"Bach, Beethoven, Brahms"

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Amalie,
No I suspect that the effect produced in our time is nowhere near that produced at the tiem of composition. We are jaded after all, we have heard CD's ad infinitum which have told us what the performance should sound like, most of us don't really understand what the music is saying like the connoisseur of the times did, and there are probably a hundred other factors that could apply here.
But on to the point; yes, that's the effect that I see too, that composers who follow immediately after (or lately contemporaneous with) a composer that THEY acknowledge to be great, their music veers off in new directions. I think it is to avoid comparison. But in the early 19th century, music was at a fork in the road. Beethoven took one fork (extending classicism into new areas and stretching its boundaries) while several others (Spohr, Schubert etc) took the first steps towards Romanticism. By the time Beethoven's journey was done, two things were obvious:
1 > Beethoven wasn't going to be topped on his own turf
2 > Composers, musicians and the public had begun to really like the new sounds of music
These two things together combined to virtually force music down the path it took.
Bach's story is similar, the polyphonic excesses of the Baroque (not his actually) simply went out of style at the time and gave way to the roccoco in art and the galant in music.
For the Romantic, plainly enough the 20th century happened (how do I spell that v. russo? ) and music simply went down another pathway that reflected the times. I shall not pursue that because of my well-known feelings about the century that killed art in every form.
In sum, there are a combination of factors that bring about the demise of every movement, but I believe that one could nominate a composer at that point in time who was the culmination of the art, and contributed to the pressure on other composers to follow up other pathways. Or not

I am nodding in agreement Gurn.
It seems to me that after all of the scientific discoveries of the 19th century and two world wars in the 20th, it is well nigh impossible even if it were desirable for us to listen to 18th century music with 18th century ears and in a world which is now vanished. This seems to me the fallicy of 'authentic music' because we cannot have any meaningful recreation of the authentic world from which the music of Haydn and Mozart sprang. There is also the slightly contentious point about religious pieces of music. I have heard Hogwood and Eliot Gardner say that the 'authentic movement' is not concerned with religious sensibilities whereas it is self evidently at the core of Monteverdi's writing, Mozart's Requiem and Haydn's religious compositions whatever ones persuasion is here or whether one has no beliefs at all is irrelevant and it seems that the 'authentic movement' want's it both ways. They want the nice sounds but ditch whatever is now incomprehensible to them personally, wheras to my mind that is basically dishonest. They pride themselves on being 'authentic' whatever that may mean when it suits them, but then are not honest enough to credit the religious inspiration which clearly meant so much to the composers themselves whatever we may think about it nowadays.
I was appalled by a remark by Hogwood some years ago when Handel claimed to have been inspired by God to write the Messiah, Hogwood said, "we really shouldn't pay any attention to this, and it is not the concern of the musician or the musicologist".
Modern composers put there own spin on the music. For all I know a composer may be inspired by atheism but then if he were then we should apprieciate that background.

If you listen to Vaughan William's brilliant Symphonia Antarctica and Benjamin Britten's 4 sea interludes you are just overwhelmed by the tremendously powerful evocation in these pieces of a none human threatening environment that has nothing to do with man or his beliefs but it is an alien world that we can nevertheless enter into through the power of the musical representation.
Sometimes the world of nature in however a forbidding form can appeal more to modern listeners than a religious belief system that is no longer seen as relevant.



[This message has been edited by Amalie (edited March 13, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Amalie, dear, you have never disagreed with Peter or Rod about anything ever! As it happens though, I have and do this time too. Brahms was the greatest composer of his age, which is the best that one can hope to be. You have no control over your place in history beyond that. He had high standards of excellence. As it happens, I scarcely put anyone on a par with Beethoven, Bach included. But if you can make an argument to place Bach on that pedestal, then it can be used to place Brahms there too.
By way of interest, note that each was not only the dominant composer of his time, but also that each was the composer who virtually put the dagger in the heart of the style he wrote in. The baroque didn't live on long past Bach (most would say it died before he did), the classical certainly didn't outlive Beethoven, and the Romantic whimpered away within a few meager years after Brahms death. My belief here is that whenever there comes a composer of a certain level of greatness, he effectively "kills off" a style by reaching its perceived limits and forcing those who come after to move into new paths.

Firstly I do ackowledge Brahms as a great composer and love much of his music - however I think Wagner has far more claim to be the greatest composer of his age than Brahms. He certainly had far more influence and not just in music as has been pointed out.

Bach certainly didn't finish off the Baroque - his style if anything was old-fashioned with its emphasis on the contrapuntal style - it was handel who was far more forward looking and in tune with the emerging pre-classical style.

I don't think Beethoven single-handedly destroyed the classical era either as Romanticism didn't suddenly arise after or out of Beethoven - it was flourishing alongside and indeed one of the earliest romantics actually died before Beethoven - C.M.Weber.

Nor do I see how Brahms killed off Romanticism - the seeds of that were planted in Wagner's Tristan and Liszt's Dante symphony (which contains the first example of a tone row) and his late bagatelle in no key.

Sorry to be in disagreement again Gurn, the planets have moved!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[This message has been edited by Peter (edited March 13, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Amalie:
I would agree with Peter and Rod.
Apart from Brahms German Requiem, Symphony no. 1. and his violin concerto, I think he is overrated. Not that I don't like listening to his music of course.

That's my opinion.

I think his 2nd piano concerto is wonderful also and the 4th symphony I adore. From the piano perspective the variations on a theme by Handel are great.


------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Opus131]

Originally posted by Amalie:
I would agree with Peter and Rod.
Apart from Brahms German Requiem, Symphony no. 1. and his violin concerto, I think he is overrated.

Odd, i found neither his Requiem, first symphony nor his Violin concerto to be among his best music.

I think the last two symphonies rank highter then both his first and the requiem, whilst the most starkling of his creativity belies on his chamber/piano music.

I still wouldn't put him against Beethoven, but now i'm wondering what exactly is that people find in his music. Hopefully, they are not trying to find Beethoven.

As for our beloved B, i'm getting a little tired of people who consider him the first
step into 19th century romanticism and that's it.

Just to remind anybody :

1) Beethoven didn't approve neo-romanticism and it's free form.

2) At the end of his life, he actually stepped back to baroque and broke ahead of both classicism AND romanticism, as well as modernism.

He went on a tangent where the manipulation of TIME became his main vessel of deliverance, a step far more revolutionary then both free-form Romanticism as well as pan-tonal extremism (i like Schonberg, but his braking of tonality wasn't much of a step farward. IMO, tonality should have never been rejected).

If he had lived an extra 10 years his alienation with the Romantics would have been a lot more evident.

In anycase, aside for writing some great music, if you really want to find an influencial and original element in Brahms music, it needs to be pointed out that he proved inequivocably classicism was fully capable of expressing Romanticism to it's utmost extends, as opposed to those who advocated free-form as the only pratical mean.

Schoenberg wasn't oblivious to this and (quite ironically), as he went on his way to brake tonality he actually never abandoned form, moved by the example settled by Brahms.

This is a curious little fact that sheds light to a characteristic of Beethoven's music which both the romantics and 20th centurity composers overlooked, resulting in their biggest mistake yet.

Indeed, whilst 19th and 20th century composers obsessed with going farward, Beethoven NEVER forgot the past, not for a second, ever.



[This message has been edited by Opus131 (edited March 13, 2004).]

[Gurn Blanston]

Well, in the event that anyone didn't read my post too carefully before rebutting it, I never said Beethoven was in any way associated with Romanticism, because I don't believe he was. I said that he took the path that stretched and advanced classicism. Also, I don't postulate any linearity. The entire purpose of using a metaphor like "two paths in the road" is to indicate that one is speaking of parallel evolutive events.
Speaking of parallel evolutive events, oddly the year 1685 produced 3 great composers, Bach, Handel and Domenico Scarlatti. And while Bach and Handel were counterpointing and poly-phoning home, Scarlatti was developing the sonata for keyboard which would eventually evolve into the classical era's most defining structure. So clearly the Baroque was at an end. Does it matter which was the last dinosaur left standing, the mighty Bachosaurus or the swift Handelraptor? There was a sea change in public taste at the end of the Baroque, and no amount of mastery of form was going to change it. In any case, if I said "the last one" I apologize, what I mean is one right at the end who was great. Anyway, as history has proven out, it doesn't matter a whit if Handel was a better composer than Bach, because he is not remembered that way and you can preach until the "bovine exodus from the pasture to the corral", but you won't change history.
Same for Brahms. No, he was not the last Romantic, but damn near to it. He composed his last in the mid 1890's, so there was not a lot left to the Romantic in any case. As for arguing Wagner, give it a friggin' rest, will you? Brahms didn't write opera, thank god. Were you just listening to Wagner's Piano Trio #3 the other day? No, I didn't think so. I didn't drag Wagner into this, and you have no excuse except for wrong headedness to do it either. In any case, I quite agree with Op131's quite poetic assessment of phrasing romantic ideas in classical forms, that is really quite good.


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited March 13, 2004).]

[Beyond Within]

"1) Beethoven didn't approve neo-romanticism and it's free form.

2) At the end of his life, he actually stepped back to baroque and broke ahead of both classicism AND romanticism, as well as moderninsm. "

YES! I think Beethoven created a genre which no one ever again joined into. He left off something that still remains unfinished...

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Well, in the event that anyone didn't read my post too carefully before rebutting it, I never said Beethoven was in any way associated with Romanticism, because I don't believe he was. I said that he took the path that stretched and advanced classicism. Also, I don't postulate any linearity. The entire purpose of using a metaphor like "two paths in the road" is to indicate that one is speaking of parallel evolutive events.
Speaking of parallel evolutive events, oddly the year 1685 produced 3 great composers, Bach, Handel and Domenico Scarlatti. And while Bach and Handel were counterpointing and poly-phoning home, Scarlatti was developing the sonata for keyboard which would eventually evolve into the classical era's most defining structure. So clearly the Baroque was at an end. Does it matter which was the last dinosaur left standing, the mighty Bachosaurus or the swift Handelraptor? There was a sea change in public taste at the end of the Baroque, and no amount of mastery of form was going to change it. In any case, if I said "the last one" I apologize, what I mean is one right at the end who was great. Anyway, as history has proven out, it doesn't matter a whit if Handel was a better composer than Bach, because he is not remembered that way and you can preach until the "bovine exodus from the pasture to the corral", but you won't change history.
Same for Brahms. No, he was not the last Romantic, but damn near to it. He composed his last in the mid 1890's, so there was not a lot left to the Romantic in any case. As for arguing Wagner, give it a friggin' rest, will you? Brahms didn't write opera, thank god. Were you just listening to Wagner's Piano Trio #3 the other day? No, I didn't think so. I didn't drag Wagner into this, and you have no excuse except for wrong headedness to do it either. In any case, I quite agree with Op131's quite poetic assessment of phrasing romantic ideas in classical forms, that is really quite good.

I did read your Gurn post most carefully and you clearly implied that as a result of Beethoven the classical style was finished - I understand that you didn't mean Beethoven was the first Romantic, but had Beethoven not lived the Romantic movement would still have evolved regardless - indeed it was already evolving. It is an interesting point but I think a new style evolves through more than just one person and in more than one artistic genre.

Certain composers such as Brahms and Richard Strauss were able to blend elements of the old with the new and end up writing music out of its era - Romanticism didn't finally snuff out until Strauss's glorious last 4 songs written in 1948!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
I did read your Gurn post most carefully and you clearly implied that as a result of Beethoven the classical style was finished - I understand that you didn't mean Beethoven was the first Romantic, but had Beethoven not lived the Romantic movement would still have evolved regardless - indeed it was already evolving. It is an interesting point but I think a new style evolves through more than just one person and in more than one artistic genre.

Certain composers such as Brahms and Richard Strauss were able to blend elements of the old with the new and end up writing music out of its era - Romanticism didn't finally snuff out until Strauss's glorious last 4 songs written in 1948!

Peter,
Well, I will happily stand by my statement that B was the last classical composer. And also that he essentially killed off classicism, and this is why; he proved that there was more to say within a classical framework, but he pushed that boundary to such an extreme within his late period work that it was like a challenge that no one wished to take up. Even Mendelssohn, who was a thooughly capable composer and a bit of a genius himself seemed to ground the classical aspects of his style more in Mozartian models than Beethovenian, although he readily acknowledged a deep love and respect for Beethoven. Yes, the Romantic Age was a done deal, it would have happened whether B had even lived or not.
Brahms then was one of the few who took up that challenge, using classical structures in his work, but never actually attaining the brevity and concision for which any of the big 3 classicist were known.
And of course, certain composers continued to write Romantic music for a long time after the official end of the era, but you aren't calling Strauss a Romantic, are you? No, I think not. Perhpas Rachmaninov and Elgar would qualify, but they were clearly aberrant in an age when the kind of music they were producing was not in favor by and large. They were, I think, classified as neo-Romantics, no? And I personally think of Brahms as a Neo-Classicist (I didn't make that up, I read it and agree with it), since he struggled his whole career against the stream of true romantics such as Liszt who seemed to favor tearing down the constraints imposed by previous ages. This is the essence of what the big war of the composers was about in Vienna in the second half of the 19th century. When Brahms captured Dvorak from the forces of the Dark Side and converted him it actually made the news! Now, that's bitter


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[This message has been edited by Gurn Blanston (edited March 14, 2004).]

[Rod]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
And I personally think of Brahms as a Neo-Classicist (I didn't make that up, I read it and agree with it),

As I have said before, from day one I think Beethoven was a quasi-Baroque Classicist, and as such marks him out from the other big name composers from the Classical era. The mistake has been made that, although Beethoven's difference from the others has been identified, his tendancy to be grouped with the Romantics has caused a serious misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Beethoven's music. I made this up myself, I could be right.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited March 14, 2004).]

[Peter]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Well, I will happily stand by my statement that B was the last classical composer. And also that he essentially killed off classicism, and this is why; he proved that there was more to say within a classical framework, but he pushed that boundary to such an extreme within his late period work that it was like a challenge that no one wished to take up. Even Mendelssohn, who was a thooughly capable composer and a bit of a genius himself seemed to ground the classical aspects of his style more in Mozartian models than Beethovenian, although he readily acknowledged a deep love and respect for Beethoven. Yes, the Romantic Age was a done deal, it would have happened whether B had even lived or not.
Brahms then was one of the few who took up that challenge, using classical structures in his work, but never actually attaining the brevity and concision for which any of the big 3 classicist were known.
And of course, certain composers continued to write Romantic music for a long time after the official end of the era, but you aren't calling Strauss a Romantic, are you? No, I think not. Perhpas Rachmaninov and Elgar would qualify, but they were clearly aberrant in an age when the kind of music they were producing was not in favor by and large. They were, I think, classified as neo-Romantics, no? And I personally think of Brahms as a Neo-Classicist (I didn't make that up, I read it and agree with it), since he struggled his whole career against the stream of true romantics such as Liszt who seemed to favor tearing down the constraints imposed by previous ages. This is the essence of what the big war of the composers was about in Vienna in the second half of the 19th century. When Brahms captured Dvorak from the forces of the Dark Side and converted him it actually made the news! Now, that's bitter

Well I agree Beethoven was virtually the last great classical composer, but what if Schubert had lived longer and do you regard him as classical or Romantic or a bridge between the two? I think I said in a thread a while back that all these labels are really unhelpful anyway - your reference to Brahms as 'neo-classical' is confusing as there was a neo-classical movement in the 20th century which has no connection with Brahms. Perhaps he would be better labelled post-classical as Strauss is post-Romantic!

------------------
'Man know thyself'

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Peter:
Well I agree Beethoven was virtually the last great classical composer, but what if Schubert had lived longer and do you regard him as classical or Romantic or a bridge between the two? I think I said in a thread a while back that all these labels are really unhelpful anyway - your reference to Brahms as 'neo-classical' is confusing as there was a neo-classical movement in the 20th century which has no connection with Brahms. Perhaps he would be better labelled post-classical as Strauss is post-Romantic!

Peter,
Yes, all labels seem to do is serve to confuse more than clarify. Schubert? I think that he (like Beethoven) started out being more radical and as he got older became more conservative. Perhaps if he had lived to B's age he would have been more of a preserver than a destroyer, of course we can't know, but he seems to be trending that way.
Post-classical? Sure, although they were all that! But if we give that term a specific meaning, such as "came after Beethoven but attempted to preserve classical forms within romantic expressions", then I can deal with it as a concept. Although I wouldn't want to go too far and call Late B "Baroque Revival"


------------------
Regards,
Gurn
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's my opinion, I may be wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[King Stephen]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
To me this seems to greatly exaggerate the greatness of Bach, for the sake of a cutsy phrase. Brahms is what I consider a "good" composer, but not a Genius like the other two.

Then again, I could be wrong. Is there anything which justifies his position as an equal to these two?

The saying "Bach,Beethoven and Brahms" had a different one before Brahms was added, it was "Bach, Beethoven and Berlioz". Someone decided that Brahms instead of Berlioz should be part of the three B's. In another time someone will come along and change it to Bach, Beethoven and Bruckner or Busoni,Byrd, Boyce etc. In reality who cares. Everyone has their favorite 3 B's. Outside of Beethoven we all go in different directions as to who is second and third on our list of composers.

[Beyond Within]

I made the post because I always hear people say "well, you gotta love the three B's!!" and I am thinking "Sorry, but Brahms is nowhere close to the other two, dont insult them with such an overstatement". I actually saw a piano repetoire book with the cutsy title "Bach.Beethoven.Brahms" There they are placing their compositions at an equal level...I dont know why it just annoys me.

[Peter]

Originally posted by Beyond Within:
I made the post because I always hear people say "well, you gotta love the three B's!!" and I am thinking "Sorry, but Brahms is nowhere close to the other two, dont insult them with such an overstatement". I actually saw a piano repetoire book with the cutsy title "Bach.Beethoven.Brahms" There they are placing their compositions at an equal level...I dont know why it just annoys me.

You sound like Tchaikovsky who reacted the same way! I don't think it's worth getting angry about - now Bach, Beethoven, Beetles is another matter!!

------------------
'Man know thyself'



[This message has been edited by Peter (edited March 15, 2004).]

[Rutradelusasa]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:
Peter,
Yes, all labels seem to do is serve to confuse more than clarify. Schubert? I think that he (like Beethoven) started out being more radical and as he got older became more conservative. Perhaps if he had lived to B's age he would have been more of a preserver than a destroyer, of course we can't know, but he seems to be trending that way.
Post-classical? Sure, although they were all that! But if we give that term a specific meaning, such as "came after Beethoven but attempted to preserve classical forms within romantic expressions", then I can deal with it as a concept. Although I wouldn't want to go too far and call Late B "Baroque Revival"

Schubert got more acquainted with the formal structure and had more dominion over it and more liberty to go where he wanted without leaving it when he got older, but his progress in dramatic music (operas, etc.) tend to something that would have disturbed the musical world after him if he had lived longer.
His progress on operatic music was impressive, for he had the worst texts ever and managed to create new and beautiful music to them. In his two latter operas (Alfonso und Estrella and Fierrabrás) Schubert showed an increasing capability of creating some effects which came from the melodrama (visible on Fierrabrás) and from various kinds of singing music (visible on Alfonso und Estrella) as Lieder. This might have led to a quite different path of Wagner, which would have been his contemporary.
His symphonic works only came to a major development with the 8th and 9th, so, had he finished some 14 or 15 symphonies, we would have some things much closer to Bruckner, and Bruckner would have got even further than he did.
So Schubert innovated (?) on what Beethoven perfected, and his development could have been impressive, how can we know?