After Mahler comes Sibelius ...

[Mark]

... it is tempting to say that it may be why he was able to write such subtle and delicate passages in his orchestral music ...

I think again of the Second Symphony's sublime opening. I can't tell you what wonderful images and feelings it conjures up for me. The music feels alive and 'real', like the kind of painting you believe for a moment that you could step inside.

[The new erato]

Yip. Stravinsky also achieved a similar stripping-back beginning at the same time, but it required a complete break with romanticism, even Schoenberg who considered himself a romantic (I believe) went much further from romanticism than Sibelius when exacting his changes. Sibelius just found an area in romanticism that had been overlooked, and mined it very effectively. As a result, despite being radical, it can remain very understandable and enjoyable to someone who likes romantic music in a way that the other composers I named can frequently not.

See my latest post in the thread "Great Stravinsky bargain" where I make the same point regarding Stravinsky and refer to this thread without being aware of your post. Amazing!

[Bogey]

And then there are those like me Mark that just start and end with the 'sorbet'.  

Think I should just clarify my thread title: I'm not suggesting that immediately after listening to Mahler, I turn to Sibelius. I'm talking more about the progress of musical history - where Mahler is High Romanticism, Sibelius is, for me, Late Romanticism but with a sense of what was, at the time, modern in music.

No, you were clear as a bell the first time Mark.  I am just one of the few on the planet that does not care for Mahler much. 

[longears]

Think I should just clarify my thread title: I'm not suggesting that immediately after listening to Mahler, I turn to Sibelius. I'm talking more about the progress of musical history - where Mahler is High Romanticism, Sibelius is, for me, Late Romanticism but with a sense of what was, at the time, modern in music.

For me, Sibelius is quintessentially modern.  At the very dawn of the 20th Century he abandoned, reinterpreted, and remade old forms, stripping away the inessential.  And he was so singular that despite his influence over more than a century his voice remains unique and instantly identifiable.  He is to music what Mies is to architecture, Williams to poetry, Hemingway to fiction, Rothko to painting.

Mainstream views learned by rote regard Schoenberg and his followers as modern and exclude those who didn't get with his program.  This is akin to regarding something equally programmatic in painting--say, Cubism--as the exemplar of modernism, to the exclusion of all the other "isms" that provide multiple choice questions for beginning art history exams.

[DavidW]

I've long held a view that Sibelius 'rescued' the Symphony from the peaks of High Romanticism - best embodied for me in the symphonies of Mahler.

Sibelius was a Romantic composer, so I have to disagree.

What do I mean by 'rescued'? I mean that Sibelius took onboard what had gone before, but 'scaled down' his symphonies to levels which seem to me to be less 'hysterical' or 'overblown', but which nonetheless possess great colour and emotion.

I have to disagree, Mahler's music is not hysterical or overblown.

Indeed, I often find it refreshing to hear a Sibelius symphony after listening to two or three symphonies by Mahler: it has a kind of cleansing, 'sorbet' effect on my musical palate.

Mahler, or for that matter any other composer, was never meant to be listened to in marathon sessions, all you've done is payed a Mahler a disservice.  And you don't measure the quality of a composer based on your ability to listen to his/her music in long marathons without getting tired.  One should judge classical music based on artistic merit, we're not talking about Led Zeppelin here!

I'm not suggesting that my view is supported by facts, or that it is 'right' or 'true'. But I do wonder whether anyone else here feels the same or similar; and I'd particularly like to know what others who don't share my view (in whole or in part) think of it.

Sibelius was inspired by Wagner but wrote music closer to Tchaikovsky, and Bruckner, and Sibelius was not the successor to Mahler, is not a revolutionary Modernist (he was a Romantic composer).  Your arrow of time/progress is not really there.  There is no accounting for tastes, you can't say Sibelius > Mahler and expect it to be meaningful.  They were different artists striving for different things. 

And if you were thinking well Sibelius showed the world how to write short works (a) it's been done before lol, and (b) most of the 20th century symphonists followed Mahler's lead.

[DavidW]

About length--

Not enjoying a long work is your problem.  The quality of a work is not inversely proportional to it's duration.

Using the logic I've seen from a few posters you could also say

(a) clearly Bach's St. Matthew Passion is vastly inferior to his Cantatas because it's so much longer,

(b) or clearly since Handel's Messiah is so much longer than Vivaldi's Concertos, Handel must be an inferior composer, not as great as Vivaldi.

Do you the see problem here?  Having a work be long and emotionally draining has nothing to do with it's artistic merit, it just means that you won't be listening to it on a daily basis.  And is that bad?  Is great music meant to be listened to all the time as if it was elevator music?

[Novi]

I'd say it depends on the interpretation as well.

Take the 2nd, for instance. Someone like Bernstein brings out the Romantic elements - big, sweeping melodies, that kind of thing - while a cooler approach, say Vänskä, is more pared down, more 'modernist.'

Mark, I know you're referring to the course of music history, but for myself, I like to go backwards chronologically to a bit of crystalline Mozart or Haydn as post-Mahler palate cleanser . 

[DavidW]

I'd say it depends on the interpretation as well.

Take the 2nd, for instance. Someone like Bernstein brings out the Romantic elements - big, sweeping melodies, that kind of thing - while a cooler approach, say Vänskä, is more pared down, more 'modernist.'

Mark, I know you're referring to the course of music history, but for myself, I like to go backwards chronologically to a bit of crystalline Mozart or Haydn as post-Mahler palette cleanser . 

But the same can be said for Mahler as well.  Contrast Bernstein's vision of Mahler to Gielen or Boulez's vision.  There is so much wiggle room because of the ambiguity of late-late Romanticism, but they are still both Romantic composers.  The first composer I can think of that really did break from Romanticism was Webern.

[George]

Yes, exactly. Whereas I sometimes feel like Mahler wanted to say everything in his symphonies, Sibelius seems to me to be able to say every bit as much ... even in his silences.

Agreed.

[The new erato]

Whereas I regard Mahler as one of the last (great) Romantics I regard Sibelius as one of the first modernists (along with Debussy). I don't know why - but I've always felt that Mahler look backwards, summing up the world as he knew it - while Sibeilus looks forward, charting out unknown waters and pointing out the possibilities ahead.

[Lethevich]

Sibelius was inspired by Wagner but wrote music closer to Tchaikovsky, and Bruckner, and Sibelius was not the successor to Mahler, is not a revolutionary Modernist (he was a Romantic composer).  Your arrow of time/progress is not really there.  There is no accounting for tastes, you can't say Sibelius > Mahler and expect it to be meaningful.  They were different artists striving for different things. 

He rejected Wagner eventually as well, though (sort of like Debussy). I consider him quite apart from Tchaikovsky and Bruckner. Those composers also had a personal style, and Bruckner especially both represented high romanticism at its largest, but also pointed towards the future (both in changes of tonality and minimalism), but to some degree both those composers were more entrenched in romanticism than Sibelius IMHO (although I would never argue that Sibelius was not a romantic, or even "mostly not" a romantic), with repeating themes and sonata form construction. Sibelius also used these, but also subverted traditional sonata form in more personal and drastic ways than, say, Tchaikovsky inserting a false ending into the first movement of his 6th symphony, or having a quiet ending to the final movement - there is a much tauter and leaner use ideas and instrumentation in Sibelius which was very hard to find during late romanticism, and as such is more radical than one-upmanship in making works larger and larger.

I definitely don't have an issue with length. During the time I could listen to Mahler's 7th, I could listen to 6 Sibelius tone poems. I don't consider one inherently better or worse, I just prefer the second option more often than not. If I was obsessed with brevity, I'd only listen to grindcore

[longears]

Having a work be long and emotionally draining has nothing to do with it's artistic merit....

That depends upon your aesthetic sensibilities.  For some of us--especially those of us conditioned by the modernist aesthetic--length has much to do with artistic merit.  Not length in and of itself, but rather in proportion to other aspects of a work.  Bigger is not necessarily better, nor is it necessarily worse.  But economy of means and expression is itself to be prized--whether in a painting, a symphony, or a mathematical proof.

Regarding Sibelius as a Romantic composer seems to me an instance of having been sufficiently conditioned by rote learning and belief that it's difficult to see without imposing one's preconceptions on the subject.

[The new erato]

That depends upon your aesthetic sensibilities.  For some of us--especially those of us conditioned by the modernist aesthetic--length has much to do with artistic merit.  Not length in and of itself, but rather in proportion to other aspects of a work.  Bigger is not necessarily better, nor is it necessarily worse.  But economy of means and expression is itself to be prized--whether in a painting, a symphony, or a mathematical proof.

Regarding Sibelius as a Romantic composer seems to me an instance of having been sufficiently conditioned by rote learning and belief that it's difficult to see without imposing one's preconceptions on the subject.

You are almost quoting me here from one of the countless Mahler theads where I wrote to the effect that there is a tendency for manny to equate length, big orchestras and violent dynamics with greatness to the tune of bigger is better, whereas (I wrote) bigger is simply that, ie bigger.

[DavidW]

That depends upon your aesthetic sensibilities.  For some of us--especially those of us conditioned by the modernist aesthetic--length has much to do with artistic merit.  Not length in and of itself, but rather in proportion to other aspects of a work.

Length in proportion to what other aspects of the work?  You're being too vague, please elaborate on what you've said.

Bigger is not necessarily better, nor is it necessarily worse.  But economy of means and expression is itself to be prized--whether in a painting, a symphony, or a mathematical proof.

Well actually economy of means in a proof is usually not what people who have studied mathematics seriously think.  The proof that shows most clearly the reason why something is true is to be more highly admired than the shortest, because usually the shortest proof is the one with a trick that does the job, but doesn't really explain anything.

And what does economy of expression mean in paintings?  Are you saying that minimalism is the highest goal one can reach in art?  That sounds like a strange bias or filter.  I guess this needs elaboration, economy of means only makes sense if you know what the goal is, i.e. what shortcuts are you taking to reach it?

Regarding Sibelius as a Romantic composer seems to me an instance of having been sufficiently conditioned by rote learning and belief that it's difficult to see without imposing one's preconceptions on the subject.

I could the say the same for believing that Modernism is only the aesthetic that Webern followed.  How much 20th century and 21st century music have you listened to?  It's just dead wrong to say that they all go for the short and sweet.  I have heard long symphonies, huge chamber works, enormous requiems that just completely blow the idea of elegant economy as the driving force completely out of the water.  Your interpretation of 20th century music is deeply flawed or simply too narrow in scope.

[DavidW]

Lethe stop with pointing to the future stuff.  Sibelius was almost a dead end in music.  Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, Strauss all those late Romantics that many Modern composers hate played a more tremendous role in shaping Western European music in the 20th century.

The rest of your post only affirmed what I said-- late late Romanticism is very different from middle Romanticism, but that doesn't make late Romanticism Modern.  All you have argued is that the end of Romanticism is very different from the middle period, which I agreed with.

[Lethevich]

Sibelius was almost a dead end in music.  Mahler, Wagner, Bruckner, Strauss all those late Romantics that many Modern composers hate played a more tremendous role in shaping Western European music in the 20th century.

I am not saying that Sibelius had a great influence (he wasn't German, after all ), he perfected his branch of romanticism in a way that nobody could equal even if they tried. (Although he was a substantial influence on a lot of British symphonists.) Looking over trends of 20th century music, including the styles of Webern, Stravinsky and others, which were in differing ways about escaping the lengthy music of late romanticism, then Sibelius's economy of forms prove to be prophetic. While it requires equal compositional genius to write these larger and larger works, which result in Wagner's operas and Mahler's symphonies, that required much less of a stretch of imagination to concieve - it's just the thought that "I will go bigger". But to turn back on the culture of ever-expanding symphonies, as well as the increasing instrumentation and incorporating diffuse subjects into the pieces (like folk/popular music in Mahler), that is more radical than you give credit for, IMO.

The rest of your post only affirmed what I said-- late late Romanticism is very different from middle Romanticism, but that doesn't make late Romanticism Modern.  All you have argued is that the end of Romanticism is very different from the middle period, which I agreed with.

I am arguing that Sibelius (as a romantic) is completely different from any other late romantic composer in more dramatic ways than the rest differ from each other, making him more progressive if not more influential.

Edit: To clarify, I also consider Mahler one of the most original of the late romantics, mainly for his orchestration and sheer mass of sound, rather than form, and also as being more influential from composers of movie music to Shostakovich. Sibelius both advances form towards neoclassicism and also provides his own unique solutions, orchestration-wise, in a moder advanced and free-thinking way than, say, Tchaikovsky.

[BachQ]

I mean that Sibelius took onboard what had gone before, but 'scaled down' his symphonies to levels which seem to me to be less 'hysterical' or 'overblown', but which nonetheless possess great colour and emotion. Indeed, I often find it refreshing to hear a Sibelius symphony after listening to two or three symphonies by Mahler: it has a kind of cleansing, 'sorbet' effect on my musical palate.

Frankly, comparing Mahler and Sibelius is a doomed proposition.  They are vastly different composers with vastly different goals and vastly different musical languages.  Why compare Sibelius to ANY composer.

But, carry on. 

[DavidW]

I am not saying that Sibelius had a great influence (he wasn't German, after all ), he perfected his branch of romanticism in a way that nobody could equal even if they tried. (Although he was a substantial influence on a lot of British symphonists.) Looking over trends of 20th century music, including the styles of Webern, Stravinsky and others, which were in differing ways about escaping the lengthy music of late romanticism

Below I explain how you are fallaciously identify all music with only one genre, and then compound your problem by identifying an entire era based on the output of only two composers within that genre

Webern wrote how many symphonies now?  And Stravinsky?  And why would you say that Stravinsky escaped lengthy music when he wrote several large scale, long ballets?  And were piano and chamber works from the late Romantic era overly lengthy?  Nope. The only thing you have is wow Sibelius didn't write symphonies that were as long as Mahler and Bruckner.  Yeah so what?  Most of the Romantic composers didn't write symphonies as long as those wise guys.  There was a reason why Mahler's 1st had the title of Titan slapped on it, as if mocking him.

The rest of your post is completely wrong, and I had already addressed that issue in my previous posts, so I won't repeat myself unless I have to.

[DavidW]

Frankly, comparing Mahler and Sibelius is a doomed proposition.  They are vastly different composers with vastly different goals and vastly different musical languages.  Why compare Sibelius to ANY composer.

But, carry on. 

Yeah exactly, awesome, right to the point.  They are so different, why is one supposed to be better than the other?  It just seems silly to do Mahler vs. Sibelius in the first place!

[Lethevich]

Below I explain how you are fallaciously identify all music with only one genre, and then compound your problem by identifying an entire era based on the output of only two composers within that genre

Webern wrote how many symphonies now?  And Stravinsky?  And why would you say that Stravinsky escaped lengthy music when he wrote several large scale, long ballets?  And were piano and chamber works from the late Romantic era overly lengthy?  Nope. The only thing you have is wow Sibelius didn't write symphonies that were as long as Mahler and Bruckner.  Yeah so what?  Most of the Romantic composers didn't write symphonies as long as those wise guys.  There was a reason why Mahler's 1st had the title of Titan slapped on it, as if mocking him.

Romantic music became so identified with the symphony, and the audience prioritising that form most highly, that it was impossible to avoid. I guess that orchestral music in general is better to use for an example. Chamber and solo music I set aside, as it is less to do with the composer intending to make "grand public statement" (which romanticism made clear was very much to be done in a symphony or non chamber-work like an opera) - chamber music is a more practical form.

For example, compare the length of Stravinsky's mature ballets compared to either 19th century ones or Prokofiev's Romeo & Juliet. Rite is 35 minutes long IIRC, and these ballets are among his longer works. Ballets by many other composers can't fit onto a single CD. His violin concerto (a very standard form) is 20 minutes long.

Similar compacting allowed Sibelius to say many things in his 7th symphony despite it being a few minutes over 20 in length. I am not trying to troll or be obstinate to you, I just do not understand how this can not be considered as foreshadowing and in some ways representing much 20th century classical music in a very radical way, and in no way can be compared to Tchaikovsky, who was very much of his time. Mahler is at the other end of the spectrum to Sibelius, and I have already stated that his music is in an entirely different style, but this style is one which the romantic era kept pointing towards: larger, encompassing "everything". It took 70 years from Beethovens 9th, through Bruckner's 5th to reach Mahler's 3rd, in a gradual expanding of symphonic form.

This is what I find remarkable about Sibelius, who instead of this, composed his "grand statement" works such as symphonies and tone poems to be progressively more condensed. While there were also Brahms and Dvorak writing more moderate length symphonies during the same time, they were writing looking backward to Beethoven for example, wheras Sibelius's condensing (which went further than them) began with an admiration of Wagner's grand music, then through his own vision developing his own style radically developed it into something unprecidented. I guess that if you cannot accept this reasoning then I cannot elaborate on it further - it's proving difficult to put this into words.

Yeah exactly, awesome, right to the point.  They are so different, why is one supposed to be better than the other?  It just seems silly to do Mahler vs. Sibelius in the first place!

I hope that I haven't implied that I consider Sibelius objectively "better" than Mahler, and if I have I would like it pointed out so that I can correct myself. I only intended to mention my personal preference for Sibelius's music.