The Snowshoed Sibelius

[Madiel]

Yes, indeed. So since you're going chronologically, I take it you've listened the juvenilia works already?

I'm only doing the orchestral works in this, including vocal/choral with an orchestral accompaniment. So I started with the Two Chorales that are in the BIS voice & orchestra box, then the Overture in E and the Scene de Ballet. Then you hit Kullervo which is quite a leap.

I'm actually listening to some of the early chamber music and other early things from time to time separately, on streaming. Making notes when I do that, about what I might buy at some point. I still think some of the BIS recordings go too far in trying to record every single bar of music and include stuff I'm not going to buy because I wouldn't want to listen to it more than once. But I can definitely hear a point where the juvenilia starts getting more interesting.

[Mirror Image]

I'm only doing the orchestral works in this, including vocal/choral with an orchestral accompaniment. So I started with the Two Chorales that are in the BIS voice & orchestra box, then the Overture in E and the Scene de Ballet. Then you hit Kullervo which is quite a leap.

I'm actually listening to some of the early chamber music and other early things from time to time separately, on streaming. Making notes when I do that, about what I might buy at some point. I still think some of the BIS recordings go too far in trying to record every single bar of music and include stuff I'm not going to buy because I wouldn't want to listen to it more than once. But I can definitely hear a point where the juvenilia starts getting more interesting.

Well, I like having every table cloth Sibelius wrote on. But, yes, I do get what you're saying. Much of the juvenilia chamber music is pleasant, but it got more interesting as he matured. What's interesting was there was still chamber music being composed even after this particular period well up to the late 1920s. He also wrote many solo piano works, solo organ, and some choral music around this time. What would be quite fascinating to do is actually go through his JS and Opus numbers. This is one aspect I'm still trying to understand within his own oeuvre --- the whole numbering of everything whereas if you ignore this and just go chronologically through his oeuvre like you're doing, I'd imagine there being a better understanding of his development.

[Madiel]

Well, I like having every table cloth Sibelius wrote on. But, yes, I do get what you're saying. Much of the juvenilia chamber music is pleasant, but it got more interesting as he matured. What's interesting was there was still chamber music being composed even after this particular period well up to the late 1920s. He also wrote many solo piano works, solo organ, and some choral music around this time. What would be quite fascinating to do is actually go through his JS and Opus numbers. This is one aspect I'm still trying to understand within his own oeuvre --- the whole numbering of everything whereas if you ignore this and just go chronologically through his oeuvre like you're doing, I'd imagine there being a better understanding of his development.

The JS list is just alphabetical, but it's based on whatever language the title is in.

The first half of the opuses, until about the Violin Concerto, is a mess because Sibelius kept changing his mind about which works deserved an opus number and then he would use a new work to plug the gap he had left. Apparently there's one research book that documents all the known versions of the opus list, one day I'll see if the national library has it.

But ironically the best way of building a chronology is from the booklets of the BIS boxes. 12 out of 13 boxes, the booklet was easily available online and the discs are chronological within each genre.

[Mirror Image]

The JS list is just alphabetical, but it's based on whatever language the title is in.

The first half of the opuses, until about the Violin Concerto, is a mess because Sibelius kept changing his mind about which works deserved an opus number and then he would use a new work to plug the gap he had left. Apparently there's one research book that documents all the known versions of the opus list, one day I'll see if the national library has it.

But ironically the best way of building a chronology is from the booklets of the BIS boxes. 12 out of 13 boxes, the booklet was easily available online and the discs are chronological within each genre.

Yes, that's one thing that has bugged me about Sibelius' opus listing. I have a general idea of when something was composed just based off of hearing the work, so perhaps I shouldn't bother myself with opus numbers and just study the chronological order of his oeuvre. That book that documents of all his opuses and lists them sounds pretty interesting. I might have to look into that as well.

[Madiel]

At some point I did read about some of the works that used to have an opus number and lost it, but I'm not sure where. Suspect Google Books led me to something?

I have Word documents for a number of different composers as I try to understand what they wrote and when and what's available in recordings and which recordings I should buy.

Sibelius has by far the longest documentation!

[relm1]

Yes, that's one thing that has bugged me about Sibelius' opus listing. I have a general idea of when something was composed just based off of hearing the work, so perhaps I shouldn't bother myself with opus numbers and just study the chronological order of his oeuvre. That book that documents of all his opuses and lists them sounds pretty interesting. I might have to look into that as well.

I think chronology makes more sense than opus order.  Think Dvorak, wasn't it completely useless since publication came out of composition order so you might have stuff like Dvorak Symphony No. 9 original score says No. 8, No. 6 is listed as No. 5, etc.  His No. 6 was No. 1.  It is super confusing!  I think the same i the case with Sibelius though not as bad. 

[Mirror Image]

At some point I did read about some of the works that used to have an opus number and lost it, but I'm not sure where. Suspect Google Books led me to something?

I have Word documents for a number of different composers as I try to understand what they wrote and when and what's available in recordings and which recordings I should buy.

Sibelius has by far the longest documentation!

I don't doubt that for a second.

[Mirror Image]

I think chronology makes more sense than opus order.  Think Dvorak, wasn't it completely useless since publication came out of composition order so you might have stuff like Dvorak Symphony No. 9 original score says No. 8, No. 6 is listed as No. 5, etc.  His No. 6 was No. 1.  It is super confusing!  I think the same is the case with Sibelius though not as bad.

Yes! Dvořák is a whole other problem altogether. I'm not as disciplined of a listener as Madiel, so I doubt I'd ever be able to do some kind of strict listening. I'm sure he gets a better understanding of the gradual change in Sibelius' music, but if we look at his music chronologically, it's much easier to decipher the direction he's seemed to be heading in.

[vers la flamme]

Re: Vänskä, I have been re-evaluating him as of late. I was not at all impressed with his cycle of the symphonies with the Lahti SO. I just could never get into it. I think it pales in comparison to the Berglund/Bournemouth. That being said, I have been listening to Vänskä's recording of Kullervo with the Lahti SO as well as a disc on BIS called Spirit of Nature, a rough translation of Luonnotar, which contains that work and several other shorter orchestral and vocal works. That CD is just amazing. I love all of the pieces on it. He plays these lesser known Sibelius works in a way that makes them sound like major works. So my current opinion on Vänskä is that he is a great interpreter who is at his best in Sibelius' lesser known works. As for the symphonies, I still prefer Berglund as well as Petri Sakari whose Iceland Symphony Orchestra recordings are just fantastic. But I suspect I will be revisiting the Vänskä/Lahti symphony cycle in due time. Moreover I want to check out his newer recordings with Minnesota also on BIS.

[Mirror Image]

Re: Vänskä, I have been re-evaluating him as of late. I was not at all impressed with his cycle of the symphonies with the Lahti SO. I just could never get into it. I think it pales in comparison to the Berglund/Bournemouth. That being said, I have been listening to Vänskä's recording of Kullervo with the Lahti SO as well as a disc on BIS called Spirit of Nature, a rough translation of Luonnotar, which contains that work and several other shorter orchestral and vocal works. That CD is just amazing. I love all of the pieces on it. He plays these lesser known Sibelius works in a way that makes them sound like major works. So my current opinion on Vänskä is that he is a great interpreter who is at his best in Sibelius' lesser known works. As for the symphonies, I still prefer Berglund as well as Petri Sakari whose Iceland Symphony Orchestra recordings are just fantastic. But I suspect I will be revisiting the Vänskä/Lahti symphony cycle in due time. Moreover I want to check out his newer recordings with Minnesota also on BIS.

Even as much of a Sibelian as I am, I have to be honest and say that the majority of Sibelius symphony cycles that have been recorded have done very little for me, but when I heard Berglund's Bournemouth cycle it really just sounded right to my ears and Vänskä was another cycle I felt similarly about. I think Vänskä has done well in all the Sibelius he has conducted and not just works that aren't as well-known --- his recordings of En Saga, Pohjola's Daughter, Tapiola, The Oceandies, Finlandia, etc. are top-drawer in every way imaginable. Vänskä's approach to Sibelius is on the icier side of things and is understated in some ways, but the fact that he achieves this balance in the music and still is able to communicate the drama to the listener is remarkable. In my view, Sakari (but Inkinen as well --- also on Naxos) doesn't hold a candle to Vänskä. As for the newer Minnesota cycle, I didn't really see much of a point in it even though I own the cycle just to see if it was an improvement. Perhaps there's better audio quality involved (not by much, though), but the magic he achieved with the Lahti Symphony Orchestra remains a massive highlight in my Sibelius collection. I could also say similar things about Segerstam and Karajan as both of these conductors were, IMHO, fine Sibelians as well and have remained favorites of mine in addition to the afore mentioned conductors --- Berglund and Vänskä.

[Madiel]

I think chronology makes more sense than opus order.  Think Dvorak, wasn't it completely useless since publication came out of composition order so you might have stuff like Dvorak Symphony No. 9 original score says No. 8, No. 6 is listed as No. 5, etc.  His No. 6 was No. 1.  It is super confusing!  I think the same i the case with Sibelius though not as bad.

Just to briefly continue the Dvorak sidebar: in that case it is almost entirely the fault of publishers (in other words, Simrock). Dvorak was actually pretty meticulous about his own opus numbers on his manuscripts and dated the scores. It is a great shame that we don't properly use Dvorak's own numbering scheme because it would be one of the most reliable from that period.

With Sibelius, on the other hand, we have a composer who kept revisiting both the compositions AND the cataloguing of them.

[vers la flamme]

Even as much of a Sibelian as I am, I have to be honest and say that the majority of Sibelius symphony cycles that have been recorded have done very little for me, but when I heard Berglund's Bournemouth cycle it really just sounded right to my ears and Vänskä was another cycle I felt similarly about. I think Vänskä has done well in all the Sibelius he has conducted and not just works that aren't as well-known --- his recordings of En Saga, Pohjola's Daughter, Tapiola, The Oceandies, Finlandia, etc. are top-drawer in every way imaginable. Vänskä's approach to Sibelius is on the icier side of things and is understated in some ways, but the fact that he achieves this balance in the music and still is able to communicate the drama to the listener is remarkable. In my view, Sakari (but Inkinen as well --- also on Naxos) doesn't hold a candle to Vänskä. As for the newer Minnesota cycle, I didn't really see much of a point in it even though I own the cycle just to see if it was an improvement. Perhaps there's better audio quality involved (not by much, though), but the magic he achieved with the Lahti Symphony Orchestra remains a massive highlight in my Sibelius collection. I could also say similar things about Segerstam and Karajan as both of these conductors were, IMHO, fine Sibelians as well and have remained favorites of mine in addition to the afore mentioned conductors --- Berglund and Vänskä.

What you say about Berglund/Bournemouth reflects my experiences as well. To me, Berglund has found a perfect balance between the icy, Finnish style of Sibelian conducting (like Vänskä and Sakari) and the warmer, more Romantic, borderline impressionistic English approach typified by Barbirolli and Davis. The balance is "just right". I wish I could say the same about Vänskä's recordings of the symphonies, but every time I have gone through them, they just sound wrong to my ears–maybe it's because I was always comparing them to the very different Berglund recordings. I will certainly be spending more time with his cycle in the future now that I have learned to really love some of his non-symphonic recordings, but for now I am more than satisfied with Berglund, Sakari, and the very different Karajan.

What do you think of the Berglund/Helsinki cycle, though? Worthy at all? Many say that it's better than the Bournemouth.

I just finished listening to the Berglund/Bournemouth 5th symphony. Berglund is the only conductor to get the end of the symphony down perfectly. Those long pauses are just perfect.

[aukhawk]

Vänskä's approach to Sibelius is on the icier side of things and is understated in some ways, but the fact that he achieves this balance in the music and still is able to communicate the drama to the listener is remarkable. In my view, Sakari (but Inkinen as well --- also on Naxos) doesn't hold a candle to Vänskä. As for the newer Minnesota cycle, I didn't really see much of a point in it even though I own the cycle just to see if it was an improvement.

I would say that in his Minnesota incarnation he is a bit less Vanska-esque (in the attributes you describe) and a bit more mainstream. 
For example in the 4th, his Lahti SO recording is (as far as I can see) the slowest on record with the crucial 3rd movement alone being over a minute slower tha any other conductor.   His Minnesota recording withdraws from this position - still slow but Segerstam, Karajan (Warner) and Bernstein are all slower.
This 'mainstream Vanska' is also evident in the repertoire he has recorded with the Minnesotans - notably a first-rate Beethoven symphony cycle, you can't get much more mainstream than that.

With tongue in cheek I wanted to add - that no true Sibelian conductor would be found dead recording Mahler (as Vanska/Minnesota has) - but of course mention of Karajan reminds me that he was (probably) a Sibelian first, and then a Mahlerian.

[Mirror Image]

What you say about Berglund/Bournemouth reflects my experiences as well. To me, Berglund has found a perfect balance between the icy, Finnish style of Sibelian conducting (like Vänskä and Sakari) and the warmer, more Romantic, borderline impressionistic English approach typified by Barbirolli and Davis. The balance is "just right". I wish I could say the same about Vänskä's recordings of the symphonies, but every time I have gone through them, they just sound wrong to my ears–maybe it's because I was always comparing them to the very different Berglund recordings. I will certainly be spending more time with his cycle in the future now that I have learned to really love some of his non-symphonic recordings, but for now I am more than satisfied with Berglund, Sakari, and the very different Karajan.

What do you think of the Berglund/Helsinki cycle, though? Worthy at all? Many say that it's better than the Bournemouth.

I just finished listening to the Berglund/Bournemouth 5th symphony. Berglund is the only conductor to get the end of the symphony down perfectly. Those long pauses are just perfect.

Funny you mentioned Barbirolli and Colin Davis as I never did exactly warm up to their approaches. Davis' Boston cycle on Decca (originally on Philips) is possibly the best out of the three he's recorded. I wouldn't say Berglund's Helsinki cycle is 'better' than his Bournemouth one. He's more relaxed in Helsinki compared to his Bournemouth cycle, which, for me, was more a negative than a positive. I haven't really bothered to revisit his Helsinki cycle in quite some time, but I'm really in no rush to hear it again. Like you, I've settled on the symphony cycles I like and have yet to find any other cycle that supersedes them in any way.

[Mirror Image]

I would say that in his Minnesota incarnation he is a bit less Vanska-esque (in the attributes you describe) and a bit more mainstream. 
For example in the 4th, his Lahti SO recording is (as far as I can see) the slowest on record with the crucial 3rd movement alone being over a minute slower tha any other conductor.   His Minnesota recording withdraws from this position - still slow but Segerstam, Karajan (Warner) and Bernstein are all slower.
This 'mainstream Vanska' is also evident in the repertoire he has recorded with the Minnesotans - notably a first-rate Beethoven symphony cycle, you can't get much more mainstream than that.

With tongue in cheek I wanted to add - that no true Sibelian conductor would be found dead recording Mahler (as Vanska/Minnesota has) - but of course mention of Karajan reminds me that he was (probably) a Sibelian first, and then a Mahlerian.

Colin Davis has recorded some Mahler as well. Segerstam has done a whole cycle for Chandos. Saraste has recorded Mahler (several recordings). There are probably more examples of conductors known for their Sibelius interpretations who have recorded Mahler as well. Vänskä's Minnesota cycle just wasn't for me and, as I said, he didn't really bring anything new to the table, but his Lahti cycle, as I've stated before, is simply outstanding in every way imaginable.

[Sergeant Rock]

With tongue in cheek I wanted to add - that no true Sibelian conductor would be found dead recording Mahler (as Vanska/Minnesota has) - but of course mention of Karajan reminds me that he was (probably) a Sibelian first, and then a Mahlerian.

I understand you are joking but I'll just add Bernstein and Maazel to the pot of conductors who produced great Mahler and Sibelius performances.

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

For those that haven't seen this, please watch this (preferably with headphones and please be sure to select the highest quality, 1080p):

https://www.youtube.com/v/J0w0t4Qn6LY

This is such an exceptional performance that I'm thinking of recording it via my MiniDisc recorder.

[Sergeant Rock]

For those that haven't seen this, please watch this...

Great find, MI. Thanks for posting this.

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

Great find, MI. Thanks for posting this.

Sarge

You're most welcome. I think this performance exemplifies what I like to hear in this concerto: slight detachment from the violinist, especially in the concerto's introduction with a similar approach to the conducting but a tad warmer. Also, a searing emotional intensity that come into full fruition in louder sections, which is then followed by a rapid succession of frostbite.

[vandermolen]

This is a marvellous performance of the Violin Concerto by the tragically short-lived soloist I'm looking forward to hearing this historic version of Symphony No.2 as well. A fine discovery thanks to this forum: