Yes you may be right, Kullervo's Lament which he arranged in 1957 for Kim Borg with orchestra seems the only possibility. This piece had crossed my mind, maybe Downey's wording is at fault here in describing the third movement ['Kullervo and his sister'] as being the part that Sibelius revised. This is 23 minutes of music compared to the 3 to 4 minute Kullervo's Lament.--kullervopete.

Good point - I think you must surely be right about Kullervo's Lament. Mind you, the lament was arranged specifically as a stand-alone item for concert use, so Downey must still have resolutely picked up the wrong end of this particular stick.

There is another version of Kullervo's Lament on the Naxos label. It appears on Sibelius Songs, volume II. This arrnagement is for piano and tenor. From the liner notes, it says:

"The song was revised into its present form in 1917-1918."

Has anyone else heard this arrangement?

I aint heard the Naxos recording with Tenor and piano, but I seem to recall hearing Finnish baritone Tom Krouse singing it. As you say Sibelius arranged Kullervo's Lament in 1917-18. It was for baritone and piano. 25 years earlier he had arranged a German version, but in 1917 Sibelius went back to the original Finnish text, this did entail some changes to the metre of the vocal line. Neither version is completely identical to the 1892 original. Quite a chequered history for a piece that Sibelius wanted to suppress.--kullervopete.

Baritone makes much more sense since the part of Kullervo was already written for a baritone.

The singer on this album, Hannu Jurmu, is listed as a tenor, however...

It's not just the use of a tenor that has raised eyebrows in that Naxos set. Somethong obviously went terribly wrong with the production; Hannu Jurmu (the singer in question) is, I'm told, desperately unhappy with the result. In any case the inclusion of a lot of rather inferior third-party transcriptions and the fact that some songs are performed in translation rather than in the original languages do limit its appeal.

I'm less critical of this recording (Sibelius Songs 2, Naxos) than Andrew.

Personally, I don't think that the arrangements are bad at all. I know Mr. Jurmu has gotten a lot of criticism for his unstable voice. While his technique is not uber-polished by any means, there is a certain primal wildness that I find, at the very least, interesting. Do you know why, Andrew, Mr. Jurmu is not happy with the outcome of the recording?

I don't have precise information, sorry - just rumours, and it wouldn't be fair to share those!
I suppose I dislike the whole concept of arrangements because I'm a purist (or pedant, or just plain intolerant - take your pick!). Nevertheless, I just can't see why anybody would want to perform or listen to a bleeding chunk of Rakastava just for the thrill of hearing it set for voice and piano rather than for choir (in my copy of the CD it doesn't even mention that we don't get the whole piece; in fact I think we get the whole arrangement, but the arranger chose not to/couldn't be bothered to do the rest of it). If it had been an original sketch by Sibelius, fine; but if we follow this path why don't we arrange the Seventh Symphony for voice and piano - and stop after the first trombone solo?

Point well taken Andrew, but I still think the CD of Sibelius Songs with Jurmu is OK.

I don't think anyone would ever have the audacity to do a version of the opening moments (up to the first trombone solo!) of the 7th Symphony for voice and piano, but I know you were being cheeky.

As for the 3rd party arrangement of symphonic works, I can honestly hear nothing "bad" about them. There is only so much you can do when goingf from full orchestra to the keyboard.

As for performing excerpts of larger works - again - I really have no issue with this. I don't think these little pieces are trying to be any thing more than what they are...small scale arrangements of larger works. And if done by a third party, no big deal. I mean, it not like they are replacing the works that they come from...

So now I'm choosing to go through and listen to some of the original versions from the Tone Poems box.

I'm probably listening to the original En Saga under the most ideal conditions: I am not at all familiar with the work in any version. I listened to the original first. I was very drawn to it, and thought that, while rough and unrefined, it was the Mahlerian sort of rough and unrefined in which the ruggedness makes the piece work. Sprawling, majestic and that sort of thing. There is a lot of really great stuff here. The revised one has quite a bit more impact, though, which can be felt within the first few minutes. And I just realized that there is a viola solo in the revised one ... was that in the original? I don't recall it being there. Regardless, En Saga is pretty fantastic either version you choose to listen to. The revised one is just better in its use of orchestral color and thematic material, whereas the original one seems a bit fresher in its ideas (the revised one got a bit more annoying as it went along).

I can't really focus well enough to listen to a basically new piece all over again (particularly something as vast and complex and with as many revisions as Lemminkainen...), so I'm listening to the two versions of Spring Song next (which, granted, I'm still not terribly familiar with, but I at least know it better than either En Saga or Lemminkainen). The original "Improvisation" is quite enchanting, despite all of Mahler's or whoever's assaulting it as a bunch of kitsch (and one can still see the argument, but oh well!). The revised one is very different indeed, in a quite different key (F major as opposed to D) that gives it much added warmth that just makes it all the more lovely. It also has much more characteristic sweep than the original has. So I like the revised one better this time by far.

On to Finland Awakes/Finlandia. I think I've been converted to Finland Awakes. That's really all that needs to be said here; anything else would be repetitive...

I think that, for the most part, had Sibelius left the originals (for the tone poems, anyway), they would still be pretty great pieces. He just made them better (except, arguably, for Finlandia).

Suomi herää (Finland awakes) is pretty bleedin' awesome. The ending with the swirilng strings under the emphatic brass restatement of the 'hymn' is just incredible beyond words. I get goosebumps every time.

I really like the original and revised version of En Saga equally. The original has some stranger harmonies and sounds more "wild," perhaps, than the revised version. But the revised version stand on its own two feet without any problems either. In either version, it's a fascinating, dark work.