[Tyson]

Brahms, perhaps no composer divides opinion more than he does.  Some hail him a genius and the proper heir to Beethoven's mantle.  Others proclaim him a prophet and the forebear of modernism (ala Schoenberg).  Still others say he is a second rate composer preoccupied with outdated musical forms. 

Into this mix I will toss my own humble (yet correct!) opinion.  I think Brahms was perhaps the greatest musical genius in history after Bach.  But he was more subtle and less showy than the extroverted Beethoven, and less overtly radical than Chopin, Schumann, or Liszt.  IMO, it is very rare that a performer actually "gets" Brahms and is able to play his music properly.   

There's a school of performance that I detest.  It puts beauty and nostalgia above all else in performance (Guilini, late Bruno Walter, Abbado, many others).  This is soft, gooey Brahms and it's awful.

Brahms needs a firm hand, a spine, and a driving force to sound the way it should.  In his orchestral music, this is exemplified by Szell, Dorati, young Bruno Walter (with the New York Philharmonic), and Jochum.  Most others are a waste of time and effort.  For chamber music (which is where the real genius shines through), Fleischer and the Emersons in the Quintet is impossible to match, the Alban Berg Quartet in the String Quartets is tops, and no one really does the Piano Trio's justice (although the Capucon's with Angelich come close).

Violin Concerto?  Heifetz is still the king.

[rpf]

Definitely a great composer. What I particularly like about his music is that it can be successfully played with a lean towards either Classical or Romantic style. However, either way, it must be phrased just right - and it rarely is.

I like Bohm and Kertesz for full sets of the Symphonies (both VPO, which helps a great deal of course). Although Abbado is not successful in the Symphonies, he does do a very nice version of the Alto Rhapsodie.

Heifetz has amazing speed and articulation in the VC but skates over the slow movement IMHO. My first choice is Oistrakh with Klemperer.

The Violin and Cello Concerto has many good performances. My favorites are the Schneiderhan/Starker/Fricsay, Oistrakh/Fournier/Galliera, and Heifetz/Piatigorsky/Wallenstein, in that order.

I agree that his most sublime music (aside from the Requiem, perhaps - Klemperer is undisputedly best) is his chamber music and I second the above choices for it.

[Mag]

I use to have Brahms Tragic overture. I thought it was really good.

[richidoo]

Rachel Barton Pines Violin Concerto is sublime, I think it is my most beautiful piece of music. Julia Fischer's also has a new VC out now.

Antonin Kubalek Brahms Piano Sonatas are excellent.

Piano quartets are great too. Yes the Fleisher / Emerson is great. But also he recorded it in 63 with Julliard, just resissued on ArkivCD, it is nice, but small soundstage as typical of the era. He was very clever back then - still is, but now gravied with feeling. 

[Bhasi]

I've never got very far into his oeuvre but I do enjoy various detestable (!) versions of the 3rd symphony, Helene Grimaud in the ?op117 Intermezzi and the Prague/Fassbaender/Sinopoli Alt-Rhapsodie.  Oh, and Natalie Clein in the cello sonatas.

As a non-musician, though, and one who never learned how to read (music), I'm interested in Tyson's comment 'no one really does the Piano Trio's justice (although the Capucon's with Angelich come close)'.  Do you mean you've heard UNrecorded performances which do do them justice or, based on your reading of the score and what you hear in your 'mind's ear', no one realises them satisfactorily?

PS I appreciated hearing your 'humble (yet correct!)' opinions and those of the others here!

[Brian Cheney]

Toscanini was the Brahmsian of our century--he was 19 when he became a conductor in 1887, two years after the Eminor symphony was written.  Brahms was always modern music to the Maestro and he played it that way, although his approach varied considerably as he grew older.  Check out the 1st and 4th with the NBC and the 3rd with the Philharmonia.  In the 2nd, Walter/NYPO sets the standard, though any of Monteux's 6 recordings is very fine.

The piano quintet got a definitive reading in 64 from Serkin and the Budapest, though the earlier Fleischer is very good.  The piano trios are well served by Stern/Istomin/Rose once you get past the violin-heavy balances. The Budapest gave us classic renditions of the quartets. and in stereo yet!

Rubinstein and Moravec between them cover all bases in the solo piano music, and the piano concerti exist in multiple great readings: Fleischer/Szell, Rubinstein/Reiner in the 1st, Serkin/Szell and Horowitz/Toscanini in the 2nd come to mind.  For the VC I play Stern/Ormandy (1959)  Neveu/Isserstedt, or Heifetz/Koussevitsky, and the double is a tossup between the fabulous Heifetz/Feuermann/Ormandy (1938) and Francescatti/Fournier/Walter.

Don't forget the Klemperer/Fischer-Dieskau Requiem. Plus there's lots more I haven't touched on, like the Stoki Serenade #1....

[Jon L]

Brahms needs a firm hand, a spine, and a driving force to sound the way it should.  In his orchestral music, this is exemplified by Szell, Dorati, young Bruno Walter (with the New York Philharmonic), and Jochum. 

I so wish they would remaster Szell/Cleveland Brahms symphonies.  I made the mistake of buying Abbado's versions hoping for better sound quality than Szell on Sony; well it sounds better but the music just disappeared. 
Does anyone know Szell/Cleveland version that sounds better than the 1992 Sony version everyone seems to have?

[Tyson]

As always Brian is on top of the game.  But I have to disagree on one point only - the Stern Trios are not the best option, not by a long shot.  Well, that's not quite true, all the trio performances I've heard pretty much suck (Stern included).  Capucons are pretty good but not quite there.  Of course I must confess my preference for piss-and-vinegar Brahms interpretations, rather than long-walks-on-the-beach Brahms.

[Scott F.]

I don't know if you guys have experience the Sonatas for Piano and Cello performed by Yo Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax but you should. To my tastes, it is simply phenomenal plus the recording quality superb.

[Tyson]

I had the Ma and Ax performances for a long time, they are good.  I picked up the Rubinstein & Piatigorsky recordings and liked them better, even though sound quality was not quite as good as Ma/Ax.  Recently I got the Stephen Hough and Isserlis and I like this set best of all - great performances in outstanding sound.  Another good set, wilder and very emotive is the du Pre and Barenboim set.  Not the best sound quality, but anything recorded by du Pre is worth hearing.

[weirdo]

I don't know if you guys have experience the Sonatas for Piano and Cello performed by Yo Yo Ma and Emanuel Ax but you should. To my tastes, it is simply phenomenal plus the recording quality superb.

ditto but in the Requiem's, Brahms "German Requiem " is my new favorite. The form gave all the composers license to experiment
and Brahms took advantage of it with a powerful choral work.

[GDeering]

WOW, two mentions of the Alto Rhapsody in one thread.  I love this work, it?s like Brahms decided that Wagner might have had a point after all.  It is impossible to hate Brahms, the man loved music (and women, but that?s a different story) ? I was recently reading about the help Brahms gave Mahler and Strauss  - given the divisions in taste or ?camps? we always read about this was eye opening.

Alto Rhapsody. Klemperer/Ludwig, there are others but this gets me every time.  I have to confess that (as a non-German speaker) I have done my best to forget the text and let the music speak for itself, in all its multi-shaded dark beauty.

I have heard the op. 87 Trio live and it was a killer, my only recording is with the Beaux Arts and it misses all the drama and adventurous music.  Life is short, but maybe I should look for some better recordings of the Trios?

For the Piano Quartet (op 34), I was glad I spent 50 cents for a Serkin/Budapest copy it's really good, better than the Serkin/Busch Quartet recorded in the 1930?s (and I'm a Busch fan).  OK, another favorite is Eschenbach/Amadeus.  Serkin seems to find more notes and put them in better places ? but I love the music making in Eschenbach/Amadeus.  Others might be put off by the emphasis on putting the ?tune? across; me, I like it.  Maybe it?s a bit more Schubert-y than Brahms?

Tyson, I am glad that some people don?t like the Walter Brahms interpretations, because they are different, I love them in all their ?autumnal? indulgence.  They take a back seat to Furtwangler.  I?m also a fan of Toscanini (London) & Wand ? and even the new Haitink LSO recordings ? even though he seems to be turning the orchestra into a Furtwangler tribute band.  I?ve never heard Brahms by Dorati or Jochum. Something to look for, I never find that Jochum is the last word in anything.


JonL ? if you have a turntable you might look at getting some later UK pressings, cheap and better than the CDs.


Gregg

[panomaniac]

For years I didn't care for Brahms.  Too mushy for me - boring.
But then about 20 years ago my cello playing GF was involved with a series devoted to Brahms chamber music.  Wow!  That brought it to life for me.  To hear it live and know the people playing was wonderful.

Have liked Brahms ever since, especially live.  Sometime you just have to hear the real thing to "get it."