Why do so many think the Schumann concerto sucks?

[gyzzzmo]

I don't know... I suppose it depends upon what you think a piano concerto should be about, really!

I think Chopin's concerti are exceptional works, the E minor in particular never fails to amaze me when played well. Considering the young age of the composer at the time they were written only makes them even more impressive, in my opinion!

Ofcourse it is true that it all depends on what you expect from a pianoconcert.
But the easiest way of composing a pianoconcert is by writing a pianopiece and creating a bit extra volume by adding bass and violins. And it must sound like cursing in the church for most people here, but i once performed the 2nd pianoconcert and i couldnt get the feeling off me that the orchestra was completely pointless. The conductor also told me that people love listening to these pieces, but it is really boring to be in the orchestra since its all long notes and no 'duel with the pianist', like you see in rachmaninoff concertos.

Gyzzzmo

[mjames]

I agree with you gym. I love the chopin concertos and all but whenever I see a video or a live concert f an orchestra performing it, THEY ALL LOOK BORED. It's just one of those pieces where it would sound the same even if you took the orchestra away. I can't find any solo versions on YouTube, but there are a shitload of transcriptions for it on imslp! As a whole, the concertos for orchestra is sh*t, but for the piano, you have to admit the writing is just so *** beautiful man.

What I dislike about schumanns concerto is that the most integral part of the concerto(THE PIANO) is really dull and boring. Whereas in chopin, the orchestra is boring but the piano solo parts are extremely well written.

[thalbergmad]

but if you post about things you are completely uninformed about, said posts may be funny in a manner you don't intend.

I have studied, listened to and played more piano concertos than you have got brain cells (which might not be that difficult), so I would take care when using the word uninformed.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

The concerto is not Schumann's greatest piece

One must be grateful for this.

he subconsciously rebelled against anything even slightly resonating with showiness or empty display

Perhaps that is why his concerto is boring.

he negates empty note spinning or egoistic soloistic self-aggrandizing

Another reason why his concerto is boring.

. One who might revel in the vacuous prestidigitation of mid 19th century keyboard warriors is clearly aesthetically ill-equipped to comprehend the pure musical riches of Herr Robert

Snobby elevated horsecrap

Schumann, it seems, is to be criticized from every point of view; from those who enjoy the banal note spinners,

If the twat had not crippled his pianistic mechanism, he might have been a tadge more exciting.

Thal

[awesom_o]

I think we should all just get along. Musicians need to admire, respect, and support each other! It's a nasty, difficult world out there and it's better to have friends than to have enemies.

Thalbergmad is neither the first nor the last accomplished musician to dislike Schumann.

Like any human being, Schumann's output was not "perfectly even". Some of his works resonate deeper with my spirit than others, but I can't say any are vile or devoid entirely of value. I don't particularly care for the ABEGG or the Symphonic Etudes, but I do love his Piano Quartet and Piano Quintet! Who cannot shed a tear in the former when the cello sings so beautifully the theme of the Andante Cantabile?

[thalbergmad]

Thalbergmad is neither the first nor the last accomplished musician to dislike Schumann.

I do not consider myself to be anything like accomplished, but I do consider myself to be open minded enough not just to accept that something is good music just because loads of pianists play  it or because some knobend with a beard in some conservatory told me so 30 years ago.

Thal

[awesom_o]

Well, have you composed anything that smells remotely better than even the smelliest, messiest dump that Schumann ever took?

 

[superstition2]

Well, have you composed anything that smells remotely better than even the smelliest, messiest dump that Schumann ever took?

 

That's not really the standard. The standard is comparing this concerto with all of the neglected piano concertos out there. If there are better concertos that are hardly ever played, then the Schumann concerto deserves to be targeted.

[awesom_o]

Last time I checked, "the standard" was that popular pianists get paid well to perform popular works.
Sadly, this means that the same 15-20 concertos get played again and again and again and again.

You can't really blame Schumann for the fact that many people love his music

[superstition2]

Last time I checked, "the standard" was that popular pianists get paid well to perform popular works.
Sadly, this means that the same 15-20 concertos get played again and again and again and again.

You can't really blame Schumann for the fact that many people love his music

You cite laymen's standards (money and public popularity), not musicians' standards.

McDonald's food and soda are popular but they aren't French gourmet or fine wine. There is a place, of course, for low-grade food products. Suicidal people, for instance, should feel free to consume copious quantities of carbonated dyed sugar syrup or diabetes-inducing high potency sweetener in dyed carbonated water whilst choking down feed lot "beef" products.

[awesom_o]

You cite laymen's standards (money and public popularity), not musicians' standards.

Since when is it a crime to admit that for professionals, music is a business?
It's pretty difficult to have a professional career without the support of the public.
Sadly, the public supports what they want to support!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Sadly, the public supports what they want to support!

I suspect it's a bit more circular than that, and many support what they have been conditioned to support (through repeated exposure). I think the existence of "canonical repertoire" is deeply regrettable.

[awesom_o]

I think the existence of "canonical repertoire" is deeply regrettable.

I agree, but.... much (not all)of what's canonized IS truly outstanding, just as much of what's not canonized (again, not all) is NOT!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I agree, but.... much (not all)of what's canonized IS truly outstanding, just as much of what's not canonized (again, not all) is NOT!

Yes, agreed. Just to make it more awkward ,what is canonical is not set in stone, but changes very slowly over time! (Consider the status of Liszt now compared to say 80 years ago).

[eusebius12]

The Schumann concerto is good music. It isn't very pianistic. That is, the effect is minimal for the effort. The same is true with his other concerted works. Depends on one's perspective. There are composers who composed much more 'effective' piano concertos. I quite like the Henselt, I don't think that has been mentioned a lot around here recently. Beethoven and Mozart concertos are not all that splashy either. Hummel is much more pianistic. I really enjoy Clementi's stuff, although I can't really recall a concerto of his that grabbed me.

I do understand Thalbergmad's perspective a little better. I do believe he is grossly close minded and gratuitously insulting to Schumann, which is sad. I wonder if he has heard Horowitz playing Schumann, especially the late recordings? These are revelatory. However even he (probably the greatest Schumann interpreter of all time) never recorded the concerto (as far as I am aware). He loved the 1st movement, but for him the finale was too 'etude-like'.

On a slightly different note, for someone who admires Vladigerov, there are many balkan composers, genuinely neglected, who have made me sit up and take notice relatively recently, like Tajcevic, Hristic, Dragoi, even Kalomiris. Enescu is a giant. So evidently is Dmitri Cuclin. Not all of these composed much for piano though.

[eusebius12]

I think we should all just get along. Musicians need to admire, respect, and support each other! It's a  but I do love his Piano Quartet and Piano Quintet! Who cannot shed a tear in the former when the cello sings so beautifully the theme of the Andante Cantabile?

Actually this is one of the few bits of Schumann I quite dislike

It is pure schmaltz...not typical Schumann at all.

[awesom_o]

I confess... I enjoy a bit of well-crafted schmaltz from time to time! 

[thalbergmad]

The Schumann concerto is good music.

In your opinion

It isn't very pianistic

.

It isn't very interesting either.

There are composers who composed much more 'effective' piano concertos.

Hundreds, even if we limit ourselves to the Romantics.

I quite like the Henselt

Well, at least you have some taste.

I don't think that has been mentioned a lot around here recently

That depends on how much you are prepared to read before machine gunning the place with posts.

Beethoven and Mozart concertos are not all that splashy either

Depends what you mean by splashy.

I really enjoy Clementi's stuff, although I can't really recall a concerto of his that grabbed me

Well, we cannot really use him to compare with Schumann.

I do understand Thalbergmad's perspective a little better.

I doubt it.

I do believe he is grossly close minded and gratuitously insulting to Schumann, which is sad

.

I base my judgement on a wide variety of works for piano and orchestra that I have played, studied and listened to. I am happily insulting to Schumann.

 

I wonder if he has heard Horowitz playing Schumann, especially the late recordings?

Sadly yes, and they are horrid. Not even Horowitz could polish a turd.

However even he (probably the greatest Schumann interpreter of all time) never recorded the concerto (as far as I am aware).

There is nothing in it for him.

Thal

[eusebius12]

In your opinion
.

It isn't very interesting either.

Hundreds, even if we limit ourselves to the Romantics.

in your opinion

Well, at least you have some taste.

quite a lot, actually The Henselt is a fine piece. Henselt is certainly neglected. As is Dreyschock. However Henselt is the more interesting. Dreyschock is less empty than one would expect, considering what was said about him by contemporaries.

That depends on how much you are prepared to read before machine gunning the place with posts.

You machine gunned the place with anti-Schumann bile first.

Depends what you mean by splashy.

I know both were pianists and they played there own music in public, and liked to make an effect via the display of their own virtuosity. However the musical virtues are always predominant. Never is there any sense of empty virtuosity.

Well, we cannot really use him to compare with Schumann.

I doubt it.
.

I base my judgement on a wide variety of works for piano and orchestra that I have played, studied and listened to. I am happily insulting to Schumann.

(sic)
I have studied an awful lot of piano music too. All (well nearly) of Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Bach, Mozart, Schumann, most of Faure, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Haydn, Scarlatti, Ravel, Scriabin, a good deal of Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Franck, Clementi, Bartok, Rameau, Handel, d'Indy and Mendelssohn. So?
This represents more than 20,000 hours at the keyboard. I've also worked on the major art songs of Schumann, Schubert, Mussorgsky, Faure, Brahms and Rachmaninov. In my view, Schumann is the 3rd or 4th greatest composer for piano. And probably 5th or 6th greatest composer of all time across genres. The Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, the Davidsbundler dances, the Symphonic Etudes, and the Kinderszenen are amongst the most glorious, beautiful, rich, and spiritual works for any solo instrument.

 

Sadly yes, and they are horrid. Not even Horowitz could polish a turd.

Rubbish. So you think that Horowitz' late recordings are horrid? That's idiotic. Anyone who is open minded ought to allow the late Horowitz Schumann recordings to wash over them. This is music making of a rare kind, one supreme genius totally understanding another. Horowitz here deifies Schumann, who in turn deifies Horowitz. Here we have the soul of the true tondichter being revealed in all its crystalline glory. Those who fail to experience this pure beauty are only robbing themselves, which is pitiable. This is as far from vapid scalar or arpeggio roulades as can possibly be imagined, this is pure music making in which not a note or gesture is misplaced. Horowitz reveals most fully what Hutcheson says about the Kreisleriana: "To appreciate it a high level of aesthetic intelligence is required...This is no facile music; there is severity alike in its beauty and its passion". Also, in relation to the Fantasy in C, that "no words can describe the Phantasie, no quotations set for the majesty of its genius..One must here it often from eminent pianists to get an adequate idea of its grandeur"

There is nothing in it for him.

Thal

Horowitz, who adored Schumann, must have known less than you? Or perhaps he knew the artistic worth of the music better than most, being possibly the greatest pianist of all time.

[eusebius12]

To give an example of empty virtuosity. Running up the keyboard with scales, arpeggios and the like, for no particular reason. Fast runs with no particular melodic content. Play the theme, maybe with the thumbs, then run around it with arpeggios, and then play a little bit more theme. No wonder performers created a canon in which this kind of thing was excluded. The artists decided the canon, not the public; the public were always keener on the fluff, and used to require bits of fluff in between movements of serious works; a whole Beethoven sonata was considered far too heavy going in the 1850s.

[thalbergmad]

Rubbish. So you think that Horowitz' late recordings are horrid? That's idiotic.

No, I think Schumann is horrid. Not ever Horowitz could extract beauty from Schumann because it does not exist in the first place.

Thal

[eusebius12]

It is uninteresting what you think of Schumann, especially repeated ad nauseam ad infinitum (unless by some miracle you can provide some sort of coherent critique of him). Maybe you just enjoy trolling.


This is an interesting discussion of Schumann:
http://www.talkclassical.com/34398-appreciating-robert-schumann-2.html

Here also is an interesting article on Schumann's legacy (by Charles Rosen, partially behind a paywall): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/happy-birthday-robert-schumann/

[thalbergmad]

It is uninteresting what you think of Schumann

Why do you keep replying to my posts then??

Maybe you just enjoy trolling.

I enjoy winding up imbeciles and snobs even more.

This is an interesting discussion of Schumann:
http://www.talkclassical.com/34398-appreciating-robert-schumann-2.html

There is no such thing as an interesting discussion of Schumann.

Here also is an interesting article on Schumann's legacy

Here is an even more interesting pile of horsecrap
http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/6338129-a-pile-of-fresh-horse-manure-on-green-grass.jpg

Why do you keep posting links??

Thal

[visitor]

^ lolz

as for links, i welcome them, so long as they are of this kind
 

[thalbergmad]

I expect Schumann would have been useless at golf as well. Like Nick Faldo at his boring best, he would hit 18 pars without trying for a birdie.

Thal

[awesom_o]

I expect Schumann would have been useless at golf as well. Like Nick Faldo at his boring best, he would hit 18 pars without trying for a birdie.

Thal

18 pars would make Schumann a scratch golfer! Hardly useless, even when compared to the top international stars of the game! 

[thalbergmad]

Pars don't win majors.

Thal

[awesom_o]

I'm not saying that Schumann was a major winner.... I'm just saying.... he wasn't a major loser

[mjames]

I have studied an awful lot of piano music too. All (well nearly) of Beethoven, Chopin, Brahms, Bach, Mozart, Schumann, most of Faure, Rachmaninov, Debussy, Haydn, Scarlatti, Ravel, Scriabin, a good deal of Liszt, Tchaikovsky, Franck, Clementi, Bartok, Rameau, Handel, d'Indy and Mendelssohn. So?
This represents more than 20,000 hours at the keyboard. I've also worked on the major art songs of Schumann, Schubert, Mussorgsky, Faure, Brahms and Rachmaninov. In my view, Schumann is the 3rd or 4th greatest composer for piano. And probably 5th or 6th greatest composer of all time across genres. The Kreisleriana, the Fantasy, the Davidsbundler dances, the Symphonic Etudes, and the Kinderszenen are amongst the most glorious, beautiful, rich, and spiritual works for any solo instrument.

 Rubbish. So you think that Horowitz' late recordings are horrid? That's idiotic. Anyone who is open minded ought to allow the late Horowitz

No Medtner?

Or Liadov..?  

[eusebius12]

Why do you keep replying to my posts then??

pot, kettle

Why do you keep posting links??

Thal

Why do you bother posting at all, since your posts are worthless? Your opinions are garbage, your ability to articulate a coherent argument nonexistent. Just opinionated douchebaggery. Stick to what you know, which is obviously very little.

[eusebius12]

No Medtner?

Or Liadov..?  

Medtner has never really grabbed me, he seems neither Germanic nor Russian. But I don't dismiss his works as lacking in value. Liadov's most interesting works to me are orchestral. Unlike some though, I am open to new experiences.

I should have added Grieg to the above list..

[mjames]

Medtner has never really grabbed me, he seems neither Germanic nor Russian. But I don't dismiss his works as lacking in value. Liadov's most interesting works to me are orchestral. Unlike some though, I am open to new experiences.

I should have added Grieg to the above list..

OMFG OMFG YOU SHOULD TOTALLY GET INTO MEDTNER CMON MAN OMFGGGGGGGGG

Medtner..is..Medtner..is....MAGIC

Oh and since youre like a professional, you can probably sightread Liadov...i mean nothing too difficult but *** HES SO LOVELY

[j_menz]

I should have added Grieg to the above list..

Oh come now, surely more than just Edvard. With the possible exception of D'Indy, your list borders on the truly prosaic and (even with him) quaintly old fashioned.

[thalbergmad]

Why do you bother posting at all, since your posts are worthless?

Because it winds up big headed retards.

Thal

[dima_ogorodnikov]

-

[ahinton]

It's perhaps a pity that this thread - if it has to exist at all in the first place - doesn't concentrate more on the Schumann Piano Concerto and what members here think are its virtues, vices and all things in between. It's also a pity that Thal - whose knowledge of 19th century works for piano and orchestra leaves most members here not far in front of the starting post (in case anyone thinks otherwise) - never loses an opportunity to make disparaging remarks about Schumann in general that might suggest to some readers that he believes that all Schumann works are as poor as that concerto. This is indiscriminacy and implied indiscriminacy of the worst order. Thal's welcome, of course, to dislike as much of Schumann as he likes, just as the rest of are to agree or disagree with him, but I'd prefer that he adopt a more pragmatic attitude and calmly go into a reasonable amount of detail as to precisely what he finds so unsatisfying in Schumann's music in general and the piano concerto in particular and how other composers of his day did similar things so much better.

I happen to think that Schumann's piano concerto is one of his least interesting works whose first movement is sufficiently threadbare - in terms of ideas, orchestration and piano writing - to convey the impression of its having outstayed its welcome before its halfway point and whose finale conveys the same impression, only more strongly and by the end of its first couple of pages; Schumann could and did write far better music than this, not least for the piano - and I think it not unreasonable to consider the opinions of the plethora of major composers and distinguished performers (including those mentioned upthread) who have spoken and continue to speak favourably of his best music before assuming that as controversial an opinion as that which Thal presents here with reliable regularity is anything more than a personal viewpoint as distinct from an overall value judgement. Schumann's symphonies are all rather sadly flawed, too, for all their flashes of inspiration and, as technical symphonic accomplishments, none of them features high on a list of such works in his century (again, think Beethoven before him and Bruckner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Mahler and many others after him). The chamber works are, on the whole, on a higher level altogether and, among the vast swathes of piano music, two works in particular stand out as inviolable masterpieces - the Fantaisie and the Études Symphoniques and to hear them in Pollini's hands, for example, is to experience music making of the highest order from both composer and performer.

OK, now I've digressed myself - so, back to why so many people regard the Schumann piano concerto as inferior; put simply, it sits there uncomfortably among some pretty strong competition, from Beethoven's before it to Chopin's two, Alkan's two concerti da camera, Liszt's two (especially the second) in and around its own time and Brahms's and Tchaikovsky's two after it (and these are only the best known - Thal could probably cite hundreds of others) - and it's so clumsy and workmanlike - I nearly typed Kapellmeisterisch - that it's just not good Schumann!

Best,

Alistair

[visitor]

i guess we can stop saying the composer sucks and just post hundreds of examples that are vastly superior  

one down....______ to go?

[thalbergmad]

Now that is a proper romantic concerto, It pisses all over the banal Schumann.

Thal

[eusebius12]

OMFG OMFG YOU SHOULD TOTALLY GET INTO MEDTNER CMON MAN OMFGGGGGGGGG

Medtner..is..Medtner..is....MAGIC


Oh and since youre like a professional, you can probably sightread Liadov...i mean nothing too difficult but *** HES SO LOVELY

Medtner is admirable. I do find his square rhythms and occasional lack of really memorable ideas a little limiting. Nevertheless, I want to play more Medtner. I have played a little Liadov it is true, and I do admire his works. A genius in his way no doubt. Shame he appears to have been a little lazy

[eusebius12]

Oh come now, surely more than just Edvard. With the possible exception of D'Indy, your list borders on the truly prosaic and (even with him) quaintly old fashioned.

The standard repertoire is extremely rich. As has been stated by the best, one could spend a lifetime on the Beethoven sonatas alone. I could happily play nothing but the 3 Bs, Schubert Schumann Chopin Faure Debussy Mozart and the major Russians (Rachmaninov, Scriabin Prokofiev) for the rest of my life. But I am interested in new horizons and love hearing new works. I just couldn't be bothered investing huge time in poor music. Also I am uninterested in pianistic goals that are contrary to purely musical ones. My own compositions are completely divested of pianistic frippery.

As a footnote I'm sure you're aware that great artists like Busoni, Richter and Horowitz pared down their repertoires more and more especially late in life, as their art become more and more a distilled essence. At the moment I am concentrating on the large works of Schumann, and the Beethoven and (late) Schubert sonatas.

[eusebius12]

i guess we can stop saying the composer sucks and just post hundreds of examples that are vastly superior  

one down....______ to go?

Not bad. But hardly superior. Could easily be better known, but the themes are hardly memorable. Some rather conventional passagework. But more than acceptable.

[eusebius12]

Now that is a proper romantic concerto, It pisses all over the banal Schumann.

Thal

I piss over your malodorous, cranial black hole produced comments whenever I see them. Makes a mess on the screen though.

[eusebius12]

Besides, there are certain risks involved when one is a bit too much on the defending side:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Daverio

So you're another dodgy person then?

[eusebius12]

It's perhaps a pity that this thread - if it has to exist at all in the first place - doesn't concentrate more on the Schumann Piano Concerto and what members here think are its virtues, vices and all things in between.

A fine comment with which I more often than not agree. I do feel that the Schumann symphonies are as good as any 19th century ones with the exception of Beethoven and Brahms' 4th, at least a highly cogent defense can be made for them. The old canard of poor orchestration seems thoroughly debunked. Musically they stack up well, indeed superbly. Schumann however is one composer that the unmusical parading as musical can never 'get', therefore he is an excellent touchstone in weeding out the pretenders.

[eusebius12]

The standard repertoire is extremely rich. As has been stated by the best, one could spend a lifetime on the Beethoven sonatas alone. I could happily play nothing but the 3 Bs, Schubert Schumann Chopin Faure Debussy Mozart and the major Russians (Rachmaninov, Scriabin Prokofiev) for the rest of my life. But I am interested in new horizons and love hearing new works (I could have added many baroque names like Froberger, Frescobaldi, Pescetti, Purcell..and others like Albeniz, Granados, Ravel, Franck, Weber, Khachaturian, Dvorak, etc. the list was becoming unwieldy). I just couldn't be bothered investing huge amounts of time in poor music. Also I am uninterested in pianistic goals that are contrary to purely musical ones. My own compositions are completely divested of pianistic frippery.


As a footnote I'm sure you're aware that great artists like Busoni, Richter and Horowitz pared down their repertoires more and more especially late in life, as their art become more and more a distilled essence. At the moment I am concentrating on the large works of Schumann, and the Beethoven and (late) Schubert sonatas.

[note for some reason this wasn't modified but reposted]

[mjames]

schubert is awesome


Oh and Eusebio(IUSSSSSSS)

Just let it go.

[anaimadureira]

How can someone depreciate such a work! Schumann's piano concerto has such a depth and daintiness...! I don't agree about its repetitive character. I would call it exploration of ideas, something every great composers utilize very often, as you know.
Last summer, I watched Murray Perahia with Bernard Haitink and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe, in Luzern, and it was all simply divine, particularly the cadenza - I was completely in trance.

[ahinton]

No, I think Schumann is horrid. Not ever Horowitz could extract beauty from Schumann because it does not exist in the first place.

I've asked you before, just out of curiosity (but I don't ever recall you having answered) - do you absolutely hate every note that Schumann composed and do you believe that all his works are equally "horrid", or do you find some at least acceptable but far more unbearable?

Of those works that I find the most of value in, the Études Symphoniques and Piano Quintet score highly whereas the piano concerto even irritates me when the wonderful Martha plays it as she all too often does...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I've asked you before, just out of curiosity (but I don't ever recall you having answered) - do you absolutely hate every note that Schumann composed and do you believe that all his works are equally "horrid", or do you find some at least acceptable but far more unbearable?

I have answered this before and do not intend to waste any more keystrokes on the subject.

All that happens is I end up polluting my ears with even more of his military like freedom of expression, when i could be listening to a composer I really do like.

Bollox

Thal

[visitor]

don't mind me, just infusing the thread w/ a truly enjoyable romantic concerto.

[/youtube]