Brahms real talent...

[Dalibor]

... lied in inventing common-sounding folk tunes. Although mostly known for orchestral works, he wasn't an orchestraly-minded, wide-breathed musician such as Beethoven; he was actually a melodist, and a simple one, who coped with those grandiose orchestral forms with a lot of effort and little self-confidence. This commonnes of melodic ideas of his remained even if he eventualy suceed to develope his dry symphonic style. So Brahm's music has the least "touch of magic" of all the famous classical composers.

I think it's just this commones, this un-extraordinairines mixed with grandiosity, this somewhat forced, heavily worked-out writting, yet melodic enough and structuraly convincing, what makes Brahms so attractive to some.

[Brahms]

... [Brahms' real talent] lied in inventing common-sounding folk tunes.

Like Beethoven, one of Brahms' talents lies in his ability to craft multi-functional motifs, which superimpose melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and structural functions all rolled into one. These multifunctional motifs allow for some of the most impressive musical architectures to be found anywhere; and the juxtaposition of otherwise "commonplace" motifs allows for the unleashing of highly expressive drama framed within a cohesive, unified structure. (Examples: Brahms 4th Symphony & 1st Piano Concerto).

***who coped with those grandiose orchestral forms with a lot of effort and little self-confidence. This commonnes of melodic ideas of his remained even if he eventualy suceed to develope his dry symphonic style. So Brahm's music has the least "touch of magic" of all the famous classical composers.

Brahms was ultra-perfectionistic (moreso than any composer that comes to mind), and he would rework compositions until they became absolutely perfect. Brahms' "symphonic style" is as vibrant and impassioned as anyone. All of Brahms' orchestral works (with the possible exception of his Double Concerto) are worthy successors of Beethoven, and, to be sure, many of them surpass Beethoven (consider, e.g., Brahms' piano concerti). The same can be said for Brahms' choral, chamber, and piano works.

[Wallingford]

While I'd put Brahms' abilities as a melodist on a par with anyone else's, it was his sense of motivic development that most impresses (his abilities as an orchestrator are unhailed, too). The Second Symphony is a first-class case: every single tune's built on that very opening bar, D-C#-D (the oboe's bewitching little melody in the third movement, for instance, is based on an inversion of the motif).

And everything Brahms argues in his symphonies & concertos adheres profoundly to the main subject at hand. Compare his way of development with Tchaikovsky, who earned his bread and butter writing bitter diatribes against Brahms. Tchaikovsky, when milking all he's able to out of his first Lovely Tune, simply marks time on this or that meaningless rhythmic idea till he gets to the next Lovely Tune.

[Opus132]

Like Beethoven, one of Brahms' talents lies in his ability to craft multi-functional motifs, which superimpose melodic, harmonic, rhythmic, and structural functions all rolled into one.

Indeed. He has the same unremitting vertical texture of renaissance composers, the formal ingenuity and violent dramatic turns of Beethoven mixed with the rhythmical novelty of Schumann all blended in a technique which he refined constantly until he reached a fluidity of discourse that is wholly comparable to Mozart.

Personally, i'm amazed he kept it all together most of the times. He must have had a tremendous amount of will power to put himself under such rigorous artistic demands...

[paulb]

until he reached a fluidity of discourse that is wholly comparable to Mozart.

...

[Opus132]

The only work I have by Bramhs is the vc with Oistrakh. I believe Oistrakh recorded the vc like 5 times.
He loved that concerto.
its been yrs since I've listened, I'll spin it tonight. I happen to feel its his best work...well at least the work i like best. but its been some yrs.....

Huh? And you are posting in this thread, why?

[jbuck919]

You don't know what you are talking about. It is true that writing for instruments other than his own (the piano) came to Brahms through difficult study, but ironically it is his solo piano music, which is great but not at the top of the repertory, is vastly overshadowed by his works in other genres. There has been no greater master of music in all respects since Beethoven than Brahms, and sophomoric attempts to comment on him in demeaning ways are simply unacceptable. He was worshipped by the handful of Viennese who had some slight acquaintance with him, including Mahler and Schoenberg.

A famous Brahms anecdote: He was scheduled to play the B-flat piano concerto of Beethoven (the so-called second). The piano was so flat that the orchestra could not tune down to it. Brahms' solution? He simply played the whole thing in B.

[paulb]

The only work I have by Bramhs is the vc with Oistrakh. I believe Oistrakh recorded the vc like 5 times.
He loved that concerto.
its been yrs since I've listened, I'll spin it tonight. I happen to feel its his best work...well at least the work i like best. but its been some yrs.....

Huh? And you are posting in this thread, why?

Just being a pest.
sorry I'll delete my post.

[Sapphire]

I’d like comment too on the highly dubious (almost sinister) opinion expressed in the first post here.

I love Brahms symphonies, piano concertos, VC, much of his chamber music, and solo piano music. The Piano and Clarinet Quintets are for me the tops. In particular, I've always considered the Piano Quintet to be one of the most accomplished and accessible pieces by Brahms. Next to Schubert, it makes for a great introduction into chamber music.

One area in which Brahms was almost certainly one of the greatest masters was in writing variations. In this respect, I have commented elsewhere today (Helene Grimaud thread) on his brilliance in just one genre, solo piano, and I cited as an example his famous Op.119 no.2 Intermezzo.

Clearly, Brahms' compositions are rich in complexity, be it in form, counterpoint, harmony, or development. What he was able to do was astonishing. After Beethoven it would be difficult to argue any of it was completely new thinking, but he often took this ability to new, higher levels.

OK, he didn’t rattle of great works at speed. Many of his works have all the hall-marks of much working. But they are the better for it. Nor was it because he lacked ability. Far from it. He was a perfectionist, and for many years probably suffered a kind of inferiority complex lest he should fail to live up to the great things expected of him in the wake of Schumann’s famous prophesy about him, and of course out of Brahms own deep – and totally justified - reverence towards Beethoven.

I have the very highest regard for Brahms. One of the really genuine Greats.


Saphire

[Werner]

Your remarks, Saphire, are well taken. I quite strongly agree with you, as do most sentient music lovers. Yet the disparagement of Brahms is not new - as you undoubtedly recall, no less than George Bernard Shaw spole poorly of him. He's survived that, and he'll survive our contemporary criticism, too - notwithstanding those poor souls who, not understanding what he has to give us, resort to all sorts of little rhetoric to hide their ignorance.

[Jack Kelso]

It's probably redundant to mention this to experienced listeners and musicians, but Brahms' "highest ideals were to continue composing with the sublime example of Schumann's works" (paraphrased).

This he himself stated many times.

Unfortunately, it's become a common misnomer to state that Brahms was following in Beethoven's footsteps (in a way he was), but historical fact and analyses of musical scores show that Schumann exerted the greatest influence upon his works.

Next to Schumann and Beethoven, Brahms may have the greatest number of individual masterpieces of any other 19th-century composer.

Jack

[Teresa B]

...
I think it's just this commones, this un-extraordinairines mixed with grandiosity, this somewhat forced, heavily worked-out writting, yet melodic enough and structuraly convincing, what makes Brahms so attractive to some.

Pretty harsh! In fact, I feel a little patronized here, because I'm one of that "some" who find Brahms not only attractive, but sublime in many instances.

His late piano pieces are, in my opinion, some of the greatest little gems of the literature. Not one of them could be classified as "ordinary." Some of the melodies in his concertos and symphonies have brought me to tears.

Does that make me a "common" sentimental sot? I dunno, but I suspect it is Brahms's capacity to evoke just such human emotion that embodies his greatness. (As it is with all great artists)

Teresa

[jbuck919]

I'm not going to comment on Jack's foolish remark, which he reprises every time this subject comes up, but Teresa well knows that we do not have to go to the late piano works of Brahms to find greatness. The Handel Variations are among the greatest works for piano ever written, widely consdered one of the three of four greatest sets of variations (cite Tovey), and they are a relatively early composition. They are only not more frequently performed because they are so fantastiaclly difficult.

[Jack Kelso]

There has been no greater master of music in all respects since Beethoven than Brahms, and sophomoric attempts to comment on him in demeaning ways are simply unacceptable. He was worshipped by the handful of Viennese who had some slight acquaintance with him, including Mahler and Schoenberg.

A famous Brahms anecdote: He was scheduled to play the B-flat piano concerto of Beethoven (the so-called second). The piano was so flat that the orchestra could not tune down to it. Brahms' solution? He simply played the whole thing in B.

Spoken like a true Brahmsian, John! You speed to Johannes' defense with outstretched sword in hand....

But I question two items on their accuracy:

1. Mahler liked Brahms...?! I read that he DISLIKED his music, considered it "artificial".

2. The concerto that Brahms transposed to B Major was not Beethoven's but HIS OWN (No. 2)---also in B-Flat, opus 83.

Jack

[val]

Mahler liked some of Brahms works, in special the first piano Quartet.

Schönberg always professed a veneration regarding Brahms, even in his last years. The same with Webern.

Even Hugo Wolf that said so many stupid things about Brahms, deeply loved his Lieder, in special the last four.

Bruckner was Brahms rival in Wien at the time, because they were the greatest symphonic composers of the time. No matter the silly things both said about each other, I believe they were counscious of their mutual greatness.

Wagner loved certain works, like the 3rd piano Sonata and the Händel Variations. But in "Mein Leben" he only speaks with the usual desdain of one single work: the Triumphlied, that Brahms, himself, was not very proud. After all, it was usual in Wagner, in order to condemn other composers, to refer to their worst works, not the best.

We can feel, even in Debussy (the Études for the piano), in some moments a sort of "ashamed" hommage.

The only important composer of the late 19th century that could not stand Brahms music and proclamed it loud and clear was Tchaikovsky.

[Jack Kelso]

I'm not going to comment on Jack's foolish remark, which he reprises every time this subject comes up, but Teresa well knows that we do not have to go to the late piano works of Brahms to find greatness. The Handel Variations are among the greatest works for piano ever written, widely consdered one of the three of four greatest sets of variations (cite Tovey), and they are a relatively early composition. They are only not more frequently performed because they are so fantastiaclly difficult.

What "foolish" remark, John? I didn't condemn the "Handel Variations" or any of Brahms other piano works.

Although the Schumann "Symphonic Etudes" are said to be "the most important keyboard variations since Bach's 'Goldberg'...." that doesn't mean that I would regard Brahms as any "less great" than Schumann in variation technique.

P.S.: Regarding Schumann's "Prophet Bird" and Debussy: our resident music professor, a concert pianist, told me: "Absolutely! The connection is unmistakable!" She is a Debussy expert.

Jack

[Sapphire]

My sympathies are very much with Jack on this issue, namely that it's not correct to jump from Beethoven to Brahms as if nothing of significance happened in between, whether generally or in the solo piano department.

Robert Schumann was a very important influence of Brahms. He deserves considerable respect both as a major figure in the evolution of 19th C Romantic history generally and as a very important developer of music for solo piano.

While I greatly admire Brahms, taken as a package I prefer Schumann's solo piano works to Brahms. The "symphonic etudes" Op.13 are just a small part of the overall Schumann solo piano package. Practically everything he wrote for solo piano is extremely good.

I usually find that people who like Beethoven also like Schumann and Brahms, so I am slightly confused why Schumann sometimes tends to get left out to some extent.


Saphire

[jbuck919]

My sympathies are very much with Jack on this issue, namely that it's not correct to jump from Beethoven to Brahms as if nothing of significance happened in between, whether generally or in the solo piano department.

Robert Schumann was a very important influence of Brahms. He deserves considerable respect both as a major figure in the evolution of 19th C Romantic history generally and as a very important developer of music for solo piano.

While I greatly admire Brahms, taken as a package I prefer Schumann's solo piano works to Brahms. The "symphonic etudes" Op.13 are just a small part of the overall Schumann solo piano package. Practically everything he wrote for solo piano is extremely good.

I usually find that people who like Beethoven also like Schumann and Brahms, so I am slightly confused why Schumann sometimes tends to get left out to some extent.


Saphire

[jbuck919]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level. He just insists on rating him over Brahms every time the topic comes up, and this is simply incorrect. It's not even a matter worth debate, for it was settled long ago.

[Jack Kelso]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level. He just insists on rating him over Brahms every time the topic comes up, and this is simply incorrect. It's not even a matter worth debate, for it was settled long ago.

And, likewise, John realizes that I appreciate Brahms on HIS "appropriate level". Each master has his positive qualities. Neither was a "deity": They both got diarrhea after consuming too much beer.

And each wrote some of the greatest masterworks of all time.

Jack

[karlhenning]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level.

Not if you dismiss, unheard, the Mass Opus 147 and Requiem Opus 148, you don't, John. That's just unthinking prejudice, and you know it.

Just saying . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

[Jack Kelso]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level.

Not if you dismiss, unheard, the Mass Opus 147 and Requiem Opus 148, you don't, John. That's just unthinking prejudice, and you know it.

Just saying . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

Well, dagnabbit--Karl. Now that makes THREE people on this site who know those two works: you, Saphire and myself....

Tschüß,
Jack

[jbuck919]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level.

Not if you dismiss, unheard, the Mass Opus 147 and Requiem Opus 148, you don't, John. That's just unthinking prejudice, and you know it.

Just saying . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

Do recommend me a recording, Karl, of these works of which no one appparently except you has ever heard. Schumann, an atheistic dissembling Lutheran who never visited a church except maybe to see the stained glass, never wrote such works, at least in a state of sanity.

[karlhenning]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level.

Not if you dismiss, unheard, the Mass Opus 147 and Requiem Opus 148, you don't, John. That's just unthinking prejudice, and you know it.

Just saying . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

Do recommend me a recording, Karl, of these works of which no one appparently except you has ever heard. Schumann, an atheistic dissembling Lutheran who never visited a church except maybe to see the stained glass, never wrote such works, at least in a state of sanity. :)

John, you've been taking your paulb pills, I see! :-)

I'll actually let Jack field your request for specific recording(s); I've only heard one, and while from it I carry an unsullied good opinion of the works, I cannot speak for whether it is the best which may be suggested.

-- I do note the smiley, but cannot resist:

And how much stained glass did Brahms reflect on, I wonder? :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[Brahms]

There has been no greater master of music in all respects since Beethoven than Brahms

Amen brother . . . . . . . Amen !

[karlhenning]

Hmm . . . a neighbor using the ID "Brahms", who signs on to statements of immoderate praise for Brahms.

Well, that was unexpected.

Cheers,
~Karl

[jbuck919]

I have to apologize. I just came from just about the only message board other than the music ones that I ever go to. As some of you know, I am a high school math teacher, and I was addressing a very off-topic question from (obviously) a kid who wanted to know sometthing about a diagram involving a circle. I had to explain that circles have no sides, segments of circles are not triangles and even if they were, they have no "length," and points set out in relationship to a diagram can have no absolute locations but only a relative one.

It hasn't been easy for me, you know, this extraction from Germany. I come here these days partly for relief. I thank my online friends and if I sound occasionally like an imbecile, I ask their indulgence.

Kindest regards,

John

[rogch]

I am listening to Brahms' second symphony with van Beinum right now. A spectacular recording. I have not always enjoyed Brahms' orchestral works, but i like some recordings better than others. It is different with the choral works, i have enjoyed every single one i have heard. I have considered to buy a box set with choral works by Brahms.

Recently there was a debate in BBC music magazine about whether Brahms' orchestral works could cause "sonic sickness". Some readers had written letters to the magazine and said they found these works distressing. I think "sonic sickness" is too strong a word, but i understood what they meant. I have often found it difficult to relax to an orchestral work by Brahms. But as i said, i like some recordings better than others.

[karlhenning]

Interesting, Roger. The Third and Fourth Symphonies I liked intensely on a first listen. The First and Second I didn't care for, for many years; that's generally changed, but I found one live performance of the Second, not long ago, tough to sit through. Not exactly "distress," it just wasn't holding my attention.

This Friday we're going to hear Bartók's Duke Bluebeard's Castle in a concert performance. The other half of the program is the Brahms First . . . and I hope it holds up its half :-)

Cheers,
~Karl

[paulb]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level.

Not if you dismiss, unheard, the Mass Opus 147 and Requiem

Cheers,
~Karl

Schumann's Requiem, rehashed old symphonic material.
The "mass" well fit for a concert hall, but please not in a church. Christ should not be so insulted.

Touche
ta ta

Oh one more thing.
you'll find 3 recordings, 2 orchestras/conductors second rate...with nothing better to do that dust off the material and give it a go.
the one that might be of some interest...well there 60 listed on amazon starting at ....$3.60...help your self

[karlhenning]

Thus spake Mr 30-Second Clip

[paulb]

Thus spake Mr 30-Second Clip

you are fast...missed my edit.

I wouldn't pay even the give-away price of $3.60 for the only one even worth considering.
Heck its like I tell my friends about chinese buffets, Macdonalds, all that fast food c**P...not even if it was free would I act on it.

In fact there's quite a few composers whose music i wouldn't take even if free.
Of course you knew that.

[karlhenning]

In fact there's quite a few composers whose music i wouldn't take even if free.
Of course you knew that.

Naturally. Many of us feel the same about Pettersson and Schnittke.

Cheers,
~Karl

[BWV 1080]

To crossover from a thread I started on the Adolescent Music Guide, Brahms real talent was as a Romanticist. His late piano music is where he shines the best. He wrote nothing better than opus 79 or 119. To me, his attempts to write classical period forms are bloated and dull at best and sound contrived at worst.

[karlhenning]

. . . To me, his attempts to write classical period forms are bloated and dull at best and sound contrived at worst.

Actually, have you looked at the first movement of the Third Symphony? As Romantic-era sonata-designs go, it is breathtakingly economical.

Cheers,
~Karl

[BWV 1080]

. . . To me, his attempts to write classical period forms are bloated and dull at best and sound contrived at worst.

Actually, have you looked at the first movement of the Third Symphony? As Romantic-era sonata-designs go, it is breathtakingly economical.

Cheers,
~Karl

It has been awhile. I do like the 1st movement of the 3rd Piano Sonata quite a bit.

[paulb]

Thus spake Mr 30-Second Clip

truth be told, i went to arkiv and read a comment on one of the releases. I extracted my ideas from what he said, with slight emblishments.

But I feel its not far from the truth.

I like BWV's post. "attempts at classical forms, bloated and dull at best".
nice.

[karlhenning]

I like BWV's post. "attempts at classical forms, bloated and dull at best".
nice.

Is the passacaglia a "classical form," Paul?

Take your time, now.

Cheers,
~Karl

PS/ Actually, "bloated and dull at best" might make a great tag-line for Pettersson. Nice.

[Sapphire]

To crossover from a thread I started on the Adolescent Music Guide, Brahms real talent was as a Romanticist. His late piano music is where he shines the best. He wrote nothing better than opus 79 or 119. To me, his attempts to write classical period forms are bloated and dull at best and sound contrived at worst.

If you accept Brahms "real talent was as a Romanticist", why the implied criticism? Or have I misunderstood you?


Saphire

[BWV 1080]

To crossover from a thread I started on the Adolescent Music Guide, Brahms real talent was as a Romanticist. His late piano music is where he shines the best. He wrote nothing better than opus 79 or 119. To me, his attempts to write classical period forms are bloated and dull at best and sound contrived at worst.

If you accept Brahms "real talent was as a Romanticist", why the implied criticism? Or have I misunderstood you?


Saphire

The criticism would be that he tried too hard to adhere to classical forms with the result that the overall effect of the music was muddied. His harmony is too chromatic and fluid to fit into the aesthetics of the classical period sonata form which was built around clear contrasts of tonalities, anchored around the tonic and dominant. Where he writes in more Romantic idioms, like the late piano pieces such as the Rhapsodies opus 79 or in his freer treatment of variation forms he really shines.

[Harvested Sorrow]

Jack knows perfectly well that I appreciate Schumann on an appropriate level.

Not if you dismiss, unheard, the Mass Opus 147 and Requiem Opus 148, you don't, John. That's just unthinking prejudice, and you know it.

Just saying . . . .

Cheers,
~Karl

Well, dagnabbit--Karl. Now that makes THREE people on this site who know those two works: you, Saphire and myself....

Tschüß,
Jack

Four. We actually discussed those works through PM some months back.

[Harvested Sorrow]

Oh one more thing.
you'll find 3 recordings, 2 orchestras/conductors second rate...with nothing better to do that dust off the material and give it a go.

I would simply like to point out that your implication that the quality of these works is based on how many recordings you can find is ridiculous; assuming that's what you meant. This is the exact same reasoning people who hate modernists use: "Well, if it was actually good there'd be a lot more recordings of it!"


Lest you forget, I am a fan of modernism, so no, I'm not simply playing the devil's advocate.

[Wallingford]

Oh, for those of you who desire some more howlers on why Brahms was such an "inferior" composer, may I suggest you go to Amazon & invest in some old B.H. Haggin books......they should be going for $1 or less per throw ('course, there's that nasty $3.49 shipping charge).

The man sought to brainwash so many with his methods of "music appreciation," his books ended up in the garbage bins of many. I guarantee you, when it comes to anti-Brahms diatribes (of the most irrational sort), Haggin's your bestest friend.

[paulb]

Oh one more thing.
you'll find 3 recordings, 2 orchestras/conductors second rate...with nothing better to do that dust off the material and give it a go.

I would simply like to point out that your implication that the quality of these works is based on how many recordings you can find is ridiculous; assuming that's what you meant. This is the exact same reasoning people who hate modernists use: "Well, if it was actually good there'd be a lot more recordings of it!"


Lest you forget, I am a fan of modernism, so no, I'm not simply playing the devil's advocate.

Yes you got my point. I was not aware that other modernists were citing that fact as sort of proof in the worth value of a romatic work.
Obviously Schnumann recordings number in the thousands, whereas most every 20th century composer only number in the hundreds, and some even less.
So the number of recordings is nota yardstick to go by.

But in this case, considering just how popular the name Robert Schumann has been over the last decades, one would most certainly expect there might be at least 5 or 6 recordings, and especially with some big name conductors.
The EMI release has a second rate conductor, the 2 others are totally unknown.
Based on what Karl says and most every romantic fan, "magnifienct, splendid, stunning, outstanding....SUBLIME"...of these 2 works...then why is there not at least one recording from a major conductor??

$3.60 for the EMI.

[paulb]

Oh, for those of you who desire some more howlers on why Brahms was such an "inferior" composer, may I suggest you go to Amazon & invest in some old B.H. Haggin books......they should be going for $1 or less per throw ('course, there's that nasty $3.49 shipping charge).

The man sought to brainwash so many with his methods of "music appreciation," his books ended up in the garbage bins of many. I guarantee you, when it comes to anti-Brahms diatribes (of the most irrational sort), Haggin's your bestest friend.

I do not need to read this book. My ears tell me as much.

I mean honestly Brahms has some really nice places in his works, especially the 2nd pc and the vc. There's no denying there's moments of beauty, intensity, but for a modernist, it just doesn't offer enough to hold up to any number of repeated listenings. Once in a while is OK.
The middle movement is playing now.....yeah its alright.

But honestly, the only way this concerto works for me is for David Oistrakh, and the French National Orch violins are to die for under Klemperer, a conductor who i don't appreciate much.

The 2nd pc i do not have a copy so can't really comment.

I have a few chamber pieces of Brahms and will listen tonight and post my opinion.

i have his double concerto, and that sounds to me as rehashed violin concerto material. There's absoluetly nothing in that double concerto which interests me.

I use to like, somewhat, the 1st sym with Walter/columbia, yrs ago.

Well i guess you guys are wondering why i went into this sort of confession. ..Maybe its just to let you know that we modernists are'nt all that bad, we really are human. We've got emotions and feelings and can hear beauty in Brahms as easily as you guys.
So please don't sterotype us into some cold hearted, insenstive rebels or what have you.

Nay, we are not radicals..... nor are we rascals

[Opus132]

Why are you talking in plural? I don't recall fans of modern music giving a unanimous consent for you to speak in their behalf. Did i miss something?

And why in the nine hells are you still trying to talk about a composer whom you know absolutely nothing about?

[Harvested Sorrow]

Oh one more thing.
you'll find 3 recordings, 2 orchestras/conductors second rate...with nothing better to do that dust off the material and give it a go.

I would simply like to point out that your implication that the quality of these works is based on how many recordings you can find is ridiculous; assuming that's what you meant. This is the exact same reasoning people who hate modernists use: "Well, if it was actually good there'd be a lot more recordings of it!"


Lest you forget, I am a fan of modernism, so no, I'm not simply playing the devil's advocate.

Yes you got my point. I was not aware that other modernists were citing that fact as sort of proof in the worth value of a romatic work.
Obviously Schnumann recordings number in the thousands, whereas most every 20th century composer only number in the hundreds, and some even less.
So the number of recordings is nota yardstick to go by.

But in this case, considering just how popular the name Robert Schumann has been over the last decades, one would most certainly expect there might be at least 5 or 6 recordings, and especially with some big name conductors.
The EMI release has a second rate conductor, the 2 others are totally unknown.
Based on what Karl says and most every romantic fan, "magnifienct, splendid, stunning, outstanding....SUBLIME"...of these 2 works...then why is there not at least one recording from a major conductor??

$3.60 for the EMI.

Schumann's late works as a whole tend to be under-recorded, so that should be taken into account (most likely with a few exceptions that aren't coming to mind right now). While it is great to see it for that cheap, I already own a copy.

[Brendan]

Bernstein, Sawallisch and Szell did all four Schumann symphonies, I think. Many don't care for Karajan, but he was often perceived as more than second-rate. Furtwangler's 4th and Celibidache's 2nd are also worth a mention. Not the same as with Mozart or LvB, but there are good recordings by top musicians.

[paulb]

i knew there were dozens of recordings in the syms of Brahms and Schumann.
i was refering speciffically to Karl's recommendations of schumann's mass and requiem.
Which IF it is so great, why only one second rate(Sawallich) conductor/EMI and 2 others with names i've not heard before.
3 recordings of these 'major works by schumann".

Read the comment on arkiv, on the EMI release.
The guy sez, "the mass is better fit for the concert hall" (meaning its not really sacred) The requiem he says is rehashed left over symphonic material.
Which explains why no major conductor wanted to take on a recording.
If Karajan and bernstein didn't feel up to recording it, you know its nothing worth the while.
These 2 conductors recorded EVERYTHING from the romantics... and sometimes 2X's!!!!!!
"

Brahms as well used stuff from the violin concert to put together his 'double concerto".
The double concerto is basically a watered down version of the wonderful violin concerto. Worthless.

[Opus132]

Bernstein, Sawallisch and Szell did all four Schumann symphonies, I think. Many don't care for Karajan, but he was often perceived as more than second-rate. Furtwangler's 4th and Celibidache's 2nd are also worth a mention. Not the same as with Mozart or LvB, but there are good recordings by top musicians.

Naville Marriner 4th is the best recording of this work i heard. Does he count on the 'big name' conductor list?