I believe that, for all his lack of academic courtesy, Swafford is correct. There are many reasons for this.

First of all, the religious views in the text are in stark opposition to what is thought of Brahms. Swafford tries to paint him as an agnostic and a freethinker, while others have painted a picture of an atheist. While it is true that biographers can angle facts to match their agenda too (as may contemporary “eye witnesses”), it appears to me that most people who try to argue that Brahms was generally religious these days are refering to the book in question, which has made me question how strong the evidence for his religiousity is. (I would like to add that I am not overtly opposed to Christianity or religion, but I find historical forgeries - no matter the agenda behind - highly provoking)

Secondly one must consider the style it’s written in. The first thing that comes to mind is the large number of biblical references that are thrown in during the talk. This stands in stark contrast to what is revealed in “Johannes Brahms: Life and Letters” by Styra Avins (a collection of every surviving letter of his, with commentary; in fact, the gospel of Matthew is refered to more times on pages 26-27 alone than in his entire corpus of letters! As far as I have found, there are only one to the four evangelists spread across his entire letter corpus: The famous letter to Karl Reinthaler regarding his omission of John 3:16 in the German Requiem, and a thank to one of his friends for holding a nice sermon (I couldn’t find this last one at the moment, but I’ve convinced that it is in the book). At the same time, one must not forget that when Brahms was an old man, he was a huge star, and pretty much everything he said would be noted down by someone. The fact that such biblical references have not been reported either in his letters or contemporary accounts of his day-to-day speech, I would consider it a wild theory that he would have had this skill, but surpressed it until one day when a young, American journalist wants to interview him, but without leaving any conclusive evidence that the meeting actually took place (more on this later).

Some other quotes are fishy too, yet at this point, I feel the need to limit myself to one example: On page 6, Brahms refers to Richard Strauss as “my young friend”, yet in his biography Jan Swafford multiple times illustrate how the real Brahms despised Strauss’ music. While Swafford’s biography undoubtedly isn’t flaw free (in fact it’s been criticized a whole lot for the waterfront bar issue), I’ve yet to hear anyone object to that part; Brahms’ distaste for fin-de-siécle modernism is well known, and it caused the break between him and Gustav Mahler.

Now regarding the supposed evidence for the meeting: It has been claimed that a bi-lingual stenographer were hired from the American embassy in Vienna to record the entire conversation. I have contacted said embassy (as I’ve taken personal interest in the matter), and they do not keep records from this time. I’ve yet to talk with some historical libraries who MAY have recieved logs of a stenographer being hired for this purpose (if such a thing ever happened), but no one has been able to dig such a thing up yet, so I’m not holding my breath.

As a coda I’d like to take on the concept of delaying the publication of the book 50 years after Brahms’ death. When Joseph Joachim died, he delivered a manuscript of Schumann’s unperformed violin concerto to the Prussian State Library, on the condition that it would not be played for 50 years. This was because the piece was written shortly before Schumann was put in an insane asylum, and it extremely uneven; Joachim therefore thought to “hide” the manuscript untill Schumann’s position in history was secured (the concerto was performed 12 years before Joachim had ordered).

So, how does this relate to Abell? Perhaps Joachim got the 50 year idea from Brahms? Or perhaps Abell got it from Joachim? In either case Abell would be sure that after 50 years, no one was alive to confirm or deny his facts. In fact I’ve read some reviews of the book from right after it was released, and none of the objections that are common today were voiced. I take this as a sign of how well Brahms managed to hide his tracks; it is only in recent decades, with more and more details being discovered and disclosed, that we’ve been able to question Abell’s supposed interviews. I am no musicologist, but to me it seems that modern Brahms scholarship have finally managed to call Abell’s bluff.

Abell, if he did know Joachim, and did meet Brahms must have been very young to have still been around in the 1950s. Since Brahms was notoriously not forthcoming about his inner thoughts even toward his most intimate friends, the idea he would have opened up with flowery language to a young American is more than improbable.

Then, to believe that so diverse a group of composers as Strauss, Puccini and Grieg all spoke in the same style of language and tone of voice suggests the author (Abell) is simply putting his own beliefs into their mouths. I agree with Mr. Swafford that these interviews are bogus.

* - From: “Johannes Brahms. A Biography” by Jan Swafford. 1999, by Papermac an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Page 15 of Introduction

I found interesting Review of this book at Amazon.com
Also there is a little quote from Atheist Musicians web site:

… Beethoven’s most authoritative biographers are clear about his views on religion. When he was dying he yielded to the pressure of Catholic friends and let a priest administer the sacraments, but it is admitted that when the priest left the room Beethoven said, in the Latin words of the ancient Roman theater, “Applaud, my friends, the comedy is over.” During the years of his full inspiration he had little religious feeling. When Felix Moscheles once scribbled on a manuscript, “With God’s help,” Beethoven wrote, “Man, help thyself.”