After Mahler comes Sibelius ...

[Luke]

I might but only regarding Sibelius. Texture is hugely important for late 20th century composers, including Feldman - but I would cite a composer such as Debussy before Sibelius.  Also, I think Erik Satie is more of an influence for Feldman and the NY school in general precisely because of his extra-musical ideas.

If you downplay the importance of texture in Sibelius you downplay one of the most significant features of his music, though. Just look at one of his scores - just a single page, where you can't see development taking place, but where you can see the distilled essence of Sibelius's sound. It looks like no one else - or at least, like no one else until these late 20th composers we've discussing, composers as disparate as the spectralists, Feldman, Benjamin, John Adams and John Luther Adams, Lindberg, Hillborg, I could go on. I think this tells us a lot about the central role it plays in his music.

BTW, just a side thought, prompted by the line 'I would find it hard to believe that Sibelius was more alive in their ears than Debussy. Well, I can't speak for the spectralists, but George Benjamin, Dan Grimley the editor of that Sibelius book, and indeed yours truly, were all taught by the composer Robin Holloway at Cambridge - a leading expert on Debussy and Wagner among other things, and the least likely person to give credit to Sibelius where it was due to Debussy. When I was there Holloway gave a series of lectures which focused particularly on a) the importance of Sibelius for precisely the reasons we're talking about and b) a direct comparison between Sibelius' and Mahler's aesthetics. I'm not sure if Dan or George Benjamin had quite those same lectures (Dam more likely, he's much closer to my age), but I can certainly see how these ideas are transmitted.

Robin spent a lot of time on Luonnotar, and now I'm thinking about about e.g. those odd harp glissandi in that piece - real sonorous objects in the Messiaen line, in the line that leads to Feldman...

[Sean]

Karajan's brooding if still slightly studied classic 1965 recording of Sibelius 4-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl_q1QDkiiw

[Sean]

Luke, I'm also particularly interested in music that moves under its own logic, out of it's own material, not under externally imposed structures. Minimalism is included here as although there are pre-given forms these are lost in the experience and its ever fresh moment.

Karl

[Luke]

Luke, I'm also particularly interested in music that moves under its own logic, out of it's own material, not under externally imposed structures. Minimalism is included here as although there are pre-given forms these are lost in the experience and its ever fresh moment.

Yes, I thought as much - that's why I think JLA will appeal to you. I hope I'm right. Try this playlist, maybe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv44NMJbwak&list=PL4sapy99eYWpldkGXTExShEKvRWx5eR53

[San Antone]

If you downplay the importance of texture in Sibelius you downplay one of the most significant features of his music, though. Just look at one of his scores - just a single page, where you can't see development taking place, but where you can see the distilled essence of Sibelius's sound. It looks like no one else - or at least, like no one else until these late 20th composers we've discussing, composers as disparate as the spectralists, Feldman, Benjamin, John Adams and John Luther Adams, Lindberg, Hillborg, I could go on. I think this tells us a lot about the central role it plays in his music.

BTW, just a side thought, prompted by the line 'I would find it hard to believe that Sibelius was more alive in their ears than Debussy. Well, I can't speak for the spectralists, but George Benjamin, Dan Grimley the editor of that Sibelius book, and indeed yours truly, were all taught by the composer Robin Holloway at Cambridge - a leading expert on Debussy and Wagner among other things, and the least likely person to give credit to Sibelius where it was due to Debussy. When I was there Holloway gave a series of lectures which focused particularly on a) the importance of Sibelius for precisely the reasons we're talking about and b) a direct comparison between Sibelius' and Mahler's aesthetics. I'm not sure if Dan or George Benjamin had quite those same lectures (Dam more likely, he's much closer to my age), but I can certainly see how these ideas are transmitted.

Robin spent a lot of time on Luonnotar, and now I'm thinking about about e.g. those odd harp glissandi in that piece - real sonorous objects in the Messiaen line, in the line that leads to Feldman...

Interesting, and I do not doubt that Sibelius was in Feldman's ears, so to speak - he admitted that the 5th symphony was a favorite work, and even had students analyse it along with the Webern Symphony - I simply question the depth of real influence.  Aside from Cage (and even this ended fairly early), when Feldman would speak of influences he almost always referenced, not other composers, but painters. 

There were many composers whose music Feldman loved, Webern for example, but whose influence can't really be accredited since Feldman was also very critical of the manner of 20th century conceptions of composition, especially of Boulez and Schoenberg, aside from his compatriots in the NY School.

So my quibbling is not over if Sibelius's music had an impact on Feldman nor to question the greatness in general of Sibelius's music, but to just reinforce the point that if there ever was a composer who could carry off the label sui generis, I would nominate Feldman.

[Luke]

Interesting, and I do not doubt that Sibelius was in Feldman's ears, so to speak - he admitted that the 5th symphony was a favorite work, and even had students analyse it along with the Webern Symphony - I simply question the depth of real influence.  Aside from Cage (and even this ended fairly early), when Feldman would speak of influences he almost always referenced, not other composers, but painters. 

There were many composers whose music Feldman loved, Webern for example, but whose influence can't really be accredited since Feldman was also very critical of the manner of 20th century conceptions of composition, especially of Boulez and Schoenberg, aside from his compatriots in the NY School.

So my quibbling is not over if Sibelius's music had an impact on Feldman nor to question the greatness in general of Sibelius's music, but to just reinforce the point that if there ever was a composer who could carry off the label sui generis, I would nominate Feldman.

Can't argue with any of that! I'd that Feldman is a special, isolated case - we can point to x and y and say that it has similarities to other composers, but that is not really the point. I totally agree. But OTOH the point was being made (not by you, and years ago) that Sibelius has had almost no influence on other composer compared to Mahler, and I think that's worth rebutting.

What strikes me, as I said before, is that Mahler is a composer right in the centre of the great Teutonic line, he comes straight from Brahms, Liszt and Wagner and goes straight to Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. The origins of Sibelius are more mysterious, and the places he goes to were not immediately apparent. They still aren't to many listeners, I suspect, because many listeners centre themselves around that Teutonic line so strongly. But they are there, and they emerged later. My comment about Holloway and his lectures was meant as a small illustration of how these influences might emerge so many years after the fact.

What also strikes me is that there have been these dichotomies before - two great composers side by side, one traditionally seen as more central to the tradition and more influential on his immediate followers than the other, but the influence of the other emerging strongly later on. I'm thinking Beethoven-Schubert, Brahms-Bruckner as well as Mahler-Sibelius. Interesting to me is that these three 'others' - Schubert, Bruckner, Sibelius - share certain things, and those things are often to do with proto-minimalist textures, with 'heavenly length' and so on.... Just musing out loud.

[San Antone]

... the point was being made (not by you, and years ago) that Sibelius has had almost no influence on other composer compared to Mahler, and I think that's worth rebutting.

What strikes me, as I said before, is that Mahler is a composer right in the centre of the great Teutonic line, he comes straight from Brahms, Liszt and Wagner and goes straight to Schoenberg, Berg and Webern. The origins of Sibelius are more mysterious, and the places he goes to were not immediately apparent.

Agreed and all worth thinking about. 

[North Star]

Interesting, and I do not doubt that Sibelius was in Feldman's ears, so to speak - he admitted that the 5th symphony was a favorite work, and even had students analyse it along with the Webern Symphony - I simply question the depth of real influence.

So my quibbling is not over if Sibelius's music had an impact on Feldman nor to question the greatness in general of Sibelius's music, but to just reinforce the point that if there ever was a composer who could carry off the label sui generis, I would nominate Feldman.

I suppose it's just a matter of how one defines the words 'real' and 'influence', but I certainly agree that Feldman's music isn't just a personal 'mixture' of influences, and that he developed his ideas far further into his own direction than his predecessors.

[Sean]

Hey Luke, I'm wading through JL Adams's Become ocean.

I'm afraid I have to tell you I'm not convinced by his work that I've skipped through on YT, and I'm sure you're not; Become ocean seems the least tedious, and its pretty tedious. Happy to agree to disagree as nec.

Music is over- done, dusted and filed away.

[Luke]

Hi Sean,

don't worry, no 'I'm afraid I have to tell you...' required - I'm not an especial fan of JL Adams' work and in fact I don't really know it very well, as may be clear from what I've already posted. I do like his ideas, though, and I like his 'otherness,' the way he operates from outside the academy, as it were. From way out in the wilderness, in fact. I wasn't sure if you'd go for it or not, but I thought perhaps you'd respond to that otherness and to the way it is expressed through a close focus on intervals and harmony, and a kind of rough-edge yet radiant minimalism. But I knew it was a tall order - you're a hard man to please, Sean! However I'm happy to tell you that though music may be over for you, I reckon there's life in the old dog, still, and to me JLA is one of the ways its wagging tail manifests itself. He's different, an authentic American maverick, and I like that very much.

[Karl Henning]

Hi Sean,

don't worry, no 'I'm afraid I have to tell you...' required - I'm not an especial fan of JL Adams' work and in fact I don't really know it very well, as may be clear from what I've already posted. I do like his ideas, though, and I like his 'otherness,' the way he operates from outside the academy, as it were. From way out in the wilderness, in fact. I wasn't sure if you'd go for it or not, but I thought perhaps you'd respond to that otherness and to the way it is expressed through a close focus on intervals and harmony, and a kind of rough-edge yet radiant minimalism. But I knew it was a tall order - you're a hard man to please, Sean! However I'm happy to tell you that though music may be over for you, I reckon there's life in the old dog, still, and to me JLA is one of the ways its wagging tail manifests itself. He's different, an authentic American maverick, and I like that very much.

I've had Become Ocean on the shelf a little while now, but I've yet to listen . . . will need to address that, soon 

[Sean]

Luke, Karl

Well I've listened to quite a lot of second rate music. Each new composer has their own voice and ideas so the process has indeed been enriching, but there's a diminishing return and I certainly hold that there is overwhelming evidence that all major areas of musical expression have been thoroughly explored and that the art is exhausted and bankrupt.

Moreover you're my age range if I remember and we lived through the end stages of the period of great recordings and the great artists for them. The tremendous storehouse of the core repertory and beyond had yet to be committed to disc and they had that work to do. But, my friends, it's now, largely, been done. There is no more music, no more worthwhile recordings, and no more significant artists. How could there be? Anyone with such abilities sees the situation, the postmodern mess, and does something else.

Become ocean is a cross between Gloria Coates, Steve Reich, and a John Williams pretender's hack work. There are worse things to listen to however...

[Karl Henning]

Luke, Karl

Well I've listened to quite a lot of second rate music. Each new composer has their own voice and ideas so the process has indeed been enriching, but there's a diminishing return and I certainly hold that there is overwhelming evidence that all major areas of musical expression have been thoroughly explored and that the art is exhausted and bankrupt.

I think we all have listened to our fair share of second-rate music.  I don't see it as any matter of diminishing return;  if the work is beautiful and well-made, that is a full and fair return.  I should probably agree that "all major areas of musical expression have been [well] explored," but that does nothing to forestall fresh invention.  You do yourself a disservice by jading yourself to that fresh invention.

[North Star]

Just because one doesn't know what artists should be doing next, doesn't mean that they should stop doing their work.
But, people doing something shouldn't interrupt the man saying it can't be done. . .

[Karl Henning]

No!  The man saying it cannot be done is an easy benchmark to surpass 

[Karl Henning]

I think we all have listened to our fair share of second-rate music.

And, BTW, the artist turns even the experience of listening to second-rate music to some artistic purpose.

[North Star]

And, BTW, the artist turns even the experience of listening to second-rate music to some artistic purpose.

Or perhaps especially those.

[San Antone]

What's second rate music? 

[Florestan]

What's second rate music?

Music that takes a second more to like, as opposed to music that you likes instantly. 

[Mirror Image]

Luke, Karl

Well I've listened to quite a lot of second rate music. Each new composer has their own voice and ideas so the process has indeed been enriching, but there's a diminishing return and I certainly hold that there is overwhelming evidence that all major areas of musical expression have been thoroughly explored and that the art is exhausted and bankrupt.

Moreover you're my age range if I remember and we lived through the end stages of the period of great recordings and the great artists for them. The tremendous storehouse of the core repertory and beyond had yet to be committed to disc and they had that work to do. But, my friends, it's now, largely, been done. There is no more music, no more worthwhile recordings, and no more significant artists. How could there be? Anyone with such abilities sees the situation, the postmodern mess, and does something else.

Become ocean is a cross between Gloria Coates, Steve Reich, and a John Williams pretender's hack work. There are worse things to listen to however...

Holy jaded post, Batman! I think you've simply dug your own hole here. If you don't believe there isn't anything worthwhile in classical music anymore, then why continue to post here and try to argue a point with a majority of people who oppose your view? I still think there's good work to be done regardless of what you say.