Brahms>Mendelssohn>Schumann>Schubert=Beethoven

 

I love them all tbh. Hoping this one turns out to be a close one.

 

I really doubt Beethoven would've won. His trios don't have a good batting average and I rarely even hear them brought up outside Archduke.

Voted Schubert.

 

I really doubt Beethoven would've won. His trios as a whole really aren't all that great a body of work.

I agree that his general quality outside Archduke and possibly Ghost is below that of the composers above. But I mean he is Beethoven, everyone always votes for him.

 

Very close between Brahms, Mendelssohn and Schubert, with Schumann at some distance.

 

Same. Schumann's Op. 110 is a bit of a dud imho; the others are all excellent in quality throughout.

 

Brahms > Mendelssohn > Schumann > Schubert

I am not one that tolerates much repetition so the Schubert trios suffer from that in my ears.

(Not tolerating repetition well and intuitively always interpreting it as a lack of inventiveness is probably my greatest and most limiting weakness as a classical music lover.)

 

I can see that as a criticism of D.929, but not D.898, which isn't any more repetitive than any work in sonata form.

 

Deleted

 

His opuses would have been fun to add in parentheses. I assume he wrote a bunch.

Not Romantic though.

 

The Schumann op 110 is a good example of late Schumann style. Dvorak is one to think about, the third piano trio especially. And Reger for his op 102 trio.

 

Asolutely love the Dvorak trios but wanted to keep this Austrogerman, and Romantic (which sort of excludes Reger).

 

Poseidon with his Tri(o)dent is the Kaiser!

This'll learn them Austrogermans a showdown.

 

I have varying degrees of like for all of these trios. I guess I'll proudly be the lone vote for Schumann, though I'd have difficulty articulating why. It may be the fact that I heard all these works in the context of their composers' other chamber music, and in the case of Brahms, Schubert, and Mendelssohn I feel like they have other chamber works that are significantly better (with Brahms, eg, I prefer his Piano Quintet and Quartets), and with Schumann's I feel like his Trios hold up better in comparison to his other chamber music. If I did a comparative listening to all these pieces I might change my vote, especially since my memory of the Mendelssohns and Schuberts are a bit vague at this point.

 

I tend to agree about Brahms, but I'm less sure about Mendelssohn and Schubert; I rate their trios among their best chamber works.

Nonetheless, I appreciate there is a vote for Schumann since I don't think the gap is all that wide quality-wise. The D minor trio is a huge favourite of mine.

 

Brahms could win this contest with just Op. 87 alone, but it would be a close, close contest between him and Mr. Schubert

 

I prefer Brahms' Horn Trio, Op. 40 to his Piano Trios.

While Schumann's Piano Trios have never been among my favorite works by him. So, that leaves Schubert & Mendelssohn from your list, who both composed exceptional piano trios. Despite that I rate Schubert's Piano Trios highly, I picked Mendelssohn's Piano Trios 1 & 2 because I consider them to be among his best & most underrated works.

My top recordings of the Mendelssohn Piano Trios:

--Trio de Barcelona - this is my favorite recording on modern instruments, however, it's not on YouTube,

https://www.harmoniamundi.com/en/albums/piano-trios-op-49-and-op-66/

--Benvenue Fortepiano Trio - a brilliant period instrument performance from Monica Huggett, violin, Tanya Tomkins, cello, and Eric Zivian, pianoforte.

--Abegg Trio

--Trio Wanderer

--Van Baerle Trio

--Vienna Piano Trio
Piano Trio No. 1 in D Minor, Op. 49: I. Molto Allegro Agitato

Even so, the best piano trios by Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven are even better, IMO. Especially Haydn, who was the master of piano trios. No one can match him.

Haydn: Piano Trio in E, H.XV No. 28: 1. Allegro moderato

Do you not consider Dvorak's Piano Trios, such as No. 4 the "Dumky" Trio, and the Tchaikovsky Piano Trio to be among the best 'romantic' era piano trios?

--The Suk Trio
- YouTube
- YouTube

There's also Ravel's Piano Trio, which is a great favorite of mine; although I suppose it gets labeled "French Impressionism",

--Trio Dali
- YouTube

 

Indeed, the Brahms horn trio (and the clarinet trio actually) is a special piece. That opening movement is pure magic.

 

FS 2 > FS 1 > (JB 1 = FM 1 = FM 2) > (JB 2 = JB 3 = RS 1 = RS 3) > RS 2

 

Beethoven's op. 11 exists in a version with violin instead of clarinet and is frequently played and recorded in that form but I don't think this single work would tip the balance, even though I also think that the 3 trios op.70 and 97 are as good as Brahms or Schubert, and the 3 early trios are also impressive.
(OTOH I also agree that Beethoven wrote about 8 string quartets that are even better than op.97, whereas I'd put the Schubert trios closely behind the string quintet as candidates for next best chamber pieces)

I voted Brahms because the revised op. 8 (certainly not the original that is more meandering than any Schubert and that's an odd accomplishment...) is my favorite trio of these 4 composers but I could also have picked Schubert because his 2 would probably follow next before the others, despite lengths and Wiener-Kaffeehaus-finales. I have to revisit the 2nd Brahms trio that I didn't like much for ages but came to appreciate more later but still don't know nearly as well as others. The c minor is probably my favorite of his "condensed" lateish works that I prefer to the clarinet trio and the last violin sonata.

Mendelssohn and Schumann are good (and except for the respective 1st trios strangely overlooked) but they are not my favorite works of theirs.

 

and Wiener-Kaffeehaus-finales

Not really sure this qualifier can describe anything substantial. Both of these trios have incredibly imaginative, well constructed finales (neither is in rondo form btw., both are sonata-rondo with a heavy emphasis on sonata, and the finale of D.898 has a structural solution without precedent or follow up; truly brilliant), I'd probably rate both as the best movements of their respective trios for their structural complexity, thematic variety and harmonic color.

 

There is the "original" version of D 929 that has more extended recaps from the slow movement in the finale that then takes about 20 min (instead of 14-15).
It's probably the longest trio in the common repertoire, even in the standard version with the shorter finale is over 45 min and longer than the original Brahms op.8 or the Beethoven Archduke.

With fastish tempi and the 1st movement repeat (about 4-5 min in either trio) skipped (e.g. Heifetz/Rubinstein/Feuermann) the Bflat trio is not that long but with repeat and moderate tempi also around 40 min; that is as long as Beethoven's Archduke (I had thought the latter was a bit shorter but with repeats it's also over 40 min).

 

The Notturno is wonderful but it's hardly a full trio (there is another (early) trio movement or two). I think it must have been the alternative for the Bflat trio because an E flat trio would not have the slow movement in the same key.

I just listened to the Altenberg Trio (Challenge Classics) in the "long" version of D 929 (it's a live recording) and unfortunately, didn't care much for it. And the problem was not mainly the longer finale, I found it tedious much earlier. This used to be one of my favorite trios (and I also preferred it to D 898), so I blame the musicians (or my cantankerous mood) but I am not trying another recording before tomorrow.

 

Hm. the Finale of D 929 was structurally so complex that Schubert cut about a quarter and nobody was bothered by this for 180 years...

 

"For 180 years"? I thought it wasn't until Rachmaninoff's time such Schubert works were "rediscovered". (I'm half-jokingly referring to our recent conversation in https://www.talkclassical.com/threa...ds/haydn-vs-mozart-piano-sonatas-poll.48969/page-4?post_id=2844674#post-2844674 )

 

If you'd brought in Beethoven I would have hesitated, since I like his trios more than most people seem to, and then there's Brahms, whose trios I am just starting to appreciate fully, but no, this one has to go to Schubert.

 

I don't think there are any trios in this selection that are better than Archduke. That's one of my favourite trios of all time. I do love Gassenhauer (Op. 11) as well, but the rest I've always found a little boring (or not even boring, I did like all of them, they just didn't stay with me besides these two).

Granted, my Beethoven trio phase was 3 years ago. So they are due a revisit.

 

@Kreisler jr

Hey, sorry for being a little short with you yesterday! I was tired and moody.

To elaborate on what I meant: Schubert made the editing himself - he deleted 98 measures in the end (a return of the A material and a return of the 2nd mov melody over the rhythmic figurations of the B material), a sizeable chunk of music, but it's not like such editing is unique to Schubert; many composers did it. The reason this particular longer version is interesting is because the cut material itself is interesting, but the piece doesn't need it to be complete, and Schubert obviously felt that too.

It also doesn't really cut back on its complexity. The fourth movement exhibits several large scale symmetries that make up supersymmetric structures themselves; it also solves the thematic conflict introduced by the 2nd movement and the harmonic conflict introduced by the first (while referencing several other thematic and harmonic areas from the previous three movements) . Let me elaborate a little.

The exposition is a rondo, structured A|B|C|B|A (A reworked as transitional material the second time). A is largely unique to the movement, but B references the repeated note motif of the 1st movement (2nd theme)., and the main harmonic area from the 2nd movement (C minor). C is also largely unique to the movement, but it introduces a syncopated 8th note hemiola arpeggio structure in the piano that's going to be important later.

The development deals with the A theme first; we shift to B minor (echoing the first movement which does the same, only in the exposition) immediately, adressing the harmonic conflict introduced by the first movement. Then, in a -sort of - D section, the main melody of the 2nd movement comes back on the cello, suspended over the syncopated hemiola arpeggios from C on the piano, while the violin brings back the 2nd mov march rhythm in pizzicato. After, B is developed (B minor still an important key at this point), slowly fading into transitional material yet again made from A, which eventually brings back A, now in the tonic.

Recap. Everything procedes as planned (including the symetrical A|B|C|B|A structure), until -

the last A yet again turns into transitional material, moving to E flat minor, and suddenly, the D/2nd movement melody is heard again, this time in the tonic minor, embellished (syncopated hemiola on piano, march ryhthm on violin), until it dissolves into E flat major, resolving the symmetry issue of the D section in the development (we've only heard it once so far), the harmonic conflict of B minor (the theme is brought back to the tonic minor this second time) and the larger conflict brought on by the 2nd movement melody, which haunts the entire piece, by turning it into a sunny E flat major and integrating it into the movement using the syncopated hemiola accompaniment.

It is very complex, and, dare I say, brilliant. It's perfectly logical and detailed, and I can only commend him for making the necessary edits.

 

As others have said, I love them all. For 1st place it is a very very close call between Schubert and Brahms. However if forced to select my top pick it would be Schubert.