Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Do we have any Brahms fans here?

I think the Brahms Op.76 and Op.116-119 are perhaps the greatest set of pieces that can be played(with a few exceptions like the E flat minor Intermezzo and E flat Rhapsody)by pianists with "amateur" technique.

I think I see what you mean. Chopin is a different kind of difficult; I can sight read many Chopin pieces at reduced speed quickly but have difficulty bringing it up to speed. Similar to chess, "easy to learn, difficult to master."
I have one book of Brahms that includes the op39 waltzes, the two piano concerti, and the paganini variations. Yesterday, I started to run through the waltzes and soon had my hands aching from maladroit fingerings. Hopefully the Ballades and Sonatas are more accessable, since they were the pieces that perked me up.

What are the salient characteristics of "amateur" technique? I ask because the term seems at once vague and restrictive. Do all non-professional pianists by definition have amateur technique, or is one's technique defined instead by the level of repertoire that one can play well?

Steven

A month ago, I would have agreed with that.

I would suggest that much of Brahms' music seems to lack spontaneity; there is a well-crafted, almost studied feel to some of Brahms' piano works. That said, I am quite a fan of the shorter works, particularly those of Opp. 116 through 119. He certainly can be credited with creativity in the way he fashions a melodic line, in his part-writing and in his distinctive use of rhythmic patterns.

Regards,

His chamber music is better than his solo piano works, for the most part.

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your question. I was just trying to start a general discussion of his (Brahm's) work: Favorite performances, pieces. I left it open-ended on purpose as I am only lately a fan.

It's exciting to begin to become a "fan" of a composer whose works one hadn't appreciated before. There's much to admire and enjoy in his works. I hope he continues to "grow" on you.

Regards,

Funnily, I'm listening to the Brahms symphony 2 as I write. The lady doth protest too much, methinks, incredibly written music, but so utterly dull and impotent. There is a certain smugness about Brahms which really puts me off.

I suppose I have to be in the 'mood', but today is not that. I'll gladly give him up for the more vibrant Wagner, Brahms is utterly tiresome. His colours are so faded, his mastery only theoretical, his humanity self-serving.

A good case might be made for Brahms being one of the worst composers of his generation- and I would not be quick to dismiss the observations of G. B. Shaw. He made some valid points.

Whatever, tomorrow I might feel differently. But with Bach, Mozart, Liszt, Wagner, I have never wavered in my admiration. Not so with Brahms, and the only other composer falling into that category would be Mahler, but that's a different issue.

I think I'd agree here - the violin, cello and clarinet/viola sonatas alone are enough to ensure him a place in my heart. And some of the loveliest Lieder as well.

Maybe this will "cure" you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TC2Wkv8IS8

OMG. That was absolutely fabulous! Stephen Hough is one of my all time favourite pianists, and what a feast that was. I am clearing the tears away, sometimes I forget what an impact Brahms can make on me.

Hough, btw, wrote an incredible essay on Elgar's Catholicism.

Thanks, I think I need to watch this again.

And what an impact Hough can make as well. Awesome! This made my day. Especially after reading so much arrogance in some of the threads here, this was quite refreshing.

Thank you for pointing out Schoenberg's acknowledgment of Brahms as an innovator. It's not very hard to see the link between early Schoenberg (Verklaerte Nacht) and late Brahms. Schoenberg actually went as far as to arrange a Brahms piano quartet for orchestra which for a while was touted about as 'Brahms' 5th Symphony'.

A few things that this thread has perhaps not emphasized enough:
1. Brahms was a perfectionist. He destroyed more of his work than he allowed to be published. Ergo any published work has something about it Brahms was happy with, and he was much harder on himself than we lesser mortals could ever be.

2. The 'Brahms vs Wagner/Liszt' controversy was fed mainly by Wagner, who persisted in writing nasty articles about Brahms' music. Brahms was a bit mystified by this because he admired Wagner's work. There is even a story of him planning a trip to Bayreuth, but calling it off at the last minute because he was afraid Wagner would use Brahms' presence as an excuse for further attacks on Brahms' adherence to 'absolute music' (as distinct from 'tone poems'). Wagner would not have attacked Brahms as virulently as he did if he had not recognized a threat to his claim to be the preeminent composer of his day. (Wagner was notoriously a tad short on compassion, but rather long on ego.)

3. Brahms symphonies are very tightly written, meaning that material is used sparsely, as in Beethoven's late piano sonatas and quartets. Wagner's canvasses were very large and rather loose. Attempting to 'rank' these composers against each other is therefore akin to comparing kiwifruit and melon.

4. Brahms is reputed to have said that his piano music was not intended to be accessible to someone 'whose talent did not extent beyond his elbows'. Which, if I can be so bold as to translate from 'north-German', means that the challenge is in grasping the musical content of the piece. Just 'playing the notes' will not get you there. Possibly this is why pianists tend to favor composers whose piano music is musically more accessible.

In my opinion, Brahms' music, in terms of content and innovation thoroughly deserves his designation as the third 'B'. His third and fourth symphonies are the finest to have been written in the 19th century post Beethoven. His piano quintet is rivaled in quality only by Schumanns's, and his violin concerto is on everyone's list of the few finest ever written.

Brahms is only a 'difficult composer' if you are looking for a cheap thrill. Thrills there are a-plenty in Brahms, but cheap they are not.

who do you have in mind for cheap thrills? Mozart?

What on earth made you think of Mozart in this context?

I am being sarcastic. You came down so hard on some folks' slight lack of fanaticism towards old Johannes.. Others evoked arrogance..
I don't think anyone in this thread said Brahms was an idiot. Specific negative criticism was nicely placed in historical context and referenced..
Your dismissal of those who do not love Brahms as musical neophytes who cannot fathom his difficulty and are in search for cheap thrills was a bit unequivocal. So I asked myself who I would rather listen to, and Wolfie came up. I will take any of his piano concerti or sonatas anyday anytime over JB's.. But that is just me..

For Brahms' fans, Andras Schiff is playing Brahms' first piano concerto with Muti and the NY Philharmonic in March. The second part of the program, interestingly, consists of Hindemith's Symphony in E flat...

The OP wanted to know whether there are any Brahms fans on the forum. I read quickly thorough the thread and believe this gives in its totality an underestimation of a composer I consider to be one of the all time greats.

The thread is imho unrepresentative of what I would regard as a reasonable consensus on the significance of Brahms' music. So I wrote a corrective.

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to express in whatever terms you wish your 'slight lack of fanaticism' for whomsoever you wish.

His fourth symphony is one of the most recognizable ever written. The Hungarian Dance No. 5 too. Somehow I have the impression it is too easy to sound monotonous and predictable for the piano solo works. Maybe it's due to the pianist instead of the composer, but I anticipate every single outburst in any performance, however great.

I mean if you listen to a piece familiar enough, you expect when there are sudden shifts in dynamics, sudden pauses, etc, but there is still a kind of spontaneity. I haven't ever had the same feeling with Brahms.

I don't quite get it.

The OP asked for opinions on the works of Brahms. Some people expressed their opinions and then others criticize them for voicing those opinions. Is this not an open forum for expressing opinions? Do all opinions have to agree, otherwise they are considered invalid?

Regards,