Carse on Brahms' Orchestration
Sam
wrote:
>Hey, Sam, regardless of the ongoing polemics, could you please quote
>(some representative part of) the critique of Carse -- I am a great Brahms
>admirer but I would be really curious to read an alternate opinion --
>thanks.
>
>regards,
>SG
From "The History of Orchestration", pages 295-297.
Orchestration by composers of Teutonic origin during the period of
Brahms and Tschaikovsky falls roughly into two classes: that which
did, and that which did not show the influence of Wagner. In the last
class the work of Johannes Brahms (1833-1897) stands out, purely by
reason of the lasting value of his music, and not at all by virtue of
his manner of presenting it orchestrally. Unsympathetic to the colour
and warmth of Wagner's example, disdaining the glitter and brilliance
of Liszt, Brahms refused to learn from them the possibilities of the
modern orchestra, or to profit by their suggestiveness and their
experiments in orchestral colouring, even if he could have used such
methods in conjunction with his own particular musical matter.
Looking backward rather than forward, Brahms built directly on the
foundation of Beethoven and Schumann, adding to theirs his own
individual technique, a more extensive and richer harmonic scheme,
and, without altering their general style of treatment, took some, but
far from full advantage of such mechanical improvements as had given
greater melodic flexibility and harmonic resource to the brass
instruments of the orchestra.
Brahms string parts are spread over a large vertical compass, the
middle being closely filled up with double-stopping, sub-divided
parts, or by a busy figurated polyphony. Low lying parats for violas
and violoncellos, active or sustained, and both frequently
sub-divided, are largely responsible for a Schumannesque thickness of
tone, which, combined with the ever-present horn parts covering the
lower tenor register, has caused Brahms' orchestration to be described
as "thick and muddy." Individually, the string parts are often
strangely ungrateful in effect, rather more awkward than difficult.
They abound in large skips and uncomfortable intervals across the
strings. Ranging over the entire compass of each instrument, the
parts doggedly pursue their own course, freely crossing one another,
often syncopated or rhythmically at cross-purposes, and are rarely
left to display their own particular tone-quality without the
partnership of some other instrument of equal range, but dissimilar
tone-colour. The violoncellos wander about the string texture
expansively, independently, and often very expressively, but are
usually hedged around with much detailed motion by other parts.
The wood-wind as a body take a very generous share of the musical
matter, doubling one another each in its respective register, or ,
rather less frequently, acting as an independent group, but rarely as
unencumbered soloists. As a group they work mostly in conjunction
with horns. A noticeable feature of Brahms' orchestral technique is a
reactionary tendency to distribute the wood-wind parts in four
well-defined pairs, often running in consecutive thirds or sixths,
rather than to treat them as soloists, or to use them together as a
self-contained group. The two bodies, strings and wood-wind, are
treated as being of practically equal power, and, except for the more
active figuration and passage-work of the strings, carry out functions
which are similar in character and range. Matter which at one moment
is string work is transferred bodily to the wood-wind at another or
vice versa. This interchangeability of medium is often carried out in
an unyielding manner, subject to the limitations of compass more than
to any difference in the character of the individual instruments. The
horns act as a binding material, and are almost continuously employed
as such, providing a somewhat monotonous cohesion by means of parts
which are not exactly melodic, yet are more than mere harmonic
padding.
The brass section in Brahms' work enjoys only comparatively little
standing as a self-contained group. The horns, although relying much
on valve-produced notes, are often crooked in two different keys at
the same moment, as if to secure as many open notes as possible.
Short melodic phrases sometimes fall to the horns, but for the most
part they are occupied with matter which is rather more chromatic, yet
not more melodic than the horn parts in the later Beethoven
symphonies. Trumpets occasionally get a chromatic note, and have but
little real melodic movement. They are similarly crooked in various
keys, as if for natural trumpets.
In the matter of grouping and contrasting the main sections of the
orchestra, Brahms seems to have adopted one of the least attractive
features from Schumann's orchestration. A sort of semi-tutti,
comprised of strings, wood-wind and horns, is his favourite and almost
constant combination. The groups rarely appear in unmixed form.
Brahms' first symphony in C minor (1876) does not contain a single
complete bar of music for woodwind alone, and, if he did not quite
achieve Schumann's feat of orchestrating an entire symphony without
letting pure string-tone be heard for a singe bar, Brahms certainly
came very near to it in more than one of his works. Such clearer
grouping as occurs in the third movement of the second symphony in D
(1877) is more the exception than the rule.
A general view of Brahms' orchestration suggests that he deliberately
isolated himself, taking no part in the development which was in
progress all around him. He apparently disdained purely orchestral
effect, and never relied solely on the mere attractiveness of
instrumental colour. His love for a full, dense harmony led him to
constantly duplicate parts and combine instrumental voices, thus
preventing the possibility of instruments and groups acting in clear
contrast to one another. While always dignified and sonorous, his
orchestration lacked the lighter touch and charm so often found in the
work of many an inferior composer. But Brahms carried his own musical
technique into the orchestra itself, creating situations arising out
of that very technique, making, in a sense, an orchestral language
peculiar to himself, and not without considerable influence on the
work of many composers, Teutonic and otherwise, who at the end of the
last century carried their admiration for his music so far as to let
his orchestral manner influence theirs.
A famous conductor aptly said, apropos of Brahms' orchestration: "The
sun never shines in it."
David Hurwitz
>
>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:16:04 -0500, Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu>
>wrote:
>
>>Hey, Sam, regardless of the ongoing polemics, could you please quote
>>(some representative part of) the critique of Carse -- I am a great Brahms
>>admirer but I would be really curious to read an alternate opinion --
>>thanks.
>>
>>regards,
>>SG
>
Thanks for posting and for taking the time to type all of that out; it was great
fun. Of course, we should also note that Carse was a partisan of Wagner/Liszt in
the great Wagner/Brahms controversy of the 19th century; his book only gets as
far as 1900 (it was published in 1925), and it reflects the anti-Brahms school
ascendent in English criticism at the time (Tovey was leading the opposition,
Bernard Shaw was in Carse's camp, and was much more fun to read besides).
Happily, some of us have learned a few things since the first decades of the
last century.
Dave Hurwitz
Dr.Matt
It's often exemplary. But it's almost always for smaller forces than
Wagner or Carse had in mind.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Abelard2
Anyone who wants to hear how a modernist would orchestrate Brahms, has the
ready example of Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quartet opus 25.
It is a travesty.
>Brahms string parts are spread over a large vertical compass, the
>middle being closely filled up with double-stopping, sub-divided
>parts, or by a busy figurated polyphony. Low lying parats for violas
>and violoncellos, active or sustained, and both frequently
>sub-divided, are largely responsible for a Schumannesque thickness of
>tone, which, combined with the ever-present horn parts covering the
>lower tenor register, has caused Brahms' orchestration to be described
>as "thick and muddy." Individually, the string parts are often
>strangely ungrateful in effect, rather more awkward than difficult.
>They abound in large skips and uncomfortable intervals across the
>strings. Ranging over the entire compass of each instrument, the
>parts doggedly pursue their own course, freely crossing one another,
>often syncopated or rhythmically at cross-purposes, and are rarely
>left to display their own particular tone-quality without the
>partnership of some other instrument of equal range, but dissimilar
>tone-colour.
Listen to Furtwängler conduct Brahm's 4th symphony -- the passage in the 2nd
movement, for divided violas, is so beautiful that may have been the salvation
of hundreds of violists, demoralized by too many viola jokes.
>
>The wood-wind as a body take a very generous share of the musical
>matter, doubling one another each in its respective register, or ,
>rather less frequently, acting as an independent group, but rarely as
>unencumbered soloists. As a group they work mostly in conjunction
>with horns. A noticeable feature of Brahms' orchestral technique is a
>reactionary tendency to distribute the wood-wind parts in four
>well-defined pairs, often running in consecutive thirds or sixths,
>rather than to treat them as soloists, or to use them together as a
>self-contained group.
I have always admired the dialogues between solo horn and piano, and between
solo flute and piano, among others, in the finale of Brahms' 1st piano
concerto.
>A general view of Brahms' orchestration suggests that he deliberately
>isolated himself, taking no part in the development which was in
>progress all around him. He apparently disdained purely orchestral
>effect, and never relied solely on the mere attractiveness of
>instrumental colour.
See Furtwängler's essay, "Brahms and the Crisis of our Time":
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/furt.htm
abelard2
the Davidsbündler site
http://members.aol.com/abelard2/dave.htm
LongtimeLurker
I'd like to mention three things here.
1) What Carse considers 'reactionary' is a voluntary chastity of
means. The most obvious examples are writing brass parts as if for
valveless instruments, and the monotimbral movements of the German
Requiem. If the results don't 'speak' to Carse, perhaps he is
generally opposed to what Brahms is trying to say. (And note that a
similar argument is applied against Bruckner, who is accused of
merely 'playing' the orchestra like an organ, as if that made his
music less effective.)
2) If you try to rearrange Brahms to get rid of the
lower-middle-register 'muddiness', you'll find that there's simply no
place to put the displaced parts: the density arises from his
insistence on motivic development happening on several levels
simultaneously. (Schoenberg was very influenced by this.) The real
difficulties this presents for the performer are similar to that of
later Beethoven's piano writing, which is often much more difficult
than it sounds. The difficulties it presents to the *listener* are
also real, as you have to pay more attention to the inner parts than
in most other late-19th symphonic music.
It reminds me of Berg's article "Why is Schoneberg's Music So
Difficult to Understand," wherein he demonstrates that the opening of
Schoenberg's First Quartet is very much like a Bruckner Adagio, except
it's eight times faster.
3) Brahms does have a subtle rhythmic tic which can create problems:
there are places where he seems to assume we will "feel" unstressed
beats. Performers often react to this with a momentary slackening of
the tempo, with a resulting feeling of 'lowered energy'. (I can give
some bar numbers if this is unclear.)
It's notable that this "implied stress" almost never occurs in
Beethoven, Schubert, or Schumann. In fact, the place I first became
aware of this was the single case in the first movement of the
'Eroica': the last beat of m.28 ties over to the (unstressed) downbeat
of m.29, and in many performances the tempo falters for a moment and
has to be pushed up again. Bruggen's performance particularly drags
there -- it sounds as if his mind wandered off. (Mengelberg deals with
the problem by markedly *accelerating* through that section.)
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
dancertm
wrote:
>Sam sa...@nospammy.com :
>
>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:16:04 -0500, Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Hey, Sam, regardless of the ongoing polemics, could you please quote
>>>(some representative part of) the critique of Carse -- I am a great Brahms
>>>admirer but I would be really curious to read an alternate opinion --
>>>thanks.
>>>
>>>regards,
>>>SG
>>
>>From "The History of Orchestration", pages 295-297.
>>
>>Orchestration by composers of Teutonic origin during the period of
>>Brahms and Tschaikovsky falls roughly into two classes: that which
>>did, and that which did not show the influence of Wagner. In the last
>Listen to Furtwängler conduct Brahm's 4th symphony -- the passage in the 2nd
>movement, for divided violas, is so beautiful that may have been the salvation
>of hundreds of violists, demoralized by too many viola jokes.
>
>>
>>The wood-wind as a body take a very generous share of the musical
>>matter, doubling one another each in its respective register, or ,
>>rather less frequently, acting as an independent group, but rarely as
>>unencumbered soloists. As a group they work mostly in conjunction
>>with horns. A noticeable feature of Brahms' orchestral technique is a
>>reactionary tendency to distribute the wood-wind parts in four
>>well-defined pairs, often running in consecutive thirds or sixths,
>>rather than to treat them as soloists, or to use them together as a
>>self-contained group.
>
>I have always admired the dialogues between solo horn and piano, and between
>solo flute and piano, among others, in the finale of Brahms' 1st piano
>concerto.
>
>
>>A general view of Brahms' orchestration suggests that he deliberately
>>isolated himself, taking no part in the development which was in
>>progress all around him. He apparently disdained purely orchestral
>>effect, and never relied solely on the mere attractiveness of
>>instrumental colour.
My take on the subject is Brahms was never known as a great
orchestrator in the sense of color and using unique combinations of
instruments to cause an orchestral "wow." I also agree with the
statement he followed in the Romantic tradition not really using the
orchestra for all it was worth, however, knowing this he was subtle in
his treatment and basically let the music speak for itself.
Ravel, who's music I greatly enjoy was a much better orchestrator then
composer and is not even close to the compositional thought of Brahms.
I think most of us would agree a good orchestrator could create a
stunning version of Happy Birthday but it would not have the genius of
divine composition. I think Brahms was more concerned with content
than orchestral fluff.
Hanns Krehbiel
Sam <sa...@nospammy.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
97tbnvka7e43fob51...@4ax.com...
....................
> The brass section in Brahms' work enjoys only comparatively little
> standing as a self-contained group. The horns, although relying much
> on valve-produced notes, are often crooked in two different keys at
> the same moment, as if to secure as many open notes as possible.
> Short melodic phrases sometimes fall to the horns, but for the most
> part they are occupied with matter which is rather more chromatic, yet
> not more melodic than the horn parts in the later Beethoven
> symphonies. Trumpets occasionally get a chromatic note, and have but
> little real melodic movement. They are similarly crooked in various
> keys, as if for natural trumpets.
...........
I have positive information that Brahms wanted the use of valveless
horns and trumpets in all his compositions for orchestra. Btw: The
off-harmonics in the valveless horns are produced by placing the
flat palm of the hand across the opening in the bell, with the fingers
pressed against the metal, not by stopping with the finger-tips forward.
See also my previous posting about "Schumann and Brahms played hipi".
It seems that Brahms had in his youth learned playing the valveless
horn plus other instruments besides playing the piano..
Certainly Brahms wanted the valveless horn in his trio op. 40 (?).
hanns krehbiel
Dr.Matt
Abelard2 <abel...@aol.comspamless> wrote:
>Sam sa...@nospammy.com :
>
>>On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 21:16:04 -0500, Samir Golescu <gol...@uiuc.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>
>ready example of Schoenberg's orchestration of Brahms' Piano Quartet opus 25.
>It is a travesty.
Or a joyous revelation, depending on how much you love Brahms.
Schoenberg was by no means a "modernist" but a progressive conservative.
>>Brahms string parts are spread over a large vertical compass, the
>>middle being closely filled up with double-stopping, sub-divided
>>parts, or by a busy figurated polyphony. Low lying parats for violas
>>and violoncellos, active or sustained, and both frequently
>>sub-divided, are largely responsible for a Schumannesque thickness of
>>tone, which, combined with the ever-present horn parts covering the
>>lower tenor register, has caused Brahms' orchestration to be described
>>as "thick and muddy." Individually, the string parts are often
>>strangely ungrateful in effect, rather more awkward than difficult.
>>They abound in large skips and uncomfortable intervals across the
>>strings. Ranging over the entire compass of each instrument, the
>>parts doggedly pursue their own course, freely crossing one another,
>>often syncopated or rhythmically at cross-purposes, and are rarely
>>left to display their own particular tone-quality without the
>>partnership of some other instrument of equal range, but dissimilar
>>tone-colour.
>
>Listen to Furtwängler conduct Brahm's 4th symphony -- the passage in the 2nd
>movement, for divided violas, is so beautiful that may have been the salvation
>of hundreds of violists, demoralized by too many viola jokes.
I love both Brahms's orchestration AND Schoenberg's. AND Wagner's and
Debussy's. They're each integral to and inseparable from their total
compositional technique. When Schoenberg orchestrates Brahms, it's an
act of loving homage.
Eusebius7
>Schoenberg was by no means a "modernist" but a progressive conservative.
Isn't that what they call Newt Gingrich?
eusebius7
proud participant in the Tjako van Schie Fugue Challenge Site:
http://users.castel.nl/~schic02/fuguenew.htm
Dr.Matt
Eusebius7 <euse...@aol.comDELETE> wrote:
>fie...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu (Dr.Matt) wrote:
>
>>Schoenberg was by no means a "modernist" but a progressive conservative.
>
>Isn't that what they call Newt Gingrich?
If they do, they be lying, he's a radical through and through
>
>eusebius7
>proud participant in the Tjako van Schie Fugue Challenge Site:
>http://users.castel.nl/~schic02/fuguenew.htm
Sam
>2) If you try to rearrange Brahms to get rid of the
>lower-middle-register 'muddiness', you'll find that there's simply no
>place to put the displaced parts: the density arises from his
>insistence on motivic development happening on several levels
>simultaneously.
My understanding of Carse is that he attributes the muddiness in
Brahms both to,
1. "Harmonic padding" by which I think he means doubling a part in
thirds and/or sixths.
2. Failure to assign each part to a contrasting instrumental group.
Instead, you may have two or more parts, each handled by a combination
of strings, wood-winds and horns.
Are you saying that there is no way in Brahms to do the assignment to
groups of contrasting colours? I fail to see why. Carse, in his
discussion of Wagner, Tschaikovsky and Richard Strauss goes into
detail on the way these composers were able, in complex contrapuntal
music, to assign parts to clearly differentiated groups. He claims
(page 278) referring to the Ring, "Wagner could have written for this
orchestra in over one hundred parts, or, without mixing tone-colours,
for about seventeen complete instrumental choirs".
Some choirs Wagner used were, 4 clarinets, 3 bassoons, four horns,
four tubas and contrabass tuba, trumpets (or bass trumpet) and
trombones, four trombones, four trombones and contrabass tuba, violins
alone (divided), violins and violas, violas and cello.
Dr.Matt
Unlike Wagner, Brahms is often using the orchestra to emphasize
structural details. A common technique in Brahms which is almost
never found in Wagner involves running counterpoint in the strings
with key motivic phrases doubled with a woodwind so they jump out of
the texture. This is a decidedly different way of using the orchestra,
and yes, it involves mixture. But it is the opposite of turgidity.
Wagner's 17 distinct choirs relate to Brahms's unified orchestra
roughly as Gabrielli's antiphonal choirs relate to Palestrina's counterpoint--
they're fundamentally different ways of subdividing and using the same
resources for different purposes.
Larry Rinkel
"LongtimeLurker" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:1d9dnvs43s3hie5jc...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Sam <sa...@nospammy.com> wrote:
>
> I'd like to mention three things here.
>
>
> 3) Brahms does have a subtle rhythmic tic which can create problems:
> there are places where he seems to assume we will "feel" unstressed
> beats. Performers often react to this with a momentary slackening of
> the tempo, with a resulting feeling of 'lowered energy'. (I can give
> some bar numbers if this is unclear.)
Perhaps you are thinking of a place like the finale of the 2nd symphony, mm.
138-142 (and its counterpart in the recapitulation). I haven't felt at this
spot so much a lowered energy as a confusion in my mind as to where the
downbeat comes, which is only resolved at 142. The four ascending
eighth-note/eighth-note triplet scale passages each starting on C# at
134-136 don't really sound syncopated to me the way I think they should
either; it seems the accent is always placed on the C# rather than on the
strong beats of the bar, making the passage sound suddenly like 4 bars of
3/4 rather than :
C#-D E-F# G-A C#-D |
E-F# G#-A C#-D E-F# |
G#-A C#-D-E F#-G#-A B-C# |
{rest!}
Possibly if this syncopation came through more, it would be easier to hear
the "unstressed beats" in the ensuing passage. I would imagine this passage
is pretty tricky to conduct.
>
> It's notable that this "implied stress" almost never occurs in
> Beethoven, Schubert, or Schumann. In fact, the place I first became
> aware of this was the single case in the first movement of the
> 'Eroica': the last beat of m.28 ties over to the (unstressed) downbeat
> of m.29, and in many performances the tempo falters for a moment and
> has to be pushed up again.
Even so, the bass line descends from Bb to Ab at the start of measure 29,
which should help keep the tempo up.
Larry Rinkel
news:I0pdb.3023$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
In the Mackerras recordings, whatever else you may think of them, the
orchestra is reduced to about 45 players as may have been the case in
Brahms's day. There's brilliance to spare at the close of the 2nd symphony
when heard this way. Brahms may have rejected coloristic devices for their
own sake - or, following an occasion when he did indulge in a bright color
like the trilling piccolo in the finale of the 2nd serenade - he eventually
preferred a darker palette. This is true in the piano music as well: you'll
get the lowest bass octave of the piano quite often in Brahms's music (as in
the G minor rhapsody, op. 79/2 with its low octave A's, or the opening
cadenza to the 2nd piano concerto), but you rarely see the very upper
octaves. To my mind, however, this creates a sound more of great solidity
than excessive thickness.
Peter T. Daniels
Jens Nygaard made exactly the same point at a Brahms concert once -- but
he said he wouldn't do the Fourth with his (essentially) chamber-sized
Jupiter Symphony.
--
Peter T. Daniels gram...@att.net
Eric Grunin
<LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote:
>
>"LongtimeLurker" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>news:1d9dnvs43s3hie5jc...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 22:09:12 GMT, Sam <sa...@nospammy.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to mention three things here.
>>
>[1+2 snipped]
>>
>> 3) Brahms does have a subtle rhythmic tic which can create problems:
>> there are places where he seems to assume we will "feel" unstressed
>> beats. Performers often react to this with a momentary slackening of
>> the tempo, with a resulting feeling of 'lowered energy'. (I can give
>> some bar numbers if this is unclear.)
>
>Perhaps you are thinking of a place like the finale of the 2nd symphony, mm.
>138-142
<<details snipped>>
>Possibly if this syncopation came through more, it would be easier to hear
>the "unstressed beats" in the ensuing passage. I would imagine this passage
>is pretty tricky to conduct.
Although I agree this passage can be tricky, the ambiguity
(technically, 'anxiety') you experience is probably exactly what
Brahms wanted. I say this partly because of the way he pounces on the
tonic at 142, but also because there's a *very* similar passage in the
'Eroica' beginning at I/119: "3/4" phrases which blur the meter,
leading into big syncopated chords, leading to a new phrase beginning
on the tonic (m.136).
In Brahms 2nd, mvt. IV, the 'tic' I am talking about shows up in bars
98 and 106. The 'classic' approach to m.98 would have the cellos,
basses, and bassoons rest on 2 and attack on 3; in 106, the cellos and
basses A# would be brought in one beat earlier.
>> It's notable that this "implied stress" almost never occurs in
>> Beethoven, Schubert, or Schumann. In fact, the place I first became
>> aware of this was the single case in the first movement of the
>> 'Eroica': the last beat of m.28 ties over to the (unstressed) downbeat
>> of m.29, and in many performances the tempo falters for a moment and
>> has to be pushed up again.
>
>Even so, the bass line descends from Bb to Ab at the start of measure 29,
>which should help keep the tempo up.
Ach! I meant m.30-31 (and m.33-34), not 28-29. You are exactly correct
about the events of 28-29.
Serves me right for trying to quote measure numbers from memory.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
David Hurwitz
>than excessive thickness.
>
Excellent point, which leads logically to another: good performances of Brahms'
music NEVER sound excessively thick. Carse's accusations are based entirely on
what he sees on paper, and are completely unrelated to the actual sound of the
music in performance. It is always rather depressing to see this sort of
analysis, because it completely disregards the fact that composers write for
music to be PERFORMED, rather than "analyzed" by partisan music theorists who
are so biased in favor on one particular style that they cannot be bothered to
address the possiblity that Brahms' aural imagination was entirely adequate to
what he was trying to express and how best to express it.
Brahms' scoring is as much the result of practical experience as it is the
expression of some sort of a priori compositional theory or 'ideology' of
orchestration, and Carse's rather empty speculation about the "meaning" of
Brahms' scoring as it relates to his compositional aesthetic neglects completely
the practical circumstances of composition and performance of each individual
work.
The comparison with Wagner is particularly inappropriate as Wagner's
orchestration is conceived, first and formost, as vocal accompaniment from the
orchestra pit, thus permitting writing of a textural thinness and lack of
contrapuntal interest over large stretches inconceivable in a symphonic work.
And it is so very interesting that when Wagner does attempt writing of some
contrapuntal density (as in the Prelude to Meistersinger) the result comes
remarkably close at times to sounding like Brahms.
Carse also neglects to discuss the significance of the obvious fact that
orchestration designed to be heard over a period of hours had better be more
coloristically contrasted and varied than a single symphonic work in four
distinct sections separated by pauses, lasting approximately 40 minutes. Brahms,
working on a comparatively small scale, can afford to be vertically dense and
contrapuntally elaborate; in Wagner, where motivic clarity depends on gross
contrasts of texture and tone over a vast time scale, this would be huge mistake
(not to mention a waste of effort). In short, each composer evolved a style
adequate to his compositional intent, and a fair comparison would consist, not
of the scoring of The Ring IN GENERAL to that of a Brahms symphony IN
GENERAL--an "apples and oranges" comparison if ever there was one--but rather to
a selection of passages by both composers similar in PURPOSE so as to highlight
BOTH similarities and differences in orchestral style.
The result of this methodologically defective approach, then, is a series of
observations which, while perhaps factually correct, lead to conclusions that
are at best illogical where they are not completely wrong. Take Carse's
contention that the First Symphony contains "not a single bar for woodwind
alone." Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not this is a
bad thing, the First Symphony contains plenty of bars for woodwind lightly
accompanied by, say, a single horn, or (as at the beginning of the Third
Movement) gently voiced pizzicato lower strings. None of these passages can be
called "thickly scored" or be said to neglect the coloristic potential of
woodwind section.
Nor would any but the deaf consider the tone colors in these passages
monochromatically "blended" simply because the section is not used strictly solo
as Carse demands. Indeed, the tone of the wind section is thrown into greater
relief by the presence of timbral contrast on an entirely different plane of
tone. Could anyone seriously maintain that the opening of that third movement of
the First Symphony would sound "better" without its pizzicato accompaniment?
Carse's remarks on this point (as with others) reveal a total disregard for the
effect of these passages in their proper context.
The final rebuttal, of course, lies in the respect accorded Brahms by any but
the most reactionary of musical scholars, not to mention his popularity with
audiences for well over a century. Symphonic music which is badly scored, which
fails to achieve its expressive aims through its orchestral writing, or which
could just as easily be rearanged for some other combination with no significant
loss of impact or intensity, would hardly enjoy the esteem that these works have
historically, and which they continue to enjoy today.
Dave Hurwitz
Eric Grunin
>On Sun, 28 Sep 2003 06:28:56 -0400, LongtimeLurker <a@b.c> wrote:
>
>>2) If you try to rearrange Brahms to get rid of the
>>lower-middle-register 'muddiness', you'll find that there's simply no
>>place to put the displaced parts: the density arises from his
>>insistence on motivic development happening on several levels
>>simultaneously.
>
>My understanding of Carse is that he attributes the muddiness in
>Brahms both to,
>1. "Harmonic padding" by which I think he means doubling a part in
>thirds and/or sixths.
>2. Failure to assign each part to a contrasting instrumental group.
>Instead, you may have two or more parts, each handled by a combination
>of strings, wood-winds and horns.
Carse has two separate complaints, opacity (paragraph 2) and monotony
(paragraphs 3-5). The passages to which you refer are concerned with
monotony. This is where he mentions mud:
>>Low lying parts for violas
>>and violoncellos, active or sustained, and both frequently
>>sub-divided, are largely responsible for a Schumannesque thickness of
>>tone, which, combined with the ever-present horn parts covering the
>>lower tenor register, has caused Brahms' orchestration to be described
>>as "thick and muddy."
And what I call "motivic development on several levels" Carse calls
bad part-writing:
>>the string parts [...] abound in large skips and uncomfortable intervals across the
>>strings. Ranging over the entire compass of each instrument, the
>>parts doggedly pursue their own course, freely crossing one another,
>often syncopated or rhythmically at cross-purposes [...] The .violoncellos
>>wander about the string texture
>>expansively, independently, and often very expressively, but are
>>usually hedged around with much detailed motion by other parts.
As for the timbral 'monotony', Brahms plainly preferred a restricted
palette, and Carse found it boring; it seems to be a matter of taste,
not technique.
I suppose one day I'll look at the Brahms-Schoenberg Piano Quartet to
see what Arnold made ot it.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
Ian Pace
"Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
news:LJNdb.930$Kq4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
piano music, however, there are numerous places where Brahms specifically
uses the upper octaves, which had a thinner tone in one sense or another on
just about all the pianos he played (including the late 19th century
Steinways), for remarkable colouristic effect. Think of the second bar in
the Piano Concerto No. 2, where the rising triplet chords are joined by an
extra voice at the tone which would subtlely set the otherwise quite thick
writing into relief, or the utterly brilliant alternation between high and
low octaves on one hand and central register sixths/thirds/etc. in the 7th
Paganini Variation (Book 1), the organ-like and almost proto-Messiaen
voicing in Variation 11 (principal voice in the tenor, doubled by a pp line
in the top register), the leaping between octaves in bars 15-17 and 60-63 of
the Eb Clarinet Sonata, and various others.
Best,
Ian
Jeremy Dimmick
[snip]
> Certainly Brahms wanted the valveless horn in his trio op. 40.
>
I've been meaning to ask for a while if there's a recommendable
recording with valveless horn. For some reason I don't get on with
this work very well, not a reaction I normally have to Brahms, and I
think it may be the actual combination of (modern) instruments that
has always sounded awkward to me.
Jeremy
John Harrington
news:legfnvc77l5f732ct...@4ax.com...<snip>
> I suppose one day I'll look at the Brahms-Schoenberg Piano Quartet to
Do. It's one of the most beautiful arrangements in the history of music.
J
Hanns Krehbiel
Jeremy Dimmick <fwo...@clara.co.uk> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
77364c9d.0309...@posting.google.com...
> >
> I've been meaning to ask for a while if there's a recommendable
> recording with valveless horn. For some reason I don't get on with
> this work very well, not a reaction I normally have to Brahms, and I
> think it may be the actual combination of (modern) instruments that
> has always sounded awkward to me.
Yes, at Harmonia Mundi France (907037), with
Lowell Greer, valveless horn,
Steven Lubin, pianoforte (a Bösendorfer of 1854)
Stephanie Chase, violin
The CD includes also the Beethoven Horn sonata, and a sonata
by one v. Krufft.
hanns krehbiel
Johannes Roehl
Agreed. And AS apparently did not have any qualms about instrumental
effects for their own sake here. Just take the percussion in the
marchlike part of the andante or the xylophon solo in the finale.
Johannes
Brendan R. Wehrung
Who would you recommend for HIP Brahms piano playing?
Brendan
--
Peter T. Daniels
HIP, schmip, get Katschen.
Pearl has a six-disk set of Clara's students: that might be as close as
you'll get to authentic. (And Pearl's subsidiary Opal has the complete
recordings of Joachim and Ysaye, plus some Sarasate, on a single disk.)
Michael Creevey
"Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
news:LJNdb.930$Kq4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> orchestra is reduced to about 45 players as may have been the case in
> Brahms's day. There's brilliance to spare at the close of the 2nd symphony
> when heard this way. Brahms may have rejected coloristic devices for their
> own sake - or, following an occasion when he did indulge in a bright color
> like the trilling piccolo in the finale of the 2nd serenade - he
eventually
> preferred a darker palette. This is true in the piano music as well:
you'll
> get the lowest bass octave of the piano quite often in Brahms's music (as
in
> the G minor rhapsody, op. 79/2 with its low octave A's, or the opening
> cadenza to the 2nd piano concerto), but you rarely see the very upper
> octaves. To my mind, however, this creates a sound more of great solidity
> than excessive thickness.
This is the point, I think, that Brahms prefers sombre, even greyish
colourings which do not sound 'brilliant' and dupe people into thinking that
his orchestration was incompetent, or just unclear. The piano music is very
'unpianistic'- although Brahms was capable of treating the piano
brilliantly, witness the 2 books of Paganini variations. Not that
concentrating on the greyer hues is an aesthetic for which I have a great
deal of sympathy, it does express Brahm's own feelings. At times one is
wearied by the rather dull figurations, the excessive chordal structures in
both the piano music and the orchestral music. But it is relieved at times
by such passages as the wonderful horn entrance in the 2nd piano concerto,
or the brittle grace of the slow movt of the 3rd piano sonata.
Incidentally, Schumann is an interesting point of comparison, since he is
almost universally derided as an incompetent orchestrator. Now to my ear,
this is not so, Schumann finds the right orchestra for his music, although
perhaps occasionally the ear detects a voice or two which properly belongs
only to the realm of colouristic figuration or mere harmonic accompaniment
given prominence, often in the brass. But still as music, something to be
heard and not read, the symphonies of Schumann are great documents. (am
reminded of the remark- a musicologist is one who can read music but cannot
hear it)
regards,
Michael Creevey
Dr.Matt
Brahms's orchestrations and registrations are about making counterpoint clear.
Nothing to do with somberness.
Larry Rinkel
"Michael Creevey" <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
news:blbdol$9nmje$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de...
(am
> reminded of the remark- a musicologist is one who can read music but
cannot
> hear it)
>
Cheap shot. One musicologist who found fault with Schumann's orchestration
was Donald Francis Tovey, who thought that the comparative thickness of the
later version of the 4th symphony was due to doublings Schumann added for
orchestral security, Schumann's discouraging experiences with conducting
having led him to adopt a safer course. And addition to musicology, btw,
Tovey was a noted conductor and skilled composer.
Johannes Roehl
>
> "Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
> news:LJNdb.930$Kq4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> > To my mind, however, this creates a sound more of great solidity
> > than excessive thickness.
>
> This is the point, I think, that Brahms prefers sombre, even greyish
> colourings which do not sound 'brilliant' and dupe people into thinking that
> his orchestration was incompetent, or just unclear. The piano music is very
> 'unpianistic'- although Brahms was capable of treating the piano
> brilliantly, witness the 2 books of Paganini variations. Not that
> concentrating on the greyer hues is an aesthetic for which I have a great
> deal of sympathy, it does express Brahm's own feelings.
There is an interesting Essay on Brahms' 'Awkwardness' (esp. with
respcet to the piano pieces) in Rosens newish book 'Critical
entertainments'.
But I think other posters have made it clear that 'shades of grey'
simply is no adequate description of Brahms' scoring. (there is a lot in
between shades of grey and flashy neon colors)
I actually find it puzzling that this discussion started with a comment
ont the 3rd symphony, IMO one of the most obviously colorful things
Brahms wrote (as opposed to say the double concerto or some parts of the
Requiem). Just take the brass at the beginning, the clarinet solo in the
second subject of the 1st movement, the wonderful horn solo later in the
development or the andante: sharply contrasted colors of clarinets first
and than strings and oboe, later the 'chorale' by the trombones.
Johannes
Eusebius7
>Incidentally, Schumann is an interesting point of comparison, since he is
>almost universally derided as an incompetent orchestrator. Now to my ear,
>this is not so, Schumann finds the right orchestra for his music, although
>perhaps occasionally the ear detects a voice or two which properly belongs
>only to the realm of colouristic figuration or mere harmonic accompaniment
>given prominence, often in the brass. But still as music, something to be
>heard and not read, the symphonies of Schumann are great documents.
From an interview with the Hungarian pianist, András Schiff, in the
German-language publication, Ibykus:
"...I'm busying myself very intensely with Schumann. I'm a very great admirer
of Schumann. And there is a great deal left to be done. Composers like Mozart,
Beethoven or Bach must be interpreted and played again and again, but they have
been long accepted. Schubert is a borderline case, and in my opinion, Schumann
is on the whole not yet accepted, hardly anyone appreciates his late works.
There are so many clichés. I consider it a mission, to clear away these
clichés, like the one that he had gone insane, or that he had badly
orchestrated -- that is all nonsense! Schumann didn't orchestrate badly, his
music is very badly conducted! One must leave every note just as he wrote it,
and not re-orchestrate or rewrite it. One must experiment properly and find a
balance, an equilibrium. I know of no work by Schumann, that is not wonderful
-- so inspiring. With all due respect and all love due to Brahms, I must say,
that for me, Schumann is the more ingenious composer. Brahms is the better
composer, he has left really nothing behind, that is not entirely tip-top; he
demonstrates a tremendous mastery of craftsmanship, fantastic! But with
Schumann there is this burning inventiveness, this simply unbelievable
inspiration. Naturally you have that with Brahms as well, like for example in
his first Piano Concerto, that he worked on for an insanely long time. I
perceive this volcanic inventiveness. But, nonetheless, not in all of his
works."
-- http://members.aol.com/abelard2/schiff.htm
Eusebius7
>
>John Harrington schrieb:
>>
>> "Eric Grunin" <a@b.c> wrote in message
>> news:legfnvc77l5f732ct...@4ax.com...
>> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:30:17 GMT, Sam <sa...@nospammy.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > I suppose one day I'll look at the Brahms-Schoenberg Piano Quartet to
>> > see what Arnold made of it.
>>
>> Do. It's one of the most beautiful arrangements in the history of music.
>
>Agreed. And AS apparently did not have any qualms about instrumental
>effects for their own sake here.
Brahms, on the other hand, detested them.
>Just take the percussion in the
>marchlike part of the andante or the xylophon solo in the finale.
Please, take the percussion and the xylophon solo.
Sam
wrote:
>Sam, where are you? Never mind 'Dave the Emphatic'. I'd really like to
>know more about your take on Carse as a reliable 'measurer' of Brahms'
>music.
Nothing written on this thread, in the two newsgroups where it was
posted, has changed my agreement with Carse's basic position. To
state it again, Brahms' orchestral music would be even more enjoyable
than it is, if he had taken advantage of the advances in orchestration
made during the 19th century.
To be more specific, used the full capabilities of the newer brass
instruments and assigned different voices to contrasting sounding
instrumental choirs.
For example, I just cringe in annoyance at the anemic scoring of the
first subject of the third symphony. The opening chords should morph
into a full tutti with trumpets blazing on top. (That was obvious
flame bait. Go right ahead.)
Dr.Matt
So write it the way you want to hear it, don't just bitch about it.
Sam
>To be more specific, used the full capabilities of the newer brass
>instruments and assigned different voices to contrasting sounding
>instrumental choirs.
Obviously, I should have said different parts instead of voices,
meaning different contrapuntal lines should have contrasting
instrumental colours.
David Hurwitz
What if Brahms didn't want them to because he did not intend those different
parts to be of equal importance?
Dave Hurwitz
Archer070
>contention that the First Symphony contains "not a single bar for woodwind
>alone." Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether or not this is a
>bad thing, the First Symphony contains plenty of bars for woodwind lightly
>accompanied by, say, a single horn, or (as at the beginning of the Third
>Movement) gently voiced pizzicato lower strings.
The passage to which you refer happens to be a favorite of mine. It is
enormously subtle and beautiful, and it depends on the color of the clarinets
to work--the color seems the heart of the entire business. And that old fool
Adam Carse complains that it's not a solo? (Does he have a complaint about
the opening of the Second Piano Concerto, too? ) If Carse wants solos, he can
go listen to Rossini, or Carl Maria von Weber.
____
Short-sheeting the bunks at the Trickle-Down Bible Camp!
http://archernews.blog-city.com/
Michael Creevey
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:FQdeb.3086$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> what a load.
> Brahms's orchestrations and registrations are about making counterpoint
clear.
Might be the intention, but not always the result. Brahms' works are
contrapuntally rich n all, but the effect is generally lost on the hearer I
submit m'lud, the aural effect is rather muddy (in the orchestral works that
is) and require careful listening to follow the contrapuntal argument.
> Nothing to do with somberness.
Perhaps you are a musiclologist?
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
Tovey is a very respected figure. The Tovey/Craxton edition of the Beethoven
piano sonatas is good, one of the more widely distributed version I would
say. Better than Schnabel, who though not without insights, burdens the text
with far too many footnotes. Many others, more rightly famed than me have no
doubt said the same. However its a bit impertinent to leave one line of
music and several clomun inches of your own annotations. And the
Tovey/Craxton text is good as well, unlike Schnabel just contains a few
corrections.
On the Schumann 4th it is interesting to compare the 2 versions of the
symphony, the 1st version (the 1841) is by far the more transparent. It
would be good to achieve some compromise between the 2 versions. It has been
said by some that increasing bourgeois solidity and dmoesticity contributed
to the slightly more fat version (op120), but this seems a bit over the top.
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
"Eusebius7" <euse...@aol.comDELETE> wrote in message
news:20030930095234...@mb-m29.aol.com...
> "Michael Creevey" snipthis...@mailandnews.com wrote:
>
> >Incidentally, Schumann is an interesting point of comparison, since he is
> >almost universally derided as an incompetent orchestrator. Now to my ear,
> >this is not so, Schumann finds the right orchestra for his music,
although
> >perhaps occasionally the ear detects a voice or two which properly
belongs
> >only to the realm of colouristic figuration or mere harmonic
accompaniment
> >given prominence, often in the brass. But still as music, something to be
> >heard and not read, the symphonies of Schumann are great documents.
>
> From an interview with the Hungarian pianist, András Schiff, in the
> German-language publication, Ibykus:
> "...I'm busying myself very intensely with Schumann. I'm a very great
admirer
> of Schumann. And there is a great deal left to be done. Composers like
Mozart,
> Beethoven or Bach must be interpreted and played again and again, but they
have
> been long accepted. Schubert is a borderline case, and in my opinion,
Schumann
> is on the whole not yet accepted, hardly anyone appreciates his late
works.
I agree for the most part with these sentiments. Schumann isn't totally in
Hades, just in an upper reach of limbo. I get the feeling that Chopin's
music is also becoming less and less fashionable. Some of the later works
are of less quality, lets face it. The 3rd piano trio eg is not the equal of
its 2 predecessors. But there are many worthwhile works after 1851, not just
the Rhenish and the cello concerto. His last published work, the Gesaenge
der Fruehe, is very moving indeed. The 2 violin sonatas are quality pieces.
The violin concerto perhaps again strongly hints at a decline in
compositional ability, not necessarily in inspiration, but is making good
ideas cohere adequately. Still it has some good things in it, and I'm
warming to it. So are many violinists (oddly the vc is the work of RS that
I've heard most frequently on the radio over the past year or so).
What to me are more unjustly neglected masterpieces, are the choral works
esp. the Faust Szenen and Das Paradise und der Peri. Two titanic works of
genius, the finest choral works of the C19th after Beethoven. Manfred is
also very worthwhile, as is Genoveva, a terrific piece musically but cannot
excite the opera public, too desensitized on things like early Verdi and
Puccini.
>
> There are so many clichés. I consider it a mission, to clear away these
> clichés, like the one that he had gone insane, or that he had badly
> orchestrated -- that is all nonsense! Schumann didn't orchestrate badly,
his
> music is very badly conducted! One must leave every note just as he wrote
it,
> and not re-orchestrate or rewrite it. One must experiment properly and
find a
> balance, an equilibrium. I know of no work by Schumann, that is not
wonderful
> -- so inspiring. With all due respect and all love due to Brahms, I must
say,
> that for me, Schumann is the more ingenious composer. Brahms is the better
> composer, he has left really nothing behind, that is not entirely tip-top;
he
> demonstrates a tremendous mastery of craftsmanship, fantastic! But with
> Schumann there is this burning inventiveness, this simply unbelievable
> inspiration. Naturally you have that with Brahms as well, like for example
in
> his first Piano Concerto, that he worked on for an insanely long time. I
> perceive this volcanic inventiveness. But, nonetheless, not in all of his
> works."
I agree that Schumann was by far the more consistently inspired.
>
> -- http://members.aol.com/abelard2/schiff.htm
Yes, been there. I get the feeling that site may have been there for a long
time.
>
>
> eusebius7
> proud participant in the Tjako van Schie Fugue Challenge Site:
> http://users.castel.nl/~schic02/fuguenew.htm
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
"Johannes Roehl" <parr...@web.de> wrote in message
news:3F798B5C...@web.de...
> Michael Creevey schrieb:
> >
> > "Larry Rinkel" <LRi...@optunderline.net> wrote in message
> > news:LJNdb.930$Kq4.2...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
>
> > > To my mind, however, this creates a sound more of great solidity
> > > than excessive thickness.
> >
> > This is the point, I think, that Brahms prefers sombre, even greyish
> > colourings which do not sound 'brilliant' and dupe people into thinking
that
> > his orchestration was incompetent, or just unclear. The piano music is
very
> > 'unpianistic'- although Brahms was capable of treating the piano
> > brilliantly, witness the 2 books of Paganini variations. Not that
> > concentrating on the greyer hues is an aesthetic for which I have a
great
> > deal of sympathy, it does express Brahm's own feelings.
>
> There is an interesting Essay on Brahms' 'Awkwardness' (esp. with
> respcet to the piano pieces) in Rosens newish book 'Critical
> entertainments'.
What does he say? There is no doubt that many of Brahms pieces create cruel
and unusual difficulties for the player, giving clear articulation in those
masses of chords is as hard in its way as Liszt. Actually I consider the
Liszt Paganini etudes to be a waltz in the park compared with say Bk I of
Brahms Variations. But what is the point of this extreme difficulty? The
full effect isn't conveyed to the audience, extreme virtuosity should mean
something. Obviously in most cases Brahms' figurations are written with
purely musical aims in mind.
> But I think other posters have made it clear that 'shades of grey'
> simply is no adequate description of Brahms' scoring. (there is a lot in
> between shades of grey and flashy neon colors)
I do think that shades of grey is fair, at least some of the time.
> I actually find it puzzling that this discussion started with a comment
> ont the 3rd symphony, IMO one of the most obviously colorful things
> Brahms wrote (as opposed to say the double concerto or some parts of the
> Requiem). Just take the brass at the beginning, the clarinet solo in the
> second subject of the 1st movement, the wonderful horn solo later in the
> development or the andante: sharply contrasted colors of clarinets first
> and than strings and oboe, later the 'chorale' by the trombones.
>
> Johannes
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Ian Pace
Brahms's unique pianistic idiom. Brahms uses technical awkwardness as an
expressive device, to create an underlying tension in the music. Classic
example are the legato octaves in the trio section of the second movement of
the Piano Concerto No. 2. Nowadays, almost no-one I've heard actually tries
to play them legato, instead they play staccato with the pedal to connect -
to do a 'legato possible' would create an even more striking sense of
awkwardness and cumbersomeness, which might simply suggest a lesser degree
of technical ability on the part of the player. But I do think that might
be how Brahms intended it. Many of the same ideals apply to the Violin
Concerto, to absolutely stunning effect, I think, and this is how Brahms
totally avoids any sense of frothiness, instead producing a truly monumental
work (perhaps my favourite of all violin concertos).
Maybe this was all part and parcel of Brahms's reaction against Liszt, who
could create the most dazzling result in the most pianistically fluent way
imaginable. I love both composers, don't really want to 'take sides'
between them. One could say that Brahms was a type of 'anti-virtuoso'. In
this sense he was far ahead of his time in many respects - having the player
working 'against the instrument' is a concern that resurfaces particularly
radically in some of the music of Heinz Holliger and Vinko Globokar,
occasionally in Brian Ferneyhough; of course also previously in various
left-hand only works for piano.
In Schumann's F# minor sonata, third movement, the trio ends after a
quasi-orchestral recitative with a big arpeggio on C#7 in both hands, which
Schumann specifically fingers 1-2-1-2-1-2-etc. This is considerably more
tricky as a fingering than the more obvious 1-2-3-4 or similar, but again I
think this fingering is important in making the arpeggio sound more
'unfluent', a wrenched gesture rather than a brilliant flourish.
Best,
Ian
Dr.Matt
Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>"Dr.Matt" <fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:FQdeb.3086$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>> what a load.
>
>> Brahms's orchestrations and registrations are about making counterpoint
>clear.
>
>Might be the intention, but not always the result. Brahms' works are
>contrapuntally rich n all, but the effect is generally lost on the hearer I
>submit m'lud, the aural effect is rather muddy (in the orchestral works that
>is) and require careful listening to follow the contrapuntal argument.
I've never had that problem. The things melt in your ear, not on the page.
>
>> Nothing to do with somberness.
>
>Perhaps you are a musiclologist?
I'm a devoted music lover. It's not hard to find out about me.
>Regards,
>Michael Creevey
Peter T. Daniels
Maybe it's time to do HIP Brahms. Cellos without pegs, for one thing.
Weren't they still using gut strings, too?
Flauto
anyway if not much else.
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net>
???????:3F7C1F...@worldnet.att.net...
Michael Creevey
> In article <blgeh8$c1ac7$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >
> >"Dr.Matt" <fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
> >news:FQdeb.3086$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> >> what a load.
> >
> >> Brahms's orchestrations and registrations are about making counterpoint
> >clear.
> >
> >Might be the intention, but not always the result. Brahms' works are
> >contrapuntally rich n all, but the effect is generally lost on the hearer
I
> >submit m'lud, the aural effect is rather muddy (in the orchestral works
that
> >is) and require careful listening to follow the contrapuntal argument.
>
> I've never had that problem. The things melt in your ear, not on the page.
I think also it depends on the quality of the performance, the recording,
and the acoustic. Too much reverb in Brahms is fatal.
>
> >
> >> Nothing to do with somberness.
> >
> >Perhaps you are a musiclologist?
I wonder what a musiclologist is. Someone who specializes in the funny side
of music? Anna Russell? PDQ Bach ?(probably not)
BTW that was a reference to something I said earlier in the thread. Its all
very well to note the workings on paper, but aurally they may not be as
clear. You have no problem with Brahms in this respect, fair enough. But say
in the 1st movt of the 4th I couldn't follow as readily as I would have
liked the contrapuntal argument (it is a densely contrapuntal movt) but
looking back perhaps this was the fault of the recordings I had, some old
Karajan and Sawallisch recordings. Recently I got a hold of an Abbado
recording and I think this was much clearer. Still that rather annoying
scherzo must be hard for a conductor to pull off (and I do find it muddy in
places)
>I'm a devoted music lover. It's not hard to find out about me.
> Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
" Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:nnUeb.218$kC5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Michael Creevey" <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote in message
> news:blgg3j$bmtdp$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > What does he say? There is no doubt that many of Brahms pieces create
> cruel
> > and unusual difficulties for the player, giving clear articulation in
> those
> > masses of chords is as hard in its way as Liszt. Actually I consider the
> > Liszt Paganini etudes to be a waltz in the park compared with say Bk I
of
> > Brahms Variations. But what is the point of this extreme difficulty? The
> > full effect isn't conveyed to the audience, extreme virtuosity should
mean
> > something. Obviously in most cases Brahms' figurations are written with
> > purely musical aims in mind.
> >
> It's a very brilliant essay of Rosen's, and an important new angle on
> Brahms's unique pianistic idiom. Brahms uses technical awkwardness as an
> expressive device, to create an underlying tension in the music.
Rosen is always worth reading/hearing, not that his arguments are foolproof,
but they are expressed in a rather convincing fashion. However this sounds a
little farfetched perhaps. The tension is created mainly in the mind of the
player, especially in the murderous octave passages you describe below. The
audience is on the whole oblivious to the effect (if there is any genuine
musical effect as Rosen seems to be suggesting)
Classic
> example are the legato octaves in the trio section of the second movement
of
> the Piano Concerto No. 2. Nowadays, almost no-one I've heard actually
tries
> to play them legato, instead they play staccato with the pedal to
connect -
> to do a 'legato possible' would create an even more striking sense of
> awkwardness and cumbersomeness, which might simply suggest a lesser degree
> of technical ability on the part of the player. But I do think that might
> be how Brahms intended it.
Anti-vituosity in the extreme! Imagine trying to make the soloist look
incompetent! Very cunning and subversive of old 'leathery Johannes'. No
doubt, as was discussed in a limited fashion in another thread, he was
influenced by Clara Schumann and her rabid detestation of Liszt and what she
considered 'empty virtuosity'. Of course Schumann himself regarded such with
distaste, but only if it wasn't married to musical values as opposed to
being merely a vehicle for display. I think I recall a quote from Clara "Why
hurry over beautiful things?"
Many of the same ideals apply to the Violin
> Concerto, to absolutely stunning effect, I think, and this is how Brahms
> totally avoids any sense of frothiness, instead producing a truly
monumental
> work (perhaps my favourite of all violin concertos).
To my mind he also achieves a slight constipation in that work, so that I
definitely rate it less than the Beethoven. That's just my personal view
(but I do admire the Brahms as well)
>
> Maybe this was all part and parcel of Brahms's reaction against Liszt, who
> could create the most dazzling result in the most pianistically fluent way
> imaginable. I love both composers, don't really want to 'take sides'
> between them. One could say that Brahms was a type of 'anti-virtuoso'.
As was Clara. The later Schumann was as well. I feel that the musical
achievement of Brahms is superior to Liszt, although I don't go to the
extreme of writing him off entirely as some seem to. I heard a young pianist
on radio talking about her dislike of 'his showy pieces that get played all
the time, like his Hungarian Rhapsodies'. I gagged a fair bit on that, since
they are hardly played that frequently anymore, and they are not all merely
showy or shallow. Far from it. 11-14 eg are powerful, closely wrought works.
I think his peak achievements are the Sonata and the Faust Symphony, but a
surprisingly large amount of his music has merit. However undoubtedly a good
deal of it is flashy and vapid. But still far more immediately effective
than anything of Brahms.
In
> this sense he was far ahead of his time in many respects - having the
player
> working 'against the instrument' is a concern that resurfaces particularly
> radically in some of the music of Heinz Holliger and Vinko Globokar,
> occasionally in Brian Ferneyhough; of course also previously in various
> left-hand only works for piano.
>
> In Schumann's F# minor sonata, third movement, the trio ends after a
> quasi-orchestral recitative with a big arpeggio on C#7 in both hands,
which
> Schumann specifically fingers 1-2-1-2-1-2-etc. This is considerably more
> tricky as a fingering than the more obvious 1-2-3-4 or similar, but again
I
> think this fingering is important in making the arpeggio sound more
> 'unfluent', a wrenched gesture rather than a brilliant flourish.
>
> Best,
> Ian
Very interesting. I haven't seen that fingering, I suppose it was 'touched
up' in most editions including Clara's. You know I can really imagine
certain of Brahms' and Schumann's (not to mention Beethoven's) works
sounding more in character if they included mistakes and other errors, even
the occasional blurred line, in the heat of passion, just as Brahms,
Schumann (and Beethoven) would have played them. Interestingly Brahms is
described as a very poor pianist. Apparently he just rolled his lh around
vaguely, although this was later in life. I'm sure he would have had no
chance at that stage making any sense of his more difficult pieces. Yet he
is recorded to have said, "I have written nothing awkward or unusually
difficult. Just take the time to play intelligently"
Regards,
Michael Creevey
Michael Creevey
" Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message
news:nnUeb.218$kC5.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net...
>
> news:blgg3j$bmtdp$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > What does he say? There is no doubt that many of Brahms pieces create
> cruel
> > and unusual difficulties for the player, giving clear articulation in
> those
> > masses of chords is as hard in its way as Liszt. Actually I consider the
> > Liszt Paganini etudes to be a waltz in the park compared with say Bk I
of
> > Brahms Variations. But what is the point of this extreme difficulty? The
> > full effect isn't conveyed to the audience, extreme virtuosity should
mean
> > something. Obviously in most cases Brahms' figurations are written with
> > purely musical aims in mind.
> >
> It's a very brilliant essay of Rosen's, and an important new angle on
> Brahms's unique pianistic idiom. Brahms uses technical awkwardness as an
> expressive device, to create an underlying tension in the music.
Rosen is always worth reading/hearing, not that his arguments are foolproof,
but they are expressed in a rather convincing fashion. However this sounds a
little farfetched perhaps. The tension is created mainly in the mind of the
player, especially in the murderous octave passages you describe below. The
audience is on the whole oblivious to the effect (if there is any genuine
musical effect as Rosen seems to be suggesting)
Classic
> example are the legato octaves in the trio section of the second movement
of
> the Piano Concerto No. 2. Nowadays, almost no-one I've heard actually
tries
> to play them legato, instead they play staccato with the pedal to
connect -
> to do a 'legato possible' would create an even more striking sense of
> awkwardness and cumbersomeness, which might simply suggest a lesser degree
> of technical ability on the part of the player. But I do think that might
> be how Brahms intended it.
Anti-vituosity in the extreme! Imagine trying to make the soloist look
incompetent! Very cunning and subversive of old 'leathery Johannes'. No
doubt, as was discussed in a limited fashion in another thread, he was
influenced by Clara Schumann and her rabid detestation of Liszt and what she
considered 'empty virtuosity'. Of course Schumann himself regarded such with
distaste, but only if it wasn't married to musical values as opposed to
being merely a vehicle for display. I think I recall a quote from Clara "Why
hurry over beautiful things?"
Many of the same ideals apply to the Violin
> Concerto, to absolutely stunning effect, I think, and this is how Brahms
> totally avoids any sense of frothiness, instead producing a truly
monumental
> work (perhaps my favourite of all violin concertos).
To my mind he also achieves a slight constipation in that work, so that I
definitely rate it less than the Beethoven. That's just my personal view
(but I do admire the Brahms as well)
>
> Maybe this was all part and parcel of Brahms's reaction against Liszt, who
> could create the most dazzling result in the most pianistically fluent way
> imaginable. I love both composers, don't really want to 'take sides'
> between them. One could say that Brahms was a type of 'anti-virtuoso'.
As was Clara. The later Schumann was as well. I feel that the musical
achievement of Brahms is superior to Liszt, although I don't go to the
extreme of writing him off entirely as some seem to. I heard a young pianist
on radio talking about her dislike of 'his showy pieces that get played all
the time, like his Hungarian Rhapsodies'. I gagged a fair bit on that, since
they are hardly played that frequently anymore, and they are not all merely
showy or shallow. Far from it. 11-14 eg are powerful, closely wrought works.
I think his peak achievements are the Sonata and the Faust Symphony, but a
surprisingly large amount of his music has merit. However undoubtedly a good
deal of it is flashy and vapid. But still far more immediately effective
than anything of Brahms.
In
> this sense he was far ahead of his time in many respects - having the
player
> working 'against the instrument' is a concern that resurfaces particularly
> radically in some of the music of Heinz Holliger and Vinko Globokar,
> occasionally in Brian Ferneyhough; of course also previously in various
> left-hand only works for piano.
>
> In Schumann's F# minor sonata, third movement, the trio ends after a
> quasi-orchestral recitative with a big arpeggio on C#7 in both hands,
which
> Schumann specifically fingers 1-2-1-2-1-2-etc. This is considerably more
> tricky as a fingering than the more obvious 1-2-3-4 or similar, but again
I
> think this fingering is important in making the arpeggio sound more
> 'unfluent', a wrenched gesture rather than a brilliant flourish.
>
> Best,
> Ian
Very interesting. I haven't seen that fingering, I suppose it was 'touched
Ian Pace
smaller orchestra and a major rethinking of many aspects of performance
practice), Norrington's symphonies, and in particular Gardiner and the ORR's
Ein Deutsches Requiem (I'm also fond of his Brahms Choral Works disc). Also
worth listening to are La Gaia Scienza playing the C minor Piano Quartet and
Piano Quintet on Winter and Winter (third movement of the Piano Quintet is
truly wild!), Hausmusik playing the two String Sextets (this one took a lot
of getting used to, but very much changed the way I perceive this music) on
Signum, Pregardien/Staier/Redgrave in The Fair Magelone on Teldec.
In the next couple of years, Gardiner is planning a big Brahms project
(including both Piano Concertos with Levin), probably that will lead to a
new batch of recordings, which I'll look forward to very much.
Best,
Ian
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F7C1F...@worldnet.att.net...
Ian Pace
don't have any to hand)! And those of Brahms's students - Ilona Eibenschutz
in particular. These exist in an expensive boxed set called 'Pupils of
Clara Schumann', hopefully will be re-issued separately at some point.
Ian
"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3F7C1F...@worldnet.att.net...
Peter T. Daniels
>
> One other thing, of course, is to look out for recordings by Joachim (I
> don't have any to hand)! And those of Brahms's students - Ilona Eibenschutz
> in particular. These exist in an expensive boxed set called 'Pupils of
> Clara Schumann', hopefully will be re-issued separately at some point.
The complete recordings of Joachim, on Pearl/Opal CD 9851, are: Bach,
Partita in b minor, Bourrée; Sonata in g minor, Adagio; Joachim, Romance
in C major; and Brahms, Hungarian Dances 1 (g) and 2 (d).
(It also has the complete recordings of Ysaye; I was interested in it
after hearing James Ehnes this summer, and they confirmed, to the extent
that anything is audible at all, that he is recovering
turn-of-the-last-century technique in his Romantic recordings.)
Eric Grunin
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <blgeh8$c1ac7$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>>Perhaps you are a musiclologist?
>
>I'm a devoted music lover. It's not hard to find out about me.
Um, that was a *joke*...
Dr.Matt
Eric Grunin
wrote:
>One other thing, of course, is to look out for recordings by Joachim (I
>don't have any to hand)!
In 1903, at the age of 72, Joachim recorded 5 3-minute sides. These
are all are available on Pearl Opal 9851, along with the recorded
legacy of Sarasate and Ysaye.
Can any of the violin specialists out there offer their opinions? I'm
particularly curious as to how his age might have affected his
playing.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
DelMarva LaPoule
>
> In Schumann's F# minor sonata, third movement, the trio ends after a
> quasi-orchestral recitative with a big arpeggio on C#7 in both hands, which
> Schumann specifically fingers 1-2-1-2-1-2-etc. This is considerably more
> tricky as a fingering than the more obvious 1-2-3-4 or similar, but again I
> think this fingering is important in making the arpeggio sound more
> 'unfluent', a wrenched gesture rather than a brilliant flourish.
>
Or, perhaps, he wanted it to be phrased in groups of two notes?
DelMarva LaPoule
As are most musicologists.
Matthew Silverstein
> In the next couple of years, Gardiner is planning a big Brahms project
> (including both Piano Concertos with Levin), probably that will lead to a
> new batch of recordings, which I'll look forward to very much.
Really? Any details?
Matty
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:38:25 +0100, " Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com>
> wrote:
>
> >One other thing, of course, is to look out for recordings by Joachim (I
> >don't have any to hand)!
>
> In 1903, at the age of 72, Joachim recorded 5 3-minute sides. These
> are all are available on Pearl Opal 9851, along with the recorded
> legacy of Sarasate and Ysaye.
No, no, Sarasate made lots of recordings. They just needed something to
fill out the CD.
> Can any of the violin specialists out there offer their opinions? I'm
> particularly curious as to how his age might have affected his
> playing.
Yeah, ya gotta watch out for all those septuagenarian violinists
mistakenly thinking they can still play ...
Eric Grunin
<gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Eric Grunin wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:38:25 +0100, " Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >One other thing, of course, is to look out for recordings by Joachim (I
>> >don't have any to hand)!
>>
>> In 1903, at the age of 72, Joachim recorded 5 3-minute sides. These
>> are all are available on Pearl Opal 9851, along with the recorded
>> legacy of Sarasate and Ysaye.
>
>No, no, Sarasate made lots of recordings. They just needed something to
>fill out the CD.
The CD says "The Complete Recordings," what was left out?
I was *definitely* wrong about Ysaye, of course. As others have
pointed out, Sony issued lots of his material some years back.
>> Can any of the violin specialists out there offer their opinions? I'm
>> particularly curious as to how his age might have affected his
>> playing.
>
>Yeah, ya gotta watch out for all those septuagenarian violinists
>mistakenly thinking they can still play ...
My question was quite serious. Age evidences itself very differently
in pianists, violinists, vocalists, and so on.
I once heard the Carnegie Hall recital of a violinist approaching 80.
His intonation and mobility seemed fine, but his tempi were very
unstable, and it was suggested that this was due to his age (though by
the last piece all seemed to be well). I have no idea if this was a
plausible explanation.
Regards,
Eric Grunin
www.grunin.com/eroica
Ian Pace
"DelMarva LaPoule" <vze2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:vJ5fb.18685$yU5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
fingering (at Presto, ff, with a crescendo as the arpeggio ascends, that
certainly tends to sound 'wrenched').
Ian
Ian Pace
"Matthew Silverstein" <msil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:UZ5fb.2399$Q93...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
details, I'm afraid (will try to find out!).
Ian
Peter T. Daniels
>
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 04:03:08 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Eric Grunin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 15:38:25 +0100, " Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One other thing, of course, is to look out for recordings by Joachim (I
> >> >don't have any to hand)!
> >>
> >> In 1903, at the age of 72, Joachim recorded 5 3-minute sides. These
> >> are all are available on Pearl Opal 9851, along with the recorded
> >> legacy of Sarasate and Ysaye.
> >
> >No, no, Sarasate made lots of recordings. They just needed something to
> >fill out the CD.
>
> The CD says "The Complete Recordings," what was left out?
Oops, I misremembered the notes. Sarasate is complete, Ysaye is sampled.
> I was *definitely* wrong about Ysaye, of course. As others have
> pointed out, Sony issued lots of his material some years back.
>
> >> Can any of the violin specialists out there offer their opinions? I'm
> >> particularly curious as to how his age might have affected his
> >> playing.
> >
> >Yeah, ya gotta watch out for all those septuagenarian violinists
> >mistakenly thinking they can still play ...
>
> My question was quite serious. Age evidences itself very differently
> in pianists, violinists, vocalists, and so on.
>
> I once heard the Carnegie Hall recital of a violinist approaching 80.
> His intonation and mobility seemed fine, but his tempi were very
> unstable, and it was suggested that this was due to his age (though by
> the last piece all seemed to be well). I have no idea if this was a
> plausible explanation.
Stern, Szeryng, Heifetz, Milstein, ... (I think Menuhin retired from
playing when he felt he might need to.)
Michael Creevey
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:PK%eb.3171$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <vf0pnvss1p4luih4g...@4ax.com>,
> Eric Grunin <a@b.c> wrote:
> >On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:45:43 GMT, fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
> >(Dr.Matt) wrote:
> >
> >>In article <blgeh8$c1ac7$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> >>Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>Perhaps you are a musiclologist?
> >>
> >>I'm a devoted music lover. It's not hard to find out about me.
> >
> >Um, that was a *joke*...
>
> A proctical joke, eh... :)
No, not at all. I wasn't wearing gloves
Regards,
Michael creevey
[thinking that there is a slight resemblance between proctical and
proctological]
Dr.Matt
Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>
>"Dr.Matt" <fie...@robotron.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:PK%eb.3171$H91....@news.itd.umich.edu...
>> In article <vf0pnvss1p4luih4g...@4ax.com>,
>> Eric Grunin <a@b.c> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 02 Oct 2003 11:45:43 GMT, fie...@tetris.gpcc.itd.umich.edu
>> >(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>> >
>> >>In article <blgeh8$c1ac7$1...@ID-195042.news.uni-berlin.de>,
>> >>Michael Creevey <snipthis...@mailandnews.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>>Perhaps you are a musiclologist?
>> >>
>> >>I'm a devoted music lover. It's not hard to find out about me.
>> >
>> >Um, that was a *joke*...
>>
>> A proctical joke, eh... :)
>
>No, not at all. I wasn't wearing gloves
>
>Regards,
>Michael creevey
>[thinking that there is a slight resemblance between proctical and
>proctological]
It's not a resemblance, just a semblance :)
nightingale
DelMarva LaPoule wrote:
>>
>>
>> Um, that was a *joke*...
>
>
> As are most musicologists.
>
Why would you say that?