First Sunday Music - Brahms

[Publius]

The biography by Swafford is exceptional.

[HoosierHawk]

Thanks, Publius.

[curmudgeonII]

But, I suppose the life expectancy of men in the 1800's was nothing like it is today, alas.

If you were fortunate enough back then to get to the age of 6 or 7, or so, the life expectancy wasn't much different than it is today. The overall low life expenctancy was largely due to deaths of fairly young children. If you ever have the opportunity to go through an old cemetary look at the number of deaths of children in the first few years of their lives. About half of the deaths were of children below 8 years of age

[Publius]

And what chamber music!!

• Piano Trio in B, Op. 8 (original 1854 version)
• Sextet in B-flat, Op. 18 (where he first tries solving the formal problem of string sextet writing)
• Piano Quartet in G minor, Op. 25 (one of the greatest crowd pleasers in the chamber repertory)
• Piano Quartet in A, Op. 26
• Piano Quintet in F minor, Op. 34
• Sextet in G, Op. 36 (where he solves the formal problem of sextet writing)
• Cello Sonata in E minor, Op. 38 (with that great uncompromising fugue in the finale)
• Horn Trio in E-flat, Op. 40 (with one of the greatest slow movements ever written by Brahms)

These are the Cadillacs of chamber music.

[Publius]

You should check out the Brahms symphonies as recorded by Roger Norrington and the London Classical Players on EMI. Although Brahms left no metronome markings behind, Norrington has tried to piece together the composer's intentions by understanding classical performance traditions as Brahms understood them, not Wagner. What helped Norrington was the testimony of an earwitness who clocked the entire 1st Symphony at 41 minutes without the first movement exposition repeat.

In the first symphony, the speed directions are "Un poco sostenuto" for the introduction, then simply "allegro" for the first subject. The "poco" implies a comparison to the "allegro", which would indicate that the introduction is not to be taken as a dirge, but just "somewhat" slower than "allegro". Norrington takes it at a brisker pace than Solti and others. It's breathtaking -- but not as fast as the first subject!

Norrington also observes the exposition repeat. Brahms does not write a first ending but simply sends you back to the first subject without ceremony. It's one of the most shocking moments in the symphonic literature. (The first time I heard it, I dropped a whole armful of CD's in the Tower Records flagship store in West Hollywood.)

Using a smaller orchestra also helps because it restores the balance in favor of the winds, and having string instruments strung with gut, not steel, makes a difference.

Give them a listen.

[Borges]

His pre Op. 34 chamber music can be heavy handed. It suffers from a complete lack of charm. Even the opus 34 has a bit of that heaviness. I saw Leon Fleisher play it with a quartet who’s name escapes me. The Clarinet Quintet gets my vote as the greatest Chamber work of the Romantic ERa (post Schubert - pre Debussy).

[Borges]

Uchida still concertizes. I saw her last year.

[Publius]

His pre Op. 34 chamber music can be heavy handed. It suffers from a complete lack of charm. Even the opus 34 has a bit of that heaviness.

Whoa, pardner, them's fightin' words!

I'll stipulate that the Op. 8 trio (in both versions) has problems. I'll stipulate that the seams show in the finale of the Op. 26. But the slow movement of the Op. 26 quartet is one of his best. The Op. 18 sextet has its flaws, but it's a beautiful first try -- and it's better than Tchaikovsky's sextet (from our argument on a previous thread).

The Op. 25 quartet is a crowd pleaser for a reason. It's beautiful, fun -- and yes! -- charming. I've never failed to see an audience charmed into a standing ovation by that piece.

The Op. 34 quintet, which I saw performed a few weeks ago at the Seattle Chamber Music Festival, may be on the heavy side, but I never fail to find it charming, particularly after the flawless performance I heard.

I'll agree with you about the Clarinet Quintet, however. The Op. 115 is a four-handkerchief piece and certainly one of the monuments of the romantic tradition.

[HoosierHawk]

Give them a listen.

Will do and thanks for the info.

[Borges]

The great critic Alan Rich heard both sextets (Brahms Opus 18 and Tchaikovsky's) at a recent concert and said he disliked the Tchaikovsky but gained a new appreciation for it after hearing the Brahms.

But I find it strange how underwhelming his three string quartets are. They really aren't in the forefront of his chamber music. He was too nervous about writing quartets after Beethoven. I prefer Tchaikovsky's three quartets to his. Brahms VS Tchaikovsky arguments are good. Those two tower over every composer born between 1825-1850 or so. Those some would say Mussorgsky was more original than either.

[Borges]

‘Though some’

[Publius]

The two Op. 51 quartets are truly poor. He shouldn't have published them. The Op. 67 is a lot of fun, though.

But I would place Tchaikovsky's first quartet in D Major ahead of any of Brahms'.

[seoul62]

All noted, thank you./Just Asking - seoul62.......