# Schumann’s Fourth: which version?



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Which version of Schumann’s Fourth Symphony do you prefer?

I am used to the revised (1851) version, Op. 120. Some conductors have recorded the original 1841 version, which is lighter in tone. Which version do you prefer? Is it worth exploring both? I’d love to hear everyone’s reasoning and experiences.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Mahler’s orchestration


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The revised version is a tighter, more streamlined work, no doubt about it. Too bad that Schumann botched the orchestration; the original is better in that respect. Mahler's version has a lot going for it, but all in all, the Schumann's own revised version is preferable especially when conducted like Furtwangler, Paray, Sawallisch, Bernstein and several others.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

mbhaub said:


> The revised version is a tighter, more streamlined work, no doubt about it. Too bad that Schumann botched the orchestration; the original is better in that respect. Mahler's version has a lot going for it, but all in all, the Schumann's own revised version is preferable especially when conducted like Furtwangler, Paray, Sawallisch, Bernstein and several others.


Ohh really? In what way? There are certainly many of note who feel differently with many conductors who prefer to use the original version.
_"Both Bernard Shore and Donald Tovey wrote analyses of the symphony and preferred the earlier orchestration while noting the improved integration of the revision, suggesting that the revised structure could profitably be paired with the original scoring as far as possible."_


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

How different is Mahler's version from the 1851 version? How different is Szell's, or Weingartner's, etc.? I don't think I've ever seen a score for any of those versions.

If memory serves me correctly, Brahms liked the 1841 version and sought to have Breitkopf und Härtel publish it alongside the 1851 version, without consulting Clara. This resulted in one of their major quarrels.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

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 score 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! _


----------



## feierlich (3 mo ago)

Monsalvat said:


> Brahms liked the 1841 version and sought to have Breitkopf und Härtel publish it alongside the 1851 version, without consulting Clara.


That's correct. He thought the 1841 version was "more valuable", and B&H didn't publish it until 1891. After premiere of original 1841 version, reception was reserved and hindered publication, that's why Schumann further revised it during his times of illness, and it premiered in 1853, a successful one conducted by himself which led immediately to publication.

Personally, I would say there's nothing inferior with both versions, they are excellent in their own rights. The revised one was particularly significant since it's an astonishing combination of formal structure (Schumann conceived it as a single-movement work with 4 linked sections) and an organic flow of emotions and energy, which paved way for Schönberg's _Kammersymphonie_ and even Berg's _Kammerkonzert_.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Mahler’s version is not a radical change and my understanding is that it largely was driven by adjustments to better suit the changes in brass instruments that occurred in the latter 19th century, but others like @mbhaub have more knowledge n this than me


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

Listen to the opening of the First - the liner notes on Chailly's recording states that Mahler acted more as a friendly editor than a re-orchestrator. For example it mentioned that Schumann changed the opening of the 1st symphony because the valveless horns could not play the opening fanfare, with modern horns at his disposal Mahler went back to Schumann's original idea. 

1841:







Mahler:


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

The most recent I listened too was Szell 1960 with the Cleveland.I have no idea on which year it was arranged I actually knew there were different arrangements.


----------



## Monsalvat (11 mo ago)

Szell had his own arrangement, and to my ears it didn't sound _that_ different from other recordings of the 1851 version.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Monsalvat said:


> Szell had his own arrangement, and to my ears it didn't sound _that_ different from other recordings of the 1851 version.


I think "arrangement" is not quite the proper term. "Retouching" is probably more apt because that's what those conductors of yesterday did: remove a doubling here, add something here...but by and large what they did was noticeable only to real experts and careful listeners. The term arrangement implies a lot more than just tweaking.


----------



## bagpipers (Jun 29, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> I think "arrangement" is not quite the proper term. "Retouching" is probably more apt because that's what those conductors of yesterday did: remove a doubling here, add something here...but by and large what they did was noticeable only to real experts and careful listeners. The term arrangement implies a lot more than just tweaking.


That makes more sense cause I had never heard of multiple arrangements on a major symphony.Toscanini added extra horns on Beethoven 6


----------

