Classical Music Forum banner

Robert Schumann - great composer??

53K views 209 replies 83 participants last post by  John Kiunke 
#1 ·
Hi there,

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

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

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

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

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

I'd love some thoughts on this issue.

Thanks for reading and happy listening

Jai
 
See less See more
#2 ·
Is Schumann a great composer? In a word, yes. Is he as great as Brahms? Probably not. Does that undermine him as a composer? Why should it? I would place Wagner above Brahms... and certainly Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart.... but that does not lessen his achievements. I agree that Brahms is clearly the better symphonic composer... one of the best. But Schumann's symphonies are not bad as any really good recording will reveal. Personally, I find that Schumann's strongest works are those composed on a smaller scale... as an equivalent, perhaps, of the lyrical poem that become the central core of Romanticism in poetry. This is perhaps to be expected considering Schumann's love of literature and his intentions to create something of a literary/poetic narrative through music. His Papillons, Carnaval, FantasiestĂĽcke, Kinderszenen, and Kreisleriana are all masterpieces of such poetic pianism... and certainly the model for later composers, including Grieg (whom I don't see as having surpassed Schumann in this genre). To this, we must add the great songs or lieder... especially the Liederkreis, Frauenliebe und -leben, and Dichterliebe which place him perhaps only behind Schubert among the great composers of lieder.
 
#3 ·
Thanks for the reply

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

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

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

Do you think Schumann is instantly recognizable? Is his mark on whatever genre you take there, such that he deserves to be hailed as such?
 
#5 ·
OK thanks - Argerich is my favourite pianist. I don't know that CD though I do know she 'owns' the Liszt Bminor Sonata.... that is beyond amazing. I have this vague memory of the third sonata of Schumann. I will definitely check this out.
 
#6 ·
The OP almost sent me into a state of shock-horror.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I conclude that Schumann is definitely worth exploring. Like all composers he has a unique sound, which I guess one either likes or not. I love it. To me it seems like Romantic music should sound without being OTT like much of Wagner, or that of other drama queens like Bruckner, or being over fussy, over long like and drawn out like much of Mahler.
 
#31 ·
The OP almost sent me into a state of shock-horror.

I love Schumann. I have all of his works and I rate him along with Brahms somewhere in the middle of my group of top 10 composers.

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

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

I also have on disc all of Schumann's instrumental output and a fair amount of his vocal works but this doesn't mean that I like all that. I like very much many of his works for solo piano - being especially fond of Fantasy in C, Kreisleriana, Davidsbündlertänze, 6 Intermezzi Op. 4, Etudes Symphoniques, both Phantasiestücke, Gesänge der Frühe, Sonata in f sharp, Bunte Blätter - plus Eden & Peri, but I find boring almost all of his symphonic and chamber music (not for their orchestration), not to mention his vocal music, with pitifully few exceptions. As for Brahms, it is the other way round. I like his solo piano works but I can find in them neither the forceful, overwhelming inventiveness, nor the exuberant and colorful richness of Schumann's solo piano works. Brahms achieved all that in chamber music, symphonies and concertos.
 
#7 ·
That's interesting that you say his orchestration being bad is old-fashioned nonsense. Recently I read a review of a recording of Herrewegge conducting some French orchestra in the four symphonies. I got 2 and 3. It is fair to say that they sound better on period instruments but then I am a fan of period instruments. I love the sound of the brass and timpani especially. Now it makes more sense if it is indeed old-fashioned to think this way of his symphonies because, as I said, why would someone as accomplished as he make such juvenile mistakes in orchestration and not learn from each new symphony. Perhaps, they are not mistakes!

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

Also, I love Tchaikovsky but I don't think he is one of the greatest composers of the century. I agree, that personal taste comes into it. You know the Schumann sound and like it. I don't know it that will and what I have heard is nothing I can't find in Schubert.... or Brahms.
 
#8 ·
People use the word 'great' differently. Some use it for maybe 5 composers or even less, others are more liberal with it and apply it to over 10, some maybe to even over 20. It's just a word that people apply in different ways.

I would probably put Schubert and Brahms above him. His piano music is different to that of Brahms but they wrote their most famous piano works in different periods? I haven't checked the dates. Maybe Schumann's piano music is more contemporary with Chopin and Mendelssohn.
 
#9 ·
I'd say he is a great composer, it's just unfortunate for his reputation that Brahms came along and overshadowed him. I think his piano works are my favourites of his: Carnaval, Symphonic Etudes, 6 Concert Etudes after Paganini's Caprices, Papillons, Nachtstucke and some others I can't remember off the top of my head. I'm not sure if they are better than Chopin's piano pieces but they are certainly different. They have the same feeling of weight at times and more of a 'stoic' or powerful sound, if that makes sense, compared to Chopin's lighter, more melancholic feel. And I do like his Piano Concerto in A minor, just not as much as the Grieg one.

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

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

Also, I love Tchaikovsky but I don't think he is one of the greatest composers of the century. I agree, that personal taste comes into it. You know the Schumann sound and like it. I don't know it that will and what I have heard is nothing I can't find in Schubert.... or Brahms.
Tchaikovsky should be classed as a great based solely on his ballets. Never mind his symphonies and concerti. I'd say he belongs to the second tier of great composers. Bach, Beethoven and Mozart are out on their own. Then Brahms, Haydn, Stravinsky, Schubert, Dvorak and although I'm an opera hater, Wagner belongs there. I believe Tchaikovsky falls easily into the second group but could understand someone rating him higher.
 
#12 ·
So I guess my opinion of Schumann is that he's good if a tad predictable or boring at times. However, this could be labelled to a lot of pre-20th century composers in my mind. He's definitely worth listening to when Brahms and Schubert have been exhausted.
I think that's broadly right. One has to follow some kind of system of investigation of the main composers, otherwise it's confusing. I happened to become interested in Schumann quite late, after having crawled all over the likes of Bach, Handel, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Chopin, and Brahms more or less in that order. By that stage I doubted that I would find much else of great interest. But I was completely wrong. I came to like Schumann and Mendelssohn almost as much as I did the others. The only ones I never quite became addicted to were Liszt, Bruckner, Wagner, Mahler. Tchaikovsky is OK up to a point but of all the composers I once really liked he's probably dropped back the furthest.
 
#10 ·
I've never been particularly fond of Schumann. I suppose I just never understood what he was trying to say. Hearing the New York Philharmonic play the D minor symphony live nearly put me to sleep. I just don't get it.

But the Marchenbilder for viola and piano is really something, and I swear it isn't just because I'm a violist. Maybe I should just start over with Schumann with the smaller pieces.
 
#11 ·
Tchaikovsky is a great composer of orchestral music, probably rivals any other composer of the 19th century in that. It's just that in other areas he seems weaker.
 
#13 ·
I was also thinking along these lines: it seems that greatness be held for those composers who excelled in at least one musical genre. In order to be remembered solely for one genre they need to have mastered it and produced a number of masterpieces in that genre, i.e. Wagner and Verdi. For other composers there can be more than one genre and Beethoven did that with the symphonies and quartets. Mozart did it with the symphonies and operas (maybe also the concertos) and Bach with keyboard music and cantatas.

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

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

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

We have strayed a bit from the topic of Schumann but this is all interesting to me. Views of the 19th Century composers.
 
#15 ·
Actually I would have trouble agreeing that Dvorak did either. He wrote one amazing concerto, 3 out of 9 great symphonies and some great chamber music. Of course, Rusalka too, but he is no Brahms. It's that lack of consistency.

Tchaikovsky on the other hand did so much for Russian ballet, that it would be hard to discount him.
Brahms was as much an advocate of Dvorak as Schumann was of Brahms himself. He is quoted as saying about Dvorak: 'I should be glad if something occurs to me as a main idea that occurs to Dvorak by the way.'

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

Overshadowed by Brahms and Schubert? What a ridiculous statement. Schumann's music is as far away from Brahms and Schubert as Dostoevsky is from Dickens and Dickens is from Shakespeare. For one, Schumann was a more exotic melodist. He uses his gifts in a remarkable way, portraying too moods of his internal being. Perhaps he didn't develop his works the way Brahms and Schubert did, thus, less large-scale works; however, this doesn't make his music any less enjoyable, and certainly should not overlook his abilities as a composer.
How can you say that Schumann's music is far and away from Brahms and Schubert. If you take all the music thats ever been composed and compare it to Schumann's who else sound more like it than Brahms?

Palestrina, Ravi Shankar, Herbie Hancock, Hatfield and the North, Faith No More, Salif Keita, do any of these sound like Schumann.? No. Now comparing him to any of them would be a ridiculous statement. But Brahms and Schubert, not so much.
 
#14 · (Edited)
Schumann is one of my favorite composers, period.

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

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

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

So is Schumann a great composer? Well, I'd say objectively, his piano music ranks with that of Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, and other greats. Does this matter? All I know is that I enjoy his piano music, I enjoy his concerti, and I enjoy some of his orchestral music, chamber works, and songs. This is what matters to me.
 
#16 ·
It all comes down to the brass tacks of .......do I,MYSELF,like Schumann's music and/or writings?
I don't consider him even close to Beethoven,Berlioz,Wagner,Brahms or Liszt. But that's my own opinion. I do like Schumann's works in the symphonies,lieder and some chamber works. But he seems less inspired and less lyrical than I would like.

Just my .02

Jim
 
#18 ·
I find the Schumann piano concerto one of my favorites. That third movement with the theme in a crazy rhythm that seems to meander all over the map before even its first phrase comes to a resolution. I love that. The melody is unpredictable and took me several listens before I could hum along. I much prefer it to the Grieg concerto it always seems to be coupled with.

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

I recently watched a movie about Schumann and Clara Weick called Spring Symphony. It is borderline depressing. Schumann's life was not an easy one. All it did for me was to point out Mendelssohn and Schumann were partial contemporaries, Mendelssohn being considered an established maestro when Schumann was a rising star, even as Schumann was to Brahms' rising stardom later. It makes for a continuous flow of music history, if not for a very uplifting story.
 
#19 ·
I understand about Schumann painting pictures, I agree that this is not the same kind of poetic imagery as Schubert or Brahms but then Chabrier did something similarly pictoral and his harmonic language was also very inventive for its time, plus he had a big influence on Debussy and Ravel, however, Chabrier is hardly one of the greatest composers of the century.

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

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

I find the piano concerto boring but then I prefer the Russian piano concertos far more in general.
 
#20 · (Edited)
A few comments on the overnight posts.

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

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

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

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

Lastly, there was a comment that many people on other music Boards appear to have tended to come to appreciate Schumann quite late in their musical explorations. From my observations it’s true that he seems to be a composer who is often skipped over in people’s musical discoveries of 19th Century composers. They tend to jump from Beethoven (possibly Schubert) to Brahms, Wagner, Mahler, and then onto 20th Century composers like Sibelius. Apart from Brahms, I don’t care much for any of them. But once they begin to take an interest it usually grows. They will soon come to terms with his style, which as I mentioned is unique and easily discernible. Schumann is the man to focus upon next if you haven’t already done so. Start with the better known of his piano solo works (Fantasie, Op 17 is excellent), then the Symphonies, then a song cycle (Dichterliebe), followed by the PC, Cello Concerto (Isserlis is best), then some chamber work (versions featuring Argerich being very good).
 
#23 ·
But Schumann wrote nothing as profound as Chopin's Four Ballades or Scherzi. Late Chopin, like Schubert, Beethoven, seems to transcend the medium and reach incredible heights of expression. I don't see that happens in Schumann.

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

You appear to take a negative reaction to everything people tell you about their favorable appreciation of Schumann. I'm wondering whether your real purpose is to slam Schumann, not to seek information about others' views about him?

I can only add (this is my last post on this topic) that in respect of Schumann's piano solo works distinguished pianists like Richter wouldn't have bothered with him it if it wasn't top grade material. If you haven't already heard them you might try some other pieces like , eg Symphonic Etudes, Davidsbundlertanze, Blumenstuke, Humoresque, Nachtstuck, Romances, Waldszenen, Bunte Blatter.

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


 
#24 ·
"widely regarded as a great composer"... I agree with that. That is why I am here. I am questioning why he is. Maybe it is the German music history bias at work also.

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

Maybe I have a bias towards absolute music rather than descriptive music especially short descriptive pieces. In which case I will always prefer a ballade to a blatt ;-)
 
#30 ·
Air,

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

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

I have Argerich playing Schumann and I also have her playing Chopin. Maybe it is the Polish rhythms or the harmonic inventiveness, or the sheer passion, but Chopin wins hands down. Schumann just sounds light and almost too sweet.
 
#34 ·
Air,

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

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

I have Argerich playing Schumann and I also have her playing Chopin. Maybe it is the Polish rhythms or the harmonic inventiveness, or the sheer passion, but Chopin wins hands down. Schumann just sounds light and almost too sweet.
Schumann is one of the immortals in piano music, an absolute God. Debussy mastered the materials of piano music but not the content (on the whole).
Your comparison between Schumann on the one hand, and Chabrier and Rossini on the other, show you up to be a complete philistine.

Argerich is not the best Schumann player. I find her playing heavy handed and unmusical. She does not bring a true romantic sensibility like Horowitz or even Rachmaninov, Friedman, Neuhaus, Richter (for example) to this music...
 
#35 · (Edited)
I do agree that Brahms' excelled in chamber works.

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

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

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

To liken the 'Domini' (Brahms' term for Schumann) to Grieg is little short of blasphemy.....
 
#36 ·
Schumann was a colossal genius, who rocked music out of the stupor of its lethargy. He didn't fulfill all his gifts, partially due to incomplete training, partially due to mental instability. But he towers in the lieder and piano genres, and is one of the most significant voices after Beethoven in chamber, symphonic and choral music, inferior to Brahms in the first aspect but superior in the latter 2.

QUOTE]
I have to agree. I have his Scenes from Goethe's Faust, and he is hands down a brilliant fellow. If we take his mental instability and lack of training nito consideration, he is probably a top 7 composer of all time. With his mental crises the man was able to produced over 132 published works in all genres whilst, accompanying his wife, and whilst being an editor for a magazine. The only person that shames Schumann in regards to productivity and quality in Schubert. Heck Schubert died at 32 and what he left was amazing.

I would say that the only thing I don't like from Schumann's output is his set of string quartets.

His Piano Quintet is probably the greatest written. I recently had Brahms Piano Quintet as the best but I have changed my mind. Schumann brings so much color and contrast that it makes Brahms' seem nothing more than brutal monotony.
 
#38 ·
I don't have much to add. I like Schumann. I think he was great, but like most things I have to be in the mood for it. I can't listen to him every single day any more than I can listen to Bach every single day. I would like to add the fact that a great deal of people still look upon him with great love and affection, and the fact that he's still being talked about and his works are still being performed 154 years after his death must mean he did something right.
 
G
#40 ·
I think that Schumann certainly deserves a place in the higher spheres of composers. Longevity, as well as his influence on others, certainly qualifies him there. But so many arguments here have gone beyond the original question, into arguments of whose favorite composer is better. Whether Schumann was or wasn't better than any number of other composers certainly doesn't diminish him overall. Stratification by who is "better" is so subjective, and there isn't even any agreed upon classification system. Do we judge by volume of works? By diversity of works? By whether they are still performed today? By the number of composers of note that credit them as an inspiration? It all becomes absurd - someone prefers Brahms because of one factor, while someone else prefers Schumann due to another factor.

I have not been able to get into Schumann's works - I have his symphonies, and some of his piano music played by Horowitz. It just doesn't move me. Granted, I have not fully explored his repertoire, but what I have sampled has not encouraged me to look deeper. That being said, I can still acknowledge that he is a great composer, without having to admit that he was the greatest. For myself, of the early Romantics, I much prefer Schubert. On any given day, I would much rather listen to Brahms, Dvorak, Chopin, or Schubert over Schumann.
 
#50 ·
Fair enough. Not everyone likes French cuisine, or any number of things which are objectively 'good'. I think there are some objective ways to judge greatness in composers, otherwise the lists would not have the same names over again. Schumann is virtually universally mentioned when the great are spoken of. He deserves respect, and he deserves effort, just as Bach and Beethoven do. Lets face it, Bach is not really that popular. I don't listen to Schumann daily either. Bach I do.

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

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

As Horowitz said, talking about a Beethoven sonata, "its good but it isn't Schumann". Also Hutcheson, speaking of the Kreisleriana (I tried to rewrite the wiki article on Schumann and used this quote, but unfortunately the article is still pretty unsatisfactory..Steven Isserlis are you out there) said that "The entire set is remarkable for richness of coloring and intensity of feeling. To appreciate it a high level of aesthetic intelligence is required...This is no facile music; there is severity alike in its beauty and its passion..." and the Fantasie: "No words can describe the Fantasie, no quotations set forth the majesty of its genius..."
 
#41 ·
Dichterliebe is I think one of the more intense 'dude loses mind' pieces. What I really feel in it is how the songs fit together as a cycle; I'd love to hear someone cut off all the endings and play straight through the entire thing with no pauses. It's pretty amazing some of the stuff he pulls off harmonically given the smooth togetherness of the music.
 
#47 ·
I have to agree. I have his Scenes from Goethe's Faust, and he is hands down a brilliant fellow. If we take his mental instability and lack of training nito consideration, he is probably a top 7 composer of all time. With his mental crises the man was able to produced over 132 published works in all genres whilst, accompanying his wife, and whilst being an editor for a magazine. The only person that shames Schumann in regards to productivity and quality in Schubert. Heck Schubert died at 32 and what he left was amazing.

I would say that the only thing I don't like from Schumann's output is his set of string quartets.

His Piano Quintet is probably the greatest written. I recently had Brahms Piano Quintet as the best but I have changed my mind. Schumann brings so much color and contrast that it makes Brahms' seem nothing more than brutal monotony.
He did have a phenomenal productivity, possibly in part due to his bipolarity. Some bipolar people do make use of their periods of mania in order to get things accomplished.

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

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

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