Exploring the Big BIS Box




I hope I'm doing the right thing here in starting a new thread for this. I know there are threads already for discussing symphony cycles and so on, but it seemed to me that some kind of discussion of the Big BIS Box as an entity in its own right might be interesting. At any rate, this is the particular exploration that confronts me at present, and it's a daunting one too: how do I explore 15 CDs of music, most of which is not familiar to me? I guess I'll just follow my nose.

The box itself, though admittedly a great bargain, is slightly disappointing as a physical object. There's a thickish booklet, but the discs themselves are housed in plain white paper sleeves. That's OK - the music is the thing; but if any prospective purchasers were hoping for a presentation comparable to, for example, the '200 Years at Versailles' box (which is almost a work of art in itself), there's nothing to get excited about here.

I've started in the most sensible place - at the beginning. CD1. The 1st symphony; Vanska/Lahti. There was a lot hanging on this, and I should explain. Discovering the 1st symphony was an epiphanic event when I was about 16. I heard that haunting clarinet solo give way to those icy, vibrant strings coming in from a far distant northern sky, and asked 'What is this?'. I had to own a copy, but I had no money, so it had to be the cheapest thing I could find in the shops - but I was lucky. These were the days of vinyl LPs, and the CD was still a long way ahead, and on Philips's budget label you could get Beecham and the RPO's version. It was mono - but that didn't bother me as I only had a cheap mono record player then. And I didn't know who Beecham was, nor did I know that it might matter. But I played the grooves flat on that LP, and in hindsight I see that Beecham effectively defined for me what the first symphony should be like. I never bought another version on LP, even when I moved up the hifi scale in later years. You could say that ever since I finally disposed of my vinyl, I've been hoping to find an equivalent for Beecham's version of the Sibelius 1st symphony.

Sakari and his Icelanders wasn't it. It's OK, it will do; but it's not a definitive version. They play with enthusiasm, but their version doesn't quite 'sing'; there's no entirely convincing sense of contact with the profound myth-soaked air of Scandinavian skies. Colin Davis's version on RCA with the LSO (not 'LSO Live' - I mean the earlier recording) is appalling - slow, ponderous, glossily smooth, and dull, with all the life sandpapered out of it. So the big question for me was: is Vanska and the Lahti, here in the BIS Box, the definitive version I'm looking for?

Well, by golly, it's an exciting ride. It walks a curious balance between delicacy and rawness. I'm reminded in a way of the first time I heard Beethoven's 5th played on period instruments by Immerseel and his Belgians, when for the first time I felt as if I could hear individual instruments playing together, rather than being drowned in the general mushiness produced by too many of them. Vanska seems to achieve that kind of effect; each player seems to count as an individual, as well as being part of a whole.

The great moments are truly great - there's huge orchestral weight when it's needed, and an appropriate sense of vastness - of great open spaces and extensive snowy plains stretching off into the distance. The tunes emerge full of heart, full of feeling. My only quibble is that in the midst of all this exhilaration, some things seem just a little bit too rushed, and some important stresses are missed in sequences where notes follow rapidly on one another, trill-like. But the key thing is that the soul of the thing is there. This is certainly incomparably finer than either Sakari or Davis, in my book.

Is it the 1st symphony I've been searching for all my life? No, I don't think so. I think I shall go on looking for that. But this comes close enough to be worth many, many listenings; and it's a great start to exploring the Big BIS Box.

Thanks for an interesting post. I don't think that there is such a thing as a 'definitive version'. No one conductor has a monopoly of Sibelian insight.

I actually agree with much of your response to Vanska's Sibelius 1
I have heard Vanska conduct this symphony live on two occasions.
In Lahti in 2005 he gave a fine performance but the opening movement was just too 'hell for leather' for me. You mentioned
Beechams recording which I have on a wonderful Phillips LP [GL 5716] you could certainly have done worse than Beecham as an introduction to this symphony. I know just what you mean regarding early exposure to a particular recording which is then used as a yardstick in comparing subsequent performances.

I have always had a soft spot for Barbirolli's versions, both the early Pye and the later EMI account. J.B. lets the musical argument breath, but there is no lack of urgency. Bernstein, you either love or hate, but his 1960's first symphony [NYPO] is pretty good and I also have a video of his later 'live' performance with Vienna P.O. -ELECTRIC!

I think that you will find much to enjoy in the Bis 'Essential Sibelius' box and I look forward to further comments.--kp

kullervopete wrote:

I don't think that there is such a thing as a 'definitive version'. No one conductor has a monopoly of Sibelian insight.

No, indeed. I'm aware that, like Shangri-La, it's more of a mythical ideal than a real thing capable of achievement; but still there's an itch to keep on searching for it. Something to which one can point and say 'That's it. That's the one for me.' Your word 'yardstick' is more sensible.

Quote:

I have always had a soft spot for Barbirolli's versions, both the early Pye and the later EMI account. J.B. lets the musical argument breath, but there is no lack of urgency.

Thanks for this tip. For this reason, and for others, I think I must certainly listen to Barbirolli's Sibelius 1 at some point.

I will be very interested in your response to Barbirolli. I suppose its a measure of Sibelius's greatness that his music can stand up to such a wide variety of approach. We have the fine 'home-grown' conductors such as Berglund, Segerstam and Vanska giving a Finnish view. Karajan offers a Germanic view [a conductor that J.S. greatly admired] and even the French have widened our picture.[Pretre and Pascal Tortelier] Stokowski was something of a maverick, have you heard his 1976 first symphony with Nat. P. O. Stoky was 90 at the time, but his reading is pretty energetic. The only weak spot is the very opening of the finale, the maestro races through it as though he is up against the clock. Mind you at 90, I think we can forgive him kp

kullervopete wrote:

Stokowski was something of a maverick, have you heard his 1976 first symphony with Nat. P. O. Stoky was 90 at the time, but his reading is pretty energetic. The only weak spot is the very opening of the finale, the maestro races through it as though he is up against the clock. Mind you at 90, I think we can forgive him kp

No, I haven't heard Stokowski - in fact I've only heard Beecham, Sakari, Davis - and now Vanska. There's a lot out there, still unexplored.

Elgarian wrote:

No, I haven't heard Stokowski - in fact I've only heard Beecham, Sakari, Davis - and now Vanska. There's a lot out there, still unexplored.

I've just been checking my collection of Sibelius first Symphony and I never realised that I had so many :

Anthony Collins and London S.O. [Decca]
Leonard Bernstein and Newyork P.O. [CBS]
Leonard Bernstein and Vienna P.O. [Dg]
Sir Thomas Beecham and Royal P.O. [Phillips]
Herbert von Karajan and Berlin P.O [EMI]
Jose Serebrier and Melbourne S.O. [ASV]
Leopold Stokowski and National S.O. [CBS]
Leopold Stokowski and his Symphony orchestra [RCA]
Leopold Stokowski and Helsinki S.O. [Guild]
Simon Rattle and Birmingham S.O. [EMI]
Lorin Maazel and Vienna P.O. [Decca]
Paavo Berglund and Bournmouth S.O. [EMI]
Carl Von Garaguly and Dresden P.O. [Phillips]
Sir Malcolm Sargent and BBC S.O [EMI]
Sir John Barbirolli and Halle [ Pye and EMI]
Osmo Vanska and Lahti S.O. [Bis]
Okko Kamu and Helsinki Radio S.O. [Dg]
Kurt Sanderling and Berlin S.O. [Berlin Classics]
Leif Segerstam and Helsinki P.O. [Ondine]
Eugene Ormandy and Philadelphia O. [Sony]
Akeo Watanabe and Japan P.O. [Denon]

Phew! the only problem is finding time to play them. Barbirolli is certainly up with the best and Watanabe runs him close.-kp

Gosh - that is quite a list! (I thought I had a lot of versions of Elgar's violin concerto, but it's only about half the size of your Sibelius 1 list.)

Today I moved on to CD2, and the second symphony.

My impression is that whereas Vanska's version of the 1st symphony is very good, this performance of the second symphony is a truly great one. I have just one small quibble, which I'll mention at the outset to get it out of the way, because I commented on this in my discussion of the 1st symphony, and this is effectively the same issue. There are a few occasions when there's a rapid succession of a few notes - a kind of trill - and I always feel he takes them too fast. He does the trill, and is halfway through the next bar, while I'm saying, hey wait, can you just steady on and articulate that bit properly please? I rather think it may be a kind of Vanska trademark, and maybe I'll just get used to it.

But that said, surely this is a wonderful performance of the second symphony. It has greatness written all over it - the great swellings in the music are huge, awesome, like a tidal wave drawing back and standing momentarily on the skyline before crashing down. But the marvellous thing is that while this hugeness is going on, everything else is articulated with the utmost delicacy - an amalgam of vast power and delicate beauty. The finale is everything I would want: the tremendous build-up and release into the big, sweeping melody, for instance. But also, my goodness - that section near the end where the strings conjure up a vision of fine snow swirling around pine trees in a trembling wind - that's superbly done. Again and again this symphony (even more than the 1st) conjures up certain natural images - snow, ice, wind, trees, birds in flight, oceans heaving great waves against a northern shore, and I don't think I've ever experienced this so powerfully as I did earlier today listening to this performance of Vanska's. There's a magisterial quality to it; an unanswerability.

I found myself wondering about the apparent contradiction between Sibelius's claim that there's no programme to the symphonies, and the fact that nevertheless they do conjure up a kind of nature-descriptive programme, regardless. I think there's a parallel between his music, and the work of certain abstract painters, such as those of the British 'St Ives' school, like Ben Nicholson. Nicholson's paintings are indeed abstract; there is no subject beyond themselves; yet they conjure up feelings associated with rock, sea, sky, and waterworn driftwood all the same. The art isn't a description of nature, but it is informed by nature. It's the result of years of exposure to natural elements of the Cornish coast, and as a result, those are the kinds of colours, harmonies, and textures that emerge.

I wonder if the same can be said of this symphony. This symphony isn't a 4-movement tone poem, but even so, it simply couldn't have been written by someone who had not been exposed to the landscape and weather of Scandinavia. Nature informs the music, even though the music isn't 'about' nature.

I think Vanska brings this out more clearly, more powerfully, more spine-tinglingly, than any other performance I've heard. I said about Vanska's 1st symphony that I felt it wasn't quite the end of my search for a fully satisfying performance of it. Well, I think this 2nd symphony probably is. Very, very close, anyway.

What a wonderful description of Vanska's 2nd Symphony. (I told you Vanksa was good!!!)

I like how you said the music may not be about nature but it is "informed" by nature. This is SO TRUE about Sibelius. In fact, I'm not sure that there are any other composers who have so perfectly absorbed "natural" influence into music as succesfully as Sibelius. I think nature is ever-present in any of his works, and certainly in his symphonies.

Tapkaara wrote:

I'm not sure that there are any other composers who have so perfectly absorbed "natural" influence into music as succesfully as Sibelius. I think nature is ever-present in any of his works, and certainly in his symphonies.

I think I could make a strong case for Elgar and Vaughan Williams having done so, though they do it in a very different way. They don't, for instance, generate that same feeling of a Great Myth that inhabits or haunts the natural world in the way that Sibelius does. What they do is perhaps less obvious, but it is a crucial component of their music. Or so I'd argue.

However, my main purpose here is to say that I've now listend to the whole of CD2 - so now I've heard Vanska's treatment of the 3rd symphony.

I've always been a bit ambivalent about the third symphony. There's lots to enjoy in it, but it's never overwhelmed me in the way that the first two symphonies can. So whereas with the previous two Vanska performances I was coming from a place where I was expecting a great deal, in this case I was expecting rather less. I was very pleasantly surprised.

Ok now look - I'm not an expert. If I'm talking rubbish, say so and I'll gladly accept better opinion; but Vanska showed me some things about this symphony that I feel I hadn't really seen before. There are passages in the first two movements - and he brings this out more clearly than I've ever heard before - where there are clearer references to the classical tradition than I hear anywhere else. It's Sibelius's voice, no question about that; but that thing we've been talking about, that 'music informed by landscape and myth' is less in evidence. Shoot me down in flames if you will, but there are passages where I think this could be the kind of music Haydn or Mozart or Beethoven might have written if they'd been born a few decades later, and in Finland. There's a greater sense of formality, somehow. Now, rightly or wrongly - that's what I feel Vanska was showing me. The final movement is far more like a return to the Sibelius we know from symphonies 1 and 2. It's almost as if - is this sensible? - he's re-exploring some of his roots in the first two movements and then moving ahead into the last movement with a more secure understanding of how he relates to musical tradition, coupled with a firmer belief in his own vision.

So this has been a very interesting journey. Certainly this is the most exciting recording of the final movement of the third that I've heard; and I felt I was learning a good deal during the first two. Whether I really was learning anything, or whether I was just daydreaming self-indulgently, perhaps someone will now tell me ....

Hi Elgarian - I'm much enjoying your very insightful comments.
I'm not sure that it is a daydream, but if it is, I'm sure nobody would begrudge it in the slightest.
Whether you were learning anything? Well, almost everything Vänskä does is rooted in the score, rather than in 'tradition' (about which he has some scathing words). One might disagree with individual decisions that he makes, but he can always justify them on the authority of the printed score (if the score is ambivalent, opinions may differ, of course). So perhaps you were learning how the scpre sounds without any 'messing about'?

Elgarian, you are absolutely right in pointing out the classical element in Sibelius 3. The opening Allegro moderato is a tour de force of classical movement and energy and I feel sure that both Beethoven and Schubert would have approved of, and admired Sibelius's proceedures throughout this great symphony. I should perhaps point out that the third is not in anyway, shape or form a pastiche of music written in the style of Haydn. It is far removed from a work such as Prokofiev's first Symphony [Classical, 1917] The work is forward looking and a model of restraint and balance. It is completely out of step with much that his contemporary's were doing at this time, ie Debussy 'La Mer' or Mahler 6. Although it is less obviously appealing than the colourful heroics of the first two symphonies, it is undoubtedly a finer and more powerful work than either of them.

I also agree with you regarding Elgar and V.W.--kp

kullervopete wrote:

I should perhaps point out that the third is not in anyway, shape or form a pastiche of music written in the style of Haydn.

Oh yes indeed - there's no trace of pastiche, no tendency to imitate. It's more a matter of general reference. To be honest, I expected people to say I was talking nonsense, so I'm really pleased that I wasn't imagining it all!

Quote:

Although it is less obviously appealing than the colourful heroics of the first two symphonies, it is undoubtedly a finer and more powerful work than either of them.

I don't think I'm capable of perceiving that. I can accept my own shortcomings and believe that it's so, but can't actually see it for myself.

Don't worry, the third Symphony may well grow on you. You know Sibelius himself described this work as 'his beloved and least fortunate child'. If and when you explore other versions of the third you will see that two schools of thought exist as to the speed of the central movement. Vanska and Colin Davies favour a very slow and measured pace in the tradition of Kajanus. On the other hand you might come to prefare the quicker, more dance-like style from such equally fine Sibelians as Anthony Collins and Kurt Sanderling. Each approach has its merits, I myself err on the side of Davies and Vanska.--kp