In Schumann's day he was always raving on about the musical philistines of the time on the lines that the biblical David was up against the actual philistines. Why has Cortot had only 62 views to date? Is it that the musical philistines are still alive and kicking yet musically dead at the same time? Cortot was one of, if not, the greatest romantic pianist of his time to such an extent that, when he gave a concert, all the great pianists of the day took up the first two rows to see what musical gems he would come up with. True, you have to listen to many of the pianists of the era to appreciate their slant on the music, but their method of playing is far more musical that the majority of pianists of today. LISTEN TO CORTOT IF YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD MUSICIAN.
Even more than with Chopin, Cortot speaks the language of Schumann. He was, after all, a German romantic - a Wagnerian - before coming to Chopin, much less Debussy. Cortot’s Schumann is more the ebullient Florestan than the introspective Eusebius, but everything here is beautiful. For other views of the Band of David try Kempff (balanced and lyrical) and Ugorski (almost surrealistically dreamy). But Cortot is essential.
Although one could certainly take issue with some of Cortot’s tempos and rubatos, his phrasing, and his dynamics, this remains a very interesting and stimulating recording.
Schumann was unusual for his time. Davidsbündler tänze was written, because Schumann and his musical friends formed a "Davidsbund" as a protest against the tendency, that the well polished and well-to-do upper class seemed to want to decide, how music should be written and what was good taste.
Unfortunately the sound quality of this record is quite poor but Cortot's rendition is quite amazing: he prefectly renders the Romantic Phantasie, the dreamy character fo Schumann's music.
Why does every version after listening to Cortot sound uninspired? Because he's the best, in spite of quite a few wrong notes in this recording. He has new insights into every single one of these pieces.
A little later than 1929 . It was recorded 1937 . In the 1950s he re-recorded Kinderszenen , Kreisleriana ,Carneval and Symphonic Etudes . The 1954 Kreisleriana was first published by accident in the 1990s. In the collection “ The great pianists of the century “ It should have been the 1935 recording and it was corrected shortly after.
I don't know how old he was at the time of this recording, but dang, for some pieces he just can't do it. It seems he gets overwhelmed by the difficulty.
I love Schumann but there’s no shame in confirming he doesn’t appeal to you. Because so much 19th century music now has a firm place in our musical museum we accept it all as great. But in his own time Chopin didn’t care for Schumann; few people did. I don’t care for most Mahler. Others feel the same about Bruckner or Bartok. My old guy advice is to check in on Schumann every few years and see if you feel differently. If not, we’ll always have Bach!
Haha, i also love Schumann, in fact he is the composer who speaks the most to me and although i respect Chopin he lost many points to me when i found out 24 years ago in books that Chopin didn't care for Schumann's music. I even feel more strongly that way now as over the years i've felt C. masterpieces rather loose their novelty when one really knows them and are more empty that i felt twenty years ago, while Schumann's music rises above music and does not have that egotistic center that C. music has but is rather artistic, humble and poetic.
I think I am a hopeless philistine. Although I have been learning and performing some classical music, for voice and piano, since about 1968, I have never taken a liking to Schumann. I have learned and played Liszt and Chopin well, and sung with Robert Shaw in performances of The Passion According to St. John; but Schumann's work has never appealed to me. I just don't know why. I would guess similar sentiments would characterize many amateur-to-very-amateur musicians born after World War II. Anyone care to comment? And, thank you for posting this music.
schumann has been my god since i was about 14. the brain is a strange thing. who can say why we love a certain person or a piece of music or an entire composer's works. is it some electorochemical thing, some gene, who knows!!
On a different note listen to Szeryng's recording of the violin concerto, also his chamber music is surprisingly sensual like the piano quartette and quintets and string quartettes. The piano concerto is not my favorite but I do like it alot.
I can understand your not taking to Schumann: I find that he has some really magnificent musical ideas but he rarely knows how to develop them, like Beethoven etc can. For example: his sonata in F# major first movement:- it begins with a tempestuous introduction which then has no link with the main body. In the middle of the movement he drives himself up a blind alley, comes to a crashing halt, and then resumes the piece without any link to the preceding. This is why the majority of his piano pieces are 3/4/5 minutes long and put into one larger work. There aren't many composers who can develop their musical ideas and lead from one idea to the next seamlessly !!
Très belles intentions musicales c’est très vivant et schumannien. Quel dommage toutes ses faiblesses techniques! Je veux bien lui pardonner c’était une autre époque
Je suis d'accord. Je ne sais pas s'il n'était pas un peu vieux à l'époque, mais j'ai tout de même l'impression que n'importe quel élève sortant de conservatoire aujourd'hui maîtrise mieux les notes que M. Cortot
Les commentaires comme le votre me font toujours penser à toute cette catégorie de musiciens y compris un assez grand nombre de professionnels qui sont réellement amusical et qui ont une vision de la musique qui n'a rien à voir avec l'art qu'elle est. Ca n'a rien à voir avec les époques sinon qu'il il y a plus d'amusicaux qui sont sont des musiciens mais toujours des interprètes jamais des compositeurs interprètes.
In Schumann's day he was always raving on about the musical philistines of the time on the lines that the biblical David was up against the actual philistines. Why has Cortot had only 62 views to date? Is it that the musical philistines are still alive and kicking yet musically dead at the same time? Cortot was one of, if not, the greatest romantic pianist of his time to such an extent that, when he gave a concert, all the great pianists of the day took up the first two rows to see what musical gems he would come up with. True, you have to listen to many of the pianists of the era to appreciate their slant on the music, but their method of playing is far more musical that the majority of pianists of today. LISTEN TO CORTOT IF YOU WANT TO BE A GOOD MUSICIAN.
Glyn Banfield TRUE:)!
I really treasure Cortot's playing.
Grumpy old pianist but when I hear him, I don’t play myself!
👍
Unique treasure of a player, in my all time top 5 ...
How can anyone not fall in love with the sound of Cortot?
scottbos68 the newcomers never hear this sound
scottbos68 This is so true.
I dont think any of them have the ears and sensitivity to hear this and treasure it for what it is
Even more than with Chopin, Cortot speaks the language of Schumann. He was, after all, a German romantic - a Wagnerian - before coming to Chopin, much less Debussy. Cortot’s Schumann is more the ebullient Florestan than the introspective Eusebius, but everything here is beautiful. For other views of the Band of David try Kempff (balanced and lyrical) and Ugorski (almost surrealistically dreamy). But Cortot is essential.
Increíble !!!!!bellísimo. el que nos. procuro sobre todo a Chopin ❤😂
Me encanta aprender. 🌄☀️🤩🙋Feliz 💐 domingo de ramos. 🇲🇽 🎹
Wonderful. This is the only version I know that pulls in and holds the listener's attention. All the rest sound like hotel-foyer background music!
21:20 So beautiful!
Although one could certainly take issue with some of Cortot’s tempos and rubatos, his phrasing, and his dynamics, this remains a very interesting and stimulating recording.
Schumann was unusual for his time. Davidsbündler tänze was written, because Schumann and his musical friends formed a "Davidsbund" as a protest against the tendency, that the well polished and well-to-do upper class seemed to want to decide, how music should be written and what was good taste.
Unfortunately the sound quality of this record is quite poor but Cortot's rendition is quite amazing: he prefectly renders the Romantic Phantasie, the dreamy character fo Schumann's music.
Why does every version after listening to Cortot sound uninspired? Because he's the best, in spite of quite a few wrong notes in this recording. He has new insights into every single one of these pieces.
Leçon d'interprétation.
Dedico toda su vida a las partituras. ☁️🎹📚
Cortot's sense of rhythm and pacing is truly dramatic. Bar lines mean not so much.
Cortot l'enchanteur.
are we sure this is 1929? It sounds like one of his 1950's recordings
A little later than 1929 . It was recorded 1937 . In the 1950s he re-recorded Kinderszenen , Kreisleriana ,Carneval and Symphonic Etudes . The 1954 Kreisleriana was first published by accident in the 1990s. In the collection “ The great pianists of the century “ It should have been the 1935 recording and it was corrected shortly after.
I don't know how old he was at the time of this recording, but dang, for some pieces he just can't do it. It seems he gets overwhelmed by the difficulty.
20:23
Unsurpassed.
I love Schumann but there’s no shame in confirming he doesn’t appeal to you. Because so much 19th century music now has a firm place in our musical museum we accept it all as great. But in his own time Chopin didn’t care for Schumann; few people did. I don’t care for most Mahler. Others feel the same about Bruckner or Bartok. My old guy advice is to check in on Schumann every few years and see if you feel differently. If not, we’ll always have Bach!
Haha, i also love Schumann, in fact he is the composer who speaks the most to me and although i respect Chopin he lost many points to me when i found out 24 years ago in books that Chopin didn't care for Schumann's music. I even feel more strongly that way now as over the years i've felt C. masterpieces rather loose their novelty when one really knows them and are more empty that i felt twenty years ago, while Schumann's music rises above music and does not have that egotistic center that C. music has but is rather artistic, humble and poetic.
I think I am a hopeless philistine. Although I have been learning and performing some classical music, for voice and piano, since about 1968, I have never taken a liking to Schumann. I have learned and played Liszt and Chopin well, and sung with Robert Shaw in performances of The Passion According to St. John; but Schumann's work has never appealed to me. I just don't know why. I would guess similar sentiments would characterize many amateur-to-very-amateur musicians born after World War II. Anyone care to comment? And, thank you for posting this music.
I still feel that my tastes are too narrow. But thank you for your words of encouragement.
schumann has been my god since i was about 14. the brain is a strange thing. who can say why we love a certain person or a piece of music or an entire composer's works. is it some electorochemical thing, some gene, who knows!!
Listen to kreisleriana, symphonic etudes , and the third sonata before you make up your mind about Schumann.
On a different note listen to Szeryng's recording of the violin concerto, also his chamber music is surprisingly sensual like the piano quartette and quintets and string quartettes. The piano concerto is not my favorite but I do like it alot.
I can understand your not taking to Schumann: I find that he has some really magnificent musical ideas but he rarely knows how to develop them, like Beethoven etc can. For example: his sonata in F# major first movement:- it begins with a tempestuous introduction which then has no link with the main body. In the middle of the movement he drives himself up a blind alley, comes to a crashing halt, and then resumes the piece without any link to the preceding. This is why the majority of his piano pieces are 3/4/5 minutes long and put into one larger work. There aren't many composers who can develop their musical ideas and lead from one idea to the next seamlessly !!
Très belles intentions musicales c’est très vivant et schumannien. Quel dommage toutes ses faiblesses techniques! Je veux bien lui pardonner c’était une autre époque
Je suis d'accord. Je ne sais pas s'il n'était pas un peu vieux à l'époque, mais j'ai tout de même l'impression que n'importe quel élève sortant de conservatoire aujourd'hui maîtrise mieux les notes que M. Cortot
Les commentaires comme le votre me font toujours penser à toute cette catégorie de musiciens y compris un assez grand nombre de professionnels qui sont réellement amusical et qui ont une vision de la musique qui n'a rien à voir avec l'art qu'elle est.
Ca n'a rien à voir avec les époques sinon qu'il il y a plus d'amusicaux qui sont sont des musiciens mais toujours des interprètes jamais des compositeurs interprètes.