My reference for the abbreviation of glocken is gslp, but Kurki might be right.

Andrew, I have no absolute preference for either Glocken or Glockenspiel in Sibelius's great Fourth Symphony. But the question over which of these Sibelius wanted has facinated me over the years.
It was Stokowski in the very first recording of the work in 1932 who elected to use both. Some passages are marked 'sonore' [with full tone] against a swirling accompaniment. Stokowski decided to use tubular bells for the heavier music, whilst for the lightly scored places he opted for glockenspiel. Sibelius may have liked this idea and it may have been the reason for the letters 'spiel' being added onto the engraving for the Glocken part in the 1940 reprint of his score.
It has been suggested that their is a middle way. If you want to attempt a glockenspiel-like 'sonore' you can use bell plates instead of an actual glock, as bell plates are far louder than the average orchestral glock.
Beecham in his 1937 recording used a special set of 'Table Bells' which played an octave above tubular bells and an octave below a glockenspiel. I think myself that Sibelius did prefare the use of small bells in the fourth. In a work such as 'The Oceanides' Sibelius asks for 'Stahlstabe' which is the high , bright glockenspiel. In 'Lemminkainen's Return Sibelius uses the Italian word 'campanelli' which clearly means the glockenspiel. I would suggest that Sibelius clearly intends a distinction between the sounds he wants in the Fourth Symphony and 'The Oceanides'.

Conductors must make a choice, Sibelius did live long enough to make his position clear and this appears to be the use of small chimes in his fourth Symphony.--kullervopete.

in general - the small keyboard instrument known as 'orchestra bells' or 'bells' produces a more 'refined' sound than a glock and is mostly the preferred instrument in usa ensembles.

the choice of mallets is the greatest factor regarding timbre.

dj

Good point, dj... all this talk about bells vs. glockenspiel, and we nearly forgot to mention each and every conductor's pet-peeve, mallets.

I was once "burned at the stake" by a percussionist, who at one point had enough of my interferance with his choice of mallets. I wanted a very harsh and percussive sound during a certain xylophone solo, I kept asking for harder, harder, harsher, harsher, vulgerer, vulgerer... I finally asked him what mallets he was using. He held them up and said: "Red ones."

A good lesson for any conductor.

Might I ask Maestro Kurki, if he was programming the Fourth Symphony of Sibelius, which side of the fence would he come down on--Glockenspiel or Glocken or perhaps both?--kullervopete.

My inner ear hears the glockenspiel when imagining the finale of the 4th, but it will be some time yet before I risk a performance of that piece, and it certainly (fortunately / unfortunately) won't be with the ZSO.

In an earlier post Andrew remarked 'Glockenspiel it is, always was and always should be'. I have the utmost respect for Andrew B's Sibelian credentials but this can't be right.
I have been in touch with Robert Matthew-Walker who wrote the sleeve note for Toscanini's recording of Sibelius's Fourth [27th April, 1940] In this recording Toscanini actually adds extra bars for the glockenspiel not in the written score.
Toscanini instructs the Horns to be muted at letter G in the Finale and he also doubles the woodwind with glockenspiel after letter O in the Finale [bars 3-4 and bars 10-11] in the score.

Prof. Walker as given me a most interesting reply as follows: 'Sibelius conducted the world premiere in 1911 at which he used tubular bells [ie German Glocken as in the first published score] When Stokowski made the first recording of the work around 1931 he used both tubular bells and glockenspiel, substituting the latter for the passages marked 'pianissimo' [The tubular bells in that recording were probably too-closely miked to get the kind of effect Sibelius wanted-at least at the pp dynamic.]

When Leslie Heward wanted to conduct the fourth in 1935 he, having heard Stokowski's solution, wrote to Sibelius asking him what he wanted. Sibelius wrote to Heward saying that he [now] wanted glockenspiel throughout : so when the score was reprinted about 1940 the letter 'spiel' were inked in neat handwriting on the score, following 'glocken'. After which glockenspiel tended to be used more throughout, although of course the tinkly effect they produce in comparison is not really suitable for the heftier moments.

Ormandy recorded the fourth in 1954 using Stokowski's solution [it was the same orchestra--The Philadelphia]; in 1955 Ormandy visited Finland and met Sibelius, and in an attempt to clear the matter up asked Sibelius point blank what he meant by 'glocken'--Sibelius told Ormandy that he had wanted tubular bells all along [!] and that he was wrong to have changed his mind in the 1930's! Ormandy reported this to several people , including me when I knew him in the 1970's, so it seems that Sibelius changed his mind twice. I think we all know what Sibelius meant, but perhaps the use of tubular bells throughout does not invariably meet the symphony's musical demands'.

I am very much indebted to Prof. Walker for his facinating imformation. There is a marvellous photo of Sibelius with Ormandy standing on the porch at Ainola. Sibelius, well wrapped up is waving to the hundred or so musicians gathered in the garden. What a wonderful occasion.--kullervopete.

Here they are:

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

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

I'm going to get to the bottom of this. If I am wrong I'll hold up my hand and admit it, but I honestly don't think I am. I have no idea what Robert Matthew-Walker's sources are, but they conflict with ALL of mine; and I think I'd rather trust the collected opinion of the most respected Finnish musicologists than a single British one on this matter (I remember sub-editing a number of RM-W's texts in the past and, though informative and enjoyable, they were far from error-free).

In my view it was bad form for Toscanini to change the score. A great conductor, but... even the sun has spots.

As for the muted horns in the finale, this comes from the first performance of 1911. Sibelius's own manuscript score used on that occasion marks them 'Corni gestopft', which he changed before publication. Some other conductors make them play muted as well (e.g. Sir Colin Davis).

Meanwhile, until I have had a chance to re-examine the original materials - which I shall try to do in Helsinki within the next few weeks, I am sticking to my guns - so can we please call a truce on this until then?

Andrew B wrote:

In my view it was bad form for Toscanini to change the score. A great conductor, but... even the sun has spots.

Bad form is right, but at the time, this was a very common practice among the "great" conductors with any composer's music. They most likely felt that if Wagner could do it, it was fair game.

What I find interesting is that these conductors usually add things... how often have conductors taken things out? (with respect to orchestration, not including VIDE cuts)

I have never changed a score, but if I were to delve into those dangerous waters, I would probably tend to thin out orchestrations a little (for example in Smetana's Ma Vlast) rather than add things.

I am always finding such interesting discussion on this forum.

First of all, I had no idea that Sibelius had an interest in jazz. I actually a little shocked. I just don;t think of him as a "jazzy" guy. Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Milhaud, yes, but Sibelius? Truly fascinating.

Andrew, did you ever get to the bottom of the 4th Symphony's glockenspiel/tubular bells debate?

Clearly, indisputably 'Stahlstäbe' in the Helsinki University Library draft/fair copy!

I hesitate to open up this debate again on the question of Glocken or Glockenspiel in the fourth Symphony.
Andrews revelation however was not new to me, as Sibelius scholar Glenda Dawn Goss has pointed out in her admirable book 'Jean Sibelius and Olin Downes [1995] published by Northeastern University Press.
Glenda Goss writes 'consider the instrument that Sibelius now introduces--a percussion whose exact character has given rise to lively discussion among commentators and inconsistencies in performance. The confusion concerns whether large bells are meant, as suggested by the word 'Glocken' in the printed score, or whether that word is an abbreviation for Glockenspiel and thus implies the small bells. The parts used at the premiere, which might provide clarification, can no longer be located.
The composers fair copy is marked 'Stahlstabe', generally taken to mean large tubular bells. Olin Downes was convinced that Sibelius had intended the heroic large bells, and he enthusiastically praised Stokowski's decision to use large bells in his performance of the fourth'.

In view of all the uncertainty surrounding Sibelius intentions, that great Sibelius conductor Eugene Ormandy asked the master to his face, what did he mean by 'Glocken' in the fourth symphony, and Sibelius answered that he had been wrong to change to Glockenspiel in the 1930's and had meant tubular bells all along.

The fact that the composers fair copy of the score is marked 'Stahlstabe' in the composers hand is not conclusive proof of Sibelius's final intention. I have a feeling that this controversy will go on.--kullervopete.

--- Moderation ---

In fear that this thread could well go on like this forever, I am locking it down.

If the participants in this debate feel they have a new argument to add, please send me a private message along with the general content of your intended post and I will consider unlocking it and allowing this discussion to continue.

Sorry to all involved for taking this course of action, but I think it may be for the best.

--- End of Moderation ---