There is a problem with Kurt Atterberg's Second Symphony: not with the music itself, which is richly melodic and gloriously scored, but with the formal design. The central movement, a fusion of adagio and scherzo, culminates in a climax so massive that anything further seems redundant. So the composer thought at its première in 1912. The bipartite design was too unconventional for the time and he was prevailed upon to add a finale the following year. If, overall, the right choice, the resulting structure is scarcely traditional. Even Westerberg, in his wonderful account - the first Atterberg recording I ever heard - was not wholly convincing. Rasilainen tackles the problem head-on: adopting slower tempi, the central climax becomes that of just the slow movement rather than a culmination, and to balance this out at the close of the finale he reins in the tempo to produce something equally grandiloquent. Perhaps the close does seem too slow and inflated, but, given the tone of the whole, not out of place.

The Fifth (1917-22) also took an unusually long time to complete. When I reviewed Westerberg's rich performance a decade ago, I noted the symphony's 'greater concentration of purpose and more consistent unity of expression than its predecessors'. It remains one of his most successful technically, although overshadowed by Nielsen's exactly contemporaneous Fifth. Both works contained reactions to the horrors of the Great War and while Nielsen's is undeniably the subtler, greater work, Atterberg's is still notable. Rasilainen makes the waltz in the finale really sound like a danse macabre unlike Westerberg but, that aside, there is really nothing between these new rival interpretations. Sound quality has moved on, CPO giving Rasilainen an almost Chandos-like incandescence. Warmly recommended.