# Appreciating Robert Schumann.



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

I have been listening to the Symphonies of Robert Schumann. I have to admit that Schumann, is not a composer I have looked at closely, but having listened to Symphony No 4. (particularly the fourth movement) I can't help feeling that I have missed out. The movement seems to be very personal and original with a really tragic ethos. Although I have known of the music of Schumann for some years and have occasionally listened to some of his piano pieces and the piano concerto, I have found his music to be somewhat difficult to follow as it seems to be rather obscure in form. But my recent listening to the symphonies has shown me that possibly I should connect with the emotion of the music rather than its form or inner logic. What does the forum think? Is there a way you have found to approach Schumann in order to appreciate his works in the best light?

Steber.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I probably will be of no help because upon first hearing much of Schumann I loved his music. The fourth symphony is my favorite with each movement a lovely gem, but I especially like his 1st and 3rd symphonies as well. The piano concerto is one of my favorite concertos and a stunning work that never fails to captivate me. His violin concerto was suppressed by his wife for many years, but I have always thought it is pure beauty from beginning to end. The transition from the 2nd to 3rd movement fills me with anticipation and ultimate resolution. His cello concerto is another wonderful work.

I find his chamber works equally powerful. The gorgeous piano quintet seems perfectly sculpted, and the Fantasiestucke for clarinet (or cello) and piano is just so lovely. There are other works that I highly value, but overall I consider Schumann one of my favorite composers. 

But since my first response in hearing his music was joy, I can't tell someone how to change their listening/thinking in order to appreciate him as I do.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Schumann was criticized (and still is) for having "too many ideas" and filling pieces with the same. I get the criticism, but find it an odd one, too, almost like saying his genius was too much, too profligate.

From other similar statements from people on this forum, I've begun to believe that more than a few listeners readily find stumbling blocks because they have become familiar with (through listening, and I will credit work at learning about) Sonata and Sonata-allegro forms, including the symphony. Their trouble comes when a composer does not follow those formats to which they are accustomed, or somehow deviates from them.

Go for the sound, the flow of ideas, not just development but the import / impression you get when there is such a shift, those I think outside of your expectations. Music is a temporal art, and not every piece is built to refer to one theme, its development, and those are often what people have learned to follow, appreciate, and indeed, find satisfying: that recognition is an additional satisfaction when you've learned 'form.' Repeat listening without thinking of 'what to look for' will make your awareness of what the turns of events are, any signposts, come all the more readily... if your mind is not busy with trying to follow it, you will more readily follow it (I know, but it is true, and it works.) You need to get the lay of the land by walking around in it enough, but especially _without a map of another place in hand while you are walking around._ 

For another aspect of Schumann, _and a key aspect_ which I think a sensibility pervading most of his work, even if it is not the first face presented, go to the piano miniatures, _Kinderszenen_ (scenes from childhood) to hear how, in short pieces, Schumann clearly evokes _Adult memories of childhood,_ with all the sentiment those have for many of us, and via sheer musical means. In these, you can hear his tremendous gift for a kind of narrative which shines, but is never literal, slight, corny, etc. This is a musical poetic, and I think he was better at it than anyone before or since. He directly evokes sentiment (distilled emotion) and memories of what many of us recognize, and they are deeply personal and wholly effective; on a larger, longer and more overt scale, the symphonic works also have some of those same inherent qualities.

Please, do not let your expectations and listening habits cultivated and acquired from other works with a more traditional handling of symphonic form get in the way of listening to anything which is outside, a little or a lot, those conventions. We learn a thing, and tend to apply it to all else. You are probably already quick to get signal-like themes which are recognizable from a mile off (another talent, Beethoven had it in spades), and follow the more typical development of earlier classical music, even earlier still 'classicist' romantic Schubert. To get to this other, or any other new area, listen, listen again (not forced, but repetition over time will 'make it happen'), and listen without those 'former' expectations.

Perhaps by one measure, Schumann's symphonies are not as strongly or clearly structured (another criticism) but I don't think that is enough to counterbalance their worth... his genius was strong enough that 'a less formal structure,' or differential in their construct is not a detriment.

The piano concerto is a marvel, and really one big orchestral concertante piece vs. the more expected format of soloist as protagonist vs. the orchestra.

_His orchestration,_ also heavily criticized, can be thick. Which recordings, and what care is given to the dynamic balance of all the parts and the general orchestral texture can be more critical for a successful performance, trickier and less forgiving than music of other composers. This can make all the difference in what we hear.

I would ask the TC members for recommendations of recordings of the symphonies. A different performance, too, can make instantly clear what another one, good enough, did not.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If you want to get to the very soul of Schumann, leave the symphonies and visit his solo piano works like Carnival and the Symphonic Etudes. Also try some of his songs and song cycles. My favorite is Frauenliebe und Leben, one of the most poignant things he ever wrote.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

hpowders said:


> If you want to get to the very soul of Schumann, leave the symphonies and visit his solo piano works like Carnival and the Symphonic Etudes. Also try some of his songs and song cycles. My favorite is Frauenliebe und Leben, one of the most poignant things he ever wrote.


 I think that was the path I took for the last 40 years or so until the last 2 years when his Symphonies suddenly "clicked" for me. I had the Szell cycle and of the Symphonies but I found myself agreeing with many of Schuman's critics about his perceived difficulties with Orchestration, and concentrated on his Piano Music, lieder, Chamber music and the PC and Cello Concerto. Then for whatever reason I started listening to Symphonies again with new appreciation. I've added cycles by Karajan, Kubelik, Barenboim, and Dausgaard (Chamber Orchestra) and they all have their virtues.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

I loved Schumann right off, so I can't be much help. I like all the above mentioned sets plus the Bernstein.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

Those liking the inquietude of the _4th Symphony_ etc. will probably also find the _Manfred Ouverture_ along the similar lines 



Scherchen recorded the work with spoken words (Byron) - 



 (BTW, I wonder whether the tiny section from 3:05 maybe partly inspired Tchaikovsky in the Manfred Symphony Scherzo 



).

Overall, I tend to like the _piano_ & _cello concertos_, the _solo piano works_, the _piano quintet & quartet_, the _cello works_, and some of the _orchestral music_ and _lieder_. Sawallisch in particular for the symphonies, Argerich/Harnoncourt for the piano concerto, early Rostropovich/Kondrashin or Casals for the cello concerto, Rajna in the piano quintet & quartet, various soloists in the other works.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Triplets said:


> I think that was the path I took for the last 40 years or so until the last 2 years when his Symphonies suddenly "clicked" for me. I had the Szell cycle and of the Symphonies but I found myself agreeing with many of Schuman's critics about his perceived difficulties with Orchestration, and concentrated on his Piano Music, lieder, Chamber music and the PC and Cello Concerto. Then for whatever reason I started listening to Symphonies again with new appreciation. I've added cycles by Karajan, Kubelik, Barenboim, and Dausgaard (Chamber Orchestra) and they all have their virtues.


Good! Whatever works for you!!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

mmsbls said:


> I probably will be of no help because upon first hearing much of Schumann I loved his music. The fourth symphony is my favorite with each movement a lovely gem...


I you like the 4th, and you haven't done so, you might listen to the original 1841 version that's a bit different and not orchestrated so "thickly" as the commonly-played 1851 version. We only have this because Brahms, in the 1880s, insisted on including it in the Schumann Complete Works edition he was editing, over Clara's objections. Per Wiki, he preferred the earlier version.

It is included in Gardiner's set of the symphonies.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Schumann is a very special composer.

I think the greatest hurtle to overcome when trying to get a grips on his music is coming to terms with his style of organizing his material. This is especially true in his piano collections, pieces like Pappillons, Kreisleriana or Davidsbundertanze. He doesn't develop themes in a traditional way like one would expect of Beethoven or Brahms;the progression of his pieces don't have a particular flow like those previously mentioned composers either. It can be aggravating to a listener that is used to pieces slowly unfolding to hear Robert Schumann skip from theme to theme to theme without giving them any obvious time to develop, grow or even sink in to the listeners head. It can seem like he's just a scatter brained ninny letting his imagination run wild with nothing to reign in his ideas.

This, of course, is not true and if one listens closely they'll find that Schumann's piano collection pieces (among others) are often cleverly held together with subtle connections between the movements. Even still, the fact that he doesn't hold onto his themes for long before moving onto the next thing can rub people the wrong way. But if you can get past that, there are plenty of things to love about Schumann's music.

Schumann was a great melodist. He has many traditionally satisfying melodies (such as the second movement of "5 Stucke im Volkstan for Cello and Piano, for example). But many of his melodies take very unique turns that one wouldn't expect. I am always guessing where he's going with his themes and melodies. His pieces contain passages that are at once both graceful and strange in a way that is idiomatic to Schumann's musical temperament. 

His harmonies, too, often take unexpected twists and turns, even more so than his melodic material. Many times I will hear a harmony in Schumann's music that sounds strange and out of place and I wonder exactly how he's going to get the harmony back on track. No matter how weird the chord is, he always finds a brilliant way back to the home key or just to justify the strange harmonies and put them in a proper context. Furthermore, Schumann will very often begin his pieces or sections, not with a I or a V, but on a stranger and more elusive chord and will take quite a while to reach a resting point. Actually, there are very long stretches in general where the key is pretty vague and this quality of Schumann's music gives it a very unique longing, searching, restless and sometimes anxious quality. In fact, Schumann, along with Chopin I would say, was one of the first composers to start experimenting with chromatic harmony in a way that really started to break down the Classical models of harmony.

His style of expression was quite personal. Listening to his pieces is often like reading someone's dairy. I don't think need to expand much further on this point. His many modes of expression are quite diverse.

And also, as I've mentioned, while his style of thematic development is not linear in a traditional sense, he has a genius way of providing subtle connections between many different movements at once.


----------



## Esterhazy (Oct 4, 2014)

I think his best pieces are the piano miniatures. These have an inner voice that is very appealing to me.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Just thought I'd mention a customarily lovely appreciation by Charles Rosen (from the NYRB):

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/dec/23/happy-birthday-robert-schumann/

For those who are having a hard time with this composer, don't feel bad!--it's a very common problem!



> Of all the composers who have made a permanent contribution to the standard concert repertoire and who have radically altered the subsequent history of classical music, Robert Schumann, whose bicentenary we celebrate this year, has inspired the greatest misunderstanding. The misunderstanding began with his own conception of his genius and his place in history.


As Rosen goes on to explain, even Schumann himself suffered from it!


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

I have listened to very little Schumann and had struggled through a couple of the symphonies.
Your posts here have explained much to me and I shall try again with 'eyes and ears open' 
Steber thanks for starting this thread and you guys for the replies, very helpful!


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

This thread is a breath of fresh air, after reading some posts and getting the gist of the general sentiment about Schumann and, especially, his Piano Concerto, in _another_ forum.

Threads such as http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=55100.0

and http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=36737.0

Love Schumann myself.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Lisztian said:


> This thread is a breath of fresh air, after reading some posts and getting the gist of the general sentiment about Schumann and, especially, his Piano Concerto, in _another_ forum.
> 
> Threads such as http://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=55100.0
> 
> ...


Well, of course! We have the best forum members out of any classical music forum


----------



## Lisztian (Oct 10, 2011)

violadude said:


> Well, of course! We have the best forum members out of any classical music forum


Certainly my favorite! :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Haydn man said:


> I have listened to very little Schumann and had struggled through a couple of the symphonies.
> Your posts here have explained much to me and I shall try again with 'eyes and ears open'
> Steber thanks for starting this thread and you guys for the replies, very helpful!


You know, that is really great to hear.


----------



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

*Thank you for your replies.*

Thank you to everyone for your replies. Your advice has been very helpful. I feel that I need to consider the uniqueness of Schumann's approach to composition to fully appreciate his work.


----------



## Steber (Jul 11, 2014)

I have just been listening to Schumann's piano works: Kriesleriana and Fantasiestucke Op12. Such delightful music. Dramatic, Melodic, a joy to listen to. Thanks to all of you for encouraging me in this.

Steber.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I can't let a Schumann discussion go by without bringing up my own favorite of his which nobody's mentioned yet: *String Quartet No. 3 in A major, Op. 41 No. 3*. One of the most passionate and masterfully executed quartets of the 19th Century IMO.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

What I like most about Schumann is this - the music, in the right hands, has moments which are very psychologically disturbing - it's a trait he shares with Chopin. It's like suddenly you hear a deep rumbling in the bass, unexpected, and it's like. . . .crazy. Or a totally random change, which just can't make sense, can't be right, but is very powerful emotionally. Performers who are sensitive to this aspect of his music include Alfred Cortot, Benno Moiseiwitsch, Vladimir Sofronitsky, Grigory Sokolovi. Gieseking sometimes too. 

I'm really thinking of the piano music. You don't get it so much in the chamber music and vocal music as far as I recall - maybe someone will correct me about that. I don't know the orchestral music, the choral music or the opera.

Another thing I like is the way the running concept of the battle between Eusebius and Florestan runs through so much of the early music. It's fun to see how he juxtaposes the two styles - in the second movement of the fanatsy, for example. 

By the way, there's a great connection with Literature - Schumann must be one of the most literary composers ever. If you get into Kreisleriana, for example, why not read Hofmann's book? It's funny!


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Ugh. Schumann. I don't know why I don't like his music but I don't. Maybe it's the same reason why I only tolerate Tchaikovsky, they are to caught up with sentimentality and melodrama. Tchaikovsky at least had masterful technical prowess and is one of the greatest melodist to ever be among men but still a little on the sappy side. 

However not to be entirely negative on this thread many of you have said many things of interest concerning his solo piano works which I feel I haven't been through enough of to say he's a complete hack (which is what immediately pops into my mind when I hear his name or most of his music and like I mentioned before I feel I have been more than fair), but I will delve deeper to see if something strikes me and I will also have to check out that 3rd string quartet that chap Andolink threw in there. 

Anyway time will tell I suppose... I'll get back to you.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Fugue Meister said:


> Ugh. Schumann. I don't know why I don't like his music but I don't. Maybe it's the same reason why I only tolerate Tchaikovsky, they are to caught up with sentimentality and melodrama. Tchaikovsky at least had masterful technical prowess and is one of the greatest melodist to ever be among men but still a little on the sappy side.
> 
> However not to be entirely negative on this thread many of you have said many things of interest concerning his solo piano works which I feel I haven't been through enough of to say he's a complete hack (which is what immediately pops into my mind when I hear his name or most of his music and like I mentioned before I feel I have been more than fair), but I will delve deeper to see if something strikes me and I will also have to check out that 3rd string quartet that chap Andolink threw in there.
> 
> Anyway time will tell I suppose... I'll get back to you.


What might make you reconsider what to look for there which you do value is a near-constant and stunning mastery of counterpoint... his music, the piano music especially but also in general, is riddled with it, and it is masterly.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

And in other news: In a bizarre incident on Talkclassical yesterday, long-standing and hitherto respected member Fugue Meister was lynched by fellow members of the board. In a macabre joke on his screen name, he was first tortured by being forced to listen to the Little Fuge from Schumann's "Album for the young."


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

A terrific biographic novel, but thoroughly researched and packed with factual detail, and it is done without many fictitious characters, if any at all:

*Longing by J.D. Landis* ~ I highly recommend this. It is highly informative, and since it is very well written, a novel which is a very engaging read.

"....looks at first glance like a chronological, factual account with hardly any invention. But the result is not just biography with a thin veneer of embellishment. In the end, ''Longing'' remains very much a work of fiction.

Landis has seamlessly interwoven his text with ideas (about language and music, genius, imagination and the nature of human devotion).... The strikingly original narrative that he has constructed, while it may present the facts, is about much more than facts alone.

...music dominates. Unexpressed melodies seem to move beneath the events of the novel like the undertones that run through Robert Schumann's brain. Even conversations are constructed like musical compositions, infused with melodic elements. In fact, as the final curtain of madness is drawn across the composer's life, the whole oratorio of self-destruction concludes with discussions between Robert and his bewildered doctor that are filled with themes and variations, progressions and discordant strains." *

* http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/09/17/reviews/000917.17polk.html


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Ugh. Schumann. I don't know why I don't like his music but I don't. Maybe it's the same reason why I only tolerate Tchaikovsky, they are to caught up with sentimentality and melodrama. Tchaikovsky at least had masterful technical prowess and is one of the greatest melodist to ever be among men but still a little on the sappy side.
> 
> However not to be entirely negative on this thread many of you have said many things of interest concerning his solo piano works which I feel I haven't been through enough of to say he's a complete hack (which is what immediately pops into my mind when I hear his name or most of his music and like I mentioned before I feel I have been more than fair), but I will delve deeper to see if something strikes me and I will also have to check out that 3rd string quartet that chap Andolink threw in there.
> 
> Anyway time will tell I suppose... I'll get back to you.


I bet listening to that quartet won't make the difference.

If you're serious, I'd suggest a different route. Listen to Heinz Holliger's Romancendres.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I bet listening to that quartet won't make the difference.
> 
> If you're serious, I'd suggest a different route. Listen to Heinz Holliger's Romancendres.


The thing that converted me to the religion of Schumann was the piano quintet, which I discovered as a teen when they played it on the radio. I was blown away. But then, I was young and romantic then.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I find Schumann almost always elusive, mysterious. His music demands concentration. My favourites include the piano quintet, the piano quartet, the 1st and 3rd symphonies, the piano concerto, Das Paradies und die Peri, Szenen aus Goethes Faust, and above all the violin concerto.

I know these two older guys who are violinists, one of them actually plays in a very famous Finnish orchestra. They adore the violin concerto more than anything, and actually when they get drunk together, at the last hour before morning, after hours of listening to classical music, as the final and ultimate piece, they always listen to the Schumann violin concerto... because they think it's the best. I cannot disagree with that!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I find his music to be madly visceral, wildly elusive, and wholeheartedly genuine. I like the guy.


----------



## spradlig (Jul 25, 2012)

*More Schumann*

All of his symphonies are great. Unfortunately, the 4th seems to outshadow the others.

Please listen to his underplayed violin concerto as well, and the works that others have mentioned.



Steber said:


> I have been listening to the Symphonies of Robert Schumann. I have to admit that Schumann, is not a composer I have looked at closely, but having listened to Symphony No 4. (particularly the fourth movement) I can't help feeling that I have missed out. The movement seems to be very personal and original with a really tragic ethos. Although I have known of the music of Schumann for some years and have occasionally listened to some of his piano pieces and the piano concerto, I have found his music to be somewhat difficult to follow as it seems to be rather obscure in form. But my recent listening to the symphonies has shown me that possibly I should connect with the emotion of the music rather than its form or inner logic. What does the forum think? Is there a way you have found to approach Schumann in order to appreciate his works in the best light?
> 
> Steber.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Yeah. I have to listen to that violin concerto.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I will look it up on YouTube to see if I like it. I see Brahms is trying to prevent anyone from hearing it there.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Xaltotun said:


> I find Schumann almost always elusive, mysterious. His music demands concentration. My favourites include the piano quintet, the piano quartet, the 1st and 3rd symphonies, the piano concerto, Das Paradies und die Peri, Szenen aus Goethes Faust, and *above all the violin concerto.*
> 
> I know these two older guys who are violinists, one of them actually plays in a very famous Finnish orchestra. They adore the violin concerto more than anything, and actually when they get drunk together, at the last hour before morning, after hours of listening to classical music, as the final and ultimate piece, *they always listen to the Schumann violin concerto... because they think it's the best.* I cannot disagree with that!


It warms my heart to know that this Cinderella among violin concertos is loved by others. It has had poor notices since Clara and Johannes, that suspicious and dastardly pair, tried to deep-six it. When finally, in my late fifties, I learned that the thing even existed, I was stunned by its typically Scumannesque originality, and especially by the strange and poignant slow movement which, together with thoughts of Robert's madness, induced in me the most deliciously Romantic sadness. Luckily the black widow's scheme failed and a few violinists have always taken it up, despite the critical avatars of received wisdom. I will dare to say that it's a more interesting work than the cello concerto, if not a perfect masterpiece like the piano concerto (the other half of which, as we know, was composed by Grieg).


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

violadude said:


> Schumann is a very special composer.
> 
> I think the greatest hurtle to overcome when trying to get a grips on his music is coming to terms with his style of organizing his material. This is especially true in his piano collections, pieces like Pappillons, Kreisleriana or Davidsbundertanze. He doesn't develop themes in a traditional way like one would expect of Beethoven or Brahms;the progression of his pieces don't have a particular flow like those previously mentioned composers either. It can be aggravating to a listener that is used to pieces slowly unfolding to hear Robert Schumann skip from theme to theme to theme without giving them any obvious time to develop, grow or even sink in to the listeners head. It can seem like he's just a scatter brained ninny letting his imagination run wild with nothing to reign in his ideas.
> 
> ...


Just passing through--but I have to say, this post is a gem. :cheers:

I shouldn't be tempted to speak my opinion of Schumann [or Haydn, Cherubini, Berlioz, Buxtehude, Victoria, Rameau, etc.], as I fear that my admirations/adorations border on sycophancy.

Has anyone studied his sacred works? I highly recommend overlooking the received opinion that they are of minor importance. Similarly, why has his Piano Quartet in C Minor remained so aloof? Schumann himself dismissed it as among some juvenile trifles. Every time I listen to the menuet, I have to double-check that I didn't accidentally turn to Hummel's mature chamber works.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

brianvds said:


> The thing that converted me to the religion of Schumann was the piano quintet, which I discovered as a teen when they played it on the radio. I was blown away. But then, I was young and romantic then.


 That's the piece that did it for me, too; but only because I recognized the funeral march theme from the second movement from the Buffy the Vampire Slayer film as the melody the master vampire plays on his violin.:lol: Well, at least it kept me listening, but I was in awe of the rest of the piece as well. Hearing the cello concerto on the radio a few weeks later only increased my interest in Schumann's music.


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

So far, I really like his Piano Concerto, definitely a masterpiece. I did have a similar impression to violadude with regards to some of the music in Schumann's piano collections - it did seem that he was 'jumping' from idea to idea and I missed some of that cohesion and logical development of ideas from the classical period. But I guess he was trying to 'break the rules' at that time (since it was 'in vogue', hehe). I still need to acquaint myself with more of his music. But I do like Schumann when he gets ancient and Bach-like, sometimes even Haydn-like. One of his pieces reminded me of the slow movement in Haydn's Sonata 37 in D Major (the baroque-sounding one). Schumann's definitely on my 'to explore further' list.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Steber said:


> I have just been listening to Schumann's piano works: Kriesleriana and Fantasiestucke Op12. Such delightful music. Dramatic, Melodic, a joy to listen to. Thanks to all of you for encouraging me in this.
> 
> Steber.


Yes! Yes! Also please try Carnival and the Symphonic Etudes. Marvelous piano works!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Well _doh!_ and slap my forehead...
_What all of us overlooked to mention, a very important musical premise, found in Schubert and Schumann, 
*"Through Composed."*_

"Through-composed: (from the German, durchkomponiert) *a form with no pre-established musical structure*, for example, a song composed from begining to end without repetitions of any major sections, each verse having its own, unique melody. If the song is in sections (stanzas) and the music is repeated unchanged for each section (stanza), the form is then said to be _strophic_."*

*N.B. "a form with no pre-established musical structure" -- with the subject being FORM, more than implying that form is not necessarily the one aspect of 'structure' as thought of from the classical era!*

* Dolmetsch (online) dictionary of music


----------



## ccar (Mar 3, 2017)

PetrB said:


> The piano concerto is a marvel, and really one big orchestral concertante piece vs. the more expected format of soloist as protagonist vs. the orchestra.
> _His orchestration,_ also heavily criticized, can be thick. Which recordings, and what care is given to the dynamic balance of all the parts and the general orchestral texture can be more critical for a successful performance, trickier and less forgiving than music of other composers. This can make all the difference in what we hear.


Your comment about the piano concerto orchestration is very true for me. A few days ago I was thinking exactly on the same lines while I was listening to a recent performance of the Schumann's concerto. Actually, in spite of so many great artists and recordings over the years (Richter, Lipatti, Haskil, Cortot, Michelangeli, Argerich, Moravec and Freire, only to name a few "references") I usually have difficulty to feel a "right" combination between poetry, fierceness and spontaneity in the piano part and what you nicely describe as the dynamic balance and texture of Schumann's orchestration.

This made me relisten to an almost unknown recording I collected years ago (but that is now more available online). This magic 1973 live performance unites the talent of two wonderful musicians that are worth to be more remembered - Roberto Szidon and Bruno Maderna.


----------

