The BBC Scottish and others play Sibelius

As my new sets have taken their time to arrive (and in typical Amazon incompetence the Davis set came with two copies of disc 5 and none of disc 4 - ARGH. I only seem to get this sort of nonsense with orders from Amazon), I thought I'd get started with what is probably the first Sibelius recordings I ever bought, and what a thoroughly untypical set they are:




It's worth noting that this, Bernstein's second cycle (with the VPO) is not complete (featuring only 1, 2, 5 and 7). However, it does contain readings of Britten's 4 sea interludes and Elgar's enigma variations. It also has the rather dubious distinction of having gained a review of just half a star in the Penguin Guide. Certainly, after I first bought it, it didn't encourage me to buy more and hasn't been that frequently played since. Listening though again, I do wonder why.

Certainly these readings are slow. And this is presumably more than anything, why they are slated so. Those who like their Sibelius brisk and sweeping may not be too happy. But if you can get past that there is a lot here to love.

Right from the opening bars of the first, Bernstein draws absolutely exquisite playing from the VPO - string playing is particularly extraordinary (far more beautiful than, say, anything Colin Davis draws on LSO Live - though in fairness Bernstein is not having to contend with recording in the Barbican's accoustic). Indeed, reading the liner notes it seems that is key to what Bernstein is about here: creating beautiful orchestral sounds and textures. In the slow second movement he gets a wonderful sound so like an icy wind it's quite something. The scherzo, in contrast is very brisk and also very eratic (and this is possibly the first time I am sypathetic to the Penguin Guide's viewpoint that he is pulling the score about too much). However the fourth movement is really something. There is an almost Brucknerian style to the way Bernstein builds the finale, and a wonderful way he holds his pauses building the tension. All in all this is a very satisfying reading and deserves better than half a star - this may not be Sibelius to all tastes, but it isn't awful either.

The second is perhaps the highlight of the set, and the work which fits best with his approach. Again the playing is absolutely wonderful (though still slow). That said, the first movement doesn't quite work. As with the first there are some moments of extraordinary beauty but they are rather too few and far between to justify his choice of tempi. Things very much pick up in the second movement. If flows much better and it strikes me what is so special about this reading: how visual it is. I think Sibelius is a very visual composer anyway - he creates vivid images of landscapes and temperature (icy ones, often), for me at least. However, I find this far more acute in this Bernstein set (and particularly this set) than I have ever elsewhere. In the third we get a rather frenetic, though quite beautiful, reading and with a quite wonderful lead-in to the finale. And it has some fine moments, however, occasionally he builds some wonderful (and more traditional) Sibelian momentum and you can't really help but wish he would carry on in that vein. But the finale bars are extraordinary (showing, perhaps, more than a little or Bernstein's Mahler). Indeed, on of the joys of this set is one sees so much that isn't Sibelius in it (of course, this is probably the very reason why so many cannot stand it).

It goes without saying by now that the opening of the 5th is very slow, but in the opening bars this is sublimely effective. But soon the charm of this fades somewhat, though it is never that far away - there are wonderful soaring chords and those icy winds but it doesn't quite all hang together and if anything the final bars of the movement are spoilt by being taken far too fast. In the second movement we get some lovely pizacato playing in a convincing and relativley unmannered reading. However, given that the mannerisms are really what make this cycle it feels oddly out of place. The finale starts out ordinarily enough but then slows up seriously for the main theme, what will be torturously slow for some. But I think there is some profoundly special here - some quite extraordinary textures and the way he holds his pauses long (just to limit of what you can get away with). If really is something.

What a shame there is nothing like this in the 7th. 25 minutes long and it badly feels it. Indeed, if the sloth of this set hurts anything badly it seems to be the seventh. There is a wonderful passage a few minutes before the end that I always feel like Sibelius is bringing us to the end of a long journey (indeed, just how far he takes us in a little over twenty minutes is one of the things that makes the work so special), and Bernstein pays this section about as well as I have heard it. But the effect is just plain weird as we seem to have reach the end of the journey without really seeming to have gone anywhere in the middle. And when the last notes arrive it is extremely anti-climactic (indeed, I found myself thinking, surely that wasn't the last note).


In some ways, I think this set is a must for Sibelians. It gives you what is surely a unique perspective on these works. It is certainly not the best introduction, nor a first choice. But it is interesting and there is a lot to love (and give it can be had for under £10 via Amazon's marketplace, it is also something of a bargain). Certainly, half a star is grossly unfair and lowers the Penguin Guide more than a little in my estimation.

Next up Oramo and the CBSO.

regards, Tam

Tam,

Thanks for the wonderful appraisal. I am ordering a copy as we speak.

Kind Regards,

Larry

After Bernstein and the VPO it's difficult to think what could be a more different approach to these works than Oramo. He has the added disadvantage of being comfortably the most expensive set here (I couldn't find it for much below £30), interestingly though, all four discs are available individually.

Indeed, I tried to listen to the first disc shortly after Bernstein and could not get on with it at all. Fortunately circumstances conspired and I was unable to find the time to sit down and listen for a few days and with Bernstein's slow textures a little less fresh in my mind, things were much improved. First up, while nothing in the VPO's league, Oramo draws some fine sounds from the CBSO, especially their woodwinds in the opening of the first symphony. His approach is fairly brisk, though perhaps without the pulsing drive that Davis might bring. Indeed, it would be a little unfair to categorise Oramo's reading simply as brisk, as one of the finer points is how well he blends fast an slow tempi and transitions between them. He also has an excellent sense of structure and the first movement of the first symphony builds to a wonderful climax. Often, with Sibelius, I find myself thinking 'I wonder what film composer stole this bit', with Oramo's reading, the passages are still familiar but not quite to that extent. He builds the second movement well, and yet I find myself yearning for Bernstein's icy winds. But the way he fades the music away at the end is quite something. In the third movement he not only elicits wonderful orchestral playing, but an excellent balance between the themes - this is not a reading in fits and starts as is sometimes the case. He builds to a stunning climax and by the opening of the fourth movement I am utterly convinced by the reading - to the extent of wondering how else you would want to take this symphony - and the trombone playing is something else too.

Any reading of the 3rd symphony has problems. It is my favourite and I have done it no favours by playing the Davis/LSO live reading almost to death. However, Oramo gives a good reading. The first movement is very brisk, and playing is again of the highest order with a wonderful juddering theme on the strings (which I'm not quite sure I've heard quite like that before). Again I'm struck by how well he balances the various orchestral lines. The transition into the slow movement is expertly judged and, indeed, feels like a continuation rather than a new movement (which judging from the interesting notes is something Sibelius was keen to achieve, the more so with the transition into the finale). He takes the movement very slowly, especially in comparison to the outer movements, and yet he carries it off well (better than Bernstein's perverse tempi, but this is perhaps not quite so excessive). Indeed, I often find the slow movement a little unconvincing between the wonders of the outer two - not so. Interestingly, given the notes, I was expecting a perfect flow into the finale, and there isn't. It feels more subdued and without the wonderful sweep that makes Davis so enjoyable. He build the tension very well indeed, and yet I keep wanting the climaxes to be more than they are. This is not inherently a bad thing since he does build to something rather special at the end - it's not at all the way I expect to hear this (coming from Davis or early Bernstein) but deeply satisfying none the less.

The disc finishes with Finlandia -a work I don't think I've heard before, so I can't really judge Oramo's reading, except to say it is most enjoyable and makes me want to hear it again.


The second disc has the interesting pairing of 2 and 4. The second begins at the brisk tempo that is to be expected from this set and, similarly, the transition into the second movement is almost unnoticeable. And it begins to strike me what is special about Oramo's readings - and what might have you off balance (and take against the set) if you only caught a snatch. He has an excellent sense of structure and a very clear idea of how the whole work builds - in some ways this is the polar opposite of Bernstein who is all about the incidental textures. I also read in my notes that this is a 'sunny' symphony - Bernstein brought icy visions and Oramo is only a few degrees warmer - I struggle to associate this work with the sun. Ultimately, though, in the andante, he lacks the power of Bernstein. However, in vivacissimo of the third movement, Oramo's lightness of touch really comes to the fore. He leads perfectly into the finale and builds it to a thrilling conclusion, one that has you reaching for the stop button (in the best possible way).

The 4th, rightly wrongly, enjoys something of a reputation as Sibelius's most difficult symphony, certainly it lacks the great driving themes that mark out much of his other work. However, I remain to be fully convinced by it (though I am sure that's just a question of hearing the right performance), Oramo doesn't really achieve this. As I've mentioned before, the quality of the CBSO's winds really stands out on this work. I could repeat the comments about structure that I made for the second, and the way he leads from one movement to the next is very fine (and makes me look forward all the more the 7th - almost as if he's seeing its shadow in these earlier works). I am struck here just how Wagnerian many passages in the largo third movement seem. It is a fine effort, spoilt only by the closing bars which feel more than a little rushed and don't seem to sit with what's come before. Still it is a testament to Oramo just how enjoyable he can make these two (probably me least favourite among the cannon).


Disc three brings the fifth symphony and a number of fillers. From the opening bars it feels clear that Oramo has a mastery of this work, neither to fast nor too slow he displays a mastery to tempo through all the transitions with everything feeling just right and builds the movement to a thrilling conclusion. The slow movement once again showcases the CBSO, this time with some amazing pizzicato playing. As I look at the notes I made for the work, I find I just wrote one word for the finale: wonderful. I find that says it all, this is possibly the finest interpretation of the work I've heard and the highlight of the set - lamentably I'm unable to describe quite what marks it out better - it just feels right.

The fillers - Karelia (which I recognise and enjoy very much), Pohjola's Daughter and The Bard - are all very fine, though I know none of them well enough to judge the performances.


The final disc brings the last two symphonies. The 6th is something of a letdown. There is some nice enough playing, but there is a lack of edge that was present elsewhere. The transition into the second movement seems awkward and badly managed, in start contrast to elsewhere on this cycle - possibly that is what Sibelius wanted, but it doesn't sit well with the previous 3 discs. Things begin to catch fire with the, the playing suddenly has an edge, yet the end could do with more oomph. I wasn't convinced by the opening of the finale but Oramo builds it well enough. And yet, I can't help but thinking the sense of structure that has marked out so much of this cycle is strangely absent here. The end doesn't convince at all, and in marked contrast to the awestrucking way in which earlier works faded away, he leaves you almost shouting 'what!' at the end.

The 7th is much finer. I came to it with high expectations having heard Oramo and the CBSO do this quite wonderfully live. Oramo's sense of vision suits him well to this - in many ways, despite being the shortest work, I think the last symphony takes you on the longest journey. Oramo gives a wonderful convincing and slow (though not too Bernstein slow) start and builds, becoming richer and the more convincing. As the tempo quickens he looses it slightly - it's hard to say exactly why, but things feel a little too light hearted. However, he recovers eliciting some wonderful playing - there is a perfect balance between winds and strings and at times he gets almost as icy a wind as Bernstein. The big climax towards the middle of the work is absolutely wonderful. As the tempo picks up again Oramo judges things nigh on perfectly. There is a wonderful drive in the lead in to the final slow section. But I would like a bit more weight in the closing bars. However, he does very well convey the sense of journey that I think is that heart of this work and, for the most part, it feels like a seemless piece.


As a cycle then, there is a lot worth hearing hear. 1, 3, 5 and 7 are all very fine and my reservations against 2 and 4 probably have more to do with my feelings for the works. Certainly this is a set that someone fresh to Sibelius could be very happy with. However, fine though the 5th (and 7th) is, I'm not sure it has anything that quite marks it out as essential in the way Bernstein's textures do him.

In some ways it makes me wonder if Oramo may not have more to say about these works in years to come. Still, given Warner is about to become a purely reissue label, the price of this set may well drop, and if it does, there'd be no good excuse for not giving it a spin.


regards, Tam

Well, the BBC Scottish cycle is just a couple of weeks away and only two of my new cycles remain on the to be listened to shelf (Davis/LSO, his earlier, and Rattle/CBSO). I've just surveyed Barbirolli's Halle reading (and will post my thoughts on those shortly when I've had a chance to write them up.

However, that cycle prompted me to revisit Oramo and, in particular the works there about which I held some reservations (which were roughly 2, 4 and 6).

It remains the case that the second lacks the icy chill of Bernstein or the raw power he exhibits in the third movement. However, perhaps it's time since I listened to those, as it seems to matter less. Certainly it is a deeply satisfying reading.

As, on second hearding is the fourth. I suspect it is a work which grows, and certainly the more times I listen to it the more I enjoy it. That I look back on my comments about the closing bars feeling rushed, and no longer agree, only goes to show how much mood can impact.

Much the same might be said about the 6th. I suppose it is still fair to say that it doesn't absolutely have the edge of Oramo's other readings. This makes me wonder whether listening through a cycle in pretty close succession is always that sensible since this time round Oramo's approach seems to flow very well and the lightness of touch to be just right - he was perhaps aiming for something slightly different here, but in its own way none the less satisfying. The edge I described in the 3rd movement this time seems to fit well with the way he builds the work (again, one of the wonders of this set is his sense of structure in all these works).

At risk of prejudging what my write-up of Barbirolli will say, this is probably the most satisfying cycle I have (though it's been a while since I gave Bernstein's NY set a proper listen - I shall get to them below in due course).


regards, Tam

I had planned to do Barbirolli next, and did. However, there are some works therein that require more listening before I want to post my thoughts, Rattle and the CBSO were easier to deal with:



This is another set to which I come with fairly high hopes. I have had something of a love hate relationship with Rattle: loved his Mahler, hated his Beethoven. However, I have generally found that the closer to the 20th century the composer, the more at home he is. As such, his Sibelius was a promising prospect.

Certainly the start of the 1st bears that out. The orchestra play very well, though perhaps not quite so refined as they are for Oramo. There is a nice edge to their playing. Rattle brings immense power to his climaxes (indeed, that could be argued to be an issue with this disc - it is hard to find a volume setting where the quietest passages are audible and the loudest don't earn you an ASBO, such are the extremes of contrast - that said, this is fairly typical Rattle). My only reservation would be that some of the more expansive passages lack flow. Similarly in the second movement I prefer a more lyrical reading, a flaw for which some nice orchestra effects don't really make up (Rattle, after all, and like anyone else, really, cannot best Bernstein in this department). The weightier moments lack the impact of their counterparts in the first movement. The scherzo is rather relaxed, dull even - where has the edge exhibited in the first movement gone? The finale is a little more like it, there are some of the same sort of contrasts as were to be found in the first movement, though they do not always seem to fit. In particular, things are too quiet much of the time and the end result is rather underwhelming. The filler, the Oceanades is perfectly nice, I do not know it well enough to judge. There is a nice delicacy to the playing, however, I can't help but feeling it's a little dull. I looked the recording up in the penguin guide afterwards, it said something along the lines of, what a shame the rest of the disc is not as fine as the first movement. A more than apt comment.

Disc two contains symphonies 2 and 3 (though for reasons that don't need explaining, I listened to them in reverse). Perhaps I am overly harsh on 3rds, it is my favourite, and I have probably listened to Davis too many times. However, my first thought on listening to Rattle's is that it rather lacks weight. It is also a very brisk reading, perhaps too much so and perhaps as a result there doesn't seem to be any tension. I do not know quite how he has managed to make this, one of my favourite, and I think most exciting, symphonic movements, seem quite so mundane. He does find some interesting textures (that I haven't noticed before) but there is nothing revelatory and nothing to make up for the movement's flaws. The second movement is similarly inoffensive to begin with. He sometimes does things (e.g. excessive quiet or comparative sloth) which seem designed to make things more interesting: they don't. He seems intent on picking apart the score and especially in the middle of the movement this ruins it. After a more promising few bars at the start of the finale it quickly slides back to more of the same. The Penguin Guide says this "builds magnificently" but not to these ears, anything but. True, there are flashes of brilliance, but little more. There is none of the momentum and sweep that Davis brings to this work and its bigger themes in particular. Even the normally fine playing of the CBSO is somewhat patchy. The last two comments on my notepad as I listened to this were "This is absolutely awful. What is he trying to say?". Often, I can see where Rattle is going with something, but this, very much as with his Beethoven, eludes me. As a comparison I stuck on some of the Davis, just to remind myself of the contrast and the energy he brings.

The opening of the second symphony is similarly dull. And it had me wondering whether I would actually have the will to work my way through this entire set. I cannot remember the last time I had a CD where I had to fight the urge to reach for the stop button. The playing is pretty bland, none of the quality and edge that Oramo gleans from the same ensemble. Once again I miss the sweep and the majesty of better readings. The passion with which one note follows another here is more reminiscent of the writing of a shopping list than anything else. The andante movement is odder. There is nothing really wrong with the playing, or even the tempi but somehow the edge and drama have been lost. You may dislike what Bernstein has to say about the work, but at least he has something to say and says it. I may not have been bowled over by Barbirolli and his sunny interpretation, but I wasn't reaching for the stop button either. Rattle keeps stumbling onto the larger themes, for a moment I think "oh, finally" before being almost in awe at how small he makes them. The vivacissimo is better, acceptable almost. There is a little edge, energy and beauty (especially in the slower moments). The finale, however, lacks any tension and falls back to the dullness of the earlier movements (though in fairness not quite so badly so). He does progress towards a climax, but then never really reaches it - this ruined by a speed so fast one cannot help but wonder if the CBSO were on the clock. The slower moments are better but there is no warm or cold to this (as in Barbirolli or Bernstein respectively) no, anything really. As in the 3rd, what is he trying to say. Has he anything to say. Bar for the final few bars, this really is one of the worst discs I have endured in quite some time.

Things improve with disc 3 (how could they not), which features 4 and 6. There is a wonderful menace to the opening movement of the 4th and the playing of the CBSO is really quite fine. The slow deliberate construction of the way his notes follow one another seems to work wonderfully. Oddly, as this feels as though it should be dull, it isn't in the least. The allegro is okay, certainly there are some nice effects (the drums rumbling away in the background). However, the lighter passages don't really dance as they should and the end doesn't really seem to fit with what has come before. By the start of the largo he seems to have defaulted back to dullness. Things are stretched out to the point of disjoint. It picks up somewhat and he builds well towards the end. In the closing allegro the light moments are once again too heavy and it doesn't entirely seem to fit with what has come before. It feels rather polite and, that word again, dull. The ending is rather flat. Still, I don't want to be too harsh, for a while, I wondered if this might be my favourite 4th (until the 1st movement ended) and it is certainly the best so far of a bad bunch.

In the opening bars of the 6th dullness reigns once again. The slowness lacks the beauty that Barbirolli brings to the same passage. Things improve as the pace picks up (for the first time Rattle makes such passages dance). It ends oddly though, not fitting in the same way as Oramo's. For the second movement, I find I have written just one work (no prizes): dull. The vivace is better but it still lacks edge and is, on the face of it, pretty dull (if not the stop-button dull of the second). The finale opens promisingly enough, but this promise is sadly misleading. It picks up, and certainly isn't crippled by dullness, but it is frightfully tame.

The last disc, and 5, 7 and two fillers ('Scenes with Cranes' and 'Night Ride and Sunrise'). Once again, the 5th starts fairly promisingly and Rattle finds enough interesting textures to keep the dullness at bay - yet again the sweep is missing. And three minutes or so in, just after the first big theme, the dullness sets in. Any flashes are too infrequent (for example, he finds a wonderfully broad theme and then ruins in by an absurdly quick acceleration). However, there is a brisk, energetic ending to the movement. The second is marred by excessively clinical playing and the transition to the third makes no sense to me (unlike Oramo). It opens well enough, but again, where oh where is the sweep. This feels restrained, not in the way of enhancing the tension as, say Oramo might, but more politely. There is more cacophony than climax at the end. Unlike when Mackerras, say draws out pauses, Rattle's excessive ones seem to bring no tension whatsoever. The Scenes with Cranes seems pretty dull, but I don't really know it.

The opening adagio tempo of the 7th is rather polite. As elsewhere there seems no passion to the playing, though the first entry of the trombones is nicely done. The vivacissimo lacks fire, it's dull. There is not enough contrast between the symphony's sections - it all blurs, though not in a good way. The vivace section, for example, normally brings me a sense of having come a great distance by now. Not so here. The presto picks up, maybe if what had gone before was of the same standard.... for the most part the closing adagio tempo is finer still but dullness once more rears its ugly head and the symphony closes with one of those 'is that it?' endings that mark out poor readings. Night Ride and Sunset is hard to judge, I don't know it, so I can't say whether the fact it hardly feels nocturnal is down to Rattle or Sibelius. But it is pleasant enough.

Interestingly, the work this reminds me most of is Rattle's Beethoven. There too he managed to take the most extraordinary music and render it dull. How still eludes me with that as much as with these.

Suffice to say these are not recordings I would recommend, in a word, as you may probably guess the cycle is: dull. In a sentence: desperately dull but with some flashes of brilliance, most notably in the 4th symphony. However, the discs can no longer be bought individually, and even if they could, such is the 6th, and large chunks of the 4th, that I still recommend it.

regards, Tam

p.s. sorry for excessive use of the word dull.

As mentioned in my last post, next up was Barbirolli's cycle with the Halle (and after a pleasant, especially after Rattle, afternoon/evening spent with Sir John, I have finished my revisions). Having been recommended around here (not least, if memory serves, by Fredrik), not to mention the fact that Barbirolli was an early champion of Sibelius, I came to it with pretty high hopes:



The set starts with a pleasant surprise indeed - disc one contains all 'fillers'. As a result I approached it with a degree of trepidation, something of a warm-up before the real action starts. Fortunately, Barbirolli proves all these works are much more then mere fillers. The disc starts with a wonderful Finlandia (more satisfying even than Oramo's electric account). True it is slower, but it never really feels so, the tempo just feels right (in much the same convincing way that Oramo's did). However, here we have an added weight and authority. Karelia is similarly fine - there is a real spring to the playing - as are Pohjola's Daughter and Valse triste. I don't know if the disc is available individually, but if so, it must sure rank as a must. The only 'disappointment, if such it can be called, is the Lemminkainen suite with which it finishes. I say disappointment only because it is incomplete, including only movements 2 and 4 (and given the disc runs to just 59 minutes, the others would surely have fitted). One final note, I have read of this set (especially in the penguin guide) that Barbirolli's singing along is noticeable and at times distracting (especially in The Swan of Tuonela) - I have to say I didn't much notice it.

Symphony no.1 gets off to a similarly slow start. The playing of the Halle, their wind especially, is absolutely wonderful - there is a real to the strings first entry. There is also a good chunk of Bernstein's beauty, but without the sacrifices his approach brings. The second movement is wonderfully lyrical, and yet I yearn for Bernstein's icy winds and oddly, though Barbirolli comes closer than did Oramo (perhaps because he does, and it reminds me), I find I miss it more. The extraordinary playing of the Halle marks this out elsewhere - the flutes in the 3rd movement, for instance. The finale is fairly brisk, electric and jagged in the very finest sense. It builds were for a deeply satisfying final bars. Yet it lacks quite the impact of my favourite versions. I think my reservation would be that while the movements are all very finely played, and in their own rights very good, they somehow seem to be from different interpretations - they do not fit together in the way of, say Bernstein or, more so Oramo.

The opening of the 4th is similarly promising, with the playing of the Halle probably even finer, This is certainly a work where Barbirolli's mastery of slower tempi stands out. Similarly the transition into the second movement is superbly managed and organic. The itself movement is even finer. The contrast between lighter and darker moments (with the former dancing precisely as they didn't with Rattle) is magical. In the largo the playing is once again wonderful (the way he builds the strings is particularly impressing) and at times hauntingly beautiful, particularly when the main theme first emerges, and, indeed, whenever it returns. It fades away perfectly at the end, and the opening of the finale really seems to fit. Holds a nice contrast between light and dark, wonderful percussion playing. Barbirolli manages the closing bars wonderfully. All in all, one of the finer accounts of this work I have heard.

I have another problem with the 3rd disc, which perhaps muted my enjoyment somewhat on the first listen. Like most stereo recordings of the 60s, the sound thus far was very fine. In this disc it is not, it is poor. Partly this may be down to the producer/balance engineer (which varies from work to work - interestinly 3 is less of a problem than 2) but more so the fact that the remastery on this disc was done by someone different than the others. Whatever the explanation - the sound is horrible harsh/sharp texture and to some degree this masks the orchestra's fine playing. It is the kind of thing that has you wondering whether there might not be something wrong with your system (on first listen I paused at the end of the first movement to swap discs to check). The other thing that stands out in the reading is its sunniness. I noted in my review of Oramo's cycle that his liner notes talked about what a sunny work it was (something I could hear none of in his reading) - I was therefore somewhat taken aback to hear it in this (which its icy landscapes on the cover) and I didn't really take to it. This may as much as anything be down to the novelty of this approach to me. Barbirolli frits (I think rather awkwardly) between excess slowness (not quite Bernsteinian) and playing far too fast for my liking (especially on the brass). The andante is oddly jerky, in a way that seems to rob it of its tension. Here, the balance engineer also seems to be rather at fault with some horribly 'over stereo' effects, most notably a few strings far too far to the right. The vivacissimo is similarly disappointing - this movement should not feel turgid and dull as it does here. In the finale there's a certain rhythm lacking, though in fairness to Barbirolli, much less so as the movement progresses - but again, he flits awkwardly between tempi that are turgid and terribly rushed. That said, the last two minutes are pretty superb (the slow tempo perfectly judged to build a climax) and one is left wishing that only the last 40 had been similarly so.

3 years later, a different producer and balance engineer (though same remasterer) and things are improved for the 3rd (though not where earlier discs were - the brass still especially harsh). The reading is too slow for my tastes, and yet he finds something - he manages to bring out certain orchestral lines that I don't normally notice and do so in a way which leaves it feeling much less slow than it is. However, it lacks the juddering sweep of Davis. In the slow second movement Barbirolli is much more in his element, though he doesn't take it nearly so slowly as might be expected and there is some superb playing (marred only by an annoyingly wooly sound). He transitions well into the finale and makes a pretty convincing case for going at these sorts of tempi, but I still have my doubts.

The sound quality improves somewhat for disc 4 and the 5th symphony. The Halle are on finer form and there is a sweep present to Barbirolli's reading that I have sorely missed in the last two works (though sadly the 2nd's balance engineer is present and up to his tricks - I would probably enjoy his more with the mono switch depressed). Barbirolli builds his climaxes well and the the end of the first movement is simply stunning. The second movement is if anything finer still, and with what playing from the orchestra! It also underscores a point I've noticed in several of these works, that Barbirolli can be very much at home in the slow movements (often to wonderful effect) in a way he isn't in the quicker ones. The finale opens at quite a brisk tempo but settles down to the broader pace that might be expected. There is a wonderfully dramatic ending and, in marked contrast to Rattle, the pauses, seemingly longer each time, heighten the tension magnificently. That said, I think both Bernstein or Oramo bring that bit more firey intensity, especially towards the end..

Sandwiched between 5 and 7 is the suite from Pelleas et Melisande. It's very nicely played, but no revelation - but I don't really know it well enough to judge. The 7th itself starts promisingly enough, slow (though not Bernstein like). There is a subtle, quiet nobility to the adagio opening and the organic way in which he speeds up is masterful. That said, I don't think the Halle's playing here is quite so fine as it has been earlier in the series. I would like a little more edge, especially in the vivacissimo section. But the following adagio section is extremely satisfying. However, the allegro does have some of the sweep that Davis would bring to it and the vivace more so again - but there is something that nags, I don't feel I've been taken the nearly the distance that this symphony normally feels like it's come by this point. That said, his gift for playing the adagios does lend a very special something to the closing minutes (with the exception that the closing chord doesn't quite seem to fit - though nothing like in the sore thumb kind of way it does with Rattle).

The final disc opens with Scenes historiques, Rakastava and the Romance in C (all of which are perfectly fine). The 6th symphony has a very promising slow start, but the quicker moments and for a change Barbirolli seems as at home in the brisk tempi as he does in the slow. Once more the Halle play beautifully, especially from the winds. In the second movement I really would like more more of a contrast to the first, I would also like a little more edge, especially towards the end. Vivace is very fine indeed, and nicely energetic. The closing allegro again starts promisingly (and it is interesting how sometimes Barbirolli seems totally comfortable with quicker tempi). There is again some extraordinary wind playing. The slow quiet ending is marvelously done. Satisfying then, along with 1 and 4 and 5, one of the symphonic highlights of this set.


All in all, the Barbirolli cycle has been something of a disappointment. The first disc was so fine that I expected very big things from this (not to mention the various people around here who have recommended it), there are some wonderful moments besides - not least the 4th and 5th symphonies. I wonder how much of it lies with personal taste as to how I like these works played (certainly I suspect this hinders my enjoyment of the third and possibly the second too) - and yet sometimes Barbirolli seems utterly at home with a quicker tempo and others at sea with a slower one. There is some fine stuff in this set (and unlike Bernstein it would be a safe recommendation for a first cycle) but, to these ears, it is not so fine, nor as well rounded, as Oramo's accomplishment.

I'm also a little curious whether the upward revisions of many of my opinions (compared with first listen) were helped by doing them after Rattle's efforts. Certainly, one feels Barbirolli has something to say, and that comes as something of a relief.

regards, Tam

p.s. Next up Davis/LSO (his RCA cycle as opposed to the LSO Live effort), then Bernstein in NY and finally Davis's most recent effort (not to mention the concerts which start at the beginning of next month). By which time I should have had more than enough of Sibelius [smiley]

Have just noticed a rather glaring typo in the last paragraph of the Rattle reivew:

quote:

Suffice to say these are not recordings I would recommend, in a word, as you may probably guess the cycle is: dull. In a sentence: desperately dull but with some flashes of brilliance, most notably in the 4th symphony. However, the discs can no longer be bought individually, and even if they could, such is the 6th, and large chunks of the 4th, that I still WOULDN'T recommend it.

regards, Tam

I wonder if any reader of these posts shares my preference, for most of the Sibelius symphonies, for Alexander Gibson's performances on Chandos? They seem to me to be sensitive, imaginative, flowing responses to these works. Very non-interventionist, but alive to the individuality of Sibelius's use of the orchestra, and with a strong sense of narrative -- as worthwhile in the symphonies as in the tone poems. Gibson once conducted a performance of the 4th here in Dundee which was spell-binding in its lucidity, and I persuade myself that I can hear the same qualities in these recordings. Only in the 7th do I feel the need, not of an alternative performance, but of a supplementary one. Davis (especially on LSO Live) fills that bill.

David Robb

Dear Friends,

As a whole and even in parts, even considering Tam's description of the recordings as being variable, I still find Barbirolli's set the only cycle that seems satisfying right through to me! One wonders what Robert Kajanus would have achieved if he had lived long enough to complete the task in the period from 1930 till 1932 when his death curtailed the set, which did included the most powerful Tapiola yet recorded - slow, poweful, terrifying, and totally gripping - as well as wonderful readings of One, Two, Three [the finest ever in this one), and Five (which actually shows that in couple of instances another take would have been a good idea, sadly). Kajanus was the first great Sibeius conductor, and his visits to London to perform these works under Finish State subvention in concerts and the recording studio, and the firm recomendation of Sibelius himself, probably offer us the closest glimse of what Sibelius had in mind! His concerts in London established the British tradition of Sibelius performance, which would soon be exported to the US with such as Kousevitski - a traditon still maintained today in Britain by Colin Davis, whose performances are with the same Orchestra Kajanus had at his disposal for those pioneering recordings - the LSO. Kajanus' choice as conductor for these premiere recordings was justified along these grounds: Sibelius wrote, "..., but there are none who have given them more feeling and beauty than Robert Kajanus." Kajanus premiered many of the Symphonies, and had been colaborating with Sibelius for more than thirty years when that project began.

Anther series of London recording which pleased Sibelius very much - though he was apt to praise any performance he heard, but in this case there seems to be a great deal of eveidence for another detailed collaboration - was the cycle conducted by Anthony Collins for Decca between about 1950 and 1956. These recordings contain performances with all the flexibility of tempo that Barbirolli and Kajanus use, and a similarly light touch which particularly brings to mind the readings of Kajanus, and the recent oramo recordings. I think in this we might see that Oramo is in fact reflecting something Sibelius wanted brought out. Not unrelentingly fast or rigid speeds, but rather a gossamer lightness as appropriate. Only in the slow movement of the third symphony would I wonder if the tempo is quite perfectly judged to bring out all the depth and stoicism in the musc, and here Kajanus is peerless. Sibelius view, not just mine!

These Collins recording have been reissued in splendid clean transfers from the Decca Master tapes on Beulah issued CDs. The Kajanus was best transfered on Finlandia, using the EMI transfers as a basis for a new remastering for CD, but they were also re-issued on Koch, but these are (and sound like they are) from shellac pressings...

Neither of these performers should be ignored for their contribution to comprehending what Sibelius, who never left a recording of any of his music [The Andante Festivo recording from New year's Day 1939 was rehearsed by the composer and led by someone else in the concert], actually had in mind. Barbirolli and Beecham, both worked extensively with the composer as well.

Beecham's recordings have gained consistent critical praise and hardly require my endorsement. I can only remind people of rarer things which have almost sunk because the media and critical attention has moved away from them, even though they have real significance as music making and a link with the composer himself.

I hope this helps put a bit of historical flesh onto the subject for you.

I have almost entirely refrained from commenting directly on the performances as they are, of themselves, far more interesting than my words. But by now they have been somewhat sunk under the welter of newer recordings, but will forever retain their importance. Fortunately the Collins set comes in first class, if mono, recording quality...

Kindest regards from Fredrik

Dear David,

I am intrigued - next time I go on a Sibelius spending spree I shall look out for Gibson. I agree about the Davis/LSO Live 7th, wonderful stuff (as is the third it is paired with - a truly great disc).


Dear Fredrik,

Fascinating post, as ever.

I think, in my eagerness to post it, I did not revise my Barbirolli review as fully as I should have, most particularly in that it was not quite so much a disappointment as the penultimate paragraph implies. I think a lot of my issues (especially with 2 and 3) are down to the style in which I am used to hearing these works played, a lot of the approach grew on me as I worked through it - I see why you (and others like it), I think I may just be after something a little different.

I think also, having heard him live, like David with Gibson, and been wowed, I have preference for Oramo in the repertoire. I'm sure you would find his readings interesting and when I get round to visiting you, they will certainly be among the recordings I bring.


regards, Tam

Well, last Thursday saw the opening concert of the BBC Scottish Symphony Orchestra's cycle.

On a note unrelated to the works themselves, the new City Halls is a very nice venue indeed. Sort of a cross between the Queen's Hall in Edinburgh and the Maltings (it has the shoebox shape of the Maltings, though must be shorter, and a gallery not a million miles from the queen's hall, though without the obstructive pillars). The sound seemed very fine too.

I got a slightly uneasy feeling as Volkov turned to address the audiece, fortunately he barely said anything and one had to wonder what the point of him announcing the running order was. (Though it was useful to learn the broadcasts will come in late January.)

The programme was Tapiola, Bartok's 2nd violin concerto and the 4th symphony. I don't really know Tapiola well, so it is hard to judge, but while the orchestra played well enough (and the accoustic of the hall seems very fine indeed) there seemed to be something missing. It prompted me to wonder whether Volkov is perhaps not a natural Sibelian (he is, after all, just doing one of the 5 concerts). The Bartok was much finer, but then Volkov has form in this repertoire having given a stunning reading of one of the piano concertos (with Osborn) and Bluebeard's Castle and the festival a couple of years ago.

However, he convinced me in the second half. I have said earlier in this thread that I'm not entirely sure I have got the 4th symphony up to now. Having heard it from Volkov, it strikes me that it is one of those works better suited to the concert hall - the extreme contrasts in volume make it difficult at home to choose a level that provides enough detail in the quiet moments and doesn't have the neighbours trying to get ASBOs for you in the climaxes. Volkov had perfect control though, and it built rather powerfully for me (I intend to revisit some of the 4ths in my library again now).

However, I think the best is to come, not least from tomorrow's concert where we get Vanska doing both the 3rd and Kullervo.


regards, Tam

Thanks for the report Tam. Good to hear the City Halls' a good venue. Still it's a shame these concerts are only being done in Glasgow, work ties make it impossible for me at the moment to get over there.

Ian

Dear Ian,

It annoys me too (not least because it more than doubles the ticket price) - I can't see why the BBCSSO don't run a dual programme in the two cities. Thank god for flexi-time, I say.


regards, Tam

Dear Ian,

A postscript, one of the concerts is on Sunday 26th November at 2pm. It features the second symphony and discussion that will be broadcast as on of Radio 3's Discovering Music programmes. Details and booking here:

http://www.glasgowcityhalls.com/cityhalls/index.cfm?&pid=600&EvNum=48640


regards, Tam

Well, the second two installments of the BBCSSO cycle have been and gone, one extraordinary, the other less so.


The Thursday before last was the concert in the series I had been looking forward to most. This is often dangerous since it can lead to disappointment. Osmo Vanska (a previous Chief Conductor of the orchestra) had returned, fulfilling, he told us, a promise made to return when the hall had be restored (on a side note, I am getting very fed up with the orchestra's practice of having the conductor basically just announce the programme - presumably for those too stupid to remember what was on their booking form or too cheap to by a programme, which, priced at £2, and covering two concerts a piece, are about the cheapest I've ever come across).

Anyway, Vanksa gave us the 3rd, long a favourite of mine and the Kullervo Symphony (which predates the first symphony) and is a large and bizarre choral work, all too frequently neglected from complete cycles.

The third was, from the opening bars, really something. The undulating tone he got from the strings (and in particular) the cellos in the opening bars was rather special. This was a visceral and exciting reading. And dynamic, with Vanska leaping around and crouching down on the podium. Interestingly though, and in marked contrast to some, every movement seemed judged to elict a particular response - the orchestra would quiet right down, leaning in almost, as he went down. Indeed, the quality of the orchestra's quiet playing was something that marked out this reading. On getting home I glanced at my penguin guide for some of his recordings, they complain about the excessive contrasts between loud and soft - I can only conclude they haven't experienced his readings live, as in the concert hall they are utterly convincing. He built the finale to a thrilling climax, marred only by some slightly odd tones from the winds (as some of them raised their instruments into the air). But the brass, what brass! Some of the finest such playing I have heard in a while (the SCO would do well to try and poach some of those horn players - given the number of notes theirs have fluffed at recent concerts).

Kullervo was, if anything, finer still. I did not go into it as a fan of the work, it was more a curiousity. Perhaps this is because my only exposure has been through the Davis LSO Live recording (of which more later). The first two movements were played well enough, with some extraordinary dynamism and yet more from the wonderful brass. However, the really special stuff came in the 3rd movement with the entry of the male voices from the YL Helsinki Male Voice Choir. They seem to be a chorus of choice for this work (having recorded it both with Vanska and also Salonen) and I can see why. Certainly Davis's LSO Chorus are not in the same league. There was an effortlessness to their sound and perfection to their diction without the slightest hind of sibilence. It really was a quite amazing sound (and I am curious as to how well the BBC's engineers have captured it). Kullervo's sister was also a fine voice, the 'hero' himself less so, though later on he seemed to balance much better with the orchestra so I wondered if it was slightly deliberate. The story, or this Finnish mythic hero as he seduces his sister, goes to war and then (in the final movement) falls on his sword, is quite absurd, but Sibelius orchestrates it wonderful and the chorus's hypnotic repitition was quite something. In the finale Vanska brought icy strings, the orchestra's superb brass to give an wonderful conclusion that had me humming it all the way back on the train.

Soon after I gave Davis/LSO Live a brief spring. It was poor in comparision. His timings indicate a much quicker reading than Vanska and I wonder how much this is to blame. His earlier LSO reading is significantly longer, but currently sits waiting to be listened to so I am curious to hear it.

However, I am also pretty sure whose my next Sibelius purchases will be. Vanska seems to have embarked on a comprehensive survey for BIS so I wonder if it will all be boxed up together....



Last Thursday was much less successful. Stefan Solyom (the orchestra's Associate Guest Conductor) was previously unknown to me, and it seems with good reason. He started with Night Ride and Sunrise. Now, given my only previous introduction to this piece is the Rattle cycle (see above) it is difficult to judge it fairly. I would be interested to hear a reading from a conductor whose Sibelius I rate, so I could fairly judge whether it has been the interpreters who have let the work down, or whether it is simply not as good as much of his other work. However, this reading was rather empty (though it improved towards the end) and much too loud much too often.

Next we got Ravel's piano concerto with Angela Hewitt. Again, it is hard to judge since I don't much like Ravel. But it seems Solyom is not a very good accompanist, frequently drowning out his soloist. Then again, I wonder if Hewitt is really a romantic concerto player, certainly her Bach is rather fine, but that is rather different. The person I was with said her playing was rather too heavy in the slow movement, I must say that I felt the orchestral balance too poor to judge her fairly. I would love to hear her in other repertiore.

However, the worst was saved for after the interval (most likel since I had expected the first symphony to be the highlight of the concert). In fairness it opened extremely well. Solyom stood immobile on the podium while solo clarinet and timpany opened and played the opening bars brilliantly. Then he started to move. I think the first entry of the strings in this work is one of the most dramatic and searingly beautiful in music. His was simply dull. Indeed, the whole reading was dull, souless and too loud for too much of the time. Things got worse in the second movement. I love the sound (which always calls to my mind an icy wind) that comes from the winds and, in paricular the flutes, however Solyom's orchestral balance was such the strings drowned them out almost completely. I find myself longing for the passion Bernstein would bring, or indeed, anyone who would bring something. Similarly the third movement had none of the edge and tension it ought to.

Solyom also seems to have a rather odd style - alternativing what are almost caricature 'camp' gestures and dancing and leaping about. However, in marked contrast to Vanska, if every leap is calculated to have an effect, it doesn't show. I was actually a little glad when it was over.

That said, we were in something of a minority as most of the rest of the audiece cheered rather loudly. Annoyingly it is Solyom who is give the talk/performance of the second in Sunday's Dicovering Music.

Fortunately the are getting 5, 6 and 7 from a conductor with a finer Sibelius reputation: Segerstam.


regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

I'll be interested to hear what you make of Colin Davis's earlier LSO Kullervo, as I find myself going against the grain of published reviews of his recent version and preferring that RCA one. I have them both, but got to know the work with the earlier one (obviously!) so perhaps that is why I prefer it. The difference in length and speed is indeed noticeable, and I reckon the slower one sounds weightier, more primitive and simply more awesome than the later one. RCA give it great engineering too. From your comments on the recent performance, you may well find your preferences going the same way.

David

Dear David,

I will do. The Davis/RCA cycle is next up, but I haven't been listening to much on disc lately (as I've had the concerts).

Out of interest, how do you feel about the other LSO discs. I adore the 3&7 and, while it's a while since I last listened to it, I remember being a little lukewarm about the 5&6. (I believe he is recording 1&2 during the current season with 4 to follow at some point in the future.)


However I find the Davis (RCA) Kullervo, I suspect I will end up getting Vanska's anyway (the concert is broadcast in January and I would urge forum members to listen), I think how I enjoy it will only effect how soon the order is placed.

regards, Tam

I said that Davis would be next (and he will), but I thought I'd take a moment to write up an individual Sibelius disc that I finally got round to a few weeks back. (The more so given this thread has gone a quite amazing length without proper discussion of a Mackerras recording - though I seem to have managed to mention is name in my very first paragraph.)



The disc, on the Regis Label (and so at budget price), contains the second symphony and the Swan of Tuonela (both with the LSO) and Karelia (with the RPO).

The LSO play wonderfully (not least when the extraordinary pizzicato playing) and there is an attention to detail in the score that is typical of Mackerras, yet there is still a nice flow and some excellent holding of pauses (another of his hallmarks). This is a reading that is closer to Barbirolli's warmth than Bernstein's or Oramo's chill (but not quite all the way there). He builds the big themes well. The second movement opens suitably darkly. It is compellingly played with nicely organic tempo changes. He also brings an impressive weight to the climaxes (which is possibly not what one might expect). One of the striking things in the vivacissimo is just how well he balances the firey moments with the quieter and more beautiful ones. There is something about the opening of the finale that doesn't quite feel right (on which I cannot seem to put my finger). But there is a momentum to Mackerras's playing which soon gets rid of such doubts. While it lacks Bernstein's frigidity, but I find I don't miss it and the climaxes are pretty extraordinary. The masterful quiet playing is especially beautiful. Mackerras builds towards the finale in a very deliberate manner (in a good way) and the resulting final bars really are quite something.

The fillers are both nice enough (though I don't really know the Swan all that well). The only flaw is the change in orchestra for Karelia - the RPO (though fine) are not in the same league. But they play well and there is a certain enthusiasm and it bounces along well enough. In a way, this is a fun, lighthearted reading of a fairly light piece (and that works pretty well).

Even allowing for my preferences for Mackerras, at £5, this disc is surely worth a listen.


regards, Tam

What a contrast, then, this afternoon's second from the BBC Scottish, once again under Solyom.

It didn't help much that it was preceded by a rather uninformative (and illustrated by the orchestra) talk from Stephen Johnson as part of Radio 3's 'Discovering Music'. Indeed, this rather comically showed up Solyom's inability at one point as he played while Johnson talked over the music, owning to the former's inability as an accompanist, despite amplification, Johnson was often inaudible. Still, the talk afforded me time to make some progress on the crossword, so it wasn't entirely wasted.

As the work began I wondered if Solyom was actually going to show us he could play quietly, this was, however, deceptive as the quiet momemnts came simply because only one or two sections of the orchestra were playing. His tempi were, by and large, far too brisk, particularly in the larger themes, sapping them of a lot of their majesty. He pauses too presented start contrast to Mackerras - with him, they are excruciating (in the best of ways), so desparately do want to hear the next note. Here, they are merely puzzling and there seemed no real reason for him to have stopped - there was no tension at all.

In many ways it was a mirror of Thursday's first - the slow movement lacking the depth and beauty, vivacissimo lacking the kind of edge it ought to have (and the transition from there into the finale rather poorly brought off). The finale itself seemed merely an excuse to demonstrate that if you thought he was playing loudly previously, you were mistaken, culminating in a finale few bars where he seemed to labour under the mistaken impression that loudness is directly proportional to dramam.

Actually, even when he wasn't playing that loudly, the orchestra had an odd shouty tone to it. Odd too was the way his movements as a conductor seemed to bear next to no resemblence to the sounds coming from the orchestra - indeed, I did rather wonder whether (as I have sometimes seem before) the orchestra were largely ignoring him and getting on with it themselves (certainly this might account for the fact that the balance between the sections was so poor - this might almost have been an orchestration for string orchestra with occasional brass).

The audience was rather full of school parties (which I suppose is no bad thing). For the most part they behaved well and, to be honest, when they didn't, it barely bothered me (as it might have done had this been a better reading). And they seemed to have enjoyed it, cheering very enthusiastically. Still, I often wonder with banal readings like this, whether I am a victime of my own record collection - perhaps if you haven't heard a great reading of a work, the kind that we heard this afternoon can seem it.


regards, Tam

Dear Tam,

I don't have the LSO Live versions of 5 and 6, having been put off by slightly lukewarm reviews when they appeared, and in any case I'm happy enough with the RCA versions of these. So why spend the money? I purchased 3 and 7, though, because I had felt slightly disappointed with the RCA 7th, and because there seems to be a slight flaw in my copy of the RCA 3rd -- not enough to stop the disc playing, but enough to be off-putting. But I find that I prefer the later performances of these two, anyway. The LSO Live disc of Sibelius 3 and 7 is, I reckon, terrific.

I'll be interested to see what eventually emerges as a new Davis version of 4, however. The RCA 4th is another I thought would be better than I think it actually is, as a few years previously I'd listened to Davis conducting this, on the radio (while I did the washing-up). That struck me as a fantastic performance, and I hope he can repeat it in due course.

David

Well, last night saw the finale of the series that sparked this thread. What a shame it was not the valedictory that might have been hoped for.

Conductor Leif Segerstam was on duty for symphonies 5, 6 and 7. Things did not start especially well, there was something about the opening of the 5th that wasn't right but on which I struggled to put my finger on. Certainly it was painfully slow - running around 40 minutes. This is fine enough if you are Leonard Bernstein and can conjour the unique sonic pictures he manages with the VPO. Segerstam couldn't. It also seems he is certainly his pupil's (Solyom) teacher - in that his sense of orchestral balance is very poor. Paricularly the wonderful theme on the strings in the closing bars which was completely washed out. Similarly to his pupil, he also seems to equate volume with balance (indeed, at places in the 7th it was painfully loud). The second movement suffered from similar problems and more - the big themes don't really ever seem to emerge at all - there is no sweep or flow at all. Indeed, he seemed not to quite be in control of things, not least in the way he jerked through the transition into the finale. Which suffered horribly from 'Mahler 9 syndrome' (namely the way in which that work can, in the wrong hands, seem horribly like a series of disjointed minatures - I would never imagined it possible to do this to Sibelius). He builds no tension, no themes. The final chords utterly underwhelm. Still, the audience by and large seem to disagree (and I once again wonder if having heard so many fine readings on disc makes it impossible to enjoy lukewarm performances).

However, the 6th was some way below lukewarm. Balance was if anything, more of an issue (the more subtle moments are not allowed through). This is compounded by extraordinary sloth (again running in at close to 40 minutes). Both the first and second movements end in an almost commical manner in a kind of - you're kidding, that surely wasn't the last chord - way. In some bad readings, at least one now and again gets the wonderful Sibelian themes and things 'this is more like it'. But Segerstam never allows them to emerge. The big themes are fumbled so badly. There is no bite or tension to what should be the exciting vivace of the third movement which ends with the most bizzare climax coming deafeningly out of nowhere. In the 4th movement it became clear to me that his problem was rather more profound than a poor sense of orchestral balance - he had a total lack or orchestral control - the big climaxes in this movement should not sound like a cacophony in this sort of a way. The beauty of the movement's opening is utterly lost.

However, it was the 7th that was possibly the most disappointing of all. Perhaps because I had fond memories of a wonderful concert from Oramo and the CBSO. The opening bars displayed some of the poorest orchestral playing I have heard in some years. The various instruments were all over the place. In fairness to them they recovered slightly in the next few minutes and for a moment I wondered if this would turn out to be the evening's highlight. It was not. When the trombones first entered, there was something awfully funny in the balance within the section. The faster moments (though this is a rather relative term as there was not nearly enough contrast in tempi) did not work at all. Again it suffered horribly from Mahler 9 issues and the cacophony of the 6th. The sense of journey's end towards the end was utterly absent. The lack of balance was debilitating - towards the end the strings drowned the trombones utterly (and the music was painfully loud). There textures were awful too - there is a string theme that has a wonderful 'icy wind' feel in the best readings, in Segerstam's hands it sounded like rather dull scales played badly. When he paused it was worse - comically bad even, there seemed no reason to it (other perhaps than to further butcher the music). The final chords had little impact (though the audience seemed rather to have enjoyed this one too).

Segerstam conducts in an oddly lacklustre way - indeed one wonders if he is past it, but a quick google shows him barely over 60. Perhaps its his weight, but the energy with which Mackerras (some 20 years his elder) strides to the podium and then conducts rather puts him to shame. Segerstam merely waddles there and one almost wonders if he will be able to climb onto the podium. His gestures hardly change at all with the music and he never seems to direct the players. Not a huge matter mind, since they never seem to be paying him the slightest bit of attention. In a way it makes me appreciate Solyom more - he may of lacked the nuance of balance but he did not lack for enthusiasm and his BBC Scottish was not all over the place in the same way.

I am in awe at Segerstam's ability to make this music so un-visual and so un-evocative. It amazes me that he has recorded them all twice (at least now I know I need not bother checking them out).

All in all a rather disappointing series, why could they not have engaged some of the fine Sibelians based in this country - Oramo or Davis! When the broadcasts make it to R3 (late January) the 3rd and Kullervo with Vanska are an absolute must. Volkov's 4th is well worth hearing. But less so the rest.


regards, Tam

I just thought I'd bump this thread. For two reasons (sadly, neither of which is that I've listened to any more Sibelius), firstly because I hope soon to complete it and wanted to prevent it getting locked as it will shortly. Secondly, the BBC Scottish concerts which left me largely unimpressed (save for Vanska's magic) are on Radio 3 soon (with the Discovering Music at 2pm on Saturday 20th and the concerts to follow in Performance on 3 from the 22nd - the Vanksa concert, my highlight is on the 23rd).

Davis was to be up next, but I recently stopped by my local CD shop and picked up a 15 disc box from BIS (which can be had for under £60), titled the Essential Sibelius which contains, among other things, the Vanska cycle of the symphonies along with Kullervo so that has jumped ahead in the queue.


regards, Tam

quote:

The programme was Tapiola, I don't really know Tapiola well, so it is hard to judge, but while the orchestra played well enough (and the accoustic of the hall seems very fine indeed) there seemed to be something missing.

I'm listening to this on R3's "listen again" having missed the broadcast. Tapiola was featured in "Discovering music" a few weeks ago, and I've been playing it on a daily basis ever since, so I feel qualified to comment.

The major problem with Volkov’s interpretation was a total lack of feeling for the piece. He seemed to want to get through it as quickly as possible, losing the sense of vast emptiness that the work portrays. A real botched job.

If you want a better idea of what Tapiola is all about, try Karajan’s recording. There are two to choose from, one on EMI from the mid 70’s and DGG from ’84, I have both and would recommend the earlier EMI version but there isn’t much in it.

p.s.

I agree, Volkov was much better with the 4th symphony.

Another bump before it gets locked!

On impulse I bought a CD of Mariss Jansons with the Oslo Philharmonic playing the third and fifth symphonies.

Breathtaking, simply breathtaking!

Unfortunately he only seems to have recorded the 2nd, 3rd and 5th.

Dear Basil,

There was a rather discouraging review of the recent 2nd from Jansons with the Concertgebouw (on their own label). It suggested that the four or five months that separated the various concerts it was spliced together from had done it no favours.

That said, Jansons has impressed me when I've heard him, so I shall have to look out for the disc of three and five (is it one of his Chandos recordings?).


As far as Karajan goes, I haven't heard any of his Sibelius (and to be absolutely honest I've not in the past been all that keen on some the few of his recordings I own - that said, I've liked very much what I've heard of his Strauss). That said, I would still be very interested to hear some of his Sibelius.


regards, Tam