Johannes Brahms_ A Biography - Jan Swafford [392]
24. Quoted in Charlton 130.
25. See Charlton 176 re Hoffmann and Gozzi.
26. Henschel 39.
27. May 82.
28. Niemann 25–6.
29. Watson 105–7.
30. Reich 127.
31. Niemann 25.
32. May 92.
33. May 90.
34. See Dahlhaus Nineteenth-Century 84: “In some of Beethoven’s late works … the thematic structure is a mere facade: the actual musical idea … retreats into the interior of the music … as a subtheme.”
35. Dahlhaus Nineteenth-Century 87.
36. Niemann 23.
37. Smyth 106.
38. Kalbeck I, 34. In that conversation Brahms also claimed to have learned nothing “from the thick books of Marx.” Surely that is an exaggeration too. Marx, in the 1845 third volume of his Lehre von der musikalischen Komposition, bestowed the familiar name “sonata form” and elaborated the concept, principally in the works of Beethoven. (See Rosen Sonata Forms 3–4.)
39. MacDonald 60.
40. See MacDonald 61. Geiringer (Brahms 25) is dubious of the attribution of Souvenir de la Russie to Brahms.
41. Ostwald 232–3.
42. May 95.
43. Musgrave Music Chronology.
44. Hofmann.
45. Stephenson 23.
46. Kalbeck I, 69.
47. Mother to JB 5/23/1853, in Stephenson.
CHAPTER THREE
1. Niemann 167.
2. Niemann 29.
3. May 99.
4. May 98.
5. Bellmann 12.
6. See the 1879 Reményi interview in Kalbeck I, 65, in which Reményi claims that he had presented some of his own melodies as “national” songs, as many composers did in those days (including Brahms), and Brahms picked them up. It is exactly this practice that makes the whole question of “folk” music and poetry complex and deceptive. For another example: Schubert’s charming little lied “Heidenröslein” spread so widely in Germany that many came to think of it as a folk song. This is not to say that there is no such thing as folk music, only that identifying it is not a straightforward matter, and that the nationalistic exaltation of it was founded on sand from the beginning. Besides, authentic folk music is generally regional, geographical, and/or ethnic rather than national.
7. Kalbeck I, 72–3.
8. Hanslick Criticisms 78–81. In his 1861 review of Joachim’s Vienna debut, Hanslick concludes that “[Josef] Hellmesberger’s fine, stimulating naturalness would have played more directly to our hearts than Joachim’s unbending, Roman earnestness.” As usual, Hanslick preferred the known to the unfamiliar.
9. Walker 345.
10. May 107.
11. May 108–9.
12. May 108–9.
13. May 110.
14. Niemann 31.
15. Gal 33.
16. From Mason’s recollection, quoted in May 110–11.
17. Charles Rosen’s article “Influence: Plagiarism and Inspiration” details the connections of the Brahms E Minor Scherzo to Chopin’s in B, which seem too extensive to be coincidence. (Still, composers often hear a work and retain a surprising amount unconsciously, while forgetting they ever heard it.) Geiringer notes (Brahms 205) that the scherzo’s main theme—which I nonetheless call the distinctive Brahmsian minor—is lifted from an overture by Heinrich Marschner.
18. Liszt was to take thematic manipulation at least one degree further than Brahms when he sometimes tilted a motive on end to create a harmony. This idea was of great importance to later generations including, of course, Schoenberg. It was easier for Liszt to use such techniques because he was more experimental than Brahms in harmony—and the more notes in chords, the more harmony and melody overlap. A complete diatonic ninth chord, after all, contains five of the seven notes in a key.
19. Gal 33.
20. Walker 230.
21. Brahms to Joachim, 6/29/1853, in Brahms Briefwechsel V, trans. in Geiringer Brahms.
22. Quoted in May 113.
23. Christiane Brahms to JB, 6/11/1853, in Stephenson, trans. in Geiringer Brahms.
24. Krebs Schatzkästlein #229 and #250.
25. Krebs Schatzkästlein #224.
26. Christiane Brahms to JB 7/10–11/53, in Stephenson 44.
27. Christiane and Elise Brahms to JB, 7/23/1853, in Stephenson 44, trans. in Geiringer Brahms.
28. Quoted in Geiringer Brahms 33–4.
29. Letters from the Brahms family 7–8/1853, in Stephenson 46–7.
30. Christiane Brahms to JB 9/4/1853, in Stephenson