BaL 3.10.20 - Schumann: Symphony no. 3 "Rhenish"

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Dare I say VPO/Bernstein and the thrilling old NYPO/Walter...

Bernstein really plumbs the depths in Schumann symphonies. I like Mehta too. The big disappointment was Solti, not so much because of the conducting/playing/interpretation, but but because the Decca/Sofiensaal sound, normally so superb, is deficient on this occasion. One of the first post-Culshaw Vienna/Decca productions.

[CallMePaul]

This is a work I am looking to add to my collection (I have the BRSO/ Kubelik on LP but lack a CD version and am not interested in downloads). From what I have heard of their Schumann, the ones likely to appeal to me are Holliger and Daumsgard, although I will listen with an open mind to the programme. I note that the reviewer is Marina Frotola-Walker, who seems to prefer older, more traditional performances (judging by her BAL on the Pathétique symphony, so I anticipate disagreement!

[akiralx]

Strange that Barenboim's second (Staatskapelle Berlin) set is unavailable now.

[cloughie]

Bernstein really plumbs the depths in Schumann symphonies. I like Mehta too. The big disappointment was Solti, not so much because of the conducting/playing/interpretation, but but because the Decca/Sofiensaal sound, normally so superb, is deficient on this occasion. One of the first post-Culshaw Vienna/Decca productions.

Solti’s No2 is fine and has long been a favourite of mine, but 3/4 less so sound-wise.

[Petrushka]

I have various sets of the Schumann symphonies lurking within conductor boxes including Karajan, Kubelik (x2), Klemperer as well as other complete sets eg Chailly, Solti and Sawallisch I also have the NYPO/Bruno Walter 'Rhenish' referred to by Barbirollians.

However, my 'go-to' runaway favourite for all of the Schumann symphonies, including the 'Rhenish' is George Szell and the Cleveland Orchestra mentioned by richardfinegold. It's available in the complete Sony box.

[verismissimo]

Previously recommended by JLW, Dausgaard with the Swedish CO is absolutely terrific.

[verismissimo]

Hanover Band/Goodman and Tonhalle Zürich/Zinman are not to be baulked at, either.

Both seem spottily available. Can't speak for the Goodman, but the Zinman is outstanding IMO.

[BBMmk2]

Now, I don’t have any of his symphonies!

[Nick Armstrong]

Now, I don’t have any of his symphonies!

I’ve had the Sawallisch / Dresden set since it came out on CD (most recently investing in the Japanese pressings on jayne’s advice), and also have the excellent Dausgaard set on Qobuz. (I flirted with Ticciati & Nezet-Séguin but haven’t really gone back to them).

But for the 3rd specifically, I’ve long had a soft spot for the Tennstedt/Berlin version (coupled on EMI with a cracking Konzertstück for horns)

[Cockney Sparrow]

I had the Sawallish set on vinyl, but never pursued ownership on CD. For some reason, I am not so enthusiastc about the Schumann symphonies. But I'll give it another listen - dipping into recommendations here and on the BAL. Sometimes a different reading can make all the difference (as I'm sure we all know....).

[Richard Barrett]

Schumann's symphonies didn't make any sense to me until the HIPPsters got to grips with them, and in Schumann's case Herreweghe and JEG specifically, although
actually recently I've listened more often to Chailly's recordings of the Mahler versions. The traditional way of realising Schumann's orchestral sound seems stodgy to me, the more so now it's clear from the aforementioned examples that it doesn't need to be that way.

[cloughie]

Schumann's symphonies didn't make any sense to me until the HIPPsters got to grips with them, and in Schumann's case Herreweghe and JEG specifically, although
actually recently I've listened more often to Chailly's recordings of the Mahler versions. The traditional way of realising Schumann's orchestral sound seems stodgy to me, the more so now it's clear from the aforementioned examples that it doesn't need to be that way.

I don't know about making sense but I've had many years of enjoyment from the greats of the past! Try Krips 1, Solti 2, Fruhbeck 3 and Furtwangler 4 - no stodge there.

[jayne lee wilson]

I don't know about making sense but I've had many years of enjoyment from the greats of the past! Try Krips 1, Solti 2, Fruhbeck 3 and Furtwangler 4 - no stodge there.

But how closely have you really listened to Harnoncourt, Dausgaard, Ticciati (all "modern" instrument) or JEG or Goodman.... "stodge" maybe, in any case, an overstated term; for me its more about the inappropriate, full-Romantic-orchestral heaviness, a lack of rhythmic, motivic and overall expressive agility, which sounds like a serious compromise of the essentially volatile moods of Schumann's work (which become even more obvious if you take time to know, feel, and love the chamber and instrumental repertoire).

All this is true of Mendelssohn too. But until you live with that different sound, saturate yourself in its newness, its revelations, how would you know?
Yes, I did hear many of those recordings you mention, many of which do their very best to adapt this big, rich, Symphony-Orchestral beast to the delicacy and subtlety of the early-romantic style. (Sawallisch/Furtwangler: great, memorable and impassioned recordings, but: Schumann in the style of postwar 20thC Bruckner). But you have to have it all in your heart and your head, to hear, know, and feel the difference.

Like/dislike is fine but learning to appreciate the relative, historical values, the (continuing) evolution of performance styles, is much more interesting.

Microcosm: compare the 1841/1851 Schumann 4ths.... any recording really, but with the same conductor/orchestra.....

In other words: Schumann knew the difference...

[Richard Barrett]

I don't know about making sense but I've had many years of enjoyment from the greats of the past! Try Krips 1, Solti 2, Fruhbeck 3 and Furtwangler 4 - no stodge there.

No doubt you have, but I've always had a problem with most 19th century music played the way most 19th century music was played until recently, which I would characterise as sounding stodgy, whoever was conducting it. Music from between 1750 and 1900 is in any case not a repertoire that I listen to very often, partly for that reason, partly because it just doesn't attract me as much as music from earlier or later periods. By "making sense" I mean something I feel so to speak in tune with.

[cloughie]

No doubt you have, but I've always had a problem with most 19th century music played the way most 19th century music was played until recently, which I would characterise as sounding stodgy, whoever was conducting it. Music from between 1750 and 1900 is in any case not a repertoire that I listen to very often, partly for that reason, partly because it just doesn't attract me as much as music from earlier or later periods. By "making sense" I mean something I feel so to speak in tune with.

RB I haven’t had that problem - it doesn’t mean that I don’t also like some of the modern re-interpretations of them - stodginess, however is not a word I would remotely apply to the recordings I have mentioned, which you may written off without a listen because as you say you don’t really like the music. Life would be dull if either we all liked everything or we all liked the same things.