Exploring the Composition of Early Brahms and Mature Brahms: A Comparison of 1854 and 1891 Piano Trio No.1 in B Major, Op.8

Introduction

Johannes Brahms’s Piano Trio No. 1 in B Major, Op.8 was his first chamber music composition. The original version of the piece was published in 1854 when Brahms was only twenty-one years old. 37 years later, Brahms published a revised version of the work, which he completed in 1889. The original version of the piece can be considered as part of Brahms’s early style while the 1891 version features his mature style.

Before comparing the two versions of the Piano Trio, it is helpful to consider the elements of Brahms’s compositional style. Brahms studied with Eduard Marsxen, a pianist and composer living in Hamburg Germany. Marsxen instilled in Brahms an appreciation for Viennese Classical composers such as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert. Through Marsxen, Brahms also discovered the works of Johann Sebastian Bach, which influenced his compositional style throughout his life.

During his career, Brahms was criticized for using Classical forms and genres. Throughout the 19^th century, there was a debate between those who favored the Absolute style versus Romantic ideas. Music is “absolute” when it is not tied to themes or extra musical ideas; examples of this are traditional forms such as sonatas, concertos, symphonies, and chamber music without programmatic and/or nationalistic elements. Romantic pieces, on the other hand, often relied on exotic new forms such as Nocturnes, Ballades, and/or dances linked to specific countries such as Polonaises or Mazurkas. Absolute Music was music for its own sake. Brahms embraced this style (Simpson, 2024).

In 1859, his first Piano Concerto in D Minor, Op.151 was poorly received because it was not overtly Romantic. The audiences’ reaction was so negative that Brahms was driven from the stage during the second performance. “Absolute Music” was a term coined by composer Richard Wagner. The “Old German School” and “New German School” were another set of terms introduced by Frank Brendel, a German music critic, journalist, and musicologist, in 1859. Brendel thought of the “Old German School” as the music of J.S. Bach and G.F. Handel as well as Classical music composers such as Haydn and Mozart. “New German School” composers included Franz Liszt, Richard Wagner, and Louis-Hector Berlioz. These “New German School” composers diverged from traditional music forms, blending their works with more narrative and pictorial ideas. Brahms was considered an “Old German School” composer. His music was considered backward looking. However, as his compositional style matured, Brahms began to embrace newer ideas into his style. The Piano Trio No.1 in B Major, Op.8 demonstrates this evolution.

The Original 1854 Version

The original version of Piano Trio No.1 in B Major is about one-third longer than the later revised version of the work with a total of 494 measures in the 1st movement, 459 measures in the 2nd movement, 157 measures in the 3rd movement, and a 4th movement with 518 measures. 

The first movement is composed in sonata form — an exposition from measure 1-162, development from measure 163-291, recapitulation from measure 292-444, and a coda from m.444 to the end — with two subjects. The recapitulation was very similar to the first theme in the later revised version. The coda can be divided into 2 big sections: m. 355-432 and m. 433-494. The first section of the coda involves many calls and responses while composing it largely with fugue and fugato form despite the theme being sometimes divided by the triplets in between. The second section of the coda is the diminution of the first theme with incorporation of octaves and chords. Specifically in the coda, the main subject was brought to a conclusion on the tonic.

The second movement included a key change in the middle where the B minor changed into B major then back to B minor once again. Similar to the first movement, Brahms composes with fugue and fugato form, leading to the prevalence of calls and responses throughout the movement. The coda started with “Un poco più lento” with piano serving as the harmonic support while the violin and cello uses call and responses in addition to pizz.

The third movement returns back B major with a simpler ternary form, opening with spacious chordal theme in the piano, counterpoised by a middle section as the cello plays G# minor melody using chromaticism. 

The fourth movement once again returns to B minor. The second theme of the cello in F# major is an allusion to Beethoven’s “Nimm sie him denn, diese Lieder”, revealing his influence from these classical composers.  

There are also some general trends that can be seen in Brahms’s original version. Brahms favored using the phrase legato or expressivo legato to indicate to the performer the need of playing the notes legato. Both the violin and cello seem to be not as convincing playing large phrases and handling melodies independently, causing Brahms to include lots of doubling to enhance the melody and long phrases. Furthermore, the violin serves more as an embellishment whereas the cello relatively serves more as the main melody that communicates with the piano. The piano is very busy and technically challenging. It is arguable that the piano part is overwritten with too many notes to help with the melodic component that comes with the texture of the piece itself.  

The Later Revised 1891 Version

Being significantly shorter, the later revised version of the trio includes a total of 289 measures in the 1st movement, 460 measures in the 2nd movement, 99 measures in the 3rd movement, and 322 measures in the 4th movement.

Same for the later revised version, the first movement is composed in sonata form. The first 80 bars, or the exposition, remained largely the same with slight changes in the phrasing and the violin melodies. The most significant change in the first 80 bars and the later return of the first theme is jotting the embellishment played by the violin to meet the desire of Joseph Joachim, a close collaborator of Johannes Brahms. The development of the first movement is significantly cut short in the later revised version. The recapitulation remains largely the same with slight changes in the coda. The individual jobs that the different instruments served has experiences huge changes with more individuality in creating the desired texture and timbre.

The greatest variation of the second movement existed in the coda, starting from around measure 430. Instead of establishing a direct harmonic progression using chords that led to the end for almost 30 bars, the later revised version employs chords only at the last 8 bars. The coda was interconnected with the theme of the second movement itself, using arpeggios to indicate the harmonic progression.

The third movement is also shorter compared to the original version largely due to the change in theme. The second theme of the third movement is greatly altered. Brahms also adds an allegro section near the end of the movement.

The fourth movement has the same first theme with highly chromatic and slightly ambiguous tonality in addition to the agitated dotted rhythm. With the most significant changes among all movements, Brahms replaces the allusion to Beethoven’s An die ferne Geliebte to a more vigorous arpeggiated piano theme in D major. There is a small episode of B major, recalling the mood of the first movement, then quickly returns to B minor, ending with turbulence. 

Detailed Comparison

The original version uses the tempo marking “Allegro con moto M.M. half notes = 72” while the later revised version uses the tempo marking “Allegro con brio” at the very beginning of the piece. It is arguable that between the years between the revision, Brahms has developed a more concrete vision for the character of the piece. Furthermore, the original version uses “expressivo, legato” while the later revised version uses slurs. One implication behind such changes is that Brahms began to realize the need for and importance of making the markings very explicit and clear with specific slurs to indicate the desired phrasings in the performances.

Original 1854 Version

Later Revised 1891 Version

In the original version, the violin enters in measure 6. Violin serves as an embellishment to the piano and cello between measure 6 to measure 20. In the later revised version, however, Brahms omitted the embellishment of the violin from measure 6 to measure 19. Rather, the violin enters in measure 20. The interjection in the original version is to meet a desire of Joseph Joachim, a close collaborator of Brahms.

Original 1854 Version

Later Revised 1891 Version

In measure 8, the original version uses “marc.” with a crescendo sign on the last beat while the later revised version uses only a crescendo sign on the last beat and continues to the middle of measure 9 then a descendo to the end of measure 9. In measure 9, the original version uses accented notes on the quarter and half notes in the upper voice of the piano while the later revised version does not contain such marking but rather contains slurs. It is arguable that the performances of the original version placed an overemphasis on the last beat of m.8, causing Brahms to later omits “marc.” but uses crescendo instead to indicate the flow and continuation of phrases.

The incorporation of more detailed dynamical marking can be considered as a repeated trend as seen in Intermezzo in A Major, Op.118 No.2. This reveals the increased in detailed expression in Brahms’s composition.

Intermezzo in A Major, Op.118 No.2 (m.10-15)

In measure 15, the original version employs a crescendo that ends with the measure. The later revised version employs a crescendo that ends on the first beat of measure 16. The original version also indicates “sempre Ped.” on measure 16 while the later revised version doesn’t contain such marking. The original version indicates “legato poco piu f” on measure 17 while the later revised version indicates “legato cresc.” between measure 16 and 17. As the piece continues, Brahms realizes the need to show more expressive buildup in his marking. It is also arguable that Brahms favors continued development rather than arriving at a specific dynamic arrival point.

Original 1854 Version

Later Revised 1891 Version

In measure 21, the original version marks “poco forte, molto legato”. The later revised version marks “poco f” on measure 20.

Between measure 23 and 24, the original version contains a small crescendo sign, and another crescendo sign appears at measure 25. The later revised version contains a crescendo that starts at the end of measure 23 and continues to the end of measure 24. On measure 25, there is a “cresc.” marking. It is arguable that Brahms favors longer phrases and does not want the phrases to be short rather than simply being loud while leaving out no room for growth.

In measure 21 to 28, the left-hand duration of the original and later revised version is different. Brahms uses half notes in the later version to hold on to the harmony, emphasizing more on the harmonic development rather than simply notes as they serve as the pedal tone. It is arguable that Brahms’s later works have the opportunity to explore the pedal tone.

This can also be seen in Brahms’s A Major Intermezzo, Op.118 No.2 where he employs pedal tone in the left hand.

In measure 29, the original version does not contain any marking in the piano while the later revised version contains “sempre piu f”. Again, Brahms favors continued development to build up to the development.

In measure 32, the original version doesn’t have any marking while the later revised version indicates a “cresc.” at the end of the measure.

In measure 34, the original version indicates a “f” on the first beat of the measure while the “f” in the later revised version appears on the last beat of measure 33. By marking the dynamic sign original, Brahms is indicating the motivation to develop more and more. On measure 35, the original version indicates “f legato” while the later revised version indicates “f”, likely realizing that it’s challenging for piano to present the chords in legato. In measure 34, the original version indicates a “f” on the first beat of the measure while the “f” in the later revised version appears on the last beat of measure 33. By marking the dynamic sign original, Brahms is indicating the motivation to develop more and more. On measure 35, the original version indicates “f legato” while the later revised version indicates “f”, likely realizing that it’s challenging for piano to present the chords in legato.

In measure 36, the original version indicates “col Ped.” while the later revised version uses a pedal sign to indicate the need of pedaling. The pedal sign appears again on measure 39 and 40 in the original version while the later revised version doesn’t contain such markings. In measure 40, the original version doesn't indicate any change in dynamics while the later version indicates “cresc.”. Brahms likely decided that the early indicated pedaling is not the best for performance and decided to leave the performers themselves to decided on the exact pedaling for the passage.

From measure 36 to measure 42, the original and later revised version has different legato marking, indicating the difference in phrasing. Brahms likely realizes the need to mark it clear for the performers themselves while also realizing the need for the phrases to be long and continued.

In measure 43, the original version indicates “piu f” while the later revised version doesn’t contain such marking. SImilarly, Brahms favors continued development rather than sudden and abrupt emphasis on certain passages. In measure 43, the original version indicates “piu f” while the later revised version doesn’t contain such marking. SImilarly, Brahms favors continued development rather than sudden and abrupt emphasis on certain passages.

In measure 44, the original version doesn’t contain any marking on the last beat while the later revised version indicates “marc.” on the last beat. As the long phrases come to an end arriving at the cadential moment, Brahms realizes the need to indicate clearly for the pianist to emphasize the notes to ensure the sense of arrival is presented.

In measure 52, the original version indicated “ff” on the third beat while the later revised version doesn’t contain such marking. Similarly on measure 54, the original version indicated “ff” on the third beat while the later version doesn’t contain such marking.

Development

One of the biggest differences that existed between the two versions of the trio is the length of the whole piece where Brahms decides to shorten the piece one-third of its original length. This difference occurs from the change in length of the development in the early and later revised version. In the 1854 version, Brahms uses the more traditional modulation by using fifths relative to the major and minor. He started the development on measure 163 with a F-Sharp Major. He then moved to B Minor on measure 169. On measure 230, Brahms modulates to A Minor, then to G Major on measure 233. On measure 242, he moves to B Major and back to F-Sharp Major on measure 252 then G-Sharp Minor on measure 254 and B Major on measure 269 then back to F-Sharp Major on measure 275.  

Brahms introduces a second theme during the development in the early version but omitted in the later revised version. The second theme of the early version can be considered as more vivid and lively with the staccato and the specific rhythms that Brahms uses. The liveliness creates a sense of contrast with the first theme of the piece, establishing a completely distinctive character. It is arguable that Brahms realizes that his original composition might be too long and hard for the audiences to stay focused during the performance, thus causing him to make it more concise. Furthermore, Brahms might also realize the need to make the character of the piece consistent rather than diverse. The deletion of the second theme not only enables the piece to be more interconnected but also enables the audiences to follow the piece more easily as it continues to flow.

Due to the classically trained background, Brahms has employed lots of classical technique similar to Bach. In the original version, Brahms uses lots of calls and responses throughout the development section while also composing in fugue and fuguetto with the violin and cello interconnected with the piano starting from the marking Tempo un poco piu Moderato. The use of more classical technique can also be seen in Brahms’s other works, such as the third movement of his Cello Sonata No.1 in E minor, Op.38. In the later revised version, however, Brahms omits the fugue form used to compose the second theme. The deletion of the fugue form can be argued as a revision based on the responses from the audiences as he also decides to make the piece shorter. It is arguable that early-Brahms has the desire to demonstrate his compositional technique in addition to his educational background and respect for the classical traditions. The later revision can be considered as Brahms’s increase understanding towards the need of keeping the piece itself continuous and connected as the higher priority from revealing compositional excellence.

Illuminating the light on more detailed content of the piece, the role of instruments also experiences a change. In the original version, the violin and cello have a chance to play longer phrases and sentences. Furthermore, due to the implementation of fugue form in the second theme of the development, the instruments rarely double but rather engages in active communication with each other. The piano in the original version is also much busier than the later revised version. On top of creating harmonic support, the piano in the early version also plays an important role in constructing the character of the second theme, especially through the use of staccato, triplets, and dotted rhythm with syncopated legato phrasing. In the later revised version, the violin and cello carry most of the melodies and both have the same importance. Furthermore, Brahms has also given more trust to the instruments respectively, enabling them to play the melodies individually. At the same time, Brahms also significantly increases the amount of time where the two instruments are doubling. The piano in the later revised version now only serve as the harmonic support of the strings. As Brahms composes more and more pieces and listen to more of his works being publicly performed, he begins to realize the potential inside the two instruments individually, making him to allocate more melodic development to these two instruments.

Coda

In the original version, the coda starts form measure 444. However, in the later revised version, the coda starts from measure 255. The earlier entrance of the coda is due to the cutting of length in the development section. In the original version, the main subject rarely has a chance to develop to a climatically point throughout the pieces. Finally in the coda, the main subject is brought to a climatic fortissimo conclusion on the tonic.

One significant difference is the dynamical range applied throughout the coda. In the original version, Brahms only includes ff con forza as the dynamic for the whole 51 bars of coda. The later revised version included a much greater dynamic range, starting from p to ff at the end of the first movement. This inclusion reveals Brahms’s change in compositional idea, believing that it is unnecessary to show the coda is coming and emphasizing its importance by using loud sounds but rather favors the more continued buildup that gradually leads to the destination of the piece.

Another significance difference is the role of the different instruments. In the original version, there are many doubling between the two strings and the piano where the two strings play the melodic line while the piano provides harmonic support by playing chords. It is reasonable to say that the three different instruments are playing in unison. In the later revised version, Brahms chooses to omit the doubling but incorporated more call and responses between the different instruments. Furthermore, the piano rarely has chords until the last 15 bars before the final cadence. This reveals that Brahms favors more flow in passage that can gradually build up to the final chord than chords throughout the passage that creates more stop.

Despite omitting the chords nearly throughout the coda, Brahms still values harmonic progression. In the original version, the coda is consisting of chords that directly reveals the harmonic progression. However, in the later revised version, Brahms uses mostly broken chords and arpeggios to indicate the change in harmony. This once again corresponds with all the previous changes done by Brahms, favoring more lyrical development and longer phrases than purely just establishing the desired progression directly through chords.

Another important characteristic that has been changed is the chords themselves throughout the coda. In the original version, Brahms employed lots of more complicated chords, including secondary dominants and more chords that are not necessarily part of the key. However, in the later revised version, Brahms largely relied on the tonic, predominant, and dominant chord throughout the whole coda. Furthermore, the coda in the later revised version has a shorter crescendo in 7 bars yet stronger cadential point as compared to the original version. The stronger cadential moment is not only established by the crescendo but also by the cadence itself in the later revised version. In the original version, Brahms uses an imperfect authentic cadence (V, ii, I), creating a less conclusive ending. In the later revised version, however, Brahms changes the cadence into a perfect authentic cadence, ending strong and conclusive with a dominant to tonic chord. This change reveals that Brahms clearly wants the first movement to end in a solid conclusion that is clearly audible, thus changing the cadence into a strong definite progression that shows the solid conclusion.

Original 1854 Version

Later Revised 1891 Version

Conclusion

Through the analysis of the first movement of the original 1854 and later revised 1891 version of Brahms’s Piano Trio No.1 in B Major, Op.8, there is a clear revelation of the change in Brahms’s composition from his early to mature period. The change in his composition in the two version of the trio is also a reflection of the general trend in his composition of other works.

There is a clear divergence away from his classical trained background. In early Brahms’s composition, he often uses techniques such as fugue that has strong resemblance to the techniques used by Bach and Beethoven. However, in mature Brahms’s composition, it is rare to see him using such classical techniques. This divergence reveals his increase independence as a composer that begins to construct his own idea towards the piece rather than relying on pass education to compose. Furthermore, this reveals Brahms’s growth as a composer from the Romantic period.

Another important trend in his composition is the influence from the “New German School”. The embracement of more lyricism and more narration in his composition is also a general trend that is seen throughout his compositions. As part of the debate he engaged in and challenged as being a member of the “Old German School”, Brahms clearly reflected upon the debate and adopted the techniques that are less classical yet more reasonable for composition.

Work Cited

1.     Simpson, Robert and Geiringer, Karl. "Johannes Brahms". Encyclopedia Britannica, 7 Nov. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Johannes-Brahms.