Brahms and Beethoven

[Megan]

How much more difficult to play is Brahm's piano concerti compared to Beethoven's ?

.

[Quijote]

I am a mediocre pianist and any concerto by Beethoven or Brahms is beyond my technique (apart from certain passages, e.g. 2nd movement, 4th concerto). Anyway, I can't really comment, I'll leave that to the headmaster.

[Quijote]

Please don't ask me about any differences between LvB's Triple and Brahm's Double, or I shall scream.

[Roehre]

Please don't ask me about any differences between LvB's Triple and Brahm's Double, or I shall scream.

We won't start to discuss your pet-hates, Philip

[Peter]

The Brahms concertos are more demanding technically - the octave trills in Brahms's D minor concerto for example are notorious. In general Brahms's piano writing is thick chordal textures with often complex cross-rhythms and wide leaps - he demands a lot of power. I'd say the Beethoven concertos generally increase in technical difficulty in chronological order, though having said that the early Eb concerto written in Bonn is fiendish! Let's sum up by saying to play any of these concertos well you need a damn good technique!

[Quijote]

We won't start to discuss your pet-hates, Philip

Thank you, Welshman. I hate both of these works, by the way! On the other hand , I just love any double concerto by Ligeti, know what I mean?
You are my second Headmaster, by the way. You never gave me your recommendation for a sunny spring day. What is your advice, Master? (No irony, Roehrer is the Master).

[Peter]

Thank you, Welshman. I hate both of these works, by the way! On the other hand , I just love any double concerto by Ligeti, know what I mean?
You are my second Headmaster, by the way. You never gave me your recommendation for a sunny spring day. What is your advice, Master? (No irony, Roehrer is the Master).

Hate is a strong word! I actually like the double concerto (Brahms's I mean!!).

[Quijote]

You're quite right. "Hate" is a very strong word. No, I don't hate the Brahms Double. I was foolish in my choice of terms. See, I do "humble pie" when I'm wrong, and I thank you for having picked up on my inappropriate comment.

[Quijote]

On the other hand, I maintain a deep "negative position" for B's Triple.

[Quijote]

I must also say that the 'cello writing in the Brahms 'cello/piano sonatas is technically more exacting that Beethoven's, though not enormously so. Again, I can't comment for the poor pianist, just that I note they sweat in both cases.

[Peter]

On the other hand, I maintain a deep "negative position" for B's Triple.

Even that slow movement - surely there is redemption there?

[Sorrano]

Without having examined the concerti of Brahms, does he employ similar thick textures for the piano as he does in the piano solo works? I've found those textures to be a bit discouraging in working on his solo music.

[Quijote]

Even that slow movement - surely there is redemption there?

There is. It is a movement that is not "formulaic", in my ignorant opinon.

[Peter]

Without having examined the concerti of Brahms, does he employ similar thick textures for the piano as he does in the piano solo works? I've found those textures to be a bit discouraging in working on his solo music.

Indeed he does, great thick chords!

[Peter]

I think this topic could be expanded beyond Megan's original question. Brahms was often regarded as Beethoven's successor (at least by those opposed to the 'new music' of Wagner/Liszt). I've always thought referring to Brahms's 1st symphony as Beethoven's 10th a rather silly idea, any similarity with the Ode to Joy theme being at best superficial - the symphony as a whole has little resemblance to Beethoven whose own 1st symphony we might just as ridiculously describe as Mozart's 42nd or Haydn's 105th!