Absolutely Masterful... but Otherwise Quite Lacking

Gianni22 wrote:

In your opinion, how is it possible that Robert Schumann wrote, regarding this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC3fUs4yY7o&feature=relmfu

..."absolutely masterful in technique (composition and instrumentation); but otherwise quite devoid of interest and ultimately truly boring and empty of any thought"?

And why not? If he didn't like it...

Gianni22 wrote:

How do you think it is possible that Robert Schumann wrote [...] ?

I presume it is also a matter of critical attitude. Schumann was born in 1810, Cimarosa in 1749 (and died in 1801).

Schumann is a German Romantic, with everything that entails (national pride, the redemption of folk sentiment, revolutionary orientations regarding the Restoration, etc.).

Cimarosa, on the other hand, having lived in the previous century, was a brilliant exponent of the Neapolitan school that managed to impose itself at courts throughout Europe (which the Italians had literally invaded). Mozart himself (younger than Cimarosa) was a precursor to the feeling of cultural liberation and the redemption of the German people, with his singspiel and his conflicts regarding the genre dominated by Italians (Cimarosa but also Anfossi, Paisiello, Jommelli... not to mention the ancient Pergolesi, who had already died in 1710, whose Serva Padrona never ceased to be acclaimed everywhere for a century and a half). It was Schumann's generation that propelled Mozart toward immortality and decreed the definitive isolation of the Italians; it is no coincidence that both he and his "younger brothers" of the '20s whom he lovingly criticized, spurred, and guided in every way (I am speaking of Brahms, Liszt, Chopin...), practically never ventured into the operatic genre, which was and remained for a long time primarily Italian and therefore too tied to the sordid world of the court that had welcomed it.

At Schumann's time, regarding opera, the only Italians who remained in the favor of the German Romantics were those figures far enough from the Germanic area as not to represent "the old" to be overthrown: Cherubini and Spontini. Partly because they were entangled in painful relationships with Napoleon, partly because they were solemnly dramatic and not at all "Neapolitan."

In essence, I imagine that Schumann's judgment toward a Cimarosa could not have been serene. It would be a bit like asking Mick Jagger for an opinion on Frank Sinatra...

P.S. (A bit provocative). I also think that our critical orientation (or taste, whatever it may be) stems precisely from the first German Romanticism; otherwise, one cannot explain the fact that a large part of the classical audience knows how to appreciate not only the work of Cimarosa that you posted, but does not even know a single opera by Pasquale Anfossi; who managed to successfully represent as many as 72 (seventy-two!) operas for the theaters of Europe: a volume truly difficult to dismiss with the presumption that history has rewarded "the best"...

At least in Italy, we should ask ourselves how much beautiful music we have lost due to conformity to a criticism directed at the mass of consumers, whose obvious interest has always been to identify very few Names to re-propose in all sorts of ways. And this, I believe, is because people like to hear the same things again with different nuances, rather than making an effort to get to know new ones

Carlos wrote:

And why not? If he didn't like it...

If that were the case, it would have been enough to say: "I don't like it"... instead he says "void of every thought". In practice, he doesn't make it a matter of taste but a judgment of merit

Zazza wrote:

If it were like that, it would have been enough to say: "I don't like it"... instead he says "every thought is emptied". In practice, he doesn't make it a matter of taste but a judgment of merit

You will know that Schumann wrote criticism articles for the Neue Zeitschrift für Musik, so he could not limit himself to saying "I don't like it", but was required to give judgments of merit...

Gianni22 wrote:

How do you think it is possible

Perhaps it was already out of fashion. Always very pleasant to hear but perhaps not so brilliant; then again, it's a matter of taste, but I prefer an

intermezzo like a maestro di cappella which is more concise/concentrated.

If the source were this one http://www.rodoni.ch/schumann/scritti-2.html then they are letters from Dresden; I can believe that after having heard all

those other works that come before this one, it seems frivolous to him.

Returning to us, the same lack of brilliance that occurs a few years later between Hummel & C. (including Weber, but heaven forbid you say that in Dresden)

and Beethoven; Hummel is perfectly Biedermeier while Beethoven, even though in the same style, proves to be "unclassifiable".

This does not mean that these others are terrible or that they have not played an important role in the

stylistic evolution of music... of course not.

"}

In my opinion, much more simply, it is a type of aesthetic that was foreign to Schumann

Dino wrote:

In my opinion, much more simply, it is a type of aesthetic that was foreign to Schumann

In extreme synthesis, that is what I have tried to say. The reason why it might have seemed foreign to him, however, I believed was an interesting topic to discuss.

...yes, yes Croma. I didn't want to belittle ... and that I don't have much time and it often happens that I dismiss things in a few seconds ..