Piano Forum
Piano Board => Repertoire => Topic started by: soderlund on October 21, 2008, 09:06:56 AM
-
Why do you hate Schumann so much? I have seen you in several posts bashing his music. And as I understand it you have a very good knowledge about piano repertoire, so I thought there might be a good reason behind it.
He is certainly not my favourite composer, but I do think he wrote some very nice pieces, so personally, I can't understand why 0 % of his output would be good, as you so nicely put it in a post of yours a while back.
-
Most of what i write is partially in jest, so i would not take my comments at 100% face value.
Danny Elfboy once stated that i dislike popular composers, simply because they are popular and he had a very vaild point. My problem is that i spend most of my time looking through works of the lesser composers and get angry that they are completely neglected, whilst every pianist in the World is churning out Schumann.
Most of my musical interest revolves around the Romantic piano concerto and Hyperions excellent series have brought many to light that i feel are superior to Schumans effort, which must have been recorded a thousand times. I have heard his concerto too many times and would not walk across the road to hear it again.
As far as solo works are concerned, i have probably only heard half of his output and it does nothing for my ears at all. I feel i have listened to enought to make a personal judgement that it is not worth listening to any more.
Thal
-
Okay, thank you for that answer. I was only curious, not out for a big argument about Schumann's music, but now I know. :)
-
My problem is that i spend most of my time looking through works of the lesser composers and get angry that they are completely neglected, whilst every pianist in the World is churning out Schumann.
I, for one, 100% agree with that view. I'm sure not many would agree with me, but the second half of Thalberg's Moses Fantasy is imo a better and more cleverly written theme and variations than anything Schumann managed.
I also think that in some solo works the episodic nature is an excuse for not being able to write in a structurally coherent manner. Also there is a fair bit of writing which I think is simply crass.
-
My problem is that i spend most of my time looking through works of the lesser composers and get angry that they are completely neglected, whilst every pianist in the World is churning out Schumann.
For example? Sheets/ recordings/ info please?
-
I think Schumann's music is very idiomatic and very difficult to approach. It is romanticism at the stretching point. Where he attempts to accomplish things (literary quotations, characters and such) impossible on a piano. The symphonic etudes was one of the first pieces I learned when I was young and I don't think I could ever play it again. that last movement is abolutely nerve-racking, both to hear and to play. Like most of the dotted rythm marches he put down. I, too, don't think I would ever go across the street to hear the Schumann concerto. But here again, in the hands of a pianist who loves his music and can re-create that period, like Kempff, somehow it makes sense.
-
I, for one, 100% agree with that view. I'm sure not many would agree with me, but the second half of Thalberg's Moses Fantasy is imo a better and more cleverly written theme and variations than anything Schumann managed.
Well old chap, that makes 2 of us but i doubt there will be any more.
Schumann and his lovely wife supposedly detested display pianism but i love it. Clara did play Thalberg and Liszt in her early years and if i remember even the Henselt Concerto, but the works of her darling Robert turned her to boring Teutonic crap.
As far as Schumann's contempories go, I would rather listen to Henselt, Thalberg, Liszt, Alkan and even Herz any day. But, I feel i would be in the minority.
Thal
-
Well old chap, that makes 2 of us but i doubt there will be any more.
Don't be too sure about that. I don't see what all the hub bub about Schumann is either, and I can appreciate Thalberg for his (neglected) merits pretty well. So that makes three of us. However, I do not completely devalue Schumann. I only devalue him a great deal.
-
The great thing about composers like Schumann is that they don't need defending, the fact that they are played, studied and debated and others haven't is proof enough!
-
Danny Elfboy once stated that i dislike popular composers, simply because they are popular and he had a very vaild point.
That's kinda like admitting of being a racist. It's not the quality of the music that matters, but your own idealogical prejudices. What an idiotic preposition.
-
Well old chap, that makes 2 of us but i doubt there will be any more.
Schumann and his lovely wife supposedly detested display pianism but i love it. Clara did play Thalberg and Liszt in her early years and if i remember even the Henselt Concerto, but the works of her darling Robert turned her to boring Teutonic crap.
As far as Schumann's contempories go, I would rather listen to Henselt, Thalberg, Liszt, Alkan and even Herz any day. But, I feel i would be in the minority.
Thal
Schumann wrote his share of display pieces -- they're mainly the low opus numbers, in his youth and before he began to go bonkers.
I think his encroaching insanity accounts for a lot of the later, intropsective, soulful stuff that he wrote. Also, he was, of course, one of the eariliest German romantics and Romanticism is all about mooning over lost causes, missed chances, magical kingdoms and, to me, that most boring of subject areas -- childhood. Childhood is much more often than not, one nasty memory of being beaten up, shoved down into your place and treated as if you had no rights or privileges. Sentamentalizing it irritates the hell out of me.
Kinderszenen (sp?) gives me a toothache.
I like the more extroverted Romantics you mention in many ways more than Schumann. That said, however, Schumann wrote some stuff that's totally sublime and as good as music gets. Kreisleriana, for one, is a major masterpiece I couldn't live without.
I agree the Concerto is overplayed. i even played the damned thing as a student. Probably every one of us here did too.
-
That's kinda like admitting of being a racist. It's not the quality of the music that matters, but your own idealogical prejudices. What an idiotic preposition.
I don't quite get your analogy.
Thal is interested in reviving interest in the forgotten and nearly discarded. He doesn't feel the established masters need his support or validation.
Actually, he's the OPPOSITE of a racist: he's promoting an Affirmative Action program for those who have been left behind in history.
He's the Martin Luther King of classical music!
-
I don't quite get your analogy.
Thal is interested in reviving interest in the forgotten and nearly discarded. He doesn't feel the established masters need his support or validation.
Nonsense. This thread specifically deals with his alleged aversion towards Schumann, an aversion based not on the merits of his works (or lacks of there of) but on his popularity. Just because Schumann is an household name in classical circles doesn't stop that being prejudice. It's like arguing blacks cannot be racist towards whites just because the latter are still in a position of power.
he's promoting an Affirmative Action program for those who have been left behind in history.
Affirmative Action being of course a form of ideological bigotry.
-
Childhood is much more often than not, one nasty memory of being beaten up, shoved down into your place and treated as if you had no rights or privileges. Sentamentalizing it irritates the hell out of me.
Understood -and I certainly suffered, particularly as I didn't go for the 'masculine' stuff like sports. But it was in my childhood that I first discovered Beethoven. His piano sonatas 'got me through' those years. I'll never forget that.
As for Schumann, I understand where Thal is coming from, but how many works of the 'lesser' composers can match the C major Fantasie, Carnival, F# minor Piano Sonata, Humoresque (a personal favourite), Kreisleriana, Fantasiestuke (Op 12), Symphonic Etudes, some of the Novellettes...
When Schumann got his steam up, few could touch him.
-
As for Schumann, I understand where Thal is coming from, but how many works of the 'lesser' composers can match the C major Fantasie, Carnival, F# minor Piano Sonata, Humoresque (a personal favourite), Kreisleriana, Fantasiestuke (Op 12), Symphonic Etudes, some of the Novellettes...
Now we are talking sense. At last.
-
The great thing about composers like Schumann is that they don't need defending, the fact that they are played, studied and debated and others haven't is proof enough!
That's like saying that because pop music sells like hotcakes that it is all of good quality.
-
I think that only a composer who wrote really good music could be this popular so long after his death. If people don't agree it's probably their inferiority complex coming out. I'm not saying everyone should love his music, but it certainly doesn't suck.
-
Actually, he's the OPPOSITE of a racist:
Very nice of you to say so old chap, but perhaps you have not seen the "Scotland" thread.
Thal
-
Very nice of you to say so old chap, but perhaps you have not seen the "Scotland" thread.
Thal
Granted, but I bet you'd defend to the death any revival of Sir Alexander Campbell MacKenzie's "Scottish Concerto."
Obscure, underrated, but Scottish.
-
Obscure, underrated, but Scottish.
I like that piece! And it's a lot more interesting than its disc-mate, the Tovey Concerto, a competent but hardly inspired -or inspiring- work.
-
a competent but hardly inspired -or inspiring- work.
Reminds me of the Schumann old chap.
I must reintroduce myself to some of his solo works for a brief period of time, as perhaps i am relying too much on my fading memory.
Thal
-
Yeah, I've gotta say that the Tovey concerto does almost nothing for me and gives me almost the same vibe Schumann does. The Mackenzie concerto is lovely though.
-
That's like saying that because pop music sells like hotcakes that it is all of good quality.
No, it's like saying in many years from now, quality music will still be around, whilst lesser stuff will be forgotten! He's survived 200 years so far!
-
Schumann's incomparable masterpieces:
Sonata in F#m, Sonata in Gm, CM Fantasia, Faschingsschwank aus Wien, Abegg Variations, Symphonic Etudes, Papillions, Davidsbundlertanze, Carnaval, Fantasiestucke, Toccata, Humoreske, Kreisleriana, Concerto.
The rest are up for grabs, but, even the least successful merits study, if not performance.
I just wish he paid more attention to sonority, as Liszt and Chopin did. Too much of his stuff stays hunkered in that middle register where it sounds tubby on all but the best instruments. And that dotted rhythm fetish of his gives me hives.
p.s I really like the Tovey! Big, fat juicy, Brahmsian writing with some thrilling moments along the way. You people are fluffmeisters. ;D
-
I think it is a question of feelings. If you are in a frequency that is not in tune with Schumann's, chances are that you will find his music obtuse, amorphous, decadent and tedious. But if you are in tune, if you are feeling something like what Schumann felt, and captured, then you, like me, surely will have to think that Schumann left us something special and incomparable to any other composer.
I adore Schumann, although (funny enough) I do not like everything. The songs are irresistible, and I feel special affinity for the Fantasia, the three sonatas, SE, Carnaval, Op. 12 and 26 (what a bore to spell), the concerto, piano quintet and piano quartet. I care less about Papillions, Abegg, and DT. Beautiful as they are, I get lost when I play them. Kinderscenen and Kreisleriana are like DNA to me.
And so different from Brahms! (whom I have a hunch, you Thal, would not care so much for either). One thing that I enjoy a lot is finding references in Brahm's music to Schumann's, which are as abundant, and aurally irrecognizable, as those to Beethoven's in Schumann's works. Great souls weighing on the legacy of older beloved masters.
-
And so different from Brahms! (whom I have a hunch, you Thal, would not care so much for either).
Pretty accurate hunch, as again his music does little for me personally, albeit the 1st Rhapsody i love. I did hear an organ work by him once, which i did like.
I like the idea of not being "tuned in". Perhaps that is why i like Herz.
How is that for crap pun of the year.
Thal
-
Or Heart (Hertz).
You know we are not the first ones invited to this ball. Schumann had a lot of milleage calling Herz a Phillistine; most definitely not David's League material, no no.
Sorry, the neurons are calling, I hear static from the time of the big bang and Mendelssohn may be sending me a theme I must write immediately, but my Finale subscription is expired. Ahhhhhch (hey, wait a minute, I can write a set of variations on A, B, B, B, B, B, C, B).
What mushroom?
-
Or Heart (Hertz).
You know we are not the first ones invited to this ball. Schumann had a lot of milleage calling Herz a Phillistine; most definitely not David's League material, no no.
Sorry, the neurons are calling, I hear static from the time of the big bang and Mendelssohn may be sending me a theme I must write immediately, but my Finale subscription is expired. Ahhhhhch (hey, wait a minute, I can write a set of variations on A, B, B, B, B, B, C, B).
What mushroom?
And they called Schumann mad? ;D
-
And so different from Brahms! (whom I have a hunch, you Thal, would not care so much for either). One thing that I enjoy a lot is finding references in Brahm's music to Schumann's, which are as abundant, and aurally irrecognizable, as those to Beethoven's in Schumann's works. Great souls weighing on the legacy of older beloved masters.
I'm not sure if you are being facetious with this, but Brahms is essentially an upgraded version of Schumann.
Not liking Brahms is of course sacrilegious. His late piano pieces alone are among the supreme masterpieces of the literature. Henri Herz? Folks, are we serious?
-
I'm not sure if you are being facetious with this, but Brahms is essentially an upgraded version of Schumann.
Of course, you're joking. If not, you're totally wrong. Brahms is a consummate classicist clothed in Romantic drag. Schumann was a pure Romantic whose weakest works are attempts to fake classicism.
-
Wait a second, if I may defend my colleagues on the Phillistine side here: there is nothing wrong (and much not wrong) with prefering to spend one's time listening to the likes of Herz, Thalberg, Moscheles, Mozskowsky, Liszt (we can get more esoteric, but there is no need), and not deriving any pleasure (or meaning, really) from listening to absolute great masters such as Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms, Chopin, and Heller.
;)
See, the clue here is that each composer (actually each piece) speaks to each of us of something unique, and that something unique is as varied as teh delightful diversity of human experience.
So, then, I ask you, what is the sin in not relating emotionally (let along teleologically or even ontologically) to Brahms (my favorite composer along with, you guessed it, Schumann and Bach)? Thal (at this is my perception, he of course will talk for himself if he cares to) is into the neglected, likes things that are glittery, has no appetite particularly "deep" music (which, again, I suspect he would find rather self-involved, rather than in any way meaningful), and probably gets all the depth and ethos he may crave from the likes of Busoni and Medtner, both of whom are plenty deep (although, again, I am here on another limb, Thal, do you find most Busoni rather dry for your taste?)
So, then, Henri suits him better than Joe the fiddler.
...and by the way, I was not facetious. Brahms is solid, very well constructed, creative and clever, but never bizarre. Schumann's message is one of imbalance and decadence, Brahms' (depresed as he often was) is one of construction and foundational work for the future. Schumann goes to the fantastic and evades reality, like Kreisler and Jean Paul, Brahms goes to the beautiful and seeks the most intimate aspects of reality, like Goethe and Novallis.
They are, emotionally and compositionally, entirely different. I mean, seariously, you simply cannot compare Schumann's symphonies to Brahm's, their violin concertos, or their piano quartets and quintets.
-
...and by the way, I was not facetious. Brahms is solid, very well constructed, creative and clever, but never bizarre. Schumann's message is one of imbalance and decadence, Brahms' (depresed as he often was) is one of construction and foundational work for the future. Schumann goes to the fantastic and evades reality, like Kreisler and Jean Paul, Brahms goes to the beautiful and seeks the most intimate aspects of reality, like Goethe and Novallis.
I have an inkling of a feeling you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Anybody who fails to detect the massive stylistic similarities between Schumann and Brahms needs to find an hobby more congenial to their abilities since it's apparent music isn't their forte. You can throw adjectives around until you are out of breath if you so wish, you are not saying anything that is particularly meaningful.
BTW, there's a world difference between enjoying something over something else at any given point and the objective assessment of a composer's worth. For the record, i too disliked Brahms when i first heard his music. The thick contrapuntal textures, the relentless melodic syncopation, the wayward formal patterns, it's a lot to digest at first, and to an untrained ear it all sounds like a confused and irritating jumble of sounds. But i persevered, because i knew i was dealing with a genius, if even on a sub-conscious level.
-
Of course, you're joking. If not, you're totally wrong. Brahms is a consummate classicist clothed in Romantic drag. Schumann was a pure Romantic whose weakest works are attempts to fake classicism.
Brahms is a consummate classicist who took Schumann's Romantic idiom and attempted to achieve a union between the two, something that Schumann himself couldn't do. Formally, he remains the consummate classicist, but his language is essentially Schumannesque. One of the reasons why his music is so hard to listen to is that he doesn't really achieve a synthesis, the two elements are completely juxtaposed and constantly in conflict with each other.
-
I adore Schumann, although (funny enough) I do not like everything.
'Funny enough'? No need to apologize. Lotta Schumann I love, but I could easily give a miss to Papillons, the 1st Symphony (its popularity eludes me)... I'm trying to think of something else and I can't. Schumann's signal to noise ratio is very low.
Not so far mentioned: the late Introduction & Allegro in D minor. A neglected masterpiece. I just love it!
-
Personally, i give the lieder a nod, his most under-rated works imho. It's in the larger forms that Schumann has a problem with.
-
Personally, i give the lieder a nod, his most under-rated works imho.
Ah, but certainly not under-rated by any singer with discerning tastes. I once had the pleasure of accompanying the Op. 36 Liederkreis in recital. Let me tell you, those piano parts are much more difficult than they look! I've also rehearsed Dichterliebe at several voice lessons, and those piano parts are no walk in the park either. I'm not talking difficulties as in the Toccata, but difficulties of musical judgment, and studying the poems for clues on interpreting the piano part. It's a lot of work- a good accompanist earns every farthing.
-
I have an inkling of a feeling you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about. Anybody who fails to detect the massive stylistic similarities between Schumann and Brahms needs to find an hobby more congenial to their abilities since it's apparent music isn't their forte. You can throw adjectives around until you are out of breath if you so wish, you are not saying anything that is particularly meaningful.
::)
I don't know if you have ever mistaken a Brahms' work for a Schumann one. I have been listening to Brahms' since my first lullaby, a few decades ago. They are unmistakeably different. Tchaikovsky and Mendelssohn have many pages that can easily pass for Schumann. I ask you to point to a single one from Brahms. Not even something superficially shumannesque, like the fourth of the Ballades Op. 10 could ever be mistaken for Schumann: its structure irresistibly logical, its flow inexorably balanced.
The stark differences are even more notable when Brahms is actually quoting Schumann, like in the Op. 9 variations. The motivic cells are the same, but nothing else is left of Schumann's lack of interest in proportions, regularity or synthesis. Instead, you get Brahms, who trades these beauties for his mentor's freedom, excess, and boundless imagination.
Sure, Schumann and Brahms have more in common that either one has with Chopin, Liszt, or Rachmaninov (let alone, cough cough, Herz). If you want to linger on that, go ahead. After all, genetically and at a molecular level, a worm and a human also have more in common that either one of them has with a rock, space dust, or a virus. So call them massively similar if you want to. I find those similarities unimportant in this context.
-
Henri Herz? Folks, are we serious?
Yes, I am.
Please let me know what works of Herz you have played/listened to or studied.
Thal
-
Yes, I am.
Please let me know what works of Herz you have played/listened to or studied.
Thal
Haaa, why do i smell an argument from authority coming my way? Ho yes, this is piano street.
Perhaps rather then ask silly questions like that how about you offer an explanation of why you think Herz is a better composer then Brahms? I mean, besides the fact he's an underdog. I just recently had an argument with a Jewish friend of mine who thinks Alkan was a better composer then Chopin because according to him Jews make better pianists then gentiles. I really have no tolerance for those type of fallacies anymore.
-
If Schumann were wiped from history, maybe composers that deserve attention more than Schumann would actually get that attention.
-
If Schumann were wiped from history, maybe composers that deserve attention more than Schumann would actually get that attention.
Such as who? Moscheles? Thalberg? Pixis? Herz? By all means, let's hear it.
-
people become great because of alot of attention from the public wheather it be in Literature art or music, gennerally those who are forgotten by history are forgoten because the did not have as big an impact on the world as those who have been remembered and are still famous
Schumann is popular because his works are frequently performed and listened to
I bet i can't find a non pianist who listens to Liszt because his orchestral works are inferior to others been writen at the time
-
Dear Mr Webern,
I do not consider my question to be silly and i am no musical authority.
I am just suspicious that you have never listened to or studied any of Herz's works and are basing your comments on something perhaps your piano teacher told you when you were 5 years old. If you are unaware of anything he composed, you are hardly in a position to comment.
If i am wrong, i publicly apologise and bow to your superior musical intellect. If i am right, you would look a little bit silly.
I have no intention of starting an argument, as i am only a humble amatuer with mediocre talents. I could not possibly cross swords with some of the musical heavyweights we have on pianostreets.
I think i will slip back to the "anything" board where i belong.
Thal
-
Schumann is popular because his works are frequently performed and listened to
I bet i can't find a non pianist who listens to Liszt because his orchestral works are inferior to others been writen at the time
Britney Spears is awesome, and the Faust Symphony is trash...
Dear Mr Webern,
I do not consider my question to be silly and i am no musical authority.
I am just suspicious that you have never listened to or studied any of Herz's works and are basing your comments on something perhaps your piano teacher told you when you were 5 years old. If you are unaware of anything he composed, you are hardly in a position to comment.
If i am wrong, i publicly apologise and bow to your superior musical intellect. If i am right, you would look a little bit silly.
I have no intention of starting an argument, as i am only a humble amatuer with mediocre talents. I could not possibly cross swords with some of the musical heavyweights we have on pianostreets.
I think i will slip back to the "anything" board where i belong.
Thal
I suspect you know more about Herz than anyone else on this board, myself included. I wouldn't seriously attempt to argue the merits of Herz vis-a-vis Schumann, but there are other minor figures who are approximate contemporaries where I might be tempted. Tausig, for one.
-
I don't think one can compare the works of Herz with Schumann and Brahms, they are worlds apart. I guess one can only have personal preferences. Herz was a populist composer. He knew his market and composed accordingly. Apart from Hunten, he was probably the King of the Salonists.
I find Brahms music stodgy and too formal, whilst i find Herz sparkling, witty and friendly. Brahms 2nd concerto is like greeting your girlfriend with a firm handshake but Herz 5th is like greeting her with a smile and a kiss.
Thal
-
Britney Spears is awesome, and the Faust Symphony is trash...
I'll take that in jest, okay? But the Faust Symphony has always existed in an atmosphere of controversy. In some ways the thematic transformation is even more sophisticated than that of the B minor Sonata (cf Charles Rosen), but the orchestration has always been the sticking point.
One could argue that Liszt never really got the hang of it. His orchestration often tends more towards the crass and a student-ish italicization. On the other hand -as in the 2nd mov't- Liszt could provide the most beguiling of sensuous sounds.
Liszt was almost always fascinating, even if he missed (IMO) the mark on occasion. Yet look at the very italicized nature of some of the Symphonic Poems. His orchestration in this context seems well nigh ideal. Les Preludes is not what one would term 'subtle' music, so why bother with 'subtle' orchestration? The piece would loose its raw potency with the orchestration of, say, Saint-Saens.
I've sometimes entertained fantasies of a re-orchestration of the Liszt Faust. Imagine the possibilities, but who best to do it? Not Mahler or Strauss, I would assign it to Wagner.
-
As far as Schumann's contempories go, I would rather listen to Henselt, Thalberg, Liszt, Alkan and even Herz any day. But, I feel i would be in the minority.
Thal
So you have bad taste in music. Big deal? Hell no!
-
I've sometimes entertained fantasies of a re-orchestration of the Liszt Faust. Imagine the possibilities, but who best to do it? Not Mahler or Strauss, I would assign it to Wagner.
you do know that Wagner is dead
-
I might have bad taste, but at least i am prepared to experiment and i do not criticise a composers works until i have at least listened to them.
Some people on here must have been put off by frightening piano teachers. Perhaps a 7 foot German with a monocle, a giant beard and a spiked helmet has orated on the worthlesness of Herz & Co.
"Webern, you muzt not play zees composers. You must play only Schumann and Brahms, ze true composers ov ze Fatherland"
Thal
-
I don't think one can compare the works of Herz with Schumann and Brahms, they are worlds apart. I guess one can only have personal preferences. Herz was a populist composer. He knew his market and composed accordingly. Apart from Hunten, he was probably the King of the Salonists.
I find Brahms music stodgy and too formal, whilst i find Herz sparkling, witty and friendly. Brahms 2nd concerto is like greeting your girlfriend with a firm handshake but Herz 5th is like greeting her with a smile and a kiss.
Thal
I have heard that Martha Argerich once said she had no interest in playing Brahms second, just like she had no interest in older men. Telling. :)
I echo your comment about Herz 5th (which I have not had the pleasure of listening to) with this: I was scheduled to play a recital and had chosen Schumann Kinderscenen and Brahms Op. 118. Then I got a change of moods, felt the need for playing strongly affirmative music, so will play Beethoven instead.
Herz, Thalberg, Schulhoff, Hummel and the other not-so-well-known masters of the 19th century are severely underplayed. Just for a couple of examples, Thalberg's The Art of Singing Applied to the Piano should be as crucial for a pianist's formation as the Chopin etudes, and the fact that Henselt, Tausig, and Alkan are relegated to the devotion of a few pianists and music lovers speaks very poorly of the Serkin-Urtext generation, that unfortunately reduced piano literature to Mozart-Haydn-Beethoven, Schumann-Brahms, a tiny bit of Mendelssohn, a whole bunch of Chopin and the more timid works of Liszt. There is so much more, and although I think Thal's lack of enthusiasm from Schumann goes beyond not being in the wavelength with the crazy old master, his enthusiasm and curiosity for the Litolffs and Dusseks of the world is unimpeachable.
Thal, would you put some skin on this game and post some of your favorite examples of what Herz is all about?
-
Alkan is *NOT* in the same group of composers as Henselt, Tausig, et. al.
Alkan may not be on a trajectory to mass popular appeal, but his piano music is of huge importance to the French School specifically, and the development of 19th/20th century piano music in general.
Le Festin D'Esope alone should do for Alkan what Islamey has done for Balakirev.
-
https://rapidshare.com/files/157823837/herz_-_op_45__trois_nocturnes_caracteristiques.zip.html
You will need the Lizardtech plugin to view these nocturnes in acrobat as they are old djvu files.
Recently recorded by Hyperion. Simple but beautiful (like me)
Thal
-
A couple of typical Herzian arrangements of operatic themes by Rossini.
The Cerentola was brilliantly recorded by Earl Wild. The Sonnambula has not been recorded.
Intellectuals and people with beards will despise these. People with more open minds who are not ashamed to actually have "fun" playing something and are not afraid to smile at the piano, might look beyond the first bar.
Impossible to compare with Schumann, Brahms and other German giants. You either like it or you don't.
Thal
-
Alkan is *NOT* in the same group of composers as Henselt, Tausig, et. al.
Alkan may not be on a trajectory to mass popular appeal, but his piano music is of huge importance to the French School specifically, and the development of 19th/20th century piano music in general.
Le Festin D'Esope alone should do for Alkan what Islamey has done for Balakirev.
I do agree with your first two paragraphs, but i am unsure of what Islamey has done for Balakirev, other than to keep his name in regular repetoire with what is hardly his best composition.
Thal
-
I second that. I had never even heard of him before pianostreet. Or maybe I had heard of him but, like someone you were introduced to at a cocktail party 20 years ago.
-
Intellectuals and people with beards will despise these. People with more open minds who are not ashamed to actually have "fun" playing something and are not afraid to smile at the piano, might look beyond the first bar.
Impossible to compare with Schumann, Brahms and other German giants. You either like it or you don't.
Thal
That's fair enough, but as long as you're not saying that it's impossible to have fun while playing Schumann and Brahms!
-
The Cerentola was brilliantly recorded by Earl Wild. The Sonnambula has not been recorded.
I have that recording. No one can touch Earl Wild in this stuff!
Intellectuals and people with beards will despise these.
I have little use for intellectuals (they can be so unbearably pompous and full o' themselves) and I don't have a beard.
-
That's fair enough, but as long as you're not saying that it's impossible to have fun while playing Schumann and Brahms!
I would say it is impossible for me to have fun whilst playing Brahms and Schumann. I hope this does not apply to everyone.
Thal
-
But listening to -not playing- the finale of the Brahms Bb always brings a smile, does it not? (And love the Richard Rodgers rip-off in the secondary theme... ;) )
-
I did actually spend all of Saturday morning listening to Schumann and Brahms just to check if i still hated it.
After two hours of Schumann, i was left in a state of utter boredom even though it was the great Glemser playing.
The piano sonatas of Brahms did leave me wishing to hear more, but the urge to listen to a concerto by Liljefors that arrived in the morning took me over.
Thal
-
Thal - your problems with Schumann and (I believe) to a somewhat lesser extent Brahms are yours and you are entitled to them; I have similar problems with most of Schubert - it simply cannot be helped. I do wonder in your case, however, whether your apparent blanket disapproval of Schumann really does mean that you simply cannot stomach even the Piano Quintet, Études Symphoniques and Fantasie. I don't share your take on Schumann, although there are quite a few of his works without which I could well do (not least the piano concerto, whose handful of really inspired ideas seem to me to be drowned in a swamp of tritenesses and obsessive repetitititiousness, the latter most especially in the finale). Schumann at his best remains for me a most important composer and his influence upon Elgar, Schönberg and others cannot be taken less than seriously.
Best,
Alistair
-
I have not listened to the piano quintet and do not intend to. If i continue, i am only wasting my time in listening to composer that i don't like, whereas i would rather spend my time listening to a composer i do like.
This is the problem with these type of threads. You are always going to get "have you listened to that" or "have you listened to this" and in some cases "you should listen to this pianist playing it and you will change you mind". I have simply listened to enough to make a decision to waste no more time.
I can understand why you have problems with Schubert, as his music contains beautiful melodies. This is not good for people who's ears are tuned to the appalling dischords and random piano banging of the last 50 years or more.
Thal
-
I would cheerfully pass the rest of my life without ever hearing the Schumann First Symphony again. That last movement, especially, is so bloody tedious.
Funny, I've never had a problem with the Piano Concerto. I've heard it many more times than I can count, but it always seems fresh to me.
-
but it always seems fresh to me.
So is the crap in the monkey cage at London Zoo.
Thal
-
So is the crap in the monkey cage at London Zoo.
Yes, but at least I wasn't entreating you to listen to (for example) one of Argerich's recordings. As superbly as she plays it, obviously that's not going to help.
I'll admit that I've never liked the Schubert Ab Impromptu. Another tedious piece, and I don't give a cr*p who plays it.
-
I have not listened to the piano quintet and do not intend to.
Then you should at least give it a chance, even if it only ends up on your already obviously overloaded Schmann scrap-heap...
If i continue, i am only wasting my time in listening to composer that i don't like, whereas i would rather spend my time listening to a composer i do like.
Yes, there's only a certain amount of listening time available to any of us, of course and I understand your remark, at least in principle.
This is the problem with these type of threads. You are always going to get "have you listened to that" or "have you listened to this" and in some cases "you should listen to this pianist playing it and you will change you mind". I have simply listened to enough to make a decision to waste no more time.
In my case, it;s only the former; I'd never say to you that you "should" listen to anything. It's up to you, of course - and you hopefully have many years of your life left to revisit all kinds of music and see what you think at later stages.
I can understand why you have problems with Schubert, as his music contains beautiful melodies.
I'm trying to take that remark seriously (which I suppose I shouldn't really, but there you go!); that is not the problem that I have with schubert and I'd like you to tell me why you nevertheless think that it is...
This is not good for people who's ears are tuned to the appalling dischords and random piano banging of the last 50 years or more.
Our ears are attuned to all manner of things and, with every second that passes, we become attuned to more and more, at least to the extent that one might seek to imply that absorbing more and more material is an any sense synonymous with being more "attuned" to this or that. Robert Simpson once said that it is impossible to listen to Bach with the ears and minds of those people who heard his music in first performances, simply because of all that we have heard since, not least Schubert, Xenakis, Schumann, Varèse and some of your lesser-appreciated 19th century Romantics. I am personally not remotely interested in "random piano banging" irrespective of which year in which it occurred and, as someone who, despite being a non-pianist, has spent what some might regard as a disproportionate amount of time over the past years trying to express thoughts in pianistic terms, that is surely hardly surprising...
Best,
Alistair
-
I'm trying to take that remark seriously (which I suppose I shouldn't really, but there you go!); that is not the problem that I have with schubert and I'd like you to tell me why you nevertheless think that it is...
Then tell me first what your problem is.
-
I'll admit that I've never liked the Schubert Ab Impromptu. Another tedious piece, and I don't give a cr*p who plays it.
It's that dreadful F minor one that really gets me; it occurred to me years ago that if one continued in the vein of its opening dotted rhythm, one would at least be off the left edge of the piano and the aural radar infinitely sooner than would be the case if one forced oneself to listen to the whole sickeningly repetititititive piece. That's only my opinion, of course and I just cannot help what brings it about. The Scots composer Thea Musgrave once discussed with me in a composition lesson the beginning of the development section of the opening movement of the same composer's E flat piano trio - two pages, followed by the same two pages in a different key, followed again by what might have ended up as yet another transposition of the same material had Schubert not thought better of a second complete repetition - yet in this case the music seems somehow to justify it (and, to this hopeless non-Schubertian, that trio, along with the better known one in B flat, the "Death and the Maiden" Quartet, the Mass in E flat and a handful of other things of his amply suggest that Schubert was really getting somewhere in his last year or two).
-
that Schubert was really getting somewhere in his last year or two).
Shame he did not live as long as Elliott Carter then.
Think what he would have acheived.
Thal
-
Then tell me first what your problem is.
It's the frequent and frequently obsessive repetition of what often seems less than worthy of statement in the first place. I do accept that Schubert wrote some fine work and I also admit to have come to a little more of it recently, but I still cannot help but feel that he wrote far too much and for most of his creative life failed to concentrate his mind sufficiently on a smaller number of works; not for nothing did his star seem suddenly to be in the ascendent when, as he approached his most untimely death, he began to compose much less and concentrated far more energy on far less music, to the immense advantage of the latter.
Best,
Alistair
-
Shame he did not live as long as Elliott Carter then.
Think what he would have acheived.
Thal
Indeed - though one could reasonably say the same for quite a few other composers, not least Chopin, whom Elliott Carter admires very much - but then Elliott Carter is evidently still composing at an age when just about every other composer in history had stopped (le Flem made it to 103 and Ornstein to 108 or 109 but each had ceased to compose well before attaining their century).
Best,
Alistair
-
Indeed - though one could reasonably say the same for quite a few other composers, not least Chopin, whom Elliott Carter admires very much
Perhaps, but Schubert undoubtedly still had a lot more to say.
Do you think the same of Chopin?
Thal
-
Perhaps, but Schubert undoubtedly still had a lot more to say.
Thank whom? Schubert had to say what he had to say in his own way, as did Chopin
Do you think the same of Chopin?
Elliott Carter cites listening to one of the early performances (it might even have been the US première for all I know) of Stravinsky's Le Sacre du Printemps as his initial motivation to become a composer; if you have any doubts as to what I think of Chopin, I will remind you that, in my own life, the Fourth Ballade occupies a position pretty much analogous to that of the Stravinsky work for EC...
Best,
Alistair
-
Alkan is *NOT* in the same group of composers as Henselt, Tausig, et. al.
Alkan may not be on a trajectory to mass popular appeal, but his piano music is of huge importance to the French School specifically, and the development of 19th/20th century piano music in general.
Le Festin D'Esope alone should do for Alkan what Islamey has done for Balakirev.
I disagree. I think Alkan is irrelevant to Franck, Saint-Saens, Dukas, Debussy, Ravel, and Messiaen - maybe even Boulez, let alone Satie and Poulenc. In terms of impact and importance to the development of subsequent style, Chaminade - fluffy and inconsequential as she was - was way more influential than Alkan. You wanna talk important? Talk Nadia Boulanger.
I would say Alkan's impact is not felt until you get to the likes of Sorabji and Finnissy, and by then you had had Godowsky, who was the one that really open the door to a pianistic style beyond the language of Chopin and Liszt (Liszt particularly having opened the door to the styles of Bartok, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev, Debussy and Ravel, and even Messiaen).
...and by the way, if I were to bet on a single piece of Alkan that would secure his name in the piano literature, it would be the symphony for piano solo (if you want to extrapolate it from the etudes in minor keys). Festin would come much after the concerto for piano solo, allegro barbaro, or even something as insipid as comme le vent.
-
Hi Alistair,
Interesting that you have a block with Schubert. I suspect the same structure present in the Thal-Schumann block.
Could it be that you crave something in music that Schubert is denying you? Just like the glitter, sacharine and merry-go-happy feeling that Thal enjoys in something like the finale of Hummel's Op. 89 concerto and the macho Menschlichkeit that he senses in something like Tausig's Weber and Strauss waltzes is absent from the sickly likes of Kresleriana, Kinderscenen and even the manly-man Symphonic Etudes, could it be that you are looking for a Bach or Beethoven-like plan in the music of Schubert? Meaningful motivic and structural organization, such as you readily find in Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Scriabin, Ravel, Wagner, Bach and Beethoven, is something you will seek in vain in Schubert.
Not that his music is amorphous. It is just that propulsion and dialectic energy is not what that music is about.
Let me guess: you also despise Philip Glass. That feeling of static there is nothing happening must be somewhat sickening; like "how many times do we have to go through this? I heard you already!"
The thing is, the feeling at hand is one of obsession: no problem-solving: just good ole wallowing. Hopelessness (and bliss) require the absence of a goal to progress to.
-
I did actually spend all of Saturday morning listening to Schumann and Brahms just to check if i still hated it.
After two hours of Schumann, i was left in a state of utter boredom even though it was the great Glemser playing.
What were you thinking?
"Yeah, I don't care much for blue cheese, but just to make sure last Saturday morning I ate two pounds of it, and sure enough, by the end of the second pound I was ready to puke."
Next time, a smaller dossage of carefully selected enjoyable little things: The whole Op. 17 is already too much (Bolet's recording is the good one). Comparing three versions of Carnaval altogether too much (the three to compare are Rachmaninoff's, Godowsky's and Bolet's).
Instead, throw in between your feasting on Hummel and De Greef a little bit of the Op. 7 toccata (I like Lehvinne's. Barere's is fun too). After a particularly enjoyable sessions of Mozkowski, let Horowitz' in Moscow spend three minutes on Traumerei. After becoming sated with all eight (or 28, whatever he wrote) of Herz' concertos, play the video of the scherzo from the quintet, and if you finally got too much Thalberg for a day, give the slow movement of the piano quartet a chance. Yard work? Novellete No. 1.
Looking for something new to discover after the Hanon bust? Not one person in the world knows Schumann's third sonata (the concerto without orchestra, if you want to call it something Alkanian), which Horowitz recorded sandwiched in between some Clementi and Scriabin. You want it even more obscure? Try the absolutely heavenly Andante and Variations for two pianos, two cellos and horn - a work so very neglected that Clara denied it an opus number and you can get it as a companion piece to the Dussek Double Concerto.
https://www.amazon.com/Dussek-Concerto-Schumann-Andante-Variations/dp/B00076YPD0
...kind of like green eggs and ham, but please, no more binging!
-
Looking for something new to discover after the Hanon bust? Not one person in the world knows Schumann's third sonata (the concerto without orchestra, if you want to call it something Alkanian), which Horowitz recorded sandwiched in between some Clementi and Scriabin.
No, not that one! Most Schumann-ites I've met find this piece one of the dullest he wrote! What about the Gesange Der Fruhe op.132? The 1st of which has some absoluteley amazing counterpoint!
-
There he goes again.
Op. 132 is good for people who like Schumann. I would love to hear I am wrong, but my super-human powers of perception suggest by the third phrase he would be "Why am I listening still to this crap? Let's skip to the Dussek track quickly, Ahhh (that's a yawn).
Thal, nothing dull with Op. 14, and see, even people who love Schumann think that it is on par with Heller. That must be good, right?
-
this is getting pointless what is this obsession of wheater Thal likes Schumann or not, if this continues we will end up with hundreds of topic titled Healdie why don't you like Chopin? or Ahinton why don't you like Schubert? and then one for every other memeber we all have our opinions and some writers just don't appeal to some
-
I disagree. I think Alkan is irrelevant to Franck, Saint-Saens, Dukas, Debussy, Ravel, and Messiaen - maybe even Boulez, let alone Satie and Poulenc. In terms of impact and importance to the development of subsequent style, Chaminade - fluffy and inconsequential as she was - was way more influential than Alkan. You wanna talk important? Talk Nadia Boulanger.
I would say Alkan's impact is not felt until you get to the likes of Sorabji and Finnissy, and by then you had had Godowsky, who was the one that really open the door to a pianistic style beyond the language of Chopin and Liszt (Liszt particularly having opened the door to the styles of Bartok, Rachmaninoff and Prokofiev, Debussy and Ravel, and even Messiaen).
...and by the way, if I were to bet on a single piece of Alkan that would secure his name in the piano literature, it would be the symphony for piano solo (if you want to extrapolate it from the etudes in minor keys). Festin would come much after the concerto for piano solo, allegro barbaro, or even something as insipid as comme le vent.
I think that a distinction needs to drawn here between influence and impact as part of an overview which must take into account the fact that Alkan's work had little of either in the latter 19th and early 20th century beause it was rarely performed; the fact that you write of Sorabji and Finnissy in this context is therefore far from inappropriate (although Sorabji was already in print extolling Alkan's virtues a decade or two before Finnissy was born). You mention Godowsky, but the impact of his work was also largely much more recent; for example, his monumental cycle of Chopin study transcriptions was completed almost a century ago yet the first complete recording of it is barely two decades old and only a tiny handful of pianists have it in their repertoires, just as not that many more, even today, are playing his other works. Alkan's Symphonie is certainly one of his finest and at the same time approachable creations, as is the cello sonata. Alkan was Alkan - a very individual and unusual voice, respected by certain French musicians since he was active professionally, whose music seems to have puzzled far more people than it pleased until recent times.
Best,
Alistair
-
Hi Alistair,
Interesting that you have a block with Schubert. I suspect the same structure present in the Thal-Schumann block.
I cannot say for sure.
Could it be that you crave something in music that Schubert is denying you? Just like the glitter, sacharine and merry-go-happy feeling that Thal enjoys in something like the finale of Hummel's Op. 89 concerto and the macho Menschlichkeit that he senses in something like Tausig's Weber and Strauss waltzes is absent from the sickly likes of Kresleriana, Kinderscenen and even the manly-man Symphonic Etudes, could it be that you are looking for a Bach or Beethoven-like plan in the music of Schubert? Meaningful motivic and structural organization, such as you readily find in Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Scriabin, Ravel, Wagner, Bach and Beethoven, is something you will seek in vain in Schubert.
Not that his music is amorphous. It is just that propulsion and dialectic energy is not what that music is about.
Whether or not I might do that is not really the point, since I am not criticising Schubert here but merely offering my own take on how most of his work strikes me - in other words, I do not expect Schubert to do - nor do I seek in his work - things that it was not in his brief as a composer to do. Schubert was certainly very much affected by Beethoven's example and there is no shortage of evidence of Beethoven's influence across his mature work, even if that influence is rarely actually paramount.
Let me guess: you also despise Philip Glass. That feeling of static there is nothing happening must be somewhat sickening; like "how many times do we have to go through this? I heard you already!"
As I observed in the albeit quite different context of the foreword to my Étude en forme de Chopin, "guesswork can involve dangerous risks"; you should stop guessing! It is true that I find very little in Philip Glass's work that appeals to me at all and the kind of thing that you describe here is by no means far from the mark in terms of my own responses to it, but I do not "despise" him at all, any more than I do other composers whose work does little for me such as Morton Feldman, Steve Reich, Michael Torke et al - nor, I imagine, does Elliott Carter, even though such music is largely anathema to him - he's far less concerned with "despising" the composer that with going and listening to something else! There are a few other composers whose works I actually find largely repellent and discretion naturally precludes me from naming them, but their work interests me insufficiently for me to "despise" them. For the record, I do not "despise" Schubert either...
The thing is, the feeling at hand is one of obsession: no problem-solving: just good ole wallowing. Hopelessness (and bliss) require the absence of a goal to progress to.
I don't quite buy that. For me, a good wallow and a tough piece of intellectual reasoning, a rêverie and a dramatic structure with problem-solving and so on are by no means necessarily incompatible. Were that not the case, it would seem inconceivable that anyone might warm both to Messiaen and to early Schönberg, or to Debussy and Sibelius...
Best,
Alistair
-
I love your intelligent conversation, Al.
Certainly despise is too active of a word, what an Arsenal fan will feel for Chelsea. I have fun guessing, and my next is that you do not have voo-doo dolls of either Glass or Schubert with what could be mistaken for a practice accupuncture session.
As a point of semantics, I do think that hopelessness and bliss (although certainly not the act of wallowing in itself) do require certain static quality. For the ontoly of such states implies the absence of something other to move to, either because it is so bad there is no point in trying to change, or because it is so good that change is not needed or desired.
Certainly you can wallow and still have propulsion, but I posit to you that the driver in such situation is hope, a desire for change that is not extinguished by the certainty that change cannot be gotten, and that effort or even reaction is futile.
Naturally, there is a lot of propulsion in Schubert, but my point is not that propulsion is absent, but that one of the feelings Schubert captured best was hopelessness. These feelings can of course coexist, even in the same piece, for one without hope can develop it, and one with hope can lose it.
Then there is evasion, where you have propulsion not for the sake of resolution or progress, but because hopelessness feels so very bad that it is too much to bear. After all, until our conciousness shuts down, we are in propulsion physically even if we are spiritually hopeless. I think there is a lot of that in Schubert.
It strikes me that you are not very atuned to hopelessness, and any you may have finds an evasion outlet through humor (particularly tongue-in-cheek) and abstraction (as in unduly formal disection of light-hearted writing, and perhaps a need to not be light-hearted about other people's triviality).
My guess is that when you listen to Schubert and Schubert irks you, or disapoints you, or simply leaves you indiferent, Schubert is arting about hopelessness and evasion, and you are being you and either dismissing or rejecting the message.
Oh my goodness, and this is without a psychoanalysis license.
I should have stuck to the banjo on my knees.
-
Alkan is *NOT* in the same group of composers as Henselt, Tausig, et. al.
Alkan may not be on a trajectory to mass popular appeal, but his piano music is of huge importance to the French School specifically, and the development of 19th/20th century piano music in general.
I disagree. I think Alkan is irrelevant to Franck, Saint-Saens, Dukas, Debussy, Ravel, and Messiaen - maybe even Boulez, let alone Satie and Poulenc.
I've heard that both Debussy and Ravel were familiar with Alkan's music, and I believe that it was also considered important 50+ years ago by some teachers at the Paris Conservatoire. I would like to give you an actual formal citation for that, but I'm going from memory of a conversation that I had a few years ago with a French-trained pianist, so I'll just have to hope that my memory is accurate.
-
Let's skip to the Dussek track quickly
Good advice even though that was not one of his greatest efforts.
Thal
-
Someone tell me who prints Herz's music. HOw I can get a hold of some of those transcriptions?
-
I would be amazed if anything of Herz is still being published.
All of the shhets posted here will have been scanned from old books or purchased from music libraries.
I doubt if anything has been published in the last 100 years or more.
Thal
-
There he goes again.
Op. 132 is good for people who like Schumann. I would love to hear I am wrong, but my super-human powers of perception suggest by the third phrase he would be "Why am I listening still to this crap? Let's skip to the Dussek track quickly, Ahhh (that's a yawn).
Thal, nothing dull with Op. 14, and see, even people who love Schumann think that it is on par with Heller. That must be good, right?
I'm going again? I've posted like twice in this thread. :(
So exactly how does a weak piece of Schuman that people who like Schumann generally don't like going to help someone who doesn't like Schumann come around?
I give up, it seems as though Thal is not going to change his mind, and some may see it as his loss, however if he is happy to like what he likes, then fine with him!
-
The only thing I've found published are some excercizes which look a lot like Liszt's.
So where, for example, did you see this "Cenerentola" paraphrase?
-
One of the best resources for out of print music is
https://www.worldcat.org/
However, that does not include the British Library which probably has the largest collection of sheet music in the Universe.
https://www.bl.uk/
Type in the words Henri Herz into their search engines and you will get hundreds of hits.
Thal
-
I'm going again? I've posted like twice in this thread. :(
So exactly how does a weak piece of Schuman that people who like Schumann generally don't like going to help someone who doesn't like Schumann come around?
I give up, it seems as though Thal is not going to change his mind, and some may see it as his loss, however if he is happy to like what he likes, then fine with him!
It is all jest. Of course it is fine Thal does not enjoy Schumann the way he enjoys discovering unheard-off jewells of the literature unfairly neglected simply because they are light-hearted, brilliant, and not something Serking could play (and that frankly suffers greatly by being played in modern pianos in large halls, at some point someone will do for Herz and Thalberg what Munrrow did for what was then amorphously labeled early-music).
As for the logic of suggesting the F Minor sonata, it is not obscure:
The first step is that Thal likes lots of music that are relatively unknown, not what every body likes, and different from what everyone plays. If Schumann's music was all the music there was, both Op. 14 and 132 would fit that category (which would exclude Opp. 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 9, 13, 26, the better-known pieces from album for the young, the prophet bird, the first Novellete, and Op. 54; with Opp. 2, 6, the quintet and the quartet, and Op. 22 kind of around (borderline well-known)).
The second step is that Thal likes music that is not only unknown, but unlike music that is well-known. That strikes Op. 132, which has the ambiguities and exquisitely small proportions typical of Opp. 9, 12 and 15. It also excludes Humoresque and the rest of Op. 21 for the same reason. People who love Schumann love these, therefore they do not satisfy the second requirement of the algorithm - that is: that they be unique as compared with the rest of the literature.
Op. 14 does satisfy this requirement, not because it is dry, but because people like you think that it is not that great (even though it is a masterwork).
Following that logic, it would be great for Thal as an entry point. It should not be ignored, though, that Op. 14 lacks two attributes I find consistently present in the music I think Thal loves: 1) it lacks glitter, 2) it comes from a famous composer.
But then, there is not one measure of Schumann that has the levity of Herz Fantasie Mexicaine. Schumann in fact considered such superficiality something to be fought. The merry but inconsequential music that was the rage of the time was precisely what Schumann vehemently critiqued as a writer and aesthete, and although it would have been inconceivable for someone at the time to think so, that lay the basic ground work for the new music of Wagner and later Richard Strauss and Mahler to arise from the ruins that were all that was left of the golden age of Beethoven and Schubert, ruins which Schumann captured in the last movement of Op. 17.
I find it ironic that what Schumann was worried about would be the only music available, has turned to be itself a treasure to be rediscovered, just like J.S. Bach was for his generation thanks to Mendelssohn and his associates. Maybe Dr. Kreisler and Maestro Raro would have found that to be funny two.
So. Now you can embarrass yourself and quote Sarah Palin quoting Reagan, just like I did with you (although IMHO much more fairly that I did).
;)