|
|
|
IMO Brahms' only "problem" with orchestration is that for far too long, conductors have asked orchestras for huge string sections that then dominate the wind all too easily. Scale the number of strings back and, as Manze demonstrates, the problems vanish (I have my own issues with his set but that's a whole other talking point)...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris said:
Brahms was in many ways very conservative.... His main output are chamber works.
For an opposite take, read Schoenberg's "Brahms the Progressive" (in his Style and Idea but reprinted in many places) and Dahlhaus' Between Romanticism and Modernism (UCal Press). The weather keeps being good for reading...
And while it in some sense might be valid to state that his orchestral works really sound more like chamber music on a bigger scale, I think it's at least equally correct to point out that his chamber works are really symphonic in their nature and ambition. That it goes both ways is part of Brahms's universal appeal to me.
Cheers,
PT
|
|
|
Post by Chris August 22, 2012 (33 of 38)
|
|
Polarius T said:
For an opposite take, read Schoenberg's "Brahms the Progressive" (in his Style and Idea but reprinted in many places) and Dahlhaus' Between Romanticism and Modernism (UCal Press). The weather keeps being good for reading...
And while it in some sense might be valid to state that his orchestral works really sound more like chamber music on a bigger scale, I think it's at least equally correct to point out that his chamber works are really symphonic in their nature and ambition. That it goes both ways is part of Brahms's universal appeal to me.
Cheers,
PT
Hello Polarius,
yes I have read his take too. And if I remember things correctly, what impressed Schönberg was more some of Brahms' borderline tonality experiments and advanced counterpoint in his late chamber works,than anything directly to do with orchestration as such. Brahms' orchestration is imho very conservative even for his times and age. At times a bit laboured and unrefined as in his first Piano Concerto which he struggled with a lot.
And yes it is quite obvious that many of his large scale orchestral works sound like orchestrated chamber music.Brahms after all composed a lot at the piano. It was, as he himself confessed, the only instrument he knew really well.
Let just face it Brahms was not a great orchestrator,but a lot his music is still wonderful.
To get back on topic, a brief note again on the disc actually under discussion here.
I find Brant's orchestration of the Ives' sonata more square and colourless than anything by Brahms.
Acerbic is a word that leaps to mind regarding his effort with Ives.
Ugly blocks of concrete is an image I get hearing it.
But then I live in a traditional Swedish Red Cottage with white corners surrounded by the wonderful sounds and colours of nature.
Cheers Chris
|
|
|
Post by Vaan August 22, 2012 (34 of 38)
|
|
Great orchestration is when you don´t hear it. I think Stravinsky said something to that effect once, and I think he is right. Brahms was no Berlioz, no and thank you so much for that. Two different composers with totally different ways of expression. I still think that Brahms was a master orchestrator and love how carefully he shades his Haydn Variations. Or the genius of that flute in the fourth symphony, last movement. I love the lighness of his first serenade and the somber world of the second. It is perfect for his music, I think.
|
|
|
Post by jdaniel August 22, 2012 (35 of 38)
|
|
Chris said:
"I have a bit more reservation regarding Brahms, a contemporary of Wagner who seemed content to ocassionaly use horns to add some colour to his mainly rather dense string writing."
Is the seemingly dense string sound Brahms' fault or CD's fault, or the fault of multiple microphones? Three of the composers who benefited most when I went from CD to Lp were Brahms, Dvorak, and R. Strauss: suddenly their music opened up, with string imaging much more obvious. Brahms indeed sounded "flat" and "grey" to me for years. There's a lot of richness and hue that doesn't make it to the home listening environment.
I scratch my head re: Brahms being merely a "decent" orchestrator. Off the top of my head I'd recommend a re-listen to the second mov't of the Third Symphony for an example of exquisite, if "mahogany" orchestral writing.
Moreover, I'm amazed at how Brahms so subtly 'dovetails' orchestral colors. I find Berlioz to be accidentally interesting as an orchestrator, FWIW. : )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris said:
If I remember things correctly, what impressed Schönberg was more some of Brahms' borderline tonality experiments and advanced counterpoint in his late chamber works,than anything directly to do with orchestration as such.
Hi Chris,
No, you are right; nothing about orchestration as such; what he found 'progressive' was basically two things: the role that thematic patterns had in Brahms's compositions as organizing principles and the technique of developing variations.
Here Schoenberg was of course reading history backwards a bit (backwards from himself, that is)...but that doesn't change the accuracy of his analysis; ultimately it just depends on whether you think there is such a thing as 'progress' in music, and whether Schoenberg et al. (and their latter-day followers) were the ones who represented it (with Brahms being one of the precursors then).
Methinks he got it right.
Happy listening in that Swedish dream-come-true of yours (and mine),
PT
|
|
|
Post by Chris August 22, 2012 (37 of 38)
|
|
jdaniel said:
Chris said:
"I have a bit more reservation regarding Brahms, a contemporary of Wagner who seemed content to ocassionaly use horns to add some colour to his mainly rather dense string writing."
Is the seemingly dense string sound Brahms' fault or CD's fault, or the fault of multiple microphones? Three of the composers who benefited most when I went from CD to Lp were Brahms, Dvorak, and R. Strauss: suddenly their music opened up, with string imaging much more obvious. Brahms indeed sounded "flat" and "grey" to me for years. There's a lot of richness and hue that doesn't make it to the home listening environment.
I scratch my head re: Brahms being merely a "decent" orchestrator. Off the top of my head I'd recommend a re-listen to the second mov't of the Third Symphony for an example of exquisite, if "mahogany" orchestral writing.
Moreover, I'm amazed at how Brahms so subtly 'dovetails' orchestral colors. I find Berlioz to be accidentally interesting as an orchestrator, FWIW. : )
You raise some interesting points there jdaniel,
I too have aways appreciated Brahms' music much more live than in recordings. And yes indeed I too agree, on rbcd his string writing especially, has a tendency to sound harsh and even dreadful. Lp is often clearly better. But I also find both Channel Classics wonderful first and Pentatones DSD recordings of the symphonies much smoother and more open and more realistic in all respects,than the admittedly few pcm recordings I have heard of Brahms' symphonies. Although in spite of the thick low resolution rbcd sound Abbado's on DGG is still a wonderful performance of the second imho.
Like I said in my original post on the subject, don't get me wrong "J´aime Brahms".
I just happened to use Brahms as an example of a great composer who did not make his fame as one of the great orchestrators in Musical History.
|
|
|
Post by Stanbury August 24, 2012 (38 of 38)
|
|
For those who may be unfamiliar with Henry Brant, the Wikipedia article on him is quite informative. It describes him as "an expert orchestrator", and mentions his work as orchestrator for other well-known composers such as Aaron Copland, Vigil Thomson, and Alex North. He was also a composer, and there are at least 11 CDs of his music listed on Amazon.
|
|
