BaL 2.06.18 - Schumann: Symphony no. 4 in D minor

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Since someone called Mellors has been mentioned twice now, I think for the sake of accuracy, it should be noted that the reviewer in today's Building a Library was William Mival.

I apologise unreservedly - and in particular to Mr Mival.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I'd never heard the Barenboim before, either - pretty damn fine. I sha'n't be bothering with Rattle or Harnoncourt.

Neither had I, but it seemed an appropriate winner, in that Barenboim is something of a Furtwangler disciple.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Whatever I might think of the cluttered format, I couldn't not listen to the BaL of this wonderful symphony. There seemed to be so much more variety in interpretation than I'd expected. By the end I was convinced more than ever of my dislike of Norrington's way, and of Harnoncourt's woodenness, where everything sounds either rushed or heavy. I wasn't keen on Rattle on this occasion, but Barenboim was very much to my taste.

Ticciati? Surely a sample would have been appropriate?

Schumann's orchestration? WM repeated what many have said - that Schumann knew what he was doing, but I do sometimes wonder. The opening chords of the finale just don't seem evenly balanced, and so many versions sounding weedy/scratchy - even with Karajan, a conductor for whom one would generally assume the opposite.

[jayne lee wilson]

I rather like Harnoncort’ interpretations, generally speaking, so I hope that à la Polonaise movement won’t spoil anything?

Did they not mention that? I'll wait till I've heard this BaL to say more, but I feel this detail could annoy some listeners on repeated hearings, despite the outstanding qualities otherwise of Harnoncourt 4/1841 (and the whole COE cycle, as I say a longterm favourite) overall. Try-Before-Buy if possible....
Did they compare Harnoncourt's Berlin Phil 1851/4th?

[rauschwerk]

Schumann's orchestration? WM repeated what many have said - that Schumann knew what he was doing, but I do sometimes wonder. The opening chords of the finale just don't seem evenly balanced, and so many versions sounding weedy/scratchy - even with Karajan, a conductor for whom one would generally assume the opposite.

In 1851, when he revised the piece, Schumann improved the actual music, but because of his insecurity as a conductor he messed up the orchestration by introducing many unnecessary doublings. Hans Gal talks about this in his BBC Music Guide to Schumann's orchestral music. This is why Brahms preferred the earlier version.

[richardfinegold]

Coincidentally, I have Barenboim's Bruckner CSO on this month's playlist. Over the last few years it's been his BPO & Staatskapelle Berlin and I've kinda neglected the Chicago ....

That’s interesting, because I don’t think that I purchased any recordings that DB made when he was MD here either, but I have plenty of his Staatkapelle recordings.
I listened to the ‘winner’ just now on Apple- I’m out of town any may actual discs are back home-and just having hear the Furtwangler it is an interesting comparison. Like many DB recordings, this comes off as Furtwangler-lite, but perhaps one of his more successful attempts

[Beef Oven!]

In 1851, when he revised the piece, Schumann improved the actual music, but because of his insecurity as a conductor he messed up the orchestration by introducing many unnecessary doublings. Hans Gal talks about this in his BBC Music Guide to Schumann's orchestral music. This is why Brahms preferred the earlier version.

Thank you for the explanation. They didn't expand on the reasons why Brahms preferred the 1841.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Neither had I, but it seemed an appropriate winner, in that Barenboim is something of a Furtwangler disciple.

Like many DB recordings, this comes off as Furtwangler-lite, but perhaps one of his more successful attempts

I've reacted to many of DB's recordings with the feeling that he is somewhat "Furtwangler-heavy" - in other words, I often get the sense that he's trying a little too hard to emulate his revered mentor. When the Furtwangler influence is fully assimilated (often, though obviously not in this case, when performing repertoire that WF didn't regularly perform) he is one of the finest conductors around - as amply demonstrated in the excerpts we heard on today's programme. And was I the only one who kept thinking that this is a performance led by someone who's used to performing Schumann's work as a professional pianist?

[jayne lee wilson]

Thank you for the explanation. They didn't expand on the reasons why Brahms preferred the 1841.

The clearest musical differences can be heard in the intros to the first and last movements - in (i), 1851 sounds more conventional, more smoothly controlled as it transitions into the quicker music than the choppier, less predictable excitements of 1841. There's no pause before the 1841 finale either which is approached in a headlong, less grandly rhetorical style (and no 1st movement exposition repeat - at least, I've never heard any conductor make one - much to the music's impulsive benefit).
I don't feel there were any musical improvements as such in the revision, which is why you should get to know 1841 independently, without too much cross-comparison until you know the Original well.

I finally made it to the end of the BaL, after, again, much internet interruption (very unusual here...). Much to say about it, will post later but - was it just editorial carelessness that completely omitted any excerpts from the scherzo? This can bring out SO/CO contrast very vividly, usually to the smaller groups' advantage. (And which according to JS in the G. is presto in 1841, but a mere lebhaft in the revision). They only compared the trio from the 3rd movement... very odd.
And stopping the Harnoncourt finale excerpt at just the point where the tempo anomaly is about to become obvious seemed perverse; negating what BaL is supposed to be about, really.... careless, again.

[BBMmk2]

JLW, despite that misgiving about the CoE/Harnoncourt 4th, I might just hear it first.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

As Jayne says, no repeat in the 1841 version:

[aeolium]

I much prefer the 1851 version, which seems to be structurally better and much more dramatically intense. This short essay by Kenneth Woods goes into some detail about the nature of the revisions and explains far better than I could how they make the work more effective:

http://kennethwoods.net/blog1/2013/01/19/explore-the-score-schumann-symphony-no-4/

I've heard some good BaLs from William Mival but he seemed very ill at ease with the live discussion format, sometimes making slips e.g. with the date of the Haitink recording. Also, while he emphasised the differences between the 1841 and 1851 versions, there were times when he did not make clear which version was being used when he provided extracts - and for people who definitely prefer one version to another, like me, that's a pretty significant omission. And McGregor's contributions added nothing of value to the discussion, imv. So what could have been a well-argued and well-illustrated BaL was disappointing and somewhat disjointed.

Fwiw, my preferences are for Furtwängler, Sawallisch and more recently Chailly/Leipzig Gewandhaus in a live recording.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I much prefer the 1851 version, which seems to be structurally better and much more dramatically intense. This short essay by Kenneth Woods goes into some detail about the nature of the revisions and explains far better than I could how they make the work more effective:

When composers revise their works, it is fascinating to have the opportunity to glimpse earlier versions. We can compare early and late versions of works such as Beethoven's Leonora/Fidelio, VW's London Symphony, Tchaikovsky's 2nd Symphony & Romeo & Juliet. And as for Bruckner...

[jayne lee wilson]

Whilst ambitious in its scope, I was disappointed in this survey for its critical vocabulary - very generalised, superficial and rather unenlightening re. interpretative detail and differences, or between large and small scale recordings.
(Rather stumbling, conversational delivery with too many “y’know”s didn’t help either. I don’t think it is old-fashioned to comment on this).

***
Too much time was spent on the 1970s and later, larger symphony-orchestral recordings, to the extent that it wasn’t really clear from either comment or excerpt why the Barenboim/Berlin Staatskapelle 1851 4th was supposed to be so distinct from other big-band, overtly Romantic accounts.
But listening to - and sometimes enjoying - the complete recording on Qobuz later, I could certainly hear what the critic meant about the finale intro sounding like “proto-Bruckner” - it does, to an almost comically exaggerated extent. The hefty scherzo with its indulgently ponderous trio brings a certain style of Bruckner-galumph to mind as well. The Romanze almost comes to a sleepy standstill in the Wagnerian forest.

Yet the finale itself is often quite brisk and agile, at times surprisingly transparent to those grunting cellos and basses, almost a large-scale HIPPs effect. I warmed to it, and those delicate Staatskapelle violins as it went along; the recessed winds peering out from the forest depths a little more; only to find myself and my room flooded with great crashing waves of modern-Romantic tone again in the agogic, culminatory climaxes and the coda.
There’s a degree of interpretative incoherence here, in this Mendelssohn-Wagner hybrid; the display of orchestral sound seems to obstruct my view of the music.
Still, there is beauty and power: it had a certain vintage-Mercedes-down-the-country-lanes charm about it; if only Daniel wouldn’t rev it all up quite so hard, when he hits the open road.

***
Meanwhile, back at the BaL…..
It sounded to me like Mival hasn’t spent nearly long enough with those recent chamber-orchestral releases which after all, generated great critical excitement and discussion everywhere on their 2014 release, and have been Gramophone references ever since. He just wasn’t up-to-speed on them, as a more aware and conscientious reviewer like Rob Cowan or Richard Wigmore would be (they would probably have noted finer detail, such as where period brass and/or timps are used in modern contexts, e.g. Zinman, Ticciati). (Seek out the excellent David Threasher in the Gramophone, or Nigel Simeone in the IRR for a deeply appreciative consideration of Ticciati and YNS; and for Cowan on the earlier Dausgaard).

Describing the Ticciati as “anaemic” or “Rossinian” (what, like Schubert 6 perhaps?) or YNS as “skittish” (is the conductor, or the orchestra, supposed to be insulting Schumann?) is unhelpful (giving no real sense of how they actually sound) and misleading: totally inaccurate, as anyone who bought them and lived with them will know. It is skittish itself, and a serious misrepresentation. Both are very dynamic, wide-ranging in lean-ness or fullness of tone; extremely subtle, warm and varied in their expression. More so than Dausgaard (whom he briefly favoured), who does tend to the plain-spoken and sometimes instrumentally colourless, in the 1851 score especially. His Schumann recordings can sometimes sound like a toned-down JEG (who is far more excitingly confrontational than this survey exemplified).

It was a pity the only except from JEG 1841 came after a raft of smooth, warm 70s Romantics, then described merely as “interesting”. Both JEG versions, but 1851 especially, create a terrifically incisive and startlingly dynamic impact played at volume in your room. Over-obvious adjectives such as the inevitable “lighter” ignore the very considerable and clearly-defined bass presence in the climaxes.
Still at least the boxset made the final shortlist, and with some praise.
As for Harnoncourt, it was a shame they cut off the 1841 finale just before the point where, after that oddly stately Polonaisian opening, a sudden tempo increase occurs, with the disconcerting effect I observed above. (Jon Swain drew attention to this “track 9, for the first 22 seconds” - classic close-listening Swain - in his otherwise fairly adulatory 2/95 review). This is important in a recording you may end up living with.
Not comparing this to Harnoncourt's terrific if slightly bass-heavy Berlin Philharmonic live reading (where no such anomaly occurs) of 1851 was another missed opportunity.
(This would make an excellent final BaL or Collection choice itself, if you wanted a full-blooded, full-orchestral 1851 4th. Far better balanced than Barenboim, fastidiously judged in all interpretative and expressive respects: never indulgent or exaggerated, yet incisively dramatic and Romantic, and the best modern-symphony-orchestral revised 4th I heard, all week. Harnoncourt takes up the older Romantic tradition of Sawallisch or Karajan etc., but gives us a far more idiomatic, less generalised account. This classic record should have a universal appeal).

Strange too, to exemplify the 3rd movement without playing any part of the scherzo (which is presto in 1841, lebhaft in 1851); only the trio, repeatedly, again with a rather obvious slower-Romantic/lighter-classical commentary.

But the shortlist was at least fairly broad-minded, with Harnoncourt/1841, JEG and thankfully Zinman mentioned very positively.

[HighlandDougie]

I was on a plane so unable to listen live; having read Jayne's commentary above, I don't feel any great need to catch up on i-Player. "Y'knows" - the horror, the horror ... (actually we don't bloody know).