Sibelius' tricky 7th symphony

[DavidW]

I've never judged a Sibelius 7th recording based purely on timing, I don't even know the timing of my favorite recording, which is Segerstam.  This should be an interesting thread.

[Scarpia]

So, am I nutz?

Yes.  Tempo is not the only factor which determines if a performance seems slow.  You can make the same piece work at different tempos if the phrasing, articulation, dynamics, are suitable to that tempo. 

[snyprrr]

Yes, yes, but just with Sibelius 7. All I'm saying is that with this piece of music, all I've noticed is that the quicker it goes, the more it seems to hang together perfectly.

I haven't heard the Segerstam,...I think. I used to crack open all kinds of stuff at the record store many years ago.

I know that actual timing isn't the thing, but speed. And I can't see rubato playing too much much of a part in this particular piece.

Oh, where are Van/Dun? I'm sure between them they have every issue of this symphony, no?

I still maintain that Kouss. is the only one who properly reigns this puppy in. I DO remember Ormandy coming close, but...

Obviously Bernstein is too sloooooow. 19mins. vs 23mins. Please tell me that with this symphony, that that amount of diff is going to make an incredible impact.

Anyhow, I am certainly looking forward to more input.

[Scarpia]

Poking around, I see that my preferred version come in at between 22:30 and 24 minutes. I can't imagine this piece at 19 minutes.  A slower tempo simply requires more skillful control of other musical elements to maintain dramatic tension. 

[Sergeant Rock]

So, am I nutz?

Apparently, yes, you are a loon    I have 15 Sevenths in my collection; they are all 21 minutes or longer (even the usual speed demons, e.g., Järvi and Saraste)...yes, even my Koussevitzky performance (with the BBC in 1933) is 21 minutes long, or close enough to make no difference (20:54).

Like Scarpia I prefer the slower versions; in my case, Sanderling and Bernstein.

Sarge

[Dana]

Like Scarpia I prefer the slower versions; in my case, Sanderling and Bernstein.

      People say that Bernstein's DG takes of Sibelius are incredibly slow and distorted, and they certainly are (especially his 2nd, and the end of his 5th), so every so often, I browse through Borders to see if I can find a better seventh symphony - I've come pretty close to buying Davis' LSO Live, and Berglund's Seraphim recordings, but every time I get close, I just end up wondering why I need to replace a great recording?

[DavidW]

      People say that Bernstein's DG takes of Sibelius are incredibly slow and distorted, and they certainly are (especially his 2nd, and the end of his 5th), so every so often, I browse through Borders to see if I can find a better seventh symphony - I've come pretty close to buying Davis' LSO Live, and Berglund's Seraphim recordings, but every time I get close, I just end up wondering why I need to replace a great recording?

Bernstein takes everything slow in his DG era.  You haven't heard his Columbia recording of the 7th?  It's pretty good, only complaint is the sound quality.

[Brian]

Apparently, yes, you are a loon    I have 15 Sevenths in my collection; they are all 21 minutes or longer (even the usual speed demons, e.g., Järvi and Saraste)...yes, even my Koussevitzky performance (with the BBC in 1933) is 21 minutes long, or close enough to make no difference (20:54).

Like Scarpia I prefer the slower versions; in my case, Sanderling and Bernstein.

Sarge

Hmm, I have a live BBC recording that's 21:20... maybe mine is yours with applause at the end.

[DavidRoss]

I just listened to the "slowest" I have--Bernstein with the WP--at almost 25 minutes.  The adagio opening is very slow, allowing generous room for the several subtle tempo shifts throughout.  It is gripping and nowhere hangs fire.

Usually when I want to hear the 7th I reach for Vänskä/Lahti, Berglund/COE, Blomstedt/SFS, Segerstam/HPO, Maazel/WP, or Bernstein/NYPO, all of which range from about 21 to almost 23 minutes.

[The new erato]

      People say that Bernstein's DG takes of Sibelius are incredibly slow and distorted, and they certainly are (especially his 2nd, and the end of his 5th), so every so often, I browse through Borders to see if I can find a better seventh symphony - I've come pretty close to buying Davis' LSO Live, and Berglund's Seraphim recordings, but every time I get close, I just end up wondering why I need to replace a great recording?

Not replace - supplement.

And why? Because great music is always better than it can be played.

[vandermolen]

Koussevitsky's recording is great but my favourite is Beecham's EMI recording (just over 20 mins). There is a great sense of inevitability and slumbering power in Beecham's eloquent performance. This is also one of the greatest Sibelius CDs around I think:

[Sergeant Rock]

Hmm, I have a live BBC recording that's 21:20... maybe mine is yours with applause at the end.

Could be. There is no applause on mine. I checked the time again on my computer and got 20:52 (the booklet says 20:54 but last track has two seconds of silence at the end). It's this version, EMI/BMG:



Sarge



 

[karlhenning]

I just listened to the "slowest" I have--Bernstein with the WP--at almost 25 minutes.  The adagio opening is very slow, allowing generous room for the several subtle tempo shifts throughout.  It is gripping and nowhere hangs fire.

Very interesting!  That would be a fascinating listen.  As I've mentioned before, the breadth with which Lenny takes the Chicago Symphony through the Leningrad is not something any of us should try at home, but he succeeds in carrying it off.

[dirkronk]

This is one symphony for which I've never done a spin-off, either for interp or time or even recording quality, even though I have scads of CDs and LPs of the thing. So I'm hardly in a position to weigh in on timing preferences. Still, I'll mention that it was Collins on an ancient London mono LP whose interp first made me fall in love with the music; anyone know and have a timing for that version?

Egad. A quick look at my CD list alone reveals Beecham, Koussevitzky, Jarvi, Mravinsky, Ormandy and Rozhdestvensky. LPs? No clue how many may be there. Guess I'd better start gathering and listening.


Dirk

[Opus106]

The only version I have and have heard is a live performance from the Bamberg SO and Blomstedt. A tad under nineteen-and-a-half minutes sans applause.

[The new erato]

The only version I have and have heard is a live performance from the Bamberg SO and Blomstedt. A tad under nineteen-and-a-half minutes sans applause.

No applause? You see? The public didn't like ut because it was too fast. I fear snypprr is alone here.....

[Scarpia]

The only version I have and have heard is a live performance from the Bamberg SO and Blomstedt. A tad under nineteen-and-a-half minutes sans applause.

Blomstedt's SFO recording is at 22:30.  Another favorite, Karajan '68 comes in at 23:30.

[Opus106]

No applause? You see? The public didn't like ut because it was too fast. I fear snypprr is alone here.....

[Brian]

Could be. There is no applause on mine. I checked the time again on my computer and got 20:52 (the booklet says 20:54 but last track has two seconds of silence at the end). It's this version, EMI/BMG:


Sarge

Maybe they are different takes after all. Mine is a Naxos reissue.

[snyprrr]

Just listened to Boult/Royal Phil.(March 1963) again ( I haaave to take it back today!).

19:22 without the applause. And I think it could have been taken just a hair faster...or...muuuch slower (which, then, I wonder how that would affect the energy level). I'll admit that the live sound isn't super super. And the overall energy level could perhaps be a little greater. And even given its speed, I thought the interpretation could have been a tiny little smidge tauter.

Once again, I want to stress that I'm not a "timings" nut. This subject came up in the Haydn SQ thread, where repeats tend towards deceptive timings. So I remembered how I went through this with Sibelius 7 many years ago (a one mvmt. piece/ no "repeats") and thought that this was the perfect piece to have this "interpretation" discussion with.

I DO know that "tension" can be achieved by different means, and I'm not trying to be difficult, but after listening to this Boult (19:22) I am just scratching my head at what a 25min Sibelius 7 must sound like?

Sibelius 7 is the only piece of music I've ever wanted to conduct. I think it's one of those pieces where it's up to the conductor to destroy, or bring to life... it's that diaphonous. btw- I would do suuuch an awesome job !!! Critics heads would explode (oh where is Josquin's exploding head???).

Is there only one version of Koussevetsky? I can't remember which issue I had (was it a 2-cd?...with Harris???). But I do remember believing it was the "only" one that got it. I believe at the time I had listened to every version I could get my hands on (worked at a record store, so I could pretty much crack open anything I wanted to...yes, those were the days!).

Anyhow Karlheinz, they're all against me. What shall I do? What?...what's that, Karlheinz? You want me to say what??? Are you sure? Well, ok, if you say so. Here goes:

You're all crazy! Crazy I tell ya... crazy!!

Karlheinz said so!