No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 1948
Musicologists are sometimes reproached for being interested only in the music that lies outside the normal répertoire. Against the reproach they have numerous sound lines of defence: that the ‘normal répertoire’ covers a relatively small range, that their work helps materially to widen that range, and so on. All the same, there is (I think) a general and quite natural tendency on the part of scholars to neglect the very familiar composers, to assume that we already know all that is worth knowing about the music of, for instance, Schumann and Mendelssohn and Chopin, Dvorak and Tchaikovsky. There may, they feel, still be some gleaning to do but the main harvest has already been gathered in. It is perhaps a natural assumption but it is a quite false assumption.
1 Breitkopf, Leipzig.Google Scholar
2 ‘Skizzenbuch R. Schumanns zu den “Album für die Jugend”.’ Schott, Mainz, 1924.Google Scholar
3 ‘Robert Schumann in seinen Spizzen gegenüber Beethoven,’ in ‘Kongressbericht der Beethoven-Zentenarfeier’. Universal, Vienna, 1927.Google Scholar
4 Kallmeyer, Wolfenbüttel, 1931.Google Scholar
5 Bärenreiter, Kassel, 1932.Google Scholar
6 Letter to Kistner, December 19, 1836: see Erler, Robert Schumanns Leben aus seinen Briefen. (Ries and Erler, Berlin, 1887), Vol. I, pp. 102—3.Google Scholar
7 Universal, Vienna, 1933.Google Scholar
8 The Revolutionary Songs for male voice chorus, published by Tiersolt in the ‘Revue Musicale, S.I.M.’ as long ago as 1913, are at least of biographical interestGoogle Scholar
9 Schott, Mainz.Google Scholar
10 Hinrichsen, London.Google Scholar
11 ‘Erinnerungen von Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy: Nachgelassene Aufzeichnungen von Robert Schumann.’ Predella, Zwickau, 1947.Google Scholar
12 Jg. 29, 1937.Google Scholar
13 Jg. 33, Heft 8-9.Google Scholar
14 Hahnefeld, Berlin, 1941.Google Scholar
15 Hahnefeld, Berlin, 1942.Google Scholar