Colin Davis' Boston Sibelius cycle

This has been raised before so, for what it is worth, the Davis Boston cycle grows on you over the years and his later LSO cycle, not LSO Live!, is stodgy in comparison.

Karajan is just as good, particularly in the 4th and 5th and most admirers would opt for the DG recordings but I wouldn't.

Rattle is fine but sounds very much like a work in progress and he needs to revisit these works in Berlin.

Maazel displays all his usual coolness (disinterest?) but brings home the bacon in 1 and 2. Many admire his 4th. I don't.

There are many fine individual discs from the likes of Monteux, Szell, Barbirolli, Beecham and Bernstein.

I am no great admirer of Ashkenazy, and I am no great admirer of Ashkenazy, or Segerstam's Helsinki cycle from what I've heard from them, although the latter can be a reliable and exciting conductor in Scandinavian and music of the Baltic states he loses his grip so often here.

Which leaves Vanska's Lahti cycle and Berglund in Helsinki and I would plump for the former as offering the best modern cycle and will leave you to judge the latter as I do not know it.

I used to like much of what Anthony Collins did in these works but this must be classed as "Historic" now and another fine conductor of this music was Sixten Ehrling but these are showing their age too.

I have sets by Vänskä, Davis (LSO Live), Sanderling and Rozhdestvensky. I find Davis very sensitive as well as dramatic but, surprisingly, it is the Rozhdestvensky which I love most. I say "surprisingly" because it has a lot against it: it is expensive for a 1970s recording, the sound is a bit rough and not well balanced and the orchestra is not top-notch. Yet it has a raw power, the feeling of a dark forest looming above you, as well as bringing out the poetry of, say, the 6th Symphony. It is also easily the most exciting Sibelius I've ever heard.

Interesting and widely varied comments on Sibelius, which reflect the dark complexity of his music. Barbirolli's RPO Second was issued on RCA and later on Chesky. One of his finest recordings. I think any complete cycle has its limitations (of any composer) and Vanska is fine and authentic but with a provincial orchestra. Maazel is patchy but surprisingly turns in a good 4th and 7th, powerful and dark despite the VPO being generally unsuited to this music.

Bernstein is the greatest 5th of all in his NYPO, Sony reissue and Ormandy's mono 4th and 5th have been restored by Pristine Classical and the playing just wipes the floor with everyone else. Astounding strings and Ormandy was feted in Finland for his championing of this composer. You have to cherry pick the best from the rest, Inkinen/NZSO/Naxos in the 3rd, Berglund/Helsinki in 4 and 7, Davis/LSO Live for 6 etc.

I don't agree with the acolytes of Karajan/BPO. Too lush and the orchestra just doesn't sound right. His early Philharmonia/EMI were better, although he never got those final chords of the 5th right.

Interesting viewpoint. I would have to say that tha Lahti orchestra has alwaysstruck me as being far better than a 'provincial orchestra' and certainly better than some more famous orchestras. As I wrote before, we all hear differently.

Thanks for the jogging of the memory regarding Barbarolli's CBS second. Personally I think there is a great range of composition in the various seven symphonies (nine if you include the Kullervo and the almost symphonic Tapiola). I have found the first and second the hardest to grasp as they seem so loose next to the distilled essence of the seventh. Maybe there is some truth in the idea that most cycles cannot be equally successful across the seven - is there more breadth in Sibelius than Mahler? 

You're almost absolutely right Adrian3. The 4th is a very introvert work and works much better in good recordings and, by the way, it is almost rarely performed live. The same is valid for the other inward and somehow ambivalent 6th, while the 3rd is always interestingly intriguing, without being that convincing.

All of them sound perfectly fine (and quite convincing) in the brilliant and very analytical recordings of Ashkenazy on Exton.

Parla

I am not sure Sibelius is more profound than Mahler - Mahler 9 is about as profound a statement as can be found in the symphonic literature I know. As for ambiguous I would agree more; I do hear the element of uncertainty in Sibelius's music - the ending of the fifth always strikes me as a magnificent touch - dramatic and inconclusive, leaving the listener in limbo (actually much like the Sayle's film 'Limbo').  Mahler's music also contains its own variant on ambiguity, which is the sensation of dichotomy and irony. Mahler really had an almost pathological sense of combinining the banal with the profund in juxtaposition. The interplay between rememberences of folk or popular song next with more 'profound' themes is a constant in the symphonies. One example would be within the first symphony, third movement.

I leave others to debate 'greatness' but I am extremely grateful to have the opportunity to hear both Sibelius and Mahler and not have to choose between them.

As for latin nations the day they decide to perform any Sibelius here in Rio will be a very happy day indeed... once my wife has revived me from the sudden fainting episode.

Which is a problem that concert promoters and organisers always face and is, usually, resolved quite simply: don't.

The 2nd, 5th, 1st and 7th, in that order, still hold in the concert repertoire as far as I can make out from personal experience over recent years.

The 3rd seems to be the least popular and is famous for NOT being recorded by Karajan. He did not understand it, apparently!