Well it is easy to say all music is dynamic and emotive, thus . This isn't really a significant factor, yet if you compare composers to composers, you will hear a difference. "Expression" by itself has little to do with it, in my eyes, but rather how it is being expressed and if its pushing its emotional quality out there as if it wants to be interpreted and connected to common emotional qualities such as gesticulate enhancement tone or timbre, instead of a subjective thematic or playing around in it's own self-centered expression. You really have to listen closely to composer's pieces overall, the task is not easy to measure. And even Tchaikovsky made significant detachment from his music after the fact of publicity, where as Brahms did so before to indicate his perfectionism in making what he felt was a valid connection to his abstract "audience," or that there were standards of external conduct musically (and in its objectivity is similar to how works, but different in that it measures humanistic quality, I will have to explain more.) It matters not how 'emotive' something is perceived as being, as information elements are all based on the perception of the individual himself. It's a tricky subject for those who aren't on the same page as me with other typings, as it gets interpreted the wrong way, so one I didn't want to speak much of. Also I think a typing of ego would be a great analytical mistake musically, as I said, his music is so rich full of and is only a given.
I feel his typing stands up even greater if I speak non-musically, but music is something I like to think about. So a far as "sweeping and dynamically changing melody," mood-based leimotif regardless of individual tones, first of all, is a common static-field-based feature of composing (note I say leimotif for static thematic emotion of Fi, not just dynamic melody in of itself nor just thematic in of itself) and involves a strategy of not relying on timbre that is dynamic-object-based, and the musical dynamics I hear are nothing of socionics dynamics, in that they don't specify a continuous flux of mood. Rather they are practical 'connections' from harmonic point to the next that involve intuitively exploring the different possibilities (reference previous post) not in a rigidly dynamic sense whatsoever, but by making quick leaps it overgeneralizes its theme and by doing so creates its own subjective anchor or hole to the other ego function, static subjectivity, and this is just one manifestation of how I identify from before. composers tend to feature much more of an accent or intrinsic modulation to their language somewhat dependent on the composers humanistic style of musical empathy, where as with there are usually no signs of such external attachment with these dynamics, but a mood perceived within the enigmatic subjective feeling of . So overall, as dull as a musical piece might sound to the individual, this does not mean it is more static, just as an exciting piece of music does not mean it is dynamic.
I don't consider myself an expert on musical socionics, but these are assets I have noticed shared by various composers of the same type.
Also as far as Brahms's temperament orientation, he VIs more extroverted imo. He seems very awake and attentive to his surroundings, and was known for his social tendencies like easily befriending people in the park. Tchaikovsky on the other hand I highly doubt is anything but IJ. He lacks the attitude and disposition of an irrational and is certainly no extrovert.