The great Finnish composer who came to Vienna in 1890 to study with Bruckner, among others, which, however, was no longer possible due to his state of health. Nevertheless, the music of the Ansfelden master was the focus of Sibelius’s work throughout his life. In a way, both were erratic boulders, steadfastly clinging to their idea of form and substance, and in it – if influenced by numerous models – had neither direct predecessors nor successors. As if they had fallen from the sky like boulders.
The fight for recognition
Sibelius also has something in common with Bruckner when it comes to the reception of music. Namely, that both individualists had to fight for recognition again and again, and in the case of Sibelius, his importance is often reduced to Finnish national color to this day. At the same time, his music is constructed independently and only follows the standardized forms to a limited extent, and if so with major changes. In this he is perhaps even ahead of Bruckner. On this evening, three works were heard that only show a part of Sibelius, namely the composer who was slowly breaking away from the late romantic period and attaining individuality, who in Finlandia op. 26 and the 2nd symphony op. And yet still remains true to the traditions of European musical cultures. This was also shown by the interpretation by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra under Vasily Petrenko, which proceeded strongly from the bizarre art of instrumentation and carefully traced the precisely notated balance of the individual parts. This led to an analytically precise and yet musically emotional whole, without focusing too much on the folk idiomatic core. The really big event of the evening, however, was the D minor Violin Concerto op. 47, which has always divided listeners and critics with its very own texture and individual structure and is certainly not a sure-fire success when it comes to interpretation. Only technical brilliance and virtuosity are not enough for this work. It causes the composition to be surprisingly untouched.
The Armenian violinist Sergey Khachatryan answered why that didn’t happen: Far above the difficulties, he devoted himself above all to the emotional content of the work and conjured up large arches and passionate phrases from the many motivic elements. This was not about cheap show effects, which can certainly be easily achieved in the third movement, but about a deep feeling for music that asked a lot of its creator. Although the work is one of the most-performed violin concertos, its formal uniqueness is only revealed when one actually gets to the bottom of what has been subtly conceived with body and soul. And that’s what Sergey Khachatryan did together with the most subtly accompanying Royal Philharmonic Orchestra under Vasily Petrenko. The audience was also completely convinced of his interpretation.
Conclusion: Sibelius is fascinatingly discussed as a musically individualistic Bruckner epigone.
Source: Nachrichten
