Sibelius 2 & 5 from Montreal (CD Review)

by Ryan Ross 

Sibelius: Symphony No. 2 in D, Op. 43; Symphony No. 5 in E-Flat, Op. 82. Yannick Nézet-Séguin, conductor; Orchestre Métropolitain de Montréal. ATMA Classique ACD 22453. 

If I am counting correctly, this is the third release in Yannick Nézet-Séguin’s and the Orchestre Métropolitain de Montréal’s Sibelius symphony cycle on the ATMA Classique label. Presumably it is also the penultimate one, with just the Sixth and the Seventh left of the Finnish master’s numbered symphonies to fill the final entry. (This is assuming, of course, that the Kullervo Symphony won’t be included.) To be honest, I was disappointed with the previous outings, which included the First Symphony (ACD 22452), and the Third and Fourth coupled together (ACD 22454). I thought the Fourth better than the other two, but every one of these performances is dogged by issues of balance, tempo, and interpretive direction. While I am happy to report that this latest disc is an overall improvement, these issues remain to varying degrees, with the Fifth less affected by them overall than the Second. 

We’ll save the best for last and start with the Second Symphony. The good news is that Nézet-Séguin has a better sense of architecture and climactic arrival here than in the previous symphonies, though some musical summits are still a touch sluggish and pallid. The changes of tempo, too, are less pronounced than before, though pauses between phrases, sections, and changes of tempo can be noticeably labored. For instance, take the material directly after the opening figure’s statement, or the slowdown at Rehearsal H in the same movement. Nézet-Séguin is overly fond of rubato. This works in some of the more effusive Romantic repertoire, such as that by Tchaikovsky or Mahler, but it can easily be overdone even in early Sibelius. Luckily, the more sectional/non-sonata structures of the remaining movements conceal such momentum issues better, though the lunga at about three measures before Rehearsal E in the second movement is noticeably over-milked. 

 

A problem equally present throughout is that of balance. Usually this comes in the form of the strings overpowering the woodwinds when both are present, as in the “development” section of the first movement. But the opposite happens in the second movement, again at Rehearsal E where the string melody needs to be better projected. Most seriously, while the string playing is generally of high quality, I discern occasional instances where the woodwinds do not quite play sharply or together. Such spots include their sounding slightly out of sync three measures before Rehearsal D in the second movement, and at Rehearsal B in the finale. Leading up to the latter point, the timpani is much too abrasive at the poco forte. (I don’t hear much “poco!”) All in all, however, this performance is a definite advance beyond the same musicians’ Sibelius First. 

 

At the risk of eating my words after the next release, Nézet-Séguin seems to have a better feeling for later Sibelius. This Fifth is the best-performed symphony of the cycle so far, and the first one I can fully get behind. Here the tempo issues that bothered me so much elsewhere seem to have resolved. It was a nice surprise to have everything on this front be well judged. Minor issues of balance (for instance, overpowering strings preceding Rehearsal G in the first movement) and articulation (the winds again in just a few places, mostly during the first and second movements) do not significantly mar a solid performance. The finale is especially good, with a great opening tempo, subtly layered dynamics, and a generally firm grip on the musical action. Balance problems in this interpretation recede into insignificance, with an excellent string-woodwind dynamic at Rehearsal N particularly worthy of mention. The long, drawn-out ending is delivered convincingly. I hope this performance’s success is a harbinger of what’s yet to come. 

 

So what we have here is an okay Second Symphony and a good Fifth. Does this add up to a firm recommendation? I would have to say no. While it’s the best yet of Nézet-Séguins’s and the OMM’s Sibelius symphony cycle, this recording still comes up short of what I would consider to be the top-tier choices for Nos. 2 and 5. Likewise, the upcoming release of the Seventh will have to be fabulous indeed to enter this category. The good news is that there are relatively few great performances of the Sixth Symphony, which so many conductors seem to not “get” very well. A stellar showing in that work could do much to distinguish a cycle that for me is otherwise shaping up to be unremarkable.