Download Johannes Brahms, Piano Concertos and 1st Symphony GEORGE

st
Johannes Brahms, Piano Concertos and 1 Symphony
GEORGE BOZARTH is Professor of Music History at the University of Washington, co-author of the article on
Brahms in the New Grove Dictionary of Music, and Executive Director of the American Brahms Society.
His remarks on the early reception of Brahms’s two piano concertos and First Symphony are based on
passages from his forthcoming book, Brahms in Boston: A Study in the Reception of Art Music in
Nineteenth-Century America.
Hearing music of the past through the ears of its creator’s contemporaries can impart a freshness to our
own listening experience that might otherwise be lost through over familiarity. When a truly original voice
speaks, a few progressives understand its dialect and recognize its worth. But for most, it is a path of
gradual comprehension. Such was the case with the works of Johannes Brahms—old friends by now, but
initially greeted with an uncomprehending amazement, even outright hostility, that for us seems hard to
imagine. The reception of Brahms’s music is interesting as well because during his lifetime reactions to it
changed so greatly. When his First Piano Concerto, in D minor, was premiered in musically conservative
Leipzig in 1859, critics and audience alike rejected it. As the conservative Eduard Bernsdorf wrote at the
time:
The work . . . cannot give pleasure. Save its serious intention, it has nothing to offer but waste,
barren dreariness truly disconsolate. Its invention is neither attractive nor agreeable. . . . for more
than three-quarters of an hour one must endure this rooting and rummaging, this dragging and
drawing, this tearing and patching of phrases and flourishes! Not only must one take in this
fermenting mass; one must also swallow a dessert of the shrillest dissonances and most
unpleasant sounds.‖
Clearly this hyper-emotional young composer, then only twenty-six years old, was not going to be another
Mendelssohn, whose refreshingly positive music was so dearly loved in Leipzig. Brahms seemed to a
composer with ―personal issues‖ to be worked out, and that was best done in private, not on the concert
stage! The day after the premiere, Brahms wrote to his friend, the violinist Joseph Joachim, that the
event had been ―a brilliant and decided—failure . . .‖ (The ―personal issues‖ that found resonance in this
concerto were of course the mental demise of Robert Schumann and Brahms’s feelings about Clara
Schumann, whose ―gentle portrait‖—his words—he painted in the concerto’s beautiful slow movement.)
By the time Brahms’s Second Piano Concerto, in B-flat major, made its triumphant European tournée of
twenty-one debuts in 1881–82, not only had his language moderated—youthful Sturm und Drang
superseded by a degree of Hellenic balance—but his unique innovative style was beginning to be
understood, and this lengthy, technically demanding work soon joined the canon of acknowledged
masterpieces.
The critical reception of Brahms’s First Symphony and Second Piano Concerto in Boston shows Brahms
turning this corner. The Second Piano Concerto came to Boston in March 1884, performed by the
progressive American pianist Benjamin Johnson Lang with Brahms’s friend, George Henschel,
conducting the Boston Symphony Orchestra, then only in its third season. By this time Boston’s critics
and auditors had struggled mightily with Brahms’s First Symphony in C minor, a work that in 1876 had
―made us stare,‖ according the Harvard-educated music critic William Foster Apthorp; ―I doubt if anything
in all music ever sounded more positively terrific than that slow introduction to the first movement did to us
then.‖ So ―horribly dissonant‖ was the introduction’s chromaticism that the parts sounded as if they are
―mutually rubbing their skins off by grating one against another.‖ America’s preeminent music journalist,
John Sullivan Dwight, found the symphony’s first movement as a whole so ―wearisomely full of chromatic
and restless modulation‖ as to be ―sick music,‖ or at least ―not music which a sick man may listen to and
feel better.‖ According to the Shakespearian scholar and drama critic Henry Austin Clapp, Brahms was ―a
modern of the moderns, and this symphony is a remarkable expression of the inner life of our anxious,
introverted, over-earnest age, which cannot even be glad in a frank and self-forgotten spirit.‖
Over the next six years, though, Brahms’s serious style came to be better appreciated in Boston, through
performances of his shorter works like the Tragic and Academic Festival overtures, and his softer side
also became known, through pieces like the Liebeslieder Waltzes, presented in their orchestral version by
the Boston Symphony Orchestra. Moreover, with his troubled First Symphony finally out of his system,
and Beethoven’s ghost put to rest, Brahms was able to approach symphonic discourse with less ―anxiety
of influence,‖ and the genial Second Symphony and Second Piano Concerto soon issued forth.
The Second Piano Concerto was the first of Brahms’s symphonic compositions to be heralded as a
masterpiece by the most of Boston critics. Considered ―a work of extraordinary merit . . . noticeable for its
harmonious and melodious character,‖ the concerto was seen by William Foster Apthorp as a work which
―for largeness of design, earnestness of purpose, and nobility of musical spirit‖ must be deemed ―the
worthy companion of the greatest classic compositions in the concerto form‖—the Fourth and Fifth Piano
Concertos by Beethoven and the A-minor Concerto by Schumann. ―The essential beauty and grandeur
of Brahms’s work‖ could not be put into words. The change in perception of Brahms from self-indulgent
young modernist to emotionally controlled romantic-classicist was clearly underway. Louis C. Elson,
music critic for the Courier, pointed to the concerto’s romantic elements, as well as its symphonic nature:
[The concerto is] a work . . . of powerful orchestration, . . . [and] possesses far more of melody
than the composer is given credit for. It is . . . a work of broad dimensions, possessing four
movements of almost symphonic development, and, although the first two are allegros, they are
in strong contrast with each other. The very beginning of the work, with its [beautiful] horn
phrases, has a romantic flavor, and the succeeding pompous and martial theme is stirring. The
piano part requires much breadth of treatment . . . Some of the orchestral effects of the
development are [especially] impressive, notably a sombre, mysterious episode, before the final
appearance of the chief theme. The second movement opens with a unison phrase for orchestra
which reminds somewhat of Saint-Saëns, and is treated somewhat in the manner of that
composer. The third movement [with its lyrical cello solo] is one of the most romantic that
Brahms has yet given us. In the tenderness of its pious themes, the beauty of some of Brahms’s
lieder (Wie bist Du, meine Königin, for example) is recalled, and the adagio which follows, as part
of the same movement, is very beautifully worked out. The finale, with its galloping rhythms, is
rollicking enough to recall the final [dance-like] movements of some of the old [Baroque] suites.
Elson’s last remark is especially revealing, for Brahms’s ―romanticism‖ is never ―healthier‖ than when—
despite the Biblical injunction to the contrary—he is fermenting ―new wine in old skins‖—bringing an old
style alive, now resplendent in a modern guise, as in the Second Piano Concerto.
© Chicago Symphony Orchestra. All rights reserved. Program notes may be reproduced only in their
entirety and with express written permission from the Chicago Symphony Orchestra.
These notes appear in galley files and may contain typographical or other errors. Programs subject to
change without notice.
2