The Sibelius symphonies ...

[Lance]

There is no question: Sibelius was a superlative symphonist. Given just his eight symphonies (actually Nos. 1 thru 7), I could never get much beyond the Symphony No. 1 in E Minor, Op. 39 [1898] and the Symphony No. 2 in in D Major, Op. 43 [1901]. There are momentous moments in both of those symphonies; however, if I had to choose just one for that desert island, it would be No. 2. From the Symphony No. 3 from 1907, and forward to 1910-11 [the 4th], and 1915 [the 5th], revised in 1916 and again in 1919, 1923 [the 6th], 1924 [the 7th], and 1938 [the 8th], spending about 18 years in all writing it but never publishing the 8th. Hence only the first seven symphonies are well known.

After 1901, and up to 1907, those years saw Sibelius produce an entirely different kind of symphony. There are people who truly believe the 5th and 7th symphonies are his most impressive symphonies, but I fail to see it, regardless of who the conductor is - on- or off record. So, those among you may be able to tell me why I hold, in my own heart of hearts, his first and second symphonies? Does any one else share these thoughts. For example, whenever I heard the finale or the second symphony, the thought comes forth: "And then there was light!" [A friend suggested that at the conclusion of hearing the Koussevitzky/Boston Symphony 1951 RCA recording.] It has always stuck with me. ♫

[david johnson]

Lance, I have always enjoyed the Sibelius 1 more than his others. My first hearing of it was on a 78rpm album when I was in the 11th grade. Stockholm radio symphony, I think. It's around here somewhere

[Rach3]

I believe # 1 to be under- rated, and enjoy it greatly. Perhaps I've heard # 2 too often, but currently my fav is # 5. I also greatly enjoy # 3, another under-rated IMHO.

[maestrob]

Stokowski popularized the First with his magnificent recording in the early 1960's on Columbia: I've even seen it issued on 8-track cartridge! It remains a favorite.

My favorite reading of the Second is with Thomas Schippers guest-conducting our very own New York Philharmonic, although I do admire Koussevitsky's set of 78's (I have the Naxos reissue-superb!).

When I was a lad, I bought the Bernstein set with my allowance, and those have remained benchmark recordings for me because of their intensity even though I think Schippers did better with II. I'm particularly fond of the "Sunny Sixth" fwiw. Truth is, I enjoy them all, and play through the complete cycles by Bernstein or Vanska each year, along with some favorite single discs by Von Karajan & Beecham.

Am also fond of the various dramatic cycles: Lemminkainen, Pohjola's Daughter, etc.

The Violin Concerto with David Oistrakh recorded by Melodiya and issued here by Mobile Fidelity would be my benchmark recording of that work, although many excellent newer recordings have been issued since then.

[Heck148]

....... those among you may be able to tell me why I hold, in my own heart of hearts, his first and second symphonies? Does any one else share these thoughts.

I hear you, I love Sibelius 1st Symphony, wonderful work, great tunes....I do think that Sym #5 is his best, but only a couple of recordings do it justice [Bernstein/NYPO, Gibson/LSO]....the Bernstein/NYPO set is superb, and 1 and 5 are real highlights...it is one of the few complete symphony sets that I recommend...

Sym #2 is really great also, tho I put 3, 4, and 7 right up there with it. #6 just never clicked with me, doesn't go anywhere...I guess everyone gets a "mulligan" here and there...
Sibelius is also great fun, and challenging to perform...he wrote great bassoon parts...very rewarding to perform..

Sym #2 has fared well on recordings, lots of good ones....my overall favorite is Monteux/LSO, tho the NBC ones are great also - Toscanini/'40, Stokowski/'54....a more modern one is Blomstedt/SFSO - fine performance in splendid sound....the final brass chorale is quite thrilling...tempo may be a little slow, but this one is really excellent. the bassoon playing is notably superb [Steve Paulson]

[Wallingford]

I have to spend more quality time with the Sixth...it's the one most obscure for me.

Would love to get my hands on the Tauno Hannikainen set. It never was released in the US.

[THEHORN]

I love all seven of these symphonies . Each is great in its own way . They range from the late romantic period ardor and extravagance of the first two to the austere and enigmatic later ones .
I agree about the first being underrated .But the 3rd is probably the least often performed of the seven for some reason and I've always had a soft spot for it . It's always struck me as the sunniest and most cheerful of the Sibelius symphonies .
For some reason, Karajan never performed or recorded it either with the Philharmonia orchestra or the Berlin Philharmonic . Not did Ormandy unless I'm mistaken .
I'm also very fond of the rather enigmatic and elusive 6th , a work which is neither cheerful not tragic but rather difficult to describe in words .

[Lance]

There is no question: Sibelius was a superlative symphonist. Given just his eight symphonies (actually Nos. 1 thru 7), I could never get much beyond the Symphony No. 1 in E Minor, Op. 39 [1898] and the Symphony No. 2 in in D Major, Op. 43 [1901]. There are momentous moments in both of those symphonies; however, if I had to choose just one for that desert island, it would be No. 2. From the Symphony No. 3 from 1907, and forward to 1910-11 [the 4th], and 1915 [the 5th], revised in 1916 and again in 1919, 1923 [the 6th], 1924 [the 7th], and 1938 [the 8th], spending about 18 years in all writing it but never publishing the 8th. Hence only the first seven symphonies are well known.

After 1901, and up to 1907, those years saw Sibelius produce an entirely different kind of symphony with regard to harmony and tonality. There are people who truly believe the 5th and 7th symphonies are his most impressive symphonies, but I fail to see/hear it, regardless of who the conductor is - on- or off record. So, those among you may be able to tell me why I hold, in my own heart of hearts, his first and second symphonies? Does any one else share these thoughts. For example, whenever I heard the finale or the second symphony, the thought comes forth: "And then there was light!" [A friend suggested that at the conclusion of hearing the Koussevitzky/Boston Symphony 1951 RCA recording.] It has always stuck with me. ♫

[Lance]

One supplier of CDs shows this for the number of recordings available for each of Sibelius' symphonies. Interestingly, No. 2 takes the high spot with No. 5 following.

Symphony no 1 in E minor, Op. 39 (71)
Symphony no 2 in D major, Op. 43 (87)
Symphony no 3 in C major, Op. 52 (47)
Symphony no 4 in A minor, Op. 63 (59)
Symphony no 5 in E flat major, Op. 82 (80)
Symphony no 6 in D minor, Op. 104 (64)
Symphony no 7 in C major, Op. 105 (67)
Symphony no 8: Three Late Fragments (Probable) (1)

I was checking my own catalogue of complete sets of the symphonies and they include Sanderling, Bernstein (NYP), Colin Davis (Boston), Collins, Neeme Jarvi, Berglund, Barbirolli (Hallé) and Maazel. On the individual symphony recordings, there are almost countless CD recordings on my shelves, and mostly of Nos. 1 and 2. As time allows, I will be spending more time with Nos. 3 through 7. Interesting comments thus far on this thread. Thank you!

[diegobueno]

There are people who truly believe the 5th and 7th symphonies are his most impressive symphonies, but I fail to see it, regardless of who the conductor is - on- or off record.

I'm one of those people, and all I can say is that you're missing out on some of the greatest, most profound symphonic works of the 20th century.

As a youngster I found Sibelius to be a big yawn, and it wasn't until I was a senor in college that I decided to tackle him head on. I have to say the great thing about being a music student in a college setting is that you have access to this huge music library -- almost as big as Lance's -- full of recordings and scores. I learned more about music and composing by going to that library everyday, getting a recording and listening to it with the score, and then deciding what I liked and didn't like about the music and the performance.

I decided that I was going to listen to Sibelius, symphony by symphony, listening to each one with the score, as many times as it took for me to "get" it or reject it. Figuring a composer's strongest works are likely to be the last, I started with no 7 and worked my way back. It took me about a week of listening to no. 7 for me to be shaken to my core. The utter logic and emotional power of the 20 minute sweep was unlike anything I'd experienced in music before. His harmony and orchestration may be of the Romantic period, but he developed his own approach to musical form which defies labels.

Each of the other symphonies gave their own sets of revelations. I never quite warmed up to the 2nd symphony. The last movement in particular bothers me (i's also exhausting for the wind section, with endless repetition of a figure in eighth notes at the end), like he tried and failed to write a Big Tchaikovskian tune. Sibelius is just not a tunesmith. The later symphonies are built up from the tiniest motives.

I actually enjoy the 1st much more than the 2nd, and how could I not love a symphony that starts out with an extended clarinet solo?

Don't forget the even earlier Lemminkainen cycle, op. 22. Sibelius held back the best parts of the series (Lemminkainen and the Maidens of Saari and Lemminkainen in Tuonela) until the 1950s, which is a shame because it makes a powerful quasi-symphony in itself.