# Why so little attention for Schumann's symphonies?



## bwv543

As part of my effort to become more familiar with the symphonic rep, I've been digging into Schumann's symphonies, often with score in hand.

So I'm curious - what is it about them that has caused them to receive less attention than other symphonies of this era? I'm enthralled with all 4 of them, but 2 and 3 in particular stand out to me as not at all inferior to the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms. The slow movement of #2 is one of my new favorite slow movements, right up there with Beethoven 7, Brahms 3, and Bruckner 7.


----------



## gprengel

bwv543 said:


> As part of my effort to become more familiar with the symphonic rep, I've been digging into Schumann's symphonies, often with score in hand.
> 
> So I'm curious - what is it about them that has caused them to receive less attention than other symphonies of this era? I'm enthralled with all 4 of them, but 2 and 3 in particular stand out to me as not at all inferior to the symphonies of Beethoven and Brahms. The slow movement of #2 is one of my new favorite slow movements, right up there with Beethoven 7, Brahms 3, and Bruckner 7.


In Schumann's symphonies there are most beautiful movements but also movements, I think, that are only avarage. In #1 I adore the majestic introduction and the Scherzo, in #2 the Adagio and the joyful Finale, in #3 the gorgeous 2 first movements and #4 is the only one where I adore all the movements


----------



## Kreisler jr

That slow movement of #2 might be the best single movement in all of Schumann's symphonies. I also like them and find them a bit underrated but I think symphonies 2 and 3 are quite uneven. 
I don't like the finale of the 2nd (banal beginning and then repetitio ad nauseam of that Beethoven-Lied-quote Schumann used so often) and the first movement is also repetitive. The 3rd has weak 3rd and 5th movements and doesn't hang together so well, both 1st and 4th movement are very good, though. The 1st is evenly good but I don't think it reaches the height of e.g. the inner movements of #2. My favorite overall is probably #4 that is the most unified but also a bit repetitive at times.


----------



## bwv543

Kreisler jr said:


> That slow movement of #2 might be the best single movement in all of Schumann's symphonies. I also like them and find them a bit underrated but I think symphonies 2 and 3 are quite uneven.
> I don't like the finale of the 2nd (banal beginning and then repetitio ad nauseam of that Beethoven-Lied-quote Schumann used so often) and the first movement is also repetitive. The 3rd has weak 3rd and 5th movements and doesn't hang together so well, both 1st and 4th movement are very good, though. The 1st is evenly good but I don't think it reaches the height of e.g. the inner movements of #2. My favorite overall is probably #4 that is the most unified but also a bit repetitive at times.


Favorite movements are #2 / 3rd mvt. and #3 / 4th mvt. (I love the counterpoint in both of these.) Agreed with you that not all movements are equally great, but then who has really hit the bulls eye with every movement of every symphony? Maybe Brahms (though I'm still not totally wild about the inner movements of #1 or the Scherzo from #4).

Lest I seem to be arguing though, I appreciate the input. I enjoy hearing the perspectives of others and learning where they diverge from my own leanings.


----------



## hammeredklavier

bwv543 said:


> what is it about them that has caused them to receive less attention than other symphonies of this era?


Perhaps a comparison with Mendelssohn's would be more reasonable in terms of timeline.

Beethoven symphonies (1800s-1820s)
Bruckner symphonies (1860s-1890s)
Brahms symphonies (1870s-1880s)

Schumann symphonies (1840s-1850s)
Mendelssohn symphonies (1820s-1840s)


----------



## bwv543

I was referring to the Romantic era more broadly, though your point is well taken as a note about the specific place within that era.



hammeredklavier said:


> Perhaps a comparison with Mendelssohn's would be more reasonable in terms of timeline.
> 
> Beethoven symphonies (1800s-1820s)
> Bruckner symphonies (1860s-1890s)
> Brahms symphonies (1870s-1880s)
> 
> Schumann symphonies (1840s-1850s)
> Mendelssohn symphonies (1820s-1840s)


----------



## RobertJTh

I don't think Schumann''s symphonies aren't getting enough attention. There are tons of recordings, they're part of the "iron repertoire" of every symphony orchestra. They're definitely more popular than some of the more obscure Mendelssohn symphonies (1, 2 and 5).

Agreed about the adagio from #2, it's a piece that brings tears in my eyes even when I play the music "in my head". But the other three movements are great too, I love the way Schumann combines Bach's counterpoint with his own romantic style, clearly influenced by Mozart's Jupiter and probably Schubert's Great C major too (a piece that he and Mendelssohn rediscovered).

It's funny how recordings can put your opinion on a work completely upside down. I always regarded Schumann's 4th as a colorless piece, unattractive in its seriousness, basically a pale Beethoven copy. Only when I listened to Furtwängler's famous 1953 recording, I realized what a masterpiece it is. Sometimes I think that if I'm allowed only one recording of a single symphony on the proverbial deserted island, it must be this one.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I do think that e.g. Brahms' and Beethoven's symphonies are overall on a higher level than Schumann's without such weaknesses. I think one problem is that the quirky style of Schumann's piano (and some chamber) music doesn't always fit with the "classicist" mould he used for the symphonies. The flaws in orchestration don't matter much to me but he sometimes also tends to be repetitive without getting anywhere. In the piano music this frantic restlessness in shorter pieces works but not really in symphonies.

There are lots of recordings of these symphonies and while someone reads derogative comments on some of them in older commentaries, and some conductors used revised instrumentations (Szell), overall they seem to be pretty much accepted nowadays. Deservedly or not, I think e.g. Dvorak 1-4, Tchaikovsky 1-3, Mendelssohn 1,2,5 are more "neglected" than Schumann's.


----------



## Merl

I love Schumann's symphonies and have silly numbers of cycles to prove it. When people say that his orchestration was 'clunky' I think they're not really listening and paying him a massive disservice. They are great works when played properly.


----------



## Heck148

I love Schumann's symphonies...they get attention....they're fun to play...nice stuff, some good woodwind solos and combinations....at this point, i don't have a favorite....i often find myself humming the slow mvt tunes in my head, which is a "good thing"..


----------



## Highwayman

I like them and would also like them to get more attention but I don`t think they are at the same level with Brahms` and Beethoven`s. Let`s not forget he was quintessentially a composer for the piano who also excelled in other genres later in his life. I say this because I remember a member dismissing Schumann as repetitive and meek after only being exposed to his orchestral works.


----------



## bwv543

Highwayman said:


> I like them and would also like them to get more attention but I don`t think they are at the same level with Brahms` and Beethoven`s. Let`s not forget he was quintessentially a composer for the piano who also excelled in other genres later in his life. I say this because I remember a member dismissing Schumann as repetitive and meek after only being exposed to his orchestral works.


Perhaps after the novelty wears off I'll assess them differently (although my first loves have traditionally stayed intact after the initial infatuation). Yes, it's hard to compare anything with Beethoven and Brahms... but I have also been on a major Schumann kick recently, after realizing that I just didn't know that much of his music and that it has really resonated with me. So the context for this thread is that the Fantasie is one of my new favorite piano solo works, the Quintet is probably my new favorite work in that genre, the first String Quartet is up there with Dvorak and Shostakovich, the first Violin Sonata is a favorite (along with Brahms 3), and the Violin Concerto is my current favorite violin concerto.


----------



## SixFootScowl

> Why so little attention for Schumann's symphonies?


Good quesiton. Maybe people get the *Schu*s mixed up and end up with *Schu*bert instead?


----------



## mbhaub

During the 19th c there was a period of time, the Dahlhaus Minimum, when great symphonies weren't so common. It runs roughly from the Beethoven 9th to the Brahms 1st, say 1850 to 1875 give or take. There were lots and lots of symphonies written, just not very many worthy of preservation. In that entire period really the only "great" symphonies to come out of it were 2 (maybe 3) by Mendelssohn and four by Schumann. For their era, those seven symphonies carry a lot of weight. But the Schumanns weren't recognized for what they were at the time. Felix Weingartner wrote about the neglect of the symphonies mostly due to their poor orchestration! Of course that all changed and for at least the last 100 years the four symphonies are among the most beloved, most often recorded and played symphonies of the mid-19th c. They do not get "so little attention" anymore. If anything, they're taken for granted.


----------



## Rogerx

> Why so little attention for Schumann's symphonies?


I don't think for one minute that is true, perhaps by orchestra's but not with listeners in general .
I love them.


----------



## GraemeG

mbhaub said:


> During the 19th c there was a period of time, the Dahlhaus Minimum, when great symphonies weren't so common. It runs roughly from the Beethoven 9th to the Brahms 1st, say 1850 to 1875 give or take. There were lots and lots of symphonies written, just not very many worthy of preservation. In that entire period really the only "great" symphonies to come out of it were 2 (maybe 3) by Mendelssohn and four by Schumann.


Well, in fact, that 1850-1875 gap persists to this very day, if you think about the mainstream repertoire. Schumann's final (Rhenish) was written in 1850; Mendelssohn's all pre-date that. Then Brahms 1 in 1876. Yes, Bruckner 1,2,3 and Tchaikovsky 1 fit in the gap, along with Dvorak 1-4, but only Bruckner 3 is anywhere near 'standard repertoire', and then usually a later (1880s) version. Everything else in the quarter century is very much second rate/obscure.

I like Schumann's symphonies. Conductors need to keep the string scrubbing/doubling brisk and fresh or they can get turgid in spots, yes. They're fine works.


----------



## Merl

His string quartets are superb too.


----------



## bwv543

Merl said:


> His string quartets are superb too.


The first string quartet is a marvel... that second movement, and the Scottish Highland dance that closes the work! (At least, that's what it sounds like to me.)


----------



## SanAntone

*Why so little attention for Schumann's symphonies?*

First, I don't think it is true that there is little attention paid to his symphonies. But I do think that many feel that Schumann wrote his best music for solo piano, chamber ensembles, and lieder.


----------



## ORigel

Schumann's symphonies are not as good as other 19th century symphonies (all of Brahms', early Mahler, later Bruckner, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn), but are solidly part of the standard repertoire (and deservedly so). My favorite is #4 by Furtwangler

Some earlier 19th century symphonies are unjustly neglected (Potter, Burgmuller, Lachner 5, and now Mendelssohn 6)


----------



## HerbertNorman

I really like them and his third has a special place in my heart... It was playing in my dad's car when he was on his way to the maternity ward when my mother was in labour and I was going to be born ...

I got it for my birthday when I was 18 and he told me that story. The "Rhenische" is one of his best imo , but I like all of them!


----------



## Heck148

HerbertNorman said:


> I really like them and his third has a special place in my heart... It was playing in my dad's car when he was on his way to the maternity ward when my mother was in labour and I was going to be born ...
> I got it for my birthday when I was 18 and he told me that story. The "Rhenische" is one of his best imo , but I like all of them!


Great Story!! love it!!


----------



## Radames

RobertJTh said:


> I don't think Schumann''s symphonies aren't getting enough attention. There are tons of recordings, they're part of the "iron repertoire" of every symphony orchestra. They're definitely more popular than some of the more obscure Mendelssohn symphonies (1, 2 and 5).


This is true. But I still think Schumann is underplayed in concert. Look at this season's Boston Symphony - not one Schumann Symphony.

https://www.classical-scene.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-22-BSO-Season.pdf

Early Schubert symphonies are more underplayed also.


----------



## hammeredklavier

GraemeG said:


> that 1850-1875 gap


What else do we need, when there's


----------



## bwv543

ORigel said:


> Schumann's symphonies are not as good as other 19th century symphonies (all of Brahms', early Mahler, later Bruckner, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn), but are solidly part of the standard repertoire (and deservedly so). My favorite is #4 by Furtwangler
> 
> Some earlier 19th century symphonies are unjustly neglected (Potter, Burgmuller, Lachner 5, and now Mendelssohn 6)


What is it about Schumann's symphonies that causes you to rank them as inferior to those composers? Genuinely curious.


----------



## Triplets

I think Schumann was at his best when he was rhapsodic. Most of his great Piano Music is Fantasia or Rhapsodic in nature. His Piano Concerto is Rhapsodic especially when compared to the greats of the Classical Era. The Symphonies show him trying to make his muse comply with structure and form. He comes in for criticism where perhaps he doesn’t always succeed, but I think that in general he succeeds in his symphonies most of the time, and he manages to sound like himself. I don’t always get that feeling with his Chamber Music, particularly his Piano Trios, where he never seems to produce anything of import


----------



## Becca

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of mention of my favourite, Schumann's 'Not Quite A' Symphony (aka Overture, Scherzo & Finale), a piece definitely designed to lift the spirits.


----------



## Becca

RobertJTh said:


> It's funny how recordings can put your opinion on a work completely upside down. I always regarded Schumann's 4th as a colorless piece, unattractive in its seriousness, basically a pale Beethoven copy. Only when I listened to Furtwängler's famous 1953 recording, I realized what a masterpiece it is. Sometimes I think that if I'm allowed only one recording of a single symphony on the proverbial deserted island, it must be this one.


Important questioin, which version of the 4th? The 1851 revision which Clara Schumann claimed to be the only valid version, or the original 1841 version which Brahms preferred and had published.


----------



## Knorf

Merl said:


> I love Schumann's symphonies and have silly numbers of cycles to prove it. When people say that his orchestration was 'clunky' I think they're not really listening and paying him a massive disservice. They are great works when played properly.


I couldn't agree more!


----------



## jim prideaux

Becca said:


> I'm a bit surprised at the lack of mention of my favourite, Schumann's 'Not Quite A' Symphony (aka Overture, Scherzo & Finale), a piece definitely designed to lift the spirits.


I agree.......coincidentally I heard the work performed in a concert by the Royal Northern Sinfonia and the performance confirmed (for me) what a marvellous piece of music it is!


----------



## jim prideaux

Knorf said:


> I couldn't agree more!


and neither could I....

I have listened to the four symphonies performed by many orchestras and conductors and thoroughly enjoy them, Clearly some performances/recordings are better than others but that is often a function of personal taste and perception. I am aware of the reservations that some have expressed regarding the orchestration etc but for me personally I am increasingly uninterested............I enjoy the music!

I believe someone posted recently mentioning their reservations about the final movement of the 2nd!

To this day I never tire of listening to the 2nd and the final movement really does represent a fitting conclusion to a marvellous work.......

So there you go.....we each hear music slightly differently.......should Bobby S. keep getting bashed around the head because certain individuals might have reservations about certain aspects of his compositions?.......not going to prevent me listening to his stuff

Not looking for a row, just expressing my support for both Merl and Knorf.......who in this instance I agree with!


----------



## Merl

Have a listen to Ticciati's cycle if you want clear, balanced and texturally superb accounts. It may not be your cup of tea but after hearing it you'll understand that 'Bobby S' (thanks Jim) was actually a bloody good composer and you don't need to hack them them up (like Szell did) to get great results. I have more Schumann cycles than I can shake a stick at and the only ones that bugger it up use big, homogenous orchestral blends, play with lots of cloying vibrato in the strings, and don't emphasise the distinctive timbres of the woodwinds and brass. Those that balance dynamics to make textures more transparent are the successful ones. Listen to Zinman and Gaudenz and then compare them to Thielemann's soggy DG traversal and you'll get what I mean.


----------



## Kiki

Despite scholars telling us the shortcomings of Schumann's instrumentation, I have not read anything that said these symphonies are bad music. In fact I think they are fantastic music.

I am going to stick my neck out and say that, the mesh-everything-up approach with an oversized orchestra common in the last century had not help Schumann's popularity. Despite that, some had got it right with a big band, like, in my opinion, Sawallisch, Karajan and a-hem, Barenboim. With a smaller band, Ticciati and Nézet-Séguin also did a great job. Then there are the HIP specialists like Harnoncourt, Gardiner and Norrington, some on modern instruments, others on PI, who have shed new lights onto the texture. I think Schumann's recording legacy is a treasure trove.

One thing about No. 4. The commonly played 1851 version is squarish and Schumann revised/simplified it too much for a less-than-skilful orchestra's performance. On the other hand, the original 1841 version is a lot more fluid and transparent. Once heard, it is difficult to go back to the later version; and it seems to be getting recorded more often these days, which must be a good thing.


----------



## RobertJTh

Kiki said:


> One thing about No. 4. The commonly played 1851 version is squarish and Schumann revised/simplified it too much for a less-than-skilful orchestra's performance. On the other hand, the original 1841 version is a lot more fluid and transparent. Once heard, it is difficult to go back to the later version; and it seems to be getting recorded more often these days, which must be a good thing.


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!


----------



## tbazar

Just listened to Paray's Schumann 2 with Detroit on vinyl. Whoa! One of my top ten recordings.
Majestic, sublime, hair-on-fire performance.


----------



## Judith

I love Schumann also and it is a pity that his symphonies seem to be underrated.


----------



## Open Book

Radames said:


> This is true. But I still think Schumann is underplayed in concert. Look at this season's Boston Symphony - not one Schumann Symphony.
> 
> https://www.classical-scene.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2021-22-BSO-Season.pdf
> 
> Early Schubert symphonies are more underplayed also.


I know I'm more likely to hear a Schumann symphony from my local suburban semi-pro orchestra than I am from the Boston Symphony, my local world-class orchestra.


----------



## Malx

Underrated by scholars who can dissect the scores and see 'flaws' in orchestration, maybe - but I'm not so sure by people who listen for pleasure untainted by scholarly knowledge.


----------



## Rogerx

I never understand where underrated come from. As in by whom and who decides that.


----------



## Kreisler jr

I think "underrated" has not been true anymore for a few decades but it was the case until the 1960s/70s. Even conductors who championed the pieces sometimes edited the orchestration (e.g. Szell), others conducted only one or two of them (I think Karajan who recorded all in the studio, only did #4 in concert, Giulini apparently only #3 and preferred Mahler's edition). 
And most guide books I read as a teenager in the 1980s still had the comments about poor orchestration and other "flaws".


----------



## Enthusiast

I adore the Schumann symphonies and am not sure they are so underrated these days. But if they are it may be more to do with Schumann's romanticism. Symphonies are surely the most structured of the orchestral genres but with Schumann the structure is poetic and intuitive when we are mostly used to the more classical and logical structural approach of Beethoven and Brahms (and Bruckner, too). Even Mahler uses a more classical approach to structure. Schumann did produce genuinely great symphonies but they are quite unique quite unlike any other symphonies. 

As far as the orchestral textures are concerned I think we can all come up with numerous recordings where the alleged problem is totally absent. We have to blame many of the conductors of the past who heard in Schumann's symphonies a sort of Wagnerian density. Where it is still present (Thielemann? Bernstein?), that tendency is at least tempered and there do seem to be plenty of people who like some Wagnerian weight in their Schumann.


----------



## Heck148

As both a listener and a performer, I really enjoy the Schumann symphonies....i don't buy this premise that he was a terrible orchestrator. Perhaps not the best, but certainly not terrible....yes, there are some excessive 2blings at unison and octave, but skilled conductors can adjust the balances and allow the colors to vome thru...i don't know if i rank Schumann's symphonies quite on the level of those of Beethoven or Brahms, but that still leaves plenty of room for an excellent rating....


----------



## mbhaub

A lot of comments on this thread are in regards to the orchestration; don't let yourselves get mislead by recordings! A lot of the orchestration issues can be resolved neatly on recordings but are a problem in the concert hall. Even a great chamber orchestra with careful balances can be done in by a bad hall. More than one good performance in a good hall has been ruined by recording engineers. If only we could have binaural recordings of them!


----------



## Livly_Station

Agree that these symphonies deserve love -- and they elevate Schumann to a higher esteem since we also have all his amazing chamber/solo music.


----------



## dko22

I read recently that Schumann's doublings were often just to make sure that at least someone would be there to play the main line in the days of small orchestras and erratic attendance of the musicians! 

Anyway, the period between the death of Schubert and the the beginnings of the Dvorak and Bruckner cycles was a bit of a desert in terms of great symphonies -- the early romantics by and large preferred the piano or just thought it was pointless after Beethoven. The Schumann symphonies are not in the least neglected in concert programmes I see or attend --one might even say they are over-performed in relation to their quality. Now I like all of these works - like one or two others would say the slow movement of no. 2 is the finest in the cycle, or perhaps the opening movement of the Rhenish. There really isn't significant competition -- except there is! Why the arguably more original and equally tuneful 4 symphonies of Berwald are almost never performed outside Sweden is a total mystery. Perhaps it's because Sweden's greatest 19th century composer was actually primarily a glass-blower and orthopaedic surgeon.


----------



## pianozach

Just an offhand observation: People tend to pigeonhole composers into certain niches, and Schumann went right into the "Piano Music" cubbyhole.


----------

