LIVE tonight on R3 at 7.30pm BBC Philharmonic play Sibelius

[jayne lee wilson]

Following on from my earlier comments, after fhg's observations I can say that Storgards was taking a very mannered, cantabile view of that No.3 finale opening...

And so it continued with 6&7, if at least with slightly better execution - playing a little tighter and more committed, but still tending to fall into the routine, the balance not ideally clear.

Overall Storgards seems to shape Sibelius with a softer, warmer, more songful profile than we might encounter with Vanska, Berglund, or Sanderling etc., with more interest in texture and colour than structure or drama. A fresh interpretation is always welcome - a shame then, that he didn't seem to have convinced the orchestra of his view, leading to the tentative, cool and unconfident delivery already noted. In the 2nd movement of No.6, he was almost micro-conducting, phrase by phrase - this led to some lovely, floating string-playing (true of the finale too) but tended against clarity of line or architecture, in single movements or the piece as a whole. Again, the 7th began strongly, but the trombone-led climaxes were oddly muted, the phrasing soft and rounded, the scherzo sections without much rhythmic contrast.

I think he has interesting ideas about this composer, but seemed unable to get the orchestra to present them consistently. All-in-all, a work-in-progress...

HOMECONCERTHALL to BRIDGEWATER: what was that big crash at the start of No.6?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

You've not mentioned the diminishing fifth

That's earlier in the Movement (bar 78) c - f# in the 1st Clarinet: the diminished seventh chord features prominently in this "scherzo-cum-introduction". Sibelius first emphasizes the minor third, then the diminished fifth, later the major sixth - when we reach the octave, the "Finale-cum-Coda" Movement begins.

[amateur51]

That's earlier in the Movement (bar 78) c - f# in the 1st Clarinet: the diminished seventh chord features prominently in this "scherzo-cum-introduction". Sibelius first emphasizes the minor third, then the diminished fifth, later the major sixth - when we reach the octave, the "Finale-cum-Coda" Movement begins.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's earlier in the Movement (bar 78) c - f# in the 1st Clarinet

Well, serves me right for being a smart-alek! I should have written "C - Gb"!

[EdgeleyRob]

That's earlier in the Movement (bar 78) c - f# in the 1st Clarinet: the diminished seventh chord features prominently in this "scherzo-cum-introduction". Sibelius first emphasizes the minor third, then the diminished fifth, later the major sixth - when we reach the octave, the "Finale-cum-Coda" Movement begins.

That's probably why I dont get this music,too many diminished thingies

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

That's probably why I dont get this music,too many diminished thingies

Oh, RVW held them second only to porridge in his affections!

(The tonal areas of the development section of RVW's Fifth Symphony [the one he dedicacted to Sibelius] rises through a diminished seventh chord: C, Eb, F#, A - which neatly acts as the Dominant, ready for the Recapitulation, but which, if continued, would lead back to C. Thus the composer moves lithely back to the D and C dyad that opened the work. The key shifts in the next movement [between figs 7 - 9] also go through the series of rising minor thirds of a diminished seventh chord; G, Bb, C# & E. Great minds these chaps had.)

If you don't fancy diminishing returns, you can always augment your experience in Sibelius' Fifth Symphony, all the key-area relationships (except one!) are a Major third apart: Eb major/c minor; G major/E minor; B major/Ab minor - the composer's use of modal inflections of these key centres being one of the joys of his "clear water" thinking. Along with the stonking great tunes, of course!

[EdgeleyRob]

Oh, RVW held them second only to porridge in his affections!

(The tonal areas of the development section of RVW's Fifth Symphony [the one he dedicacted to Sibelius] rises through a diminished seventh chord: C, Eb, F#, A - which neatly acts as the Dominant, ready for the Recapitulation, but which, if continued, would lead back to C. Thus the composer moves lithely back to the D and C dyad that opened the work. The key shifts in the next movement [between figs 7 - 9] also go through the series of rising minor thirds of a diminished seventh chord; G, Bb, C# & E. Great minds these chaps had.)

If you don't fancy diminishing returns, you can always augment your experience in Sibelius' Fifth Symphony, all the key-area relationships (except one!) are a Major third apart: Eb major/c minor; G major/E minor; B major/Ab minor - the composer's use of modal inflections of these key centres being one of the joys of his "clear water" thinking. Along with the stonking great tunes, of course!

That'll teach me !

[Roslynmuse]

Big crash at start of No 6 had no obvious visible cause from my stalls seat, but sounded like a speaker blowing. I blame the BBC!

[Hornspieler]

Following on from my earlier comments, after fhg's observations I can say that Storgards was taking a very mannered, cantabile view of that No.3 finale opening...

And so it continued with 6&7, if at least with slightly better execution - playing a little tighter and more committed, but still tending to fall into the routine, the balance not ideally clear.

Overall Storgards seems to shape Sibelius with a softer, warmer, more songful profile than we might encounter with Vanska, Berglund, or Sanderling etc., with more interest in texture and colour than structure or drama. A fresh interpretation is always welcome - a shame then, that he didn't seem to have convinced the orchestra of his view, leading to the tentative, cool and unconfident delivery already noted. In the 2nd movement of No.6, he was almost micro-conducting, phrase by phrase - this led to some lovely, floating string-playing (true of the finale too) but tended against clarity of line or architecture, in single movements or the piece as a whole. Again, the 7th began strongly, but the trombone-led climaxes were oddly muted, the phrasing soft and rounded, the scherzo sections without much rhythmic contrast.

I think he has interesting ideas about this composer, but seemed unable to get the orchestra to present them consistently. All-in-all, a work-in-progress...

Berglund conducted what Sibelius wrote. I have played in all of the Sibelius symphonies and most of the tone poems under Berglund and, since he was a pupil of the great composer, he felt no need to interpret anything. Living in the Sibelius household from the age of fifteen, he probably assisted in writing out the scores.

As Jascha Horenstein said to us when rehearsing Brahms 1st symphony:
"Brahms knew exactly what he wanted and it is all written on the pages in front of you. We need to add nothing."

Why can't a lot of conductors take the same attitude towards something which is not of their own creation and not consider that it is their right (and duty) to interpret another man's intentions?

HS

[amateur51]

Oh, RVW held them second only to porridge in his affections!

(The tonal areas of the development section of RVW's Fifth Symphony [the one he dedicacted to Sibelius] rises through a diminished seventh chord: C, Eb, F#, A - which neatly acts as the Dominant, ready for the Recapitulation, but which, if continued, would lead back to C. Thus the composer moves lithely back to the D and C dyad that opened the work. The key shifts in the next movement [between figs 7 - 9] also go through the series of rising minor thirds of a diminished seventh chord; G, Bb, C# & E. Great minds these chaps had.)

If you don't fancy diminishing returns, you can always augment your experience in Sibelius' Fifth Symphony, all the key-area relationships (except one!) are a Major third apart: Eb major/c minor; G major/E minor; B major/Ab minor - the composer's use of modal inflections of these key centres being one of the joys of his "clear water" thinking. Along with the stonking great tunes, of course!

[Dave2002]

Where did you glean that information, Dave? 7 days maximum is still shown regarding most Radio 3 items on the iPlayer. There are but 2 hours left to catch last Thursday's Performance on 3, for instance.

Now I'm puzzled. I'd read a while back that there were plans to allow up to 4 weeks for radio programmes after a broadcast. Yesterday when I went on the site I saw a comment (probably re that Thursday concert) that I had a few more weeks to listen to it, which surprised me, as I thought I only had an hour or so left. I can't see it today, though. I wonder if there's more than one site, or if it is device dependent, or do we have to use an App or somesuch?

Perhaps ff knows more about the plans. Maybe I was hallucinating!

[salymap]

No change noted by 'Doctor Digital' at the back of the RT.

[jayne lee wilson]

Berglund conducted what Sibelius wrote. I have played in all of the Sibelius symphonies and most of the tone poems under Berglund and, since he was a pupil of the great composer, he felt no need to interpret anything. Living in the Sibelius household from the age of fifteen, he probably assisted in writing out the scores.

As Jascha Horenstein said to us when rehearsing Brahms 1st symphony:
"Brahms knew exactly what he wanted and it is all written on the pages in front of you. We need to add nothing."

Why can't a lot of conductors take the same attitude towards something which is not of their own creation and not consider that it is their right (and duty) to interpret another man's intentions?

HS

Possibly because it can be very dull?

HS - I love the Bournemouth SO Sibelius cycle, having lived with it for at least a decade, and having first encountered it on vinyl years ago; the 4th is among the finest of all, even alongside the very different Rattle, Karajan and so on (and the Pelleas suite has never been surpassed). But Berglund's later recordings almost never have the atmosphere, intensity and freshness of that first one, often sounding very literal, just "the right notes in the right order" too cool emotionally - the Helsinki 3&5 for example, ruthlessly revealed on Toshiba, show little sense of culmination or drama as the symphonies approach their grandly sonorous conclusions. You find yourself craving more of - something (and not necessarily Barbirollian Romanticism).

From a different angle - Karajan doing Bruckner in Berlin or Vienna, Bernstein with the NYPO in Copland, Bohm's Vienna Beethoven. Kempe's Strauss in Dresden, Barbirolli's 1950's RVW, Beecham in Delius.... you could never say any of these impose unnatural phrase or tempi on the score, but they live and breathe the music, it sounds like they have it "in their blood". As Berglund and the BSO in Sibelius seemed to have. If you try to achieve note-for-note faithfulness with an orchestra that just don't feel it, or see it the same way... then dullness & routine may easily result.

We listeners can seem too fussy about sound, or too obsessed with interpretative differences, as we seek a connection, emotional or otherwise, with the music; but the players have to see that our take on the music can be very different from their own. If this seems fanciful to those concerned with the disciplines of performance, well - the human imagination IS fanciful, especially in its response to sound; so a given conductor (hopefully a devoted listener too!) may have an equally strange and unusual vision of a piece we thought we knew well. I'm afraid, HS, you'll have to live with those vagaries.

Khachaturian wrote a pas-de-deux, a love-scene for Spartacus & Phrygia, and very amorous it is! Who would have imagined it seeming so utterly apt for an old sailing ship rolling through the high seas?

[Hornspieler]

Message #43

Possibly because it can be very dull?

HS - I love the Bournemouth SO Sibelius cycle, having lived with it for at least a decade, and having first encountered it on vinyl years ago; the 4th is among the finest of all, even alongside the very different Rattle, Karajan and so on (and the Pelleas suite has never been surpassed). But Berglund's later recordings almost never have the atmosphere, intensity and freshness of that first one, often sounding very literal, just "the right notes in the right order" too cool emotionally - the Helsinki 3&5 for example, ruthlessly revealed on Toshiba, show little sense of culmination or drama as the symphonies approach their grandly sonorous conclusions. You find yourself craving more of - something (and not necessarily Barbirollian Romanticism).

From a different angle - Karajan doing Bruckner in Berlin or Vienna, Bernstein with the NYPO in Copland, Bohm's Vienna Beethoven. Kempe's Strauss in Dresden, Barbirolli's 1950's RVW, Beecham in Delius.... you could never say any of these impose unnatural phrase or tempi on the score, but they live and breathe the music, it sounds like they have it "in their blood". As Berglund and the BSO in Sibelius seemed to have. If you try to achieve note-for-note faithfulness with an orchestra that just don't feel it, or see it the same way... then dullness & routine may easily result.

We listeners can seem too fussy about sound, or too obsessed with interpretative differences, as we seek a connection, emotional or otherwise, with the music; but the players have to see that our take on the music can be very different from their own. If this seems fanciful to those concerned with the disciplines of performance, well - the human imagination IS fanciful, especially in its response to sound; so a given conductor (hopefully a devoted listener too!) may have an equally strange and unusual vision of a piece we thought we knew well. I'm afraid, HS, you'll have to live with those vagaries.

Khachaturian wrote a pas-de-deux, a love-scene for Spartacus & Phrygia, and very amorous it is! Who would have imagined it seeming so utterly apt for an old sailing ship rolling through the high seas?

A very nice post, Jayne, for which I thank you.

When Berglund left Bournemouth, he was already showing signs of becoming a very sick man (I won't go into the reasons) and I can understand your feeling that his later recordings had lost their magic. But I must still assert that those Bournemouth recordings form the standard by which all others must be compared.

On a more general scale, I agree with your second paragraph, but this is where the conductor does come in and it is by a mental, not technical, facility to make the players, whilst faithful to the music in front of them, produce something special.

Bruno Walter had that ability, as had Horenstein, Böhm, Karajan (sometimes) - and even Rudolf Schwarz. You just found yourself playing better than you knew you could. Nothing to do with a different interpretation - it was as if the composer himself was controlling you through the medium of the man on the podium.

the human imagination IS fanciful, especially in its response to sound; so a given conductor (hopefully a devoted listener too!) may have an equally strange and unusual vision of a piece

By all means, but when it comes to a young Scottish Assistant conductor telling us that he's just discovered a new theme in a Beethoven symphony, that is a vision too far for me. (Yes, it happened)

HS

[Sir Velo]

James Loughran recorded an extremely fine and well acclaimed series of Beethoven (and Brahms) symphonies in the 80s.