ARTS OPINION
I used to think Brahms was an aimless composer without relevance to modern times. I thought that he simply copied Beethovenian rhythm and harmony and lacked the drive to push boundaries. Most of all, I thought his music was emotionless.
Yet I realize now that people have misunderstood Brahms. Listeners who don’t put effort into listening to his music believe he lacked any musical direction. From the 19th century to modern times, critics complained that his pieces were sterile and boring. These people desired the overly flashy ways of programmatic music by Liszt and Wagner. Brahms by contrast wrote absolute music with an emphasis on form and structure, rather than a narrative or story.
What these critics are doing is judging music by surface appeal and labeling what they do not like as “boring” music. In fact, what seems “boring” to some is actually deeply structural craftsmanship. These critics clearly did not put an effort into understanding the music of Brahms. Brahms’s meticulous attention to form, counterpoint, and thematic development ensures that his works have value. Furthermore, this dedication to his music gives him a reputation as a composer who has stood by his values and was serious about making the best music.
His attention to detail creates layers that reveal themselves gradually. The movement of themes, subtle harmonic shifts, and careful pacing generate a sense of inevitability and coherence. Rather than relying on dramatics, Brahms evokes emotion through structure and development, allowing his works to resonate across centuries.
For example, in the final movement of his Symphony No. 4, Brahms develops a Passacaglia built on a bass line of a chromatic theme originating from Bach’s Partita in D minor. Through the development of the counterpoint against the base line, he naturally creates suspense and emotion without needing to rely on compositional techniques such as writing virtuosic passages, extreme thematic transformation, and free form.
Another example of his mastery of emotion through structure is in his Piano Quintet in F minor. In the Scherzo movement, the listener hears a mastery of contrapuntal interplay where a rhythmic motif is passed between the instruments. This interweaving of sound gives the audience a sense of dialogue or struggle between instruments. When a listener pays attention to these interplays, they will achieve a satisfaction through the perfect cohesion of music.
These details, if heard carelessly, will only translate to a painful jumble. One must sit down and clear the mind of all distractions. Then, we will be rewarded by pure euphoria. True, his music is not something that I enjoy listening to in an elevator or in a grocery store. He demands patience and deep thought from his listeners. He is not a poster boy whose pre-chewed melodies lack depth.
But is slowing down just to listen to some Brahms even worth the rewards? We live in a fast-paced world in which instant gratification is the only way to satisfaction for many. They argue that music should entertain, not demand patience or deep reflection. If so, is there any point in experiencing joy through “boring” music? For me, I think the experience of clarity and intellectual satisfaction will outweighs any instant gratification.
