Brahms Symphony No.

Sam Chan

Introduction

Johannes Brahms (1833-1897) only ever wrote 4 symphonies during his

lifetime, and the penultimate Symphony No.4 in E minor, Op.98, will be the

topic of discussion below. Completed in 1885, just a year after completing

Symphony No.3 in F Major, Op.90. It stands as a product of the culmination of

his lifelong standing as a relatively more conservative member involved in

the polarized context of the War of the Romantics and as an extremely self-

critical perfectionist. Brahms had always had the habit of working on music

for long periods of time, destroying music that was not to his satisfaction,

and even modifying his compositions after publishing and premiering them.

But in the case of the 4th Symphony, it only took one year for him to finish it,

and virtually little to no amendments have been made with the music. Which

in a way, reflects Brahms’ musical maturity to the level where he could

express contemplative musical ideas without restriction. This essay explores

the Symphony from historical, analytical and interpretive aspects, and

comparison with music from Brahms’ contemporaries and even earlier

periods.

Historical Context
Brahms is already a very well established and respected composer in Europe

at the time of the completion of this symphony. Having already produce

three successful symphonies, two piano concerti and numerous chamber

music works, in addition to his partnership with Hans von Bulow and the

Meiningen Court Orchestra, which started in 1883. Brahms endeavored to

work within the traditional classical period music framework while infusing

innovative flourishes, very much unlike his contemporaries from the so-

called “New German School” progressive composers such as Richard Wagner

(1813-1883) and Franz Liszt (1811-1886), whose music were more

innovative, virtuosic and emotionally evocative. Brahms, as an absolutist,

was adamant in his commitment to absolute music, music that does not

serve [Link] has been having success in his workflow, after

having worked on his first symphony over a staggeringly long period of at

least 14 years, he wrote some of his most famous works, including two

symphonies (Op. 73, Op. 90), the Violin Concerto (Op. 77) and the 2 nd Piano

Concerto (Op. 83), alongside numerous chamber music works, all within less

than half of the time he spent working on the first symphony.

The Fourth symphony was written when Brahms spent his summers in

Murzzusschlag, Austrian Alps in 1885. Brahms, despite virtually being at the

height of his career, remained self-critical of his new composition, as he was

doubtful with how the public reception would come out to be. Such thoughts

were documented in the correspondences with those close to him, friends

and colleagues alike. He wrote a letter to Clara Schumann (1819-1896),

alongside a piano reduction of the first two movements for four hands. And

her response was highly enthusiastic, praising the new work for its

“wonderful unity of spirit” and richness in content, carrying a sense of

nobility and depth. Eduard Hanslick (1825-1904), longtime supporter of

Brahms and influential Viennese critic, remarked the complexity of the

music: “The longer we look into it, the more brightly the stars shine back.”.

Conductor Hans von Bulow (1830-1894) responded with equal positiveness,

despite being a supporter of Richard Wagner’s. He recognized the greatness

of the symphony and praised it for its marvelousness after early rehearsals

with the Meiningen Court orchestra, which was the ensemble that premiered

the work with the composer himself conducting on October 25, 1885. Prior to

the premiere, Brahms arranged private run-throughs with Bulow to refine the

adjustments.

The ultimate reception was marmite as some praised the work for its

complexity and brilliance while others, particularly those who align with the

New German School, were puzzled by its density and dismissed Brahms’

adherence to traditional forms as old fashioned and lack of drama. But the

symphony gradually gained acclaim and found its way onto the standard

orchestral repertoire pool and has been frequently programmed ever since.

Editorial context and critical editions

Fritz Simrock (1837-1901) has been Brahms’ main publisher for over 20

years at the time the fourth symphony was written and was entrusted with
publishing it. And Brahms was, as usual, heavily invested in overseeing the

pubishing of his works, where the fourth symphony was no exception.

The first edition of the full score was published in February 1886, alongside

an arrangement for four hands for piano by the composer. But despite

Brahms’ meticulous proofreading, the first edition still contained small

mistakes which consisted of inconsistencies in markings, common in 19 th

century publishing.

As a performer or conductor, a reliable edition is crucial to remain faithful to

the composer’s intentions as much as possible. After the initial publication by

Simrock in 1886, numerous critical editions emerged in the next decades.

One of the most notable ones was prepared by Hans Gal (1890-1987) for the

Johannes Brahms Gesamtausgabe, which took the paperwork involved in the

first stages into consideration. It was grounded in close studies of the first

edition by Simrock and Brahms’ manuscripts. Although it is not in a way a

critical edition in modern regards, it was one of the authoritative pocket

scores for conductors, teachers and students alike for the better part of the

20th century, which remained influential before the emergence of well-

acclaimed publishers like G. Henle Verlag or Barenreiter, and the gradually

increasing availability of more refined Urtext critical editions, especially ones

produced by the Neue Brahms-ausgabe.

Brief analysis

This symphony follows the standard four-movement form.

 I. Allegro non troppo (e minor)

The first movement is in a standard sonata form, but the first theme is not

stated overtly. Rather than traditional thematic contrast found in other works

of the same period. The theme is formed by fragments of descending figures

in thirds introduced in the violins. After which the second theme in G major is

introduced around bar 49 which is a contrasting rhythmic gesture in triplets,

often juxtaposed with flowing scales throughout the strings and woodwinds.

Occasional march-like sixteenth note figures are heard from very contained

outbursts from the brass section, which is a secondary rhythmic fragment

scattered throughout the movement. Brahms’ signature use of three-against-

two rhythmic interplays is well represented here. The space between

different modulations is often bridged by large slurred eighth note passages

in ambiguous tonality, which emphasizes fragmentation and sequence, with

dense polyphony. The recapitulation is abrupt with a sudden cascading

diminished 7th ascending scale in the strings, which pulls us back to the first

theme, albeit in fortissimo rather than piano. And the movement ends in

despair with the detached four timpani strikes.

II. Andante moderato (E Major)

The second movement is in ternary form with variative elements. It is the

slowest movement of the symphony but still flowing as it is marked Andante.

The theme is introduced in the horns and clarinets, but runs with C and F

natural , which seemed to be tonally ambiguous, for three bars until the
mediant appears in the clarinets, where it is then the E Major key is

established, this serves as the basis of the entire movement, both

harmonically and rhythmically, as much of the succeeding passages would

contain fragments of the same rhythmic pattern and occasional accidentals

suggesting Phrygian touches. The middle section begins in bar 74, where

continuous 32nd note figures first appear, starting with the violas. This would

go on to texturally thicken, constantly modulating through chromatic

passages, ultimately reaching the climax, with the first theme broken down

to 16th triplets. After which we enter a lush section, where the home key of E

Major first felt truly settled here as the tonally uneasy flourishes are absent

here. After an ambiguous transitional passage, the First theme returns, but

with much more apparent and affirmative modal inflections, and the

movement finally lands on the tonic chord and ends.

III. Allegro giocoso (C Major)

The third movement is in a sonata-rondo form. It traditionally would be the

scherzo of the symphony, but it is written in duple meter, rather than triple

meters scherzos were traditionally written in. The assertive and bright

character of this movement forms a stark contrast with the bleak and

contained nature of the rest of the symphony. The exuberant main theme is

highlighted with heavy accents and interesting rhythmic gestures including

sextuplets and a marching motif, with occasional outbursts of blocks of

chords, exclusively on the weak beat, which adds to the sense that this is a

heavy pounding dance rather than a light scherzo, which is very different to
other works in the traditional sense. And the second theme is a lyrical

interlude in G Major with fragments of the first theme, which creates a sense

of continuity. A brief Db Major trio-like episode is embedded in the middle of

the movement, which harkens back to the traditional scherzo form. The first

theme is then recapitulated with the introduction of heavy pounding triplets,

which build up through increasingly complex rhythmic intensity and dense

texture, brings the movement to a close with three short tonic chords.

IV. Allegro energico e passionato (e minor)

The fourth and final movement is a Passacaglia based on the Chaconne

theme in the final movement of J.S. Bach (1685-1750) ‘s Cantata BWV150.

The theme is always 8 bars long and repeats exactly 30 times, until the coda.

In the first section, the theme is introduced by a woodwind chorale, which

gradually thickens as variative elements begin to pour in. The section stays

mostly in the e minor frame but occasionally to C Major key areas. This fades

into a somber middle section to the 12th variation, in 3/2 time, featuring

woodwind solos and a restrained brass chorale, which is another signature

compositional element of Brahms. The theme is recapitulated by the same

chorale in the very beginning of the movement in bar 129, where the 16 th-

30th variations go through a quasi-developmental section which a series of

different rhythmic patterns and intensity, exploring C Major key areas. And a

series of syncopative figures and increasing rhythmic intensity in the timpani

brings us to the coda in bar 253 and concludes the symphony with a

compressed statement of the theme.

Interpretive challenges for performers

Brahms’ music has always been challenging for performers of all disciplines

due to the immense structural rigor and subtle character. In comparison to

his preceding symphonies, which were more overt using more straight

forward expressive devices, the fourth symphony is vastly different in

character and texture as the emotion almost exclusively lies in the subtle

motivic relationships and textural interplays.

The challenges performers face is mainly staying true to Brahms’ markings

while balancing with personal performance issues. Brahms often used slurs

to indicate the length of a phrase, but such marking is physically impossible

to follow as players face technical shortcomings. Limited bow length for

string players, breathing breaks for wind and brass players, and articulation

challenges for percussionists. For me personally as a string player, many

unspoken rules have to be adhered to to perform Brahms’ compositions, and

this symphony in particular owing to its rigorous structure and beguiling

characteristics, for example, all the notes, unless marked otherwise, has to

be played in full length, and spizzatos have to be heavy and lengthened with

soft articulations to avoid breaking the long phrases while maintaining

rhythmic drive. Vibrato has to be narrow and focused to not disturb the

structural expression inherent in this symphony, and every dynamic has to

be considered in relation to other parts to not cause balance issues. And that

pose such a challenge to players where only a sophisticated and musically

mature ensemble could deliver a convincing and authentic performance of

this symphony.

Comparison to other works

Contemporary: Gustav Mahler (1860-1911) Symphony No.1 in D Major

“Titan” (1887)

Mahler’s first symphony provides a stark contrast to Brahms’ fourth as it

steers towards the direction of programmatic music, which the New German

school advocates. This symphony emphasizes the expansion of time and

space to long durations, which contrasts with the compression of motivic

usage in Brahms. Brahms’ fourth is scored for a smaller scale classical

orchestra with tightly controlled textures and economy, whereas Mahler’s

first is written for a large romantic orchestra with a large range of sound

effects. Which shows that Brahms always puts form and unity before color of

effect in his compositional style.

Classical: Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1827) Symphony No. 7 in A Major,

Op.92 (1811)

Beethoven’s seventh had much more in common with Brahms’ fourth than

the Mahler symphony, but still with subtle differences. The entirety of the

Beethoven symphony is based on two premises, pure clarity of rhythmic

figures and bold harmonic choices, wihci is much more outgoing than the

complex motivic developments and dense textures of the Brahms. The

approach to these two works is entirely different, where Beethoven

emphasizes volume and clarity, while Brahms focuses on textural depth and

contrapuntal complexity. Which again, shows that Brahms does not favor the

use of sound effects that is a integral part of the music of new German

school composers in his works.

Bibliography

Symphony No. 4 (Brahms). Wikipedia, November 13, 2024.

Schoenberg, Arnold. Brahms the Progressive. Edited by Jennifer Ronyak.

Translated by Carla Hesse. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Gál, Hans. Brahms: His Work and Personality. Translated by Joseph Stein. New

York: Knopf, 1963.

Musgrave, Michael. The Music of Brahms. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994.

Musgrave, Michael, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Brahms. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Schuller, Gunther. The Compleat Conductor. New York: Oxford University

Press, 1997.

Swafford, Jan. Johannes Brahms: A Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

1997.

Tovey, Donald Francis. Essays in Musical Analysis: Symphonies and Other

Orchestral Works. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.