Schonberg on Sibelius

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

The thread is taking an unexpected turn.

[karlhenning]

I think that "simpering mediocrity" is an awfully strong phrase to apply to the Ardent Pelleastre;  it was an unguarded moment on jbuck's part, and we should move on.

[karlhenning]

Harold Schonberg is my kind of guy...

Maybe; he seems an opinionate ignoramus:

[Schonberg] states that although there is a large fondness of his music particularly amongst the English and American public, he knew of no professional musicians who saw anything much in his work.

Who does he suppose had been performing Sibelius's music in Finland, Germany and England? Devoted amateurs?

[karlhenning]

Harold Schonberg in the same book, different chapter:

"Debussy's 'Pelleas et Melisande' blah blah blah blah blah blah"

The thread is taking an unexpected turn.

[Wanderer]

Harold Schonberg in the same book, different chapter:

"Debussy's 'Pelleas et Melisande' has never been popular in the sense that the operas of Mozart, Verdi, Puccini and Wagner are popular. It is too refined, to lacking in red blood. These attributes are, of course, the very things that attract the minority who consider 'Pelleas et Melisande' the most subtle and atmsospheric opera ever written... It is set in a dream world, a world of pianissimo sounds, diaphanous colors, subtlety and restraint. It is an opera of 'sensibilite'... It had no followers... It was unique and has remained unique"

********

Harold Schonberg is my kind of guy...

0:)

He probably just wrote that to get into your good books.  

[Homo Aestheticus]

Maybe; he seems an opinionate ignoramus:

Nope; his assessment of  Pelleas et Melisande  is exactly right.

[Mark G. Simon]

What's remarkable about the 2 versions of the 5th is how completely different they are. There's not a measure of the original that Sibelius left intact in the final version. These are basically two different symphonies based on the same material. Both of them show a musical mind that works in a profoundly different way than any other composer's. Just the way he proceeds from one idea to the next and what he chooses as the thread of continuity -- who else thinks like this? And yet when he's all through you get the feeling it couldn't go any other way. But then again, you listen to the two versions of the 5th and you realize that the music could actually go in radically different ways.

One of the more remarkable passages to me is the episode in the first movement with the bassoon solo over this rocking figure in the strings. Both the the rocking figure and the chromatic segments featured in the bassoon solo come from basic motives introduced early on and worked on continually to this point. But the effect of this solo is disconcerting because it seems lost. The music goes on but it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. In the final version this only sets the stage for, and makes an incredible contrast to, the scherzo which is grafted on to the first movement. Once the scherzo kicks in, the music takes off like a rocket and from there the music proceeds to where it's going at a dizzying pace. In the original it seems that being lost was the whole point. The first movement doesn't come to an end, it just stops. Likewise, Sibelius robs the scherzo of its finality by suddenly breaking off at the point of its greatest forward momentum. In compensation, the original 5th has a much longer finale with a more powerful culmination.

The original 5th is a much more modern-sounding symphony than the revised 5th. It has a higher level of dissonance, and it deals in ambiguities, while the revised 5th arrives at certainties. The original 5th has many striking passages, especially in the finale, which never made it into the revised 5th. I regret their loss, and yet at the same tiime recognize the powerful and profound logic which is gained in the final version

[The new erato]

I wonder why there is no book called "The lives of the Great Critics"?

[Mark G. Simon]

Sibelius himself once said "Remember, no one ever erected a monument to a critic".

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Sibelius himself once said "Remember, no one ever erected a monument to a critic".

It's a well-known saying, but I know it's not true... Opposite the Statens Museum in Copenhagen I saw a statue of Georg Brandes (1842-1927). People may know his name in connection with Ibsen and Strindberg. And he was the first to recognize the importance of Nietzsche.

http://kirjasto.sci.fi/brandes.htm

[karlhenning]

It's a well-known saying, but I know it's not true... Opposite the Statens Museum in Copenhagen I saw a statue of Georg Brandes (1842-1927). People may know his name in connection with Ibsen and Strindberg. And he was the first to recognize the importance of Nietzsche.

http://kirjasto.sci.fi/brandes.htm

Sibelius afterwards added, "All right: so the Danes erected a monument, to one critic."

[karlhenning]

Johan, was the statue cast after Sibelius made his remark? 

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

Johan, was the statue cast after Sibelius made his remark? 

That might well be. Usually statues are erected to the dead - Brandes died in 1927, and I think Sibelius' remark predates that.

I'll see if I can find out when the statue was made (I can read Danish...)

[Mark G. Simon]

Maybe Brandes is included in Lives of the Great Danes.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

I found this (but it's not the statue I meant...)

http://www.adenmarkattraction.com/denmark-attractions/georg-brandes-memorial.htm

This bust was only unveiled in 1993 (the bust itself was made in 1902).

http://vejpark2.kk.dk/apps/monumenter/index.asp?lang=uk&mode=detalje&id=316

Let's leave it there...

Edit: No, the bust is what I saw! I just checked Google Maps.

[lisa needs braces]

Some years back, a major orchestra tried to showcase the works of Schoenberg, but the only way they could guarantee that people would show up was to pair him off with Beethoven! 

Sibelius doesn't need that sort of "help." Therefore, he wins.

[karlhenning]

Some years back, a major orchestra tried to showcase the works of Schoenberg, but the only way they could guarantee that people would show up was to pair him off with Beethoven! 

Well, that's one way to spin it.  Although it involves a complete disregard for Levine's point.

[Sef]

Some years back, a major orchestra tried to showcase the works of Schoenberg, but the only way they could guarantee that people would show up was to pair him off with Beethoven! 

Sibelius doesn't need that sort of "help." Therefore, he wins.

Well on Saturday his 4 was the support act for Shostakovich 5, so perhaps someone thought he did need a little leg up.

[Cato]

On the general question of the "Value" of Sibelius: the answer from me is that his music, particularly in the later symphonies, contains more mysteriously spiritual moments than dozens of other composers.

Curiously, I had come across this article not too long ago on Sibelius, while I was looking for something else:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/09/070709fa_fact_ross

The alcoholism, manic-depression, etc. may contribute to the darker aspects of Sibelius' music: in the above article, Alex Ross writes about the problems of similar composers in the post-WWI era, e.g. Rachmaninoff, Elgar, etc.

[Sef]

On the general question of the "Value" of Sibelius: the answer from me is that his music, particularly in the later symphonies, contains more mysteriously spiritual moments than dozens of other composers.

Curiously, I had come across this article not too long ago on Sibelius, while I was looking for something else:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/07/09/070709fa_fact_ross

The alcoholism, manic-depression, etc. may contribute to the darker aspects of Sibelius' music: in the above article, Alex Ross writes about the problems of similar composers in the post-WWI era, e.g. Rachmaninoff, Elgar, etc.

Thank you for posting a link to this article. I found it both interesting and informative, and perhaps answers my original question (and slaps my wrists for preferring a less abrupt ending to the 4th symphony), though of course anyone is allowed to disagree.....