What attracts (or repels) you to (from) Brahms’s symphonies?

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Mon May 18, 2009 2:02 pm

I would like to know.

Post by **Lance** » Mon May 18, 2009 2:15 pm

I am never repelled with Brahms's symphonies. The attraction: the richness of scoring with the enormous melodic content ingeniously blended together to create truly substantial orchestral masterpieces. In as few words as possible, that's my immediate thought. My favourites are Nos. 1, 3 and 4 - and if I had to choose just one, it would probably be the fourth. (Parenthetically, Monteux was a masterful interpreter of Brahms, one who has made a very deep impresson on me along with Bruno Walter, not to mention your favourite, Wilhelm Furtwängler!)

I know, I never responded to you about the best interpretations of the four symphonies. It's a major project to discuss these symphonies with and the best (or worst) elements of each symphony as rendered by each orchestra/conductor. It becomes a very personal thing.

Are YOU a Brahms symphony lover? I consider Brahms symphonies a wonderful transition to Gustav Mahler's symphonies.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon May 18, 2009 2:29 pm

Lance wrote:I am never repelled with Brahms's symphonies. The attraction: the richness of scoring with the enormous melodic content ingeniously blended together to create truly substantial orchestral masterpieces. In as few words as possible, that's my immediate thought. My favourites are Nos. 1, 3 and 4 - and if I had to choose just one, it would probably be the fourth. (Parenthetically, Monteux was a masterful interpreter of Brahms, one who has made a very deep impresson on me along with Bruno Walter, not to mention your favourite, Wilhelm Furtwängler!)

I know, I never responded to you about the best interpretations of the four symphonies. It's a major project to discuss these symphonies with and the best (or worst) elements of each symphony as rendered by each orchestra/conductor. It becomes a very personal thing.

Are YOU a Brahms symphony lover? I consider Brahms symphonies a wonderful transition to Gustav Mahler's symphonies.

Sheesh, Lance, I was about to say "for my reply, see Lance's" when you had to throw in that last sentence.

Post by **Lance** » Mon May 18, 2009 2:37 pm

Hi, John! Can't help it. I've been trying to figure out for a long time if our dear Sylph is a Brahmsian or not. I know he doesn't like Herr Furtwängler, but geez, there are other great conductors/orchestras of these glorious works.

jbuck919 wrote:
Lance wrote:I am never repelled with Brahms's symphonies. The attraction: the richness of scoring with the enormous melodic content ingeniously blended together to create truly substantial orchestral masterpieces. In as few words as possible, that's my immediate thought. My favourites are Nos. 1, 3 and 4 - and if I had to choose just one, it would probably be the fourth. (Parenthetically, Monteux was a masterful interpreter of Brahms, one who has made a very deep impresson on me along with Bruno Walter, not to mention your favourite, Wilhelm Furtwängler!)

I know, I never responded to you about the best interpretations of the four symphonies. It's a major project to discuss these symphonies with and the best (or worst) elements of each symphony as rendered by each orchestra/conductor. It becomes a very personal thing.

Are YOU a Brahms symphony lover? I consider Brahms symphonies a wonderful transition to Gustav Mahler's symphonies.
Sheesh, Lance, I was about to say "for my reply, see Lance's" when you had to throw in that last sentence.

nut-job · Post by **nut-job** » Mon May 18, 2009 3:27 pm

What attracts me:

1) Every voice sings. Brahms is a master of counterpoint without seeming academic. In Brahms' great works every voice has an interesting, often beautiful melody. There are some composers or works that I seem to have in many versions because I am never quite satisfied. With Brahms, I seem to have many recordings because every one brings out at beautiful details and melodies among the inner voices that was not previously clear to me.

2) Rich harmony. Harmony in Brahms doesn't exhibit dramatic shifts or dissonances, but seems to flow like water in a stream into different tonal areas.

3) Orchestration. Symphonies feature rich writing for strings and a beautiful spectrum of orchestral colors from the woodwinds and brass. Again, no cataclysmic moments as we are accustomed to in Mahler or Bruckner, but rich orchestral colors.

4) Rhythmic subtlety. Again, no blatant syncopation as in the rite of spring, but try beating time to a Brahms symphony and you will find that it is much more complex than it appears to be at first impression.

5) Emotional subtlety. Brahms' music (for me at least) depicts subtle blending of moods and feelings. It is not like Tchaikovsky where you run the gamut between the heights unalloyed joy to the pit abject despair with a giant gulf between. In Brahms different emotional impressions are blended, a subtle tinge to the harmony will bring a hint of sadness to a melody which otherwise suggests bliss. Or a jaunty rhythme in the accompaniment can give a bit of spunk to a morose sounding melody.

What repels me.

nothing

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Mon May 18, 2009 4:37 pm

I'm an unabashed Brahmsian, and don't understand the arguments that I've heard against his music. Other posters have already more eloquently written of the virtues of the Symphonies, so I'll keep my praise short.

In his Symphonies, Brahms presents deep and intellectual musical arguments that never come across as stuffy. He's got an uncanny ability to craft an emotional or aesthetic narrative without allowing the music to become programmatic or vulgar. But he also readily shows his hand, and the big melodies slap you right in the face. The way he launches into the First and Third Symphonies makes me feel as though he's materializing thoughts that have sat latent in the back of my brain since birth. His seems to almost be the hereditary culmination of Germanic music of the time.

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Mon May 18, 2009 4:47 pm

Lance wrote:I consider Brahms symphonies a wonderful transition to Gustav Mahler's symphonies.

That surprises me. I have not spent much time listening to Brahms, his symphonies haven't made an impression on me yet. On the other hand Mahler's music was almost love at first listen. Mahler's music is very easy to like, Brahms requires more effort.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon May 18, 2009 4:57 pm

Seán wrote:
Lance wrote:I consider Brahms symphonies a wonderful transition to Gustav Mahler's symphonies.
That surprises me. I have not spent much time listening to Brahms, his symphonies haven't made an impression on me yet. On the other hand Mahler's music was almost love at first listen. Mahler's music is very easy to like, Brahms requires more effort.

It's the same sentence I took (mild) issue with, if for a different reason. It is difficult for me to think of Brahms' symphonies as being "transitional" to anything. If anything, Mahler's symphonies along with those of a few other 20th century composers represent what could still be accomplished by a great symphonist after Brahms was finished (duck).

The only other example of such a--in my opinion--misapprehension that I can think of is the notion that Beethoven's Ninth is transitional to the works of Wagner--which happens to be what Wagner actually thought. But I don't attribute Wagner's egomania to Lance; I'm sure he's reporting his honest perception of things.

Post by **Lance** » Mon May 18, 2009 5:50 pm

It was kind of an off-the-cuff remark, but occurred to me immediately because I recall listening to many versions of the Brahms four symphonies and s-l-o-w-l-y finding my way into Mahler. Of course, the Brahms is still very much in the Romantic vein of Schumann, but then, heavy listening—perhaps in the orchestration and its often overpowering effects—that makes me say this. For me, it seemed a natural transition. But I might apply that only to the first three symphonies of Mahler. Brahms Fourth Symphony was composed in 1884-85; Mahler's First Symphony was composed in 1888 with revisions to follow five years later and beyond. Brahms was trained in the Germanic manner, Mahler in the Viennese-Germanic tradition. The influences perhaps are more entwined than we may think. Brahms brought more "classicism" to his music, Mahler more of the late Romantic ideas. Wagner, for me, is nothing in the same mold as Mahler. Yet all these composers are relatively "close," in time and if there were any molds, Wagner surely broke those molds as did Mahler, even though the latter is considered a "Romantic" composer; a late Romantic, he certainly is.

jbuck919 wrote:
Seán wrote:
Lance wrote:I consider Brahms symphonies a wonderful transition to Gustav Mahler's symphonies.
That surprises me. I have not spent much time listening to Brahms, his symphonies haven't made an impression on me yet. On the other hand Mahler's music was almost love at first listen. Mahler's music is very easy to like, Brahms requires more effort.
It's the same sentence I took (mild) issue with, if for a different reason. It is difficult for me to think of Brahms' symphonies as being "transitional" to anything. If anything, Mahler's symphonies along with those of a few other 20th century composers represent what could still be accomplished by a great symphonist after Brahms was finished (duck).

The only other example of such a--in my opinion--misapprehension that I can think of is the notion that Beethoven's Ninth is transitional to the works of Wagner--which happens to be what Wagner actually thought. But I don't attribute Wagner's egomania to Lance; I'm sure he's reporting his honest perception of things.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Mon May 18, 2009 6:03 pm

What repels you from Brahms’s symphonies?

German bombast
Bloated orchestra
Inadequate variety
Lack of subtlety and intimacy
Lugubrious and morose, almost as dreary as most Russian 19th century music

I like small Brahms (chamber music, songs, solo piano works), but I wouldn't give house room to big Brahms.

stenka razin · Post by **stenka razin** » Mon May 18, 2009 6:53 pm

How can you not LOVE the four Brahms Symphonies. Just imagine each numbered work as representing a different season of the year. Winter (#1), Spring (#2), Summer (#3) and Fall (#4). I am serious about this. Try it and you will know why these four works are as popular as they are. I have more complete CD versions of this amazing quartet of Symphonies than I can remember and that is not even counting the enormous number of individual Symphonies on separate CDs. I cannot imagine the world of classical music without this foursome as the orchestral anchor of the entire symphonic literature.
By the way, as an afterthought, I believe that Brahms greatest compositions are his enormous number of chamber music masterpieces. I can happily listen to Brahms if stranded on a desert island if his music was the only music allowed. That is how fond I am of this eminent composer. Long may Brahms enchant and enrapture us!

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Mon May 18, 2009 7:52 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
What repels you from Brahms’s symphonies?
Inadequate variety
Lack of subtlety and intimacy

But what of the remarkably intimate slow movement in the Third? The beautifully-variegated Second and Fourth?

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Mon May 18, 2009 8:07 pm

Ken wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:
What repels you from Brahms’s symphonies?
Inadequate variety
Lack of subtlety and intimacy

But what of the remarkably intimate slow movement in the Third? The beautifully-variegated Second and Fourth?

I wouldn't waste my pity/concern. It's not about Brahms. Our Contessa d'EM by her own admission does not like any of the greats from 1650 - ?, with the exception of Handel and the lesser Baroque composers she considers great.

IcedNote · Post by **IcedNote** » Mon May 18, 2009 8:11 pm

Ken wrote:

But what of the remarkably intimate slow movement in the Third? The beautifully-variegated Second and Fourth?

You mean this one?

And no, there is no mention of Brahms in the liner notes that this CD was released on.

-G

Wallingford · Post by **Wallingford** » Mon May 18, 2009 8:35 pm

Brahms?

A few brief thoughts:

Warm melodicism.

Total logic and relevance in development.

Quite colorful orchestration (particularly those high-register violins...and incomparable clarinet & oboe writing).

Woodsy atmosphere, full of mystery.

A complete story told.

And with the concertos, overtures and Haydn/Handel variations, a symphonic output to envy.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Mon May 18, 2009 9:16 pm

stenka razin wrote:How can you not LOVE the four Brahms Symphonies.

Easily. De gustibus and all that . . .

Just imagine each numbered work as representing a different season of the year. Winter (#1), Spring (#2), Summer (#3) and Fall (#4).

Nice try.

lmpower · Post by **lmpower** » Mon May 18, 2009 9:47 pm

Like Corlyss I prefer the chamber music, songs and late piano works by Brahms. Nevertheless I also enjoy all four symphonies, especially the second. There is a really special and unusual mood about his second symphony. Describing it defies words.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Mon May 18, 2009 10:04 pm

I never thought he should have been the Third B, I like Morton Feldman much more...

sherief abraham · Post by **sherief abraham** » Tue May 19, 2009 5:31 am

Brahms symphony's are interesting for orchestration and counterpoint studies. His melody's however lacks a heart sometimes. I've only come to enjoy (after really long time of forcing my self to see what the fuss is all about) the first movement of his fourth and maybe some parts of his third.

However, I do think that Schumann symphonies is the best of that form Brahms was trying to achieve. They are fun and have a very catchy melodies with clever orchestration. of course it all comes from Beethoven and Schubert forms too.

Ken · Post by **Ken** » Tue May 19, 2009 5:47 am

Stenka, your comparison of the four Symphonies to the four seasons of the year is an interesting one, an calls to mind Kurt Masur, who in an interview for the videorecordings of the Symphonies that he made with the Gewandhausorchester in the early '90s, compared each Symphony to a single movement in the grand 'Symphony of his Life'. An interesting idea, since the First and Fourth share a similar kind of profound restlessness, the Second is more spacious and clear-minded (excepting the finale, of course...), and the Third seems somewhat anxious and rhythmically-driven.

The idea doesn't entirely hold water for me, especially since the Second and Third don't really betray the same qualities as classic symphonic middle movements. Masur's own comparison of the Third to a kind of scherzo was a bit stretched; he asserted that it wasn't like a traditional Beethovenian scherzo, but kind of like the scherzo from the First--more of an intermezzo. And that the point wasn't to dance, but to get up, and to almost be able to think to dance!

Of course, Brahms is Masur's bread and butter, and he knows the composer much better than do I (cue the anti-Masurites who will argue the contrary); his idea does probably have a grain of truth to it. Brahms was as self-critical as any top composer in history, and he was certainly aware of the way his Symphonies progressed and the overall narrative that they formed. Interestingly, he reputedly began work on a Fifth Symphony, which he eventually discarded but recycled some themes for use in the Double Concerto. What a triumphal finale to his Symphony-writing that would have been! But then, of course, the Fourth Symphony would have lost its sense of conclusion, and we would have been without the wonderful Double Concerto.

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 5:59 am

What I’ve heard in this thread, I haven’t heard in any other place!

Brahms known for the beauty of the orchestration?! Since when?!

When you hear Brahms, you also hear people say orchestration — thick and muddy. Why? A variety of reasons: those string parts someone mentioned above in Brahms’s works have a large vertical span and the middle of that span if often divided into subparts, has lots of double stops and, clearly, figurated counterpoint/polyphony. The low parts for violas and cellos, whether they have a melody of their own or sustain another, are especially guilty for that thickness and are, like the middle parts of string harmony, subdivided into parts.

But his string writing is often all over the place, with intertwined, overlapping ranges, parts syncopated, awkward interval steps...

Colourful woodwind writing?

Perhaps. But very rarely are they independent or the soloists used...

Don't get me started on the horns and trumpets... And not to say anything about the fact that he didn't push the boundaries of orchestral writing and didn't at all use the "modern" orchestra instead turning backwards and using a somewhat old, outmoded one... All thick, gloopy, gloomy, with parts severely doubled...

absinthe · Post by **absinthe** » Tue May 19, 2009 6:35 am

Sylph wrote:What I’ve heard in this thread, I haven’t heard in any other place! Brahms known for the beauty of the orchestration?! Since when?!

When you hear Brahms, you also hear people say orchestration — thick and muddy. Why? A variety of reasons: those string parts someone mentioned above in Brahms’s works have a large vertical span and the middle of that span if often divided into subparts, has lots of double stops and, clearly, figurated counterpoint/polyphony. The low parts for violas and cellos, whether they have a melody of their own or sustain another, are especially guilty for that thickness and are, like the middle parts of string harmony, subdivided into parts.

But his string writing is often all over the place, with intertwined, overlapping ranges, parts syncopated, awkward interval steps...

Colourful woodwind writing? Perhaps. But very rarely are they independent or the soloists used...

Don't get me started on the horns and trumpets... And not to say anything about the fact that he didn't push the boundaries of orchestral writing and didn't at all use the "modern" orchestra instead turning backwards and using a somewhat old, outmoded one... All thick, gloopy, gloomy, with parts severely doubled...

I agree about the orchestration which comes over fairly bland, very text-book except for the sprawling string writing he chooses here and there and which you noted. Perhaps he was defensive about success - he needed to be good to sustain his position as a rude and pompous person (who snored while Liszt was playing) - because he doesn't adventure at all.

I've got on with his 4th in a version by Carlos Kleiber but never got to grips with the 1st. It could be because he spent so long writing it that it sounds turgid: considering he was filling in Beethoven's discarded template, it took him what? 20 years?. Some of the music is fine and sure he can write nice tunes but (unless I've been listening to the wrong conductors) it comes over stodgy until the march in the last movement. I've even wondered if he wrote the same symphony 4 times with different tunes....

Ah well.....

Teresa B · Post by **Teresa B** » Tue May 19, 2009 6:51 am

I think (or do I have a feeling?) that whether you like the Brahms symphonies depends on what part of your brain is dominating (at the moment, even). If you have a preference for clarity and purity of sound, you may find Brahms often murky and bloated. If you're in the mood for lushness, moments of sublime sadness, and eureka moments where you suddenly hear an inner voice in a particular passage--then you feel, instead of murk, a turgid wave of such sublime force, it is overwhelming.

I love the symphonies, but actually prefer the smaller works--especially the late Brahms piano pieces (of course I can experience them under my own hands, which adds another dimension)--these display some of the same qualities, but at a scale that rarely allows muddiness to cloud the experience.

Teresa

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 6:55 am

This is why I believe Brahms needs those slave master, militaristic, muscular conductors: Toscanini, Solti, Mravinsky...

Has anyone heard Mravinsky's recordings of the four symphonies?

Furtwängler with his own mud and swamp is an anathema to Brahms, I don't even want to know how that sounds. It must be awful.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:13 am

Sylph wrote:What I’ve heard in this thread, I haven’t heard in any other place! Brahms known for the beauty of the orchestration?! Since when?!

When you hear Brahms, you also hear people say orchestration — thick and muddy. Why?

Why, indeed? As Jack Kelso might say if someone wrote something similar about the Schumann symphonies, this is a canard that was long ago debunked. It is true that it took Brahms a while to be comfortable with orchestration, but by the time he wrote a symphony he knew exactly what he was doing. It's not supposed to be easy to perform clearly.

Virtuoso symphonic writing is best performed by virtuoso orchestras. There is almost an exact analogy with solo instrumental music (I'll bet Teresa and the Islers will back me up on this one). There are passages in all the great keyboard composers, going back to Bach and Scarlatti, that seem to be impossible to play unless one can grow a sixth finger or a third hand. That does not make those composers "inept" at the style of their instruments. It means that they were fearless in presenting challenges of technique when the music they heard required it.

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:23 am

jbuck919 wrote:
Why, indeed?

Good Lord, stop playing the most annoying smart-ass on CMG. I've seen people tell you a million times here: Get a life. Stop pulling things out of context. I just explained why. End of story. What you are talking about has exactly nothing to do with what I was talking about.

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:46 am

Sylph wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
Why, indeed?
Good Lord, stop playing the most annoying smart-ass on CMG. I've seen people tell you a million times here: Get a life. Stop pulling things out of context. I just explained why. End of story. What you are talking about has exactly nothing to do with what I was talking about.

Adding a laugh-y to that does not make it unobjectionable. I've asked you before to stop jumping down people's throats with characterizations when their posts are made entirely in the spirit of and in response to the thread. It is bad enough that incivility reigns in the Pub--it has no place here.

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 9:16 am

What I wanted to say is — and I know I was too nasty — his orchestrations might be effective, he might have achieved what he wanted, but in no way does that make them superb. Nor does it make him a great orchestrator. They are quite bland, actually. Nothing remarkable about them. He obviously (d'oh!) had an ego problem and had to find a way to "differ" from all the rest by being too traditional and all that...

jbuck919 · Post by **jbuck919** » Tue May 19, 2009 9:43 am

Sylph wrote:What I wanted to say is — and I know I was too nasty — his orchestrations might be effective, he might have achieved what he wanted, but in no way does that make them superb. Nor does it make him a great orchestrator. He obviously (d'oh!) had an ego problem and had to find a way to "differ" from all the rest by being too traditional and all that...

Well, sorry, but I don't know how that's obvious. Wagner had an ego problem; Brahms knew his own worth. There is a difference. I have never anywhere else seen it suggested that Brahms willfully singularized himself by using traditional forms. A better interpretation is that he did not feel the need to swerve from those forms to achieve his art.

(Before I am misunderstood again, just because Wagner had an ego and did swerve from traditional forms does not mean he was not a great composer, something Brahms himself recognized.)

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 9:52 am

This is like talking to a wall... I talk about orchestration, you talk about the forms...Not to say anything how you have to mention Bach in every single post. OK, we get it!!!! You like Bach!

nut-job · Post by **nut-job** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:20 am

Sylph wrote:What I wanted to say is — and I know I was too nasty — his orchestrations might be effective, he might have achieved what he wanted, but in no way does that make them superb. Nor does it make him a great orchestrator. They are quite bland, actually. Nothing remarkable about them. He obviously (d'oh!) had an ego problem and had to find a way to "differ" from all the rest by being too traditional and all that...

Did you ever hear the expression, whether the stone hits the pitcher hits the stone, it's going to be bad for the pitcher?

By making these foolish statements about Brahms orchestration, you just make it obvious how lacking in taste and perceptiveness you are. Evidently you equate skill in orchestration with adding as many unconventional instruments to the orchestra, loading it with gratuitous orchestral effects like Rimsky-Korsakov. Orchestration does not have to call attention to itself to be superb. Brahms use of orchestral colors is magnificent in the way it illuminates the unfolding of harmony and counterpoint in his music. I can call many instances to mind, for instance the opening of Symphony #4 where thematic material hops between different sections of the orchestra as the principal theme reveals itself. The close of the same movement brings the initially gentle material to a hair-raising climax. I no better use of orchestral colors. (One problem is that the string-heavy sound of generic performance of Brahms can fail to fully illuminate his scores).

To put it simply, what you seem to regard as superb orchestration is to sonic equivalent of fluorescent paint on black velvet. Brahms is like a Rembrandt.

IcedNote · Post by **IcedNote** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:32 am

jbuck919 wrote:Virtuoso symphonic writing is best performed by virtuoso orchestras. There is almost an exact analogy with solo instrumental music (I'll bet Teresa and the Islers will back me up on this one). There are passages in all the great keyboard composers, going back to Bach and Scarlatti, that seem to be impossible to play unless one can grow a sixth finger or a third hand. That does not make those composers "inept" at the style of their instruments. It means that they were fearless in presenting challenges of technique when the music they heard required it.

That's an interesting comparison, John. I'll have to think about that one.

-G

IcedNote · Post by **IcedNote** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:33 am

nut-job wrote:Orchestration does not have to call attention to itself to be superb. Brahms use of orchestral colors is magnificent in the way it illuminates the unfolding of harmony and counterpoint in his music. I can call many instances to mind, for instance the opening of Symphony #4 where thematic material hops between different sections of the orchestra as the principal theme reveals itself. The close of the same movement brings the initially gentle material to a hair-raising climax. I no better use of orchestral colors. (One problem is that the string-heavy sound of generic performance of Brahms can fail to fully illuminate his scores).

Well said.

-G

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:34 am

nut-job wrote: By making these foolish statements about Brahms orchestration, you just make it obvious how lacking in taste and perceptiveness you are.

Interesting. Remember: “nut-jobs” should seek professional, psychiatric help. Not register on forums to unleash their frustrations, offend people and so on...

nut-job wrote:Evidently you equate skill in orchestration with adding as many unconventional instruments to the orchestra, loading it with gratuitous orchestral effects like Rimsky-Korsakov.

No, I don't.

but-job wrote:(One problem is that the string-heavy sound of generic performance of Brahms can fail to fully illuminate his scores).

Ta-da!

nut-job wrote:To put it simply, what you seem to regard as superb orchestration is to sonic equivalent of fluorescent paint on black velvet.

Wrong again.

I have said mine, I am sure you haven't and that you'll continue this until God knows when... Just go on and post, don't expect me to reply.

People will love to read how great an orchestrator Brahms is.

nut-job · Post by **nut-job** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:36 am

Sylph wrote:Just go on and post, don't expect me to reply.

You just did.

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:38 am

nut-job wrote:
Sylph wrote:Just go on and post, don't expect me to reply.
You just did.

No. I meant I won't reply to your post that will follow my previous one.

But look — I just did.

maestrob · Post by **maestrob** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:48 am

OK, you two, back to your respective corners....

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 10:50 am

maestrob wrote:OK, you two, back to your respective corners....

Post by **Lance** » Tue May 19, 2009 12:17 pm

Yes, I have these and have listened with deep concentration to them, issued on Memoria 991.006. The Russians, in Brahms and Mozart, I have found, give a totally different sonic "flavour" to these composers, quite "untraditional," regardless of the Russian orchestra and/or conductor. [True of the Czech Philharmonic under Talich, same thing.] Perhaps that may be what attracts you to these renditions, the untraditional. I cannot concur with you regarding Furtwängler and Brahms, however. I'm not sure which recordings you are hearing, but Furtwängler recorded the Brahms symphonies on several occasions, commercially and live. "Mud and swamp" terms are not usually associated with this master conductor. Perhaps you could reference a specific recording (label and number) and point to a movement of one of the four symphonies; I would like to listen to what you refer to as "mud and swamp." Like everyone, Furtwängler may have had an off day in, especially, a live recording you may have heard; that, of course, is always possible.

Sylph wrote:This is why I believe Brahms needs those slave master, militaristic, muscular conductors: Toscanini, Solti, Mravinsky...

Has anyone heard Mravinsky's recordings of the four symphonies?

Furtwängler with his own mud and swamp is an anathema to Brahms, I don't even want to know how that sounds. It must be awful.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Tue May 19, 2009 3:31 pm

Sylph wrote:Has anyone heard Mravinsky's recordings of the four symphonies?

I have them, I was disappointed...2+4 were good, 1+3 not so good, overall not Mravinsky's best work...

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Tue May 19, 2009 3:46 pm

Sylph wrote:
jbuck919 wrote:
Why, indeed?
Good Lord, stop playing the most annoying smart-ass on CMG.

Besting you in that department would be a feat indeed. I don't expect to see such a development in my lifetime.

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Tue May 19, 2009 3:50 pm

Sylph wrote:This is like talking to a wall... I talk about orchestration, you talk about the forms...Not to say anything how you have to mention Bach in every single post. OK, we get it!!!! You like Bach!

John has only mentioned Bach 646 times, out of 10,000+ Posts...

Jack Kelso mentioned Schumann 858 times in 2,000 Posts...

John rests his case...

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 3:55 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:Besting you in that department would be a feat indeed. I don't expect to see such a development in my lifetime.

What you do here is being the Queen of Obnoxiousness, start wars, push posters one against the other, post all those silly "against Obama" threads and zero posts about music. And you are an administrator. It is because of you that this board is a mess, it was lovely when you were not here. And it was lovely when you posted about Baroque and score buying.

This is what many think — except your biggest fans — but are afraid to say it.

Sylph · Post by **Sylph** » Tue May 19, 2009 4:00 pm

Chalkperson wrote:
Sylph wrote:This is like talking to a wall... I talk about orchestration, you talk about the forms...Not to say anything how you have to mention Bach in every single post. OK, we get it!!!! You like Bach!
John has only mentioned Bach 646 times, out of 10,000+ Posts...

Jack Kelso mentioned Schumann 858 times in 2,000 Posts...

John rests his case...

He can talk, thank you. If I'm not mistaken, he has two degrees: in maths & music (organ?). So he has a brain. Probably an above average one.

Post by **Corlyss_D** » Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm

Sylph wrote:This is what many think but are afraid to say it.

Since when? I get that all the time, mostly because people don't like my politics.

Seán · Post by **Seán** » Tue May 19, 2009 4:46 pm

Sylph wrote:
Corlyss_D wrote:Besting you in that department would be a feat indeed. I don't expect to see such a development in my lifetime.
What you do here is being the Queen of Obnoxiousness, start wars, push posters one against the other, post all those silly "against Obama" threads and zero posts about music. And you are an administrator. It is because of you that this board is a mess, it was lovely when you were not here. And it was lovely when you posted about Baroque and score buying.

This is what many think — except your biggest fans — but are afraid to say it.

Sylph, will you tone it down please. You are on the Classical Music site. If you want to pick a fight with Corlyss please take your comments over to the pub where, I'm sure, she'll happily take you on. You do lower the tone of the thread when you start hurling abuse at people with whom you disagree, you are making a habit of it too.

Teresa B · Post by **Teresa B** » Tue May 19, 2009 6:58 pm

jbuck919 wrote:
Sylph wrote:What I’ve heard in this thread, I haven’t heard in any other place! Brahms known for the beauty of the orchestration?! Since when?!

When you hear Brahms, you also hear people say orchestration — thick and muddy. Why?

Why, indeed? As Jack Kelso might say if someone wrote something similar about the Schumann symphonies, this is a canard that was long ago debunked. It is true that it took Brahms a while to be comfortable with orchestration, but by the time he wrote a symphony he knew exactly what he was doing. It's not supposed to be easy to perform clearly.

Virtuoso symphonic writing is best performed by virtuoso orchestras. There is almost an exact analogy with solo instrumental music (I'll bet Teresa and the Islers will back me up on this one). There are passages in all the great keyboard composers, going back to Bach and Scarlatti, that seem to be impossible to play unless one can grow a sixth finger or a third hand. That does not make those composers "inept" at the style of their instruments. It means that they were fearless in presenting challenges of technique when the music they heard required it.

OK John, I'm with ya. (I grant you, I have been mostly out-virtuosoed by Brahms. I need hands about--oh, twice the span...) But more seriously, I feel I've played only a few Brahms piano pieces well, because of the time necessarily devoted to practicing them, and my own limitations. As brief as some of them are, they each contain a zen-like universe. That may sound silly, but for instance, I've played the Op 118 #2 Intermezzo for the past 35 years, and I keep finding new things unfolding in it. (You know those "Omigod, listen to what happens when I depress the soft pedal here" moments?

)At the same time, you can feel all you want, but unless you can transduce the emotion to a physical technique, you still can't clearly express that emotion. Thus it is with a symphony orchestra and the big works, I surmise.

Teresa

Chalkperson · Post by **Chalkperson** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:19 pm

Seán wrote:You do lower the tone of the thread when you start hurling abuse at people with whom you disagree, you are making a habit of it too.

Speaking personally, I believe the Music Board should be treated like a Public Library, Silence and Respect for the other Browsers, like Classical Record Departments used to be, like those long lost days when people in Elevators were not talking on their Phones...I agree Sylph lowers the tone of the place with his haranguing of his Fellow Inmates, it is uncalled for and unreasonable, but, he's young and the rest of us are old, things just ain't like they used to be...

IcedNote · Post by **IcedNote** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:37 pm

Chalkperson wrote:Speaking personally, I believe the Music Board should be treated like a Public Library, Silence and Respect for the other Browsers, like Classical Record Departments used to be, like those long lost days when people in Elevators were not talking on their Phones...I agree Sylph lowers the tone of the place with his haranguing of his Fellow Inmates, it is uncalled for and unreasonable, but, he's young and the rest of us are old, things just ain't like they used to be...

I'm young, and I'm with ya, Chalkhuman.

-G

Donaldopato · Post by **Donaldopato** » Tue May 19, 2009 8:43 pm

Corlyss_D wrote:
What repels you from Brahms’s symphonies?
German bombast
Bloated orchestra
Inadequate variety
Lack of subtlety and intimacy
Lugubrious and morose, almost as dreary as most Russian 19th century music

I like small Brahms (chamber music, songs, solo piano works), but I wouldn't give house room to big Brahms.

Good GOD! I actually agree with Corlyss!

Turgid, unimaginative, over long... sorry...just not a Brahms fan.

Who is online