# For those who respect and even admire Brahms, but don't worship the man



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Since getting seriously into classical music 3-4 years ago, Brahms has been one of my favourite composers. I came to resonate with his craft on both a small and large scale. The intricacy of his form, balanced by the emotional appeal of his melodies and harmony, buttressed by his command of ryhthm. The quintessential Romantic classicist, progressing a time-honoured tradition without loosing anything in either the traditional or the Romantic direction.

More recently, however, my resonance with some of his music has taken somewhat of a hit. The growing 'problem' (I say this knowing the problem is, no doubt, all my own) is perhaps both a lack of directness and a lack of distance in some of it: a failure to drive a point home, while every musical line is positively quivering with pensive emotion. This results in the strange experience where a collection of stimuli are clammering very hard to say something that ultimetaly doesn’t stick. 

Another potential 'problem' is that movements in some works sound the same or similar to me. Not literally, but in emotional ‘content’. The Allegro movement is saying the 'same thing' as the andante movement, etc. Every movement in some works has the same or similar wilting, pensive mood that is fluttering around without ever hitting the receptors square-on. I have the same problem with Faure. I also don’t buy the vaguely Gypsy aspects to some works, such as the second Piano Trio. 

Now, I would not trade Brahms in for other Romantic composers who chose to maintain traditional forms, like Dvorak or Tchaikovsky, for instance, who I find unremarkable and dislocated from the quintessential ground of Being aka the great fiery furnace. Brahms, I think, will remain a composer I greatly admire. However, I am interested in further critique of his music. For those who appreciate the man and his music, without being outright haters or worshippers: How would you critically describe Brahms' music?

FWIW, my favourite works:

-Horn Trio
-Violin Sonata 1
-Solo piano music like Piano Sonata 3, variations and late peices
-Symphonies (1 minus last movt, 3, and 4 minus third mvt)
-String Quintets
-German Requiem (despite it’s heavenly length)
-PianoTrio 1
-Clarinet Quintet
-Violin Concerto
-Clarinet Trio and Sonatas

Works I have come to avoid:

-Piano Concertos
-String Quartets
-Piano Quintet
-Piano Quartets
-Double Concerto
-Piano Trios 2 and 3


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

I do not find it unusual to greatly enjoy, or think I understand, only some music of a particular composer. I doubt you have a problem to be concerned about...except not liking some Dvorak/Tchaikovsky


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Brahms is one of my favorite composers. When I think of Brahms I think of fine German craftsmanship that is sturdy, solid, decorated in many layers of tapestry. I enjoy fine craftsmanship, whether it's in the visual arts, architecture, writing, or in music. I love a novel that is well-written as much as I like it for it's content. When I think of composers that were great craftsman, I think of Mozart, Brahms, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg, as different as they were from one another in other ways.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

It helps if the players are good. I like Ursula Oppens in Brahms.


----------



## Isaac Blackburn (Feb 26, 2020)

Brahms' music has great emotional complexity: not so much in that the emotions themselves are _complex emotions_, but that there are multiple emotions at different "layers" of the piece. Despite, for example, the wistful outward effect of the chamber music, or the thunderous violence in the symphonies, a profound peace lies at the emotional center.

To grasp these layers simultaneously can only be done from the _inside_. In my experience, a more passive listener will only feel the outer emotional layer, yet he will sense that it is prevented from asserting itself over the entire being of the work, that it is "thin" and not "full". He will sense great emotion, yet feel that it is only the outward _appearance_ of a dance that is too distant, too withdrawn, for him to join.

Brahms takes the listener to heights no other composer did (although some climbed higher, no one climbed higher on the same peak), but I have to throw myself into the music to climb with it.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Isaac Blackburn said:


> Brahms' music has great emotional complexity: not so much in that the emotions themselves are _complex emotions_, but that there are multiple emotions at different "layers" of the piece. Despite, for example, the wistful outward effect of the chamber music, or the thunderous violence in the symphonies, a profound peace lies at the emotional center.
> 
> To grasp these layers simultaneously can only be done from the _inside_. In my experience, a more passive listener will only feel the outer emotional layer, yet he will sense that it is prevented from asserting itself over the entire being of the work. He will sense great emotion, yet feel that it is only the outward appearance of a dance that is too distant for him to join.
> 
> Brahms takes the listener to heights no other composer did (although some climbed higher, no one climbed higher on the same peak), but I have to throw myself into the music to climb with it.


How interesting. I agree with quite a bit of this but fundamentally disagree about what lies at the music's heart, from which I get - and always have got - a sense not of peace but of regret, very possibly because the fullest joys life has to be offer do indeed constitute "a dance which is too distant for him [Brahms] to join". I know you applied that phrase to a hypothetical listener but it encapsulates so very well the impression of its composer which Brahms' music has always left with me.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I like all the chamber and solo piano music, less so for the lieder and choral works, with the exception of the _Requiem_ which I listen to (not a lot, but) more. I don't listen to the orchestral works anymore. But that has nothing to do with Brahms, that is true for me regarding all composers, classical music, in general.

Brahms rates very high on my list of composers and I don't know what the OP is talking about.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Animal the Drummer said:


> How interesting. I agree with quite a bit of this but fundamentally disagree about what lies at the music's heart, from which I get - and always have got - a sense not of peace but of regret, very possibly because the fullest joys life has to be offer do indeed constitute "a dance which is too distant for him [Brahms] to join". I know you applied that phrase to a hypothetical listener but it encapsulates so very well the impression of its composer which Brahms' music has always left with me.


I also mostly agree with Isaac's analysis, and with your own, but I find Brahms offers to me a full spectrum of emotion, fully realized, from the regret that A the D senses to the joy and joys both slight and transient and also extended and deeply felt that crop up here and there throughout Brahms' music. A relatively quiet outer life enclosing a very rich and textured internal emotional life expressed in that torrent of music.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

As mentioned in my post, and with respect to Brahms fanatics, I’m more interested in respectful criticism than gushing.

To expand, it seems to me that TC posters either love everything the man did, or dismiss his work outright as overly intellectual. 

I love some of his works but find some of them quite superfluous, and interested in more knowledgeable critiques of his compositional style than might explain some of my reactions here more fully.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

"To expand, it seems to me that TC posters either love everything the man did, or dismiss his work outright as overly intellectual."

I have not found either of these two hypothetical populations here on TC. I cannot recall loving everything that any composer created. And dismissing Brahms? Hard to even imagine. I share part of your own last sentence: I love some of his works. Superfluity is another matter--with virtually every composer, I think we just mostly ignore what we choose to ignore, after the necessary number of hearings.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> "To expand, it seems to me that TC posters either love everything the man did, or dismiss his work outright as overly intellectual."
> 
> *I have not found either of these two hypothetical populations here on TC. I cannot recall loving everything that any composer created*. And dismissing Brahms? Hard to even imagine. I share part of your own last sentence: I love some of his works. Superfluity is another matter--with virtually every composer, I think we just mostly ignore what we choose to ignore, after the necessary number of hearings.


Well get stuck into him then! What do you think were Brahms' shortcomings in the peices you don't love? How do these shortcomings connect with any general traits of his compositional style/personality (etc.)?

The small number of posters so far have simply been saying "Brahms is like totally amazing", i.e. have been falling into the first of the two hypothetical populations you say don't exist on TC.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> What do you think were Brahms' shortcomings in the peices you don't love?


I think it is presumptuous to think it is a shortcoming of Brahms's if you don't enjoy a work of his. The shortcoming, such as it is, would on the part of the listener, who does not enjoy what Brahms was doing in the work. Nothing wrong with that.



> The small number of posters so far have simply been saying "Brahms is like totally amazing", i.e. have been falling into the first of the two hypothetical populations you say don't exist on TC.


I have to agree that I think it is true for most of us, that even for the composers of whom we include in a list of our favorites, that it is rare to like all of the music they wrote. And the reverse is true, even for the composers for whom we usually say we don't care for, there might be a work or two which we do enjoy somewhat.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> I think it is presumptuous to think it is a shortcoming of Brahms's if you don't enjoy a work of his. The shortcoming, such as it is, would on the part of the listener, who does not enjoy what Brahms was doing in the work. Nothing wrong with that.


Oh for God's sake.

Do you think a shortcoming sof a Stanley Kubrick movie are really just shortcomings on the part of the viewer? How about the shortcomings of a Raff or a Weber?

I'm sure there is _a sense_ in which you are correct, in that critical judgements say _something _about the criticiser as well as the artist, but the idea that criticising Brahms is not possible because he is so godlike that such judgements never reach beyond the limitations of the listener is rediculous.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Not sure where this thread is going.....


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> Oh for God's sake.
> 
> Do you think a shortcoming sof a Stanley Kubrick movie are really just shortcomings on the part of the viewer? How about the shortcomings of a Raff or a Weber?
> 
> I'm sure there is _a sense_ in which you are correct, in that critical judgements say _something _about the criticiser as well as the artist, but the idea that criticising Brahms is not possible because he is so godlike that such judgements never reach beyond the limitations of the listener is rediculous.


I am saying that I don't think of it like you do. If I don't like a work I don't think of it as a failure by the composer, I think that I am unable to get into the music that day. And in the case of Brahms, he destroyed a number of his works that he was not satisfied with, and was very critical of his work. So, any work that has survived Brahms was satisfied with it, and Brahms was no slouch as a composer.

That doesn't make him a "god" nor does it mean that I "worship" him. It means that when I don't like a work I simply move on, and might come back to it another day.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> It means that when I don't like a work I simply move on, and might come back to it another day.


I don't simply move on. I try to understand why I don't like a work/style/composer, as I doubt preferences float so freely of the 'objective' world that there isn't a reason why some works/styles/composers don't do it for me - there must be some difference between the pieces I do and don't like of Brahms - a pattern, if you will, in the music - which explains (along with my own subjective states, of course) the pattern of my own reactions.

Part of this is asking more knowledgeable people, who might have more formal musical training/experience, about what aspects of Brahms _they _find unsatisfying.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I remain a staunch advocate of Brahms's music since my early teen years and my first encounter with the composer's First Symphony, the first Brahms piece I recall hearing and a work which resonates with me so deeply that that initial hearing has proven indelible.

I engage with Brahms from the monumental full-scale symphonic pieces, through the chamber works and to the most intimate of the solo piano pieces. I would not want to live without the Symphonies, the Violin and Piano Concertos, the Serenades, the Clarinet Quintet or the Clarinet Sonatas, the Piano Sonatas, the Klavierstücke, Op.118 ....

I appreciate Brahms as the truest heir of Beethoven, and I worship at the shrine of the Bard of Bonn.

Still, to each his own. And I realize Brahms is not a favorite of all. Their loss, I sadly shrug.

But I do take one major issue with the OP's opening statement. I'm reasonably sure Brahms got into classical music a bit more distantly than 3-4 years ago ....



RogerWaters said:


> Since getting seriously into classical music 3-4 years ago, Brahms has been one of my favourite composers.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SONNET CLV said:


> I remain a staunch advocate of Brahms's music since my early teen years and my first encounter with the composer's First Symphony, the first Brahms piece I recall hearing and a work which resonates with me so deeply that that initial hearing has proven indelible.


The last movement really lets me down. After all that struggle, in his most Beethoven-ish symphony, Brahms ends with a movement dominated by a theme that would be at home in an English private school assembly.

Brahms strikes me as a composer who is fundamentally 'at home' in the everyday, utilitarian world of the late 19th-century. Despite some moments of romantic longing, or vision of a different mode of being, Brahms' outlook is somewhat 'bourgeoise', for lack of a better word (this is not a Marxist critique).

There is less of the 'Outsider' who has experienced a fall from the everyday world of comfortable human existence, causing a religious or religous-like act of the will to assume a transcendental perspective on reality (Beethoven, Schubert); less of the composer who, we sense, has simply been born with the luminous perspective (Bach, Mozart, Debussy); less of the composer in the midst of the fall (Berg, Bartok, early Stravinsky, etc.); and nothing of the composer who get all he needs from the impersonal realm of Nature and feels no urge at all to engage with the human-all-too-human world (Bruckner, Sibelius).

There is often 'simply' longing, where this longing never rises above itself - or else 'retreats' (I am forced to judge) to the safety of custom and 'she'll be right' liberal-humanism that sweeps unpleasant realities under the rug.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> The last movement really lets me down. After all that struggle, in his most Beethoven-ish symphony, Brahms ends with a movement dominated by a theme that would be at home in an English private school assembly.
> 
> Brahms strikes me as a composer who is fundamentally 'at home' in the everyday, utilitarian world of the late 19th-century. Despite some moments of romantic longing, or vision of a different mode of being, Brahms' outlook is somewhat 'bourgeoise', for lack of a better word (this is not a Marxist critique).
> 
> ...


If you wish to expand your thinking about Brahms you might try finding an original copy of the article written by Arnold Schönberg, "Brahms the Progressive." Here's a second hand version of it with some extra commentary from a more recent book on the idea.

To paraphrase Shakespeare _viv a vis_ a musical work, "the fault, dear Roger, is not in the "bars" but ourselves."


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

"For those who respect and even admire Brahms, but don't worship the man"

Here's an interesting choice of words that touches upon something that has always bothered me. As a confirmed introvert I've always loved classical music and art museums much more than wall-to-wall parties, carrying on all night, and being the life of the party.

But it is terms such as music _appreciation_ that I can't get my head around. When I visited beautiful Spain and the great Cathedral at Teledo, the tour guide said, we will now go in to _admire_ El Greco's masterpiece, _The Disrobing of Christ_.

Admire? What about the process of _enjoyment_?

Isn't the purpose of art and music to bring beauty and enjoyment to the world?

Or am I disrespecting Brahms, or for that matter, El Greco, by just saying that I find _enjoyment_ in their works more than respect, admiration, appreciation, or _worship_ (as the OP indicates)? Is it enough to just say that musicians and artists (poets, too, if you like); make me feel happy give me hope that there is still some beauty in a weary world?


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Coach G said:


> "For those who respect and even admire Brahms, but don't worship the man"
> 
> Here's an interesting choice of words that touches upon something that has always bothered me. As a confirmed introvert I've always loved classical music and art museums much more than wall-to-wall parties, carrying on all night, and being the life of the party.
> 
> ...


Well said coach.....!!!!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

Coach G said:


> Is it enough to just say that musicians and artists (poets, too, if you like).....make me feel happy[and] give me hope that there is still some beauty in a weary world?


Yes, a wonderful sentiment :tiphat:


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Coach G said:


> "For those who respect and even admire Brahms, but don't worship the man"
> 
> Here's an interesting choice of words that touches upon something that has always bothered me. As a confirmed introvert I've always loved classical music and art museums much more than wall-to-wall parties, carrying on all night, and being the life of the party.
> 
> ...


I totally agree.

But, I've always understood the words, *admire*, *appreciate*, and other similar terms, to mean *enjoy* in some form. I consider the word "worship" as hyperbole; a gushing statement that I would never use especially pertaining to any human being.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

RogerWaters, I wrote this post in another thread. I think it may be appropriate here.



SeptimalTritone said:


> Brahms's music also has a sense of heaviness, or better, _forward inertia_. By heaviness/inertia, I don't mean banging out _fff_ chords or layering lots of contrapuntal lines, rather, I mean a constant Fuxian cantus firmus motion based on his romantic chromatic harmonic vocabulary combined with a refusal to be rhythmically square.
> 
> This cantus firmus motion isn't easy to stop or get away from, hence in inertia in the sense of Newtonian physics - a massive body maintains its velocity unless subjected to a force, and the greater the mass the greater the force required to change its velocity by an amount. There's always a grave danger as Brahms composes of falling into monotony especially because Brahms had little interest in "theatrical" dramatic elements, but Brahms always comes up with solutions, with "forces" that prevent the monotony. Often these forces are just his very rhythmic creativity. Sometimes Brahms's forces are so particular and brilliant that it's a wonder that he came up with them - take e.g. the accompaniment in measure 8 in the 3rd symphony 3rd movement, plus the subsequent augmentation of the dotted motif in the melody, that I mentioned in the above post!
> 
> ...


The inertia I describe is what gives a lot of people the sense that Brahms's music is too pensive and serious, and even too distant. However, to me, the inertia gives a sense of _motion_ - melodic and contrapuntal. I love that pure musical motion.

Regarding your list of works you like and don't like, I think the most valuable thing is to expand the list of works you do like. You'll learn more this way, because you'll be assimilating more music at a deep level. Take the slow movements of the piano trio 2 or the string quintet 2 - they are variation movements, although a lot of people don't realize it at first. The variations are gradual and incremental and don't announce themselves - particularly the piano trio 2's slow movement in A minor. This is in contrast to typical variation movements, especially of earlier composers, where the textural contrasts between variations are obvious.

Anyway, the progression of the variations in the piano trio 2 are oh-so-subtle. The theme and variation 1 follow the same broad harmonic outline, although the subtle differences in rhythmic placement of the harmonies mask this similarity. Then variation 2 and variation 3 change some aspects of the broad harmonic outline, and we sense that these variations are a move away from the initial music. So even though variation 3 seems to more explicitly recall thematic elements of the initial theme, the harmonic outline is different, so we are in a "different place". Then variation 4 is an exotic and distant A major that seems remote, melodically and harmonically, from the initial theme. Then finally, variation 5 returns to A minor, and more importantly, returns to the broad harmonic outline of the theme/variation 1. This sense of arrival, of return, is so satisfying. None of this musical development would be possible without Brahms's delicate sense of inertia.

It would be a shame to deprive yourself of a full immersion into this music because you don't "buy" the gypsy elements in the piano trio 2, or because you perceive an overly pensive/Bourgeois sound.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Regarding your list of works you like and don't like, I think the most valuable thing is to expand the list of works you do like


It was probably not your intention, but this comes across as somewhat patronizing. It's kind of empty, too. Why not say the same thing about every work by every composer? Why not? Because then we would have no personal standards, of course. To love everything is to love nothing - not necessarily conceptually, but as a matter of finite time and energy.



SeptimalTritone said:


> It would be a shame to deprive yourself of a full immersion into this music because you don't "buy" the gypsy elements in the piano trio 2, or because you perceive an overly pensive/Bourgeois sound.


Thank you, but I think it would be shame to listen to music that doesn't resonate with me - that doesn't make me tingle with existence. I'm not someone who throws off a piece after listening once. I listen across multiple moods and compare pieces against others I like and dislike to achieve robustness in my judgements - because I am very very weary of missing out on appreciating music I might otherwise like simply because of arbitrary fluctuations in being. At any rate, the second piano trio is a work I've come to _dislike_ after initially finding it pleasant. It's not a work i've simply rejected from the outset.

I think i've made it prettty clear now, multiple times, that I was hoping for critical commentary on Brahms (that isn't outright rejection). All I've got so far is worshippers.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

*Dvorak or Tchaikovsky, for instance, who I find unremarkable and dislocated from the quintessential ground of Being aka the great fiery furnance*

Huh? Dvorak and Tchaikovsky are probably the two best melodists to grace this Earth. I do not think their works are as deep as those of other composers like Brahms, but I listen to Dvorak A LOT.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

"To expand, it seems to me that TC posters either love everything the man did, or dismiss his work outright as overly intellectual."

I do not care for Brahms' leider, choral 
, or piano works much, and find some of his chamber work difficult to get into, although I am familiarizing myself with more and more of the latter.

I think you get the impression that the people here who love Brahms love everything the man did because Brahms has so MANY high quality works that...posters talk about them.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Brahms works I love:
Piano Sonata no. 3
Handel Variations and Fugue
Three Intermezzi, op 117
Hungarian Dances
Four Serious Songs
Symphonies
Concertos
Tragic Overture
German Requiem
String Quartet no. 1
String Quintets
Horn Trio
Piano Quartet no. 3
Piano Quintet
Violin Sonata no. 3
Cello Sonata no. 1
Clarinet Sonatas
Clarinet Trio
Clarinet Quintet


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> It was probably not your intention, but this comes across as somewhat patronizing. It's kind of empty, too. Why not say the same thing about every work by every composer? Why not? Because then we would have no personal standards, of course. To love everything is to love nothing - not necessarily conceptually, but as a matter of finite time and energy.
> 
> Thank you, but I think it would be shame to listen to music that doesn't resonate with me - that doesn't make me tingle with existence. I'm not someone who throws off a piece after listening once. I listen across multiple moods and compare pieces against others I like and dislike to achieve robustness in my judgements - because I am very very weary of missing out on appreciating music I might otherwise like simply because of arbitrary fluctuations in being. At any rate, the second piano trio is a work I've come to _dislike_ after initially finding it pleasant. It's not a work i've simply rejected from the outset.
> 
> I think i've made it prettty clear now, multiple times, that I was hoping for critical commentary on Brahms (that isn't outright rejection). All I've got so far is worshippers.


I think it is important to acquaint yourselves with works that are agreed to be great, but only to a point.

Since you are familiar with a lot of Brahms works, including all his important works, you should not feel obligated to waste your time listening to works you won't like.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

RogerWaters said:


> I think i've made it prettty clear, multiple times now, that I'm after critical commentary on Brahms. All I've got so far is worshippers.


The analysis I wrote on the piano trio 2 slow movement was my summary of a PhD thesis that I skimmed through and independently related to my own listening experiences. There's your scholarly commentary. The actual thesis is ultra-dense and technical though, and might not make for good bedtime reading.

SanAntone also linked to Schoenberg's famous "Brahms the Progressive" essay. That's much more readable, if you want something scholarly.

Regarding worship, I would advise reading what I wrote in my post a bit more carefully. There _are_ limitations of Brahms, just as there are of any other composer. I touched on them in my post, but to reiterate:

Brahms cannot pull the agile textural shifts of Haydn/Mozart/Beethoven. This is a major limitation. Since Brahms is attempting classical form, which would normally require these agile textural shifts (especially in late 18th and early 19th century sonata form), his music doesn't have that immediate witty sprightliness and agility that the above composers have.

Brahms cannot pull the large scale narratives of Wagner and Mahler. These composers need their music to move at a slower rate. But because Brahms always has his forward inertia all the time, he cannot do what they are doing.

Brahms generally is uninterested in theatrical elements. In some of his more directly impassioned pieces, he has them, like the exotic E natural pizzicati early on in the piano quartet no 3 in C minor, but generally he avoids these gestures. This is almost certainly why Britten didn't like Brahms. And this is also likely why Brahms didn't attempt an opera.

Brahms cannot get away from his harmonic/textural inertia. I reiterated this many times in my post that I self-quoted. Again, I like this forward inertia for its sense of motion, but it does restrict what Brahms is allowed to do.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

SeptimalTritone said:


> The analysis I wrote on the piano trio 2 slow movement was my summary of a PhD thesis that I skimmed through and independently related to my own listening experiences. There's your scholarly commentary. The actual thesis is ultra-dense and technical though, and might not make for good bedtime reading.
> 
> SanAntone also linked to Schoenberg's famous "Brahms the Progressive" essay. That's much more readable, if you want something scholarly.
> 
> ...


I don't waste time trying to figure out why I don't like any work because it is obvious to me why I don't like it: I don't like the way it sounds. And the thing is, I know pretty quickly. And when I don't like a work I don't assume there's something wrong with it because I know that there are plenty of other people who do like it. A lot of the music I like I hear others complain about and ridicule. I don't care. I like it and that's enough for me. I don't need to know why I like it - because it is obvious I like the way it sounds.

And who listens to every work by any composer? I sure don't, not even those whose music I really really enjoy. I find the dozen or so works I like and maybe add one here and there, but that's it. And it's enough. Brahms's batting average is higher than most with me - but again there's a number of his works that don't do anything for me. Because ... wait for it ... I don't like the way they sound.

So, RogerWaters is on his own with Brahms.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I don't waste time trying to figure out why I don't like any work because it is obvious to me why I don't like it: I don't like the way it sounds. And the things is, I know pretty quickly. . . .


And yet, somewhere, I seem to recall you saying that not appreciating a work reflected more on the listener than the work in question. (Of course, I did not agree with that at the time, and still don't.)


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

JAS said:


> And yet, somewhere, I seem to recall you saying that not appreciating a work reflected more on the listener than the work in question. (Of course, I did not agree with that at the time, and still don't.)


Yes it does. It reflects my inability to find in the work what others find in it that they like. We all like what we like. I just am maybe more willing to say that it is my limitation and not blame the composer. I don't think my taste is better or worse than someone else's - it's all subjective - but to blame the composer, IMO, is a bit conceited.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Yes it does. It reflects my inability to find in the work what others find in it that they like. We all like what we like. I just am maybe more willing to say that it is my limitation and not blame the composer. *I don't think my taste is better or worse than someone else's - it's all subjective* - but to blame the composer, IMO, is a bit conceited.


You could have fooled me in this thread.

Your position is patronising. You are effectively rebuking someone for calling for critical analysis of Brahms, in order to develop his own understanding of what he doesn't like about _some_ of Brahms' works/style.

The need to make these kinds of unhelpful remarks is petty:



SanAntone said:


> Brahms rates very high on my list of composers and I don't know what the OP is talking about.





SanAntone said:


> So, RogerWaters is on his own with Brahms.


More importantly than moralising, I think you are wrong philosophically. Me calling for critical comments on Brahms' music does not presuppose my tastes are objective. Of course taste is subjective when you get down to it - but that doesn't mean (subjective) musical judgements aren't responding to real patterns. It is perfectly coherent to call for commentary on these real patterns designed to illuminate why one's reactions to some of them are negative subjective reactions.

In short, I am indeed 'blaming the composer' - but blaming him for my subjective reactions. To insist I identify the cause for why I don't like some of Brahms' music within myself, rather than in Brahms music, is absurd. Imagine saying the same thing to someone who likes this or that Brahms peice and wants to learn more about the piece to work out why he likes it. "How dare you look positively at Brahms' music instead of at your own subjective reactions to the music!".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> You could have fooled me in this thread.
> 
> Your position is patronising. You are effectively rebuking someone for calling for critical analysis of Brahms, in order to develop his own understanding of what he doesn't like about _some_ of Brahms' works/style.
> 
> ...


You want to analyze music; I don't. And I say that as someone who graduated with a degree in music. I said you are on your own because no one can really tell you why you are not responding to it.

For me it is very simple. Analysis will tell what is happening in a work but not why it moves you or not.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Roger, I gave you a detailed list of limitations of Brahms in post #30.

Tying that list to your specific reactions is difficult though, because the works you do and don't like don't have a consistency.

The piano concertos and piano quartet 3 are more theatrical and directly emotional, but you don't like them. But you like the violin concerto and the piano trio 1.

Both the violin sonata 1 and the piano quartet 2 have a pastoral lyrical expansiveness, but you like the former and dislike the latter.

You don't like the introspective and incrementally developing piano trios 2 and 3, but you like the clarinet sonatas.

Both the string quintet 2 and string quartet 1 have uncompromising contrapuntal and dense string textures, but you like the former and dislike the latter.

The symphony 3, violin sonata 1, and string quartet 1 are explicitly cyclical, but you like the first two and dislike the last.

The piano quintet is highly impassioned, but it's on your dislike list.

You are, of course, free to like and dislike any of these works, but be aware that there is no encompassing theory that will explain these likes and dislikes.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> *You want to analyze music; I don't.* And I say that as someone who graduated with a degree in music. I said you are on your own because no one can really tell you why you are not responding to it.


The question now presents itself, then why not find your own thread?


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Roger, I gave you a detailed list of limitations of Brahms in post #30.


Apologies, Thank you for those!



SeptimalTritone said:


> Tying that list to your specific reactions is difficult though, *because the works you do and don't like don't have a consistency*.
> 
> The piano concertos and piano quartet 3 are more theatrical and directly emotional, but you don't like them. But you like the violin concerto and the piano trio 1.
> 
> ...


Thanks for this, but you seem to assume that the qualities that are similar in the above identifed couplings are exhaustive of the qualities of the works taken individually. I wonder if you are doing this pursuing the same line as SanAntone:

"There could be no reason, beyond your own shortcomings, why you don't like String quintet 2 and string quartet 1".

I wager there is - and that it adheres in the music as much as much as my own reactions to the music. It is a fairly common opinion that the second String Quintet is superior to the first String Quartet, after all.

I.e. my preferences could be hitting patterns that are much more fine-grained than 'pastoral' vs 'contrapunctally dense' (etc.). Re pastoral, I dislike some English composers and love others. Re: counterpoint, I love Bach but not Shoenberg.

You have reaised the interesting question, though, of whether (and at what point), one's preferences tracking very fine-grained patterns is a kind of philistinism, or related shortcoming. Food for thought, generally.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Again, I like this forward inertia for its sense of motion, but it does restrict what Brahms is allowed to do.


Thank you very much for your posts in this thread. They actually nailed the source of my "big problem" in Brahms's music, which heretofore I couldn't quite pinpoint. I am both surprised and unsurprised that it actually resembles what I dislike about J.S. Bach's music.

The inertia. They just lack the flexibility to "stop" the music, to let it breathe. This is a problem I sometimes face during keyboard improvisation. It's not that hard to continue playing by coming up with new, organically flowing ideas, if one knows enough theory, but it can often be hard to convincingly and satisfyingly resolve and stop a long train of music that has made quite a streak of promises - "to put the dot at the end of a sentence", or to offer the conclusion - or the pun.

This "absolute relentlessness" in music, depending on the context, sounds either unskilled or tasteless to my ears, and is more than enough to make me horrified by judges of compositional skill who have so little sensitivity to it as to consider composers displaying this flaw in spades to be the cream of the crop, (we are talking Bach and Brahms, frequenters of top fives), above virtually all composers who did _not _display it. How can anyone, with full intellectual honesty, give a pass to such a "cardinal sin" when talking about musical perfection, is beyond me.

Otherwise I respect, and even admire Brahms.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Fabulin, I don't think that Brahms music lacks the flexibility to breathe. It's just that the parts of his music that do take a breather and turn back the momentum tend to be subtle motivic developments of what came before, so that his materials are continuously evolving. 

These motivic developments tend to be less outwardly obvious than those of Beethoven.

For example, in the first movement of the clarinet sonata 1 in F minor, the initial octave unison piano statement (the melodic upward fourth and downward step in the first measure C F Eb, followed by the quasi-sequencing, ending with the special chromatic note Gb in measure 4) gets transformed into different contexts in the first subject.

I especially want to point out the "relaxation" that occurs at measures 38-39 in the second theme in D flat major. The piano left hand has the same melodic upward fourth and downward step as measure 1, but rhythmically augmented and on the notes F Bb Ab. The right hand melodically descends - Ab Gb F. This descent is the same as the descent in measures 4-5. The piano left hand then starts to melodically hover around the note Gb, that very special chromatic note introduced in measure 4. Do you see how, even though we've taken a breather and entered the second theme group, that the material here is not only a transformation of but also a commentary on the opening?

Brahms is able to achieve great things within that parameters that he sets out. He's not making cardinal sins in spades. Every composer needs to restrict certain elements of their music in order to focus on others.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Fabulin, I don't think that Brahms music lacks the flexibility to breathe. It's just that the parts of his music that do take a breather and turn back the momentum tend to be *subtle motivic developments of what came before, so that his materials are continuously evolving*.
> 
> These motivic developments tend to be less outwardly obvious than those of Beethoven.
> 
> ...


What you wrote seems correct, but the argument you are making appears better on paper than it's effectiveness in sound, I regret to say (after several relistens of the aforementioned sections, with score). Even in this - admittedly mild - example, because of the constant lingering of at least some movement in the less intense moments, music speaks with commas and question marks rather than full stops. The movement being thematically connected makes it even worse, because by basic laws of harmony, the listener's mind picks the connections up, and they disturb any pause that could be used to amplify what the music just communicated. It is a very basic matter, a sort of musical rhetoric 101. Full stops have their role, and it's a very important role.

Beethoven, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Wagner, Verdi, Bruckner, Tchaikovsky, or Dvorak wouldn't have qualms to stop where necessary, and let it ring, both in vocal and instrumental music. Not all of those composers I consider greater than Brahms overall, but it's an important quality, and one that was not rare in Brahms' times. In my view it doesn't need to be "traded off" no matter one's style.

Speaking of breathers, the timings with which Brahms introduces new figures or ideas are also far from "perfection" in music marketed by some, and the counterpoint is not the most coherent to me. I have no issue with the Meistersinger prelude or the finale of Mozart's Jupiter, for example, juggling multiple ideas within a very coherent whole, but Brahms seems to actively _change the topic_ for split-seconds with his use of counterpoint. As a result, Brahms' counterpoint seems to me quite often rather arbitrary as far as the end effect of music is concerned, even if in theory the presence of connections or variations can be discerned. Such gestures make sense on paper within a certain formal tradition of interpretations, but as heard, they seem to unnecessarily try to "entertain". A huge part of Brahms's enduring popularity is a challenge such 'entertainment' offers to the performers, but for listeners, the results are bound to vary.

As far as I was able to research, the music was not played by Brahms' circle in any way that would make his inertias or his contrapunctual additions of "interest" any milder. Quite the opposite - in fact! They raced through it as if merely checking if all that was playable. Lots of chamber fun to be had to be sure, but as someone once wrote about Bach - "a column of seals with a circus ball at the very top" is funny only for so long.

I have never had the impression that Brahms is a particularily good example of any classical "restraint" in composition aesthetics, which is often hailed as his big perk. Paradoxically this seems to describe Tchaikovsky more, with his distaste for and avoidance of overencumbering the music.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

It's hard for me to think in a weakness in Brahms. He was a connoisseur of all kinds of music of his time and of those of previous periods, and I think that this provided him with a full command of all technical aspects of his art. Perhaps he was a bit too conservative in form? I don't really know.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Fabulin said:


> What you wrote seems correct, but the argument you are making appears better on paper than it's effectiveness in sound, I regret to say (after several relistens of the aforementioned sections, with score). Even in this - admittedly mild - example, because of the constant lingering of at least some movement in the less intense moments, music speaks with commas and question marks rather than full stops. The movement being thematically connected makes it even worse, because by basic laws of harmony, the listener's mind picks the connections up, and they disturb any pause that could be used to amplify what the music just communicated. It is a very basic matter, a sort of musical rhetoric 101. Full stops have their role, and it's a very important role.


Thanks for the detailed listen! I have a few comments.

First, regarding your first sentence, the rhythmic augmentation in the left hand in the second theme at measures 38-39 recalling the opening measure is not just a coincidence, but has direct implications for the development section. In the development, the left hand in the second theme texture more explicitly recalls the opening four bars by including the eighth note turn figure. Check measures 90-93 and similar following measures. It's a real aural relationship, not an "on paper" relationship, because the aural connection felt motivates the music in the development section. It's not some abstract game without aural salience.

Second, I agree that most listeners won't be able to make the conscious connection. I certainly couldn't without reading an analysis. And yet, I think listeners are making a subconscious connection. When musical laymen say that Brahms is highly thoughtful and interwoven, they are talking about these kinds of things, even if they cannot directly articulate it.

We normally think of motivic development to be explicit and easily consciously perceived, like with the fate motif in the first movement of Beethoven's fifth, but sometimes less explicit connections are more valuable (there are many in the first movement of Beethoven's fifth - my favorite is the connection between the exposition bridge section and the climactic coda theme) because they establish deeper relationships between sections.

Finally, going past your first sentence, what you describe is what makes that whole clarinet sonata movement good! I wouldn't want Brahms to do anything in that movement differently. Why should Brahms have chosen instead different harmonies that convey more of a sense of full stop? They wouldn't fit the music!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I think it is presumptuous to think it is a shortcoming of Brahms's if you don't enjoy a work of his. The shortcoming, such as it is, would on the part of the listener, who does not enjoy what Brahms was doing in the work. Nothing wrong with that.


Couldn't agree more, unless the listener in question really has great expertise and can describe very explicitly and with technical detail what Brahms was trying to do and what they think he should have done differently. This could be done with reference to works that the listener finds more successful. That can be interesting because it tells us something about Brahms.

But when someone just says something along the lines of "it doesn't move me" -- even when they do it with super-florid language -- that's only interesting if we care about that person. They're telling us about themselves, not about Brahms.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Coach G said:


> "For those who respect and even admire Brahms, but don't worship the man"
> 
> Here's an interesting choice of words that touches upon something that has always bothered me. As a confirmed introvert I've always loved classical music and art museums much more than wall-to-wall parties, carrying on all night, and being the life of the party.
> 
> ...


There is room for both. It's possible to enjoy something without having a great deal of respect for it, to respect something without enjoying it very much, or perhaps best to both enjoy and respect it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I can see where Roger Waters is coming from. I think understanding what's going on can really be the turning point to getting to like it. Maybe some can follow along what's happening right away, and can judge whether they like it and want to invest more time. But maybe others don't have that opinion formed until they understand it more. 

With Brahms I only connect with the right performance in his symphonies, by Klemperer and Haitink pretty much exclusively. I hate the dramatic changes especially in tempo, and the wild Romanticism that most others put into the music (Carlos Klieber in particular). For that sort of thing I'd go to Tchaikovsky. Brahms is quite a master of rhythmic motifs and spacing, and those 2 conductors highlight those, over momentum and dramatic changes which destroy it. I heard Rachmaninov described by Heck as thick and muddy, that is nothing compared to the thick and muddy orchestration of Brahms, especially in the opening of the violin concerto, which has some pretty atrocious moments to me.

His chamber works, maybe because of the thinner textures work much better for me.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> In short, I am indeed 'blaming the composer' - but *blaming him for my subjective reactions*. To insist I identify the cause for why I don't like some of Brahms' music within myself, rather than in Brahms music, is absurd. *Imagine saying the same thing to someone who likes this or that Brahms peice and wants to learn more about the piece to work out why he likes it*. "How dare you look positively at Brahms' music instead of at your own subjective reactions to the music!".


Blaming Brahms for your subjective reaction? Sorry, but my subjective reaction to this statement is: How very strange! You do realize Brahms died before you were born, right?


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

I also see the perspective of the OP. I like Brahms, and, at his finest, I find him profound, lyrical, and worthy of every accolade -- The atmosphere of German Requiem, the melody of the Violin Concerto, the symphonies.

But! at times I think he doesn't dial it in. The music can come across as too sentimental, cloying. I feel this way about the second piano concerto among others that I can't think of at the moment.

Also, at times the music feels like it could be more directly stated, like it could use some editing.

I would still consider him one of the greats but, for me, his sepulcher is not surrounded by the 12 virgin goddesses.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

-------------------


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Roger, I have an idea of what you’re not liking in some of Brahms’s music. You might not like the combination of (a.) thick doubled octave unison textures or chorale textures, especially in strings or piano with (b.) directly personal, emotive, and yearning melodic instrumental singing within these sorts of textures. The piano trios/quartets/quintet have a lot of both element (a.) and element (b.) and they are all, save for the youthful early piano trio 1, on your dislike list. The ode to joy theme in the finale of the first symphony that you don’t like is another example of (a.) and (b.). You might also dislike the thick, singing and emotive piano soloist in the piano concertos. The unique Brahmsian forward inertial style can make this all much to bear.

You might enjoy the clarinet chamber works and the horn trio because the mixed colors involving the wind instrument alleviate some of this. You might also enjoy the string quintets because of their more heterogeneous string textures than in the piano-string chamber works.

This doesn’t explain everything - you don’t like the string quartets, but then again, a lot of people don’t like them (a view that I vehemently and critically disagree with, but that’s another story). You don’t like the third movement of the fourth symphony - I can understand but also disagree with the negative evaluation. You probably have some reactions and likes/dislikes for other reasons.

Nevertheless, all this information isn’t that useful because it speaks to your specific taste reactions. There are musical works that I don’t get much of a taste-level pleasure sensation out of, and yet have learned a lot from by assimilating and understanding them at a gut level, while not having needed to read any theory or analysis. For example, I don’t get much of a pleasure rush out of Debussy. It’s a silly idiosyncratic taste thing, and the reasons why are not important. What is important is that I’m picking up on what he’s doing and learning something new by fully assimilating his music. You can do this yourself by listening to any work of Brahms or any other composer carefully and trying to subconsciously draw musical connections and engage with the content at a deeper level. That’s more valuable than even liking the music, or having the music hit your preference patterns.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I look forward to the same level of piercing scrutiny as we deeply probe how and why we fail to be always pleased by every other composer.


----------



## Guest (Nov 27, 2020)

Phil loves classical said:


> I can see where Roger Waters is coming from. I think understanding what's going on can really be the turning point to getting to like it. Maybe some can follow along what's happening right away, and can judge whether they like it and want to invest more time. But maybe others don't have that opinion formed until they understand it more.
> 
> With Brahms I only connect with the right performance in his symphonies, by Klemperer and Haitink pretty much exclusively. I hate the dramatic changes especially in tempo, and the wild Romanticism that most others put into the music (Carlos Klieber in particular). For that sort of thing I'd go to Tchaikovsky. Brahms is quite a master of rhythmic motifs and spacing, and those 2 conductors highlight those, over momentum and dramatic changes which destroy it. I heard Rachmaninov described by Heck as thick and muddy, that is nothing compared to the thick and muddy orchestration of Brahms, especially in the opening of the violin concerto, which has some pretty atrocious moments to me.
> 
> His chamber works, maybe because of the thinner textures work much better for me.


Somebody disapproves of Carlos Kleiber's Brahms!! I love it; the intensity and highly-charged, driven Brahms 4 is matched by the lush lyricism of his Brahms 2. Give me my sin again!!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

It's difficult enough to rationalize our own tastes - sometimes we can do it insightfully, at other times we're mysteries to ourselves - and I wouldn't presume to try to understand the tastes of anyone else. In trying to do that we're likely to end up making assumptions and characterizing other people in ways we have no business doing, as witness this inappropriate attempt to "explain" my statements about Mahler and in the process draw conclusions about me (post #309):

https://www.talkclassical.com/36763-mahler-love-his-music-21.html#post1964837

We need to have the self-awareness and mutual respect to avoid that sort of presumptuous nonsense.

There's not much argument about Brahms's stature as a composer. Given that, RogerWaters' reactions to Brahms are valid and will make sense to him but may well be baffling to others. They are to me, to a great extent. I can't recall a moment, in listening to Brahms, in which I perceived "a lack of directness and a lack of distance" or "a failure to drive a point home." Nor have I ever had what I could clearly characterize as "the strange experience where a collection of stimuli are clammering [sic] very hard to say something that ultimately doesn't stick," unless that's just a way of saying "I don't understand Brahms."

There _was_ a time, early in my musical life, when Brahms didn't speak to me; he seemed somehow stiff, retentive, and cerebral despite his expressive gestures when heard alongside such apparently uninhibited Romantics as Tchaikovsky and Wagner. It took only a few years for me to come to much different conclusions about him, and I know that what changed was not Brahms but me. My ears and brain were thoroughly musical at 16; I had no trouble following a musical design. The symphonies of Brahms made perfect structural sense. I simply didn't know what they were trying to tell me. I thought he was trying to write Romantic music and somehow failing. I couldn't understand the Brahmsian tension between emotional expression and formal strictness, or feel the power generated by this duality. In college a friend introduced me to the _German Requiem_; I loved it, and with it I began to understand Brahms. The revelation came quickly, and within a year I was virtually unable to stop listening to Brahms, especially to the chamber music for piano and strings, which remains some of my favorite music to this day.

I could go on a bit about what I get out of the music of Brahms, but I think it's essentially what most experienced musicians recognize is there. His music can be uncommonly satisfying on the emotional and the structural levels simultaneously. It has both deep feeling and extraordinary craftsmanship. It is music of impeccable integrity and sincerity. Occasionally the craft seems to draw excessive attention to itself (Brahms knew this and envied the fluency of Mozart), but I hear this in a spirit of affectionate forgiveness. I don't go to Brahms for flash, sensuous thrills, glib sentiment, or easy "fun." I go to him for solid satisfaction. He rarely fails me.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

science said:


> Couldn't agree more, *unless the listener in question really has great expertise and can describe very explicitly and with technical detail what Brahms was trying to do* and what they think he should have done differently. This could be done with reference to works that the listener finds more successful. That can be interesting because it tells us something about Brahms.
> 
> But when someone just says something along the lines of "it doesn't move me" -- even when they do it with super-florid language -- that's only interesting if we care about that person. *They're telling us about themselves, not about Brahms.*


What I think you are saying is that criticism may be made of Brahms (or another composer) via formal analysis only. Anything else will merely carry information about the listener, as opposed to the composer. Is this right?

Of course, such a position automatically excludes critical 'analysis' by people not educated in formal theory. My objection is related to this, but is not entirely synonymous:

Put crudely, demanding criticism by formal analysis ensures that such criticism is restricted to the level of 'syntax' (method of communication) at the expense of 'semantics' (what is communicated).

Obviously, when it comes to music as opposed to language, semantics (such as it is in music) is much more heavily intertwined with syntax. However, is it _really_ only informative of the listener and not of Brahms to suggest that much of Brahms' music _expresses_ ('semantic content'!) a rather cloying, unfulfilled energy of obstructed longing (the second string sextet would be a prime example)? I don't think so.

But here is where the subjective intrudes to a greater degree, in agreement with your comments: listeners are going to respond to this ('objective') content differently, depending on subjective factors (preferences, emotional calibration, outlook on life, etc.). Some (perhaps those with less pity/tolerance towards an unfulfilled will that cannot seem to latch onto its object) are going to find it quickly tiring; others endearing.

More generally, I wonder where we would be as music listeners restricted to thinking about music in formal terms only. Why stop there, if we want to be 'objective'? Why not descend to the level of physics and discuss nothing but frequency and wavelength? I guess because at this level we dip below the level of the composer's intentions.

But is it incorrect to suggest that Brahms intended to communicate, in the conclusion of his 1st symphony, some kind of exultation in response to the reflections in movements 1-3 (how would you capture _this _in the language of formal music theory, I wonder?)?

Granting this, much of the last movement (starting about a quarter of the way in) comes across to me as the _kind _of exultation that a 1960s English school principal would have felt in front of the fire, with his feet up and a glass of wine in hand after a week at school warding off impressionable young teenagers from various life-affirming experiences. Compare Brahms' exultation with Beethoven's in the final movement of his 9th symphony, for instance. In the latter, the exultation experienced after a face-to-face encounter with reality stripped of human pretensions is something rapturous, as opposed to bourgeois comfort.

While I admit these last remarks are subjective, I don't think they are completely subjective. They carry information about the kind of man Brahms was - to some degree. He was a man to whom a bit of bourgeois, homely comfort, would have gone a long way. This is, I think, even born out by the man's biography (although I am no expert here).


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

20centrfuge said:


> I also see the perspective of the OP. I like Brahms, and, at his finest, I find him profound, lyrical, and worthy of every accolade -- The atmosphere of German Requiem, the melody of the Violin Concerto, the symphonies.
> 
> But! at times I think he doesn't dial it in. The music can come across as too sentimental, cloying. I feel this way about the second piano concerto among others that I can't think of at the moment.
> 
> ...


I think similarly to you (for very similar reasons!), and the wider music-loving public might too. It is interesting to consider Brahms' standing more generally, as opposed to among the perhaps more 'analytic' participants on forums, who may or may not be representative.

Using monthly listens on Spotify, in this case (and assuming people listen more to composers they appreciate more), it seems Brahms is significantly less appreciated than the two other 'three Bs' (calling into question the very idea of the 'three Bs' and its connotations, I would think), and also significantly less than Mozart:

Bach - 6,940,906
Beethoven - 6,030,193
Mozart - 5,650,668
Chopin - 5,118,770
Debussy - 4,356,116
Tchaikovsky - 4,056,819
Vivaldi - 3,489,715
Schubert - 2,813,510
Handel - 2,711,053
----------------------------
Brahms - 2,606,494


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

RogerWaters said:


> I think similarly to you, and so does the wider music-loving public, it seems. It is interesting to consider Brahms' standing more generally, as opposed to the perhaps more 'analytic' participants on forums, who may or may not be representative.
> 
> Using monthly listens on Spotify, in this case, it seems Brahms is significantly less appreciated than the two other 'three Bs' (calling into question the very idea of the 'three Bs'), and also significantly less than Mozart:
> 
> ...


OTOH, on the American orchestral scene Brahms came in at 3rd place in the most recent season I have access to, after Beethoven and Mozart. Bach, notable by his absence, didn't write much music for what we consider the "full orchestra", which may have inhibited his showing here.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Bach, notable by his absence, didn't write much music for what we consider the "full orchestra", which may have inhibited his showing here.


Another problem is that it's probably heavily skewed towards old people if it's measuring concert goers.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

> RogerWaters: "Using monthly listens on Spotify, in this case (and assuming people listen more to composers they appreciate more), it seems Brahms is significantly less appreciated than the two other 'three Bs' (calling into question the very idea of the 'three Bs' and its connotations, I would think), and also significantly less than Mozart:
> 
> Bach - 6,940,906
> Beethoven - 6,030,193
> ...


I think what might be at least part of what is reflected here is the availability of easily digestible musical nuggets from the works of the high-ranking composers--quick fixes, often-heard tunes that can be processed easily and quickly, maybe as background music to work or play. Brahms' music is less likely to lend itself to this sort of purpose--certainly the symphonies and concertos for which he is best known. A quick waltz or mazurka or two from Chopin, anyone?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> I think similarly to you (for very similar reasons!), and the wider music-loving public might too. It is interesting to consider Brahms' standing more generally, as opposed to among the perhaps more 'analytic' participants on forums, who may or may not be representative.
> 
> Using monthly listens on Spotify, in this case (and assuming people listen more to composers they appreciate more), it seems Brahms is significantly less appreciated than the two other 'three Bs' (calling into question the very idea of the 'three Bs' and its connotations, I would think), and also significantly less than Mozart:
> 
> ...


How far down the list do you have to go before you start to see Cage?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

RogerWaters said:


> I think similarly to you (for very similar reasons!), and the wider music-loving public might too. It is interesting to consider Brahms' standing more generally, as opposed to among the perhaps more 'analytic' participants on forums, who may or may not be representative.
> 
> Using monthly listens on Spotify, in this case (and assuming people listen more to composers they appreciate more), it seems Brahms is significantly less appreciated than the two other 'three Bs' (calling into question the very idea of the 'three Bs' and its connotations, I would think), and also significantly less than Mozart:
> 
> ...


You're using one source to draw a general conclusion? Are you sure Spotify is representative of the general population that listens to classical music? Many still listen to CDs. Or perhaps other online streaming sources.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

JAS said:


> How far down the list do you have to go before you start to see Cage?


A very long way indeed: 222,524.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You're using one source to draw a general conclusion? Are you sure Spotify is representative of the general population that listens to classical music? Many still listen to CDs. Or perhaps other online streaming sources.


It's probably skewed towards the younger generations a bit, I would think.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden (Jul 15, 2020)

KenOC said:


> OTOH, on the American orchestral scene Brahms came in at 3rd place in the most recent season I have access to, after Beethoven and Mozart. Bach, notable by his absence, didn't write much music for what we consider the "full orchestra", which may have inhibited his showing here.


Thanks for posting that graph - I might have predicted the very same except that Ravel was something of a surprise - oh, no it's not - _Bolero_, I'd wager takes up a considerable chunk of those Ravel performances!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

RogerWaters said:


> It's probably skewed towards the younger generations a bit, I would think.


So even after all this "campaign", young people still don't like Brahms?




]


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

RogerWaters said:


> It's probably skewed towards the younger generations a bit, I would think.


Very much so yes and we know that the older generations are much more likely to listen to classical music so your Spotify results are not a good representation. Also, and I know this is just one example but it could very well represent a common usage of Spotify, I almost never listen to Brahms on Spotify. I listen to classical music almost exclusively on CDs. When I use Spotify, it is usually to listen to non-classical or to sample new(to me) classical music to decide if I want to buy the CD.


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

That ad's so bad, it's brilliant.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Very much so yes and we know that the older generations are much more likely to listen to classical music so your Spotify results are not a good representation. Also, and I know this is just one example but it could very well represent a common usage of Spotify, I almost never listen to Brahms on Spotify. I listen to classical music almost exclusively on CDs. When I use Spotify, it is usually to listen to non-classical or to sample new(to me) classical music to decide if I want to buy the CD.


I listen to almost all of my music on Spotify, and find just about everything I want of any genre. But I would agree that Spotify is probably skewed to a younger demographic of non-classical listeners. One thing I see more and more are the Spotify created "albums" which I guess they are providing for listeners who haven't listened to much classical music: "Mozart for Study" etc. I sometimes have to scroll down a bit to find real recordings.


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Very much so yes and we know that the older generations are much more likely to listen to classical music so your Spotify results are not a good representation. Also, and I know this is just one example but it could very well represent a common usage of Spotify, I almost never listen to Brahms on Spotify. I listen to classical music almost exclusively on CDs. When I use Spotify, it is usually to listen to non-classical or to sample new(to me) classical music to decide if I want to buy the CD.


Of course, you are assuming that Brahms is disproportionately loved by old people.

I think you would be right, as it happens, and that this connects with the spirit of his music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I know i feel positively geriatric when I listen to the major works of Brahms--I reach for my shawl and cane at the first notes of the first piano concerto.....


----------



## Handelian (Nov 18, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> I know i feel positively geriatric when I listen to the major works of Brahms--I reach for my shawl and cane at the first notes of the first piano concerto.....


That means too slow tempi


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Strange Magic said:


> I know i feel positively geriatric when I listen to the major works of Brahms--I reach for my shawl and cane at the first notes of the first piano concerto.....


I tend to reach for my pillow with this work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

RogerWaters said:


> I tend to reach for my pillow with this work.


To take a nap, or to suffocate someone?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> I know i feel positively geriatric when I listen to the major works of Brahms--I reach for my shawl and cane at the first notes of the first piano concerto.....


A friend of mine said he found the opening of the first concerto frightening. I hadn't thought of that, but the moment he said it I knew he was onto something. "Early" Brahms could be quite dramatic (some might say over-dramatic); the first symphony also begins in darkness and violence. The Romantic tribulation-to-triumph idea, much favored in the 19th century, derived from Beethoven, but Brahms abandoned it after the first symphony. Triumphalism wasn't really in his emotional make up, and he was an honest composer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

You're right. The evolution of Brahms is obvious and, i find, satisfying in itself, Starting with that wonderful Opus One of the First piano sonata, then through the Number One symphony and concerto--I thought the beginning, when first heard, of the first piano concerto was like the introduction to a film version of an Edgar Allen Poe short story--made my hair stand on end.

Then to hear Brahms mature, to hear him gather both strength and the capacity for great inner joy, especially, is very satisfying and nourishing. A very emotional composer, for me. Other listeners--some--seem not to pick up on that: such variation in taste and reaction!


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

There are many pieces of Brahms that I love dearly.
However, I don’t believe it’s advisable to ever worship anyone or anything!


----------

