Johannes Brahms (1833-1897)

[Jaakko Keskinen]

What about Richard Strauss? I know he gave recognition to Strauss's symphony no.2 but did he ever give a comment about his tone poems (those that he lived to hear, IF he heard them at all)?

[Mirror Image]

Brahms admired Nielsen's Symphony No. 1 in G minor as well.

[Brian]

Brahms had high praise for Dvořák, Wagner (most of the time), and a few of the younger generation who met with his approval late in life (Schoenberg and Busoni, notably). His favourite contemporary composer however appeared to be Johann Strauss II.

I wonder if this is because Johann Strauss II not only could do something Brahms had great trouble doing, but did that particular thing better than almost anyone else in history. And, to some extent, Dvořák fits in that category too.

Melody must have been very hard for Brahms. I don't know if there's evidence he found melody a great challenge? But his famous Johann Strauss anecdote is jotting down the "Blue Danube" theme and writing "Alas, not by Brahms." And one of his quotes about Dvořák, which I'm paraphrasing since I don't know where to find it, is that Dvořák casually tossed around melodies which other composers would use to build entire symphonies. (Maybe he said something about Dvořák writing envy-inducing tunes "in his sleep"?)

[Jaakko Keskinen]

While Brahms died before Sibelius's breakthrough outside Finland, I recall Tawastjerna's biography mentioning that Brahms heard one of Sibelius's early songs, "Se'n har jag ej frågat mera" and he said: "He will be something someday." To quote Tomi Mäkelä: "For Brahms, that was presumably a compliment."

[Mirror Image]

While Brahms died before Sibelius's breakthrough outside Finland, I recall Tawastjerna's biography mentioning that Brahms heard one of Sibelius's early songs, "Se'n har jag ej frågat mera" and he said: "He will be something someday." To quote Tomi Mäkelä: "For Brahms, that was presumably a compliment."

I would certainly take that as a compliment. He basically foresaw that he will do great things in music and his prediction was correct.

[amw]

I wonder if this is because Johann Strauss II not only could do something Brahms had great trouble doing, but did that particular thing better than almost anyone else in history. And, to some extent, Dvořák fits in that category too.

Melody must have been very hard for Brahms. I don't know if there's evidence he found melody a great challenge? But his famous Johann Strauss anecdote is jotting down the "Blue Danube" theme and writing "Alas, not by Brahms." And one of his quotes about Dvořák, which I'm paraphrasing since I don't know where to find it, is that Dvořák casually tossed around melodies which other composers would use to build entire symphonies. (Maybe he said something about Dvořák writing envy-inducing tunes "in his sleep"?)

I think it may reveal a bit of Brahms's compositional process. The music of Dvořák and Strauss II, along with his 'all time favourite' Mozart and mentor Schumann, is clearly written with almost no sketching or laborious working-out at the piano (if they used the piano it was likely to improvise in order to come up with thematic ideas). Dvořák in particular is almost entirely an 'intuitive' composer. Brahms spent ages on pieces working them into shape. No one who's heard (eg) the sextets, violin sonatas, some of the songs, etc will deny that Brahms was an extremely refined melodist, but these melodies are products of intellect (eg the secondary theme in the first movement of Op. 36, one of his finest inspirations, is cleverly set up to loop back into itself to avoid problems of overly square phrasing we sometimes find in Dvořák or Mendelssohn [another 'intuitive'], in a way that suggests he spent some time figuring out how to do that. Or the gorgeous 'trio' section of Op. 119/2, which is a transformation of the opening theme into a lyrical mode). And more often he wrote 'themes' instead of melodies, so that he could turn them upside down or use them in canon with each other etc.

Not that Brahms didn't sometimes turn out popular melodies of the same calibre as Strauss (as in the Hungarian Dances) but even then the tunes themselves have been worked out in the sense that Brahms had studied the popular style closely, rather than inhabiting it with complete unselfconsciousness.

(I seem to recall Brahms being initially supportive and then turning lukewarm towards R Strauss, and declining to meet Sibelius even though he had a letter of introduction from Busoni?)

[Jaakko Keskinen]

declining to meet Sibelius even though he had a letter of introduction from Busoni?)

They did meet briefly eventually, though, at Cafe Leidinger.

[Jo498]

There are some famous statements by Brahms in conversation or writing where he says that he does not value "mere musical ideas" because "working them out" is what makes the music (and what needs the brains). Also, that in variations one should forget about the melody of the theme and just take the bass or the harmonic scheme and work out something really new from that.

In any case, I never really understood how Brahms could be considered poor in the melody department. There is some of the "subordination" to larger scale structures etc. but this is hardly different from Bach or Beethoven (although the details may be quite different, the subordination as such is not).
And, interestingly, the arch-melodist Schubert uses in some of his best works even less "melodic" but very simple short motives, e.g. the string quintet and the G major quartet. So such subordination is to some extent a feature of large scale classical-romantic movements.

And while Brahms's respect for Joh. Strauss' melodic gifts was genuine (and apparently shared by Schoenberg and his circle) I think he was a little facetious with the Blue Danube on that napkin (or visiting card or what it was).

[Brian]

To be clear/defensive, I did not insult Brahms's melodies, only said that he must have found writing melodies to be harder than, say, Dvorak found writing melodies.

[Brahmsian]

Brahms and Tchaikovsky got along courteously if not warmly when they met, but neither one liked the other's music and style.  The descriptions of what they said seemed to be a game of one-upmanship.

This is mostly true.  However, I do believe Brahms admired and gave praise for Tchaikovsky's 5th Symphony.  However, I don't think Tchaikovsky made any exceptions to his disdain for Brahms' music. 

[Madiel]

None of you talk about Brahms unless I'm in here doing my chamber music thing... 

I've dipped into the String Quintet No.2, op.111 a few times on and off in the last few months. Apparently Brahms intended this to be his last work? I've seen more than one source indicating it was around this time he intended to stop composing.

The recording I have is members of the Berlin Philharmonic Octet (Malacek, Mezger, Tsuchiya, Gerhard, Steiner) from 1970 - the sound is a fraction thin, but there's plenty of body to the performance. I just love the way it opens. It's so full of life, to me it feels like Spring is bursting out.

The second movement, by contrast, has a hushed and veiled quality to it. It takes some quite surprising little harmonic twists, and the main 'tune' rarely feels very settled. It sets up very nicely to lead into the 3rd movement, which is a rather gloomy menuet/trio. Well, the menuet is gloomy, the trio gets back towards the sunny disposition of the first movement. And then in the finale, Brahms gets a bit Hungarian rustic again, although it's quite complicated including an off-key beginning.

I don't know that this is one of my favourite Brahms chamber works, but it's still pretty darn good.

[Brahmsian]

None of you talk about Brahms unless I'm in here doing my chamber music thing... 

I've dipped into the String Quintet No.2, op.111 a few times on and off in the last few months. Apparently Brahms intended this to be his last work? I've seen more than one source indicating it was around this time he intended to stop composing.

The recording I have is members of the Berlin Philharmonic Octet (Malacek, Mezger, Tsuchiya, Gerhard, Steiner) from 1970 - the sound is a fraction thin, but there's plenty of body to the performance. I just love the way it opens. It's so full of life, to me it feels like Spring is bursting out.

The second movement, by contrast, has a hushed and veiled quality to it. It takes some quite surprising little harmonic twists, and the main 'tune' rarely feels very settled. It sets up very nicely to lead into the 3rd movement, which is a rather gloomy menuet/trio. Well, the menuet is gloomy, the trio gets back towards the sunny disposition of the first movement. And then in the finale, Brahms gets a bit Hungarian rustic again, although it's quite complicated including an off-key beginning.

I don't know that this is one of my favourite Brahms chamber works, but it's still pretty darn good.

Well, I just had to listen to the string quintets after your post.  I enjoy them both, very much.  Op. 88 was an immediate favourite of mine, while it took some time for me to warm up to the Op. 111.  Interesting that both string quintets were written in the mature/late years, while the two string sextets were from his younger days.

Listening to Op. 88 and Op. 111, performed by the Brandis Quartett, with Brett Dean on viola II.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Well, I just had to listen to the string quintets after your post.  I enjoy them both, very much. 

Me too. But I do have a minor objection to Op. 111, in that the explosive first mvt. really dominates it, and the following mvts. sound like afterthoughts by comparison. They seem to inhabit two different worlds.

[Madiel]

Yes, I also feel that the first movement rather overshadows the rest.

[TheGSMoeller]

Great video of Furtwangler and Brahms 4th finale...


https://www.youtube.com/v/leYbb5KZYDg

[Scion7]

It's a crime so many of these classic recordings suffer so much from the limits of the technology of the day.   

[amw]

Yes, I also feel that the first movement rather overshadows the rest.

The first movement, if I recall correctly, contains material intended for a fifth symphony; but when Brahms wrote Op. 111 he had decided to give up composing while he was still good, so I guess he just decided to write it as a string quintet instead. It's clearly on a more "symphonic" scale with quasi-orchestral sound at times, which is probably what leads to the impression of overshadowing the other (less substantial) movements. That and its quality is higher imo, with an intensity and vitality unsurpassed anywhere in Brahms's output.

Not the only Brahms work where the first movement greatly overshadows the remainder, though—I would also nominate the first Piano Concerto Op. 15 (whose first movement is basically an entire concerto on its own, and would work much better that way, imo), the second Sextet Op. 36, the second Symphony Op. 73, the first Violin Sonata Op. 78, and arguably the revised version of the first Piano Trio Op. 8.

[Madiel]

My chamber music sequencing has brought me to the Clarinet Trio, op.114. As performed by Pressler, Greenhouse, Pieterson.

[asin]B00000416K[/asin]

Crazily, it's been over 4 years since I listened to this, but it might as well have been yesterday. Because this is one of those pieces I fell totally in love with. In fact, one of the reasons I started developing spreadsheets and some kind of listening plan is so that I didn't just keep going back to the same works over and over - for example, so that every time I thought "Brahms chamber music" I didn't just head for the Clarinet Trio.

That special Brahmsian reticence, combined with the mellowness of clarinet and cello, is just perfect for me. Every one of the movements works. I don't even know which one I'd nominate as a favourite if pressed, I could probably narrow it down to the 1st and 2nd but between those it would be a toss-up.

I know general opinion seems to favour the Clarinet Quintet over the Clarinet Trio, and I do thoroughly enjoy the Quintet, but personally the Trio has a very special magic.

[Jo498]

The clarinet quintet is on a larger scale and has the more impressive slow movement, but the trio might be even more "Brahmsian", terse and melancholy. I also prefer the quintet but the trio is certainly also a great piece (as are the sonatas). We can really be eternally grateful to Mühlfeld that he lured Brahms out of retirement... (he might have composed the late piano stuff anyway but not the clarinet works).

The young Zemlinsky wrote a trio for the same instrumentation is worthwhile (although extremely indebted to Brahms). There is also a nice clarinet quartet (clarinet + piano trio) by some Walter Rabl from the same time.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Another clarinet trio fan here, in fact I think I currently prefer it to the quintet. Interesting how I've heard reports of this composition being considered an outright failure among Brahms's masterpieces. I cannot agree with that at all.