Beethoven/Brahms
Which of these two violin concerti is preferred more???
Replies (36)
I think it is more popular too!!
I'm sure they are about equal in importance in the violin repertoire. They are both amazing, but people always have their favorites. I really doubt you'll get one answer on this one.
Both are incredible. However, Beethoven is my favorite concerto, and I think that it's unparalled in the repertoire in its phylosophy and spiritual strength.
lots of violinists prefer one or the other but i think the brahms is performed more
Brahms was Beethoven's greatest prodecessor. From the symphonies,chamber music,concerti, etc.
But their violin concertos are the most similar. In fact you can almost say Brahms patterned his violin concerto after the Beethoven concerto. Look at the score for both concerti, and listen to them. Notice how the long tutti in the beggining of both first movemements, both violin soloists then enter in octaves, then they both dance around till the main theme is played by the soloist in D Major, then it turns to minor. Both have very extensive cadenzas. Also notice, how in the last movements the violin plays rondo theme first, followed by orchestra, then violin again. Their are so many similarities between the two pieces, the Brahms concerto is almost like the romantic version of the Beethoven concerto(or vice versa). I can't say which is a better concerto. They are both monumental, and are definetly 2 of the greatest gems in the violin repertoire.
I still like the original more:).
Structurally and speaking theoretically musically, the Brahms is a little bit more intricate.
But if you take them both apart, they're very alike. These two concerti are almost like brothers.
Personally, I like the Brahms more than the Beethoven.
Although I like the Brahms, I love the Beethoven. the Brahms seems to offer so much more in the overture, which I love, but then doesn't quite live up to the promise. I know there was contention that the Beethoven didn't have some sort of internal consistency, but I enjoy every little bit of it. Beethoven knew how to string those notes together better than anyone. never disappoints. This morning I popped the Grumiaux dvd of this concerto on, and that's a nice way to start a weekend.
Sharelle.
After reading this thread, I got out Mr. Heifetz on the Brahms and the Beethoven. These works are both lovely -they are the flagship concerti within the violin repertoire.
For me, however, the Brahms as played by Jascha Heifetz, remains one of the most powerful and dramatic music-making events I have encountered and I have loved this recording since I was 12 years of age.
I am biased, as I am learning the Beethoven right now. I wish I had a score to look at, all I have is the violin part. I've played in the Orchestra while someone else solo'd, but still. The most interesting thing, I think, is how the solo line takes bits of the other instruments and weaves it into its own voice (especially the cadenza, which I realize he didn't write). But in other spots as well. Beethoven figured out how to be percussive and melodic and lyrical all at the same time. I'll have to give the Brahms another listen to make a more informed comparison or opinion, though.
-Jennifer
Overall I prefer the Beethoven.
Incidently, I have a Milstein recording with both concerti on the same album, and Milstein plays it in such a way that I enjoy the Brahms more than the Beethoven!.
3 Movements in both are tops.
Beethoven isn't unparalled. My humble opinion: Brahms. However, I will learn the Beethoven before Brahms...I think Beethoven is about High School/Undergrad. level, with Brahms most definately being masters/professional
Hey guys, I was just wondering what level you would put the Sibelius and Tchaikovsky at, comparable to the beeth/brahms in terms of difficulty?
Tchaikovsky is probably the hardest concerto, technically in the repertoire. It is much harder then Sibelius (which I think is harder musically). It's very difficult to compare Beethoven and Brahms with Tchaikovsky. Technically they are much easier, but they are also the most phylosophical and multi-levelled pieces in the repertoire.
Tchaikovsky is not the most difficult concerto. Most students learn the Tchaikovsky before they learn Beethevon, Sibelius, and Brahms. Beethoven is technically the easiest of the four, but it's hard to pull off, because its not written for the modern violin it's written to played with a baroque violin, and baroque bow. When it's down to Brahms and Sibelius, it's really about strengths and weaknesses, but if you've played Tchaikovsky or Beethveon, then Brahms and Sibelius should not be a problem. They all four have tricky passages that you have to work through them with practice, no matter how good you are technically.
Yes, but would it not be reasonable to say that after learning Tchaikovsky, the technical difficulties in the other concertos are fairly normal.
Excactly, after learning Tchaikovsky, there shoudn't be a problem learning any of those concerti, their are just difficult passages you must work through. But usually Tchaikovsky is learned before Sibelius and Brahms, because it has become a standard now.
Between Beethoven and Brahms, I prefer the Brahms concerto. But, I would agree that, as a whole, the two concerti are pretty much equally popular, both with enduring finale themes. For me, the Beethoven is more difficult than the Brahms--it is almost like, in its "simplicity" you don't have the crutch of virtuosity (this is hard to word), which makes playing the concerto challenging. Similar to his sonatas for piano and violin, it is almost so literal that it takes better technique, or should I say, a superb mastery of the violin basics (lower positions, bow-to-string pressure, etc.) to master those works than it would, say, for the Brahms sonatas.
Also, the Tchaikovsky concerto is technically more difficult than the Beethoven and Brahms, but is definitely not as challenging technically, or musically at that, as the Sibelius. The Tchaik. concerto is great, but I would definitely not agree that it is the most technically difficult of the concerti. Also, I disagree that "after learning Tchaikovsky, there shoudn't be a problem learning any of those concerti." The Tchaik. does not fully prepare you for the Sibelius, which is much more demanding and virtuoso in its construction. The Tchaik.'s demands are much easier to "work" through.
Well let's just say if your polished enough tecniqually as a performer to play the Tchaikovsky concerto, it will not be that difficult to play the Sibelius. Brahms is much more difficult then the Tchaikovsky. In the first movement of the Tchaikovsky, after the cadenza the whole thing basically repeats itself, in a different key. The canzonetta is not difficult. And the finale is much easier, compared to the Brahms.
And when down to Beethoven and Brahms, the Brahms is a much more difficult concerto to pull off. And all I am saying is that the first of all 4 of these difficult concerti usually learned, is the Tchaikovsky.
I don't really believe in rating concertos like these, by difficulty, because it becomes all very subjective.
There may be more awkward passages in Brahms concerto than in Tchaik, Rick, but once you hit the cadenza in the Tchaik, your bow doesn't leave the string til the end of the movement. In performance, that is an incredibly difficult duration. That's what makes the Tchaik 1st movement a concerto in itself. The endurance, concentration, and stamina needed are immense. Yes, the Brahms concerto has more unviolinistic passages, but in my opinion, in performance, the Tchaik is more difficult.
So guys, from the 1st learned to the last learned of "these four difficult concerti", what would be the general order??
Yes, the stamina required is immense, and unlike the other three concertos, there are no large orchestral tutti to bail you out.
To me, Tchaik is the easiest of the four. Brahms and Sibelius are equally hard musically, but I think Sibelius is harder to pull off. Because of the structure of Sibelius, and the technical demands, it is very difficult to perform. Of course Brahms is very challenging, but it doesn't seem so hard technically as Sibelius, and the structure is more straightforward than Sibelius. Beethoven is extremely challenging technically, but in a different way than Sibelius or Brahms or Tchaik. Beethoven has to be absolutely clean, and you can't over-romanticize it, so I think it's the hardest overall.
An order of these concertos by difficult, by the standard is-
Paganini no.1
Tchaikovsky
Sibelius
Brahms/Beethoven
Berg
Walton
Elgar
Stavinsky
Shostakovich
etc.(other 20th century concerto)
(I know I'm leaving out some, this is just a guide)
This is the standard used by pretty much every teacher. My teacher uses it, Delay used it, etc.
Every concerto from Accolay to Beethoven is hard to play well. :)
I aggree.
I don't know, Rick, to me, I take that list as a list designed to make sure that students play all of the standards before doing anything that's more modern or less standard.
Hi everyone,
from experience, I know that the Brahms concerto takes more stamina and endurance than any of the others. Beethoven takes the most concentration and the ability to be mentally focused on the musicality and not about a difficult section that may be coming up. Tchaikovsky 1st movement is difficult and hard to pull off, but the Brahms is still more difficult.
Oh, and I think I can also safely say the Shostakovich is not as difficult as the Brahms, if you've already played a lot of Shostakovich. The themes and ideas Shostakovich uses are so similar in all the works that if you've played a lot of his pieces, the concerto won't be too hard. And that is NOT the standard used by all teachers. Brahms and Beethoven are usually last. Look into Hilary Hahn's interviews, Kyung-Wha Chung, Heifetz, Elmar Oliviera, and almost any other violinist. Kyung-Wha Chung recorded the Brahms only a few years ago for the first time. She waited decades to record it, meaning she was asked to record it decades ago but refused for that long. Here's a direct quote from a Heifetz interview with Dr. Axelrod: "Everybody has technical ability today, that's taken for granted. But let them play a Mozart Concerto... or Beethoven... yes, they are the most difficult to perform properly. And I'm talking technically, too. I have played the Ernst and Paganini Concerti in concert, as a child."
Depends on if you are speaking of listening to, or playing with regards of which to like better...Listening to I prefer Brahms. Playing, I prefer Beethoven, though it is so hard to get in tune. That makes practice focused though. Anyhow. As for Shostakovich, I love listening to that the best, and it was amazingly rewarding to play. It, for me, is much easier than Beethoven. Stylistically, it leaves room for things you can't get away with in Beethoven....
-jennifer
Jennifer, I completely agree. There's so much you can do with Shostakovich and it'll still sound good. It's just easier to get into the piece.
There is a lot you can do with any piece, but people that know the composer's work and know his intentions, will still know what works and what doesn't.
>>Which of these two violin concerti is preferred more???
Whichever one I'm listening to at the time :)
Beethoven is my favourtie. Its the reason i started violin!
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
International Violin Competition of Indianapolis
Violinist.com Holiday Gift Guide
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
July 30, 2004 at 01:34 AM · I prefer the Beethoven, because of its beautiful 3rd mvt, the Rondo!!!