Sibelius' tricky 7th symphony

[MishaK]

This one?: (Maazel/VPO recording of 4, 7, and Tapiola)

Yes. And the 4th is outstanding as well.

This resource may be of use - probably the biggest collection of Sibelius 7 reviews ever assembled, in which a certified Sibelius Nutcase searches for answers. I don't know if any of you will find yourselves agreeing with him, but it makes for fun reading.

A sample of his writing doesn't suggest a particularly thorough understanding of the music.

To be fair, some posters here and elsewhere have told me that Colin Davis's live Sibelius performances (w/ a London orchestra?) are far more engrossing than his older, well-known Boston cycle, and I have not heard the live ones. Since I love a lot of that conductor's early performances (of Mozart, Rossini, Berlioz), I suppose I should track down those live recordings and give them a listen.

That would be the LSO. I have heard him do Sibelius live with the NYPO and the LSO and have his RCA LSO cycle (not the later LSO live), which I personally love.

[Greta]

Lots of good 7ths out there...I agree with Bruce on Ashkenazy, it's one of my favorites from that set, I didn't realize he would do so well there.

I love Bernstein's w/ Vienna, it really "says" something to me, I also really like Blomstedt's. Blomstedt's 5th and 7th are awesome structurally. I have the Maazel/WP around but haven't made it to the 7th yet, what I listened to so far from those are excellent though. Rattle's is good too, though I don't know if it affects me as deeply.

Vanska's recordings are uniformly solid and meticulously prepared, but I'm not a big fan of his 7th. There are some later sections that I feel he rushes through, just could have given more space to. Davis with LSO is a nice recording of the 7th. I still like Davis a whole lot, he made a good introduction for me as a set. His 2nd is still one of my favorites, very dramatic and a sense of things being somehow right, he really serves the music.

I would love to hear some of the older ones, Koussevitsky, Beecham, even Ormandy. About the ending: it is a strange one, meant to be mysterious. 

Audiences not familiar with the piece I think still do not quite "get" it though. I saw the 7th live in Houston this fall, and the audience scarcely realized it had ended, slowly starting to clap out of surprise, most seemed to have been there to see Emmanuel Ax play Brahms more then the Sibelius. The 7th can be a beautiful experience live - especially the trombone solo, one of "the" great moments for that instrument.

[karlhenning]

. . . even Ormandy. About the ending: it is a strange one, meant to be mysterious.

Memo:  Spell it out plain for Ormandy . . . . 

[MishaK]

Audiences not familiar with the piece I think still do not quite "get" it though. I saw the 7th live in Houston this fall, and the audience scarcely realized it had ended, slowly starting to clap out of surprise, most seemed to have been there to see Emmanuel Ax play Brahms more then the Sibelius. The 7th can be a beautiful experience live - especially the trombone solo, one of "the" great moments for that instrument.

The 6th likewise. The CSO played it a few weeks ago here with Mark Elder and the audience wasn't quite sure what to do with it, though I blame Elder in part for that. The performance could have been structured and textured a lot better.

[Greta]

The 6th likewise. The CSO played it a few weeks ago here with Mark Elder and the audience wasn't quite sure what to do with it, though I blame Elder in part for that. The performance could have been structured and textured a lot better.

Yeah, it didn't help that the opener was Finlandia, maybe the audience expected something rather in that spirit. We heard a hazy and broad (over 23 min) account from Hans Graf which had much atmosphere, though not so much detail - I think the audience was a bit hypnotized, or perhaps asleep, by the end.

Also, maybe the ending is not expected as a "symphony" is associated with being more than one movement, maybe they suspect that is only one of several. 

Question: Are there many one movement symphonies before Sibelius 7? Not tone-poems, but actual "symphonies". I can think of several afterward, some Rautavaara and Pettersson for example, but have trouble thinking of any before...

[JoshLilly]

Is Sibelius's 7th Symphony an actual "symphony", or is it a mis-labeled orchestral overture?   
But actually, yes, there was an obscure US composer named William Henry Fry who wrote two symphonies, labeled them such, and insisted that they were... and both consist of only one movement.

[not edward]

This one?: (Maazel/VPO recording of 4, 7, and Tapiola)

http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Symphonies-Maazel-Philharmonic-Orchestra/dp/B00004TTX3/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1199469942&sr=8-2

I seem to recall hearing good things about his 4th as well, and I would like to hear a second recording of Tapiola to compare with Vanska's amazing version.

I would dispute O Mensch's characterization of the 7th on this disc as the best thing Maazel ever did....but only because I think the 4th and Tapiola are even greater. The 4th is just devastating, and the climactic passage in Tapiola is genuinely terrifying, for once. If I could keep only one Sibelius disc, it would be this one--it's miraculous.

[Kullervo]

Is Sibelius's 7th Symphony an actual "symphony", or is it a mis-labeled orchestral overture?   
But actually, yes, there was an obscure US composer named William Henry Fry who wrote two symphonies, labeled them such, and insisted that they were... and both consist of only one movement.

Sibelius initially titled it Fantasia Sinfonica, but later changed it as he realized it was the ideal symphonic form he'd been striving for all along. You would have to look back to Brahms or Beethoven to find a more tightly "argued" symphony.

[MishaK]

I would dispute O Mensch's characterization of the 7th on this disc as the best thing Maazel ever did....but only because I think the 4th and Tapiola are even greater. The 4th is just devastating, and the climactic passage in Tapiola is genuinely terrifying, for once. If I could keep only one Sibelius disc, it would be this one--it's miraculous.

Fine. But the disc as a whole might just be the best thing Maazel ever did. 

[rubio]

Beecham's EMI recording is my favourite. Koussevitsy's is also a fine interpretation. I have also felt that Colin Davis was very overrated as a Sibelius conductor. The Karajan set, mentioned above, is very good and Maazel's Decca recording is fine.

Do you have the Naxos transfer of the Koussevitzky recording? It is tempting due to the price and Koussevitzky's good reputation.

[head-case]

Is Sibelius's 7th Symphony an actual "symphony", or is it a mis-labeled orchestral overture?   
But actually, yes, there was an obscure US composer named William Henry Fry who wrote two symphonies, labeled them such, and insisted that they were... and both consist of only one movement.

To call the 7th a symphonic poem or fantasia, as Sibelius originally did, is debatable.  To refer to it as an orchestral overture simply because it does not consist of discrete movements is ludicrous, in my opinion.

[JoshLilly]

To call the 7th a symphonic poem or fantasia, as Sibelius originally did, is debatable.  To refer to it as an orchestral overture simply because it does not consist of discrete movements is ludicrous, in my opinion.

So's your face!  Q.E.D.

[sidoze]

Mravinsky
Maazel/VPO -- agree with Edward, the 4th is amazing

[Wanderer]

The version I return to more often is Segerstam with the Danish Radio SO on Chandos.
It has a most majestic sweep, well balanced pace, thrilling sonorities and the orchestra is magnificently recorded (a big plus for this symphony). Among a number of recordings I particularly like (many of them mentioned above) this suits my taste the best. The buildup to the first great climax as well as the final close are particularly impressive.

[head-case]

So's your face!  Q.E.D.

Hard to argue with that logic.

[longears]

I discovered that I hated everything by Sibelius that I heard, but was fascinated by this ending, and actually came to like it....  I don't know much about Sibelius recordings or performances at all (I don't like his music)....

Just don't stop trying from time to time.  I was in my 40s before he clicked in.  It was almost like the way those optical illusion illustrations suddenly snap into focus when you fix your gaze on the plane behind the surface.  Then his music literally took my breath away.

The recording of the 7th I listen to most frequently is Vänskä's.  It's the one I put on my iPod.  I also like Segerstam/HPO, Bernstein/NYPO, Blomstedt/SFSO, Maazel/WP, and all of Berglund's.  Think I'll put on his with the COE now. 

[M forever]

Just don't stop trying from time to time.  I was in my 40s before he clicked in.  It was almost like the way those optical illusion illustrations suddenly snap into focus when you fix your gaze on the plane behind the surface.  Then his music literally took my breath away.

I think I was about 15 or 16 when he "clicked in". At that age, I started to play in a youth/student orchestra in Berlin which was dedicated to promoting music from Northern Europe, and it was aptly called the "Sibelius Orchester"... The first piece of his I got to know was "The Swan of Tuonela" which we played in one concert. I was totally fascinated by the music from the first time on I heard the first notes. My mother had an LP which was called "Meditation - Music for Dreaming with Herbert von Karajan"  it had this and some other "dreamy" pieces (don't remember which, except it had the interlude from Schmidt's "Notre Dame", probbly Massenet's "Meditation", stuff like that...) and I listened to that over and over again.
I then went on to discover the symphonies and tone poems, and then some of the lieder and other music pretty soon. Sibelius is still one of my favorite composers and one of those whose music "means" the most to me.

About the ending: I don't think it's that mysterious or puzzling. I think it is actually pretty easy to "understand", maybe not that easy to "explain" though. The root tonality of Sibelius' last symphony is a statement in itself. C major, the "simplest" most "basic" of all tonalities, and it gets reaffirmed by elements floating through the symphonic soundscape all the time, no matter how complex and complicated the music gets, no matter how anguished and conflict-ridden, at the end the music returns to its "roots" and we experience the kind of inner peace and security that only comes from experiencing conflicts and storms, but riding them out and coming out stronger on the other side. Most conductors get this wrong. It is not a final two note statement, it is a 4-bar phrase.



It is very important to underline that context, but the d-c resolution is often drowned out, despite the very clear dynamic indications. The root note c gets approached here from both sides, d-c, and then b-c, and reaffirmed both times. Simon Rattle said it was "like a huge shrug finally opening", and that's one way to look at it, I guess. I see it more as an affirmative statement. The ending should really be as written, not drawn out and reinforced by brass, but played with a detemind crescendo and a musical ! on the last c.
BTW, Koussevitzky also put the trumpet in there, and a few other conductors, too. Mravinsky actually has the horns play the b-c.

[rubio]

About the ending: I don't think it's that mysterious or puzzling. I think it is actually pretty easy to "understand", maybe not that easy to "explain" though. The root tonality of Sibelius' last symphony is a statement in itself. C major, the "simplest" most "basic" of all tonalities, and it gets reaffirmed by elements floating through the symphonic soundscape all the time, no matter how complex and complicated the music gets, no matter how anguished and conflict-ridden, at the end the music returns to its "roots" and we experience the kind of inner peace and security that only comes from experiencing conflicts and storms, but riding them out and coming out stronger on the other side. Most conductors get this wrong. It is not a final two note statement, it is a 4-bar phrase.

An interesting read. Do you have examples of conductors who handles the ending well?

[M forever]

Uh...actually, I can't think of any off the top of my head that I think are really following what the score says. Not because there aren't any, I just can't think of them right now, and the ones I have on my computer really don't follow the score in this detail. They all just want the "grandiose" brass ending and allow that to drown everything out, so the final gesture in the strings is often drawn out very, very long to balance that. But the score is really very explicit. The brass only start mf and they do have a crescendo to ff, but then they are supposed to decrescendo to mf. I think the key here would be to really start the brass not louder than mf and let them do a "slow" screscendo to fully let the d-c gesture in the violins come through, only go to the stages right before ff at the last moment, then fade back rather quickly. But that doesn't sound so "dramatic". Yet it is clear that the real "message" is in the strings. The brass don't even change the chord or have any suspended notes.

[Hector]

But . . . I like Blomstedt's! 

And...I like Vanska's, believing it to be the cats-whiskers in this work!

I, also, have a nostalgic liking for Beecham, very atmospheric and Rattle, if only because I heard him live with the CBSO, again very atmospheric.

Best modern recording, and on my iPod, must be Vanska(?)