Yes, camera is awful. But I think the reason is that this video was originally just operative, for internal demands, and was released later, when it seemed to be an interesting "historical" record.

Very true, the Sibelius was filmed in 1966 at the height of the cold war. No doubt the Soviet authorities were cutting back on television expenditure and building more and more armaments!
Dont get me wrong, poor camera work or not, I would give my right hand to have on DVD some of the great Sibelius performances of the past.--kullervopete.

Until today I hadn't heard the Oistrakh/Rozhdestvensky rendition and I will admit that I like it a lot more than the Oistrakh/Ormandy from 1961 (5 years before the Moscow performance). I find both soloist and conductor are much "tighter" in their interpretation, with a much stronger rhythmic intensity throughout.

I find that in the Philadelphia version, there is too much liberty being taken by Ormandy and Oistrakh with the aim of creating a beautiful sound at the expense of strong rhythm and a good sense of structural phrasing.

Nevertheless, albeit a good performance, I still wouldn't place it among my favourites, for the simple reason that Oistrakh's approach seems to be based on a fervent need to express himself through this music, instead of expressing the music through himself. This is a very subjective thing that I cannot prove empirically, but is based first of all on the cumulative impressions that I have gathered over many listenings, both live and recorded. Secondly, I would humbly state that I have a good knowledge of the score and have performed it twice already. In both instances I was able to convince the soloists to NOT approach it as they would Tchaikovsky, NOT worry too much about expression, ALWAYS listen to the orchestra and understand the phrasing through the harmonic structure of the orchestral part, and above all else simply Stay In Tempo. I wonder if Oistrakh adopted this same philosophical approach.

Kurkikohtaus wrote:

Nevertheless, albeit a good performance, I still wouldn't place it among my favourites, for the simple reason that Oistrakh's approach seems to be based on a fervent need to express himself through this music, instead of expressing the music through himself.

I understand why you think this, sometimes Oistakh is too dominant, too sovereign, too expressive for me. That's why he isn't my first choice in Sibelius concerto. But on the other hand...Sibelius concerto is based on the romantic tradition and it is definitely a type of an "exhibition concerto" (new era of violin concerto started Prokofiev and there is chams between this one and Sibelius). And for its typical Sibelian instrumentation and "rhapsody character" with form less austere than was typical in romantism I think that bigger dangerous for the intepret is to be obscure than to be too expressive. Especially in the first movement and also in the third...voice of violin is so lonely on the orchestral backround. It is a perfect dramatic element, that is one of the reasons why I consider this movement to be the most thrilling from all violin concertos. But when interpret is there obscure, the movement sounds strange and undue. I had these feelings on a live concerto (Ženatý). That's why I think Oitrakh's approach isn't so bad. Anyway, I think he is invincible in Brahms Concerto and not in Sibelius. But still one of the best, how i mentioned .

Interesting, confuoco, where did you see Ženatý play Sibelius? Was it in Germany or the CZ? If it was in the Czech Republic, I would be interested in details... orchestra, conductor, date, etc. and any more insights you could give me into his performance.

It was in January 2007 in Brno. With Filharmonie Brno and Petr Altrichter. I had the great experience from this concert because it was my first live Sibelius concerto, but Ženatý seemed to play too "professional" and be disinterested a bit. I don't know what is his attitude to this concerto, but this was my feeling. Or maybe he was just little closed that evening . But the second movement was really impressive in his interpretation. The biggest problem for me was the orchestra: not very good interplay with soloist in the first movement , inaccuriacies, and especially the third movement didn't show compact enough. Another performance with Nemanja Radulovic, Filharmonie Brno and Petr Vronský in October 2007 was better I think.

As this is getting more into performance issues, I have started a new thread (rant) about problems with Sibelius and Czech orchestras.

The new thread can be found

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

.

Please feel free to continue discussing your favourite Sibelius Concerto recordings below.

I listened to the BBC programme 'Building a library' this morning which featured reviewer Ivan Hewitts personal favourite recording of the Sibelius Concerto from over 50 currently available. We heard extracts from a number of vintage performances and from more recent ones. Singled out from the 1950's were Gitlis and Vienna Symphony under Horenstein on Vox, Davis Oistrakh' and Sixten Ehling with Swedish Fest. Orchestra on Testament which Hewitt thought the best of his various recordings. Of other accounts the front runners were Joshua Bell with Los Angles PO under Esa Pekka Salonen, Heifitz with Chicago Symphony under Walter Hendl and Victoria Mullova with Boston Symphony under Ozawa. Recordings by Pekka Kuusisto and some others were ruled out, though Leonidas Kavakos came in for special praise for his 'original' version. The first choice was Mullova.
In discussing the last movement, Mr Hewitt touched on something that I have also wondered about, just why Sibelius used the rhythm of a polonaise. Mr. Hewitt made the interesting suggestion that as Finland was very much under the Russian Bear at that time and as Finland does not have a National dance, Sibelius used Polands dance which Chopin had made famous, this small Country having also suffered at the hands of Russia. An interesting thought.--kp

I've always thought the "Polonaise for Polar Bears" statement was a little silly, as there are no polar bears in Finland, contrary to popular belief.

Hmmm, interesting theory as to the use of a polonaise in the final movement, but I would be a little sceptical as to the "politcal" reasons as to why he chose it.

By the way, I think my favorite recording of the concerto is The Engeset/Kraggerud/Bournemouth on on Naxos from a few years back. Segerstam/Kuusisto/Helsinki also ranks high.

Although the Salonen/Lin/Philharmonia performance is well regarded, anyone else think it's a wee bit over-rated?

Cho-Liang Lin over-rated? trouble is one is so spoilt for choice with Sibbs great Fiddle concerto. The other day I played Ida Haendel's masterly account with Berglund and Bournmouth S O. She is certainly up with the greats and the Sibelius is her favourite concerto along with the Brahms. I do believe that it is a measure of the greatness and sheer vitality of Sibbs concerto that given the hundreds of recordings over the last 50 years or so, it still continues to reveal a wealth of new beauty.--kp

Well, I revisited the Salonen/Lin recording a few weeks ago and it seemed so colorless, at least in comparison to other recordings I have. I have not intention of downplaying Lin's technique or anything like that, but the performance AS A WHOLE just seems so monochrome to be.

Well, I have rather distrusted any article proclaiming any recording of Sibelius to be good. After all, most of them put forth Colin Davis' BSO cycle as the "definitive" symphony cycle, so why should they be any more correct on the other stuff?

The violin concerto is one of those pieces you can't find the "best" of by reading an article. It's one of the pieces you have to find the right one of for yourself... like a lot of Sibelius...

I think with the Sibelius Concerto you have to strike a fine balance between virtuosity bravura and the inner poetry of his art. Fiddle players now seem to be ten a penny that can rattle off the fiendishly difficult passages that Sibelius presents, but show for shows sake will never achieve a truely great performance. As with the Symphonies one must be able to see between the notes. All to often soloist, conductor and orchestra fail to strike the balance and we just get empty fireworks. Very occasionally a performance goes to the heart of Sibelius's vision and then we have something special.--kp

Tapkaara wrote:

By the way, I think my favorite recording of the concerto is The Engeset/Kraggerud/Bournemouth on Naxos from a few years back.

I've been reading a few reviews of it; how bad is the audible breathing? What do you think of the appended Sinding? (Anyone can chime in with their thoughts if they have any to share.)

I wrote one of the Violin Concerto reviews o Amazon...I'm Erik. And yes, I mentioned the breathing.

It's really not all that bad. It's most noticabe in the first movement. But I listened to this over the weekend and I really didn't notice it. I'd say get the disc. It's worth it.

The Sinding is good, just not great. It is a late-Romantic concerto par excellence, but it's idiom is rather generic. It could have been written by just about anyone. I don't mean to but down Sinding's art, but it just lacks that special character the Sibelius has that makes it a masterpiece.

Moldyoldie wrote:

I've been reading a few reviews of it; how bad is the audible breathing? What do you think of the appended Sinding? (Anyone can chime in with their thoughts if they have any to share.)

Thanks to Moldy I have been revisiting the Sinding concerto and my reaction was more positive second time round. I agree with Tapkaara, the breathing was no problem. I still feel that Sinding had been studying the Max Bruch G minor concerto before embarking on his No. 1. The very opening is almost a carbon copy of the Bruch last movement, thats why why Sindings first movement feels more like a finale. Later on a lyrical theme also has echo's of the Bruch. The second movement opens with those mysterious murmurings from cello's and basses. Sinding has a nice theme as the soloist enters, serene and contemplative. It rises with some majesty on the brass with a return to more tender moments from the soloist. I enjoyed the lively finale with its expressive dance and then a contrasting romantic theme. The dance returns and is taken up enthusiastically by the orchestra followed by a proud and noble climax with just a hint of Dvorak. I think now that Sinding is a 'two work' composer. -kp

I have come into this discussion rather late! I would agree totally with kullervopete about the BIS / Osmo Vanska recording of the original version of the concerto - what a blessing this version didn't go on the fire.

Chris Taylor wrote:

I have come into this discussion rather late! I would agree totally with kullervopete about the BIS / Osmo Vanska recording of the original version of the concerto - what a blessing this version didn't go on the fire.

Welcome, Chris! I see you are in France, so perhaps I should say "bienvenue!"

What is your favorite recording of the final version?

Chris makes a good point regarding the survival of the concertos original version. Clearly Sibelius did react to criticism from the likes of Karl Flodin and others. But he did not burn it. Sibelius himself was his own best critic [at this stage of his career] and the revised version is clearly more balanced, though the original contains some pretty fabulous stuff!. In the case of the fourth symphony, despite an outburst of critical abuse Sibelius did not set about revising this great work for he knew in his own mind that this was how it ultimately should be.--kp