# Schumann Symphonies!



## swaffles

Hello all. I am brand new here. 

I'm a violin performance major at UofL, and I am taking a class called Research and Bibliography. My topic for the research paper and presentation we all have to do is on Schumann's symphonies, a topic that I knew nothing of and dived into enthusiastically with the hopes of learning new things.

I wasn't sure where my research was going to lead me. However, after a few weeks, I had a pretty clear idea; it was obvious that I was going to be devling into the issues of orchestration. I'm sure that my teacher knew I was going to be lead into this direction when he assigned me the topic. 

My paper has evolved into an expository one about the issues of orchestration, and how it has arguably been an inhibition to the actual music within the symphonies. I compare scores, talk about what "good orchestration" is, circumstances in Schumann's life that might have had an impact (being inexperienced and coming to be a symphonist late in the game), and performance issues that led him to revise his own work. 

The problem is that over time, and as I've looked more at the scores and listened to them, I've become rather obsessed with the symphonies. They are simply incredible. I no longer truly believe that the orchestration is not good, so now I guess my paper is becoming an exercise in playing devil's advocate. 

I have the recordings of James Levine with berlin, symphonies 2 and 3, and wolfgang sawallisch with staatskapelle dresden, 1973, symphonies 1 and 4. I've also listened to the 1841 version of the fourth, and have found that I like both that and the 1853 version rather equally. Just different, not better or worse. 

Why do people say his orchestration is bad? Who else here loves his works?

(Also, I love the A minor violin sonata! I will be playing that for my recital I think!)


----------



## KenOC

Swaffles, there is a school of thought that Schumann's symphonies sound thick and muddy only when played by modern full-sized orchestras, and that a historically-informed approach will clean things up nicely. The chief apostle in performance is Gardiner, and many believe that his is the best cycle in this regard (I agree). You can probably get his program notes from somewhere, possibly Naxos Music Library.

Re the 4th, the earlier version is more economically scored, and the later (again) somewhat too Brahmsian in orchestration (my opinion). Brahms preferred the earlier, and published it as part of his Schumann project late in the century, and over Clara's objections. The Gardiner set has both versions.


----------



## swaffles

KenOC said:


> Swaffles, there is a school of thought that Schumann's symphonies sound thick and muddy only when played by modern full-sized orchestras, and that a historically-informed approach will clean things up nicely. The chief apostle in performance is Gardiner, and many believe that his is the best cycle in this regard (I agree). You can probably get his program notes from somewhere, possibly Naxos Music Library.
> 
> Re the 4th, the earlier version is more economically scored, and the later (again) somewhat too Brahmsian in orchestration (my opinion). Brahms preferred the earlier, and published it as part of his Schumann project late in the century, and over Clara's objections. The Gardiner set has both versions.


It's actually rather hilarious to me how insanely different texture wise the 1841 version is from the 1853. In my paper, I use the part from the scores when the faster melody comes in after the intro in the first movement (the original version says allegro di molto I think, while the revision I think uses the word lebhaft). I compare that page from both versions.

The different is so huge. More than twice the "textural thickness" between the versions. Way more accompaniments in the 1853, way more active accompaniment parts. I read that Schumann made the much expanded version for the sake of "safety" with regards to important entrances, thus all of the doubling.

I honestly like both versions though. The original version sounds like a really good chamber orchestra piece, although I'm sure a larger orchestra could do justice to it since it will inherently have more clarity.

I keep pestering our orchestra director here to allow us to play it...she keeps shooting my requests down on the basis of the orchestration! Sad dad.


----------



## swaffles

Oh, also, thanks for the suggestions...will definitely look into that for Christmas!


----------



## swaffles

No one else has any opinions on his symphonies eh?


----------



## Guest

I don't mind them, but they aren't the first ones I reach for when I am in a symphonic mood (neither are they the second, or third, or fourth . . .). 

I have the symphonies recorded by both Szell and Gardiner. I have a slight preference for the Gardiner recording.

I should say, though, that it is not specifically his symphonies that do nothing for me - I also find myself only rarely listening to his other works.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Gardiner, Harnoncourt did well for me.


----------



## Vaneyes

Nice to hear you say, "I no longer truly believe that the orchestration is not good, so now I guess my paper is becoming an exercise in playing devil's advocate," because I was going to suggest you do the same. I block my ears when I hear Schumann badmouthing.

Re recs., VPO/Bernstein (DG).


----------



## Wandering

^ I like Eschenbach's 1-4 

I'll check out the Bernstein DG.

Also Barenboim 1-4 Teldec or is it _Warner Classics_?


----------



## Manxfeeder

swaffles said:


> No one else has any opinions on his symphonies eh?


I need to go through his cycle again. I have the Hanover Band and Zinman recordings.

Thinking back, though, I haven't had a problem with his orchestration. I noticed the second movement of the first symphony opens with a subtle rhythm play between the first violins and the second/violas which works on a piano but can get muddied in an orchestra, but that doesn't worry me that much.

I like the way the fourth symphony is written, particularly the first version (it's been called adventurous with its sparing, classical sound; the first movement doesn't even have a recap) and also its autobiographical aspect, centered around Clara.

The second symphony also has a autobiographical element, how the first movement rushes around and doesn't get anywhere, reflecting his physical and mental torment at that time. It has been noted how the third movement resolves his problems not with Beethoven heroics but feminine problem-solving; patience succeeds where the clenched fist failed.


----------



## arpeggio

*Mahler Orchestrations*

I am not an expert on Schumann. There are many here who know more than I do.

The only suggestion I have is to check out the Mahler orchestrations. He re-orchestrated all of Schumann's symphonies.


----------



## Wandering

Haven't checked it out yet. Chailly is an afforable set for this. Think Schumann is fine the way it is though, imo, I'm no expert either. It's very subjective anyway. 

Schoenberg reworked Das Lied von der Erde, if I'm not mistaken, I don't think I am.


----------



## quack

Yes Schoenberg made a chamber orchestra version of DLvE, Herreweghe did a good recording of it.

I am blessed with the ignorance of not knowing what the bad orchestration is in Schumann's works so I like his symphonies a lot. Dare I say it (looks about cautiously ¬.¬ ) I prefer them to Brahms, Schubert and Dvorak's and probably a few others. Perhaps what some call muddy I call rich and earthy.


----------



## Vaneyes

Clovis said:


> ^ I like Eschenbach's 1-4
> 
> I'll check out the Bernstein DG.
> 
> Also Barenboim 1-4 Teldec or is it _Warner Classics_?


Both miss the boat, IMO. E (RCA) with the larger soundstage sounds more like Schumann to me, but it occasionally gets sleepy when the attacks aren't. B (Teldec) castrated his orchestra with narrower sound focus and close-up percussion punches. Lean was the craze at the time, as with Abbado/BPO's LvB in Roma. HvK turned in his grave on that one.

Lenny's DG is "Three Bears' porridge" just right.


----------



## Wandering

^ Many composers re-work and re-orchestrate their compositions, like Mahler with his 5th, not to mention Bruckner of course. A little roughness around the edges can be nice to my ears, I'm sure Mahler would've vamp the 9th somewhat, sounds fine to me though.

Nothing is ever perfect. I really dig Bruckner, but sometimes his brass can be a bit much for me, the opening of the slow 3rd movement of the 9th has some blairings that force me to turn down my stereo system sometimes, I find it blasphemy resorting to that, and yet I do it.

I found a slew of composition over the years with things seeming a little course or unrefined, the expressionist sometimes even made a mission out of it, as did a good many painters for that matter. I don't think even the great Liszt was always 100% perfecto at orchestration, and yet his Mephisto Waltz is one of the most perfectly orchestrated works I know of.


----------



## Vaneyes

"I really dig Bruckner, but sometimes his brass can be a bit much for me."

Me, too. But I got around it by listening to other interps., and choosing those recs for long-term. I found Klemperer was among those who made you *painfully* aware of the brass section...so, I no longer have any of Klemp's Bruckner. His acclaimed B6 (EMI)literally gave me headaches.


----------



## Wandering

^ Good point, but it is also in combo with my stereo simply being way too load. I gotta cool it a bit, or just turn it up at prime moments via my remote.


----------



## swaffles

To be honest, with me, unless the orchestration is just really mediocre to where it doesn't make musical sense, then it doesn't matter as much. I love the sound of an orchestra, even if everyone is blaring away and there isn't much of a unique "color" to the sound. As an orchestral musician who actually plays professionally (albeit in part time orchestras), there is something really fun when the whole orchestra just rocks out. 

With Schumann, I don't really hear any instances where the sound is so confused that the music doesn't come through just fine. I can always tell what the harmony is, what the meter is, what the most important parts are, and what is happening overall. And honestly, even though I love both versions of the fourth symphony, for instance, I also like the heavier orchestrations. It makes for a big sound, which I love. I think playing them would be fun. 

And as I said, on the recordings I have, I just hear great music with a big orchestral sound. They are also string heavy, which is a plus for me, being a string player. I often hate playing symphonic music where the string parts are secondary...as biased as that sounds.


----------



## KenOC

swaffles said:


> I often hate playing symphonic music where the string parts are secondary...as biased as that sounds.


Avoid the last movement of Schubert's Great C major. Duk-it-du duh, duk-it-du duh, duk-it-du duh, duk-it-du duh, duk-it-du duh, duk-it-du duh ad infinitum. In London the orchestral strings initially refused to play it!


----------



## Llyranor

I have the Gardiner (HIP) and the Chailly (Mahler reorchestrations). I think I prefer Gardiner. Honestly, I haven't given the symphonies enough of a proper listen overall to get a decent opinion out of them. But I'll say that I really like the 1st (the one I've listened to at least a few times) - and I especially adore the first movement. Particularly for those strings <3

Are there any other HIP recordings aside from Gardiner? Maybe something with a bit more of a punch.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Llyranor said:


> I have the Gardiner (HIP) and the Chailly (Mahler reorchestrations).


Is Gardiner considered HIP? He's using the Vienna Phil, not his usual orchestra.


----------



## Vaneyes

ORR/Gardiner.


----------



## KenOC

Manxfeeder said:


> Is Gardiner considered HIP? He's using the Vienna Phil, not his usual orchestra.


The Gardiner Schumann is usually referred to as "HIP," though I'm not real sure what that means. It's certainly a smaller orchestra, and more transparent than the usual run of Schumann symphonies. Certainly the favorite of the sets I've got! And the 1841 version of #4, which I had never heard, is a great bonus in this set.


----------



## quack

I listened to the Gardiner versions recently as they seem highly praised here, good but I think I prefer Haitink with the Concertgebouw.


----------



## Manxfeeder

KenOC said:


> The Gardiner Schumann is usually referred to as "HIP," though I'm not real sure what that means. It's certainly a smaller orchestra, and more transparent than the usual run of Schumann symphonies. Certainly the favorite of the sets I've got! And the 1841 version of #4, which I had never heard, is a great bonus in this set.


Oh, I know what happened. In my head-cold stupor, I though I was in the Schubert thread. His Schubert is with Vienna; Schumann is with the ORR.

Now that's all cleared up. Carry on.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Vaneyes said:


> ORR/Gardiner.


You're right. [See the above post.]


----------



## vinniekant

Karajan does the best job of the Schumann symphonies


----------



## Arsakes

Eschenbach.


----------



## tgtr0660

The best cycles (I have around 7 of them) are Sawallisch's for a fuller, richer, "older" sound, and Zinman's for a lightly-footed one. I've yet to hear my newest ones, the classic Szell and the newer Barenboim. But I prefer my Schumann thick, "Brahmsian" (whatever that means), instead of the background-music sort that some HIP conductors tend to convert romantic music into. 

I like HIP only for baroque and Mozart really.


----------



## Truckload

swaffles said:


> Hello all. I am brand new here.
> 
> I'm a violin performance major at UofL, and I am taking a class called Research and Bibliography. My topic for the research paper and presentation we all have to do is on Schumann's symphonies, a topic that I knew nothing of and dived into enthusiastically with the hopes of learning new things.
> 
> My paper has evolved into an expository one about the issues of orchestration, and how it has arguably been an inhibition to the actual music within the symphonies. I compare scores, talk about what "good orchestration" is, circumstances in Schumann's life that might have had an impact (being inexperienced and coming to be a symphonist late in the game), and performance issues that led him to revise his own work.
> 
> . . .
> 
> Why do people say his orchestration is bad? Who else here loves his works?
> 
> (Also, I love the A minor violin sonata! I will be playing that for my recital I think!)


I would love to read your paper and find out your answers to these questions. I have studied Schumanns scores and I do agree with the music critics that his orchestration skills were not his strong point. There are a bunch of problems with his orchestrations, technical and artistic. Rather than write my own paper on his orchestration, consider these issues:

1) variety of textures used and their effectiveness
2) application of harmonic overtone principals to the orchestration voicings (this was the big criticism of Brahms, often described as "muddy")
3) use of the correct instrument range choices to bring out the correct color and strenth of each instrument. (Don't write in the low range for the flute and expect it to carry the melody over full orchestra, that sort of thing.)
4) coordination of instrument ranges within the families to create a blended color effect (all the brass in their low range will give a distictive "color" much different than all the brass in their high ranges.)

Schumann seems to completely disregard these issues, or perhaps be unaware of them. I really would like to read your paper.


----------



## Vaneyes

Shucks, a genius in spite of.


----------

