"Sibelius, the Worst Composer in the World"

[Brian]

I'm going to post the original French in one post, then the English in the next. The reason is, the English version was translated by a rank moron who does not speak French and leaned occasionally on Google Translate (me), and French-speakers on GMG may wish to suggest corrections.

I don't know that the original text is available anywhere on the internet - this is my transcription of the original pamphlet, published in 1955, which can be found at the British Library.

-
[cover]

RENÉ LEIBOWITZ

SIBELIUS
le plus mauvais
compositeur
DU MONDE

Aux Editions Dynamo
P. Aelberts, éditeur
Liège-1955


-
[inside cover]

Cette note pertinente est publiée à l'occasion du 90e anni-
versaire du compositeur finlandais et tirée à 40 exemplaires
vélin blanc et 11 exemplaires sur hollande antique, numérotés
1 à 51 par l'éditeur. Le tirage a été execute le 8 décembre 1955
par l'imprimerie nationale des invalids, de Liège.



Brimborions
no 37

TOUS DROITS RESERVES.


-
   
Le mélomane ou musicien éduqué en France ne sait pas grand-chose de Sibelius. Même la fréquentation de certains centres musicaux étrangers (Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique, Hollande, Italie) ne lui aura rien appris de significatif sur ce musicien. Il se peut que l'on connaisse son nom, que l'on sache qu'il est Finlandais en même temps que l'auteur de la <<Valse trise>> et il se peut même que l'on ait entendu cet inoffensif échantillon de la musique de salon. Mais si l'on suit l'activité musicale anglaise ou américaine, l'on s'aperçoit que le nom de Sibelius, à peine prononcé chez nous, se présente à peu près aussi souvent que les marques célèbres d'automobiles, de cigarettes ou de pâte dentrifice. Les critiques se surpassent en dithyrambes. Toscanini affirme qu'il s'agit du <<plus grand symphoniste depuis Beethoven>> et il existe même une <<Société Sibelius>> qui s'est imposé le but d'enregistrer et de propager ses œuvres.
   La stupéfaction et la curiosité s'emparent de vous et l'on se dit qu'on est peut-être passé à côte d'une des manifestations primordiales de la musique de notre temps. On consulte une partition, choisie parmi les œuvres les plus importantes (par exemple la Cinquième Symphonie). La stupéfaction croît, la curiosité diminue: la partition offre une image où s'étalent une pauvreté et une misère à peine concevables. Mais les admirateurs de Sibelius de vous rassurer: <<Attendez l'audition, vous verrez...>> Hélas, l'ouïe ne dément pas ce que la vue avait perçu.
   Cela se présente à peu près comme suit: quelques vagues figures sonores sans consistance, banales et vulgaires assument le rôle de <<thèmes>>. Leur allure est maladroite, leur harmonie incorrecte, pauvre et schématique. Soudain leur cours se trouve interrompu, sans que l'auteur ait songé à en tirer les quelques conséquences dont—malgré tout—ils étaient capables. Puis voici que ces thèmes répparaissent, sans rime ni raison, sans liens avec ce qui précède et ce qui suit; triturés, tordus, plus maladroits et plus pénibles encore que lors de leur première apparition.
   La monotonie rythmique, l'absence de toute polyphonie véritable, l'uniformité de la démarche, bref l'ennui que se dégage de tout cela ont vite fait de vous assoupir lorsque, [PAGE BREAK]
brusquement, on est réveillé car le morceau est fini sans qu'on puisse dire, toutefois, comment ou pourquoi il en est advenu ainsi. Ce n'était que le premier mouvement, mais les autres sont tels que le lecteur n'aura qu'à relire ce qui précède pour en avoir une idée.

   C'est alors que l'angoisse vous saisit et l'on fait part de ses doutes aux <<admirateurs>>. Comme de juste, c'est vous qui n'aves pas compris. L'harmonie qui vous paraît fausse... mais c'est cela précisément que constitue l'originalité de Sibelius. Le manque de développements... mais c'est justement sa force, c'est ce qui le situe <<au-dessus des écoles>>. L'indigence rythmique et mélodique... mais ce sont les qualités de Sibelius, qui, tel Beethoven, réussit à tirer le maximum des éléments les plus <<simples>>, etc...
   Tout cela, cependant, ne rend pas un son très juste. On a du mal à croire aux vertus du travail symphonique de celui qui ne paraît pas capable de construire une période; on n'est pas très convaincu par ce <<vol plané>>, au-dessus des écoles, de quelqu'un qui à l'école a dû être un cancre et l'on se méfie un peu de cette originalité due à la ignorance, à l'incompétence et à l'impotence.
   Mais alors, ce succès formidable?   
   Peut-être Sibelius en est-il le premier étonné. Toujours est-il que l'on peut l'expliquer par le conservatisme du public musical qui voit en Sibelius la possibilité de faire de la musique nouvelle avec des moyens anciens. Quel soulagement, quelle provision de conscience tranquille acquis ainsi si l'on pouvait prouver la validité d'une pareille entreprise. <<Vous voyez, je vous le disais bien, toutes ces dissonances... On peut encore faire de la bonne musique sans elles.>>
   Mais le seul mérite de Sibelius est de nous avoir débarrassés de touts les complexes à l'égard d'une telle <<philosophie>>, car il nous a montré, de façon magistrale, que ces moyens anciens, authentiques autrefois, sont devenus faux à présent.
   Et il nous a montré aussi qu'en se servant de ces moyens rien n'est plus aisé que de devenir le plus mauvais compositeur du monde.

[Brian]

And Google's/my cruddy translation.

-

RENÉ LEIBOWITZ

SIBELIUS
the worst
composer
IN THE WORLD

from Editions Dynamo
P. Aelberts, editor
Liege-1955


-

This pertinent note is published on the occasion of the 90th birthday of the Finnish composer. 40 copies are printed on white vellum and 11 copies on "hollande antique", numbered 1 to 51 by the editor. The printing was conducted on 8 December 1955 by the National Invalids' Press of Liege [note from Brian: that sure as hell sounds like a joke...any Belgian historians in the house?].


Brimborions ["Trifles"]
No 37

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


-

   The music lover or musician educated in France does not know very much about Sibelius. Even frequenting certain foreign musical centers (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Italy) will not shed significant light on this musician. Perhaps you know his name, that he is Finnish and even that he is author of the "Valse triste," and he may thus be understood as an inoffensive composer of salon music. But if you look upon the musical scenes in England or America, you realize that the name of Sibelius, rarely spoken in our country, appears in those countries scarcely less often than the famous brands of cars, cigarettes, or toothpaste. The critics praise him in dithyrambs. Toscanini claims that he is "the greatest symphonist after Beethoven" and there is even a "Sibelius Society" which has adopted the goal of recording and promoting his works.
   Astonishment and curiosity seize you, and you must ask if this is, passing by unnoticed, one of the most central events of the music of our time. To consult a score, I chose for myself the most important works of Sibelius (for example the Fifth Symphony). The astonishment grew, the curiosity shrank: the score offers a portrait that grew into poverty and misery beyond belief. But the admirers of Sibelius reassure us: "Listen, and you will see..." Alas, hearing does not deny what sight had perceived.
   What is presented is as follows: some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of which—despite everything—those shapes could have been capable. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
   The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished—without your being able to say how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them.

   It is then that the anxiety grabs you and you express your doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong...but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development...but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness...but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc....
   All of this, however, does not seem to be playing fair. It is difficult to believe in the symphonic work of those who appear incapable of creating a new style; we are not very convinced by the "hovering" above the schools, when someone at the school had to be a dunce, and one suspects this is the case due to the originality of the ignorance, the incompetence, and the impotence.
   But then, why such tremendous success?
   Perhaps Sibelius himself is most surprised. It is always possible that you might explain it with the conservatism of the musical public, who see in Sibelius the possibility of making new music in old styles. What solace, what restoration of a peaceful conscience if you could prove the validity of such a venture. "You see, I told you so, all those dissonances...One may still make good music without them."
   But the sole merit of Sibelius is that we can abandon all our fears of such a philosophy, because he showed us in such a magisterial way that the old styles, once so authentic, have now become false.
   And he also showed us that, by using the old styles, nothing is easier than to become the worst composer in the world.

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

Thanks for your hard work.

Leibowitz undoubtedly knew a lot more about music than I do and most other listeners as well. Yet after all his effusions, Sibelius is as popular as ever. Reminds me a bit of Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

[Monsieur Croche]

 

The article has already zoomed through that reverse telescope where over but a half-century or so, it is looking beyond small and has firmly established itself as one of those "Period Pieces" of very little importance, relegated to that shelf of trivial curiosities of its era.

Sibelius does absolutely nothing for me or to me, where clearly even though in the negative it did more than a little for Liebowitz -- enough to make him bother to sit down and write a short monograph condemning the composer's works.

If your reaction is a complete and inconsequential, "MEH." you just don't go that far; you simply go to another composer or area that does engage you.


Best regards.

[Mandryka]

Thanks for your hard work.

Leibowitz undoubtedly knew a lot more about music than I do and most other listeners as well. Yet after all his effusions, Sibelius is as popular as ever. Reminds me a bit of Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

He explains Sibelius's  popularity by the public's wish to have new music which uses old methods.

[vandermolen]

Thanks for your hard work.

Leibowitz undoubtedly knew a lot more about music than I do and most other listeners as well. Yet after all his effusions, Sibelius is as popular as ever. Reminds me a bit of Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

OT

George Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' is excellent in relation to Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

[Christo]

some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic.

Finally solid scientific proof under my doubts about Sibelius! 

[Daverz]

Admitteldy a somewhat Trumpian metric of worth, but Arkivmusic has 933 recordings of Sibelius and 4 of works by Leibowitz.   

[Jo498]

What I have been told is that this polemic (there was a similar one in German by Adorno writing in the early 1930s) was partly born of the frustration of proponents of early/mid 20th century avantgarde. They witnessed the popularity of Sibelius and took this as one reason for the unpopularity of Schoenberg. Although Leibowitz must have realized that in the countries where Sibelius was not very popular in the early 1950s (e.g. France and Germany) Schoenberg was not necessarily much more popular than in the Sibelius-loving anglophone countries.
The very title seems to have been chosen because some American magazin or radio station had conducted some poll and the listeners had chosen Sibelius as the greatest living composer.

What I always found puzzling (and I lack the knowledge to judge the verdict) was that both Leibowitz and Adorno claim that Sibelius' music suffered grave and obvious technical shortcomings (Adorno writes something that Sibelius could not properly write a four-part choral setting, something every music student should be able to - this is very probably wrong). This must be widely exaggerated, if not plainly wrong, I think, and I wonder why Leibowitz makes such claims that should be easy to refute by anyone with some professional level of theory of harmony etc.
They don't merely say that the music was old-fashioned or trite but that its composer lacked skill and failed in fairly basic compositional abilities.

[Mandryka]

What I always found puzzling (and I lack the knowledge to judge the verdict) was that both Leibowitz and Adorno claim that Sibelius' music suffered grave and obvious technical shortcomings (Adorno writes something that Sibelius could not properly write a four-part choral setting, . . .
They don't merely say that the music was old-fashioned or trite but that its composer lacked skill and failed in fairly basic compositional abilities.

Yes, it would be good if someone here who is able would address this.

[Madiel]

Naturally, it is you who does not understand.

There are a number of other sentences in that pamphlet that make me think this is the truest thing in the pamphlet.

For instance, a comparison of the 5th symphony to many other works of Sibelius will readily show that YES, the roughness of the harmony in that work is a quite deliberate thing.

And Sibelius is not a conservative composer, he is a radical one. He's just not radical in the way that was approved by the avant garde atonal mob. He still believed in tonality, and to them that meant "conservative" despite that the fact that in matters of structure and development, Sibelius was crazy-radical.

[Ghost Sonata]

MILLE MERCIS, M. Brian, sans toi je ne l'aurais jamais lu!

As a Sibelius fan of monster proportions, I found much to think about in this diatribe and am going to spend some time with it.  First impressions:  whew!, fortunately, it lacks Adorno's excoriating and coruscating wit. (Brian - might be best to retain the second person you throughout your excellent trans. - he's addressing the reader directly, I believe.)  Sibelius was still alive when this was published and to poison pen it on the occasion of the master's 90th birthday shows that Leibowitz lacks judgement and taste and is more than a little jealous.  The dig at American conspicuous consumption shows there's more going on here than aesthetic disagreement. 

[Ghost Sonata]

There are a number of other sentences in that pamphlet that make me think this is the truest thing in the pamphlet.

For instance, a comparison of the 5th symphony to many other works of Sibelius will readily show that YES, the roughness of the harmony in that work is a quite deliberate thing.

And Sibelius is not a conservative composer, he is a radical one. He's just not radical in the way that was approved by the avant garde atonal mob. He still believed in tonality, and to them that meant "conservative" despite that the fact that in matters of structure and development, Sibelius was crazy-radical.

Yupper!

[Cato]

Not one specific example from one score is used to support one claim.  0:)

Au revoir, Monsieur Leibowitz! 

[zamyrabyrd]

The article itself is bizarre but so is this:
"This pertinent note is published on the occasion of the 90th birthday of the Finnish composer. 40 copies are printed on white vellum and 11 copies on "hollande antique", numbered 1 to 51 by the editor. The printing was conducted on 8 December 1955 by the National Invalids' Press of Liege."

Hope most of it went into the "round file".

[Karl Henning]

Celebrating his 90^th birthday by trash-talking his work.  Is that a French thing?  0:)

[zamyrabyrd]

Wagner (German) has his share of dissing composers he didn't like.

[Karl Henning]

To be sure!

[Karl Henning]

What I have been told is that this polemic (there was a similar one in German by Adorno writing in the early 1930s) was partly born of the frustration of proponents of early/mid 20th century avantgarde. They witnessed the popularity of Sibelius and took this as one reason for the unpopularity of Schoenberg.

I expect you're right, and that this was the old mindset that Music all marches in lockstep, and that if there are two Ways, only one of them can be true and worthy.

Probably most of us here who like Schoenberg, like Sibelius no less.

And if there is a sub-population of Sibelius-lovers who are not great fans of Schoenberg—why on earth hold that against them?

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

OT

George Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' is excellent in relation to Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

Yeah, that's how I know about it. I've never read Tolstoy's own pamphlet which was the subject of Orwell's essay.

Another Shakespeare denouncer was George Bernard Shaw. Karl Kraus said: "If Mr. Shaw attacks Shakespeare, he acts in justified self-defense."