Skip to main content

Brahms: Symphony #2

Brahms' First Symphony, which we listened to in February, was reportedly the product of at least 14 years of work (some sources will say two decades), as he felt the heavy burden of attempting to compose a symphony with sufficient "gravitas" in the post-Beethoven era.

In contrast, he wrote his Second Symphony in less than a year.
**********************
Bernard Haitink and the Boston Symphony Orchestra
Johannes Brahms (1833-1897)
Brahms: Symphony No. 2
Philips, 1991
**********************
It's interesting how a genius like Brahms puts so much pressure on himself writing one symphony that it takes him so many years and so much suffering to get it done. But in the next year, he quickly pounds out another symphony--one that's just as beautiful by the way--without putting any evident pressure on himself at all.

In both symphonies he came up with the goods. But how can the composition of one work be so seemingly effortless while the other needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to completion?

This is yet another aspect of Brahms that's so fascinating to me. You can't help but be encouraged in your own creative efforts when even the great geniuses had seemingly arbitrary struggles and successes when creating their work.

For example, when I'm writing, there are times when some solid work will burst out of me with very little effort. At other times, however, writing can be horribly painstaking. And unfortunately, it's seems totally arbitrary which kind of process I'm going to get on a given day. And of course there are times when my finished product can be so repulsive to me that I too want to burn the works, just like Brahms did.

A few brief listener notes for the Second Symphony:
1) Note how, in general, the Second Symphony seems more spontaneous and less forced than the ponderous and grave First Symphony.

2) Listen for the primary melody repeated throughout the first movement. Does it sound oddly familiar at all--maybe like a well-known children's lullaby? Ha. And they say sampling wasn't invented until the 1980s.

3) The third movement was so apparently so well received at the symphony's premiere performance (in December of 1877) that the orchestra immediately encored it.

4) And if you want to have your spirits massively uplifted in a brief ten minutes or so, have a close listen to the fourth movement.





Comments

Tom said…
Thanks for writing about this symphony, which I love to bits. Especially the start of the fourth movement, which, as you say, is worth listening very closely to. I love how the strings glide along smoothly, with the flute weighing in effortlessly, before that wonderful surprise as the whole orchestra bursts into life.

I find it fascinating to compare this to the last movement of Dvorak's 6th, which was written a bit later. The Dvorak starts in exactly the same way - a slick, pacy, gliding D major tune in the lower strings, passed onto the flute, suddenly veering off to A major, before returning to D major with the full orchestra at fortissimo. Both are blissful movements, although I think the Dvorak is very much a tribute to the Brahms.
Daniel said…
Hi Tom, thanks for your comment.

Funny you should mention it, but Brahms' 6th is in the queue here at 101 CDs! I hope to get to it in the next month or so.

DK
Anonymous said…
Do you mean Dvorak's 6th? Great - am looking forward to reading it! As I mentioned on another thread, that's my favourite symphony of all time. I'm sure you'll do it justice :-)
Daniel said…
Ha! Yes. Whoops. Slip of the fingers.

Yep I meant Dvorak's 6th. Thanks for the catch. :)

Popular posts from this blog

Does Bach Suck?

It's not often that you see a classical music-related comment that makes you spit out your coffee : "Bach sucks because he was not a true composer. A true composer hears the music before he writes it. Bach composed using a mathematical system of numbers which he tought[sic] his students. After his death one of his students published a book “How to write a menuet[sic] with little or no musical knowledge”. Frankly, the result of his work is not musical, the opening bars always sound musical because he copied someone else’s melody, broke it down into numbers and wrote counterpoint from it. Handel did not even like Bach, because Handel wrote music. Anyone who does like Bach does so because they are told to. For a comparison, listen to music by Frescobaldi, Rameau, or Couperin, then listen to Bach. The difference? Something that is musical throughout the entire piece, and something that is musical for 10 seconds and quickly loses interest." Once I'd finished mopping the co...

Schumann: Second Symphony

I stood by the body of my passionately loved husband, and was calm. All my feelings were absorbed in thankfulness to God that he was at last set free, and as I kneeled by his bed I was filled with awe. It was as if his holy spirit was hovering over me--Ah! If only he had taken me with him. --Clara Schumann, after the death of her husband Robert Schumann We return to George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra's exceptional recording of Schumann's Four Symphonies to hear his Symphony #2. ********************** George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra Robert Schumann (1810-1856) Schumann: Symphonies 1-4; Manfred Overture CBS, 1958/Sony, 1996 ********************** When I sat down to listen to Schumann's Second Symphony, I assumed it would sound as Mozart-like as his First Symphony. I couldn't have been more wrong: these two symphonies sound strikingly different. Listener Notes for Schumann's Symphony #2: 1) You can tell right away that this symphony is far more Roman...

Why Classical Music Writing is So Difficult to Read

Have you ever read the liner notes of a classical music CD and scratched your head wondering what the heck the writer was trying to say? Or attempted to read a classical music concert review in your newspaper and felt totally illiterate? One of the things that frustrates many people about classical music is its perceived elitism. It's unfortunate, but most of what gets written about classical music only worsens that perception. Most of the classical music writing I see out there--either in symphony concert program books, in concert reviews in major papers like the New York Times, or worst of all in the little essays in the booklets accompanying most classical music CDs--is quite simply terrible. Often, it is pretentiously written, it is full of industry jargon (yes, even the classical music industry has its own jargon), and it reads like an intellectually insecure liberal arts student's PhD thesis. There are a few reasons for this. First, there's the fundamental difficulty ...