So Tonight the UCD Symphony Orchestra played, among other things, the First Symphony.
For me, this piece is pure gold from the first moment to the last hit from the orchestra. It is an amazing sound, and a really warm and inviting symphony. The thing is Brahms just doesn't get the kind of respect that Beethoven gets, and I can't see why not.
Sure Beethoven was the man, but Brahms' music is in many ways more, at least to me, than Beethoven can be. Beethoven's style was revolutionary and totally unprecedented, and in a way Brahms suffers from little brotheritis both with Beethoven and with his friend Shumann. Of course, this is why the first symphony was disparagingly called "The 10th Symphony," by an influential critic.
The thing is that lyrically, Brahms offers so much more than Beethoven ever did. With Beethoven you get one line that interests you, and maybe a second that later becomes the main idea, but with Brahms, its all over the place, its a sound adventure. I have always thought Beethoven, especially later Beethoven, cared far too much for the single idea that made the piece. This is why he is famous, because his music is memorable even though it is not highly melodious(with many fine exceptions). With Brahms you get that extra bit of attention to what the melody is actually trying to say to you.
The really great thing about Brahms no.1, is that each movement is really a smashing effort. With Beethoven you can almost ignore the third movement, or replace it with something else (as many orchestras did). But with Brahms, the third movement, and even the second, have alot to offer. It almost feels like your really getting something out of movement 3, even though you know there is going to be more really good stuff later on. Its sort of like watching an action flick and seeing a really great chase scene, and looking at your watch to discover, to your delight, that it has only been 45 minutes, so there is more to come.
With Beethoven, honestly, the "filler" movements bore me to tears. They are good, but they are not great in the way that the outer movements are great- they are not epic. Brahms maybe sacrifices that quality in Beethoven which makes people remember the really central ideas, but he SO well makes up for that with balance and friendliness in his pacing.
His work feels like sculpture. I once wrote for a musicology paper, that you can view it from all sides the way the sculptor crafted it, and see the tool marks, and know that one part did not come right after the other, but rather the whole was made to rise out of the rock all at once. This is sort of like looking at the unfinished Michaelangelo sculptures, and seeing the way that he was not imposing his will on rock, but it almost looked like he was shaving away some soft layer to expose his inner subjects. That is Brahms to me- What do you think about him?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I started a thread about it here. It's a piece of music that reflects the process of striving for human dignity. The development section in the first movement is a like choir of angels. It's something intensely serious in all of the chords wanting to resolve and the repetition of the themes, it's something special, a pure and glorious piece.