# Favorite recording of Schumann 4 and thoughts on the symphony and its two versions?



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

It took me a while to whole heartedly come around to this symphony. A part of it has to do with the confusion of which version to listen. Brahms seems to have endorsed the first orchestration and yet most conductors will still do the 2nd I think, which Clara thought superior. I tend to agree with Brahms the the first orchestration seems to move a little swifter, but in the hands of Bernstein who I think only did the 1850s version, Clara's preference seems quite alright. 

I don't have any in depth analysis as to what has brought me around to this work fully recently. Maybe it was this Bernstein recording. Recently I revisited his piano pieces, Fantasiestucke op 12 and was enthralled and was freshly initiated in the Schumann melodic and harmonic imprint. The 4th seems to move quite well, is very well constructed and uniquely fixated on a motif, but in the right hands it does not became labor some like it can in spots. The trick is having the lusher wind orchestration of the 1850s version but with the feeling of motion that the 1840s version seems to impart more readily as done by a good conductor and orchestra. I do miss a little bit of that nice pop of winds missing in the earlier version. It makes the work seem more teeming.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Over the years I've come to appreciate the originals version over the revised. There is an honesty and originality there that was stripped away when he re-wrote it. But the revised version does have smoother transitions. Maybe the best of both worlds is the Mahler edition. Chailly's recording sure makes a strong argument for it. I really like the John Elliot Gardner recording with the LSO of the original. I've played the symphony several time (always in the revised version) and am always awestruck at what great music it really is.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I've been looking into the Mahler orchestration today actually!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I guess I prefer the original but I am not _that _bothered. There are several recordings I like (and lots more I don't much like or am ambivalent about) but I find Holliger's Schumann recordings particularly enjoyable. He really has a special thing for Schumann.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

For many people (including me), the best Schumann 4 is Furtwängler's 1953 BPO recording. Furtwängler generally wasn't at his best in the studio, but this is a notable exception, maybe because it was practically a live recording, in one take. (Furtwängler famously got so fed up because of the endless re-takes that he told the engineers that he'd play the whole symphony just once more, in one go without stops, and be done with it.) You can easily find it on youtube, it's pretty well recorded, but various remasterings give it that extra "oomph". Just give it a listen (and prepare yourself for that famous transition from the scherzo into the finale - that has never been bettered.)

Regarding the original vs. revision dispute, here's something I wrote a while ago for another Schumann thread:

_I wouldn't say the 1851 version is "squarish" - in many ways it's more coherent and it has (at least to me) much more convincing transitions (the introductions to the 1st and last movement specifically).
And regarding the main criticism that always befalls the 1851 version: I think the orchestration in the original version wasn't all that good either. If you follow the music with the 1841 you notice many passages where the textures either work against the musical structure or, conversely, are too thin to respond to the demands of the thematic material. Take the beginning of the finale for example. In the 1841 version it's a rather incoherent mess, with too many different textures making the music sound fragmentary. In the 1851 version there's much more unity and flow.
I think the most deceptive aspect of the 1841 version and its alleged "superior" quality is that it responds well to our modern virtuoso orchestras. Conductors can tinkle with the more layered textures and easily create the illusion of a modern, impressionist sound. So pitting a modern "micromanaged" chamber orchestra recording of the original version against a traditional big band rendition of the remake will give one the impression that the original is far superior. One tends to forget that in order to make it sound acceptable, the 1841 version needs MORE work and intervention than the 1851 version, not less! _


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

mbhaub said:


> Over the years I've come to appreciate the originals version over the revised. There is an honesty and originality there that was stripped away when he re-wrote it. But the revised version does have smoother transitions. Maybe the best of both worlds is the Mahler edition. Chailly's recording sure makes a strong argument for it. I really like the John Elliot Gardner recording with the LSO of the original. I've played the symphony several time (always in the revised version) and am always awestruck at what great music it really is.


first of all i do not understand why schumann's symphonies are so underrated. I guess people feel he writes for the piano and his wife as well. It is always a joy to listen to them particularly 3 and 4. i started with karajan, got the chailly mahler edition which is probably my favourite and then nézet-séguin's excellent versions of the 4 symphonies. the contrast between schumann's difficult life and the exhilarating music is striking.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

I don't really like it. Schumann does sound significantly better under HIP.


----------

