# Robert Schumann - great composer??



## Jaime77

Hi there, 

I have been listening to much early nineteenth century Germanic romanticism - Schubert stands out for me, especially his huge collection of piano music and lieder and on listening to Mendelssohn's String Octet I was blown away too. This is such a beautifully crafted work. The Violin Concerto in E Minor too, though it is overplayed somewhat, is a masterpiece. 

I can't seem to develop a liking for Schumann. I wonder if others feel the same or maybe you adore Schumann and want to convince me otherwise. His music seems neither one thing nor the other. If I want symphonies I just listen to Brahms. They have some similarities anyway only Brahms is ... better. 

What strikes me as odd about Schumann is that he is often mentioned as a great romantic composer up there with Schubert and Brahms. I don't see why. Is it because of the piano music? Kinderszenen and Kreisleriana are nice descriptive pieces but no more amazing that Grieg's lyric pieces (not to knock Grieg only that I wouldn't say Grieg is one of the greatest composers of the century). 

Then there are the symphonies - which every music book I know criticizes for being badly orchestrated. What is up with that? Why couldn't he learn to orchestrate 'better'?? I mean, it is not rocket science, is it? Especially for a great composer, as he is meant to be. 
What else did he compose? Some chamber music of note. I need to investigate perhaps.

But as for concertos... he has a cello concerto that for some reason is neglected and a piano concerto which I am sorry but I find ... boring :-/ 

I'd love some thoughts on this issue. 

Thanks for reading and happy listening

Jai


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Is Schumann a great composer? In a word, yes. Is he as great as Brahms? Probably not. Does that undermine him as a composer? Why should it? I would place Wagner above Brahms... and certainly Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart.... but that does not lessen his achievements. I agree that Brahms is clearly the better symphonic composer... one of the best. But Schumann's symphonies are not bad as any really good recording will reveal. Personally, I find that Schumann's strongest works are those composed on a smaller scale... as an equivalent, perhaps, of the lyrical poem that become the central core of Romanticism in poetry. This is perhaps to be expected considering Schumann's love of literature and his intentions to create something of a literary/poetic narrative through music. His _Papillons, Carnaval, Fantasiestücke, Kinderszenen,_ and _Kreisleriana_ are all masterpieces of such poetic pianism... and certainly the model for later composers, including Grieg (whom I don't see as having surpassed Schumann in this genre). To this, we must add the great songs or lieder... especially the _Liederkreis, Frauenliebe und -leben_, and _Dichterliebe_ which place him perhaps only behind Schubert among the great composers of lieder.


----------



## Jaime77

Thanks for the reply 

Would you consider Winterreise or Die Schoene Mullerin on the same level as Dichterliebe? I am not sure. As you said maybe he is a secondary figure in lieder. Schubert is difficult to match if not impossible in the arena of lieder. 
In fact, I don't know how anyone could equal Die Winterreise on its own! 

The piano pieces you mentioned, yes they are that kind of poetic writing - would Chopin or Liszt not be more of a better understanding of the instrument and more averse at using it for expressive purposes? Chopin had some wonderful harmonic innovations often overlooked and Liszt too - the latter also so forward looking as regards form. 

Maybe I am looking for a genre that Schumann excelled in to such an extent, and with enough individuality, that he deserves to be rated so highly. I don't quite see it. Back to Grieg again. I think that he was highly individual harmonically and one of the best nationalist composers easily. This is an example of a composer whose individual voice would be sorely missed if he disappeared from radar. Would Schumann's? Why put Schumann above Max Bruch, for example? 

Do you think Schumann is instantly recognizable? Is his mark on whatever genre you take there, such that he deserves to be hailed as such?


----------



## Aramis

I find his piano concerto boring too. But in general I like Schumann.

What I think check you should is the following:


----------



## Jaime77

OK thanks - Argerich is my favourite pianist. I don't know that CD though I do know she 'owns' the Liszt Bminor Sonata.... that is beyond amazing. I have this vague memory of the third sonata of Schumann. I will definitely check this out.


----------



## Artemis

The OP almost sent me into a state of shock-horror.

I love Schumann. I have all of his works and I rate him along with Brahms somewhere in the middle of my group of top 10 composers. That’s perhaps rather higher than a more general consensus might suggest, but in most people’s books he is one of the greatest Romantics composers. His popularity tends to differ around the civilised world but I gather in Germany he is rated very near the top. 

His piano solo works are mainly embodied in his Ops 1-28. Upon these works he concentrated his composition energies during the first ten years of his composing life. They contain some real treasures. They’re all fantastic in my opinion but I especially like Fantasie, Etudes Symphoniques, Carnaval, Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana. These works are among his best works of any description, and rate highly in the general piano repertoire.

His piano concerto is splendid, as too is his cello concerto. His very late work, the Violin Concerto, leaves some people wondering what on earth he was up to but I love it. It’s probably my favourite VC, as I’m more or less sick to death with all the usual run of the mill stuff. Another really good work is his Introduction & Allegro Op 92.

The suggestion that Schumann couldn’t orchestrate well and his symphonies are poor is old-fashioned nonsense. In the right hands and with the appropriate orchestral balance Schumann’s symphonies sound great. Try Sawallisch. Symphony Nos 3 and 4 are my favourites of the four but they all delightful.

Next to Schubert, Schumann is my favourite song writer. Dichterliebe is gorgeous.

Schumann wrote some really splendid chamber music. I rate him as highly as Brahms from that era. Schumann’s piano quintet is an absolute favourite chamber piece of mine, and it's probably among his most famous works. From this work one can see where Brahms got some of his ideas from in chamber music. Another excellent work is his Adagio & Allegro for Horn (or Cello) & Piano. Another is the Fantasiestuke for Clarinet & Piano. Piano Trio No 1 is another excellent piece. 

I conclude that Schumann is definitely worth exploring. Like all composers he has a unique sound, which I guess one either likes or not. I love it. To me it seems like Romantic music should sound without being OTT like much of Wagner, or that of other drama queens like Bruckner, or being over fussy, over long like and drawn out like much of Mahler.


----------



## Jaime77

That's interesting that you say his orchestration being bad is old-fashioned nonsense. Recently I read a review of a recording of Herrewegge conducting some French orchestra in the four symphonies. I got 2 and 3. It is fair to say that they sound better on period instruments but then I am a fan of period instruments. I love the sound of the brass and timpani especially. Now it makes more sense if it is indeed old-fashioned to think this way of his symphonies because, as I said, why would someone as accomplished as he make such juvenile mistakes in orchestration and not learn from each new symphony. Perhaps, they are not mistakes! 

I still don't think that Schumann's lieder are up there with Schubert's, nor his piano music up there with Chopin. 
Is the music lighter than some other composers of the time, dare I say? Not as brooding or profound as Brahms can be? 

Also, I love Tchaikovsky but I don't think he is one of the greatest composers of the century. I agree, that personal taste comes into it. You know the Schumann sound and like it. I don't know it that will and what I have heard is nothing I can't find in Schubert.... or Brahms.


----------



## starry

People use the word 'great' differently. Some use it for maybe 5 composers or even less, others are more liberal with it and apply it to over 10, some maybe to even over 20. It's just a word that people apply in different ways. 

I would probably put Schubert and Brahms above him. His piano music is different to that of Brahms but they wrote their most famous piano works in different periods? I haven't checked the dates. Maybe Schumann's piano music is more contemporary with Chopin and Mendelssohn.


----------



## Argus

I'd say he is a great composer, it's just unfortunate for his reputation that Brahms came along and overshadowed him. I think his piano works are my favourites of his: Carnaval, Symphonic Etudes, 6 Concert Etudes after Paganini's Caprices, Papillons, Nachtstucke and some others I can't remember off the top of my head. I'm not sure if they are better than Chopin's piano pieces but they are certainly different. They have the same feeling of weight at times and more of a 'stoic' or powerful sound, if that makes sense, compared to Chopin's lighter, more melancholic feel. And I do like his Piano Concerto in A minor, just not as much as the Grieg one.

For me, is main weakness is that he has no real distinguishing feature that sets him apart from Brahms. A lot of either composers works could have been written by either man but in sum total Brahms has slightly more variety and creativity.

So I guess my opinion of Schumann is that he's good if a tad predictable or boring at times. However, this could be labelled to a lot of pre-20th century composers in my mind. He's definitely worth listening to when Brahms and Schubert have been exhausted.



> Also, I love Tchaikovsky but I don't think he is one of the greatest composers of the century. I agree, that personal taste comes into it. You know the Schumann sound and like it. I don't know it that will and what I have heard is nothing I can't find in Schubert.... or Brahms.


Tchaikovsky should be classed as a great based solely on his ballets. Never mind his symphonies and concerti. I'd say he belongs to the second tier of great composers. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are out on their own. Then Brahms, Haydn, Stravinsky, Schubert, Dvorak and although I'm an opera hater, Wagner belongs there. I believe Tchaikovsky falls easily into the second group but could understand someone rating him higher.


----------



## World Violist

I've never been particularly fond of Schumann. I suppose I just never understood what he was trying to say. Hearing the New York Philharmonic play the D minor symphony live nearly put me to sleep. I just don't get it.

But the Marchenbilder for viola and piano is really something, and I swear it isn't just because I'm a violist. Maybe I should just start over with Schumann with the smaller pieces.


----------



## starry

Tchaikovsky is a great composer of orchestral music, probably rivals any other composer of the 19th century in that. It's just that in other areas he seems weaker.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> So I guess my opinion of Schumann is that he's good if a tad predictable or boring at times. However, this could be labelled to a lot of pre-20th century composers in my mind. He's definitely worth listening to when Brahms and Schubert have been exhausted.


I think that's broadly right. One has to follow some kind of system of investigation of the main composers, otherwise it's confusing. I happened to become interested in Schumann quite late, after having crawled all over the likes of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, and Brahms more or less in that order. By that stage I doubted that I would find much else of great interest. But I was completely wrong. I came to like Schumann and Mendelssohn almost as much as I did the others. The only ones I never quite became addicted to were Liszt, Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler. Tchaikovsky is OK up to a point but of all the composers I once really liked he's probably dropped back the furthest.


----------



## Jaime77

I was also thinking along these lines: it seems that greatness be held for those composers who excelled in at least one musical genre. In order to be remembered solely for one genre they need to have mastered it and produced a number of masterpieces in that genre, i.e. Wagner and Verdi. For other composers there can be more than one genre and Beethoven did that with the symphonies and quartets. Mozart did it with the symphonies and operas (maybe also the concertos) and Bach with keyboard music and cantatas. 

Now going on that criteria, Brahms excelled in symphonies and chamber music, Chopin in piano music, Schubert in lieder and piano music (and chamber music???) but when it comes to Schumann, or as someone mentioned, Mendelssohn.. what genre can you say they really produced a sizable number of truly great works in? Mendelssohn's symphonies have too many duds (if I can be so crude) and the piano music too. Did Schumann really 'conquer' any genre? I don't see he did. 

Actually I would have trouble agreeing that Dvorak did either. He wrote one amazing concerto, 3 out of 9 great symphonies and some great chamber music. Of course, Rusalka too, but he is no Brahms. It's that lack of consistency. 

Tchaikovsky on the other hand did so much for Russian ballet, that it would be hard to discount him. 

We have strayed a bit from the topic of Schumann but this is all interesting to me. Views of the 19th Century composers.


----------



## Air

Schumann is one of my favorite composers, period.

Overshadowed by Brahms and Schubert? What a ridiculous statement. Schumann's music is as far away from Brahms and Schubert as Dostoevsky is from Dickens and Dickens is from Shakespeare. For one, Schumann was a more exotic melodist. He uses his gifts in a remarkable way, portraying two moods of his internal being. Perhaps he didn't develop his works the way Brahms and Schubert did, thus, producing less large-scale works; however, this doesn't make his music any less enjoyable, and certainly should not overlook his abilities as a composer.

I find that _many_ classical listeners from forums all over the net, and _Artemis_ should know this, claim to have ignored much of Schumann's music for a long time, even while exploring deep into the classical genre. They now regret this decision. The problem I think, is that, Schumann takes a different approach to understand. It's not harder to understand than let's say Brahms or Schubert, but certainly _unique_.

Luckily, I ignored this fate, partly because of my piano teacher who claimed that Schumann wrote the best piano music on the face of this earth, and partly because of Claudio Arrau and Sviatoslav Richter. If you are a pianophile, you cannot ignore Schumann, just as you can't prevent ordering a box set without it consisting more than 25% of Chopin.

So is Schumann a great composer? Well, I'd say objectively, his piano music ranks with that of Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, and other greats. Does this matter? All I know is that I enjoy his piano music, I enjoy his concerti, and I enjoy some of his orchestral music, chamber works, and songs. _This_ is what matters to me.


----------



## Argus

jaibyrne said:


> Actually I would have trouble agreeing that Dvorak did either. He wrote one amazing concerto, 3 out of 9 great symphonies and some great chamber music. Of course, Rusalka too, but he is no Brahms. It's that lack of consistency.
> 
> Tchaikovsky on the other hand did so much for Russian ballet, that it would be hard to discount him.


Brahms was as much an advocate of Dvorak as Schumann was of Brahms himself. He is quoted as saying about Dvorak: 'I should be glad if something occurs to me as a main idea that occurs to Dvorak by the way.'

I agree that Dvorak does lack the consistency of someone like Brahms but when he got it right he was up there with Beethoven and Schubert for inventiveness, melody and basic emotion. His 7 and 9 symphonies and to a lesser extent the 8, are the only ones in the repertoire that I feel match Beethoven's best. His 5 tone poems are also quite good.



> Overshadowed by Brahms and Schubert? What a ridiculous statement. Schumann's music is as far away from Brahms and Schubert as Dostoevsky is from Dickens and Dickens is from Shakespeare. For one, Schumann was a more exotic melodist. He uses his gifts in a remarkable way, portraying too moods of his internal being. Perhaps he didn't develop his works the way Brahms and Schubert did, thus, less large-scale works; however, this doesn't make his music any less enjoyable, and certainly should not overlook his abilities as a composer.


How can you say that Schumann's music is far and away from Brahms and Schubert. If you take all the music thats ever been composed and compare it to Schumann's who else sound more like it than Brahms?

Palestrina, Ravi Shankar, Herbie Hancock, Hatfield and the North, Faith No More, Salif Keita, do any of these sound like Schumann.? No. Now comparing him to any of them would be a ridiculous statement. But Brahms and Schubert, not so much.


----------



## handlebar

It all comes down to the brass tacks of .......do I,MYSELF,like Schumann's music and/or writings?
I don't consider him even close to Beethoven,Berlioz,Wagner,Brahms or Liszt. But that's my own opinion. I do like Schumann's works in the symphonies,lieder and some chamber works. But he seems less inspired and less lyrical than I would like. 

Just my .02

Jim


----------



## Air

Argus said:


> How can you say that Schumann's music is far and away from Brahms and Schubert.


Because it is. Schumann was a melodist, like Prokofiev. He painted scenes of extreme beauty, and his specialty was the miniature. He portrayed emotions through images, and made them play, speak, and fight with each other.

If you don't want to approach his music in a new way, then don't. It will continue to sound boring and unimaginative in your ears.

Many of you have seemingly exhausted yourself on Schumann's symphonies and my only advice to you is to move on to his other works, like his piano stuff. Some recommendations:





































I've also heard a few selections from this set, which is near the top of my to-get list:


----------



## Weston

I find the Schumann piano concerto one of my favorites. That third movement with the theme in a crazy rhythm that seems to meander all over the map before even its first phrase comes to a resolution. I love that. The melody is unpredictable and took me several listens before I could hum along. I much prefer it to the Grieg concerto it always seems to be coupled with.

I find his solo piano music moderately interesting, and to my ears a bit less muddy than Brahms' solo piano. It's Schumann's symphonies that tend to bore me. The orchestration is adequate, but there are no melodic "hooks," for lack of a better word, to grab me. Maybe I just need to listen with more focus.

I recently watched a movie about Schumann and Clara Weick called _Spring Symphony_. It is borderline depressing. Schumann's life was not an easy one. All it did for me was to point out Mendelssohn and Schumann were partial contemporaries, Mendelssohn being considered an established maestro when Schumann was a rising star, even as Schumann was to Brahms' rising stardom later. It makes for a continuous flow of music history, if not for a very uplifting story.


----------



## Jaime77

I understand about Schumann painting pictures, I agree that this is not the same kind of poetic imagery as Schubert or Brahms but then Chabrier did something similarly pictoral and his harmonic language was also very inventive for its time, plus he had a big influence on Debussy and Ravel, however, Chabrier is hardly one of the greatest composers of the century.

I still don't think you can rank Schumann above Chopin or Debussy for piano music. Putting him along side Bach I think is kinda crazy. That's just my way of looking at it anyway. Bach virtually defined Baroque keyboard music, taking all strands in Europe into account and creating music so ingenious and inventive on many levels. Beethoven's late sonatas... sorry but Schumann did nothing on the level of Beethoven's late sonatas nor as profound as Schubert's late sonatas and Impromptus either. 

Schumann strikes me as having written a lot of 'pleasant music' and I hate pleasant music  

I find the piano concerto boring but then I prefer the Russian piano concertos far more in general.


----------



## Artemis

A few comments on the overnight posts.

Regarding movies about composers, I always read up as much as possible about composers I become interested in. It’s not long before I have established basic biographical details, a list of compositions, notable works, and musical influences both forward and in reverse. I have built up quite a library of such information over the years, mainly among composers in the period 1700-1900. My knowledge of, and interest in, some composers is greater than others. Those who have greatly fascinated me are Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann and Brahms. Among these, probably Schubert is the one I know most intimately, but Schumann is not far behind. I can honestly say that all the movies (films) about any of these composers which I have seen involve such a distortion of the facts that I find them unwatchable, except for a laugh. Obviously in some cases not much is known about some aspects of a composer's life but I find the silly stories that are dreamed up are not much better than idiot-level. I think that the first such movie I ever saw was Amadeus. I thought it was ghastly. If films like that are how some people learn about music and composers, God help us. 

I hate to disagree with any of my esteemed colleagues but I really cannot see much similarity between the music of Schumann and Brahms, and I can see even less between Schumann and Schubert. The fact that Schumann lived/worked more or less mid-way between these two titans doesn’t change that. I agree that early Schubert was pretty generic but mid/late Schubert style became increasingly unique. There is zero chance that any Robert Newman type character could ever allege that any Schubert, Schumann or Brahms works were written by others. Schubert’s mature style sounded nothing like Beethoven who one might have expected would be his role model. He wrote music to reflect his own changing moods, and to amuse his friends. No-one has ever been able to match him in producing such seamless garments of music containing joy through to extreme melancholy via dramatic and unusual key changes and change of tempo. Schumann doesn’t sound like Schubert in any genre. Brahms and Schumann are arguably the closest in style but I don’t have any trouble telling them apart, more or less in the same way that I can spot essential differences between Mozart & Haydn. For example, Brahms piano work is totally different to Schumann’s, with Brahms specialised in variations. Brahms orchestral music is usually much lusher in texture than Schumann’s, and Brahms gives me the impression at times of being rather over-refined, almost to the point of becoming over-mushy. Brahms chamber works tend to involve quite a lot of high register work (especially for violins) which can make it quite brittle and screatchy.

On the matter of Schumann’s alleged poor orchestration and the ensuing muddy sound (even for some piano solo works), this comes about partly because Schumann wrote all his material on piano, and then as appropriate transcribed it for other instruments. In his day the piano had a narrower register than today’s, and hence his works are somewhat prone to mid-register (by today’s standards) crowding. A second factor is that in Schumann’s day orchestras were smaller than today’s, especially in the strings section. Hence playing Schumann’s orchestral works with no adjustment for orchestral balance can create a mushy sound. Another factor is uncertainty over the accuracy of his tempo markings (rather like Beethoven). Some have said that Schumann’s tempo markings are wrong in that the indicated changes from fast to slow and vice versa could not be quite as Schumann intended. This has given rise to all manner of arbitrary adjustments both by conductors and pianists. Schumann will therefore sound different according to interpretation. This explains why there tends to be such a lot of discussion on music Boards about the best interpretations of Schumann’s music. As I suggested previously, I like Sawallisch/Staatskapelle Dresden. Steer clear of Zinman/Tonhalle, which is no good. For piano works, I like several: Richter, Ashkenazy, Hamelin, Argerich, Horowitz. These performers have a good grip on Schumann’s music.

There was a suggestion that Schumann’s piano music is lighter than Chopin’s. This couldn’t be further from the truth. It’s the other way round. The problem with Chopin is that he wrote a vast amount of short-lived miniatures which make it difficult to get into before the theme changes as the CD player moves onto the next track. Schumann is more "romantic" - a lot of it was an expression of love for Clara - and a lot less tub-thumping than Listz's piano solo. 

Lastly, there was a comment that many people on other music Boards appear to have tended to come to appreciate Schumann quite late in their musical explorations. From my observations it’s true that he seems to be a composer who is often skipped over in people’s musical discoveries of 19th Century composers. They tend to jump from Beethoven (possibly Schubert) to Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, and then onto 20th Century composers like Sibelius. Apart from Brahms, I don’t care much for any of them. But once they begin to take an interest it usually grows. They will soon come to terms with his style, which as I mentioned is unique and easily discernible. Schumann is the man to focus upon next if you haven’t already done so. Start with the better known of his piano solo works (Fantasie, Op 17 is excellent), then the Symphonies, then a song cycle (Dichterliebe), followed by the PC, Cello Concerto (Isserlis is best), then some chamber work (versions featuring Argerich being very good).


----------



## starry

Weston said:


> It's Schumann's symphonies that tend to bore me. The orchestration is adequate, but there are no melodic "hooks," for lack of a better word, to grab me. Maybe I just need to listen with more focus.


The 3rd symphony has alot of melody.


----------



## Jaime77

But Schumann wrote nothing as profound as Chopin's Four Ballades or Scherzi. Late Chopin, like Schubert, Beethoven, seems to transcend the medium and reach incredible heights of expression. I don't see that happens in Schumann.


----------



## Artemis

jaibyrne said:


> But Schumann wrote nothing as profound as Chopin's Four Ballades or Scherzi. Late Chopin, like Schubert, Beethoven, seems to transcend the medium and reach incredible heights of expression. I don't see that happens in Schumann.



If you don't like Schumann's music there isn't much more that can be done.*"You can take a HORSE to the water, but you cant make him drink"* might be an appropriate expression here. All I and others can do is tell you that Schumann's piano music is highly regarded in proper circles, and he is widely regarded as a great composer. 

You appear to take a negative reaction to everything people tell you about their favorable appreciation of Schumann. I'm wondering whether your real purpose is to slam Schumann, not to seek information about others' views about him?
 
I can only add (this is my last post on this topic) that in respect of Schumann's piano solo works distinguished pianists like Richter wouldn't have bothered with him it if it wasn't top grade material. If you haven't already heard them you might try some other pieces like , eg Symphonic Etudes, Davidsbundlertanze, Blumenstuke, Humoresque, Nachtstuck, Romances, Waldszenen, Bunte Blatter.

If you think that Chopin's ballades or scherzos or whatever are significantly better I can only say that I am surprised. They're good but no better.


----------



## Jaime77

"widely regarded as a great composer"... I agree with that. That is why I am here. I am questioning *why* he is. Maybe it is the German music history bias at work also.

Many great pianists played music by 'lesser composers'. I don't mean to be Schumann bashing. I guess it is not to my taste but I will listen more and see if my opinion will shift.

Maybe I have a bias towards absolute music rather than descriptive music especially short descriptive pieces. In which case I will always prefer a ballade to a blatt ;-)


----------



## Argus

Air said:


> Because it is. Schumann was a melodist, like Prokofiev. He painted scenes of extreme beauty, and his specialty was the miniature. He portrayed emotions through images, and made them play, speak, and fight with each other.
> 
> If you don't want to approach his music in a new way, then don't. It will continue to sound boring and unimaginative in your ears.


That's not my point. My point is not that there aren't any differences between Brahms and Schumann, because there obviously are. My point is that the comparison is a very apt one. You're argument is like saying you can't compare a porpoise to a dolphin because they are different. True, but if you take the total amount of mammals into consideration porpoises and dolphins soon seem pretty similar. Hence your viewpoint strikes me as one of an individual that has not listened to a wide variety of music. This may not be true, but I think you have the rose tinted glasses of someone who was born and raised on classical and has never fully explored the endless amounts of non-classical music. There is nothing wrong with this, but it just means you see things as in a microcasm and not take the big picture into account.

So if, in a hypothetical situation, a person only listened to Brahms and Schumann all their life, then they would hear giant canyons of difference between the two. But if someone only listened to funk, rock and country music, then they were made to listen to the entire catalogues of both composersconsecutively, they would hear far less difference. Therefore the debate is a matter of perspective and there is no right or wrong.



> There was a suggestion that Schumann's piano music is lighter than Chopin's. This couldn't be further from the truth. It's the other way round. The problem with Chopin is that he wrote a vast amount of short-lived miniatures which make it difficult to get into before the theme changes as the CD player moves onto the next track. Schumann is more "romantic" - a lot of it was an expression of love for Clara - and a lot less tub-thumping than Listz's piano solo.


My quote was:



> I'm not sure if they are better than Chopin's piano pieces but they are certainly different. They(_Schumann's piano pieces_) have the same feeling of weight at times and more of a 'stoic' or powerful sound, if that makes sense, compared to Chopin's lighter, more melancholic feel.


I believe Chopin had the lighter (in weight), darker (in texture) and generally more languid style whereas Schumann exudes more pride and is more ebullient and playful. This is speaking in broad generalised terms as I'm not saying Chopin or Schumann couldn't display other traits, these are just taking everything into account and what I most commonly feel.


----------



## handlebar

I own most if not all of Schumann's music on CD and although I might not enjoy as much now, but they will possibly grow on me more as time goes on. I d enjoy the piano music and lieder the most as with the occasional symphony.
The great part about it is that I have plenty of time n which to explore and come to appreciate his music.


----------



## Air

Argus said:


> That's not my point. My point is not that there aren't any differences between Brahms and Schumann, because there obviously are. My point is that the comparison is a very apt one. You're argument is like saying you can't compare a porpoise to a dolphin because they are different. True, but if you take the total amount of mammals into consideration porpoises and dolphins soon seem pretty similar. Hence your viewpoint strikes me as one of an individual that has not listened to a wide variety of music. This may not be true, but I think you have the rose tinted glasses of someone who was born and raised on classical and has never fully explored the endless amounts of non-classical music. There is nothing wrong with this, but it just means you see things as in a microcasm and not take the big picture into account.
> 
> So if, in a hypothetical situation, a person only listened to Brahms and Schumann all their life, then they would hear giant canyons of difference between the two. But if someone only listened to funk, rock and country music, then they were made to listen to the entire catalogues of both composersconsecutively, they would hear far less difference. Therefore the debate is a matter of perspective and there is no right or wrong.


None of these accusations are true, my friend. But what makes Schumann more unoriginal than other _classical_ composers? That's the point you were trying to argue in the first place, that Schumann had less to offer than Brahms or Schubert. Hence, I'm trying to say, singling him out is quite unfair.

Argus, my friend, you don't need to attack _anyone_ personally, especially when none of your accusations are true. I won't ever get mad and it won't do you a favor either. 

That said, I'm quite surprised by the lack of support for Schumann on this forum. It seems like Artemis and I are fighting the same battle and the same people who had a desire to understand his music won't even moderately take our suggestions. 

And... this is for jaibyrne regarding Schumann, a more-or-less objective ranking, as it is too hard to include obscure composers that are not even highly regarded (in general)

Solo Piano (Top 10)
Lieder (Top 10)
Concerti (Top 30)
Symphonies (Top 30... some lists have him at #14 so i'm actually being harsh!)
Chamber Music (Top 50... ok, maybe 60)
Choral (Top 100, mayb 200... but the Requiem)
Opera (Top 1000, 10000 prob... ok, i'll let this one go)

You don't call this an achievement, especially the first few categories?


----------



## Argus

Air said:


> None of these accusations are true, my friend. But what makes Schumann more unoriginal than other _classical_ composers? That's the point you were trying to argue in the first place, that Schumann had less to offer than Brahms or Schubert. Hence, I'm trying to say, singling him out is quite unfair.
> 
> Argus, my friend, you don't need to attack _anyone_ personally, especially when none of your accusations are true. I won't ever get mad and it won't do you a favor either.


Don't worry I'm not getting wound up at all. I'm just the kind of person who enjoys a healthy debate and the more difficult an opinion to support just makes for a more interesting challenge. I just pounced on your ascertation that a particular statement was ridiculous, which to me, seemed about as sensible a comparison as possible.

I fail to see how you construed my words into some kind of personal attack. I was only throwing out possible reasons to support your position.

It's not that Schumann is less original, more that I can't see any reason why someone would listen to Schumann before Brahms or Schubert. Brahm's Hungarian Dances and Schubert's Symphony 8 and, to lesser extent, Trout Quintet are more famous and more accessible than anything Schumann produced. So, why would a newcomer to all three artists choose to first pursue Schumann, apart from possibly the Piano Concerto in A minor.

You being a pianist, have probably played many of these arists works and will be more familiar with them at an intrinsic level than I and so will be more attuned to the subtle differences. However, if someone told me that John Mclaughlin sounded like Allan Holdsworth I wouldn't be preturbed. Their playing styles are vastly different but the overall music is somewhat similar. It depends upon your own reference point.


----------



## Air

Argus said:


> Don't worry I'm not getting wound up at all. I'm just the kind of person who enjoys a healthy debate and the more difficult an opinion to support just makes for a more interesting challenge. I just pounced on your ascertation that a particular statement was ridiculous, which to me, seemed about as sensible a comparison as possible.
> 
> I fail to see how you construed my words into some kind of personal attack. I was only throwing out possible reasons to support your position.
> 
> It's not that Schumann is less original, more that I can't see any reason why someone would listen to Schumann before Brahms or Schubert. Brahm's Hungarian Dances and Schubert's Symphony 8 and, to lesser extent, Trout Quintet are more famous and more accessible than anything Schumann produced. So, why would a newcomer to all three artists choose to first pursue Schumann, apart from possibly the Piano Concerto in A minor.
> 
> You being a pianist, have probably played many of these arists works and will be more familiar with them at an intrinsic level than I and so will be more attuned to the subtle differences. However, if someone told me that John Mclaughlin sounded like Allan Holdsworth I wouldn't be preturbed. Their playing styles are vastly different but the overall music is somewhat similar. It depends upon your own reference point.


No hard feelings, man.

I understand what you mean to a point. But then, are only pianists able to pick out the subtle differences that make Schumann special compared to Brahms and Schubert? I don't think so. How about Schubert then? I think jaibyrne made a point that he enjoyed Schubert's piano works. How is the D.960 or D.899 more accessible than the Fantasy in C or Davidsbundlertanze? (One could easily argue though that Schumann's Piano Concerto is more pianistic than Brahms' and Grieg's)

It all comes down to what both of us have been arguing the whole time, perspective. Jaibyrne struggles with Schumann and wonders if he should even be considered a great composer. Then you suggest that in his perspective, maybe Schumann is too similar to Brahms to retain any interest. I argue that Brahms and Schumann don't seem too similar, as far as classical composers go, but again this is in my perspective. Schumann is a great composer, but maybe because of the difference in perspective you mentioned, me being a pianist, it is hard for others to see in him what I do. Therefore, I suggested that Jaibryne may have to listen to Schumann in a new perspective in order to enjoy his music. I also answered his original question... yes, Schumann is a great composer, by all means.

You are right, though, when you point out the perspective factor. However, I still don't agree that Brahms and Schubert overshadowed him _because_ Schumann is "boring" and his music lesser. There are other reasons I think, and it has to do with difference in perspective, Schumann's style (which has been discussed already), and also the "reputation" of his music among _beginners_.

I also don't agree that his music is only worth listening to after these composers have been exhausted.


----------



## Jaime77

Air, 

thank you for returning to my original points - they got a bit lost in the heat of the debate. I hope nobody here took offense or took something personally. I don't think it reflects personally on anyone what their taste is. 

Putting Schumann in the top 10 for piano and top ten for lieder - I would agree with lieder definitely - top 5 of the century for lieder I'd say. I however think that Schubert's lieder are unmatched and Schumann's piano music is no greater or lesser than Chabrier, as mentioned before. 
Also, it is not about one being more accessible. I don't think so. I find Schumann quite accessible. But I also find Offenbach and Rossini accessible but I don't like their music - what I have heard of it. Maybe Schumann's type of romanticism is genuinely unique such that these comparisons are somewhat flawed. It is not like comparing Mozart to Haydn when comparing Brahms and Schumann. It is more like comparing Bach and Monteverdi. Two very different Baroque composers with different agendas and approaches. 

I have Argerich playing Schumann and I also have her playing Chopin. Maybe it is the Polish rhythms or the harmonic inventiveness, or the sheer passion, but Chopin wins hands down. Schumann just sounds light and almost too sweet.


----------



## Efraim

Artemis said:


> The OP almost sent me into a state of shock-horror.
> 
> I love Schumann. I have all of his works and I rate him along with Brahms somewhere in the middle of my group of top 10 composers.
> 
> His piano solo works are mainly embodied in his Ops 1-28. Upon these works he concentrated his composition energies during the first ten years of his composing life. They contain some real treasures. They're all fantastic in my opinion but I especially like Fantasie, Etudes Symphoniques, Carnaval, Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana. These works are among his best works of any description, and rate highly in the general piano repertoire.
> 
> .


I feel largely the same way but wouldn't try to convince other people. It is hard to argue about tastes, de gustibus non est disputandum; unlike most of commonplaces this one is true. I assume most of us tend to think that his estimates of musical greatness is the true, the objective one. But in fact it is hard to analyse greatness, let alone to prove it. Musicologists do analyse the complexity of compositions but complexity is not synonymous with greatness. One of Bach's sons argued that his father was greater than Händel because he had written up to _six_-voice fugues; if if this would be the criterion, some 17th century composers would be even greater than Bach...

I also have on disc all of Schumann's instrumental output and a fair amount of his vocal works but this doesn't mean that I like all that. I like very much many of his works for solo piano - being especially fond of Fantasy in C, Kreisleriana, Davidsbündlertänze, 6 Intermezzi Op. 4, Etudes Symphoniques, both Phantasiestücke, Gesänge der Frühe, Sonata in f sharp, Bunte Blätter - plus Eden & Peri, but I find boring almost all of his symphonic and chamber music (not for their orchestration), not to mention his vocal music, with pitifully few exceptions. As for Brahms, it is the other way round. I like his solo piano works but I can find in them neither the forceful, overwhelming inventiveness, nor the exuberant and colorful richness of Schumann's solo piano works. Brahms achieved all that in chamber music, symphonies and concertos.


----------



## Eusebius12

Argus said:


> Don't worry I'm not getting wound up at all. I'm just the kind of person who enjoys a healthy debate and the more difficult an opinion to support just makes for a more interesting challenge. I just pounced on your ascertation that a particular statement was ridiculous, which to me, seemed about as sensible a comparison as possible.
> 
> I fail to see how you construed my words into some kind of personal attack. I was only throwing out possible reasons to support your position.
> 
> It's not that Schumann is less original, more that I can't see any reason why someone would listen to Schumann before Brahms or Schubert. Brahm's Hungarian Dances and Schubert's Symphony 8 and, to lesser extent, Trout Quintet are more famous and more accessible than anything Schumann produced. So, why would a newcomer to all three artists choose to first pursue Schumann, apart from possibly the Piano Concerto in A minor.


Perhaps they are more accessible works, after all Schumann has never been all that accessible. He takes a refinement of aesthetic sensibility, one which facile listeners don't possess. For those with the need for obvious musical moods and emotions, Schumann's great subtlety is lost completely.


----------



## Eusebius12

Jaime77 said:


> But Schumann wrote nothing as profound as Chopin's Four Ballades or Scherzi. Late Chopin, like Schubert, Beethoven, seems to transcend the medium and reach incredible heights of expression. I don't see that happens in Schumann.


Utter rubbish.

Chopin's scherzi and ballades are powerful works, but in no way as profound as Schumann's Kreisleriana or Fantasie. Chopin better exploits the potentialities of the piano than does Schumann, but Schumann reaches greater spiritual depths, akin to late Beethoven (as Liszt himself said). If you haven't heard Horowitz play the Kreisleriana, or someone like Perahia play the Fantasie, you are completely unqualified in judging the greatness of Schumann's keyboard output.


----------



## Eusebius12

Jaime77 said:


> Air,
> 
> thank you for returning to my original points - they got a bit lost in the heat of the debate. I hope nobody here took offense or took something personally. I don't think it reflects personally on anyone what their taste is.
> 
> Putting Schumann in the top 10 for piano and top ten for lieder - I would agree with lieder definitely - top 5 of the century for lieder I'd say. I however think that Schubert's lieder are unmatched and Schumann's piano music is no greater or lesser than Chabrier, as mentioned before.
> Also, it is not about one being more accessible. I don't think so. I find Schumann quite accessible. But I also find Offenbach and Rossini accessible but I don't like their music - what I have heard of it. Maybe Schumann's type of romanticism is genuinely unique such that these comparisons are somewhat flawed. It is not like comparing Mozart to Haydn when comparing Brahms and Schumann. It is more like comparing Bach and Monteverdi. Two very different Baroque composers with different agendas and approaches.
> 
> I have Argerich playing Schumann and I also have her playing Chopin. Maybe it is the Polish rhythms or the harmonic inventiveness, or the sheer passion, but Chopin wins hands down. Schumann just sounds light and almost too sweet.


Schumann is one of the immortals in piano music, an absolute God. Debussy mastered the materials of piano music but not the content (on the whole).
Your comparison between Schumann on the one hand, and Chabrier and Rossini on the other, show you up to be a complete philistine.

Argerich is not the best Schumann player. I find her playing heavy handed and unmusical. She does not bring a true romantic sensibility like Horowitz or even Rachmaninov, Friedman, Neuhaus, Richter (for example) to this music...


----------



## Eusebius12

I do agree that Brahms' excelled in chamber works.

However I find his symphonies not particularly convincing. The 1st for example, which is rarely criticized, goes nowhere emotionally or spiritually. And where it does go means very little.However the 4th is a taut and powerful work, the only one that consistently convinces me.

On the other hand, all 4 Schumann symphonies are powerful, convincing emotionally, and musically satisfying experiences. His chamber works are unjustly neglected. The 1st piano trio to my mind and ears is finer than anything written by Beethoven in that genre, and possibly the finest trio before Faure.
Perhaps Jaime is not also a fan of Faure? Because that master's work is also subtle and elusive, and tends to be placed (monstrously unjustifiably) in the 'easy listening' bracket.

Schumann was a colossal genius, who rocked music out of the stupor of its lethargy. He didn't fulfill all his gifts, partially due to incomplete training, partially due to mental instability. But he towers in the lieder and piano genres, and is one of the most significant voices after Beethoven in chamber, symphonic and choral music, inferior to Brahms in the first aspect but superior in the latter 2.

To liken the 'Domini' (Brahms' term for Schumann) to Grieg is little short of blasphemy.....


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

Eusebius12 said:


> Schumann was a colossal genius, who rocked music out of the stupor of its lethargy. He didn't fulfill all his gifts, partially due to incomplete training, partially due to mental instability. But he towers in the lieder and piano genres, and is one of the most significant voices after Beethoven in chamber, symphonic and choral music, inferior to Brahms in the first aspect but superior in the latter 2.
> 
> QUOTE]
> I have to agree. I have his Scenes from Goethe's Faust, and he is hands down a brilliant fellow. If we take his mental instability and lack of training nito consideration, he is probably a top 7 composer of all time. With his mental crises the man was able to produced over 132 published works in all genres whilst, accompanying his wife, and whilst being an editor for a magazine. The only person that shames Schumann in regards to productivity and quality in Schubert. Heck Schubert died at 32 and what he left was amazing.
> 
> I would say that the only thing I don't like from Schumann's output is his set of string quartets.
> 
> His Piano Quintet is probably the greatest written. I recently had Brahms Piano Quintet as the best but I have changed my mind. Schumann brings so much color and contrast that it makes Brahms' seem nothing more than brutal monotony.


----------



## starry

Eusebius12 said:


> I do agree that Brahms' excelled in chamber works.
> 
> However I find his symphonies not particularly convincing. The 1st for example, which is rarely criticized, goes nowhere emotionally or spiritually. And where it does go means very little.However the 4th is a taut and powerful work, the only one that consistently convinces me.


The first I suppose is meant to go from dark to light. The second seems to me quite a strong piece.


----------



## realdealblues

I don't have much to add. I like Schumann. I think he was great, but like most things I have to be in the mood for it. I can't listen to him every single day any more than I can listen to Bach every single day. I would like to add the fact that a great deal of people still look upon him with great love and affection, and the fact that he's still being talked about and his works are still being performed 154 years after his death must mean he did something right.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

starry said:


> The first I suppose is meant to go from dark to light. The second seems to me quite a strong piece.


the first is a copy cat of Beethoven's 5th. Von Bulow called it the 10th.


----------



## Guest

I think that Schumann certainly deserves a place in the higher spheres of composers. Longevity, as well as his influence on others, certainly qualifies him there. But so many arguments here have gone beyond the original question, into arguments of whose favorite composer is better. Whether Schumann was or wasn't better than any number of other composers certainly doesn't diminish him overall. Stratification by who is "better" is so subjective, and there isn't even any agreed upon classification system. Do we judge by volume of works? By diversity of works? By whether they are still performed today? By the number of composers of note that credit them as an inspiration? It all becomes absurd - someone prefers Brahms because of one factor, while someone else prefers Schumann due to another factor.

I have not been able to get into Schumann's works - I have his symphonies, and some of his piano music played by Horowitz. It just doesn't move me. Granted, I have not fully explored his repertoire, but what I have sampled has not encouraged me to look deeper. That being said, I can still acknowledge that he is a great composer, without having to admit that he was the greatest. For myself, of the early Romantics, I much prefer Schubert. On any given day, I would much rather listen to Brahms, Dvorak, Chopin, or Schubert over Schumann.


----------



## Poppin' Fresh

_Dichterliebe_ is I think one of the more intense 'dude loses mind' pieces. What I really feel in it is how the songs fit together as a cycle; I'd love to hear someone cut off all the endings and play straight through the entire thing with no pauses. It's pretty amazing some of the stuff he pulls off harmonically given the smooth togetherness of the music.


----------



## mueske

ScipioAfricanus said:


> the first is a copy cat of Beethoven's 5th. Von Bulow called it the 10th.


It's commonly compared to the ninth because of the similar theme in the 4th movement. The fate motive is also used, but that's not why they gave it that nickname.

And so what? Brahms knew what he was doing and never shied away from the comparisons to the Beethoven symphonies.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

mueske said:


> It's commonly compared to the ninth because of the similar theme in the 4th movement. The fate motive is also used, but that's not why they gave it that nickname.
> 
> And so what? Brahms knew what he was doing and never shied away from the comparisons to the Beethoven symphonies.


of course he knew what he was doing. He knew he was being bastardly unoriginal.


----------



## mueske

ScipioAfricanus said:


> of course he knew what he was doing. He knew he was being bastardly unoriginal.


For using a similar theme? The symphony still screams 'Brahms!' and is in ideas and overall mood very different from anything Beethoven wrote.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus

mueske said:


> For using a similar theme? The symphony still screams 'Brahms!' and is in ideas and overall mood very different from anything Beethoven wrote.


not the same theme necessarily but the same concept of the 5th with the linking of movements.


----------



## mueske

ScipioAfricanus said:


> not the same theme necessarily but the same concept of the 5th with the linking of movements.


What's so horrible about that? And I'm pretty sure Brahms wasn't the only after Beethoven who used that. Though I have to admit, can't really think of an example right now, but I'm sure it exists.


----------



## Eusebius12

> I have to agree. I have his Scenes from Goethe's Faust, and he is hands down a brilliant fellow. If we take his mental instability and lack of training nito consideration, he is probably a top 7 composer of all time. With his mental crises the man was able to produced over 132 published works in all genres whilst, accompanying his wife, and whilst being an editor for a magazine. The only person that shames Schumann in regards to productivity and quality in Schubert. Heck Schubert died at 32 and what he left was amazing.
> 
> I would say that the only thing I don't like from Schumann's output is his set of string quartets.
> 
> His Piano Quintet is probably the greatest written. I recently had Brahms Piano Quintet as the best but I have changed my mind. Schumann brings so much color and contrast that it makes Brahms' seem nothing more than brutal monotony.


He did have a phenomenal productivity, possibly in part due to his bipolarity. Some bipolar people do make use of their periods of mania in order to get things accomplished.

I am a bit 'meh' about quite a few of Schumann's published works, e.g. the early set of Impromptus, the Allegro, and a few other things (well not that many things to be honest  )
The String Quartets, while hardly the greatest in the genre, have good things in them, I have warmed to them recently (with more frequent hearings).

I would rate him 5 in my pantheon, even though I am a rabid Schumannophile I still try to be honest...my top 4 are Bach, Beethoven Mozart and Schubert.

I still do rate Brahms' Piano Quintet as a superior piece to Schumann's, surprisingly, although I adore Schumann's quintet. Its just that I rate Brahms' as his finest work, and the finest in that genre.


----------



## Eusebius12

starry said:


> The first I suppose is meant to go from dark to light. The second seems to me quite a strong piece.


Yes, the 1st is an 'homage' to Beethoven. Its just not very good. I mean that in a respectful way, of course it is Brahms and is hardly rubbish, its just that the journey he takes us is not particularly convincing to me. Brahms on the whole was not very good at depicting real joy in his music, and the effect at the end sounds to me a little sought rather than inspired.

A somewhat analogous case in Brahms might be the finale of the F Minor Piano Sonata... (even though I find this work somewhat superior overall to the 1st symphony). The last movement does not conclude the work in a wholly convincing way emotionally and spiritually. The work on the whole is pure tragedy, yet we are given a Mendelssohnian journey in the finale of no great emotional depth or any particular emotional logic. Its still an enjoyable movement, though.

Cf the 1st symphony. Beethoven achieves his joy through struggle, but there is no struggle here in Brahms, just an outcry then a tune. Or so it sounds to me.

In the 4th, Brahms dispenses with the Beethovenian pretense and produces pure tragedy, even if a cerebral one. Next to the 4th, I find his 3rd the most convincing, and it too is tragic (and angry). I do find the 2nd also enjoyable, if not the deepest (or most memorable)


----------



## Eusebius12

realdealblues said:


> I don't have much to add. I like Schumann. I think he was great, but like most things I have to be in the mood for it. I can't listen to him every single day any more than I can listen to Bach every single day. I would like to add the fact that a great deal of people still look upon him with great love and affection, and the fact that he's still being talked about and his works are still being performed 154 years after his death must mean he did something right.


Exactly 

I would like to add, that Schumann induces very strong feelings in some people....


----------



## Eusebius12

DrMike said:


> I think that Schumann certainly deserves a place in the higher spheres of composers. Longevity, as well as his influence on others, certainly qualifies him there. But so many arguments here have gone beyond the original question, into arguments of whose favorite composer is better. Whether Schumann was or wasn't better than any number of other composers certainly doesn't diminish him overall. Stratification by who is "better" is so subjective, and there isn't even any agreed upon classification system. Do we judge by volume of works? By diversity of works? By whether they are still performed today? By the number of composers of note that credit them as an inspiration? It all becomes absurd - someone prefers Brahms because of one factor, while someone else prefers Schumann due to another factor.
> 
> I have not been able to get into Schumann's works - I have his symphonies, and some of his piano music played by Horowitz. It just doesn't move me. Granted, I have not fully explored his repertoire, but what I have sampled has not encouraged me to look deeper. That being said, I can still acknowledge that he is a great composer, without having to admit that he was the greatest. For myself, of the early Romantics, I much prefer Schubert. On any given day, I would much rather listen to Brahms, Dvorak, Chopin, or Schubert over Schumann.


Fair enough. Not everyone likes French cuisine, or any number of things which are objectively 'good'. I think there are some objective ways to judge greatness in composers, otherwise the lists would not have the same names over again. Schumann is virtually universally mentioned when the great are spoken of. He deserves respect, and he deserves effort, just as Bach and Beethoven do. Lets face it, Bach is not really that popular. I don't listen to Schumann daily either. Bach I do.

Why does Schumann mean so much to me, though? His music is a unique experience, and it can be *experienced*...it is something that affected me heart and soul, and body. His music has beauty, exuberance, intellect, fantasy, it soars, it encompasses the dark romantic soul...it breathes vitality and virility.
it is wild, it is out of control...yet it can be cerebral, and restrained, classic in its purity.
At times he has clarity, at others density and opaqueness. This is derided as failure. 
I love Schumann's opaqueness, his deliberate obfuscation at times. He writes such syncopations that it is virtually impossible (without a great artist playing) to grasp the beat, he submerges the concertante cello in the orchestral texture, some of his late lieder disappear in chromatic mists.

The man was simply unique, and his utterance was consequently unique. His lack of lengthy music education was part of this, and this evidently contributed to allowing the richness of his creativity to take full wing.

As Horowitz said, talking about a Beethoven sonata, "its good but it isn't Schumann". Also Hutcheson, speaking of the Kreisleriana (I tried to rewrite the wiki article on Schumann and used this quote, but unfortunately the article is still pretty unsatisfactory..Steven Isserlis are you out there) said that "The entire set is remarkable for richness of coloring and intensity of feeling. To appreciate it a high level of aesthetic intelligence is required...This is no facile music; there is severity alike in its beauty and its passion..." and the Fantasie: "No words can describe the Fantasie, no quotations set forth the majesty of its genius..."


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I have few of Schumann's works. They don't "sing" as well to my ears as they do other favourite composers of mine. I do consider Schumann as "great" in a broad sense. Pity he went nuts. Man of more potential than his works probably might suggest.

What do the Schumann experts here think of his opera _Genoveva_? I have never listened to it.


----------



## Tapkaara

The short answer is "yes," he is indeed a great composer.


----------



## Sid James

I really like his three concertos, one each for piano, cello & violin. The last two are not played half as much as the first. What makes these special, and perhaps many of this other works, is the lyricism & understated poetry. Sure, they don't try to grab you with flashiness & bravura, but deeper listening reveals a real refinement of melody, as some people have noted above. It's also amazing how the _Cello Concerto_ has three linked movements and the music explores one main idea - this was truly revolutionary, prefiguring what many composers would do in the C20th. I look forward to seeing it done live later in the year.

I haven't heard many of his solo piano, chamber or lieder. I'm still warming to his symphonies, but I think the 4th (again, monothematic) can stand up to any written by Brahms. I also like the drama of the _Manfred Overture_, it is just as gripping as Beethoven. So there shouldn't be any debate as to whether he was a "great" composer. Pity that he had such a short (& troubled) life...


----------



## GraemeG

I have no quibble with your defense of Schumann. But this:


Eusebius12 said:


> ...
> However I find his [Brahms] symphonies not particularly convincing. The 1st for example, which is rarely criticized, goes nowhere emotionally or spiritually. And where it does go means very little...


might be one of the silliest things I have ever read. As mentioned by another, not for nothing was it called 'the Tenth'. Rarely criticised for good reason...
Graeme


----------



## GraemeG

mueske said:


> What's so horrible about that? And I'm pretty sure Brahms wasn't the only after Beethoven who used that. Though I have to admit, can't really think of an example right now, but I'm sure it exists.


Beethoven hadn't been dead 10 years and Berlioz was doing it in the _Fantastique_...
Graeme


----------



## Eusebius12

GraemeG said:


> I have no quibble with your defense of Schumann. But this:
> 
> might be one of the silliest things I have ever read. As mentioned by another, not for nothing was it called 'the Tenth'. Rarely criticised for good reason...
> Graeme


Yet Brahms may have felt self conscious about it later. When questioned as to the similarity of themes between the 'big tune' of the last movement and the ode to joy theme, Brahms said "any jackass can see that".

The work seeks a Beethovenian progression without a Beethovenian struggle, so that even though much of the music sounds good to my ears, I get no sense of fulfillment. There is no sense of journey. Brahms was a different person from Beethoven, and his tribute to the Van style of symphony was somewhat misguided from that point of view, and didn't lead to any further development along those lines. Brahms subsequent symphonies are a lot more personal in tone and not particularly imitative, and sound more natural and convincing as a result.


----------



## Eusebius12

Andre said:


> I really like his three concertos, one each for piano, cello & violin. The last two are not played half as much as the first. What makes these special, and perhaps many of this other works, is the lyricism & understated poetry. Sure, they don't try to grab you with flashiness & bravura,


This is the essence of Schumann, which was carried on to a degree by Brahms, the idea of never overemphasising effect over content..this is why Schumann was repulsed by men like Meyerbeer (well before Wagner) and later Liszt, who made music a 'spektakel'. Clara was of the same mind, although she had imbibed at the fountain of "the most pure of pure musicians" (Schumann, according to Harold Schonberg)


----------



## Eusebius12

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I have few of Schumann's works. They don't "sing" as well to my ears as they do other favourite composers of mine. I do consider Schumann as "great" in a broad sense. Pity he went nuts. Man of more potential than his works probably might suggest.
> 
> What do the Schumann experts here think of his opera _Genoveva_? I have never listened to it.


Schumann in my view was a gifted melodist, in fact I am underexaggerating here. Still, his melodies are not as singable in one sense as those of Mozart or Schubert. There could be a comparison with Wagner, (mentioning Genoveva there is a good reason to suppose that and the Paradise and the Peri had a good deal of influence on Wagner, with their continuous flow, 'melos' if you like) whose melodic contours often strike me as quite similar. Wagner indeed only stole from the best.

Of course, many of Schumann's best tunes are pianistic, just like Chopin. This is important, as keyboard figurations are of necessity different from vocal ones. When you say "sing" perhaps you don't imply this, although it does strike me that of all great composers, Schumann's themes seem to derive from pianistic figurations more than any other composer. Even Chopin was heavily influenced by opera (even if his works are impossible to perform properly with the voice or really any other instrument, Malibran's or Ballets Russes arrangements notwithstanding)


----------



## Eusebius12

Oh and yes Genoveva is a fine work, well worth revival, although its 'dramatic qualities' are said to be 'lacking'. But whenever it has been performed, it has been received well. The music is really good.

However, the quasi-operatic Faust Scenes and Paradise and the Peri are even better, and it is unaccountable that these works are not performed more frequently. Youtube them


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Eusebius12 said:


> Oh and yes Genoveva is a fine work, well worth revival, although its 'dramatic qualities' are said to be 'lacking'. But whenever it has been performed, it has been received well. The music is really good.
> 
> However, the quasi-operatic Faust Scenes and Paradise and the Peri are even better, and it is unaccountable that these works are not performed more frequently. Youtube them


Yes, I was thinking of buying a CD on _Das Paradies und die Peri_, _Requiem for Mignon_ and _Nachtlied_ (_Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique _/John Eliot Gardiner). I'll give that a try.


----------



## Eusebius12

Gardiner is an absolute genius.


----------



## chalkpie

Argus said:


> Hatfield and the North


Yeah man! Rotters' Club is one of my favorite albums EVER.


----------



## worov

To the OP, listen to this :


----------



## Op.123

I agree with you that the Brahms symphonies are better but you must listen to the piano concerto, it is probably my favourite piece of classical music, also his solo piano works are fantastic. The only other composer who wrote such brilliant music for solo piano was Chopin and maybe Beethoven. His allegro appassionato for piano and orchestra and violin concerto are both brilliant pieces and his symphonies are also good but his orchestration wasn't the best.


----------



## Novelette

The symphonies are extraordinary in my reckoning, particularly the second--although the first movement still doesn't appeal to me.

The fourth movement of the E-Flat Major Symphony is among the most intensely evocative works of the era. Supposed to illustrate the majestic Cologne Cathedral rising in the distance, it made a particular impression on Tchaikovsky. We can feel the awe with which Schumann beheld that great cathedral, which he first beheld in his Law School years when he took a boat down the Rhine toward Switzerland, and eventually, Italy. The fifth movement is the least impressive of that whole symphony, in my opinion. It's catchy and very fine, but juxtaposed with the whole of the symphonic repertoire in those decades, it doesn't really stand out.

The Allegro Appassionato is indeed a very sweet work, and I would also mention the great Allegro & Introduction for Piano and Orchestra in D Minor, Op. 134, whose conclusion is especially riveting.


----------



## Op.123

> But as for concertos... he has a cello concerto that for some reason is neglected and a piano concerto which I am sorry but I find ... *boring* :-/


I hope that is just a rather serious misspelling of incredible.


----------



## julianoq

I was not familiar with Schumann works, a few days ago I bought a record of the Piano Concerto and found it outstanding. It is easily on my top 3 favorite piano concertos.


----------



## Op.123

julianoq said:


> I was not familiar with Schumann works, a few days ago I bought a record of the Piano Concerto and found it outstanding. It is easily on my top 3 favorite piano concertos.


Which recording did you buy??


----------



## julianoq

Burroughs said:


> Which recording did you buy??


First one with Argerich, then one with Grimaud (the Reflection album, that also have Brahms and Clara Schumann's works) that I liked a little more, but I enjoyed both.

Any other recomendation?


----------



## Op.123

julianoq said:


> First one with Argerich, then one with Grimaud (the Reflection album, that also have Brahms and Clara Schumann's works) that I liked a little more, but I enjoyed both.
> 
> Any other recomendation?


Arraus' interpretation is excellent and for an authentic rendition with the correct tempos try Shelley's recording.


----------



## Novelette

This question has been debated many, many times.

Please allow me to issue the definitive judgment as to whether Schumann was or was not a great composer.

_He was._

:tiphat:


----------



## Op.123

Novelette said:


> This question has been debated many, many times.
> 
> Please allow me to issue the definitive judgment as to whether Schumann was or was not a great composer.
> 
> _He was._
> 
> :tiphat:


Carrying on from *he was*....
Absolutely, undeniably, certainly, definitely, completely, unmitigatedly *great*.


----------



## Novelette

I realize that I have already posted this in the "Funny Videos" thread in the Community Forum, but it's worth posting again...

Favorite composers? Beethoven... and Schumann.

If you could spend time with any two historical characters, who? .... and Schumann.

If Martha loves Schumann, who are we not to love him?


----------



## John Kiunke

I was never into Schumann, but the Intermezzo from Faschingschwank aus Wien is almost enough alone to make him a great composer in my opinion.


----------



## Pugg

John Kiunke said:


> I was never into Schumann, but the Intermezzo from Faschingschwank aus Wien is almost enough alone to make him a great composer in my opinion.


Just 3 minutes of piano music, I think he deserves more credit.


----------



## Judith

I wasn't familiar with him until recently. 
Listened to him in depth when I saw tweets about him from one of my favourite musicians on Twitter. 

Realised his works are amazing!


----------



## hpowders

Schumann was a legend in his own mind. He obviously thought a lot of himself. I don't care for his music and his friend Brahms was a much greater composer.


----------



## Pugg

Judith said:


> I wasn't familiar with him until recently.
> Listened to him in depth when I saw tweets about him from one of my favourite musicians on Twitter.
> 
> Realised his works are amazing!


You see, finding new things is always excited. :angel:


----------



## Phil loves classical

No, he is not a great composer, compared to many others who wrote masterpieces. But he is still better than quite a lot of them too.


----------



## mathisdermaler

I don't think he is as great as Brahms, especially not his symphonies. However, his lieder (Liederkreis op. 24/39, Dichterliebe) are the best I've heard - even better than those of Schubert himself. I don't love his piano sonatas for some reason.

Listen to Liederkreis op 24. It is very short (9 songs, probably around 20 minutes total) and very sweet. Dichterliebe is his lied masterpiece, listen to that too.


----------



## DeepR

John Kiunke said:


> I was never into Schumann, but the Intermezzo from Faschingschwank aus Wien is almost enough alone to make him a great composer in my opinion.


Love that piece. I've played it myself. Should pick it up again sometime. 
I recommend De Laroccha for the entire Op. 26.

Check out Argerich in this magical recording of Fantasiestücke.


----------



## lluissineu

Beauty is on The eyes of The beholder. I'm not arguing about Schumann being a great composer, and less compared to Brahms (whose music I declare is one of The tops for me), but take me as a defender of their compositions. His piano concerto is absolutely a masterpiece for me, I'd place him as one of my three favourite ones. 

Their symphonies are also very good, as well as part of his piano music. I know he's not one of the most valued composers, however he's very dear to me.


----------



## Bulldog

hpowders said:


> Schumann was a legend in his own mind. He obviously thought a lot of himself. I don't care for his music and his friend Brahms was a much greater composer.


Leaving aside the thorny issue of greatness, Schumann is one of my favorite composers of solo piano music - Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana, Humoreske, Davidsbundlertanze and the Symphonic Etudes are all master works for me.

Brahms is very good, but I'll always take Schumann first.


----------



## Tchaikov6

Bulldog said:


> Leaving aside the thorny issue of greatness, Schumann is one of my favorite composers of solo piano music - Kinderszenen, Kreisleriana, Humoreske, Davidsbundlertanze and the Symphonic Etudes are all master works for me.
> 
> Brahms is very good, but I'll always take Schumann first.


Love his symphonies but not his piano music.


----------



## Bulldog

Tchaikov6 said:


> Love his symphonies but not his piano music.


Understood. Symphonies don't tend to rank very high with my musical preferences, Schumann's included.


----------



## bz3

I'm pretty sure Brahms would have considered himself Schumann's equal at his best - he revered him and I don't think just because of the mentor relationship. Schumann's one of my favorite and I think he's "great" without question. He's on par with Haydn, Mozart, Chopin, Brahms, Stravinsky, and a few others for me and I don't think he has anything to be ashamed of beyond a relatively short composing career.

I do wonder if he'd never ventured out of the solo piano genre if he'd have the same kind of mystique that Chopin does (even though Chopin did compose a bit outside that genre). In any case I'm glad Clara convinced him to - he's as versatile as any of the great composers in terms of ability in different genres.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

bz3 said:


> I do wonder if he'd never ventured out of the solo piano genre if he'd have the same kind of mystique that Chopin does (even though Chopin did compose a bit outside that genre)..


Good question and I think the answer is "Yes."


----------



## Neward Thelman

Schumann is among the great composers. His music is in the pantheon of pure genius.

His symphonies are a cornerstone of 19th cent symphonic art. The more you know them, the deeper you go, the richer they become. Their influence on succeeding composers was both massive and subtle.

Ignore all of the BS about his orchestration. Irrelevant. 

"Why couldn't he learn to orchestrate 'better'?? I mean, it is not rocket science, is it?" 

Yes - it kind of is. It requires both learned skill and mastery, and actual talent. And today, with those who do it for a living being so good at it and having raised the bar so high, if you aren't around or - best of all - in an orchestra where you can pick up on subtle new sound and sonorities on a daily basis - you'll probably never be at the top of the game.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Schumann certainly was a great composer if judged on his lieder and piano works from c. 1831-40. His chamber output is (on the whole) of a high standard without being revelatory but I don't see any reason to call him great if we factor in his orchestral and choral works - I don't think either genre brought out anything remotely like the best in him.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

For one thing, among many other things: ever notice how the splendid slow movement of Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony sounds a lot like the lovely slow movement of Bizet's 1st, which was written earlier but which Tchaikovsky certainly never knew? It's because they're both rewriting the slow movement of Schumann's D minor symphony ("4") - Tchaikovsky directly, Bizet either directly, by way of the slow movement of Gounod's 1st symphony, or both.


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> For one thing, among many other things: ever notice how the splendid slow movement of Tchaikovsky's 4th symphony sounds a lot like the lovely slow movement of Bizet's 1st, which was written earlier but which Tchaikovsky certainly never knew? It's because they're both rewriting the slow movement of Schumann's D minor symphony ("4") - Tchaikovsky directly, Bizet either directly, by way of the slow movement of Gounod's 1st symphony, or both.


I don't hear any resemblance beyond a general lyricism and an oboe solo between the Tchaikovsky and the Bizet, which is natural since the latter wasn't performed until 1935. Nor do I hear any appreciable resemblance between the Bizet and the Schumann or the Tchaikovsky and the Schumann. Tchaikovsky rewriting the Schumann? It is the last thing Tchaikovsky would have done. Bizarre thought.


----------



## Schumanniac

hpowders said:


> Schumann was a legend in his own mind. He obviously thought a lot of himself. I don't care for his music and his friend Brahms was a much greater composer.


Ooh, theres little doubt Brahms was a far better composer in the craftmanship sense of the word. Dont think Schumann could've ever hoped to create something along the lines of the brahms symphonies. His mastery lays in lieder and solo piano, Brahms just seemed to have the midas touch regardless of genre or instrument.

What made Schumann unique to me was his spirit which is so deeply embedded into his music. Wildly creative, his very soul seems infused in his works, enigmatic and multi-facetted. Brahms awe with the complexity of his work, and the strenght and nobility of it. Schumann reveals himself completely for better or worse. Hes like an old dear friend you know well, flaws and all  As a composer theres been many like him, but as an artist he was truly unique and gifted.


----------



## Chronochromie

Schumanniac said:


> Ooh, theres little doubt Brahms was a far better composer in the craftmanship sense of the word. Dont think Schumann could've ever hoped to create something along the lines of the brahms symphonies.


Thank God, for he wrote better symphonies.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

EdwardBast said:


> Tchaikovsky rewriting the Schumann? It is the last thing Tchaikovsky would have done. Bizarre thought.


Wrong.


----------



## EdwardBast

Magnum Miserium said:


> Wrong.
> 
> That isn't a symphony. What are the similarities between the two symphonic movements you cited?


----------



## Schumanniac

Chronochromie said:


> Thank God, for he wrote better symphonies.


A claim revealing sizeable cajones  I must agree though, i love Schumann's symphonies better as well. In sound they're like a precursor to Bruckner and Mahler, least to me. Vast different people of course but i feel a deep connection between them.

I do hear some imperfections in those works however that i dont notice in Brahms', hence my statement. Didnt mean 'better' just better constructed.


----------



## Chronochromie

Schumanniac said:


> A claim revealing sizeable cajones  I must agree though, i love Schumann's symphonies better as well. In sound they're like a precursor to Bruckner and Mahler, least to me. Vast different people of course but i feel a deep connection between them.
> 
> I do hear some imperfections in those works however that i dont notice in Brahms', hence my statement. Didnt mean 'better' just better constructed.


I haven't heard any imperfections in Schumann's symphonies, at least as conducted by Gardiner. But something like Brahms's 1st symphony I hear padding and uninteresting development. Maybe it's technically more masterful, maybe not, I don't really care.

Even when there are some noticeable imperfections, it isn't enough to make me prefer another composer who does the technical side better. Rimsky is a better craftsman than Borodin? Maybe so, but it doesn't matter, I still prefer Borodin.

BTW cajones means drawers in Spanish, I don't think that's what you meant.


----------



## Alydon

Ever since I started listening to classical music I have always had a great affection for Schumann - I mean who didn't have a copy of the piano concerto in their first dozen LPs. Schumann was considered a major musical figure in his time and his reputation has come and gone over the years but what is interesting is that many great musicians (pianists) have included great tracts of Schumann's music in their repertoire. Schumann not only created great melodies in his own voice, he also had an added neurosis in his music that gives it great psychological depth, often mirroring possibly his own fragile psyche. I believe Schumann could have become a far greater composer had he not suffered mentally and lived longer, and also broadened his musical language and form - we could have had five of that great piano concerto and many more sonatas.
For now though we have the equivalent of the remains of great sprawling early romantic novel, the story remains unfinished but what is retained is priceless.


----------



## Chronochromie

Alydon said:


> Ever since I started listening to classical music I have always had a great affection for Schumann - I mean who didn't have a copy of the piano concerto in their first dozen LPs. Schumann was considered a major musical figure in his time and his reputation has come and gone over the years but what is interesting is that many great musicians (pianists) have included great tracts of Schumann's music in their repertoire. Schumann not only created great melodies in his own voice, he also had an added neurosis in his music that gives it great psychological depth, often mirroring possibly his own fragile psyche. I believe Schumann could have become a far greater composer had he not suffered mentally and lived longer, and also broadened his musical language and form - we could have had five of that great piano concerto and many more sonatas.
> For now though we have the equivalent of the remains of great sprawling early romantic novel, the story remains unfinished but what is retained is priceless.


I disagree. He did more than enough in his lifetime, as it stands he wrote five great concertos (including 2 great piano concertos), four symphonies, one great oratorio and some of the finest piano works, chamber music and lieder of the Romantic era, he certainly broadened his scope from mostly writing piano works and lieder. 
Saying he would have been a greater composer if he lived longer is like saying the same about Mozart and Schubert, it may be true but they did so much while they were here, they're not "may have beens" like Lekeu or Rott. 
Plus I don't understand what you think about his mental illness, you say it gives depth to his music yet he would have been a better composer without it?


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Undoubtedly.

If he only wrote the solo piano music and never even touched another genre, he'd _still_ be among the very best.


----------



## shangoyal

Alydon said:


> Ever since I started listening to classical music I have always had a great affection for Schumann - I mean who didn't have a copy of the piano concerto in their first dozen LPs. Schumann was considered a major musical figure in his time and his reputation has come and gone over the years but what is interesting is that many great musicians (pianists) have included great tracts of Schumann's music in their repertoire. Schumann not only created great melodies in his own voice, he also had an added neurosis in his music that gives it great psychological depth, often mirroring possibly his own fragile psyche. I believe Schumann could have become a far greater composer had he not suffered mentally and lived longer, and also broadened his musical language and form - we could have had five of that great piano concerto and many more sonatas.
> For now though we have the equivalent of the remains of great sprawling early romantic novel, the story remains unfinished but what is retained is priceless.


Beautifully put.


----------



## Chronochromie

shangoyal said:


> Beautifully put.


Poor Schumann...


----------



## mtmailey

Schumann is a great composer one just listen to his four symphonies.He do have chamber music like string quartets.


----------



## Alydon

Chronochromie said:


> I disagree. He did more than enough in his lifetime, as it stands he wrote five great concertos (including 2 great piano concertos), four symphonies, one great oratorio and some of the finest piano works, chamber music and lieder of the Romantic era, he certainly broadened his scope from mostly writing piano works and lieder.
> Saying he would have been a greater composer if he lived longer is like saying the same about Mozart and Schubert, it may be true but they did so much while they were here, they're not "may have beens" like Lekeu or Rott.
> Plus I don't understand what you think about his mental illness, you say it gives depth to his music yet he would have been a better composer without it?


Schumann's dark and troubled personality must have had some baring on his music and towards the end of his life his condition seriously impaired and finally stopped him composing, So yes, he would have become an even greater composer had he not been afflicted by mental illness, which also brought about his premature death. Wondering what might have been had a composer lived longer is a sort of parlour game, but for some composers we may feel their work on earth was completed - Chopin, Schubert and Mozart come to mind, but in Schumann's case it was a life brutally interrupted which should have yielded much more.
To answer the original question, yes, Schumann is a very great composer and would easily fall into the top dozen or so of all time greatest, an accolade very rare indeed.
I was very surprised to learn Schumann had written two great piano concertos. I am only aware of the one in A minor, the one in the old days that was usually paired up on the other side of the LP with the Grieg, but if another one exists I would love to hear it.


----------



## Chronochromie

Alydon said:


> Schumann's dark and troubled personality must have had some baring on his music and towards the end of his life his condition seriously impaired and finally stopped him composing, So yes, he would have become an even greater composer had he not been afflicted by mental illness, which also brought about his premature death. Wondering what might have been had a composer lived longer is a sort of parlour game, but for some composers we may feel their work on earth was completed - Chopin, Schubert and Mozart come to mind, but in Schumann's case it was a life brutally interrupted which should have yielded much more.
> To answer the original question, yes, Schumann is a very great composer and would easily fall into the top dozen or so of all time greatest, an accolade very rare indeed.
> I was very surprised to learn Schumann had written two great piano concertos. I am only aware of the one in A minor, the one in the old days that was usually paired up on the other side of the LP with the Grieg, but if another one exists I would love to hear it.


But it's very subjective who one thinks had a "complete" career. I think that Schumann's career is much more complete than one of your examples, Chopin, who, for example, might have started to write high quality chamber music as he showed he could with his great cello sonata, something that Schumann had mastered by the time of his death.

Yes, Schumann wrote three piano concertos in total, actually. The one I meant is the rather unknown Introduction and Concert-Allegro, op. 134. It's a late work and some people apparently don't like those too much, but I love his late period. Here's an endorsement: Brahms said it was his favorite Schumann concerto with the Fantasy for violin and orchestra, op. 131, and performed it.


----------



## Magnum Miserium

Chronochromie said:


> Yes, Schumann wrote three piano concertos in total, actually. The one I meant is the rather unknown Introduction and Concert-Allegro, op. 134. It's a late work and some people apparently don't like those too much, but I love his late period. Here's an endorsement: Brahms said it was his favorite Schumann concerto with the Fantasy for violin and orchestra, op. 131, and performed it.


My working theory is, if Yoko Kanno lifted a hook from it, it's probably pretty top shelf:


----------



## Tallisman

Schumann for me, at the moment, is the greatest composer for piano after Beethoven. Surely the greatest 'true' romantic composer for piano. Kreisleriana blows me away every time. The complexity, the uninterrupted ease of flow of brilliant ideas is just astounding. 

Can take or leave his symphonies, and even the piano concerto (surprising, considering my above statement) leaves me slightly cold.


----------



## Star

Schumann one certainly one of the great composers for piano.


----------



## Donna Elvira

Schumann was great in piano music, very individualistic, and in vocal music, probably second only to Schubert, but I do love a lot of Brahms lieder, as well.
He also wrote some great chamber music, 
Quartet for Piano & Strings in Eb	op. 44	
Quintet for Piano & Strings in Eb	op.47	
Romances for piano & oboe	op. 94	
Szell did some good interpretations of a couple of his symphonies. Maybe the the Chailly with Mahler's changes would suit some better.


----------



## Michael Diemer

When I started "going classical" in the 70's, I liked Schumann immediately. Mostly his symphonies. Then I fell in love with the piano concerto in the 80's. In the 90's, it was chamber music. Now, I have come back to his synphonies. They are musically very meaty (an odd thing for a vegan to say, but somehow appropriate). With Schumann, it's all meat. No fat, gristle, just 100% USDA-approved free-range beef. He couldn't orchestrate? To hell with orchestration. He fleshed-out his symphonies without any of the excesses of hyper-Romanticism. It works, because the ideas are so strong they don't need any dressing up. And all four of them are equally good. It's a shame he burned out so young. If only they had Lithium back then...


----------



## Nevum

Michael Diemer said:


> When I started "going classical" in the 70's, I liked Schumann immediately. Mostly his symphonies. Then I fell in love with the piano concerto in the 80's. In the 90's, it was chamber music. Now, I have come back to his synphonies. They are musically very *meaty* (an odd thing for a vegan to say, but somehow appropriate). With Schumann, *it's all meat*. No fat, gristle, just 100% USDA-approved free-range beef. He couldn't orchestrate? To hell with orchestration. He *fleshed-out* his symphonies without any of the excesses of hyper-Romanticism. It works, because the ideas are so strong they don't need any dressing up. And all four of them are equally good. It's a shame he burned out so young. If only they had Lithium back then...


With all due respect, I am a vegetarian but, despite this, I really like Schumann.


----------



## Lenny

Michael Diemer said:


> When I started "going classical" in the 70's, I liked Schumann immediately. Mostly his symphonies. Then I fell in love with the piano concerto in the 80's. In the 90's, it was chamber music. Now, I have come back to his synphonies. They are musically very meaty (an odd thing for a vegan to say, but somehow appropriate). With Schumann, it's all meat. No fat, gristle, just 100% USDA-approved free-range beef. He couldn't orchestrate? To hell with orchestration. He fleshed-out his symphonies without any of the excesses of hyper-Romanticism. It works, because the ideas are so strong they don't need any dressing up. And all four of them are equally good. It's a shame he burned out so young. If only they had Lithium back then...




I also think Schumann has a very distinct character, or substance, or what the heck, free-range beef if you will.

Just a personal opinion, but I don't really require brilliant orchestration or details, or "technicalities" from composer to be excellent. In some cases composer has it all (Brahms), but ideas, imagination, strong spirit is more fundamental. If composer has that, someone else for sure will fix the technical problems. So I don't really understand all that talk about Schumann orchestration. Who cares, just listen!!


----------



## Boston Charlie

Schumann's Symphony #3 "Rhenish" is a favorite of mine. His "lieder" is about as good as Schubert, and what I find intriguing about Schumann's piano music is that while it seems to exemplify the very essence of high Romanticism, it also seems to lead somehow to the so-called "Impressionistic" or Early Modern music of Debussy. It doesn't seem to be a huge leap from Schumann's "Prophet Bird" to Debussy's "Girl with the Flaxen Hair".


----------



## larold

In a survey I conducted a few years back Robert Schumann ranked as the No. 8 composer behind only Mozart, Beethoven, J.S. Bach, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Schubert. Not being a great fan of his it rather surprised me his high ranking but, when one looks at the quality, quantity and depth of field of his compositions, perhaps it shouldn't. It is only the area of opera where he does not compare with the greatest. In terms of lieder and solo piano music he is far ahead of most composers.


----------



## bz3

larold said:


> In a survey I conducted a few years back Robert Schumann ranked as the No. 8 composer behind only Mozart, Beethoven, J.S. Bach, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Schubert. Not being a great fan of his it rather surprised me his high ranking but, when one looks at the quality, quantity and depth of field of his compositions, perhaps it shouldn't. It is only the area of opera where he does not compare with the greatest. In terms of lieder and solo piano music he is far ahead of most composers.


I've never heard his only opera and he's definitely in my top 8 of favorite composers. Anyone here like it and have a preferred recording?


----------



## DaveM

Perhaps among the most strikingly beautiful openings ever composed: Konzerstuck for Piano & Orchestra 1849:


----------



## Star

Just listen to Horowitz pkay the Kreislierana and judge how great Schumann is.


----------



## Triplets

Lenny said:


> I also think Schumann has a very distinct character, or substance, or what the heck, free-range beef if you will.
> 
> Just a personal opinion, but I don't really require brilliant orchestration or details, or "technicalities" from composer to be excellent. In some cases composer has it all (Brahms), but ideas, imagination, strong spirit is more fundamental. If composer has that, someone else for sure will fix the technical problems. So I don't really understand all that talk about Schumann orchestration. Who cares, just listen!!


All great Composers have a distinctive sound, and Schumann certainly qualifies. Several recordings of the Symphonies have been released in the last 5 years or so. They seem to be entering a new era of appreciation


----------



## Judith

I know Schumann tried to commit suicide twice, second time jumped in the river Rhine but does anyone know what he did the first time?


----------



## Genoveva

Judith said:


> I know Schumann tried to commit suicide twice, second time jumped in the river Rhine but does anyone know what he did the first time?


Like you, I was once fascinated with the lives of Robert and Clara Schumann (and by implication, Brahms too). I read just about everything I could easily lay my hands on based on freely available internet sources. That was about 7-8 years ago. I do not recall reading anything about a previous suicide attempt by Robert before his jumping in the Rhine in 1854.

A further quick scan of the internet hasn't produced any further relevant information on this matter. I stand perfectly happy to be corrected, as I do not profess to have studied his life history in close detail beyond what I have described.

Certainly, Robert had previous bouts of severe depression, but whether or not any these culminated in a suicide attempt does't strike any bells with me. His sister committed suicide when she was 16. Possibly that's what you may be thinking of. During his own lifetime he probably achieved less fame than his wife, Clara, and this fact was known to have been a source of worry to him. It may have aggravated a pre-existing mental condition that he was known to have had since at least his early teens.

Following his suicide attempt in 1854, he was in the asylum at Endenich for about two and a half years, and some accounts I read suggested that he went seriously downhill mentally and physically in his last year, and occasionally refused food. The autopsy results suggested that he may have had tertiary syphilis, based on examination of his brain.

Anyway, ever since I did all my research on Robert Schumann way back, he has remained very high up among my list of favourite composers. I find it difficult not to be highly impressed by a lot of his work. Of course, I can say the same thing about Brahms too, and I have everything both of these composers wrote, and love them both to pieces.


----------



## Judith

Genoveva said:


> Like you, I was once fascinated with the lives of Robert and Clara Schumann (and by implication, Brahms too). I read just about everything I could easily lay my hands on based on freely available internet sources. That was about 7-8 years ago. I do not recall reading anything about a previous suicide attempt by Robert before his jumping in the Rhine in 1854.
> 
> A further quick scan of the internet hasn't produced any further relevant information on this matter. I stand perfectly happy to be corrected, as I do not profess to have studied his life history in close detail beyond what I have described.
> 
> Certainly, Robert had previous bouts of severe depression, but whether or not any these culminated in a suicide attempt does't strike any bells with me. His sister committed suicide when she was 16. Possibly that's what you may be thinking of. During his own lifetime he probably achieved less fame than his wife, Clara, and this fact was known to have been a source of worry to him. It may have aggravated a pre-existing mental condition that he was known to have had since at least his early teens.
> 
> Following his suicide attempt in 1854, he was in the asylum at Endenich for about two and a half years, and some accounts I read suggested that he went seriously downhill mentally and physically in his last year, and occasionally refused food. The autopsy results suggested that he may have had tertiary syphilis, based on examination of his brain.
> 
> Anyway, ever since I did all my research on Robert Schumann way back, he has remained very high up among my list of favourite composers. I find it difficult not to be highly impressed by a lot of his work. Of course, I can say the same thing about Brahms too, and I have everything both of these composers wrote, and love them both to pieces.


Have you read the book "Trio" by Boman Desai? Loved it


----------



## Genoveva

Judith said:


> Have you read the book "Trio" by Boman Desai? Loved it


No, I haven't. I see that it's a novelised account of the lives of Robert and Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms, based on the correspondence between them. It sounds pretty good from some quick accounts/reviews I've now seen.

The only book about Robert Schumann that I have read is by John Daverio "_Herald of a "New Poetic Age"_, which I borrowed from a library a long while ago. I found it heavy going, and skipped lots of the musicological detail. I gather it is still reckoned to be one of the best accounts of the music and life of Robert Schumann.

As I noted previously, most of my information about Schumann was gleaned from various internet sources. One of the issues that kept popping up (which you have most likely seen) was Schumann's alleged weak orchestration abiities. I found all that to be very tedious as it has never struck me that he suffered any major problems in this area. If suitable adjustments are made for the different size of orchestras he was writing for, and the instrumentation, compared with modern orchestras, there's hardly any problem at all, especially in the hands of conductors like Roger Norrington.

I don't like any of Mahler's re-orchestration attempts at Schumann's symphonies. They sound over-blown to me, and I much prefer the original versions as Schumann wrote them. But I'm not a fan of Mahler, whose music I find too long and containing a lot of sentimental slosh that reminds me of film score. I much prefer the shorter and generally much tighter and more poetic type of "romantic" music, than the later manifestations exhibited by the likes of Bruckner and Mahler. Brahms' music retained much of its connection with the earlier Romantics, as did that of Sibelius.

I trust that you have become enthralled by the music of Robert Schumann. It may not appeal immediately to newcomers to classical music, but once you get the "bug" it's difficult to put it down. I have so many favourites that it's difficult to single out just a few.

I like most of Schumann's piano solo music, but my favourite is _Fantasie_, Opus 17. I have five versions of this. They all sound slightly different but they're all good. I don't think any other composer could quite match Schumann in injecting so much love and feeling into a work, with the exception of Schubert, but that of course is entirely a matter of personal opinion. A much shorter favourite piano piece is the _Romance_ Opus 28/2. Even though I hope that I have at least several decades still left in this mortal coil, I'm intending to list this work as one to performed at my dreaded "funeral" one day. I gather it was a work that Clara loved especially, and I can see why.

Another favourite is the delightfully invigorating and blazing Op 86 _Konzertstück for four horns and orchestra_. On the choral front, I just love, too, the Op 50, _Das Paradies und die Per_i. It contains some very beautiful songs in my opinion. I hold a place of high esteem for his _Violin Concerto in D minor_. I prefer it to his much more famous Cello Concerto. The VC may not appeal to lovers of conventional "romantic" era VCs because it's so different to all of the others. I find that it has an eerie mystique that grows on you the more it is listened to. I don't really understand it, as it's so strange, but I still like it a lot.

Happy continued listening. I reckon you've made a good choice.


----------



## CypressWillow

Listening to the "Rhenish" Symphony. 
That first movement - it always has an enormous emotional impact for me. On the one hand, it's quite 'accessible,' and yet, it has an otherworldly quality. I always feel like there's something there that's just beyond my ability to grasp. I listen to it over and over before I can move on to the rest of the piece. 
What is it? It's so passionate, yet the passion is formulated in a language I can't quite grasp. I get the sense that there are layers of meaning that are not revealed yet. 
Anyway, I never tire of it.
And by the time we reach the last movement, I'm utterly in his world: he paints the picture, he sets the boundaries, I walk through it quivering. 
Whew!
What's the name of this thread again? The answer is Yes!


----------



## Judith

Genoveva said:


> No, I haven't. I see that it's a novelised account of the lives of Robert and Clara Schumann and Johannes Brahms, based on the correspondence between them. It sounds pretty good from some quick accounts/reviews I've now seen.
> 
> The only book about Robert Schumann that I have read is by John Daverio "_Herald of a "New Poetic Age"_, which I borrowed from a library a long while ago. I found it heavy going, and skipped lots of the musicological detail. I gather it is still reckoned to be one of the best accounts of the music and life of Robert Schumann.
> 
> As I noted previously, most of my information about Schumann was gleaned from various internet sources. One of the issues that kept popping up (which you have most likely seen) was Schumann's alleged weak orchestration abiities. I found all that to be very tedious as it has never struck me that he suffered any major problems in this area. If suitable adjustments are made for the different size of orchestras he was writing for, and the instrumentation, compared with modern orchestras, there's hardly any problem at all, especially in the hands of conductors like Roger Norrington.
> 
> I don't like any of Mahler's re-orchestration attempts at Schumann's symphonies. They sound over-blown to me, and I much prefer the original versions as Schumann wrote them. But I'm not a fan of Mahler, whose music I find too long and containing a lot of sentimental slosh that reminds me of film score. I much prefer the shorter and generally much tighter and more poetic type of "romantic" music, than the later manifestations exhibited by the likes of Bruckner and Mahler. Brahms' music retained much of its connection with the earlier Romantics, as did that of Sibelius.
> 
> I trust that you have become enthralled by the music of Robert Schumann. It may not appeal immediately to newcomers to classical music, but once you get the "bug" it's difficult to put it down. I have so many favourites that it's difficult to single out just a few.
> 
> I like most of Schumann's piano solo music, but my favourite is _Fantasie_, Opus 17. I have five versions of this. They all sound slightly different but they're all good. I don't think any other composer could quite match Schumann in injecting so much love and feeling into a work, with the exception of Schubert, but that of course is entirely a matter of personal opinion. A much shorter favourite piano piece is the _Romance_ Opus 28/2. Even though I hope that I have at least several decades still left in this mortal coil, I'm intending to list this work as one to performed at my dreaded "funeral" one day. I gather it was a work that Clara loved especially, and I can see why.
> 
> Another favourite is the delightfully invigorating and blazing Op 86 _Konzertstück for four horns and orchestra_. On the choral front, I just love, too, the Op 50, _Das Paradies und die Per_i. It contains some very beautiful songs in my opinion. I hold a place of high esteem for his _Violin Concerto in D minor_. I prefer it to his much more famous Cello Concerto. The VC may not appeal to lovers of conventional "romantic" era VCs because it's so different to all of the others. I find that it has an eerie mystique that grows on you the more it is listened to. I don't really understand it, as it's so strange, but I still like it a lot.
> 
> Happy continued listening. I reckon you've made a good choice.


Became fascinated as someone gave a talk about Brahms at local music society and his involvement with Schumanns at the same time as album "For the Love of Brahms" was released. Then one of my favourite musicians kept tweeting about Schumann and that got me interested. Love Cello Concerto and no 2 is my favourite symphony, especially 3rd movement which is sublime. Think it shows him in a depressing mood.


----------



## Genoveva

Judith said:


> Became fascinated as someone gave a talk about Brahms at local music society and his involvement with Schumanns at the same time as album "For the Love of Brahms" was released. Then one of my favourite musicians kept tweeting about Schumann and that got me interested. Love Cello Concerto and no 2 is my favourite symphony, especially 3rd movement which is sublime. Think it shows him in a depressing mood.


That's interesting as it was similar for me in liking Brahms first and then, a while later, Schumann. I can see many similarities between the two, and it's rather uncanny that they have similar output profiles in terms of the genres of music in which they wrote. Schumann, of course, had his attempt at an opera. Brahms didn't bother withan opera, but aside from that they are a close match to each other on output.

It reminds me of another classical music forum I was once involved in many years ago (I won't mention its name) where there were several debates that were usually friendly, but sometimes quite vociferous, on the relative merits of Schumann versus Brahms between a very strongly opinionated Brahms fan and another member whose musical hero was Schumann. I remember one such discussion in which the Schumann fan argued that Brahms merely picked up where Schumann left off. This sparked off a response from the Brahms fan that this argument is not correct, that in fact Brahms picked up from Beethoven and skirted around Schumann almost completely. Then other members of the forum joined in with comments supporting one side or the other, and before long there was quite a lot of confusion.

I don't know what others here may think on this matter but in my humble opinion the truth lies somewhere between the two. I think that Brahms realised that he himself was a very clever man, and most likely saw Beethoven as his primary composer antecedent whose legacy must somehow be continued and developed. On the other hand, Schumann, who was a very literate person and a great writer, was one of the chief architects and advocates of the new "romantic" school in which music was immensely influenced by literature and poetry. Brahms, being a very close friend of Schumann, was very much signed up to this view of the way music should develop. He was strongly insistent, however, that music should retain its "absolute" nature (i.e. music for music's sake) rather than go down the route alternatively being proposed, mainly by the likes of Liszt and Wagner, that it should allow for "programmatic" features.

This dispute gave rise to the "war of the romantics", with both sides claiming to be the true successors to Beethoven. Given all the confusion, I doubt that any clear conclusion can be made on which style path was the more faithful successor. Whatever the situation, I'm pleased that things moved along and that we didn't just get a load more Beethoven-style music, from either Schumann or Brahms, much as I like Beethoven's music.

Where to fit Schubert into all of this? Both Schumann and Brahms were highly impressed with the music of Schubert insofar that they were familiar with it, which in the case of Schumann was only a limited portion of his immense output, much of which was still to be discovered. Brahms had the benefit of seeing more, and in fact helped in getting some of it organised and published. This familiarity must have provided a powerful boost to their enthusiasm for developing further the "romantic" (in the literary sense) nature of music, as Schubert was, in my opinion, just as influential as was Beethoven in making the initial strides down this path.


----------



## larold

In my survey of all composers from 2005 Robert Schumann finished No. 9 only behind Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Schubert. I would say he definitely is a very, very great composer. I don't personally have a great discography of his but the reasons for his placement in the top 10 of all composers is relatively easy to figure. Here's why:

-- He was one of the greatest writers of solo piano music trailing only (arguably) Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin and possibly Rachmaninoff.

-- He wrote four very popular and well-integrated symphonies, making him the relative equal of the other great symphonist of his time, Mendelssohn. These symphonies have all remained relevant over the ages and had new life in the period movement. See what John Eliot Gardiner had to say about them and the way he performed them.

-- He wrote piano, cello and violin concertos that are all still in the repertory, in the main considered masterpieces, often played and recorded. Of the great composers ahead of him in my poll, none wrote concertos for these three instruments ... though it might be said Beethoven did with his Triple Concerto (even though the composer considered it less a concerto and more in the realm of concerto grosso.) Of all the greatest composers, only Dvorak and St. Saens wrote concertos for all three solo instruments that are still played and recorded. Haydn did so but his violin and some of his keyboard concertos are thought to have been written by others.

-- In addition to the concertos Schumann wrote popular overtures and works for solo or groups of instruments (such as the konzertstucke for 4 horns and the introduction and allegro appassionato for piano) that are still played and recorded.

-- He was among the greatest composers of lieder and partsong trailing only Schubert and perhaps Wolff.

-- Though none of his operas exist he wrote choral, theater and dramatic music, and oratorios that are still played and recorded.

-- Aside from solo piano music he wrote masterpieces of orchestral chamber music including sonatas and a piano trio and quintet each considered one of the greatest of its genre.

-- Schumann was also one of the principal critics and musicologists in classical music history, well ahead of most other great composers in this regard.

Robert Schumann was clearly one of the principal voices of mid-19th century Romanticism and his music is, in my opinion, unlikely to fall out of popularity any time soon.


----------



## jim prideaux

thanks to larold for putting the lid on that one!

as someone who finds himself listening to the 4 symphonies with marked regularity I find even the question asked at the beginning of the thread itself to be disconcerting!


----------



## DaveM

larold said:


> -- Though none of his operas exist he wrote choral, theater and dramatic music, and oratorios that are still played and recorded.


The full Genoveva op81 is presently available on U.S. Amazon (Kurt Masur cond.).


----------



## PlaySalieri

I dont much like his solo piano works - I also have a deaf spot where Brahms solo piano is concerned - no idea why.

But his PC and Pf quintet are two of the great 19thC works - plus I like all the symphonies. Yes, a great composer of the 2nd order.


----------



## regenmusic

Robert SCHUMANN: Op. 68, No. 5 "Bagetelle" (Little Piece)

I remember learning Bagetelle as a child thinking he was one of the greatest composers.


----------



## tdc

larold said:


> In my survey of all composers from 2005 Robert Schumann finished No. 9 only behind Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, Brahms, Haydn, Tchaikovsky, Handel and Schubert.


This is a very conservative and I would suggest - outdated list, no composers from the 20th century?



larold said:


> - He was one of the greatest writers of solo piano music trailing only (arguably) Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin and possibly Rachmaninoff.


This is simply false. He clearly trails Debussy here, probably others such as Brahms as well, if I sat and thought about it I think I could name more - Liszt? There is nothing that makes his contribution to the piano literature clearly better than Bartok, Ravel or Prokofiev.



larold said:


> - He wrote four very popular and well-integrated symphonies, making him the relative equal of the other great symphonist of his time, Mendelssohn. These symphonies have all remained relevant over the ages and had new life in the period movement. See what John Eliot Gardiner had to say about them and the way he performed them.


I think his symphonies are good, but you are giving him too much credit here. I could list many composers that were greater symphonists - Shostakovich, Bruckner and Mahler just off the top of my head. Having a cycle of symphonies as good as Mendelssohn does not make one qualify as a top nine composer.



larold said:


> -- He wrote piano, cello and violin concertos that are all still in the repertory, in the main considered masterpieces, often played and recorded.


This is a stretch. In truth only the Piano Concerto is considered a masterpiece. Bartok was far greater in this area, as was Prokofiev and Shostakovich and many other composers.



larold said:


> -- In addition to the concertos Schumann wrote popular overtures and works for solo or groups of instruments (such as the konzertstucke for 4 horns and the introduction and allegro appassionato for piano) that are still played and recorded.


Now you are just listing works that are recorded, nothing particularly important about these works.



larold said:


> -- He was among the greatest composers of lieder and partsong trailing only Schubert and perhaps Wolff.


Here I can maybe agree with you.



larold said:


> -- Though none of his operas exist he wrote choral, theater and dramatic music, and oratorios that are still played and recorded.


Lots of composers have written music that is still recorded this doesn't really mean that much.



larold said:


> -- Aside from solo piano music he wrote masterpieces of orchestral chamber music including sonatas and a piano trio and quintet each considered one of the greatest of its genre.


I think Ravel wrote more masterpieces of chamber music. Bartok too.



larold said:


> -- Schumann was also one of the principal critics and musicologists in classical music history, well ahead of most other great composers in this regard.


Sure, but this doesn't have anything to do with his ranking among the great composers of music.


----------



## tdc

Tchaikovsky and Schumann were both very good composers who were occasionally great. Neither has any business being in a top ten greatest composer list in my opinion. (I know many lists have them there - I disagree). 

Any top ten list without Debussy is a travesty and I think shows a bias against French music. Schumann fits into the comfortable familiar vein of popular Austro-German Romantic music, his inclusion in lists shows a bias towards this style of music.


----------



## DaveM

tdc said:


> Tchaikovsky and Schumann were both very good composers who were occasionally great. Neither has any business being in a top ten greatest composer list in my opinion. (I know many lists have them there - I disagree).
> 
> Any top ten list without Debussy is a travesty and I think shows a bias against French music. Schumann fits into the comfortable familiar vein of popular Austro-German Romantic music, his inclusion in lists shows a bias towards this style of music.


'A bias towards this style of music.' Is that like being drawn towards that style of music? So do you have a bias towards French music?


----------



## Genoveva

I'm not familiar with the 2005 composer poll to which"larold refers". Perhaps he could provide a link to it. BTW, Schumann quite definitely wrote an opera!

Schumann's position in the 2005 poll at No 9 doesn't surprise me, although it's perhaps slightly on the generous side compared with the average of some later polls that I have seen at TC. The main point to note in all these polls is that the confidence limits on rankings of composers are very wide. A composer coming in at, say, position 15 in a particular poll could be anywhere between 8 and 22 if due allowance is made for the normally high variances.

I think that Schumann's generally high ranking, regardless of exact position, is fully deserved as measured by the popularity of his works. A quick scan down the various TC "recommended" lists shows a good performance by Schumann across several genres. These show that his piano works are easily a match for, if not far better than, those of Debussy, and certainly better than Liszt's. Several of his chamber works are top grade, and Schumann wrote some excellent work in the concertante/orchestral area. His symphonies are all very delightful in my view, as too are his vocal and choral works.


----------



## larold

My lists are attached; the ranking is at the left. Ignore the right side ranking -- it included a source that wasn't reliable.


----------



## Genoveva

larold said:


> My lists are attached; the ranking is at the left. Ignore the right side ranking -- it included a source that wasn't reliable.


Was your poll reported at TC in 2005, or elsewhere?

Looking at it briefly, it seems to be based on rankings derived from classical music recommendation outfits like Penguin. Is there a fuller explanation somewhere of exactly what these various numbers relate to?

I don't know if you are aware but there have been several composer polls conducted here since 2011. I'm not aware of any before that date. They were all based on different methods of voting, and they produced a variety of rankings, but, as I noted previously, all the main composers seem to be within the same broad confidence interval from one poll to another.

As far as I know, the last big poll that was carried was by "nereffid" in 2016/17. Possibly "bulldog" may have covered one, but I haven't followed any of them.

Nereffid's poll produced a result for Schumann at No 23, which seems rather low, but this was based on a "like" system of voting rather than preference, which may have affected the comparison somewhat, but I don't really know.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> Was your poll reported at TC in 2005, or elsewhere?
> 
> Looking at it briefly, it seems to be based on rankings derived from classical music recommendation outfits like Penguin. Is there a fuller explanation somewhere of exactly what these various numbers relate to?
> 
> I don't know if you are aware but there have been several composer polls conducted here since 2011. I'm not aware of any before that date. They were all based on different methods of voting, and they produced a variety of rankings, but, as I noted previously, all the main composers seem to be within the same broad confidence interval from one poll to another.
> 
> As far as I know, the last big poll that was carried was by "nereffid" in 2016/17. Possibly "bulldog" may have covered one, but I haven't followed any of them.
> 
> Nereffid's poll produced a result for Schumann at No 23, which seems rather low, but this was based on a "like" system of voting rather than preference, which may have affected the comparison somewhat, but I don't really know.


I dont think Nereffid's poll method was a good way to find a top 50. Pages and pages of pieces that you had to like or ignore and the final tally produced after dozens of polls.

I preferred the type where you list your top 10 - and after 50-100 replies some consensus starts to emerge. The top 5 were always more or less the same in varying order. Bach seemed to take the top spot most, with beethoven and mozart 2/3 3/2.

My feeling is that Schumann ought to be at the level of Mendelssohn, ahead of Chopin, but behind Schubert - somewhere between 8 and 12.


----------



## PlaySalieri

larold said:


> My lists are attached; the ranking is at the left. Ignore the right side ranking -- it included a source that wasn't reliable.
> 
> View attachment 101625


----------



## Genoveva

stomanek said:


> I dont think Nereffid's poll method was a good way to find a top 50. Pages and pages of pieces that you had to like or ignore and the final tally produced after dozens of polls.
> 
> I preferred *the type where you list your top 10 *- and after 50-100 replies some consensus starts to emerge. The top 5 were always more or less the same in varying order. Bach seemed to take the top spot most, with beethoven and mozart 2/3 3/2.
> 
> My feeling is that Schumann ought to be at the level of Mendelssohn, ahead of Chopin, but behind Schubert - somewhere between 8 and 12.


Regards the bolded text above, it so happens that I compiled the results of members' votes on precisely that question, i.e. a list of their top ten composers. Another member, Davila, started the thread in early August 2016 but he/she evidently tired of TC very quickly and was never seen again after just a few days

It seemed like a good idea if someone collated all the results. I took on that task after a few weeks and presented the results after it seemed that everyone had been given adequate time to submit their answers. Unfortunately, the thread in question was the victim of a crash and I cannot find the relevant details as reported at the time of the calculations that I carried out.

Fortunately, it so happens that I kept all of calculations on an Excel spreadsheet that I did at the time. The results were based on 83 valid response responses. There were several invalid responses due to people clowning about. This was a very high response rate compared with previous polls where the number seldom exceeded about 45.

I decided on a cut-off of the top 20 composers, and the results were:

1	-	Bach JS
2	-	Beethoven
3	-	Mozart
4	-	Brahms
5	-	Schubert
6	-	Mahler
7	-	Haydn J
8	-	Wagner
9	-	Shostakovich
10	-	Debussy
11	-	Dvorak
12	-	Sibelius
13	-	Schumann
14	-	Ravel
15	-	Prokofiev
16	-	Bartok
17	-	Stravinsky
18	-	Rachmaninoff
19	-	Handel
20	-	Chopin

As I noted at the time, there was very little gap separating the individual positions in the lower positions. I reported on some F-Tests and analysis of variance which confirmed that the differences were not significant over quite long stretches of the range. They only provide a reasonably good idea of which composers seemed to be most popular at that time, with the specific ranks to be taken with a pinch of salt. I was not surprised at the broad pattern as they seemed to be broadly consistent with those from other polls that I had seen previously.

Schumann came in No 13, but the confidence interval around that position was about plus/minus 5, at the 95% level.


----------



## Larkenfield

Robert Schumann, a composer of the 1st order. He put 100% of himself into everything; his music has great sincerity and heart, is consistently warm and free of malice; healthy, optimistic and constructive in mood. The 19th-century would be unthinkable without him, not only as a composer but as a writer, critic, and discoverer of new talent, recognizing Chopin's and Brahms's genius immediately.

Brahms obviously thought he was a great composer even when silly critics liked to pit them against each other, and still do. Considering his terrible health problems, such as being a manic-depressive and the syphilis he unfortunately contracted, he got incredible productivity out of himself. The piano literature would be unthinkable without him. He continually gave of himself, was generous and encouraging, and represented the romantic ideal of creating his own reality. He loved children and much of his music shows great tenderness for them. His symphonies are still played, as are his imaginative piano works, his leider is wonderful, his piano concerto is still played, and on and on, everything produced at a very high level when his health permitted. He never offered anything less than what he felt was the best of himself. His later physical and emotional exhaustion was tragic and affected the quality of his works, but he was a remarkable person who contributed so much that was first-rate in music to the century.

The only thing I can fault him for is that his music doesn't seem to portray the darker side of life, the kind of turbulence that could be found in Beethoven, or the malice found in some of the Chopin Scherzos. He did not seem to have that in his creative nature, perhaps because he was unable to recognize the darkness within himself. Some might say that he was blinded by his own light and didn't notice darkness in human nature like other composers. But I happen to find that one of his more admirable qualities, because he apparently saw others as the ideal he imagined them to be after seeing their potential, and I believe that was an inspiration, though sometimes a burden, that elevated and inspired someone like Brahms.

At his best, Schumann's music is like a glowing sun that radiates a steady benevolence, warmth, open-heartedness, and goodwill... often deeply felt, tender, joyous, exhuberant, unforced, heroic... inspired.


----------



## Bulldog

Larkenfield said:


> The only thing I can fault him for is that his music doesn't seem to portray the darker side of life, the kind of turbulence that could be found in Beethoven, or the malice found in some of the Chopin Scherzos. He did not seem to have that in his creative nature, perhaps because he was unable to recognize the darkness within himself. Some might say that he was blinded by his own light and didn't notice darkness in human nature like other composers. But I happen to find that one of his more admirable qualities because he apparently saw others as the ideal he imagined them to be after seeing their potential, and I believe that was an inspiration, though sometimes a burden, that elevated and inspired someone like Brahms.
> 
> At his best, Schumann's music is like a glowing sun that radiates a steady benevolence, warmth, open-heartedness, and goodwill.


I have trouble relating to the above description. For me, Schumann is at his best when his music displays a split personality and general dysfunction.


----------



## regenmusic

Hundreds of thousands of people in the last 600 years have given themselves to be great in Western music. How many names have risen to the top that almost every educated person knows? 30? Schumann is one of them. I myself am loving right now getting familiar with his great piano works.


----------



## BiscuityBoyle

Good job reducing classical music to the level of sports radio. "Is Schumann in the conversation for the quarterback Hall of Fame?"


----------



## KenOC

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Good job reducing classical music to the level of sports radio. "Is Schumann in the conversation for the quarterback Hall of Fame?"


So who's making odds? I have some bets to place.


----------



## Genoveva

One of the distinguishing features of Schumann's work, that sets him apart from many of the other great composers, is how he used music to reveal his innermost feelings without any of the constraints that were imposed by the standard order of doing things up to that time. Whilst Beethoven and Schubert (plus a handful of others) made the first stirrings towards "romanticism", Schumann was among a group that made the big leap forward into the next "poetic" stage that involved a significant expansion in the rules for writing music. If not a game-changer, it's arguable that he helped to extend the boundaries of form as much as anyone in classical music.

This is demonstrated in several of Schumann's works, but especially his piano works, where through his alternating use of the fictional characters _Florestan_ and _Eusebius_, the active and the passive aspects of his own personality, allowed him to switch from the bright and optimistic to the fiery and sometimes dark. In order to incorporate all this rich and colourful variety into his music, it involved partial jettisoning of the old rules of sonata form and allowing a much less constrained form of composition. Schumann didn't abandon sonata form altogether as it's used in, for example, his symphonies, but he did not feel constrained to use it, and instead adopted whatever less constrained style seemed best to suit his purposes. This is where the new "romanticism" of the 19th C took off in a big way.

Schumann didn't just compose "new" music but wrote about it passionately in an attempt to encourage others of his day to pursue the take-up. He was one of best writers that I've come across anywhere in the literary sphere, and I wish I could write even remotely as well as him. Composers such as Chopin and especially Liszt (mainly in his orchestral works) were to take this new-found freedom forward in slightly different directions, but all essentially exploiting and opening up further the new-found freedoms advocated and exemplified by Schumann. I accept the point made earlier that this doesn't necessarily affect his status as a great composer, which mainly depends on how well he wrote and whether or not it's still regarded as among the best, which it surely is and rightly so.

Some of Schumann's piano music is considered to be technically very difficult, so it's not that he simply some nice themes in new styles, but did so in manner that clearly demonstrate he knew what he doing technically, and was up there with some of the most capable composers. Even his wife, Clara who was of the most accomplished pianists of her day, considered some of Robert's piano compositions to be very difficult to play, and almost unplayable in some places due to their complexity.


----------



## Room2201974

BiscuityBoyle said:


> Good job reducing classical music to the level of sports radio. "Is Schumann in the conversation for the quarterback Hall of Fame?"


Actually, it is far easier in sports to determine "greatness" because sports are played with numbers, and those numbers can be used as a measuring tool. Take American baseball for instance. If you are a pitcher who has won 300 games you are a lock on the HOF, and everyone will call you "great." Not so in classical music. No one says, "Well Schumann pitched a shutout tonight with a brilliant mix of augmented sixth chords. That's victory number 250 on what surely will be a Hall Of Fame career."

All we have here in a discussion of classical music (or any art) is opinion. Opinion tempered by our own experiences, education, training, and biased in more directions than a compass. "Reduced" to sports radio would probably be an advancement.

Schumann......somewhere in the composer HOF!
Schumann......not in the quarterback HOF! (He could never throw "the bomb" with that hand injury.)


----------



## larold

<<Was your poll reported at TC in 2005, or elsewhere?>>

My survey wasn't published anywhere though it was discussed ad nauseam on the old chat board at Amazon. It resulted in lots of people "publishing" their list of favorite composers.

In discussions about "the greatest" I always found people confused their favorites with greatness. I tried to eliminate my own biases by using references to each composer published in three guides:

-- the 2010 Penguin Guide, the final one they published.
-- the 2005 All Music Guide, the only one they published.
-- David Ewen's 1947 Musical Masterpieces.

Each was comprehensive in its listings, two were American-based so as to balance the English bias in the Penguin Guide, and two were musicological guides, not necessarily guides that recommended recordings, although each did. One was from the time immediately after World War II so modern times were not the only reference.

Some of the results startled me and caused me to rethink things. Mahler and Bruckner were far lower than I expected while Schumann, Wagner and Verdi, in particular, scored much higher than I expected. In reference to this discussion, I never thought of Schumann as one of the greatest composers until I undertook this task. It changed my outlook.


----------



## Genoveva

larold said:


> <<Was your poll reported at TC in 2005, or elsewhere?>>
> 
> My survey wasn't published anywhere though it was discussed ad nauseam on the old chat board at Amazon. It resulted in lots of people "publishing" their list of favorite composers.
> 
> In discussions about "the greatest" I always found people confused their favorites with greatness. I tried to eliminate my own biases by using references to each composer published in three guides:
> 
> -- the 2010 Penguin Guide, the final one they published.
> -- the 2005 All Music Guide, the only one they published.
> -- David Ewen's 1947 Musical Masterpieces.
> 
> Each was comprehensive in its listings, two were American-based so as to balance the English bias in the Penguin Guide, and two were musicological guides, not necessarily guides that recommended recordings, although each did. One was from the time immediately after World War II so modern times were not the only reference.
> 
> Some of the results startled me and caused me to rethink things. Mahler and Bruckner were way down the list while Schumann, Wagner and Verdi, in particular, scored much higher than I expected. In reference to this discussion, I never thought of Schumann as one of the greatest composers until I undertook this task. It changed my outlook.


That's interesting. Thanks.

I'm not familiar with the Amazon chat board so I wouldn't have been aware of your work.

I remember that when I first started to dig around the internet for any information about which composers are considered to be the greatest (about 7-8 years ago) I first stumbled across another music forum to this one and gleaned a lot from the various threads, although most of the work had been done several years prior to that time.

I didn't worry too much about the exact rankings of individual composers. In fact, I did not learn all that much about the best composers, because I already knew this due to having brought up in a home with two parents who were both very keen on classical music. Nothing much has changed over the past 7/8 years as it's been much the same ever since based on quite a few more "greatest" composer lists, both here and elsewhere, or whatever they're called to appease the sensitivities of those who throw a wobbly when they see the word "greatest". The same arguments have been said many times before, especially on this forum which is poll-bonkers, because most people know, or ought to know, that the ranks are really only a measure of long term relative popularity not greatness in any objective sense that is measurable.

It's basically the same group of composers who tend to pop up in these lists, each one sometimes a bit higher and sometimes a bit lower than in the previous poll, but any differences in the apparent positions are meaningless given the very wide confidence limits that need to be applied to central case results. The confidence limits widen the further one goes down the lists towards the less popular ones, which is a polite way of saying that these lists are quite rubbishy in terms of precision at the lower end, especially lower than about 40 or so.

I do find these lists to be useful actually, and I think it's a liitle snobbish to say they aren't and that people shouldn't waste their time looking at them and fretting over exact postions of certain composers they happen to like. For some, it's all part of the fun of enjoying the music, and gaining leads on what areas they might explore further. Long live the composer lists. I fact, I created one myself, as mentioned previously, so I can hardly criticise them.


----------



## Nereffid

stomanek said:


> I dont think Nereffid's poll method was a good way to find a top 50. Pages and pages of pieces that you had to like or ignore and the final tally produced after dozens of polls.
> 
> I preferred the type where you list your top 10 - and after 50-100 replies some consensus starts to emerge. The top 5 were always more or less the same in varying order. Bach seemed to take the top spot most, with beethoven and mozart 2/3 3/2.
> 
> My feeling is that Schumann ought to be at the level of Mendelssohn, ahead of Chopin, but behind Schubert - somewhere between 8 and 12.


I got queasy as soon as larold mentioned a poll...

Seeing as I'm being slandered once more  I feel the need to clarify yet again that my polls aimed to find out who was the _most-liked_ composer among participants, not who is the _greatest_ or _favourite_.
Three-quarters of voters said they liked Schumann, which suggests he's one of the most popular composers of all. In fact his "score" put him at about the level of Mendelssohn and Chopin, but behind Schubert.

I can give you the usernames of the 31 people who didn't choose him, and you all can have a go at them for a change. :lol:


----------



## PlaySalieri

Genoveva said:


> That's interesting. Thanks.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the Amazon chat board so I wouldn't have been aware of your work.
> 
> I remember that when I first started to dig around the internet for any information about which composers are considered to be the greatest (about 7-8 years ago) I first stumbled across another music forum to this one and gleaned a lot from the various threads, although most of the work had been done several years prior to that time.
> 
> I didn't worry too much about the exact rankings of individual composers. In fact, I did not learn all that much about the best composers, because I already knew this due to having brought up in a home with two parents who were both very keen on classical music. Nothing much has changed over the past 7/8 years as it's been much the same ever since based on quite a few more "greatest" composer lists, both here and elsewhere, or whatever they're called to appease the sensitivities of those who throw a wobbly when they see the word "greatest". The same arguments have been said many times before, especially on this forum which is poll-bonkers, because most people know, or ought to know, that the ranks are really only a measure of long term relative popularity not greatness in any objective sense that is measurable.
> 
> It's basically the same group of composers who tend to pop up in these lists, each one sometimes a bit higher and sometimes a bit lower than in the previous poll, but any differences in the apparent positions are meaningless given the very wide confidence limits that need to be applied to central case results. The confidence limits widen the further one goes down the lists towards the less popular ones, which is a polite way of saying that these lists are quite rubbishy in terms of precision at the lower end, especially lower than about 40 or so.
> 
> *I do find these lists to be useful actually*, and I think it's a liitle snobbish to say they aren't and that people shouldn't waste their time looking at them and fretting over exact postions of certain composers they happen to like. For some, it's all part of the fun of enjoying the music, and gaining leads on what areas they might explore further. Long live the composer lists. I fact, I created one myself, as mentioned previously, so I can hardly criticise them.


I find them useful too - partly because I have my own top 10 and see, more or less that my top 10 is very similar to every TC top 10. I dont merely treat this as my favourite 10 composers - as I rank Beethoven higher than Schubert, even though I like Schubert more.


----------



## Genoveva

Nereffid said:


> I got queasy as soon as larold mentioned a poll...
> 
> Seeing as I'm being slandered once more  I feel the need to clarify yet again that my polls aimed to find out who was the _most-liked_ composer among participants, not who is the _greatest_ or _favourite_.
> Three-quarters of voters said they liked Schumann, which suggests he's one of the most popular composers of all. In fact his "score" put him at about the level of Mendelssohn and Chopin, but behind Schubert.
> 
> I can give you the usernames of the 31 people who didn't choose him, and you all can have a go at them for a change. :lol:


By way of comparison with your results based on "likes", the following shows the percentages of respondents who included each composer somewhere in their top 10 favourites. This was based on a total sample of 83 members who voted between August-October 2016.

In the case of Schumann, 23% included him in their top 10. This compares with the figure of 75% in your polls who said they "like" him. This is quite a large difference. I guess some further people who voted in the "favourites" poll may have included Schumann if they had been asked to list their top 20 or 30 (or higher), but the problem in doing that is that many people can't list as many composers as that, and may have been put of voting altogether if they were so asked. Even if they had only included a lesser number based on ones they are familiar with, this poses difficulties in totting up the results across voters as a whole (for technical reasons I won't discuss further here).

You might say that your method based on "likes" got round any such difficulty, since it didn't require people to say where they rank composers but only required them to say whether or not they "like" each composer that was waved at them for consideration. Against that, the concept of "like" is very flexible, giving the opportunity for people to include a particular composer as one they like based on little more a vague whim, having possibly only having heard a tiny proportion of that composer's entire work. One simply doesn't know what factors the voters based their decisions upon. Given that it was a costless decision to say they liked a particular compose (i.e. no implications by way of having to exclude some other composer) then personally I would be sceptical of the results.

I thought you said that your "like" based polls would not necessarily produce results that could be compared with a more conventional favourites based approach. I fully agree with that. I also agree that there is no perfect polling method, as they're all suspect for one reason or another. It's just that some may be more suspect than others if the aim to get an idea of members' favourite composers.

Results follow (% = the percentage of people who included composer in their top 10):

Composer %

Bach JS	-	67
Beethoven	-	65
Mozart	-	59
Brahms	-	49
Schubert	-	48
Mahler	-	42
Wagner	-	31
Haydn J	-	31
Shostakovich	-	27
Debussy	-	25
Dvorak	-	24
Sibelius	-	23
Schumann	-	23
Ravel	-	19
Prokofiev	-	18
Bartok	-	18
Stravinsky	-	17
Rachmaninoff	-	16
Handel	-	16
Chopin	-	16
Vaughan Williams	-	13
Mendelssohn	-	12
Liszt	-	12
Messiaen	-	11
Monteverdi	-	11
Bruchner	-	11
Verdi	-	10
Schoenberg	-	10
Vivaldi	-	8
Strauss R	-	8


----------



## Nereffid

Genoveva said:


> By way of comparison with your results based on "likes", the following shows the percentages of respondents who included each composer somewhere in their top 10 favourites.


I don't particularly want to revive all the arguments about polling methods - I imagine you don't either!
But one thing I will note is that, although completely different methods were used, each with their own particular dubious aspects, in the end the top 30s produced by the two methods ended up having 25 composers in common.

And we agree on this:


Genoveva said:


> It's basically the same group of composers who tend to pop up in these lists, each one sometimes a bit higher and sometimes a bit lower than in the previous poll, but any differences in the apparent positions are meaningless given the very wide confidence limits that need to be applied to central case results. The confidence limits widen the further one goes down the lists towards the less popular ones, which is a polite way of saying that these lists are quite rubbishy in terms of precision at the lower end, especially lower than about 40 or so.
> 
> I do find these lists to be useful actually, and I think it's a liitle snobbish to say they aren't and that people shouldn't waste their time looking at them and fretting over exact postions of certain composers they happen to like. For some, it's all part of the fun of enjoying the music, and gaining leads on what areas they might explore further.


----------



## Larkenfield

. . . . . . . . . . .


----------



## larold

The apex of polling was probably at the turn of the century. Gramophone magazine famously listed the greatest 100 LPs/recordings of the 20th century (Solti's Ring No. 1 and cited same in several other polls since that time.) I saw an MTV program that listed the 100 greatest rock groups of all time; the Beatles were No. 1, of course. The late sports channel ESPN Classic did many polls of the various best, or underrated, or something else of sports figures and events of the 20th century. 

BBC Music Magazine has jumped on that bandwagon in this century listing the 25 or 50 greatest/best/most popular conductors, symphonies and operas, among others, according to a group of people they chose to poll. I think there is a certain sameness to polls and reviews; if a bunch of them come to the same conclusions, the top dogs are probably pretty good even if they don't appeal to you.

One thing I vividly recall from the MTV poll of rock bands was a young fellow that commented on the former British blues band Cream (Eric Clapton et al) coming in at No. 18. He said any band that can be that old (they broke up in 1970 or thereabouts) and still be "relevant" in the new century is remarkable. I think probably the bottom line to all this is most people with any exposure and interest can spot high quality fairly easily; once you get past that, it becomes more contentious.

In Schumann's case I don't think there's much question about the relative quality of him as a composer. People still question some of his orchestrations but, beyond that, he's up there with the biggest names in popularity, quality of compositions, and continuing recording and concert performance. The question would probably be more difficult to answer for someone like Monteverdi, a revolutionary in his day whose relevance over the ages has probably been diminished because of more popular composers that arrived since that time.


----------



## Genoveva

larold said:


> The apex of polling was probably at the turn of the century. Gramophone magazine famously listed the greatest 100 LPs/recordings of the 20th century (Solti's Ring No. 1 and cited same in several other polls since that time.) ......


I think that Phil Goulding's 1992 book _"Classical Music: The 50 Greatest Composers and Their 1,000 Greatest Works"_ also sparked off a lot of interest in ranking composers and their works. It was quite a well quoted source, with Schumann being listed at the No 8 spot.

Once the internet music forums came into their own in the early mid 2000's, it was a chance too good to miss not to have a "favourite" composer poll. The first one that I came across, as mentioned previously, was on another music forum. At TC, the first composer polls started to occur around 2011, but since then there have been several others, covering many different aspects of classical music including favourite/greatest composers. In none of these polls have I seen Schumann higher than the No 8 spot, but he has not been lower than No 20 on the favorite based polls.


----------



## hpowders

For me, Schumann's greatest music is found in his song cycles and the magnificent early piano music, composed at a fever pitch, while under Clara's spell, Op 1-20; works such as Kreisleriana, Papillons, Symphonic Etudes, Fantasy in C and Humoreske.

For those of you who only know Schumann through his symphonies, you are missing the feverish full blasts of his genius.

Great composer? Oh, yeah!!!


----------



## Eusebius12

Well said hpowders, someone previously said that Schumann lacks a dark edge, or words to that effect. One only has to take parts of Kreisleriana (movts 1 and 3 and the 2nd intermezzo of 2) or the concluding song to Dichterliebe, Die alten, bösen Lieder, to see that that is not the case. Also the 1st piano sonata is very dark, very sardonic, like an early 19th century Prokofiev. Later Schumann became more conservative, partly at the urging of Clara, however he always retained the ability to push music in 'neue bahnen'. Take the finale of the 4th symphony, a quite shattering conclusion (in the right hands, many conductors though are apt to sanitize and tame this wild though well constructed music), the 1st piano trio with its brooding first movement and altogether depressive slow movement, the Bachian yet mysterious 'Cologne Cathedral' movement of the Rhenish, and the tragic yet restrained slow movement of the 2nd. 

It is true that most classical music lovers (TM) do have a surprisingly good knowledge of the literature, however it is difficult to get to grips with the complete oeuvre of Beethoven, let alone less propagandized names. One cannot gain a full grasp of Schumann's stature without being familiar with his finest work across all genres. Paradise and the Peri was Schumann's choice as to his finest work, and the more one becomes familiar with this score one tends to agree with him, despite its less incendiary nature than his 1830s work. It is easily the equal of anything written during the 19th century in the genre. Brahms' choral work is less subtle and more highly regarded, easily great, but not on the same level.


----------



## Eusebius12

In terms of musical popularity lists, they are worthwhile and interesting, but obviously very limited. My top 10 might be:

Bach
Mozart
Beethoven
Schubert
Schumann
Chopin
Palestrina
Handel
Brahms
Faure


(I could easily squeeze in Richard Strauss, Byrd ,Josquin or Buxtehude). These lists really punish music prior to Mozart (except Bach) yet on any conceivable criteria, great composers like Palestrina, Handel, Josquin, Byrd, Buxtehude, Victoria, Domenico Scarlatti, even Vivaldi, deserve a high place in the pantheon. I am a great admirer of the Monsieur de St Colombe's works, however after a brief hit of exposure after that French movie (Tous les Matins du Monde) came out, there has been next to no publicity for his work. 
Also why Faure is brutally neglected says something, not about philistinism at all, but the lack of very highly developed sensibility amongst many music lovers, who after all are just regular people, just with a higher taste in music than the knuckle draggers who buy the latest Drake track and think its great art. Schumann (and indeed Bach, I mean it's impossible to say that Bach is truly popular. Only in certain circles) requires a certain sensibility to appreciate and comprehend, beyond the mere appreciation of solid, interesting and well constructed music. Faure is an even rarer sensibility. One needs to work hard sometimes to fully appreciate the depths of Schumann's genius than say Beethoven, whose magnificence is less reticent. I would say the same about Bach, but his 'cleverness' is clear to the schooled, and besides there is no lack of academic spruiking for his (glorious and transcendent and incredibly large and variegated) oeuvre.


----------



## Larkenfield

I consider Schumann as first-rate behind Chopin (who greatly influenced him and not the other way around), and above Liszt as being melodically far superior, more natural and consistent in his entire range of music. I would tend to rate Brahms above Schumann in the piano and the writing of symphonies but only by a slight margin because of the warmth and inspiration of Schumann's works. I find Schumann good-willed, free of spite and malace, but not without _depth_.


----------



## larold

I never considered Robert Schumann among the greatest composers … until I did my survey of the top 99 composers … and he finished in 9th place behind only the greatest names in classical music. This changed my perspective and forced me to see him differently. 

I don't have much of his music in my collection but came to understand he composed in many different areas (symphony, concerto, song, theater-vocal, solo piano, chamber) at a consistently high level. It was only in the area of opera where he was not particularly proficient.

Though he finished higher than I would ever have imagined his overall score was about half of J.S. Bach (No. 3 overall) and about one-third of Mozart who finished first so there was quite a mathematical chasm between he and the greatest composers. He finished a point or two ahead of a couple opera composers, Verdi and Wagner, and ahead of Richard Strauss, Dvorak and Prokofiev.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Don't worry about these stupid subjective rankings, please. Enjoy the music. He is a great, first-rate composer. The piano quintet alone proves that.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Eusebius12 said:


> In terms of musical popularity lists, they are worthwhile and interesting, but obviously very limited. My top 10 might be:
> 
> Bach
> Mozart
> Beethoven
> Schubert
> Schumann
> Chopin
> Palestrina
> Handel
> Brahms
> Faure
> 
> (I could easily squeeze in Richard Strauss, Byrd ,Josquin or Buxtehude). These lists really punish music prior to Mozart (except Bach) yet on any conceivable criteria, great composers like Palestrina, Handel, Josquin, Byrd, Buxtehude, Victoria, Domenico Scarlatti, even Vivaldi, deserve a high place in the pantheon. I am a great admirer of the Monsieur de St Colombe's works, however after a brief hit of exposure after that French movie (Tous les Matins du Monde) came out, there has been next to no publicity for his work.
> Also why Faure is brutally neglected says something, not about philistinism at all, but the lack of very highly developed sensibility amongst many music lovers, who after all are just regular people, just with a higher taste in music than the knuckle draggers who buy the latest Drake track and think its great art. Schumann (and indeed Bach, I mean it's impossible to say that Bach is truly popular. Only in certain circles) requires a certain sensibility to appreciate and comprehend, beyond the mere appreciation of solid, interesting and well constructed music. Faure is an even rarer sensibility. One needs to work hard sometimes to fully appreciate the depths of Schumann's genius than say Beethoven, whose magnificence is less reticent. I would say the same about Bach, but his 'cleverness' is clear to the schooled, and besides there is no lack of academic spruiking for his (glorious and transcendent and incredibly large and variegated) oeuvre.


Pretentious, but not totally wrong haha. Faure's awesome!


----------



## eugeneonagain

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Don't worry about these stupid subjective rankings, please. Enjoy the music. He is a great, first-rate composer. The piano quintet alone proves that.


Strange, I'd see it as proving the opposite. Freeing that horrible beast the piano quintet on the listening public, so that other composers would come along and make even more of the wretched things.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

eugeneonagain said:


> Strange, I'd see it as proving the opposite. Freeing that horrible beast the piano quintet on the listening public, so that other composers would come along and make even more of the wretched things.


Interesting; I love that piece and instrumentation. I find that it preserves the "intimacy" of chamber music, while allowing for a very large range of possible textures.


----------



## larold

My poll had nothing to do with my likes and dislikes. I counted the pages attributed to composers in three musicological guides and totaled them.

He wouldn't have scored very high for me personally. The only of his opi in my collection are the Konzertstuck for 4 Horns Op. 86, Konzertstuck for Piano and Orchestra Op. 92, the Violin Concerto and the lied Mondnacht.

I've owned much more and once liked the "Spring" symphony a good deal but, today, I don't spend much time with Schumann. In fact I own more music by William Schuman!

My local NPR station used to play his four symphonies during the afternoon so often my cohort and I called it the "Schumann hour." While one or two are in minor keys they otherwise fit the time frame NPR wants during the day -- nothing too lengthy, nothing too heavy, stuff that's mostly listenable and frothy.


----------



## chu42

Lengthy but fascinating discussion.

I personally consider Schumann to be one of the greatest of all time, right in the tier that precedes Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart. He is top five for me. 

However, I can see why many people consider him to second-rate or third-rate. For a casual listener, his piano music is not as memorable as Chopin nor as flashy as Liszt. His piano music is intimate and never showy, which leads the average listener to come to the conclusion that his works aren't very difficult. For most people, Schumann is simply a tough nut to crack.

But once one does break into his mould, one finds that his music is as musically and emotionally complex as anything else ever written. His Symphonic Etudes are among the greatest theme-and-variations ever written, and his Sonatas approach that of Beethoven. And his piano miniatures can only be compared with Chopin and Rachmaninov in terms of depth, while his lieder rival that of Schumann.

And that's only his piano works. He has a brilliant, if overplayed, piano concerto as well as very good concertos for violin and cello. His symphonies aren't great, but they're good. And even if he had only written piano works he would still be in the realm of Liszt and Chopin.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Well said, although I would comment that you seriously underestimate the quality of the four Symphonies, which I rank as high as Brahms'. And no mention of the fabulous chamber music, the better-than-just-OK choral music, and of course the almost peerless songs?


----------



## Littlephrase

The symphonies are indeed great works, along with the terribly overlooked choral works. Paradise and the Peri, Scenes from Goethe’s Faust, The Requiem anyone? And don’t forget the wonderful Piano Quartet and String Quartets.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Not a huge fan of the Requiem, I'm afraid, but a big thumbs up to Paradies and Faustszenen! The Requiem is a bit dreary and depressing, for some strange reason a characteristic quite a few requiems have in common. 

The shorter Balladen are maybe a bit saccharine, but I enjoy them, and the Pilgrimage of the Rose too.

I'd rank the Piano Quintet a bit above the Quartet, but ain't going to fight you over that! :tiphat:


----------



## Littlephrase

CnC Bartok said:


> Not a huge fan of the Requiem, I'm afraid, but a big thumbs up to Paradies and Faustszenen! The Requiem is a bit dreary and depressing, for some strange reason a characteristic quite a few requiems have in common.
> 
> The shorter Balladen are maybe a bit saccharine, but I enjoy them, and the Pilgrimage of the Rose too.
> 
> I'd rank the Piano Quintet a bit above the Quartet, but ain't going to fight you over that! :tiphat:


Your sentiments regarding the late Requiem are understandable, but the work certainly warrants more critical attention.

As for the Piano Quintet, I would agree that it's probably Schumann's best chamber work! I just mentioned the Quartets because they're discussed less often.


----------



## Mandryka

CnC Bartok said:


> Not a huge fan of the Requiem, I'm afraid, but a big thumbs up to Paradies and Faustszenen! The Requiem is a bit dreary and depressing, for some strange reason a characteristic quite a few requiems have in common.
> 
> The shorter Balladen are maybe a bit saccharine, but I enjoy them, and the Pilgrimage of the Rose too.
> 
> I'd rank the Piano Quintet a bit above the Quartet, but ain't going to fight you over that! :tiphat:


Have you heard Op. 132, Märchenerzählungen?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Mandryka said:


> Have you heard Op. 132, Märchenerzählungen?


Nope. InterestIng combination, though. I'll look it up.


----------



## Open Book

For me as well the symphonies are great, indispensable. I'm tired of hearing that they are not well orchestrated, that's just some musicologist showing off.
Schumann's music is instantly recognizable, he has a strong musical identity. His music is uniquely romantic. I just know greatness when I hear it.
Lovely example of one of his Lieder:


----------



## larold

One thing is certain about Robert Schumann -- he outdid almost every great composer save Dvorak, St. Saens and possibly Shostakovich by writing a high quality concerto for all of the three top instruments: violin, cello and piano.

Mozart didn't do it, Bach didn't do it, Beethoven didn't do it and, according to research, Haydn didn't do it. Neither did Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams or Stravinsky. 

Prokofiev may have done it depending on your determination of what it a concerto.

To have such a profound understanding of those instruments certainly puts him in a high place.

Another guy on that list: Samuel Barber, probably the most underrated among the great composers.


----------



## Enthusiast

^ And Britten (with the same caution as Prokofiev). And Ligeti. And Hindemith.


----------



## tdc

I still have a difficult time with Schumann. To me he doesn't have a distinct enough artistic voice to be placed as high as he often is. His music often sounds like a generic mixture of different Romantic elements, and lacks consistency. I hear flashes of brilliance in much of his music, but often lacking a sense of direction and a composer who didn't quite understand how to refine his strong points into something really coherent. I agree he was a great composer of lieder, he has some fine solo piano music, one memorable concerto, the chamber works and symphonies range from good to very good.

I could see him convincingly placed in a top 20 list, but any higher than that and we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## flamencosketches

I am not totally sold on Schumann either, outside of his outstanding Lieder. He is my favorite Lieder composer, even over Schubert who is a major favorite in general. That being said, none of his other works have made a huge impact on me. Maybe this is due in part to how influential he was, but his music does not come across as terribly original or interesting to my modern ears (though I know that it really was). 

As it stands, I see him as a great composer, but not "one of the greats", if that is clear.


----------



## Art Rock

Enthusiast said:


> ^ And Britten (with the same caution as Prokofiev). And Ligeti. And Hindemith.


... and Martinu (still on the composers with concertos for piano and violin and cello).

Schumann is for me a composer with a handful of clear highlights (piano concerto, symphony 3, some of his songs and song cycles). In a personal preference ranking, he would end up outside my top 40, even though the romantic period is my favourite.


----------



## Enthusiast

So many of his works are among the best. But there are also quite a few less than great works, presumably because of his mental instability. If you focus on his best works - the piano concerto, the symphonies, Das Paradies und die Peri, the Faust Scenes, a lot of piano music and lieder and quite a lot of chamber music - you are looking at music that is at good as it gets. It is hard to pin down what his distinctive character is but there is no-one remotely like him. I think of Schumann as the most poetic of composers. I am not given to quoting Simon Rattle but he hit the nail on the head when he said something to the effect that Schumann is the archetypal Romantic. That is what he is.


----------



## Open Book

larold said:


> One thing is certain about Robert Schumann -- he outdid almost every great composer save Dvorak, St. Saens and possibly Shostakovich by writing a high quality concerto for all of the three top instruments: violin, cello and piano.
> 
> Mozart didn't do it, Bach didn't do it, Beethoven didn't do it and, according to research, Haydn didn't do it. Neither did Tchaikovsky, Richard Strauss, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Sibelius, Vaughan Williams or Stravinsky.
> 
> Prokofiev may have done it depending on your determination of what it a concerto.
> 
> To have such a profound understanding of those instruments certainly puts him in a high place.


I don't consider Schumann's violin concerto to be a work on the level of his symphonies. The violin part is involving and beautiful, but the orchestral part especially in the outer movements just isn't very compelling. The orchestra just thrashes, repeating same weak ideas without much impact or development going on.

I'm less familiar with the cello concerto but since I don't listen to it I might have had a similar impression.


----------



## Janspe

Enthusiast said:


> But there are also quite a few less than great works, presumably because of his mental instability.


How does the mental instability actually show in his works? I keep hearing and reading that claim everywhere where Schumann's late works are mentioned and I just don't get it. Nobody really explains it. I find his late pieces stunningly original and incredibly moving. And I know I'm in good company with many artists - Uchida, Schiff and Faust, to name a few - who agree with me. What is that I'm missing, where lies the problem?


----------



## millionrainbows

Janspe said:


> How does the mental instability actually show in his works? I keep hearing and reading that claim everywhere where Schumann's late works are mentioned and I just don't get it. Nobody really explains it. I find his late pieces stunningly original and incredibly moving. And I know I'm in good company with many artists - Uchida, Schiff and Faust, to name a few - who agree with me. What is that I'm missing, where lies the problem?


To me, the way Schumann is able to reach our "inner child" if you will pardon the lingo, is to me a "sign" that he was very deep into his inner core of being, very vulnerable, and very sensitive. His piano music reflects this vulnerability. He was way too fragile for this harsh world.


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> To me, the way Schumann is able to reach our "inner child" if you will pardon the lingo, is to me a "sign" that he was very deep into his inner core of being, very vulnerable, and very sensitive. His piano music reflects this vulnerability. He was way too fragile for this harsh world.


Quotes like this make me want to explore his music further, as that sounds somehow relatable. What is a good example of a work (preferably a late work) that expresses this vulnerability?


----------



## Enthusiast

Janspe said:


> How does the mental instability actually show in his works? I keep hearing and reading that claim everywhere where Schumann's late works are mentioned and I just don't get it. Nobody really explains it. I find his late pieces stunningly original and incredibly moving. And I know I'm in good company with many artists - Uchida, Schiff and Faust, to name a few - who agree with me. What is that I'm missing, where lies the problem?


I am not a great fan of the violin concerto - despite the advocacy of Faust, Kopatchinskaja and others. It's not a bad work but I don't think the standard of its invention matches the best, the really great Schumann pieces. Similarly, the Requiem. The Op. 131 Fantasy in C for Violin and Orchestra seems a poor work to me. I don't greatly like the cello concerto. And so on ... . I do enjoy some of the late piano music, though. I still prefer these works that I am dismissing to the music of many lesser composers of his time (and they were nearly all lesser!) so it is only relative.

I do find the argument that mental instability weakened his composing ability to be convincing - madness may be close to creativity but is also almost its opposite! - but what do I know? Maybe he was just experimenting ... but I don't think he achieved the focus that the greatest art needs during that late period.


----------



## millionrainbows

flamencosketches said:


> Quotes like this make me want to explore his music further, as that sounds somehow relatable. What is a good example of a work (preferably a late work) that expresses this vulnerability?


As do so many things in classical, a lot depends on the performer. A pianist that I think penetrated to the essence of Schumann is Michel Block. I got that quote from him.

Here are the notes:


----------



## flamencosketches

millionrainbows said:


> As do so many things in classical, a lot depends on the performer. A pianist that I think penetrated to the essence of Schumann is Michel Block. I got that quote from him.
> 
> Here are the notes:
> 
> View attachment 118817
> View attachment 118818
> View attachment 118819
> View attachment 118820


That was beautiful. Great stuff. I have never heard of Mr. Block, but will have to check out his Schumann. Clearly, his words represent a deep understanding of the music. Whether his playing does the same is another matter, but worth investigating I bet. Is he a living musician?


----------



## Larkenfield

Michel Block's Schumann:


----------



## Larkenfield

I love the depth, body, and weight that Claudio Arrau gives to Schumann:


----------



## Merl

I really enjoy his symphonies and string quartets best. Contentious, but hey ho. Great composer? Yes.


----------



## flamencosketches

I'm listening to Argerich play Kreisleriana right now. Really good stuff. His piano music is really something unique. I always used to compare it to (or contrast it against) Chopin, Schubert, Beethoven etc. but he really is doing kind of his own thing here. I can't put my finger on what it is.


----------



## millionrainbows

Larkenfield said:


> Michel Block's Schumann:


This sounds much more agitated than the recording I posted.


----------



## millionrainbows

I have to share this: it's the original version. It's the recording that convinced me.









And here is a clip of another performance: listen from 11:51. Note how agitated Bernstein gets.


----------



## JLi

Try reading pianist Charles Rosen's _The Romantic Generation_. it discusses heavily on many of Schumann's works, in particular the Fantasie, the Davidsbündlertänze, the Waldszenen and the song cycles.


----------



## flamencosketches

JLi said:


> Try reading pianist Charles Rosen's _The Romantic Generation_. it discusses heavily on many of Schumann's works, in particular the Fantasie, the Davidsbündlertänze, the Waldszenen and the song cycles.


I have Mr. Rosen's _Classical Style_ but still have yet to read the whole thing. It is written in a dense, erudite style, so it strikes me as somewhat impenetrable, yet I'm sure it's filled with a wealth of practical knowledge. Is _The Romantic Generation _ somewhat similar in that respect? I have immense respect for him as a pianist and as a scholar.


----------



## JLi

I guess... ? Haven't read anything else by Rosen, but I assume they're at least somewhat similar.


----------



## flamencosketches

JLi said:


> I guess... ? Haven't read anything else by Rosen, but I assume they're at least somewhat similar.


:lol: In that case I'll either do my research or save my question for someone familiar with both books. Regardless, good call on the recommendation.

Assuming they are "at least somewhat similar", if you have any interest in the classical music of Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, and considering you enjoyed The Romantic Generation, you owe it to yourself to check out the Classical Style.  It's a very interesting book.


----------



## chu42

Charles Rosen on Schumann:


> He...expanded the range of musical representation far beyond any of his predecessors, with effects of irony and sarcasm, ecstasy and desperation.
> ...Among the works in large classical forms such as his symphonies there are many fine things to be found, but they do not often compare in power, energy, and originality with the great piano sets and song cycles


----------



## paulbest

Schumann is indeeda great great composer,,,who would deny this...
But I much prefer listening to another german composer, name Henze.


----------



## Open Book

World Violist said:


> I've never been particularly fond of Schumann. I suppose I just never understood what he was trying to say. Hearing the New York Philharmonic play the D minor symphony live nearly put me to sleep. I just don't get it.
> 
> But the Marchenbilder for viola and piano is really something, and I swear it isn't just because I'm a violist. Maybe I should just start over with Schumann with the smaller pieces.


Thank you for turning me on to the Marchenbilder. I don't think I had ever heard it before. What a gorgeous chamber work.


----------



## flamencosketches

I've come around on Schumann a lot since this thread was last around. He is really one of my favorites, and certainly a top 2 or 3 of all time as far as piano music is concerned.


----------



## haydnguy

Gramophone magazine posted a link to their site on Twitter that was an article on Schumann symphonies. I post a link to that article below. Here is one portion of that article that I thought was interesting.

My question is, do you pay attention to which version of the Fourth that you listen to? If so, which do you prefer?



> Deciding to record a cycle of the Schumann symphonies begs the question: what exactly should be recorded? And complementary but divergent ideas about the Schumann symphonies have been paraded as rarely before, with four major conductors during the past 18 months releasing four major cycles on disc. Sir Simon Rattle, with the Berlin Philharmonic, gives us four symphonies with the early 1841 version of the Fourth, while Yannick Nézet-Séguin (and the Chamber Orchestra of Europe) and Robin Ticciati (with the Scottish Chamber Orchestra) opt for Schumann's 1851 revised version. But Heinz Holliger and the WDR Symphony Orchestra of Cologne - like Sir John Eliot Gardiner and his Orchestre Révolutionnaire et Romantique, whose trailblazing 1997 Schumann cycle was given the boxed-up DG reissue treatment last year - perceive Schumann's symphonic evolution in seven stages. When Holliger completes his cycle during the next year and a half, Schumann's early Symphony in G minor (theZwickau Symphony) will take its place alongside the first three canonic symphonies, both versions of the Fourth, and the often-overlooked mini-me symphony Overture, Scherzo and Finale - Schumann's compositional twists of fate put into historical context by a composer/conductor/oboist who has been obsessed with the composer's enigma for more than 40 years.


https://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/schumann-symphonies-building-a-fantasy-world


----------



## Guest

haydnguy said:


> Gramophone magazine posted a link to their site on Twitter that was an article on Schumann symphonies. I post a link to that article below. Here is one portion of that article that I thought was interesting.
> 
> *My question is, do you pay attention to which version of the Fourth that you listen to? If so, which do you prefer?*


Your question seems to have gone unanswered.

I have both versions of Robert Schumann's 4th Symphony by John Eliot Gardner/ORR. I rather prefer the 1841 version because the orchestration sounds lighter and more airy than in the 1851 version.

The first version was written in 1841. Robert Schumann wrote a lot of orchestral music in that year. It was his first year of orchestral writing. He gave this work to his wife to Clara as a present. She decided not to publish it, saying it was not fully finished, but in fact it was finished and fully orchestrated. The work was shelved. Robert Schumann amended the work years later quite substantially in various ways, lengthening it somewhat, but retaining its main themes. Brahms said that he preferred the original version but Clara decided that she liked the new version better. It was the revised work that was published in 1851 which is known as Symphony No 4, Op 120. The original 1841 version was put away and didn't re-surface until some 100 years later.

A common criticism of Schumann's orchestral music in much of the 20th C was that he could not orchestrate very well. This focused on his textures allegedly sounding thick and woolly, caused by his tendency to "double up" strings and woodwind all playing the same notes, creating a muddied overall sound in which there wasn't much variation in colour as between the strings. woodwind etc. The "problem" occurred much less in his earliest orchestral works. In his earliest orchestral works dating from 1841 there is no such problem, on the contrary every instrument shining through with variation in orchestral colour, for example as in the first version of Symphony No 4. It was a feature that seemed to develop later in his a career, and may have been partly due to his role as a conductor (in which role he was not much good) by playing safe in his own compositions.

These so-called defects have been considered to be out-dated for some time now. That's mainly because the size of the orchestra in Schumann's day was both smaller and its composition different from many of the 20th C orchestras. If suitable adjustments are made to the size and composition of the orchestra, these "defects" become much less apparent or disappear altogether. In competent hands, such as John Eliot Gardiner with the ORR, there is not much if any to complain about regarding Op 120. I still prefer the 1841 version because the textures sound extra clear to me.


----------



## chu42

Open Book said:


> Thank you for turning me on to the Marchenbilder. I don't think I had ever heard it before. What a gorgeous chamber work.


Another beautiful Schumann chamber work is his Fantasiestücke Op.73.

Schumann was the master of intimacy and passion.


----------



## flamencosketches

chu42 said:


> Schumann was the master of intimacy and passion.


Yes he was

Schumann has gone from being someone I do not care about at all to one of my 5 or 6 favorite composers. I absolutely adore his music, especially his solo piano music (just about all of it), his chamber music (piano trios, violin sonatas, and string quartets - need to hear more of these), his Lieder (all of them, part of the holy trinity of Lieder with Schubert and Mahler), and his symphonies I am starting to come around on as well. Need to spend more time with his concerti, I just got a disc of them that I expect to be good, Harnoncourt, Kremer, Argerich.


----------



## Littlephrase

flamencosketches said:


> Yes he was
> 
> Schumann has gone from being someone I do not care about at all to one of my 5 or 6 favorite composers. I absolutely adore his music, especially his solo piano music (just about all of it), his chamber music (piano trios, violin sonatas, and string quartets - need to hear more of these), his Lieder (all of them, part of the holy trinity of Lieder with Schubert and Mahler), and his symphonies I am starting to come around on as well. Need to spend more time with his concerti, I just got a disc of them that I expect to be good, Harnoncourt, Kremer, Argerich.


I was much the same way. It took about a year of serious listening to Classical before Schumann clicked with me. Now he is among my favorite composers.

After the concerti, you should move on to Schumann's tragically overlooked pair of masterpieces: Scene's from Goethe's Faust and The Paradise and the Peri.


----------



## flamencosketches

Littlephrase1913 said:


> I was much the same way. It took about a year of serious listening to Classical before Schumann clicked with me. Now he is among my favorite composers.
> 
> After the concerti, you should move on to Schumann's tragically overlooked pair of masterpieces: Scene's from Goethe's Faust and The Paradise and the Peri.


Sounds like a plan. Are both choral/oratorio kind of things?


----------



## Janspe

flamencosketches said:


> Sounds like a plan. Are both choral/oratorio kind of things?


Yes, and both enormously important in the composer's output. I'm especially fond of the _Szenen aus Goethes Faust_, which might just be _the_ Schumann work for me. It's an incredibly written and moving work, and of course the text leaves nothing to be desired.


----------



## flamencosketches

Janspe said:


> Yes, and both enormously important in the composer's output. I'm especially fond of the _Szenen aus Goethes Faust_, which might just be _the_ Schumann work for me. It's an incredibly written and moving work, and of course the text leaves nothing to be desired.


What recording do you like? It appears it has not been very widely recorded.


----------



## Enthusiast

I wonder if I have posted in this thread already. Schumann is a major composer for me, partly because the works of his that I like have all become quite special to me. There are also quite a few works that I am not that excited by but there is so much good chamber music, piano music and orchestral music that is wonderful. I am a fan of the Faust Scenes and have been happy with Harnoncourt's recording but perhaps the famous Britten recording is even better.


----------



## John Kiunke

I dislike the comparison to Brahms because they really do not sound similar or have similar ideas on music at all. Particularly in piano music, Brahms wrote his best stuff in the 1880's and 1890's. Schumann's great piano works are almost all from the 1830's. You might as well compare a Bach suite to a Mozart sonata. 

Comparing Schumann to Chopin is more appropriate, and I can say at least for myself, that while watching Artur Rubinstein's 1964 Chopin Recital (you can find it on youtube) I enjoyed most of the music, but when he played "Des Abends" from the Op. 12 Fantasiestucke as an encore I immediately knew that this was far and away my favorite piece of the program. And Schumann has dozens of pieces that do this for me. Chopin has a good number, but no composer on earth wows me like Schumann when it comes to piano music. As a pianist myself, I constantly find myself wanting to learn more Schumann and I have to practically force myself to play a Chopin Etude or a Liszt piece for the sake of variety (even though I LOVE both composers to death).

The music should speak for itself in any case, and I can say with pretty much certainty that no piano PIECE ever written has ever floored me like the Schumann Fantasie in C major. Imagine the opening as Schumann intended it: the most passionate and despairing outburst one can muster. 

If you're a big Brahms fan then I'd recommend the Op. 99 Bunte Blatter, the first and fourth pieces in particular. And listen to Richter play them. Very introverted and stunningly beautiful.


----------

