Piano Concertos: Why is Brahms 2 considered more mature than Rachmaninoff 3?

Question

**I'm not completely satisfied with the answers so far, so more answers please! There's a nice bounty to be had!**These two titanic concertos are two of the most difficult often played concertos in piano literature, so they are talked about a lot. In most discussions, forums, or interviews with pianists I've seen, many pianists really love both. In Alexis Weissenberg's commentary on the Rach 3, he writes "the Rachmaninoff Third has kept, and will keep forever and without the slightest doubt, a place apart in my heart. I still think it is the most gloriously written concerto for the piano." Most everybody calls it the hardest concerto that is performed often (perhaps due to the movie *Shine*), and a ton of people love, admire and respect (and fear) it.Almost everything I've read about the Brahms 2 describes it as a very mature and grand work, requiring only the best and most mature musical interpretations. On the other hand, I've never seen the Rach 3 described as mature; glorious, saccharine, passionate, beautiful yes, but never mature. A lot of pianists seem to enjoy performing Rach's works, but they too will say that it's just "excessive climaxes" or something like that.Why, in these two very technically difficult, powerful, popular, and dare I say similar works, is there such an unanimous opinion people think that Brahms's concerto is mature and musical while Rachmaninoff's is less mature, "frivolous", “schmaltzy”, or "film score - esque"? Given that this opinion is so prevalent, is there something inherent about maturity in music that is objective and not subjective? Should maturity be something that music should strive for?(This question isn’t limited to these two composers; late Beethoven is almost always described as extremely profound or transcendental, but rarely (if ever) Rachmaninoff or Liszt)~~ I know this is a subjective question, but I hope that I've asked it well enough that it is a more constructive subjective question, which is allowed by site rules.

Answer 1

1. Different musical value systems

The idea of “maturity” in Western classical criticism is heavily influenced by the Beethoven → Brahms lineage, which prizes:

1. thematic economy
2. organic development from small motives
3. structural weight
4. harmonic density
5. avoidance of overt sentimentality
6. classical restraint

Brahms 2 fits this tradition perfectly.

Rachmaninoff does not.

Rachmaninoff’s aesthetic lineage is:

1. Tchaikovsky
2. Russian Romanticism
3. melody-driven writing
4. emotional maximalism
5. orchestral color and pianistic brilliance

But because our academic language is still biased toward the German tradition, the kinds of values Brahms emphasizes are often labelled “mature,” while the values Rachmaninoff emphasizes are sometimes dismissed as “sentimental.” It’s not an objective truth — it’s a cultural bias.

2. Structural vs. emotional priorities

Brahms 2 is architecturally driven:

Almost every idea grows out of a few motives, the transitions are seamless, and the large-scale design is unusually symphonic. Even its exuberance is controlled.

Rach 3 is melodically driven:

The thematic writing is long-breathed, the climaxes are monumental, and the piano writing can feel improvisatory. Its emotional arc is more direct and more exposed on the surface.

Some listeners equate structural density with “maturity” and emotional transparency with “youthfulness,” but this is a preference — not a fact.

3. The fallacy that restraint = maturity

A persistent trope in music criticism is:

1. If a composer uses fewer notes → mature.
2. If a composer uses more notes → indulgent.

Brahms uses motivic economy. Rachmaninoff uses melodic abundance. Both approaches require mastery.

But because Rachmaninoff makes his emotions audible, many critics read that as “less serious.”

If Brahms writes introspection behind thick counterpoint, it is praised as profound.

If Rachmaninoff writes it in a soaring cantilena line, it is sometimes dismissed.

This tells us more about the critic than the music.

4. Performer psychology plays a role

Pianists often talk about Rachmaninoff 3 in terms of:

1. fear
2. endurance
3. physical difficulty
4. emotional release

It becomes a kind of Everest to conquer.

Brahms 2 is difficult too, but pianists often frame it as:

1. noble
2. wise
3. architectural
4. symphonic

This language reinforces the “mature vs. passionate” dichotomy — again, rooted in tradition, not objectivity.

5. Is there anything inherently more mature about Brahms 2?

If maturity means:

1. developmental complexity
2. architectural cohesion
3. motivic integration

…then Brahms 2 fits the bill more.

If maturity means:

1. emotional honesty
2. melodic sophistication
3. psychological depth
4. personal voice

…then Rach 3 is just as mature.

“Maturity” is not a universal musical metric. It’s a value assigned from within a specific tradition — and not all great music belongs to that tradition.

6. Should music strive for “maturity”?

Music should strive for authenticity within its own aesthetic language.

Brahms’s language requires restraint.

Rachmaninoff’s requires passion and lyricism.

Both achieve maturity on their own terms.

To criticize Rachmaninoff for not being Brahms is like criticizing Monet for not painting like Rembrandt.

Conclusion

The label “mature” is historically biased toward composers whose aesthetics align with the Germanic symphonic tradition. Brahms 2 exemplifies that tradition; Rachmaninoff 3 exemplifies another. Calling one more “mature” than the other says little about the music itself, and far more about our inherited critical vocabulary.

Both works are masterpieces.

Both are mature — just in different dialects of the musical language.

Answer 2

Some people consider Brahms 2 more mature, but not everyone does. Brahms is a very "motivic" composer. That means appreciating his music relies heavily on following the motives- i.e. the melodies- and how they are thrown into newer and newer contexts. Thus, listening to Brahms is a very cerebral experience- in fact it helps to look at the score just so you can see all the places where the melody appears.

Rachmaninoff, on the other hand, is more of a melodic composer. He follows the feelings and the arc of the melody. The "next note" in a Rachmaninoff composition does not come from some iron law of the motive, but descends from the heaven where he found his melodies. It may surprise you, though, that Rachmaninoff was also a master of motivic composition, and that for all his grandeur and sweep, he always focuses on the same main melodies and harmonies that he started out.

So in the end, whether you prefer more grand, melodic style or a more intellectual style, will determine who you consider to be more mature, but even those who prefer the latter, will also find Rachmaninoff just as worthy a composer as Brahms.

Answer 3

LISTEN to the style of the composer's thought. The image he wants to paint. Who says all music must be "mature"? You're trying to compare apples and oranges. ...Brahms 2 is a very mature, grand work, requiring only the best and most mature musical interpretations. ... Rachmaninoff, as you said, has a totally different temperament; mature; glorious, saccharine, passionate. Different personalities create different styles.