|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
204.152.235.219
I've been working my way through Schumann's piano music since last year when you guys assisted with my introduction to the piano music specifically [I know the symphonies well].With all of the attention and excitement recent devoted to op 17, I've listened and absorbed it. I have to say, I don't get it. Everyone - you guys here, critics, everyone - seems to rate this piece very, very highly, but I just don't see what's so great about it. For reference, I find the 2nd piano sonata to be excellent Schumann.
Here's what I get out it: Schumann starts with a bold, pretty good statement, but then immediately veers of into a really inward, pianissimo episode. The effect, at least to me is that, just when the music should be pressing forward and establishing forward momentum, it just stops cold, and wanders aimlessly through some labyrinth of quietness. Bruckner is often pulvirized for the same thing, but at least there's a point the he's getting at. I don't see one with Schumann.
Then, the finale that everyone's so impressed with: what I hear is a kind of weak improvization on the Beethoven's Moonlight sonata, followed by some original episodes that are ok, but nothing all that great. Certainly nothing like the finale of Mahler's 3rd, as one guy here said.
Anyway, not trying to shoot anyone down; I'm saying all of this to show what I hear and how obtuse I am with this piece. So, if you can point the way to better understanding, I'd appreciate it.
PS. the recordings I've got are Earl Wild and Hamelin.
Edits: 05/07/12Follow Ups:
In the Fantasie op. 17, Schumann paints a unique tone-world, extremely original and effective. It is up to the listener to relax into it, to feel its subtle sensations.
I would say just listen to it now and then and allow yourself to open up to it as it is. Schumann's music can be disturbing, most of it has an element of his madness in it, I believe, presented in the most subtle manner. For me, the Fantasie is full of his genius and sincerity. Sviatoslav Richter captures it very well.
Agree on the Richter
Alan
The only version I have.
It is among the best, even if I have reservations about it. If you are feeling a bit insecure, just wander over to Youtube and check out some of the other versions of Op 17 on there.
it's a tad academic compared to Horowitz or Richer version.
Crystal clear but lacking dynamic expression for my taste.
.
/
The C Major what? You mean the Op. 17? If so, you're comparing apples and oranges--Schubert and Schumann have little in common except for Schu(grin).
.
Every one of the suggestions here gives me direction, and helps me get past that feeling lost situation. Thanks.
1) The recordings you have of what is a very difficult work to interpret (to interpret, not so much to play, although that isn't easy either) aren't ideal.
2) You may just not like the piece. So be it. But you are interested enough in the work to actually post about it. Which suggests to me you are interested and attracted but put off by the Fantasy's flaws.
You just need to discover this for yourself, no amount of convincing is going to make any difference, if you can not get it get away from it for a while and come back to it at a later date and try again.
As for similarity with Mahler 3rd, I am the guy who said it, I see a great similarity in the spirit of the two last movements.
It would help to try someone like Parahia in this work, Earl Wild is a technician and not an interpreter, he leaves me cold in whatever he performs.
Vahe
Murray Perahia makes sense of this piece, and it's coupled with a decent "Wanderer," which is a more accessible and essential work by Schubert. It's available, used, on Amazon, for a few bucks. Recording is merely okay, but he sure plays nicely. When the music is this good, sonics become secondary.
Peace,
Tom E
It must be frustrating not to be able to immediately connect with a composer's greatest work for the solo piano. I didn't connect with a lot of Beethoven's late sonatas immediately either. I just didn't tell anyone :-)
IMHO this is not a piece for someone looking for a barnstorming performance of linear music, like Beethoven's for example. That is not who Schumann was although he had Beethoven in mind when he wrote it. It is about as far from Beethoven's music as I can imagine. That may be the reason for Mali's comments on your two performances. This is really romantic music that needs that type of performer.
When faced with your situation I simply put a piece on the back shelf and return to it over the ensuing years. It is amazing how things can grow on you as you get accustomed to the composer's other music. BTW, for me Schumann's music for solo piano bears little, if any, resemblance to his orchestral music.
I don't know about Wild, but Hamelin isn't very good in this piece, and I wouldn't think Wild would have much affinity for it either.
You bring up an important point. I am still struggling to reconcile in my experience the performance of Pollini in this with those of Kempff and De Larrocha.
My first experience with this Fantasie was with Rubinstein, perhaps twenty years ago, and later, just recently with Pennario. their approaches were so different, and both not quite exactly right. In my own experience, a work with many different approaches to it is one worthy of repeated listening. Like it was said, sometimes it is well to put some works on the back burner to try later
The first movement of this piece is much more episodic than a sonata, which is which it's called a Fantasie. Some performances seem to emphasize this characteristic, while others somehow tie the pieces together--e.g., Annie Fischer. The second and third movements aren't disjointed like the first movement.
It might help to know that the original ending of the entire piece went back to the quotation from Beethoven's An die ferne Geliebte song cycle, which you can hear starting at 11:21 in this fine performance by Alfred Brendel, at the end of the first movement:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCCfaPmSm2s&feature=related
This would have tied the entire piece together a litle better. But the only recording of this original ending is by Schiff (his disc also includes the last movement with the ending that everybody else plays.
One minute and 5 seconds into it, and I already have chills. The thing is, even if I were a musicologist and could better describe how Schumann achieves the emotional effects he does (or a fast enough typist to record them all), what good would it to do to explain why I feel what I feel? It's something you have to intuit to enjoy, and I don't know how to do that other than to listen or play until it clicks. If you enjoy his other works, I don't see why it shouldn't.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: