Schumann Fantasia in C

[Brian]

I studied this one in college for a piano history course. At that time I bought Richter(EMI) and Kempff. I thought that Kempff's made more sense, so I used that one for the purpose of the course. Years later, I grew to love Richter's interpretation. As is his style, the work is played in a powerful fashion, yet he is able to soften considerably for the more gentle moments.

I've found that Richter's readings of this work (I think I have two) tend to be more flexible and more, well, fantasy-like than some others I've heard, particularly in that wayward, wonderful first movement. Some interpreters prefer to make things "hang together" by maintaining a relatively consistent tempo and allowing the flow of the work to speak for itself. I like both approaches; Richter reaches places, emotionally, that nobody else seems to.

That said, the comment about this piece having no theme is odd. There are quite clearly if not always melodies, important ideas of some kind afoot in every movement. And why does it need an idee fixe? Why does it need a consistent structure where we can say "This is the beginning, this is the end, and this is exactly why the events in between require the music to go from that particular beginning to that particular end in exactly that order." I agree with Bulldog:

I don't have an idea what your problem is with the work.  First movement is rapture, second loaded with tension/excitement and the third is essentially a gorgeous love song.  I can understand that you might not think the entire work holds together well, but each movement is certainly a gem.

Though it happens to be my opinion that the work holds together marvelously. 

(For what it's worth, the Fantasie is indeed my favorite Schumann.)

[nut-job]

That said, the comment about this piece having no theme is odd. There are quite clearly if not always melodies, important ideas of some kind afoot in every movement. And why does it need an idee fixe?

I never said it needed an idee fixe, I noted that I found Berlioz's idee fixe in the Fantastique to be unconvincing.  Clearly there are always continuous melodies.  If you play me a 15 second snip I would say it sounds promising.  But I don't get the feeling that the 15 second snips are going anywhere.

[Bulldog]

I never said it needed an idee fixe, I noted that I found Berlioz's idee fixe in the Fantastique to be unconvincing.  Clearly there are always continuous melodies.  If you play me a 15 second snip I would say it sounds promising.  But I don't get the feeling that the 15 second snips are going anywhere.

Since a 15 second snip can't go any further than 15 seconds, I'd say that those snips are useless.

[Dr. Dread]

Wasn't sure I had this piece, but dug around and discovered I have at least one version: Richter III GPot20C.

Am listening now.

[nut-job]

Since a 15 second snip can't go any further than 15 seconds, I'd say that those snips are useless.

My point is not that 15 second snips are useful.  My point is that at any given time the music sounds fine, but I don't find a compelling sweep, or long term structure in Schumann's Fantasia.  Clearly a lot of people find the piece rewarding.  I don't, because the overall structure of the piece does not make an impression on me.

[Brian]

My point is not that 15 second snips are useful.  My point is that at any given time the music sounds fine, but I don't find a compelling sweep, or long term structure in Schumann's Fantasia.  Clearly a lot of people find the piece rewarding.  I don't, because the overall structure of the piece does not make an impression on me.

I think your point is most valid for the first movement; the third has a very fine structure to my ear (it's basically the same thing, in two parts, played twice) and the second is almost compact. 

[Bulldog]

My point is not that 15 second snips are useful.  My point is that at any given time the music sounds fine, but I don't find a compelling sweep, or long term structure in Schumann's Fantasia.  Clearly a lot of people find the piece rewarding.  I don't, because the overall structure of the piece does not make an impression on me.

Sorry.  Since you're the one who brought up the matter of snips, I assumed they had some significance to you.  Anyways, there are many other Schumann piano works that I hope you do find impressive.

[Novi]

The Fantasie now ranks amongst my favourite of Schumann's works, but it took some time for me to get into it. Perhaps it was its length, as I've had lesser trouble with his other works, first getting hooked on the more straightforward (for me) Symphonic Etudes before coming to love works such as Kreisleriana and Davidbündlertänze.

Op. 17 is sheer poetry, in a Wordsworthian 'spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings' way. I love how the opening theme of the first movement bursts out fortissimo over the shimmering left hand in a kind of in medias res manner. I guess what strikes you as a problematic lack of discernible structure I see as a tantalising weave of echoes and suggestions. Then there is the exuberance of the second movement, ending in such a flourish, before the intimacy of the final movement, which I see almost as a conversation between two lovers.

Fanciful and unspecific? Absolutely .

For something more specific to help get a grasp of the piece, you may wish to have a look at Rosen's analysis in The Romantic Generation. I found it fascinating, but then, I'm irresistibly drawn to the piece 0:).

[Novi]

My vote for favorite recording goes to Richter. But there is also a close second: Sokolov.

orbital, is the Sokolov in print?

[George]

orbital, is the Sokolov in print?

Better yet, was it ever in print? 

[orbital]

I think it was never transferred to CD (at least that's what it said in the txt file that came with it). I have the mp3 if you are interested though  

[Novi]

I think it was never transferred to CD (at least that's what it said in the txt file that came with it). I have the mp3 if you are interested though  

Yes, please!

[George]

Yes, please!

What he said, minus the kisses. 

[nut-job]

Decided to listen to the piece again, and the comments on this thread have been helpful.  I am starting to warm to the first movement, more than the other two.  Although I realize that as a "fantasia" it is not expected to have a well defined structure, I am still missing a sense that the subsequent movements fill a void left by previous movements, or stand in any particular relationship to them.

[Bulldog]

Decided to listen to the piece again, and the comments on this thread have been helpful.  I am starting to warm to the first movement, more than the other two.  Although I realize that as a "fantasia" it is not expected to have a well defined structure, I am still missing a sense that the subsequent movements fill a void left by previous movements, or stand in any particular relationship to them.

Interesting.  I took to the second and third movements long before I felt any warmth for the first.

[nut-job]

Interesting.  I took to the second and third movements long before I felt any warmth for the first.

Maybe I should try listening to movements in reverse order, or entirely separately.

[sul G]

The relationship between first and last movements was more explicit before Schumann suppressed the original, rather more daring version of the latter. Just FWIW

[George]

The relationship between first and last movements was more explicit before Schumann suppressed the original, rather more daring version of the latter. Just FWIW

Intriguing.

Did anyone ever record the original version?

[sul G]

I don't know, but it must be around somewhere. The score is easy to find. Actually, let me check something....

[sul G]

Yes. In The Romantic Generation Charles Rosen has a great deal of fascinating wisdom to impart about this piece, including about this original conclusion, and on the disc which accompanies the book there is a recording of him playing it.