# Brahms Vs. Tchaikovsky



## violadude

haha before you start ranting to me about starting another one of these silly versus threads, that's not what this is. I was wondering about the comparison of these two composers, I've seen a lot of people in the past say something similar to "if you like Brahms you probably wont like Tchaikovsky" or vice versa or just comparing these two in general. To me this seems like a really strange comparison and I am wondering why it is made. Maybe someone who knows more about these two can tell me something I'm missing. I know Tchaikovsky thought Brahms was a giftless ******* and all, but to me their music is not similar enough to compare, and not total opposite enough to pit against each other like that. 

So what's the deal??


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Darn, I was expecting a death match.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

I like both.

When you like beer (Brahms) you can also like wine (Tchaikovsky)...or not?

Martin


----------



## Aramis

The similiarity is that they both were conservative/backward-looking composers and the difference is that you hear it clearly in Brahms music while Tchaikovsky was fresh from the very beginning. Brahms adored Beethoven and wrote work to be called "Beethoven's 10th", Tchaikovsky adored Mozart but never wrote anything that would really sound like Mozart pastiche.


----------



## DavidMahler

Brahms was master of structure with a deeper understanding of musical forms.

Tchaikovsky was a brilliant melodist who generally will captivate on first listen far more than Brahms. 

Brahms' understanding of the piano was far more advanced than that of Tchaikovsky

Tchaikovsky's was a master at large works ballets and operas

Brahms' Symphonic writing is the height of Viennese symphonic tradition

Tchaikovsky's symphonies are more groundbreaking and unique

I take Brahms more seriously as a composer.... to me Tchaikovsky is more easy listening by comparison.


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> Brahms adored Beethoven and wrote work to be called "Beethoven's 10th"


Of course, that was never his own label, and he didn't aim for people to call it that at all...

Personally, I find it an interesting comparison. I was expecting a (damned!) poll and was obviously going to pick Brahms, but was going to say that it's a tremendously difficult opposition.

For me, I find that, though they both wrote in the Romantic 'idiom', they are kind of polar opposites, and both reward me in very different ways, though I certainly need both of them. As such, I can see why some people might only like one, but I need both. Although all kinds of holes can be picked in this analogy, to keep it brief I think a Brahms/Tchaikovsky comparison has the same _kind_ of divide (not the same actual differences, mind!) as a Baroque/Romantic comparison. Brahms is dense, tight, concerned with immense structures and development, frequently melancholic, introspective. Tchaikovsky, on the hand, has a very 'open' feel about his music; yes, its structure is still good (despite what they say!), but he's the 'melodist', his music feels extroverted, it's as sad as Brahms's, but it's more melodramatic than it is melancholic.


----------



## Polednice

Interesting, David, how:



DavidMahler said:


> Tchaikovsky was a brilliant melodist who generally will captivate on first listen far more than Brahms.


+



DavidMahler said:


> Tchaikovsky's was a master at large works ballets and operas


+



DavidMahler said:


> Tchaikovsky's symphonies are more groundbreaking and unique


=



DavidMahler said:


> Tchaikovsky is more easy listening by comparison.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> Of course, that was never his own label, and he didn't aim for people to call it that at all...


Yet they had good reasons to make this (and many other similiar) remarks.


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> Yet they had good reasons to make this (and many other similiar) remarks.


Only because they wanted to fit Brahms into some neat, cohesive, continuous worldview based on some raving comment by a raving Schumann. As much as Brahms was concerned with form and complexity, he actually sounds _nothing_ like Beethoven at all.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I like them both equally but I think I like Brahms a little more equally.


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> Only because they wanted to fit Brahms into some neat, cohesive, continuous worldview based on some raving comment by a raving Schumann. As much as Brahms was concerned with form and complexity, he actually sounds _nothing_ like Beethoven at all.


He sounds to me, I've even pointed out some more precise examples, like slow movement of 1st piano concerto which he very likely modeled after this of Beethoven's 3rd PC (it is the same concerto where you can hear idea taken from Schumann's PC in last movement). It's incredibly great and magnificent work nevertheless. Or the C minor string quartet. Or the 1st symphony, work we started with - the last movement's theme a'la Ode to Joy.


----------



## Polednice

Aramis said:


> He sounds to me, I've even pointed out some more precise examples, like slow movement of 1st piano concerto which he very likely modeled after this of Beethoven's 3rd PC (it is the same concerto where you can hear idea taken from Schumann's PC in last movement). It's incredibly great and magnificent work nevertheless. Or the C minor string quartet. Or the 1st symphony, work we started with - the last movement's theme a'la Ode to Joy.


So I take it that Brahms's Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel makes him sound exactly like Handel then?


----------



## Aramis

Polednice said:


> So I take it that Brahms's Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel makes him sound exactly like Handel then?


There is, I would say, slight difference between writing variations on someone else's theme and incorporating elements of someone else's style into one's music.


----------



## mtmailey

Tchaikovsky would win over Brahms because Tchaikovsky music sounds better-also Tchaikovsky use good rhythms in his music-peter uses canon,fugal material & imitations.


----------



## violadude

mtmailey said:


> Tchaikovsky would over Brahmes because Tchaikovsky music sounds better-also Tchaikovsky use good rhythms in his music-peter uses canon,fugal material & imitations.


Did you read the OP?


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Yes, and in return he gave us a lovely word puzzle.


----------



## Couchie

All things considered, Tchaikovsky's music has a certain sexiness to it that Brahms' lacks.


----------



## Conor71

To my mind I it is untrue to say that you can only like one or the other as I am quite fond of both Composers.
They are both sentimental, wear your heart on your sleeve Romantic composers too so I think they have a bit in common with each other perhaps?.
If was a death match between the two I would probably choose Brahms as his body of chamber music is much larger! .


----------



## Sid James

I agree with Conor, there is no need to choose between them at the end of the day.

Of course, there are differences I can hear. Not only the ones that have been mentioned, but the gist of what Couchie says above is that Brahms has a certain restraint, it's like Romanticism is bursting throught the seams of these Classicist strictures, whereas Tchaikovsky - in some works at least - just lets it all hang out so to speak. Eg. Tchaikovsky ending a symphony - the _Pathetique_ - with a slow movement would never ever have been done by Brahms in a million years.

The essence of it is that Brahms was a Classicist & Tchaikovsky more of a Romantic. Both looked forward in many ways, composers until this day are inspired by them in different ways. The restraint of Brahms'_ Violin Concerto _(esp. in terms of the size of orchestra, combination of instruments used) is said to have inspired Philip Glass when he was writing his first work in that genre (in the 1980's). & Mahler was said to have admired the _Pathetique_, going off the bat of that and ending his own 9th with a slow movement, equally autobiographical as the Russians' one was...


----------



## Aramis

> Tchaikovsky would win over Brahms because Tchaikovsky music sounds better


That explains everything.


----------



## Sid James

^^I think that's being a bit simplistic to say the least, don't you think?...


----------



## mtmailey

Tchaikovsky symphonies sounds better Brahms symphonies!!! his overtures sounds better than brahms overtures as well.


----------



## Aramis

mtmailey said:


> Tchaikovsky symphonies sounds better Brahms symphonies!!! his overtures sounds better than brahms overtures as well.


You not knows what talking about!!! not important if sounds better symphonies Brahms more fragrant overtures Tchaikovsky symphonies!!!!


----------



## violadude

mtmailey said:


> Tchaikovsky symphonies sounds better Brahms symphonies!!! his overtures sounds better than brahms overtures as well.


Is English your first language?


----------



## Igneous01

meh, Brahms cello sonatas, piano quartet in cminor, and his string quartets won me over. But to be honest, to me they feel like two faces on the same coin kind of thing. Contrastingly different, and yet, contemporary to each other.


----------



## DavidMahler

All things considered, Tchaikovsky's music has a certain superficiality to it which Brahms lacks.


----------



## hammeredklavier




----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Happy birthday to the two warring factions of Romanticism!


----------



## Strange Magic

Despite being not fond of one another's music, they seemed to have gotten on well in person the one(?) time they had dinner together. I love much of both of their musics, but prefer one to the other's for taking to the desert island .


----------



## Dima

Tchaikovsky and Brahms.


----------



## Strange Magic

Dima said:


> View attachment 135416
> 
> 
> Tchaikovsky and Brahms.


Here is a wonderful account of their first meeting, plus you get Grieg also--all three at the same table!

https://www.cmuse.org/tchaikovsky-a...mposers-of-different-temperaments-first-meet/


----------



## consuono

> Brahms vs. Tchaikovsky


Brahms any day and twice on Sunday. Tchaikovsky was an amateur in comparison.

(edit)...in my opinion...


----------



## Fabulin

consuono said:


> Brahms any day and twice on Sunday. Tchaikovsky was an amateur in comparison.
> 
> (edit)...in my opinion...


Nice bait. Maybe next time.


----------



## ORigel

Brahms pieces do not stand out on first listen but grow on the listener. They have depth, so they wear very well.

Tchaikovsky has melodies that one likes on first listen. They do not have the "depth" of Brahms (though they have _depth of emotion_. Tchaikovsky is bad at form while Brahms excels at it. It turn, Tchaikovsky is a better orchestrater.

It is useful to contrast them, but it doesn't follow that to love one is to dislike the other.


----------



## ORigel

Strange Magic said:


> Despite being not fond of one another's music, they seemed to have gotten on well in person the one(?) time they had dinner together. I love much of both of their musics, but prefer one to the other's for taking to the desert island .


I would take Brahms' chamber music and symphonies to the desert island. They wear well.


----------



## Fabulin

ORigel said:


> Brahms pieces do not stand out on first listen but grow on the listener. They have depth, so they wear very well.
> 
> Tchaikovsky has melodies that one likes on first listen. They do not have the "depth" of Brahms (though they have _depth of emotion_. Tchaikovsky is bad at form while Brahms excels at it. It turn, Tchaikovsky is a better orchestrater.
> 
> It is useful to contrast them, but it doesn't follow that to love one is to dislike the other.


What other depth can there be to music than the emotional depth? Esoteric depth? Sudoku/crossword/puzzle-type depth?


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> What other depth can there be to music than the emotional depth? Esoteric depth? Sudoku/crossword/puzzle-type depth?


Skill and craftsmanship. A scream has "emotional depth", but so does King Lear.


----------



## Fabulin

consuono said:


> Skill and craftsmanship. A scream has "emotional depth", but so does King Lear.


What purpose do "skill" and "craftsmanship" serve, if they do not support something that can be conveyed to the audience, i.e. emotional depth? For it's own sake? What's the point? (and what's the merit?)


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> What purpose do "skill" and "craftsmanship" serve, if they do not support something that can be conveyed to the audience, i.e. emotional depth? For it's own sake? What's the point? (and what's the merit?)


There are different kinds of "emotional depth". If "emotional depth" is the only goal, flinging bags of feces at an audience would do the trick too. There's also "emotional depth" in the satisfaction gained from something that is put together with great skill and a kind of sense of symmetry. A porno cartoon can have "emotional depth" as well as a Rembrandt painting. What's the difference?


----------



## Fabulin

consuono said:


> There are different kinds of "emotional depth". If "emotional depth" is the only goal, flinging bags of feces at an audience would do the trick too. There's also "emotional depth" in the satisfaction gained from something that is put together with great skill and a kind of sense of symmetry. A porno cartoon can have "emotional depth" as well as a Rembrandt painting. What's the difference?


If these metaphors are supposed to degrade the merits of the music of Tchaikovsky, they are utterly repugnant, and fail at their goal.

I am not claiming that satisfaction from observing or participating in a problem-solving for its own sake does not exist. As I said, it's just like puzzles, sudoku, or crosswords. But the fans of these pastimes do not denigrate pursuits that actually produce more tangible results, such as solving of medical, translation, or engineering problems. The music of Tchaikovsky is very deliberate, and in the context of other top level composers has very tangible results, which are achieved in anything but trivial ways. Claiming that Brahms was a better composer is like claiming that a champion game problem solver is a 'superior' thinker to a smart doctor or engineer. An irony that folks who take music for more than it really is miss, but which is apparent to outside observers. I can assure you of that.


----------



## consuono

Fabulin said:


> If these metaphors are supposed to degrade the merits of the music of Tchaikovsky, they are utterly repugnant, and fail at their goal...


Not at all, I'm using it as an example. I'm not a Tchaikovsky fan but I wouldn't call his work a bag of feces. Your reasoning seems to be "the goal of music is emotional depth...what other goal could there be? Some find great emotional depth in Tchaikovsky's music, so why don't you love it?" I'm saying there are other factors. The music of Tchaikovsky to me is too often relatively gushing and not as well-constructed as that of some other composers. Some may not feel that way, and that's fine.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I find Tchaikovsky’s struggle to work within traditional forms somewhat of a hindrance in his symphonies. I think he finally solved this problem in his magnificent 6th, one of my favorite symphonies of all time, but the others can seem overlong, repetitive, and without a clear trajectory of where he’s going with his ideas IMO. In other words, rather scatterbrained and hard to follow. Today I listened to his 1st symphony “Winter Dreams” and found it very hard to sit through. Of course that’s a youthful work and he shouldn’t be judged by that, but I also find the 4th and 5th, despite their lovely moments, rather too long and bombastic. My second favorite is the 2nd, which is a delightful stream of tunes that doesn’t really need a form to be enjoyable.


----------



## Ethereality

I thought I explained the issue here.



Ethereality said:


> Chopin, Tchaikovsky, and Williams are more fast-brained composers (compared to methodical composers) in that they very well understand the big idea of 'music as a whole' from an early age and simply move music along with the same talent anyone else does. It's hard for these people to work on details, and I do think Williams being fit for the industry in the 70s just coincidentally happened to be this kind of thinker. For them the idea of music is easily grasped, a studious learning and painstaking attention to details was never needed ever since they churned out their first tune. They just have passion for things to _move_ and be explored more linearly--instead of vertically. Hence, the music inherently sounds flat. From a classical perspective, I can sense that.





Ethereality said:


> Slow-thinking or methodical composition can be listened to by empathizing with interrelated melodies and unified harmony. As a detail-oriented form, it manifests this way the most efficiently, as a scientific rule.
> 
> Fast-thinking or fast composition can be listened to by empathizing with interrelated harmonies and unified melody. As a big-picture form, it manifests this way the most efficiently, as a scientific rule.


I think Tchaikovsky is actually a better composer than Brahms. It's just that classical lovers don't inherently have the mindset for Tchaikovsky's *interpretation* of music structure--it is of the much more linear, sweeping interpretation. He's not a classical composer like Bach, Mozart or Brahms. Far from it. He is a programmatic giant, and probably its era's greatest champion.

The issue of emotionality is a universal reason why we all love Classical: the orchestra is a diverse expression. These composers differences has nothing to do with emotion, but how these composers thought music should sound. Tchaikovsky didn't like Brahms, he didn't see the value in composing classical or heavily contrapuntal style, even though he adored mainly Mozart, he was heavily focused on 'large' themes for their harmonic potential to interact with themselves in different ways. Brahms was focused on all the much more detailed, complex harmonic interactions of small themes, or patterns.

Someone said Brahms was more of a champion of Beethoven, while Tchaikovsky was a champion of Mozart. I don't really agree with that, they were both heavy influencers on the composers, in just very dfferent ways.


----------



## consuono

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I find Tchaikovsky's struggle to work within traditional forms somewhat of a hindrance in his symphonies. I think he finally solved this problem in his magnificent 6th, one of my favorite symphonies of all time, but the others can seem overlong, repetitive, and without a clear trajectory of where he's going with his ideas IMO. In other words, rather scatterbrained and hard to follow. Today I listened to his 1st symphony "Winter Dreams" and found it very hard to sit through. Of course that's a youthful work and he shouldn't be judged by that, but I also find the 4th and 5th, despite their lovely moments, rather too long and bombastic. ...


Ditto. I also feel that way about his first piano concerto, which I loved when I was younger. I can't listen to it all the way through anymore.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Ethereality said:


> Tchaikovsky didn't like Brahms, he didn't see the value in composing classical or heavily contrapuntal style, even though he adored mainly Mozart, he was heavily focused on 'large' themes for their harmonic potential to interact with themselves in different ways.






Probably the main reason why Tchaikovsky had nourished such animosity towards Brahms before he actually met him was the way in which influential German critics, above all the highly conservative Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904), had been proclaiming Brahms to be the guardian of the classical tradition bequeathed by Beethoven against the 'decadent' tendencies of Liszt and Wagner. Quite apart from his dislike of Brahms's more restrained style, Tchaikovsky was angered by the way these same critics ignored or rubbished his own works on the few occasions that they had been performed in Germany so far and instead held Brahms up as the paragon for symphonic writing (when in 1876 he finally completed his First Symphony - "Beethoven's Tenth", as some in Germany called it).
http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johannes_Brahms


----------



## consuono

hammeredklavier said:


> ...and instead held Brahms up as the paragon for symphonic writing (when in 1876 he finally completed his First Symphony - "Beethoven's Tenth", as some in Germany called it).


Brahms' first is probably my least favorite of his four symphonies precisely *because* it's a little too Beethoven-ish. I still prefer to listen to it rather than any of Tchaikovsky's six.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I never for the life of me understood the “Beethoven’s 10th” thing. It sounds nothing like Beethoven to me, an entirely original symphonic creation with one of the greatest finales ever written up to that point.


----------



## ORigel

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I never for the life of me understood the "Beethoven's 10th" thing. It sounds nothing like Beethoven to me, an entirely original symphonic creation with one of the greatest finales ever written up to that point.


The finale contains a theme rather like Ode to Joy. When it was pointed out, Brahms said, "Any a** could see that." Additionally, the symphony is epic and goes from darkness-to-light, like Beethoven's.

But the _real_ Beethoven Tenth is Schubert's "Great" Symphony. It is epic, heroic, nearly an hour long, and _directly quotes_ Ode to Joy in the finale. It comes across as a more-lyrical Beethoven symphony.


----------



## ORigel

consuono said:


> Ditto. I also feel that way about his first piano concerto, which I loved when I was younger. I can't listen to it all the way through anymore.


I think the piano part (not the melodies or orchestral part) is poorly-written and a bit ugly.


----------



## consuono

ORigel said:


> I think the piano part (not the melodies or orchestral part) is poorly-written and a bit ugly.


I think it would've done Tchaikovsky good if he had become a better instrumentalist before he started composing.


----------



## SONNET CLV

I've enjoyed the music of both Brahms and Tchaikovsky for well over a half century now, and in all that time I never considered the issue of which I prefer or which is the better composer. Both have proven formative to my current love for "classical" music and both have contributed immensely to my listening pleasures, countless times. I've turned to these masters many times in the past, and I shall continue to do so as long as I can.

For those of you who _do_ have some issue at stake concerning these two wonderful Romantic composers, I hope at least that you will consider holding May 7 as a Day of Truce. My own practice for May 7, going on for dozens of years now, has been to listen to something by both men on that day. This year I chose the Klavierstücke, Op. 118 of Brahms, which includes one of my all time favorite piano pieces, the Intermezzo in A.






And, continuing in the more intimate mood set by the Brahms piano music, I chose the Piano Trio Op. 50, a work Tchaikovsky dedicated to the "memory of a great artist." It was the Perlman, Ashkenazy, Harrell rendition, on an EMI/Angel LP that I listened to, with special memory of a great artist in mind, Lynn Harrell, who died on April 27.






If you are able to choose between the "betterness" of one of these opuses over the other, then you are likely a better human being than I.


----------



## consuono

SONNET CLV said:


> ...with special memory of a great artist in mind, Lynn Harrell, who died on April 27.
> ...


Wow, I hadn't heard that. That really puts a damper on the day. RIP

As for the two selections, I have my preference. But is one objectively better than the other? No.


----------



## Ethereality

hammeredklavier said:


> Probably the main reason why Tchaikovsky had nourished such animosity towards Brahms before he actually met him was the way in which influential German critics, above all the highly conservative Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904), had been proclaiming Brahms to be the guardian of the classical tradition bequeathed by Beethoven against the 'decadent' tendencies of Liszt and Wagner. Quite apart from his dislike of Brahms's more restrained style, Tchaikovsky was angered by the way these same critics ignored or rubbished his own works on the few occasions that they had been performed in Germany so far and instead held Brahms up as the paragon for symphonic writing (when in 1876 he finally completed his First Symphony - "Beethoven's Tenth", as some in Germany called it).
> http://en.tchaikovsky-research.net/pages/Johannes_Brahms


True as well. It's not like these types of composers can _ignore_ a need for minor details or a methodical weaving of contrapuntal structures. It's just not the predominant way they hear music and their vision overall. Hence why different music has some overlap with itself. I am surprised that individuals have such oversight on this compositional difference in interpreting music, when it seems obvious. Tchaikovsky is definitely one of the more detail-ignoring, big vision types: you can easily hear his lack of need to balance smaller complex structures, all his big ideas easily come to page. It's almost essentially deductive in approach.


----------



## consuono

Ethereality said:


> True as well. It's not like these types of composers can _ignore_ a need for minor details or a methodical weaving of contrapuntal structures. It's just not the predominant way they hear music and their vision overall. Hence why different music has some overlap with itself. I am surprised that individuals have such oversight on this compositional difference in interpreting music, when it seems obvious. Tchaikovsky is definitely one of the more detail-ignoring, big vision types: you can easily hear his lack of need to balance smaller complex structures, all his big ideas easily come to page. It's almost essentially deductive in approach.


I would disagree. I think it's when Tchaikovsky attempts the "big vision" that he's at his weakest, except in his sixth symphony. To be honest I think Tchaikovsky might have been more like Chopin and was probably better with smaller-scale "moments". He certainly had a gift for melody.


----------



## Ethereality

Yes but what I'm trying to say is, a composer more focused on the big-picture and big moments like Tchaikovsky, these moments _seem_ smaller because they don't have all the smaller build-ups and complexities put into the composition process: it's purposefully so, they do it on purpose. When composers like Chopin and Tchaikovsky express themselves through art, they're trying to get their "big picture" out there, and that's why it's very catchy but lacks percieved developmental process that gives works 'depth.' Most of these moments themselves are very big, the arrangement itself is _shorthand_, done on purpose to move their creative process along.

With more methodical composers, they give their priority much more to the paper than they do their head. "Perfect the work itself, not all the ideas." The ideas are what just come.

Chopin and Williams were both accomplished pianists and something tells me these types of composers _struggle_ to get their ideas out in time to write them all down. It's important for them to get ideas down on paper and then 'hurry, get the next idea on paper.' There's less time for the paper itself, because unlike methodical composers constructing from the whole by building it in with details (struggling to find the right details to push through), their problem is that each of their ideas continue to lose their charm the more they're altered. Like I said, it's almost deductive composing.


----------



## Fabulin

Ethereality said:


> Chopin and Williams were both accomplished pianists and something tells me these types of composers _struggle_ to get their ideas out in time to write them all down


Mozart, Schubert, and Korngold are also good examples of composing "with a swing" and coming up with ideas faster than they could write them down. But all great composers can be flexible in their approaches depending on the work they are doing. One can find extremely meticulous pieces in the ouvres of each of them, I'm sure.


----------



## ZeR0

I actually like both Brahms and Tchaikovsky quite a lot. I especially love Brahms' German Requiem, and I adore Tchaikovsky's ballets. I think maybe for some their differences are hard to reconcile? I never quite understood the idea that because one composer is an opposite or completely different than another, you have to like one, but dislike the other. I believe that the differences in compositional styles and techniques between composers is part of what gives them their enjoyableness. What a shame the world would be if all composers sounded like Brahms, or all composers sounded like Tchaikovsky. And that's absolutely not meant as a critique of either one.

Edit: Also, I don't buy the idea that Tchaikovsky only wrote lovely melodies with little of compositional and structural interest, or that Brahms is not as immediately memorable but his works are much deeper. I think both Brahms and Tchaikovsky wrote some great melodies, and both have depth in their compositional structure. In that sense, at least, they are not that different.


----------



## Eclectic Al

Tchaikovsky heated his water in the pan, and got it boiling at 100C (212F). Brahms puts his in a pressure cooker, and applies heat. The water gets to 140C (whatever that is in Fahrenheit), and may not boil even then. You can feel the heat and pressure though, and when he let's it out you've got so much energy pent up!
I feel in general that the function of using a constraining structural device (such as a passacaglia for the last movement of your symphony) is that it builds tension. Without a degree of confinement there can be no tension. This is why I find Brahms among the most emotional of composers: it's all about the pressure cooker.


----------



## Room2201974

Brahms was probably the most innovative rhythmic composer of the last half of the 19th century (up until 1894). No one, and I mean no one was writing the stuff he was; 3 against 2 hemiola, writing rhythms over the bar line, ripping melody away from meter. Add developing variation*, whereby he crafts whole movements out of the smallest of musical ideas, and I find that I prefer his compositional method.

*Another musical (and teaching) joke from my comp prof:

"If you are waiting for Brahms to "develop" in the "development section" you are 64 measures too late."


----------



## hammeredklavier

Room2201974 said:


> Brahms was probably the most innovative rhythmic composer of the last half of the 19th century (up until 1894). No one, and I mean no one was writing the stuff he was; 3 against 2 hemiola, writing rhythms over the bar line, ripping melody away from meter. Add developing variation*, whereby he crafts whole movements out of the smallest of musical ideas, and I find that I prefer his compositional method.







Interesting. I've always thought Germanic music was often more about polyphony rather than polyrhythms. 
Scriabin wrote his Op.8 Etudes in 1894. No.3 (3:42) in contains '3 against 2 hemiola rhythm'. Not only that, No.2 (1:45) and No.4 (5:43) contain rhythms of '5 against 3' and '5 against 4'.





Scriabin Etude in F Sharp Major (1887).

There's a lot of polyrhythms in Chopin. 
2 against 3: Etude in A flat major (from Trois Nouvelles Etudes)
3 against 4: Fantaisie Impromptu, Prelude Op.28 No.8, Etude in F minor (from Trois Nouvelles Etudes)
5 against 6: a few parts of Etude Op.25 No.1
6 against 7: a few parts of Nocturnes Op.27 No.2, No.55 No.2

I don't think Brahms ever wrote anything like this; "off-beat" 5 against 3.
Op.42 No.8 ( 13:09 )
Or 5 against 9 (0:12)





The 3-against-2 rhythm is fairly common in the Common Practice actually, it shows up even in the Classical period.


----------



## Room2201974

^^^^^^^^






BTW shouldn't your TC name be aligned with your thinking? Your name suggests a Beethoven classic, yet for you Mozart is the greatest? TC irony at its finest?


----------



## hammeredklavier

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


----------



## Ethereality

Tchaikovsky proved he could write jamming Neo-Classical music? Inferiorly? to Brahms

*0:40 - 1:07*





*25:41 - 26:30*


----------



## EdwardBast

Not sure why you revived this zombie, but since no one seems to have said it: Tchaikovsky was first and foremost a composer for the stage. He devoted far more effort to opera than to any other genre and he is of major significance as a composer of ballet music. Addressing The Dude's OP: I don't get that quotation either. It's possible to like Brahms and Tchaikovsky equally and in different ways. Possible for me anyway.


----------



## hammeredklavier

EdwardBast said:


> Not sure why you revived this zombie, but since no one seems to have said it: Tchaikovsky was first and foremost a composer for the stage. He devoted far more effort to opera than to any other genre and he is of major significance as a composer of ballet music.


I heard you saying this before. But are there any great moments from his operas you would recommend? I tried to listen to some. The general sound resembled Wagner a little, but it's a daunting task to go through operas that are hours long, so (I kind of) gave up.


----------



## Fabulin

I find Tchaikovsky's operas to have been mostly a misfire and a waste of effort. In comparison to his more dynamic symphonic and ballet music, they are rather boring. 

Imagine 10-20 more hours of orchestral Tchaikovsky instead...


----------



## larold

_I know Tchaikovsky thought Brahms was a giftless ******* and all, but to me their music is not similar enough to compare, and not total opposite enough to pit against each other like that. So what's the deal??_

They were rivals and Brahms also had rivalries with Bruckner and other composers of his time. I once heard conductor Simone Young, prior to conducting the Brahms 4th symphony in his hometown of Hamburg, say Brahms was a person who went out of his way to not make friends. She said he once attended a party, left, then came back to apologize for not insulting anyone.

As to their music, one was a classicist wrapped in romance and the other a romantic who clung to Mozartian classicism. Neither could really escape the long shadow classicism cast on them the way Bruckner and Mahler later did.

I think as composers of the late 19th century their music compares easily.

Both wrote numerous four-movement symphonies in classical design and both relied on older forms (some as far back as the Renaissance) in their symphonies, concertos and other orchestral music. They each wrote a violin concerto of approximately the same duration, multiple piano concertos, and multiple symphonies.

Tchaikovsky wrote a lot of orchestral poems that exhibited his own romantic ideas and Brahms wrote a lot of chamber music that explored his private inner emotions. Tchaikovsky wrote operas that weren't so memorable and Brahms wrote non-sacred choral music of which only his pagan requiem gets played or recorded much.

I think the parallels make them far more alike than apart.


----------



## haziz

SONNET CLV said:


> ..........................
> 
> with special memory of a great artist in mind, Lynn Harrell, who died on April 27.
> 
> ........


Sad belated news. I missed that. I was lucky enough to have listened live to him play the Elgar cello concerto with the Boston SO, on two occasions. On one occasion he caused quite a bit of laughter in the audience by twirling his cello "cowboy style" during the concert. I do also sometimes play his rendition of the Bach cello suites. He will be remembered.


----------



## GraemeG

I gather that T thought B's music was dry, derivative, tuneless, academic and pompous, whereas B thought that T's music was formless, poorly structured, showy, shallow and vulgar. Given their very different personalities I can understand each's perspective. They seemed to get on all right as long as they were just drinking and not talking music. (There was a ****-up together in Hamburg at some point I recall.)

I think that T's music has more obvious appeal, but in the very end B's wears better.


----------

