# The Difference Between Beethoven and Brahms



## millionrainbows

Everybody's always saying how Brahms is just a continuation of Beethoven, and citing all the similarities between them. This might be true to an extent, but what about the differences?

I'll start by saying that I hear Beethoven as a harmonic thinker (as opposed to melodic or contrapuntal); not exclusively, of course, but there are many instances of "pure harmonic" thinking in Beethoven: the transitions in the Ninth, with root movement in thirds, or in much of the Hammerclavier, which seems like harmonic rambling.

In Brahms, the music and chord changes seem to always be attached to some sort of melodic figure.


----------



## JACE

It seems to me that Brahms is much more attuned to _rhythm_ than Beethoven.

I'm not a musician or musicologist, so I can't really articulate it more than that. I just hear it.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms was much more attuned to sophisticated off-beat rhythms-really complicated stuff.

I bet the boy was a great dancer!!


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Brahms was much more attuned to sophisticated off-beat rhythms-really complicated stuff.
> 
> I bet the boy was a great dancer!!


Examples? That's interesting; I wouldn't have seen it that way. I hear lots of forceful rhythmic figures in Beethoven, but Brahms seems like washes of sound in many places.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I don't know enough about Brahms, but that a listen to his four symphonies did not impress me, whereas Mendelssohn symphonies really grabbed me. One TC member suggested a similarity between Mendelssohn's first and Beethoven's symphonies.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Florestan said:


> I don't know enough about Brahms, but that a listen to his four symphonies did not impress me, whereas Mendelssohn symphonies really grabbed me. One TC member suggested a similarity between Mendelssohn's first and Beethoven's symphonies.


I was hooked on Brahms from the very first movement of the 1st. I have yet to give Mendelssohn a shot yet, it's on my to do list, though.

Anthony Tommasini in his NYT Top Ten composers list, states,

"Some musicians I respect have no trouble finding shortcomings in Brahms. He did sometimes become entangled in an attempt to extend the Classical heritage while simultaneously taking progressive strides into new territory. But at his best (the symphonies, the piano concertos, the violin concerto, the chamber works with piano, the solo piano pieces, especially the late intermezzos and capriccios that point the way to Schoenberg) Brahms has the thrilling grandeur and strangeness of Beethoven. Brahms is my No. 7."


----------



## SixFootScowl

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I was hooked on Brahms from the very first movement of the 1st. I have yet to give Mendelssohn a shot yet, it's on my to do list, though.
> 
> Anthony Tommasini in his NYT Top Ten composers list, states,
> 
> "Some musicians I respect have no trouble finding shortcomings in Brahms. He did sometimes become entangled in an attempt to extend the Classical heritage while simultaneously taking progressive strides into new territory. But at his best (the symphonies, the piano concertos, the violin concerto, the chamber works with piano, the solo piano pieces, especially the late intermezzos and capriccios that point the way to Schoenberg) Brahms has the thrilling grandeur and strangeness of Beethoven. Brahms is my No. 7."


Let me qualify my previous statement to say that (apart from Beethoven and Mendelssohn) of a hand full of composers whose symphonies I sampled, Brahms was the one that held more interest but it did not compel me to put it on my mp3 player. I have the CDs though for all four symphonies, and I put them in my "keeper" pile, perhaps subconsciously figuring that I would come back to them someday.


----------



## GGluek

Listen to almost any of his mature works and you will find him almost maniacal about disguising the barline.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I think Brahms is really just a different composer to Beethoven, I don't hear many similarities between the two at all. 

I will say though, that in my opinion Beethoven is a very "dead end" composer. His style of orchestration, his treatments of harmony (e.g. unanticipated dissonances, unanticipated implied modulations to unrelated keys) really were not the basis of the music of the next generation of German composers. I don't believe anything like Beethoven's final quartets were seen again until Ferneyhough took up the genre. 

Brahms, however, (along with Wagner) has been reputed as a direct source of inspiration for the next in that line of musical development in geographic/historical terms when it comes to the early works of the 2nd Viennese school.


----------



## clavichorder

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I will say though, that in my opinion Beethoven is a very "dead end" composer.


I agree that Beethoven and Brahms are much less alike than the frequent comparisons seem to indicate.

But I don't think Beethoven was dead end really, on the whole. I see how you say that about his later work.

I think he was hard to emulate and impossible to entirely assimilate, but everyone had to 'come to terms' with Beethoven, like him or not. Maybe you mean something different. For most of the composers that follow, except maybe Berlioz and Wagner who seem go over the top with energy and monumental qualities left over from Beethoven's example, there seems like a sense of, "Beethoven did that, so now I must think of some tricky way to be a little different without trying to out do something like that, which is scarcely possible." Schumann's symphonies are like that, so are Mendlessohns', and Schubert's. And then there are other composers like Ferdinand Ries who seem to grow nicely out of Beethoven's middle period example in symphonies.


----------



## EdwardBast

Beethoven very often used fragmentary themes, comprising contrasting and sometimes antithetical motives, especially for the principal themes of his movements in sonata form. Brahms's themes, even when they break down into small motives, tend to be integrated and expressively of a piece. Beethoven is far more consistently dramatic than Brahms. The differences in the choice of genres is obvious: Brahms wrote lots of lieder, character pieces for piano, and his chamber music (excluding string quartets) is among his most ambitious work. Brahms is more conservative as to form than Beethoven, putting less emphasis on overall thematic and dramatic unity.


----------



## Avey

Reason 15: One wrote fantastically for the clarinet late in life. The other did not. 

That, among dozens of other distinctions, leads me to think they had less in common musically than critics and commentators have traditionally posited.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms-sophisticated off beat rhythms, highly chromatic, hungarian dance forms incorporated into his music.

Beethoven, not so much.


----------



## Mandryka

I'm interested in the connection between Beethoven and Ferneyhough that Composeroftheavantgarde mentions - this was very much my reaction when I first heard the 6th quartet - it made me think of op 131. And the fragmentary contrasting ideas you find in Beethoven that Edward Bast mentions was part of the reason I felt that connection.


----------



## trazom

There's more rhythmic variation in Brahms' music with contrasting patterns and syncopation, more lyricism throughout his work even his chamber works that had rich polyphonic texture, and I'm not sure if anyone mentioned it but his music was influenced by his interest in Hungarian folk music. I think he had a lot in common with Mozart in his ability to write for woodwind instruments, especially the clarinet which suited his 'autumnal' style so well.



millionrainbows said:


> Examples? That's interesting; I wouldn't have seen it that way. I hear lots of forceful rhythmic figures in Beethoven, but Brahms seems like washes of sound in many places.


In terms of motion in both their music, I read Brahms would 'drift' whereas Beethoven tended to 'drive.'


----------



## SixFootScowl

trazom said:


> In terms of motion in both their music, I read Brahms would 'drift' whereas Beethoven tended to 'drive.'


Interesting. Now can you characterize Mendelssohn in that framework of drift and drive.

BTW, drift and drive accurately describes my first car, a '64 Dodge Dart, as I drove it home the first time because the steering box was loose and had to be bolted back down. :lol:
No please, don't go off topic, just that the association was so strong I had to note it.


----------



## trazom

Florestan said:


> Interesting. Now can you characterize Mendelssohn in that framework of drift and drive..


I don't want to negatively judge the entirety of Mendelssohn's output, because I do really enjoy several hours worth of his chamber and orchestral works; but outside those, Mendelssohn tends to drift, if not meander and swerve across multiple lanes, than drive.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I reckon a lot of Mendelssohn is a mad rush rather than a drift or a drive :lol:


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I reckon a lot of Mendelssohn is a mad rush rather than a drift or a drive :lol:


I've come to enjoy a lot of Mendelssohn far more than I used to. Of course, some of his works are salon music, or close to it. But when he was hot, he was hot!


----------



## opus55

millionrainbows said:


> Examples? That's interesting; I wouldn't have seen it that way. I hear lots of forceful rhythmic figures in Beethoven, but Brahms seems like washes of sound in many places.





trazom said:


> In terms of motion in both their music, I read Brahms would 'drift' whereas Beethoven tended to 'drive.'


Totally agree. Except in his first symphony I feel like Brahms tried to drive like Beethoven.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> I've come to enjoy a lot of Mendelssohn far more than I used to. Of course, some of his works are salon music, or close to it. But when he was hot, he was hot!


Hotter than Louis Armstrong and His Hot Five playing "Hotter Than That" :trp:


----------



## SONNET CLV

millionrainbows said:


> *The Difference Between Beethoven and Brahms: *Everybody's always saying how Brahms is just a continuation of Beethoven, and citing all the similarities between them. This might be true to an extent, but what about the differences?


I think one of them had a beard, and the other didn't.


----------



## xpangaeax

Maybe the comparison is just based on the fact that they're sort of on the line between Classical period and Romantic period. Except, one was a Classical composer who, due to (ambition / instability / deafness) pushed boundaries in a lot of directions. The other was a Romantic trying to maintain some of the principles of the Classical era.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms was neater than Beethoven and also sat at the window of his flat a bit more too.


----------



## Ukko

The principal, and perhaps most important difference, is that Beethoven was not influenced by Brahms' music.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Ukko said:


> The principal, and perhaps most important difference, is that Beethoven was not influenced by Brahms' music.


LIKE! (See now I can only like a post if I REALLY like it a LOT or I will be severely cluttering up the threads.)


----------



## millionrainbows

xpangaeax said:


> Maybe the comparison is just based on the fact that they're sort of on the line between Classical period and Romantic period. Except, one was a Classical composer who, due to (ambition / instability / deafness) pushed boundaries in a lot of directions. The other was a Romantic trying to maintain some of the principles of the Classical era.


That's a good observation; but I will come to some conclusions regarding this.

Beethoven started as a Classicist, then moved on ahead towards Romanticism. I think most perceptive listeners would agree that the later Beethoven is more innovative, more daring, and more expressive of an individual point of view, rather than the "company line" that earlier Classicists like Mozart and Haydn tended to toe (although they did have their moments).

Brahms. on the other hand, tended to go in the other direction, backwards from the Romanticism of his era towards Classicism. Perhaps this was a reaction to Wagner's hyper-expressive Romantic vision, a camp to which Brahms was opposed.

In this way, Brahms is a reactionary, and is fighting upstream against the prevailing current of Romanticism. That's a big difference, in my view.


----------



## Xaltotun

Brahms feels like he's trying to find "justification" for his romantic emotions from a classical structure, whereas Beethoven, dwelling on a solid classical foundation, is blasting right through it towards wild, unknown and romantic conclusions.

Brahms: "See? I can feel this way! It's logical!"
Beethoven: "I have such things to show to you..."


----------



## Ukko

Xaltotun said:


> Brahms feels like he's trying to find "justification" for his romantic emotions from a classical structure, whereas Beethoven, dwelling on a solid classical foundation, is blasting right through it towards wild, unknown and romantic conclusions.
> 
> Brahms: "See? I can feel this way! It's logical!"
> Beethoven: "I have such things to show to you..."


Jeez. that is 99.7% Xaltotun's unsupported notion. The other 0.03% may be because it's dark in Finland.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

xpangaeax said:


> Maybe the comparison is just based on the fact that they're sort of on the line between Classical period and Romantic period. Except, one was a Classical composer who, due to (ambition / instability / deafness) pushed boundaries in a lot of directions. The other was a Romantic trying to maintain some of the principles of the Classical era.


Nicely and succinctly said. I agree with this.



millionrainbows said:


> That's a good observation; but I will come to some conclusions regarding this.
> 
> *Beethoven started as a Classicist, then moved on ahead towards Romanticism. I think most perceptive listeners would agree that the later Beethoven is more innovative, more daring, and more expressive of an individual point of view*, rather than the "company line" that earlier Classicists like Mozart and Haydn tended to toe (although they did have their moments).
> 
> Brahms. on the other hand, tended to go in the other direction, backwards from the Romanticism of his era towards Classicism. Perhaps this was a reaction to Wagner's hyper-expressive Romantic vision, a camp to which Brahms was opposed.
> 
> In this way, Brahms is a reactionary, and is fighting upstream against the prevailing current of Romanticism. That's a big difference, in my view.


Very nice observations, millionrainbows. (Despite those select few who strangely deny any influence, innovation, progressiveness, or impact that Beethoven had.)

Edit: Any thoughts on the notion that Brahms was a progressive?


----------



## Xaltotun

Ukko said:


> Jeez. that is 99.7% Xaltotun's unsupported notion. The other 0.03% may be because it's dark in Finland.


Never claimed it's anything else! I'm not big on supported notions, anyway. I'm more into poetry.


----------



## Xaltotun

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Edit: Any thoughts on the notion that Brahms was a progressive?


This notion is the result of Schoenberg trying to take a cold shower to prevent himself from exploding from the heat of his white-hot romance with Wagner.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Xaltotun said:


> Brahms feels like he's trying to find "justification" for his romantic emotions from a classical structure, whereas Beethoven, dwelling on a solid classical foundation, is blasting right through it towards wild, unknown and romantic conclusions.
> 
> Brahms: "See? I can feel this way! It's logical!"
> Beethoven: "I have such things to show to you..."


I see what you mean, I don't see anything negative from that "justification" (I'm not saying you do). In fact, it's this precise reason why I love and find Brahms endlessly fascinating. There is a fine line on which Brahms stands, classical and romantic, and the end result is usually amazing. That said, sometimes, he can seem a bit "calculating" for the very same reason. In another thread I mentioned that Brahms's music can sometimes seem "constructed", but I think it's because of something similar to what you wrote, he was trying to express his romantic side in the classical idiom, or structure. I can sometimes hear what I perceive to be the "effort" in trying to achieve this.


----------



## Xaltotun

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I see what you mean, I don't see anything negative from that "justification" (I'm not saying you do). In fact, it's this precise reason why I love and find Brahms endlessly fascinating. There is a fine line on which Brahms stands, classical and romantic, and the end result is usually amazing. That said, sometimes, he can seem a bit "calculating" for the very same reason. In another thread I mentioned that Brahms's music can sometimes seem "constructed", but I think it's because of something similar to what you wrote, he was trying to express his romantic side in the classical idiom, or structure. I can sometimes hear what I perceive to be the "effort" in trying to achieve this.


Very nice to see that you understand what I mean! Yes, I don't see anything negative in that "justification", either. I love Brahms. It's just how I feel his music is.


----------



## mtmailey

BEETHOVEN had 9 symphonies BRAHMS had 4.Beethoven had 5 piano concertos Brahms had 2.Brahms had 2 overtures Beethoven had like more than 5.Brahms symphony 1 i like more than Beethoven symphony 1.Beethoven has 15 string quartets ,Brahms had like 3.Brahms had a double concerto Beethoven had a triple concerto.Beethoven had dark skin Brahms did not.


----------



## Ukko

Xaltotun said:


> Never claimed it's anything else! I'm not big on supported notions, anyway. I'm more into poetry.


 Poetry, eh?

Note that my formula left some portion unaccounted for. That was the bit that, expressed, would have ensured perturbations in the administrative firmament.


----------



## Blake

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I see what you mean, I don't see anything negative from that "justification" (I'm not saying you do). In fact, it's this precise reason why I love and find Brahms endlessly fascinating. There is a fine line on which Brahms stands, classical and romantic, and the end result is usually amazing. That said, sometimes, he can seem a bit "calculating" for the very same reason. In another thread I mentioned that Brahms's music can sometimes seem "constructed", but I think it's because of something similar to what you wrote, he was trying to express his romantic side in the classical idiom, or structure. I can sometimes hear what I perceive to be the "effort" in trying to achieve this.


Yea, there's a certain feeling of detachment in Brahms music, which I think is achieved by his calculating pulse. It always comes off to me like he's saying - "look, I feel these things too, but I ain't strung out."

Beethoven is more like - "LOOK WHAT I FEEL!"

Both are grand masters.


----------



## Albert7

Beethoven was definitely a master of the dramatic moment to me particularly in his concerti and symphonies; Brahms used understatement a lot more than expression of his passion.


----------



## tdc

Beethoven had a kind of explosive genius to his music and an organic energy Brahms lacked, but I think Brahms was more effective at contemplative/reflective music and I also find Brahms the more interesting of the two harmonically.


----------



## millionrainbows

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Edit: Any thoughts on the notion that Brahms was a progressive?


That probably comes from Schoenberg's essay "Brahms the Progressive." Schoenberg had his own agenda in saying this. Most obviously, The second Viennese were song writers, as was Brahms.

Next, Schoenberg saw the end of the harmonic road coming, and his 12-tone method is contrapuntal. Brahms was contrapuntal, and used fragments of linear ideas call "motives." These fragments would grow organically as in variations. I've heard it said that "Brahms was the first modernist" for this reason.

In my opinion, the 12-tone method was unnecessarily harsh on harmony, wiping it out of existence, except as it would occur beyond strict control, as the coincidence of linear manifestations of the row.

I think Debussy and Bartok both prove that harmonic thinking was not dead, or had not reached a dead-end.

True, chromaticism wiped-out tonal function in terms of the whole chromatic scale, but going in the other direction, by dividing the octave into smaller units, could achieve localized tone centers.

Chromaticism manifests tonal function (possible root stations) in terms of the whole chromatic scale, in two ways, using two intervals: the fifth/fourth and the minor second, both of which, when projected, yield the chromatic scale.

The other available intervals, the minor third, the major third, and the major second, and the tritone, are recursive; they reoccur within the octave, dividing it symmetrically, unlike fourths, which require larger "out-of-octave" denominators: 5x12=60, or fifths, 7x12=84. These smaller recursive intervals I see as being "inward-directed," since they go the _other_ direction, not of telescoping root expansion by fifths, but into a "mikrokosmos" of the microscope.

It always puzzled me why Schoenberg did not take this inward-directed path, since he seemed the perfect example of the inward-directed subjective artist. Perhaps he saw this micro-division of the octave as more inflexible than his 12-tone rows, since the row was more varied, albeit at the expense of being so "open" that it became harmonically meaningless in any prescribed way.


----------



## hpowders

Brahms' string quartets I find rather dull, almost like they are dry, academic exercises. 
Beethoven's are much more interesting and involving.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> Brahms' string quartets I find rather dull. Beethoven's are much more interesting and involving.


True; on the other hand, Brahms' lieder are perhaps his strongest work. Beethoven did not have much affinity with the human voice.

I see the Viola sonatas as an extension of Brahms' lieder writing.


----------



## BartokPizz

hpowders said:


> Brahms' string quartets I find rather dull, almost like they are dry, academic exercises.
> Beethoven's are much more interesting and involving.


 Couldn't disagree more. The finale of the A minor dull, dry and academic? Really?


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> True; on the other hand, Brahms' lieder are perhaps his strongest work. Beethoven did not have much affinity with the human voice.
> 
> I see the Viola sonatas as an extension of Brahms' lieder writing.


I prefer those magnificent sonatas in their clarinet guise. Harold Wright, the late, great former principal clarinet of the Boston Symphony is my favorite clarinet player in this great music.


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> True; on the other hand, Brahms' lieder are perhaps his strongest work. Beethoven did not have much affinity with the human voice.
> 
> I see the Viola sonatas as an extension of Brahms' lieder writing.


A lovely photo. I used to own a wicker chair just like that! There the similarity ends.


----------



## hpowders

BartokPizz said:


> Couldn't disagree more. The finale of the A minor dull, dry and academic? Really?


I disagree. Really? :lol:


----------



## hpowders

millionrainbows said:


> True; on the other hand, Brahms' lieder are perhaps his strongest work. Beethoven did not have much affinity with the human voice.
> 
> I see the Viola sonatas as an extension of Brahms' lieder writing.


I absolutely love that photo!! Imagine having a genius like that, sitting outside with him, about to discuss polyrhythms with the great man....and you don't understand a freakin' word he's saying because you fell asleep in "German for Musicians 101"!!!


----------



## Red Terror

The heaviness of Brahms’ music repels certain people, but I find it appealing. To me, his output stands equal to Beethoven’s own.


----------



## Art Rock

I've never heard that "heaviness" in Brahms. I love most of his work, and would rank him (*personal taste*) clearly higher than Beethoven - both in terms of highlights and in overall consistency of quality.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Not heaviness, but there is a sentimental quality to Brahms’ music that turns some people off. I love it! Beethoven was more heroic. There are passionate, even angry, emotions in Beethoven that you don’t hear in Brahms. There is a more sedate, tranquil quality with Brahms.


----------



## Red Terror

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Not heaviness, but there is a sentimental quality to Brahms' music that turns some people off. I love it! Beethoven was more heroic. There are passionate, even angry, emotions in Beethoven that you don't hear in Brahms. There is a more sedate, tranquil quality with Brahms.


I don't hear sentimentality-of course, this is relative. What I do hear is impeccable craftsmanship, balance and good taste.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Red Terror said:


> I don't hear sentimentality-of course, this is relative. What I do hear is impeccable craftsmanship, balance and good taste.


Who says sentimentality has to mean bad taste? It's all the things you stated, and it is also beautifully sentimental. Think of the famous Lullaby. Would Beethoven have written such a tune? Or the opening of the clarinet quintet. So wistful. But in a contained, respectful manner.


----------



## millionrainbows

There is a certain sense of restraint that I like about Brahms. Compared to Mozart, he is a Romantic, so it's like having your cake and eating it too.


----------



## 1996D

hpowders said:


> Brahms was much more attuned to sophisticated off-beat rhythms-really complicated stuff.
> 
> I bet the boy was a great dancer!!


Brahms and Mahler both had that gift of rhythm and counterpoint and that was sadly ignored and abandoned by the composers that followed them.

Beethoven has better flow than Brahms, his ideas come together more naturally.

I try to implement both traditions in my music--traditions ignored by everyone until now. Their comeback will be sure to make all lovers of complex music happy.


----------



## Fabulin

4 pages into the thread and nobody mentioned that Beethoven understood the combinations of melody and rhytm leagues better than Brahms did? That Brahms' symphonies have the finesse of a dancer carrying an elephant on his back...

It is quite bizarre to me that people treat these two as a close match.


----------



## Ethereality

Brahms has given us some amazing contributions, although instead of interchanging with various themes in a given composition, he often gets stuck lingering and wavering on trivial colors and thoughts. Composers like Brahms, Mahler and Schubert often seem as though they're still trying to think out what to do, and it makes the music sound stuck and less profound than a Beethoven or Debussy. The themes don't connect and interchange as well. I value concision in music, which is why I might not prefer Brahms or Schubert to Beethoven, Debussy, Tchaikovsky and Bach. With Mozart on the other hand, the music flows, but it's not flowing as much anywhere _profound _a lot of the time. There needs to be both: the decisiveness + the good judgement. Brahms has good judgement, but he's not showing the decisiveness in craft to make me listen for longer periods of time. Elements tend to waver without as much beautiful concision/structure.

I would rather only have Beethoven's symphonies than everything of Brahms. Beethoven's music is of perfect intelligence. Symphony 6 is where perfect intellect creates a new universe.


----------



## Strange Magic

Ethereality said:


> If I were forced to choose, I would rather only have Beethoven's symphonies than everything of Brahms. Beethoven's music is of perfect intelligence. Symphony 6 is where perfect intellect creates a new universe.


Happy to make that swap! Some of Beethoven's symphonies are of perfect intelligence, to be sure. But if I'm getting all of Brahms, that's fabulous. Any other deals you have in mind?


----------



## Ethereality

Strange Magic said:


> Any other deals you have in mind?


If any hot deals come up, I'll let you know!


----------



## Fabulin

Strange Magic said:


> Happy to make that swap! Some of Beethoven's symphonies are of perfect intelligence, to be sure. But if I'm getting all of Brahms, that's fabulous. Any other deals you have in mind?


*Batteries, and Hungarian Dances No.1 and No. 5 not included.

Reason: Copyright claim from messieurs Miska Borzó and Béla Kéler.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Not heaviness, but there is a sentimental quality to Brahms' music that turns some people off. I love it! Beethoven was more heroic. There are passionate, even angry, emotions in Beethoven that you don't hear in Brahms. There is a more sedate, tranquil quality with Brahms.


This sums up my feelings about this topic pretty well, but the first adjective I think of when I think of Brahms is "passionate." Generally, yes, in a more subdued way but there are moments where he really lets his full Romantic side shine through, and it's glorious. The difference is that they are always the results of painstakingly-crafted musical structures that lead inexorably to the passionate outbursts. It is my opinion that not even Beethoven reached the depths of nearly diabolical ecstasy that we hear in the coda of the first movement of Brahms's 4th. Whenever I finish this movement, it feels as if my insides have been torn out. I know this sounds horrible, but I've never gotten this feeling with anything else! Or try the Piano Quintet - possibly the most perfect summation of Brahms's craft in its harmony of brilliant compositional technique and dark, brooding passions.


----------



## Room2201974

And the descent from _The Difference Between Beethoven and Brahms_ to _Brahms Bashing_ is complete. Let's take him out back and beat the hemiola out of him.


----------



## Fabulin

Didn't you know that "the 3 Bs" actually means "The Big Brahms Bashing"? :tiphat:


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Room2201974 said:


> And the descent from _The Difference Between Beethoven and Brahms_ to _Brahms Bashing_ is complete. Let's take him out back and beat the hemiola out of him.


These stylistic comparison threads on TC tend to be dominated by uninformed opinions, statements of personal preference (often with the intent to elevate those preferences to objective status), and sweeping generalizations without the support of evidence or examples. It's a shame, really, because I think that there's a lot of potential for real discussion, though perhaps at a level that may be too technical for most users. We had a similar sort of thread comparing Bach and Handel a while ago, and while there was some interesting input it was mostly just people stating their own preferences. I proposed that that thread be moved to the theory sub-forum; I'd suggest the same for this one.


----------



## Room2201974

Fabulin said:


> Didn't you know that "the 3 Bs" actually means "The Big Brahms Bashing"? :tiphat:


Oh yes, I've read Liszt on Brahms. Subjective whinning with a dash of developing variation *is* the modus operandi of TC threads.


----------



## Woodduck

Brahms was a more conservative composer than Beethoven, and deliberately so. He pursued an ideal of Classicism, in conscious contrast to the trends of his era. For Beethoven to uphold an _ideal_ of style is unthinkable; he was lured ever onward into unexplored regions, looking back occasionally (as in the 8th symphony) only in play while mapping out his next expedition. This is not to dismiss what was new in Brahms, but to say that it arose on a less fundamental plane. He was fascinated by the new in music - he studied the scores of Wagner eagerly - but kept to his path. That's a heroic stance in its own right, but his music doesn't project the challenging heroism of ground-breakers such as Beethoven and Wagner. It's nevertheless strong and earnest, and at the same time suffused with melancholy: Romantic wine in a Classical bottle, in the late works sipped contemplatively in the flicker of fin-de-siecle candlelight.

What's interesting is how many composers, unable, unwilling, or at least hesitant, to follow the new ideas, latched onto Brahms as hero and example: Rheinberger, Herzogenberg, Jenner, Fuchs, Rontgen, Thuille, Parry, Stanford, Elgar, Taneyev, Dohnanyi, Paine, MacDowell, Mason, Foote. Others, such as Smetana, Dvorak, Reger, Schmidt, Sibelius and Scandinavians such as Stenhammar, took much from Brahms but extended their musical vocabulary under the influence of Wagner and nationalism. Schoenberg, Wagner-intoxicated in youth, found his way to Brahms and called him "progressive" in order to preserve his own self-image as a revolutionary.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Woodduck said:


> Schoenberg, Wagner-intoxicated in youth, found his way to Brahms and called him "progressive" in order to preserve his own self-image as a revolutionary.


It's also interesting Schoenberg considered none of the composers you mentioned as his "primary teachers".

In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why.
"My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner."


----------



## Woodduck

hammeredklavier said:


> It's also interesting Schoenberg considered none of the composers you mentioned as his "primary teachers".
> 
> In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why.
> "My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner."


Who Schoenberg's "principal teachers" were depends on what phase of his career we're talking about. There isn't much of Bach or Mozart to be detected in either his first "Romantic" period or his second "Expressionist" phase, and those years produced what remain his most popular works.


----------



## Enthusiast

Brahmsianhorn said:


> Who says sentimentality has to mean bad taste? It's all the things you stated, and it is also beautifully sentimental. Think of the famous Lullaby. Would Beethoven have written such a tune? Or the opening of the clarinet quintet. So wistful. But in a contained, respectful manner.


I don't think I would use the word sentimentality to describe Brahms - he was too disciplined and rigorous for that - but I know what you mean. To me it is warmth.


----------



## Dimace

I can't say that I'm Brahms expert. In my consciousness the composer Brahms is 2 things: One man who composed symphonies, which I don't like and one man who composed the rest of his music, which is great. (his violin concerto, for example, is one of the best ever composed. His EDR gigantic work, which I adore, etc). 

Beethoven is GREAT everywhere (with the exception of some early piano works for children (this is my terminology)) and, of course, 100 years ahead as musical ideas and innovation in comparison not only to Brahms, but to every existed composer. When the status of a composer is so interstellar, it is difficult to make comparisons and see differences to others but as a conclusion I could write only one word: GREATNESS!


----------



## Mandryka

hammeredklavier said:


> It's also interesting Schoenberg considered none of the composers you mentioned as his "primary teachers".
> 
> In the second of his 1931 essays on 'National Music', Schoenberg acknowledged Bach and Mozart as his principal teachers and told his readers why.
> "My teachers were primarily Bach and Mozart, and secondarily Beethoven, Brahms, and Wagner."





Woodduck said:


> Who Schoenberg's "principal teachers" were depends on what phase of his career we're talking about. There isn't much of Bach or Mozart to be detected in either his first "Romantic" period or his second "Expressionist" phase, and those years produced what remain his most popular works.


The idea that Schoenberg got from Brahms was something he called _developing variation_ -- it's a method of composing which Schoenberg (contentiously) thought he saw in some of Brahms's chamber music -- op 99 and op 51/2 for example. I don't think it's about sounding romantic or warm or anything like that -- it's more to do with the way he thought Brahms could take a very small mofif and use it to develop a theme, which could then be subjected to all sorts of variations in the course of a movement. I expect Schoenberg's analysis is disputable, but that's another point.

I don't know what he got from Mozart and Bach, can someone explain?


----------



## Strange Magic

For me, the differences can be assessed purely through experience--and, of course, are a matter of personal taste: How often one can hear again a piece (I'm primarily thinking of the symphonies and concertos) and again find it just as fresh and engaging as the previous hearing. I find the music of Brahms more capable of auto-refreshment in my mind than that of Beethoven. I ascribe it to "musical density"--an undefined term that describes a musical texture so cleverly fashioned that one seems to find something both new and deeply satisfying with every exposure. Your experience may vary.


----------



## flamencosketches

Mandryka said:


> The idea that Schoenberg got from Brahms was something he called _developing variation_ -- it's a method of composing which Schoenberg (contentiously) thought he saw in some of Brahms's chamber music -- op 99 and op 51/2 for example. I don't think it's about sounding romantic or warm or anything like that -- it's more to do with the way he thought Brahms could take a very small mofif and use it to develop a theme, which could then be subjected to all sorts of variations in the course of a movement. I expect Schoenberg's analysis is disputable, but that's another point.
> 
> I don't know what he got from Mozart and Bach, can someone explain?


I'm not an expert, but if Schoenberg's own words are to be believed, he claimed that he learned how to write string quartets from studying Mozart, so perhaps he learned something about voice leading in a chamber setting from Mozart? As for Bach, I don't hear any direct influence either, but perhaps his appreciation of Bach led to his lifelong fascination with counterpoint?


----------



## EdwardBast

Mandryka said:


> I don't know what [Schoenberg] got from Mozart and Bach, can someone explain?


Primarily, credibility. It's public relations by identification with respected traditions - like Wagner claiming his form of music drama was foreordained by Beethoven's Ninth or rock musicians claiming the blessing of Jimi Hendrix.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Mandryka said:


> I don't know what he got from Mozart and Bach, can someone explain?


Schoenberg: "From Bach I learned:
1. Contrapuntal thinking; i.e. the art of inventing musical figures that can be used to accompany themselves.
2. The art of producing everything from one thing and of relating figures by transformation.
3. Disregard for the 'strong' beat of the measure.
From Mozart:
1. Inequality of phrase-length.
2. Co-ordination of heterogeneous characters to form a thematic unity.
3. Deviation from even-number construction in the theme and its component parts.
4. The art of forming subsidiary ideas.
5. The art of introduction and transition."



flamencosketches said:


> I'm not an expert, but if Schoenberg's own words are to be believed, he claimed that he learned how to write string quartets from studying Mozart


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

A perfect example of the "developing variation" concept is the 2nd movement of the 2nd Symphony. Exceedingly thick and complex music, a masterclass in the art of composition. But it manages to be achingly passionate and beautiful. If I had to pick one movement that makes Brahms "Brahms" to me, it'd be that one.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Have not been able to really get into Brahms yet. Started with a Karajan symphony cycle, then picked up a cycle conducted by Rahbari. Still not clicking for me. Recently got a Brahams' symphony 4 conducted by jarvi and liked it enough to give it several listens. Maybe I'll get there some day. It may not be Jarvi so much as time has passed any other listening experiences have influenced my general musical outlook.


----------



## Woodduck

EdwardBast said:


> Primarily, credibility. It's public relations by identification with respected traditions - like Wagner claiming his form of music drama was foreordained by Beethoven's Ninth or rock musicians claiming the blessing of Jimi Hendrix.


Much of what Schoenberg said seems to me a bid for personal and artistic credibility - for establishing his artistic choices as the necessary and foreordained path into the future of music. In short, he rationalized a great deal.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ I was always told it is unwise (and often unkind) to ascribe motives for someone's actions without good evidence for your interpretation. What you say may be true. Or it may not be. Restraining myself from committing the same offense (against you!), I can only ask what makes you certain of that.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> ^ I was always told it is unwise (and often unkind) to ascribe motives for someone's actions without good evidence for your interpretation. What you say may be true. Or it may not be. I would certainly like to know what makes you certain of that.


That was quite an elaborate way of asking me what I meant!

What I meant is that Schoenberg wanted to see his break with tonality and his development of the serial method of composition as not merely an artistic option which appealed to him and which could open up new and interesting pathways, but as the necessary culmination of Western music's evolution, specifically the evolution of harmony to the point where it could be liberated ("emancipated," to use his word) from the constraints of tonality. In justification of this view, he observed that the human perception of harmony had been evolving to perceive more and more of what had been considered dissonant harmony as consonant, and jumped to the conclusion that the end point of this would be the complete "emancipation" of dissonance, wherein the world would embrace atonal music just as eagerly it had tonal music (hence his oft-quoted remark about the postman of the future whistling atonal melodies).

Aside from his very questionable (I would say untenable) view of how the brain perceives and organizes musical data, Schoenberg's view of music's development and destiny was mainly focused on one element of music, harmony, and was thoroughly Eurocentric. He seems to have had little interest in non-Western music, or even Western music before the common practice era. His peculiar teleology of musical history reflects the prevalent tendency of the age of Darwin to cast cultural developments in terms of progressive evolution.

It was an impressive construct, but - alas! - the postman isn't whistling tunes from _Pierrot Lunaire. _


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Art Rock said:


> I've never heard..."heaviness" in Brahms. I love most of his work, and would rank him (*personal taste*) clearly higher than Beethoven...in overall consistency of quality.





Brahmsianhorn said:


> ...there is a sentimental quality to Brahms' music...I love it!...There are...even angry, emotions in Beethoven that you don't hear in Brahms. There is a more sedate, tranquil quality with Brahms.


......Ditto......:cheers:


----------



## Xisten267

SixFootScowl said:


> Have not been able to really get into Brahms yet. Started with a Karajan symphony cycle, then picked up a cycle conducted by Rahbari. Still not clicking for me. Recently got a Brahams' symphony 4 conducted by jarvi and liked it enough to give it several listens. Maybe I'll get there some day. It may not be Jarvi so much as time has passed any other listening experiences have influenced my general musical outlook.


Listening to Brahms's 3rd in the remastered performance below for the first time gave me several goosebumps some months ago. Perhaps it could change your perception of the composer? Follows as a suggestion.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

SixFootScowl said:


> Have not been able to really get into Brahms yet. Started with a Karajan symphony cycle, then picked up a cycle conducted by Rahbari. Still not clicking for me. Recently got a Brahams' symphony 4 conducted by jarvi and liked it enough to give it several listens. Maybe I'll get there some day. It may not be Jarvi so much as time has passed any other listening experiences have influenced my general musical outlook.


Newcomers to Brahms often have a hard time cracking the symphonies. Try the 2nd Violin Sonata, 1st Piano Trio, and Clarinet Quintet. Downright sumptuous!


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allerius said:


> Listening to Brahms's 3rd in the remastered performance below for the first time gave me several goosebumps some months ago. Perhaps it could change your perception of the composer? Follows as a suggestion.


*The set I have* supposedly has the third symphony remastered according to an Amazon commentor:


> Brahms 3 here has been remastered, and sounds 50% better than the original 1988 issue, which was cold and hard. Sonically, hard edges have been rounded off, and the mid-range expanded for an overall better, richer sound.


But I haven't listened to it in several years.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Newcomers to Brahms often have a hard time cracking the symphonies. Try the 2nd Violin Sonata, 1st Piano Trio, and Clarinet Quintet. Downright sumptuous!


I generally gravitate towards symphonies for non-opera classical. I could check out the violin sonata though.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> That was quite an elaborate way of asking me what I meant!
> 
> What I meant is that Schoenberg wanted to see his break with tonality and his development of the serial method of composition as not merely an artistic option which appealed to him and which could open up new and interesting pathways, but as the necessary culmination of Western music's evolution, specifically the evolution of harmony to the point where it could be liberated ("emancipated," to use his word) from the constraints of tonality. In justification of this view, he observed that the human perception of harmony had been evolving to perceive more and more of what had been considered dissonant harmony as consonant, and jumped to the conclusion that the end point of this would be the complete "emancipation" of dissonance, wherein the world would embrace atonal music just as eagerly it had tonal music (hence his oft-quoted remark about the postman of the future whistling atonal melodies).
> 
> Aside from his very questionable (I would say untenable) view of how the brain perceives and organizes musical data, Schoenberg's view of music's development and destiny was mainly focused on one element of music, harmony, and was thoroughly Eurocentric. He seems to have had little interest in non-Western music, or even Western music before the common practice era. His peculiar teleology of musical history reflects the prevalent tendency of the age of Darwin to cast cultural developments in terms of progressive evolution.
> 
> It was an impressive construct, but - alas! - the postman isn't whistling tunes from _Pierrot Lunaire. _


Perhaps I was asking for the impossible - evidence for your story rather than a more detailed exposition of it. It sounds convincing but I suspect he did also greatly respect and absorb influences from the past masters he claims as forebears. Most people were wrong about the brain (and perception) back then but it was progress that they were thinking about it.

We have such unmusical postmen these days.


----------



## millionrainbows

I see Schoenberg's influence by Brahms differently, and correctly. Schoenberg recognized that his 12-tone method was essentially melodic, and was more suited to contrapuntal treatment.

Schoenberg did not so much have to "emancipate" anything, but simply recognized the implications of a 12-note collection, rather than diatonic scales.

The seven functions of diatonic harmony become arbitrary and restricting, in light of a complete 12-note collection.
Also, since diatonic harmony is based on 7-note major & minor scales, the functions built on each step become arbitrary. With 12 notes, there are other ways to divide an octave and build chords.

The harmonic implications of a 7-note major scale are built-in; it is designed for root movement in fifths. It has the notes E-F which reinforce an F major movement, and a B-C which reinforces the movement back to C, and also G-C which does the same.

The fifth, which is how the chromatic scale was generated in Pythagoran fashion, is the only interval besides the minor second which, when projected, yields all 12 notes before reconnecting with itself: C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-(E#)F-C. The fifth is 7 semitones, and its counterpart the fourth is based on 5 semitones. 7 and 5 are the odd intervals, larger, which generate the most variety (movement) when projected (stacked).
The other smaller intervals, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are all "recursive:" they reconnect with themselves within the octave without travel, so they suggest chromaticism, not movement.

Back to the differences between Beethoven and Brahms: I see Beethoven as more concerned with root movement (such as by thirds in the Ninth), which is harmony, and Brahms as more concerned with contrapuntal elements such as motives.


----------



## jegreenwood

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Newcomers to Brahms often have a hard time cracking the symphonies. Try the 2nd Violin Sonata, 1st Piano Trio, and Clarinet Quintet. Downright sumptuous!


And the Piano Quintet. Also, maybe the (inaccurately named) Haydn Variations. He wrote two versions, one for two pianos and one for orchestra. This was a major breakthrough in orchestral writing, preceding the First Symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Perhaps I was asking for the impossible - evidence for your story rather than a more detailed exposition of it. It sounds convincing but I suspect he did also greatly respect and absorb influences from the past masters he claims as forebears. Most people were wrong about the brain (and perception) back then but it was progress that they were thinking about it.
> 
> We have such unmusical postmen these days.


What kind of evidence are you looking for? Quotes from Schoenberg's writings, complete with bibliography? I could provide those if I wanted to spend time tracking them down. Schoenberg did a lot of writing. Happy hunting.

Of course he respected past composers and absorbed influences. Who's saying he didn't?

The general state of neuropsychology in Schoenberg's day is irrelevant. I know of no evidence that he was interested in it. The point is simply that he made assumptions about a supposed evolution in human hearing to support further assumptions about the progress of music, thus providing the hoped-for triumph of atonality, and his own role in bringing that about, with a grand intellectual and historical justification. He postulated that consonance and dissonance were entirely relative and that with sufficient exposure the ear would learn to hear more and more remote (dissonant) relationships in the harmonic series, and ultimately all dissonances, as consonant. Essentially, he observed that composers in 1900 were using more chromaticism, more remote modulations, less reinforcement of tonic and dominant, etc. than composers in 1800, and figured that if audiences found this acceptable they would ultimately be perfectly happy with music that abandoned tonic, dominant, modulation and the whole concept of tonality altogether. His questionable assumptions didn't stop there; the implicit conception of tonality as a mere structural option rather than a vehicle of meaning should also be examined, but I don't want to take up space in this thread with that discussion.

If you want references as "evidence" for my statements, I can recommend a book, "Schoenberg's Error," published in 1991 by University of Pennsylvania Press as part of a series, "Studies in the Criticism and Theory of Music," for which Leonard B. Meyer served as General Editor. The author is William Thomson, then professor of music theory at the University of Southern California.


----------



## Mandryka

Who cares whether Schoenberg held a hierarchichal view of musical history with his experiments at the top of the tree so far? I mean, who cares apart from biographers. The important thing is that he made the imaginative leap to 12 equal tones, and its results producted a whole new plateau of activity in music. 

(If it's not obvious, I've been reading Deleuze this afternoon. I like rhyzomes! I just want to say something which tries out these Deleuzian ideas.)


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> Who cares whether Schoenberg held a hierarchichal view of musical history with his experiments at the top of the tree so far? I mean, who cares apart from biographers.


Well, I'd guess that lots of people care. People who like to think about music, write about it, compose it.



> The important thing is that he made the imaginative leap to 12 equal tones, and its results producted a whole new plateau of activity in music.


Theories of music, and and understanding what composers were doing and why they wrote the way they did, are important things to theoreticians, philosophers, scholars, historians, etc.



> (If it's not obvious, I've been reading Deleuze this afternoon. I like rhyzomes! I just want to say something which tries out these Deleuzian ideas.)


It wasn't obvious to me. But then, who cares about Deleuze?


----------



## Mandryka

Woodduck said:


> Well, I'd guess that lots of people care. People who like to think about music, write about it, compose it.
> 
> Theories of music, and and understanding what composers were doing and why they wrote the way they did, are important things to theoreticians, philosophers, scholars, historians, etc.
> 
> It wasn't obvious to me. But then, who cares about Deleuze?


Well that's the last time I try a Deleuzian way of thinking out on _you_!


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> Well that's the last time I try a Deleuzian way of thinking out on _you_!


No problem. But do spare me Derrida.


----------



## 1996D

SixFootScowl said:


> Have not been able to really get into Brahms yet. Started with a Karajan symphony cycle, then picked up a cycle conducted by Rahbari. Still not clicking for me. Recently got a Brahams' symphony 4 conducted by jarvi and liked it enough to give it several listens. Maybe I'll get there some day. It may not be Jarvi so much as time has passed any other listening experiences have influenced my general musical outlook.


Bernstein (Vienna) conducts the first fantastically, particularly the finale. That finale is amazing composing, Brahms takes from Bach and Beethoven and manages to orchestrate it fantastically; he definitively worked his butt off; took him decades to write the symphony.


----------



## SixFootScowl

1996D said:


> Bernstein (Vienna) conducts the first fantastically, particularly the finale. That finale is amazing composing, Brahms takes from Bach and Beethoven and manages to orchestrate it fantastically; he definitively worked his butt off; took him decades to write the symphony.


Maybe can pull it up on You Tube. My Bernstein set is Berlin.


----------



## 1996D

SixFootScowl said:


> Maybe can pull it up on You Tube. My Bernstein set is Berlin.


I think I get why some people don't like Brahms, it's something to do with the flow; he gets tied up. His moments are very good but as far as a works' overall congruence he is far behind Beethoven, it's very clear now.

It's so difficult to add complexity to a work yet keep the balance and congruence, this is why ideas have to come explosively in large blocks, already finished, and of the same drive and nature to connect them when the work spans a great length. Beethoven in his last three piano sonatas and his 9th symphony really flaunts it, just complete coherence and clarity of creativity, such potency and natural flow--no inner doubt whatsoever--or even a trace of thought or construction in the music, he does it like he'd been composing for a thousand years, with the self assurance of a lion.

This lacks in Brahms, where you can hear the chary, nervous approach in the construction. There are moments in which Brahms flows, but overall his works are put together in a way that shows weakness if we compare them to Beethoven's. His counterpoint is better, I'll give him that.

I love Brahms, but the harder thing to accomplish is what Beethoven does.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> What kind of evidence are you looking for? Quotes from Schoenberg's writings, complete with bibliography? I could provide those if I wanted to spend time tracking them down. Schoenberg did a lot of writing. Happy hunting.
> 
> Of course he respected past composers and absorbed influences. Who's saying he didn't?
> 
> The general state of neuropsychology in Schoenberg's day is irrelevant. I know of no evidence that he was interested in it. The point is simply that he made assumptions about a supposed evolution in human hearing to support further assumptions about the progress of music, thus providing the hoped-for triumph of atonality, and his own role in bringing that about, with a grand intellectual and historical justification. He postulated that consonance and dissonance were entirely relative and that with sufficient exposure the ear would learn to hear more and more remote (dissonant) relationships in the harmonic series, and ultimately all dissonances, as consonant. Essentially, he observed that composers in 1900 were using more chromaticism, more remote modulations, less reinforcement of tonic and dominant, etc. than composers in 1800, and figured that if audiences found this acceptable they would ultimately be perfectly happy with music that abandoned tonic, dominant, modulation and the whole concept of tonality altogether. His questionable assumptions didn't stop there; the implicit conception of tonality as a mere structural option rather than a vehicle of meaning should also be examined, but I don't want to take up space in this thread with that discussion.
> 
> If you want references as "evidence" for my statements, I can recommend a book, "Schoenberg's Error," published in 1991 by University of Pennsylvania Press as part of a series, "Studies in the Criticism and Theory of Music," for which Leonard B. Meyer served as General Editor. The author is William Thomson, then professor of music theory at the University of Southern California.


I'm just saying that you don't know what someone's motives were. Even if persuasive stories can be made about what is behind his claim to be standing on the shoulders of giants, they become suspect particularly when coming from one who is "hostile" to his claims of achievement. You may be right. We can't know. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## Strange Magic

Sometimes knowing when to stop is an important part of crafting a musical composition. There are some episodes--some, a few--when Beethoven fails to understand that it's time to get out the red pencil--the thing has exhausted itself; there has been enough congruence. For some reason, I never have that feeling with Brahms: the musical fertility seems to fit perfectly within its temporal borders.


----------



## Woodduck

Strange Magic said:


> Sometimes knowing when to stop is an important part of crafting a musical composition. There are some episodes--some, a few--when Beethoven fails to understand that it's time to get out the red pencil--the thing has exhausted itself; there has been enough congruence. For some reason, I never have that feeling with Brahms: the musical fertility seems to fit perfectly within its temporal borders.


Which Beethoven works impress you as overextended?


----------



## Strange Magic

Woodduck said:


> Which Beethoven works impress you as overextended?


Breaking my self-imposed rule about not knocking others' musical tastes, selections, favorites, I will first affirm that I mostly like the two pieces I'll here finger as needing the red pencil. Both compositions are often put forward as the respective apotheoses of their forms, but both would be, in my view, stronger works with some careful pruning. They are the sainted 9th symphony and the holy 5th (_Emperor_) concerto. I wear my flame-proof suit, helmet, gloves, boots, and visor and await the (possible) torrent of fire.


----------



## millionrainbows

1996D said:


> I think I get why some people don't like Brahms, it's something to do with the flow; he gets tied up. His moments are very good but as far as a works' overall congruence he is far behind Beethoven, it's very clear now...you can hear the chary, nervous approach in the construction. There are moments in which Brahms flows, but overall his works are put together in a way that shows weakness if we compare them to Beethoven's.


I agree; the reason Brahms had "no flow" is because he literally had "no flow." His failed romance "broke" his libido, and he became a lifelong bachelor/celibate. This is the music of a monk, derived from rigorous self-denial or self-discipline; it's austere; abstinent; it seems to involve a withholding of physical pleasure. Passionless, or lacking emotion in some way.


----------



## Strange Magic

Must be some other Brahms I'm listening to.


----------



## millionrainbows

Strange Magic said:


> Must be some other Brahms I'm listening to.


_If _this is a reply to my post, it implies I'm saying Brahms is "bad" in some way, which I'm not. Sometimes I'm in the mood for Brahms' restraint and control.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> _If _this is a reply to my post, it implies I'm saying Brahms is "bad" in some way, which I'm not. Sometimes I'm in the mood for Brahms' restraint and control.


It is a comment on your post. Your analysis of Brahms' music is wonderful in that it demonstrates the almost infinite variety of reactions that diverse people can have to the same music. I think, though, that few sense the monkishness, the self-denial, the celibacy you detect in his music; the austerity, the abstinence. I find he often luxuriates in a musical sensuality, often ecstatic, joyous. I'm talking here about Johannes Brahms, of course.


----------



## DaveM

Strange Magic said:


> Breaking my self-imposed rule about not knocking others' musical tastes, selections, favorites, I will first affirm that I mostly like the two pieces I'll here finger as needing the red pencil. Both compositions are often put forward as the respective apotheoses of their forms, but both would be, in my view, stronger works with some careful pruning. They are the sainted 9th symphony and the holy 5th (_Emperor_) concerto. I wear my flame-proof suit, helmet, gloves, boots, and visor and await the (possible) torrent of fire.


I'm not going to set you aflame (though I thought about it for using the word 'apotheoses'), but I am going to pray for you.


----------



## BachIsBest

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; the reason Brahms had "no flow" is because he literally had "no flow." His failed romance "broke" his libido, and he became a lifelong bachelor/celibate. This is the music of a monk, derived from rigorous self-denial or self-discipline; it's austere; abstinent; it seems to involve a withholding of physical pleasure. Passionless, or lacking emotion in some way.


He may have been a bachelor but I believe he frequented less reputable establishments that don't have a reputation for chastity. Regardless, I think relating a composer's personal choices to something as indefinable as 'lack of flow' in his music is a path fraught with peril. I also sometimes find Liszt's music to 'lack flow' even though well, maybe the next comment isn't appropriate for a public forum. Bruckner's music also can be awkward at times, but that would support your absurd theory.


----------



## SixFootScowl

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; the reason Brahms had "no flow" is because he literally had "no flow." His failed romance "broke" his libido, and he became a lifelong bachelor/celibate. This is the music of a monk, derived from rigorous self-denial or self-discipline; it's austere; abstinent; it seems to involve a withholding of physical pleasure. Passionless, or lacking emotion in some way.


No wonder it is not enjoyable. The whole purpose of being a monk is to forsake all pleasure in life.


----------



## Strange Magic

SixFootScowl said:


> No wonder it is not enjoyable. The whole purpose of being a monk is to forsake all pleasure in life.


Are we sure about this?


----------



## Room2201974

Brahms a monk?????? In what world? DC Comics Bizarro World only.

You know, you just can't make this stuff up and post it. There are people in here who can read.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> Are we sure about this?


No, just an impression, but the monks in Prokofiev's Betrothal in a Monastery sure did not live that way. Rather they enjoyed alcohol to great excess.


----------



## Room2201974

"FOR INTIMATE FEMALE COMPANIONSHIP Brahms still relied on brothels. His acquaintances, the male ones at least, knew about his regular visits to the places. The record of these escapades stops at the door of the establishments; one did not speak in public of such things, and in those days madames had more class than to write memoirs of their famous customers. For variety there was the occasional compliant serving girl. The names of Brahms's favorites appear jotted here and there on his manuscripts. Probably friends accompanied him to the whorehouses; it was what bachelors and some married men did in Vienna as in many cities. Some Viennese men acquired a lower-class "sweet girl" as mistress, but that was not Brahms's style. Since his childhood in the dives, sexuality had been for him a matter of secret transactions with the demimonde-efficient, predictable, and without obligations except for the fee. With his hired companions Brahms seems to have been a thoughtful customer, with the same democratic consideration for working people that he showed to other professions. Once he recommended a prostitute to an acquaintance; when the man followed the suggestion he found that she could not praise the kindness of the Herr Doktor enough. He treated her like a daughter, she said. Streetwalkers affectionately called to him on the street and sought him out when they were short of cash; generally he reached cheerfully into his pocket. One evening when Brahms was out with Frau Brüll a passing streetwalker hailed him. He flushed bright red and muttered sheepishly to his companion: "I want you to know that I have never made a married woman or a Fräulein unhappy." ~

Jan Swafford, _Johannes Brahms, A Biography_


----------



## Strange Magic

Room2201974 said:


> Brahms a monk?????? In what world? DC Comics Bizarro World only.
> 
> You know, you just can't make this stuff up and post it. There are people in here who can read.


It's possible that mr is pulling our leg. Just a little. He likes his small jokes.


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> It's possible that mr is pulling our leg. Just a little. He likes his small jokes.


Ah, yes, I forget his modus operandi!


----------



## Woodduck

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; the reason Brahms had "no flow" is because he literally had "no flow." His failed romance "broke" his libido, and he became a lifelong bachelor/celibate. This is the music of a monk, derived from rigorous self-denial or self-discipline; it's austere; abstinent; it seems to involve a withholding of physical pleasure. Passionless, or lacking emotion in some way.


Though I think Brahms had plenty of "flow" of the libidinous kind (he simply avoided marriage), I understand the "austere" quality in his music you refer to. But I think it coexists, fascinatingly, with deep emotion and, yes, passion. That is the paradox of Brahms. As a young person, I disliked his music for a time. My music-loving high school math teacher asked me if I found him too emotional; I said, "not emotional enough." A few years later I couldn't get enough of his passionate, throbbing, glowing trios, quartets and quintets, admiring them at the same time for their intellectual rigor. I do think that his work reveals at times the labor that went into it in a way that, say, Mozart's never does; I choose Mozart because Brahms himself noted in him the sense of effortless spontaneity that his own music didn't always achieve. He asked (and I paraphrase), "Who needs my efforts when in Mozart we have the real thing?"

Well, I do!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

The only works of Brahms I find “austere” are the string quartets and Clarinet Trio. Still beautiful but in a stiff, less relaxed way. I challenge you to find any piece of chamber music more dripping with unfiltered passion than the Piano Quintet, or any symphony more than the 4th.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Brahms is Brahms and Beethoven is Beethoven and the twain shall never meet. If Brahms frequented brothels then his ideals were far from those of Ludwig--unless I am not being told a deep dark secret. 

Also has Brahams any operas?

What Brahms has going for him and the one work of his that I do appreciate is the German Requiem.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> I agree; the reason Brahms had "no flow" is because he literally had "no flow." His failed romance "broke" his libido, and he became a lifelong bachelor/celibate. This is the music of a monk, derived from rigorous self-denial or self-discipline; it's austere; abstinent; it seems to involve a withholding of physical pleasure. Passionless, or lacking emotion in some way.


Really! The impression I'm always getting of Brahms' music is that it's extremely sexual. Much more so than most! Have you heard the Alto Rhapsody? The first piano concerto?

Lifelong bachelor he may have been, but he was certainly getting laid, and frequently.


----------



## 1996D

BachIsBest said:


> He may have been a bachelor but I believe he frequented less reputable establishments that don't have a reputation for chastity. Regardless, I think relating a composer's personal choices to something as indefinable as 'lack of flow' in his music is a path fraught with peril. I also sometimes find Liszt's music to 'lack flow' even though well, maybe the next comment isn't appropriate for a public forum. Bruckner's music also can be awkward at times, but that would support your absurd theory.


Yes, Bruckner and Liszt are perfect examples, in their case they lack creativity and have to resort to repetition. Brahms didn't though, he just tends to over-engineer his music, like his ambition is greater than his talent. Although that ultimately helped him and his talent was in my opinion fulfilled, at least on the path he took, Beethoven just had more.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> Breaking my self-imposed rule about not knocking others' musical tastes, selections, favorites, I will first affirm that I mostly like the two pieces I'll here finger as needing the red pencil. Both compositions are often put forward as the respective apotheoses of their forms, but both would be, in my view, stronger works with some careful pruning. They are the sainted 9th symphony and the holy 5th (_Emperor_) concerto. I wear my flame-proof suit, helmet, gloves, boots, and visor and await the (possible) torrent of fire.


Beethoven doesn't follow the form, he is the form, the form is what his natural creativity revels in. Brahms is a student of Beethoven, it doesn't come as natural because it's not his natural form.

The entirety of his music is him battling against what's expected of him, what he feels he must surpass, and his sensitivity hiding behind his academic approach. He's not honest enough and too much of his music is over-engineered.

This is what being in someone's shadow can do, and his contemporary Wagner realized this and forged his own form, what Brahms never had the courage to do. His genius was his only saving grace, he seemingly made all the wrong choices in life.


----------



## Strange Magic

This is a marvelous thread. For one thing, we get alternate spellings of this one-syllable name; for another, interesting notions of his (Johannes Brahms) one saving grace and of his one redeeming work. I am delighted at where this research will take us.


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> This is a marvelous thread. For one thing, we get alternate spellings of this one-syllable name; for another, interesting notions of his (Johannes Brahms) one saving grace and of his one redeeming work. I am delighted at where this research will take us.


The past is there for us to learn from.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Strange Magic said:


> This is a marvelous thread. For one thing, we get* alternate spellings of this one-syllable name*; for another, interesting notions of his (Johannes Brahms) one saving grace and of his one redeeming work. I am delighted at where this research will take us.


Brahams? Mere typo.


----------



## 1996D

So far everything posted here is true, I don't see any contradictions.


----------



## Open Book

SixFootScowl said:


> Also has Brahams any operas?
> 
> What Brahms has going for him and the one work of his that I do appreciate is the German Requiem.


He tried all his life to buckle down and complete an opera but he never succeeded.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

SixFootScowl said:


> Also has Brahms any operas?


The closest he came was the cantata _Rinaldo_, which is by far his most obscure work, but is also his most ambitious. I have never heard it, and I don't know whether it is really representative of his style. But worth checking out for something off the beaten path!


----------



## Room2201974

Strange Magic said:


> I am delighted at where this research will take us.


Yes, it's developing just like the development section of the second movement of Brahms' fourth symphony.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> Beethoven doesn't follow the form, he is the form, the form is what his natural creativity revels in. Brahms is a student of Beethoven, it doesn't come as natural because it's not his natural form.


Brahms was a student of many composers and wrote in many forms. What form would you say was or wasn't "natural" for him?



> The entirety of his music is him battling against what's expected of him, what he feels he must surpass, and his sensitivity hiding behind his academic approach. He's not honest enough and too much of his music is over-engineered.


Nearly every idea in this sentence is either false or exaggerated: "entirety," "battling," "against what is expected," "feels," "surpass," "hiding," "academic," "not honest," "too much," "over-engineered"...

You should write screenplays for Hollywood biopics.



> This is what being in someone's shadow can do, and his contemporary Wagner realized this and forged his own form, what Brahms never had the courage to do.


Brahms was no more in Mozart and Beethoven's shadow than Wagner was in Weber's and Beethoven's shadow. The metaphor is inapplicable and silly. Brahms knew what he wanted and needed to do. he wasn't in anyone's shadow, but in his own light. His work doesn't imitate Classicism, it extends and renews it.



> His genius was his only saving grace,


How generous of you.



> he seemingly made all the wrong choices in life.


Pity you weren't around to set him right.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> Brahms was a student of many composers and wrote in many forms. What form would you say was or wasn't "natural" for him?
> 
> "Pity you weren't around to set him right."


He was an imitator form wise, his innovations are in other areas, namely his distinctive counterpoint and use of rhythm. I mostly agree with what you said, and no, every man must make his own choices.

The criticism of Brahms is fair, and to praise him is also fair, but to this day he is in Beethoven's shadow, unlike Wagner who made a mark of equal or near equal significance, or at least distinguished himself by being truly original and honest to his person. So to answer the thread's question, the difference between the two is power of will.

Otherwise Brahms is an excellent composer and one of my favourites; my criticism stems from my deep knowledge of his music and of course it is only when comparing him to the greatest that the harshest criticism arises. If we were to analyze Brahms on his own, it would be nothing but praise.



> Nearly every idea in this sentence is either false or exaggerated: "entirety," "battling," "against what is expected," "feels," "surpass," "hiding," "academic," "not honest," "too much," "over-engineered"


That's all very fair criticism, you can hear the conflict in the music. His story is one that we should all learn from, the mistakes he made or the situation he ended up in. His life was tragic yet unlike Beethoven there was never the clear resolution, or there was, but it wasn't glorious in any way.

The feeling in his music is that he lived in regret and complaint, and he never overcame it like Beethoven so gloriously did in his last works.

All this is more of a praise of Beethoven, he really did it all. What a man.


----------



## BachIsBest

1996D said:


> my criticism stems from my deep knowledge of his music


Forgive me, but after reading your posts, I thought your criticism stemmed largely from fiction. Thank you for the clarification!


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> He was an imitator form wise, his innovations are in other areas, namely his distinctive counterpoint and use of rhythm.


Brahms u0pheld the validity of certain Classical formal principles, but he was no imitator. In movement after movement of his symphonies, sonatas and chamber works, he does things his predecessors didn't do.



> The criticism of Brahms is fair, and to praise him is also fair, but to this day he is in Beethoven's shadow,


That's a mere metaphor, and it doesn't express any informed opinion of his work. If all you mean is that Beethoven is a greater and more popular composer - well, most composers are in his shadow. So what?



> unlike Wagner who made a mark of equal or near equal significance,


Equal or near? I should say greater, if by "mark" you mean influence.



> or at least distinguished himself by being truly original and honest to his person.


There is no reason whatever to assume that Brahms was not "honest to his person." His Classical Romanticism expressed his complex nature, including his psychological malkeup and his beliefs about music.



> the difference between the two [Beethoven and Brahms] is power of will.


There are many differences between the two. What do you really know of his "power of will"? (Honest answer: not much.)



> Otherwise Brahms is an excellent composer and one of my favourites; my criticism stems from my deep knowledge of his music


"How deep is the ocean? How high is the sky?"



> and of course it is only when comparing him to the greatest that the harshest criticism arises. If we were to analyze Brahms on his own, it would be nothing but praise.


Really? I've criticized him without reference to any other composer. I think most of his organ music is dull. I don't need to consult Bach to say that.



> That's all very fair criticism, you can hear the conflict in the music.


If you can, what makes you think that in expressing it Brahms is not being "honest to his person"?



> His story is one that we should all learn from, the mistakes he made or the situation he ended up in. His life was tragic yet unlike Beethoven there was never the clear resolution, or there was, but it wasn't glorious in any way.


Hollywood needs you (although this movie sounds like a downer). Who would you pick to play Brahms and Clara?



> The feeling in his music is that he lived in regret and complaint, and he never overcame it like Beethoven so gloriously did in his last works. All this is more of a praise of Beethoven, he really did it all. What a man.


"Regret" and "complaint" are your own interpretations of what you hear. So are your ideas about what Beethoven "overcame" (his life was rather messy, wouldn't you say?). You're entitled to hear whatever you will in anyone's music, but if you want to be taken seriously as a critic you'd do better to ditch the amateur psychologizing and philosophizing and actually talk about music. You're a composer, right? Music talk should come naturally.


----------



## 1996D

I rest my case, you'll hear my music soon and then perhaps you'll understand what I mean. I'm saddened that you can't see that philosophy and music go hand in hand, the great triumph that is Beethoven's life is a philosophical matter.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> I rest my case, you'll hear my music soon and then perhaps you'll understand what I mean. *I'm saddened that you can't see that philosophy and music go hand in hand*, the great triumph that is Beethoven's life is a philosophical matter.


You don't know what I can see. But one of the things I can see is that you tend to mistake your opinions for objective truth. Making that mistake when interpreting art is perilous, and making it when telling other people about themselves is presumptuous and obnoxious.


----------



## Ethereality

Woodduck said:


> You should write screenplays for Hollywood biopics.


Start out small and grow from there.


----------



## Strange Magic

1996D said:


> So far everything posted here is true, I don't see any contradictions.


I think we need to focus on another of Brahms' great gifts, granted to us right here on TC. For diverse reasons, Brahms' life and music seem to have triggered startling outbursts of negative hyperbole about him that are matched only by concomitant effusions of praise about his revered predecessor. Some of our most imaginative posters have been gripped by this magnetic power of Brahms and have given us some truly fine examples of ''critical" excess. You gotta love it!

Also can't wait to hear the promised music!


----------



## Mandryka

Strange Magic said:


> I think we need to focus on another of Brahms' great gifts, granted to us right here on TC. For diverse reasons, Brahms' life and music seem to have triggered startling outbursts of negative hyperbole about him that are matched only by concomitant effusions of praise about his revered predecessor. Some of our most imaginative posters have been gripped by this magnetic power of Brahms and have given us some truly fine examples of ''critical" excess. You gotta love it!
> 
> Also can't wait to hear the promised music!


 Brahms has always done this. There's a famous essay by Peter Gay called "Aimez-Vous Brahms? On Polarities in Modernism" where he looks at the early Brahms reception history and finds it totally divided among those who found a work dry and those who found it maudlin, same work, same performance. Why he should have this polarising effect I just do not know.


----------



## millionrainbows

If Brahms satisfied his sexual desires by going to brothels, and if monks "got drunk," then this only reinforces my point: for Brahms, sexual pleasure and ecstacy got relegated to the realm of the suppressed "evil" shadow side of the psyche. In this sense they became part of "The Devil" or repressed shadow realm.
Thus, the "deep emotion" and "passion" in Brahms' music takes on a religious dimension, the dimension in which all base desire and "evil" have been exorcised and thus sanitized. We are thus left with a "perfect" and "clean" vision of man, very religious in nature, in which all the "darkness" which is our birthright is vanquished.
As Brian Eno said, "The problem with New Age music is that there's no evil in it."

We are left with Brahms' "new age" version of Beethoven, sanitized for your protection.


----------



## Mandryka

millionrainbows said:


> If Brahms satisfied his sexual desires by going to brothels, and if monks "got drunk," then this only reinforces my point: for Brahms, sexual pleasure and ecstacy got relegated to the realm of the suppressed "evil" shadow side of the psyche. In this sense they became part of "Th Devil" or repressed shadow realm.
> Thus, the "deep emotion" and "passion" in Brahms' music takes on a religious dimension, the dimension in which all base desire and "evil" have been exorcised and thus sanitized. We are thus left with a "perfect" and "clean" vision of man, very religious in nature, in which all the "darkness" which is our birthright is vanquished.
> As Brian Eno said, "The problem with New Age music is that there's no evil in it."
> 
> We are left with Brahms' "new age" version of Beethoven, sanitized for your protection.


Priceless. I want to come to the States, meet you, get you stoned.


----------



## Strange Magic

millionrainbows said:


> If Brahms satisfied his sexual desires by going to brothels, and if monks "got drunk," then this only reinforces my point: for Brahms, sexual pleasure and ecstacy got relegated to the realm of the suppressed "evil" shadow side of the psyche. In this sense they became part of "The Devil" or repressed shadow realm.
> Thus, the "deep emotion" and "passion" in Brahms' music takes on a religious dimension, the dimension in which all base desire and "evil" have been exorcised and thus sanitized. We are thus left with a "perfect" and "clean" vision of man, very religious in nature, in which all the "darkness" which is our birthright is vanquished.
> As Brian Eno said, "The problem with New Age music is that there's no evil in it."
> 
> We are left with Brahms' "new age" version of Beethoven, sanitized for your protection.


To quote Schumann (of another composer): "Hats off, Gentlemen, a genius." Schumann could equally have invested Brahms with similar genius for eliciting deep and probing clinical analysis (psychobabble?) from certain members of our esteemed TC group. It is wonderful to read--made my day.:lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Mandryka said:


> Priceless. I want to come to the States, meet you, get you stoned.


Someone seems to have got there ahead of you.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> You don't know what I can see. But one of the things I can see is that you tend to mistake your opinions for objective truth. Making that mistake when interpreting art is perilous, and making it when telling other people about themselves is presumptuous and obnoxious.


It's not a perspective, it's the highest comprehension. Beethoven shows that you can go through all the pain of life yet still emerge pure and strong; his story one for the ages; one of the human soul emerging from darkness into the brightest light. From the man that Goethe described as bitter and in constant complaint about the ills of his world, to the finale of the 9th showing his unblemished purity and goodness.

It's redundant to discuss the music of Beethoven because as Bernstein said, he was not a great melodist, harmonist, or contrapuntist, and his orchestration was also poor. He is the ultimate underdog turned into the greatest, the most positive aspect of humanity, which gives hope and happiness about the nature of the world.


----------



## Ethereality

Beethoven was like that movie _Perfect Sense,_ except just with the hearing.


----------



## Strange Magic

Goosebumps. I'm getting goosebumps.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's not a perspective, it's the highest comprehension. Beethoven shows that you can go through all the pain of life yet still emerge pure and strong; his story one for the ages; one of the human soul emerging from darkness into the brightest light. From the man that Goethe described as bitter and in constant complaint about the ills of his world, to the finale of the 9th showing his unblemished purity and goodness.


What a naive view of human nature, not to mention an oversimplification of the relationship between art and the artist.



> It's redundant to discuss the music of Beethoven because as Bernstein said, he was not a great melodist, harmonist, or contrapuntist, and his orchestration was also poor. He is the ultimate underdog turned into the greatest, the most positive aspect of humanity, which gives hope and happiness about the nature of the world.


The separate elements of music are not judged by some absolute, platonic - or arbitrary and personal - standard but in relation to the art work which they constitute. That silly business about Beethoven not being good at this or that is really tiresome. How bizarre is it to imagine that a composer can mix inferior melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration and come up with some of the greatest music in existence?

Perhaps you're hoping that that formula will work for you.


----------



## 1996D

Woodduck said:


> The separate elements of music are not judged by some absolute, platonic - or arbitrary and personal - standard but in relation to the art work which they constitute. That silly business about Beethoven not being good at this or that is really tiresome. How bizarre is it to imagine that a composer can mix inferior melody, harmony, counterpoint and orchestration and come up with some of the greatest music in existence?
> 
> Perhaps you're hoping that that formula will work for you.


It's his form, form and flow are everything, he's a lion, he has the will of a thousand humans. The admiration for Beethoven comes from knowing that what he does is harder, the man just gave more--it's incredible what he does. Once you hear my music you'll see that I have everything else yet that level he was on is so elusive, it's the hardest thing to do, by far. For the longest time technique has been the focus, yet it's the explosiveness and perfect coherence of Beethoven that's the goal. This is not technique, it's soul, it's power, it's simply more.



> What a naive view of human nature, not to mention an oversimplification of the relationship between art and the artist.


I understand why you see it that way.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^Scriabin, you ain't seen (or heard) nothin' yet!


----------



## 1996D

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Scriabin, you ain't seen (or heard) nothin' yet!


I read Scriabin disliked Beethoven.

In any case the man is an untouchable icon, a hero. The love he gave is with us forever, and he is universally considered the greatest, which is good enough for me. I'm blessed to have seen the extent of his genius through working up the ladder.

For the longest time I thought Mahler and Brahms were the best, then Bach and Mozart, but it's the man we all want to rebel against because of his universal praise yet brashness, the tiny deaf guy. He's the truth.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> It's his form, form and flow are everything, he's a lion, he has the will of a thousand humans. The admiration for Beethoven comes from knowing that what he does is harder, the man just gave more--it's incredible what he does. Once you hear my music you'll see that I have everything else yet that level he was on is so elusive, it's the hardest thing to do, by far.


Would that be the MGM lion?

As you know, everyone here is waiting with bated breath for the epoch-making music which "has everything" except "that level Beethoven was on." But meanwhile the perpetual fanfare is riotously entertaining. Lay you odds, the bite won't live up to the bark.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> It's his form, form and flow are everything, he's a lion, he has the will of a thousand humans. The admiration for Beethoven comes from knowing that what he does is harder, the man just gave more--it's incredible what he does. *Once you hear my music you'll see that I have everything else *yet that level he was on is so elusive, it's the hardest thing to do, by far. For the longest time technique has been the focus, yet it's the explosiveness and perfect coherence of Beethoven that's the goal. This is not technique, it's soul, it's power, it's simply more.
> 
> I understand why you see it that way.


You claim to have the raw technical abilities of Beethoven, meaning, I presume, skills in harmony, voice-leading, counterpoint and melodic structure, and you habitually cite these skills to bolster the credibility of your opinions on diverse musical topics. We don't need to hear your "music" - your finished artistic statements, that is - to know if this is true. You must have numerous counterpoint/harmony exercises and style studies that demonstrate these technical skills. Why don't you post a few pages so we can see if you are what you claim? A number of us have taught theory and compose music ourselves. We will be able to judge your basic competence from such studies without drawing conclusions about the potential of your future work.

To be clear: You are being asked to put up or shut up. We don't like having to speculate about whether you are the real deal or a delusional BS artist.


----------



## Woodduck

1996D said:


> it's the man we all want to rebel against because of his universal praise yet brashness, the tiny deaf guy. He's the truth.


And the Light, and the Way.


----------



## 1996D

EdwardBast said:


> You claim to have the raw technical abilities of Beethoven, meaning, I presume, skills in harmony, voice-leading, counterpoint and melodic structure, and you habitually cite these skills to bolster the credibility of your opinions on diverse musical topics. We don't need to hear your "music" - your finished artistic statements, that is - to know if this is true. You must have numerous counterpoint/harmony exercises and style studies that demonstrate these technical skills. Why don't you post a few pages so we can see if you are what you claim? A number of us have taught theory and compose music ourselves. We will be able to judge your basic competence from such studies without drawing conclusions about the potential of your future work.
> 
> To be clear: You are being asked to put up or shut up. We don't like having to speculate about whether you are the real deal or a delusional BS artist.


Why spoil it, the music is coming very soon.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> Why spoil it, the music is coming very soon.


No, I'm afraid it's not even breathing hard.


----------



## aleazk

While both were heavily influenced by Mozart, I think Brahms is the more mozartian of the two. On the other hand, Beethoven is more original. Brahms sometimes can be a litle pedantic in showing his contrapuntal skills. I claim that Beethoven was as gifted as Brahms in this regard, but he was not pedantic, he understood that counterpoint is a compositional tool, not something to show off, he was much more preoccupied in finding his true voice, he was a really transparent individual, while Brahms a bit of a coward since he liked to mask his true self with that kind of technical virtuosim. At the personal level, Beethoven would desperately try to marry Clara if he were in Brahms' position after Schumann's death. Similar considerations apply to Ravel vs Debussy, Ravel being the pedantic one.

For the record, all of these composers are among my favorites anyway.


----------



## EdwardBast

1996D said:


> Why spoil it, the music is coming very soon.


You do understand how put up or shut up works, right? In civil discourse among people of integrity, it's the conventional way in which perennially unsupported claims are challenged. One is given a choice to either back them up (that's the put up part) or to refrain from making them until one is ready to substantiate them (that's the shut up part). Those are the two socially acceptable options. To do neither is taken as evidence that one is participating in bad faith. It is to behave dishonorably. So, given that you are steadfastly refusing to put up, can we trust that you'll behave honorably and shut up until that "very soon" time when your genius is revealed?


----------



## KenOC




----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


>


Someday, many years from now, Schroeder, bespectacled, balding and playing a nine-foot, six-inch Boesendorfer Imperial Concert Grand with 97 keys, will be asked for the answer to life, and he will shout, "1996D is IT, clear and simple!!! Do you UNDERSTAND???" Lucy, in her one-hundred-fourth year, will be deaf and unable to hear either the answer or the music of 1996D. She will merely smile and hum, softly to herself, the "Moonlight Sonata" (the last music she heard before age took her hearing), happy that Schroeder is as capable as ever of that superior aesthetic agitation which only the most heroic and redemptive art can inspire.


----------



## Room2201974

Well
............I
.......for
..........one
.........wish
.................to
...........point
...................out
.............Brahms'
..............love
..............of
......................ripping
...............away
.................................................................................................melody
...........................from
meter
............................in
...........................a
.......................way
......................that
..................................................................foreshadows
...B r a q u e
.........and
Pic. asso


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

I always did find it fascinating how Beethoven left such a huge body of music (albeit mostly from his youth) that is totally out of the repertoire. Folk song arrangements (actually his most prolific genre)? String trios? Mandolin sonatas? Works for mechanical clock? All sorts of chamber music with horns, oboes, and trombones? A bunch of little piano trifles? 10 violin sonatas, out of which only 2 are in the standard repertoire, and a similar thing with the piano trios? Put that way, the quantity of Beethoven's music which we consider to be hugely influential and among the greatest music ever written is quite small. So judging solely based on "uniform quality of output throughout life," the award has to go to Brahms! Yeah, he wrote a couple choral works that nobody's heard of, and some criminally underrated organ music, but that's about it. But then again, that blasted Double Concerto is almost enough to make me reconsider that position:lol:


----------



## Woodduck

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I always did find it fascinating how Beethoven left such a huge body of music (albeit mostly from his youth) that is totally out of the repertoire. Folk song arrangements (actually his most prolific genre)? String trios? Mandolin sonatas? Works for mechanical clock? All sorts of chamber music with horns, oboes, and trombones? A bunch of little piano trifles? 10 violin sonatas, out of which only 2 are in the standard repertoire, and a similar thing with the piano trios? Put that way, the quantity of Beethoven's music which we consider to be hugely influential and among the greatest music ever written is quite small. So judging solely based on "uniform quality of output throughout life," the award has to go to Brahms! Yeah, he wrote a couple choral works that nobody's heard of, and some criminally underrated organ music, but that's about it. But then again, that blasted Double Concerto is almost enough to make me reconsider that position:lol:


A look at a catalogue of the music of Brahms reveals quite a large quantity of music that's rarely or never performed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Johannes_Brahms

Your "couple of choral works" turns out to be a lengthy list of works for various combinations of voices. How much of his immense output of songs gets a regular hearing? Ever hear "Hymn in Veneration of the Great Joachim" for string trio? How many pianists program his gavottes, gigues, sarabandes, canons and transcriptions of his own and others' music? He wrote numerous works for piano duo, but do piano duos ever program them? And what about _Rinaldo_, that cantata famous for the fact that nobody has heard it? We'll have to disagree about the organ music and the Double Concerto; I find most of the former dreary - it doesn't surprise me that it isn't well-known - and the latter very enjoyable.

Given that Brahms is said to have consigned a lot of music he considered inferior to the fireplace (although some of it slipped through anyway), we probably have a distorted view of both his output and his consistency as a composer. I also suspect that performers would disagree with you about the value of Beethoven's chamber music. You may know only two of his violin sonatas, but I've known the whole set for years and can assure you that the "Spring" and "Kreutzer" are not the only masterpieces among them.

Beethoven wrote 9 symphonies; Brahms 4. Beethoven wrote 5 piano concertos; Brahms 2. Beethoven wrote 16 string quartets; Brahms 4. Beethoven wrote 10 violin sonatas; Brahms 3. Beethoven wrote 5 cello sonatas; Brahms 2. Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas; Brahms 3. Beethoven wrote 1 opera; Brahms 0. Brahms also had seven more years in which to turn out mature works. But really, I don't think quantifying in this way is a very good way of evaluating the greatness of composers.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Woodduck said:


> A look at a catalogue of the music of Brahms reveals quite a large quantity of music that's rarely or never performed:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_compositions_by_Johannes_Brahms
> 
> Your "couple of choral works" turns out to be a lengthy list of works for various combinations of voices. How much of his immense output of songs gets a regular hearing? Ever hear "Hymn in Veneration of the Great Joachim" for string trio? How many pianists program his gavottes, gigues, sarabandes, canons and transcriptions of his own and others' music? He wrote numerous works for piano duo, but do piano duos ever program them? And what about _Rinaldo_, that cantata famous for the fact that nobody has heard it? We'll have to disagree about the organ music and the Double Concerto; I find most of the former dreary - it doesn't surprise me that it isn't well-known - and the latter very enjoyable.
> 
> Given that Brahms is said to have consigned a lot of music he considered inferior to the fireplace (although some of it slipped through anyway), we probably have a distorted view of both his output and his consistency as a composer. I also suspect that performers would disagree with you about the value of Beethoven's chamber music. You may know only two of his violin sonatas, but I've known the whole set for years and can assure you that the "Spring" and "Kreutzer" are not the only masterpieces among them.
> 
> Beethoven wrote 9 symphonies; Brahms 4. Beethoven wrote 5 piano concertos; Brahms 2. Beethoven wrote 16 string quartets; Brahms 4. Beethoven wrote 10 violin sonatas; Brahms 3. Beethoven wrote 5 cello sonatas; Brahms 2. Beethoven wrote 32 piano sonatas; Brahms 3. Beethoven wrote 1 opera; Brahms 0. Brahms also had seven more years in which to turn out mature works. But really, I don't think quantifying in this way is a very good way of evaluating the greatness of composers.


Hats off for a thorough dismantling of my assertions! :tiphat: I do not really believe in the "method of greatness" I used here, I was just bringing it up to make a (possibly irrelevant) point. I do agree that the quality of their outputs is very similar in that they both wrote established masterpieces in every major genre of the time (except Brahms with opera, and you could argue that his piano sonatas and quartets were not up to par with LvB either. OK, they weren't, but I still consider them masterpieces!) And I do love many of Beethoven's lesser-known violin sonatas, but they certainly don't seem to be performed/recorded/talked about as often. Bottom line: these "comparison" exercises I find to be mostly futile. Brahms had to live under the shadow of Beethoven his whole life. Let's give him some respect and assess him posthumously as he deserves: he was a totally unique compositional voice that used mastery of classical forms and techniques to produce deeply rich and satisfying music.


----------



## Red Terror

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Brahms had to live under the shadow of Beethoven his whole life. Let's give him some respect and assess him posthumously as he deserves: he was a totally unique compositional voice that used mastery of classical forms and techniques to produce deeply rich and satisfying music.


I am not so sure Brahms lived under anyone's shadow (other than his own). His work stands on its own and there is hardly any need to compare him to Beethoven. They were two very different composers.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

Red Terror said:


> I am not so sure Brahms lived under anyone's shadow (other than his own). His work stands on its own and there is hardly any need to compare him to Beethoven. They were two very different composers.


Perhaps more of a "psychological" shadow considering the pained gestation of his 1st symphony and string quartets - he was afraid of "doing Beethoven disrespect" by not putting his total efforts into the genres that Beethoven excelled at. And then, of course, all his fervent work was met with the patently ridiculous treatment of his symphony as "Beethoven's 10th."


----------



## Room2201974

"It was in the early 1870s, still terrified at the prospect of going up against Beethoven, that Brahms spoke his famous words to conductor Hermann Levi: "I'll never write a symphony! You have no idea how the likes of us feel when we're always hearing a giant like that behind us." The closer he came to string quartet and symphony, both of which he had attempted and so far failed to bring off, the louder the tramp of Beethoven and the other giants resounded in his mind."

~ Jan Swafford, _Johannes Brahms, a Biography_

Brahms would labor 15 years on his first symphony and destroyed 20 string quartets prior to his first one completed in 1873.


----------



## 1996D

EdwardBast said:


> You do understand how put up or shut up works, right? In civil discourse among people of integrity, it's the conventional way in which perennially unsupported claims are challenged. One is given a choice to either back them up (that's the put up part) or to refrain from making them until one is ready to substantiate them (that's the shut up part). Those are the two socially acceptable options. To do neither is taken as evidence that one is participating in bad faith. It is to behave dishonorably. So, given that you are steadfastly refusing to put up, can we trust that you'll behave honorably and shut up until that "very soon" time when your genius is revealed?


Can you wait a week? I wouldn't be talking if it wasn't very soon; the stage will be set.


----------



## Tallisman

Brahms was overall a hipper cat. His music always feels less personal than Beethoven, and so there are less obvious idiosyncrasies (to my ears), making him harder to imitate or parody than Beethoven.


----------



## hammeredklavier

----------------------------------------


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


>


----------



## Woodduck

Tallisman said:


> Brahms was overall a hipper cat. His music always feels less personal than Beethoven, and so there are less obvious idiosyncrasies (to my ears), making him harder to imitate or parody than Beethoven.


You might be surprised - and delighted - to discover how much music, especially chamber music, written in the 19th century was audibly influenced by Brahms. For starters, try Rheinberger, Herzogenberg, Jenner, Fuchs, Gernsheim, Rontgen, Thuille, Parry, Stanford, Dvorak, Taneyev, Catoire, Dohnanyi, and the Americans Paine, MacDowell, Daniel Gregory Mason, and Arthur Foote. Some of the music of these people is quite successful in reproducing Brahms's "fingerprints"; the first time I heard Herzogenberg's cello sonatas I thought, "Brahms without the genius." Listen to Gustav Jenner's rapturous clarinet sonata, or Thuille's pastoral sextet for piano and winds, and do a double take. I can't think of many composers who came so near to sounding like Beethoven; his contemporary Clementi and his pupil Ries sometimes do (Beethoven remarked, "Ries imitates me too much.")

When I improvise at the piano, I find that the style of Brahms comes more naturally to me than the style of Beethoven. But then, Beethoven's style was more varied and was always evolving. The changes in Brahms's style were less radical over time.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Allegro Con Brio said:


> I always did find it fascinating how Beethoven left such a huge body of music (albeit mostly from his youth) that is totally out of the repertoire.


I find this underrated:





[ "Dear friend: You went away and left me a treasure without having looked it over yourself. Hence, I must write you a few words of thanks so that you may know just how valuable it is. There is no doubt that in it the two cantatas Beethoven wrote in Bonn-on the death of Joseph II and the accession of Leopold II-have been discovered. Thus we now have two large-scale works for chorus and orchestra from a period in which no compositions to which we could attach any particular significance existed, as far as we knew. If they did not bear the date (February 1790), we would guess them to be of a later period, since we know nothing of that period! However, even if there were no name on the title page, there would still be no doubt concerning the composer-throughout it is altogether Beethoven! Here is the beautiful, noble pathos, the great sensitivity and imagination, the power as well as violence of expression, added to the special quality of the voice leading and declamation at which we marvel in his later works!" ] -Brahms, From the 1884 letter to Hanslick


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> Can you wait a week? I wouldn't be talking if it wasn't very soon; the stage will be set.


So am I to take it that by March 4, 2020, you will have posted your music in the *Today's Composers* sub forum????


----------



## Rogerx

Room2201974 said:


> So am I to take it that by March 4, 2020, you will have posted your music in the *Today's Composers* sub forum????


Make it 2030 to be safe :angel:


----------



## Nealer

Better safe than sorry, right? haha


----------



## Rogerx

Nealer said:


> Better safe than sorry, right? haha


And you are???????


----------



## Tallisman

Woodduck said:


> You might be surprised - and delighted - to discover how much music, especially chamber music, written in the 19th century was audibly influenced by Brahms. For starters, try Rheinberger, Herzogenberg, Jenner, Fuchs, Gernsheim, Rontgen, Thuille, Parry, Stanford, Dvorak, Taneyev, Catoire, Dohnanyi, and the Americans Paine, MacDowell, Daniel Gregory Mason, and Arthur Foote. Some of the music of these people is quite successful in reproducing Brahms's "fingerprints"; the first time I heard Herzogenberg's cello sonatas I thought, "Brahms without the genius." Listen to Gustav Jenner's rapturous clarinet sonata, or Thuille's pastoral sextet for piano and winds, and do a double take. I can't think of many composers who came so near to sounding like Beethoven; his contemporary Clementi and his pupil Ries sometimes do (Beethoven remarked, "Ries imitates me too much.")
> 
> When I improvise at the piano, I find that the style of Brahms comes more naturally to me than the style of Beethoven. But then, Beethoven's style was more varied and was always evolving. The changes in Brahms's style were less radical over time.


I still think that if Dudley Moore had done 'Colonel Bogey in the style of Brahms' there would have been far fewer laughs. I know Brahms has tropes too, but they are perhaps more subtle. A lot of it is in the phrasing, and the dynamics, though.


----------



## Room2201974

Rogerx said:


> And you are???????


Suspicious?

Gee, I don't know why anyone might be. I mean, a new poster comes into the Forum. Doesn't take the time to introduce themselves down in the members area. Inserts themselves into the middle of a thread that is 170 posts long. Not only that, but inserts themselves right in the middle of a conversation that is bigger than this thread: the New Music that will change the world that we all our eagerly awaiting on.* Then too, there is the name: *Nealer*. So, no, nothing at all suspicious about that. In keeping with the theme of this thread however, one simply must ask: are the iterations a chaconne or a passacaglia? 

*I've alerted my broker. If the world is going to change, I'm opting for investment in Pampers and Depends.


----------



## 1996D

Room2201974 said:


> So am I to take it that by March 4, 2020, you will have posted your music in the *Today's Composers* sub forum????


In the first weeks of March yes, but it won't be there.


----------



## Enthusiast

Where will we find it? What instrumentation is is written for? Who is playing it? Why can't you post a link to it here?


----------



## 1996D

Enthusiast said:


> Where will we find it? What instrumentation is is written for? Who is playing it? Why can't you post a link to it here?


I'll post something in the main forum, it'll have its proper build up.


----------



## Phil loves classical

I'm all for you, dude. Just don't postpone it.


----------



## Room2201974

1996D said:


> In the first weeks of March yes, but it won't be there.


I await with baited breath. It is not everyday that we may hear the definition of anti "deviant" and anti "degenerate" music. I've tried to imagine what it could sound like and all I come up with is continous musica ficta, so I hope I'm surprised.


----------



## DaveM

hammeredklavier said:


>


A surprising couple of works. They were both written in 1790 (Beethoven only 20) and yet, to my ears, the first sounds more like a good work of the maturing Beethoven while the second sounds like a poor copy of earlier Mozart. In fact, I consider myself able to pick out Beethoven works by ear, but if the Leopold work was on the radio, I might have mistaken it for Mozart.


----------



## jegreenwood

Tallisman said:


> I still think that if Dudley Moore had done 'Colonel Bogey in the style of Brahms' there would have been far fewer laughs. I know Brahms has tropes too, but they are perhaps more subtle. A lot of it is in the phrasing, and the dynamics, though.


He does a pretty good job skewering Britten.


----------



## Iota

jegreenwood said:


> He does a pretty good job skewering Britten.


And indeed Pears! All of his parodies were quite brilliant I think. Not quite sure of the sense of 'skewering' here, so will just add that for me, all seemed to spring from a basic affection/affinity for the originals.

It also now seems a very distant world, wherein references to Britten would so readily be understood by a mainstream TV audience


----------



## Rogerx

Nealer said:


> Better safe than sorry, right? haha





Rogerx said:


> And you are???????





Room2201974 said:


> Suspicious?
> 
> Gee, I don't know why anyone might be. I mean, a new poster comes into the Forum. Doesn't take the time to introduce themselves down in the members area. Inserts themselves into the middle of a thread that is 170 posts long. Not only that, but inserts themselves right in the middle of a conversation that is bigger than this thread: the New Music that will change the world that we all our eagerly awaiting on.* Then too, there is the name: *Nealer*. So, no, nothing at all suspicious about that. In keeping with the theme of this thread however, one simply must ask: are the iterations a chaconne or a passacaglia?
> 
> *I've alerted my broker. If the world is going to change, I'm opting for investment in Pampers and Depends.


You see, I smell a ### from miles away.


----------



## Flossner

Strange Magic said:


> Breaking my self-imposed rule about not knocking others' musical tastes, selections, favorites, I will first affirm that I mostly like the two pieces I'll here finger as needing the red pencil. Both compositions are often put forward as the respective apotheoses of their forms, but both would be, in my view, stronger works with some careful pruning. They are the sainted 9th symphony and the holy 5th (_Emperor_) concerto. I wear my flame-proof suit, helmet, gloves, boots, and visor and await the (possible) torrent of fire.


I'd leave those two alone, but I think the violin concerto could use some cutting, especially the first movement. Also the third movement of the Archduke Trio (overall one of my favorite works by Beethoven).


----------



## KenOC

There's no doubt that the first movement of the 5th Symphony would gain by deletion of the infinitely many repeats of the main theme. Or motif. Or whatever the heck it is.

While the resulting movement would be somewhat...uh...short, I'm sure it would gain in force!


----------



## DaveM

The Große Fuge needs cutting. Too much fugue. Just have the opening and ending and it will be fine. Also, cut the 1st movement of piano sonata #14. Too much Moonlight.


----------



## KenOC

Lots of operas could use major cuts. As Debussy said, "The problem with operas is there's too much singing." That can be fixed.


----------



## Flossner

KenOC said:


> There's no doubt that the first movement of the 5th Symphony would gain by deletion of the infinitely many repeats of the main theme. Or motif. Or whatever the heck it is.
> 
> While the resulting movement would be somewhat...uh...short, I'm sure it would gain in force!


Heh heh, fair enough! I wouldn't claim to have one one-thousandth of the skill or talent necessary to perform edits on any of Beethoven's works. However if I had his ear, I would express my opinion of those works being a bit long. FWIW, I can't really think of any other Beethoven works that I feel are too long.


----------



## Ethereality

In some sense, Brahms sounds like he's trying to be original and purposefully reaching, while Beethoven doesn't, his command of base theory is very good. He took Mozart and Haydn and said "I own you now" as though they possibly could've made some kind of thematic or developmental mistake and he's correcting them. On the other hand, Brahms was much more interested in form and organization imo, while Beethoven was more interested in expressing amazing moments and moods through his classical knowledge. It's hard to come to the conclusion that while Beethoven does _all this great stuff _and Brahms is just better at form, that one is greater. It could be the case that both quantity of Beethoven and quality of Brahms are equally important. Because of this, I do rate both composers in the Top 3, but Brahms for my tastes is of a greater tier.


----------



## Bigbang

KenOC said:


> There's no doubt that the first movement of the 5th Symphony would gain by deletion of the infinitely many repeats of the main theme. Or motif. Or whatever the heck it is.
> 
> While the resulting movement would be somewhat...uh...short, I'm sure it would gain in force!


Uh, no. Beethoven spent upwards of 8 years perfecting it to make it "perfect". It is not for modern ears who can now hear it 10 times a day if you want but to shiver your butt off in an auditorium in a time where you might never hear it again, that is a different time. Seriously, we have scholars who debate these things but Beethoven is not a composer who is going to waste a note merely to "keep it going."

There is a reason Beethoven is still alive and well in 21 century. His symphonic music is for occasions, not for mere entertainment. I personally consider the 5th the most perfect symphony he wrote whereas I keep thinking the scherzo in the eroica too light hearted--but who am I to question the master. I hate for Beethoven to turn the tables on anyone who think they can critique his works.


----------



## hammeredklavier

KenOC said:


> the main theme. Or motif. Or whatever the heck it is.









KenOC said:


> Lots of operas could use major cuts.


Yes, they could be shorter and more concise, like
"A Little Nigtmare Music: An Opera in One Irrevocable Act"
"The Stoned Guest: A Half-Act Opera"


----------



## Mykul

JACE said:


> It seems to me that Brahms is much more attuned to _rhythm_ than Beethoven.
> 
> I'm not a musician or musicologist, so I can't really articulate it more than that. I just hear it.


It's always good to hear from people who describe themselves as "non musicians". Sometimes it's good for all of us to understand how people who are not so directly involved in performing can just stand back and music. My father was one of these people too.


----------



## Guest002

Iota said:


> And indeed Pears! All of his parodies were quite brilliant I think. Not quite sure of the sense of 'skewering' here, so will just add that for me, all seemed to spring from a basic affection/affinity for the originals.
> 
> It also now seems a very distant world, wherein references to Britten would so readily be understood by a mainstream TV audience


That's the bit that always puzzled me about his Little Miss Britten routine: surely hardly anyone in a mainstream TV audience would have had a clue who he was poking fun at?

It is well known, however, that Ben himself was mortified by it! So I suppose I shouldn't find it funny... but I do!


----------



## FranzSchubert

I've always seen Brahms as developing the autonomous side of Beethoven's legacy and Wagner as developing the programmatic. Very general and very crude, but I think I read somewhere that Brahms saw himself as Beethoven's heir...


----------



## jkatebi

beethoven is flying .brahms is sitting


----------



## eljr

Mykul said:


> It's always good to hear from people who describe themselves as "non musicians". Sometimes it's good for all of us to understand how people who are not so directly involved in performing can just stand back and music. My father was one of these people too.


i like to consider myself one of the world's great "appreciaters"of music, no talent at doing anything more than enjoying sound


----------



## Ethereality

_Message deleted._


----------



## LAS

I'd love to hear someone comment on their orchestration. That is, the choice of instruments and harmonies that lets you frequently identify a Beethoven piece after hearing only one or two measures. Like when you're driving. Brahms, not so much.


----------



## pianozach

SixFootScowl said:


> Interesting. Now can you characterize Mendelssohn in that framework of drift and drive.
> 
> BTW, drift and drive accurately describes my first car, a '64 Dodge Dart, as I drove it home the first time because the steering box was loose and had to be bolted back down. :lol:
> No please, don't go off topic, just that the association was so strong I had to note it.


I find it very amusing that my first car was _also_ a 1964 Dodge Dart GT. Push-button transmission on the dashboard. 225 cu. in. engine. Red with a white stripe running down each side, with a chrome border.


----------



## brahmsderonincourt

Xisten267 said:


> Listening to Brahms's 3rd in the remastered performance below for the first time gave me several goosebumps some months ago. Perhaps it could change your perception of the composer? Follows as a suggestion.


Karajan, my wayward son...


----------



## Rogerx

brahmsderonincourt said:


> Karajan, my wayward son...


Please explain this a bit more please, welcome by the way.


----------



## brahmsderonincourt

It's actually a punning reference to a 1977 hit song by the rock band Kansas, "Carry On, My Wayward Son."

Seriously, Herbert von Karajan is a fantastic conductor, particularly of the 19th century repertoire. His Schubert symphony cycle is by far my favorite for this composer, the Ninth or "Great" Symphony especially. Its drive and exuberance throughout are incomparable.


----------



## Malx

The difference between Beethoven and Brahms - its clearly the vowels


----------



## hammeredklavier

SixFootScowl said:


> I don't know enough about Brahms, but that a listen to his four symphonies did not impress me, whereas Mendelssohn symphonies really grabbed me. One TC member suggested a similarity between Mendelssohn's first and Beethoven's symphonies.


The similarities between Schumann and Brahms (which are just as apparent, if not more, as those of Beethoven and Brahms imv) are also not much discussed for some reason.


----------



## neoshredder

Brahms was a bigger challenge. Beethoven was much more accessible in the first listen.


----------



## Art Rock

neoshredder said:


> Brahms was a bigger challenge. Beethoven was much more accessible in the first listen.


Agreed. Also, in the long run I found Brahms far more satisfying to listen to than Beethoven (who was my favourite composer the first few years).


----------



## pianozach

Art Rock said:


> Agreed. Also, in the long run I found Brahms far more satisfying to listen to than Beethoven (who was my favourite composer the first few years).


I'd say that's a normal evolution. Beethoven's great, but if you want to take it to another level, there's Brahms.


----------



## Kreisler jr

Which Brahms piece takes it "to another level" (in the sense of being somehow better not different) than Beethoven and in which way? The only pieces where I'd agree to such a statement are the piano concertos but there I am not sure it's a good thing to have symphonic behemoths as piano concertos (although I am quite fond of them!)


----------



## pianozach

Kreisler jr said:


> Which Brahms piece takes it "to another level" (in the sense of being somehow better not different) than Beethoven and in which way? The only pieces where I'd agree to such a statement are the piano concertos but there I am not sure it's a good thing to have symphonic behemoths as piano concertos (although I am quite fond of them!)


Here's a simplistic answer: *Beethoven* was a transitional composer, bridging the Classical and Romantic periods of music. *Brahms* could be thought of as a transitional figure between the Romantic and Modernist eras. 

I'm not saying one is "better" than the other. The music itself evolved.


----------



## Xisten267

Art Rock said:


> Agreed. Also, in the long run I found Brahms far more satisfying to listen to than Beethoven (who was my favourite composer the first few years).


To each their own. Beethoven has always been my favorite composer, and although in the long run I've also come to greatly admire Brahms, I still prefer the master of Bonn.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think "transitional" is one of the most misleading characterizations of Beethoven I could think of. For this to make sense, there would have to be lots of pieces of Beethoven that were somehow immature, "lesser" versions or "germs" of later music. I struggle to think of more than a few (and mostly minor) pieces that could plausibly be seen that way. The "An die Ferne Geliebte" song cycle, maybe some of the bagatelles and maybe Fidelio (although I think that one is too unique and the singspiel-elements are integral, it would be a totally different piece as a proto-Wagnerian musical drama).
None of Beethoven's mature symphonies, concerti, piano sonatas, string quartets or most other chamber music seems "transitional". (I could live with someone calling the Bflat major piano concerto or a bunch of early sonatas "transitional" but not towards Schumann or Brahms, rather towards middle Beethoven.) There are dozens of superlative exemplars and the following three generations of instrumental composers mostly struggled to compose anything close in consistency, quality and dramatic expression. (With some exceptions (like Brahms) they usually fared best when they did something totally different from Beethoven like Chopin or Wagner.)


----------



## larold

In a nutshell Beethoven was ahead of his time and Brahms behind his. Beethoven was a romantic growing up in classical times who constantly stretched the boundaries of forms, instruments and voices. He felt trapped by the five octave range of the fortepiano of his day; you can hear it in the finale of his final piano sonata where the right hand constantly tinkles at the top of its range, wanting to go higher.

Brahms spent his whole life using old forms from as far back as the Renaissance in the height of late romanticism. His Fourth Symphony is a perfect example using sonata format, passacaglia and other traditional forms throughout. He wrote that 1885 the same year as Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody 19 and Mephisto Waltz, Franck's Les Djinns, Grieg's Holberg Suite and Bruckner's Seventh Symphony, all more forward-looking compositions.

The _Brahms came from Beethoven_ idea springs from thinking his First Symphony is the Beethoven Tenth. That may have been true had not Brahms destroyed everything he wrote until about age 40 when he finally published a symphony. We really have no idea what Brahms was as a teenager and we know Beethoven was already on his way to becoming a romantic.

To hear Brahms the romantic listen to his melancholy music, in particular the *Alto Rhapsody*. He wrote this in heartbreak when his beloved Clara Wieck married Robert Schumann. It still uses classical forms and avoids any excess of romanticism. Brahms the composer was trapped by the past.


----------



## pianozach

Kreisler jr said:


> I think "transitional" is one of the most misleading characterizations of Beethoven I could think of. For this to make sense, there would have to be lots of pieces of Beethoven that were somehow immature, "lesser" versions or "germs" of later music. I struggle to think of more than a few (and mostly minor) pieces that could plausibly be seen that way. The "An die Ferne Geliebte" song cycle, maybe some of the bagatelles and maybe Fidelio (although I think that one is too unique and the singspiel-elements are integral, it would be a totally different piece as a proto-Wagnerian musical drama).
> None of Beethoven's mature symphonies, concerti, piano sonatas, string quartets or most other chamber music seems "transitional". (I could live with someone calling the Bflat major piano concerto or a bunch of early sonatas "transitional" but not towards Schumann or Brahms, rather towards middle Beethoven.) There are dozens of superlative exemplars and the following three generations of instrumental composers mostly struggled to compose anything close in consistency, quality and dramatic expression. (With some exceptions (like Brahms) they usually fared best when they did something totally different from Beethoven like Chopin or Wagner.)


I qualified my brief answer with a caveat that it was a _simplified_ explanation. To have expanded for the sake of completeness would have been futile, as there are those that would dispute any (and likely every) detail. Besides, the evolution of Classical Music is messy at best, at chaos at worst.

But, yes, *Beethoven* _is_ a *transitional* composer, especially when you compare him to other well known and respected composers. * Mozart, Haydn, Chopin*, and *Brahms* all stayed in their lanes, although Haydn is still considered the Father of the String Quartet; but Haydn was right out of the gate with that, so although he helped the string quartet evolve, he himself as a composer didn't evolve much, at least not to the extent that Beethoven did.

But consider *Beethoven's Symphony No. 1*, which has its feet planted firmly in the Classical era. Then compare with *Symphony No. 3*, a monumental evolution of the sound palette and often credited as the beginning of the Romantic era. Then compare *3* and *5* with *No. 9* and the *Grosse Fuge*.

I may be mistaken, but the simplistic trope of Brahms being an extended Beethoven has some merit.

So, *Beethoven*, *Brahms*, and *Stravinsky*. Transitional.


----------



## Highwayman

larold said:


> To hear Brahms the romantic listen to his melancholy music, in particular the *Alto Rhapsody*. He wrote this in heartbreak when his beloved Clara Wieck married Robert Schumann.


Brahms must have been very mature for his age as he was only 4 years old when Clara and Robert got married.


----------



## EvaBaron

Highwayman said:


> Brahms must have been very mature for his age as he was only 4 years old when Clara and Robert got married.


Well actually he was 7 but I get your point


----------



## Ethereality

Kreisler jr said:


> Which Brahms piece takes it "to another level" (in the sense of being somehow better not different) than Beethoven and in which way? The only pieces where I'd agree to such a statement are the piano concertos but there I am not sure it's a good thing to have symphonic behemoths as piano concertos (although I am quite fond of them!)


That's the thing. It's not which way, but in just about every way. Not saying there's a very big talent difference however, or that one should agree with our conclusion. But in terms of composition development, Beethoven may have been better at transition aspects and Brahms at unification ones, though this specifically might not help you.


----------



## pianozach

Ethereality said:


> That's the thing. It's not which way, but in just about every way. Not saying there's a very big talent difference however, or that one should agree with us admirers.


I feel like we're giving a free Music Appreciation course


----------

