# 19th century symphonies



## Colin M (May 31, 2018)

I have enjoyed Beethoven Brahms Schumann and Dvorak. Where should I turn next? Thanks team.


----------



## Buxtehude (Jun 14, 2018)

Tchaikovsky, Franck, Bruckner


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Schubert - particularly symphonies 5, 8, and 9
Mendelssohn - Scottish and Italian Symphonies
Berlioz - Symphonie Fantastique
Rubinstein - Ocean Symphony
Liszt - Faust Symphony
Raff - Symphonies 3 (Im Walde) and 5 (Lenore)
Goldmark - Rustic Wedding Symphony
Saint-Saens - Organ Symphony
Tchaikovsky - 4, 5, and 6
Bruckner - 4, 7 and 8


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Symphonies of Dvorak and Fibich.
Although not as well known as Scheherazade Rimsky-Korsakov composed three fine symphonies.


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

More “traditional” or absolute symphonies:
Schubert, esp 8 and 9
Mendelssohn
Schumann
Tchaikovsky 
Bruckner
Early Mahler symphonies. 

Programmatic symphonies
Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique
Liszt Faust Symphony, ... + other single-movement symphonic poems like Les Preludes


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2018)

From Beethoven try Berlioz
From Schumann try Mendelssohn
From Dvorak try Mahler

Brahms seems to be rather unique.....

Don't forget Liszt's symphonies and symphonic poems.

Bruckner is an extremely important composer of symphonies as well, really contrapuntal works, somehow I feel he has some similarities to Schubert.......


----------



## Colin M (May 31, 2018)

Thanks team. I have two Identical sets of Schumann Symphonies by Karajan. One for the auto and one for the house. I love the romantic nature and the growth over time. A lot of you point to Mendelssohn as a musical relative... now I need favorite symphonies and conductor orchestras... appreciate you.


----------



## licorice stick (Nov 24, 2014)

I have lately been enraptured by the earlier version of Schumann 4 (1841), as taken at a swift tempo by Rattle and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. Every performance of the later version (1851) that I have heard is simply too stodgy for my tastes, including the renowned Furtwangler and Szell. I now need to find a studio recording of the 1841 on modern instruments.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Colin M said:


> Thanks team. I have two Identical sets of Schumann Symphonies by Karajan. One for the auto and one for the house. I love the romantic nature and the growth over time. A lot of you point to Mendelssohn as a musical relative... now I need favorite symphonies and conductor orchestras... appreciate you.


Abbado made one of the better sets of Mendelssohn's symphonies with the London Symphony Orchestra. It also includes several of Mendelssohn's famous overtures such as _Fingal's Cave_ and _A Midsummer Night's Dream_.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

licorice stick said:


> I have lately been enraptured by the earlier version of Schumann 4 (1841), as taken at a swift tempo by Rattle and the Orchestra of the Age of Enlightenment. Every performance of the later version (1851) that I have heard is simply too stodgy for my tastes, including the renowned Furtwangler and Szell. I now need to find a studio recording of the 1841 on modern instruments.


Gardiner includes both versions of the 4th in his Schumann cycle and speaks highly of the 1841. Brahms liked it as well, and insisted on including it in his late-life edition of Schumann's complete works. Clara wanted it suppressed, but she didn't get her way (at least this time).


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

Try these to start and see what you think - my personal favourites 

Schubert Symphony no. 9 - conducted by Wilhelm Furtwangler, Berlin Philharmonic, 1942. This is a legendary performance of this work.
Berlioz Symphonie Fantastique - I rather like the recent Daniel Harding/Swedish Radio recording 
Schumann 2 - Abbado and the Orchestra Mozart.
Schumann 4 - Furtwangler again. (You’ll never find me not recommending a Furtwangler recording if there is one ha!)
Liszt - Faust/Dante Symphony, Les Prelude - Georg Solti Decca


----------



## licorice stick (Nov 24, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Gardiner includes both versions of the 4th in his Schumann cycle and speaks highly of the 1841. Brahms liked it as well, and insisted on including it in his late-life edition of Schumann's complete works. Clara wanted it suppressed, but she didn't get her way (at least this time).


I found the Gardiner online, and it is mostly an improvement over the Rattle, especially in the last movement. Still period instruments, but it sounds modern -- no hurky-jerky oboe effects, for example. Highly recommended.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2018)

I haven't heard many Schumann recordings that actually pay attention to his masterful orchestration, but one of the few conductors who do really understand it would be Yannic Nézet-Séguin.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

All of the above! If you like Schumann, then debatably it's Mendelssohn next, but myself I have a big preference for the former.

Of composers not yet mentioned, I'd strongly recommend the three(-ish) symphonies of the great Russian composer Borodin; Rimsky-Korsakov has also been mentioned, of his three I'd highlight the wonderful "Antar" Symphony (No.2); also, and slightly less mainstream and debatably second-rank, try some of the off the beaten track composers, such as the Swiss Joachim Raff, the Swede Franz Berwald (his Sinfonie Singuliere is one of the most beautiful symphonies of all time!) or the Dane Niels Gade.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

A few names not mentioned yet:

Farrenc
Glazunov
Spohr


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Colin M said:


> Thanks team. I have two Identical sets of Schumann Symphonies by Karajan. One for the auto and one for the house. I love the romantic nature and the growth over time. A lot of you point to Mendelssohn as a musical relative... now I need favorite symphonies and conductor orchestras... appreciate you.


Personally, I wouldn't go for Mendelssohn first and I am not sure I would buy his symphonies as a set (because I don't like them all). The 4th is (IMO) a good one to start with and Gardiner's (not normally a go to conductor for me) is an excellent performance.

I also think the recommendations for the last 3 Tchaikovsky symphonies is a good one (Bernstein and Mravinsky are common recommendations and are both excellent). And the Berlioz S. Fantastique (lots of recommendations - Colin Davis, Beecham, Munch are all excellent in very different ways), the Franck (the oldish Monteux is excellent and I greatly enjoy the freshness of Herreweghe) and (a must) the last two Schuberts (so many good records and quite a few bad ones - I don't think you can go wrong with the Solti and the Krips CDs that have both symphonies and Karl Bohm - generally a bit dour in Schubert - has a great 9th).

I also agree with recommendations for Bruckner and probably some Mahler (one symphony at a time - they are _big_). And, I don't know, but Sibelius? Certainly the 2nd and 5th seem to me to be thoroughly in the Romantic tradition that you have been following.

Edit - I did also want to say that Schumann particularly can sound rather different (almost different music) from different conductors - some going for a heavier (even Wagnerian) sound than others. I think this had something to do with the idea, once widespread, that his orchestration was "wrong". I have long found both Kubelik and Sawallisch to be well balanced, Kubelik a bit more lyrical, Sawallisch white hot.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

shirime said:


> I haven't heard many Schumann recordings that actually pay attention to his masterful orchestration, but one of the few conductors who do really understand it would be Yannic Nézet-Séguin.


Just seen this (after adding a more traditional recommendation to my post) - so I will be looking out for Nézet-Séguin in these. I have really liked the recordings made recently by Heinz Holliger.


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Just seen this (after adding a more traditional recommendation to my post) - so I will be looking out for Nézet-Séguin in these. I have really liked the recordings made recently by Heinz Holliger.


Going to check out both Kubelik and Nézet-Séguin for Schumann next


----------



## derin684 (Feb 14, 2018)

For Schubert 9, try Gardiner/VPO.(Böhm is also good, but I prefer Gardiner somehow.)

Tchaikovksy's symphonies are brilliant, love the Mravinsky recordings.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Go East young man! Look at the Russian school for a complete change of style.

Balakirev, Symphony 1 (Beecham did it best)
Borodin, Symphony 2
Glazunov, Symphonies 4, 5
Rubinstein, Symphony 2 (original version)
Rimsky-Korsakov, Antar (symphony no. 2)
Gretchaninov, symphony 1
Rachmaninoff, symphony 2

Schumann: he was not, by any measure a "masterful" orchestrator. He had a great deal of trouble with it and he knew it. So did most of the conductors who've had to contend with them. They weren't very popular for a long time, and a lot of it had to do with the thick, unclear sound. As written they work ok with a smaller chamber orchestra, but still need careful attention to dynamics and such. I suppose the debate will go on whether to retouch or not. But one guy who had no qualms about it was Gustav Mahler. His rescorings of the symphonies are printed and have been recorded several times, most recently by Ricardo Chailly. The casual listener may not perceive many changes, but for a lot of musicians it's like wiping the grime off of a window. They speak with a new clarity and brilliance - and the sound is completely not Schumann. So, I stick with the originals, with performers who understand the music and keep it moving - Barenboim and Sawallisch are tops for me.


----------



## Orfeo (Nov 14, 2013)

I ditto what mbhaub says. My take:


*Glazunov*: Symphonies II, IV, VI, VIII
*Tchaikovsky*: Any symphonies, but esp. Manfred, Symphony no. II (original), Symphony no. VII (not completed or even done by him exclusively, but to get some ideas as to the great Russian's final thoughts)
*Rachmaninoff*: Symphony no. I and "The Bells"
*Scriabin*: Any of the symphonies, but esp. the First
*Blumenfeld*: Symphony in C
*Bruckner*: Any will do, but start with nos. III (original), IV, V, VII-IX
*Atterberg*: Really _early to mid 20th Century symphonism_, but the idiom is essentially a romantic diatribe a la the previous Century. Any of his works will do, but try first nos. I, II, III, IV, VI.
*Myaskovsky*: Same as above, but try first his Symphonies V, VI, XIII, XV, XVI, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIV, XXV, XXVII
*Alfven*: Same as above, with his Fourth a clear masterpiece
*Sibelius*: Same as above, but give Kullervo, Symphonies I, II, V a try first
*Braga-Santos*: Same as above, but give Symphonies II, III, and IV a try
*Melartin*: Symphony no. IV
*Suk*: Symphony "Asrael"
*Saint-Saens*: Urbs Roma (Symphony in F), Symphony no. III
*Ives*: Symphony no. I
*Beach*: Gaelic Symphony
*Franck*: Symphony in D
*Chausson*: Symphony in B-flat
*Stanford*: Symphonies III, V
*Elgar*: Any of his two Symphonies
*Parry*: Any of his five Symphonies, but try nos. IV & V first
*Roussel*: Symphony no. I "The Poem of the Forest"
*Draeseke*: Symphony no. I
*Gliere*: Symphonies II and III
*Kapp, Artur (Estonian)*: Symphony no. I
*Tubin, Eduard*: Symphony no. I
*Bortkiewicz*: Symphony no. II
That should do it.
Enjoy.


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Schumann: he was not, by any measure a "masterful" orchestrator. He had a great deal of trouble with it and he knew it. So did most of the conductors who've had to contend with them.


Curious why do you think that is? 
I've heard that and personally I don't get it


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

That Schumann was a poor orchestrator is a myth that has been put to bed. And if he had any trouble with orchestration, it had to do with the expression of the originality he wanted (such as doubling and antiphonality of the violins). One of the problems was that Schumann orchestrated with relatively small orchestras while modern recordings often use large orchestras. If the conductor doesn’t understand what Schumann is trying to do, the result is thick and muddy.

Brahms owned the autograph 1841 version of the 4th symphony and had no problems with the orchestration and this was not Schumann’s last symphony (the Rhenish, called the 3rd, was).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

DaveM said:


> That Schumann was a poor orchestrator is a myth that has been put to bed.


Here's Gardiner's view of Schumann's orchestration.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2018)

Gardiner forgets that a reduced orchestra is not the only way to achieve balance in the orchestration. A full orchestra of somethings like 16/14/12/10/8 in the string section is certainly possible with woodwind and brass sections to match (4 flutes instead of two, for example) and would be far more appropriate for the large concerts halls we have today.

Schumann orchestrates with timbral variety to distinguish each line in an orchestral texture. There's a fantastic moment nearly a minute into the first movement of the Rhenish symphony where the main theme is presented in canon; the first voice is coloured by a combination of legato/smooth flutes, horn and 1st violins and the second voice of the canon is coloured by a combination of staccato/detached clarinets and 2nd violins. To actually bring these details of orchestration you need a conductor who can recognise it and bring it out. Not only will the contrapuntal texture be present but it will be present through the timbre of each line in the texture. Unfortunately there are re-orchestrated versions that are much more commonly recorded which attempt to solve issues of balance by producing a general brassy or 'Wagnerian' sound to make different contrapuntal lines more prominent (most recordings I have heard) or conductors who choose to emphasise _one_ line of the texture and ignoring the details of the original orchestration that Schumann was so careful with (Karajan is an example of this). I will say that in addition to Nézet-Séguin's recording, there's also Bernstein's recording with the Wiener Philharmoniker that really understands the importance of textural balance in Schumann's original orchestration. I believe it was even considered unusual at the time for his insistence on using the original orchestrations rather than other more commonly used brassy orchestrations.

I do want to point out that I don't think Gardiner very adequately performs Schumann with the kind of Romantic expression his music is most suited to and doesn't really follow the 19th century customs of tempo and tempo modification as an expressive device, nor does his period instrument orchestra use different gradations of slow/fast/subtle/heavy/narrow/wide vibrato as was customary in Schumann's day either, so take 'Historically Informed' with a grain of salt here.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Weber and Mendelssohn worked with orchestras just as small as Schumann's yet they have never been accused of poor orchestration. Schumann tried to play the orchestra like a piano, but what sounds distinct on the piano sounds muddy when played by large forces. Both Schumann and Brahms rely too much on strings to the detriment of the winds, although the latter certainly has a better sense of balance. Yet Brahms made his harmonies so thick with instrumental combinations that the different timbres can't stand apart from each other in genuine contrast. I suppose he disdained orchestral effects and color as insufficiently serious.

Ultimately this whole debate is part the Wagner-Liszt v. Schumann-Brahms struggle. Wagner and Liszt strove for the brilliant, the exotic, and dazzling dramatic effects and as a result orchestral color was a priority for them. The latter two (especially Brahms) were more interested in working out structurally perfect music than in beauty or theatrical impact itself; therefore their orchestration is merely a functional (not to say perfunctory) rather than a central part of their musical aesthetic.


----------



## Colin M (May 31, 2018)

Friends you are giving me the best education. I really am grateful and addicted to understanding more...


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I just listened to Gardiner’s performance of the 1841 version of Schumann’s 4th. It sounded very airy and transparent, without any of the thickness and sludge that mar (for me) some Schumann performances. I’m inclined to think that Gardiner has it about right.

That Gardiner doesn’t fully understand how to get balance in an orchestra, or is unaware of performance customs in Schumann’s time – both opinions seem vanishingly unlikely.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2018)

KenOC said:


> I just listened to Gardiner's performance of the 1841 version of Schumann's 4th. It sounded very airy and transparent, without any of the thickness and sludge that mar (for me) some Schumann performances. I'm inclined to think that Gardiner has it about right.
> 
> That Gardiner doesn't fully understand how to get balance in an orchestra, or is unaware of performance customs in Schumann's time - both opinions seem vanishingly unlikely.


Gardiner certainly does have it right in terms of the ratio of winds to brass to strings because of the reduced orchestral forces, hence the transparency in his recording.

I reckon he is aware of the performance customs of the 19th century when it comes to tempo and expressive vibrato, but as far as I am aware, he chooses to adopt _other_ aspects of performance, particularly instruments and sitting/standing arrangements. His tempi and restraint (lack?) of vibrato are modern conventions/inventions of performance practice.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do find discussions of what works _should_ sound like, and how they _should _be played, interesting but (as someone with no technical music knowledge and little knowledge about the history of music) I am ultimately interested is whether a performance speaks to me, seems to find the heart and depth of the work and so on. And I love that there are often so many approaches to a piece of music that work. Performance practices have changed over time - which can give us even greater variety through recordings - and I have enjoyed some HIP accounts of Romantic classics (not so much Gardiner, who sometimes seems to want to make points rather than music) without worrying too much whether they really are historically informed. But what strikes me more is that, regardless of the performing practice, a good/great performance is a good/great performance and a dull one is still dull. I'm not making a virtue of this - it is just how I listen to music - but do believe that when a composer lets a work out into the public domain it _is_ how it is perceived by its audience (including performers, I think) and it is no longer what "s/he intended". These thoughts - partly drawn from some time I spent involved in community theatre (which is more about local politics than art or entertainment) - will probably seem very wrong to many here but I am not saying that my approach to listening is right, merely that it is how I tend to approach music.


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

KenOC said:


> Here's Gardiner's view of Schumann's orchestration.


Oh, Mahler - you bad man!!!


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

Of Schumann's 4th, I've so far heard Kubelik, Sawallisch, Bernstein (NY Phil), Gardiner - though I'm not sure which version I'm listening to. And since I've not been wedded to any one performance, and not attached to the way it "should" sound, I have to admit that all these versions are equally compelling to me. 

I can see the reason for Gardiner's version, it works for me, as does the big drive of Bernstein's. 

Still have quite a few to go, and it's reinvigorating Schumann for me, a composer I haven't delved into for many years. Now I'm thinking, how have I missed this?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I think your approach is sane and very much how we should all approach music. How does it affect us? Are we moved? Excited? Does the music change us in some way? That's how most everyone got to learn music: we didn't have a lot of knowledge or background - all that mattered was what we heard. Then, two things go wrong...

The first is that we become imprinted with whatever recording or performance of a work we first heard. And for the rest of our lives that recording - good or bad - is our own benchmark and it's really, really hard to eject it from the brain. The first recording I ever owned of the Tchaikovsky 5th was Ormandy's. Fortunately, it's a great recording. But no matter what new one comes along, no matter what live performers I hear, or even more frustrating is when I play it - I will always judge the newcomer against that 60 year old Ormandy recording.

The second bad thing is that we become musically educated at a technical level. When I listen to a recording and follow a score it is simply astonishing how many "bad" performances there are. Wrong notes, wrong rhythms, bad intonation, missed entrances, wrong tempos... And no matter what the other assets the recording has, I will pooh pooh it if too many things are "wrong". Sometimes I forget to hear the forest because of the trees. Musical blinders, that what it is. Being able just to sit back and enjoy great music is hampered by being too knowledgeable and hence critical. Sometimes, in listening to music, ignorance is bliss!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

What a treasure trove are the countless less known 19th century symphonies and those that still held to late 19th century romanticism during the first 10-20 years of the 20th century. Listen to this segment and without looking further try to guess who might have composed it.

View attachment Mystery4mp3.mp3


-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

-

The above segment is towards the end of the Andante (@12:53) of the Ryelandt Symphony #4:


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> I think your approach is sane and very much how we should all approach music. How does it affect us? Are we moved? Excited? Does the music change us in some way? That's how most everyone got to learn music: we didn't have a lot of knowledge or background - all that mattered was what we heard. Then, two things go wrong...
> 
> The first is that we become imprinted with whatever recording or performance of a work we first heard. And for the rest of our lives that recording - good or bad - is our own benchmark and it's really, really hard to eject it from the brain. The first recording I ever owned of the Tchaikovsky 5th was Ormandy's. Fortunately, it's a great recording. But no matter what new one comes along, no matter what live performers I hear, or even more frustrating is when I play it - I will always judge the newcomer against that 60 year old Ormandy recording.
> 
> The second bad thing is that we become musically educated at a technical level. When I listen to a recording and follow a score it is simply astonishing how many "bad" performances there are. Wrong notes, wrong rhythms, bad intonation, missed entrances, wrong tempos... And no matter what the other assets the recording has, I will pooh pooh it if too many things are "wrong". Sometimes I forget to hear the forest because of the trees. Musical blinders, that what it is. Being able just to sit back and enjoy great music is hampered by being too knowledgeable and hence critical. Sometimes, in listening to music, ignorance is bliss!


Yes I agree. That's precisely the issue I have with listening to "new" (for me) recordings of Mahler now. Many pieces of music I wish I could listen to it "for the first time" and enjoy that sense of wonder, like reading a book and not knowing what happens.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Here's an idea and something I've just completed. One year ago I spent a lot of time in July listening to Mahler. Complete sets by Bernstein, Abbado, Solti, Kubelik, and other set by Walter, Klemperer and Svetlanov. Then I went on a Mahler diet - NO Mahler at all. No local orchestra was playing any, I wasn't involved in any performances. So I listened to none of his works for a whole year. Then last week I pulled out the Bertini set. It was like hearing it almost all anew. Great stuff! I was thrilled like I was hearing them for the first time like I did 50 years ago. Try it - go on a No Mahler hiatus and see what happens. I've done the same for Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky - it works wonders. I also haven't listened to a note of Vaughan Williams in a year - that's for August and I hope to have the same refreshing reacquaintance.


----------



## GeorgeMcW (Jun 4, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Here's an idea and something I've just completed. One year ago I spent a lot of time in July listening to Mahler. Complete sets by Bernstein, Abbado, Solti, Kubelik, and other set by Walter, Klemperer and Svetlanov. Then I went on a Mahler diet - NO Mahler at all. No local orchestra was playing any, I wasn't involved in any performances. So I listened to none of his works for a whole year. Then last week I pulled out the Bertini set. It was like hearing it almost all anew. Great stuff! I was thrilled like I was hearing them for the first time like I did 50 years ago. Try it - go on a No Mahler hiatus and see what happens. I've done the same for Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky - it works wonders. I also haven't listened to a note of Vaughan Williams in a year - that's for August and I hope to have the same refreshing reacquaintance.


Yes, in fact, I've done several year-long Mahler "quarantines", and come back to new recordings. Definitely eye- (or ear) opening. And am still on a Brahms one at the moment. What did I learn? I still absolutely love the recordings I love, but occasionally I find something that i can appreciate in a different way. Tougher for me with Mahler.


----------



## Colin M (May 31, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> Go East young man! Look at the Russian school for a complete change of style
> Balakirev, Symphony 1 (Beecham did it best)
> Borodin, Symphony 2
> Glazunov, Symphonies 4, 5
> ...


Thanks for these great suggestions. Now have Borodin Symphonies by Ermler and the Bolshoi Orchestra. Great listening. Much appreciated.


----------



## Colin M (May 31, 2018)

Enthusiast said:


> Personally, I wouldn't go for Mendelssohn first and I am not sure I would buy his symphonies as a set (because I don't like them all). The 4th is (IMO) a good one to start with and Gardiner's (not normally a go to conductor for me) is an excellent performance.
> 
> I also think the recommendations for the last 3 Tchaikovsky symphonies is a good one (Bernstein and Mravinsky are common recommendations and are both excellent). And the Berlioz S. Fantastique (lots of recommendations - Colin Davis, Beecham, Munch are all excellent in very different ways), the Franck (the oldish Monteux is excellent and I greatly enjoy the freshness of Herreweghe) and (a must) the last two Schuberts (so many good records and quite a few bad ones - I don't think you can go wrong with the Solti and the Krips CDs that have both symphonies and Karl Bohm - generally a bit dour in Schubert - has a great 9th).
> 
> ...


 Thanks for these ideas. I picked up the last three Three Tchaikovsky's symphonies by Mravinsky. Wonderful love the occasional brassy quality as a counterpoint to the strings.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Weber's symphonies are definitely worth hearing. Spohr is not too bad, and Parry is noble and worthy


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

'Schumann: he was not, by any measure a "masterful" orchestrator. He had a great deal of trouble with it and he knew it. So did most of the conductors who've had to contend with them. They weren't very popular for a long time, and a lot of it had to do with the thick, unclear sound.'

What, this old canard again? Why is it when it is trotted out no one can provide any specific evidences of it? It has been debunked so well and so often I thought it had officially retired. No matter, when these works are performed well with judicious balance (something every composer's works for multi member ensembles has had to be throughout history) they sound fine. When performers have the misconception that Schumann's orchestral works are bad or badly orchestrated, amazingly they sound bad. Actually they sound like bad music. When performers have it in mind that these works are watery Mendelssohnian Victoriana they sound like that too. They sound no worse examples of orchestral art than the works of Brahms, which too are often (probably even more often) badly played. Actually Brahms is not a great orchestrator, his scoring is often very dull, Schumann's has more colour. I do prefer the earlier scoring of no.4, Schumann did thicken the texture of that one (not fatally at all though, moderately capable conductors seem to have no problems in balancing this work) due to the incompetence of the Dusseldorf orchestra that he was conducting. The Spring symphony has a lightness of texture that Brahms could never match. 

I think it is time to put this hoary old canard out of its misery.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

Quite a lot of these are 20thC, even if this is a list of works with a more 19thC sound interspersed with actual 19thC works


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

'Unfortunately there are re-orchestrated versions that are much more commonly recorded which attempt to solve issues of balance by producing a general brassy or 'Wagnerian' sound to make different contrapuntal lines more prominent (most recordings I have heard) or conductors who choose to emphasise one line of the texture and ignoring the details of the original orchestration that Schumann was so careful with (Karajan is an example of this).'

Yes, very few conductors think contrapuntally, and was a key component of Schumann's compositional ethos, as he was one of the first and most avid 19th century disciples of Bach. Nearly all conductors approach 19th century music harmonically and homophonically.


----------



## Eusebius12 (Mar 22, 2010)

'Schumann tried to play the orchestra like a piano, but what sounds distinct on the piano sounds muddy when played by large forces.' This is actual BS, although I've seen it written in reference works. The Rhenish wasn't even composed at the piano, and quite likely nor was no.2. In proper performances, they do not sound like transcriptions of piano music at all, any more than Beethoven does.

'The latter two (especially Brahms) were more interested in working out structurally perfect music than in beauty or theatrical impact itself; therefore their orchestration is merely a functional (not to say perfunctory) rather than a central part of their musical aesthetic.'

Schumann's aesthetic sensibility abhorred any cheap effects, and this rubbed off on Brahms without a doubt.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Colin M said:


> I have enjoyed Beethoven Brahms Schumann and Dvorak. Where should I turn next? Thanks team.


Howard Hanson, the Symphony No.2. (Just do yourself a favor and don't look up the dates for Hanson or his symphony!)


----------



## Bevo (Feb 22, 2015)

Check out the Symphonies of Ries, a pupil of Beethoven. I think he even modeled a movement after Beethoven's 5th with the short-short-short-long rhythmic motif.
And while not symphonies, some orchestral works I might suggest are:
Tchaikovsky: Francesca da Rimini (greatly underappreciated in my opinion), and March Slave
Rimsky-Korsakov: Easter Festival Overture
Rachmaninoff: Isle of the Dead
Schubert: Overture to Rosamunde

And you have probably already heard them, but if not make sure to listen to Beethoven's overtures. Egmont, Coriolin, Fidelio, and the Leonore overtures. Also the King Stephen Overture is a personal favorite!!
The Choral Fantasy is another great. Best of luck in your discovery process!!


----------

