# Schumann is the most underrated composer on TC



## DavidMahler

If I didn't see it with my own eyes, I would never believe, that Schumann was considered any lesser-a-composer than Wagner, Brahms and Chopin. 

I was skimming through the Classical Music Project and there's so many Schumann Masterworks missing, and this coincides with his despicable ranking in the top 25 composers.

Is it simply that his music is not as appreciated or is it that his music has not been much explored? If it's the latter, then let me just say...

When it comes to the piano, Schumann is the greatest exponent of the Romantic, yes more than Chopin and Liszt..... and no less poetic than Schubert, but with more fire and romance. 

How do you have a top 300 without:

Fantasiestucke or Arabesque or Papillons?

How does Carnaval and Kreislerianna not make it into the top 100?

Is there any Chopin piece that is more deserving than Carnaval or Kreisleriana? Carnaval and Kreisleriana is as essential to the piano as Brahms' symphonies are to the Orchestra.


----------



## violadude

I think he is a bit over-rated here personally.


----------



## Klavierspieler

DavidMahler said:


> How do you have a top 300 without:
> 
> Fantasiestucke or Arabesque or Papillons?
> 
> How does Carnaval and Kreislerianna not make it into the top 100?


I didn't show up soon enough to make it happen. Most of the Schumann on the Classical Music Project are due to me. So much, in fact, that people were getting quite annoyed at the sudden influx of his work.


----------



## Couchie

Schumann isn't worthy of being Wagner's footstool. Also, his wife was such a bitch.


----------



## Sid James

There are some people who like or even love his stuff here.

I myself really love his concertos, eg. last year heard the one for cello live, sublime, and have recently re-discovered on disc his delightful _Konzertstuck for four horns and orchestra_. Now that's a quite underrated work, I would say.

I don't really bother about those rankings and lists, I have little time for them for various reasons.

As for broader reasons why he's kind of put below other greats, perhaps it's a residue of judgements of people like him who had psychological disorders. There was a stigma attached to his name for a long time after his death. Many great musicians made this change for the better, eg. Yehudi Menuhin who was among the first to perform & record the _Violin Concerto_, over half a century after Brahms and Joachim supressed it, ostensibly to preserve Schumann's reputation. They were well meaning but misguided. Unfortunately some people's minds are still stuck in that era regarding Schumann's illness, thinking that it impaired his ability to compose, which has largely been debunked by modern scholarship...


----------



## Trout

DavidMahler said:


> If I didn't see it with my own eyes, I would never believe, that Schumann was considered any lesser-a-composer than Wagner, Brahms and Chopin.
> 
> I was skimming through the Classical Music Project and there's so many Schumann Masterworks missing, and this coincides with his despicable ranking in the top 25 composers.
> 
> Is it simply that his music is not as appreciated or is it that his music has not been much explored? If it's the latter, then let me just say...
> 
> When it comes to the piano, Schumann is the greatest exponent of the Romantic, yes more than Chopin and Liszt..... and no less poetic than Schubert, but with more fire and romance.
> 
> How do you have a top 300 without:
> 
> Fantasiestucke or Arabesque or Papillons?
> 
> How does Carnaval and Kreislerianna not make it into the top 100?
> 
> Is there any Chopin piece that is more deserving than Carnaval or Kreisleriana? Carnaval and Kreisleriana is as essential to the piano as Brahms' symphonies are to the Orchestra.


You have to keep in mind the classical music project is not a perfect method.

I personally don't feel he is underrated. There are a lot of people that don't rank him very highly while there are a few that rank him extremely high, so it balances out.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Schumann is great, yes, but you're treading into dangerous territory here by trying to put him on the same level of Brahms and Wagner. Comparing him to Chopin or Liszt might be forgivable, but Brahms and Wagner? _Brahms and Wagner?_



DavidMahler said:


> Is there any Chopin piece that is more deserving than Carnaval or Kreisleriana?


The Ballades.


----------



## violadude

I guess I just don't get Schumann...I like some of his stuff, in fact I really like some of his stuff. The 5 pieces for cello and piano and Marchenerzahlungen for viola and clarinet are both marvelous. But I just can't get into his solo piano stuff.

I tried listening to Kreisleriana and it just sounded like a heap of romantic sounding chord progressions that are arpeggiated.
I tried Papillons but the piece just skipped from one thing to another way too fast and it felt like the piece could never really get started
I listened to Fantasy in C which to me sounded like it has potential if I listened to it more times, but currently it just seems to go on and one without holding my attention too well.
Nothing in Carnaval appealed to me very much, it all kind of sounded like a lackluster compilation of frantic minatures

And his string quartets sound very mediocre to me. With no. 2 standing out as really good among the cycle, but still not enough to compete with Beethoven Brahms or any other string quartet cycle around that time. At least not to my ears.

I just don't get Schumann I guess. I'm not trying to bash Schumann either, just telling my honest opinion about what I've heard. Maybe someone can explain these pieces to me and convert me.


----------



## DavidMahler

Dodecaplex said:


> The Ballades.


only the 4th

Schumann is in the same playing field as Brahms and Wagner. I'm serious.

In the list of composers born between 1800 and 1850..... I feel the list should read this way:

1. Brahms
2. Wagner
3. Schumann
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Dvorak
6. Chopin
7. Liszt
8. Berlioz
9. Bruckner
10. Verdi
11. Mendelssohn
12. Saint-Saens
13. Faure
14. Mussorgsky
15. Grieg

^
That's really how far up the totem poll I see Schumann.


----------



## Air

The only opinion I find absolutely unforgivable is that of Schumann being simply a "shadow" of Brahms, and thus unworthy of individual attention. Almost as unforgivable is the idea that Schumann was simply a great "critic" who was important only for promoting "great" composers like Schubert, Chopin, and Brahms. Many people come in with the mindset that Schumann's work is "second-rate" to Brahms - expecting to find little to admire in his undoubtedly wonderful symphonies, chamber music, and concerti. But these same people also never venture to explore the first 32 opuses of his piano music, nor the hundreds of wonderful lieder and part-songs that he wrote with just as much care. And you tell me if Schumann's piano concerto is inferior to Brahms. For me, there is no concerto ever written that surpasses the op. 54 of Schumann, and no matter what any ranking out there says, no one can take the special place it has in my heart away from me.

When I first came to this forum, I also found that Schumann was severly underrated, but soon Artemis, Webernite, Klavierspieler, jalex, and others came along and together we founded a sort of informal, tacit Davidsbündler to combat the "philistines" who believe that Schumann is second-rate. We have made considerable progress - Schumann has been placing higher in all the lists and people seem to be more interested in his music - even the choral works and operas, which are arguably some of the most obscure of the Romantic era. I think a huge part of this is appreciating Schumann for who he is, and appreciating Brahms and Chopin for who they are, and not mixing up the greatness of three composers who were ultimately very different people.



Dodecaplex said:


> The Ballades.


I would say that Kreisleriana and Carnaval are greater than all of the Ballades save the fourth, which is truly a masterpiece, and that Davidsbündlertänze and Fantasie in C are even greater than these. The only Chopin works that can have anything to say to this are the 24 Preludes and maybe the best of the Etudes.


----------



## DavidMahler

Air said:


> I would say that Kreisleriana and Carnaval are greater than all of the Ballades save the fourth, which is truly a masterpiece, and that Davidsbündlertänze and Fantasie in C are even greater than these. The only Chopin work that can have anything to say to this is the 24 Preludes.


this comment is like from my f---ing brain!!


----------



## Air

violadude said:


> I just don't get Schumann I guess. I'm not trying to bash Schumann either, just telling my honest opinion about what I've heard. Maybe someone can explain these pieces to me and convert me.


No, it's completely fine. I would say that the string quartets, though gorgeous, are a little hard to approach, and maybe you would have better luck with the piano quintet, quartet, trios, violin sonatas, and pieces for clarinet and piano. The first two have gained the most renown among his chamber music.

Don't worry about not getting into his solo piano stuff. I, too, was in a similar boat with Brahms' piano music a couple months ago, and if you had asked me what my favorite of his output was back then my response would have been the op. 10 Ballades, which I found at least tolerable. But after repeated exposure to Brahms' works through the keyboard works thread, I was able to gradually warm to them. Now I count the Handel Variations, op. 118, and op. 116 among my favorites.


----------



## violadude

Air said:


> No, it's completely fine. I would say that the string quartets, though gorgeous, are a little hard to approach, and maybe you would have better luck with the piano quintet, quartet, trios, violin sonatas, and pieces for clarinet and piano. The first two have gained the most renown among his chamber music.
> 
> Don't worry about not getting into his solo piano stuff. I, too, was in a similar boat with Brahms' piano music a couple months ago, and if you had asked me what my favorite of his output was back then my response would have been the op. 10 Ballades, which I found at least tolerable. But after repeated exposure to Brahms' works through the keyboard works thread, I was able to gradually warm to them. Now I count the Handel Variations, op. 118, and op. 116 among my favorites.


Thats funny, I had trouble with Brahm's piano pieces at first too and the ballades were exactly the pieces that I did enjoy above the others. I think I remember feeling that the textures were so thick that there wasn't a whole lot for me to grab on to at first. Now it is hard for me to pick which compilation of Brahm's piano pieces I like the best.

Listening to music is a lifetime of change in tastes and discovery though, so I never 100% dismiss a composer and that goes for Schumann too. I'll continue to try to see what others see in his pieces and maybe I just might change my viewpoint.


----------



## Dodecaplex

You know, I might have been wrong about this Schumann character. Give me some time and I'll be back with less prejudice.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> You know, I might have been wrong about this Schumann character. Give me some time and I'll be back with less prejudice.


Well, I am with you in that personally, I don't put Schumann above Brahms or Wagner (or Liszt) either. Maybe I would put Schumann above Chopin if I heard enough of both composers output that I felt comfortable making a solid judgement, But I haven't yet.


----------



## DavidMahler




----------



## Art Rock

Schumann is a composer that should be right up my alley - and is not. I simply don't like his works as much as those of many of his contemporaries. And I own a substantial part of his oeuvre on CD.


----------



## clavichorder

I can think of a few that are more underrated. Not the point of the thread I know, but just saying...


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> only the 4th
> 
> Schumann is in the same playing field as Brahms and Wagner. I'm serious.
> 
> In the list of composers born between 1800 and 1850..... I feel the list should read this way:
> 
> 1. Brahms
> 2. Wagner
> 3. Schumann
> 4. Tchaikovsky
> 5. Dvorak
> 6. Chopin
> 7. Liszt
> 8. Berlioz
> 9. Bruckner
> 10. Verdi
> 11. Mendelssohn
> 12. Saint-Saens
> 13. Faure
> 14. Mussorgsky
> 15. Grieg
> 
> ^
> That's really how far up the totem poll I see Schumann.


I might agree that Schumann is under-rated in comparison with Brahms, but I don't really think he is under-rated generally on this site because I think the Romantic era in general is a little over-rated on this site. ~In my opinion~ Ravel's best works surpass the best works of most of the composers on that list, so if anything I feel he is a little more under-rated than Schumann on this site all around. For the record Ravel's Miriors, Le Tombeau de Couperin, Jeux D'eau and Sonatine have all not yet made the classical music project's list yet either, and I feel they are easily a match for Schumann's best Piano works.


----------



## Lisztian

While I agree with him being ONE of the very most underrated on here, not necessarily the MOST underrated (although you could make the case...) I think people primarily known for being piano composers (like Schumann, although obviously he did a lot more) do tend to be underrated here. People like Schumann, Rachmaninoff, Liszt (who I say is the most underrated on here, but my constant promotion must get annoying and I will leave that for now), Alkan, and many more.


----------



## violadude

Art Rock said:


> Schumann is a composer that should be right up my alley - and is not. I simply don't like his works as much as those of many of his contemporaries. And I own a substantial part of his oeuvre on CD.


Ya, that pretty much sums up my feelings too. I am actually quite perplexed as to why I don't like Schumann more than I do.

I'm wondering DavidMahler, on your personal ranking, what merits exactly do you tend to rate these composers on? If it is personal enjoyment then there is no argument there of course...but if it is based on the composers influence on other composers and the direction of music as a whole then I would have to strongly disagree with you putting Schumann above Liszt...


----------



## mmsbls

It's a bit hard to even know where TC rates Schumann without reading and evaluating all relevant threads. A quick less definitive way is to look at the Top 25 Composer thread. After quite a few people listed their top 25 composers, RBrittain averaged the lists and posted the results here. I think the list is relatively close to other lists I've seen on the web and in print with a couple of exceptions. I think Schumann (No. 20) and Liszt (No. 23) are significantly lower (underrated) than elsewhere.

Both Schumann and Liszt, of course, wrote a large number of solo piano works. Lisztian suggested the possibility that piano composers tend to be underrated here, and I agree. I'm not sure why that would be.

Personally, I would place Schumann around No. 10 (as I did in the Top Composer thread) with his greatest works being the Piano Concerto, Piano Quintet, Piano Quartet, Cello Concerto, Violin Concerto (I just happen to love this work). His Lieder and solo piano works round out a top 10 rank.


----------



## science

Well, I don't know either Brahms' or Schumann's solo piano music well enough to have an opinion, but what I can compare are the symphonies, violin concertos, piano concertos, piano quintets, piano quartets, and piano trios. I feel the edge goes very strong to Brahms. 

In lieder at least, Schumann impresses me more. I would not be at all surprised if his piano music were to impress me greatly when I listen to more of it.


----------



## DavidMahler

violadude said:


> Ya, that pretty much sums up my feelings too. I am actually quite perplexed as to why I don't like Schumann more than I do.
> 
> I'm wondering DavidMahler, on your personal ranking, what merits exactly do you tend to rate these composers on? If it is personal enjoyment then there is no argument there of course...but if it is based on the composers influence on other composers and the direction of music as a whole then I would have to strongly disagree with you putting Schumann above Liszt...


I do love Liszt, my personal email is named after his Sonata, BUT...

If we were to compare piano works only, I think Schumann's contribution is invariably greater.

Carvanal
Davidsbundlertanze
Kreisleriana
Fantasie
Kinderszenen
Arabesque
Papillons
Fantasiestucke
Humoresque
Symphonic Etudes

These to me are not just great piano works of the Romantic.... in my mind These above works ARE the Romantic era fully realized. Each of those works is as essential to the piano as any of Liszt's or Chopin's; I'd argue that a few of them are more essential.

Then when you throw in... The piano concerto versus Liszt's two, Schumann is the clear winner. Aside from Brahms, Schumann wrote the greatest of all Romantic piano concertos, and I'd argue on the premise of originality, a little greater than Brahms.

Then when you compare the chamber works... Schumann is obviously winner here, as what did Liszt really compose? Schumann's String Quartets are genius. The Piano Quintet established the genre. The Piano Quartet is genius.

Then the orchestral. Liszt was a revolutionary here, but Schumann's symphonies and overtures in my opinion are of equal caliber.

Schumann's second symphony is his greatest, and in my opinion, the greatest symphony between Schubert's 9th and Brahms' 1st.

If one is to compare the symphonies of Brahms to Schumann, Schumann looks poor, because Brahms' was the greatest symphonist of the century after Beethoven.


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> I do love Liszt, my personal email is named after his Sonata, BUT...
> 
> If we were to compare piano works only, I think Schumann's contribution is invariably greater.
> 
> Carvanal
> Davidsbundlertanze
> Kreisleriana
> Fantasie
> Kinderszenen
> Arabesque
> Papillons
> Fantasiestucke
> Humoresque
> Symphonic Etudes
> 
> These to me are not just great piano works of the Romantic.... in my mind These above works ARE the Romantic era fully realized. Each of those works is as essential to the piano as any of Liszt's or Chopin's; I'd argue that a few of them are more essential.
> 
> Then when you throw in... The piano concerto versus Liszt's two, Schumann is the clear winner. Aside from Brahms, Schumann wrote the greatest of all Romantic piano concertos, and I'd argue on the premise of originality, a little greater than Brahms.
> 
> Then when you compare the chamber works... Schumann is obviously winner here, as what did Liszt really compose? Schumann's String Quartets are genius. The Piano Quintet established the genre. The Piano Quartet is genius.
> 
> Then the orchestral. Liszt was a revolutionary here, but Schumann's symphonies and overtures in my opinion are of equal caliber.
> 
> Schumann's second symphony is his greatest, and in my opinion, the greatest symphony between Schubert's 9th and Brahms' 1st.
> 
> If one is to compare the symphonies of Brahms to Schumann, Schumann looks poor, because Brahms' was the greatest symphonist of the century after Beethoven.


*Holds tongue* because to me i'd say it's a toss up and I don't want to give any sort of biased argument. Like even though I LOVE Liszt I am sane enough to give Schumann his due credit as many people LOVE him also and he is without question a great composer. I also love Schumann.


----------



## Lisztian

Although I must say one thing, although most here seem to disagree with me. I don't think ANYTHING Schumann wrote is as important as the b minor Sonata by Liszt. Not only is the music IMO every bit as good as anything Schumann wrote for solo piano (IMO better), but it is more important. The form of the work is stuff of absolute genius, that was unprecented before it. It was one of many works by Liszt that influenced a generation of future composers, and expanded possibilities in form.


----------



## DavidMahler

Lisztian said:


> Although I must say one thing, although most here seems to disagree with me. I don't think ANYTHING Schumann wrote is as important as the b minor Sonata by Liszt. Not only is the music IMO every bit as good as anything Schumann wrote for solo piano (IMO better), but it is more important. The form of the work is stuff of absolute genius, that was unprecented before it (except for, of course, a few more works that Liszt wrote beforehand). It was one of many works by Liszt that influenced a generation of future composers.


As a single work I think Liszt's Sonata is greater than any single Schumann work.

I think the Liszt Sonata is pretty much the most substantial work of the Romantic, even above the Wagner operas.

But Lisztian, aside from this sonata, I do think Liszt's output is comparably less great.


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> As a single work I think Liszt's Sonata is greater than any single Schumann work.
> 
> I think the Liszt Sonata is pretty much the most substantial work of the Romantic, even above the Wagner operas.
> 
> But Lisztian, aside from this sonata, I do think Liszt's output is comparably less great.


Glad we cleared that up 

I disagree, of course, but again, to save you all from any possible bias I will stay quiet.

P.S. I'm currently listening to the Fantasie Op 17, played by Richter. What a remarkable work...


----------



## DavidMahler

Lisztian said:


> Glad we cleared that up
> 
> I disagree, of course, but again, to save you all from any possible bias I will stay quiet.
> 
> P.S. I'm currently listening to the Fantasie Op 17, played by Richter. What a remarkable work...


I think I read that Liszt's wrote the sonata as a response to the Fantasie


----------



## regressivetransphobe

I don't think anybody here hates or strongly, actively criticizes Schumann. That's more than can be said for Wagner, Mahler, Mozart, Schoenberg, Rachmaninoff, Liszt, Stravinsky, etc. etc. Or even Bach.


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> I think I read that Liszt's wrote the sonata as a response to the Fantasie


Yes you are correct. I believe the story is that Schumann dedicated his Fantasie to Liszt, probably because, as he said, it was the most impassioned thing he had wrote (although the passion, as he also said, was obviously toward Clara). Liszt at this time felt he was not good enough as a composer to return the favour (which is true). With the Sonata, written in the mid 1850's, Liszt finally felt he had come of age as a composer, and dedicated the piece to Schumann. (Of course, it was met with horrible criticism, Clara calling it 'truly horrible' and Brahms apparently falling asleep when it was played for him, among many other stories of the sort).


----------



## violadude

Lisztian said:


> Yes you are correct. I believe the story is that Schumann dedicated his Fantasie to Liszt, probably because, as he said, it was the most impassioned thing he had wrote (although the passion, as he also said, was obviously toward Clara). Liszt at this time felt he was not good enough as a composer to return the favour (which is true). With the Sonata, written in the mid 1850's, Liszt finally felt he had come of age as a composer, and dedicated the piece to Schumann. (Of course, it was met with horrible criticism, Clara calling it 'truly horrible' and Brahms apparently falling asleep when it was played for him).


Aw  but it is one of the best (if not the best) sonatas written in the romantic era.


----------



## Lisztian

violadude said:


> Aw  but it is one of the best (if not the best) sonatas written in the romantic era.


Much of Liszt's work during his lifetime was met with intense criticism during his life (and after, and I will admit some of it is for a reason). It is however understandable, being the revolutionary he was, and there is no better case than with the sonata. It must have been difficult at the time. I find it interesting that Wagner - another true revolutionary - was one of the few people at the time who loved the work, calling it 'Beautiful beyond compare, great, sweet, deep and noble, sublime as you are yourself.'

Also, any comments by Clara about Liszt should be taken with a grain of salt. I can't remember the incident, but an incident in the 40's I believe made her despise him, writing in her journal a couple decades later 'I despise Liszt from the depths of my soul.' Also, after this incident, the Paganini etudes that were, before the incident, recieved very enthusiastically by Clara, were suddenly, according to her, awful works.


----------



## nbharakey

Now the question is *who* underrates Schumann? Or any other composer? People who say that Brahms is _better_ than Tchaikovsky or whatever?

I like apples more than bungee jump too!


----------



## Lisztian

By the way, while I agree with you, on most corners of this site Schumann is greatly underrated...that is not the case in the top 200 piano works thread. I think he has been represented very well and fairly. http://www.talkclassical.com/14616-tc-top-200-recommended-55.html That's where the list is currently up to.


----------



## DavidMahler

The Story of Brahms upon hearing the Liszt Sonata:

He gets his own personal recital from Liszt himself debuting the sonata just a year after it was written. It's 1853, Brahms is just 20. He falls asleep on Liszt as Liszt plays through the sonata. I think this kept the two at odds for all eternity LOL


----------



## DavidMahler

nbharakey said:


> Now the question is *who* underrates Schumann? Or any other composer? People who say that Brahms is _better_ than Tchaikovsky or whatever?
> 
> I like apples more than bungee jump too!


I love Tchaikovsky, I really do. But side by side with Brahms, Tchaikovsky feels to me to be so far away. I mean, Tchaikovsky was a brilliant melodist (maybe more than Brahms, though I'd be hesitant to just outright say it so simple like that)....

Brahms' works have so much going on in them. There's melodies on top of melodies, and structure so compact and so well thought that I feel we take it for granted. No other composer (not even Beethoven) was able to write with so much counterpoint while still maintaining a symphonic scope. Brahms' structures never sound labored. Think about the finale of the 1st symphony which about 20 seconds in goes into a pizzicato passage, and this passage returns almost without even being noticed later on in the symphony. There's so much beyond mere melody in Brahms music that gets lost if one is not trying to hear beyond the exterior.

Tchaikovsky's music has the most beautiful exterior of all time, and plenty of weight inside, but Brahms is beyond this...so far beyond it.

Tchaikovsky is Casablanca to Brahms' Citizen Kane.... both wonderful, both can be called the master of their genre, but Kane is the one.

Brahms could accomplish in 3 minutes what it sometimes took Wagner 3 hours to do. What I mean by this is, if we consider that The Ring and Brahms 1st symphony debuted in 1876, both were composed roughly over 20 years.... one is 10+ hours, the other is less than an hour. The Brahms 1st symphony note for note is more demonstrative of musical genius. I can explain why if necessary, but I'll never get through to a Wagnerite, so it's not worth it.


----------



## Oskaar

Couchie said:


> Schumann isn't worthy of being Wagner's footstool. Also, his wife was such a bitch.


Scumann is one of my favourite composers so far! He is an absolute master in melodies, and his eclecting approuch is really appealing to me. He is not pretencious, but is stright forward composing loveley music! AND he is very good represented on spotify!


----------



## Oskaar

Maybe he is underrated in the forum, I dont know. But more important after what I have seen... He is very much negatively commented. That is of course fully acceptable, we must be allowed to commit our oppinions, but my reaction is that I feel sorry a bit for the people that dont see his genious. And perhaps I see some snobbery. Music can be discussed, but taste of music is personal. I hear several works every week that I find bether than Beethoven no 9. Even from rather unknown composers. But it is like cut in stone that this symphony is so good. I respect that, but I want to be respected for NOT thinking so.


----------



## jalex

I agree, not just on TC but in other places as well: the Piano Street guys gave him 6 votes in the 17 or so relevant posts on the first page alone of this thread: http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=24500.0, more than everyone except Mozart, and this from an extremely Romantic-inclined forum.

As for the Chopin and Liszt comparisons, I reckon they both have the edge over Schumann for piano solo works though Shcumann's are by far my favourite of the three. But he has so much good stuff outside the piano works with which they can't compare.



DavidMahler said:


> 1. Brahms
> 2. Wagner
> 3. Schumann
> 4. Tchaikovsky
> 5. Dvorak
> 6. Chopin
> 7. Liszt
> 8. Berlioz
> 9. Bruckner
> 10. Verdi
> 11. Mendelssohn
> 12. Saint-Saens
> 13. Faure
> 14. Mussorgsky
> 15. Grieg


From this list, you underestimate Berlioz. And I'd take Liszt over Chopin when he isn't vomiting as many notes as possible all over his scores.


----------



## Artemis

Lisztian said:


> Yes you are correct. I believe the story is that Schumann dedicated his Fantasie to Liszt, probably because, as he said, it was the most impassioned thing he had wrote (although the passion, as he also said, was obviously toward Clara). Liszt at this time felt he was not good enough as a composer to return the favour (which is true). With the Sonata, written in the mid 1850's, Liszt finally felt he had come of age as a composer, and dedicated the piece to Schumann. (Of course, it was met with horrible criticism, Clara calling it 'truly horrible' and Brahms apparently falling asleep when it was played for him, among many other stories of the sort).


I couldn't keep out of this thread even though I haven't been around for a while.

Schumann's Op 17 sonata was written in 1836 and was first dedicated to Beethoven, but contains lots of symbolic references towards Clara Wieck (Schumann's future wife). Liszt's Piano Sonata in B minor was published much later in 1854.

The background is that Schumann intended the proceeds from the sale of his Op 17 sonata (which initially had a variety of different names) to go towards the construction of a monument to Beethoven who had died in 1827. However, the work was slightly revised in 1839, when it acquired the name "Fantasie" in C Major, and was re-dedicated to Liszt in that year, who had played it for the Schumann's and thought it was a really splendid work. In return, Liszt dedicated his Sonata in B Minor to Robert Schumann

As an admirer of the solo piano works of both Schumann and Liszt, I have to say that I enjoy both works but I've long had a slightly stronger affinity towards the Fantasie. In terms of these works' overall standing in the romantic piano repertoire, I wouldn't agree with an earlier comment that the Liszt work is way superior to the Fantasie. Whilst the Sonata in B minor is probably Liszt's best work, and a very fine work it is, I would rate the Schumann at least as high. I haven't studied the results of the ongoing poll on top piano solo works but would be surprised if Schumann's Op 17 was not included in the top 20. If it isn't then it would be a big shame.

In my opinion, one of the best versions of the Schumann work is by Martha Argerich. As for the Liszt sonata, I'm currently very impressed by the version by Steven Hough.

Schumann's mixed assessment overall among T-C members is not suprising. The same theme seems to pop up quite regularly on this Board, each time with slightly different emphasis on various aspects of his output, with some people loving him and some being not so keen. For me, Schumann is one of the really great composers (definitely top 10). I look upon him him as a composer's composer, partly because he did so much to promote the work of other good composers of the day, and partly because he wrote such a wide-ranging array of works with several gems amongst them. I can understand, however, why he may not come out quite so highly in a more widely-based poll, but I was surprised to see him come out quite so low (around position 20) in the top 25 composers poll as referred to previously. That doesn't seem right.


----------



## Lisztian

Artemis said:


> I couldn't keep out of this thread even though I haven't been around for a while.
> 
> As an admirer of the solo piano works of both Schumann and Liszt, I have to say that I enjoy both works but I've long had a slightly stronger affinity towards the Fantasie. In terms of these works' overall standing in the romantic piano repertoire, I wouldn't agree with an earlier comment that the Liszt work is way superior to the Fantasie. Whilst the Sonata in B minor is probably Liszt's best work, and a very fine work it is, I would rate the Schumann at least as high. I haven't studied the results of the ongoing poll on top piano solo works but would be surprised if Schumann's Op 17 was not included in the top 20. If it isn't then it would be a big shame.
> 
> In my opinion, one of the best versions of the Schumann work is by Martha Argerich. As for the Liszt sonata, I'm currently very impressed by the version by Steven Hough.


I believe on that list, the Liszt is ranked 16 or so, the Schumann 9. And it was me who made that comment by the way (actually it isn't, I never said it was far superior). I said I thought it was more important than anything Schumann wrote for piano solo, and that I like the music better. I think that as far as the quality of the music goes, and how you like it, that's a toss up either way - up to the listener (as it always is). But I don't think the Fantasie is as ÍMPORTANT as the Liszt as far as the new ground in form and structure that the sonata represents.

And by the way, I agree with you about the Hough! I recently saw him playing the sonata live in recital...it was amazing - I don't think a performance has ever affected me the way that did. I also bought one of his CD's at the concert containing the sonata, and yes it is a tremendous recording, IMO one of the best, but it can't stand up to when I saw him live!

On a side note...this thread has propelled me on a Schumann listening spree, after not really having had listened to him for awhile. So far i've listened to the Fantasie, Davidsbündlertänze, and Kreisleriana in a row. I am really being taken aback by how masterful this music is. I'm following the scores...Not only is it terrific, very beautiful music on the outside, i'm really appreciating the complex style of his piano writing. These are works of tremendous depth. Now, on to Carnaval


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> I think the Liszt Sonata is pretty much the most substantial work of the Romantic, even above the Wagner operas.


For what reasons do you think this exactly?


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> Brahms' works have so much going on in them... Brahms' structures never sound labored.


While your first point might be accurate, I would disagree with the second. I find when I listen to many of Brahms works -particularly the larger scale works, and things like the Piano Sonatas, I find the structures often sound very labored, over thought out, and lacking a 'natural flow'.


----------



## jalex

Artemis said:


> I look upon him him as a composer's composer, partly because he did so much to promote the work of other good composers of the day


I wonder if his humility and deference to other composers is related to his under-appreciation, as opposed to composers like Wagner and Liszt who were confident of their own worth as composers? Tchaikovsky wrote in his diary '...Schumann, who all his life prostrated himself before Mendelssohn, Chopin, Berlioz, and even before such nonentities in the realm of composition as Henselt and Giller. Yes, Schumann, who went into genuine raptures over the slightest manifestation of talent in others, but who didn't realise his own worth.' Possibly this self-doubt affected the way people have traditionally thought of him?


----------



## DavidMahler

tdc said:


> While your first point might be accurate, I would disagree with the second. I find when I listen to many of Brahms works -particularly the larger scale works, and things like the Piano Sonatas, I find the structures often sound very labored, over thought out, and lacking a 'natural flow'.


OK fair enough... I was actually disregarding early Brahms. I would like to requantify my statement by starting with Op. 15


----------



## DavidMahler

tdc said:


> For what reasons do you think this exactly?


I'm going to paraphrase something I read once from music critic Ted Libbey:

He said something like..."If the depiction of the Romantic is to be Prometheus unbound, one man against the world in triumph, then the Liszt Sonata is the piece of the era"

It's very large in scope.... maybe because it's just piano and not orchestral, it seems even larger. How many other piano works are as vast in scope? I'd venture to say not a single one. The middle section is one of the most moving passages in all of music, but it's not one of private conflict, it's a very public piece.... and then the mini fugue..... omg...it's like a tour de force through music up to that point all on one instrument.

I also adore how the key is not even realized until the very end. It's a thoroughly realized piece. It doesn't have one moment which is not essential to the piece.


----------



## clavichorder

I actually like early Brahms better than late. It sounds more original, I love the 3rd sonata and the op. 10 ballades, very sparse and when played by the right pianist, they sound amazing. Its just difficult to play them musically, very hard to interpret pieces.


----------



## DavidMahler

clavichorder said:


> I actually like early Brahms better than late. It sounds more original, I love the 3rd sonata and the op. 10 ballades, very sparse and when played by the right pianist, they sound amazing. Its just difficult to play them musically, very hard to interpret pieces.


The Op. 5 is a great work for sure. It's not as well thought out as later Brahms, but it's more gargantuan... Op. 5 sounds like Liszt, not Brahms, and it sounds like really good Liszt.

I think the first mature work of Brahms, which really sounds like the Brahms I think of is around the Horn Trio or String Sextet No. 2... He no longer has a young vibe, he sounds fully grown by this point.

btw that horn trio is just stunning:


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> I'm going to paraphrase something I read once from music critic Ted Libbey:
> 
> He said something like..."If the depiction of the Romantic is to be Prometheus unbound, one man against the world in triumph, then the Liszt Sonata is the piece of the era"
> 
> It's very large in scope.... maybe because it's just piano and not orchestral, it seems even larger. How many other piano works are as vast in scope? I'd venture to say not a single one. The middle section is one of the most moving passages in all of music, but it's not one of private conflict, it's a very public piece.... and then the mini fugue..... omg...it's like a tour de force through music up to that point all on one instrument.
> 
> I also adore how the key is not even realized until the very end. It's a thoroughly realized piece. It doesn't have one moment which is not essential to the piece.


Well, you've given me some good information here on why the Liszt is a great work, and perhaps _maybe_ even the prototypical Romantic work. But I'll need a bit more to substantiate the claim that the Liszt B minor Sonata is a more substantial Romantic era work than any Wagner opera.


----------



## Guest

I'll be brutally honest here. Schumann bores me to tears. I have said it before, and someone will recommend me THE definitive work of his that will change my opinion, and I will be open-minded and test it out - I love Romantic era music, so I'm not worried I'm going to get some Helicopter Quartett or something. And that piece will bore me to tears. You name it - his symphonies, his concertos, his chamber works, his solo piano works - they all bore me to tears. I've spent enough money on him at this point without bearing any fruit that I really don't feel obligated to spend any more.

Maybe my thinking is out of line with academic ideas regarding Schumann, but it is what it is.


----------



## Oskaar

Comparing wagner and shumann...Impossible! Two different worlds.


----------



## Klavierspieler

DrMike said:


> I'll be brutally honest here. Schumann bores me to tears. I have said it before, and someone will recommend me THE definitive work of his that will change my opinion, and I will be open-minded and test it out - I love Romantic era music, so I'm not worried I'm going to get some Helicopter Quartett or something. And that piece will bore me to tears. You name it - his symphonies, his concertos, his chamber works, his solo piano works - they all bore me to tears. I've spent enough money on him at this point without bearing any fruit that I really don't feel obligated to spend any more.
> 
> Maybe my thinking is out of line with academic ideas regarding Schumann, but it is what it is.


Have you listened to his Lieder?


----------



## Oskaar

DrMike said:


> I'll be brutally honest here. Schumann bores me to tears. I have said it before, and someone will recommend me THE definitive work of his that will change my opinion, and I will be open-minded and test it out - I love Romantic era music, so I'm not worried I'm going to get some Helicopter Quartett or something. And that piece will bore me to tears. You name it - his symphonies, his concertos, his chamber works, his solo piano works - they all bore me to tears. I've spent enough money on him at this point without bearing any fruit that I really don't feel obligated to spend any more.
> 
> Maybe my thinking is out of line with academic ideas regarding Schumann, but it is what it is.


That is honist, DrMike, and I appreciate that! Luckily for me...I love him! But I dont want to press him on you!


----------



## Guest

Nope -
And unless I find a copy of an album at the library, I probably won't buy anything. I still have nowhere near a complete collection of Schubert's Lieder, which I find immensely enjoyable.


----------



## Guest

oskaar said:


> That is honist, DrMike, and I appreciate that! Luckily for me...I love him! But I dont want to press him on you!


Exactly. To each their own. I love Mahler, but understand not everybody does. That is the great thing about classical - there is something for everyone.


----------



## Artemis

Lisztian said:


> On a side note...this thread has propelled me on a Schumann listening spree, after not really having had listened to him for awhile. So far i've listened to the Fantasie, Davidsbündlertänze, and Kreisleriana in a row. I am really being taken aback by how masterful this music is. I'm following the scores...Not only is it terrific, very beautiful music on the outside, i'm really appreciating the complex style of his piano writing. These are works of tremendous depth. Now, on to *Carnaval*


Regards "Carnaval", I scribbled some stuff about this work here which you may find of some interest.

Schumann's piano writing is indeed masterful. He may not be the first composer of piano music that most people might be struck by on their travel up the learning curve, but I tend to find that as more listening experience is gained he comes into his own.


----------



## Ukko

DrMike said:


> I'll be brutally honest here. Schumann bores me to tears. I have said it before, and someone will recommend me THE definitive work of his that will change my opinion, and I will be open-minded and test it out - I love Romantic era music, so I'm not worried I'm going to get some Helicopter Quartett or something. And that piece will bore me to tears. You name it - his symphonies, his concertos, his chamber works, his solo piano works - they all bore me to tears. I've spent enough money on him at this point without bearing any fruit that I really don't feel obligated to spend any more.
> 
> Maybe my thinking is out of line with academic ideas regarding Schumann, but it is what it is.


I may be that you are too sane. Schumann's piano music resonates with me, and Alkan's "Song of the Mad Woman by the Seashore", at least as played by Ronald Smith, effects me strongly. I am almost certainly not too sane.

I should have added, DrMike, that if you are indeed too sane, you have my sympathy. The world is a much more entertaining place if one is a bit wiggy.


----------



## Artemis

DrMike said:


> I'll be brutally honest here. Schumann bores me to tears. I have said it before, and someone will recommend me THE definitive work of his that will change my opinion, and I will be open-minded and test it out - I love Romantic era music, so I'm not worried I'm going to get some Helicopter Quartett or something. And that piece will bore me to tears. You name it - his symphonies, his concertos, his chamber works, his solo piano works - they all bore me to tears. I've spent enough money on him at this point without bearing any fruit that I really don't feel obligated to spend any more.
> 
> Maybe my thinking is out of line with academic ideas regarding Schumann, but it is what it is.


It's a pity that you are missing out enjoying a truly great composer here. For me he is the very epitome of "romantic" music, or at least the version of it which appeals to me.


----------



## Klavierspieler

DrMike said:


> Nope -
> And unless I find a copy of an album at the library, I probably won't buy anything. I still have nowhere near a complete collection of Schubert's Lieder, which I find immensely enjoyable.


There's a pretty good recording of Fischer-Dieskau singing _Dichterliebe_ here.


----------



## DavidMahler

DrMike said:


> I'll be brutally honest here. Schumann bores me to tears. I have said it before, and someone will recommend me THE definitive work of his that will change my opinion, and I will be open-minded and test it out - I love Romantic era music, so I'm not worried I'm going to get some Helicopter Quartett or something. And that piece will bore me to tears. You name it - his symphonies, his concertos, his chamber works, his solo piano works - they all bore me to tears. I've spent enough money on him at this point without bearing any fruit that I really don't feel obligated to spend any more.
> 
> Maybe my thinking is out of line with academic ideas regarding Schumann, but it is what it is.


I really think the Fantasiestucke is the right one to draw you in, particularly in Perahia's hands who doesn't rush through the tender passages.

The Fantasie is the most obvious choice, but realistically, the Fantasie sounds more like other composer's works even if just by a hair....it's sort of a "failed" attempt at a piano sonata but a brilliant reinvention of the medium.

Kreisleriana, Carnaval, Kinderszenen, Davidsbundlertanze and Fantasiestucke are the hallmarks of the Schumann whose mind could not adhere to form.

Schumann's mind was one of wanderer. He could not sit still.... that his music "bores you to tears" is a sentiment of quandary, since the only thing that Schumann could never be criticized for is for being boring. He may not have been able to glue his ideas into form, he may have been sporadic, inconsistent, sloppy, a poor orchestrator, but what makes him such an artistic success is that his flawed music is him. His music is so wonderful, just so wonderful.


----------



## DavidMahler

tdc said:


> Well, you've given me some good information here on why the Liszt is a great work, and perhaps _maybe_ even the prototypical Romantic work. *But I'll need a bit more to substantiate the claim that the Liszt B minor Sonata is a more substantial Romantic era work than any Wagner opera.*


Because when in discussion, I sometimes like to impose my own personal opinion for the sake of hyperbolic affect  But I truly do think that the Liszt sonata can sit next to Tristan on any musical level.


----------



## Lisztian

Artemis said:


> Regards "Carnaval", I scribbled some stuff about this work here which you may find of some interest.
> 
> Schumann's piano writing is indeed masterful. He may not be the first composer of piano music that most people might be struck by on their travel up the learning curve, but I tend to find that as more listening experience is gained he comes into his own.


Read your 'little scribbles.' Very interesting indeed! With Schumann it would probably be best if I learnt the background of the works before hearing them, which I have not really done so far. There's always some sort of story or something being represented that you need knowledge of for 100% enjoyment of the work. I have enjoyed them a lot without this knowledge anyway, but next time I listen to them I will be sure to do the research...Just listened to the Etudes Symphoniques (this is actually the piece by Schumann that I am most familiar with) and loved it. It's my second favourite piece by him behind the Fantasie.


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> Schumann's mind was one of wanderer. He could not sit still.... that his music "bores you to tears" is a sentiment of quandary, since the only thing that* Schumann could never be criticized for* is for *being boring*. He may not have been able to glue his ideas into form, he may have been sporadic, inconsistent, sloppy, a poor orchestrator, but what makes him such an artistic success is that his flawed music is him. His music is so wonderful, just so wonderful.


I could see how some might think this at first with Schumann, particularly if comparing him to Brahms. His music to me seems more feminine in quality, more poetic - less aggressive and robust. At first I also thought Schumann was a little boring, but on further listens I found a refreshing unique beauty to his work, that is quite stunning. I get very interesting and unique mental 'colors' from Schumann's work different than any other Romantic composer.


----------



## tdc

DavidMahler said:


> Because when in discussion, I sometimes like to impose my own personal opinion for the sake of hyperbolic affect  But I truly do think that the Liszt sonata can sit next to Tristan on any musical level.


I do this too quite often. A lot of times its in the hopes that someone will try to correct me, because in doing so I often gain new perspectives. For now though we will have to agree to disagree on that last sentence. I'm not saying you are wrong, just that the Liszt Sonata has failed to deliver the musical insights for me personally that Wagner achieved with T and I.


----------



## Artemis

Klavierspieler said:


> There's a pretty good recording of Fischer-Dieskau singing _Dichterliebe_ here.


I love Fischer-Diskeau whatever he sings, and yours is is an excellent recommendation for this work. But for _Dichterliebe_ I have to say that my favourite recording is by Fritz Wunderlich accompanied by Hubert Giesen.










I think that Fritz Wunderlich was just about the most fantastic tenor ever. Next to Schubert, Schumann is my favourite composer of lieder-style choral works.

For DrMike's attention, you say you have heard a lot of Schumann but that nothing appeals. I wonder if you have heard the _Konzerstuck for Four Horns_, Op 86. I scribbled something about this work fairly recently, here. It's a super work that demonstrates yet again Shumann's genius and his path-breaking approach in several spheres.

As I was saying earlier, there are lots of threads about Schumann scattered hither and thither on this Forum. Unfortunately, they often get buried.


----------



## Oskaar

tdc said:


> I get very interesting and unique mental 'colors' from Schumann's work different than any other Romantic composer.


Tdc, you put words on some of my feelings abot Schumann. I feel ther is something deep and valuable in his works, he may somtimes be clumsy, sometimes he stumble, but his melodies, and his sesirity, and....if you let your self go deeper into his works... him hitting the nail on the head in was music should be to man.


----------



## Artemis

DavidMahler said:


> Because when in discussion, I sometimes like to impose my own personal opinion for the sake of hyperbolic affect  But I truly do think that the Liszt sonata can sit next to Tristan *on any musical level*.


How can you compare a piano sonata with a full scale opera, especially on "on any musical level"? The latter condition renders the comparison null and void by definition since the two works have nothing in common.


----------



## Air

tdc said:


> His music to me seems more feminine in quality, more poetic - less aggressive and robust.


More masculine too. Schumann's music is both masculine and feminine. How many composers can give you that?


----------



## Air

I know I will be in the minority here, but in my opinion the most accessible Schumann piano works are the Papillons, op. 2 and the Piano Sonata No. 2, op. 22. It really depends on what type of personality you are, and if you like smaller-scale or larger-scale works. But these were probably the two works that really drew me in to Schumann's music in the first place.


----------



## DavidMahler

Artemis said:


> How can you compare a piano sonata with a full scale opera, especially on "on any musical level"? The latter condition renders the comparison null and void by definition since the two works have nothing in common.


im not quite sure what you speaking of.

When comparing compositions you can compare a 5 minute piano piece to a 400 piece orchestra with double choir that goes on for 17 years if you want. Musical level = quality of music, quality of composition.

Wagner was a great composer, but a lot of the music is swallowed up by the opera facade, the story, the sheer size of the works, the colorful orchestration, the myth of the man himself. Take all that apart and I'd be very surprised to see if Wagner had even 60 minutes worth of continuous music as well composed as Liszt's sonata.


----------



## Oskaar

Artemis said:


> How can you compare a piano sonata with a full scale opera


Hmm. I think a full skale opera and a piano sonata can be compared in many ways. It is all about touching something inside you. Both use tools that are genuine for that style to submit joy, feelings, melodies,+++. Both are totally boring if they are bad made.


----------



## Aramis

Perhaps if I would be dumb enough I would get engaged in this battle of substantial arguments like "X wrote works like this one and Y can't touch his, only that work of his comes close and so X better". Fortunately I don't find myself capable of approaching this level of discussion. Dear DavidMahler, you're hardly efficient enough to prove anything more than your very own likes/dislikes and preferences. Your claim of being able to prove that Brahms 1st/Wagner Ring issue is quite laughable considering competence of your quasi-arguments presented up to this point. I absolutely respect your preference for Schumann over Chopin, Liszt, Wagner or anyone else but I would suggest you should hold on a little bit with authoritative (in concept) presentations of what's nothing more than your own taste. 

Schumann is one of most appreciated composers on TC. He has group of devoted lovers here, like few others and his name appears very often. He certainly deserves that.


----------



## Webernite

The thing about Schumann's piano music is that it's not just music. It's a whole package. To get the most out of it, you have to learn to love the idea of Eusebius and Florestan, the idea of the Davidsbündler, the connections between the pieces (like the appearence of the Papillons theme in _Carnaval_), the combination of humor and mysticism that gives the music its unique character... Essentially, the music invites _you _join the Davidsbündler, and to imagine _yourself_ at the masked ball or whatever. That's what makes Schumann so archetypically Romantic.

Of course, that imaginative leap takes a certain amount of effort and good-will from the listener, which helps to explain why Schumann has always been a bit of a niche interest. (30,000 likes on Facebook compared with 760,000 for Chopin! But before Aramis says anything, I'd like to point out that Britney Spears has 15,000,000 likes.)

I agree with whoever said good things about Murray Pariah's Schumann. His recordings aren't the best, but they're played with clarity and a sense of structure that makes a good introduction for people who are new to Schumann. It's not widely realized that you can familiarize yourself with all of Schumann's significant piano works in an afternoon, something you can't really do with Chopin or Liszt.


----------



## Oskaar

If anybody want to see how good representated Schumann is on Spotify, just PM me with e-mail. I have 20 invitations to give. ( It may sound like adverticing, but it is only my praising of an extremly good service!


----------



## Artemis

Aramis said:


> Perhaps if I would be dumb enough I would get engaged in this battle of substantial arguments like "X wrote works like this one and Y can't touch his, only that work of his comes close and so X better". Fortunately I don't find myself capable of approaching this level of discussion. Dear DavidMahler, you're hardly efficient enough to prove anything more than your very own likes/dislikes and preferences. Your claim of being able to prove that Brahms 1st/Wagner Ring issue is quite laughable considering competence of your quasi-arguments presented up to this point. I absolutely respect your preference for Schumann over Chopin, Liszt, Wagner or anyone else but I would suggest you should hold on a little bit with authoritative (in concept) presentations of what's nothing more than your own taste.
> 
> Schumann is one of most appreciated composers on TC. He has group of devoted lovers here, like few others and his name appears very often. He certainly deserves that.


Yes I entirely agree with all this.

I rather jumped into this thread on the premise that it's true (as alleged) that Schumann is under-rated amongst members of this Forum. But on reflection every time a thread of this or similar nature regarding Schumann comes up it soon transpires that a majority of members do in fact like him, albeit some may lack as much knowledge about his output as they might desire.

I'm increasingly cynical about attempts to rank major works in a particular area like Schumann's Op 17 Fantasie and Liszt's Sonata in B Minor. They're both very good works in my estimation and (I guess) in the estimation of many classical music fans, but to say that one is better or more important in any clear objective way is a hopelessly difficult task. Even if the criteria for evalution were agreed upon there's no satisfactory scoring or weighting system that would command universal respect.

On this matter I do rather feel that DavidMahler is stretching matters too far, and has tried to do so on similar issues on various other threads. The suggestion that works of completely different types, like a piano sonata and an opera, can be compared and contrasted for greatness on objective criteria takes this difficulty into the realms of impossibilty in my opinion. If, as suggested, all that can be done is to assess how much each work impresses one's "soul", well forget about it. I suggest that the best that can be done is to take poll readings of members' favourites, but that doesn't translate into greatness on an objective basis.


----------



## DavidMahler

Is it that both of you have similar user names that you both find it necessary to be hostile (mores Aramis) but for you to agree with it is strange...

I never said anything was provable, but I stand by my argument. I remember long ago I went to a 4 hour lecture in which a conductor attempted to show how Brahms and Wagner were both great in different ways. He went through 8 passages from the symphonies and 9 from the Ring. At the end of the lecture he did impart that from personal experience he thought Brahms had a superior handle on all the elements at play and he explained it as though Brahms had a better understanding of how to glue ideas together and weave strands of ideas together; that Wagner's use and development leitmotif was essential to his opera, but without the opera itself, it's presence was less intuitive and more dependent on outward forces.

I for one have no problem comparing piano music and opera or symphonies and opera. If you can strip away the medium and observe a piece for it's musical content it shouldn't matter the length, the size, the orchestration...it's just music. If you cannot do that then you're hearing all the effects. Your heart and soul doesn't know an opera from a rock song, it responds to music without any of that cognition.



Artemis said:


> Yes I entirely agree with all this.
> 
> I rather jumped into this thread on the premise that it's true (as alleged) that Schumann is under-rated amongst members of this Forum. But on reflection every time a thread of this or similar nature regarding Schumann comes up it soon transpires that a majority of members do in fact like him, albeit some may lack as much knowledge about his output as they might desire.
> 
> I'm increasingly cynical about attempts to rank major works in a particular area like Schumann's Op 17 Fantasie and Liszt's Sonata in B Minor. They're both very good works in my estimation and (I guess) in the estimation of many classical music fans, but to say that one is better or more important in any clear objective way is a hopelessly difficult task. Even if the criteria for evalution were agreed upon there's no satisfactory scoring or weighting system that would command universal respect.
> 
> On this matter I do rather feel that DavidMahler is stretching matters too far, and has tried to do so on similar issues on various other threads. The suggestion that works of completely different types, like a piano sonata and an opera, can be compared and contrasted for greatness on objective criteria takes this difficulty into the realms of impossibilty in my opinion. If, as suggested, all that can be done is to assess how much each work impresses one's "soul", well forget about it. I suggest that the best that can be done is to take poll readings of members' favourites, but that doesn't translate into greatness on an objective basis.


----------



## Guest

I don't personally understand why there needs to be cheerleading for various composers. So much of music is completely subjective - every person has a different taste. And unless you are discussing contemporary composers, these guys are all long dead, and could care less.

I don't care for Schumann. That isn't a glib assessment after only a superficial survey of his works. I have listened to more than a representative summary. And I simply don't care for him. His music bores me. Wagner also tends to bore me. But who cares? I am one voice. Clearly these composers offer enough to enough people to continue their popularity more than 100 years after they shuffled off this mortal coil. 

If you like the works of a composer, then talk about them here. What is the point in making a thread to talk about why not everybody is as in love with a piece or a composer as you are? It seems that simply discussing the work - without the incessant need to compare everything under the sun and assign everything some arbitrary, meaningless ranking - would be much more informative.


----------



## DavidMahler

DrMike said:


> I don't personally understand why there needs to be cheerleading for various composers. So much of music is completely subjective - every person has a different taste. And unless you are discussing contemporary composers, these guys are all long dead, and could care less.
> 
> I don't care for Schumann. That isn't a glib assessment after only a superficial survey of his works. I have listened to more than a representative summary. And I simply don't care for him. His music bores me. Wagner also tends to bore me. But who cares? I am one voice. Clearly these composers offer enough to enough people to continue their popularity more than 100 years after they shuffled off this mortal coil.
> 
> If you like the works of a composer, then talk about them here. What is the point in making a thread to talk about why not everybody is as in love with a piece or a composer as you are? It seems that simply discussing the work - without the incessant need to compare everything under the sun and assign everything some arbitrary, meaningless ranking - would be much more informative.


the thread was made to talk about underrated Schumann is. The twists and turns a thread may take is unknown, but what's the point of being on a forum about classical music if not to argue about music and musicians...

If the thread even made one person go back and listen to Schumann even to simply consider Schumann boring once again, I still think the thread was a worthy one.


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> I love Tchaikovsky, I really do. But side by side with Brahms, Tchaikovsky feels to me to be so far away. I mean, Tchaikovsky was a brilliant melodist (maybe more than Brahms, though I'd be hesitant to just outright say it so simple like that)....
> 
> Brahms' works have so much going on in them. There's melodies on top of melodies, and structure so compact and so well thought that I feel we take it for granted. No other composer (not even Beethoven) was able to write with so much counterpoint while still maintaining a symphonic scope. Brahms' structures never sound labored. Think about the finale of the 1st symphony which about 20 seconds in goes into a pizzicato passage, and this passage returns almost without even being noticed later on in the symphony. There's so much beyond mere melody in Brahms music that gets lost if one is not trying to hear beyond the exterior.
> 
> Tchaikovsky's music has the most beautiful exterior of all time, and plenty of weight inside, but Brahms is beyond this...so far beyond it.
> 
> Tchaikovsky is Casablanca to Brahms' Citizen Kane.... both wonderful, both can be called the master of their genre, but Kane is the one.
> 
> Brahms could accomplish in 3 minutes what it sometimes took Wagner 3 hours to do. What I mean by this is, if we consider that The Ring and Brahms 1st symphony debuted in 1876, both were composed roughly over 20 years.... one is 10+ hours, the other is less than an hour. The Brahms 1st symphony note for note is more demonstrative of musical genius. I can explain why if necessary, but I'll never get through to a Wagnerite, so it's not worth it.


To me your comparison of Brahms and Tchaikovsky seems not about greater or worse, but just different styles.


----------



## DavidMahler

violadude said:


> To me your comparison of Brahms and Tchaikovsky seems not about greater or worse, but just different styles.


yes, very much so. On a tuesday I may only want tchaikovsky, on a wednesday Brahms. I think Brahms music does have more within it, a deeper meaning. I personally feel that Brahms' genius is rarer, but that does not make him greater.


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> I'm going to paraphrase something I read once from music critic Ted Libbey:
> 
> He said something like..."If the depiction of the Romantic is to be Prometheus unbound, one man against the world in triumph, then the Liszt Sonata is the piece of the era"
> 
> It's very large in scope.... maybe because it's just piano and not orchestral, it seems even larger. *How many other piano works are as vast in scope?* I'd venture to say not a single one. The middle section is one of the most moving passages in all of music, but it's not one of private conflict, it's a very public piece.... and then the mini fugue..... omg...it's like a tour de force through music up to that point all on one instrument.
> 
> I also adore how the key is not even realized until the very end. It's a thoroughly realized piece. It doesn't have one moment which is not essential to the piece.


I could name a few Sorabji pieces....


----------



## violadude

Webernite said:


> The thing about Schumann's piano music is that it's not just music. It's a whole package. To get the most out of it, you have to learn to love the idea of Eusebius and Florestan, the idea of the Davidsbündler, the connections between the pieces (like the appearence of the Papillons theme in _Carnaval_), the combination of humor and mysticism that gives the music its unique character... Essentially, the music invites _you _join the Davidsbündler, and to imagine _yourself_ at the masked ball or whatever. That's what makes Schumann so archetypically Romantic.
> 
> Of course, that imaginative leap takes a certain amount of effort and good-will from the listener, which helps to explain why Schumann has always been a bit of a niche interest. (30,000 likes on Facebook compared with 760,000 for Chopin! But before Aramis says anything, I'd like to point out that Britney Spears has 15,000,000 likes.)
> 
> I agree with whoever said good things about Murray Pariah's Schumann. His recordings aren't the best, but they're played with clarity and a sense of structure that makes a good introduction for people who are new to Schumann. It's not widely realized that you can familiarize yourself with all of Schumann's significant piano works in an afternoon, something you can't really do with Chopin or Liszt.


Webernite, you might have just hit the nail on the head as to why I am not fond of Schumann (or at least, not of his piano works anyway). The way I listen to music, I rarely ever entertain any extramusical thoughts of that nature. An analytical approach (thinking about form, development, thematic transformation) is a much more satisfying approach to listening to music for me. The farthest I ever go with "extra-musicalicty" is I do think about what the pieces expresses as far as emotion, tonal quality and ideas (those things are often hard for me to pinpoint in Schumann's music too) but I have never gotten narrative images from listening to music and imagining I am at a ball or in a secret club with Schumann is just too fanciful for my boring imagination I guess.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> Webernite, you might have just hit the nail on the head as to why I am not fond of Schumann (or at least, not of his piano works anyway). The way I listen to music, I rarely ever entertain any extramusical thoughts of that nature. An analytical approach (thinking about form, development, thematic transformation) is a much more satisfying approach to listening to music for me. The farthest I ever go with "extra-musicalicty" is I do think about what the pieces expresses as far as emotion, tonal quality and ideas (those things are often hard for me to pinpoint in Schumann's music too) but I have never gotten narrative images from listening to music and imagining I am at a ball or in a secret club with Schumann is just too fanciful for my boring imagination I guess.


The 'subject' of Carnaval should be obvious. The segments also have suggestive labels, though I usually ignore them. Davidsbundlertanze works well as later-in-life replay of the sentiments, with disillusionment setting in. The young Perahia recorded a fine interpretation of the latter work.

Schumann being who he was there is a hint, an undercurrent of unease, even in the high spirits of Carnaval. I see no need to imagine the hall or any of the theoretical surroundings; just stay 'in Schumann's head' as the music plays out.

It may help, as I intimated to _DrMike_, if your mental bolts are not torqued to spec.

as in ut:


----------



## peeyaj

As Air and Toccatta have told me months ago, I should listen to Schumann more often because of my preoccupation with Schubert.

I love Schumann's piano concerto and some of his smaller pieces. Perhaps, Stlukes and I share the same opinion.

But, I place Schumann, first and foremost, as a greatcritic who championed Schubert (and discovered the Great C major) and a great composer, second.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

1. Brahms
2. Wagner
3. Schumann
4. Tchaikovsky
5. Dvorak
6. Chopin
7. Liszt
8. Berlioz
9. Bruckner
10. Verdi
11. Mendelssohn
12. Saint-Saens
13. Faure
14. Mussorgsky
15. Grieg

I don't know that I'd have a great dispute with this list... other than that Wagner would need to be at the top and I'd need to make way for Bellini and Donizetti. Other than that... well except for Wagner, Brahms, Schumann, and Tchaikovsky the order of the remaining composers might shift around according to my mood at the moment.

Is Schumann underrated? Not by me. He is second only to Schubert as a songwriter. Having recently listened to his symphonies performed by Szell and Gardiner I find his symphonic efforts in no way minor. His works for solo piano are absolutely brilliant. And there are any number of other lovely works for smaller ensembles.


----------



## Webernite

violadude said:


> Webernite, you might have just hit the nail on the head as to why I am not fond of Schumann (or at least, not of his piano works anyway). The way I listen to music, I rarely ever entertain any extramusical thoughts of that nature. An analytical approach (thinking about form, development, thematic transformation) is a much more satisfying approach to listening to music for me. The farthest I ever go with "extra-musicalicty" is I do think about what the pieces expresses as far as emotion, tonal quality and ideas (those things are often hard for me to pinpoint in Schumann's music too) but I have never gotten narrative images from listening to music and imagining I am at a ball or in a secret club with Schumann is just too fanciful for my boring imagination I guess.


Well, Schumann's forms are interesting, too! In a piano sonata by Beethoven or Mozart, the music usually comes in a series of distinct phrases. In Schumann's piano sonatas, and in the Fantasie and many other works, the phrases flow into each other. In Schumann's music, like Wagner's, instead of pauses and rests you have tension and release. This makes a piece like the Schumann Fantasie very Romantic and dreamlike, but also difficult to take in at first, because each movement is more like a big wave than the series of bitesize chunks that you get in most Classical-period music. Even harder to take in is Schumann's Toccata, a piece that many people dismiss as unmusical; but I find it fun to listen to now and then. Enjoying Schumann (even if not the Tocatta) means getting used to his highly original and un-Classical sense of form, one which for better or worse has many parallels with the forms employed by avant-garde composers in the 20th and 21st centuries (in the piano music of Ligeti, for example).

I should point out that this description doesn't apply to all of Schumann's piano music, although it does apply to a lot of it (the sonatas, Fantasie, Toccata, Arabesque, Blumenstück, to name a few). _Carnaval_ and the _Davidsbündlertänze_ are a bit different. The individual pieces in these sets are often described as having a "speaking" quality (almost like recitative), rather than the sung (aria-like) quality you get in a Chopin nocturne. This "speaking" kind of form is basically an original innovation of Schumann's, and (like the form of the Fantasie) it can be difficult to get used to. I think what usually overcomes any difficulty people have with Schumann's forms is his very warm, likeable harmonic style (which was imitated by Tchaikovsky and Grieg, among others), and his music is full of good melodies too!

I could say more, but I need to go to sleep. 

But try the performance of _Kinderszenen_ on the Wikipedia page. It's actually quite well-played.


----------



## violadude

Webernite said:


> Well, Schumann's forms are interesting, too! In a piano sonata by Beethoven or Mozart, the music usually comes in a series of distinct phrases. In Schumann's piano sonatas, and in the Fantasie and many other works, the phrases flow into each other. In Schumann's music, like Wagner's, instead of pauses and rests you have tension and release. This makes a piece like the Schumann Fantasie very Romantic and dreamlike, but also difficult to take in at first, because each movement is more like a big wave than the series of bitesize chunks that you get in most Classical-period music. Even harder to take in is Schumann's Toccata, a piece that many people dismiss as unmusical; but I find it fun to listen to now and then. Enjoying Schumann (even if not the Tocatta) means getting used to his highly original and un-Classical sense of form, one which for better or worse has many parallels with the forms employed by avant-garde composers in the 20th and 21st centuries (in the piano music of Ligeti, for example).
> 
> I should point out that this description doesn't apply to all of Schumann's piano music, although it does apply to a lot of it (the sonatas, Fantasie, Toccata, Arabesque, Blumenstück, to name a few). _Carnaval_ and the _Davidsbündlertänze_ are a bit different. The individual pieces in these sets are often described as having a "speaking" quality (almost like recitative), rather than the sung (aria-like) quality you get in a Chopin nocturne. This "speaking" kind of form is basically an original innovation of Schumann's, and (like the form of the Fantasie) it can be difficult to get used to. I think what usually overcomes any difficulty people have with Schumann's forms is his very warm, likeable harmonic style (which was imitated by Tchaikovsky and Grieg, among others), and his music is full of good melodies too!
> 
> I could say more, but I need to go to sleep.
> 
> But try the performance of _Kinderszenen_ on the Wikipedia page. It's actually quite well-played.


Will do Webernite, and thanks for the info. I will keep this all in mind.


----------



## Ravellian

I tend to think of Schumann's miniature piano pieces as most resembling video game music.. short, simple pieces with homogeneous texture intended to immediately evoke a certain mood or emotion, or character.


----------



## violadude

Webernite said:


> Well, Schumann's forms are interesting, too! In a piano sonata by Beethoven or Mozart, the music usually comes in a series of distinct phrases. In Schumann's piano sonatas, and in the Fantasie and many other works, the phrases flow into each other. In Schumann's music, like Wagner's, instead of pauses and rests you have tension and release. This makes a piece like the Schumann Fantasie very Romantic and dreamlike, but also difficult to take in at first, because each movement is more like a big wave than the series of bitesize chunks that you get in most Classical-period music. Even harder to take in is Schumann's Toccata, a piece that many people dismiss as unmusical; but I find it fun to listen to now and then. Enjoying Schumann (even if not the Tocatta) means getting used to his highly original and un-Classical sense of form, one which for better or worse has many parallels with the forms employed by avant-garde composers in the 20th and 21st centuries (in the piano music of Ligeti, for example).
> 
> I should point out that this description doesn't apply to all of Schumann's piano music, although it does apply to a lot of it (the sonatas, Fantasie, Toccata, Arabesque, Blumenstück, to name a few). _Carnaval_ and the _Davidsbündlertänze_ are a bit different. The individual pieces in these sets are often described as having a "speaking" quality (almost like recitative), rather than the sung (aria-like) quality you get in a Chopin nocturne. This "speaking" kind of form is basically an original innovation of Schumann's, and (like the form of the Fantasie) it can be difficult to get used to. I think what usually overcomes any difficulty people have with Schumann's forms is his very warm, likeable harmonic style (which was imitated by Tchaikovsky and Grieg, among others), and his music is full of good melodies too!
> 
> I could say more, but I need to go to sleep.
> 
> But try the performance of _Kinderszenen_ on the Wikipedia page. It's actually quite well-played.


Alright, I did listen to the Kinderzenin, Webernite. They were very poetic, and very beautiful, with really nice harmonies. However, as much as I might enjoy some of these little pieces by Schumann, I am still quite hard-pressed to put him on the same pedestal as Brahms, Wagner, or Liszt.


----------



## Air

violadude said:


> They were very poetic, and very beautiful, with really nice harmonies. However, as much as I might enjoy some of these little pieces by Schumann, I am still quite hard-pressed to put him on the same pedestal as Brahms, Wagner, or Liszt.


I'm glad you enjoyed them. That is really all there is to music. And since Schumann reached you today, I would say that you need not look for anything more.

A vast majority of Schumann's music is small-scale, or miniatures within larger cycles. A work like Träumerei from Kinderszenen or Florestan from Carnaval doesn't seek to achieve the same thing as a Brahms symphony or Wagner opera. But "little pieces" have just as much beauty and enjoyment in them as the best moments in Tristan do. The best thing about Schumann is that he writes for a group of friends so intimate that every note on the page becomes even more special and cherished. And as one listens more and more to Schumann's music, they too are brought into this intimate circle, and there they shall remain.

I am not one to put Schumann on any pedestal, because he is on a pedestal of his own. No higher than Wagner definitely, but why would I want to put these two on the same pedestal in the first place? One of them would likely knock the other off in due time, since they are sworn enemies. And then we'll have one person's less music to enjoy, which would be a tragedy.

Personally, I believe that a good argument can be made for Schumann being greater than Liszt, but this is only my opinion. Similar to the Wagner situation, you can't set these two on pedestals next to each other, even if they are a meter's length apart. One of them will likely jump down and push the other one off. And the more casualties we have, the less music we have. Wasn't it Liszt who called Schumann's great Piano Quintet "not the real thing" or something to that extent?

As for me, I want the full course meal, with Liszt's Piano Sonata, followed by a few hours of Schumann's piano works and lieder, and topped off with the complete Ring.


----------



## violadude

Air said:


> I'm glad you enjoyed them. That is really all there is to music. And since Schumann reached you today, I would say that you need not look for anything more.
> 
> A vast majority of Schumann's music is small-scale, or miniatures within larger cycles. A work like Träumerei from Kinderszenen or Florestan from Carnaval doesn't seek to achieve the same thing as a Brahms symphony or Wagner opera. But "little pieces" have just as much beauty and enjoyment in them as the best moments in Tristan do. The best thing about Schumann is that he writes for a group of friends so intimate that every note on the page becomes even more special and cherished. And as one listens more and more to Schumann's music, they too are brought into this intimate circle, and there they shall remain.
> 
> I am not one to put Schumann on any pedestal, because he is on a pedestal of his own. No higher than Wagner definitely, but why would I want to put these two on the same pedestal in the first place? One of them would likely knock the other off in due time, since they are sworn enemies. And then we'll have one person's less music to enjoy, which would be a tragedy.
> 
> Personally, I believe that a good argument can be made for Schumann being greater than Liszt, but this is only my opinion. Similar to the Wagner situation, you can't set these two on pedestals next to each other, even if they are a meter's length apart. One of them will likely jump down and push the other one off. And the more casualties we have, the less music we have. Wasn't it Liszt who called Schumann's great Piano Quintet "not the real thing" or something to that extent?
> 
> As for me, I want the full course meal, with Liszt's Piano Sonata, followed by a few hours of Schumann's piano works and lieder, and topped off with the complete Ring.


Thank you much, Air and Webernite! Whenever I don't click with a composer it always helps me to read passionate and descriptive testaments from people who have clicked with that composer. Maybe there is hope for me yet.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

It took me a while for appreciate Schumann's piano stuff, because I guess I was expecting Chopin or something, rather than Schumann. To add to violadude's point on extramusical association, that's definitely part of the appeal for me. I can't listen to Waldszenen without imagining all kinds of haunted, autumnal scenes.


----------



## Ukko

Air said:


> [...]
> Wasn't it Liszt who called Schumann's great Piano Quintet "not the real thing" or something to that extent?
> [...]


Schumann and Liszt 'had words', regarding Mendelssohn. There may have been residual ill-feelings.

I see no useful way to rate their music vis-a-vis. Their muses were very distant cousins

.


----------



## GoneBaroque

For me the best of parts of Schumann are his piano music and his lieder. I also like his Scenes from Goethe's Faust.


----------



## Lisztian

Just listened to his third piano sonata for the first time. I'd heard the other two a few times but never this one for some reason. It was Grigory Sokolov on youtube, he added some things that Schumann composed, but are rarely performed - like extra variations, an entire new movement, etc. It lasted for 39 minutes. Gosh it was Schumann in full force. The work was full of passion and fire...it seemed to really come from the heart - as well as the poetic side. Another great work.

NO ONE wrote compareable piano works, and with such consistency, so early in their life as Schumann's Opus 1-20 or so. I did like Schumann in the past, but always put him behind Chopin and Liszt. Not anymore. All three of them, in their piano works, basically contain the essence of the romantic spirit, and all three of them (especially Schumann and Liszt) are endlessly fascinating people who lived lives that Hollywood would be proud of. I don't think you can put any of those three above each other except for by subjective opinion...they are equally special figures of the Romantic era.


----------



## Ukko

Lisztian said:


> Just listened to his third piano sonata for the first time. I'd heard the other two a few times but never this one for some reason. It was Grigory Sokolov on youtube, he added some things that Schumann composed, but are rarely performed - like extra variations, an entire new movement, etc. It lasted for 39 minutes. Gosh it was Schumann in full force. The work was full of passion and fire...it seemed to really come from the heart - as well as the poetic side. Another great work.


OK, but you could keep in mind that you heard Sokolov. Other pianists could pull that impression down some.


----------



## Lisztian

Hilltroll72 said:


> OK, but you could keep in mind that you heard Sokolov. Other pianists could pull that impression down some.


Perhaps. But i'm of the belief that you should judge a work of art by how it is best performed, not lesser performances, by lesser artists.


----------



## Ukko

Lisztian said:


> Perhaps. But i'm of the belief that you should judge a work of art by how it is best performed, not how lesser artists perform it.


I disagree. It is unrealistic to judge the quality of this work -or in Sokolov's case Haydn's sonatas - by how he performs it/them. For instance: If you judge Bach's suites for solo cello by Schiff's interpretations, you have a very limited understanding of the works.


----------



## Lisztian

Hilltroll72 said:


> I disagree. It is unrealistic to judge the quality of this work -or in Sokolov's case Haydn's sonatas - by how he performs it/them. For instance: If you judge Bach's suites for solo cello by Schiff's interpretations, you have a very limited understanding of the works.


While I see what you're saying, I stick by what I say. If a work that is generally thought of as a sub-par work is performed by someone, and suddenly the work makes sense and people even start calling it masterful, it has the potential to be a masterful work. Obviously you look into many other interpretations and do try to gain that understanding of the work. I think that's the case with a lot of Liszt. So many people perform him badly...Liszt is one of the absolute hardest composers to play, especially in his more virtuosic showpieces. But Liszt, when he himself performed them, elevated them to greatness, and that's what he had in mind when he composed them. They have the potential for greatness depending on what the performer does with the work, and in the case of Liszt's music, the performer better be on his game. But to me again to reiterate my main point, potential for greatness is greatness in a work of art, and it's up to the performer to find it. Of course, there are many works that don't have that potential in the first place. That's my opinion anyway and i'm sticking with it.


----------



## Artemis

Lisztian said:


> NO ONE wrote compareable piano works, and with such consistancy, so early in their life as Schumann's Opus 1-20 or so. I did like Schumann in the past, but always put him behind Chopin and Liszt. Not anymore.


The sentiment expressed above is what some of us have saying for a while now on various Schumann-related threads. Once you get acquainted with Schumann it can quite easily happen that former favourites not only become less important but some can fall by the wayside almost completely. I have revised my opinion several times over the years about my favourite composers of piano music. Schumann was not among my initial favourites but he became so after I virtually burned out listening to several others. For example, I hardly bother with Beethoven or Chopin any more, but this is not in any way to deny that both of them are extremely gifted composers (which goes without saying of course) and probably more widely regarded in high esteem.

I also wanted to add a few further comments about Schumann's Op 17 Fantasy, which was touched on earlier in this thread. I would guess that it is probably Schumann's best known piano piece. For me this is his best solo piano work, and sums up Schumann at his finest. As noted earlier, this sonata was initially dedicated to Beethoven whom he admired enormously, but Schumann's publisher wasn't too sure about this dedication and renamed it a "fantasy" a few years after its initial composition partly, I gather, because it doesn't follow the usual sonata layout but instead the three movements come in reverse order with the slow movement being at the end.

The first movement is probably Schumann at his most passionate, beginning with the falling 5-note theme for Clara which was their of communicating from afar during the period when Clara's father had banished Robert Schumann from having any contact with his daughter. It goes on to incorporate some themes from various Beethoven works, including a famous one from _An die Ferne Geliebte_ at the end of the movement. At the beginning of the second movement appears Schumann's famous "dotted rhythm" which reappears at later points in this movement. The coda of this second movement is one of the hardest pieces in the entire repertoire and unfortunately is way beyond my limited skill level to perform well. We then move into the final movement of this work which is utterly gorgeous and considered to be possibly Schumann's deepest outpouring of devotion to Clara during their enforced separation before they were finally able to marry.

Overall I find it to be a truly splendid work and one of favourite works by any composer across all genres. I find only one other composer who can match or exceed the sheer emotional impact of Schumann in their solo piano writing, and impart so poignantly the romantic spirit, and that's Schubert. But again this is not to cast any negative views on other other composers. Extremely good as several of these are, none of them matches what I personally look for in piano music which is the emotional impact contained in such abundance in piano works by these two composers especially. This is one of the reasons I didn't participate in the solo piano poll, as if I had done it would have been almost purely a litany of the major works of Schubert and Schumann.


----------



## Ukko

Lisztian said:


> While I see what you're saying, I stick by what I say. If a work that is generally thought of as a sub-par work is performed by someone, and suddenly the work makes sense and people even start calling it masterful, it has the potential to be a masterful work.
> [...


OK, I'll buy that - as a valid stand: You know the work is great because you have heard it performed so that it is great.


----------



## Lisztian

By the way, I just skimmed through the classical music project as the OP did, and came to the exact same conclusion as he did, except for Liszt rather than Schumann. Liszt has THREE entries. THREE! Schumann has nine. Chopin six, Rachmaninoff five. Liszt, THREE. I am shocked and appalled and taking things way too seriously right now! This is combined with the fact that he only has eight entries on the top 200 solo piano works, (and of the ones he does have, they are WAY too low) (this is about to change at the end with the whole compromising things and 'honourable mentions,' which I have gone crazy on for Liszt, but STILL) and 23rd on the top composers liszt. He also did terribly on the top 100 keyboard concerti (I'll admit that his concerti aren't top flight masterpieces of the piano and orchestra realm, but they are MUCH better than what they got), and the symphonies (The Dante didn't even make it ).


----------



## Artemis

Lisztian said:


> By the way, I just skimmed through the classical music project as the OP did, and came to the exact same conclusion as he did, except for Liszt rather than Schumann. Liszt has THREE entries. THREE! Schumann has nine. Chopin six, Rachmaninoff five. Liszt, THREE. I am shocked and appalled and taking things way too seriously right now! This is combined with the fact that he only has eight entries on the top 200 solo piano works, (and of the ones he does have, they are WAY too low) (this is about to change at the end with the whole compromising things and 'honourable mentions,' which I have gone crazy on for Liszt, but STILL) and 23rd on the top composers liszt. He also did terribly on the top 100 keyboard concerti (I'll admit that his concerti aren't top flight masterpieces of the piano and orchestra realm, but they are MUCH better than what they got), and the symphonies (The Dante didn't even make it ).


Your concern, as expressed above, has prompted me to do a little investigatory work on the "Music Project" results which you refer to. Thus far, I confess that I haven't taken any notice of that project, but since the results are the basis of the OP in this thread I thought it might be worthwhile taking a closer inspection.

In the OP of this thread, concern was expressed about Robert Schumann's poor showing in terms of the number of entries he managed to achieve in the "Classical Music Project" results, which lists the top 304 classical works based upon the deliberations of a group of T-C members. It was questioned why so many famous works (piano solo examples being given) by Schumann are so lowly rated or do not appear at all in the list.

First of all, given this comment about Schumann's poor showing, I was somewhat puzzled by the fact that in the OP's own list of 25 top works by all composers (as given in a separate thread elsewhere) there wasn't a single work by this composer. There was an awful lot of Mahler though. And in the OP's list of top 50 symphonies (again in a separate thread) none of Schumann's appeared until the very lowly positions No 42 and No 49. Even Beethoven's No 9, which I gather the Op things is grossly over-rated and doesn't much care for, achieved a much a higher rank of No 24.

Unless I have misread these other threads, neither of these sets of votes would suggest that the OP is among the forefront of Schumann fans. But possibly I have misunderstood what the OP was saying, or there is a good explanation for the apparent discrepancy. It's just that if I had been voting for my top 25 works there would have been about 7-8 by Schumann, and quite definitely all of his symphonies would have been included in my top 25, let alone top 50 symphonies.

Disregarding the above apparent peculiarity, I had a closer look at the number of entries for various other famous composers in the "music project" results. As noted, Schumann scored 9 out of a total of 304 entries in total. The highest numbers were for Beethoven and Bach at 24 each. Mozart came next at 23. Then there was big drop to 14 entries for each of Schubert and Brahms. Next came Ravel at 11 entries, Mahler with 10. Following Schumann with his 9 entries came Haydn and Verdi each with 8. Then came Debussy, Mendelssohn, and Tchaikovsky each with 7. Chopin and Bartok got 6 each, followed by Wagner who got 5 (but this includes the Ring counted as one entry).

Thus, in relative terms, Schumann didn't do too badly at all with his score of 9 listings, which puts him in rank no 8 on this basis. It turns out that Schumann is a top 10 composer after all, and I'm very happy about this result. Admittedly, these results are based purely on the number of entries for each composer, and no attempt was made to weight the results by individual ranks for each entry, but that is a more elaborate statistical exercise which quite frankly I can't be bothered to undertake.

Finally, I should mention that it's the miserable results for the likes of Handel (4), Liszt (3), Monteverdi (3), Berlioz (2) that I feel sorry for. Even Rachmaninoff got more than any of these at 5. This rise to my main query: what about all those fantastic works that have been excluded by virtue of these low numbers as given to the aforementioned composers? I know for a fact that there are at least about 30 additional works by the first four of these composers that I can think of that should have been included in the top 304, but I guess that's partly my fault as I did not see fit to join in the exercise and hence I forfeited potential votes that might have made the difference in some cases.


----------



## DavidMahler

Aside from the Sonata, I honestly feel Schumann should have a dozen works listed before Liszt

To comment on Artemis, my main criticism was spawned by seeing Schumann place at 20 on the composer list, when in fact I can't even take a list seriously without having Schumann in the top 12. Seeing composers like Handel in the top 10 and Schumann at 20 was very weird. I think of Schumann as _the_composer of the truly early romantic, before Brahms was old enough to write and before Wagner found his voice...

As far as the 1830s go, Schumann has no peer. As far as the 1840s, maybe Chopin was a peer. In my mind, that's a 20 year period in which Schumann essentially is the grandmaster. Looking over one of the most fruitful times in music history....and you are the unequivocal master? You deserve a place in the top 10. Schumann's way of thinking is the romantic. By virtue of who he was and who he was not, Schumann WAS and always will be _the_ romantic.

Think about who else was active during Schumann's heyday: Berlioz- scoring a few essential works; Chopin - who, in my opinion bloomed a little later than Schumann and never quite reached the depth of Schumann overall; Mendelssohn who was past his prime by 1830; Liszt whose strongest work really comes from the 1850s onward; Verdi and Wagner were both not yet near their prime.

So in my opinion, between the deaths of Beethoven and Schubert and the sprouting of Wagner and Brahms, is this extraordinary testing period where forms are challenged, even if out of necessity or flawed psychological persuasion. This is the era which may appeal to me most. It's for me, the beginning of the modern view of music. Schumann is, upon looking back, the man who encapsulates an entire period in music. I would consider his presence of almost equal value to Wagner's and Brahms' and it may only be that his music is so flawed that he does not succeed to sit next to them, but it may only be that his music is so flawed that Schumann succeeds, at least in my view, as being far more interesting a proponent of music history ... Not just the man himself, but the music, even should I not like it as much, is far more inwardly expressive and interesting.

Mozart is the archetype classicist

Schumann the archetype romantic

I would make the case that in this sense Schumann can be easily compared and equally valued as the far more beloved master.


----------



## Air

DavidMahler said:


> Handel in the top 10... was very weird


You are right. Handel should be in the top 8. 10 is too low.

I agree about Schumann though.


----------



## Aramis

I guess that it's just another argument against lists. What do they do with people? Seeing all this campaign of proving that Schumann belongs to some particular section of greatest composers list or wherever he was "number one" in his time period, I'm asking myself if it's more weird or sad thing to read. It think there was hidden spell behind all those lists appearing recently that was meant to turn people into zombies walking around like ROAR... SCHUMANN TOP 10... SCHUMANN TOP 10... DEEPER THAN CHOPIN, MORE GENIOUS, RRRRRRR... MORE SPOTS IN TOP 100 WORKS! MORE SPOTS FOR MY MASTER! ROAAAAARRRR 

Or something like that. The way some people are turning artistic greatness into cheap competition between their favourites is awful.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Aramis said:


> I guess that it's just another argument against lists. What do they do with people? Seeing all this campaign of proving that Schumann belongs to some particular section of greatest composers list or wherever he was "number one" in his time period, I'm asking myself if it's more weird or sad thing to read. It think there was hidden spell behind all those lists appearing recently that was meant to turn people into zombies walking around like ROAR... SCHUMANN TOP 10... SCHUMANN TOP 10... DEEPER THAN CHOPIN, MORE GENIOUS, RRRRRRR... MORE SPOTS IN TOP 100 WORKS! MORE SPOTS FOR MY MASTER! ROAAAAARRRR
> 
> Or something like that.


Well, it worked. I've already spent $4,330 on Schumann CDs ever since this thread was created.


----------



## Oskaar

Schumann Is really a master, and he is my favourite composer at the moment. But about lists. Most of them are user made in democratic ways. But people that dont find their favourites represented enough on list have a tendense to boycot them and the prosess. Then it all will be biased! 

Lists and reccomodation threads, I think have two purposes. 
People want to share their taste.
And people want to explore. 

By the way... Schumann is very well representated on Spotify! Along with Mozart and Beethoven among the best representated.


----------



## DavidMahler

Air said:


> You are right. Handel should be in the top 8. 10 is too low.
> 
> I agree about Schumann though.


In terms of mastery, Handel belongs in the top 5 and Schumann, not in the top 200.

In terms of pure genius, I may be inclined to stick Handel at 20 and Schumann at 6 or 7


----------



## Oskaar

Aramis said:


> I'm asking myself if it's more weird or sad thing to read.
> 
> Or something like that. The way some people are turning artistic greatness into cheap competition between their favourites is awful.


At last some readable statements. Then we can discuss. But I totally disagree with you! Lists and recommendations have multiple purposes that seem to appeal. Oppinions is something to discuss from, and a good background for exploring and enlightment. As I have said befor, some polls may be worthless for me, but maybe not for others. Oppinions in list forms is enlightening for me and more readable than elitistic and "better knowing" views in special threads.

I dont generally find them cheap at all, but you have to take lists for what they are, they are not the thruth. But they can be very helpfull in exploring music. You also have threads like "lesser known symphonies you like" and so on. Maybe not organised lists, but also listing music. Informative and helpfull for people that want to explore, and have not their taste fixed in concrete.

Schumann dont become a bether composer appearing on lists, and he dont become worce.


----------



## mtmailey

Yes i like his 4 symphonies,string quartets ,his dous ,trios & quintet.They sound very great but people would rather focus on beethoven.


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> Aside from the Sonata, I honestly feel Schumann should have a dozen works listed before Liszt


I don't want to compare the two, however I feel that, aside from the top composers where Schumann was ranked 20th (I agree, he should be much higher), in everything else I think he has been represented very fairly. I mean just look at the top 100 piano concerti, top 200 piano works, symphonies...and even the classical music project. I think in all of them you could not ask for more!

Liszt on the other hand, you cannot say the same. Look at the top 200 piano works for instance. I will go over what I believe are disservices.

1. Sonata at 16: I'm not going to compare this to cycles but rather singular works in front of it. I won't say it is better than any of these either because I don't want to sound biased. I don't think any of the single works in front of the Liszt you can legitimately claim to be superior works. While I do believe this is a huge disservice I am not going to argue too much about this as the works in front of it are undoubtedly masterpieces, but I will say that while I don't think you can call any of these works greater than the other without bias, that the Liszt went as low as it possibly could compared to these works. I didn't really explain that well as I couldn't think of how, hopefully you understand what I was trying to say. So while I do have a problem with this, I am not going to push it. However I will end this by saying that this work not being in the top 10 is plain wrong, and to me, by rights it should be top 5.

2. Années de pèlerinage: This is where I REALLY have a problem. At 69? I think that is an absolute disgrace. Looking at all the cycles in front of it, from the Chopin and Debussy preludes, to the Schumann cycles, I don't think you can legitimately say ANY of these are greater than the Années de pèlerinage, yes not even Chopin's preludes (not including the WTC). Obviously the Chopin works have been revered for the longest time and I myself do love them, being subjective I simply cannot see how these Preludes can be considered to be equal to or better than the Années de pèlerinage. Being as objective as I can, I can't see how they could be called better, and this goes for every cycle in front of it. The Liszt is a true masterwork...These pieces, along with the sonata, IMO are the pinnacle of Romanticism. There are no weak points in the whole lot - and I don't think anything in any of the other cycles can match Vallée d'Obermann, Les cloches de Genève, Sonetto 104 del Petrarca, Après une lecture du Dante, Aux cyprès de la Villa d'Este II or Les jeux d'eaux à la Villa d'Este. These are all masterpieces in themselves, surrounded by music that is absolutely first rate throughout - hell these are just my favourites, others favourites are often much different than mine! I know this all sounds very subjective but I simply cannot understand it...If someone can explain to me why they think i'm wrong do so, but for now I am baffled.

3. Études d'exécution transcendante: This one I am definately biased about, just to make that clear. I love the Chopin Etudes, but to me they are almost trivial compared to these works. Given a good performance, I believe these works are the height of pianism. They were the first works (the first sets were, the revised ones brought out the best in them) that showed what the piano was fully capable of. The fact that the Chopin Etudes are 60 slots ahead is IMO an absolute travesty. I mean just listen to the last three...

4. Harmonies poétiques et religieuses: This is the one I am most in disbelief about. 119? How can a set of pieces involving Bénédiction de Dieu dans la solitude, Pensée des morts, and Funérailles be 119? Depending on who you ask, the rest of the set is a bit uneven. I love Invocation, some never will. Ave Maria isn't particularly distinguised, but it is nice. Pater Noster is fairly trivial, Hymne de l'enfant à son réveil is a good piece but will also never be distinguished or anything, but Miserere, d'après Palestrina and Andante lagrimoso are gems. Cantique d'amour has been called a masterpiece, but I don't see it. I find it okay but nothing to write home about. But despite this, I think you can make the case that this cycle is a top 20 work.

As far as what else is on the list, I am okay with. The Mephisto Waltz No. 1 at 150, while I think it should be much higher, I can understand why it would be put here. Actually the three Liebesträume, being at 185 I disagree with. I understand that the third is ridiculously overplayed, but it is a beautiful piece, and so are the other two. I am fine with this being here because I know I am SO sick of hearing the 3rd one, but the only thing that bothers me is it being there, and Chopin's opus 9 nocturnes being like 140 slots higher, when they are both pretty much the same in quality and overplayed-ness. Don Juan fantasy being at 190 is fine.

However what is not yet on the list I am equally as baffled by. I can understand some of my favourites that aren't on there not being on there, but some I just can't. His second Ballade for instance. This piece is a true masterpiece, IMO every bit as good as any of Chopin's masterful Ballades, although that is extremely subjective and I won't make that any sort of definitive conclusion. I think it is at LEAST top 50, and that is being very, very 'politically correct.' I won't get into the Hungarian Rhapsodies because I know how criticised they are, but I think at the very least number 12 should be in. I understand also a bunch of my other favourites that are hardly known at all - even by pianophiles, so I won't get into them. But the Paganini Etudes and Concert Etudes not being included so far (despite the latter perhaps being inserted in the last ten) is just plain wrong IMO. Un Sospiro is perhaps overplayed, but this piece is absolutely breathtaking given a good performance - listen to Arrau. The other two pieces in this set are also top notch, although the first may be a tad repetitive. With the Paganini's I understand La Campanella is extremely overplayed, but it is still terrific and they are all good pieces - numbers 1 and 5 are particularly good. There are numerous others I think should be included but I think i've said enough for now. I also won't get into the other lists on this site I think he has been ripped off on, i'll just stick with the piano for now, being his main compositional instrument.

I apologise for the perhaps critical and subjective nature of this post...but I just felt I needed to let my opinion known. Ignore it or whatever, but i'm glad I got these percieved disservices off my chest  But yeah I don't expect to be taken too seriously here - nor do I want to be. I don't really take this stuff as seriously as it seems myself, I just think he should be represented better, and that many people are missing out on his first-rate piano music. But I understand and love the whole subjectivity with music thing and respect and admire everyones opinions even if they don't like 'my guy.' Regardless, I will keep Lisztening away


----------



## Dodecaplex

*All of you melomanes boisterously complaining about the absolutely pointless positions and rankings of Schumann and Liszt have completely forgotten to complain about the position of Charles-Valentin Morhange Alkan! A. K. A the neglected agnostic French genius!*


----------



## Artemis

DavidMahler said:


> To comment on Artemis, my main criticism was spawned by seeing Schumann place at 20 on the composer list, when in fact I can't even take a list seriously without having Schumann in the top 12. Seeing composers like Handel in the top 10 and Schumann at 20 was very weird. I think of Schumann as _the_composer of the truly early romantic, before Brahms was old enough to write and before Wagner found his voice...


I agree that Schumann's rank of No 20 in the "top 25 composer" poll is too low, but you used examples from the recent "music project" poll to illustrate your belief that Schumann is under-rated by saying that more his works should have been included, and those that were included should be given a higher place.

Commenting on this, my earlier point was that even as things stand in that poll Schumann actually did very well, in managing to get 9 entries altogether among the total 304. Taking rough account account of the placings, I reckon that Schumann comes out at around rank 7 overall. I think what you may be overlooking is the "quart in a pint pot problem", i.e. that if Schumann had achieved more/higher placings it would have simply squeezed other deserving entries.

Besides, I am still puzzled why you haven't explained why, given your admiration for Schumann which you repeated several times, none of his works appears anywhere in the polls listing one's personal top 25 works, and why you only selected two of his symphonies and placed them almost at the bottom of your list of top 50 symphonies.



Aramis said:


> I guess that it's just another argument against lists. What do they do with people? Seeing all this campaign of proving that Schumann belongs to some particular section of greatest composers list or wherever he was "number one" in his time period, I'm asking myself if it's more weird or sad thing to read. It think there was hidden spell behind all those lists appearing recently that was meant to turn people into zombies walking around like ROAR... SCHUMANN TOP 10... SCHUMANN TOP 10... DEEPER THAN CHOPIN, MORE GENIOUS, RRRRRRR... MORE SPOTS IN TOP 100 WORKS! MORE SPOTS FOR MY MASTER! ROAAAAARRRR
> 
> Or something like that. The way some people are turning artistic greatness into cheap competition between their favourites is awful.


Very funny, yes. I'm not sure if this is a reference to me, but if it is I think I can say I do try to write about music in as much depth as much as my time permits, rather than merely engage in making making one-line contributions to the post-growing poll farms that seem to abound in this Forum.

I have already said that I don't like participating in list-making. I haven't participated in any of those here on T-C, but I can understand the enthusiasm that many people have for lists from an educational point of view. I relied upon such lists myself at one time. But there are many good lists that already exist on other music forums. Some members appear to be unaware of this, and rather appear to assume that T-C is the only place they can find such material. and hence that if such activity is stopped then they will be denied useful educational material. This idea would be incorrect because many other lists exist. They can be quite easily found on the internet. One such set of lits for classical music is the well-known one on the DDD forum which was constructed some time ago with the aim of incorporating a degree of objectivity in the rankings. I haven't looked at those lists recently but I recall that on the whole they were pretty comprehensive, and helpful. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the responses made to polls here have been based to some extent on those lists.

Many of the polls here on T-C however have been based on a changing and often quite small number of participants, and if you weren't in at the beginning of them it's too late to change the earlier results because the results become quickly ossified. Some of the polls have dragged on for too long, and don't represent a snapshot of opinion. My recent comments about the various polls referred to in this thread actually have been mainly concerned with clarifying the basis and results of other polls, rather than expressing support for Schumann, even though he is among my favourite composers.



Lisztian said:


> I don't want to compare the two, however I feel that, aside from the top composers where Schumann was ranked 20th (I agree, he should be much higher), in everything else I think he has been represented very fairly. I mean just look at the top 100 piano concerti, top 200 piano works, symphonies...and even the classical music project. I think in all of them you could not ask for more!
> 
> Liszt on the other hand, you cannot say the same. Look at the top 200 piano works for instance. I will go over what I believe are disservices.
> ...


I do like Liszt a great deal and have most of his works right across the entire range of his output. He is one of my favourite composers, and I therefore hope that I won't be misunderstood when I say that I consider Liszt to be the lesser of the three piano composers who are usually looked upon as close rivals: Chopin, Schumann, Liszt.

Chopin and Schumann were musical geniuses who were able to represent all moods beautifully, subtley and with considerable economy elegance and simplicity. Liszt on the other hand had a more flashy style and a degree of arrogance that sometimes spilled over into his music. It has been argued by some authorities that his "taste" in music was sometimes suspect, as it was often quite inefficient, over-complex and rather cluttered with unnecesary ornamentation. Clara Schumann couldn't stand the man, and it wasnt just because they were rival pianistic virtuosos but she genuinely disliked his music and his performing style.

Apart from his Sonata in B minor, which is an admitted top drawer masterpiece, the rest of his output is sometimes seen as being of generally lower quality in the eyes of some people. As I said above, I happen to like Liszt a great deal and am only trying to explain why perhaps he hasn't scored as highly as the other two in the relevant threads.


----------



## pjang23

Artemis said:


> One such set of lits for classical music is the well-known one on the DDD forum which was constructed some time ago with the aim of incorporating a degree of objectivity in the rankings. I haven't looked at those lists recently but I recall that on the whole they were pretty comprehensive, and helpful. I wouldn't be surprised at all if some of the responses made to polls here have been based to some extent on those lists.


The same DDD which puts
4. Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor "Moonlight" - Ludwig Van Beethoven
11. Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor - Ludwig Van Beethoven 
52. Piano Sonata No. 30 in E major - Ludwig Van Beethoven

and
9. Polonaise No. 6 in A flat major "Heroic" - Frederic Chopin
41. Ballade No. 4 in F minor - Frederic Chopin


----------



## violadude

pjang23 said:


> The same DDD which puts
> 4. Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor "Moonlight" - Ludwig Van Beethoven
> 11. Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor - Ludwig Van Beethoven
> 52. Piano Sonata No. 30 in E major - Ludwig Van Beethoven
> 
> and
> 9. Polonaise No. 6 in A flat major "Heroic" - Frederic Chopin
> 41. Ballade No. 4 in F minor - Frederic Chopin


Oh dear...they certainly *are* objective over there aren't they....


----------



## Artemis

pjang23 said:


> The same DDD which puts
> 4. Piano Sonata No. 14 in C sharp minor "Moonlight" - Ludwig Van Beethoven
> 11. Piano Sonata No. 32 in C minor - Ludwig Van Beethoven
> 52. Piano Sonata No. 30 in E major - Ludwig Van Beethoven
> 
> and
> 9. Polonaise No. 6 in A flat major "Heroic" - Frederic Chopin
> 41. Ballade No. 4 in F minor - Frederic Chopin


I'm afraid you will have to explain to me the joke as I don't get it. Rather, looking at these results I see the joke the other way round against the T-C list, although I wouldn't otherwise have drawn attention to it. I explain below:

For the T-C rankings of the works you identify, I see that you have placed Chopin's "Heroic" Polonaise at rank No 123. That's an incredibly low rank for one of Chopin's most famous works. I see also that you have placed Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata at rank No 33. That too seems to be an inappropriately very low rank for one of the most popular piano sonatas in the entire repertoire.

To take this slightly further, I have just had a quick look on the _ArkivMusic_ site to get some idea of popularity of various solo piano works as measured by the number of recordings currently available. OK, this comparison doesn't provide anything like a perfect measure of populariity but it's probably a darn site more useful than most others I can think of. This is because it's based on both supply (what the musicians want to record) and demand (what customers want to buy) considerations.

Now, if we take the 5 works you identified and run a simple correlation test between the number of recordings for each of the works and T-C's corresponding rankings for these works you actually get a significant correlation coefficient but with the wrong sign, i.e. the more popular the work as measured by ArKiv the lower is the rank given by T-C!

On the hand other, the corresponding result for the DDD rankings shows a significant correlation coefficient with the correct sign, i.e. DDD's rankings are well aligned to the market's ranking of these particular works, whereas TC's rankings are entirely skew-wiff. Now that is funny.


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> For the T-C rankings of the works you identify, I see that you have placed Chopin's "Heroic" Polonaise at rank No 123. That's an incredibly low rank for one of Chopin's most *famous* works. I see also that you have placed Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata at rank No 33. That too seems to be an inappropriately very low rank for *one of the most popular piano sonatas* in the entire repertoire.
> 
> To take this slightly further, I have just had a quick look on the _ArkivMusic_ site to get some idea of popularity of various solo piano works as measured by the number of recordings currently available. OK, this comparison doesn't provide anything like a *perfect measure of populariity* but it's probably a darn site more useful than most others I can think of. This is because it's based on both supply (what the musicians want to record) and demand (what customers want to buy) considerations.
> 
> Now, if we take the 5 works you identified and run a simple correlation test between the number of recordings for each of the works and T-C's corresponding rankings for these works you actually get a significant correlation coefficient but with the wrong sign, i.e.* the more popular the work *as measured by ArKiv the lower is the rank given by T-C!
> 
> On the hand other, the corresponding result for the DDD rankings shows a significant correlation coefficient with the correct sign, i.e. DDD's rankings are well aligned to t*he market's ranking of these particular works, *whereas TC's rankings are entirely skew-wiff. Now that is funny.


I know that many people on the forum disagree with this for some reason...but popular and famous do not always equal good...


----------



## Artemis

violadude said:


> I know that many people on the forum disagree with this for some reason...but popular and famous do not always equal good...


That sounds like a rather weak comment on what I wrote, given that I didn't base my remarks on some limited concept of popularity like typical radio station playlists but specifically on the _ArkivMusic_ lists, which I would have thought could be expected to provide a pretty decent basis for measuring popularity.

Besides, I don't think for one moment that the T-C list of recommended solo piano works is based on "greatest" works in any sense. Rather it's based on none other than popularity amongst the few members who bothered to vote in the various rounds. After all, we're constantly told that these lists, and this one for solo piano works is no exception, amount to no more than recommendations by T-C members. If these recommendations are not based largely on members' favourites then what else? In other words, all you have is list of favourites based on a small and varying sample of contributors. To say that this list can't be compared with _ArkiMusic_ rankings therefore makes no sense.

However you look at it, the particular examples selected by the member a few posts above to try to ridicule the DDD rankings actually backfires badly against the T-C list, which is little short of being utterly bizarre in respect of the rankings of those particular selections.

As a further thought, I would like to see an analysis by anyone who feels qualified to do so of why they consider Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_ deserves only a very low rank of No 123, but at the same time explaining why they consider why Busoni's_ Fantasia Contrappuntistica_ deserves to be ranked at No 59.

I really do hope that someone can attempt the analysis involving the Chopin and Busoni works. In fact, to make the task easier, I would like to see anyone who participated in the construction of the overall list to come forward and explain, in musical terms, how they justify the individual rankings of the top 20 works. I don't reckon they will be able to do so that makes much sense. Now there's a challenge.


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> That sounds like a rather weak comment on what I wrote, given that I didn't base my remarks on some limited concept of popularity like typical radio station playlists but specifically on the _ArkivMusic_ lists, which I would have thought could be expected to provide a pretty decent basis for measuring popularity.
> 
> Besides, I don't think for one moment that the T-C list of recommended solo piano works is based on "greatest" works in any sense. Rather it's based on none other than popularity amongst the few members who bothered to vote in the various rounds. After all, we're constantly told that these lists, and this one for solo piano works is no exception, amount to no more than recommendations by T-C members. If these recommendations are not based largely on members' favourites then what else? In other words, all you have is list of favourites based on a small and varying sample of contributors. To say that this list can't be compared with _ArkiMusic_ rankings therefore makes no sense.
> 
> However you look at it, the particular examples selected by the member a few posts above to try to ridicule the DDD rankings actually backfires badly against the T-C list, which is little short of being utterly bizarre in respect of the rankings of those particular selections.
> 
> As a further thought, I would like to see an analysis by anyone who feels qualified to do so of why they consider Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_ deserves only a very low rank of No 123, but at the same time explaining why they consider why Busoni's_ Fantasia Contrappuntistica_ deserves to be ranked at No 59.
> 
> I really do hope that someone can attempt the analysis involving the Chopin and Busoni works. In fact, to make the task easier, I would like to see anyone who participated in the construction of the overall list to come forward and explain, in musical terms, how they justify the individual rankings of the top 20 works. I don't reckon they will be able to do so that makes much sense. Now there's a challenge.


I don't see how it backfires...you said it yourself yet again Arkivmusic is a pretty good measure of *popularity.* I think Pjang's comment is fairly obvious...the moonlight is kind of a crowd pleaser, but I think if you talk to most scholars and people (average everyday listener people even) who have taken lot's of time to listen to the Beethoven sonatas, they would agree that #30 and #32, not to mention a whole stack of others, are a lot deeper and in general are more quality sonatas.


----------



## Webernite

The TC list isn't meant to be a list of the most popular classical piano pieces, nor is it just a list of the voters' personal favorites. I voted for dozens of pieces that I rarely listen to and that are not popular (like the _Diabelli Variations_) because they're important and widely considered to be great. There was also an attempt to get a _variety _of composers on to the list, which is why Busoni's piece came above Chopin's.

DDD's list is basically just a list of the classical piano pieces that the most people have heard of.


----------



## Artemis

violadude said:


> I don't see how it backfires...you said it yourself yet again Arkivmusic is a pretty good measure of *popularity.* I think Pjang's comment is fairly obvious...the moonlight is kind of a crowd pleaser, but I think if you talk to most scholars and people (average everyday listener people even) who have taken lot's of time to listen to the Beethoven sonatas, they would agree that #30 and #32, not to mention a whole stack of others, are a lot deeper and in general are more quality sonatas.


In my opinion there is a good correlation between lasting popularity and quality in classical music. It would be very difficult to mount an argument to the contrary, that classical music works that remain popular over a long stretch of time are basically rubbish music.

The _ArkivMusic_ lists provide a decent list of what might be called lasting popularity because they're based on the number of recordings currently available, and hence reflect the convolution of what listeners want to hear and what musicians and the music industry want to provide in meeting that demand. Musical material that tends to go out of favour eventually gets pulled from the listings, and likewise any newer tastes tend to become represented in those lists sooner or later. As I said previously, it's not a perfect measure of popularity, but it's one of the better ones that I can think of as it's not subject to very short term fluctuations or reflective of the usually quite trashy playlists of radio station presenters etc.

As far as I know, the T-C list of solo piano works is based simply on the various works which the members like. That's all there is to it, and to pretend that it's based on anything more grandiose than popularity is, quite frankly, not persuasive. That being the case, the list being clearly based merely on the popularity of works of a small sample of people is therefore less reliable than one based on the accumulated wisdom of the whole maket, as incorporated in the listings shown, for example, on the _ArkivMusic_ site. I grant you that it may have been fun for those participating in the construction of the list, but as far as I'm concerned its use value is zilch.


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> In my opinion there is a good correlation between lasting popularity and quality in classical music. It would be very difficult to mount an argument to the contrary, that classical music works that remain popular over a long stretch of time are basically rubbish music.
> 
> The _ArkivMusic_ lists provide a decent list of what might be called lasting popularity because they're based on the number of recordings currently available, and hence reflect the convolution of what listeners want to hear and what musicians and the music industry want to provide in meeting that demand. Musical material that tends to go out of favour eventually gets pulled from the listings, and likewise any newer tastes tend to become represented in those lists sooner or later. As I said previously, it's not a perfect measure of popularity, but it's one of the better ones that I can think of as it's not subject to very short term fluctuations or reflective of the usually quite trashy playlists of radio station presenters etc.
> 
> As far as I know, the T-C list of solo piano works is based simply on the various works which the members like. That's all there is to it, and to pretend that it's based on anything more grandiose than popularity is, quite frankly, not persuasive. That being the case, the list being clearly based merely on the popularity of works of a small sample of people is therefore less reliable than one based on the accumulated wisdom of the whole maket, as incorporated in the listings shown, for example, on the _ArkivMusic_ site. I grant you that it may have been fun for those participating in the construction of the list, but as far as I'm concerned its use value is zilch.


You're not getting my point. I never called the moonlight rubbish but I don't know anyone that has seriously listened to all of Beethoven's sonatas that would put it above #30 or #32 unless for personal enjoyment reasons. I don't remember what the Chopin comparison was. I don't know if you can make a strong case for popularity equaling greatness to be perfectly honest...in some cases you can. But would you seriously put Jesu, Joy of a man's desiring over WTC? Would you put Moonlight sonata over the String quartets in C# minor and B-flat, or the hammerklavier? Would you really put Chopin's "Minute Waltz" over anything else he did? What about Wagner's "Wedding March" from Lohengrain or ride of the valkieries over the prelude of Tristan Und Isolde?

Maybe you would, and I'm not trying to say you aren't serious about listening to classical music, but most people who are serious about it definitely wouldn't.


----------



## Artemis

violadude said:


> You're not getting my point. I never called the moonlight rubbish but I don't know anyone that has seriously listened to all of Beethoven's sonatas that would put it above #30 or #32 unless for personal enjoyment reasons. I don't remember what the Chopin comparison was. I don't know if you can make a strong case for popularity equaling greatness to be perfectly honest...in some cases you can. But would you seriously put Jesu, Joy of a man's desiring over WTC? Would you put Moonlight sonata over the String quartets in C# minor and B-flat, or the hammerklavier? Would you really put Chopin's "Minute Waltz" over anything else he did? What about Wagner's "Wedding March" from Lohengrain or ride of the valkieries over the prelude of Tristan Und Isolde?
> 
> Maybe you would, and I'm not trying to say you aren't serious Letsabout listening to classical music, but most people who are serious about it definitely wouldn't.


I get you alright. Let's take this again.

In the list of 5 works identified a few posts above as apparently deserving ridicule because they appeared quite high on DDD's list of greatest solo piano works, was Chopin's_ Polonaise Op 53 "Heroic"_. On that list this work appears as No 9, which seemed quite a respectable rank to me, although I wouldn't quibble over its exact position give or take a few places.

When I next looked at the corresponding T-C list, I spotted to my amazement that this same work appears at No 123. I blinked, squinted, gasped, had a lie down, then visted the bathroom to make sure my eyes were still in place. When I eventually recovered from this horrible jolt, I checked again and yes it's true: No 123.

I called a couple of my relations who are deeply into classical music, told them what I had seen. They didn't believe it either. We all had a good laugh. And you know the rest ...

Come now, any list of recomended piano works that places Chopin's_ Heroic Polonaise_ at No 123, or Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_ at No 33, is going to attract criticism. These are very silly rankings, especially the first of these.

Quite apart from these prime candidates for laughter, I'm still anxious to see if anyone can respond to the request I made earlier to come on here and explain in musical terms how they can justify the rankings of the top 20 works on the TC list. I stress "in musical terms". I would like to see why are they placed in that order, and why various well known ones that appear much lower down the list (like Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_) are not included?


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> I get you alright. Let's take this again.
> 
> In the list of 5 works identified a few posts above as apparently deserving ridicule because they appeared quite high on DDD's list of greatest solo piano works, was Chopin's_ Polonaise Op 53 "Heroic"_. On that list this work appears as No 9, which seemed quite a respectable rank to me, although I wouldn't quibble over its exact position give or take a few places.
> 
> When I next looked at the corresponding T-C list, I spotted to my amazement that this same work appears at No 123. I blinked, squinted, gasped, had a lie down, then visted the bathroom to make sure my eyes were still in place. When I eventually recovered from this horrible jolt, I checked again and yes it's true: No 123.
> 
> I called a couple of my relations who are deeply into classical music, told them what I had seen. They didn't believe it either. We all had a good laugh. And you know the rest ...
> 
> Come now, any list of recomended piano works that places Chopin's_ Heroic Polonaise_ at No 123, or Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_ at No 33, is going to attract criticism. These are very silly rankings, especially the first of these.
> 
> Quite apart from these prime candidates for laughter, I'm still anxious to see if anyone can respond to the request I made earlier to come on here and explain in musical terms how they can justify the rankings of the top 20 works on the TC list. I stress "in musical terms". I would like to see why are they placed in that order, and why various well known ones that appear much lower down the list (like Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_) are not included?


I think those are reasonable rankings for those works....I would have put moonlight far lower personally. When you think about all the amazing piano pieces that are out there...Chopin's Polonaise at 123 doesn't seem so bad. Again, you're thinking too much about what is popular instead of what is great IMHO.


----------



## violadude

In short, you can't just say one work is more deserving of a higher spot and use the argument that more people know and like it so thats why it should be higher. That just doesn't fly, at least with me it doesn't.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

DM-Handel in the top 10... was very weird

Air-You are right. Handel should be in the top 8. 10 is too low.

To even question Handel in the top 10 suggests that someone really hasn't listened to much by him. I can see him as easily deserving a position in the top 5... certainly not far behind Bach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Artemis- I love Fischer-Diskeau whatever he sings, and yours is is an excellent recommendation for this work. But for _Dichterliebe_ I have to say that my favourite recording is by Fritz Wunderlich accompanied by Hubert Giesen.










I think that Fritz Wunderlich was just about the most fantastic tenor ever. Next to Schubert, Schumann is my favourite composer of lieder-style choral works.

Yes... this is one of my favorite lieder recordings as well, and you are quite right about Wunderlich. It was a great tragedy that he died so young considering his absolutely iconic performances (Haydn's Creation, The Magic Flute, as well as Schumann). His voice had what sounded like an almost effortless fluidity. I only wish he had sung more Schubert and Schumann. A _Winterreise_ would have been fabulous.


----------



## NightHawk

Marc-Andre Hamelin (of the formidable technique and artistry) was introduced by his father (also a pianist) at an 'early age', whatever age that is, to the etudes of Alkan. Hamelin has also composed and recorded a complete set of Minor Key Etudes. You probably know all of this already and I'm just wasting our time. bleeach! haha



Dodecaplex said:


> *All of you melomanes boisterously complaining about the absolutely pointless positions and rankings of Schumann and Liszt have completely forgotten to complain about the position of Charles-Valentin Morhange Alkan! A. K. A the neglected agnostic French genius!*


----------



## NightHawk

I couldn't agree more - Handel needs to be revisited or just 'visited' - there are very good reasons that he was so highly admired by Viennese composers H, M and B. IMO, one was his sense of structure and the other his bottomless well of stunning melodies (especially the andantes and slower).



StlukesguildOhio said:


> DM-Handel in the top 10... was very weird
> 
> Air-You are right. Handel should be in the top 8. 10 is too low.
> 
> To even question Handel in the top 10 suggests that someone really hasn't listened to much by him. I can see him as easily deserving a position in the top 5... certainly not far behind Bach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

DavidMahler-I truly do think that the Liszt sonata can sit next to Tristan on any musical level.

How can you compare a piano sonata with a full scale opera, especially on "on any musical level"? The latter condition renders the comparison null and void by definition since the two works have nothing in common.

There is an essay by the great Argentine writer/critic, Jorge Luis Borges in which he explores the concept of "perfection" in literature... and all the arts. He asks the question why most of the artistic works that are recognized as the most towering achievements in the "canon" appear to those which are the most epic in scale (Dante's _Comedia_, The _Bible_, _The Iliad_ and _The Odyssey_, _War and Peace_, Proust's _In Search of Lost Time_, The _Sistine Ceiling_, or _Der Ring des Nibelungen_). He asks why the perfect small artistic gem might not be seen as an equal achievement. Indeed, he continues, do we not recognize that in most epic works of art there are passages that are less brilliant... flawed even? By way of example Borges brings to the discussion Cervantes' classic novel, _Don Quixote_. _Don Quixote_ is generally acknowledged as the foundation of the modern novel and one of the greatest novels ever written, yet even the firmest champions of Cervantes will acknowledge that the novel is flawed. The most glaring flaw is Cervantes' egregious inclusion of his own poetry. It is not enough to suggest that Cervantes the poet was not on the same level as Cervantes the novelist. His poems are not merely mediocre. The are bad. Embrassingly bad. So how is it that the perfect, flawless sonnet by Petrarch, or Shakespeare, or Shelley cannot be thought as the artistic equal of _Don Giovanni_. Borges answers this by suggesting that the single flawless sonnet or short poem is not as great of an achievement for the simple obvious reason that nearly every poet of some merit achieves it at least once. There are endless examples of those minor poets whose lasting fame rests virtually upon that one perfect shining moment. But Dante's _Comedia_, the _Sistine Ceiling_, _Der Ring des Nibelungens_... _Tristan und Isolde_? Such works are built upon wealth of such shining moments. Certainly you as an individual may value Liszt's sonata or a single perfect lied by Schumann or Schubert or a melodie by Debussy or Faure as much as you value _Tristan und Isolde_ but the achievements are not on the same level. To succeed in pulling of something on the scale of _Tristan und Isolde_ or _Der Ring des Nibelungens_ or the _Sistine Ceiling_ or Proust's epic novel is something far more rare, and these achievements are built upon a wealth of moments worthy comparison with Liszt's sonata or Schumann's lied. The Prelude to _Tristan und Isolde_ might fairly stand next to Liszt's sonata.

I am not arguing that one achievement is "better" than the other. "Better" is a subjective judgment based upon personal opinions that becomes meaningless when comparing different works of unquestionable merit. One can, however, make judgments as to which achievement was more rare... more astounding... more influential... "greater". By this measure it is as ridiculous to place a mere sonata in comparison with _Tristan und Isolde_ as it is to place a single painting of sunflowers by Van Gogh in comparison with the Sistine Ceiling.


----------



## Artemis

violadude said:


> In short, you can't just say one work is more deserving of a higher spot and use the argument that more people know and like it so thats why it should be higher. That just doesn't fly, at least with me it doesn't.


 Fair enough, but I think that long term popularity (as measured, for example, by the number of alternative recordings currently available) is a better and more reliable measure of greatness than the deliberations of a relatively small group of people whose criteria for selection is anything but clear but is probably based to a large extent on their own favourites rather than any objective notions. And I doubt very much that any musical newbie would thank T-C very much for being told not to bother with Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_ until he/she has worked their way down to No 123 on the list.

I should stress that I'm not questioning the knowledge of the various members of T-C who participated in the solo piano ranking exercise. I'm more questioning the flawed nature of the exercise itself, being based on a relatively small sample of members which is not fixed in either size or composition and the long drawn out process that makes revision of earlier ranks impossible should any new members wish to join in after the start.

The methodology used in the "top 25 composers" poll was better, where members were asked to list their favourite composers on a one-off basis in a ranked order as far as possible, and where someone tallied up all the results, and then produced a ranking based on a fairly simple weighting structure. New people could join in and existing members could revise their opinions, and all it needs is for someone to re-calculate the overall results. That kind of approach is more sensible than all these long-winded polls that have occurred since that time, where voting is done on a piecemeal basis, making snail-like progress, and producing some pretty weird results in the process.

I may as well point out that I think the "music project" poll procedure and results are equally suspect, if not more so. All one has to do is look at the fact that the rankings in that list by symphony, or by opera, concerto, solo piano, to see that they are not aligned to their counterparts in the individual polls relating to each category of music separately. It may be worth noting here that in the DDD listings of greatest classical works there seems to be quite a good congruence between the ranks of each work and their counterparts in results for the individual genres of music.

Personally, as I have said before, apart from the possible "fun" aspect in their construction, I would question why people should bother looking at any of these polls from an education viewpoint when they're so riddled with statistical problems and various sorts of inconsistencies. This is especially so when all they have to do is glance at a website like _ArkivMusic_ where a little bit of research should enable all the information they could possibly require to form a list of the best works for each composer.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

DavidMahler-I for one have no problem comparing piano music and opera or symphonies and opera. If you can strip away the medium and observe a piece for it's musical content it shouldn't matter the length, the size, the orchestration...it's just music. If you cannot do that then you're hearing all the effects. Your heart and soul doesn't know an opera from a rock song, it responds to music without any of that cognition.

That is just pure nonsense. There is no pure "content" beyond the form. One of the reason that Walter Pater and many other artists, writers, etc... from the _fin de siecle_ revered music was for the very reason that in music alone are the form and content so interwoven as to be inseparable. Pater suggested that the "meaning"/content of a work of art was rather like the meaning of life itself. It does not lie in some post-experiential analysis. It is not something we arrive at at the end. The "meaning"/"content" of a work of art... like life itself... lies in the experience itself. I would suggest that in absolute opposition to your stated position, if you cannot appreciate a work of music for all all it brings: the orchestration, the scale, the length, the complexity, etc... but rather need to dissect it... seeking out some imagined "content" separate from the experience of the music itself, then perhaps it is your heart and soul that is hearing nothing but the "effects".


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

DrMike- I don't care for Schumann. That isn't a glib assessment after only a superficial survey of his works. I have listened to more than a representative summary. And I simply don't care for him. His music bores me. Wagner also tends to bore me. But who cares? I am one voice. Clearly these composers offer enough to enough people to continue their popularity more than 100 years after they shuffled off this mortal coil.

Exactly! Stravinsky (with a few exceptions) doesn't do much for me. All my experiences with James Joyce have left me cold (Give me Kafka, Faulkner, Proust, or Borges any day). But because I don't like Joyce or Stravinsky I do not need to assume that Stravinsky and Joyce are grossly overrated. They have continued to resonate with an audience as fond and as experienced of music and literature as I am, and for some reason these artists have continued to bring them pleasure where they fall short with me.


----------



## Ukko

StlukesguildOhio said:


> DavidMahler-I for one have no problem comparing piano music and opera or symphonies and opera. If you can strip away the medium and observe a piece for it's musical content it shouldn't matter the length, the size, the orchestration...it's just music. If you cannot do that then you're hearing all the effects. Your heart and soul doesn't know an opera from a rock song, it responds to music without any of that cognition.
> 
> That is just pure nonsense. There is no pure "content" beyond the form. One of the reason that Walter Pater and many other artists, writers, etc... from the _fin de siecle_ revered music was for the very reason that in music alone are the form and content so interwoven as to be inseparable. Pater suggested that the "meaning"/content of a work of art was rather like the meaning of life itself. It does not lie in some post-experiential analysis. It is not something we arrive at at the end. The "meaning"/"content" of a work of art... like life itself... lies in the experience itself. I would suggest that in absolute opposition to your stated position, if you cannot appreciate a work of music for all all it brings: the orchestration, the scale, the length, the complexity, etc... but rather need to dissect it... seeking out some imagined "content" separate from the experience of the music itself, then perhaps it is your heart and soul that is hearing nothing but the "effects".


The quotation you made from DM seems to contradict itself. That would be an odd thing to do, so probably I just don't get it. Your post, on the other hand, makes sense and I agree with its message,_ assuming that what I 'get' is the message you intended._. Language is not a perfect instrument.


----------



## Webernite

Artemis said:


> I get you alright. Let's take this again.
> 
> In the list of 5 works identified a few posts above as apparently deserving ridicule because they appeared quite high on DDD's list of greatest solo piano works, was Chopin's_ Polonaise Op 53 "Heroic"_. On that list this work appears as No 9, which seemed quite a respectable rank to me, although I wouldn't quibble over its exact position give or take a few places.
> 
> When I next looked at the corresponding T-C list, I spotted to my amazement that this same work appears at No 123. I blinked, squinted, gasped, had a lie down, then visted the bathroom to make sure my eyes were still in place. When I eventually recovered from this horrible jolt, I checked again and yes it's true: No 123.
> 
> I called a couple of my relations who are deeply into classical music, told them what I had seen. They didn't believe it either. We all had a good laugh. And you know the rest ...
> 
> Come now, any list of recomended piano works that places Chopin's_ Heroic Polonaise_ at No 123, or Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_ at No 33, is going to attract criticism. These are very silly rankings, especially the first of these.
> 
> Quite apart from these prime candidates for laughter, I'm still anxious to see if anyone can respond to the request I made earlier to come on here and explain in musical terms how they can justify the rankings of the top 20 works on the TC list. I stress "in musical terms". I would like to see why are they placed in that order, and why various well known ones that appear much lower down the list (like Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_) are not included?


Artemis, are you a statistician? 

All we've tried to do is make a list of keyboard works that'll be interesting and educational for any newbie who cares to listen to them. I don't think there's any question of the list being "accurate" or "inaccurate," or statistically valid. What would "accuracy" mean in this context? There's been no pretence that it's an objective list of greatest works. As for usefulness, I think the DDD list may be useful to somebody who has absolutely no prior knowledge of classical music. Our list is for newbies who are a bit more advanced that, people who do not simply want to be told what Beethoven's and Chopin's greatest hits are...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Lisztian- 2. Années de pèlerinage: This is where I REALLY have a problem. At 69? I think that is an absolute disgrace. Looking at all the cycles in front of it, from the Chopin and Debussy preludes, to the Schumann cycles, I don't think you can legitimately say ANY of these are greater than the Années de pèlerinage

Yes!!! I just "discovered" this cycle recently myself and immediately wondered "How the f*** have I not come upon this before?!!" Such a range form the seriously dramatic to the most subtly atmospheric... suggestive of what Debussy and later composers will be doing quite a bit later. I'm thankful for the fact that this "Liszt-year" has brought a great deal of his works out of the shadows.

I'm seriously tempted to pick up that big Liszt box set. 34 discs for something like $55... on DG, no less!!!


----------



## Artemis

Webernite said:


> Artemis, are you a statistician?
> 
> All we've tried to do is make a list of keyboard works that'll be interesting and educational for any newbie who cares to listen to them. I don't think there's any question of the list being "accurate" or "inaccurate," or statistically valid. What would "accuracy" mean in this context? There's been no pretence that it's an objective list of greatest works. As for usefulness, I think the DDD list may be useful to somebody who has absolutely no prior knowledge of classical music. Our list is for newbies who are a bit more advanced that, people who do not simply want to be told what Beethoven's and Chopin's greatest hits are...


I don't think that the T-C list is any better than the DDD list, whether we're talking about from the viewpoint of complete newbies or those further advanced in their knowledge of classical music. In my opinion, as someone who is very familiar with the piano repertoire, I would say that the DDD list is superior. That is also the opinion of several of my friends/relatives I have consulted today about all this who are also well acquainted with classical music.

I don't know where you got the idea from the DDD listings are merely random lists of what's available. That is clearly not the case. They're far better than that. As I commented earlier, among the 5 works singled out for apparent ridicule earlier today, the DDD rankings make far more sense than the T-C ones which actually seem perverse.


----------



## Webernite

The DDD list is superior _in what sense_?


----------



## Webernite

And now you're going to say: "Because it's a more accurate list of the most well-known works." Which is to continue missing the point.


----------



## Artemis

Webernite said:


> And now you're going to say: "Because it's a more accurate list of the most well-known works." Which is to continue missing the point.


I thought that I had explained my viewpoint very clearly. What you have said above by way of attempted summary of my views is a gross distortion. May I suggest that you read again what wrote again and possibly try harder next time. The only clues I'll give you are: (i) dodgy statistical procedures, (ii) market-driven data is better than the opinions of a self-selecting, small and variable sample of anonymous pundits.

OK so you've produced a long list of so-called recommended solo piano works, which nobody actually asked for. You've presented it as a bit of fun and not to be taken all that seriously. Then one of your contributors decides to start knocking some other website's list of similar works, suggesting it's not objective like the T-C list. I'm now telling that in my opinion I think the T-C list is not worth looking at. I don't find it remotetly useful, as I don't trust any aspect of it. I'm criticising the methodology and results, not the people who constructed it.

In the meantime, further to my earlier invitation, perhaps somebody could explain how far they believe the specific rankings of the identified top 20 solo piano works, and then attempt to justify their views by setting out the musical properties they were looking for and how each individual piece measures up against those considerations. In so doing, I would like to know why Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_ fell way below the relevant criteria to achieve a lowly ranking of No 123.

Any musicologists out who maybe paying attention to this thread might be interested to hear about this. I sure would. Any volunteers?


----------



## Ukko

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Lisztian- 2. Années de pèlerinage: This is where I REALLY have a problem. At 69? I think that is an absolute disgrace. Looking at all the cycles in front of it, from the Chopin and Debussy preludes, to the Schumann cycles, I don't think you can legitimately say ANY of these are greater than the Années de pèlerinage
> 
> Yes!!! I just "discovered" this cycle recently myself and immediately wondered "How the f*** have I not come upon this before?!!" Such a range form the seriously dramatic to the most subtly atmospheric... suggestive of what Debussy and later composers will be doing quite a bit later. I'm thankful for the fact that this "Liszt-year" has brought a great deal of his works out of the shadows.
> [...]


I had no idea that collection was 'in the shadows'. Anyway, in the context of this list, how can a _collection_ of pieces, actually more like 3½ collections, composed over an extended time period, be part of a ranking list of works? Isn't that something like considering Scarlatti's sonatas as one work? After all, Kirkpatrick did assemble them, sort of.


----------



## tdc

Artemis said:


> I thought that I had explained my viewpoint very clearly. What you have said above by way of attempted summary of my views is a gross distortion. May I suggest that you read again what wrote again and possibly try harder next time. The only clues I'll give you are: (i) dodgy statistical procedures, (ii) market-driven data is better than the opinions of a self-selecting, small and variable sample of anonymous pundits.
> 
> OK so you've produced a long list of so-called recommended solo piano works, which nobody actually asked for. You've presented it as a bit of fun and not to be taken all that seriously. Then one of your contributors decides to start knocking some other website's list of similar works, suggesting it's not objective like the T-C list. I'm now telling that in my opinion I think the T-C list is not worth looking at. I don't find it remotetly useful, as I don't trust any aspect of it. I'm criticising the methodology and results, not the people who constructed it.
> 
> In the meantime, further to my earlier invitation, perhaps somebody could explain how far they believe the specific rankings of the identified top 20 solo piano works, and then attempt to justify their views by setting out the musical properties they were looking for and how each individual piece measures up against those considerations. In so doing, I would like to know why Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_ fell way below the relevant criteria to achieve a lowly ranking of No 123.
> 
> Any musicologists out who maybe paying attention to this thread might be interested to hear about this. I sure would. Any volunteers?


My word, not since the days of forum member Toccata have I seen someone go to such lengths to prove these TC lists aren't very scientific...seems like an awful lot of effort to point out something nobody was really arguing about in the first place...As far as pjang23's observation, I think it does point out an obvious flaw about DDD lists.

BUT as far as how helpful these lists are, for me personally the TC lists are very helpful because they allow me to interact with many people with similar musical tastes, and exchange ideas and suggestions in the process - its a lot of fun, and in the end we get a most helpful finished product that reflects the unique tastes of our little group - not necessarily what is currently being marketed the most by the music industry. Secondly, the TC lists give me a good idea as to the opinions of people who have likely heard all the most popular pieces a million times and are eager to suggest something else - this to me is incredibly helpful in expanding my familiarity beyond the most well known works. Many of the best pieces of music I've encountered are in these 'other' selections. Finally - I don't understand what is so helpful about the DDD lists if I can already find most of those suggestions by simply buying a few 'greatest hits' classical compilation recordings, something the vast majority of members have already become familiarized with to some extent before posting on this forum.

Like a point St. Luke made earlier in this thread in regards to music and life itself, a huge part of the value of these lists can be found in the process of compiling the lists themselves, rather than just pointing out all the flaws in the finished product, which lets face it can easily be done with any such list.


----------



## pjang23

Artemis said:


> When I next looked at the corresponding T-C list, I spotted to my amazement that this same work appears at No 123. I blinked, squinted, gasped, had a lie down, then visted the bathroom to make sure my eyes were still in place. When I eventually recovered from this horrible jolt, I checked again and yes it's true: No 123.
> 
> I called a couple of my relations who are deeply into classical music, told them what I had seen. They didn't believe it either. We all had a good laugh. And you know the rest ...
> 
> Come now, any list of recomended piano works that places Chopin's_ Heroic Polonaise_ at No 123, or Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_ at No 33, is going to attract criticism. These are very silly rankings, especially the first of these.
> 
> Quite apart from these prime candidates for laughter, I'm still anxious to see if anyone can respond to the request I made earlier to come on here and explain in musical terms how they can justify the rankings of the top 20 works on the TC list. I stress "in musical terms". I would like to see why are they placed in that order, and why various well known ones that appear much lower down the list (like Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_) are not included?


I'll respond to that when you can justify why Chopin's Ballade No.4 (finished at #41) and Beethoven's Sonata No.30 (finished at #52) --some of the most respected works of their respective composers--are vastly inferior works to Heroic Polonaise and Moonlight Sonata. I'm not doing this to say our own list is superior, but that the DDD list is no gold standard by any means.

As Webernite said, the *respect* that a work receives is more important than how famous or popular it is when making objective assessments. Otherwise, you'd be content to say Pachelbel's Canon is greater than Bach's Mass in B minor.


----------



## HexameronVI

In my own opinion, Shumann is not above Chopin...(then again, I do rank Chopin higher than others do). But I agree, he is underrated. His Symphonic Etudes are simply amazing.


----------



## Artemis

Hilltroll72 said:


> I had no idea that collection was 'in the shadows'. Anyway, in the context of this list, how can a _collection_ of pieces, actually more like 3½ collections, composed over an extended time period, be part of a ranking list of works? Isn't that something like considering Scarlatti's sonatas as one work? After all, Kirkpatrick did assemble them, sort of.


You're right of course. Just another example of how dubious this list is (no pun intended). Liszt's Années de pèlerinage (Years of Pilgrimage) are a motley collection of works composed over the period 1837-1877, and are grouped into three separate "S" numbers (S160, 161,163) corresponding with his time spent travelling around Switzerland, Italy, and sundry areas. To lump them all together as a single recommended work is questionable, but that's what they did on (surprise, surprise) the DDD site. In fact, the DDD rank is 70. I would have ranked these works higher than 69. I can't imagine what they must have been thinking about. I mean, just look for example at the item with rank No 40: Debussy's _Childrens Corner_. I ask you!


----------



## Trout

I think the 'ranking' aspect is being taken too seriously. Any piece that made the top 200 keyboard pieces (or any of our lists for that matter) mean a great deal to the members here, myself included. Placing the Heroic Polonaise at no 123 does not make it any less of a great work that it would have been otherwise.

This is kind of what I dislike about people thinking that "X is such a great piece that it must be in the top 5/10/20/etc." Just because X is great does not mean it is the _only_ great piece out there.


----------



## DavidMahler

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Lisztian- 2. Années de pèlerinage: This is where I REALLY have a problem. At 69? I think that is an absolute disgrace. Looking at all the cycles in front of it, from the Chopin and Debussy preludes, to the Schumann cycles, I don't think you can legitimately say ANY of these are greater than the Années de pèlerinage
> 
> Yes!!! I just "discovered" this cycle recently myself and immediately wondered "How the f*** have I not come upon this before?!!" Such a range form the seriously dramatic to the most subtly atmospheric... suggestive of what Debussy and later composers will be doing quite a bit later. I'm thankful for the fact that this "Liszt-year" has brought a great deal of his works out of the shadows.
> 
> I'm seriously tempted to pick up that big Liszt box set. 34 discs for something like $55... on DG, no less!!!


Années de pèlerinage is a great collection of works, but I think the reason is further back is because of its inconsistency. It doesn't typically get listened to as a complete work either. Each book has some well respected moments. The third book is considered way inferior to the first two. But as total works, I think the Années de pèlerinage is pretty spot on where it sits on the list. The Italian book is my favorite.


----------



## Webernite

Artemis said:


> I thought that I had explained my viewpoint very clearly. What you have said above by way of attempted summary of my views is a gross distortion. May I suggest that you read again what wrote again and possibly try harder next time. The only clues I'll give you are: (i) dodgy statistical procedures, (ii) market-driven data is better than the opinions of a self-selecting, small and variable sample of anonymous pundits.
> 
> OK so you've produced a long list of so-called recommended solo piano works, which nobody actually asked for. You've presented it as a bit of fun and not to be taken all that seriously. Then one of your contributors decides to start knocking some other website's list of similar works, suggesting it's not objective like the T-C list. I'm now telling that in my opinion I think the T-C list is not worth looking at. I don't find it remotetly useful, as I don't trust any aspect of it. I'm criticising the methodology and results, not the people who constructed it.
> 
> In the meantime, further to my earlier invitation, perhaps somebody could explain how far they believe the specific rankings of the identified top 20 solo piano works, and then attempt to justify their views by setting out the musical properties they were looking for and how each individual piece measures up against those considerations. In so doing, I would like to know why Chopin's _Heroic Polonaise_ fell way below the relevant criteria to achieve a lowly ranking of No 123.
> 
> Any musicologists out who maybe paying attention to this thread might be interested to hear about this. I sure would. Any volunteers?


The person who knocked the DDD list didn't say anything about TC's own list. You were the one who first tried to draw a comparison between the two, and in fact you were the first person to mention DDD.

There's no contradiction in my saying: "DDD's list does not accurately reflect critical opinion" and "TC's list makes no attempt to accurately reflect anything." Both of these statements are true. I doubt whether there's a critic alive who thinks that the _Moonlight_ Sonata is the fourth greatest keyboard work in history, or that Fur Elise is superior to the majority of Beethoven's sonatas, or any of the other absurdities that DDD tells us.

It's meaningless to complain about "dodgy statistical procedures" when nobody is drawing any conclusions from the data collected. You say you don't "trust" TC's list as if that meant something, but what does it mean? The list isn't a statistical statement to be trusted or distrusted. It's just a series of recommendations.

Nobody's going to come forward and tell you why they didn't vote for Chopin's Heroic Polonaise, because (obviously) they voted using their instincts and not using criteria that can be written down.


----------



## tdc

Artemis said:


> Next came Ravel at 11 entries,


I wish. Ravel actually only (currently) has 6 entries in the Classical Music Project.


----------



## Webernite

I don't mean to be argumentative or hostile. But, Artemis, you do seem to be making an incredible amount of fuss about nothing.


----------



## DavidMahler

StlukesguildOhio said:


> DavidMahler-I for one have no problem comparing piano music and opera or symphonies and opera. If you can strip away the medium and observe a piece for it's musical content it shouldn't matter the length, the size, the orchestration...it's just music. If you cannot do that then you're hearing all the effects. Your heart and soul doesn't know an opera from a rock song, it responds to music without any of that cognition.
> 
> That is just pure nonsense. There is no pure "content" beyond the form. One of the reason that Walter Pater and many other artists, writers, etc... from the _fin de siecle_ revered music was for the very reason that in music alone are the form and content so interwoven as to be inseparable. Pater suggested that the "meaning"/content of a work of art was rather like the meaning of life itself. It does not lie in some post-experiential analysis. It is not something we arrive at at the end. The "meaning"/"content" of a work of art... like life itself... lies in the experience itself. I would suggest that in absolute opposition to your stated position, if you cannot appreciate a work of music for all all it brings: the orchestration, the scale, the length, the complexity, etc... but rather need to dissect it... seeking out some imagined "content" separate from the experience of the music itself, then perhaps it is your heart and soul that is hearing nothing but the "effects".


can you not hear anything and orchestrate within your own mind? I am able to hear anything, know exactly what chords and melodic lines are being played. I don't care that much how things are orchestrated. When I hear music I automatically identify with the core. If the ideas are boring, you can't orchestrate it to please me. And I don't think there's any ideas within orchestration that make up for a boring core idea.

One of the reasons I think Handel is not as brilliant as Bach is that his core ideas were boring by comparison.

if you can sense what's actually there and not the violins and oboes, and recitative, or glissandos......

you can easily compare Parsifal to the Liebstraum, you can easily compare St Matthew Passion to Sgt Pepper....

It's music.


----------



## Lisztian

DavidMahler said:


> Années de pèlerinage is a great collection of works, but I think the reason is further back is because of its inconsistency. It doesn't typically get listened to as a complete work either. Each book has some well respected moments. The third book is considered way inferior to the first two. But as total works, I think the Années de pèlerinage is pretty spot on where it sits on the list. The Italian book is my favorite.


Respectfully disagree, and can't be bothered arguing about it  But I must say I disagree about the third book being way inferior...I used to think so too, but lately I have realised it is no less remarkable...an acquired taste I guess.


----------



## Artemis

pjang23 said:


> I'll respond to that when you can justify why Chopin's Ballade No.4 (finished at #41) and Beethoven's Sonata No.30 (finished at #52) --some of the most respected works of their respective composers--are vastly inferior works to Heroic Polonaise and Moonlight Sonata. I'm not doing this to say our own list is superior, but that the DDD list is no gold standard by any means.
> 
> As Webernite said, the *respect* that a work receives is more important than how famous or popular it is when making objective assessments. Otherwise, you'd be content to say Pachelbel's Canon is greater than Bach's Mass in B minor.


I will gladly attempt to answer your question.

*First of all Chopin*

Most people would probably agree that Ballades 1, 3, 4 are the three most highly regarded of the 4. Indeed, these are the three that are identified in both the T-C and DDD lists. No 2 is not listed. Remember that the DDD list only goes up to 140, whereas the T-C list goes up to 190 at the latest count.

Which of these three Ballades (1, 3 or 4) is "best" or "greatest" in some sense is purely a matter of personal taste. Personally, I like them in the order 1, 4, 3, but I realise that opinions differ.

The T-C ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 105, Ballade 4 = 8.

The DDD ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 42, Ballade 4 = 41.

It so happens that there is hardly anything to choose between the number of listings (ie number of separate recordings) for each of these three Ballades works on the ArkivMusic site.

Looking at these ranks, the average rank given by T-C is 51. For the DDD list, the average rank is 32. Hence DDD's ranking shows a higher overall rating and they show far more consistency with respect to the listings on the ArkivMusic site. As I have noted before, these listings provide a measure of long term popularity. Note also that the T-C rank for Ballade No 3 is way out of line with any kind of realistic figure. It looks like a real rogue.

*Second the Beethoven** Piano Sonatas*

As most classical fans already know, and hardly need telliing, the best sonatas are Nos 8, 14, 21, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32 (not in order of merit).

The T-C ranks are: 26, 33, 21, 11, 2, 14, 24, 3 respectively.

The DDD ranks are: 18, 4, 12, 1, 16, 52, 35, 11 respectively.

The average rank of the DDD set is 19, and 17 for the T-C set so there is little overall difference. However, carrying out a correlation test of each of these set of ranks with the corresponding number of listings on the ArkivMusik site, we get a negative correlation for the DDD listings of -.55, and a positive correlation of +0.50 for the T-C listings.

This correlation test result means that that the more popular a work is as shown on the ArkivMusic site the lower is the rank (on average) given by T-C, but the reverse is the case with the DDD ranks which shows that the more popular a work is the higher its rank (again on average). The DDD results obviously make more sense.

*Conclusion*s

(i) It seems to me that the DDD listings are far more sensible than the T-C listings for the Chopin works, since (a) they manifest far greater consistency of ranks given their relative standing in the ArkivMusic listings, and (b) the DDD ranks give Chopin's (three) Ballades overall a higher weight.

(ii) Similarly, for the most famous of Beethoven's sonatas, the DDD ranks are much better because they show a much greater degree of consistency with respect to long term popularity, as indicated by the ArkivMusic listings, and hence gretaness insofar that this concept can be measured.

(iii) All in all, I think the DDD results are for more useful and justifiable than those on the the T-C list, as regards the rankings of these works at least.


----------



## Artemis

Webernite said:


> I don't mean to be argumentative or hostile. But, Artemis, you do seem to be making an incredible amount of fuss about nothing.


I'm merely trying to deal with several dubious statements put out by you and others in an attempt to justify some of the spurious results that the exercise you have been involved has generated.

As I have said, you can't necessarily expect everyone to congratulate you on an exercise which some of us (although I seem to be the only one at the present time) think is highly questionable. I'm trying to explain in terms why I consider the analysis to be defective, rather than merely rely upon upon blather.

If you have any problems with my "style", may I suggest you stop talking about it openly on the Board like this, and take it up with a moderator.


----------



## pjang23

Artemis said:


> I will gladly attempt to answer your question.
> 
> *First of all Chopin*
> 
> Most people would probably agree that Ballades 1, 3, 4 are the three most highly regarded of the 4. Indeed, these are the three that are identified in both the T-C and DDD lists. No 2 is not listed. Remember that the DDD list only goes up to 140, whereas the T-C list goes up to 190 at the latest count.
> 
> Which of these three Ballades (1, 3 or 4) is "best" or "greatest" in some sense is purely a matter of personal taste. Personally, I like them in the order 1, 4, 3, but I realise that opinions differ.
> 
> The T-C ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 105, Ballade 4 = 8.
> 
> The DDD ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 42, Ballade 4 = 41.
> 
> It so happens that there is hardly anything to choose between the number of listings (ie number of separate recordings) for each of these three Ballades works on the ArkivMusic site.
> 
> Looking at these ranks, the average rank given by T-C is 51. For the DDD list, the average rank is 32. Hence DDD's ranking shows a higher overall rating and they show far more consistency with respect to the listings on the ArkivMusic site. As I have noted before, these listings provide a measure of long term popularity. Note also that the T-C rank for Ballade No 3 is way out of line with any kind of realistic figure. It looks like a real rogue.
> 
> *Second the Beethoven** Piano Sonatas*
> 
> As most classical fans already know, and hardly need telliing, the best sonatas are Nos 8, 14, 21, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32 (not in order of merit).
> 
> The T-C ranks are: 26, 33, 21, 11, 2, 14, 24, 3 respectively.
> 
> The DDD ranks are: 18, 4, 12, 1, 16, 52, 35, 11 respectively.
> 
> The average rank of the DDD set is 19, and 17 for the T-C set so there is little overall difference. However, carrying out a correlation test of each of these set of ranks with the corresponding number of listings on the ArkivMusik site, we get a negative correlation for the DDD listings of -.55, and a positive correlation of +0.50 for the T-C listings.
> 
> This correlation test result means that that the more popular a work is as shown on the ArkivMusic site the lower is the rank (on average) given by T-C, but the reverse is the case with the DDD ranks which shows that the more popular a work is the higher its rank (again on average). The DDD results obviously make more sense.
> 
> *Conclusion*s
> 
> (i) It seems to me that the DDD listings are far more sensible than the T-C listings for the Chopin works, since (a) they manifest far greater consistency of ranks given their relative standing in the ArkivMusic listings, and (b) the DDD ranks give Chopin's (three) Ballades overall a higher weight.
> 
> (ii) Similarly, for the most famous of Beethoven's sonatas, the DDD ranks are much better because they show a much greater degree of consistency with respect to long term popularity, as indicated by the ArkivMusic listings, and hence gretaness insofar that this concept can be measured.
> 
> (iii) All in all, I think the DDD results are for more useful and justifiable than those on the the T-C list, as regards the rankings of these works at least.


Except that your rankings place equal weight on each ballade and sonata. The fourth is easily the most respected ballade, and Pathetique and Moonlight are not considered in the league of the last five sonatas. I'm a statistician as well, btw.


----------



## Trout

Artemis said:


> I will gladly attempt to answer your question.
> 
> *First of all Chopin*
> 
> Most people would probably agree that Ballades 1, 3, 4 are the three most highly regarded of the 4. Indeed, these are the three that are identified in both the T-C and DDD lists. No 2 is not listed. Remember that the DDD list only goes up to 140, whereas the T-C list goes up to 190 at the latest count.
> 
> Which of these three Ballades (1, 3 or 4) is "best" or "greatest" in some sense is purely a matter of personal taste. Personally, I like them in the order 1, 4, 3, but I realise that opinions differ.
> 
> The T-C ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 105, Ballade 4 = 8.
> 
> The DDD ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 42, Ballade 4 = 41.
> 
> It so happens that there is hardly anything to choose between the number of listings (ie number of separate recordings) for each of these three Ballades works on the ArkivMusic site.
> 
> Looking at these ranks, the average rank given by T-C is 51. For the DDD list, the average rank is 32. Hence DDD's ranking shows a higher overall rating and they show far more consistency with respect to the listings on the ArkivMusic site. As I have noted before, these listings provide a measure of long term popularity. Note also that the T-C rank for Ballade No 3 is way out of line with any kind of realistic figure. It looks like a real rogue.
> 
> *Second the Beethoven** Piano Sonatas*
> 
> As most classical fans already know, and hardly need telliing, the best sonatas are Nos 8, 14, 21, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32 (not in order of merit).
> 
> The T-C ranks are: 26, 33, 21, 11, 2, 14, 24, 3 respectively.
> 
> The DDD ranks are: 18, 4, 12, 1, 16, 52, 35, 11 respectively.
> 
> The average rank of the DDD set is 19, and 17 for the T-C set so there is little overall difference. However, carrying out a correlation test of each of these set of ranks with the corresponding number of listings on the ArkivMusik site, we get a negative correlation for the DDD listings of -.55, and a positive correlation of +0.50 for the T-C listings.
> 
> This correlation test result means that that the more popular a work is as shown on the ArkivMusic site the lower is the rank (on average) given by T-C, but the reverse is the case with the DDD ranks which shows that the more popular a work is the higher its rank (again on average). The DDD results obviously make more sense.
> 
> *Conclusion*s
> 
> (i) It seems to me that the DDD listings are far more sensible than the T-C listings for the Chopin works, since (a) they manifest far greater consistency of ranks given their relative standing in the ArkivMusic listings, and (b) the DDD ranks give Chopin's (three) Ballades overall a higher weight.
> 
> (ii) Similarly, for the most famous of Beethoven's sonatas, the DDD ranks are much better because they show a much greater degree of consistency with respect to long term popularity, as indicated by the ArkivMusic listings, and hence gretaness insofar that this concept can be measured.
> 
> (iii) All in all, I think the DDD results are for more useful and justifiable than those on the the T-C list, as regards the rankings of these works at least.


Does that mean any list that does not follow ArkivMusic is nonsensible?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I had no idea that collection was 'in the shadows'. Anyway, in the context of this list, how can a collection of pieces, actually more like 3½ collections, composed over an extended time period, be part of a ranking list of works? Isn't that something like considering Scarlatti's sonatas as one work? After all, Kirkpatrick did assemble them, sort of.

But isn't this true of any number of artistic "collections" or "suites"? Petrarch's sonnets or _Canzoniere_ were collected over decades. The same is true of Baudelaire's _Les Fleurs du Mal_, and Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_. Strauss _Four Last Songs_ were not composed as a single suite of songs. Neither were Chopin's _Nocturnes_. The Well-Tempered Clavier is thought of as a single work in spite of the fact that part two was published 20 years after part one. Bach collected and recycled a number of the preludes and fugues from earlier sources.


----------



## Oskaar

I am quite surprised by the interrest the anti list people have in list. 

The people that participate in lists and listmaking, and recommendationn threads see the dynamic an purpose of each list. I think everyone also see the weekness of the result when only a few people participate. But we take it for what it is! 5 people getting it spinning, can make an interresting list! It is a process, an it is fun to make, and that is a value in itself.

I have no respect at all of people , not contributing, coming afterwards, complaining about results. 

This is a forum of people that love classical music. We are all different, and have differents ways too contribute and express ourselfe in here. Then you have variations! And I think that is good. Artemis complains, and complains. Maybe he contributes somewhere, but I have not seen it yet. 

Internet is a great place to multiply the interrest of every subject. We have the chance in here. Then it is sad too see people just glue their *** to the ground and say: I dont like this, because it is not suiting my taste and oppinion. Then I advice you to shut up, and let other initiatives florish.

But I have found out that these peple ignore posts challenging their views. Or challenging their negativism.


----------



## Webernite

Artemis said:


> I will gladly attempt to answer your question.
> 
> *First of all Chopin*
> 
> Most people would probably agree that Ballades 1, 3, 4 are the three most highly regarded of the 4. Indeed, these are the three that are identified in both the T-C and DDD lists. No 2 is not listed. Remember that the DDD list only goes up to 140, whereas the T-C list goes up to 190 at the latest count.
> 
> Which of these three Ballades (1, 3 or 4) is "best" or "greatest" in some sense is purely a matter of personal taste. Personally, I like them in the order 1, 4, 3, but I realise that opinions differ.
> 
> The T-C ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 105, Ballade 4 = 8.
> 
> The DDD ranks are Ballade 1 = 41, Ballade 3 = 42, Ballade 4 = 41.
> 
> It so happens that there is hardly anything to choose between the number of listings (ie number of separate recordings) for each of these three Ballades works on the ArkivMusic site.
> 
> Looking at these ranks, the average rank given by T-C is 51. For the DDD list, the average rank is 32. Hence DDD's ranking shows a higher overall rating and they show far more consistency with respect to the listings on the ArkivMusic site. As I have noted before, these listings provide a measure of long term popularity. Note also that the T-C rank for Ballade No 3 is way out of line with any kind of realistic figure. It looks like a real rogue.
> 
> *Second the Beethoven** Piano Sonatas*
> 
> As most classical fans already know, and hardly need telliing, the best sonatas are Nos 8, 14, 21, 29, 29, 30, 31, 32 (not in order of merit).
> 
> The T-C ranks are: 26, 33, 21, 11, 2, 14, 24, 3 respectively.
> 
> The DDD ranks are: 18, 4, 12, 1, 16, 52, 35, 11 respectively.
> 
> The average rank of the DDD set is 19, and 17 for the T-C set so there is little overall difference. However, carrying out a correlation test of each of these set of ranks with the corresponding number of listings on the ArkivMusik site, we get a negative correlation for the DDD listings of -.55, and a positive correlation of +0.50 for the T-C listings.
> 
> This correlation test result means that that the more popular a work is as shown on the ArkivMusic site the lower is the rank (on average) given by T-C, but the reverse is the case with the DDD ranks which shows that the more popular a work is the higher its rank (again on average). The DDD results obviously make more sense.
> 
> *Conclusion*s
> 
> (i) It seems to me that the DDD listings are far more sensible than the T-C listings for the Chopin works, since (a) they manifest far greater consistency of ranks given their relative standing in the ArkivMusic listings, and (b) the DDD ranks give Chopin's (three) Ballades overall a higher weight.
> 
> (ii) Similarly, for the most famous of Beethoven's sonatas, the DDD ranks are much better because they show a much greater degree of consistency with respect to long term popularity, as indicated by the ArkivMusic listings, and hence gretaness insofar that this concept can be measured.
> 
> (iii) All in all, I think the DDD results are for more useful and justifiable than those on the the T-C list, as regards the rankings of these works at least.


The assumption behind all this seems to be that any list that doesn't match up with ArkivMusic is useless and unjustifiable, whatever that means.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Moonlight Sonata at #4 !  
  Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> Fair enough, but I think that long term popularity (as measured, for example, by the number of alternative recordings currently available) is a better and more reliable measure of greatness than the deliberations of a relatively small group of people whose criteria for selection is anything but clear but is probably based to a large extent on their own favourites rather than any objective notions.


I respectfully disagree greatly. I think when you get 10-15 very intelligent and knowledgable people (like we have on TC) putting together a list of great works, you are far more likely to get an accurate ranking of the "best of the best" so to speak, than if you made a list based on mass market sales. The masses are in general easily fooled sheep and dum dums.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

can you not hear anything and orchestrate within your own mind? I am able to hear anything, know exactly what chords and melodic lines are being played. I don't care that much how things are orchestrated. When I hear music I automatically identify with the core. If the ideas are boring, you can't orchestrate it to please me.

Again, that is nonsense. The "ideas" or "content" lies within the music as it is... not as some separate entity that can be analyzed apart from the music. The experience of a painting doesn't lie within some analysis of the subject matter and the formal composition... it lies within the whole of how the work was realized... in the color, and scale, and texture, and line, etc... More than one critic has pointed out that the core "idea" of the majority of Shakespeare's sonnets can be reduced to "When I think of you, I feel blue." What makes these great works of literature is how they were "orchestrated": the choice of exact wording and vocabulary. The rhythm or meter. The formal flow. The same is true of a work of music. The experience of a work of music is wholly dependent upon how it sounds... and this sound is constructed of the notes played, the orchestration, the dynamics, the subtle inflections. I don't care how brilliantly someone might argue that a work of music is structured... how profound the ideas behind it are if it doesn't sound good... if this doesn't come through upon listening, it is meaningless.


----------



## Artemis

tdc said:


> I wish. Ravel actually only (currently) has 6 entries in the Classical Music Project.


You are correct and I apologise for my error.

I think you will find that the following results are correct, based on the works as listed in the "music project".

The numbers after each composer's name show number of works listed in the "music project" set of 304, eg Schumann got 9 works listed, which gave him 7th place based on the number of points scored as derived from a simple weighting system based on a declining set of points from the top position.

1. Beethoven 24 
2. Bach 24 
3. Mozart 23 
4. Brahms 14 
5. Schubert 14 
6. Mahler 10 
7. Schumann 9 
8. Haydn 8 
9. Debussy 7 
10. Mendelssohn 7 
11. Tchaikovsky 7 
12. Chopin 6 
13. Ravel 6 
14. Prokofiev 5 
15. Wagner 5 
16. Shostakovich 5 
17. Dvorak 5 
18. Verdi 5 
19. Rachmaninoff 5 
20. Strauss R 0 5 
21. Bruckner 4 
22. Handel 4 
23. Stravinsky 4 
24. Monteverdi 3 
25. Sibelius 4

....

NB: On the whole the results are not too surprising. Wagner's low rank arises mainly because the "Ring" counts as one work. Handel's low rank looks like a rogue, and would seem to need a few more works added to bring him to a top 10 position.

For anyone who may be interested, I bribed my nephew to do the numbers for this and other statistical calculations on his computer. He is the son of my brother (ex member "Topaz") who has helped me out on all this and other statistical-related material in this thread.


----------



## Artemis

violadude said:


> I respectfully disagree greatly. I think when you get 10-15 very intelligent and knowledgable people (like we have on TC) putting together a list of great works, you are far more likely to get an accurate ranking of the "best of the best" so to speak, than if you made a list based on mass market sales. The masses are in general easily fooled sheep and dum dums.


Quite frankly, words fail me. I am astonished to the hilt. I'm gonna cry all night now. Only joking. Sleep tight, I've had enough.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Dodecaplex said:


> Moonlight Sonata at #4 !
> Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!


Why? Because you personally don't like it? (Irrelevant). Because you have heard it far too many times? (Irrelevant) Because it is well known and popular with an audience less experienced in music? (irrelevant) Because you would choose something less "obvious" that would communicate your own greater musical sophistication to others? (Pretentious)

Popularity is no measure of artistic merit... for or against. At least this is true at the time of creation. The immense popularity of the Harry Potter novels are no guarantee that they will survive and be recognized as "classic" a century from now. But neither is it a guarantee that it won't. When a work of art continues to resonate with a large audience over the passage of decades and even centuries... including well-informed audience of critics and subsequent artists... one comes to suspect that there must be some real merit involved... in spite of our own personal preferences.


----------



## violadude

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why? Because you personally don't like it? (Irrelevant). Because you have heard it far too many times? (Irrelevant) Because it is well known and popular with an audience less experienced in music? (irrelevant) Because you would choose something less "obvious" that would communicate your own greater musical sophistication to others? (Pretentious)
> 
> Popularity is no measure of artistic merit... for or against. At least this is true at the time of creation. The immense popularity of the Harry Potter novels are no guarantee that they will survive and be recognized as "classic" a century from now. But neither is it a guarantee that it won't. When a work of art continues to resonate with a large audience over the passage of decades and even centuries... including well-informed audience of critics and subsequent artists... one comes to suspect that there must be some real merit involved... in spite of our own personal preferences.


Oh c'mon....yes it is a good work but would you seriously rank it #4 out of every single piano piece ever written? Even Beethoven was baffled at its popularity!


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> Quite frankly, words fail me. I am astonished to the hilt. I'm gonna cry all night now. Only joking. Sleep tight, I've had enough.


Why? If you looked at the mass market sales of food, you might come the conclusion that McDonalds was the most quality food out there...why would music be any different?


----------



## Ukko

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I had no idea that collection was 'in the shadows'. Anyway, in the context of this list, how can a collection of pieces, actually more like 3½ collections, composed over an extended time period, be part of a ranking list of works? Isn't that something like considering Scarlatti's sonatas as one work? After all, Kirkpatrick did assemble them, sort of.
> 
> But isn't this true of any number of artistic "collections" or "suites"? Petrarch's sonnets or _Canzoniere_ were collected over decades. The same is true of Baudelaire's _Les Fleurs du Mal_, and Whitman's _Leaves of Grass_. Strauss _Four Last Songs_ were not composed as a single suite of songs. Neither were Chopin's _Nocturnes_. The Well-Tempered Clavier is thought of as a single work in spite of the fact that part two was published 20 years after part one. Bach collected and recycled a number of the preludes and fugues from earlier sources.


Yep. Is why this ranking thing should consider the books of the WTC separately (the individual pieces were modified for the purpose of the 'book', weren't they? Is that a mitigating factor?), and the pieces in collections separately.

Unless, of course it's a ranking of collections, in which case I would rank the 'Years of Pilgrimage' pretty high. If I were going to do rankings, that is. Aside from having the appearance of the 'molehill into mountain' cliche, I understand _Artemis_'s wish for increased solidity in the criteria.


----------



## Air

We all agree that Bach is one of the greatest keyboard composers, no? And that besides Bach, Scarlatti is a major keyboard composer in the Baroque Era that deserves ample representation?

Well, let's take a look at the Bach works TC nominated, first. Keep in mind that we intentionally excluded the Art of the Fugue and the Musical Offering from our list because of the controversy over instrumentation.

1. The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846-893
5. Goldberg Variations, BWV 988
13. Partitas, BWV 825-830
28. English Suites, BWV 806-811
44. French Suites, BWV 812-817
57. Italian Concerto, BWV 971
63. Toccata in C minor, BWV 911
74. Overture in the French Style, BWV 831
91. Inventions and Sinfonias, BWV 772-801
92. Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, BWV 903
122. Toccata in E minor, BWV 914
151. Toccata in F sharp minor, BWV 910
172. Fantasia and Fugue in A minor, BWV 944
183. Toccata in D minor, BWV 913

And now the DDD list.

2. The Well-Tempered Clavier, BWV 846-893
3. Goldberg Variations, BWV 988
66. Italian Concerto, BWV 971
84. Partita #1 in B flat major, BWV 825
98. Chromatic Fantasia and Fugue, BWV 903

The second list is a travesty. About everyone would say that the WTC and the Goldberg Variations are in the top 5 of all keyboard works, but beyond that - no English Suites, French Suites, the rest of the Partitas, Toccatas, etc. etc.? The DDD list would have any beginner believe that only one of the Partitas was worth listening to and they wouldn't even bring up the English and French Suites, masterpieces (if you want to use your Arkiv argument) that many, many pianists have played and recorded. How can such a list like DDD's be recommended?

Now on to Scarlatti. Here is TC:

50. Keyboard Sonata in E Major, K. 380 "Cortège"
58. Keyboard Sonata in E minor, K. 402
106. Keyboard Sonata in F minor, K. 466
152. Keyboard Sonata in D minor, K. 9 "Pastorale"
190-200. Keyboard Sonata in G Major, K. 455

And DDD's misery. They seemed to have forgotten about one of the greatest keyboard composers of the Baroque era until after 100.

111. Harpsichord Sonata in E major, K380 "Cortege"
138. Harpsichord Sonata in D minor, K9 "Pastorale"

One of the hardest parts of listening to Scarlatti is knowing which sonatas to listen to. And DDD only gives them two, yes - TWO, recommendations. The TC list has a full 250% of that, and with 5 sonatas (which I still feel is not enough), a listener can get a lot more Scarlatti to cling on to. As a recommended list, the TC one is far more effective in giving a glimpse of Scarlatti's importance as a keyboard composer and introducting a few of his better works.

I don't believe this is simply isolated to the Baroque era by the way. Haydn on the DDD list has only 1 work, the Hob XVI:52. I'm not going to be all disgusted and repulsive, because I simply don't take lists that seriously, but for a composer like Haydn with all his wonderful piano sonatas, such a list as DDD's simply won't work. We have 5 on TC, still not enough, but 500% better.

Artemis, you said that Schumann is one of your favorite composers. Well, DDD's first Schumann work is the Carnaval at 15. And if a beginner were to follow the DDD list, he would be missing masterpieces like the Davidsbundlertanze, Sonata #3, Papillons, Sonata #1, Sonata #2, Waldzenen, Album fur die Jugend, Humoreske, and Noveletten - all which the TC list _do_ include.

We have created one of the friendliest threads in all of the web. Though we compete for our favorite works to "make the list", I can honestly say that I have no antagonism for any of the participants who contribute, only a good deal of respect. No regular participant has ever, and by that I mean _ever_, b****** about anything on that thread, and we certainly don't need it now on this thread. Thanks.

And back on topic, Schumann will never be underrated as long as I'm alive.


----------



## Dodecaplex

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Why? Because you personally don't like it? (Irrelevant). Because you have heard it far too many times? (Irrelevant) Because it is well known and popular with an audience less experienced in music? (irrelevant) Because you would choose something less "obvious" that would communicate your own greater musical sophistication to others? (Pretentious)
> 
> Popularity is no measure of artistic merit... for or against. At least this is true at the time of creation. The immense popularity of the Harry Potter novels are no guarantee that they will survive and be recognized as "classic" a century from now. But neither is it a guarantee that it won't. When a work of art continues to resonate with a large audience over the passage of decades and even centuries... including well-informed audience of critics and subsequent artists... one comes to suspect that there must be some real merit involved... in spite of our own personal preferences.


Actually, I've always been very fond of the Moonlight Sonata. No matter how many times I hear it, I always come back to its beautiful simplicity. But in the end, I have to acknowledge that it is simply not on the same level of Beethoven's greater works (even Beethoven himself knew that). And if you evaluate and analyze the Moonlight, you'll see it's nothing compared to the Appassionata, or the Hammerklavier.

Also, you're being quite hostile towards everything that I post. Calm down.


----------



## Oskaar

violadude said:


> I respectfully disagree greatly. I think when you get 10-15 very intelligent and knowledgable people (like we have on TC) putting together a list of great works, you are far more likely to get an accurate ranking of the "best of the best" so to speak, than if you made a list based on mass market sales. The masses are in general easily fooled sheep and dum dums.


Yess, Violadude! I think ther is a genuine need in some of us...to share. Some people dont have that need and stay passive. Some people dont have that need, and is utterly negative against people that have that need, and find it interresting to kverulate. But I believe tat is every forums faith.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The numbers after each composer's name show number of works listed in the "music project" set of 304, eg Schumann got 9 works listed, which gave him 7th place based on the number of points scored as derived from a simple weighting system based on a declining set of points from the top position.

1. Beethoven 24 
2. Bach 24 
3. Mozart 23 
4. Brahms 14 
5. Schubert 14 
6. Mahler 10 
7. Schumann 9 
8. Haydn 8 
9. Debussy 7 
10. Mendelssohn 7 
11. Tchaikovsky 7 
12. Chopin 6 
13. Ravel 6 
14. Prokofiev 5 
15. Wagner 5 
16. Shostakovich 5 
17. Dvorak 5 
18. Verdi 5 
19. Rachmaninoff 5 
20. Strauss R 0 5 
21. Bruckner 4 
22. Handel 4 
23. Stravinsky 4 
24. Monteverdi 3 
25. Sibelius 4

....

NB: On the whole the results are not too surprising. Wagner's low rank arises mainly because the "Ring" counts as one work. Handel's low rank looks like a rogue, and would seem to need a few more works added to bring him to a top 10 position.

I believe that Philip G. Goulding used such a weighted system in creating his ranking in The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1000 Greatest Works. Goulding's List ran:

1. J.S. Bach
2. W.A. Mozart
3. L. v. Beethoven
4. R. Wagner
5. J. Haydn
6. J. Brahms
7. Franz Schubert
8. R. Schumann
9. G.F. Handel
10. P.I. Tchaikovsky
11. F. Mendelssohn
12. A. Dvorak
13. Franz Liszt
14. F. Chopin
15. I. Stravinsky
16. G. Verdi
17. G. Mahler
18. S. Prokofiev
19. D. Shostakovitch
20. R. Strauss

His list was based upon radio-station play-lists, available recordings by a given composer, performances of a given composer by major orchestras and opera companies, references to composers in books of music history, and number of books available upon a given composer. This essentially amounts to a popularity-poll... albeit among an audience that is surely quite knowledgeable in the field of "classical music". Personally, I don't think the list exhibits any glaring flaws. I would personally rate Handel a good bit higher, but I doubt that Goulding compiled his list prior to the current revival of Handel's wealth of stunning operas, oratorios, cantatas, and other vocal works. I would also argue that Stravinsky is too high, while Debussy (22) and Richard Strauss are too low, but again the list doesn't strike me as exhibiting any truly comic inclusions or exclusions. The author even acknowledges the exclusion of pre-Baroque and late Modernist/Contemporary music. As such, the list is not without bias.

But if we simply put together a list comprised by 10 or 15 of the most most intelligent and knowledgeable music lovers from TC (and how do we decide who qualifies here?) is it not likely to be just as biased... if not more so. Is it not likely that almost the whole of music prior to Bach will still be ignored? Is it not likely that individuals with a deep passion for a less-well-known composer (Alkan, Scriabin, etc...) will push for the inclusion of that composer by placing him high on their list? We need only look to the TC 100 Greatest Operas list. Is Berlioz' _Les Troyens_ really that great that it ranks no. 5 above most of Mozart's greatest operas, all of Verdi, all of Puccini, all of Strauss, etc...? How often does it even get performed? And Schoenberg's _Aaron and Moses_ and both Berg's _Lulu_ and _Wozzeck_ in the top 30? Is this really based upon the merits of the works... or the desire by a few champions of modernism to push their "boys"? Is _Aaron and Moses_ (again, how many actually know this work well?) really "greater" than _Falstaff, Madame Butterfly, Turandot, Peter Grimes, La Cenerentola?_ Is Busoni's (who?) _Doktor Faust_ deserving or greater recognition than both Gluck's _Alceste_ and _Iphigénie en Tauride_, Purcell's _The Fairy Queen_ and Britten's _Death in Venice?_

It would seem to me that all such "ranked" lists are prone to be biased and flawed... that by TC's "experts" no less than the larger sampling of the music-loving public.


----------



## Ukko

Dodecaplex said:


> Actually, I've always been very fond of the Moonlight Sonata. No matter how many times I hear it, I always come back to its beautiful simplicity. But in the end, I have to acknowledge that it is simply not on the same level of Beethoven's greater works (even Beethoven himself knew that). And if you evaluate and analyze the Moonlight, you'll see it's nothing compared to the Appassionata, or the Hammerklavier.
> [...]


I suspect that you and I base our 'analyses' on different factors. Personally, I value _emotional depth_ (which, in order to be deep must have a top well distant from the bottom) very highly. In that regard, I find that the "Moonlight" rates higher than the "Appassionata". I think what Beethoven knew for sure was that his later works were a reflection of increasing musical maturity. Preferring an early work is not likely.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Hilltroll72 said:


> I suspect that you and I base our 'analyses' on different factors. Personally, I value _emotional depth_ (which, in order to be deep must have a top well distant from the bottom) very highly. In that regard, I find that the "Moonlight" rates higher than the "Appassionata". I think what Beethoven knew for sure was that his later works were a reflection of increasing musical maturity. Preferring an early work is not likely.


Because of being repeatedly forced to listen to Sorabji by my parents, I have now become completely desensitized to concepts such as emotional depth and other arcane nonsense.


----------



## Ukko

Dodecaplex said:


> Because of being repeatedly forced to listen to Sorabji by my parents, I have now become completely desensitized to concepts such as emotional depth and other arcane nonsense.


Oy. You have my sympathy. One of my friends listened to Sorabji (the cybalicalum thing) for several days straight in hopes of plumbing its depths. He emerged a broken man - took months to heal, and is still a bit strange.


----------



## DavidMahler

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The numbers after each composer's name show number of works listed in the "music project" set of 304, eg Schumann got 9 works listed, which gave him 7th place based on the number of points scored as derived from a simple weighting system based on a declining set of points from the top position.
> 
> 1. Beethoven 24
> 2. Bach 24
> 3. Mozart 23
> 4. Brahms 14
> 5. Schubert 14
> 6. Mahler 10
> 7. Schumann 9
> 8. Haydn 8
> 9. Debussy 7
> 10. Mendelssohn 7
> 11. Tchaikovsky 7
> 12. Chopin 6
> 13. Ravel 6
> 14. Prokofiev 5
> 15. Wagner 5
> 16. Shostakovich 5
> 17. Dvorak 5
> 18. Verdi 5
> 19. Rachmaninoff 5
> 20. Strauss R 0 5
> 21. Bruckner 4
> 22. Handel 4
> 23. Stravinsky 4
> 24. Monteverdi 3
> 25. Sibelius 4
> 
> ....
> 
> NB: On the whole the results are not too surprising. Wagner's low rank arises mainly because the "Ring" counts as one work. Handel's low rank looks like a rogue, and would seem to need a few more works added to bring him to a top 10 position.
> 
> I believe that Philip G. Goulding used such a weighted system in creating his ranking in The 50 Greatest Composers and their 1000 Greatest Works. Goulding's List ran:
> 
> 1. J.S. Bach
> 2. W.A. Mozart
> 3. L. v. Beethoven
> 4. R. Wagner
> 5. J. Haydn
> 6. J. Brahms
> 7. Franz Schubert
> 8. R. Schumann
> 9. G.F. Handel
> 10. P.I. Tchaikovsky
> 11. F. Mendelssohn
> 12. A. Dvorak
> 13. Franz Liszt
> 14. F. Chopin
> 15. I. Stravinsky
> 16. G. Verdi
> 17. G. Mahler
> 18. S. Prokofiev
> 19. D. Shostakovitch
> 20. R. Strauss
> 
> His list was based upon radio-station play-lists, available recordings by a given composer, performances of a given composer by major orchestras and opera companies, references to composers in books of music history, and number of books available upon a given composer. This essentially amounts to a popularity-poll... albeit among an audience that is surely quite knowledgeable in the field of "classical music". Personally, I don't think the list exhibits any glaring flaws. I would personally rate Handel a good bit higher, but I doubt that Goulding compiled his list prior to the current revival of Handel's wealth of stunning operas, oratorios, cantatas, and other vocal works. I would also argue that Stravinsky is too high, while Debussy (22) and Richard Strauss are too low, but again the list doesn't strike me as exhibiting any truly comic inclusions or exclusions. The author even acknowledges the exclusion of pre-Baroque and late Modernist/Contemporary music. As such, the list is not without bias.
> 
> But if we simply put together a list comprised by 10 or 15 of the most most intelligent and knowledgeable music lovers from TC (and how do we decide who qualifies here?) is it not likely to be just as biased... if not more so. Is it not likely that almost the whole of music prior to Bach will still be ignored? Is it not likely that individuals with a deep passion for a less-well-known composer (Alkan, Scriabin, etc...) will push for the inclusion of that composer by placing him high on their list? We need only look to the TC 100 Greatest Operas list. Is Berlioz' _Les Troyens_ really that great that it ranks no. 5 above most of Mozart's greatest operas, all of Verdi, all of Puccini, all of Strauss, etc...? How often does it even get performed? And Schoenberg's _Aaron and Moses_ and both Berg's _Lulu_ and _Wozzeck_ in the top 30? Is this really based upon the merits of the works... or the desire by a few champions of modernism to push their "boys"? Is _Aaron and Moses_ (again, how many actually know this work well?) really "greater" than _Falstaff, Madame Butterfly, Turandot, Peter Grimes, La Cenerentola?_ Is Busoni's (who?) _Doktor Faust_ deserving or greater recognition than both Gluck's _Alceste_ and _Iphigénie en Tauride_, Purcell's _The Fairy Queen_ and Britten's _Death in Venice?_
> 
> It would seem to me that all such "ranked" lists are prone to be biased and flawed... that by TC's "experts" no less than the larger sampling of the music-loving public.


Nice post. I've browsed that Goulding book, thought the list was OK, no glaring flaws as you said.

I'm not sure that I can agree that Handel could really be any higher than 9. I think Mendelssohn was just too high on his list.

I think a really good top 30 would read like this (just based on my personal experiences, not taste):

30. Rameau

29. Schoenberg

28. Josquin

27. Strauss

26. Mendelssohn

25. Prokofiev

24. Ravel

23. Berlioz

22. Monteverdi

21. Verdi

20. Bartok

19. Shostakovich

18. Palestrina

17. Liszt

16. Sibelius

15. Dvorak

14. Stravinsky

13. Chopin

12. Tchaikovsky

11. Handel

10. Debussy

9. Mahler

8. Schumann

7. Brahms

6. Haydn

5. Wagner

4. Schubert

3. Mozart

2. Bach

1. Beethoven


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DavidMahler said:


> I'm not sure that I can agree that Handel could really be any higher than 9.
> 
> 11. Handel
> 
> 10. Debussy
> 
> 9. Mahler


Well, what you waiting for son? Move Handel over and above that whimp Debussy and that one box trick Mahler!


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

My own personal list would be more along the lines of:

1. Johann Sebastian Bach
2. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
3. Ludwig van Beethoven
4. Richard Wagner
5. George Friederich Handel
6. Franz Schubert
7. Johannes Brahms
8. Joseph Haydn
9. Richard Strauss
10. Claude Debussy
11. P.I. Tchaikovsky
11. Claudio Monteverdi
12. Robert Schumann
13. Franz Liszt
14. Gustav Mahler
15. Giuseppe Verdi
16. Antonio Vivaldi
17. Christoph Willibald Ritter von Gluck
18. Gabriel Faure
19. Frederic Chopin
20. Josquin
21. Carlo Gesualdo
22. Antonin Dvorak
23. Dmitri Shostakovitch
24. Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff
25. Sergei Prokofiev
26. Jean-Philippe Rameau
27. Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov
28. Gaetano Donizetti
29. Maurice Ravel
30. Anton Bruckner

Obvious exclusions would be Stravinsky (who I find never gelled with me outside of the early major ballets), Schoenberg (who still leaves me cold, and Mendelssohn (eh!). Yes, I believe Vivaldi deserves to be placed that high... not based on his concerti grossi (which aren't bad), but his sonatas, his choral works, and his operas. I place Gluck as high as I have because of his historical importance as the linchpin between Baroque and Classical opera... and because his operas are simply that beautiful. Indeed, I place a good many on the list based upon their importance to opera (Rameau, Rimsky-Korsakov, Donizetti, Handel, etc...) where others tend to downplay or ignore the genre. Faure I value for his melodies (or art songs), his chamber works, his nocturnes, as well as the obvious Requiem. I cannot see placing him beneath Chopin.

Of course I recognize the whole idea of this list is absurd... and quite likely change (with few exceptions) tomorrow. After listening to a slew of Handel's exquisite cantatas and early choral works and operas I find it easy to imagine him as in no way inferior to Beethoven or Mozart and nipping at Bach's heels. Ultimately Golding's list, yours, and mine are equally valid. No novice would be misled by one of them more than another, and at the same time he or she would be certain to notice that certain names are not only repeated in all three lists,but also show up quite high up.

ps.... HC, I did the deed for him... indeed moving your man up well beyond 9th place. I'll expect a check in the mail.:lol:


----------



## DavidMahler

Handel ate too much.


----------



## DavidMahler

StlukesguildOhio said:


> s. Ultimately Golding's list, yours, and mine are equally valid. No novice would be misled by one of them more than another, and at the same time he or she would be certain to notice that certain names are not only repeated in all three lists,but also show up quite high up.


If I was not biased to believe that the top 3 could never change without rolling a few eyeballs, I really think the list should read like this:

1. Schubert (my opinion, the most naturally gifted composer who ever lived)

2. Brahms (the most consistent composer who ever lived)

3. Beethoven (the most innovative)

4. Bach (the most advanced)

5. Wagner

6. Mozart (yes Mozart at 6)

7. Schumann

8. Mahler

9. Handel

10. Tchaikovsky


----------



## DavidMahler

DavidMahler said:


> If I was not biased to believe that the top 3 could never change without rolling a few eyeballs, I really think the list should read like this:
> 
> 1. Schubert (my opinion, the most naturally gifted composer who ever lived)
> 
> 2. Brahms (the most consistent composer who ever lived)
> 
> 3. Beethoven (the most innovative)
> 
> 4. Bach (the most advanced)
> 
> 5. Wagner
> 
> 6. Mozart (yes Mozart at 6)
> 
> 7. Schumann
> 
> 8. Mahler
> 
> 9. Handel
> 
> 10. Tchaikovsky


Where all other composers can make themselves greater with orchestration, development, recurring motifs, programs, fugues, etc etc etc....

Schubert just flows like water..... more than Mozart, because his music has a humanness to it which Mozart's typically does not. Mozart's sound is perfection. Schubert's sound is more personal. And his Schubert's stuff sounds to me, the least labored of any composer...

That said, I still love Mahler the most, but I in no way consider Mahler the greatest of all composers.


----------



## violadude

DavidMahler said:


> Schubert just flows like water..... more than Mozart,


I think this piece just flows like water.... more than either of them.


----------



## Artemis

Webernite said:


> The assumption behind all this seems to be that any list that doesn't match up with ArkivMusic is useless and unjustifiable, whatever that means.


 I have just caught up with the overnight reactions to what I wrote yesterday. I pick your comment because it's fairly typical of those who feel that the T-C list has merit over a more market-driven set of results. May I remind you that my main point, going back a few pages, is that I can't see why some people feel the need to create yet more lists of essentially the same old thing that's been done several times before elsewhere. The latest list concerning the solo piano repertoire is just one example, but it all started with opera about a year ago as far as I can see.

If some people here want to engage in this kind of activity, that itself doesn't cause any problems as far as I'm concerned, and I didn't comment adversely on the activity whilst it was under way. However, when the creators of these lists start suggesting that a list produced here is somehow better than one produced elsewhere on other Forums because this one is allegedly more "objective", or is better than lists based on overall market data refecting popularity, that's when I find things become more grating.

In the case of the solo piano works list, forget all the hype that's been trotted out in some previous posts. All that's actually been created here is a list of a list of "recommended works" by T-C members. But in practice all this means is that 15 or so members have listed their own personal favourites. If this not correct, and that some voters have taken a more altruistic position and selected works that they don't much care more but consider to be greater, then I would be interested to hear more about this. From the thread discussions I didn't spot any such examples.

Hence, in the solo piano results we have essentially is a long list resulting from the personal preferences of 15 or so members. Even though 15 is far too small a number to produce a statistically significant result, nevertheless it is claimed that it represents a sufficient sample to generate at least a fairly reliable indicator of the "best" or most worthy piano solo work in ranked order. Against this claim, I bet that if the number of participants actively involved had not been 15 but 150 a totally different set of results would have emerged, result much closer to a ranking based on wider market data as indicated for example by the variety of alternative recordings available on say the ArkivMusic's website.

This is based largely on the notion that works like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata are substantially inferior to his later works like Sonatas 29-32. This snobbish, pseudo intellectual attitude represents a considerable ignorance of how people in general judge quality and value. The Moonlight Sonata, as an example, has long been far more appealing to the majority of classical music fans in general than Beethoven's later sonatas. Who are these 15 anonymous members to say that the opinions of the majority down the ages are inferior compared with theirs? It's utterly pretentious nonsense to make this suggestion, and no better than ignorant school-boy bragging.

If the sample of members who participated here were well-known musicians with good reputations I might take more notice of their deliberations, but that's not the case. In any case I bet anyway that such people, who know their audiences, wouldn't make such strong claims about the alleged inferiority of some of the more popular works in the repertoire. In the absence of professional opinion, the wider market test is far more useful as far as I'm concerned than one derived from the deliberations of a statistically invalid sample of anonymous people whose composition of membership has varied over time, and who in fact have done nothing more than list their personal own favourites.

That is why I said that, in principle, I prefer the DDD list. I have no idea about the detailed nuts and bolts of its construction methodology, but looking at its stated criteria the results are not based on mass appeal, as incorrectly alleged by some here, but on wider considerations of quality, innovation, influence and lasting popularity down the ages. Those factors seem to represent a decent set of criteria to me. I don't trust all the detailed rankings any more than I do those of any other lists. Lastly, I would remind "Air" that the DDD list is 140 long, whilst T-C's is 190+, so it's not fair to make comparisons on the number of, eg Scarlatti works, without recognising this difference.


----------



## Air

Artemis, but don't you agree a recommended list should include more than just one Haydn sonata for a beginner to latch on to? Or 2 Scarlatti sonatas? Or 5 Bach works?

I'd like to hear your opinion, I'm in earnest here.



Artemis said:


> Lastly, I would remind "Air" that the DDD list is 140 long, whilst T-C's is 190+, so it's not fair to make comparisons on the number of, eg Scarlatti works, without recognising this difference.


I just saw your edit here. And I disagree, I think it's an important factor. The job of a recommended list is to help listeners explore the piano repertoire in the context of the entire repertoire itself; to do so, it needs accurate... at least ample, representation and more than just a brief inclusion of important composers. If the list is too short, that is still an issue. Having only one Haydn work represented is still only having one Haydn sonata represented, there is no way around it.

And even if we go all fancy in statistics, the ratio of 16 Bach works to 5 is a lot greater than the ratio of 200 works total is to 140. I don't even need to bring up Haydn.


----------



## Artemis

oskaar said:


> I am quite surprised by the interrest the anti list people have in list.
> 
> The people that participate in lists and listmaking, and recommendationn threads see the dynamic an purpose of each list. I think everyone also see the weekness of the result when only a few people participate. But we take it for what it is! 5 people getting it spinning, can make an interresting list! It is a process, an it is fun to make, and that is a value in itself.
> 
> *I have no respect at all of people , not contributing, coming afterwards, complaining about results. *
> 
> This is a forum of people that love classical music. We are all different, and have differents ways too contribute and express ourselfe in here. Then you have variations! And I think that is good. *Artemis complains, and complains. Maybe he contributes somewhere, but I have not seen it yet. *
> 
> Internet is a great place to multiply the interrest of every subject. We have the chance in here. Then it is sad too see people just glue their *** to the ground and say: I dont like this, because it is not suiting my taste and oppinion. Then I advice you to shut up, and let other initiatives florish.
> 
> But I have found out that these peple ignore posts challenging their views. Or challenging their negativism.


I don't know how you could possibly have misunderstood the flow of discussion here to such a bad extent. I'm not aganst lists per se, but the mis-use of lists and exaggerated claims made about some of them in comparison with others produced elsewhere.

What I've tried to say is actually designed to help people like you, not frustrate your efforts as you wrongly assume based on an apparent mis-reading of the recent parts of this thread.

I have actually pointed the way for you and others who may be interested to other lists that you might find helpful, but if haven't got the wit to pick up on these leads then it's hardly my fault.

As a matter of fact, if you had taken even the slightest care to check, you'll see that I have been a member of this Forum for over 4 years, am not a "he" (as my forum name very clearly implies), and have contributed quite widely on all manner of topics.


----------



## violadude

Artemis said:


> I have just caught up with the overnight reactions to what I wrote yesterday. I pick your comment because it's fairly typical of those who feel that the T-C list has merit over a more market-driven set of results. May I remind you that my main point, going back a few pages, is that I can't see why some people feel the need to create yet more lists of essentially the same old thing that's been done several times before elsewhere. The latest list concerning the solo piano repertoire is just one example, but it all started with opera about a year ago as far as I can see.
> 
> If some people here want to engage in this kind of activity, that itself doesn't cause any problems as far as I'm concerned, and I didn't comment adversely on the activity whilst it was under way. However, when the creators of these lists start suggesting that a list produced here is somehow better than one produced elsewhere on other Forums because this one is allegedly more "objective", or is better than lists based on overall market data refecting popularity, that's when I find things become more grating.
> 
> In the case of the solo piano works list, forget all the hype that's been trotted out in some previous posts. All that's actually been created here is a list of a list of "recommended works" by T-C members. But in practice all this means is that 15 or so members have listed their own personal favourites. If this not correct, and that some voters have taken a more altruistic position and selected works that they don't much care more but consider to be greater, then I would be interested to hear more about this. From the thread discussions I didn't spot any such examples.
> 
> Hence, in the solo piano results we have essentially is a long list resulting from the personal preferences of 15 or so members. Even though 15 is far too small a number to produce a statistically significant result, nevertheless it is claimed that it represents a sufficient sample to generate at least a fairly reliable indicator of the "best" or most worthy piano solo work in ranked order. Against this claim, I bet that if the number of participants actively involved had not been 15 but 150 a totally different set of results would have emerged, result much closer to a ranking based on wider market data as indicated for example by the variety of alternative recordings available on say the ArkivMusic's website.
> 
> This is based largely on the notion that works like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata are substantially inferior to his later works like Sonatas 29-32. This snobbish, pseudo intellectual attitude represents a considerable ignorance of how people in general judge quality and value. The Moonlight Sonata, as an example, has long been far more appealing to the majority of classical music fans in general than Beethoven's later sonatas. Who are these 15 anonymous members to say that the opinions of the majority down the ages are inferior compared with theirs? It's utterly pretentious nonsense to make this suggestion, and no better than ignorant school-boy bragging.
> 
> If the sample of members who participated here were well-known musicians with good reputations I might take more notice of their deliberations, but that's not the case. In any case I bet anyway that such people, who know their audiences, wouldn't make such strong claims about the alleged inferiority of some of the more popular works in the repertoire. In the absence of professional opinion, the wider market test is far more useful as far as I'm concerned than one derived from the deliberations of a statistically invalid sample of anonymous people whose composition of membership has varied over time, and who in fact have done nothing more than list their personal own favourites.
> 
> That is why I said that, in principle, I prefer the DDD list. I have no idea about the detailed nuts and bolts of its construction methodology, but looking at its stated criteria the results are not based on mass appeal, as incorrectly alleged by some here, but on wider considerations of quality, innovation, influence and lasting popularity down the ages. Those factors seem to represent a decent set of criteria to me. I don't trust all the detailed rankings any more than I do those of any other lists. Lastly, I would remind "Air" that the DDD list is 140 long, whilst T-C's is 190+, so it's not fair to make comparisons on the number of, eg Scarlatti works, without recognising this difference.


Artemis, I am just baffled by your trust of mass market statistics to tell you what the greatest pieces in classical music are. Just type classical music into amazon. What is the first thing that pops up? Those cheap compilations called "Classical music for relaxation" "top 25 classical favorites" "Classical music to do your homework to." Their the type of compilations that are likely to put only the pieces that are played in commercials on their CD, and only the *movements* of pieces that are played on commercials, taking movements out of the context of their entire piece. People who are knowledgeable about classical music and have spent a decent amount of time listening to classical music generally don't buy these CD's, but they are the first to pop up at Amazon, why is that? Because their the CD's that appeal to the *Masses* the same masses that you trust to give you your list of greatest classical pieces. Of course the moonlight is going to be high up on the list because it is more likely to show up on these lame cheap compilation CDs made for masses, whereas the Hammerklavier is not likely to be on there. It has nothing to do with greatness.

On the other hand, the TC list was made by a small amount people who actually know what their talking about, not a mass million of people that listen to classical music for relaxation but wouldn't know a Beethoven symphony from Tchaikovsky string quartet.


----------



## Artemis

Air said:


> Artemis, but don't you agree a recommended list should include more than just one Haydn sonata for a beginner to latch on to? Or 2 Scarlatti sonatas? Or 5 Bach works?
> 
> I'd like to hear your opinion, I'm in earnest here.
> 
> I just saw your edit here. And I disagree, I think it's an important factor. The job of a recommended list is to help listeners explore the piano repertoire in the context of the entire repertoire itself; to do so, it needs accurate... at least ample, representation and more than just a brief inclusion of important composers. If the list is too short, that is still an issue. Having only one Haydn work represented is still only having one Haydn sonata represented, there is no way around it.
> 
> And even if we go all fancy in statistics, the ratio of 16 Bach works to 5 is a lot greater than the ratio of 200 works total is to 140. I don't even need to bring up Haydn.


I have said all I intend to say on this subject. I won't be drawn on any more specifics, as it's back to work for me today after a week's leave. My last word on the subject of polls, expressing all my thoughts, is in the post to which you respond.


----------



## Trout

Artemis said:


> This is based largely on the notion that works like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata are substantially inferior to his later works like Sonatas 29-32. This snobbish, pseudo intellectual attitude represents a considerable ignorance of how people in general judge quality and value. The Moonlight Sonata, as an example, has long been far more appealing to the majority of classical music fans in general than Beethoven's later sonatas. Who are these 15 anonymous members to say that the opinions of the majority down the ages are inferior compared with theirs? It's utterly pretentious nonsense to make this suggestion, and no better than ignorant school-boy bragging.


Really? I don't think a majority of the people that love the Moonlight sonata are serious classical listeners. And what I think you fail to recognize is that this is not a list based on popularity otherwise half of the pieces wouldn't even be there. If we were creating a list based on popularity then our list would be superfluous to DDD's.


----------



## Klavierspieler

Guys, this is going nowhere. Besides, why are we discussing the validity of lists in a thread devoted to Schumann?


----------



## Oskaar

Klavierspieler said:


> Guys, this is going nowhere. Besides, why are we discussing the validity of lists in a thread devoted to Schumann?


Maybe the anti-list people have to find a hidden place to discuss lists, that obviously occupy them very much. In threads devoted to the matter..-lists, they are cryptic.


----------



## Klavierspieler

oskaar said:


> Maybe the anti-list people have to find a hidden place to discuss lists, that obviously occupy them very much. In threads devoted to the matter..-lists, they are cryptic.


Methinks the argument was all a misunderstanding due to the limitations of communication over the internet.

_Never attribute to malice what can equally explained by miscommunication._


----------



## Artemis

Trout said:


> Really? I don't think a majority of the people that love the Moonlight sonata are serious classical listeners. And what I think you fail to recognize is that this is not a list based on popularity otherwise half of the pieces wouldn't even be there. If we were creating a list based on popularity then our list would be superfluous to DDD's.


 As I said earlier today I don't wish to spend any more time debating specific rankings. I gave my last general comments in my post at no 185. But in view of your comment I am tempted to ask you three simple questions which I hope you will be able to answer:1. What evidence do you have that a majority of the people who love the Moonlight sonata are not serious classical music listeners?

2. What exactly were the criteria that you personally applied in making your selections in the various voting rounds?

3. May I assume that you are content with the final rankings (say up to rank 30) that resulted from the exercise, and that you think they represent a good reference point for solo piano music for both newcomers and long-time classical listeners to the world of classical music?​I do hope you will be able to answer these questions, and I am so much looking forward to your replies. You needn't write reams, just a few sentences to explain your position will suffice.


----------



## Trout

Artemis said:


> As I said earlier today I don't wish to spend any more time debating specific rankings. I gave my last general comments in my post at no 185. But in view of your comment I am tempted to ask you three simple questions which I hope you will be able to answer:1. What evidence do you have that a majority of the people who love the Moonlight sonata are not serious classical music listeners?
> 
> 2. What exactly were the criteria that you personally applied in making your selections in the various voting rounds?
> 
> 3. May I assume that you are content with the final rankings (say up to rank 30) that resulted from the exercise, and that you think they represent a good reference point for solo piano music for both newcomers and long-time classical listeners to the world of classical music?​I do hope you will be able to answer these questions, and I am so much looking forward to your replies. You needn't write reams, just a few sentences to explain your position will suffice.


The post you are referring to did not mention "rankings" of any sort. I actually made a post yesterday (#148) about my opinion on rankings.

1. Maybe the word "majority" was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but there still is a large percentage of people who enjoy it that are not serious listeners. However, this is not to say that there aren't _more_ serious listeners that love Moonlight than other Beethoven piano sonatas. In any case, Moonlight's overwhelming popularity to the general public compared to Beethoven's other sonatas would of course consist of many non serious listeners. I think we can all agree that the more popular the piece is, the more available it is for the public. If you are looking for actual evidence of its popularity here are two lists that cite the most popular classical pieces (and coincidentally enough there is a DDD list for this). Both lists place Moonlight as Beethoven's most popular sonata and within the top 30. It is not necessarily that serious listeners despise the piece, it's just that it is grouped with Beethoven's 5th, Eine Kleine, 1812, Canon in D, etc. as being pieces more familiar with and loved by the general public.

2. From the beginning, my votes contained a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity, though towards the end I just started to only vote based on my personal preferences. I'm fairly certain most members were more subjective than myself as there nominations were often more obscure or "out there" than my own.

3. I am quite content with the top 30, though any ranked list is bound to have flaws. I think, overall, that these pieces are a good reference point, though not necessarily for newcommers, especially in the order that it's in. I would not try to force anyone new to classical music to listen to the entire WTC. That being said, I do believe that a lot can be learned from this list for newcommers and long-time listeners. If you were to compare this to the DDD list, I would greatly recommend the DDD list for newcommers to classical music, though my personal preference is TC's by a large margin.


----------



## DavidMahler

wow all these lists are wrong.

The most famous melody to emanate from any classical composition has to be the Lohengrin Bridal Chorus. The only melodies more well known than that are Happy Birthday and Twinkle Little Star


----------



## violadude

Trout said:


> The post you are referring to did not mention "rankings" of any sort. I actually made a post yesterday (#148) about my opinion on rankings.
> 
> 1. Maybe the word "majority" was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but there still is a large percentage of people who enjoy it that are not serious listeners. However, this is not to say that there aren't _more_ serious listeners that love Moonlight than other Beethoven piano sonatas. In any case, Moonlight's overwhelming popularity to the general public compared to Beethoven's other sonatas would of course consist of many non serious listeners. I think we can all agree that the more popular the piece is, the more available it is for the public. If you are looking for actual evidence of its popularity here are two lists that cite the most popular classical pieces (and coincidentally enough there is a DDD list for this). Both lists place Moonlight as Beethoven's most popular sonata and within the top 30. It is not necessarily that serious listeners despise the piece, it's just that it is grouped with Beethoven's 5th, Eine Kleine, 1812, Canon in D, etc. as being pieces more familiar with and loved by the general public.


I think this is a good point. Are the CD sales of the moonlight and others greater because people like them more? Or are they greater because those are the pieces that the market decides to flood us with?

A kind of chicken or egg question if you will...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DavidMahler said:


> Handel ate too much.


 He sure did! He had a large appetite, and was caricatured as a glutton during his life once (when one of his enemies wanted to "insult" him by press). His portraits and monuments, in particular the one in Westminster Abbey where he was buried, showed he was obese. He was quite successful as an artist - the first ever to have a monument errected during the artist's lifetime while actively pursuing his own career.


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> I think this is a good point. Are the CD sales of the moonlight and others greater because people like them more? Or are they greater because those are the pieces that the market decides to flood us with?
> 
> A kind of chicken or egg question if you will...


"They are incessantly talking about the C-sharp minor sonata; on my word, I have written better ones."
-- Beethoven.

I guess it was always this way even before the CD market. So . . . maybe the former? I guess? Or maybe it was the music publishing market back then? I don't know.


----------



## violadude

Dodecaplex said:


> "They are incessantly talking about the C-sharp minor sonata; on my word, I have written better ones."
> -- Beethoven.
> 
> I guess it was always this way even before the CD market. So . . . maybe the former? I guess? Or maybe it was the music publishing market back then? I don't know.


Or maybe, just like today, like 50% of the population takes piano lessons until they are 10 or 12 or so, and only makes it to Moonlight sonata and fur elise. So they know **** about music in general, but they remember they used to play those nifty couple pieces by Beethoven and want to feel special and musical or they want a trip down memory lane so they go out and buy the CD or talk about it non-stop whenever the subject of Beethoven comes up so that it looks like they know what they are talking about.


----------



## Ukko

"50% of the population"? What planet do you live on? At least 80% of the population can't _afford_ piano lessons, another 10% ain't interested.


----------



## NightHawk

StlukesguildOhio said:


> DavidMahler-I truly do think that the Liszt sonata can sit next to Tristan on any musical level.
> 
> How can you compare a piano sonata with a full scale opera, especially on "on any musical level"? The latter condition renders the comparison null and void by definition since the two works have nothing in common.
> 
> I think all art is flawed, but that's a whole 'nuther' thing. I say in theory that 'scale' has nothing to do with a so-called 'perfection' in art. The miniature Mazurkas of Chopin are to be laid alongside the tremendous symphonies of Beethoven, as I see it. It's only that my taste runs more toward the novel than the short story, though I do love those Mazurkas.


----------



## Artemis

Trout said:


> The post you are referring to did not mention "rankings" of any sort. I actually made a post yesterday (#148) about my opinion on rankings.


 Thanks for your reply.

*Question 1*

I asked you _"What evidence do you have that a majority of the people who love the Moonlight sonata are not serious classical music listeners?" _

You said that _"Maybe the word "majority" was a bit of an exaggeration on my part, but there still is a large percentage of people who enjoy it that are not serious listeners. However, this is not to say that there aren't more serious listeners that love Moonlight than other Beethoven piano sonatas. In any case, Moonlight's overwhelming popularity to the general public compared to Beethoven's other sonatas would of course consist of many non serious listeners…"
_ 
Comment: You have watered down your earlier assertion considerably but it in saying that there "is a large percentage of people who enjoy it that are not serious listeners" this is still only assertion and not supported by any evidence. I think you are wrong. Besides, your comment is very condescending towards those people whose appreciation of classical music is more limited than yours. I know several people who would say they are interested in classical music and who like the Moonlight Sonata but are not into the further reaches that some people aspire to. However, their views count just as much as any others, as they're still part of the wide spectrum of classical music lovers. I can think of several opera lovers in this site who don't appear to like much else outside opera, but that doesn't mean they're not serious about classical music.

*Question 2*

I asked you _"What exactly were the criteria that you personally applied in making your selections in the various voting rounds?" _

You answered _"From the beginning, my votes contained a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity, though towards the end I just started to only vote based on my personal preferences. I'm fairly certain most members were more subjective than myself as there nominations were often more obscure or "out there" than my own."_

Comment: If your selections were a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity and you are fairly certain that most members were more subjective than yourself, this means that the whole thing was mainly based largely on subjective opinions. In that case why are you and several others pretending that the list is more objective than other lists. It must be because you think that your group's subjective opinions are inherently more objective than other lists.

*Question 3*

I asked _"May I assume that you are content with the final rankings (say up to rank 30) that resulted from the exercise, and that you think they represent a good reference point for solo piano music for both newcomers and long-time classical listeners to the world of classical music?_

You answered: _"*I am quite content with the top 30*, though any ranked list is bound to have flaws. I think, overall, that these pieces are a good reference point, though not necessarily for newcommers, especially in the order that it's in. I would not try to force anyone new to classical music to listen to the entire WTC. That being said, I do believe that a lot can be learned from this list for newcommers and long-time listeners. If you were to compare this to the DDD list, I would greatly recommend the DDD list for newcommers to classical music, though my personal preference is TC's by a large margin"_.

Comment: I have looked at your nominations for the top 30 ranks (in fact I had already done so which is why I asked you the question) and see that at no stage did you vote for any of J S Bach's works, some of which have very high positions. In view of this I am puzzled how you can say that you are content with the top 30 ranks if it contains several works by Bach that you did not vote for? I think your reply to this question has completely junked your whole argument. Let's take, for example, Bach's WTC, which came out in the No 1 position. You did not vote for it. May I ask in what position you would place it if things were left to you? From your voting record in that poll, it would seem that it would not have appeared anywhere in the top 30. Do you think that people who like Bach are "not serious classical music listeners"?


----------



## violadude

Hilltroll72 said:


> "50% of the population"? What planet do you live on? At least 80% of the population can't _afford_ piano lessons, another 10% ain't interested.


Haha true. I guess I was *Over exaggerating*


----------



## Artemis

Now here's a curious thing that's had me in a state of amusement most of this morning, and I thought I'd share it with you.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I asked my nephew to take a look at the rankings in the "music project" list of T-C's most recommended works in order to see if there was any substance in the view that Schumann, as a composer, is under-rated on T-C, as suggested in the OP. This allegation turns out to be unsupported by the evidence based on rankings of 304 top works as listed in the "music project" results (see my post number 165). On the contrary, Schumann came out in 7th place according to the number and position of his included works. [Incidentally, I'm still awaiting information from the OP on why he thinks that Schumann is under-rated but he himself hasn't shown any voting interest in Schumann or his works, but that's a slightly different matter).

My nephew has now looked at the results of the "music project" a stage further and come up with a very interesting revelation concerning the status of Beethoven's Piano Sonata #14 in C sharp minor, *"Moonlight",* op. 27/2. Read on ...i. According to the prevailing wisdom among those members who participated in the T-C Recommended Solo Piano works list, this work is looked down upon by the cognoscenti as inferior and not among Beethoven's best solo piano works and is only liked by who are not serious classical listeners. Accordingly, it was placed lower down their list of recommended works, and almost near the bottom of their list of Beethoven pianos solo works. They even had the gall to criticise the DDD list for placing it much higher, saying that the DDS's list is merely a "hit parade" whilst theirs is more objectively based. As an aside, we have now recently learned (from one member) that the participants of this piano solo exercise mainly based all their selections on mere personal preference, but that was obvious anyway.

ii. But wait, woe and behold that the Moonlight Sonata is placed as the third most highly recommended solo piano by Beethoven in the "music project" rankings. Not only that but this Sonata appear in overall 11th place among all piano sonata works identified in the music project ranks, and way above the position of No 33 as it appears on the solo piano works list.​So guys, what's it to be? Is the Moonlight Sonata to be regarded as belonging to the top 3 of Beethoven's solo piano works, as according to the "music" project results. Or is it to be treated as a far lesser work which only appeals only to the uninformed masses of people who aren't really serious about classical music, as claimed in one embarassing slip-up recently? Maybe you should get together some time and sort out your differences, as it's kind of awkward for us on the sidelines to fathom what you're up to. Given the very small number of personnel involved, maybe all that's really necessary is that you talk to yourselves to decide what you really think from one day to the next.

The fact is that, just like I've said previously in this thread, the results of some of these T-C polls are based on such small samples of members that the results cannot be held to be significant, which means that if you repeat the exercise in some other way, inevitably involving a different mix of participants, there is likely to emerge a different set results.

I don't deny the fun and educational factors involved for those involved in preparing these lists, but to suggest afterwards that the results are more objective than another list produced elsewhere is on very dicey ground. That's the only reason I stepped into this discussion, to deflate the exagerrated claims of those who think that what they've achieved in their lists has a degree of objectivity about them. As illustrated above, in the case of the ranking of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata, this can't be the case because the ranks are inconsistent with respect to each according to which of T-C's "recommended list" you look at. The same problem seems to affect the symphony and opera lists, that they're not consistent with the "music project" list.


----------



## science

Artemis said:


> the only reason I stepped into this discussion [was] to deflate the exagerrated claims of those who think that what they've achieved in their lists has a degree of objectivity about them


Mission accomplished:



science said:


> 3. This is our list, not supposed to be the official objective canon of Western art music. A different group of people would create a different list - even the same group of people at a different time would create a different list - but this is our list at this point in our lives


Really, we never would have thought of this without your constant hostility.


----------



## Ukko

violadude said:


> Haha true. I guess I was *Over exaggerating*


Yeah. Sometimes it's hard to tell when exaggeration has slid into over-exaggeration. The reader/listener's reaction may be the only clue. Personally, I enjoy the form of exaggeration known as hyperbole. and sometimes, ah, overuse it.


----------



## Trout

Artemis said:


> Comment: You have watered down your earlier assertion considerably but it in saying that there "is a large percentage of people who enjoy it that are not serious listeners" this is still only assertion and not supported by any evidence. I think you are wrong. Besides, your comment is very condescending towards those people whose appreciation of classical music is more limited than yours. I know several people who would say they are interested in classical music and who like the Moonlight Sonata but are not into the further reaches that some people aspire to. However, their views count just as much as any others, as they're still part of the wide spectrum of classical music lovers. I can think of several opera lovers in this site who don't appear to like much else outside opera, but that doesn't mean they're not serious about classical music.


Sigh. You are making too many assumptions from my post. I did not at any point say that there weren't any people that did not enjoy the Moonlight Sonata that are more appreciate of classical music. If you did not look at the two lists provided, then you would have known that I _did_ provide formal evidence considering those lists were based on popularity. Like I previously stated, pieces more used by media and known by the general public will be more available to non-serious listeners. I did not create any such comparisons to opera lovers and I do not understand their relevancy regarding Moonlight or the keyboard list in general. I'm sorry if my comment did have implications of being condescending as that was not my intention nor my opinion.



Artemis said:


> Comment: If your selections were a mixture of objectivity and subjectivity and you are fairly certain that most members were more subjective than yourself, this means that the whole thing was mainly based largely on subjective opinions. In that case why are you and several others pretending that the list is more objective than other lists. It must be because you think that your group's subjective opinions are inherently more objective than other lists.


Again, I dislike the assumptions being made here. I did not say that this list was any more objective than any other list nor do I think so. If I must make the comparison between this list and DDD's, I actually do think DDD's is more objective than our own in terms of the ranking, however, if both lists were unranked (to be fair, I'm only considering the TC list up to 140), then I would side with TC's one. I'm not sure if anyone even did state that our list was objective to begin with until you claimed that it was not objective.



Artemis said:


> Comment: I have looked at your nominations for the top 30 ranks (in fact I had already done so which is why I asked you the question) and see that at no stage did you vote for any of J S Bach's works, some of which have very high positions. In view of this I am puzzled how you can say that you are content with the top 30 ranks if it contains several works by Bach that you did not vote for? I think your reply to this question has completely junked your whole argument. Let's take, for example, Bach's WTC, which came out in the No 1 position. You did not vote for it. May I ask in what position you would place it if things were left to you? From your voting record in that poll, it would seem that it would not have appeared anywhere in the top 30. Do you think that people who like Bach are "not serious classical music listeners"?


I did not vote for J.S. Bach, or more specifically the WTC, because, at the time, I did not listen to the entire piece. I had only heard the first book and because the decision was made to group both books as one entry, I felt that I could not vote for it. Now that I have listened to the full piece I can fully agree that it deserves to be number 1. It would probably be at the top of my list if I were to vote again. I really do not know how to respond to the rest of your post as those were based on the assumption that I did listen to WTC.


----------



## Artemis

Trout said:


> snipped:
> 
> If I must make the comparison between this list and DDD's, *I actually do think DDD's is more objective* than our own in terms of the ranking, however, if both lists were unranked (to be fair, I'm only considering the TC list up to 140), then I would side with TC's one. I'm not sure if anyone even did state that our list was objective to begin with until you claimed that it was not objective.
> 
> ...
> 
> I did not vote for J.S. Bach, or more specifically the WTC, because, at the time, I did not listen to the entire piece. I had only heard the first book and because the decision was made to group both books as one entry, I felt that I could not vote for it. Now that I have listened to the full piece I can fully agree that it deserves to be number 1.


Thank you. I have taken only two parts of your response because they struck me as particularly interesting, if slightly amusing. I'm pleased to see that you have now had a complete change of mind about Bach's WTC now that you've heard whole caboodle. I don't wish to add anything further.

Moving on, I'm wondering whether anyone can account for the following large discrepancies between the positions of various solo piano works in the two main polls that have been going here lately, "music project" and "solo piano":


 Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata (positions 11 and 33 respectively)
Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata (positions 19, 11 respectively)
 Rach's Preludes (positions 21 and 83 respectively)
 Ligeti Etudes (positions 17, 65 respectively)
 Debussy Nocturnes (positions 18 and not listed rspectively)
 Liszt Les Preludes (position 20, not listed respectively).
Scarlatti sonatas (7 and 50 respectively)
I'm sure there must be a good explanation.


----------



## Webernite

The two polls aren't related. Different people are involved, different systems are used...


----------



## violadude

I think this is our cue to take a step back and ask ourselves what the hell we're accomplishing here...I don't even know what point anyone is trying to make anymore. >.<

So.....how about that Schumann guy!?


----------



## Artemis

Webernite said:


> The two polls aren't related. Different people are involved, different systems are used...


I realise, of course, that they are separate polls.

But the criteria for selection are supposed to be the same, they have been conducted more or less in tandem time-wise, and I thought that there was some degree of overlap of membership, since I was under the impression that much the same people tend to turn up in the various polls.

I guess, however, looking at the relative "Moonlight" Sonata rankings in the two polls, that the membership of the "music project" poll might have comprised a greater proportion of people who are not very sophisticated in their tastes if what has been suggested previously in this thread by some members is to be believed. If so, I'm wondering what status can be attached the "music project" results overall, if the membership of that group of voters is indeed not that sophisticated in its knowledge of classical music. I don't actually believe that this is the case, as I'm sure the membership is sound, but the problem is more that the results in the solo piano poll are suspect in certain respects or possibly the sample size was too small.


----------



## science

Artemis said:


> I realise, of course, that they are separate polls.
> 
> But the criteria for selection are supposed to be the same, they have been conducted more or less in tandem time-wise, and I thought that there was some degree of overlap of membership, since I was under the impression that much the same people tend to turn up in the various polls.
> 
> I guess, however, looking at the relative "Moonlight" Sonata rankings in the two polls, that the membership of the "music project" poll might have comprised a greater proportion of people who are not very sophisticated in their tastes if what has been suggested previously in this thread by some members is to be believed. If so, I'm wondering what status can be attached the "music project" results overall, if the membership of that group of voters is indeed not that sophisticated in its knowledge of classical music. I don't actually believe that this is the case, as I'm sure the membership is sound, but the problem is more that the results in the solo piano poll are suspect in certain respects or possibly the sample size was too small.


What are the options for "status [that] can be attached [to] the "music project" results overall?"


----------



## science

Never mind, actually. The post is as offensive as the rest of your posts on this topic. The discussion is not worth my time.


----------



## Artemis

science said:


> Never mind, actually. The post is as offensive as the rest of your posts on this topic. The discussion is not worth my time.


Thankyou for that.

If your problem is that you have trouble understanding what I wrote, may I suggest that you re-read the latest part of this thread where the following kind of comments have been made about people who rate highly Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_:_"... the moonlight is kind of a crowd pleaser, but I think if you talk to most scholars and people (average everyday listener people even) who have taken lot's of time to listen to the Beethoven sonatas, they would agree that #30 and #32, not to mention a whole stack of others, are a lot deeper and in general are more quality sonatas"

"... I never called the moonlight rubbish but I don't know anyone that has seriously listened to all of Beethoven's sonatas that would put it above #30 or #32 unless for personal enjoyment reasons"_ _
.
"... I don't think a majority of the people that love the Moonlight sonata are serious classical listeners"

"... and Pathetique and Moonlight are not considered in the league of the last five sonatas". _ _

"... a large percentage of people who enjoy it [Moonlight Sonata] that are not serious listeners". _ ​In the light of such comments, I leave it to you to work out what the implications are for the "music project" poll you initiated and supervised which rendered Beethoven's _Moonlight Sonata_ in 3rd position among his solo piano works, and 11th place among all the solo piano works in your poll compared with position No 33 in the "solo piano" poll as voted upon by the people who wrote comments as set out above.

Why don't you take it up with them, as it's they who seem to be saying that the solo piano results in your poll are suspect, at least concerning the high rank of the _Moonlight Sonata_. If you re-read what I wrote, and hadn't been so offensive yourself, you might have spotted that I was trying to defend your poll against what seem to be spurious polling procedures in the other poll, caused probably by too small a sample and also by being over-anxious to avoid being labelled "newbies". It's all there set out in the deliberations in the early stages of their voting rounds.

If there's anything offensive about any of this, it's your tone and the kind of supercilious comments as set out above. Apart from some limited assistance from one other member, I've been largely been alone in challenging this kind of spurious argument, and all I have encountered in return is some of the most spectacular back-tracking I've ever seen.


----------



## Oskaar

:tiphat:I like Schumann!:tiphat:


----------



## Oskaar

Artemis said:


> "... I never called the moonlight rubbish but I don't know anyone that has seriously listened to all of Beethoven's sonatas that would put it above #30 or #32 unless for personal enjoyment reasons"[/I] _
> .
> _


_

I should asume pearsonal enjoyment reasons should be a quite good argument! Why was music made? To be analyzed in a laboratorium? I personally dont like the moonlight sonata, it gives me headache. But I see the suggestive qualities. It is something different._


----------



## Dodecaplex

violadude said:


> So.....how about that Schumann guy!?


He bumped uglies with _this_ beauty.


----------



## GoneBaroque

I have not followed this post too closely so I am somewhat confused why a discussion of the merits of the "moonlight sonata" is an issue. Should we not express an opinion on a composition in case someone else takes umberage. Has political correctness come to rule? I hope not.


----------



## Oskaar

I think it is about correctness versus peoples tastes. But i dont know, I have not followed it thoroughly.


----------



## science

GoneBaroque said:


> I have not followed this post too closely so I am somewhat confused why a discussion of the merits of the "moonlight sonata" is an issue. Should we not express an opinion on a composition in case someone else takes umberage. Has political correctness come to rule? I hope not.


The goal was to portray the lists as failures in their attempts to rank works in terms of greatness.

Toward that end, the actual intentions of the lists were systematically ignored.



science said:


> 3. This is our list, not supposed to be the official objective canon of Western art music. A different group of people would create a different list - even the same group of people at a different time would create a different list - but this is our list at this point in our lives, and we value everyone's participation.


----------



## Klavierspieler

How about some Schumann!!!!!


----------



## Artemis

Klavierspieler said:


> How about some Schumann!!!!!


If you have something to say, no-one is stopping you.

Only I would have thought that the premise of the OP, asking why Schumman is allegedly the most underrated composer on T-C, has already been shown to be *not* true, based on a proper analysis of the data (relating to rankings of Schumann's works as shown in the "music project") that the OP suggested showed that this composer is underrated. I dealt with all that early on when I reported that a proper analysis of that "music project" data shows that Schumann came out in 7th place among composers whose works were ranked up to position 304 in that list. I would have thought that 7th position is very repectable, possibly slightly generous.

In case you didn't quite follow it, we then had a discussion about how far such ranked lists can be trusted to provide a measure of a composer's relative standing. It tended to wander all over the place but ultimately it would seem that the solo piano rankings in the "music project" are somewhat out of kilter with the corresponding ranks resulting from the poll on solo piano works. I expressed the preference for the ranks in the music project, based on the outcome for one particular focal point of the discussion, namely the "Moonlight" sonata. For some as yet unresolved reason, those who voted for this work in one poll rated it highly and those in the other felt that it deserved a much lower ranking. I hope that this little explanation may be of some help to you.

As for a wider discussion relating to Schumann's brilliance and achievements as a composer, I have alreday written quite considerably on this subject all over this forum at various times in the past. My brother (ex member "Topaz") has done the same before I joined. I don't see that I need add anything further in this particular thread unless of course anybody would wish to ask about any specific work by Schumann which has not been covered previously, in which case I will endeavour to provide some hopefully useful comments, or if I don't perhaps somebody else may be able to oblige.


----------



## Oskaar

Then we should lieve this dead! And talk about Schuman! One of the greatest composers ever, and probably the best romantic composer!


----------



## Llyranor

I bought 2 symphonic cycles of his recently. HIP one with Gardiner, and one reorchestrated by Mahler with Chailly.

So far, I'm mainly exploring the 1st Symphony. Was listening to the Gardiner version last week. It was pleasant, enjoyable, ?light?. I think I was listening to it half-heartedly as well, so a lot of the details of orchestration went over my head. It didn't blow my mind at first listen, however.

I just listened to the Mahler/Chailly version today. This time, I gave it a full listen, paying much more attention. It has some of the same qualities as the first listen. Pleasant, enjoyable, but didn't feel like just a lightweight symphony. I really really enjoyed the entire symphony. I really enjoy the orchestration in this one, especially in the first movement. 

The scherzo/3rd movement somehow reminds me of the 1st movement in spirit, even though they are nothing alike. The ?2nd theme of the 3rd movement almost sounds like a rerrangement of the 1st movement... somehow. I can't describe it.

But anyway, it was a lovely listen. I can't say whether it's the Mahler reorchestration, or me being a better listener this time around, but I'll be having another listen at the Gardiner to compare (it's nice that the Chailly booklet mentions the differences in orchestration that Mahler changed).

What I mean to say is, exploring Schumann is fun!


----------



## DavidMahler

I am a huge Schumann fan, but I really don't like his first symphony.

I do however think his 2nd Symphony is brilliant. Even more than the 3rd which is way more famous. I think the 2nd Symphony is my favorite symphony written between Schubert's final and Brahms' first, edging out Berlioz's great symphonic works by just a little. I'm a huge Mahler fan but I don't consider his re-orchestrations viable to our time. His orchestrations worked at a time when Schumann's shortcomings were considered harmful to the composer's musical successes. Today, I think these shortcomings (in terms of orchestration) are more embraced because of how they demonstrate Schumann's uniqueness.



Llyranor said:


> I bought 2 symphonic cycles of his recently. HIP one with Gardiner, and one reorchestrated by Mahler with Chailly.
> 
> So far, I'm mainly exploring the 1st Symphony. Was listening to the Gardiner version last week. It was pleasant, enjoyable, ?light?. I think I was listening to it half-heartedly as well, so a lot of the details of orchestration went over my head. It didn't blow my mind at first listen, however.
> 
> I just listened to the Mahler/Chailly version today. This time, I gave it a full listen, paying much more attention. It has some of the same qualities as the first listen. Pleasant, enjoyable, but didn't feel like just a lightweight symphony. I really really enjoyed the entire symphony. I really enjoy the orchestration in this one, especially in the first movement.
> 
> The scherzo/3rd movement somehow reminds me of the 1st movement in spirit, even though they are nothing alike. The ?2nd theme of the 3rd movement almost sounds like a rerrangement of the 1st movement... somehow. I can't describe it.
> 
> But anyway, it was a lovely listen. I can't say whether it's the Mahler reorchestration, or me being a better listener this time around, but I'll be having another listen at the Gardiner to compare (it's nice that the Chailly booklet mentions the differences in orchestration that Mahler changed).
> 
> What I mean to say is, exploring Schumann is fun!


----------



## Sequentia

I enjoy every single note Schumann wrote, but he is not my favourite composer.


----------



## Sequentia

Artemis said:


> This is based largely on the notion that works like Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata are substantially inferior to his later works like Sonatas 29-32. This snobbish, pseudo intellectual attitude represents a considerable ignorance of how people in general judge quality and value. The Moonlight Sonata, as an example, has long been far more appealing to the majority of classical music fans in general than Beethoven's later sonatas. Who are these 15 anonymous members to say that the opinions of the majority down the ages are inferior compared with theirs? It's utterly pretentious nonsense to make this suggestion, and no better than ignorant school-boy bragging.


Most people have an average IQ and prefer Lady Gaga to Brahms. What is your answer to that?

Most people have not learnt to acquire a greater degree of music appreciation. Why do you suppose the public likes No. 14 the most, pianists love Nos. 23 and 32 the most, and musicologists generally enjoy No. 29 the most? A clear hierarchy of an understanding of music can be seen there.

While I do not pretend to speak for other posters, I assume they used the term "serious listeners" to refer to "attentive listeners".


----------



## jhar26

Remember to discuss in a civil manner without personal insults. Thank you.


----------



## Sequentia

I did not attack the person, I attacked his views. Big difference. Artemis described various persons here as "snobbish pseudo intellectual", who present "utterly pretentious nonsense [...] [which is] no better than ignorant school-boy bragging", yet no one seems to mind that.


----------



## jhar26

Sequentia said:


> I did not attack the person, I attacked his views. Big difference. Artemis described various persons here as "snobbish pseudo intellectual", who present "utterly pretentious nonsense [...] [which is] no better than ignorant school-boy bragging", yet no one seems to mind that.



Let it rest mate. Artemis was talking about what he regards as a general attitude he doesn't agree with. Whether he's right or wrong is besides the point. It's his opinion, he has a right to express it and has done so without making disparaging remarks towards any one member. Seems to me that referring to someone's post as "utterly sickening, disgusting pile of rubbish" makes it far more personal than anything Artemis wrote.


----------



## Oskaar




----------



## Oskaar




----------



## Op.123

I feel Schumann is very underrated, yes.

He composed, not only some of the best concertos, but some very good solo music, beautiful symphonies, possibly the greatest lieder since Schubert, an opera (admittedly not a very good one), a requiem, some phenomenal chamber pieces like the piano quintet, a requiem, incidental music and much more.

I don't see why Wagner is better than Schumann (sorry couchie) because Wagner only really composed operas. He composed a few other things but didn't show Schumann's amazing ability to compose music of many genres. I find the same thing with Chopin, a composer who specialised in piano music is placed higher than Schumann nearly always. I absolutely adore Chopin's music, not so much Wagner's, but Schumann's music means so much more to me.

Another thing, Schumann always seemed more original, he has such a unique voice in his music. It always comes deep from his soul and doesn't indulge in some of the pointless and sometimes annoying filigree that Chopin's does, in fact he and his wife thought it was vulgar.

I know many criticise his symphonies for their bad orchestration but for me that doesn't matter when you hear the fine melodies he creates. They are such wonderful works often overlooked because of this one fault. I can't say Schumann was better than Brahms as Brahms was a brilliant composer but in a few works Schumann surpasses Brahms's attempt at the genre. In the piano concerto, I know Brahms's 2nd is ratted very highly but Schumann's is some much more... After all it was an inspiration to Brahms. His lieder are better and also his solo piano music which is unmatched except from maybe some of Chopin's works such as the F minor fantasy, 4th ballade and 24 preludes, but Brahms's requiem, symphonies etc. are greater than Schumann. So, overall Brahms may have been the better composer but I can say I prefer Schumann's music a lot more. 

It is amazing, unique, beautiful and very passionate. 

A true genius.


----------



## Vesteralen

I gave up long ago trying to look to Internet web-sites for confirmation of my taste.

Schumann is, was, and always will be one my favorite composers no matter what anyone else says.

I don't do "Greatest", because I don't feel I have the qualifications to say that about any composer. But, to me, that whole discussion is irrelevant. Nobody's disparaging remarks about Schumann or any other composer is going to prevent artists from performing his music or labels from recording people performing his music - so I can just listen by myself (as I always do) and enjoy.


----------



## Guest

If the TC top recommended lists are any indicator, I would put Liszt in the position of most underrated. His Faust Symphony was voted under Webern's 10 minute symphony for god's sake, and his piano concerti are some of the best.


----------



## Op.123

arcaneholocaust said:


> If the TC top recommended lists are any indicator, I would put Liszt in the position of most underrated. His Faust Symphony was voted under Webern's 10 minute symphony for god's sake, and his piano concerti are some of the best.


I don't get Liszt it just seems to be just virtuosity for the sake of virtuosity. I like very few of his pieces.


----------



## aleazk

Burroughs said:


> I feel Schumann is very underrated, yes.
> 
> He composed, not only some of the best concertos, but some very good solo music, beautiful symphonies, possibly the greatest lieder since Schubert, an opera (admittedly not a very good one), a requiem, some phenomenal chamber pieces like the piano quintet, a requiem, incidental music and much more.
> 
> I don't see why Wagner is better than Schumann (sorry couchie) because Wagner only really composed operas. He composed a few other things but didn't show Schumann's amazing ability to compose music of many genres. I find the same thing with Chopin, a composer who specialised in piano music is placed higher than Schumann nearly always. I absolutely adore Chopin's music, not so much Wagner's, but Schumann's music means so much more to me.
> 
> Another thing, Schumann always seemed more original, he has such a unique voice in his music. It always comes deep from his soul and doesn't indulge in some of the pointless and sometimes annoying filigree that Chopin's does, in fact he and his wife thought it was vulgar.
> 
> I know many criticise his symphonies for their bad orchestration but for me that doesn't matter when you hear the fine melodies he creates. They are such wonderful works often overlooked because of this one fault. I can't say Schumann was better than Brahms as Brahms was a brilliant composer but in a few works Schumann surpasses Brahms's attempt at the genre. In the piano concerto, I know Brahms's 2nd is ratted very highly but Schumann's is some much more... After all it was an inspiration to Brahms. His lieder are better and also his solo piano music which is unmatched except from maybe some of Chopin's works such as the F minor fantasy, 4th ballade and 24 preludes, but Brahms's requiem, symphonies etc. are greater than Schumann. So, overall Brahms may have been the better composer but I can say I prefer Schumann's music a lot more.
> 
> It is amazing, unique, beautiful and very passionate.
> 
> A true genius.


Schumann is great, one of my favorites of the period. There's no need to defenestrate Chopin in order to make a point about Schumann, he can handle it alone quite well.


----------



## Musician

Schumann is not underrated composer. His music is not in the same caliber as Mendelssohn or Bach. He was a good composer that lived among the Greats. He had offered some good and nice melodies, but nothing really great or spectacular, again this is considering the company he was with. But if he lived in our age, he would have been considered greater then what he is considered today.


----------



## Cosmos

I actually don't understand how Schumann is popular in the first place. His music doesn't really sound different from the Romantic fluff other contemporaries were writing...I feel he sounds kind of like Chopin, only a dulled down version. Idk that's my own opinion. I like his Fantasie, but not enough to say it's a great piece of music.


----------



## Crudblud

arcaneholocaust said:


> If the TC top recommended lists are any indicator, I would put Liszt in the position of most underrated. His Faust Symphony was voted under Webern's 10 minute symphony for god's sake, and his piano concerti are some of the best.


Are you suggesting that duration has a strong positive correlation with quality?


----------

