Brahms Bashing Down the Ages

[Balthazar]

Originally Posted by Florestan

I have tried to take an interest in Brahms but my attention always seems to slide away.

I like Brahms, but it took me a long, long time to get into anything except his first two piano sonatas. The fact is, Brahms has none of the taste or finesse of Haydn and Mozart, and none of the crazed brilliance of Beethoven. But I've grown to respect the complexity of his compositions and his skill as a craftsman.

I don't get when people talk about the "beauty" of Brahms' music, because I think his works are ungainly creations. With Beethoven, the development is just as important as the theme; with Brahms, it's nearly all about development. The slightest of melodies gets put through the wringer and stretched to the breaking point. It's a fascinating process, but it ain't pretty.

It took a love of the music of the Second Viennese School to make me appreciate what Brahms did. It's no secret that the density and complexity of Brahms' music was a big influence on the likes of Schoenberg. You can't help but hear the seed of what the 20C pioneers would be doing in the murky mechanics of Brahms' string quartet #2, Op. 51/2.

[Herzeleide]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I don't get when people talk about the "beauty" of Brahms' music, because I think his works are ungainly creations. With Beethoven, the development is just as important as the theme; with Brahms, it's nearly all about development.

Maybe I'm a weirdo, but I love the themes of such works as the Fourth Symphony and Clarinet Quintet (the first movements, I mean).

Very melodic, I often have them in my head.

[Despina41]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I don't get when people talk about the "beauty" of Brahms' music, because I think his works are ungainly creations.

For the most part, I agree. But he did manage to write some pretty gems.

how 'bout this overplayed classic?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTrQUJ4okM4&feature=PlayList&p=58E80F43FC2 F39D9&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTrQUJ4okM4&feature=PlayList&p=58E80F43FC2 F39D9&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=16[/ame]

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I like Brahms, but it took me a long, long time to get into anything except his first two piano sonatas. The fact is, Brahms has none of the taste or finesse of Haydn and Mozart, and none of the crazed brilliance of Beethoven. But I've grown to respect the complexity of his compositions and his skill as a craftsman.

Well, Brahms is Brahms. He's not about taste, finesse, or crazed brilliance. As you say, he's about complexity, skill and craft. (Also, under the immensely controlled surface of his music lurks intense passion and profound melancholy (although certainly not "the melancholy of impotence"!).)

Originally Posted by Balthazar

I don't get when people talk about the "beauty" of Brahms' music, because I think his works are ungainly creations. With Beethoven, the development is just as important as the theme; with Brahms, it's nearly all about development. The slightest of melodies gets put through the wringer and stretched to the breaking point. It's a fascinating process, but it ain't pretty.

I'd agree that it isn't "pretty-pretty", but it is often very beautiful. Just think of the slow movements of the Third and Fourth Symphonies. Parts of the Clarinet Quintet are ravishing. And examples could be multiplied many times over.

Originally Posted by Balthazar

It took a love of the music of the Second Viennese School to make me appreciate what Brahms did. It's no secret that the density and complexity of Brahms' music was a big influence on the likes of Schoenberg. You can't help but hear the seed of what the 20C pioneers would be doing in the murky mechanics of Brahms' string quartet #2, Op. 51/2.

That's an interesting and unusual, if not at all improbable, way to come to an appreciation of his music. If you haven't already done so, I'd strongly recommend that you read Walter Frisch's Brahms and the Principle of Developing Variation (Frisch has also written illuminatingly on Schoenberg).

Still, I sense that there is a possible danger of merely seeing Brahms as some kind of forerunner or harbinger of the Second Viennese School, and not valuing him as a supreme creative artist in his own right. (Of course, this is a phenomenon by no means restricted to Brahms.)

[Herr_Direktor]

Brahms and Tchaikowsky famously did NOT get along at all. The Russian thought Brahms too academic (as well as the other stuff said earlier in the thread), while Brahms bashed Tchaikowsky's music as over-sentimental drivel.

Brahms is the composer who could do the most with the least. In other words (and Hugo Wolf's) he often made a wonderful piece from very little melodic material (the finale of the 4th for example).

However, I believe that Brahms was also at his best when he was inspired and DID produce beautiful melodies. Examples: the finale of the 1st symphony, the 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony, the Op. 8 piano trio, the Requiem, and the slow movement of the Double Concerto (which, BTW was written late in his life when even he said he was out of ideas).

[Chilperich]

Originally Posted by Herr_Direktor

However, I believe that Brahms was also at his best when he was inspired and DID produce beautiful melodies. Examples: [...] the slow movement of the Double Concerto (which, BTW was written late in his life when even he said he was out of ideas).

Well, being "out of ideas" is very much a relative concept when you're talking about a creative colossus like Brahms. The first movement of the Double Concerto manages to carry on several distinct musical arguments simultaneously without Brahms ever losing control of the material or lapsing into incoherence. This is mastery.

[Herr_Direktor]

Originally Posted by Chilperich

This is mastery.

Agreed!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKQHJd-wEeY"]YouTube - Brahms Double Concerto for violin and cello. 2nd. Mvt.[/ame]