In response to a post from Reiner on the postmodernism thread:


I'm not saying we can hear Palestrina, but that he may have derived some musical ideas from his study of Palestrina's work. Here are the opening bars (bars 1-11, to be precise) of the second movement of Brahms's First Piano Concerto in D minor Op. 15:



And here is the opening of the Kyrie from Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli:



and here is the opening of the Agnus Dei I (with a similar motive to be found at the beginning; this recurs in other movements)



Now, Brahms knew the latter work intimately, having studied it intensely in 1856 (he wrote the First Piano Concerto in 1856-59) and copied it out. That opening motive, with a rising fourth then a stepwise descent, recurs continuously in the Palestrina. I am personally quite sure that, bearing in mind the proximity of his study and the composition of the work, he drew upon the Palestrina when creating his own theme. There are other works from the same period which clearly show the Palestrina influence (such as the Geistliche Chore Op. 37 of 1859), which I don't have to hand at the moment, but can also post on here at some point if you would like.

Now, you might think this is a reference so deeply absorbed and modified that the resemblance becomes of little consequence. That may be true, but the point is to demonstrate how Brahms absorbed and individuated his many influences.


Please do - I'd like to know where it is.


I'm not sure if this comment was addressed to Alistair or I. I certainly don't believe any composer to be 'above challenge' either (indeed, am often critical of various artistic sacred cows, such as Oscar Wilde, for example? ), but would appreciate some more detail on these questions, that's all. It seems that the major case against Brahms have to do with him using a Lutheran chorale in the last movement of a piano concerto, and not having any aptitude for writing for the stage.

Actually, I have blown hot and cold on Brahms over the years (went through a long period in my 20s where I was completely off him), and can understand the reasons why some would not be drawn to him (I can elaborate on these later in this thread, perhaps). But I think criticism can at least deal with specifics as well as generalities.


Well, there were an awful lot of very different Protestant Germans. And as I say, Brahms was not particularly religious at all. He gained some financial security at a certain point in his life, but it wasn't always like that. And as for writing for the 'comfortable bourgeoisie', obviously I agree that's a factor, but one that could be said of just about any 19th-century (and, indeed a good deal of 20th-century) composers, rather than being specific to Brahms.


Well, in the case of Bruckner, how do you think his devout Catholicism is manifested in his music (I'm not saying it isn't)? And how would it compare, say, to that of the equally devout Catholic (at least in his later years) Liszt?

 I really dislike his symphonies. However, I haven't heard any of his piano music or chamber music, so I still want to hear more of his music and am undecided as to whether I like Brahms as a composer.

The unofficial "Beethoven's 10th" association with the first symphony is, to me, completely unjustified.

I'm wondering if Ian's gambit in writing about performance practice isn't prompted by this 'blowing hot and cold'
which I recognise. For quite a while Brahms made me think of 'suet pudding'-overstuffed counterpoint, but once
you, and a good performer/s get/s eg the baroque connection Ian cites, it sings. But getting this right is it seems to me far from easy, nor is the intensity of momentum you land up with in those piano pieces from the sound of it.
He also seems to render psychological complexities in this counterpoint with a hard-won lucidity.

Well, Brahms did own some of the classic texts on baroque performance (including C.P.E. Bach's book on keyboard instruments) so was certainly familiar with this subject, though not remotely in the manner of late 20th century HIPsters. Whilst his preferences with respect to performance certainly belong within some of the norms of his century, they were significantly different to those of the rival schools of composition as represented by Liszt, Wagner and to an extent Bruckner. Brahms made very clear his preferences for certain Haydnesque conventions with respect to small-scale articulative detail and (for various reasons too complex to justify in full here) seems for the most part to have favoured smaller orchestras, slightly faster tempos, and more selective use of vibrato than became the norm for performance of his work in the twentieth century (but at the same time, a high degree of expressive rubato). The truth is in the detail of the work, in many senses; the rather more grandiose style of performing his music (something that put me off quite a bit of it for some time) tends to obliterate a lot of this. With a nod in the direction of some comments on the orchestral music thread, I'd suggest that his orchestral works represents an expansion of some of the ideals of his chamber compositions (to me the heart of his output), rather than the other way round. He could certainly create vivid textures of sound with just a few instruments (see, for example, the opening of the String Quintet Op. 111), but was also a master of detail, of rhythmic subtleties and of minute interplay between colours. A very generalised 'expressivity' often does not capture these aspects of the music. Obtaining a workable balance between all of these things is one of the biggest challenges when performing his music for whatever medium.

"Do it how you like, but make it beautiful."

- Brahms.

(Should not be taken as advocating an unconsidered approach to Brahms performance practice. On the other hand his music does stand up well under a wide range of approaches and did so even in his own time.)

Very interesting indeed, Thanks. I like the idea of scholarship based on conductors' annotation of scores. Similarly there's always a froissant when an orchestral set has hierogylphics from eastern europe or wherever still there.

it's funny that Brahms said this and, by the same hand, pulled the young Richard Strauss up for 'not concentrating on 8-bar melodies'!