The Snowshoed Sibelius

Started by Dancing Divertimentian, April 16, 2007, 08:39:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Elgarian

Quote from: Brian on September 24, 2010, 01:51:57 PM
the hymn never comes back;
That's a shame - I knew it didn't, and thought it was a shame. Seems like a waste of a really good hymn.
Quoteyou didn't even get to the most contained part, the very clearly defined scherzo. Hmmm.
I did this morning, of course - but this evening I stopped my note-writing before I got there.

QuoteThe Fourth...
I do think I've made a bit of headway. First, I recognize some continuities: solo cello bits all around, for instance. But then there's the solo oboe in the last minute of the piece, that has nothing to do with anything else.

The headway is this. Seems to me that previous composers all expressed confusion and desolation and frustration by taking a nice minor-key tune, developing it, and using it to wring the life out of you. Tchaikovsky Six. Sibelius here is making you feel all those adjectives, by writing music that is confused and frustrated, and confusing and frustrating. It's like Lost in Translation, where Sofia Coppola tries to convey how bored Bill Murray is by making the whole movie really boring.
Believe it or not, I find it quite encouraging seeing you struggle like this! Not because I want you to struggle, but because your description makes me feel I don't need to beat myself with a stick quite so hard. And furthermore, I sympathise with you over Lost in Translation.

Anyway, I'm going to try the 4th myself, next. I can't guarantee that I'll write notes as I go along, but I will report back.

CD

Huh, odd that two of my favorite pieces ever seem so incomprehensible to some — but that's the wonderful and often frustrating thing about perception: nobody hears the same piece.

I was talking earlier today with a conductor friend and told her I didn't really get Bruckner. She described his appeal as alike to taking part in a ritual, as in a religious rite. Now I feel ready to reapproach Bruckner's music with that in mind.

With Sibelius I hear his music as a flow. I don't question what it is he's trying to do, or why he is doing it, but merely consider myself as along for the ride. Like being on a train heading for an unknown destination, but taking time to see the sights along the way.

Benji

Quote from: Corey on September 24, 2010, 02:44:22 PM
Huh, odd that two of my favorite pieces ever seem so incomprehensible to some — but that's the wonderful and often frustrating thing about perception: nobody hears the same piece.

I was talking earlier today with a conductor friend and told her I didn't really get Bruckner. She described his appeal as alike to taking part in a ritual, as in a religious rite. Now I feel ready to reapproach Bruckner's music with that in mind.

With Sibelius I hear his music as a flow. I don't question what it is he's trying to do, or why he is doing it, but merely consider myself as along for the ride. Like being on a train heading for an unknown destination, but taking time to see the sights along the way.

That's a wonderful way to appreciate Sibelius, or any composer really.

The 4th is a difficult nut to crack - I can sympathise with Brian. It wasn't until I heard Blomstedt conduct it that it I began to 'feel' it. It is a dark and painful work, written at a time of much doubt and trepidation for the composer. If you read up on what Sibelius was going through at the time, it may help to understand the intensity of the emotion he poured into the work. I think of your journey comment, Corey, and I think of the 3rd movement in particular - there is definitely a journey of discovery in the movement, as the austere theme is introduced on the clarinet, developed and expanded in what seems an almost improvisatory way, as if Sibelius is discovering it for himself. The word 'organic' is often used to describe Sibelius's compositional method and I think this movement is a good example. The powerful climax of the movement, the final and full expansion of that seed of a theme from the beginning, seems like it aught to be a resolution, but the closing bars quickly discount that I feel.

There is an enlightening and very thorough musical analysis of the 4th here: http://www.sibelius.fi/english/musiikki/ork_sinf_04.htm .

The 4th is my favourite of Sibelius' symphonies, though perhaps the least frequently listened to. It has a powerful effect on me, especially if my mood is sympathetic to it - a sort of musical resonance effect.

Drasko

Quote from: Corey on September 24, 2010, 02:44:22 PM
With Sibelius I hear his music as a flow. I don't question what it is he's trying to do, or why he is doing it, but merely consider myself as along for the ride. Like being on a train heading for an unknown destination, but taking time to see the sights along the way.

My feelings exactly, specially for 7th. I believe Sibelius originally titled it symphonic fantasy and likened it to a river. For me it best works if you just relax and float downstream on swelling of those crescendos/decrescendos, tempo and mood changes with the recurring trombone theme as something of an anchor point. Without dwelling too much on trying to discern formal structure. And sing along, I always sing along with 7th.

Elgarian

#684
Quote from: Drasko on September 25, 2010, 03:25:10 AM
My feelings exactly, specially for 7th. I believe Sibelius originally titled it symphonic fantasy and likened it to a river. For me it best works if you just relax and float downstream on swelling of those crescendos/decrescendos, tempo and mood changes with the recurring trombone theme as something of an anchor point. Without dwelling too much on trying to discern formal structure.
In one sense I think that sounds very sensible, and my perception of it as something that might be titled 'A Doodle for Orchestra' seems to fit with that. But it's described as a symphony - and that means one is invited to approach it in a certain kind of frame of mind, looking for something structural, a sense of interconnected unity. I think if he'd actually called it an orchestral doodle, I'd have been able to listen a few times, decide it wasn't my cup of tea, and move on. But precisely because it calls itself a symphony, I assume that there really is a structure there that I'm missing. So I'm looking for an interwoven tapestry, but only finding a sequence of bits tied together along a length of string.

But there's another troubling aspect to this. It's not just described as a symphony: it's spoken of as a triumph of economical symphonic structure - a single-movement symphony. Other composers take at least half an hour and four separate chunks, but Sibelius the symphonic wizard wraps it all up in 20 minutes without a break and we all get home early for tea. So this makes me even more troubled that I listen and listen for some identifiable pattern, but still the tapestry eludes me, and still I hear only the sequence of doodles along the length of the string. I must emphasise that I'm perfectly happy to accept that I'm a rubbish listener, that there is an ingenious structure there; and that I'm too dim to hear it. But if it were to turn out that there's just the string of doodles after all, and that all I need do is lay back and feel the flow, then I'd feel very hard done by, after all these years of trying.



Scarpia

There must be some mid-ground between a Symphony and a "doodle."   ;D

I find the 7th and Tapiola to be similar in their mode of construction.   They are symphonic fantasies which have a definite organic structure to them which does not fit with "standard" symphonic construction.  I admire both, but find that they require a certain mood (in me) to make a satisfying impression.

Drasko

Quote from: Elgarian on September 25, 2010, 08:14:27 AM
But there's another troubling aspect to this. It's not just described as a symphony: it's spoken of as a triumph of economical symphonic structure - a single-movement symphony. Other composers take at least half an hour and four separate chunks, but Sibelius the symphonic wizard wraps it all up in 20 minutes without a break and we all get home early for tea. So this makes me even more troubled that I listen and listen for some identifiable pattern, but still the tapestry eludes me, and still I hear only the sequence of doodles along the length of the string. I must emphasise that I'm perfectly happy to accept that I'm a rubbish listener, that there is an ingenious structure there; and that I'm too dim to hear it. But if it were to turn out that there's just the string of doodles after all, and that all I need do is lay back and feel the flow, then I'd feel very hard done by, after all these years of trying.

I'm not sure it's just string of doodles, unity, which there is, is just not achieved traditionally by thematic development or sonata form. I'm sure someone with more musical knowledge could explain it much better than me, but here's something I dug out for starters:

QuoteThe form of the Seventh symphony is startlingly original. Since the time of Joseph Haydn, a movement in a symphony would typically be unified by an approximately constant beat and would attain variety by use of contrasting themes in different keys. Sibelius turned this scheme on its head. The Seventh symphony is unified by the key of C (every significant passage in the work is in C major or C minor), and variety is achieved by an almost constantly-changing tempo, as well as by contrasts of mode, articulation and texture.
Barnett, Andrew (2007), Sibelius

Elgarian

#687
Quote from: Drasko on September 25, 2010, 08:34:28 AM
I'm not sure it's just string of doodles, unity, which there is, is just not achieved traditionally by thematic development or sonata form. I'm sure someone with more musical knowledge could explain it much better than me, but here's something I dug out for starters:
QuoteThe Seventh symphony is unified by the key of C (every significant passage in the work is in C major or C minor), and variety is achieved by an almost constantly-changing tempo, as well as by contrasts of mode, articulation and texture
I'm worried here that I'll start to sound like a nit-picking grumbler - but the truth is that I don't understand, and I never did, and I want to. I'm not knocking the symphony itself, but expressing my concern about my perception of it.

Let's take the two parts of that quotation -

(1) It achieves unity because everything is in the key of C? But .. but ... so does almost any pop song. Where is the great symphonic breakthrough in achieving unity by sticking to the key of C?
(2) It achieves variety by changing tempo, mode, articulation and texture? Well yes - I don't have any trouble perceiving the variety. But if all that the bits have in common is the key of C, then ... is it surprising that it sounds like a string of variously different doodles? Doodles in C?

Surely there must be more to it than this?

Scarpia

Quote from: Elgarian on September 25, 2010, 10:47:45 AM(1) It achieves unity because everything is in the key of C? But .. but ... so does almost any pop song. Where is the great symphonic breakthrough in achieving unity by sticking to the key of C?

Very little of it is literally in the key of C.  The claim is that it achieves unity by returning to the key of C at key moments, notably when the big trombone theme returns. 

I don't necessarily agree that the "C" thing is such a great insight.  I think of the piece as a succession of moods, of associations, that make reference to common element (the trombone theme).

Elgarian

#689
Quote from: Scarpia on September 25, 2010, 11:26:19 AM
I think of the piece as a succession of moods, of associations, that make reference to common element (the trombone theme).
I see that. But what makes it a symphony?

So far, it's as if someone were to claim a poetic breakthrough in sonnet form by writing a new 'economical' sonnet of 9 lines in free verse. It might be a good poem, but why would anyone call it a sonnet?

CD

#690
It's okay to admit that you just don't enjoy it.

Elgarian

Quote from: Corey on September 25, 2010, 11:56:46 AM
It's okay to admit that you just just don't enjoy it.
No, no ... surely it's clear from my posts that that isn't the issue at all?

Scarpia

Quote from: Elgarian on September 25, 2010, 11:55:51 AM
I see that. But what makes it a symphony?

So far, it's as if someone were to claim a poetic breakthrough in sonnet form by writing a new 'economical' sonnet of 9 lines in free verse. It might be a good poem, but why would anyone call it a sonnet?

Who gets the right to define the word "symphony?"  At first it was applied to brief instrumental interludes in baroque operas, cantatas or oratorios.  In early Haydn it could be anything with no singing.  By the time Haydn and Mozart were done and Beethoven was starting it was a four movement affair.  Then it got applied to monstrous things like Mahler's 8th.  I would define it for modern purposes as an extended piece of music in which form (long range organization) and thematic development play a central role.  I think Sibelius 7 qualified.  Sibelius' idea was to make the "form" a flexible thing that suited the musical purpose, rather than a pre-conceived set of rules.  I think he achieved that in the 7th, although it is not really a symphony by 19th century standards. 

Brian

#693
Quote from: Elgarian on September 25, 2010, 11:55:51 AM
I see that. But what makes it a symphony?

I. Introduction -
II. Theme -
III. Adagio (pastorale) -
IV. Theme, in turbulent mood -
V. Scherzo -
VI. Theme, building to climax -
VII. Introduction (reprise) and apotheosis, with reminders of theme

For me the part of the symphony which could have been "tightened up" the most is III. A lot of times that little slow movement leaves me waiting for the rest of the piece.

Does anybody know where on the forum M forever (or someone of similar bent) argued that Every Conductor Conducts the Seventh Wrong? He was referring to the very last bars, where an important violin phrase goes unheard in every extant recording because of orchestral balances. If you know where that discussion is, please let me know. Heck, maybe it's in this thread. It's important to my conception of the "tightness" of the structure of the Seventh. I am partially responsible for leaving Alan in the fog because I view the symphony as quite concise, have said so in the past, and have not explained exactly what concise elements I'm going on about.

Elgarian

Quote from: Brian on September 25, 2010, 12:24:03 PM
I am partially responsible for leaving Alan in the fog because I view the symphony as quite concise, have said so in the past, and have not explained exactly what concise elements I'm going on about.
At last, someone I can blame!!!

Seriously though ... thanks Brian for that sequence. Would it - bearing in mind that you are dealing with someone who seems to be wired up all wrong for this work - would it be possible for you to give a rough timing for those sections? (This may sound like a puerile request, but I can imagine sitting here becoming traumatised about whether I'm still in IV, or have made it to V.)

Brian

Quote from: Elgarian on September 25, 2010, 12:49:21 PM
At last, someone I can blame!!!

Seriously though ... thanks Brian for that sequence. Would it - bearing in mind that you are dealing with someone who seems to be wired up all wrong for this work - would it be possible for you to give a rough timing for those sections? (This may sound like a puerile request, but I can imagine sitting here becoming traumatised about whether I'm still in IV, or have made it to V.)

I was thinking of listening to it again later tonight - this will give me something to do.  8)
I tried your notation system while listening to the Fourth yesterday, but it's just too intensive! I have to applaud you for the concentrated listening it took to write down all those notes on the exact timings of new figures; all I could muster was "Okay, we're around minute five now, I think"!

Elgarian

Quote from: Brian on September 25, 2010, 01:07:32 PM
I have to applaud you for the concentrated listening it took to write down all those notes on the exact timings of new figures;
You're suffering under the delusion that I knew what I was doing, Brian. Those were the jottings of a drowning man.

Seriously though .... I mentioned in an earlier post how valuable this forum can be - and I have some hopes that your proposed structure is going to help me get my bearings. Many thanks for this.

Brian

#697
I'm afraid I've divided the work into very few sections. I added one to those listed above, though, and created a few other cues.

My own introduction to the work, and still an extremely good one, is this essay which helps explain some of the history as well as supplying a sort of "narrative."

"It is often thought that the essence of a symphony lies in its form, but this is certainly not the case. The content is always the primary factor, while form is secondary, the music itself determining its outward form." - Sibelius

[Segerstam/Helsinki]
00.00 I. Introduction -
04.56 II. Theme -
05.42 III. Adagio (pastorale with bumps) -
08.52 [transition to IV.] -
09.07 IV. Scherzo I (without trio)
10.00 V. Theme, absent confidence but with development -
11.37 [recollections of what had gone before] -
12.00 VI. Scherzo II (with nod to hymn theme at 12.14*) -
14.21 [second 'turn' of Scherzo - development in lieu of trio - it may be useful to think of the form of Beethoven VI.iii, in which the opening material comes round three times each with different results] -
15.06 [recap of Scherzo] -
16.10 [do the downward scales presage catastrophe? Yes: Remember the upward scale of the opening]
16.38 VII. Theme, building to climax -
17.36 [the material from 5.42 again] -
18.13 [climax]** -
19.22 [next-to-last appearance of the theme] -
19.40 VIII. Introduction (reprise) and apotheosis, with reminders of theme
20.41 [listen for the first notes of the theme, played by oboe and others]
The last two notes: ascending to C. What the scale at the opening failed to do.

*or possibly not. This was the first time I'd ever heard it.
**oh god. Now I am hearing echoes the hymn in the violin writing here. Don't strain your ears, though: it took me this many years...  ;D

Brian

Reading over the essay I linked to, he doesn't say what the "one motif" of the symphony is. Somebody a few posts above said it was the key of C. Not true: I think, if anything, it is the note of C. The ascending scale at the beginning fails to reach C, stopping at A flat. The hymn makes it: da-da-daaa, da-da-C-etc (although after this it avoids C resolutely). The Theme makes it: it starts off D-C. I think it also avoids C for the rest of its course. I don't have a score, just my memory playing over the piece in my head, so somebody smarter, jump in. Scherzo II makes it: da, da da! da-da-C. But its second phrase also hangs in midair on a note that doesn't resolve things. This enables the countermelody, in the violins, which does reach C at the very end (and begins much like the hymn). And, of course, there are the final chords, after the flutes reprise their little birdcall (which I think leaves out C - the birds never "land").

The reason I was wondering where some argument had once happened on GMG, is that the last two notes are actually half of the picture. Immediately before them, behind the big scary trombone/timpani wall, the violins are playing D-C: the opening notes of the Theme. What got M Forever eternally pissed off was that most conductors had the trombones cut in at the very end so loudly and distractingly, that nobody ever heard the D-C. He used to insist that the end was two matching, interlocking phrases: first the strings play D-C, then the thing we all hear them play, the very last two notes: B-C. Two ways to get home.

Taking this way beyond any accepted musicology (which actually I left days ago  ;D ), I view the fixation on C, and the "quest for C" motivating so much of the musical material, as Sibelius' response to modernism. I think he deliberately picked the key to celebrate the tonal idiom and affirm his loyalty to it. He knew he was being left behind by his contemporaries, in fact he had been left behind while he was writing No 5, and with the Seventh I think he sort of defiantly spat back: look, I can write something grand and bold and daring and distinctly modern using the "classic" key of the olden days, using the classic form, using everything you think old-fashioned to fashion something new.

Of course, I also said he was expelling personal demons a few pages ago. I think a lot of crazy things.

karlhenning

Quote from: Brian on September 25, 2010, 03:10:30 PM
. . . I think a lot of crazy things.

That's all right; we all need material to pass through the filtration ; )

Thanks for your posts, Brian . . . at some point I should have some additive contribution . . . .