Is there a myth of Brahms?

[Enrique]

OK, I really don't know about the conditions of their composition, but up to the time when Casals began playing them in public, they were just finger exercises. This is the same man guilty of the Elgar cello concerto having been introduced to England. Nobody played it before him. Not trying to hurt anybody's feelings.

[Quijote]

OK, I really don't know about the conditions of their composition, but up to the time when Casals began playing them in public, they were just finger exercises. This is the same man guilty of the Elgar cello concerto having been introduced to England. Nobody played it before him. Not trying to hurt anybody's feelings.

No problem Enrique! Finger exercises they can be, but also bowing technique! It's true what you say though; until Casals they were considered as some sort of études, but their sheer musicality proves the opposite.
Do you like Czerny? Hah !!!

[Quijote]

But this is a Brahms thread, concerning a possible 'myth' of Brahms. Myths, as we know, abound in all cultures and fields of enquiry. There is one 'Brahms myth' that I have never really thought about, though I have heard it several times : that Brahms was a 'muddy' orchestrator. As I said, I have never given it serious thought, so maybe someone here can confirm or eliminate it?

[Quijote]

Another 'myth' I have heard goes like this : 'Tonality already contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction'. This seeming axiom (I haven't yet traced its genesis; I will do so later) gets bandied about without the slightest objection. But that topic should be reserved for another dedicated thread. Maybe others can dissect it.

[Chaszz]

@Chaszz:


...[*]Bach was an exponent of the Baroque era, which was to be followed by Classicism. This, by definition, is that point in the history of literature, and by extension of art and music, where the productions reached the highest point of perfection. To this period, that had long forgotten the contrapuntistic school and was a more vertical style of writing, belong Mozart and Beethoven who, for this reason, and for their individual achievments, should be justly considered to be the summit of (western) music.[/list]

Not.

What do you mean by "by definition," and by perfection? Perhaps formal symmetry and balance, but if art is considered to be also clearly related to emotion, by true definition no period can claim to be the highest. I am sorry, and this is purely a personal preference, but I would not trade Bach for Haydn and Mozart together. And Beethoven, who sometimes inflated the classical forms to gigantic proportions, was not in the Ninth Symphony trying to present any ideal of perfect formal classical symmetry and balance such as might have graced an 18th century drawing room. Is his music inferior to that of Haydn or Mozart?

And why is not highly formal counterpoint to be considered perfection? If so, the last movement of The Musical Offering is as perfect as art gets.

The "perfect" classicism of 5th C. BC Greek sculpture does not rule out the greatness of the frieze at Pergamon of almost four centuries later, a highly complex and agitated baroque masterpiece. Certainly the late 18th C. classical art of David, Ingres and Houdon cannot be compared with the 17th C. Baroque and romantic painterly messiness of Rembrandt, who is arguably the greatest Western painter and whose work is inarguably a lot greater than any of those three. And what work of 18th C. Classical era literature is to be considered equal to or greater than Hamlet or King Lear, or even Julius Caesar or Richard the Third? Again, my friend, I hope you merely jest. Classical and romantic/baroque esthetics have always alternated throughout history, and not only in the West. A critic would be well-advised to be very chary of of declaring one or the other better.

It may get as good as, but it doesn't get any better than, Bach, Shakespeare and Rembrandt. The esthetic of classicism as superior which you try to promote was pretty much outmoded by 1870. The idea of art evolving toward perfection over several different eras, or of one period being superior to another, a fashionable belief in the first half of the 19th century, is not taken seriously today anywhere.

[Enrique]

But this is a Brahms thread, concerning a possible 'myth' of Brahms. Myths, as we know, abound in all cultures and fields of enquiry. There is one 'Brahms myth' that I have never really thought about, though I have heard it several times : that Brahms was a 'muddy' orchestrator. As I said, I have never given it serious thought, so maybe someone here can confirm or eliminate it?

Not for me to enter such technical a matter. I have heard my aunt say it, but then too Stravinsky speaks about Beethoven manner of orchestrating. He said that his orchestration does not call one's attention ("no llama la atención). But he is not criticizing but speaking highly of Beethoven. Is it not the same with Brahms?

[Enrique]

Another 'myth' I have heard goes like this : 'Tonality already contained within itself the seeds of its own destruction'. This seeming axiom (I haven't yet traced its genesis; I will do so later) gets bandied about without the slightest objection. But that topic should be reserved for another dedicated thread. Maybe others can dissect it.

Would you, Quijote, mind developing a little this idea, so it is more clearly exposed? This theme seems really juicy. Some book references would also be gladly received in the forum, I think.

[Peter]

But this is a Brahms thread, concerning a possible 'myth' of Brahms. Myths, as we know, abound in all cultures and fields of enquiry. There is one 'Brahms myth' that I have never really thought about, though I have heard it several times : that Brahms was a 'muddy' orchestrator. As I said, I have never given it serious thought, so maybe someone here can confirm or eliminate it?

He was better at it than Schumann!

[Quijote]

Would you, Quijote, mind developing a little this idea, so it is more clearly exposed? This theme seems really juicy. Some book references would also be gladly received in the forum, I think.

Yes, quite juicy! Maybe I'll launch a thread about it, but not right now, if you don't mind. Let's leave it to ripen and get even juicier!

[Sorrano]

As a kid, when I was first introduced to the music of Brahms there was a mystique about him as many of the record notes made favorable comparisons to Beethoven. For example, Brahms' first symphony has often been labeled as Beethoven's tenth. Over the years that mystique has faded, especially as I have listened to music by some of his contemporaries, for example Dvorak. Dvorak composed 9 symphonies and I personally think that every one is good. At each hearing of Dvorak I find I prefer his music more and more to that of Brahms.

[Enrique]

Dvorak was more inclined towards the new ways of Liszt and Wagner. For me, it is the deep knowledgde of the old contrapuntal school what makes Brahms so interesting. He was like the player of some instrument made by the gods, who knew how to pull its infinite shades out of it.

[Sorrano]

In some ways, I think that Brahms was over-hyped by Schumann before he had a chance to live up to that hype. It may be, as well, that living in the shadow of Beethoven as Schumann portrayed him gave reason for Brahms to be over cautious in what he put out for public consumption. As it is, the mystique that Brahms had over me years ago melted away when I listened more and more to the music of his contemporaries, particularly Dvorak. I like the music of Brahms, but it does not seem to me to be any more outstanding than that of his colleagues, regardless of progressiveness or not.

[Quijote]

Personally, I have never felt 'hyped-up' about Brahms, yet clearly there is no doubt about his place in the canon. Ditto Dvorak. But there is one composer that always seems to get sidelined in this sort of debate (the symphonic one), one that would satisfy even Enrique's contrapuntal desires. Dare I mention his name?

[Sorrano]

Personally, I have never felt 'hyped-up' about Brahms, yet clearly there is no doubt about his place in the canon. Ditto Dvorak. But there is one composer that always seems to get sidelined in this sort of debate (the symphonic one), one that would satisfy even Enrique's contrapuntal desires. Dare I mention his name?

Agreed on the unnamed composer! I mentioned Dvorak as in my mind he has always been paired with Brahms, but Brahms has always had that mystique (i think, coming from Schumann) but it was Dvorak, for the most part, that helped rid me of that Brahms notion. Now, for that other composer, he is in his own league. While there is a lot of similarity in approach to the symphonic output (in terms of structure), his results far outweigh anything that Brahms composed.

[Quijote]

Agreed on the unnamed composer! I mentioned Dvorak as in my mind he has always been paired with Brahms, but Brahms has always had that mystique (i think, coming from Schumann) but it was Dvorak, for the most part, that helped rid me of that Brahms notion. Now, for that other composer, he is in his own league. While there is a lot of similarity in approach to the symphonic output (in terms of structure), his results far outweigh anything that Brahms composed.

It's strange how all these composers get 'paired', isn't it? Telemann/Bach, Bach/Handel, Haydn/Mozart, Brahms/Dvorak, Mahler/He who shall not be named, Quijote/Lady Gaga...
Beethoven kind of stands out, no? Or not? Tell you a true story about a lesson I gave today: covering (again) the N6/Neapolitan sixth with examples from Schubert, Haydn and LvB. We saw all these examples and one student said to us: "I really like Haydn and Schubert, but that Beethoven's got balls!" He is virile, there's no doubt.