Disappointments?

[Ferretfancy]

I was looking forward to hearing the recent BIS recording of Sibelius's 3rd,6th, and 7th symphonies with the Minnesota Orchestra and Osmo Vanska. I've seen him conduct Sibelius on several occasions and after reading enthusiastic reviews I added it to my Sibelius shelf.
I realise that all our judgements are at least partly subjective, but this CD has been a great disappointment, especially where the performance of the 6th is concerned.. To me there is an objective, even matter of fact approach, with phrases carefully placed and a destructive lack of forward movement. In the 7th there should surely be a stronger and more muscular growth than we get here. Admittedly the performance does gather strength towards the end, but by then it's too late.

I miss that feeling of inevitability that the best performances of these symphonies have, it's all too measured and plodding.

As for the massive sound, well, it is over reverberant with too much bass. This leads to an odd effect in which the openings of quiet wind phrases get lost, and the same effect occurs with strings, which to my mind are backward throughout. I think Vanska was looking for wide dynamic contrast, but unless you listen at a level to upset the neighbours a great deal goes missing.

There have been rave reviews for this disc, so I have been at pains to check carefully and compare with some other performances, but I have to stand by my opinion. Sometimes I think that critics hear what they expect to hear.

Do others think differently, or have they had similar let downs recently? Examples would be welcome, even at the risk of making this a misery thread!

[Hornspieler]

I was looking forward to hearing the recent BIS recording of Sibelius's 3rd,6th, and 7th symphonies with the Minnesota Orchestra and Osmo Vanska. I've seen him conduct Sibelius on several occasions and after reading enthusiastic reviews I added it to my Sibelius shelf.
I realise that all our judgements are at least partly subjective, but this CD has been a great disappointment, especially where the performance of the 6th is concerned.. To me there is an objective, even matter of fact approach, with phrases carefully placed and a destructive lack of forward movement. In the 7th there should surely be a stronger and more muscular growth than we get here. Admittedly the performance does gather strength towards the end, but by then it's too late.

I miss that feeling of inevitability that the best performances of these symphonies have, it's all too measured and plodding.

As for the massive sound, well, it is over reverberant with too much bass. This leads to an odd effect in which the openings of quiet wind phrases get lost, and the same effect occurs with strings, which to my mind are backward throughout. I think Vanska was looking for wide dynamic contrast, but unless you listen at a level to upset the neighbours a great deal goes missing.

There have been rave reviews for this disc, so I have been at pains to check carefully and compare with some other performances, but I have to stand by my opinion. Sometimes I think that critics hear what they expect to hear.

Do others think differently, or have they had similar let downs recently? Examples would be welcome, even at the risk of making this a misery thread!

The benchmark conductor for me is Paavo Berglund, who lived in Sibelius' household as a teenager and studied under him - so who could know more about how the composer wanted his works performed?

For me, the nearest approach to that standard of interpretation is (surprisingly to some) Sir Alexander Gibson.

Forget your Osmo Vanskas s and Jukka Pecha's Scandinavian "qualifications". By all means rate them in terms of agreement with your own tastes of course; but if you want the definitive version then go for the man who as part of his training, helped Sibelius to write out the manuscripts!

HS

[Conchis]

Sibelius himself was rumoured to favour Karajan and Beecham, neither of whom were remotely Scandinavian and whose performances are considered anything but idiomatic.

He may have been being disingenuous - both were big names and big sellers, so their advocacy did him a lot of good. Or maybe the old boy just liked their glamorous performances?

[Richard Barrett]

the definitive version

If it's definitive why does anyone else bother to play this music? Are you really saying that nobody is ever going to have any relevant insights into the music that Berglund didn't already have? and that Berglund had no musical personality of his own through which music was filtered but was basically only a funnel down which Sibelius' music was poured into an orchestra? (cf. Klemperer and Walter, who both had first-hand knowledge of Mahler but conducted his work very differently). Also: the question of "how the composer wanted his works performed" seems to evoke divergent opinions depending on which composer is being discussed - many people who would rate "the composer's wishes" (in so far as they're known) as of essential importance in Sibelius, but perhaps not in JS Bach where they're happy to hear the music performed with instruments (and voices) unknown to this composer and in numbers he would never have seen...

[Bryn]

If it's definitive why does anyone else bother to play this music? Are you really saying that nobody is ever going to have any relevant insights into the music that Berglund didn't already have? and that Berglund had no musical personality of his own through which music was filtered but was basically only a funnel down which Sibelius' music was poured into an orchestra? (cf. Klemperer and Walter, who both had first-hand knowledge of Mahler but conducted his work very differently). Also: the question of "how the composer wanted his works performed" seems to evoke divergent opinions depending on which composer is being discussed - many people who would rate "the composer's wishes" (in so far as they're known) as of essential importance in Sibelius, but perhaps not in JS Bach where they're happy to hear the music performed with instruments (and voices) unknown to this composer and in numbers he would never have seen...

And which of Berglund's three complete recorded surveys of the symphonies (plus several other recordings of individual or pairings of symphonies) were the 'true' definitive ones? Presumably his late insights with the C.O.E, rather than those with some provincial South Coast band or other.

[cloughie]

Sibelius himself was rumoured to favour Karajan and Beecham, neither of whom were remotely Scandinavian and whose performances are considered anything but idiomatic.

He may have been being disingenuous - both were big names and big sellers, so their advocacy did him a lot of good. Or maybe the old boy just liked their glamorous performances?

Beecham's Leminkainen's Return is an absolute cracker, it positively exudes excitement. Idiomatic - who cares?

[Conchis]

Beecham's Leminkainen's Return is an absolute cracker, it positively exudes excitement. Idiomatic - who cares?

When I finally got to hear the pioneering Kajanus recordings - which are supposedly 'idiomatic' - I was shocked at how 'different' they sounded to the Karajan and Beecham versions I was used to.

[richardfinegold]

If it's definitive why does anyone else bother to play this music? Are you really saying that nobody is ever going to have any relevant insights into the music that Berglund didn't already have? and that Berglund had no musical personality of his own through which music was filtered but was basically only a funnel down which Sibelius' music was poured into an orchestra? (cf. Klemperer and Walter, who both had first-hand knowledge of Mahler but conducted his work very differently). Also: the question of "how the composer wanted his works performed" seems to evoke divergent opinions depending on which composer is being discussed - many people who would rate "the composer's wishes" (in so far as they're known) as of essential importance in Sibelius, but perhaps not in JS Bach where they're happy to hear the music performed with instruments (and voices) unknown to this composer and in numbers he would never have seen...

[ahinton]

If it's definitive why does anyone else bother to play this music? Are you really saying that nobody is ever going to have any relevant insights into the music that Berglund didn't already have? and that Berglund had no musical personality of his own through which music was filtered but was basically only a funnel down which Sibelius' music was poured into an orchestra? (cf. Klemperer and Walter, who both had first-hand knowledge of Mahler but conducted his work very differently). Also: the question of "how the composer wanted his works performed" seems to evoke divergent opinions depending on which composer is being discussed - many people who would rate "the composer's wishes" (in so far as they're known) as of essential importance in Sibelius, but perhaps not in JS Bach where they're happy to hear the music performed with instruments (and voices) unknown to this composer and in numbers he would never have seen...

All good points, except the one referring to J S Bach to the extent that, for example, whilst Chopin, Liszt and Alkan did not have the kinds of instrument on which their piano music is most often (though not exclusively, of course) played today, it could be argued that some of the more challenging music that they wrote might be regarded in part as embracing a kind of demand for the refinements and developments in piano design and manufacture that were to take place during the 19th and 20th centuries and of which Liszt and Alkan at least lived to witness some; should most of these composers' piano works be played only on the Érards, Pleyels &c. with which they were personally familiar or is it OK to play them on more recent, including modern, Bösendorfers, Steinways, Faziolis, Stuarts and the like? LIkewise, is there a place for performances of J S Bach's organ works on Cavaillé-Coll, Klais, Willis or Harrison & Harrison instruments that he would never have known and, in some cases, in environments that he might also not have envisaged?

[gradus]

Best Sibelius 5 I ever heard was Bernstein and the LSO and echoing the praise for Beecham, his version of Lemminkainens Return with the LPO, the RFH live Sibelius 2 is terrific too imv.
In practice however I rarely hear performances of Sibelius that I dislike.perhaps he only gets conducted by people who are good at the music? I'm happy to accept that Berglund is great in this repertoire but how about Kajanus and Hannikainen who were torch bearers for Sibelius for some years before Berglund and recorded many performances or Koussevitsky for that matter.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sometimes I think that critics hear what they expect to hear.

Occasionaly, a critic or two may comment on a performance in this way, but be so wrong that they probably weren't even there. I cite the Rattle/OAL Proms Das Rheingold performance of a few years ago; some critics commented about the sparing use of vibrato, which was totally untrue - they used it in abundance, and it was clearly visible (and audible) from my very distant seat.

[Gordon]

.... I think Vanska was looking for wide dynamic contrast, but unless you listen at a level to upset the neighbours a great deal goes missing.

There is, in theory at least, a "right" volume level for playback of recorded music and this is not just about wide DR it is also about balance across the audio frequency range. This is an acoustic feature of human auditory system. The sound will have been balanced at the capture/editing stage at a certain level and that should be repeated at home where possible but there is no objective way to achieve this with any accuracy. Where those studio monitoring levels are high many recordings will sound light in both the bass and treble compared to what they should unless some EQ is applied. BIS has "no tinkering" philosophy so the right playback level will have to be found by listening.

We've had this debate before and there is no solution, if fidelity is the goal, except to leave the DR "as was" [assuming it is an accurate representation of what was heard in studio] and leave the listener to cope best she/he can. Intervention means some judicious management, which is itself a distortion of course, but perhaps more acceptable in domestic circumstances. Many "historic" recordings from the 50s and 60s that are still well loved by audiophiles have almost certainly had some gain riding during the recording process.

I feel sure that rock fans play their music as loud as they do because the mastering was done at very high levels and so the bass and treble will not punch well if played at a low level.

[Ferretfancy]

Best Sibelius 5 I ever heard was Bernstein and the LSO and echoing the praise for Beecham, his version of Lemminkainens Return with the LPO, the RFH live Sibelius 2 is terrific too imv.
In practice however I rarely hear performances of Sibelius that I dislike.perhaps he only gets conducted by people who are good at the music? I'm happy to accept that Berglund is great in this repertoire but how about Kajanus and Hannikainen who were torch bearers for Sibelius for some years before Berglund and recorded many performances or Koussevitsky for that matter.

I totally agree about the Beecham Lemminkainen's return, but what about his Tapiola? Never bettered in my view. I certainly return frequently to Alexander Gibson, especially his Chandos recording of the Four Legends.

A great selection of views so far, but does anybody else share my misgivings about the Vanska? It really is odd that, for me at least, a recording which has received such critical praise should be so uninvolving.

[Ferretfancy]

There is, in theory at least, a "right" volume level for playback of recorded music and this is not just about wide DR it is also about balance across the audio frequency range. This is an acoustic feature of human auditory system. The sound will have been balanced at the capture/editing stage at a certain level and that should be repeated at home where possible but there is no objective way to achieve this with any accuracy. Where those studio monitoring levels are high many recordings will sound light in both the bass and treble compared to what they should unless some EQ is applied. BIS has "no tinkering" philosophy so the right playback level will have to be found by listening.

We've had this debate before and there is no solution, if fidelity is the goal, except to leave the DR "as was" [assuming it is an accurate representation of what was heard in studio] and leave the listener to cope best she/he can. Intervention means some judicious management, which is itself a distortion of course, but perhaps more acceptable in domestic circumstances. Many "historic" recordings from the 50s and 60s that are still well loved by audiophiles have almost certainly had some gain riding during the recording process.

I feel sure that rock fans play their music as loud as they do because the mastering was done at very high levels and so the bass and treble will not punch well if played at a low level.

Mixing documentaries and other material in mono, I used to listen to tricky passages on a small speaker and compare with the studio monitors. The balance between commentary, voiceovers and music needs quite fine judgement. I notice nowadays that quite apart from the painful subject of noisy music, stereo sound effects often drown the voice. I suspect that automated digital mixing may be to blame, but then we did it properly in those days!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'd be interested in knowing which of the Sibelius "manuscripts" Berglund "helped Sibelius to write out", given that he was born three years after the last of those manuscripts were composed. (Unless the alterations to the dynamics that Berglund made to some of the scores after the composer's death is what is meant?)