A question to thalbergmad (and possibly others)

[soderlund]

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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[soderlund]

Okay, thank you for that answer. I was only curious, not out for a big argument about Schumann's music, but now I know. 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

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.

[db05]

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?

[birba]

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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[retrouvailles]

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.

[mikey6]

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!

[webern78]

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.

[cmg]

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.  

[cmg]

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!

[webern78]

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.

[argerichfan]

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. 

[webern78]

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.

[retrouvailles]

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.

[pianomom5kids]

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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[cmg]

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.

[argerichfan]

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. 

[thalbergmad]

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

[retrouvailles]

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.

[mikey6]

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!

[general disarray]

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. 

[iumonito]

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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[iumonito]

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?

[landru]

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? 

[webern78]

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?

[general disarray]

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.

 

[iumonito]

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.

[webern78]

...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.

[webern78]

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.

[argerichfan]

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! 

[webern78]

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.

[argerichfan]

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. 

[iumonito]

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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[webern78]

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.

[j.s. bach the 534th]

If Schumann were wiped from history, maybe composers that deserve attention more than Schumann would actually get that attention.

[webern78]

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.

[healdie]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[ronde_des_sylphes]

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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[argerichfan]

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. 

[wervel]

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!

[healdie]

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

[thalbergmad]

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

[iumonito]

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?