# Which of the modernist-classicist orchestral pieces would you choose — Stravinsky or Sibelius?



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Both are modernist yet classicist orchestral pieces of around 20 minutes length, composed by contemporaries, and there is only 4 years in between the compositions although Sibelius was born 17 years before Stravinsky.

Some people have pitted Sibelius (late romantic) and Stravinsky (modernist) against each other in the dramatic musical arch of the 20th Century. The composers had ambivalent attitudes towards each other. But still, both have composed these orchestral pieces with similar kind of expanded tonality which skillfully balances between consonance and dissonance.

I have always felt that the slow finale choral of the Symphony is a very close relative to the beginning of Tapiola, if not inspired by it — when there are slow chordal ostinatos that move back and forth between three "pedal points" with chord layerings and slow melodic movements on top. Both obviously aim at expressing ”timelessness”, although the other is more panteist, the other religious.

So, which one of the orchestral masterpieces would you choose? I am also interested in the reasons behind your choice but I do not want to limit the criteria. Just pick and choose between the two for whatever reason of preference!

I suppose this poll will be more even than the previous setup.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

My impression is that Sibelius is always helping the listener, with so many repeats carrying over through many harmonic changes. Well-crafted quick transitions and obvious-sounding interludes (relief for the listener because they sound simple), but it sounds condescending to me (this many years later).
While Stravinsky just hopes the listener can keep up.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> My impression is that *Strauss* is always helping the listener, with so many repeats carrying over through many harmonic changes.


You must have meant Sibelius, not Strauss?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> You must have meant Sibelius, not Strauss?


Oh yes. I typed Strauss without thinking. Fixed it.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Well-crafted quick transitions and obvious-sounding interludes (relief for the listener because they sound simple), but it sounds condescending to me (this many years later).


Never thought of it as being condescending although there sure is a lot of repetition in Tapiola. It is also monothematic and seems to stay in that weird B key all the time. I would say it is challenging for the conductor. Then again it gives more space for playing around with orchestral colours and textures than some of the symphonies.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I voted for Igor (again). Stravinsky has a more deliberate bitonal or polytonal approach than Sibelius in order to generate tension and material. Sibelius is still working within the harmonic parameters of the previous tradition imv, and certainly not thinking in the same harmonic way technically and aesthetically as I.S.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

In any comparison between Sibelius and Stravinsky I would always choose Sibelius, although Tapiola is not my favorite composition of his. Stravinsky has never appealed to me, although I don't dislike some of his more conventional compositions. Overall however I find him too "modern" for my somewhat orthodox tastes in classical music.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> I voted for Igor (again). Stravinsky has a more deliberate bitonal or polytonal approach than Sibelius in order to generate tension and material. Sibelius is still working within the harmonic parameters of the previous tradition imv, and certainly not thinking in the same harmonic way technically and aesthetically as I.S.


You are right about their techniques, of course. But Stravinsky is not more dissonant or chromatic than Sibelius, right? I think Stravinsky is just applying another way of organising tonality. I´ve started to think recently that just because there is a new technique, it does not make the music more "intelligent", "technical" or even "modern". It is just another technique, and the resulting music is what matters. In my ears, Tapiola does not sound "old" but very brave although I admit that Stravinsky does sound more refreshing. Then again, Stravinsky was the one with more capabilities and focus on easthetics, where Sibelius is no doubt the more expressive one. Sibelius' orchestral writing is very heavy when compared to Stravinsky.

Tapiola is not my favourite Sibelius where Symphony of Psalms is one of my favourite Stravinsky pieces. The only reason I chose Tapiola is because for my whole life I have been close to the very same Finnish forests this symphonic poem is about and it is a perfect musical expression of it. If pressed, I would have to say that if I had to keep one of them and leave the other one out of my listening, I would keep Tapiola and leave the Psalm Symphony. Just because Tapiola expresses so much more.

As compositions they sure are equal.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I am happy Symphony of Psalms is ahead of Tapiola -- as the 3rd Symphony sure crushed the Symphony in C. Both results have been rather predictable, have they not?

Maybe it is because Stravinsky is expressing something here... The wonderful finale shows something really genuine and human instead of just playing around some scales as an ironic newclassicist? Stravinsky is not trying to impress by his intelligence here.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Stravinsky for me. No contest.

In general, for me, Sibelius was too much of a traditionalist, just continuing what came before, in his own voice.

Stravinsky was more forward thinking, and broke some new ground.

For me, Stravinsky (and Bartok) were my entry into classical. Stravinsky is about as early as I go with my listening. Nothing earlier holds any interest for me, despite trying many times.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I think these pieces and composers are totally different and hard to compare at all. While I wouldn't call mature/late (say from about the 4th symphony or so) Sibelius traditionalist, he is not really modern either. He found his own path that could not be as easily taken as inspiration for others as "barbarism" or neoclassicism.
I voted for the symphony of psalms although I find this more difficult than the other two symphonies or the violin concerto but I don't like Tapiola that much. The "dark forest" mood outstays its welcome and it is overall a bit austere for my taste.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

To my ears Sibelius is mostly a holdover from the Grand Late Romantic Period. In my mind I group Sibelius' Symphonies with those of Bruckner, Mahler, Nielsen, Vaughan Williams, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff: big, noisy, lush, rambling. In my mind I see great mountains, powerful hills, pine trees, cool lakes and rivers. I might even add Shostakovich to the list; not that Shostakovich was as pastoral as the others but Shostakovich's symphonies starting with the 5th and excepting the 9th are all composed on a grand scale. 

Stravinsky for me is in a whole different class: a great craftsman, an innovator, an intellectual, and economical as opposed to lush and bombastic. 

I like Sibelius and Stravinsky but which one is better all depends on my mood.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

i think comparing an orchestral piece with a choral symphony is not ideal; that being said i choose stravinsky as a composer because he is far more innovative than sibelius who brilliantly continued a certain tradition; moreover stravinsky's content is nearly always more interesting than the ubiquitous nature in sibelius'music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Easy choice for me since the _Symphony of Psalms_ is one of my favorite works, whereas Sibelius has never appealed to me.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Have you ever heard Neeme Järvi conducting Tapiola for DGG with Gothenburg? Brilliant and extremely colourful!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Waehnen said:


> I am happy Symphony of Psalms is ahead of Tapiola -- as the 3rd Symphony sure crushed the Symphony in C. Both results have been rather predictable, have they not?
> 
> Maybe it is because Stravinsky is expressing something here... The wonderful finale shows something really genuine and human instead of just playing around some scales as an ironic newclassicist? Stravinsky is not trying to impress by his intelligence here.


Stravinsky was obsessed with ritual and I get a sense of that in this piece, which is no less moving for it. I'm not convinced that he played around with some scales as you put it, just for the sake of irony. I take the view that his NeoClassicism was him absorbing older technique and aesthetics in much the same way that Picasso once did with Velasquez. He then used the techniques as the vehicle for his own expression, be it sometimes ordered or restrained, or cool and formal, or even joyous or sad. Irony? Well not to my ears and his NeoClassical work has endured proving its artistic and expressive worth.
TBH though I agree with @justekaia in that comparisons like this are flawed especially given the different creative paradigms of the two men.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Once again, I like both works and see no point in picking one over the other. However, I'm disappointed that so many apparently fail to appreciate the singular technical and aesthetic achievement of _Tapiola_. Its originality isn't manifested in readily grokable surface features. It's not obvious in momentary aural images, harmonic language, or orchestral effects. It's in overall formal and motivic processes through which, by the end, the simplest gestures and harmonic motions are saturated with meaning and memory.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Once again, I like both works and see no point in picking one over the other. However, I'm disappointed that so many apparently fail to appreciate the singular technical and aesthetic achievement of _Tapiola_. Its originality isn't manifested in readily grokable surface features. It's not obvious in momentary aural images, harmonic language, or orchestral effects. It's in overall formal and motivic processes through which, by the end, the simplest gestures and harmonic motions are saturated with meaning and memory.


I have never appreciated a piece of music because of its technical achievement. If the sound of it does not interest me, technical explanations of its greatness will not change my opinion of it.


----------



## SuperTonic (Jun 3, 2010)

In general I prefer Stravinsky over Sibelius (not that I dislike Sibelius, just that I prefer Stravinsky), but the Symphony of Psalms is one of the few Stravinsky works that I haven't gotten into, so I chose Tapiola for this poll.
I've never thought of these composers in relation to each other even though they are roughly contemporaries of each other. Their styles are just so different. I'll have to try listening to these works back to back to see if I can hear any similarities.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I have never appreciated a piece of music because of its technical achievement. If the sound of it does not interest me, technical explanations of its greatness will not change my opinion of it.


The technical versus sound dichotomy you're pushing is bogus. I'm not arguing for anything beyond the sound, only pointing out that the sound of some works has to be appreciated comprehensively. It's called structural hearing, that is, hearing "overall formal and motivic processes."


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> The technical versus sound dichotomy you're pushing is bogus. I'm not arguing for anything beyond the sound, only pointing out that the sound of some works has to be appreciated comprehensively. It's called structural hearing, that is, hearing "overall formal and motivic processes."


But how much we appreciate them or find them interesting is still subjective. The sort of logic you're describing is (more or less) similar to the sort Glenn Gould resorted to to glorify Strauss (2:27) and denigrate Beethoven (1:17); www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSdFeFv09H8&t=2m27s. I'm sure you and Denk don't need anyone lecture you about the Goldbergs, which you find boring, in the same way. "Bach loves connecting the micro and macrocosm; he even creates a kind of hinge in the middle, a "false ending" after the 15th variation, and a re-beginning with a French Overture, to mirror on a large scale the binary symmetries of the theme." (Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations')


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I am fully aware that putting these votes up seems strange. But the point is to make us hear the music in a new context — or rather, question the context and make us aware of how the context and preconceptions of the canon might be affecting us.

For me Sibelius and Stravinsky are not as far apart as I have once thought. If I stop thinking about the technique (how they organized they harmonies), they have indeed a lot in common.

It would be wrong to listen to these two like the 1st was pompous lateromanticism and the other one avantgarde intelligent modernism. Both composers moved from their respective nationalist or primitivist phases towards expanded tonality and compositional styles that were their own and true to their persona yet at the same time more universal.

Both had to deal with the influence of Tchaikovsky. St. Petersburg and Helsinki were part of the same Tsarist Russian Empire at the time and only a few hundred kilometres from each other. Both Sibelius and Stravinsky aimed towards central Europe, the moment they could, and the USA.

Both pieces under the discussion here are brilliant and have surprisingly lot in common. They are only 4 years apart and one can hear it. Both were even commisioned by American orchestras. Which is more important and influential — the musical canon with it’s ”isms” or being contemporaries and actually living and breathing in a certain time?

From the peripheral 19th century Helsinki and St. Petersburg, from the influence of Tsarist Russia, to get their great, unique, modernist and contemporary sounding and fresh orchestral pieces of the highest quality played in 20th Century New York and Boston... Well done, guys!


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I see the Sibelian holistic orchestral writing and especially Tapiola leading later to the innovations of György Ligeti. Tapiola is a sound and texture field in many ways.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

hammeredklavier said:


> But how much we appreciate them or find them interesting is still subjective. The sort of logic you're describing is (more or less) similar to the sort Glenn Gould resorted to to glorify Strauss (2:27) and denigrate Beethoven (1:17); www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSdFeFv09H8&t=2m27s. I'm sure you and Denk don't need anyone lecture you about the Goldbergs, which you find boring, in the same way. "Bach loves connecting the micro and macrocosm; he even creates a kind of hinge in the middle, a "false ending" after the 15th variation, and a re-beginning with a French Overture, to mirror on a large scale the binary symmetries of the theme." (Why I Hate The 'Goldberg Variations')


Trying to push this into a rehashed objective/subjective debate is also bogus, unless you can show where it was said that the appreciation of sounds was not subjective to the listener.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> The technical versus sound dichotomy you're pushing is bogus. I'm not arguing for anything beyond the sound, only pointing out that the sound of some works has to be appreciated comprehensively. It's called structural hearing, that is, hearing "overall formal and motivic processes."


Fine for you. But it is a non sequitur from my post, where I was not "pushing a bogus dichotomy." I was describing my own manner of listening to music and what goes into a work becoming one of my favorites.

I listen holistically, not analyzing "overall formal and motivic processes" as the music proceeds. That aspect might be interesting to study separately, but is not how I listen for pleasure and does not contribute to those works I consider my favorites.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Fine for you. But it is a non sequitur from my post, where I was not "pushing a bogus dichotomy." I was describing my own manner of listening to music and what goes into a work becoming one of my favorites.
> 
> I listen holistically, not analyzing "overall formal and motivic processes" as the music proceeds. That aspect might be interesting to study separately, but is not how I listen for pleasure and does not contribute to those works I consider my favorites.


I think EdwardBast is making an excellent and necessary point, though. I am not referring to you but when I listen to music, or course I also experience some structural hearing -- whether I perceive or name it as such at the time or not. 

Whilst listening to Tapiola, I claim it is actually IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO HEAR that everything is derived from the same theme. Erkki Salmenhaara, a professor in Helsinki, actually had a thesis that behind Tapiola there is a hidden melody of which the whole symphonic poem is variation.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I am usually a friend of slow tempi but when it comes to this Tapiola version by Berglund/FRSO, the brisk tempo does something magical for the music.






Just like with the 7th Mahler symphony, please do not try to "sell the themes" to me. Do not try to sell the one and only Tapiola theme. Sell us what is done with and around the theme/themes. A brisk tempo helps with that -- to see the forest from the trees.

Powerful stuff indeed!


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Waehnen said:


> I think EdwardBast is making an excellent and necessary point, though. I am not referring to you but when I listen to music, or course I also experience some structural hearing -- whether I perceive or name it as such at the time or not.
> 
> Whilst listening to Tapiola, I claim it is actually IMPOSSIBLE NOT TO HEAR that everything is derived from the same theme. Erkki Salmenhaara, a professor in Helsinki, actually had a thesis that behind Tapiola there is a hidden melody of which the whole symphonic poem is variation.


Since I am not intrigued by Sibelius's sound aesthetic, I have never listened past the first minute or two of _Tapiola_. And yeah, it is easy to hear how a single motive can generate an entire work, or movement, but if I am not interested or attracted to the motive, I don't listen to the work and don't care about the technical mastery that may be evident when analyzed.

There is too much music out there and I only listen to the music which I find interesting or attractive musically, and then I might study how it was constructed. But not for every work, and certainly not for any work which doesn't interest me aesthetically.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

I picked Sibelius's Tapiola. Not only do I consider it to be, like his 7th Symphony, one of Sibelius's greatest achievements, but I strongly agree with Christopher Nuppen's comments in his documentary film on Sibelius, that Tapiola shows "the most profund originality in its handling of the orchestra in all of Sibelius's works" and that "no previous composer had ever made the orchestra sound like this":






That others here don't feel the same way surprises me.

Tapiola makes me very curious about what Sibelius was up to with his mysterious 8th Symphony, which apparently he tossed into the fireplace in despair at Ainola. (Though I've often wondered if Tapiola might not have been originally intended as a single movement for his 8th?)

Certainly it's not hard to imagine why Sibelius felt that his 7th Symphony & Tapiola were hard acts to follow. Personally, I'd count the one movement 7th to be among the most original and greatest symphonies ever penned. While Tapiola is one of the most innovative and daringly original tone poems I've ever heard.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Josquin13 said:


> I picked Sibelius's Tapiola. Not only do I consider it to be, like his 7th Symphony, one of Sibelius's greatest achievements, but I strongly agree with Christopher Nuppen's comments in his documentary film on Sibelius, that Tapiola shows "the most profund originality in its handling of the orchestra in all of Sibelius's works" and that "no previous composer had ever made the orchestra sound like this":
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wonderful! Thank you. Agreed.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

I have listened to Tapiola everyday now. What version would you pick? I think strong string attack does good for the music so I do not need too much reverb from the concert hall.

Versions I at least have:
Ashkenazy/Philharmonia
Berglund/Bournemouth
Berglund/Helsinki
Karajan/Berliner
Vänskä/Lahti
Koussevitsky/Boston
Davis/London
Järvi/Gothenburg (DG)
Blomstedt/San Francisco

Strange but with this music I seem to enjoy many versions. I am usually very picky about versions. I consider Järvi and Ashkenazy having the best sound.

And what version of Symphony of Psalms would be your choice? I have only 2 versions of it that I remember:

Baremboim/Paris
Markevitch

Of which the latter is my favourite. I do not care for the Baremboim at all here. There is gorgeous primitivism in the Markevitch version.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> I have listened to Tapiola everyday now. What version would you pick? I think strong string attack does good for the music so I do not need too much reverb from the concert hall.
> 
> Versions I at least have:
> Ashkenazy/Philharmonia
> ...


Good info, thanks.
I want many versions and interpretations - and one that says to me this is a new view. Whether or not I like it, it's fun to try follow why a performer or conductor makes the small choices they make. 
I thought of this today listening to Fischer play some Beethoven sonatas, with some surprises. I think if it's unsettling that tells us something about ourselves, and we need to really try to hear the new approach. I mean, can we have 3 or 4 favorites? Maybe not.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Good info, thanks.
> I want many versions and interpretations - and one that says to me this is a new view. Whether or not I like it, it's fun to try follow why a performer or conductor makes the small choices they make.
> I thought of this today listening to Fischer play some Beethoven sonatas, with some surprises. I think if it's unsettling that tells us something about ourselves, and we need to really try to hear the new approach. I mean, can we have 3 or 4 favorites? Maybe not.


Fischer really has that quality! Sometimes I am shocked even though I have had her full Beethoven set for 2 years now. And it is not Steinway which she is playing, I can tell you that! A lot of energy, a lot of power, a lot of momentum in her performances. I was similarly positively shocked by her Liszt sonata the other day!


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Sibelius: Tapiola get's my vote, would be nice however that you include option : equal


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Rogerx said:


> Sibelius: Tapiola get's my vote, would be nice however that you include option : equal


One point was to make a choice over ”an impossible”, though! This way we get more pondering and discussion. I had to really think hard myself which one to choose because both works are important to me.

My vote for the greatest Tapiola version will go to Neeme Järvi / Gothenburg / Deutsche Grammophon (not BIS). The orchestral balance and intensity are at the perfect level all the time and that is not an easy thing to accomplish. One needs an experienced maestro like Järvi.

In addition, no other version makes the ending so reliefing, when the huge dissonant tension created by dominant, augmented and diminished harmonies and frequent use of the major second interval, lasting for the whole work basically, is eventually dissolved.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Waehnen said:


> One point was to make a choice over ”an impossible”, though! This way we get more pondering and discussion. I had to really think hard myself which one to choose because both works are important to me.
> 
> My vote for the greatest Tapiola version will go to Neeme Järvi / Gothenburg / Deutsche Grammophon (not BIS). The orchestral balance and intensity are at the perfect level all the time and that is not an easy thing to accomplish. One needs an experienced maestro like Järvi.
> 
> In addition, no other version makes the ending so reliefing, when the huge dissonant tension created by dominant, augmented and diminished tritone harmonies and frequent use of the major second interval, lasting for the whole work basically, is eventually dissolved.


As with many larger works, I can't imagine composing one of them myself. How long do you think he worked on it? I don't think Sibelius composed quickly. Just the opposite, compared to other famous guys.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Waehnen said:


> when the huge dissonant tension created by dominant, *augmented and diminished tritone harmonies*


lol, I find this an oxymoron in itself. If a tritone is "augmented", it becomes a perfect fifth, and if it is "diminished", it becomes a perfect fourth.


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> lol, I find this an oxymoron in itself. If a tritone is "augmented", it becomes a perfect fifth, and if it is "diminished", it becomes a perfect fourth.


Diminished harmonies have tritones of course. I edited the word tritone out because it was unnecessary. Now you may breathe again! 😂


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

ORIGIN mid 17th cent.: from Greek oxumōron, neuter (used as a noun) of oxumōros ‘pointedly foolish,’ from oxus ‘sharp’ + mōros ‘foolish.’


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

Waehnen said:


> I have listened to Tapiola everyday now. What version would you pick? I think strong string attack does good for the music so I do not need too much reverb from the concert hall.
> 
> Versions I at least have:
> Ashkenazy/Philharmonia
> ...


My favorite version of Tapiola is probably the one used in the Christopher Nuppen film that I linked to in my previous post, which is performed by the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Vladimir Ashkenazy. Though frustratingly, to my knowledge it's never been released commercially, so I've only heard the excerpts in the film. But it's incredibly well played, and it's also some of the best conducting I've heard from Ashkenazy (whose Sibelius I can find hit & miss). I prefer it to Ashkenazy's studio version on Decca (which is very good, too).

Here are my other favorites,

--Neemi J_ärvi, Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra, DG. I don't always go for Järvi's quick tempi in Sibelius, & generally prefer his earlier BIS recordings, but I agree with you, they work exceptionally well here. Plus, the Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra is a great orchestra! So, it's definitely one of my top choices, too (& probably falls just behind Ashkenazy's in the Nuppen film),






--Paavo Berglund, Philharmonia Orchestra, EMI digital. This is my favorite of Berglund's several versions, & the recording also inlcudes the finest performance I've ever heard of The Swan of Tuonela, as well.








Amazon.com



--Leif Segerstam, Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra, Ondine: For me, Segerstam tends to be at his best in Sibelius's shorter works, such as the tone poems, and in the one movement 7th Symphony. I also think his earlier recordings with the Danish National Symphony Orchestra get underrated, as they can be less slack than his later ones. Though I've grown to like both over time.






--Sir Alexander Gibson, Scottish National Symphony Orchestra, Chandos. Gibson's survey of Sibelius's tone poems is excellent, including his Tapiola, & I generally prefer it to Järvi's DG survey, overall (though Järvi argubly has the better orchestra). However, I don't especially care for Gibson's later Sibelius recordings on Collins, & suspect that maybe his heavy drinking got in the way there (though he does seem to have sobered up for his final swan-song recordings of the 1st & 2nd Symphonies with the Uppsala Chamber Orchestra, which are remarkable).






--Hans Rosbaud, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, DG (1958): 





& two other good versions,

--Herbert von Karajan, Berlin Philharmonic, EMI (1978): Sibelius: Tapiola Op.112 - Herbert von Karajan & BPO (EMI stereo 1976) [Remastered by Fafner]

--Okko Kamu, Lahti Symphony Orchestra, BIS Hybrid SACD: Tapiola, Op. 112

As for Stravinsky's Symphony of Psalms, Igor Markevitch is one of my go-to conductors in Stravinsky, so I would agree with you there, too._









Symphony of Psalms: I. Exaudi orationem meam, Domine


Provided to YouTube by NAXOS of AmericaSymphony of Psalms: I. Exaudi orationem meam, Domine · Igor MarkevitchTchaikovsky & Stravinsky: Works℗ 2020 Urania Rec...




www.youtube.com





_Among other recordings that I've liked of this work, I'd also have to include the composer's two versions, Leonard Bernstein's recording with the LSO, and Karel Ancerl's recording with the Czech Philharmonic. While my three favorite recordings from the digital era are from Robert Craft on Naxos, Riccardo Chailly & the Berlin RSO (which is from the same fruitful period as Chailly's excellent Schoenberg Gurrelieder, when he was building his career & reputation), and Michael Gielen's recording on Hanssler. I like that Gielen understands how Orff-like this music can be in places, I'd say better than most (or is Orff Stravinsky-like?). So, I think his version is essential listening, & it's very well recorded; as is Robert Craft's, which is one of the finest on record, IMO, & Craft too understands the Orff connection to this work. Oh yes, Robert Shaw's Telarc recording in Atlanta is good, too. 

Lastly, there is also a lesser known, exceptional early live recording made in 1968 from Claudio Abbado, who was at his best in the music of 20th century composers, IMO (such as Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg, Schoenberg, Prokofiev, Debussy, Ravel, Nono, etc.). It's too bad that Abbado never re-recorded this work in better sound. As for Pierre Boulez, his DG recording is good as an alternative version, but I don't think his more analytical style of conducting is best suited to this very passionate work (though I've liked some of Boulez's other Stravinsky recordings very much, such as this remarkable 1963 Rite of Spring: Igor Stravinsky : Le Sacre du printemps (Boulez 1963) ).









Stravinsky, Symphony of Psalms (Stravinsky/1931)


Igor Stravinsky. Symphony of psalmsAlexis Vlassof Chorus; Orchestre de Concerts Walther Staram; Igor Stravinsky, conductorRecorded at the Théâtre des Champs-...




www.youtube.com












Symphony of Psalms: I. Exaudi orationem meam, Domine


Provided to YouTube by Sony ClassicalSymphony of Psalms: I. Exaudi orationem meam, Domine · Columbia Symphony Orchestra · Festival Singers of Toronto · Elmer...




www.youtube.com












Symphony of Psalms for Mixed Chorus, Winds, Cellos and Double Basses - Exaudi orationem meam,...


Provided to YouTube by SupraphonSymphony of Psalms for Mixed Chorus, Winds, Cellos and Double Basses - Exaudi orationem meam, Domine · Igor Stravinsky · Česk...




www.youtube.com












Stravinsky: Symphonie de Psaumes - 1. Exaudi orationem meam, Domine


Provided to YouTube by Universal Music GroupStravinsky: Symphonie de Psaumes - 1. Exaudi orationem meam, Domine · Rundfunkchor Berlin · Radio-Symphonie-Orche...




www.youtube.com












Symphony of Psalms: I. Psalm 38, verses 13 and 14


Provided to YouTube by NAXOS of AmericaSymphony of Psalms: I. Psalm 38, verses 13 and 14 · Simon Joly ChoraleStravinsky: Mass - Cantata - Symphony of Psalms℗...




www.youtube.com












Michael Gielen Stravinsky Symphony of psalms


イーゴリ・ストラヴィンスキー詩編交響曲ミヒャエル・ギーレン指揮南西ドイツ放送交響楽団WDRケルン放送合唱団録音時期：2005年12月7&8日録音場所：フライブルク、コンツェルトハウス（ライヴ）




www.youtube.com












Stravinsky "Symphony of Psalms"(1948 version) - Bernstein / LSO


English Bach festival ChorusLondon Symphony OrchestraLeonard Bernstein, conductorEMI Studio1, Abbey Road, London, 1972No infringement of patent intended.




www.youtube.com




_








Stravinsky: Symphony of Psalms [Robert Shaw]


Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971)Игорь СтравинскийSymphony of Psalms00:00 Part I03:12 Part II09:28 Part IIIAtlanta Symphony Orchestra & ChorusConducted by Robert...




www.youtube.com












Igor Stravinsky: Symphonie de Psaumes (1930) / Abbado (1968)


Igor Stravinsky (1882-1971): Sinfonia di salmi, per coro e orchestra (1930) --- Coro e Orchestra Sinfonica di Roma della RAI diretta da Claudio Abbado (Maest...




www.youtube.com





Historically speaking, Ernest Ansermet should be heard in this music, too, given his close proximity to the composer: Ernest Ansermet "Symphony of Psalms" Strawinsky

Lastly, I've also liked Dmitri Shostakovich's transcription of the Symphony of Psalms for piano four-hands: Symphony Of Psalms (Transcribed D. Shostakovich).


----------



## Waehnen (Oct 31, 2021)

Josquin13 said:


> My favorite version of Tapiola is probably the one used in the Christopher Nuppen film that I linked to in my previous post, which is performed by the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra, conducted by Vladimir Ashkenazy. Though frustratingly, to my knowledge it's never been released commercially, so I've only heard the excerpts in the film. But it's incredibly well played, and it's also some of the best conducting I've heard from Ashkenazy (whose Sibelius I can find hit & miss). I prefer it to Ashkenazy's studio version on Decca (which is very good, too).
> 
> Here are my other favorites,
> 
> ...


Thank you! I really had no idea of the richness of the performance history of Symphony of Psalms. That there is a recorded version conducted by Stravinsky himself and everything.


----------



## Thelonious 58 (6 mo ago)

Waehnen said:


> I have listened to Tapiola everyday now. What version would you pick? I think strong string attack does good for the music so I do not need too much reverb from the concert hall.
> 
> Versions I at least have:
> Ashkenazy/Philharmonia
> ...





Waehnen said:


> I have listened to Tapiola everyday now. What version would you pick? I think strong string attack does good for the music so I do not need too much reverb from the concert hall.
> 
> Versions I at least have:
> Ashkenazy/Philharmonia
> ...


Tapiola;
Segerstam/ either Danish SRSO or Helsinki Philharmonic


----------

