A dull composer?

[Guest]

Apropos message 1569 in the What are you listening to now? thread, your wish is my command, Suffolkcoastal!

Almost by accident, the discussion there has turned to the “heavy”, or “overweight”, or, a term I prefer, “fat” sound usually associated with Brahms (yes Brucknerians, we know what you think of him!).

I said in that other thread that, for example, his third movement in the Fourth symphony is a statement of light and joy, but all too often, the path the march treads is heavy-laden, like a country walk taken in heavy, concrete-filled, hobnail boots!

Maybe, maybe, Brahms was scared witless at having to follow in the giant shadow of Beethoven, nevertheless, is it fair to continue to brand him as such a dull and unadventurous composer?

Mario

[Serial_Apologist]

Well Schoenberg considered Brahms to be radical. Those epithets, "heavy" and "overweight" could be more justifiably applied to Bruckner, imv.

S-A

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

er not in my book Mario, over last few months have downloaded the John Elliot Gardner set of the symphonies ... exhilarating! have long had a passion for the clarinet 5, string 6 and piano 4 chamber pieces and heard the Alto Rhapsody live in US a couple of years back and found myself and others in tears by the end of it ....

[Auferstehen2]

Absolutely right, aka etc.

I adore the Alto Rhapsody (I've got Sawallisch), and again, allowing the music to flow, especially for THAT melody, is very special.

Mario

[Roehre]

Brahms is a very forward looking composer.
The fact that his orchestra is nearly identical to Beethoven's and therefore "lacking" more "colourful" instruments as used by Berlioz, Wagner, Liszt and their ilk, doesn't mean his orchestral style is dull.
On the contrary, e.g. the 3rd symphony is almost chamber music style in its instrumental subtleties.
And speaking of that work: have a look at the score of its 2nd mvt (andante), where there is one phrasing for the melody (the clarinets), another for the accompaniment (the bassoons e.g.).
For a sense of instrumental colour: the slow mvt of the clarinet quintet opus 115 offers you an earworm if you are not careful.

Rhythmically there are many other subtleties to be discovered too, and his later piano pieces opp.116-119 and the early Schönberg pieces opus 11 have harmonically much in common e.g.
Here btw metric instability joins the tonal instability, enpowering the latter even.

Mahler's symphony no.2 and Nielsen's no.1 are pieces beginning in one key and ending in another, but Schicksalslied opus 54 (1871, beginning in C, ending in E-flat) predates both Mahler and Nielsen by nearly 20 years. And what about Brahms' Gesang der Parzenopus 89? Try to define the key before of the first two bars anyway, or for that matter that of the conclusion, with its harmonies drifting away of any definable tonality. Not by chance this was one of the favourites of Schönberg, Berg and especially Webern.

And Bartok, Kodaly, Vaughan Williams and Holst collecting folksongs? Brahms did so two generations earlier.
Dance music for home or cafe, and/or sing-a-longs? Try the Liebesliederwalzer op.52 and the Neue Liebesliederwalzer op.65, popular music which (together with the Hungarian Dances) made Brahms a rich man.

[BBMmk2]

I said in anoteherr thread, that I have problems with Brahms's PC2. I love the work but as far as listening to it goes, I find it quite probelematic!

[Suffolkcoastal]

I like Brahms & Bruckner btw! This thread has come about following my posting on another thread after following the scores of Brahms's symphonies. With the exceptions of a handful of works, I went 'off' Brahms for many years, gradually rediscovering him through the chamber works. The problem I had with the symphonies (except No 1) was that I always felt they were rather turgid and lumpy and didn't flow, thinking this was Brahms's fault. However, after strating to study the scores, I found that far from Brahms being at fault, it was the performances I was hearing that were the problem. Faster movements seem to be taken far to slowly, with little lift or flow and seem to stutter along, the rhythmic subtleties, figuration, accentuation, phrasing etc in the score. It seems that the moment a conductor sees the NON TROPPO in one of Brahms's Allegro movements then they immediately take it as an excuse to play the music molto moderato. even the 3rd movement of the 4th symphony hardly ever seems to be a real Allegro giocoso in performances these days and the 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony is often conducted as if it is another slow movement. While I'm not suggesting that conductors should suddenly start playing Brahms's quicker movements Presto (the various subtleties in the scores would equally be lost if played to fast), I do think more careful consideration needs to be taken with tempi in Brahms's symphonies to allow all the rhythmic interplay and natural flowing forward thrust of the music to be actually heard. I think also greater attention should be taken with timbre & balance, a lightening of texture in performance would really bring Brahms scoring out, and is a full thick rich string sound always necessary, so much scoring detail seems also to be lost in modern performances.
I did wonder how the performance practice of playing Brahms in such a heavy, deadly serious manner came about. I seem to have read somewhere that it was based on performances from performers who either knew or worked with Brahms and even heard the premieres of many of his works and became established in the 1920's, but I'm no expert on this so could be completely wrong. But if wholly or partly true, surely a composer of Brahms's stature wouldn't have coutenanced this when it so often goes against what the score seems to be saying? Perhaps an element of caution from those earlier performances crept in and was accepted as standard practice. All of this woudl make for fascinating reasearch.

[Ventilhorn]

I remember Jascha Horenstein telling us that Brahms used to say "... I despair of being able to write all of the instructions of how I wish my works to be played."

Horenstein then went on to say "Well, there are plenty of his instructions on your copies, so play exactly what is written - it is all there."

One of the best interpreters of Brahms and Bruckner that I ever had the pleasure to play for!

VH

[3rd Viennese School]

I wouldnt say "heavy". I would say too serious. and boring. Sort of no irony in his music.
I actually do enjoy the first symphony, and the finale of the fourth. But these appear to be rare examples for me.

As a test, compare 2 symphonys, both 45 minutes, both 4 mvts and both written in 1877.
Bhrams 2 and Tchaikovsky 4!

3VS

[3rd Viennese School]

and the third mvt of Brahms 4 is like trying to get pxxxxd at a party but having the boss standing over you.

3VS

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

really? it doesn't sound that way here

this series is a bit special
one
two
three
four ...sorry can't find it
five

[Uncle Monty]

I like Brahms & Bruckner btw! This thread has come about following my posting on another thread after following the scores of Brahms's symphonies. With the exceptions of a handful of works, I went 'off' Brahms for many years, gradually rediscovering him through the chamber works. The problem I had with the symphonies (except No 1) was that I always felt they were rather turgid and lumpy and didn't flow, thinking this was Brahms's fault. However, after strating to study the scores, I found that far from Brahms being at fault, it was the performances I was hearing that were the problem. Faster movements seem to be taken far to slowly, with little lift or flow and seem to stutter along, the rhythmic subtleties, figuration, accentuation, phrasing etc in the score. It seems that the moment a conductor sees the NON TROPPO in one of Brahms's Allegro movements then they immediately take it as an excuse to play the music molto moderato. even the 3rd movement of the 4th symphony hardly ever seems to be a real Allegro giocoso in performances these days and the 3rd movement of the 3rd symphony is often conducted as if it is another slow movement. While I'm not suggesting that conductors should suddenly start playing Brahms's quicker movements Presto (the various subtleties in the scores would equally be lost if played to fast), I do think more careful consideration needs to be taken with tempi in Brahms's symphonies to allow all the rhythmic interplay and natural flowing forward thrust of the music to be actually heard. I think also greater attention should be taken with timbre & balance, a lightening of texture in performance would really bring Brahms scoring out, and is a full thick rich string sound always necessary, so much scoring detail seems also to be lost in modern performances.
I did wonder how the performance practice of playing Brahms in such a heavy, deadly serious manner came about. I seem to have read somewhere that it was based on performances from performers who either knew or worked with Brahms and even heard the premieres of many of his works and became established in the 1920's, but I'm no expert on this so could be completely wrong. But if wholly or partly true, surely a composer of Brahms's stature wouldn't have coutenanced this when it so often goes against what the score seems to be saying? Perhaps an element of caution from those earlier performances crept in and was accepted as standard practice. All of this woudl make for fascinating reasearch.

Yes, I'm sure this is right, sc. I have here David Hurwitz' book on the Brahms symphonies, and he says, a propos recordings:

"There is more lousy Brahms out there than just about any other composer. By "lousy" I don't mean badly played in terms of getting the notes, but boring, rhythmically flabby, badly balanced, heavy, thick, and expressively inhibited."

He goes on to name names. . .

So it's not just you!

[BBMmk2]

I can find it rather hard, when quite a few conductors, try to find something new. Surely, they will fiond that as the music unfolds before them?

[scottycelt]

Hello Mario!

How is Malta these days?

To get straight to the point, yes I do find much of Brahms boring as I invariably find his music sounds insufferably smug and self-satisfied..

Brahms' sound world doesn't seem that much different to me from Beethoven's, whereas his almost exact contemporary Bruckner's is almost the musical equivalent of a trip to Mars.

I do like the Alto Rhapsody, though!

Scotty.

[Auferstehen2]

Hello Mario!

How is Malta these days?

Brahms' sound world doesn't seem that much different to me from Beethoven's,

Scotty.

Hi Scottycelt,

Malta is good – a cold beer still awaits you!

Of course, I’ve been waiting for your contribution to this thread, from one of Brahms’ fiercest critics, and had thought about giving you a friendlier welcome than that OTHER thread on which you seem to be taking on the whole world.

But that was until you said the above. And now you’ve made a fierce enemy out of me! Attacking my beloved Beethoven like that – shame on you!

Mario