The Snowshoed Sibelius

[vandermolen]

Hm. I guess this was too obvious for me to think of. 
If you do try that, be sure to first check that she hasn't got a handbag or anything like that near 
Anyway... I should get the complete tone poem set from BIS, as there are some things like the Wood Nymph that I don't have on disc, and have actually quite recently got to know 
Same goes for much of the theatre music.

I won't be trying it on my wife. I would not survive the ordeal   

I like The Wood Nymph and the original Karelia Music (Ondine and BIS) was a great discovery, which I strongly recommend.

[Bogey]

Did Billy Crystal get this one correct?  Listen to the interview for his Sibelius take:

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/07/219746325/billy-crystals-foolin-full-of-fun-and-feeling

[mc ukrneal]

Did Billy Crystal get this one correct?  Listen to the interview for his Sibelius take:

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/07/219746325/billy-crystals-foolin-full-of-fun-and-feeling

Yes - he got that voice just perfect. We always used to joke about it my house too (we had WQXR).

[Sergeant Rock]

Did Billy Crystal get this one correct?  Listen to the interview for his Sibelius take:

Is your dog getting enough cheese? 

Sarge

[amw]

Sibelius certainly seems to be popular! I'm afraid I didn't read through this entire thread, so I'm not sure if in fact more people are in agreement with me than I suspect, but my experience of Sibelius hasn't really been congruent with what I was led to expect from reading and a very casual acquaintance with his more "pops" pieces (Finlandia, Valse triste). Was just wondering if anyone had had a similar experience.

What I'm mostly familiar with is the symphonies, especially 2 through 6, so that's where my comments will focus. Nos. 1 and 7 I only got acquainted with later so they didn't make as much of an impression on me, I think. But No. 2 was the first one I heard and it is, I think, the only really "Sibelian" symphony in the sense I understood the term. It has the various stylistic hallmarks you also see in the work of later "Sibelian" composers like Atterberg and Rubbra, lush Wagnerian textures and harmonies and then these massive brass outbursts that come out of nowhere, and "elemental" bits like the opening of the slow movement (in fact quite a lot of the slow movement) that suggest natural features, the quiet contemplation of and so forth. So far, so expected.

Then he came to No. 3 which was and perhaps still is my favourite Sibelius symphony. People seem to talk about it as having a neoclassical lightness that sets it apart from the others, which sounds to me as though they never bothered to listen past the first two or three minutes. Certainly the first theme has a dance-like character that draws one into the work (although there is another of those brass outbursts, less explicable here, just a few dozen bars in). But the whole development section of this ostensibly "sonata form" movement is something else—just an endless stream of pianissimo semiquavers, through which fragments of the first theme occasionally surface. The music doesn't "develop", it just drifts. It's perhaps the first incidence of the unique bleakness that will come to dominate the 4th and 6th symphonies as well—a profoundly empty passage that manages to regain its footing. The remainder of the movement is more normal, but the concluding chorale has an unexpected austerity which retrospectively casts the rest of the movement in a more sombre light, I feel.

The slow movement starts out like light music, a folk-like waltz melody and traditional accompaniment. In a normal slow movement this melody would perhaps alternate with a couple of other melodies, end peacefully and be utterly forgettable. In Sibelius, this never happens. The melody just circles round and round, never developing, never changing. The few episodes never leave the home key and are over almost before they've begun, and in the end the whole thing just breaks down. It's some of the most profoundly unsettling music in the repertoire, and this is coming from someone who's a big fan of Schoenberg, Radulescu, Ferneyhough and Schnittke. >.> This unsettled mood continues in the third movement, which starts with a scherzo Sibelius described as distilled chaos—a very accurate description, I'm still not sure what's going on in that scherzo—that gradually metamorphoses into a triumphant finale. For me, the triumph isn't wholly convincing; like in the slow movement, the melody just goes round and round before coming to an abrupt, over-emphatic conclusion. It doesn't feel like a triumph, more like a mantra, a gradual closing off of one's mind from the highly disturbed textures of the previous part of the movement. The protagonist of the Third Symphony has "triumphed" only by withdrawing. Not the first enigmatic ending in Sibelius's œuvre, nor the last, I suppose.

The Fourth is a "dark" work. In fact it may be the grimmest, bleakest piece of music in which the umbilical cord to tonality is not severed—perhaps Mahler's Sixth is comparable, though I've never warmed to Mahler, but very little else in the earlier repertoire, and later one has to look ahead to Schnittke and Pettersson (whose music incorporates a significantly greater degree of modernism—there is no modernism in Sibelius) to find its equal. Yet it is not unreletingly dark; there are traces of the burnished orchestral warmth of the Second and Finlandia (particularly in the brass writing) and both of its adagios end with a glimmer of major-key hope. It is the allegros that actually make the more disturbing impression, both starting out sunny and untroubled and then rapidly degenerating. Much of my listening activity is determined by iTunes DJ and the "Shuffle Songs" feature on my iPod; the scherzo from No. 4 once came on whilst I was in a car on a lonely road at night and about halfway through (not consciously paying attention to the music) I suddenly became very aware that I was a small person in a fragile car, there was a lot of empty road in front and behind and it was very dark outside. I kept looking over my shoulder through the back window, trying to shake the inexplicable sense of foreboding that had come over me. It was all Sibelius—disappeared quickly once I switched to some Bach. Like the 2nd, 6th and first movement of the 3rd this symphony ends with a chorale—or fragments of one. It doesn't give a sense of closure; it raises more questions.

The Fifth is, I suppose, the "popular" one, the brightest, most triumphant et cetera. Yet though it starts out in a pastoral mood the overriding mood of the first five or ten minutes is the aimless drifting from the first movement of the 3rd (and some sections of the first movement of the 4th), long stretches of undifferentiated pianissimo for the strings that occasionally boil over into mini-climaxes before being quickened into the huge composed accelerando that raises the music to fever pitch by the end. The first movement is almost a symphony on its own. The second movement is essentially the slow movement of the Third, sped up slightly and in a major key. Yet the effect is entirely different—in spite of a few passages of overt menace, absent from the 3rd, the piece is lighter, more like an intermezzo. It is not a prism that turns order into chaos; it is an island of order between two very different chaotic forces. The finale is like a more carefully planned out version of the last movement of the 3rd, and its triumph is more believable—closer in spirit to the finale of the 2nd. Yet there is still that ending, breathless and fragmented; sometimes imitated, but never in a way that manages to capture its ambiguous quality.

If any piece can be called such the Sixth is probably Sibelius's masterpiece. It's also perhaps the emptiest piece of music I've ever heard. This is not meant as a negative criticism. I've heard it described as light and fluffy, Sibelius himself said something about the scent of fresh snow, but for me at least, it hits hard. There's very little development once again, most of the melodic material is completely diatonic and consists of scales or very basic figures that are repeated endlessly. A good deal of the first and second movements are filled with the "aimless pianissimo" trope of the Third Symphony, whose surface activity has usually been a catalyst for drama, but there is very little drama in this piece—certainly rage and passion along with calm and grief, but they are not a source of conflict; they merely exist, are allowed to spend themselves and dissipate. The first movement is very close in spirit to Vaughan Williams's almost exactly contemporary Pastoral Symphony, which served an overtly memorial purpose (commemorating the dead of the Great War), but without the warmth of that work. Then there is another disquieting "slow" movement (which actually feels faster than the first movement) with a very abrupt ending—in fact the only slow movement in Sibelius's symphonies that does not have an air of at least suppressed menace is that of the Fourth, oddly—and a lumbering scherzo that never quite gets off the ground despite its attempts to dance.

The last movement is in many ways the heart of the piece (for me at least) and is another fast movement that feels like a slow movement in disguise. There are chorales bookending the movement, lending it a religious sort of asceticism, and then a lengthy middle section that brings the passions that have been a constant undercurrent to the fore. I think the treatment of "rage and passion" in this movement—if that is what it is—is more true to life than in works where it leads to transcendence and transfiguration, or violent all-consuming fury, or dramatic tragedy. It appears; it dominates for a time; it hammers at the same few ideas repeatedly; then it is over. One is left exhausted, but unchanged. The return of the chorales brings about the epilogue, where the music briefly seems to have gained a kind of distance from all signs of humankind; then the chorale returns as a final heartrending cry and the strings bring the music back around to the pure diatonic Dorian mode where the whole symphony began. This is, for me, the coda to Sibelius's life's work. He wrote another coda in Tapiola and perhaps there would have been others had he written more, but by this point, I think he already knew the end was coming.

For quite some time I avoided the Seventh because the Sixth finished with such a sense of closure that I couldn't help thinking of it as Sibelius's last. I wasn't quite ready for an even emptier and more depressing sound-world, and could only imagine what the Eighth must have been like (I think my mental picture of it was something along the lines of the orchestra holding a D minor triad pp for 45 minutes :P), but as it turned out the Seventh is more like a new beginning, which makes the Eighth that much more intriguing. It shows signs of the weakening umbilical cord to tonality and while Sibelius contributed no further music, the Seventh starts a rejuvenated line through later Vaughan Williams, Holmboe, Simpson and others.

I don't know if these perspectives on Sibelius are really shared by anyone else—perhaps I just haven't listened to him enough—but hopefully they don't sound completely stupid. Anyway, I've gone on for a while and have no idea if anyone's still reading by this point, so without further ado, I bid you blargtiflargwargle.

[North Star]

Wow, I will have to explore.  I wasn't aware that Sibelius had written so much solo piano music.  Thumbs up! 

Some choice YT videos to get you started
http://www.youtube.com/v/G6rBwqrMvgE     http://www.youtube.com/v/U-cFu6RIgDw
http://www.youtube.com/v/nvwO-GMoBCw   http://www.youtube.com/v/KMc78xutP6Y

[Brahmsian]

Many thanks, North Star! 

[North Star]

Many thanks, North Star! 

You're very welcome!

A new male choir version of Sibelius' Ej med klagan (Not with complaint) has been found (Sep. 30th)

[Sergeant Rock]

Anyway, I've gone on for a while and have no idea if anyone's still reading by this point, so without further ado, I bid you blargtiflargwargle.

I read the entire post. Do I get a Gold Star? Or at least a pat on the back?   

Seriously, a good read, and one I'm going to read again and maybe even comment on. But right now, with dinner looming, I have no time except to say about this:

Then he came to No. 3.... People seem to talk about it as having a neoclassical lightness that sets it apart from the others, which sounds to me as though they never bothered to listen past the first two or three minutes.

I've always considered the 6th to be the neoclassical Sibelius. Sir Colin rather confirms that (in my mind) by being both a great Mozartian and Haydnista and one of the few Sibelius conductors who I feel gets the symphony right (especially his Boston Sixth). More later.

Sarge

[North Star]

Yes, an excellent post, amw!

[vandermolen]

The performance of Symphony No 6 by Hans Rosbaud is the best I know. Terribly moving from the start, conveying much more feeling than any other recording I know (1952/ ICA Classics).

[Brahmsian]

Winter Solstice Listen - two performances.

Of the seven symphonies, the 2nd most reminds me of a cold Finnish landscape (or Canadian one, for that matter) 

Sibelius

Symphony No. 2 in D major, Op. 43

Maazel
Vienna Philharmonic

[asin]B0000041Z3[/asin]

Kamu
Berlin Philharmonic

[asin]B00DY9WYSA[/asin]

[vandermolen]

Greatly enjoying these historic recordings (1949-1957), played with greater urgency I think than the later, more expansive EMI set. I have never heard a greater performance of Symphony No, 1 with the harp more prominent than usual. Some of these recordings were made for Pye. I found the double CD set for £5.00 on Amazon UK:

[asin]B00004TQPX[/asin]

[Jaakko Keskinen]

In response to her asking Sibelius when he would be home (presumably from a drinking excursion), he replied:

'I'm a composer, not a fortune-teller'.

I don't blame her for not talking to him!

Must remember to try this one on my wife when she next asks me when I will be home.

As far as I know (as a Finn myself) that was not a real occurrence but just a joke invented maybe years after Sibelius's death. Biographies I have read paint Sibelius as someone very considerate to other people's feelings (although of course he was not a saint). At least those By Erik Tawastjerna.

[vandermolen]

As far as I know (as a Finn myself) that was not a real occurrence but just a joke invented maybe years after Sibelius's death. Biographies I have read paint Sibelius as someone very considerate to other people's feelings (although of course he was not a saint). At least those By Erik Tawastjerna.

Thank you - that is worth knowing and fits in more with what I have read about Sibelius.

On a separate note it is a pity that Sir John Barbirolli never, to my knowledge, recorded Tapiola - as I have been greatly enjoying his recordings of the symphonies, mentioned above.

[Brian]

I recently had a dream that every recording in this new set was perfect, and in the dream I listened to it with rapturous delight (although the music was my dream-brain's own invention, and clearly not Sibelius):



Trying out #1 to see if it was a premonition.

Storgards is too interesting a conductor to turn in bad performances, and so far (I've listened to #1 and am halfway through #3) his readings are very interesting. Powerful hard-stick timpani, and some nice interpretive touches in places which could make this a distinctive cycle. The biggest eccentricity in the First is an extremely slow final coda which almost falls to pieces (on purpose) - think of how Kreizberg or Petrenko conduct the ending of Shostakovich's Fifth. On the other hand, the Third takes off like a crisp clean neoclassical rocket.

The BBC Philharmonic, which is certainly not one of the UK's top five orchestras and might not even be in the top ten, has almost never sounded better. In the First, the strings lag a little behind the brass and percussion, commitment-wise, but the Third does not have that problem.

[relm1]

Storgards is too interesting a conductor to turn in bad performances, and so far (I've listened to #1 and am halfway through #3) his readings are very interesting. Powerful hard-stick timpani, and some nice interpretive touches in places which could make this a distinctive cycle. The biggest eccentricity in the First is an extremely slow final coda which almost falls to pieces (on purpose) - think of how Kreizberg or Petrenko conduct the ending of Shostakovich's Fifth. On the other hand, the Third takes off like a crisp clean neoclassical rocket.

The BBC Philharmonic, which is certainly not one of the UK's top five orchestras and might not even be in the top ten, has almost never sounded better. In the First, the strings lag a little behind the brass and percussion, commitment-wise, but the Third does not have that problem.

Do you think it's worth buying this set? I have nearly been going broke lately duplicating recordings that I already have. But but this one looks really good.

[ZauberdrachenNr.7]

Help me, please....   Two weekends ago I heard on our classical radio a performance of Sibelius's 6th.  I had tuned-in mid-course, recognized it as Sibelius, of course, didn't know precisely what, but was bewitched, bothered and bewildered.  For decades I have listened to every Sibelius symphony many hundreds of times over but hardly ever the sixth).  Now I am as if transfixed, addicted.  I cannot listen to anything else but.  It contains, I believe, some of his happiest moments and also some of the gravest and most haunting and certainly passages that rate among his most transcendent.  Music critics run the gamut from thinking it haunting and troubling to one of his lightest, most carefree works!  The ending is certainly troubling, like a death that comes unseen and for which one is unprepared (inspired by the death of his brother, perhaps?  Or a premonition of his long silence to come?).  And yet, the whole seems so elusive, rather like a snack that you must keep on eating, precisely because it doesn't quite satisfy... 

[Karl Henning]

And . . . how may we help? 

For years, the Sixth has been my favorite of the seven. I love 'em all, but the Sixth is easily my favorite.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I agree, sixth is awesome, along with 2nd symphony it is my favorite as well! The last movement's stormy low string melody is pure badass. If I had to choose between 2nd and 6th I would probably pick the 6th. Funny, I remember that the first time I listened to it I didn't like it much, couldn't recall a single melody. After relistening it again much later I was overwhelmed by how much awesome melodies it had and how strong structure the work had. I guess I was deaf during my first listening.