The apple producer produces apples. The banana producer produces bananas. The cherry producer produces cherries. Every year they always work exactly the same number of hours and produce exactly the same quantity of fruit.
If you define "recessions" as a decline in output and employment, there cannot be a recession in this economy. By assumption.
But suppose the apple producer prefers eating bananas; the banana producer prefers eating cherries; and the cherry producer prefers eating apples. And the Wicksellian triangle (lack of coincidence of wants) means they use money to buy and sell fruit, because it is difficult for all three agents to meet at the same time at a central Walrasian market and trade all three fruits simultaneously. Then a shortage of money (an excess demand for the medium of exchange) would cause a decline in the volume of trade. Unable to sell as many apples as he wants to sell, the apple producer buys fewer bananas than he normally would. So the banana producer is unable to sell as many bananas as he wants to sell, and buys fewer cherries than he normally would. So the cherry producer is unable to sell as many cherries as he wants to sell, and buys fewer apples than he normally would. Each is stuck consuming too much of his own fruit, and too little of the fruit he prefers to eat.
I would call that a "recession", even though (by assumption) output, employment, and (aggregate) consumption are unchanged. People are worse off, because of a reduction in the volume of exchange, due to a reduction in the circular flow of money around the Wicksellian triangle. (A triangle is just a very small pointy circle.) It wouldn't make much difference to this story if they all decided to work fewer hours and produce less fruit because they couldn't sell it to earn the money to buy the fruit they wanted to eat.
Now let's change the parable slightly. Each individual's tastes change over time, in a regular circular way. After a year of eating apples, they want to switch to eating bananas. And after a year of eating bananas, they want to switch to eating cherries. After a year of eating cherries, they want to switch to eating apples. But people only eat the fruit they themselves have picked from the trees they own (it tastes better that way). So there is a triangular trade in fruit trees, instead of the original triangular trade in fruit. The owners of apple trees sell their trees and buy banana trees. The owners of banana trees sell their trees and buy cherry trees. The owners of cherry trees sell their trees and buy apple trees. (Like a 3-crop rotation.)
In the new version of the parable, just like in the original version, a shortage of money (an excess demand for the medium of exchange) would cause a decline in the volume of trade. Unable to sell as many apple trees as they want, the owners of apple trees buy fewer banana trees than they normally would. And so on around the triangle.
I would call that a "recession". It looks exactly like the recession in the original version of the parable. The only difference is that in the new version there is no trade in newly-produced goods and services (by assumption); the only trade is in assets -- people exchange fruit trees for money.
And in the new version of the parable it cannot be said that recessions are caused by an excess of (desired/planned/ex ante) saving. Nobody ever saves or wants to save part of their income in this parable (by assumption). They don't even have any "income", in the sense of "monetary income". It is not an excessive desire to accumulate assets that causes recessions; it is an excessive demand for one particular asset (the medium of exchange) relative to other assets. It's about the composition of their portfolios of assets, not about the total size of that portfolio.
Recessions are not about saving and investment. Recessions are about the supply and demand for the medium of exchange. A shortage of money causes a decline in the volume of monetary exchange. The volume of monetary exchange of flows of newly-produced final goods and services is just one part of the story, because those are not the only things that are traded. It's not all about GDP and its components. It's about gains from trade, where trade requires the use of money.