"Sibelius, the Worst Composer in the World"

[Karl Henning]

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

Iced!

[Monsieur Croche]

From Wikipedia... Liebowitz was later than Adorno in jumping onto this "Sibelius is no good bandwagon."

In 1938 Theodor Adorno wrote a critical essay, notoriously charging that "If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'."  Adorno sent his essay to Virgil Thomson, then music critic of the New York Herald Tribune, who was also critical of Sibelius; Thomson, while agreeing with the essay's sentiment, declared to Adorno that "the tone of it [was] more apt to create antagonism toward [Adorno] than toward Sibelius".  Later, the composer, theorist and conductor René Leibowitz went so far as to describe Sibelius as "the worst composer in the world" in the title of a 1955 pamphlet.

[Ghost Sonata]

Take that Liebowitz : just 'cause of your rude and misguided and unprincipled denunciation of him, I am going to read Andrew Barnett's sizeable Sibelius biography.  Entire.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

[Cato]

Digging into the Adorno (never one of my favorites, for assorted reasons) controversy:

...Theodor W. Adorno. In 1938 he published a review of Bengt de Törne's book Sibelius: A Close-Up (Faber & Faber, London, 1937). He was irritated by the uncritical personality cult in that book, but his actual target was Sibelius. 'If Sibelius is good, then all criteria of musical excellence valid from Bach to Schoenberg, such as complexity, articulation, unity in diversity, multiplicity in oneness, are frail.' Sibelius's scores are a 'configuration of the banal and the absurd;' all details sound 'commonplace and familiar,' but their arrangement is meaningless, 'as if the words gas station, lunch, death, Greta, plough blade had been arbitrarily put together with verbs and particles....

For Adorno, Sibelius was a perfect example of what he called 'fetish character in music.' ...Sibelius was a dilettante who could neither write a four-part chorale nor work up proper counterpoint. Worst was that his music was tonal. 'When a contemporary composer, such as Jean Sibelius, makes do entirely with tonal resources, they sound just as false as do the tonal enclaves in atonal music.'...

The reverse side of Adorno's argument was political. In Hitler's Germany Sibelius had a strong position. Between 1933 and 1945 he was fourth in number of orchestral performances ...and any music inconsistent with the Nazi aesthetics (e.g. Webern and Hindemith) was banned. Sibelius had unwittingly ended up in the wrong company, and he had to pay for it after the war...

...The reason for his popularity in the Third Reich, in Adorno's interpretation, was that his music had certain features in common with Nazi nature mysticism: 'The Great Pan, also Blood and Soil when needed, promptly offers assistance. The trivial stands for the original, the inarticulate for the voice of unconscious creation.'...

...(Adorno) had a large number of single-minded devotees in contemporary music circles both there and in neighboring countries, such as Austria, Switzerland and France. One of them was ...René Leibowitz (1913–1972), (who)  published a pamphlet entitled Sibelius, le plus mauvais compositeur du monde (Sibelius, the world's worst composer), which is in fact a paraphrase of Adorno's book review from 1938. How much this little invective affected Sibelius's reputation in the francophone countries is difficult to estimate, but it may be symptomatic that one of Leibowitz's most influential students, Pierre Boulez, never has conducted a single work of Sibelius...

...(Constant) Lambert confirms that Sibelius's concern about the name of his symphonies was not unjustified. The Fourth Symphony (1911), for instance, 'although in every respect as remarkable and challenging a work as the famous "spot" pieces of Debussy, Stravinsky and Schönberg... seems to have made singularly little impact on the consciousness of the time, and even today it remains among the least comprehended and most neglected of his works. The reason is that it obstinately refuses to be fitted into any category, ancient or modern....

...Arnold Whittall, thinks on the same lines when speaking of the Fifth Symphony (1915/1919): 'It is scarcely surprising (though profoundly depressing) that such a radical yet organic transformation of the traditional sonata design should have passed uncomprehended.'...

...One of the first composers to apprehend Sibelius's radical but subtle innovations was Per Nørgård in Denmark....In France the Symphonies 5, 6 (1923) and 7 (1924) and the tone poem Tapiola (1926) inspired composers whose names are associated with 'spectral music,' such as Hugues Dufourt, Tristan Murail and Gérard Grisey, and more indirectly Alain Blanquart and Pascal Dusapin....British composers Peter Maxwell Davies, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen and Julian Anderson are devoted Sibelius enthusiasts. For Davies and Benjamin, the tempo transformation in the first movement of Sibelius's Fifth Symphony has been a model for a continuously unfolding structure, Knussen has mentioned Sibelius's textures and his powerful bass writing as major sources of interest, and the opening of Anderson's Symphony (2003) has been described in a review as 'Sibelius re-imagined by Ligeti'. In recent American music Sibelian undertones can be heard in pieces as different as Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (1985) and Steven Stucky's Second Concerto for Orchestra (2003)....

(My emphasis above)

"Your honor, in the matter of Adorno vs. Sibelius, the jury finds in favor of Sibelius."  0:)

See:

https://relatedrocks.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/the-sibelius-problem/

[Karl Henning]

. . . which is in fact a paraphrase of Adorno's book review from 1938 . . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, we have plagiarism!  0:)

[Ghost Sonata]

Cato, your mention of Boulez never having conducted a note of Sibelius, reminded me of a John Gardiner post I'd read on the Gramophone site about other non-conductors of the composer: 

"And while it's at cross-purposes with your original question [the best Sibelius conductors], the thing that stumps me is why so many major conductors have never (to my knowledge) conducted Sibelius symphonies. Where is the Haitink cycle, where is the Abbado, where is the Chailly? How did Giulini never conduct some of the late symphonies? Svetlanov seemed to conduct everything - but no Sibelius that I know of. Of course no conductor is obliged to conduct works for the sake of it (and indeed should avoid doing this), but given that there's surely no debate about Sibelius's greatness, what's going on here, do you think?"

[Cato]

Cato, your mention of Boulez never having conducted a note of Sibelius, reminded me of a John Gardiner post I'd read on the Gramophone site about other non-conductors of the composer: 

One can always say: "It's their loss."

On the other hand, perhaps the "subtlety" of the revolution in the music of Sibelius (mentioned in the article above) escaped those uninterested conductors as well.

Even if one could prove that Sibelius did no pushing of harmony, counterpoint, etc., the other-worldly, and (yes) enigmatic atmospheres of the works would be enough, should be enough, to intrigue any conductor.

But apparently not!

And by the way, concerning "Great Sibelius Conductors," allow me to mention the great advocate of the composer's music, Akeo Watanabe and the Japan Philharmonic.

[asin]B00000I75L[/asin]

[Ghost Sonata]

Another handful of dirt on Leibowitz's rep., Grove sez: "Leibowitz's claims of having met Schoenberg and studied with Webern in the early 1930s remain unsubstantiated  - it appears that his knowledge of their music was acquired primarily through intensive study of their scores..."

[Jo498]

"And while it's at cross-purposes with your original question [the best Sibelius conductors], the thing that stumps me is why so many major conductors have never (to my knowledge) conducted Sibelius symphonies. Where is the Haitink cycle, where is the Abbado, where is the Chailly? How did Giulini never conduct some of the late symphonies? Svetlanov seemed to conduct everything - but no Sibelius that I know of. Of course no conductor is obliged to conduct works for the sake of it (and indeed should avoid doing this), but given that there's surely no debate about Sibelius's greatness, what's going on here, do you think?"

They were obviously all brainwashed by Adorno and Leibowitz. Can't expect a conductor to think for himself, can you?

[Monsieur Croche]

On the other hand, perhaps the "subtlety" of the revolution in the music of Sibelius (mentioned in the article above) escaped those uninterested conductors as well.

I so seriously doubt this, as even the less famous conductors have in their skill sets the most basic requirements of readily understanding form and structure, a significant part of what conducting is about.  It might have been -- especially the later the date after the symphonies were written -- in Sibelius' harmonic language being found just less interesting than that of other contemporary composers of the same era, or that general trend (which was already at least slightly under way) away from the more classical romantic use of symphony as form, it was just not interesting enough to them.

Even if one could prove that Sibelius did no pushing of harmony, counterpoint, etc., the other-worldly, and (yes) enigmatic atmospheres of the works would be enough, should be enough, to intrigue any conductor.

Spoken like a true fan -- I find the Sibelius symphonies 'solid' writing, while they do none of that for me, demonstrating that both awareness of the 'bold new approach' to what goes into a symphony and where, and knowing (but not at all feelin') the emotional import as reported by so many -- is still not enough to convince.

There is always the practical factor which may have played in to some conductors and/or orchestras for that matter 'just not doing Sibelius.'  That being budget, most significantly the orchestra's budget and the recording label's budget -- re: how much was allocated and spent on more contemporay works due to copyright fees.  It is possible that budget for contemporary works was spent on other worksthought to be of greater interest insofar as being more 'contemporary sounding,' and that would have left Sibelius bumped off that budget list.

[Pat B]

"Never recorded" does not imply "never conducted," and "never conducted" does not imply "does not understand."

Unload on Leibowitz and Adorno, but I don't think we gain much from speculating on why Abbado/Chailly/Haitink didn't record Sibelius.

[Madiel]

Yes, I think going after conductors is a bit over the top. The fact is that no-one conducts (or, as has been pointed out, conducts and records) absolutely everything, and I expect you could pick any composer and start listing the people who don't have an entry in the recording catalogue.

It's not as if we have a shortage of recordings to choose from when it comes to the larger Sibelius orchestral works.

[Jo498]

Whatever one might think about Leibowitz' verdict his statement in the first paragraph that Sibelius' music was hardly known and not prominent in concerts in countries like France or Austria, was undoubtedly true in the 1950s and this seems independent of any polemics.

Of course, it is somewhat difficult to find out what some conductor conducted once or twice (and probably almost everyone conducted the violin concerto, almost the only work that used to be considerably well-known outside the anglo-scando-baltic sphere). But even 60 years later there seems to be exactly one  Sibelius cycle by a German conductor (Sanderling) and one (not quite complete) by the Austrian Karajan and none by someone from a Romance/Latin country. Haitink, Solti, Sawallisch, Munch, Abbado, Giulini, Muti, Chailly, Barenboim: nichts, nada, niente, rien. Compare this to dozens, often repeated recordings by anglo-scando-baltic musicians.

And almost no single recordings either, except for the violin concerto. This might be partly due to the fact that the music was not all that popular in the respective countries/cultures (and still isn't), so record labels did not bother. Or it might be because these musicians did not much care for the music. As should be their right. And almost all of them are far more competent in musical things than most people on this board, a few professionals excepted. Neither do they need Leibowitz to tell them what music they find interesting enough to study and conduct.

[Monsieur Croche]

"Never recorded" does not imply "never conducted," and "never conducted" does not imply "does not understand."

Unload on Leibowitz and Adorno, but I don't think we gain much from speculating on why Abbado/Chailly/Haitink didn't record Sibelius.

I couldn't agree more! I also think that comment 'Their Loss' (i.e. never having conducted Sibelius' music) is another transferred / projected item that only a true fan[atic] could make... as if those conductors did not have terrific and full careers conducting tons of great repertoire, possibly premiering new works, opera, conducting recordings, etc. 

Upon retirement, I can not imagine a one of them retrospectively contemplating their careers and sighing, "Gosh, I wish I'd been able to get around to Sibelius."

[Madiel]

Whatever one might think about Leibowitz' verdict his statement in the first paragraph that Sibelius' music was hardly known and not prominent in concerts in countries like France or Austria, was undoubtedly true in the 1950s and this seems independent of any polemics.

Of course, it is somewhat difficult to find out what some conductor conducted once or twice (and probably almost everyone conducted the violin concerto, almost the only work that used to be considerably well-known outside the anglo-scando-baltic sphere). But even 60 years later there seems to be exactly one  Sibelius cycle by a German conductor (Sanderling) and one (not quite complete) by the Austrian Karajan and none by someone from a Romance/Latin country. Haitink, Solti, Sawallisch, Munch, Abbado, Giulini, Muti, Chailly, Barenboim: nichts, nada, niente, rien. Compare this to dozens, often repeated recordings by anglo-scando-baltic musicians.

And almost no single recordings either, except for the violin concerto. This might be partly due to the fact that the music was not all that popular in the respective countries/cultures (and still isn't), so record labels did not bother. Or it might be because these musicians did not much care for the music. As should be their right. And almost all of them are far more competent in musical things than most people on this board, a few professionals excepted. Neither do they need Leibowitz to tell them what music they find interesting enough to study and conduct.

But is Sibelius a special case with this geographic distribution?

I doubt it. If you look at the recordings available of most English or Scandinavian composers, I suspect you would probably find that most of those recordings come from the same regions and not from the central part of Europe.

That Germanic musicians tend to focus on Germanic music is not earth-shattering news, the difference is that Germanic music managed to spread its influence far and wide so that non-Germanic musicians also expect to play it. French music has also tended to succeed further afield. English and Scandinavian music has generally not succeeded in exerting a similar influence.

[Jo498]

You are right. It is not really a special thing. But imagine a similar polemic as Leibowitz' against Elgar or Pfitzner. Would it provoke such astonished reactions? Probably not. Because Elgar was mainly popular in Britain and Pfitzner is not even popular in Germany.

It's more that in the case of Sibelius most of us now tend to think of him as a "internationally relevant" composer, not as a regional/national style. Bruckner is a similar case. While prominent Italians have conducted lots of Bruckner now, his music was almost restricted to Germany and especially Austria until the 1960s or so. But now we do not really think of Bruckner as a regional speciality anymore.
But the truth is that both of these composers are still far more popular in some regions that in others, unlike, I guess Stravinsky or Richard Strauss.

When I began listening to classical music in the mid/late 1980s I did not encounter Sibelius at all. I do not remember when I first heard any of his music, it was probably Finlandia and many years later. It was not until I read international discussion groups on classical music in the mid 1990s that I realized how highly regarded the composer was in the anglophone world.
One of the most popular guidebooks to classical music in German, "Reclams Konzertführer", new edition from 1998, has 13 pages on Sibelius and 10-11 on Reger, (compare: R. Strauss 25, Mozart 64).

One has to take this into account because while the main issue for Adorno and Leibowitz was their frustration because of the lack of success of 20th century avantgarde they seem to have been genuinely puzzled at Sibelius's success in some musical cultures whereas it was fairly limited in France and Germany. I guess that neither would have had such a problem with respecting Sibelius as a Finnish regional composer, comparable to Elgar. But the elevation of an apparently merely local figure to the "greatest living composer" provoked such reactions alongside their defensive stance as champions of the avantgarde.

[Madiel]

Yes, some very good points there.

It's interesting that some Americans on the forum have very recently expressed their frustration that American music is rarely considered elsewhere. I think there are expectations about where an internationally relevant composer "should" come from, built on notions of the traditions that are, subliminally, required.

Once upon a time it perhaps made more sense because there weren't such things as easy travel and recordings. But I don't know if it ever made complete sense, and these days there's no reason why a great musical talent can't have arrived from anywhere.

The one thing that is still uneven, though, is resources. In the same way that athletes often have to move to Europe or America for the best facilities, the music schools and orchestras are still most concentrated in those places. They have the money and they have the population density.

[Karl Henning]

"Never recorded" does not imply "never conducted," and "never conducted" does not imply "does not understand."

Indeed.

[Karl Henning]

Another handful of dirt on Leibowitz's rep., Grove sez: "Leibowitz's claims of having met Schoenberg and studied with Webern in the early 1930s remain unsubstantiated  - it appears that his knowledge of their music was acquired primarily through intensive study of their scores..."

Of course, there is no shame in that last (says someone whose knowledge of their music is entirely through study of the scores, and listening to recordings).  There is the odd chance of his having met Schoenberg, and no one else recollecting that fact in publication;  less of a chance, perhaps, of his studying with Webern and there being no sort of record.

I guess that was just a sort of See? The torch has been passed to me, too! moment.

(Separately: the record corroborates that I studied with Wuorinen)

[Karl Henning]

I so seriously doubt this, as even the less famous conductors have in their skill sets the most basic requirements of readily understanding form and structure, a significant part of what conducting is about.  It might have been -- especially the later the date after the symphonies were written -- in Sibelius' harmonic language being found just less interesting than that of other contemporary composers of the same era, or that general trend (which was already at least slightly under way) away from the more classical romantic use of symphony as form, it was just not interesting enough to them.

As I read your perceptive answer, I do think you may underscore Cato's speculative point that the subtlety of Sibelius's achievement eluded them, for your very reasons.