Schonberg on Sibelius

Started by Sef, October 06, 2008, 01:52:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark G. Simon

A revised version of the Alex Ross article became a chapter in his book The Rest is Noise.

some guy

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on October 07, 2008, 05:20:30 AM
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

I don't usually just hit "quote" and then skip merrily along, but this one could easily be read, again and again, so I won't apologize! All the things Mark mentions illuminate the question (yes, answering is what one usually does with questions--but how jejune!) of how Sibelius could have gotten from the fourth to the fifth. They're so radically and fundamentally different. Well, the original version of the fifth is the missing link, as it were. My first thought on hearing it for the first time was "Ah. So that's how he did it."

Otherwise, I guess I've not spent as much time with the original as I could. The observation that "there's not a measure of the original that Sibelius left intact in the final version," really intrigued me. And here I thought I knew that piece, knew both pieces. It's not as if it won't be fun to give those two another spin or two, after all!

J.Z. Herrenberg

Quote from: Mark G. Simon on October 07, 2008, 05:20:30 AM
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.

My favourite passage is when 'Thor's Hammer' resumes its swing and the violins enter - the dissonance is excruciating.
Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything. -- Plato

M forever

Quote from: some guy on October 07, 2008, 09:59:27 AM
how Sibelius could have gotten from the fourth to the fifth. They're so radically and fundamentally different. Well, the original version of the fifth is the missing link, as it were. My first thought on hearing it for the first time was "Ah. So that's how he did it."

I don't really see that as a "missing link" because the differences between the 4th symphony and the first version of the 5th are still considerable. There is also a very big difference in style between the first two and the 3rd symphony. And then again between the 3rd and the 4th. And then again between all the later ones. All of Sibelius' symphonies are very original and unique. He didn't repeat himself either.

Kullervo

Quote from: Sef on October 06, 2008, 01:52:03 PM
Now perhaps I can get an answer as to whether my love of Sibelius' music is all just sentimental romantic twaddle, or whether some "real" classically trained musicians may want to argue the point (probably in ways that I couldn't possibly understand)!

One of my favorite composers (and someone whom I think has made some of the best music of the postwar years), Per Nørgård was aware very early-on of the ingenious and subtly-radical structures Sibelius used in his music. From his site:

He studied all the scores and collected all the records he could of Sibelius' music, and discovered that the idea of metamorphosis, which plays such a central role in Holmboe's music, was already found in a fully developed form in Sibelius' oeuvre. The existence of several independent levels in the music, the shift between foreground and background, and even the idea of hierarchy itself - all this Nørgård found in Sibelius.

At that time these ideas, which for Nørgård were to reach far into his musical future, were more or less ignored or unrecognised, not only in Denmark, but even more in central European countries, where the name Sibelius stood for a hopelessly outdated nationalist romanticism.

When Nørgård had discovered this and thought it over, he wrote a letter to Sibelius setting out the ideas outlined above, and indeed also with the aim of assuring Sibelius that he was not alone with his musical visions, but that these would endure and be further developed.

J.Z. Herrenberg

Quote from: Corey on October 07, 2008, 02:14:17 PM
When Nørgård had discovered this and thought it over, he wrote a letter to Sibelius setting out the ideas outlined above, and indeed also with the aim of assuring Sibelius that he was not alone with his musical visions, but that these would endure and be further developed.

Beautiful.
Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything. -- Plato

M forever

Quote from: Sef on October 06, 2008, 01:52:03 PM
Now perhaps I can get an answer as to whether my love of Sibelius' music is all just sentimental romantic twaddle, or whether some "real" classically trained musicians may want to argue the point (probably in ways that I couldn't possibly understand)!

Nobody really understands how the minds of musical geniuses such as Sibelius work. One can study and analyze the compositions on many levels, but in the end, what really counts is what impression it leaves on musically perceptive minds.
And there are a lot of of "real" classically trained musicians who might want to "argue the point" - or already did in the most convincing way - by performing his music. There are many eminent musicians and conductors who value his music very highly. The many performances and recordings of his symphonies and orchestral works by many "great" conductors alone should testify to that.

karlhenning

Quote from: M forever on October 07, 2008, 02:57:48 PM
Nobody really understands how the minds of musical geniuses such as Sibelius work.

In many ways, this is the most important, fundamental consideration.

greg

Sometimes, they don't quite understand it themselves.
I think it was Samuel Barber who admitted, "As for what goes on during the creative process, I have no idea."  ;D

Cato

Quote from: GGGGRRREEG on October 07, 2008, 05:56:57 PM
Sometimes, they don't quite understand it themselves.
I think it was Samuel Barber who admitted, "As for what goes on during the creative process, I have no idea."  ;D

Exactly, and when the artist DOES become too conscious of himself, or worries about catalyzing it too much, then you have problems.

My favorite story on this concerns Thomas Mann and his great book The Magic Mountain.

After emigrating to America in the 1930's, Mann heard of a scholarly analysis of his novel by a professor at Harvard.  Mann read it and wrote a very positive letter to the professor, where he famously stated that the professor showed him many things that he "never realized were in the story."

Being too conscious of such things leads to the plot contrivances of the mass-market novel.
"Meet Miss Ruth Sherwood, from Columbus, Ohio, the Middle of the Universe!"

- Brian Aherne introducing Rosalind Russell in  My Sister Eileen (1942)

Superhorn

   Sibelius and Schoenberg were contemporaries and both are  genuinely great composers, each in his own way.
  And for once Mforever, I am in total agreement with you about Sibelius.
You are right on target. A true Sibelius hater was Virgil Thomson, who wrote one of the stupidest and most vicious reviews ever when he dismissed the 2nd symphony as "vulgar" and "provincial" , and used the review to dismiss the New York Philharmonic as "not part of the intellectual life of New York" because of one concert he happened to hate.
  Talk about dismissing critics such as Donald Rosenberg. Thomson's arrogant, presumptious and condescending review would have made him deserving of being fired. I wouldn't have objected if I had been alive during the 1940s when the review of this concert conducted by Barbirolli took place.
   And furthermore, this review defamed the New York Philharmonic for decades.
   Also, composer and conductor Rene Leibowitz, a confirmed serialist, called Sibelius "The world's worst composer".  Oh well, some people just don't get it.

karlhenning

Quote from: Superhorn on October 08, 2008, 10:58:17 AM
. . . A true Sibelius hater was Virgil Thomson . . .

. . . Also, composer and conductor Rene Leibowitz, a confirmed serialist, called Sibelius "The world's worst composer".

Which just goes to show, that you can catch grief from opposite extremes.

Kullervo

Quote from: Superhorn on October 08, 2008, 10:58:17 AM
A true Sibelius hater was Virgil Thomson, who wrote one of the stupidest and most vicious reviews ever when he dismissed the 2nd symphony as "vulgar" and "provincial" , and used the review to dismiss the New York Philharmonic as "not part of the intellectual life of New York" because of one concert he happened to hate.

I've avoided Thomson's music for this very reason.

karlhenning

Well, such a vicious review certainly comes across as vulgar and provincial;  so what Thomson thought he was accomplishing is open to question.

jochanaan

Quote from: Corey on October 08, 2008, 11:10:29 AM
I've avoided Thomson's music for this very reason.
There are other valid reasons to avoid Thomson's music. ;D

As for Sibelius, I've played Finlandia, the Second Symphony, Pohjola's Daughter, and the Violin Concerto (not the solo part! :o).  It's very gratifying for orchestras.  However, I'm not quite with M on the smaller pieces; too many of them seem to be mere craft exercises.  Of his major works, the only one I don't care for is the Karelia Suite; it seems to lack the compelling continuity of his other great works.  Everything else is platinum. :D
Imagination + discipline = creativity

karlhenning

Quote from: jochanaan on October 08, 2008, 11:16:56 AM
. . . Everything else is platinum. :D

I'm Karl Henning, and I approve this message  :)

Homo Aestheticus

Superhorn,

Do we know what Pierre Boulez thinks of Sibelius ?

Has he ever conducted his music ?

karlhenning

Quote from: jochanaan on October 08, 2008, 11:16:56 AM
As for Sibelius, I've played Finlandia, the Second Symphony, Pohjola's Daughter, and the Violin Concerto (not the solo part! :o).

What, haven't played the flute transcription?  ;)

not edward

Quote from: The Ardent Pelleastre on October 08, 2008, 11:23:23 AM
Superhorn,

Do we know what Pierre Boulez thinks of Sibelius ?

Has he ever conducted his music ?
To my knowledge, he has not. My memory of hearing him talking in Edinburgh some years ago was that he respected the music but didn't connect with it enough to want to conduct it.
"I don't at all mind actively disliking a piece of contemporary music, but in order to feel happy about it I must consciously understand why I dislike it. Otherwise it remains in my mind as unfinished business."
-- Aaron Copland, The Pleasures of Music

Homo Aestheticus