Interesting article about Brahms

[Chaszz]

http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/s...942907,00.html

[Peter]

Interesting yes, and of course a parallel with Beethoven who also had difficulties in his relationships with women.

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

[Steppenwolf]

As a fellow Wagnerite, Chaszz, I expect you like me may be less than enthusiastic about Brahms' music. To me Nietzsche summed it up well when he said that the music of Brahms represents the conservative mediocrity of the bourgeois German middle classes (Brahms' fan base).
Brahm's music is nice and clever, but it isn't brilliant. It is mildy entertaining, but it doesn't, like Wagner's music, make you want to jump up and throw a chair through the window! There isn't the depth of passion in it, nor any spark of sublimity or brilliance.

[Joy]

Very interesting article, Chaszz. I knew of Clara and Brahms but had no idea to what depths their relationship went. His relationship's with women does seem to share a common bond with Beethoven for sure.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
As a fellow Wagnerite, Chaszz, I expect you like me may be less than enthusiastic about Brahms' music. To me Nietzsche summed it up well when he said that the music of Brahms represents the conservative mediocrity of the bourgeois German middle classes (Brahms' fan base).
Brahm's music is nice and clever, but it isn't brilliant. It is mildy entertaining, but it doesn't, like Wagner's music, make you want to jump up and throw a chair through the window! There isn't the depth of passion in it, nor any spark of sublimity or brilliance.

Interesting critique. By pure coincidence I was discussing W in an email to a friend just before I read this chain. The words 'either', 'overbearing', 'or' and 'utterly tedious' were to be found in this email with regard to your hero.

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

[orpheus]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
As a fellow Wagnerite, Chaszz, I expect you like me may be less than enthusiastic about Brahms' music. To me Nietzsche summed it up well when he said that the music of Brahms represents the conservative mediocrity of the bourgeois German middle classes (Brahms' fan base).
Brahm's music is nice and clever, but it isn't brilliant. It is mildy entertaining, but it doesn't, like Wagner's music, make you want to jump up and throw a chair through the window! There isn't the depth of passion in it, nor any spark of sublimity or brilliance.

If I may intrude on this conversation, has anyone read Shoenberg's article "Brahms the Progressive"? Schoenberg makes a convincing case arguing that Brahms' music was just as progressive, if not more so than Wagner's. I can't say that I agree with Schoenberg completely (Shoenberg certianly learnt an awful lot from Wagner), but he does make some good points in Brahms' defense.

I think Brahms was a fantastic composer. I do, however, feel his chamber music where his finest work lies. His orchestration is occassionally stodgy.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:
As a fellow Wagnerite, Chaszz, I expect you like me may be less than enthusiastic about Brahms' music. To me Nietzsche summed it up well when he said that the music of Brahms represents the conservative mediocrity of the bourgeois German middle classes (Brahms' fan base).
Brahm's music is nice and clever, but it isn't brilliant. It is mildy entertaining, but it doesn't, like Wagner's music, make you want to jump up and throw a chair through the window! There isn't the depth of passion in it, nor any spark of sublimity or brilliance.

Sorry, Steppenwolf, I don't share your estimation of Brahms. I think the four symphonies and the Haydn Variations and much of the chamber music is great. Though I am so taken with Wagner for the past year, that I couldn't make any kind of comparison right now.

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by orpheus:
If I may intrude on this conversation, has anyone read Shoenberg's article "Brahms the Progressive"? Schoenberg makes a convincing case arguing that Brahms' music was just as progressive, if not more so than Wagner's. I can't say that I agree with Schoenberg completely (Shoenberg certianly learnt an awful lot from Wagner), but he does make some good points in Brahms' defense.

I think Brahms was a fantastic composer. I do, however, feel his chamber music where his finest work lies. His orchestration is occassionally stodgy.

Orpheus, I don't know if you're familiar with the piece where Schoenberg took chamber music by Brahms and orchestrated it in Brahms' symphonic style and harmony (interestingly enough, Schoenberg did this while in the middle of his twelve-tone period.). It's quite good. I can't remember the title right now, but could look it up if you're interested.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited April 28, 2003).]

[orpheus]

Yes, I know this orchestration very well indeed. It's an orchestration of the G min piano quartet. What's interesting about it is the way that Schoenberg tries to "justify" his own compositional methods through the manner of the orchestration, using it to highlight motivic relationships etc. Schoenberg maintained that serialism was the natural outcome of the evolution of western music and that he was the progeny of Brahms. Schoenberg's own very early music - pre-verklarte nacht - sounds very much like Brahms. Part of the hidden agenda behind this orchestration is, I think, to help to establish himself historically in this light. However, all this said and as one one expect,it is a brilliant orchestration.

[Steppenwolf]

Originally posted by Rod:
Interesting critique. By pure coincidence I was discussing W in an email to a friend just before I read this chain. The words 'either', 'overbearing', 'or' and 'utterly tedious' were to be found in this email with regard to your hero.

There is some truth in the description "overbearing", but the truth can be seen either positively or negatively. Wagner's music attempts to overwhelm the audience emotionally. Some people resist that, and fear "letting go", and would rather be charmed and wooed rather than bombarded with intensely charged and emotional music. But if you can make that step and find it in yourself to "let go", then Wagner's music offers a very exhilirating, intensely enjoyable and unique experience. I think the different attidudes people have to 'letting go' goes someway towards explaining why Wagner's music (not just his personality), more than any other, is either passionately adored or passionately hated.

As for 'tedious', a point about what Wagner tried to achieve in his musical-dramas - He wanted to created a 'total work of art' (Gesamtkunsktwerk) incorporating music, drama, poetry, acting, choreography, custume and set design etc into one complete work of art. He saw himself as an 'artist' rather than merely a composer of music. If you go to one of his musical-dramas only interested in the music and the orchestral parts, then there will certainly be periods which you will find tedious and boring because at certain times not much is happening down in the orchestra pit. While all artistic elements are present throughout, the focus shifts, so at one point the focus will be on the orchestra, and at the next moment the focus will be on a spoken soliloquy. At the latter, the listener should be judging the work not primarily as a work of music, because not much is happening in the orchestra, but as a work of drama, and listen in the same way you would listen to a Shakespearean monologue (it doesn't help if you don't know German!). So I think people who charge Wagner with tedium are looking at nothing but the music and don't take that into account. When the emphasis does shift to the orchestra and away from the actors and the diaologue, it is NEVER boring!! Quite the opposite. (and if you are interested in classical tragedy and drama, I think that the parts which focus on dialogue are generally stimulating also).

Think of Wagner as a fusion of Shakespeare and Beethoven. In many ways he was a successor to both. He took over where Beethoven left-off with the 9th Symphony, and explored with creative genius the possibility of combining symphonic music with poetry.




[This message has been edited by Steppenwolf (edited April 29, 2003).]

[Sorrano]

Do I hear echos of Hanslick and Von Bulow here in this thread?

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Sorrano:
Do I hear echos of Hanslick and Von Bulow here in this thread?

Yes.

[Rod]

Originally posted by Steppenwolf:

...As for 'tedious', a point about what Wagner tried to achieve in his musical-dramas - He wanted to created a 'total work of art' (Gesamtkunsktwerk) incorporating music, drama, poetry, acting, choreography, custume and set design etc into one complete work of art. He saw himself as an 'artist' rather than merely a composer of music. If you go to one of his musical-dramas only interested in the music and the orchestral parts, then there will certainly be periods which you will find tedious and boring because at certain times not much is happening down in the orchestra pit. While all artistic elements are present throughout, the focus shifts, so at one point the focus will be on the orchestra, and at the next moment the focus will be on a spoken soliloquy. At the latter, the listener should be judging the work not primarily as a work of music, because not much is happening in the orchestra, but as a work of drama, and listen in the same way you would listen to a Shakespearean monologue (it doesn't help if you don't know German!). So I think people who charge Wagner with tedium are looking at nothing but the music and don't take that into account. When the emphasis does shift to the orchestra and away from the actors and the diaologue, it is NEVER boring!! Quite the opposite. (and if you are interested in classical tragedy and drama, I think that the parts which focus on dialogue are generally stimulating also).

Think of Wagner as a fusion of Shakespeare and Beethoven. In many ways he was a successor to both. He took over where Beethoven left-off with the 9th Symphony, and explored with creative genius the possibility of combining symphonic music with poetry.

I am aware of Wagners attempt at creating a 'total artform'. I suggest he failed in this ambition - the result is to often long stretches of too little followed by short stretches of too much. Perhaps what he was striving for was not an ideal worth persuing, for it seems to me the sum of the artistic 'parts' does not add up to more than the parts could have been in isolation, on the contrary.

I am sure had Beethoven lived he would have never wrote another symphony with vocal parts. This was a one-off that almost never happened and is far removed from Wagners vision in any case.

I personally would not regard Wagner as Beethoven's or Shakespear's 'successor', with all that this term implies. Wagner was smart, but lacked the supreme sence of musical judgement that Beethoven had.

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

[This message has been edited by Rod (edited April 29, 2003).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Rod:
I am aware of Wagners attempt at creating a 'total artform'. I suggest he failed in this ambition - the result is to often long stretches of too little followed by short stretches of too much. Perhaps what he was striving for was not an ideal worth persuing, for it seems to me the sum of the artistic 'parts' does not add up to more than the parts could have been in isolation, on the contrary.

I am sure had Beethoven lived he would have never wrote another symphony with vocal parts. This was a one-off that almost never happened and is far removed from Wagners vision in any case.

I personally would not regard Wagner as Beethoven's or Shakespear's 'successor', with all that this term implies. Wagner was smart, but lacked the supreme sence of musical judgement that Beethoven had.

Wagner was met during his lifetime by non-understanding from certain quarters, although many great composers, many critics, and the public at large, loved his operas. We should not be surprised that this situation has echoes in the present.

[Gurn Blanston]

Originally posted by Rod:
I am aware of Wagners attempt at creating a 'total artform'. I suggest he failed in this ambition - the result is to often long stretches of too little followed by short stretches of too much. Perhaps what he was striving for was not an ideal worth persuing, for it seems to me the sum of the artistic 'parts' does not add up to more than the parts could have been in isolation, on the contrary.

I am sure had Beethoven lived he would have never wrote another symphony with vocal parts. This was a one-off that almost never happened and is far removed from Wagners vision in any case.

I personally would not regard Wagner as Beethoven's or Shakespear's 'successor', with all that this term implies. Wagner was smart, but lacked the supreme sence of musical judgement that Beethoven had.

Rod,
Well phrased, sir, couldn't agree more.
Regards,
Gurn