Why do so many think the Schumann concerto sucks?

[ahinton]

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. As to that work being "good enough" for Argerich, I would rather suggest that, along with Prokofiev 3, Ravel G major and the like, it's a work that she chooses to perform all too frequently at the expense of so much other repertoire that many of us would like to hear her play.

Best,

Alistair

[djealnla]

On a somewhat unrelated note, here's a much better concerto: 

[cmg]

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.  This hints at a prodigious talent.  I still maintain she doesn't need to practice as much as the rest of us do.

[argerichfan]

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.

[cmg]

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.

Wow, wouldn't she play the Rhapsody magnificently?  I know some musicians who know her rather well and they have told me her smallish repertoire is partly the result of her aversion to being alone, which is rather required when you practice!  One pianist who got to know her during her competition-circuit days told me she would coax him to sit in the practice room with her when she practiced.  He said she hated to be alone.  Hence, it would seem to explain her joy in chamber work:  no need to spend hours alone memorizing, and the comfort of making music with other musicians.  You notice she doesn't do many solo recitals these days. 

[ahinton]

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

[orangesodaking]

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

Walter Gieseking was another one. Oh, what I would give to be able to study score and be able to play music like that...

"I'm so good, I just LOOK at the sheet music and then I can play it!" 

[superstition2]

Even those who like Schumann still think his concerto is lousy.

I haven't listened to all of his works, but I have yet to be impressed by any of them — with the exception of Horowitz's Träumerei. The Ghost Variations is mildly interesting.

My taste (some examples):

Scriabin played by Ugorski (Ashkenazy's is also good...), Prometheus (not a concerto, but still good)
Rachmaninov 2nd and 3rd especially when played by Rachmaninov
original version of Rachmaninov 4th, 1927 version, or a combination of the two
Rautavaara concertos, first movements (the middle movements are rather bland)
Beethoven 5th and 4th
Tcherepnin 5th
Prokofiev 2nd (first movement only), 3rd is good, 5th is alright, 1st is very good
Brahms 2nd (despite including perhaps the most awkward transition in musical history)
Bach D minor (prefer the harpischord, though)
Grieg
Mozart 9 and 27
Tveitt 1st and 5th
Saint-Saëns 2nd and 5th

nice enough:

unrevised Rachmaninov 1st and 1st and 4th
Tchaikovsky 1st
Chopin concertos
Tcherepnin 1st
the other movements of the Rautavaara concertos
Liszt 1st
Brahms 1st — really should have been a symphony
Saint-Saëns 1st
Tchaikovsky 2nd (no Siloti)

some dislikes:

Schoenberg — blech! Perhaps the most annoying piano concerto of all-time
Busoni concerto — beginning is great (especially Hamelin's)... the rest is rubbish
Schumann
Prokofiev 4th
Shostakovich concertos — overrated and also annoying
Bartok concertos — overrated and also annoying
Beach
Barber

meh:

Beethoven 3rd
Liszt 2nd
Tcherepnin 3rd and 6th
Ustvolskaya
Alkan de camera 1 and 2 and solo concerto
Dvorak
Poulenc

Difficulty has no bearing on whether I like something or not. The same goes for popularity. For me, it's just the music that matters. However, when something is difficult to play and beautiful that is impressive. Usually it's just the former and not the latter.

[thalbergmad]

It is difficult to imagine a romantic concerto more tedious than the Schumann.

Definately not the Napoleao 2nd just released by Hyperion which exceeds the Schumann horsecrap by a factor of 1 million.

People who like the Schumann are welcome to it, but I expect they only do so due to unadventurous listening habits.

Thal

[eusebius12]

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'.

However this is a work for pianists with brains more than fingers. Not many of those around. It is also quite hard to bring off as a conductor (the typical Schumannesque syncopations of the last movement) . To use a hoary cliche, the difficulties are primarily musical. This is the absolute opposite of a virtuoso showpiece, so most virtuosi screw it up. Nothing bang bang about it, except the first few bars. Wow, it has a splashy introduction! Anyone who considers this has anything to do with the innigste empfindung, the geist, of this piece is so superficial in his analysis that to debate such a person would be demeaning...The subtlety of Schumann is of course lost on the frivolous, the inattentive, the spiritually deficient, the intellectually vacuous. He requires sensitivity, musical feeling that goes beyond the superficiality that seems to plague both listeners and performers.

That having been said, the first movement is by far the richest in my view. This is echt Schumann, whereas the remainder was in part therapy and at times lacks the utter genius of the 1st movt. To compare this work with the Grieg is ridiculous, even if Grieg was clearly modelling his concerto on that of the Davidsbuendler. The Grieg limps along from theme to theme, some of them mawkish, one or two inspired. Despite the different levels of thematic inspiration, the Schumann is a complete organic work of art, its cyclic nature a stroke of genius that ultimately influenced how orchestral works of sonata nature were to be conceived (this along with the D Minor Symphony).

Honestly though, if you can't 'understand' Schumann, leave him well alone. His stature needs no confirmation from the musically illiterate, the artistically stunted, or the generally Philistine.

[superstition2]

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.

[j_menz]

...

Can we expect a first post from Florestan as well?   

[eusebius12]

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.

Therefore, the Rachmaninov is the 'grandson' of the Schumann. And Sauer was a fine pianist, and more than respectable composer. Far superior to the chamberpots of the Thalbergs and the like vacuities. Some should be forced to listen to Huenten for the rest of their lives, since that seems to fit their sensibility better

[eusebius12]

Can we expect a first post from Florestan as well?   

Actually, I think Florestan took over in that post My posting style is much more akin though to Meister Raro.......

[thalbergmad]

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

[ahinton]

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.

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

[eusebius12]

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

What a load of 2nd rate uninformed bulldust. Stick to your Thalberg, I'm sure it's on a musical level you can aspire to understanding.

[eusebius12]

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 disagree for some of the reasons I addressed in my long post. I'd be happy for you to respond to some of those. Any piece of music which is played significantly can seem cliche, but I feel that this is unfair in relation to the Schumann concerto. However I agree 100% that this is far from his most valuable opus.

[mjames]

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

[thalbergmad]

I'm sure it's on a musical level you can aspire to understanding.

Snobbish horsecrap. You are probably only repeating what some other deadhead has told you.

Expand your listening habits and educate yourself.

Thal

[quantum]

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'.

A rather interesting manner in introducing yourself to the community.  

28 posts and counting on your first day.  

[eusebius12]

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

I have enough to do with Kreisleriana, Symphonic Etudes, the Fantasy...that which I am more interested in branching out into, rather than the 19th century virtuoso school, is rather the late 19th and early 20th century repertoire, like Vischnegrasdksy, Liapunov, Feinberg, Catoire, Miaskovsky, Stanchinsky, etc. I have heard his (Thalberg's) Variations on Home Sweet Home and Moses. I thought, what reasonably adequately ok pieces

However to use Thalberg to trump Schumann, how embarassing....

[eusebius12]

Snobbish horsecrap. You are probably only repeating what some other deadhead has told you.

Expand your listening habits and educate yourself.

Thal

Yes, listening to deadheads like Horowitz, Richter and Fischer-Dieskau has made me repeat the idea and repeatedly listen to Schumann, who is the greatest composer after the death of Beethoven and Schubert. I'd suggest you do other than listen to the voices in your head and actually read a book about music or something.

Oh, and interesting dp
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151812879011673&set=a.436264721672.204506.500401672&type=1&theater

[eusebius12]

A rather interesting manner in introducing yourself to the community.  

28 posts and counting on your first day.  

Why, does it not please you? Well, that wasn't my sole aim, however defending Schumann against Philistines well I could do that at 500 posts a day. Seriously.

[thalbergmad]

Schumann, who is the greatest composer after the death of Beethoven and Schubert.

Listen mate, I do the funnies on this forum.

I cannot compete with this hilarity.

Thal

[liszt1022]

@e

put
the
brakes
on

[outin]

A rather interesting manner in introducing yourself to the community.  

28 posts and counting on your first day.  

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

[dima_ogorodnikov]

-

[awesom_o]

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.

 

[mjames]

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.

 

Lmao. You do know you're a douche, right? BTW Chopin hated Schumann's music, or at least saw nothing of value in it.

[dima_ogorodnikov]

-

[mjames]

What did Chopin not hate except for Bach and Mozart?

Kalkbrenner, John Field, Hummel, Moscheles, Mendelsohnn, and some other dudes idk

But yeah, I get your point. He was kinda of a prick to most of his contemporaries.

[gyzzzmo]

Lmao. You do know you're a douche, right? BTW Chopin hated Schumann's music, or at least saw nothing of value in it.

Chopin's pianoconcertos suck too

[outin]

What did Chopin not hate except for Bach and Mozart?

Scarlatti 

[mjames]

Scarlatti 

“My colleagues, the piano teachers, are dissatisfied that I am teaching Scarlatti to my pupils. But I am surprised that they are so blind. In his music there are exercises in plenty for the fingers and a good deal of lofty spiritual food. He sometimes reaches even Mozart. If I were not afraid of incurring disfavor of many fools, I would play Scarlatti in my concerts. I maintain that there will come a time when Scarlatti will often be played in concerts, and people will appreciate and enjoy him.”

[dima_ogorodnikov]

-

[outin]

...
Chopin hated German Romanticism in itself,

My kind of a guy

I was merely educating the public, I got your point

[visitor]

He did come up w an occasional gem. Like this
Lol


The concerto and most solo piano works are suxville.

I will give a slight amount of credit to the piano quintet, it's not the giant turd the concerto is. (And the Brahms transcription from it isn't quite the poo I used to think it was).

[mjames]

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".

Oh.

Kinda explains why he liked Mendelssohn. Dude was pretty much conservative.

[awesom_o]

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".

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.

[ahinton]

All that means is that Chopin disliked Schumann's music. It doesn't mean "Schumann's music sucks".

Indeed - up to a point. The facts as we have them appear to be that Chopin simply couldn't equate to Schumann's musical expressions in the way that Schumann openly admitted to equating to Chopin's (hence the polite and somewhat distant dedication of Chopin's Second Ballade); the two composers had such fundamental temperamental differences as to make them seem almost irreconcilable. But no - it doesn't mean that "Schumann's music sucks" or, indeed, that Chopin thought that all or even most of it did.

Best,

Alistair

[mjames]

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.

Oh um you were like um saying people who thought that he sucked had no talent or yeah something like that so I was just like...chopin...sry...

4giveme

[gyzzzmo]

I fail to understand why Chopin's opinion about a pianoconcert is so important here.
Ofcourse, 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!

[awesom_o]

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!

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!

[outin]

Whether Chopin was a great composer or not and whether his concertos are good or not does not say anything about his general charachter nor his tastes in music... Seems he wasn't always the most objective person when it came to other people's achievements and he also had very specific taste.

Let's not ask the dead guys, but make up our own opinions about what sucks and what doesn't 

[eusebius12]

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

Thank you

[eusebius12]

Listen mate, I do the funnies on this forum.

I cannot compete with this hilarity.

Thal

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

[eusebius12]

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.

 

Exactly. This is hardly an easy piece, especially the finale. Why some pianists seem to dislike it is that it is hardly rewarding in a slam bang kind of way, especially considering the effort required (and stamina) in playing the notes correctly. So much of Schumann requires a greatly developed aesthetic sense, something lost in a very literal age. The concerto is not Schumann's greatest piece; he subconsciously rebelled against anything even slightly resonating with showiness or empty display. No composer was more obsessed with writing music qua music; he negates empty note spinning or egoistic soloistic self-aggrandizing. 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. Works like the Kreisleriana, the Davidsbund Dances, the Sympjonic Etudes, even the Kinderszenen, inhabit an even more bejewelled world of harmonic and aesthetic richness than the concerto, however I find it bemusing that the Piano Quintet is lionized at its expense. I do enjoy the quintet, but as Liszt said, it is somewhat 'Leipzigerisch'. Schumann, it seems, is to be criticized from every point of view; from those who enjoy the banal note spinners, those for whom he isn't 'modern' enough, the Wagnerians who denigrate anyone but their idol, and the narrow conservative Mendelssohnians who love every simple i dotted and t crossed in orthodox and impotent musicological textbook straightjacket orthodoxy.

[eusebius12]

Oh.

Kinda explains why he liked Mendelssohn. Dude was pretty much conservative.

He might have liked Mendelssohn personally (he quite liked Schumann personally, although he hated some reviews that Chopin thought Schumann wrote, including the 'hats off gentleman, a genius' one) but I have seen no indication he particularly liked his music. However he taught Schumann and Mendelssohn to his students, if they so wished. He really despised Liszt's music.

[eusebius12]

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.

Beethoven is an uneven composer as well. In about 140 published opera, as well as many works 'woO', (for both RS and LvB) you would expect the odd dud. The amazing thing is that there are so few duds (in either output). It is incredible that Schumann wrote as many good pieces as Beethoven or Brahms in a period of little more than 15 years, with a rather sketchy musical education. But I could vociferously defend many Schumann works, vocal, chamber, symphonic or keyboard, out of that 140+. Even if he wasn't Chopin's cup of tea, Schumann was greatly admired by Liszt, Brahms, Rachmaninov, Elgar, Horowitz, Richter, Furtwaengler, Fischer-Dieskau, Souzay, Casals, Joachim, Britten, Cortot, and Arrau. Steven Isserlis, Stephen Hough, John Eliot Gardiner, and Argerich (not a huge personal fave, but she has recorded a good kreisleriana) are amongst his living champions.

As Horowitz said, (Paraphrasing) Beethoven is a good composer. But he's no Schumann.