Unpopular Opinions

[Jo498]

Such a statement might say more about your age than you wish to reveal...

[Chaszz]

Bach wrote some of the greatest music, but also some run-of-the-mill music. His keyboard suites are full of movements that repeat the same old chord progressions ad infinitum and lack originality, really are hack work. Same with many of his cantata arias with their endless repeats. When inspiration comes, it transforms everything, but inspiration does not always come to him. Whether it is there or not, he drags every movement out to its preordained length, inspired or no.

Mozart's true genius is often eclipsed by his passion for pretty little tunes. An art teacher once told me he had walked into a gallery showing Calder mobiles and when no one was looking, swirled the mobiles around and made them rotate quickly and wildly. Sometimes I'd like to do the same to a Mozart movement.   

The third movements of many Classical era symphonies are extremely dull.

Of all the great composers, Brahms is least likely to be formulaic. He almost never at all relies on the obvious way through, but creates originally and meaningfully throughout. He takes nothing for granted and struggles everywhere to break through into the unexpected, but completely logical, way forward, which he achieves. The first and last movements of his First Symphony are unprecedented, unmatched and astounding in the changes and contrasts in their development sections. Actually they are nothing but development sections throughout. There is no such thing as a restatement of the exposition because the development goes on until the last note.  The second movement is astonishingly beautiful and also not predictable.  One may be able to predict the rest of a sequence within a short section, but not at all the nature of the next section. Yet each way forward is organic and a natural outgrowth of what came before, even though unexpected.   

[Karl Henning]

I just read an arrant absurdity, and was about to reply . . . and then I recalled what thread this is.

Carry on.

[knight66]

I just read an arrant absurdity, and was about to reply . . . and then I recalled what thread this is.

Carry on.

Quite.

Mike

[(poco) Sforzando]

I just read an arrant absurdity.

Just one?

[Karl Henning]

That would be telling.

[Chaszz]

Oh, come on, boys, don't be bashful. Criticize it. I didn't put it up there to just stand alone. As some article that's making the rounds on the web lately about Jewish disputativeness says, disagreement is the soul of lively civilization not to mention improvement for all. Dig in and fire away. But please have reasons. And please appreciate I've been listening for over 50 years to all the composers I mention and said none of it without long experience and thought. 

I get the impression that many of the regulars here, which I am not (I drop in occasionally) have heard so many of the same things over and over from all sides that their eyes glaze over and they often just write little clever and coded jokes and asides.* If that's the case, I understand. There's only so much that can be said about a topic, even a 700- or so year history of great music. But if what I wrote stirred anything up, by all means, fire away.

* (And actually that's why I don't come too often.)

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Oh, come on, boys, don't be bashful. Criticize it. I didn't put it up there to just stand alone.

For what it's worth, I like and agree with your exposition of the virtues of Brahms. So I see nothing to criticize!

[kishnevi]

Okay.
Yes, Bach did hack work. (In the true sense of the phrase, most of his choral works are hack work!) But even his hack work shows immense powers of invention.

I think what you say about Brahms is now a prevalent opinion.

I disagree with you about Mozart.  But your art teacher's idea was brilliant!

I also think you are wrong about the classical symphonies....but only in the sense that first, second, and fourth movements are also likely to produce ennui.

[amw]

Mozart's true genius is often eclipsed by his passion for pretty little tunes.

Mozart's ability to write pretty little tunes is his true genius (well, that and his ability to assimilate other musics very quickly, while discarding the elements that are unsuitable to his personality). No other composer of the period possesses his wealth of melodic invention, not even Haydn (though he comes close). And as pretty as Mozart's tunes are, they are never formulaic or routine, and often the only thing saving otherwise banal works from oblivion (cf. the Concerto for Flute and Harp).

While we're on the subject of Brahms, Brahms was also one of the great melodists, perhaps more so even than Tchaikovsky. The main theme of the finale of the 1st symphony is infinitely superior to the Beethoven 'Ode to Joy' that it pays homage to, partly because Brahms allows it to lead naturally onwards to the next phrase rather than closing it off with a cadence. Also, the Hungarian Dances and Liebeslieder Waltzes are among his great works, even if familiarity may prevent us from noticing this.

(That said, Brahms's surviving output contains almost nothing but great works.)

Also while I'm here: Mahler's tunes are often the only redeeming parts of his symphonies. He should have given up on the orchestra and written operettas instead. Or Broadway musicals.

[Jo498]

The Menuetto/Scherzo movements are supposed to be rather light. That said, if great composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are at work, they are usually entertaining and captivating anyway. For what it's worth I do no think that romantic/late romantic symphonies (and similar works) fare generally better with the "light" or dance movements. Although there is a broader range from slowish intermezzi to all kinds of dances and fast scherzando-type stuff they are often sticking out in a "more serious" environment than the classical minuets within the often comical/humourous classical style.
It all depends on one's expectations. I do not find baroque suites of dances dull per se, only because they are usually strings of comparably simply structured dance movements. I do not expect double fugues, so I am not disappointed if only allemandes and gigues show up.

[Jo498]

I think as a melody the "big tune" from Brahms 1 is not particularly good. I find the "ode to joy" much more "natural" and tuneful, maybe because it is simpler and more folksy. The Brahms has a strange "in-between" character; it cannot really decide if it wants to be a theme "to get worked through" or a simple cantabile tune. It is also a rather subdued joy. I like his first symphony, but the finale I am not so sure about, once the "big tune" starts.

But I never understood why some people say Brahms was weak at melodies. Even in the instrumental works there are plenty of wonderful melodic inventions. Two of my favorite pieces in that respect are his first violin sonatas and the E flat major clarinet sonata.

[Philo]

* (And actually that's why I don't come too often.)

Don't let that sort of nonsense stop you. Find your niche, and you'll find your group of cohorts. It's easy enough to ignore that stuff. It's hip to be square.

I also think you are wrong about the classical symphonies....but only in the sense that first, second, and fourth movements are also likely to produce ennui.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Oh, come on, boys, don't be bashful. Criticize it. I didn't put it up there to just stand alone. As some article that's making the rounds on the web lately about Jewish disputativeness says, disagreement is the soul of lively civilization not to mention improvement for all. Dig in and fire away. But please have reasons. And please appreciate I've been listening for over 50 years to all the composers I mention and said none of it without long experience and thought. 

I get the impression that many of the regulars here, which I am not (I drop in occasionally) have heard so many of the same things over and over from all sides that their eyes glaze over and they often just write little clever and coded jokes and asides.* If that's the case, I understand. There's only so much that can be said about a topic, even a 700- or so year history of great music. But if what I wrote stirred anything up, by all means, fire away.

* (And actually that's why I don't come too often.)

Did you write something controversial?

[Chaszz]

The Menuetto/Scherzo movements are supposed to be rather light. That said, if great composers like Mozart, Haydn and Beethoven are at work, they are usually entertaining and captivating anyway. For what it's worth I do no think that romantic/late romantic symphonies (and similar works) fare generally better with the "light" or dance movements. Although there is a broader range from slowish intermezzi to all kinds of dances and fast scherzando-type stuff they are often sticking out in a "more serious" environment than the classical minuets within the often comical/humourous classical style.
It all depends on one's expectations. I do not find baroque suites of dances dull per se, only because they are usually strings of comparably simply structured dance movements. I do not expect double fugues, so I am not disappointed if only allemandes and gigues show up.

Many third movements in symphonies from the various eras tend toward the light and banal. But for me anyway,  the Romantic ones hold up somewhat better. With the Classical era ones, I am sorely tempted to just turn them off, as they sometimes seem so obsessively symmetrical and stuffy.

[Chaszz]

Okay.
Yes, Bach did hack work. (In the true sense of the phrase, most of his choral works are hack work!) But even his hack work shows immense powers of invention.

I have to disagree here. In the keyboard suites for example, in the releases (the second theme that comes in the middle, what would be called a bridge (or the B section) in 30s and 40s pop music with a 32-bar AABA structure), he almost invariably uses the same limited choice of chord progressions which lead back to the main theme in the same limited number of ways. Almost any bridge in a great 30s or 40s popular song -- Porter, Rodgers, Hoagy Carmichael, Fats Waller, etc. -- has more originality than these dry dessicated husks of ideas which he pulls out and uses over, over, and over again. This is also true of the second themes in many, many of the arias in his religious works.

When he put together the B Minor Mass from his cantatas, he by and large picked out his most inspired movements, although this is true more of the choruses than the arias. I can't think of any chorus in this Mass that is not sublimely inspired, well, one or two only. When he's great, there's no one better. But he's not always at that level.

The Magnificat in D is another work that's supremely great from start to finish. Everything in it is on the highest level of inspiration and originality, including all the arias. Another one is the Musical Offering. To say that the average keyboard suite or aria from a cantata is anywhere near as great as the music in these works is unfortunately, simply inaccurate, IMO.  Craftsmanship, yes. Inspiration, no.

[Chaszz]

I think as a melody the "big tune" from Brahms 1 is not particularly good. I find the "ode to joy" much more "natural" and tuneful, maybe because it is simpler and more folksy. The Brahms has a strange "in-between" character; it cannot really decide if it wants to be a theme "to get worked through" or a simple cantabile tune. It is also a rather subdued joy. I like his first symphony, but the finale I am not so sure about, once the "big tune" starts.

I'll have more to say about the big tune and this movement soon, but need to go now.

[Purusha]

I have to disagree here. In the keyboard suites for example, in the releases (the second theme that comes in the middle, what would be called a bridge (or the B section) in 30s and 40s pop music with a 32-bar AABA structure), he almost invariably uses the same limited choice of chord progressions which lead back to the main theme in the same limited number of ways. Almost any bridge in a great 30s or 40s popular song -- Porter, Rodgers, Hoagy Carmichael, Fats Waller, etc. -- has more originality than these dry dessicated husks of ideas which he pulls out and uses over, over, and over again. This is also true of the second themes in many, many of the arias in his religious works.

Bach is merely respecting the form. Form was an important element in western art dating back to the middle ages as well as classical times. I don't think many people realize how much formal content there was even in something as deceptively "simple" as a Christian icon. For Bach, to be an artist meant to understand form, grasp its true essence and employ it in its proper context. In a way, there's a Platonic undertone to all this.

This is an entirely different vision of art than what we are accustomed to nowadays. To be frank though, i don't think "liberating" art from form led to better music, or better art for that matter. What makes the difference to me is the creativity of the artist, not his style.

[Chaszz]

I think as a melody the "big tune" from Brahms 1 is not particularly good. I find the "ode to joy" much more "natural" and tuneful, maybe because it is simpler and more folksy. The Brahms has a strange "in-between" character; it cannot really decide if it wants to be a theme "to get worked through" or a simple cantabile tune. It is also a rather subdued joy. I like his first symphony, but the finale I am not so sure about, once the "big tune" starts.

But I never understood why some people say Brahms was weak at melodies. Even in the instrumental works there are plenty of wonderful melodic inventions. Two of my favorite pieces in that respect are his first violin sonatas and the E flat major clarinet sonata.

I don't particularly like the big tune either, and think it's the corniest and least interesting thing in the symphony. Since in his three later symphonies he never saw the need to genuflect to the Beethoven Ninth in any way, it's likely and forgivable that here he thought he had to take a stab at it somehow and his heart wasn't really in it. When someone said to him it was similar to the Ode to Joy theme and he snapped, "Any ass can see that!" I wonder if he really wasn't a little angry at himself as well as his fan.

But, the variations he rings on it! As with the sublime Alpine horn theme, which I never tire of, he uses different fragments of these themes to build some of the most muscularly rhythmic, satisfying and emotionally powerful development anywhere in music. The whole last four or five minutes still astonishes me over and over again in its power and variety after many, many listenings.

I think he's a great pure melodist also, and would add the first movement of the First Piano Trio to your examples. Plus the second movement of Symphony No. 1. Not necessarily leaving out any other movements,  but have been spending time with this one recently.

[Jo498]

As I said, I am in two minds about the Brahms finale. On the one hand I have a lot of admiration for it. I like the dark intro and the alpine horn + choral. I also agree that the variation/development of the big tune is excitingly done. The big tune is for me a little of a letdown after the emotionally overwhelming horn call + brass chorale. And the other problem is that in a triumphant finale there is not really much room for the conflicts associated with the sonata development section, at least not in emphatic works in the tradition of Beethoven's 5th and 9th.

Brahms does a good job, but the whole thing is not entirely convincing for me whereas the three later symphonic finales and most of his chamber music are. Admittedly, with a good interpretation the music lets me forget such qualms even in the 1st symphony but I have them when I think about the piece.