# Sibelius: Symphony No. 2 In D, Op. 43



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

How do you rate this piece?

Here below a youtube playlist with the four movements recorded by The Berlin Philarmoniker, conducted by James Levine.

Go to the youtube playlist


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

One thing I really envy about young and new classical listeners is that they will be able to hear this glorious symphony for the first time. My first hearing of this was one of those life-changing experiences. I knew Finlandia but that was pretty much the extent of my Sibelius listening. Then I bought the Ormandy recording on Odyssey and was thrilled, mesmerized and emotionally drained. I bought the score and took a long time to unravel Sibelius' mastery and genius. Great, Great music. 

It doesn't lack for fine recordings, either, but there is one that stands heads and shoulders above all the others and no, it's not the famed Szell recording: it's Sir John Barbirolli with the Royal Philharmonic. It has tension and electricity galore. Made for Reader's Digest, it has been licensed to different labels, I have the Chesky edition.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Excellent work...very moving and powerful...great fun to play....great bassoon part!! (Sibelius is always fun to play)...
Many fine recordings - my favorites are Monteux/LSO, Blomstedt/SFSO....Toscanini and Stokowski both recorded excellent vetsions with NBCSO ('40, '54)...Blomstedt is perhaps a bit slow in the finale, but the wonderful power of the final pages really pays off big-time!! Beautifully played and reuhcorded.

The Barbirolli/RoyPO is good, but i find the Finale lacking in power, the final brass chorale could use more juice...
Sonic problems plague the oft-mentioned Szell/Cleveland live Tokyo recording...the low brass sounds likes it's off-stage somewhere...the balance is really off....too bad, because the performance is really excellent...


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I LOVE Sibelius' music and especially his symphonies. Every single one of his symphonies is a masterpiece.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

For me it is one of the greatest symphonies of all time! I have the score and I admire the orchestration. No need for a large orchestra if the composer has such an imagination!

The themes are gorgeous, the harmonies are beautiful, there are great contrasts -- and the structure and drama are perfect! What a joy the great finale theme is when it eventually starts to sing.

The symphony is also thoroughly Sibelian. No other composer could possibly have composed the piece.

For a Finn like me, there are also additional meanings in the symphony. After the composition, it still took 16 years before we became independent.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

What is the desired measure for the rating? Sales figures, number of public renditions in the last ten years. length, ...?

I like Sibelius' symphony No. 2, but it is not my favorite among the glorious seven. (#5, #4, #7, #1, maybe this sequence from "most-liked" descending).

To my mind, the first movement is suffering from an ambiguity between being a sonata movement and being a very long slow introduction. Of course, everything suggests that this is my individual problem and not a problem of the symphony, but maybe someone could help me in appreciating the first movement more.

(The transition form the third movement to the finale can be great, a very exciting moment, if the conductor and the orchestra make it ...)


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

A masterpiece without a doubt in my mind. I voted "Excellent" as the last two options were over-the-top. Favorite performances would be Bernstein/NY Philharmonic on Sony, Barbirolli/Royal PO on Chesky and Davis/BSO on Philips.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

For me it was an easy "one of the best" because I can't think of many that are better.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> What is the desired measure for the rating? Sales figures, number of public renditions in the last ten years. length, ...?
> 
> I like Sibelius' symphony No. 2, but it is not my favorite among the glorious seven. (#5, #4, #7, #1, maybe this sequence from "most-liked" descending).
> 
> ...


You talk about the 1st Symphony here with the slow introduction, clarinet theme and all. No slow introduction in the first movement of the 2nd symphony.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> You talk about the 1st Symphony here with the slow introduction.


No. Sorry to say, but you are wrong. I am speaking about the 2nd symphony D major.

I did not say that the 2nd symphony had a slow introduction.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> No. Sorry to say, but you are wrong. I am speaking about the 2nd symphony D major.


OK, I have never perceived the first movement as slow or as an introduction. It is a wonderful pastoral movement, full of joy and beauty and some very clever thematic work.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> OK, I have never perceived the first movement as slow or as an introduction.


I see. This might be the case.

Maybe my problem is related to the fact that it is difficult for me to clearly identify such thing as a first subject.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

everyone's favorite part of the work -the final movement-


----------



## Animal the Drummer (Nov 14, 2015)

Very Good. There isn't that much Sibelius on my long-time favourites list but this symphony is one exception. Recommended recording is Colin Davis and the Boston Symph.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> OK, I have never perceived the first movement as slow or as an introduction. It is a wonderful pastoral movement, full of joy and beauty and some very clever thematic work.


The first movement is masterful and I have no problems with it either. It's gorgeous.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Sibelius is in my 'Top 5' favorite composers, so most of my opinions regarding this composer are personal bias. I seldom say a bad word about him because his music has meant so much to me over the years. I think his symphonies, and tone poems for that matter, represent an outsider perspective and are a world away from any kind of Germanic influence. I think for this reason he's sometimes thought of unfairly in that some listeners believe the whole classical music universe revolves around the three B's (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms) or just the whole Germanic musical culture in general. I'm happy to say I don't come from that world of thinking and I'm open-minded enough to recognize that all of the major countries that have contributed to this music are special in their own way. There isn't a 'better' musical culture. Germans don't beat Russians and Russians don't beat French. All of these cultures have produced brilliant composers and musicians.

Anyway, stepping off my soapbox now.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> I see. This might be the case.
> 
> Maybe my problem is related to the fact that it is difficult for me to clearly identify such thing as a first subject.


I get what you mean, maybe. But even the three rising notes of the first subject refer to the finale’s three rising notes, so it sure is a major symphonic theme, although appearing very airy and pastoral.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I think it's an excellent symphony, surely one of my favorites from Sibelius. In my opinion those "freezing winds" that appear in the last minutes of the finale are both very original and astonishing, and are my favorite moment of the whole work. A 8.5 in terms of how much I enjoy it.

P.S.: Perhaps instead of using the phrases "one of the best pieces of classical music" or "the best absolute piece of classical music", the OP could use the terms "outstanding" and "hors concours" as both are better than "excellent". Just a suggestion.


----------



## Judas Priest Fan (Apr 27, 2018)

Easily one of my favorites of all time!

If I remember correctly, it didn´t do much for me the first time I heard it. But the second listen grabbed me, moved me, and gave me goosebumps from head to toe!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Philidor said:


> To my mind, the first movement is suffering from an ambiguity between being a sonata movement and being a very long slow introduction.


In a way, you're not far from the mark. The first movement is a tour de force of symphonic thinking. In the very first few bars, Sibelius plants the seeds of the themes for the whole rest of the work. It's all there. What he then does with this seemingly trivial "theme" is utterly amazing. It's a model of what is called "organic composition". That is also very exciting, tuneful, memorable and popular is a bonus, and those things also work against it the opinion of so-called experts. There have been numerous books that analyze the symphony that are well worth reading and following with score and recording.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Great symphony, not Sibelius' greatest (I'd pick 4 or 5) and it still shows the influence of Tchaikovsky that he'd expel in his later works. Like mbhaub wrote, the first movement is a marvel of thematic organisation and development. I think it's the best movement too, the most forward-looking. I'm not a great fan of the slow movement with its emotional outbursts (so a-typical of later Sibelius), the scherzo is exciting but also a tad simplistic, and the finale contains quite some bombast, again completely absent in his later works.

Barbirolli is my first choice as well, but there are many other great ones. it's not a symphony that's hard to get right, unless you're called Bernstein and you're doing it with the VPO. An exercise in excess and horrible taste. Badly enough, it was my first 2nd, and it made me hate the symphony at first...


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> Great symphony, not Sibelius' greatest (I'd pick 4 or 5) and it still shows the influence of Tchaikovsky that he'd expel in his later works. Like mbhaub wrote, the first movement is a marvel of thematic organisation and development. I think it's the best movement too, the most forward-looking. I'm not a great fan of the slow movement with its emotional outbursts (so a-typical of later Sibelius), the scherzo is exciting but also a tad simplistic, and the finale contains quite some bombast, again completely absent in his later works.


This is interesting! For me the 2nd Movement is one of the greatest slow movements of all time, due to the melodic and atmospheric genius. It truly tells a story, starting with those evocative slow string pizzicatos. When I listen to the 2nd Symphony, it is the level of beauty in the great returning appearance of the 2nd movement singing theme on the violins and the grandeur of the finale theme that I judge the performance upon -- you have to get those 2 right or I frown.

I have come to think that I prefer composers who are able to create both 'naive' heartfelt and beautiful melodies (together with great harmonies and thought out rhythms of course) and more cerebral structures. That means the composer has a lot of tools, scope, width and depth. For me a composer cannot be a one trick wonder. Who cares if a symphony is full of great thematic metamorphosis if the material in itself does not resonate or touch us listeners?

Just think about the late string quartets by Beethoven. It is the ability to do both the slow movement of the A minor quartet (extremely emotional and heartfelt) and the 1st movement of the C# minor quartet (intellectual to the max) that makes Beethoven so great.

So I welcome every bombastic element in the 2nd Symphony because it is so well done and Sibelius´ melodic genius gets to shine. I cannot think of another symphony that would be more high level melodically, and that is a true achievement. Had he not been as great a melodist, he would not have been able to create symphonies 3-7 either.

Intuitively my picks for the definite recordings would be Berglund/Bournemouth and Ashkenazy/Philharmonia.

(The Barbirolli lacks both in the 2nd movement and the finale key moments for me.)


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

I voted Excellent, Vanska and Bernstein are my favourites.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Rogerx said:


> I voted Excellent, Vanska and Bernstein are my favourites.


Which Vänskä performance? Lahti or Minnesota?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Neo Romanza said:


> Which Vänskä performance? Lahti or Minnesota?


*Minnesota*, I do like the other ones but this are so gripping.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

mbhaub said:


> In the very first few bars, Sibelius plants the seeds of the themes for the whole rest of the work. It's all there. What he then does with this seemingly trivial "theme" is utterly amazing. It's a model of what is called "organic composition". That is also very exciting, tuneful, memorable and popular is a bonus, and those things also work against it the opinion of so-called experts. There have been numerous books that analyze the symphony that are well worth reading and following with score and recording.


Thank you very much. I think I am quite familiar with score and structure of the piece.

Just want to express the feelings I had during the first encounters with op. 43. There was nothing that I could call a first subject, you know, a subject usually has a quite sharply designed character. And a first subject usually has some appearance of importance. Think for the firsts subjects of the Eroica, of Bruckner 3/4/7, Brahms 4, Tchai 6, Dvorak 9 and many more ... that's the idea of a first subject, memorizable, recognizable, precisely designed, to be recognized in the development section. Or just compare to the first movement of Sibelius' first symphony. Completely different.

If you want nice sounds, sweet moods, the idea of finnean lakes and woods at moonshine, everything is perfect. If you are expecting a symphonic journey, it is different, even if Sibelius delivers everything you could want in the end.

Later I noticed that Sibelius solves the riddle in the end, catching up all open ends. Yes, brilliant. Fully agreed.

Even after delving deeper into the structure of the music, the first movement still leaves me in doubt.

It is maybe interesting that Sibelius did not proceed on the way given by op. 43, where he tried to combine a traditional symphonic structure with his basic concept of evolution (which is opposite to the dialectic sonata form). Symph 3 shows an important experiment, in Symphonies 4 and 5 he managed the desired evolutional concept of his music with appropriate forms, no more relying on the sonata form in its Beethovenian shape in the way he did in op. 43. So in #4 and #5 he found new a match between content, the idea of the proceeding of the music (dialectic vs. evolutionary) and form, that convinces me much more than in op. 43.

I wouldn't go so far to say that Sibelius recognized the mismatch of the form and the idea of proceeding by evolution, so he looked for other ways. But one thing is sure: He did not try to repeat op. 43.

So my feelings from the first encounters never left me totally ...


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> Thank you very much. I think I am quite familiar with score and structure of the piece.
> 
> Just want to express the feelings I had during the first encounters with op. 43. There was nothing that I could call a first subject, you know, a subject usually has a quite sharply designed character. And a first subject usually has some appearance of importance. Think for the firsts subjects of the Eroica, of Bruckner 3/4/7, Brahms 4, Tchai 6, Dvorak 9 and many more ... that's the idea of a first subject, memorizable, recognizable, precisely designed, to be recognized in the development section. Or just compare to the first movement of Sibelius' first symphony. Completely different.
> 
> ...



I understand what you mean.

In my opinion it is utterly clever to begin the symphony with a movement which consciously does not have a traditional grand theme, but is rather setting the mood and planting the seeds for the themes to evolve later on! And to do that without the music being rhapsodic at all but very concise and tight, very clever indeed.

So for me, not a problem but a unique strength! But you have to ’let go’ and go with the flow. You cannot enjoy this movement if you wait for a high profile defining theme. So yes, it requires a specific mindset.

The 6th or 7th symphonies are similar in a way. No high profile defining grand themes! Everything is linked, though. Concise & Gorgeous.


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> You cannot enjoy this movement if you wait for a high profile defining theme. So yes, it requires a specific mindset.


Yes, in the beginning this was my problem - the opening did non match my expectations.

I think I left this state behind me. Imho.

But even now I see the mismatch of dialectic form and evolutionary proceeding. This can hardly be denied, imho. And Sibelius himself changed this afterwards.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Philidor said:


> But even now I see the mismatch of dialectic form and evolutionary proceeding. This can hardly be denied, imho. And Sibelius himself changed this afterwards.


I do not perceive such a mismatch but I respect your experience and view on the matter.

In a way the 1st movement has one foot in Beethovenian sonata form thinking and one foot in the later Sibelian musical evolution thinking. That much I can perceive. I just do not see it as a problem.

But I think I understand how it might create ambivalence in some listeners.


----------



## HerbertNorman (Jan 9, 2020)

Together with Finlandia and the Violin concerto , this was the piece that really got me into Sibelius when I was young. I like the Vanskä recording with the Minnesota the best.


----------



## dko22 (Jun 22, 2021)

it's not bad - with the first movement being the best as one or two have said --but by no stretch of the imagination on a par with the later symphonies from 4 onwards. In fact, if anything I find no, 1 more interesting and certainly _Kullervo _is. Together with the violin concerto this is one of the more over-rated Sibelius works for me although I certainly enjoy it more than the concerto.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Excellent. After much consideration, it is my least favorite Sibelius symphony. The only Sibelius symphonies I wouldn't classify as masterpieces are 1, 2, and maybe 3. However, they may be the most interesting set of non-masterpieces in the symphonic genre for me. I like them a lot more than, say, Tchaikovsky's 1-3, or Prokofiev's lesser handful, or my least favorite among Mahler or Schubert or perhaps even Bruckner.

However, the Sibelius 2 was one of my entries into Sibelius, so I can see why anyone would think more highly of it than the others even if I would strongly disagree.


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Rogerx said:


> *Minnesota*, I do like the other ones but this are so gripping.


I need to go back and revisit those recordings. Thanks for the nudge, @Rogerx.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

RobertJTh said:


> Great symphony, not Sibelius' greatest (I'd pick 4 or 5) and it still shows the influence of Tchaikovsky that he'd expel in his later works. Like mbhaub wrote, the first movement is a marvel of thematic organisation and development. I think it's the best movement too, the most forward-looking. I'm not a great fan of the slow movement with its emotional outbursts (so a-typical of later Sibelius), the scherzo is exciting but also a tad simplistic, and the finale contains quite some bombast, again completely absent in his later works.
> 
> *Barbirolli* is my first choice as well, but there are many other great ones. it's not a symphony that's hard to get right, unless you're called Bernstein and you're doing it with the VPO. An exercise in excess and horrible taste. Badly enough, it was my first 2nd, and it made me hate the symphony at first...


Voted 'excellent'.
Note that *the earliest Barbirolli recording from 1940 with NYPO* is probably the fastest-ever version, together with Beecham/BBC 1954, and thus often provides a listening experience that is quite different from what we're accustomed to today (less than 40 minutes, as opposed to his later one, of less than 45 minutes, and for example Karajan/EMI, of less than 48 minutes)


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

joen_cph said:


> Note that *the earliest Barbirolli recording from 1940 with NYPO* is probably the fastest-ever version, together with Beecham/BBC 1954, and thus often provides a listening experience that is quite different from what we're accustomed to today (less than 40 minutes, as opposed to his later one, of less than 45 minutes, and for example Karajan/EMI, of less than 48 minutes)


Lenny (VPO) needs more than 51 minutes, but that's mostly because he wrings every bit of emotion from the slow movement (18 minutes as opposed to the usual 12-13 minutes).
If we're talking fast and furious, here's Toscanini (38 minutes):


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

The worst version of the 2nd Symphony I have ever heard is by Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker. And that is strange for two reasons.

The first one is that usually I do not mind conductors being expressive even to a borderline pompous extent. But here the finale grand theme is just ridiculously slow. Strangely enough the playing is not precise either and I spot rhytmic mistakes everywhere. Same with the En Saga, which is just bad on this record.

The second reason is that I would never have thought Karajan could be this lost with a piece of music. But it must have been one of his bad days, doing a routine performance of a Sibelius symphony.











Why do I mention this? Because it is very peculiar indeed for the 2 reasons I mentioned. Usually Karajan and the Berliner are a guarantee for quality.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

RobertJTh said:


> Lenny (VPO) needs more than 51 minutes, but that's mostly because he wrings every bit of emotion from the slow movement (18 minutes as opposed to the usual 12-13 minutes).
> If we're talking fast and furious, here's Toscanini (38 minutes):


Oh yes, thanks, I'd forgotten about Toscanini, and there's also Paray at 39 minutes & with better sound (1959).


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

RobertJTh said:


> Lenny (VPO) needs more than 51 minutes, but that's mostly because he wrings every bit of emotion from the slow movement (18 minutes as opposed to the usual 12-13 minutes).
> If we're talking fast and furious, here's Toscanini (38 minutes):


I suppose you have heard that Sibelius was not friends with Toscanini´s conducting? "Hitto mitä takomista!" is what he said in Finnish. Which would mean something like: "Oh, what a blacksmith!" in English. 

He preferred Koussevitsky and Karajan.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Waehnen said:


> I suppose you have heard that Sibelius was not friends with Toscanini´s conducting?


I love Toscanini's conducting of Sibelius.....he really gets the sound - hard, icy, craggy, crystal clear...very powerful....


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> The worst version of the 2nd Symphony I have ever heard is by Karajan and the Berliner Philharmoniker. And that is strange for two reasons.
> 
> The first one is that usually I do not mind conductors being expressive even to a borderline pompous extent. But here the finale grand theme is just ridiculously slow. Strangely enough the playing is not precise either and I spot rhytmic mistakes everywhere. Same with the En Saga, which is just bad on this record.
> 
> ...


I will say Karajan's earlier performances of Sibelius are DG are magnificent, but I never cared for his EMI recordings --- they're either way too smoothed over or simply miss the mark. I haven't heard this performance of the 2nd in ages, but I'll take your word for it.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Neo Romanza said:


> I will say Karajan's earlier performances of Sibelius are DG are magnificent, but I never cared for his EMI recordings --- they're either way too smoothed over or simply miss the mark. I haven't heard this performance of the 2nd in ages, but I'll take your word for it.


Including the 1961 EMI/Philharmonia recording?


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Becca said:


> Including the 1961 EMI/Philharmonia recording?


I own that recording, but haven't heard it. I'm sure it's good because it's earlier Karajan. I'm mainly talking about his later Sibelius recordings for EMI.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

hammeredklavier said:


> everyone's favorite part of the work -the final movement-


Whilst Sibelius remains my favourite composer, I would not cite the second symphony in my reasoning. I dislike the finale intensely. For me, the composer of symphonies 4-7 is just not the same person. 

Clearly, I'm rather an anomaly regarding this, but I felt your comment needed a response,


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> I get what you mean, maybe. But even the three rising notes of the first subject refer to the finale’s three rising notes, so it sure is a major symphonic theme, although appearing very airy and pastoral.


I think that's a stretch unless you mean something other than I am thinking. Perhaps you could clarify?


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> I think that's a stretch unless you mean something other than I am thinking. Perhaps you could clarify?


I am saying that these 1st movement rising and descending three note gestures on the woodwinds and strings...









...are related to these in the finale:










BTW, I have always thought this symphony is related to the 'Pastoral' Piano Sonata by Beethoven in the same key. There is a very similar relationship between the motifs of the 1st movement and the finale. I can play the beginnings of the pieces on top of each other in my head and sometimes do.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> I am saying that these 1st movement rising and descending three note gestures on the woodwinds and strings...
> View attachment 180852
> 
> 
> ...


Ok, that's what I thought you were linking. I think it's a stretch myself...and would probably link Sibelius with myriad other works. 

On the other hand, if you hear it as related then it is...for you.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> Ok, that's what I thought you were linking. I think it's a stretch myself...and would probably link Sibelius with myriad other works.
> 
> On the other hand, if you hear it as related then it is...for you.


Yes, I tend to hear connections everywhere. That´s me. However, these thematic thoughts on Sibelius' 2nd symphony are not merely my own observations.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> Yes, I tend to hear connections everywhere. That´s me. However, these thematic thoughts on Sibelius' 2nd symphony are not merely my own observations.


Would you agree that there are examples of more substantial relationships that bear objective analysis? Certainly, Sibelius is known and loved for such motivic relationships - and we know he spoke of them.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> Would you agree that there are examples of more substantial relationships that bear objective analysis? Certainly, Sibelius is known and loved for such motivic relationships - and we know he spoke of them.


Of course. Taking three notes of a major or minor scale and calling it a high profile motive is a stretch. However, even those do contribute to the effect of cohesion. Beethoven does it all the time.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> Of course. Taking three notes of a major or minor scale and calling it a high profile motive is a stretch. However, even those do contribute to the effect of cohesion. Beethoven does it all the time.


I don't have any problem hearing how Beethoven links all four movements of his 5th symphony using variations of the first heard motif; I don't hear the Sibelius example as such - it's rhythmically and melodically different.

Again though, if you hear it then that's fine.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> I don't have any problem hearing how Beethoven links all four movements of his 5th symphony using variations of the first heard motif; I don't hear the Sibelius example as such - it's rhythmically and melodically different.
> 
> Again though, if you hear it then that's fine.


Not all symphonic thinking that aims at development, cohesion and drama is based on high profile rhythmic motifs like in the Beethoven´s 5th. The variety is huge -- and that is a good thing.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> Not all symphonic thinking that aims at development, cohesion and drama is based on high profile rhythmic motifs like in the Beethoven´s 5th. The variety is huge -- and that is a good thing.


You do accept that the Sibelius motif in question may just be a coincidence? I think you are right to point out a degree of similarity (slowed down and retrograde) - but also right to admit it's a stretch.

Notwithstanding my position on this particular issue, I consider Sibelius the master of the kind of organic cohesiveness that I look for in a piece...indeed, that is considered by many to be a hallmark of a well constructed composition.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> You do accept that the Sibelius motif in question may just be a coincidence? I think you are right to point out a degree of similarity (slowed down and retrograde) - but also right to admit it's a stretch.


No, I do not accept the Sibelius motif in question would be just a coincidence. It is just not possible when considering the melodic characters of the first movement and the finale. The finale theme is very powerful and impactful major scale writing and there is no doubt in my mind that the grand theme had to be prepared in the first movement, and Sibelius did just that. A grand theme like that cannot just come out of nowhere, a composer must build to it.

The situation is the same as analysed below of the Beethoven 'Pastoral' Piano Sonata. Would you call it a coincidence what happens here although the theme is not a rhythmically high profile TA-TA-TA-TAAA? (From Piano by Louis Kentner.)

The expression "Sattumako?" actually stands for: 'A coincidence?' What a coincidence, considering our conversation here.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> No, I do not accept the Sibelius motif in question would be just a coincidence. It is just not possible when considering the melodic characters of the first movement and the finale. The finale theme is very powerful and impactful major scale writing and there is no doubt in my mind that the grand theme had to be prepared in the first movement, and Sibelius did just that. A grand theme like that cannot just come out of nowhere, a composer must build to it.


Well I don't see that at all. Perhaps you could justify your claim with a bit more detail.

I looked briefly at the Beethoven and did think there to be a clearer relationship.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> Well I don't see that at all. Perhaps you could justify your claim with a bit more detail.
> 
> I looked briefly at the Beethoven and did think there to be a clearer relationship.


Music is a bit tricky. If you refuse to see what to me is musically obvious, I might not have the time or the energy to try to convince you.

So I´ll just quote a professor. 

Here Erik Tawastsjerna writes that "Rising three note diatonic movement is characteristic to all the thematic material in the symphony."









First the three note diatonic movement has it´s counter movement in descending staccato woodwinds, and then it is thinned out in the horn section.










So already many variations of the 3 notes thematic motif, all in the very beginning of the symphony. It is a stretch to say similar melodic structures in the finale would have nothing to do with these things.

But hey, you are free to listen to Sibelius in any way you want. All the best!


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

I just re-heard my CD of HvK /Philharmonia Orchestra (1960) in Sibelius' Symphonies 2 + 5; the performance of no.2 I found not very interesting, whereas the 5th was a good deal more impressive. Overall however, I agree that DG HvK is preferable to EMI HvK in Sibelius ...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> Music is a bit tricky. If you refuse to see what to me is musically obvious, I might not have the time or the energy to try to convince you.
> 
> So I´ll just quote a professor.
> 
> ...


Why did you say that the finale theme had to be prepared in the 1st movement? Classical music is full of examples of movement independence - especially the classical era.

If we were discussing Tapiola or indeed most of his latter works then I don't think there would be any debate...Sibelius uses motifs like evolving genes.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> Why did you say that the finale theme had to be prepared in the 1st movement? Classical music is full of examples of movement independence - especially the classical era.


Because in my opinion such a strong theme is more effective when the moment it arrives has been prepared. It is also a cathartic moment when the composer refers to things that have already been. It is a culmination point of the dramatic arc. That is the way of the symphonies of Sibelius -- all things are connected.

The same with the 1st Sibelius Symphony: The rhythm and the melodic shape of the solo clarinet introduction is the rhythm and melodic shape of the great theme of the finale -- introvert minor solo turning into extrovert major tutti over the length of the symphony. (This is actually something I figured out by myself and haven´t read anywhere.)

I am sure you get what I am saying although of course there are other symphonies where the movements are truly independent.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> Because in my opinion such a strong theme is more effective when the moment it arrives has been prepared. It is also a cathartic moment when the composer refers to things that have already been. It is a culmination point of the dramatic arc. That is the way of the symphonies of Sibelius -- all things are connected.


I agree with you - I tend to prefer music that is related in such a way. Having said that, the 5th symphony is one of my favourites and I don't hear too much connection between the movements (though I believe someone pointed out one to Sibelius who, it seems, was not aware of it).



> The same with the 1st Sibelius Symphony: The rhythm and the melodic shape of the solo clarinet introduction is the rhythm and melodic shape of the great theme of the finale -- introvert minor solo turning into extrovert major tutti over the length of the symphony. (This is actually something I figured out by myself and haven´t read anywhere.)


I'm not so familiar with the 1st symphony (I admit I find it hard to get through). Are you referring to the finale beginning with an exact quote of the clarinet solo?



> I am sure you get what I am saying although of course there are other symphonies where the movements are truly independent.


I do Waehnen. If you make a connection then I'm not attempting to break it.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

janxharris said:


> I'm not so familiar with the 1st symphony (I admit I find it hard to get through). Are you referring to the finale beginning with an exact quote of the clarinet solo?


This rhythm and melodic shape is the same...







As here (I put time stamps on the links):





It might be hard to spot because the tempo and atmosphere and the scale are different -- but that´s how Sibelius built the symphony.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Waehnen said:


> This rhythm and melodic shape is the same..
> 
> As here (I put time stamps on the links):
> 
> It might be hard to spot because the tempo and atmosphere and the scale are different -- but that´s how Sibelius built the symphony.


I can see a degree of connection - in mood perhaps.


----------



## Knorf (Jan 16, 2020)

The later EMI Sibelius recordings done by Karajan are absolutely terrific. Among them are my all-time favorite Sixth, a wonderfully ferocious First, the Fourth and Fifth vie for my preference with the DG recordings, and all these are certainly among my favorites anywhere. The tone poems are similarly excellent, including what I deem to be the greatest-ever _En Saga. _In general, it's an easily recommendable set of Sibelius recordings.

Except the Second.

To be fair, the Second has some excellent aspects, such as a truly great second movement. The first movement I find a bit wayward, but redeemable, with some terrific moments. The last movement is the source of greatest disappointment. It's far too slow, somewhat smoothed over where it should be craggy, and never really gets going in my opinion.

There are many great, or at least recommendable, performances of the Sibelius Second Symphony; however, the later Karajan EMI is not really among them.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

'_En Saga_' is not on DG with HvK, only on EMI, and I just re-heard it, but I prefer slower tempi in that work, for example Ashkenazy/decca, where btw the old LP has better sound than the CD transfer, the brass fanfares at the end being particularly impressive. '_Tapiola_" with HvK is good, IMO it should be played in a broad tempo like he does, and I agree that the _6th Symphony _with him is among the best performances/recordings out there, adding a special, enigmatic rather than bagatelle-like quality to that work, IMO, but with that I know the DG recording better.


----------

