Kurt Atterberg (1887-1974)

[Mirror Image]

I like Järvi's earlier recordings, but I feel he's a conductor that has phoned it in years ago. I do really love his early work on BIS and his earlier Chandos recordings, especially his Prokofiev.

[Symphonic Addict]

I've only heard the recordings of symphonies 1 and 9. Järvi and his orchestra are very good on the 1st.

[vandermolen]

I still value a lot of Jarvi's old recordings for BIS, particularly the Sibelius, which seems to have been supplanted in the BIS catalog by the Vaska recordings, which I find not nearly as convincing.

The later part of Jarvi's career, however, strikes me as mass production. I never felt a need to add to the cpo Atterberg set, which I cherish.

I'm inclined to agree with you BS. Some of his earlier recordings were terrific. For example, Khachaturian's Second Symphony on Chandos - I don't know a better performance, the opening is marvellously intimidating in his recording! The Tubin symphony cycle on BIS is another highlight for me and preferable, IMO, to the Volmer cycle on Alba (which I also enjoy). However, as has been said, his Atterberg cycle was largely disappointing, in my view, because of the hasty tempos, much the same can be said of his recording of Raff's Symphony No.5 'Lenore'. There is a very good Jarvi recording of Paul Creston's Second Symphony. One recording that I do like is one that received little love elsewhere - Copland's Third Symphony with Roy Harris's Third Symphony and there's a VW Honegger CD:[asin][/asin]

[Roasted Swan]

This is the key.  Jarvi was a horrible Atterberg conductor.  He clearly didn't care for the composer or like the music.  He was more about adding more recordings to his list.  To me as a fan of Atterberg, the chandos series said much more about how unreliable Jarvi was as a conductor.  His 1980's recordings were considerably finer than his modern releases which are purely commercially focused as the performers will attest.  Performers on some of these Chandos releases literally said this.  No rehearsing, just recording with a possible patch then move on.  I am very disappointed in his recent Chandos releases and have realized I need to avoid them.

Back in the early '80's when I was a music student, a friend got some work depping with the (then) Scottish National Orchestra who were making their first recording with Neeme Jarvi.  If memory serves it was the Chandos 2 disc set of suites from Rimsky Korsakov operas.  The friend said what an impact Jarvi had and indeed that set still sounds remarkably good.  I'm not sure that Jarvi's basic interpretational style has changed much over the years; dynamic and temperamental extremes with tempi often on the faster side of things but it did seem that in those earlier years he backed up the style of performance with a personal/emotional engagement that made for often compelling and convincing recordings.  Now - a bit like Mehta sadly - he seems to simply go through the motions of producing performances that "work" and are perfectly OK but with little depth or care.  But he must be a record producer's delight - quick and a safe pair of hands......

[Ratliff]

Back in the early '80's when I was a music student, a friend got some work depping with the (then) Scottish National Orchestra who were making their first recording with Neeme Jarvi.  If memory serves it was the Chandos 2 disc set of suites from Rimsky Korsakov operas.  The friend said what an impact Jarvi had and indeed that set still sounds remarkably good.  I'm not sure that Jarvi's basic interpretational style has changed much over the years; dynamic and temperamental extremes with tempi often on the faster side of things but it did seem that in those earlier years he backed up the style of performance with a personal/emotional engagement that made for often compelling and convincing recordings.  Now - a bit like Mehta sadly - he seems to simply go through the motions of producing performances that "work" and are perfectly OK but with little depth or care.  But he must be a record producer's delight - quick and a safe pair of hands......

I was listening to that Rimsky-Korsakov set recently, and it is indeed splendid.

[71 dB]

Ok, I just finished listening to the 2nd Symphony on Spotify, this time Ari Rasilainen since people seem to dislike post 80's Neeme Järvi.

I think the 2nd is a bit better than the 1st, but my mind wasn't blown away yet, nor am I hooked to the composer at this point, but then again Atterberg has seven Symphonies left to really impress me and of course it can be a non-Symphony work that blows my mind.  0:)

Atterberg uses orchestra nicely and gives me occationally Elgarian vibes, but the orchestral colors aren't as vibrant. The music is somewhat complex and there's nice amount of counterpoint althou at times the music feel childish (as if it was movie music from a bad action flick) and a few bars here and there feels like "placeholders" for better ideas that never happened. At best Atterberg's chord progression tastes delicious. At worst it feels like small miss-steps that take away the momentum of the music temporarily. Atterberg is surprisingly uneven in this sense. It's as if he tried hard and had 80 % control of what he was doing and sometimes managed to achieve great things, but sometimes not.

Movement two of Symphony two has been the strongest movement so far. The adagio - presto - adagio - presto - adagio structure makes it effective "flip-flopping" and the material isn't bad at all.

Now some of you probably tell me how this is completely wrong analyse of the composers music, but this is after hearing his 2 first symponies once each and I don't have a formal music theory education. This is about what Atterbergs music does to me so the way I analyse music is relevant, no matter how stupid it is from academic point of view. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. This is not about facts. This is about taste and how we listen to music.

[kyjo]

I'm inclined to agree with you BS. Some of his earlier recordings were terrific. For example, Khachaturian's Second Symphony on Chandos - I don't know a better performance, the opening is marvellously intimidating in his recording! The Tubin symphony cycle on BIS is another highlight for me and preferable, IMO, to the Volmer cycle on Alba (which I also enjoy). However, as has been said, his Atterberg cycle was largely disappointing, in my view, because of the hasty tempos, much the same can be said of his recording of Raff's Symphony No.5 'Lenore'. There is a very good Jarvi recording of Paul Creston's Second Symphony. One recording that I do like is one that received little love elsewhere - Copland's Third Symphony with Roy Harris's Third Symphony and there's a VW Honegger CD:[asin][/asin]

I agree about the excellence of Jarvi's Tubin, Creston, and Harris recordings. Oddly enough, I enjoyed his markedly brisk yet undeniably exciting Raff 5 (I think it's my overall favorite recording of the work), especially in the outer movements, but it's not perfect by any means - the poignant central section of the third movement depicting the parting of the lovers (I think?) is rushed through with little feeling.

[kyjo]

Ok, I just finished listening to the 2nd Symphony on Spotify, this time Ari Rasilainen since people seem to dislike post 80's Neeme Järvi.

I think the 2nd is a bit better than the 1st, but my mind wasn't blown away yet, nor am I hooked to the composer at this point, but then again Atterberg has seven Symphonies left to really impress me and of course it can be a non-Symphony work that blows my mind.  0:)

Atterberg uses orchestra nicely and gives me occationally Elgarian vibes, but the orchestral colors aren't as vibrant. The music is somewhat complex and there's nice amount of counterpoint althou at times the music feel childish (as if it was movie music from a bad action flick) and a few bars here and there feels like "placeholders" for better ideas that never happened. At best Atterberg's chord progression tastes delicious. At worst it feels like small miss-steps that take away the momentum of the music temporarily. Atterberg is surprisingly uneven in this sense. It's as if he tried hard and had 80 % control of what he was doing and sometimes managed to achieve great things, but sometimes not.

Movement two of Symphony two has been the strongest movement so far. The adagio - presto - adagio - presto - adagio structure makes it effective "flip-flopping" and the material isn't bad at all.

Now some of you probably tell me how this is completely wrong analyse of the composers music, but this is after hearing his 2 first symponies once each and I don't have a formal music theory education. This is about what Atterbergs music does to me so the way I analyse music is relevant, no matter how stupid it is from academic point of view. I don't expect anyone to agree with me. This is not about facts. This is about taste and how we listen to music.

Thanks for reporting back with your impressions! The 2nd may just be my favorite symphony of his, with its magnificent central movement which ingeniously combines slow movement and scherzo and features one of Atterberg's most ecstatically glorious melodies. I also love the way he uses orchestral piano in this work (as well as in the 5th symphony).

[vandermolen]

I was listening to that Rimsky-Korsakov set recently, and it is indeed splendid.

+1 for both your comments.

[vandermolen]

I agree about the excellence of Jarvi's Tubin, Creston, and Harris recordings. Oddly enough, I enjoyed his markedly brisk yet undeniably exciting Raff 5 (I think it's my overall favorite recording of the work), especially in the outer movements, but it's not perfect by any means - the poignant central section of the third movement depicting the parting of the lovers (I think?) is rushed through with little feeling.

I must listen to the Raff again. I enjoyed it but some sections sounded rushed as far as I recall. I seem to recall enjoying recordings by Butt and Herrmann.

[71 dB]

Thanks for reporting back with your impressions! The 2nd may just be my favorite symphony of his, with its magnificent central movement which ingeniously combines slow movement and scherzo and features one of Atterberg's most ecstatically glorious melodies. I also love the way he uses orchestral piano in this work (as well as in the 5th symphony).

ATT3RBERG:
After the hype of this symphony I was a bit disappointed. I did not like this one as much as I liked the 2nd. The third starts nicely with a pastoral feel, but the first movement becomes dull. The second movement has pretty weak material and it's as if Atterberg though making the orchestration as stormy as possible will fool the listeners. The last minute of the second movement is good and sounds nice after 10 minutes of "storm." The rather long finale is as dull as the second movement except for the last 4 minutes where Atterberg becomes almost Carl Nielsen. The Elgarian feel of the first two symphonies is gone and instead this symphony gives me feel of Sibelius and the second movement "Khachaturian."

The second symphony was promising, but the third killed my hopes. Perhaps Atterberg just isn't my cup of tea?

[vandermolen]

ATT3RBERG:
After the hype of this symphony I was a bit disappointed. I did not like this one as much as I liked the 2nd. The third starts nicely with a pastoral feel, but the first movement becomes dull. The second movement has pretty weak material and it's as if Atterberg though making the orchestration as stormy as possible will fool the listeners. The last minute of the second movement is good and sounds nice after 10 minutes of "storm." The rather long finale is as dull as the second movement except for the last 4 minutes where Atterberg becomes almost Carl Nielsen. The Elgarian feel of the first two symphonies is gone and instead this symphony gives me feel of Sibelius and the second movement "Khachaturian."

The second symphony was promising, but the third killed my hopes. Perhaps Atterberg just isn't my cup of tea?

Try No.5 'Funebre' - my favourite.

[Mirror Image]

ATT3RBERG:
After the hype of this symphony I was a bit disappointed. I did not like this one as much as I liked the 2nd. The third starts nicely with a pastoral feel, but the first movement becomes dull. The second movement has pretty weak material and it's as if Atterberg though making the orchestration as stormy as possible will fool the listeners. The last minute of the second movement is good and sounds nice after 10 minutes of "storm." The rather long finale is as dull as the second movement except for the last 4 minutes where Atterberg becomes almost Carl Nielsen. The Elgarian feel of the first two symphonies is gone and instead this symphony gives me feel of Sibelius and the second movement "Khachaturian."

The second symphony was promising, but the third killed my hopes. Perhaps Atterberg just isn't my cup of tea?

As if Sibelius analogy could be seen as a negative criticism. As for the second movement, he wasn't 'fooling' anyone and I think that kind of criticism is childish on your part. The 3rd is a masterpiece regardless of what you say about it. Also, your Elgar comparison doesn't make any sense to me. Atterberg is closer to Rachmaninov than Elgar.

[Brian]

I do think the storm movement is way too long/repetitive. But to me the ending is very "old Hollywood," like a 40s movie score or even young John Williams, rather than Nielsen.

[71 dB]

As if Sibelius analogy could be seen as a negative criticism. As for the second movement, he wasn't 'fooling' anyone and I think that kind of criticism is childish on your part. The 3rd is a masterpiece regardless of what you say about it. Also, your Elgar comparison doesn't make any sense to me. Atterberg is closer to Rachmaninov than Elgar.

Butthurt are you? Sorry if my opinions are childish to you. I don't claim to have a deep understanding of Atterberg's art at his point. These are my initial impressions and they might evolve in time. I could say my mind is blown away by every bar of music written by Atterberg, but I'd be lying. I try to be honest here and if it's childish then it is. How professional analyse do you expect from someone who is a total newbie to the composer in question? Yes, Atterberg could be closer to Rachmaninov than Elgar, but the first two symphonies gave me feel of Elgarian use of orchestra and I am an Elgarian, not a Rachmaninovian, nor a fan of Sibelius even if I am a Finn. 

[71 dB]

I do think the storm movement is way too long/repetitive. But to me the ending is very "old Hollywood," like a 40s movie score or even young John Williams, rather than Nielsen.

Sorry, if I was unclear. I said the finale (third) movement is rather long (not repetitive) and the last 4 minutes for me are one of the highlights of the symphony and had feel of Carl Nielsen. Yes, the end of the second movement "Storm" could be John Williams and I liked it. I like John Williams' scores. He is my favorite Movie composer.

What I say about these Atterberg symphonies is not to taken as DEEP theoretical academic analyse of the music! This is my impressions when hearing these symphonies for the first time in my life. Please don't take them too seriously and I don't expect other people to have the same impressions. If you have totally different impressions fine, but please don't tell MY impressions are wrong, because they are REAL impressions to me, what I feel when hearing this music.

[Mirror Image]

Butthurt are you? Sorry if my opinions are childish to you. I don't claim to have a deep understanding of Atterberg's art at his point. These are my initial impressions and they might evolve in time. I could say my mind is blown away by every bar of music written by Atterberg, but I'd be lying. I try to be honest here and if it's childish then it is. How professional analyse do you expect from someone who is a total newbie to the composer in question? Yes, Atterberg could be closer to Rachmaninov than Elgar, but the first two symphonies gave me feel of Elgarian use of orchestra and I am an Elgarian, not a Rachmaninovian, nor a fan of Sibelius even if I am a Finn. 

My point is making a criticism which mentions a composer 'fooling' a listener is actually a foolish opinion, because you don't know what the intention of the composer was and to reduce it, somehow, to saying he's trying to pull a 'fast one' on the listener made me cringe. That's all I'm saying.

[71 dB]

My point is making a criticism which mentions a composer 'fooling' a listener is actually a foolish opinion, because you don't know what the intention of the composer was and to reduce it, somehow, to saying he's trying to pull a 'fast one' on the listener made me cringe. That's all I'm saying.

You are right, I don't know what Atterberg was thinking while composing this work. That's why I said:

"it's as if Atterberg though making the orchestration as stormy as possible will fool the listeners."

The underlined portion should tell you I didn't claim Atterberg decided to fool people.  Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't. Most probably he didn't, but the second movement gave me this IMPRESSION regardless of what Atterberg himself was doing himself and what his intentions were. Maybe he simply had an artistic vision to compose stormy music and that's it. Please take my posts a bit less seriously. Thank you.

[kyjo]

ATT3RBERG:
After the hype of this symphony I was a bit disappointed. I did not like this one as much as I liked the 2nd. The third starts nicely with a pastoral feel, but the first movement becomes dull. The second movement has pretty weak material and it's as if Atterberg though making the orchestration as stormy as possible will fool the listeners. The last minute of the second movement is good and sounds nice after 10 minutes of "storm." The rather long finale is as dull as the second movement except for the last 4 minutes where Atterberg becomes almost Carl Nielsen. The Elgarian feel of the first two symphonies is gone and instead this symphony gives me feel of Sibelius and the second movement "Khachaturian."

The second symphony was promising, but the third killed my hopes. Perhaps Atterberg just isn't my cup of tea?

Maybe you'll enjoy his more concise symphonies, like the 4th, 6th, and 8th, more?  

[Mirror Image]

Maybe you'll enjoy his more concise symphonies, like the 4th, 6th, and 8th, more?

Doesn't really matter if all he'll do is compare him to Elgar.