# Schumann's symphonies



## tgtr0660

I've always had a special affinity for Schumann's symphonic cycle, one that is popular but never mentioned among the greatest of the genre. I think it deserves much better. The superb melodic invention of the cohesiveness of the forms are for me quite evident. It's probably one of my favorite complete cycles, and I have a few versions of it. I have the Bernstein (DG), Dohnanyi (Decca), Solti (Decca), plus 3 and 4 by Harnoncourt and Kubelik, and 4 by Furtwangler. I just acquired the Sawallisch (EMI). Am I missing any great ones? Anybody else here who loves this music as much as I do?


----------



## Olias

I've performed the 1st and enjoy listening to the 3rd. Bernstein's cycle is my favorite by far.


----------



## JustinR

I completely agree, these great works have been much maligned in the past - not so much a case of poor orchestration as poor performance in many instances. I wouldn't be without the Sawallisch or Zinman sets (two very different interpreters) and have recently been listening to Neville Marriner's set, which is wonderfully light and quirky!


----------



## NightHawk

The only complete cycles I own are the Bernstein and the fairly recent John Eliot Gardener. I like both very much, however, the recording of a particular Schumann Symphony that I like best, is:

The 4th (revised version) with von Karajan and Vienna.









It totally eclipses the other recordings I have of the 4th.


----------



## joen_cph

I like Sawallisch, Furtwängler - and Paray. Also have some Haitink, Kubelik, Gardelli and Abendroth, all less important.

Celibidache has a lot reputation in this field too, especially as regards the 2nd Symphony.


----------



## bigshot

I've never been able to connect with these. I'll be making note of these suggestionsand trying again with better performances.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The Donanyi was one of the finest recent outings... perhaps because the Cleveland Orchestra had an special affinity with these dating back to the classic George Szell recordings:










I can't think of any recording of Schumann's symphonies that made it clear just how great Schumann's symphonies are as this one did. An absolutely essential set for any Schumann lover.

The other alternative is the HIP recording by Gardiner:










This was probably my favorite Schumann cycle... prior to getting my hands on the Szell set. The set includes the incomplete 'Zwickau' symphony as well as the rarely performed original scoring of the 4th.


----------



## Moira

I love these. I don't own a full set, so I am taking notes.


----------



## Itullian

these and the Brahms along with Schubert's Great are my favorites.

like Karajan, Bernstein, Klemperer, Dohnanyi, Eschenbach


----------



## Bachonacid

I have the Sinopoli/Staatskapelle Dresden cycle, on Deutsche Grammophon, and it's perfect in every way imagineäble (when I bought it I compared it to a few other cycles at the store and the difference was stunning). 


Has anyone else noticed how similar the first movements of Schumann 3 and 4 are to the first movements of Beethoven 3 and 4 (the thirds both majestic and expansive in heavy 3/4 time (also, both in Eb major, a funny detail), the fourths start both characteristically with a slow and mysterious intro)?


----------



## Discobole

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The Donanyi was one of the finest recent outings... perhaps because the Cleveland Orchestra had an special affinity with these dating back to the classic George Szell recordings:


Right. But the Dohnanyi/Cleveland set is really better than the Szell. I prefer Szell in his first (mono) versions, the stereo recordings are technically perfect (I've not heard any versions as this one actually) but frankly completely dull.
Among complete sets (which are usually not good at all, and except for collectors I'd advise to avoid Karajan, Bernstein in both versions, Kubelik with Berlin or with the Bayerischen Rundfunks, or the horrible Zinman) I cherish Sawallisch but this is really not original at all.

But Schumann's symphonies are best recorded isolated. For instance Karajan's live 4th with Staatskapelle Dresden (1972) is one of his best accomplishments on CD. Munch 1st with Boston, Cantelli's 4th, Toscanini's 3rd, are great examples too.


----------



## Guest

I have had the Szell cycle for some time, but they really haven't had a huge impact on me. That is not unique to Schumann's orchestral works - I also find myself not much affected by his other works. Recently I also picked up the Gardiner cycle, and admit that it is making a slightly better impression on me, but it still isn't a symphonic cycle that I reach for frequently.


----------



## peeyaj

I never did warmed up to the symphonies of Schumann.. T_T What's wrong with me?


----------



## superhorn

Olias, which Bernstein Schumann set do you mean, the earlier Sony/Columbia one with the New York Phil. or the later DG with the Vienna Philharmonic ? The DG set has far more suave and refined playing by the VPO and better sound .
I also recommend the very fine DG set , available on a low price two CDs for one set with Kubelik and the Berlin Philharmonic .
The recent Chailly/Gewandhaus / Decca set is also excellent and features the versions re-orchestrated by Mahler, which are quite interesting .


----------



## starthrower

bigshot said:


> I've never been able to connect with these. I'll be making note of these suggestionsand trying again with better performances.


I didn't connect with 1 & 4 on the first listening. No.4 is actually an earlier work as the symphonies are not chronologically numbered. But 2 & 3 I found enjoyable from the get go. They are melodious and triumphant.


----------



## msr13

Of the modern recordings, I really like the Simon Rattle/ Berlin set. Especially his interpretation of the 4th. Great stuff.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

I also have mixed feelings about Schumann's Symphonies. Like the "Spring" (No.1) very much; "Rhenish" (No.3) also enjoyable, but haven't been able to draw too close to Nos. 2 and 4. Of the sets I have owned or heard, I'm partial to that of the young Bernstein/New York Philharmonic. Sawallisch/Dresden is nice. My fondness for the Szell/Cleveland has diminished. Not nuts about Kubelik/Bavarian Radio and Karajan/Berlin either. Two highly praised versions---Gardiner and Von Dohnanyi---I have not heard.


----------



## hpowders

The only Schumann symphony I consider to be a great masterpiece is the second in C Major and the best performance I've heard is by von Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic.


----------



## Pugg

starthrower said:


> I didn't connect with 1 & 4 on the first listening. No.4 is actually an earlier work as the symphonies are not chronologically numbered. But 2 & 3 I found enjoyable from the get go. They are melodious and triumphant.


Especially conducted by Riccardo Muti.


----------



## Tchaikov6

My favorite remains the Spring Symphony, although I've recently been enjoying the fourth as well. The second and third are okay.


----------



## Vronsky

My favourite is the 4th symphony followed by the 1st, 3rd and 2nd. 

I prefer Bernstein/VPO recording, but Solti/VPO is also good. The new Rattle/BPO recording didn't really clicked for me.


----------



## Judith

I was recommended the second symphony so I bought the whole cycle by 
Academy of St Martin in the Fields 
Neville Marriner

Listened to second so far but very challenging though enjoyable, and yet to listen to the other ones.


----------



## Border Collie

Love them. Current favourite is the Gardiner cycle. Previously Sawallisch.


----------



## Vaneyes

msr13 said:


> Of the modern recordings, I really like the Simon Rattle/ Berlin set. Especially his interpretation of the 4th. Great stuff.


I was pleasantly surprised by Rattle's first recorded Schumann. I think it can be sets-considered, along with VPO/LB (DG), VPO/Muti(Philips), Staats. Berlin/Barenboim (Warner), Staats. Dresden/Sawallisch (EMI).:tiphat:


----------



## Vaneyes

hpowders said:


> The only Schumann symphony I consider to be a great masterpiece is the second in C Major and the best performance I've heard is by von Karajan conducting the Berlin Philharmonic.


This rec's illuminating ('71 Schumann, '63 Brahms).


----------



## Judith

Just looking at some old posts on this thread as I'm 
listening to fourth for first time and I agree it does have the style of Brahms. Maybe because they were good friends!


----------



## starthrower

The 4th was written when Brahms was a child. It dates from 1841.


----------



## Judith

starthrower said:


> The 4th was written when Brahms was a child. It dates from 1841.


Thank you for that. Maybe other way round.. l Brahms copying Schumann perhaps? I will read up on it more!


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Judith said:


> I was recommended the second symphony so I bought the whole cycle by
> Academy of St Martin in the Fields
> Neville Marriner
> 
> Listened to second so far but very challenging though enjoyable, and yet to listen to the other ones.


Judith...I'm curious as to whether you saw my recommendation to you regarding The Essential Dictionary of Music. I posted it a week ago in response to what you had been looking for. Check last post under Music Books---A Quick Reference.


----------



## Judith

Haydn67 said:


> Judith...I'm curious as to whether you saw my recommendation to you regarding The Essential Dictionary of Music. I posted it a week ago in response to what you had been looking for. Check last post under Music Books---A Quick Reference.


Will do. Thank you!


----------



## lluissineu

I've just checked my collection. I must admit I really like Scumann's symphonies, even the 1st and 4th.

I've got these recordings:

First symph. : VPO/Bernstein, RCO/ Haitink and CSO /Barenboim (in vinyl record).

2 : VPO/Bernstein, LPO/Masur, Munich PO/Celibidache and CSO/Barenboim (vinyl).

Renish: VPO/Bernstein, LPO /Masur, Munich PO/Celibidache, RCO/Haitink, Munich PO/Celibidache, LAPO/Giulini, and in vinyl: CSO / Barenboim, phil. O/Klemperer and BPO/Kubelik.

4: VPO/Bernstein, RCO/Haitink, BPO/Furtwängler, Munich PO/ Celibidache, and in vinyl BPO/ Kubelik and CSO/Barenboim.

All of them are from bearable to very good.

It seems many participants like Bernstein versions. I can't give my opinion about his first cycle with N York, but his last with wiener P. Is just normal for me, let'slet's say it's not my cup of tea.

Haitink Is very good and with a much slower tempo, which I prefer to savor this music.

Furtwängler 4th is very personal as usual in all his recordings.i love it.

Celibidache Is my favourite one. And Is curious how a supposed lower profile orchestra can have a wonderful sound.

Barenboim was a good cycle too.

I've listened to some other recordings in you tube. Zinman Is interesring. Don't like much Gardiner.

Just a question: I Heard somewhere that new conductors such as Nézét Seguin (with Chamber O.) or Daniel Harding (proms with BBCSO) are somehow experts in Schumann. Do you think so?, Do you like them?

Best wishes to all.


----------



## Heck148

For me:

Sym #1 "Spring" - Barenboim/CSO....really excellent, very excting last mvt esp...

Sym #2 in C - Reiner/CSO, my favorite Schumann Symphony performance, from live concert 10/57...this one just grows in drama and intensity as it progresses...I must add, tho - best mvt II Scherzo goes to Barenboim/CSO - the CSO strings just sizzle on this, really clean, crackling with excitement

Sym #3 "Rhenish" - Bernstein/NYPO really fine all the way thru - the Big NYPO horns sound great...Barenboim/CSO is really excellent, too

Sym #4 in d - Bernstein/NYPO, along with #3, highlight of his set. Levine/PhilaO is excellent also, Barenboim/CSO is fine as well - the wonderful transition going into last mvt is unmatched....


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Tchaikov6 said:


> My favorite remains the Spring Symphony, although I've recently been enjoying the fourth as well. The second and third are okay.


The "Spring" takes the prize for me too.


----------



## jim prideaux

at the risk of being at odds with everyone I can only state that the 2nd is one of my favourite symphonies full stop (I am now starting to think I have already posted this observation)...only problem is trying to avoid buying any more interpretations...........


----------



## Pugg

> I Heard somewhere that new conductors such as Nézét Seguin (with Chamber O.)


Look at those reviews : 
http://www.prestoclassical.co.uk/r/DG/4792437


----------



## lluissineu

thanks Pugg. 
It's probably true that:
“Of all the major symphonies, I’d say that Schumann’s are best performed by a slightly smaller ensemble… With a lean string section – not only in size, but also in its quality of playing – the music just works.”

In youtube one can find a short video devoted to every symphony by Nézet Séguin.

If anyone has listened to these interpretations please write.

Thanks


----------



## PeterF

For a number of years I understood that there were classical music lovers who were not really fans of Schumann's symphonies.
I never shared that view and very much like a 4 of the symphonies.
I have complete sets of the 4 symphonies by:
Sawallisch / Staatskapelle Dresden
Szell / The Cleveland Orchestra
Foster / Czech Philharmonic
Ceccato / Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra

Also have a few individual symphony recordings. No.4 by Klemperer and No.4 by Furtwangler.


----------



## EdwardBast

jim prideaux said:


> at the risk of being at odds with everyone I can only state that the 2nd is one of my favourite symphonies full stop (I am now starting to think I have already posted this observation)...only problem is trying to avoid buying any more interpretations...........


My favorite as well, with the 3rd not so far behind. Not as interested in the early ones, that is 1 and 4.


----------



## padraic

The cycle I have is Levine with the Berlin Philharmonic and it is very good. The 4th is probably my favorite.


----------



## superhorn

Don't forget Kubelik /Berlin Philharmonic , which has been available as an inexpensive two-for-one DG release . Sublime !


----------



## yetti66

Any comments/ opinions on Mahler's revised orch. versions of the 4 Schumann symphonies? I enjoy the Chailly/ Gewandhaus recordings of the Mahler versions, however, I've listened to the Bernstein recordings for years - I'm not saying the edited version is better more that the contrast is interesting.


----------



## Tchaikov6

yetti66 said:


> Any comments/ opinions on Mahler's revised orch. versions of the 4 Schumann symphonies? I enjoy the Chailly/ Gewandhaus recordings of the Mahler versions, however, I've listened to the Bernstein recordings for years - I'm not saying the edited version is better more that the contrast is interesting.


I prefer the fourth with Mahler's re-orchestration, because sometimes it can get a bit muddy with Schumann's original. But I greatly prefer the other three in their original forms.


----------



## Vaneyes

lluissineu said:


> I've just checked my collection. I must admit I really like Scumann's symphonies, even the 1st and 4th.
> 
> I've got these recordings:
> 
> First symph. : VPO/Bernstein, RCO/ Haitink and *CSO /Barenboim* (in vinyl record).
> 
> 2 : VPO/Bernstein, LPO/Masur, Munich PO/Celibidache and *CSO/Barenboim* (vinyl).
> 
> Renish: VPO/Bernstein, LPO /Masur, Munich PO/Celibidache, RCO/Haitink, Munich PO/Celibidache, LAPO/Giulini, and in vinyl:* CSO / Barenboim*, phil. O/Klemperer and BPO/Kubelik.
> 
> 4: VPO/Bernstein, RCO/Haitink, BPO/Furtwängler, Munich PO/ Celibidache, and in vinyl BPO/ Kubelik and *CSO/Barenboim*.
> 
> All of them are from bearable to very good.
> 
> It seems many participants like Bernstein versions. I can't give my opinion about his first cycle with N York, but his last with wiener P. Is just normal for me, let'slet's say it's not my cup of tea.
> 
> Haitink Is very good and with a much slower tempo, which I prefer to savor this music.
> 
> Furtwängler 4th is very personal as usual in all his recordings.i love it.
> 
> Celibidache Is my favourite one. And Is curious how a supposed lower profile orchestra can have a wonderful sound.
> 
> Barenboim was a good cycle too.
> 
> I've listened to some other recordings in you tube. Zinman Is interesring. Don't like much Gardiner.
> 
> Just a question: I Heard somewhere that new conductors such as Nézét Seguin (with Chamber O.) or Daniel Harding (proms with BBCSO) are somehow experts in Schumann. Do you think so?, Do you like them?
> 
> Best wishes to all.


Re *Schumann*, do try Barenboim with Staatskapelle Berlin (Teldec, rec.2003). Fresh,invigorating.:tiphat:










Related:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2004/Mar04/Schumann_Barenboim.htm


----------



## nightscape

The Barenboim set is amazing. It's my go-to for Schumann symphonies should I catch the inspiration.

Way too much is made of Schumann's orchestral skills. He's completely fine. His symphonies, while not among the greatest in the genre, are still wonderful when judged on their own. His 1st is really fun, youthful, and lively. His 2nd (third completed) it his best, in my opinion. The Rhenish is solid, showing some inventiveness in the format. His 4th (originally his second completed) is also worth your time, although probably my least favorite of his.


----------



## AlanB

Love all the Schumann symphonies. The little heard revised version of the 4th is interesting. One can see poor Robert struggling yet again with orchestration etc. Still prefer his orchestrations to the Mahler revised orchestrations. So much for Mahler being the supreme orchestrator.
Has anyone noticed the opening notes of Schumann's 3rd are the same notes in reverse to the beginning of Brahms' 3rd.


----------



## Pugg

AlanB said:


> Love all the Schumann symphonies. The little heard revised version of the 4th is interesting. One can see poor Robert struggling yet again with orchestration etc. Still prefer his orchestrations to the Mahler revised orchestrations. So much for Mahler being the supreme orchestrator.
> Has anyone noticed the opening notes of Schumann's 3rd are the same notes in reverse to the beginning of Brahms' 3rd.


Any special conductor you like with this symphonies ?


----------



## pokeefe0001

I know this is supposed to be a thread about the conductors of Schumann's symphonies, but I rarely can follow directions. I'd like to mention a little almost-symphony by Schumann - his Op 52 Overture, Scherzo and Finale, written in the same year as his 1st symphony. Supposedly Schumann was originally going to call it his 2nd symphony. I'm not sure why it doesn't get included in collections of his symphonies, but it doesn't. It's a bit light weight but is a delightful work (in my opinion). I can't recommend a particular performance.


----------



## Pugg

pokeefe0001 said:


> I know this is supposed to be a thread about the conductors of Schumann's symphonies, but I rarely can follow directions. I'd like to mention a little almost-symphony by Schumann - his Op 52 Overture, Scherzo and Finale, written in the same year as his 1st symphony. Supposedly Schumann was originally going to call it his 2nd symphony. I'm not sure why it doesn't get included in collections of his symphonies, but it doesn't. It's a bit light weight but is a delightful work (in my opinion). I can't recommend a particular performance.


Thank you for the info anyway.


----------



## jim prideaux

pokeefe0001 said:


> I know this is supposed to be a thread about the conductors of Schumann's symphonies, but I rarely can follow directions. I'd like to mention a little almost-symphony by Schumann - his Op 52 Overture, Scherzo and Finale, written in the same year as his 1st symphony. Supposedly Schumann was originally going to call it his 2nd symphony. I'm not sure why it doesn't get included in collections of his symphonies, but it doesn't. It's a bit light weight but is a delightful work (in my opinion). I can't recommend a particular performance.


Sawallisch and the Staatskapelle Dresden/Gardiner and the ORR-two cycles where you will find the work you refer to and in both cases particularly good recordings (I imagine there will be others!)....recently I saw the Royal Northern Sinfonia perform the work and even while talking to the learned gentleman next to me during the interval I got the distinct impression that it is not a particularly well known piece...very unfortunate!


----------



## Robert Gamble

What do people think about this one? I saw it on someone's list of 'Album of the year'. I'm looking for a Schumann... and this one intrigues.


----------



## Vaneyes

Robert Gamble said:


> What do people think about this one? I saw it on someone's list of 'Album of the year'. I'm looking for a Schumann... and this one intrigues.
> 
> View attachment 92226


I only know it from a few reviews, comments on Gaudenz, plus samplings (link below).

The readings are too lean for my taste. Recorded sound is close-miked and acoustic renders it hollow. Not enjoyable Schumann for my ears or spirit.:tiphat:

https://www.chandos.net/products/catalogue/CX 7925


----------



## Merl

I really like Harnoncourt (favourite), Gardiner, Sawallisch and Karajan. Surprised nobody has mentioned Herreweghe's lovely period set. Beautiful performances and not lightweight in any way.


----------



## jim prideaux

Merl said:


> I really like Harnoncourt (favourite), Gardiner, Sawallisch and Karajan. Surprised nobody has mentioned Herreweghe's lovely period set. Beautiful performances and not lightweight in any way.


can only agree about Herreweghe...had forgotten how enjoyable the cycle is but am now listening to Szell in Cleveland performing 1st and 2nd.Another set worthy of note is Oramo with the Royal Stockholm.


----------



## Vaneyes

.................................


----------



## MarkW

I've always liked the Third especially. Learned it on a '60s recording borrowed from my local public library -- but never remembered the artists. Really liked the scherzo, which was taken at the measured pace which I always associated in my mind with the smoothly flowing Rhine. So when I bought my first recording, it happenedf to be Bernstein/NYPO, and was totally freaked out by a scherzo that sounded more like an 8-man scull heading towards the finish line. I haven't heard a real lot of other interpretations, but fast scherzi tend to be the norm -- and that turns me off. Can anyone recommend a good performance with a more flowing scherzo that doesn't sound like a sewing machine?


----------



## Heck148

MarkW said:


> I've always liked the Third especially. Learned it on a '60s recording borrowed from my local public library -- but never remembered the artists. Really liked the scherzo, which was taken at the measured pace which I always associated in my mind with the smoothly flowing Rhine.


Sym #3/II is a Landler - a folk dance from Austria, SO Germany - in 3/4 time [3 bts/bar]...it is not supposed to be as fast as a scherzo - 3/4 -1 beat/per bar...I know Schumann labels it a scherzo, but it's really a "Landler"
I don't recall Bernstein/NYPO being excessively fast in this mvt.


----------



## MarkW

Heck148 said:


> Sym #3/II is a Landler - a folk dance from Austria, SO Germany - in 3/4 time [3 bts/bar]...it is not supposed to be as fast as a scherzo - 3/4 -1 beat/per bar...I know Schumann labels it a scherzo, but it's really a "Landler"
> I don't recall Bernstein/NYPO being excessively fast in this mvt.


Doessn't surprise at all that it's a Laendler, but I just like the tempo more "gemaechlichen" as in the Mahler Ninth.


----------



## EarthBoundRules

I'm surprised that his _2nd_ isn't in the TC Top 150 Recommended Symphonies list - I really enjoy it!


----------



## hpowders

^^^Schumann's Second Symphony? Yes. it's my favorite of the four. Love the Karajan/Berlin performance, which has the best timpani ending I've ever heard.


----------



## Pugg

Buy the Muti set and you will be fine, wonderful recorded and bargain price.


----------



## Ralphus

My favourite is the 3rd.

Sets I own: Gardiner; Harnoncourt; Konwitschny; Sinopoli; Solti; Zinman.

I actually think they are all very good! (I was contrasting this feeling with that in regard to the available Schubert sets: a very different situation in my opinion). I grew up with the Solti, so have a nostalgic attachment. If I had to pick one, it would be between Konwitschny and Sinopoli.


----------



## AlanB

Pugg said:


> Any special conductor you like with this symphonies ?


Sinopoli and Sawallisch. 
I would urge all Schumann lovers to try Venzago.....A different Schumann. A love or hate experience.


----------



## chalkpie

Never knew Mahler re-orchestrated these! 

What are the biggest changes he made? More "colorful"? Any textural differences? Is it leaner overall?


----------



## CDs

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The Donanyi was one of the finest recent outings... perhaps because the Cleveland Orchestra had an special affinity with these dating back to the classic George Szell recordings:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't think of any recording of Schumann's symphonies that made it clear just how great Schumann's symphonies are as this one did. An absolutely essential set for any Schumann lover.
> 
> The other alternative is the HIP recording by Gardiner:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was probably my favorite Schumann cycle... prior to getting my hands on the Szell set. The set includes the incomplete 'Zwickau' symphony as well as the rarely performed original scoring of the 4th.


Got to agree with the Szell cycle. Listening to it today. Very good 4th!


----------



## Pugg

​This set rises high in ( my humble) ratings


----------



## Tchaikov6

chalkpie said:


> Never knew Mahler re-orchestrated these!
> 
> What are the biggest changes he made? More "colorful"? Any textural differences? Is it leaner overall?


I can't stand Mahler's re-orchestrations of the first three- the fourth I can tolerate, I don't know why- but I prefer it in it's original form anyways. Schumann's rough orchestration overall contribute more to the musicality and emotion of the symphonies in my opinion.


----------



## Merl

Pugg said:


> ​This set rises high in ( my humble) ratings


Just heard this. Excellent (as is his brilliant Mahler 1st)


----------



## CDs

^ Looks like he has a Mendelssohn Symphony set coming out soon.

https://www.amazon.com/Mendelssohn-...=8-2-fkmr1&keywords=nezet-seguin+mendellssohn


----------



## pierrot

They were probably mentioned already, but this Sawallisch set is an absolute must, imo. I was never a big fan of those works before hearing this recording, but they changed everything.


----------



## Guest

Listening this morning to a half recorded Prom from July (Bernard Haitink, Chamber Orchestra of Europe) I thought at first I was listening to Mozart until the slow movement, when I realised that he was either much more interesting than I'd previously found him...or it wasn't Mozart. Then the pedestrian final movement confirmed it - this was not Mozart, so I was not surprised to hear the announcer confirm it was Schumann's 2nd Symphony. Worth revisiting the adagio, but not so keen on the rest.

BTW, the orchestra played the scherzo from Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, a piece I'd only ever heard the first few bars of (as a musical cue to a production of the play I was in) so had never heard the marvellous flute solo towards the end. Fantastic!


----------



## Joe B

MacLeod said:


> Listening this morning to a half recorded Prom from July (Bernard Haitink, Chamber Orchestra of Europe) I thought at first I was listening to Mozart until the slow movement, when I realised that he was either much more interesting than I'd previously found him...or it wasn't Mozart. Then the pedestrian final movement confirmed it - this was not Mozart, so I was not surprised to hear the announcer confirm it was Schumann's 2nd Symphony. Worth revisiting the adagio, but not so keen on the rest.
> 
> BTW, the orchestra played the scherzo from Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, a piece I'd only ever heard the first few bars of (as a musical cue to a production of the play I was in) so had never heard the marvellous flute solo towards the end. Fantastic!


I thoroughly enjoy Haitink's Schumann with the Concertgebouw Orchestra of Amsterdam on Philips (1990). Great performances. The recording is excellent. I particularly enjoy the soundstage on these recordings. The image places you about 10-15 feet behind Haitink.


----------



## Granate

I bought the 4 Symphonies by Sawallisch in Berlin, long before joining TC. I prererred them to Karajan, but I never had further curiosity for recordings. I had the CDs but I even saw the LP box set in Amsterdam. I let it go.


----------



## Mal

I have the 4 Symphonies by Sawallisch/Dresden, I like them but find them a bit staid, perhaps. I just bought Janowski's 2 & 4 with the RLPO for 25p in a charity shop, not expecting much. So a nice surprise when I found them to be very good. They are lively versions, maybe preferable to Sawallisch (though haven't listened to Sawallisch in a while, so I need to do some serious comparing...) I then just had to buy Janowski's 1 & 3... not 25p... but still a bargain on ebay... The Penguin 1999 guide give 1 & 3 a rave review, suggesting the pacing is most convincing, with an "inspirational pull" like Karajan's. That's what I heard in 2 , and somewhat in 4. Also, an esteemed amazon reviewer seems to like the set.


----------



## CDs

Just got done with listening to Herreweghe's recordings of the 2nd & 4th. Now listening again to the 4th by Michael Tilson Thomas.


----------



## Kiki

Karajan's Vienna 1987 Live Schumann 4th (DG) was the one that got me interested in Schumann's orchestral works. There is a kind of special sonorous quality about it. The beginning of the 1st movement repeat is quite magical. However I do not hear the same sonority in his other recordings. (Perhaps it was due to the wind instruments used by the Wiener Philharmoniker?)

I find Berlin 1957 (EMI) the most expressive. 

Berlin 1971 (DG) is precise and brilliant but the recorded sound is terribly squeaky. 

Dresden 1972 Live (DG) is at times leaner and meaner. Recorded sound is dated, but still listenable. 

The only problem I have is that Karajan always took a view in the finale that is grander (and slower!) than most other conductors, which I do not find much affinity with.

These days I prefer listening to the less recorded 1841 version of the 4th. It sounds more volatile, more free-flowing, and shorter! Rattle/Berlin, Gardiner/ORR, Harnoncourt/COE (not the one with Berlin which played the 1851 version) are all good in their own rights (but with their own idiosyncrasies as well!).


----------



## Merl

Lol, amazing what difference a year makes to your opinions. Back then i still rated Karajan's cycle highly, had Harnoncort as my favourite and liked Gardiner a lot. Now i rarely play any of them as there are much better cycles that i prefer (although none of those i mentioned are shoddy by any means). The only constant has been Sawallisch, which i still rate as one of my faves. Otherwise, Tilson Thomas/SFSO, Ticciati/SCO, Bernstein / VPO and Zinman / Tonhalle are rarely off my Schumann cycle list these days. God knows how many sets of Schumann symphonies i have (but it's a lot). So many great sets to explore. As for a favourite symphony id say the 2nd is a personal fave. Sawallisch nails the 2nd as does Szell in his excellent high-octane Cleveland cycle (i missed that one out by mistake). Schumann's symphonies are always a source of great enjoyment to me.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

The Swallisch/Dresden set was the set which hooked me into Schumann’s Symphonies and have remained unchallenged as my favourite set. It has a certain swing, a groove and an energy which for my tastes sets it apart.

Sir Adrian Boult’s set with the London Philharmonic Orchestra was a genuine surprise. I rate his Brahms highly and the Schumann is of a similarly high standard. It’s a different approach to Sawallisch but one which works very well indeed.

There are some sets I haven’t listened to in a while but I did enjoy Gardiner and Szell as well as loose recordings by Abbado, Furtwängler and Celibidache. There are countless others I’m sure but they don’t leap to mind (plus Harnoncourt which I need to relisten too).

I also need to relisten to Zinman recordings.


----------



## Enthusiast

I love Schumann's symphonies. But I am not sure how symphonic they are. It doesn't make them any less but in some ways they seem to work more as "symphonic suites" than most truly great symphonies. Does anyone else feel that way and can anyone with more technical musical knowledge suggest why I feel this?


----------



## Merl

Oops, i commented on this not long ago. Perhaps i need to do a Schumann Symphony cycles set of reviews.


----------



## DavidA

Karajan or Kubelik are in my collection.


----------



## Larkenfield

Schumann symphonies that sound entirely idiomatic to me:


----------



## Merl

Larkenfield said:


> Schumann symphonies that sound entirely idiomatic to me:


Schumann symphony cycles have come and gone. I've had flavours of the month over the years but this is the set I always return to. Why? Because its superb. Everything about this cycle is class, from the expertly judged tempi, the excitement generated, sprightly playing and all capped by the fantastic Dresden forces. As I said, Schumann cycles come and go but this will ways be a classic. Magnificent.


----------



## brucknerian1874

I like my Schumann Symphonies almost as much as I love my Brahms and Bruckner. This thread inspired me to take stock, although it was more like a stock-take!

Complete sets. I have Barenboim (Berlin), Bernstein (Vienna), Dausgaard, Eschenbach (Hamburg), Gardiner (ORR), Goodman, Harnoncourt, Herreweghe(OdCE), Karajan, Kubelik (DG and Sony), Muti (Philharmonia), Oramo, Rattle, Sawallisch (Dresden & Philadelphia), Sinopoli, Solti, Szell, Thielemann (Dresden), Zinman

Complete sets I have heard on streaming services - Bosch, Boult, Luisi, Marriner (ASMF & Stuttgart), Nezet-Seguin, Ticciati.

I have or have heard numerous one-offs of each symphony.

My personal recommendations would be:

4th - Karajan (VPO), Harnoncourt (COE)
3rd - Giulini (LAPO), Boult (LPO)
1st - Sawallisch (Dresden), Bernstein (DG)


And now for the 2nd, my personal favourite and the one Schumann symphony I have more versions of than any other.

Hard to narrow this one down to a couple of choices...

I find that this symphony in particular can support quite a wide range of interpretational choices that can work. Particular favourites (the ones to which I return most often) are:

-Szell, not from the Sony Box but rather the concert performance with the BPO on Testament
-Herreweghe, not the newer Antwerp version but the one with the OdCE
-Thielemann, not the newer Dresden version but the earlier Philharmonia one

However, if I had to pick just one, my reference version would have to be Karajan (BPO) but not the version in the Box; the Galleria release coupled with Brahms 2 has marginally better sound (at least to my ears).


----------



## CnC Bartok

The Second is my personal favourite too. It's great having impeccable taste, isn't it?!


----------



## Kiki

brucknerian1874 said:


> ...
> 4th - Karajan (VPO), Harnoncourt (COE)
> ...


Glad to see these two mentioned for No. 4.

Among big-band non-HIP recordings, Karajan/VPO is quite special. The sound is not only impeccable, but also magical, a quality not found in his other recordings with BPO and SKD. My only complaint is the tempo of the Finale, where Karajan's view was for me too grand and too slow, but that doesn't stop it from becoming one of my favourites.

Personally I prefer HIP and the more fluid 1841 version of No. 4. Harnoncourt/COE is excellent, so is Gardiner/OReR & LSO, Roth/GOK, Holliger/WDR Köln, and Rattle/BPO; but if I have to pick one, it would probably be Harnoncourt.


----------



## mparta

CnC Bartok said:


> The Second is my personal favourite too. It's great having impeccable taste, isn't it?!


The second isn't just my favorite of the Schumann, it's close to my favorite symphony. I find the various colors of the movements, the wild Scherzo, the song of the slow movement and the structure and drive of the finale so compelling.

I'm a little surprised that this doesn't get more mention:









I find this much superior to his Dresden cycle and very similar to the great Bernstein NYPO performance.

Sorry, I have an allergy to Sawallisch, I find his work almost uniformly soporific. I heard him play the 2nd with the Philadelphia orchestra at Carnegie hall, just awful, although not entirely fair as that was the end of his career. I'm surprised that I've never had much taste for Szell in these works, don't think I know why, might need to rethink.


----------



## Merl

mparta said:


> I'm surprised that I've never had much taste for Szell in these works, don't think I know why, might need to rethink.


Szell's Schumann is a fairly driven cycle and not everyone likes that approach in a Schumann set. I, personally, have no issue with it but do prefer others for a full cycle. I recently relistened to Dohnanyi's terrific cycle for the first time in ages and it really is superb. See also his Brahms cycle


----------



## Heck148

mparta said:


> The second isn't just my favorite of the Schumann, it's close to my favorite symphony. I find the various colors of the movements, the wild Scherzo, the song of the slow movement and the structure and drive of the finale so compelling.


yes, my favorite is Reiner/CSO - live from '57...one of those performances that just builds steadily, thru each movement. top level, all the way...that said - Barenboim's CSO cycle is outstanding, Symphony 2/II is best I've ever heard....really zippy tempo, CSO strings are right on it...



> Sorry, I have an allergy to Sawallisch, I find his work almost uniformly soporific. I heard him play the 2nd with the Philadelphia orchestra at Carnegie hall, just awful, although not entirely fair as that was the end of his career.


same here - Sawallisch seems the perfect remedy for insomnia....recently heard his Schubert #9 the "Soporific" - gawd, brutal, so slow, sluggish, logy....VPO was doing their best, but sometimes it's hopeless. it went on forever.....years ago, heard a Brahms 2, live ViennaSO...same thing - really laid back and sleepy.


----------



## Simon23

Best cycles for me - Sawallisch and Klemperer. Also 1 and 4 - Furtwangler.

Can someone explain how Szell's revision differents from the rest of the records?


----------



## starthrower

I have the Szell, Sawallisch, and Klemperer cycles which is more than enough. Although I like the sound of Tilson Thomas, and Herreweghe's period instruments recordings.


----------



## Merl

Simon23 said:


> Best cycles for me - Sawallisch and Klemperer. Also 1 and 4 - Furtwangler.
> 
> Can someone explain how Szell's revision differents from the rest of the records?


It's not that Szell was unremarkable in his approach to Schumann (his changes are pretty similar to Weingartner before him) but he was one of the first to strip things right back. With Szell there are some major re-orchestrations of whole passages and a wider change in the dynamics of the symphonies. Szell considered Schumann's problem to be an inability to establish balances (he called it "inexperience" ). He remedied this by thinning out textures, eliminating doublings, adding or even changing notes, totally rewriting the timpani parts and generally altering dynamics. He wanted "to make the symphonies sound as if Schumann had as much knowledge of orchestration as Weber, but not as much as Richard Strauss". Szell's tinkering make things leaner, brighter, crisper and emphasized the work's classical nature, however, some would argue that by adding more bounce the results lack weight and sound driven. Personally, I like his approach but agree it does sound driven and it's not for everyone. Some agree with Szell but some prefer a heavier aporoach. It's up to the listener.


----------



## vincula

The only Schumann complete cycle I own is Franz Konwitschny/ Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra for the Eterna/Berlin Classics label. I'm curious about the new Simon Rattle/BPO one issued by BPO's own label. Otherwise more of a casual listener than an incarnated fan, I must admit.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Merl

vincula said:


> I'm curious about the new Simon Rattle/BPO one issued by BPO's own label. Otherwise more of a casual listener than an incarnated fan, I must admit.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Vincula


I have the Rattle Schumann cycle digitally and it is a decent set (a certain Rattle-hating critic's review was harsher). However, as wonderfully packaged as it is there are far, far better Schumann cycles around (Zinman, Bernstein, Levine, Dohnanyi, Solti, Ticciati, Sawallisch, Stan the Man, etc). It's really well played and recorded but it just misses the bounce the sets I mentioned contain. It's also VERY expensive, even secondhand in physical cd form. You can pick up better cycles for less than a fiver if you shop around. The last Schumann cycle I added to my collection was the Inbal set and I paid less than £3 for it and it's in mint condition. My biggest complaint with the Rattle set is he doesn't imbue the music with enough character and athleticism. It comes across as very heavy and textures are thick. For all Rattle's insistence on getting away from the Karajan BPO 'sound' he actually replicates it in parts in this set. As I said it's fairly decent but with so many quality cycles out there it's uncompetitive for me.


----------



## vincula

Merl said:


> I have the Rattle Schumann cycle digitally and it is a decent set (a certain Rattle-hating critic's review was harsher). However, as wonderfully packaged as it is there are far, far better Schumann cycles around (Zinman, Bernstein, Levine, Dohnanyi, Solti, Ticciati, Sawallisch, Stan the Man, etc). It's really well played and recorded but it just misses the bounce the sets I mentioned contain. It's also VERY expensive, even secondhand in physical cd form. You can pick up better cycles for less than a fiver if you shop around. The last Schumann cycle I added to my collection was the Inbal set and I paid less than £3 for it and it's in mint condition. My biggest complaint with the Rattle set is he doesn't imbue the music with enough character and athleticism. It comes across as very heavy and textures are thick. For all Rattle's insistence on getting away from the Karajan BPO 'sound' he actually replicates it in parts in this set. As I said it's fairly decent but with so many quality cycles out there it's uncompetitive for me.


Thanks a lot for the little review, Merl. I'll pass on it then. No need to invest so much. I've got Harnoncourt's Schubert cycle on the BPO Recordings, the big Cd/Blue-Ray edition. Beautiful package. It was a Christmas gift and I'm glad I got it. I seriously doubt I'd have paid so much for it myself.

I'll have a look at the other one's.

Regards,

Vincula


----------



## Kiki

I have the Rattle box. It has got that beautiful, cultivated Rattle sound. Quite addictive. But that's all. The rest is not bad, just not something that stands out.

The Harnoncourt/Berlin set is not bad either. I'm probably less enthusiastic about it than most others. For me the problem is it's unHarnoncourtly creamy. I miss that Harnoncourt attack. Personally I prefer the Harnoncourt/COE 1988 live recordings, which IMO are earthier and attack harder.


----------



## Rmathuln

I only see one post that mentions Tilson Thoms with the SFSO, and that post offered no opinion or comments.

Is it even competitive?


----------



## Merl

Rmathuln said:


> I only see one post that mentions Tilson Thoms with the SFSO, and that post offered no opinion or comments.
> 
> Is it even competitive?


I do like that Tilson Thomas set but don't think, anymore, that it is particularly competitive (I liked it way more when it came out but its not held up well, IMO). Reviews were very mixed too. A certain notorious reviewer (*cough) slammed the cycle as "anodyne" and "bland" whilst eulogizing over Szell's rewritten and contentious cycle whilst others were more positive. Its not a bad cycle by any means but if you want the leaner textures that TT aims for I suggest Ticciati is the one to get as its played with more forward momentum and bouyancy . Here's some reviews of the TT set.

https://www.classicalsource.com/cd/san-francisco-symphony-michael-tilson-thomas-conducts-robert-schumanns-symphonies-sfs-media/
http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2017/Dec/Schumann_sys_SFS0071.htm
https://artsfuse.org/167657/classical-cd-reviews-michael-tilson-thomas-conducts-schumann-and-the-gershwin-moment/
https://www.classicstoday.com/review/anodyne-schumann-symphonies-from-san-francisco/


----------



## chu42

Enthusiast said:


> I love Schumann's symphonies. But I am not sure how symphonic they are. It doesn't make them any less but in some ways they seem to work more as "symphonic suites" than most truly great symphonies. Does anyone else feel that way and can anyone with more technical musical knowledge suggest why I feel this?


People have said the same about Schumann's sonatas. He never really cared for rigid forms. His best writing is found in the works that have no defined form at all-fantasies, suites, song cycles.


----------



## hammeredklavier

I like them more than Sibelius and Bruckner's, despite other people's complaints about the orchestration and stuff. The fourth seems simple and direct in conveying emotion.


----------



## HenryPenfold

hammeredklavier said:


> I like them more than Sibelius and Bruckner's, despite other people complain about the orchestration and stuff. The fourth seems simple and direct in conveying emotion.


I read somewhere recently that Schumann, knowing he was writing for poor orchestras at the time, doubled the parts because he realised that some players might not play the part, or play it poorly, and others would play it satisfactorily. Nowadays, the whole section will play the written part skilfully, and this gives rise to the criticism that Schumann's orchestration is too 'thick, dense, heavy' etc.


----------



## chu42

HenryPenfold said:


> I read somewhere recently that Schumann, knowing he was writing for poor orchestras at the time, doubled the parts because he realised that some players might not play the part, or play it poorly, and others would play it satisfactorily. Nowadays, the whole section will play the written part skilfully, and this gives rise to the criticism that Schumann's orchestration is too 'thick, dense, heavy' etc.


Not only were the orchestras lower quality, but Schumann himself was not much of a strong conductor, so it would've helped him in the event that he missed a cue or something similar. He essentially wrote in a foolproofing mechanism.

The problem can be helped by shrinking the orchestra size. There is also the early version of the 4th Symphony which is lighter and more transparent than the revised version.


----------



## HenryPenfold

chu42 said:


> Not only were the orchestras lower quality, but Schumann himself was not much of a strong conductor, so it would've helped him in the event that he missed a cue or something similar. He essentially wrote in a foolproofing mechanism.
> 
> The problem can be helped by shrinking the orchestra size. There is also the early version of the 4th Symphony which is lighter and more transparent than the revised version.


Yes. This sort of thing helps explain the sometimes stodgy passages.


----------



## Helgi

starthrower said:


> I have the Szell, Sawallisch, and Klemperer cycles which is more than enough. Although I like the sound of Tilson Thomas, and Herreweghe's period instruments recordings.


I have 2 & 4 from Herreweghe and really like them. His attention to detail and how he balances the instruments makes them sound really fresh, like I'm hearing something new.


----------



## Varick

I've always enjoyed the Schumann Symphonies, but I remember when a colleague of mine was over for a few drinks, and he was stating how Schumann symphonies were "messy." I wasn't sure what he meant. He then had me play a Schumann symphony and immediately after, play any Beethoven symphony. As soon as LvB started playing, I immediately understood what he meant by "messy."

It has never left me when I listen to Schumann symphonies. Fortunately, it has not reduced my enjoyment of them either.

V


----------



## Heck148

Over the years, I've come to enjoy Schumann's symphonies more and more....they are fun to play, generally, and I've come to appreciate his orchestration more and more...he wrote some beautiful passages for woodwinds in the slow movements - nice stuff for clarinet/bassoon, flute/bassoon, oboe/bassoon [slow mvt of #2] really quite lovely...he also wrote some very fine parts for low brass - ie - the transition to the finale of #4, or the "cathedral" mvt of "Rhenish" [mvt IV] - a beautiful chorale style setting, where the 1st trombone soars off to a high Eb after sitting idle for some 20+ minutes....
I find that often when I get an "earworm", a tune stuck in my head, it is often a melody from a Schumann slow movement...it's nice, pretty easy to live with!!


----------



## Livly_Station

The 1st movement of the "Rhenish" is pure bliss!

Recently I've decided to get more familiar with all his four symphonies, and I'm going through three cycles: Bernstein/VPO, Sawallisch/Dresden and Dohnányi/Cleveland. I'm enjoying the latter much more than the others.

And I find Schumann to be a pretty good symphonist.


----------



## Livly_Station

Just discovered *Riccardo Muti*'s cycle with the *Wiener Philarmoniker*. It's ~~THE BEST~~ according to me. The symphonies come alive full of color and excitement despite no sacrifice of clarity, detail, balance and sound quality. Honestly, just perfect!

I hear people saying all the time that Schumann was bad at orchestration (and I believe them), but I never had any issue with it because I'm only familiar with good performances which arguebly solved any inherent problems in the score... That said, Muti's sound was on another level completely. _Does anyone here know if Muti tinkered the orchestration, and how he did it? Or is it just pure Schumann genius that other conductors fail to achieve?_

The "Rhenish" was already a much beloved symphony to me, but this recording made it rise to the heavens. 





I had never heard the fourth movement sound so poignant before.


----------



## CnC Bartok

lucashomem said:


> Just discovered *Riccardo Muti*'s cycle with the *Wiener Philarmoniker*. It's ~~THE BEST~~ according to me. The symphonies come alive full of color and excitement despite no sacrifice of clarity, detail, balance and sound quality. Honestly, just perfect!
> 
> I hear people saying all the time that Schumann was bad at orchestration (and I believe them), but I never had any issue with it because I'm only familiar with good performances which arguebly solved any inherent problems in the score... That said, Muti's sound was on another level completely. _Does anyone here know if Muti tinkered the orchestration, and how he did it? Or is it just pure Schumann genius that other conductors fail to achieve?_
> 
> The "Rhenish" was already a much beloved symphony to me, but this recording made it rise to the heavens.


Not sure about Muti's Vienna set, but I have always enjoyed his cycle with the Philharmonia Orchestra(s) on EMI. They were the first Schumanns I got to know, and include two lesser overtures which I like. I cannot comment on any tinkering, though.....


----------



## Merl

I don't know if Muti did tinker with the orchestration but I doubt it (Szell did massively). I have silly numbers of Schumann cycles and it's a question of balance and not messing with the orchestration. Poor orchestral balance is not Schumann's fault but the conductor’s, especially in music of this period. Schumann's symphonies were meant to be played by orchestras ranging in size from 30+ players. Schumann would have expected a good conductor to make adjustments. Any 19th century condictor worth his salt may have doubled the woodwinds, and in some cases even the brass for a performance with a huge string section, but might have reduced the wind dynamics for performances with a smaller orchestra. 

A Schumann symphony in a large modern hall is something Schumann would not have planned for. Venues in his day were much smaller than that. It’s up to a conductor to decide the best balance of forces for the venue and if you get the right size orchestra you can make fewer adjustments throughout the Schumann symphonies. I know very little about Schumann's orchestration but I know what I can hear and for me the best Schumann performances balance everything out intelligently (Sawallisch, Dohnanyi, Wit, etc).


----------



## Livly_Station

Merl said:


> I don't know if Muti did tinker with the orchestration but I doubt it (Szell did massively). I have silly numbers of Schumann cycles and it's a question of balance and not messing with the orchestration. Poor orchestral balance is not Schumann's fault but the conductor's, especially in music of this period. Schumann's symphonies were meant to be played by orchestras ranging in size from 30+ players. Schumann would have expected a good conductor to make adjustments. Any 19th century condictor worth his salt may have doubled the woodwinds, and in some cases even the brass for a performance with a huge string section, but might have reduced the wind dynamics for performances with a smaller orchestra.
> 
> A Schumann symphony in a large modern hall is something Schumann would not have planned for. Venues in his day were much smaller than that. It's up to a conductor to decide the best balance of forces for the venue and if you get the right size orchestra you can make fewer adjustments throughout the Schumann symphonies. I know very little about Schumann's orchestration but I know what I can hear and for me the best Schumann performances balance everything out intelligently (Sawallisch, Dohnanyi, Wit, etc).


I'm not particularly knowledgeable about all the troubles of orchestration to have qualified opinion on the subject matter, so it's good to know that Schumann's scores are absolutely acceptable the way they are considering all the amazing performances there are without any extraordinary adjustments (just what's expected by each circunstance).


----------



## Heck148

lucashomem said:


> _Does anyone here know if Muti tinkered the orchestration, and how he did it? Or is it just pure Schumann genius that other conductors fail to achieve?_


One would need to follow the score carefully while listening to the recordings. 
Schumann is often criticized for the octave and unison doublings...I don't find this to be that huge a problem - my favorite performances - Bernstein, Reiner, Barenboim, etc seem to highlight the woodwind and brass parts sufficiently, they are not covered up by the strings...
as an orchestrator, I think Schumann is roughly on par with Schubert, Mendelssohn, etc - the early Romantic composers - we must remember that valve brass instruments were just coming onto the scene...this greatly expanded the possibilities of these instruments...His woodwind writing can be most attractive. His scoring for horns and trombones is very good, very effective.


----------



## Enthusiast

I've probably posted this already in this thread (but I'm too lazy to check) but I love the Schumann symphonies and have long enjoyed Sawallisch and Kubelik etc. But the recordings I go back to with some regularity these days are those by Holliger - nothing else comes close to these for me and many that I had previously accepted now sound horribly bloated (Lennie, I'm talking to you). I suppose there is a place for Wagnerian Schumann but few if any have managed to make it work.


----------



## EdwardBast

Heck148 said:


> as an orchestrator, I think Schumann is roughly on par with Schubert, Mendelssohn, etc - the early Romantic composers.


On a par with Mendelssohn? IMO, not even close.


----------



## Kreisler jr

To me as a listener it seems that the problems with Schumann's orchestration have been exaggerated but Mendelssohn or Weber are much better. Schumann seems quite inconsistent. The "Spring" symphony has some nice touches, both the intro and the extend horn passage in the coda? The outer movements of the 2nd I find quite too colorless/homogeneous but the scherzo and slow movement are much better (they are also much better in any other respect). The "Rhenish" has maybe the most original symphonic movement, namely the "Cologne Cathedral" brassy 4th movement but the rest also needs attention or a bit help not to sometimes sound like a homogeneous blob.


----------



## Heck148

EdwardBast said:


> On a par with Mendelssohn? IMO, not even close.


Maybe...Mendelssohn is perhaps more colorful, but Schumann does wrote some very attractive parts for woodwinds and brass...Mendelssohn is generally a lighter texture, but I don't find a world of difference in the overall use of instruments...


----------



## Heck148

Kreisler jr said:


> ....The "Rhenish" has maybe the most original symphonic movement, namely the "Cologne Cathedral" brassy 4th movement but the rest also needs attention or a bit help not to sometimes sound like a homogeneous blob.


The Rhenish needs Horns...lots of horns!! Bernstein/NYPO, Barenboim/CSO deliver bigtime....yes, Schumann can sound like an "homogenous blob", so can a lot of other composers....it is up to the conductor to sort this out, and allow the different voices, colors, to come thru...a string-heavy Schumann sonority simply doesn't work for me....
I once played the Amy Beach "Gaelic" Symphony....very thickly scored in the woodwinds, too heavy, in fact...the conductor really needs to sort out that which must be heard, and that which can be in the background....unfortunately the conductor in this case was woefully incapable of doing that - he had everyone play at a generic _mezzo-piano _level, which basically muddied everything and revealed nothing....talk about an "homogenous blob"...it was pretty bad....


----------



## Livly_Station

I'm greatly satisfied with Schumann's orchestration considering what I can hear from the best recordings available; and that's even more impressive given the amount of detail and craft in the compositions - there's a lot going on!

I'll choose his symphonies over Mendelssohn's anyday, but that's just my preference, of course.


----------



## mbhaub

Here's an observation from a bassoonist who has spent plenty of time in rehearsal with Schumann's symphonies: there are two basic problems with the orchestration. The first is that Schumann had little training or experience writing for orchestra. Add to that the questionable ability and personnel of some orchestras and he was so concerned about important material not being played for lack of a player for a part, that he wound up doing a lot of doublings just to make sure. That lead to a certain sameness and dullness in the sound. The conductors who tamper with the orchestration deal with this by having some parts leave some things out. Some, like Bernstein, insist that those doublings are essential for a real Schumann sound and so don't change it. I've played under conductors of both types.

The second problem is that the symphonies, as scored, don't play themselves; a sensitive and alert conductor spends a lot of time working out balances because of Schumann's miscalculations. With other composers who had a much better grasp of orchestration these problems don't exist - as long as the players listen and play the dynamics the composer wrote. Brahms, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler...there music doesn't need much intervention at all. That's why the Mahler rescoring's of the symphonies are so fascinating: he made it so the balances are very well done and there's not much to worry about. Of course it messed up the "Schumann Sound".


----------



## Livly_Station

mbhaub, thanks for your insights.

It seems to me that both problems are essentially the same: due to Schumann's inexperience, his orchestrations are poorly balanced and so his symphonies sound dull (if the players just play they as they're scored) unless the conductor spends a lot of time fixing those issues.

Well, what I'll never know is _how_ my favorite performances had Schumann's orchestration tinkered to sound so good (to my ears, at least). Perhaps, as you suggested, these conductors had "some parts leave some things out", but I don't have the means to verify and find the answer for those recordings.

But if it's just a matter of thought and rehearsal to make each "voice" sound clear despite all the doublings and other orchestral choices, then I'm not sure if it's an issue of orchestration and not just the inherent complexity of the composition. Like, say, it's difficult to play a fugue and make all the voices stand out separetely.


----------



## mbhaub

Being able to hear each part clearly is a challenge. And there's something else this brings up: recordings vs. live performance. In a fine recording you can actually hear more than you can in a live performance. It's true. You can hear inner voices and interesting details that are totally lost in a concert hall. When you listen at home with headphones or a good speaker system that stereo separation allows a lot more information to come through. In a concert hall, any hall, what you are essentially hearing is a mono sound image and the room's acoustics bury a lot of detail. My greatest appreciation for Schumann listening is at home I regret to say. I would like to think that live concerts are better, but other than a sensational 2nd with Muti and the Philadelphia I heard, recordings - really good ones - rule. Older recordings can sound just fine, but I prefer newer ones, especially in SACD and done with a chamber orchestra. The Scottish Chamber Orchestra with Robin Ticciati is terrific and so is Barenboim on Warner. The clarity of detail and the audibility of the inner voices is fantastic in both.


----------

