# Blind Comparison - Sibelius #4



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

It has been a long time since I last ran one of the blind comparison series, so herewith a new one, 3 performances of Sibelius' 4th Symphony. For a long time it and the 1st had been my least favourite of his symphonies however that view has been changing somewhat over the last couple of years.

For those of you unfamiliar with these comparison threads, I am providing links to 3 different performances of the symphony but without any indication as to who, what, when, where and why! The idea is for you to listen to them and offer your opinions without having preconceived biases about the performers. One common outcome is that some of the participants will find that their opinions are different from what they would have expected, and that can be a good thing.

The idea here is not to guess who did them, although go ahead if you want to do so, however if you do recognize the performance, please don't spoil it for others by posting the names (you can PM me if you wish.) All I will say is that none of them are any of the well-known recordings, I intentionally avoid them as too many people will immediately recognize them.

Depending on how many participate (and please let us know if you intend to), I will post the details by over the long (U.S.) weekend. You can also PM me if you want to know the details before I post them.

A -
..1st - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZcukGXZhkJq7p31gzHf4nCIvonjVbHoyQ9y
..2nd - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ7fkGXZhHcDusY17s5qGTe7qJQp84xisI7V
..3rd - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZJfkGXZYL1oVT9Kz6XuXQ8erdEk6fOk3ya7
..4th - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZRfkGXZ1UtnGszuOUbsqfaIetju7VV7WgM7

B -
..1st - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZKukGXZhkVKApBsSLX3yCYrU3Kk0X4XbuDk
..2nd - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZUukGXZ4tAkWWY6b0V90tab7WvDwy3jeRqV
..3rd - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZAukGXZQprhx8IXvA8085vF5NWINQs3qtgV
..4th - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZrukGXZzck53PgLwqfKrJqOePWRpR72I9ey

C -
..1st - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ2ukGXZhet8V5J4CPjzdBNbQqv5ApLwzegX
..2nd - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZDukGXZU06MVRbALHyO9Gfw8EIrtfCX61V7
..3rd - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZ9ukGXZadPuwOgda6LuVXGS5kQ6271gwCeV
..4th - https://u.pcloud.link/publink/show?code=XZxukGXZwbwYLr70MOYjEp1jHHntKFTVVjpy


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Great choice! Not only because the 4th is one of my desert island symphonies, but also because of all the Sibelius symphonies it must be the one that offers the widest range of interpretative choices (and the biggest amount of pitfalls too). So it'll be very interesting to give this a try.

Do you mind if I sample the glorious 3rd movement first?

1. Old recording? Some background noise, various clicks and bumps, LP transfer? Rather direct soundscape, would prefer some more "room", specially in music like this. Beautifully played woodwind solos, maybe a bit too much highlighted by the recording. Violins lack brilliance, climaxes sound a bit congested.
Fairly slow, and the tension isn't always well maintained between the episodes, giving it a fragmented impression. Tempo is rather inflexible too. The buildup to the final climax isn't that convincing, because of the fragmentary and straightforward playing. It really needs more emotional power and rawness.
_Interpretation: 5, recording 6_

2. Better recording, but the playing here is even more inflexible. The solos at the start try to compensate with expressive playing, resulting in some shrillness. Gorgeous brass sound though and the strings seem in better shape than in no. 1 too. Less artificial highlighting of details than in no.1
I really like the orchestral sound, too bad the interpretation doesn't follow suit. This must be an orchestra that know Sibelius and loves playing it, but with a conductor at the helm who isn't really in touch with the music. It must be said that he doesn't make the same mistake as no.1 and keeps everything flowing, so at least it doesn't sound fragmentary. But this recording really needed more flexibility and emotional investment. The climax is underwhelming again, alas.
_Interpretation: 6, recording 8_

3. Now we're talking. Directly at the beginning there's so much more interpretative freedom and expressiveness. Quicker tempo (chops 2 minutes off 1 and 2), feels much more urgent. Orchestra sounds as good as in no. 2. Fine recording too, even better than no. 2, very expansive and with wonderful strings. Best string sound of all three, definitely. Well balanced too, nothing feels too highlighted or too much in the background.
Too me, almost everything seems "right" here. The slight speeding up at the various contrapuntal episodes in the middle of the movement give it plenty of forward momentum. Maybe even a bit too much, I can see how people will find this too rushed. matter of taste of course. But just listen to the way how the climax is handled, with that big dramatic pause at the start, the soundscape suddenly expanding, giving room to full orchestra to finally unleash its power. Chilling and breathtaking.
_Interpretation: 9, recording 9_

I'll give the other movements a go too, but so far no. 3 is a clear winner. Really curious to know which one this is, because judging on the 3rd movement alone, it would be one of the highlights in my collection.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Whatever works for you, doing one movement at a time is probably how I would approach it.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors (Sep 16, 2016)

I don't really feel like going on too much about the three examples, so my comments will be short....Performance #3 gives me the best overall sound: more life-like, greater ambience or atmosphere, tonal shading and three dimensionality. In short, more natural. I also prefer the interpretation, especially regarding the nuances and dynamic contrasts....Performance #1 sounds somewhat more distantly recorded. Interpretation okay, and I like some of the expressive subleties. The sound for #2 lacks the natural qualities I hear in performance 3. There seems to be a sense of forwardness combined with flatness---not too pleasant a listening experience for me. I remain less focused on the interpretation as well.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

If there is anyone who is intending to participate, could you please post here to let me know - thanks!


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I've downloaded the files. Intend to listen to them and post my thoughts on late Sat or Sun my time.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Yay, I miss these! I should have time this weekend to participate and I plan to do so. One of my favorite symphonies and a perfect pick for the dreariness of mid-winter here in the northern US.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I'll have a go if I have time Becca but I'm a bit quartet-bound at the mo. I'll see.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> Yay, I miss these! I should have time this weekend to participate and I plan to do so. One of my favorite symphonies and a perfect pick for the dreariness of mid-winter here in the northern US.


A very strange piece. I feel I don't understand it, yet it might be my favorite Sibelius symphony.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As I noted earlier, despite coming to appreciate it more over the last couple of years, it is still not a favourite. I suppose that I find the gloomy atmosphere to be rather off-putting.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

Becca said:


> As I noted earlier, despite coming to appreciate it more over the last couple of years, it is still not a favourite. I suppose that I find the gloomy atmosphere to be rather off-putting.


Thats what you get for living in sunny California - move to Scotland and the Symphony will sound so different


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Malx said:


> Thats what you get for living in sunny California - move to Scotland and the Symphony will sound so different


True!! lol!! This symphony does certainly generate cold, wintry associations for me...Sibelius 4, Vaughan Williams 7, Tchaikovsky 1 - winter has arrived...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Heck148 said:


> True!! lol!! This symphony does certainly generate cold, wintry associations for me...Sibelius 4, Vaughan Williams 7, Tchaikovsky 1 - winter has arrived...


Whatabout the Rite of Spring


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Becca said:


> Whatever works for you, doing one movement at a time is probably how I would approach it.


I can see one disadvantage though: I didn't expect #3 making such a tremendous impression at the expense of #1 and #2, so with there is already a certain bias towards #3. I'll try to suppress that when listening to the other movements though.

Ok, now for the _first and second movement_, combined.

1. Confirms the impression of the 3rd movement. Fragmentary, focus on details, which are sometimes unnaturally highlighted. I noticed that this approach serves the nature of the music much better here than in the slow movement, which benefits from long lines and suspended tension. Again, beautifully played solos, string sound rather anemic, some ugly shrillness in the upper regions.
Scherzo: ugh, this sounds like a first play through. Strings are a mess at the start, the tempo is unsteady and the music lacks direction. Things improve somewhat later on, but this isn't the orchestra's finest hour.

2. First movement dark and ponderous, the very beginning a bit too aggressive to my taste. Rich vibrato in the cello solo, I prefer a more cold tone here. In general this version sounds more expansive and flowing, helped by the better recording. Really ugly booming entry of the "fugato" section halfway the movement. And towards the end, everything starts to sound like everyone's on autopilot. Really incredible how they can make this disturbing, tragic music seem so bland and dull. I can't shake the strange impression that conductor and orchestra have different opinions about how the music should sound. I very much prefer #1 in the first movement.
Scherzo: virtuoso playing by the orchestra, much, MUCH better strings than in #1. Lovely woodwinds too. The conductor goes for elegance and flowing motion instead of contrasts and drama. Problem is, it sure sounds pretty, but completely fails to penetrate the dark core of the music.

3. First movement: much less ponderous beginning than in #2, more suspense, cello solo with heavy vibrato, but it kind of fits here. When the music starts to build tension, with those large pillars of sound, you notice how well everything is balanced, and how clear the individual character of the instruments comes through. And still everything blends perfectly, really astonishing. Again, probably helped by the clear and detailed recording. The miracle of this music is the shaping of every single phrase, motif and sections, maximizing the individuality of all those "building blocks". The conductor understands that this movement isn't about setting a tempo and let it all melt together. It's music that's in search of a theme, of a structure, but fails to find anything but torn apart fragments and desperate gestures.
Scherzo: I'd prefer the beginning taken a bit more lightly and elegantly, more like #2. Not everything in this symphony has to be ink-black despair. But it surely is a valid approach, specially when it results in so much tension and forward motion. Great second half of the movement too, which can be such a letdown in so many recordings. Still, of the three movements I heard of #3 yet, I find the scherzo the least successful.

Finale next, really curious to find out how these three fellows handle the glockenspiel


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

My initial reaction to A and B. C to come later.

A

The playing is beautiful, genial and smooth. The downside is that, that has taken out some of the edges and those roller coaster emotions. There are some beautiful perpetual “heartbeats” towards the end of the third movement. While the tempo is very slow throughout the symphony, the finale sounds a bit livelier than the previous three movements. There is even a trace of anguish towards the end.

The recording has captured a lot of details, with some spotlighting on instruments; but the high strings always, and occasionally the brass, sound weak and muddy. The glockenspiel blends into the smooth orchestral palette very well, but this is not a compliment, because it sounds trivial.

The performance is obviously live, although I don’t sense much tension in the air.

B

This is also a very slow performance. Compared to A, the orchestral balance is much better here. The playing is also gorgeous. I will not be surprised if this is an A-list orchestra. There are also much better dynamics and urgency to string the heart along the roller coaster ride. However, at the end of the day, it is very slow throughout and that sense of tension/danger does not seem particularly strong.

Having said that, on its own, B sounds like a good performance, one of those that prioritise sensitivity over eruptive emotions. A “consistently good” performance, Becca? :devil:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Whatabout the Rite of Spring


it's "Rite of Spring", not Winter!! 

Sacre is all about rebirth, re-awakening, fertility........


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I remember a meeting regarding our university graduation when the question was about what music to use. My suggestion of 'Rite of Spring' was not accepted :lol:


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Becca said:


> I remember a meeting regarding our university graduation when the question was about what music to use. My suggestion of 'Rite of Spring' was not accepted :lol:


LOL!! gee, wouldn't the Sacrificial Dance be perfectly appropriate??!! :lol::devil:


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

A – has a good sense of mystery and foreboding at the opening contrasted with pastoral tranquility at a suitably slow tempo – second movement scherzo has a light and carefree main section, and the second section is a light-spirited warning – slow movement is expressive and emotionally committed, constantly searching, asking questions but not getting any answers – finale is fast enough with a scherzo feel to the opening and an uncompromising plain-spoken ending

B – opening is a little fast with good dynamic range, somewhat extrovertly dramatic, oboe has an American sound – extremely well-played by the virtuoso orchestra, but I don’t hear a full emotional commitment from the conductor or orchestra in the remaining movements, except for the finale, which is enjoyably musical up to a closing section that refuses to turn inward

C – nothing wrong with C’s performance, everything in the score is there, it’s more emotionally varied than B and with better orchestral execution than A, but I still prefer A for its emotional commitment


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

An interesting mix of opinions so far, just what I like to see


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

C

Very good orchestral balance, glorious playing from a muscle orchestra and it is very well recorded. However, it is lacking in pianissimo and subtlety. It is also very slow, despite being the fastest among these three.

It is not about hopelessly struggling in the abyss. It is rather extrovert and proactive. It even sounds heroic at places. Any negative emotions depicted through the music does not sound “genuine”. It is more like watching actors doing their screaming in a horror movie than actually experiencing being spooked in the dark.

It is certainly livelier than B. In fact, I found B rather annoying for being restrained and not going all the way and it is like half a bucket of water, neither full nor empty, i.e. “consistently good”.

As a whole C sounds like an exemplary professional job and the whole package sounds spectacular. But there is no magic. In fact the more I think about what I have just listened to, the more I think C sounds superficial.

Despite A’s flaws, it sounds more sincere.

To be honest, I am not particularly fond of any of these three; but to rank them, I would put A ahead of B and C.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Finale!

1. After the disastrous scherzo, I thought "how are these guys gonna handle another fast movement?" Well, not so badly, luckily. Good tempo, the playing is slightly more precise, but textures remain rather unclear, and there are some moments where the ensemble is audibly close to falling apart. The strings remain problematic, you have the feeling that half of the players are struggling to follow the rest. Coarse playing at the end too, where the conductor slows down way too much (I always find it much more effective if the tempo is more or less maintained till the end). The crunching dissonance, the most modernist passage in Sibelius' entire oeuvre, gets lost in the general muddiness. The glockenspiel should penetrate much more too.
I've got the feeling that this is a rather mediocre orchestra (or just captured on a bad day) with a dedicated Sibelius specialist at the helm, who's unable to realize his conception with these people. The dull and noisy (life?) recording doesn't help either.
End verdict:
- interpretation: 5.5 (up from 5 because of the good first movement)
- recording: 6

2. Slow! And I mean SLOW! Much better played than #1, predictably, but at this tempo, the movement is in danger of becoming a collection of unrelated sound effects. There's little continuity here, no sense of the inevitable tragedy at the end. Compared to #1, the famous dissonant passage comes across much more clearly, the slow progression giving the conductor the opportunity to relish in those discordant sounds. At the end, there even more slowing down, resulting in an almost standstill and a Bernsteinian milking of those final chords (which should be played short and decisive!)
The worst movement for #2, and it pulls down the whole performance.
End verdict:
- interpretation: 5 (a whole point down from 6, because of this train wreck of a finale)
- recording 7.5 (where's the glockenspiel?)

3. There we go. Chops 2 minutes off #2, and immediately all the tension and urgency that's missing in #2 (and partly in #1 as well) is present, reporting for duty. Wonderful transition from the anguished beginning into the "rocking theme", which itself is kept rather in the dark, serving as a moody preparation for the anguished pizzicato passage, where the various interruptions almost sound like the hellish monsters in the finale of Berlioz' Damnation de Faust. The discordant modernism that preludes the ending is chilling here, perfectly textured and with no trace of the pomposity of #2. Glockenspiel still could be more prominent. Compared to #1 and #2, there's a much more flowing motion towards the end, but the final chords are still a bit too much spread out to my taste.
One thing that I started to dislike (but very slightly) about #3 is that the reverberating, spacey recording favors the slow movements, but not really the fast ones. While the reverb works wonders giving the slow parts depth and breathing room, it adds too much glare to the sound in fast, eventful passages. It's noticeable in the scherzo too, where I attributed it to the (too) forceful playing - but now I think it's the recording's fault, not the orchestra's or the conductor's. It's a small blemish, though.
All in all, #3 is the clear winner here, though maybe not with that wide of a margin as I originally presumed after comparing the three versions of the 3rd movement. Surprisingly, #1 beats #2 for second place, because of #2's butchered finale.
End verdict:
- interpretation: 8.5 (movement 1 and 3 being slightly more convincing than 2 and 4).
- recording: 8 

A very interesting comparison, I never thought the differences in interpretation and quality would be this significant. I'm really curious now about the identity of these 3 recordings (@Becca, if you want, you can PM me about it, of course I won't spoil anything here.)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Wow, now that *is* a comparison!


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

My comments on the three follow below, albeit in a rather ramshackle manner as I took them down impulsively while listening...

A: Clearly a live performance, and the nature of the music-making communicates this as well. Impressive opening but maybe more understated from the get-go than others; with a great weight and seriousness lending all the raw, hostile, tundra atmosphere you're looking for; windswept plains with the pale disc of the sun hanging in the distance, strings bleached of vibrato. Masterful control of phrasing and timing. Rapt playing of high intensity and commitment. Sounds like a bit smaller orchestra that plays with tight discipline without too many indulgences while maintaining high expressivity, very much like a Finnish orchestra. Scherzo is suitably light and feathery sounding; I like the flickering, playful woodwind colors, yet the darkness is brought out in proportion. Winds continue to impress in third movement as does the conductor's understanding of the music's flow, bringing out the terraced landscapes of the music with great skill. Solemn and poetic; the symphony has real narrative. The finale is always tough to pull off and I like how the conductor stresses the shadows that still inhere in it. There's a rough, dangerous, improvisatory element to this movement here that I really like even while the conductor maintains a steady, convincing vision all the way to the end.

B: This opening is even bleaker than A's, with the solo cello playing at a mesmerizing whisper. This orchestra is a completely unified instrument with a breathtaking dynamic range and tone quality. Sonorous brass, no-nonsense interpretation. All the strands are clearly brought out in quite an analytical, almost Boulezian fashion. The scherzo lacks just the slightest bit of wit and imagination. This sounds like a more "Scandinavian" interpretation as well, but the playing is at times more reined back than in A. The modern nature of the symphony is emphasized. Highly streamlined, but I wish for more involvement at times; ascetic as it is, pathos is not incongruous with this symphony and I wish for a reprieve from the constant ice-cold atmosphere. I hear very little vibrato at all, and the dissonances are strongly articulated. The third movement doesn't hold my attention as it should, although it builds to an impressive and graceful Brucknerian climax. The weirdness of the finale is well conveyed through the slower tempo, adding even more to the feeling of complete detachment that dominates this performance. Overall this is an admirable performance with many interesting touches and a limpid clarity, but just as too much heart-on-sleeve emoting can overcook the sauce, too much objectivity can leave a pallid, flavorless product as well.

C: The beginning here sounds like the proem to an epic saga; spacious, expressive, and fervent. More lush strings and a beefier sound than the other two. Almost Karajan-esque, except the orchestra isn't quite as burnished-sounding. A bit quicker timing for the first movement, so the music rolls along nicely without indulgence and with plenty of urgency, but it's not short on involvement at all. It sounds more like a conventional symphonic movement this way rather than a meandering tone-poem, even though the orchestral colors are superb and paint the desolate, wintery picture wonderfully. As in A, the conductor has an excellent grip on the narrative and doesn't lose the forest for the trees. Love the highly contrasting, prancing opening to the scherzo allowing the odd amalgam of irregular rhythms and ideas to blend naturally without undue em-PHA-sis on the wrong things. In fact, _naturalness_ is the predominant word to describe this performance. It's not affected nor brusque and mostly everything I'm looking for is there. In the slow movement, the forward momentum and deep insight of the conductor allows for a moving portrait of the polar landscape-I can hear the creaking ice floes and howling winds. The ideal balance of color and shapeliness. The finale, too, benefits from the impeccable feel for phrasing and the rough-hewn yet beautiful playing; conveying both brash jollity and uneasiness. As I mentioned earlier, it's so hard to get this movement right and all three of these performances have very different takes on it, but this rhapsodic yet thoroughly planned performance wins the day. Unlike the other two, it is more willing to let loose on the climaxes. It catches the perfect Sibelian blend of fire and ice.

As you might guess, I rank them thus: C, A, B. I had forgotten how fun, stimulating, and thought-provoking these exercises were. Also, I'm a bit disappointed that none of these used tubular bells instead of glockenspiel-I much prefer their richer sound.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Allegro Con Brio said:


> As you might guess, I rank them thus: C, A, B. *I had forgotten how fun, stimulating, and thought-provoking these exercises were*. Also, I'm a bit disappointed that none of these used tubular bells instead of glockenspiel-I much prefer their richer sound.


Exactly what I hope for with these and I value all the thought which goes into the answers, short or long doesn't matter.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

I've only listened through each one once, late last night/early hours this morning. I didn't find any of them particularly gripping. I'd rank them A,B,C. Because it takes a fair bit of time to listen to all three, I can't be sure when I'll listen again, but I found it extremely interesting not knowing who the artists are and having to be as objective as one can possibly be!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Exactly! I know that some feel intimidated at offering comments being concerned that they "will get it wrong" ... well there isn't any wrong, just your personal opinion which is not required to match that of anyone else.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I've listened to all of them but don't have much to say. To do this seriously I would have to listen multiple times. I just keep getting caught up in the experience and forget to take any detailed notes. Sorry

I was unimpressed with A. The performance sounded a bit disjointed and aimless in the first and third movements — like no one knew where it was going? Didn't like the oboe playing.

I liked B better but found (or more likely, imagined ) the mixing a bit too manicured(?) — like the performance didn't happen in real world space.

I preferred C. I like the faster tempi and the sound was big and natural. More like a real performance than B.

So my order of preference was C, B, A.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

EdwardBast said:


> I've listened to all of them but don't have much to say. To do this seriously I would have to listen multiple times. I just *keep getting caught up in the experience and forget to take any detailed notes*. Sorry


LOL! That's also what happens to me!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As promised, here are the details of the three performances...

A - Orchestre de Paris / Daniel Harding (live 2019, available on YouTube)
(This was Harding's final concert as chief conductor of the orchestra so they gave him a special sendoff at the end of the concert)

B - Halle Orchestra / Sir Mark Elder (studio, 2019?)
(Part of Elder's recorded cycle)

C - Gothenburg Symphony / Santtu-Matias Rouvali (live 2021, available on the GSO streaming site (gsoplay.se))
(I believe that this performance was recorded for commercial release as part of Rouvali's ongoing Sibelius cycle)

My big thanks to everyone who took part, I really appreciate it


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

^Surprised the poor sound quality on the first one is from such a recent recording. In fact I was going to guess Barbirolli on that one because he has a bevy of various live recordings floating around in which the ensemble playing is scrappy but the dramatic commitment high. Should have known French orchestra from the distinctive woodwinds and the lighter, tighter approach. The Elder recording is consistent with my experience with his IMO bland recordings, and I've never even heard of Rouvali. The Gothenburg Symphony sounded like a world-class ensemble in that one, and Rouvali's conducting is punchy. Thanks for setting this up; the recent dates of all these recordings definitely threw me for a loop, but it's a great way to get to know newer recordings that one might otherwise ignore due to tried and true classics.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

FYI ... Rouvali (age 36) recently became principal conductor of the Philharmonia Orchestra after Salonen's departure. Of his ongoing Sibelius cycle, I found the 1st to be very good, the 2nd not quite so good but still worth hearing, and I didn't much care for his 3rd. If you can find the video of his Kullervo done in his first year at Gothenburg, it is well worth the listen.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Harding? Sibelius? That's an interesting combo. I'm not particularly fond of this recording, but then we're spoiled by choices and these days I prefer something drier, faster and more aggressive.

Oh boy, Mark Elder, one of those "consistently good" conductors. I consciously avoid his records. My reaction to B is exactly the reason why. It's good. It's not bad. It's half a bucket of water, neither full nor empty. Not my cup of tea, to put it nicely.

I'm following a few young conductors, but not Rouvali. I remember sampling a few of his recordings out of curiosity but they did not arouse my interest. (He loves _slow_, that's all I remember thinking.) This recording is no doubt a professional job. The result is entertaining. It is also a sound spectacle (you've surprised us a few times how good the Gothenburg SO is), but unfortunately in this recording I don't hear much beyond the glorious playing.

Thank you, Becca, for organising this blindcom. I enjoyed it. I also think getting down to three recordings for a 30 to 40-min work is just about right for a weekend.


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Becca said:


> As promised, here are the details of the three performances...
> 
> A - Orchestre de Paris / Daniel Harding (live 2019, available on YouTube)
> (This was Harding's final concert as chief conductor of the orchestra so they gave him a special sendoff at the end of the concert)
> ...


I listened again this morning and changed my preference to A, C, B

I suspect that further listens and familiarity might endear me more to all performances, but I doubt that A,C B will change.

Thanks Becca, it was fun!

P.S. Can't believe A was Harding!


----------



## HenryPenfold (Apr 29, 2018)

Becca said:


> FYI ... Rouvali (age 36) recently became principal conductor of the Philharmonia Orchestra after Salonen's departure. Of his ongoing Sibelius cycle, I found the 1st to be very good, the 2nd not quite so good but still worth hearing, and I didn't much care for his 3rd. If you can find the video of his Kullervo done in his first year at Gothenburg, it is well worth the listen.


I think his 1st is superb, but was disappointed with his 2nd (maybe my expectation was too high after the 1st). Hopefully his 4th will grow on me.


----------



## RobertJTh (Sep 19, 2021)

Nice surprises there, but also some "See? I knew it"...

A - confirmed my "dedicated Sibelius guy failing to realize his concept" sentiment, though I don't know if Harding did much Sibelius in Paris or in his career as a whole. But hey, he's British, Sibelius should be in his blood just as much as Elgar, right?
I'm shocking at the bad playing of the Orchestre de Paris though. Ok, it must be a tad unfamiliar repertoire for them, but a modern orchestra should be able to play basically anything and not fall below professional standards like in this recording. That it was a farewell performance makes it extra painful. And as a chief, not a guest conductor, the connection with his players should be much more tight than displayed here.

Though part of the negative verdict is the comparison with 2 well recorded and well played alternatives. That's one little bit of criticism @Becca: it isn't entirely fair to compare a live recording in mediocre (compressed youtube) sound which wasn't meant for commercial distribution to a studio performance and one done under studio conditions.
I'm sure that when sampled alone, Harding would get some more positive reviews. Though I don't think anyone can overlook the chaos at the start of the scherzo and the disjointed slow movement.

B - wow, Hallé sounds really tight nowadays. I wrote "This must be an orchestra that knows Sibelius and loves playing it, but with a conductor at the helm who isn't really in touch with the music." And I guess that sums it up. A typical case of a modern conductor trying to micro-manage the music that's in the orchestra's veins, and which they could play just as well without him, probably even better.
I see Elder's cycle getting some pretty negative reviews online, and I can see why. Slow and dull being the keywords. Some positive ones though, making it one of the more controversial modern Sibelius cycles. Judging on this particular offering, I'll stay clear of it.

C - Big surprise conductor-wise, not orchestra-wise. Powerhouse Gothenburg is recognizable throughout, and you can sense some Neeve Järvi traces in their sense of urgency and commitment. Nothing more to add except that Rouvali proved to be a master Sibelius conductor at such a young age, doing (almost) everything right in my book. The recording being life makes it even more of a marvel. I think I'm going to follow this chap, he clearly knows his stuff.
And - LOL - I see Hurwitz hates him. What more recommendation does one need?

So, thanks to Becca for this nice project, had some fun with it and I'll be glad to participate in future comparisons!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

RobertJTh said:


> ...
> *And - LOL - I see Hurwitz hates him. What more recommendation does one need?*
> 
> So, thanks to Becca for this nice project, had some fun with it and I'll be glad to participate in future comparisons!


Yea verily!!!!!


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Sorry I missed it Becca but I was finishing off my listening for a blog post. Interesting comments about Elder and my hometown orchestra. I find his recordings to be a mixed bag interpretation-wise but the quality of the Halle these days is so much better than it was.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I did make a start, listening to the slow movement of each account. The first put me in mind of De Leeuw's interpretation of Satie: slow, deliberate, but losing any sense of rhythm or purpose. The third seemed the most confident, but I think it was this one where a random horn blared at an inappropriate moment and put me off. I can't remember much about the second.

Thanks for setting this up. The 4th is among my 4 favourite Sibelius symphonies - jostling with 5,6 and 7 because of the gorgeous 3rd movement.


----------



## Malx (Jun 18, 2017)

It would be interesting to hear your own thoughts on the recordings Becca.

I did listen through parts but not attentively enough to make any meaningful comments, maybe next time I'll have more free space in the listening diary!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I tend to listen at the 'forest' level rather than the 'trees' so don't pay much attention to specific details other than with obvious glitches or irrational choices. My overall impression then becomes how it all seems to hang together and if it makes some kind of sense. I would have difficulty in deciding between the three but, given this thread, it's only fair that I make the attempt, so as of today: Rouvali, Harding & Elder and I reserve the right to completely change my views tomorrow! 

BTW, I have yet to do a detailed movement by movement comparison. My decision to run this comparison came from finding the Rouvali performance, listening to it and being impressed, then adding the two others which had each impressed me when first encountering them.


----------

