After Mahler comes Sibelius ...

[DavidW]

I'm tired of arguing I'm done.  Hey you want to say you win, fine you win.

I explained more than once how this whole Sibelius shows a trend is just a product of a narrow outlook on the 20th century, and identifying late Romanticism with only Mahler is the same.  I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. 

I only posted on here because I wanted to debunk this crap that Sibelius was somehow superior to Mahler for being progressive, visionary, and all that other rubbish.  And I hate that whole economy of means crap.  As if the composers of the 20th century weren't inspired by dense orchestration and polyphony seen in Mahler's music.  As if they weren't inspired by the long themes that organically evolved in Bruckner, as if they weren't inspired by Wagner's use of leitmotifs.  What is the economical Webern style the only music we heard in the 20th century?  And why does Sibelius get credit for that?  It was all Webern, that's the composer that others talked about and imitated.  And as if that was even the dominant trend, it wasn't.  Sibelius' music is not as compact as Webern, it's not as complex as Mahler, it's good but it's an interesting cul-de-sac only.  The exception is looking at other Scandavian composers later.  But I think that's pretty much it.  And stop with the defending the symphony-centric view, it's a shallow view of music, and should not be defended.

I love Sibelius, but this whole Sibelius > Mahler is garbage, it pisses me off.  They are different composers, I like both and won't stand for anyone writing an inequality either way, and I'm out of this thread.  Enjoy, I'm going to stop watching it, you can have the final world, all of you can, enjoy.

[longears]

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

Thematic, harmonic, rhythmic, dynamic, coloristic, structural, allusionary, emotive, motivic, usw.  Though a short work, Cage's 4'33" is about three times longer than it needs to be.  The excessive length diminishes it.  (Ain't that ironic?  Making it bigger in one sense makes it smaller it another!)

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?

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.

In these reactions your argumentative nature asserts itself again and causes you to miss the point entirely.  You contend against ideas neither stated nor implied.  By all means, attack if you must, but first try to understand.  These are reactions, not responses...rather like a diatribe against modular housing in response to a statement about the virtues of a low-fat diet. 

[Lethevich]

I'm tired of arguing I'm done.  Hey you want to say you win, fine you win.

You're the one who came into the thread all guns blazing, I thought that I was respecting you by trying to explain my side and seeing how you responded...

What is the economical Webern style the only music we heard in the 20th century?  And why does Sibelius get credit for that?

I must be the least articulate person on the planet... it's that Sibelius did these things similar to Stravinsky and Webern (who took it further) well within the romantic style that I find so fascinating. He didn't have to make a radical break with the style like those two, such was his command... I also mentioned that Mahler is undoubtably more influential, so I don't know what the huge problem you have with a few people considering Sibelius more original (unless I got severely mixed up at some point).

Regarding the claims that the thread is about claiming Sibelius is "better" than Mahler, you say that you are having to repeat yourself, what about me? I am saying that I find Sibelius's innovations are more original. I probably consider Mahler the better composer overall (although not by much) due to how many people like him and the consistency of his output. I seriously feel that I am missing out on what is making this thread so controversial...

[Josquin des Prez]

After Mahler comes Webern, all other considerations are null. There was just no where else to go.

[Kullervo]

As much as I worship Sibelius, I don't think it was him alone that brought the symphony to a more "manageable" state, but rather that was the overriding tone of the time — the school of neoclassicism probably having much to do with that. Just my (superficial) observation. 

[Kullervo]

And David, Sibelius's music is hardly a musical "dead end," but I will admit that very few have taken up his mantle of "organic growth" within the symphonic form. I don't presume to know why. Per Nørgård is the only composer I can think of that comes close to doing what Sibelius did with the symphony. Are there any other Sibelian composers out there?

[BachQ]

Are there any other Sibelian composers out there?

Perhaps to some extent Howard Hanson?

[Lethevich]

Are there any other Sibelian composers out there?

Bax was very fond of him, although he is something of a love/hate composer. Some find him empty and long-winded, while some find him gripping. I am one of the few who don't particularly have an opinion - he can be enjoyable, but I don't find him thrilling.

Vaughan Williams dedicated his 5th symphony to Sibelius, and met him in person, but he is less stylistically similar.

[Mark]

Wow! You people have been busy while I was out today.

David, for a man of science, you can jump to some pretty half-arsed conclusions sometimes.

For a start, where in Hades did you get the notion that this is a 'Sibelius is greater than Mahler' thread? Why did you feel Mahler was getting a kicking while Sibelius was being elevated to the status of a God of Modernity? And how did you miss the inverted commas (so many of them, dammit!) in my OP which made plain that, for me (and seemingly, for a number of other members here), Sibelius comes as a breath of fresh air after the heavy, sometimes congested sound worlds of High/Late Romanticism?

This was never meant to a controversial thread, nor turn into a battleground for ardent fans of either (or indeed, both) composers. I made clear my thoughts on a very specific, if not at all historically accurate, topic, and several folk agreed with me, at least in part. So the problem is ... ?

Seriously, you need to chill. You've admitted yourself that you're sometimes too quick to argue and become confrontational. I think you should take a step back and see this thread for what it is: one person expressing an idea, and other people understanding that idea and responding accordingly. Somehow, you seem to have missed the point. And I'm not the only one who noticed.

Buy hey, you're not reading this, right?

[Kullervo]

Perhaps to some extent Howard Hanson?

I'll take that as a recommendation. 

[not edward]

Perhaps the most Sibelian symphonist around these days is Aulis Sallinen. Some of his symphonies (particularly 1, 3 and would be unimaginable without the elder composer's example.

[BachQ]

For a start, where in Hades did you get the notion that this is a 'Sibelius is greater than Mahler' thread? Why did you feel Mahler was getting a kicking while Sibelius was being elevated to the status of a God of Modernity?

Because the opening post used the words: 'hysterical' and 'overblown' to describe Mahler .......

Those are fightin words, my friend.

[Mark]

Those are fightin words, my friend.

Clearly so, in David's case. I know he can be a bit precious about Mahler, but I was frankly astounded by his posts in this thread. If he had a problem with those words, he should've challenged me to qualify what I meant by them ... which, in fact, I'll attempt now:

I intended the word 'hysterical' in one of its legitimate contexts, that of 'emotional excesses'. I wasn't, however, criticising, judging or (heaven forbid) damning such personally perceived* excesses.

My choice of 'overblown' was arguably more contentious, though deeply personally felt. I've always been of the opinion (not unjustified, I'd say) that Mahler is very 'large-scale'. That's not necessarily a comment on the length of his symphonies, but an observation of his sometimes MASSIVE symphonic writing for SO MANY instruments. At times, I really do feel that Mahler's music runs away with itself, gets a little too verbose, tries to do too much. And at these times (the finale of the Seventh Symphony being one of them), I'm reminded of an anecdote from the world of jazz, when John Coltrane once said to Miles Davis, 'Sometimes when I play, I just don't know how to stop. How do I stop, Miles?', to which Miles simply replied, 'Take the damn reed outta yer mouth.' Might Mahler's work have benefited if someone had taken the damned pen out of his hand now and then?


*Hence my use of inverted commas.

[BachQ]

Clearly so, in David's case. I know he can be a bit precious about Mahler, but I was frankly astounded by his posts in this thread. If he had a problem with those words, he should've challenged me to qualify what I meant by them ... which, in fact, I'll attempt now:

I intended the word 'hysterical' in one of its legitimate contexts, that of 'emotional excesses'. I wasn't, however, criticising, judging or (heaven forbid) damning such personally perceived* excesses.

My choice of 'overblown' was arguably more contentious, though deeply personally felt. I've always been of the opinion (not unjustified, I'd say) that Mahler is very 'large-scale'. That's not necessarily a comment on the length of his symphonies, but an observation of his sometimes MASSIVE symphonic writing for SO MANY instruments. At times, I really do feel that Mahler's music runs away with itself, gets a little too verbose, tries to do too much. And at these times (the finale of the Seventh Symphony being one of them), I'm reminded of an anecdote from the world of jazz, when John Coltrane once said to Miles Davis, 'Sometimes when I play, I just don't know how to stop. How do I stop, Miles?', to which Miles simply replied, 'Take the damn reed outta yer mouth.'  Might Mahler's work have benefited if someone had taken the damned pen out of his hand now and then?


*Hence my use of inverted commas.

You clearly intended to use those words in good faith and without provocation; however, the fact that those two words appeared together in the same sentence as the name Mahler is sufficient to catalyze a vigorous immune response from any Mahlerite. 

[Mark]

You clearly intended to use those words in good faith and without provocation ...

I'm glad that you (along with several others) clearly recognised this.

[BachQ]

I'm glad that you (along with several others) clearly recognised this.

But all of the love and good faith in the world will not diminish the resolve of a provoked Mahlerite ..... 

[Mark]

But all of the love and good faith in the world will not diminish the resolve of a provoked Mahlerite ..... 

Not to worry. David and I gave up arguing with each other well over a year ago.

[Kullervo]

With the amount of Mahler recordings on the market, he hardly needs to be defended!

[Mark]

With the amount of Mahler recordings on the market, he hardly needs to be defended!

Quite.

[longears]

Quite.

I like Mahler very much.  He's among my favorite songwriters and symphonists.  And "hysterical and overblown" seems no more than factually descriptive, along with self-indulgent and self-important.  When he's good, he's very very good.  But when he's bad, he's...hmmm, not so different from Elgar after all.