Deconstructing Robert Schumann’s Fantasiestücke, op.73

Reissenberger, Benjamin; Hoeprich, Eric

doi:10.1093/em/cau068

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 (1849), was originally written for clarinet and piano and subsequently arranged for cello or violin and piano; it has since been arranged for several more instruments (including double bass, horn, bassoon, all with piano accompaniment). As a frequently performed piece that has been called “a veritable chestnut in Schumann’s chamber music repertory” (Reissenberger & Hoeprich, 2014, p. 449), it was likely to be known by many of the participants in our study, whether they played it themselves or had heard it performed. The piece is marked “Zart und mit Ausdruck” (tender and with expression), and it is in a ternary form (A (bars 1-21), B (bars 22- 37), A’ (bars 37 – 59), Coda (bars 59-69)) that includes exact and varied repetition of musical material.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discrepancies and Disagreements in Classical Chamber Musicians’ Characterisations of a Performance

Spiro

Schober

2021

Music & Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To what extent do classical chamber musicians converge in their characterisations of what just happened in their live duo performance, and to what extent do audience members agree with the performers’ characterisations? In this study a cello-piano duo performed Schumann’s Phantasiestücke, Op. 73, no. 1 as part of their conservatory studio class in which members critique performances in development. Immediately after, the listeners and players individually characterised what had most struck them about the performance, first writing comments from memory and then marking scores while listening to a recording on their personal devices. They all then rated (on a 5-point scale) their agreement with comments by two other class members. Findings demonstrate that classical chamber performers can characterise the performance quite differently than their partner does and that they can disagree with a number of their partner’s characterisations, corroborating previous findings in case studies of jazz performance. Performers’ characterisations can overlap less in which moments strike them as worthy of comment and in their content than their listeners’ characterisations do, and they can agree with a non-partner’s characterisations more than with their partner’s characterisations. At the same time, the data show that listeners who have played the piece before—though not necessarily those who play the same kind of instrument (strings vs. piano)—can be more likely to endorse comments by others who have also played the piece before, even if the comments they make don’t overlap with each other more in timing, content or theme.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%