Musical questions and answers thread
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by EdgeleyRob View PostOne to sleep on folks.
Why does Robert Schumann's orchestral writing come in for so much criticism by the experts ?
1) They're not "experts" (or, at least, not experts in Schumann's orchestral Music).
2) They want it to sound more like Mendelssohn's.
3) Schumann came relatively late in his career to writing orchestral Music. This gives them the excuse (which they cite as "evidence") to say he never really mastered orchestral technique (or some other such guff). He certainly had practical problems with the vagueries of valveless brass instruments (on one occasion at the start of the First Symphony) - but that is AFAIK the only actual error in any of the works. He had as individual an idea about how orchestral instruments might sound as he had about rhythm in his Piano Music, but no "expert" suggests that those should be altered. The real acid test is in the re-orchestrations by others (some of whom should have known better): the Music sounds less convincing when given "more expert" orchestration.
Schumann knew what he was doing and what was best for his own Music, and had much hands-on experience as a conductor in his later years. Play what he wrote (and preferably on the instruments he was accustomed to hear) and his orchestration works wonderfully.[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by EdgeleyRob View Post...Why does Robert Schumann's orchestral writing come in for so much criticism by the experts ?Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostPossibly because:
1) They're not "experts" (or, at least, not experts in Schumann's orchestral Music).
2) They want it to sound more like Mendelssohn's.
3) Schumann came relatively late in his career to writing orchestral Music. This gives them the excuse (which they cite as "evidence") to say he never really mastered orchestral technique (or some other such guff). He certainly had practical problems with the vagueries of valveless brass instruments (on one occasion at the start of the First Symphony) - but that is AFAIK the only actual error in any of the works. He had as individual an idea about how orchestral instruments might sound as he had about rhythm in his Piano Music, but no "expert" suggests that those should be altered. The real acid test is in the re-orchestrations by others (some of whom should have known better): the Music sounds less convincing when given "more expert" orchestration.
Schumann knew what he was doing and what was best for his own Music, and had much hands-on experience as a conductor in his later years. Play what he wrote (and preferably on the instruments he was accustomed to hear) and his orchestration works wonderfully.
I've conducted several Schumann works, including the Rhenish twice. The main problem I had with the Rhenish was to inject colour into the first movement, which carries on for long spans at fever pitch with almost unchanging orchestration. But I don't consider that a fault - Schumann just makes the conductor think a bit more than other composers. Likewise the (very difficult) Overture, Scherzo & Finale which could get bogged down with dotted rhythms if the conductor doesn't think it through carefully before anyone plays a note.
Remember too that Schumann was one of the earliest composers for whom 'orchestration' was a major thing. How often do we criticise Beethoven's, let alone Haydn's? I blame it all on Weber and Berlioz. (Mendelssohn's orchestration was just too perfect - unfair competition.)
Comment
-
-
Roehre
Originally posted by EdgeleyRob View PostWhy does Robert Schumann's orchestral writing come in for so much criticism by the experts ?
A point in this case is that Mendelssohn conducted Schumann without altering a single note - which he did from time to time with other (dead or alive) composers' works.
The revision of the Sinfonische Fantasie (1841) into the Fourth Symphony (1851) shows that here Schumann's music became structurally less audacious, and his orchestration more "middle of the road" - after listening to Wagner and Raff and with his experience as conductor in Düsseldorf under his belt.
The "thick" orchestration and the doubling of lines became a problem after the instruments developed more into those with which we are familiar. Recent recordings of Stravinsky and Ravel with early 20C instruments show that this development hadn't stopped yet even in their days. Gardiner's Schumann set shows what a difference it makes to use instruments Schumann was familiar with.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roehre View PostGardiner's Schumann set shows what a difference it makes to use instruments Schumann was familiar with.
Comment
-
-
Richard Barrett
Originally posted by Rolmill View PostYes, that was going to be my (non-expert) comment on this question - Gardiner's excellent set makes it quite clear to me that any supposed "problems" stem from a mixture of using the 'wrong' instruments and unsympathetic conducting. Thanks to fhg, Pabmusic and Roehre for their interesting points.
(And, tangentially, there is plenty of orchestration being done right now which is just as "safe" as Schumann's.)
Comment
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostPossibly because:
1) They're not "experts" (or, at least, not experts in Schumann's orchestral Music).
2) They want it to sound more like Mendelssohn's.
3) Schumann came relatively late in his career to writing orchestral Music. This gives them the excuse (which they cite as "evidence") to say he never really mastered orchestral technique (or some other such guff). He certainly had practical problems with the vagueries of valveless brass instruments (on one occasion at the start of the First Symphony) - but that is AFAIK the only actual error in any of the works. He had as individual an idea about how orchestral instruments might sound as he had about rhythm in his Piano Music, but no "expert" suggests that those should be altered. The real acid test is in the re-orchestrations by others (some of whom should have known better): the Music sounds less convincing when given "more expert" orchestration.
Schumann knew what he was doing and what was best for his own Music, and had much hands-on experience as a conductor in his later years. Play what he wrote (and preferably on the instruments he was accustomed to hear) and his orchestration works wonderfully.
I've been reading up a bit on orchestration recently and only asked the question because Schumann's writing for orchestra seems to get some stick.
As usual the forum never fails,many thanks Roehre,Pabs,RB and Ferney for your fascinating replies,appreciated.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Eine Alpensinfonie View PostThis one has always puzzled me. Looking at the Boosey & Hawkes miniature score of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, the brass section has two different instruments that appear to be kinds of trumpet: 2 "pistoni" in B flat and 2 "trombe" in E flat. What is the difference (apart from the pitch)?[FONT=Comic Sans MS][I][B]Numquam Satis![/B][/I][/FONT]
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by ferneyhoughgeliebte View PostIt's the same in the Eulenburg edition, too. I've always presumed the "pistoni" are the "cornet a piston" such as found in Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique, whilst the Trumpets are the usual orchestral trumpets?
Comment
-
Comment