Classical Music Forum banner

Tchaikovsky's thoughts on Schumann's Symphonies

1 reading
1.6K views 14 replies 8 participants last post by  mbhaub  
#1 · (Edited)
I wanted to sit down and discuss Tchaikovksy's thoughts on Schumann's Symphonies, which can be found on Tchaikovsky Research. Schumann was one of Tchaikovsky's favorite composers, especially for the piano. In the symphonies, it seems to be that while Tchaikovsky was generally disappointed by Schumann's orchestration, he considered Schumann's melodic and harmonic writing to be truly inspired.

Symphony No.1:
"The very fact that Schumann made his first attempt at a symphony so late indicates that this master did not have a particular inclination for the orchestra."

"Schumann was not endowed with the art of expressing his rich thoughts in beautiful sounds: his instrumentation is always thick and massive, but devoid of brilliancy and transparency."

"The whole first movement of this symphony is characterized by the way in which new and original Romantic ideas are cast into traditionally established forms—it is thus like a link between the classical school that was brought to perfection by Beethoven and the new direction in which Schumann set off, together with Chopin and Berlioz."

"In the Andante a beautiful elegiac melody is accompanied by delightful variations and produces an indescribably enchanting effect."

"...the first trio is particularly remarkable, with its charming chordal exchanges between the strings and winds, as well as the concluding coda with its tempestuous syncopated rhythm and original harmony."

"The Finale, which is so sweeping, brilliant, formally accomplished, and rich in beautiful modulations and varied rhythmic and harmonic turns, serves as a magnificent conclusion to this elegant work."

Symphony No.2:
"Together with the Third, the Second Symphony represents the crowing achievement of Schumann's symphonic oeuvre and belongs to the most brilliant middle period of his career as a composer."

"The depth of the musical ideas in this symphony, its formal beauty and the broadness and plasticity of its conception are truly amazing."

"In the Andante the touching cantabile melody with its extraordinarily beautiful design and—quite unusually for Schumann—strikingly effective instrumentation (violin trills in the highest register accompanying the clarinet's singing), produces an indelible impression."

Symphony No.3:
"Indeed, Schumann's finest creations, the most impassioned effusions of his mighty creative genius are considerably impaired by this incomprehensible discrepancy between magnificent content on the one hand, and the clumsiness of his orchestral and vocal technique."

"It was in particular orchestration that didn't come naturally to Schumann. He wasn't able to draw forth from the orchestra those contrasting effects of light and shade, those alternations between individual groups of instruments and orchestral tutti which, when carefully mixed, make for a successfully instrumented work."

"As an example of this I can point to the first movement of the aforesaid symphony in which the inspired and sweeping pathos, the sublime melodic and harmonic beauty of the music will always remain incomprehensible for the audience, simply because of the colourless and all too thick texture of the orchestration which is capable of irritating the auditory nerves of even the most musically sensitive listener."

"After that there comes a fourth, episodic movement which goes beyond the limits of the standard symphonic form and in which Schumann, according to popular tradition, was seeking to convey the sublime impression which seeing the Cologne Cathedral had produced on him."

"Never has anything more powerful or more profound been created by human artistic endeavour." (It is unclear whether Tchaikovsky meant the Cathedral, the Symphony, or perhaps both.)

"Although whole centuries went by in the construction of the Cologne Cathedral and many generations did their bit of work for the realization of this grandiose architectonic conception, one brief page from the score of this great musician, inspired by the stately beauty of the cathedral, will constitute for future generations as resplendent a monument to the depth of the human spirit as the cathedral itself." (This is ridiculously high praise).

"The magical effect of this splendid music is further strengthened by the characteristic charm of the key of E-flat major, which matches perfectly the sombre and solemn mood that Schumann sought to express, as well as by the massive instrumentation which this time is most definitely appropriate.

"Here more than anywhere else we find that striking affinity which exists between the two arts of music and architecture in spite of the different aesthetic substance and forms in which they both express themselves."

"The audience, as was to be expected, received this movement of the symphony rather coolly, but they cannot really be blamed for this. Even a professional musician would not be able to cope with such profound creations of musical genius if he were hearing them for the very first time."

Symphony No.4
"This symphony, which in terms of its underlying ideas is by far not as powerful, profound, and staggering as the Second and especially the Third, nevertheless considerably surpasses these with regard to the mastery of the musical facture, the charm and roundedness of its form, as well as the quality of its instrumentation, although even in this symphony the latter does not nearly match the richness and beauty of the musical content."

"This work contains in abundant quantity all the characteristic features of Schumann's oeuvre: an extraordinary wealth of melodic invention, original and lush harmonic combinations, an uncommon mastery in the elaboration of themes, freshness, depth of feeling, as well as that, if you like, negative virtue whereby his music is never weighed down by that ballast, that trivial 'milling of the wind' which even such major creative talents as Schubert are not free from."

"The three last movements are particularly good, as is the way in which they are linked together by extraordinarily delightful transitions and are played immediately one after the other without any pauses."

"The Andante consists of a charming minor-key melody which is presented with remarkable simplicity and is followed directly by a Scherzo full of cheerful rhythmic agitation."

"The Finale is superlative: it is packed with exuberant inspiration, power, and richness in the development of its manly and energetic principal theme."

What do you guys think?
 
#4 ·
I wasn't aware of Tchaikovsky's opinions about Schumann, and I wonder if his remarks (and those of others like him) were the start of the "Schumann can't orchestrate" myth that lasted until the end of the 20th century. Mahler re-orchestrated them, presumably so sceptical audiences could be introduced to Schumann's gift for melodic invention. Conductors have been tinkering with the scores ever since. Oddly, it was Leonard Bernstein (hardly an exponent of HIP) who recorded the symphonies in their original unretouched orchestration. NY Times article repeating calumny about Schumann's orchestration, yet recommending the Bernstein version: https://www.nytimes.com/1986/03/09/arts/schumann-s-symphonies-attract-noted-interpreters.html

Yes, Schumann's orchestration is restrained and conservative rather than brilliant (not a drop of Berlioz's blood in his veins), but he knew his way around an orchestra. My understanding is that the orchestration becomes a lot clearer if the first and second violins are divided, which was customary in Schumann's day, and presumably how Tchaikovsky heard them. I've also heard that the custom of German orchestras at the time was for the string players to stand. (I can't imagine how it would work myself.) I wonder where and when Tchaikovsky heard them, and what performance practices were in use at the time. Had the instruments begun their move towards more modern versions, especially for the winds? Were orchestras getting bigger, approaching 20th century dimensions?

I've never heard the Bernstein NYPO (I'm now tempted), but my favourites are Swallisch (Dresden), Kubelik (Berlin) and Ticciati (SCO) - using a chamber orchestra pays huge dividends.

Gardiner's recording probably best captures the "authentic" sound world of Schumann, but I find his performances a bit clinical.

I enjoyed Thielemann's recordings of Symphonies 2 and 3, but 1 and 4 fell badly off the rails.

To avoid: Klemperer (ponderous), Haitink (boring), and HvK (muddy and leaden footed).

Thanks for bringing Tchaikovsky's comments to our attention.
 
#7 ·
Yes, Schumann's orchestration is restrained and conservative rather than brilliant (not a drop of Berlioz's blood in his veins), but he knew his way around an orchestra.
No, he didn't...and he knew it. Read a bio about him and the first time an orchestra played the First Symphony. He got better as time went on for sure. The Konzertstuck for four horns and orchestra is quite brilliant (and the horn parts virtually unplayable as written). Tchaikovsky was a naturally gifted orchestrator who was well suited to comment on Schumann's. I've never read those letters from him before and they're very interesting. It would have been really interesting to have Tchaikovsky re-orchestrate the Schumanns. As far as Leonard Bernstein goes: yes, he left the original orchestration to a degree, but he most certainly did make changes in dynamics to get the orchestra to balance "correctly". And having the VPO, which can play like a chamber ensemble, made it easier.
 
#6 · (Edited)
I wonder which version of the 4th Tchaikovsky was referring to ... the one that Clara insisted on or the other which Brahms preferred.
Considering the earlier 1841 version was not published by Brahms until 1891, Tchaikovsky must have heard the 1851 revised version which was the only version known to the public at at the time the review was written (1875).

As to comments about Schumann's orchestration, I think that his Overture, Scherzo and Finale should put them to rest.
Tchaikovsky seems to have been quite a fan of the Overture, Scherzo and Finale:

"At this concert we also heard Schumann's orchestral work in three movements which is not called a 'symphony' simply because it does not comprise the standard number of four movements. And yet the enchanting beauty of this music is such as to be a match for quite a few 'real' symphonies!"
 
#11 ·
Symphony No.1:
"The very fact that Schumann made his first attempt at a symphony so late indicates that this master did not have a particular inclination for the orchestra."
My guess is that Schumann did not start writing for the orchestra before he saw chances of his work getting performed.
The two movements of the "Zwickau" symphony were performed once, in 1832, then the work left unfinished in the Schubertian manner, probably because reception had not been promising further interest.
Symphonies were not in very high demand in the 1830s.
 
#12 ·
According to most reports Schumann was a terrible conductor who basically failed in his conducting jobs. I've read the hypothesis that his orchestrations with lots of doublings was to "safeguard" against missed entires and poor ensemble because he struggled so much with conducting.
As a listener, however, these problems seemed mostly exaggerated to me. His two best symphonic movements might be 2+3 of the 2nd symphony (tbh I think the outer movements of that piece are 2 of the worst, unfortunately) and they don't suffer from lack of color or opacity etc.
One also has to take into account that Tchaikovsky was a generation younger and by then even less brillant orchestrators would usually take advantage of valved brass instruments, often additional woodwind and percussion, so Schumann would be a bit old fashioned anyway.
For his 3rd PIT seems to have been inspired/influenced by the 5 movement "Rhenish symphony".
 
#13 ·
The usual explanation for Schumann's "bad orchestration" was that orchestras would significantly change within 50 years, making his works sound unbalanced. It is said Mahler merely re-balanced the scores to make them sound right with the modern orchestra of his day.
Playing music on the wrong instrument is always a good pretext to blame the composer ;)
 
#15 ·
Schumann had some great timing: the valved horn was being developed just as he was starting to write for orchestra and it shows. He was one of the first major composers who had the luxury of writing in any key and using the horn whenever he chose to and you can hear it clearly in his orchestration. His use of the horn section is notable and revolutionary. Good use of a horn quartet can really pump up the sound and energy in music and Schumann led the way. His writing influenced Dvorak and Tchaikovsky who both made terrific use of the horns. Interestingly though, Brahms always preferred the sound of the natural horn and stuck with the older notation and inherent problems. Schumann didn't always get it right as a look at the solo parts for the Konzertstuck will reveal: some of the writing is virtually impossible. Just because the horn could theoretically play so high didn't mean it was playable by humans.