Yeah, I'm dredging up this subject again. There was a recent post on the rec.music.classical.recordings newsgroup which pretty succinctly summarizes why the tubular chimes people (Ansermet, Maazel, Bernstein, Blomstedt, et al) are wrong, wrong wrong! Here's the copy and paste of a couple of key points:Sibelius definitely wanted glockenspiel. The first edition had glock. which was mistaken for Glocken. Sibelius said that tubular bells sounded "too oriental." Source: Andrew Barnett [Yale University Press, 2007]. . .I invite anyone who is interested in this subject to listen to the Beecham recording and tell me what is heard in the last movement. It is by no stretch of the imagination tubular chimes.Beecham's 1937 recording is special because it was approved by the composer.
QED - Let's put this "controversy" to bed now!
Edits: 04/06/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - Glockenspiel or tubular chimes in Sibelius Fourth? - Chris from Lafayette 13:37:16 04/06/15 (2)
- Argh! - Amphissa 15:00:42 04/06/15 (1)
- Hammer Blows evidence: much more ambiguous than Glockenspiel evidence [nt] ;-) - Chris from Lafayette 15:12:48 04/06/15 (0)