# Brahms, Einstein, Complexity



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Today I took a book off the shelf and pulled from it a bookmark I had torn from the bottom of a page from, probably, the Boston Globe some years ago. The fragment included the tail end of an article about some academic who in his youth had befriended Albert Einstein. It closed with a thought-provoking comment the physicist made, at a breakfast they shared, about Brahms.

“I have never understood Brahms,” Einstein is reported to have said. “I believe Brahms was burning the midnight oil trying to be complicated.” Aside from what the quote said about Einstein’s love of simplicity, it also got me thinking about Brahms and complexity.

Yes, Brahms seemed to enjoy complicatedness, and the challenges it presented to him and his music. (I remember replying to some casual question on this forum that “very little happens in Brahms by accident” – and in mature Brahms probably nothing.) But it’s in the service (apologies to Einstein) of really good music. A opposed to, say, Max Reger, who composed intentionally, compulsively, rigorously complicated music to a less satisfactory end. 

In many things. . . especially physics, mathematics, poetry . . . simplicity is a desirable quality. I’m not sure it applies universally, however. Hemingway once admitted to being propelled by the desire always to write “the simplest true sentence I can” – which was remarkably effective, but doesn’t make his writing fundamentally better than that of Dickens or Thomas Wolf. A painting by Mark Rothko is way different than one by Jackson Pollack, but not necessarily better. A “simple” piece by Mozart may be as good as, but no better than a complicated one by Brahms.

Yes, Brahms seemed driven on many levels – to write fiendish difficult to perform piano music that doesn’t sound it; to obscure bar lines whenever possible; to add layers of barely audible internal cross-references – but isn’t the result terrific? Just some odd thoughts.


----------



## Guest (Jul 28, 2018)

There's certainly a skill to composing highly sophisticated music that doesn't sound it. Brahms was something of a proto-serialist when it came down to his ability to create extensive stretches of music derived from a single motif, but how each melody is derived from an initial pitch motif is not as audible and not even as important as what can be heard on the surface. We see this later in the serial compositions of the 20th century where the actual technique itself is less audible than what the composer manages to do with it. The series (Brahms' pitch motif) is certainly there, but it's underneath layers upon layers of other immediately audible elements of music, like Brahms.

Mozart is deceptively simple.......certainly complex in his own way and he manages to 'hide' the sophistication in his music underneath layers of interesting formal/phrasal structures and wonderful melodies.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Einstein's favorite composer was, above all, Mozart. Thus, I don't find that surprising that he didn't like Brahms and others.

I guess the (apparent) aesthetic simplicity that he found in Mozart is similar to the ones of his theories. He seemed to enjoy that elegance, apparent simplicity in the surface that was actually supported by an 'architecture' (he uses this word when talking about composers.) In his general theory of relativity, for example, at the surface all is about rather 'simple' geometric concepts (like curvature, geodesics, etc.), and also matter fields, that combine elegantly with each other in simple and compact equations that condense the whole content of the theory in just a few lines. Mozartian grace. For example, the main equations of the theory, that relate the curvature of spacetime with the matter in it. All the fancy stuff like black holes, expanding universes, gravitational waves, etc., come from them.

But, beneath that gentle surface, there lies a _monstrous complexity_. For example, those innocent looking capital Rs in the previous equation are simply a shortcut for this, where each capital gamma there is a shortcut for this. The g in the latter one is the actual fundamental variable of the equations. One gets, in that variable, a rather nasty non-linear second order partial differential equation, for which only simple solutions are known in explicit form. The rest of physically interesting solutions, like the ones representing the merging of two black holes, can only be approximately simulated in a supercomputer.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

A comment of Einstein on Brahms: "I find a few lieder and chamber works by Brahms truly significant, also in their structure. But most of his works have for me no inner persuasiveness. I do not understand why it was necessary to write them."

https://sites.google.com/site/kenocstuff/albert-einstein-on-music


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

This is why I on the whole prefer the music of Schubert and Schumann to Brahms. Brahms is very calculated, Schubert and Schumann (especially earlier Schumann) take wing more easily, have a genuine improvisatory freedom. Schumann soars ecstatically, Brahms always tramps the Earth and can never free himself from an earthbound state of utterance


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

who cares what Einstein thought about music? I know he liked Mozart a lot and now I learn he did not get Brahms. I have it the other way around, I do not get Mozart and consider him boring/overrated and enjoy Brahms much more and consider him a deeper and more interesting composer than Mozart. So what out of it? Tastes differ.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Who cares what anyone thinks of music?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

Eusebius12 said:


> Who cares what anyone thinks of music?


what I wanted to say was this: there is no correlation between achievement/success in different areas of life and taste in music. For every Einstein who liked Mozart you could find one Hitler who liked Mozart. There can be no authority in musical taste, because there is nothing objective in musical taste. And although Einstein was unquestionably a great genius in the area of physics, I would not make him into an authority in musical taste


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Yeah fair enough. Although Einstein was very musical. Hitler of course preferred Wagner


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Jacck said:


> ..... I do not get Mozart and consider him boring/*overrated *and enjoy Brahms much more and consider him a deeper and more interesting composer than Mozart. So what out of it?


Yes we all have different tastes, it seems, although when it comes to the greats it does seem to me that when someone doesn't like one of them there is likely to be a concept in the way of their getting to the inspiration that is at the heart of the music. I don't mind people not getting Brahms or Mozart for whatever reason. But using the word "overrated" suggests that they think their view is correct and everyone else is deluded!


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> Yes we all have different tastes, it seems, although when it comes to the greats it does seem to me that when someone doesn't like one of them there is likely to be a concept in the way of their getting to the inspiration that is at the heart of the music. I don't mind people not getting Brahms or Mozart for whatever reason. But using the word "overrated" suggests that they think their view is correct and everyone else is deluded!


I really dislike posters who suggest their opinion is definitive, but I think you do Jacck a disservice. He said that he considers Mozart to be overrated, which to me suggests that he recognizes his assessment as subjective.

As for me, both Mozart and Brahms are among my five favorite composers. Mozart in the summer; Brahms in the fall.

(By using "he" I am presuming Jacck is male.)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

KenOC said:


> A comment of Einstein on Brahms: "I find a few lieder and chamber works by Brahms truly significant, also in their structure. But most of his works have for me no inner persuasiveness. I do not understand why it was necessary to write them."


Someone should have told him it's all relative. :devil:


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

And about Brahms: whatever other people think, he's one of my top3 composers, and I absolutely love his work.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Art Rock said:


> And about Brahms: whatever other people think, he's one of my top3 composers, and I absolutely love his work.


I think everyone has a composer who best satisfies/completes/fulfills/complements one's own musical aspirations--who best scratches one's itch. For me, that composer is Brahms.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

jegreenwood said:


> I really dislike posters who suggest their opinion is definitive,* but I think you do Jacck a disservice.* He said that he considers Mozart to be overrated, which to me suggests that he recognizes his assessment as subjective.
> 
> As for me, both Mozart and Brahms are among my five favorite composers. Mozart in the summer; Brahms in the fall.
> 
> (By using "he" I am presuming Jacck is male.)


He still implies an objectivity though in his opinion that Mozart does not deserve to be rated as highly as he is. He is evaluating the tastes an opinions of others who are wrongly rating Mozart highly.

I am afraid - "x is overrated" has become a rather crass cliche in musical discussions of late.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

stomanek said:


> He still implies an objectivity though in his opinion that Mozart does not deserve to be rated as highly as he is. He is evaluating the tastes an opinions of others who are wrongly rating Mozart highly.
> 
> I am afraid - "x is overrated" has become a rather crass cliche in musical discussions of late.


Given that Jacck can certainly defend himself, I've debated whether to continue my need to participate in this discussion. I will only note that in an earlier post he states:

"There can be no authority in musical taste, because there is nothing objective in musical taste."


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

jegreenwood said:


> Given that Jacck can certainly defend himself, I've debated whether to continue my need to participate in this discussion. I will only note that in an earlier post he states: "There can be no authority in musical taste, because there is nothing objective in musical taste."


hi, thanks for defending me. Sometimes I refuse to defend myself, because it is a too big expenditure of mental energy with little or no return. Our tastes are subjective, we have our likes and dislikes and sometimes when we vocalize the dislikes, we offend the likes of others and ego jumps in and pointless quarrels develop.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

while I might have the necessary regard for Einstein that anyone would have I am currently listening to the Clash-simplicity, complexity ???? and will probably listen to at least one work written by Brahms in the next 48 hours 9as I generally do....) there is a place for all forms of music and 'at the end of the day' it is dependent upon the perception of the individual and the circumstance......I do wonder sometimes if this frequently occurring debate is so frequent because ultimately it cannot be resolved......and personally I find a spiritual element in many pieces by Brahms' that does give me the impression that he is as capable of 'soaring' as any musician!


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

jegreenwood said:


> Given that Jacck can certainly defend himself, I've debated whether to continue my need to participate in this discussion. I will only note that in an earlier post he states:
> 
> "There can be no authority in musical taste, because there is nothing objective in musical taste."


Yes indeed - and he contradicts that statement by claiming Mozart is overrated.

Most odd.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

stomanek said:


> Yes indeed - and he contradicts that statement by claiming Mozart is overrated.


No, he does not. He is expressing his subjective opinion about how highly Mozart is regarded by many. What he is actually doing is expressing his subjective opinion about the subjective opinions of others. There is no objectivity - implied or expressed - in his opinion.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp this?


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I guess what I was trying to say that Einstein's thoughts inspired in me ws not that what Einstein (or anyone else) thought of a -particular composer mattered, but whether "complicatedness" was any measure of great art. To me, no. Being simple or complicated can serve the good, mediocre. and bad -- and which that is depends on how good a composer you are to begin with.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bluecrab said:


> No, he does not. He is expressing his subjective opinion about how highly Mozart is regarded by many. What he is actually doing is expressing his subjective opinion about the subjective opinions of others. There is no objectivity - implied or expressed - in his opinion.
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to grasp this?


He is in fact saying people are wrong to rate Mozart as highly as they do. The whole point in saying something is overrated is pointing out that there is no objective justification for a particular point of view. He or you can try and wriggle out of this but that is exactly what he is saying.

def from Cambridge Online Dictionary:

*If something or someone is overrated, that person or thing is considered to be better or more important than they really are:*

can you grasp that?


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

stomanek said:


> *If something or someone is overrated, that person or thing is considered to be better or more important than they really are:*


yes, that is what I am saying. But you need to understand, that better/worse are subjective categories relating to my own frame of reference. Yes, I feel that many people rate Mozart's music higher than how I rate it myself. But how I rate is myself is my own subjective judgement which implies that my feeling about the music being overrated is subjective too. The term overrated thus relates to the discrepancy between my own rating and what I feel is the usual rating.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Back to the original topic (more or less).

Over the past few years, I've been taking a series of courses on music theory and analysis. Our teacher claims we have the equivalent of a year's worth of training in diatonic music theory (although Lord knows I've forgotten some of it already). Lately, we've been bringing that knowledge to bear on several works - as it happens by Mozart (23rd piano concerto and clarinet quintet) and Brahms (clarinet quintet and Haydn Variations, mostly the two piano version). I think I can say everyone in the class reached the conclusion that Brahms' music was more "complicated," but we loved both and appreciated them more after study. Interestingly, the one person who didn't get Brahms originally was our teacher (years ago). I'm pretty sure he still favors Mozart, but he says his appreciation for Brahms has grown.

As for our studying, we spent some time with the slow movement of the Ravel piano concerto (purportedly inspired by the slow movement of Mozart's clarinet quintet. Now, that was hard.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

stomanek said:


> He is in fact saying people are wrong to rate Mozart as highly as they do.


In his subjective opinion.



stomanek said:


> The whole point in saying something is overrated is pointing out that there is no objective justification for a particular point of view.


This truly makes no sense. When somebody says that they think that somebody or something is overrated, they are expressing their subjective opinion. Objectivity has nothing to do with it.



stomanek said:


> def from Cambridge Online Dictionary:
> 
> *If something or someone is overrated, that person or thing is considered to be better or more important than they really are:*


The key word here, of course, is _considered_ - which implies that opinion is at work. Is 2 x 5 considered to be = 10, or is it in objective fact = 10? If I "consider" that 2 x 5 = 50, does that make it so? Is this debatable?



stomanek said:


> can you grasp that?


I can grasp that you continue to appear incapable of distinguishing between subjective and objective statements.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Eusebius12 said:


> This is why I on the whole prefer the music of Schubert and Schumann to Brahms. Brahms is very calculated, Schubert and Schumann (especially earlier Schumann) take wing more easily, have a genuine improvisatory freedom. Schumann soars ecstatically, Brahms always tramps the Earth and can never free himself from an earthbound state of utterance


I can relate to these kinds of views (and Einstein's thoughts on Brahms), because initially I felt the same way about his music. Brahms weakness was he had a hard time being 'heart on sleeve' in his music, I think when he tried to be more extroverted the results were not that good (think the intro to the first Piano Concerto - blech). His 'heart' shows in the extreme care, and craftsmanship he put into his work, which I think gives it a strength and lasting quality that for me exceeds that of the music of Schubert or Schumann. His mastery of form is far beyond them, and once one can get past the dense exterior a truly radiant beauty can be revealed that for me matches or exceeds anything else in the era.

Your quote about 'earthbound state of utterance' is interesting, as one of the quotes found in a Brahms notebook that he took inspiration from (I forget the source of this quote - its in the Swafford bio) paraphrase - "One who does not stray far from the plain, does not have far to fall."


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

tdc said:


> I can relate to these kinds of views (and Einstein's thoughts on Brahms), because initially I felt the same way about his music. Brahms weakness was he had a hard time being 'heart on sleeve' in his music, I think when he tried to be more extroverted the results were not that good (think the intro to the first Piano Concerto - blech). His 'heart' shows in the extreme care, and craftsmanship he put into his work, which I think gives it a strength and lasting quality that for me exceeds that of the music of Schubert or Schumann. His mastery of form is far beyond them, and once one can get past the dense exterior a truly radiant beauty can be revealed that for me matches or exceeds anything else in the era.
> 
> Your quote about 'earthbound state of utterance' is interesting, as one of the quotes found in a Brahms notebook that he took inspiration from (I forget the source of this quote - its in the Swafford bio) paraphrase - "One who does not stray far from the plain, does not have far to fall."


Hey, gimme his late piano music and clarinet sonatas and I will take his authentic heart there over the 'heart in the sleeve' of many other composers of the same period. Most of his close friends described him as a truly lovable character, almost of child-like innocence. The brusque, grumpy guy was some sort of facade for strangers and enemies.

I agree with the entry of the first piano concerto, though, never liked it, seemed forced. Brahms' most typical heavy romanticism, the one he felt natural, is something like the second movement of the second piano concerto.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

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


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I love the beginning of the Brahms 1st Piano Concerto.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Bluecrab said:


> In his subjective opinion.
> 
> This truly makes no sense. When somebody says that they think that somebody or something is overrated, they are expressing their subjective opinion. Objectivity has nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...


It is an egotistical arrogant term at any rate as it casts doubt on the judgement of others. As enthusiast pointed out:

*But using the word "overrated" suggests that they think their view is correct and everyone else is deluded!

*


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Jacck said:


> yes, that is what I am saying. But you need to understand, that better/worse are subjective categories relating to my own frame of reference. Yes, I feel that many people rate Mozart's music higher than how I rate it myself. But how I rate is myself is my own subjective judgement which implies that my feeling about the music being overrated is subjective too. The term overrated thus relates to the discrepancy between my own rating and what I feel is the usual rating.


So People either over rate something or they correctly rate it.

The correct rating is your own.

The incorrect rating is anything that does not agree with your own.

OK - I see now. Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

I agree that Brahms' craftsmanship is greater than Schubert and Schumann, just that their inspiration is higher. Also Brahms often just doesn't 'bring home the bacon'- he does have a lot of good ideas, but they sometimes don't reach their emotional climax, even if they are logical in a sort of textbook way. His music is less emotionally diverse and of less spiritual range than S and S imo, Brahms loves autumnal shades but no one has greater masculine joie de vivre (not even Beethoven) and Schubert eventually plumbs the complete depths of the human condition in all its states, whereas Brahms is content mainly with shades of brown and grey. I have no problem with people taking my post with a barrel of salt because I do have enormous respect for Brahms and enjoy his works (the less ponderous ones, obviously) but I listen to Schumann on the whole to reflect the thrill of living, and Schubert to make me wonder at the imponderable divine nature of genius. Brahms sometimes allows his music to wander nowhere, take for example the 1st symphony, which makes Beethovenian noises but has no Beethovenian sense of conflict and resolution, the 2nd with its dud themes (especially in the 1st movt, who would ever think of composing a main theme so unbelievably dull. Even Beethoven in his worst moments wouldn't do this or almost never or in some completely neglected work) and the violin concerto, 'all pedestal and no statue'. Not to say I don't love Brahms on occasion but generally I have to be in a melancholy frame to really get into this music. And then its melancholy is not as shattering as late Schubert. So Brahms-high in my pantheon, just a little lower than S & S.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Give me a few examples. Yes parts of the German Requiem fit the bill. The 4th symphony is a taut, impressive statement of compositional power. Quite an angry and disconsolate work despite the joyous scherzo. The 2nd piano concerto. Quite amiable and formidable, with a tragic and violent scherzo, merely chatty and discursive and bland in the 4th movement. I find the 1st piano quartet and the piano quintet to be incendiary, explosive music, but they are more angry than transcendent in mood.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Let me give another example of my (slight) ambivalence towards Brahms. The 1st piano concerto has been mentioned, after a long 1st movement, he reaches a point of relative climax in a pseudo-coda, and effectively starts landing the plane, but then another long passage interrupts that and the movement actually ends weaker and much more conventionally (with a big DRUMROLL) than that climax a couple of minutes previously. Brahms was a bit of a curmudgeon, he probably was imitating Beethoven with his notorious codas, but Brahms has difficulty finding spiritually satisfying endings unless those endings are in absolute despair. I guess this reflects his tortured life, which I genuinely empathise with. Just it affects somewhat my purely musical appreciation of his work.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I like all of those composers a lot and almost in equal measure - Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Beethoven, Liszt. Each of them is different and I like them for different reasons, each has his strengths and weaknesses, style etc. Concerning Brahms, I like most his chamber music - try his piano sonatas for example, all 3 are excellent and have very beautiful slow movements. All his string quartets, quintets and sextets, or his piano trios, piano quartets and piano quintet, clarinet quintet etc. This is the heart of Brahms, very tender and melodic music. With Schubert, the melody is always on the surface (to the point that music sounds superficial, like pop music of its time), Brahms hides the melody under layers of complexity.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

I like virtually all of Brahm's works - with one major exception - solo piano. I dont like any of it.

I am not entirely alone - as I understand that Britten revisited Brahms solo piano every year and could not fathom it.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Eusebius12 said:


> Let me give another example of my (slight) ambivalence towards Brahms. The 1st piano concerto has been mentioned, after a long 1st movement, he reaches a point of relative climax in a pseudo-coda, and effectively starts landing the plane, but then another long passage interrupts that and the movement actually ends weaker and much more conventionally (with a big DRUMROLL) than that climax a couple of minutes previously. Brahms was a bit of a curmudgeon, he probably was imitating Beethoven with his notorious codas, *but Brahms has difficulty finding spiritually satisfying endings* unless those endings are in absolute despair. I guess this reflects his tortured life, which I genuinely empathise with. Just it affects somewhat my purely musical appreciation of his work.


I cant go along with that - I always feel that Brahms hits the right spot with his endings.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The above more recent posts again reflect the variety of human experience (and taste). It's not that I can in any way object to the posting of such criticisms of Brahms' music or to references to the alleged greater profundities of Schubert or Schumann--both fine gentlemen indeed--it's just that I cannot understand them.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Jacck said:


> what I wanted to say was this: there is no correlation between achievement/success in different areas of life and taste in music. For every Einstein who liked Mozart *you could find one Hitler who liked Mozart.* There can be no authority in musical taste, because there is nothing objective in musical taste. And although Einstein was unquestionably a great genius in the area of physics, I would not make him into an authority in musical taste


Why on earth have we got to be so defensive?


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

After reading some of the “pro” Brahms assessments, they are really damning him with faint praise without apparently seeing that. There’s never any real whole-hearted surrender to his genius, though it’s natural that every composer has his or her shortcomings. People also forget that it was Brahms who edited the marvelous Schubert symphonies. And no praise for the beautifully melodic and soulful Op. 116 — 119 for those who don’t like any of his piano music? Oh well. Sorry, but it’s amazing how some love their composers.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> The above more recent posts again reflect the variety of human experience (and taste). It's not that I can in any way object to the posting of such criticisms of Brahms' music or to references to the alleged greater profundities of Schubert or Schumann--both fine gentlemen indeed--it's just that I cannot understand them.


I respond to Brahms and Schubert, both of whom I adored when I first heard them, more than I do to Schumann, who was an acquired taste. I can't fully explain why. With Schubert it was likely his melodic gift. With Brahms, I like his harmonic sensibility and think I gravitate naturally to the autumnal color. Also, I think he had a better melodic gift than Schumann. As an amateur clarinetist, I am eternally grateful to his contributions to music for that instrument (and don't dare tell me that the sonatas sound better on the viola).

As for his emotional climaxes, I am satisfied with the endings of most of his works. With many of the late works I sense a connection to the plays of Anton Chekhov - a despair that is muted.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Eusebius12 said:


> the 2nd with its dud themes (especially in the 1st movt, who would ever think of composing a main theme so unbelievably dull..


I love the themes in the 2nd symphony and how they are developed and layered, I'm starting to feel this is one of Brahms relatively underrated works.



Eusebius12 said:


> but Brahms has difficulty finding spiritually satisfying endings unless those endings are in absolute despair.


I'm wondering now if you've bothered to listen to the 2nd Symphony all the way through? Does the ending sound like despair to you? Actually I think it is one of the most impressive, exhilarating and spiritually uplifting endings to any work I can think of. In general I don't hear these Brahms endings the way you do.


----------



## San Antone (Feb 15, 2018)

Jacck said:


> I like all of those composers a lot and almost in equal measure - Schubert, Schumann, Brahms, Beethoven, Liszt. Each of them is different and I like them for different reasons, each has his strengths and weaknesses, style etc. Concerning Brahms, I like most his chamber music


Our tastes are parallel regarding all these composers.

The music I like most for each:

Beethoven: solo piano and string quartets
Schubert: solo piano and string quartets
Schumann: chamber music and some solo piano
Brahms: chamber music and some solo piano
Liszt: solo piano and choral works

I generally don't listen to much orchestral music but have enjoyed the symphonies by Beethoven and Brahms - but mostly those recordings utilizing HIP interpretations and with period instruments if possible.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I've heard Brahms is better or more comfortable writing chamber music than orchestral. I tend to like his Chamber music better than orchestral. His clarinet quintet is fabulous. Too bad he retired after that. Brahms had quite a lot of critics of his music, Tchaikovsky, Milhaud, Britten and others. Some of his music works better as modern music than Romantic to me. But then I'm not the biggest fan of Romantic music.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Okay, this wasn't the point of my post, but I surrender. I like Brahms.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

tdc, I entirely share your enthusiasm for Brahms' second symphony. The first movement especially is as lovely a thing in music as can be imagined. Hard to imagine how someone else could write anything like it.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

DavidA said:


> Why on earth have we got to be so defensive?


Because it sticks in his throat that a great mind like Einstein favours Mozart. The only way to counter that is to cite the most evil person in history sharing a similar preference. A strategy which reveals much about him but nothing about anything else.

I dont know either Hitler liked Mozart or not - as far as I know Wagner was his hero. But I suspect Hitler chose his music on ideological grounds rather than his own pure tastes.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

stomanek said:


> Because it sticks in his throat that a great mind like Einstein favours Mozart. The only way to counter that is to cite the most evil person in history sharing a similar preference. A strategy which reveals much about him but nothing about anything else. I dont know either Hitler liked Mozart or not - as far as I know Wagner was his hero. But I suspect Hitler chose his music on ideological grounds rather than his own pure tastes.


there was no need to mention Adolf, for it would be sufficient for most people to just read your comments and realize that not only geniuses of the Einstein calibre enjoy Mozart, but also people from the other end of the Gaussian curve.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Brahms was a composer who I didn't like that much as a young child but he grew on me. Now, I don't know why, but I have no hesitation in including Brahms in a small "list" of the greatest of all - the ones who just make me wonder "where did _that _come from?" There are only four composers who I think of in that way ... and another four or five who I would add if I was _trying _to compile "my list of the greatest" by thought rather than just going with my instinct.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Jacck said:


> there was no need to mention Adolf, for it would be sufficient for most people to just read your comments and realize that not only geniuses of the Einstein calibre enjoy Mozart, but also people from the other end of the Gaussian curve.


no need to mention adolf but you brought his name into the thread.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> tdc, I entirely share your enthusiasm for Brahms' second symphony. The first movement especially is as lovely a thing in music as can be imagined. Hard to imagine how someone else could write anything like it.


What kind of a theme is dum-dum-di-dum :angel:


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

tdc said:


> I love the themes in the 2nd symphony and how they are developed and layered, I'm starting to feel this is one of Brahms relatively underrated works.
> 
> I'm wondering now if you've bothered to listen to the 2nd Symphony all the way through? Does the ending sound like despair to you? Actually I think it is one of the most impressive, exhilarating and spiritually uplifting endings to any work I can think of. In general I don't hear these Brahms endings the way you do.


I am speaking in broad brushstrokes, the 2nd is enjoyable and satisfying, even if some of the themes (to my ears) are remarkably rudimentary. It is overall a work of contentment without leaving me exhilarated at all. Perhaps the scherzo of the 4th is a better example imo. Generally speaking I find Brahms prefers more sombre hues and is generally depressive, and lacks the emotional variety of some others. Not that he has no emotional variety by any means. Just that I feel he does anger and melancholy better than pure joy. The late works are beautiful, generally small scale (but I would never deny Brahms' mastery of technique) but well constructed, but extremely pessimistic. Is that even a flaw? Well it depends on what you want music for, in life or on any particular occasion or moment.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eusebius12 said:


> I am speaking in broad brushstrokes, the 2nd is enjoyable and satisfying, even if some of the themes (to my ears) are remarkably rudimentary. It is overall a work of contentment without leaving me exhilarated at all. Perhaps the scherzo of the 4th is a better example imo. Generally speaking I find Brahms prefers more sombre hues and is generally depressive, and lacks the emotional variety of some others. Not that he has no emotional variety by any means. Just that I feel he does anger and melancholy better than pure joy. The late works are beautiful, generally small scale (but I would never deny Brahms' mastery of technique) but well constructed, but extremely pessimistic. Is that even a flaw? Well it depends on what you want music for, in life or on any particular occasion or moment.


You must be referring to Max Brahms, Johannes' 2nd cousin. The two are rarely confused with one another, but you seemed to have managed it here .


----------



## OperaChic (Aug 26, 2015)

stomanek said:


> I dont know either Hitler liked Mozart or not - as far as I know Wagner was his hero. But I suspect Hitler chose his music on ideological grounds rather than his own pure tastes.


Well, you'd be wrong in that suspicion. Along with Wagner he was incredibly fond of Puccini, Bruckner and works like Franz Lehár's Merry Widow and Verdi's Aida...not exactly works packed full of ideological content.

For the record, he was never enthusiastic about the music of Mozart, or even Beethoven for that matter. But he did respect their place in Germany's cultural heritage.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

OperaChic said:


> Well, *you'd be wrong in that suspicion.* Along with Wagner he was incredibly fond of Puccini, Bruckner and works like Franz Lehár's Merry Widow and Verdi's Aida...not exactly works packed full of ideological content.
> 
> For the record, he was never enthusiastic about the music of Mozart, or even Beethoven for that matter. But he did respect their place in Germany's cultural heritage.


Fair enough - I dont mind too much being wrong about that.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've seen it it many threads lately. When we feel that the world is wrong and a composer who is generally revered (or even a whole genre) is actually no good we tend to produce all sorts of "objective" reasons and judgments to prove our case. That is we present the case as a subjective judgement but then treat it as an objective issue. We look at qualities that we feel are lacking, practices that we believe have no place in good music ... or whatever. But we tend to ignore the whole, and to make no attempt to explain where the great reputation comes from. It is often as if we are complaining that cheese doesn't taste the same as steak. And it is as if we think in terms of "I'm the one who understands these things; everyone else has been deluded by the tradition or the reputation: only I am able to think for myself". 

It would be great if we stopped doing this. It offends (and for good reason!) those who value the "composer in doubt" because it basically implies they are stupid. And it leads to silly arguments that often come down to "no it isn't"/"yes it is". It certainly doesn't take us forward to a deeper understanding of music and all the different ways that it can work. I think we can do better.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> You must be referring to Max Brahms, Johannes' 2nd cousin. The two are rarely confused with one another, but you seemed to have managed it here .


Yes, and Mr Hilter was his greatest fan!






Also, I call Godwin's on this thread


----------

