Oh dear Felix....

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Ah, but the Italian has heights that, with the best will in the world, Bob just couldn't imagine.

[Richard Barrett]

Ah, but the Italian has heights that, with the best will in the world, Bob just couldn't imagine.

I'm not sure what you mean by heights, I mean it's a nice enough piece, I certainly don't mind hearing it now and again, but I do prefer something a bit more searching.

[cloughie]

There are plenty of other instances too, but they go along with his refusal to distinguish different dynamic levels within a texture (for example between principal melody, counterpoint and accompaniment), which now I think of it does support the idea that he was thinking too much in pianistic terms, because a pianist, seeing a single dynamic marking under a multilayered texture, will see it as part of his/her job to clarify such relationships, whereas a conductor of an orchestral piece must be careful to indicate to players that the dynamics they need to play are not necessarily the ones Schumann wrote. Addressing this issue was apparently a principal feature of Mahler's versions of the symphonies, although I haven't heard them or seen the scores so I'm going on hearsay about that. And (once again) dealing with it is made much easier by bearing in mind the size of Schumann's orchestra in Leipzig - about half the number of strings compared with current standards. Given a performance sensitive to problems like this, I would take Schumann's symphonies over Brahms's any day. Also, as you imply, they have a depth that, with the best will in the world, Mendelssohn's just don't.

Hang on guys - I'll argue to the hilt who does 'em best but would you want to be without any of those 13 beautiful C19th symphonies, other than perhaps the choral bit of M2?

[cloughie]

Ah, but the Italian has heights that, with the best will in the world, Bob just couldn't imagine.

Bob's 2 and 4 for starters.

[jayne lee wilson]

There are plenty of other instances too, but they go along with his refusal to distinguish different dynamic levels within a texture (for example between principal melody, counterpoint and accompaniment), which now I think of it does support the idea that he was thinking too much in pianistic terms, because a pianist, seeing a single dynamic marking under a multilayered texture, will see it as part of his/her job to clarify such relationships, whereas a conductor of an orchestral piece must be careful to indicate to players that the dynamics they need to play are not necessarily the ones Schumann wrote. Addressing this issue was apparently a principal feature of Mahler's versions of the symphonies, although I haven't heard them or seen the scores so I'm going on hearsay about that. And (once again) dealing with it is made much easier by bearing in mind the size of Schumann's orchestra in Leipzig - about half the number of strings compared with current standards. Given a performance sensitive to problems like this, I would take Schumann's symphonies over Brahms's any day. Also, as you imply, they have a depth that, with the best will in the world, Mendelssohn's just don't.

More than worth listening to the Mahler/Schumann arrangements which make fairly extensive adjustments to orchestration, dynamics and counterpoint, often removing or reducing wind/brass lines. (A few brief cuts are less welcome, but you’re soon past them).
A wonderful listen for anyone who knows the works well, and for me preferable to the originals - in the context of large modern symphony orchestras. Why wouldn’t you want to hear Mahler’s take on them, as a great composer, conductor and orchestrator?
Big, rich, weighty presentations of Schumann sound un-idiomatic to me now. But that’s the point about the chamber orchestral recordings aforementioned, you’re arriving at a similar destination to Mahler’s by a different, possibly historical, route.

Two excellent sets, but very different from each other!
I love the affectionately sweet, light take from Ceccato/Bergen SO. A special favourite, a pet set. Hidden treasure.
No idiosyncrasies of phrase or pace, lovely lift to the rhythms, that early-BIS mid hall spaciousness and fullness.
The 3rd is especially sunny and warm, almost a Rhine-sur-Med. (The opening definitely passes the Giulini Paddle-Boat test...)

I find the Leipzig/Chailly climaxes a bit hefty for my taste but the whole thing is so brilliantly played and recorded it’s hard to carp…in fact the contrast between the subtler dynamics and lighter, refined orchestration, with the big punchy climaxes is its USP - one of its charms! Leipzig GO at its peak is hard to resist. The Decca notes very usefully go into some detail about the more audible changes.

***
“Depth” in music is ever subjectively in the ear of the beholder, but smaller orchestras seem the more perceptive in revealing Mendelssohn’s “depths”, which are apparently still hidden to many listeners. (Behind the thick, rhetorical orchestral veil of larger forces, perhaps…)

[Richard Barrett]

Why wouldn’t you want to hear Mahler’s take on them, as a great composer, conductor and orchestrator?

Why indeed. I'm about to launch into the 2nd (the one I know best) in the Chailly performance.

[Richard Barrett]

Why indeed. I'm about to launch into the 2nd (the one I know best) in the Chailly performance.

... and realising that it's so long since I listened to it that I'm not really hearing what's different about it, or whether what's convincing about it is more to do with Mahler's adjustments or with Chailly's interpretation of them. It would be interesting for a conductor to begin by imagining how Mahler would have conducted these pieces, which Chailly doesn't, as far as I can hear; otherwise there would have been more flexibility in tempo and a different style of string playing. On (ahem) balance though I think I prefer the HIPP approach of using a smaller string ensemble to the Mahler approach of compensating in the score for a larger one, what with Occam's razor and everything.

[LeMartinPecheur]

...what with Occam's razor and everything.

Oxymoron?

[Bryn]

More than worth listening to the Mahler/Schumann arrangements which make fairly extensive adjustments to orchestration, dynamics and counterpoint, often removing or reducing wind/brass lines. (A few brief cuts are less welcome, but you’re soon past them).
A wonderful listen for anyone who knows the works well, and for me preferable to the originals - in the context of large modern symphony orchestras. Why wouldn’t you want to hear Mahler’s take on them, as a great composer, conductor and orchestrator?
Big, rich, weighty presentations of Schumann sound un-idiomatic to me now. But that’s the point about the chamber orchestral recordings aforementioned, you’re arriving at a similar destination to Mahler’s by a different, possibly historical, route.

Two excellent sets, but very different from each other!
I love the affectionately sweet, light take from Ceccato/Bergen SO. A special favourite, a pet set. Hidden treasure.
No idiosyncrasies of phrase or pace, lovely lift to the rhythms, that early-BIS mid hall spaciousness and fullness.
The 3rd is especially sunny and warm, almost a Rhine-sur-Med. (The opening definitely passes the Giulini Paddle-Boat test...)

I find the Leipzig/Chailly climaxes a bit hefty for my taste but the whole thing is so brilliantly played and recorded it’s hard to carp…in fact the contrast between the subtler dynamics and lighter, refined orchestration, with the big punchy climaxes is its USP - one of its charms! Leipzig GO at its peak is hard to resist. The Decca notes very usefully go into some detail about the more audible changes.

***
“Depth” in music is ever subjectively in the ear of the beholder, but smaller orchestras seem the more perceptive in revealing Mendelssohn’s “depths”, which are apparently still hidden to many listeners. (Behind the thick, rhetorical orchestral veil of larger forces, perhaps…)

Are you or Richard familiar with the hurriedly prepared 1999 EIF Schumann symphonic survey given by the SCO and Mackerras? PM me if not. I transferred my Dolby S cassette recordings of the broadcast to the digital domain some years ago.

[jayne lee wilson]

... and realising that it's so long since I listened to it that I'm not really hearing what's different about it, or whether what's convincing about it is more to do with Mahler's adjustments or with Chailly's interpretation of them. It would be interesting for a conductor to begin by imagining how Mahler would have conducted these pieces, which Chailly doesn't, as far as I can hear; otherwise there would have been more flexibility in tempo and a different style of string playing. On (ahem) balance though I think I prefer the HIPP approach of using a smaller string ensemble to the Mahler approach of compensating in the score for a larger one, what with Occam's razor and everything.

Its not just about density of strings though - there are a host of dynamic changes in Mahler's arrangements (more "micro-dynamic" shadings between very soft and very loud - Schumann's originals can sound somewhat relentless, especially in No.4/1851) which freshen and enliven the music, especially enjoyable in No.3, where the horns soar and shine much more brilliantly, clear of those constant mfs (in the scherzo) & absent/reduced wind lines. In this 2nd movement I compared Chailly to Ticciati (original scoring, one of the “bigger” & more Romantic sounding chamber orch. productions), and was surprised how soon I came to prefer Chailly despite his very fast speeds here. I think he’s going for max clarity of line/rhythm as a match for those fresh, transparent textures… but of course you'll enjoy it (or object to it...) more vividly if you know Schumann's originals. As I implied I can't see why anyone who loves the symphonies wouldn't want to hear what Mahler does with them. (Listening to the Ceccato 1st, with the livelier dialoguing between winds and orchestral sections (if a shade too grazioso in the finale), I couldn't help thinking that it sounded like.... Mendelssohn )

Chailly can sound overly ebullient and driven, but the effect is undeniably exciting.
Still, there’s always Ceccato if you want a stroll in the Italian-Norwegian sun…

[Barbirollians]

I am with fhgl - the Italian Symphony is much the best of Felix's symphonies and a work that always makes me smile - it is terrific and as much as I love the Schumann symphonies I would probably prefer to hear the Italian in concert . A work that all too seldom surfaces in the concert hall .

For anyone jaded in response to it Lenny's CBS recording with the NYPO is full of sunshine and enormous fun.

[gradus]

A Scotch and Maag does it for me.

[cloughie]

A Scotch and Maag does it for me.

Spot on together with his MND.

[Dave2002]

A Scotch and Maag does it for me.

I tend to agree. That one was the last he completed, even though its numbering suggests other wise
.

[Dafydd y G.W.]

[...] the Italian Symphony is much the best of Felix's symphonies and a work that always makes me smile [...] For anyone jaded in response to it Lenny's CBS recording with the NYPO is full of sunshine and enormous fun.

Smile? Fun?? That's no excuse. You'll be encouraging people to enjoy music next, and then where will we be? The arts have nothing to do with pleasure, or any other emotion. Romantic poppycock!