The ending of Sibelius' 5th symphony

[alkan]

I love this work ........ EXCEPT for the end 

Sibelius builds the music step by step, layer by layer, to a wonderful, uplifting and emotional plateau then  ...... BANG ..................BANG ..............BANG .................................BANG..................BANG .. BANG   

I honestly find it frustrating !!!!

Was Sibelius deliberately trying to p*** everyone off    


PS :  Walton caught the same disease at the end of his 1st symphony .......

[Kullervo]

I hated it at first, but eventually I grew to love it. It's like jumping out into the ether — those chords just floating alone in space. I don't think it was meant to be a "trick" ending.

[alkan]

I hated it at first, but eventually I grew to love it. It's like jumping out into the ether — those chords just floating alone in space. I don't think it was meant to be a "trick" ending.

Hmmmm ..... jumping out into the ether ......     Aaah, now I get it !     Those chords are the bodies hitting the ground ..... right

Sorry ..... apologies for the bad joke but I could not resist.     I follow what you are saying.    I guess the must be a link between the timing of the chords and the preceeding music .... or is this irrelevant or not intended ?

[Moldyoldie]

I've never understood the musical logic nor the "message" in it; apparently neither could Karajan as he effects the ending as a logical and inevitable progression of what immediately precedes it, much as he effects the entire symphony.  Hardcore Sibelian purists take exception, of course.

[DavidRoss]

The first time I heard it I was shocked, waiting for something to follow, then disappointed that it was over so suddenly.  Now I love it.  I admire that it is totally different from yet as unique and troubling as the ending to the 4th.  The timing and power and coherence of those six short chords are critical to a successful performance, for they must bear the weight of everything that precedes them, especially that final growling, clawing, fumbling, reaching, and gasping of the entire orchestra struggling toward resolution.  Having finally attained the goal of all that struggle, the newfound harmonic unison first gets tested with those first four short, sharp, clipped and irregularly spaced chords, and then having been tested and found good, those last two chords can conclude with satisfaction in a job well done.

I believe it was while working on this symphony that Sibelius described his compositional process "as if God had cast mosaic tiles down from Heaven and it's my job to reassemble them."  He also described a vision of sorts in which "God opened Heaven's door for a moment and his orchestra is playing the Fifth Symphony."  If the 5th's unmistakable opening brings to mind the Creation, and all the bits and pieces from which the symphony is built are like all of the elements (or mosaics) that must find their way to a unified whole, embracing everything along the way, then those final chords may bring to mind God seeing that what he has created is good and then resting after deciding that it is complete.

[nut-job]

The first time I heard it, it was Jarvi's Gotenberg recording on BIS.  Although I would describe the performance as a whole as well done, although not terribly distinctive, I was unconvinced by the ending.  Part of the issue is that on that BIS recording there is no trace of sound or noise between the staccato outbursts, which come without warning.  It would be very different to be in the concert hall and see the conduct and orchestra poised for those final jestures. 

The first time I came to appreciate the odd ending of that symphony was Karajan's ~1968 recording for DG.  Herbie was more successful in differentiating the sound of those chords so that the progression is evident.  (I believe he also shortened the rests, not beating out the full interval between each hit.)  Even the tape hiss on that old recording helped to make the ending cohere.  So now it makes sense to me, although I am waiting for it.  Not the same as sitting there, listening, not knowing what will come next.

[DavidRoss]

The original version premiered in 1915 had a similar ending but with the strings holding a sustained tremolo over a subdued timpani roll, punctuated by the brass playing ascending chords at even intervals up to the final resolution.  It's not nearly as effective.  If you get a chance to listen to Vänskä's recording of the original version you'll see that Sibelius subsequently made several revisions to the finale that tightened it up and gives an effect of much more concentrated power at the end.

As for performance practice, I think Järvi gets it right, with those long intervals of silence during which the chord no longer resonates in the air, but only in your mind.  The intervals are just long enough to begin wondering what's coming next and when or even if--but just when you're thinking, "Is that it?" along comes the next chord.  Vänskä does the same, and so do Bernstein, Blomstedt, Segerstam, and most others.   But Karajan shortens the rests, so that each chord comes almost immediately after the previous one dies out.  As you've noticed, his approach does make this weird ending seem less strange and more unified...but I think that defeats the effect Sibelius was aiming for.  None of his works underwent so much revision over so much time as the 5th, and this ending was reworked a few times until he felt he had it right.  Whatever it is, whether we agree with it or like it or not, it is the way Sibelius wanted it and it didn't get that way by accident.

[Kullervo]

Those chords are the bodies hitting the ground ..... right

No, that's the end of RVW's 4th. *whump*

[Mark G. Simon]

Clearly Sibelius intended for a tap dancer to fill the spaces between chords.

[karlhenning]

The Cage Edition

[DavidRoss]

Tap dancers jumping out into the ether, floating in space

[nut-job]

But Karajan shortens the rests, so that each chord comes almost immediately after the previous one dies out. 

Karajan recorded the piece at least 3 times, I'm not sure if they are consistent.  But in the 1968 the chords most definitely do not come "almost immediately after the previous one dies out."   They are certainly spaced out widely enough to sound disjunct.  I've never actually beat out the time to see home much tampering there is, if any, but I think I will.
 

[DavidRoss]

Karajan recorded the piece at least 3 times, I'm not sure if they are consistent.  But in the 1968 the chords most definitely do not come "almost immediately after the previous one dies out."   They are certainly spaced out widely enough to sound disjunct.  I've never actually beat out the time to see home much tampering there is, if any, but I think I will.

I listened to both the 68 recording you referenced and his last EMI recording before I posted.  The timing in both is nearly identical and there's precious little silence between the fading out of one chord and the start of the next.  I never suggested they were not "disjunct."  Perhaps you're quibbling about the word "almost"? 

[Kullervo]

Tap dancers jumping out into the ether, floating in space

Sibelius thankfully left out the "Fame! I wanna live forever!" section for female chorus.

[Renfield]

I listened to both the 68 recording you referenced and his last EMI recording before I posted.  The timing in both is nearly identical and there's precious little silence between the fading out of one chord and the start of the next.  I never suggested they were not "disjunct."  Perhaps you're quibbling about the word "almost"? 

If I remember correctly, it's the first EMI recording that has a slightly different timing on the chords.

Or it might create that impression due to the way it's recorded. I do, for one, remember finding it distinct to Karajan's later efforts, and preferring it (strangely enough, given my usual tendency to opt for Karajan's later thoughts).


More on-topic, I've never been too bothered about the 5th's ending. The first time I heard it, I did the obvious 'double-take', but as soon as I realised this was intended, integrating it into a meaningful whole with the rest of the work wasn't difficult.

That having been said, I would not have been able to provide such a well-thought-out description as David(Ross) gave above, if asked; but that might have to do with my appreciation of Sibelius being (at this point) quite "instinctive" (versus cerebral), compared to Mahler, Bruckner or Brahms, to whose music I have given much more thought. Still, the ending just(?) makes sense to me: that's my point.

[Cato]

Sibelius is worthy of your trust!

The Fifth Symphony ends the way it does because the music desires it so!  And the music of the Fifth Symphony ultimately desires chronocide, which is why the ending is so disturbingly "out of time."

[alkan]

Sibelius is worthy of your trust!

The Fifth Symphony ends the way it does because the music desires it so!  And the music of the Fifth Symphony ultimately desires chronocide, which is why the ending is so disturbingly "out of time."

Cato, I'll accept your first statement, but not the rest of your post.

Music is written by composers, by human beings, and does not appear spontaneously by itself.     "The music did not desire it so" .... Sibelius did !    In the finale of the 5th he uses basically conventional means to struggle through to an uplifting, thrilling and noble climax.    And just as my eyes fill with tears in anticipation of the final, satisfying cadence, he abruptly cuts it off and switches to this series of detached explosions.   Sibelius was an extremely sensitive and intelligent being, and he knew what he was doing.    David Ross tells us that this was not his first idea, and clearly Sibelius struggled to get to his goal.    But it is clear that it was NEVER his intention to end the symphony in a conventional blaze of strings and brass.        But WHAT was he trying to do instead?   What is the message and purpose of the 6 chords at the end?     

I don't feel comfortable with David Ross's interpretation (no hard feelings I trust).    I like Corey's "jumping into the ether" better, although I don't get the feeling that I am floating ..... more like being shot at six times !!       

To me it seems that Sibelius deliberately destroys his "happy ending".    He builds up to a "Brahms 1"-style triumphant ending and at the very last minute, at the very moment of fulfilment, he says "NO!", ....  and smashes to pieces the monument he has so painstaking constructed ....

I find it a fascinating and FRUSTRATING masterstroke from Sibelius (maybe that was his goal?), but I'd like to understand it a bit better.     Did Sibelius himself ever give any explanation ?

[Cato]

Cato, I'll accept your first statement, but not the rest of your post.

Music is written by composers, by human beings, and does not appear spontaneously by itself.     "The music did not desire it so" .... Sibelius did !    In the finale of the 5th he uses basically conventional means to struggle through to an uplifting, thrilling and noble climax.    And just as my eyes fill with tears in anticipation of the final, satisfying cadence, he abruptly cuts it off and switches to this series of detached explosions.   Sibelius was an extremely sensitive and intelligent being, and he knew what he was doing.    David Ross tells us that this was not his first idea, and clearly Sibelius struggled to get to his goal.    But it is clear that it was NEVER his intention to end the symphony in a conventional blaze of strings and brass.        But WHAT was he trying to do instead?   What is the message and purpose of the 6 chords at the end?     

I don't feel comfortable with David Ross's interpretation (no hard feelings I trust).    I like Corey's "jumping into the ether" better, although I don't get the feeling that I am floating ..... more like being shot at six times !!       

To me it seems that Sibelius deliberately destroys his "happy ending".    He builds up to a "Brahms 1"-style triumphant ending and at the very last minute, at the very moment of fulfilment, he says "NO!", ....  and smashes to pieces the monument he has so painstaking constructed ....

I find it a fascinating and FRUSTRATING masterstroke from Sibelius (maybe that was his goal?), but I'd like to understand it a bit better.     Did Sibelius himself ever give any explanation ?

I was of course being a little ironic in giving the music free will.   0:)

But not completely: in the same way that an (excellent) author (e.g. Tolstoy, especially in his earlier works) bestows free will upon his characters, and does not force them into situations or behavior contrary to their personalities, so does the composer need to follow the "personalities" of his themes, motifs, melodies, and not force them into unnatural areas.

If you have the score, look e.g. at the all those quarter notes in the flutes at the opening of the 2nd movement, along with the quarter-notes in the lower strings.  But between them are long suspended chords in the 6/4 time: what you have here - even just visually - is a conflict between the ticking of time (the quarter-notes) and an attempt at conquering time (the whole + half-notes).

Compare that to the 6 quarter-note explosions (FFz in the score) at the end.  The long silences could show an evolution toward using silence and an irregular tick-tock to destroy the passage of time - chronocide as I mentioned earlier -  and find eternity in the silence reigning after the last chord.   0:)

In short, I find nothing illogical in the ending: it is as logical and consistent as the final pages of Anna Karenina.   

[DavidRoss]

I don't feel comfortable with David Ross's interpretation (no hard feelings I trust).    

Did Sibelius himself ever give any explanation ?

No hard feelings.   Ask another day and I might offer a different way of interpreting it.  Or maybe not, since it's not something I've given much thought.  Music is like poetry; if, as Archibald MacLeish said, "A poem should not mean/But be," then the same holds true for music, does it not?

I don't know if Sibelius ever "explained" it.  If he had, it would not be so beguilingly enigmatic, would it?

[alkan]

No hard feelings.   Ask another day and I might offer a different way of interpreting it.  Or maybe not, since it's not something I've given much thought to.  Music is like poetry; if, as Archibald MacLeish said, "A poem should not mean/But be," then the same holds true for music, does it not?

I don't know if Sibelius ever "explained" it.  If he had, it would not be so beguilingly enigmatic, would it?

Thanks David.      My basic assumption is that people (including composers), do things for a reason.     The fact that Sibelius did struggle with the ending confirms that he had a definite objective.     I am curious to try to find out what was going through Sibelius' mind.

He could have deliberately made it as enigmatic and open to personal interpretation as possible, or he may have had a definite idea in his head.    If it was the former, then I would not expect him to explain it.      But if it was the latter, then it's possible that he let slip something ....      Some composers (eg Carl Neilsen) are more forthcoming than others and I'm sure that many people asked Sibelius about the strange ending to his masterpiece .....

But putting aside the "Inspecteur Clouseau" detective work, it's interesting to see the different interpretations and experiences for different people  (and as you say, the same people on different days  )