So who made you love the Schumann symphonies?

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

[Brahmsian]

I agree with Florestan, that Schumann made me fall in love with Schumann's symphonies.....well.....with Schumann in general.

Zinman with Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich.

[samuel]

Well, it's the only Schumann symphony I love, but Sinopoli made me REALLY love it.

[Florestan]

I agree with Florestan, that Schumann made me fall in love with Schumann's symphonies.....well.....with Schumann in general.

Zinman with Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich.

0:)

[Mookalafalas]

I just bought the DG Schumann box yesterday, and played the first disc, Symphonies 1 and 2 conducted by Gardiner, twice in a row.  Obviously I liked it a lot.

[Sergeant Rock]

No surprise who made me fall in love with Schumann:




Szell's cycle is still my desert island set. Also love Barenboim/Berlin, Bernstein/Vienna and Goodman/Hanover Band.

Sarge

[AnthonyAthletic]

For me it was Bernstein, until I bought this some 10 years ago.

[asin]B0000029PC[/asin]

[Mirror Image]

I don't love Schumann's symphonies, but like Sarge and Tony, the Szell set is my favorite cycle. Tremendous performances.

[Lisztianwagner]

In my case, Karajan did:

[Obradovic]

... the Szell set is my favorite cycle. Tremendous performances.

Aren't these performances reputedly 'corrected' by Szell himself? heard somewhere that the great Hungarian maestro had penciled some slight (?) alterations onto the scores and these rumors drove me away from purchasing the cycle... and I still desist... to my loss perhaps?

[Brahmsian]

Zinman with Tonhalle Orchestra Zurich.

[asin]B0007PLKS4[/asin]

[Sergeant Rock]

Aren't these performances reputedly 'corrected' by Szell himself? heard somewhere that the great Hungarian maestro had penciled some slight (?) alterations onto the scores and these rumors drove me away from purchasing the cycle... and I still desist... to my loss perhaps?

No mere rumor. He did fiddle with the scores. He was a defender of Schumann's symphonies, believing that Schumann knew how to write for the orchestra, even going so far as to publish an article in the New York Times, stating that belief. But in that same article he contradicts himself:

"To be sure, a Schumann score is not as foolproof, as "self-rising," as a score of Wagner or Tchaikovsky or Richard Strauss, nor has the musical substance of a Schumann symphony the kind of inexorable propulsion of some Beethoven symphonies, which will survive even a shabby performance relatively unharmed. But is it really Schumann's fault that it takes a little trouble on the part of the conductor and orchestra to make his symphonies come off? Schumann's shortcoming as an orchestrator is his inability to establish balances."

The changes are subtle (I don't notice much of a difference compared to other performances); nothing like Mahler's reorchestrations.


Sarge

[North Star]

...nothing like Mahler's reorchestrations.

I recall reading that Mahler just restored the orchestration to what Schumann originally wrote?

[The new erato]

Goodman/Hanover Band.

Sarge

Good to see that mentioned. It was my first complete CD cycle and I remember likening it a lot.

[Xenophanes]

Well, if you DO love Schumann symphonies, that is.

For me it certainly was Szell. Zinman is actually my 1st experience, and at first he didn't make me like Schumann for the precise reason I generally don't prefer HIPSter approaches. It's not that Zinman is "cold" (he certainly isn't) or rushed all the time, but texture-wise he certainly was very light. However this kind of sound makes the 1st symph sound entirely appropriate--- very joyful and bustling with energy.

In Schumann Szell's passion for these music is palpable. No people with enough musical intelligence should ever criticize Szell as "cold" after hearing his Schumann. Especially in the 2nd, Szell really injects Romantic passion into his readings---of course, never sacrificing good sound, discipline, and good sense of the musical structure. I especially admire the fact that he's able to always bring out the most important lines no matter how climatic the music gets and how muddy the orchestration supposedly becomes.

I also have Barenboim's Staatskapelle Berlin version. They're also captivating, with wonderful playing, intelligent & passionate interpretations, and very good orchestral balance (tho not as perfect as Szell's). Barenboim makes effort to extract all of the music's expressive potential by adjusting tempi a lot (influence of Furtwangler?), and altho I'm more accustomed to Szell's more straightforward ways, I have to say Barenboim's choices convince me.

In the LP days, I had Nos. 1 and 4 with Krips and No. 3 with Klemperer. I rather liked Nos. 3 and 4. Later, I got the box set with Szell, which is very good, though I always found the sound pleasant but not very realistic.

I got the Haitink set on CD, which is also very good. But what I actually listen when in the mood are the recordings by Antoni Wit and the Polish NRSO (Katowice) on Naxos.  I have had them for a number of years, and I greatly enjoyed them when I was in the hospital over 10 years ago.

[asin]B00000140G[/asin]

[asin]B000001441[/asin]

[jochanaan]

George Szell made the case that the orchestration is basically fine ( a few adjustments here and there) and that it is the job of the orchestra to play in balance, and that the job of the conductor to conduct, and not re-orchestrate.

I agree with Szell on this.  The "problems" come because in many modern orchestras, there are 64 or so strings and only single woodwinds.  Now, I've got plenty of tone when I play oboe, but not even I can expect seriously to compete with 16 first violins!  But with a smaller string section, or doubled woodwinds, the balance "problems" are much reduced.  (This approach also works wonders for Beethoven and Schubert and Mendelssohn. )

I recall reading that Mahler just restored the orchestration to what Schumann originally wrote?

I seriously doubt that!  Much as I adore Mahler's music and reputation as a conductor, he is by no means the model of a literalist.

My early favorite Schumann recording was the classic (1940s or '50s?) Bruno Walter/NY Phil recording of #3.

I've also played #1 and #4 in orchestra.  In Schumann's orchestral music there are few rests and lots of playing, so it's rather tiring, at least for the strings and woodwinds!  But there are so many lovely passages that the fatigue is well worth it.

One pet peeve of mine is how many conductors take #3's third movement very, very s-l-o-o-o-w-ly.  It's not slow!  It's merely Nicht schnell, "Not fast."  The old Walter recording gets the tempo relationships just right: moderately fast in the 2nd movement (sort of an anti-scherzo), slower but not too slow in the 3rd, then slower yet in the "Cathedral" movement.

[André]

Shouldn't this thread be renamed ?  Going beyond one's first love ( = usually first discographic discovery), one discovers new approaches, defines new personal benchmarks, etc.   "Schumann symphony recordings", then ?

I recently listened to the Chailly recordings in the Mahler retouchings. Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, Decca.

My very first single Schumann symphony recording was Klemperer's New Philharmonia EMI lp. Love at first hearing. Then Mehta's Wiener Phil lp of 1 and 4. Totally different but almost equally good.

Can't recall which integral was 'first' - either one of Kubelik's or Karajan's Berliner Phil series. Since then I have heard many versions, many discs.

The new (2012 ?) Chailly has the misfortune of seemingly combining different discographic firsts:

- it seems to attempt a norringtonian approach to phrasing and tempo. IOW it is sometimes breathless.
- it uses for that approach one of the oldest, more sonorous bands in the world. There is a stylistic clash of sorts.
- it combines the above with Mahler's numerous orchestrational and agogic touch ups.

What is the listener to make of this combination of editorial / interpretational mish-mash ? What is Mahler's contribution ? And what is due to some kind of norringtonian phrasing dogmaticism? Hard to tell I'm afraid. I didn't like the result. Just couldn't figure what was what in the final mix.

For my money, Klemperer (3, 4), Mehta (1, 4), Bernstein NY (1), Sinopoli (2) make the best case for these works. If it boils down to an integral set, both Kubelik interps are valuable entries.

[amw]

I think almost all conductors take slight liberties with orchestration at one time or another, although they don't always own up to it.  The main issue with Schumann, as I have gleened from various cd booklets and confirm with my own listening experience, is that the texture can be monotonously dense because melodic lines are too often doubled---given to more than one instrument to play in unison.

It can be instructive to compare the original version of the 4th symphony with the final version (scores for both are on IMSLP). In the final version, pretty much every solo wind part in the original version gets a doubling somewhere else. (There are also some small but significant changes to the music itself, e.g. the main theme of the finale.) The recording with Roy Goodman/Hanover Band (which coincidentally 0:) happens to be one of the two I have) uses the original version and makes it sound quite good, though I'm not sure whether I ultimately prefer it.

[akiralx]

1: Sawallisch EMI
2: Sinopoli I DG
3: Sawallisch EMI
4: Harnoncourt I (BPO) Teldec

[NJ Joe]

Bernstein NY
Sawallisch SD