I've been pretty obsessed with the first movement of this piece for a few years now. I love the way the harmonic motion takes so many unexpected, satisfying turns (from what I've read, the thing I'm talking about is Brahms' linkage technique). I love the way he recontextualizes the various themes so thoroughly in the various sections. I would love a recommendation of something else along these lines. I realize that what I've said is completely vague if you just read what I've written, so think about what the music sounds like to you rather than trying to prescribe something according to my babbling.
If it helps, other favorite composers of mine are Ravel, Rautavaara, Feldman, early Stravinsky, Murail, Purcell, Ives, Satie, and anything else that sounds particularly lush or harmonically rich to my ears. I do not particularly like things that I find predictable and lifeless, such as Schumann/Mendelssohn/Mozart, and a lot of the others that would usually go in the same sentence as Brahms. Feel free to suggest them anyway, as it's great to be proven wrong, but if you really have to say something about
Thanks!
(Man, what a jerky first post. Sorry 'bout that.)
Try Dvorak's 7th. Its very much in the style of Brahms (who was a close friend of Dvorak), and has a lot of beautiful passages along with some harmonic surprises.
Bruckner 6,7,8,9
Mahler
Quote from: Halcyone on June 16, 2008, 12:37:31 AM
I've been pretty obsessed with the first movement of this piece for a few years now.
I think it's a lovely first post, mainly because I am obsessed with the same movement! A highlight of symhony in my opinion.
Quote from: hornteacher on June 16, 2008, 05:12:32 AM
Try Dvorak's 7th.
Quote from: Dm on June 16, 2008, 05:19:48 AM
Bruckner 6,7,8,9
I forgot to mention--would you mind recommending particular recordings as well? Especially for famous pieces like these. It'll have to be especially good in Dvořák's case, as I haven't much cared for him in the past, either!
Quote from: Halcyone on June 16, 2008, 12:37:31 AM
I do not particularly like things that I find predictable and lifeless, such as Schumann [...]
Well, nobody's perfect. :D Schumann can be extremely uneven. Which pieces have you heard?
Quote from: Halcyone on June 16, 2008, 07:13:23 AM
I forgot to mention--would you mind recommending particular recordings as well? Especially for famous pieces like these. It'll have to be especially good in Dvořák's case, as I haven't much cared for him in the past, either!
There's an early '90s recording of Dvorak 7 by Wolfgang Sawallisch and the Philadelphia Orchestra that's as good as they come. :D
Quote from: mn dave on June 16, 2008, 05:21:29 AM
I think it's a lovely first post, mainly because I am obsessed with the same movement! A highlight of symhony in my opinion.
Other highlights include the entire second movement, the entire third movement, and the entire fourth movement. ;D
Honestly, I really think there is nothing else quite like this movement - it's an absolute original. The Dvorak Seventh might be similar, and indeed for the following comments:
QuoteI love the way the harmonic motion takes so many unexpected, satisfying turns (from what I've read, the thing I'm talking about is Brahms' linkage technique). and especially: I love the way he recontextualizes the various themes so thoroughly in the various sections.
...apply
greatly to much of Dvorak's music, especially the first movement of the Seventh (but also the Cello Concerto, last two symphonies, and, yes, even the much-maligned Symphony No 2). My first recording of that symphony was Bernstein's with the New York Philharmonic, and I recommend it heartily: slower than most takes, which enables Bernstein to fully flesh out all the twists and turns and intricate details. That recording is the one in which I hear "new things" most, even now, primarily very subtle appearances of the main motifs which I had never noticed before. Great "thinking" music. It also has an unbelievable performance of the finale. :)
I would first get a Brahms Symphony Cycle.
Do you like the fourth movement of his fourth? One of my my favorite chaconnes, for sure.
Try the first movement of Brahms' 2nd; I personally don't think the 2nd symphony as a whole holds up against his first and fourth symphonies, but that first movement of the 2nd is an incredible piece of work.
Try Dvorak Symphony No. 8 in G major (though because of publishing, some title the G major as the 7th).
For sharp contrast, Beethoven's 9th, then Brahms' 1st symphonies (I think you'll enjoy the fourth movement of Brahms' first symphony).
Quote from: Halcyone on June 16, 2008, 07:13:23 AM
I forgot to mention--would you mind recommending particular recordings as well? Especially for famous pieces like these. It'll have to be especially good in Dvo?ák's case, as I haven't much cared for him in the past, either!
Levine with the Chicago Symphony has a great 7th. The New World is also on the CD which is not my favorite version but is also good.
Quote from: hornteacher on June 16, 2008, 06:37:37 PM
Levine with the Chicago Symphony has a great 7th. The New World is also on the CD which is not my favorite version but is also good.
Incidentally, hornteacher, I finally got Mackerras' Dvorak 8+9 and it is indeed extraordinary. Fabulous! Were it not for Otmar Suitner's unique Eighth, that disc would be my favorite performance for both works. 0:)
Quote from: Brian on June 16, 2008, 06:57:28 PM
Incidentally, hornteacher, I finally got Mackerras' Dvorak 8+9 and it is indeed extraordinary. Fabulous! Were it not for Otmar Suitner's unique Eighth, that disc would be my favorite performance for both works. 0:)
Glad you enjoyed it. Its going with me to my desert island.
Quote from: hornteacher on June 16, 2008, 07:00:32 PM
Glad you enjoyed it. Its going with me to my desert island.
Probably mine too, though if I could only take one disc to that desert island it would be ... Brahms' Fourth ;D [Kleiber/VPO]
Quote from: Brian on June 16, 2008, 07:31:04 PM
Probably mine too, though if I could only take one disc to that desert island it would be ... Brahms' Fourth ;D [Kleiber/VPO]
Also a good choice. I've really gotten into Brahms 4th a lot more recently. I'm doing a score study on the 30 variations in the last movement. Great stuff.
I should say that I've played in the orchestra for Brahms' First and Second Symphonies, Double Concerto, and German Requiem. His music is not easy to pull together, but very gratifying for every section. :D
You might look into late Beethoven, particularly the Fourth Piano Concerto which is a personal favorite of mine. The first movement is really wild harmonically. You might have already explored Debussy, but you didn't mention him in your list of other favorite composers. He's another composer of great, ambiguous, impressionist music. However, Debussy's music is based more in modal harmony than tonal harmony so the ambiguities in his music are different from those in Brahms, et al. Also, the king of harmonic and motivic invention is still Wagner. I'd recommend starting with the orchestral excerpts from the operas (Preludes to Parsifal and Tristan, Seigfried's Rhine Journey, the Overtures, etc.), before taking the plunge into the complete operas.
Quote from: Brian on June 16, 2008, 06:57:28 PM
Incidentally, hornteacher, I finally got Mackerras' Dvorak 8+9 and it is indeed extraordinary. Fabulous! Were it not for Otmar Suitner's unique Eighth, that disc would be my favorite performance for both works. 0:)
I prefer Kubelik. No, never heard Otmar Suitner's interpretation.
I think if you study Mendelssohn, Schumann and Mozart a little more deeply you'll find the characterization of "predictable and lifeless" just doesn't hold up. What a world of discovery you have waiting for you!
But I agree that Brahms 4 is just about the most perfect symphony ever written, for the reasons you state, and more. Leonard Bernstein has an excellent analysis for the layman on the first movement of this symphony in his book The Infinite Variety of Music, which impressed me greatly when I was first becoming interested in classical music because it illustrates how tight a web can be woven from the most basic musical materials.
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 10, 2008, 04:36:40 AM
I think if you study Mendelssohn, Schumann and Mozart a little more deeply you'll find the characterization of "predictable and lifeless" just doesn't hold up. What a world of discovery you have waiting for you!
I think I might have to partly agree with the OP here. Schumann's symphonies I generally find tedious (except some parts of the Rhenish), and much of Mozart is well made but frankly inane. Mendelssohn symphonies 3 and 4 are fine, but 2 is dreary. I did enjoy his string symphonies, but haven't heard them for a few years.
But I love Brahms 4. His passacaglia finale is possibly my favourite movement of any piece of music, ever!
BTW, the 4th was probably the highlight of Norrington's recent cycle on DVD, and featured a particularly lovely flute solo in the finale.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 10, 2008, 06:42:40 PM
I think I might have to partly agree with the OP here. Schumann's symphonies I generally find tedious (except some parts of the Rhenish), and much of Mozart is well made but frankly inane.
I'm sure Mozart's ghost is wishing he added a few Mystic chords and Xenakis glissandi into the clarinet quintet right about now.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 10, 2008, 06:42:40 PM
I think I might have to partly agree with the OP here. Schumann's symphonies I generally find tedious (except some parts of the Rhenish), and much of Mozart is well made but frankly inane. Mendelssohn symphonies 3 and 4 are fine, but 2 is dreary. I did enjoy his string symphonies, but haven't heard them for a few years.
But I love Brahms 4. His passacaglia finale is possibly my favourite movement of any piece of music, ever!
BTW, the 4th was probably the highlight of Norrington's recent cycle on DVD, and featured a particularly lovely flute solo in the finale.
Mozart inane? Are you insane?
Quote from: eyeresist on July 10, 2008, 06:42:40 PM
I think I might have to partly agree with the OP here. Schumann's symphonies I generally find tedious (except some parts of the Rhenish), and much of Mozart is well made but frankly inane. Mendelssohn symphonies 3 and 4 are fine, but 2 is dreary. I did enjoy his string symphonies, but haven't heard them for a few years.
You have a world of discovery in front of you as well.
Quote from: eyeresist on July 10, 2008, 06:42:40 PM
. . . [Mendelssohn] . . . but 2 is dreary.
Oh, I don't think so.
Quote from: karlhenning on July 11, 2008, 04:35:54 AM
Oh, I don't think so.
Nor do I. In fact, although I'm not Saul, I've never yet heard anything by Mendelssohn that I could possibly describe as "dreary."
Since my previous post I've had that stupid motif from the 2nd stuck in my head all weekend, and my opinion remains unchanged!
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on July 10, 2008, 04:36:40 AM
But I agree that Brahms 4 is just about the most perfect symphony ever written, for the reasons you state, and more. Leonard Bernstein has an excellent analysis for the layman on the first movement of this symphony in his book The Infinite Variety of Music, which impressed me greatly when I was first becoming interested in classical music because it illustrates how tight a web can be woven from the most basic musical materials.
I've read that. I like how he shows how Brahms
does have ideas, tons of them, instead of "composing a symphony without ideas", like how he was accused.
The opening pages of the symphony are quite something to study. You pretty much don't have much of a melody for a while, just little figures floating around with very interesting, hypnotic, but not far from normal, harmonic progressions- really caught my attention on first listening.
Halcyone, have you listened to the Brahms Paganini Variations? Mystic-sounding stuff there as well, although it does repeatedly cover the same chord progressions. That's the only thing close to that sound i can think of at the moment; i'm not sure about recommending Bruckner or Mahler.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 19, 2008, 06:54:42 AM
The opening pages of the symphony are quite something to study. You pretty much don't have much of a melody for a while, just little figures floating around with very interesting, hypnotic, but not far from normal, harmonic progressions- really caught my attention on first listening.
I don't know what to make of this silly statement. Brahms 4 opens with the main melody of the movement stated in unison by first and second violins, starting in the first bar. It is rather spare, not really a singing cantabile, but similar melodies, emphasizing motifs that are subsequently developed, are often used in the opening of a symphony, such as Brahms 2, Brahms 3, Beethoven 5, Beethoven 9, Beethoven 3, Mozart 39, and many others.
Quote from: scarpia on August 19, 2008, 08:22:50 AM
I don't know what to make of this silly statement. Brahms 4 opens with the main melody of the movement stated in unison by first and second violins, starting in the first bar. It is rather spare, not really a singing cantabile, but similar melodies, emphasizing motifs that are subsequently developed, are often used in the opening of a symphony, such as Brahms 2, Brahms 3, Beethoven 5, Beethoven 9, Beethoven 3, Mozart 39, and many others.
It's a melody, but not typically melodic. It's not nearly as melodic as the opening of Brahms 2nd or 3rd, which sets it apart. Actually, the short figures are more of a Haydn thing, but of course with very different harmonic progressions.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 19, 2008, 12:11:18 PM
It's a melody, but not typically melodic. It's not nearly as melodic as the opening of Brahms 2nd or 3rd, which sets it apart.
You don't think this is a melody? Check out starting at measure 57 in the cello and then picked up by the violins in measure 65. A big soaring melody if there ever was one:
(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bhr1228/large/sco10009.gif)
(http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/variations/scores/bhr1228/large/sco10010.gif)
The opening of the 3rd symphony isn't the most melodic of things if you ask me.
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on August 19, 2008, 12:25:01 PM
You don't think this is a melody? Check out starting at measure 57 in the cello and then picked up by the violins in measure 65...
But that's some distance in from the opening... :)
Quote from: jochanaan on August 19, 2008, 12:41:43 PM
But that's some distance in from the opening... :)
Well page 9 in the score is still "the opening pages" I think, or better yet it is still the exposition which technically is the beginning of a sonata form movement ;D
Quote from: PerfectWagnerite on August 19, 2008, 12:25:01 PM
The opening of the 3rd symphony isn't the most melodic of things if you ask me.
I consider this one of the most striking melodies ever written.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 19, 2008, 12:11:18 PM
It's a melody, but not typically melodic. It's not nearly as melodic as the opening of Brahms 2nd or 3rd, which sets it apart. Actually, the short figures are more of a Haydn thing, but of course with very different harmonic progressions.
It's a melody but not a typical melody? What does that even mean? It is the first and second violins playing in octaves over an arpeggio accompaniment in low strings with winds playing a slowly shifting chordal accompaniment. Then the entire melody is literally repeated with some ornamentation (parallel octaves replaced with octave jumps) and the reeds playing a flowing accompaniment. The same melody, played forte instead of piano, is the basis of the coda. This is not an assortment of motifs that gets tossed around (although phrases from it do undergo typical symphonic development) it is a melody that is repeated intact at critical moments in the development of the movement. If anything the opening of the 4th is more overtly melodic than the typical symphonic allegro. What you're saying makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Quote from: scarpia on August 19, 2008, 02:14:24 PM
It's a melody but not a typical melody? What does that even mean? It is the first and second violins playing in octaves over an arpeggio accompaniment in low strings with winds playing a slowly shifting chordal accompaniment. Then the entire melody is literally repeated with some ornamentation (parallel octaves replaced with octave jumps) and the reeds playing a flowing accompaniment. The same melody, played forte instead of piano, is the basis of the coda. This is not an assortment of motifs that gets tossed around (although phrases from it do undergo typical symphonic development) it is a melody that is repeated intact at critical moments in the development of the movement. If anything the opening of the 4th is more overtly melodic than the typical symphonic allegro. What you're saying makes no sense to me whatsoever.
wtf lol
i just meant to say that it's not the most typical-sounding opening melody out there. There's not many opening melodies I can think of that use a pattern of only two notes rest two notes, so on for the first 8 measures. It's not a cantabile Brahms opening like his other 3 symphonies, and it doesn't sound like Haydn, either, so that's what makes it interesting.
It's a very prototypical Brahms theme, built as it is on a succession of falling thirds (with octave transpositions): B, G, E, C, A, F#, D#, B.
You can see it in the finale too, in the offbeat pizzicato strings at meas. 233 (E, C, A, F#, D#, B, etc.), and it also occurs in the Clarinet Trio op. 114, and many other works. It even appears in the finale of the First Symphony, at meas. 257 (G, E, C, Ab, F, D, B, G), with the notes in pairs, just as in the 4th symphony.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 19, 2008, 02:54:51 PM
wtf lol
i just meant to say that it's not the most typical-sounding opening melody out there. There's not many opening melodies I can think of that use a pattern of only two notes rest two notes, so on for the first 8 measures. It's not a cantabile Brahms opening like his other 3 symphonies, and it doesn't sound like Haydn, either, so that's what makes it interesting.
The Brahms Four has an awfully striking entrance - as one critic said, it is like a great dramatic tragedy, and that you can tell its ending will be unhappy right from the first sentence. It's the downright odd accompaniment to that very opening melody that always makes me feel off-balance...
EDIT: Please forgive me for the downright childish contribution. It took me long enough to figure out which passage the sheet music PW posted came from... :(
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on August 19, 2008, 04:42:01 PM
It's a very prototypical Brahms theme, built as it is on a succession of falling thirds (with octave transpositions): B, G, E, C, A, F#, D#, B.
You can see it in the finale too, in the offbeat pizzicato strings at meas. 233 (E, C, A, F#, D#, B, etc.), and it also occurs in the Clarinet Trio op. 114, and many other works. It even appears in the finale of the First Symphony, at meas. 257 (G, E, C, Ab, F, D, B, G), with the notes in pairs, just as in the 4th symphony.
That may well be, but I have always been struck by how strongly the opening theme of the Fourth resembles this passage from the slow movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier (another work in which falling thirds are typical, and which Brahms undoubtedly knew and greatly admired, as the opening movement of his piano sonata in C, op. 1, is directly modeled on the opening of the Hammerklavier).
Quote from: Sforzando on August 20, 2008, 04:33:06 AM
That may well be, but I have always been struck by how strongly the opening theme of the Fourth resembles this passage from the slow movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier (another work in which falling thirds are typical, and which Brahms undoubtedly knew and greatly admired, as the opening movement of his piano sonata in C, op. 1, is directly modeled on the opening of the Hammerklavier).
This hardly negates what I said. Wherever he got it from, he made it his own.
Quote from: Sforzando on August 20, 2008, 04:33:06 AM
That may well be, but I have always been struck by how strongly the opening theme of the Fourth resembles this passage from the slow movement of Beethoven's Hammerklavier (another work in which falling thirds are typical, and which Brahms undoubtedly knew and greatly admired, as the opening movement of his piano sonata in C, op. 1, is directly modeled on the opening of the Hammerklavier).
I'll have to check out that sonata eventually. Btw, did he just change the key signature from C min. to C maj. but write in F# maj. in the C maj. section? ???
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 20, 2008, 06:51:15 AM
I'll have to check out that sonata eventually. Btw, did he just change the key signature from C min. to C maj. but write in F# maj. in the C maj. section? ???
I honestly don't understand your question.
Quote from: Sforzando on August 20, 2008, 06:54:38 AM
I honestly don't understand your question.
in the 5th bar of that pic, it cancels out the flats..... never mind, i think i understand what he's doing.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 20, 2008, 06:51:15 AM
I'll have to check out that sonata eventually. Btw, did he just change the key signature from C min. to C maj. but write in F# maj. in the C maj. section? ???
He's got a four-bar transition to F# minor and he's getting tired of cancelling out flats.
Quote from: Sforzando on August 20, 2008, 06:54:16 AM
Never said it did.
Yeah, I didn't really think you did.
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 20, 2008, 07:24:17 AM
in the 5th bar of that pic, it cancels out the flats..... never mind, i think i understand what he's doing.
Oh, now I see. The basic tonality of the piece is F# minor; he changes key to D in the exposition for the second group and to F# in the parallel passages from the recapitulation. Eb major as a key (and signature) is only briefly used in the development. I suppose the little passage leading back to F# minor is sufficient modulatory that he decided to cancel all flats/sharps in the signature and just use accidentals.
Quote from: Sforzando on August 20, 2008, 08:37:56 AM
I suppose the little passage leading back to F# minor is sufficient modulatory that he decided to cancel all flats/sharps in the signature and just use accidentals.
yeah, that's what it looked like to me when i took a second look.
Brahms 4 starts with a melody, a very "melodic" melody, one of the great melodies, in fact.
It's stuck in my head right now. :)
Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on August 19, 2008, 02:54:51 PM
wtf lol
i just meant to say that it's not the most typical-sounding opening melody out there. There's not many opening melodies I can think of that use a pattern of only two notes rest two notes, so on for the first 8 measures. It's not a cantabile Brahms opening like his other 3 symphonies, and it doesn't sound like Haydn, either, so that's what makes it interesting.
Actually I think it quite lyric and cantabile myself, but for another example of Brahms writing a melody slightly fragmented with rests, see the intermizzo op. 116/5 (a piece that's made considerably easier if you re-distribute the interlocking chords in the first eight bars or so. Cheating? well, maybe, but it does make the piece much more playable.
http://imslp.org/imglnks/usimg/f/f9/IMSLP01528-Bp31.pdf
A musical artifact can be stuck in one's aural memory, and yet not be a melody 0:)
Quote from: Mark G. Simon on August 20, 2008, 04:44:22 AM
This hardly negates what I said. Wherever he got it from, he made it his own.
This certainly can be said of the finale as well. He really made that Bach tune his own.
If I understand Greg correctly, he's not saying that this opening melody isn't a great, lyrical melody, but that it's an unusual type of melody, and if that's what he's saying I agree with him. What's unusual about it is that it is so plain and symmetrical in outline, in rhythm, in interval - down a third, up a sixth, down a third, up a sixth, just crotchets and crotchet rests..... As Sforzando says, it's outlining a chain of descending thirds, as happens so frequently in Brahms, especially but not only late Brahms. But here this chain is spelt out with a baldness unlike almost anywhere else, especially unlike the opening of any other Brahms movement (most often Brahms's third chains begin to unravel themselves to maximum length at the peak of a climax or some other cathartic point later in the movement). The melody looks almost like a background analysis of an imaginary higher-level melody in which those bald contours are filled in and complicated. This, in fact, may be the secret of it's potency.
Quote from: Sforzando on August 20, 2008, 07:12:53 PM
Actually I think it quite lyric and cantabile myself, but for another example of Brahms writing a melody slightly fragmented with rests, see the intermizzo op. 116/5 (a piece that's made considerably easier if you re-distribute the interlocking chords in the first eight bars or so. Cheating? well, maybe, but it does make the piece much more playable.
http://imslp.org/imglnks/usimg/f/f9/IMSLP01528-Bp31.pdf
Nice!
Quote from: jochanaan on June 18, 2008, 12:08:14 PM
I should say that I've played in the orchestra for Brahms' First and Second Symphonies, Double Concerto, and German Requiem. His music is not easy to pull together, but very gratifying for every section. :D
Love the Double Concerto. Have a recording of Casals playing back in the 20s. Brahms sounds great on old records, I think.
Third movement is actually my favorite. Should be my alarm clock tone, it's so awesome!
...no offence to magnificent first movement.
Funny how i passed through the same obsession with the Fourth, but that was after having been obsessed with the last movement of the Third (and the Allegretto as well i should admit) The second has beautiful cello phrasing which gets similar to the 4th. too bad he wrote only 4!