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

[Joseph K]

I first remember listening to Schumann's Symphonies played by the Cleveland Orchestra under Szell via youtube and I liked them a lot. Then I checked out John Eliot Gardener's versions via youtube (can't remember the orchestra - probably the ORR) and think I remember enjoying those too. Decided I'll listen to them all again by these same conductors and see what I make of them this time.

[Richard Barrett]

To me, ANY recording or performance of, say, a Mozart or Sibelius symphony is going to sound wonderful - perhaps that's because I've come to realize that great works can be interpreted in any number of ways. A simplistic approach, maybe, but it works for me.

I think we all realise that music can be interpreted in any number of ways, although even such a "simplistic" approach has its complexities. To me, any performance of anything by JS Bach is going to sound wonderful (even a beginner practising it, to be honest). On the other hand, if someone's going to conduct (as an example off the top of my head) Alban Berg's op.6 orchestral pieces with any less than total attention given to the precise dynamic balances the composer indicates in the score, the result is going to sound murky and confused. So the spectrum of plausible interpretations is extremely wide in Bach, much narrower in Berg, as far as this listener is concerned. Now there are no doubt many people for whom Berg's piece will sound murky and confused however much care is taken in performing it. We all have our blind spots. Personally I try to understand mine and work on them, but that's because thinking about music occupies a considerable proportion of my waking hours. If that gives anyone the impression of being talked down to, that isn't the intention: as Jayne says, we can all learn from each other no matter how much we might think we know, and everyone has a contribution to make. But what happened to people respecting and cherishing each other's knowledge and insights? No doubt some will have noticed that Jayne and I regularly disagree on many aspects of music, but it might also be noticed that when either of us mentions something that they think deserves to be heard, the other goes off and listens to it, perhaps to come to very different conclusions, but that's the whole point.

[Joseph K]

I think we all realise that music can be interpreted in any number of ways, although even such a "simplistic" approach has its complexities. To me, any performance of anything by JS Bach is going to sound wonderful (even a beginner practising it, to be honest). On the other hand, if someone's going to conduct (as an example off the top of my head) Alban Berg's op.6 orchestral pieces with any less than total attention given to the precise dynamic balances the composer indicates in the score, the result is going to sound murky and confused. So the spectrum of plausible interpretations is extremely wide in Bach, much narrower in Berg, as far as this listener is concerned. Now there are no doubt many people for whom Berg's piece will sound murky and confused however much care is taken in performing it. We all have our blind spots. Personally I try to understand mine and work on them, but that's because thinking about music occupies a considerable proportion of my waking hours. If that gives anyone the impression of being talked down to, that isn't the intention: as Jayne says, we can all learn from each other no matter how much we might think we know, and everyone has a contribution to make. But what happened to people respecting and cherishing each other's knowledge and insights? No doubt some will have noticed that Jayne and I regularly disagree on many aspects of music, but it might also be noticed that when either of us mentions something that they think deserves to be heard, the other goes off and listens to it, perhaps to come to very different conclusions, but that's the whole point.

[Barbirollians]

It is my least favourite Schumann symphony . My first recording was the Karajan which seemed to go on for days.

[LMcD]

It is my least favourite Schumann symphony . My first recording was the Karajan which seemed to go on for days.

Perhaps HvK's Rhine doesn't flow smoothly enough ...

I have noticed that, of late, almost every edition of BaL seems to trigger as many complaints about its structure and presenters as it does comments about the recommended version(s) of the work concerned. I always have a peek to see which recording 'won', even though I'm most unlikely to add to my CD collection unless I don't already have a recording of the work in question but would like to. Mr McG does seem to come in for an awful lot of stick, doesn't he!

[cloughie]

It is my least favourite Schumann symphony . My first recording was the Karajan which seemed to go on for days.

My first recording and indeed probably first hearing of the Rhenish, probably first hearing of any Schumann symphony was BPO Leitner on a Heliodor mono LP, around 60 years ago - the opening of the Symphony is so bright and cheerful - and I was hooked. Stodge-free then as now - I have just downloaded the recording to check!

[LMcD]

My first recording and indeed probably first hearing of the Rhenish, probably first hearing of any Schumann symphony was BPO Leitner on a Heliodor mono LP, around 60 years ago - the opening of the Symphony is so bright and cheerful - and I was hooked. Stodge-free then as now - I have just downloaded the recording to check!

Is it actually possible to produce a stodgy performance or recording of the 'Rhenish'? A friend of mine at university, of whose musical knowledge I stood in awe, told me that the opening is so tricky for a conductor to get right that the only possible explanation is Schumann was mad. All I can hear, and see in my mind's eye, is the river as depicted by somebody who was clearly in an extremely cheerful mood at the time. For me, it's one of those life-affirming works for which one should be eternally grateful.

[verismissimo]

I think we all realise that music can be interpreted in any number of ways, although even such a "simplistic" approach has its complexities. To me, any performance of anything by JS Bach is going to sound wonderful (even a beginner practising it, to be honest). On the other hand, if someone's going to conduct (as an example off the top of my head) Alban Berg's op.6 orchestral pieces with any less than total attention given to the precise dynamic balances the composer indicates in the score, the result is going to sound murky and confused. So the spectrum of plausible interpretations is extremely wide in Bach, much narrower in Berg, as far as this listener is concerned. Now there are no doubt many people for whom Berg's piece will sound murky and confused however much care is taken in performing it. We all have our blind spots. Personally I try to understand mine and work on them, but that's because thinking about music occupies a considerable proportion of my waking hours. If that gives anyone the impression of being talked down to, that isn't the intention: as Jayne says, we can all learn from each other no matter how much we might think we know, and everyone has a contribution to make. But what happened to people respecting and cherishing each other's knowledge and insights? No doubt some will have noticed that Jayne and I regularly disagree on many aspects of music, but it might also be noticed that when either of us mentions something that they think deserves to be heard, the other goes off and listens to it, perhaps to come to very different conclusions, but that's the whole point.

[cloughie]

Is it actually possible to produce a stodgy performance or recording of the 'Rhenish'? A friend of mine at university, of whose musical knowledge I stood in awe, told me that the opening is so tricky for a conductor to get right that the only possible explanation is Schumann was mad. All I can hear, and see in my mind's eye, is the river as depicted by somebody who was clearly in an extremely cheerful mood at the time. For me, it's one of those life-affirming works for which one should be eternally grateful.

Absolument!

[BBMmk2]

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)

That looks tempting! (Re Sawalllisch). Thanks!

[Barbirollians]

Yes the Sawallisch changed my mind - as did Kubelik on DG ( which I know Nick did not like) . Szell, Boult and Harnoncourt also good.

I think Harnoncourt conducted Schumann better than anything else he conducted.

[jayne lee wilson]

There's an excellent survey of the Schumann 3rd by Geraint Lewis in Gramophone Collection, 10/2012.

No Ticciati or YNS or Holliger of course and sadly overlooks Zinman, but very good on the historical, biographical and musical background and with an intriguing Historical/Mainstream/Period Instrument shortlist and final choice....

[Serial_Apologist]

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.

You and I, both!

I would draw a line with those best-known Russian 19th century composers, who seem to have anticipated 20th century contrasts and combinations of instrumental colour to (sometime) structural ends. But I take your point about good HIPP performances possibly casting a better light on 19th century repertoire.

[LMcD]

That looks tempting! (Re Sawalllisch). Thanks!

It's clearly one of those works that brings out the best in conductors and orchestras - it also seems to 'travel well', judging by some of the names that have cropped up.

[Richard Barrett]

No Ticciati or YNS or Holliger of course

I'd forgotten that Holliger had recorded Schumann, with whose music he seems to feel a deep kinship, as expressed in his own Gesänge der Frühe for example. Lined up in Qobuz for listening later. Holliger of course is exceptionally sensitive to timbre and texture - as Schumann himself wasn't, really, which is at the root of the problem I experience with his orchestral music: just as his piano writing often seems unwilling to venture outside the central register of the instrument, his orchestration is rooted in a similar sort of approach, expanded mainly by octave doublings and coloured by unison doublings, the result being, well, a bit stodgy. Mahler's reorchestrations indeed tend to remove more than they add. Otherwise the lean approach of the HIPPsters has a similar kind of effect, whether or not it reflects Schumann's own experience or preferences.