Customer Reviews

Schumann: The Symphonies

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Mahler got it right. Many small changes to the orchestration, here and there, make Schumann's Symphonies all the more enjoyable. He sorted out some weaknesses and lightly re-scored in places for even better results. This is super-polished Schumann, not Mahlerized-versions.

Having performed all of these symphonies with various orchestras over the years, it has been a delight for me to discover the Mahler editions, especially in these fine performances by the Gewandhaus and Chailly - ebbing and flowing beautifully, full of nuance and detail - most entertaining and polished.

You will enjoy these performances a great deal if you enjoy Schumann.

Riccardo Chailly is doing wonders with the Leipzig Gewandhaus, finding hidden potential and reserves of excitment in the orchestra. He earned much priase for a previous CD of the Schumann Sym. #2 and #4. There was the novelty of hering Mahler's revised version of the scores, even though the touches seem minimal to all but the most experienced listener. But the performances themselves felt sleek and updated. Now we have the other two symphonies, the "Spring" and the "Rhenish" to fill out the cycle.

The same style is applied to the new installments. I'd describe Chailly's approach as reserved nobility. He doesn't allow the music to run away with its own Romaantic frenzy the way Bernstein does, nor does he clip its wings so drastically as Szell. There's lots of full-blooded expression here, yet the contour of the music is very controlled. Fans of Chailly will recognize and appreciate this control; those of us who love a more unbuttoned Schumann will be less thrilled. But with such good sonics from Decca and the orchestra playing so well, this new cycle stands out as one of the best in recent years.

This is an interesting set of discs,possibly more of curiosity value than a primary recommendation for these symphonies.

Chailly made an earlier recording of these works for DECCA,but with the concertgebouw orchestra and in Schumann's own orchestration.Listening to these discs I am not at all sure that Mahler knew best in this case.

My own view is that the enterprise excellently charts the current state of the relationship between the Leipzig orchestra and its music director and showcases the now apparently revitalised orchestra's marvellous playing aided by a typically lucid DEECA recording. I think that these discs should be purchased as an ADDITION to an existing first choice,but NOT a first choice itself

Two questions to Decca: why have not been #1 and #3 issued separately, and why has the Genoveva Overture included with #2 and #4 been removed? Weird. Thanks to Decca, I drop a star. That said, I own #2/#4 and they are very modern performances, clean, fast, dramatic. They are among my favourite versions (with Sawallisch).

As to the Mahler arrangements vs. original scoring: For many years I have been trying to convince myself Schumann scoring was not that bad, after all. But I can't -- orchestration is not only about textures, but also about building melody, rhythm, harmony, and so on, and except in a few cases (#2, mov. III, Adagio, with a very inspired Schumann, indeed), the composer seem unable to use effectively the orchestra for that. IMO, Mahler improved the symphonies (and he didn't touch #2/III at all), even if the way Mahler changed the harmony at the end of #2/IV sounds, well, wrong to my ears.

How many listeners who are not musicians themselves knew of the Mahler Editions of Schumann's symphonies? While I know the symphonies well enough to recognize them each from just a bar or two; well enough to play them in my head, I never took the time to study their history or their place in the repertoire. I've always loved these symphonies, although I always thought there were weaknesses in the orchestration - the sort of feeling that is much more evident listening to Chopin concertos. I have several other recordings of one or another, including some by Bernstein with the Vienna Philharmoic Schumann: The 4 Symphonies, others with Szell and Cleveland Schumann: Symphonies 1-4; Manfred Overture, and one special favorite, the Rhenish with von Karajan and Berlin [Dg Galleria Catalog #: 419870 - [...]]. I was at first puzzled and then very pleased by the Mahler Editions, for the result seems more assertive, stronger. The edits stood out where the version playing in my head clearly diverged, yet in no particular instance was I negatively affected by the changes. I'm not qualified to say whether the Mahler Editions are "better" than Schumann's original versions. In short, I like both and would agree that if you love these works, having this set along with other performances is worthwhile. If for no other reason than the quality of the sound reaching my aging ears, I think very highly of these interpretations, performances, and recordings. What great sound Chailly gets from the Gewandhausorchester Leipzig!

While reviewing a score of one of Schumann's symphonies, Bernstein jotted across the top of the sore the question "Whoever said Schumann couldn't orchestrate?!?" I tend to agree; despite some muddy passages in the third, Schumann's orchestrations aren't that bad when the conductor pays simple attention to balance. Bernstein was able to achieve great things in Schumann without touching the score and countless others, like Dohnanyi, Zinmann, and Gardiner, have shown us that Bernstein was not alone. Of course, that isn't to say conductors, like Szell or Barenboim, who carefully edit Schumann's sometimes heavy orchestration are doing a disservice. But Mahler took things further than a simple cleaning; there are some instances, such as the great horn call in the third, that are completely overhauled, and not for the better. Some of the opening fanfares in the "Spring" symphony's slow introduction are very un-Schumannesque and I cannot help but miss the clarinets at the beginning of allegro proper in the second. While not all of Mahler's choices are winners, he does succeed in presenting Schumann with a fresh face, and much of what he does is certainly an improvement. The texture of the fourth is much lighter, and for the better, while all the scherzos have more zest and bounce to their step. In that sense, any admirer of Schumann will find this release stimulating, if not necessarily authoritative.

With that out of the way, we can now turn to the performances themselves. On their own merits, they are spectacular. Chailly was always a good conductor of sonata form, but his tenure with the Concertgebouw has made him a real master of the German core repertoire. His sense of architecture and drive is really exemplary. Take, for example, the first movement of the third. After the aforementioned horn call fiasco - Mahler has the horns muted - Chailly drives into the recapitulation with boundless energy, aided by some spectacularly deep horns and lower strings. The effect is thrilling because, as is so often the case with the heavy-footed and dynamically monotonous third, the arrival of the recapitulation is usually a non-event. Another example is Chailly's handling of the forth's first movement. Chailly woefully fails to observe the expositional repeat (is this Mahler's doing?), but justifies the choice by underlining the unique structural balance of the piece. Nor does he simply blast out the big tutti declamations as others - Levine - have done, which gives greater weight to the coda when he finally has the orchestra really play with all the stops out.

Despite this being Mahler's Schumann, Chailly is intent on brining an appropriately Mendelssohnian lightness to bear. Indeed, Schumann greatly admired, and unsuccessfully attempt to emulate, Mendelssohn. This means that passages, like the relentlessly obsessive central climax in the allegro of the second, do not become unduly heavy. The finales, in particular, sparkle with elvish charm and overflow with boundless energy.

While this certainly doesn't displace the aforementioned reference editions if only because Mahler is so hit-or-miss, the spectacular playing and unique nature of this release deserves your attention. And the first is a performance with which you can certainly live for sometime.

What a great recording - I have other versions of the second symphony but this version is superb!

Highly recommended!

Scott

I understand Schumann was not a master orchestrator and tended to over-orchestrate his symphonies. But although Mahler cleared up the texture quite a bit, the overall edit and performance sounds like muzak from the sixties and seventies. This music sounds lobotomized: it doesn't sound like Schumann--or even Mahler for that matter--but it sounds much more like 101 Strings or Leroy Anderson. And Chailly wasn't able to keep that tendency from occuring in many places.

This is an unsuccessful, if curious, experiment IMHO. I would rather recommend Kubelik's performance of the original orchestration with the Berlin or Bernstein's with the Vienna (Heh! Now there's a man has been known to edit the orchestrations of a few classics in his day!)

My two cents.

anyone with an aesthetic ear will immediately recognize that this is da real deal, immense emotion propelled with serious comittment, this is better than the Beatles! Chailly should get a reward or something, check out the reviews on the first schumann- mahler- chailly release, and you will get a much better handle on how great these pieces are ... some of the best schumann recordings extant ...believe it!

Mahler had the hubris to set himself up to be a master orchestrator. He showed some respect to Brahms, and did not reorchestrate his orchestral pieces, but Schumann was fair game. Tchaikovsky, Ravel, and others have orchestrated piano music of Schumann, and that is appropriate, not an insult. But to reorchestrate the Schumann symphonies, his orchestral works, what kind of person would do that?

Schumann had studied Bach carefully and learned some orchestration cues from Bach, especially the doubling of instruments in composition, a trait for which he has since been severely criticized. It was Schumann who had found the St Matthew Passion and brought it to Mendelssohn's attention. To my ear, when the Schumann symphonies are played correctly, (the orchestras of Leipzig and Dresden do that), in the original scores, they are among the most beautiful symphonies to be heard. Chailly has performed the fourth symphony of Schumann on an all Schumann DVD with the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, so that he has demonstrated convincingly that he can make the original Schumann scores beautiful. What Mahler has done has made the Schumann symphonies suitable for elevator music, if they are not played too loudly. It is my firm opinion that Mahler contributed nothing of value in his reorchestration of some of the greats in the history of music, namely Bach, Beethoven, and Schumann.

Bach is a towering figure in the history of music and his efforts contributed to Mahler's musical development itself. Without Bach, there would be no Mahler as we now know him. Mahler's efforts contributed to the musical development of Lawrence Welk. Without Mahler, Lawrence Welk might have been more worthy to listen to, and, certainly, there would have been no Lawrence Welk as we knew him.

Sigmund Freud and Gustav Mahler had a long walk in the park when Mahler's marriage was breaking up. Mahler returned and never wrote another piece of music. At least, that is what is claimed in a medical article that I read a few years ago. My thoughts are that it would be better for Mahler, and all of us as well, if Mahler had taken that walk before he focused his attention on Schumann, Bach, and Beethoven.