Sibelius Symphonies

[mahler10th]

Ashkenazy by a million miles.
I can't see why it is that people recommend Blomstedt highly.  A good set for sure, but a million miles from Ashkenazy.
Stick with your initial gut and get Ashkenazy.   He did a glacial Sibelius with pine edges and snowy pathways which to my ears is more remarkable than anyone else - and the sound quality is outstanding too.
Not highly recommended.
HighEST recommended.

[SonicMan46]

Hello Marvin - just wanted to get on this thread - in the market for another Sibelius Symphony set, myself (and for a while!) - 

Currently, I own the Blomstedt & Ashkenazy, and voted for Blomstedt - now I could 'dump' the other for another set, and the ones that I've been considering (based on comments here & reviews elsewhere) are Segerstam, Vanask, & Berglund - just would like one more, so am in a 'holding pattern' @ the moment - no big hurry; as w/ all of these 'complete' sets, there is no perfect choice - good luck in your selection(s) - 

[dirkronk]

I'm afraid I can't be much help. My longtime "only" integrated set of Sibelius is Rozhdestvensky on vinyl (Melodiya) and I still love it--but I don't think the whole set has made it to CD. A friend recently provided me with Jarvi's set on CD, but I haven't had time to listen carefully, so--again--zero help. Mea culpa...

Dirk

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I can't see why it is that people recommend Blomstedt highly.  A good set for sure, but a million miles from Ashkenazy.

I'm a big fan of Blomstedt's set. And Ashkenazy's too is excellent. But I don't listen to either expecting the same end result.

Ashkenazy is more of a high romanticist, exposing all sorts of nerve-endings in an attempt to 'superheat' the music. It's an approach I take to readily and would hate to be without his renditions.

Blomstedt on the other hand might come off as sounding more literal, more lean, more monochromatic when compared to Ashkenazy. But it's deceiving. What Blomstedt "lacks" in romantic fire he compensates for by producing a kind of arctic chill. He's looking to play up the other extreme in Sibelius's music: the starkness, the bleakness, the harsh reality of a barren, wind-blown frigid landscape, which as a concept speaks with equal authority as any 'superheated' approach. It's just a different viewpoint.

It's probably worth noting though that in reality Ashkenazy is more the 'odd man out' in the field of Sibelius symphony sets. He's by far the most romantic of the bunch. Though, as I said, I absolutely love his conviction in bringing to Sibelius a 'hot' approach, if acknowledging it's not really the norm out there.

All this being said, however, I have to side with others in that overall I favor Vänskä for a complete set. To me Vänskä is supreme (hyperbole, but hey...), and, like Blomstedt, is much more on the 'chilly' side of Sibelius.

(In the past I've suggested getting BOTH Ashkenazy and Vänskä for their extremely divergent views. Might work here).

[Wanderer]

I'd also recommend the DNRSO/Segerstam set, one of the most accomplished overall and a personal favourite of mine (originally on Chandos, currently on Brilliant), and BPO/Sanderling (also on Brilliant). Either these or Vänskä would make an ideal first set.

Blomstedt's chilly and structured approach is really worth checking out though, when you are more familiar with the pieces.

I'd describe it as detached, inflexible and insensitive; the only cycle I haven't been able to warm up to even a little bit. I wouldn't recommend it, though it might be interesting to listen to after you've listened to the wealth of other worthy choices out there. This would go to the bottom of my list (if at all).

[Que]

Vänskä, Marvin, Vänskä.

Davis has a big reputation, but IMO he doesn't "get" Sibelius at all. It's Sibelius "glossed over", but what do I know - I haven't heard several of the others mentioned.

Q

[M forever]

Yes, that really wasn't very helpful. If someone asks specifically for a comparison of a given spectrum of recordings, he probably won't get too much out of "opinions" based on not knowing most of the choices.

I'm afraid I can't be much help. My longtime "only" integrated set of Sibelius is Rozhdestvensky on vinyl (Melodiya) and I still love it--but I don't think the whole set has made it to CD.

http://www.hmv.co.jp/product/detail/1424517

[Que]

Yes, that really wasn't very helpful. If someone asks specifically for a comparison of a given spectrum of recordings, he probably won't get too much out of "opinions" based on not knowing most of the choices.

Well, so be it. I specifically indicated this, so I leave it up to Marvin to decide what to do with it.  0:)
Maybe he wants to check out Vänskä beacuse several of us mention him? Seems still usefull to me.

I think it is a fair estimation that most here will know not more than three or four cycles mentioned - tops. Maybe they have, like me, neither the time nor the funds to buy every likely candidate to compare. So most views on recordings are "incomplete" in this respect. It's up to the OP to piece all the clues together - who says what, and with what knowledge - that's what I always do.

Q

[M forever]

Marvin specifically asked which of the listed or other cycles he should start with, not what stuff is flying around out there. He already knows that. Fortunately, there are 2,3 posts by people who actually do have the larger overview and don't just blabla about the recordings they just happen to have. So Marvin will get some valuable information if he filters all the noise out. I have and know all the cycles mentioned in this thread, plus a few more, and I think those posters who based their views and comparisons on actually knowing many or most of them have provided some valuable insights to which I don't have much to add. If one is looking for a really outstanding cycle, it comes down to Blomstedt/SFS or Maazel/WP. Good as most of the others are in some respects, these two have the best overall playing, very good sound and the most nuanced, complex view of the music. Maazel's spectrum is probably even a little wider than Blomstedt's because it includes everything from the more "romantic" side to extremely "stark" and chiselled, depending on the musical context.
I would just strongly warn against getting either of the Segerstam cycles. These are extremely mediocre, he tramples over a lot of the fine detail and then pours a thick sauce over everything. The Ondine cycle is rather "nicely" recorded and benefits from the very good playing of the Helsinki orchestra which has very noticeably upgraded since Berglund made his EMI recordings in the 80s. Unfortunately, Segerstam does not make good and effective use of this. He even changes details of the orchestration in some places to make everything sound even fatter and lusher.
Berglund's EMI cycle from Helsinki is probably the next best choice even though the orchestral playing wais not really first rate throughout at that time, but it is very characterful. It is available in several different editions, including one box with all his tone poem recordings from Bournemouth, and that may be a very attractive choice, too.
Vänskä is just a flavor of the day, like Segerstam. Both don't even approach the insight and conciseness of Berglund and some other conductors.

[marvinbrown]

 

  First and formost thank you all responding.   I have multiple cycles of Shostakovich (Jansons, Haitink, Barshai), Mahler (Solti, Bertini), Beethoven (Karajan '63, Gardiner) and it seems that I will end up buying multiple sets of Sibelius as well.  Usually I tend to go for a warmer set as a good starting point, Maazel seems to be highly recommended across the board and appears to be ideal for a first time listener.  Plus it can be had for under £9 on amazon which is affordable.  The second set I'd like to get is either the Blomstedt or the Vanska, a chillier, frostier interpretation would compliment the Maazel quite well.  I'll see if I can sample these at HMV this weekend.

  Once again thank you all and keep the discussion going.....


  marvin 


 

 

   

[springrite]

Vänskä is just a flavor of the day, like Segerstam. Both don't even approach the insight and conciseness of Berglund and some other conductors.

I really like the Vänskä cycle. But you are absolutely right that it is a flavor of the day type of take on these works. But it is unlike Segerstam in that it is much better played and more consistant interpretatively. But it is NOT the cycle to have if you are to have one cycle. It is the luxury cycle to have -- adding an additional cycle that is definitely different, well played, well recorded and interesting.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

Blomstedt. I have the Ashkenazy cycle as well but couldn't ever get warm with it. It's probably a question of what you are used to. Often I think Ashkenazy is too fast. Also I don't like the noise. And the subway rumbling sound which you hear often.
Blomstedt has the best Tapiola. Best for me, I must say

An important cycle is the Segerstam/Helsinki! His Sym. #4 gets highest credits and it's my favorite one, but I cannot tell about the other Symphonies on this.

[ChamberNut]

Thanks for this thread Marvin, I will also be looking at this closely.

[Lethevich]

Regarding Davis, I tried to listen to the BSO and LSO (1) cycles back to back a while ago, but it became difficult due to their great similarities. The recorded sound on the BSO set was nicer due to the slight glare/harshness on the LSO one. The LSO Live cycle in progress is different - broader, with the usual non-ideal Barbican acoustics. If that sound is "listened through", there is a great attention to detail in the later recordings, although Davis was always quite good at noticing these things anyway.

The Naxos cycle is surprisingly good, but probably doesn't sell as cheaply as most of the alternatives.

[mahler10th]

Marvin specifically asked which of the listed or other cycles he should start with, not what stuff is flying around out there. He already knows that. Fortunately, there are 2,3 posts by people who actually do have the larger overview and don't just blabla about the recordings they just happen to have. So Marvin will get some valuable information if he filters all the noise out. I have and know all the cycles mentioned in this thread, plus a few more, and I think those posters who based their views and comparisons on actually knowing many or most of them have provided some valuable insights to which I don't have much to add. If one is looking for a really outstanding cycle, it comes down to Blomstedt/SFS or Maazel/WP. Good as most of the others are in some respects, these two have the best overall playing, very good sound and the most nuanced, complex view of the music. Maazel's spectrum is probably even a little wider than Blomstedt's because it includes everything from the more "romantic" side to extremely "stark" and chiselled, depending on the musical context.
I would just strongly warn against getting either of the Segerstam cycles. These are extremely mediocre, he tramples over a lot of the fine detail and then pours a thick sauce over everything. The Ondine cycle is rather "nicely" recorded and benefits from the very good playing of the Helsinki orchestra which has very noticeably upgraded since Berglund made his EMI recordings in the 80s. Unfortunately, Segerstam does not make good and effective use of this. He even changes details of the orchestration in some places to make everything sound even fatter and lusher.
Berglund's EMI cycle from Helsinki is probably the next best choice even though the orchestral playing wais not really first rate throughout at that time, but it is very characterful. It is available in several different editions, including one box with all his tone poem recordings from Bournemouth, and that may be a very attractive choice, too.
Vänskä is just a flavor of the day, like Segerstam. Both don't even approach the insight and conciseness of Berglund and some other conductors.

A well considered summary by M forever quoted again above. 
I have over 7 Sibelius sets (being a bona fide Siblius fan), Ashkenazy/Philharmonia and Maazel/VPO being the most prominent.  It has been mentioned that one listener could not 'warm' to the Ashkenazy and another recognised him as being the most 'romantic' Sibelian interpreter 'by far'.
Well..I don't fully get it. 
I almost go along with the 'romantic' element in Ashkenazys 2 & 5, but I can't hear any big romantic sound coming through anything else in Ashkenazys Sibelius.  What I do I hear are mountains, pine treetops, snow and icy cold lakkaväri, all tempered and masterfully directed with a baton cut from the forests of Laamasenvaara.  I am not surpsrised one reviewer has not 'warmed' to it. 
If you want the big romantic sound, Segerstam is indeed the way to go, but as M forever says, he has taken many liberties with the orchestration and as a result you get the big and lush without the atmosphere and character. 
The Blomstedt is pretty cold and nuance ridden, beautiful and often stark sounding, but I'm always left with the feeling that somethings missing.

Oh well...I could go on all night.  Wish I could call Jean Christian Sibelius myself to see what he makes of it all...

Unfortunately, the only set I don't have thus far mentioned in the thread is Berglund...seems I am missing out on something.

[M forever]

Yes.  Plenty of atmosphere, superb playing by the VPO, a masterful connection with Sibelius, frozen edges, plenty of Sibelian demands from the conductor...a joy...BUT STILL NOT AS GOOD AS ASHKENAZY.   

Good as the Ashkenazy cycle generally is and as great and characterful as the playing of the Philharmonia is (captured in nice, athmoshperic and not too much in-your-face sound as it often was Decca's style in those days), his direction simply isn't as concentrated, to the point, and "logical" as Maazel's, and his musical approach is basically the same enthusiastic polished warm niceness for all symphonies and all movements, so while it is very enjoyable to listen to, from a musical point of view, it is simply much "less" than what Maazel has to offer - and what Sibelius has to offer. Sibelius was a composer who agonized over every single note in his symphonies and he is one of those composers who probably never wrote a single note "too much" which is why they all really count. And Maazel gets more of that internal complexity "right" where Ashkenzy overlooks quite a bit of the inner detail in favor of big sweeping "romantic" gestures, so he gives you less Sibelius than Maazel does, and his stylistic aproach, pretty much "perfect" for the 1st and maybe also the 2nd symphony never changes so while the 3rd is still pretty good but already starts to miss the terseness and concentratedness of the music, by the time he gets to the 4th, he is out of his interpretive depths and that's where Maazel really digs much "deeper" and especially in that symphony, that is also where his unfair advantage of having an orchestra with a more distinguished and sonorous string section really comes into play.

I still like to listen to both cycles and I don't think it is necessary and entirely fair either to compare them directly, because Maazel at that point in his career already was a much more experienced and distinguished condcutor than Ashkenazy was and probably ever became, and while Ashkenazy had at his disposal a highly virtuoso orchestra whose contribution to the cycle was perhaps stronger than his own, Maazel still had an advantage there, too, with an orchestra with a wider palette of colors and expression matching his own wider interpretive spectrum. There is simply "more" of everything in this cycle than in Ashkenazy's.

I have the same slight reservations about Ashkenazy's Rachmaninoff cycle which seems to have everything, too, great orchestral playing (the Concertgebouworkest), nice sound, great enthusiasm for the music and a lot of energy, you really want to like it and some of the stuff in there is really amazing, but at the end of the day, or rather the disc, there is still something missing because Ashkenazy never really probes deeply anywhere. His recordings generally strike me as the kind of performances which would be great live concerts to go to, but not necessarily "reference" recordings to have and listen to repeatedly, because their shortcomngs then come to light.

[DarkAngel]

I do think best choice to start is Maazel/VPO which is very cheap used fitting on 3Cds, the 1960s sound quality will amaze you and yeilds nothing to the newest versions. Very powerful and dramatic versions the complete package, young Maazel making his name.

Blomstedt/SFSO makes an interesting contast with a more controlled introspective approach emphasizing tonal colors like a wintery impressionist painting, not as dramatic or emotional as Maazel makes strongest case in later 4-7 symphonies, buying these two sets gives you high quality contrasting versions, a ying yang of Sibelius

Ashkenazy and Davis BSO/LSO are fine but never truely impressed me, kinda middle of the road safe performances well executed which critics love, Maazel & Bernstein much more passionate and dramatic. Davis Live LSO versions sound better to me and cheap used if you must have some Davis.

I love Bernstein/NYPO/SONY but best to start with Maazel I feel and pursue Bernstein later......unless you are already a big of early Bernstein

A couple more  sets I realy like are:
Berglund/Helsinki PO - like these old versions better than new Segerstam/Ondine with same orchestra getting all the buzz
Gibson/SCO/Chandos - rarely mentioned this is a quality set with great sound, tone poem set very good also

Karajan - I like his EMI versions better than the highly touted DG versions, the EMI 1st symphony is one of the very best
Jarvi - I like the older BIS versions, new DG set seems a step backward for me

[Lethevich]

Gibson/SCO/Chandos - rarely mentioned this is a quality set with great sound, tone poem set very good also

Ugh, I own that and keep forgetting about it. Along with the Naxos cycle, it's a very good "outsider" pick.

[val]

I am listening again the version of Berglund with the Helsinki Orchestra and, regarding the complete Symphonies (and other works) it seems the most balanced version.

There are some great versions for each Symphony, in some cases superior to Berglund, but regarding the complete set, I think that Berglund is the best.

[Grazioso]

I am listening again the version of Berglund with the Helsinki Orchestra and, regarding the complete Symphonies (and other works) it seems the most balanced version.

It might be a bit too cool at times for some tastes, but it's definitely worth a listen. That set has the big advantage of offering a bunch of other orchestral and vocal works, from the well known (Finlandia, Tapiola) to the unjustly obscure (Oma maa, Tulen synty).