Is there a myth of Brahms?

[Enrique]

... Symphonies 1 & 4 : such great works.

Symphonies 2 & 3: such great works.

Dear Enrique, my apologies once again for going off on some manic tangent.

Dear Quijote, you do not have to.

[Peter]

That thing about the 1st symphony looks like the advertising of a new product on TV. And it lacks sense. In saying 'true heir' I was carried away by enthusiasm. All composers the lived in the XIX were under Beethoven's aegis, you're right. But if I had to choose one that was closer to his legacy, I'd choose Brahms. Think about the things in which Beethoven excelled. What was the most important one?: his treatment of form. Precisely that which characterizes Brahms. And this is the feature that makes his followers to limp. They lack that inner logic one finds in Beethoven.

Another feature, strongly connected with the former: his ability to build an entire section from mere motifs or bare cells. Example: the first theme, first movement, Brahms fourth symphony. It is constructed out of a third, by inversion and transposition. The whole movement is built by transformations of this insignificant material. Is this not the way Beethoven did it?

Form and development. These are not two ornaments of music. They are it's very essence. Music does not go directly to the heart. It makes its way through the brain.

Yes but Brahms was looking back and Beethoven, whilst absorbing the past looked forward. Please don't misunderstand me as I too love the music of Brahms, but Beethoven dominated the first half of the 19th century (if not all of it!) and Wagner the second half. Brahms never influenced music to the extent of either of these men. I feel that the symphonies of Bruckner are more the logical continuation and development of Beethoven than those of Brahms despite their greatness.

[Peter]

Symphonies 2 & 3: such great works.

Absolutely - the 2nd with its radiant joy and warmth to me is Summer and the 3rd, reflective and Autumn.

[Quijote]

Absolutely - the 2nd with its radiant joy and warmth to me is Summer and the 3rd, reflective and Autumn.

With 1 & 4 being the other two missing seasons? So which one is spring and which one winter?

[Peter]

With 1 & 4 being the other two missing seasons? So which one is spring and which one winter?

No.4 is definitely Winter I think, no.1 doesn't really fit into any category. I don't know why but these descriptions of 3 of the symphonies seem apt and appropriate to me at least - don't you feel no.2 as a bright sunny piece, no.3 as reflective and no.4 as dark, cold and brooding? I know the inner movements don't always fit but they rarely do in descriptive titles - where for example is the surprise in 1st, 3rd or 4th movts of Haydn's no.94?

[Chaszz]

No.4 is definitely Winter I think, no.1 doesn't really fit into any category. I don't know why but these descriptions of 3 of the symphonies seem apt and appropriate to me at least - don't you feel no.2 as a bright sunny piece, no.3 as reflective and no.4 as dark, cold and brooding? I know the inner movements don't always fit but they rarely do in descriptive titles - where for example is the surprise in 1st, 3rd or 4th movts of Haydn's no.94?

Brahms' Third is quite often described as autumnal, and that is partly, I think, because of its orchestration. Brahms' orchestration is often thick of texture but IMO almost always creative and beautiful. Also to me his orchestration is bound up with his rhythm, which is also often heavy and thick, but powerful and effective. In fact his great rhythm, and his use of the piano as an intensely rhythmic (as well as a melodic and harmonic) tool, which use influences his orchestration, I think foreshadows jazz and rock. Much of what he wrote for other instruments and ensembles stems I think from his piano composing, and in much of that he uses the piano almost as a modern jazz or rock drum set, with every kind of cymbal, and size and kind of drum in it. What Enrique (in what I quote below) calls his bare cells of themes, are often more rhythmic than melodic.

Enrique said: "Think about the things in which Beethoven excelled. What was the most important one?: his treatment of form. Precisely that which characterizes Brahms. And this is the feature that makes his followers to limp. They lack that inner logic one finds in Beethoven.

"Another feature, strongly connected with the former: his ability to build an entire section from mere motifs or bare cells. Example: the first theme, first movement, Brahms fourth symphony. It is constructed out of a third, by inversion and transposition. The whole movement is built by transformations of this insignificant material. Is this not the way Beethoven did it?"

These are two excellent observations, yet I also agree with Peter that Wagner exemplifies the late 19th C. more than Brahms. However, as to Brahms "looking backward," a common observation, well, how about Schoenberg's essay "Brahms the Progressive" (which I haven't read) (but am meaning to)?

[Peter]

Brahms' Third is quite often described as autumnal, and that is partly, I think, because of its orchestration. Brahms' orchestration is often thick of texture but IMO almost always creative and beautiful. Also to me his orchestration is bound up with his rhythm, which is also often heavy and thick, but powerful
and effective. In fact his great rhythm, and his use of the piano as an intensely rhythmic (as well as a melodic and harmonic tool), which use influences his orchestration, I think foreshadows jazz and rock. Much of what he wrote for other instruments and ensembles stems I think from his piano composing, and in much of that he uses the piano almost as a modern jazz or rock drum set, with every kind of cymbal, and size and kind of drum in it. What Enrique (in what I quote below) calls his bare cells of themes, are often more rhythmic than melodic.

Enrique said: "Think about the things in which Beethoven excelled. What was the most important one?: his treatment of form. Precisely that which characterizes Brahms. And this is the feature that makes his followers to limp. They lack that inner logic one finds in Beethoven.

"Another feature, strongly connected with the former: his ability to build an entire section from mere motifs or bare cells. Example: the first theme, first movement, Brahms fourth symphony. It is constructed out of a third, by inversion and transposition. The whole movement is built by transformations of this insignificant material. Is this not the way Beethoven did it?"

These are two excellent observations, yet I also agree with Peter that Wagner exemplifies the late 19th C. more than Brahms. However, as to Brahms "looking backward," a common observation, well, how about Schoenberg's essay "Brahms the Progressive" (which I haven't read) (but am meaning to)?

I knew someone would bring Schoenberg up! (No pun intended )
Regarding the feature you mention of building a structure out of motifs - this was precisely what impressed Beethoven about Handel. Sibelius was another composer who did this.

[PDG]

Yes, virility in music. Hard to define (using words or even algorithms, I imagine) yet we all know it. No?

It is without argument for me, Phil. Beethoven has "balls". I've said before how his works often seem to build to a climax as does a man during coitus. The Hammerklavier is like a 40-minute long orgasm.

I'm not being smutty. It's just how I hear the basic nature of his passion. Read into that what you may care...

[PDG]

In terms of published works Brahms' output is considerably smaller than Beethoven's. In terms of the total output including the destroyed works and sketches, I am not so sure.

Surely we can only judge by what we have left. It's possible that his destroyed stuff was simply not very good, since clearly that's what Brahms thought about it.

Schubert didn't destroy anything but perhaps it is just as intangible and tantalising a thing to consider what he may have created had he lived beyond his 31 years?

Which is me rating Schubert above Brahms, which I do, anyway...

[Quijote]

[...] Which is me rating Schubert above Brahms, which I do, anyway...

I'm not into the rating game PDG, but I will say I've not listened to enough of Schubert. These last few days one song in particular : Der Müller und der Bach. So few chords, such a simple but beautiful melody. I'll have more of that, thank you very much!

[PDG]

I'm not into the rating game PDG, but I will say I've not listened to enough of Schubert.

It's okay, Phil, no one else has listened to enough Schubert these last 200 years either! Btw, I will respond to your PMs. Been away...will write...promise...

[Sorrano]

It's okay, Phil, no one else has listened to enough Schubert these last 200 years either! Btw, I will respond to your PMs. Been away...will write...promise...

It does surprise me a lot how little I do hear Schubert's music on the radio here. And when I do hear it, it's usually something like the Marche Militaire.

[Peter]

I'm not into the rating game PDG, but I will say I've not listened to enough of Schubert. These last few days one song in particular : Der Müller und der Bach. So few chords, such a simple but beautiful melody. I'll have more of that, thank you very much!

You are on the road to conversion!

[Quijote]

You are on the road to conversion!

Blue Baron, I've never had a problem with Schubert (string quartets and the quintet, and symphonies, having played in them), but the lied is a gap I have to make up for, I will readily admit.

[Roehre]

It does surprise me a lot how little I do hear Schubert's music on the radio here. And when I do hear it, it's usually something like the Marche Militaire.

A year ago we had his whole output being broadcast on BBC Radio 3 within ten days or so, including all his operas (or what he did write of them, as some are unfinished).