The ending of Sibelius' 5th symphony

[alkan]

I find it exciting, but mostly harmless 

..... MOSTLY HARMLESS !!!       What a magnificent epitaph for Sibelius' masterwork !!!       

Did you write "The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy" by any chance ??

[DavidRoss]

The symphony is "reasonably conventional" until the final few bars....

Now I'm shocked.  There is nothing conventional about this symphony whatsoever.  It is probably the most radically inventive and structurally original symphony yet written, and yet it is so beautiful, so seemingly organic and compellingly inviting that it hardly seems like such a break from tradition.  As Morton Feldman said in relation to Sibelius, "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives; the people who you think are conservative might really be radical."

[nut-job]

Now I'm shocked.  There is nothing conventional about this symphony whatsoever.  It is probably the most radically inventive and structurally original symphony yet written, and yet it is so beautiful, so seemingly organic and compellingly inviting that it hardly seems like such a break from tradition.  As Morton Feldman said in relation to Sibelius, "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives; the people who you think are conservative might really be radical."

To say that a symphony (or another music work) is "the most inventive" strikes me as missing the essence.  It seems equally arbitrary to define other "firsts" or "mosts."  I can easily write the most structurally original symphony in the world, the longest, the one with largest orchestration, the first to include an espresso machine as part of the orchestra, etc.  The only problem is my record-breaking symphony will be awful.  What is hard is producing something unusual that is good.  Sibelius wasn't trying to be "the most" anything, it's just that the music came out that way.  But that's what you seem to be saying in the latter part of your post.

[DavidRoss]

But that's what you seem to be saying in the latter part of your post.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Logically, you are saying that I was not saying that Sibelius tried to be 'the most' anything, but that the music just came out that way ("most radically inventive and structurally original symphony yet written").  That is correct.  There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests otherwise.  However, the corrective tone of your post suggests that you intended to say the opposite:  that it seems to you as if I claimed Sibelius was "trying to be the most" something.  It may well seem that way to you.  If so, then you are reading that into my post, for there is nothing in my post that even implies such an idea.  One of the radically modernist features of Sibelius's symphonic composition is that as his craft developed he progressively allowed the material to shape the structure rather than forcing the material to fit some preordained structure.  It's not that he was trying to be anything other than the best composer he could be.  He didn't care a fig for colorful party drinks or the trendy fashions of the day.

[nut-job]

I'm not sure what you mean.  Logically, you are saying that I was not saying that Sibelius tried to be 'the most' anything, but that the music just came out that way ("most radically inventive and structurally original symphony yet written").  That is correct.  There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests otherwise.  However, the corrective tone of your post suggests that you intended to say the opposite:  that it seems to you as if I claimed Sibelius was "trying to be the most" something.  It may well seem that way to you.  If so, then you are reading that into my post, for there is nothing in my post that even implies such an idea.  One of the radically modernist features of Sibelius's symphonic composition is that as his craft developed he progressively allowed the material to shape the structure rather than forcing the material to fit some preordained structure.  It's not that he was trying to be anything other than the best composer he could be.  He didn't care a fig for colorful party drinks or the trendy fashions of the day.

I am agreeing with the substance of your comment, while drawing attention to a habitual way of praising composers or music works, by saying they are the "most" something, "first" to do something, of that their work is the "something-est."  I personally could write a slow movement longer than Bruckner did, a symphony with larger forces than Mahler 8, with a more idiosyncratic structure than Sibelius 7.  No one would want to listen to them.  I'm sure composers before Mahler could conceive the idea of putting a lied at the end of a symphony.  They just thought it would sound silly.  The striking thing is that Bruckner could conceive a movement that needs to be that long, that Sibelius conceived a symphony that would unfold in such a way (you will notice mention of Mahler and his monstrosity is absent here).  It is the music these composers wrote, not the little records they set, that makes them worthwhile.

[Tapio Dmitriyevich]

I am agreeing with the substance of your comment, while drawing attention to a habitual way of praising composers or music works, by saying they are the "most" something, "first" to do something, of that their work is the "something-est."

Sucks. Oh yes, I think this is especially a classical genre desease. In any review of concerts, composers or their works, you'll find terms like "like no other..." - Even Europeans do this! (not only the usual suspects).

[alkan]

Now I'm shocked.  There is nothing conventional about this symphony whatsoever.  It is probably the most radically inventive and structurally original symphony yet written, and yet it is so beautiful, so seemingly organic and compellingly inviting that it hardly seems like such a break from tradition. 

I did put "reasonably conventional" inside quote marks to lessen the shock!   Maybe I should have said "mostly harmless" like Karl ?

My intention was only to indicate (in a very simplistic way) the difference between the ending  (silence, punctuated by a series of fortissimo sound blasts), and the rest of the symphony (a more or less continuous flow of music of great subtlety and complexity for the connoisseur).       On this thread, even people who now feel comfortable with the 6 chord ending admit to being surprised or shocked at the first hearing.


Well, I think this thread has more or less run its course .... at least for me.    Thanks for the replies.     I gained a little more insight, but not as much as I was hoping.      The surprising thing for me was that most of the people who replied say they feel "comfortable" with the ending.     Over all the years I have listened to this ending, it still retains all its power to shock and annoy my unsophisticated ears.     I doubt that everyone here has become blase, so I guess that I have failed to evolve and tune-in to Sibelius' idiom.      Maybe one day ....

[karlhenning]

I did put "reasonably conventional" inside quote marks to lessen the shock!   Maybe I should have said "mostly harmless" like Karl ?

Well, you characterized the whole of the symphony, ending apart, as "reasonably conventional," to which I do not assent.

The ending, I don't find the shock which you do, and my "mostly harmless" was a modification of that, a little hyperbole mixed with a Douglas Adams reference.

[Sergeant Rock]

Alkan, you wanted to know why Sibelius chose to end the symphony the way he did. Until one of us discovers an explanation from Sibelius himself, I think Karl's is the most likely:

I think the ending relates (in a rhythmically clever way) to the 'repeated-loud-chord' endings of Beethoven....Sort of a back-to-the-future bead.

Most composers of symphonies, when approaching their own Fifth symphony, can't help but consider Beethoven's. Listen to the isolated, short outbursts that end that symphony (eight rather than six), then listen to Sibelius. I think the pedigree is obvious; perhaps even a deliberate homage. The shock of the Sibelius version comes not from the notes, which seem entirely logical and at one with the rest of the symphony, but in the silence, and the elongation of silence, between the notes.

By the way, thank you for starting this topic. It's been an interesting read.

Sarge

[karlhenning]

An aside . . .

Most composers of symphonies, when approaching their own Fifth symphony, can't help but consider Beethoven's.

Especially Brahms.

(Sorry, Sarge! Low-hanging fruit, and all!)

[alkan]

Alkan, you wanted to know why Sibelius chose to end the symphony the way he did. Until one of us discovers an explanation from Sibelius himself, I think Karl's is the most likely:

I scanned the internet during lunchtime and I couldn't find anything from Sibelius himself.     Interesting thing was the history of the work which was a long struggle over 5 years, undergoing several major revisions   (merging, omitting movements, different ending, ...etc).    There were several "first" performances.

Interprations of the end by various music critics and bloggers are incredibly varied, going from a violent and destructive interpretation that the 6 chords are "a blow to the solar plexus at the moment of triumph"   to   "Great surges of electricity.  The swan becomes the sun"  (sic).

I guess the power is in the enigma, which is maybe what Sibelius intended  (although personally I doubt it)     

[karlhenning]

There's always high-flown verbiage flung at music.  The music eludes capture within even the best of words.

[DavidRoss]

Interprations of the end by various music critics and bloggers are incredibly varied, going from a violent and destructive interpretation that the 6 chords are "a blow to the solar plexus at the moment of triumph"   to   "Great surges of electricity.  The swan becomes the sun"  (sic) 

Such varied interpretations of virtually all music are the rule--evidence (as if evidence were needed) that music is not a language and carries no implicit cognitive content. 

[alkan]

There's always high-flown verbiage flung at music.  The music eludes capture within even the best of words.

True, but there's no other way for us to communicate with each other.      And sometimes the words and metaphors are "poetic" enough to convey something about the music ....

[karlhenning]

True, but there's no other way for us to communicate with each other.

Not long ago, in a mandatory training for employees, it was pointed out that body language, and tone, were as (or even, more) important media of meaning.  But words have great usefulness, indeed.

And sometimes the words and metaphors are "poetic" enough to convey something about the music ....

The aptness of the words for conveying something about the music, may not be a poetical index.

There is a trouble with words (and it's trouble which bedevils many a thread at GMG), in that they are so precise of meaning, and so persuasive of an impression of truth, that one can fixate upon the meaning which can be contained in words, and lose sight of the fact that, those words are not the music.

Again, I agree that words have their place.  But there are many times when I think the discussion of music, is roughly on the order of helpfulness, of the listener relying on the visual images he associates with the music.

[nut-job]

It is clear that there are different levels on which words can be used to describe music.  For those with great technical knowledge it can be discussed technically, in terms of harmonies, melodies, keys, suspensions, modulations, etc.  Only very well trained individuals can listen to music and identify these technical features, or recognize them in a score.  (I am not in that category.)  Those with a little more training can be somewhat specific, recognizing thematic development, orchestration, consonance and dissonance, etc.  But ultimately, the emotional or intellectual impression that the music makes on the listener is what we want to get at, and this is what is interesting about discussing music.  To make an analogy, there is a distinction between eating a well prepared dish and saying, "this tastes good, yum" or "this is good, I think I taste some nutmeg in here," or "this tastes good, it is interesting that the cook seems to have used an unrefined oil instead of butter and substituted ground cumin seed for coriander, which gives the dish an unexpectedly dark flavor."  Then there is the food process engineer who will explain, "what makes the twinkie possible is the presence of double bonds in trans, and methyl groups, which increase the connectivity of the polymer matrix without increasing the heat capacity of the oil or causing an endothermic reaction which would de-nature the cream filling as the product is annealed.  For me the technical discussion is very interesting, but only when related to the more subjective associations.

[Brian]

I'm not sure what you mean.  Logically, you are saying that I was not saying that Sibelius tried to be 'the most' anything, but that the music just came out that way ("most radically inventive and structurally original symphony yet written").  That is correct.  There is nothing in what I wrote that suggests otherwise.  However, the corrective tone of your post suggests that you intended to say the opposite:  that it seems to you as if I claimed Sibelius was "trying to be the most" something.  It may well seem that way to you.  If so, then you are reading that into my post, for there is nothing in my post that even implies such an idea.  One of the radically modernist features of Sibelius's symphonic composition is that as his craft developed he progressively allowed the material to shape the structure rather than forcing the material to fit some preordained structure.  It's not that he was trying to be anything other than the best composer he could be.  He didn't care a fig for colorful party drinks or the trendy fashions of the day.

Heh, a clever philosophy. Sibelius didn't set out to be a radical. But his material bid him to become one.

[Cato]

Heh, a clever philosophy. Sibelius didn't set out to be a radical. But his material bid him to become one.

Schoenberg would agree that a similar phenomenon compelled him and his music to develop along an idiosyncratic path.

Interesting that Sibelius was about 10 years older than Schoenberg, and almost a generation older than Stravinsky.
If he had been born c. 1880, would his music have been greatly different, able to found a "school" like the other two?

If Sibelius pointed to a "third way" in music in the era c. 1910-1925, why were there few followers?  Too subtle?  Not radical enough to satisfy the younger generation?

[Kullervo]

If Sibelius pointed to a "third way" in music in the era c. 1910-1925, why were there few followers?  Too subtle?  Not radical enough to satisfy the younger generation?

Perhaps shying away from epigonism is an inherent trait of this "third way".

[alkan]

I'm starting to worry that this is becoming an obsession ......

I'm not intending to reopen the subjective or philosophical discussion, but I have a question for the experienced musicians on this board who can read scores and understand harmony  (I cannot).

Apart from the very last chord, it seems to me that the preceeding five chords at the end are very similar.    I can hear that they are not identical (and see it in the score), but they are fairly similar .... at least to my ears ....

So, the question is this.     Is there any sort of harmonic progression, or any relationship with the main themes (or harmonies) of the symphony ...... or indeed any significance at all in the slight differences between the chords ??

Thanks for any replies, ..... and PLEASE don't tell me that I shouldn't be worring about this, and that I should just accept that Sibelius (or God) wanted it this way ...