Well, Martha probably was sight-reading it at age 6 and had it memorized just from that one, first read-through, so she didn't have to practice and practice and practice, and live with the damned thing's innumerable annoyances the way we mere mortals have had to.
The much missed Shura Cherkassky also found himself having to upbraid those who sought to claim that he didn't need to practice, which was, of course, utter nonsense. Argerich likewise practises just like any other pianist does -and I don't care how long she's been playing the Schumann concerto, every time she's engaged to perform it, she practises it. Best,Alistair
Undoubtedly, you're correct, but Martha has gone on record stating she learned the Prokofiev 3rd (wrong notes and all, she claims) by listening to another student practice it.
I've heard that too. Also, she reportedly learned and memorized the slow movement of the Ravel (a notorious beast to memorize) just by reading through it. But I'm getting a bit weary of her limited concerto repertoire these days. I can understand her ditching T1 and R3, but for years I've thought she would play the Paganini Rhapsody superbly.
Undoubtedly, you're correct, but Martha has gone on record stating she learned the Prokofiev 3rd (wrong notes and all, she claims) by listening to another student practice it. This hints at a prodigious talent. I still maintain she doesn't need to practice as much as the rest of us do.
And the 18-year-old John Ogdon gave his first performance of the Brahms B flat concerto (replacing an indisposed Gina Bachauer, I seem to recall) having learnt it from the score on the train on the way to the performance, "explaining" this feat afterwards with the words "but I've heard it lots of times". That - however fascinating (which, of course, it is) - does not mean that the pianist does not have to practise like any other; it merely shows that the pianist has very rare gifts. Martha Argerich, John Ogdon and quite a number of others do/did have these gifts that are way beyond those of most of us, but such gifts do not mean that practice can be dispensed with. Oh, no, siree!Best,Alistair
Even those who like Schumann still think his concerto is lousy.
...
Rachmaninov modeled his first concerto off of Grieg's, not Schumann's. I guess he was just a stunted illiterate Philistine as well. However... you may like Sauer's Schumann concerto. He was 78 when he made it and was considered an "aristocratic" pianist.
Can we expect a first post from Florestan as well?
21 posts in under 2 hours since joining. We could have a new spam record on our hands.The Schumann concerto is for those who are pre programmed and have not the individuality to seek their own path to enlightenment.People who rate this crap probably have a single figure romantic concerti listening experience.
21 posts in under 2 hours since joining. We could have a new spam record on our hands.The Schumann concerto is for those who are pre programmed and have not the individuality to seek their own path to enlightenment.People who rate this crap probably have a single figure romantic concerti listening experience.Thal
That may well be so in some cases. As you know, I do not share your loathing of Schumann but I do agree that his piano concerto is not only one of the composer's dullest works but also one of the least interesting of 19th century piano concertos by a well known composer. Schumann was capable of vastly better than this work, as his piano quintet, Études Symphoniques, Allegro Op. 8, Fantaisie and numerous other examples amply demonstrate, but he was undoubtedly an uneven composer.Best,Alistair
I'm sure it's on a musical level you can aspire to understanding.
Reading this thread has filled me with an increasing geyser of rage and loathing. Schumann's music is not for Philistines; certainly not for those who love second rate empty virtuosic note spinners. Schumann's piano concerto is a great work; it is not second rate Schumann, although the 1st movement is on a higher artistic plane than the other sections. The Schumann is a highly important work; it is suffused with the highest artistic ideals and was and is completely revolutionary. However it looks both back and forward. It has something of the clean lines and lack of bombast of the classical concerto, it has the romantic warmth and experimental structure of the romantic. Some of its features: it has no space for an added cadenza and it incoporates a written out one in the 1st movt. De rigueur for later in the century, but quite revolutionary for 1845 (obviously following Beethoven). It is a rather monothematic work, with a cyclical structure, and amazingly is only really 2 movements long, unique for a major repertory work (2 movements + an introduction to the finale). Monothematic, but far from monochromatic. Those with ears can hear the beautiful interplay of piano and woodwind in the 1st movement intermezzo, and the magical changing of colours and texture towards the end of the finale. Also the wonderful instrumental interplay of the 'slow mvt'.
It's amazing how much time you guys can spend arguing about which dead guy is better than the other dead guy. Btw thalberg is awesome, not all of it, but man some of his opuses are real gems. I think you should relieve yourself of the "1st rate,2nd and 3rd rate etc" mindset and just be a little bit more adventurous. Better yet, rather than listening to it try playing it instead. You'll find some interesting stuff in Thalbergs music. Not all of it is virtuosic note spinning
Snobbish horsecrap. You are probably only repeating what some other deadhead has told you.Expand your listening habits and educate yourself.Thal
A rather interesting manner in introducing yourself to the community. 28 posts and counting on your first day.
Schumann, who is the greatest composer after the death of Beethoven and Schubert.
Why do so many think the Schumann concerto sucks?Even those who like Schumann still think his concerto is lousy.
The "so many" to whom you refer undoubtedly cannot play the concerto even half-decently, and have likely never composed anything even 1/100th as beautiful.
What did Chopin not hate except for Bach and Mozart?
Lmao. You do know you're a douche, right? BTW Chopin hated Schumann's music, or at least saw nothing of value in it.
Scarlatti
...Chopin hated German Romanticism in itself,
Well, yes, but my point is that Chopin hated German Romanticism in itself, so the fact that he also hated Schumann's music (the product of one of the representatives of that "movement") should not come as a surprise and cannot be taken as an indicator of what is "good" and "bad".
Lmao. BTW Chopin hated Schumann's music, or at least saw nothing of value in it.
All that means is that Chopin disliked Schumann's music. It doesn't mean "Schumann's music sucks".
All that means is that Chopin disliked Schumann's music. It doesn't mean "Schumann's music sucks".You don't HAVE to like any composer. But you certainly have to be quite an amazing musician to legitimately LOOK DOWN ON any of the established 'great' composers. There is plenty of music I don't like. But I don't actively look down on it, or say bad things about it in public. Which is why I'm not a douche.
Of course, Chopin is one of the best composers of pianopieces, but (with a few exceptions) he really wasnt that good at writing something different, especially not pianoconcerts!
You people are being a bit unfair... He's just sharing his admiration for a composer and feels strongly about S being critizised. At least he tries to explain WHY you are all wrong
Listen mate, I do the funnies on this forum.I cannot compete with this hilarity.Thal
Oh.Kinda explains why he liked Mendelssohn. Dude was pretty much conservative.
I like that as a balanced judgement.P.S.: Still, the Richter-Rowicki recording from 1962 made me forget about the reservations I used to have concerning Schumann's concerto. But that's probably because it's Richter, who seems to have been able to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
Why do so many think the Schumann concerto sucks? (Read 21596 times)
