Beethoven 1 vs Schumann

[stravinskylover]

Hi everyone! I'm entering a concerto competition, and I need help deciding between two complete concerti: Beethoven 1 and Schumann. I already know both, so I only need to choose. What do you guys think is a better concerto for a competition?

[mjames]

Anything but Schumann.

[stravinskylover]

Anything but Schumann.

Because you don't like the Schumann or because the it is a bad competition piece?

[mjames]

I don't hate Schumann, I actually like his works. It's just that his A minor piano concerto is one of the most boring, shallow and repetitive pieces that Schumann ever wrote. I would like to say that he wrote too much for his own good.

[thalbergmad]

Many years ago, 5 out of the 6 finalists in a major piano competition (cannot remember which), played the Schumann. The pianist that did not play the Schumann, won.

It is boring repetative shite. Play it and you will lose.

Thal

[stravinskylover]

Okay, thanks for the advice guys! I'm going with Beethoven then. I had no idea what strong feelings people on this forum have towards Schumann's concerto...

[visitor]

Okay, thanks for the advice guys! I'm going with Beethoven then. I had no idea what strong feelings people on this forum have towards Schumann's concerto...

I do not take issue with Schumann's concerto specifically. All his piano music is pretty awful.

[quantum]

I'd agree with others here.  Go with Beethoven.

[thalbergmad]

Schumann has as much texture as public convenience toilet paper. The concerto is the prime example.

Thal

[goldentone]

I do not take issue with Schumann's concerto specifically. All his piano music is pretty awful.

Now, Visitor, can you really say that with a straight face?  Thal here has taken so much of his time delineating the nature of Schumann's genius, though I can't forget you are just getting acquainted with the forum.  I find an unorthodoxy, a rawness there in his writing, such as in the Symphonic Etudes, but to me it is a rather homecooked, satisfying sound.  Abegg you to reconsider and retune your ears to that heavenward sound.

[goldentone]

Hi everyone! I'm entering a concerto competition, and I need help deciding between two complete concerti: Beethoven 1 and Schumann. I already know both, so I only need to choose. What do you guys think is a better concerto for a competition?

I believe you are better to go with Schumann, if not only for its romanticism which will be easier to convey to the judges.

[thalbergmad]

A blow up doll has more romanticism than the Schumann concerto.

Thal

[stoudemirestat]

I, personally, find the Schumann bashing on this forum to be incredibly tiresome and laughable.

It is the ONLY place I have EVER seen it. Countless experts, far more qualified than you guys could ever hope to be, consider him to be one of the greatest composers ever. Even those who are not as impressed still concede he is a musical genius and an exceptionally important figure. I think it's time for this pure bigotry and self-indulgence to stop: if you don't like his music, keep it to yourself. This forum has become an anti-Schumann clique and this ridiculous trend is spreading on here.

I have seen the primary culprit (thalbergmad) post his opinions on a forum that doesn't attract as many young and impressionable members, but instead has a rather steady base of the advanced, mature, and knowledgeable (pianoworld), and when his opinions are expressed they are merely scoffed at (which is, I imagine, why he spends much more time on here). To anyone who only hears about Schumann from this site I recommend you shut your ears and realize it's just a trend exclusive to here. Most who participate in this trend are merely pushing an agenda or really have no idea what they are talking about, but express their opinion with such conviction and gratuitous arrogance that it would be easy to believe.

Perhaps I've been a bit harsh in this post, but it is extremely annoying to me how these people influence others, developing in them an inclination to denigrate that which has given so many people countless hours of pleasure. Listen to those who know what they're talking about and give this music an honest chance, without jumping to early conclusions based on what you've heard on here. I've seen many people who initially don't like Schumann (he is very individual, eccentric, and difficult at times) come to regard him as a favorite, and I truly believe that those on this site that turn against him are missing out.

[j_menz]

It is the ONLY place I have EVER seen it.

You need to get out more, then.

I am a Schumann fan, and there are plenty of others here as well.  But musical taste is not a matter of "expertise", beyond a certain point.  In any case,  Thal has probably as great or greater exposure to repertoire, including Schumann's, as anyone on the planet. Some blind spots, of course - not limited to Bobby - but then, don't we all?

What we like is no more defining of us than what we don't, and any experienced musician will have composers and works in each category that "experts" would consider just wrong. Indeed, if the "experts" themselves do not have such idiosyncrasies themselves, they are not experts but mere parrots.

There is also a view, rarely expressly stated as broadly, but strongly applied, that classical music is a matter of canon. A collection of works of unquestionable genius that one either gets or one is unworthy. It's rubbish. By way of antidote,  anything that encourages people - particularly the young and impressionable whom you seek to protect - to develop their own (informed) taste is to be commended.

[thalbergmad]

But musical taste is not a matter of "expertise", beyond a certain point. 

This is true and to suggest otherwise is completely moronic.

To be honest, I can tolerate some of the Schumann solo works, but reserve the majority of my venom towards his so called piano concerto.

I will never cease to guide people away from this horrid musical abortion and towards myriads of superior contemporary or other romantic works.

Thal

[dima_76557]

By way of antidote,  anything that encourages people - particularly the young and impressionable whom you seek to protect - to develop their own (informed) taste is to be commended.

Please, don't say that too loudly, or Waveya may start twerking on that one too...

[mjames]

I, personally, find the Schumann bashing on this forum to be incredibly tiresome and laughable.

It is the ONLY place I have EVER seen it. Countless experts, far more qualified than you guys could ever hope to be, consider him to be one of the greatest composers ever. Even those who are not as impressed still concede he is a musical genius and an exceptionally important figure. I think it's time for this pure bigotry and self-indulgence to stop: if you don't like his music, keep it to yourself. This forum has become an anti-Schumann clique and this ridiculous trend is spreading on here.

I have seen the primary culprit (thalbergmad) post his opinions on a forum that doesn't attract as many young and impressionable members, but instead has a rather steady base of the advanced, mature, and knowledgeable (pianoworld), and when his opinions are expressed they are merely scoffed at (which is, I imagine, why he spends much more time on here). To anyone who only hears about Schumann from this site I recommend you shut your ears and realize it's just a trend exclusive to here. Most who participate in this trend are merely pushing an agenda or really have no idea what they are talking about, but express their opinion with such conviction and gratuitous arrogance that it would be easy to believe.

Perhaps I've been a bit harsh in this post, but it is extremely annoying to me how these people influence others, developing in them an inclination to denigrate that which has given so many people countless hours of pleasure. Listen to those who know what they're talking about and give this music an honest chance, without jumping to early conclusions based on what you've heard on here. I've seen many people who initially don't like Schumann (he is very individual, eccentric, and difficult at times) come to regard him as a favorite, and I truly believe that those on this site that turn against him are missing out.

I am a fan of Schumann and i hate his piano concerto. It's boring.

[quantum]

IMO it is far more important to listen with your own ears then to follow the path of academic tyranny and take up a particular discourse because you are told it is the "right" thing to do.  It is astonishing how many people believe so and so is a great composer or such piece is a masterpiece not because they formed that opinion themselves, but because they were told to believe such things - it is what the history books dictate so to speak. 

If someone has an opinion on a piece of music, why should they be silenced because another person disagrees with that opinion. 

[goldentone]

The Schumann piano concerto is unique in the repertoire in its seamless weaving of piano and orchestra.

[thalbergmad]

I am glad you like it

[ahinton]

To be honest, I can tolerate some of the Schumann solo works

Well, there's headline news if ever there was!

but reserve the majority of my venom towards his so called piano concerto.

I will never cease to guide people away from this horrid musical abortion and towards myriads of superior contemporary or other romantic works.

All understandable; even this work has its moments but you have to go looking for them; much of the first movement is threadbare at best but its irritatingly repetitititititive finale is well beyond nauseating, however fine the performance of it might be...

Best,

Alistair

[visitor]

I didn't say Schumann cannot compose. Quite the opposite he is very capable technically; However 'finely' constructed in terms of form and theory (harmony, polyphony, etc), it's just blah...boring to me most of the time (piano music particularly, some of the songs i.e voice + piano, and chamber music is okay).

However the repertoire is vast and varied and I would rather just spend my time listening to Richard Strauss (which can be seen and argued as being an extension of Brahms, who could be seen as an extension of Schumann), whose music though I find some characteristics in common to Bob's, is far more interesting and exciting to me at least.  

[stoudemirestat]

You need to get out more, then.

I am a Schumann fan, and there are plenty of others here as well.  But musical taste is not a matter of "expertise", beyond a certain point.  In any case,  Thal has probably as great or greater exposure to repertoire, including Schumann's, as anyone on the planet. Some blind spots, of course - not limited to Bobby - but then, don't we all?

What we like is no more defining of us than what we don't, and any experienced musician will have composers and works in each category that "experts" would consider just wrong. Indeed, if the "experts" themselves do not have such idiosyncrasies themselves, they are not experts but mere parrots.

There is also a view, rarely expressly stated as broadly, but strongly applied, that classical music is a matter of canon. A collection of works of unquestionable genius that one either gets or one is unworthy. It's rubbish. By way of antidote,  anything that encourages people - particularly the young and impressionable whom you seek to protect - to develop their own (informed) taste is to be commended.

Thanks for the sensible post.

I agree with most of what you said, but I still stand by my post. We are our own listeners, certainly...But I think the Schumann bashing on this forum is a bit extreme. I can see how it would happen (and it has seemed to already) that this negativity that emerges every time his name comes up would lead to people not 'realising what they dislike,' but being prejudiced and not giving something enough chance.

Also, I personally think that expert opinion is important, 'to an extent.' By definition experts are generally more knowledgeable about music than we are, and time and time again they have found greatness in Schumann's music. However much their views have been influenced by others is hard to know, but their opinions certainly mean something. It is a fact that many of the most intelligent musicians gravitate towards Schumann as a favourite, and to me that may suggest that while he can be difficult, there are plenty of rewards for those who look into his music. Is this for everyone? Are the 'intelligent musicians' the only people who listen to music? No, but that doesn't mean we should condemn this music with such conviction without thinking that, perhaps, we might be in the wrong. Especially, it doesn't mean we should think our opinions so correct that we trumpet them at every chance we get.

In a thread like this, the OP has been bombarded with peoples negative opinions about the Schumann Concerto (considered by MANY to be one of the peaks of the literature). These haven't been stated as opinions, but as facts, and it happens time and time again on this forum with this composer. To me, there have been negative results. I feel it is important to at least make a statement about it, if only to get people to look for themselves and realise what you hear about Schumann here isn't at all representative of the general musical community. Instead of listening to these statements, read analysis of his music and quest to understand. Until you do that (and it's fine to focus on other composers), don't listen to such forceful statements of opinion, and also don't 'parrot' them yourself. Stick to 'I don't find it very interesting,' (maybe adding a 'yet'), rather than 'it's awful.' Especially because pretty much everyone has not been taken by a piece of music at one point, to only realise its greatness later.

[thalbergmad]

Also, I personally think that expert opinion is important, 'to an extent.' By definition experts are generally more knowledgeable about music than we are, and time and time again they have found greatness in Schumann's music.

Like all of us, experts know what they like and what they do not like. The only difference between them and Mr Average is that they could write a book on "why".

Thal

[visitor]

I am an expert on my opinion. I also find I know more about some aspects of certain things than many 'experts'.

 

[thalbergmad]

It is a fact that many of the most intelligent musicians gravitate towards Schumann as a favourite

Facts need propping up with evidence.

I know I write some crap, but that sentence is absurd.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

In a thread like this, the OP has been bombarded with peoples negative opinions about the Schumann Concerto (considered by MANY to be one of the peaks of the literature).

Where and who are these "many"??. I recall people on this forum praising other works of Schumann, but I do not remember more than one or two that would support such an laughable claim.

I wonder if those who think along those lines have rather restricted listening habits.

Thal

[ahinton]

Where and who are these "many"??. I recall people on this forum praising other works of Schumann, but I do not remember more than one or two that would support such an laughable claim.

I wonder if those who think along those lines have rather restricted listening habits.

I wonder nothing of the kind; I'm pretty sure of it!

Best,

Alistair

[j_menz]

Also, I personally think that expert opinion is important, 'to an extent.' By definition experts are generally more knowledgeable about music than we are.

Are they? I'm not suggesting they aren't often as knowledgeable, but many of us here have played through and listened to many, many performances of a vast amount of repertoire and our tastes are as informed as theirs.

Obviously, people start off with little listening and less playing experience, and so some guidance is highly desirable so as to expose them to various pieces, forms, periods, ideas etc, and to provide a context and knowledge base with which to attempt to understand things. 

That is an ongoing endeavour, and we should always value the insights others may have, be they "experts" in your sense, or other informed people. 

But taste is, ultimately, taste and expertise has nothing to do with it.

[gapoc459]

OP, in case the original question still stands, if I were listening to you perform, I would much prefer to hear the Beethoven 1. My first Schumann CD was of Argerich playing the Concerto and Kreisleriana, and I absolutely fell in love, but over time the highs that this piece elicited in me have weakened considerably. There are a few passages that I still appreciate (I love the part about a minute into the last movement where it sounds like 3/2 rather than 3/4, and Argerich plays this particularly masterfully), but in general it seems that this piece gets weaker over time. I have had the exact same experience with Rach 2. These 2 pieces are extremely beautiful, but they are the "pop" of classical concerti, not much substance behind the pretty sounds. To be fair, I have only known the Beethoven 1 a few months (the Schumann just a few years, but I am still very young), but I love the piece dearly.

Beethoven is the far greater composer. Schumann will tell you so himself.

[goldentone]

I am glad you like it

May I suggest Introduction and Allegro Appassionato for Piano and Orchestra?

 

[eusebius12]

It is boring repetative shite.
Thal

You mean your posts? I think you're correct.

[superstition2]

Schumann couldn't conduct and apparently couldn't write a good piano concerto.

[eusebius12]

Facts need propping up with evidence.

I know I write some crap, but that sentence is absurd.

Thal

Have you heard of Joachim, Brahms, Horowitz, Britten, Toscanini, Furtwaengler, Cortot, Souzay, Janet Baker, Casals, Gardiner, Elgar, Rachmaninov, Artur Rubinstein, Sviatoslav Richter, Imogen Cooper, Stephen Hough, Isserlis, Gilels, Gieseking, Arrau, etc.

They all rather gravitated towards Schumann.

[eusebius12]

Where and who are these "many"??. I recall people on this forum praising other works of Schumann, but I do not remember more than one or two that would support such an laughable claim.

Yes, the sum total of the history of music and music criticism can be found here.

I wonder if those who think along those lines have rather restricted listening habits.

Thal

Hardly. The critical view and the view of artists was highly positive towards the piece for most of its history.

[eusebius12]

May I suggest Introduction and Allegro Appassionato for Piano and Orchestra?

 

This is an extremely fine piece, recorded by Richter. To those who think the Schumann concerto is repetitive, you haven't really understood it or analyzed it. The 1st movement 'repetitions' are really not, they are evolutionary thematic gradations. Monothematic it may be, but this was done for a reason, a specific planned artistic (and revolutionary) reason. For this and other reasons, Schumann was considered unbearably modern in his day. There are pretty sounds in it, but always the sophistication of one who abhorred emptiness and who was subtly playing with expectations, structural, harmonic, rhythmic, and also expectations in terms of consonance. To dismiss it is merely evidence of a lack of Schumann education (which should be a basic requirement for a musician)

[dima_76557]

@ eusebius12

Could you please try and accept that people may have different opinions, different tastes, etc. and stop stalking our respectable forum member Thal? Thank you.

P.S.: Although I really like *some* works by Schumann, it will not be difficult for a knowledgeable composer/musicologist to point out with great authority certain very serious weaknesses in those works I happen to like. Since I am very, very stubborn, this will hardly make a difference. I might start liking Schumann even more.

[eusebius12]

@ eusebius12

Could you please try and accept that people may have different opinions, different tastes, etc. and stop stalking our respectable forum member Thal? Thank you.

Thalbergfan is a person of strong opinions. He shouldn't be called account and asked to justify those opinions? Because he is 'respectable'? Take it on notice, that if I read this forum and read rubbishy attacks on Schumann I may respond vociferously. I may take it very personally. I may demand things like substantiation and ability to construct a coherent argument rather than uninformed vitriol. The dead require more defense than the living, since they aren't around, no?

P.S.: Although I really like *some* works by Schumann, it will not be difficult for a knowledgeable composer/musicologist to point out with great authority certain very serious weaknesses in those works I happen to like. Since I am very, very stubborn, this will hardly make a difference. I might start liking Schumann even more.

They aren't weaknesses, they are flashes of inspiration!

[dima_76557]

Thalbergfan is a person of strong opinions. He shouldn't be called account and asked to justify those opinions?

Depends on what the opinions are about. In this case (the value of Schumann's works to him personally), I don't think so since taste cannot be established or changed objectively, if only through forced exposure. Although I may shake my head in disbelief sometimes, I still go on with my (forum) life and feel no need to judge others for their tastes.

[mjames]

You need to get out more, then.

I am a Schumann fan, and there are plenty of others here as well.  But musical taste is not a matter of "expertise", beyond a certain point.  In any case,  Thal has probably as great or greater exposure to repertoire, including Schumann's, as anyone on the planet. Some blind spots, of course - not limited to Bobby - but then, don't we all?

What we like is no more defining of us than what we don't, and any experienced musician will have composers and works in each category that "experts" would consider just wrong. Indeed, if the "experts" themselves do not have such idiosyncrasies themselves, they are not experts but mere parrots.

There is also a view, rarely expressly stated as broadly, but strongly applied, that classical music is a matter of canon. A collection of works of unquestionable genius that one either gets or one is unworthy. It's rubbish. By way of antidote,  anything that encourages people - particularly the young and impressionable whom you seek to protect - to develop their own (informed) taste is to be commended.

This is actually an awesome post. This is why I love/hate you Jmenz.

[eusebius12]

Depends on what the opinions are about. In this case (the value of Schumann's works to him personally), I don't think so since taste cannot be established or changed objectively, if only through forced exposure. Although I may shake my head in disbelief sometimes, I still go on with my (forum) life and feel no need to judge others for their tastes.

I absolutely agree with you. If Thalbergfan had said, to him Schumann is rubbish, I wouldn't object anywhere near as much. On the other hand, he states that 'Schumann is shite'. Actually, he said "It is boring repetative shite." "Schumann has as much texture as public convenience toilet paper." These are a absolute statements, implying fact. Great sweeping statements require commensurate supporting argumentation. Opinions do not.

Schumann seems to be an easy figure to pick on. His stature was acquired through the merit of the works themselves, they don't need lilliputians taking cowardly pot shots at them. If they do, they should substantiate these statements in some way (note I say statements not opinions).

[eusebius12]

IMO it is far more important to listen with your own ears then to follow the path of academic tyranny and take up a particular discourse because you are told it is the "right" thing to do.  It is astonishing how many people believe so and so is a great composer or such piece is a masterpiece not because they formed that opinion themselves, but because they were told to believe such things - it is what the history books dictate so to speak. 

If someone has an opinion on a piece of music, why should they be silenced because another person disagrees with that opinion. 

Opinion is fine. Opinionated not so. Dogmatic statements, opinionated arrogant arseholery, should be discouraged. Or at least laughed at.

[thalbergmad]

My title of Wanker of the Year looks to be slipping away.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

They all rather gravitated towards Schumann.

Flies rather gravitate towards crap.

[outin]

Opinion is fine. Opinionated not so. Dogmatic statements, opinionated arrogant arseholery, should be discouraged. Or at least laughed at.

Laugh away then!

Thal hates Schumann (or despises, I am not sure which). I find Mozart's music annoying and Beethoven's music tedious and boring, so both are worthless to me. I'd like this forum to be open enough to be able to say so even when 90% of pianists don't share my sentiments.

And, BTW, I do have better taste than anyone, so you're all wrong!

[eusebius12]

My title of Wanker of the Year looks to be slipping away.

Thal

You underestimate yourself

[eusebius12]

Flies rather gravitate towards crap.

So you think that list of musicians I gave are all 'crap'?

[eusebius12]

Laugh away then!

Thal hates Schumann (or despises, I am not sure which). I find Mozart's music annoying and Beethoven's music tedious and boring, so both are worthless to me. I'd like this forum to be open enough to be able to say so even when 90% of pianists don't share my sentiments.

And, BTW, I do have better taste than anyone, so you're all wrong!

You say, that you 'find Mozart's music annoying...' etc. Who can object to that? A Mozart lover might try to argue with you, but you've presented your views as what they are, your views. Subjective opinions, allowing that others, for very good reasons, might disagree. You aren't trying to ram your opinion down other's throats, and trying to dress up your opinion as fact.

It would be a sad world if everyone felt they had to mould their opinions to cater for received opinions or a groupthink mentality. But I'd never advocate this.

[dima_76557]

So you think that list of musicians I gave are all 'crap'?

Strictly following the rules of analogical reasoning without labeling the quality of this particular analogy itself:

You said:
X (the musicians in your list) gravitate towards Y (Schumann)

Thal said:
Flies rather gravitate towards crap.
 
If X gravitate towards Y, and Y equals "crap", then X must be "flies"; "super-flies".

P.S.: The deeper philosophy behind Thal's remark is NOT to compare your list of musicians to "flies". "To each his own"; that's how I interpret his wording.

[awesom_o]

Abegg you to reconsider and retune your ears to that heavenward sound.

har har!