Does anyone prefer the Original Symphony 5 to the New one?

And while on the topic, other than the Vanska/Lahti recording, does anyone know of other recording of the original no. 5?

I feel the final version is indeed the Final Version, but that takes nothing away from the brilliance and interest or the original version.

In the original, the starkness of the slow movement we find Sibelius continuing in the vein of #4 - he definitely smoothed this movement out with each revision. There are jarring effects in the Finale of the original which he omitted in the Final, which is rather courageous... to take away ideas. Also, I feel it is very hard to understand the closing chords of the Final version without having heared how they were written in the original. If you have not heared the original, you must definitely listen to it if only for this reason.

But where the First version is obviously lacking is the separation of the first mvmt and the Scherzo into separate movements. When I think of #5 and its contribution to music, I think of the "real" first mvmt and how it melds the sonata and the scherzo. Upon hearing the initial scheme and comparing it to the final, it is obvious why Sibelius revised this Symphony twice.

A matter of taste, of course: I would say that he original Fifth is fascinating but Sibelius himself decided that it wasn't good enough, and went on to make it better in almost every way.
Ther only commercial recording of the original score is Osmo Vänskä’s, and at the moment it seems unlikely that there will be another (such things need the permission of the Sibelius estate, which in the case of this work is not lightly given). On the other hand I once heard an illicit recording of a performance by [?] Jorma Panula and the Finnish Radio Symphony Orchestra, c. 1970. It had dreadful sound, though, and must have been wholly unrehearsed.

"Original" 5th is a very different piece than the final one. Listen to the giving energy of the later version than the taking one of the first (like 4th symphony). I like the final more because it is so much cared of, should I say than the before version. Energia vs. Antienergia. I think this is the main difference. It is like he suddenly started to bloom outside his previous "character" and decided something that would last until the burnings of 8th. And perhaps his long years after that.

arenan wrote:

Listen to the giving energy of the later version than the taking one of the first.

... Wow.

Excellent words, arenan.

Another idea I had about Sibelius' revisions of the 5th Symphony and countless other works... why always the revisions? And not just changes in instrumentation like Mahler, but huge structural changes and sometimes even conceptual changes.

I think this is because Sibelius' music is not as concrete as it may seem to some. His music is describing some inner feeling, his music is an approximate manifestation of an intangible idea. So once written it is not set in stone. His ideas of how the basic idea can be expressed continue to develop, he intangible idea stays in his mind long after "completion" of the first versions, and he comes up with other clues and shades with which to express that intangible truth that is within his mind.

Well written Kurkikohtaus. I think the narrative of these works do have more to do with anything than mere structular coehense. Like Prokofievs piano concerto nr. 2. I remember the first cadenza is marked as "narrate". Narrative. So beautiful. Fix me if I am wrong about the number. This was a piece dedicated to his friend who wrote a letter to Proko: "Hello. I am fine. I just shot myself". Fix me if I am wrong please!

Aproximate manifestation. Well there you have it. Like themes on 5th second movement, well at alone they are very weak. But the Finnish character behind is a very shy boy as Finnish people are. That is our tradition. But I suddenly had this "manifestation" of hiding the themes. He never was a good melodic master like Verdi and if you listen the fabulous pages of Finnish Radio they have this interview with Järnefelt who sang at a chorus next to Janne! "He was totally out of key.. All the time". But to get back in business I think Sibelius HIDES his themes in this so called "mess" (mömmö). And there we have the best theme "hider" of them all... Maestro Janne Sibelius. And from a biographical point of view he had these dreams of violas where there was no ending in sight pultwise. I think as dated in his own dictionary sheds a light to the string sound he had in his mind. Orchestra so large he cannot even see the perillous pults!

arenan wrote:

Orchestra so large he cannot even see the perillous pults!

Sometimes I wish I couldn't hear them either.

"The theme hider..."

Indeed.

To get back on topic, the Old 5th vs. the New 5th, I think that this hiding of themes is something that developped both ways from the first version to the last. In the first version, I find most of the themes more concrete than in the final, as if Sibelius tried to do away with the "obviousness" of the themes as his ideas progressed. But then in the final version Finale, I find the famous 2nd theme much more understated in the original version, becoming much more solid in the final.

Esa-Pekka Salonen has said, that Sibelius` music has a plant´s form instead of a house´s form. So, if a rabbit eats the top of his little apple tree, he grows a new trunk from a branch. Or he is trying to grow it like he wants, but the tree doesn`t develop in an expected way, so he has to change his mind. Etc...

Harri M wrote:

... Sibelius` music has a plant´s form instead of a house´s form ... he grows a new trunk from a branch. Or he is trying to grow it like he wants, but the tree doesn`t develop in an expected way ...

There you have it, the uncontrolled growth of his motives. But as we see on the final version of the fifth the "growings" are done in the first version and finalized with the final. To me, final is perfect. I mean the version here.

All this talk about the original version of the 5th has forced me to revisit it...I'll post my thoughts later.

--- --- ---

Well, I for one am very ok with the fact that maestro Sibelius decided to revise and tighten his 5th. Indeed, listening to the original version does offer a wonderul peek into Sibelius's mind and hints at how his creative process worked.

I for one was very glad once I'd heard the original 5th, as it had bugged me for years how Sibelius could possibly have gotten from 4 to 5. It's not as if he just went over to the dark side as Penderecki did, since 6 and 7, especially 7, are very fine works. As is Tapiola.

I've loved the revised version of 5 for many years (about 40, come to think of it), don't get me wrong. But it's a far cry from the taut, harshly beautiful world of the 4th. The original version of 5 is not as far. It's much more in line with where Sibelius had gotten to in his own development, much more in line with where he was to end up going in the other big, symphonic (as opposed to incidental) works. I think 5 shows how even a big composer can lose his nerve, however momentarily! But I don't expect any general agreement on that point!

I hope we get to hear other performances of the original. Segerstam'd be my pick for that. (I can dream...)

Well yes, Interpretation 10/10 goes to new 5th finale Segerstam/Helsinki PO. I have never EVER heard such a devoted eyesight on 5ths few last pages. OMG!

arenan, I think some guy means he would like to hear Segerstam's performance of the original version of the 5th, just as Vanska did with Lahti.

some guy, I'm interested in learning more about what you mean about Sibelius "losing his nerve" in the 5th? Do you mean in the orginal, or in the revision? Or do you mean that the fact that he revised it is indication of him losing his nerve? Please share!

Don't get your hopes up for other conductors playing the original Fifth. It is (perhaps understandably) very strictly controlled by the Sibelius family and even Lahti and Osmo Vänskä only received very limited permission for recording/performance (they have played it in Japan).

Segerstam does certainly give us a phenomenally powerful ending to the 1919 Fifth - but the score only allows the slightest increase of pace at the end, and LS kind of gets twice as fast. That really hurts... (and spoils the effect, don't you think?).

Well, I'm not holding my breath or anything about another recording of the original fifth...

As for losing his nerve, I mean in the revision. Softening everything down, making it more "normal." Smoothing out the rough edges. (That's one reason I'd like to hear Segerstam do this. I don't think the abrupt shifts quite come off in the Vanska.)

It just seems that at every step, he said to himself: nope, too rowdy; gotta fix that. It's only idle speculation of course, but this was a war symphony, and maybe he just thought that the rowdiness was inappropriate. Whatever the reason, the revised fifth is more ordinary than the original, more than one would expect from someone who'd just done that spectacularly brilliant fourth.

By number seven, he'd pretty well recovered .

Aha, I see what you mean now.

If you look up near the top of the thread, I made comment about this very point:

I wrote:

In the original, the starkness of the slow movement we find Sibelius continuing in the vein of #4 - he definitely smoothed this movement out with each revision. There are jarring effects in the Finale of the original which he omitted in the Final, which is rather courageous... to take away ideas.

I guess our difference in opinion lies in the fact that I admire the changes, and to restate, I think they are courageous changes in that he takes away effects in attempt to get to the musical core of his idea. Anyone can add material or effects, but to take them away? This shows an incredible belief in the core of one's ideas, and a very tangible maturing process in the composer, where he is able to say to himself: This is unecessary.

But I respect your opinion in that you simply like the sounds of the original. I do as well, the jarring dissonant 3-note trumpet call above (or into) the 2nd theme of the Finale first and foremost... But I feel that the original is a look into a composer's workshop, while the 1919 is a finished (Finnished?) work.

I have a confession to make, I have come to prefer the last movement of the 5th in its original 1915 version. I am ready to acknowledge that in the 1919 revision, the way that Sibelius transforms the immense slowness of the opening movement into a pace that recalls the Beethoven scherzo is one of the 20th centuries most miraculous achievements and the second movement is an advance on 1915 despite the loss of some glorious music. But for me the 1915 finale moves me to the bones, its so much more expansive.
kullervopete.

kullervopete wrote:

I have come to prefer the last movement ... the way that Sibelius transforms the immense slowness of the opening into a pace that recalls the Beethoven scherzo ...

That sounds as if you are referring to the 1st mvmt, not the last mvmt. Which one do you mean?

Perhaps my small edit will clarify things--kullervopete.