# The Innovation of Bach and Brahms



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

My dear, dear readers. Hello. How are you? Yeah, all right, I'm talking now.

In the course of the ensuing question that is to follow after a number of clauses that shall proceed once this sub-sentence has come to an end, I shall make a small number of crass generalisations which I hope my esteemed colleagues here shall help me develop into a fuller understanding of the issue at hand.

As I understand it, both Bach and Brahms are usually classed as perfectors rather than innovators, so far as only one label can be applied. Rather than pushing forms and musical language in the manner of a Wagner, they used their still-unique compositional styles to instead push existing structures and idioms to their intricate, artistic zeniths.

However, it is also the case that this is much, much more often seen to be a flaw in Brahms than it is with Bach. What's your guess as to why this is the case?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Probably because Brahms didn't improve upon the classical forms any more than Beethoven already did, whereas Bach is known today as _the_ master of baroque polyphony.

I'm wondering where you get the idea that Brahms is criticized more than Bach though. Brahms has always been recognized as a master composer...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Probably because Brahms didn't improve upon the classical forms any more than Beethoven already did, whereas Bach is known today as _the_ master of baroque polyphony.
> 
> I'm wondering where you get the idea that Brahms is criticized more than Bach though. Brahms has always been recognized as a master composer...


I'm not saying that Brahms is a criticised composer; I'm saying that when it comes to a discussion of the relative innovation of Bach and Brahms, Bach is considered "the master" as you said (still not an innovator), whereas Brahms is often compared negatively to the likes of Wagner.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2011)

Bach was criticized as much or more than Brahms, at one time. And pretty well neglected too for quite some time. Brahms I don't think has ever been neglected.

He probably seems to be criticized more than Bach, to us, because he came quite a bit later than Bach, whose position was pretty much secure by then.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think there would be many good reasons for this. A few that I would like to mention are based on the historical circumstances of both these folks.

One is that very few of Bach's music were actually published during his life, very few indeed compared with the size of his whole oeuvre. His music was known and circulated by written / copied score primarily via his sons and small group of good students. He spent the last 27 years of his life at the Leipzig Thomasschule, which was just a school, and his other main role there was to supply church music to local churchs. (He had a large family to support and it's obvious that working 27 years as a school employee had pragmatic family reasons). The point is that wide circulation of his music as an "international composer" by publishing and filling up concert theatres and opera houses with his music (e.g. like Handel, Hasse, Bononcini, Porpora, the Grauns, Quantz etc.) was not his career motif. It had to take a while for his music to reach a much wider readership (Mozart and Beethoven came to knew of Bach's music in similar circumstances, via the Imperial librarian Baron van Swieten by manuscript). And Bach being Bach, once his music fell into great hands, they knew they were reading top quality music.

Brahms published much more of his music, and was a composer whose artistic motif was like many, many others. Writing, publishing and holding concerts to entertain and to fill up concerts. It was much easier for his music to be circulated, say composing and performing the _A German Requiem_, as opposed to Bach who wrote his _B minor Mass_ as a summa of his own art. When one's music is well circulated/known, it's easier for apparent critisicms to come, or at least history might perceive it that way. Bach's oeuvre had to be discovered and appreciated within circles, slowly (relatively speaking), while Brahms' (and his great contemporaries) didn't need to take that route, by and large, since their deaths. The rest is history to 2011.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Because Bach is God and infallible, while Brahms is but a mere mortal... and quakes even before the great Wagner let alone the shadow of *God almighty!!!*


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Adding on to Harpsichord Concerto's comments there, that I really agree with:

Bach's music was simply more refined than Brahms. Now don't get me wrong, as if I mean that Brahms was no good, as if Brahms was not a perfecter, and as if Brahms wasn't an outstanding musical genius too. The difference in refinement between the two is that Brahms music was based in his own stake on and influences from the classical German tradition (Lutheran melodic, orchestral, and instrumentation influences, operatic Italian melodies, that old French psaltry and clavier hauteur from composers like Rameau, and Brahm's beloved peasant music) while Bach exhaustively perfected the Lutheran tradition to it's zeniths. A little Lully, some influence from Bertali and the like, but mainly Buxtehude, Pachelbel, Ockeghem, and the Lutheran hymns, were what he drew from. Brahms was a well rounded composer with a depth of study in the different melodic and orchestral traditions, but Bach was more deeply in touch with his roots. When Brahms wrote his masterworks, they was more secular and beauty grasping in nature, as opposed to Bach's Chorales that were made with their basis specifically in mind.

Take this Chorale as an example: Choralbearbeitung - Von Gott will ich nicht lassen
f-moll BWV 658
aus den Leipziger Chorälen (BWV 651-668)

It means "I will not forsake the Lord". The melody of this chorale came from the love song "Es gibt auf Erd kein schewer Leid". This piece was another reflection of Bach's love for the Song of Songs ("And his banner over me was love"), with the melody it was based upon and it's dancing subject. This is a religious devotion of the most exquisite execution and sentimental basis.






Just listen to the counter-subject in the right hand, hear it crooning when it breaks in with incomplete statements. The ending is ecstatic and beautiful, all the more because of it's basis in the Song of Songs.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

some guy said:


> Bach was criticized as much or more than Brahms, at one time. And pretty well neglected too for quite some time. Brahms I don't think has ever been neglected.
> 
> He probably seems to be criticized more than Bach, to us, because he came quite a bit later than Bach, whose position was pretty much secure by then.


What I'd add is that Bach* needed *cultists and proseletyzers to get his reputation back on track. This may explain why at least on these classical forums online Bach has many people who kind of make monuments to him. They worship him as they seem to be stuck in 1900 or something. It's a great thing Bach was revived, it's a win-win situation on all fronts, but guys, lighten up, you don't need to advertise the Bach brand anymore, it's selling itself of it's own accord. It's music, not ideology, not religion.

By contrast, Brahms didn't need to be revived, he was not only a "composer's composer" like Bach was for huge chunks of time after his death. Brahms was popular and admired across the board pretty much, as far as I can tell, from his time until now.

Another composer who is monumentalised is Wagner. Surprising? He's another composer whose reputation has waxed and waned since his death, largely due to political reasons. But unlike Wagner, a lot of who my friends detest (I don't hate him, I just don't like opera, esp. long ones, that's the root cause of it), Bach is pretty much universally admired across the board, by listeners, musicians, musicologists, etc. alike. No-one I know personally hates Bach or even Brahms, but plenty of people can't stand Wagner. Apart from his tendency to long-windedness, he was not a very nice man (but then again, neither was Debussy, as far as we know, & Brahms had a tongue that could be as caustic as acid, a snake's tongue).

In short, I do not negate the genius of all of these guys. I don't really like to dissect composer's legacies into "conservatives" and "innovators." This kind of distinction, how we see these things, changes over time. Most composers valued Bach's legacy, as that of Brahms, but a few did not. Harry Partch, the USA microtonal composer of the c20th, didn't have much time for Bach and disagreed with the direction things like equal temperament tuning took music. He found it restrictive like a straightjacket. But Partch didn't like much of what happened in music between Bach and Schoenberg. He had equal disdain of what he saw as the strictures of serialism. Of course, composers now don't have to give a toss about anyone if they're not interested in them, whether it be Bach, Brahms, Beethoven, Wagner, Debussy or anyone else. Many of the trends post-1945 have very little to do with any of these guys, although all composers working today would have a good knowledge of the traditional techniques. You have to know the rules in order to break them, someone said (I think it may have been Picasso, who himself could draw photographically as a teenager, and departed from the photo-realistic style once he started his career proper). But many composers now are more interested in engaging with other things that have come up since 1945, not before. To many of these guys, Brahms is like a dinosaur, let alone Bach (in terms of aping them, anyway).

Funny that on the forum I left, these Bach-worshippers have a distorted view of what's important and what's not in musical history. Eg. there might be like a 100 page thread devoted to some relatively obscure composer on this forum, but maybe only less, or much less than, 20 pages devoted to some major composers of the c20th. Of course, Bach probably gets the most pages, as does Wagner, worship of these is mandatory for "legitimacy" in these places. I won't make any further comment, but I'm glad that this forum is not such a limited and limiting place, there is far more diversity here, of both tastes and opinions...


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Sid James said:


> . . . *It's music, not ideology, not religion . . .*


Music is very serious business, man.

Behold:


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Oh no, here we go again. Anyway, I got this album below by pianist Francesco Tristano, which proves you CAN put Bach and Cage on the same program, and it can be as engaging and interesting as a more traditional program or approach. It's not the musicians who make distinctions between so-called "conservative" and "innovative," it's the fans and groupies whose heads are stuck way in the past. Fortunately, with a market for these kinds of ways of putting old and new together, the groupies are out in the cold, imo, their dated ideologies exposed by commonsense...


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^Oh no, here we go again. Anyway, I got this album below by pianist Francesco Tristano, which proves you CAN put Bach and Cage on the same program, and it can be as engaging and interesting as a more traditional program or approach. It's not the musicians who make distinctions between so-called "conservative" and "innovative," it's the fans and groupies whose heads are stuck way in the past. Fortunately, with a market for these kinds of ways of putting old and new together, the groupies are out in the cold, imo, their dated ideologies exposed by commonsense...


More importantly, is that a guy or a girl?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ _His_ name is Francesco as I said, to answer your question (obvious?). Would be better if you'd address what I was saying in my posts above. I am just as critical of hard core Modernist ideologues whose heads are stuck in the 1960's, they did/do no credit for contemporary music by alienating people who are in the middle ground with their rubbish vitriol, like the majority of listeners in my experience. I don't like ideology full stop. One must admit that Bach and Wagner do tend to draw in certain groupies for some reasons. This is part of the issue that Polednice's questions raised in my mind. I give them their due as composers but I have not much time for groupies, ideologues, dogmatists, people who force their canons onto others (but won't admit their obvious biases, the flaws in their arguments, etc.). I just put such a person on this forum onto my ignore list, the only one who I've done that to for a long time now...


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Sid James said:


> Most composers valued Bach's legacy, as that of Brahms, but a few did not. Harry Partch, the USA microtonal composer of the c20th, didn't have much time for Bach and disagreed with the direction things like equal temperament tuning took music... Partch didn't like much of what happened in music between Bach and Schoenberg. He had equal disdain of what he saw as the strictures of serialism... Many of the trends post-1945 have very little to do with any of these guys, although all composers working today would have a good knowledge of the traditional techniques... But many composers now are more interested in engaging with other things that have come up since 1945, not before.


What I find interesting is that Bach's influence seems to be, with the exception of a few Romantic-era composers like Mendelssohn, most direct on 20th century music, for example the Second Viennese School, rather than the generation immediately following his death. Schoenberg himself often said that Bach was the "first twelve-tone composer", and though he retracted this statement several times, there is definitely some truth to this. Many of the serialists studied Bach extensively. Rosalyn Tureck herself, Queen of Bach on the keyboard, was directed by her teacher Schoenberg to Bach. And she remained staunchly convinced of a connection between these two composers all her life. There's quite a bit of truth to this, in fact, and even for the ear of the common listener. Stark quasi-twelve-tone rows and near-atonal moments pop up all over the place in Bach's oeuvre, and in the _Well-Tempered Clavier_ not the least.

In this sense, I believe that Bach's influence has extended across the 20th century significantly more than Mozart and Haydn, and maybe even Beethoven. The example of Partch shows maybe a disregard for earlier periods, but this is in no way isolated to Bach. I am sure that Partch had a pretty solid grounding in the music of earlier composers, yet he simply felt no need to idolize them. He, more so than many others, found a unique place in the musical world and cared more about "ground breaking" than simply "ground building".

As for Brahms, I believe he was quite revered by Schoenberg and his disciples as a "progressive" composer too. I find this quote by the latter a good summary of his views on the former:



> "Progress in music consists in the development of methods of presentation which correspond to the conditions just discussed. It is the purpose of this essay to prove that Brahms, the classicist, the academician, was a great innovator in the realm of musical language, that, in fact, he was a great progressive."


Among other things, Schoenberg praised the general asymmetry of Brahms' music, which he believed opened up the door to an unrestricted musical language that was structurally freer. He also pointed to the fact that Brahms never neglected "developing variation", preventing his music from monotony and repetition, a trait that the Viennese school was known for accusing composers like Debussy of doing.

None of this criticism should be taken as law of course, but it reveals quite a bit about how many 20th century composers viewed both Bach and Brahms as progressives, not conservatives. I tend to uphold this view as a bit more balanced than what their contemporaries were saying about them in their time - Brahms especially, in the face of Wagner and Liszt. But as HC said, as time continues on, history's continual process of evaluation is better able to give both of these composers the true credit that they deserve.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Air said:


> ...I am sure that Partch had a pretty solid grounding in the music of the earlier periods, yet he simply felt no need to idolize them...


I agree, we can understand or value something without idolising it, but more importantly there is no need to elevate one thing and put in the trash bin the other.



> ...
> Among other things, Schoenberg praised the general asymmetry of Brahms' music, which he believed opened up the door to an unrestricted musical language that was structurally freer. He also pointed to the fact that Brahms never neglected "developing variation", preventing sound from monotony and repetition, a trait that the modern school accused composers like Debussy of doing...


Thanks for pointing out these facts, which are well known, as is the fact that Schoenberg was a Wagnerite, he saw all of the operas many times over when he was in Europe. Schoenberg bought together the strands of music until that time, whichi included Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Wagner and many others.



> ...
> None of this criticism should be taken as the law of course, but it reveals quite a bit about how many 20th century composers viewed both Bach and Brahms as progressives, not conservatives. I tend to uphold this view as a bit more balanced than what their contemporaries were saying about them in their time - Brahms especially, in the face of Wagner and Liszt. But as HC said, as time continued on, history's continual process of evaluation was able to finally give both of these composers the credit they were due.


I agree it's all fluid but I would say that all composers have some degree of innovation and conservatism and sometimes it's hard to say which is which. Eg. in the case of Harry Partch, he was the first to construct these instruments similar to ancient Greek ones - kytheras, these harp like plucked things, but he added many more strings - so is he rehashing old things, or doing new things? Hard to tell, really it's both, tradition + innovation = art...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> What I find interesting is that Bach's influence seems to be, with the exception of a few Romantic-era composers like Mendelssohn, most direct on 20th century music, for example the Second Viennese School, rather than the generation immediately following his death. Schoenberg himself often said that Bach was the "first twelve-tone composer", and though he retracted this statement several times, there is definitely some truth to this. Many of the serialists studied Bach extensively. Rosalyn Tureck herself, Queen of Bach on the keyboard, was directed by her teacher Schoenberg to Bach. And she remained staunchly convinced of a connection between these two composers all her life. There's quite a bit of truth to this, in fact, and even for the ear of the common listener. Stark quasi-twelve-tone rows and near-atonal moments pop up all over the place in Bach's oeuvre, and in the Well-Tempered Clavier not the least.
> 
> In this sense, I believe that Bach's influence has extended across the 20th century significantly more than Mozart and Haydn, and maybe even Beethoven. The example of Partch shows maybe a disregard for earlier periods, but this is in no way isolated to Bach. I am sure that Partch had a pretty solid grounding in the music of earlier composers, yet he simply felt no need to idolize them. He, more so than many others, found a unique place in the musical world and cared more about "ground breaking" than simply "ground building".


Just listen to Feinberg's music, and compare the fugues towards the end of his of the final movement in his third piano sonata, with Feinberg's playing of the fugue from the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Lukecash12 said:


> Just listen to Feinberg's music, and compare the fugues towards the end of his of the final movement in his third piano sonata, with Feinberg's playing of the fugue from the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue.


Will do it right now. :tiphat:


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Even better example of Bach, that sounds almost like Busoni:






Check it out at 0:40.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

And so you don't have to hunt for that Feinberg reference:






I was referring to the vivace that starts at 0:47.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> Even better example of Bach, that sounds almost like Busoni:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I really like Ulmann. I have a recording of all his piano sonatas. But he definitely reminded me of modern Bach in some respects.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

Brahms seems like he was his own worst critic! - he destroyed/did'nt publish many works which he though were not good enough?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Typically long winded, rambling post that infuses personal philosophical opinions about other members in other forums, "virtues" of balance etc. and a lot of talk about oneself, rather than a succint account of the thread's topic.


HarpsichordConcerto, that was mean.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hate to be a cynic, but really I can't help it. I think one of the main reasons Brahms is criticized more often than Bach is that champions of a few other composers - especially Schumann, Wagner and Tchaikovsky - see him as unfairly elevated over their favorites, so they aim to take him down. 

Bach faces no such competition or criticism because there are too few champions of Telemann, Handel, Vivaldi or whoever.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I agree with your argument in general - eg. some people like to elevate one composer and accordingly demote another in turn. It's part of this whole obsession with ranking one composer against the other. I'd say that such people who elevate one composer (or style or "cause" or whatever) and demote/devalue another are not really doing much (if anything) to promote that cause. On the contrary, they are actually doing damage to their cause.

Any "hard core" ideologue ends up having his day. We can recite the things now dead as a dodo, eg. one closer to us is the post-1945 "total serialist" ideology which devalued and shut out various composers who they saw as not being the "real deal" (even if such composers incorporated a modified form of serialism into their techniques). Near enough wasn't good enough, it had to be total adulation to the serial dogma, it had to be worship. Then when plurality became more and more common, from the late 1960's on, these dogmas were shown up to be not helpful but detrimental to the general cause of contemporary music (whether or not it's serial).

So basically, what I've had here recently being an example, is the attitude that unless (for example) you don't listen to his _Mass in B Minor_, you can't "understand" J.S. Bach or sentiments to that effect. Despite Bach's _Double Violin Concerto _being the sole piece that has moved me to tears when hearing it live. Near enough isn't good enough, you have to be a total convert to Bach, you have to listen to his longer works, all the others don't pass muster one little bit. This is just ideology not commonsense.

& funny how with Brahms, his fans here like Polednice don't do this, he's happy to discuss Brahms, no matter virtually what work a person less focused/experted in him is getting into. That's my impression. I think Polednice knows that I have got a disc of _A German Requiem _but I have yet to listen to it. But it is "good enough" that a few weeks back I was deeply moved by a performance of a chamber work by Brahms. He accepts that I like what I like by Brahms, I connect with what I connect with, I find certain things more accessible and less daunting or heavy than others. That's just my preference, nothing more, nothing less.

As I said, it seems that people who worship certain composers do it to the detriment of the cause they claim to be fighting. People hate ideology and personal canons rammed down their throats. It seems to me that the more deeper certain people get into a certain thing, they advocate it so passionately, that they don't realise that they've kind of taken on behaviours that repel and don't attract possible converts to the appreciation of these composers.

Having said that, musicians or former musicians that I know and/or have met tend not to exhibit these extreme hard core "groupie" behaviours. They know the difference between promoting something by eg. simply playing it and getting it out there, exposing it to the public, etc. and making it become a kind of religion, which is not very desirable, imo...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

science said:


> Hate to be a cynic, but really I can't help it. I think one of the main reasons Brahms is criticized more often than Bach is that champions of a few other composers - especially Schumann, Wagner and Tchaikovsky - see him as unfairly elevated over their favorites, so they aim to take him down.
> 
> Bach faces no such competition or criticism because there are too few champions of Telemann, Handel, Vivaldi or whoever.


Possibly. But then you could suggest that Schumann is criticised more than Bach, Wagner is criticised more than Bach, Tchaikovsky is criticised more than Bach etc. Does this imply that Bach is such an established giant; giant of the giants, that comparisons with him don't do much (other than making sure that comparisons are sensible to begin with)?

That was why I offered a historical perspective that suggested their circumstances; their professional careers, idioms and periods in which Bach and Brahms belonged, that helped propagate a significant amount of criticism or relatively lack of, over history especially from the not so many years after their respective deaths.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I've had fun reading your comments on this question - all of them quite insightful, and, I imagine, all being a part answer to the question.

I haven't done a tremendous amount of reading of academic critical texts of Brahms, so perhaps this unbalanced critique of Bach and Brahms's respective innovation is more an opinion of hardcore fans (thus Sid James' comments about ideologues), rather than a musicological consensus.

This historical perspective has made me want to ask another question to enlighten B&B's circumstances a bit more. As I understand it, a central point here is that music served very different functions in the composers' respective periods. I'm not that well-acquainted with Bach, not being a Baroque lover, but his music generally served a more practical use in a Church setting which he happened to infuse with the mastery we know him for. With Brahms, however, composers were much more conscious of writing music _as art_ ("art for art's sake"), and so there began to be an impetus to intellectualise and revolutionise musical language in line with certain ideologies.

Do you think this is a fair description? Music since Bach but before the Romantic period certainly evolved, but do you think it was a natural evolution which came about purely through the course of many different composers' styles, some more successful than others, as opposed to the evolution of music since the Romantic period which we could perhaps argue was more deliberate and constructed with evolution in mind?


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

Brahms just turned over in his crypt. Brahms and Wagner were two very different rallying points for music lovers of the day - Wagner the 'Modern' and Brahms the 'Conservative' - people were actually passionate about which 'camp' they were in - would that people were so passionate about classical music today (in r/t as opposed to online, of course). It's hard to imagine walking into the local diner/Starbucks and overhear a rambunctious conversation on the relative merits of Brahms versus Wagner.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

At first it would seem that the socio-economic factors might be more significant than merely the time periods in which the various composers lived. With the exception of the privileged few (Mendelssohn, Saint-Saens(?), Poulenc - and a few others I can't recall at the moment), most of the composers were forced, to some degree, to "follow the money".

What brought in the money (aristocratic sponsorship in earlier eras, conducting, performing, royalties later on) might have differed from time to time and place to place, but it was not an insignificant factor in the music created. 

Why was Elgar in his forties, for example, when his First Symphony was written? Because, he couldn't afford to do it any earlier. The money in England in his era was in choral music more than anything else, and until the fortuitous and somewhat whimsical creation of the Enigma Variations, no one was going to pay to publish or to go to a performance of an Elgar symphony.

Brahms put off his own First Symphony because, if we can believe the reports, he 'heard the giant footsteps of Beethoven behind him'. But, to some degree, I think he also needed first to secure his livelihood by producing stuff that sold before he could indulge himself in writing a symphony.

Just a guess....

But, at any rate, I don't think it was only musicians of the eighteenth and earlier centuries that were impacted by economic factors. Few musicians of any era really starved in a garret. They made some kind of a living, usually in a music-related field. (Borodin was an exception - he was a chemist  ).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

This historical perspective has made me want to ask another question to enlighten B&B's circumstances a bit more. As I understand it, a central point here is that music served very different functions in the composers' respective periods. I'm not that well-acquainted with Bach, not being a Baroque lover, but his music generally served a more practical use in a Church setting which he happened to infuse with the mastery we know him for. With Brahms, however, composers were much more conscious of writing music as art ("art for art's sake"), and so there began to be an impetus to intellectualise and revolutionise musical language in line with certain ideologies.

I think there is a great degree of truth to this. What you speak of was equally true of the visual arts... and to a degree, to literature as well. In the visual arts the medieval artist never thought of himself as an "artist" is the modern sense. He was a master craftsman. His goal was not self-expression... but more often praise and communication of something higher than himself... commonly God. This should not be thought of being less intellectually rigorous. These craftsmen were well aware of the tradition in which they worked and the finest pushed the limits of the artistic language involved. Ultimately, the intentions are irrelevant. The craftsmen who designed Chartres Cathedral painted the Book of Kells... or in Bach's case, wrote endless cantatas to serve weekly worship services are every bit the artist as the later self-conscious artist who painted or composed music with the clear intention of creating art.

In some ways I think the post-Romantic notion of the artist: the self-aware, self-expressive, visionary philosopher and voice of the culture, has resulted in placing an immense weight upon the individual. Bach was a master craftsman... but he need not torture himself over his genius and creativity. Only God was a creator, after all, and so whatever creativity Bach (or an earlier artist) brought to his art was simply the result of God speaking through him. All that could be asked was that he do his best as a master craftsman. Brahms, on the other hand, as the self-aware artist, tortured himself endlessly... second guessing and reworking his efforts. The shadow of Beethoven loomed heavily over him. I suspect that this later self-conscious mind-set is in part responsible to the fact that we find few artists or composers as prolific as Bach, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart. An exception in the visual arts, would be Picasso, who was a veritable force of nature, like Bach or Michelangelo. He was unique in that he almost approached art like a child... doing whatever came to mind with little or no second thoughts. If it worked, fine. If not, who cares? He was already on to the next work. In a sense Bach and Haydn worked under similar constraints. If this week's cantata fell a bit short or this week's symphony for the Friday night entertainment wasn't quite up to snuff, screw it! We're already on to next week's project and we can always go back and salvage what was best and reuse it if we desire. It is intriguing that the constant pressure to produce a product... rather than spending endless months staring at one's navel and waiting for inspiration to arrive... whether we are talking Bach or Haydn or Rubens or Shakespeare... resulted in such towering achievements. This is, perhaps a loss as the result of music and art no longer having a clear practical purpose in our culture beyond being "ART".


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Polednice said:


> This historical perspective has made me want to ask another question to enlighten B&B's circumstances a bit more. As I understand it, a central point here is that music served very different functions in the composers' respective periods. I'm not that well-acquainted with Bach, not being a Baroque lover, but his music generally served a more practical use in a Church setting which he happened to infuse with the mastery we know him for. With Brahms, however, composers were much more conscious of writing music _as art_ ("art for art's sake"), and so there began to be an impetus to intellectualise and revolutionise musical language in line with certain ideologies.
> 
> Do you think this is a fair description? Music since Bach but before the Romantic period certainly evolved, but do you think it was a natural evolution which came about purely through the course of many different composers' styles, some more successful than others, as opposed to the evolution of music since the Romantic period which we could perhaps argue was more deliberate and constructed with evolution in mind?


I think you have raised a very good point there about the intentions of Bach and Brahms, and their respective roles in music's evolution; whether or not it was a conscious artistic goal when they committed their quills to sheet.

Again, from a historical perspective, Bach was undoubtedly the first major composer who wrote music for pragmatic purposes in mind (the majority of it, as part of his job), AND music to fulfil his personal creative sphere on very high levels of musical and intellectual senses, indeed. As evidence, the latter tended to be the few pieces of music he bothered to publish and also expended much compositional effort that did not serve any practical purpose in mind, for example _Mass in B minor, Musical Offering_ (except the trio sonata section), and _Art of Fugue_. Because he was the first of the greats who bothered to summarise art for art's sake; actually, _his_ art for art's sake, and to provide models for others to study and to build on, his unique place in history lend itself almost naturally to a relatively lack of criticism.

By the time your favourite came along, the Romantic was well in full swing and music had well gone past the (by and large) "employee-writing-music-for-employer" relation, that composers as part of the Romantic movement felt that it was part of the Romantic idiom to be freed of and to develop / evolve it, consciously so. Opera was being heavily reformed. The symphony was getting longer and more complex, more weight was given to the endings, say. Chamber music could be as involved as symphonic pieces. Symphonic poems with extra non-musical associations were also new. It was already part of the Romantic idiom that urged composers to write what they wrote, and undoubtedly criticism would easily be drawn to Brahms, or in fact, to many others. Publishing the works and giving concerts, likewise.

I'm no musicologist, but just what I think from my own readings. StlukesguildOhio knows what I do for a living, which is very, very unmusical; except Xenakis tried to relate a major discipline of my profession to music, which I find a complete joke. So you see, when composers tried/try to write music for the sake of what you raised here, they were/are naturally more susceptible to be grilled, in the context of the period they belong(ed) to.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Brahms, on the other hand, as the self-aware artist, tortured himself endlessly... second guessing and reworking his efforts. The shadow of Beethoven loomed heavily over him. I suspect that this later self-conscious mind-set is in part responsible to the fact that we find few artists or composers as prolific as Bach, Handel, Haydn, and Mozart...


I get what you mean, but we shouldn't overestimate these things, imo. Brahms was self-critical, I agree. It was good in many ways, eg. he consulted his friend the violinist Joseph Joachim about for example refining his string writing & just for general feedback, etc. He was more consultative with musicians who he was writing for than what I know of Beethoven, who in response to the violinist Ignaz Schuppanzigh, who was complaining of the difficulty involved in playing the late string quartets, said "****** your f***ing fiddles!" So naturally Brahms would have taken more time to mull over specific details, he was a perfectionist.

With regards to your last sentence, Liszt was extremely prolific and his three idols were Schubert, Weber and Beethoven. He didn't worry about comparisons of his music with them, as far as I know. & he was very prolific and many of his works are of a high quality (but many still not readily available on record, like several of his masses, the ones of which I've heard are superb, and nothing like his other famous things). So I think what you're saying kind of depends on many factors, incl. personality...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

What Polednice says makes me think that in some ways Bach was the "original" in terms of bringing together things until his point in time. Then Beethoven his successor in some ways, or one of his successors. His _Grosse Fuge _ & also the finale of the _Symphony #9 "Choral," _the _Hammerklavier_ sonata, etc. were a high point of his "lessons" from Bach and others from music before him, and in terms of being innovative and traditional at the same time. By the time Brahms came along, I think there was more to refine than to innovate in this Baroque-Classicist line of development towards the Late Romantic era of the Austro-Germanic tradition.

Joshua Bell has said that Brahms' _Violin Concerto _is THE concerto of the late c19th that brings together virtually every technique of it's time and before, it's like a one-stop-shop of violin technique, old and "new," or of it's time. & it has been influential, Philip Glass apparently used a similar or identical sized/combination orchestra for his own _Violin Concerto_ of the mid-1980's, which is no coincidence. Glass and his generation were taking music to a more simplified and pared down style, back to basics, eg. closer to the Classicism of Brahms than say the more colourful brashness & unbridled Romanticism of say Tchaikovsky (& indeed, Brahms and Tchaikovsky apparently had little time for eachother's music, they were basically polar opposites).

As for some of Brahms' innovations, they were discussed to some degree on THIS thread on similar issues which I set up a while back. Other "conservative" composers are discussed as well, incl. Bach...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> What Polednice says makes me think that in some ways Bach was the "original" in terms of bringing together things until his point in time. Then Beethoven his successor in some ways, or one of his successors. His _Grosse Fuge _ & also the finale of the _Symphony #9 "Choral," _the _Hammerklavier_ sonata, etc. were a high point of his "lessons" from Bach and others from music before him, and in terms of being innovative and traditional at the same time. By the time Brahms came along, I think there was more to refine than to innovate in this Baroque-Classicist line of development towards the Late Romantic era of the Austro-Germanic tradition.
> 
> Joshua Bell has said that Brahms' _Violin Concerto _is THE concerto of the late c19th that brings together virtually every technique of it's time and before, it's like a one-stop-shop of violin technique, old and "new," or of it's time. & it has been influential, Philip Glass apparently used a similar or identical sized/combination orchestra for his own _Violin Concerto_ of the mid-1980's, which is no coincidence. Glass and his generation were taking music to a more simplified and pared down style, back to basics, eg. closer to the Classicism of Brahms than say the more colourful brashness & unbridled Romanticism of say Tchaikovsky (& indeed, Brahms and Tchaikovsky apparently had little time for eachother's music, they were basically polar opposites).
> 
> As for some of Brahms' innovations, they were discussed to some degree on THIS thread on similar issues which I set up a while back. Other "conservative" composers are discussed as well, incl. Bach...


Tradition-wise, there doesn't seem to be any successors to Bach aside from those of the Bach family. Beethoven certainly didn't write music based off of Lutheran hymns. I have to wonder who was writing all of the cantatas in the Romantic era, because evidently it was no popular composer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Well commonsense is that there's the "three B's" - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms. There are strong links between them - as well as others - it's not necessarily a case of genre. Influence is not always like that, it's broader, it can be many things (even not necessarily technical but say philosophical or aesthetics, etc.). Schoenberg was greatly influenced and admired the music of Wagner and Brahms, he was mentored by R. Strauss & Mahler. But does Schoenberg's music have to resemble theirs in terms of genre for there to be a strong level of influence? Eg. did any of the other guys write something like_ Pierrot Lunaire_? That work is a combinations of tradition and innovation, "high" and "low" art (the cabaret). There's heaps of stuff from the past & the then present in that, yet none of the guys that Schoenberg looked up to would have composed anything like that in terms of genre, etc...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> ^^ Well commonsense is that there's the "three B's" - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms. There are strong links between them - as well as others - it's not necessarily a case of genre. Influence is not always like that, it's broader, it can be many things (even not necessarily technical but say philosophical or aesthetics, etc.). Schoenberg was greatly influenced and admired the music of Wagner and Brahms, he was mentored by R. Strauss & Mahler. But does Schoenberg's music have to resemble theirs in terms of genre for there to be a strong level of influence? Eg. did any of the other guys write something like_ Pierrot Lunaire_? That work is a combinations of tradition and innovation, "high" and "low" art (the cabaret). There's heaps of stuff from the past & the then present in that, yet none of the guys that Schoenberg looked up to would have composed anything like that in terms of genre, etc...


In that paragraph, you deal with some influential reaches with a sense of vagueness, and I'd like you to explain some of this to me. What did Beethoven get from Bach? What did Brahms get from Beethoven? They got some things from each other, but you and I don't seem to be conversing plainly and on the same level. Neither of our views seem to be contending with the other, and I'm really not interested in a back and forth soapbox session that doesn't even cite it's grounding.

How is Bach similar to Beethoven? Beethoven was not of the tradition of Lutheran church music, he didn't have the influences from French plsatery and clavier playing that Bach did, and the only bone I would throw you right now is that Beethoven obviously drew upon the WTC for technique and counterpoint, but not as much when it comes to form and melodic invention.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I don't think Beethoven was all that directly influenced by Bach. Sometimes you get the feeling that a work by Bach was the _inspiration _for a work by Beethoven, like the Chromatic Fantasy and the _Tempest_ Sonata, or the C minor Partita and the _Pathetique_ Sonata, but I don't see that as influence as such. It's more just, well, Beethoven playing Bach on the fortepiano one day and thinking, "I'll write a piece like that."


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

One of Brahms' innovations was his ability to conceal the bar lines in his music seamlessly.

Symphony No.3

In this example, it sounds like ONE-two-three-four-five-six when it is actually SIX-one-two-three-four-five. You'll see several other examples of this meter play in this movement (The movement opens with 6/4 time on the first beat, and the second theme is introduced on the second beat of 9/4 time for example).

He also was no conservative with regards to dissonance. Normally when I play piano, I "sight-analyze" the chords to help me learn the piece, but playing through his Op.79 No.1, the dizzying amount of augmented and diminished triads convinces me not to bother trying.  I usually don't have problems "sight-analyzing" early romantic music on the other hand.


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> ^^ Well commonsense is that there's the "three B's" - Bach, Beethoven, Brahms. There are strong links between them ...


im not so sure about a strong link between Jean Sebstian Bach and Louis v. Beethoven. Strong link between Haydn and early Beethoven yes very clear. But i would like to see clearer examples maybe.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

pjang23 said:


> One of Brahms' innovations was his ability to conceal the bar lines in his music seamlessly.
> 
> Symphony No.3
> 
> ...


Do you also sight-analyze Alkan?
[Not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious.]


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

HerlockSholmes said:


> Do you also sight-analyze Alkan?
> [Not being sarcastic. I'm genuinely curious.]


I haven't tried Alkan, as he is way beyond my technical abilities.  However, I usually don't have problems identifying chords in Schubert and Chopin as I play along (except for occasional secondary dominants).


----------



## Xytech (Apr 7, 2011)

pjang23 said:


> One of Brahms' innovations was his ability to conceal the bar lines in his music seamlessly.
> 
> Symphony No.3
> 
> In this example, it sounds like ONE-two-three-four-five-six when it is actually SIX-one-two-three-four-five. You'll see several other examples of this meter play in this movement (The movement opens with 6/4 time on the first beat, and the second theme is introduced on the second beat of 9/4 time for example).


I remember finding that out when I first started playing Brahms in orchestra. The thoughts that went through my head as I watched the strings, counted my 20 bars rest before coming in, and tried to make sense of what the conductor was doing, were akin to "What the hell is going on?!"...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

pjang23 said:


> One of Brahms' innovations was his ability to conceal the bar lines in his music seamlessly.
> 
> Symphony No.3
> 
> In this example, it sounds like ONE-two-three-four-five-six when it is actually SIX-one-two-three-four-five. You'll see several other examples of this meter play in this movement (The movement opens with 6/4 time on the first beat, and the second theme is introduced on the second beat of 9/4 time for example).


Innovation? That compositional element was being used in polyphonic church music like Ockeghem's, way before Bach. It was long before Brahms that they started composing musical phrases that didn't cut off or start according to the measures.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> ...How is Bach similar to Beethoven? Beethoven was not of the tradition of Lutheran church music, he didn't have the influences from French plsatery and clavier playing that Bach did, and the only bone I would throw you right now is that Beethoven obviously drew upon the *WTC* for technique and counterpoint, but not as much when it comes to form and melodic invention.


I think it's basically the WTC that looms large as an influence on Beethoven and many others (eg. Mozart studied, played WTC all the time). Handel's influence on LvB goes without saying, & I'm bringing this up because I'm a bit perplexed about what you allow as "influence." Eg. in terms of you saying not mixing genres, yes, neither Handel (or Bach) wrote the same things Beethoven or Brahms did (eg. symphonies, though they did write concertos, and all of them did choral works & keyboard works of some type), BUT then if you say we can't mix genres as you do here -



Lukecash12 said:


> Tradition-wise, there doesn't seem to be any successors to Bach aside from those of the Bach family. Beethoven certainly didn't write music based off of Lutheran hymns. I have to wonder who was writing all of the cantatas in the Romantic era, because evidently it was no popular composer.


...then why do you go back to Ockeghem's innovations, or what Bach did, suggesting it as a precursor to what Brahms did in his symphonies? -



Lukecash12 said:


> Innovation? That compositional element was being used in polyphonic church music like Ockeghem's, way before Bach. It was long before Brahms that they started composing musical phrases that didn't cut off or start according to the measures.


...Unless I'm reading this all wrong...

I'm not being a smart alek but if you're saying that I shouldn't mix genres and have a very literal definition of innovation &/or influence, then what are you doing discussing old church music in relation to c19th symphonies?...


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

> I think it's basically the WTC that looms large as an influence on Beethoven and many others (eg. Mozart studied, played WTC all the time). Handel's influence on LvB goes without saying, & I'm bringing this up because I'm a bit perplexed about what you allow as "influence." Eg. in terms of you saying not mixing genres, yes, neither Handel (or Bach) wrote the same things Beethoven or Brahms did (eg. symphonies, though they did write concertos, and all of them did choral works & keyboard works of some type), BUT then if you say we can't mix genres as you do here -


But _how_ did the WTC influence classical and romantic composers who liked to write for the keyboard, and cited the WTC as an important work? I'm not asking you what something is, I'm asking you how that something is. It's not that I'm making any sort of statement as to what influences and what has been influenced, as of yet. I'm attempting to facilitate a proper discussion of this intriguing subject, where we can understand each other according to mutual agreements. Even geniuses who don't know how to communicate on this fundamental of a level before they go at it, can ultimately end up talking in circles, often not seeming to address anything in particular. This is why people who work in a field related to communication and debate, will have idiosyncratic terms and special vocabulary specifically so that they can operate in their profession.



> ...then why do you go back to Ockeghem's innovations, or what Bach did, suggesting it as a precursor to what Brahms did in his symphonies? -


Here is a proposal for a definition of musical influences, that just about anyone working in art music I've discussed this with, would agree to:

A musical influence, is not only a compositional element, but a distinct set of one or more elements that can be seen from one composer before, whose contributions affected the composer after; that way, it can be said with a degree of certitude that one composer left "his stamp" on another. Ex1 (the affects, or lack of affects, of contemporary tradition)- For a 19th century composer to not write polyphonic music, would mean that that composer was not influenced by early polyphonic composers and the majority of composers after those original polyphonic composers who wrote polyphonic music. Ex2 (the affects, or lack of affects, of archaic tradition)- For a 19th century composer to not notate any ornaments, nor expect the performer to play any ornaments, means that the previous composers who used ornamentation didn't affect that composer. Ex3 (whether it is demonstrable or not demonstrable that a composer affected by the composer in question)- Anotonio Bertali and Josquin des Prez both wrote polyphonic music, yet they were from different traditions, Bertali having been a Viennese Italian kapellmeister, and Prez having been of the Franco-Flemish tradition of holy music. Both had some roots in common, but they had distinctive ways of writing music. If a composer after them were to write a chorale, such as Bach, he would have been drawing more from the influence of Prez, not Bertali; Prez was a choral composer who focused on early forms of motivic themes, while innovating harmony and counterpoint, while Bertali was a kapellmeister who wrote bombastic music, exploring the elements of timbre, ornamentation, and orchestration.

Compare the two:











Bertali=orchestral effects. Listen to the different instruments as they enter the scene, the roles they play that often aren't melodic, but complementary. The second piece of the set of sonatas I referred you to, happens to be a clear cut example of this; In it there is generally one melodic line, one instrument exploring the realm of melodic invention.
Prez=motivic development. Listen to the tenors especially, as they sing various melodic lines to complement rest of the choir.



> ...Unless I'm reading this all wrong...
> 
> I'm not being a smart alek but if you're saying that I shouldn't mix genres and have a very literal definition of innovation &/or influence, then what are you doing discussing old church music in relation to c19th symphonies?...


I'm expressing that the word "influence" is put to practice in the way I've described it, when those who study music write literature about it and discuss it. For them not to do it that way, is for them to invite confusion. Without agreeing on terms, we invite confusion and work against the academic drive towards effective dialogue and literature. It's not bad or dumb of you to speak in a different manner, nor are you required to speak of influences in the sense that a musicologist would because you haven't made a devotion to contribute to that field, not to the extent that you give educational dissertations on it and regard yourself as an expert in the material you've studied. However, if you would like to discuss influences with a musicologist, or would like to _really_ learn something when having these kinds of discussions with people in general, you will find that it is much more educational and pleasurable for the parties involved if everyone understands and uses the standardized, relevant definitions of a few words, to participate in these discussions.

So now, I ask you my friend, what is it that Bach did for Brahms?


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Innovation? That compositional element was being used in polyphonic church music like Ockeghem's, way before Bach. It was long before Brahms that they started composing musical phrases that didn't cut off or start according to the measures.


If not an innovation, it's something I think that stands out in his music.

http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~fleis102/brahmsmetro.pdf



> Schönberg (1976) describes the peculiarities by means of phrase lengths causing metrical displacements. According to him Brahms made use of irregular phrase lengths in such an extensive way, that under his influence the avoidance of regularity became a common element of the syntax and grammar of musical structures. Schönberg even declares Brahms' avoidance of regularity as epoch-making to such a degree, that he appreciates him as being a more inspiring innovator in music history than his antipodean Wagner.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

pjang23 said:


> If not an innovation, it's something I think that stands out in his music.
> 
> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~fleis102/brahmsmetro.pdf


Yes, I agree that Brahms was quite impressive when it came to that.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> Innovation? That compositional element was being used in polyphonic church music like Ockeghem's, way before Bach. It was long before Brahms that they started composing musical phrases that didn't cut off or start according to the measures.


This is like saying that Wagner wasn't innovative because chromaticism had already been used by Gesualdo. The fact that there's a precedent for Wagner's chromaticism or Brahms's rhythmic experiments doesn't mean that they weren't innovative _in the context of their own time_ - and that's the only definition of innovation that really matters.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Webernite said:


> This is like saying that Wagner wasn't innovative because chromaticism had already been used by Gesualdo. The fact that there's a precedent for Wagner's chromaticism or Brahms's rhythmic experiments doesn't mean that they weren't innovative _in the context of their own time_ - and that's the only definition of innovation that really matters.


I can agree to that.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Lukecash12 said:


> I can agree to that.


I've never won an argument this easily before.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Webernite said:


> I've never won an argument this easily before.


Any time we are defining a word, I tend to be more agreeable. It facilitates better discussion.


----------



## JSalazar (Apr 24, 2015)

Brahms...a synthesizer of musical styles?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Bach took what was common the era before and made it extraordinary. Brahms took what was common the era before and made it extraordinary. 

Depending on how you interpret things, what they did could be described as conservative or revolutionary.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

JSalazar said:


> Brahms...a synthesizer of musical styles?


I think that's an interesting way to put it, Brahms confounds me sometimes, but in the best way possible.  Charles Rosen in The Classical style calls a lot of Beethoven's music a synthesis of styles (thanks to the Beethoven works that Rosen himself calls 'Romantic' such as the cyclical works between 1812-1816, Piano Sonata #28, Cello Sonatas #4 and #5, and _An die Ferne Geliebte_) and Schubert an even greater example of generalization and categorization-defying synthesizer of styles, he says Schubert is the reason why you can't make easy generalizations about Eras and classifications. Rosen suggests he's neither Romantic, Post-Classical, or Classical.

Here's what he has to say about Brahms in the epilogue.

"The Sonata forms in the symphonies and chamber music of Mendelssohn and Schumann are essays in decorum and respect. In these works, sadly out of favor today, the evocation of the past is only incidental: the intent was to attain the prestige of the style imitated. The sense of irrecoverable past, however, is omnipresent in the music of Brahms, resignedly eclectic, ambiguous without irony. The depth of the his feeling of loss gave an intensity to Brahms's work that no other imitator of the classical tradition ever reached: he may be said to have made music out of his openly expressed regret that he was born too late."

This was opposed to "the irony of Mahler" who had a "mock respect" of the classical style, "the same mock respect he gave to his shopworn scraps of dance-tunes." (Rosen). I'm not entirely sure what he means here, but I understand what he means about Brahms and it's a sentiment I've expressed on this forum a few times. Brahms "imitates" the older styles without irony, he's completely honest and upfront about his conservatism. My personal reaction is that rather than feeling his music is forced or inauthentic (OK, sometimes I do feel that, but not often), it's quite the contrary, I hear an undeniable honesty and earnestness in Brahms music.


----------

