Sibelius: Symphony No.1-7, Tapiola, Late Fragments
Klaus Mäkelä / Oslo Philharmonic (Decca)
(scroll down for English review)
26歲的芬蘭指揮麥凱萊年紀輕輕，已經執掌兩隊知名樂團：奧斯陸愛樂及巴黎管弦樂團，當然不能少得一紙大唱片品牌合約。他在Decca第一張、應該說是第一套唱片是西貝流士交響曲全集。這樣一錄就錄全集，是近年大品牌常見之舉，以這套錄音來說，我覺得就是勝在麥凱萊真的對全部七首西貝流士交響曲有熱愛，而不只是最常聽的一、二、五、七。
不過在第一及二，我都欣賞麥凱萊會去嘗試不同的管弦音色或質感，不會只是搬出單一種大樂隊的聲音出來，他也會好好思考西貝流士的音量指示，會以當刻效果、其餘樂器的密度去判斷，不會盡信書。然而最喜歡這兩首的朋友，有機會感到失望，尤其是第二，因為我覺得這個演奏未去到十分火熱的地步。
聽過幾張奧斯陸愛樂和前任總指揮V佩特連高的錄音，當然也有看他們在香港藝術節的現場演出，我覺得麥凱萊會較V佩特連高追求較大逼力的聲音，於是也沒有V佩特連高打磨得這麼滑。
這套錄音我就特別欣賞冷門的三、四、六，這三首都令不少人覺得摸不着頭腦，而避開不聽，現場也較少奏，除非奏全集。麥凱萊在這幾首，我覺得就沒一、二那般追求新可能，倒是追求最清晰集中的演奏，最坦誠的展現西貝流士的前衛性。
雖然第四是七首中感覺最黑暗的，但我認為西貝流士這三首交響曲，都很接近「純音樂」，想在幾乎沒有意思或旋律的材料上演化。至於為何五及七會易聽得多，我覺得是因為它們會變出令人舒暢的終點，三、四、六就比較重視過程而毋須去到明朗結果，或者就令人感覺虛無。另外也收錄了《塔比奧拉》，麥凱萊也很願意帶出它的前衛性質，就更令人意會到西貝流士難以再寫出令他滿意的新作了。
Klaus Mäkelä made his first commercial recordings on Decca with one of “his” orchestras, the Oslo Philharmonic, in a complete survey of Sibelius symphonies. In my opinion, this set is convincing on the strength of the “lesser” symphonies (3, 4, 6) of which Mäkelä showed a sincere dedication.
Nevertheless the war horses (1, 2) were conducted with a wide range of textures and orchestral colours. Mäkelä wasn’t content on just giving us one big romantic sound. Instead he sought alternative solutions, often going against Sibelius’ dynamic markings. I’m very satisfied with his take but those who are especially keen on the early Sibelius symphonies might feel underwhelmed.
As compared to Oslo Philharmonic’s recordings and a live concert with their previous chief Vasily Petrenko, I’d say Mäkelä are eager for more exotic and explosive sounds, so the Oslo Philharmonic now doesn’t sound as polished as before, but Mäkelä’s approach added a certain edge in these Sibelius performances.
As for no.3, 4, and 6 Mäkelä was exploring less and I think his intent was to render these symphonies with determination and a clear sense of purpose, so that Sibelius’ experimenting spirit may come through. What set these three against no. 5 and 7 was that the abstraction of these three doesn’t really take you to somewhere pleasant as no.5 and 7 could. I definitely welcome the inclusion of Tapiola as Mäkelä brought the climax to the brink of havoc and it showed precisely why Sibelius felt he couldn’t go on without repeating himself.