# Bernstein and Brahms



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Today, I listened to some Brahms by Bernstein from the DGG Bernstein box. It was REALLY interesting. To cut to the chase, it was some of the worst Brahms I've ever heard. But at the same time, it was pretty faithful to a certain aspect of Brahms' music, so it was interesting, even if I didn't personally like it. There is a certain "evenness" to Brahms' music. All the rough corners are rounded off and it tends to be fairly orderly. Bernstein took that and accentuated it. He made the symmetry even more symmetrical, and he slowed it down to make it even more organized and orderly. I remember Moody (God bless his soul) loudly proclaiming that Bernstein didn't understand Brahms. I halfway agree, because it sure isn't GOOD Brahms. But I think the problem is that Bernstein understood it a little TOO well. It's a lot better if the conductor takes more of a "rough and tumble" approach to it.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

WOW, I LOVE Bernstein's Brahms.


----------



## Revel (Feb 25, 2015)

Rob Lowe's character from the movie "Contact":

_"Back home that's what we call an overcooked ham."_

That's how I feel about Bernstein.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Itullian said:


> WOW, I LOVE Bernstein's Brahms.


I can totally understand that, because I think Brahms would have liked it too.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

bigshot said:


> Today, I listened to some Brahms by Bernstein from the DGG Bernstein box. It was REALLY interesting. To cut to the chase, it was some of the worst Brahms I've ever heard. But at the same time, it was pretty faithful to a certain aspect of Brahms' music, so it was interesting, even if I didn't personally like it. There is a certain "evenness" to Brahms' music. All the rough corners are rounded off and it tends to be fairly orderly. Bernstein took that and accentuated it. He made the symmetry even more symmetrical, and he slowed it down to make it even more organized and orderly. I remember Moody (God bless his soul) loudly proclaiming that Bernstein didn't understand Brahms. I halfway agree, because it sure isn't GOOD Brahms. But I think the problem is that Bernstein understood it a little TOO well. It's a lot better if the conductor takes more of a "rough and tumble" approach to it.


LOL. Good one, bigshot.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Revel said:


> Rob Lowe's character from the movie "Contact":
> _"Back home that's what we call an overcooked ham."_
> That's how I feel about Bernstein.


That is totally clueless. Bernstein knew exactly what he was playing.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Bernstein's Brahms is awesome although my preference has leaned towards Kleiber here.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

bigshot said:


> I can totally understand that, because I think Brahms would have liked it too.


Whatever that means


----------



## Revel (Feb 25, 2015)

bigshot said:


> That is totally clueless. Bernstein knew exactly what he was playing.


I didn't imply that he didn't know what he was doing. On the contrary, I think he was very conscious of his interpretations....hence the "overcooked ham" comment. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. I've never heard his Brahms...but owned a Schumann cycle in the past, as well as a Haydn "Paris" disc...and a Beethoven that was the Fifth. All were played at a tempo that killed all momentum & emoted more than called for.

Can we agree to disagree?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Revel said:


> I didn't imply that he didn't know what he was doing. On the contrary, I think he was very conscious of his interpretations....hence the "overcooked ham" comment. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose. I've never heard his Brahms...but owned a Schumann cycle in the past, as well as a Haydn "Paris" disc...and a Beethoven that was the Fifth. All were played at a tempo that killed all momentum & emoted more than called for.
> 
> Can we agree to disagree?


I can...................


----------



## Revel (Feb 25, 2015)

Hope I didn't offend any Bernstein fans. Poor conduct on my part.

I did have a Tchaikovsky #6 Pathetique of Bernstein's that I enjoyed...but have no idea where it is. Most likely lost during my last move.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Revel said:


> Hope I didn't offend any Bernstein fans. Poor conduct on my part.
> 
> I did have a Tchaikovsky #6 Pathetique of Bernstein's that I enjoyed...but have no idea where it is. Most likely lost during my last move.


No offence........
I love Lenny...............


----------



## shadowdancer (Mar 31, 2014)

This kind of "fingerprint" is rare nowadays. You can tell pretty fast who is conducting after 3 or 4 bars. Independent if it sounds "right" or "wrong" in most of the cases, you say: "I am sure it is Bernstein".


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

Bernstein's Brahms recordings is what got me into classical music so they will always be special to me.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I agree with OP. Leonard Bernstein would be one of the last conductors I would turn to for a convincing Brahms symphony performance.

Look away mein avatar, but that's the truth as I see it!!


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I'm nor surprised, Bernstein wasn't a Beethoven-head either.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I'm nor surprised, Bernstein wasn't a Beethoven-head either.


May I ask in what sense do you mean this? That he didn't have a way with his music or he wasn't really a Beethoven enthusiast?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I love his Beethoven too. :tiphat:


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

bigshot said:


> Today, I listened to some Brahms by Bernstein from the DGG Bernstein box. It was REALLY interesting. To cut to the chase, it was some of the worst Brahms I've ever heard. But at the same time, it was pretty faithful to a certain aspect of Brahms' music, so it was interesting, even if I didn't personally like it. There is a certain "evenness" to Brahms' music. All the rough corners are rounded off and it tends to be fairly orderly. Bernstein took that and accentuated it. He made the symmetry even more symmetrical, and he slowed it down to make it even more organized and orderly. I remember Moody (God bless his soul) loudly proclaiming that Bernstein didn't understand Brahms. I halfway agree, because it sure isn't GOOD Brahms. But I think the problem is that Bernstein understood it a little TOO well. It's a lot better if the conductor takes more of a "rough and tumble" approach to it.


If you listen to Bernstein's Brahms cycle with the New York Philharmonic on Sony from the 1960's his readings are far less "mannered" for lack of a better word. His tempos were generally swift and things were more standard rhythmically and dynamically. That first movement of Symphony No. 1 kicks off like gangbusters! The 3rd Symphony finale has all the passion and excitement that most people miss. Really all the symphonies are very well done. The New York Philharmonic can't compete with the sheer beauty of sound from the Vienna Philharmonic but they play well with plenty of fervor. If you want to hear a "good" Brahms cycle there is nothing wrong with Lenny's first one. They're very similar to Bruno Walter's recordings in my own mind who was also a very good interpreter of Brahms. So, I think Bernstein got Brahms and his earlier cycle shows it, but it seems to have been lost in obscurity with most people unaware of it's existence.

Now, with all that said and with so many Brahms cycle out there, his NY cycle faces tough competition with Klemperer, Abbado, Levine (Chicago & Vienna), Sanderling (Dresden Cycle), Dohnanyi, etc. There are some exceptional cycle's out there and while Lenny's NY cycle was "very good", I don't know that it's in the "exceptional" category when compared to these other cycles.

Now, the later DG cycle with Vienna is very much an acquired taste. Critic David Hurwitz listed the DG cycle as one of his "CD's From Hell". I don't know that I would go that far, but it is definitely not for everybody. Now in his review Mr. Hurwitz said, "These slow, heavy, thick, gorgeously played performances smother Brahms in an excess of Viennese whipped cream. They are the musical equivalent of a double chocolate banana split with Cool Whip, extra fudge sauce, caramel topping, nuts, sprinkles, some additional cherries, and M&Ms for good measure." That's exactly the way I feel about them. Every note rings with as much excess of emotion as can possibly be mustered. I have no doubt Brahms would have found these recordings interesting.

Again, all that said, they are exceptionally slow and probably not what Brahms had in mind. They wouldn't be my pick to introduce someone to Brahms and I don't think they really represent Brahms's Brahms, but they certainly represent Bernstein's later feelings with extra romanticism that are definitely worth hearing at least once because they are gorgeously played and if you want to hear what excess emotion really sounds like in music, you need look no further than these performances.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Ha! I rarely read Hurwitz's site, but I think he was seeing what I saw in the Vienna Brahms. It isn't "bad" at all. In fact, it's musicianship of the highest order, and the approach is very carefully considered and carried out. The concerto I listened to has the exact same approach as the symphonies. It's exactly what Brahms seems to call for. Yet it's kind of letting Brahms hoist himself in his own petard. It's so concentrated and focused, you have to wonder if the error was Bernstein's or whether it was Brahms' fault.

I never really thought about conductors routinely "fixing" the works they perform. Perhaps they are just following the leader and playing the music the way everyone else plays it. But it kind of surprises me that Brahms is generally performed so consistently and no one except Bernstein had the guts to say "To hell with it, the music is asking for this, so I'll supply it in spades." It reminds me of a Brandenburg I heard once that was played insanely fast. When I heard it, I was pretty sure that Bach would have wanted it played as fast as the musicians could play it accurately... and probably would have been delighted with the performance. But once you hear it played as far in that direction as humanly possible, you realize how weird that sounds.

The DG Brahms cycle isn't my favorite one to listen to on a regular basis, but it's still going to end up as a treasure to me. Some folks may consider it a mistake, but I think it points to Bernstein's genius for being both completely unique and true to the spirit of the music. It takes a really great conductor to come up with a "mistake" like this one.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

I need to listen to this now, I'm really curious.

The Bernstein ultra-slowness works sometimes (Adagietto!), other times it just sounds weird and wrong (most Beethoven of his I've heard). Though there is always something compelling about his interpretations.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> May I ask in what sense do you mean this? That he didn't have a way with his music or he wasn't really a Beethoven enthusiast?


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Richannes Wrahms said:


>


I fail to see why you think Bernstein didn't get Beethoven? I know several other top conductors and music professors who would completely agree with his statements. Bernstein loved Beethoven all the same. Gramophone even rated his recording of Beethoven's Symphony No. 1 with the Vienna Philharmonic "THE ONE TO OWN". Music critic Jed Distler holds his Vienna Beethoven Cycle as one of the best of all time. Even critic David Hurwitz whom I mentioned earlier who is known for being very opinionated and very blunt and unkind to many recordings loves it. Bernstein's Beethoven tempos were far Quicker than Klemperer or Bohm, both who are considered masters of Beethoven. On his early cycle with the New York Philharmonic his tempos were fairly close to Toscanini and nobody would call him slow. So, I must admit I'm at a loss in understanding why you feel he didn't get Beethoven.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Furthermore, Bernstein mentioned on a couple of occasions that Beethoven was his favorite composer (and even proclaimed him to be the greatest composer). Of course that says nothing about how his Beethoven sounds. I'm a fan of his early LvB with the NYP. My favorite Eroica is Bernstein/NYP, which includes a bonus commentary track, "How A Great Symphony Was Written". It's informative and comprehensible as he usually was.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Bernstein's ultra-rich, fin-de-siecle, espressivo Brahms with the VPO is unique and in no way perverse. I like it. It isn't the only way I like Brahms to sound, but as a point of view and as sheer musicianship there's nothing wrong with it. We can't ask Brahms for his opinion of Bernstein, Toscanini, Klemperer or Furtwangler (now _there's_ some unique and potent Brahms!), so let's just drop any pretend-to-know-it-all attitudes and be grateful for music that can support such a range of interpretations. It's fine to speculate about performance practices of the late nineteenth century, but the truth appears to be that musical interpretation was more variable then than it is now, and the freedom of the performer to express himself was valued highly. Where there's nothing to support an objective judgment, we have only the scores to go on. So why not simply open our ears and minds and appreciate what different interpreters can teach us about the music they perform?


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Bernstein got EVERYTHING.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Bernstein's ultra-rich, fin-de-siecle, espressivo Brahms with the VPO is unique and in no way perverse. I like it. It isn't the only way I like Brahms to sound, but as a point of view and as sheer musicianship there's nothing wrong with it. We can't ask Brahms for his opinion of Bernstein, Toscanini, Klemperer or Furtwangler (now _there's_ some unique and potent Brahms!), so let's just drop any pretend-to-know-it-all attitudes and be grateful for music that can support such a range of interpretations. It's fine to speculate about performance practices of the late nineteenth century, but the truth appears to be that musical interpretation was more variable then than it is now, and the freedom of the performer to express himself was valued highly. Where there's nothing to support an objective judgment, we have only the scores to go on. So why not simply open our ears and minds and appreciate what different interpreters can teach us about the music they perform?


Now if the Right Honorable Lord Woodduck will afford Argerich the same interpretive graces he affords Bernstein, it might just turn my frown upside down._ ;D_


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I heard that Chailly does a very exceptional reading for a recent version of the Brahms cycle.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

As with everything else, Bernstein's interpretations were remarkably variable over the course of his career.
In 1962, or thereabouts, he did a Brahms Second that to my ear was (still is) really good. Unfortunately the recording (the first made in the then new Philharmonic Hall) was laughably awful.


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

albertfallickwang said:


> I heard that Chailly does a very exceptional reading for a recent version of the Brahms cycle.


I know Gramophone gave it high marks but to me it's just too restrained. Passionate moments like the finale of the 1st Symphony or the first movement of the 2nd Symphony or the slow movement of the 4th Symphony are left sounding really scant because of the strings being so tame and subdued. The climaxes are also really played down. After hearing his Beethoven Cycle I was really looking forward to his Brahms, but he just really missed the mark for me.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

realdealblues said:


> I know Gramophone gave it high marks but to me it's just too restrained. Passionate moments like the finale of the 1st Symphony or the first movement of the 2nd Symphony or the slow movement of the 4th Symphony are left sounding really scant because of the strings being so tame and subdued. The climaxes are also really played down. After hearing his Beethoven Cycle I was really looking forward to his Brahms, but he just really missed the mark for me.


Sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to that experience. I may try it on for size here and see what happens.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Now if the Right Honorable Lord Woodduck will afford Argerich the same interpretive graces he affords Bernstein, it might just turn my frown upside down._ ;D_


Thank you for coming. I've been expecting you.

You will note a salient difference between this case and the one to which you refer. In the case of Rachmaninoff we have performances of many of his works by the composer himself to show us how he conceives of his music. The insight this offers us is invaluable. The only recording we have of Brahms is of his voice saying "I am Doktor Johannes Brahms." Not much we can learn from that. Ms. Argerich may do as she pleases with Rachmaninoff's music. I may then say, "very impressive, but it doesn't sound like Rachmaninoff, it misses his spirit, and I don't like it." Which is what I did say.

If the frown remains, try standing on your head.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> The only recording we have of Brahms is of his voice saying "I am Doktor Johannes Brahms." Not much we can learn from that.


Oh my goodness, thank you, Woodduck! I had no idea that existed. I'm not sure if you remember this, but a good while back, I was pretty new to TC, we had a discussion (and Mahlerian) in which I told you how obsessed I was (and still am) about people from the 1800s. We were discussing how Mahler and Wagner conducted and how I wish I would have been able to hear how they conducted Beethoven's 9th (and their own works). We both came to the conclusion that I was downright weird to be so obsessed about such a matter, haha! So hearing one of my favorite composers' actual voice (and playing) in the 1800s gives me satisfaction, probably too much. :lol:

It's rather haunting, don't you think?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Oh my goodness, thank you, Woodduck! I had no idea that existed. I'm not sure if you remember this, but a good while back, I was pretty new to TC, we had a discussion (and Mahlerian) in which I told you how obsessed I was (and still am) about people from the 1800s. We were discussing how Mahler and Wagner conducted and how I wish I would have been able to hear how they conducted Beethoven's 9th (and their own works). We both came to the conclusion that I was downright weird to be so obsessed about such a matter, haha! So hearing one of my favorite composers' actual voice (and playing) in the 1800s gives me satisfaction, probably too much. :lol:
> 
> It's rather haunting, don't you think?


Too bad the piano is indecipherable (to me at least). What is he playing?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Thank you for coming. I've been expecting you.
> 
> You will note a salient difference between this case and the one to which you refer. In the case of Rachmaninoff we have performances of many of his works by the composer himself to show us how he conceives of his music. The insight this offers us is invaluable. The only recording we have of Brahms is of his voice saying "I am Doktor Johannes Brahms." Not much we can learn from that. Ms. Argerich may do as she pleases with Rachmaninoff's music. I may then say, "very impressive, but it doesn't sound like Rachmaninoff, it misses his spirit, and I don't like it." Which is what I did say.
> 
> If the frown remains, try standing on your head.


You're more frivolously French than even _I_ am- I salute you.

I curtsey- and proceed to turn up the volume on the last movement of the Argerich. . . . . . just so that you won't 'miss' the spirit. _;D_


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Sounds like those injury law firms I see on late night TV: "Call Brahms and Bernstein for a free consultation."


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Sounds like those injury law firms I see on late night TV: "Call Brahms and Bernstein for a free consultation."


Better Call Brahms! No seriously...

I really think that Bernstein and Brahms was not the best combination but still very good. Brahms I prefer a more analytical and less emotional based approach to here. Kleiber again balances those two elements rather well for this.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> Sorry to hear that. I was looking forward to that experience. I may try it on for size here and see what happens.


Most certainly. Chailly is a name to bank on.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Lord Lance said:


> Most certainly. Chailly is a name to bank on.


LOL... Chailly is awesome but he hasn't been flawless in everything he conducts... I saw that he recorded the Brahms Serenades recently as well.


----------



## Lord Lance (Nov 4, 2013)

albertfallickwang said:


> LOL... Chailly is awesome but he hasn't been flawless in everything he conducts... I saw that he recorded the Brahms Serenades recently as well.


If you're the type, his Beethoven cycle is fantastic. If you like Bruckner, his symphonic cycle ranks among the most marvellous and especially as one of the finest from the modern lot. If you're into Brahms, his cycle is supposedly good. His list of operatic recording is long and many of them are considered referential. {Check Amazon for that} If you like Mahler, his RCO/RSO Berlin cycle is worth a listen. Again, a modern cycle [Earliest recording is of the Tenth from 1988]. Not only worth a listen but considering his caliber, it should have plenty of mesmerizing performances!


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

albertfallickwang said:


> I really think that Bernstein and Brahms was not the best combination but still very good. Brahms I prefer a more analytical and less emotional based approach to here.


That's basically what Bernstein does. There isn't a lot of passion in his Brahms. He focuses more on the shape of the music and deliberately going through and dotting every i and crossing every t.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Woodduck said:


> Too bad the piano is indecipherable (to me at least). What is he playing?


I've got it! It's his Hungarian Dance in G minor! Also known as Hungarian Dance No. 1 (it also happens to be my 2nd favorite).

I can sort of make it out at the end of the video.

Source -
http://www.cylinder.de/deeplink_resource_brahms.html


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I've got it! It's his Hungarian Dance in G minor! Also known as Hungarian Dance No. 1 (it also happens to be my 2nd favorite).
> 
> I can sort of make it out at the end of the video.
> 
> ...


Thanks. Now I can get out my traditional Hungarian sheepherder's costume and kick up my heels.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It really depends on my mood. You're never going to hear it precisely how Brahms imagined it... unless there are conductors out there with a sixth sense, but you know....


----------

