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!

Herbert Von Karajan was not the only champian of Sibelius in pre-war Germany. Hans Rosbaud [1895-1962] also gave the Finnish masters music distinguished advocacy. Sadly he does not seem to have made any commercial recordings of the symphonies, but maybe one day some old concert tape might surface. But between 1954 and 1957 Rosbaud recorded a number of tone poems and other pieces for DG.

The 'Karelia Suite' finds the Berlin Phil. in fine form. The opening 'Intermezzo' is idiomatic with some magical horns at the end against mysterious strings. After a moving 'Ballade' the final 'Alla Marcia' as got to be the slowest ever commited to disc! Its not completely uneffective but the pace of the opening theme tends to 'plod' somewhat. But the brass fanfares gain in breadth and grandeur.

The 'Swan of Tuonela' is atmospheric and in Rosbauds hands suitably chilly with a fine Cor anglais solo from Gerhard Stempnik who incidentally went on to play the piece later for Karajan.

Rosbauds account of 'Tapiola' is broad in conception, my timing was 22' approx. This performance certainly sent shivers down my spine at times. I have been listening to many recordings of Tapiola recently, and this one as much to offer. I was impressed by the 'quiet' before the storm and the impassioned cry as the tempest subsides, surely one of the profoundest moments in all music.

A characterful if somewhat sluggish performance of 'Festivo' from 'Scenes Historiques' closes this interesting anthology.--kp

Rosbaud conducts Sibelius. DG 'originals' 447 453-2
LP Heliodor 89 798

Yes - quite an amazing slow speed for the Alla marcia from Karelia! One can only assume that he wished to comply with the Moderato tempo marking, which is of course an admirable wish… but the music will have been rather unfamiliar in Berlin so he probably counldn't draw on the wealth of comparative performances and recordings that we have today.

Interesting points. But I wonder if its not a bad thing for Rosbaud turning to the score with a clean sheet as it were, and not shackled by pre-concieved idea's of how the music should go drawn from a long recording tradition. In this day and age of instant downloads and a vast duplication of recordings available in which to compare innumerable versions of a work, I would think that a conductor would do well to steer clear of how others view the piece and immerse himself in the score. When Maestro Kurki turns 40, he may well feel the urge to conduct Kullervo. I feel sure that Kurki would agree with me that in preparing the piece for performance, he should close his ears to the Vanska's and Segerstam's of this world and try to recreate Sibelius's vision as he see's it.--kp

Yep, I'm with you on that one. Though once one has formed a basic opinion of how it should go, it is probably useful to compare with a few recordings just to make sure one isn't barking completely up the wrong tree. Better the dog's bollocks (if you'll pardon the term - but it is only slang, not genuinely unpleasant) than the dog's breakfast, to maintain the canine metaphor.

Never mind the bollocks, that's what I always say...

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

I've just been looking at some comments on the web regarding Rosbauds Sibelius recording. This extract by Michael B Rickman from Portland, Maine USA caught my eye:

'This is one of the few times that the great conductor Hans Rosbaud recorded for DG, and he is in fine form with the ever powerful Berlin Philarmonic. Despite this, I am giving this title only four stars, and heres why. While I love vintage mono recordings, many people don't, and Sibelius is a composer that particuarly benefits from the advent of stereo, though not necessarily Digital [does anybody?!] The timbre of the brass and the overall lushness of the scores are important Sibelian traits, best suited to stereo's enhanced aural seperation. While this is a collectors gem, those looking for their one-and-only copy of Sibelius's orchestral nuggets should find a stereo title'.

Mr. Rickman makes some interesting points here. I have always thought myself that the 'Raw' austerity of many Sibelius pieces is well suited to good vintage mono recordings, I certainly prefer these to that terrible 'electronic enhanced stereo' that we sometimes get. Also I don't think that 'lushness' is a description that I would apply to most of Sibelius's major works. I think that the finest vintage recordings can be compared to some of those old black and white films, but just as the advent of the 'talkies' added a new dimmension to the big screen, stereo recording enhanced our listening pleasure.--kp

Oh yes, thanks (in a way) for reminding me of the electronic stereo nonsense. It must have seemed like a good idea to somebody at the time!

I have nothing at all against the sound of a good mono recording but I had to chuckle at Mr Rickman's observation: 'those looking for their one-and-only copy of Sibelius's orchestral nuggets should find a stereo title'. Whatever the merits or otherwise of particular recordings, it's a bit like saying in this day and age: 'If you want a TV, get a colour set', or 'if you want a bicycle, get one with pneumatic tyres' or 'if you want to take photos, there are now some good non-box cameras'.

I would not consider Sibbe's orchestration lush in the traditional sense. I would call it more...distinctive than lush. (When I think of lush orhestration, my mind goes to the usual suspects: Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Khachaturain, etc.)

Though "austere," "cold," whatever, Sibbe's orchestration is fascinating in its many layers and I think is best suited for stereo. Take a work like Tapiola or the 7th Symphony. There are so many layers happening at the same time, at different tempi, that I think stereo is the best way to capture these elements in the best way possible.

BUt I agree with Pete that mono, while not preferable, does suit Sibbe's music well, giving his sound a sort of strange, gritty one-dimensional quality. But I see this more as novelty than necessity.

So, I will probably pick up this disc at some point...I would liek to hear it...but because I'm not a big "monophile," it may be a while.

Tapkaara wrote:

I would not consider Sibbe's orchestration lush in the traditional sense ... (When I think of lush orhestration, my mind goes to the usual suspects: Ravel, Rimsky-Korsakov, Khachaturain, etc.)

A lot of words like "lush", "cold", "transparent" or "brilliant" are often thrown around with respect to orchestration, the words sort of take on a life of their own without necessarily meaning anything that ties in directly to the music. I think it is better to describe a composer's orchestration in given piece in a direct way rather than trying to use adjectives to sum up an entire piece or especially an entire body of works. If one must use these adjectives, it is good to have them well defined, for one's own sake at least.

"Lush" orchestration to me means a lot of different instruments playing the same thing. So while Mozart may have "transparent" orchestration in that only a single part in the score will be playing the melody, Puccini will stack multiple instrumental parts on the same melody line, along with multiple instrumental parts on the same counter-melody, multiple parts on the same accompaniment... This is different from "thick" orchestration in that in my mind, "thick" orchestration showcases many different instruments doing different things. Think Brahms.

As we know, JS had several gramophones and at least one of them was state of the art. Many new recordings of his music arrived at Ainola including test pressings. One wonders just how Sibelius would have enjoyed the advances in audio technology over the last forty years or so. No doubt the windows at Ainola would be shaking if Sib was around today. Its my guess that he would be bowled over by digital sound. Sibelius would be sending congratulatory e-mails to the Vanska's and Davies's of this world, praising their latest audiophile offerings and then sending the recording producer a whole list of criticisms regarding dynamics here or rubato there.--kp

Well, that's an intriguing line of thought - an e-mail from Sibelius! These days it's rather usual with living composers for them to have considerable input in the recordings (Kalevi Aho for instance, who is generally at the recordings himself) and to have the opportunity to comment at first-edit stage. I would hope (and actually I think it's likely) that Sibelius would have shown an equivalent interest!

I wonder what Sibelius would have thought of Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound and/or THX. We know he liked listening to music rather forte...I think these earth-shattering, all-enveloping sound systems of today would have made him a very happy man.

(Listening to Sibbe's 5th right now on my Bose 901 speakers...rather forte, I might add..!)

Andrew B wrote:

Well, that's an intriguing line of thought - an e-mail from Sibelius! These days it's rather usual with living composers for them to have considerable input in the recordings (Kalevi Aho for instance, who is generally at the recordings himself) and to have the opportunity to comment at first-edit stage. I would hope (and actually I think it's likely) that Sibelius would have shown an equivalent interest!

Many of JS's contemporary's did record and supervise their own music. A good example is Edward Elgar.

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

Here's Elgar on 27th April, 1926 recording some of his 'Pomp and Circumstance' marches for the new electrical recording system. An interesting anecdote, on 12th November, 1931 Elgar performed the trio from the first march [Land of hope and glory] with the LSO. for the opening of EMI's Abbey Rd studio, after being greeted by the orchestra, Elgar said 'Morning gentlemen, glad to see you all, very light programme this morning. Please play this tune as though you've never heard it before'. What good advice. Elgar had in fact first recorded it in June 1914.--kp

Tapkaara wrote:

I wonder what Sibelius would have thought of Dolby 5.1 Surround Sound and/or THX. We know he liked listening to music rather forte...I think these earth-shattering, all-enveloping sound systems of today would have made him a very happy man.

He would have been deaf. Just throwing that out there. A 150-year-old, modern-day Beethoven... the image makes me smile.

Deaf? Well, maybe...maybe not. I think he would have been elated. I mean, if h was listening to a big, clunky one-spear box on a table top, I'm sure even at the time (when no better technology existed) he would have been uphappy with the low-fidelity sound. I'm sure that's why he listened so loudly...he was trying to pull every drop of sound out of that box as possible.

I think if he could hear Tapiola played fff on a modern sound system, he would light a cigar, take a swig of Scotch, kick up his heels and do a jig.

Tapkaara wrote:

... take a swig of Scotch ...

... a swig or four ...

I'm thirsty, I think I'll go listen to Tapiola.

Benjamin Britten also comes to mind as a composer who like to participate in recordings of his works. His recording of the Serenade for Tenor and Horn is to this day my favourite.

True, and all credit to them (Elgar and Britten) or doing so.
But by today's standards even in Britten's day - and most emphatically in Elgar's - there wasn't all that much that could be done to alter a recording once it was edited. I think most people would be utterly flabbergasted if they knew how precise the modern post-production process has become. Is it too much; do things get over-produced (or more accurately over post-produced)? Sometimes yes, to the detriment of the musical line. Some musicians want to refine every note until it sounds perfect but the spirit [not the whisky, come on guys] is lost. But skilled producers and editors know when to draw the line.

So go on, take a guess: what do you think is the average number of edits for a 70-minute recording?

I think I'll go for one edit per two minutes: 70 minutes, 35 edits. I really don't know at all... can you tell???

As for Britten's recordings, what I've heard from them is very good (there are four box sets of Britten conducting Britten... no, I don't have them yet, but I'm looking at them for when I have money). I can't imagine doing too many edits.

You can't tell if the edits are done properly, that's true.
So we have one vote for 35.
The rest of you, please…

By "edits" do you mean sections of music that are retaken and spliced in?

I would guess about in the 20-30 range.

If you're talking about post-recording sound-engineering, where a technician plays with the levels of the various tracks, etc., then the number could be in the hundreds.