# Who's your favorite Shoe?



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Schubert or Schumann? Just a curious question.  Don't say both unless you have to.

I've got to know each one very well by now, and although I prefer Schubert, Schumann is growing on me.

Aww rats. I wanted this to be a poll but I somehow didn't put it on correctly. Oh well, doesn't need to be.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Well, I'm for Schubert, by quite a bit. 

I like his songs better, I like his string quintet and D. 960 sonata better than I like anything Schumann did. I like his symphonies 8 and 9 more than any of Schumann's. 

I'll be interested to see what the people who take Schumann say. Maybe my interest in some of his works can be renewed. Recently his piano quintet and especially his piano quartet have grown on me considerably. (But the piano quintet has the disadvantage that I can't help comparing it to Brahms', which is one of my five or so favorite works.)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> I'll be interested to see what the people who take Schumann say. Maybe my interest in some of his works can be renewed. Recently his piano quintet and especially his piano quartet have grown on me considerably. (But the piano quintet has the disadvantage that I can't help comparing it to Brahms', which is one of my five or so favorite works.)


I enjoy Schubert. However, for volume of great music with meat on its bones, Schumann is way ahead.

It has been suggested to me that for maximum resonance with Schumann's music, one must share to some extent his mental bifurcation. The people who suggest this to me insinuate that I am such a one. Perhaps your mentality is too unified, Science?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

The left one; my right shoe has part of the frame sticking out so it digs into my heel as I walk... I need new shoes.

Oh, wait a minute, we're talking about those shoes. OK. Schubert. He was very unjustifiably overshadowed by Beethoven, in my opinion. True, he had flaws regarding thematic development, but not so bad as Tchaikovsky. What I admire most about Schubert is that his music is utterly unselfconscious, unlike that more famous contemporary of his. Schumann was trying too hard as well, and it shows in some of his larger works. Schumann's songs and smaller works are genius, and Dichterliebe I'd put on a level with Schubert's best, but that's not good enough for me. So Schubert it is.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I enjoy Schubert. However, for volume of great music with meat on its bones, Schumann is way ahead.



Symphonies 5, 8, 9... the string quartets (and all the other chamber music: duets, trios, quintets, octet...) , ... the piano sonatas... the impromptus... and the unmatched wealth of lieder.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

I have to.

Schumann venerated Schubert. Why oppose them?

Would it be fair to suggest Schubert had most influence on what might be called the "conservative" wing of the Romantic movement - Schumann, Brahms and Hugo Wolf - while Berlioz has most influence on the more daring Liszt/Wagner clan?

(They all share a common veneration for Ludwig von Beethoven - whose shadow loomed more all-encompasingly over the XIXth century than Napoleon's it would seem!)

Ok, Schubert's lieder - to my taste - surpass Schumann's. But I do not believe his piano trios and the trout quintet - lovely, charming, and not undeep as they are - equal Schumann's Chamber music for piano and strings, ie the trios, quartet and quintet.

Those who believe Schubert's symphonic output out-matches Schumann's need to re-listen to Schumann's 2nd Symphony and his Cello Concerto.

From the start, Schumann's piano music - the first Sonata, the Fantasie - equal Schubert's late Sonatas, for depth of affect and spiritual premonition.

If you like lightness and grace, of course Schubert - the Schubert of the earlier piano sonatas and of the dances, Ecossaises, Waltzes etc for piano is more for you than Schumann. Not that Schumann is to blame for differing temperament and for changing times - Schubert was still of the charming XVIIIth century while Schumann had pushed more deeply into that cenury of tuberculosis and suicide, the XIXth century.

But then with *Carnaval* (ie _Arlequin_ or _Coquette_ or _CValse Allemande_) and *Faschingsschwank aus Wien* Schumann tries to make up for the difference, even if fantasy in him looks toward Mahlerian Scherzi rather than hark back at the XVIIIth century.

Neither one of them was all that good at Opera/Cantatas - things like that.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Schumann never composed anything that comes even close to the grandeur of Die Winterreise, the string quintet, or the Unfinished symphony. IMHO of course.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

i was certain someone was gonna mention Schoenberg - 

Schubert over them all.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

World Violist said:


> The left one; my right shoe has part of the frame sticking out so it digs into my heel as I walk... I need new shoes.


 I was gonna call Schubert the left foot, and Schumann the right, if you were to look at them on a time-line. I'm left-handed/footed too, so it would work out for me.

I really like Schubert's Symphonies 5,8,9, Military March No. 1, Impromptu in B flat, Rosamunda, and various other orchestral or piano works, so that's why I prefer him. I don't know why, I just do. He's one of the few early Romantics that escape boredom for me, but I just can't explain it. It's quite ironic, since his inspirations were Beethoven and Mozart especially, although I don't like them in general.

I'm starting to like Schumann's symphonies too, after repeated and forced listenings from the radio.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

Shoebert, but it's pretty hard to choose for I dont know enough Schumann, but I love what I know.
Schubert's quintet and 4 last quartets are some of my favorite chamber works (which is my favorite genre). Also the unfinished which I constantly listened to on the last three days is pretty amazing.
The visual artist with the very long name suggested the 5th, It's a really nice work but lacks the drama of the 8th (IMO).

I think it's no good comapring all the time and trying to find flaws in each other constantly, why cant we just enjoy their music, not fight about them


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

Schubert.

At this point, he is probably my second favorite of all-time.

...if only he hadn't suffered such an early death. 

Schumann was good too, though.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I enjoy Schubert. However, for volume of great music with meat on its bones, Schumann is way ahead.
> 
> 
> 
> Symphonies 5, 8, 9... the string quartets (and all the other chamber music: duets, trios, quintets, octet...) , ... the piano sonatas... the impromptus... and the unmatched wealth of lieder.


You appear to have skipped over the "great" modifier. Much (most?) of Schubert's early-to-middle music is mediocre. Art songs are no more esteemed by me than opera, which is to say not at all (with a few opera exceptions that are not Schubert's.

This personal divergence of opinion is the reason why these 'better than' things are essentially meaningless - unless your wish for conformity is overwhelming, and you only need to know the _majority_ opinion on which to base your preferences.

:devil:


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You appear to have skipped over the "great" modifier. Much (most?) of Schubert's early-to-middle music is mediocre. Art songs are no more esteemed by me than opera, which is to say not at all (with a few opera exceptions that are not Schubert's.


If you don't like art songs I guess it's inevitable that you find Schubert's early-to-middle period mediocre. It's kind of obvious, isn't it?

Most people who like art songs wouldn't agree that Schubert's output at this time in his career was mediocre. He wrote some of his best songs before the age of 20.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Schubert is the greater composer all around, but if I had to choose it would be Schumann. I could never abandon that magnificent piano concerto.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

Weston said:


> Schubert is the greater composer all around, but if I had to choose it would be Schumann. I could never abandon that magnificent piano concerto.


This.

As everyone, I recognize Schubert as the greater composer, and might even enjoy his music as much as Schumann at times. But Schumann is just one of those very personal composers that happen to occupy a very special place in my heart.

So:

Schumann (barely) > Schubert > Schuman > C. Schumann. 

In terms of music at least. Because C. Schumann seemed like quite the lovely lady.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I would say Schubert based on what I've heard, although I haven't heard that much of Schumann.  My taste has a strange tendency to be influenced by the mere exposure effect.:lol:


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Art Rock said:


> Schumann never composed anything that comes even close to the grandeur of Die Winterreise, the string quintet, or the Unfinished symphony. IMHO of course.


I agree with this, though Dichterliebe comes close.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I enjoy both their works a great deal and never really thought about whom do I prefer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Like some members here, I haven't heard as much of the music of Robert as that of Franz. I especially like Schubert's chamber works. I hope to attend some concerts later this year where his _String Quintet_ & _Wintereisse_ will be performed. I also saw the 1st Piano Trio last year & it bowled me over (just listened to it on disc this morning, btw). But I also went to a concert last year of Schumann's _Cello Concerto_, and that moved me quite a lot. I have got Maurice Gendron's classic performance on disc, the cellist at the concert was Emma-Jane Murphy. Pity that some people put down some of Schumann's works because they are more lyrical and poetic & lack the overt drama of some of the other composers of the time. I try to take each composer on his/her own terms, at least as much as is humanly possible, anyway...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You appear to have skipped over the "great" modifier. Much (most?) of Schubert's early-to-middle music is mediocre. Art songs are no more esteemed by me than opera, which is to say not at all...

Considering that Schubert and Schumann's greatest works quite likely are to be found in this genre this pretty much leaves you at a distinct disadvantage as far as offering much in the way of a valid opinion. Schubert's early work mediocre? He was composing mature lieder (ie _Gretchen am Spinnrade_) while still in his teens.

But lets look at a few works:

Both Schubert and Schumann wrote a number of masses. Schumann's are largely forgotten and rarely ever performed. Schubert's earlier choral works and his later major masses (D. 678 and D. 950) seemingly have far more "meat on their bones" considering the recognition and number of recording they are afforded. Schubert's choral works can be further broadened out by the inclusion of his smaller choal works such as the Stabat Mater (D. 175) or the Psalm (D.953) as well as the exquisite choral _Nachtgesang_.

Symphonies? Schumann produced 4. They are quite good. I especially like the muscular readings by John Eliot Gardiner... but in all truth I don't think any of them surpasses Schubert's 5th... let alone the 8th and 9th which surely have far "more meat on their bones."

Personally, I think Schumann was at his best as a miniaturist... the musical equivalent of the lyrical poet (and he was the most literary and poetic of composers). His strongest works, to my mind are his miniature lyrical pieces for piano: _Papillons, Carnaval, Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana, etc... his lieder: Frauenliebe und -leben, Liederkreis, Dichterliebe,_ etc... and his various chamber works. But certainly Schubert can hold his own here in the same genre. He produced a marvelous body of piano sonatas (the last few of which certainly would seem to have "more meat on their bones" than any piano work by Schumann ) as well as the marvelous _Impromptus_ and _Moments musicaux_. His string quartets as a whole surely surpass Shumann's efforts here, and his Quintets (The "Trout" and D. 956) can more than match Schumann's efforts in this form. As for the lieder... I doubt many would place Schumann or anyone else above Schubert in this genre.

So where is Schubert lacking the "meat on his bones"?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Pity that some people put down some of Schumann's works because they are more lyrical and poetic... 

Exactly... as I stated, I think Schumann was a marvelous miniaturist... a lyrical poetic composer. The forms in which this side was to the fore were where he excelled. Thus I have the problem with the assertion that Schubert, in comparison, has less "meat on his bones" when one considers that Schubert was quite successful with both the smaller, lyrical forms... as well as the larger, sprawling forms as seen in his string quartets, his symphonies (especially 8 & 9) and his late piano sonatas. Schubert struggled with symphonic form early on (as dis Schumann) and was never ever to pull together a successful opera (but then again, Beethoven never really mastered this either and Brahms... probably fearful of a direct comparison with his arch-rival Wagner... never even tried).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I enjoy both their works a great deal and never really thought about whom do I prefer.

Certainly, its not some sort of competition. I've never popped a Schumann disc into the player only to think... "Nice... but not quite as good as Schubert... let alone Beethoven... or Bach". I will even admit that I think poor Schumann is often underrated... compared too much with Beethoven, Schubert, and Brahms (and who wouldn't fail in such comparisons?). The Rubinstein recordings of Schumann's lyrical piano works and Wunderlich singing _Dichterliebe_ remain among my favorite discs.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> You appear to have skipped over the "great" modifier. Much (most?) of Schubert's early-to-middle music is mediocre. Art songs are no more esteemed by me than opera, which is to say not at all...
> 
> Considering that Schubert and Schumann's greatest works quite likely are to be found in this genre this pretty much leaves you at a distinct disadvantage as far as offering much in the way of a valid opinion. Schubert's early work mediocre? He was composing mature lieder (ie _Gretchen am Spinnrade_) while still in his teens.
> 
> ...


Oh please. This all seems a bit unfair. From your perspective, it sounds like Franz trumps Robert on all ends when in reality, that's far from the truth. I'll give it you to that Schubert is the greater composer in most respects, but really that's not saying much since he's second only to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart along with the likes of Wagner and Brahms. Very few composers can yield such a comparison... and Schumann seems like he's always the one pitted to do so.

Schumann's choral works are hardly to be dismissed in this manner. It's true that the opera Genoveva failed at its premiere, but it's quite a lovely work that has been revived as of late, and the overture has remained popular in the standard repertoire throughout the years. The vocal writing is stirring - quite in the German opera tradition of Weber but surprisingly Wagnerian - and surely a significant influence on Wagner as he wrote his Tristan und Isolde a few years later.

The Scenes from Goethe's Faust has often been described as a masterpiece. I wouldn't go so far as to call it one, but there's few works that bring together so naturally the choral and vocal aspects of the oratorio. The ending is utterly uplifting - I recommend a listen. Schumann is most subtle when dealing with dramatic and literary works - he's very skillful with what Goethe offers. Besides that there are also Das Paradies und die Peri, two Requiems, a Mass, and a gorgeous Nachtlied. Not to be missed.

Schubert's 8th and 9th, are admittedly very, very great symphonies, though I don't think his achievement in the genre is as towering as sometimes assumed. The 5th symphony, I've never found very "meaty", as you describe. It's a typical early symphony, akin to the early work of Beethoven but worse - certainly nothing to hit home about. The 2nd symphony I find even more boring.

Schumann's four symphonies are, as you mention, certainly not the best of his work, but it's interesting to note that all 4 of them have made their way into the standard symphonic "canon" (in a similar way to Brahms), and have far more acclaim in Germany than they do in the United States. The mono-thematic 4th symphony is indeed the most powerful of the bunch, but the first three are no less good, always a delight to hear. And as Schubert influenced Schumann, there's no doubt that Brahms picked up a lot from Schumann too during his years with the family.

I find your claim that Schumann could not write successfully beyond the "miniature" a bit hard to believe... when taking everything into account. The works I mentioned above are all of the epic sort... and none of them fall apart. It's interesting how the concerti don't factor into your discussion... maybe because Schubert failed to write any? The Piano Concerto, as many of you know, is my favorite work of the type... but I'm not alone in saying that... my piano teacher had the same sentiments and I know Weston and Gaston feel a similar way too. It ranked 3rd on DDD's list of greatest piano concerti. The interplay between orchestra and piano is perfectly balanced, proving that Schumann was no weakling in the former department. It is also the best example of a work that blends the poetic capabilities of Romanticism with a large traditional form. The C-B-A-A ("Clara") motive takes on so many shapes and forms, yet maintains freshness without ever becoming stagnant. And the 3rd movement is a pure bath of sunlight.

One could say similar things regarding the famous Cello Concerto, which Andre has articulated on, or the Introduction and Allegro, or even the neglected Violin Concerto... certainly not neglected for musical reasons... but because of Joachim's stubbornness. Like you said, though, Schumann's powers are at its height in his miniatures... most significantly his piano music, his lieder, and his chamber music. Schubert's early piano works are pretty unsubstantial when you compare them to Schumann, who's first two opuses (the op. 1 ABEGG variations and especially the op. 2 Papillons) are already masterpieces in their own right. If you consider these, plus the Kreisleriana, the Davidbundlertanze, the Carnaval, the Fantasy, the Kinderszenen, the Noveletten, the Fantasiestucke, the Etudes Symphoniques, the Waldszenen, the Faschingsschwank aus Wien, the Nachtstucke, the 3 great sonatas, and so on ... no, not even Schubert with those Impromptus and Late Sonatas I love so much is enough. Schumann's efforts here among the Romantics can only be compared to Chopin.

I think the wealth of his lieder is often underestimated because it does not sell off memorable melodies for the listener as well as Schubert's does. But as I delve into Robert's work here, the jewels just never seem to pour out, no matter how much I love the Winterreise. Beyond the Dichterliebe and sets of Liederkreis, there's all the later circa-1850 stuff too. For example, I only discovered a month ago the op. 74, the part called "In der Nacht" featuring two lovers in harmony with a piano underlay - some of the most beautiful music I've ever heard. It so fervently makes me wish that Schumann had given opera another shot and disregarded Genoveva's failure - if only he had spent a little more time and found a voice in opera that he was more comfortable with.

Again, I recognize that Schubert is practically unmatched when it comes to lieder... and the chamber music is staggering even in comparison to the wonderful stuff Schumann wrote... but the truth is that Schumann by all means was a very great composer too who should not have to suffer comparisons as trifling as this. Pit Schumann against Mahler, Chopin, or Mendelssohn and many of us would take Schumann any day.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Pity that some people put down some of Schumann's works because they are more lyrical and poetic...
> 
> Exactly... as I stated, I think Schumann was a marvelous miniaturist... a lyrical poetic composer. The forms in which this side was to the fore were where he excelled. Thus I have the problem with the assertion that Schubert, in comparison, has less "meat on his bones" when one considers that Schubert was quite successful with both the smaller, lyrical forms... as well as the larger, sprawling forms as seen in his string quartets, his symphonies (especially 8 & 9) and his late piano sonatas. Schubert struggled with symphonic form early on (as dis Schumann) and was never ever to pull together a successful opera (but then again, Beethoven never really mastered this either and Brahms... probably fearful of a direct comparison with his arch-rival Wagner... never even tried).


He also never composed a ballet, probably the fear of Wagner again. Wait, Wagner didnt composed a ballet as far as I know. Maybe it's just because he was (Brahms) against programmatic music?

And(!!!) how can you talk about Schumann's greatest works and dont mention his piano concerto, one of the greatest ever written in the genre?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Actually, its possible that these Germanic composers had never heard of Ballet, or may have dismissed it. It was an ancient art-form from hundreds of years earlier that enjoyed a revival/transformation in France and then in Russia.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Air said:


> Oh please. This all seems a bit unfair. From your perspective, it sounds like Franz trumps Robert on all ends when in reality, that's far from the truth. I'll give it you to that Schubert is the greater composer in most respects, but really that's not saying much since he's second only to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart along with the likes of Wagner and Brahms. Very few composers can yield such a comparison... and Schumann seems like he's always the one pitted to do so.
> 
> etc


I agree with every word of Air's excellent post. I am another big admirer of Schumann and Air has said everything I would want to say about this composer's very high quality work in most genres

Although I generally prefer Schubert, I still rate Schumann very highly. Their styles are different but I think they complement each other wonderfully.

I have noticed that some people have made comparisons of the two composers based on what seem to be very patchy collections of the two composers' works, especially Schumann's. It's easy to reach the wrong conclusions about the quality of any composer based on only limited exposure to their works. It's not necessary to get everything, but I think that it's worth getting the top-rated 20 or so works before making any comparisons. It took me some to acquire all of Schumman's works, and I love the whole lot.

By way of recommendation, a very nice choral work which is slightly out of the ordinary these days, although it used to be very popular earlier this century, is Schumann's _Das Paradies und die Peri_ (Op 50), and this recording is excellent:


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

The comparison between Schubert (the great composer) and Schumann is a bit superfluous. Schumann reported "cried all night" when he heard that dear Franz died.

Let's hear from Herr Schumann himself:

*On the Great C-major Symphony
*



> And then the heavenly length of the symphony, like that of one of Jean Paul's romances in four thick volumes, never able to come to an end, for the very best reasons - in order to leave the reader able to go on romancing for himself.


*On the String Quartet no. 14
*



> [Only the excellence of a work like Schubert's D minor quartet - and of many other things - can in any way console us for the early death of this eldest son of Beethoven; in a short time he accomplished and perfected more than anyone before him.


*On Schubert's Lieder*



> IF fertility be a distinguishing mark of genius, then Franz Schubert is a genius of the highest order. Not much over thirty when he died, he wrote an astonishing quantity of things, about half of which, perhaps, have been published; a part of these, only, are widely known, while a still greater part will never, or not for a long time, attain publicity. Among his first-mentioned works, his songs obtained the quickest and widest celebrity; he would have gradually set the whole German literature to music; he was the man for Telemann, who claimed that "a good composer should be able to set wall advertisements to music."


*On the great man himself*



> .Schubert, whose name, I thought, should only be whispered at night to the trees and stars.
> 
> *Schubert will always remain the favourite of youth.*
> 
> Time, though producing much that is beautiful, will not soon produce another Schubert.


and



> No music except Schubert's is so psychologically remarkable for the development and association of ideas and the impression of logical transition that it conveys."


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

The greatest contribution of Schumann aside from his miniature pieces was the championing of composers such as Schubert and Brahms. Also, his "discovery" of Great C-Major Symphony was his best contribution to classical music. Because of that, I'm indebted of him.

Here are the articles Schumann have written regarding Franz. Included here, was the famous "heavenly length" article.

Robert Schumann was a great enthusiast for Franz Schubert. He is reported as having 'cried all night' when, at the age of 18, he heard of Schubert's death. Schumann was a noted music critic, starting this career in 1831 in the "Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung" with an article on Chopin's Opus 2. In 1834 he started his own paper, the "Neue Zeitschrift für Musik". Many of the writings in this paper were written as if from the perspective of a group of individuals Schumann called the Davidite Society - which allowed him to use different styles in his reviews and remarks.

In 1853, not long before his madness appeared and he was moved to a private mental hospital for the last 2 years of his life, he collected his essays from the "Neue Zeitschrift" into a book "Music and Musicians". The text in this article comes from the 1876 translation of that book by Fanny Raymond Ritter.

In 1838, Schumann visited Vienna for 6 months in a failed attempt to establish the "Neue Zeitschrift" there. During his stay he visited Ferdinand, Schubert's brother. Ferdinand still held the manuscripts for many works, notwithstanding the fact that he had sold the majority to Diabelli and Co. Included in the manuscripts he still held were the symphonies (excluding the 'unfinished', at that time not known, and still to languish in Anselm Hüttenbrenner's music chest for another 25 years), the masses, the operas, etc.

Schumann helped Ferdinand to try to find publishers for these works, but most importantly, his enthusiasm for the 9th led to its premiere in Leipzig under Mendelssohn. It still took many years to become established - there are incidents both in Vienna and in London, of orchestras simply refusing to play it!

*[Franz Schubert's C Major Symphony*

THE musician who visits Vienna for the first time, awhile delights in the festive life of the streets, and often stands admiringly before the door of St. Stephen's Tower; but he soon remembers how near to the city lies a cemetery, containing something more worthy - for him - of regard than all the city boasts, - the spot where two of the glorious ones of his art rest, only a few steps apart. No doubt, then, many a young musician has wandered like me (1838) to the Währinger Cemetery, after the first few days of excitement in Vienna, to lay his flowery gift on those graves, even were it but a wild rosebush, such as I found planted on Beethoven's grave. *Franz Schubert's resting-place was undecorated*. One warm desire of my life was fulfilled; I gazed long on those sacred graves, almost envying the one buried between them - a certain Earl O'Donnell, if I am not mistaken [1]. The first time of gazing on a great man, of pressing his hand, is for every one an earnestly-desired moment. It had never been possible for me to meet either of the two whom I venerate most highly among all modern artists; but after this visit to their graves, I wished I could have stood by the side of a man who loved either one of them most dearly - if possible, his own brother. On the way home, I remembered that Schubert's brother Ferdinand, to whom he had been much attached, was still living. I sought him out, and found that he bore a strong resemblance to the bust that stands beside Schubert's grave; shorter than Franz [2], but strongly built, with a face expressive of honesty as well as of musical ability. He knew me from that veneration for his brother, which I have so often publicly professed; told me and showed me many things, of which, with his permission, I have already spoken in our paper, under the heading "Reliques". Finally, he allowed me to see those treasures of Schubert's composition, which he still possesses. The sight of this hoard of riches thrilled me with joy; where to begin, where to leave off! Among other things, he directed my attention to the scores of several symphonies, many of which have never yet been heard, but are laid on the shelf and prejudged as too heavy and turgid. One must understand Vienna, its peculiar circumstances with regard to concerts, and the difficulties attendant on bringing together the necessary material for great performances, before one can forgive the city where Schubert lived and laboured, that only his songs, but his grand instrumental works seldom or never, are brought before the public. Who knows how long the symphony of which we speak to-day, might not have lain buried in dust and darkness, had I not at once arranged with Ferdinand Schubert, to send it immediately to the direction of the Gewandhaus concerts in Leipzig, or rather, to the directing artist himself, whose fine glance perceives even the most timid of new-budding beauties, - and necessarily therefore, the dazzling splendours of masterly perfection. My hopes were fulfilled. The symphony went to Leipzig, was listened to, understood, again heard, and received with joyous and almost universal admiration. The busy publishing house of Breitkopf and Haertel purchased the work, and now it lies before me in separate parts; for the benefit of the world, I hope it will soon appear in score also.

I must say at once, that he who is not yet acquainted with this symphony, knows very little about Schubert; and this, when we consider all that he has given to art outside of this work, will appear to many as too exaggerated praise. Partly, no doubt, because composers have been so often advised to their own injury, that it is better for them - after Beethoven - to abstain from symphonic plans; which advice, notwithstanding, with the state of feeling that has given rise to it, we can scarcely consider as unreasonable. For we have lately had few orchestral works of consequence; and those few have rather interested us as illustrations of their composers' progress, than that of art, or as creations of decided influence with the masses. Many have been absolute reflections of Beethoven; and it is scarcely necessary to mention those tiresome manufacturers of symphonies, with power enough to shadow forth the powder and perruques of Mozart and Haydn, but not indeed the heads that wore them. Berlioz is thoroughly French, and we are too much accustomed to regard him merely as an interesting foreigner and rattle pate. The hope I had always entertained - and many, no doubt, with me - that Schubert, who had shown himself, through many other kinds of composition, so firm in form, so rich in imaginativeness, so many-sided, would also treat the symphony and find that mode of treatment certain to impress the public, is here realised in the noblest manner. Assuredly he never proposed to excel Beethoven's ninth symphony, but, an industrious artist, he continually drew forth his creations from his own resources, one symphony after another. The only thing that seems to us objectionable in the publication of this seventh symphony [3], or that may lead even to a misunderstanding of the work, is the fact that the world now receives it without having followed its creator's development of this form through its forerunners. Perhaps, however, the bolts may now be drawn from the others; the least of them must possess Schubertian significance; Viennese symphony writers did not need to wander very far in search of the laurel they are so much in need of, for in a suburb of Vienna, in Ferdinand Schuberts study, they might have found sevenfold richer booty, leaf heaped on leaf. And here, too, was the place of all others which they should have crowned with laurel! But it often happens in the world that such opportunities are neglected! Should the conversation turn upon -, the Viennese never know how to finish with their praise of their own Franz Schubert; when they are only among themselves, it does not seem as if they thought much of one or the other. *But let us leave these things, and refresh ourselves with the wealth of mind that in its fullness overflows this glorious work!* Vienna, with its tower of St. Stephen, its lovely women, its public pageantry, its Danube that garlands it with countless watery ribbons; this Vienna, spreading over the blooming plain, and reaching towards the higher mountains; Vienna, with its reminiscences of the great German masters, must be a fertile domain for the musician's fancy to revel in. Often when gazing on the city from the heights above, I have thought how frequently Beethoven's eyes may have glanced restlessly over the distant line of the Alps; how Mozart may have dreamily followed the course of the Danube, as it seems to vanish amid bush and wood; and how Haydn may have looked up to the tower, shaking his head at its dizzy height. If we draw together the tower, the Danube, and the distant Alps, casting over the whole a soft Catholic incense-vapour, we shall have a fair picture of Vienna; and when the charming, living landscape stands before us, chords will vibrate that never resounded within us before. On leaving Schubert's symphony, the bright, blooming, romantic life of Vienna appears to me clearer than ever; such works ought to be born amid precisely such surroundings. But I shall not attempt to set the symphony in its fitting soil; different ages select different bases for their texts and pictures; where the youth of eighteen hears a world-famous occurrence in a musical work, a man only perceives some rustic event, while the musician probably never thought of either, but simply gave the best music that he happened to feel within him just then. But every one must acknowledge that the outer world, sparkling to-day, gloomy tomorrow, often deeply impresses the inward feeling of the poet or the musician; and all must recognise, while listening to this symphony, that it reveals to us something more than mere fine melody, mere ordinary joy and sorrow, such as music has already expressed in a hundred ways, - that it leads us into a region which we never before explored, and consequently can have no recollection of. Here we find, besides the most masterly technicalities of musical composition, life in every vein, colouring down to the finest grade of possibility, sharp expression in detail, meaning throughout, while over the whole is thrown that glow of romanticism that everywhere accompanies Franz Schubert. *And then the heavenly length of the symphony, like that of one of Jean Paul's romances in four thick volumes, never able to come to an end, for the very best reasons - in order to leave the reader able to go on romancing for himself. How refreshing is this feeling of Overflowing wealth! *With others we always tremble for the conclusion, troubled lest we find ourselves disappointed. It would be incomprehensible whence Schubert had all at once acquired this sparkling, sportive mastery of the orchestra, did we not know that this symphony had been preceded by six others, and that it was written in the ripest years of manly power (on the score is the date, "March, 1828" Schubert died in November) [4]. We must grant that he possessed an extraordinary talent, in attaining to such peculiar treatment of separate instruments, such mastery of orchestral masses - they often seem to converse like human voices and chorusses - *Although he scarcely heard any of his own instrumental works performed during his life.*Save in some of Beethoven's works, I have not elsewhere observed so striking and deceptive a resemblance to the voice, in the treatment of instruments; Meyerbeer, in his treatment of the human voice, attains precisely the opposite effect. Another proof of the genuine, manly inspiration of this symphony, is its complete independence of the Beethoven symphonies. And how correct, how prudent in judgment, Schubert's genius displays itself here! As if conscious of his own more modest powers, he avoids imitating the grotesque forms, the bold proportions that meet us in Beethoven's later works; he gives us a creation of the most graceful form possible, which, in spite of its novel intricacies, never strays far from the happy medium, but always returns again to the central point. Every one who closely studies this symphony, must agree with me. At first, every one will feel a little embarrassed by the brilliancy and novelty of the instrumentation, the length and breadth of form, the charming variety of vital feeling, the entirely new world that opens to us - just as the first glance at anything to which we are unaccustomed, embarrasses us; but a delightful feeling remains, as though we had been listening to a lovely tale of enchantment, we feel that the composer was master of his subject, and after a time, its intricacies and connections all become clear to us. The feeling of certainty is produced at once by the splendid, romantic introduction, over which, notwithstanding, a mysterious veil seems to have been drawn here and there. The passage from this into the allegro is wholly new; the tempo does not seem to change, yet we reach the port, we know not how. It would not give us or others any pleasure to analyse the separate movements; for to give an idea of the novel-like character that pervades the whole symphony, the entire work ought to be transcribed. Yet I cannot take leave of the second movement, which speak. to us with such touching voices, without a few words. *There is a passage in it, where a horn calls from a distance, that seems to have descended from another sphere. And every other instrument seems to listen, as if aware that a heavenly guest had glided into the orchestra. [*5]

*The symphony produced such an effect among us, as none has produced since Beethoven's. *Artists and connoisseurs united in its praise, and I heard a few words spoken by the master who had studied it with the utmost care for its perfect success, that I should have been only too happy, had such a thing been possible, to report to the living Schubert, as the gladdest of glad tidings. Years must pass, perhaps, before the work will be thoroughly made at home in Germany; but there is no danger that it will ever be overlooked or forgotten; it bears within it the core of everlasting youth.

And thus my visit to those honoured graves, reminding me of a relation of one of the great departed, became doubly a reward to me. I received my first recompense on the day itself; for I found, on Beethoven's grave, a steel pen, which I have treasured up carefully ever since. I never use it save on festal occasions, as to-day; I trust that good things may have proceeded from it!

end...

*Franz Schubert's Last Compositions
*

*IF fertility be a distinguishing mark of genius, then Franz Schubert is a genius of the highest order.** Not much over thirty when he died,*he wrote an astonishing quantity of things, about half of which, perhaps, have been published; a part of these, only, are widely known, while a still greater part will never, or not for a long time, attain publicity. Among his first-mentioned works, his songs obtained the quickest and widest celebrity; he would have gradually set the whole German literature to music; he was the man for Telemann, who claimed that "a good composer should be able to set wall advertisements to music." Whatever he felt, flowed forth in music; Æschylus, Klopstock, so stiff in composition, yielded under his hand, while he added a deeper sense to the light lyrics of Müller and others. Then what a multitude of instrumental works of every form and kind; trios, quartettes, sonatas, rondos, dances, variations, for two and four hands, large and small, full of wonderful, rare beauties, which our paper has more closely characterized, in other articles. Among the works that still await publication, masses, quartettes, a great number of songs, and other things, have been mentioned to us, as well as his greater compositions, several operas, church pieces, several symphonies and overtures in the possession of his heirs.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Out of those two it would have to be Schubert.

I like to be contrary, so would like to put-forward other two shoes I like to wear:

Irwin Schulhoff
William Schuman


----------

