Oh dear Felix....

[Richard Tarleton]

I wouldn't call it post-justification, just an attempt to explain (to myself, initially) what seems to be "instinctive". Saying something like that is just instinctive basically closes off any further reflection, which I'd prefer not to do, for what I think are obvious reasons: when I "instinctively" respond positively or negatively to some music or other my next response is to ask why. Sometimes it's difficult or impossible to come to a convincing answer, but in this case I think there's something to it. The concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, rather than fitting into a preexistent one, that is to say that idea and form are two aspects of the same thing, is I think one of the most revolutionary and compelling features of Beethoven's work, and I do find myself being much more strongly attracted to those 19th century composers who took it on board (Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner) than those who didn't (Mendelssohn, Brahms). On the other hand I have a lot of time for Schubert, who wasn't prepared to go along with Beethoven's formal innovations. I'm working on that...

A post to cut and keep, thank you Richard.

[Richard Tarleton]

The concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, rather than fitting into a preexistent one, that is to say that idea and form are two aspects of the same thing, is I think one of the most revolutionary and compelling features of Beethoven's work, and I do find myself being much more strongly attracted to those 19th century composers who took it on board (Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner) than those who didn't (Mendelssohn, Brahms). On the other hand I have a lot of time for Schubert, who wasn't prepared to go along with Beethoven's formal innovations. I'm working on that...

A composer I've always felt (appropriately) ambivalent about is Mendelssohn's and Brahms's friend Schumann. His solo piano works, which I love, seem good examples of the concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, whereas I've never felt engaged by his symphonies, which seem to fit into a preexisting one.... I listened to (and watched) Uncle Bernard's prom three times, in hopes of a damascene moment.... I like his chamber music, and his songs.....

[cloughie]

A composer I've always felt (appropriately) ambivalent about is Mendelssohn's and Brahms's friend Schumann. His solo piano works, which I love, seem good examples of the concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, whereas I've never felt engaged by his symphonies, which seem to fit into a preexisting one.... I listened to (and watched) Uncle Bernard's prom three times, in hopes of a damascene moment.... I like his chamber music, and his songs.....

Richard, Uncle Bernie's Prom performance was ordinary not exciting. Listen to Solti's Sym 2 - if that doesn't move you the give up!

[Richard Barrett]

A composer I've always felt (appropriately) ambivalent about is Mendelssohn's and Brahms's friend Schumann. His solo piano works, which I love, seem good examples of the concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, whereas I've never felt engaged by his symphonies, which seem to fit into a preexisting one.... I listened to (and watched) Uncle Bernard's prom three times, in hopes of a damascene moment.... I like his chamber music, and his songs.....

I feel quite ambivalent about his work too. I appreciate that very aspect of his piano music, while at the same time wondering why he never seems to want to use more than the central three octaves of the keyboard, which puts me off somewhat. I don't know his chamber music at all well, although I love many of his songs; otherwise the works I return to are the Piano Concerto and the Second Symphony, both of which are quite individual in structure apart from anything else.

[Richard Tarleton]

Richard, Uncle Bernie's Prom performance was ordinary not exciting. Listen to Solti's Sym 2 - if that doesn't move you the give up!

Thanks cloughie, I'll try that

My very first live Schumann was a Rhenish (BSO/Horenstein, in 1970), which had the misfortune to be the first half of a concert the second half of which came from the other end of the form/idea spectrum, Also Sprach.... Now that was a damascene moment!

[jayne lee wilson]

A composer I've always felt (appropriately) ambivalent about is Mendelssohn's and Brahms's friend Schumann. His solo piano works, which I love, seem good examples of the concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, whereas I've never felt engaged by his symphonies, which seem to fit into a preexisting one.... I listened to (and watched) Uncle Bernard's prom three times, in hopes of a damascene moment.... I like his chamber music, and his songs.....

Well Schumann, like Mendelssohn, or Hindemith or..(.the Gramophone...) is one of those subjects you shouldn't get me started on...
OT briefly -
....don't make the mistake of relying on older conductors or large orchestras as a guide to Schumann. The last few years have seen marvellously fresh, lively, responsive, chamber-orchestral recordings of the symphonies from Dausgaard, Ticciati and Nézet-Séguin....not to mention Harnoncourt himself a while back. Exposure to any of these might change your view for the positive! Best sound - probably Ticciati.

[Richard Tarleton]

I appreciate that very aspect of his piano music, while at the same time wondering why he never seems to want to use more than the central three octaves of the keyboard, which puts me off somewhat.

Recently re-reading Alan Walker's 3 vols on Liszt, the degree of Schumann's and Mendelssohn's (not to mention Clara's) hostility to Liszt, his compositions and his playing is startling - it colours my view of them. In the evolutionary tree of musical life, Liszt very much on the Berlioz/Wagner spur (main stem), being a vigorous promoter of both, to his eternal credit. The other three on a spur....

[jayne lee wilson]

I wouldn't call it post-justification, just an attempt to explain (to myself, initially) what seems to be "instinctive". Saying something like that is just instinctive basically closes off any further reflection, which I'd prefer not to do, for what I think are obvious reasons: when I "instinctively" respond positively or negatively to some music or other my next response is to ask why. Sometimes it's difficult or impossible to come to a convincing answer, but in this case I think there's something to it. The concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, rather than fitting into a preexistent one, that is to say that idea and form are two aspects of the same thing, is I think one of the most revolutionary and compelling features of Beethoven's work, and I do find myself being much more strongly attracted to those 19th century composers who took it on board (Berlioz, Wagner, Bruckner) than those who didn't (Mendelssohn, Brahms). On the other hand I have a lot of time for Schubert, who wasn't prepared to go along with Beethoven's formal innovations. I'm working on that...

I guess none of those aspects I mentioned in #56 convince you then? The continuous-play cyclical forms (which frequently DON'T follow any supposedly given "sonata" procedures, with e.g. late "third" subjects arriving mid-development (4th Symphony), or very fluid multiple-idea expositions (Op18 Quintet) etc). For me the rhythmic interest alone seems to create that impression of surging passions pushing at the constraints of classical forms (Symphony 1, OP.18 finale (!)), revitalising them...and those 3 or 4 movements-in-one structures, or linked movements, are also differently made each time (Violin Concerto, 3rd Symphony, etc...)...

I can guess why you'd respond to Schubert though - the very expansiveness of his later forms (and occasionally compression e.g. d.784) might seem a mirror (or a "formation") of those darker, more extreme passions within....
One of the reasons the Mendelssohn Op.80 quartet(**) is so moving is that it's a rare example of such emotional extremity, the loss of classical "control", the more moving for the attempt hold back the tide early on, in a stunningly brief, disruptive last movement - the finale finally hurtling headlong to despair in a manner that does recall the mood of Schubert of d810 etc.

(**) Not that this intensity wasn't already there at the start of his remarkable, brief life - try the OP.13 Quartet's finale, tracing a dramatic course from the shock (it really is the only word) of its opening recitative, through the allegro's almost-ride-to-the-abyss, to the return at the end, of that gravely serene slow introduction the whole work begins with....... rather more there than a homage to Beethoven.
For me Op.13 is as creatively inspired a response to the quartets as Brahms' 1st is to the Beethoven Symphonies.

[Vox Humana]

A composer I've always felt (appropriately) ambivalent about is Mendelssohn's and Brahms's friend Schumann. His solo piano works, which I love, seem good examples of the concept that a musical idea needs to find its own form, whereas I've never felt engaged by his symphonies, which seem to fit into a preexisting one....

The received wisdom about Schumann's orchestral music is that it suffers because he approached orchestration like a pianist, not an orchestral player. I don't feel qualified to have a view about that judgement, but I can see some sense in it.

[cloughie]

Well Schumann, like Mendelssohn, or Hindemith or..(.the Gramophone...) is one of those subjects you shouldn't get me started on...
OT briefly -
....don't make the mistake of relying on older conductors or large orchestras as a guide to Schumann. The last few years have seen marvellously fresh, lively, responsive, chamber-orchestral recordings of the symphonies from Dausgaard, Ticciati and Nézet-Séguin....not to mention Harnoncourt himself a while back. Exposure to any of these might change your view for the positive! Best sound - probably Ticciati.

I diagree, Jayne, a larger orchestra can deliver superb Schumann, provided there's plenty of life in the delivery - I don 't find Ticciati totally convincing, and I've long thought Harnoncourt underwhelming.

[jayne lee wilson]

I diagree, Jayne, a larger orchestra can deliver superb Schumann, provided there's plenty of life in the delivery - I don 't find Ticciati totally convincing, and I've long thought Harnoncourt underwhelming.

I don't deny either the possibility or the reality of the larger-orchestral result... Sawallisch for example. Though once you have a longer, wider, chamber-orchestral perspective - even his justifiably "legendary" Dresden set starts to sound like....Schumann à la Bruckner....
(Favourite older set: Kubelik/Bavaria).

With Schumann, it just seems to me that - those rapid mood-swings and shifts of tone or "register", those driving, syncopated, endlessly inventive rhythms, those elegiac or plaintive, never weightily tragic, slow movements - always work better on the more agile, smaller groups... (as of course, does Mendelssohn).
....And that The Way In with Schumann is through the Piano Trios, the Violin Sonatas, the Piano Works. After those, you might perceive the essences of the Symphonies, Concertos, and their expressive orchestral needs, a little more sharply....
(Do you know the Freiburg Baroque Series (Trios/Concertos) with Heras-Casado and the Faust/Melnikov/Queyras trio? Oh do have ago at those - they may rock your Schumann world and change it...only for the better)...

Harnoncourt...OK you may not like his approach, but - "Underwhelming" isn't a description I'd have expected - those rhythms really cut through the ice and the mud! Can't you - I dunno - turn it up a bit? (Brass are pretty good anyway, no? Wow, yes! (COE/1841 No.4 is playing right now, from the original Teldec issue..surely one of the all-time great, radical, Schumann recordings - musically & sonically exceptional)
How d'you get on with Zinman? (Larger orchestra - more keenly and cannily employed...)...

There's a lovely comment, about No.3, from YNS in the notes to his strikingly youthful-sounding COE set, where he recalls a comment from Giulini, saying that "the viola and second violin figures right at the start - those repeated quavers - are like the sound of the wheels of a paddle boat on the Rhine; it really gives the piece a sense of starting a journey..."
Try your favoured recordings, maybe listen for that... for me, anyway, clarity of line and rhythm/cross-rhythm is always way more important than sheer orchestral weight of impact...(as long as those brasses cut through....)

[cloughie]

I don't deny either the possibility or the reality of the larger-orchestral result... Sawallisch for example. Though once you have a longer, wider, chamber-orchestral perspective - even his justifiably "legendary" Dresden set starts to sound like....Schumann à la Bruckner....
(Favourite older set: Kubelik/Bavaria).

With Schumann, it just seems to me that - those rapid mood-swings and shifts of tone or "register", those driving, syncopated, endlessly inventive rhythms, those elegiac or plaintive, never weightily tragic, slow movements - always work better on the more agile, smaller groups... (as of course, does Mendelssohn).
....And that The Way In with Schumann is through the Piano Trios, the Violin Sonatas, the Piano Works. After those, you might perceive the essences of the Symphonies, Concertos, and their expressive orchestral needs, a little more sharply....
(Do you know the Freiburg Baroque Series (Trios/Concertos) with Heras-Casado and the Faust/Melnikov/Queyras trio? Oh do have ago at those - they may rock your Schumann world and change it...only for the better)...

Harnoncourt...OK you may not like his approach, but - "Underwhelming" isn't a description I'd have expected - those rhythms really cut through the ice and the mud! Can't you - I dunno - turn it up a bit? (Brass are pretty good anyway, no? Wow, yes! (COE/1841 No.4 is playing right now, from the original Teldec issue..surely one of the all-time great, radical, Schumann recordings - musically & sonically exceptional)
How d'you get on with Zinman? (Larger orchestra - more keenly and cannily employed...)...

There's a lovely comment, about No.3, from YNS in the notes to his strikingly youthful-sounding COE set, where he recalls a comment from Giulini, saying that "the viola and second violin figures right at the start - those repeated quavers - are like the sound of the wheels of a paddle boat on the Rhine; it really gives the piece a sense of starting a journey..."
Try your favoured recordings, maybe listen for that... for me, anyway, clarity of line and rhythm/cross-rhythm is always way more important than sheer orchestral weight of impact...(as long as those brasses cut through....)

You mention the 1841 Schumann 4 - comparing this with the later revision is like comparing Leonara 2 with 3. In both cases the later revisions were a definite improvement and Furtwangler's Schumann 4 takes on all rivals.

[Richard Barrett]

I'm not sure that the problems with Schumann's orchestration have that much to do with his thinking in piano terms (as I said before, his piano writing is quite restricted in itself). It's more to do with balancing orchestral sections against one another given the extensive doublings Schumann habitually used. To my ears JEG and Philippe Herreweghe have succeeded best in solving them, key to which is an ensemble of the kind of size Schumann was writing for.

[rauschwerk]

It's more to do with balancing orchestral sections against one another given the extensive doublings Schumann habitually used.

I always thought the doublings were a feature only of the fourth symphony in its revised version. Hans Gal suggested that a new version should be made, combining the best features of both versions. What a pity that he didn't have a go himself! I do agree about JEG's success, though, even though I still have a soft spot for Sawallisch with his modern instruments and big string band.

I can only agree with Gal: 'Taking an overall view of Schumann's four symphonies, we have to put them historically between Beethoven and Brahms, as the first consistent and successful attempt to bring into the structure of the classical form a new variety of emotional impulsiveness and the picturesque background of a fresh, colourful world.' Set beside this major achievement, Mendelssohn's symphonic efforts look decidedly patchy, however much one might love the pieces for their own sake.

[Richard Barrett]

I always thought the doublings were a feature only of the fourth symphony in its revised version.

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.