inspired, but many representing the finest flower of Brahms’s
genius; four serious songs for bass voice, and one posthumous
work,Eleven Choral Preludes for Organ. Brahms died in 1897
and lies buried in Vienna not far from Beethoven and Schubert.
[Footnote 254: Another very fine work in this class is theTragic
Overture, worthy of the deepest study.]
From Brahms we have beautiful works in every branch of com-
position save the opera and symphonic poem. (He once said
he would risk neither an opera nor getting married!) Very few
of his works have titles, and in this respect he stood somewhat
aloof from that strong tendency in modern times—the connec-
tion between music and poetic and literary sources of inspira-
tion. But he had a right to choose his own line of effort; it is for
us to become familiar with his works as they are. They com-
prise about two hundred songs, three pianoforte sonatas and
many lesser pieces, two concertos for pianoforte and orchestra,
a wonderfully fine violin concerto, four symphonies—each with
a character of its own—and a large group of chamber composi-
tions: string quartets, sonatas for violin and pianoforte, trios,
and a number of works for unusual ensemble combinations—the
Trio for Violin, Horn and Pianoforte being the best known.
As to the nature of Brahms’s music the following comments
are submitted for consideration. He was not a colorist or a
stylist in the broad sense of those terms,i.e., color and style
were not the prime ingredients in his music. There is light and
shade in Brahms but seldom that rich and varied glow found,
for example, in Rimsky-Korsakoff—that supreme master of or-
chestral coloring. As for style, it may be said that his work
fulfils Matthew Arnold’s definition of that desirable quality, “To
have something to say and to say it in the most simple and di-
rect manner possible.” We sometimes feel, however, that he is
thinking more of what he has to say than of outward eloquence
of expression. But when there are so many composers[255] in
whom there is far more style than substance, we should not carp
at Brahms for the “stuff” in his work. The matter might be put
in a nut-shell by saying that Brahms is Brahms; you accept him
or leave him, as you see fit. The bulk of his music not only has
stood the test of time but becomes more potent each year; surely
this is the highest possible endorsement. He is rightly considered
a great master of pure melodic line and a consummate architect,
especially in the conciseness and concentration of certain com-