# a Brahms mystery



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

So. It seems like the internet is generally agreed that Brahms was a master of orchestral and especially chamber music, good at songs, but only mediocre at music for solo piano. 

Now why would that be? Why didn't Brahms put out three or four of the best piano sonatas of his era? (Or did he? Was it the dark ages of the piano sonata?) Why aren't his piano works esteemed up there with this choral works or piano trios? 

Or, have at it this way: What are the great recordings of Brahms' piano works? 

I'm going to offer a suggestion based almost completely on ignorance: I suspect Brahms enjoyed exploring the textures he could create in the interactions between instruments so much that by comparison music for a solo instrument bored him. 

Another theory: Perhaps he was intimidated by Liszt's works for solo piano? 

Or: Perhaps he thought of such works as being primarily for mercenary purposes, and he usually didn't put his heart into them? 

Finally: Perhaps the internet is just wrong? Perhaps a number of Brahms' works for solo piano are among his greatest accomplishments, among the greatest works for the instrument? 

Ok, time for me to turn this over to the more knowledgeable and opinionated.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> \Finally: Perhaps the internet is just wrong?


The answer to this is very often yes.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

I'll take a pass on the sonatas, they don't ring my chimes. The middling to late short pieces are fine things, and work in interpretations as far apart as Katchen's and Lupu's. So... what does that all mean?


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I enjoyed the first two piano sonatas quite a bit on first listen. The third one didn't do much for me. This is all of the solo Brahms piano music I have listened to so far, but I look forward to more on the basis of what I've heard.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

Why are you reading opinions on the internet instead of listening to Brahms' piano music?

The music may indeed not float your boat, but it's every bit as good as any of his other music.

Richter and Grimaud are my picks for Brahms' piano music. Grimaud's recording of the third sonata (which I like as well as anything by Beethoven or even Schubert) is my favorite.


----------



## Guest (Jan 31, 2013)

I wasn't aware that the "consensus" had deemed Brahms a mediocre composer for piano. I only hear the opposite. The late piano works are some of the most celebrated in the repertoire, especially Op. 118. Also, Brahms is generally considered one of the great song writers of all time (my teacher, Anthony Iannaccone, agrees).

Be careful where you get your information from...


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

*Kempff*´s early mono Decca recordings and *Yudina*´s - of a very varying sound quality - are some of the only ones that make me appreciate the music. As for Kempff, it is a certain Schumannesque, sort of novelistic and fluent approach, difficult to describe. And as regards Yudina, it´s the passionate, serious rendering. *Gilels* is all-right too, and *Argerich* did a couple of the Ballades.

I´ve also got the Katchen set, and some that I didn´t really listen much to yet - Gould, Frager, Alexeev, Haskil, Bolet, Klien and a tiny bit of Richter & Schnabel. Pogorelich (DG) would be interesting to hear.

Overall, his piano works are in the second or even third tier as regards my personal preferences of piano repertoire. Very roughly speaking: too heavy ongoings, not particularly striking material - except in some of the smaller works - and long-drawn variations !


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Science, not sure if this helps but my dislike of Brahms' solo piano works comes not only from my limited experience as a listener but also from my even more limited experience as a very amateur pianist who has tackled some of his shorter pieces. I find Brahms' writing for piano unidiomatic which is surprising given he was himself a pianist. Thick clunky voicing with fistsful of notes etc. I do not find his piano writing in say the piano trios or horn trio to be awkward in that way. A serious pianist though would have a more informed view. . .


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I wasn't aware of these opinions either. 
For me Brahms is a little heavy or full in the left hand or lower registers so the solo piano pieces can sound murky to me, but that could just be the recordings I have. Or my aging ears. Or maybe that is their intent. It doesn't mean they are mediocre.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'm sorry, I should've backed up my observation a little more. Let's take the official talk classical recommendation lists. 

All four of Brahms' symphonies are in the top 56. Both of his piano concertos are in the top 19. His violin concerto is the top string concerto, and even the double concerto is 14th. His only long choral work is in the top ten, and two of his shorter ones make the top hundred. (He doesn't do so well in the "non-symphony orchestral works" category, owing largely, I suspect, to his attitude about program music.) And he simply dominates the chamber lists, with the most string ensembles (7 out of 50) and piano chamber music (7 out of 50). 

We haven't done a lied list yet, but I'd like to see the results before I recant my estimation of the internet's estimation of his works in that field. The "classical music project" is nearly at 900 with only the Alto Rhapsody and the Four Serious Songs, that's fair but it's out of 35 recommendations. 

But on the solo keyboard list, his highest placement is 39th (Paganini Variations), and only gets one more (op. 118) in the top 50. He does better after that, but the contrast to the symphonies, concertos, choral works, and especially the chamber music is undeniable. 

On the classical music project, Brahms has two solo piano entries in the top 899. To be fair, opp. 116 to 119 were done as a single entry, so if you really want to you can count up to 5. But even that is equivalent to, say, his piano quartets plus his string sextets, each of them individually enshrined. The contrast is again clear. For comparison, let's take Schubert. People debated hard about Schubert vs. Brahms when we ranked composers a few months ago, and Schubert (32) is close to Brahms (35) in the total number of recommendations, but Schubert has 8 individual entries for solo piano, and 9 if you split the Impromptus. 

I could use a bunch of polls from other sites to confirm this, but I think that'd violate the terms of service. So you'll have to check for yourself if you're actually that suspicious! 

Here we have multiple sources, and something like netizen democracy behind each of them.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Most of Brahms' piano works, I also find uninteresting. There's simply something barren and soulless about them, with a few exceptions.

The main exception are his Variations. Half a year ago, when I really listened intently to the Variations and Fugue on a Theme by Handel, I decided that I wanted to play that piece. With a lot of work, I was able to conquer that beast. Likewise with the F Sharp Minor Schumann Variations. These works are so inventive, so fresh, so ingenious.

I enjoy the works originally for Four Hands, though. The Souvenir de la Russe, Anh. 4/6 is a very nice work. But the Op. 23 Schumann Variations for Four Hands isn't, in my opinion.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I think JB was writing piano music but with an orchestral idiom in mind.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Rapide said:


> I think JB was writing piano music but with an orchestral idiom in mind.


I think that of his quartet, quintet, sextet compositions. For trios, duos, and instrumental, I detect more intimacy, which I suspect he enjoyed as a "getaway"--carefree, relaxed existence. I also have similar theory for Janacek, Elgar, and others.

To answer the OP re solo piano recs., some favorites are Lupu, GG, Angelich, Pogorelich, Sokolov, Kovacevich, Grimaud.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Op 117,118 and 119 is amazing!!!

Rhapsody in G minor and in B minor (op 79) is amazing as well. His 2 piano concertos is among my favorites of the genre.

Performer: Radu Lupu


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Brahms piano music is "thick and heavy" in my ears. They don't *'sing'*. Compared to Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann and even Liszt, Brahms is a *mediocre* piano solo composer.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

Its not mediocre because its more thick and heavy. Brahms piano compositions is very romantic and emotional. Just a question of understanding.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

That heaviness that you first find off putting, can turn into your most sought after thing in music with some open minded listening to Brahms. All that subtlety in everything but melody and theme. And the melody and themes can be very excellent too once you get the picture. Lots of Hungarian inspiration there.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Rapide said:


> I think JB was writing piano music but with an orchestral idiom in mind.


Particularly the earlier works I'd say. That's why it can be hard to find a good recording, you need a player who will bring out the best phrases, dynamic subtlety, and crescendo and dimuendo, accelerando and ritardando, and he/she has to do these things like second nature with feeling. Grimaud does quite well with the sonatas, as does Kissin. Gilels does incredible work with the op. 10 ballades. Or with Michelengeli, the music can even speak for itself with a more straight piano understanding in mind, but there is more to be had there I think.

Sometimes though, even Gilels won't communicate that to some, and some will be suspicious because they think he(Brahms) ought to have made it more in keeping with the piano writing, that it was a short coming. The fact that the music can ultimately be felt to be very real in its emotional power there(my personal opinion since it is true for me), and when one can see how unique it is for piano writing to be this epic and "orchestral," you can find a solid niche for it. Of course, those who are more into Russian piano music(like much of Rachmaninoff and Scriabin), or french impressionist, or Chopin and Liszt, may just not feel like they care to make room for Brahms's early piano music. That is of course, just fine.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Brahms's piano music is regarded as unidiomatic, not as _bad_. The problem with his output for the piano is that he never wrote a big piano piece after Op. 5, other than sets of variations, and even those are less ambitious than the _Diabelli_ and the _Goldberg_. When you compare him with Beethoven, it feels as if he left a hole in his catalogue where mature piano sonatas, or something equivalent, should be. The ballades would do, if they were as substantial as Chopin's, but they are obviously not intended to be. The rhapsodies are the only pieces of his that _seem_ big, and they get played all the time. But three substantial mature-period allegro movements is not enough to establish someone as a first-rank composer for the piano.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

People need to distance themselves from their opinions. Not liking a composer's music doesn't make it mediocre. I happen to think Beethoven is the most over-rated composer ever but that doesn't make him a mediocre composer. I don't like a lot of his music nearly as much as most others but I can certainly appreciate the ingenuity and craftsmanship of it. If you find Brahms "thick" or "heavy" fine, but don't say that is the reason his music is no good. 

And I happen to think the criticism that Brahms' piano writing is too "thick" or "heavy" to be a gross misrepresentation. There are plenty of his works that are far from thick and heavy like the Intermezzo in A major from Op. 118 or the Intermezzo in B minor from Op. 119, among many others. There are certain works of his that have a strong left hand, sure, but what composer doesn't have pieces like that? Chopin has dozens! Liszt has dozens! And Schumann!!! Don't even get me started!


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

True. Brahms never wrote anything like this for the left hand:


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Webernite said:


> True. Brahms never wrote anything like this for the left hand:


I hate to extol the virtues of Liszt in a thread that has nothing to do with him, but although I prefer the version for piano and orchestra...is there pianistic writing this ingenious in the entire 19th century? Well, except maybe his transcriptions of the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, the Beethoven Symphonies, and the Norma fantasy!

As for the thread...I had no idea this was the case. I always thought Brahms was considered to be among the best, although he simply didn't write as much for the instrument as some others. What he did is, IMO, first class, though. Maybe his brand of writing can be difficult to get into (it was for me), but Ravndal hit it on the head. It's just a question of understanding.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Lisztian said:


> I hate to extol the virtues of Liszt in a thread that has nothing to do with him, but although I prefer the version for piano and orchestra...is there pianistic writing this ingenious in the entire 19th century? Well, except maybe his transcriptions of the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, the Beethoven Symphonies, and the Norma fantasy!


Please, Lisztian, extol away! Liszt deserves his laurels.

Have you listened to Grosses Konzertsolo, S 176? It's a majestic work, pure genius. Likewise with the Ballad in B Minor.

Brahms' piano works are fairly modest, although, again, I adore all of his variations for piano.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Lisztian said:


> I hate to extol the virtues of Liszt in a thread that has nothing to do with him, but although I prefer the version for piano and orchestra...is there pianistic writing this ingenious in the entire 19th century? Well, except maybe his transcriptions of the Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique, the Beethoven Symphonies, and the Norma fantasy!
> 
> As for the thread...I had no idea this was the case. I always thought Brahms was considered to be among the best, although he simply didn't write as much for the instrument as some others. What he did is, IMO, first class, though. Maybe his brand of writing can be difficult to get into (it was for me), but Ravndal hit it on the head. It's just a question of understanding.


Between Beethoven and the generation of Rachmaninoff, Busoni, Godowski, and so on, Liszt may be nonpareil, but I don't want to make too little of Schubert, and Alkan is a guy that I wish would get more credit. Of course there's Schumann. And Mendelssohn's piano writing is probably better than a lot of us appreciate.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

Novelette said:


> Please, Lisztian, extol away! Liszt deserves his laurels.
> 
> Have you listened to Grosses Konzertsolo, S 176? It's a majestic work, pure genius. Likewise with the Ballad in B Minor.


I've always enjoyed the Konzertsolo, although I must say after hearing a great performance of his later version for two pianos, the _Concerto Pathetique_, I think the latter is more satisfying overall and one of his finest, certainly most symphonic and colourful, works involving the piano.

This performance by Richter and (Anton) Ginzburg is astounding!











As for the B Minor Ballade...it is one of his solo piano masterpieces, for sure.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I'm listening to his string quartets right now, and after answering a question about his use of 3/2 in the C min Op. 51, I'm listening to his rhythmic figures. He divides things up into little motives, and maybe that's where some people, including me, get lost sometimes. So now I'm listening more analytically, more detached, not expecting what I used to expect, and it seems to be working. Tap your foot.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

There is no mystery,the internet is an idiot!
I'm also afraid that your theories don't hold water.
Clifford Curzon the eminent pianist said : "With the Sonata In F Minor Brahms' genius leaps out,at the early age of twenty, in all its astonishing maturity".
Clara Schumann. "Here again is one who comes as if sent by God! He played us his sonatas and scherzos of his own all of them rich in fantasy, depth of feeling and mastery of form". Clara Schumann was of course a great virtuoso pianist.
His piano works are extensive and the best complete version that I know is still that by the late Julius Katchen.
As for pianistic works to be noted :
The Paganini Variations - they stand up to Liszt's most virtuistic efforts.
Variations On a Theme by Schumann,Op.9.
" On An Original Theme,Op.21.
" On a Hungarian Song,Op.21.
" On a Theme and Fugue of Handel,Op.24.
The Op.39 Waltzes are a pure delight.
A man who could compose the two hugely important piano concerti certainly knows his way around a piano keyboard.

Netizen Democracy--heavens to Murgatroyd !!!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Strange, not as great as major Classical composers, Chopin, Liszt, and some more, but still very good.

I hope someday Sibelius chamber works achieve the same regard and praise as other major Romantic composers.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

moody, is this your opinion as a listener, as a pianist, or both? Because I would say, as someone who has played his way through some Brahms piano pieces, he does not write gracefully for the instrument. Speaking as a listener, however, I love the piano concerto, the Op. 118, and some of the four-hand music.

I don't think criticism of Brahms' piano music can just be dismissed as internet mobocracy. There's a basis for the criticism.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> moody, is this your opinion as a listener, as a pianist, or both? Because I would say, as someone who has played his way through some Brahms piano pieces, he does not write gracefully for the instrument. Speaking as a listener, however, I love the piano concerto, the Op. 116, and some of the four-hand music.
> 
> I don't think criticism of Brahms' piano music can't just be dismissed as internet mobocracy. There's a basis for the criticism.


As a "mere" listener,but we are who these compositions were aimed at.But,see above, Curzon and Clara Schumann were certainly pianists and she could be a so and so if she didn't like something.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Brahms piano music has grown on me a lot, I thank clavichorder for his enthusiastic recommendation of the Piano Sonata No. 3 recently, it caught on with me and kind of opened the door for a wider appreciation of Brahms music. One thing is for sure - he put a lot into his works, and I greatly enjoy a lot of it. Currently listening to the Intermezzo in C sharp, very nice piece.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

millionrainbows said:


> I'm listening to his string quartets right now, and after answering a question about his use of 3/2 in the C min Op. 51, I'm listening to his rhythmic figures. He divides things up into little motives, and maybe that's where some people, including me, get lost sometimes. So now I'm listening more analytically, more detached, not expecting what I used to expect, and it seems to be working. Tap your foot.


That's how I got over the hump with Brahms! It was so long ago I'd forgotten. Turn up the 'listening' and turn down the 'expecting'; turn off as far as possible the internal muttering about 'it wasn't supposed to go _that_ way'.

Folks who are solidly locked in to _the seven melodies of Country Pop_ would have a bitch of a time with Brahms.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I prefer the later piano works - ops. 116-119 are a perfect end to that particular category. I can listen to the sonatas but they do seem overblown in places to these admittedly non-academic ears - the impetuosity of youth and/or the spirit of the age, perhaps?


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

moody said:


> As a "mere" listener,but we are who these compositions were aimed at.But,see above, Curzon and Clara Schumann were certainly pianists and she could be a so and so if she didn't like something.


Thanks for the clarification, moody. And I just want to say I wasn't trying to "pull rank" over "mere" listening--my pianistic skills are very mediocre. I just wanted to make the point that I think there is a substantive basis for complaining about the, well, infelicity of much of Brahms' music for piano. It's funny, because I am not much persuaded by truisms about the thickness of Brahms's orchestral textures--he seems to me to be a symphonic master--but I do find this a convincing criticism as leveled against the solo piano music (and maybe some of the chamber music with keyboard, e.g. the piano quartets). Perhaps this comes of my having a (trivially) better appreciation of the keyboard as an instrument than of the symphony orchestra as an medium.


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

I just so happen to be a pianist and I also happen to play plenty of Brahms (learning Op. 118 right now). Those who say his piano writing is unidiomatic are just plain wrong. Brahms was a virtuoso who knew his way around the keyboard as well as anyone. Pretty much everything he wrote fits the hands perfectly and there is little in his output (particularly the late piano pieces) that is over-saturated. In fact, I find Opp. 116-119 to be almost neo-classical in their textural clarity and spareness. Take this for example:






So simple, yet so masterful!

And then there's this little ditty:






...an ingeniously written theme & variations disguised as a mere "intermezzo." Study the piece and look for all the permutations of the opening 4-bar theme throughout, you'll be floored. It makes you appreciate his genius so much more. And furthermore, at no point does the piece become overbearing or thick or what have you. Perhaps it's just Rubinstein's beautiful playing, but the performance is always clear.

Forgive me if my tone is harsh, but Brahms is my favorite composer and I feel the need to jump to his defense


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Jeff N said:


> I just so happen to be a pianist and I also happen to play plenty of Brahms (learning Op. 118 right now). Those who say his piano writing is unidiomatic are just plain wrong....Pretty much everything he wrote fits the hands perfectly...Forgive me if my tone is harsh, but Brahms is my favorite composer and I feel the need to jump to his defense


Jeff, I appreciate your knowledgeable perspective. However, I think it is a bit strong to declare the position I've maintained is objectively and categorically "wrong." I am not the only person in the world who finds Brahms's music often falls strangely under the fingers. All you must do is google the terms _brahms awkward piano _ or _brahms clumsy piano _and you will turn up millions of hits. Some quotes from the first few pages of results:


""Brahms is difficult to understand and to play," [said] Mr. [Yefim] Bronfman...."Brahms writes very clumsily for the piano, which is surprising because he was himself a pianist.""
"his obvious comfort with Brahms's sometimes awkward piano writing"
"the leaps in the end of the rhapsody are just ridiculously awkward"
"Brahms's piano writing can sometimes seem deliberately awkward"
"Brahms suffered...from pianists who judged his piano writing awkward and unplayable"
"Pianists complain of the awkwardness of Brahms' craggy piano writing"
"the awkward, uncompromising nature of the Op. 76 pieces"
"Brahms's unique, thick-textured, robust, and occasionally awkward keyboard idiom, doubtless deriving from his own idiosyncratic piano technique"
"It's a kind of truism that Brahms's piano writing is not necessarily pianistic. In fact, in many ways it's considered clumsy. There are just fistfuls of notes..."
"his piano music is full of awkward stretches between the fingers"

These comments come from a variety of sources, from pianist discussion forums to a Telegraph review of a Proms concert, from an interview with Yefim Bronfman to the Deutsche Gramophone marketing materials related to a recording of the violin sonatas with Anne-Sophie Mutter.

And this is just the technical side. My ear also tells me, too, that much of Brahms's piano music consists of chords enelessly thumping away (cf the third piano sonata, etc.)

Obviously, you can disagree with all of these people without anybody having to be "wrong." This is largely a matter of opinion.

Let me add that, notwithstanding my complaints about his piano music, Brahms is possibly my favorite composer as well (he's near the top, anyway).


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> Thanks for the clarification, moody. And I just want to say I wasn't trying to "pull rank" over "mere" listening--my pianistic skills are very mediocre. I just wanted to make the point that I think there is a substantive basis for complaining about the, well, infelicity of much of Brahms' music for piano. It's funny, because I am not much persuaded by truisms about the thickness of Brahms's orchestral textures--he seems to me to be a symphonic master--but I do find this a convincing criticism as leveled against the solo piano music (and maybe some of the chamber music with keyboard, e.g. the piano quartets). Perhaps this comes of my having a (trivially) better appreciation of the keyboard as an instrument than of the symphony orchestra as an medium.


I never thought that you were trying to "pull rank", not for one moment. After all you're a friend of mine aren't you ?


----------



## Guest (Feb 1, 2013)

@Hausmusik,

Substitute Brahms for any other great piano composer and you'll get the same results. Most of the comments you mentioned regarding Brahms don't seem to emanate from professionals, so I don't know how much credence I put in them. And as someone who plays a lot of Brahms I find Bronfman's comments odd. Late Brahms is not difficult to play per se. Technically they're fairly easy pieces. And I also ask you find me an example of "chords endlessly thumping away" anywhere in Opp. 116-119.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

I don't really like your remark re professionals and credence .
I've been listening and attending "classical music" for 67 years and believe that I can tell whether music is awkward or thick textured.
However,I agree with your sentiments but I am not a second class music lover.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Jeff N said:


> Most of the comments you mentioned regarding Brahms don't seem to emanate from professionals, so I don't know how much credence I put in them. And as someone who plays a lot of Brahms I find Bronfman's comments odd. Late Brahms is not difficult to play per se. Technically they're fairly easy pieces. And I also ask you find me an example of "chords endlessly thumping away" anywhere in Opp. 116-119.


Since I never made the claim about 116-119 specifically, I must decline your request.

If you are going to argue from the premise that the opinions of professionals must be valued over those of amateurs, then with all due deference to your expert knowledge of Brahms's piano music (and good luck, by the way, as you learn to play the Op. 118!) I would venture that your opinion is trumped by Bronfman's. So you may want to reconsider that premise.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Hausmusik said:


> Jeff, I appreciate your knowledgeable perspective. However, I think it is a bit strong to declare the position I've maintained is objectively and categorically "wrong." I am not the only person in the world who finds Brahms's music often falls strangely under the fingers.


Hausmusik, I would like to add my experience on this matter. I fully agree that Brahms' music is often difficult for the fingers to master. There is no denying Brahms' reported pianistic skills, but he must have been more than usually dexterous. I've been playing the piano for most of my life and while I find most of the Handel Variations easy enough to play, there are a few instances that are just difficult for me to play: Variation 8 being the most difficult of the variations, in my opinion [25 is amazingly fun to play, though!]; there is one group of accompaniment notes that are imitated several times: the "boxed" parts, and the later imitations, are difficult insofar as they are clumsy to play, or at least, my hands find them clumsy to play.









This is merely one example, though.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Also, my hands can only barely stretch tenths. It makes much of Brahms', Schumann's, and Liszt's music [among others] a bit difficult for me to play quickly.

My fantasy is to be able to stretch a twelfth, thereby making playing Liszt a bit more commodious. But alas...


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

moody said:


> I don't really like your remark re professionals and credence .
> I've been listening and attending "classical music" for 67 years and believe that I can tell whether music is awkward or thick textured.
> However,I agree with your sentiments but I am not a second class music lover.


Right, but all I said was "I don't know how much credence I put in them." Didn't totally disregard them. All I implied is that I put more trust in a professional's opinion of performance issues over a non-performer. I think we can agree to that?

@Hausmusik,

Ok, you have one professional who claims Brahms' piano writing is clumsy. Big whoop. I'm sure there are plenty of other pianists who speak highly of Brahms' piano writing (my piano teacher being one of them).

And I only ask you to name an example of "chords endlessly thumping away" instead of just claiming it without any evidence. I used Opp. 116-119 because you won't find any of that! So can you show me an example of it? And further, I can find examples of such writing in any of the other great piano composers.

The gist of my argument is, the complaints you are leveling against Brahms (I think unfairly, just my opinion) could be leveled against any other great piano composer. So, why is Brahms getting all this treatment?


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

This is really surprising for me, because I consider the Brahms pieces op 116-119 to be the greatest short pieces for solo piano ever written. I have gone so far with this conviction that I have spent 2 and a half of years trying to learn all of them in those opuses. Really the epitome of aphoristic writing in my opinion. It's the mix of the expressive and the learned that I respect in Brahms (and in all artists for that matter); his master was both Bach and Beethoven. I just can't imagine feeling that someone would not be wholly moved by something like op 118 no 2 or op 119 no 1. To me op 116 no 4 is what love what sound like if put into musical form. op 117 no 2 never fails to provoke the shameless stiff feeling in my throat 

For recordings, Glenn Gould's recording of the intermezzos are by far the best I've heard (and possibly his best recording out of Bach in my opinion); he does not record all of them however, and leaves some out (the op 116 no 6). Richter's beautiful playing of the opus 119 leaves one wishing that he played more of these great pieces.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Personally, I think Brahms piano pieces are gems. Actually, I'd take his body of piano works over Chopin's any day.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

violadude said:


> Personally, I think Brahms piano pieces are gems. Actually, I'd take his body of piano works over Chopin's any day.


Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Ok, now, let's all just calm down here.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

science said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa.
> 
> Ok, now, let's all just calm down here.


What is this supposed to mean ?


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Chopin will eat Brahms breakfast in any day regarding solo piano works. I think the 5 greatest solo piano composers are the ff:

1. Chopin
2. Beethoven
3. Schubert
4. Liszt
5. Schumann


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

moody said:


> What is this supposed to mean ?


I can't say for sure, but I'd bet it's deadly serious.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Jeff N said:


> The gist of my argument is, the complaints you are leveling against Brahms (I think unfairly, just my opinion) could be leveled against any other great piano composer. So, why is Brahms getting all this treatment?


I don't understand the stridency of your posts here. There's a shrill harshness for which I see little justification.

Brahms isn't getting any sort of "treatment." We are having a conversation and sharing personal opinions. You don't like some of these opinions and are calling them "wrong," which is arrogant and presumptuous, and pretending anyone who disagrees with you does so from ignorance and amateurism.

Personally, I think you might be more concerned about your lack of civil "treatment" of fellow posters here than about our "treatment" of a long-dead composer, who is going to be little affected by the modest and qualified criticism he is receiving here.


----------



## Guest (Feb 2, 2013)

Hausmusik said:


> I don't understand the stridency of your posts here. There's a shrill harshness for which I see little justification.
> 
> Brahms isn't getting any sort of "treatment." We are having a conversation and sharing personal opinions. You don't like some of these opinions and are calling them "wrong," which is arrogant and presumptuous, and pretending anyone who disagrees with you does so from ignorance and amateurism.
> 
> Personally, I think you might be more concerned about your lack of civil "treatment" of fellow posters here than about our "treatment" of a long-dead composer, who is going to be little affected by the modest and qualified criticism he is receiving here.


That's cool. I'm still waiting to hear some actual evidence for your earlier claims.


----------



## Ravndal (Jun 8, 2012)

peeyaj said:


> Chopin will eat Brahms breakfast in any day regarding solo piano works. I think the 5 greatest solo piano composers are the ff:
> 
> 1. Chopin
> 2. Beethoven
> ...


Ravel, debussy, chopin, bach, brahms. Easy.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

"Originally Posted by violadude
Personally, I think Brahms piano pieces are gems. Actually, I'd take his body of piano works over Chopin's any day."



science said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa.
> 
> Ok, now, let's all just calm down here.


 Y'know, if I carefully quantify and 'qualify' (an obscure sense of that word) their solo piano works, those guys come out just about even. That may be because Chopin's music gets 'salonified' so much, and Brahm's 3rd sonata gets misinterpreted so often... but it all seems to even out.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I want to play too. 

Beethoven
Chopin
Schubert
Liszt
Scriabin
Albeniz
Mompou
Alkan
Faure

I might have left one or two off but that gets me started in the right direction.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I want to play too.
> 
> Beethoven
> Chopin
> ...


That is obviously a jumbled list; Alkan is grossly misplaced. And Brahms isn't spelled M-o-m-p-o-u.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> That is obviously a jumbled list; Alkan is grossly misplaced. And Brahms isn't spelled M-o-m-p-o-u.


I detect sarcasm. Perhaps I'd better add Debussy and Brahms.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Alkan is all very interesting but I don't think he belongs in the top echelons.

Liszt
Beethoven
Schubert
Brahms
Chopin


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Hmm... so many people are getting it wrong.

Beethoven
Alkan
Liszt/Chopin/Brahms (a tie)
... many composers of fine music


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Hmm... so many people are getting it wrong.
> 
> Beethoven
> Alkan
> ...


So there are a whole heap of people sitting around and listening to Alkan ...explain youself at once you troll creature you !


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> So there are a whole heap of people sitting around and listening to Alkan ...explain youself at once you troll creature you !


Alkan's genius is appreciated by Them That's In The Know. A whole heap of people don't sit around listening to Alkan because:

1) A whole heap of pianists are afraid of his music and so don't learn it.

2) a much smaller heap of pianists learn the notes and play them, without figuring out what the notes add up to. This creates recitals and recordings of music that doesn't work very well.

3) The recordings of Smith, Lewenthal and Hamelin can only reach so far.

I have read that Sorabji's music languishes for similar reasons... .


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Alkan's genius is appreciated by Them That's In The Know. A whole heap of people don't sit around listening to Alkan because:
> 
> 1) A whole heap of pianists are afraid of his music and so don't learn it.
> 
> ...


I've had the original Lewenthal RCA issue that started all the fuss. What I cannot believe is that nobody appars to have put it on CD.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Alkan's genius is appreciated by Them That's In The Know. A whole heap of people don't sit around listening to Alkan because:
> 
> 1) A whole heap of pianists are afraid of his music and so don't learn it.
> 
> ...


Your point no.2 could be applied to a lot of pianists playing many composers.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Your point no.2 could be applied to a lot of pianists playing many composers.


True, but Alkan seems to be a special case.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> True, but Alkan seems to be a special case.


I have said as much about Medtner. And see where you are coming from. My issue with Alkan is sorting the mentally ingenious works(the really clever stuff), from the "silly and noisy stuff." Sometimes I can't decide.

Medtner and Alkan were fine musical minds who were off the beaten path. But what do y'all think of Scriabin? To me, there is a fully realized genius at work there, bonkers though he was. I would cautiously say that his music is nearly as great as Chopin and Brahms's, but I just don't remember it all as well, and perhaps that's just because I don't know as much. Its possible though that its a little over ornamented, very organic in feel(that's why I think its so genial) but things are a little too buried hiding behind all those dark harmonies.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I have said as much about Medtner. And see where you are coming from. My issue with Alkan is sorting the mentally ingenious works(the really clever stuff), from the "silly and noisy stuff." Sometimes I can't decide.
> 
> Medtner and Alkan were fine musical minds who were off the beaten path. But what do y'all think of Scriabin? To me, there is a fully realized genius at work there, bonkers though he was. I would cautiously say that his music is nearly as great as Chopin and Brahms's, but I just don't remember it all as well, and perhaps that's just because I don't know as much. Its possible though that its a little over ornamented, very organic in feel(that's why I think its so genial) but things are a little too buried hiding behind all those dark harmonies.


Hmm,very pretentious I must say.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

moody said:


> Hmm,very pretentious I must say.


How so? I am curious, as I prefer to avoid being pretentious. Or is this a joke?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> I have said as much about Medtner. And see where you are coming from. My issue with Alkan is sorting the mentally ingenious works(the really clever stuff), from the "silly and noisy stuff." Sometimes I can't decide.
> 
> Medtner and Alkan were fine musical minds who were off the beaten path. But what do y'all think of Scriabin? To me, there is a fully realized genius at work there, bonkers though he was. I would cautiously say that his music is nearly as great as Chopin and Brahms's, but I just don't remember it all as well, and perhaps that's just because I don't know as much. Its possible though that its a little over ornamented, very organic in feel(that's why I think its so genial) but things are a little too buried hiding behind all those dark harmonies.


I certainly _don't_ like any of his music _other_ than piano solo. That is interesting, when one starts with his early, Chopinesque music and follows his progress. the late sonatas I have to back of from, and listen to fairly large chunks at a time (the so-called 'long line' approach), but it works OK. As far as a ranking, he doesn't fit in anywhere for me; Scriabin is what he is.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> As far as a ranking, he doesn't fit in anywhere for me; Scriabin is what he is.


Yeah, I can't decide with him ultimately, try how I might. I feel a need for him to be elevated sometimes though, because some of his music has such a powerful effect on so many I've showed it to for the first time.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> How so? I am curious, as I prefer to avoid being pretentious. Or is this a joke?


No.I saw your post in Sid's pretentious thread.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

moody said:


> No.I saw your post in Sid's pretentious thread.


Well, for future reference, the comment I got in that thread about cautiously and nearly does point out extraneous verbiage. Need to work on that...sometimes I just don't know what I'm trying to say!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

SottoVoce said:


> This is really surprising for me, because I consider the Brahms pieces op 116-119 to be the greatest short pieces for solo piano ever written. I have gone so far with this conviction that I have spent 2 and a half of years trying to learn all of them in those opuses. Really the epitome of aphoristic writing in my opinion. It's the mix of the expressive and the learned that I respect in Brahms (and in all artists for that matter); his master was both Bach and Beethoven. I just can't imagine feeling that someone would not be wholly moved by something like op 118 no 2 or op 119 no 1. To me op 116 no 4 is what love what sound like if put into musical form. op 117 no 2 never fails to provoke the shameless stiff feeling in my throat
> 
> For recordings, Glenn Gould's recording of the intermezzos are by far the best I've heard (and possibly his best recording out of Bach in my opinion); he does not record all of them however, and leaves some out (the op 116 no 6). Richter's beautiful playing of the opus 119 leaves one wishing that he played more of these great pieces.


I concur. An uninformed listener could plausibly confuse op. 119/1 for Debussy. The petite 3 minute piece has its own cottage industry in academia.


----------



## GodNickSatan (Feb 28, 2013)

Why no love for the ballades? They're great! Maybe not Chopin great, but still, why do they get so overlooked here? The third piano sonata is a favourite of mine as well.


----------



## Mai (Jun 16, 2013)

Perhaps Brahms' genius was too large to be confined to one or a few instruments. He's been quoted as saying it's as if his orchestral works sprang into his mind fully formed, so it's clear his intellect leaned towards complexity and rich textures.
I'm not technical whiz, but his works for solo piano and small ensembles seem to me to be thin and unsatisfying with shrill lame crescendos sounding like the proverbial storm in a teacup, although still full of his usual inventiveness and intelligence.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Mai said:


> Perhaps Brahms' genius was too large to be confined to one or a few instruments. He's been quoted as saying it's as if his orchestral works sprang into his mind fully formed, so it's clear his intellect leaned towards complexity and rich textures.
> I'm not technical whiz, but his works for solo piano and small ensembles seem to me to be thin and unsatisfying with shrill lame crescendos sounding like the proverbial storm in a teacup, although still full of his usual inventiveness and intelligence.


Naw, same genius and ingeniousness at work there, its the internetz


----------



## Brahmatist (Jul 27, 2013)

Brahms was barely 20 years old when he composed his three piano sonatas. The virtuosity, maturity and depth of feeling on display are quite astonishing, and would be a major achievement for a composer twice his age. As for the "thickness", it comes down to the personal interpretation of the individual performer and whether they overdo the forte without integrating the dynamics into the whole, which unfortunately is often the case.


----------



## Geo Dude (May 22, 2013)

It seems that the debate on the quality of his solo piano music has been settled. With that in mind, Rittner on pianoforte is excellent.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

I'm not familiar with Brahms's piano sonatas, but I love many of his other piano pieces, and many other people do too. They are frequently performed in concert, recorded, and broadcast on the radio, regardless of what "the interent" agrees to. I think it's safe to say they are as good as his other output. I have read criticisms that his piano music is not "pianistic", but I think it is more important that it sound good than that it be convenient to play.


----------



## Garlic (May 3, 2013)

I'll take Brahms' piano music over anyone's except maybe Beethoven. In general, I'm not a big fan of romantic piano music - much of it I have a visceral negative reaction to. Brahms is a major exception.


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

some guy said:


> Grimaud's recording of the third sonata (which I like as well as anything by Beethoven or even Schubert) is my favorite.


I looked this up on spotify and it sounds very refreshing, good stuff


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Perhaps the only reason that this is all so is because there is a greater consensus on his chamber/orchestral stuff, but his solo piano music tends to divide rather than create a consensus. I've heard great solo piano music by Brahms, and I would greatly like to hear more. After all, I'm more of a fan in general of solo piano music than other kinds of chamber music.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

Hausmusik:

I have noted here before that people criticize Brahms's music as "unpianistic" and you give some reasons. I am also a very amateur pianist and I have played a fair number of his shorter pieces. I think it is less important that the writing be unidiomatic than that it be enjoyable/fulfilling to listen to.


----------



## GodNickSatan (Feb 28, 2013)

The late piano pieces, as well as the third piano sonata, are really special.

_Through evening's shade, the pale moon gleams
While rapt in love's ecstatic dreams
Two hearts are fondly beating._


----------

