There are simply way too many recordings of the complete cycle to make this topic into a poll, so let's just leave it as a running commentary... on and on and on and on...

So what are your favourite recordings of the complete Cycle?

Mine has to be Osmo Vanska and the Lahti Symphony Orchestra... some of the tempos take some getting used to, but the quality of detail and playing in the orchestra is incredible.

Also, the "bonus" original version of the 5th Symphony is quite a treat.

I think the Vanska cycle is overall the finest recordings of the Sib symphonies. There is the Saraste cycle with the Finnish Radio Symphony that has some awesome movements but as a whole my choice is Vanska.

Than there is always the Maazel recordings. Like in the first movement of the first symphony that sounds like the trombones were told to play as loud as they could possibly play. Hazzaaah

Moving along, I find it interesting how many "casual" Sibelius listeners consider Colin Davis' cycle with the London Symphony to be the best, "definitive" Sibelius recordings. I am interested to see how many people "vote" for this once the membership goes up. Hmmm.

To add to this discussion of Colin Davis and the definitive Sibelius, well, after listening to his recordings they certainly are not bad. They are consistent in many ways, from tempi to spectrum of dynamics. There is not much that stands out during the recordings and I think this gives comfort to a listener to be able to say they are "the" Sibelius recordings.

Have you tried out Segerstam/Helsinki Philharmonic? Quite new , out on Ondine.

As I have posted under the Violin Concerto thread, I very much enjoy the Segerstam / Kuusisto Violin Concert recording. I have not heard the symphonies as of yet and look forward to getting my hands on them, once I find the time... TIME!!!

the cycles i have are -

1) watanabe/japan philharmonic on epic lps
2) sanderling/berlin s-o/brilliant classics cd box

plus a variety singles

the first sibelius symphony i recall hearing, my fave, was #1 conducted by thor johnson on 78 rpm. i've forgotten the orchestra,
but i have it stored away somewhere.

dj

Watanabe is pretty rare - congratulations! In fact he recorded two full cycles - from memory in the early 1960s and early 1980s - and there are a few concert relays in circulation too.

I didn't know that Thor Johnson had recorded the First (I can believe it's good: his disc of The Origin of Fire had incredible atmosphere) - if you find further details do let us know.

david johnson wrote:

... on epic lps ... ... on 78 rpm ...

Wow... What kind of equipment do you have? I ask because a member of my orchestra is interested in old phonographs and the like.

for my lps, i use a 25-year-old technics linear tracking turntable.
nothing currently for the 78s

dj

My favorite symphony cycle is hands-down Lorin Maazel with the Wiener Philharmoniker. For the age of the recording (1960's), the sound is teriffic and Maazel's rugged approach to the music is something I find very exciting. His interpretation of the 2nd Symphony is unequalled, in my very humble opinion.

The Vanska cycle is very good, but often too restrained. I am a huge Vanska fan, however, and I have almost all of his recordings.

The Leif Segerstam/Helsinki Philharmonic cycle is also quite good, but not definitive. The Segerstam/Helsinki Phil/Pekka Kuusisto Violin Concerto is, however, nothing short of world-class.

I don't think I have enough comprehensive listening experience to say which is my favorite cycle, but in the 80s I got into the BIS cycle done by Goteborg SO/Neeme Jarvi. I particularly like the 2nd. I liked most of these. I think these were the first ones I heard on CD so they made a big impact on me. How do you guys like it?

Badger

I would agree with Tapkaara (in the Petri Sakari/Iceland SO thread) that 'Sakari's handling of the symphonies… is… a little too straight-forward'. Maazel is certainly not that!

These days, when symphony cycles come along as often as London buses, it's hard (but advisable) to remember the massive impact that a new set had in the 1960s. With so few rivals, Maazel's soon became the 'Brand X' cycle for a generation of Sibelius lovers - just as Solti's Ring cycle did for Wagnerians. To secure the Vienna Philharmonic was for these recordings was moreover quite a coup for Decca - remember that this is the orchestra that refused to play the Fourth Symphony in 1912, and indeed that the Fourth was not heard publicly in Vienna until twenty years after Maazel's discs were made (and then with the Radio Orchestra under Segerstam). And a 'star' conductor to boot… nobody can say that Decca lacked vision!

Having said that, it is actually a pity that Maazel allowed his own personality to intrude so much in some of the recordings. Some of them are undeniably fine achievements (especially the Second, I believe); but Maazel's versions of Nos. 3 and 6 are so unidiomatic that they have almost certainly done much more harm than good to the reputation of these glorious works. Like Kurkikohtaus, I would take issue with many of his tempi - not to mention matters of phrasing, balance and so on - but there's more to it than that: Sibelius's symphonies are after all good enough music to tolerate a pretty wide range of speeds. I don't know if it was a question of vanity, or lack of time, but plainly Maazel either didn't bother to find out or simply didn't care what the composer really wanted.

One swallow doesn't make a summer… and the ability to conduct the Second Symphony well doesn't necessarily mean that a conductor will be a reliable guide to the others. But I'll return to this very soon in a new thread…

Andrew B wrote:

One swallow doesn't make a summer… and the ability to conduct the Second Symphony well doesn't necessarily mean that a conductor will be a reliable guide to the others.

This is very true and sums up my entire feeling about the Maazel cycle.

As a musician of very high quality, Maazel has the ability to technically conduct just about anything, and his strong musical personality will imprint its stamp on whatever work he does. But this does not mean that he can necessarily take the time to study every note and truly understand the composer's intentions, especially with the volume of work that he has to do. So we should not be surprised that some high quality conductors often put out some strange performances and recordings.

Ever since making a comment in this thread about the Segerstam/Helsinki S.O. cycle, I've revisited it somewhat and have discovered I really love their 5th. Wow...I know I had heard that recording before, but something happened and it's like I'm hearing it for the first time.

Simply incredible.

Andrew B wrote:

...it is actually a pity that Maazel allowed his own personality to intrude so much in some of the recordings. Some of them are undeniably fine achievements (especially the Second, I believe); but Maazel's versions of Nos. 3 and 6 are so unidiomatic that they have almost certainly done much more harm than good to the reputation of these glorious works.

While there is no denying that the 3rd and the 6th are masterpieces, they do remain two of Sibelius's least popular and least understood creations. Reminds me of a quote by Eugene Ormandy:

"It is difficult for me to choose a favorite among the seven symphonies of Sibelius. The first is still under the influence of Tchaikovsky, but it is a healthy thing for a first symphony to recall the past, and Sibelius does so gloriously. The Second Symphony shows the composer struggling heroically to free himself from this influence, but not fully succeeding; the very tensions created by this struggle give the work its power. Like the First, it is filled with passages that only Sibelius could have conceived. The Third I don't understand, frankly. The Third and Sixth remain enigmas, as far as I am concerned. The Fourth I love, the Fifth I love and the Seventh -- all of them free, wild, beautiful things, more like elemental forms of nature than consciously shaped works of art. And I wish I could say that I love the Eighth, too, but alas, like everyone else I have never heard it and don't know if it exists or ever existed. "

It got me to think that maybe Maazel's handling of these two symphonies came from a personal lack of understanding or appreciation, much like Ormandy. I suppose if you don't understand something musically, it's hard to interpret it with much understanding. Hahahaha...that is a funny statement, but I think the best way of summing it up. "A lack of understanding going in will result in a lack of understanding coming out."

Maazel's 2nd, in my opinion, is unequalled and the crown jewel of the cycle. I get goosebumps ever time I hear Maazel's 2nd, and I very nearly get them when I hear Vänskä's. Segerstam's 2nd tends to leave me thinking I've missed something.

david johnson wrote:

the cycles i have are - 1) watanabe/japan philharmonic on epic lps 2) sanderling/berlin s-o/brilliant classics cd box dj

I had never heard of the Akeo Watanabe's cycle before so I checked out Amazon.com. They have a 2-disc (CD) set that was released in 1997, but I'm not sure what year the recordings are from. Anyhow, disc one contains Symphonies 1 and 5, as well as The Swan of Tuonela. Disc two has Symphonies 2 and 7 and Valse triste. The ensemble for these recordings is the Japan Philharmonic.

I went ahead and ordered this and I'm looking forward to hearing it. I think most on this forum have probably already figured out that I enjoy Japanese composers quite a bit, and I know Sibelius is popular in Japan, so I'd really like to hear this recording.

Another one of my favorite composers, Akira Ifukube, has had his music performed by the Japan Phil. many times and they are an outstanding orchestra. Really looking forward to hearing how they pull off Sibelius...

Moderation

Tapkaara, as your 3 replies in a row are responses to 3 different different cycles that were being discussed, It is OK that you "Triple Posted".

I would just like to remind others that double (or triple) posting is discouraged in the forum when you are essentially talking about one thing. Please use the edit button if you wish to add something to your post.

The length and content of Tapkaara's posts warrant the 3 posts, but if you are not sure in the future, just use EDIT.

Only registered users can see links on this forum! Register or Login on forum!

_______________________________________________________________________________

Ormandy wrote:

The Second Symphony shows the composer struggling heroically to free himself from this influence, but not fully succeeding; the very tensions created by this struggle give the work its power.

Although this notion is widely accepted, I have to disagree with Ormandy here. The "struggle" in this symphony is not of an ideological nature but an intentional one that is harmonic and structural in nature, resolving in the Coda with the ascent to the note G and the plagal cadence. Study your score, Mr. Ormandy.

I think the confusion comes from the order in which almost everyone in the world hears these works for the first time. Tchaikovsky 4-5-6 and then Sibelius 2. Try imagining listening to it with "fresh ears", studying the score and hearing the 2nd symphony without knowing Tchaikovsky 4-5-6. When you then finally hear the Tchaikovsky pieces, I think the apparent similarity that people seem to experience would be absent. It certainly is for me.

Ormandy wrote:

The Fourth I love, the Fifth I love and the Seventh -- all of them free, wild, beautiful things, more like elemental forms of nature than consciously shaped works of art.

This statement is not as preposterous as it first may seem. Of course the "shaping process" of these pieces was painstaking to the last detail, their forms being in my opinion 3 crowning achievements in symphonic unification, both within and across movements. But what Ormandy may be saying is that they do not sound as if they had been consciously shaped, that the end result as perceived by the listener are elemental forms of nature, whereas examining them in close detail yields a discovery of that "profound logic" that we know and love. Just as nature seems disorganized and random but also adheres to the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

If this is what Ormandy meant, then hats-off but somehow I doubt it.

Tapkaara:

that japan philharmonic no longer exists. those recordings are from the 60's at the latest. sometimes they have a thin sound, but i believe it tto be he engineering more than the string players... brass/ww are fine.

try asahina conducting bruckner for another japanese experience.
i believe he died a couple of years ago.

dj

i've been enjoying my sanderling/berlin sym box the last two days!

dj