In an earlier post I referred to myself as One of Those People who Doesn’t Like Brahms. I was asked by someone (OK it was my Father) to expound on this a little and why certain composers (or performers for that matter) appeal and some don’t. Had I known how handsome Brahms was before I saw the concert, who knows how I would have felt. Should I be judging dead composers by their looks I wonder…
I wish to correct myself somewhat, Brahms deserves an apology. He could write remarkable music. His setting of the Paul Johann Ludwig von Heyse poem ‘Sonntag’ is a song of such unabashed beauty and affection (as opposed to affectation, hello Schumann, we’ll get to you in a minute) that you can’t help but wish he had written more Lieder and less orchestral and chamber music. I think my issue with SO much orchestral and instrumental music is ‘what’ the music is about. The concert last week was the Brahms followed by the Schostakovich. About the latter, one can have no doubt what the composer is trying to get at. If you know even a little about the history of Russia at the time and what Schostakovich was going through, it becomes clear what the piece is about. After the piece finished, you KNOW.
After the Brahms, I felt like saying;
‘What’s your point?’
Perhaps this is why the Lieder appeal to me, the poem’s words tell you (more or less) WHAT the music is about, and therefore, gives the audience a much needed piece of information. Certain composers (Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Strauss, Zemlinsky, Berg, Schoenberg…) write in a way that one knows IMMEDIATELY what is being said, even if there are no words to tell us what to expect, although a well thought of Symphony title doesn’t go astray (The Titan, Pathetique, Pastorale) and can provide one with a clue.
And in the Brahms Piano Concerto no. 1, I had NO idea what the piece was about. To me, it was nondescript and therefore, impossible for me to latch onto in anything other than a positive appraisal of the skill of the players. I literally missed the point. And with a conductor as clear and obvious as Dudamel (this is not a man who could be accused of drawing out nuance from a piece, not yet anyway), if HE can’t get the point across to me, then no one can. Given the fact that Brahms never seemed to get around to HAVING a personal life OR experiencing any real drama in his life, I’m not surprised the art he produced occasionally lacks…body. His ‘Deutsches Requiem’, his most epic (and operatic) piece is not (as I had thought) an epic outpouring of national and religious fervour. It was inspired by the death of his mother. This is a man with not enough happening in his life!
Is it simply that the experience of an artist’s life determines on what scale he or she’s art should be produced. Brahms had a pretty boring life so is THAT why his songs (small scale and intimate) are wonderful and his Orchestral works are merely acceptable? Reynaldo Hahn had a relatively blessed upper middle class Parisian life (along with scoring Marcel Proust as his longtime lover) and proceeds to write some of the best chansonne ever put on paper. His large scale work has the shelf life of Yoghurt. Wagner, on the other hand, takes part in the Dresden revolution, spends his life running from creditors, has affair after affair, artistically seduces the King of Bavaria and proceeds to write ENORMOUS scale music, BRILLIANTLY (if a little too lengthy at times). HIS small scale music…don’t bother.
So I will amend my former title from One of Those People who Doesn’t Like Brahms (OOTPWDLB) to One of Those People who Doesn’t Like Brahms Piano Concerto no. 1 (OOTPWDLBPCN1) until such time as someone is able to tell me what I missed, at which time I shall be all ears. There is nothing I like better than re-hearing a piece and discovering something miraculous.
Oh I never got around to Schumann…later perhaps…
Ummm… are you aware that Brahms wrote 600 Lieder?
I also don’t much care for much of Brahms’ music. His style is the epitome of Lyric German Romanticism (I am, of course, not including Wagner because he is a class of his own, or Strauss, because he is a post-romantic in my mind). I simply don’t care for that kind of music. The quality of his writing is very high, but it still comes down to taste, in the end.
When you look at a painting by a great artist in a museum, do you know what the painting is about? It may be a picture so you have some “entertainment” while you’re trying to understand but do you always understand? I don’t think so. Yet, something tells you that it’s great. Music doesn’t HAVE to be about anything to be great. BUT: you’re in luck because Brahms was one of the most illustrative composers ever. Brahms practically wrote his autobiography through his music. For instance, the 1st Piano Concerto was begun during his horrendous experience of watching his mentor, Schumann, fall into suicidal insanity and die in an asylum. Very likely, the first d-minor chord is exactly that shock. Brahms’ ability to communicate this through melody, harmony, and rhythm is his obvious genius. Listen to that again.
Asking what Brahms’s first piano concerto is “about” does indeed miss the point. No one is going to tell you what you missed. If you only like music that “speaks” in the most blatant fashion (if not with words, then preferably with helpful titles, whether supplied by the composer or by a publisher, to get you on the right track) then so be it. If you want to reach the end of a piece and “know” (your word) unequivocally what the piece was about, then so be it. For many people, the range of interpretation afforded by great music (to listeners as well as performers) – its emotional complexity, subtlety, ambiguity – is part of its enduring appeal. I’m guessing you don’t like Schubert’s instrumental music either. If you reach the end of, say, Schubert’s B flat Piano Sonata (D960) and “know” what it was about then I suggest your understanding of the music is severely under-nourished. The problem here does not lie with the composer.
Brahms wrote 200 vocal works.
His symphonies are beautiful and full of passion – not in the sense of the later Russian big five or even Liszt, but by his standards, they were very passionate.
I’m sure you researched Brahms before you wrote this stuff…A lot of the reason why his music isn’t more “romantic” is because he was consciously trying not to do that – he wanted to keep things more structured and classical, unlike his counterpart Liszt, who I suggest you check out.
I think you should explore what you said about an artists’ having an effect on his work. See Beethoven’s third creative period after he had completely gone deaf, something which probably inspired him to write such dark music.