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

[jayne lee wilson]

Indeed not. I feel that Schumann does need larger 'old-fashioned(!)' forces to pull it off to maximum effect. However, nothing wrong with smaller chamber-type forces, for a different approach, which many prefer.In either case, it's a question getting the equilibrium exactly right. I would imagine Schumann is easy to make a muddle of!

What do you mean by that please?
As you know I take the polar opposite view now (despite formerly, still to some extent, enjoying several SO recordings from earlier eras), and never find the aforementioned CO or HIPPs or period performances ever lacking in impact.... quite the reverse....(Goodman is a real blast on the brass and timps!)
Have you heard the Boult from 1956? Now there's a talking-point....

I'll listen to this BaL later.... was there a final shortlist at all, in, say, different categories? (HIPPs, CO, Mainstream etc)....

[Bryn]

What do you mean by that please?
As you know I take the polar opposite view now (despite enjoying several SO recordings from earlier eras), and never find the aforementioned CO or HIPPs or period performances ever lacking in impact.... quite the reverse....

I'll list this BaL later.... was there a final shortlist at all, in, say, different categories? (HIPPs, CO, Mainstream etc)....

My 'conversion' to Schumann's symphonies was the SCO/Mackerras survey at the 1999 EIF. Small orchestra and minimal rehearsal time. They remain my go-to, FM audio to Dolby S cassette audio quality notwithstanding.

Conrad Wilson in the Herald at the time:

ACCEPTING the quality of Schumann's orchestration is not quite the opposite of not accepting it. Accepting it does not necessarily mean believing that Schumann knew best, but simply recognising that he created a sound world which, for all its quirks, suited what he wanted to say. That, at any rate, seemed to be the philosophy behind the first of Sir Charles Mackerras's three Schumann programmes with the SCO, in which he took the music as it came, without seeking to prove it prettier, uglier, less opaque, more brilliant than it is thought to be. If the use of a chamber orchestra did throw special light on certain details, such as the timbre of the trombones, it did not prompt us to revise our opinions of the music as a whole. Yet this was a concert packed with interest, providing full scope for Sir Charles's enthusiasm for authentic horn tone, for original versions of works (in this case the D minor Symphony) subsequently revised, and for music with rarity value. Even if the symphony provided no major revelations in its earlier guise last night, it was good to hear it that way, particularly in a performance that did nothing to streamline it or to make it sound more portentous than it actually is. Earlier, the Spring symphony had rather a bumpy ride - this was definitely a Scottish spring rather than a German one - but it was Sir Charles's determination to allow Schumann his abrasiveness that gave the performance its integrity. The evening's most haunting moment, however, came in the Violin Concerto, that touching and still-neglected product of the composer's declining years. Christian Tetzlaff's delicate account of the solo part, and the spectral grace he brought to its dancing finale, did much to show how this strange cadaver is still worth resuscitating.

[Pianoman]

I shall catch this later as I adore this piece !
For the record, I have Sawallisch, Gardiner, Goodman and most recently Dausgaard. I initially dismissed the Dausgaard as simply too 'lightweight' and lacking 'heft' which is amply supplied in the glorious Dresden/ Sawallisch. But, but...recent re-visiting has somewhat changed my mind and I can get a great deal of pleasure from the Dausgaard in terms of transparency, detail etc. Mind you, old habits die hard, and having bought the Hi-res version of the Sawallisch when I was going through a phase (of thinking I heard differences...) I have to say it stands up incredibly well - as buoyant as the others, full of crackling energy and the playing of that orchestra....ok, the initial mastering maybe leaves something to be desired, but all in all, the best of 'old school' for me.
Nice that we can have multiple versions, in fact mandatory I would say !

[MickyD]

What do you mean by that please?
As you know I take the polar opposite view now (despite formerly, still to some extent, enjoying several SO recordings from earlier eras), and never find the aforementioned CO or HIPPs or period performances ever lacking in impact.... quite the reverse....(Goodman is a real blast on the brass and timps!)
Have you heard the Boult from 1956? Now there's a talking-point....

I'll listen to this BaL later.... was there a final shortlist at all, in, say, different categories? (HIPPs, CO, Mainstream etc)....

Not that I heard whilst listening - not one HIP version was mentioned.

[LMcD]

Not that I heard whilst listening - not one HIP version was mentioned.

Perhaps they only had time for hip replacements.

[Bryn]

Not that I heard whilst listening - not one HIP version was mentioned.

A particularly serious oversight considering the argument put forward regarding Schumann's supposed weak orchestrations. The timbral balance revealed by smaller orchestras is even more starkly evinced by the sort of instruments Schumann was writing for.

[cloughie]

A particularly serious oversight considering the argument put forward regarding Schumann's supposed weak orchestrations. The timbral balance revealed by smaller orchestras is even more starkly evinced by the sort of instruments Schumann was writing for.

She did mention the way to get around the Schumann orchestration was to alter the approach and I think that was an early reference to Jarvi’s recording which it would appear has hipp tendencies maybe! I await the pantomime hipp response of ‘oh no it’s not’

[Richard Barrett]

I feel that Schumann does need larger 'old-fashioned(!)' forces to pull it off to maximum effect.

It depends on what one might think the "maximum effect" is. Firstly, there's the question of the kinds of spaces in which 19th century performances took place in distinction to modern concert halls. Schumann's orchestra was smaller because it was suited to the spaces in which it performed. It was no doubt just as powerful in those spaces as a larger orchestra might be in much larger ones. Secondly, a larger orchestra basically means adding to the string complement, which of course has a homogenising effect on the overall sound (winds in unison with strings make less of a difference to the sound the more strings there are, obviously), and this homogenisation could be seen as reducing the effect of the music by making its orchestration inevitably less colourful.

[visualnickmos]

What do you mean by that please?
As you know I take the polar opposite view now (despite formerly, still to some extent, enjoying several SO recordings from earlier eras), and never find the aforementioned CO or HIPPs or period performances ever lacking in impact.... quite the reverse....(Goodman is a real blast on the brass and timps!)
Have you heard the Boult from 1956? Now there's a talking-point....

I'll listen to this BaL later.... was there a final shortlist at all, in, say, different categories? (HIPPs, CO, Mainstream etc)....

You have fairly and squarely outlind the dichotomy of Schumann. I suppose it boils down to "Do I like it this way, or that way?" and importantly, perhaps, "Can I appreciate more than one stance?" Therein lies the beauty of creative discovery.

[mikealdren]

Yes, she knows her onions, and I like her. But what I find frustrating about the way BaL is run now, even more than the twofer format, is how few versions get a look in. Was it six or seven out of dozens? No classic Sawallisch (admittedly hampered by its recording quality), either of the JEGs, Ticciati etc etc. There was no indication she’d even listened to any of these. Not her fault, but it’s reducing the value of the exercise for me.

If I heard correctly, it's even worse than that as she mentioned that Walter version was the earliest of the versions she had been sent!!!!

[jayne lee wilson]

If I heard correctly, it's even worse than that as she mentioned that Walter version was the earliest of the versions she had been sent!!!!

Well.....1941 isn't all that recent, is it? I can't immediately recall many Rhenishes, let alone an outstanding one, from earlier.... the Toscanini Readings are mid-late 1940s ...
...Much more interesting in the 1950s with such as Rosbaud and Konwitschny...

[cloughie]

Well.....1941 isn't all that recent, is it? I can't immediately recall many Rhenishes, let alone an outstanding one, from earlier.... the Toscanini Readings are late 1940s IIRC...
...Much more interesting in the 1950s with such as Rosbaud and Konwitschny...

I think Mike's point was that the reviewer was sent a selection of recordings and those were reviewed rather than her having a free rein over all available recordings - hence few/no hipp versions and other omissions.

[jayne lee wilson]

I think Mike's point was that the reviewer was sent a selection of recordings and those were reviewed rather than her having a free rein over all available recordings - hence few/no hipp versions and other omissions.

Oh so the emphasis was on sent, not earliest?
OK, gotcha. I'll try to summarise my own response to the (mini-)survey later....

[cloughie]

Oh so the emphasis was on sent, not earliest?
OK, gotcha. I'll try to summarise my own response to the (mini-)survey later....

So, unless I missed something Paavo Jarvi was the nearest to hipp presented!

[jayne lee wilson]

So, unless I missed something Paavo Jarvi was the nearest to hipp presented!

No, Dausgaard would be be in that category too - but as I keep saying, the various Chamber Orchestral or Period recordings are all pretty distinct from one another; its no longer easy to summarise "HIPPs" characteristics........ hope to post something later. Gotta have something to do when the inescapable insomnia returns....