The Nielsen Nexus

[Karl Henning]

I really like Catherine Bott in the Andante pastorale;  hers may be my favorite soprano tone in the various recordings I've heard.

Thomson has a curious purposefulness in parts of the Andante pastorale, and I am not sure how I feel about that.

Just for fun, I cued up the second and fourth movements of Lenny's recording.

I do not genuinely dislike Ruth Goldbæk in Lenny's, but she's a little "operatic" in her delivery here;  where Catherine Bott's purity of tone melts me, and feels so exquisitely in harmony with the heartbeat of the movement.

Lenny's Andante pastorale clocks in at 65 seconds longer than Thomson's;  and while we all know that it isn't necessarily about where the clock has run out, Lenny's talent for giving the music ample breadth shows, in how he sets up the magic of the entrance of the vocalise.

In the Finale, Thomson is just a little heavy-footed, just a shade of "let's be through with it," perhaps, in both the fugato preceding the final recap, and in the recap itself;  where Lenny keeps a vital undercurrent intensity there (and elsewhere).

[Mirror Image]

I've learned that all interpretations offer something different to the perspective listener. Whether they enjoy it or not is a matter of subjectivity, but, even if I don't like what a conductor has done with this or that musical phrase or movement, I feel better for having heard their interpretation, because finding what we don't like is just as valid as finding what we do like in a performance.

[Mirror Image]

The question is how did the Sarge like Thomson's Espansiva?

[71 dB]

Well, as we've often discussed around GMG, "importance" is problematic.  (Was Nielsen at all an "important" composer?  I don't know that he was . . . certainly of importance to, e.g., Holmboe and Langgaard.  And I'd say that his Clarinet Concerto is perhaps the most important for the instrument after Mozart, and an important model for Corigliano.)

I mean importance to a music listener, not the importance in music history. I agree the term is problematic nevertheless.

We all find value and beauty in the work of lesser-known composers.  It's really a bit of a hang-up, I think, to "resent" the fame of justly-famous composers.  Well, my opinion, is all.

Yes, it is, but as a human being I experience irrational feelings.

[71 dB]

I don't participate in the discussion of different recordings. Elgar is the only composer I have several recordings of and based on that experience collecting various performances of certain works is not my thing. Various versions just confuse me. To be honest, I do find these posts of whether Thomson is better than Bott or not uninteresting.

We're all wired differently and respond to music in our own ways.

Nothing makes people differ from each other more than music.

All I'm saying is Nielsen took a little bit more work for me to finally crack.

That's one example how music makes us different. To me Nielsen's music is very welcoming, like a funny and friendly person. Perhaps I don't understand it 100 % correctly as Nielsen intended it, but who cares when I enjoy what I hear?

I think being pissed off about Sibelius' 'fame' is borderline ridiculous.

I agree. Live would be easy if we could control our irrational feelings. One solution might be buying some Sibelius works I do like and that way get rid of the feelings (replace them with positive feelings). Tone Poems such as 'Nightride and Sunrise' is the kind of Sibelius I like. In fact, there is two sides of Sibelius: The symphonic Sibelius with zillions of recordings and the almost obscure Sibelius. Only a dozen of Sibelius' compositions are actually famous over the world if you think about it.

Nielsen's most famous "dozen" could be more famous imo.

Does knowing Beethoven was more influential than Brahms hinder your enjoyment of either composers' music?

No, because Brahms is rated high enough if not even overvalued. Even youngsters listening to hip hop may have heard of Brahms, but have they heard of Nielsen? No way in hell unless they live in Denmark.

No, I don't think it would and, if it did, that would be a wrong-headed view to uphold. This said, Nielsen was an important composer and just because Sibelius may get mentioned more often doesn't mean that he was a third-rate composer.

The difficulty of life is getting your feelings according to the facts. Is it even necessary? I rather have rational thoughts and irrational feelings than the other way around. 

[Karl Henning]

Maybe it's terminology . . . and "irrational thoughts" are [a subset of] feelings 

I don't participate in the discussion of different recordings. Elgar is the only composer I have several recordings of and based on that experience collecting various performances of certain works is not my thing. Various versions just confuse me. To be honest, I do find these posts of whether Thomson is better than Bott or not uninteresting.

That's fine, you are not obliged to find anything that I post of interest!  (Thomson is the conductor and Bott the singer, and on the same recording, so I have not even considered how one might be better than the other  )  I do think that is one of the beauties of GMG:  the interests of the virtual community as a whole are much greater than any single member could conceivably take a close interest in.

[71 dB]

Maybe it's terminology . . . and "irrational thoughts" are [a subset of] feelings 

I consider thoughts and feelings separate prosesses in the brain (just as hearing and seeing are different senses). However, thoughts and feelings do interact: Feelings may cause irrational thoughts as is the case with may Sibelius "syndrome" and irrational thoughts may irrational feelings. If rational thought processes are too weak to limit irrational thoughts (in my case with Sibelius I am luckily able to rationally understand that my feelings and thoughts about Sibelius are largely irrational), irrational thoughts and feelings start to feed each other in a loop and a person may become mentally unstable and in extreme cases dangerous to others (e.g. brainwashed fundamental terrorists).

That's fine, you are not obliged to find anything that I post of interest! 

I do find many things you (and others) post interesting. Endless comparison of recordings however is not among the most interesting. Most of the cases I have not heard the performances people are talking about so it's difficult to participate. The performances I own/have heard often are not interesting to others or they have not heard them. It's like trying to discuss about chocolate: Those who don't live in Finland hardly know a certain Finnish chocolate bar that might be my favorite and I don't know much about English chocolates.

Overlapping gives an opportunity to have couple of versions of many "popular" works. For example I have two performances of Helios Overture. I don't even know which one I prefer. If someone has heard Dausgaard on Dacapo or/and Willém on Naxos, opinions can be expressed.

[Mirror Image]

No, because Brahms is rated high enough if not even overvalued. Even youngsters listening to hip hop may have heard of Brahms, but have they heard of Nielsen? No way in hell unless they live in Denmark.

I don't think you understood my point: it doesn't matter who's more celebrated or who's more influential or anything of the sort. What matters is if the music is good to you and after that initial enjoyment, everything else is irrelevant. Personally, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that Sibelius gets mentioned more often than Nielsen. Both composers were different and had original things to say in music and, most importantly, I enjoy their music equally. Whether you enjoy one more than the other is purely your own personal preference.

[71 dB]

I don't think you understood my point: it doesn't matter who's more celebrated or who's more influential or anything of the sort. What matters is if the music is good to you and after that initial enjoyment, everything else is irrelevant.

That is very true, but my feelings tend to mess up with my head.

Personally, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that Sibelius gets mentioned more often than Nielsen.

Well, you simply don't have that problem. 

Both composers were different and had original things to say in music and, most importantly, I enjoy their music equally. Whether you enjoy one more than the other is purely your own personal preference.

I enjoy Nielsen's symphonies much more than Sibelius' symphonies, but Sibelius might be better of the two in "theatre music"/"tone poem" -type of works. I don't know the more obscure works of these composers well enough to have a real opinion. Perhaps 20 years from now I know better...

[Mirror Image]

71 dB since you like Naxos so well (and in many cases they offer fine recordings), have you heard this recording?



Everything on this disc is performed with a great enthusiasm and authority. A must-have for Nielsenites.

[71 dB]

71 dB since you like Naxos so well (and in many cases they offer fine recordings), have you heard this recording?



Everything on this disc is performed with a great enthusiasm and authority. A must-have for Nielsenites.

Yes, I own that disc as I mentioned above (Helios Overture).

[prémont]

Yes, Carl Nielsen is an underrated composer (except in Denmark I guess?)

[prémont]

I read his self biography (borrowed from the local University library) called "Mitt liv" IIRC (aka My life) and remember it as a very good read.  I think I read it in Danish (no problem for a Norwegian) and have no idea if it is available in English translation.

The title is: Min fynske barndom = my childhood on Funen

[Moonfish]

The title is: Min fynske barndom = my childhood on Funen

There is a Danish film by Erik Clausen based on Nielsen's biography (the film is seemingly impossible to track down):

Lots of information here: http://www.dfi.dk/faktaomfilm/film/da/9344.aspx?id=9344

https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min_fynske_barndom

[DaveF]

I read his self biography (borrowed from the local University library) called "Mitt liv" IIRC (aka My life) and remember it as a very good read.  I think I read it in Danish (no problem for a Norwegian) and have no idea if it is available in English translation.

It is - in an old but perfectly good translation by Reginald Spink.  But it is what it says - an account of his life on Fyn up until he left for Copenhagen at the age of 18.  Perhaps there are some later diaries that will be translated and published one day - now they would make interesting reading.

[The new erato]

The title is: Min fynske barndom = my childhood on Funen

Yes, that was it, it was 40 years ago I read it.

[bhodges]

Very much enjoying what I've heard from this box so far (the 5th and 6th). Makes me sad that Davis isn't around, but then, this must be one of the best things he recorded - so good to "go out with a bang."

And to address Greg's earlier question, I think the Fifth is my favorite, by a very small margin. I first heard Horenstein's version years ago (gorgeous LP cover below), and was immediately taken with that snare drum part. My brother recommended some other recordings of the piece, and gradually I fell in love with it.

[asin]B00SKFJETK[/asin]

--Bruce

[amw]

Dueling Chaconnes

                

- Christina Bjorkøe (A=444?) is the best recorded of the bunch and has the clearest piano playing. Her interpretations are somewhat wayward though, especially concerning rubato, which wasn't 100% to my taste
- Mina Miller's recording, extremely sensitive and fleeting and beautifully paced, was a nice surprise. Neither the instrument nor the recorded sound is particularly high quality, though, which detracts a little
- Elisabeth Westenholz would probably be the best performance overall for the first 6 minutes or so (the main body of the chaconne). She maintains the chaconne rhythm through the coda instead of relaxing, which some people will object to—it's not the kind of ethereal, floaty cloud music Miller achieves, and has more of the trademark Nielsen nervous energy. The piano sounds a bit tinny and xylophone-like in the upper registers
- Herman D. Koppel's piano sounds even more tinny and xylophonic. His interpretation is pretty 'out there' as well, being slowish and full of weirdness. Worth hearing, but I found he just didn't play quietly enough.
- Peter Seivewright is sufficiently slow and hesitant that I wondered whether he was sight-reading the piece.
- Leif Ove Andsnes turns in an interpretation that definitely attempts deep feeling. I'm somewhat doubtful how much he achieves. His playing doesn't have a lot of clarity (rhythmic/melodic) and in the end it just feels a bit insubstantial, particularly the big climax. I'm not sure whether his recording is highly viewed in piano circles.

For me personally I am considering getting rid of Roscoe and replacing it with Westenholz (as a 'reference' interpretation) and Miller (the most poetic/inward interpreter imo). I think some people would prefer Bjorkøe to one or both, you'd have to do your own sampling. Wouldn't bother with the lads, though Koppel might turn in an interesting Suite Op. 45.

edit: I misspelled Elisabeth Westenholz's name b/c I'm a dumbass

[Jo498]

I have to say I don't know much about Nielsen's life. I don't seem to need that to enjoy his music.

I'm not a big Sibelius fan and I have always been pissed of about the fact Sibelius is considered much more important composer than Nielsen all over the world.

Is that really such a big difference? I agree that Sibelius is more *popular*; there is nothing by Nielsen that is even close to Sibelius' Violin concerto, the 2nd and 5th symphonies and a few smaller works (Finlandia) in popularity. But I am not sure whether he is generally considered "much more important". There used to be a "school of thought" who more or less disregarded both as local figures (and to some extent historically backward/obsolete) compared to the "modernists of the early 20th century but not any more.

FWIW, of those two I find Nielsen considerably more interesting although I got to know his music later and I think both have their share of great and also some lesser works (and neither is for me in the exalted league of e.g. Mahler or Debussy and while I am not too fond of Richard Strauss I'd also concede that he is more important) but I would not say that any of them is really "neglected" nowadays. Compare e.g. to French composers of roughly the same generation like Magnard or Roussel.

[Mirror Image]

I think all of this talk of popularity is just nonsense. A similar question I've asked before: does knowing that Sibelius is more popular hinder a listener's enjoyment of Nielsen? No, I don't think it does and it doesn't matter who was more influential. I love both composers and both deserve equal billing in my mind. They're both highly original and inventive. No other composer sounds like either of them.