The Snowshoed Sibelius

[Elgarian]

4 (plus one given away) and a fifth on order. Pitiful.

[DavidRoss]

Having only 12 on the shelf, I certainly feel like a bush leaguer.   

8. I'm definitely still an amateur.

4 (plus one given away) and a fifth on order. Pitiful.

Nah--you guys just aren't certifiable nutcases like some of us, at least where Sibelius is concerned.  Bear in mind that some folks have collections of Beethoven sonatas or Bach's Goldbergs that make us all look like pikers...and that we used to have a fellow around here with 120+ recordings of the Rach 2!

Regarding M's point about the last four bars of the 7th: I'm not sure that I've ever heard it played quite the way I think it should be played, which happily coincides with the way it's written, having that final drawn-out B to C in the strings expanding from forte to fortissimo, and stopped cleanly at the very end to make what M calls a "musical exclamation point!"  I'm with M all the way on this, seeing the ending as an emphatic affirmation of order and beauty rather than the half-hearted, ragged, giving-up-and-fading-into-the-ozone that most conductors offer us.  Bernstein, bless his soul, got it as nearly right as anyone in his first recording with the NYPO.  Few others even come close. 

For Alan: perhaps it would help if you were to open your attention to the organic, cellular nature of the work.  Sibelius wasn't imposing a predetermined structure on his material, forcing it to fit his or anyone else's idea of how it should look or sound, but rather he worked to clear away extraneous impediments and let the material create its own essential form--like snowmelt dripping from sun-kissed firs trickling through the underbrush forms rivulets and then streams that join other waterways gliding inexorably down the mountain slopes until they meet in a mighty river that inevitably opens into the infinite depths of the sea.

Remember the old Beatles song, Tomorrow Never Knows?  "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream...."

[Elgarian]

For Alan: perhaps it would help if you were to open your attention to the organic, cellular nature of the work.  Sibelius wasn't imposing a predetermined structure on his material, forcing it to fit his or anyone else's idea of how it should look or sound, but rather he worked to clear away extraneous impediments and let the material create its own essential form--like snowmelt dripping from sun-kissed firs trickling through the underbrush forms rivulets and then streams that join other waterways gliding inexorably down the mountain slopes until they meet in a mighty river that inevitably opens into the infinite depths of the sea.

That last half is indeed a remarkably good evocation of aspects of the Sibelius Experience, regardless of which symphony one listens to!

I think I might be more able to do that drifting downstream, now. That's pretty much what I tried to do initially, and failed spectacularly, over years (I never needed to work hard at 1,2,3 and 5, you see - they just soaked into my bones, so 4, 6 and 7 always seemed so puzzlingly remote). Then at some point I started desperately looking for structure but couldn't find any. That was the (abandoned) state of play before Brian stepped in. Now that I actually have my base camps in place, I think I can afford to be more flexible in my approach. 

[Brian]

David - so thankful for your spot-on description of the ending (and your recommendation of Bernstein). A lot of people on the forum (like the respected M) write that the last bars are like a weary, defeated man clutching a last twig of hope, but for me the ending of the symphony is one of enormous affirmation - not of triumph, because Sibelius was always too subtle for triumph (No 2 isn't even quite there), but of spiritual peace, at least. I really need to hear Lenny now. (And I will very gladly buy more and more recordings - this is one of those works, like the LvB symphonies, where I could imagine myself collecting obsessively.)

4, 6 and 7 always seemed so puzzlingly remote). Then at some point I started desperately looking for structure but couldn't find any.

Now for my next task, apparently - because I have always thought of the Sixth as the most traditionally, classically structured of all the symphonies.

But it's past midnight, I have class in the morning, and that'll have to wait. 

[Elgarian]

Now for my next task, apparently - because I have always thought of the Sixth as the most traditionally, classically structured of all the symphonies.

Oh no, sorry Brian - my post wasn't clear. I was talking about my general lack of progress with the 4th, 6th and 7th, but my reference to the search for structure was only referring to the 7th. My problem with 4 was that it's so damn miserable, and my problem with 6 was that I couldn't (can't) find any decent tunes in it. I want tunes in my Sibelius!

[Benji]

Oh no, sorry Brian - my post wasn't clear. I was talking about my general lack of progress with the 4th, 6th and 7th, but my reference to the search for structure was only referring to the 7th. My problem with 4 was that it's so damn miserable, and my problem with 6 was that I couldn't (can't) find any decent tunes in it. I want tunes in my Sibelius!

I think the sixth is pretty tuneful. I could whistle a few of the best ones off the top of my head. The poco vivace has a great wee tune; totally memorable!

[Elgarian]

I think the sixth is pretty tuneful.

Depends on our personal wiring. Hence a conversation I had with a friend many years ago, which went something like this:
Him: What are you listening to these days?
Me: Wagner. I'm hooked on the Ring.
Him: Good grief! But there aren't any decent tunes in Wagner.
Me: Oh come on, it's jam-packed full of brilliant tunes. What are you listening to, then?
Him: Verdi.
Me: Verdi? But I can't hear any decent tunes in Verdi....

[Benji]

Depends on our personal wiring. Hence a conversation I had with a friend many years ago, which went something like this:
Him: What are you listening to these days?
Me: Wagner. I'm hooked on the Ring.
Him: Good grief! But there aren't any decent tunes in Wagner.
Me: Oh come on, it's jam-packed full of brilliant tunes. What are you listening to, then?
Him: Verdi.
Me: Verdi? But I can't hear any decent tunes in Verdi....

Well whether there any decent tunes is a matter of opinion, I agree. Maybe if you heard them isolated you could hear them when put back in to context. Get skype and i'll whistle them for you haha 

[DavidRoss]

Oh no, sorry Brian - my post wasn't clear. I was talking about my general lack of progress with the 4th, 6th and 7th, but my reference to the search for structure was only referring to the 7th. My problem with 4 was that it's so damn miserable, and my problem with 6 was that I couldn't (can't) find any decent tunes in it. I want tunes in my Sibelius!

Ah...no wonder you're having trouble.  The first and especially the second symphonies set you up for big, gushing tune-fests.  He continued that--to some extent--with his symphonic poems and theatre music, but went another way entirely with the symphonies.  The third is already veering off the romantic path and the fourth goes off-piste completely.  (For some perverse reason I just imagined Jack Nicholson in that famous scene on the witness stand in A Few Good Men saying, "Tunes?  You want the tunes?  You can't handle the tunes!")

I don't see the fourth as miserable at all.  Dark in parts, yes, but not unremitting, not without beauty, grace, and joy.  Grappling with mysteries and the great unknown, perhaps, with no real resolution of the ultimate uncertainty, but nevertheless finding peace in the acceptance of that uncertainty. Probing, indeed, but bleak and terrifying?  Hardly!

As for the 6th--it's just so damned pleasant and effortless and sweetly melodic that it hardly seems possible for it be a great symphony.  Where's the angst? The grand gestures? The sweeping themes?  It just bubbles along, so perky yet well-mannered that it's easy to forget that it didn't just spring full-grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, but rather was honed and crafted by a master 'til no evidence of the sculptor's chisel remains.

[The new erato]

......1,2,3 and 5, you see - they just soaked into my bones, so 4, 6 and 7 always seemed so puzzlingly remote).

While i like 1,2,3 and 5 I always found them reasonably conventional. My favroties have been; and this from early on in my Sibelius listening,  4, 6 and 7, because of their "mystery" and ability to let your own mind fill in the blanks; and these symphonies provides plenty of hooks upon which you can let your own mind expand....really mindblowing music - and occasionally very frightening as well, few works are able to scare the hell out of me when I'm in that mood like these!

[Elgarian]

I don't see the fourth as miserable at all.  Dark in parts, yes, but not unremitting, not without beauty, grace, and joy.  Grappling with mysteries and the great unknown, perhaps, with no real resolution of the ultimate uncertainty, but nevertheless finding peace in the acceptance of that uncertainty.

I'm ahead of myself here, because I intend to go back to the 4th with my new ears and I don't want to prejudge the result. But I've never experienced the peace you mention, here. The overall result seems disturbing and restless, and (of course) there's a significant tune problem too. Always after listening to the 4th I've emerged gloomy, puzzled, dissatisfied, and bad tempered - and that's a discouraging result as far as future listenings are concerned.

As for the 6th--it's just so damned pleasant and effortless and sweetly melodic that it hardly seems possible for it be a great symphony.  Where's the angst? The grand gestures? The sweeping themes?  It just bubbles along, so perky yet well-mannered that it's easy to forget that it didn't just spring full-grown like Athena from the head of Zeus, but rather was honed and crafted by a master 'til no evidence of the sculptor's chisel remains.

Again, I intend to go back to it and see what I can find, though I feel as if I'll be doing it more from duty than pleasure. I can't help it. I want my Sibelius BIG. And I want his big tunes.

[Elgarian]

While i like 1,2,3 and 5 I always found them reasonably conventional.

Since I was sixteen, Sibelius has always stuck out like a great beacon among composers, for me, so that while I appreciate that those symphonies (1,2,3,5) may be described as formally conventional, I've always found them unique. (People talk about the influence of Tchaikovsky, particularly in the 1st, but while I can hear that, Tchaikovsky never composed anything that blew my head off in the way Sibelius did.)

So whether they're conventional or not doesn't feature in my regard for them. I've never been able to find any other composer who could show me the things he shows me in 1,2,3 and 5, and that's enough, really.

[Brian]

Alan, what recordings of the Sixth do you have?

while I appreciate that those symphonies (1,2,3,5) may be described as formally conventional

The irony of this, of course, being that none of those symphonies are really formally conventional at all. There is the first, with its catastrophic "misfiring" ending (it obeys the letter of the Tchaikovskian law but loudly defies the spirit), the second with its bizarre first movement (six themes, none of them tunes), the third with its interrupted tempest of a finale, and the fifth, in which two of the movements are cast in forms of the composer's invention...  (I agree entirely with your second paragraph, by the way: Sibelius, even at his most "normal," does things nobody else even comes close to doing.)

~

This discussion is so good that I feel badly about not replying to everything. I have to go to class, but rest assured I'm containing a flood of words over here!

[Elgarian]

Alan, what recordings of the Sixth do you have?

Same as the others - I just have 4 box sets: Sakari, Barbirolli, Vanska and Segerstam (Helsinki). Rozhdestvensky is on the way to join them, but MDT are waiting for new stock.

The irony of this, of course, being that none of those symphonies are really formally conventional at all.

I can't really determine this for myself - I'm just quoting people who often seem to say it (with mildly disapproving Tchaikovsky references).

[karlhenning]

Remember the old Beatles song, Tomorrow Never Knows?  "Turn off your mind, relax, and float downstream...."

I forget just whence, but not long ago I read that Lennon copped that practically verbatim from something he was reading at the time.

Oh! And I remember what book to check to confirm that . . . .

[CD]

Tibetan Book of the Dead innit?

[Brian]

I've just listened to the first volume of Pietari Inkinen's new Sibelius cycle. I had mixed impressions. The First Symphony will not rank among my favorites: it is a little slow and soft-edged; the opening clarinet solo sounded a little too 'bright' (or at least not brooding enough), and then, once the strings get into a major key a few moments into the main allegro, they turn soft and Tchaikovskian with surprising ease. It's a general indicator of a performance that's not nearly as exciting as Segerstam, bleak as Berglund, or - well, you get the idea. It's one of the slowest performances I know: the scherzo's at 5:43 vs. 5:17 for Segerstam and Elder, 5:20 for Davis in Boston, and 5:01 for Berglund in Helsinki. The finale hits 13:00. I like slow, of course, but this didn't suit me.

Inkinen's Third is another story, though. It's very well-managed, with a first movement that hits all the right buttons, a wonderfully paced slow movement (9:50), and a finale which does indulge the Big Tune somewhat on its first arrival, but then hustles to the ending quite efficiently and with more than a little excitement.

It's all in terrific sound and I really cannot fault anything the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does (except for the big clarinet solo in the First, and lower brass in the Third's final variations which don't make as big an impact as they could). I don't think the First had enough energy, and the Third was good but not necessarily individual or distinctive.

Somebody asked me if they thought this would be a lush, romantic cycle in contrast to Petri Sakari's chillier set, also on Naxos. The answer is "N/A." If by "romantic" you mean "slow," then yes, this first volume does tend towards the romantic side of things. But if by "romantic" you mean "impassioned," then the answer is "intermittently." I will listen again soon. Hopefully I'll like it better. I mean, I did like it. But I liked it passively, rather than enthusiastically.

EDIT: In defense of Inkinen's First, I should point out that in the first movement, the "outro" theme from the exposition (you know - the minor-key wind tune that leads back to the development/coda) is very sensitively played by the NZ winds, over those Sorcerer's Apprentice-like bassoons. (When the clarinets get the accompaniment they don't conjure up Mickey Mouse quite so easily...)

[vandermolen]

Just listened to Symphony No 2 in the new Melodiya Rozhdestvensky Moscow RSO box and thought it absolutely terrific - with braying soviet horns etc. This is by no means my favourite Sibelius symphony but this performance had me on the edge of my seat.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Just listened to Symphony No 2 in the new Melodiya Rozhdestvensky Moscow RSO box and thought it absolutely terrific - with braying soviet horns etc. This is by no means my favourite Sibelius symphony but this performance had me on the edge of my seat.

Hey another convert  I've been stuck on that set for over 2 weeks now. The 2nd Symphony isn't my favorite either, but they make the most of it.

[Brian]

I've just listened to the first volume of Pietari Inkinen's new Sibelius cycle. I had mixed impressions. The First Symphony will not rank among my favorites: it is a little slow and soft-edged; the opening clarinet solo sounded a little too 'bright' (or at least not brooding enough), and then, once the strings get into a major key a few moments into the main allegro, they turn soft and Tchaikovskian with surprising ease. It's a general indicator of a performance that's not nearly as exciting as Segerstam, bleak as Berglund, or - well, you get the idea. It's one of the slowest performances I know: the scherzo's at 5:43 vs. 5:17 for Segerstam and Elder, 5:20 for Davis in Boston, and 5:01 for Berglund in Helsinki. The finale hits 13:00. I like slow, of course, but this didn't suit me.

Inkinen's Third is another story, though. It's very well-managed, with a first movement that hits all the right buttons, a wonderfully paced slow movement (9:50), and a finale which does indulge the Big Tune somewhat on its first arrival, but then hustles to the ending quite efficiently and with more than a little excitement.

It's all in terrific sound and I really cannot fault anything the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra does (except for the big clarinet solo in the First, and lower brass in the Third's final variations which don't make as big an impact as they could). I don't think the First had enough energy, and the Third was good but not necessarily individual or distinctive.

Somebody asked me if they thought this would be a lush, romantic cycle in contrast to Petri Sakari's chillier set, also on Naxos. The answer is "N/A." If by "romantic" you mean "slow," then yes, this first volume does tend towards the romantic side of things. But if by "romantic" you mean "impassioned," then the answer is "intermittently." I will listen again soon. Hopefully I'll like it better. I mean, I did like it. But I liked it passively, rather than enthusiastically.

EDIT: In defense of Inkinen's First, I should point out that in the first movement, the "outro" theme from the exposition (you know - the minor-key wind tune that leads back to the development/coda) is very sensitively played by the NZ winds, over those Sorcerer's Apprentice-like bassoons. (When the clarinets get the accompaniment they don't conjure up Mickey Mouse quite so easily...)

I only just requested this CD for a MusicWeb assignment, when David Hurwitz at ClassicsToday posted a review which agrees with mine in nearly every assessment. Alas! This is a difficult assignment: to write an opinion when you've already written it on GMG, and somebody else has already written it on another website...