The Nielsen Nexus

[NorthNYMark]

I don't recall if it was initially this thread or something else, but I was prompted to explore some Nielsen last night and this morning (via Spotify). I'd started the exploration a couple of years ago and was impressed with his work, but for some reason went into more of a rock and jazz phase for a while. Returning to that exploration, I listened to symphonies 4 and 5, plus the Clarinet Concerto. Wow--the concerto in particular was stunning--I'm surprised it does not get more attention! The symphonies were very impressive as well--very accessible without feeling too corny or film soundtrack-like. It took me a while to decide on what performace of the symphonies to start out with--I sampled the first minute or so (from the 3rd and 4th symphonies) of a bunch of cycles. The ones that felt most engaging were those by both Jarvis (Neeme and Paavo), Chung, and Kuchar (though I realize the limitations of my method--perhaps those who impress most in the opening may not have the most satisfying interpretations of the overall work--still, one has to start somewhere). For the Clarinet Concerto, those that impressed me most were the Blomstedt and the younger Jarvi (I ended up listening to the entire Blomstedt, and look forward to hearing the Jarvi--what an amazing work!!!)

For the symphonies, I decided to begin with the younger Jarvi. While I remember this from my earlier traversal, I was nonetheless struck anew by the orchestral color of both symphonies. For a violinist, Nielsen seems to have a particular affinity for woodwinds, and is also quite effective with percussion. I'll definitely be listening to more of Nielsen--it will take a while to start familiarizing myself with the major works, not to mention exploring the breadth of his oeuvre. Thanks to those of you who have kept this thread going!

[Madiel]

Ah yes, this must be the site you're referring to perhaps?

http://www.npr.org/sections/deceptivecadence/2015/06/09/411256072/evenly-odd-carl-nielsens-distinctive-symphonies

Yes, that's the one I was thinking of.

[Mirror Image]

I don't recall if it was initially this thread or something else, but I was prompted to explore some Nielsen last night and this morning (via Spotify). I'd started the exploration a couple of years ago and was impressed with his work, but for some reason went into more of a rock and jazz phase for a while. Returning to that exploration, I listened to symphonies 4 and 5, plus the Clarinet Concerto. Wow--the concerto in particular was stunning--I'm surprised it does not get more attention! The symphonies were very impressive as well--very accessible without feeling too corny or film soundtrack-like. It took me a while to decide on what performace of the symphonies to start out with--I sampled the first minute or so (from the 3rd and 4th symphonies) of a bunch of cycles. The ones that felt most engaging were those by both Jarvis, Chung, and Kuchar (though I realize the limitations of my method--perhaps those who impress most in the opening may not have the most satisfying interpretations of the overall work--still, one has to start somewhere). For the Clarinet Concerto, those that impressed me most were the Blomstedt and the younger Jarvi (I ended up listening to the entire Blomstedt, and look forward to hearing the Jarvi--what an amazing work!!!)

For the symphonies, I decided to begin with the younger Jarvi. While I remember this from my earlier traversal, I was nonetheless struck anew by the orchestral color of both symphonies. For a violinist, Nielsen seems to have a particular affinity for woodwinds, and is also quite effective with percussion. I'll definitely be listening to more of Nielsen--it will take a while to start familiarizing myself with the major works, not to mention exploring the breadth of his oeuvre. Thanks to those of you who have kept this thread going!

Nielsen's international status, compared to that of say Mahler, Sibelius, or Strauss, is still something that baffles me. Nielsen was a contemporary of all three composers (and not to mention Debussy) and, yet, it's still somewhat of a rare thing to hear any of his music outside of Denmark and the other Nordic countries. He certainly was a major composer of the 20th Century and did much to expand on the symphonic form. He's as distinctive as any of the afore mentioned composers, but it seems Nielsen's music has alluded many over the years. Also, I find the comparisons people have made of Nielsen and Sibelius to be quite odd. These composers couldn't be anymore different from each other.

[Madiel]

Nah, Nielsen and Sibelius definitely have some things in common in my view. The key thing being a move away from high/late Romanticism to something more classical/objective.

[Mirror Image]

Nah, Nielsen and Sibelius definitely have some things in common in my view. The key thing being a move away from high/late Romanticism to something more classical/objective.

But my point is would you mistake Sibelius for Nielsen or vice versa? I wouldn't.

[Madiel]

But my point is would you mistake Sibelius for Nielsen or vice versa? I wouldn't.

No I wouldn't either. But you just referred to comparisons. I would quite happily note things they had in common.

[Mirror Image]

No I wouldn't either. But you just referred to comparisons. I would quite happily note things they had in common.

Hmm...that would be interesting. Besides being born in the same year (1865) and pushing their own brand of late-Romanticism into early Modernism, what would you say they have in common?

[NorthNYMark]

Nielsen's international status, compared to that of say Mahler, Sibelius, or Strauss, is still something that baffles me. Nielsen was a contemporary of all three composers (and not to mention Debussy) and, yet, it's still somewhat of a rare thing to hear any of his music outside of Denmark and the other Nordic countries. He certainly was a major composer of the 20th Century and did much to expand on the symphonic form. He's as distinctive as any of the afore mentioned composers, but it seems Nielsen's music has alluded many over the years. Also, I find the comparisons people have made of Nielsen and Sibelius to be quite odd. These composers couldn't be anymore different from each other.

Based on my initial impressions, I'd tend to agree. To me, he seems to fit right in with Mahler, Sibelius, and Strauss, but if anything is more interesting (to me, upon initial listens) than any of them. Perhaps Sibelius's 4th Symphony (my favorite of his) could be seen as leaning in a more fashionably modernist direction, but otherwise I'm not sure why Nielsen would be either less critically acclaimed or less popular with the general public. I think the impact of Scandinavian folk music is perhaps slightly more overt in bis work than in that of Sibelius (and I'm aware of its importance to Sibelius), but an overt folk influence certainly never got in the way of Bartok's reputation. It's kind of a head scratcher to me that Nielsen is not as popular as Mahler.

[Mahlerian]

Based on my initial impressions, I'd tend to agree. To me, he seems to fit right in with Mahler, Sibelius, and Strauss, but if anything is more interesting (to me, upon initial listens) than any of them. Perhaps Sibelius's 4th Symphony (my favorite of his) could be seen as leaning in a more fashionably modernist direction, but otherwise I'm not sure why Nielsen would be either less critically acclaimed or less popular with the general public. I think the impact of Scandinavian folk music is perhaps slightly more overt in bis work than in that of Sibelius (and I'm aware of its importance to Sibelius), but an overt folk influence certainly never got in the way of Bartok's reputation. It's kind of a head scratcher to me that Nielsen is not as popular as Mahler.

Speaking from my personal experience only, Nielsen's music doesn't make sense to me.  I can follow it, but all I perceive are its surface structural processes and not its inner life, whereas the music of Mahler and (to a lesser extent) Sibelius is alive and full of resonance.  Nielsen's music is interesting, but (and this is my failing) it doesn't do anything else for me.

[Mirror Image]

Based on my initial impressions, I'd tend to agree. To me, he seems to fit right in with Mahler, Sibelius, and Strauss, but if anything is more interesting (to me, upon initial listens) than any of them. Perhaps Sibelius's 4th Symphony (my favorite of his) could be seen as leaning in a more fashionably modernist direction, but otherwise I'm not sure why Nielsen would be either less critically acclaimed or less popular with the general public. I think the impact of Scandinavian folk music is perhaps slightly more overt in bis work than in that of Sibelius (and I'm aware of its importance to Sibelius), but an overt folk influence certainly never got in the way of Bartok's reputation. It's kind of a head scratcher to me that Nielsen is not as popular as Mahler.

I love a lot of Sibelius and Mahler whereas Strauss I can take or leave (I do enjoy some of his music a good deal). Perhaps it has to do with how Nielsen treats his musical material? Perhaps it has to do with his general musical outlook? I really have no idea. All I know is I hear an original voice in his music and I certainly can recognize that this voice perhaps isn't as universal as us Nielsen fans would like it to be. As for the folk influence, I'd say that's only a small part of his overall sound. Surely the music of Brahms, Beethoven, Haydn, and Mozart have cast their influence over his music. It's what he did with tradition in conjunction with what he felt he needed to express that obviously give his music their unique expression. No one sounds like him --- this I do know.

[Mirror Image]

Speaking from my personal experience only, Nielsen's music doesn't make sense to me.  I can follow it, but all I perceive are its surface structural processes and not its inner life, whereas the music of Mahler and (to a lesser extent) Sibelius is alive and full of resonance.  Nielsen's music is interesting, but (and this is my failing) it doesn't do anything else for me.

That's more than fair enough. Nielsen took me quite some time to pin-down but when his music did finally click with me --- there was no turning my back ever again. I will say that, even though in my beginning stages of understanding, and appreciating, I didn't quite understand it, but the music did have something alluring about it and I did hear what you simply admitted to not hearing: an inner life.

[NorthNYMark]

Speaking from my personal experience only, Nielsen's music doesn't make sense to me.  I can follow it, but all I perceive are its surface structural processes and not its inner life, whereas the music of Mahler and (to a lesser extent) Sibelius is alive and full of resonance.  Nielsen's music is interesting, but (and this is my failing) it doesn't do anything else for me.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's interesting how differently certain music resonates with different people. I'm still pretty new to all this music--I've only been listening seriously to classical music for about four or five years now, so my responses to composers like Mahler (not to mention Nielsen) are likely to develop in different ways over time. I was revisiting Mahler not long ago, particularly his 9th symphony. Generally I find his first movements very intriguing and involving (and the main theme in the 7th Symphony's first movement is one of the catchiest I've ever heard), but I seem have a particularly hard time relating to the polkas, the marches, and the vocal parts, so his works sometimes feel like they're being interrupted in midstream to me. I'm finding the 9th to feel a bit more like a coherent whole than some of the others, though. Obviously, there's something about Mahler that keeps me coming back, even when it doesn't fully click with me.

[Mirror Image]

It is quite remarkable how each of us reacts so differently to a composer's music. For me, Nielsen's music overflows with energy and he had such a zest for life. As Robert Simpson explains, he wasn't a composer that looked onto the world with dismay, in fact, he did the opposite. His music isn't about the sorrows and trials of everyday life and he doesn't bother with expressing these kinds of feelings like Mahler does for example. Nielsen, at his best, represents the power of the nature and how it can sweep one away if one doesn't pay attention to their surroundings. If someone doesn't connect with his music, that's fine by me, but I'm certainly glad I continued to listen, because I couldn't live without his music now.

[Madiel]

Hmm...that would be interesting. Besides being born in the same year (1865) and pushing their own brand of late-Romanticism into early Modernism, what would you say they have in common?

Okay, I'll try to construct something sensible... though the first thing I should say is don't underestimate the importance of them both stepping away from Romanticism. Because the way that they did that is quite different to other innovative composers. Where you've got other people of the same generation either being heavily influenced by Wagner or doing things that dissolve tonality, these two wrote music that still feels firmly tonal. Instead they innovated in the ways they developed their forms and themes.

Nordic, obviously (one Danish, one Finnish Swede), which I do think means something culturally. I find it interesting they both wrote quite a bit of incidental music, I'm not sure how much that's just a function of the era but I'm aware of more of that for them than for most composers. Quite a lot of (underappreciated) choral and vocal music, often with a dash of nationalism (again, maybe partly just due to the era but I see that as a commonality).

I don't want to play up the similarities, either. I agree with you that they're not the same. But I don't see them as at opposite poles, either.

[71 dB]

Nielsen's international status, compared to that of say Mahler, Sibelius, or Strauss, is still something that baffles me. Nielsen was a contemporary of all three composers (and not to mention Debussy) and, yet, it's still somewhat of a rare thing to hear any of his music outside of Denmark and the other Nordic countries. He certainly was a major composer of the 20th Century and did much to expand on the symphonic form. He's as distinctive as any of the afore mentioned composers, but it seems Nielsen's music has alluded many over the years. Also, I find the comparisons people have made of Nielsen and Sibelius to be quite odd. These composers couldn't be anymore different from each other.

Nielsen's international status indeed is oddly weak. To me Nielsen is among the most important 20th century composers. I am a Finn who doesn't care much about Sibelius, but Nielsen is among my favorite composers. He was been that ever since I heard his fourth symphony on radio two decades ago and was really blown away, something the music of Sibelius, Mahler, Strauss or Debussy have never done to me. In fact, of all composers of that era only Elgar has a stronger effect on me.

[71 dB]

Nah, Nielsen and Sibelius definitely have some things in common in my view. The key thing being a move away from high/late Romanticism to something more classical/objective.

Yes, but they moved more or less in different directions. Music is a multidimensional artform so there's a lot of directions to choose from. Even if you move into the same direction in some dimensions, you can move in opposite directions in other dimensions.

[Mahlerian]

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It's interesting how differently certain music resonates with different people. I'm still pretty new to all this music--I've only been listening seriously to classical music for about four or five years now, so my responses to composers like Mahler (not to mention Nielsen) are likely to develop in different ways over time. I was revisiting Mahler not long ago, particularly his 9th symphony. Generally I find his first movements very intriguing and involving (and the main theme in the 7th Symphony's first movement is one of the catchiest I've ever heard), but I seem have a particularly hard time relating to the polkas, the marches, and the vocal parts, so his works sometimes feel like they're being interrupted in midstream to me. I'm finding the 9th to feel a bit more like a coherent whole than some of the others, though. Obviously, there's something about Mahler that keeps me coming back, even when it doesn't fully click with me.

Mahler's music is actually very focused, despite the constant variation on the surface, and all of his symphonies present a coherent argument from beginning to end.  The logic can certainly take time to reveal itself, but it's always there.  I don't think of the references to popular forms as any more distracting in Mahler than they are in Beethoven or Haydn.

Anyway, enough of digressions, back to Nielsen!

[71 dB]

It is quite remarkable how each of us reacts so differently to a composer's music.

It is, but it's the same with other things such as films. My favorite movies aren't your favorite movies. Our neural networks organize themself in different ways because we have different sets of neural blocks preventing organization. These blocks are results of life experiencies and the purpose of them is most logically to simplify the world for us, inhibite the chaotic flow of information. We all have lived different lives so we have different neural blocks. Blocks can be removed, but there might be another block preventing the removal. It can be a puzzle to remove blocks and that's why it can take a lot of time and effort.

So, when a teenager says heavy metal "rulezzz!"and all other music "suxxx!" it's because he/she has a lot of neural blocks making the world simple and ordered for him/her (heavy metal rules. All other music sucks. Simple as that). When a person manages to remove neural blocks, the world reveals it's extreme level of complexity and that might feel scary and unpleasant. So, we might prefer keeping the blocks, but we can also try to be open-minded and prevent new blocks from appearing with new information.

I liked Nielsen and Elgar instantly so I didn't have neural blocks preventing me to understand and appreciate their music, but I seem to have a persistent "Sibelius block" for example. Maybe I would have to see the world in ways I don't want to in order to really "get" Sibelius?

For me, Nielsen's music overflows with energy and he had such a zest for life. As Robert Simpson explains, he wasn't a composer that looked onto the world with dismay, in fact, he did the opposite. His music isn't about the sorrows and trials of everyday life and he doesn't bother with expressing these kinds of feelings like Mahler does for example. Nielsen, at his best, represents the power of the nature and how it can sweep one away if one doesn't pay attention to their surroundings. If someone doesn't connect with his music, that's fine by me, but I'm certainly glad I continued to listen, because I couldn't live without his music now.

I find Nielsen music "sunny" and "zesty". It's like drinking lemon sodapop on a warm sunny summer day. Nielsen music has a wonderful combination of maturity and childishness similar to Elgar. Nielsen also feels creative and inventive.

[Madiel]

It is, but it's the same with other things such as films. My favorite movies aren't your favorite movies. Our neural networks organize themself in different ways because we have different sets of neural blocks preventing organization. These blocks are results of life experiencies and the purpose of them is most logically to simplify the world for us, inhibite the chaotic flow of information. We all have lived different lives so we have different neural blocks. Blocks can be removed, but there might be another block preventing the removal. It can be a puzzle to remove blocks and that's why it can take a lot of time and effort.

So, when a teenager says heavy metal "rulezzz!"and all other music "suxxx!" it's because he/she has a lot of neural blocks making the world simple and ordered for him/her (heavy metal rules. All other music sucks. Simple as that). When a person manages to remove neural blocks, the world reveals it's extreme level of complexity and that might feel scary and unpleasant. So, we might prefer keeping the blocks, but we can also try to be open-minded and prevent new blocks from appearing with new information.

I liked Nielsen and Elgar instantly so I didn't have neural blocks preventing me to understand and appreciate their music, but I seem to have a persistent "Sibelius block" for example. Maybe I would have to see the world in ways I don't want to in order to really "get" Sibelius?

I find Nielsen music "sunny" and "zesty". It's like drinking lemon sodapop on a warm sunny summer day. Nielsen music has a wonderful combination of maturity and childishness similar to Elgar. Nielsen also feels creative and inventive.

I was with you for about one sentence until you started talking about neural blocks. It is not simply a case of liking more things as we get older/more experienced, because what you're ignoring is that we have different sets of values.

And values are not "neural blocks". They're not negatives ("I can't appreciate this"), they are positives ("these are the things I like and respond to").

It doesn't matter how much I am exposed to any and every type of music, there are things that I value as part of my personality - not merely musical qualities, but qualities more generally - that are going to influence exactly which music I like regardless of its genre.

I get thoroughly tired of people picking heavy metal as an example. Personally I never liked heavy metal as a teenager. My nephew, on the other hand, loves it. But he's musical, and it's not simply a case of him mindlessly having the same reaction to everything in the genre any more than I have the same reaction to every classical composer or to every female piano-playing singer-songwriter (any website that says "you like Tori Amos? then in that case we think you'll like all these other women" loses points with me).

There is certainly an element of having to get used to styles of music that we find unfamiliar, yes. But there is no way that is the sum total of what determines our responses, and no amount of removal of "neural blocks" will get me to like music that fundamentally doesn't align with my own values.

The world does not consist of billions of people all with the exact same neural network just waiting to be "unblocked".

[Karl Henning]

I find Nielsen music "sunny" and "zesty". It's like drinking lemon sodapop on a warm sunny summer day. Nielsen music has a wonderful combination of maturity and childishness similar to Elgar. Nielsen also feels creative and inventive.

Well said.