JEAN SIBELIUS (1865-1957)

Symphony no. 5 in E flat major, Op. 73 (1914) copyright: NCB/Chester Music

Molto moderato – allegro moderato 11:39 Andante mosso, quasi allegretto 8:13 Allegro molto 9:15

LONDON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA conducted by Robert Kajanusrecorded in London on 22-24 June 1932 at No. 1 Studio, St John’s Wood, Londonand issued on H.M.V DB 1739-1742 (Sibelius Society Volume One)Gramophone Company Ltd matrix numbers 2B 2932-2937 and 2942

Symphony no. 6 in D minor, Op. 104 (1923) copyright: NCB/Chester Music

Allegro molto moderato 8:09 Allegretto moderato 5:23 Poco vivace 2:46 Allegro molto 9:19

FINNISH NATIONAL ORCHESTRA conducted by Georg SchnéevoigtRecorded in London on 3 June 1934 at No. 1 Studio, St John’s Wood, Londonand issued as H.M.V. DB 2321-2323 (Sibelius Society Volume Three)Gramophone Company Ltd matrix numbers 2B 6964-6969

Tapiola, Op. 112 (1926) copyright: NCB/GEMA 17:26

LONDON SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA conducted by Robert Kajanusrecorded in London on 29 June 1932 at No. 1 Studio, St, John’s Wood, Londonand issued on H.M.V. DB 1744-1745 (Sibelius Society Volume One)Gramophone Company Ltd matrix numbers 2B 2964-2967

Total CD duration: 72:14

JEAN JULIUS CHRISTIAN SIBELIUS(1865-1957), a composer whose naturalvoice is the orchestra, appeared at apropitious time, just as Finnish orchestraswere developing, and also when Finland,then subsumed within Russia, was crying outfor a great national artist. However his trueachievement was to rise above thesenationalist origins. His seven symphonies,the violin concerto and numerous tonepoems, several of which are inspired byFinland’s national epic Kalevala, areinternationally successful. His style is notmerely a romantic nationalistic one, likemany lesser composers; its Finnish characteris not the token incorporation of folk-musicelements, but a more deeply rooted affinitywith the country, with nature and with thelife of Earth.

While his early music is fairly conservative,springing from the European Romanticmovement but always with definitenationalist traits, in around 1910 hedeveloped a much more modern idiom akinto Expressionism; later, in the 1920s, thisevolved into a post-classical style, never“difficult” in the sense that the SecondViennese School was perceived, but certainlyunique, with a powerfully personal andindividual focus. So individual was this laterstyle that the original programme notes for

these recordings (written in 1932) claimedthat Berlioz and Sibelius were the only twocomposers whose music could not be clearlylabelled within a continuing stylisticdevelopment, continuing: “whileperformances have been relatively scarce, itis only by frequent hearing of these worksthat the plain man who has not access to thescores can get over the sense of strangenessthat much of his music at first conveys to theordinary listener. Once this sense ofstrangeness is overcome, the hold of Sibeliusupon the average intelligent person increasesin proportion as the works become known tohim.” How quaint and condescending thosewords appear to us now, after the onset of theavant-garde, minimalism, post-modernismand musique concrète with which ourmusical tastes have been challenged since.Nevertheless we must remember that whenrecorded, these works were literally brandnew, and it did take some time for the moreadvanced techniques of Sibelius’composition to be recognised andappreciated, even in Finland, where he is stillregarded less as a major world figure andmore as an embodiment of national spirit.While to us in 2005 Sibelius may seemcompletely to be in the mainstream oforchestral repertoire, in 1932 his music was“extraordinarily new”.

Above all Sibelius is a symphonist; Kullervois a symphony in all but name, and the othermajor orchestral works are symphonic poemsin the best sense of the phrase. Thecomposer, opposed to Mahler’s views aboutsymphonic form and content, stressed “theprofound logic which establishes an innerbond between all themes” and the musicalsignificance of motifs and their organicgrowth into larger form is felt bymusicologist Erkki Salmenhaara to beSibelius’ greatest impact. His musicalthinking was genuinely orchestral and hisvital motifs and themes are inseparable fromtheir orchestral expression; the externalfeatures are clear – hissing string tremolos,parallel fifths in the woodwind, forcefulbrass statements, and pedal points providingcontinuity. These are not for show or mereeffect but are integral to the ultimatecoherence of the music. The spiritual journeyfrom the romantic First Symphony and earlytone poems to the grandeur and depth of thelast works is one of the longest undertakenby a symphonist – far longer than Mahler,Bruckner or Brahms. Yet everything writtenby Sibelius in whatever style has a distinctand unmistakeable quality – a totality fargreater than the sum of the diverse influences(including Palestrina, Mozart, Debussy andTchaikovsky) which he might acknowledge.

After he completed the Seventh Symphonyin 1924, Sibelius wrote Tapiola, theincidental music to The Tempest, and anumber of small scale works. However bythis time he had become tormented by self-doubt, the expectations of those around him,and above all by his own obsession for evermore perfect work. He started work on a newsymphony in the mid 1920s, but could neverallow himself to release it. He wrote to BasilCameron. “I have finished my 8th Symphonyseveral times, but I am still not satisfied withit”. Even in 1953, after nearly thirty years ofwork, he told friends that the symphony was“still maturing in my mind”. Eventually hedestroyed every trace of the work, and so faras the world was concerned, maintainedcomplete artistic silence for the last thirtyyears of his life.

Symphony no. 5, along with the Second, isperhaps the most widely known of all thesymphonies, and was certainly among thefirst to become popular. It displayssomething of the light, airy quality ofAallottaret (1914), which was Sibelius’ultimate homage to expressionism, and is instark contrast to the introverted, astringentand pessimistic Fourth Symphony. Firstwritten in 1915, and revised in 1916 and1919, the work took a long time to mature. Itis a grand triumphal piece, though employinga relatively small orchestra (strings, 2

clarinets, 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 bassoons, 4horns, 3 trumpets, 3 trombones and timpani).The symphony has an unusual andfascinating structure, in which the firstmovement [1] opens with a sonata formsection and then a scherzo which can beplayed after a break, as a separate movement,or as here, in continuation. The materialthroughout is simple and begins with a risingtheme in the horns, answered by thewoodwind, introducing a semiquaver motifin parallel thirds. After a brief flautato ascentin the strings, the woodwind bring in thelonger main subject. From then on themovement involves the evolution andvariation of this material, becoming moredistraught (patetico) before brightening. Thefirst phrase reappears in the trumpets, thenthe tempo quickens, leading to variedstatements of the main theme which bringthe movement to a joyous conclusion.

The second movement [2] begins withtranquil chords and a pizzicato passage onviolas and cellos introducing the main themeon the flutes. This material is subjected tostraightforward variations, but with avaguely unsettling dissonance, firstappearing in the woodwind and appearing atvarious points. Extremely expressive,Sibelius avoids definitive closes to hisphrases, always leading on to the next, untilthe movement ends unceremoniously. The

finale [3] excels even more in producingremarkable and impressive results from suchsimple building blocks and imposes itself byits sheer energy, realised by the stringtexture, buzzing with life. The first maintheme is constructed around the interval of afourth, and begins in the violas, marked congrazia. Taken up by other strings and thewoodwind, the phrasing is interrupted by thefamous minim subject, at first rathertentatively stated by the lower strings andtaken up forcefully by the horns. This is thebedrock of the symphony – a tune incrediblysimple yet full of expression and emotion. Itis joined by an extended melody of over fiftybars (though interrupted), in the woodwind.The principal motifs are developedextensively through sudden key changes – Eflat to C major, back to E flat and then to Gflat – and a broadening of the tempo, untilthe brass asserts itself majestically to bringthe work to a stunning and magnificentclimax.

The Sixth Symphony, and the Seventhwhich followed, are restrained works, usingclassicist ideals but not by stylising classicalelements in the method employed by (forexample) Stravinsky. The Sixth, scored for abasic classical orchestra with the addition ofharp and bass clarinet, is harmonicallyethereal, being based on ancient modality(mainly D-Dorian) rather than the classical

minor scale. In four movements of classicalproportion, the symphony is filled with thealternation of light and shadow, a wondrousveiled light which seems to shroud andsoften all the harshness of the world. Thework is rich in polyphony, not overemphasised or accentuated, but running inthe background, like the sussuration ofinsects in a hot summer meadow, gentlyunderpinning the onward movement of themusic. In its serene beauty, the Sixth is themost timeless of the symphonies; describingthe work’s atmosphere in his diary, Sibeliuswrote, “As the shadows lengthen….”.

The first movement [4] in its opening sectionsets the mood; moderato, mezzo forte, thestrings prepare a harmonic backdrop on towhich is set a theme which is introduced insmaller phrases before appearing in itsentirety. This phrase is then subjected to aprocess, which Sibelius favoured in his laterworks, of dismantling and rebuilding, takingsmall groups of notes and re-arranging theminto totally different melodic phrases yetmaintaining an organic integrity. One ofthese materialisations then becomes thebackground against which a restatement of aversion of the original theme appears oncellos, who then bring back the principaltheme in full. Woodwind and violin figuresadd to the texture, until tremolos from cellosand basses interrupt the flow, after which the

thematic material is revisited in concentratedform. A fierce C major chord in the brass,first heard at the beginning of this section, isrepeated, throwing the tonality of the musicinto doubt, and the movement ends ininconclusive ambiguity.

The primarily lyrical second movement [5]consists of one principal theme, developedand reworked. It begins with a syncopatedwoodwind figure, which then settles intoregular ¾ time, and is overlaid by a gracefuland rather relaxed main theme, first stated bythe first and second violins in dialogue, thentaken up by more of the orchestra. The rolesare then reversed, with the strings behind andthe woodwind uttering short interjectionsreminiscent of the rustling of leaves and thesong of birds; here, as in Tapiola, we arehearing the Finnish forests. Rather thanrepeating the material in formalrecapitulation, which would be pointless inthis type of poetic descriptiveness, Sibelius,having painted the picture, signs off withonly a very short reference to the music ofthe opening bars.

The scherzo [6], apart from the lack of a triosection, is fairly conservative and traditional;the shortest movement by some measure, itbegins with a 6/8 theme in the strings,answered by the woodwind in rising andfalling phrases. The material develops

smoothly and without disturbance, except fortwo sudden interjections by brass.

This recording by Schnéevoigt, a close friendand confidant of the composer, was thoughtat the time to be the definitive statement ofSibelius’ own views on performance,especially as regards the opening of thefinale [7], which although marked allegromolto, is to be taken in a measured way, thuspreserving the strongly defined rhythms ofthe main subject which appears immediately.Again Sibelius constructs the musicalstructure from a number of short motifsappearing in several guises, though alwaysthe opening theme’s rhythm is paramountand underpins the entire movement, thoughnot always with the same note-values, untileventually the theme becomes the latter partof a more extended statement which one isled to believe will form the climax of thefinale. However in an unexpected twist,Sibelius suddenly slows the tempo to half itsoriginal value, and introduces completelynew material with no relation to thepreceding sections. The closing stringpassages display a magical beauty veryrarely found, drifting off into silence inabsolute serenity. As the 1934 programmenotes said, this conjures up an image of theway that “the long, level vista of thecountless islands, lakes and forests of theFinnish landscape merge in the far horizon”.

Sibelius has brought us back to his spiritualhome.

Tapiola, written in 1926, is the culminationand zenith of Sibelius’ series of tone poems.Based on highly concentrated motivic,practically monothematic material whichruns through its seventeen minutes, it is notprimarily a melodic “tuneful” piece so muchas an expression of atmosphere, thesensitively perceived mysticism of theFinnish forests. Based firmly on ambienceand tone-colour, the expressionism of thepiece relies on the composer’s orchestralmastery, through which he is able to instilinto even apparently static passages a lifewhich palpably thrums beneath the surface.As Newman said, Sibelius restricted himselfto one theme throughout, because there wasno necessity to diverge from it. Whileretaining its original form and character, thematerial displays many different aspects,perhaps reflecting the possible many aspectsof nature, spirituality, “soul”, as embodied inthe god of the forest. That god is Tapio,ancient forest deity of Finland, for whichTapiola is in effect a synonym, as Albion isto England.

The score is prefixed by this stanza whichsplendidly sums up the sound world of thismusic:

Widespread they stand, the Northland’sdusky forests,Ancient, mysterious, brooding savagedreams;Within them dwells the Forest’s mighty God,And wood-sprites in the gloom weave magicsecrets.

The particular genius of Sibelius as displayedhere is to appear to present not the forest as itmight appear to an observer, who might thendescribe it in terms of his or her ownperception, experience and emotion, but todisplay as it were in an objective way theemotions of the forest from the forest-god’sviewpoint.

At the outset [8] the music throws us offbeam; after a soft drum-roll, the strings,largamente, enter on the second beat givingthe initial illusion of being in triple timerather than duple. The initial phrase appearsin variants, and leads to a “heaving” motif, ofa type often utilised by Sibelius (for examplein the Fifth Symphony, q.v.) as a sort of freeradical, underpinning melodies, but just asoften breaking free of them in cross-rhythmic patterns; here the motif describesthe ceaseless groundswell of the forest, overwhich the main theme in its numerousincarnations sweeps around and around. Theflutes and clarinets develop the syntax of thetheme in an undulating variant while all of

the melodic material is continuously rebornin evolving forms.A quieter section, with muted tones and darkcolours, seems to describe a stillness andsense of unease – perhaps a mist passesthrough. Then the higher strings andwoodwind lighten the mood in an almostdance-like section, through which is heard arather ominous call, or perhaps cry, from thehorns. The mood again becomes melancholy,but never self-indulgent, when the mutedstrings alone continue to explore and mutatethe central motif. Perhaps this describes thestill dormancy of winter; a penetratingheavily chorded phrase in the brass, increscendo to fff, ushers in a new section,allegro, in which the theme is twisted andturned into ever more forms. A forceful brassoutburst appears to herald a storm, with wildwhistling in flutes and piccolos and the useof string figures to depict the wind. Afteranother tumult in the brass the closingpassages of the work are at once serene,soulful, passionate and noble, still firmlyrooted in that one same theme, but summingup the forest’s “personality”, andsignificantly implying a spirit of onenesswith the last, long, affirming chord of Bmajor.

If this piece is the pinnacle of Sibelius’orchestral and compositional genius, as somebelieve, it is all the more tragic that the

composer felt unable thereafter to meet hisown obsessional need to move ever closer toperfection, thus condemning himself tosilence.

ROBERT KAJANUS was born on 2December 1856. Kajanus began his studieswith the theory of music and violin, then atLeipzig he studied composition underRichter, Salomon and Reinicke. He was,early in his career, a composer of note,indeed the first prominent Finnish composerto demonstrate a true affinity with theorchestral medium, but in the late 1880s,after becoming acquainted with the music ofSibelius, decided to concentrate on hisconducting career. One of his majorachievements was his European tour of 1900,culminating in performances in Berlin and atthe Paris World Fair. That programmeinclude the newly-published First Symphonyof Sibelius. Kajanus gained a reputation as achampion of the great composer, and as thesource of an authentic interpretativetradition. He conducted the first recordingsof the First, Second, Third and Fifthsymphonies and other major works,including those we hear on this CD, havingbeen engaged by HMV to conduct all theperformances for the Sibelius Society issues;it was on his death that both Schnéevoigt andBeecham were brought in to take his place.

In 1882, Kajanus founded the HelsinkiOrchestral Society, the first regular full-sizeorchestra in Scandinavia. Finland was ofcourse at that time a grand Duchy within theRussian Empire, and the orchestra receivedregular subsidies from the state. In 1911 thisaid was discontinued, placing theorganisation under threat. A rival orchestra,the Helsinki Symphony, was formed underthe leadership of Georg Schnéevoigt, andbitter rivalry ensued until the onset of theGreat War and consequent loss of manpowerforced the merger of the two in 1914. TheHelsinki Philharmonic, as the body wasrenamed in 1914, was led by Kajanus until1932.

He also founded an orchestra school (1885)of which he was director until 1914,conducted the Muntra Musikanter male voicechoir until 1883 and formed the HelsinkiSymphonic Choir in 1888. Guestappearances as conductor followed in Russia,Germany, France, Italy, Hungary,Scandinavia and the Baltic States, as well ofcourse as the Sibelius Society recordingsmade in London in 1932. Kajanus alsoconducted the Tampere Orchestra for twoseasons, founded the Union of Musician’sAssociations in Finland in 1917 (andremained its chairman until his death) andfound time to teach at the University ofHelsinki from 1897 until 1927.

GEORG SCHNÉEVOIGT (1872-1947)appears not to have secured such a reveredplace amongst the top conductors of the past,though he was a major figure in his day. LikeKajanus he is a source of original authenticinterpretations of Sibelius, of whom he was aclose friend, and his recording of the Sixthsymphony we present here was the first to bemade. As has been mentioned, he foundedthe Helsinki Symphony Orchestra and for atime became a bitter rival of Kajanus. LikeKajanus, he championed Sibelius and helpedto put Finnish music-making on the map, bystrongly featuring the composer’s workwhenever he appeared. In 1901 the HelsinkiSymphony with Schnéevoigt was among theguest orchestras invited to play at the 700thAnniversary Exhibitions in Riga, where, in alarge restaurant, they played to muchacclaim programmes of both serious worksand lighter material. Between 1927 and 1929he was the Music Director of the LosAngeles Philharmonic, and appeared as guestconductor with the Sydney SymphonyOrchestra in 1937.

Technical Note by Andrew Rose“From the sound restorer’s point of viewthese Sibelius recordings were a bit of adream. As soon as I put the first side on theturntable I could hear how well they’d beenrecorded. The major difficulty with theSibelius discs was something characteristic

to many HMV discs of the period – what hasbeen referred to as the ‘bacon frying’ sound.All of the discs were incredibly crackly, andit took a lot of time and research to not justreduce this, but to eliminate it completelywithout harming the musical content. Oncethis was achieved my aim was to achieve anatural tonal balance, to compensate for thetendency to thinness in the bass, and tocontrol the high frequency hiss. The endresult is perhaps the recording I’m mostproud of to date.”

© Divine Art Limited 2017

A digital Pristine Audio restorationby Andrew Rose.Programme notes and booklet designby Stephen Sutton. © 2005

With thanks to Richard J. Johnson forresearching the recording dates and to Eric Ricefor proofreading and checking notes.

References:Biographical details and backgroundinformation:material by Kimmo Korhonen (Finnish Music

Information Centre).Original programme notes (Symphony 5 andTapiola) by Ernest Newman;Original programme notes (Symphony 6) byCecil Gray;Both published by The Gramophone CompanyLimited for the Sibelius Society

Robert Kajanus

Georg Schnéevoigt

Over 450 titles, with full track details, reviews, artist profiles and audio samples, can bebrowsed on our website. Available at any good dealer or direct from our online store.

UK: Divine Art Ltd. email: uksales@divineartrecords.com

USA: Diversions LLC email: sales@divineartrecords.comwww.divineartrecords.com

Also available by digital download through iTunes, Primephonic, Qobuzand many other platforms

find us on facebook, youtube and soundcloud

WARNING: Copyright subsists in all recordings issued under this label. Any unauthorised broadcasting, public performance, copying or re-recording thereof inany manner whatsoever will constitute an infringement of such copyright. In the United Kingdom, licences for the use of recordings for public performance may

be obtained from Phonographic Performance Ltd, 1, Upper James Street, London W1R 3HG.