The Snowshoed Sibelius

[North Star]

And I'll also repost this from the Mahler vs. Sibelius thread here:

But I think you are downplaying the importance of the textures in Sibelius/Feldman here - by saying 'the point is what the music is doing' there is the implication that the textures are merely the dressing draped over what you rightly diagnose as vitally important approach to development (Sibelius) or otherwise (Feldman).

IMO in Sibelius the orchestral textures - so unlike anything else composed before him - are an integrated part of that special way he has of keeping the music moving forward, of binding momentum with cohesion, development with stasis; the inevitable, glacial, elemental nature of the development is derived to a large extent through the way it plays out texturally, the way these frozen blocks of sound somehow manage to be both static and evolving... These textures are vital, then, IMO - as much 'the point' of the music as the developments which work their way through them and which depends upon them. So the fact that Feldman's textures are often similar to Sibelius's whilst the development is stripped away seems to me rather interesting.

Hear, hear, and here are some more bits from the The Cambridge Companion to Sibelius - also touching on the static nature in some of the music.

"The other factor in Sibelius that attracted the spectral composers was his strangely distended timing. The passage from Tapiola cited in Ex. 13.1 lasts an abnormally long time -nearly a whole minute. The rotating chromatic storm near the end of the same work lasts even longer. The Tempest prelude lasts over three minutes. During all such textures, any clear sense of harmonic direction is virtually suspended in a manner not found in any other music prior to 1960. Furthermore, Sibelius's habit, even in supposedly developmental setions, of simply letting a melodic-rhythmic cell grow progressively  by gradual changes - bypassing the dialectical tension of developing variation - also results in a sense of organic transformation through large areas of time. Whilst not static (unlike the 'sound sheets'), these passages convey to the listener a keen sense of time being stretched out as the transformations take on a life of their own, heedless of traditional symphonic rhetoric. Such passages are found very frequently in the last three symphonies and Tapiola (which, in any case, reduces all melodic activity to the curvilinear oscillation stated at its opening).

The percussion writing in Saturne might superficially remind one of Varèse - but close listening reveals quite readily that it consists of detailed, quasi-canonic figures which are nearer in their sequential, propulsive effect to a Sibelius string tremolo texture. The harmonic substance of the music - on the electronic instruments - is crammed into the extreme treble and bass without any secure middle-range writing. Here the electronic instruments create a mixture of harmony and timbre which is strongly reminiscent of the dense screen of sound from Tapiola in Ex. 13.1.¹¹
  Such slowly transforming aural screens are common in the works of other Itinéraire composers, notably Grisey, who was also interested in Sibelius at this period.¹² This can clearly be detected in the second section of Partiels (1975), which forms a very gradual transition from the extreme bass instruments of the ensemble to octave Es in the middle and high register, dominated by string harmonies (another Tapiola texture). The parallel second section in Grisey's orchestral work Transitoires (1981) is even more radically dark in spacing and scoring, and its timing still more distended. Sibelius helped to de-gallicise the sound world of the spectralists, opening their ears to a rougher kind of orchestration as well as pointing away from the established habits of thinking in isolated blocs sonores prevalent in Messiaen and Boulez.
   Murail's orchestral work Gondwana (1980) even incorporates a substantial passage directly modelled upon a Sibelius piece [...] Lemminkäinen in Tuonela from [...] Op. 22 (1896). The principal texture of the piece consists of wave-like ascending string tremolos answered by circuitously descending woodwind lines, the two meeting in a culminating brass and drumm chord in the middle register; this sequence is repeated many times with variations in the duration of each part as the piece works up to a main climax. This procedure was borrowed, with obvious differences in harmonic and orchestrational syntax, for the central development section of Gondwana, starting at bar 50, pp. 27-30 (which leads to the climax of the work). Murail took both the wave-patterning and the orchestration from Sibelius's piece and recreated them in his own terms; the complex harmony is derived from the sum and difference tones of frequency modulation, incorporating quarter-tones, and the rhythmic language is more irregular and fluid in its details. The effect, however, is clearly analoguous, whist not superficially Sibelian to the innocent.

George Benjamin's At First Light (1982) for chamber orchestra reflects his own enthusiasm for Sibelius's bass writing by making reference to Tapiola at the violent opening of his own work's second movement. The passage being referred to here is just before the the brief Mendelssohnian scherzo of the work, at Fig. F in Tapiola, a slow, chromatically winding progression scored for low clarinets, bass clarinet, bassoons, contrabassoons and timpani. These extremely dark chords are magnified in Benjamin's piece into a series of crushed, harsh progressions for bass clarinet, bassoon, low horn, trombone, cello and double bass emphasizing similar intervals to the Sibelius - low tritones, fourths and fifths. The chord progressions between these are similarly a semitone apart, here emphasized by numerous glissandi between them, and at one point they almost quote the lower voice progressions of the passage in Tapiola. The effect is an exaggeration of the Sibelius, bringing it closer to the world of Varèse and, indeed, electro-acoustic music. Not coincidentally, At First Light also marks the closest Benjamin has ever come to writing spectral music.

[Mirror Image]

Symphony No. 3 in C major, Op. 52



The Symphony No. 3 in C major, Op. 52, by Jean Sibelius is a symphony in three movements composed in 1907. Coming between the romantic intensity of Sibelius's first two symphonies and the more austere complexity of his later symphonies, it is a good-natured, triumphal, and deceptively simple-sounding piece. The symphony's first performance was given by the Helsinki Philharmonic Society, conducted by the composer, on 25 September 1907. In the same concert, his suite from the incidental music to Belshazzar's Feast, Op. 51, was also performed for the first time.

The first recording featured the Finnish conductor Robert Kajanus and the London Symphony Orchestra, for the HMV label in January 1934.

The Third symphony represents a turning point in Sibelius's symphonic output. His First and Second symphonies are grandiose Romantic and patriotic works. The Third, however, shows a distinct, almost Classical desire to contain the largest amount of musical material in the fewest possible melodic figures, harmonies, and durations. This musical economy is most apparent in the first movement, almost reminiscent of Beethoven in its clear and cleanly developed sections. A typical performance runs slightly under half an hour. The piece is scored for an orchestra including 2 flutes, 2 oboes, 2 clarinets (in Bb and A), 2 bassoons, 4 horns (in F), 2 trumpets (in Bb), 3 trombones, timpani, and strings.

I. Allegro moderato
II. Andantino con moto, quasi allegretto
III. Moderato – Allegro ma non tanto

The symphony opens with a strident and rhythmic melody in the cellos and double basses, after the announcement of which the brass and the remaining strings enter the scene in turn. The C-F♯ tritone, which plays such an important role in both this and the next symphony, is clearly articulated and emphasised as early as the beginning of bar 15 by a rinforzando marking. A lilting, almost folk-like flute solo gives way to a triumphant horn call over brush-like strings in the first of three major climaxes in the first movement. After this rush of sound, the gentle serenity of the opening is recalled by the cellos once again, but this time in a more vulnerable and sostenuto manner in the more remote key of B minor.

From this point, the music gently winds down. Then, a succession of woodwind instruments recall the second cello melody over soft string scales, which repeatedly recall the opening of the movement. The tension grows and finally explodes into the opening theme, underscored by timpani, and the violins flit their way over a pulsating cushion of brass-and-woodwind chorales and offbeat pizzicatos in the cellos. The flute theme is once again recalled, and the second cello theme is finally brought to life by the entire orchestra; played in the string section, the timpani and woodwind provide rhythmic material while more brass chorales are sustained throughout the section.

The music once again winds down, but this time, before it is let go completely, a glorious flute and horn chorale lead into more recollections of past themes, which have the last word before this phenomenal movement closes in a manner that is brilliant in its simplicity: two two-chord "Amen" cadences (plagal cadences) in E minor (a chord of A minor followed by a chord of E minor), which, because there is no F in either chord, leave the F-F♯ dichotomy (set up by the C-F♯ tritone near the beginning of the work) unresolved; this dichotomy is then finally resolved (for the time-being at least) by a single plagal cadence in C (F major, then C major).

The opening of the second movement is a nocturne, a movement of supreme clarity and austere romantics, seemingly contradictory, but immediately accessible; the first section almost waltzes out of the pervading darkness, but, in a constrained manner, the music refuses to do so. Commentators disagree over exactly what form the structure of this movement represents; however the four appearances of the theme with developmental episodes suggest a kind of rondo. After the extended introduction, a brief moment of lightness gives way to the string section taking over the theme, with woodwinds and horns providing masterful, touching comments. The music is propelled to the end by perpetual cello pizzicatos, and then the second movement ends in several string pulses where the midnight waltz grinds to a halt in which the tune is still almost recognizable.

The last movement is really two movements compacted into a single finale. Sibelius described it as 'the crystallisation of chaos'. The opening contains thematic fragments from previous material and of material yet to come. A hushed, tense scherzo breaks into a triumphant chorale (with prominent C-F♯ tritone) which is repeated several times. The coda brings the chorale-type theme into greater and greater expanses, until at long last the symphony concludes in a compendium of the chorale theme and a rush of string figures and woodwind scales. The cadence brings the piece to an almost abrupt halt with a single, arpeggiated C major triad in the brass. The piece is relatively short, usually lasting about 31 minutes.

[Article taken from Wikipedia]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The more I listen to Symphony No. 3, the more I love it. It's certainly underrated amongst the symphony cycle. I don't know why, but I always associate sunrise and just the general feeling of morning time with this work. It has quite a majestic sweep to it and the rhythmic vitality of the introduction never fails to impress me on a visceral level. As for performances: any of the Finns will do, especially Vanska, Berglund, and Segerstam.

What do you guys think of this symphony?

[Dancing Divertimentian]

The more I listen to Symphony No. 3, the more I love it. It's certainly underrated amongst the symphony cycle. I don't know why, but I always associate sunrise and just the general feeling of morning time with this work. It has quite a majestic sweep to it and the rhythmic vitality of the introduction never fail to impress me just on a visceral level. As for performances: any of the Finns will do, especially Vanska, Berglund, and Segerstam.

What do you guys think of this symphony?

There's another Finn who does well in this symphony: Olli Mustonen. The Helsinki Festival Orchestra lacks the heft of larger orchestras but it isn't exactly scrawny, either. It's sort of a hybrid sound. Hybrid or whatever the sound is distinctive and it seems a good fit for Sibelius's "sun" symphony (great description). (And the Hindemith gets high marks, too). 




[asin]B00009IAY3[/asin]

[Mirror Image]

There's another Finn who does well in this symphony: Olli Mustonen. The Helsinki Festival Orchestra lacks the heft of larger orchestras but it isn't exactly scrawny, either. It's sort of a hybrid sound. Hybrid or whatever the sound is distinctive and it seems a good fit for Sibelius's "sun" symphony (great description). (And the Hindemith gets high marks, too). 


[asin]B00009IAY3[/asin]

Thanks, DD. I've seen this performance for many years but never bought for one reason or another. I suppose the main one is I seem to collect complete, or partial, cycles of these symphonies rather than individual releases. I'll have to check it out at some point. I'm going to take a break from posting about individual works, as my buddy Karlo (North Star), suggested I do --- that way these posts don't get 'lost'.

So far I've posted about: Lemminkainen Suite, Symphony No. 4, The Oceanides, The Origin of Fire, and Symphony No. 3. I think what I'll try to do is post about one work per week. I must keep my James copy-and-paste skills in-check.

[springrite]

Mustonen is one of the best musician around today, as pianist, conductor and composer.

[Brian]

There's another Finn who does well in this symphony: Olli Mustonen. The Helsinki Festival Orchestra lacks the heft of larger orchestras but it isn't exactly scrawny, either. It's sort of a hybrid sound. Hybrid or whatever the sound is distinctive and it seems a good fit for Sibelius's "sun" symphony (great description). (And the Hindemith gets high marks, too). 

This is an extraordinary performance! It's like no other in its bright, snappy, neoclassical bent: the first movement is almost motoric. Exciting, too. One of the most original interpretations out there.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

Mustonen is one of the best musician around today, as pianist, conductor and composer.

Yes, agreed. I know him almost exclusively through his solo piano recordings (this Sibelius disc excepted) and he is a thrillingly individual artist. Wish he'd record more solo piano....*sigh*....

[Dancing Divertimentian]

This is an extraordinary performance! It's like no other in its bright, snappy, neoclassical bent: the first movement is almost motoric. Exciting, too. One of the most original interpretations out there.

Spot-on, Brian!

[vandermolen]

I think that 'Sibelius becomes Sibelius' in Symphony 3. I love the last movement, especially as conducted by Simon Rattle on EMI. I love the photo in John's post - reminds me of my wonderful visit to Finland in 2013 and, not least, the unforgettable visit to Sibelius's house.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Still loving the third and I've always defended it, as well as sixth symphony, according To sibelius.fi those two Are the least performed. Glad To see you appreciate the origin of fire. It has been recorded only twice? 

[Karl Henning]

Still loving the third and I've always defended it, as well as sixth symphony, according To sibelius.fi those two Are the least performed. Glad To see you appreciate the origin of fire. It has been recorded only twice? 

Most of the time, the Sixth is my favorite of the seven.  I do like all the seven, though, and a great deal.  Curiously, we had the pleasure of hearing the Third played here in Symphony Hall (and I have not by any means heard all seven in live performance).

[Madiel]

I still have a funny relationship with the third. The finale is still something I don't entirely get, although I'm progressing. I don't know whether it's because I struggle with the form, or whether the only performance I have (Ashkenazy) struggles.

Whereas the first movement is one of my very favourite individual movements by anyone, ever. It is so perfectly, logically formed. And everything that's been quoted in recent posts about Sibelius' handling of pace - which is one of the things that makes him such a special composer - is beautifully illustrated for me in that first movement.

[Mirror Image]

I think that 'Sibelius becomes Sibelius' in Symphony 3. I love the last movement, especially as conducted by Simon Rattle on EMI. I love the photo in John's post - reminds me of my wonderful visit to Finland in 2013 and, not least, the unforgettable visit to Sibelius's house.

I agree that the 3rd feels like Sibelius is reaching for his later style. This symphony was completed in 1907 and just think the 4th would be completed four years later. I bet that trip to Finland was memorable and visiting Ainola must have been a dream come true.

[Mirror Image]

Still loving the third and I've always defended it, as well as sixth symphony, according To sibelius.fi those two Are the least performed. Glad To see you appreciate the origin of fire. It has been recorded only twice? 

No, I'm wrong (per usual), The Origin of Fire, Op. 32 has been recorded three times: Jarvi/Gothenburg, Vanska/Lahti, and Berglund/Helsinki PO.

[Mirror Image]

Most of the time, the Sixth is my favorite of the seven.  I do like all the seven, though, and a great deal.  Curiously, we had the pleasure of hearing the Third played here in Symphony Hall (and I have not by any means heard all seven in live performance).

I like all seven as well with the 3rd through the 7th being absolute favorites. I bet the 3rd sounded fantastic with the BSO. Do you remember who the conductor was, Karl?

[Mirror Image]

I still have a funny relationship with the third. The finale is still something I don't entirely get, although I'm progressing. I don't know whether it's because I struggle with the form, or whether the only performance I have (Ashkenazy) struggles.

Whereas the first movement is one of my very favourite individual movements by anyone, ever. It is so perfectly, logically formed. And everything that's been quoted in recent posts about Sibelius' handling of pace - which is one of the things that makes him such a special composer - is beautifully illustrated for me in that first movement.

Vanska, Berglund, and Segerstam conduct this symphony beautifully. I haven't heard Ashkenazy in quite some time. I can't say I've ever struggled with a Sibelius symphony except for the 6th, which, for the longest time, remained a complete mystery to me.  Now, of course, I consider it a masterpiece.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Remember when I said the only symphony of Jean that I didn't like that much, was the 7th? Well, I may have started to slowly grow more fond of it. On the other hand, I am not that much into 5th nowadays. The pendulum swinging is gorgeous, but on the other hand it feels "artificial", criticism sometimes directed at Bach. Maybe I need to relisten that one more. Or perhaps I've listened to it too often...

[North Star]

Remember when I said the only symphony of Jean that I didn't like that much, was the 7th? Well, I may have started to slowly grow more fond of it. On the other hand, I am not that much into 5th nowadays. The pendulum swinging is gorgeous, but on the other hand it feels "artificial", criticism sometimes directed at Bach. Maybe I need to relisten that one more. Or perhaps I've listened to it too often...

What's wrong with artificial? This reminds me of Simon Rattle in his TV series about 20th C music, when he talked how Ravel saw a fake stone (IIRC), picked it up and said 'It's a fake stone, how wonderful!'. Artificial is what art is. You may well need a break from the piece, though.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

What's wrong with artificial?

Maybe the fact that artificial often seems equal to "devoid of true feeling".

[Mirror Image]

FWIW, I don't find Sibelius' 5th 'artificial' at all, in fact, I find it to be passionate and heartfelt. It's a 'heart-on-sleeve' testimonial IMHO. I think the final movement is like a final parting between lovers while one person is waving goodbye from the docks while the other is sailing off into the sunset.