Sibelius Concerto
Anyone played this concerto/have any advice doing it?
Replies (43)
Best recordings: Oistrakh, Heifez, Szeryng, Julian Sitkovetsky, Mutter.
Before TOUCHING the third movement, make sure you practice scales, 3rds, 6ths, octaves, 10ths until you know them and can do them intonation-perfect in your sleep. First movement is nice; fast runs are ok (not really that difficult), but you can mess up reaallll easily if one thing goes wrong (it's like the dominoe effect!) Anyway... good luck!
yeah, there are no shortcuts in this piece. you have to know it backwards and forwards in order to save the performance if anything goes wrong, cause if you don't know where you are or where the orchestra is, it'll crash.
Greetings,
Andrew is right. Even good conducters (silver, water etc.) get nervous about this piece,
Cheers,
Buri
The Sibelius Concerto is a great piece, 'torturously Romantic', as Nadja Salerno calls it. It's a fact that Sibelius himself was a decent violinist; he studied in the Vienna Conservatory and played a lot of chamber music in his youth. The solo part is definitely 'violinistic': runs, arpeggios, scales, and double stops look hard but actually lie under the hand quite comfortably, provided that one has the necessary technique. In the original version, there was a second solo violin cadenza in the first movement; Sibelius discarded the cadenza after he revised the piece. The last movement is often refered to as 'polonaise for polar bears' or' 'danse macabre; it could be also performed on a recital with piano. Orchestration of the Concerto is quite remarkable: the 'dark' orchestral sound contrasting with the 'light' solo violin; texture is not as 'thick' as in the Brahms Concerto, for example, thus the orchestra is supportive but not overwhelming.
I've got the DVD of Vengerov playing Sibelius and have thoroughly enjoyed it. Anyone else seen it?
For recordings, I would suggest Ida Haendel. When Sibelius heard a radio broadcast of Ida Haendel playing his concerto, he sent her a telegram praising her performance saying something to the effect that her interpretation was exactly what he intended.
I believe that particular performance was with the Oslo Phil & it's rather hard to come by, but she has also recorded the concerto with the Bournemouth Symphony under Berglund & that's fairly readily available (EMI label)
I've got the Vengerov DVD too, I really like Ysaye Sonata No. 3 he plays as an encore, but I wasn't particularly thrilled with the his Sibelius or his Bach Sarabande, the other encore he played.
I watched that DVD once too. I wasn't too much impresssed with his playing. The most "academic" recording I have listened to is Gidon Kremer's. Although I didn't completely like his musical expression, I think he has managed to bring out everything written in the part.
Heifetz's recording is the best I've heard. I'd say Oistrakh's follows second. If you want someone younger, the Kennedy recording is excellent.
Heifetz's speed wrecks it a bit...Oistrakh is definetly the best for it.
I agree.
I love Mutter's recording! In my opinion, it is the best!
I love Sarah Chang's.
This concerto feels like a deep wound to me. The whole thing is so bitter and so vulnerable. The spiritual and emotional transition resembles the pacing of a good poem.
The end of the first movement feels like active avoidance and wall-building, the second movement feels like appreciation for beauty and joy and truth from a compassionate standpoint, and the third movement has this defiant "No, I refuse to surrender," type of feeling to it until the very end, and then in the last couple lines when he's overlaying modes, it's like laughing at its own defeat...
After the technique is learned I think you need to come to an emotional appreciation of it. It needs therapy. ;)
k
Which parts did you find difficult and how did you solve the problems?
Kyung Wha Chung, Oistrakh, Gil Shaham, they all have great recordings. I don't like Sarah Chang's though. It lacks direction. I have found the opening of the first movement and the cadenza to be the most difficult because it is impossible to get myself to agree on an interpretation. I suggest you hear the two extremes which I'd think would be Heifetz with the fast vibrato even from the beginning and Mutter with no vibrato in the beginning. Then there are all sorts of interpretations that don't take extremes. The 2nd movement is beautiful, but to make that beauty come out you have to know which notes to emphasize and how to phrase many passages in accordance with the chord choices Sibelius used. Listen to the opening of the 2nd movement. It sounds almost like Debussy. I feel it's completely original and therefore I don't think you can interpret this piece in a conventional way. The originality of this piece forces the players to all interpret and sound different on it and so this is one piece where I can actually distinguish all recordings, even those of modern artists cause not one really sounds like another in this.
To me, the most easily detectable influence in the concerto is Wagner.
TAKE NO RHYTHMIC LIBERTIES ESPECIALLY IN THE 1ST MVT..AND EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY IN THE INTRODUCTION (the first page)....this is such a very difficult concerto and i wouldnt recommend learning all of the mvts at once..they're all very different. the 3rd mvt is insane and the first page of the 3rd mvt alone contains some of the most difficult things for violin technique ever. when u play it, make it ur own. be passionate about everything in this concerto. the 1st mvt is just amazing and u can do so much with it. recording wise i would recommend ida haendel. she has such a deep intellectual and musical insight into this piece. i think even jean sibelius himself praised her for her performance of it. aaron rosand's is amazing as well. its recorded with the khatchaturian. but heifetz really owns this piece. words cannot even describe how he plays it. just perfect
I've got a CD of Kavakos playing both the original version, as well as the revised version (as we know it today). It's very interesting to listen to, and his interpretations are tasteful, with good intonation.
gil shaham has a recording of this??? holy crap i need to get it heh
its pretty awesome i must say, quite possibly his best recording.
Yeah, I think his Sibelius is his best recording. It's excellent.
especially the opening, sends tingles down my spine.
I like his Brahms Concerto and Faure Sonata better, but his Sibelius is one of his best early recordings.
I saw him play it with the NSO, third row center. That was the best, cheapest lesson I've ever had...
"TAKE NO RHYTHMIC LIBERTIES ESPECIALLY IN THE 1ST MVT..AND EVEN MORE ESPECIALLY IN THE INTRODUCTION (the first page)...."
Erika, don't you think that makes for a rather dry opening? Of course one does not want to go overboard in either direction, but even simple musical phrasing calls for planned and thoughtful space between the notes. This cannot be written on the page.
Preston
I think that in the first page of Sibelius it is imperative to take as little rhythmic liberties as possible. This comes, first of all, because of the already difficult and intricate rhythmic framework of the concerto, and because the music is so expressive it's not necessary to do so. A good example of this is the interpretation by Oistrakh.
Greetings,
Preston, I think you are making a fair point. But , in defence of Erica I look at the wording. A 'rythmic liberty," to my mind is a change in the notation that the composer used. On the other hand, "rubato" is an enhancement without taking liberties per se,
Cheers,
Buri
i think the beginning of sibelius without rubato would be sort of like the bach adagio in g with no rubato.
And?
After reviewing the definition of rubato, I was reminded that not only is it "prolonging a prominent tone, chord, or melody" but it "also requires an equivalent acceleration of less prominent tones". I do notice how some violinists leave out the accelerating part. Maybe Heifetz used the truly defined rubato?
Greetings,
your last sentence as a statement is absolutely spot on. Both Heifetz and Kreisler where absolute masters of this,
Cheers,
Buri
rhythm plays a crucial role within this concerto. if u dont stick to the rhythm in this piece, u have nothing. its important. always has been, always will be. Sibelius knew exactly what he was doing when he wrote this concerto (especially the intro.)the rhythm is important to the entire structure and style or this compostition. ive seen many masterclasses on this piece and it just kills me that people refuse to be precise and acurate of the rhythm. of course, music has to move, flow, and be natural. and this piece also has to be romantic...its sibelius..but u still must follow the rhythm. there's a big difference from taking a portamento, or a rubato than from playing with bad rhythm.
Greetings,
I thnk Menuhin was right when he talked about his constant search for irregularity. he always argued that one could only do this after precision was achived.
Cheers,
Buri
i agree
Erika, you are a great teacher but I think you are mixing precision with velocity which is the equivalent of having a cold steak with warm wine. I agree with Preston and Owen: the first movement was NOT meant to be performed strictly in tempo at all. 'Sibelius knew what he was doing' as he changed the tempo himself 15 (fifteen) times in the opening movement plus a number of rallentando and accelerando markings. The static orchestral part in the very beginning gives the soloist a lot a freedom to move around; as tension and drama build up, a natural accelerando occurs, leading to the quasi-cadenza which, of course, would sound incredibly dull and boring if played strictly in tempo. Rhythm does play a very important role; however, it is not a restriction but merely a direction, if you will. For example, Sibelius uses different words and meters while actually writing the same music and moving forward: at the conclusion of the second subject, 'poco a poco meno moderato' in 6/4 in the exposition; 'poco a poco stringendo' in 2/2 in the recapitulation.
" I thnk Menuhin was right when he talked about his constant search for irregularity"
How Buri could've written that without a single mention prunes is beyond me.
Scratch an` sniff
While we are still on the topic of the Sibelius and rhythm, I would like to point out a spot on the first page, the bars before the short cadenza. Many violinists like to take the a piacere all the way up to the cadenza and then slowly go into the original tempo, most notably bringing out the chords. If you listen to Heifetz, who pretty much plays it in tempo and does not really alter the actual rhythm, it is quite something to hear how he just easily connects everything so smoothly, even right through the cadenza. Mabybe its just the way he starts the fast cadenza right after the semi-long notes or the way he keeps the tempo going throughout the cadenza (by the way I just realized the only tempo change actually written in there is a stringendo). Afterall, we cant forget it is Heifetz playing....
I couldn't help but add my two cents, which would be:
This is the best piece of music ever (after Vaughan-Williams' Lark Ascending).
I finished Praeludium Allegro, Wieniawski #2, and I'm almost done with Intro and Tarantella by Sarasate. Should I play this piece next? My teacher's thinking about either mendelssohn or Carmen Fantasie
Just to quickly add to the this old thread - the first page actually cannot have too much freedom because of the rolling eighth notes in the strings. One cannot stretch the tempo without disturbing the flowing orchestral line. If one does, the orchestra will not be too pleased to be playing irregular eighths to keep up with the soloist. This is similar to the first page of the Brahms concerto. After the first page, there are many times to stretch the tempo, but not the first six or seven lines.
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
April 18, 2004 at 10:39 PM · yes, many times. practice between the notes.
keep the sections in perspective, like, the different patterns and phrases.
try to tell a story with it. i think of the very opening as sort of the really dense fog in the morning over a calm lake in finland, much liek sibelius would have seen.
i find the first movement very recitativ-ish. it's dark, stormy, don't be afraid to get messy. but still, keep it real, it's not gypsy. keep runs clean. a lot of people take a lot of rhythmic liberties and things are just plain wrong, so keep it genuine. the cadenza is the place for that.
use the second movement to pour your heart out. i like to think of it like the thoughts and longing of a lady with her husband going off to war. so the beginning of the movement is her missing him, then there are inflections of fear that something might or happened to him already. then she tires herself out and at the end cries herself to sleep.
third movement is a lot of fingers too. the very beginning with the cellos and bass going is like the galloping of horses, so remember that horses don't gallop at Heifetz speed.
in general, pay attention to the orchestra part very closely. remember that the original idea was for this piece to be a symphony, but somebody told mr. sibelius that he would make more money off a violin concerto. so it's very symphonic. it's worth it to grab a score and follow along, because the violin isn't the most important part in some cases.
oistrakh is fabulous, so listen to him, even though some conventional things may not be exactly right. sibelius loved the way he plays this piece.