# Schumann is a bad composer



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

Schumann is a bad composer.
I have never listened to much Schumann (outside of piano) before but a week ago I decided to explore his works more deeply and started off by listening to his 1st and 2nd symphonies. I also decided to end there.
I was very surprised by the almost third-rate quality of music that I was listening to.
The 1st 2 symphonies of a composer are truly essential to understanding them later on. 
We knew haydn was Haydn from his first two symphonies. Magnificent
We knew Mozart was Mozart from his first two symphonies. Excellent
We knew Beethiven was Beethoven from his first two symphonies. Marvelous 

So schumann. All I can say about Schumann from his first two symphonies are two things
1. He is a extremely poor melodist

I can not recall a single melody from the first 2 symphonies. Not a single one.

2. He is an extremely poor orchestrator. This is most evident in the opening of the 2nd symphony. Terrible!!!
So the whole purpose of this is, why is Schumann so well known and what are some of his greatest works so I can listen and change my mind.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I would not call him a bad composer. He is not in the same league as Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven but certainly composed some masterpieces. The piano concerto and piano quintet are my favourite Schumann pieces and there is some solo piano pieces that I enjoy as well. I like his symphonies too. I can remember lots of melodies, especially from his 1st symphony. And the scherzo from his 2nd is very memorable too. His symphonies are not nearly as tightly organized as many top symphonies and orchestration is often mediocre, but they are not bad music at all.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Listen to his 3rd and 4th, and piano concerto (which inspired Grieg). I find Schumann's voice really individual. Although I don't appreciate his fantasie to the extent other people do, I find his 2nd piano sonata to be a masterpiece.



CarlHaydn284 said:


> We knew haydn was Haydn from his first two symphonies. Magnificent
> We knew Mozart was Mozart from his first two symphonies. Excellent


For a large part of the 18th century, symphonies as a genre did not have the same meaning as they did in the later centuries. Mozart wrote this fugue finale to his Galimathias musicum K.32 in 1766. I find it more enjoyable than many of his symphonies before 1772:





In my view, these are truly Mozart's "first symphonies":









I also like the use of dissonance in the slow movements of the 25th and 26th:





*[ 2:00 ]*


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Here we go again.:devil:


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

> We knew haydn was Haydn from his first two symphonies. Magnificent
> We knew Mozart was Mozart from his first two symphonies. Excellent
> We knew Beethiven was Beethoven from his first two symphonies. Marvelous


I don't think any of those statements is actually true. :lol:

As for Schumann's symphonies, all I can say is I'd much rather listen to them than, say, Tchaikovsky's.


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

I disagree. Next.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

The judgement that a listener makes about a composer based on the 1st 2 symphonies of that composer is truly essential to understanding whether to pay any attention to that listener.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Saying "I don't appreciate this" is different than saying "this isn't good" and the difference is either humility or how much attention you want, if those are actually different things.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

Well, another poster I can safely, totally disregard.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

For me, a lot of themes/melodies in his piano music alone dispel any opinion that he was a poor melodist.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

I agree that Schumann was not the greatest orchestrator, meaning that it takes a talented conductor to bring out the orchestral clarity. Which Schumann symphony recording did you listen to? I’d suggest you go and listen how Sawallisch, Skrowaczewski or Chailly (Mahler’s reorchestration!) conduct it. They manage to bring out the orchestral colours and clarity extremely well.

But Schumann a bad melodist? It was definitely Schumann you listened to?

I’m very fond of Schumann. His solo piano played an important role in getting me to love solo piano in general. He has written some wonderful solo and chamber music (have you listened to his string quartet and violin sonatas? If not, I warmly recommend you give them a go). He wrote some great lieder and his symphonies have a tinge of Beethovenian heroism, which I adore. In my opinion, he’s definitely not a second rate composer. I think there’s something very Schumann-ish in already his early symphonies and it takes some genius to write something as marvellous but seemingly simple as Kinderszenen.


----------



## Axter (Jan 15, 2020)

I enjoy all Schumann symphonies 1-4 and his piano works.



CarlHaydn284 said:


> So the whole purpose of this is, why is Schumann so well known and what are some of his greatest works so I can listen and change my mind.


This is where taste(s) differ among listeners. If you don't enjoy what you heard so far, then chances are you might not enjoy his other works. You don't have to push yourself into enjoying them. 
Oftentimes when time passes and we get a bit older and revisit a work we may or may not have a different view on it.

I say give his 4th Symph. a shot. (that was my first love affair with Schumann's work). If you don't enjoy that, then that's fine, that's your taste. There is always the other "schu" by the name of Franz from Austria 

Lastly, I wouldn't go so far to call him a bad composer because of your own personal taste, as it would imply I have a bad taste (well perhaps I do  )


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

Becca said:


> The judgement that a listener makes about a composer based on the 1st 2 symphonies of that composer is truly essential to understanding whether to pay any attention to that listener.


Well considering that his first symphony is considered one of his greatest works, I was pretty disappointed. Also, if you had not listened to any Beethoven symphony but the first 2, wouldn't you still judge him exactly the same as if you had listened to all symphonies of his?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> *Well considering that his first symphony is considered one of his greatest works, I was pretty disappointed.* Also, if you had not listened to any Beethoven symphony but the first 2, wouldn't you still judge him exactly the same as if you had listened to all symphonies of his?


Do you have an objective reason for this? As I said, Schumann symphonies are very conductor-dependent.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

I completely agree that the piano concerto is his greatest work (opinion). It might be the greatest romantic era piano concerto for me (opinion). However everything else of his falls flat. Even his Kinderszenen. Honestly look at the work and ask yourself “other than “Of foreign lands and people and Traumerei, which other ones do I actually enjoy listening to?”. 

I listened to his third symphony. Nice work (far better than the first two) but Please compare to the third symphony of Beethoven and the third symphony of Brahms. I do not understand. What made this composer famous? I agree that the piano concerto is amazing but that is just one work. Dare I say he is a “one hit wonder”? Another example that immediately comes to mind is Luigi Bocchereni. He is all but forgotten in the classical music world, yet everyone knows the Minuetto from his string quartet in E major.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

Karajan/Berlin Phil For the symphony no 1 
Bernstein/NY Phil for the 2nd


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

What makes Schumann a great composer are his piano works, mostly, and for many the string quintet and piano concerto.

Just because his symphonies aren’t the best doesn’t mean that some of his other words aren’t much much better.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Also, if you had not listened to any Beethoven symphony but the first 2, wouldn't you still judge him exactly the same as if you had listened to all symphonies of his?


I can't speak for Becca, but personally if I only listened to first two symphonies of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven and made a final judgement based on that, I would not explore any more of their music. I can't think of any composer where I even come close to getting a lot out of every work they wrote...

I also like Schumann more than any of them except maybe Beethoven, so not a bad composer to me! It's his piano works I'm especially fond of.


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Even his Kinderszenen. Honestly look at the work and ask yourself "other than "Of foreign lands and people and Traumerei, which other ones do I actually enjoy listening to?".


Literally every single piece in the collection?


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> I completely agree that the piano concerto is his greatest work (opinion). It might be the greatest romantic era piano concerto for me (opinion). However everything else of his falls flat. Even his Kinderszenen. Honestly look at the work and ask yourself "other than "Of foreign lands and people and Traumerei, which other ones do I actually enjoy listening to?".
> 
> I listened to his third symphony. Nice work (far better than the first two) but Please compare to the third symphony of Beethoven and the third symphony of Brahms. I do not understand. What made this composer famous? I agree that the piano concerto is amazing but that is just one work. Dare I say he is a "one hit wonder"? Another example that immediately comes to mind is Luigi Bocchereni. He is all but forgotten in the classical music world, yet everyone knows the Minuetto from his string quartet in E major.


Schumann is in my opinion anything but "one hit wonder". He's definitely not forgotten. Everything else does not fall flat - it's word against word. I enjoy the other parts of Kinderszenen as well, maybe even more than Träumerei. Don't you think that your assessment of Schumann is simply in the shadow of your subjective opinion? I mean, I might not like every work Schoenberg composed but I'm still willing to praise his genius and thoroughness. Evidently, there are many musically educated people who enjoy Schumann immensely.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

What are some of your favorite Schumann works?


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

I never said Schumann is forgotten. I said why isn’t he forgotten. Anyways I have got what I was looking for. “Why is Schumann famous and what are some of his greatest works?” I thank you all for this. Time to get to listening! Fun


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

annaw said:


> Schumann is in my opinion everything but "one hit wonder". He's definitely not forgotten. Everything else does not fall flat - it's word against word. I enjoy the other parts of Kinderszenen as well, maybe even more than Träumerei. Don't you think that your assessment of Schumann is simply in the shadow of your subjective opinion? I mean, I might not like every work Schoenberg composed but I'm still willing to praise his genius and thoroughness. Evidently, there are many musically educated people who enjoy Schumann immensely.


 Yes my assessment is mostly subjective (except for the orchestration which is just plain bad to everyone). I enjoy Schumann's piano music, but have you ever seen another composer who is only loved for his piano music other than Chopin who did not even attempt to write anything that doesn't include a piano.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Yes my assessment is mostly subjective (except for the orchestration which is just plain bad to everyone). I enjoy Schumann's piano music, but have you ever seen another composer who is only loved for his piano music other than Chopin who did not even attempt to write anything that doesn't include a piano.


Go and listen to Chailly's recording with Gewandhausorchester as he uses Mahler's reorchestration and that fellow was one of the greatest orchestrators of symphonic composition. Listen to Schumann's violin sonatas (there's a BIS recording with Ulf Wallin I've really enjoyed) - those are wonderful. Schumann has written three string quartets which are great (Takacs has made a fine recording), a piano quintet (Gulda + Hagen Quartet recording), and piano trios. During "the war of Romantics" Schumann was on the same side with Brahms and, differently from Wagner, they held chamber music in a very high regard. Schumann's chamber works are definitely worth discovering. If you are fine with vocal music and lieder, then go and give a go to some of Fischer-Dieskau's recordings of Schumann's lieder.

Edit: Hagen quartets recordings of the string quartets should be excellent as well and have a lot better sound quality. Takacs was just my own intro and thus I'm fond of it.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I do not like Schumann that much, but he isn't a bad composer. Schumann is good at works with small forces-- lieder, piano works, etc. He is not as good at orchestration, but his orchestration is sufficient. He is also not so good at form. 

I like form and I do not like lieder or solo piano works, so I prefer other composers over him. Even then, he has stuff to offer, like his Piano Quintet, symphonies, and concertos.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

annaw said:


> Go and listen to Chailly's recording with Gewandhausorchester as he uses Mahler's reorchestration and that fellow was one of the greatest orchestrators of symphonic composition. Listen to Schumann's violin sonatas (there's a BIS recording with Ulf Wallin I've really enjoyed) - those are wonderful. Schumann has written three string quartets which are great (Takacs has made a fine recording), a piano quintet (Gulda + Hagen Quartet recording), and piano trios. During "the war of Romantics" Schumann was on the same side with Brahms and, differently from Wagner, they held chamber music in a very high regard. Schumann's chamber works are definitely worth discovering. If you are fine with vocal music and lieder, then go and give a go to some of Fischer-Dieskau's recordings of Schumann's lieder.


I will make sure to do all that!


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> It might be the greatest romantic era piano concerto for me (opinion).


You sound like you have absolutely no problem with the orchestration of his piano concerto. Why then, would you complain so much about the orchestration of his symphonies?


----------



## StDior (May 28, 2015)

He is much better at chamber works imho. One of my favorite composers at the piano trios for example, absolutely on the same level as the leading composers of the genre, Beethoven, Schubert or Brahms. 
Maybe try the 2nd movement of his 2nd piano trio at first. But it definitely requires multiply (3-5) listening before evaluation (as classical music in general):


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

I was intrigued by the OP.......so had a look.

Ona very basic level to claim that Schumann's music ( apparently the first two symphonies in particular) does not contain anything memorable strikes me as very odd.........On a very personal level I have found the final movement of the second to be one of the most life affirming and joyous pieces of music I have heard.......Indeed I can still clearly remember the point at which approx. seven years ago I suddenly realised how 'great' the impact....if David Zinman and the Tonhalle remain in my musical memory it will be for this if nothing else.........


----------



## Ariasexta (Jul 3, 2010)

If a piece of music can not impart some instant impacts then it lacks some genius, but does not mean that it is a bad piece of musical work. Genius is not really the most indispensable ingredient of music, music is the holistic science, it compensates anything that divides people(my idea, citations needed:lol:）: even a dumb person(or blind, deaf, handicapped) can write good pieces of music, but at the same time, an extremely intelligent man can also write extremely evil pieces of music. For me, there is no such a thing as the bad composer, just a bad person turned composer.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Love Schumann. His beautiful symphonies, concertos etc has beautiful melodies and they reflect on who he was!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> ... ask yourself ... which ... do I actually enjoy listening to?


Approaches like this always take me somewhat by surprise. I really don't know how anyone fails to enjoy listening to almost any music.

But even if I don't enjoy something, do factors like historical influence matter at all?

I mean, I would never dream -- just speaking for myself of course -- of criticizing Schumann's music until I was sure I understood why people like Brahms (who I assume had a heck of a lot more insight into it than I do at this time) admired it.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.
> I have never listened to much Schumann


OK, kindly shut up then.


----------



## Guest002 (Feb 19, 2020)

If he was good enough for Benjamin Britten to bother recording his _Scenes from Goethe's Faust_, as his last-ever recording, then he's good enough for the likes of me, I think.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.
> *I have never listened to much Schumann* (outside of piano) before but a week ago I decided to explore his works more deeply and started off by listening to his 1st and 2nd symphonies. I also decided to end there.
> I was very surprised by the almost third-rate quality of music that I was listening to.
> The 1st 2 symphonies of a composer are truly essential to understanding them later on.
> ...


Have you ever thought that the problem is not with Schumann? His piano and chamber music is where he really shines, IMO


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> The 1st 2 symphonies of a composer are truly essential to understanding them later on.


So.... Do you have any dating advice too?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.
> I have never listened to much Schumann (outside of piano)...
> 
> So schumann. All I can say about Schumann from his first two symphonies are two things
> ...


Schumann is not well represented in my music collection compared to other composers. I have the symphonies (one complete cycle by Bernstein, another by Zinman); the piano works by Horowitz and Richter; some of the chamber works; and never felt the need to go much further.

In fact I probably listen to more of _William_ Schuman with one "n" than _Robert_ Schumann with two "ns".

Then again, I'm not really much for the really pretty things of the High Romantic age; stuff by Schubert, Schumann, Mendelssohn, and Chopin. My main diet is from Late Romantic, through Early Modern to the present.

But I will say that of those High Romantic composers, Schumann is the one that interests me the most. While you say that Schumann has not produced any memorable melodies, I'd add that music isn't ALWAYS about melody. In this sense, while Schumann is the very essence of the really pretty and flowery Romantic age, in a weird way he's also a bridge to Modernism; or mood over melody. When I hear Schumann's piano works, they remind me just a little bit of Debussy, and _Prophet Bird_ doesn't sound that far removed from _Girl With the Flaxen Hair_.

The Schumann symphonies are actually a lot tighter and well-formed than Bruckner, Mahler, Sibelius, Shostakovich, and others of the Late-Romantic/Early Modern variety. Brahms was the very essence of fine German craftsmanship, and if Brahms was a fan of Schumann, then Schumann's craftsmanship couldn't have been THAT bad.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

Schumann's orchestration: Schumann was not a particularly good conductor (of his own or anyone else's music), and the Dusseldorf orchestra had significant problems. So when things didn't go well, he blamed it not on himself or the players, but his music, which he attempted to "correct" by doubling parts, which muddied up the sound horribly. In general he lacked confidence, and a good rule of thumb is that his first instinct was almost always better than any revisions he performed.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

StDior said:


> He is much better at chamber works imho. One of my favorite composers at the piano trios for example, absolutely on the same level as the leading composers of the genre, Beethoven, Schubert or Brahms.
> Maybe try the 2nd movement of his 2nd piano trio at first. But it definitely requires multiply (3-5) listening before evaluation (as classical music in general):


Now that is great music. It seems that with Schumann the fewer instruments the better!


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

2 reasons why Schumann’s piano concerto is greater than his symphonies 

1. It has much better orchestration 
2. It has much better melodies and much more memorable ones

It is truly a great piece of music and if Schumann composed every piece with melodies like this and textures like these he would maybe be considered better than his contemporary Brahms.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

A few months ago I thought the exact same as the OP. Mainly I found Schumann's melodies to be bland and unmemorable. But then I heard Furtwängler do the 4th Symphony and I was blown away by the masterful structuring of the symphony and the slow buildup to a cathartically intense ending. The symphonies are still, as a whole, my biggest blind spot for Schumann but that experience persuaded me to revisit his piano music and I fell in love with Davidsbündlertanze and Carnaval, which capture the most delicate, heart-rending, and fleeting of Romantic characters. He is still not among my absolute favorites but I find the soaring potency and idealism of so many of his works - the piano and cello concerti, the song cycles, the piano quintet and quartet, the great C Major Fantasie, and lots of his other piano miniatures - to be absolutely irresistable. Hang in there, I'm sure you'll get it someday.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Well considering that his first symphony is considered one of his greatest works, I was pretty disappointed.


No, it isn't.



CarlHaydn284 said:


> Also, if you had not listened to any Beethoven symphony but the first 2, wouldn't you still judge him exactly the same as if you had listened to all symphonies of his?


No, of course not. Where did you get this ridiculous idea?


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> A few months ago I thought the exact same as the OP. Mainly I found Schumann's melodies to be bland and unmemorable. But then I heard Furtwängler do the 4th Symphony and I was blown away by the masterful structuring of the symphony and the slow buildup to a cathartically intense ending. The symphonies are still, as a whole, my biggest blind spot for Schumann but that experience persuaded me to revisit his piano music and I fell in love with Davidsbündlertanze and Carnaval, which capture the most delicate, heart-rending, and fleeting of Romantic characters. He is still not among my absolute favorites but I find the soaring potency and idealism of so many of his works - the piano and cello concerti, the song cycles, the piano quintet and quartet, the great C Major Fantasie, and lots of his other piano miniatures - to be absolutely irresistable. Hang in there, I'm sure you'll get it someday.


Yes thank you for this. I know I will get it someday. Especially since I never got Brahms since a year ago and Rachmaninov until a couple of months ago (and I'm a pianist )


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Fascinating to read this thread. Schumann is one of the immortals. His compositional technique is mind boggling. How easily and seamlessly he modulates from one key to another. His music is meltingly romantic. His symphonies, prepared and played well, are exciting, beautiful, and quite modern. His 4th led the way to single-movement symphonies by later composers. Yes, his orchestration needs some help, but any attentive thoughtful conductor will take care of matters. The opening of the first is a mess rhythmically as well which is a whole long issue. I don't his songs well, but his chamber music and the piano music are very familiar and I love it. Great, great composer. Every Horn player should be grateful to him - he was the one who first used the valve F horn to its full extent (and then some!). The Konzertstuck for 4 horns and orchestra is just dazzling.


----------



## pjang23 (Oct 8, 2009)

No clue why you put so much emphasis on the symphonies as the main reason to judge Schumann, as they are absolutely not considered the best works of his output.

His art songs and solo piano music are the best works of his output (and art songs are the most neglected genre altogether).


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

It's true, Schumann is a bad composer.

Smacking him on the nose with a rolled up newspaper usually takes care of it.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.


And a very naughty boy.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

In honor of this thread, I listened to Shumann's songs tonight. They are just as beautiful as Schubert's. I think Schumann's genius shone in his song writing—evincing much greater emotional range and complexity than his solo piano work IMHO.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^I generally agree, but I also think that he certainly could sublimate the spirit of the Lieder into his piano miniatures and create irresistably eloquent little gems like this (the score of this piece is even written like a song on three staves with the melody line in the middle):


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> 2. He is an extremely poor orchestrator. This is most evident in the opening of the 2nd symphony. Terrible!!!
> So the whole purpose of this is, why is Schumann so well known and what are some of his greatest works so I can listen and change my mind.


I don't mind Schumann's symphonies and I can enjoy them, but they are certainly not his best works.

You should follow the advice of Tchaikovsky, who was very fond of Schumann.



> Whilst praising the warmth and passion of Schumann's symphonies, Tchaikovsky nevertheless criticized their orchestration, and in a conversation with his friend Ivan Klimenko around 1870-71 he confessed that "for a long time he had been cherishing the idea of orchestrating afresh all four of Schumann's symphonies". Tchaikovsky would emphasize constantly that Schumann's natural medium was the piano and that Schumann was perhaps the greatest piano composer of all time.


Schumann's symphonies suffer with large orchestras because he doubled so many parts. Is this poor orchestration? Not really, but it could've been more interesting. He was certainly superior to Chopin in this regard.



CarlHaydn284 said:


> So schumann. All I can say about Schumann from his first two symphonies are two things
> 1. He is a extremely poor melodist
> 
> I can not recall a single melody from the first 2 symphonies. Not a single one.


Well, I for one like the melodies in Schumann's symphonies! I think they take time to sink it.

And Schumann was not an operatic melodist, certainly not like Chopin was. One of the central points to Schumann's style is his emphasis of texture and harmony over melody. To Schumann, what he does with a melody was much more important to him than the melody itself. This way, he could take mediocre melodies and transform them into interesting passages.

For example, take a look at his Symphonic Etudes-he thought the theme itself was very substandard and yet he was able to produce wonderful music from it. In particular note the theme transformations in the second variation and the fifth posthumous variation.

Here Tchaikovsky transcribes the 9th variation for orchestra and the results really show off the genius of Schumann and how he metamorphosed a theme he considered mediocre.






With all that being said about his lack of emphasis on melody, he was nonetheless capable of incredible melodies as seen here:
















There are similarly great melodies in his piano and violin sonatas, as well as his celebrated Concerto.






Finally, you must understand first and foremost that Schumann wrote music for musicians rather than for audiences. This is well reflected in an interview conducted in 2010, asking famous pianists about their thoughts on Schumann and Chopin (note that the majority of pianists said they played _more_ Schumann than Chopin, while only one of them states that they play more Chopin than Schumann). And yet they also agree that audiences much prefer Chopin to Schumann.

Sir Andras Schiff, one of the greatest living pianists, is especially enthusiastic about his promotion of Schumann:



> [I will be performing] lots of Schumann and relatively little Chopin. Like I said, Chopin does not need our help, but Schumann does very much so. For this reason I will be playing entire Schumann programmes. He is one of the few composers who can afford it. To me, a programme, exclusively comprised of Chopin, though it is often offered, is not satisfying.


Other great pianists would certainly agree.

Sviatoslav Richter considered Schumann to certainly be one of his favorite composers, and he programmed many Schumann works that even Schumann fans have trouble sitting through.

Martha Argerich said that Schumann was the composer that "touches her the most deeply".

Vladimir Horowitz opined that if he went to heaven, he would first and foremost like to "try to make friends with Robert Schumann."

Benno Moiseiwitsch says "although technically Schumann did not have the skill of Chopin, I admire him more than anyone else because he poured his life into his music."

Franz Liszt certainly had a high opinion of Schumann, although he also would say that he was afraid audiences would not understand his music.

I would wager to say that, if you are able to play piano to any strong degree, you must try Schumann's music for yourself. It will take time to truly understand and absorb, which is true of many great works of art.

Who, for example, can claim to understand a great Shakespeare play through only one reading? Or the sublime poetry of Walt Whitman? There are years of analysis and research that go to into the works of the great artists.

Now, if you were to want to listen or play anything of Schumann, here would be my list of recommendations:


Fantasy Op.17
Fantasiestucke Op.12
Carnaval Op.9
Sonata Op.11
Sonata Op.22
Sonata Op.14
Symphonic Etudes Op.13
Humoreske Op.20
Kreisleriana Op.16 (for years, even as a great Schumann fan, I believed Kreisleriana to be his most boring and worthless work-after learning it, I believe it to be his best)
Kinderszenen Op.15

In these works Tchaikovsky surmises that the second half of the 19th century would go down into music history as the "Schumannesque period", and observes how Schumann's music tells us of "the mysteriously deep processes of our spiritual life" and of "the moments of doubt and despair". Perhaps Tchaikovsky overestimated the audience's appreciation of Schumann.

Besides piano works, Schumann was also perhaps the most brilliant chamber composer of his generation, next to only Mendelssohn. This can be seen in works such as:


Liederkreis Op.24
Liederkreis Op.39
Dichterliebe Op.45
String Quartets Op.41
Piano Quintet Op.44
Piano Quartet Op.47
Piano Trio Op.63
Fantasiestucke Op.73
Piano Trio Op.80
Violin Sonata Op.105
Marchenbilder Op.113
Violin Sonata Op.121 (in my opinion one of the greatest violin sonatas of all time)

I hope this is enough to answer any Schumann questions.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Now that is great music. It seems that with Schumann the fewer instruments the better!


This is what people need to understand. The hierarchy of Schumann's works is thus:

Piano solo (1 instrument) > Lieder (2 instruments) > Other chamber works (2-6 instruments) > Concertos (50+ instruments) > Symphonies (50+ instruments)> Opera/Choral works (50+ instruments)

Well, there's a lot of overlap but you get the point! And really, his symphonies and choral works are quite good, just not Mozart good. And they need time to be fully appreciated.

I'm glad you are starting to like his Concerto and his smaller works! People generally like the concerto, it's one of the most popular concerti of all time.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Yes thank you for this. I know I will get it someday. Especially since I never got Brahms since a year ago and Rachmaninov until a couple of months ago (and I'm a pianist )


Also, you absolutely must listen to the slow movements of his sonatas. They are heavenly.











Oh, and the slow movement of his Piano Quintet. 

Oh, and his piano trio 1. 

I think you will fall in love with Schumann sooner or later.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Schumann is a bad composer._

He may be bad but he was the No. 9 of all composers in my survey, between Schubert and Wagner. Not bad, I'd say.

You seem to be focused on his technique rather than his range or emotional content. Also you seem to think the Haydn Syms Nos. 1 and 2, and the Mozart Syms Nos 1 and 2, are better. I suggest you play those against any Schumann symphony in direct comparison.

The whole poor orchestrator, poor melody argument has been played out for about 200 years. In all that time Schumann has remained among the top 10 composers of all time. Here's why:

-- His symphonies are evergreen. You may not like them but they remain oft-played in concert and often recorded -- far more so than most other composers. If you cannot discern the ostinato melody of the "spring" symphony ...

-- He wrote concertos for violin, piano and cello in the same class -- oft-played and recorded. The piano concerto in particular is among the best romantic concertos and defies the silly talk about his lack of melody.

-- He is among the best writers of lied in the romantic era. Try his song cycle Dichterliebe with 
Fritz Wunderlich sometime.

-- His chamber music compares favorably to any composer of his or any other time. To cite just one masterpiece the Piano Quintet Op. 44 is full of drama and pathos in equal parts.

-- He had expertise in areas other did not including music for stage and oddball concoctions such as the Concert Piece for 4 Horns and Orchestra Op. 86 and the Concert Piece for Piano and Orchestra Op. 92.

-- His collection of overtures rivals the best romantic composers. Try Herrmann and Dorothea of the Overture, Scherzo and Finale sometime.

-- As you yourself know his solo piano music stands with any composer of his or any other time for quantity, quality and inspration.


----------



## vtpoet (Jan 17, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> ^I generally agree, but I also think that he certainly could sublimate the spirit of the Lieder into his piano miniatures and create irresistably eloquent little gems like this (the score of this piece is even written like a song on three staves with the melody line in the middle):


Yes, this is extraordinarily beautiful and quite song-like. Would that he had written more like this.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Oh yes, and one of the best Cello Concerti since Haydn's.






The "big three" cello concertos of the Romantic Era are commonly stated to be Schumann, Dvořák, and Elgar.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

chu42 said:


> I don't mind Schumann's symphonies and I can enjoy them, but they are certainly not his best works.
> 
> You should follow the advice of Tchaikovsky, who was very fond of Schumann.
> 
> ...


Wow! Thank you for all this!


----------



## Flamme (Dec 30, 2012)

Maybe, but he was good in other things...https://europa.eu/european-union/sites/europaeu/files/robert_schuman_en.pdf


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.
> I have never listened to much Schumann (outside of piano) before but a week ago I decided to explore his works more deeply and started off by listening to his 1st and 2nd symphonies. I also decided to end there.
> I was very surprised by the almost third-rate quality of music that I was listening to.
> The 1st 2 symphonies of a composer are truly essential to understanding them later on.
> ...


Totally agree. Schumann is crap. Not fit to even carry the jock-strap of Andrew Lloyd-Webber. :lol:

His lieder, piano music and symphonies are unlistenable.

Glad someone had the guts to start this thread. 

EDIT: FOR THE AVOIDANCE OF DOUBT (ESPECIALLY FOR MY AMERICAN FRIENDS WHO MAY NOT APPRECIATE ENGLISH IRONY) MY TONGUE WAS FIRMLY IN MY CHEEK WHEN I POSTED THIS!

SCHUMANN IS TIP-TOP, ESPECIALLY HIS ORCHESTRAL WOKS!!!


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

As many people above have already stated, his strength was his piano music and chamber pieces. Although his Piano Concerto is wonderful. I will agree with the OP in one sense when it comes to his symphonies: They are not orchestrated well. I have always said his symphonies sound "sloppy." Listen to any of his four symphonies, then listen to ANY Beethoven symphony right after. The difference is staggering.

That does not mean I don't enjoy his symphonies. Again, as other's have stated, they have great melodies as does much of his output as a composer. He truly was one of the masters. When I saw the title of this thread, I immediately thought, "This belongs in the 'Your Unpopular Opinions' thread." I always try to be "objective" with my musical statements in the sense that I try to separate my opinion of a piece of music vs whether or not I will state a certain piece is "great" or "bad."

I do not like Stravinsky's "Le Sacre du Printemps," but knowing that plenty who know far more about music than I ever will, consider it one of the greatest pieces of the 20th Century, I'm pretty certain it's ME who doesn't "get" the greatness of it.

Keep listening. I give Le Sacre a listen every few years to see if I can "discover" it's alleged beauty. So far, it has evaded me. However, there are plenty of pieces that upon first or second, or many other listenings, I didn't enjoy. Then one day, it clicked, and they have become favorites or at least enjoyable pieces. Just keep listening and enjoy the journey.

V


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

I was listening to some of the Sawallisch-conducted 1972 recording of the symphonies on YT, and I think they're great. They were obviously an enormous influence on Brahms. "Poorly orchestrated" sometimes seems to be relative, as in "it doesn't sound like Berlioz". But then master-orchestrator Berlioz's music sometimes sounds too "busy" to me.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

HenryPenfold said:


> SCHUMANN IS TIP-TOP, ESPECIALLY *HIS ORCHESTRAL WOKS!!*


Henry, you've found a new orchestral percussion instrument....brilliant....
Knowing Schumann, he probably would've scored for double Woks.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

consuono said:


> I was listening to some of the Sawallisch-conducted 1972 recording of the symphonies on YT, and I think they're great. They were obviously an enormous influence on Brahms. "Poorly orchestrated" sometimes seems to be relative, as in "it doesn't sound like Berlioz". But then master-orchestrator Berlioz's music sometimes sounds too "busy" to me.


Sawallisch's recording is brilliant! My fave Schumman symphony cycle so far.

I believe the problem with orchestration is that it's overly thick but then again I think it's difficult to differentiate "bad" and simply "challenging" orchestration in this case. When I listen to Sawallisch's, Skrowaczewski's or Barenboim's recordings, I'd probably have no idea that something is actually wanting in the orchestration.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

It's also worth considering that orchestration is as subjective for a composer as any other parameter in music. There are combinations that don't work even if only for physical acoustic reasons, but there is a huge grey area where taste, preferences, the musical dictates and experience plays a decisive role.
It's just not so straightforward to say orchestration is bad in some cases imv.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

How can anyone believe that the man who wrote these works is a "bad composer"?

View attachment 145552


*Schumann: Piano Quartet, Piano Quintet*
Beaux Arts Trio, Samuel Rhodes, Dolf Bettelheim


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> I was listening to some of the Sawallisch-conducted 1972 recording of the symphonies on YT, and I think they're great. They were obviously an enormous influence on Brahms. "Poorly orchestrated" sometimes seems to be relative, as in "it doesn't sound like Berlioz". But then master-orchestrator Berlioz's music sometimes sounds too "busy" to me.





mikeh375 said:


> It's also worth considering that orchestration is as subjective for a composer as any other parameter in music. There are combinations that don't work even if only for physical acoustic reasons, but there is a huge grey area where taste, preferences, the musical dictates and experience plays a decisive role.
> It's just not so straightforward to say orchestration is bad in some cases imv.


I also buy into the argument it is "a huge grey area where taste, preferences, the musical dictates and experience plays a decisive role." For example, I can see the innovations of Berlioz's orchestration; he knows which instruments to use to bring out certain effects, but is his orchestration really "balanced" in the way, say:

"Mozart has spread civilization in the orchestra. The inhabitants of his harmonious city do not include many outstanding figures, but they have generally a more cultivated attitude; richness and purity of language are most common among them." -Berlioz
<
View attachment 130858
>


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.
> I have never listened to much Schumann (outside of piano) before but a week ago I decided to explore his works more deeply and started off by listening to his 1st and 2nd symphonies. I also decided to end there.
> I was very surprised by the almost third-rate quality of music that I was listening to.........


His wife might well have agreed with you, but I don't. Clara Schumann, an accomplished musician herself, once said to him, "Robert will you write something that I can play for people!"


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Pyotr said:


> His wife might well have agreed with you, but I don't. Clara Schumann, an accomplished musician herself, once said to him, "Robert will you write something that I can play for people!"


Not sure what that quote is supposed to mean, but history remembers Clara Schumann, the pianist, as a fervent champion of her husband's works. She played many of his works for people, many many times, all over Europe.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

" I can not recall a single melody from the first 2 symphonies. Not a single one."

Disconcerting. I suggest you consult your GP.


----------



## Geoff48 (Aug 15, 2020)

Firstly I think Schumann is not a bad composer. Equally I would not put him in the top dozen or so. Certainly his piano music is good. I’m not a fan of Lieder but those who are speak highly of his songs. Then his Piano Concerto is one of the only finest although to be fair his cello and violin concertos are less impressive. He was not a great symphonist, his orchestration a little thick, but the opening of the Rhenish is striking.
But who to compare him with. Mendelssohn is perhaps his nearest contemporary. And whilst his first,Scottish and Italian Symphonies are brilliant the least said about the Reformation the better. And the violin concerto is perfect but then Mendelssohn wrote that Victorian favourite Elijah. For the record I love Mendelssohn and his music but accept that to many he also is not one of the greatest composers - personally I think they are wrong. Then Chopin, a great composer for piano but an even worse orchestrator. And we don’t criticise Grieg because he was primarily a miniaturist.
So had he only written the Piano Concerto Schumann would have been seen A’s a one one hit wonder but a good one. Add his piano music and his lieder and he goes up the scale. So no he is not a bad composer.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

flamencosketches said:


> Not sure what that quote is supposed to mean, but history remembers Clara Schumann, the pianist, as a fervent champion of her husband's works. She played many of his works for people, many many times, all over Europe.


Mt attempt to bring a little humor to a very heavy thread. Here's the entire quote. On April 4, 1839 Clara wrote a letter to Robert from Paris. Referring directly to Kreisleriana " Listen Robert, won't you for once compose something easy to understand. Something that is complete and coherent without special titles, not too long, not to short.I would so much like to have something of yours to play in public, something written for an audience. I know this is degrading to a genius, but once in a while dont you think it would be the politic thing to do?"


----------



## neofite (Feb 19, 2017)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> Schumann is a bad composer.
> He is a extremely poor melodist
> I can not recall a single melody from the first 2 symphonies. Not a single one.
> So the whole purpose of this is, why is Schumann so well known and what are some of his greatest works so I can listen and change my mind.


This means _he was actually a very good composer_ - he was just far ahead of his times. Almost all modern composers know that beautiful, memorable melodies are obsolete and are merely distractions from the more important aspects of music.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

Pyotr said:


> Mt attempt to bring a little humor to a very heavy thread. Here's the entire quote. On April 4, 1839 Clara wrote a letter to Robert from Paris. Referring directly to Kreisleriana " Listen Robert, won't you for once compose something easy to understand. Something that is complete and coherent without special titles, not too long, not to short.I would so much like to have something of yours to play in public, something written for an audience. I know this is degrading to a genius, but once in a while dont you think it would be the politic thing to do?"


Oh, OK; I thought you were trying to imply that she would've agreed with the OP of this thread that Schumann was a bad composer. It's true, there's that and a few other quotes out there that do seem to imply that Clara found (some of) his music too challenging for the general public, and there were certain late works that she repressed due to thinking that his late mental illness negatively impacted his creative output, but she was always supportive and admiring of his work.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

Everything you said is true. Clara was a fervent champion of her husband's works and played them for people many, many times, all over Europe. But as a concert musician her main objective was to perform works that people liked and applauded. Clara wrote the letter I quoted in 1939 — Robert’s music wasn’t completely appreciated by the public until after 1950.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Pyotr said:


> Everything you said is true. Clara was a fervent champion of her husband's works and played them for people many, many times, all over Europe. But as a concert musician her main objective was to perform works that people liked and applauded. Clara wrote the letter I quoted in 1939 - Robert's music wasn't completely appreciated by the public until after 1950.


And yet the elite pianists of the time-Rachmaninov, Hofmann, Lhevinne, Moiseiwitsch, Cortot, etc.-all played Schumann masterpieces!

Edit: Do you mean to say 1839 and 1850? That would make a lot more sense.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

Yes. Thanks for the correction Chu42.


----------



## Pyotr (Feb 26, 2013)

CarlHaydn284 said:


> .... .....(far better than the first two) but Please compare to the third symphony of Beethoven and the third symphony of Brahms. I do not understand. What made this composer famous? I agree that the piano concerto is amazing but that is just one work. Dare I say he is a "one hit wonder"? Another example that immediately comes to mind is Luigi Bocchereni. He is all but forgotten in the classical music world, yet everyone knows the Minuetto from his string quartet in E major.


You took a shot at one of my favorites , Boccherini, and I've been meaning to stand aghast at the disparagement.  As far as his orchestral works, I haven't fallen in love with any of his symphonies but his cello concertos, especially Nos. 2 and 9, are a constant play in my library. Take five minutes to listen to this second movement of No. 2.






He is pure classical era. What I like about the Italian composers is that they never sacrificed tonality for complexity.

But his chamber works are as good anyone's(well almost). His guitar quintets are my favorites, and get a lot of play on my cable classical channel. Hardly forgotten.


----------



## CarlHaydn284 (Jul 12, 2020)

Pyotr said:


> You took a shot at one of my favorites , Boccherini, and I've been meaning to stand aghast at the disparagement.  As far as his orchestral works, I haven't fallen in love with any of his symphonies but his cello concertos, especially Nos. 2 and 9, are a constant play in my library. Take five minutes to listen to this second movement of No. 2.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well yes this is absolutely beautiful music. I never said that it should be forgotten. I just said that it has. 
Such a sad fate that has happened to many other great composers such as Weber, Hummel, the sons of Bach wtc.
Schumann wrote a cello concerto. I found that one rather nice.


----------

