Pieces that people seem to love, but actually suck

[outin]

Most of the pieces mentioned, I can see where the users are coming from. This, however, I cannot understand.  

I have never understood what is it about his sonatas that people like...I just don't get it.
I spent some time trying and after that I decided that I have the right to dislike them even if EVERYONE else thinks they are great. Maybe the emperor has clothes...maybe he hasn't...who knows...

[costicina]

Poor Bobby  !!!
But IMO Franz is even worse....

[stoudemirestat]

Poor Bobby  !!!
But IMO Franz is even worse....

Which one? 

[stoudemirestat]

By the way, the Schumann bashing on this forum is due to inadequacies in appreciation, not Robert himself - as any professional who has studied his music will tell you. I don't think that, as far as piano music goes, there's any doubt he's on the level of the other greats in the Romantic era, like Liszt, Chopin, Brahms, etc.

[asuhayda]

How has nobody mentioned Heart and Soul yet? 

[outin]

How has nobody mentioned Heart and Soul yet? 

What's that?

[lloyd_cdb]

Ravel - Everything.

[Derek]

Almost everything by Mozart. Don't kill me. This is all subjective anyway. I like Rustle of Spring, and a lot of Schumann, too. Funny how different people are!

[outin]

Oh, and then there's Sibelius...If I have to listen to Finlandia again (very hard to avoid) I'll puke...

I find this thread very therapeutic

[landru]

Rimsky-Korsakov "Flight of the Bumblebee". Fine as a technical exercise in chromatics. Even better as a torture device to anyone listening to it.

[scherzo123]

WHAAAAAAAAAAAT!?!?

It's his opinion...

[asuhayda]

Oh, and then there's Sibelius...If I have to listen to Finlandia again (very hard to avoid) I'll puke...

I find this thread very therapeutic

You're welcome!

What's that?

It's that stupid song from Big that EVERYBODY always wants me to play.

[outin]

It's that stupid song from Big that EVERYBODY always wants me to play.

What's Big?

[j_menz]

exactly! (sort of), why does hardly anyone around here (seriously I can read daily and probably see this mentioned 1-3 times if at all in a year) not ever play, discuss, recall, etc  one of the greatest composers of all time/the baroque, who happened to write quite a bit of fantastic music accessible to us!?

Handel! coincidentally I am looking t georgy for my next baroque work after my romp with a bach sinfonia i am about to wrap up.

really,he should be explored, his suites in particular are quite outstanding

It probably won't surprise you, but I'm a fan. In many ways he's more technically demanding than much of Bach, so he's rarely a good starting point for counterpoint or the Baroque; more a reward for perserverence.  What piece do you have in mind to work on?

[49410enrique]

It probably won't surprise you, but I'm a fan. In many ways he's more technically demanding than much of Bach, so he's rarely a good starting point for counterpoint or the Baroque; more a reward for perserverence.  What piece do you have in mind to work on?

not surprised, i figured you into that 0-3 mentions in a year on this forum estimate

i thought i was leaning to that f minor prelude and fugue but then i had the fortunate misfortune to stumble across the many recordings just recently uplaoded of Ragna Schirmer's performances of them entire suites which makes the prospect of doing an entire suite so attractive (vs excerpts as in the prelude and fugue i mentioned). it also becomes a scarey daunting task to possibly undertake/consider. they are all freakin amazing.
here's one of them (you can also just youtube search ragna schirmer handel suite hwv and you should hit most of them). also the feed will populate w the others (most to all) if you click into one.

here's the old promo for the three discs of suites she recorded

this one really has quite an impressive opener, oh i just don't know, what's a guy to to!?!?-i don't have a lot of experience with Handel (just some accompanying on some piano + solo instrument stuff a while back) so I think I will have to restrain my enthusiasm and pick a few excerpts for now, either way i win.

it helps to actually watch on the yt suite as the uploader did a nice job of providing time stamps for all sections in each upload description/info box

oh to keep the reply somewhat related.

solfegietto. i really do like CPE Bach. A lot (if people have not recently heard the CPE Bach sonata upload in the audition room, they should!), but why is this long drawn out arpgegio (what it seems like at least when most people play it), the most popular of his? he was so much more and though i don't want to say it sucks, i will say compared to his other pieces it is pretty sucky.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Oh, did I forget to mention everything by Bach?   
 
I would usually say that on impulse, but now I completely forgot about him!  What the heck?

[teran]

Man it's funny like a lot of people here I just feel nothing from Mozart's piano works. Honestly to me Mozart just has that brand name effect so to speak, people just sort of say "oh it's Mozart it's the epitome of musical ingenuity and refinement", but quite honestly I can't say his piano works move me in the slightest.

I do very much enjoy playing his works on the violin though, so there we are.

Also I think La Campanella is pretty catchy, funny word to use for anything pre 20th century but honestly I think that's one of the best ways to describe it. I think a lot of the popular classical repertoire has catchy main themes, which is why they become so popular. The majority of people aren't very patient with their music as well as having to latch onto something very catchy and repetitive, which is where all the popular classical repertoire really falls in I'd say.

I do resent how pieces being played (and often badly) gets them labelled as "overplayed". I don't think you can overplay beautiful music, it's just the overabundance of bad performances that piss people off.

But yeah as Beethoven so aptly put it "surely I've written better things" (with regards to Moonlight's 1st movement being played all the time), none of the popular compositions are ever my favourites, although my favourites are often quite treasured among people who take their music a little more seriously.


I have to say though I'm still utterly mystified about how Chopin's Op 9 #2 is his mostpopular piece, or even Nocturne, although the version with more ornamental runs (the one that Lisitsa played in concert recently) is a lot more intense and engaging. Still think there are a bunch of more enjoyable nocturnes though. :/

[emrysmerlin]

Oh, did I forget to mention everything by Bach?   
 
I would usually say that on impulse, but now I completely forgot about him!  What the heck?

I would understand your hate for Bach since I don't really like it either when I hear his keyboard works being played on the piano - aside from the great Goldberg variations. However, Bach's keyboard works, when played on the organ/harpsichord/clavichord, are some of the most wondrous things ever.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

aside from the great Goldberg variations.

Yeah I forgot to say everything EXCEPT for the Goldberg variations.  The ONLY exception!

[unholeee]

Ravel - Everything.

im sure this is a mistake - i cant find this particular piece : (

[thesixthsensemusic]

Für Elise is a piece that I really hate. Cheesy elevator music. Same goes for Mozart's Rondo alla Turca and Bach's Prelude in C major (where Schubert's Ave Maria is based upon).

Apart from that I hate any bravoura piece whatsoever if performed by one of these racecar-driver pianists like Lang Lang or my fellow Dutchman Wibi Soerjadi (the latter actually being owner of a real racing license ironically enough) who prefer pace above tone colour and emotion.

I would understand your hate for Bach since I don't really like it either when I hear his keyboard works being played on the piano - aside from the great Goldberg variations. However, Bach's keyboard works, when played on the organ/harpsichord/clavichord, are some of the most wondrous things ever.

I disagree, with the exception of the organ, none of those instruments offers the balance between dynamics (with a harpsichord lacking the ability to vary volume from note to note) and powerful sound (the clavicord does offer a range of dynamics but has a very brittle sound) a piano does.

Apart from that, I just outrightly dislike the sound of the harpsichord, but that's just my personal taste.

The organ though is a completely different affair, as an organ, even more than the piano, is a one-man orchestra, with some instruments actually having a more powerful sound than a medium-sized philharmonic orchestra.

[emrysmerlin]

I disagree, with the exception of the organ, none of those instruments offers the balance between dynamics (with a harpsichord lacking the ability to vary volume from note to note) and powerful sound (the clavicord does offer a range of dynamics but has a very brittle sound) a piano does.

Well, pieces from the baroque era don't usually have the frequent changes in dynamics as pieces from the romantic and modern eras do. Therefore there is no reason to hate those instruments solely due to them not being able to produce a range of dynamics and "powerful sounds." Personally I rather love the relaxing timbre of those instruments. 

[lloyd_cdb]

im sure this is a mistake - i cant find this particular piece : (

Ah, I'll be more specific:

Ravel:

1, Piano Sonata movement (1888)
2, Variations on a Theme of Grieg (Death of Ase) for piano (1888)
3, Variations on a Theme of Schumann (Choral "Freu dich, o meine Seele" from Album for the Young, Op. 68) for piano (1888)
5, Sérénade grotesque for piano (1892-93)
7, Menuet antique for piano (1895)
11, La parade for piano (1896)
14, Valse in D for piano (1898)
19, Pavane pour une infante défunte for piano (1899)
20, Fugue for piano (1899)
23, Fugue in D for piano (1900)
24, Fugue à quatre voix on a theme of Reber in F for piano (1900)
26, Prélude and Fugue for piano (1900)
27, Fugue in F for piano (1900)
30, Jeux d'eau for piano (1901)
32, Fugue in E flat for piano (1902)
36, Fugue in E minor for piano (1903)
40, Sonatine for piano (1903-05)
Modéré
Mouvement de menuet
Animé
42, Menuet in C sharp minor for piano (1904)
43, Miroirs for piano (1904-05)
Noctuelles
Oiseaux tristes
Une barque sur l'océan (orchestrated 1906)
Alborada del gracioso (orchestrated 1918)
La vallée des cloches
44, Fugue in C for piano (1905)
55, Gaspard de la nuit for piano after Aloysius Bertrand (1908)
Ondine
Le gibet
Scarbo
57c, Danse gracieuse de Daphnis, suite for piano (1913)
Nocturne
Interlude et Danse guerrière
Scène de Daphnis et Chloé
58, Menuet sur le nom de Haydn for piano (1909)
61, Valses nobles et sentimentales for piano (1911)
63, À la manière de... for piano (1912-13)
Borodine
Chabrier
65, Prélude for piano (1913)
68, Le tombeau de Couperin for piano (1914-17)
Prélude
Fugue
Forlane
Rigaudon
Menuet
Toccata

[lloyd_cdb]

Für Elise is a piece that I really hate. Cheesy elevator music. Same goes for Mozart's Rondo alla Turca and Bach's Prelude in C major (where Schubert's Ave Maria is based upon).

In regards to these, I think there is a difference between "dislike" and "suck".  Fur Elise I won't argue with.  It's a bland melodic line that is only popular because it's simplistic enough for the not musically educated, and is an extremely poor representation of Beethoven's music. (I'd argue similarly against the annoying rach op.3-2).  

In regards to his "alla Turca", It's similar enough technically to the rest of his sonatas which gives a somewhat representative idea of his style.  In addition. being composed closer to his death and closer to the beginning of the romantic movement, I see it as a fairly transitional and influential piece for the romantics using different cultural music (hungarian rhapsodies, mazurkas, the common "alla barbaresca" etc.)

The bach prelude is his easiest and most dumbed down piece of the set while still being somewhat appealing.  Non-representative of the prevailing contrapuntal style, I definitely associate it with Fur Elise, but at least slightly more appealing to the listener.

EDIT: Granted, I can't really say much since I just stated all of Ravel's music "sucks" much more based on my disgust for his butchering of musicality than him being a talentless hack.  Well... Kinda 

[perprocrastinate]

Ah, I'll be more specific:

You forgot his two concerti.

[lloyd_cdb]

You forgot his two concerti.

I settled for all his solo piano works.  I usually don't care too much for anyone's orchestrated works, so I can't judge how terrible Ravel's concerti are.

[emrysmerlin]

I settled for all his solo piano works.  I usually don't care too much for anyone's orchestrated works, so I can't judge how terrible Ravel's concerti are.

Anyone's? As in Beethoven's 9 symphonies even?

[wiggityp]

100% of Schumann is worthless drivel, but some seem to like it.

Thal

I'd be interested if you could elaborate how exactly the ENTIRETY of Schumann's body of work is "drivel." Particularly if, as your handle suggests, you are a big fan of Thalberg, whose music is, most duly, slipping ever further into obscurity. Thalberg's a perfect example of an exceptionally fine pianist (we can assume) but who really had little to no artistic originality to impart through his flaccid compositions. I've no doubt he could play circles around most folks, probably Schumann, but talk about showy insipid "drivel". Whereas Schumann regularly and articulately tapped into the human condition with almost total individuality and yet apparently universal appeal; Thalberg has clearly failed to inspire generation after generation of musicians with his technically savvy but artistically bland formulaic music.

Also, are you only speaking of Schumann's piano repertoire, or does your opinion really extend to "100% of Schumann"? I.e. the Symphonies, Lieder etc. If so, then please elaborate on any objective criticism you may have of his music.

I feel that given the time one could, quite objectively, through the use of musical data analysis; trends in musical performance/publishing/record sales etc.; and undoubtedly through the use of popular polls, determine that, the music of Schumann is far superior to the music of Thalberg. Perhaps not pianistically (although I'd wouldn't say that) but certainly artistically, and is in general exceptionally well crafted and uniquely inspired.

Everyone hating on Schumann needs to smoke a bowl, or do whatever it is that gets you in an open frame of mind, ready to appreciate stirring magnificent works of art, and listen to Schumann! I guarantee that you will find something which your taste can cling to with affection.

[stoudemirestat]

I'd be interested if you could elaborate how exactly the ENTIRETY of Schumann's body of work is "drivel." Particularly if, as your handle suggests, you are a big fan of Thalberg, whose music is, most duly, slipping ever further into obscurity. Thalberg's a perfect example of an exceptionally fine pianist (we can assume) but who really had little to no artistic originality to impart through his flaccid compositions. I've no doubt he could play circles around most folks, probably Schumann, but talk about showy insipid "drivel". Whereas Schumann regularly and articulately tapped into the human condition with almost total individuality and yet apparently universal appeal; Thalberg has clearly failed to inspire generation after generation of musicians with his technically savvy but artistically bland formulaic music.

Also, are you only speaking of Schumann's piano repertoire, or does your opinion really extend to "100% of Schumann"? I.e. the Symphonies, Lieder etc. If so, then please elaborate on any objective criticism you may have of his music.

I feel that given the time one could, quite objectively, through the use of musical data analysis; trends in musical performance/publishing/record sales etc.; and undoubtedly through the use of popular polls, determine that, the music of Schumann is far superior to the music of Thalberg. Perhaps not pianistically (although I'd wouldn't say that) but certainly artistically, and is in general exceptionally well crafted and uniquely inspired.

Everyone hating on Schumann needs to smoke a bowl, or do whatever it is that gets you in an open frame of mind, ready to appreciate stirring magnificent works of art, and listen to Schumann! I guarantee that you will find something which your taste can cling to with affection.

+1.

People really need to stop blaming their inadequacies as listeners on composers. If a composer has passed the test of time and is considered great by listeners and professionals alike it's always for a reason, and instead of condemning the composer, maybe try to find out why others think that and work on your appreciation of the composer. Even if you don't get there, calling them poor composers is quite ridiculous.

That's not to say that there aren't some lesser known composers/works that have merits beyond what the world of musicians seem to think. There is an endless treasure trove of neglected music to be found and appreciated...but those who are known as great are great, and no pettiness will change that.

Of course there is also the question of taste. No matter how great one is, he still won't be to everyones taste even if everyone gives an honest effort...Again, that's nothing to do with the composer but just part of the human condition. It also needs to be said that even if you find a composer to not be to your taste for a long time, it doesn't mean it'll always be that way if you never give up, instead of condemning.

[zezhyrule]

People really need to stop blaming their inadequacies as listeners on composers. If a composer has passed the test of time and is considered great by listeners and professionals alike it's always for a reason, and instead of condemning the composer, maybe try to find out why others think that and work on your appreciation of the composer. Even if you don't get there, calling them poor composers is quite ridiculous.

I agree with this. If I was still as close-minded as I was two years ago, I would probably still be listening to solely Chopin.

Random tangent: I love how I can play a certain piece for my friends/family and about 5 seconds in they instantly decide that the piece sucks. It would almost make me laugh if it didn't annoy me so much!

[outin]

People really need to stop blaming their inadequacies as listeners on composers. If a composer has passed the test of time and is considered great by listeners and professionals alike it's always for a reason, and instead of condemning the composer, maybe try to find out why others think that and work on your appreciation of the composer. Even if you don't get there, calling them poor composers is quite ridiculous.

That's not to say that there aren't some lesser known composers/works that have merits beyond what the world of musicians seem to think. There is an endless treasure trove of neglected music to be found and appreciated...but those who are known as great are great, and no pettiness will change that.

Of course there is also the question of taste. No matter how great one is, he still won't be to everyones taste even if everyone gives an honest effort...Again, that's nothing to do with the composer but just part of the human condition. It also needs to be said that even if you find a composer to not be to your taste for a long time, it doesn't mean it'll always be that way if you never give up, instead of condemning.

Don't agree at all. There are very few if any objective measures on which is good art and which is not. And I guess we could agree that music is art?

What is good art is mainly decided by two things: The taste of the masses over time and by the elite (groups like scholars, critics and music professionals). Claiming that those whose taste differs from either are inadequate as listeners is silly. Unless music is not seen as art but a system of compositional rules that has to be followed, otherwise it's not good music.

Another thing is that this thread is obviously not about whether the composers suck or not, but about the pieces that people subjectively find "sucky".

[emrysmerlin]

However, there are also divisions between those elitists. eg. Boulez sonata 2

[rachmaninoff_forever]

+1.

People really need to stop blaming their inadequacies as listeners on composers.

We're talking about pieces not composers.

[asuhayda]

haha.. World War III!!

In spite of the silly title that I created, I think that this is actually an important topic.  I believe it is at the roots of our purpose as artists.  What makes something good art/music?  To say simply that a piece is good music because of the composer is discrediting yourself.  It does not show our inadequecies, rather it shows our ability to think artistically and to reflect on why it is we like and dislike certain types of music.  I believe it shows an extremely high level of creativity actually.

Beethoven's Fur Elise is not a particularly great composition, but everyone seems to love it.  I don't think I'm stretching too far to say that even Beethoven himself would scratch his head as to why that is... we already know about his famous comment regarding his Moonlight Sonata: "surely I've written better things"

Anyway,  it's a good topic and one that is battled throughout art philosophy classrooms around the world. 

Plus it's fun and, as outin says... theraputic!

ok. back to battle!

[chopin2015]

I settled for all his solo piano works.  I usually don't care too much for anyone's orchestrated works, so I can't judge how terrible Ravel's concerti are.

How could you?

[j_menz]

We're talking about pieces not composers.

How is "everything by"  NOT about the composer?

(Bach, Mozart, Ravel and Schumann have all been mentioned in this way, as well as all orchestral music, all harpsichord music  and I think, all of Beethoven though that wasn't clear)

[j_menz]

People really need to stop blaming their inadequacies as listeners on composers.

I seem to recall issuing a warning to that effect pretty early on. Of course, it went unheeded and unloved. 

[49410enrique]

i think it's hilarious that people seem to have to try and defend what is not being bashed. as someone else said, it's folks expressing their opinions about pieces of music.

why does someone not liking something someone else does compell them (sometimes) to try and make a statement that aims to discredit the one originally expressing their dislike?

does it even matter, i mean whether or not someone likes something i like bears litte (correction, bears nothing) on whether or not I continue to like said _______.


i even made i a point to say i want to try and like what i don't like, despite honest study, in depth introspection, etc. i.e. my dislilke for bobby's music isn't even a reflection on of my appreciation for his artestry or skill. i think he compsed well. his works are well crafted, i m just bored to death with them despite repeated attempts to like them. it's just like i don't have to like every painting in the art museum. i can aknowledge the skill and appreciate the craftmanship, etc. of the artist but i can still think a picture is ugly.

i was sort of hoping the thread would be just what it seems to me at face value, express your subjective opinion about your dislike of music others seem to like. why people feel compelled to interject some statement that aims to put fault at the one expressing an opinion they are in disagreement with is just a bit puzzling.

[j_menz]

i was sort of hoping the thread would be just what it seems to me at face value, express your subjective opinion about your dislike of music others seem to like. why people feel compelled to interject some statement that aims to put fault at the one expressing an opinion they are in disagreement with is just a bit puzzling.

If the topic was "Pieces that are generally regarded as great but which I just don't  get" it would perhaps be more in line with what you were expecting, would be a more interesting discussion, and would be without the same vitriolic tone.

[49410enrique]

If the topic was "Pieces that are generally regarded as great but which I just don't  get" it would perhaps be more in line with what you were expecting, would be a more interesting discussion, and would be without the same vitriolic tone.

perhaps. i think maybe at the end of the day, it's just that old tendancy i have observed (after someone else pointed it out to me), that people , almost more than anything, feel the need to 'be right'/'be correct' i guess there is some satisfaction some people get out of being on the 'winning' end of an ' i am right and you are wrong' deal.  doesn't float my boat. i'm perfectly okay with being wrong if i am happy with my wrong (in subjective terms, not in an objective/factual/logical deal, in that case i m happy to be corrected). and when i'm right and someone is wrong, i am perfectly happy to let them keep being wrong, unless i just want to mess with them a little or i just dont like them.

[outin]

How is "everything by"  NOT about the composer?

 and I think, all of Beethoven though that wasn't clear)

No, just almost all of the sonatas this time...

[rachmaninoff_forever]

How is "everything by"  NOT about the composer?

1.  I don't like most of Bach's music, but I'm sure he was a pretty nice guy.

2.  I'm too lazy to type up all the music I don't like by him.  Or even the music I do like.

[j_menz]

1.  I don't like most of Bach's music, but I'm sure he was a pretty nice guy.

Hardly the point. I like most of Wagner's music, but I'm sure he wasn't a pretty nice guy.

One of my favourite quotes about music, from Mark Twain: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds"

[lloyd_cdb]

DISCLAIMER:  PLEASE TAKE MOST OF MY COMMENTS AS JOKINGLY SARCASTIC WHILE STILL EXPRESSING MY GENERAL OPINION.

Another thing is that this thread is obviously not about whether the composers suck or not, but about the pieces that people subjectively find "sucky".

Yeah... I think I steered things with my (joking) Ravel comment (kinda joking...).

Random tangent: I love how I can play a certain piece for my friends/family and about 5 seconds in they instantly decide that the piece sucks. It would almost make me laugh if it didn't annoy me so much!

Then stop playing Debussy.  (I wrote the disclaimer for this )

How is "everything by"  NOT about the composer?

(Bach, Mozart, Ravel and Schumann have all been mentioned in this way, as well as all orchestral music, all harpsichord music  and I think, all of Beethoven though that wasn't clear)

I think a good majority of these comments were made by me, so...

I hope you realize as I mentioned above, that I really was kidding on the "everything by" comment.  That is meant as an opinion as to preferences.  I truly dislike the impressionist(?) composers.  They all but make my ears bleed, which really doesn't have to do with their compositional inadequacy.  My mention of orchestral works is that I don't listen to them, not that they suck.  Lastly, I think the Beethoven comment was questioning my comment about orchestral works, not stating that they suck.

OK... All of that being said, anything in here is always going to be subjective.  I'm sure people have interpreted the title in different ways.  In my personal opinion, the suck/not suck is in relation to mass appeal vs. compositional representation of the rest of the composers works.  Claire de Lune I think sucks in that it is much more towards the romantic than impressionist as the rest of his compositions are, even though that's one of the few Debussy pieces I actually like.  Fur Elise is therefore a perfect example of sucky music, it's just completely non-representative of his works.  Same thing for that crappy rach prelude everyone always requests.

In regards to the accepted repertoire, outin mention many of the major points.  The only thing I'd like to add is money.  Sure, there were some broke composers that made it into the repertoire, but most composers were either wealthy themselves or sponsored by wealthy people.  Saint-Saens is a perfect example.  Everyone thought his stuff sucked.  Liszt liked it, so he published it and now people like it because it actually made it through the test of time due to this. 

[thalbergmad]

I feel that given the time one could, quite objectively, through the use of musical data analysis; trends in musical performance/publishing/record sales etc.; and undoubtedly through the use of popular polls, determine that, the music of Schumann is far superior to the music of Thalberg.

Using the same yardstick, Lady Gaga is clearly superior to them both.

If you don't care for Thalberg, then don't listen to him. I do not care for Schumann so I avoid his works.

I cannot stand restrained romanticism. Schumann was about as free thinking as the SS.

Thal

[ahinton]

I do not care for Schumann so I avoid his works.

I cannot stand restrained romanticism. Schumann was about as free thinking as the SS.

Ah, so at last you offer at least the beginnings of a clue as to what it is about Schumann to which you object to so vehemently! - it's what you see as a kind of expressive restraint that you presumably believe ill behoves a Romantic composer. In view of this, what is your take on Fauré (an admittedly later composer but one for whom expressive restraint was almost a byword)? Do you consider that, at least for you, all of Schumann's works without exception suffer from this flaw? - if not, which of them are the exceptions and in what particular ways do they qualify as such?

At least you've had the decency and consideration at this time to exercise your own expressive restraint by eschewing reference to a certain American in your discussion of personal bêtes noires here!...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Also, are you only speaking of Schumann's piano repertoire, or does your opinion really extend to "100% of Schumann"? I.e. the Symphonies, Lieder etc.

Being a piano forum, I generally stick to piano music unless otherwise stated.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

what is your take on Fauré

I generally leave the French romantics alone, apart from Saint Saens, Massenet & Widor and a couple of "unsungs".

Thal

[ahinton]

Being a piano forum, I generally stick to piano music unless otherwise stated.

OK, so I repeat my question but with reference on to Schumann's piano music which is, after all, a considerable proportion of his work as a whole; do you find that there are, for you, no redeeming works whatsoever or are there a few exceptions?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I generally leave the French romantics alone, apart from Saint Saens, Massenet & Widor and a couple of "unsungs".

OK, but does this fact mean that you don't have an opinion about Fauré, even in the specific context of the phenomenon of "restrained Romanticism" to which you have drawn attention vis-à-vis Schumann?

Best,

Alistair