The Snowshoed Sibelius

[Daverz]

With so many Sibelius cycles out there, past and present, it is darn difficult to pin down a personal favourite. 

One of my favorite cycles now is Sanderling with the Berlin Symphony Orchestra (they were in East Berlin at the time).  This orchestra plays beautifully, the acoustic is intimate, the recording very present and immediate.

[Karl Henning]

With so many Sibelius cycles out there, past and present, it is darn difficult to pin down a personal favourite.

Johnnie, I'd modify this only slightly to say, with so many good Sibelius cycles out there, past and present, it is darn difficult to pin down a personal favourite.

[Octave]

[I've edited this post like six times over several hours.  I cannot state the question the way I'd like to, and I also have no idea why it's vexing me so.  A dull mystery.  I'll just leave it as it finally is.]

JFL from the 'New Purchases' thread, re: the Barbirolli-EMI collection:

However, if you want help in restraint: Barbirolli, for all its charms, is decidedly NON-essential.

A Survey of Sibelius Cycles

Recommended, yes... but only in a weird "you already have three, four other cycles" kind of way. Be strong!

Or: support the classical economy! Indulge!

And yet: you shortlist the Barbirolli as an "ionarts' choice", among only six out of thirty-six listed cycles. 
Whence all this qualification?  Why doesn't it appear at your blog? 

I guess I wonder what the difference is between an "essential" recording and an "ionarts' choice"; I'm guessing the issue is just that Barbirolli puts so much of himself on top of the score that the resulting music isn't "just Sibelius" anymore, whatever the interest for the listener and Sibelius lover?
Is it the essence of work that you mean by "essential", relatively uncolored by personalization, as you say here, so that there is not a confusion of "Essential Barbirolli" (or Bernstein, or whoever) with "Essential [Composer]"?  I find it strange that you'd call Barbirolli NON-essential, then link to a post where he is singled out as a choice, without comment.  Your comments are qualified and guarded, covered, as when you say:

I would recommend it for its great (as in: extraordinary, but also as in: very fine) personality. Not necessarily to set and Sibeliean standard.
At a good price, it's one of the 'essential supplemantary' Sibelius cycles.

But when you shortlist the cycle from a total list of 36, I wonder if it's special at any price?  Is there concern about a critical consensus that casts a cold eye at Barbirolli's Sibelius?

[Mirror Image]

I personally like Barbirolli's Sibelius but have a bit of problem with the audio quality. I thought some of the brass parts, especially in the performance of Symphony No. 2, were incredibly harsh on my ears, but I plan to revisit this set as I see you've purchased it. I still think highly of the performances overall.

[Octave]

John-MI, I believe you about the sound quality esp. re: edgy brass; a little of that is evident even from my streaming and sampling (though it is still hard for me to know until I am spinning a disc on my real speakers).  Also, my memory of your harsh assessment of this set at Amazon was false; you were measured but did not mince words regarding your choices for stronger cycles, overall and in particular.  I think I might very well join you in this opinion; but a big motivation for me getting this was the 'controversy' around it.  I guess it's same thing that makes me reach for my credit card when I think about the Sinopoli Mahler recordings, after hearing some (considerately, empathetically, economically) qualified praise for it from Sarge and Jens etc after hearing so much shit talked about it [the Sinopoli] prior to my coming to GMG.  I'm not a fan of conductors' egos on parade, but the prospect of this wonderful music being suddenly revealed as an alien landscape----again, even stranger----is something I can't resist.  Also, when critics get mean, I tend to take notice, and perhaps not the way the critic would prefer; to wit, Roger Dettmer (I am assuming, as he signs himself 'R.D.') from an online review:

However, just 15 months later, he looked ravaged physically and sounded near death expressively at the inauguration of Houston's Jones Hall. His music-making had slowed-down alarmingly (a violist on my left whispered during Elgar's "Nimrod" Variation that the cellists' arms were going to fall off if Sir John didn't move on soon). Backstage he needed a tilt board and a sizeable tumbler of scotch to seem even marginally alive—crotchety, but still among the breathing.
[....]
Enervation prevails; tempi, with a single exception, are stretched to the breaking point. Paradoxically, though, Barbirolli could still make the finale of Symphony No. 3 sound authentically conclusive, the only conductor I've ever heard do so. Even Robert Kajanus (see the last paragraph) seemed simply to stop, leaving the listener hungry for a few more bars. But Lord, how long it took the ill and aged Barbirolli to get there! His first movement lasts an interminable 12 minutes, about three longer than average, and the second ambles and dawdles aimlessly.
This is a sorry pattern almost everywhere else, the lone exception being the Vivacissimo third movement of Symphony No. 2, which JB recorded notably in 1962 (but not for EMI). Here it is too fast, with the Hallé strings scrambling to prevent anarchy.[...]
[after admitting he'd grown tired of audiophile problems with the recorded sound and basically stopped paying full attention to the recording] Of course I wasn't paying strict attention; but this, believe me, is music in my bones as well as my ears. [....]
Better brisk, though, than "glorious John's" terminal foot-dragging in a seriously unkind reissue.

from here.

But the Anton Ego revenge-tone of the review (it brings to mind a comment by our Cato about soulless editors) doesn't mean he is wrong about all the details, or even any of them; maybe just "all" of them.  I think there's lots of evidence that you are right about the sound of the recording, John; so I am already wondering if this will be better compressed, as mp3-320s, on small computer speakers?

FwhateverIW, most of my time has been spent with Vanskaa/Lahti, Berglund/Helsinki, and Ashkenazy/Phil, the ones I own so far; I've heard another ~5 cycles by borrowing.  I am most keen, I think, on getting and living with the Rozhdestvensky and Segerstam/Helsinki (though I am waiting to run across a cheaper price of the, esp. the Rozh which oddly I could not find at all on the Presto site, with their Melodiya sale in effect, alas), the Berglund/Bournemouth, and probably the Maazel/Vienna (which I know you are not too crazy about, John).  That doesn't even begin to touch the non-cycle, single-work issues I want.  Reading through the thread discussion is super helpful, everyone's contributions; but it does not make decisions 'easier'.

My own modest Sibelius plans are already starting to feel like unhappy compulsion to me.  But we collect to hear new things, even in 'familiar' territory that's 'in our bones', right?  If our bones aren't made strange to us, why on earth would we accumulate so many recordings of the same music?

[Brian]

Wait, John Barbirolli inaugurated Houston's Jones Hall? I'll have to very slightly recalibrate my opinion of that modernist acoustical death-trap.

[Mirror Image]

I wrote a rather negative review of Barbirolli's Sibelius on Amazon, but I think, in hindsight, I was rather abrasive in some of my views of his cycle. I think he has the full measure of this music. I prefer him vastly to Colin Davis. I never have cared much for Davis' Sibelius, but his earlier BSO cycle is the best of the three he made IMHO. Anyway, Barbirolli's interpretations are deeply felt and passionate. You can hear it in the performances no question about it. It's been quite some time since I've made my way through his cycle. I'm with you on the Vanska, Berglund, and Ashkenazy. Those are probably my favorite cycles with Segerstam's on Ondine trailing not too far behind. I own 19 Sibelius cycle total. Some I have forgot, others have been burnt into my memory. The whole point of having different performances of the same works is to get fresher perspectives on the music. It can be something positive or negative. Some performances may not do a damn thing for you, but even from hearing these performances, you learn something. In the end, you learn about your own tastes and what you're looking for in the music.

[Mirror Image]

All of this said, I'm still very much a classical novice in the grand scheme of things. I don't know much, but I'm still learning everyday.

[Octave]

@John-MI: you know, I remembered your Sibelius/Barbirolli review being very negative, but when I read it before posting above, it did not actually seem intemperate at all.  In fact I am already eyeing your preferred alternatives, namely the Segerstam, pace Elgarian's comment here:

3. Barbirolli/Halle Again, generally OK but somehow not so sparkling as I'd hoped it would be.
[....]
5. Segerstam/Helsinki POW! I thought THIS was IT! Blew me away. Vast, sweeping, and huge, built upon caves of ice!

which gives me this kind of Black Metal feeling.  I want to hear that Sibelius!

[jlaurson]

I paraphrase:

You seem to hedge and obfuscate and possibly contradict yourself in claiming that Barbirolli's Sibelius Cycle is at once "Not essential" and yet a personal favorite. ("Ionarts' Choice").
What's the deal?

Well, you answered it pretty well yourself: This is not how I'd recommend anyone begin their Sibelius journey... it's not the kind of template-Sibelius that I think will as likely encourage further exploration in different intepretative directions as others.

Or yet more simply: If you dislike this cycle, it may not be Sibelius fault. But if you *do* like Sibelius, and have no qualms with personality-driven interpretations, then this is so unique (not unlike the Rozhdestvensky cycle, actually) that you'll want to listen to it...

What pushes it over the edge to "personal favorite" is that I happen to rather like B's way with Sibelius. I just acknowledge that this is not necessarily a universal appreciation.

In other words: The discrepancy between "Non-Essential" and "Favorite" reflects the extent to which I am aware of my own subjectivity.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

I paraphrase:
Well, you answered it pretty well yourself: This is not how I'd recommend anyone begin their Sibelius journey... it's not the kind of template-Sibelius that I think will as likely encourage further exploration in different intepretative directions as others.

Or yet more simply: If you dislike this cycle, it may not be Sibelius fault. But if you *do* like Sibelius, and have no qualms with personality-driven interpretations, then this is so unique (not unlike the Rozhdestvensky cycle, actually) that you'll want to listen to it...

What pushes it over the edge to "personal favorite" is that I happen to rather like B's way with Sibelius. I just acknowledge that this is not necessarily a universal appreciation.

In other words: The discrepancy between "Non-Essential" and "Favorite" reflects the extent to which I am aware of my own subjectivity.

Barbirolli does have his followers, however. Not apologists, but followers. Enough so that he's earned more than just a cult following for his Sibelius. At least that's how I view it after over two decades of reading the classical biz literature.

I'm a believer. Yes he's slow but I've never experienced Sibelius with such internal access to the complexities of each score. That in itself is worth the price of admission...for me.

[Parsifal]

I have that Barbirolli set and haven't listened to any of it for year and years.  I think it may be time to revisit it. 

I think Sibelius's symphonic works are remarkable in the variety of interpretations they admit.  Recently, I have been listening to the Berglund set, the first EMI set with the Bournmouth Symphony Orchestra.  I must say, it was something of a revelation, even after listening to a variety of other sets over the years.  Berglund does a superb job of bringing out the structure of the late symphonies, and I think the key to his success is making the orchestral texture sufficiently transparent that you can hear everything that is going on, the undercurrents of the music, so to speak.  The main weakness of the set, to my ears, is the somewhat shrill audio engineering, particularly when the recording venue is Abbey Road.

[Sergeant Rock]

Also, when critics get mean, I tend to take notice, and perhaps not the way the critic would prefer; to wit, Roger Dettmer (I am assuming, as he signs himself 'R.D.') from an online review...

While his description of Barbirolli's Third is accurate, his conclusion isn't. I think Sir John's Third is "glorious" (pun intended) and a must-have (although not a first choice) for a Sibelius collection because it's such an extreme interpretation. It shows how far the music can be pushed. The rest of his Sibelius can be on the broad side too (especially the slow movements) but nothing out of the ordinary. Slowness in Sibelius is not unusual today. Here are the timings for the Sixths in my collection. You see his tempos are in good company (Segerstam, Sanderling, Berglund, Blomstedt).

Maazel/Vienna                            8:24    4:03    3:02    8:42    (24:11)
Davis/Boston                              7:51    4:30   3:45     8:21     (24:27)
Davis/LSO (Live)                         8:27    4:50   3:41     8:49     (25:47)
Davis/LSO (RCA)                         8:36    4:40   3:36     9:03     (25:55)
Bernstein/New York                    8:03    5:32   3:54     8:57     (26:26)
Vänskä/Lahti                               8:28    6:29   3:23     8:19    (26:39)
Karajan/Berlin (EMI)                    8:32    6:05   3:20     9:19    (27:16)
Järvi/Gothenburg                        8:05    6:02   3:44     9:15     (27:17)
Maazel/Pittsburgh                       9:20   5:22    3:28     9:11     (27:21)
Rozhdestvensky/Moscow            9:51   4:46    3:51     9:24     (27:52)
Ashkenazy/Philharmonia             9:23   5:42    3:54     9:17     (28:16)
Berglund/COE                             7:54    6:09    4:10   10:04    (28:17)
Karajan/Berlin (DG)                     9:12    6:18    3:26     9:40    (28:36)
Saraste/Finnish RSO (Finlandia)  8:57    6:10    3:41    9:55    (28:43)
Berglund/Helsinki                        8:14     5:31   3:55   11:11    (28:51)
Inkinen/New Zealand                  8:42    6:19   3:46    10:20    (29:07)
Sanderling/Berlin RSO                 9:02    7:02    3:25     9:50    (29:19)
Berglund/LPO                              8:47    6:19    3:52   10:46    (29:44)
Blomstedt/San Francisco             9:24    6:28    3:33   10:23    (29:48)
Barbirolli/Hallé                             9:22    6:55    3:43     9:52     (29:52)
Segerstam/Helsinki                     9:27    6:08    3:57   10:39     (30:11)
Sarkari/Iceland                            9:10    6:59    3:40   10:33    (30:22)
Berglund/Bournemouth               9:33    6:23    4:04   11:31    (31:31)

FwhateverIW, most of my time has been spent with Vanskaa/Lahti, Berglund/Helsinki, and Ashkenazy/Phil, the ones I own so far; I've heard another ~5 cycles by borrowing.  I am most keen, I think, on getting and living with the Rozhdestvensky and Segerstam/Helsinki (though I am waiting to run across a cheaper price of the, esp. the Rozh which oddly I could not find at all on the Presto site, with their Melodiya sale in effect, alas), the Berglund/Bournemouth, and probably the Maazel/Vienna (which I know you are not too crazy about, John).  That doesn't even begin to touch the non-cycle, single-work issues I want.  Reading through the thread discussion is super helpful, everyone's contributions; but it does not make decisions 'easier'.My own modest Sibelius plans are already starting to feel like unhappy compulsion to me.

If you're going to be compulsive about any composer, Sibelius is a good choice, maybe even the best. We welcome you to the asylum    Like MI, I have 19 sets of symphonies (not sure how many Jens actually owns). My favorites: Maazel/Vienna, Maazel/Pittsburgh (could be a different conductor, so different are these performances from the earlier Vienna), Segerstam/Helsinki, Bernstein/New York (plus his Vienna Second), Berglund/Bournemouth, Davis/Boston, Ashkenazy/Philharmonia, Barbirolli/Hallé.


Sarge

[TheGSMoeller]

Thanks for the info, Sarge. I'm trying to expand my Sibelius symphony sets (currently sitting at one with Blomstedt/SFS), and all the talk of Barbirolli has me intrigued. Currently interested in Berglund/Bournemouth, Segerstam/Helsinki and Ashkenazy/Phil. Although starting to pull away from Ashkenazy, impressed with his 1st, 3rd and 6th, but not so much with the rest, or at least my first impressions weren't very strong.

[Karl Henning]

Thanks for the info, Sarge. I'm trying to expand my Sibelius symphony sets (currently sitting at one with Blomstedt/SFS) . . . .

Although, if you only had one (I do not) that's a strong claimant IMO : )

[TheGSMoeller]

Although, if you only had one (I do not) that's a strong claimant IMO : )

Agreed, it has been my only one for almost two decades now so I guess that says something about my appreciation for it. 

[Sergeant Rock]

Thanks for the info, Sarge. I'm trying to expand my Sibelius symphony sets (currently sitting at one with Blomstedt/SFS), and all the talk of Barbirolli has me intrigued. Currently interested in Berglund/Bournemouth, Segerstam/Helsinki and Ashkenazy/Phil. Although starting to pull away from Ashkenazy, impressed with his 1st, 3rd and 6th, but not so much with the rest, or at least my first impressions weren't very strong.

My top three would be Segerstam II (Ondine), Berglund/Bournemouth and Maazel/Vienna....so I have no trouble encouraging you to spend your hard-earned bucks   Berglund is half the price of Segerstam (at Amazon): that would be painless a purchase. But Segerstam is jaw-droppingly good. Worth the price. A pity, though, that their Kullervos aren't included.

Sarge

[jlaurson]

...Like MI, I have 19 sets of symphonies (not sure how many Jens actually owns). My favorites: Maazel/Vienna, Maazel/Pittsburgh (could be a different conductor, so different are these performances from the earlier Vienna), Segerstam/Helsinki, Bernstein/New York (plus his Vienna Second), Berglund/Bournemouth, Davis/Boston, Ashkenazy/Philharmonia, Barbirolli/Hallé.
Sarge

19, like you, though perhaps not the same one and not counting incomplete cycles. (All the Karajan on EMI and DG nearly make a cycle... I have several Berglund performances from the earlier cycles but neither I nor II in toto etc.)

In alphabetical order:

Ashkenazy (4)
Barbirolli
Berglund III (2)
Bernstein I
Blomstedt
Collins
Davis I
Davis III
Maazel I (3)
Maazel II
Oramo
Rattle
Rozhdestvensky
Sanderling
Sakari
Saraste
Segerstam I
Segerstam II (1)
Vanska

Amazingly, there's not a single one I really don't like... even the ones I am least attracted to (Rattle, Maazel II, and the wrongheaded Davis I) offer plenty joy and wonder at the miracle that is Sibelius.

A Survey of Sibelius Cycles

[Sergeant Rock]

19, like you, though perhaps not the same one and not counting incomplete cycles. (All the Karajan on EMI and DG nearly make a cycle

I have the Kamu/Karajan DG box but don't count it as a cycle either. My sets:

DAVIS I/BOSTON
DAVIS II/LSO (RCA)
DAVIS III/LSO (Live)
JÄRVI/GOTHENBURG
BERNSTEIN/NY PHIL
VÄNSKÄ/LAHTI SO
SANDERLING/BERLIN SO
MAAZEL I/VIENNA PHIL
MAAZEL II/PITTSBURGH
BERGLUND I/BOURNEMOUTH
BERGLUND III/COE
ASHKENAZY/PHILHARMONIA
ROZHDESTVENSKY/MOSCOW RSO
SEGERSTAM II/HELSINKI PHIL
RATTLE/CBSO
BLOMSTEDT/SAN FRANCISCO
SAKARI/ICELAND SO
BARBIROLLI/HALLÉ
SARASTE/FINNISH RSO (Finlandia)

I'm missing your Segerstam I, Collins, Oramo.

Sarge

[Mirror Image]

The 19 cycles of Sibelius I own:

Davis/LSO Live
Davis/LSO - RCA
Davis/BSO
Berglund/Helsinki
Berglund/Bournemouth
Vanska/Lahti SO
Jarvi/Gothenberg
Maazel/VPO
Maazel/Pittsburgh
Oramo/CBSO
Barbirolli/Halle
Rattle/CBSO, Philharmonia
Blomstedt/SFSO
Segerstam/Helsinki
Bernstein/NY Phil.
Inkinen/NZSO
Sanderling/Berlin SO
Gibson/RSNO
Rozhdestvensky/Moscow RSO

What a minute...I own 20!

Sakari/Iceland SO