Ravel vs. Sibelius

[Luke]

Hardly - whole comparative thing is very valuable indeed, but your more score-focussed contributions were particularly so for me personally. In general that's how I tend to respond to things, though.

[Scarpia]

LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.

That that is a silly statement.  Sibelius' music is not simply a "common factor" holding together a thread that is primarily about recordings.  It is primarily about the music of Sibelius, and recordings are a common experience that allow people to relate to that music.   The thread is long because when people have listened to a recording of music by Sibelius they feel compelled to communicate what they have experienced.   If people felt similarly compelled to write about their impressions upon listening to Ravel, they would find or create a Ravel thread, and write something.  By and large, they don't.  At least they leave no trace of it here.   0:)

[Brian]

I don't think that has to do with Ravel vs. Sibelius in terms of who's better. I think that something which feeds into it is, Sibelius' music is "enigmatic" - it's like a series of problems, which can't be solved, but if we try for a lifetime they can be understood. There's a sort of mystery, and even a tantalizing frustration, to Sibelius. Why is he doing this or that? ~ What does this tell us about him? ~ How should this be played? ~ Is this (even) a sad symphony or a happy symphony?

At least for me, no other composer raises this type of question so consistently. Which makes Sibelius hugely addictive to me when I'm in a Sibelius "phase," which makes him an irritating turn-off when I'm not, and which makes him great fodder for writing pages and pages about.

[Scarpia]

I don't think that has to do with Ravel vs. Sibelius in terms of who's better. I think that something which feeds into it is, Sibelius' music is "enigmatic" - it's like a series of problems, which can't be solved, but if we try for a lifetime they can be understood. There's a sort of mystery, and even a tantalizing frustration, to Sibelius. Why is he doing this or that? ~ What does this tell us about him? ~ How should this be played? ~ Is this (even) a sad symphony or a happy symphony?

At least for me, no other composer raises this type of question so consistently. Which makes Sibelius hugely addictive to me when I'm in a Sibelius "phase," which makes him an irritating turn-off when I'm not, and which makes him great fodder for writing pages and pages about.

I think you have hit the nail on the head.

Another feature of Sibelius that I find compelling (related to the point you have made) is a feeling that there is a deep message beneath the surface, and that Sibelius wrote out of an inner compulsion to express that truth which he could not express any other way. 

Ravel's music strikes me as a string of sparkling gems, perfect, detailed, but all on the surface for all to see.

[DavidW]

I find that enigmatic depth in Bach Brian, but not Sibelius.  I think that the mystery that you're trying to resolve is of your own reaction to the music.  I know my reaction to Sibelius' works quite well.  I don't find something new each time I listen to Sibelius' music, but nevertheless I enjoy it.

[Luke]

The thread is long because when people have listened to a recording of music by Sibelius they feel compelled to communicate what they have experienced. 

Bingo - so you agree, the length of threads like the Sibelius one is due in no small part to the fact that there is extensive recording discussion there. And my argument is that this is the case not because these composers are intrinsically greater composers than those with shorter threads, but because, very often, they are composers whose oeuvre invites such discussion - composers with multiple symphonies like Sibelius, Mahler, Bruckner and Vaughan Williams. Hell, IIRC a comparatively minor figure like Bax has a longer thread than Schumann or that troublesome symphonist Schubert. Meanwhile, never mind Ravel, composers of the stature of Stravinsky, Bartok, Berg and Debussy (to say nothing of opera specialists like Verdi, or Puccini, or Rossini) have shorter threads than the symphonists IIRC. Surely we can't say that this has anything to do with a lack of quality, nor that it has anything to do with lack of interest in these composers. I repeat, I don't take this observation as important, I'm not bemoaning it either, I'm just trying to guard against the longer thread = better composer line of thought.

Brian - and in fact, Scarpia too - I agree, to the extent that I know what you are saying about the mystery in Sibelius and the up-front-ness of Ravel. This observation - that the mystery in Sibelius invites one to compare and contrast performances - is indeed, I think, part of the reason why the recording issue is less conducive to long discussion with Ravel than with Sibelius. It's also because of the things I've said - Ravel's structures are shorter, his orchestration more precisely pointed... I think this amounts to much the same thing.

What I disagree with - and I disagreed with it earlier too, probably on another of these Ravel threads - is the inference that Ravel's music lacks profundity for this reason. I don't think that 'mystery' (or length, or seriousness...) necessarily = profundity, and nor do I think that surface polish or wit or brevity means that there can't be an awful lot beneath the surface. Certainly my experience of Ravel is that he troubles me and engages me on an emotional level far more than many, many other composers, and I find an emotional complexity and ambiguity in his music of a very high order. It intruigues me above all, perhaps, because it is such mercurial emotion that throbs under the surface in Ravel, it flits and flickers and moves through various shades so quickly, unlike any other composer I know, I think, excepting perhaps Janacek. The shadings of feeling even in something supposedly purely descriptive like, say, Une barque sur l'ocean (I'm thinking of the piano original, but I suppose the orchestration will do too), which are due to Ravel's hypersensitive use of figuration, subtly shifting harmony, perfect awareness of gesture and register, and a magical sense of structure that allows the end to become overshadowed by something genuinely deep and 'other' before disolving in the most wonderfully controlled way, the melody present in the figuration till the very last second...this is superb emotional control which only a true musical poet could create, I think, and even in a comparatively simple, illustrtive piece like this, the music touches profoundity, a glimpse of greater, deeper things. That sort of thing is why I love Ravel. Not the surface sheen.

[Scarpia]

I think that the mystery that you're trying to resolve is of your own reaction to the music.

Duh, of course.

[Brian]

What I disagree with - and I disagreed with it earlier too, probably on another of these Ravel threads - is the inference that Ravel's music lacks profundity for this reason.

I am extremely happy to agree entirely with this paragraph. I don't think (or, do hope) that I never said anything in my post about Sibelius which was at all disparaging about Ravel. In fact, it is informative that I have not yet voted in the poll!

[Brian]

I think that the mystery that you're trying to resolve is of your own reaction to the music.  I know my reaction to Sibelius' works quite well.

"Every great philosophy up to the present has been the personal confession of its author and a form of involuntary and unperceived memoir." - Friedrich Nietzsche

"Every half-decent forum post up to the present has been the personal confession of its author and a form of involuntary and unperceived memoir." - Lolcat Nietzsche

And in case you don't believe in Lolcat Nietzsche,

[Luke]

I am extremely happy to agree entirely with this paragraph. I don't think (or, do hope) that I never said anything in my post about Sibelius which was at all disparaging about Ravel. In fact, it is informative that I have not yet voted in the poll!

No, you didn't, in that respect I was responding to Scarp's description of Ravel 'as a string of sparkling gems, perfect, detailed, but all on the surface for all to see', which, needless to say, I don't go along with.

I want to emphasize too that, like you, I am not looking in any way to disparage Sibelius, a finer composer than whom it is hard to find. I think, to look at musical differences, there is a difference in harmony, tone colour, texture and melodic shape between the two which (partly) makes for the air of mystery you accurately describe in Sibelius and which is often not there in Ravel. There is also, maybe most importantly, a different use of motive and motive transformation  - it's the carrier of the argument and therefore the bearer of much of the profundity in Sibelius and Germanic symphonism in general - the motive comes to 'stand for' something. In Ravel, Debussy and so on this isn't the case (or very, very rarely - Daphnis is in some ways the Ravelian exception to all that I've just said). Here the weight of the profundity is born by harmony, register, rhythm, gesture, structure etc., and it's Ravel's fabulously virtuoso use of all these and more which gives his music the sense of profundity which I for one feel in it; that's what I was trying to say before.

[Mirror Image]

I think Luke said something very interesting in his above post about the way Ravel weaves in and out of the shadows. This, for me, is one thing that I find so interesting about Ravel. The way he can go from something humorous, but then almost in the blink of an eye, he'll state something that's quite sinister. It almost reminds of Mahler in this sense: light to darkness, darkness to light so quickly. Ravel's music, on the surface, sounds like a completely different man than what is beneath that very surface. I find him much more profound than Sibelius. I think Sibelius is much more straight-forward than Ravel is believe it or not. Even though Ravel is seen as a composer of preciseness, I don't see it this way at all. I find more mystery in Ravel than I do Sibelius. The mystery is why did he compose the way he did? Why did he chose to be so precise, but yet so quick to change moods almost constantly?

In summary, Ravel was a very troubled man. Much more troubled than Sibelius. I think Sibelius was an incredibly honest composer, whereas, Ravel, I feel, wasn't quite being honest all the time, and this is apart of that mystery for me. It's as if Ravel is hiding something and being very careful not to tell anybody even though deep down inside of him it was killing him to not be able to speak about it.

[Chaszz]

Sibelius: long cold draughts of mountain spring water. Too many draughts of cold Finnish vodka and non-Finnish vodka. Big black mountains dotted with myriads of fir trees against the frozen gray sky. Fast cross-country skiiers killing hundreds of Stalin's troops. Low rumbles of thunder and kettledrums, long low crescendos of mountain horns building slowly to rapturous climaxes. Thick heavy chords beating like Thor's hammer against the sky...

Give me more...give me more...give me more...

[DavidW]

Brian, I think that you and Scarpia misread me (well I needed to elaborate).  I wasn't trying to say "make sure to add IMO", I'm saying that you've said NOTHING about Sibelius, and everything about YOU.  Seriously think about it... you could describe any composer that way.  Anyone that you haven't figured out how you feel about the music and has an inherent complexity in anything post-renaissance era on could be described that way.  I used Bach as an example, because he is my mystery.

But here is the thing, if you do come to terms with Sibelius you might end up ranking him lower.   

[Brian]

I'm saying that you've said NOTHING about Sibelius, and everything about YOU.

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking of when I quoted Nietzsche. All of my "philosophy" about the nature of Sibelius, is just revealing stuff about me. There wasn't really a misunderstanding.

But here is the thing, if you do come to terms with Sibelius you might end up ranking him lower.   

Actually, I do firmly believe this to be true. I thought of it while washing the dishes, between posting that and reading your reply. If I ever "figured out" exactly "why" Sibelius wrote it "that way," why he ended a piece "that way," "what" he "meant" by certain things, "why" themes "evolve" in "certain ways," "what" the "message" "behind it all" is, then a lot of the allure would be gone. But I've put all those quotes in there to point out that if I ever did figure out those things, I'd be arrogant, because I would still merely be revealing things about myself!

[DavidW]

Oh okay I thought you were mocking me!

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Ravel's music isn't profound,but it was not intended to be that.

Good gravy. What??

[greg]

No, I haven't, but that is because I am and always have been a reactive rather than a proactive poster, except in the case of my own composer's thread. If talk is on Ravel, I will gabble on about him for ages, as I have, to the extent that work will allow, for the last few days!

LOL - the politician-style twisting here is all you! I'm not for a second saying that comparitive listening is in any sense negative - I think it's enormously valuable - only that it makes for long threads. But also ones in which, as David said, the music itself may be the common factor holding the thread together, but it is the difference between the recordings which is driving it on to great length.

As I say, I think that's a great thing to talk about, I find it incredibly interesting and rewarding and it's one of the things I love most about GMG. But as far as talking about the composers themselves and their music go, it's less fascinating, except at the point where the recordings are forgotten for a minute and the music becomes the subject again (as with Brian's contributions to the Sibelius thread recently, to take one example from countless others). Personally I'm not great at talking about recordings, I'm much better talking about actual notes. But then I also, maybe perversely, think that the notes themselves tell us SO much, reveal so much, even when divorced from recordings and examined in the abstract as they first appeared from the composer's pen. So to me, Ravel is not just a composer of beautiful music which enriches my life - if he were, there wouldn't be much to say about him beyond the recording comparison. He, and his music, are also, intellectually fascinating in and of him/itself, and personally I find that things like the following score details tell me as much about him/it as any biography - they stimulate me intellectually, as I say, and they fire me up to talk about him more than comparing two recordings of these pieces would. I talk only personally (and I could substitue many other composers including Sibelius for Ravel's name here, though Ravel, I find, is richer in these things than most other composers)

Hey, Luke, I think Ravel was wrong when he wrote those diamond-shaped harmonics without any other notes on the same stem. That is incorrect writing, and such a notation doesn't really exist.

[Sid]

Being down here in the sunny south (Australia), I feel more connections to Ravel's music. Indeed, the finale of his piano trio makes me think of being at the beach with the ocean breeze, the sun, the seagulls, the beautiful people - you get the drift. In contrast, Sibelius is (perhaps?) at his best when he presents these bleak windswept Nordic landscapes, and Symphony No. 4 is a masterpiece for presenting a psychological portrait in sound of someone suffering from severe depression (if you want to approach music from a psychological point of view, Sibelius probably wins over Ravel). But Ravel can have plenty of psychological turmoil and darkness as well - just listen to Gaspard de la nuit. But that said, a less typical work by Sibelius - his Lemminkainen Suite - grabs me as much as Ravel's chamber or piano music. I like how Sibelius presents fragments of a theme and then builds them up slowly, only revealing it in its entirety in the coda of each movement. It's such a modern way of doing things. But I'm not a huge fan of Sibelius' symphonies (I absolutely can't stand the finale of the 2nd symphony for it's repetitiveness).

So I like aspects of both composers, but the Frenchman definitely relates more to me in terms of the climate and atmosphere of where I am (Australia) rather than the the Finn, although they were both undoubtedly great and did many interesting things...

[Brian]

Being down here in the sunny south (Australia), I feel more connections to Ravel's music. Indeed, the finale of his piano trio makes me think of being at the beach with the ocean breeze, the sun, the seagulls, the beautiful people - you get the drift. In contrast, Sibelius is (perhaps?) at his best when he presents these bleak windswept Nordic landscapes,

Try moving to Tasmania 

[karlhenning]

Hey, Luke, I think Ravel was wrong when he wrote those diamond-shaped harmonics without any other notes on the same stem. That is incorrect writing, and such a notation doesn't really exist.

Well played!