Why so much Schumann hatred?

[thalbergmad]

Congratulations on having a thought.

I look forward to hearing of more of them.

Thal

[rienzi]

Hahaha, maybe.  Actually I think Busoni was criticizing the source material for Schumann's composition.  In other words, his inspiration was provincial as opposed to the universal interests of Liszt.

Walter Ramsey

Not very fair of Busoni, really. Schumann was inspired by many things apart from his love for Clara, especially literature. His own writings were pretty extensive, too....don't forget he was one of the first to recognise the potential of Chopin when he reviewed the op.2 variations.

If Busoni wanted to attack a composer for his "provincial" nature and lack of involvement outside music he might have found more appropriate targets than Schumann, Bruckner for instance. But what's the point of all this?  Music is what a musician should be judged upon, not on the details of his life.

[ramseytheii]

Not very fair of Busoni, really. Schumann was inspired by many things apart from his love for Clara, especially literature. His own writings were pretty extensive, too....don't forget he was one of the first to recognise the potential of Chopin when he reviewed the op.2 variations.

If Busoni wanted to attack a composer for his "provincial" nature and lack of involvement outside music he might have found more appropriate targets than Schumann, Bruckner for instance. But what's the point of all this?  Music is what a musician should be judged upon, not on the details of his life.

I agree with you in many ways.  And I would also note that Busoni, to my memory, actually did use the word "provincial" to describe Schumann's music somewhere.  I originally thought it was in the same quote, quoth above, but now I am not sure where I read it.

Schumann hatred has always had something of the irrational in it.  I am not sure what it is about this fellow that inspires it, but I wonder if it is his avoidance, in his life, of extremes.  He was solidly middle class, wanted to bring a middle class sensibility to music's criticism and dissemination.  In short, perhaps it's fair to say he wanted to be normal.

He didn't have the sympathy-inspiring poverty of Schubert or Beethoven, or the constant illness of Chopin (his mental illness affected him mostly when he had already composed his largest share of masterworks), or the adventurous, globe-trotting spirit of Liszt or Wagner.

As you can see, Busoni's criticism was mainly founded in a sort of ad hominem which suggests it is first something about the man's biography that turns him off.

Walter Ramsey

[thalbergmad]

As you can see, Busoni's criticism was mainly founded in a sort of ad hominem which suggests it is first something about the man's biography that turns him off.

I must admit that reading his bio did not assist me in warming to the man and to be honest, that affects my judgement of his music, which is clearly wrong.

Perhaps if I had met him things would have been different. We could have had a few beers, played banjo/piano duets and become friends.

I would have still hated the concerto though.

Thal

[argerichfan]

I have no problems with the piano music, but the symphonies are my stumbling block.  The last movement of the 1st is one of the most tedious things I know (IMO, of course), and several years ago I went to a concert with the 3rd symphony on the programme.  (That is not why I went to the concert.)  It started out grandly, but after a few minutes it just became rather wearisome.

I'm not inclined to endorse Busoni's opinion on Schumann, but given the option of meeting Schumann or Busoni for drinks, I'll take the latter any day!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

.. And I would also note that Busoni, to my memory, actually did use the word "provincial" to describe Schumann's music somewhere.

I'm pretty certain he also used the word "bourgeois" to describe Schumann's music. In fairness, Busoni must have had mixed feelings as he described Alkan as one of the five great composers for the piano after Beethoven, the other four being Liszt, Chopin, Brahms.. and Schumann.

Personally, I really can't find merit in Schumann's piano music. The concerto is half an hour of rambling on saying nothing of any importance whatsoever and I find it only of use as an insomnia cure. To me, it epitomises bland mediocrity. There are some terrific romantic concerti which remain shamefully underplayed and would be a much better use of concert time.

I think he had a poor grasp of structure and that is reflected in the often episodic nature of the end result. I find his attempts at wit merely reinforce the British preconceptions regarding Teutonic humour, and the finale of the Etudes Symphoniques is the crassest thing in the mainstream romantic repertoire with the possible exception of the hunting call in the Chopin F min concerto or the Marziale in the Liszt A maj.

Sorry. It's not like I've rejected him out of hand, I've tried.

[sashaco]

(On a perhaps plebian note...)

Most of us are introduced to Schumann through the Kinderszenen.  Does anyone "hate" these pieces?  (I am asking about hatred not inspired by mere exhaustion at hearing them so much.)

I agree with what several have remarked about his less than inspired structures in larger pieces.  I think it very possible that his gift was for smaller works, but he knew that that is not what makes a name for a composer.  He may have composed, then, under pressure, rather than from inspiration, and this is what makes some of his work seem tedious.

Sasha

[thalbergmad]

The concerto is half an hour of rambling on saying nothing of any importance whatsoever and I find it only of use as an insomnia cure.

I think you could be on to something here old chap.

I going to get some advice from a marketing friend of mine and see what he thinks.

Thal

[stevebob]

[T]he finale of the Etudes Symphoniques is the crassest thing in the mainstream romantic repertoire with the possible exception of the hunting call in the Chopin F min concerto ....

Why would that be considered crass?  I thought I'd encountered every imaginable criticism of Chopin's concertos, but I've never before heard an objection raised to that particular detail.

I always considered it a charming preamble to the unbridled exuberance of the coda, so I guess there's no accounting for taste.  Oh wait—I'm a Schumann lover, so apparently I have no taste.   

[thalbergmad]

I'm a Schumann lover, so apparently I have no taste.   

Not at all old chap. If you love his music I am happy for you.

[frank_48]

im somewhat mixed.. i cant stand anything from album of the young, i tried really hard to like schumann but i couldnt quite grasp anything emotionally. but,the other day my teacher gave me schumanns fantastic dance, and i love it, its fun to play and sounds pretty good imo.

i certainly dont hate the man, though i do think he was a fool for inventing that finger independence device that led to him damaging is 4th finger....

[thalbergmad]

i tried really hard to like schumann but i couldnt quite grasp anything emotionally.

Possibly because there is not any emotion in it.

Thal

[argerichfan]

... i cant stand anything from album of the young...

But the Album for the Young is a huge collection.  How much of it do you know?  Most beginning pianists only study the earlier, easier pieces and then go on to other music.  But once you get past the (admittedly) banal numbers, you'll find some real gems!   (And, btw, they're not all easy by any means.)

[pianisten1989]

Possibly because there is not any emotion in it.

Thal

Or maybe you are unable to feel them?

[thalbergmad]

Every bone in my body is romantic, but i do not recall detecting emotion in Schumann.

Thal

[stevebob]

And yet Friskin and Freundlich found "astonishing romantic warmth and imagination" in Schumann's piano works.  Even though that was written over 50 years ago, it's hard to imagine it was controversial (or that they were alone in their assessment).

[frank_48]

But the Album for the Young is a huge collection.  How much of it do you know?  Most beginning pianists only study the earlier, easier pieces and then go on to other music.  But once you get past the (admittedly) banal numbers, you'll find some real gems!   (And, btw, they're not all easy by any means.)

i bought the album a little while back, contained about 40 pieces, it also came with a CD i dabbled here and there trying to find something i could see myself playing, listened to the whole cd but just didnt find anything interesting.

so far the only schumann i like is the phantasietanz

i would really like to hear of these "gems" you speak of, perhaps i missed something....


thal: no, no you didnt.

 

[argerichfan]

so far the only schumann i like is the phantasietanz

Well, I must say, that is one cool piece!  And try 'The Horseman' (not to be confused with 'The Wild Horseman')- it's loads of fun.  And don't you like 'The Happy Farmer'?  I confess- I actually played it on the organ once for a service.   

[argerichfan]

Why would that be considered crass?  I thought I'd encountered every imaginable criticism of Chopin's concertos, but I've never before heard an objection raised to that particular detail.

I have never encountered that complaint before either.  

As for the 'marziale' section in the Liszt A major, well that's admittedly a hard sell.  For those of us who love Liszt (me, for example), we just wink at his exuberance, but that is definitely fodder for those who dislike Liszt.  And I cannot really defend that passage...

[pianisten1989]

How can you be a romantic and not see the emotions in Schumann? Isn't he the most romanic composer? :S

I think he's to impulsive, and probably has to be played before one can really enjoy him..

[rienzi]

im somewhat mixed.. i cant stand anything from album of the young, i tried really hard to like schumann but i couldnt quite grasp anything emotionally. but,the other day my teacher gave me schumanns fantastic dance, and i love it, its fun to play and sounds pretty good imo.

i certainly dont hate the man, though i do think he was a fool for inventing that finger independence device that led to him damaging is 4th finger....

There's a theory that Schumann exaggerated the actual damage to his hand as an excuse (to himself) for giving up his ambitions to be a virtuoso because, deep down, he realised he just wasn't up to it.
It's a theory....just as some contributors here are expounding the view that Schumann's music has no emotion. Just what "emotion in music" is and how it's achieved in sound is another argument, but accepting the fact that music does play on our emotions I would say that, on the contrary, Schumann's music is full of emotion, albeit not the "Shout it from the rooftops" type of Liszt, for example. Schumann's emotion is more intimate; many of his pieces bear "genre" titles like "By the fireside" and "Evening" and the piano concerto has been called "A concerto by candlelight" as opposed to those of the Lisztian type which play in the full glare of the spotlight. It's probably why Bax, his head full of Norse legends and the Celtic Twilight, thought that the concerto represented the worst type of watered-down Romanticism. For those of us who like to hear a gentler voice  occasionally, the Schumann concerto will do just fine.

[thalbergmad]

Isn't he the most romanic composer? :S

That rather depends on what other composers you have experienced to be honest.

To say Schumann is the most romantic composer is about the same as declaring Audley Harrison as the most skilfull boxer that ever lived.

Thal

[pianisten1989]

Yeah, you really got my point there!

But why bother? You'll probably still hate Schumann, just because...

Best

[thalbergmad]

But why bother? You'll probably still hate Schumann, just because...

I have listened to a great deal of his works and been left unmoved.

I am glad you enjoy playing him, but perhaps you need to take off your blinkers at some time in your life, as you might find a whole new world of beauty.

If you wish to remain another hack churning out the same old stuff, just carry on.

Thal

[stevebob]

I have listened to a great deal of his works and been left unmoved.

I am glad you enjoy playing him, but perhaps you need to take off your blinkers at some time in your life, as you might find a whole new world of beauty.

If you wish to remain another hack churning out the same old stuff, just carry on.

Thal

It shouldn't be assumed that those who admire the work of historically acclaimed artists, composers, writers, etc. have blinkers on.

Unfortunately, every field of endeavor has a select few who achieve lasting fame and a host of also-rans.  There isn't room in the pantheon of success for everyone to achieve the level of recognition and enduring reputation that the "big names" command.

Even though I readily concede that commercial success has no correlation with quality in popular culture, most people do accept that historical validation tends to be bestowed upon those who are worthy—and that there's a reason that all the rest either fall out of favor and settle into the status of has-beens or fail to find acknowledgment in the first place.

It's certainly possible that an unsung hero of profound artistry could be discovered (or rediscovered), but how often does that happen?  And some people may sincerely find the works of second-tier, avant garde, obscure or wholly unknown artists to be more congenial to their own tastes, but do they generally insist that such predilections are actually superior?  Does following the path less traveled—and having pride in doing so—necessarily indicate higher wisdom?

I guess I don't understand whether the rejection of the mainstream is meant as an outright indictment of quality or simply signifies a personal and idiosyncratic indulgence without broader implication.

Thal, I assume from your statements and your screen name that you believe Thalberg was a better composer than Schumann (and probably many others).  If so, why?  On what kinds of tangible criteria?  You've been candid about not being able to discuss music in musical terms, so whence comes your insight and your conviction that you're correct?

Maybe I misunderstand, and you just like Thalberg and other relatively unfamiliar or overlooked composers more without actually claiming that they are superior.  If that's the case, I think that's great; we like what we like.  But it's not at all clear what you're really saying.

I will admit to feeling that much of what earns popular acclaim is overrated.  I, too, find much of interest in the unconventional, the little known, the recondite.  But it wouldn't occur to me to propose that the verdicts of history have generally been wrong in assessments of quality, merit and value.

Who ultimately determines what's a timeless masterpiece?  On what basis?  Maybe I'm overanalyzing, but it seems that these are the kinds of questions that underpin this discussion even though they haven't been asked directly.  I'm just trying to understand what's being argued here, and why.

[vviola]

Am I the only one that sees square patterns in Schumann's scores? I wonder if the squares have something to do with the blandness of the music. Thal should know what I mean. Squares!

[stevebob]

Am I the only one that sees square patterns in Schumann's scores? I wonder if the squares have something to do with the blandness of the music. Thal should know what I mean. Squares!

Well, there's this:



Dunno about any blandness, though.   

[argerichfan]

There's a theory that Schumann exaggerated the actual damage to his hand as an excuse (to himself) for giving up his ambitions to be a virtuoso because, deep down, he realised he just wasn't up to it.

No.  I've read a lot of stuff about Schumann, but never that. 

Schumann was traumatized by his injury and did everything medically possible, but the damage had been done.  If you feel that is not correct, then you need to cite sources.   

[argerichfan]

I have listened to a great deal of his works and been left unmoved.

Well good on you.

I am glad you enjoy playing him, but perhaps you need to take off your blinkers at some time in your life, as you might find a whole new world of beauty.

Who the heck are you addressing this to?   Your 'blinkers' are the most knee jerk I've ever seen here. 

You know, Thal, I've always liked you, but this is simply insane.  If you don't like Schumann, well that is fine.  But would you please stop?  Could you just let it go?  Why do you need to keep beating a dead horse?  You've admitted you cannot play the piano, you basically read music on an elementary level,  you seem to know nothing outside of piano concertos, what really is your agenda?   Come on, mate, enough. 

If you wish to remain another hack churning out the same old stuff, just carry on.

One could say that about you.  Believe me, I know all those Herz concertos... one listen has always sufficed.  They're totally empty musically, no wonder one never finds them on a concert programme. 

But the Schumann keeps coming up, and for good reason.  Care to argue with Martha Argerich who has always loved that concerto?  I suppose you know more than she?  Of course not.  You simply disagree.. and that is your right to do so.

Love...

[pocho]

Never been a fan, either. I have also listened to so many of his works but nothing seemed to appeal to me the slightest bit, and I can't find a reason why.

I don't hate him, though.

[lostinidlewonder]

Schumann is a beautiful composer, one particular thing I found fun about him when I was young was with some pieces how the thumbs follow each other like a couple, I remember this romanze I learnt as one of my favorite pieces which highlight a couple in love via the thumbs following each other. This is serious romantic stuff

[pianisten1989]

I have listened to a great deal of his works and been left unmoved.

I am glad you enjoy playing him, but perhaps you need to take off your blinkers at some time in your life, as you might find a whole new world of beauty.

If you wish to remain another hack churning out the same old stuff, just carry on.

Thal

Maybe you just don't get it? And do you have to keep on telling eeeeeveryone that you don't like Schumann?

[rienzi]

No.  I've read a lot of stuff about Schumann, but never that. 

Schumann was traumatized by his injury and did everything medically possible, but the damage had been done.  If you feel that is not correct, then you need to cite sources.   

Sorry, but my brain is not catalogued like a public library. Over about half a century of reading books, listening to discussions, having discussions etc. about music, I cannot recall, much less cite, a source for everything I've ever read or heard. Believe me though, what I said about Schumann's hand injury wasn't my own invention. Whoever posited it probably couldn't prove it anyway, in much the same way as one biographer of Schumann theorised that he contracted the syphilis that was eventually to kill him through a series of homosexual encounters which took place before he married Clara. And, in case your wondering, I can't remember in which biography I read that, either!

[rienzi]

  Believe me, I know all those Herz concertos... one listen has always sufficed.  They're totally empty musically, no wonder one never finds them on a concert programme. 

This, again, is a subjective opinion. Having previously known Herz  by several sets of elegant, but unremarkable, variations, I was pleasantly surprised on hearing his concertos in which I discovered music which I considered to be of much charm and imagination. Indeed I felt that this was one of the best discoveries of the "Romantic piano Concerto" series, far outstripping yawn-making pieces by the likes of Kullak, Benedict, Dreyschock etc., - but who's to say there aren't people out there who very-much love some of those pieces?

Terms like "Totally empty musically" intrigue me because I wonder what people mean by them.
I would use the term to describe a book of technical exercises and not even the worst of the Biedermeier school of concertos can possibly be on that level, although I must admit that many of them might be considered the dregs at the bottom of the barrel.

[thalbergmad]

Maybe you just don't get it? And do you have to keep on telling eeeeeveryone that you don't like Schumann?

Correct, I do not get it.

Whenever i see these threads pop up, i cannot help but contribute.

I am hardly on my own with my dislike of this composer.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

It's certainly possible that an unsung hero of profound artistry could be discovered (or rediscovered), but how often does that happen? 

Reasonably recently with Johann Rufinatscha.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

This, again, is a subjective opinion. Having previously known Herz  by several sets of elegant, but unremarkable, variations, I was pleasantly surprised on hearing his concertos in which I discovered music which I considered to be of much charm and imagination. Indeed I felt that this was one of the best discoveries of the "Romantic piano Concerto" series, far outstripping yawn-making pieces by the likes of Kullak, Benedict, Dreyschock etc., - but who's to say there aren't people out there who very-much love some of those pieces?

Argerichfan is just throwing his toys out of the pram as his hero is being criticised.

At least he has the decency to listen to something before criticising it. With some on here, I have my doubts.

Thal

[argerichfan]

Argerichfan is just throwing his toys out of the pram as his hero is being criticised.

Meh.  Hardly a hero my good mate.  Liszt and Wagner, now we're into 'hero' territory.  Thanks for letting me have the rant.  Felt good... 

[thalbergmad]

No hard feelings old chap.

It always does one good to things off ones chest.

Just like a fart is better out than in.

Must go, working on some exquisite Herz nocturnes.

Thal

[argerichfan]

...in much the same way as one biographer of Schumann theorised that he contracted the syphilis that was eventually to kill him through a series of homosexual encounters which took place before he married Clara.

Schumann's homosexual encounter with Ludwig Schunke is fairly well documented, though the syphilis issue is open to debate.   The most recent bio I read of Schumann is by Peter Ostwald, and there is some mention of this.  (But it has been several years since I read the book.) 

Your user name is interesting.  A real slap-up production of Rienzi ought to be a hulluva show, though I imagine the cost would be prohibitive. 

[thalbergmad]

Attn all Schumann lovers. Please print and play the following, especially the first.

Is there as much beauty here as in some Schumann?

https://rapidshare.com/files/377257072/herz_-_op_45__trois_nocturnes_caracteristiques.zip

Thal

[argerichfan]

Just like a fart is better out than in.

Indeed. 

Must go, working on some exquisite Herz nocturnes.

Must go too... I'm consoling a friend who has been stuck in Spain an extra four days.  The hotel bills are mounting up.  He tentatively has a flight back to the UK on Monday, but things aren't looking good.  Ugh. 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

It's certainly possible that an unsung hero of profound artistry could be discovered (or rediscovered), but how often does that happen?  And some people may sincerely find the works of second-tier, avant garde, obscure or wholly unknown artists to be more congenial to their own tastes, but do they generally insist that such predilections are actually superior?  Does following the path less traveled—and having pride in doing so—necessarily indicate higher wisdom?

No, it doesn't necessary indicate higher wisdom, but it would be pretty pathetic if people choose to dismiss the music of composers they haven't actually listened to, purely because received "wisdom" is that they are not important.

I guess I don't understand whether the rejection of the mainstream is meant as an outright indictment of quality or simply signifies a personal and idiosyncratic indulgence without broader implication.

Speaking purely for myself, not liking Schumann does not signify a rejection of the mainstream, it merely signifies that I don't like Schumann.

I will admit to feeling that much of what earns popular acclaim is overrated.  I, too, find much of interest in the unconventional, the little known, the recondite.  But it wouldn't occur to me to propose that the verdicts of history have generally been wrong in assessments of quality, merit and value.

However the historical verdict on many composers has changed due to greater knowledge, research, understanding, etc: e.g. Liszt and, more recently, Alkan.

Thal, I assume from your statements and your screen name that you believe Thalberg was a better composer than Schumann (and probably many others).  If so, why?  On what kinds of tangible criteria?  You've been candid about not being able to discuss music in musical terms, so whence comes your insight and your conviction that you're correct?

Maybe I misunderstand, and you just like Thalberg and other relatively unfamiliar or overlooked composers more without actually claiming that they are superior.  If that's the case, I think that's great; we like what we like.  But it's not at all clear what you're really saying.

I'm not Thal, but (though it's rather off-topic) I'm willing to attempt to make a case for taking Thalberg seriously. (see next post)

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Firstly, I must say that I don't think Thalberg is a composer of the absolute first rank, as his most meritorious (imo) output is mostly limited to the paraphrase/transcription genre. However, I believe him to be a composer of importance, particularly in view of his contributions to the advancement of piano textures.

Some examples:

Firstly, from the theme and variations which form the second half of his fantasy on "Moses in Egypt". Personally I find this section to be satisfying both compositionally and pianistically and it seems to go down a treat in concert.

This is probably the most notorious example of Thalberg's favourite effect - sometimes known as the "three-handed effect" because when audience encountered it they were being presented with an illusion that there were three hands, one for the arpeggios, one for the bass and one for the melody. Nowadays we clearly understand what is happening, i.e. the melody is being shared between the hands.



From earlier in the variations, here is another, albeit much more subtle, example of the effect.



There is something I find particularly historically interesting about the first example. In 1837, Liszt and Thalberg had an infamous piano duel (there were other musicians playing at the concert, but the duel was the evident centrepiece). Thalberg played the Moses Fantasy (and a rather disposable fantasy on God Save the King), but what is notable if you have a familiarity with the paraphrase genre is that both composer-pianists clearly had an effect on each other's writing post-event. Three-handed (usually arpeggiated) effects start cropping up in Liszt's writing (e.g. Norma, Lucia di Lammermoor and later on, Ernani) and alternate octave and chordal effects start cropping up in Thalberg's writing. I don't think it's too much to presume that both of them saw something in the work of their rival and thought "I rather like that idea". Of course, this doesn't per se make Thalberg a great composer, but if Liszt found something sufficiently meritorious to pinch the idea, is that not interesting?

Here's an example of Thalberg using Liszt's alternate chord effect, and rather cleverly fitting a melody around it. Apologies for the poor scan quality.



He is not just a purveyor of flashy writing, which some might choose to believe from the above examples. It is a shame that his op. 70 set of arrangements are not well known or widely used in teaching, and lovers of miniatures should look into his Soirees de Pausilippe.

I think people underestimate just how much Thalberg contributed alongside Liszt and Chopin to the development of piano writing. It's possible all of this makes him ultimately just a highly-skilled and ingenious technician/craftsman, and not a worthwhile composer, but personally I find much of his output rather satisfying.

I don't expect people to agree with my views, but I hope that what I've written is at least food for thought.

[thalbergmad]

Well said sir.

Thal

[frank_48]

Schumann's homosexual encounter with Ludwig Schunke is fairly well documented, though the syphilis issue is open to debate.

hmm? what? how could schumann have been gay if he was in love with clara??

[soitainly]

 I have to thank this thread for helping me to "discover" Schumann. I have only been playing piano a little over a year and part of the fun is finding lots of new music that I hadn't paid much attention to before. So when I first started reading this thread I revisited listening to "Traumerei" which I happened to have a copy of, I instantly fell in love with it. I don't know why it had gone right past me before, but that has been the case with lots of piano music that I had previously dismissed. I won't go so far as saying that I will become a Schumann fanatic, but my thoughts on his worthiness have certainly been raised.

 I can fully understand why someone even with great musical education and experience can still dislike a certain composer. It would be nice if some one could articulate those dislikes with out demeaning the people that do like his music however. I am not saying that this is the case here but sometimes it can take years to "get" some composers. When I was younger, I really disliked Bach, I thought it sounded like endless scales goimg up and down. I now know better, (even though some of his works still sound a bit like scales going up and down to me:). More recently I started liking Mozart, before I thought his music sounded to simplistic and pop, I now know better. Even more recently I have started liking Chopin, before I thought all the harmonic changes hard to follow, I now know better.

So my point is that if you leave your mind open you can revisit and discover things from composers that may have previously eluded you. As others have said, there is a reason that certain composers are revered by the majority of scholars, whether you like them or not it isn't a bad idea to study their music. I still have composers and specific pieces I don't care much for, but leave open the possibillity that they may have merit. Some of my favorite music now is things that I have really hated in the past.

 One last thing, as I said I discovered "Traumerei" I found I had Tarrega's guitar transcription and started learning it. On guitar it is not such a simple piece, but sounds really nice. I am really a guitar player just dabbling in piano a bit, again partly because I love discovering the vast piano literature that I hadn't really studied much before.

[liordavid]

(On a perhaps plebian note...)

Most of us are introduced to Schumann through the Kinderszenen.  Does anyone "hate" these pieces?  (I am asking about hatred not inspired by mere exhaustion at hearing them so much.)

I agree with what several have remarked about his less than inspired structures in larger pieces.  I think it very possible that his gift was for smaller works, but he knew that that is not what makes a name for a composer.  He may have composed, then, under pressure, rather than from inspiration, and this is what makes some of his work seem tedious.

Sasha

I have to agree with you sasha. the kinderszenen are defenitely not very exciting works especially the Traumerei when it is played excrutiatingly slowly. I was introduced to schumann by the Album of the Young. I loved these works and always remember them from my first years at the piano. these pieces were fun to play, simple, and had a wide range of emotions. I find that as shumanns piano works get more difficult, they gradually get more boring. We have the Album of the Young, Kinderszenen, Arebeske, Davidsbundlertanze, Fantasiestucke etc... al the way to the tocatta. which in my opinoin is a b very boring piece.

[pianisten1989]

.

[argerichfan]

I don't expect people to agree with my views, but I hope that what I've written is at least food for thought.

Certainly food for thought -and I know the scores you quote here- but go back to Liszt and you'll find all of T's tricks, just filtered through a far greater musical mind.  Doesn't make any difference who came up with it first -though I suspect Liszt and Thalberg were on to this around the same time- yet ultimately you might as well debate the merits of Meyerbeer vs Wagner.  Have at it...