The Snowshoed Sibelius

[71 dB]

I'm not a big fan of Sibelius and I find his symphonies bland, but recently I have been into the last movement of the fifth Symphony. Is it the best movement of all symphonies by Sibelius?

[North Star]

I'm not a big fan of Sibelius and I find his symphonies bland, but recently I have been into the last movement of the fifth Symphony. Is it the best movement of all symphonies by Sibelius?

It is a wonderful movement but just because it's the only one you have managed to like so far doesn't mean it's 'the best'. Sibelius' symphony cycle is one of the most consistent ones (and consistently great) ever written.

[Brahmsian]

It is a wonderful movement but just because it's the only one you have managed to like so far doesn't mean it's 'the best'. Sibelius' symphony cycle is one of the most consistent ones (and consistently great) ever written.

+1, and one of the furthest from bland, imho.

[71 dB]

+1, and one of the furthest from bland, imho.

By bland I mean I tend to get "bored" when I listen to Sibelius' symphonies. A lot of the time the music has very little in it, perhaps just one flute playing a mediocre melody. Sibelius also uses "rigid" rhythmic structures that stay the same for long. For these reasons I don't find much counterpoint in Sibelius or structural complexity for that matter except for the most complex parts which are not that complex compared to some other composers. I even feel Sibelius was a cunning conman.

In my opinion Sibelius is at his best with "theatre" music. The pathos of the symphonies is replaced by colourful moody orchestration and the lack of complexity doesn't hinder listening enjoyment because theatre music is "supposed" to be simple.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

By bland I mean I tend to get "bored" when I listen to Sibelius' symphonies. A lot of the time the music has very little in it, perhaps just one flute playing a mediocre melody. Sibelius also uses "rigid" rhythmic structures that stay the same for long. For these reasons I don't find much counterpoint in Sibelius or structural complexity for that matter except for the most complex parts which are not that complex compared to some other composers. I even feel Sibelius was a cunning conman.

"Conman"? Try clearing out your ear canals, 71.

[Brian]

Sibelius also uses "rigid" rhythmic structures that stay the same for long. For these reasons I don't find much counterpoint in Sibelius

These things are actually frequently true. There's not a lot of counterpoint in the traditional sense of fugues or rigorous combination/contrasting of themes (although you can find a lot of themes getting combined in novel ways in the first movement of No. 2, and No. 5 starts with one of the most thorough developments of a motto theme in symphonic history). Sibelius simply builds his structures in a different way from other composers. No. 5's first movement, for example, follows no model which you could find in any textbook or any past composition whatsoever, unless you were to think of it as 60+ variations on the opening horn tune. In some of the symphonies, the development is very subtle - for instance, the "theme" which is elaborated by, and woven through, No. 7 is only two notes long! (Hint: compare the first two notes the flute plays, with the first two notes the trombone plays, with the violins' last four chords.)

[Ken B]

I'm not a big fan of Sibelius and I find his symphonies bland, but recently I have been into the last movement of the fifth Symphony. Is it the best movement of all symphonies by Sibelius?

No. One movement seventh.

You find Sibelius bland but as I recall you like Elgar? We must never touch, it might destroy the universe!

[Sergeant Rock]

Is it the best movement of all symphonies by Sibelius?

Best?...I don't know, but it's my favorite Sibelius movement.

Sarge

[Brian]

Best?...I don't know, but it's my favorite Sibelius movement.

Sarge

(Mine too!)

[Mirror Image]

I'm not a big fan of Sibelius and I find his symphonies bland...

I believe you've stated your opinion on Sibelius before. We all understand you don't care for his music. So my question to you is this: why do you continue to post on a composer's thread that you don't care for? Don't you have something better to do? Seems quite counterproductive to me. I've posted on composers' threads I didn't care for previously and came under heavy fire, so think of this as seeing the errors of my own way and calling you out for the same thing I shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

[Mirror Image]

It is a wonderful movement but just because it's the only one you have managed to like so far doesn't mean it's 'the best'. Sibelius' symphony cycle is one of the most consistent ones (and consistently great) ever written.

+1

Sibelius' symphonies are works of a genius and he was one no question about it. He is, hands down, my favorite symphonist and this stems from the fact that he treated his material in the most organic way imaginable. No other composer was writing music like this and his seven symphonies represent only a fragment of his accomplishments. The tone poems, works for voice/orchestra, incidental music, that magnificent Violin Concerto, etc. are, IMHO, huge contributions to classical music.

*Special note: I'm merely only reiterating some points that you and all of my other Sibelian brothers/sisters already know.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

I believe you've stated your opinion on Sibelius before. We all understand you don't care for his music. So my question to you is this: why do you continue to post on a composer's thread that you don't care for? Don't you have something better to do? Seems quite counterproductive to me. I've posted on composers' threads I didn't care for previously and came under heavy fire, so think of this as seeing the errors of my own way and calling you out for the same thing I shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

Well, he did say he enjoys Sibelius's theatre music, didn't he?

[Mirror Image]

Well, he did say he enjoys Sibelius's theatre music, didn't he?

I do not recall what he liked of Sibelius' oeuvre just that the composer is nowhere near one of his favorites and not even high on his list. So with that in mind, I have to ask: why is he here on this thread? Surely, not you or I could change his mind or convince him to re-listen? He's probably been listening to Sibelius off and on for years.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Well, there was a time when I thought I could never appreciate any classical music whatsoever. And look at me now  Maybe there is still hope for 71...

[Brian]

I do not recall what he liked of Sibelius' oeuvre just that the composer is nowhere near one of his favorites and not even high on his list. So with that in mind, I have to ask: why is he here on this thread? Surely, not you or I could change his mind or convince him to re-listen? He's probably been listening to Sibelius off and on for years.

Well, I don't think he was attacking Sibelius. I think he was asking for help figuring out why we like Sibelius, and what a good place/inroad to start appreciating Sibelius is. That is how I tried to answer him, anyway. We've had some of our most productive discussions in this thread when people have confessed to not understanding a work and others have offered to help (Elgarian, me, several people named Don and Dave, Karl, Sarge, Renfield, trung, all the gang, not all of them still here).

[Karl Henning]

The pathos of the symphonies is . . .

. . . an absurd simplification.  Be fair:  you would be impatient with anyone characterizing Elgar's symphonies -- only two of them, compared to Sibelius' seven -- by a single, trending-negative qualifier.  "Too pompous," I think is a frequent canard . . . .

[Madiel]

By bland I mean I tend to get "bored" when I listen to Sibelius' symphonies. A lot of the time the music has very little in it, perhaps just one flute playing a mediocre melody. Sibelius also uses "rigid" rhythmic structures that stay the same for long. For these reasons I don't find much counterpoint in Sibelius or structural complexity for that matter except for the most complex parts which are not that complex compared to some other composers.

See, I find this a bit mystifying. Because it's the structural ingenuity that draws me in the first place.

Rigid rhythmic structures? I listened to the 3rd symphony last week, and was reminded yet again that the first movement is one of my favourite things by anyone, ever, and a huge part of the reason for that is the amazing way the music starts and stops. To me, Sibelius has more control of tempo than almost any other composer, to the extent that he can create a sense of multiple tempos operating at the same time, with different parts of the music moving at different speeds.

To take another example, the first movement of the 2nd symphony impresses me because of the way the main theme sounds like an introduction. That's not an easy trick at all, to make you believe that there's an introduction, and then you start thinking "when is the main material going to arrive?" and then eventually at some point your brain switches and realises there was no introduction at all, and that he started with a fragmented version of the theme before integrating it (the opposite of what most composers had done, although Beethoven in the Eroica finale did something similar). It's an exercise in presenting the counterpoint lines separately first!

I also really don't understand how the number of instruments playing is relevant. It's actually harder to achieve your musical and structural goals with an economy of means, rather than throwing a whole booming orchestra around. Sibelius is to my mind perhaps the greatest orchestrator, and that's precisely because he uses his colours very carefully and delicately.

[Ken B]

. . . an absurd simplification.  Be fair:  you would be impatient with anyone characterizing Elgar's symphonies -- only two of them, compared to Sibelius' seven -- by a single, trending-negative qualifier.  "Too pompous," I think is a frequent canard . . . .

I think "canard" is the wrong word to describe a term used as euphemism for something much worse.

[Karl Henning]

(* chortle *)

[71 dB]

I believe you've stated your opinion on Sibelius before.

Possibly, but not recently.

We all understand you don't care for his music.

I wouldn't say I don't care for his music. I'm just wondering why I can't be critical. I simply don't find Sibelius' symphonies as awesome as many claim them to be.

So my question to you is this: why do you continue to post on a composer's thread that you don't care for?

Wow, I really have filled this thread with my posts, haven't I? I posted here because I recently had a positive Sibelius experience with the last movement of the 5th Symphony. Maybe I did care for some of the notes written by Sibelius?

Don't you have something better to do? Seems quite counterproductive to me.

Arguably I have tons of better things to do, but I suppose this applies to us all. I'm sure we all "waste" most of the time we spend on GMG. That's life. Other people waste their time on even dumber ways. At least we are talking about Sibelius ( ="high culture" ).

I've posted on composers' threads I didn't care for previously and came under heavy fire, so think of this as seeing the errors of my own way and calling you out for the same thing I shouldn't have been doing in the first place.

I see your point, but did I express that much hate? Really?