# The Sibelius Symphonies, #5 in E flat



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

We now come to what is probably one of the two most popular of the seven symphonies. Interestingly it ls also the one which seems to have had the most difficult gestation given 3 versions, 1915, 1916 and the definitive 1919. It is fascinating to listen to the 1915 and see just how much was changed and tightened up. Another symphony that dates from almost the exact same period, Vaughan William's 2nd, is in my opinion, better in the earlier, longer version, but I have no doubt about Sibelius' final thoughts being the best.

Ignoring for now the earlier versions, I am familiar with a few different performances. The 1982 Rattle/Philharmonia is the first CD that I ever bought and was my preferred recording for many years. When I first came to TC some four years ago, I was persuaded to listen to Karajan's first recording, also done with the Philharmonia, and I was extremely impressed. Others that I have heard include Salonen/Swedish Radio, Vanska/Lahti, Gibson/SNO and Davis/BSO. Somewhere I also have a vinyl of Barbirolli/Halle but haven't heard it in years and don't remember it well enough to comment.

Over the last few days I have listened to a few of them again and was about to pronounce the Karajan/Philharmonia as my favourite, that is until the last 9 bars...









Notice how carefully Sibelius notated the pauses. So then why the *** does Karajan blast through them as though there were almost no rests. And he is apparently not the only one who doesn't seem to trust Sibelius. I'm surprised that it hasn't bothered me before but it sure did this time. The end result is that I am now going to do quite a bit more listening before being bold enough to make any more pronouncements.

P.S. Rattle/Philharmonia does pay careful attention ... but then we know that he is a stickler for details :lol:


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I too have noticed that some conductors don't play the final chords in the rhythm Sibelius wrote but rush them, not allowing the theme to play silently through the rests as directed. Afraid the the brass section can't count?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Maybe it's because Karajan and some of the others can read Italian. The clue is on the previous page:









Little by little get faster. You can quibble about how much faster, but notice that nowhere does the meticulous Sibelius indicate the stretto is to stop. So when the marking is indicated, it does imply keep getting faster, bit by bit, until the end.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Perhaps ... but I would argue that it makes nonsense of the pauses if you aren't aware of them, particularly the next to last.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I just listened to the ending of Robert Kajanus' recording of the symphony from 1932. Given how close he was to Sibelius, one would expect that he knew what Sibelius had in mind, and he does indeed include the extended pauses.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I don't know what you mean by "extended pauses". They're just rests marked in the score. Out of curiosity I just pulled out Karajan on DG and he follows that stretto perfectly - until the very end, oddly. If you mark the beats he's clearly, and carefully getting quicker - and then takes breath before the very last note, it seems. That last chord is not in the stretto pattern established.

Sibelius was notably reticent to talk about his music. Even someone as close as Simon Parmet, who wrote the essential "The Symphonies of Sibelius" couldn't get the composer to open up about those closing chords - why, for example, were the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th scored so differently and sounded weaker? The composer wouldn't say. The composer was also notorious for telling different conductors conflicting things about his works. I knew a conductor, Thor Johnson, who conducted the 2nd in Finland and went out to see Sibelius regarding "correct" tempos in that symphony - all he got was basically, whatever you feel is right. Of course by that time Sibelius was quite old, frail, and alcohol had addled his brain.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Perhaps equating pause and rest was a mistake but I do understand the meaning of the score markings. Be that as it may, there is a substantial difference between Karajan and Kajanus. For me the latter makes more sense.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

For me, what comes before those last chords is what is really the most important. the overlapping, dovetailing of the main theme is quite glorious if done right...as in -
Bernstein/NYPO - one of Lenny's best ever, and NYPO sounds glorious - tremendously powerful, with the great depth of virtuosity in the winds and brass readily apparent....
Nobody gets the closing section right the way Bernstein does - he correctly sees that the melody passes to and from the trumpets and trombones, who are giving it full throttle treatment...I heard a broadcast of Salonen/LAPO that came very close...
Bernstein also gets the conclusion of Part I [mvts I & II] just right, with the acelerando gauged perfectly...this is really rousing stuff, to be sure...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I understand that the famous horn motif of the finale is condensed into those final chords - one can hear and see that that is the case.

I love the Vladimir Ashkenazy & Philharmonia Orchestra.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

The 1915 version - Lahti Symphony Orchestra conducted by Osmo Vänskä:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Apparently - the producer of pop group Strawberry Switchblade was a Sibelius fan:


----------



## Guest (Jun 7, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Apparently - the producer of pop group Strawberry Switchblade was a Sibelius fan:


Or, more likely...


----------

