Both them of leave me with the utmost satisfaction.

 

"Substantial output?" He only wrote four symphonies; you're supposed to write nine or ten!

Wagner/Liszt for me, all the way! Go team!

This is because Brahms was a reactionary conservative who was trying to stifle the natural development of music towards chromaticism.

He was a conservative, a rightist, an ultraconservative, a traditionalist, a conventional, old-fashioned, unprogressive ******* dinosaur....Well, you asked...and I'm sure this would be endorsed by the great J. F. Runciman, who wrote in 1896, "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."

And as someone else said, "In short, music without hate is like an egg without salt."

And then he put a smiley face at the end. :lol:

 

"Substantial output?" He only wrote four symphonies; you're supposed to write nine or ten!

Wagner/Liszt for me, all the way! Go team!

This is because Brahms was a reactionary conservative who was trying to stifle the natural development of music towards chromaticism.

He was a conservative, a rightist, an ultraconservative, a traditionalist, a conventional, old-fashioned, unprogressive ******* dinosaur....Well, you asked...and I'm sure this would be endorsed by the great J. F. Runciman, who wrote in 1896, "It is one's duty to hate with all possible fervor the empty and ugly in art; and I hate Saint-Saëns the composer with a hate that is perfect."

And as someone else said, "In short, music without hate is like an egg without salt."

And then he put a smiley face at the end. :lol:

LOL, well I'll take my egg without salt.

Brahms was way more than his symphonies. His chamber music is outstanding, as are his piano works, concertos, requiem and songs.

 

I suspect my dislike of Wagner is partly simply because I dislike opera. Had he written symphonies instead I might have enjoyed his work more, though perhaps even in symphonies his self-centered bombast may have overwhelmed the music.

I find that the qualities that I like in Brahms are precisely the ones his detractors don't like, so it seems to me there is actually little to debate - it inevitably descends into an "is not, is too" kind of exchange.

I should note, mind you, that for all my visceral dislike of Wagner's work, I do not for a moment disrespect it, or deny the profound influence it had on the development of music. Nobody in his right mind would deny Wagner's genius. But apparently it is possible to recognize and simultaneously dislike works of genius...

 

I agree that Wagner was an incredible genius, and someday I might want to change my vote. But that journey is still a work in progress, so today it has to be Brahms.

 

I can think of a few things by Wagner that I actually like, so I guess that clinches it.

 

I love both of their music. I think Brahms excelled in almost every area (symphonies, concertos, chamber music, vocal works, piano music). Wagner reigns supreme (with one exception) in opera. Both wrote an enormous amount of stunningly beautiful music - music that I look forward to many repeated listenings.

Perhaps I like non-operatic music somewhat more or perhaps I like Brahms' variety compared to Wagner so I would place Brahms slightly higher (and my daughter would laugh at me).

 

I'm able to Platonically transcend the argument for reasons pertaining to the politics of tonality, and its evolution towards chromaticism; so the specific works are mere surface manifestations of much deeper, supra-individual currents of musical evolution.

The specific composers are incidental, too; they are just "agents" or "actors" on a larger stage of the historical determinism archetype, A.K.A. "The Great Mandala" or "The Wheel of Karmic Destiny."

But Brahms tried to "spit in destiny's face" by opposing tonality's expansion, so he can be seen as being especially presumptuous for his hubris; and his music is a constant reminder of that.

 

Brahms was nowhere near as conservative as he's made out to be. I'm given to understand that he even liked Wagner's music (but not his dramaturgy). He was a big influence on Arnold Schoenberg, who thought of himself as unifying the musical traditions of Brahms and Wagner. Pelleas und Melisande, from back in his romantic days, shows the influence of both.

But Wagner is Wagner, so that's who I voted for.

 

Brahms was nowhere near as conservative as he's made out to be. I'm given to understand that he even liked Wagner's music (but not his dramaturgy). He was a big influence on Arnold Schoenberg, who thought of himself as unifying the musical traditions of Brahms and Wagner. Pelleas und Melisande, from back in his romantic days, shows the influence of both.

But Wagner is Wagner, so that's who I voted for.

Ahh, you must be referring to Schoenberg's essay "Brahms the Progressive." Schoenberg just wrote that to get street cred with the tonalists.

Brahms would never have had the inclination, or the guts, to write anything as harmonically adventurous as Pelleas und Melisande, and that includes Debussy's version.

 

I chose Brahms(no surprise considering my username). I think Wagner tends to be too bombastic in his music, however nice it is. Brahms, on the other hand, worked out his music perfectly in every piece I've listened to so far.

 

Brahms was so bombastic that I nicknamed those "bombastic bursts" he does. What are those, tympani with trombones? I can't stand that sound. His orchestration is...unappealing.

 

I need to start a new poll: Would you enjoy millionrainbows' posts more, or less...if you understood them?

 

Impossible to say. They're Schödinger's posts: in a superposition of sense and nonsense until you look at them.

 

................

 

Brahms, although admittedly I don't listen to much Wagner.

 

I don't either. I think I may have stepped in some once though.

{Thank you, maestro Beecham}

 

I prefer Wagner.

 

Brianvds, a very interesting post. My own personal take on Brahms:

He was obviously inhibited by the shade of Beethoven, who he felt he could never match. So he was cautious, too cautious, emphasizing unusual and original harmonies and complex rhythms but seldom coming out and saying, plainly, what he wanted to say. And he was afraid that if he went "over the top," as Beethoven often did, that he wouldn't be able to back it up.

So we're left with the "sense of unfulfilled yearning for something unattainable" that you refer too, not a very adequate substitute for the fulfillment and attainment that Beethoven promised and delivered.

Wagner, in contrast, I can speak to only through his bloody gobbets since I dislike his operas. He was true to his star, had no doubts about where he was going, and delivered what he promised in spades. What a pity he wrote so little music!

 

That's the most sensible thing you've said so far.

 

150 years later, does it really matter who was conservative and who was radical.
These terms become meaningless this far after the events.

Mozart was hardly radical and it doesn't or shouldn't affect our esteem for his works.

And if you listen to Howard Goodall, neither was Wagner. Everything Wagner allegedly pioneered musically, had already been done by Liszt.

I rate both composers and it would definitely depend on my mood. There are times when Wagner just won't do.

 

150 years later, does it really matter who was conservative and who was radical.
These terms become meaningless this far after the events.

It matters to me, because these events affected the directiion that Western tonality took. Plus, knowing all this helps me identify those ineffable qualities of Brahms I hadn't been able to identify earlier. Now I know and understand his music more, because I understand more about his intent.

Mozart was hardly radical and it doesn't or shouldn't affect our esteem for his works.

...But Mozart was not active during this crucial time in music's development towards chromaticism, when tonality was beginning to expand its boundaries, much to Brahms' horror.

And if you listen to Howard Goodall, neither was Wagner. Everything Wagner allegedly pioneered musically, had already been done by Liszt....There are times when Wagner just won't do.

That's another good reason that we should have included Liszt with Wagner, as "Brahms vs. Wagner/Liszt."

 

I may listen to good Operas once or twice a year, but I listen to good chamber and orchestral works dozens of times in a year.

 

That's another good reason that we should have included Liszt with Wagner, as "Brahms vs. Wagner/Liszt."

 

As much as I have enjoyed my recent Wagner project (listening to all operas, including the hardly played early ones), Brahms is for me a top 3 composer.

 

Have to go with Brahms. He's simply a better at writing notes.

 

Actually, if you read The Collected Post-Its of Richard Wagner, you'd change your view...

 

In his hubris, Brahms tried to alter the course of this river, and failed; he was slapped-down by destiny.
Again, this is not a matter of imitation or style; Liszt and Wagner saw these musical inevitabilities emerging from the materials of music itself, and Brahms was a profound enough thinker to see this emergent feature as well; but he tried to challenge destiny, and failed.

Personally, I think Brahms was only writing the kind of music that he most enjoyed. He didn't dislike the works of Wagner because of their progressiveness;in fact many sources say he admired much of it. He just preferred the older forms and thus chose to write in them. Being a musical conservative isn't a bad thing like you appear to make it out to be.

No offense meant, millionrainbows, but when you talk about Brahms attempting to stifle musical development, it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

 

Personally, I think Brahms was only writing the kind of music that he most enjoyed.

Of course, that's obvious. He was a "true believer" in his brand of tonality as well, and was willing to fight for it.

He didn't dislike the works of Wagner because of their progressiveness; in fact many sources say he admired much of it.

Yes, he admired some of Wagner, but he was opposed to the chromatic direction Wagner and Liszt were taking music, which he felt was degrading and eroding CP tonality.

He just preferred the older forms and thus chose to write in them. Being a musical conservative isn't a bad thing like you appear to make it out to be.

Whatever Brahms chose to write is fine by me; but when he started a group with a manifesto, however "insignificant" it was, it revealed his true colors: like all megalomaniac geniuses, he was attempting to secure his place in History beside Beethoven, and believed that he had to preserve the old forms in order to reinforce this. He was trying to alter the course of musical evolution, not just "compose pretty songs;" he definitely had an agenda, and this is in the historical record.

No offense meant, millionrainbows, but when you talk about Brahms attempting to stifle musical development, it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

No offense taken. When you talk about Brahms, it sounds like a Rush Limbaugh rant. Let's avoid the hints at ad hominems from hereout, shall we? If you have no better counter-argument than that, you should do some more thinking before you make any rude insinuations.

 

It seems most who "dislike" Wagner don't like opera. Next let's discuss which authors we don't like because we don't like to read.

 

Really good point, in my opinion. I started this poll half expecting that Wagner would win. A better poll would only allow votes from people who are equally familiar with both composers. But that would kick me out, so screw the better poll!

 

What? Brahms was conservative? He resisted music's ineluctable march toward chromaticism and the inevitable breakdown of tonality?
What a cad!
I'll never again be able to enjoy the music of such a reactionary. It really must be too awful. When people come to their senses they will stop performing the evil backward looking stuff!

 

Oh, I don't think it ruins my enjoyment; I have quite a few Brahms works, too numerous to list here; but it certainly explains a lot about his music which in the past puzzled me. Now I've got the old codger covered.

Plus, as a side benefit, I feel a newly emerging desire to further explore the music of Wagner and Liszt.

Different strokes for different folks. If you are attracted to Brahms because he was a conservative, that's fine with me; I don't presume to criticize your reasons for choosing what music you listen to, unlike your rude insinuation, which I'm sure was not directed at me. :lol:

 

Any cursory search will turn up evidence to support my position on Brahms. Example, from WIK:

Brahms admired some of Wagner's music and admired Liszt as a great pianist, but the conflict between the two schools, known as the War of the Romantics, soon embroiled all of musical Europe. In the Brahms camp were his close friends: Clara Schumann, the influential music critic Eduard Hanslick, and the leading Viennese surgeon Theodor Billroth. In 1860, Brahms attempted to organize a public protest against some of the wilder excesses of the Wagnerians' music. This took the form of a manifesto, written by Brahms and Joachim jointly. The manifesto, which was published prematurely with only three supporting signatures, was a failure, and he never engaged in public polemics again.

Don't worry. I made the Rush Limbaugh comment as a simple retort. "Conspiracy theorist," huh? But I suppose there is an element of that...

In a way, aren't we paying a noble tribute to these historical figures by having this "re-enactment" of theWar of the Romantics? I mean, who else would care? I appreciate all the interactions I've had here so far, and I consider it good sport, don't you?

Thank you for not taking the conspiracy theory comment personally. When it comes to politics, the Rush Limbaugh comment could probably apply to me, although I'm not as loud as he is.

I too have enjoyed the interaction, especially since no one else I know will have intellectual discussions like this with me. Even though we disagree, I am having a remarkable amount of fun doing this, so thank you. Our debate would probably be a little smoother if you could basically state your view in one post, as so far I've had to piece your posts together. That is, if you don't mind, it is up to you.

I am beginning to understand your position on Brahms a little better, millionrainbows. However, I can't agree when it comes to Brahms being a "megalomaniac genius". I don't consider Brahms a genius composer, but more of a craftsman if you understand me. He was very good and had natural talent, but he worked at composing much more than other composers appear to have done. This is partly evident by the fact that he worked his compositions over and over until they finally met his standards. This in no way means that he was an inferior composer. Also, a megalomaniac is someone who considers themselves to be superior to others and have delusions about their own importance, wealth, power,etc. Brahms does not really fit this description.

That he opposed atonality and chromaticism is true, however, I don't quite believe that he was trying to alter history in the way you think. You say that he did what he did to secure his place in history next to Beethoven. I don't think he ever considered himself as good as Beethoven, which is something a megalomaniac would have done. I think he was more trying to stop the progression because he saw it as a tragedy.

Personally, I don't think composers should stretch the bounds to the point they have today. That is why we have John Cage's 4'33. I mean, seriously, what is that?

 

I say, "Zeitgeist schmeitgeist."

Wagner was more innovative harmonically, but so what? Music is not reducible to harmonic ideologies any more than it is to other ideologies. More importantly, Wagner had a great sense of drama. He was probably right to focus so closely on opera: it was probably an accurate self-assessment of his talents, so that it would not be hard to argue that he composed the greatest operas in the western tradition.

Brahms was generally uninterested in either harmonic innovation or drama. His focus was on counterpoint and the development of musical ideas: what he would do with a motif, with a theme. In this, he too had probably made an accurate self-assessment of his talents, because very few other composers have written such tightly unified music.

Since Wagner's harmonic innovations are old news to us, this poll must amount to: "What do you like better, opera or absolute music?"

 

I say, "Zeitgeist schmeitgeist."

Wagner was more innovative harmonically, but so what? Music is not reducible to harmonic ideologies any more than it is to other ideologies. More importantly, Wagner had a great sense of drama. He was probably right to focus so closely on opera: it was probably an accurate self-assessment of his talents, so that it would not be hard to argue that he composed the greatest operas in the western tradition.

Brahms was generally uninterested in either harmonic innovation or drama. His focus was on counterpoint and the development of musical ideas: what he would do with a motif, with a theme. In this, he too had probably made an accurate self-assessment of his talents, because very few other composers have written such tightly unified music.

Since Wagner's harmonic innovations are old news to us, this poll must amount to: "What do you like better, opera or absolute music?"

Yes, I said something similar earlier. My musical tastes are by no means entirely consistent and contain many apparent contradictions, but one thing I do notice is that my tastes tend far, far more towards absolute music than to opera, and as I noted before, this may be the main reason why I dislike Wagner's work. I enjoy Liszt and Bruckner far more.

This whole debate has now kind of run away from me - it generated so much interest and posts that I can't keep up! If we could take a time machine and send an orchestra back to 1870 to go play some of Schoenberg's work, Wagner and Brahms would in all probability promptly set aside their differences and unite against this new evil. And they would be shocked to be told that they themselves helped to create it. Their rivalry today seems a bit quaint, perhaps.

But I vill not hav ze master insulted, und if you do not keep your chromatic hands off my beloved Brahms, who vas truly ein meister singer, I vill hav you tried at Nuremberg und executed like any other var criminal...

 

Please, let me be a bit annoying: Brahms compose only on genres that Wagner left for him to compose I rest my case heheheh

 

Brahms all the way. I got little time for Wagner (even though I don't mind some operas by other composers).

People forget that in his own time, Brahms was pushing boundaries, even though he didn't innovate as far as Wagner did. The length of Brahms' concertos and the way he pushed sonata form in those can be compared to what Bruckner was doing with his symphonies around the same time. & both Brahms and Bruckner revered Bach and so did Wagner for that matter. There are more commonalities, or just as much, as differences here. I read that Wagner's innovations are hard to disentangle from Liszt's - and Liszt's are hard to disentangle from those of Berlioz. So I don't agree with this cult idolising Wagner, or any composer (nor do I agree with the Bach and Webern cults, the two other composers besides Richard who attracted this type of idolatry, which I see as silly basically).

But look at Brahms - he needs no cult, his music stands on its own two feet. The first bourgeois composer, a guy who fought his way up and 'made it' from a childhood in poverty, he made a packet with his Hungarian Dances, and incorporated the feel of Hungarian music into his highbrow works (some say he captured the Hungarian vibe better than Liszt himself!). He didn't need cash from from the aristocracy, unlike Wagner with King Ludwig, he supported himself, get my drift?

& I'll relate a funny anecdote that the late Elliott Carter reminisced about in an interview 20 years ago. When he was young, Carter attended concerts with Charles Ives. At that time, in the early 20th century, some conservatives said Brahms went too far (away form Beethoven, presumably, which is where they where stuck, they saw him as the last 'great' composer). Wagner, Liszt, Berlioz would have been beyond the pale for these people. Carter joked that in the concert hall, for some of these less flexible audience members, seeing Brahms on the program meant 'head for the EXIT signs.' Funny isn't it, he's too radical for some, and too conservative for others (now, with hindsight, easy ain't it?).

Gotta love ideology...and cults (not!)...

 

People forget that in his own time, Brahms was pushing boundaries, even though he didn't innovate as far as Wagner did. .

I would consider Wagner a far greater "pusher of boundaries" than Brahms, who was an ultra-conservative. Wagner had far greater influence on the course of western music development than Brahms.