Bernard Haitink is perhaps to Mahler what Paavo Berglund is to Sibelius.
I have always thought that Maestro Haitink would be a natural Sibelius conductor, but for some unknown reason he avoids the Finnish master.


I have however been reading a review of a performance of the Sibelius concerto given by Joshua Bell and the Boston Symphony Orchestra under Haitink :
Violinist Joshua Bells vehicle was the Sibelius concerto, which he played with impressive virtuosity. But in the afternoon heat, he had to work hard and passages he usually tosses off with ease sounded a little laboured. His fans applauded lustily and lined up at the intermission to get his autograph. Haitink presided over an unusually subtle and sensitive account of the orchestral part.

I seem to recall Edward Clark [UK Sib Society] once telling me of a conversation that he once had with Haitink. Edward asked the maestro about his avoidance of Sibelius. Haitink revealed that he listens to Sibelius frequently at home.

I am aware that Haitink has recorded the Sibelius third symphony with the London Philharmonic. But even as a seasoned collector, I can find no information about this recording--the date it was done, why it has never been released and so forth.

It does seem to be an enigma that one of the great conductors of our era has stayed clear of Sibelius for so long. By his own admission he enjoys hearing the music and I for one would love to hear his thoughts on the Sibelius symphonies.

Can anyone cast any light on Haitinks Sib 3 recording?--kp

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

There are certainly many conductors, famous and not, who can admirably conduct the works of both of these composers. However, they require a completely different psychological approach from the podium, in rehearsal and in performance. Perhaps some that are more suited to the one composer therefore avoid the other, knowing full well what "going over to the other side" entails and requires.

First of all, in rehearsal... Mahler's Symphonies are so very long that conductors are hard-pressed with time just to play them through in rehearsal and communicate a few meaningful ideas to the orchestra. If a conductor were to stop and really start tuning, explaining the shapes of phrases and rehearsing articulations, there would be no way to actually get through the piece in a rehearsal week, especially given the fact that there is probably something else on the program. The conductor must therefore rely on the natural musicianship of his orchestral players, their ability to "get the phrase right", to some extent their foreknowledge of the piece and his own ability to gesture expressively and meaningfully.

With Sibelius, a conductor who is used to this kind of work will immediately be faced with the frustration of the orchestra not getting it right the first time through, of many sections of the piece not "falling into the groove" immediately and of many problems with inner rhythmic details. Rehearsing Sibelius requires a lot of stopping and starting and a really, really firm grip on the material from the conductor. There are not many passages where the conductor can just let the orchestra play an assume that they will intuitively get it right.

In performance, Mahler is all about plunging headlong into every moment and making the colours at hand come alive and enthrall listeners in an endless soap-opera of passion and mood.

Sibelius is about stepping back and having rehearsed the details, now creating a structure that orchestras and audiences can grip.

Two very different approaches, and I respect conductors who sense their potential limitations in one of these areas and avoid it out of respect for the music.

I've also heard rumours of a Haitink Third, but never found any trace of it.

It frustrates me, perhaps troubles me, that a high profile conductor like Haitink would admit to listening to Sibelius "frequently" at home, but never performs him. It kind of does't make sense to me.

But maybe this is common among conductors?

Kurki, are there any composers you listen to with some amount of regularity but never conduct?

Stravinsky, but that's because my orchestra isn't big enough to play Stravinsky. When I'm with an orchestra than can, I will.

In the sense that you mean, no composer really fits that description for me. There are composers who's music I simply don't want to conduct, but I don't listen to it (on purpose) either. As a matter of fact, I don't put much classical music on at home anymore, other than a daily dose of Sibelius, along with some occaisional Stravinsky and Beethoven.

I figure if a conductor listens to something a lot, he likes it. If a conductor likes something, I'd think he'd want to perform it. SO the Haitink comment doesn;t make sense.

I wonder if he said that he listened to Sibelius to avoid getting an earful from the devoted Sibelian to whom he was speaking?!

I can understand why some conductors avoid Sibelius. A good example is the late Gunta Wand. He was a tremendous Brucknerian but he admitted that he did not understand Sibelius's music and felt no affinity for it.

In Haitinks case [assuming that he is being truthful] the maestro must feel some kind of rapport with Sibs music, or he would not listen to it. Perhaps their is something deep in the music that maestro Haitink would rather not face. Sibelius's insight into the dark side of human nature, is something mostly absent from a composer such as Mahler. He has recorded excellent accounts of the Vaughan Williams symphonies, so his neglect of Sibelius is all the more egnimatic.

Haitink does seem to be one of a number of conductors who do manage to record or perform the Sibelius concerto. People like Ozawa, Kubelik, Mutti and Barenboin [with Valse triste] come to mind. I would imagine that the Sib concerto poses many challenges for conductor and soloist alike. Perhaps some conductors are more at home with Sibelius's earlier, more romantic works. If so then it is inexplicable why they should ignore the first two symphonies.

Its enlightning listening to conductor Adrian Leaper.
'The most important element for an understanding of Sibelius is empathy, not just an understanding of the scores but empathy that helps you truly grasp what Sibelius is trying to achieve in his music. If I contrast Sibelius with his contemporary, Mahler, I say something that may be contentious but I believe to be true: that a conductor without a particularly good understanding of Mahlers first symphony can, with a decent orchestra, produce a very good performance; the orchestra may well recognise the conductors lack of understanding or commitment, but a good performance is possible. I think in Sibelius's case there is hardly a note, maybe with the exception of the finale of Symphony No. 2, where an orchestra could possibly take over and rescue a conductor in achieving a convincing performance'.

Who knows, perhaps in the course of Haitinks 'Indian summer' the maestro will feel able to explore some Sibelius.--kp

kullervopete wrote:

Sibelius's insight into the dark side of human nature, is something mostly absent from a composer such as Mahler.

With all due respect Pete, this is a strange observation. I think if there were ever a composer who was known for his insights into man's dark side, it would be Mahler! I think many would agree with me on that point.

Sibelius's music also deals with this darkness, but in a different way. Mahler is melodramatic and overblown, Sibelius is more eloquent and succinct.

Would you mind elaborating on this, Pete?

Well at the risk of being over subjective in this matter, the darkness that I ellude to runs rather deeper than an interminable number of funeral marches.

Sibelius is an artist who reveals things that we have forgotten to listen to in ourselves or that we are too afraid to confront. Forget the dark Finnish winter landscape, Sibelius explores the dark reaches of the human psyche, a landscape of the soul.

Of course this dark side is not completely absent in the music of Mahler, but in my submission it is often missing in some of his more self-indulgent 'worlds'

In a work like the fourth symphony or Tapiola, the prevailing darkness is almost unbearable, even in an heroic work such as the fifth symphony, the dark anguish of lifes pain as no parallel.--kp

Points well taken, and I would be inclined to agree with you. Sibelius, I think, is darker for sure.

I think the darkness in Mahler, however, is not limited to his funeral marches. There is much darkness, and sadness, throughout much of his oeuvre.

Mahler's darkness is campy and hysterical, Sibelius's is more human and sincere; it seeths below the surface, like a volcano about to explode.

Haha, Mahler = "Campy"

Good one, I'll have to remember that.

kullervopete wrote:

I say something that may be contentious but I believe to be true: that a conductor without a particularly good understanding of Mahlers first symphony can, with a decent orchestra, produce a very good performance; the orchestra may well recognise the conductors lack of understanding or commitment, but a good performance is possible. I think in Sibelius's case there is hardly a note, maybe with the exception of the finale of Symphony No. 2, where an orchestra could possibly take over and rescue a conductor in achieving a convincing performance.

I wholeheartedly agree. The majority of Sibelius' symphonic music is very "conductor driven", both in performance and rehearsal. A conductor must really tell people "how" to play many passages and accompanying figurations, and without this clear insight and instruction there is absolutely no way to mount a reasonably communicative performance.

I have contacted Edward Clark for any possible further imformation on Haitink.

Edward has confirmed that he did talk briefly with the maestro about Sibelius. To Edwards query as to why he does not perform Sibelius, Haitink replied that he did not devote time to studying the scores. However he did listen to Sibelius with considerable enjoyment.

Interestingly Edward contends that if you asked this question of other maestro's who do not conduct Sibelius you would recieve half of the same reply, the first half, but he suspects not the second part!

Of great interest to the forum, following our

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

on Boulez, Edward has heard that the French maestro has recanted and intends to perform Tapiola in Chicago, if he has not already done so. This is great news indeed!

As regards a possible Haitink Sibelius 3 on record, Edward tells me that he has read in 'The Symphonies by Sibelius' by Guy Thomas [his PhD Dissertation] there is listed under the 3rd symphony, at the end of the list of recordings : ? LPO/Haitink, London LDR7 1035
If I can chase this up I will get back, if anyone else fancies some detective work, feel free.--kp

Boulez Tapiola - let's hope it gets broadcast. Astonishing.

Looking back a few posts in this thread: can anybody remind me of the exact wording and context of JS's remark that runs something like (totally from distant memory): 'I am fond of Tchaikovsky's symphonies but they represent the soft parts of human nature. Mine are the hard ones.'

As we have discussed on the forum, Tchaikovsky has been cited as Sibelius's early symphonic model, along with Borodin and Bruckner. Sibelius remarked 'I can not understand why my symphonies are so often compared with Tchaikovsky's. His symphonies are very human, but they represent the soft part of human nature. Mine are the hard ones'.I don't know just when Sibelius made this remark but it tells us quite a bit about the nature of the two masters. Lets remember also that Sibelius's early love for Tchaikovsky's music began to wane as he matured.--kp

Thanks! I hope our Finnish members will be flattered rather than offended that I find Sibelius's comment a very Finnish thing to say.

I have brought up the mystery of Haitinks 'Phantom' Sibelius 3 with Robert Layton.

Mr. Layton is second to none in his knowledge of the Sibelius Discography. Robert was very much aware that Haitink enjoys listening to Sibelius, as he had talked to the maestro during his days at the Royal Opera House. In fact Mr Layton, encouraged by Haitinks P. A. gave him his book [Sibelius-master musicians series] Robert can't currently find his copy of Guy Thomas's excellent Dissertation, but he confirms that it is full of sound and penetrating judgments.

To the crux of the mystery, Robert has never heard or seen a copy of his third symphony and is rather sceptical as to its existence. If he comes across anything more concrete he will get back to me.

Ah well, disappointing, If Robert Layton has not seen it. Anyone got Maestro Haitinks contact details, that would surely solve the mystery.--kp

I believe he is represented by Askonas Holt if you wish to pursue the matter!

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

Thanks Andrew, I know many of us would be keen to get to the bottom of this mystery. I will see what I can do.--kp

I have been in touch with Martin Campbell-White who represents Maestro Haitink at Askonas Holt. I have recieved the following massage from Mr. Campbell-Whites P.A.

We have been in touch with Maestro Haitink and he has only ever performed Sibelius's second symphony with the Halle Orchestra in 1965, so I think there must have been some wires crossed at some point.

So it does seem that the Sibelius 3 was merely a rumour. Good to see that maestro Haitink did mark the Sibelius centenery.-kp

I suppose there is no recording of this performance. What a shame!

Still puzzled as to how someone can admit listening to a composer frequently but never want to perform him.