Composers you don't get

[Jo498]

It took me a few months as a beginner, but I have liked Brahms' music for a long time and until I found dissenting opinions on the web I usually took him for someone almost universally acknowledged as a great composer. I am not so happy if the "restrained melancholy" mood is overly dominant (therefore I don't like the famous 3rd movement of the 3rd all that much) and I sometimes miss "letting it rip" (he does it in the first piano concerto and some earlyish chamber music like the 1st piano quartet and the piano quintet, but only rarely afterwards). There are also some pieces I find "dry" (bits of the first string quartet and the C major piano trio), but overall he is still a favorite. He denies himself and the listener "cheap thrills", but the cliche that it can be all the more rewarding in the long run seems true.

I also think that the well-known orchestral works are fairly accessible (and diverse enough) that it is somewhat unlikely that someone will fall in love with Brahms other music if one dislikes the symphonies and concertos. Maybe the violin sonatas Karl already referred to. Or choral music (found to be in Schuetz' and Bach's class by some choral guys I talked to), but usually these genres are less accessible for many listeners.

[Jay F]

Over the course of 20+ years, I have reached the point where I don't change the station when Brahms comes on, but neither do I care if I ever hear another one of his notes.

Additionally, I've come to realize as well that I only like some classical music. I choose classical radio if I listen to radio (not that often) and don't truly dislike any of it except opera, but much of classical fails to engage me. I thought I would like Shostakovich's symphonies based on my love of his SQs, but it just hasn't happened.

[EigenUser]

Over the course of 20+ years, I have reached the point where I don't change the station when Brahms comes on, but neither do I care if I ever hear another one of his notes.

Additionally, I've come to realize as well that I only like some classical music. I choose classical radio if I listen to radio (not that often) and don't truly dislike any of it except opera, but much of classical fails to engage me. I thought I would like Shostakovich's symphonies based on my love of his SQs, but it just hasn't happened.

I saw an interview with Steve Reich where he said that if he is somewhere where Brahms is playing on the radio, he asks them to turn off the radio. A bit extreme, but amusing.

[Purusha]

Funny, i have the same reaction to the music of Steve Reich.

[Ken B]

I saw an interview with Steve Reich where he said that if he is somewhere where Brahms is playing on the radio, he asks them to turn off the radio. A bit extreme, but amusing.

Schoenberg was wiser. Brahms the Radical.

[EigenUser]

Funny, i have the same reaction to the music of Steve Reich.

Itsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarainitsgonnarain

[Karl Henning]

Schoenberg was wiser. Brahms the Radical.

That Arnold could teach us a thing or two.

[Purusha]

In all seriousness, i wouldn't really call Brahms "radical". I think there is a difference between variation by means of musical richness (which is the approach Brahms took) and variation by means of refusing consonance at every turn. It seems many 20th century composers believed that the progress of music hinged entirely on finding a way to avoid repetition. The presence of Brahms looms large precisely because he took great pains to avoid falling into cliches and because of the sheer volume of musical ideas he packed tightly into his work, his music becoming more and more concise as years went by, shedding away everything that was useless or gratuitous, like a diamond cutter painstakingly chipping a way on a rough stone until he obtains a richly faceted gem of perfect proportions.

So ultimately, it was not necessarily the language of Brahms that those composers adopted (at least, not on a technical level), but his methods and aims, particularly those of his late works. You won't find anything in the music of Brahms that was pointing towards, say, a new radical conception of harmony, but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.

[Karl Henning]

[...] but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.

But of course, in his epoch with all the contemporary pursuit of grander gesture and longer time-scales, his was the radical work.

[Purusha]

Heh, i guess while musicians like Mahler were exploring music on a macrocosmic scales, Brahms perfected the art of looking for meaning in the smallest possible of musical particles.

The combination of the two gave us... too many notes.   

[Jo498]

As I remember the quote, Schönberg said "Brahms the progressive", not radical. It was mainly to show that Brahms was far more than a mere Beethoven clone.

[Karl Henning]

As I remember the quote, Schönberg said "Brahms the progressive", not radical.

I expect you are right.  It is an article which repays repeat reading.

[Mandryka]

In all seriousness, i wouldn't really call Brahms "radical". I think there is a difference between variation by means of musical richness (which is the approach Brahms took) and variation by means of refusing consonance at every turn. It seems many 20th century composers believed that the progress of music hinged entirely on finding a way to avoid repetition. The presence of Brahms looms large precisely because he took great pains to avoid falling into cliches and because of the sheer volume of musical ideas he packed tightly into his work, his music becoming more and more concise as years went by, shedding away everything that was useless or gratuitous, like a diamond cutter painstakingly chipping a way on a rough stone until he obtains a richly faceted gem of perfect proportions.

So ultimately, it was not necessarily the language of Brahms that those composers adopted (at least, not on a technical level), but his methods and aims, particularly those of his late works. You won't find anything in the music of Brahms that was pointing towards, say, a new radical conception of harmony, but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.

Have you ever heard anything by Morton Feldman?

In all seriousness, i wouldn't really call Brahms "radical". I think there is a difference between variation by means of musical richness (which is the approach Brahms took) and variation by means of refusing consonance at every turn. It seems many 20th century composers believed that the progress of music hinged entirely on finding a way to avoid repetition. The presence of Brahms looms large precisely because he took great pains to avoid falling into cliches and because of the sheer volume of musical ideas he packed tightly into his work, his music becoming more and more concise as years went by, shedding away everything that was useless or gratuitous, like a diamond cutter painstakingly chipping a way on a rough stone until he obtains a richly faceted gem of perfect proportions.

So ultimately, it was not necessarily the language of Brahms that those composers adopted (at least, not on a technical level), but his methods and aims, particularly those of his late works. You won't find anything in the music of Brahms that was pointing towards, say, a new radical conception of harmony, but if you ever wondered why so many 20th century composers were so obsessed in packing so much within so little, just think of Brahms.

Webern, Kurtag maybe sometimes but not always by any means. Anyone else?

[Mandryka]

But of course, in his epoch with all the contemporary pursuit of grander gesture and longer time-scales, his was the radical work.

You're forgetting Chopin and Schumann, I think. Even Beethoven op 126  and Schubert op 946. Short timescale and intimate gestures are a big thing in 19th century music

[Karl Henning]

You're forgetting Chopin and Schumann, I think.

I'm not, because he survived them by a significant span.

Still, you've a musical point.

[Karl Henning]

Although, I think that Brahms's language became more rarefied with time;  that (say) when he was contemporaneous with Chopin and Schumann, his musical language was more expansive.  So I shy from the suggestion that the focus in Brahms's language is simply a result of his being in the same graduating class as Ch. and Sch.

[Luke]

I always loved this example of rarified Brahms, though, and it's actually pretty early, the exquisite op 21 Variations. As Malcolm Macdonald pointed out, this page recalls nothing so much as Webern in its stripped-down nature, in which huge intervals bestride the piano in delicate two-part counterpoint, recalling Webern's own Variations, in fact. But Brahms has everything. I adore him without any reservation whatsoever.

Hi, btw!

[Karl Henning]

No reservation required!  Cheers, Luke!

[Purusha]

Have you ever heard anything by Morton Feldman?

I was obviously referring to those who came immediately after him, or were directly influenced by him. It would be like me saying that Beethoven's formal ideas had a huge influence on 19th century composers and you asking "have you ever heard of Bizet"?

Webern, Kurtag maybe sometimes but not always by any means. Anyone else?

Webern yes. Hard to imagine him without Brahms. Also Reger, Schoenberg himself, Enescu, to name a couple that were influenced directly by Brahms. But i think this idea of constant variation in music grew much bigger than this cadre of artists who looked directly at Brahms for inspiration, and became something that many composers adopted in their own way and without taking anything from Brahms specifically. It was in a sense incorporated in the general weltanschauung of late 19th century and early 20th century music, and it is in this way that Brahms was "progressive", at least, that's how i think Schoenberg saw it.

[Mandryka]

I was obviously referring to those who came immediately after him, or were directly influenced by him. It would be like me saying that Beethoven's formal ideas had a huge influence on 19th century composers and you asking "have you ever heard of Bizet"?

Webern yes. Hard to imagine him without Brahms. Also Reger, Schoenberg himself, Enescu, to name a couple that were influenced directly by Brahms. But i think this idea of constant variation in music grew much bigger than this cadre of artists who looked directly at Brahms for inspiration, and became something that many composers adopted in their own way and without taking anything from Brahms specifically. It was in a sense incorporated in the general weltanschauung of late 19th century and early 20th century music, and it is in this way that Brahms was "progressive", at least, that's how i think Schoenberg saw it.

Oh, I completely misunderstood your first post, sorry.