# The Sibelius Symphonies - #1 in e



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Recently there was a series of threads about the individual Mahler symphonies. Having listened to quite a bit of Sibelius recently, I thought that it would be interesting to do something similar, so here we go.

The 1st has never been one of my favourites, for a long time I felt that it owed more to late Tchaikovsky than early Sibelius, but my view has changed over the last year or so. I still won't put it amongst the best but it is definitely Sibelius. Also, having watched a video of Kullervo this week (incidentally I will do a Kullervo thread after the symphonies), and listening to a few different 1sts tonight, I can certainly hear bits of Kullervo, particularly in the slow movement.

The versions that I have kept are:
Barbirolli/Halle - the later EMI recording
Gibson/Scottish National
Rouvali/Gothenburg
Anon (about which more later!) 

Of the first 3, I am bit surprised to find my preference to be Rouvali then Gibson then Barbirolli. The Gibson had been my preference but now it is tipped ever so slightly by Rouvali's recent recording (there is also a concert performance on gsoplay.se - vimeo) is definitely a young man's performance, but then the 1st is a symphony by a (relatively) young man and it seems to work. I think that Barbirolli's, being typically slower, is one of the weaker parts of his Halle cycle.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

And on to Anon 

In sampling some recordings this evening, I came across one that surprised me in quite a few ways. So much so that I thought that I would post it anonymously here and solicit opinions. This isn't intended to be one of the blind comparisons so if you recognize it, feel free to speak up.

1st movement - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZrtoI7ZzIll8kS6HG0YSGdef1BpEfnMfLvX
2nd movement - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZctoI7ZIKJkkGSmkkhL4eHgJkelppNoNGdX
3rd movement - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZotoI7ZnxxesuC2kay9zBQzv5dfzQpfENxX
4th movement - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ06oI7ZwO5tlGLg8TXW0fWscLWzN0Fn7mz7


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

I have always enjoyed the Sibelius 1st more than his other symphonies. I had Kamu and Barbirolli on lp, and still have Watanabe. My digital versions are led by Vänskä and Sanderling.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Becca said:


> And on to Anon
> 
> In sampling some recordings this evening, I came across one that surprised me in quite a few ways. So much so that I thought that I would post it anonymously here and solicit opinions. This isn't intended to be one of the blind comparisons so if you recognize it, feel free to speak up.
> 
> ...


Hmmm. Whilst I liked the general performance I do not like the sound at all. It's really bass-shy and the strings sound wiry and thin. In fact that detracted a lot from what was a decent account. Listened to it on my main hi-fi and it still sounded thin. Is it just me?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> Recently there was a series of threads about the individual Mahler symphonies. Having listened to quite a bit of Sibelius recently, I thought that it would be interesting to do something similar, so here we go.
> 
> The 1st has never been one of my favourites, for a long time I felt that it owed more to late Tchaikovsky than early Sibelius, but my view has changed over the last year or so. I still won't put it amongst the best but it is definitely Sibelius. Also, having watched a video of Kullervo this week (incidentally I will do a Kullervo thread after the symphonies), and listening to a few different 1sts tonight, I can certainly hear bits of Kullervo, particularly in the slow movement.
> 
> ...


Your position echoes mine. Sibelius remains my favourite composer but I consider the 1st (and the 2nd and 3rd) symphonies as poorer efforts compared to 4, 5, 6 and 7.

I agree that the 1st owes a lot to Tchaikovsky and where this occurs - what I perceive as sentimentality - really grates. Of course, it's a subjective observation.

Even so, I think there is great crafting in the these early symphonies but the flavour is markedly different in his later works.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

The First was my introduction to Sibelius Symphonies, about 40 years ago, the Colin Davis/Boston recording. I played it to death and then like the Tchaikovsky Symphonies, I needed a hiatus of a few decades before I could start enjoying it again. I love that long brooding clarinet solo that opens it, and the shimmering string entrance. II can drag in some recordings, but Davis managed it perfectly. III has always been a favorite, especially the timpani parts.I enjoy the on the sleeve emotion of IV but I know several people that really dislike it. It certainly owes a debt to Tchaikovsky Six, but so what...
Besides Davis, Ormandy is superb, and Bergland in Bournemouth is my third choice


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Is there anyone, like me, who finds the first few notes of the clarinet solo sounds a bit like Nina Rota's Godfather before it turns itself into Kullervo? :lol:

Have to confess I don't listen to #1 very often. Off the top of my head, I remember the freshness of Ashkenazy/Philharmonia 1984 (Decca), and the quick but rather expressive Kajanus/RPO 1930 (reissued by Naxos most recently).

Will have to re-listen to all the usual suspects like Colin Davis, Barbirolli, Neeme Järvi, Berglund, Saraste etc. again. Usually I avoid Karajan and Rattle in Sibelius, for the former shall we say his Sibelius is not very agile and for the latter his fussiness, but honestly I don't remember how their #1s sound like, so maybe it's a good opportunity to refresh my memory with some real listening. :lol:

Read that Vänskä doesn't drag on and on so I'm curious. Any opinion?


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I've always loved Sibelius #1, my favorite of his after #5. great first symphony, wonderful to hear and most rewarding to perform. the great Sibelian sonorities abound in this fine work, along with wonderful tunes....I've never really paid much attention to the Tchaikovsky references....it certainly sounds like Sibelius to me.
Bernstein/NYPO tops the list for me, Stokowski/Nat'lPO is good too...Lenny had a wonderful way with Sibelius - it's big, brawny, strong....with growling basses, snarling brass, full-throated WWs....he builds the work beautifully - the poignant 2nd mvt is so passionately delivered, the passage preceding the recap in mvt I is really special, the soaring violins singing out the tune over the woodwind scales, leading into the rousing recap....wonderful stuff...

Sibelius #1 = a great "first" symphony....one of my favorites.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I love all the Sibelius symphonies and that certainly includes 1. The use of big tunes can remind of Tchaikovsky but there is plenty of Sibelian wildness (and Sibelian stillness), too. If the Tchaikovsky similarities worry you then Vanska's excellent Lahti recording and a few others downplay it. Rozhdestvensky - as you might expect the Tchaikovsky similarities are not hidden - is a favourite but I enjoy a wide range of approaches in this work (I have 16 accounts!).


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

The second movement is just so beautiful it brings tears to the eyes. No one but Sibelius could have written it. Everyone says it's so heavily influenced by Tchaikovsky - I know his works quite well - and I've never heard the connection. Too bad this marvelous work takes the back seat to nos. 2 and 5. I rarely see it programmed. Blomstedt/SFO for me.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Merl said:


> Hmmm. Whilst I liked the general performance I do not like the sound at all. It's really bass-shy and the strings sound wiry and thin. In fact that detracted a lot from what was a decent account. Listened to it on my main hi-fi and it still sounded thin. Is it just me?


I think that I will leave it unsaid for a while, see if anyone else speaks up. FYI, it is Barbirolli and the New York Philharmonic from 1942! What surprised me is how exceptionally clean recording sounded and relatively good high frequencies given its provenance. I found it on Facebook and had to wonder if it was misattributed.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I've never heard much of a Tchaikovsky connection either, and it's one of my favourite Sibelius works (but there are many of those). My favorite recording has to be Bernstein and the Vienna Philharmonic, though I also like Karajan, Berglund and Barbirolli, amongst others.


----------



## CnC Bartok (Jun 5, 2017)

This, and surprisingly the Fifth, are my least favourite of the Sibelius Symphonies, but that's not in any way an insult, I promise.

The one that really shines out for me as the best I've heard, is the old recording by Anthony Collins, London SO, 1952, mono, but believe me, so what?! It's just magical; hear it!!!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> The second movement is just so beautiful it brings tears to the eyes. No one but Sibelius could have written it. Everyone says it's so heavily influenced by Tchaikovsky - I know his works quite well - and I've never heard the connection. Too bad this marvelous work takes the back seat to nos. 2 and 5. I rarely see it programmed. Blomstedt/SFO for me.


I agree, I don't hear a big Tchaikovsky connection....I've been lucky enough to perform Sibelius #1 a couple of different times - a great joy....excellent bassoon part!! 2 and 5 have great bassoon parts too...Sibelius really explored the low orchestra sonority - celli/basses, bassoons, trombone/tuba, etc....


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Heck148 said:


> I agree, I don't hear a big Tchaikovsky connection....I've been lucky enough to perform Sibelius #1 a couple of different times - a great joy....excellent bassoon part!! 2 and 5 have great bassoon parts too...Sibelius really explored the low orchestra sonority - celli/basses, bassoons, trombone/tuba, etc....


I read a book about the music of Sibelius written by someone who knew him, I'm I don't recall the name. But I do recall he quoted Sibelius as saying that the bassoon is the soul of Finnish music! And here I thought my chosen instrument was the Clown of the Orchestra.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Becca said:


> And on to Anon
> 
> In sampling some recordings this evening, I came across one that surprised me in quite a few ways. So much so that I thought that I would post it anonymously here and solicit opinions. This isn't intended to be one of the blind comparisons so if you recognize it, feel free to speak up.
> 
> ...


I see that only Merl has commented on this...

I found this on YouTube where it purports to be John Barbirolli conducting the New York Philharmonic in 1942. I have looked to see if there was some way that I could confirm that it does indeed come from the "Barbirolli - Columbia Masters" set, but have been unable to. What surprised me so much (other than the very non-Barbirollian tempi) is that the recording has no surface noisy and a relatively wide frequency range for something coming from that period - almost too wide given the noise filtering that seems to have been done.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

Becca said:


> I see that only Merl has commented on this...
> 
> I found this on YouTube where it purports to be John Barbirolli conducting the New York Philharmonic in 1942. I have looked to see if there was some way that I could confirm that it does indeed come from the "Barbirolli - Columbia Masters" set, but have been unable to. What surprised me so much (other than the very non-Barbirollian tempi) is that the recording has no surface noisy and a relatively wide frequency range for something coming from that period - almost too wide given the noise filtering that seems to have been done.


I agree with your comments in particular regarding the sound quality which is really not bad especially for something nearly 80 years old


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Becca said:


> I see that only Merl has commented on this...
> 
> I found this on YouTube where it purports to be John Barbirolli conducting the New York Philharmonic in 1942. I have looked to see if there was some way that I could confirm that it does indeed come from the "Barbirolli - Columbia Masters" set, but have been unable to. What surprised me so much (other than the very non-Barbirollian tempi) is that the recording has no surface noisy and a relatively wide frequency range for something coming from that period - almost too wide given the noise filtering that seems to have been done.


The lack of hiss had led me to guessing it was a bad recording from the 50s/60s, "bad" because it sounds too thin/harsh for a recording made in the 50s/60s. For a 1942 recording, the frequency spectrum is good. Off the top of my head, Weingartner's 1930s Beethoven (EMI, 1996 Japan) sounds similarly good, although it is full of hisses.

The performance sounds heroic enough... and fast, almost 4 1/2 mins faster than his 1969 Hallé account!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Becca said:


> I see that only Merl has commented on this...
> 
> I found this on YouTube where it purports to be John Barbirolli conducting the New York Philharmonic in 1942. I have looked to see if there was some way that I could confirm that it does indeed come from the "Barbirolli - Columbia Masters" set, but have been unable to. What surprised me so much (other than the very non-Barbirollian tempi) is that the recording has no surface noisy and a relatively wide frequency range for something coming from that period - almost too wide given the noise filtering that seems to have been done.


Oh, sorry. I meant to. I thought it very good, clearly the work of a conductor who has a real talent for Sibelius. As you say, the recording quality was excellent for its age.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

I have enjoyed the 1st done by Maurice Abravenel and the Utah Symphony. This Orchestra is widely recorded especially under Abravenel. They usually do a good job.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

The least familiar of his symphonies for me but I find I like it more than I remembered liking it, especially the second movement. The epic thematic returns in the finale and elsewhere suggest he was going for dramatic unity on the grand scale more overtly than in any of the others except perhaps, and obviously, the Seventh(?) Sounds like a cross between Wagner and Rimsky-Korsakoff to me, although some of the wind writing in the finale is a bit too thick for the latter.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> ....But I do recall he quoted Sibelius as saying that the bassoon is the soul of Finnish music! ......


that's great!! I'd not heard of that before...but it fits...Sibelius wrote great bassoon parts...


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2019)

janxharris said:


> Your position echoes mine. Sibelius remains my favourite composer but I consider the 1st (and the 2nd and 3rd) symphonies as poorer efforts compared to 4, 5, 6 and 7.
> 
> I agree that the 1st owes a lot to Tchaikovsky and where this occurs - what I perceive as sentimentality - really grates. Of course, it's a subjective observation.
> 
> Even so, I think there is great crafting in the these early symphonies but the flavour is markedly different in his later works.


Subjective, yes, but I agree.



Triplets said:


> I love that long brooding clarinet solo that opens it, and the shimmering string entrance.


Perhaps the only thing in the whole symphony I like.



Becca said:


> it owed more to late Tchaikovsky than early Sibelius


Exactly so. Which makes it much less enjoyable for me than the rest. I suppose I should say that it's not because it resembles Tchaikovsky that I dislike it, but because it does some of the same things I dislike that Tchaikovsky also does. And as someone else suggested, Rachmaninov.

Here's an example, from 31:07 onwards






I listened again to it yesterday - David/LSO Live - and I still find little to commend it. I'd much rather the Firsts of Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Beethoven, Mahler...


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Its possibly my favorite Sibelius symphony. My favorites don't seem to jive with the consensus around here --> 1, 3 and 6.

2 and 5 are the ones I enjoy the least.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2019)

tdc said:


> My favorites don't seem to jive with the consensus around here --> 1, 3 and 6.


Well we can agree on 6th - it's my favourite!


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

the 5th symphony remains my favourite symphony by any composer, while the first has never really appealed to me.However as someone who periodically picks up alternate recordings of works by certain composers I recently encountered the Berglund COE recording and for some reason the symphony held a greater appeal than usual-concise, precise perhaps but undoubtedly (to these ears anyway) more clearly related to what would come later from the great man!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Well we can agree on 6th - it's my favourite!


I must admit it's subtleties were lost on me for quite some time. I heard it live at the Barbican under Tilson Thomas (LSO) and it was really beautiful.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

jim prideaux said:


> the 5th symphony remains my favourite symphony by any composer, while the first has never really appealed to me.However as someone who periodically picks up alternate recordings of works by certain composers I recently encountered the Berglund COE recording and for some reason the symphony held a greater appeal than usual-concise, precise perhaps but undoubtedly (to these ears anyway) more clearly related to what would come later from the great man!


What do you think of the 1915 version? (perhaps post here if you want to respond - I posted a YT of that version there).


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Like others on this thread (though not tdc!), I think Sibelius' 1st is the weakest of his symphonies. He had yet to find his own 'voice', so the 1st is too redolent of late C19th Russian works e.g. Rimsky, Borodin. Both fine composers, but S needed to move away from that influence. And the writing is too dense in places, lacking the clarity that is typical of much of his later works. It's not a *bad* symphony by any means, but lacks the qualities of 2nd to 7th. 

And while I'm here and on the subject, if you're not familiar with the 3rd, give it a listen or two.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

^^^^^^^can only support the above observation regarding the 3rd!


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> Well we can agree on 6th - it's my favourite!


The 6th is also on my top 3 list along with the 3rd and 5th.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Why judge the 1st by comparing it to the later symphonies? I don't hear it as "too Tchaikovskian" or too anything. I find it darkly powerful, its romantic sweep and craggy brusqueness perfectly integrated, and excellent on its own terms.

In all the Sibelius symphonies I'm less than fond only of the last movement of the 2nd, which seems a bit shallow in its triumphalism. The ending of the 1st is subtler and more Sibelian in its ambivalence.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> *Why judge the 1st by comparing it to the later symphonies? *I don't hear it as "too Tchaikovskian" or too anything. I find it darkly powerful, its romantic sweep and craggy brusqueness perfectly integrated, and excellent on its own terms.
> 
> In all the Sibelius symphonies I'm less than fond only of the last movement of the 2nd, which seems a bit shallow in its triumphalism. The ending of the 1st is subtler and more Sibelian in its ambivalence.


Well...why not ?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Well...why not ?


For the same reason we don't judge it by "Waltzing Matilda." Or do you do that too?


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> For the same reason we don't judge it by "Waltzing Matilda." Or do you do that too?


LOL! No. I can't follow your logic there, cobber!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> LOL! No. I can't follow your logic there, cobber!


Just a bit of hyperbolic excess, if you'll permit me a redundancy. Me point, mate? It's unprofitable to judge unlike things against each other. Sib's 1st and 2nd are _Romantic_ symphonies with a Sibelian flavor, and right good ones too. His 3rd is something different - a happy experiment - and by his 4th he's writing a new kind of music.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> It's unprofitable to judge unlike things against each other.


Unprofitable for you, perhaps, but it's obvious that most posting across this series of threads are finding profit in it.

The essence of the comparison is just saying which you like and why, but since all here are fans of Sibelius, I don't think anyone is getting into serious 'judgement'.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Would it be worth investigating if there is a link between a preference for the early Sibelius symphonies (say 1-3) and admiration for Tchaikovsky? I struggle with nearly all of Tchaikovsky and put Sibelius symphonies 1-3 at the bottom of the pile.

No suggestion that such a position is superior is implied.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I have nothing against the music of Tchaikovsky, I do like some of it, but he is a composer I don't listen to very often. None of Sibelius has ever made me think of Tchaikovsky. Sibelius, essentially just sounds like Sibelius to me. He has a pretty distinct sound, structurally he perhaps vaguely reminds me of Brahms sometimes.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Becca said:


> The 6th is also on my top 3 list along with the 3rd and 5th.


And you are, of course, absolutely correct!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

tdc said:


> I have nothing against the music of Tchaikovsky, I do like some of it, but he is a composer I don't listen to very often. None of Sibelius has ever made me think of Tchaikovsky. Sibelius, essentially just sounds like Sibelius to me. He has a pretty distinct sound, structurally he perhaps vaguely reminds me of Brahms sometimes.


I agree. There's a tendency for any large work in a tonal idiom and a Romantic style composed from around 1900 on to be labeled either Tchaikovskian or Wagnerian, depending on how chromatic its harmony is. Sibelius's violin concerto was called by someone "the best concerto Tchaikovsky ever wrote." It's just laziness; it saves people the effort of understanding and describing music on its own terms.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Tchaikovsky / early Sibelius similarity:


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

janxharris said:


> Tchaikovsky / early Sibelius similarity:


I certainly hear some similarities for a few seconds here and there between those clips, but the over-all feel of the music remains very different to my ears.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

This thread has sent me off looking for performances of Sibelius 1 that really bring out the Sibelian elements.

There's a really fine reading of it by Saraste and the Oslo Phil on You Tube at:






The 1st movement is the most characteristically Sibelius, not least the absolutely gorgeous clarinet opening, then it seems to become more and more 'Russian' as the symphony goes on. Earlier on this thread, WoodDuck comments that the the last movement of #2 seems 'a bit shallow'. Regarding the last movement of #1, I wouldn't put it quite in those words but I do get the feeling that he was reaching for a massive, epic sound that the music just doesn't quite attain - reach exceeds grasp. But I repeat, I don't think it's a poor or ineffective symphony, just not as distinctive and innovative as the other half-dozen.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

tdc said:


> I certainly hear some similarities for a few seconds here and there between those clips, but the over-all feel of the music remains very different to my ears.


I agree - that was just a for instance. I would also draw a parallel with the big sweeping themes that Tchaikovsky used and, say, the finale of Sibelius's 2nd symphony.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

janxharris said:


> Tchaikovsky / early Sibelius similarity:


_
Finlandia,_ written with patriotic intent, is probably as near to Russian Romanticism as Sibelius got (ironic, since Russia was the oppressor). It's closer to Tchaikovsky than the 1st symphony or Kullervo, and much closer than the 2nd symphony or Violin Concerto. There's no doubt that Russian music influenced him, but his own style evolved quickly.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> _Finlandia,_ written with patriotic intent, is probably as near to Russian Romanticism as Sibelius got (ironic, since Russia was the oppressor).


What does "oppressor" mean? To this day many Southerners refer not to the Civil War but to the War of Southern Independence. If their cause had succeeded, surely they would refer to the Union side as "oppressors."

Similarly, Finland had been a duchy of the Russian Empire for over a century when it declared independence in 1917. That was longer than any of the southern states had been in our own union. Russia wasn't about to allow this to happen any more than we did in 1861, or would today.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

I have pretty much all the possible recordings of complete sets. And historical recordings of the 30s and 40s. I have some trouble with two Sibelius works: Symphony 1 and Kullervo. Both have wonderful parts but as a whole I suffer through other parts. With the Symphony it is toward the end. The last movement just goes on and on. I've listened to it alone, and I can enjoy some of it. But when you tack it on to the end, I seem to suffer.

As a note, I don't much care for Tchaikovsky. Maybe the one symphony and some ballets. I never listen to them anymore.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

janxharris said:


> Would it be worth investigating if there is a link between a preference for the early Sibelius symphonies (say 1-3) and admiration for Tchaikovsky? I struggle with nearly all of Tchaikovsky and put Sibelius symphonies 1-3 at the bottom of the pile.
> 
> No suggestion that such a position is superior is implied.


Hah, I wrote something similar, but the 2nd is a bit nostalgic and patriotic for us Finns, so give it a pass. The 3rd, 6th and 7th I listen to often.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> What does "oppressor" mean? To this day many Southerners refer not to the Civil War but to the War of Southern Independence. If their cause had succeeded, surely they would refer to the Union side as "oppressors."
> 
> Similarly, Finland had been a duchy of the Russian Empire for over a century when it declared independence in 1917. That was longer than any of the southern states had been in our own union. Russia wasn't about to allow this to happen any more than we did in 1861, or would today.


Does it matter? The Finns felt they were Finns, not Russians. Actually, they _were_ Finns. They even had a language called Finnish. What language did the American south speak? Slave-ic?

(BTW, If the south tried to secede again, some of us wouldn't object.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Does it matter? The Finns felt they were Finns, not Russians. Actually, they _were_ Finns. They even had a language called Finnish. What language did the American south speak? Slave-ic?
> 
> (BTW, If the south tried to secede again, some of us wouldn't object.)


My point is, often words are chosen by the winners. Russia didn't win that one, except bits and pieces. However, they were pretty sure they would win after signing their infamous treaty with Germany. This left them free to keep up the attack to recover Finland. Shostakovich was even commissioned to write his Suite on Finnish Themes in 1939, to be played upon victory. That didn't happen.

Finland allied itself with Germany, looking for some protection from Russia. That was noticed by Britain, which declared war on Finland (a fact often forgotten today). They dropped exactly one bomb on Finland, which missed its target. Perhaps their hearts weren't really in it.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

I restate my opinion that Sibelius Sym #1 is really a great piece...and an outstanding "first" symphony...one of my favorites, along wit Shostakovich and Walton....I vastly prefer Sibelius #1 to his #6, which to me seems like a real misfire....just doesn't go anywhere....don't know what he was thinking...[??]


----------



## MusicSybarite (Aug 17, 2017)

Count me as another big fan of this symphony. I do hear echoes from Tchaikovsky in the 4th movement, but I also hear the Sibelius voice emerging from here, many of his features already appear in this work. Ashkenazy/PO is a favorite, and Rattle/CBSO make a satisfying performance as well.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I agree. There's a tendency for any large work in a tonal idiom and a Romantic style composed from around 1900 on to be labeled either Tchaikovskian or Wagnerian, depending on how chromatic its harmony is. Sibelius's violin concerto was called by someone "the best concerto Tchaikovsky ever wrote." It's just laziness; it saves people the effort of understanding and describing music on its own terms.


Is it also lazy just to say that I think the symphony is pants, and any resemblance that there may be to another composer I don't actually listen to is irrelevant?

I thought I was clear in saying


> it's not because it resembles Tchaikovsky that I dislike it, but because it does some of the same things I dislike that Tchaikovsky also does.


I even pointed to the part I dislike. I'm sorry I don't have the technical capability to say what the music is doing "in its own terms" that turns me off. It just doesn't work _for me_.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Is it also lazy just to say that I think the symphony is pants, and any resemblance that there may be to another composer I don't actually listen to is irrelevant?
> 
> I thought I was clear in saying
> 
> I even pointed to the part I dislike. I'm sorry I don't have the technical capability to say what the music is doing "in its own terms" that turns me off. It just doesn't work _for me_.


I didn't call you lazy. My remarks on the Tchaikovsky comparison weren't addressed to you. Several others made that comparison back on page one. I merely observed that it's something people tend to do, and that it's too easy and not very accurate.


----------



## Guest (Jun 13, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> I didn't call you lazy.


Well that's a relief. Thanks


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Well that's a relief. Thanks


If one thing is obvious about you, it's that you're not lazy.

Actually, I don't really know that. Are you?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I had only had the Kamu 1st, and enjoyed it quite a bit. But I recently acquired the Karajan EMI recording (on Warner). I like it even better - I am a sucker for a well-miked tympani.

Comparing it to the rest of his symphonic ouvre, it might be my second favorite after the 7th, which has a cosmic, glacial quality that I adore. The first is so propulsive and exciting.

It took me a while to rip it onto my music player, though. I really dislike Warner's copy protection policy, and will avoid their products in the future.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

Well I played all 7 symphonies, the most recent Kamu. I see a sort of disconnect between 1 and then 2-7. Though I found 2 a bit heavy handed and repetitive in the last movement, it is still all familiar Sibelius. The 1st has just sort of glimpses of Sibelius. I seem to like Sibelius at slow and medium tempo. All the familiar shorter pieces and suites are OK, but I kind of dislike the orchestras bsing overly dramatic with loud fast sfuff. And that there is in the 1st.

The 3rd alone would not leave a major mark for Sibelius, if that were his major work. But it too is pleasant enough for me. Some of his theater music is similarly slightly cheesy. Sort of like movie soundtracks of today.

I played another favorite, the Lemminkäinen suite. The 6-7 minutes of heroic music at the end seems about right for me. Wraps up the piece of music, and has a small bang at the end for those that need the exclamation point at the end of a sentence.


----------



## david johnson (Jun 25, 2007)

Woodduck said:


> Does it matter? The Finns felt they were Finns, not Russians. Actually, they _were_ Finns. They even had a language called Finnish. What language did the American south speak? Slave-ic?
> 
> (BTW, If the south tried to secede again, some of us wouldn't object.)


Woodduck: these comments regarding the South are tasteless malarkey. Unless you apologize, I will not object if you leave the USA


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Like others on this thread (though not tdc!), I think Sibelius' 1st is the weakest of his symphonies. He had yet to find his own 'voice', so the 1st is too redolent of late C19th Russian works e.g. Rimsky, Borodin. Both fine composers, but S needed to move away from that influence. And the writing is too dense in places, lacking the clarity that is typical of much of his later works. It's not a *bad* symphony by any means, but lacks the qualities of 2nd to 7th.
> 
> And while I'm here and on the subject, if you're not familiar with the 3rd, give it a listen or two.


I certainly think of it as a great symphony. I can't easily compare it to other Sibelius symphonies - I love them all and they are all very different from each other (in the same way that Beethoven's are) - but feel it compares very well with many symphonies we think of as great, including all those by Tchaikovsky. The Tchaikovsky "similarity" is in its (very effective) use of big tunes but it these are situated within music of true Sibelian wildness. Some performances play these up while playing down the Tchaikovskian side if you object to the latter. Vanska's first recording is a particularly strong example. I love the later Tchaikovsky symphonies but do not really hear them as similar to anything that Sibelius produced: we are talking of an influence on the early Sibelius rather than an overt similarity. You could not - not in a million years - mistake Sibelius 1 as a work by Tchaikovsky.


----------

