In the shadow of the giant
“A symphony, or an opera, that is received enthusiastically and causes an immediate sensation, is the fastest means of promoting all the other compositions too. He simply has to.”
There is no doubt about it, great things were expected of Johannes Brahms, as is clear in these sentences penned by Robert Schumann in 1855. Schumann had already showered him with praise in his article “Neue Bahnen”, and now expected Brahms to finally alter course in the direction of the larger-sized works, such as the symphony: it was essential for the young composer to once and for all outdo the “giant” Beethoven in this field. Brahms was under double pressure: on the one hand, his circle of friends led by Schumann, as well as the music world, were anxiously awaiting his first symphony; on the other, he was struggling with himself and with his relentless self-criticism. Was he truly already up to the challenge?
Three “attempts” at symphonies, which were put aside or later integrated into other works, speak for themselves: a sonata for two pianos, from which emerged a “Sinfoniesatz” (= a symphony movement, later to become the first movement of his Piano Concerto No. 1); the three-movement Serenade Op. 11 with its “Zwittergestalt” (= in-between form, 1858); and finally, the first version of the first movement of Op. 68, dating from 1862. After various attempts, it appears that Brahms finally managed to come up with an individual concept of a symphony. Nevertheless, it would still take another 14 years for him to complete his Op. 68. Finally, Brahms had no other choice but to write symphonies, which “looked totally different”.
Thus, Brahms did not conclude his Symphony No. 1 in C minor, Op. 68 until he had already written works such as Ein deutsches Requiem and his Haydn Variations, by means of which he honed his skills as a composer. The première took place in Karlsruhe on November 4, 1876, and was a great success. Henceforth, the composition was known as “Beethoven’s Tenth”. But was that not exactly what Brahms was trying to avoid? Following along in Beethoven’s footsteps? Indeed, there are numerous apparent points of reference which have something in common with Beethoven’s compositions (whom Brahms was trying so hard to outdo): for instance, his choice of the basic key of C minor (Beethoven’s Symphony No. 5), the grand tonal design, then the basic idea of the symphonic principle “per aspera ad astra”, and furthermore the melodic allusion to the Freude (= ode to joy) theme from the Finale of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9. However, simply regarding these references as a bow from Brahms to the earlier composer would not do them justice. On the contrary, Brahms’ impressive treatment of both the idea and the material contained in the examples is evidence that, from that moment onwards, Beethoven ceased to cause him any more sleepless nights.
The Symphony No. 1 follows the usual four-movement symphonic structure. Thanks to the reinterpretation of the Scherzo as an Allegretto of small proportions, and the many and diverse motivic references between this Allegretto and the slow movement, both inner movements merge together into a coupled movement, as it were, which is directly opposed to the significant outer movements, as if linking a three-part total concept. This tripartite feeling overlies, or rather, subtly yet firmly, penetrates the four-movement concept of the symphony. However, within the outer movements too, the unambiguous structure is somewhat blurred, drawing a veil over cracks and hinges in the form.
By already laying out in the C-minor introduction, as if in a nutshell, the entire motivic material of the symphony, Brahms breaks through the dualistic principle, according to which the main themes should form a contrast to one another. Brahms derives both main motifs from a violin motif rising in steps of a semitone over descending winds, and a pedal point in the kettledrums and double basses, and already begins the thematic development in the exposition. Here, the basis of the development, with enormously dense and detailed passage work in all parameters of the symphonic movement, is formed by the principle of the “developing variation”, “of that procedure of changing a final motif bit by bit into constantly new melodic forms, that brings about a high level of musical logic, formal density and musical coherence” (Döge).
Whereas the first movement is a kind of example of a “musical evolution” from a nucleus, and the middle movements drive this nucleus forward motivically, Brahms presents a new way of looking at matters in the Finale: towards the end of the introduction, for the first time in the work, he finally introduces – by means of an alpenhorn melody followed by chorale-like insertions – some segments which are truly united by melody. However, these are not further developed in the manner of a variation, until the “Beethovenian” Freude (= ode to joy) melody commences. Not until the recapitulation do the alpenhorn melody and the main theme come to terms with an “inner unity” (Schubert) and uniformity, which had still been refused during the previous movements. Brahms had achieved his goal: his Symphony No. 1 really was “very different”.
Variations on a theme by Joseph Haydn, in B flat, Op. 56a
In the summer of 1873, Brahms completed his Variations on a theme by Joseph Haydn (in B flat), Op. 56a, in Tutzing on Lake Starnberger. This was a key work in his development towards his first symphony. Here, Brahms was able to prove that he had matured as a composer and was ready to write absolute instrumental music for major symphonic works. However, it is not necessarily surprising that the “variation” composer Brahms achieved this breakthrough by means of a variation work, of all things. Here, he was able to spur on to perfection the dense movement construction, the compositional rationality as liberated from pure, effectual aesthetics. One cannot just wait for inspiration to turn up, according to Brahms, one has to “earn it legitimately, thanks to incessant work”. The credo of an obsessively hard-working intellectual.
The theme of the variations is taken from the Feldpartita Hob. II: 46, and was probably not even written by Haydn, but by one of his pupils, presumably by Ignaz Pleyel. It is entitled Chorale St. Antonii and it is likely based on an old pilgrim’s hymn. This is a simple melody, although containing small rhythmic intricacies, which appealed to Brahms and which he used in the eight variations and the concluding passacaglia. An intensification is clearly audible: the tempo is increased successively from variation to variation (only in Variation VII is it reduced), and the construction of the movement is condensed in parallel. The bass figure of the passacaglia refers to elements from the Chorale, and sets off a magnificent intensification, which leads to the starting point of the theme.
top |
