of his that I can live without. The ones that I like are essential.
As for the OP, if you like his late Piano works I would investigate his Clarinet works. And do none of his Symphonies strike a cord with you?


----------



## Bruckner Anton

Perhaps the problem is his music, especially chamber music, is relatively complex and obscure. The material he introduced in the early section of a piece can transform constantly and sometimes can be hardly recognized. So listeners may get lost if they fail to find out the coherence or the ideas. Also, themes or melodies in his music may not be as memorable as those by Mozart or Tchaikovsky etc.


----------



## Ukko

isorhythm said:


> Can you explain what you mean by hooks and loops, specifically? Maybe you did somewhere and I missed it - I did read your post about hooks and loops in the Beethoven thread. I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.


I don't know whether to be happy or alarmed by your interest, I do know that I can't get into it now, it's nearing midnight and I need to sleep. If you PM me, I'll give it a go tomorrow. I hope you realize that the chances are really, really good that I'm just trying to express something in pidgin that educated folks are well aware of.


----------



## Pugg

Biwa said:


> This might sound silly (and perhaps you've already done this), but try listening to his music live. Seeing and hearing a piece performed live can help open you up to a piece of music.
> 
> I like pretty much everything he wrote. It all started when I was a kid with his Hungarian dances, which I still find delightful. The 4th Symphony and Haydn variations are favorite symphonic works. The 2nd piano & violin concerto are wonderful. His chamber works are incredible: string quartets & quintets, violin sonatas, piano trios, of course the clarinet pieces. And can't forget his late piano pieces and vocal works. Geez! What's not to like!?
> 
> I'm just listening to the opening movement of his string quintet no.2 in G major.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you find the key to unlocking the door to this wonderful world. :tiphat:


Amen to this :tiphat:


----------



## Art Rock

Why does anyone have to like anything? If you have given a famous composer (or famous composition) a good try over some time, and fail to like the music, just accept and move on. Plenty of other things to listen to.

That said, my personal preference within Brahms' oeuvre is his chamber music - with the string quartets ranked firmly at the bottom. You might want to try the clarinet quintet, string quintets and string sextets. I'd go as far as saying that the clarinet quintet is a piece everyone should at least have heard, even if in the end you decide it's not for you.


----------



## MarkW

Well first, you don't _have _to like any composer -- although to be fair, there is a general consensus that of his chamber music for strings, the quartets are least satisfactory. Try the sextets if you must. In general, although extremely well worked out, his music -- like his personality -- tends to be closed, serious, intellectual, his humor unexpected but guarded, his form rock solid, rhythmically imaginative (try finding the bar line), and more harmonically striking than he's given credit for (listen to a piano reduction of the Fourth Symphony). The Second Piano Concert is a bear, for instance, but extraordinarily frustrating for pianists because its very real difficulties are neither particularly audible nor visible -- it's not an audience wow piece. For a composer who was excellent at what he did, he was not a particularly happy man. And he never repeated himself. I like what I like of his (symphonies. concerti, sextets, piano quartets, horn trio, sometimes the serenades) and don't to what doesn't speak to me, and we leave the relationship to that.


----------



## bz3

I like all of his works, and I've heard nearly all of it. So I don't know how valuable my opinion would be to someone who likes none of what they've heard - he's just a guy that I was immediately drawn to. I see some people who like the chamber music primarily, some the late piano works only and then some the early ones only, some the concertos but not symphonies and some like none of the orchestral works. It's hard to know what to make of this except to say that Brahms was a very diverse composer (I think). While he has an unmistakable sound to all his music, much of it is quite different from the rest - even if one can hear Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, and Bach influences quite clearly in places.

Some of my favorites are the 3rd and 4th symphonies, the violin concerto, the 2nd piano concerto, the 2nd string sextet, the 2nd string quintet, the 3rd piano quartet, the clarinet and piano quintets, the German Requiem, op 118 and 119 piano works, and all of the cello and violin sonatas. Nearly all of these I consider the among the very best in their genres.

However it was the 1st piano concerto, the 1st symphony, and the 1st piano trio that drew me into Brahms's world. These are the works I generally push onto my friends after they have made me listen to 20 minutes of indie rock or (heaven forbid) hip hop. I think they're all very accessible and of the utmost quality.


----------



## violadude

Weston said:


> Violadude has done a wonderful analysis of one of Brahms short piano pieces on YouTube, a ballade I think. The analysis goes on about ten times longer than the actual piece because the work is *so* dense. Every motif, every phrase has a logical connection to the rest of the piece, fitting together M. C. Escher fashion, an amazing eye opener. If I could only find it again . . . . :-/


Oh, well here you go:






(Yes, those are fake glasses. My eyesight isn't bad enough to wear glasses but I love the look).

I also posted about the second and third movement of that piece in a podcast format:

http://violadude.podbean.com/

I really should get back to doing stuff like this again. Sometimes I just don't have the confidence in myself to talk about music in a way that really does it justice...

Also, my recording equipment sucks, as you can see/hear.

Ya know, the funny thing is, I wasn't all that into Brahms until I made those videos. The analysis of the Opus 76 piano works was a recommendation by our dearly departed (banned, not dead) Polednice, whose favorite composer was Brahms. It was studying these pieces in preparation for the analysis that made me a huge Brahms fan, or at least started me on that path.


----------



## ArtMusic

Brahms is also one of my least favorite great Romantic composers. I find he over-wrought many of his large scale orchestral works (symphonies and concertos). He was a perfectionist rather than letting the music flow naturally. Critically, the interpretation also matters. Recordings like Gardiner's symphonies make a big difference, the symphonies sounded more light.


----------



## violadude

violadude said:


> Oh, well here you go:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Yes, those are fake glasses. My eyesight isn't bad enough to wear glasses but I love the look).
> 
> I also posted about the second and third movement of that piece in a podcast format:
> 
> http://violadude.podbean.com/
> 
> I really should get back to doing stuff like this again. Sometimes I just don't have the confidence in myself to talk about music in a way that really does it justice...
> 
> Also, my recording equipment sucks, as you can see/hear.
> 
> Ya know, the funny thing is, I wasn't all that into Brahms until I made those videos. The analysis of the Opus 76 piano works was a recommendation by our dearly departed (banned, not dead) Polednice, whose favorite composer was Brahms. It was studying these pieces in preparation for the analysis that made me a huge Brahms fan, or at least started me on that path.


Ug...I'm listening back to these...Please excuse my stuttering redundancy >.<


----------



## Nereffid

clavichorder said:


> It's partly based on a set of expectations that comes from phrase lengths of other music.


That's the best way of explaining my own lack of enthusiasm for Brahms without resorting to subjective negativity. Some time ago I too was curious as to why I couldn't get into Brahms (despite really liking some of his pieces), and after listening to certain pieces many times I realised it was simply a case of the music not doing what I hoped it would. So, like ArtMusic, I feel like the music doesn't "flow naturally" - but of course this is merely a description of how it seems to me, and not a description of the music.
And it's worth noting that even after all that repetition _and_ an understanding of what the problem was, I haven't increased my enthusiasm.

From Peter Gammond's _Bluffer's Guide to Classical Music_:


> Brahms is a fellow you cannot help liking even if some of his music seems unutterably cluttered... He would have liked to have written symphonies like Beethoven's, but whenever he set out to do so he inevitably got confused and the works got very long and involved and he lost count of the number of instruments he was writing for.


----------



## clavichorder

To me, there is usually another budding layer behind the more abrupt and foremost melodic line, that counterbalances it. He's thick.


----------



## Weston

violadude said:


> Ug...I'm listening back to these...Please excuse my stuttering redundancy >.<


None of that matters when the content is this interesting. Thanks for the other links too. I'll check them out when I get home.



clavichorder said:


> To me, there is usually another budding layer behind the more abrupt and foremost melodic line, that counterbalances it. He's thick.


I hope you mean as in density, not "thick" in the British sense of the word.


----------



## Steatopygous

I would like to be helpful, so I will. You have clearly taken responsible measures to like Brahms and they have failed. 
You recognise that sound musical judges think him one of the very greatest composers.
Clearly the problem is your brain. 
Have a brain transplant. Or just listen to other composers.


----------



## EdwardBast

I like Brahms best when he is going outside his comfort zone, which means anything passionate. So, of his chamber music I like the Piano Quartet in C minor Op. 60 and the Piano Quintet best. But I like most of the rest of it a lot too. Everyone seems to prefer the first String Sextet, but the Second is among my favorite Brahms for its pure, glorious melodiousness. The Piano Trios and Quartets and the Violin Sonatas I find wonderful as well. 

I like the Fourth Symphony best of the bunch, especially the first movement for its brilliant intricacy and dark warmth. The late piano works, as well as Op. 76, I think are gems. 

All this being said, I don't listen to Brahms as much as I used to. But in a certain mood, which apparently is visiting less often(?), he is the perfect choice.


----------



## Marinera

TurnaboutVox said:


> But why I like Mozart and Schubert and Fauré but not Brahms is a bit of a mystery to me.


That's queer how exactly like me, only two years ago you sound, down to the composers you listed. I was indifferent to Brahms too. I guess I listened to him a few times when I wanted exactly his kind of music, right time, right performances - made all the difference. Actually, I had the same problem with Schumann as well, it seems that one mood fits both. Almost.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Thanks to everyone who's replied so far. I have been interested by a number of the points made. I'll try to make some sort of response to the first ones. I'm interested in thinking further about subjective responses to music in general - I'm going to assume that since all of the composers we discuss on TC have their followers, there must be (considerable) artistic merit of some sort in all of them, so we are dealing mainly with our different subjectivities. But I also very much welcome those members who have been posting more technical analyses of Brahms' music. As a musical lay-person I do find this very illuminating.



Weston said:


> It's not so much his motifs, phrases or expressions, but the marvelous chord structures. *The pieces seem to go harmonically exactly where they should, but not necessarily where you would expect *-- if that makes any sense. Also he has those signature polyrhythms, usually two against three or whatever, that can be fun to pick out when they occur.


I think this (bold) may be part of the psychological problem; I think I may be looking for more novelty than he seems to provide me (subjectively). So my 'hooks' are looking for something different.



Biwa said:


> This might sound silly (and perhaps you've already done this), but try listening to his music live. Seeing and hearing a piece performed live can help open you up to a piece of music.
> 
> I hope you find the key to unlocking the door to this wonderful world. :tiphat:


Yes - live I have heard Symphony No. 4 in E minor, Nänie, the string quartet No. 2 in A minor, Op. 51/2, and the Op 34 piano quintet. Better, I agree, and there's nothing like really focusing on a piece of music because that's what you're there to do.



Bridge said:


> Otherwise, I think the same people who dislike Brahms are the ones who dislike Haydn and maybe the entirety of Renaissance music and much of contemporary music. This type of music really isn't about what is immediately obvious on the surface, although I would argue that that is not the case with any music.


I enjoy Haydn a good deal. I'm not strong on Renaissance music and I haven't listened to that much, but I was interested by at least half of what I heard from the pre-1700 project over the last few weeks (Gesualdo, Josquin, Purcell for example I really liked). I'm excited enough by contemporary music to go and seek out a major festival of it every year for the past three, and I go to the regional music college regularly to hear contemporary recitals. My difficulty really does seem to be a Brahms-shaped lacuna in my listening repertoire, among major non opera-specialist composers.



senza sordino said:


> I really like Brahms.
> 
> I'm far from an expert here, but Brahms seems to write music without anything innovative in form, nothing innovative in orchestration. Still, I think he wrote nice music to listen to. Nice is well.............nice :  the music of Brahms is comfortable and not way out there. As I see and hear it.


As above, I think that may be part of my problem with him.



Triplets said:


> As for the OP, if you like his late Piano works I would investigate his Clarinet works. And do none of his Symphonies strike a cord with you?


The ones I have heard (3 and 4) are pleasant enough listening but don't stir anything in me deep down in the non-verbal parts (of my paleo-cortex and limbic system - guessing here). Schumann on the other hand I liked straight away at a gut level, and he is one of my favourite half dozen 19th century composers.



Bruckner Anton said:


> Perhaps the problem is his music, especially chamber music, is relatively complex and obscure. The material he introduced in the early section of a piece can transform constantly and sometimes can be hardly recognized. So listeners may get lost if they fail to find out the coherence or the ideas. Also, themes or melodies in his music may not be as memorable as those by Mozart or Tchaikovsky etc.


I'd agree with you there, but there are other composers who don't use very memorable themes that I like very well because of some other quality their music generates - Feldman, Coates and Murail come to mind.


----------



## Woodduck

When I was in high school I loved Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Wagner, and a lot of other music, but did not understand Brahms at all. My algebra teacher asked me, "Why? Too emotional for you?" I said, "Not emotional enough."

That's it exactly. Brahms is simultaneously sentimental (as Shaw heard him) and studied (as Tchaikovsky heard him). His split personality, and his amazing achievement at reconciling the two sides of his nature, are very compelling to me now. You may hear him working his *** off (Mozart, whose fluency he envied, never breaks a sweat): his battle to write a real string quartet still seems to me too hard-fought. But his results usually justify the effort.


----------



## BoggyB

ArtMusic said:


> I find he [Brahms] over-wrought many of his large scale orchestral works (symphonies and concertos). He was a perfectionist rather than letting the music flow naturally.


That's also my feeling, although I don't apply it to the (early) first piano concerto, the second symphony, and the violin concerto.

But to the OP-er I say this: you aren't a Brahms man and you should accept that!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

I struggle with Brahms' harmonies and melodies. Much of his themes seem to progress in a linear manner, as if he's afraid to stray too far off-track, preferring to hover around a harmonic/melodic core. The net effect is like a sweet sponge bombe filled with gooey caramel, served in a thick chocolate sauce - too rich, and not enough "vertical" flavours. Of course, I can indulge myself once in a while, but not something I could eat every day.


----------



## clavichorder

EdwardBast said:


> All this being said, I don't listen to Brahms as much as I used to. But in a certain mood, which apparently is visiting less often(?), he is the perfect choice.


I agree with you about the 2nd sextet being one of his very best. But the 1st sextet is famous for a reason. With regards to that certain mood that is uniquely Brahmsian, you probably can't find a more concentrated example than the famous 2nd movement of String Sextet 1.


----------



## Woodduck

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I struggle with Brahms' harmonies and melodies. Much of his themes seem to progress in a linear manner, as if he's afraid to stray too far off-track, preferring to hover around a harmonic/melodic core. The net effect is like a sweet sponge bombe filled with gooey caramel, served in a thick chocolate sauce - too rich, and not enough "vertical" flavours. Of course, I can indulge myself once in a while, but not something I could eat every day.


I can't say I know what you're getting at, but I think you should take out a patent on vertical flavors. I'd like to try vertical ice cream.


----------



## clavichorder

Woodduck said:


> You may hear him working his *** off (Mozart, whose fluency he envied, never breaks a sweat): his battle to write a real string quartet still seems to me too hard-fought. But his results usually justify the effort.


That's it with him. For me, I can feel emotion and determination in his 'working so hard.' At times in my life when I feel like I've given it my all and it just wasn't enough, there is a reconciling(sort of a resigning quality even?) quality to Brahms's music that can move me very deeply. For all the surface hardness of the music, there is such a tenderness underneath.


----------



## DavidA

I came at Brahms through the concertos. Only get recordings by performers who don't linger. That kills Brahms for me.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> I can't say I know what you're getting at, but I think you should take out a patent on vertical flavors.


Perhaps I'm synaesthesic  Vertical flavours I associate with foods that have piquancy, spiciness, and "zing". For example chillies, cherry tomatoes, citrus fruits, cardamom, mature cheddar cheese, anchovies. "Horizontal" flavours, in contrast, have plenty of "umami", but are rather bland on their own - e.g. mushrooms, steak, eggs, gravy and green vegetables.

In a balanced diet, it's good to have a few horizontals punctuated by a liberal sprinkling of verticals. To my palate, Brahms (and Elgar, for that matter) too often comes across as a cabbage omelette. In gravy.


----------



## Guest

I can see a whole new thread here. Chopin is a crunchy stir fry with pecans and a satay sauce.


----------



## clavichorder

dogen said:


> I can see a whole new thread here. Chopin is a crunchy stir fry with pecans and a satay sauce.


Reminds me of one of my favorite movies:


----------



## ArtMusic

BoggyB said:


> That's also my feeling, although I don't apply it to the (early) first piano concerto, the second symphony, and the violin concerto.
> 
> But to the OP-er I say this: you aren't a Brahms man and you should accept that!


Brahms had a much better "natural idiom" with chamber music. The smaller scale pieces.


----------



## GioCar

I had a similar problem with Brahms, probably due to the fact that I had been overexposed to his music when I was a boy. My mother adored his orchestral music. I don't know how many times I heard his first symphony or the Haydn variations... 
Then later I discovered his chamber music. 
For me the keys to enter his world were his cello sonatas.
I don't see them in your list, T-Vox. I strongly recommend to listen to the Rostropovich/Serkin recording


----------



## Headphone Hermit

I had a problem listening to Brahms for years. 

I just could't 'get it', just didn't see what was wonderful. I tried and tried. I read articles and chapters of books. I listened to BBC Record Review and other programmes that discussed his music. I tired different interpreters. Nope - not much happened - it still didn't 'work' and so I left the CDs on the shelf and went on listening to the music that I enjoyed and to the music that I could make progress with.

And some years later, I saw some CDs (chamber music on Hyperion) on the shelf at OXFAM and splashed out a tenner. I listened to them and enjoyed them, listened to some of the dusty CDs on my shelves and enjoyed them. Went back to the shop and bought the rest of the Brahms CDs and enjoyed them.

Unfortunately, I cannot articulate why I didn't like Brahms at first (for 20 years it was 'hidden' for me) and nor can I articulate why I like lots of his music now. I can only advise you to leave it alone for a while but to keep an open mind and maybe at some time later you might enjoy his music (and then push on to Max Reger, even). 

Enjoy the journey as well as the destinations and stopping points :tiphat:


----------



## dieter

Headphone Hermit said:


> I had a problem listening to Brahms for years.
> 
> I just could't 'get it', just didn't see what was wonderful. I tried and tried. I read articles and chapters of books. I listened to BBC Record Review and other programmes that discussed his music. I tired different interpreters. Nope - not much happened - it still didn't 'work' and so I left the CDs on the shelf and went on listening to the music that I enjoyed and to the music that I could make progress with.
> 
> And some years later, I saw some CDs (chamber music on Hyperion) on the shelf at OXFAM and splashed out a tenner. I listened to them and enjoyed them, listened to some of the dusty CDs on my shelves and enjoyed them. Went back to the shop and bought the rest of the Brahms CDs and enjoyed them.
> 
> Unfortunately, I cannot articulate why I didn't like Brahms at first (for 20 years it was 'hidden' for me) and nor can I articulate why I like lots of his music now. I can only advise you to leave it alone for a while but to keep an open mind and maybe at some time later you might enjoy his music (and then push on to Max Reger, even).
> 
> Enjoy the journey as well as the destinations and stopping points :tiphat:


I had the same experience with Mahler. And Wagner. Often the aversion accords with current notions of political correctness, or, simply fashion. For example, until the mid 80's - I was born in 1950 - I had an 'idealogical' aversion to Wagner because of his antisemitism. Then, one fine day, while tryping ( sic ) a short story I put on Klemperer's recording of the first act of Die Walkure and at a a certain point I stopped tryping and simply let out a 4 letter word starting with f and surrendered to the genius of Wagner ( as Klemperer did despite his understandable issues with the kleine mensch called Richard Wagner.)
There are - as has been evidenced above - pockets of listeners who find Brahms too thick, sentimental, whatever. If in your early phase of discovery you've had an influential figure no-noing a composer or pianist or conductor you do take it in and from that point you stop listening with your ears and heart.
Fortunately I've never had that problem with Brahms, or Rachmainov, for that matter.


----------



## Mahlerian

Clearly you're mentally deficient in some way.

Nah, just kidding. If it doesn't appeal to you, it doesn't appeal. The work that drew me into Brahms was the Fourth Symphony, which was also one of the first pieces I listened to with an orchestral score in hand. At some point after that the Brahms of the chamber music crept up on me, and I found myself attracted to his works almost without knowing it.

I can certainly see where the perception of sentimentality in his harmony is coming from, though I don't hear it that way myself.


----------



## Marinera

clavichorder said:


> To me, there is usually another budding layer behind the more abrupt and foremost melodic line, that counterbalances it. He's thick.


I remember earlier still when I was not into Brahms thinking his music is 'thick' exactly the same word, and with some melodic irregularities. I don't know the jarrgon to explain that properly, so thought it woudn't make sense to anyone. Glad someone's thinking along the same lines :tiphat: 
Now I like the same qualities in his music that were off puting to me before (*can't find the smug enough emoticon to type in here*)


----------



## Ukko

Marinera said:


> I remember earlier still when I was not into Brahms thinking his music is 'thick' exactly the same word, and with some melodic irregularities. I don't know the jarrgon to explain that properly, so thought it woudn't make sense to anyone. Glad someone's thinking along the same lines :tiphat:
> Now I like the same qualities in his music that were off puting to me before (*can't find the smug enough emoticon to type in here*)


Buried in the TC archives (or not even there) are brilliant thoughts on this subject by me. My light is much dimmer now (and the 'brilliant thoughts' are are that way only in comparison to my recent ones). Something about paths, maybe even primrose ones.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

Ukko said:


> I don't enjoy some of Brahms' music hardly at all, but I do like some of it 'very much'. I'm guessing that Sym#4 is pretty easy to like, if you like Beethoven and/or Berlioz symphonic music. If you like late Liszt piano, there is an attitudinal connection with late Brahms, though it isn't direct. In Brahms it isn't all the way dark, there is a candle in an adjoining room, and the door is open. You can't go in there, but you can move near the doorway.
> 
> *Those hooks and loops are down in the mind a ways; words can't get there to help much*. Good luck with it, friend.


Now I had hoped you'd have more to say about this, Ukko.

I like the idea of hooks shaped one way and loops which might catch a hook and might not. I have had some further thoughts about my _perception_ of certain qualities in Brahms' _music_ (some qualities more in some works than others) and my conscious and less conscious attitudes to those qualities in _people_, especially myself. And I'm beginning to wonder if the problem isn't in part that old one familar to psychologists that one tends not to like in other people('s compositions) what one doesn't much care for in one's self.

That's to put the actual technical qualities of the music aside from the music's subjective effects on people's minds for a moment; I know they're important too.



Mahlerian said:


> Clearly you're mentally deficient in some way.


Why, thank-you kind sir, that's just what I feared!


----------



## Morimur

Brahms' music is very easy to love. Top 10 composer.


----------



## Morimur

Ukko said:


> Buried in the TC archives (or not even there) are brilliant thoughts on this subject by me. My light is much dimmer now.


Your light may be dimmer but your self esteem is clearly in tip-top shape. :tiphat:


----------



## jdec

Morimur said:


> Brahms' music is very easy to love. Top 10 composer.


Agree. Probably Top 4 or 5 composer for me.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

One of my favorite composers. Loved his music immediately. How can anyone not love this?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> One of my favorite composers. Loved his music immediately. How can anyone not love this?


Could some of those who say something similar say a bit about why they loved Brahms immediately? I'd be very interested to have your thoughts.


----------



## Strange Magic

After the initial psychodramas of the First Piano Concerto and First Symphony, we have:

Strength
Grace
Joy

All blended into a richly colored and textured mature lyricism, often permeated with a spirit of dance, that I find both remarkable and irresistible.

Hope that helps.


----------



## GreenMamba

TurnaboutVox said:


> Could some of those who say something similar say a bit about why they loved Brahms immediately? I'd be very interested to have your thoughts.


For me, my first works of his were either the PC #2 or the violin sonatas. Or maybe it was the Violin Concerto.

He's extremely engaging (this is possibly the entire answer), he writes nice melodies. I'm not always a big fan of Romantic composers, but that's because they often push too far for me. I never felt like Brahms was bombastic, he doesn't gild the lily. I don't hear him as being show-y or calculated. I'm skeptical of programmatic works. He didn't overreach in that regard.

He still uses the same forms as the Classical guys (more or less). I don't always care about this now, but I felt he was relatively easy to follow.

I guess I don't see why Brahms would be difficult. Honestly, I tend to think he'd be one of the easiest ones to like at first. I always thought those who didn't like him had "progressed" beyond him, maybe thinking he was too conservative for his time. Or maybe those who never went so far as the Romantic Era to begin with.


----------



## clavichorder

Weston said:


> I hope you mean as in density, not "thick" in the British sense of the word.


Basically I meant density, but it was just a cop out because I was beyond my powers to add anything new to the discussion at that point/too lazy.


----------



## clavichorder

Marinera said:


> I remember earlier still when I was not into Brahms thinking his music is 'thick' exactly the same word, and with some melodic irregularities. I don't know the jarrgon to explain that properly, so thought it woudn't make sense to anyone. Glad someone's thinking along the same lines :tiphat:
> Now I like the same qualities in his music that were off puting to me before (*can't find the smug enough emoticon to type in here*)


For a while I liked the initially 'off putting' qualities too. Now I find that I realize that they aren't necessarily the main feature of his music that draws me in and keeps me listening. Refer to the 'budding layer.' There will be some thick lines that seem to end abruptly and there is always something under that surface moving forward. He is a layered composer and people often react to a tough shell around the soft and flexible inner parts. So yeah, I think basically I grew to think I liked the 'tough shell' and my estimation of him rose, but the things that has really caused me to love his music are once again, 'the budding layers.'

That's probably only an analogous approximation of what I've actually experienced. I tried.


----------



## clavichorder

Morimur said:


> Your light may be dimmer but your self esteem is clearly in tip-top shape. :tiphat:


As it should be .


----------



## Blancrocher

I can't say I ever had an aversion to Brahms, but my respect for his work has increased significantly with repeated hearings over the years. One of the strange characteristics of his music, which may cause some to dislike his music, is a tendency to downplay overblown themes, as it were--to give you all the trappings of sentimentality without the payoff. I read an interesting essay by Charles Rosen in the NYRB some time ago that I think describes this peculiar quality with musical examples. The title, incidentally, is "Aimez-Vous Brahms?"--the question mark seems like Rosen's way of suggesting that your reaction is not all that surprising, T-Vox! 

One way into the music might be to begin with works that include variations on themes by other composers: I noticed a couple in your initial list; others would include his great "Variations on a Theme by Haydn" or the folia variations of the wonderful String Sextet #1. If you feel at points that he's short-circuiting an obvious climax, or playing a melody with the wrong instrument at the wrong time, you may be ready to look for similar devices in works employing his own themes (which scholars often point out may be quotations). 

Even if one doesn't feel quite this way about his music, it's hard to avoid the feeling that Brahms is thinking about all of the music he's ever heard every time he makes a decision, usually to twist it in an unexpected direction--I envy the learned members among us who can follow his thought processes!


----------



## Marinera

Ukko said:


> Buried in the TC archives (or not even there) are brilliant thoughts on this subject by me. My light is much dimmer now (and the 'brilliant thoughts' are are that way only in comparison to my recent ones). Something about paths, maybe even primrose ones.


How mysterious, not sure it's safe to like. And to become a daredevill on Brahmsian thread is such an oxymoron.


----------



## D Smith

For TVox. The first piece by Brahms that grabbed me was his Second Symphony- specifically the Munch recording with the BSO. I heard it and was transported to a place I wanted to be- full of sun, warmth and bonhomie. I wore that record out and I still get the same feelings many many years later.


----------



## Tristan

I used to not like Brahms much either. I found his music "boring", lacking in memorable melody, and a lot of chamber music, which at the time I almost completely ignored. But Brahms is actually the composer that got me to appreciate chamber music! And I discovered that his music is a lot more "memorable" than I thought. Until a couple years ago, his Symphony No. 1 was about the only work by him that I liked, and that was mainly for its comparison with Beethoven. But now I've come to have a large collection of his music and he's one of my favorite composers. His music is very complex and "rich" (if that means anything--I'm not good at describing music lol) and I can't wait to get more of it.


----------



## Ukko

Marinera said:


> How mysterious, not sure it's safe to like. And to become a daredevill on Brahmsian thread is such an oxymoron.


Blanchrocher's post (#67) covers it, without my penchant for metaphor.


----------



## Marinera

Ukko said:


> Blanchrocher's post (#67) covers it, without my penchant for metaphor.


Thanks, now I see. It was a bit disconcerting to read your comment at first, because generally in life I get vague and highly metaphorical when I want to have a way out , or don't want to commit to answer, though I didn't think it was the case with you.


----------



## Ukko

Marinera said:


> Thanks, now I see. It was a bit disconcerting to read your comment at first, because generally in life I get vague and highly metaphorical when I want to have a way out , or don't want to commit to answer, though I didn't think it was the case with you.




Yeah, my brain seems to have excess linkages. Sometimes metaphor links up better with the communication problem than anything else I can find. It seems more precise, not less.

When Brahms' music lines came to a fork in the path, they sometimes took the path less traveled. A path you didn't know was there. See what I mean?


----------



## millionrainbows

This inability to "get" Brahms immediately is as it should be; I was the same way. A few things to remember: his music is very appealing on a structural level, and that's why musicians tend to like it and play it. He's not Tchaikovsky, so the themes and melodies are not as lyrical and flowing, but tend to be based on shorter, motivic seeds.Still, there is plenty of good melody there.
As an artist, Brahms is not Beethoven or Schumann, so don't look for unabashed Romantic gestures. Sometimes his rhythmic devices are novel, but not like Beethoven. Unlike Beethoven, Brahms did not really have the same desire to communicate with an imaginary listener, or humanity, and make the listener feel as if he is being personally addressed, as with Beethoven. Brahms was an introverted, shy bachelor, and was somewhat detached from humanity, and was not super-social or a 'people-person.'
As soon as I realized that Brahms was an introverted loner, I began to 'get' his music, and could interpret the 'emotion' as it as being an attempt at conveying real personal emotion which he did really not have. I don't think Brahms used music as an emotional vehicle, in order to release his own pent-up emotion; I don't think the emotion was there to begin with in that 'social' or interpersonal form. Any emotion we hear in Brahms is of a more impersonal sort, the same way 'love' can be a diffuse 'love of humanity' but not for any specific person. For this reason, Brahms is appreciated by older people who understand and have experienced this kind of love which is hormone-free. Some of the raw desire is toned-down, and we are left, as in a long marriage, with the task of just 'getting on with it.' That's not to say it's not real, or not valid; it's just not hormone-drenched overkill.
Brahms is subtle; he will not 'wow' you unless you can appreciate the subtleties of an old wine, or something simple that is prepared or cooked right, like a good steak with a crisp, fresh green salad.


----------



## clavichorder

For me, Dvorak can be about some of the things millionrainbows is saying just as well as Brahms, albeit differently. That is perhaps why they really were and are two sides of the same coin. Dvorak is all about humanity and though more wildly passionate, you can experience a similar diffusion from the personal and often 'hormonal' passion, into some kind of broader human sense.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

millionrainbows said:


> This inability to "get" Brahms immediately is as it should be; I was the same way. A few things to remember: his music is very appealing on a structural level, and that's why musicians tend to like it and play it. He's not Tchaikovsky, so the themes and melodies are not as lyrical and flowing, but tend to be based on shorter, motivic seeds.Still, there is plenty of good melody there.
> As an artist, Brahms is not Beethoven or Schumann, so don't look for unabashed Romantic gestures. Sometimes his rhythmic devices are novel, but not like Beethoven. Unlike Beethoven, Brahms did not really have the same desire to communicate with an imaginary listener, or humanity, and make the listener feel as if he is being personally addressed, as with Beethoven. Brahms was an introverted, shy bachelor, and was somewhat detached from humanity, and was not super-social or a 'people-person.'
> As soon as I realized that Brahms was an introverted loner, I began to 'get' his music, and could interpret the 'emotion' as it as being an attempt at conveying real personal emotion which he did really not have. I don't think Brahms used music as an emotional vehicle, in order to release his own pent-up emotion; I don't think the emotion was there to begin with in that 'social' or interpersonal form. Any emotion we hear in Brahms is of a more impersonal sort, the same way 'love' can be a diffuse 'love of humanity' but not for any specific person. For this reason, Brahms is appreciated by older people who understand and have experienced this kind of love which is hormone-free. Some of the raw desire is toned-down, and we are left, as in a long marriage, with the task of just 'getting on with it.' That's not to say it's not real, or not valid; it's just not hormone-drenched overkill.
> Brahms is subtle; he will not 'wow' you unless you can appreciate the subtleties of an old wine, or something simple that is prepared or cooked right, like a good steak with a crisp, fresh green salad.


I found that very insightful and helpful, millionrainbows, and it also chimes with my thoughts about - what I am not liking in Brahms (musically) is linked to or resonating with qualities in myself (personal) I am not comfortable with.

This has also led me to the thought that I may get on better with Brahms a) by disentangling his music from my relationship with myself and b) by accepting that his music is what it is (i.e. not Schumann, or Beethoven, or Bartok). I think that may leave me a bit freer to pick and choose amongst Brahms' works for what appeals to me, now and when I am older.

I must thank all who have posted so far. I haven't digested it all yet, and won't really have the chance until the weekend, but will try to do so then.


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> This inability to "get" Brahms immediately is as it should be; I was the same way. A few things to remember: his music is very appealing on a structural level, and that's why musicians tend to like it and play it. He's not Tchaikovsky, so the themes and melodies are not as lyrical and flowing, but tend to be based on shorter, motivic seeds.Still, there is plenty of good melody there.
> As an artist, Brahms is not Beethoven or Schumann, so don't look for unabashed Romantic gestures. Sometimes his rhythmic devices are novel, but not like Beethoven. Unlike Beethoven, Brahms did not really have the same desire to communicate with an imaginary listener, or humanity, and make the listener feel as if he is being personally addressed, as with Beethoven. Brahms was an introverted, shy bachelor, and was somewhat detached from humanity, and was not super-social or a 'people-person.'
> As soon as I realized that Brahms was an introverted loner, I began to 'get' his music, and could interpret the 'emotion' as it as being *an attempt at conveying real personal emotion which he did really not have. I don't think Brahms used music as an emotional vehicle, in order to release his own pent-up emotion; I don't think the emotion was there to begin with in that 'social' or interpersonal form. Any emotion we hear in Brahms is of a more impersonal sort, the same way 'love' can be a diffuse 'love of humanity' but not for any specific person.* For this reason, Brahms is appreciated by older people who understand and have experienced this kind of love which is hormone-free. Some of the raw desire is toned-down, and we are left, as in a long marriage, with the task of just 'getting on with it.' That's not to say it's not real, or not valid; it's just not hormone-drenched overkill.
> Brahms is subtle; he will not 'wow' you unless you can appreciate the subtleties of an old wine, or something simple that is prepared or cooked right, like a good steak with a crisp, fresh green salad.


I was with you until you "depersonalized" the emotion in Brahms.

Brahms may have been an introverted loner, but speaking as an introverted loner who understands and loves him better than I ever wanted or expected to, I know that it was not an absence of feeling but a deep aversion to the profligate display of feeling and a need to maintain his sense of balance and integrity that is the key to his artistic nature. His classicism was a means of self-control, and it was a deeply sensitive, even oversensitive soul that needed that control. His aversion (hiding a secret fascination, as so much of his nature was self-hidden) to the structurally free hyperromanticism of Liszt and Wagner was, at a profound level, a reaction to a threat - and so he could sign an "anti-modernist" manifesto while poring over his personal copy of the score of _Siegfried_ in the privacy of his study, and express regret that he did not feel comfortable attending the premiere of _Parsifal_.

For me, Brahms utterly failed at the effort of concealing - by guarding and sublimating - his own deep, personal feelings. And one of those feelings, pervading so much of his music, is the melancholy of a man who wonders wistfully what it would feel like not to be fated by his own nature to make that effort.


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> I was with you until you "depersonalized" the emotion in Brahms.
> 
> Brahms may have been an introverted loner, but speaking as an introverted loner who understands and loves him better than I ever wanted or expected to, I know that it was not an absence of feeling but a deep aversion to the profligate display of feeling and a need to maintain his sense of balance and integrity that is the key to his artistic nature. His classicism was a means of self-control, and it was a deeply sensitive, even oversensitive soul that needed that control. His aversion (hiding a secret fascination, as so much of his nature was self-hidden) to the structurally free hyperromanticism of Liszt and Wagner was, at a profound level, a reaction to a threat - and so he could sign an "anti-modernist" manifesto while poring over his personal copy of the score of _Siegfried_ in the privacy of his study, and express regret that he did not feel comfortable attending the premiere of _Parsifal_.
> 
> For me, Brahms utterly failed at the effort of concealing - by guarding and sublimating - his own deep, personal feelings. And one of those feelings, pervading so much of his music, is the melancholy of a man who wonders wistfully what it would feel like not to be fated by his own nature to make that effort.


Very fine, useful, accurate, insightful analysis of Brahms. Yet i so do love Brahms's music, and find that it so deeply corresponds with my own inner feelings, that I also detect that strong sense of graceful strength and power and joy throughout his works that I posted of previously. It may be that any composer or music that we love best has the capacity to mirror all of those attitudes, emotion, faculties within each of us that cause us to be drawn to such in the first place. Brahms thus appeals to both my own melancholia and my own inner joy.


----------



## EdwardBast

Woodduck said:


> I was with you until you "depersonalized" the emotion in Brahms.
> 
> Brahms may have been an introverted loner, but speaking as an introverted loner who understands and loves him better than I ever wanted or expected to, I know that it was not an absence of feeling but a deep aversion to the profligate display of feeling and a need to maintain his sense of balance and integrity that is the key to his artistic nature. His classicism was a means of self-control, and it was a deeply sensitive, even oversensitive soul that needed that control. His aversion (hiding a secret fascination, as so much of his nature was self-hidden) to the structurally free hyperromanticism of Liszt and Wagner was, at a profound level, a reaction to a threat - and so he could sign an "anti-modernist" manifesto while poring over his personal copy of the score of _Siegfried_ in the privacy of his study, and express regret that he did not feel comfortable attending the premiere of _Parsifal_.
> 
> For me, Brahms utterly failed at the effort of concealing - by guarding and sublimating - his own deep, personal feelings. And one of those feelings, pervading so much of his music, is the melancholy of a man who wonders wistfully what it would feel like not to be fated by his own nature to make that effort.


Even granting this is an accurate appraisal of the composer - and it does feel right to me - I believe it would nevertheless be a mistake to interpret individual works of Brahms as embodying _his_ feelings and _his_ inner life except in a general sense, that is, except in as much as they reflect the broader themes and qualities of his oeuvre as a whole. And note that I am not assuming you advocate this sort of interpretation of individual works either, since, indeed, you have attributed this Brahmsian melancholy and wistfulness to his music only in a broad sense. in any case, when talking about individual works I think it important to make a distinction between personal feeling and persónal feeling. The latter construction, invented by pianist/musicologist Charles Fisk, references Edward T. Cone's idea that the question of whose voice and whose feeling is heard in any given musical work is not satisfied by the answer: "the composer's." Rather, it must be attributed to the work's _persona_, a fictional experiencing subject existing only in that work. This general idea is standard in literary and poetic criticism, where the individual voice and what is expressed in a poem is attributed to "the speaker" of the poem and not necessarily to the poet, and where the words and ideas of characters in novels are attributed to the fictional people in the book and not necessarily to the author. Before Cone wrote his book _The Composer's Voice_ and introduced the notion of the musical persona, there was no comparable concept in music criticism by which to make the crucial distinction between the expression of the work and the expression of its composer, and no general understanding that they are not the same thing.

Supporting your point about Brahms' emotional reticence is the one case I know of where he acknowledged poring his deeply personal feelings into a work, the Piano Quartet op. 60, and his subsequent embarrassment at this youthful emotional incontinence when he discussed the work years later.


----------



## TurnaboutVox

EdwardBast said:


> ...I think it important to make a distinction between personal feeling and persónal feeling. The latter construction, invented by pianist/musicologist Charles Fisk, references *Edward T. Cone's idea that the question of whose voice and whose feeling is heard in any given musical work is not satisfied by the answer: "the composer's." Rather, it must be attributed to the work's persona, a fictional experiencing subject existing only in that work.* This general idea is standard in literary and poetic criticism, where the individual voice and what is expressed in a poem is attributed to "the speaker" of the poem and not necessarily to the poet, and where the words and ideas of characters in novels are attributed to the fictional people in the book and not necessarily to the author. Before Cone wrote his book _The Composer's Voice_ and introduced the notion of the musical persona, there was no comparable concept in music criticism by which to make the crucial distinction between the expression of the work and the expression of its composer, and no general understanding that they are not the same thing.
> 
> Supporting your point about Brahms' emotional reticence is the one case I know of where he acknowledged poring his deeply personal feelings into a work, the Piano Quartet op. 60, and his subsequent embarrassment at this youthful emotional incontinence when he discussed the work years later.


And that's not even yet taking into account the interface with the person who experiences the work, which may or may not evoke a feeling-experience of his/her own. What link that might have, if any, to the composer's voice and feeling, or indeed to the work's persona, as you define it above, is a good question. I can really only know what a Brahms work (or any other composer's music) evokes in me.

(I am a long term student of methods for trying to understand the minds of other people, and maintain that it is one of the hardest things one might ever try to attempt!).

Thank you for your illuminating post, by the way, Edward Bast.


----------



## Guest

Have you managed to understand your own mind?


----------



## TurnaboutVox

dogen said:


> Have you managed to understand your own mind?


I know more than when I started, but that's not very much, I think  . Hence this tortuous process of trying to work out my relationship to Brahms' work via your collective reflections, thoughts, knowledge and observations.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Blancrocher said:


> One of the strange characteristics of his music, which may cause some to dislike his music, is a tendency to downplay overblown themes


I agree. Culinary aspects aside, one of my biggest issues with Brahms is that he comes up with _really great_ ideas, but doesn't develop them sufficiently. Take _Denn alles Fleisch_ from the German Requiem as but one example; it's a truly majestic theme, but it just seems to fizzle out... repeatedly. I find this hugely frustrating, and can only wonder what Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn - or even Bruckner - would have done with such material.


----------



## Strange Magic

With Brahms, the journey is the goal. I don't think he was looking for the grand statement. The river flows, always changing....


----------



## TxllxT

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I agree. Culinary aspects aside, one of my biggest issues with Brahms is that he comes up with _really great_ ideas, but doesn't develop them sufficiently. Take _Denn alles Fleisch_ from the German Requiem as but one example; it's a truly majestic theme, but it just seems to fizzle out... repeatedly. I find this hugely frustrating, and can only wonder what Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn - or even Bruckner - would have done with such material.


I love Brahms' fizzling on _Denn alles Fleisch_ that he sizzles all operatic highbrowsing in this heartfelt requiem.


----------



## raycope

Turnabout, for me some of Brahms' music is love-at-first-sight, but others took more time to appreciate. Repeated listening can bring great rewards, if you can trust the composer enough to take the time. I have also found that the performance you choose can make a huge difference, and your on the right forum for recommendations on that. 

For Brahms' 4th, I highly recommend Carlos Kleiber VPO. Don't take it out of context, but especially concentrate on the last part of the fourth movement. I know what you mean about "internal music stream". Those last bars of Brahms' 4th have been permanently established in my stream now. Sometimes before I go to sleep I hear the whole thing in my head, note-for-note, involuntarily!


----------



## dieter

dogen said:


> Have you managed to understand your own mind?


Ah, Oedipus Schmoedipus, as long as Turnabout loves his momma...


----------



## Woodduck

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> I agree. Culinary aspects aside, one of my biggest issues with Brahms is that *he comes up with really great ideas, but doesn't develop them sufficiently.* Take _Denn alles Fleisch_ from the German Requiem as but one example; it's a truly majestic theme, but it just seems to fizzle out... repeatedly. I find this hugely frustrating, and can only wonder what Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn - or even Bruckner - would have done with such material.


That reminds me of Tchaikovsky's comment, _"From our Russian point of view, Brahms does not possess melodic invention. His musical ideas never speak to the point; hardly have we heard an allusion to some tangible melodic phrase than it disappears… as though the composer's special aim was to be incomprehensible and obscure. Thus he excites and irritates our musical perceptions, as it were, yet is unwilling to satisfy their demands; he seems ashamed, to put it plainly, to speak clearly and reach the heart…"_ And,_ "It is like a splendid pedestal for a column, but the actual column is missing, and instead, what comes immediately after one pedestal is simply another pedestal."_


----------



## KenOC

Thanks for the Tchaikovsky quote! Real motivic development is not an easy thing. Beethoven could do it in spades, Schubert to a pretty good degree. But even Tchaikovsky was more inclined to repeat his ideas with more emphasis than development -- swearing his themes through a stone wall, as they said. Worked pretty well, usually. Brahms lacked a degree of self-confidence, it seems to me, and didn't succeed too well with either approach. But he had his virtues.


----------



## tdc

I like the rich textures of Brahms music, it has a lot of layers and seems to work well with repeated listening. There is an underlying simplicity as his methods involved creating large structures out of simple cells. I enjoy his introverted and moody approach. There isn't really the high adrenaline of Beethoven, or the youthful charm of Schubert, but he offers a kind of comforting stability mixed with melancholic intensity and beautiful nostalgia.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT

Woodduck said:


> That reminds me of Tchaikovsky's comment, _"From our Russian point of view, Brahms does not possess melodic invention. His musical ideas never speak to the point; hardly have we heard an allusion to some tangible melodic phrase than it disappears..."_


Perhaps I was onto something, if Tchaikovsky agrees with me! Thanks for the quote - it's a new one on me, and somewhat comforting


----------



## millionrainbows

tdc said:


> I like the rich textures of Brahms music, it has a lot of layers and seems to work well with repeated listening. There is an underlying simplicity as his methods involved creating large structures out of simple cells. I enjoy his introverted and moody approach. There isn't really the high adrenaline of Beethoven, or the youthful charm of Schubert, but he offers a kind of comforting stability mixed with melancholic intensity and beautiful nostalgia.


Yes, and this underscores the point that Brahms is not Tchaikovsky. Tchaikovsky is the best example of a "personally emotive" composer, and even Beethoven demonstrates the difference. Whatever is 'left over' is Brahms.


----------



## Strange Magic

The differences that Tchaikovsky addressed between "our Russian point of view" and the music of Brahms are precisely why I much prefer Brahms to Tchaikovsky. Being a Russophile, musically, I of course love much Tchaikovsky (not as much as some do, to be sure), but it is Brahms' comparative reticence compared with Tchaikovsky that allows me to concentrate more on the greater subtlety and more textured flow of Brahms' music. They loathed one another's music, but evidently got on famously together as dinner and drinking companions.


----------



## Jason Hu

I think the charm of classical is that you may not able to find the sense of beauty the first time you listen, but when you listen several times, at a single moment, the beauty of it would hit you. Maybe you should listen some more times. I have this experience when I listen to Shostakovich Symphony No 7 'Leningrad'.


----------



## Musobooks

TurnaboutVox said:


> Prompted by an interesting discussion on another thread, I'd like to explore a little my problem with the music of Johannes Brahms. It's clearly not him - there are too many people who love his music for that to be a possibility - so it must be me, and I accept that it is. Violadude, amongst others, has tried in the past to point me at pieces I might like, to little avail, really.
> 
> Amongst the most interesting ideas I've come across about this problem is Ukko's one of loops and hooks and mind-music:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Brahms I hear isn't being satisfactorily linked to my mind music, and that rings a bell because I very rarely have anything Brahmsian as my internal "music stream" (I have one almost constantly, and it is usually heavily influenced by what I've been listening to over the past day or two).
> 
> I _*do*_ like some of Brahms' predecessors, contemporaries and successors very much - much of Mendelssohn, Schumann, Liszt, Alkan, Bruckner, Mussorgsky, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, Grieg, Fauré, Mahler, Wolf, Debussy, Delius and Richard Strauss, and also early works by composers who started out in a post-Brahmsian idiom but went elsewhere (Schoenberg, Webern and Bridge to name but three).
> 
> However, I find it very hard to appreciate Brahms himself. I have been trying with the three string quartets for 30+ years and I do kind of like them now, but I still find them to be "curates' eggs" - awkward, sometimes infelicitous and good only in parts.
> 
> Let me tell you what Brahms I've heard so far (the string quartets, piano quintet and the late solo piano works are pretty familiar to me, the others less so):
> 
> 
> 
> and (tonight as I sit composing this):
> Op. 120/1, Clarinet Sonata No. 1 in F minor
> Op. 120/2, Clarinet Sonata No. 2 in E-flat major
> Op. 114, Clarinet Trio in A minor
> 
> So, come on everyone, your thoughts about my Brahms-phobia, or Brahms-indifference? Anything and everything considered.


Very late to the party but I’m with you on this, whole-heartedly. I think I quite liked some of the Violin Concerto around 20 years ago (Kennedy?) and recently thought “Hey, this is actually okay”, on listening to Gould play the one almost enjoyable intermezzo. Brahms, I’d say, is what unmusical people think of when they think of Classical (i.e. boring) music - and they’d be right from their perspective. God help anyone whose first introduction to classical music is Brahms! I once had a problem with Mahler which mysteriously disappeared but I don’t think this is going to happen with the guy with the big beard.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

When I was about 11 years old, my father took me to see "Ein Deutches Requiem" and I hated Brahms after that. Maybe I thought it was cool that Santana stole the melody from a symphony and that made me like Brahms or I started liking him because I thought his symphony no. 1 was like heavy metal...Turn up the music and see if you like it!


----------

