Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Hey Chopin, I'm better than you.

I've been playing a couple of pieces lately, both wonderful: Chopin's F Minor Nocturne and Brahms's Intermezzo Op. 76 No. 7.

Someone here pointed out in a discussion a while back that there was a resemblance between the two -- indeed, the opening themes are very similar!

1] The notes of the melody are almost identical, except for a few differences in ornaments and register.

2] The structure is the same: basic idea (mm. 1-2), repetition of that same idea (mm. 3-4), and then an extension all the way down the scale (mm. 5-8)

3] The base line is almost identical, except for mm. 3-4

4] They are both in minor

5] They are both at a generally piano dynamic






So what's going on here? Obviously Chopin came first, so Brahms was copying Chopin. But why? My teacher suggested that it's a respectful homage -- he could be right. I'd like your opinion on a different idea, though, which isn't so flattering to Chopin. The key point here is that obviously we don't know what Brahms was thinking, but we can certainly guess!


I've begun to read an article by one of my professors, Kevin Korsyn, called "Towards a New Poetics of Musical Influence" (Music Analysis 10:1-2, 1991). He basically is trying to apply Harold Bloom's theories on literary inspiration to Korsyn's own ideas on musical inspiration. A key point that is argued is that all composers (and poets) are inescapably tied to their predecessors, not least through jealousy. There's a feeling that everything has already been said, so what are the modern composers left to do? Brahms himself famously wrote about Beethoven, "you have no idea what it's like to have that giant marching behind you." So part of what composers (and poets) do when they write, is they try to show somehow their own legitimacy and even superiority over their esteemed predecessors. Brahms adored Chopin -- and for good reason. Korsyn went into quite a bit of detail showing Brahms's interactions with Chopin's music, and showing Brahms's documented admiration. It's not unreasonable to suspect that Brahms also feared Chopin -- what was left to be written? How could Brahms possibly be original in the wake of such an enormously original composer such as Chopin?

So, Korsyn basically goes through some pieces by Chopin and Brahms to show how Brahms copied Chopin a lot, and then some ideas why and how. I haven't finished reading it yet, so I don't know if he mentions these two pieces that I mentioned before -- the nocturne and the intermezzo -- but I think we might be able to apply some of the ideas there to these two pieces.

In short, it seems to me, when Brahms wrote his intermezzo, he was basically saying: "Hey Chopin -- I'm better than you. I love you, but you're too simple, and I'm going to show how much better your music can be when *I* write it.".


I say this after considering not simply that Brahms copied Chopin's theme, but that Brahms changed it. How he changed it is very revealing -- basically, he completely fancied it up and made it much more complex. In retrospect, he makes Chopin's theme seem actually quite simple in comparison.

1] Register: Chopin's melody stays entirely in one register (octave). Brahms makes it more complex -- the repetition of the original idea (in mm. 3-4) is an octave lower. So instead of having it all on one level, it starts high, then goes low for a bit, and then jumps back up again.

2] Harmony: Chopin's melody stays entirely in F Minor. (There are a few applied chords to III, but it doesn't really go to III -- that's only a fleeting thought.) Brahms makes it more complex -- the repetition of the original idea (in mm. 3-4) is in the relative major, while the rest is in the minor. So instead of having it all in one tonality, he has, again, a sort of arch form.

3] Bass line: Chopin uses the same bass line throughout the entire theme: a scale going up a third, then repeated, and then the scale goes all the way up to a cadence. Brahms makes it more complex -- the repetition of the original idea (are we seeing a pattern here?) uses a completely different baseline that is not scalar at all - it's actually a pretty ordinary IV-V-I to emphasize Brahms's change in tonality (major instead of minor).

4] Texture: Chopin's texture is very thin: There is a single melody in the right (one note at a time) and boom-chuck chords in the left hand. Brahms made it more complex, and in fact more Brahmsian, by adding octaves and adding chords to the right hand as a part of the melody.

5] Dynamics: Chopin's theme only has one dynamic indication: piano. Brahms applies a more complex, arched dynamic: mp, and then p, and then mp, with several decrescendos and a crescendo.

6] Phrasing: Chopin just has two big long phrase marks -- Brahms is much more precise with overlapping 2-bar phrases. (This is not the editor's doing -- Mandyczewsi printed it the same way as Joseffy.)


So basically, Brahms has shown how incredibly simple Chopin's theme really is, and in doing so has shown how skillful he himself was at making it much more complex by manipulating all of these various aspects of the music. Is that homage -- to take Chopin's theme and "improve" it?

But let's look beyond the theme for a moment, because the form of this intermezzo is pretty neat. The theme is presented, and then followed by a pause. Then there are quite a few measures of Brahms himself, followed by a pause. Then the theme is presented again at the end. So Brahms's "own" intermezzo is really sandwiched between his "improvement" of Chopin's theme.

In fact, in the body of the piece, Brahms spends the entire time developing a motive from the theme. Oh, how nice! He's taking Chopin's theme and borrowing one of his motives for one of Brahms's own pieces!

Not so. The motive that Brahms chose to develop is actually one of *his own manipulations of Chopin's theme.* The motive he is using is the bass line in mm. 6-7, but also foreshadowed in the middle of voice connecting mm. 2-3. This is not in Chopin's theme, but where does it come from? Chopin originally had a little turning figure in m. 2 -- Brahms actually changed that to become 2 "dips" instead, and then he elaborated it in the bass line at the end of the theme (which in Chopin was just an ordinary B C C F).

So wait a minute -- Brahms isn't even spending the entire piece developing Chopin, after this big introduction of Chopin! He's further pushing Chopin to the side by saying, in effect, "your theme isn't even good enough as is for development. I had to change it first, make it more complex... and only then could I develop one of *my* own improvements of it."


So what do you think? Possible? Was Brahms simply writing an homage to honor Chopin, or, as I've suggested, could it be that his jealousy and need for originality was causing him to express a desire for superiority?

Look at Beethoven's Pathetique Middle movement and Mozart's Middle movement of K457.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in 457, but if there is a similarity, why do you think that similarity is there?

Brahms quotes left and right. Check out the middle section of Op. 118/5 and the Chopin Berceuse. Since we're talking about the F Minor nocturne, look at the middle section of Op. 118 No. 2. Brahms even copied himself -- used a melody from 2 of his songs (both songs used the same melody) in his first violin sonata. But all of that isn't very interesting until you start to ask "why"....

I suspect it was because Brahms knew a good melody when he heard it, and because he could more of it than the composer he got it from.

Hey, my darlings...remember that old tune "How Dry I Am..."? Well the Barlow/Morgenstern Dictionary of Musical Themes lists no less than 83 tunes that start off in that fashion and the Dictionary of Opera and Song Themes lists no less than 73...blame it on the Common Practice Period (thanks Mr. Piston).

I once had some idiot tell me that he though Begin the Beguine and Silent Night sounded alike...go figure...

Even given Brahms's admiration for Chopin, I think you should at least accept the possibility that it's not a conscious quote. It could be an unconscious quote (ie he heard it once and it just surfaced when he was writing his own music) or not a quote at all (he hadn't heard the Chopin) but just happened on similar melodic material, which as Auntie Lynn points out, is not at all uncommon. In these two cases, "why?" becomes a non-question.
(I'm not suggesting the Regenlied-G major violin sonata isn't a self-quote by the way. It pretty obviously is.)

I think you're reading too much into it - especially jumping to conclusions when you get to what Brahms' intention was.

Composers quote each other all the time.

You may be on to something here. The melodies are very similar, whether by conscious homage, unconscious copying, or accident. As with much of Brahms piano music, he made it quite complex harmonically, texturally, and in terms of dynamics. He rarely repeated anything the exact same way. This is what made Brahms such a fascinating figure to someone like Arnold Schoenberg.

To be fair to Chopin, he could be equally complex, especially in the use of polyphony, as anybody else in his time.

The other reason I think you have a point is that you've "ruined" the Op. 76//7 for me. I'll never be able to play this piece again without thinking of Chopin's Nocturne!

You of course know Bernstein's TV lecture on the "Infinite Variety of Music" (reprinted in the book of the same name), yes? If you don't, do get to know it -- it's quite fascinating.

As for the original post, it of course assumes that Brahms was referring to Chopin consciously. I happen to think it is a conscious reference, since Brahms had a legendary and detailed knowledge of known and unknown repertoire (confirmed by countless contemporary sources) that such a similarity would probably not have come as a coincidence. Also, Brahms was one of the editors of an edition of Chopin's complete works.

The quantum leap, of course, comes into reading the intent of the reference. pianojerome, you make a very good case for Brahms consciously demonstrating that he can surpass Chopin. However, being something of a Brahms scholar myself, I do think it is somewhat out of character for him to even think of himself as qualitatively better than any of his illustrious predecessors -- even the more recently passed ones such as Chopin. True, Brahms had a good estimate of his own gifts and self-worth (he could be boorish, proud, and even arrogant at times), but he also had an incredible -- at times almost comical -- reverence for past masters. It is true that Brahms's intermezzo may boast musical procedures that surpass the original Chopin nocturne in terms of sheer sophistication, but I do not necessarily think Brahms himself thought it made his intermezzo better than Chopin's nocturne. One can say the same thing about many of Brahms's works compared to past masterpieces, such as, say, the First Symphony to Beethoven's Fifth and Ninth. Or take the German Requiem, for example: some have argued that its cantus firmus is an old Lutheran chorale that Bach also used, from which Brahms derived the F-A-Bb motive that is developed in myriad ways throughout the piece (a prime demonstration of the wonders of musical alchemy if there ever was one). It can be argued that Brahms's use of motivic development/variation in the German Requiem is more sophisticated than anything Bach did in the Passions or any of his many choral works, but I doubt that means that Brahms thought he was surpassing Bach in a qualitative manner -- or in any manner, come to think of it.

Brahms was very likely consciously referring to Contrapunctus 13 (rectus) of Die Kunst der Fuge in primary theme of the finale of his E minor Cello Sonata, but I doubt he thought he surpassed Bach in the process -- indeed, this movement is an ingenious fusion of fugue and sonata form that by its very nature looks back to the finale of Mozart's "Jupiter", the finale of his K. 387 quartet, and the finale of Beethoven's Op. 59 #3 quartet (which itself might've been influenced by the finale of K. 387), amongst others.

The constant motivic development in Brahms's C minor string quartet was probably inspired by similar procedures in Beethoven's late quartets (particularly Op. 131), and though it is true that Brahms's quartet displays other procedures not used in the Beethoven works, that doesn't mean Brahms thought he was surpassing Beethoven in any way.

In one of his canons for female voices, Brahms creates an ingenious contrapuntal web out of the melody of the last song of Schubert's Winterreise (unquestionably a conscious reference), but the nature of the reference is symbolic (given the text) and biographic, rather than one-upmanship with Schubert.

And finally, the finale of Brahms's Fourth Symphony of course refers to Bach's Cantata 150 (for its theme, again unquestionably a conscious reference) and the solo violin Chaconne (same genre, similar procedures, etc.). A few of the staggering harmonic and contrapuntal techniques Brahms displays as he develops the theme would probably be unknown to Bach (since they are thoroughly of Brahms's own time), but again, that doesn't mean Brahms thought he surpassed his esteemed models. However it would be equally simplistic to think that Brahms thought the techniques of past masters were always the best, given the deep skepticism in his persona.

Brahms would often look back to the past for inspiration and knowledge, but he was also a child of his time in that he would use the latest in musical developments (in motivic development, harmony, chromaticism, etc.) to create a musical output whose sheer compositional technique looks boldly to the future as well. Small wonder why Malcolm MacDonald christened him Janus (after his first name, Johannes) in his wonderful biography/study of the composer.

Because of this overall philosophy, Brahms making conscious references to past works is simply him having a conversation with the masters of the past, and with the great musical tradition which he saw himself as a part of. I don't think he would ever think of himself as a better composer than Chopin, but I think he wanted to prove (to himself, in the spirit of challenging himself for his own betterment) that he was a competent enough musician to actually have a decent conversation with the past greats. Which is why I still think Brahms's A minor Intermezzo is an homage to Chopin -- and one done with utmost humility.

P.S.: Interestingly (re: Debussy20's post), Mozart's C minor sonata was Beethoven's favorite of all of Wolferl's sonatas, so the slow movement of the Pathetique may indeed be a conscious reference to the middle section of the slow movement of the earlier work. I mean, both begin in Ab major, both are in the same register, and both have rather similar textures to boot, so who knows?

P.P.S.: Continuing that train of thought, was Beethoven referring to himself in the slow introduction (yes, that part does survive) of his Tenth Symphony? Something to think about...

P.P.P.S.: Brahms himself thought that after his death, he would be remembered only by a few specialists, much as Cherubini was remembered only by a few specialists during Brahms's time. Brahms would probably be utterly shocked by how highly he is esteemed today. This is just another demonstration of his humility.

I think this is a more likely answer. My husband used to be a poet and one poem he wrote for me ended up being very much like part of Lewis Caroll's Alice in Wonderland. When I noticed this, he had no idea and was actually embarrassed by it.

We don't live in vacuums, and so I think the more likely answer to this occurrence in "quoting" is that when a composer composes, he listens for the piece to come to life. If you read Brahms himself in an interview with him, he mentions this very thing about the music pretty music writing itself. It is a very close sensation to remembering a piece. So it seems logical that when one is listening, they may just be remembering a melody they heard rather than creating a new one.

**edited to add: So obviously he listened to music of the past and was well aware of Chopin. But he may not have actually been quoting him purposely at the time. Of course back then, they knew that doing this was the absolute complement to pay to a composer, and not the copyright infringement we see nowadays.

i have no time for a detailed post, but just xonxerning the beethoven pathetique mozart sonata resemblance, i think beethoven himself said something along the lines of ;: no one but him [mozart[ could have come up with something like this,

Ah, you bring up an interesting point. Beethoven wrote (if memory serves), "We'll never be able to write a work like that!" He was referring to Mozart's K. 464 quartet. Of course, he went on to use that work as a model for his own Op. 18 #5 quartet! Go figure.

edit: The exact quote is, "Ah, that piece. That’s Mozart saying ‘here’s what I could do, if only you had ears to hear!’"

there's nothing wrong with modeling a composition from another composer. all composers do that. but copying an entire phrase (except using it as a variation theme) from another composer in one's own composition might be a different story.

i remember that Schiff in at least one of his Beethoven lectures mentioned how Brahms 'stole' a phrase from Beethoven sonata and use it in one of his cello sonatas, and Schubert did the similar thing with Beethoven although in much subtle way.

Here's the Mozart...

Here's the Beethoven...


Matt

Debussy20, what was your reason for posting the later appearance of the theme in Gb major rather than its initial appearance, which is in the same key and register as the Beethoven?

I was rushing to get this on here and quickly copied this one. I'll switch it out...

Or maybe it's just a demonstration of how much the focus of classical music has changed since Brahms' time. Remember, during his era, most classical music that most people heard was what we'd call "contemporary". So it only makes sense that a composer of his time, unless they were really quite megalomaniacal (e.g., Beethoven, Wagner), wouldn't be expecting much in the way of general acknowledgment in the future, because the music of the past was simply not celebrated in the way it is today.

And there's no reason that both Brahms and Chopin both didn't get that perfectly ordinary phrase shape from some other common source. Or a common source that was even once or twice removed. It would surprise me if that shape couldn't be found in more than one popular tune, marching tune, or folk tune that Brahms and Chopin both heard. But why is this kind of stuff even interesting? There are endless similarities of this sort to be found in classical music, and the vast majority of them are of no real import. I'm not sure why they would ever matter, outside of being curiosities, unless the composer made some sort of big deal about it.

Composers quote each other all the time.

VERY TRUE when you think of the general theme for Canon in D by Johann Pachabel.