The Snowshoed Sibelius

[jlaurson]

So am I the only Sibelian who thinks both Davis and Bernstein are terrific? 

Sarge

I can't imagine you are... both are saccharine, heart-on-sleeve, and superficial in Sibelius.    It works, of course, and I, too, find Lennies' Fifth (Sony) very fine... and actually his Fourth, among the most radical Fourths there are ("Wagner without Strings"), is - if nothing else - ear-opening. Davis-Boston is great AND overrated... and in a way I feel guilty listening to it... because it strikes me as great for all the wrong reasons... for making Sibelius into  a kind of Nordic Strauss he simply isn't.

As per Fifth that I love: the soapstone-like organic Fifth of Celibidache with Stuttgart is amazing... he really gets how the various lines of the music are to emerge from another in a completely organic way.

I'll be interested in Berglund I... although I don't think it likely I'll enjoy it as much as Berglund III. Perhaps he'll be a bit like Segerstam II -- another, very different take on Sibelius (bit more like Davis, actually) that I very much like.

[DavidRoss]

Blomstedt, Berglund, Bernstein, Vänskä, Sakari, Segerstam, Rozhdestvensky, Maazel, and, yes, Barbirolli, too! are all favorites of mine, each with much to "say" about this splendid music, and each with deeply felt and uniquely characteristic approaches to it that speak to my sensibilities. That is not to say that other gifted musicians who love Sibelius--say, Colin Davis or Ashkenazy or Rattle, Järvi, Karajan, Sanderling, et al--don't also have something special to say, just that whatever it is hasn't spoken to me ... yet!

... both [Davis and Bernstein] are saccharine, heart-on-sleeve, and superficial in Sibelius.    It works, of course, and I, too, find Lennies' Fifth (Sony) very fine... and actually his Fourth, among the most radical Fourths there are ("Wagner without Strings"), is - if nothing else - ear-opening. Davis-Boston is great AND overrated... and in a way I feel guilty listening to it... because it strikes me as great for all the wrong reasons... for making Sibelius into  a kind of Nordic Strauss he simply isn't.

As per Fifth that I love: the soapstone-like organic Fifth of Celibidache with Stuttgart is amazing... he really gets how the various lines of the music are to emerge from another in a completely organic way.

I'll be interested in Berglund I... although I don't think it likely I'll enjoy it as much as Berglund III. Perhaps he'll be a bit like Segerstam II -- another, very different take on Sibelius (bit more like Davis, actually) that I very much like.

Well, Lenny's definitely heart-on-sleeve, but I think neither saccharine nor superficial--and I agree with your characterization of Davis's BSO Sibelius as "a kind of Nordic Strauss." I would probably think it lovely and wonderful if I didn't know others I like much better.

Your supposition regarding Berglund I is right on the money. Not quite as lush or virtuosic as Segerstam II, but more along those lines--big and romantic compared to Berglund II and especially Berglund III. I like Segerstam II because if you're going to go in that direction, then you might as well go all the way--which he does and splendidly. Berglund I is not that extreme--more like Lenny I, but more from the inside-out rather than the outside-in, if you know what I mean. (I think that's what you regard as "superficial" in Lenny I.)

As for Celi's 5th, I've never heard it. But if you like it that much, then I imagine it's worth hearing! (even if I end up not agreeing with you )

[Sergeant Rock]

As per Fifth that I love: the soapstone-like organic Fifth of Celibidache with Stuttgart is amazing...

Stuttgart? Or do you mean the Swedish RSO? I'm hoping there is a Stuttgart Fifth because the Swedish performance, which I had high hopes for, was, in the end, disappointing.

Perhaps he'll be a bit like Segerstam II -- another, very different take on Sibelius (bit more like Davis, actually) that I very much like.

Of the 18 sets I own, which do I love the most? The problem is, no single set is perfect as a whole. When I make a list of favorite performances, one for each symphony, I end up with seven different conductors   I suppose Segerstam II makes the cut along with Berglund/Bournemouth and Davis/Boston. And the two, very different, Maazels. Lenny would have to be a combination of Sony and DG recordings. Vänskä and Blomstedt, favorites around these parts, don't make the cut. I haven't warmed to either. Maybe I'm not supposed to 

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

As if it were needed, your disapproval only confirms the wisdom of my judgment, supported by your laughable claim that Blomstedt's performances lack character and edge. Sakari is damned good, too--colorful, characterful, lean and mean and impassioned. Given your track record it's not surprising that you don't recognize its virtues, either. And judging Colin Davis as similar to Blomstedt is like judging a Buick LeSabre as similar to an Audi A8.

Question--you say Berglund's Helsinki cycle is your favorite. Do you know (know, not just know of) Berglund's other cycles? Or is this just another "opinion" based on prejudice unleavened by considered experience?

I said Berglund's Helsinki cycle is one of my favorites and, no, I have not heard nor do I own Berglund's other two cycles. I want them though. As for my own opinion, I think it's funny when I express a dislike for something that doesn't coincide with your own opinion, I'm told my opinion is laughable. You disagree fine, but don't get all bent out of shape about it. Saying something like "Given your track record it's not surprising that you don't recognize its virtues" also, for me, only reinforces my point: you can't stand to be challenged by a different opinion and the only way you can get your point across is by insults.

[DavidRoss]

Vänskä and Blomstedt, favorites around these parts, don't make the cut. I haven't warmed to either. Maybe I'm not supposed to 

Given your predilections, I suppose you're right.

[mahler10th]

...Segerstam, Rozhdestvensky, Maazel...

Rozhdestvensky  -  aye.  Rarely quoted in Sibelius, but brilliant.

[Mirror Image]

I agree with Karl.  Get yer ears cleaned oot laddie.  Bernstein is probably last on my list of Sibelius interpreters.  How awful to think him a great Sibelian.     May I ask, what is it you're listening for / to in Sibelius?  It has come as quite a shock to me that you have completely dismissed one of the finest Sibelian interpreters out there, Davis.  I used to have Bernsteins Sibelius, but thought it so off the mark it never got played, and when it was lost in a fire I couldn't have cared less about that. 
The thing about Sibelius is giving him an 'exciting' edge is just not on.  A Sibelius played by a dynamic and lonely Orchestra on a glacier near the top of a mountain with nymph infested pine trees as its only audience on either side under a darkening clear blue sky, white moon and Venus on the horizon...  er...thats the way I want to hear in 'em anyway.  Something like that.       Bernstein is as far removed from that as hell as can be, Blomstedt is there, so is Davis and Ashkenazy.
Ashkenazy is often described as too 'warm' - something I find hard to hear when his Sibelius ice cubes are dropping into my glass of satisfaction.   
Oh dear.  Looks like I've went somewhat daft...but honest, it is such a surprise to hear Davis and Blomstedt described as lacking 'power and drive'.  Power and Drive are the natural result of Sibelius played well, they should not be pushed as the main feature ala Bernstein - he misses the point with Sibelius.
Oh well...

I think Blomstedt's and Davis' Sibelius are well-played, but wrong-headed and just not to my liking. I like Bernstein's Sibelius because he goes for those huge climaxes and he brings a fiery, emotional persistence to the music that I find overwhelmingly powerful.

[DavidRoss]

I said Berglund's Helsinki cycle is one of my favorites and, no, I have not heard nor do I own Berglund's other two cycles. I want them though. As for my own opinion, I think it's funny when I express a dislike for something that doesn't coincide with your own opinion, I'm told my opinion is laughable. You disagree fine, but don't get all bent out of shape about it. Saying something like "Given your track record it's not surprising that you don't recognize its virtues" also, for me, only reinforces my point: you can't stand to be challenged by a different opinion and the only way you can get your point across is by insults.

Ah. When you specifically singled out Berglund's Helsinki cycle as your favorite in this context:

For me, it doesn't get much better than Bernstein, Vanska, or Berglund (Helsinki cycle is my favorite).

your statement suggested not only that it is one of your favorites, along with Bernstein and Vänskä, but also that it is your favorite among Berglund's cycles. So thank you for clearing that up. When people express judgments intending others to be guided by them, it's always helpful to know their context.

Your other comments are typically wrongheaded and obviously intended as personal attacks, thus:

[Lisztianwagner]

I think Jansons is a brilliant interpreter of Sibelius' music too, I've listened to some beautiful, expressive performances by him (Symphony No.1, Violin Concerto, Valse Triste, Finlandia, Andante Festivo, Intermezzo from Karelia Suite).

[Brian]

I think Blomstedt's and Davis' Sibelius are well-played, but wrong-headed and just not to my liking. I like Bernstein's Sibelius because he goes for those huge climaxes and he brings a fiery, emotional persistence to the music that I find overwhelmingly powerful.

Work day's over, going to listen to Blomstedt's Third in the car to see what I think in light of all this.

[Mirror Image]

Ah. When you specifically singled out Berglund's Helsinki cycle as your favorite in this context:your statement suggested not only that it is one of your favorites, along with Bernstein and Vänskä, but also that it is your favorite among Berglund's cycles. So thank you for clearing that up. When people express judgments intending others to be guided by them, it's always helpful to know their context.

Your other comments are typically wrongheaded and obviously intended as personal attacks, thus:

Still with the personal attacks I see. Whatever helps you sleep at night I guess.

[DavidRoss]

Work day's over, going to listen to Blomstedt's Third in the car to see what I think in light of all this.

Ah...nice choice. His 3rd is one of my favorites. In keeping with his approaches to the 1st and 2nd, too, he elucidates the links to the radical later Sibelius symphonies better than anyone else. The 4th, thus, is understood not as a radical departure, but as a continuation and refinement of the singular process announced with the beginning of the first movement of the first symphony.

[Sadko]

Rozhdestvensky  -  aye.  Rarely quoted in Sibelius, but brilliant.

Again I agree

[Brian]

Work day's over, going to listen to Blomstedt's Third in the car to see what I think in light of all this.

I'll give it an 8/10. The first movement has a lot of bustle and energy, except the beginning of the development (w/ flute solo), which is very relaxed indeed. The variations are unusually nocturnal, solemn, but also fluid; the finale goes very well but I think I'm used to slightly more pride and swagger from the brass at the very end. I took a point off for a few places in the first movement where I had very tiny issues with specific details - mostly the attacks/phrasings of the wind players. Still a satisfying reading.

My reference Third is Segerstam/Helsinki, and my reference "wacky" Third is Olli Mustonen's crazy-fast, muscle-bound "invention of neoclassicism" approach, which REALLY points forward to the composer's late style.

[jlaurson]

Stuttgart? Or do you mean the Swedish RSO? I'm hoping there is a Stuttgart Fifth because the Swedish performance, which I had high hopes for, was, in the end, disappointing.

Of the 18 sets I own, which do I love the most? The problem is, no single set is perfect as a whole. When I make a list of favorite performances, one for each symphony, I end up with seven different conductors   I suppose Segerstam II makes the cut along with Berglund/Bournemouth and Davis/Boston. And the two, very different, Maazels. Lenny would have to be a combination of Sony and DG recordings. Vänskä and Blomstedt, favorites around these parts, don't make the cut. I haven't warmed to either. Maybe I'm not supposed to 

Sarge

I'm afraid you're right -- Swedish RSO, not Stuttgart. But fortunately I heard it differently than you. Although it's been a while and I'm separated from the disc.

And by the way: Here's to Sibelius, greatest Symphonist after Haydn and Beethoven. F&#@ Mahler. 

[DavidRoss]

I'm afraid you're right -- Swedish RSO, not Stuttgart. But fortunately I heard it differently than you. Although it's been a while and I'm separated from the disc.

And by the way: Here's to Sibelius, greatest Symphonist after Haydn and Beethoven. F&#@ Mahler. 

Ha!

My personal holy trinity is Sibelius-Beethoven-Mahler. Though I recognize the path-breaking brilliance of Haydn, he doesn't reach the core of my soul like those three, or indeed like select works by many another symphonist.

My reference Third is Segerstam/Helsinki, and my reference "wacky" Third is Olli Mustonen's crazy-fast, muscle-bound "invention of neoclassicism" approach, which REALLY points forward to the composer's late style.

I'll have to give Mustonen's Speed Racer Sibelius 3 another listen, it's been awhile! And I agree that both it and Segerstam's third are quite good, and at opposite extremes on the interpretive scale!

[mahler10th]

I agree with Karl.  Get yer ears cleaned oot laddie.  Bernstein is probably last on my list of Sibelius interpreters.  How awful to think him a great Sibelian.     May I ask, what is it you're listening for / to in Sibelius?  It has come as quite a shock to me that you have completely dismissed one of the finest Sibelian interpreters out there, Davis.  I used to have Bernsteins Sibelius, but thought it so off the mark it never got played, and when it was lost in a fire I couldn't have cared less about that. 
The thing about Sibelius is giving him an 'exciting' edge is just not on.  A Sibelius played by a dynamic and lonely Orchestra on a glacier near the top of a mountain with nymph infested pine trees as its only audience on either side under a darkening clear blue sky, white moon and Venus on the horizon...  er...thats the way I want to hear in 'em anyway.  Something like that.       Bernstein is as far removed from that as hell as can be, Blomstedt is there, so is Davis and Ashkenazy.
Ashkenazy is often described as too 'warm' - something I find hard to hear when his Sibelius ice cubes are dropping into my glass of satisfaction.   
Oh dear.  Looks like I've went somewhat daft...but honest, it is such a surprise to hear Davis and Blomstedt described as lacking 'power and drive'.  Power and Drive are the natural result of Sibelius played well, they should not be pushed as the main feature ala Bernstein - he misses the point with Sibelius.
Oh well...

I quote myself just to reveal how far off the mark I can be - on this occasion, I can perhaps blame it on the poorer equipment I had at the time..or something...or just myself basically... ...I have got my paws on Bernstein's Sibelius with the NYPO, and I now cannot understand what the tapiolas I was on about in the above post. 
A man can change his mind.
I cannot remember Bernstein's Sibelius sounding this good and I am wondering about my misplaced hostility towards it because of a listening years ago.  I apologise to whomsoever I may have offended with such nonsense.  I find this to be eminent Sibelius, but for some reason which  baffles me, I did not find this when I had this set in the past.
It's GREAT.

[jlaurson]

Ha!

My personal holy trinity is Sibelius-Beethoven-Mahler. Though I recognize the path-breaking brilliance of Haydn, he doesn't reach the core of my soul like those three...

He does, I'd like to postulate patronizingly (if you forgive me) -- you may just not notice. To be pampered with such genius and wit and invention... even when it's not obvious. It's like a spa-treatment for the ears and for the soul. It may not stir, but it nourishes and prepares for everything else.

[DavidRoss]

I quote myself just to reveal how far off the mark I can be - on this occasion, I can perhaps blame it on the poorer equipment I had at the time..or something...or just myself basically... ...I have got my paws on Bernstein's Sibelius with the NYPO, and I now cannot understand what the tapiolas I was on about in the above post. 
A man can change his mind.
I cannot remember Bernstein's Sibelius sounding this good and I am wondering about my misplaced hostility towards it because of a listening years ago.  I apologise to whomsoever I may have offended with such nonsense.  I find this to be eminent Sibelius, but for some reason which  baffles me, I did not find this when I had this set in the past.
It's GREAT.

I'm not surprised you've come around, John, especially since Lenny's proclivity to overt romantic emotionalism seems right up your alley...and since the NYPO's playing in these recordings is phenomenally good - especially the winds, so important in Sibelius's symphonies.

I appreciate your example of willingness to keep investigating and to sweep prejudice aside so you can see/hear things anew. Don't beat yourself up for having misjudged something in the past. None of us can see or hear what we're not prepared to see or hear. Instead, give yourself a pat on the back for continuing to learn and grow ... and be grateful for the blessing of enjoying another set of performances of these great symphonies!

Heck, until I was in my late 40s I dismissed Sibelius (RVW, too) as just a pleasantly bland and rather boring late-Romantic, having formed that impression in my teens when I was taken with Stockhausen and Varèse and regarded even Stravinsky as passé. 

If I hadn't eventually grown up enough to learn the benefit of seeing how others might be right instead of seeking only to reinforce my own prejudices, I probably never would have opened my mind to enjoying this astonishing music. Happily, the continuing advocacy for Sibelius by people I respected who were far more musically astute than I eventually persuaded me to make an earnest attempt to hear what they heard. It took awhile, but eventually I found gold!

And I benefited not only from being able to enjoy Sibelius's music, but also from learning a powerful first-hand lesson in the virtue of distinguishing between my opinions (i.e. Sibelius = soothing pretty music for boring old people) and facts (i.e. Sibelius seems bland and old fashioned to me at this time in comparison with the celebrated avant-gardism of Stockhausen).

[DavidRoss]

[Haydn] does [reach the core of your soul like Sibelius, Mahler, and Beethoven], I'd like to postulate patronizingly (if you forgive me) -- you may just not notice. To be pampered with such genius and wit and invention... even when it's not obvious. It's like a spa-treatment for the ears and for the soul. It may not stir, but it nourishes and prepares for everything else.

No forgiveness necessary, Jens. I well understand that your corrections are intended to benefit me by offering insights to which I seem unaware! And they usually do, when I make the effort necessary to understand your point of view instead of ... well ... enough said.

I'm reminded that I went through a phase just a couple of years ago when I was head over heels in love with Haydn, especially his chamber music, and particularly his quartets. Haydn's music at that time offered exactly the nourishing spa treatment for the soul that you speak of -- and which much of Sibelius's music also offers. It was a gateway to an inner garden of serenity. Less obvious, perhaps, than the more overtly dramatic soul stirring of others, but perhaps no less profound.