After Mahler comes Sibelius ...

[Mark]

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.

To a certain degree, I'm in accord with this. Not necessarily the part about Mahler looking backwards (though I take your point and can understand how you see things this way) - I often feel he was quite progressive, if a little 'scattered' at times. But I agree more about the forward-looking attitude of Sibelius. You very much get the sense that he knew the Romantic era well enough to compose in a way that echoed it, but that he wasn't bound by what went before, and that he had a sense of the modern which he expressed with no small amount of individuality and creative brilliance. One wonders what his writing might've been like had he not descended into that long silence (his most profound, perhaps?) that marked the last decades of his life.

[Mark]

But when he's bad, he's...hmmm, not so different from Elgar after all.

Oh come on - Elgar couldn't have written a symphony like Mahler's Fifth. He was struggling enough after his First.

[BachQ]

Oh come on - Elgar couldn't have written a symphony like Mahler's Fifth. He was struggling enough after his First.

Oh goody.  We get to discuss Elgar now ........   

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Interesting thread.

I wonder if I may play off one of David's tangents without endangering the integrity of this thread?

It's in regards to his assertion that Sibelius is a dead end of sorts ("cul-de-sac").

I agree with him.

But in saying this I do not mean to disparage Sibelius in the least.

It's just that, to me, the idea of Sibelius as a sort of one-off composer, following his own inner voices instead of funneling off his surroundings, makes for a much more compelling picture him as an artist. No weakening at the knees, I guess you could say. Just his muse and himself.

How this translates into 'dead end' is the fact his style is so utterly inimitable it seemed no one dared mimic the man. It simply wasn't possible. His hardened and distilled approach seemed to strip away any possibility of building on even a morsel of his style. What could anyone latch onto? Too much danger of coming across as a knockoff if one did.

All this is for the good, however. Makes Sibelius' successes even more startling. He broke from traditional forms and with his newly minted style set himself up as a shining beacon. Only he was so original it left those that followed scratching their head. Remember, even Schoenberg had his imitators.

Now, this has nothing to do with Mark's initial point of course but I can't help but be drawn to David's assertion simply because it isn't one that makes the rounds much. Something to chew on, I guess, even though I should probably take these ramblings elsewhere...

[The new erato]

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. 

Wise words. Some of the descriptors apply to many great composers. Wagner, Tchaikovsky, Lully et al...

[knight66]

When he's good, he's very very good.  But when he's bad, he's...hmmm, not so different from Elgar after all.

Could you specify the bad bits for us?

Mark, Inadvertently or not, you have set up one composer against the other.

I think Sibelius flirted with the Mahler style when he wrote Kullervo, this was well before he discovered his true voice. Clearly he then decided to move in a different direction. As to what else influenced Sibelius; being in Finland I could suddenly hear his music going through my head. He expresses an essence of the landscape, the light, the air there. He was an expressionist composer, influenced a lot by the Expressionist movement in Finland in the visual arts and in writing. He seems not to have influenced many symphonists in the way Mahler did, but his work is very much his own, he ploughed his own furrow and Malher created his own soundworld. They were on very different journeys, I see no point in comparing them. It is not a beauty competition.

Mike

[Mark]

Now, this has nothing to do with Mark's initial point of course but I can't help but be drawn to David's assertion simply because it isn't one that makes the rounds much. Something to chew on, I guess, even though I should probably take these ramblings elsewhere...

Not at all, Donwyn, not at all. If you want the truth, I agree with David's 'cul-de-sac' assertion. It's as I've tried to get across elsewhere in this thread: I'm not suggesting Sibelius was the way forward for music or a model for composers who came after him. But a breath of fresh air, a drink of cool water, a rest after the heady rush of High Romanticism ... these things his music most certainly was (and is, IMO).

Mark, Inadvertently or not, you have set up one composer against the other.

To be fair to myself, Mike, it wouldn't have been possible to start a thread about my perceived contrasts between the music of Mahler and Sibelius (or indeed, any number of different composers, for that matter) without there being some degree of 'setting up one against the other'. However, I think most people grasped that it was not my intention to instigate a 'throwdown' between supporters or admirers of this highly talented and original pair. What I objected to were David's ludicrous assumptions, which are numerous in his opening reply to this thread, about my reasons for starting this thread in the first place.

... there is a much tauter and leaner use of ideas and instrumentation in Sibelius which was very hard to find during late romanticism, and as such was more radical than the 'apparent' one-upmanship involved in making works larger and larger.

With this (plus the emboldened additions I've made), I essentially agree.

[Mark]

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.

I haven't sufficient breadth of knowledge or technical understanding to assert this is so, but it certainly sounds so when I listen to Sibelius' music alongside that of other Late Romantic composers ... to which group I've never disputed Sibelius belonged.

[Mark]

... 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 ...

Here, Lethe, I think you and I (and several others, I'll wager), diverge. I'm definitely NOT contending that Sibelius is 'more original' than Mahler. Each is as unique as the other, as D Minor, David and (I think) one or two others have already voiced in this thread.

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.

I wouldn't disagree with this.

[Sergeant Rock]

Might Mahler's work have benefited if someone had taken the damned pen out of his hand now and then?

No.

He didn't need an editor. He wrote the music he was meant to write and I wouldn't change a note. I'd be interested in seeing exactly where, in what symphonies and songs, you'd wield the scapel or ax to "improve" them.

Sarge

[Mark]

I'd be interested in seeing exactly where, in what symphonies and songs, you'd wield the scapel or ax to "improve" them.

You're making the assumption, Sarge, that I'd do such a thing, which is not what I postulated.

He wrote the music he was meant to write and I wouldn't change a note.

Was meant to write? I don't follow. How do you know this?

My thinking aloud aside, please don't imagine (as others appear to have done) that I intended this thread as a 'Sibelius vs Mahler' showdown. I love Mahler, I love Sibelius ... and I love how, after Mahler (and Wagner, Bruckner ... hell, even Brahms), Sibelius sounds so fresh, less emotional yet full of feeling despite his sparser writing style.

[Grazioso]

Was Sibelius familiar with Mahler's work?

An interesting quote from Finnish composer Kalevi Aho:

In Germany and France in particular, Jean Sibelius is often regarded simply as a conservative National Romantic of no significance. However, the critics voicing such opinions are not familiar enough with his output. Around 1910, Sibelius's music changed into a modern idiom akin to Expressionism, and in the 1920s this in turn yielded to a universally Classical late style. The most advanced features of Sibelius's technique remained unknown even in Finland for several decades.

[Mark]

Was Sibelius familiar with Mahler's work?

A very good question. Let's explore it further and expand the question to ask, 'With how much Late/High Romanticism in music was Sibelius familiar?' If some, then can we, perhaps, assume he chose a different path with a certain amount of deliberation? Conversely, if he had little or no contact with such music, how is it that his own work differed to such an extent from what went before?

[Lethevich]

A very good question. Let's explore it further and expand the question to ask, 'With how much Late/High Romanticism in music was Sibelius familiar?' If some, then can we, perhaps, assume he chose a different path with a certain amount of deliberation? Conversely, if he had little or no contact with such music, how is it that his own work differed to such an extent from what went before?

Before his break with Wagner, he was very keen on Parsifal, I think.

Edit: A Google search using Sibelius and Parsifal as keywords pretty much confirms this from multiple sources.

[longears]

Was Sibelius familiar with Mahler's work?

Of course!  He and Mahler were the leading symphonists of their time.  Their meeting and discussion about the nature of the symphony is one of the most oft-repeated stories told about either of them, partly because it is so telling.  In essence, Mahler said that the symphony should be like the world, all-embracing with everything thrown into it; Sibelius said that for him it the symphony was about severe form exploring logically interconnected motifs.

My aesthetic lines up much more with Sibelius.  He is unquestionably my favorite symphonist.  Mahler is probably my second favorite, though I regard him as less accomplished than many of my other favorites, including Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Prokofiev.  The difference is in his failure to edit himself sufficiently.  It's not that he wrote "bad bits," Mike (knight)...it's that he went on and on (late-Romantic self-indulgent fin-de-siecle excess) and didn't understand that sometimes less is more.

[knight66]

So we won't be getting any movement and bar reference numbers then. Just a general feeling is it?

Mike

[Mark]

Of course!  He and Mahler were the leading symphonists of their time.  Their meeting and discussion about the nature of the symphony is one of the most oft-repeated stories told about either of them, partly because it is so telling.  In essence, Mahler said that the symphony should be like the world, all-embracing with everything thrown into it; Sibelius said that for him it the symphony was about severe form exploring logically interconnected motifs.

Of course! How could I have forgotten about this? I only read about it a year ago.

My aesthetic lines up much more with Sibelius.  He is unquestionably my favorite symphonist.  Mahler is probably my second favorite, though I regard him as less accomplished than many of my other favorites, including Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Prokofiev.  The difference is in his failure to edit himself sufficiently.  It's not that he wrote "bad bits," Mike (knight)...it's that he went on and on (late-Romantic self-indulgent fin-de-siecle excess) and didn't understand that sometimes less is more.

I'm broadly in agreement with your views here, though I still regard Beethoven's symphonies as my 'default', followed by those of Sibelius, and then perhaps the symphonies of either Brahms, Dvorak or Tchaikovsky (in that order ). And though this is pretty OT, it does lead me onto another point that's been on my mind lately: What about Shostakovich?

It strikes me that Shostakovich might conceivably be crowned the most accomplished symphonist of the 20th century - though as ever, I'm not suggesting this is a fact. When I listen to his symphonies, I hear Mahler, I hear some flashes of Sibelius here and there, I'm reminded of Prokofiev, Stravinsky ... even Tchaikovsky. Might Shostakovich, then, be considered the 'synthesis' of 20th century symphonic writing, if we're broadly agreed that Sibelius ultimately ploughed a furrow which ended in (as David put it) a 'cul-de-sac'?

[BachQ]

It's not that he wrote "bad bits," Mike (knight)...it's that he went on and on (late-Romantic self-indulgent fin-de-siecle excess) and didn't understand that sometimes less is more.

(sigh)

1. Mahler knew exactly what he was doing.

2. Mahler was one of the few composers in history that could successfully pull off an 90 minute symphony while maintaining the momentum and drama throughout.

3. It's a bit arrogant to suggest that Mahler "didn't understand" the editing function.  He was an extraordinarily meticulous composer ........ very careful, very exacting ........ In reality, he knew that, when done effectively, "more was more," and he gave us "more" ........ thankfully .........

[Grazioso]

Of course!  He and Mahler were the leading symphonists of their time.  Their meeting and discussion about the nature of the symphony is one of the most oft-repeated stories told about either of them, partly because it is so telling.  In essence, Mahler said that the symphony should be like the world, all-embracing with everything thrown into it; Sibelius said that for him it the symphony was about severe form exploring logically interconnected motifs.

My aesthetic lines up much more with Sibelius.  He is unquestionably my favorite symphonist.  Mahler is probably my second favorite, though I regard him as less accomplished than many of my other favorites, including Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and Prokofiev.  The difference is in his failure to edit himself sufficiently.  It's not that he wrote "bad bits," Mike (knight)...it's that he went on and on (late-Romantic self-indulgent fin-de-siecle excess) and didn't understand that sometimes less is more.

From http://www.fimic.fi/fimic/fimic.nsf/mainframe?readform&33797636D59B5AD0C225677F002820DF:

Sibelius himself once made an oft-quoted comment on organic and coherent form. At a meeting with Gustav Mahler in Helsinki in autumn 1907, the two composers discussed the nature of the symphony. Sibelius said that he admired "the profound logic which establishes an inner bond between all themes". Mahler advocated a different view: "No, the symphony must be like the world: it must embrace everything."

Btw, I disagree with your assessment of Mahler's failure to edit sufficiently: I find his works unusually clear, logical, and well-structured, without over-indulgence in his working out of themes because he was able to keep doing interesting things with them as long as he decided to keep juggling them. They're long works, to be sure, but Mahler uses his time wisely

[Mark]

Can I just say there seems to be an over-emphasis on the length of Mahler's symphonies, with which (in general) I have little difficulty. For me, it's more a question of 'density'. If I feel that Mahler would've benefitted from some editing, it would be in terms of thinning out, not shortening, his symphonic writing - and even then, only in places.