Classical Music Forum banner

Wanderer Fantasy by Franz Schubert

23K views 40 replies 20 participants last post by  Mandryka 
#1 ·
The Fantasie in C major, Op. 15 (D. 760), popularly known as the Wanderer Fantasy, is a four-movement fantasy for solo piano composed by Franz Schubert in November 1822. It is considered Schubert's most technically demanding composition for the piano. Schubert himself said "the devil may play it", in reference to his own inability to do so properly.

The whole work is based on one single basic motive, from which all themes are developed. This motive is distilled from the theme of the second movement, which is set in C-sharp minor and is a sequence of variations on a melody taken from the lied Der Wanderer, which Schubert wrote in 1816. It is this set of variations from which the work's popular name is derived.



The four movements are played without a break. After the first movement Allegro con fuoco ma non troppo in C major and the second movement Adagio, follow a scherzo presto in A flat major and the finale, which returns to the key of C major. This finale starts out as a fugue but later breaks into a virtuoso piece.

Richter recording of it is legendary.. It is very virtuosic but he successfully combined Schubert lyricism and technical difficulty.

Hear it:



What do you think of this piece? Do you have any favorite recordings?

:)
 
See less See more
1 1
#12 · (Edited)
Ok, I know I'm about a month late to the party here, but I wanted to chime in as I've both listened to and played this work a bunch of times. I really don't like it very much, and would happily never play any of it again save for the Adagio. The original motive, as quoted above, really does tend to get on my nerves, and Schubert's transitions between the sections in the opening Allegro can be pretty poor at times. I think Liszt was much more successful in his attempts to link material (like in his tone poems) than Schubert was attempting to do here.

What has always impressed me about the piece, other than the Adagio, is the form. Schubert was pretty innovative in this regard IMO, and the piece as a whole can be seen as a melding of symphonic form (Allegro - Adagio - Scherzo - Finale) and of sonata-allegro form, where the Allegro is the Exposition, the Adagio is the Development, the Presto is the Recapitulation, and the Finale is a Coda. I am aware that the key areas, particularly in the Presto, don't align with the "perfect" sonata-allegro form, but to me, the way the material is treated and themes return does align.

And yes, Liszt's orchestration of this was...guh. I have no issue with his orchestration in his later life though!

Edit: I should also note, that I am a HUGE fan of most of Schubert's writing, and I fully plan on learning all of his late piano sonatas before I kick the bucket!
 
#4 · (Edited)
This is one of my favourite pieces for solo piano by any composer, and I think its grandeur and drama is on a scale that surpasses Beethoven. Although Beethoven's solo piano compositions no doubt outmatch Schubert's in general, Schubert had moments of sublime brilliance - such as this piece along with the late sonatas - and I prefer these by quite a distance to the best of Beethoven.

As peeyaj already knows, my preferred recording is Maurizio Pollini:



However, after having not listened to it for a considerable amount of time, I listened to the Richter recording this morning and was very impressed. I think that the Richter and Pollini recordings are probably on par, though they both have different qualities - we all know why Richter's reigns supreme, because of immense force coupled with subtle emotion where it is needed. At times, though, I find some of the fantasy's details are a little clouded. That's where I prefer Pollini because, as with many of his recordings, his technique and sound are crisp and minutely detailed, so I hear everything that happens. If only you could mix and match the best of both!
 
#5 ·
I am in agreement with Poley re excellence. However, as suggested by Schubert, there is another 'avenue of appreciation'. Clifford Curzon recorded the work, had one of those mental BZZZRT!! things (dreaded in concert by many musicians) at a critical place, had a helluva time recovering - and the recording was issued. Mr Curzon was not a super-duper virtuoso, but his technique was plenty good enough to play the Wanderer... without the BZZRT.

I just looked at amazon.com, and didn't find a recording of this work by Schnabel. His technique was also plenty good enough. ?
 
#6 · (Edited)
I quite agree that this work is at least on a par, if not better, than anything written of a similar nature up to this point in time, including anything written by Beethoven, who was suposed to be the great piano innovator. Rather like a previous poster, I slightly prefer Pollini's version over Richter but there's not much in it. Pollini's playing, as usual, is excellent on this CD. It is slightly longer by almost a minute, which I find a slight negative point, but the sound is cleaner and virtually hiss-free, unlike Richter's which sounds a bit noisy to me. Brendel's version on the Phillips label would be my third choice as it's rather less attention grabbing than either Richter or Pollini, although still techically very impressive. Brendel is better at the more mellifluous piano works of Schubert, like the sonatas, as I generally dislike Richter's very slow, over-ponderous style. I heard a good live version by Paul Lewis at the Wigmore Hall, London last December, which I have recorded as it was broadcast on the radio. It sounded pretty good at the time but upon further comparison it's not in the same league as Pollini or Richter, not having quite the same dynamism as these other versions. In case anyone might be tempted to try it, don't bother with the Berezovsky version of the Wanderer Fantasy as orchestrated by Liszt. It's rubbish compared with the real thing.
 
#7 ·
In case anyone might be tempted to try it, don't bother with the Berezovsky version of the Wanderer Fantasy as orchestrated by Liszt. It's rubbish compared with the real thing.
I quite like the idea of a piano and orchestra arrangement, as the piece certainly has concerto-esque qualities (though of course it would never match the original - it's just for a bit of fun once in a while), but Liszt is the last composer I'd have wanted to orchestrate it, his skills in that department being rather small. There's a better recording of it by Solti and Bolet, but the orchestral part is so dull that no amount of virtuosity can bring it near the experience of a solo version.
 
#11 ·
There was a recent paper at a conference of music theory that discussed the differences between Liszt's orchestration and Schubert's original notation, entitled "Liszt's Recomposition of the Wanderer Finale, and What It Tells Us About Schubert's Finale Problem." Essentially, the author of the paper, Timothy Best, argued that Schubert actually succeeded in his Finale, in comparison to Liszt's recomposition, which glazed over important elements of the work. I wish I could remember the specifics of the talk, but I remember it being incredibly thought provoking.

On a side note, I love how this work is in the Dover collection of "Schubert's Complete Shorter Piano Works." Yeah...real short piece!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Polednice
#13 ·
Just heard it today in succession, I am never tired of it especially the Richter's recording. It is such a great piece when you want some kind of uplift of mood. The fourth movement rocks. Liszt is kinda obsessed with it. I wonder why.

:)
 
#19 ·
This work really divides people here, doesn't it?

I'm on the 'dislike' side, which I find odd because I am very fond of Schubert's piano sonatas, the Impromptus and Moments Musicaux and listen to them regularly - but I even manage to forget from time to time that the 'Wanderer Fantasy' exists!

This is despite the fact that I have owned a copy of Pollini's recording for 25 years. I just don't like it at all - it's not very 'Schubertian' to my ears...
 
#20 ·
The very great pianist Elly Ney decided ,at the age of 76,to make a last batch of recordings. They included all the Beethoven concerti,a number of the sonatas,Mozart,and other items but also including the Wanderer Fantasy. It is an experience from times past and fascinating.
 
#31 ·
Indeed, I still remember with horror the way it crashed into all those beautifully played impromptus:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Pianists-22-Clifford-Curzon/dp/B00000I940

I take it you don't agree it should have been included on a small selection of his best performances? :lol:
The guy who collated that series is active on rec.music.classical.recordings - Tom Deacon. You could ask him.

One possibility is its demonstration of Heart. He struggled mightily and found his way back. Mind you, I am not knocking Curzon as pianist or person; mental hiccups lie in wait for all of us. Why though, was the recording released?
 
#34 · (Edited)
The Curzon was the first performance I bought, and I don't have any problem enjoying it. As to why it was issued, it was recorded in 1949, and though tape was being used by then, it may not have been recorded on tape, in which case, editing was not an option (and they tended not to edit, even when using tape, in those early days). Also, wrong notes were not yet regarded as the almighty sins against humanity that they now seem to have become. If the spirit of the piece was captured, then for many this was the prime consideration in releasing a recording.
Getting back to the Wanderer, I love Edwin Fischer's performance too, also I have two very fine live performances by Jorge Bolet, recorded from broadcasts in 1984/5, it is a shame he never recorded the solo version commercially. Arthur Rubinstein's recording from 1965 is very fine too, his playing of the slow centre section is particularly beautiful. How lucky we are to have all of this available.
 
#36 ·
... I have two very fine live performances by Jorge Bolet, recorded from broadcasts in 1984/5, it is a shame he never recorded the solo version commercially...
I would love to have heard Bolet in the WF, he's one of my favourite pianists!
What are the source of the recordings You have, BBC? There are two cuts on Youtube; with LSO and George Solti from 1986 and from the Cheltenham Festival 1984. I much prefer the latter "original" version then the Liszted version with orchestra! There's something with how Bolet moves across the piano so flamboyantly, but soft to the touch that really arouse my appetite for Schubert!

/ptr
 
#37 ·
What are the source of the recordings You have, BBC?

/ptr[/QUOTE]

Yes, they come from BBC broadcasts. One is the Cheltenham Festival, 1984. The other a recital given on 17th January, 1985, which I've dated, but, unusually for me, preserved neither venue, nor commentary! I also have a live performance by Bolet of the orchestral version with the London Symphony Orchestra/James Conlon from the Liszt Centenary Concert that was given in the Royal Albert Hall on 31st July, 1986. All of it very enjoyable. I saw him several times in London in the 1980s and he really was a wonderful artist, and quite charming when I went backstage to meet him. Happy days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: joen_cph
#40 ·
Yes, they come from BBC broadcasts. One is the Cheltenham Festival, 1984. The other a recital given on 17th January, 1985, which I've dated, but, unusually for me, preserved neither venue, nor commentary! I also have a live performance by Bolet of the orchestral version with the London Symphony Orchestra/James Conlon from the Liszt Centenary Concert that was given in the Royal Albert Hall on 31st July, 1986. All of it very enjoyable. I saw him several times in London in the 1980s and he really was a wonderful artist, and quite charming when I went backstage to meet him. Happy days.
Thanks for the info SM, I will have to look for a transfer of the Cheltenham Recital!
I quite envy anyone who have heard Bolet live, I was to young and innocent while he was still active and never close enough to any venue he played to ever get a chance!

/ptr
 
G
#38 ·
Before reading the recent contributions to this thread, I had three versions of Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy D 760: Richter, Brendel, Pollini. The order in which I liked them were Richter first, and the other two somewhat behind.

In the light of recent suggestions, I have acquired "youtube" versions of this work by Elly Ney and Clifford Curzon. The version by Elly Ney is competent but taken rather too slowly for my liking and in comparison with the others, and if I'm not mistaken it seems to get into a slight muddle in the last three minutes or so, not mention a few wrong notes. I quite like the version by Clifford Curzon but overall don't find it any better than those by Brendel and Pollini.

In my estimation the version by Richter (on EMI 23080) is still the best of those that I have. I've read favourable comments about Richter's interpretation in several other places. Richter's finger work in this recording is startling throughout. This is the version I would recommend.

The orchestral version of D 760 transcribed by Liszt (S 366) is worth a listen but I don't find it to be in the same league of enjoyment as the original piano version.
 
#39 ·
Before reading the recent contributions to this thread, I had three versions of Schubert's Wanderer Fantasy D 760: Richter, Brendel, Pollini. The order in which I liked them were Richter first, and the other two somewhat behind.

In the light of recent suggestions, I have acquired "youtube" versions of this work by Elly Ney and Clifford Curzon. The version by Elly Ney is competent but taken rather too slowly for my liking and in comparison with the others, and if I'm not mistaken it seems to get into a slight muddle in the last three minutes or so, not mention a few wrong notes. I quite like the version by Clifford Curzon but overall don't find it any better than those by Brendel and Pollini.

In my estimation the version by Richter (on EMI 23080) is still the best of those that I have. I've read favourable comments about Richter's interpretation in several other places. Richter's finger work in this recording is startling throughout. This is the version I would recommend.

The orchestral version of D 760 transcribed by Liszt (S 366) is worth a listen but I don't find it to be in the same league of enjoyment as the original piano version.
I find your comments on the Elly Ney recording rather strange. If what you heard was the Colosseum recording I referred to it was a studio recording. As she was then very advanced in years it is not impossible that a mistake was made. But knowing the lady's character I'm sure she would have insisted on a re-take. As for speed ,I suppose that is up to the pianist's judgement and the record does not list timings and I don't want to play though half a dozen versions really for comparison.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top