From: Thomas Hampson

To: janosG

Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 12:57 AM

Subject: Re: Hampson on Schumann: What Did He Know and When Did He Know It?

Thank you for forwarding this mail and story. One thing I want to say again is that after years of living with ie performing, and studying (and yes I do my own study, ha) I have no particular ambition to either replace the "Dichterliebe" or assert the MS version as preferable or "better."

I don't actually believe much in the notion of Better, I believe in the essence of an expression (musical or poetic or in this case specifically both) as being profound in its reflection of human psychology.

Therefore I have always been a little sceptical to the notion of Schumann not really gettng the irony and even cynicism of (Heinrich) Heine. It just doesn't make sense that one of the most literate persons, much less composers of the 19th century, would have only been sensitve to the surface and not the complexity of Heine's narration.

The actual events around the publication are at best unclear,at worst hearsay; but we do know some things:

You are totally correct to say "Schumann approved", in context of the well-established belief that everything that was published in his lifetime he "approved" - I am sure he did, and was grateful that under whatever circumstances after 3 1/2 years these songs would be published. this is all well and good and there is no conspiracy to assume here, but what of the essential differences in the two sources. This is what really interests me and not the "whodunit" aspects.

This is what I was trying to articulate (extemporaneously...ouch) Monday and felt was necessary to do so when I saw that the program notes were not what I had sent to be printed. I am not blaming anyone since I was very late in announcing the program and perhaps someone just didn't feel thay had time to deal with it. But that is why I even allowed myself a comment on your article about the "Schumann approved", as it felt to me as though someone might think I am just having a lark with "my" version.

In fact this cycle in this "MS" form has been recorded for EMI with Sawallisch after very scrupulous detailed study together, and as well a documentary was made and aired on German television about the genesis and understanding of the cycle and the implications for our understanding of German Romanticism, the "Bilder Sprache" and Heine specifically.

It has a been a fascinating study and continues to enliven dialogue, especially in German, about the development of the "first person" narrative in German poetry and the obvious through-line to the "discovery" of the ultimate "first person" in the birth of pyschoanalysis - hence my amusing, intentionally provocative comment about Freud. This by the way is not my idea alone but in fact an essential thesis of Bruno Bettelheim. Oh well...

I Iove the exploring and the risk-thinking more than the getting there or, God forgive, the figuring of it out. I will publish all this in the next 18 months with a well thought out (and certainly better typed.(-:) essay and copious notes and bibliographical references. I, for one,do not believe on any grounds that the removal of the four songs was necessary or prudent to the emotional impact of the cycle. Nor do I believe that the changes in the German prosody are better, but again I am just expanding on research that started already in the early 1900's. But I do love to discuss it with anyone who cares.

All the best, Thomas Hampson