Jean Sibelius – Violin Concerto

 If you’re interested in an extensive comparison of various orchestral reductions with the orchestral score, the dissertation by Sehee Lee, A New Reduction of the Sibelius Violin Concerto with Commentary must be read.  Although his new reduction may not be your preferred compromise between pianistic excitement and orchestral authenticity, the discussion leading to its creation is very insightful.  He mentions five editions, four displaying the exact same printing: (Kalmus, Muzyka, Robert Lienau Musikverlag, and Schlesinger)  and the Alexander Gretchaninov reduction within the International edition.  Our experience has shown that, indeed, these two printings dominate the market, particularly in the form of the Kalmus and International editions.  Our discussion focuses on the Gretchaninov reduction.  Be aware that the written-in repeat on measures 167-168 disturbs the numbering.  These measures encompass mm. 167-170 with the following measure being m. 171.

I. Allegro moderato

• Measure 1:  If you do a lot of work in violin studios, a conversation about these opening measures is bound to arise between you, the soloist and the professor! The moving eighth-notes in the orchestra interlock, keeping a full d-minor triad realized throughout the opening measures.  Sehee Lee argues that the accent and staccato on the first note of the International edition is illogical; this is entirely true! [1. Sehee Lee dissertation p. 13]  But the larger controversy is the fact that the International edition has a repeating (A-F-A-F) as the top line while the Kalmus has the top notes reversed (F-A-F-A).  Lee argues that the former pattern is usually perceived. [2. Lee disseration, also p. 13]  But this is arguable.  Listen to this performance in which it is clear that (F-A-F-A) is the dominant line.  A quick listen to other recordings confirms the ambiguity.  Make your own decision.  If you prefer the (F-A-F-A) pattern, you might want to look at the Kalmus printing.
• Measure 39: Although there is no need to reiterate each point of Sehee Lee’s dissertation, we want to reinforce the benefit of reading it.  He points out that the low D-Eb trill in this measure defies orchestral authenticity [3. Lee dissertation p. 20]  The timpani rolls on a single pitch, D.  The dissonance that is caused by the Eb is not present and is not authentic to the orchestration.  On the other hand, the rumble that Gretchaninov seems to be desiring is valid as well.  Again, make your own decision, but do browse the dissertation for many other points similar to this.
• Measures 44 and 47: Another frequent point of conversation within violin studios.  Ask if they want a downbeat added on these measures to reflect the downbeat in the orchestra.  Some are often surprised that no downbeat appears here.
• Measure 53:  Don’t stress about coming in too soft as implied by the pp marking here.  There is quite a bit of activity in the orchestra at this moment.
• Measures 76-87:  In the Gretchaninov reduction, the orchestral melody is split between the left hand on the beat and the right hand following an eighth rest later.  Although this lends a certain amount of rhythmic energy, one must keep in mind that the orchestral score has the melody appearing in unison on the beat.  Pianists must decide for themselves how to handle the discrepancy.
• Measure 113: These chords are pizzicati in the orchestra.
• Measure 127:  Do not play the low Bb’s as grace notes.  This entrance needs to be strong and unified.  Leave out the upper Bb in the bass clef.
• Measures 211-222: This is the entrance of a series of tied whole-note Bb’s in the right hand.  The International edition incorrectly shows two articulations.  The Bb articulated on the downbeat of 211 is tied for four measures…this is correct.  The Bb articulated on the downbeat of 215 is tied until measure 229…this is wrong.  After this second Bb is struck, it should be restruck after two measures (downbeat of 217), and again after another two measures (downbeat of measure 219).
• Measure 233:  Do read Sehee Lee’s dissertation [4. Lee dissertation pp. 31-32] for a discussion of this measure.  There is a large orchestral harmony that occurs on the thirty-second rest of beat four.  His thoughts will help inform any decision you make here.
• Measure 324 (Rehearsal 9): There is no need to treat the D bass as a grace note.  Simply eliminate the upper of the octave G#’s and play the downbeat powerfully, all the remaining notes sounding together.
• Measures 330 and 334:  See comment concerning the split melody in measures 76-87.
• Measure 359:  There is no need to treat the bass as a grace note.  Take the bass clef D# in the right hand and play these notes simultaneously.

II. Adagio di molto

• Measure 21:  pp dim. possible means just that!
• Measures 30-31:  Lee’s dissertation presents a well-defended and valid option for performing these two measures. [5. Lee dissertation pp. 50-51]
• Measures 38-39:  The International edition incorrectly contains tremolos in the right-hand and non-tremolo writing in the left.  The other editions, consistent with the orchestral score, reverse this.  Consult Lee’s discussion of this problem before choosing your preferred texture. [6. Lee dissertation 51-53]
• Measure 42: Avoid the grace note.  Play it on the downbeat and move up to the harmony a split-second later.
• Measure 56: Yet another grace note to avoid.  Furthermore, the alignment of the ffz in the accompaniment and the fz in the violin is so crucial, that it is an enormous oversight that these are not aligned visually in the International edition.
• Measures 65-68:  Again, our gratitude to Sehee Lee’s dissertation for pointing out minor nuances here.  Consult his document to learn of a forgotten sixteenth rest and the addition of an extra note! [7. Lee dissertation pp. 63-65]

III. Allegro,ma non tanto

• Throughout this movement, Sehee Lee makes numerous suggestions in which broken harmonies are struck simultaneously to better match the orchestral score.  Again, the dissertation is worth reading for possible ideas.
• Measures 38-39:  There is no need for the D to appear as a grace note.  The bass clef F# can be taken by the right-hand thumb.
• Measure 44:  The quarter rest in the left hand should be filled by the left-hand part as it appears in the second-half of the following measure.  There is not silence in the orchestral parts.  Sehee Lee not only identifies this error, but makes even more detailed suggestions concerning this passage.  [8. Lee dissertation pp. 76-78]
• Measure 72:  Be aware that the upper line should move to a C in the downbeat of the following measure.  This happens in the following identical passages as well.
• Measures 157-158: See measures 38-39.
• Last Page:  Any of the D grace notes appearing on this page are not necessary.  Play them on the beat while taking the other bass-clef note with your right hand.  After the initial strike, the hands can split as needed.

 
There are two printings of the orchestral reduction that collaborative pianists usually run across.  As with many popular orchestral reductions, both make many compromises, and every performer will inevitably have their own preferences and changes.  The first of these editions, and the one that we use as the basis for our “Tactile Tips” section, is the reduction by Alexander Gretchaninov, printed as “Alexandre Gretchaninoff” in the International edition.  The other is a particular printing most often seen in the Kalmus edition, but present in many other editions as well.  If you’re not sure which one you have, you can preview the opening pages of the Kalmus edition here, and the Gretchaninov reduction here.  For an in depth analysis of the pros and cons of both of these printings, Sehee Lee’s dissertation, A New Reduction of the Sibelius Violin Concerto with Commentary is highly recommended.

Was it the performer…? Sibelius finished writing his violin concerto in 1904.  Having it performed for the first time wasn’t the smoothest series of events.  The work was originally dedicated to Willy Burmester, one of Joseph Joachim’s students.  He suggested a March date for the premiere.  But funds were a bit low for Sibelius (he had materials being delivered for the construction of his house and needed cash for the commencement of construction on February 10th!!!). [9. Page 160 of Andrew Barnet’s Sibelius biography]  The premiere took place in Helsinki on February 8, 1904….Burmester wasn’t able to travel there.  What do you do when you need another performer fast?  You get in touch the local university!  So Sibelius contacted a violinist named Viktor Nováček who was teaching at the Helsinki Institute of Music (which would later be named after Sibelius).  The poor man didn’t have too much time to learn the concerto…  And it’s not that easy of a piece.  Needless to say the premiere wasn’t too successful… The critic Karl Flodin’s review contained terms like “boring,” “a mistake,” “from time to time there were terrible sounds”… [10. Ibid.] (Nováček did redeem himself by participating in the premiere of Sibelius’ string quartet Voces intimae in 1910).

Or was it the composing…?  Burmester told Sibelius that he could come to Helsinki in October and play the concerto better than Nováček.  Sibelius was depressed and turned him down.  He started spending a bunch of money on alcohol.  His debt quadrupled because of the construction of his home. [11. Page 161 of Andrew Barnet’s Sibelius biography]  Better just to revise the concerto….  Sibelius did not publish the original version of the work.  He made revisions, deleted some material, and tried a “second premiere” on October 19, 1905.
Richard Strauss was conducting!  And all went smoothly as can be…….not so fast!!!  Willy Burmester was asked to be the soloist again, and backed out a second time.  Karel Halíř, the concertmaster, stepped up to fill the role.  Although Willy Burmester was the original dedicatee, Sibelius re-dedicated the composition to a kid twelve years old at the time. (You missed your chance Willy!)  This “kid” was a child prodigy named Ferenc von Vecsey.  He performed it at the age of 13, although word-on-the-street is that he couldn’t really handle all the technical elements [12. Paragraphs four and five of this review]

I know what you’re thinking…:  But I wanna hear the original!  They say it was even harder than the revised version!  Fortunately, for those of us not around at the original premiere of the work, Sibelius’ heirs allowed a performance of the original composition in 1991.  Leonidas Kavakos was the soloist with Osmo Vänskä (guess the nationality…) conducting.  Even more fortunately, it was recorded!

 

 

Everyone mentions Donald Tovey’s description of the third movement as a “polonaise for polar bears.”  We are mentioning it too!