Johannes Brahms (1833-1897)

[Karl Henning]

I'm a sucker for viola quintets, and Brahms's are no exception.

[ibanezmonster]

I would try the first piano trio for chamber works. The first time I heard it, I just had to stop everything and listen to the end. It is very moving music.

Oh, yeah! 

[kyjo]

I would try the first piano trio for chamber works. The first time I heard it, I just had to stop everything and listen to the end. It is very moving music.

Hold on a sec......it's been a while since I've listened to the piano trios, but I do recall the First being a strong work......I must revisit it! Thanks, mc ukrneal!

[Brahmsian]

Brahms' late clarinet chamber works are so gorgeous!

The Clarinet Trio, Clarinet Quintet, and the two clarinet sonatas (or substitute with the viola) are all exquisite, IMHO.

So are the much maligned string quartets.

Piano Quartet Op. 25 and Op. 60 are as good as it gets.  Two of my faves.

And late Brahms piano pieces.

[TheGSMoeller]

I would try the first piano trio for chamber works. The first time I heard it, I just had to stop everything and listen to the end. It is very moving music.

I'd say Neal is on to something here, been a few since I've heard the first piano trio, played it this afternoon, so delightful and tragic. If my math is correct he originally composed the piece at age 21. Then revised it 35 years later. Seems I only own the Beaux Arts Trio performance, but it's a top quality recording, both in sound and playing...

[asin]B00000416K[/asin]

[TheGSMoeller]

Try Florestan Trio and Kalichstein/Laredo/Robinson if you can

muchas gracias, Annie. 

[Klaze]

The Violin Sonatas and Cello Sonatas are not to be missed either.

Did we mention all chamber works yet?

Seriously though, if I could recommend one disc with chamber works, it would be this one with the Piano Quintet and Quartet Op.60:

[asin]B00005CCZ0[/asin]

If this bores you, there may be no hope!

[kyjo]

I'd say Neal is on to something here, been a few since I've heard the first piano trio, played it this afternoon, so delightful and tragic. If my math is correct he originally composed the piece at age 21. Then revised it 35 years later. Seems I only own the Beaux Arts Trio performance, but it's a top quality recording, both in sound and playing...

[asin]B00000416K[/asin]

I checked this recording out from my local library once, but I don't own it. The Beaux Arts Trio are often my go-to group for recordings of romantic chamber music. Their Schumann and Dvorak recordings are phenomenal and really won me over to a lot of romantic chamber music I had previously not thought much of.

[kyjo]

Thanks for all your help, guys! I really appreciate it. Is anyone familiar with this set?



It's gotten some rave reviews.

[North Star]

This set is amazing, though not cheap these days

[asin]B001F4YGU0[/asin]

[DavidW]

Yes Kyjo it is awesome (Amadeus set), slightly sucky sound quality but performances are great buy with confidence.

I think the Hyperion set is the best set in terms of both performances and sound quality.  As two-fers the Beaux Arts Trio discs are fantastic (but only cover part of his chamber music).

Ah I've seen North Star just posted the Hyperion box.

[Opus106]

This set is amazing, though not cheap these days

[Hyperion-Brahms-Chamber Music]

One should wait for Abeille Musique's 'Soldes' sale to get it at its cheapest (~ 30 Euros sans VAT).

And kyjo, you should definitely listen to the F minor cello sonata. Oodles of pathos in that one.

[The new erato]

Yes, I agree with the Florestan rec, but I prefer the Golub, Kaplan, Carr recordings to KLR

This is Vol. 1 of two,

Starker, Suk and Katchen for me, thank you!

[dbrcarson]

Brahms is the only composer for whose music I feel such an intense feeling of nostalgia. Not even Bach or Beethoven make me feel this way. I think it has to do with how conscious he was of his artistic style and objectives, i.e. to write music in the Austro-Germanic tradition of composition (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and down the line), but doing so in a way that would still set himself apart from those earlier masters. To me, he embodies my idea of selfless artistry in a classical composer. The last word one could use to describe Wagner and Liszt is "selfless." Though Wagner professed to bring together the arts in some sublime unity (which could be perceived as selflessness), he worshipped himself and his image.

Though I group together Brahms and Beethoven as two composers who wrote music with noble values in mind (composing for the muse but rarely if ever self-indulgent), Brahms's story and his music speaks more to me. I think in his music there is more of a feeling of restraint and moderation than in Beethoven's. Part of that must be the nature of their respective musical-historical contexts. In other words, even though Beethoven's harmony and his vocabulary is less adventurous when compared objectively with those of Brahms, for its time it was more radical than Brahms's was for his. So in Brahms we get a feeling that he was always holding back. Allegro non troppo, fast but "not too much."

In essence here is why Brahms, the man and his music, captivates me: Somehow Brahms succeeded in the Herculean task of composing music discernibly steeped in tradition, with a relatively accessible harmonic vocabulary, while at the same time his music has a complexity and uniqueness that merits a lifetime of listening and that sets him apart from those who came before, as well as from his contemporaries. And in addition to this purely technical, musical assertion, I also claim that Brahms's music has an emotional depth that, in the words of Jan Swafford, always "stays on the right side" of the edge between sentiment and sentimentality.

What is this mysterious wonder-formula that Brahms found? Will there ever be another composer who will tap into something so timeless? Please share your thoughts and answers to these questions!!!

[bhodges]

Hi dbrcarson and welcome to GMG. As one of many Brahms fans here, I'm sure you'll get some replies to your nice thoughts on his work. Meanwhile, feel free to post something about yourself in the "Introductions" section of the board, if you like.

--Bruce

[NorthNYMark]

Brahms is the only composer for whose music I feel such an intense feeling of nostalgia. Not even Bach or Beethoven make me feel this way. I think it has to do with how conscious he was of his artistic style and objectives, i.e. to write music in the Austro-Germanic tradition of composition (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and down the line), but doing so in a way that would still set himself apart from those earlier masters. To me, he embodies my idea of selfless artistry in a classical composer. The last word one could use to describe Wagner and Liszt is "selfless." Though Wagner professed to bring together the arts in some sublime unity (which could be perceived as selflessness), he worshipped himself and his image.

Though I group together Brahms and Beethoven as two composers who wrote music with noble values in mind (composing for the muse but rarely if ever self-indulgent), Brahms's story and his music speaks more to me. I think in his music there is more of a feeling of restraint and moderation than in Beethoven's. Part of that must be the nature of their respective musical-historical contexts. In other words, even though Beethoven's harmony and his vocabulary is less adventurous when compared objectively with those of Brahms, for its time it was more radical than Brahms's was for his. So in Brahms we get a feeling that he was always holding back. Allegro non troppo, fast but "not too much."

In essence here is why Brahms, the man and his music, captivates me: Somehow Brahms succeeded in the Herculean task of composing music discernibly steeped in tradition, with a relatively accessible harmonic vocabulary, while at the same time his music has a complexity and uniqueness that merits a lifetime of listening and that sets him apart from those who came before, as well as from his contemporaries. And in addition to this purely technical, musical assertion, I also claim that Brahms's music has an emotional depth that, in the words of Jan Swafford, always "stays on the right side" of the edge between sentiment and sentimentality.

What is this mysterious wonder-formula that Brahms found? Will there ever be another composer who will tap into something so timeless? Please share your thoughts and answers to these questions!!!

Great post (and welcome to the forum).  I'm a bit too new to classical music to respond with anything particularly illuminating to your questions and speculations, but given how much I keep coming back to Brahms while exploring other composers, I think you might be on to something!  I think I do respond to his combination Romanticist emotionalism and classical discipline and restraint, and/or perhaps to a balance between simplicity and complexity that seems, if not completely unique to him, at least a particularly strong characteristic of his style.

[Mandryka]

Brahms is the only composer for whose music I feel such an intense feeling of nostalgia. Not even Bach or Beethoven make me feel this way. I think it has to do with how conscious he was of his artistic style and objectives, i.e. to write music in the Austro-Germanic tradition of composition (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, and down the line), but doing so in a way that would still set himself apart from those earlier masters. To me, he embodies my idea of selfless artistry in a classical composer. The last word one could use to describe Wagner and Liszt is "selfless." Though Wagner professed to bring together the arts in some sublime unity (which could be perceived as selflessness), he worshipped himself and his image.

Though I group together Brahms and Beethoven as two composers who wrote music with noble values in mind (composing for the muse but rarely if ever self-indulgent), Brahms's story and his music speaks more to me. I think in his music there is more of a feeling of restraint and moderation than in Beethoven's. Part of that must be the nature of their respective musical-historical contexts. In other words, even though Beethoven's harmony and his vocabulary is less adventurous when compared objectively with those of Brahms, for its time it was more radical than Brahms's was for his. So in Brahms we get a feeling that he was always holding back. Allegro non troppo, fast but "not too much."

In essence here is why Brahms, the man and his music, captivates me: Somehow Brahms succeeded in the Herculean task of composing music discernibly steeped in tradition, with a relatively accessible harmonic vocabulary, while at the same time his music has a complexity and uniqueness that merits a lifetime of listening and that sets him apart from those who came before, as well as from his contemporaries. And in addition to this purely technical, musical assertion, I also claim that Brahms's music has an emotional depth that, in the words of Jan Swafford, always "stays on the right side" of the edge between sentiment and sentimentality.

What is this mysterious wonder-formula that Brahms found? Will there ever be another composer who will tap into something so timeless? Please share your thoughts and answers to these questions!!!

This nostalgia, it may be just something that performers plant on the music, rather than something essential. None of my favourite Brahms performances seem particularly nostalgic - the Janacek Quartet in op 51/1, Yudina in the late piano music, that Kempff performance of intermezzi live from Salzburg on Orfeo, Gerd Zacher in op 122, Bruno Leonardo Gelber playing the Handel Variations. None of these things seem nostalgic.

[xochitl]

for me brahms is like a black hole of sadness

and thats why i keep coming back. whatever abstruse technical things get in the way, there is always the feeling that it could not possibly be as expressive if it was simpler. it has to be this doubled-on-itself to extract the full meaning of whatever elusive emotion he's trying to express.  or at least thats what i think.

cheers

[dbrcarson]

whatever elusive emotion he's trying to express...

I wonder what that is. I've always sort of thought it was a kind of nostalgia for a musical era that's coming to an end (and Brahms's death really does seem like the end of an era, with Dvorak hanging over for awhile). But it's true Mandryka, we performers, interpreters and listeners may read this emotion into his music when it his music really was, as Hanslick and their circle believed, "absolute music," devoid of any extraneous meaning. I guess that's why this emotion is so elusive, because he was never explicit. It's all clothed in counterpoint, and strict structure, and thematic/motivic development.

But through all of that technical stuff somehow he expresses something, which is why his music was somehow (miraculously) very popular in a time where the radicalism of Wagner and Liszt was in vogue.

Thanks for the warm welcome everybody! I feel very lucky to have found a forum for discussion like this 

[Parsifal]

In my view, it is not nostalgia that distinguishes Brahms.  It is hard to put it quite into words, but the closest maybe poignancy.  In Tchaikovsky, for instance, you are hearing horror or bliss, happiness or misery, glorious victory or abject defeat.  It is all primary colors.  In Brahms, I hear subtle blends of emotions.  A tranquil melody, with a harmony that adds a note of disquiet, joy with a tinge of sadness, pain, but with a sub-current of serenity.  Other composers so it, but none do it quite like Brahms.

He was also traditionalist and an innovator at the same time.  The introduction of a passacaglia as the finale of a symphony, for instance.