Both David Zinman and Daniel Barenboim have recorded Schumann’s symphonies before, Barenboim in Chicago in the late 1970s, Zinman in Baltimore in the late 1980s, the latter set recently remarketed by Telarc at mid-price. In both instances the remake involves a radical change of orchestral sonority, warmer and more full-bodied in the case of Barenboim, more grainy, notably lighter in texture in Zinman’s case, with the sort of sharpened dynamic profile and fine-tipped attenuation more associated with period instrument orchestras. Anyone familiar with Zinman’s equally energised Tonhalle Beethoven cycle will already have the template to hand.

Zinman’s second Schumann set also involves some minor textural novelties. Added ornaments and appoggiaturas appear in the Adagio espressivo of No 2, for example, and in the first movement of the Rhenish. For this latest project Zinman uses period brass and timpani: note the stopped horns for the pivotal four-note motive in the Spring Symphony’s Allegro molto vivace. Tempi are in general swifter than before. The opening of the Spring’s Scherzo, for example, just about exceeds the prescribed metronome marking, whereas in Baltimore it was marginally slower. More significantly, the third-movement trio in No 4 is now virtually in tempo with the outer sections.

Barenboim on the other hand remains the unashamed Romantic, excitable, impulsive and on occasion happy to recall the interpretative manners of Bruno Walter or, more especially, his obvious role-model, Wilhelm Furtwängler. Ample evidence is provided by the static transition from Scherzo to finale in the Fourth (even broader than in Chicago), and by the breadth of the Spring Symphony’s opening. While Zinman’s tempi are swifter than Barenboim’s in the Fourth, the dramatic alternation of slow and fast music in that same scherzo-finale transition has a similar impact. Then again Barenboim is no mere clone – thankfully in the case of certain more irksome Furtwängler mannerisms, such as his impulsive acceleration at the start of the second trio in the Spring Symphony’s Scherzo (there was just a hint of it in Chicago). Barenboim’s Berlin textures can be both warm and bright (mahogany viola triplets in the Spring Symphony’s introduction, a regal lead trumpet elsewhere) and always one appreciates his flexibility, keeping the line fluid and malleable. I love his big-hearted to-hell-with-it-all approach at the start of the Rhenish, so different to the lively but more abrupt Zinman. Elsewhere, it’s a case of well-upholstered swings and whizzing bare-wood roundabouts, Barenboim opting for a fat, brassy sonority, building a formidable feierlich ‘cathedral’ fourth movement (Zinman holds line and clarity as paramount) and a relatively gentle finale where Zinman is super-swift.

If ultimately I found Barenboim’s Third Symphony more involving than Zinman’s, I much prefer Zinman’s classically moulded approach to the Second. True, at the start of the Adagio Barenboim draws more expressive string lines but Zinman’s luminous opening is better judged, moving more easily towards its Allegro destination. Also, the Scherzo’s ritardandi seem more comfortable under Zinman and the sempre pp passage at around 4'14", so ethereal and feather-light, conjures genuine magic.

Interesting, given that Zinman seems more concerned with clarifying textures that it’s Barenboim who spatially divides his violin sections – vital in the first movement of the Rhenish – and that Zinman opts for the 1851 revised Fourth Symphony rather than the 1841 original. Zinman in Zurich provides a sort of Schumann slimming kit, useful for those who find the symphonies turgid and who crave more air between and around the notes. His Baltimore cycle enjoys a softer, more traditional profile, almost like mellow chamber music at times, beautifully recorded and a nice compromise if you don’t fancy the rasping ‘period’ element or added twiddly bits on the new recordings. The more centrally heated Barenboim set perhaps better hints at Schumann’s warm emotional climate and vivid sense of orchestral fantasy.

In pitting these very different cycles against each other, I wouldn’t wish to side-step the best of the competition, which includes robust Sawallisch in Dresden, imaginative Eschenbach with the North German Radio Symphony Orchestra, loving Bernstein in Vienna, refined Karajan in Berlin, and subtly observant Kubelík in Munich. Kubelík is my personal favourite – Schumann the poet is really given his due – but for the purposes of this review it’s Zinman who most stands to teach you things about the music that you didn’t already know.