Rational passion and passionate reason
who is chatting on SOLO ChatThe Free RadicalPopular contentPollElection 2008: Who Will Win? Obama by a landslide 13% McCain by a landslide 23% Obama comfortably 11% McCain comfortably 23% Either narrowly 30% Total votes: 47
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Sibelius Submitted by Chris Cathcart on Mon, 2008-05-12 00:06.
Being on a real Sibelius kick lately (one of the nice thngs about being a Napster subscriber is access to a couple dozen or so different recordings of just about every major work in classical music), and given Linz's recent admission to being wowed by Sibelius's Seventh (1924), I figured it was necessary to start a separate topic for this remarkable composer. First, how 'bout some quotes about him: "We can say that Jean Sibelius is one of the most brilliant tone poets of the present time. Among the composers living today there is probably only one – Richard Strauss – who is wholly qualified to be mentioned alongside Jean Sibelius." "If Sibelius is good, then the musical criteria that have been applied from Bach to Schoenberg (…) are invalid." "Sibelius, the worst composer in the world" "Contrary to any superficial categorisation of Sibelius as a composer, he was one of the great musical innovators and revolutionaries, as a developer of symphonic form and symphonic technique (…) Only time will tell whether they [Sibelius and Shostakovich] were the last great masters of tonal music. ”Sibelius is so concentrated and exact. With Sibelius you feel that if one drop touches your skin it would burn right through the bone." Sibelius's reputation has reportedly waxed and waned over the last century. Some say he's some bygone relic, others say he's always poised for renewed interest. After Mahler and/or Shostakovich, he's still named as one of the most important symphonists of the last century. It's also well known that Mahler and Sibelius had their own ideas about how to compose a symphony. Sibelius has famously been quoted, regarding a conversation he had with Mahler in 1907: "I said that I admired [the symphony's] severity of style and the profound logic that created an inner connection between all the motifs... Mahler's opinion was just the reverse. 'No, a symphony must be like the world. It must embrace everything.'" Sibelius's style has been widely characterized as one that takes motif-seeds and lets the symphony sprout "organically" from that, all of it following a compact, self-contained logical unity. You'd think that it was Sciabarran dialectics applied to symphonic structure. I am curious whether Linz has any other favorite works by Sibelius other than the Seventh, because I don't think it's unique among Sibelius's own little canon for taking motifs and developing them in an "organic" way. His Fifth (1915) is particularly powerful in that regard. And, of course, there is the Second (1902), which Linz has derided as more or less some chaotic, disjointed, jumbled mess. (Do I have that right, Linz?) Given the usual understanding of Sibelius's style as building in a logical and connected fashion, and that his Second is arguably as good an example of that as any, Linz's criticism is rather puzzling. In any event, I used to not "get" Sibelius, any of his work, perhaps for the same reasons Linz gives. Then the Second "clicked," and some time later Nos. 4 through 7. Given my current Sibelius kick, I'm now having trouble deciding between the Second and the Fifth. I still prefer the very end of the Second to that of the Fifth; the ending of the Second still has more of that developed, logical inevitability about it, and while I realize that Sibelius didn't want to repeat himself, I've imagined in my own head how he could have done a finale to the Fifth which would have been even better than that of the 2nd, which basically uses what was already there right near the end to finish on an ecstatic high much akin to the finish to that short piece by Morricone, "1900's Theme" (the last two minutes of this clip) Unfortunately, he took a route of embracing some original concept and foresaking something more logical, unified and profound, and yet still unique. Still, the final movement is grand in its own right. The Fourth . . . well, if there's one piece of quasi-experimental modernism that's erie, dark, fluid, eminently listenable and actually beautiful, it's Sibelius's Fourth (1911). Speaking of his tone poems, I've grown particularly fond of his The Oceanides (1914), again more of the aural fluidity his later style became known for, and the last five or so minutes of Nightride and Sunrise (1907) are arguably as pretty as anything he wrote.
( categories: )
|
User loginFeatured BookNavigationSyndicate  The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
|
Doesn't have to be the Davis
I find it hard to encounter "bad" versions of great works, but his version had some extra something. I've got acccess to about 10 different versions on Napster and I think I like his the most.
Also check out The Oceanides again if you're not too familiar with that. I'm fond of Pohjola's Daughter but I guess orders of preference can differ between people.
Did I mention that as far as moments in Sibelius go, the first six or so minutes of his Seventh is one of my very favorites?
But I still need to get around to knowing how to really listen to Mahler . . .
"Long time, no see. How's it
"Long time, no see. How's it been?"
Fair enough.
"I have to ask, given your admiration for Sibelius's music and extensive knowledge of the classical landscape, have you come to know and love Nightride and Sunrise? As quintessentially Sibelian as his 4th and 5th symphonies and Tapiola."
I like almost everything by Sibelius. "Nightride and Sunrise" I know less well than most of his other works, however, and I have no particular comment on it. Much as I love "Tapiola," my own favorite of his shorter orchestral works is "Pojohla's Daughter," particularly in the classic Bernstein/NY Philharmonic recording from the '60s.
"If you can deal with a little bit of his trademark humming, try Colin Davis's rendition on RCA Red Seal."
I'll give that a try.
JR
Sibelius/Tchaik
"As far as 'poor man's Tchaikovsky' [sic], I would have understood that criticism leveled at Sibelius's 1st, but the 2nd is obviously his own voice and marked the point that Sibelius's style had matured."
Actually, Sibelius's 1st is better than anything in Tchaikovsky except for the 1st Piano Concerto. Sibelius's 1st is what Tchaikovsky would have written if he'd had that much talent.
How strange. I wouldn't call the 1st "poor man's" anybody (it's right up there with, but not beyond, Tchaik), though it displays intimations of problems to come: chiefly, reluctance to "hold that thought." I come back to my point about music for empiricists.
J-Rigg!
Long time, no see. How's it been?
I have to ask, given your admiration for Sibelius's music and extensive knowledge of the classical landscape, have you come to know and love Nightride and Sunrise? As quintessentially Sibelian as his 4th and 5th symphonies and Tapiola. In my intro piece to the thread I did say "last five or so minutes," by which I mean the whole damn second half. No wait -- once I got even more familiar with the whole thing since writing it, it's all great, but especially the second half. If you can deal with a little bit of his trademark humming, try Colin Davis's rendition on RCA Red Seal.
Sibelius's 1st
"As far as 'poor man's Tchaikovsky' [sic], I would have understood that criticism leveled at Sibelius's 1st, but the 2nd is obviously his own voice and marked the point that Sibelius's style had matured."
Actually, Sibelius's 1st is better than anything in Tchaikovsky except for the 1st Piano Concerto. Sibelius's 1st is what Tchaikovsky would have written if he'd had that much talent.
JR
One thing I like about the Romantics ...
I could have sworn I heard a melody somewhere in there, like when the 3rd movement led attacca: into the 4th.
I hear suggestions of intimations of hints of a melody all the time in Sibelius—pity they so seldom come to anything.
Early on in my training-wheels stage of classical listening (where you start out with Mozart and Beethoven) I was disappointed by all these other composers because they didn't sound like Beethoven. Now I'm thankful that they all don't, because Beethoven can get pretty old and listened-out. I'd say the same about listening to Tchaikovksy and similars all the time.
I keep finding Beethoven still has roses I haven't plucked. And Bruch, whom you so deride. I never tire of him, or Beethoven, or Tchaik or Rach or any of them. How could one tire of the total height?
One thing I like about the Romantics is that they don't sound the same. I believe I made that point in my essay. Individualism.
Sibelius could be any old blow-hard writing a movie score.
One thing I like about Sibelius
It is a Romanticism (obviously) but the melodicism is somewhat more subtle, restrained and subdued without the heart-on-sleeve approach of Tchaik. I think that this approach can have plenty impact in its own right. I'll recommend again to find a recording of his Nightride and Sunrise with special attention to the latter part. It doesn't go right for an emotional jugular but it shimmers like the sunrise it was programmatically intended to depict, and that's all it had to do for its power to come through.
Oh
I could have sworn I heard a melody somewhere in there, like when the 3rd movement led attacca: into the 4th.
I'm up to at least 4 recordings owned of this work (Karajan on EMI coupled with the 5th, Colin Davis '07 on LSO, the legendary '62ish Barbirolli on Chesky, Yoel Levi with Cleveland on Teldec -- plus the two dozen or so others available on Napster), and a work like this is just hard to do bad. Like I've said before, I notice the differences but I enjoy a work like this in just about any interpretation I've heard so far.
As far as "poor man's Tchaikovsky," I would have understood that criticism leveled at Sibelius's 1st, but the 2nd is obviously his own voice and marked the point that Sibelius's style had matured.
I like being able to enjoy both Tchaikovsky and Sibelius. I don't know why something has to be or sound like Tchaikovsky to be enjoyable, genuinely Romantic, KASS, etc. Early on in my training-wheels stage of classical listening (where you start out with Mozart and Beethoven) I was disappointed by all these other composers because they didn't sound like Beethoven. Now I'm thankful that they all don't, because Beethoven can get pretty old and listened-out. I'd say the same about listening to Tchaikovksy and similars all the time.
powerful, intense, measured, and momentus build up
The music I love most is Italian opera--Verdi, Bellini, and Puccini. And not the highlights, but to listen to the entire work from beginning to end. Highlights drive me crazy.
And I will second Chris' enthusiasm for Sibelius, 2nd. I have been listening to it quite a bit this year. And I love the powerful, intense, measured, and momentous build up in the von Karajan version. It has been awesome subway music.
Michael
www.michaelnewberry.com
Bah, humbug!
I consider the Sibelius 2 neither Romantic nor KASS. It's not melodious enough to be Romantic, and there's more to KASS than being loud.
The Morricone would be great for opening or closing credits. I don't say that disparagingly—the movies are one place where the Romantic tradition is carried on by some composers. Also, I have a soft spot for Morricone because of his youthful involvement with Lanza's fantastic recording of Neapolitan songs.
I suppose being KASS and Romantic . . .
. . . is only a necessary but not sufficient condition for you to enjoy it personally.
How'd you like the YouTube clip, by the way?
You know Chris ...
That Sibelius 2 really is a load of twaddle. Qua symphony, that is. Parts of it should have been used in the movies. I took time to listen to it again just now, and there were times I thought of the movie I'd been watching the previous night, North by North-West, and how suitable some of this would have been for some of the scenes. But overall it's a portentous wank. The last movement is just poor man's Tchaikovsky. And, goddam, I'm not going to listen to the bloody thing again!!!!
Sibelius and Sciabarra
Sibelius's style has been widely characterized as one that takes motif-seeds and lets the symphony sprout "organically" from that, all of it following a compact, self-contained logical unity. You'd think that it was Sciabarran dialectics applied to symphonic structure.
You may inadvertently be on to something. I've previously called this music suitable for economists and empiricists. Listening to Sibelius is similar to "getting the tour" (of Brooklyn and surrounds) from Chris Sciabarra (an empiricist if ever I knew one
). The commentary is rattled off at breakneck speed, requiring one to look this way and that with such rapidity that one's head nearly falls off; then, at any random moment, something tangential—nay, completely unrelated—is likely to be thrown in without warning, sending one's head into spasm like a train having to screech to a halt to accommodate something unexpected on the track; then, equally unannounced, the original commentary lurches back into life. Qua commentary re Brooklyn, this is delightful, if somewhat unnerving and exhausting; that sort of battering is not what I seek from music, however. 
(I say this, btw, with total affection for the memory of "The Tour" and "The Flood" that followed, regardless of the cataclysm that was to occur subsequently.)
Someone said of Wagner, "His music isn't as bad as it sounds." Of Sibelius I'd be tempted to say, "His music is as bad as it sounds."