The art of music, Vol. 02 (of 14) : $b Classicism and Romanticism
History
The art of music, Vol. 02 (of 14) : $b Classicism and Romanticism
Music -- History and criticism; Musicians
But
he was too much a Romantic enthusiast to make any concessions to the
superficial taste of the concert hall or drawing room, and continued
writing music which sounded badly unless it was very well played, and
even then rather austerely separated the sheep from the goats among its
hearers. Schumann is, above all, the pianists’ pianist. The musical
value and charm of his works is inextricably interwoven with the
executant’s delight in mastering it.
Liszt is, of course, no less the technician than Schumann--in fact,
much more completely the technician in his earlier years. But his
was less the technique of pleasing the performer than of pleasing
the audience. With a wizardry that has never been surpassed he hit
upon those resources of the piano which would dazzle and overpower.
Very frequently he adopts the too easy method of getting his effect,
the crashing repeated chord and the superficial fireworks. None of
Schumann’s technical difficulties are without their absolute musical
value; all of Liszt’s, whether they convey the highest poetry or the
utmost banality, are directed toward the applause of the crowd.
Chopin is much more than the elegant salon pianist, which is the part
of him that most frequently conditions his external form. He was the
sensitive harpstring of his time, translating all its outward passions
into terms of the inward emotions. Where Schumann had fancy Chopin had
sentiment or emotion. Chopin had little of Schumann’s vivid interest
in experimenting in pianistic resources for their own sake. Even his
Études are so preëminently musical, and have so little relation to a
pianistic method, that they show little technical enthusiasm in the
man. Chopin was interested in the technical possibilities of the piano
only as a means of expressing his abounding sentiments and emotions.
It is because he has so much to express and such a great variety of
it that his music is of highest importance in the history of piano
technique, and is probably the most subtly difficult of all pianoforte
music. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that there are twenty
pianists who can play the Liszt studies to one who can play those of
Chopin. The technical demands he makes upon his instrument are always
just enough to present his musical message and no more. Though he was
utterly and solely of the piano (as neither Schumann nor Liszt was) he
had neither the executant nor the public specifically in mind when he
composed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account