Ulvi Yurtsever wrote:

>I remember talking in this group about how I just don't "get" the opening
>movement of (Brahms') First Symphony . . .

Yes, and I still shake my head when those timpani start throbbing, even
though I was told years ago that Brahms had witten the Allegro years before
he tacked on the pretentious Introduction, called by one critic "the
grandest, most profoundly moving and overwhelming passages in all the
symphonic literature." Phew!  And by another, less kindly but perhaps more
perceptive, "the heavy tramp of Beethoven's feet behind him." So much for
hearing it all in your head as one completely realized piece of music
before writing it down.

Jerrybuilding a symphony aside, Brahms seemed to know what his technical
wizardry was all about even if he had nothing really musically creative to
express with it, or as one critic described it, "producing with technique
what doesn't issue from emotional impulse." But the technique is
innovative, to be sure, and there are two "original" ideas, according to
critic Gunther Schuller in his recent 40-page analysis of this movement:
"the shifting or dislocation of phrases rhythmically from their expected
metric placement to other positions, very often displaced by one beat;
and the rhythmic juxtaposition of triple and duple rhythms, either in
horizontal succession or vertical simultaneity."

I you have trouble with Brahms' First, as I have, it might help to read
Schuller's analysis, as he blames conducting traditions and individual
conductors for getting this movement all wrong, and steers the reader
to recorded versions that he believes more accurately follow Brahms'
intentions.  If we just listened to the right recording, Schuller seems
to be saying, how could we not help but love this symphony?

On the one hand, Schuller is very convincing when it comes to explaining
Brahms' technique, his "structural elision, evasive modulations, disguised
cadences," etc.  On the other hand, Schuller does little to persuade me
about the symphony as music.  But then he is not about trying to.  He is
even apologetic for being the least bit negative in his analysis, for not
being respectful enough of a "virtually perfect masterpiece."

John Dalmas
[log in to unmask]