The Bi-weekly Listening and Appreciation Thread: Sibelius Symp 4 [2/17/2011]

[karlhenning]

Yes, it always surprises me!  Overall the symphony seems like a modern sonata da camera (if that's the one that goes slow-fast-slow-fast), only the chirpy-ish final movement does suddenly get stuck in the mud.

[Opus106]

Yes, it always surprises me!  Overall the symphony seems like a modern sonata da camera (if that's the one that goes slow-fast-slow-fast), only the chirpy-ish final movement does suddenly get stuck in the mud.

You're thinking of the church sonatas, Karl.

Anyway, back to topic: I had listened to this symphony only once or twice before, both within the last year, but my reaction to it is more favourable this time, after listening it once during the present assignment period. None of the 'fogginess' (nothing to hold on to, although not to the extent of Bruckner, for example) I usually associate with Sibelius. Many moments with music beautifully flowing from the strings section. Despite the opposite 'character' of certain aspects of the last movement with respect to those preceding it, the 'abrupt' ending does seem to hold things in place.

[karlhenning]

You're thinking of the church sonatas, Karl.

When I was in school I worried about getting that sort of detail right. Now, I am content to be corrected at need. : )

Anyway, back to topic: I had listened to this symphony only once or twice before, both within the last year, but my reaction to it is more favourable this time, after listening it once during the present assignment period. None of the 'fogginess' (nothing to hold on to, although not to the extent of Bruckner, for example) I usually associate with Sibelius. Many moments with music beautifully flowing from the strings section. Despite the opposite 'character' of certain aspects of the last movement with respect to those preceding it, the 'abrupt' ending does seem to hold things in place.

Oh, to be sure I have no quarrel with the ending. I find it ever surprising, but also perfectly organic.

[karlhenning]

(* kicks away the tumbleweeds *)

[DavidRoss]

Perhaps the ending leaves us speechless?

For me one of the critical performance issues is whether bells or bars should be used in the 4th movement.  I favor bells, liking both the timbre and the weight.  Tinkly bars sound too thin and trivial for my taste.  I've seen authorities cite early manuscripts and scores as evidence for both.

Seemingly dispositive are certain facts:  For the 4th, Sibelius wrote "Glocken," meaning tubular bells, whereas when he wanted the lighter, brighter sound of the bars (as in The Oceanides or Lemminkäinen's Return) he wrote "Stahlstabe" or "Campanelli."  Also, Ormandy reported that he asked Sibelius about this when he visited Ainola in the '50s and Sibelius told him that he wanted bells.  And in the 1911 premiere, which Sibelius himself conducted, tubular bells were used. 

[mc ukrneal]

So - finally gave this one a listen. I should mention that Sibelius is not always my cup of tea and I don't share the passion that many of you have for his symphonies. On the other hand, this was the first listen of the Sibelius 4 and so I was excited to hear it (I had Karajan and BPO on EMI). And overall, I think I will need to listen to it at least one more time to hear some of the details I missed or wasn't paying attention to. But overall, I was not put off by it. Neither was I really sucked into it either. Perhaps this is also a composer where not being familar with his other works hurts one's understanding of this one?

It has some wonderful parts. I enjoyed the opening section and the first crescendo/build up. But the whole piece struck me as quite episodic. I suspect I missed something here, which is why I want to go back and re-listen. But the second movement had some nice sunny/lyrical moments. The horn entrance soon after the beginning of the third movement was gorgeous and the piece started to pick up a bit here for me, even though the third movement strikes me as shadows and melancholy. Some of the cello parts are outstanding as well. The fourth movement is still a bit of a mystey, but this 'sudden' ending made emotional sense to me even if musically I wanted something else (and this adds to the effectiveness of the ending).

Another interesting moment - this symphony does not have too many big tuttis or bombastic, hell-raising moments (until later in the piece). It's much more a shades of color and textural piece - a piece of moods. The structure of it is actually quite sneaky the way he has intertwined themes (and passed them from one instrument to another) and this aspect was interesting (again, I'll probably hear more on the second go around). It strikes me as a pastoral/impresssionistic palette being used here. I wish I had had that mindset from the start as I think it would have helped me.

I generally prefer pieces that are more extreme in their shade of dynamics and tuttis, which says more about me than Sibelius. But it perhaps explains why I haven't warmed up to Sibelius so much. Yet, interestingly, by not having those tuttis, this adds to the restlessness and unease at the end of the piece as that energy has not been released. Thus the mood of the piece is quite effectively conveyed (and stays with you for a while afterwards). Whether I like this or not is a different matter entirely.

So overall, more postives than negatives and an interest to listen again.

[Sergeant Rock]

For me one of the critical performance issues is whether bells or bars should be used in the 4th movement.  I favor bells, liking both the timbre and the weight.  Tinkly bars sound too thin and trivial for my taste.  I've seen authorities cite early manuscripts and scores as evidence for both.

Seemingly dispositive are certain facts:  For the 4th, Sibelius wrote "Glocken," meaning tubular bells, whereas when he wanted the lighter, brighter sound of the bars (as in The Oceanides or Lemminkäinen's Return) he wrote "Stahlstabe" or "Campanelli."  Also, Ormandy reported that he asked Sibelius about this when he visited Ainola in the '50s and Sibelius told him that he wanted bells.  And in the 1911 premiere, which Sibelius himself conducted, tubular bells were used.

And yet most conductors choose glockenspiel. Odd.

As we've discussed before, I prefer a combination of bells and glockenspiel (Davis, Szell, Maazel/Pittsburgh). I like the glockenspiel in the beginning because it sounds so bright and optimistic. But I think the tubular bells add significantly to the central climax, sounding so much more majestic than a tinkly glockenspiel. Szell begins with the glockenspiel, then adds tubular bells, and finally ends with just bells. Maazel/Pittsburgh begins with glockenspiel, uses bells only in the central climax, and returns to glockenspiel at the end. Davis, to my ears, makes the best choice: glockenspiel in the beginning, bells in the middle and both near the end when the Finale "disintegrates," making those bars sound even more chaotic and disturbing than usual.

Here's the list we came up with in the Snowshoe thread:

Glockenspiel

Maazel/Vienna
Ashkenazy/Philharmonia
Berglund/COE
Berglund/Bournemouth
Vänskä/Lahti SO
Karajan/Berlin Phil (DG)
Karajan/Berlin Phil (EMI)
Segerstam/Helsinki
Beecham/RPO
Barbirolli/Hallé
Rattle/CBSO
Rozhdestvensky/Moscow
Sakari/Iceland
Kegel/Dresden
Sanderling/Berlin SO

Tubular Bells

Bernstein/NY Phil
Ormandy/Philadelphia
Blomstedt/San Francisco
Stokowski

Glockenspiel and Tubular Bells

Maazel/Pittsburgh
Davis/LSO (RCA)
Davis/Boston
Järvi/Gothenburg


Sarge

[Brian]

Tubular Bells
Bernstein/NY Phil

Just went back to check - Bernstein doubles tubular bells and glockenspiel throughout the movement. They're both there each time. I'm very glad to read your and Sherman's remarks on this - silly me, I'd only heard glockenspiels before and thought the bells were Bernstein fiddling with the text.    Especially interesting that Ormandy got a clarification direct from the source. I wonder why the glockenspiel is so heavily insisted upon?

[Sergeant Rock]

Just went back to check - Bernstein doubles tubular bells and glockenspiel throughout the movement. They're both there each time. I'm very glad to read your and Sherman's remarks on this - silly me, I'd only heard glockenspiels before and thought the bells were Bernstein fiddling with the text.    Especially interesting that Ormandy got a clarification direct from the source. I wonder why the glockenspiel is so heavily insisted upon?

I only hear an added glockenspiel for certain at the end (7:56)...either that or Bernstein has really tiny high pitched bells   No glockenspiel in the beginning, at 4:10 it may be there. I hear a faint high ping at 5:36--none at 6:06. But then you have younger ears than me and Peabody so perhaps we're missing something.

Sarge

[Brahmsian]

Listening to the 4th right now (Davis/BSO), and it was the only recording I could find at the library.  This may be only the 2nd or 3rd time I've listened to this symphony.  I'll report after I'm finished listening.

[Szykneij]

I just finished listening to the Sibelius 4th for the first time (Sir Colin Davis/London Symphony/ RCA). It's definitely appropriate music for this cold, dreary, winter's night. While the composition occasionally almost shakes off the gloom, it never quite gets there.
  Throughout the first three movements, the effect to me is conversational. A brass choir makes a statement and then politely pauses while the violins add their comment, followed by an aside by the woodwinds. To me, it has a paragraph feel - a sonic "Our Town" with each group of instruments making their beautifully harsh statement and then fading back while another speaks. It isn't until the 4th movement that individual instruments become more prominent, their articulations more agitated and chattery and punctuated by a clarinet lick Gershwin might have been thinking of when he wrote "An American in Paris".
  The sudden surprise ending isn't really a surprise since by the time we get there, it's clear we're not going to get any kind of big finish and we're definitely not going to get a major chord after our journey through tri-tone alley.
  The use of orchestra bells (glockenspiel) and chimes (tubular bells) for my LSO recording is what Sarge describes. I'm assuming it's the same for the BSO recording, too?
  I'm looking forward to listening to this one again. Perhaps my impressions will change in the light of day. There's certainly much to absorb.

[The Diner]

Just started listening...

# Performers: Ilkka Palli, Lahti Symphony Orchestra, Osmo Vanska, Jean Sibelius, Timo Saarenpaa
# Composers: Jean Sibelius
# Conductors: Osmo Vanska
# Original Release Date: April 30, 1997
# Label: BIS

[Opus106]

Just started listening...

# Performers: Ilkka Palli, Lahti Symphony Orchestra, Osmo Vanska, Jean Sibelius, Timo Saarenpaa
# Composers: Jean Sibelius
# Conductors: Osmo Vanska
# Original Release Date: April 30, 1997
# Label: BIS

We have another thread to post these -- and only these -- details, you know!

[karlhenning]

Dave's late to his own party? ; )

[Cato]

Life has assaulted and peppered me recently, so I have no time right now to write anything extensive about the symphony.

But I would like to comment quickly on the bells/glockenspiel choices: I cannot imagine a conductor substituting a glockenspiel so blithely, when the composer wants bells.  The "psychology" of a bell, even the tubular bells, is quite different from that of a glockenspiel.  The bell's overtones give a specific emotional effect to the listener, which is not replicated by a glockenspiel.

Just as one does not idly substitute an English horn for a flute, one should follow the indications of the composer here and use the bells.   0:)

[karlhenning]

A Cato sighting! : )

[The Diner]

Dave's late to his own party? ; )

Not my party. I just start 'em.