Schumann is considered to be a great composer. His orchestration, however, has often been criticised for being too thickly textured and unclear, with instruments doubling up or supporting a single musical line or part more often than seems necessary.

The effect of this criticism was to create the perception of Schumann as a brilliant but flawed composer. Once this perception took hold it gained strength and other composers began to feel justified in re – orchestrating Schumann's’ work. One famous example is Shostakovich’s re – orchestration of the Cello Concerto.

But this perception of a flawed musical genius probably has more to do with the romantic fantasy of Schumann people have created over the years, rather than the practical reality of Schumann’s musical life. It is well known that Schumann ended his days in a mental asylum and it is as if his mental instability gave his fellow musicians the perfect excuse to rectify his ‘obsessive’ thickening of orchestral textures.

In fact, the context and practical constraints within which Schumann composed reveal an altogether different view of things. Firstly, the string section of the orchestra of the mid 1800s was only half the size of that of a modern orchestra, so orchestras performing Schumann’s pieces today create much richer (and louder) music than was originally conceived. Secondly, string instruments of Schumann’s day used catgut rather than metal strings, so their sound would have been intimate and mellow rather than declamatory and brilliant. This meant that sometimes they would need to ‘doubled up’ and support each other in order to be heard clearly by the audience.

When the above context is understood, Schumann’s approach to orchestration becomes not only understandable but also praiseworthy. It demonstrates that Schumann was a composer who, far from being flawed, took unusually great pains to ensure that his music suited the characteristics of the instruments for which he was writing.

When we are looking at problems or issues it is easy to do so from within our own current context, but as shown above this can lead us to draw inaccurate conclusions and make faulty judgements. Sometimes exploring a problem, situation or issue from within the context that it originally existed can encourage us to reassess our perceptions. It can give us insights that help us appreciate, use and build upon the strengths of what has gone before and minimise our tendency to dismiss them as the ramblings of the less informed, educated, or experienced.

The next time you are addressing an issue or problem ask the following types of questions:

• What was the thinking of those originally involved? Why did they think that way?
• What was the nature of the environment within which people worked? How did this affect their approach to problems?
• What tools and resources did people have at their disposal? How did this impact upon the solving of problems?
• What were the prevailing practices, customs and habits of the time? How did these affect people’s responses to problems?
• What pressures were being experienced by those involved? How did these affect people’s attitudes and approaches to problems?

It is interesting to note that the famous Russian cellist Rostropovich, who commissioned Shostakovich’s re – orchestration of the Schumann Cello Concerto, soon returned to performing the original. Perhaps playing the newer version enhanced his appreciation of Schumann’s approach.

To find out more about the author Click Here.