# Why was Brahms accepted easier than Mahler?



## Charlie Ladd (Apr 30, 2017)

It's fairly well known, I guess, that Mahler was never widely respected as a composer in his lifetime. Brahms, on the other hand, was. In fact, I went to a performance of Mahler's 1st a few weeks ago, and in the program it said (paraphrasing) that Mahler was not understood in his time because "critics were used to very clear writing such as Brahms". This baffles me, because I've personally always found it much easier to enjoy Mahler. Mahler's 1st and 5th were extraordinary the first time I heard, and some of his other symphonies, like his 6th and 9th, took me a few listenings but I still got them without too much trouble.
Brahms, on the other hand, I still don't completely understand. His 1st symphony I'm still trying to wrap my head around, in fact. 
So I guess my question is, what was it about Brahms that made him easier for 19th and early 20th century critics to grasp than Mahler?


----------



## ProudSquire (Nov 30, 2011)

It's simple really... One had a a mighty beard the other did not. What I said is completely untrue as I have no idea, but I do hope you get an answer to your question.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Charlie Ladd said:


> It's fairly well known, I guess, that Mahler was never widely respected as a composer in his lifetime. Brahms, on the other hand, was. In fact, I went to a performance of Mahler's 1st a few weeks ago, and in the program it said (paraphrasing) that Mahler was not understood in his time because "critics were used to very clear writing such as Brahms". This baffles me, because I've personally always found it much easier to enjoy Mahler. Mahler's 1st and 5th were extraordinary the first time I heard, and some of his other symphonies, like his 6th and 9th, took me a few listenings but I still got them without too much trouble.
> Brahms, on the other hand, I still don't completely understand. His 1st symphony I'm still trying to wrap my head around, in fact.
> So I guess my question is, what was it about Brahms that made him easier for 19th and early 20th century critics to grasp than Mahler?


Interesting first post, welcome to TalkClasscal.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Brahms had the support of Schumann. The musical language of Brahms is similar to Schumann's. The conservatives that rallied to Mendelssohn and Schumann were more eager to receive Brahms. Mahler's music was a bigger departure from his mentor Bruckner's. There are some 20th century elements in Mahler's music, which a lot of critics weren't ready to accept at the time. Plus there was an anti-semite conservative faction that intentionally tried to knock him down.

Your problem with Brahms may be the fact a lot of conductors try to bring out the expressiveness at expense of the structure too much. Being a NeoClassical conservative, formal structure plays a larger role in the appreciation of his Symphonies than with other composers Romantic composers. Try Haitink's LSO version of the symphonies.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

For a fairly conservative audience (even counting those that revered Wagner or some of Liszt's stranger flights of fancy), Mahler just went in too many oddball directions too consistently for people to get a fix on him. The stormy, heart-on-sleeve emotionality of, for instance, the finale of the First; the corny Klezmer moments of the slow movement; the galumphy disjointedness of the first movement of the Second; the sprawlingness of the Third . . . each symphony had something baffling that was hard to love. Brahms had structural and motivic clarity that was relatively easier to follow and fewer unsettling "what the hell was _that_?" moments. Remember, we look at Mahler from the point of view of the late 20th and early 21st centuries, where society is a whole lot different from the Brahms/Mahler eras. Thought experiment: imagine the residents of Downton Abby reacting to works by Brahms, and then by Mahler. 

(And by the way, Bruckner was never Mahler's "mentor." Their works had far more differences of style and concept than resemblances.)

cheers --


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Perhaps Brahms achieved more widespread acceptance than Mahler, but he certainly had his share of influential detractors! These included Liszt, Wagner, Tchaikovsky, and even Nietzsche (who made a few disparaging remarks about Brahms in passing). In fact, I would say that Brahms was a controversial figure, with his defense of absolute music and classical traditions at a time when musical modernism was beginning to develop.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

MarkW said:


> (And by the way, Bruckner was never Mahler's "mentor." Their works had far more differences of style and concept than resemblances.)


Actually this is a true!

I would add Brahms 4 Symphonies would last less than 3 hours together, while each one of Mahler's Symphony takes around one hour as a minimum, and for public often is boring to listen too long pieces.
This is also a "small help" (not the most important fact about what happened, of course) to make Mahler less enjoyable for a huge number of people.


----------



## ibrahim (Apr 29, 2017)

Fyi Brahms respected Mahler as a conductor but thought he had no business being a composer. :lol:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Has ANY great composer had an easy time of it during his own lifetime?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Has ANY great composer had an easy time of it during his own lifetime?


Yes, Haydn and Verdi.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

ProudSquire said:


> One had a a mighty beard the other did not. What I said is completely untrue . . .


Don't lie: it IS true!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Perhaps because (speculating) a number of Mahler's large scale works exhibit unprecedented formal boldness but are, consequently, structurally flawed or fail to gel into coherent wholes, whereas Brahms, staying within less ambitious limits, nailed it nearly every time.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

Charlie Ladd said:


> Brahms, on the other hand, I still don't completely understand. His 1st symphony I'm still trying to wrap my head around, in fact.


Every time I listen to a Brahms symphony, it feels like the first time that I've heard it even though I've heard them all several times. I'm always noticing new, significant things. I've been listening to the Harnoncourt cycle a lot now since I brought it a few months back and I think that's part of why I'm getting a new sense about Brahms' symphonies. Anyway, the high levels of discovery I get with Brahms' symphonies isn't something I get with other composers, including Mahler, so it is something unique about Brahms. While I do like some of Mahler's symphonies due to the oddity of them, 1 and 5 in particular, I generally prefer Brahms' symphonies.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think it's because Mahler was ahead of his time; critics weren't able to handle the conflict and contrasts (what was THAT moments as MarkW said) which characterize his work. This conflict reflected the conflict of the times, which soon broke out into two world wars.

Plus, I agree with Phil loves Classical that there was an anti-semitic element at play as well.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> *Brahms had the support of Schumann*. The musical language of Brahms is similar to Schumann's. The conservatives that rallied to Mendelssohn and Schumann were more eager to receive Brahms. Mahler's music was a bigger departure from his mentor Bruckner's. There are some 20th century elements in Mahler's music, which a lot of critics weren't ready to accept at the time. Plus there was an anti-semite conservative faction that intentionally tried to knock him down.
> 
> Your problem with Brahms may be the fact a lot of conductors try to bring out the expressiveness at expense of the structure too much. Being a NeoClassical conservative, formal structure plays a larger role in the appreciation of his Symphonies than with other composers Romantic composers. Try Haitink's LSO version of the symphonies.


That's good to know. Brahms had the support of a dude sharing the floor and the thorazine with Jack Nicholson.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If the OP was indeed true, it could have had nothing to do with their music and everything to do with anti-semitism.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> I think it's because Mahler was ahead of his time; critics weren't able to handle the conflict and contrasts (what was THAT moments as MarkW said) which characterize his work. This conflict reflected the conflict of the times, which soon broke out into two world wars.


It's true all Mahler's symphonies are secretly about keeping the Slavs down


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I actually found Brahms much easier to get into. Mahler took me awhile. 

In addition to what has already been said, I think Brahms is the better composer and deserves his accolades.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> I* think it's because Mahler was ahead of his time; critics weren't able to handle the conflict and contrasts (what was THAT moments as MarkW said) which characterize his work*. This conflict reflected the conflict of the times, which soon broke out into two world wars.
> 
> Plus, I agree with Phil loves Classical that there was an anti-semitic element at play as well.


That's one way to look at it. I would say Mahler was reaching beyond his grasp (which is often not a bad thing) and that it was _he_ who couldn't consistently handle the contrasts and conflicts - that is, couldn't always get them to gel or resolve satisfactorily. So for me, some works sound very ambitious and quite successful while others sound like overambitious disasters.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

I'd wager the critics grasped Mahler just fine in his lifetime, they just didn't think he was nearly in the same class as Brahms. That view is still generally held today, even though Mahler has seen his stock rise steadily since WWII. If we attribute his initial lackluster reception to antisemitism, which is bound to contain a kernel of truth given the climate in Europe, should we attribute his modern reception to the prominence of Jews as music directors and orchestra members and audience members since WWII then?


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Brahms wrote many other charming pieces, not of gigantic proportions that relate better to many listeners. That's they key reason.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

bz3 said:


> I'd wager the critics grasped Mahler just fine in his lifetime, they just didn't think he was nearly in the same class as Brahms. That view is still generally held today, even though Mahler has seen his stock rise steadily since WWII.


Is that view still "generally held"? It wasn't my impression the matter is nearly that clear-cut.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

amfortas said:


> Is that view still "generally held"? It wasn't my impression the matter is nearly that clear-cut.


I don't doubt that there is a vocal minority who think Mahler is a better composer than Brahms, just as I'm sure there is a vocal minority who think Strauss is better than Beethoven. I would be shocked if it was anything other than a minority though, in either case.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

amfortas said:


> Is that view still "generally held"? It wasn't my impression the matter is nearly that clear-cut.


In my opinion Brahms is clearly a better composer than Mahler and I don't recall seeing any lists (whenever I stumble upon them) that rank Mahler higher. Brahms' four symphonies stacked up against Mahler's best four are as good, if not better. Mahler did write six more symphonies (including Das Lied) but nothing else of significance. Brahms wrote four concerto masterpieces, a choral masterpiece and a plethora or chamber works among the very best, in addition to three great piano sonatas and other solo piano music. I mean, it's not close really.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In my opinion Brahms is clearly a better composer than Mahler and I don't recall seeing any lists (whenever I stumble upon them) that rank Mahler higher. Brahms' four symphonies stacked up against Mahler's best four are as good, if not better. Mahler did write six more symphonies (including Das Lied) but nothing else of significance. Brahms wrote four concerto masterpieces, a choral masterpiece and a plethora or chamber works among the very best, in addition to three great piano sonatas and other solo piano music. I mean, it's not close really.


*cough* Mahler's song cycles...plus Brahms's piano sonatas I thought were considered some of his worst work, along with his mediocre string quartets.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> *cough* Mahler's song cycles...plus Brahms's piano sonatas I thought were considered some of his worst work, along with his mediocre string quartets.


I counted Das Lied von Der Erde as a symphony but I really don't think too highly of song cycles. Brahms' piano sonatas are very underrated and are certainly not some of his "worst" work. And I wouldn't classify his string quartets as mediocre.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Brahms' four symphonies stacked up against Mahler's best four are as good, if not better. Mahler did write six more symphonies (including Das Lied) but nothing else of significance.


Nothing of significance...
Das Klagende Lied
Kindertotenlieder
Des Knaben Wunderhorn
Songs of a Wayfarer

So what does constitute significance?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> In my opinion Brahms is clearly a better composer than Mahler and I don't recall seeing any lists (whenever I stumble upon them) that rank Mahler higher.


From another site, "best composer" voting game:
1 - Beethoven
2 - Bach
3 - Mozart
4 - Haydn
5 - Mahler
6 - Schubert
7 - Brahms
8 - Stravinsky
9 - Handel
10 - Tchaikovsky


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Becca said:


> Nothing of significance...
> Das Klagende Lied
> Kindertotenlieder
> Des Knaben Wunderhorn
> ...


Sorry, I don't consider song cycles an interesting or significant genre.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

KenOC said:


> From another site, "best composer" voting game:
> 1 - Beethoven
> 2 - Bach
> 3 - Mozart
> ...


Well, I guess I missed that list  Sorry but Mahler has no business ranked 5th. And I absolutely love half of his symphonies.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sorry, I don't consider song cycles an interesting or significant genre.


You really want Brahms to win this, don't you? 
Well don't let me get in your way.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Chronochromie said:


> *cough* Mahler's song cycles...plus Brahms's piano sonatas I thought were considered some of his worst work, along with his mediocre string quartets.


Right.. because Brahms' worst solo piano works refute his very best contributions to the genre (the late piano pieces and Handel Variations) and his three weakest chamber works refute all his other chamber music (all 21 works of which are a central part of the performing repertoire). Not to mention the Vier Ernste Gesange, Alto Rhapsody, Feldeinsamkeit, Todessehnen, Von Ewiger Liebe, the Op.91 viola songs, the Op.105 songs, the Sappische Ode, the Ziegeunerlieder...

You could make a case for Mahler if you restrict attention to just symphonies and lieder, but across all genres Mahler does not hold a candle.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Perhaps because (speculating) a number of Mahler's large scale works exhibit unprecedented formal boldness but are, consequently, structurally flawed or fail to gel into coherent wholes, whereas Brahms, staying within less ambitious limits, nailed it nearly every time.


I think it was pretty ambitious of Brahms to write a four-movement concerto - and he definitely nailed it!


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

pjang23 said:


> Right.. because Brahms' worst solo piano works refute his very best contributions to the genre (the late piano pieces and Handel Variations) and his three weakest chamber works refute all his other chamber music (all 21 works of which are a central part of the performing repertoire). Not to mention the Vier Ernste Gesange, Alto Rhapsody, Feldeinsamkeit, Todessehnen, Von Ewiger Liebe, the Op.91 viola songs, the Op.105 songs, the Sappische Ode, the Ziegeunerlieder...


I don't see how you got that out of my post.

About the rest: one can make a case for Mahler over Brahms in the same way that one can make a case for Wagner over Brahms. That comparison isn't at all controversial, yet he wrote almost exclusively operas.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Ah, these "my genius beats your genius" arguments... Brahms's achievements impress me more than Mahler's, but then his mix of Classical and Romantic temperament - emotionally rich but controlled - and his very visible, chiselled craftsmanship speak more personally to me than Mahler's all-out assault on the universe. Mahler impresses me and sometimes moves me powerfully, but he can sound hysterical, strident and suffocating, as well as, at times, prolix and unwieldy. A genius, but not my genius.

I really don't care who's greater. (But it's Brahms!)


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Ah, these "my genius beats your genius" arguments...


Well, it's not really an argument, because as we all know, Mahler is better, right?


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sorry, I don't consider song cycles an interesting or significant genre.


Sorry (not sorry), they are anyway.

Brahms is still better than Mahler though.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Another ranking, for what it's worth.

Greatest Composers of Symphonies

1. Ludwig Van Beethoven
*2. Gustav Mahler
3. Johannes Brahms*
4. Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky
5. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
6. Joseph Haydn
7. Dmitri Shostakovich
8. Anton Bruckner
9. Franz Schubert
10. Antonin Dvorak
11. Jean Sibelius
12. Ralph Vaughan Williams
13. Felix Mendelssohn
14. Robert Schumann
15. Serge Prokofiev


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Sorry, I don't consider song cycles an interesting or significant genre.


Makes you wonder why Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Wagner, Brahms, Strauss, Wolf, and yes, Mahler wasted so much time and effort.

And those are just the German-language high points!


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

Another ranking already mentioned in another post, for what it's worth.

The Top 10 Great Symphonies according to a survey of 151 Conductors carried out by the BBC music magazine:

1. Beethoven Symphony No 3 (1803)
2. Beethoven Symphony No 9 (1824)
3. Mozart Symphony No 41 (1788)
*4. Mahler Symphony No 9* (1909)
*5. Mahler Symphony No 2* (1894 rev 1903)
*6. Brahms Symphony No 4* (1885)
7. Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique (1830)
*8. Brahms Symphony No 1* (1876)
9. Tchaikovsky Symphony No 6 (1893)
*10. Mahler Symphony No 3* (1896)

EDIT: By the way, even both are great favorites of mine, I still praise Brahms slightly more than Mahler as overall composer, which means Mahler is a GREAT composer for me nonetheless.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

Consider this too: Mahler's primary musical role when he was alive was as a conductor so he may have had more renown for that. Additionally, Mahler was Jewish during a time when Anti-semitism was not uncommon so likely also played a role.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

amfortas said:


> Makes you wonder why Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Strauss, Wolf, and yes, Mahler wasted so much time and effort.
> 
> And those are just the German-language high points!


Fauré = >>> Strauss, Wolf, Mahler





,


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

amfortas said:


> Makes you wonder why Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Strauss, Wolf, and yes, Mahler wasted so much time and effort.
> 
> And those are just the German-language high points!


Yes, it does make one wonder. They should have focused their efforts on writing more symphonies


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Chronochromie said:


> You really want Brahms to win this, don't you?
> Well don't let me get in your way.


I don't _want _Brahms to win. He wins regardless of my wish.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

amfortas said:


> Another ranking, for what it's worth.
> 
> Greatest Composers of Symphonies
> 
> ...


Decent ranking(even though Sibelius should be higher). But Brahms wrote a lot more than just four symphonies, which is what puts him ahead of Mahler in my opinion.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

jdec said:


> Another ranking already mentioned in another post, for what it's worth.
> 
> The Top 10 Great Symphonies according to a survey of 151 Conductors carried out by the BBC music magazine:
> 
> ...


You forgot to highlight the other Brahms symphony on this list - #1 

But even if you give Mahler the nod in the symphony genre, Brahms beats him in concertos, chamber and solo piano music, which are pretty significant genres.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> You forgot to highlight the other Brahms symphony on this list - #1
> 
> But even if you give Mahler the nod in the symphony genre, Brahms beats him in concertos, chamber and solo piano music, which are pretty significant genres.


Yeah, I fixed that.

Brahms "_beats him in concertos, chamber, etc_"? "My genius beats your genius" argument, huh? I don't know you, but I win because I love both composers and I'm very fortunate to access to their music.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

jdec said:


> Yeah, I fixed that.
> 
> Brahms "_beats him in concertos, chamber, etc_"? "My genius beats your genius" argument, huh? I don't know you, but *I win because I love both composers and I'm very fortunate to access to their music. *


Me too!!  A good position to be in. I own the complete works of both.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes, it does make one wonder. They should have focused their efforts on writing more symphonies


Even Wolf?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

jdec said:


> Yeah, I fixed that.
> 
> Brahms "_beats him in concertos, chamber, etc_"? "My genius beats your genius" argument, huh? I don't know you, but I win because I love both composers and I'm very fortunate to access to their music.


I love both too. I'm not bashing Mahler in this thread, just pointing out why I think Brahms is a better composer.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

amfortas said:


> Even Wolf?


Well, maybe not Wolf 

But hey, he wrote mostly songs, and is not often considered among the best composers, so there is a pretty good clue about how the classical community feels about songs.


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I love both too. I'm not bashing Mahler in this thread, just pointing out why I think Brahms is a better composer.


You seem to think Brahms was better just because Mahler did not write concertos, Chamber or solo piano music. So what about Wagner? would you consider him below Brahms just for that same reason? (EDIT: I personally regard Wagner almost equally high as Brahms overall)


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

jdec said:


> You seem to think Brahms was better just because Mahler did not write concertos, Chamber or solo piano music. So what about Wagner? would you consider him below Brahms just for that same reason?


Yes, I would and do.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't _want _Brahms to win. He wins regardless of my wish.


You wish!...............


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bettina said:


> I think it was pretty ambitious of Brahms to write a four-movement concerto - and he definitely nailed it!


Maybe so, but the concerto would have worked out pretty well if the second movement Allegro Appassionato was never composed.

Also, the meltingly beautiful cello solo of the third movement teases us into wondering how great would a cello concerto have been from the pen of Brahms?


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

Mahler is a bit weird. Sometimes I think is it proper symphonic music or not, but I still really like it. Brahms, otoh is so versatile. He could write anything, and he did. And the beard.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I don't think of it as which composer is 'better' since other than comparing their symphonies, there's not much more to compare. On that score, IMO, Brahm's symphonies are more immediately attractive, For instance, the opening of the 1st has the sort of melodic drama and excitement that reminds of Beethoven. However, the Mahler symphonies grow on one more slowly and there is so much substance that you can spend a lifetime finding something new in them. They may just be the 'ultimate' symphonies.

But, that being said, there are far more gateways for the new listener to the music of Brahms. The violin concerto alone (IMO, its only equal is the Beethoven) is enough to make one love Brahms forever. And then there are the piano concertos (IMO the 1st almost equals the Beethoven Emporer), the sonatas and the quartets (though the latter take more effort to appreciate).


----------



## jdec (Mar 23, 2013)

We all know who will win, but just for the sake of fun :

http://www.talkclassical.com/48854-mahler-vs-brahms.html


----------



## NishmatHaChalil (Apr 17, 2017)

Magnum Miserium said:


> Fauré = >>> Strauss, Wolf, Mahler
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I agree! I love Mahler, but Fauré is probably my favorite song composer from the 20th century, except perhaps for Schönberg.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2017)

Charlie Ladd said:


> Brahms, on the other hand, I still don't completely understand. His 1st symphony I'm still trying to wrap my head around, in fact.


Well if you can partly understand him, you're doing better than me. I've not yet succumbed to his alleged charms either.

In fairness, it took a long time for me to get Mahler, so it's possible that other dominos will fall eventually (JB as well as Bruckner, Tchaikovsky).


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Well if you can partly understand him, you're doing better than me. I've not yet succumbed to his alleged charms either.
> 
> In fairness, it took a long time for me to get Mahler, so it's possible that other dominos will fall eventually (JB as well as Bruckner, Tchaikovsky).


We all have different paths, leading eventually to Brahms... just kidding, of course. To each their own.

I have a feeling that quite many people try to start with symphonies, and that may not be the best way to approach Brahms. Might work for some, but for me it didn't. I also started to listen to the symphonies, and they were just dull, uninteresting, muddy, academic, and all that, you know.

But then - (yes, it's the "then" time now) - I almost accidentally heard his first serenade. The opening theme... BOOM! Later I moved to his chamber music, piano sonatas. Again piano sonata #1... no question I was hooked. After I learned all these "brahmsianisms", the symphonies started to make sense.


----------

