When Finnish critic Karl Flodin castigated Sibelius for avoiding the classical symphony, he used the example of Ernst Mielck's Symphony as the rod (Sibelius had previously concentrated on programme symphonies such as Kullervo and the so-called Lemminkainen Legends). That has long been Mielck's main claim to fame - he died just two years later, two days short of his 22nd birthday.
So what is Mielck's Symphony (1897) like? Nothing like Sibelius, although - ironically - there are traces of him in the finale. It is a worthy piece, especially for so inexperienced a composer, the musical ideas and their treatment almost sustaining its 40-minute duration. Expressively, though, Sibelius (12 years his senior) was light years ahead. Essentially, Mielck had adopted the symphonies of Beethoven and Schumann as his model, whereas Sibelius turned, in 1898, to those of the in-vogue Borodin and Tchaikovsky, rather as if, in such politically charged times, he was trying to beat the Russians at their own game (which by and large he does). Nonetheless, Mielck's Symphony shows great promise, the finale with its quiet close being particularly telling.
What Mielck might have achieved had he lived longer is anyone's guess. Would he have fallen under Sibelius's shadow or challenged him? The three-movement Concert Piece, a concerto in all bar name based on folksongs, offers few clues. The opening Allegro appassionato has an impressive sweep, but the other movements are less compelling despite Liisa Pohjola's admirable commitment. The performances of the Turku orchestra under Hannu Lintu are exemplary, and Sterling is warmly to be applauded for filling a particularly fascinating gap in the repertoire.'