"Bach, Beethoven, Brahms"

[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?

[Peter]

The 3 B's !!

Well I agree with you - Brahms was a very fine composer but I don't think he is in the same league as Beethoven and Bach.

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

[Pastorali]

I can't accept only a 'Good' for Brahms. He was too 'good' for that, I would say 'Great' to describe him.

At his lifetime, some liked to beef down his work, the history uncovered, it's great. But I also would say he wasn't in the same league as Beethoven and Bach.

In my opinion, a good 'B' is Max Bruch.

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

[Rod]

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?

I suggest the other two are not in Beethoven's league.


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

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

[v russo]

Originally posted by Rod:
I suggest the other two are not in Beethoven's league.

hey Rod,

Why do you quote yourself? Are you a famous writer? Is this the quote of a distant family member of yours who was?

Just curious,



------------------
v russo

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

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

[Rutradelusasa]

For those who do not think Brahms a genius, you should try to listen and read the German Requiem. When you read it, you see many things you only hear in two superb recordings: Klemperer's with Elisabeth Shwarzkopf and Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau, and Gardiner's with Charlotte Margiono and Rodney Gilfry (I don't think this is the correct name of the guy, but I can't remember it). I have the first one and heard the latter too.
As it happens to Schubert's music (and often with Beethoven's too) there are many recordings out there that hide many of the genious of the music by being poor readings of their work. That's why reading the score along with hearing it, for me, helps greatly to understand someone's work, and in the Deutsche Requiem case there are simply too many details in phrasing, dinamycs, orchestration and choir writing that in normal recordings you don't get. There are also subtle changes in the mood of a phrase because of the words that you only get it right from the amazing pair of solists from the first recording. I mean, damm! that Fischer-Diekau is good, damm!

Now that I finished advertising cds ( ), I only would like to state that recordings out there often hide what's best on composers. That's why I think people who can should read along with the music.

As far as I consider Brahms a great genious worthy of the top ones, I don't think that the 3 Bs is nothing but an effect phrase, Bach and Beethoven developed music and gave it new meaning, as others did too. Brahms didn't, which doesn't mean that he couldn't, it means that he didn't need to, music was just fine the way it was. Brahms is the example for me that composers can be great writing not something new, but something good. Also, he adds a new depth to chamber music that was only seen in string quartets and others by Beethoven, yet all of his chamber music has this depth.

And last, but not least, everything Brahms did he treated it so that it always sounds grand and with depth (did I spell this right?) doing what Mahler tried and could not do, going beyond his friend Schumann and being right next to Wagner.
(I guess I should stop with these lenghty messages )

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Peter:
The 3 B's !!

Well I agree with you - Brahms was a very fine composer but I don't think he is in the same league as Beethoven and Bach.

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.




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

[Ahmad]

Well,what about Brahms piano works? all I listened to was four ballades
(I don't know whether there're others),is anybody here familiar with
other works..?

[Amalie]

Originally posted by Ahmad:
Well,what about Brahms piano works? all I listened to was four ballades
(I don't know whether there're others),is anybody here familiar with
other works..?

Ahmad,
You `can check out the following site for the complete works of Brahms.
http://www.geocities.com/Vienna/5325.../complete.html


I also like Brahm's chamber music. Here is another interesting link. http://www.good-music-guide.com/reviews/006_brahms.htm



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

[Gurn Blanston]

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.

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.

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

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

[Rod]

Originally posted by Gurn Blanston:

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.

I would say Handel was the dominant composer of the Baroque era, he was famous and recognised as a genius the world over, whereas Bach was a comparative unknown.

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

[Amalie]

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.

Well Gurn, I suppose I could agree with you too.
All styles contain there own seeds of destruction and the strange thing is that the most powerful and gifted of musicians like Beethoven and Mozart seem to provoke almost the opposite in the years that follow their death. But obviously the music lives on but a in totally different cultural climate. I have always been a bit unsure about this, for instance, can we get as it were the full effect in a largely uncultured modern world, (however one defines that) of great music that was written 200 years previously in a Vienna that was still governed by the Holy Roman Emperor and where the entire society was saturated with an incredibly rich musical culture?.


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

[spaceray]

Originally posted by Rod:
I would say Handel was the dominant composer of the Baroque era, he was famous and recognised as a genius the world over, whereas Bach was a comparative unknown.

About a hundred years after his death some Bach's manuscript was found wrapped around a tree and covered with tar to stop an infestation of wood beetle.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Rod:
I would say Handel was the dominant composer of the Baroque era, he was famous and recognised as a genius the world over, whereas Bach was a comparative unknown.

Rod,
Well, in Britain actually if not the world. However, that is only an argument for the fact that communication, as primitive as it was back then, was light years better from London than from Leipzeig. When Bach's music actually became known (other than the WTC amongst counterpoint teachers) in the 1830's due to Mendelssohn's efforts, Handel tipped into obscurity, undeserved though it may have been, it is nonetheless historical fact. It pains me to even point this out. There has to be a reason for this, millions haven't been hoodwinked by the critics after all. That sort of thing would probably die out in a generation or two. I suspect there must be some je ne c'est quoi reason for it.


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

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Amalie:
Well Gurn, I suppose I could agree with you too.
All styles contain there own seeds of destruction and the strange thing is that the most powerful and gifted of musicians like Beethoven and Mozart seem to provoke almost the opposite in the years that follow their death. But obviously the music lives on but a in totally different cultural climate. I have always been a bit unsure about this, for instance, can we get as it were the full effect in a largely uncultured modern world, (however one defines that) of great music that was written 200 years previously in a Vienna that was still governed by the Holy Roman Emperor and where the entire society was saturated with an incredibly rich musical culture?.

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


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