# Blind Comparison - Sibelius Symphony #7



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

By (semi-)popular demand, yet another blind comparison, this time for the Sibelius 7th.

As before I have selected 5 interesting performances, some studio, some live, and put links to them below. The point of the exercise is to listen to them and comment about the performances without any biases from knowing the conductor/orchestra. While the object is not to try to guess, I'm sure that most will be doing that, so go for it! All that I ask is that if you recognize the performance, please don't post the details. If you want to find out about your thoughts before I post the results, please PM me with them and I will respond.

One comment, the presence of any in this group does not presume my opinion about them!

A - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ7feE7Zy6haHtOfTDVES8M6eqrnQQQx1EOX
B - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZLfeE7ZvreFLhuiiOzL71uA7omlfQmJae7y
C -https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZQfeE7ZKgQ7i2g9kXHX1LI6bfgsk0VvdCUk
D -https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ0fnE7Z5HKGxR7tkp5i1slFMN77G763Mn70
E - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZBfeE7ZgJLUcsuBhTfeOB3vbUvubk72G9TV

Enjoy!


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

So from heaviest to lightest, the continuum seems to be A-B-E-C. 

"A" seems to lay on the layers of sound the most thickly, and is willing to elongate phrases (especially in the 2.Vivacissimo/Adagio "Interstellar" climax portion) in a way that adds quite a bit of pathos. 

"C" is more fleet in its phrasing and more thin in sound. The climactic portion has much more clipped brass notes, which initially I disliked, but they do add a sense of menace and unpredictability. 

"B" and "E" are in between those poles. They are fine but don't stand out in any particular way. 

They were all enjoyable listens, though "C" would be the one I'd return to least, because I like my Sibelius to sound cosmic and glacial, not airy and thin. "A" is my winner, and I think I know who it is, but of course will not spill


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I have just added the missing like for D

D - https://my.pcloud.com/publink/show?code=XZ0fnE7Z5HKGxR7tkp5i1slFMN77G763Mn70


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Having heard D, it is down near the bottom, since it is also thinner sounding. Upon more listening, E is probably tied with A. It's slightly thinner but has the same nice booming lines.

So my ranking would go:
A-Tie
E-Tie
B
D
C


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Interesting rankings


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> By (semi-)popular demand, yet another blind comparison, this time for the Sibelius 7th.
> 
> As before I have selected 5 interesting performances, some studio, some live, and put links to them below. The point of the exercise is to listen to them and comment about the performances without any biases from knowing the conductor/orchestra. While the object is not to try to guess, I'm sure that most will be doing that, so go for it! All that I ask is that if you recognize the performance, please don't post the details. If you want to find out about your thoughts before I post the results, please PM me with them and I will respond.
> 
> ...


None of these links worked for me Becca. I get a blank white page.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Whoop! Will have a listen tomorrow and at the start of next week. This should be interesting.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Dived in as Mrs Merl isn't up yet. Just listened to C. Live, a little hissy (ADD) but lots of menace. The intro is definitely 'old school' and is usually played much smoother than this in more modern accounts. This is a conductor with character. I love the phrasing of that intro and the sharpness in that brass later on. This guy doesn't hang around and I really enjoyed this moody reading. Definitely older conductor, even in the analogue age. That initial reading has made me hungry to hear more.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Thanks Becca for setting this up!

Listened to B, D and A in this order this morning. Intend to continue with the rest tomorrow.

Super beautiful playing in B. The seamlessness between sections is amazing. However, the character of each section seems to blend into the overall unity (i.e. a bit boring).

D goes for character in the expense of subtlety. It brings out the character of each section very well. The notes are hammered out distinctively in big motifs, but to a point where, at some places the phrasing sounds fussy.

A is better. It brings out the various characters distinctly but without the fussiness of D.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Couldn't wait any longer so I dived into recording E. Well it's definitely studio. Sounds digital and is very well recorded. It's a very nice acount indeed, bringing some of Berglund's inner detail but with the enthusiasm of Maazel's first cycle. Some lovely playing throughout.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Great thread idea! - have to provide partial commentary due to time constraints and reserve the right to capriciously re-write commentary based purely on whim but - 

"A" - densely textured layers - little separation of orchestral sections - tight oversaturated instrumental blend - steady lock-step rhythm - over-conducted - composer and conductor appear to be receiving equal credit... more craft than art...

"B" - moderately textured layers - clear separation of orchestral sections - graceful instrumental blend - clearly articulated - melodically agile without sacrificing rhythmic intensity - well-conducted by an artist who hasn't forgotten primary status as musician - thoughtful reading of composer's intent clearly inspires players... equal blend of craft and art...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Just listened to Recording A and have to concur with what's been said, already. It's got a lush, densely homogenised sound that's very out of fashion at the moment but sounds lovely to these old 'raised on Karajan' ears. In fact, its sound is like an old 70s American recording I had of Holst's Planets and if it was a bit longer I'd go for that conductor and orchestra (he usually did broader readings of this particular work). For some this might be a bit densely textured but I like it. This is a conductor in tight control and a very capable orchestra (lovely strings). 70s, live, analogue? If not sounds like it. Lol. Only 2 to go and then I'll rank them. Loving this comparison, Becca. Good choice.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

It would seem that i am the only one who cannot access the sound files.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

janxharris said:


> None of these links worked for me Becca. I get a blank white page.


It is probably how your browser is configured, i.e. it doesn't recognize the file type and automatically start a player. Can you try a different browser?


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

janxharris said:


> It would seem that i am the only one who cannot access the sound files.


What OS platform are you using to access these mp3 files? If you're using an iPad you might need to either download this app -

https://itunes.apple.com/app/pcloud-free-cloud-storage-for-your-files/id692002098#?platform=ipad

or perhaps try this tutorial -

https://thedroidguy.com/2019/01/how...onnecting-to-itunes-no-jailbreak-needed-52624


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Right, I couldn't wait any longer so I've listened to them all now. So here's my thoughts (apologies for repeating myself on some of these). First of all I'd like to say thank you to Becca for these. I enjoyed all 5 performances but some much more than others. So, I order of rank ....

1st: E
This just shaded it for me. Excellent account and one I really enjoyed. A super recording and one that I think I already have. I loved the overall balance and it never lagged or sounded samey. Very 'British' sounding. Lovely.

2nd: C
Another from a bygone era. Heavily characterised (especialy in that old-stylee intro) and very East European (or even further) in approach. Love those raspy, colourful horns and characterful trombone. Some nice woodwind too and lovely use of dynamics. With a better recorded sound this would possibly have been vying for top spot. Loved it.

3rd: A
Yeah, I know it's a very homogenised sound but those strings are so beautiful that it's hard not to love this one. This one out-Karajan's HvK in parts. Orchestra put in a stellar shift on this and I do like the strict control of the conductor (others may not). A real throwback. Transatlantic sounding.

4th: B
Really enjoyed the overall balance of this performance. Some beautiful string playing and the trombone sounds natural and relaxed. A fine performance. Sounds digital, live and modern but there's some very noisy page-turning in quieter passages. Didn't distract from an otherwise excellent performance. 

5th: D
Although I enjoyed this one I felt it lacked character. A balanced performance but let down by some inferior trombone playing and some reticence in the strings. Still decent but a bit cold for my tastes. Again, I think this one is fairly modern and although it's the shortest of the 5 readings it felt longer as it hasn't as much forward momentum. Is it Scandinavian? Curious. Not got a clue about this one. 

I've only listened to these performances once so they're snap judgements but I've listened intently. Some of my guesses and summations may be well wide of the mark but that's all they are. I've got a good idea of one of these and might be able to guess at least one more but for now I'll say nothing. Great comparison thread, Becca. Kudos for this. As I know, it takes some time to put these together. Thank you.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Just listened to C. It's character is so distinctive.... I think I have this CD, and if I'm right about this, this is one of my favourite Sibelius 7s. 

Despite all the sonic shortcomings from the recording (and dare I say the playing), I am overwhelmed by the grit, the contrast, the build-up and release of energy, the eruptions, the subtleties... this is indeed an epic poem!

When listening to A, B and D earlier on, I wasn't so impressed by the relatively tame intensity, but even so they are still good performances. However C is in a different league.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Great thread idea - :tiphat: - Becca!

"A" - densely textured layers - little separation of orchestral sections - tight oversaturated instrumental blend - steady lock-step rhythm - over-conducted - composer and conductor appear to be receiving equal credit... more craft than art...

"B" - moderately textured layers - clear separation of orchestral sections - graceful instrumental blend - clearly articulated - melodically agile without sacrificing rhythmic intensity - well-conducted by an artist who hasn't forgotten primary status as musician - thoughtful reading of composer's intent clearly inspires players... equal blend of craft and art...

"C" - lightly textured layers - clear and open separation of orchestral sections - lyrical interpretation with emphasis on melody with an underplayed yet well-balanced rhythmic drive - light hand on the baton with a conductor who said what needed to be said in rehearsals and thus trusted the orchestra implicitly - beautiful phrasing - moves with grace and agility - may not be conventional but credit must go to the conductor for not sacrificing musicality for drama...

"D" - moderately textured layers - middling separation of orchestral sections - melody has a tendency to wander and meander aimlessly - lacks both a distinct lyricism and intensity of drama due to somewhat less than dynamic decisions in regards to emphasis and phrasing - may be a conventional and quite standard reading to some but I would tend to lean more towards uninspired and underwhelming...

"E" - moderately textured layers - clear separation of orchestral sections - graceful elegant pace with a beautifully lyrical sense of melody - rhythmic agility coupled with intensity - superbly conducted in front of a clearly inspired orchestra - held interest from start to finish as the music seemed to flow both effortlessly and relentlessly - craftsmanship matched by artistry...

Ranking - 

1.) E

2.) C

3.) B

4.) D

5.) A


----------



## hustlefan (Apr 29, 2016)

I like C the most, followed by B, E, A, and D.
A - appropriately slow introduction but main tempo is too fast - superficial run-through (rank=4)
B - introduction is on the fast side but expressive - middle scherzo-like section well-played with nice, light woodwinds - main tempo is not too fast - direct and plain-spoken, not histrionic or demonstrative (rank=2)
C - more emotive than the others with good pianissimos and dynamic range - brass sound full and expressive - entire performance is very alive to what the music is saying, never just going through the motions (rank=1)
D - introduction is too fast - very professional rendition without any mistakes but the orchestra sounds like they are feeling their way through the music without much knowledge of the piece - interpretation sounds casual, no effort made for musical expression until closing pages (rank=5)
E - virtuousic orchestral playing has polish and slickness but not interpretative depth - notes are played well and tempos are good but there isn't much feeling behind the notes (rank=3)


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Anyone else joining in with this? Go on, be brave!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure I can rank them although I preferred E and, then, C above the others. The thing is I am not sure I liked any of them _that _much. I had to go to my favourites when I was finished to see if I was just feeling a bit jaded with the work. I wasn't - I still get more out of my several favourites than I did with any of these. I hear this work as singing - singing almost drunkenly - and none of the offers really sang like that for me.

A - The (overly-?) expressive phrasing interrupted the flow and I got little sense of a coherent whole. 
B - This is more coherent and focused but it seemed to meander a bit in the middle, to get lost.
C - Lots of individuality and a strong sense of going somewhere. The eastern-European (probably not Russian?) sounding brass made for a nice change. But the conception was not as powerful as I would have liked or as dark.
D - More or less effective but a bit bland.
E - Nicely detailed and coherent, too. Probably the best of the bunch but I wish it sang out more!

I'm a little surprised to be so lukewarm about all. I'll try to go through them all again - but only staying with those that I want to hear more of after the first five minutes - and will post again if I want to change my opinion on any.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> It is probably how your browser is configured, i.e. it doesn't recognize the file type and automatically start a player. Can you try a different browser?


Thanks - I tried Mozilla Firefox - it worked.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Finally listened to E. There is a glimpse of a time-standing-still quality that I appreciate a lot in Sibelius while all the busy fission and fusion are going on. There are some amazing crescendi that builds up and releases magnificently. The climaxes are managed firmly under control until the very last bang where it's at last let loose. Not to mention some super beautiful playing from the orchestra.

(E reminds me of a conductor whom I dislike very much yet his Sibelius 7 is one of my favourties, but upon some checking I know it is not that conductor, at least not his commercial recording... and in fact I find E a better performance.)

Gone through all 5 at least once now (listened to E a few times in fact). Currently my favourites are C & E, C for the special quality that that conductor brings, and E for its very well portrayed "Sibelian" reading.


----------



## chesapeake bay (Aug 3, 2015)

I'm not that well versed in Sibelius, so I'm just going on listening to the 5 recordings. I liked A the best until I listened to E which is definitely my favorite of the bunch. It could just be that the recorded sound is decidedly top notch, but It also carries a subtle moodiness that I like.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Unless I am otherwise requested by someone who wants extra time to listen, I will post the results late tonight (u.s. pacific time, gmt -7hours)


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> Unless I am otherwise requested by someone who wants extra time to listen, I will post the results late tonight (u.s. pacific time, gmt -7hours)


I wouldn't be able to review the files for a week or so...but no worries.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Oh, leave it running a bit longer, Becca. I'll keep giving the odd bump.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

As you wish  Anyone wanting to know the identity of the performances can PM me.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Becca said:


> By (semi-)popular demand, yet another blind comparison, this time for the Sibelius 7th.
> 
> As before I have selected 5 interesting performances, some studio, some live, and put links to them below. The point of the exercise is to listen to them and comment about the performances without any biases from knowing the conductor/orchestra. While the object is not to try to guess, I'm sure that most will be doing that, so go for it! All that I ask is that if you recognize the performance, please don't post the details. If you want to find out about your thoughts before I post the results, please PM me with them and I will respond.
> 
> ...


I've listened to A and noticed that compression has been applied which, for me, really spoils the dynamics. Who made the upload?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Re-listening to these performances I'm more and more intrigued by recording A. It's the one that's really puzzling me. I know who it _sounds_ like but the timings don't fit with the particular conductor I'm thinking of. It's a quick, densely orchestrated reading and those two things don't usually go together (usually the denser strings equate to a broader readings - 22 or 23 minutes). I keep asking myself *who* would record a fairly swift, expressive account in Karajan-style. It's doing my head in. I think I now know 2 (one definite) but the others are more elusive. However, this recording is really intriguing. Go on, Becca, I can't wait much longer...... Spill the beans. Want us to guess on here, before you post the actual recordings? I know I PM'd you my guesses before but I've changed my mind on one.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

I re-listened to A and E... A sounds like a romantic big-band approach full of attacks. In fact I find the attacks in the middle of the symphony so enthralling that the closing passage sounds like an anti-climax. That's my only reservation about A. 

On the contrary, E sounds like a smaller orchestra (?), more agile, with the attacks kept more in check until the end. It sounds more "Sibelian" to me. I wish it would attack throughout like A and then go up one further gear at the end.

They are very different, but I can't rank one over the other.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

OK, here we go...

A - Simon Rattle / Royal Danish Orchestra - live from a Danish Radio broadcast available on YouTube
B - Alan Gilbert / New York Philharmonic - live from a commercially available CD
C - Evgeny Mravinsky / Leningrad Philharmonic - live/Tokyo
D - Thomas Beecham / Royal Philharmonic - studio
E - Alexander Gibson / Scottish National Orch. - studio

I have been quite intrigued by a couple of things. First, how many liked the Gibson. I do and am impressed by most of his SNO/Sibelius. Secondly, how many don't like the Beecham, which is (or was) a well-regarded recording.

One person commented in a PM about my always having one or two wild cards up my sleeve - I guess that describes the Rattle/RDO!

Let me congratulate Molly John who scored a complete sweep


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Rattle?! How could you?... What a surprise! Well done, Becca! I enjoy it very much, despite my one reservation about the closing passage. (It's Rattle so I have to moan about something, don't I?)

Alexander Gibson... now that you have revealed it, it doesn't sound like a surprise.  I like his Sibelius tone poems very much, so I definitely should put his set of symphonies on my wish list.

IMO Mravinsky is in a class of his own. Not only this 1977 live recording on Altus, but also his 1965 live recording on Praga (think also Melodya) where the brass sounds more "normal", and is even another minute quicker!

Don't have the Beecham studio recording so I can't tell, but do have his live recording on BBC. Good but doesn't make me go wow I'm afraid.

Had never listened to Alan Gilbert's Sibelius. Not sure I would like to investigate further though.

Thanks Beeca again for setting this up. This has been thoroughly enjoyable. Great selections by the way. Just wondering, all five recordings are on the quick side, did you pick these quicker recordings on purpose?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I guess the big surprise for me was that Beecham was not better but, aside for a great live 2 (a BBC recording), he has not been a conductor I go to for Sibelius. For the rest, I enjoyed the game but did not find any performance to topple my four or five favourites in this work. I had an EMI LP of Mravinsky doing 7 (I think it was coupled with Shostakovich 6) that I would love to hear again. Thanks, Becca.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Kiki said:


> Thanks Beeca again for setting this up. This has been thoroughly enjoyable. Great selections by the way. Just wondering, all five recordings are on the quick side, *did you pick these quicker recordings on purpose?*


No, I didn't pay attention to length,


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

So my only guess was that A was one or another of Karajan's recordings. I knew it wasn't the one I own and listen to, but it sure sounded like his dense layered approach (which I enjoy). 

What I find interesting is the statement that leaner recordings like C are more "Sibelian." What does that mean? I am given to understand that Sibelius himself was a fan of Karajan's recordings. I certainly am. Why is a sparser, more clipped-phrasing performance more "Sibelian?" 

I liked all 5, even though I had my preferences, and honestly none of them were drastically different from each other in the way that, say, Gardiner's Beethoven differs from Bernstein's.


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

Think I'm the only one who used the word "Sibelian" to describe E in this thread...

Sibelius had said of his admiration of the symphonic form's profound logic of the interconnected themes. Personally I admire a performance of the 7th that presents this inner logic (all the fission and fusion that's going on). On top of this, I also admire a performance that presents this super-concise symphony in a way as if time is standing still (sorry I can't find more comprehensible words to describe this). I think Alexander Gibson's 7th meets these criteria pretty well. That's why I like it.

However, I do not think a "dense layered approach" would necessarily fail. (Don't think a light, transparent texture would necessarily succeed either.) I also enjoy A, as well as Rattle's mellower 2015 Berlin account. Rattle has said of the ending being like a scream and something that you reach on the edge of death (instead of a victory). Perhaps that's why his overall view of the 7th sounds more like a romantic/dramatic work to me. And like I said, I also enjoy it.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Well blow me down! I can't believe recording A was Rattle. I was convinced it was someone like Ormandy as it was a really old-fashioned, lush reading. Karajan's BPO must have really rubbed off on him, lol. Knew it wasn't Karajan as I have all his recordings and he's broader. Very surprising too as it's nothing like Rattle's other Sibelius 7s. Also that rip sounded analogue so that confused me. I have and knew Gibson and had guessed Mravinsky so no surprises there. Not surprised about Beecham. Its never been a favourite Sibelius 7 of mine. Wasn't that far out on B. I actually wrote to Becca "B - Not a clue. It's modern and digital. I'm guessing American. I dunno.....erm Slatkin / Detroit, De Vriend / Houston......nice recording. Very enjoyable."

Anyway, I really enjoyed this one Becca. Thanks again.


----------



## NLAdriaan (Feb 6, 2019)

Great thread! Thx Becca. I have truly listened to all (partly) and then found out about the names. Gibson for me too from this collection. However, I am treasuring my Colin Davis LSO recordings. Great fun, would be nice to do this more often. Much more fun then the safe name dropping at TC (in which I also participate). 

I guess your pcloud system works easy? Did you rip CD's for this and Rattle from the net?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Isn't anyone else noticing that the Rattle recording is compressed?


----------



## Kiki (Aug 15, 2018)

janxharris said:


> Isn't anyone else noticing that the Rattle recording is compressed?


Well it's loud throughout. I assume it's taken from youtube, so I won't be surprised if it's dynamically compressed and/or loudness normalised. And then that youtube video also has the DR K logo, so it's most likely a television broadcast, so I bet there's dynamic compression in the original already.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

NLAdriaan said:


> Great thread! Thx Becca. I have truly listened to all (partly) and then found out about the names. Gibson for me too from this collection. However, I am treasuring my Colin Davis LSO recordings. Great fun, would be nice to do this more often. Much more fun then the safe name dropping at TC (in which I also participate).
> 
> I guess your pcloud system works easy? Did you rip CD's for this and Rattle from the net?


Yes, pcloud is easy to use. And yes, I did rip most from the net but the Beecham was from a CD that I have.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Thanks to everyone who took part, I appreciate the enthusiasm. I will do another but it may be a week or two before I can manage it.


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

This thread renewed my interest in Sibelius and I'm now on a bit of a bender. So beyond just the fun of making guesses, this has been a net positive in music appreciation. Many thanks.

Suggestions:
-a Beethoven symphony (just to stir the pot)
-some Haydn (might help me appreciate him more)
-R. Strauss (Also Sprach? Don Quixote?)
-Stravinsky's Rite of Spring


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I think that the Rite of Spring might be the perfect choice


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MatthewWeflen said:


> This thread renewed my interest in Sibelius and I'm now on a bit of a bender. So beyond just the fun of making guesses, this has been a net positive in music appreciation. Many thanks.
> 
> Suggestions:
> -a Beethoven symphony (just to stir the pot)
> ...


If you haven't already - Tapiola:


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

Tapiola has definitely been on the playlist


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I have a Sibelius Oceanides comparison I could put up today or tomorrow. I'd planned to put it out before Becca's 7th post. Anyone interested?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Go for it! I'll play.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> Go for it! I'll play.


I've just got to remember who did what version. I've got it written somewhere. Lol


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Ok, I'm gonna put it up later. *6 versions or 8 versions?* What do you guys thinks? It's only around 9-12 mins.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure I can hold 8 versions at one time in my addled mind ...


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I'm not sure I can hold 8 versions at one time in my addled mind ...


Ok, I'll go with 6. Thanks.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Ok, Siblius Oceanides comparison is up......

https://www.talkclassical.com/60958-blind-comparison-sibelius-oceanides.html#post1622627


----------



## 89Koechel (Nov 25, 2017)

Well, maybe we could return to a former thread, that virtually-ended, last April. It's about a blindfold test (well-concocted by Becca) and a challenge to name certain conductors, in Sibelius' 7th. Becca had FIVE choices, all very interesting, but have NO mention of the young Maazel (on Decca/London), nor Koussevitzky, Ehrling, etc. Maybe the "landscape" of vital, Sibelius 7th recordings has other possibilities, also. Maybe one could mention Szell, with the Cleveland?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

My blind comparisons intentionally do not include some of the better known recordings as they are often too easy to recognize, instead I look for unusual recordings, preferably live performances, as the idea is for the participants to focus on the music without preconceived conductorial biases!


----------

