A dull composer?

[scottycelt]

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

Glad you haven't forgotten that beer, Mario!

No, I revere Beethoven, and there is certainly nothing that sounds smug and self-satisfied (to me) in that man's music ... quite the opposite! It's just that, to my ears, Brahms didn't really explore new ground the way that Bruckner did, yet the latter retains the same sense of Beethovenian struggle and ultimately glorious triumph.

I have tried, oh how I've tried, to unlock the key to the enthusiastic appreciation of Brahms but, alas, have never really come anywhere near succeeding in that lifelong quest, with the exception of Alto Rhapsody and the German Requiem.

I'm not sure which particular OTHER thread you are referring to as 'the whole world' seems to be pretty much out of step in them all ...

[rauschwerk]

Self-satisfied? The first piano concerto? The piano quintet? Gesang der Parzen? Finales of third and fourth symphonies? Not to my ears.

[MrGongGong]

Brahms is a composer that in the past I have enjoyed playing but now my feelings are more like those of a student I worked with earlier this year who said of a piece I was playing to illustrate something to do with composition (Voluminia !)

"I don't like it, but it's really good isn't it !"

I know Dolly Parton and Brahms are Great composers/musicians but they don't do it for me

[Roehre]

Brahms didn't really explore new ground the way that Bruckner did, yet the latter retains the same sense of Beethovenian struggle and ultimately glorious triumph.:

Brahms not exploring new grounds??? See e.g. the examples in my Msg 5.
Which new grounds did Bruckner reach then, apart from (as many say, not me) recomposing one symphony ten times?

[salymap]

I love Brahms piano works op 116-118, 4 Serious songs, many smallworks but admit that the symphonies lose my
attention unless they are very wellplayed and not too stretched out. They seem to depend on a good performance more than most works, they need to keep moving, [note my technical analysis]

[scottycelt]

Brahms not exploring new grounds??? See e.g. the examples in my Msg 5.
Which new grounds did Bruckner reach then, apart from (as many say, not me) recomposing one symphony ten times?

If we concentrate on the symphonies (as with Bruckner it is difficult to compare much else), I don't hear much difference in style, say, between Brahms 1 and Brahms 4. On the other hand, the gulf in the sound-world between Bruckner 1 and Bruckner 9 seems enormous to my ears.

Those who say Bruckner composed the same symphony nine, ten or eleven times are as hopelessly wrong about Bruckner as I strongly suspect I am about Brahms.

Unlike you, Roehre, I have no technical knowledge of music and can only rely on my ears. I have little doubt that Brahms was a music genius, but that is a different thing entirely from liking the result of his compositional output or myself pretending to think it is exciting and 'forward-looking'.

I simply don't, though I've always readily admitted that the fault for this 'deaf-spot' almost certainly lies with myself and not the composer.

[rauschwerk]

If we concentrate on the symphonies (as with Bruckner it is difficult to compare much else), I don't hear much difference in style, say, between Brahms 1 and Brahms 4.

Neither, I suspect, did Brahms who, looking back over the years, ventured the opinion that in his music he seemed always to be 'milking the same udder'. However, that does not negate what Roehre has said about his technique.

[Auferstehen2]

Hi Scottycelt,

The thread I was referring to was regarding the arrest of a member of the constabulary under the Performance thread.

You know, under the gargantuan “Beethoven is Dead” thread on the old BBC MBs, I learnt (the hard way) that passion can get you in trouble. Since then, I have sworn to keep my dislike for certain composers under wraps. There are many works, and many (extremely famous) composers that, try as I might, simply don’t do it for me. But I keep my opinions to myself only out of respect for others, whose love for their music is obviously an extremely important part of their lives. Who am I to tell them otherwise? (I also wonder how anyone can take any satisfaction out of criticizing someone else’s favourite music – what does the critic hope to gain by such a negative approach? Are people’s lives really so empty as to fill their time attempting to rob others of any enjoyment? How utterly, utterly sad!)

At any rate, I was hoping this wouldn’t turn into a let’s-bash-Brahms thread, and in fairness to Scottycelt, he takes his criticism seriously enough to realize that maybe, just maybe, the fault lies with him. For a member of that fiercely proud country to admit this, is nothing short of miraculous!

Furthermore, I think this thread has already maybe served up the answer to the reason behind which Brahms is sometimes considered “A dull composer”. Not surprisingly, and this is something I am happy to criticize publicly, it is the fault of the performers, rather than the music itself, which makes the music sound dull.

As an example (we seem to be concentrating on the 3rd movement of the 4th symphony), why the slowdown (a la Karajan) on the last three crashing chords that end that movement? Play them the C Kleiber or better still, the Toscanini way and see whether you now consider this wonderful music dull. As another example, consider the main theme that opens the work. Why the dying, almost apologetic lean-into attempt of the main theme? Played strictly in time (Allegro non troppo AND NOT ANDANTE), underpinned by simple arpeggios in the lower strings (hardly ever heard by the way), and off-beat crotchets in the woodwind, it could be almost skipping in nature, rather than the downright serious, dour, colourless and mushy dire of an opening that we normally get.

At least, that’s how I think it should sound. So there!

Mario

[scottycelt]

I'm sure you're absolutely right in your comments, Auferstehen2!

However, what is the point of a forum other than providing a platform for a frank exchange of views and sometimes even a bit of fun?

Remember, also, that great composers themselves were often dismissive of the output of others.

I've always loved a younger Mahler's reported snide remark that when comparing Brahms and Bruckner 'one is over-cooked and the other hasn't even been put in the oven'.

OTT, of course, but not without at least a tiny grain of truth ... ?

[Roehre]

If we concentrate on the symphonies (as with Bruckner it is difficult to compare much else), I don't hear much difference in style, say, between Brahms 1 and Brahms 4. On the other hand, the gulf in the sound-world between Bruckner 1 and Bruckner 9 seems enormous to my ears.

Scotty, It is a pity indeed (for a discussion as this) that Bruckner as fullgrown composer didn't do much more than symphonies, masses and motets, though you would hardly recognize his Requiem as a Bruckner work if previously you only knew either his 9th symphony or his 3rd Mass.

Looking at the Brahms symphonies, though each is different (in scope, the individual movements -especially the middle ones, the orchestration, thematic differentiation or concentration), they are much (but definitely not completely) in a similar style.

Not surprisingly, given the fact that between the 1st and the 4th only 12 years lapsed. Between Bruckner 00 and 9 there are some 35 years. But if you take in account the Serenades opp.11 and 16 (both mid 1850s), you will appreciate how much Brahms' style actually has developed, as well as how early he found his own style in terms of melodic shapes, and basically stuck to that.

With Brahms you will find that he developed enormously by looking at his piano works e.g.
Compared with the 3 piano sonatas (opp.1,2 and 5, plus the scherzo op.4 originally part of another sonata) the late pieces (opp.116-119, also including the rhapsodies op.79) are really another kettle of fish. The two versions of the pianotrio opus 8 gives us a very rare glimpse of the differences between the early Brahms and the late, using the same material (a similar situation as with Bruckner's Linz and Vienna versions of his Symphony 1).

Unfortunately it is not of much help here, that Brahms destroyed piles of music, making comparing much more difficult. And he didn't destroy juvenilia only (the scherzo of the d-minor piano concerto, e.g.), but as late as the 1880s a complete then newly composed pianotrio too, as well as 2 middle movements of the violin concerto.

But Scotty, please keep in mind -as you rightly say- everyone has "deaf-spots", mine being a lot of Baroque music and many an opera, and I do appreciate your honest and balanced opinion highly (as I do this discussion )

[scottycelt]

Thank you sincerely, Roehre ...

[Suffolkcoastal]

The tempi taken by conductors in Brahms is a good example Mario. The 1st movement seems to be habitually taken around crotchet = 100-110 and the natural flow of the music drags, the accompanying figuration with the quaver upbeat that first occurs in violas & basses really does sound stodgy at this tempo. I suggest something around crotchet = 132-136 which may sound fast given the non troppo indication but given the overall underlying pulse and flow of the movement seems a more natural tempo. The 3rd movement is often taken as slow as minim=60-70 by some conductors but minim = c90 allows the rhythms to spring naturally along.

[Auferstehen2]

And how can I, a mere mortal studying for his Grade 5 Music Theory and Grade 4 Piano, not accept the views of a qualified and no-doubt highly-trained composer? I'm going to have a little fiddle with the metronome, and check out those tempi you suggest.

(Sea's still a little cool around here, so can't go swimming yet. The Brits have already started though!)

Thanks sc,

Mario

[Suffolkcoastal]

I wouldn't say that I am highly qualified or highly trained Mario! Composing wise I'm largely self-taught (like Elgar). hence why I've not had any music published (though I have had three articles published) and why I get snubbed as I haven't been educated in the 'right-places', I just found that I could compose and seemed to know how to put a piece together. Back to Brahms, the orchestration is also very important in Brahms, again a closer examination of how his orchestrates, especially accompanying ideas/figuration gives a clue to the tempi that he really wants, especially note how these figures lend a forward propulsion to the overall flow, even in slow movements, which conductors seem to stubbonly ignore.

[Roehre]

The tempi taken by conductors in Brahms is a good example Mario. The 1st movement seems to be habitually taken around crotchet = 100-110 and the natural flow of the music drags, the accompanying figuration with the quaver upbeat that first occurs in violas & basses really does sound stodgy at this tempo. I suggest something around crotchet = 132-136 which may sound fast given the non troppo indication but given the overall underlying pulse and flow of the movement seems a more natural tempo. The 3rd movement is often taken as slow as minim=60-70 by some conductors but minim = c90 allows the rhythms to spring naturally along.

I think you are approximately right with these assumptions, Suffolkcoastal