# Sibelius is really starting to grow on me



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

I've known his works for so many years but it wasn't until about a 3 months ago that I began to consider his works among my favorites. I don't know what happened inside my mind, but it's his later works in particular (later relative to when he left the music world) that really move me.

Not really a great conversation starter, I know


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

DavidMahler said:


> I've known his works for so many years but it wasn't until about a 3 months ago that I began to consider his works among my favorites. I don't know what happened inside my mind, but it's his later works in particular (later relative to when he left the music world) that really move me.
> 
> Not really a great conversation starter, I know


I'd say this is a GREAT conversation starter! 

What do you think caused any prior "blockage?" And what is it about his later works that you find so entrancing?


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I could see it happening to myself as well sometime in the near future. Certain composers really click over time. I really enjoyed hearing his 2nd symphony live, but hearing his 7th a while back, I couldn't get into it very much. I'm due for another try. Britten and Sibelius are on my list of composers I want to really explore.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

clavichorder said:


> I could see it happening to myself as well sometime in the near future. Certain composers really click over time. I really enjoyed hearing his 2nd symphony live, but hearing his 7th a while back, I couldn't get into it very much. I'm due for another try. Britten and Sibelius are on my list of composers I want to really explore.


The 7th is not easy music. Which is strange, really. It's really quite melodic and the orchestration is pretty rich. Still, though, it has the power to confound. It even took me a while to get into its groove when I was first becoming the Sibelius fan I am today.

Perhaps it is because the music is so dense. It's a hard symphony to swallow because each of the bites weighs a ton. So, taking in in over a period time seems to be the only real way to digest it.

Anyone else hungry now?


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I really love Sibelius from the littled I have heard. Spotify is so huge that I have to restrict myself, and I have not developed sibelius thoroughly jet. I have to take small steps. I am categorizing works in a diary database, and I restrict myself mostly to only listen to what I have categorized.

So far, I have these works from sibelius. ( It is like building up a collection. If you have had access to all the records in the world, you hav had to systemize also! ) 

Sibelius: Piano Quartet in C-, JS 156
Sibelius: Piano Quartet in D-, JS 157
Sibelius: Piano Quintet in G-, JS 159
Sibelius: Piano Trio in A- ('Hafträsk'), JS 207
Sibelius: Piano Trio in A-, JS 206
Sibelius: Piano Trio in C ('Lovisa Trio'), JS 208
Sibelius: Piano Trio in D- ('Korpo Trio'; unfinished), JS 209

I love them all, even the early works. They shows a different, maybe lighter and lyrical Sibelius.

Sibelius: 2 Earnest Melodies, for violin and orchestra, Op.77
Sibelius: 2 Serenades for Violin and Orchestra, Op.69
Sibelius: Suite caractéristique, for harp and strings, Op.100
Sibelius: Suite for Violin and String Orchestra, Op.117
Sibelius: Suite mignonne, for 2 flutes and strings, Op.98a
Sibelius: Violin Concerto in D-, Op.47

Sibelius: Belshazzar's Feast, Op.51
Sibelius: Everyman (Jokamies; Jedermann), for vocal soloists, chorus, piano, organ and orchestra, Op.83

Sibelius: Symphony No.1 in E-, Op.39

Not listened thorughly to everything, but maybe I should hav a Sibelius night!


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

oskaar said:


> I really love Sibelius from the littled I have heard. Spotify is so huge that I have to restrict myself, and I have not developed sibelius thoroughly jet. I have to take small steps. I am categorizing works in a diary database, and I restrict myself mostly to only listen to what I have categorized.
> 
> So far, I have these works from sibelius. ( It is like building up a collection. If you have had access to all the records in the world, you hav had to systemize also! )
> 
> ...


The early chamber works are great. Sibelius was very much influenced by Haydn in his youth. It's amazing to know they were written by Sibelius at any stage of his life. They are of a completely different idiom than his later works.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Oh dear.....

Sibelius was a great composer and I don't want to discourage your love of his music, but really, this forum is only big enough for one "Tapkaara"


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

violadude said:


> Oh dear.....
> 
> Sibelius was a great composer and I don't want to discourage your love of his music, but really, this forum is only big enough for one "Tapkaara"


It is we, the user that make the forum! Threads come and go in a dynamic prosess. If somoeone want to express his love for Sibelius, it is allright for me. Even if you have other threads.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

oskaar said:


> It is we, the user that make the forum! Threads come and go in a dynamic prosess. If somoeone want to express his love for Sibelius, it is allright for me. Even if you have other threads.


Yes but, what I said, I said in jest.


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Yes, I thought so..I just wanted to make a statement.!!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

As you know, Taapi, I'm just starting to get into him myself and basically having had the same experience as the OP. I guess the best answer, for me, is that I started off very Mozart'y clean and classical and went from there. When I first encountered him I was just not ready for something I wasn't familiar with, inside; my own musical playing style is naturally more of a tonic and methodical manner and so I'd hear and process but didn't exactly dig as much as something I really liked, at the time. 

I've grown a lot more over the years and even over this past year with all of you and, honestly, I hadn't thought about Sibelius as someone to even go back to eventually. I was kinda set in my ways and I have folks like you to thank for that have made me want to branch out and have a true musical rebirth. 

It started off with Prokofiev a couple of months ago; another composer I had pretty much set aside. And now, like Mr. Mahler, it is happening with Sibelius. Thanks, TC.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Tapkaara said:


> The 7th is not easy music. Which is strange, really. It's really quite melodic and the orchestration is pretty rich. Still, though, it has the power to confound. It even took me a while to get into its groove when I was first becoming the Sibelius fan I am today.
> 
> Perhaps it is because the music is so dense. It's a hard symphony to swallow because each of the bites weighs a ton. So, taking in in over a period time seems to be the only real way to digest it.
> ?


I've heard others mention that certain pieces are not easy or somewhat opaque, and therefore, harder to enjoy. I have always loved the 7th symphony for the lovely melodies and wonderful orchestration as you suggest. Since I do not try to understand works (mostly because I don't really know how), my enjoyment does not require that I understand a work. I have always assumed that were I to understand works better then I actually could increase my enjoyment.

What I find odd is that those who _can_ understand works possibly _need_ to understand them in order to enjoy them. For me it seems as though there are at least two ways to enjoy a work - the pure musical pleasure and the intellectual pleasure. I respond to the first, but many here respond to both. _If one can respond to both, are both necessary to enjoy the work?_


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

> [/I] If one can respond to both, are both necessary to enjoy the work?[/I]


 I think I have good listening ear. I can enjoy music from a lot of styles and genres. But I am absolutely not intelectual about it. Maybe i could have even more pleasure, but I dont have the skills, and will never acchieve them!


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Ok mmsbls, you are talking about persons that have both skills. sorry


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I'd say this is a GREAT conversation starter!
> 
> What do you think caused any prior "blockage?" And what is it about his later works that you find so entrancing?


I think more than other composers it may just be that Sibelius's music takes many listens to grasp. His way of writing is almost like a movie where the plot develops not in a straight line but in weird back and forth glances....like a jig saw puzzle waiting to be solved.

But more than that there are just some very emotional moments in his music that feel very unanticipated. I really am starting to hear stuff I didn't hear before.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

mmsbls said:


> I've heard others mention that certain pieces are not easy or somewhat opaque, and therefore, harder to enjoy. I have always loved the 7th symphony for the lovely melodies and wonderful orchestration as you suggest. Since I do not try to understand works (mostly because I don't really know how), my enjoyment does not require that I understand a work. I have always assumed that were I to understand works better then I actually could increase my enjoyment.
> 
> What I find odd is that those who _can_ understand works possibly _need_ to understand them in order to enjoy them. For me it seems as though there are at least two ways to enjoy a work - the pure musical pleasure and the intellectual pleasure. I respond to the first, but many here respond to both. _If one can respond to both, are both necessary to enjoy the work?_


It's arguable that anyone can really "understand" a work, or at least, "understand" it more or less than other people. So, I think in terms of music, "understand" is a very relative term.

What I guess I was trying to say as it relates to the 7th is that despite it's melodic nature and pleasingly lucid orchestration, there was initially somethng about it that made it tricky to say "Yes, I like this!" Now mind you, this was when I was discovering Sibelius and classical music in general.

Up to that point, I had never heard music like the 7th Symphony. It's awfully unique. Even someone who is familiar with Sibelius's earlier works would probably be a little surprised by the very particular sound world of the 7th.

Perhaps the sound world of the 7th was contrary to my very limited concept of what orchestral music should have sounded like. While it is melodic, there are no big tunes, save for the (admittedly quite sparse) trombone theme. Plus there as so many mood changes and textural changes all in a very compact 22 minutes or so...at first, it seemed to be going too many places at once, and thus, it's structure was confusing. But I later discovered that it was actuallu very tight and compact, not sprawling. Basically, Sibelius fits a complete and coherent symphony into a very small space, as it were, and once you can glean what's really happening below the surface, one feels they "understand," at least more than before. It's that density I am talking about...you are not going to get everything about the 7th in one single go.

Not sure if any of that makes sense, but if it does not, I am sorry.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Listening to the 7th today, I realized just how special his music is and how much more there is to learn within it.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

DavidMahler said:


> Listening to the 7th today, I realized just how special his music is and how much more there is to learn within it.


I've got to try this work again.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Clavichorder and Tap, I know what both of you mean regarding the *Sibelius* *7th; *for some reason--perhaps, ironically, because of its one movement structure {?}--it didn't seem quite as "accessible" as say his *2nd,* *3rd* or *6th* at first listen. However, last night on *Spotify*, I heard the Copenhagen Philharmonic Orchestra perform it. For some reason, maybe just because I was more "ready for it" or because of their obvious love for and commitment to this composer-as with Nielsen, IMO--I "got it" to a greater degree than I had before.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

The symphonies of Sibelius have taken positive growth on me over the last few years. Each listen (once over many months, or once a year of the cycle) brings different nuance of the score. I think I prefer his earlier symphonies.


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

clavichorder said:


> I've got to try this work again.


There's that one part, the F Minor about 1 quarter in. It sounds like a man who is saying goodbye to something, or had everything and lost everything. It's a very special moment in the canon of music. I don't know what bar it is in the score though


----------



## pollux (Nov 11, 2011)

The 7th is a particular favourite of mine. Don't forget to listen to _Luonnotar _and _Tapiola _. What splendid music, too!


----------



## DavidMahler (Dec 28, 2009)

Love Tapiola


----------



## Llyranor (Dec 20, 2010)

I remember my first time hearing the 5th live (it was my first exposure to a Sibelius symphony). By the end, I wasn't sure what to think of it at all. I mean, it didn't captivate me like the violin concerto did, but something odd about kept drawing me back towards it (that's when I bought my 1st symphonic cycle)

The first movement was so weird. It felt fragmented. Melodic parts here and there, but the sum of it didn't seem to make it. After numerous listens, I really enjoy the first movement; the way the melodic fragments slowly start to build up into structures - it's really wonderful.

The 2nd movement was quite nice. I never heard a symphonic movement with mainly pizzicato before (or since).

The 3rd movement brought me a small glimpse at the genius of Sibelius. The beginning was repetitive, but I could feel the tension in the room building up. By the time the famous 'swan call' (which I was not familiar with until I read up on it later) showed up, it was completely hair-raising. I could feel all the strings playing, with the brass blasting in the background. The whole orchestra felt alive. I've been looking for a recording that can reproduce that, but to no success so far. Hearing it live (in the front rows) made all the difference, I think.

I didn't get much of the ending after that, though. After multiple listens, I've grown fonding of the ending, however.

As I said, at the end of the concert, I wasn't sure what to think about the 5th. Parts I loved, the beginning of the 3rd movement completely enthralled me, and some parts I just didn't understand. But, this was the first step into exploring Sibelius' symphonies. Since then, he is my favorite symphonist. That was quite a revelation.

I'm not sure why I'm sharing this in this thread, but anyway!


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

Llyranor said:


> I remember my first time hearing the 5th live (it was my first exposure to a Sibelius symphony). By the end, I wasn't sure what to think of it at all. I mean, it didn't captivate me like the violin concerto did, but something odd about kept drawing me back towards it (that's when I bought my 1st symphonic cycle)
> 
> The first movement was so weird. It felt fragmented. Melodic parts here and there, but the sum of it didn't seem to make it. After numerous listens, I really enjoy the first movement; the way the melodic fragments slowly start to build up into structures - it's really wonderful.
> 
> ...


The 5th was my introduction to Sibelius as well, so I enjoyed reading about your experience of hearing it for the first time. I know what you mean about the part where the swan call appears. The concert where I heard it was kind of a turning point in my life in that it marked the beginning of me listening to classical music much more than other genres and really wanting to learn more about it. So Sibelius 5 is still pretty special to me.


----------



## opus55 (Nov 9, 2010)

What are your favorite Sibelius works so far?

I still haven't learned to appreciate his symphonies 4,6,7 yet but I almost like it better that way - I can take time to slowly appreciate Sibelius. I haven't even heard any of his chamber works but I know I will get to them some day.

As kv466 said, I thank TC members who open up my ears to new works and revisit those I already have set aside long ago.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

violadude said:


> Yes but, what I said, I said in jest.


You are a great jester I've noticed that.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TAPKAARA. Have you come across a work called; " The Origin of Fire"? It's a cantata for baritone,male chorus and orchestra,Op. 32.It is a setting of verses fromThe Kalevala.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> The 7th is not easy music. Which is strange, really. It's really quite melodic and the orchestration is pretty rich. Still, though, it has the power to confound. It even took me a while to get into its groove when I was first becoming the Sibelius fan I am today.
> 
> Perhaps it is because the music is so dense. It's a hard symphony to swallow because each of the bites weighs a ton. So, taking in in over a period time seems to be the only real way to digest it.
> 
> Anyone else hungry now?


Sibelius in a way seems like the Medtner of the symphony world to me, because you wonder during the first few listens where the appeal is. Then, after that you get bothered by all of the other stuff distracting from the melodic appeal. Finally, you appreciate the cinematic quality and can follow the motif in all of it's permutations, surprised by just how much you can recognize everywhere.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

The 7th is not always played effectively, its structures within structure is illusive. The best recording I, personally, have ever heard is Leonard Bernstein with Vienna Phil - Symphonies 5 and 7 - both works just have to be near 'definitively' played - it is hard to imagine them being performed better. My opine only.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

DavidMahler said:


> I've known his works for so many years but it wasn't until about a 3 months ago that I began to consider his works among my favorites. I don't know what happened inside my mind, but it's his later works in particular (later relative to when he left the music world) that really move me.
> 
> Not really a great conversation starter, I know


I am in the club 
rediscovered, recently.
Since long ago haven't listened to him, now quite a new beginning, the same experience as of OP.

Not difficult music at all, all captivating, dense as people say, sure, definitely unique , abstract , yet very characteristic, weird mixture of being very abstract with something very easily imaginable and describable , that's why I think some say on this thread that it's cinematographic like .


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There was nothing particularly difficult about the 7th for me. The first Sibelius piece I listened to and so far my favorite.
The harmony doesn't seem that daunting and the amount of dissonance is carefully moderated. It takes a while before its structure sinks in. 
Now it's one of my favorite symphonies. I can even listen to it casually in the background and while barely paying attention I still get a ton of goosebumps during some key moments, such as the ending of course. It's interesting how that works.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

helenora said:


> I am in the club
> rediscovered, recently.
> Since long ago haven't listened to him, now quite a new beginning, the same experience as of OP.
> 
> Not difficult music at all, all captivating, dense as people say, sure, definitely unique , abstract , yet very characteristic, weird mixture of being very abstract with something very easily imaginable and describable , that's why I think some say on this thread that it's cinematographic like .


Don't you love this site, one learning something new almost every day.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Don't you love this site, one learning something new almost every day.


yes, I love and post and read it every day


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Regarding Sibelius No.7: What to listen for, how to acclimate yourself to the music: the listener should try to connect with the raw emotional power of this piece. Don't try to analyze what Sibelius is doing, try to connect with what he is _expressing_.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Let me take out the pruners.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Looking back over this thread, I'm moved to see the way Sibelius "dawns" on people as they keep listening. There's nothing overtly weird or off-putting on the surface of his music (most of it, anyway), but it can be elusive at first because it's so original in its construction. I don't recall reading any comparisons with Bruckner, but I think it's the structural factor that makes that composer as well problematic for many. They actually resemble each other in the way they build up a movement in what at first can sound like disconnected steps or episodes; the force they exert is not driven, but patient and cumulative. Bruckner will tend to come to an actual stop between theme groups; just when you think things are getting off the ground there's a pause and something completely different starts up. Sibelius makes subtle transitions, which can initially be more confusing, but in the slow movement of his fourth symphony he pays a genuine debt to Bruckner's manner of development, with his themes alternating and moving side by side to a brief but powerful climax. Add to this Sibelius's way of introducing his ideas as germs or fragments which build gradually into more extended structures, and we have a really original musical mind. And that's not to mention the fresh and evocative colors of his harmony and orchestration.

Sibelius is one of those composers, like Chopin and Berlioz, who seem to have created a completely unexpected, unique, rich, satisfying, inimitable world of their own which nevertheless is understood and treasured by a large cross-section of music lovers. It's as if their music _had_ to be written by someone, and when we hear it we recognize something in ourselves that we may have been unconscious of before.


----------



## aglayaepanchin (Jul 24, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> Looking back over this thread, I'm moved to see the way Sibelius "dawns" on people as they keep listening. There's nothing overtly weird or off-putting on the surface of his music (most of it, anyway), but it can be elusive at first because it's so original in its construction. I don't recall reading any comparisons with Bruckner, but I think it's the structural factor that makes that composer as well problematic for many. They actually resemble each other in the way they build up a movement in what at first can sound like disconnected steps or episodes; the force they exert is not driven, but patient and cumulative. Bruckner will tend to come to an actual stop between theme groups; just when you think things are getting off the ground there's a pause and something completely different starts up. Sibelius makes subtle transitions, which can initially be more confusing, but in the slow movement of his fourth symphony he pays a genuine debt to Bruckner's manner of development, with his themes alternating and moving side by side to a brief but powerful climax. Add to this Sibelius's way of introducing his ideas as germs or fragments which build gradually into more extended structures, and we have a really original musical mind. And that's not to mention the fresh and evocative colors of his harmony and orchestration.
> 
> Sibelius is one of those composers, like Chopin and Berlioz, who seem to have created a completely unexpected, unique, rich, satisfying, inimitable world of their own which nevertheless is understood and treasured by a large cross-section of music lovers. It's as if their music _had_ to be written by someone, and when we hear it we recognize something in ourselves that we may have been unconscious of before.


I totally agree with you. I remember many times when encountering a new work of his I felt it was confusing and messy, sort of disorganized, but after a while of studying the piece I just fell in love with it. And he developed indeed a completely unique musical language, instantly recognizable and immensely beautiful. He is definitely one of my favorites.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Fascinating. Sibelius' distinctive soundscape simply connects with some people but not others. I was hooked at first hearing and only much later came to appreciate it the subtlety of structure that is typical of his major works. And there is a strangeness about Sibelius music. The 4th symphony is most obviously strange, but listen to Pohjola's Daughter or the wonderful Luonnotar. Or Oceanides. None of them shouts their originality, but it's there.


----------



## Guest (Sep 16, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> I don't recall reading any comparisons with Bruckner,


Sibelius' symphonies strike me as starting out sounding like Tchaikovsky, but the more he moved to sound like Bruckner, the more he began to sound like Sibelius!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

DavidMahler said:


> I've known his works for so many years but it wasn't until about a 3 months ago that I began to consider his works among my favorites. I don't know what happened inside my mind, but it's his later works in particular (later relative to when he left the music world) that really move me.
> 
> *Not really a great conversation starter, I know*


But I think I know what you mean.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

With me, it was a case of instant attraction towards the music of Sibelius quite a few years ago now. "Finlandia" struck up a chord with me as soon as I heard it. The Karelia Suite was another, Andante Festivo and Valse Triste were other instantly likeable pieces. Then followed a whole stream of other longer works that took my interest. I don't recall being disappointed with anything I heard: several wonderful tone poems, various pieces for chorus and orchestra, a good deal of incidental music, various works for solo instrument and orchestra including his magnificent Violin Concerto, several superb symphonies etc. His Symphony No 7 is one of the very best written in the 20th C. 

To my ears, Sibelius' orchestral music is unique and I do not see much if any similarity with either Tchaikovsky or Bruckner, as mentioned in earlier comments.

On another thread recently, I was referring to whether or not I consider Mendelssohn to be "underrated". In my opinion, he is not. In the case of Sibelius, things are different. I have always been surprised to discover Sibelius quite so far down the list when it comes to music forum polls and other types of ranking. Admittedly these polls are not always consistent in their results, and none of them is hardly definitive, but from my recollection Sibelius has never appeared in a top 10 list, only rarely in the 11-20 group, and most often turns up somewhere in the tier below that (as low as No 28 on Phil Goulding's list). 

This kind of ranking does not accord with my estimation of Sibelius. Not that I worry about rankings much at all in the ordinary course of events, if I had to make a set of selections for a poll I'd place him much higher than other people do on average as implied by the above figures. I would like put him in my top 10 but I'm afraid I couldn't do so because I can't think of who to move down, but I would definitely place him in the 11-20 bracket, even though the competition from several others is intense.


----------



## MalariaMan (Aug 30, 2016)

helenora said:


> I am in the club
> rediscovered, recently.
> Since long ago haven't listened to him, now quite a new beginning, the same experience as of OP.
> 
> Not difficult music at all, all captivating, dense as people say, sure, definitely unique , abstract , yet very characteristic, weird mixture of being very abstract with something very easily imaginable and describable , that's why I think some say on this thread that it's cinematographic like .


I remember listening a lot to Sibelius asa teenager, especially Finlandia and the 2nd Symphony. Then suddenly... nothing for a long time, until I heard recently some of his late works and BOOM, hooked again!


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Sibelius' symphonies strike me as starting out sounding like Tchaikovsky, but the more he moved to sound like Bruckner, the more he began to sound like Sibelius!


I always thought of Wagner rather than Bruckner - something in the pacing maybe?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

EdwardBast said:


> I always thought of Wagner rather than Bruckner - something in the pacing maybe?


Wagner slowed down the pace of exposition, and as I hear him Bruckner applied that expanded time scale to the symphony (while Brahms tried to perpetuate classical models and was influenced by Wagner only peripherally). Sibelius was clearly paying attention to both.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Until recently, more familiar with Finlandia and Karelia Suite but now ' love his Violin Concerto and want to delve more. Possibly try to obtain all his symphonies!! Any good recordings??


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Judith said:


> Until recently, more familiar with Finlandia and Karelia Suite but now ' love his Violin Concerto and want to delve more. Possibly try to obtain all his symphonies!! Any good recordings??


yes, definitely go for symphonies! and don't forget about En saga , The Tempest,Tapiola and other symphonic poems. But sure, more abstract are his symphonies. Osmo Vänskä and Celi, I like them both. Once I had recordings where Sibelius conducted , but it was long time ago, my memories about it are vague  But you can try.

Just compared with Richard Strauss conducting his works....mmm..... I prefer someone else conducting his works , the same as Rachmaninoff playing his concerts....well, a bit different story about Rachmaninoff, yet he isn't my favorite interpreter of his own works


----------



## Guest (Sep 17, 2016)

Judith said:


> Until recently, more familiar with Finlandia and Karelia Suite but now ' love his Violin Concerto and want to delve more. Possibly try to obtain all his symphonies!! Any good recordings??


Repin,Heifetz and Ferras ,three great recordings of the violin concerto:tiphat:


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Judith said:


> Until recently, more familiar with Finlandia and Karelia Suite but now ' love his Violin Concerto and want to delve more. Possibly try to obtain all his symphonies!! Any good recordings??


Decent ones I'd suggest are:

Symphony 1 - Storgards/ BBC PO
Symphony 2 - Davis/ LSO
Symphony 3 - Järvi/ Gothenberg SO
Symphony 4 - Oramo/ CBSO
Symphony 5 - Hvk/ BPO
Symphony 6 - Berglund/ Helsinki
Symphony 7 - Vänskä/ Lahti SO (or Minnesota SO, which is technically superb in sound quality)

..........

There are several other tone poems (beyond those you have) which are all worth getting. Some decent recordings below:

En Saga - Davis/ Staatskapelle Dresden
The Wood Nymph - Vänskä/ Lahti SO
Lemminkäinen suite - HvK/ BPO
Pohjola's Daughter - Neeme Järvi/ Gothenberg SO
Pan and Echo - Vänskä/ Lahti SO
Night Ride and Sunrise - Davis/ LSO
The Bard - Neeme Järvi/ Gothenberg SO
The Oceanides - Elder/ Hallé Orchestra
Tapiola - Vänskä/ Lahti SO

These should keep you busy for a while. There's plenty of other stuff besides this.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Genoveva said:


> Decent ones I'd suggest are:
> 
> Symphony 1 - Storgards/ BBC PO
> Symphony 2 - Davis/ LSO
> ...


Thank you. Got some holiday from work coming up soon so chance to explore!!


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


>


Is that a photo of the young Donald Trump, by any chance?


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Judith said:


> Thank you. Got some holiday from work coming up soon so chance to explore!!


You mentioned the Violin Concerto. Given that there is such huge choice with works as famous as this, I tend to buy CDs that are recommended by professional reviewers. The version of this work I like the best was recommended by the BBC "CD Review" programme a few years ago. I bought it and like it a lot. It's the version with Viktoria Mullova (violin), Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields, conducted by Seiji Ozawa. This violin concerto is among my favourites.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Genoveva said:


> You mentioned the Violin Concerto. Given that there is such huge choice with works as famous as this, I tend to buy CDs that are recommended by professional reviewers. The version of this work I like the best was recommended by the BBC "CD Review" programme a few years ago. I bought it and like it a lot. It's the version with Viktoria Mullova (violin), Academy of St Martin-in-the-Fields, conducted by Seiji Ozawa. This violin concerto is among my favourites.


Thank you. I already have it performed by Joshua Bell, Los Angeles Philharmonic conducted by Esa-Pekka Salonen. I do like Academy of St Martin in the Fields though. There is also this Violin Concerto on You Tube still performed by Joshua with the Oslo Orchestra conducted by Vasily Petrenko. Also very good.


----------

