# Where did Schumann go wrong



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Schumann at the beginning of his career wrote the best piano music out there since Beethoven and Schubert. His 3 piano Sonatas are arguably the best piano sonatas since Beethoven until this very date. But here is the mystery. Composers usually transfer their expert keyboard writing and technique to produce brilliant symphonies and orchestral works.

When one considers Schumann's piano sonatas with their well sculpted majesty, cohesion, and nuances, one would expect that this would be successfully transferred towards orchestral works where Schumann would have taken up where Beethoven and Schubert left off with their 9th symphonies. But Schumann didn't even come close with the exception of his perfect Piano Concerto in A minor.

Can we attribute this to his mental illness?

Consider how Wagner was horrible at the piano and writing for it but somehow wrote orchestral works which rivals and in some cases surpassed Beethoven.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

The four symphonies? The Konzertstück for Four Horns and Orchestra? The Overture, Scherzo and Finale in E? The cello and violin concertos?

Where did he go wrong indeed?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Can we attribute this to his mental illness?


Why of course, what else could it be?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

KenOC said:


> The four symphonies? The Konzertstück for Four Horns and Orchestra? The Overture, Scherzo and Finale in E? The cello and violin concertos?
> 
> Where did he go wrong indeed?


As good symphonies are they are nowhere near Beethoven or Schubert. The true Beethoven Spirit was revived with Wagner's Tannhauser.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Personally, I prefer Schumann's orchestral works to Beethoven's. I consider Schumann's 2nd and 4th symphonies among the very finest of the Romantic era. I would say Wagner consistently far surpassed Beethoven in this area as well.
Beethoven was very innovative with his orchestral music, but I don't enjoy the actual sounds of it myself. Schumann and Wagner (though very different) both sound more colorful, diverse and interesting to me in their orchestral works. Wagner in particular sounds much more precise and exacting and his large scale works just seem masterfully orchestrated on a level Beethoven never came close to. Beethoven strikes me as clunky and cold in his large scale works, though at times brilliant. However, I am consistently astounded by the brilliance of Beethoven's piano sonatas and smaller scale works. Just my opinion!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> As good symphonies are they are nowhere near Beethoven or Schubert. The true Beethoven Spirit was revived with Wagner's Tannhauser.


A good symphony requires the "true Beethoven spirit"? An interesting view...at best.

Sad that Mozart came too early to write good symphonies.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Schumann is one of the composers I need to spend a lot more time with. The only works by him that would be among my favorites in their class are the cello concerto and the Frauenliebe und -Leben. Oh, and maybe the Fantasie. The piano concerto has grown on me since I got Kovacevich/Davis.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The Spring Symphony is so fantastic though! And he wrote some really great chamber music. I also take it you aren't a fan of his unique miniature compilations for piano, that's his best stuff!

Schumann's symphonic music does not have the spirit of Beethoven for sure. Its a different beast.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I prefer his symphonies and concertos to his piano music. The Kinderszenen, Waldszenen, Papillons, and Kreisleriana are all very poetic and charming, but I like the more classical approach of his orchestral works much more. The Fourth, I think, is a conceptual masterpiece. The adagio of the Second is a wonderful homage to Bach.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Schumann evidently 'went wrong' where and when he decided to ignore the personal taste and expectations of the author of the OP of this particular thread (as well as that useless "Beethoven Yardstick"), and instead, compose what the composer cared to compose.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A good symphony requires the "true Beethoven spirit"? An interesting view...at best.
> 
> Sad that Mozart came too early to write good symphonies.


And don't even talk about (at least) half of Haydn Symphonies!

Only Schumann's piano trios haven't pleased me. Everything else about Schumann is GREAT!


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I remember when I didn't care for Schumann's symphonies, and then I heard Von Karajan's recording with Vienna of the 4th along with the Dvorak 8th. It was a revelation and I have two boxed sets and numerous singles of Schumann's symphonies. I am always looking for a perfect recording of the 2nd in C major.

Maybe you haven't listened to any great interpreters with top flight orchestras. I don't think any box set is totally consistent except maybe for John Eliot Gardiner's set with his period instrument group - it really is very fine, and I don't think you would be disappointed with Von K's boxed set. Cheers 

*heavy edit of original post*: not awake yet, more coffee needed. Listening to Bruckner 9th with Giulini and Vienna = absolutely one of the finest recordings of anything I have ever heard.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I think as an 'all-rounder' Schumann did what could be expected of him and more - he went against the grain by devoting time to an individual genre before tackling others rather than mixing it up and I reckon in his case this kind of discipline worked in his favour as it didn't diffuse his talent and allowed him to work to his strengths while gaining in confidence. Initially his output was exclusively piano music followed by nothing but songs - and what songs! - before embarking on chamber, orchestral and choral compositions. Most of what I've heard is of a very high quality (I can't comment on his choral works, where it is said he was often not at his best), perhaps incredibly so if we take into account early family tragedy, the exasperation incurred by his relationship with the father of the woman he was devoted to, the suicide attempt stemming from a depression that plagued him throughout most of his life and finally his later, fatal, mental breakdown - perhaps it's a minor miracle he completed that violin concerto at all. Schumann only went wrong by having what seemed to be a permanent bad hair day.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> A good symphony requires the "true Beethoven spirit"? An interesting view...at best.
> 
> Sad that Mozart came too early to write good symphonies.


And _just tragic_ to walk around with a "Beethoven Yardstick" with which to measure anything other than Beethoven, which is nearly as tragic as thinking late classical symphonic form is some sort of sina qua non of either form or content. But folks gotta make their own kind of fun, I guess.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I'm still waiting for Schumann to go wrong.


----------



## Dimboukas (Oct 12, 2011)

I like Schumann very much, but I haven't heard his opera, _Genoveva_. Has anyone heard it and liked it and can propose a good recording?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Schumann evidently 'went wrong' where and when he decided to ignore the personal taste and expectations of the author of the OP of this particular thread (as well as that useless "Beethoven Yardstick"), and instead, compose what the composer cared to compose.


do yourself a favor, if you cannot disagree without getting personal, save your sarcasm and veiled insults for yourself, and stay off this thread. If you do that, a high level of cordiality and politeness will be maintained.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

KenOC said:


> A good symphony requires the "true Beethoven spirit"? An interesting view...at best.
> 
> Sad that Mozart came too early to write good symphonies.


Beethoven built on Mozart and Haydn: It was consistent evolution. After Beethoven and Schubert, the symphonic output in terms of quality on the level of Beethoven and Schubert actually dropped, with only Mendelssohn's 3rd Symphony holding water.
When one evaluates the high quality of Schumann's piano sonatas, his symphonies are dearly lacking in comparison.Note, I never said that they aren't enjoyable, for they are.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

clavichorder said:


> The Spring Symphony is so fantastic though! And he wrote some really great chamber music. I also take it you aren't a fan of his unique miniature compilations for piano, that's his best stuff!
> 
> Schumann's symphonic music does not have the spirit of Beethoven for sure. Its a different beast.


I do love his chamber works, especially his piano trios. His symphonies are quite nice but they didn't continue where Beethoven left off. Let's face it, Wagner's Tannhauser swallows all of Schumann's orchestral works whole.


----------



## SerbenthumInDerMusik (Nov 9, 2012)

I personally like Schumann's symphonies but it is the judgement of "experts" that they belong in the second tier of orchestral composition. And this applies to all of Schumann's generation (Chopin, Liszt, Felix). They are but intermission between Schubert and Brahms. Reason?


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

elgars ghost said:


> I think as an 'all-rounder' Schumann did what could be expected of him and more - he went against the grain by devoting time to an individual genre before tackling others rather than mixing it up and I reckon in his case this kind of discipline worked in his favour as it didn't diffuse his talent and allowed him to work to his strengths while gaining in confidence. Initially his output was exclusively piano music followed by nothing but songs - and what songs! - before embarking on chamber, orchestral and choral compositions. Most of what I've heard is of a very high quality (I can't comment on his choral works, where it is said he was often not at his best), perhaps incredibly so if we take into account early family tragedy, the exasperation incurred by his relationship with the father of the woman he was devoted to, the suicide attempt stemming from a depression that plagued him throughout most of his life and finally his later, fatal, mental breakdown - perhaps it's a minor miracle he completed that violin concerto at all. Schumann only went wrong by having what seemed to be a permanent bad hair day.


It is true that his mental illness gained strength as he continued to live, and this definitely impacted his quality of his work. His second symphony was interrupted by depression, and it took almost a year to complete due to the break in concentration. And his second symphony as good as it is, is a mere 30 minutes in performance length. On the contrary, when he was experiencing a manic high, he would compose a symphony in 1 week(his first symphony). What is interesting is that his first works didn't experience such variable impacts of his mental illness.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Apples amd oranges. Schumann was fundamentally a lyrical composer, Beethoven an architectural one. (I too love the piano concerto, by the way.) The other problem was having no confidence in his ability to orchestrate -- so when he rehearsed with his home orchestra (which had problems), he blamed what he was hearing on himself and doubled parts and thickened the orchestration which muddied things horribly.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Beethoven built on Mozart and Haydn: It was consistent evolution. After Beethoven and Schubert, the symphonic output in terms of quality on the level of Beethoven and Schubert actually dropped, with *only* Mendelssohn's 3rd Symphony holding water.


Wait a minute, you are surely forgetting Berlioz and his Symphony Fantastique, as well as his 3 successive symphonic tone poem hybrids. That certainly builds from Beethoven.


----------



## peeyaj (Nov 17, 2010)

Schumann as a composer is wrong in my book.. as a critic he's marvelous.  

( dunks my head)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> do yourself a favor, if you cannot disagree without getting personal, save your sarcasm and veiled insults for yourself, and stay off this thread. If you do that, a high level of cordiality and politeness will be maintained.


I see no insult, veiled or otherwise. I do see a suggestion that you and Schumann are not peas in a pod. Perhaps you agree with that conjecture?


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> Beethoven built on Mozart and Haydn: It was consistent evolution. After Beethoven and Schubert, the symphonic output in terms of quality on the level of Beethoven and Schubert actually dropped, with only Mendelssohn's 3rd Symphony holding water.
> When one evaluates the high quality of Schumann's piano sonatas, his symphonies are dearly lacking in comparison.Note, I never said that they aren't enjoyable, for they are.


What of Mahler's symphonies? Of Bruckner and Sibelius? And Brahms? From what I understand these are highly regarded.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Schumann went wrong when he got born after Beethoven. Happened to others as well. See my sig... :lol:


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

Sonata said:


> What of Mahler's symphonies? Of Bruckner and Sibelius? And Brahms? From what I understand these are highly regarded.


sorry I didn't make my post clear. Bruckner and Brahms really put the symphony proper back on the level it deserved. When I say after Beethoven and Schubert I mean immediately after. Bruckner and Brahms were late romantics.


----------



## ScipioAfricanus (Jan 7, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Schumann went wrong when he got born after Beethoven. Happened to others as well. See my sig... :lol:


but for what its worth, his piano sonatas can stand with any of Beethoven's piano sonatas.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> but for what its worth, his piano sonatas can stand with any of Beethoven's piano sonatas.


Certainly they can stand there. But maybe hard to see, they being so short and all...


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I love the Schumann Symphonies, as I have said, but I now think (as others have said) that Bruckner is the main line of symphony development between Beethoven and Mahler. Brahms, though I love him, is conservative in most of his symphony work and doesn't move the genre forward. However, Sibelius is a great writer of symphonies! more modern than Mahler and a true original. Just my opine. 



Sonata said:


> What of Mahler's symphonies? Of Bruckner and Sibelius? And Brahms? From what I understand these are highly regarded.


----------



## vinniekant (Dec 15, 2012)

Love the name, Scipio (the greatest Roman general after Julius). 
I think Wagner can be seen as Beethoven's true heir, and he deemed gesamtkunstwerk the highest form of artistic expression, as opposed to Brahms, who is certainly a contender.... The middle movement of Beethoven's piano sonata in D major op. 10 no. 3
feels like THE piece that preempted Wagner. Heavy diminished chords surrounded by passing tones with various unexpected modulations and tonicizations.
With regard to Schumann, mental illness did eventually cause his output to suffer, the question is really when. 
The grosse sonate in F# minor is awesome (early work) and the d minor symphony is as well. Hard to say when he took a turn, but Schumann is no Wagner, that's for sure.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

ScipioAfricanus said:


> The true Beethoven Spirit was revived with Wagner's Tannhauser.


O come off it!


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Dimboukas, I just obtained a recording of Genoveva, and I have enjoyed it immensely so far. 

I can see how it pales in comparison to other contemporary operas, but it has an eloquent and dramatic majesty of its own. I think that the work has been belittled as a matter of course. It may not be the greatest opera, but it surely deserves some praise!

I have only heard the Kurt Masur recording, and while I cannot speak of any other recording, I highly recommend it.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I have always enjoyed Schumann's symphonies, especially the second in C Minor.

They may not stand out prominently in the history of symphonic writing, but I find them excellent works of varied intensity and pathos. I believe that the attribute that most mars these works is the incredibly dense orchestration: an overwhelming succession of orchestral tutti, with little partitioning of melodic treatment to the various sections of the orchestra. In his epigrammatic advice to musicians, Schumann proclaimed that one ought to gain a clear sense of the characteristics and colors of the various instruments, that said musician can employ them in the most effective articulation of musical ideas. Schumann himself would have done well to have given this more consideration in the composition of his symphonies.

The whole orchestral tutti has a very limited range of acoustic color, and our ears are quickly accustomed to the fanfares and claps of orchestral thunder, so that the symphonies quickly lose their effectiveness. Or so it seems to me. I think the "Manfred" and "Faust" overtures are especially vulnerable to this criticism. Nevertheless, I am very attached to all of these works.

What I have always found interesting is that Schumann doesn't write with such instrumental density in the rest of the "Faust", "Das Paradies und die Peri", "Der Rose Pilgerfahrt", "Genoveva", his concerti, nor in the Introduction & Allegro Appassionato in G. Even his Requiem and his Missa Sacra contain excellent varieties of instrumental color.

Insofar as Schumann began to lose his creative powers, I've always felt that his Requiem [especially the Requiem Aeternam, Dies Irae, and Benedictus movements] and his Missa Sacra [especially the Gloria movement] are excellent works. Insofar as the average quality of his output is concerned, they are surely not his most inspired works, but they are, as far as I know, his only formally sacred works. Schumann might simply not have been such a master of sacred settings; his powers are oriented toward the fantastic and the inspirational. Church music doesn't offer so much scope for imagination, at least compared to the freedom he had in composing the fantastic Kreisleriana. As these sacred works are the largest works of his latest period, it would make sense that we would consider that period one of decline.

I get the impression in Schumann's late works an air of exhaustion and deep malaise. I always considered him rather like Charles Dickins insofar as he would wear himself to exhaustion by the ruthless exercise of his imagination. His Gesaenge der Fruehe is an incredibly touching work: deeply inward looking and characteristic of a mental malaise [ 



 ]. I once read somewhere a characterization of the Requiem Aeternam movement of his Requiem as a kind of "begging for repose". I cannot erase that phrase from my mind whenever I hear the profoundly moving movement [ 



 -- lasts from 0:00 to 3:50].

I'm very devoted to Schumann's music lately; excuse me if I effuse exaggeratedly over him.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

NightHawk said:


> Brahms, though I love him, is conservative in most of his symphony work and doesn't move the genre forward.


Perhaps the symphonic genre is not moved forward, but Schoenberg, I believe very accurately stated that Brahms was the most harmonically radical of his time. I do feel that there is something very original and unusual about Brahms, that though looking back in form, looks forward in feeling and overall mood, more than Wagner and even Bruckner.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Perhaps the symphonic genre is not moved forward, but Schoenberg, I believe very accurately stated that Brahms was the most harmonically radical of his time. I do feel that there is something very original and unusual about Brahms, that though looking back in form, looks forward in feeling and overall mood, more than Wagner and even Bruckner.


Actually, Schoenberg saw Brahms as a radical in his use of structure and rhythm more than harmony. His harmony was quite conservative compared to Wagner, Bruckner, or (especially) Mahler and Strauss. I would have to read the essay "Brahms the Progressive" again, but I seem to recall that the discussion centers primarily around the way Brahms continually develops his motifs from simple cells (like Schoenberg himself).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, Schoenberg saw Brahms as a radical in his use of structure and rhythm more than harmony.


Have to quote George Bernard Shaw here on Brahms: "His wantonness is not vicious: it is that of a great baby, gifted enough to play with harmonies that would baffle most grown-up men, but still a baby, never more happy than when he has a crooning song to play with, always ready for the rocking horse and the sugar-stick, and tiresomely addicted to dressing himself up as Handel or Beethoven and making a prolonged and intolerable noise."

Actually it's relevant because GBS points to Brahms' harmonic prowess, agreeing with Schoenberg's opinion as stated by clavichorder... Fun quote, too!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

vinniekant said:


> Schumann is no Wagner, that's for sure.


Another reason why I like Schumann so much!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Actually, Schoenberg saw Brahms as a radical in his use of structure and rhythm more than harmony. His harmony was quite conservative compared to Wagner, Bruckner, or (especially) Mahler and Strauss. I would have to read the essay "Brahms the Progressive" again, but I seem to recall that the discussion centers primarily around the way Brahms continually develops his motifs from simple cells (like Schoenberg himself).


Perhaps you are right. All I know is that I personally feel something equally and yet differently radical about Brahms in what he does.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Schumann's piano output is for me incredible. Some of the greatest piano music ever written. Did he go wrong? I think it is generally accepted that his work suffered a decline as his mental illness kicked in more and more. I think it is completely wrongheaded, though, to assume that the symphonic repertoire is the only yardstick to measure a composer by. One might just as well say Beethoven was a failure because he didn't write great song cycles like Schubert. Or Haydn failed because he didn't produce a string of sublime piano concertos like Mozart. Or Mahler and Bruckner were hopeless because they didn't write piano music like Schumann. There has to be far more aspects of greatness to measure music by.


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

I love all of Schumann's output, with especial affection for his symphonies.

If you get a chance to listen to all of his overtures, you really should. Julius Caesar Overture is a series of marches, but it is the Manfred Overture that truly sticks out: very densely orchestrated, even by Schumann's standards, but it is a work that seems to capture the entire pathos of Romantic Era.


----------



## Truckload (Feb 15, 2012)

I recently finished a personal study of the 4 Schuman Symphonies using the Dover scores. These Symphonies are great music, and exhibit many fine qualities, but the orchestration is clumsy at best. That is why so many conductors and musicologists have dabled in "correcting" his orchestrations. Sadly, when there is so much near perfect music available, it is all too easy for critics to over emphasize any failing.

So I knew when I started my study of the scores I would find orchestration issues. What surprised me was the use of chromaticism, in my opinion. I have not read any sources that talk about this at all, so this is just my opinion. Schuman strikes me as having been completely besotted with chromaticism like a child with a particularly fascinating toy. He did not take chromaticism to the extremes of Strauss, Mahler, and Wagner, but for his time (the 4th was written in 1841) he was certainly "on the edge of the envelope". 

For those not familiar with the terms, Beethoven and Mozart used many chromatically altered tones, but they did so in order to make frequent modulations, or termporary modulations, or in use of fairly standard harmonic tools like secondary dominants and altered sixth chords. Schumann often uses chromatically altered tones to add tension and color to his harmonies, sometimes in the established mannerisms, but often in an apparently non-functional way.

I speculate that Schumann's experiments with chromaticism might have distracted him from writing his best music. When he does break away from playing with chromatics, his music can be as powerful, dramatic and melodic as any mid-Romantic composor.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Have to quote George Bernard Shaw here on Brahms: "His wantonness is not vicious: it is that of a great baby, gifted enough to play with harmonies that would baffle most grown-up men, but still a baby, never more happy than when he has a crooning song to play with, always ready for the rocking horse and the sugar-stick, and tiresomely addicted to dressing himself up as Handel or Beethoven and making a prolonged and intolerable noise."
> 
> Actually it's relevant because GBS points to Brahms' harmonic prowess, agreeing with Schoenberg's opinion as stated by clavichorder... Fun quote, too!


Ken, you seem to have developed a weird obsession lately with digging up negative opinions about Brahms, including the crossbows-and-cats canard! Is this your way of telling us Brahms is not to your taste? 

GBS also detested the Rasumovsky quartets of Beethoven, while describing the Grosse Fuge as "beautiful, simple, straightforward, [and] unpretentious."


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Back on topic, Schumann can be entertaining. Howver, I always get the sense of his being extremely gifted but technically less than fully competent. I can't speak to his skills as an orchestrator, but in terms of his musical structures, I find them clunky and somewhat amateurish. Even in the works of his I like best--the piano quintet and quartet, the symphonies, the concertos--I always get the sense of "seeing the seams," of a lack of finish. And sometimes he strains a really simple musical idea to the breaking point, like the endless runs up and down the scale that characterize the scherzo of the quintet.

At his worst, I find him repetitive and his structures helter skelter, e.g. in the string quartets, piano trios, and cello and piano chamber music, especially Fünf Stücke Im Volkston, Op. 12 and Fantasiestücke, Op. 88, which are among the few works of the standard rep that I would actually describe as annoying.

Some will say this is a sign of his "mad" genius, bipolar disorder, or what have you---but I don't find readings of his works as direct expressions of psychological imbalance persuasive or interesting.

But I do enjoy much of Schumann's music, and a few of his works I listen to quite a lot.

The view expressed previously that Schumann's piano sonatas can stand with Beethoven's piano sonatas--well, that is a very generous assessment.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Hausmusik said:


> Ken, you seem to have developed a weird obsession lately with digging up negative opinions about Brahms, including the crossbows-and-cats canard! Is this your way of telling us Brahms is not to your taste?


You raise a VERY interesting point. The word "canard" is from the French, literally, a duck. Are you suggesting that Brahms actually used his crossbow to shoot ducks, not cats? Please expand on your post, since this seems well worth exploring further!


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Speaking of claims that Schumann was a poor orchestrator:

I am now listening to Schumann's cello concerto as reorchestrated by Shostakovich (a Chandos recording). It's very interesting, but I much prefer Schumann's original orchestration. Schumann's wind-heavy original orchestration is so haunting and singular; Shosty lays on the drama pretty thick and pumps up the strings, giving us a much more generic (if certainly entertaining) Romantic concerto.

On this album:


----------



## murphmeister (Feb 17, 2013)

I cannot agree that Schumann was a failure at transferring his pianistic genius to the orchestral medium. Granted, his orchestrations sound thin at times which sometimes can be attributed to a lack of textural harmonies. In that he was no Brahms. But his Rhenish and Fourth symphonies, the Konzertstuck for Four horns, the Overture, Scherzo and Finale, the Manfred Overture are evidence of how well he composed for orchestra. And only his Piano Concerto ranks with Beethoven's last three as being superior, non-programatic and balanced between the two forces marshalled for the endeavor. I therefore must concur with KenOC


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

In answer to the title. Nowhere!


----------



## Novelette (Dec 12, 2012)

Burroughs said:


> In answer to the title. Nowhere!


Agreed wholeheartedly!


----------

