# Favorite Sibelius Symphony



## Tapkaara

As a die-hard Sibelian, I could list any of the master's 7 symphonies as a personal favorite piece of music.

However, if I were asked to pick only one, it would be the 2nd. Okay, so this is Sibelius's most universally popular symphony, but I do feel ashamed to admit it's my favorite. 

Anyone else?


----------



## Atabey

I agree on 2nd.Its finale overwhelms me in a way that is so rare.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

I agree with the above posters' choice of favorite... however (at the risk of seeming curmudgeonly) this is ground we have trod upon beforehttps://www.talkclassical.com/threads/3274/.


----------



## Tapkaara

Oh my, indeed we have...and I even participated in it...I completely forgot!

Well, I suppose if a moderator would like to delete this thread...!


----------



## david johnson

*#1 #1 #1 #1 #1*


----------



## Elgarian

What I say is: if a thing's worth saying once, it's worth saying twice. Why shouldn't we celebrate the great man's symphonies multiple times, like this?

I don't care how popular the 2nd symphony is: that's a reflection of its intrinsic greatness. Either it, or no 1, would be my personal favourite. I can't remember what I said before, but on this occasion I'm going to vote for number 1, on the grounds of that unforgettable clarinet solo at the beginning, and the wonderful windsweptness of the music that it leads into. If a musical equivalent can be found for images of snow and fir-clad slopes in wild northern landscapes, then surely this is, definitively, it.

Seasonal, too. _Jingle Bells_, anyone?


----------



## World Violist

Elgarian said:


> I can't remember what I said before, but on this occasion I'm going to vote for number 1, on the grounds of that unforgettable clarinet solo at the beginning, and the wonderful windsweptness of the music that it leads into. If a musical equivalent can be found for images of snow and fir-clad slopes in wild northern landscapes, then surely this is, definitively, it.


Indeed, that clarinet solo is absolutely unforgettable. It's rather in the same family as the equally haunting cello solo of Pohjola's Daughter.

I'm still keeping with No. 7, although there may be some contenders for once  ; we'll see about it.


----------



## David C Coleman

Hmm that's really hard as they are so very different from each other.

But I would put them in order:-

No. 5
No. 2
No. 1
No. 3
No. 7
Kullervo
No. 4
No. 6


----------



## Habib

I've listened to Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 & 7 and the one I like best is No. 4. It was written at a time when he was struggling with depression and alcoholism, and the music reflects that. I like the way in which the finale begins to build up to a conventional climactic ending, but then in the last few minutes the music concludes in a slow and moody way. This perhaps expresses the mood swings he was suffering from. I think he really found his voice in this symphony.


----------



## hdk132

Ah, it makes me happy to see Sibelius lovers =)
I love the 2nd. If the mere idea of being in 6/4 isn't cool enough (I wrote something in 6/4 before I knew about the 2nd), what he does with it (1st movment) is amazing. He ties the original 2 bar motif in throughout the movement very nicely. The 2nd movement is very powerful; I believe it is about opression?

I don't know if it counts as a symphony, but Valste Triste is a great work. Playing it was quite an experiance--good cello part.


----------



## KScott

Though Carl Nielsen is, and will remain, my all-time favorite Scandinavian symphonist, the seven orchestral symphonies of Jean Sibelius are indeed some of the strongest works to come out of the first quarter of the 20th century.

My all-time favorite? I have a soft spot for the E minor symphony, having conducted it a couple of times and would love to conduct it again. But I also echo Habib's choice of the fourth, a masterwork of personal angst, compositional concision and a natural use of the orchestra where all of his demons abide and roost. It is a very dark composition that needs to be played with an impersonal touch.

That said, No. 2 is always going to be the favorite no matter what. It's a big, sweeping Nordic symphony with clear-cut themes and a classical structure that keeps the mind attuned. The best recording of this work for me is Sir John Barbirolli's with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra from 1962. It's far more vivid than his older recording with the New York Philharmonic from 1938, and his later recording with the Halle Orchestra for EMI.

No. 5 was my introduction to Sibelius, and is my third favorite. It's a powerhouse that says it all. My favorite recordings? Georges Pretre from the late 1960s for RCA, and Karajan's EMI recording from the mid-1970s.

After that, the sixth. No one plays it, which is very sad. It's a very nice symphony that deserves more exposure, which leaves the third and seventh.

I'm not a fan of the third, even though I have heard two splendid recordings - Ashkenazy and Colin Davis (his first recorded cycle with the Boston Symphony is the one to really own), while you have to be in the right frame of mind for the seventh. Beecham's old recordings are worth owning, though the first one he did with the New York Philharmonic is a bit on the shaky side.

There are my takes on this great symphonist.

As for other Scandinavian symphonists, what does the panel think of the symphonies of Holmboe, Pettersson, Valen, Rangstroem, Segerstam, Alfven and Tubin?


----------



## handlebar

The 2nd is my favourite indeed!

Jim


----------



## World Violist

KScott said:


> I'm not a fan of the third, even though I have heard two splendid recordings - Ashkenazy and Colin Davis (his first recorded cycle with the Boston Symphony is the one to really own), while you have to be in the right frame of mind for the seventh. Beecham's old recordings are worth owning, though the first one he did with the New York Philharmonic is a bit on the shaky side.


Maybe you should hear different recordings of Sibelius' 3rd and 7th symphonies. Colin Davis' Boston cycle is not all it's cracked up to be; he has too much of a "let's be civil" attitude that does not befit Sibelius. For the 3rd symphony, I'd look to Paavo Berglund and Osmo Vanska. These are really two of the greatest Sibelius conductors I've ever heard, period, and the 3rd is a high point in both of their respective cycles (though I don't think Vanska has a low point, while Berglund has only one: the 7th).

As for the 7th, I would take a listen to Leonard Bernstein's older recording with the New York Philharmonic. It is a very good introductory recording of this work, and Bernstein, typically, whips the orchestra into a veritable storm of intensity toward the end. Another favorite for me is Colin Davis' LSO Live recording (not to be confused with the studio LSO cycle he made some time earlier). This is the real Colin Davis Sibelius to own, in my opinion, as the suffocating civility has given way to a burnished passion for the music and some truly stunning and moving interpretation--no more evident than in the 7th.

By the way, I speak as someone who is exactly the opposite of you as far as the Sibelius symphonies go: 1, 2, and 5 are at the bottom of my list, 4 is in the middle (though I too count it as a true masterpiece), and 3, 6, and 7 rest at the top in no particular order because I couldn't bear to put them in one.


----------



## david johnson

*#1*, and i do enjoy the others.

dj


----------



## hdk132

Anyone a fan of Esa-Pekka Salonen? I like his interpretations; he really seems to get inside the music. He also has a personal connection with Sibelius because he comes from Scandinavia: Sibelius's folk-originating themes remind him of home or something to that effect.


----------



## World Violist

Actually Salonen comes from Finland. I don't know what to think about his interpretations; they seem a bit odd to me at the moment. Maybe they'll grow on me someday.


----------



## Conor71

I enjoy all of Sibelius's Symphonies greatly and my favourite is No. 5.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Just popped by to say "Hi" and what a nice thread this is.

Five.


----------



## Tapkaara

Kurki, my friend...how nice to see you!


----------



## PostMinimalist

Nobody for No.3 yet?

Well It's my fav, I love the string writing here and the cross rhythms are just magical.
I've played a few times and it never ceases to cheer me up sitting in the bass section!
FC


----------



## World Violist

post-minimalist said:


> Nobody for No.3 yet?
> 
> Well It's my fav, I love the string writing here and the cross rhythms are just magical.
> I've played a few times and it never ceases to cheer me up sitting in the bass section!
> FC


For me it's very often a toss-up between 3, 6, and 7 as to which is my favorite at any given moment. I can hardly say I'm very consistent anymore. At the moment 6 is my favorite; once one gets used to it it's a flawless, endlessly deep gem.


----------



## Lisztfreak

357

If I had to choose one, I'd go for the No.3, I guess. So there's one more, post-minimalist!


----------



## Edward Elgar

2 and 5. Don't make me choose! 

I'm having trouble with the rest of them to be honest. I'd like to enjoy them but I can't seem to really get into them. What am I missing?


----------



## Tapkaara

Edward Elgar said:


> 2 and 5. Don't make me choose!
> 
> I'm having trouble with the rest of them to be honest. I'd like to enjoy them but I can't seem to really get into them. What am I missing?


Sibelius is a "mysterious" composer. His 7 symphonies may not be the easiest in the repertoire, but once you have cracked their different codes, I think the rewards are many.

Maybe you are not missing anything, Elgar, and his idiom doesn't speak to you.I know this is the case for many.

Is there a symphony in particular you have trouble with?


----------



## PostMinimalist

I think I could also say that from a playing point of view the 4th is my least favourite. It's quite hard and the pay back is not as much as in the others. And it's quite short, too short.


----------



## Tapkaara

post-minimalist said:


> I think I could also say that from a playing point of view the 4th is my least favourite. It's quite hard and the pay back is not as much as in the others. And it's quite short, too short.


The 4th is as strange a symphony ever written. This is definitely a work that one does not typically listen to for pleasure.

I think of it as the first "modernist" masterpiece...written a whole 2 years before The Rite.


----------



## tahnak

*Favourite Sibelius Symphony*

His Seventh in C Major.
Lorin Maazel/Wiener Philharmoniker


----------



## Bach

"If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'."

Music with self-proclaimed organic growth is generally meandering and overblown.

Now, tell me why I'm wrong.


----------



## Tapkaara

tahnak said:


> His Seventh in C Major.
> Lorin Maazel/Wiener Philharmoniker


Ah you mention the Maazel/Vienna cycle. or some reason, this cycle is a big "no no" in the Sieblius community. But I for one think it's a great cycle. In particular, Maazel's 7th is majestic beyond words. Good choice, Tahnak!


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach, are you not a Sibelian?


----------



## Bach

I'm afraid I'm not. I don't like any 20th century numbered symphonists. I don't care for bombastic architecture or grandiose gestures. I favour music which is pure in expression and free from affectation.

Having said that, Sibelius's songs and tone poems can be very beautiful.


----------



## Tapkaara

Bach, are you acquainted with any of his piano works?


----------



## Bach

Yes, it's very pretty. Griegesque.


----------



## Tapkaara

Hmm, well, you like the songs, tone poems and piano works...maybe you are something of a "proto-Sibelian."


----------



## 3rdplanetsounds

7......4......6.......3.......2......1.......There's my answer old chum.


----------



## World Violist

3rdplanetsounds said:


> 7......4......6.......3.......2......1.......There's my answer old chum.


You're leaving out 5, just thought I should point that out.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Bach said:


> Yes, it's very pretty. Griegesque.


Oh yeah, and his Piano Sonata, op.12 has such an emotional value for me that I have memorised the entire second movement by now, I think.

That said, his piano works generally aren't really of a class. Including the aforementioned Sonata, but for me it's quite near the Sonata* sentimentally.

* Liszt's Piano Sonata in B minor, pointless to call it any other name than the Sonata.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lisztfreak said:


> That said, his piano works generally aren't really of a class.


What do you mean by this?


----------



## Lisztfreak

Tapkaara said:


> What do you mean by this?


Sorry, I guess the phrase doesn't work in English - I meant they aren't of a high quality, aren't very good, at least in the pianistic sense.


----------



## Tapkaara

Because you are a pianist, you definitely have special insight into Sibelius's piano works.

I'd be very curious to hear your comments on why you think his piano works are not of a high quality. (They happen to be some of my favorite piano works by any composer!)


----------



## Lisztfreak

Oh no, unfortunately I am not a pianist! It's just when you compare his pieces with great piano composers such are Schumann, Chopin, Liszt, Debussy, Brahms etc., you can hear that Sibelius didn't really write for the instrument he was sitting at. He wrote for the orchestra. Long pedal points, motifs adept for strings and brass, big meshy chords... There is truly an orchestra struggling to get out of the piano. 

So pianistically, I think they aren't good - compared to the greats, of course; they can't be compared to Chopin or other guys I mentioned above. Musically, however, they are very fine, except some salon miniatures that one can readily forget. 

I also like his piano works a lot. The Sonata I mentioned, The Flowers, Five Esguisses, Tree Pieces... all very well done.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Thing is with sibelius symphonies, every one has its own incredible magic that each oone vies for appreciation so that every one must have been my favourite - depends on what your thinking about - 

1 - was my fvourite because it has a instantly involving and comfortable sound world with a deeper atmosphere than the others - particularly int the first movement - like been in a dark wood

2 - only one not to have been my favourite because it dosent sound unified at all to me and it contains his most unorginal music and in the last movement sounds old fashioned which isnt found in his other symphonies - but iot does contain some brilliant musicv particularly the finale - the dark, rippling nordic tune is my favourite 'big tune' of any symphony 

3 - a beautiful gem that often gets overlooked but is every bit as extraordinary and original as his later symphonies - the middle movement in particularly is such a perfectly judged and proportioned gem- i dont know why its not regarded as one of the great beautiful slow movements

4 - definately the most original of symphonic sound worlds - every listen brings out such a new and revelatory listen - and the extraordinary feeling of otherworldyness seems to bring out the poet in all cd cover writers and programme note authors - it merits a deeperthinking - its not a lovely listen, its artistically inspiring 

5 - is a magnificant and bright concert listen - in every way it satisfies but the 2nd movement is the only sibelius symphonic movement that i dont like - 

6 - currently my favourite because its perfect - its the one that really takes me to finland- its colouring and flawless ebbing amd flowing from beginning to beautiful end makes it for me the most flawless symphonic work - just not a note out of place and every one with the evocative freshness that runs throughout the work

7 - i find it musically most powerful and interesting and theres something very primordial about those trombones - and i go from thinking it my favoutie and the most perfect example of symphonic thought to occassionaly feeling it a compaction too far and its of unrelated phrases tied together with an unforgettable trombone theme - but i think i dont get the point in terms of the structure


----------



## kg4fxg

*Sibelius Symphonies....*

Sibelius, I need to listen to them all twenty times before I can cast my vote.

I love this forum but it is costing me money. Now you all mention such good points about Sibelius whom I dearly love and now I want to go out and get a Biography about him to learn more.

They plaed a hymn at church last Sunday and I looked down and saw that the music was by Sibelius and almost cried. So nice to hear good music in church.


----------



## Tapkaara

kg4fxg said:


> Sibelius, I need to listen to them all twenty times before I can cast my vote.
> 
> I love this forum but it is costing me money. Now you all mention such good points about Sibelius whom I dearly love and now I want to go out and get a Biography about him to learn more.
> 
> They plaed a hymn at church last Sunday and I looked down and saw that the music was by Sibelius and almost cried. So nice to hear good music in church.


There are quite a few bios on the market for Sibelius. One of the most complete is also one of the more recent: Sibelius by Andrew Barnett. Andrew is also the writer for the liner notes in all of the BIS releases. Jean Sibelius by Guy Rickards is also an easy find, not nowhere near as comprehensive as Barnett's book.

Glad to see you are a fellow Sibeliophile, KG4FXG!


----------



## kg4fxg

Thanks, I'll have to check out these books! You got me real curious now.
Many thanks,


----------



## Saturnus

fav. symphony: No. 5
fav. movement: 2nd from no. 3


----------



## starry

I would pick no5, it's a very mature utterance and quite exciting. I like all of them though, I prefer him to Mahler who isn't concise enough for me at times.



Bach said:


> I'm afraid I'm not. I don't like any 20th century numbered symphonists. I don't care for bombastic architecture or grandiose gestures. I favour music which is pure in expression and free from affectation.
> 
> Having said that, Sibelius's songs and tone poems can be very beautiful.


Sibelius is in the heroic mold in much his symphonies, but I don't feel that style sounded that bombastic and out of date until after Sibelius. By the 30s, 40s, 50s that style could sound quite out of date and formulaic for sure.


----------



## Cyclops

Bach said:


> I'm afraid I'm not. I don't like any 20th century numbered symphonists. I don't care for bombastic architecture or grandiose gestures. I favour music which is pure in expression and free from affectation.
> 
> Having said that, Sibelius's songs and tone poems can be very beautiful.


Ha I'm in good company here. I once had a boxed set of the Symphonies under Colin Davis. However i found little of merit and sold the set on ebay.


----------



## bassClef

His 8th ... ahhh I wonder what that was like ... we'll never know I guess.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cyclops said:


> Ha I'm in good company here. I once had a boxed set of the Symphonies under Colin Davis. However i found little of merit and sold the set on ebay.


Cyclops, if you heard the Colin Davis/Boston set, I would strongly recommend you try another cycle. Though that set is widely admired, I think it's one of the least exciting one out there. May I suggest Vanska/Lahti, Segerstam/Helsinki or Davis/LSO. Yes, Colin Davis again. His recent cycle on the LSO Live label is excellent. It proves his interpreting of this music improved greatly as he aged, if you can believe that.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Tapkaara said:


> Cyclops, if you heard the Colin Davis/Boston set, I would strongly recommend you try another cycle. Though that set is widely admired, I think it's one of the least exciting one out there. May I suggest Vanska/Lahti, Segerstam/Helsinki or Davis/LSO. Yes, Colin Davis again. His recent cycle on the LSO Live label is excellent. It proves his interpreting of this music improved greatly as he aged, if you can believe that.


Are Saraste and Järvi good Sibelius interpreters?


----------



## starry

For the 5th and 4th - Karajan, 7th Kousevitzky.

I've forgotten my exact recommendations for the others, but Collins and Kajanus fit in there somewhere.


----------



## Tapkaara

Lisztfreak said:


> Are Saraste and Järvi good Sibelius interpreters?


They are not bad, but not the best in my opinion.


----------



## Tapkaara

starry said:


> For the 5th and 4th - Karajan, 7th Kousevitzky.
> 
> I've forgotten my exact recommendations for the others, but Collins and Kajanus fit in there somewhere.


Karajan's 5th is wonderful, but his 4th is overrated, I think. The sound on those DG recordings is, unfortunately, muddy and really quite bad to boot.


----------



## Bach

Cyclops said:


> Ha I'm in good company here. I once had a boxed set of the Symphonies under Colin Davis. However i found little of merit and sold the set on ebay.


That just makes me sad - I would never sell music on ebay. Poor Sibelius.


----------



## Tapkaara

I have the Davis cycle, but I would never sell it either. As mediocre as it is, it's still part of my collection.

I just wonder, Cyclops, why you thought the music was of "little merit?"


----------



## Mirror Image

Cyclops said:


> Ha I'm in good company here. I once had a boxed set of the Symphonies under Colin Davis. However i found little of merit and sold the set on ebay.


I own all of Colin Davis' cycles of Sibelius. They're all good and full of merit, but his best cycle are the LSO Live recordings.


----------



## JAKE WYB

when i first bought Barshai's Shostakovich symphony cycle, i found little of 'merit' - and had i been bothered i would have taken it back. After a number of years the thought of that is a horror - as that is now a treasured part of my cd collection. im sure cyclops would develop an equal interest had he let the music consolidate itself - 

if its Davis's renditions of which ive only heard 7 - sounded particu;arly radiant and full - but probably too much so as so much detail and texture seemed nonexistant
however his recording of Kullervo I love a great deal - though might not recommend it due to its flat and rather laboured sound - any kullervo recording suggestions??


----------



## Mirror Image

JAKE WYB said:


> when i first bought Barshai's Shostakovich symphony cycle, i found little of 'merit' - and had i been bothered i would have taken it back. After a number of years the thought of that is a horror - as that is now a treasured part of my cd collection. im sure cyclops would develop an equal interest had he let the music consolidate itself -
> 
> if its Davis's renditions of which ive only heard 7 - sounded particu;arly radiant and full - but probably too much so as so much detail and texture seemed nonexistant
> however his recording of Kullervo I love a great deal - though might not recommend it due to its flat and rather laboured sound - any kullervo recording suggestions??


Kullervo recommendations? Absolutely....


----------



## Dim7

Sibelius doesn't really work for me. My attitude towards his music is lukewarm at best, but usually it's more like cold. It's sounds just mudane soundtrack music to me. It's too calm for my taste, but then again impressionism is pretty calm too and I like it still, probably because of the adventurous and colorful harmonies and melodies. Even not-so-original music can work (Schubert, Mendelssohn) if it has some catchy tunes, but I find Sibelius lacking in that too. So I find it difficult to say anything good about his music. 
I think I'm gonna try his fourth symphony; people have called it more experimental.


----------



## JAKE WYB

based on your post i cant imagine you having heard some of his better tone poems like tapiola or the oceanides - those are every bit as colourful and tumultuous as any similar work - and can by no stretch of the imagination be called mundane or soundtracky whereas some of hs most popular pieces - finlandia, symphony 2 etc. - yes I can agree


----------



## Mirror Image

JAKE WYB said:


> based on your post i cant imagine you having heard some of his better tone poems like tapiola or the oceanides - those are every bit as colourful and tumultuous as any similar work - and can by no stretch of the imagination be called mundane or soundtracky whereas some of hs most popular pieces - finlandia, symphony 2 etc. - yes I can agree


You're welcome for the "Kullervo" recommendations.


----------



## Mirror Image

Cmaj7 said:


> Sibelius doesn't really work for me. My attitude towards his music is lukewarm at best, but usually it's more like cold. It's sounds just mudane soundtrack music to me. It's too calm for my taste, but then again impressionism is pretty calm too and I like it still, probably because of the adventurous and colorful harmonies and melodies. Even not-so-original music can work (Schubert, Mendelssohn) if it has some catchy tunes, but I find Sibelius lacking in that too. So I find it difficult to say anything good about his music.
> I think I'm gonna try his fourth symphony; people have called it more experimental.


 I whole-heartedly disagree with your assessment of this composer's music. Sibelius created beautifully original melodies, harmonies, and rhythms.

Anyway, I think Sibelius was a brilliant composer. He completely created his own musical language like all great composers do. Nobody sounds like him. Go listen to "Pohjola's Daughter" and tell me that isn't one of most gorgeous pieces of music you've ever heard. If you don't like that piece even a little bit, then there's something seriously wrong I think.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cmaj7 said:


> Sibelius doesn't really work for me. My attitude towards his music is lukewarm at best, but usually it's more like cold. It's sounds just mudane soundtrack music to me. It's too calm for my taste, but then again impressionism is pretty calm too and I like it still, probably because of the adventurous and colorful harmonies and melodies. Even not-so-original music can work (Schubert, Mendelssohn) if it has some catchy tunes, but I find Sibelius lacking in that too. So I find it difficult to say anything good about his music.
> I think I'm gonna try his fourth symphony; people have called it more experimental.


I agree with Jake. It seems to me unlikely that you have not heard enough Sibelius to write him off completely yet. If you have yet to hear the 4th Symphony, I wonder if you have heard all the others. Also, what tone poems have you heard?

Sibelius is, however, not an easy composer for a lot of folks. His sound is so singular that it comes of as odd, cold and ininviting to many.

As for it sounding like "soundtrack music," I don't see that as a bad thing. His tone poems are like soundtracks to an invisible movie, so if it is music that tells some sort of story, I will buy that.

His music is too calm? Some of it is, a lot of it is not. There is nothing calm in the energy of his early works like Kullervo and the 1st Symphony, but there is much serenity in, for example, his 6th Symphony. So to attempt to paint this composer with one all-purpose adjective is not possible.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I agree with Jake. It seems to me unlikely that you have not heard enough Sibelius to write him off completely yet. If you have yet to hear the 4th Symphony, I wonder if you have heard all the others. Also, what tone poems have you heard?
> 
> Sibelius is, however, not an easy composer for a lot of folks. His sound is so singular that it comes of as odd, cold and ininviting to many.
> 
> As for it sounding like "soundtrack music," I don't see that as a bad thing. His tone poems are like soundtracks to an invisible movie, so if it is music that tells some sort of story, I will buy that.
> 
> His music is too calm? Some of it is, a lot of it is not. There is nothing calm in the energy of his early works like Kullervo and the 1st Symphony, but there is much serenity in, for example, his 6th Symphony. So to attempt to paint this composer with one all-purpose adjective is not possible.


I agree (a surprise isn't it? ), but I also think this poster hasn't heard enough Sibelius to completely write him off yet.

Sibelius must be listened to repeatedly. Sibelius was one of the first composers that turned me onto classical music or at least turned me onto it more seriously.


----------



## Dim7

Tapkaara said:


> I agree with Jake. It seems to me unlikely that you have not heard enough Sibelius to write him off completely yet. If you have yet to hear the 4th Symphony, I wonder if you have heard all the others. Also, what tone poems have you heard?
> 
> Sibelius is, however, not an easy composer for a lot of folks. His sound is so singular that it comes of as odd, cold and ininviting to many.
> 
> As for it sounding like "soundtrack music," I don't see that as a bad thing. His tone poems are like soundtracks to an invisible movie, so if it is music that tells some sort of story, I will buy that.
> 
> His music is too calm? Some of it is, a lot of it is not. There is nothing calm in the energy of his early works like Kullervo and the 1st Symphony, but there is much serenity in, for example, his 6th Symphony. So to attempt to paint this composer with one all-purpose adjective is not possible.


I have heard symphonies 1,2,5,6,7, Violin Concerto, The Swan of Tuonela, Finlandia and Karelia Suite. For example the fifth symphony and the Swan of Tuonela left me completely cold and wondering, "What, these are among his most popular compositions? There's nothing interesting happening here." The Second symphony I enjoyed mildly but that's about it.

If the "soundtrackiness" would be just that it would invoke extramusical ideas then that would be only a good thing. However, soundtracks have a bad tendency to not be very interesting on their own. The music for example in films cannot be too distracting and they don't necessarily need to work outside their context, they just work as mood enhancers, simplistic effects being enough. With Sibelius I get the feeling that there's just this atmosphere but no substance, no meat, nothing to grab. Definately not unpleasent or annoying though.

Of the tone poems I'm gonna check Pohjola's Daugher and Tapiola next.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cmaj7 said:


> I have heard symphonies 1,2,5,6,7, Violin Concerto, The Swan of Tuonela, Finlandia and Karelia Suite. For example the fifth symphony and the Swan of Tuonela left me completely cold and wondering, "What, these are among his most popular compositions? There's nothing interesting happening here." The Second symphony I enjoyed mildly but that's about it.
> 
> If the "soundtrackiness" would be just that it would invoke extramusical ideas then that would be only a good thing. However, soundtracks have a bad tendency to not be very interesting on their own. The music for example in films cannot be too distracting and they don't necessarily need to work outside their context, they just work as mood enhancers, simplistic effects being enough. With Sibelius I get the feeling that there's just this atmosphere but no substance, no meat, nothing to grab. Definately not unpleasent or annoying though.
> 
> Of the tone poems I'm gonna check Pohjola's Daugher and Tapiola next.


As I suspected, you've only scratched the surface here!

Finlandia and the Karelia Suite are "pops" SIbelius. While very good in their own right, they do not touch on the composer's greater, more "serious" abilities.

As for the Swan, I think it should be heard in the conext of the entire Lemminkainen Legends, from which it comes. It is actually one movement of a greater 4-part work, one might even say a symphony.

The tone poems are a good place to romp around, and Pohjola's Daughter and Tapiola are two of the best. I also suggest the Oceanides (very impressionistic work) and En Saga. For theater music, check out his Tempest music, either the two suites or the full score.

I am not sure what recordings of the symphonies you have heard, but I can tell you, in the hands of the wrong conductor, they can fall flat on their faces. I suggest Vanska/Lahti, Segerstam/Helsinki, Maazel/Vienna and Davis/London SO from the LSO Live label.

For you to say Sibelius's music is soundtrack music and thus not very interesting on its own is your opinion and I respect that...as flawed as I believe your opinion to be! But I think you need to hear good performances of his other works before you can really make up your mind once and for all. Sibelius's music is very complex and is full of light and shadow. It takes a good ensemble to pull this music off just right, and if you would like any further suggestions, it would be my pleasure to offer them up.


----------



## World Violist

I'm beginning to think Cmaj7 has heard what is on the Davis/BSO cycle, which would actually explain very well why he isn't getting into Sibelius. It's just the worst of the famous cycles, and that's all there is to it. Of course, this is to say nothing of the same conductor 40 years later, who seems to see music as a whole in a completely different light. His BSO Sibelius just "falls flat on its face." It's too polite, it's too thick, and it's just scrappily interpreted.


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> I'm beginning to think Cmaj7 has heard what is on the Davis/BSO cycle, which would actually explain very well why he isn't getting into Sibelius. It's just the worst of the famous cycles, and that's all there is to it. Of course, this is to say nothing of the same conductor 40 years later, who seems to see music as a whole in a completely different light. His BSO Sibelius just "falls flat on its face." It's too polite, it's too thick, and it's just scrappily interpreted.


Yes, Violist (a great admirer of Sibelius also!) is very right here on the Davis/BSO cycle. It is one of the most talked-about cycles around and many people swear by its authenticity. Speaking for Violist and myself (I'd like to think we know a thing or two about what makes Sibelius tick), this is a grossly over-rated cycle and, if it was one's intro to Sibelius's soundworld, I could understand the dissapointment and frustration. Thank God this was not the first cycle I heard...I probably would want to stop there, too.

Of course, we don't know if this is the cycle you have heard or not, Cmaj7. Maybe you heard one of the cycles I have suggested! At any rate, I now feel it's my duty to steer you in the right direction and hopefully sway your opinions on this great composer.


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> I'm beginning to think Cmaj7 has heard what is on the Davis/BSO cycle, which would actually explain very well why he isn't getting into Sibelius. It's just the worst of the famous cycles, and that's all there is to it. Of course, this is to say nothing of the same conductor 40 years later, who seems to see music as a whole in a completely different light. His BSO Sibelius just "falls flat on its face." It's too polite, it's too thick, and it's just scrappily interpreted.


Yes, I used to actually like the cycle until I heard his LSO cycle. Now, I don't even listen to those BSO recordings, because they are lackluster, dull, unimaginative, and ultimately leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. The same can be said about his RCA recordings. These aren't very good either.

The cycle to be beat in my opinion is now Vanska and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra on Bis. Good luck finding more passion, more fire than these performances.

Vanska and Neeme Jarvi excel in the tone poems, but I'm still wanting to hear Segerstam's readings.


----------



## BuddhaBandit

Well, I'm basically jumping into the middle of a deep discussion, but I wanted to post an answer to the original question.

My favorite Sibelius symphony is No. 6. Sibelius has always seemed to me to be a great "starter" composer for listeners on the verge of diving into classical music. His music tugs all the right strings- sweeping tone painting, romantic melodies, and dramatic climaxes.

Basically, the guy aims for the jugular every time out. Which is why the sixth symphony is such a delight- it's relatively understated and subtle and it gradually envelopes the listener instead of hitting him with a sledgehammer. And, perhaps most importantly, it sounds effortless. If Sibelius ever sounded just like Sibelius (and not Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, or Richard Strauss), it's during the sixth.

Just my couple cents.


----------



## Tapkaara

BuddhaBandit said:


> Well, I'm basically jumping into the middle of a deep discussion, but I wanted to post an answer to the original question.
> 
> My favorite Sibelius symphony is No. 6. Sibelius has always seemed to me to be a great "starter" composer for listeners on the verge of diving into classical music. His music tugs all the right strings- sweeping tone painting, romantic melodies, and dramatic climaxes.
> 
> Basically, the guy aims for the jugular every time out. Which is why the sixth symphony is such a delight- it's relatively understated and subtle and it gradually envelopes the listener instead of hitting him with a sledgehammer. And, perhaps most importantly, it sounds effortless. If Sibelius ever sounded just like Sibelius (and not Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, or Richard Strauss), it's during the sixth.
> 
> Just my couple cents.


A fine post about a fine symphony.

To my ears, it is his most understated of the 7 symphonies. And the composer does make it sound effortless: melodies flow into each other with the greatest of ease; it is the perfect representation of the composer's "organic" symphonic writing. It's also astoudingly odd with its fascination with ostinati.

A quote about the 6th that has always interested me is by Sibelius himself: "passion and rage are essential in it." I would not say myself that this work has rage per se, but perhaps if that's only if you are listening on the surface. I've been working on this symphony for years and I still cannot claim to understand the rage in this serene but mysterious work...and perhaps that's why I keep coming back to it. We all like a good mystery...


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> A fine post about a fine symphony.
> 
> To my ears, it is his most understated of the 7 symphonies. And the composer does make it sound effortless: melodies flow into each other with the greatest of ease; it is the perfect representation of the composer's "organic" symphonic writing. It's also astoudingly odd with its fascination with ostinati.
> 
> A quote about the 6th that has always interested me is by Sibelius himself: "passion and rage are essential in it." I would not say myself that this work has rage per se, but perhaps if that's only if you are listening on the surface. I've been working on this symphony for years and I still cannot claim to understand the rage in this serene but mysterious work...and perhaps that's why I keep coming back to it. We all like a good mystery...


As I have mentioned before, I'm not crazy about his symphonies. I do enjoy the 1st, 5th, and 7th the best. The 7th is especially powerful to me. It has some very dark corners that I enjoyed quite a bit. If you consider "Kullervo" a "symphony," then mark that one down for me too.

For me, I'll be forever grateful for his tone poems and Violin Concerto.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> As I have mentioned before, I'm not crazy about his symphonies. I do enjoy the 1st, 5th, and 7th the best.


I didn't realize this...


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I didn't realize this...


Yep, it's true. Sorry my fellow Sibelians.


----------



## Tapkaara

Why don't you like the other symphonies, MI?


----------



## Scott Good

Just to go back to the original question, I would have to say the 4th Symphony is my favorite.

Such a bold opening - gripping. The rather boxed orchestration really works for me, as the brass enter en mass, with such subtle yet evocative shifts in the harmony. The ending of this movement is like a question, highlighting the m2nd will return, and he places it clearly in our heads so it's return will be all the more profound.

Of course, it is the 3rd movement that takes the cake. I feel like I am staring into his essence with this music. So understated, yet poignant. The use of rhythm is brilliant, saving the pulsing double reeds till far into the movement, bringing us to the climax. That short moment when the trombones and trumpets sound the melody fragment in unison send shivers down my spine every time. And he ends again with the m2nd to the tonic, now expanded - more conclusive, yet seems to me an unanswerable question. I can't think of a symphonic movement that is more dramatic than this one.

The 2nd movement is quite effective, and serves well as a kind of sorbet between the 1st and 3rd. But, I have to say that the last movement is a bit disappointing - the tritone fanfares seem too obtuse, and there isn't enough seriousness in tone. Sometimes when I listen, I shut the recording off after the 3rd. In a way, he created an impossible situation by having such a powerful 3rd movement - what can be said after such music?


----------



## Tapkaara

The 4th movement of the 4th is the strangest movement in any Sibelius symphony. The glockenspiel seems out of place, desperately (sarcastically?) trying to lighten the mood. 

This completely unexpected turn at the end of the 4th is one example of my Sibelius is so fascinating to me. His idiom really exists on its own plane of existance; it is so singular and unaffected by convention that one cannot help but be astounded by the composer's policy of staying true to himself. He is, in my view, one of the most truly unique composers to ever live and it's not surprising that so much controversy pops up at the mention of his name. In a way, controversy is the sign that a composer really has made an impact in some way, be it a good or bad one!


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Why don't you like the other symphonies, MI?


If I recall, I didn't like the other ones, because they seemed to meander a bit, especially Symphony No. 2.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> If I recall, I didn't like the other ones, because they seemed to meander a bit, especially Symphony No. 2.


And yet you like Mahler and Langgaard so much?


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> And yet you like Mahler and Langgaard so much?


Well perhaps that's not a fair assessment, Tapkaara. I actually haven't heard his symphonies in awhile. I've heard so much music from January to now it's quite mind-boggling.

Langgaard is pretty straight-forward for me. He goes right in for the jugular to begin with. He's so brutal, he leaves you lying on the ground.

Mahler has a lot of mood swings, which makes his music very enjoyable for me, but I can see how this could exhaust others.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> Well perhaps that's not a fair assessment, Tapkaara. I actually haven't heard his symphonies in awhile. I've heard so much music from January to now it's quite mind-boggling.


I think you have taken in more music is 6 months than I have heard in 6 years. Incredible how you have been absorbing so much.

I'd give your lesser known Sibelius symphonies another good listen. I think you may be suprised how "taut" they are compared to the works of other composers you enjoy.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> I think you have taken in more music is 6 months than I have heard in 6 years. Incredible how you have been absorbing so much.
> 
> I'd give your lesser known Sibelius symphonies another good listen. I think you may be suprised how "taut" they are compared to the works of other composers you enjoy.


Well thanks Tapkaara. It's a day by day process.

I will give those Sibelius symphonies another listen, everything becomes blurred after awhile.


----------



## Scott Good

Tapkaara said:


> The 4th movement of the 4th is the strangest movement in any Sibelius symphony. The glockenspiel seems out of place, desperately (sarcastically?) trying to lighten the mood.


Yes. It might be sarcasm, but he just doesn't seem the sarcastic type.



Tapkaara;56553This completely unexpected turn at the end of the 4th is one example of my Sibelius is so fascinating to me. His idiom really exists on its own plane of existance; it is so singular and unaffected by convention that one cannot help but be astounded by the composer's policy of staying true to himself. He is said:


> You know, I would have to agree with this. His music seems so personal - maybe not the best word to use, but it is what I feel. I hear him in every note.
> 
> What about the 4th to the 5th as well. My goodness, is there anything that sounds like that? Such an odd pairing of ideas, stacked against each other - and then, wham, the violins come in with this heart wrenching theme, leading to the final tutti, glorious yet moments of painful chromaticism.
> 
> And of course the famous/infamous last chords! Man, I played that piece once...don't play in the holes, that's all I can say!! One person could actually ruin an entire performance by doing that.


----------



## Tapkaara

Scott Good said:


> Yes. It might be sarcasm, but he just doesn't seem the sarcastic type.


No, Sibelius is not a "sarcastic" composer like Mahler or Prokofiev. But the glockenspiel in the 4th movement of the 4th just sounds so out of place, so strange, that I can't tear myself from the idea that this is Sibelius's attempt at sounding pathetically optimistic in the heart of all of this darkness and dispair. I think in a way he is being sarcastic, at least ironic, and this is "emotional commentary". After all, it was Sibelius that said the symphony should be like a confession at various stages of your life (that is a paraphrase). During the 4th, times were very dark for him, and I'm sure his attempts at overcoming the sadness and doubt in his life were overtaken, eventually, by depression. This symphony defines this battle between optimism and pessimism...and pessmism wins.


----------



## Scott Good

Thanks, that's interesting.

I'm an awful music historian - I go right to the scores. But reading this does add much insight into the music.

I will never stop listening after the 3rd movement again!


----------



## Tapkaara

Scott Good said:


> Thanks, that's interesting.
> 
> I'm an awful music historian - I go right to the scores. But reading this does add much insight into the music.
> 
> I will never stop listening after the 3rd movement again!


I'm glad you will take in the whole symphony from now on! Remember, that 4th movement is SUPPOSED to throw you off! 

By the way, I want to make it clear that Sibelius NEVER described his 4th as an emotional battle between happiness and sadness. In fact, Sibelius intended each and every one of his symphonies to be pure absolute music. So, my description of the 4th is just that: MY description. Sibelius never sanctioned any express description of the meaning of the music. But, it seems obvious to me (and many others) that the 4th is an expression (or confession) of his emotional state at the time, and it is a fascinating trip into the composer's head as a result.


----------



## JAKE WYB

Mirror Image said:


> Kullervo recommendations? Absolutely....


thank you for those recommendations - im going to make that my priority getting one of them - after getting to know davis's version then hearing it live in glasgowunder BBCSSO - that one blew me away made me realise its full drama and power


----------



## JAKE WYB

what i finf fascinating about the 4th is that it always brings out the decriptive imagination of any commentator - i can think of no other symphonic work not even by Sibelius that seems to warrant endless speculation upon what lays amongst the sounds and what images the sound worlds conjure up. 

It shows that wether we ought to or want to think of the 4th as pure music, there is some power behind the music that we cant avoid thattouches emotions that otherwise are usually left untouched and unexplored - these are perhaps the very most darkest and rarely encountered - but the originality of the music meeans that it inhabits a world of its own and if youre not the sort of person to have the mentality or perhaps enjoys a certian frisson with darkness and austerity the power of this work may be lost on you


----------



## Mirror Image

JAKE WYB said:


> thank you for those recommendations - im going to make that my priority getting one of them - after getting to know davis's version then hearing it live in glasgowunder BBCSSO - that one blew me away made me realise its full drama and power


You're welcome. Don't be a stranger next time. 

You can't go wrong with any of those recommendations I gave you. They are fantastic in their own way.


----------



## Elgarian

*Calling Tapkaara... Calling Tapkaara...*

Well at least this is some sort of a Sibelius thread, so my request isn't completely OT. I'm carrying this discussion over from the Naxos thread.

The story so far: I have the Naxos White Box Sibelius set, which has served me well enough for several years, but I'm aware that it's by no means one of the most acclaimed cycles. So, if I were to buy another cycle, the question is: which?

My immediate thought was to get the Colin Davis LSO set which is cheap, and which is raved about in the Penguin Guide, where it's awarded an exceptional _4_ stars, is a key recording, and has been awarded one of their special 'Rosettes'. But Tapkaara says he's heard bad things about it and isn't interested in it. 
So, Tapkaara please expand, if you'd be so kind. When it comes to complete cycles, who gets to the icy core of Sibelius, if it's not Colin and his pals? (My favourite symphonies are 1, 2, 3, and 5.)


----------



## Tapkaara

I have heard you call, Elgarian. I have come. I am at your service.

Now, where to begin?

Sibelius is a composer whose music is not easy on many levels. It's often not easy for casual or seasoned listeners alike; Sibelius has one of the most singular soundworlds of any composer, I think, and this gives his music something of an aloof quality. Even I can understand that, but therein lies the appeal for me. His music is really kind of strange, dare I say mysterious. The strangeness and the mystery are very, very appealing, and the experience of trying to "decode" him proves to be challenging but ultimately rewarding.

Another way it is not easy is in performance. In the wrong hands, Sibelius's sound loses its magic in a way I cannot really put my finger on. The Sakari cycle is competent, but I really don't think it exposes the sheer genius and beauty the music is truly capable of.

Which cycle to recommend?

Vänskä/Lahti on Bis. This cycle is almost universally well-regrded, many calling it definitive. Vänskä approach is precise and no-nonsense, dramatic when needed and sober when required. A very nicely balanced cycle with crisp performances.

Segerstam/Helsinki on Ondine. Segerstam is sort of a kooky characater, both as a conductor and composer. But he is one hell of a musician and knows his Sibelius very well. His cycle features warmer sound than he Vänskä ( I suppose this could be a drawback if you like an "icier" Sibelius, and he tends to emphasize the more romantic qualities of the works. His Fith is perhaps unmatched in all of recorded music; it is grand, heroic and mystical all at once. His Seventh is pure majesty. The only weak recording here is his 2nd, which seems too slow and dragging. It's often thought of as another "heroic" work, so I have no idea why he chooses to conduct it in this way. The music loses its purpose and just sounds sluggish, perhaps boring.

Davis/LSO on LSO Live. This is Davis's third and best cycle in Sibelius. The discs are not available as a box set, so you would have to buy them individually. Some are harder to get nowadays than others. Unlike hos over-rated cycle with the Boston SO on Philips, Davis conducts with a infectious fire and passion in the First, Secnd and Fith symphonies. His 4th is brooding and very introspective. The 3rd, 6th and 7th are alll given their due with touching sensitivity.

I would recommend any of these with much fervor. Seeing as the LSO is sort of hard to get all at once, I would probably choose the Vänskä cycle for being the most well-rounded of the lot. It makes an excellent starter cycle of top quality and then you can explore other intrepretations and make up your mind for yourself as to which conductor understands and interprets the music the best, though Vänskä is very hard to beat.

Hope that helps!


----------



## Dim7

Tapkaara said:


> Sibelius is a composer whose music is not easy on many levels. It's often not easy for casual or seasoned listeners alike; Sibelius has one of the most singular soundworlds of any composer, I think, and this gives his music something of an aloof quality. Even I can understand that, but therein lies the appeal for me. His music is really kind of strange, dare I say mysterious. The strangeness and the mystery are very, very appealing, and the experience of trying to "decode" him proves to be challenging but ultimately rewarding.


That's what I hear from Sibelius fans, but that's not what I hear myself when I listen to his music. My problem with Sibelius is specifially the fact that his music sounds too ordinary. What is so "singular" about his music? Isn't his melodic and harmonic language fairly standard diatonicism?

"Aloof" is pretty accurate adjective for Sibelius though. Perhaps his "strangeness" is so subtle that I've missed it.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> I have heard you call, Elgarian. I have come. I am at your service.


I knew you would come. I had faith.



> Which cycle to recommend?
> 
> Vänskä/Lahti on Bis.
> Segerstam/Helsinki on Ondine.


One of these might indeed tempt me, but they are _very_ expensive, and the great attraction of my initial thought (Davis/LSO on RCA) was that it wouldn't break the bank. So that leaves



> Davis/LSO on LSO Live.


All these are gettable at present, for a total of £23 - still quite a lot; but of course I wouldn't need to buy them all at once in this case. One option would be to buy just one and see how I get on with it.

OK thanks very much Tapkaara, this is really useful. I have to say that even now I'm still tempted by that earlier Davis/LSO set, with all those stars and rosettes and key awards and what have you. Can you remember what's supposed to be so bad about it?


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I knew you would come. I had faith.
> 
> One of these might indeed tempt me, but they are _very_ expensive, and the great attraction of my initial thought (Davis/LSO on RCA) was that it wouldn't break the bank. So that leaves
> 
> All these are gettable at present, for a total of £23 - still quite a lot; but of course I wouldn't need to buy them all at once in this case. One option would be to buy just one and see how I get on with it.
> 
> OK thanks very much Tapkaara, this is really useful. I have to say that even now I'm still tempted by that earlier Davis/LSO set, with all those stars and rosettes and key awards and what have you. Can you remember what's supposed to be so bad about it?


I don't recall the second Colin Davis cycle of Sibelius getting any kind of awards. I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but if it did I'm quite surprised. That particular cycle you're talking about, which is on RCA is not bad, but for me his LSO Live cycle is the best. He seems to understand this music much better and has a firmer grasp of it. The performances seem to have more passion and fire too.

I hardly ever listen to Davis' Sibelius anyway. I prefer Osmo Vanska any day of the week to Davis. Vanska has a better understanding of the music than Davis I think.

Do whatever you want to Elgarian, Davis is a world renowned Sibelius conductor, but he always doesn't reach the dramatic heights as Barbirolli, Jarvi, or Vanska.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cmaj7 said:


> "Aloof" is pretty accurate adjective for Sibelius though. Perhaps his "strangeness" is so subtle that I've missed it.


Bingo.

What Sibelius works have you heard?


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> Can you remember what's supposed to be so bad about it?


You know, now I feel like I should not even speak out against a cycle I have not even heard. Perhaps it's a wonderful cycle and I am getting false information about it. I am purely going by what I have heard.

I've heard that the performances are uniformly limp with little sense of drive. I've also heard negative things about the sound. But again, this is all second hand, and perhaps the reviews I've read are by crotchety old men who woke up on the wrong sie of the bed and don't like Sibelius to begin with!

But if you do elect to go with the LSO Live recordings, I can tell you most assuredly this is a cycle of very high distinction. You cannot go wrong.


----------



## starry

Cmaj7 said:


> That's what I hear from Sibelius fans, but that's not what I hear myself when I listen to his music. My problem with Sibelius is specifially the fact that his music sounds too ordinary. What is so "singular" about his music? Isn't his melodic and harmonic language fairly standard diatonicism?
> 
> "Aloof" is pretty accurate adjective for Sibelius though. Perhaps his "strangeness" is so subtle that I've missed it.


I don't think he is aloof or that strange. Maybe it depends how you come to him, whether from someone like Beethoven with more classical limits or Mahler's more romantic excesses.


----------



## Elgarian

Mirror Image said:


> I don't recall the second Colin Davis cycle of Sibelius getting any kind of awards. I'm not saying that I don't believe you, but if it did I'm quite surprised.


It's not a well-kept secret. Page 1241 of the 2008 _Penguin Guide_: 'Rosette' award, 'Key Recording', 4 stars (their usual maximum is 3): "A totally authoritative survey ... should be at the centre of any representative Sibelius collection, especially at its new budget price".


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> But if you do elect to go with the LSO Live recordings, I can tell you most assuredly this is a cycle of very high distinction. You cannot go wrong.


I've got this message loud and clear, and it's most valuable. Thanks.


----------



## Elgarian

Double posted by accident - any passing mod - could you delete this please? Thanks.


----------



## Elgarian

I've made an initial decision. I've been searching around looking for alternative views on the Davis/LSO box set apart from the hymn of praise in the _Penguin Guide_, and found this long and detailed glowing report on MusicWeb:

http://www.musicweb-international.com/classrev/2004/Apr04/Sibelius_Davis.htm

I think whatever else I do, I _have_ to get this set, at this price, just so I can hear for myself what's going on. So I've ordered one.

At some stage I'll try one of the LSO Live versions for comparison, but I've come across a number of comments about Davis's humming being intrusive. Do you find this so, Tapkaara? Anyone? I think I might find that disturbing, if the reports are accurate.


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> At some stage I'll try one of the LSO Live versions for comparison, but I've come across a number of comments about Davis's humming being intrusive. Do you find this so, Tapkaara? Anyone? I think I might find that disturbing, if the reports are accurate.


Ah, the notorious Davis humming.

Yes, you can hear it from time to time. It's not too intrusive though. It's not very loud and you may only hear it if you are looking for it. I think it's at its worst on the recording of the 5th.

Don't let it deter you. The music is so good, it easily makes up for Davis's tiny intrusions.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> Ah, the notorious Davis humming.
> 
> Yes, you can hear it from time to time. It's not too intrusive though. It's not very loud and you may only hear it if you are looking for it. I think it's at its worst on the recording of the 5th.
> 
> Don't let it deter you. The music is so good, it easily makes up for Davis's tiny intrusions.


I trust you implicitly.

My intention is to listen to my favourite symphonies in the box set when it arrives; see which one is the most impressive; then buy the corresponding LSO Live CD to compare with it. And take it from there. Sounds like a plan?


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> I trust you implicitly.
> 
> My intention is to listen to my favourite symphonies in the box set when it arrives; see which one is the most impressive; then buy the corresponding LSO Live CD to compare with it. And take it from there. Sounds like a plan?


Indeed it does sound like a plan. I really am looking forward to your comments!


----------



## Dim7

Tapkaara said:


> Bingo.
> 
> What Sibelius works have you heard?


Now I've heard symphonies 1,2,4,5,6,7, Violin Concerto, The Swan of Tuonela, Finlandia and Karelia Suite, Tapiola and Pohjola's Daughter. Some of the works left me with impression "Okay, I'd _might_ learn to like" but my patience with Sibelius is coming to end.

I'd still like to hear what really is so "unique" about Sibelius, in more precise terms.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cmaj7 said:


> I'd still like to hear what really is so "unique" about Sibelius, in more precise terms.


Conversely, I'd like to hear your opinion on why he does not sound unique.

Let's start with the symphonies.

Symphonies 1 and 2 are perhaps the most "standard" of his symphonies in that they have roots in late 20th century romanticism. The first has echos of Tchaikovsky and Bruckner...some also say Borodin, though I am less convinced of that. The 2nd, while still a very late 19th centruy sounding work does begin to move towards the "real" Sibelius with its string ostinatos that underpin a main melody or theme, more lucid, perhaps sparse orchestration, and structural "severity" where the third movement segues into the fourth and final movement without a break.

When we get to the Third Symphony, Sibelius begins exploring a certain classicism with a smaller orchestral sound and very concise material. I often think of this work as a "pastoral" symphony, though that is PURELY my own take on it. The first movement reminds me of Beethoven. The second movement consists of an ostinato melody that might suggest folk music to some. Again, this is a work that has roots in 19th century romanticism, but one gets the feeling that Sibelius is moving towards something different.

It is when we hit the 4th Symphony where the true uniqueness of the composer begins to manifest. Though written for a full, standard sized orchestra, it takes on a lucid, chamber-like feeling. Harmonies are brittle and austere. The first movement is a dark and unwelcoming study in human anguish. Then the 2nd movement comes in, a sort or ironic pastoral that sounds out of place after the first. The 3rd movement retains the dark mysteries of the 1st movement. The 4th movement tries to establish a major key in all futility with the bright, cheery sound of the glockenspiel, but ultimately fails and the symphony comes to a furtive, hopeless close.

Debuted in 1911, two years before Le Sacre du printemps, Sibelius pens one of the most unusual and perhaps unsettling major works of music that coul have been known at the time. Here, he cleary breaks away from a lush and confident 19th century romantisicm and espouses a peculiar idiom, in many way very modernistic. What other major symphony in the repertoire sounded like Sibelius's 4th prior, or since for that matter?

The 5th returns to a heroic and outgoing idiom, but still with many Sibelian quirks. More ostinati and the 1st and 2nd movments link together. The final movement features the well-known 'swan theme" is a seed in the final movement from which the rest of the music grows. This organic approach, where a single, perhaps simple theme becomes the basis from which the rest of the music sprouts forth is a Sibelian hallmark and something makes a Sibelius symphony distinctive. It finishes with 6 distinctive "hammer blows" with peculiar pauses in between each. This is, I think, one of the most unique endings to any symphony, and I cannot think of anything else in the standard rep that sounds similar.

The 6th is pure Sibelius. Again we are treated to a very lucid orchestral sound where strings prevail. The strange ostinati return and the pared down orchestration is a texture we are now used to ever since the 3rd. In general, the sounds and textures of this symphony seem to me unparalled in the symphonic repertoire.

The 7th is a symphony in one fairly compact movement. We again hear whirling string ostinati and melodic and harmonic textures that we now come to know as true Sibelius trademarks that certainly give him his own unique sound.

If I may be so bold to copy and paste a great tidbit on Sibelian harmony, I refer to another resident Siebliophile Kurkikohtaus. He sums this up better than I could:

*His harmonic signature, the half-diminished seventh chord.

A brief explanation:

The fully-diminished seventh, ever-present in the works of Bach and Beethoven, is made up exclusively of minor thirds. To build a fully-diminished seventh chord on the note B (natural), one simply adds minor thirds on top of it, until one attains the following chord:

B-D-F-Ab

By contrast, a HALF-diminished 7th chord is very similar, with the difference being that the highest interval is not a minor third but a major third::

B-D-F-A

This half-diminished 7th chord, while offering less immediate dissonance than the fully-diminished 7th, is however much more flexible and versatile. The fully diminished 7th shown above basically resolves to a C major or minor triad and nothing else. Also, it is considered "bad taste" or perhaps even downright wrong to modulate with the aid of fully-diminished 7ths.

In comparison, Sibelius' favourite half-diminished 7th can go in many directions, and is a very powerful tool in modulations. But more than that, it provides a here-to-fore unusual and charged colour as a sonority in-and-of itself, with a wide range of possible expressions: movement, rest, tension, resolution...

The best example of Sibelius' use of this sound that I can think of are the brass chords in the 1st mvmt of the 4th symphony, but here I am just singleing-out one moment among hundreds. as this chord basically permeates his entire output from his very beginnings (En Saga) to his very endings (Tapiola).*

Is Sibelius the only composer to ever use this type of harmonic tool? Of course not. But the widespread use of it in his works is a unique stamp, I think, to his general sound, and sets him apart very easily in my ears from other composers.

At the end of the day, I think there is a qulaity about Sibelius's music (or any composer's music) that you cannot put your finger on. There is just a quality about the music...a type of melody, the rythmic patterns, the orchestration...that when you hear it, you know from whose pen it was composed. For me, Sibelius is one of those composers whose sound world defies easy and tidy classification due to the uniqueness of his utterance.

I hope this feeble attempt to state my case sheds some light on why I think he does posses a singular sound.


----------



## Dim7

Okay, so in nutshell these, at least, are characteristics of Sibelius:

-Ostinatos
-Movements are based on development of a single, simple theme (Hmm, from what I understand Haydn and probably Beethoven did exactly the same)
-Austere orchestration
-Half diminished chords instead of usual dim7 chords

It is no wonder that a Mahler fan like me gets frustated with Sibelius's reserved, cold sound. While he may use diatonic scales in unusual fashion, like using dorian mode in the sixth or using half-diminished chords, he stays fairly strictly in the key. I'm already used to pretty heavy chromaticism, so it sounds still kinda mundane and ordinary to me. I'd say my tastes are kinda "maximalist"; I like colorful orchestration with lots of small details, I like complex polyphony, I like epic works with lots of switches between different moods. I kinda understand now why you made the "Sibelius vs. Mahler" topic, at first I thought that it was a completely random thing to do to compare the two, but know I see that they are sort of polar opposites almost.


----------



## Tapkaara

Cmaj7 said:


> Okay, so in nutshell these, at least, are characteristics of Sibelius:
> 
> -Ostinatos
> -Movements are based on development of a single, simple theme (Hmm, from what I understand Haydn and probably Beethoven did exactly the same)
> -Austere orchestration
> -Half diminished chords instead of usual dim7 chords
> 
> It is no wonder that a Mahler fan like me gets frustated with Sibelius's reserved, cold sound. While he may use diatonic scales in unusual fashion, like using dorian mode in the sixth or using half-diminished chords, he stays fairly strictly in the key. I'm already used to pretty heavy chromaticism, so it sounds still kinda mundane and ordinary to me. I'd say my tastes are kinda "maximalist"; I like colorful orchestration with lots of small details, I like complex polyphony, I like epic works with lots of switches between different moods. I kinda understand now why you made the "Sibelius vs. Mahler" topic, at first I thought that it was a completely random thing to do to compare the two, but know I see that they are sort of polar opposites almost.


Certainly there is more to Sibelius than the "nutshell" laid about above, and my previous post was feeble at best. Obviously there is so much more to this man's music than what I have described, but I was just throwing some things out there that seemed salient to me.

Based on your post, it sounds like you do not care for Sibelius because of his sound as it compares to Mahler. I can understand quite clearly that if you go for the big over-blown sound (nothing wrong with that, I too am a fan of Mahler as well as other similar composers), than the austerity of Sibelius will not fit the biil.

But this why I think many do not care for him. He is not often thought of as this lush sounding "heart-on-his-sleeve" sort of guy. His music is much like the man himself: idiosyncratic, aloof and perhaps cold. This is a composer who lived in his sound world so firmly that he made no compromises to anyone else.

I feel very confident in saying Sibleius was a very original and unique composer, and you can disagree with me if you wish. And perhaps it would be more fair to say "I don't like him" instead of "He's not very original."

Oh, and by the way, on the theme development and "Didn't Haydn and Beethoven do the same thing?" Sure they did. Sibelius is also not the only composer to use ostinati, certain harmonic devises, etc. All composers, Mahler included, compose music with what are, in essence, the same set of tools. It's what is done with those tools that give a composer a stand-out voice.

Can you link musical devices in Sibelius to other composers? Absolutely. But again, it's what he did with those devices that give his music an unmistakable fingerprint, and thus, an element or uniqueness, if you will.

I suppose if you come to Sibelius only liking one type of music (big sweeping Mahlerian stuff, for example), than you will be dissapointed. One should appraoch Sibelius wanting something else. He is more of an introspective composer.


----------



## Tapkaara

The more I thought about it, the more I realize that in listing just handful of aspects of Sibelius's music, I actually do little to prove the uniquness of his music.

I think what I was attempting to do was bring to light aspects of his sound that are certainly representive of his music, but any of it could be representative of other composers as well, thus, what does it really prove?

As it stands, it is a good (though very incomplete!) listing of some of Sibelius's favorite musical tools.

I think then the best way to see if Sibelius is a unique composer or not is to listen to his work and try to think of anything else tha sounds like it. Again, it is this special quality that perhaps one cannot exactly pin-point with words.

Take the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies? What else in the repertoire sounds like these? Orchestration? Melodic lines? Harmonies? I am hard pressed myself to think of ANYTHING that makes any of these works sound derivitive or unoriginal. What about the tone poems...En Saga, Pohjola's Daughter, Tapiola...do these resemble in any way the tone poems of Dvorak, Liszt or Strauss? Or do they sound like unqiue entities in the genre?


----------



## Mirror Image

What Cmaj7 said in regards to Sibelius' music is a typical technical explanation that doesn't really mean a hill of beans to the average listener. I understood what Cmaj7 and Tapkaara posted, but not everybody are fortunate enough to have had musical training or be gifted with the ability to compose or play an instrument.

That said, Sibelius is a different kind of composer. If you're looking for bombastic overemotional barrages, then you should look somewhere else. The problem I have with what Cmaj7 wrote is he sounds like he's listening to Sibelius with some kind of pre-conceived notion of what this music should sound like instead of listening to it on its' own terms, which for me, is the only way to listen to Sibelius. You have to let down your guard when listening to his music, because when you do that's when you're hooked. Allow yourself to be vulnerable and you will understand his music and get a deeper meaning from it.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> That said, Sibelius is a different kind of composer. If you're looking for bombastic overemotional barrages, then you should look somewhere else. The problem I have with what Cmaj7 wrote is he sounds like he's listening to Sibelius with some kind of pre-conceived notion of what this music should sound like instead of listening to it on its' own terms, which for me, is the only way to listen to Sibelius. You have to let down your guard when listening to his music, because when you do that's when you're hooked. Allow yourself to be vulnerable and you will understand his music and get a deeper meaning from it.


This is a good observation which I agree with.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> Symphonies 1 and 2 are perhaps the most "standard" of his symphonies in that they have roots in late 20th century romanticism.


Just using this quoted sentence as a launch pad - not as something to argue with. I barely know a crotchet from a quaver, but I do know that on hearing the first 2 minutes of the 1st symphony for the very first time, my response was '_what_ is _that?_'. It was like nothing I'd ever heard before. I still know of nothing like it, decades of listening later. It's certainly not like Tchaikovsky, except in the same way as one can detect bits of Brahmsian and Wagnerian influence in Elgar, or bits of other composers' influence in almost every other composer. Mostly, I think, I'd be able to recognise a couple of minutes of Sibelius in a way that I'd struggle to do with many another composer.

One can analyse the underlying musical structure as much as one likes, but for me the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Sibelius is apparent without knowing about any of that.


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> One can analyse the underlying musical structure as much as one likes, but for me the distinctiveness and uniqueness of Sibelius is apparent without knowing about any of that.


You know, I think that is so very true. Basically, I was trying to put my finger on something that is perhaps impossible. I was trying to give tangible, touchable explanations for Sibelius's unique genius but I ultmiately decided pretty much when you just said, Elgarian. One doesn't need a technical understanding of the music to know what they are hearing is a fairly distinctive voice.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> You know, I think that is so very true. Basically, I was trying to put my finger on something that is perhaps impossible. I was trying to give tangible, touchable explanations for Sibelius's unique genius but I ultmiately decided pretty much when you just said, Elgarian. One doesn't need a technical understanding of the music to know what they are hearing is a fairly distinctive voice.


I suppose the theoretical analysis comes later. We first hear the distinctive voice and recognise it - then ask 'why?' - and _then_ the analysis explains it (for those capable of understanding, which I'm not). If you don't hear it, first, then there's nothing much worth explaining.

As Vaughan Williams said - the soldier going into battle wants to hear the bugle play - he doesn't want you to hand him a score and explain why the music might inspire him.


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> As Vaughan Williams said - the soldier going into battle wants to hear the bugle play - he doesn't want you to hand him a score and explain why the music might inspire him.


That's a beautiful quote!!


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I suppose the theoretical analysis comes later. We first hear the distinctive voice and recognise it - then ask 'why?' - and _then_ the analysis explains it (for those capable of understanding, which I'm not). If you don't hear it, first, then there's nothing much worth explaining.
> 
> As Vaughan Williams said - the soldier going into battle wants to hear the bugle play - he doesn't want you to hand him a score and explain why the music might inspire him.


Bingo! That's it right there! This is a very good point you made here Elgarian. You must first be attracted to the music --- emotionally speaking. You must first have an understanding of how you feel about the music, then and only then, will you be able to divulge yourself into the music's other qualities.


----------



## Tapkaara

Mirror Image said:


> Bingo! That's it right there! This is a very good point you made here Elgarian. You must first be attracted to the music --- emotionally speaking. You must first have an understanding of how you feel about the music, then and only then, will you be able to divulge yourself into the music's other qualities.


Another beautiful quote. If someone does not like a particular music, no explanation of its inner mechanics will likely help that person understand and like the music any different. I think this is a good illustration how music's primary impact is emotional.


----------



## Mirror Image

Tapkaara said:


> Another beautiful quote. If someone does not like a particular music, no explanation of its inner mechanics will likely help that person understand and like the music any different. I think this is a good illustration how music's primary impact is emotional.


I certainly feel this way. If I don't feel something from a piece of music, emotionally speaking, then there's not really any other alternative. Repeated listening sometimes helps, in some cases wins you over, but if you weren't impacted in some way on the very first listening, then there's going to a good chance you won't be impacted on the second or third listening.

This is why I'm grateful I never gave up on Bruckner's music, because there was something about his music that affected me emotionally, but there was something oft-putting about his music too the first time I heard it, but thankfully I did have an understanding of it emotionally just not intellectually. Now, I'm happy to say this is not a problem.


----------



## trazom

The 2nd is the only one I can stand listening to, as I haven't exactly warmed up to Sibelius' music just yet. I mean, If ever there were a meanderer who never arrived anywhere, it was Sibelius.

With perhaps the exception of his 2nd, all symphonies I've heard of his have been like one long entanglement of the same tedious semi-ideas & quasi-themes, & all bringing to mind a colourless landscape void of nature & low on light.

Nothing even starts let alone goes anywhere; it's akin to being pushed round a roundabout in an old grey Saab - the views never change, & even if some of the upholstery & spec is well-tailored, what use is it if the engine never fires?


----------



## Air

trazom said:


> The 2nd is the only one I can stand listening to, as I haven't exactly warmed up to Sibelius' music just yet. I mean, If ever there were a meanderer who never arrived anywhere, it was Sibelius.
> 
> With perhaps the exception of his 2nd, all symphonies I've heard of his have been like one long entanglement of the same tedious semi-ideas & quasi-themes, & all bringing to mind a colourless landscape void of nature & low on light.
> 
> Nothing even starts let alone goes anywhere; it's akin to being pushed round a roundabout in an old grey Saab - the views never change, & even if some of the upholstery & spec is well-tailored, what use is it if the engine never fires?


The beginning of the first is similar to the second, you may want to hear it.

So many members have had this same problem... but all I can tell you is to keep trying on the other ones, when you are able to grasp Real Sibelius there is no better feeling. The 7th is my favorite.

I still listen to the last movement of the 2nd sometimes though... when I need extra... drama.


----------



## Mirror Image

trazom said:


> The 2nd is the only one I can stand listening to, as I haven't exactly warmed up to Sibelius' music just yet. I mean, If ever there were a meanderer who never arrived anywhere, it was Sibelius.
> 
> With perhaps the exception of his 2nd, all symphonies I've heard of his have been like one long entanglement of the same tedious semi-ideas & quasi-themes, & all bringing to mind a colourless landscape void of nature & low on light.
> 
> Nothing even starts let alone goes anywhere; it's akin to being pushed round a roundabout in an old grey Saab - the views never change, & even if some of the upholstery & spec is well-tailored, what use is it if the engine never fires?


This is an unfair criticism I think. You clearly haven't spent anytime trying to figure out his music other than to say what you don't like about it. I would let this opinion go if you were talking about that serialism garbage. I agree with you about the 2nd Symphony, but I don't agree with your general outlook of his music.

If all else fails, go listen to his tone poems. I can guarantee you if don't find beauty in "Pohjola's Daughter," then you clearly weren't listening hard enough.

Sibelius isn't a composer that hits you over the head with an emotional brick at every passing measure like Mahler. If you're going from a heavy diet of Mahler, then you're clearly not going to fall for Sibelius right away. Sibelius created music that should be listened to on it's own terms.


----------



## Tapkaara

Sibelius meandering? This is sort of a shocking statement. I think if any major composer was big on being concise and to the point, it would be Sibelius. 

I bet Trazom likes Mahler. Now what was that about meandering?


----------



## kg4fxg

*Symphony No. 8*

I cry to think I may never be able to hear it. Oh, the mystery around No. 8 that so many are trying to figure out.

Here is an excerpt from the web. What did he do for those 30 years? He promised it to his wife. Sibelius come back - your fans love you. I love everyone of your symphonies. Oh, the agony and torturer of it all. No wonder I can't sleep at night anymore!

Today, virtually none of the Finnish composer Jean Sibelius's Symphony No. 8 exists. The manuscript was probably burned by Sibelius in 1945. It remains one of the great mysteries of twentieth century classical music.
Sibelius produced his last major work, Tapiola, in 1926, but he lived another thirty years, and many think[who?] he spent much of this time working on an eighth symphony. He promised the work as early as 1930. In letters to his wife Aino, he discusses the symphony's composition. Furthermore, there are records of him ordering large amounts of manuscript paper and of him having a large work copied out in the mid 1930s. There exists a 1937 receipt stating that a large work had been bound. He promised the premiere of this symphony to Serge Koussevitzky in 1931 and 1932, and a London performance in 1933 under Basil Cameron was even advertised to the public [1].
But, after all this, "Symphony No 8" never materialised. His wife recounts seeing him feeding manuscript papers into a fire in 1945, and many believe[who?] that among these papers was the completed Eighth Symphony. Sibelius was prone to insecurity and depression, and such destructive behaviour was not unprecedented. It was once believed that he destroyed an earlier version of his Fifth Symphony and an extended version of the Karelia Suite, but both have since been located.
While Sibelius refused to discuss the matter with journalists, he did talk about the symphony privately with colleagues and friends. However, what he said was notoriously inconsistent. He told some that he had several movements written down, but others were told that the symphony still only existed in his mind. Even into the 1950s, long after it was supposedly written (and supposedly destroyed), Sibelius would still say that he was still working on his Eighth Symphony. Whatever its state of completion, the work died with him.
The only traces of the symphony that have survived are some marginalia in a copy of his Seventh Symphony, some minor sketches of the symphony that have been found in the library of Helsinki University, and Surusoitto, Op. 111b, which Aino claimed was based on material from the symphony.


----------



## Elgarian

*Calling Tapkaara again!*

Well, I am a very baffled listener.

The Colin Davis set arrived yesterday, and I've been listening to his version of the 1st symphony, and comparing it with the Naxos Icelander version.

First off - the recording quality of the LSO set is rather better. More spacious, less 'boxy'. I expected that.

Now the performance. I find it downright boring. This is partly because it's so slow - the longer movements are each about 30 seconds longer than the comparable movement on the Naxos; but actually it sounds a lot slower than that would suggest. It drags.

To give you an example - consider the beginning of the exquiste 2nd movement. When the Icelanders play, it's lyrical. Slow, but rhythmic, and lyrical. Like a gentle walk. Then at around 1m20s, you know how the strings sweep in, a descending 4-note sequence di-dah-dum-daah with that lovely incisive effect? Now, if I listen to Davis doing this, first of all I'm starting to nod off after just one minute. The music seems to be sleepwalking into terminal decline. Then when the strings sweep in (at 1m30s for Davis the slowcoach), they come in more like a deflating balloon. They sound a lot more lush than the Icelanders, but by the third note I'm wondering if they'll ever get to the 4th.

I now see why I've enjoyed these Naxos recordings for so many years. They're rough and imperfect, but they're vital and alive. This Davis LSO version seems to have had all the life polished out of it. I shall keep listening in case the penny hasn't yet dropped, but I think I've probably wasted my money. (Don't say 'I told you so' - I knew this was a possibility, and the experiment is _interesting_, even if disappointing.)


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> Well, I am a very baffled listener.
> 
> The Colin Davis set arrived yesterday, and I've been listening to his version of the 1st symphony, and comparing it with the Naxos Icelander version.
> 
> First off - the recording quality of the LSO set is rather better. More spacious, less 'boxy'. I expected that.
> 
> Now the performance. I find it downright boring. This is partly because it's so slow - the longer movements are each about 30 seconds longer than the comparable movement on the Naxos; but actually it sounds a lot slower than that would suggest. It drags.
> 
> To give you an example - consider the beginning of the exquiste 2nd movement. When the Icelanders play, it's lyrical. Slow, but rhythmic, and lyrical. Like a gentle walk. Then at around 1m20s, you know how the strings sweep in, a descending 4-note sequence di-dah-dum-daah with that lovely incisive effect? Now, if I listen to Davis doing this, first of all I'm starting to nod off after just one minute. The music seems to be sleepwalking into terminal decline. Then when the strings sweep in (at 1m30s for Davis the slowcoach), they come in more like a deflating balloon. They sound a lot more lush than the Icelanders, but by the third note I'm wondering if they'll ever get to the 4th.
> 
> I now see why I've enjoyed these Naxos recordings for so many years. They're rough and imperfect, but they're vital and alive. This Davis LSO version seems to have had all the life polished out of it. I shall keep listening in case the penny hasn't yet dropped, but I think I've probably wasted my money. (Don't say 'I told you so' - I knew this was a possibility, and the experiment is _interesting_, even if disappointing.)


Is this the LSO/RCA recording you're talking about?


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> Well, I am a very baffled listener.
> 
> The Colin Davis set arrived yesterday, and I've been listening to his version of the 1st symphony, and comparing it with the Naxos Icelander version.
> 
> First off - the recording quality of the LSO set is rather better. More spacious, less 'boxy'. I expected that.
> 
> Now the performance. I find it downright boring. This is partly because it's so slow - the longer movements are each about 30 seconds longer than the comparable movement on the Naxos; but actually it sounds a lot slower than that would suggest. It drags.
> 
> To give you an example - consider the beginning of the exquiste 2nd movement. When the Icelanders play, it's lyrical. Slow, but rhythmic, and lyrical. Like a gentle walk. Then at around 1m20s, you know how the strings sweep in, a descending 4-note sequence di-dah-dum-daah with that lovely incisive effect? Now, if I listen to Davis doing this, first of all I'm starting to nod off after just one minute. The music seems to be sleepwalking into terminal decline. Then when the strings sweep in (at 1m30s for Davis the slowcoach), they come in more like a deflating balloon. They sound a lot more lush than the Icelanders, but by the third note I'm wondering if they'll ever get to the 4th.
> 
> I now see why I've enjoyed these Naxos recordings for so many years. They're rough and imperfect, but they're vital and alive. This Davis LSO version seems to have had all the life polished out of it. I shall keep listening in case the penny hasn't yet dropped, but I think I've probably wasted my money. (Don't say 'I told you so' - I knew this was a possibility, and the experiment is _interesting_, even if disappointing.)


Oh Elgarian, how I feared this would be the case...

True, if you have only listened to the first it's too early to condemn the rest of the set. Like I said, in the Segerstam/Helsinki set, the 2nd is extremely boring; if I listened to it first, I might think the rest of the symphonies would be equally bad...and I'd be wrong. So, maybe we have a similar case here...I hope!!

Unfortunately, Davis really does not come into his own (I think) until his 3rd cycle on LSO Live. His BSO cycle on Philips is over-rated, I think, because while the sound is fine, the performances are just to plain. All the notes are there, but it lacks that something special. Davis finally finds that something special on LSO Live.

Let's not give up yet, Elgarian. Give the rest of the set a go and we'll see where we end up from there.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> how I feared this would be the case...


I'm just looking here at the comments in that long MusicWeb review (yes, MI, this is the RCA award-winning set):

"Not everything is 'perfect' - nobody can be that! - but this is as near as you're going to get. If you're new to Sibelius, I can't think of a better introduction than this. If you've known and loved Sibelius for more years than you care to remember, and you haven't yet encountered these recordings, then you simply must, must put that right."

Really? "Near to perfection?" As a soporific, does he mean? "No better introduction?" If this had been the first performance of the 1st symphony I'd heard, I doubt I'd ever have listened again.

I've never been so misled by a _Penguin Guide_ recommendation. They've been consistently the most reliable set of reviews I know. But they got this badly wrong, or there's something wrong with my ears.

Of course I'll let you know how I get on with the rest, but with my scintillating box full of joy and excitement that is the King's Consort collection of Vivaldi's Complete Sacred Music beckoning, I'm not overkeen to spend much more time taking Davis's Sibelius-flavoured sleeping pills. On the good side, the experience has made me appreciate my Naxos set all the more!


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I'm just looking here at the comments in that long MusicWeb review (yes, MI, this is the RCA award-winning set):
> 
> "Not everything is 'perfect' - nobody can be that! - but this is as near as you're going to get. If you're new to Sibelius, I can't think of a better introduction than this. If you've known and loved Sibelius for more years than you care to remember, and you haven't yet encountered these recordings, then you simply must, must put that right."
> 
> Really? "Near to perfection?" As a soporific, does he mean? "No better introduction?" If this had been the first performance of the 1st symphony I'd heard, I doubt I'd ever have listened again.
> 
> I've never been so misled by a _Penguin Guide_ recommendation. They've been consistently the most reliable set of reviews I know. But they got this badly wrong, or there's something wrong with my ears.


I'm not fond of Davis' RCA Sibelius cycle. His LSO Live series is so much better. Like night and day actually. His Philips set was okay, but it's mediocre at best.

I don't like the Penguin Guide, so I don't read their reviews, but they're totally wrong about this set no question about it.

The LSO Live series is not only the superior Davis set, but it's the best sounding one too.


----------



## Elgarian

Well, I've been continuing my experiments into the second symphony, and I've made some progress. It's not the progress you might have expected, Tapkaara, but here goes.

Again, I'm comparing the Naxos Iceland recording with the LSO RCA recording. The first striking thing is that the Davis is much better in terms of recording quality. As I noticed with the first symphony, the LSO sound is weightier, more spacious, more convincing; by comparison the Naxos recording is 'boxy', and thinner.

The second thing I notice is yet again the terminally slow tempo of Davis by comparison with the Naxos. I dislike this immensely - the music drags itself along as if it's in the process of dying, and I constantly feel the need to urge it along, to 'get on with it'; I almost feel that if I loaded the audio file into Audacity and increased the tempo by a few percent, it would become something like acceptable. In the end I got so fed up that I stopped the disc, and just sampled favourite bits, comparing them with the Naxos. Apart from the recording quality, which is clearly inferior on the Naxos, I think the Naxos has a rough vitality which I like, and which the Davis completely lacks. Conclusion: I've heard enough. This RCA set can go off to the charity shop.

But then I had a brainwave. I went to the LSO Live website, where I discovered that a short section of the last movement of the second symphony can be sampled. Aha, I thought. I will compare the two LSO versions. So I played the web sample; the tempo was much better; I thought the performance was OK, but not startlingly good. Then I played the same bit from the CD, and was astounded. The CD was _so much better_, full of life and zing. I was completely baffled. How could I have got it so wrong? And then I noticed... I'd put the wrong CD in! I was comparing the LSO Live sample with the Naxos CD!!!!

I think this is all I need to know. I think Colin Davis's take on Sibelius simply isn't for me, no matter which version we're discussing, and no matter how many people prefer it. This is obviously a very personal thing, and difficult for me to explain. I think the best I can do is to say that Davis's versions seem to me to be too warm, too comfortable, too glossily smooth. The Icelanders are less proficient, and rougher, and I can see all kinds of reasons why their version might be thought inferior; but their vision of Sibelius is closer to _my_ vision of Sibelius, edged with ice and bitter winds, and Northern snows.

It's been an interesting experiment, and the end result is that I have a higher regard for the Icelanders than I had before I started, which is interesting. And I've also recognised (though this is not new) that recording quality, and smooth sophistication of delivery, is much less important to me than that elusive vitality of playing, however rough and unpolished it may seem to other people. Phew. I can see you shaking your head in disapproval, Erik - but I know you'll agree that the important thing is to get the Sibelius I want _in practice_, not the Sibelius I ought to like in theory.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well Elgarian, everything is worht a try, isn't it?

I was coming very close to picking up a disc of Davis's RCA cycle, but your comments have certainly snapped me back to where I was before. What you are describing sounds too much like Davis is his Philips cycle, and thus I really have no reason to purchase any disc in this set. I know I won't like it, so what would the point be?

I still contend that Davis's LSO Live cycle is worthy of the adulation I give it. The reason being is that is does sound rugged and less glossy. Tempi are well judged, too. But no two sets of ears are the same, and what I like will not necessarily be what someone else likes.

The Sakari/Iceland cycle has its moments. Have you heard they recording of the 6th and 7th yet? Best in the whole set.

I am with you, Elgarian, that I like my Sibelius a little less smoothed over. His sound needs to be a little like the "wilderness" from which it comes. 

So, where do you go from here? Will you sample another cycle or will you be staying in Iceland for a while?

By the way, a cycle I did not recommend the first time may be of interest to you: Maazel/VPO. I did not suggest it because it is controversial. I feel like I am the only person on earth who likes this cycle, though it's gotten fairly good reviews on Amazon. It should not be to pricey. Maazel's Sibelius is very rough around the edges and sounds a little more untamed. His reading of the 2nd, in particular, is very majestic. May I also suggest this cylce?


----------



## World Violist

Tapkaara said:


> Well Elgarian, everything is worht a try, isn't it?
> 
> I was coming very close to picking up a disc of Davis's RCA cycle, but your comments have certainly snapped me back to where I was before. What you are describing sounds too much like Davis is his Philips cycle, and thus I really have no reason to purchase any disc in this set. I know I won't like it, so what would the point be?
> 
> I still contend that Davis's LSO Live cycle is worthy of the adulation I give it. The reason being is that is does sound rugged and less glossy. Tempi are well judged, too. But no two sets of ears are the same, and what I like will not necessarily be what someone else likes.
> 
> The Sakari/Iceland cycle has its moments. Have you heard they recording of the 6th and 7th yet? Best in the whole set.
> 
> I am with you, Elgarian, that I like my Sibelius a little less smoothed over. His sound needs to be a little like the "wilderness" from which it comes.
> 
> So, where do you go from here? Will you sample another cycle or will you be staying in Iceland for a while?
> 
> By the way, a cycle I did not recommend the first time may be of interest to you: Maazel/VPO. I did not suggest it because it is controversial. I feel like I am the only person on earth who likes this cycle, though it's gotten fairly good reviews on Amazon. It should not be to pricey. Maazel's Sibelius is very rough around the edges and sounds a little more untamed. His reading of the 2nd, in particular, is very majestic. May I also suggest this cylce?


I've loved the LSO Live Sibelius, no matter how shocking it was especially to me.

The Maazel set in question is actually a very good introduction to the second, fifth, and seventh symphonies. I wouldn't exactly recommend it for the others, however. The third and sixth in that set, in particular, are outright failures interpretively. For those two I prefer Davis/LSO (Live) and Vanska/Lahti. For the first, nothing I've heard so far beats Segerstam/HPO. For the fourth, I'm not really sure. Karajan and the Berliners do a terrifying job of it, but I'm on the lookout for Levine/BPO and Vanska/Lahti. Bernstein and the NYPO also do it plenty of justice, as I recall.


----------



## Mirror Image

For me, it's hard beating Vanska, Jarvi, Barbirolli, Davis' LSO Live cycle, and I finally heard some of Segerstam's Sibelius and it's outstanding.

Everybody has their personal preferences of course and nobody is wrong and nobody is right no matter how much we like to think so. Elgarian could very well end up loving the Davis RCA cycle and good for him. If this helps him understand Sibelius from a different perspective, then I'm all for that. We need all the Sibelius fans we can get around here am I right, Tapkaara?


----------



## Tapkaara

World Violist said:


> I've loved the LSO Live Sibelius, no matter how shocking it was especially to me.
> 
> The Maazel set in question is actually a very good introduction to the second, fifth, and seventh symphonies. I wouldn't exactly recommend it for the others, however. The third and sixth in that set, in particular, are outright failures interpretively. For those two I prefer Davis/LSO (Live) and Vanska/Lahti. For the first, nothing I've heard so far beats Segerstam/HPO. For the fourth, I'm not really sure. Karajan and the Berliners do a terrifying job of it, but I'm on the lookout for Levine/BPO and Vanska/Lahti. Bernstein and the NYPO also do it plenty of justice, as I recall.


I think it's perhaps much to say that Maazel's 3rd and 6th are "failures," but that's just me. I would say that they are not the best recordings of either work by a long shot, but to call them "failures" I think is over-stating it. But I agree: it's agood starter set, and should not be too pricey.

Segerstam/HPO does boast, I think, the best recording of the 1st available, so I agree with Violist here. This can also be said of Segerstam's 5th.

Levine's 4th with the BPO lives up to the hype. It's excellent. I am less impressed, though, with Karajan in the 4th. I think his reading is over-rated.

I have only heard Berstein's 2nd, which is very good.


----------



## Mirror Image

To be honest though, I don't find much enjoyment in Sibelius' symphonies at all. Most of them don't do much for me. His tone poems, on the other hand, I enjoy quite a bit.

I find his symphonies lack direction, especially Symphony No. 2, which is a complete snoozefest.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> So, where do you go from here? Will you sample another cycle or will you be staying in Iceland for a while?


I've been doing some thinking, trying to remember what the performances were that I loved on vinyl, in the days before I chucked out all my LPs. In the late 1960s and early 70s (when I bought all my Sibelius) I had no money - the idea of buying more than one version of any particular work never occurred to me; it would have seemed extravagant. So I owned one version only of each work, chosen with care, but also with an eye to my pocket. I'd spend Saturday morning in the record shop, pestering the staff to let me hear records in the little listening booths they had. The actual performers didn't mean a great deal to me then, so in most cases I've forgotten who they were.

But I do remember that my recording of the 2nd symphony was conducted by Pierre Monteux; and my recording of the 1st Symphony was on Philips - I'm almost sure it was mono, by Beecham (mono or stereo didn't matter, as I only had a mono player). My goodness, I played the grooves off those two recordings - they were electrifying. So you see, my love of Sibelius goes back a very long way, though he's less important to me now than he used to be. And what I'm wondering, now, is whether I might be able to find those older recordings transferred to CD, rather than invest more of my limited funds in yet another expensive modern cycle that I probably won't like. I've discovered that Monteux's Sibelius 2nd can be had in a Monteux box set with a heap of other (non-Sibelius) stuff that I don't want, so unfortunately that seems like an expensive way to achieve it.

The point is that Sibelius and I go a very long way back; and I think I'm looking for qualities that may simply not be present in these more recent interpretations. If I were new to Sibelius, it would be different - it would be a new landscape; but I suppose I'm much more excited about exploring my new Baroque discoveries, than spending more time (and cash) trying to find a Sibelius cycle that suits me. I think the Naxos set suits me well enough for now. And the charity shop will benefit from the Davis set.


----------



## Mirror Image

Elgarian said:


> I've been doing some thinking, trying to remember what the performances were that I loved on vinyl, in the days before I chucked out all my LPs. In the late 1960s and early 70s (when I bought all my Sibelius) I had no money - the idea of buying more than one version of any particular work never occurred to me; it would have seemed extravagant. So I owned one version only of each work, chosen with care, but also with an eye to my pocket. I'd spend Saturday morning in the record shop, pestering the staff to let me hear records in the little listening booths they had. The actual performers didn't mean a great deal to me then, so in most cases I've forgotten who they were.
> 
> But I do remember that my recording of the 2nd symphony was conducted by Pierre Monteux; and my recording of the 1st Symphony was on Philips - I'm almost sure it was mono, by Beecham (mono or stereo didn't matter, as I only had a mono player). My goodness, I played the grooves off those two recordings - they were electrifying. So you see, my love of Sibelius goes back a very long way, though he's less important to me now than he used to be. And what I'm wondering, now, is whether I might be able to find those older recordings transferred to CD, rather than invest more of my limited funds in yet another expensive modern cycle that I probably won't like. I've discovered that Monteux's Sibelius 2nd can be had in a Monteux box set with a heap of other (non-Sibelius) stuff that I don't want, so unfortunately that seems like an expensive way to achieve it.
> 
> The point is that Sibelius and I go a very long way back; and I think I'm looking for qualities that may simply not be present in these more recent interpretations. If I were new to Sibelius, it would be different - it would be a new landscape; but I suppose I'm much more excited about exploring my new Baroque discoveries, than spending more time (and cash) trying to find a Sibelius cycle that suits me. I think the Naxos set suits me well enough for now. And the charity shop will benefit from the Davis set.


Yes, I know what you mean. Sibelius, while I like his music a lot, has become one of the composers I listen to less and less as the weeks and months progress. I started out very much in-tune with what Sibelius was composing, but over time I started to develop an interest in other composers that I felt were far more satisfying to me than Sibelius.

It all comes down to personal preferences I suppose. Sibelius barely even made my top 20 list of favorite composers this time around, but there's one piece that really put him there "Pohjola's Daughter." This piece is what made me a Sibelius fan. It certainly wasn't his symphonies. His "Violin Concerto" was also one of the first pieces I heard that I enjoyed, then I heard a bunch of his other tone poems like "The Oceanides," "Nightride and Sunrise," "En Saga," and "Lemminkainen Suite."

His music just doesn't interest me quite like Ravel, Bartok, Stravinsky, Brahms, Langgaard, Bruckner, Debussy, Delius, etc. I just don't find myself returning to his music very often.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, the bottom line is, Elgarian, if the Naxos set fits your personal bill, then that really is all you need. Or perhaps you should get those vinyls transferred to CD. if you are working on a limited budget (probably a very wise thing to do!), then I fully understand your wanting to be cautious when buying new recordings, especially after the Colin Davis debacle.

Do you have all of the recordings in the Naxos cycle?


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> Well, the bottom line is, Elgarian, if the Naxos set fits your personal bill, then that really is all you need. Or perhaps you should get those vinyls transferred to CD.


Too late, too late. I heaved all my vinyl out of the window a long time ago. (Metaphorically speaking, you understand!) It's not that I can't afford to try another cycle; I can. But every Sibelius cycle I buy means another Handel or Vivaldi opera that I _can't_ buy, so it's a matter of choices and priorities.



> Do you have all of the recordings in the Naxos cycle?


Yes - I have the Naxos White Box; the discs may not be available in that form, now. At the time, I was looking for a Sibelius quick fix, and the White Box seemed to have generally good reviews back then, and ... it didn't cost much! It's served me well, I think, at a time when Sibelius had become less important to me than formerly.

This all came about because I listened to the first symphony a few days ago (as a result of a conversation here), and thoroughly enjoyed it after quite a long gap, and thought maybe I could do better - and that's how all this experimenting began.

I would like to say though, that I don't regard Sibelius any less highly than I did. It's just that my tastes and interests have changed a lot over the years, and I don't listen to that _kind_ of music so much these days. I still think he's a towering giant of a composer. My tastes have changed, but my esteem for him and his music hasn't. (It's much the same with Wagner, these days.)


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> Too late, too late. I heaved all my vinyl out of the window a long time ago. (Metaphorically speaking, you understand!) It's not that I can't afford to try another cycle; I can. But every Sibelius cycle I buy means another Handel or Vivaldi opera that I _can't_ buy, so it's a matter of choices and priorities.
> 
> Yes - I have the Naxos White Box; the discs may not be available in that form, now. At the time, I was looking for a Sibelius quick fix, and the White Box seemed to have generally good reviews back then, and ... it didn't cost much! It's served me well, I think, at a time when Sibelius had become less important to me than formerly.
> 
> This all came about because I listened to the first symphony a few days ago (as a result of a conversation here), and thoroughly enjoyed it after quite a long gap, and thought maybe I could do better - and that's how all this experimenting began.
> 
> I would like to say though, that I don't regard Sibelius any less highly than I did. It's just that my tastes and interests have changed a lot over the years, and I don't listen to that _kind_ of music so much these days. I still think he's a towering giant of a composer. My tastes have changed, but my esteem for him and his music hasn't. (It's much the same with Wagner, these days.)


Hey, we all go through phases like this. I esteem the music of Beethoven now probably more than I ever have, but I do return to him less these days. Not out of lack of love for the man, it's just that there is so much else out there that happens to grab me more firmly these days.

I really should do another "deep listen" to the Naxos cycle. I have a feeling my opinions will not change much, but who knows? You've got me thinking about this particular cycle a lot these days, so maybe some of your enthusiam will rub off.

I'm just very happy that you hold a high regard for this composer. It seems from the "Do You Like SIbelius" thread that there are more folks here that hold im in good regard as opposed to bad (according to the poll), but it seems like when we get folks to TALK about him (aside from voting), it's fairly negative commentary.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> It seems from the "Do You Like SIbelius" thread that there are more folks here that hold im in good regard as opposed to bad (according to the poll), but it seems like when we get folks to TALK about him (aside from voting), it's fairly negative commentary.


You won't hear any negative comments about Sibelius from me. Apart from Elgar, no other composer was so responsible for showing me, at a critical time, what power classical music could have in my life. He was a huge influence on me.


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> You won't hear any negative comments about Sibelius from me. Apart from Elgar, no other composer was so responsible for showing me, at a critical time, what power classical music could have in my life. He was a huge influence on me.


And Sibelius is a huge influence on me. I once said in another forum how "at home" I feel in Sibelius, and I do.


----------



## Elgarian

I know this thread is about the symphonies, but how about the violin concerto? I only have one: Kyung Wha-Chung with Previn and the LSO. I'm more than happy with that, and have never felt the need for another version - but Tapkaara, do you have a particularly strong favourite? Do you have a view on the Chung/Previn recording?


----------



## Tapkaara

Elgarian said:


> I know this thread is about the symphonies, but how about the violin concerto? I only have one: Kyung Wha-Chung with Previn and the LSO. I'm more than happy with that, and have never felt the need for another version - but Tapkaara, do you have a particularly strong favourite? Do you have a view on the Chung/Previn recording?


Believe it or not, I have not heard this recording.

Probably my current favorite is on...you guessed it...Naxos! B. Engeset conducting the Bournemouth SO with Henning Kraggerud on the fiddle. It's a very vital, sweeping performance that perhaps has a little bit more gusto than some recordings. If you like your Sibelius slightly more chilled, the BIS recording of the work with Vänskä/Lahti and L. Kavakos as the soloist is also great. What's cool about THAT recording is you also get the original version of the concerto before the composer revised it.


----------



## maestro267

Does Kullervo count? If not, No. 1 ranks as my favourite.


----------



## Mirror Image

Perhaps I have been a bit harsh in my judgement of Sibelius' symphonies. They are unlike any symphony ever written. The use of space and even silence is quite unusual. It would be impossible for me to pick just one, so my favorites are the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th. I have to go back and re-listen to the 2nd and 3rd. I can't seem to grasp these two for some reason.


----------



## Mirror Image

maestro267 said:


> Does Kullervo count? If not, No. 1 ranks as my favourite.


Absolutely, "Kullervo" counts, but it's not traditionally thought of as a symphony in academic circles.


----------



## tahnak

Seventh C Major Symphony


----------



## Mirror Image

The more I listen to Sibelius, the more I realize just how much I love his music. He was one of the first classical composers I was actually interested in. It was like this: Ives, Bartok, Ravel, Copland, Sibelius, and then Nielsen, those are the first composers I was interested in. From there, it just branched off.

I'm really excited about Leif Segerstam's take of Sibelius' symphonies I ordered. I heard nothing but great things about them.


----------



## World Violist

Mirror Image said:


> I'm really excited about Leif Segerstam's take of Sibelius' symphonies I ordered. I heard nothing but great things about them.


Leif Segerstam is probably the most eccentric and imaginative Sibelius interpreters on record. Not as consistently great as Berglund, but he has his moments when you can't help letting your jaw drop (like the whole 1st and 5th symphonies).


----------



## Mirror Image

World Violist said:


> Leif Segerstam is probably the most eccentric and imaginative Sibelius interpreters on record. Not as consistently great as Berglund, but he has his moments when you can't help letting your jaw drop (like the whole 1st and 5th symphonies).


I have been listening to the Berglund set on EMI and it's really good. I haven't listened to it much, so I'm having another go at it.

Yes, Segerstam is not only a good Sibelius interpreter, but he's an excellent conductor all-around. I enjoyed his reading of Langgaard's Symphony No. 1.


----------



## Falstaft

Of the Sib-symphs I know well, I (currently) rank them 4-6-5-2. 

I agree with the general sentiment here on this thread that the Fourth really is a sui generis masterwork, cold and withdrawn but hardly inaccessible -- in fact, it was the work that turned me on to Sibelius in the first place. The third movement is exceptional, one of the clearest examples of Sibelius' organically generative craft out there that still manages to be quite beautiful and perhaps even painful (in a good way).

No opinion on preferred conductors, though I'm sure I will peruse this thread once more when I eventually shell out for a full cycle on CD.


----------



## Machiavel

Maybe it is the record I heard but sibelius does not move me much. Maybe he is a great composer(symphonist) , but compare to mahler,bruckner,brahms,beethoven I find him really minimalist.

I have listen to the complete cycle of jarvi,Rattle and berstein. I think I like the jarvi more but still I find something is missing from his music.

If anyone has a recommendation for a record I could buy , feel free to say!

Probably the geatest symphonist in his time but compare to the past greats he is a bit shallow.

Just for the record I believe that Mahler was the last great symphonist in the line of beethoven; after him even shostakovitch is of a second order


----------



## World Violist

Machiavel said:


> Maybe it is the record I heard but sibelius does not move me much. Maybe he is a great composer(symphonist) , but compare to mahler,bruckner,brahms,beethoven I find him really minimalist.
> 
> I have listen to the complete cycle of jarvi,Rattle and berstein. I think I like the jarvi more but still I find something is missing from his music.
> 
> If anyone has a recommendation for a record I could buy , feel free to say!
> 
> Probably the geatest symphonist in his time but compare to the past greats he is a bit shallow.
> 
> Just for the record I believe that Mahler was the last great symphonist in the line of beethoven; after him even shostakovitch is of a second order


I think it is the recordings you've been hearing... none of those three (except maybe Bernstein, and that still isn't always the best Sibelius) are really great Sibelians.

Also, it might have something to do with what you're looking for in the music. Mahler is basically the opposite of Sibelius; Sibelius didn't go for big effects, he just wrote beautiful music. As to his being shallow, I personally couldn't disagree less; I find him much deeper than Mahler (or Beethoven in his symphonies) ever was.

Trying some Finnish conductors might do it for you. Paavo Berglund was my first Sibelius cycle, and it's really great except for No. 7 (one of the best symphonies). Osmo Vanska is also a very powerful Sibelian, but maybe not a first choice. Colin Davis in his latest cycle (on LSO Live, definitely not with the BSO) has some marvelous things going for him and reveals a lot of Sibelius' great depth.

Just realize that Sibelius was just as great as Mahler, Bruckner, etc., just in a different way, and so requires a different "set of ears," so to speak.


----------



## Saturnus

Elgarian said:


> Well, I've been continuing my experiments into the second symphony, and I've made some progress. It's not the progress you might have expected, Tapkaara, but here goes.
> 
> Again, I'm comparing the Naxos Iceland recording with the LSO RCA recording. The first striking thing is that the Davis is much better in terms of recording quality. As I noticed with the first symphony, the LSO sound is weightier, more spacious, more convincing; by comparison the Naxos recording is 'boxy', and thinner.


You should see the hall this was recorded in. It is a *cinema*, the sound quality is so bad they dont even sell tickets to the rows furthest from the stage, and in concerts you can always see some less experienced concert goers with popcorn and coke.


----------



## Ravellian

I've had the Sibelius complete cycle by Sir Colin Davis/LSO for a while now, and I'm just starting to give it a listen. And I'm very glad that I have! I really enjoy the 2nd and 5th symphonies. The 2nd has some of the most beautiful themes I've heard in any symphony, and I especially love the part in the 5th where the first theme returns right before the scherzo section. He seems almost Tchaikovskian in his gift for melodic writing.

Looking forward to trying out the others.


----------



## Elgarian

Some of my most revealing listening recently has been to these two boxes:

















For a while now, I've been trying to find what I felt was the finest interpretation of the first symphony, and after a very long search (I could say it lasted 40 years, on and off), at last I found it in Segerstam's recording with the Helsinki Phil. My explorations of the rest of the box have been equally exciting: this proved to be by far the most ravishingly spacious Romantic approach to Sibelius that I'd ever found, full of fire-and-ice Northerness, and definitely closer to what I was looking for than Vanska - fine though he is.

So I thought I was all set, but then I decided to try the newly-released Rozhdestvensky Sibelius box. This really put the cat among the pigeons. The difference is enormous; the Russians play these symphonies with a raw, blaring brass sound like the rending of a glacier, and it really is a tremendous ride.

But to go back to my favourite - the first - and compare these two accounts, is to wonder just what really constitutes the first symphony. I don't think I've ever heard two such widely differing interpretations before, yet each, within its own terms, entirely satisfying. So here I am, having moved from a position where I hadn't managed to find a performance of No. 1 that truly satisfied me, to a new situation where I have two.


----------



## riede

*Different choice*

I'll be the odd man out in this thread and suggest that I find Sibelius's Third to be his greatest, most satisfying symphony. There is a woinderful clarity and yet also an emotion-filled blend of folk and classical elements in it that I always admire. And it has fewer vestiges of the sort of warmed-over Russian romanticism one finds in his first two symphonic works. In fact, the Third is among my half dozen favorite symphonies in 20th century music (barely 20th I realize).


----------



## tdc

*First impressions*

Having listened through almost all of the Sibelius symphonies in the last couple of days (still havent gotten all the way through #5 yet) the real stand outs for me so far are - 4, 7and 1 with 4 being the one that seems to stand apart from the rest on first impression. It feels like 4 is the really definitive one that makes his output feel complete, its the most unique, emotive and it feels like he really just lays it all out in it. But like I say these are just first impressions.


----------



## starry

I think the last 4 are the best, but the first 3 have fine music as well. There isn't a weak symphony really.


----------



## Guest

The 3rd is the piece that really got me into Sibelius, and I still say it's not only my favorite symphony of his but my favorite piece altogether. It's hard to rank his symphonies, however, because I like them all basically equally. He's one of the rare composers whose entire symphonic output I enjoy completely (the others being Brahms and maybe Vaughan Williams).


----------



## Xaltotun

It's been a long and hard road, but I'm really warming up for Sibelius. He's turning into one of my favourite composers. It's just incredible how he develops his symphonic language from symphony to symphony, just like Beethoven. None of his symphonies sound the same. He gives us both thoughts and emotions - not always at the same time, though. I have to listen with concentrated effort to get Sibelius, he's quite subtle, at least from the 4th on. But it's turning out extremely rewarding. And the blood-drenched Tchaikovskyian romanticism of the 1st (maybe the 2nd too) and the Violin Concerto are something else, but just as amazing.

Right now, my order of preference for the symphonies would be something like

1 (blood and thunder!), 4 (questions!), 6 (purity!), 2 (grandeur!), 5 (answers!), 7 (mystery!), 3 (classicism!).

I love them all, though!


----------



## World Violist

I've been studying the scores of some of these symphonies lately, particularly three and four as they are the two that I own (not Dover, I've got the pocket scores by Breitkopf & Hartel and someone else), and my placing of the 3rd symphony as my favorite one is possibly a difficult choice because they're all magnificent symphonies, but I feel it's only fair.

I recognize the greatness of all seven, but I still don't understand numbers 1, 2, and 5. They are foreign to me in some way.

So my current favorites in order would probably go something like this: 3, 6, 4, 7, 5, 2, 1.


----------



## Elgarian

World Violist said:


> I recognize the greatness of all seven, but I still don't understand numbers 1, 2, and 5. They are foreign to me in some way.


Can you expand on the word 'understand' at all, WV? Do you mean there's something structurally about them that doesn't seem coherent (for example)? Or are you speaking more generally - about personal taste?

I ask because I could easily find myself reversing your list - saying that I don't 'understand' (whatever that means) 4, 6 and 7, but that 1, 2 and 5 are easily accessible (in so far as they were among the very first pieces of classical music that blew my head off when I was sixteen). The only one that hits both of our spots is 3. So my 'favourites' list goes something like 1, 2, 5, 3, 7, 6, 4.

But I think we may be using the word 'understand' in different ways. One clear difference for me is the presence or otherwise of big tunes, but that doesn't quite express what I mean. I come away from 1, 2, 3, and 5 with the great themes ringing through my head, it's true, but I mean more than that: there are chunks of them all that I can conjure up in my mind at any time without actually playing the CD. With the others, the memory of what I've just heard evaporates so quickly that I can't grasp it.


----------



## World Violist

Elgarian said:


> Can you expand on the word 'understand' at all, WV? Do you mean there's something structurally about them that doesn't seem coherent (for example)? Or are you speaking more generally - about personal taste?
> 
> I ask because I could easily find myself reversing your list - saying that I don't 'understand' (whatever that means) 4, 6 and 7, but that 1, 2 and 5 are easily accessible (in so far as they were among the very first pieces of classical music that blew my head off when I was sixteen). The only one that hits both of our spots is 3. So my 'favourites' list goes something like 1, 2, 5, 3, 7, 6, 4.
> 
> But I think we may be using the word 'understand' in different ways. One clear difference for me is the presence or otherwise of big tunes, but that doesn't quite express what I mean. I come away from 1, 2, 3, and 5 with the great themes ringing through my head, it's true, but I mean more than that: there are chunks of them all that I can conjure up in my mind at any time without actually playing the CD. With the others, the memory of what I've just heard evaporates so quickly that I can't grasp it.


Sorry, I could have been more precise with my words. "Understanding" for me is more a structural thing than anything else... so it disorients me when I can't figure out what is structurally going on, hence my "misunderstanding" of Italian opera and such things like that. I recognize the structure of 3, 4, 6, and 7 because it's all very concentrated, but when I hear 1, 2, and 5 they seem to diffuse a bit.


----------



## Llyranor

I can't believe I haven't listened to Sibelius' symphonies until now. His violin concerto has been my favorite concerto ever since I heard it live at a concert (having never heard it before, I think my jaw dropped), but I never really branch out into his other works until recently (despite having bought the full symphony set by Davis - I think the older one - a while ago).

A few weeks ago, I had the fortune of listening to his 5th symphony (for the first time) at a concert. The first movement caught me off-guard; it wasn't what I was used to, and I wasn't sure what to think of it. The 2nd movement was kind of catchy. The 3rd movement started off slow, but it built up and built up and built until some catharsis was achieved (not sure how to described it, but I guess it's the first climax a few minutes into the last movement). My jaw dropped again. I'm not sure I recovered properly, because the ending seemed a bit off. I then started listening to the Davis recording of it multiple times (5? 10? lost count). Every time, I would hear something new, and in time I realize how beautiful the entire symphony is. There's still some parts I don't 'get', but wow is it fresh.

Since then (within the span of a few weeks, slowly) I've been aiming to listen to each of the other symphonies in turn. The 1st and 2nd are really beautiful; I can't think of a single movement I don't like. The final movement of the 2nd is just out of this world - wow! It might be my favorite so far (my 2nd favorite? not sure, maybe the 1st or the 5th, potentially the 4th - it's so hard to rank them). The 3rd symphony is also really beautiful, but there's something about its structure that's a bit different that made it sound a little weird at first - but ultimately, I find it so well orchestrated. 

The 4th symphony (which I only started to listen to yesterday) also took a little time to get into. 1st mvt was just really dark, with no major themes that I could readily pick out (will need to relisten), while the 2nd mvt is quite nice. The 3rd mvt (my favorite) is where things starts to get really nifty. Somewhere around the 5-6 minute mark, there's just this eery wintery feeling of isolation or loneliness that I can't quite put my finger on - it might be the sound the violins make that just conjure up the feeling of winter or cold for me. And the final movement is also pretty beautiful.

I haven't had the chance to listen to the 6th or 7th yet, but that's up next. Well, anyway, sorry about the stream of consciousness. I think Sibelius might very well be my favorite symphonist, based on his first 5 symphonies. I've ordered the Segerstam set, since people here seem to praise it quite a bit.


----------



## Il_Penseroso

The complete cycle of Sibelius Symphonies that I have is played by the London Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Anthony Collins for Decca, 1950s. I also have several other recordings conducted by Kajanus, Szell, Rodzinsky, Collin Davis, etc ... 

I like and enjoy them all but my prefernce would be so : 

No. 2 Op. 43 in D major 

No. 3 Op. 52 in C major 

No. 5 Op. 82 in E flat major 

I think in these three, we could see the great master with his most love and passion for the nature and besides, though they are deep and heroic but are more bright and clear rather than the other ones. 

-------------------------


----------



## kmisho

World Violist said:


> I've been studying the scores of some of these symphonies lately, particularly three and four as they are the two that I own (not Dover, I've got the pocket scores by Breitkopf & Hartel and someone else), and my placing of the 3rd symphony as my favorite one is possibly a difficult choice because they're all magnificent symphonies, but I feel it's only fair.
> 
> I recognize the greatness of all seven, but I still don't understand numbers 1, 2, and 5. They are foreign to me in some way.
> 
> So my current favorites in order would probably go something like this: 3, 6, 4, 7, 5, 2, 1.


The 1st movement of the 2nd is my single favorite moment by Sibelius. It has a very unique way of proceeding, in small episodes and fragments of development. Somehow this enhances the impact of the very odd pounding orchestral climax.


----------



## Ravellian

After first discovering Sibelius with his 2nd and 5th symphonies, I've spent some time investigating the others. (I'm amazed you don't "get" those two, World Violist; they were immediately appealing to me on first listen). 

I absolutely love the 6th, it may be my favorite. There is something very magical to it, and something mystical as well; it seems to be rejoicing in the beauty of nature. I think it was a mistake for Sibelius to call it "in D minor".. it messes up our expectations for the piece.

I also enjoy the 4th; its passionate sorrow, with emphasis on the tritone, reminds me of Shostakovich's 5th. I have had a difficult time appreciating the 3rd and the 7th; after a couple of listens, I cannot find anything that particularly appeals to me.


----------



## harmony

I love Sibelius' #5 and #7.
They are my top favorite symphonies and I also enjoy 4th and 6th.
In my early time, my favorite symphonies by Sibelius were 2nd and 5th,
but now my ear transformed to 5th and 7th.


----------



## World Violist

Ravellian said:


> After first discovering Sibelius with his 2nd and 5th symphonies, I've spent some time investigating the others. (I'm amazed you don't "get" those two, World Violist; they were immediately appealing to me on first listen).
> 
> I absolutely love the 6th, it may be my favorite. There is something very magical to it, and something mystical as well; it seems to be rejoicing in the beauty of nature. I think it was a mistake for Sibelius to call it "in D minor".. it messes up our expectations for the piece.
> 
> I also enjoy the 4th; its passionate sorrow, with emphasis on the tritone, reminds me of Shostakovich's 5th. I have had a difficult time appreciating the 3rd and the 7th; after a couple of listens, I cannot find anything that particularly appeals to me.


Believe me, I'm somewhat puzzled as to why I don't get 2 and 5 also.

As for the 6th symphony being called "in D minor," it actually isn't. No key is given in the score, so people decide foolishly to call it D minor because it sounds like it might be, despite its Dorian-ness.


----------



## haydnfan

Ravellian said:


> I also enjoy the 4th; its passionate sorrow,


That is my favorite symphony of Sibelius for that reason.


----------



## Ravellian

I've been a bit obsessed about Sibelius lately, listening to him every night before going to bed... the music sounds like dreamscapes to me. I guess I'll do a symphony ranking:

No. 5 > No. 6 > No. 1 > No. 2 > No. 4 > No. 3 > No. 7

No. 7 seems to be lacking a distinct hummable melody, which is why I rank it last. I can really enjoy all of them at this point.


----------



## GKC

Five. I think it was the first S. symphony I heard (L. Maazel/Pittsburg I think).
In order: 5, 7, 3, 2, 4, 6, 1. Subject to change withouit notice, but I'm pretty sure 5 and 7 are safe at no. one and two spots.


----------



## Tapkaara

Ravellian said:


> I've been a bit obsessed about Sibelius lately, listening to him every night before going to bed... the music sounds like dreamscapes to me. I guess I'll do a symphony ranking:
> 
> No. 5 > No. 6 > No. 1 > No. 2 > No. 4 > No. 3 > No. 7
> 
> No. 7 seems to be lacking a distinct hummable melody, which is why I rank it last. I can really enjoy all of them at this point.


One of the best live concerts I ever attended was in Palm Desert, CA. The St. Louis Symphony was on tour with its conductor David Robertson. They didthe 7th, the first and only time I have heard this score live. I love this symphony anyway, but to hear it in person was truly, truly an awe-inspiring experience. Indeed, there are not many hummable moments, but it is still very melodic. Perhaps if you could hear it live, it would help you get a little closer to it.


----------



## Guest

I would say that my ranking of the symphonies is pretty much the same as World Violist's. The 3rd is definitely my favorite, and the 2nd is near the bottom (I think it's just a bit over-rated as a whole, except for the first movement which might be one of the best movements from all of his symphonies). And I know the 7th gets a lot of flak for not having the greatest melodies (except for the trombone theme, "Aino"), but the mastery with which Sibelius developed his themes and the way each little cell of music evolved into the next really strikes me. Plus, I think it has one of the best endings of any symphony ever, as simple as it is.


----------



## World Violist

I think the thing about the 7th is that it is actually quite melodic, but it doesn't play to the melody in a way that Dvorak or Mahler might do. The melody isn't the primary concern, but it _is_ there quite powerfully. The primary concern is the development, the reality of what is actually happening.


----------



## Tapkaara

Whats funny is that I forgot that I am the one who started this thread! And what's even funnier is that I chose the 2nd as my favorite. For many years it was, but I have recently shifted to the 5th. Coming in second is probably the 1st. But that's probably. After that, it would be impossible to rank them.

While my favorite symphony may change from time to time, one thing that won't change is my love for all of Sibbe's symphonies as a whole. I have been listening to them for half my life and I never tire of them. If anything, my enthusiasm has grown over the years. The more I listen, the more I am assured of this man's genius.


----------



## haydnfan

I can't recall if I've posted on this thread or not... but my favorite Sibelius symphony is the 4th. It is beautiful, dark, tragic... love it.


----------



## Sofronitsky

I never thought much of Sibelius's symphonies (Of course, I hadn't heard them!). Which is odd, because I love the Violin Concerto..

Well anyway, thanks to this thread I went out and bought a cd with Symphonies 1, 2, 4, and 5 as interpreted by Sir Collin Davis. Hopefully this will make a good introduction to his Symphonies!


----------



## Nix

I've looked at this thread a lot, but I guess I haven't posted? 

Anyways, my ranking:

3, 5, 7, 4, 6, 2, 1 

3 is more for sentimental reasons... it was the first Sibelius symphony I got to know, and I fell in love instantly. I suppose more objectively I might say 5 and 7 are better. But really 3 and on are all amazing... 2 and 1 are good but don't have quite the emotional investment the others do. What I like most is how naturally and well they all progress. Even though I rank them out of order, I think his writing improves with each symphony.


----------



## GKC

Nix said:


> 3 is more for sentimental reasons... it was the first Sibelius symphony I got to know, and I fell in love instantly.


Hey Nix. Your post made me remember that it was the 3rd, too that I heard first (and not the 5th as I said above): Alexander Gibson/Scottish Natl. Orch. on Chandos. It made an impression on me, too. A sound I'd never heard before. I remember reading something von Karajan said about his (Sibelius's) 3rd being his first in his original voice. It sure sounds like it to me, though I think the 2nd is much closer to 3rd than the 1st is. The 6th is also on that Chandos CD, but that one didn't make an impression on me till I heard Osmo Vanska's Bis recording many years later. A similar thing happened with the 4th.

GKC


----------



## Tapkaara

Sofronitsky said:


> I never thought much of Sibelius's symphonies (Of course, I hadn't heard them!). Which is odd, because I love the Violin Concerto..
> 
> Well anyway, thanks to this thread I went out and bought a cd with Symphonies 1, 2, 4, and 5 as interpreted by Sir Collin Davis. Hopefully this will make a good introduction to his Symphonies!


I don't think mch of music I haven't ever heard, either!


----------



## johnfkavanagh

My rankings:

5,4,6,7,3,2,1

The fourth symphony was the first in which Sibelius ventured into uncharted territory. To me, the first three, however pleasant, were a warm-up.


----------



## samurai

As regards Sibelius and his *5th* *Symphony,* there are 2 versions: the original 1915 rendering and the revised 1919 edition {I only know this thanks to Spotify!}. My point being that when we say we like his *5th, *I think we should be specific as to which one is being referenced. For example, I like the revised 1919 version better, as I found it to be more "fleshed out" and melodic than its 1915
predecessor.


----------



## chalkpie

Just starting to dig JS, but so far the 4th is the one that has spoken to me. This definitely sounds the most modern to me out of the ones I’ve heard. This is chill, stoner, icy muzzzzak. Like some Scandinavian Miles who only plays harmon mute slow, brooding lines. Some brilliant orchestration here also – what sounds deceptively simple at first may encounter some counterpoint, and some real left-field melodies, and he is continually transforming the textures here. A very introspective quality overall, where Mahler seems to pour his heart out either in pure joy or darkness, Sibelius never seems to give anything away to the listener – who has to work hard to find a way “in”. A keeper.


----------



## SminkiPinki

Sibelius 6 is the best Sibelius symphony. It's lovely and fresh and light, and sometimes very sad, but sometimes joyous. And the best recording of it is Ashkenazy with The Philharmonia, and I also like the lively Karajan recording on EMI (not the Karajan DG recording).

Sibelius symphonies 1 & 2 are too long and too romantic, 3 is good with the right interpretation, except the 3rd movement lets it down. 4 is all doom and gloom and no light. 5 has been done to death (especially the horn theme from the last movement). And 7 hasn't got any good melodies.

So there you go :clap:


----------



## Arsakes

My rankings:

*2*,1,5,3,6

which I like and praise,

and at the bottom which I don't like: ...7,4


----------



## bigshot

samurai said:


> As regards Sibelius and his *5th* *Symphony,* there are 2 versions: the original 1915 rendering and the revised 1919 edition {I only know this thanks to Spotify!}.


The $7 complete Sibelius digital download at Amazon contains both versions from the BIS set. That was the first I heard the original. fascinating, but I agree, the revised is better.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I like

best: 2
next: 5
last: 1

Not that impressed with the others.


----------



## Krisena

Even though I'm a big Sibelius fan, I haven't spent much time on his orchestral works. I'm that guy who actually digs his violin sonatas and his other chamber works (and the violin concerto though).

So I gave the 6th a chance, I've listened to 3, 5 and 7 before, and wow, I'm amazed by it. I didn't know Sibelius could write like this. This symphony has, for me, an almost fairy tale-like character. Instant favourite.


----------



## Bas

I like the 2nd best, am enthusiastic about the 5th and 3rd too. That is it for Sibelius Symphonies I think, not that much of a fan of him.


----------



## Wandering

Hello there, I was a member of this forum several years back.

Unforunately I haven't even listened to all of Sibelius' Symphonies, that said the first movement of the 2nd is excellent. Very dramatic developement, oddly the rest of the symphony becomes far less spectacular intentionally, though why Sibelius did this I haven't a clue. Sort of remind me the finale movement in Glass' 2nd symphony when he deflated the main theme by removing bass sound in its second run around. 

The 5th and 6th I also know well and enjoy. With the 6th I've had I type of dreamy fantasy I'd play in my mind along with the music, sentimentally silly if not stupid, but so be it. The 5th makes great usage of simplistic climaxes which can be equally if not even more impressive emotionally than more complicated and cohesive types., for example that of the first movement in Bruckner 8th.


----------



## carlydviolin

I don't have a favorite because I've only heard/played #5 in my college symphony orchestra last year but I'm obsessed with it! LOVE it. I just found a record player in my parents basement and a bunch of records and my mom has all 7 symphonys on LP. I definitely plan to listen to all 7 on the player when I get a chance. And then I may be able to respond with a favorite!


----------



## Moira

Our local symphony orchestra recently played number 5. I thoroughly enjoyed hearing it played.


----------



## violadude

My order is probably: 4, 5, 7, 3, 6, 2, 1

I like them all a lot and they're all at about the same level for me except for 1, which despite having some really beautiful melodies, doesn't convince me as much as the others. It doesn't sound as much like Sibelius.


----------



## gabem

Finlandia is my favorite...........JUuuuuuuust kidding. lol I'm a fan of big booming endings and nothing else of his competes with the second for me. But yeah, Finlandia is my favorite symphony of his. once again at the risk of being maimed...just kidding.


----------



## Xaltotun

violadude said:


> My order is probably: 4, 5, 7, 3, 6, 2, 1
> 
> I like them all a lot and they're all at about the same level for me except for 1, which despite having some really beautiful melodies, doesn't convince me as much as the others. It doesn't sound as much like Sibelius.


I like your order! But you can think of 1 as "the search for Sibelius". It's an expression of a certain mood, a certain level of energy... things that Sibelius had to get out of his chest before becoming Sibelius. Actually... his whole cycle is "the search for Sibelius"... he was constantly evolving, and his cycle reads much like a diary. So... maybe Sibelius never had a state of being Sibelius, just a journey of becoming Sibelius.


----------



## tdc

1, 2, and 5 are my favorites with the other 4 not far behind. They are all masterful works. I've never been convinced of any of the arguments against 1. Though it is different than the others and more sparse, it holds its own. It has a certain clarity and simplicity I enjoy.


----------



## chalkpie

http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Compl...sibelius+lahti

The Complete Sibelius Symphonies on BIS by Lahti/Vanska.

It's in mp3 form (which I don't love), but it's $7.99! Anybody have this and care to comment on the sound quality of the mp3's here? I mya do do this. The CD set is like $50.


----------



## Faville

I'm still "old school"  and still prefer to have a physical copy of my music. For sound quality, I'm not an audiophile and am pretty limited by my equipment (i.e. cheap and mostly crappy), so if an mp3 is at or above 256kbps (could probably even be a bit lower) I wouldn't really notice a quality change. Lower than that and I'm not as interested.
If I were a beginner to Sibelius I'd take that deal.

Anyways, my favorites are boring, 2 & 5. For some reason I have never explored 1, 3, or 6. Four is dark and lovely and I bet it will emerge later in my life as a favorite. I heard 7 live once and it went right past me.


----------



## Xaltotun

Recently heard number 3 live for the first time. Sometimes, I've thought that this one is all cozy and safe, a feel-good symphony; but this performance gave me new ideas. It can be a much weightier piece, much more serious and philosophical. The coziness is there, but it's only a part of the equation. The equation is this, I think: "Is there a pattern, a law in nature?" I found myself thinking about this question from the beginning to the end of the performance.

Movement 1: "Nature is wonderful! I love nature!" --> "there seems to be a pattern in nature"
Movement 2: "I'm reflecting about the pattern in nature from all possible angles. What does it mean to me and my life?"
Movement 3: "Nature is chaotic, despite the pattern I saw. If beautiful and good things come from the law, so do ugly and evil things. How do I overcome this theodikea?" ---> "Nature and the pattern are ONE"


----------



## chalkpie

Xaltotun said:


> Recently heard number 3 live for the first time. Sometimes, I've thought that this one is all cozy and safe, a feel-good symphony; but this performance gave me new ideas. It can be a much weightier piece, much more serious and philosophical. The coziness is there, but it's only a part of the equation. The equation is this, I think: "Is there a pattern, a law in nature?" I found myself thinking about this question from the beginning to the end of the performance.
> 
> Movement 1: "Nature is wonderful! I love nature!" --> "there seems to be a pattern in nature"
> Movement 2: "I'm reflecting about the pattern in nature from all possible angles. What does it mean to me and my life?"
> Movement 3: "Nature is chaotic, despite the pattern I saw. If beautiful and good things come from the law, so do ugly and evil things. How do I overcome this theodikea?" ---> "Nature and the pattern are ONE"


This is a very detailed and thoughtful post with some really outstanding ideas and conclusions. Way to go man!


----------



## Kurkikohtaus

Xaltotun said:


> Recently heard number 3 live for the first time ... It can be a much weightier piece, much more serious and philosophical.


The big question about live performances is can one pull off the ending in a way that gives the audience a feeling of satisfactory conclusion? It doesn't have the bombast of the 2nd symphony, and there isn't the obvious build-up beforehand like in the 5th, nor the all-encompassing completeness of the 7th.

The energy (both in dynamics and speed) needs to be carefully calculated through the 4 statements of the hymn theme, and then the final descending triad needs to be given just the right amount of "weight", not too little, not too much. Very difficult to do live, let me tell you.


----------



## Laudemont

KScott said:


> As for other Scandinavian symphonists, what does the panel think of the symphonies of Holmboe, Pettersson, Valen, Rangstroem, Segerstam, Alfven and Tubin?


I'm just jumping in here. Not to hijack this thread, but the Estonian/Swedish Tubin (especially his earlier works) has become a favorite of mine, and the Swedish Pettersson is a great recent discovery. But I also enjoy Atterberg, a quite different Swedish composer. None of these mentioned resemble Sibelius much (maybe Pettersson has affinities), and none of them is from Finland, but I am always on the lookout for a "different" sound when it comes to symphonies. I think that's why, when it comes to Sibelius, I tend to return to the 4th which, to me, is "different" -- certainly more 'remote" than the romantic 1st, 2nd or 5th and in my opinion the most "Sibelian" of the seven. But I am no major Sibelius aficionado, though I have all the symphonies and listen to them periodically.


----------



## Vaneyes

2, 5, 4, 1, 6, 7, 3.


----------



## altosax

5,4,6,7,3,1,2


----------



## lorelei

My favorites are also boring for now, 2 and 5...


----------



## NightXsenator

I am fond of his 1st symphony, especially of its first part. Also like Sibelius' 4th and 7th...


----------



## Tristan

Definitely the 5th. Part of a long line of great 5th symphonies...


----------



## violadude

Why is everyone putting cryptic looking dots after their sentences?...


----------



## Tristan

haha I didn't notice three sentences like that in a row. Usually I put the ellipsis after an incomplete thought, but I suppose in this case (aside from the sentence itself being incomplete), I used it as sort of a mark of reflection/wondering. As in "really makes you think..."


----------



## neoshredder

Symphonies 2 and 3 are amazing.


----------



## Vaneyes

Yeah, what's this about?...


----------



## Vaneyes

neoshredder said:


> Symphonies 2 and 3 are amazing.


I agree with 2. But 3, I have an underwhelmed feeling for. Maybe something like HvK had, in not recording it.

It sounds like three steps back to me. I won't say "student work", but I don't think it has the stature of No. 1.

That said, I've heard 1 - 5 so many times, that I'm giving more listens these days to 6 & 7. :tiphat:


----------



## tdc

I love Sibelius 3!! 

I'm a sucker for Sibelius as far as I'm concerned he could do no wrong in his symphonies. I wish I could hear Sibelius 8.


----------



## KenOC

tdc said:


> I love Sibelius 3!!


Agree. Played it today. Though I think the finale is just a bit weaker than the rest with its somewhat unconvincing transition to the "big tune."


----------



## tahnak

The C Major Seventh is my favorite. Sibelius has compressed a whole world in this one movement fantasia symphony.


----------



## Bone

As a complete piece, I like the 3rd above all others. But the finale to #5 is in a class all it's own for me.


----------



## neoshredder

5 gets a little too repetitive for my taste. 2 and 3 have the right mix of memorable but not overdone melodies.


----------



## julianoq

I got the Philips Colin Davis some time ago and was never able to enjoy much of it (I am trying really hard to enjoy Sibelius). I like the No. 2 a lot but the others get me bored after some time 

I just decided to try _harder_ and bought the box The Essential Sibelius. The symphonies are conducted by Vanska and Lahti SO. For the more experienced Sibelius listeners, are this performances good?


----------



## KenOC

julianoq said:


> I got the Philips Colin Davis some time ago and was never able to enjoy much of it (I am trying really hard to enjoy Sibelius). I like the No. 2 a lot but the others get me bored after some time
> 
> I just decided to try _harder_ and bought the box The Essential Sibelius. The symphonies are conducted by Vanska and Lahti SO. For the more experienced Sibelius listeners, are this performances good?


The Vanska performances are excellent, though the dynamic range is way too wide! Anyway, you might have saved yourself some money:

http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Comp..._shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364080428&sr=301-1


----------



## julianoq

KenOC said:


> The Vanska performances are excellent, though the dynamic range is way too wide! Anyway, you might have saved yourself some money:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Comp..._shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1364080428&sr=301-1


Thanks, I saw this but sadly Amazon don't sell mp3 to brazilian users due to local copyright issues, but they ship the physical stuff.


----------



## KenOC

julianoq said:


> Thanks, I saw this but sadly Amazon don't sell mp3 to brazilian users due to local copyright issues, but they ship the physical stuff.


That's too bad. Maybe someday the world will be a more rational place.


----------



## Schubussy

> For the more experienced Sibelius listeners, are this performances good?


Don't really count as a more experienced Sibelius listener, but they're my favourites at least.


----------



## Novelette

I understand that it isn't commonly a favorite, but I've really enjoyed the 7th Symphony.


----------



## Andreas

Nos. 1 and 2 are my least favourite ones. They're a little too extrovert and lack the conciseness of his other symphonies. Nos. 3 to 7 all have their unique qualities, but no. 7 seems to me the most spiritually charged. I also feel that it's the most quintessential Sibelius symphony. My favourite.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

No.2 and 7.


----------



## Progstreaming

My favorite is the 4th, because of the grim nature of it, which is perfectly visualised in this Youtube performance:






That said, I almost equally love the 2nd, 5th and 1st. The somewhat joyful 3rd is neat but bores too fast, and I could never quite grasp the 7th. The 6th is my least favorite.


----------



## neoshredder

Progstreaming said:


> My favorite is the 4th, because of the grim nature of it, which is perfectly visualised in this Youtube performance:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I almost equally love the 2nd, 5th and 1st. The somewhat joyful 3rd is neat but bores too fast, and I could never quite grasp the 7th. The 6th is my least favorite.


The 3rd and 6th are my favorites and I dislike the 4th.


----------



## pelt

Definitely the 5th. Certainly, as a Horn player I have to love the last movement, but from beginning to end its just beautiful. I particularly like the start of the original second movement (or second half of the first movement), its wonderful.


----------



## Avey

pelt said:


> Definitely the 5th. Certainly, as a Horn player I have to love the last movement, but from beginning to end its just beautiful. I particularly like the start of the original second movement (or second half of the first movement), its wonderful.


+1.

The final version's ending -- I believe it's the 1911 version(?) -- with the six interstitial chords is a magnificent release to the seemingly incessant development throughout that final movement. In fact, the whole damn work seems to build up toward the end. It's a remarkably anxious and tense work, yet so cathartic.

Though, that's all of Sibelius.


----------



## mgj15

neoshredder said:


> Symphonies 2 and 3 are amazing.


Came to say its always been 3, but lately it's been 2!


----------



## Novelette

neoshredder said:


> The 3rd and 6th are my favorites and I dislike the 4th.


The Fourth doesn't stick with me either. =\


----------



## StevenOBrien

The 6th, the 2nd, the 7th and the 5th. I dislike the 4th, and I've never really looked into the 1st or 3rd.


----------



## Mahlerian

The 4th is my favorite. I'm glad there are at least a few around here who get as much out of it as I do.


----------



## Bone

Mahlerian said:


> The 4th is my favorite. I'm glad there are at least a few around here who get as much out of it as I do.


Must say I appreciate the 4th (especially HvK) but it just isn't my favorite by a long shot. As a Mahler fan I can see why you'd really be a fan of the 4th: it's certainly got that type of sound to it. Wonder if you've ever noticed any thematic similarities between Mahler 5 and Sibelius 3: been listening to a great deal of the former recently and I hear the descending motive of mvmt 1 from the Sibelius all over the place.


----------



## Mahlerian

Bone said:


> Must say I appreciate the 4th (especially HvK) but it just isn't my favorite by a long shot. As a Mahler fan I can see why you'd really be a fan of the 4th: it's certainly got that type of sound to it. Wonder if you've ever noticed any thematic similarities between Mahler 5 and Sibelius 3: been listening to a great deal of the former recently and I hear the descending motive of mvmt 1 from the Sibelius all over the place.


I have not, but I'll listen to the Sibelius 3rd again soon, and see if I can hear any.


----------



## Xaltotun

Mahlerian said:


> The 4th is my favorite. I'm glad there are at least a few around here who get as much out of it as I do.


For a long time, I called the 4th my favourite, but nowadays I just cannot choose between the triumvirate of the 4th, the 5th and the 7th. I love all the others as well. But I understand if someone only likes some of them; they are all so different.


----------



## ptr

I've always liked the 4th the best, I believe it is Sibelius at his most adventurous and that is something that appeal to me!

/ptr


----------



## violadude

The 4th is beautiful and one of my 3 favorite Sibelius symphonies. I guess I can see why people don't like it though, it's pretty slow moving.


----------



## Mahlerian

Bone said:


> Must say I appreciate the 4th (especially HvK) but it just isn't my favorite by a long shot. As a Mahler fan I can see why you'd really be a fan of the 4th: it's certainly got that type of sound to it. Wonder if you've ever noticed any thematic similarities between Mahler 5 and Sibelius 3: been listening to a great deal of the former recently and I hear the descending motive of mvmt 1 from the Sibelius all over the place.


I listened to the Sibelius 3rd and heard the similarity you're referring to. I doubt I would have noticed it otherwise, because it's one of those things that's "common coin" as it were among composers, and I'm sure it appears in any number of pieces. Still, while I don't think it's worth citing as "influence", the context feels somewhat similar.


----------



## unpocoscherzando

For several years the Third was my favourite, but recently the Sixth has overtaken it. Both are remarkable works, of course.


----------



## tdc

unpocoscherzando said:


> For several years the Third was my favourite, but recently the Sixth has overtaken it. *Both are remarkable works, of course*.


I agree! The 3rd and 6th are my current favorites. :tiphat:


----------



## Ritter

The 5th of course... Please check the video above, especially at minute 1:23, the moment which was inspired to Sibelius by the flight of several swans, simply wonderful:


----------



## geve

The No 2, it's monumental, reminds you of those beautiful frozen tundra regions and lakes and more lakes of Finland's north.....the finale is awesome.


----------



## StevenOBrien

violadude said:


> The 4th is beautiful and one of my 3 favorite Sibelius symphonies. I guess I can see why people don't like it though, it's pretty slow moving.


Yeah, that's pretty much it for me. I don't really have a lot of patience for most of the large scale works of Brahms and Schumann, (and Schubert in a few cases, such as the 9th symphony) because more often than not, it just feels like they're needlessly dragging on.

Honestly, to me, listening to Sibelius' 4th can be just about as frustrating as trying to pass a feeble old lady in a narrow corridor.


----------



## ptr

StevenOBrien said:


> Honestly, to me, listening to Sibelius' 4th can be just about as frustrating as trying to pass a feeble old lady in a narrow corridor.


You have to embrace your patience young padawan, or You will never succeed in passing the elderly! 

/ptr


----------



## Raefus Authenticus

StevenOBrien said:


> Yeah, that's pretty much it for me. I don't really have a lot of patience for most of the large scale works of Brahms and Schumann, (and Schubert in a few cases, such as the 9th symphony) because more often than not, it just feels like they're needlessly dragging on.
> 
> Honestly, to me, listening to Sibelius' 4th can be just about as frustrating as trying to pass a feeble old lady in a narrow corridor.


Your attitude toward music like Sibelius' 4th Symphony is certainly not unusual, Steven; in fact, I'd say it was in the majority.

I think the facet within much of Sibelius' large-scale works that appeals to mature-minded people, and people of a reflective disposition, and people who have experienced the many ups and downs that life has to offer, is the natural and unpretentious expression of moods such as flippancy, anger, remorse, happiness, passion, etc that a short, melodious, repetitive work wouldn't do justice to. The idea of a work such as Sibelius' Symphony No.4 isn't to entertain its audience with pleasing turns of phrase, but to document the mind of the composer at the time of writing.

To state that the Sibelius Symphony No.4, or other large scale works, are 'needlessly dragging on' is to misunderstand why they were written; there's nothing 'needless' in how long the symphony lasts; it takes that long because that's how long it takes for the composer to translate his feelings into music.


----------



## Saintmike

Disclaimer - in no way am I an expert, just thought I'd add my two penny worth on a set of symphonies I have come to adore.

The 7th just edges out the 2nd as my favourite, although the latter is probably the easier listen. For all the grandeur, drama and romanticism of the 2nd, the 7th just has that almost indefinable "did he really just do that?" quality to it, no more than the final coming together in C major which I could listen to forever quite happily. The 2nd is also wonderful in the way he develops the themes, especially in the first two movements, from simple understated introductions into some of the most dramatic music he ever wrote IMHO.

After those two, the 3rd is such a beautifully put together symphony that it just holds off the 6th for the bronze medal, despite the latter's themes, modernity and mystery appealing to my musical tastes more.

1st comes next, for all it's beauty the only thing I hold against it is that it (understandably) doesn't seem to bear many of the hallmarks that made Sibelius so unique. Conversely I wouldn't hesitate to recommend this and the 2nd as first choices for someone looking to get hooked into Sibelius' symphonic music (it worked for me!).

Which is not what I'd say about the 4th, which takes some listening to! In a month or two this may well have climbed a lot higher in my affections, but at the moment I can't get over how out of place it seems when compared to the other 6.

And finally the 5th. Ridiculous really, but I guess something has to come last. Maybe the music snob in me holds against it the fact that it is so popular and that Classic FM seem to have taken it as their own, also I've never much liked the final six chords much. Waiting to be shot down in flames.... .


----------



## TrevBus

KScott said:


> Though Carl Nielsen is, and will remain, my all-time favorite Scandinavian symphonist, the seven orchestral symphonies of Jean Sibelius are indeed some of the strongest works to come out of the first quarter of the 20th century.
> 
> My all-time favorite? I have a soft spot for the E minor symphony, having conducted it a couple of times and would love to conduct it again. But I also echo Habib's choice of the fourth, a masterwork of personal angst, compositional concision and a natural use of the orchestra where all of his demons abide and roost. It is a very dark composition that needs to be played with an impersonal touch.
> 
> That said, No. 2 is always going to be the favorite no matter what. It's a big, sweeping Nordic symphony with clear-cut themes and a classical structure that keeps the mind attuned. The best recording of this work for me is Sir John Barbirolli's with the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra from 1962. It's far more vivid than his older recording with the New York Philharmonic from 1938, and his later recording with the Halle Orchestra for EMI.
> 
> No. 5 was my introduction to Sibelius, and is my third favorite. It's a powerhouse that says it all. My favorite recordings? Georges Pretre from the late 1960s for RCA, and Karajan's EMI recording from the mid-1970s.
> 
> After that, the sixth. No one plays it, which is very sad. It's a very nice symphony that deserves more exposure, which leaves the third and seventh.
> 
> I'm not a fan of the third, even though I have heard two splendid recordings - Ashkenazy and Colin Davis (his first recorded cycle with the Boston Symphony is the one to really own), while you have to be in the right frame of mind for the seventh. Beecham's old recordings are worth owning, though the first one he did with the New York Philharmonic is a bit on the shaky side.
> 
> There are my takes on this great symphonist.
> 
> As for other Scandinavian symphonists, what does the panel think of the symphonies of Holmboe, Pettersson, Valen, Rangstroem, Segerstam, Alfven and Tubin?


#2. I like being where this music puts me when I listen to it.
As for your last question, except for Valen(only because I haven't heard him yet)I like all of the composers you have listed. Holmboe is my favorite on that list. I have the complete set of his Sym. on Bis. a treasure for me.


----------



## Valkhafar

My favourite is No. 1.


----------



## Vaneyes

TrevBus said:


> ....As for your last question, except for Valen(only because I haven't heard him yet)I like all of the composers you have listed. Holmboe is my favorite on that list....


I found *Valen Symphonies *unmemorable, unless you wish/want music to accompany watching haircuts, or paint drying.


----------



## TrevBus

Vaneyes said:


> I found *Valen Symphonies *unmemorable, unless you wish/want music to accompany watching haircuts, or paint drying.


So, IYO, I should avoid?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love the 7th the most at the moment, then 6 then 5 then 4 then 3 then 2 then 1, Kullervo I don't really know very well.


----------



## Celloman

6 is my personal fave! Sibelius + Dorian mode = perfection


----------



## Neo Romanza

For me, Sibelius' _Symphonies 4, 6, & 7_ have always been favorites.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

No. 4 has a certain feeling of unreality, it gives me the same sort of feelings I would expect from a dream. It's unlike anything else I have heard and it is for this reason why I really like it. It isn't my favourite at the moment, but it's one symphony that I would never tire of hearing.


----------



## chalkpie

Neo Romanza said:


> For me, Sibelius' _Symphonies 4, 6, & 7_ have always been favorites.


What he said! Although I can be persuaded to throw in both versions of 5 as well.


----------



## Karabiner

I'm quite new to Sibelius but my favourite so far is the 7th. The chord at the end sends shivers down my spine every time.


----------



## julianoq

Sibelius symphonies are awesome. At this point I just listen to any of them and love it equally. So I guess it is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, not necessarily in that order! :tiphat:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Karabiner said:


> I'm quite new to Sibelius but my favourite so far is the 7th. The chord at the end sends shivers down my spine every time.


I like the adagio section in the middle the most.


----------



## DaveS

While the 2nd is no doubt great, I'll rate it just behind my favorite, the 1st.


----------



## Vaneyes

TrevBus said:


> So, IYO, I should avoid?


(Re Valen Symphonies)I would not say avoid them. I would advise trying to listen to them twice.


----------



## adrem

4 and 6. It's a shame that symphonies 4-7 are so rarely played, they are even more beautiful than 1-3 (in my opinion).


----------



## jimbo

Hi everyone, I've just joined the forum 

Sibelius is my favourite symphonic composer. Ever since I friend of mine lent me a compilation CD with the 1st mvt of Sibelius' 2nd Sym my life was changed forever..... 

For me his best and my favourite symphony is his 7th. On hearing Sibelius' 7th Vaughan Williams wrote to the Finn "You have lit a candle in the world of music that will never go out"

My Favourite recordings:

1st: Lorin Maazel VPO (Esoteric remaster)

http://www.esoteric.jp/products/esoteric/essd90020/indexe.html









Fantastic performance and without exception the best sound quality of any recording I own. Hard to find but a worthwhile step up over the Decca release if you have a very good hi-fi.

2nd: Barbirolli RPO

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sibelius-Symphony-No-2-Jean/dp/B000003GCO









This is it! After years of search and listening this, for me, is the definitive 2nd. Thrilling, dynamic, epic... look no further.

3rd: No definitive recommendation as yet.

4th: Lorin Maazel VPO (Decca/London)









Perfectly judged.

5th: Rattle Philharmonia (EMI)









Best I have found so far with no weaknesses.

6th: Vanska Lahti Sym (BIS)









Definitive for me, great recording and perfectly projects the sense of nature and wonder in this symphony.

7th: I'm still looking !! Maazel VPO (london/decca), as above, get the intro and the ethereal ending *perfect*, but looses it's way a bit on the 'pastoral' sections, which Vanska does so well. I'm going to try the new release with Berglund with the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra soon since this has a highly regarded 7th. (anyone heard it ?)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B0091JQH2Q/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

Hope to have helped someone with my post

J.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

^My favourite is also the 7th. Welcome to TC!


----------



## Selby

Welcome Jimbo- 

I'm going to have to check out that Barbirolli recording of the second!


----------



## jimbo

Mitchell said:


> Welcome Jimbo-
> 
> I'm going to have to check out that Barbirolli recording of the second!


Thanks for the welcomes all 

Apparently this Testament CD has the same recording of the amazing 2nd so that is another option 

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Symphonies-Nos-And-Barbirolli-Rpo/dp/B00142X57S/ref=cm_cr_dp_asin_lnk


----------



## AClockworkOrange

Presently the 4th Symphony, particularly when performed by Sir Thomas Beecham and the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra.


----------



## Tero

I listen to all of them. 3-7 rarely sound so bad in a recording that I can't enjoy them. I'm much more fussy with 1 and 2. Good r
recordings on at least good headphones.

One of my favorite 1sts is Saraste with the Nordea youth orchestra. Hard to find. His other two are good as well.


----------



## FLighT

Each of his symphonies is a unique gem, no 2 alike and yet there's something that feels right about the progression from 1 to 7 when I think about the listening experience.

Okay, okay, 7.


----------



## Novelette

With greater familiarity with the whole cycle, the seventh symphony remains my favorite.


----------



## Ondine

6th is outstanding. I love that one.

1, 3 & 5 are wonderfull, too.


----------



## Skilmarilion

violadude said:


> The 4th is beautiful and one of my 3 favorite Sibelius symphonies. I guess I can see why people don't like it though, it's pretty slow moving.


Slow-moving is how I'd describe the 4th too. There is definitely a unique feel to the work, almost unsettling at times.

So far it hasn't grabbed me like the others, but I'm prepared to keep giving it a go.


----------



## julianoq

Skilmarilion said:


> Slow-moving is how I'd describe the 4th too. There is definitely a unique feel to the work, almost unsettling at times.
> 
> So far it hasn't grabbed me like the others, but I'm prepared to keep giving it a go.


It was the last that I enjoyed. When I was starting to listen Sibelius I listened the 4th and hated it (it was when I was starting to listen classical music) and this made me stay away from Sibelius for some time. Months later I listened to the 2nd and loved. At this moment Sibelius is my favorite symphonist, I think all the seven are amazing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Skilmarilion said:


> Slow-moving is how I'd describe the 4th too. There is definitely a unique feel to the work, almost unsettling at times.
> 
> So far it hasn't grabbed me like the others, but I'm prepared to keep giving it a go.


See my earlier post on the Fourth Symphony


----------



## Skilmarilion

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> See my earlier post on the Fourth Symphony


I can definitely relate to the 4th being fairly dream-like. I think Sibelius himself called it a "psychological" symphony.

I'm hoping it grows on me.


----------



## Blancrocher

Skilmarilion said:


> I can definitely relate to the 4th being fairly dream-like. I think Sibelius himself called it a "psychological" symphony.
> 
> I'm hoping it grows on me.


Discovering the 4th was one of my most powerful early experiences with music. On another thread, people are discussing the futility of making analogies between composers' works and their lives, and I admit it's probably not a useful thing to do in many cases; but I've always been impressed that Sibelius wrote this symphony in the shadow of cancer. I like how he strips everything away and gets to the fundamentals of music: at some moments we're just hearing scales. The climax of the third movement is comparable to Beethoven's 31st piano sonata as a triumph over grief through form (and it's amazing how intimate and un-symphony like this symphony is). I'd recommend Karajan's DG version for this one if you haven't heard it--but I may be prejudiced by excessive familiarity.


----------



## drth15

Love the 2nd and also always moved by it. But 4 is so original & haunting & sounds like no other composers' work


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I'm going to order them according to my favourite to least favourite....

7
5
2
6
4
3
1


----------



## leomarillier

What is wonderful with Sibelius, and is much more concievable with him than with Mahler, is the acceptance that music can be waiting for something, that it does not always express Nature's will and force upward. It is also an incredible number of ethos that one can put in a single musical voice. Therefore, and much more than with Mahler's (who is the only composer able to held Sibelius in comparison during the same period), each symphony, movement, has its "mood", and does not dare to embrace the world.
I did a masterclass in Finland (Oulu precisely), I immediatly understood why and how Sibelius composed a music so "spacious" (but once again, words are not enough, as they are never) and yet coming from a drop, or a snow flake, and by the end, taking the whole vacuum, not invading areas where nature is already resplendissant, but filling the rest and the soul with MOVEMENT.
You do not need to be romantic if you wish to listen and understand a Sibelius Symphony. You only need to feel an emptiness, and energy balances, and being able to weigh sonorities. Sibelius is never conventional, interms of color, orchestration, and form. It's not a form , it's a shape, drawn in a thin air. I find, personally, the slow movement of the 4rth symphony more soul-talking than any other piece - with the exception of the slow mvt from the Hammerklavier. Sibelius is density. A sunset in Finland, where the Sun looks closer.


----------



## mctous

No. 5 tops my personal list, as long as the conductor avoids the many pitfalls! Sibelius really seems to have regained hope after his bleak 4th symphony, still a masterwork. No. 2 ranks 3rd for its sheer exuberance, with the 1st a close 4th for its equally intense brooding. 6, 7, and 3 (in that order) complete my list.


----------



## chalkpie

S7 is really starting to grab me.....might be my favorite symph at the moment (by our Finnish friend of course), but I was also spinning S3 on the home stereo for about 2 weeks now (along with S5) with Segerstram. S3 caught me off guard as to how truly great it is, and the same can be said of S5. I also dig the early S5 on the Vanska/Lahti box, really a different piece in so many places. S4 is prob still my ultimate favorite, and today S1 saw two spins. Terrific. The beginning clarinet intro/theme is so brilliant, and yet so lonely. Did Nina Rota rip that off for The Godfather 2 or what??!! 

Sibelius forever. I am Mahler-ed out, way too many recordings and listens.....its great to have another favorite that sounds so fresh and new (although I have been a JS fan for a few years now and own a bunch of recordings, along with Spotify). I hope to "know" Sibelius' music as well as Mahler someday.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Favourite to least favourite 
7
6
5
4
3
2
1


----------



## tdc

I saw a lackluster performance of Sibelius 2nd a while ago, and it kind of lessened my enthusiasm somewhat for his orchestral writing. I still do enjoy my recordings of his symphonies a lot, but that performance was boring, and I remember thinking I wished he would've written more diverse percussion parts in the symphony instead of these endlessly repeating timpani crescendos and diminuendos.


----------



## chalkpie

tdc said:


> I saw a lackluster performance of Sibelius 2nd a while ago, and it kind of lessened my enthusiasm somewhat for his orchestral writing. I still do enjoy my recordings of his symphonies a lot, but that performance was boring, and I remember thinking I wished he would've written more diverse percussion parts in the symphony instead of these endlessly repeating timpani crescendos and diminuendos.


Dude - give the guy a break - he was hammered!


----------



## julianoq

tdc said:


> I saw a lackluster performance of Sibelius 2nd a while ago, and it kind of lessened my enthusiasm somewhat for his orchestral writing. I still do enjoy my recordings of his symphonies a lot, but that performance was boring, and I remember thinking I wished he would've written more diverse percussion parts in the symphony instead of these endlessly repeating timpani crescendos and diminuendos.


The difference that a good performance makes. I saw a performance of the 2nd last year, it was fantastic and the timpaninst was the most applauded!


----------



## WorthyYeti

Number 1. Everything about the piece fits together. I have listened to it so many times I think I can hum the entire thing.


----------



## Svelte Silhouette

I prefer the 2nd to the 1st but like all things a performance or recording can fault anything


----------



## hpowders

My favorite is the 7th, especially in the Philadelphia Orchestra/Ormandy performance, but I do not understand it and find it puzzling.


----------



## Donata

The 1st and 7th.


----------



## DrKilroy

No. 2 was my favourite some time ago. I am afraid I overlistened it since it is now my least favourite. On my MP3 player (yeah, an old bulky MP3 player with only 1 GB of memory, so I actually have to choose my repertoire!  ), I have all Sibelius symphonies except for No. 2. I guess I have to put it aside for a few years and then check if it sounds fresher to me.  

As for my favourites, the last trio occupies the first place. The special award is for No. 6, however. 


Best regards, Dr


----------



## Chronochromie

I listened to his Symphony 1 but didn't like it much. What's his best symphony for a Sibelius beginner like me?


----------



## musicrom

I have a slightly different question than Der Leiermann, but in the same vein. I listened to Symphony #2 for the first time a couple weeks ago, and I really enjoyed it (and would highly recommend it to you, Der Leiermann). It's already become one of my favorites. Which symphony should I try next?


----------



## DrKilroy

Der Leiermann said:


> I listened to his Symphony 1 but didn't like it much. What's his best symphony for a Sibelius beginner like me?


Most of listeners begin with No. 2, but it is quite similar to No. 1 you didn't like, so I'd recommend to try later, less romantic Sibelius. Why not No. 6? It is much different, rather introvert and modest, unlike triumphant and loud early symphonies. It took me a while to get it, but it is my favourite now.



musicrom said:


> I have a slightly different question than Der Leiermann, but in the same vein. I listened to Symphony #2 for the first time a couple weeks ago, and I really enjoyed it (and would highly recommend it to you, Der Leiermann). It's already become one of my favorites. Which symphony should I try next?


As I have said, Symphony No. 1 is in some ways similar to No. 2, so it would be natural to follow this connection. Another "triumphant" symphony is No. 5, which is also among the most popular. I believe that No. 3 might also fit your bill, though it is sometimes described as hard to get. (I never got this impression, personally; I'd say it's rather accessible). And it has a beautiful middle movement!

Best regards, Dr


----------



## Blancrocher

musicrom said:


> I have a slightly different question than Der Leiermann, but in the same vein. I listened to Symphony #2 for the first time a couple weeks ago, and I really enjoyed it (and would highly recommend it to you, Der Leiermann). It's already become one of my favorites. Which symphony should I try next?


I'd listen to the whole set in order! Starting with #2, each successive symphony is totally different from the last--and starting with #4 they're totally different from anything else as well. In any case, I think I've seen every symphony of the set mentioned as a forum-member's favorite, so you never know when lightning will strike.

Of course, you could also let the "Saturday Symphony" thread be your guide in this matter.


----------



## Chronochromie

I liked #2 a little better than #1, but then listened to #3 and loved it.


----------



## AClockworkOrange

I suppose it can depend on the performance.

At the moment, I would have to say the Fourth Symphony has become my favourite. I listened to this piece far more over the weekend than some of the other Saturday Symphonies.

Barbirolli and Beecham in particular raised my view of this Symphony so highly.

Berglund's Seventh Symphony with the Chamber Orchestra of Europe also seized my attention quickly.

So presently, the Fourth Symphony with the Seventh following closely.


----------



## tdc

julianoq said:


> The difference that a good performance makes. I saw a performance of the 2nd last year, it was fantastic and the timpaninst was the most applauded!


Yes, for me a big part of what I enjoy about Sibelius are the subtle orchestral colors his music evokes - which unfortunately can be lost in a bad performance where the orchestra isn't quite balanced right. I hope I get to see a better live performance of one of his symphonies someday.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Sizeable portions of Sibelius' Symphonies take one on epic journeys depicting the natural grandeur of the northern landscape as well as through the composer's personal quest for meaning and resolution in his life. For a long time, his music was one of my top five for enjoyment. As I began discovering great satisfaction in Haydn and Mozart's chamber music, he dropped down somewhat in my affections. Very recently he has begun to return to serious favor. Like the symphonies of other composers from time to time over many years, those of Sibelius have shifted in the order of my preference. At the very beginning, I was especially enamored with his First and Fifth. Eventually I came to appreciate the others. Though I enjoy them all, my current favorites are the 4th, 6th and 1st. The recorded conductors I tend to single out most frequently in his music are Vanska, Maazel and Collins.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

As a hopelessly hooked Sibelian, I am less enamoured of the 1st and 2nd than of the others. The 3rd is hard to sum up: outwardly simple and modest but with unexpected depth of detail on close acquaintance. 4th is a favourite of mine, a dark, elemental piece that makes no concessions to a listener in search of reassurance. The 5th is a great sweeping landscape, impressive and uplifting and remarkable for the way that two movements are interdigitated into the first mvmnt. The 6th is my all-time favourite: a quiet, undemonstrative work in which each little piece fits together perfectly. And the 7th is a structural tour de force, a genuine single-movement symphony that has some glorious moments of drama and reflection.
Don't get me started on the tone poems.....


----------



## Barbebleu

The Fifth for me, then seven, then two, then the rest.


----------



## TxllxT

5&4 or 4&5 + 1 + von Karajan or Beecham. No softies, please.


----------



## Pugg

Also 5 and 7 Ashkenzy and Bernstein.


----------



## helenora

Barbebleu said:


> The Fifth for me, then seven, then two, then the rest.


exactly the same! at least now


----------



## EdwardBast

The Fourth and Seventh for me. 

After that, 3, 5, 6, 2, 1


----------



## jim prideaux

5.......(my favourite symphony 'full stop')

6,3,7,2,4,1...........

(I think!)


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Barbebleu said:


> The Fifth for me, then seven, then two, then the rest.


It's interesting that you and Helenora have chosen what I think of as the most overtly dramatic of Sibelius' symphonies, whilst others of us would rank the quieter pieces such as the 6th (currently playing) and 3rd. Of course individual preferences are just that - individual, and never objectively right or wrong. I guess it comes back to the perennial question of how a piece of music 'affects' the listener, and what we are listening for. I love the 6th for its neat, dovetailed structure and modesty. Sibelius himself said of it that "It always reminds me of the smell of the first snow of winter". For some reason, I find that rather touching.


----------



## Barbebleu

Pat Fairlea said:


> It's interesting that you and Helenora have chosen what I think of as the most overtly dramatic of Sibelius' symphonies, whilst others of us would rank the quieter pieces such as the 6th (currently playing) and 3rd. Of course individual preferences are just that - individual, and never objectively right or wrong. I guess it comes back to the perennial question of how a piece of music 'affects' the listener, and what we are listening for. I love the 6th for its neat, dovetailed structure and modesty. Sibelius himself said of it that "It always reminds me of the smell of the first snow of winter". For some reason, I find that rather touching.


Never thought of them from that point of view. Certain moments of the fifth can get the tears flowing, particularly if I'm in a melancholy/sentimental mood. I'll be listening to the 6th and 3rd imminently! Thanks Pat.


----------



## helenora

Pat Fairlea said:


> It's interesting that you and Helenora have chosen what I think of as the most overtly dramatic of Sibelius' symphonies, whilst others of us would rank the quieter pieces such as the 6th (currently playing) and 3rd. Of course individual preferences are just that - individual, and never objectively right or wrong. I guess it comes back to the perennial question of how a piece of music 'affects' the listener, and what we are listening for. I love the 6th for its neat, dovetailed structure and modesty. Sibelius himself said of it that "It always reminds me of the smell of the first snow of winter". For some reason, I find that rather touching.


5th is mystical....at least I hear it this way....can´t explain why, perhaps I have to listen to it again


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Pat Fairlea said:


> It's interesting that you and Helenora have chosen what I think of as the most overtly dramatic of Sibelius' symphonies, whilst others of us would rank the quieter pieces such as the 6th (currently playing) and 3rd. Of course individual preferences are just that - individual, and never objectively right or wrong. I guess it comes back to the perennial question of how a piece of music 'affects' the listener, and what we are listening for. I love the 6th for its neat, dovetailed structure and modesty. Sibelius himself said of it that "It always reminds me of the smell of the first snow of winter". For some reason, I find that rather touching.


Thanks Pat for your sensible and agreeable post.:tiphat:


----------



## Merl

5th......wow that was short!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

The more I try to pick one, the more I realize I don't have one! But I have two tiers:

Love: 2, 3, 5, 6
Love a tiny bit less: 1, 4, 7


----------



## andrzejmakal

All are stunning pieces but...The 2nd.


----------



## aglayaepanchin

For me it was once the 5th but today I rank highest the 2nd and the 7th. Both absolutely sublime, works from another world. As actually are all of the 7 symphonies.


----------



## Art Rock

It used to be 2 and 5, but now I would pick 4. But I echo the opinion that all 7 are excellent works.


----------



## Guest

6th
4th (or is it the 7th?)
7th (or 5th?)
5th (or 4th or 7th)
3rd
1st/2nd

Did I say 6th, or miss one out?...I'll have to listen through them again to make sure!


----------



## helenora

I´m listening to *"Jedermann"* for the first time based on Hugo von Hofmannsthal´s play....
yes, it´s not a symphony, but I´d be interested to know what you think about it.


----------



## Heck148

I love Sibelius....wonderful symphonies -

Sibelius is great to hear, and great to perform [great bassoon parts!!]
I do so love #1 - one of my favorite "Firsts"...but my top choice goes to:

*#5* - esp as performed by Bernstein/NYPO...real powerhouse performance.


----------



## znapschatz

All of them, but I am especially fond of #2 because of personal associations.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Tie for fave between 4 and 6


----------



## R3PL4Y

After much deliberation, I choose 7, with 5 close behind


----------



## Pugg

R3PL4Y said:


> After much deliberation, I choose 7, with 5 close behind


Good choice, enjoy them.


----------



## Ralphus

Tough to say. Nothing wrong with choosing the 2nd. It's a magnificent piece. 

For me: 3, 2, 5, 6

Perhaps in that order. It's tough to say. Someone mentioned having difficulty with the 3rd. My personal favourite is Blomstedt. I think he gets the verve and energy right. I'm late to come around to 1, 4, and 7, but certainly appreciate their greatness.


----------



## AlanB

Feeling particularly depressed today and wondered about favourite recordings of 7th. Maazel seems to be liked so listening to it now. Seems to lack a bit of 'heart' to me. I want a bit more ambience. Suggestions? Bernstein?


----------



## AlanB

Found Vanska with the Minnesota. I have never heard 7 sound like this before. More lyrical? Dare I say more 'lovely'. The Sibelius bleakness has gone. Suits me today but tomorrow is another day.


----------



## Ralphus

I was umming-and-ahhing but now the Vanska 3,6 & 7 is on my shopping list. His 2 & 5 didn't make an impact, but I love the 1 & 4. Despite not really liking the others, I do like Bernstein's DG 7.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Lovely to see this thread buzzing along. Does anyone have much to say about the 3rd symphony? It seems to me to be out of the same box as the Karelia Suite. Cheerful, a bit peasanty and lots of birdsong.
And did any other composer other than Messiaen use the orchestra to mimic bird songs and calls so successfully?


----------



## Judith

I love the 2nd and 5th symphonies. Saw 1st performed live by local orchestra recently but not so familiar with it!


----------



## Barbebleu

Judith said:


> I love the 2nd and 5th symphonies. Saw 1st performed live by local orchestra recently but not so familiar with it!


I concur Judith. I love both with the edge to five. My wife loves both but gives the edge to two! But basically they are all a joy to listen to. ( My apologies to all you grammarians out there for ending that last sentence with a preposition.)


----------



## Rhinotop

For me, the 2nd: This work elevates the spirit, fills you with hope.


----------



## janxharris

For me, the seventh (followed by the fifth) tower above the rest. If you like Tchaikovsky then you will probably like the earlier symphonies as the influence is clearly heard (as others have noted).

Interestingly, I didn't like the seventh until recently but now consider it the greatest piece in all music. I urge repeated listens.


----------



## Haydn man

Sibelius 7 is my favourite 
Of the others I would struggle to rank them as I enjoy them all


----------



## DeepR

It has to be the 7th. The recording posted above (Segerstam) is my favorite. I also use the end of it as my Windows startup sound.


----------



## janxharris

DeepR said:


> It has to be the 7th. The recording posted above (Segerstam) is my favorite. I also use the end of it as my Windows startup sound.




Is Sibelius imitating the moaning wind here do you think?

The way he builds the intensity with brass and woodwinds in the moments that follow is incredibly emotional to me...it's almost like Sibelius presents these climaxes in slow motion...


----------



## janxharris

Is this the greatest moment in all music?


----------



## Merl

The 5th.....simple as that. I would go into more detail but i'm cooking. Ok, i like it a lot. Mmmm, the smell of bacon.


----------



## Josquin13

It depends a lot on which recording I'm listening to. For example, Paavo Berglund was as good as anyone in the 5th, 6th, & 7th Symphonies, in my view, having been responsible for the new Hansen edition of the scores, which corrected many mistakes in the old Hansen edition (using the handwritten corrections that Sibelius made to his own conducting scores). So when I listen to Berglund conduct these three symphonies, I feel like I am hearing a conductor that knows and understands the scores better & more intimately than any other conductor I know (with the possible exception of Kajanus in the 5th). Berglund's vast experience with these scores particularly shows in the way he so masterfully builds the climaxes of the 5th & 7th.

With that said, I would also say that Berglund was often at his best in Sibelius when heard live in concert (more so than in the studio): Where he could get more carried away in the moment, and become a more exciting, thrilling conductor. Indeed, some of the greatest Sibelius I've ever heard has been from live Berglund recordings; which also happens to be the reason why I've changed my mind about which Sibelius Symphony is now my favorite.

If you'd asked me that question back in the 1980s or 90s, I'd have quickly said that my favorite Sibelius Symphony was the 2nd, and my favorite performance of the 2nd was Berglund's studio account with the Bournemouth Symphony Orchestra on EMI (alongside Barbirolli's RPO account).

However, since hearing Berglund's live accounts of the 5th & 7th with the London Philharmonic--made towards the end of his life in the 2000s, the debate in my mind is now between the 5th & 7th. Indeed, Berglund's live 5th with the LPO is the finest conducted performance I've heard since Kajanus, while his live LPO 7th stands alone. IMO, no other conductor has ever understood the 7th more deeply than Berglund did in his final live Barbican performance, not Beecham, not Segerstam, not Saraste, not Barbirolli, & not even Berglund in his other fine accounts of the 7th. He gets so carried away that he can't restrain himself from shouting out, and you want to shout with him, it's that remarkable.

So yes, I'd choose the 7th as my favorite Sibelius symphony, and that is largely due to Berglund's incredible live LPO recording, which opened up this symphony to me in a way that others hadn't, & which I now treasure more that any other Sibelius performance on record.

https://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Sym...1520274354&sr=1-15&keywords=berglund+sibelius

https://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Sym...=1520274293&sr=1-6&keywords=berglund+sibelius

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0091JQH2...bb36-7f5122bb1ed8&ie=UTF8&qid=1520274414&sr=1

https://www.hraudio.net/showmusic.php?title=12385

https://www.amazon.com/Sibelius-Fin...=1520274576&sr=1-9&keywords=berglund+sibelius


----------



## theBored

I've grown really fond of the first, actually. Particularly Bernstein's rendition of it.


----------



## Heck148

theBored said:


> I've grown really fond of the first, actually. Particularly Bernstein's rendition of it.


Absolutely - Lenny's NYPO Sibelius #1 is a real treasure....great tunes that tend to grow on you, and Bernstein brings off the big phrases most convincingly.
#1 is just narrowly squeaked out of first place in my Sibelius ratings by #5 [again LB/NYPO]


----------

