A Survey of Nielsen Symphony Cycles
► An Index of ionarts Discographies
Continuing my discographies, this is a survey of — hopefully — every extant recorded cycle of the Carl Nielsen symphonies. They are listed in chronological order of completion. This should include all cycles, whether they were issued as such or not, including those where multiple conductors were at work on it. I have heard many of these and possibly at least some symphonies of most of them, but hardly all of them. Comments on what you like or dislike about any given cycle are very much appreciated — be it below (where they might take a while to be noticed) on Twitter, or best: in both places.
On a personal note: It has taken me long – far too long – to really get into Carl Nielsen’s music. Especially his symphonies. I have attributed this to taking the wrong approach, namely to think of Nielsen as a southern cousin of Sibelius (see also: A Survey of Sibelius Symphony Cycles), expecting his symphonies to do some of the same sort of magic, spell a similar, vaguely “nordic” web of enchantment. On this count, Nielsen fails. He is not “Sibelius 2.0”, in fact, he really isn’t anything like Sibelius. No more, anyway, that Richard Strauss is anything like Sibelius, despite also being a sumptuous romantic composer of the 20th century. Tempting so it may be to hope for it, there are no swans in Nielsen, figure-skating across frozen lakes on a winter’s daybreak. The most prosaic picture you’ll be lucky to wrestle from Nielsen might be – and I’m winging it here – a frog hopping away in the woods. Nielsen himself – allegedly – told Sibelius once: “I don’t reach as high as your ankles.” (If you can find a source for that quote, do let me know!)
The composer who paved my way towards greater, more intense Nielsen-appreciation happened to have been Bohuslav Martinů (see also: A Survey of Martinů Symphony Cycles). It turns out that his six symphonies have much more of a kinship with Nielsen’s than do Sibelius’… if for no more profound reason than both of them working off rhythm and propulsion as their main ingredients. Once I came to Nielsen thinking “Martinů”, not “Sibelius”, I found them far more intriguing and the listening-experience was no longer tainted by disappointment but by a newfound state of wonder at the many things Nielsen does offer. It speaks to the enduring qualities of the composer that he is so well served on record – quantitatively, at least. This survey currently lists 28 symphony cycles by the most liberal count and still 17 if you are stingy (counting only single conductor/composer cycles that are available boxed). Compare that to just seven for Martinů, 14 for Vaughan Willians (see also: “A Survey of Vaughan-William Symphony Cycles”), or 20 for Dvořák (see also: A Survey of Dvořák Symphony Cycles), even it can’t compare to the 50+ that Sibelius has to his name).
Qualitatively is another matter; Nielsen is hard to pull off, even to those ears that take more readily to him than mine did. For his symphonies to really grab you by the lapel and draw you in, a lot of ingredients need to be right. It’s hard to draw general conclusions about what works and what doesn’t, but I think it is fair to say that finesse and delicacy are not two ingredients on which the success of good Nielsen depends. Better a bit more brash than reticent in this music, bold rather than refined. As such, I like the gruff Ole Schmidt, the vividly-vital Bryden Thomson, the sumptuously grand Alan Gilbert, and the carefree abandon of Adrian Leaper. As you might imagine, Leonard Bernstein has a lot to bring to Nielsen – and indeed his Fifth (especially) is one of the great Nielsen-recordings there is. With the same sweeping gesture, I condemn high-profile cycles to the dustbin of civilized boredom. Among them Blomstedt (at least the EMI recordings), Davis, Saraste, Schønwandt (the cycle I started out with – and I might be wrong about it; others love it), and even Vänskä. [Actually, not so fast: Vänskä proved to have distinct merits, on third hearing.] If you are already into Nielsen, I am sure you have your favorites and “Mehs” already, yourself. Curiously, it seems like it is always the same labels that tend towards Nielsen: Chandos, BIS, and (understandably) the Danish Dacapo-label each have three cycles on offer and Chandos already has a fourth (Gardner) in the making. (The fact that DG now has two cycles is probably owed more to the Luisi-cycle having been offered for free to them, than DG having had any designs on adding to Paavo Järvi's cycle from the early 90s.)
I am sitting on the data for several new discographic entries under work. Ring cycles, Mahler, Mendelssohn, and Beethoven symphony cycles, Mozart Piano Concerto and String Quartet-cycles, among others. They take an awful lot of time to research, however, and even more time to put into html-presentable shape. And even then they are rarely complete or mistake-free. Neither will this one be, and every such post is also a plea to generously inclined readers with more information and knowledge of the subject than I have to lend a helping hand correcting my mistakes or filling data-lacunae.
I am explicitly grateful for any such pointers, hinters, and corrections and apologize for any bloomers. (Preferably on Twitter, where I'll read the comment much sooner than here, but either works!) Unlike some earlier discographies, this one does intend to be comprehensive. So I am especially grateful when I have sets that I have missed (such that only ever appeared on LP, for example) pointed out to me. I have not listened to them all, but favorites are indicated with the "ionarts choice" graphic. Ditto recommended cycles by ClassicsToday/David Hurwitz. Links to reputable reviews are included where I thought of it and could find any. With hundreds of links in this document, there are, despite my best efforts, bound to be some that are broken or misplaced; I am glad about every correction that comes my way re. those, too.
Enjoy and leave a comment in some form!
(Survey begins after the break, if you didn't land on this page directly)
Thomas Jensen
(1947-1959)
Danish Radio Symphony OrchestraThomas Jensen is an unsung Nielsen-pioneer. This is not technically a cycle, as the individual symphonies were recorded for various labels (Nos. 1 & 5 for DECCA, No. 2 for HMV [thus in the Warner catalog right now], No.6 for the Danish TONO label [Mercury in the US], and Nos. 3 & 5 are airchecks from Danish Radio. Danacord has collected them in their "Thomas Jensen Legacy" series where the Nielsen can be found on discs vol.4, 6, and 16, respectively.
Danish Radio Symphony Orchestra Cycle
(1952-1959)
Danish Radio Symphony OrchestraThis cycle has also been put together by Danacord and puts together three Thomas Jensen recordings also found on the above cycle (3, 4, 6) while replacing those that Jensen had recorded for other lables with DRSO airchecks under Erik Tuxen (Symphonies 1 & 5) and Lany Grøndahl. All mono.
Leonard Bernstein / Eugene Ormandy
(1962-1973)
New York Philharmonic (2, 4, 5), Philadelphia Orchestra (1, 6), Royal Danish Orchestra (3)Not quite a cycle - but a pioneering effort on Leonard Bernstein's part. When he did not record the two remaining symphonies for CBS/Sony (Nos. 1 & 6), the company took Eugene Ormandy's recordings of Nielsen, him having conveniently only recorded those two symphonies. It appears to have been conincidence, not design, unless it had been planned that way, seeing that Ormandy recorded his Nielsen in 1966/1967, well after Bernstein had started with Nielsen Symphonies (1962) and well before he had finished (1973). There is greatness in that cycle, most obviously in the generally acknowledged masterful interpretation of the Fifth. The Third garners much praise, too, and no one can accuse Ormandy of wilting before Nielsen, either. With the sonics being just good enough and the playing perfectly decent and the interpretations between "must-hear" and "so-so", this might just be the prime exemplar among alternative cycles to spice up your Nielsen-diet. Bernstein peforms the 3rd with the Danish orchestra and the rest with the New York Phil; Ormandy, of course, conducting the Philadelphia Eagles. Hurwitz is on the fence on this one, since he thinks that the Fourth is lousy, mannered, didactic; the Second a bit heavy handed. But like everyone else, he thinks the Third and Fifth are the bee's knees. Rob Barnett has a MusicWeb review of it here.
Ole Schmidt
(1974)
London Symphony Orchestra
This is by all rights and means the first (proper) Nielsen Symphony Cycle, put down by one man with a vision (and plenty of booze to back it up) and a willing orchestra at his hands: Ole Schmidt and the London Symphony Orchestra, who recorded these six symphonies in one wash (just about) for Unicorn-Kanchana. These were recorded under difficult circumstances (in more ways than one). The 1974 miner's strike was in full progress in the UK (leading to the downfall of Edward Heath's government) when mains electricity was rationed and would be cut off to large areas periodically. When I discovered these performances for myself, raw and drunk with passion, upon re-release on Alto, Nielsen made invigorating sense in a way he had not really done before. They are gruff, grand performances that, for all their age, hold up very much.
It is not just me who holds this in high regard; it is almost universally well regarded. If only Gramophone constantly made it its reference, you might write that up to them being homers for the LSO. But it goes well beyond that. Hurwitz, who loves his Nielsen (see his Video on Nielsen Cycles), also considers it a great Nielsen cycle because of its “completely disarming directness of expression”. A ClassicsToday review can be read here; Hurwitz e also has a dedicated video review of this cycle... and it his "Reference Recording" - and he's dead on with that take. (He may have a new favorite at this point, but you'll have to read on to find out.) A review from Gerald Fenech on Classical.net can be found here and MusicWeb's (Rob Barnett) here.
It is not just me who holds this in high regard; it is almost universally well regarded. If only Gramophone constantly made it its reference, you might write that up to them being homers for the LSO. But it goes well beyond that. Hurwitz, who loves his Nielsen (see his Video on Nielsen Cycles), also considers it a great Nielsen cycle because of its “completely disarming directness of expression”. A ClassicsToday review can be read here; Hurwitz e also has a dedicated video review of this cycle... and it his "Reference Recording" - and he's dead on with that take. (He may have a new favorite at this point, but you'll have to read on to find out.) A review from Gerald Fenech on Classical.net can be found here and MusicWeb's (Rob Barnett) here.
Herbert Blomstedt 1
(1973-1974)
Danish National (Radio) Symphony OrchestraHerbert Blomstedt's first cycle came out early and for being released on a major label, you would think it would have made more of a splash. After all, by this time, Bernstein had already made something of a more international splash for Nielsen in general. It does not seem to have done so, however, and it certainly never did the trick for me. I agree in general with Hurwitz, who finds that the orchestra and Blomstedt weren’t up to it and that, despite lovely moments, it has nothing of the edge of his San Francisco re-make. In the big box, the non-symphpony works (which include: Bohemian-Danish Folk Tune, Andante Lamentoso, Little Suite for Strings, Symphonic Rhapsody, Helios Overture, An Imaginary Journey to the Faeroe Islands, Saga Dream, Pan & Syrinx, Maskerade (Andrew Davis), the choral works Hymnus Amoris and Sleep (Mogens Woldike) and piano works with Leif Ove Andsnes!) shine and it might be worth getting it just for those. But with so much choice available nowadays (and competition even from Blomstedt himself), this probably does not amount to a competetive Nielsen cycle. Note one curious disc on EMI that brandishes the Fifth Symphony and "Blomstedt" as the conductor of the DRSO/DNSO on the label: It is actually Blomstedt conducting the Concertos (Violin, Flute, Clarinet), the Melos Ensemble taking on the Wind Quintet... but the Fifth is a fine performance (also) of the DRSO under Rafael Kubelik. As such, that is a wonderful addition to your Nielsen collection and I am very glad for George A. Pieler (rightly a Kubelik-fan) to having pointed it out to me, back in the days.
Paavo Berglund
(1973-1974)
Royal Danish OrchestraPaavo Berglund seems like a natural choice for Nielsen but, as Hurwitz points out, that might be because of the mistaken assumption that what's good for Sibelius is good for Nielsen. Hurwitz does not think highly of this cycle, calling it "a big disappointment, underplayed, lacking in character, soft-edged." In 1988, Gramophone’s Robert Layton wrote somewhat tepidly about Symphonies 1 & 4 that “Berglund secures playing of no mean polish and sophistication from the Danish orchestra. The RCA recording has excellent body and presence.” But he also compares it favorably to Salonen (which Hurwitz likes), calling “Berglund’s account [of the First] infinitely preferable to the Salonen, which is mannered… After that, the Berglund comes as something of a relief. He is much more straightforward and adheres fairly closely to the marked tempos, and although the very ending of the finale strikes me as a bit headlong he holds the architecture of the symphony together in a convincing way. Phrases are affectionately turned but never pulled out of shape.” He also prefers Berglund’s Fourth compared to Salonen, because it is “generally closer to Nielsen’s score though some may find (as I did) that his first movement is fractionally breathless…” and he finds the finale rushed. He prefers Schmidt here. And comparing the otherwise hailed Blomsted/San Francisco Fourth to Blomstedt, ClassicsToday (Dave or someone else) actually prefers Berglund for the “far greater momentum” in the finale.
The BBC Classical Music magazine is surprisingly forward, calling Berglund’s cycle “one to avoid”, “cautious, tentative and, alas, downright dull”. Then again, the LA Times’ Richard S. Ginell wrote about the last disc (Nos. 3 & 6) that “Berglund closes his Nielsen cycle on a generally stronger note than he began it, particularly in a vigorous, life-affirming performance of the Third Symphony. Yet he steers clear of the wild extremes of the schizophrenic, still-little-known Sixth, treading cautiously through passages of black pessimism and weird humor. The Royal Danes’ main strength is excellent winds, while the strings have their messy moments.” Reviews being all over the place, it looks like one has to try it out and see for oneself it this cycle mightn’t do the trick for one’s own preferences in Nielsen, after all.
The BBC Classical Music magazine is surprisingly forward, calling Berglund’s cycle “one to avoid”, “cautious, tentative and, alas, downright dull”. Then again, the LA Times’ Richard S. Ginell wrote about the last disc (Nos. 3 & 6) that “Berglund closes his Nielsen cycle on a generally stronger note than he began it, particularly in a vigorous, life-affirming performance of the Third Symphony. Yet he steers clear of the wild extremes of the schizophrenic, still-little-known Sixth, treading cautiously through passages of black pessimism and weird humor. The Royal Danes’ main strength is excellent winds, while the strings have their messy moments.” Reviews being all over the place, it looks like one has to try it out and see for oneself it this cycle mightn’t do the trick for one’s own preferences in Nielsen, after all.
Herbert Blomstedt 2
(1987-1989)
San Francisco Symphony Herbert Blomstedt’s Second go at the Nielsen Symphonies might have produced the first modern cycle that was always readily available (unlike Schmidt) and as near a universal recommendation as there had been… and perhaps is to this day. Hurwitz, for one, finds it “absolutely first class”, even as he doesn’t like the choice to the ending of the Fourth. ClassicsToday reviews of Symphonies 1-3 here, 4-7 here, and a snippet from Dave’s “Best Nielsen Cycles” video touches on Blomstedt as one of the recommendable ones here. An excellent and more critical MusicWeb review of the whole set (from Rob Barnett) here. (If you wonder about his mention of a cycle by [Andrew] Penny, that must be a typo.) In an individual review, Nos. 1 & 6 are politely suggested to be “a touch leaden”, compared to Oramo. Gramophone's Robert Layton investigates his Nos. 4 & 5 a bit closer, loving it all the way. ("The finale is exhilarating yet held on a firm rein. Blomstedt's Fifth Symphony, too, is impressive... [the] recording balance could not be improved upon...")
Nielsen, Sys. 1-6 ++
Herbert Blomstedt
Collectors Edition
San Francisco Sy.
Label: Decca
Year: 2014
US | UK | DE
Nielsen, Sys. 1-6
Herbert Blomstedt
Collectors Edition
San Francisco Sy.
Label: Decca
Year: 1994
US | UK | DE
Esa-Pekka Salonen
(1986-1990)
Swedish RSOAt the same time that the American-Swedish Blomstedt was recording his second Nielsen cycle in California, the young Finn Esa-Pekka Salonen got to work on the Nielsen Symphonies and Concertos in Sweden, recording them for CBS/Sony. The set was never widely or particularly successfully distributed and the re-issue off the market as soon as it had come on the market. But some of the individual discs had some renown, and most especially the Violin Concerto in its coupling with the Sibelius VC, played by Cho Liang-Lin – a recording that remained one of the references for decades… for both concertos.
The symphonies have not fared as well in reviews. As mentioned above, Gramophone’s Robert Layton compared Salonen (at least his First and Fourth symphonies, anyway) unfavorably to Berglund’s (which is hard to believe). Good old Dave “TamTam” Hurwitz stands up for Esa-Pekka, calling it: “Not perfect, because the sonics aren’t great and the Fourth Symphony sounds pretty bad but otherwise very exciting, sharp, clear…” And the Third has is one of "Dave's Faves". Well, that makes it intriguing, anyway, if you’re a budding Nielsen-head.
The symphonies have not fared as well in reviews. As mentioned above, Gramophone’s Robert Layton compared Salonen (at least his First and Fourth symphonies, anyway) unfavorably to Berglund’s (which is hard to believe). Good old Dave “TamTam” Hurwitz stands up for Esa-Pekka, calling it: “Not perfect, because the sonics aren’t great and the Fourth Symphony sounds pretty bad but otherwise very exciting, sharp, clear…” And the Third has is one of "Dave's Faves". Well, that makes it intriguing, anyway, if you’re a budding Nielsen-head.
Bryden Thomson
(1989-1991)
Royal Scottish Orchestra The much underrated Bryden Thomson was a bit of Chandos’ dark horse man for everything – not just British music, which he did spectacularly well (Arnold, Bax, Elgar, Finzi, Harty, Leighton, Vaughan-Williams, Walton), but also European symphonists… notably his fine Martinů cycle. And then there is Nielsen. While Dave is not a fan of it (at least not his “real dud of a Fifth; too soft-edged, sloppy, not tightly coiled or ferocious”, I tend to disagree. Thomson certainly doesn’t make the mistake of taking Nielsen for a southern Sibelius. There is, as one review put it, “distinctive personality and swagger… crackling with excitement, drama, and bite, [and] every note played with urgency and feeling. Gramophone thought similarly (“very spirited playing from all departments of the orchestra”) and MusicWeb, reviewing the first entry of the cycle, gushed that “the recorded sound is magnificent [and] the performances are exemplary.”
Gramophone’s Robert Layton, reviewing the disc with symphonies 3 & 5, suggested they that Thomson’s “Nielsen [is] plain and unadorned without any frills or any trace of the narcissism which afflicted Esa-Pekka Salonen (Sony) in this repertoire.” Writing about his 4 & 6 combo, he was, if anything, even more effusive: “The orchestra play as if their lives depend on it and the violence underlying the score [of the Fourth] makes a strong impact... [Meanwhile] ...I prefer Thomson's Sixth to any current rival... I [have never] heard anyone make better sense of the problematic 'Humoreske', which Thomson takes at a steadier pace than most rival conductors, [and...] the 'Proposta seria' is as eloquent and searching as any.” Yes, it is Gramophone, but even deducting for the British bias, this is probably worth considering. Chandos’ brawny sound helps. It’s out of print and a bit pricey to get, these days, but if you find budget-friendly copies (or if you stream), you should check this cycle out; it’s certainly still the best in the Chandos stable. Were it available as a budget box, it would get an "ionarts" recommendation, actually. (Ah, heck. Why be stingy!?)
Gramophone’s Robert Layton, reviewing the disc with symphonies 3 & 5, suggested they that Thomson’s “Nielsen [is] plain and unadorned without any frills or any trace of the narcissism which afflicted Esa-Pekka Salonen (Sony) in this repertoire.” Writing about his 4 & 6 combo, he was, if anything, even more effusive: “The orchestra play as if their lives depend on it and the violence underlying the score [of the Fourth] makes a strong impact... [Meanwhile] ...I prefer Thomson's Sixth to any current rival... I [have never] heard anyone make better sense of the problematic 'Humoreske', which Thomson takes at a steadier pace than most rival conductors, [and...] the 'Proposta seria' is as eloquent and searching as any.” Yes, it is Gramophone, but even deducting for the British bias, this is probably worth considering. Chandos’ brawny sound helps. It’s out of print and a bit pricey to get, these days, but if you find budget-friendly copies (or if you stream), you should check this cycle out; it’s certainly still the best in the Chandos stable. Were it available as a budget box, it would get an "ionarts" recommendation, actually. (Ah, heck. Why be stingy!?)
Myung-Whun Chung (+ Neeme Järvi)
(1983-1992)
Gothenburg SOWhen BIS got under way with their (first) Nielsen cycle in the 80s, they had Myung-Whun Chung at hand to the conducting of the Gothenburg Symphony Orchestra. They recorded the concertos and symphonies 1, 2, 3, and 5 but for reasons unknown to me, did not get to the Fourth and Sixth. By that time, the Gothenburg orchestra’s Principal Conductor Neeme Järvi (1982-2004!) was recording a cycle of the Nielsen Symphonies of his own, with the same orchestra, but for DG. [He did a similar double-dip with the Sibelius Symphonies, but not concurrently.] Somehow, with BIS still needing those two symphonies and (this is speculation) Chung not likely getting an opportunity to perform the same symphonies that Järvi was performing with the orchestra at the time, they simply took Neeme’s. And if you are wondering… yes! Järvi used the exact same recordings for both sets. (To the extent he had any choice, which he probably did not.)
In any case, the consensus, to the extent there is one, suggests that Chung is pretty great and that Järvi’s contributions are a bit slack. A fairly enthusiastic review of Rob Barnett's can be found on MusicWeb.
In any case, the consensus, to the extent there is one, suggests that Chung is pretty great and that Järvi’s contributions are a bit slack. A fairly enthusiastic review of Rob Barnett's can be found on MusicWeb.
Carl Nielsen, Sy. 1
+ Fl.Cto, Faroe Ilands
Myung-Whun Chung
Gothenburg SO
Label: BIS
Year: 1990
US | UK | DE
Carl Nielsen, Sy. 2
+ Aladdin Suite
Myung-Whun Chung
Gothenburg SO
Label: BIS
Year: 1983
US | UK | DE
Neeme Järvi
(1990-1992)
Gothenburg SOThis, then, is Neeme Järvi’s Gothenburg Cycle made just after they had performed and recorded most of the orchestral works of Nielsen under Myung-Whun Chung for BIS. Issued individually, then as a set, and eventually given a second life on the Universal “Trio” budget re-issues (with abridged but decent notes from David Fanning et al.), it had not (for a while, anyway) been entirely sidelined but it was also never the alpha dog, despite its reputable “Deutsche Gramophone” stable. There’s a surprising dearth of reviews out there; some finding praise with the last symphonies, in particular, and others falling in line with Hurwitz’ take that it is rather slack. As mentioned above, the Fourth and Sixth with Neeme that BIS used for their cycle are identical with the ones in this set.
Gennady Rozhdestvensky
(1992-1994)
Royal Stockholm Philharmonic OrchestraChandos, of course, loves recording Nielsen even more so than BIS. And how this project of Gennady Rozhdestvensky recording all the Nielsen Symphonies with the Royal Stockholm PO ever came about, commencing only a year after Bryden Thomson’s with the Royal Scottish Orchestra had concluded, is rather beyond me. Well, Chandos did it (if the opportunity was there and, let’s say, the masters free, why not?), and Rozhdestvensky delivered in his inimitable personal style, performing Nielsen quite like no one else. Even Rob Barnett, in his friendly review for MusicWeb can’t quite put an all-out positive spin on it, but there’s an element in his description that shines through other reviews, as well: That listening to Rozhdestvensky, one is bound to find oneself on the fence; that it is slow and often even heavy but that it works in surprisingly many moments or specific details. And that the sound is pretty good – which it is, especially if you like the slightly generous Chandos ‘boom’. This makes it a popularly recommended “supplemental” cycle; a decidedly different take if you already like these works or haven’t found your way into them with more orthodox choices, but want to.
For what it is worth, I think that the Nielsen Symphonies can take Rozhdestvensky sometimes luxuriating, sometimes abrupt, certainly sanguineous approach really well, because it nudges the composer even further from that faux-northern pedestal into central, even eastern Europe. Much of what Nielsen does makes a good lot of sense, that way. The Third is pretty ravishing, in its way. That’s not meant as an all-out recommendation, either; there’s too much competition for that. But it is certainly more interesting and worthwhile than a good dozen or so other cycles that have been made. Just dip your ears, if you are in the mood for a particular symphony, and see where he takes you.
For what it is worth, I think that the Nielsen Symphonies can take Rozhdestvensky sometimes luxuriating, sometimes abrupt, certainly sanguineous approach really well, because it nudges the composer even further from that faux-northern pedestal into central, even eastern Europe. Much of what Nielsen does makes a good lot of sense, that way. The Third is pretty ravishing, in its way. That’s not meant as an all-out recommendation, either; there’s too much competition for that. But it is certainly more interesting and worthwhile than a good dozen or so other cycles that have been made. Just dip your ears, if you are in the mood for a particular symphony, and see where he takes you.
Adrian Leaper
(1992-1994)
National Symphony Orchestra of IrelandThere seems to be something about the unexpected and the underrated sets to produce considerably high-quality Nielsen. Perhaps that’s because polish isn’t the key to good Nielsen, whereas commitment and abandon absolutely is? Adrian Leaper’s set on Naxos, only briefly available as a box (and Naxos never had a Nielsen “White Box”, although with Kees Bakels recording of the concertos, that would have made a nifty set), is, in any case, really very fine! That is not meant to be damnation by faint praise, given how many sets decidedly do not rise to that level. Already in 1996, the Classical Good CD Guide (remember those?) remarked that the “Sixth Symphony is very good indeed [and that] Leaper's well-judged and sensible tempos in the First Symphony show his obvious feeling for Nielsen...” Fanfare deemed the Fourth one of the finest (“few match and none exceed the precision and power of Leaper's kettle drummers”), and and the Penguin Guide, giving 3/Key and 2 ½ stars, respectively, to the releases with the disc with Nos. 2 & 3 and Nos. 1 & 6. (“vibrant and involved playing… in The Four Temperaments, which is as good as an in the catalogue… and [an] Espansiva [that’s] is well paced, with tempi well-judged throughout.” And since the recordings are British, Gramophone liked them well enough, too. For good reasons. Revisiting their First, recently, I was mightily impressed…
Edward Serov
(1992-1995)
Odense Symphony OrchestraEdwar Serov, go figure. Does this cycle actually exist? Scarcely a mention in any review (much less an outright review itself) to be found. Few comments to come across in the various classical music fora. But it seems to be out there, with scant evidence for rough-but-charming, colloquial performances. Never (or so it would appear) issued as a physical set, the six discs include a lot of Nielsen’s other orchestral music. There’s a point made about these performances using the then brand-new Carl Nielsen Critical Edition, but what difference that could possibly make (never mind that, presumably, others have had access to that, too, since), I don’t know and I surmise not a whole lot. If anyone knows anything about this set, write it in the comments and alert me to it on Twitter or Instagram or the like.
Coupled with the symphonies are the following pieces: #1: Helios Overture, Saul & David Suite. #2: Snefrid (melodrama), Amor og Digteren (incidental music, overture). #3: Maskarade Suite. #4: Pan And Syrinx, At The Bier Of A Young Artist, Saga-Dream. #5: Bohemian-Danish Folk Tune, Symphonic Rhapsody for Orchestra. #6: Willemoes 3rd Act Overture, Rhapsodisk Overture (Faroe), From Moderen.
Coupled with the symphonies are the following pieces: #1: Helios Overture, Saul & David Suite. #2: Snefrid (melodrama), Amor og Digteren (incidental music, overture). #3: Maskarade Suite. #4: Pan And Syrinx, At The Bier Of A Young Artist, Saga-Dream. #5: Bohemian-Danish Folk Tune, Symphonic Rhapsody for Orchestra. #6: Willemoes 3rd Act Overture, Rhapsodisk Overture (Faroe), From Moderen.
Jukka-Pekka Saraste
(1997-2000)
Finnish Radio Symphony OrchestraFor a cycle by a major conductor in this sort of repertoire, on a reasonably major label (Finlandia i.e. Warner), Jukka-Pekka Saraste’s Nielsen-Cycle flew spectacularly under the radar. There are scarcely any reviews out there; the ones that do exist are sensationally useless (MusicWeb), ditto BBC Music Magazine ("There is some very good playing here ... and Saraste is generally attentive to detail") and the one on Gramophone of one of the discs mixes tepid-as-can-be approval (“can hold its own” and “can’t be faulted”) with a we’ll-urge-you-to-buy-it-anyway pitch: “recommended alongside Blomstedt’s San Francisco coupling. Some may even prefer it.” May they, now?! Well, if that doesn’t make you salivate, anything else might. Nor are these versions found on major streaming platforms. (No. 5 is on YouTube, and that’s probably in violation of copyright.) So, what’s to be made of this? Maybe Warner will re-issue it in a little budget box and we can all make up our own minds about it? If you know it, please share your feelings in the comments and let me know via Twitter or Instagram.
Michael Schønwandt
(1999-2000)
Danish National (Radio) Symphony Orchestra
Michael Schønwandt’s cycle on Dacapo has long been – and may well remain – a firm recommendation. It’s been called “the best cycle to come out of Denmark, hands down.” And that’s Nielsen-country, after all. Not that that meant much, then, because the only other reasonably modern cycles that had been out and Danish at the time (and until recently) were Blomstedt’s damp first, and Berglund’s tepidly received Royal Danish, cycles. (Although connoisseurs have always hailed the DRSO-cycle with Tuxen, Jensen, and Grøndahl as the measure of all things.) It had also been my first cycle – and it did, at a minimum, nothing to my Nielsen-appreciation. As such, I am biased against it, but recognize that I’m in the minority. ClassicToday’s David Hurwitz and Victor Carr Jr. gave each of the releases (and the big box) 10/10 ratings, hailing in particular the “clarity and total naturalness” of the performances and concluding that: “…on balance Michael Schønwandt’s cycle remains the most consistently excellent available. It has no weak links at all, and is expertly recorded… If you haven’t yet heard these performances, then this set will be a mandatory acquisition…”
Rob Barnett, one of the consistently good and trustworthy critics over on MusicWeb, wrote positively but very level-headedly about them here; on the same site, Terry Barfoot wrote kind but hardly effusive things about them here. Robert Layton, of Gramophone, like Schønwandt, too. And only occasionally do I stumble upon someone, who also finds this set bland and boring. Then again, the problem might be all mine and I just need to re-listen more closely. That’s the beauty of music and this obsession of ours and also the reason for these discographic surveys, which are meant to help give you a choice. (But not make it for you.)
Rob Barnett, one of the consistently good and trustworthy critics over on MusicWeb, wrote positively but very level-headedly about them here; on the same site, Terry Barfoot wrote kind but hardly effusive things about them here. Robert Layton, of Gramophone, like Schønwandt, too. And only occasionally do I stumble upon someone, who also finds this set bland and boring. Then again, the problem might be all mine and I just need to re-listen more closely. That’s the beauty of music and this obsession of ours and also the reason for these discographic surveys, which are meant to help give you a choice. (But not make it for you.)
Michael Schønwandt
(2001)
Danish National Symphony Orchestra
Michael Schønwandt’s cycle on Dacapo DVDs is very similar but not identical to his cycle on discs. Filmed on November 2nd and 4th 2000 at the Danish Radio Concert Hall. The picture is said to be crystal clear. Sound is available in PCM stereo, Dolby Dogital 5.1 and DTS 5.1 Digital Surround Sound. Those who like Schønwandt like this one just about as much, assuming they care to sit down and watch a musical performance on top of listening to it.
Douglas Bostock
(1999-2001)
Royal Liverpool PhilharmonicAnother under-the-radar cycle, thanks to a zero-marketing budget and a low(ish)-reputation label with spotty distribution and re-issue on even lower-reputation budget labels. (Membran, to be specific, a label known for playing fast and loose with copyright of masters and assuming, quite rightly, that the value of any given illicit issue is too low to make it worth suing over by the rights’ holders.) We are talking about Douglas Bostock’s Nielsen cycle on (defunct) ClassicO. With using the Carl Nielsen Critical Edition becoming a standard claim at this point; the attraction of this project is more likely the considerable completeness about the non-symphonic orchestral works. The boxed symphony-cycle that was issued, contained no more extra works than most other cycles… so the completeness applies only to the Membran 10-CDs catch-all box which is, in any case, available only via Amazon.com.
There’s a fairly useless, all-too-enthusiastic MusicWeb review. Gramophone reviewed the Fourth Symphony here: “Bostock’s seems wanting in that last ounce of attack, especially in the finale. …Bostock’s stubbornly refuses to ignite…” Gerald Fenech at ClassicalNet found the releases “ fairly good so far” (but also saying that he “waxed lyrical” about them), but this account of Fourth “quite lamentably poor”. Still, he likes the First and the Sixth, rates “Bostock highly alongside Leaper and Schonwandt” and concludes, not altogether congruently, that it is “an excellent Nielsen cycle”. ClassicsToday meanwhile calls Bostock “insensitive to the music dynamic and rhythmic nuances”, complains about the murky sound, handing out an average rating of 5.25 / 7, summarizing with “Classico’s Carl Nielsen Edition continues its failure to produce recommendable performances of the major works.” One man’s “clarity and authenticity; along with energy” is another listener’s damp squib. Enjoy!
There’s a fairly useless, all-too-enthusiastic MusicWeb review. Gramophone reviewed the Fourth Symphony here: “Bostock’s seems wanting in that last ounce of attack, especially in the finale. …Bostock’s stubbornly refuses to ignite…” Gerald Fenech at ClassicalNet found the releases “ fairly good so far” (but also saying that he “waxed lyrical” about them), but this account of Fourth “quite lamentably poor”. Still, he likes the First and the Sixth, rates “Bostock highly alongside Leaper and Schonwandt” and concludes, not altogether congruently, that it is “an excellent Nielsen cycle”. ClassicsToday meanwhile calls Bostock “insensitive to the music dynamic and rhythmic nuances”, complains about the murky sound, handing out an average rating of 5.25 / 7, summarizing with “Classico’s Carl Nielsen Edition continues its failure to produce recommendable performances of the major works.” One man’s “clarity and authenticity; along with energy” is another listener’s damp squib. Enjoy!
C.Nielsen, Sys. 1 - 6 +
Douglas Bostock
Royal Liverpool Phil
Label: Classico
Year: 2001 (4CDs)
US | UK | DE
C.Nielsen, Sys. 1 & 6
Douglas Bostock
Royal Liverpool Phil
Label: Scandinavian Classic
Year: 2002
US (n/a) | UK | DE
C.Nielsen, Sys. 2 & 5
Douglas Bostock
Royal Liverpool Phil
Label: Scandinavian Classic
Year: 2002
US (n/a) | UK | DE
Osmo Vänskä
(1999-2002)
BBC Scottish Symphony OrchestraOsmo Vänskä in Nielsen on BIS. That should be good. Certainly, when these came out, in the early 2000s, Vänskä was on a hot-streak. His earlier, Lahti-Sibelius-cycle had been recorded to great acclaim; his superb Minnesota Beethoven-cycle was just around the corner. He was emerging from an excellent niche repertoire conductor to entering the big-leagues. And then the Nielsen cycle came out… and it just wasn’t quite what one might have hoped for. I don’t remember which disc I first heard – and admittedly I was still trying, more than succeeding, to get into Nielsen, but at l found myself curiously uninvolved. (Not the first time, with this composer.) Incidentally, on re-listening to them for this survey, I found my low-ish expectations exceeded, liking a lot of finer touches and detail in the performances, even as I remain unconvinced of its greater thrust.
Gramophone Magazine was still fairly effusive (review of the first disc here), but even they tempered and hedged their verdict, which is always telling: “Although Vänskä’s insights are undoubtedly plentiful‚ I would not‚ all things considered‚ prefer him to either Blomstedt or Schønwandt‚ but aficionados should waste no time in meeting this searching newcomer’s acquaintance…”
David Hurwitz, as one might imagine, pulled no punches. He deems Vänskä Nielsen “fussy, not very persuasive, lacking energy and momentum.” That said, when these releases came out, Hurwitz’ individual reviews on ClassicsToday were rather positive. The first disc, granted, was deemed ‘not competitive with the best’, but had several merits pointed out. For symphonies 3 & 4 the tune changes, citing that Vänskä’s performances of these works “are as fine as those on his previous disc were deficient” and, after complaining about the orchestra a bit, ends in a rare hedge: “The result, then, isn’t perfect and doesn’t surpass the new Dacapo set under Schonwandt as a first choice in this music–but it’s almost as good, and the performances are eminently worth hearing for Vänskä’s fresh and energetic view of both works.” By the time the third volume came around, he really has it out for the BBC Scottish SO (“a provincial ensemble that while good, certainly isn’t first class or even as fine as Vänskä’s Lahti forces”) and attests “a smashing account of the Fifth comes harnessed to a mediocre Second”. And that's the way it is – or maybe not.
Gramophone Magazine was still fairly effusive (review of the first disc here), but even they tempered and hedged their verdict, which is always telling: “Although Vänskä’s insights are undoubtedly plentiful‚ I would not‚ all things considered‚ prefer him to either Blomstedt or Schønwandt‚ but aficionados should waste no time in meeting this searching newcomer’s acquaintance…”
David Hurwitz, as one might imagine, pulled no punches. He deems Vänskä Nielsen “fussy, not very persuasive, lacking energy and momentum.” That said, when these releases came out, Hurwitz’ individual reviews on ClassicsToday were rather positive. The first disc, granted, was deemed ‘not competitive with the best’, but had several merits pointed out. For symphonies 3 & 4 the tune changes, citing that Vänskä’s performances of these works “are as fine as those on his previous disc were deficient” and, after complaining about the orchestra a bit, ends in a rare hedge: “The result, then, isn’t perfect and doesn’t surpass the new Dacapo set under Schonwandt as a first choice in this music–but it’s almost as good, and the performances are eminently worth hearing for Vänskä’s fresh and energetic view of both works.” By the time the third volume came around, he really has it out for the BBC Scottish SO (“a provincial ensemble that while good, certainly isn’t first class or even as fine as Vänskä’s Lahti forces”) and attests “a smashing account of the Fifth comes harnessed to a mediocre Second”. And that's the way it is – or maybe not.
Theodore Kuchar
(2005)
Janáček Philharmonic Orchestra We arrive at a cycle that was recorded for (well, first published by, anyway) the super-budget Brilliant label: Theodore Kuchar. In a way, this is to Nielsen what Arthur Fagen’s cycle is to Martinů. These were initially looked down upon because of their provenance, both the label's and because of the orchestra's and its home in little Ostrava, in the north-east of the Czech Republic. What business have they performing Danish music, after all?! But then quickly one critic after another jumped on them for being actually excellent (it usually takes one to lead the pack). By now we have a consensus that these are, in fact, very, very good readings.
If I wrote, at some point above, that my key to Nielsen was to ‘think Martinů’ and bring that to Nielsen, one might say that Kuchar does it in the reverse and brings the Martinů (or, as it were, Janáček) to Nielsen. Whatever he does, it works. David Hurwitz was among the first to be enthused: “Theodore Kuchar leads what is without question the most exciting complete Nielsen symphony cycle available, making this the set to get for Nielsen newcomers. He doesn’t put a foot wrong in any of these symphonies, and it’s rather amazing to hear how well he handles passages where so many conductors come to grief.” In his video, he calls them “brilliant”, “amazingly good” and “first class”, attesting the interpretations muscularity, energy, and directness. His only caveat is that the orchestra isn’t world class, being a bit rough around the edges. MusicWeb is full of praise: “It isn’t just the ideal set for beginners; it proves that we are all beginners.” Bob Shingleton of “On an Overgrown Path” quotes the review, making his equally enthusiastic case for the set.
Even the AllMusic-reviewer feels the same way: “Once in a while… a sympathetic conductor takes these symphonies at face value and recognizes that Nielsen intended that everything he put in his scores, albeit idiosyncratic, should be heard clearly and without compromises. Theodore Kuchar's 2005 set with the Janáček Philharmonic Orchestra is one of the most accomplished Nielsen cycles around, and the details of the music are so clear that nothing is left to speculation. … The results are direct, forceful, and sometimes searing in their intensity; … Brilliant's recordings are first rate, and this [set] holds its own against any of the major-label sets available.” Being positively surprised after low expectations may have helped the set, but it is decidedly among handful of cycles that merit inclusion in your soon-to-be-bulging Nielsen collection.
If I wrote, at some point above, that my key to Nielsen was to ‘think Martinů’ and bring that to Nielsen, one might say that Kuchar does it in the reverse and brings the Martinů (or, as it were, Janáček) to Nielsen. Whatever he does, it works. David Hurwitz was among the first to be enthused: “Theodore Kuchar leads what is without question the most exciting complete Nielsen symphony cycle available, making this the set to get for Nielsen newcomers. He doesn’t put a foot wrong in any of these symphonies, and it’s rather amazing to hear how well he handles passages where so many conductors come to grief.” In his video, he calls them “brilliant”, “amazingly good” and “first class”, attesting the interpretations muscularity, energy, and directness. His only caveat is that the orchestra isn’t world class, being a bit rough around the edges. MusicWeb is full of praise: “It isn’t just the ideal set for beginners; it proves that we are all beginners.” Bob Shingleton of “On an Overgrown Path” quotes the review, making his equally enthusiastic case for the set.
Even the AllMusic-reviewer feels the same way: “Once in a while… a sympathetic conductor takes these symphonies at face value and recognizes that Nielsen intended that everything he put in his scores, albeit idiosyncratic, should be heard clearly and without compromises. Theodore Kuchar's 2005 set with the Janáček Philharmonic Orchestra is one of the most accomplished Nielsen cycles around, and the details of the music are so clear that nothing is left to speculation. … The results are direct, forceful, and sometimes searing in their intensity; … Brilliant's recordings are first rate, and this [set] holds its own against any of the major-label sets available.” Being positively surprised after low expectations may have helped the set, but it is decidedly among handful of cycles that merit inclusion in your soon-to-be-bulging Nielsen collection.
C. Nielsen, Sys. 1 - 6
Theodore Kuchar
Janáček Phil
Label: Brilliant
Year: 2005 (3 CDs)
US | UK | DE
Colin Davis
(2009-2011)
London Symphony OrchestraColin Davis in Nielsen on LSO LIVE. It’s hard to point to the nadir of Colin Davis on record, with the LSO Live record label. Such good intentions and such good ingredients so often let down by low-octane, dry, even asinine recordings. Certainly compared to what they should have been. This Nielsen cycle, coming from the then octogenarian Davis, however, might just be good point to start. In truth, that’s only my memory of these recordings and I ought to re-listen, to see if I cannot come to a more nuanced opinion. (I will – and if I do, I will amend this commentary.) After all, my mentor, colleague, and dear friend Bob Reilly loves them and recommends them in Surprised by Beauty.
There are others that were impressed. Gramophone, not surprisingly, where David Fanning wrote about Nos. 4 & 5: “At last! Nielsen’s two best-known symphonies in modern performances with real fire in their belly. I’m not aware that Sir Colin Davis has any pedigree in Nielsen, but what does that matter, when he brings such animal excitement to the task, such a thrilling sense of discovery and existential danger?” That’s about the opposite of my impression. Robert Cummings on ClassicalNet liked them very much, too, describing the Third, for example, as “muscular and at times rather driven” and about the set that it “should hold its place among the competition as one of the better and more imaginative sets of the Nielsen symphonies. Highly recommended!” That’s not at all what my impression had been, but go figure.
MusicWeb suggests that “on balance Davis is more consistent than Gilbert”, which is an outrageous statement. “This LSO cycle contains no disappointments and… it’s a solid, very reliable choice. If that sounds like damning faint praise that’s most certainly not the intention; these are thoroughly considered and convincing interpretations.” Well, never mind that that sounds exactly like damning with faint praise, the reviewer’s colleague on the same site gives a different opinion that sounds more like it: “This is a very safe and sophisticated cycle of the Carl Nielsen symphonies but it does not sweep the board and crunch the competition as I had anticipated. Almost, maybe, but not quite.” Reading between the lines of his review, which tries hard to be laudatory, this amounts to slamming the cycle. Something that he might have felt like doing – but didn’t want to admit.
On the outright detractor side, also not really surprising, if you know his moods, Hurwitz argues that they are a failure, “a mess, tepid”, and simply “not good”. (Reviews here (1/6), here (2/3), and here (4/5).) Pending a considerable change of heart (or ears), that’s my take, too. We get backing from Philip Clark at Gramophone (lo and behold!), who wrote about Nos. 2 & 3: “It’s Colin Davis’s rotten bad luck that his versions of Carl Nielsen’s Second and Third symphonies should appear only a few months after Alan Gilbert and the New York Philharmonic released the same programme on Dacapo. Gilbert’s raw-boned, architecturally smart, assertively played performances of Nielsen’s Four Temperaments and Sinfonia espansiva is everything that Davis’s performances are not, but need to be.”
There are others that were impressed. Gramophone, not surprisingly, where David Fanning wrote about Nos. 4 & 5: “At last! Nielsen’s two best-known symphonies in modern performances with real fire in their belly. I’m not aware that Sir Colin Davis has any pedigree in Nielsen, but what does that matter, when he brings such animal excitement to the task, such a thrilling sense of discovery and existential danger?” That’s about the opposite of my impression. Robert Cummings on ClassicalNet liked them very much, too, describing the Third, for example, as “muscular and at times rather driven” and about the set that it “should hold its place among the competition as one of the better and more imaginative sets of the Nielsen symphonies. Highly recommended!” That’s not at all what my impression had been, but go figure.
MusicWeb suggests that “on balance Davis is more consistent than Gilbert”, which is an outrageous statement. “This LSO cycle contains no disappointments and… it’s a solid, very reliable choice. If that sounds like damning faint praise that’s most certainly not the intention; these are thoroughly considered and convincing interpretations.” Well, never mind that that sounds exactly like damning with faint praise, the reviewer’s colleague on the same site gives a different opinion that sounds more like it: “This is a very safe and sophisticated cycle of the Carl Nielsen symphonies but it does not sweep the board and crunch the competition as I had anticipated. Almost, maybe, but not quite.” Reading between the lines of his review, which tries hard to be laudatory, this amounts to slamming the cycle. Something that he might have felt like doing – but didn’t want to admit.
On the outright detractor side, also not really surprising, if you know his moods, Hurwitz argues that they are a failure, “a mess, tepid”, and simply “not good”. (Reviews here (1/6), here (2/3), and here (4/5).) Pending a considerable change of heart (or ears), that’s my take, too. We get backing from Philip Clark at Gramophone (lo and behold!), who wrote about Nos. 2 & 3: “It’s Colin Davis’s rotten bad luck that his versions of Carl Nielsen’s Second and Third symphonies should appear only a few months after Alan Gilbert and the New York Philharmonic released the same programme on Dacapo. Gilbert’s raw-boned, architecturally smart, assertively played performances of Nielsen’s Four Temperaments and Sinfonia espansiva is everything that Davis’s performances are not, but need to be.”
Paavo Järvi
(2009-2013)
Frankfurt Radio Symphony OrchestraPaavo Järvi threw his hat into the Nielsen-ring around the same time that Davis and Gilbert did, but it didn’t get nearly the attention, partly because RCA (Sony) was a catatonic label at the time and because for some reason, they don’t push Paavo’s recordings much. (And it’s not like this was an RCA-Japan release, like some of his recordings.) I have yet to hear it, but I’m not particularly encouraged by reviews that call it “Hit and miss”, “pretty good”, and “occasionally flaccid”. (Gramophone) The < a href="https://www.classical-music.com/reviews/orchestral/frankfurt-radio-symphony-perform-nielsens-symphonies-conducted-paavo-j-rvi">BBC Music Magazine has nothing much to say, except bland niceties. A wordy but bland, none-too-committal review on MusicWeb likes it. Hurwitz simply calls it “faceless”. For the Guardian, Andrew Clements calls them “superb recordings” that “show the orchestra off very well”. Then comes the caveat, namely that “as a whole, the set doesn’t quite match the finest recent performances on disc” – which is made more dubious seeing that he finds the best performances to be “Osmo Vänskä’s set for BIS [he's since recanted], perhaps, and Colin Davis’s on LSO Live.” If you can glean much from the tepid review on “Classical Source”, praising one thing, then backpaddling a bit, but never with any bite: good for you. If you have this set, please let me know in the comments and/or on Twitter how you feel about it.
Alan Gilbert
(2011-2014)
New York Philharmonic Alan Gilbert has never quite gotten star-status as a conductor. Him being perceived (because he rather was) as the 8th choice of an New York Philharmonic fast running out of options when they needed a new music director after Lorin Maazel (finally) left in 2009 didn’t help. A relative no-name (with gigs in Stockholm and Principal Guest in Hamburg – where he was welcomed ‘back’ with open arms), an ‘in house’ choice, with hints of nepotism. Alas, when I first heardthe Gilbert-led NYPhil in 2011, after years of hearing a bored, lethargic orchestra up at Avery Fisher Hall, I was very impressed with how much life he seemed to breathe into them. Conversations with musicians at his former orchestras, who gushed how they still benefited from rehearsals with him in pieces they now played under different conductors, and observing more successful concerts converted me. Alan Gilbert is a fantastic musician.
Still, there was no telling that his cycle of Nielsen Symphonies – one without any even notional connection to things Danish, Scandinavian, or Nordic – would be quite as glorious as that! These are gloriously sumptuous, muscular takes that (and I hesitate to make any comparison to Sibelius when talking about Nielsen) remind me of Colin Davis’ Sibelius with Boston. There’s a dash of Richard Strauss added here – but not at the expense of other qualities (vivid, direct and edgy music-making) and with no smoothing over any of the rugged contours of the music. As I wrote elsewhere, I was hooked on these performances like I had not been, since and apart from listening to those of Ole Schmidt. Except these are in stunning, reference-sound.
Once again, I am d’accord with Dave, who gives this “smoking new Nielsen cycle” and its “thrilling energy” highest marks (reviews: 2/3, 1/4, 5/6): “Gilbert reveals a genuine affinity for the music, and Nielsen’s athleticism suits the orchestra very well indeed.” MusicWeb’s Nielsen specialist loves them just as much. (Reviews: 2/3, 1/4, 5/6).
All aboard, then? Well, on the same site, a curmudgeon, completely off his rocker, suggests that “taken in toto Gilbert’s recorded Nielsen is just too calculated” (5/6), and attests “an overheated Fourth and a tepid First; not Gilbert at his best” in alternative reviews. Still another found that there was “a good deal to admire [Ed: code for: I have nothing much to say] in these performances, even if there are other, perhaps more persuasive ways to play Nielsen.” And when I read sentences like this one in a review (“in fact, I judge their performance of the symphony as a whole to be pretty successful”), I tune out entirely. There’s nothing wrong with differing views, but the quality of these reviews on MusicWeb (superb resource though it is in so many ways) is maddening, sometimes. ClassicalNet recommends them very highly, if not with the last ounce of enthusiasm. Don’t let that deter you: This is easily a Top-5 Nielsen cycle and, pending hearing the rest of Oramo’s, my favorite ahead of Schmidt.
Still, there was no telling that his cycle of Nielsen Symphonies – one without any even notional connection to things Danish, Scandinavian, or Nordic – would be quite as glorious as that! These are gloriously sumptuous, muscular takes that (and I hesitate to make any comparison to Sibelius when talking about Nielsen) remind me of Colin Davis’ Sibelius with Boston. There’s a dash of Richard Strauss added here – but not at the expense of other qualities (vivid, direct and edgy music-making) and with no smoothing over any of the rugged contours of the music. As I wrote elsewhere, I was hooked on these performances like I had not been, since and apart from listening to those of Ole Schmidt. Except these are in stunning, reference-sound.
Once again, I am d’accord with Dave, who gives this “smoking new Nielsen cycle” and its “thrilling energy” highest marks (reviews: 2/3, 1/4, 5/6): “Gilbert reveals a genuine affinity for the music, and Nielsen’s athleticism suits the orchestra very well indeed.” MusicWeb’s Nielsen specialist loves them just as much. (Reviews: 2/3, 1/4, 5/6).
All aboard, then? Well, on the same site, a curmudgeon, completely off his rocker, suggests that “taken in toto Gilbert’s recorded Nielsen is just too calculated” (5/6), and attests “an overheated Fourth and a tepid First; not Gilbert at his best” in alternative reviews. Still another found that there was “a good deal to admire [Ed: code for: I have nothing much to say] in these performances, even if there are other, perhaps more persuasive ways to play Nielsen.” And when I read sentences like this one in a review (“in fact, I judge their performance of the symphony as a whole to be pretty successful”), I tune out entirely. There’s nothing wrong with differing views, but the quality of these reviews on MusicWeb (superb resource though it is in so many ways) is maddening, sometimes. ClassicalNet recommends them very highly, if not with the last ounce of enthusiasm. Don’t let that deter you: This is easily a Top-5 Nielsen cycle and, pending hearing the rest of Oramo’s, my favorite ahead of Schmidt.
Sakari Oramo
(2012-2014)
Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra In 2012, BIS, figuring it had been a dozen years since their last Nielsen Symphony Cycle (Vänskä, 2002), got Sakari Oramo and the Royal Stockholm Philharmonic Orchestra to do one of their own, also on SACD. Oramo had succeed Alan Gilbert as its chief conductor in 2008, and remained for 13 years. What with the orchestra being Swedish and Oramo Finnish, they must have figured: Close enough, let’s get cracking. And, by most accounts, a cracking cycle – only ever issued on individual discs, so far – it is!
For our good Dave Hurwitz, it’s the Nielsen Cycle to be had, currently. His reviews can be read here (1/3, “this is very, very good”), here (2/6, “…about as good as it gets, and so are the sonics”), and here (4/5, Insider only). He also raves about it in his videos, linked above.
Andrew Clements, writing for the Guardian, also loves the first installment: “…the Fourth is thrillingly urgent without ever sounding forced or rushed, and its slow movement grows naturally and inevitably to its apotheosis. The Fifth seems equally coherent; every facet of its tumultuous opening movement is carefully controlled and precisely paced; the second movement is joyously affirmative…” And , btw., he’s come around to calling Vänskä’s cycle “less convincing”. Robert Cummings, on ClassicalNet, comments that Nos. 4 & 5 “must be counted among the finest [recordings] of both works. The BIS sound reproduction is clear and powerful.” Reviewing the same release, Colin Anderson (at ClassicalSource) comes to the same conclusion: “When the music and the music-making are as good as this, there is little to say, except to issue a handsome recommendation.”
MusicWeb has positive reviews here + here + here (1/6), here (2/6), and here (4/5)
Judging by how and where these reviews align and the coupling of 2/6 I have listened to, Oramo is a fine alternative take the brawny, overwhelmingly powerful glory that Gilbert offers, going for a chiseled, hard-edged, more detailed approach. Detractors? Not many, though MusicWeb featured an initial review of the Fifth: “It’s all so remote, an abstruse philosophical skirmish rather than a hard, physical battle. Contrasts aren’t as starkly drawn as they should be either… there’s little sense that victory is hard won, and that makes for a weak and fitful first half. Alas, the second [movement] isn’t much better… This and the Fourth burn on all too low a flame… Dispiriting; doesn’t augur well for the rest of this cycle.” To his credit, the same reviewer recants (or jumps on the bandwagon) after listening to the next installments, which he loved (see links above). That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
For our good Dave Hurwitz, it’s the Nielsen Cycle to be had, currently. His reviews can be read here (1/3, “this is very, very good”), here (2/6, “…about as good as it gets, and so are the sonics”), and here (4/5, Insider only). He also raves about it in his videos, linked above.
Andrew Clements, writing for the Guardian, also loves the first installment: “…the Fourth is thrillingly urgent without ever sounding forced or rushed, and its slow movement grows naturally and inevitably to its apotheosis. The Fifth seems equally coherent; every facet of its tumultuous opening movement is carefully controlled and precisely paced; the second movement is joyously affirmative…” And , btw., he’s come around to calling Vänskä’s cycle “less convincing”. Robert Cummings, on ClassicalNet, comments that Nos. 4 & 5 “must be counted among the finest [recordings] of both works. The BIS sound reproduction is clear and powerful.” Reviewing the same release, Colin Anderson (at ClassicalSource) comes to the same conclusion: “When the music and the music-making are as good as this, there is little to say, except to issue a handsome recommendation.”
MusicWeb has positive reviews here + here + here (1/6), here (2/6), and here (4/5)
Judging by how and where these reviews align and the coupling of 2/6 I have listened to, Oramo is a fine alternative take the brawny, overwhelmingly powerful glory that Gilbert offers, going for a chiseled, hard-edged, more detailed approach. Detractors? Not many, though MusicWeb featured an initial review of the Fifth: “It’s all so remote, an abstruse philosophical skirmish rather than a hard, physical battle. Contrasts aren’t as starkly drawn as they should be either… there’s little sense that victory is hard won, and that makes for a weak and fitful first half. Alas, the second [movement] isn’t much better… This and the Fourth burn on all too low a flame… Dispiriting; doesn’t augur well for the rest of this cycle.” To his credit, the same reviewer recants (or jumps on the bandwagon) after listening to the next installments, which he loved (see links above). That’s their story and they’re sticking to it.
John Storgårds
(2012-2015)
BBC Philharmonic Orchestra
Obviously, Chandos could not let BIS take the lead in the Nielsen-Symphony-Cycle race so easily. John Storgårds to the rescue, then! Actually, he started recording his Nielsen with the BBC Phil the same year Oramo did, he just took a little longer. In any case, 30 years after Rozhdestvensky, Chandos had a new such set of recordings to show for. Maybe Nielsen’s 150th birthday (June 9th, 2015) had something to do with it. Promising, too, but maybe not exactly the hit it might have hoped for. Especially since the problem with Nielsen is that good is decidedly not good enough. It’s supposed to blow the bloody doors off, not just be, oh, pretty decent, really.
Edward Seckerson for Gramophone writes: “Storgårds seems always to want to allow the music to breathe. His readings remind me of the early Ole Schmidt cycle though with far more incisiveness and finish. Still, there are occasions here when one just wants him to urge the tempo up just a notch or two, to edge the accelerator and burn just a little more rubber.” Suffice it to say that there is decidedly nothing that reminds me of Schmidt’s cycle. Then he contrasts his “markedly different approach to Oramo” and unequivocally prefers the Chandos sound “which, though spacious and far-reaching, feels more immediate and subsequently better clarified in the rowdiest tuttis.”
An MWeb-gusher immediately hailed the set: “[Storgårds] gives alert, dramatic and brilliantly detailed performances of all six of these great works, characterising them sharply, and bringing out their stunning originality, their deliberate waywardness - or cussedness, if you like - as well as their composer’s captivating sense of humour.” It’s such a terrible review, I can’t even link to it. There’s another, a double review – on MusicWeb here, with a good-cop/bad-cop take, that makes more sense. The respective conclusions are: “…this… is a major contender and does full justice to this magnificent symphonist” (OK, if a bit 'yawn') and “Storgårds' Nielsen falls well short of the best; the sound is below par, too” – a sentiment I can work with.
The Guardian (Erica Jeal) gives it a ‘homer’s welcome’ in the headline (“a monumental reading from Storgårds”) of a 13-line non-review that likens his Nielsen to Bruckner. A horrifying thought – but fortunately not true. There’s a much longer and slightly more detailed review on ClassicalSource which is about as much fun to read as the set is to listen to. David Hurwitz, which is why he is liked by so many (even if they disagree with his verdicts), summarizes the set simply as “boring” in a video and in his review, where he gets riled about this “relentlessly uninteresting [release] and specifies a bit beyond: “When he isn’t being slow and dull, he’s being fast and dull.” In the set’s defense: I didn’t find it that memorably bad at all (indeed, I rather liked the first two symphonies). Just not memorable.
Edward Seckerson for Gramophone writes: “Storgårds seems always to want to allow the music to breathe. His readings remind me of the early Ole Schmidt cycle though with far more incisiveness and finish. Still, there are occasions here when one just wants him to urge the tempo up just a notch or two, to edge the accelerator and burn just a little more rubber.” Suffice it to say that there is decidedly nothing that reminds me of Schmidt’s cycle. Then he contrasts his “markedly different approach to Oramo” and unequivocally prefers the Chandos sound “which, though spacious and far-reaching, feels more immediate and subsequently better clarified in the rowdiest tuttis.”
An MWeb-gusher immediately hailed the set: “[Storgårds] gives alert, dramatic and brilliantly detailed performances of all six of these great works, characterising them sharply, and bringing out their stunning originality, their deliberate waywardness - or cussedness, if you like - as well as their composer’s captivating sense of humour.” It’s such a terrible review, I can’t even link to it. There’s another, a double review – on MusicWeb here, with a good-cop/bad-cop take, that makes more sense. The respective conclusions are: “…this… is a major contender and does full justice to this magnificent symphonist” (OK, if a bit 'yawn') and “Storgårds' Nielsen falls well short of the best; the sound is below par, too” – a sentiment I can work with.
The Guardian (Erica Jeal) gives it a ‘homer’s welcome’ in the headline (“a monumental reading from Storgårds”) of a 13-line non-review that likens his Nielsen to Bruckner. A horrifying thought – but fortunately not true. There’s a much longer and slightly more detailed review on ClassicalSource which is about as much fun to read as the set is to listen to. David Hurwitz, which is why he is liked by so many (even if they disagree with his verdicts), summarizes the set simply as “boring” in a video and in his review, where he gets riled about this “relentlessly uninteresting [release] and specifies a bit beyond: “When he isn’t being slow and dull, he’s being fast and dull.” In the set’s defense: I didn’t find it that memorably bad at all (indeed, I rather liked the first two symphonies). Just not memorable.
Søndergard, Vedernikov, Bernstein, Rattle, Boder, Berglund
(1965-2022)
Royal Danish OrchestraHere’s something of an outlier. Released to celebrate the 575th anniversary of the Royal Danish Orchestra (of which Carl Nielsen had been a second violinist for 16 years), the institution put together a set of the six symphonies conducted either by one of their music directors or opting for historically important or particularly terrific performances with others. For good measure, they throw in the Clarinet Concerto (soloist John Kruse, Alexander Vedernikov conducting) and a Masquerade Overture (but not its concert version , oddly: Michael Schønwandt). Vedernikov also takes the 2nd Symphony, Thomas Søndergård takes the First. The choice for the Third had to be Leonard Bernstein, of course, whose performance of that symphony helped make it famous and was a point of pride for the Danes. (It’s the same performance that you can find on any of his recordings.) Simon Rattle conducts the Fourth, Michael Boder the Fifth, and Paavo Berglund – which makes you wonder if it is the same performance as the one from his cycle (it is) – the Sixth. (Berglund was the band’s CD from 1993 to 1998, Schønwandt from 2001-2011, Boder from 2012-2016, and Vedernikov from 2018 to his sudden death in 2020.)
Reviews of such efforts often end up even more laudatory and velvet-gloved than usual or else there aren’t many reviews around, because the luxuriously bound set (part book on the orchestra) doesn’t quite compete in the same realm as the other symphonies, anyway. In any case, a Gramophone review, which sets out the agenda right away (“Irrespective of the quality of performances, the documentary value of the set is high…”), but also doesn’t pull the punches, reads: “Vedernikov’s [Second]… is rather hit-and-miss…” and “the less said about Michael Boder’s trudge through … the Fifth Symphony, the better”, while Berglund’s contribution gets pegged as straight, objective, and short on character’. Søndergård, meanwhile, gets plaudits. Bernstein is a classic, but special mention is made of “Rattle’s electrifying account of [the Fourth]: a good deal more ‘incendiary’… than his EMI studio version with the CBSO, which itself was pretty impressive.” There’s not much more out there. If youwant to sample, the performances that are original to this set, but with the exception of Rattle’s, are available in the Naxos Music Library.
Reviews of such efforts often end up even more laudatory and velvet-gloved than usual or else there aren’t many reviews around, because the luxuriously bound set (part book on the orchestra) doesn’t quite compete in the same realm as the other symphonies, anyway. In any case, a Gramophone review, which sets out the agenda right away (“Irrespective of the quality of performances, the documentary value of the set is high…”), but also doesn’t pull the punches, reads: “Vedernikov’s [Second]… is rather hit-and-miss…” and “the less said about Michael Boder’s trudge through … the Fifth Symphony, the better”, while Berglund’s contribution gets pegged as straight, objective, and short on character’. Søndergård, meanwhile, gets plaudits. Bernstein is a classic, but special mention is made of “Rattle’s electrifying account of [the Fourth]: a good deal more ‘incendiary’… than his EMI studio version with the CBSO, which itself was pretty impressive.” There’s not much more out there. If youwant to sample, the performances that are original to this set, but with the exception of Rattle’s, are available in the Naxos Music Library.
Fabio Luisi
(2019-2022)
Danish National (Radio) Symphony Orchestra
We come to the latest entry into the roundel of Nielsen Cycles, which also comes from København, with the Danish National Symphony Orchestra (or “DR Symfoniorkestret”, as it’s the Danish radio orchestra) and Fabio Luisi, of all people. If the choice of Luisi does not seem an obvious one, repertoire-wise, it should be pointed out the he was (and continues to be, at least until 2029) their principal conductor, so in that sense it had to be him. Not that the outsider’s view in is a bad thing per se (see “Kuchar”). It might even help that Luisi probably hasn’t much of a clue who Sibelius is. And he’s got experienced personnel to work with: It’s the orchestra’s third (modern) go at these works (after Blomstedt/EMI and Schønwandt/Dacapo).
Impressions are all over the place, regarding this set, after weeding out the natural inclination to gush about most things that have just come out by most reviewers, amateurs and pros alike. That’s not necessarily worse than ‘an established’ opinion, which often isn’t so much consensus as it is herd-mentality. In any case, the Gramophone reviewer who reviewed the 575-year-anniversary set above loves Luisi’s take, considering “Symphonies Nos 3, 4, and 6 [to be] accounts that rival the all-time finest” and “the quality of playing and recording …stupendous.” But he also points out a “lethargic Andante in the first movement [of the First Symphony]” and calls the second movement of the Fifth “uncharacteristically circumspect”, whatever that means.
Two thirds of the set also get a review on Gramophone (Edward Seckerson; probably the above reviewer, too) that’s enthusiastic. I can see where he comes from: There are many riveting moments in this set, and those instances rival those of the best recordings out there. The First Symphony’s “Allegro orgoglioso” is no less thrilling than Gilbert’s, for example. Yes, he stretches the finale of the “Sinfonia espansiva” a good bit (the sort of thing that might have worked on sheer power in the concert hall but doesn’t translate that well to disc; also opening himself up to the criticism of taking the work’s nickname too literal), but it’s not that crazy, either (Oramo and Salonen only take 30, 40 seconds less), unless you compare it to Norrington’s [sic!] or to Edward Gardner’s recent recording (the latter on Chandos, of course, in their latest cycle-in-the-making), where Gardner does not linger in the sunshine at all but pushes up that hill like he’s being frog-marched. (It has its appeal, by all means – and in their different ways, either easily makes more of an impression than something like the listless run-through from Colin Davis.)
But some more reviews: The Classic Review, The Telegraph (paywall), ClassicalCandor's Ryan Ross is among the Nay-votes. “[It’s] Luisi’s vision of Nielsen’s music that makes the venture objectionable. To be blunt: he doesn’t feel it. He’s a relative newcomer to this repertoire – someone who’s used to conducting music we’re already well used to hearing. Well, these symphonies in his hands sound too much like music we’re already well used to hearing… The biggest problem here is Luisi’s lack of energy.” The criticism comes down to Luisi making Nielsen a romantic when he’s (quite rightly) not. If, however, that makes the music compelling (as any edgy, classical take might, if only it did), then that’s surely more important than an alleged stylistic lapse. In any case, a bit of, say, Strauss, Nielsen can actually take. Just not “Rachmaninoff.”
Hurwitz devotes a video to this cycle – and he’s torn and makes a few good points. Like myself, he’s looking at this and realizes that the orchestra went with their master to DG to say "pretty Please" and DG deigned to publish it, assuming it was at no cost for themselves. (Much the same as has presumably happened with their recentish Schmidt- and Enescu-Symphony Cycles. But at least good on them for issuing proper classical fare at all, even if it’s with zero risk. Incidentally, that’s how just about every label works these days, certainly the majors and Naxos, so it’d be unfair to single out DG for this.) Dave’s is, even if you weren’t to agree with his opinion (that it’s an ultimately mediocre cycle), by far the best, most detailed review out there... but for ionarts' own Charles Downey's review of Symphonies 1, 2, 4 & 5, of course. :-).
Impressions are all over the place, regarding this set, after weeding out the natural inclination to gush about most things that have just come out by most reviewers, amateurs and pros alike. That’s not necessarily worse than ‘an established’ opinion, which often isn’t so much consensus as it is herd-mentality. In any case, the Gramophone reviewer who reviewed the 575-year-anniversary set above loves Luisi’s take, considering “Symphonies Nos 3, 4, and 6 [to be] accounts that rival the all-time finest” and “the quality of playing and recording …stupendous.” But he also points out a “lethargic Andante in the first movement [of the First Symphony]” and calls the second movement of the Fifth “uncharacteristically circumspect”, whatever that means.
Two thirds of the set also get a review on Gramophone (Edward Seckerson; probably the above reviewer, too) that’s enthusiastic. I can see where he comes from: There are many riveting moments in this set, and those instances rival those of the best recordings out there. The First Symphony’s “Allegro orgoglioso” is no less thrilling than Gilbert’s, for example. Yes, he stretches the finale of the “Sinfonia espansiva” a good bit (the sort of thing that might have worked on sheer power in the concert hall but doesn’t translate that well to disc; also opening himself up to the criticism of taking the work’s nickname too literal), but it’s not that crazy, either (Oramo and Salonen only take 30, 40 seconds less), unless you compare it to Norrington’s [sic!] or to Edward Gardner’s recent recording (the latter on Chandos, of course, in their latest cycle-in-the-making), where Gardner does not linger in the sunshine at all but pushes up that hill like he’s being frog-marched. (It has its appeal, by all means – and in their different ways, either easily makes more of an impression than something like the listless run-through from Colin Davis.)
But some more reviews: The Classic Review, The Telegraph (paywall), ClassicalCandor's Ryan Ross is among the Nay-votes. “[It’s] Luisi’s vision of Nielsen’s music that makes the venture objectionable. To be blunt: he doesn’t feel it. He’s a relative newcomer to this repertoire – someone who’s used to conducting music we’re already well used to hearing. Well, these symphonies in his hands sound too much like music we’re already well used to hearing… The biggest problem here is Luisi’s lack of energy.” The criticism comes down to Luisi making Nielsen a romantic when he’s (quite rightly) not. If, however, that makes the music compelling (as any edgy, classical take might, if only it did), then that’s surely more important than an alleged stylistic lapse. In any case, a bit of, say, Strauss, Nielsen can actually take. Just not “Rachmaninoff.”
Hurwitz devotes a video to this cycle – and he’s torn and makes a few good points. Like myself, he’s looking at this and realizes that the orchestra went with their master to DG to say "pretty Please" and DG deigned to publish it, assuming it was at no cost for themselves. (Much the same as has presumably happened with their recentish Schmidt- and Enescu-Symphony Cycles. But at least good on them for issuing proper classical fare at all, even if it’s with zero risk. Incidentally, that’s how just about every label works these days, certainly the majors and Naxos, so it’d be unfair to single out DG for this.) Dave’s is, even if you weren’t to agree with his opinion (that it’s an ultimately mediocre cycle), by far the best, most detailed review out there... but for ionarts' own Charles Downey's review of Symphonies 1, 2, 4 & 5, of course. :-).
Edward Gardner
(2022*)
Bergen Philharmonic Orchestra
Not quite there, but here’s Edward Gardner’s cycle (with the Bergen Phil), which is under way for Chandos (so they can reclaim the throne of having most Nielsen Cycles under their belt.) He is, assuming it really will be a cycle, two symphonies in, but he also delivers other orchestral goods.
Thomas Dausgaard (aborted)
(2015-2020*)
Seattle Symphony
Thomas Dausgaard’s would-be-cycle with the Seattle Symphony was aborted when he left the orchestra over disagreements with the management, so it will stand 2/3 in. I will list it later, all the same. I will update this survey whenever I get new info and if you prod me to do so, so prod away! Thanks for reading.
Follow @ClassicalCritic
No comments:
Post a Comment