# Chopin vs. Brahms vs. Schumann Piano Sonatas



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

These three great Romantics all wrote 3 piano sonatas each, which are regarded as some of the finest sonatas of the 19th century. Which composers' sonatas do you prefer?

This is my estimation of each sonata:

Schumann 1 > Brahms 1 > Chopin 1. Chopin's 1st is the weakest in the entire set due to its immaturity and reliance on Czernyian idioms. Schumann's 1st is a bonafide masterpiece, and Brahms' 1st is close to being one as well. 

Chopin 2 > Brahms 2 > Schumann 2. I love Schumann's 2nd but it does not plumb the depths of the others, except in the slow movement. Chopin's 2nd is simply a foundational work for the piano. 

Schumann 3 = Chopin 3 = Brahms 3. I think all of their 3rd sonatas are so strong and powerful that it is impossible to choose between them. 

Brahms in particular is remarkable in this genre, having written all three sonatas before turning 21, and already displaying all the hallmarks of a sophisticated and mature composer.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I vastly prefer Chopin's 2nd and 3rd to anything in that genre by Brahms or Schumann.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

If I had been asked a year ago, Chopin would be my choice. However, my affection for the Brahms sonatas has grown considerably in the past few months, so I voted for his. Chopin's 3rd remains my favorite of the nine.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

I really cannot bear those bouncy overblown Brahms sonatas. I think that the Schumann are the most difficult to pull off, so there are lots of unsatisfying recordings around. Op 11 is a really stimulating piece of music, and the other two, if they catch me in the right mood, can entertain me also. I like very much Chopin 3 -- Chopin 2 is a nice enough piece of music, but apart from the last movement it's just too predictable for me (I feel the same way about it as those middle period Mahler symphonies -- 5 and 6 -- they are too predictable, not surprising enough, or indeed not deep enough. They're too easy to hum, when they're playing you always know just what's going to happen next.) But the last movement of 2 is one of the great pieces of 19th century music IMO, and I like the whole of 3 -- a really life enhancing, positive sonata. I've never heard Chopin 1 as far as I recall.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Probably Brahms for sonatas. It's really a shame he never returned to the genre later in life (I think he had been planning on revising the 3rd like he did with the B major piano trio, but never got around to it). With Chopin, the first movement of 3 is the only one I return to with regularity. Now, for overall piano compositions, I'll go with:

Brahms = Schumann > Chopin (in my taste); all 3 are among my all-time favorites. Maybe slight edge to Schumann just because of quantity.

The sonatas aren't nearly my favorite piano works by any of these composers though.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Much as I hate to admit it, Mandryka definitely has a point in calling the Brahms piano sonatas "bouncy and overblown". I think you have to let yourself get into the drama of the piece to really enjoy it. Like watching Game of Thrones or something. If that's not your thing, they'll probably just sound bombastic. I'm glad these works exist, but I'm also glad Brahms matured as a composer and got rid of the gratuitous exuberance.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

I am surprised Brahms is winning
Not that his sonatas are bad...


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Interesting question. I know the Brahms the best, then Schumann, and his sonatas are the main things by Chopin I prefer - but to choose a favorite? Too hard. 

So I made a playlist on Spotify with three recordings of all three of each composer by a different pianist. Put it in Shuffle play, and will listen to today.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Much as I hate to admit it, Mandryka definitely has a point in calling the Brahms piano sonatas "bouncy and overblown". I think you have to let yourself get into the drama of the piece to really enjoy it. Like watching Game of Thrones or something. If that's not your thing, they'll probably just sound bombastic. I'm glad these works exist, but I'm also glad Brahms matured as a composer and got rid of the gratuitous exuberance.


I will say that Brahms-while already harmonically sophisticated by this early stage-has not really mastered the wide variety of piano textures that we would come to see in his later works.

The majority of texture and rhythm in his sonatas are straightforward and not all too interesting. There are too many leaping octaves, thick chords, and basic arpeggiations. We only see a little bit of Brahms' trademark hemiola. The harmonic maturity is there but the writing is still a bit blocky.

Whereas by his Op.15, Op.24, and Op.35, his texture and rhythmic writing has improved so dramatically that one must take a step back and realize that we are dealing with a truly refining and imaginative force.

Much later, we have Op.76, Op.79, Op.83, and the late "teens" Op.116, 17, 18, 19. The remarkable variety, mastery, and succinctness of the piano writing in these works establishes Brahms as one of the greatest composers for the piano of all time.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

chu42 said:


> I will say that Brahms-while already harmonically sophisticated by this early stage-has not really mastered the wide variety of piano textures that we would come to see in his later works.
> 
> The majority of texture and rhythm in his sonatas are straightforward and not all too interesting. There are too many leaping octaves, thick chords, and basic arpeggiations. We only see a little bit of Brahms' trademark hemiola. The harmonic maturity is there but the writing is still a bit blocky.
> 
> ...


Even op. 10 doesn't feel very "blocky" to me. I think part of it's the form, though. Variations, ballades, intermezzos, rhapsodies, etc allow for much easier and smoother implementation of textural variety. Sonatas can be a tough nut to crack in that regard, while also trying to maintain structural integrity.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I find this impossible to answer as the important distinctions get averaged out. The least important piece of the 9, almost never played, is Chopin #1. But Chopin #2 and #3 are among his most important large scale works, I'd say more so than any of the Schumann and Brahms sonatas. 
Brahms #3 is quite strong but still a fairly early work and the two others are his earliest published works and a bit rough. I quite like the C major but I don't think they are great and important works.
Schumann's sonatas are, except maybe the first, not unjustifiedly overshadowed by his Fantasy and by the great cycles, such as Kreisleriana etc. but the first two are still quite good.

My personal faves are probably Chopin 3 and Brahms 3, so overall my preferences would go like:

Chopin 3, Brahms 3
Chopin 2, Schumann 1, 
Schumann 2
Schumann 3, Brahms 1
Brahms 2
Chopin 1 
(admittedly, I probably have not heard Chopin #1 more than once or twice and Schumann #3 fares little better, so maybe I shouldn't rate them at all...)


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> Chopin 3, Brahms 3
> Chopin 2, Schumann 1,
> Schumann 2
> Schumann 3, Brahms 1
> ...


I suspect that your perception of Schumann 3 will go up after time. Along with Kreisleriana and Davidsbundlertanze, it is one of Schumann's deepest works and one of the hardest to "get".

The same cannot be said for Chopin 1, which is outwardly pretty and easy-listening, with not much substance underneath. It is a teenage composition after all, so it's still an impressive work given the context.

If a lesser composer-say, Czerny-had composed Chopin's 1st Sonata, it would be considered to be among his greatest works!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

JB.................


----------



## Highwayman (Jul 16, 2018)

I chose Brahms because his 3rd is one of my all-time favourites alongside some by Beethoven in the genre. However, I`d have Schumann`s three Sonatas over Brahms` first two. So it was a very close call for me between the two and Brahms overcame only slightly. Oh, and I vastly prefer Brahms or Schumann to anything in that genre by Chopin.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Sonata form was in a sense a dead form by the Romantic era. Yes there are some great post-classical era sonatas but over all I think there is some truth to what I'm getting at. The sonatas of these composers is not really where their best piano music is in my view. Its more in the miniatures, with some exceptions such as Brahms Handel Variations.


----------



## Bruckner Anton (Mar 10, 2016)

I dont find Chopin's sonatas interesting. His short pieces are great, such as etudes and preludes. But for me, his larg works are sometimes frivolous though he is quite innovative from several aspects. I like Schumann's sonatas pretty much.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think the best "large" works by Chopin are the Ballades and the Polonaise-Fantaisie (and maybe the Fantasie f minor and the Barcarole) on the scale of about one sonata movement but in a "free style". But the two famous sonata (and the 'cello sonata and even the early trio) are still very good works that also keep a decent balance between sticking to the main features of sonata tradition and innovation. 
The interesting thing with Schumann and especially Brahms is that they basically stuck to comparably traditional 3-4 movement sonata forms for most of their chamber and orchestral music but their piano sonatas are almost on the margins of their piano output or at least often not considered among their best piano works.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

You could argue that the op 28 preludes are a single work of course, in 24 "movements"


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

This would be beside the point, I think. 
I think (and this is not my original idea, I read it somewhere) that the Viennese classicists lifted large scale instrumental music to the "heroic level" that had earlier been mostly occupied by large scale vocal music, namely opera and oratorio. And the early romantics showed that smallish piano pieces and songs could also rise to such a sublime level. But it helped a bit when they were organized in cycles. The Schumann piano cycles are more unified works (at least some of them are a bit like very free variation cycles) than Chopin's, but in both cases I think that the point is not having a 30-40 minutes piece with very short movements but perfecting a "sketch", an aphorism what have you. (Admittedly, many of the short pieces by Schumann or Chopin are not that short, rather about the scale of a short tripartite movement (such as an intermezzo or scherzo) and of course they are not mere collections but have a bit of organization such as contrasts and effective "finale" pieces etc.)
But for me the question is rather why Chopin bothered with piano sonatas at all, instead of fantasies or more ballades. And #2 and #3 are mature works. It's not like Brahms who wrote only early sonatas. And with Brahms the puzzling thing is why he wrote sonata style classicist pieces that are more traditional in some ways than the early piano sonatas but never bothered with a middle or late piano solo sonata.


----------



## Ned Low (Jul 29, 2020)

I like Liszt's piano sonata ;D


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

While I do think Schumann wrote the greatest piano music of the three, I think his sonatas are the least interesting of the three. My vote goes to Chopin, simply because I think the 3rd sonata is the greatest sonata written since Schubert and Beethoven wrote their late masterpieces in the genre. Masterpieces that are untouched by any of the three mentioned composers. I personally don't like the Liszt B minor.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> The Schumann piano cycles are more unified works (at least some of them are a bit like very free variation cycles) than Chopin's


This is my breakdown of all of Schumann's large-scale solo piano works, from most unified to least unified:

*Theme and variations:* Op.1, Op.5, Op.13, WoO 24, WoO 31

*Unified suites:* Op.2, Op.6, Op.9, Op.16, Op.20, Op.133

*Sonatas:* Op.11, Op.14, Op.22, Op.118

*Quasi-sonatas: * Op.17, Op.26

*Non-unified suites:* Op.4, Op.12, Op.15, Op.21, Op.23, Op.28, Op.32, Op.82, Op.111

*Collections:* Op.3, Op.10, Op.68, Op.72, Op.76, Op.99, Op.124

A suite must contain some kind of thematic collection whereas a collection has no thematic connection whatsoever. And the big distinction between a unified and non-unified suite is that every piece in a non-unified suite can be performed on its own or as an encore.

A quasi-sonata is a "sonata-esque" work that has elements of a multi-movement sonata without actually being named as one.

I also think you will find most of his greatest writing in the more unified works, whereas the non-unified suites and collections contain a lot of pedagogical material and less inspired works-with the exception of Op.12, Op.15, Op.82, and Op.99.

What do you think?


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

Op 15 is a unified suite as I see it, because it is a thematic collection.


----------



## Beebert (Jan 3, 2019)

chu42 said:


> This is my breakdown of all of Schumann's large-scale solo piano works, from most unified to least unified:
> 
> *Theme and variations:* Op.1, Op.5, Op.13, WoO 24, WoO 31
> 
> ...


Op 15 is a unified suite as I see it, because it is a thematic collection. And while I agree that pieces from it can be performed by its own, the same could be said of Davidsbüdlertänze for example, at least pieces from it can be used as encores. Like No. 14. It has more to do with tradition, and with the fact that pianistically, Op 15 is far easier than Op 6. But I certainly do agree that Op 6 is a unified suite. Now the interesting question would be what people find to be their favorite work by Schumann for the piano.

Sorry for double posting


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Personally, I'm less interested in whether collections are thematically unified, and more interested in whether each individual movement is convincing on its own. 

To me if a substantial movement cannot be extracted from a larger work and sound good on its own, this is a compositional weakness, not a strength.

As a listener I tend to listen to my favorite sections of longer works, more often than the entire work anyway. 

My philosophy is listen to an entire piece and know it, after that listen to the music that you enjoy.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Beebert said:


> Op 15 is a unified suite as I see it, because it is a thematic collection.


Thematic connection is what separates a suite from a mere collection. The difference between unified and non-unified suites must be more harmonic.



Beebert said:


> And while I agree that pieces from it can be performed by its own, the same could be said of Davidsbüdlertänze for example, at least pieces from it can be used as encores.


What tipped me over concerning Op.6 is that there is motivic unity displayed since the theme of the second piece reappears in the penultimate miniature. Furthermore, like Carnaval and Kreisleriana, most of the pieces in Op.6 are harmonically connected so that each piece can be played one after another without pause.

The same cannot be said for Kinderszenen, where some pieces share similar keys, but then No.7 (A# to F) is like a splash of cold water. And then No.10 goes from C to G#min, which again interrupts the harmonic unity. There are no such exotic key changes in Davidsbüdlertänze, and that's what influenced my decision to place Op.15 into the non-unified suites. asdsad


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

tdc said:


> Personally, I'm less interested in whether collections are thematically unified, and more interested in whether each individual movement is convincing on its own.
> 
> To me if a substantial movement cannot be extracted from a larger work and sound good on its own, this is a compositional weakness, not a strength.
> 
> ...


Even in the unified suites, I believe that Schumann's masterpieces possess individual movements that are artistically strong independent of their whole.

Take Kreisleriana for example. The suite is strongly connected, yet every movement is so inspired and rich that there is never any issue just listening to a single section by itself. But when they are played together, the experience is elevated to new heights.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I basically agree with the classification (admittedly, I don't know some of the lesser known works very well). But I think there are still some differences in "unity", especially among what you classified as "non-unified suites", or maybe even the unified ones. But it doesn't seem important.

And could the Humoreske op.20 not also pass as "quasi-sonata"? 

And would you see Chopin's preludes as "non-unified suite"? How about his etudes? or are they only collections?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Why sonatas with those composers?


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> And could the Humoreske op.20 not also pass as "quasi-sonata"?


Op.17 is a quasi-sonata for obvious reasons due to its loose adoption of sonata form and its 3 movement structure. Schumann even considered subtitling it "Grand Sonata for Beethoven".

However, the choice to end with a slow movement is unusual for a sonata, unlike Op.26 which has a highly conventional sonata layout (meaty first movement, slow second movement, scherzo, intermezzo, and presto finale). Only the Intermezzo movement in Op.26 stands out as odd for a sonata. The finale in particular is highly reminiscent of most sonata finales, especially those of the Beethovenian nature.

The "odd" choices in Op.17 and Op.26 don't really set them apart from Schumann's other sonatas since they contain many unconventional elements as well.

But I don't see where Op.20 uses either sonata form or sonata movements-it is very much like Kreisleriana in being free structured with a harmonic connection in between each section.



Kreisler jr said:


> And would you see Chopin's preludes as "non-unified suite"? How about his etudes? or are they only collections?


Yup. The Preludes are more of a non-unified suite while the Etudes are collections. Although the line somewhat blurs.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> You could argue that the op 28 preludes are a single work of course, in 24 "movements"


I read that Chopin himself performed them separately in his concerts; in one concert, he would only perform #4, 13, 15, 20, 24 from the set, for example.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I read that Chopin himself performed them separately in his concerts; in one concert, he would only perform #4, 13, 15, 20, 24 from the set, for example.


That's true, but it's not necessarily indicative of the intent. For example, Clara Schumann performed Kreisleriana in separate movements because she felt it would go over the audiences' heads due to its length. Maybe Chopin felt the same about the Preludes.

I also highly doubt Bach or Beethoven performed the Goldberg or Diabelli variations in their entirety.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

chu42 said:


> I also highly doubt Bach or Beethoven performed the Goldberg or Diabelli variations in their entirety.


Bach played his for his "employers", so in public he probably played them in full each time.



> The story of how the variations came to be composed comes from an early biography of Bach by Johann Nikolaus Forkel:[1]
> 
> [For this work] we have to thank the instigation of the former Russian ambassador to the electoral court of Saxony, Count Kaiserling, who often stopped in Leipzig and brought there with him the aforementioned Goldberg, in order to have him given musical instruction by Bach. The Count was often ill and had sleepless nights. At such times, Goldberg, who lived in his house, had to spend the night in an antechamber, so as to play for him during his insomnia. ... Once the Count mentioned in Bach's presence that he would like to have some clavier pieces for Goldberg, which should be of such a smooth and somewhat lively character that he might be a little cheered up by them in his sleepless nights. Bach thought himself best able to fulfill this wish by means of Variations, the writing of which he had until then considered an ungrateful task on account of the repeatedly similar harmonic foundation. But since at this time all his works were already models of art, such also these variations became under his hand. Yet he produced only a single work of this kind. Thereafter the Count always called them his variations. He never tired of them, and for a long time sleepless nights meant: 'Dear Goldberg, do play me one of my variations.' Bach was perhaps never so rewarded for one of his works as for this. The Count presented him with a golden goblet filled with 100 louis-d'or. Nevertheless, even had the gift been a thousand times larger, their artistic value would not yet have been paid for.
> 
> Forkel wrote his biography in 1802, more than 60 years after the events related, and its accuracy has been questioned. The lack of dedication on the title page also makes the tale of the commission unlikely. Goldberg's age at the time of publication (14 years) has also been cited as grounds for doubting Forkel's tale, although it must be said that he was known to be an accomplished keyboardist and sight-reader. Williams (2001) contends that the Forkel story is entirely spurious.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Bach played his for his "employers", so in public he probably played them in full each time.


You could be right, but none of your quotes really corroborate your point. In fact it says that Count Kaiserling said "play _one_ of my variations", which suggests that they were played briefly to help with his insomnia rather than as a full artistic endeavor.

What's more, the very bottom text points out that none of that may be true at all. So your evidence doesn't help you very much either way.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

chu42 said:


> That's true, but it's not necessarily indicative of the intent. For example, Clara Schumann performed Kreisleriana in separate movements because she felt it would go over the audiences' heads due to its length. Maybe Chopin felt the same about the Preludes.
> 
> I also highly doubt Bach or Beethoven performed the Goldberg or Diabelli variations in their entirety.


I've been trying to think, but I'm sure there's some pianist who plays selections from Kreisleriana - like Michelangeli played different selections of the Paganini Variations.

Moravec used to perform selections of the Chopin preludes, it seems to work quite well, but as you say, nothing follows about composer's intent. I'm not convinced composer's intent matters, or indeed makes sense, as a guide for interpretation.

Obviously the Goldbergs have a very clear integrating structure of symmetries, I mean, if ever there was an integrated set of variations the Goldbergs is it. And Beethoven was meticulous about the order and indeed the content of the Diabelli variations, he went back to the score and added extra variations, being careful about their position. That being said I have no idea what the organising principle underlying the Diabelli variations is! Total mystery to me.


----------



## chu42 (Aug 14, 2018)

Mandryka said:


> I've been trying to think, but I'm sure there's some pianist who plays selections from Kreisleriana - like Michelangeli played different selections of the Paganini Variations.


Josef Hofmann only recorded selections from Kreisleriana



Mandryka said:


> Moravec used to perform selections of the Chopin preludes, it seems to work quite well, but as you say, nothing follows about composer's intent. I'm not convinced composer's intent matters, or indeed makes sense, as a guide for interpretation.


It only matters if you're trying to make it big and win competitions. Once you are famous, you can do whatever you'd like.



Mandryka said:


> Obviously the Goldbergs have a very clear integrating structure of symmetries, I mean, if ever there was an integrated set of variations the Goldbergs is it. And Beethoven was meticulous about the order and indeed the content of the Diabelli variations, he went back to the score and added extra variations, being careful about their position. That being said I have no idea what the organising principle underlying the Diabelli variations is! Total mystery to me.


It seems to be a mystery for other people as well:



> Since the work was first published, commentators have tried to find patterns, even an overall plan or structure for this huge, diverse work, but little consensus has been reached. Several early writers sought to discover clear parallels with Johann Sebastian Bach's Goldberg Variations, without great success. Others claimed to have found symmetries, three groups of nine, for example, although the penultimate Fugue had to be counted as five.


----------

