# Schumann's emotional language



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Apologies if this thread has been done before, but I didn't see one (at least not recently) focusing on this specific question.

I've noticed that Schumann is often a polarizing composer, with some people viewing him and his music as awkward, inept and limited, while those who like him (including myself) often have a borderline-obsessive attachment to his music. Even his admirers usually admit that he does not belong at the top of any conventional "greatest" lists, but still love him as much or more than the greats.

One view I hear a lot, and that I agree with, is that Schumann's music is able to convey emotion in a way that is very personal, intimate and direct, despite (or is it *because of*?) his technical imperfections. People seem unable to explain exactly how he does this, and emotion as conveyed in music is very subjective, but I find it convincing.

E.g.:











I personally think that the artful awkwardness of his music, such as the "non-pianistic" quality of his piano music, are part of his emotional language, and allow one to perceive things from him that other composers can't or won't convey.

Thoughts on this? Are people right to perceive this as a unique quality in him?


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I agree with Martha on this. My rapport with Schumann is inexplicable as well. He is perhaps the most transparent composer I know yet he is so profound that you might need decades of exploration to understand him thoroughly. He is one of the very few composers who can make me cry and he is one of the even fewer composers who can make me smile. His music is "the real thing".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mossyembankment said:


> Apologies if this thread has been done before, but I didn't see one (at least not recently) focusing on this specific question.
> 
> I've noticed that Schumann is often a polarizing composer, with some people viewing him and his music as awkward, inept and limited, while those who like him (including myself) often have a borderline-obsessive attachment to his music. Even his admirers usually admit that he does not belong at the top of any conventional "greatest" lists, but still love him as much or more than the greats.
> 
> ...


I generally tend to think that people who make these kinds of criticisms are expressing their own personal subjective opinions in a manner meant to covey something like an objective fact. Poppycock.

Regarding Schumann: I don't hear any "awkwardness," or "technical imperfections," or that his music is in any way "inept and limited." Granted, I only listen to his piano, chamber, and vocal music, but I find him a wonderful composer. (I don't do rankings, i.e. Composer A is better than Composer B since I consider each composer a singularity whose music cannot be compared to another composer's.)


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

For me, Schumann was the first truly great romantic and belongs at the top of many lists. The romantic movement in music is unimaginable without him. His piano works alone put him among the immortals. The songs, symphonies, concertos - what a gift he left us. It may sound cliched, but my favorite times listening to Schumann are on dark and stormy nights, listening by candlelight or fireplace with a brandy in hand. It puts me in a mood to be much more receptive to his extraordinary and complex emotional tone.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I generally tend to think that people who make these kinds of criticisms are expressing their own personal subjective opinions in a manner meant to covey something like an objective fact. Poppycock.
> 
> Regarding Schumann: I don't hear any "awkwardness," or "technical imperfections," or that his music is in any way "inept and limited." Granted, I only listen to his piano, chamber, and vocal music, but I find him a wonderful composer. (I don't do rankings, i.e. Composer A is better than Composer B since I consider each composer a singularity whose music cannot be compared to another composer's.)


Yes, I think it's very hard to be empirical on this, maybe impossible - a listener's emotional reaction is inherently subjective. But enough people have observed this about Schumann specifically that there seems to be something to it, right?

But I totally understand your point and you may right.

[Edit]
And as for the perceived flaws or imperfections in Schumann's music, I actually agree with you in the sense that I wouldn't change a single thing, to me his music is exactly as it should be. But there is an idiosyncratic quality to his music that sets it apart, I think, and part of this is what I would call a certain awkwardness (for lack of a better word) or maybe a certain strangeness in his aesthetic choices (but there are many exceptions - Traumerei has none of this). I think this is part of him and his music, and I view it as a positive quality, but I've seen others identify it as a flaw, or lack of technical polish and skill. I see them more as unorthodox artistic choices.

But I'm curious how others interpret it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mossyembankment said:


> Yes, I think it's very hard to be empirical on this, maybe impossible - a listener's emotional reaction is inherently subjective. But enough people have observed this about Schumann specifically that there seems to be something to it, right?
> 
> But I totally understand your point and you may right.


The way I see it one can either listen to others and allow their opinions to influence how they think of a composer's music, or they can trust their own instincts.

Of course I advocate the latter approach.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

I agree, but I'm curious whether other people may have interesting thoughts about what it is that sets Schumann apart. To me, it's clear that he is in a separate category from just about any other composer that I've listened to.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I hear good things in Schumann's music, but the special connection some have with it eludes me. I think that all of the well known composers have admirers whose music impacts them in a special way that is difficult to describe. This phenomena is not just related to Schumann. 

For me I have a similar reaction that Martha described in relation to much of the solo guitar and piano pieces of Rodrigo. I would not argue that he is among the highest tier of composers, but that special connection for whatever reason is there. 

As Martha said it is difficult to describe these kinds of reactions in music, but attempting to I think does provide some insight. I think she did a decent job explaining why Schumann was special to her, I understood what she meant and I can relate, not with Schumann in particular, but what she said made sense to me.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I heard musicians question the accessibility or aesthetics of his music. But for me, his masterpieces, such as the piano quintet, the piano concerto and the 4th symphony, are quintessential among romantic works and are always highly enjoyable.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think Schumann knew how to make use of the sonorities of the piano to great effect. He just about always has a singing melody in the right hand, and mixes tenderness with drama. But I find very little connection to the music personally, except for certain parts of Kinderszenzen and his canons.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mossyembankment said:


> a certain awkwardness (for lack of a better word) or maybe a certain strangeness in his aesthetic choices


Well I think you should give some examples for us to think about.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mossyembankment said:


> To me, it's clear that he is in a separate category from just about any other composer that I've listened to.


You could say the same about Liszt and Beethoven and Schubert, Chopin possibly.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> Well I think you should give some examples for us to think about.


You're right, and I'll give it a try. I think it comes up in different ways.

For one - often his pieces have a kind of "lurching" quality, with a lot of abrupt and jarring changes in rhythm and mood. Phrases might end unexpectedly and be replaced by new ones before they seem to be "complete." All this can give the music a kind of spontaneous, hectic and unpolished feel. This piece comes to mind as an example - to me it just has a very _strange_ and Schumann-esque quality.






Or another example, below. I think this piece is extremely tender, but there is also just something... strange... about it. The chromatic lines underlying the main melody just seem, well, odd. The slight dissonance in the midst of something so tender, create a sort of drunken effect that I don't think I've heard in any other composer. I don't think I'm able to give a more sophisticated analysis than that, but maybe someone else can.






I also think all of Kreisleriana has an aura of "strangeness" about it. Even just the start of the first movement - it has a certain madness to it.






These are just a few limited examples, but I think there are many others one could look at.

I have also often seen his music described as fitting awkwardly under the hands, and being awkward to interpret generally. I think this is of a piece with the qualities I'm describing above. I think that the "directness" that people describe might have to do with the way that his music cuts against certain expectations about presentation and form. The way he ignores or subverts those expectations, even if the result can produce a certain ugliness or roughness or strangeness, strikes me as beautifully vivid, and it creates a very distinct emotional mood that seems to me to be completely distinct and therefore memorable and moving.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mossyembankment said:


> You're right, and I'll give it a try. I think it comes up in different ways.
> 
> For one - often his pieces have a kind of "lurching" quality, with a lot of abrupt and jarring changes in rhythm and mood. Phrases might end unexpectedly and be replaced by new ones before they seem to be "complete." All this can give the music a kind of spontaneous, hectic and unpolished feel. This piece comes to mind as an example - to me it just has a very _strange_ and Schumann-esque quality.


Papillons is full of this sort of stuff. Papillons 8 as played by Sofronitsky or Nat, it's physical music in the style of late Beethoven.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

mossyembankment said:


> I have also often seen his music described as fitting awkwardly under the hands, and being awkward to interpret generally. I think this is of a piece with the qualities I'm describing above. I think that the "directness" that people describe might have to do with the way that his music cuts against certain expectations about presentation and form. The way he ignores or subverts those expectations, even if the result can produce a certain ugliness or roughness or strangeness, strikes me as beautifully vivid, and it creates a very distinct emotional mood that seems to me to be completely distinct and therefore memorable and moving.


I think that Kreisleriana is physical music, visceral, and imbalanced, disarticulated. See what you think of Roland Barthes' _Rasch _on page 299 here

https://www.academia.edu/32031590/B...itical_Essays_on_Music_Art_And_Representation


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I've noticed that Schumann is often a polarizing composer, with some people viewing him and his music as awkward, inept and limited, while those who like him (including myself) often have a borderline-obsessive attachment to his music. One view I hear a lot, and that I agree with, is that Schumann's music is able to convey emotion in a way that is very personal, intimate and direct..._

Schumann with Mendelssohn wrote at the height of 19th century Romanticism before the late romantics led by Liszt -- Tchaikovsky, Brahms, Wagner, Bruckner and Mahler -- made musical language so much bigger and more obtuse. This is the directness you cite.

The "personal" quality of Schumann's romanticism probably the result of his mental illness. He was bipolar and given to great outbursts of productivity followed by extended periods of nothingness. Mendelssohn was not mentally ill but his music contains similar direct appeal to emotions in music such as the piano sonata Op. 6, the piano trios and string quartets.

In addition to being a composer Schumann was also a writer and one of the more well-known musicologist-critics of his day, giving him a more well-rounded art than most.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Mandryka said:


> I think that Kreisleriana is physical music, visceral, and imbalanced, disarticulated. See what you think of Roland Barthes' _Rasch _on page 299 here
> 
> https://www.academia.edu/32031590/B...itical_Essays_on_Music_Art_And_Representation


This is great - thank you! Lots to digest here.


----------



## Symphonic (Apr 27, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> The way I see it one can either listen to others and allow their opinions to influence how they think of a composer's music, or they can trust their own instincts.
> 
> Of course I advocate the latter approach.


That really is an insightful observation. I shall definitely be using that line in the future.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Schumann is the very essence of Romanticism: very pretty, and flowery, and passionate; and yet, there's a certain element in Schumann's music and especially the piano music that seems to lead in to Debussy's moods which some see as the beginning of Modernism. How far is it from Schmann's _Prophet Bird_ to Debussy's _Girl withe the Flaxen Hair_? The two can sit side by side in any recital.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Coach G said:


> Schumann is the very essence of Romanticism: very pretty, and flowery, and passionate;


What do you think of this


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

larold said:


> The "personal" quality of Schumann's romanticism probably the result of his mental illness. He was bipolar and given to great outbursts of productivity followed by extended periods of nothingness. Mendelssohn was not mentally ill but his music contains similar direct appeal to emotions in music such as the piano sonata Op. 6, the piano trios and string quartets.


The mental illness point does somewhat get to the point I'm trying to grasp. I don't think we can speculate about the specifics of his mental illness (from what I've read his medical records from Endenich are pretty contradictory and unreliable, and I don't think there is really a consensus on whether he had tertiary syphilis, bipolar disorder, something else, or some unknown combination of those - but I agree bipolar does seem like it would make sense).

This is more of a hunch or a feeling than an argument, because I am not well-read or educated enough on these topics to support it with hard evidence, but there is something in his music that feels to me like it's uninhibited by, and out of step with, the conventions of the time, almost to the point of being vulgar. I think this is paralleled outside the music itself by his pretty strange habit of making up characters in his (non-fiction) writing - both the Florestan and Eusebius thing, and the Davidsbündler. You could think of his strangeness as a bold attitude towards innovation or a free-spiritedness, but I am not sure I see it as a voluntary choice on his part, it sometimes seems more like a psychological divergence - my feeling is that Schumann didn't necessarily WANT to write weird music or to be an eccentric, but he did, and he was, and I'm very happy about that because his music has become probably my favorite music.

I guess something I'm missing is to what extent people around him at the time regarded him, and his music, as eccentric. Obviously he was well-regarded by a lot of people in his time, but I also think Chopin's disdainful attitude towards him may be revealing (but perhaps that was an isolated case).

I think the eccentricity is reflected in his musical choices, and I think it's that spontaneous, unguarded "weirdness" in his music that creates the sense of direct connection with the listener. Contrasting it with Chopin, I feel so much less artifice and intentional presentation in Schumann's music - it just self-consciously is what it is, and it's packed to bursting with emotion, none of which is lost in translation.


----------



## Iota (Jun 20, 2018)

mossyembankment said:


> You could think of his strangeness as a bold attitude towards innovation or a free-spiritedness, but I am not sure I see it as a voluntary choice on his part, it sometimes seems more like a psychological divergence - my feeling is that Schumann didn't necessarily WANT to write weird music or to be an eccentric, but he did, and he was, and I'm very happy about that because his music has become probably my favorite music.
> ...
> 
> I think the eccentricity is reflected in his musical choices, and I think it's that spontaneous, unguarded "weirdness" in his music that creates the sense of direct connection with the listener. Contrasting it with Chopin, I feel so much less artifice and intentional presentation in Schumann's music - it just self-consciously is what it is, and it's packed to bursting with emotion, none of which is lost in translation.


Thanks for this thread. You make a series of points (here and elsewhere above) that really strike at the heart of why I feel particularly moved by and close to Schumann's music.

There's no other composer that speaks to me so directly, most particularly in the piano music, but elsewhere too. There's something guileless about the music, it feels like it comes directly, almost unmediated, from a place of great personal depth. As if he's powerless to do anything other than speak the truth .. not something I'd say of Brahms/Chopin/Liszt e.g, who can be artful and detached when they wish I think (not that that's a bad thing).

Somebody upthread described his music as transparent, which I'd also agree with as a quality I find attractive. One of the reasons I listen less to Chopin than I used to, is that at times it can feel claustrophobic and a touch cloying, though it's certainly beautiful at others.

Anyway, glad you chimed up with your thoughts on the matter, good to stumble across a bit of like-mindedness from you and others here.


----------



## PeterAccettola (Jun 5, 2021)

*on Schubert*

I have found Schubert's piano works only recently, so am an unexperienced listener.
But, if you have not already heart it there is a wonderful recording of Schubert's Impromptus's numbers 1-4 by Grigory Sokolov at a Saltzburg Concert in 2013 on DG label. 
He also plays what I think is a tremendous Beethoven "Hammerklavier" Sonata.
If this is new to you I think you will be pleasantly surprised be this CD.
Enjoy ....


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

PeterAccettola said:


> I have found Schubert's piano works only recently, so am an unexperienced listener.
> But, if you have not already heart it there is a wonderful recording of Schubert's Impromptus's numbers 1-4 by Grigory Sokolov at a Saltzburg Concert in 2013 on DG label.
> He also plays what I think is a tremendous Beethoven "Hammerklavier" Sonata.
> If this is new to you I think you will be pleasantly surprised be this CD.
> Enjoy ....


I heard him give the same recital in Toulouse, or maybe Lyon, I can't remember. What I can remember is the first note of the first impromptu, which live was an astonishing sound. Very loud, powerful, sweet, rich and complex. A lot of Sokolov's art is sound, tone, and it's not 100% captured on a recording.

The Hammerklavier is slow really in the first movement - he's often slow, in Beethoven and in Brahms, I don't mean this as a negative judgement, it's just a fact.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

Iota said:


> Thanks for this thread. You make a series of points (here and elsewhere above) that really strike at the heart of why I feel particularly moved by and close to Schumann's music.
> 
> There's no other composer that speaks to me so directly, most particularly in the piano music, but elsewhere too. There's something guileless about the music, it feels like it comes directly, almost unmediated, from a place of great personal depth. As if he's powerless to do anything other than speak the truth .. not something I'd say of Brahms/Chopin/Liszt e.g, who can be artful and detached when they wish I think (not that that's a bad thing).
> 
> ...


Likewise! Glad to know others see some of the same things I do


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Highwayman said:


> I agree with Martha on this. My rapport with Schumann is inexplicable as well. He is perhaps the most transparent composer I know yet he is so profound that you might need decades of exploration to understand him thoroughly. He is one of the very few composers who can make me cry and he is one of the even fewer composers who can make me smile. His music is "the real thing".


I can relate to that. There is something inexplicable about much of Schumann's chamber and piano music so that it is impossible to pigeonhole. That makes it seem all the more wonderful to me. The same is true in a very different way with Mozart ... and, again, the mystery as to where he is coming from adds to the miraculous quality of his music. Schumann, I guess is the archetypal Romantic, a true poet.

BTW, I can also relate to the OP's statement about the artful awkwardness of his music - a view that was questioned by some others - and found it well put.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

PeterAccettola said:


> on Schubert


Ok.. But this thread is about another "Schu-"


----------

