# Sibelius symphonies



## Guest

Not all of them are equally accessible, but the number 2 is especially lovely:






There is something terribly poignant about this first movement. Sibelius was a composer of many moods. Which of his symphonies do you prefer? A country with the population the same as Sydney has produced this quite extraordinary composer.


----------



## david johnson

I have always greatly enjoyed his Symphony #1.


----------



## Guest

david johnson said:


> I have always greatly enjoyed his Symphony #1.


Those early ones are somewhat reminiscent of the Rachmaninov symphonies, to me. The opening of the 2nd and that jab-in-the-heart phrase; you probably know the one I mean. Wonderful.


----------



## Joachim Raff

First two symphonies are set in the 'romantic' vein. They can be troublesome for some conductors.


----------



## CnC Bartok

I am a huge fan of all seven, plus Kullervo. With one exception, which is debatably the most popular of the lot, No.5. I struggle to see what the fuss is about it, and I get annoyed by the huge pauses in the final climax!

That said, these things are relative, and it's a great work. However, my favourite is a toss-up between No.7, which I consider perfect, and No.6, which is - on the right day - even better. There is nothing wrong or inferior about pure, pure music.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio

No. 7 is a piece that has an incredibly special personal connection for me, and it one of my top three favorite symphonies. I can hardly go a month without listening to it and I’ve heard over 20 recordings of it. When the trombone theme reappears to end the symphony I get the same sensation that occurs at the end of the Goldberg Variations - like a vast, sublime journey has been undertaken, yet after all that the circle of life has been completed back to the beginning. After that would have to be 4, 6, 5, 2, 1, 3 but there’s not a movement from any of his symphonies that I don’t love.


----------



## Kiki

Love all of them including Kullervo except No. 5 which often turned me cold while I'm not convinced by that "coming out into the light" notion.

Specifically, for me No. 2 is his "sea" symphony, No. 6 his "pastorale", while No. 7 is not only concise but also perfect in form and proportion. In recent years my affection has gone mostly to No. 4 for its depth and turbulence although I used to find it difficult to get into, but once you've cracked it, the reward is tremendous.


----------



## mbhaub

The 2nd is still my favorite; it was the first one that I got to know in the stunning Barbirolli/RPO version so anything else was a let down. It took a while to get into the other symphonies, but now the 1st and 7th are right up there. Other than 2 and 5, the rest are fairly unpopular in the US and they rarely are played.


----------



## Heck148

#5 is, imo, his greatest symphony....Bernstein/NYPO gets it right.
#1 is right up near it for me - one of my favorite "first" symphonies. Great tunes!!

#s 2, 3, 4, 7 are all great, I love them about the same.

#6 I just don't get...it's a "mulligan" for me....doesn't seem to go anywhere....I just got the score for #6....maybe that will open it up...


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Symphony No. 6 performed by Kurt Sanderling and the Berlin Symphony Orchestra


----------



## Cristian Lee

Sibelius is probably my favorite composer, his music resonates with me. I love all his symphonies but my favorite is Symphony no. 1. It's not his best (Symphony no. 7 is) but it's definitely exciting, romantic, epic, emotional, full of great tunes. Favorite recording Bernstein/NYPO.


----------



## EdwardBast

The ones I listen to most and most enthusiastically are 4 and 7.


----------



## Knorf

I can't really choose one as a true favorite over the others, but I have noticed I've had the greatest periods of obsession with No. 4 and No. 6.


----------



## amfortas

I first latched onto no. 3, which is still a favorite.


----------



## Guest

mbhaub said:


> The 2nd is still my favorite; it was the first one that I got to know in the stunning Barbirolli/RPO version so anything else was a let down. It took a while to get into the other symphonies, but now the 1st and 7th are right up there. Other than 2 and 5, the rest are fairly unpopular in the US and they rarely are played.


Why do you think this is the case?


----------



## gvn

CnC Bartok said:


> I am a huge fan of all seven, plus Kullervo. With one exception, which is debatably the most popular of the lot, No.5. I struggle to see what the fuss is about it, and I get annoyed by the huge pauses in the final climax!


I wonder if this gives me a glimmer of an insight into something that has long puzzled me. Both Beecham and Stokowski were fond of Sibelius's symphonies and left behind recordings of most of them (in many cases, multiple recordings), yet neither of them ever recorded No. 5. (Both were among the very few conductors praised by Sibelius, too.) This rather suggests that a select few of the most discerning Sibelians "don't see what the fuss is about." Those of us who _do_ like No. 5 are a decidedly more heterogeneous bunch!


----------



## brucknerian1874

CnC Bartok said:


> I am a huge fan of all seven, plus Kullervo. With one exception, which is debatably the most popular of the lot, No.5. I struggle to see what the fuss is about it, and I get annoyed by the huge pauses in the final climax!


Don't like the pauses. They were an afterthought. Try this for an ending that's almost reminiscent of early Bruckner.







Some days, I prefer this ending. However, the other major changes like the linking of the first two movements and the coda of the resulting opening movement seem like no-brainers with hindsight, of course.

Karajan in the late 70's on EMI takes the final chords with shorter pauses and more punch than his celebrated DG performance from the early 60's. It's worth a try.


----------



## Guest

I really love the intensity of the Sibelius symphonies, but I don't know them all intimately as some people here seem to. And that *'little jolt of pleasure' when you get a superb and ravishing phrase, like the first movement of the 2nd Symphony. 

(*James Mason to Judy Garland in "A Star is Born")


----------



## ORigel

IMO, his first and sixth are Sibelius's weaker ones. His second, fifth, and seventh are probably his best.


----------



## Ned Low

His 1st and 3rd symphonies are both amazing and underrated.


----------



## CnC Bartok

ORigel said:


> IMO, his first and sixth are Sibelius's weaker ones. His second, fifth, and seventh are probably his best.


Can't agree on the Sixth being a weaker work. Absolute masterpiece. As to the First, OK, but it's less Sibelian than the others, but for a youthful work, marvellous stuff!

Thoroughly agree that No.3 is daftly under-rated!


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

CnC Bartok said:


> Can't agree on the Sixth being a weaker work. Absolute masterpiece. As to the First, OK, but it's less Sibelian than the others, but for a youthful work, marvellous stuff!
> 
> Thoroughly agree that No.3 is daftly under-rated!


The sixth - I'm compelled to say - vexed me for a long time; it was the only one I didn't feel I "understood." Well, it vexes me still, but it has become my favorite of his and it's the one I play the most - love the medieval modes he uses and I believe it contains some of his most joyous passages (there is no slow movement). And for those who fancy it as well, we are in good company : "This is strange a symphony as I know, and there are few after Schubert I love so much," Michael Steinberg


----------



## Heck148

Ned Low said:


> His 1st and 3rd symphonies are both amazing and underrated.


Agreed...#1 is wonderful, one of my favorite "First" symphonies....#3 deserves much more exposure, programming time..


----------



## Cristian Lee

Heck148 said:


> Agreed...#1 is wonderful, one of my favorite "First" symphonies....#3 deserves much more exposure, programming time..


Agree with both. Symphony No. 1 is my favorite Sibelius' symphony and in my top ten of all times. So yeah, I love it . Symphony No. 3 is indeed wonderful and underrated.


----------



## Merl

I go through phases with Sibelius symphonies. I'm currently playing the 3rd quite a bit more than the others but that will change, no doubt.


----------



## Brahmsian Colors

Indeed, the Sanderling Sixth (post 10) _is_ my preferred performance of my favorite Sibelius symphony. Only fairly recently did it surpass the Fourth in my affections, though the latter still ranks highly for me but now rests comfortably in second place with Maazel/Vienna Philharmonic as my favorite account. Third place goes to the Fifth, with Barbirolli/Halle Orchestra. Next is Maazel/Vienna in the First, followed by the Third with Kamu/Helsinki Radio Symphony, the Seventh with Maazel/Vienna and the Second with Kamu/Berlin Philharmonic. For my money, there's not a dud among the Seven Sibelius Symphonies.


----------



## gvn

> Originally Posted by *CnC Bartok*
> Can't agree on the Sixth being a weaker work. Absolute masterpiece.





Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> The sixth - I'm compelled to say - vexed me for a long time; it was the only one I didn't feel I "understood." Well, it vexes me still, but it has become my favorite of his and it's the one I play the most - love the medieval modes he uses and I believe it contains some of his most joyous passages (there is no slow movement). And for those who fancy it as well, we are in good company : "This is strange a symphony as I know, and there are few after Schubert I love so much," Michael Steinberg


For a long time I considered the Sixth to be a (relative) trough between two peaks. Then one day I was listening to one of Beecham's live performances, and all at once, right from the opening bars, the penny dropped, the light dawned, for the first time the thing was sheer poetry from start to finish. It's been that way ever since. Can't understand why I ever had trouble with it!

In nearly all symphony composers, I can hear conspicuous differences in quality. In Beethoven & Dvořák I hear a huge step up from No. 2 to No. 3. In Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rautavaara, etc., I hear noticeable variations in quality from symphony to symphony.

But nowadays Sibelius's symphonies seem to me like Brahms's. I hear stylistic development, I hear diversity, but if there is any variation in quality, it seems to me so tiny as to be quite insignificant. I think of the First as Sibelius's _Transfigured Night,_ in that it sounds a lot more "conventional" than his later music, but (in both cases) that's purely a description of style, and says nothing adverse about quality!


----------



## SONNET CLV

I enjoy each of the Sibelius symphonies as unique gems. Still, it was through the Second Symphony that I came to Sibelius, and it remains a high favorite, not just among the Finn's oeuvre of symphonies, but as a top listing in my "favorite symphonies". 

When I play the game of "the 'Mighty Nine' (none of which are by Beethoven)", the Sibelius Second gets that second position, almost invariably. It proves a powerhouse of beauty and emotional depth. I wouldn't want to be without it.


----------



## HerbertNorman

For me it's the first, second and the fifth...that I enjoy the most. The remark about the first is valid imho , I think it's one of the best first symphonies I know of


----------



## Coach G

I like the recordings that Leonard Bernstein made of the Sibelius _Symphonies # 1, 2, 5 & 7_ with the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra for DG in the 1980s. It's an incomplete cycle and Bernstein takes unusual liberties with the tempos and dynamics, especially with the _2nd_, but it's very intense and nothing else like it.


----------



## mparta

gvn said:


> For a long time I considered the Sixth to be a (relative) trough between two peaks. Then one day I was listening to one of Beecham's live performances, and all at once, right from the opening bars, the penny dropped, the light dawned, for the first time the thing was sheer poetry from start to finish. It's been that way ever since. Can't understand why I ever had trouble with it!
> 
> In nearly all symphony composers, I can hear conspicuous differences in quality. In Beethoven & Dvořák I hear a huge step up from No. 2 to No. 3. In Mozart, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Bruckner, Mahler, Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Rautavaara, etc., I hear noticeable variations in quality from symphony to symphony.
> 
> But nowadays Sibelius's symphonies seem to me like Brahms's. I hear stylistic development, I hear diversity, but if there is any variation in quality, it seems to me so tiny as to be quite insignificant. I think of the First as Sibelius's _Transfigured Night,_ in that it sounds a lot more "conventional" than his later music, but (in both cases) that's purely a description of style, and says nothing adverse about quality!


Sibelius doesn't come to my ear on a daily basis, but I have the von Karajan DG 6th firmly fixed in my ear as one of the most beautifully played orchestra performances I know. That wind choir with Lothar Koch on oboe make a magical sound that I think is without compare. I've never had the same affection for the others in that series, 4, 5, and 7 and I think I don't really know 7 at all.
But that 6th, wow.
I think Sibelius was no fool and when he found a conductor (Beecham) who would play his music he praised him to encourage more performances. But I remember reading that behind the scenes of that praise that he found von Karajan much superior. Would have to search for a reference. Still, not just the conductor, the Berlin Phil, there was (is) no English orchestra that could compare. I heard them play the 2nd forever ago. Agree that there's some love in the 3rd.


----------



## Coach G

mparta said:


> Sibelius doesn't come to my ear on a daily basis, but I have the von Karajan DG 6th firmly fixed in my ear as one of the most beautifully played orchestra performances I know. That wind choir with Lothar Koch on oboe make a magical sound that I think is without compare. I've never had the same affection for the others in that series, 4, 5, and 7 and I think I don't really know 7 at all.
> But that 6th, wow.
> I think Sibelius was no fool and when he found a conductor (Beecham) who would play his music he praised him to encourage more performances. But I remember reading that behind the scenes of that praise that he found von Karajan much superior. Would have to search for a reference. Still, not just the conductor, the Berlin Phil, there was (is) no English orchestra that could compare. I heard them play the 2nd forever ago. Agree that there's some love in the 3rd.


For some reason reason, Siblelius became very popular in England, and I know one English critic praised Sibelius for his "bardic" qualities, so maybe that's why he expressed his appreciation to Beecham and the Brits so much.


----------



## Roger Knox

Allegro Con Brio said:


> No. 7 is a piece that has an incredibly special personal connection for me, and it one of my top three favorite symphonies. I can hardly go a month without listening to it and I've heard over 20 recordings of it. When the trombone theme reappears to end the symphony I get the same sensation that occurs at the end of the Goldberg Variations - like a vast, sublime journey has been undertaken, yet after all that the circle of life has been completed back to the beginning. After that would have to be 4, 6, 5, 2, 1, 3 but there's not a movement from any of his symphonies that I don't love.


I like your choices! When I played double bass in our university orchestra, we had an excellent trombonist who later became the long-standing second trombone in one of Canada's best orchestras. When he played that theme in No. 7 -- some think it suggests the ice breaking up at the end of winter -- it was very moving.


----------



## Eclectic Al

7, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2 5
Favourite to least? Maybe swap 2 and 5? Or maybe swap 3 and 4?


----------



## CnC Bartok

Eclectic Al said:


> 7, 6, 3, 4, 1, 2 5
> Favourite to least? Maybe swap 2 and 5? Or maybe swap 3 and 4?


Apart from the extraordinarily low position of No.2, that's just about my ranking too..... great minds an' all that.....


----------



## jim prideaux

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

My contribution......


----------



## Andy Foster

As this is the nearest thread, can I got slightly OTT and ask for recommendations for the major tone poems? Apart from En Saga and Tapiola, they are distinctly under-recorded. Pohjola's Daughter and Night Ride and Sunrise particularly.


----------



## Knorf

Bernstein's NYPO recording of _Pohjola's Daughter_ is tough to beat. I'm not sure I have on opinion about _Nightride and Sunrise_... Maybe Järvi?


----------



## gvn

mparta said:


> I think Sibelius was no fool and when he found a conductor (Beecham) who would play his music he praised him to encourage more performances. But I remember reading that behind the scenes of that praise that he found von Karajan much superior. Would have to search for a reference.


Yes, I've read something like that too. According to this webpage, "The composer himself described Karajan as a 'great master' and felt that of the younger generation of conductors (he was writing in the 1950's) he was the one who had the greatest feeling for his music."

Lots of composers shower indiscriminate superlatives on anyone who will play their music. (Messiaen was a glaring example!) Sibelius was rather more prickly. He had his favorites but, with the possible exception of Kajanus, he wasn't really happy with any of them. Every one of them received the sharp side of his tongue on occasions!

I too love Karajan's Sibelius 6. Wonder what Sibelius would have said about _that_ one. (As the webpage points out, Sibelius would have known only K's early Philharmonia Sibelius recordings--very different from his later Berlin Philharmonic ones!)


----------



## gvn

Andy Foster said:


> As this is the nearest thread, can I got slightly OTT and ask for recommendations for the major tone poems? Apart from En Saga and Tapiola, they are distinctly under-recorded. Pohjola's Daughter and Night Ride and Sunrise particularly.


The comprehensive 5-CD BIS set of tone poems conducted by Osmo Vänskä sounds pretty good to me, but I'm sure one could do better by picking and choosing individually. Several 2-CD and 3-CD compilations have been well received by reviewers, e.g., Scottish National Orchestra cond. Alexander Gibson (Chandos), Moscow Philharmonic Orchestra cond. Vassily Sinaisky (now on Brilliant Classics), Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra cond. Neeme Järvi (DG). Any opinions on their relative merits?


----------



## Heck148

Knorf said:


> Bernstein's NYPO recording of _Pohjola's Daughter_ is tough to beat...


definitely, originally released with his non pareil Sibelius #5....I wore out a few of those lps....


----------



## Joachim Raff

Knorf said:


> Bernstein's NYPO recording of _Pohjola's Daughter_ is tough to beat. I'm not sure I have on opinion about _Nightride and Sunrise_... Maybe Järvi?










Gibson SNO are quite something.


----------



## Merl

Joachim Raff said:


> View attachment 147776
> 
> Gibson SNO are quite something.


I love that one.


----------



## CnC Bartok

As it might have slipped out in the past, I have to admit I am not the biggest Bernstein fan. However, I am perfectly happy to concur with the high opinions expressed here over his Pohjola's Daughter. It's the best out there, and this is my favourite of the Sibelius Tone Poems!


----------



## perdido34

I have to put in a word for Szell's Sibelius. He left two recordings of the Second, one with Amsterdam and the other an incredible live performance with Cleveland that took place a couple of months before he died (it was his last concert). There are also live performances of 4 and 7 (both with Cleveland) out there (not commercially issued) that are truly amazing, if you can find them.


----------



## Heck148

perdido34 said:


> I have to put in a word for Szell's Sibelius. He left two recordings of the Second, one with Amsterdam and the other an incredible live performance with Cleveland that took place a couple of months before he died (it was his last concert)


That Tokyo Sibelius 2nd is a fine performance, but the sound quality is not good - the balance in the brass, iirc, is badly askew - lots of trumpets - trombones sound like they are offstage....too bad, fine concert performance.


----------



## Guest

I have a friend who is a retired Professor of Mechanical Engineering. He's also a music lover (especially Wagner) and builds his own hi-fi systems. He is 90 years old, an active walker and croquet player!! But he won't listen to anything that doesn't have good sound quality!! I've tried to disabuse him of this prejudice and have recently sent him some incredible U-Tube performances. A couple of these have been Sibelius symphonies. Lo and behold; a change!! _DESPITE_ the poor sound quality of the (aged) performances they have great merit!!

You can teach an old dog new tricks!!


----------



## Knorf

I don't mind hearing recordings in poor sound, especially if they're great or historically significant performances, but I can't live with them for repeated listening when there are comparably great performances in good or better sound.


----------



## Guest

Knorf said:


> I don't mind hearing recordings in poor sound, especially if they're great or historically significant performances, but I can't live with them for repeated listening when there are comparably great performances in good or better sound.


I agree; they're OK when of historical importance, eg. Furtwangler. But my friend refused to listen to them at all and often turned his nose up at our music group if I played a recorded performance from earlier times. My program "Great Recordings of the 20th Century" had him concerned about sound quality!! Anyway, he has mended his ways.


----------



## Kiki

Knorf said:


> I don't mind hearing recordings in poor sound, especially if they're great or historically significant performances, but I can't live with them for repeated listening when there are comparably great performances in good or better sound.


That's a dilemma I often found myself in - I collect recordings. Some have really bad sound. I don't really listen to them much (because of the bad sound), so apparently I don't "live with them", but I have to have them! E.g. Kajanus', Mravinsky's, or Szell's Tokyo No. 2.


----------



## CnC Bartok

Kiki said:


> That's a dilemma I often found myself in - I collect recordings. Some have really bad sound. I don't really listen to them much (because of the bad sound), so apparently I don't "live with them", but I have to have them! E.g. Kajanus', Mravinsky's, or Szell's Tokyo No. 2.


Indeed. I rarely listen to them, but the Koussevitsky Sibelius recordings from the 1930's are an essential part of my collection. Incidentally, his Tapiola is truly petrifying....

Ditto some of Beecham's. His 4th and 6th are in awful sound, but the vast majority of the other Sibelius recording of his that I have are "merely dated" and do not make for uncomfortable listening.


----------



## Kiki

CnC Bartok said:


> Indeed. I rarely listen to them, but the Koussevitsky Sibelius recordings from the 1930's are an essential part of my collection. Incidentally, his Tapiola is truly petrifying....
> 
> Ditto some of Beecham's. His 4th and 6th are in awful sound, but the vast majority of the other Sibelius recording of his that I have are "merely dated" and do not make for uncomfortable listening.


Koussevitzky's 1933 Sibelius 7 is also awesome. While it has that "time standing still" quality, it is also gritty when needed. But then, again, to be honest, I've probably listened to Rattle's Sibelius more often, not to mention other favourite Sibelius conductors of mine who have got great recorded sound.


----------



## Brahmsianhorn

Christabel said:


> I agree; they're OK when of historical importance, eg. Furtwangler. But my friend refused to listen to them at all and often turned his nose up at our music group if I played a recorded performance from earlier times. My program "Great Recordings of the 20th Century" had him concerned about sound quality!! Anyway, he has mended his ways.


I'm not sure what historical importance means. It's either good music or it isn't.

For me, when an old recording is so far beyond any performance I've heard musically, like Furtwangler's 1942 Beethoven 9th, that's the one that over time I return to more often because I have gotten used to the sound quality and am more concerned with the interpretation, while good performances in modern sound, like Fricsay, Karajan or Bohm, hold less interest.


----------



## David Paul

Very inspiring expression of affection for the no. 7. At present, my primary love is for the no. 2, but I’m going to devote time today to the no. 7. Is there a recording of it that you favor over all others?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Ich muss Caligari werden said:


> The sixth - I'm compelled to say - vexed me for a long time; it was the only one I didn't feel I "understood." Well, it vexes me still, but it has become my favorite of his and it's the one I play the most - love the medieval modes he uses and I believe it contains some of his most joyous passages (there is no slow movement). And for those who fancy it as well, we are in good company : "This is strange a symphony as I know, and there are few after Schubert I love so much," Michael Steinberg


Sibelius' 6th was the first of his symphonies that really 'grabbed' me and it has me still, much as I love 3 and 4. And the rest. But the 6th is just such a perfect piece of under-stated construction, not a piece out of place, every dovetail fits perfectly and there is just enough detailing and decoration. It never shouts or weeps. And it ends with a contented sigh. Lovely.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Incidentally, while we're on the subject, although I wouldn't rate the 1st Symphony very highly overall, I love the opening. How much confidence does it take in a young composer to open his first symphony with an extended solo clarinet meandering over pianissimo tymps?


----------



## Heck148

Pat Fairlea said:


> Incidentally, while we're on the subject, although I wouldn't rate the 1st Symphony very highly overall, I love the opening. How much confidence does it take in a young composer to open his first symphony with an extended solo clarinet meandering over pianissimo tymps?


I love Sibelius #1...my favorite of his after #5..great tunes!! a wonderful 1st symphony. 
Bernstein/NYPO - great rendition.
I don't get #6 at all...


----------



## flamencosketches

mbhaub said:


> The 2nd is still my favorite; it was the first one that I got to know in the stunning Barbirolli/RPO version so anything else was a let down. It took a while to get into the other symphonies, but now the 1st and 7th are right up there. Other than 2 and 5, the rest are fairly unpopular in the US and they rarely are played.


Is that true? For some reason, Sibelius is programmed very frequently by my city's orchestra, a major regional orchestra for the southeast. Perhaps more than any composer other than Beethoven. Last year, the 4th, 6th and 7th were all played.


----------



## Ich muss Caligari werden

For me it's been a progression of favorites : the 2nd was the first I'd heard and my favorite for years; then 5, 7 and finally, now 6 - disliked it at first for its elusiveness, now I enjoy it _because_ of that very quality; it's enigmatic, beguiling, taunting - the kind of mystery that keeps a guy (or gal) coming back for more...


----------



## mparta

Lot of love for Sibelius here.

I listened to the 4th twice today and am hearing more things that I like but it still fails to cohere. I don't feel that what comes next is inevitable given what came before.

I was wondering while I listened whether the issue of structure is at the heart of a lot of popularity, even when we can't listen and say "statement, development, recap... " or some such. The structure of the Mahler symphonies seems much more apparent to me, although I don't favor these works as much as I do Bruckner these days.... BUT.... same thing, I think the feeling of a scaffold is harder to get in Bruckner, takes much more effort, which I think is rewarded.


----------



## mbhaub

flamencosketches said:


> Is that true? For some reason, Sibelius is programmed very frequently by my city's orchestra, a major regional orchestra for the southeast. Perhaps more than any composer other than Beethoven. Last year, the 4th, 6th and 7th were all played.


Then Bravo to your orchestra and music director! If you look at the programming for first and second tier orchestras around the country the Sibelius stats are sorry: symphonies 2, 5 repeatedly. The violin concerto a lot. Even the once popular Finlandia and Karelia Suite have fallen from grace and are the property of community and smaller orchestras. Sometimes a music director will come in who loves Sibelius and they have a great time. Was it LA a couple of seasons ago did all the symphonies spread out over the year? But in many locales Sibelius is still a tough sell. Hard to understand.


----------



## John O

Both Sibelius 1 and 2 and Rachmaninov were influenced by Tchaikovsky and Wagner


----------



## MusicInTheAir

I love all the Sibelius symphonies. My first exposure to them was in the '70s with the Colin Davis Phillips records. The only two symphonies I "got" for the longest time were numbers 1 and 2. The rest of them seemed too desolate. But then, a little over 20 years ago, I think it was after going to a few concerts conducted by Sir Colin which featured Sibelius, I fell in love with all of them. I have since bought the two more recent Davis Sibelius cycles as well as the Barbirolli/Halle set. I also have some CDs of various and sundry Sibelius symphonies. Among the latter, that Szell Sibelius 2nd which was recorded a little over 2 months before he died is absolutely incredible. If pressed, I'd have to put numbers 2 and 5 on top of my list of favorite Sibelius symphonies. However, it's too much for me emotionally to listen to either more than once or twice a year, because they have such deep meaning to me.


----------



## Simon23

I think that Sibelius is one of the greatest non-German composers. Also - one of the last romantics. All his symphonies are marvelous, a violin concerto - magnificient. My favorite symphony - 2 & 5.


----------



## HerbertNorman

Simon23 said:


> I think that Sibelius is one of the greatest non-German composers. Also - one of the last romantics. All his symphonies are marvelous, a violin concerto - magnificient. My favorite symphony - 2 & 5.


I agree wholeheartedly... I had a Sibelius night yesterday and again I was impressed by his symphonies as I hadn't listened to them intensively for a while. 
But you should try the 3d , 4th and 7th again ... as mentioned in this thread nrs. 2 and 5 are great but all too frequently programmed and highlighted.


----------



## Subutai

I prefer Nielsen's symphonies over Sibelius, but the one Sibelius symphony I've been drawn to ever since I first heard it is no. 4. 
Whatever it was that he was going through when he wrote that piece, dude I feel your pain. Always will.


----------



## Waehnen

I have been listening to Sibelius symphonies now for 25 years. But only recently have I fully realized how original and unique the music is! It is very different from other symphonic music. Comparison to Beethoven, Brahms, Schubert, Bruckner, Mahler, Tchaikovsky, Debussy, Ravel, Strauss, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and other romantic, late romantic and early modernist composers proves this. There is no other music like this, anywhere.

No wonder the German musical elites weren´t ready to absorb Sibelius early on. It was like a new combination of Tchaikovsky, Grieg, Wagner and Beethoven with a strong sense of Finnish mythology, folk music and nature. And it all came together in the personality of Sibelius: when the divisi cello chorale is sung in the slow movement of the 3rd Symphony, it´s like a curtain is lifted for an instance and there he is, Sibelius himself, singing for us.

That voice is omnipresent in Sibelius´ music, and it is unique.


----------



## Merl

It's strange that Sibelius was probably the last of the better-known conductors that I truly 'got'. I'd had many recordings I'd picked up in the 90s (purely from buying ex-library Sibelius discs for pennies) and I'd rarely played them, much preferring the immediacy of Beethoven, Schubert and Co's symphonic output. Even when I came to TC there were only certain Sibelius symphonies I'd play and a few that had only just started to connect. These days, I love them all but do play some less than others. I still play the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th the most (especially the 2nd). Maybe it's habit.


----------



## Forster

For me, 6th then 7th, 4th, then 5th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd.

Having said that, only 6th and 5th have no weaker movements, and all have at least one lovely movement.

7th, of course all one lovely movement!


----------



## dko22

That's probably my exact order of preference, though the extraordinary 7th which I dub the "miracle symphony" is particularly remote from anything by any other composer and seems to hang together so effortlessly. I'm not surprised that after _Tapiola _which is a little along the same lines, that he gave up composing soon after -- I mean what else is there to be said?


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Merl said:


> It's strange that Sibelius was probably the last of the better-known conductors that I truly 'got'. I'd had many recordings I'd picked up in the 90s (purely from buying ex-library Sibelius discs for pennies) and I'd rarely played them, much preferring the immediacy of Beethoven, Schubert and Co's symphonic output. Even when I came to TC there were only certain Sibelius symphonies I'd play and a few that had only just started to connect. These days, I love them all but do play some less than others. I still play the 1st, 2nd, 5th and 7th the most (especially the 2nd). Maybe it's habit.


There is something about Sibelius' symphonies (and some of the tone poems) that I find hard to put into words, but which probably explains why/how his music grabbed me from first hearing. It is as if the music is detached, objective. It doesn't seem to arise from anything trivially human, at least not that I can recognise. His jibe about 'pure spring water' rather than 'multi-hued cocktails' is well known, almost a cliche, but there is an element of truth about it. That clarity is most obvious from Symphony 3 onwards, though the opening of #1 is quite extraordinary for the first symphony of a supposed 'late Romantic' and shows that his distinctiveness was in place from the outset.


----------



## jim prideaux

I have just listened to the Gibson recording of the 3rd. Yesterday I listened to Segerstam's Helsinki recording...,I am not unfamiliar with this work, on the contrary alongside the 5th it is my own personal favourite from the cycle. Yesterday I also listened to the Berglund London 6th and later in the evening the Bernstein New York 1st.

Admittedly some of this listening was while driving ( rural Northumberland) but for most of my adult life I have repeatedly returned to Sibelius and his 5th is my own favourite symphony among all symphonies ( a fact I have often mentioned on TC) As very young child I was introduced to the Karelia Suite and in a sense have 'never looked back' .Somehow the music of Sibelius has become part of my life and it continues to reward over and over again......I suspect I will never be able to explain why! In the same way as I now listen to Television's Marquee Moon ( an album I have known since it was released in 1977) and will later listen to 'Its too late to stop now' I have almost come to accept that some music becomes an interwoven part of one's life, an integral part of a personal narrative ( oh how pretentious Jim!). I now spend a not inconsiderable amount of time marvelling at the relative accessibility of different interpretations of the music of Sibelius, never tiring of the opportunity to again marvel at the composers genius. Beethoven, Dvorak and Brahms ( alongside Schubert and Schumann) are other symphonic composers that I will always return to as well ( and Martinu and particularly Nielsen) but in my own mind Sibelius will always occupy a 'special place' in my own ( musical) imagination and experience........

However the more immediate question....do I purchase the Saraste Finnish RSO cycle?

and secondly.....a recommendation.....Oramo and the CBSO (Erato)....a cycle that most definitely went 'under the radar'.


----------



## Kiki

jim prideaux said:


> ...
> 
> However the more immediate question....do I purchase the Saraste Finnish RSO cycle?
> 
> and secondly.....a recommendation.....Oramo and the CBSO (Erato)....a cycle that most definitely went 'under the radar'.


In general I like "fast" and "dangerous", even "volatile" or "vulnerable" - and I like Saraste's Sibelius very much. Of his two Finnish RSO cycles, I prefer the Finlandia live cycle to the studio RCA cycle based on my own criteria.

Curious to know: why Saraste specifically? Do you like his ways of playing Sibelius?

Can't offer any useful opinion on the Orama. Heard a few symphonies from his cycle through streaming. Didn't arouse my interest enough to further investigate. Others may be able to offer a more qualified opinion.


----------



## jim prideaux

Kiki said:


> In general I like "fast" and "dangerous", even "volatile" or "vulnerable" - and I like Saraste's Sibelius very much. Of his two Finnish RSO cycles, I prefer the Finlandia live cycle to the studio RCA cycle based on my own criteria.
> 
> Curious to know: why Saraste specifically? Do you like his ways of playing Sibelius?
> 
> Can't offer any useful opinion on the Orama. Heard a few symphonies from his cycle through streaming. Didn't arouse my interest enough to further investigate. Others may be able to offer a more qualified opinion.


Saraste...the first Finnish RSO cycle is available in a relatively cheap box and I have read very appreciative reviews....I have never heard his recordings so am intrigued!

I mentioned Oramo and CBSO as I managed to piece together the cycle from individual second hand discs that were then quite the bargain......I am really impressed by this cycle and very rarely see it mentioned ( either positively or negatively)


----------



## Kiki

jim prideaux said:


> Saraste...the first Finnish RSO cycle is available in a relatively cheap box and I have read very appreciative reviews....I have never heard his recordings so am intrigued!
> 
> I mentioned Oramo and CBSO as I managed to piece together the cycle from individual second hand discs that were then quite the bargain......I am really impressed by this cycle and very rarely see it mentioned ( either positively or negatively)


Saraste's first set on RCA is creamier, grander and slower than the Finlandia set, but only in relative terms; it is still fairly agile and lively among other sets I know. Both are available on Spotify if you'd like to check them out.


----------



## jim prideaux

Kiki said:


> Saraste's first set on RCA is creamier, grander and slower than the Finlandia set, but only in relative terms; it is still fairly agile and lively among other sets I know. Both are available on Spotify if you'd like to check them out.


Cheers.....thanks for that advice.


----------

