In Reply to: RE: Thanks for the link, but. . . posted by josh358 on April 22, 2012 at 08:52:44:
Of course, when I was at Stanford, I didn't have much to do with CCRMA, and in any case, I think he arrived there after I was already gone.
Yes, I'm familiar with those Tchaikovsky quotes about Brahms. Although I do not agree with them, I still find them amusing. (Maybe you do too?) With regard to the Germanic forms, Tchaikovsky was taught by the Rubinstein brothers (especially Nikolai), and thus was strongly influenced by Germanic theory to an extent that the Balakirev circle was blissfully free of (despite Balakirev's championing of and respect for Schumann). So I'm not sure about the fluency question.
But here's an another interesting thing: I do not know of another composer who could be mistaken for Tchaikovsky. Not one. But there are quite a few other composers, some of whose works could be mistaken for Brahms, including von Herzogenberg, early Dohnanyi, Bruch (especially choral works such as "Salute to Christmas"), and others. Even some parts of Schumann's later works could be mistaken for Brahms - I'm thinking of things such as the final chorus of "Der Rose Pilgerfahrt", which sounds preternaturally like one of the Brahms works for women's chorus, two horns and harp, Op. 17. What are we to make of this? That Brahms's style is more easily aped? That he was more influential? I don't know. But I do feel that Brahms is less of a unique figure in music than he is often made out to be.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Interesting - I never met Jonathan Berger - Chris from Lafayette 13:50:50 04/22/12 (1)
- RE: Interesting - I never met Jonathan Berger - josh358 14:41:35 05/18/12 (0)