BaL 5.01.13 - Sibelius: Symphony no. 2 in D

[Barbirollians]

"Unlikely" or not, he's recorded it twice: RCA amd LSOLive.

Yes but I have to say that his LSO Live recording of Kullervo is not a patch on the Bournemouth SO /Berglund to my ears !

Alison, I do hope you like the Barbirolli .

[amateur51]

Fine. I don't claim to be right. I merely state how I react, having played many times for Colin Davis whom I greatly admire.
It is pointless to quote specific examples, since we all hear music in different ways and in different circumstances

It is so tiresome when some "clever" person points out the occasional typo.

HS

BTW I am not aware that Sir Colin has ever performed Kullervo, but I think it is most unlikely.

Subject closed, as far as I am concerned.

Hornspieler, you are almost (note the almost) the biggest picker-up of unconsidered trypos/errors on this Board (I yield to no-one in that department ) so don't try coming the old acid on that score

I am full of admiration for your memories of playing under Sir Colin but let's be fair - it was probably a fair while ago and since then he has recorded the Sibelius cycle three times (Boston SO 1970s, LSO late 1980s, LSO late 2000s) as I've pointed out. People change with experience, often for the better

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Yes but I have to say that his LSO Live recording of Kullervo is not a patch on the Bournemouth SO /Berglund to my ears !

But that doesn't mean he hasn't performed it at all, which was the thrust of HS's statement.

[aeolium]

But imagine, if you will, somebody venturing the "personal opinion" that Shakespeare wasn't very good as a dramatist, splendid poet that he was, or that Dennis Brain, although splendid in Strauss, didn't really cut the mustard in Mozart.

Sorry, ferney, but I really think you're going over the top here. To compare a personal opinion that Sibelius was not Colin Davis' metier (i.e. strong point or speciality) compared with his Berlioz and Mozart with an opinion that Shakespeare wasn't a very good dramatist seems absurd to me. Quite a number of posters have expressed dissatisfaction that the Davis/LSO version was chosen for this BaL and so may well disagree with your view that Colin Davis is one of the foremost conductors of Sibelius. It is at least not axiomatic that he is, such that any contrary opinion is to be dismissed as ridiculous. We find all the time opinions being expressed (including by BaL reviewers) that conductors are better in some repertoire than others - for instance Gergiev's Mahler has been less than enthusiastically received here though perhaps few might dispute his excellence in Russian repertoire. Hornspieler's to my mind was just such an opinion - and as he made clear, a personal one and one that I think he is perfectly entitled to express. He did not say, as you suggested, that Colin Davis "could not conduct Sibelius" but that Sibelius was not Davis' metier, quite a different statement.

[Barbirollians]

FHGL. I am with aeolium here . I should have liked to know why HS sis not feel Sibelius was his metier and I do think you have a very good point that it was rather a sweeping statement without reasoning but it is not quite the same as declaring that Shakespeare was not very good .

I was disappointed with the LSO Kullervo . It was the first recording of the piece I had and it seemed long and turgid to my ears for reasons I could not put my finger on . The Berglund on the other hand is terrifically exciting and won me over completely.

Sometimes I do feel , that Davis's Sibelius certainly in the LSO Live set just does not catch fire .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

To compare a personal opinion that Sibelius was not Colin Davis' metier (i.e. strong point or speciality) compared with his Berlioz and Mozart with an opinion that Shakespeare wasn't a very good dramatist seems absurd to me.

Fine. I find it equally absurd to suggest that Davis' Sibelius isn't (like Berlioz, Mozart, Haydn and Tippett) one of his metiers.

I also made the Brain/Mozart comparison, which you don't pick up, aeolie: is that more to your liking?

Barbi and others have said that they don't like Davis' Sibelius, or that they preferred Berglund or Barbirolli or Szell (see Post #34) - I didn't and don't object to that: that is "opinion". But to state publicly that one of the world's leading conductors - one who has devoted so much of his career to furthering the world's appreciation of Sibelius - has recorded a cycle three times of works that aren't one of his "strong points or specialities" is a suggestion so crass that in the best interests of the credibility of this Forum, it needed knocking down in the most forceful terms.

Prefer Berglund, prefer Szell, prefer Vanska; prefer Barbirolli; prefer Collins; prefer Davis in Boston or with the LSO on RCA. Rejoice in your preference(s)! But don't claim that Sibelius isn't one of Davis' strong points; it just makes us look silly.

[amateur51]

Fine. I find it equally absurd to suggest that Davis' Sibelius isn't (like Berlioz, Mozart, Haydn and Tippett) one of his metiers.

I also made the Brain/Mozart comparison, which you don't pick up, aeolie: is that more to your liking?

Barbi and others have said that they don't like Davis' Sibelius, or that they preferred Berglund or Barbirolli or Szell (see Post #34) - I didn't and don't object to that: that is "opinion". But to state publicly that one of the world's leading conductors - one who has devoted so much of his career to furthering the world's appreciation of Sibelius - has recorded a cycle three times of works that aren't one of his "strong points or specialities" is a suggestion so crass that in the best interests of the credibility of this Forum, it needed knocking down in the most forceful terms.

Prefer Berglund, prefer Szell, prefer Vanska; prefer Barbirolli; prefer Collins; prefer Davis in Boston or with the LSO on RCA. Rejoice in your preference(s)! But don't claim that Sibelius isn't one of Davis' strong points; it just makes us look silly.

[Alison]

I enjoy the contributions of Mr HS who has nevertheless taken the art of the sweeping statement to a new level on many occasions.

[salymap]

Well. I have Davis/Boston, Beecham/LPO and a cassette of Sargent/BBCSO. Ithink I shall watch TV as I have had my fill ofthe Sibelius symphony 2 for one day.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I enjoy the contributions of Mr HS

So do I. His reminiscences are always enjoyable and informative, and his recollections of Golding last year were amongst the most memorable postings ever to grace these Boards. (And his playing on the Horenstein Mahler #3 remains one of the many great pleasures on that remarkable recording). It deeply saddens me to feel obliged to remonstrate with him in such terms on a public Forum, but this really was one "occasion" where he took "the art of the sweeping statement to a new level".

[Sir Velo]

But don't claim that Sibelius isn't one of Davis' strong points; it just makes us look silly.

I agree that Davis is a fine conductor of Sibelius, as he is of many other cornerstones of the repertoire. However, I think you are overstating it by indicating that one member's negative response to Davis' Sibelius will somehow be taken as representing the view of the forum per se. Should any hypothetical controller commission his minions to report back on what's said here, he would be a fool indeed to dismiss everything on the basis of one contributor's blindspot.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Should any hypothetical controller commission his minions to report back on what's said here, he would be a fool indeed to dismiss everything on the basis of one contributor's blindspot.

Indeed. But if s/he - or anyone at the BBC keen to marginalize R3 to the point of non-existence - should ever wish to discredit the Forum and diminish its credibility, then such comments (and - to move the point away from an attack on HS - "Isn't everyone in England embarrassed by Britten?" and "Isn't Alan Bennett a fat-arsed Northerner?" and "Harrison Bumwhistle") play straight into their hands.

[Hornspieler]

So do I. His reminiscences are always enjoyable and informative, and his recollections of Golding last year were amongst the most memorable postings ever to grace these Boards. (And his playing on the Horenstein Mahler #3 remains one of the many great pleasures on that remarkable recording). It deeply saddens me to feel obliged to remonstrate with him in such terms on a public Forum, but this really was one "occasion" where he took "the art of the sweeping statement to a new level".

Please allow me to correct the record. I did not play on that wonderful recording of Mahler #3 (was that not waldhorn?) but I certainly remember the absolute thrill of playing Brahms #1 under Horenstein's baton.

I don't think that "expressing ones feeling" is the same as "making a sweeping statement" but why don't we just leave it there?

HS

[Sir Velo]

I don't disagree with you here. In fact I was going to say that the reputation of the forum is tarnished far more by the political threads which invariably degenerate into a miasma of schoolboy squabbling, or the inane off topic "banter" which vitiates otherwise intelligent discussions of matters musical; than by one person's heterodox view of a great British conductor.

[aeolium]

Barbi and others have said that they don't like Davis' Sibelius, or that they preferred Berglund or Barbirolli or Szell (see Post #34) - I didn't and don't object to that: that is "opinion". But to state publicly that one of the world's leading conductors - one who has devoted so much of his career to furthering the world's appreciation of Sibelius - has recorded a cycle three times of works that aren't one of his "strong points or specialities" is a suggestion so crass that in the best interests of the credibility of this Forum, it needed knocking down in the most forceful terms.

I think we're getting over-fussy here. To take a different example, Roger Norrington has devoted a lot of his career to the study, performance and recording of Beethoven symphonies (with two complete cycles) yet has plenty of critics - and strong advocates - on this board and elsewhere. It is surely perfectly possible for someone to argue against a conductor's stylistic interpretation of a composer's works without attracting censure. Surely that sort of criticism just goes with the territory. And surely if you don't like someone's interpretations, then how can you believe that the composer's works are one of that conductor's "strong points"?

Personally, I couldn't give a tinker's curse for the possibility that R3 bigwigs are looking into this forum. Surely it was partly because of their oversensitivity to criticism that the old R3 boards were disbanded anyway.