Brahmsian

[giles.enders]

'heavily influenced by'   'Brahmsian' and many similar terms are used about some unsungs, usually in a derogatory sense.  Who are these unfortunates and why is it such a bad thing to have a touch of Brahms, as though it was a terrible thing.  What are the instances of where it has had an adverse effect?  He is not one of my favourites but some of those derided I like.

[Mark Thomas]

The only negative implication with which I would load those terms, Giles, is that the composer in question might be showing no independence of thought and is effectively copying Brahms. Otherwise, I agree with your comments and offer up as a positive example the newly-released First Symphony of Fritz Brun. A vigorous, melodic work which is a very enjoyable listen (indeed, I prefer it to Brun's later symphonies), but which does emphatically inhabit the same sound world as Brahms' symphonies.

[Alan Howe]

It was impossible not to be heavily influenced by a composer such as Brahms in the 19th century - just as it was impossible not to be influenced by any of the great names of that century.  That's what great composers do - i.e. influence other composers, even other great composers. Personally, I can't see any problem with this, although in the nineteenth century one of the most serious charges that could be laid against a composer was pale epigonism. However, that debate is now irrelevant: the only issue from our historical vantage-point is whether the music in question is any good or not.

[giles.enders]

My point being that Brahms seems to be a particular target for the negative comments that I described, where as with Wagner, Lizst, Verdi, Beethoven and others things are more evenly devided.

[Alan Howe]

Well, Brahms would certainly have been more of an influence on composers writing in the classical forms, i.e. symphony, concerto, sonata, etc., than Liszt or Wagner - that is until certain composers began to synthesise the ideas of the progressives with those of the conservatives. That's why Raff and Draeseke in particular are so interesting because neither is a 'school of......' composer. Parry's early symphonies also betray the influence of both Brahms and Wagner to interesting effect. Among sung composers, both influences are to be found in the music of Saint-Saëns, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, etc. The best of the classically-minded unsungs, e.g. Reinecke, Volkmann, Dietrich, Jadassohn, Bruch, Gernsheim, Abert, Herzogenberg (who began as a progressive) etc., would all have been unfavourably compared to, say, Mendelssohn, Schumann and/or Brahms.
In the predominantly conservative musical environment of Britain in the nineteenth century, therefore, it's hardly surprising that complaints of the undue influence of, say, Mendelssohn, Schumann and Brahms were to the fore. After all, we didn't really have a truly great original composer in that era until Elgar came along, combining what he had learned from the more classical tradition - e.g. he loved Schumann - with the ideas of Wagner and Strauss (try the opening of In the South!) and thereby creating a new and highly personal musical language.

[Amphissa]

Yes, I think part of the derogatory nature of the "Brahmsian" label has to do with the very contentious and bitter rivalry (at least in critical circles) between the conservative camp (those who adhered to the historical values of structure, harmony and melody) versus the more progressive camp of Wagnerian followers who were pushing the envelope into atonality.

Martucci, for example, withdrew his early compositions because he was concerned about being perceived as too stuck in the past, too Brahmsian. And that is the crux, I think. The "Brahmsian" label was used to condemn composers as too traditional, lacking in creative, forward-looking, progressive talent.

Being labeled as "Brahmsian" was as bad as being branded as a "Romantic" like Rachmaninoff. So much for critics.

[Tom Deneckere]

Might I mention Lodewijk Mortelmans? He is called "the Flemish Brahms", and I find him one of the finest romantic flemish composers.

See for instance on these cd's:
http://open.spotify.com/album/63Zir508ZCmtnOGHybXj1n
http://open.spotify.com/album/43iTw1jjuoKV9AjQywlB5o

[giles.enders]

I notice that the newly released Fritz Brun disk is back to the bad old days of only 45 minutes on the disk and in London shops the asking price is £17.

[Alan Howe]

Who'd buy it at £17 when it's available for £11.35 including postage from Amazon or £8.50 plus postage direct from Guild? And the miserly playing time is made up for in this case by the quality of the music.

Anyway, back to the topic...

[petershott@btinternet.com]

But just before we get back to topic (sorry Alan!).....I always buy Guild discs direct from Guild themselves. Thoroughly reliable, safely packaged, quick, and the postage cost (especially when ordering 3-4 discs) is minimal.

I guess the importer / distributor or whoever is making themselves a small fortune here. Which is a great pity since it deters people from buying Guild discs or even resorting to those wretched downloads.

Having got that off my chest.....back to topic!

[adriano]

Well, one of the greatest Brahmsians was Friedrich Gernsheim, who not only conducted Brahms Symphonies, but also composed 4 of them in that sytle. Still, not painful at all to listen, one still feels that Brahms is the master!
Adriano, Zurich/Switzerland

[Jimfin]

It's true that Brahms is a particular target: Stanford has often (completely unfairly in my opinion) been accused of it. I still read people now saying this, who clearly know nothing of the music. Mendelssohn is similar: Sullivan is often accused of being over-influenced by him. I suppose the fact that both Brahms and Mendelssohn were conservatives themselves is a reason. We never seem to hear people saying that Birtwistle is heavily influenced by Boulez or anything.

[eschiss1]

Well, Wagner was (not quite accurately) regarded as a radical in his day, and much music is called "Wagnerian", so that's not the whole story; similarly, Brahms is not exactly a conservative, either- but what he and Mendelssohn and Wagner do have each are recognizeable profiles, of the "I haven't ever heard this work by Brahms before but I'm quite sure it is by Brahms- oh, I was right!" kind. (So do some of the Brahmsian and Wagnerian and Mendelssohnian composers of course- Reger, obviously, who falls in two of those categories but is also very recognizeably Reger - but not all of them, also of course.)

Completely unfairly? No, not when one of Stanford's symphonies seems to lift the slow movement theme from Brahms' 4th in either an homage or an accidental lift- that at the least would seem to (emphasis on seem to- to the contemporary audience, not to us) - confirm such a prejudice- "completely" unfairly seems a stretch or hyperbole. (Not as its (slow movement) main theme but around the middle, but actually, I don't think my point is weakened by that fact )

[chill319]

Daniel Gregory Mason's pre-WWI Symphony 1 is, to my way of thinking, Brahmsian in the best sense. It extends Brahms's constructive methods into new harmonic territory, including the use of the whole-tone scale at the finale's peroration.

[eschiss1]

I need to go listen to that one, haven't yet, I think. Thanks.