Hofmann Kreisleriana

Splendid article

May I have your permission to repost

Yes, certainly. Which group ? (as long as it isn't rec.egregious.flaws... )

Regards, Robert (who's grateful to you, for having first raised my interest in Hofmann's

Sorry to intrude on this Hofmann Kaffeeklatsch, but surely someone should make more than a fleeting reference to the savage butchery which Hofmann perpetrates upon Schumann's score.

Some have suggested that Clara approved this.

Hogwash!

She didn't write the piece, Schumann did. He wrote the piece as we find it in various printed editions (with some variants, of course) and that is the way one expects to hear it. To take a 25 minute masterpiece and turn it into a 15 minute trifle is something of a sacrilege. At least to those who really love this music.

It is, of course, correct that Hofmann plays the piano imaginatively, 'like nobody else', one might say, but that is as nothing when the music he is supposed to be serving is turned into a compositional mishmash. It is a bit like saying that the Venus de Milo is far better without her head, or her arms and maybe even without her legs. The torso will do. Well, I say no. The torso of Kreisleriana will NOT do. At least not for me.

Samir and Arri will know my views on this subject, as they were the subject of a heated discussion about a year ago 'in another place', as the members of the House of Commons put it so tactfully.

Tom Deacon

Hello, Mr Deacon:

'Hogwash' may be the case indeed, but in ways which weren't intended. In fact, it wasn't Clara Schumann, but *Robert* Schumann, the composer of the music, who suggested in a letter *to* Clara, dated 12/4/1838, that Clara could perform only part of the piece. Also other arguments could be made. Such a literalist and self-critical interpreter as Richter was performed *parts* of Schumann's Phantasiestucke, many great interpreters performed *parts* of Brahms' opus 116, 117, 118 or 119. Surely one could make the argument that the internal cohesiveness of cycle 'a' is stronger and weaker than that of the cycle 'b', but eventually it comes down to subjective judgment.

Indeed we know. Here there are two issues at stake: a) the choice of playing the piece integrally or with cuts and b) how what is actually played is played. The author of this imo article has made clear, regarding b), that he would have preferred an uncut version of the piece. He also chose to focus on the interpretive values of what it is played. Wouldn't you agree it was a beautiful and cogent essay, even while you happen to feel so much more strongly about the issue of cuts?

regards,

Well, if I forgot to write 'imo' *what* this article is, you'll never know but you'll never miss that much, either. . . ( :

regards,

Poor demented Robert. I am sure he would have let Clara trample all over him just to please Clara. Perhaps she couldn't really play parts of Kreisleriana. Who can tell.

All we have to go on today is the score. And that is clear to all.

The Fantasiestucke, Op. 12, are a different matter. Not really a cycle at all. Des Abends was performed separately for decades, as well as Traumeswirren. You are surely aware of all the great pianists who shone in these little heterogeneous pieces. That Richter disliked Fabeln and Grillen is, of course, his own affair. I don't particularly like them either, but I wouldn't have left them out, if I had decided to perform the Fantasiestucke in a formal recital. I hear him do this on more than one occasion and each time I thought it weird. It only called attention to his own quirky tastes.

As for Brahms 'Klavierstucke', variously referred to as Intermezzi, Rhapsodies, Capriccios, etc., these also fall into the category of miscellaneous collections. Unless, of course, you would suggest that Op. 118, for example, has some underlining structural form that has eluded me so far. Please, do tell!

Kreisleriana is a different animal altogether. It is of a piece. Only Hofmann, to my knowledge, has cut the piece in half and passed it off as the whole. Perhaps, instead of calling it Kreisleriana, we should call it the Schumann-Hofmann Kreisleriana, or Kreisleriana 'Truncated'. In any case I am amazed that one would have to even mount such a defense of Schumann's music to someone as knowledgeable as yourself. And I do want to be there the day you, yourself, chose to follow Hofmann's example in your Carnegie Hall recital debut. Just watch out for the darts!

In the meantime, I can appreciate the original poster's love for the Hofmann touch and sound, while calling his attention to the musical butchery which lies at the heart of this performance. It is not to be passed off so lightly, in my opinion.

Tom Deacon

Why the imperative 'should' ?

I don't think the composer's intentions are necessarily a Holy Grail (and which composer's intentions, BTW ? The Schumann of the first edition, or of the second edition, with the added repeats and the conventionalizing dam-dam chords ending v ? one soon runs into problems here..). But even taking into account Schumann's intentions, I think there's evidence that shows for Schumann the score wasn't the kind of Holy Scripture it has increasingly become during the 20th century (e.g., Schumann writing to Clara she end the Kreisleriana with some nice loud fortissimo chords !). More generally, I think one can safely state that in the context of 19th century performance practice, there was nothing particularly shocking about playing a work incompletely. (though I'm too lazy to look up further evidence for this...)

Well, no: I wouldn't go as far as that. What I tried to express is that this particular Venus has certain unique features, which I find in no other Venus (be it complete - but then I don't think completeness is much of a virtue in itself...) That is, I regret the incompleteness (of Hofmann's Kreisleriana), *but* the achievements (of Hofmann's Kreisleriana) are such that I don't mind.

Should I mind ? Why ?

(I honestly do not understand - is anything other than one listener's individual taste involved ? Is there some sort of moral obligation, that one should, for principal reasons and without actually listening, disapprove of incomplete/altered performances ? [HOP !, out go ABM's Brahms Paganini variations, Richter's Chopin preludes, Rachmaninov in the Chopin B flat minor sonata and Moiseiwitsch in the Chopin B minor, Fiorentino in the Schumann Fantasy,... ...and how about the Sphinxes in Carnaval ? Ought one to disapprove of pianists that play them, or of those that don't ?])

Another cup of coffee, anyone ?

Robert Laterveer.

yes, more than just Samir and myself know your unreasonable prejudices regarding Hoffmann and now Volodos, the 2 most accomplished pianists on records (IMO). But, since my hand operation, (mostly successful)I have vowed to be more understanding of those who lack understanding.... So Tom, I offer nothing but sympathy for anyone who cannot appreciate the talents of the above mentioned pianists. I pray that some day you will learn to love and appreciate the unique pianism of Hofmann..

but we all agree... W. Kempff was a truly great musician....

Indeed. However, may I modestly point out that most pianists' subjective judgment runs the opposite way from Hofmann's?

Sorry to butt in

You mean that he dared have a different opinion, and even

[snip]

Milk and sugar please Robert. Or make it a Duvel straight away!

I'm completely with you in your reply to mr Deacon Rides Again. Never let the pleasure about what we have be diminished by the thought of what we could have.