Composers you don't like

[Lethevich]

Great thing about this forum - people can listen to the same music and draw opposite conclusions.

The thing that frustrates and intrigues and fascinates me about Sibelius, and the thing that attracts me to him and repels me from him in equal measure, is the imperfection I hear in his music, the way that he always seems to fall short. Sibelius' music always comes just - this - close to satisfying me, but with some grit, with some tarnish, that leaves me yearning for it to have gone some other way. It's like falling in love with someone for their imperfections and being continually tormented by them, but never wanting to give them up.

The foremost examples to me are the Fifth and Sixth symphonies - I'm always engrossed by the journey of the Fifth, through such strange landscapes at the beginning, echoey and even ugly at times, to that transcendent ending - but then he cuts the ending off. That intrusive final silence always makes me feel like something has been brutally taken away from me, like I'm reaching out and grasping at thin air trying to grab hold of something which was just in my hands. The only music that produces a similar effect in me is 'that tune' from the Schubert string quintet: they always break my heart, those moments, because they conjure up for me those moments in life which are simply perfect in their beauty and joyfulness and completeness, those moments of euphoria you want to never end - and then the way that each composer unsentimentally moves on crushes me because that conjures up for me the realization that those moments of euphoria always, always end. And when they end they leave but a trace of memory as residue, to be yearned for until the next time.

Anyway. That's why Sibelius fills me with joy and sadness at exactly the same time. Some triumphant moments in music (Beethoven's Ninth, Braga Santos' Fourth, Atterberg's Third) make me think they'll last forever, because they leave me to bask in an afterglow for a long time afterwards. But Sibelius' Fifth (and the first movement of the Schubert quintet) are rare works which - in my ears - achieve that summit of perfection, blaze out word of triumph for all to hear, and then turn right back and march away again. They show me the perfection and then they hide it again.

A super post, danke. I think that this evasiveness might be part of it for me too, although not to the same end. Rather than just falling short of perfection, it sometimes feels as though a work is never aiming for an "answer". He utilises sublime sounds and a masterful sense of delicate ambiguity that imply a sense of purpose, but the composer seems to realise that it cannot be reached so instead focuses on craft aspects, instead melding allegros with scherzos to the delight of the musicologists.

The "answers to questions not even asked" element of art seems not to be fulfilled with a work like the 6th symphony (which I admire), if the obfuscation has reached such a point that the question is unintelligible. It does feel slightly like being robbed after it ends, because that almost naïve level of commitment and confidence to write with purpose is not here. It sounds distinctly post-modern in its timidity - really beautiful moments, but the composer is too knowing to do anything with them.

[eyeresist]

Most of Sibelius' music just sounds empty to me and like Lethe mentioned, it just seems to be devoid of content and musical ideas.

I don't think that's what she was saying. 

I think the Sibelius problem (and "problem" might be overstating it) is that his music answers all its questions; it doesn't have the intriguing sense of something left unsaid, a mystery, a tantalising connection to something else, outside itself.  This is one of the qualities that draw us back to music, I think, but with some music, once you know it, there's not much need to actually hear it again. (I dare not name some of the other composers I feel this way about, for fear of a lynching!)

[Mirror Image]

I don't think that's what she was saying. 

I think the Sibelius problem (and "problem" might be overstating it) is that his music answers all its questions; it doesn't have the intriguing sense of something left unsaid, a mystery, a tantalising connection to something else, outside itself.  This is one of the qualities that draw us back to music, I think, but with some music, once you know it, there's not much need to actually hear it again. (I dare not name some of the other composers I feel this way about, for fear of a lynching!)

I disagree. I think Sibelius' music leaves many questions unanswered, like, for example, what is he being so quiet about? The question that I continue to struggle with is "what is it about his music that I'm not responding to?" This is really the question that has plagued with several composers. There are so many people who do enjoy Sibelius that it makes me wonder sometimes why can't I get into it too? But I'm slowly coming to the realization that not everybody will enjoy what I enjoy and vice versa. I mean how people here actually like Bernstein's Kaddish or Tippett's Symphony No. 3?

[Lethevich]

I think the Sibelius problem (and "problem" might be overstating it) is that his music answers all its questions; it doesn't have the intriguing sense of something left unsaid, a mystery, a tantalising connection to something else, outside itself.  This is one of the qualities that draw us back to music, I think, but with some music, once you know it, there's not much need to actually hear it again. (I dare not name some of the other composers I feel this way about, for fear of a lynching!)

Tbh I don't entirely have a grand unified point on the subject, I am only groping towards one. The strong internal balance, almost self-referencing qualities of certain works of the composer can be certainly somewhat frustrating in how easily they pass, as you describe. The "universalism" of the music is of an elemental and unrelatable quality, almost written as though to deflect any angle of criticism, like a suit of armour.

[Mirror Image]

The "universalism" of the music is of an elemental and unrelatable quality, almost written as though to deflect any angle of criticism, like a suit of armour.

Yea! What good is a work if we can't criticize it? But seriously, are you implying that Sibelius was consciously composing music that's safe and that uses a musical language that kept him out of trouble instead of possibly composing music that came from his heart?

[calyptorhynchus]

Sibelius, you don't like Sibelius? Let's list some composers you really shouldn't like:

Telemann, Handel, D Scarlatti, Berlioz, Chopin, Brahms, Verdi, Liszt, Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Bizet, Faure, Grieg, Scriabin, Elgar, R Strauss, Puccini, Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel &c &c 

[eyeresist]

The "universalism" of the music is of an elemental and unrelatable quality, almost written as though to deflect any angle of criticism, like a suit of armour.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "universalism". Do you mean Sibelius's music isn't "personal" enough?

[Mirror Image]

Let's list some composers you really shouldn't like:

Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Ravel

I could never dislike these composers. They speak directly to me with their music.

[Brian]

But seriously, are you implying that Sibelius was consciously composing music that's safe and that uses a musical language that kept him out of trouble instead of possibly composing music that came from his heart?

But what if Sibelius was composing music that's safe, self-contained, and reflective of a strange mixed breed of traditional consolation and existential despair, because that was the music that came from his heart? What if he wasn't being safe for other people - what if he was being safe to protect himself?

[eyeresist]

But what if Sibelius was composing music that's safe, self-contained, and reflective of a strange mixed breed of traditional consolation and existential despair, because that was the music that came from his heart? What if he wasn't being safe for other people - what if he was being safe to protect himself?

Yes, how ever you may personally react to the music, I don't think there can be any question of Sibelius composing in bad faith.

[Lethevich]

But seriously, are you implying that Sibelius was consciously composing music that's safe and that uses a musical language that kept him out of trouble instead of possibly composing music that came from his heart?

That was specifically how I feel about his mature compositions, although the trait is apparent in his earlier works to a lesser degree. Even the uber-Romantic 2nd symphony has a considerable chastity to it, although it's an admirable and original take on an existing formula. The safeness isn't... easy to describe because Sibelius was nothing like a typical conservative of the early 20th century, writing navel-gazing music which seeks not to offend. Nor is it the composer writing in a modern language so that posterity and academia look upon them favourably.

His musical language is distinctive and seemingly strongly linked to his personality, so there is no falseness to it. I think it's in his committing to the aesthetic, the goals that I find enjoyable in music became able to be sacrificed to further underline the unique qualities of the style. It allows for an extraordinary purity, but at the same time, I do not necessary feel a duty to care about one man's nth degree of stylistic refinement when it grates against some of my more cherished feelings in music, which include a progression throughout a piece, a release of tension towards the end that even if not "Romantic", is at least psychologically appealing. The gentle shifts and releases in Sibelius's late works are perhaps all too artful. For such an inoffensive style, I should not care at all, but something about the composer's approach from the structure up wilfully evades qualities that I consider desirable in music - I am having trouble pinning down exactly with, for A/B comparisons, but these are half-thoughts and I'm fairly okay if I turn out to be wrong and reconsider them.

I don't quite understand what you mean by "universalism". Do you mean Sibelius's music isn't "personal" enough?

That certain composers are often put forward as 'perfect' examples of the human spirit/condition (as perceived in the western tradition) represented in art - Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Mahler, etc. Mature Sibelius is also a popular choice. The characteristic of these composers is that their music is at once perfectly original and 'personal', but also achieves a highly debatable/hard to isolate characteristic which allows their output to be considered as a touchstone in relevence and sublimity. I suppose I am disputing Sibelius's ability to represent anything other than himself, which is not the fault of the composer, more of those who might elevate him so highly. Beethoven's warts and all "go do it" approach does ring more truly to me as an ambassador for this human condition.

[starrynight]

I wasn't talking about tonality when i said that regarding Brahms. I was speaking about romantic classicism. For instance, in an age that gave us Bruckner and Mahler, it seems strange to wanting to write a symphony not even in the style of Beethoven, but of Schumann. Its not even a question of using old forms or techniques, he literally and arbitrarily wished to protract that particular style, for no particular reason, since he didn't specifically have to wrap himself in a time capsule centered around the first decades of the 19th century just to reject the radical developments introduced by Wagner and his camp.

His music is certainly magnificent but i think he would have been just as great a composer had he chosen to diversify his style. The limitation of his chosen idiom is apparent when his music is at its most complex. You can sense he could go even further, but he just couldn't transcend the formula, even when the strain was at a braking point.

Surely at one point he could have said "enough of this, let's try something else". Instead he just kept going on and on, until the day he died.

It could be argued that quite a few of the most acclaimed composers limited their chosen idiom, but that is exactly what made them great as they were able to explore a style in a more full and ultimately personal way.  It's also true that they often didn't just shift to the latest changes in fashion, JS Bach is often cited as an example of that in his later years.  Brahms probably did reach his full potential in some areas such as the symphony, some chamber music genres and piano music.  In others he may not have but he still did very well even there within the context of his own time.


As for Sibelius I don't think you should expect a Viennese warmth to his music as he never wrote music there.  There is probably a warmer element in his music that links to the folk style ideas he uses, but that would probably have more of an open air sound to it.  So it will have a different sound to some of his contemporaries, and he also saw himself it seems as more akin to the classicists so there will be a directness to his style as well.  And as was said in judging these styles it's really whatever someone's preference is, and preference is guided by what people are used to listening to. 

[eyeresist]

That certain composers are often put forward as 'perfect' examples of the human spirit/condition (as perceived in the western tradition) represented in art - Beethoven, Bach, Chopin, Mahler, etc. Mature Sibelius is also a popular choice. The characteristic of these composers is that their music is at once perfectly original and 'personal', but also achieves a highly debatable/hard to isolate characteristic which allows their output to be considered as a touchstone in relevence and sublimity. I suppose I am disputing Sibelius's ability to represent anything other than himself, which is not the fault of the composer, more of those who might elevate him so highly. Beethoven's warts and all "go do it" approach does ring more truly to me as an ambassador for this human condition.

So the problem with the universalism of Sibelius is that it's not universal enough?

I suppose some people hold up certain composers or works as representatives of the godhead on earth, but I think that's mystical bollocks. And I don't believe Beethoven represent Humanity better than Sibelius. He represents himself, an overtly passionate self who is perhaps easier for listeners to identify with than a cool, self-isolating personality like Sibelius.

[Karl Henning]

That certain composers are often put forward as 'perfect' examples of the human spirit/condition (as perceived in the western tradition) represented in art [....]

You're right, there are people who do this (put certain composers forward as Poster Children).  But I always wonder why they feel the compulsion to do any such thing.

And, John: "devoid of content and musical ideas"? Sibelius?  That suggestion, from a chap who has been known to obsess over Koechlin, and now is on a Bernstein tear?  Who claims that the only way to enjoy Schnittke is to be steeped in vodka?

[Karl Henning]

Not far from someone who says, There's no content or ideas in Huckleberry Finn.  Give me Interview with the Vampire!

[Mirror Image]

And, John: "devoid of content and musical ideas"? Sibelius?  That suggestion, from a chap who has been known to obsess over Koechlin, and now is on a Bernstein tear?  Who claims that the only way to enjoy Schnittke is to be steeped in vodka?

What can I say? I'm a strange brew.

[Karl Henning]

Fair enough!

[Cato]

All right!  Cato's here!     "Put your hands on your heads, get off the bar, and get on the wall!"   

You trying to put a shiv in my man Sibelius !!!   0:)

Did I see something about Sibelius being somehow emotionally stunted?!

Having listened to Sibelius since 1962     , I will tell you that a mysterious psychomachia of some sort occurs in every symphony, not to mention in smaller things e.g. his music for  Pelleas and Melisande.

I'll let you off with a warning this time!  Now behave!   

[Josquin des Prez]

The music of Sibelius answers all the questions i'd care to know about.

[Cato]

The music of Sibelius answers all the questions I'd care to know about.

There you have it!

We will not, however, ask you what those questions might be!   0:)