Glocken or Glockenspiel
Christopher Webber
Sibelius 4th Symphony, last movement. I've just listened to the Colin
Davis (Boston SO) performance, and for the first time heard a
Glocken+Glockenspiel combo used rather than Glockenspiel solo.
None of the other Sibelius 4s currently living here (Berglund x 3,
Barbirolli, Collins) add in the bells.
A surprise: the B&H miniature score doesn't clear anything up. In the
instrumental listing it has "Glocken", likewise at the top of the 4th
movement. On many of the individual entries, however, an extra
handwritten "...sp." has been added to the word at the proofing stage.
My instinct is to trust Berglund - i.e. that the bells are inauthentic.
Adding them seems to make for a much more Gothic effect, and reduces the
quota of Sibelian irony. And yet... does anyone have a definitive answer
on who's right?
--
___________________________
Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
http://www.zarzuela.net
alanwa...@aol.com
some years past, on the Percussive Arts Society message board (ie "What
Type of Bells in Sibelius 4"?)
My favourite in a long argued thread came from a member of the Berlin
Radio Symphony Orchestra who concluded that no one knows but claimed
the following:
"Glocken just means bells but unspecified bells. If he had wanted the
glockenspiel specifically he should have written Glockhen with an
Umlaut above the "o" and if he had wanted tubular bells he should have
written Glockenstab. We always ask the conductor what he wants."
I do not speak German so I cannot say whether that it is accurate or
not but I think asking the conductor sounds like a good idea.
Personally I have only played Sibelius 4 on glockenspiel and the part
itself is briefly "nimble" which is not a strength given to tubular
bells (see end of 1812 Overture where they all knock into each other).
Everyone else will know about the recordings but I do not.
Kind regards,
Alan M. Watkins
Christopher Webber
>Personally I have only played Sibelius 4 on glockenspiel and the part
>itself is briefly "nimble" which is not a strength given to tubular
>bells (see end of 1812 Overture where they all knock into each other).
Thank you, Alan - as comprehensive a response as I could have wished
for.
Your point about the "nimble" nature of some of the writing is very well
taken. Those Boston/Davis tubular bells do sound cumbersome at times,
although they certainly provide the "sonore - poco forte" which the
composer asks for at that wonderful last movement climax. What a piece!
Andrej Kluge
> "Glocken just means bells but unspecified bells. If he had wanted the
> glockenspiel specifically he should have written Glockhen with an
> Umlaut above the "o"
It's "Glöckchen", meaning small bells (like the ending -ito|a in
Spanish).
Glockenspiel is a device consisting of several small bells (Glöckchen),
as can be seen on some churches or other buildings sometimes.
Ciao
A.
David Hurwitz
>
>Notes and Queries:
>
>
>My instinct is to trust Berglund - i.e. that the bells are inauthentic.
>Adding them seems to make for a much more Gothic effect, and reduces the
>quota of Sibelian irony. And yet... does anyone have a definitive answer
>on who's right?
The correct answer is that the part was written for the glockenspiel. I was told
that the typographical confusion likely arose as a result of Sibelius being cut
off from his publisher, Breitkopf and Härtel, during the First World War. His
manuscript supposedly says "Glocken." (with the period indicating the
abreviation, though I haven't seen it personally).
The first conductor to use tubular bells was, I believe, Stokowski (big
surprise). Sibelius never used tubular bells in any of his major orchestral
works, but he was also quite inconsistent in his terminology. In The Oceanides,
he calls the glockespiel "Stahlstäbe," notwishstanding which just about everyone
uses the glockenspiel.
Purely from a musical point of view, tubular bells cannot possibly render the
part in tempo with the necessary clarity of rhythm (or, quite often, of pitch)
at the designated dynamics (usually piano). However, in his 1932 Philadelphia
recording (the one that introduced the chimes), Stokowski could make the case
for them where they first appear--at the long climax over swinging scales in the
strings that Sibelius marks "sonore."
Obviously, a glockespiel would have a problem realizing this designation, and as
the motive appears here in augmentation, it can work on the chimes (actually,
Stokowski's version still sounds best--big surprise again--in this regard, after
all these years). Several other conductors have availed themselves of this
interpretation. But purists stick to the glockenspiel, as Sibelius intended.
David Hurwitz
Christopher Webber
>Obviously, a glockespiel would have a problem realizing this
>designation, and as the motive appears here in augmentation, it can
>work on the chimes (actually, Stokowski's version still sounds
>best--big surprise again--in this regard, after all these years).
>Several other conductors have availed themselves of this
>interpretation. But purists stick to the glockenspiel, as Sibelius
>intended.
Thank you, David, for the full explanation/history of this diversity of
opinion. So there's no doubt that (despite its brief advantage at the
"sonore" climax) the chimes are inauthentic.
Davis with the Bostonians was evidently trying to have his cake and eat
it, by using chimes and glockenspiel in unison. I haven't heard his
London SO remake - did he use the same combo, or glockenspiel alone?
David Hurwitz
>
>
>Davis with the Bostonians was evidently trying to have his cake and eat
>it, by using chimes and glockenspiel in unison. I haven't heard his
>London SO remake - did he use the same combo, or glockenspiel alone?
He does a Stokowksi--chimes at "sonore," glockenspiel alone elsewhere.
Dave
Kerrison Spartan
Actually, when Sibelius himself premiered his own 4th Symphony in 1911
he used tubular bells ("glocken") throughout the finale, as the
archives of the Helsinki Philharmonic reveal (they still have the
original material). Note that in the first edition of his score (1912)
all the instruments are spelt out in full (including "glocken"): the
standard abbreviation for glockenspiel is "glsp".
The first recording of the work, made in 1932, was with a Philadelphia
Orchestra much reduced for financial reasons due to the Depression.
Stokowski compensated by using more microphones and putting them
closer to the players than was usual. It seems likely that the tubular
bells overwhelmed the orchestation in the 78rpm recording's 'pp'
passages so for those he used the glockenspiel, reverting to tubular
bells where the score is marked "fff sonore" (a tiny glockenspiel
could hardly come up with the required dynamics at that point).
Maybe it was the use of the glockenspiel in Stokowski's 78s that
caused Sibelius to change his mind because as Christopher Webber
points out, in the score's revised edition (1940) the part has "spl"
engraved into the music. But tubular bells and a glockenspiel play two
octaves apart and are quite different in character, so Beecham had a
special set of table bells made which split the difference: on his
1937 recording they play an octave higher than tubular bells and an
octave lower than a glockenspiel.
Amusingly, when Ormandy recorded the 4th symphony in 1954 the Philips
LP sleeve-note stated: "The bells (tubular bells, glocken not
glockenspiel, be it noted) present fragmentary melodies." Yet on that
LP Ormandy used the glockenspiel throughout, only to be told by
Sibelius - when Ormandy and the Philadelphians visited him on tour -
that he'd wanted tubular bells all along!
So if Sibelius kept changing his mind then no wonder conductors pretty
much do what they like. Check Bernstein's NYPO recording and hear
bells and glockenspiel clanging away fortissimo in unison throughout.
Check Toscanini, who gives extra bars to the glockenspiel which aren't
in either edition of the score. Check Ormandy's 1978 RCA recording and
hear him reverting to Stokowski's 1932 solution and switching between
both sets of instruments, depending on the dynamics. We're back where
we started ...!
KS
Andrej Kluge
> The first conductor to use tubular bells was, I believe, Stokowski
> (big surprise). Sibelius never used tubular bells in any of his major
> orchestral works, but he was also quite inconsistent in his
> terminology. In The Oceanides, he calls the glockespiel "Stahlstäbe,"
> notwishstanding which just about everyone uses the glockenspiel.
A lookup at (German) Wikipedia reveals that in German "Glockenspiel"
stands for two different things: first the instrument attached to
churches/towers (that I mentioned earlier in this thread), and then a
"Metallophon", an instrument made of "Stahlstäbe" (steel sticks), played
with wooden sticks with plastic heads (mallets). I belongs to the family
of "Stabspiele" like the Marimba, Xylophone, Vibraphone etc.
This is just to vindicate Sibelius when he uses "Glockenspiel" and
"Stahstäbe" interchangeably.
Ciao
A.
David Hurwitz
says...
>
>David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>news:<120171915.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>> In article <IsJeFFB5...@zarzuela.co.uk>, Christopher Webber says...
>> >
>> >
>> >Davis with the Bostonians was evidently trying to have his cake and eat
>> >it, by using chimes and glockenspiel in unison. I haven't heard his
>> >London SO remake - did he use the same combo, or glockenspiel alone?
>>
>> He does a Stokowksi--chimes at "sonore," glockenspiel alone elsewhere.
>>
>> Dave
>
>
>Actually, when Sibelius himself premiered his own 4th Symphony in 1911
>he used tubular bells ("glocken") throughout the finale, as the
>archives of the Helsinki Philharmonic reveal (they still have the
>original material). Note that in the first edition of his score (1912)
>all the instruments are spelt out in full (including "glocken"): the
>standard abbreviation for glockenspiel is "glsp".
>
Actually, when I was in Finland I was told just the opposite--that he used
glockenspiel, based on that same original material! So we are indeed back where
we started! By the way, your "standard abbreviation" is not standard. That part
is nonsense. There are many different abbreviations and terms, especially in
German, all of which were in use during this period, some of which have already
been discussed here.
Dave
David Hurwitz
>
>Hi David,
>
>> The first conductor to use tubular bells was, I believe, Stokowski
>> (big surprise). Sibelius never used tubular bells in any of his major
>> orchestral works, but he was also quite inconsistent in his
>> notwishstanding which just about everyone uses the glockenspiel.
>
>stands for two different things: first the instrument attached to =20
>churches/towers (that I mentioned earlier in this thread), and then a =20
>"Metallophon", an instrument made of "Stahlst=E4be" (steel sticks), played =
>=20
>with wooden sticks with plastic heads (mallets). I belongs to the family =20
>of "Stabspiele" like the Marimba, Xylophone, Vibraphone etc.
>
>"Stahst=E4be" interchangeably.
>
>Ciao
>A.
>
It also is the keyboard thingy that Mozart uses in The Magic Flute, and
Stahlstabe are also what Mahler calls the deep, unpitched bells he uses in the
Second Symphony, so the terminology was lose, to say the least!
Dave
Clovis Lark
> In article <413ed62.05030...@posting.google.com>, Kerrison Spartan
> says...
>>
>>David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>>news:<120171915.0...@drn.newsguy.com>...
>>> In article <IsJeFFB5...@zarzuela.co.uk>, Christopher Webber says...
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >Davis with the Bostonians was evidently trying to have his cake and eat
>>> >it, by using chimes and glockenspiel in unison. I haven't heard his
>>> >London SO remake - did he use the same combo, or glockenspiel alone?
>>>
>>> He does a Stokowksi--chimes at "sonore," glockenspiel alone elsewhere.
>>>
>>> Dave
>>
>>
>>Actually, when Sibelius himself premiered his own 4th Symphony in 1911
>>he used tubular bells ("glocken") throughout the finale, as the
>>archives of the Helsinki Philharmonic reveal (they still have the
>>original material). Note that in the first edition of his score (1912)
>>all the instruments are spelt out in full (including "glocken"): the
>>standard abbreviation for glockenspiel is "glsp".
>>
This from my colleague at Gothenburg SO:
"Well, having been the head of the Helsinki Phil library and archives, I
don't remember that there were ANY original material for ANY of the
Sibelius symphonies left (save Kullervo op. 7). All had been hauled to
either Breitkopf & Härtel or Wilhelm Hansen once the publishing contract
was signed, and the orchestra was in turn sent 1-2 complete, printed sets
of the works. S4 was not played while I was their main man.
"Glocken certainly is tubular bells, but then again, the composer himself
was probably so drunk most of his life that he might have misspelled
something."
Allen
Clovis Lark wrote:
> "Glocken certainly is tubular bells, but then again, the composer himself
> was probably so drunk most of his life that he might have misspelled
> something."
Reminds me of a remark that Lincoln made about U S Grant, well-known as
a heavy drinker, after he had led many successful campaigns in the Civil
War. Paraphrased (that means I don't remember Lincoln's exact words and
I'm not going to look it up), he said "Get a keg of whatever he's been
drinking for all the other generals."
Allen
alanwa...@aol.com
I am right in saying that in the Mahler 2 (or at least in the edition I
am familiar with) Mahler adds tief glocken (deep bells) after
Stahlstabe.
In some cases it is editions by different publishers which are the
problem.
The only reference work I have to hand is "Handbook for the Orchestral
Percussion Section" by Henk Vlieger (published by Albersen Verhuur, The
Hague) but it seems only to confuse the whole thing!
He lists Sibelius 4 as Glocken and in Lemminkainen Suite Op 22 notes:
"Timpanist plays glockenspiel".
He also quotes a Sibelius work I do not know: Frughlingsleid Op 16
marked as Glocken (and the three notes required are given).
In Op 73 he lists Stahlstabe and again gives the six notes required and
observes: Can be played by 2nd timpanist.
In the Glossary he gives Stahlstabe as steel bars, bells; Glocken as
bells, Glockchen as glockenspiel and Glockenstab as tubular bell.
I imagine that Henk has taken all these from the various editions he
has played in Holland over quite some years and no doubt some of these
editions are of varying vintage.
The only recent recording of Sibelius 4 I have is by Mr Vanska and he
definitely uses glockenspiel.
David also mentions the Mozart "keyboard glockenspiel" part.
Interestingly, that was how the somewhat fearsome part in Dukas
Sorcerers Apprentice was originally written as the composer apparently
did not think it playable by a mallet player. I have never seen it
played keyboard in my lifetime so we must have improved. It remains,
however, a fairly tough part.
While thanking Mr Spartan for some fascinating information and the very
funny Ormandy story I would suggest that the standard abbreviation in
the Western World today for glockenspiel is simply "glock". Trust
authentic old Toscanini to add a few bits on (Absolute fidelity to the
score eh? Bless him).
I have not played 4 very much but I've never been asked for tubular
bells.
Years ago, I was telephoned by a desperate colleague in Germany whose
orchestra had hired parts for a performance of Jenufa (Janacek).
Firstly, few of the parts exactly coincided with the conductors score
and in Act II the librarian was insisting that there were parts for TWO
extra players given in the conductors score.
I did not know the answer to that so I took the problem to the Fount Of
All Wisdom aka Librarian and he said: "Oh, that's the Talich edition.
I'll send them a copy of the parts!"
There is also a Brno edition of Jenufa which translates bells as
handbell in Act I and tubular bell in Act II. A lot of Janacek was
first done at Brno and so, for all I know, that may be completely
authentic but such division is not specified in the edition I know!
That simply says Zvonky, small bell, but it doesn't say what sort of
small bell!
It's all a load of bells, I think.
Love the phlegmatic comment from the Gothenburg Librarian. Where would
we be without them!
Ulvi Yurtsever
news:d0kvpd$440$1...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu:
> This from my colleague at Gothenburg SO:
>
> "Glocken certainly is tubular bells, but then again, the composer
> himself was probably so drunk most of his life that he might have
> misspelled something."
He was drunk most of his life and still lived to be 92? That
doesn't sound plausible.
Ulvi
Raymond Hall
news:1110329431.0188a215a4065c0eec6c3c57c1d2a115@teranews...
He certainly enjoyed a drink. However, I wouldn't take it so literally, as
to his being drunk all the time. Finns have strong livers (as witness a
Finnish enclave in Sydney in the Crows Nest/Willoughby area), and what is
moderate to heavy drinking to a Finn, is getting completely plastered to
nearly everyone else. From personal experience.
In fact, in the Crows Nest inn, one bar was locally known as the Finn's Bar,
and was done out with wooden walls, and wooden decor, almost like being in a
cabin. Swinging from the lights above wasn't uncommon at certain hours,
although in general the Finns were a quiet and amiable lot, and just sat and
sank their regular poison. They never ever got nasty, to their credit.
<g>
Ray H
Taree
Matthew B. Tepper
typed in news:1110329431.0188a215a4065c0eec6c3c57c1d2a115@teranews:
It happens sometimes.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Take THAT, Daniel Lin, Mark Sadek, James Lin & Christopher Chung!
David Hurwitz
So tht we can put this subject more or less to bed and so I don't have to live
with the results of my own foggy memory of discussing this years ago, I wrote to
my Finnish colleagues begging for the ultimate answer to this question, and this
is what I got back:
"I have talked to the foremost authority on Sibelius performing tradition, Risto
Väisänen, and this is what he says: The manuscript says originally "Glocken",
but Sibelius himself added - probably in the 30's - "spiel" to it. It is
documented that he was put off by the recording of Stokowski in 1932, who
apparently used both instruments. However, we don't know if this was the reason
for the change in the manuscript. We can only speculate that the instruments
used at that time were not consistent in sound, maybe the glocken in the
Helsinki Phil were just bad sounding. Or maybe he was looking for a sound
something between the two instruments. Or maybe he just changed his mind. Of
course the recording technology of that time didn't reproduce the sound so
faithfully (I haven't heard the Stokowski myself). So there is a lot of room for
speculation."
And that's that!!! Maybe...
Dave Hurwitz
ron...@usa.net
Allow me to quote from Erik Tawaststjerna's three-volume biography of
Sibelius (Vol. 3 originally published in 1993 -- translated version
published in 1998):
"One instrument is added to the orchestra in this movement: the bells.
This has proved problemmatic, for the score does not content itself by
saying 'glockenspiel' but abbreviates it to 'glocken' (tubular bells).
The question is not unimportant as the character of the movement is
undoubtedly affected. The tubular bells are rich in overtones and more
powerful in sonority, while the glockenspiel has a silvery timbre and
speaks more effectively in quicker passages. In the autograph score
Sibelius wrote 'stahlstäbe' which in everyday practice implies
glockenspiel. Sibelius was fully aware of this as 'stahlstäbe' is to
be found in the printed score of The Oceanides (1914), where there can
be no doubt that it is synonymous with glockenspiel. How, one wonders,
has the 'stahlstäbe' of the autograph become the 'glocken' of the
published score? The composer's correspondence with Breitkopf and
Härtel gives no clue: perhaps the publisher had confused 'stahlstäbe'
and 'stahlrohre', or perhaps Sibelius himself had made the change at
the the proof stage. This latter possibility seems unlikely as
contemporary witnesses are unanimous that Sibelius expressly wanted
glockenspiel.
Nearly all Sibelius interpreter have elected to use the glockenspiel:
Toscanini, Sir Thomas Beecham, Eugene Ormandy, Anthony Collins, Hebert
von Karajan, Lorin Maazel, Sir John Barbirolli, Gennady Rozhdestvensky
and others have all chosen this solution, but both Ernest Ansermet and
Leonard Bernstein use tubular bells. No doubt Leopold Stokowski's
pioneering commercial record exercised some influence for he chose to
use both: in the exposition he uses the glockenspiel but in the
development section, when the theme appears in augmented note values,
he opts for the tubular bells, which better hold their own against the
trumpets and timpani fff. Stokowski also resorts to the tubular bells
in the corresponding passage in the reprise. Sibelius himself thought
that these passages sounded 'too oriental' in character, if use was
made of the bells. Stokowski's example was followed by George Szell and
Sir Colin Davis."
Mr. Tawaststjerna is obviously in error concerning some of the
recordings -- there is no doubt that Beecham used neither tubular bells
or glockenspiel for his 1930's recording. I do not recall what
Schneevoight used in his 1930's recording that was not released until
the 1970's, but I think it was glockenspiel. But Tawaststjerna's
account is still of considerable interest.
Ron Whitaker
David Hurwitz
ron...@usa.net says...
>
>
>
>Mr. Tawaststjerna is obviously in error concerning some of the
>recordings -- there is no doubt that Beecham used neither tubular bells
>or glockenspiel for his 1930's recording. I do not recall what
>Schneevoight used in his 1930's recording that was not released until
>the 1970's, but I think it was glockenspiel. But Tawaststjerna's
>account is still of considerable interest.
>
>Ron Whitaker
>
Indeed it is, and thank you for sharing it as well. I think that between all of
us we can safely say that the right answer to the original question is:
glockenspiel. It seems to be indisputably the last written evidence of Sibelius'
intentions.
Dave Hurwitz
Christopher Webber
>Indeed it is, and thank you for sharing it as well. I think that
>between all of us we can safely say that the right answer to the
>original question is: glockenspiel. It seems to be indisputably the
>last written evidence of Sibelius' intentions.
Yes - and so might this be the last written evidence in an intriguing
thread conducted with quiet courtesy. As poster of the original query,
many thanks to all!
Derek Haslam
<1110329431.0188a215a4065c0eec6c3c57c1d2a115@teranews>,
Ulvi Yurtsever <a@b.c> wrote:
> He was drunk most of his life and still lived to be 92?
> That doesn't sound plausible.
The horse and mule live 30 years
And nothing know of wines and beers.
The goat and sheep at 20 die
And never taste of scotch or rye.
The cow drinks water by the ton
And at 18 is mostly done.
The dog at 15 cashes in
Without the aid of rum or gin.
The cat in milk and water soaks
And then in 12 short years it croaks.
The modest, sober, bone-dry hen
Lays eggs for nogs, then dies at 10.
All animals are strictly dry:
They sinless live and swiftly die;
But sinful, ginful, rum-soaked men
Survive for three score years and ten.
And some of them, a very few,
Stay pickled till they're 92.
(Source: "Verse and Worse")
Derek Haslam
--
__ __ __ __ __
/ \ | ||__ |__)/ | | |_ Derek Haslam:
\_\/ |__||__ | \\__ |__| __| Acorn/RISC OS Computer Enthusiast
\ Mastery of the rules is a pre-requisite for creatively breaking them.
Matthew B. Tepper
letters to be typed in news:4d491405...@ukgateway.net:
> In article
><1110329431.0188a215a4065c0eec6c3c57c1d2a115@teranews>,
> Ulvi Yurtsever <a@b.c> wrote:
>> He was drunk most of his life and still lived to be 92?
>> That doesn't sound plausible.
>
> The horse and mule live 30 years
> And nothing know of wines and beers.
> The goat and sheep at 20 die
> And never taste of scotch or rye.
> The cow drinks water by the ton
> And at 18 is mostly done.
> The dog at 15 cashes in
> Without the aid of rum or gin.
> The cat in milk and water soaks
> And then in 12 short years it croaks.
> The modest, sober, bone-dry hen
> Lays eggs for nogs, then dies at 10.
> All animals are strictly dry:
> They sinless live and swiftly die;
> But sinful, ginful, rum-soaked men
> Survive for three score years and ten.
> And some of them, a very few,
> Stay pickled till they're 92.
>
> (Source: "Verse and Worse")
*chuckle* I'm just waiting to see what you will post the next time there's a
thread about a certain Massenet opera....
M-e-i-j-e-r
> The only reference work I have to hand is "Handbook for the Orchestral
> Percussion Section" by Henk Vlieger (published by Albersen Verhuur, The
> Hague) but it seems only to confuse the whole thing!
You can ask him:
There is an e-mail address there.
E_l-t-j-o M_e-i-j-e_r
4m4ij4ryw@n@doo.nl
(y=@=a, 4=e)
Ulvi Yurtsever
news:4d491405...@ukgateway.net:
> In article
> <1110329431.0188a215a4065c0eec6c3c57c1d2a115@teranews>,
> Ulvi Yurtsever <a@b.c> wrote:
>> He was drunk most of his life and still lived to be 92?
>> That doesn't sound plausible.
>
> The horse and mule live 30 years
> And nothing know of wines and beers.
> The goat and sheep at 20 die
> And never taste of scotch or rye.
> The cow drinks water by the ton
> And at 18 is mostly done.
> The dog at 15 cashes in
> Without the aid of rum or gin.
> The cat in milk and water soaks
> And then in 12 short years it croaks.
> The modest, sober, bone-dry hen
> Lays eggs for nogs, then dies at 10.
> All animals are strictly dry:
> They sinless live and swiftly die;
> But sinful, ginful, rum-soaked men
> Survive for three score years and ten.
> And some of them, a very few,
> Stay pickled till they're 92.
>
> (Source: "Verse and Worse")
LOL!
Ulvi
Clovis Lark
> alanwa...@aol.com op 8 Mar 2005 14:55:52 -0800:
>> The only reference work I have to hand is "Handbook for the Orchestral
>> Percussion Section" by Henk Vlieger (published by Albersen Verhuur, The
>> Hague) but it seems only to confuse the whole thing!
> You can ask him:
> http://www.henkdevlieger.nl/
> There is an e-mail address there.
Henk is pretty good about responding. Bo Holmstrand, formerly of
Gothenburg also remains vague AND clearly indicates this controversy was
mediated by the conductor's wishes.
steven....@gmail.com
> Notes and Queries:
>
> Sibelius 4th Symphony, last movement. I've just listened to the Colin
> Davis (Boston SO) performance, and for the first time heard a
> Glocken+Glockenspiel combo used rather than Glockenspiel solo.
>
> None of the other Sibelius 4s currently living here (Berglund x 3,
> Barbirolli, Collins) add in the bells.
>
> A surprise: the B&H miniature score doesn't clear anything up. In the
> instrumental listing it has "Glocken", likewise at the top of the 4th
> movement. On many of the individual entries, however, an extra
> handwritten "...sp." has been added to the word at the proofing stage.
> My instinct is to trust Berglund - i.e. that the bells are inauthentic.
> Adding them seems to make for a much more Gothic effect, and reduces the
> quota of Sibelian irony. And yet... does anyone have a definitive answer
> on who's right?
> ___________________________
> Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
> http://www.zarzuela.net
Kerrison
> On Saturday, March 5, 2005 at 4:59:55 PM UTC-5, Christopher Webber wrote:
> > Notes and Queries:
> >
> > Sibelius 4th Symphony, last movement. I've just listened to the Colin
> > Davis (Boston SO) performance, and for the first time heard a
"Stokowski decided to use tubular bells for the heavier music, whilst for the lightly scored places he opted for the glockenspiel. This may have prompted another Sibelius champion, the English conductor Leslie Heward, to write to the composer and ask which instrument was intended, and in 1935 Sibelius recommended the glockenspiel. Indeed, the 1940 reprint of the score has 'spiel' lettered in whenever 'Glocken' appears.
"However, many years later, Eugene Ormandy visited Sibelius and raised the same point, and he came away convinced that the composer intended tubular bells all along! Sibelius's indecision has meant that the situation remains unresolved, with some conductors using chimes, some the glockenspiel, and others (notably Leonard Bernstein in his NYPO recording) using both at the same time! Toscanini went one better: he used the glockenspiel but added some extra bars of his own for the instrument, thus belying his reputation as the arch-literalist among conductors."
Mention of Ormandy reminds me that the notes to the Philips LP, coupling the 4th and 5th Symphonies from the US Columbia LP, both recorded in 1954 and reissued on Pristine Audio, refer to the last movement's bells as "tubular bells, 'glocken' not glockenspiel, be it noted". Clearly the anonymous notes-writer hadn't heard the Ormandy LP for himself, as it was the glockenspiel that was actually used in the 4th Symphony!
I read somewhere that Beecham used a special set of table-bells that were pitched midway between the high glockenspiel and the deep chimes, while Sir Colin Davis opted for the 1932 Stokowski approach and switched between the two. Finally, to add to the amusement of the whole thing, Stokowski's Philadelphia concert of 16 March 1962, issued complete on Pristine Audio and including his only other recorded performance of Sibelius's 4th, had tubular bells playing all the way through, just as had been the case when Sibelius himself conducted the premiere in 1911!
It should be added that the 1940 revision wasn't dated as such: it still says "Copyright 1912" on the score's first page. Only the hand-lettered "spiel" in the finale tells you it's the 1940 edition. Clearly Breitkopf didn't want to re-engrave the whole score just for the sake of a few changes to the finale's percussion line. Incidentally, someone makes the point that the full stop (period) after "Glocken" in the score indicates an abbreviation for "Glockenspiel". It does no such thing. All the instruments are spelt out in full at the start of each movement and all have full stops ... ie: Oboi.; Clarinetti.; Timpani.; Viola.; etc. It's purely a typographic editing style that was not uncommon in those days and has nothing to do with abbreviations.
Lawrence Chalmers
> Notes and Queries:
>
> Sibelius 4th Symphony, last movement. I've just listened to the Colin
> Davis (Boston SO) performance, and for the first time heard a
>
> None of the other Sibelius 4s currently living here (Berglund x 3,
> Barbirolli, Collins) add in the bells.
>
> A surprise: the B&H miniature score doesn't clear anything up. In the
> instrumental listing it has "Glocken", likewise at the top of the 4th
> movement. On many of the individual entries, however, an extra
> handwritten "...sp." has been added to the word at the proofing stage.
>
> My instinct is to trust Berglund - i.e. that the bells are inauthentic.
> Adding them seems to make for a much more Gothic effect, and reduces the
> quota of Sibelian irony. And yet... does anyone have a definitive answer
> on who's right?
> --
> ___________________________
> Christopher Webber, Blackheath, London, UK.
> http://www.zarzuela.net
both glockenspiel and deep bells. The version by Blomstedt and the San Francisco Symphony uses both. Personally I prefer this because it lends
more atmosphere to the symphony as a whole. Don't know exactly how to better express what I mean...