I read a lot of Sibelius reviews online...anything from Amazon reviews to one written by "professionals."

Certainly, on more than one occasion, I see the word "cool" used to describe Sibelius's symphony cycle. Is this an apt adjective?

I'd say, for the most part, no. Are the first and second symphonies not sweeping romantic gestures? They brim with fire and maybe a wee bit of brimstone. Cool they are not!

The 4th is not cool, it is downright icy...so cold, it burns.

The 5th is warm and outgoing. It's such a passionate work. Cool? Naw!

The 7th is a glorious crown jewel of the cycle. It's a sweeping epic that takes you on an emotional roller coaster ride...after which I feel a sense of exhiliration.

Even the 3rd and 6th contain moments of primal energy, despite their being the "tamest" of the lot.

I do not think "cool" is a good, broad-stroke description of the Sibelius symphony cycle.

I would, however, apply this description to composers like G. Faure or Debussy, for example, whose idioms definitely wallow in a certain blobby calm for the most part. These are certainly "cool" composers, in my book.

I agree with your assessment, Tapkaara. It's interesting, though; I wouldn't really attribute a "temperature" to the fourth symphony. Sure, the beginning and end are both "so cold it burns," but overall I would more say that the symphony is a very dark, black symphony, which is not always cold. For the most part, yes, it is very cold, but there are also moments of burning intensity, which is probably what you mean with the whole "so cold it burns" thing. Oh well. I can't call any of Sibelius' symphonies cool. It's too narrow a term.

Especially the sixth, which is the most often called "cool" of the bunch... the opening, to me, is not cool at all, more like a spring breeze coming toward the end of winter. And that last movement is anything but cool; especially the coda, where whatever was cool is immediately thawed, in my opinion.

Tapkaara wrote:

I do not think "cool" is a good, broad-stroke description of the Sibelius symphony cycle.

The term 'cool' can mean trendy and 'with it' for example, it was not particularly 'cool' in the 1950's for a composer to acknowledge his admiration for Sibelius. Today I would say that Sibelians are pretty cool. Sibelius has always been seen as embodying the frozen North, be it a piece such as 'En saga' or a late masterpiece like 'Tapiola'. I think what is not often percieved by the casual listener is the profound inner warmth present below the surface of Sibelius's music. Those bred in the South cannot imagine just what the sun means to a Northerner.--kp

Well, us Sibelians are certainly "cool," I'll drink to that!

What these reviewer mean by "cool," however, is that they lack emotion, or drive, or drama. They suggest that Sibelius wrote 7 symphonies that are excersises in restraint and civility. What, pray tell, are these people hearing?

In a way, I find it insulting to refer to any of his symphonies as "cool." Number one, I think it is an uniformed assesment of this music and, number two, I think it is yet another expression of the canned and cliche "northern fjord" music label so is all too often slapped on his idiom. It gets pretty "cool" up in the fjords, right, so all of Sibelius's music must run on a icy Nordic wind...

I think one who uses these cliches, passed around many times over the years, are not really all that familiar with Sibelius. I find nothing "cool" or "cold" or "windswept" about his 1st, 2nd and 5th symphonies, especially.

Tapkaara wrote:

What these reviewer mean by "cool," however, is that they lack emotion, or drive, or drama. They suggest that Sibelius wrote 7 symphonies that are excersises in restraint and civility. What, pray tell, are these people hearing?

They're hearing Davis/BSO.

Hahaha, indeed, Violist!

I mean, the 1st symphony...a "cool" work? Hell no...it has all the "charm and passion of youth!" I wonder if Kullervo is a cool work, too?

I've often described a particular performance as being cool, meaning either "comparatively" restrained in temperament or sonorously narrow.

Moldyoldie wrote:

I've often described a particular performance as being cool, meaning either "comparatively" restrained in temperament or sonorously narrow.

Would you then describe a GOOD Sibelius symphony cycle as cool, Moldy?

I would use the same adjective myself to descripe a tepid performance. So, I actually find the usage of "cool" as insulting for Sibelius, as if he just goes the motions in his 7 symphonies and they never catch any kind of fire.

Tapkaara wrote:

I think it is yet another expression of the canned and cliche "northern fjord" music label so is all too often slapped on his idiom. It gets pretty "cool" up in the fjords, right, so all of Sibelius's music must run on a icy Nordic wind...

When I first saw the topic header, I immediately thought of 'cool' in the sense KP mentions, so it's almost a disappointment that it probably means the clichéd sense favoured by the geographically challenged and so aptly summarized by the quote above.

But what about the meaning that KP suggests? Who are the 'coolest' Sibelians these days, and what makes them 'cool'? The excesses of Pekka Kuusisto and Olli Mustonen, or the scrupulous honesty of Osmo Vänskä? Does one have to be extreme to be cool?

Tapkaara wrote:

Moldyoldie wrote: I've often described a particular performance as being cool, meaning either "comparatively" restrained in temperament or sonorously narrow. Would you then describe a GOOD Sibelius symphony cycle as cool, Moldy?

Firstly, Tapkaara, I apologize for the delay in responding as I logged off for the night shortly after posting. At the risk of sounding disingenuous, yes, a "cool" performance can be "good" if it "works". I'm a bit hesitant to ascribe the adjective to an entire cycle. However, if anyone's cycle has a comparatively and preponderantly cool demeanor, at least to these ears, I'd say it would be Vänskä's. I wouldn't discount the size and "sound" of the Lahti orchestra along with the effect of the recording acoustic and technique as lending to this impression.

Andrew mentions "excesses". While I wouldn't necessarily call it excessive, I'd say Vänskä's "extremes" skew toward the "cooler" end of the expressive spectrum as exemplified, for example, in extremely hushed pianissimos and comparatively subdued fortissimos.

Tapkaara wrote:

What these reviewer mean by "cool," however, is that they lack emotion, or drive, or drama. They suggest that Sibelius wrote 7 symphonies that are excersises in restraint and civility. What, pray tell, are these people hearing?

'Restraint' is a word that can be applied to Sibelius's Symphonies, especially late works such as the Sixth. Certainly the first two exhibit certain romantic traits but compared to say Mahler or even Richard Strauss Sibelius's music reveals at once classic disciplin and restraint. But the notion that Sibbs music lacks emotion, drive or drama is way off course. In his seven symphonies we explore Sibelius's increasing mastery of unity at both a motivic, rhythmic and tonal level. Undoubtedly his mastery of 'movement' was unmatched by all but the very greatest classical masters and therein lies the drama.--kp

Tapkaara wrote:

Moldyoldie wrote: I've often described a particular performance as being cool, meaning either "comparatively" restrained in temperament or sonorously narrow. Would you then describe a GOOD Sibelius symphony cycle as cool, Moldy? I would use the same adjective myself to descripe a tepid performance. So, I actually find the usage of "cool" as insulting for Sibelius, as if he just goes the motions in his 7 symphonies and they never catch any kind of fire.

Well, by this definition the only full cycle I've ever heard that is "cool" is Colin Davis with the BSO, and I'm really not kidding. Even Osmo Vanska manages to find the passion inherent in the third symphony--and, restrained though it may be, there is passion in droves in that symphony--whereas Davis/BSO just doesn't do it. It seems to me that he does just "go through the motions." (I say nothing about his LSO Live stuff in this regard, probably the most passionate Sibelius I've ever heard.) It has always failed to draw me in, and recently I honestly wonder how on earth so many people find his cycle to be "the best."

I can't think of Vanska's cycle as boring or less passionate; he brings out the character of these masterpieces in ways no one has before. Though I suppose "cool" can be a character... but Vanska is certainly not lazy, which is what I get out of Tapkaara's definition of a "cool" performance.

Andrew B wrote:

But what about the meaning that KP suggests? Who are the 'coolest' Sibelians these days, and what makes them 'cool'? The excesses of Pekka Kuusisto and Olli Mustonen, or the scrupulous honesty of Osmo Vänskä? Does one have to be extreme to be cool?

The question that Andrew B poses runs deep. Kuusisto's 'excesses' [an imagination in overdrive] or Vanska's 'scrupulous honesty' [total adherence to the score]

Undoubtedly both approaches can produce a great performance and those conductors who do manage to strike a balance between the two are pretty 'cool'. The critic Neville Cardus once said the following about Furtwangler: ''Furtwangler did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realised subjectively'.--kp

Interestings insights!

Sure, the 3rd and 6th can be thought of the most restrained of the 7 symphonies, and perhaps they are. But what about the other 5? One might say the 4th is too, but that is only on the surface. The 4th is dangerously deceptive. The music may low on dramatic crescendi and the orchestration as translucent as dirty glass at times, but there is something very sinister about this work. There is something seething throught the entire piece, and it is definitely not a cool composition as far as I am concerned. It is dramatic in a very concentrated and strange way.

Tapkaara wrote:

The 4th is dangerously deceptive. The music may low on dramatic crescendi and the orchestration as translucent as dirty glass at times, but there is something very sinister about this work. There is something seething throught the entire piece, and it is definitely not a cool composition as far as I am concerned. It is dramatic in a very concentrated and strange way.

I can agree with all of that. Sibelius 4 was once described as that Monumental 'anti-monumental Symphony', how cool is that!--kp

Tapkaara wrote:

and the orchestration as translucent as dirty glass at times

That's the one part of your post that I might not agree with – however dark the tone, I still find the orchestration per se very 'clean'. In this case the mantra 'never write a superfluous note' might well apply to the scoring, I'd say.

[I reached 600…]

Well, I don't mean the orchestration is "dirty," if there could be such a thing. The orchestration is indeed fairly "clean" in that is is very concice. It's the sounds that the orchestra makes, with those tritones coming in to disrupt the harmonic textures that seem like specks of dirt on something that is otherwise "clean."

Yeah... personally I've always liked the tritone. Maybe it's because I have horns and a tail.

Well, the devil is indeed in the tritone. (The bagpipe was also considered the devil's instrument...look it up!)