GMG Classical Music Forum

I'm going to post the original French in one post, then the English in the next. The reason is, the English version was translated by a rank moron who does not speak French and leaned occasionally on Google Translate (me), and French-speakers on GMG may wish to suggest corrections.

I don't know that the original text is available anywhere on the internet - this is my transcription of the original pamphlet, published in 1955, which can be found at the British Library.

-
[cover]

RENÉ LEIBOWITZ

SIBELIUS
le plus mauvais
compositeur
DU MONDE

Aux Editions Dynamo
P. Aelberts, éditeur
Liège-1955


-
[inside cover]

Cette note pertinente est publiée à l'occasion du 90e anni-
versaire du compositeur finlandais et tirée à 40 exemplaires
vélin blanc et 11 exemplaires sur hollande antique, numérotés
1 à 51 par l'éditeur. Le tirage a été execute le 8 décembre 1955
par l'imprimerie nationale des invalids, de Liège.



Brimborions
no 37

TOUS DROITS RESERVES.


-
   
Le mélomane ou musicien éduqué en France ne sait pas grand-chose de Sibelius. Même la fréquentation de certains centres musicaux étrangers (Allemagne, Autriche, Belgique, Hollande, Italie) ne lui aura rien appris de significatif sur ce musicien. Il se peut que l'on connaisse son nom, que l'on sache qu'il est Finlandais en même temps que l'auteur de la <<Valse trise>> et il se peut même que l'on ait entendu cet inoffensif échantillon de la musique de salon. Mais si l'on suit l'activité musicale anglaise ou américaine, l'on s'aperçoit que le nom de Sibelius, à peine prononcé chez nous, se présente à peu près aussi souvent que les marques célèbres d'automobiles, de cigarettes ou de pâte dentrifice. Les critiques se surpassent en dithyrambes. Toscanini affirme qu'il s'agit du <<plus grand symphoniste depuis Beethoven>> et il existe même une <<Société Sibelius>> qui s'est imposé le but d'enregistrer et de propager ses œuvres.
   La stupéfaction et la curiosité s'emparent de vous et l'on se dit qu'on est peut-être passé à côte d'une des manifestations primordiales de la musique de notre temps. On consulte une partition, choisie parmi les œuvres les plus importantes (par exemple la Cinquième Symphonie). La stupéfaction croît, la curiosité diminue: la partition offre une image où s'étalent une pauvreté et une misère à peine concevables. Mais les admirateurs de Sibelius de vous rassurer: <<Attendez l'audition, vous verrez...>> Hélas, l'ouïe ne dément pas ce que la vue avait perçu.
   Cela se présente à peu près comme suit: quelques vagues figures sonores sans consistance, banales et vulgaires assument le rôle de <<thèmes>>. Leur allure est maladroite, leur harmonie incorrecte, pauvre et schématique. Soudain leur cours se trouve interrompu, sans que l'auteur ait songé à en tirer les quelques conséquences dont—malgré tout—ils étaient capables. Puis voici que ces thèmes répparaissent, sans rime ni raison, sans liens avec ce qui précède et ce qui suit; triturés, tordus, plus maladroits et plus pénibles encore que lors de leur première apparition.
   La monotonie rythmique, l'absence de toute polyphonie véritable, l'uniformité de la démarche, bref l'ennui que se dégage de tout cela ont vite fait de vous assoupir lorsque, [PAGE BREAK]
brusquement, on est réveillé car le morceau est fini sans qu'on puisse dire, toutefois, comment ou pourquoi il en est advenu ainsi. Ce n'était que le premier mouvement, mais les autres sont tels que le lecteur n'aura qu'à relire ce qui précède pour en avoir une idée.

   C'est alors que l'angoisse vous saisit et l'on fait part de ses doutes aux <<admirateurs>>. Comme de juste, c'est vous qui n'aves pas compris. L'harmonie qui vous paraît fausse... mais c'est cela précisément que constitue l'originalité de Sibelius. Le manque de développements... mais c'est justement sa force, c'est ce qui le situe <<au-dessus des écoles>>. L'indigence rythmique et mélodique... mais ce sont les qualités de Sibelius, qui, tel Beethoven, réussit à tirer le maximum des éléments les plus <<simples>>, etc...
   Tout cela, cependant, ne rend pas un son très juste. On a du mal à croire aux vertus du travail symphonique de celui qui ne paraît pas capable de construire une période; on n'est pas très convaincu par ce <<vol plané>>, au-dessus des écoles, de quelqu'un qui à l'école a dû être un cancre et l'on se méfie un peu de cette originalité due à la ignorance, à l'incompétence et à l'impotence.
   Mais alors, ce succès formidable?   
   Peut-être Sibelius en est-il le premier étonné. Toujours est-il que l'on peut l'expliquer par le conservatisme du public musical qui voit en Sibelius la possibilité de faire de la musique nouvelle avec des moyens anciens. Quel soulagement, quelle provision de conscience tranquille acquis ainsi si l'on pouvait prouver la validité d'une pareille entreprise. <<Vous voyez, je vous le disais bien, toutes ces dissonances... On peut encore faire de la bonne musique sans elles.>>
   Mais le seul mérite de Sibelius est de nous avoir débarrassés de touts les complexes à l'égard d'une telle <<philosophie>>, car il nous a montré, de façon magistrale, que ces moyens anciens, authentiques autrefois, sont devenus faux à présent.
   Et il nous a montré aussi qu'en se servant de ces moyens rien n'est plus aisé que de devenir le plus mauvais compositeur du monde.

And Google's/my cruddy translation.

-

RENÉ LEIBOWITZ

SIBELIUS
the worst
composer
IN THE WORLD

from Editions Dynamo
P. Aelberts, editor
Liege-1955


-

This pertinent note is published on the occasion of the 90th birthday of the Finnish composer. 40 copies are printed on white vellum and 11 copies on "hollande antique", numbered 1 to 51 by the editor. The printing was conducted on 8 December 1955 by the National Invalids' Press of Liege [note from Brian: that sure as hell sounds like a joke...any Belgian historians in the house?].


Brimborions ["Trifles"]
No 37

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


-

   The music lover or musician educated in France does not know very much about Sibelius. Even frequenting certain foreign musical centers (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Italy) will not shed significant light on this musician. Perhaps you know his name, that he is Finnish and even that he is author of the "Valse triste," and he may thus be understood as an inoffensive composer of salon music. But if you look upon the musical scenes in England or America, you realize that the name of Sibelius, rarely spoken in our country, appears in those countries scarcely less often than the famous brands of cars, cigarettes, or toothpaste. The critics praise him in dithyrambs. Toscanini claims that he is "the greatest symphonist after Beethoven" and there is even a "Sibelius Society" which has adopted the goal of recording and promoting his works.
   Astonishment and curiosity seize you, and you must ask if this is, passing by unnoticed, one of the most central events of the music of our time. To consult a score, I chose for myself the most important works of Sibelius (for example the Fifth Symphony). The astonishment grew, the curiosity shrank: the score offers a portrait that grew into poverty and misery beyond belief. But the admirers of Sibelius reassure us: "Listen, and you will see..." Alas, hearing does not deny what sight had perceived.
   What is presented is as follows: some vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic. Suddenly the flow is interrupted, without the author giving thought to the various consequences of which—despite everything—those shapes could have been capable. Then the themes reappear, without rhyme or reason, without connection to what precedes and what follows; ground down to bits, twisted apart, even clumsier and more painful than they had been on first appearance.
   The rhythmic monotony, the absence of any real counterpoint, the uniformity of tempo, in short the ennui which arises from all this quickly makes you sleepy when, rudely, you are awakened because the piece is finished—without your being able to say how or why anything in it has happened. This description was only of the first movement, but the others are such that the reader need only read the above to have an idea of them.

   It is then that the anxiety grabs you and you express your doubts over the "admirers." Naturally, it is you who does not understand. The harmony which you feel is wrong...but that is exactly the thing which makes Sibelius so original! The absence of development...but that is precisely his power, this is what places him "above schools"! The rhythmic and melodic laziness...but these are the qualities of Sibelius who, like Beethoven, managed to make the most of the most simple elements, etc....
   All of this, however, does not seem to be playing fair. It is difficult to believe in the symphonic work of those who appear incapable of creating a new style; we are not very convinced by the "hovering" above the schools, when someone at the school had to be a dunce, and one suspects this is the case due to the originality of the ignorance, the incompetence, and the impotence.
   But then, why such tremendous success?
   Perhaps Sibelius himself is most surprised. It is always possible that you might explain it with the conservatism of the musical public, who see in Sibelius the possibility of making new music in old styles. What solace, what restoration of a peaceful conscience if you could prove the validity of such a venture. "You see, I told you so, all those dissonances...One may still make good music without them."
   But the sole merit of Sibelius is that we can abandon all our fears of such a philosophy, because he showed us in such a magisterial way that the old styles, once so authentic, have now become false.
   And he also showed us that, by using the old styles, nothing is easier than to become the worst composer in the world.

Thanks for your hard work.

Leibowitz undoubtedly knew a lot more about music than I do and most other listeners as well. Yet after all his effusions, Sibelius is as popular as ever. Reminds me a bit of Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

 :laugh:

The article has already zoomed through that reverse telescope where over but a half-century or so, it is looking beyond small and has firmly established itself as one of those "Period Pieces" of very little importance, relegated to that shelf of trivial curiosities of its era.

Sibelius does absolutely nothing for me or to me, where clearly even though in the negative it did more than a little for Liebowitz -- enough to make him bother to sit down and write a short monograph condemning the composer's works.

If your reaction is a complete and inconsequential, "MEH." you just don't go that far; you simply go to another composer or area that does engage you.


Best regards.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on August 18, 2016, 08:09:44 PM
Thanks for your hard work.

Leibowitz undoubtedly knew a lot more about music than I do and most other listeners as well. Yet after all his effusions, Sibelius is as popular as ever. Reminds me a bit of Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

He explains Sibelius's  popularity by the public's wish to have new music which uses old methods.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on August 18, 2016, 08:09:44 PM
Thanks for your hard work.

Leibowitz undoubtedly knew a lot more about music than I do and most other listeners as well. Yet after all his effusions, Sibelius is as popular as ever. Reminds me a bit of Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

OT

George Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' is excellent in relation to Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

Quotesome vague sonic shapes without consistency, banalities and vulgarities assuming the role of "themes." Their appeal is awkward and ill-formed, their harmonies incorrect, poor and schematic.

Finally solid scientific proof under my doubts about Sibelius!  :D

Admitteldy a somewhat Trumpian metric of worth, but Arkivmusic has 933 recordings of Sibelius and 4 of works by Leibowitz.   

What I have been told is that this polemic (there was a similar one in German by Adorno writing in the early 1930s) was partly born of the frustration of proponents of early/mid 20th century avantgarde. They witnessed the popularity of Sibelius and took this as one reason for the unpopularity of Schoenberg. Although Leibowitz must have realized that in the countries where Sibelius was not very popular in the early 1950s (e.g. France and Germany) Schoenberg was not necessarily much more popular than in the Sibelius-loving anglophone countries.
The very title seems to have been chosen because some American magazin or radio station had conducted some poll and the listeners had chosen Sibelius as the greatest living composer.

What I always found puzzling (and I lack the knowledge to judge the verdict) was that both Leibowitz and Adorno claim that Sibelius' music suffered grave and obvious technical shortcomings (Adorno writes something that Sibelius could not properly write a four-part choral setting, something every music student should be able to - this is very probably wrong). This must be widely exaggerated, if not plainly wrong, I think, and I wonder why Leibowitz makes such claims that should be easy to refute by anyone with some professional level of theory of harmony etc.
They don't merely say that the music was old-fashioned or trite but that its composer lacked skill and failed in fairly basic compositional abilities.

Quote from: Jo498 on August 19, 2016, 12:48:18 AM

What I always found puzzling (and I lack the knowledge to judge the verdict) was that both Leibowitz and Adorno claim that Sibelius' music suffered grave and obvious technical shortcomings (Adorno writes something that Sibelius could not properly write a four-part choral setting, . . .
They don't merely say that the music was old-fashioned or trite but that its composer lacked skill and failed in fairly basic compositional abilities.

Yes, it would be good if someone here who is able would address this.

Quote from: Brian on August 18, 2016, 03:18:26 PM
Naturally, it is you who does not understand.

There are a number of other sentences in that pamphlet that make me think this is the truest thing in the pamphlet.

For instance, a comparison of the 5th symphony to many other works of Sibelius will readily show that YES, the roughness of the harmony in that work is a quite deliberate thing.

And Sibelius is not a conservative composer, he is a radical one. He's just not radical in the way that was approved by the avant garde atonal mob. He still believed in tonality, and to them that meant "conservative" despite that the fact that in matters of structure and development, Sibelius was crazy-radical.

MILLE MERCIS, M. Brian, sans toi je ne l'aurais jamais lu! :-*

As a Sibelius fan of monster proportions, I found much to think about in this diatribe and am going to spend some time with it.  First impressions:  whew!, fortunately, it lacks Adorno's excoriating and coruscating wit. (Brian - might be best to retain the second person you throughout your excellent trans. - he's addressing the reader directly, I believe.)  Sibelius was still alive when this was published and to poison pen it on the occasion of the master's 90th birthday shows that Leibowitz lacks judgement and taste and is more than a little jealous.  The dig at American conspicuous consumption shows there's more going on here than aesthetic disagreement. 

Quote from: orfeo on August 19, 2016, 01:41:49 AM
There are a number of other sentences in that pamphlet that make me think this is the truest thing in the pamphlet.

For instance, a comparison of the 5th symphony to many other works of Sibelius will readily show that YES, the roughness of the harmony in that work is a quite deliberate thing.

And Sibelius is not a conservative composer, he is a radical one. He's just not radical in the way that was approved by the avant garde atonal mob. He still believed in tonality, and to them that meant "conservative" despite that the fact that in matters of structure and development, Sibelius was crazy-radical.

Yupper! 8)

Not one specific example from one score is used to support one claim.  0:)

Au revoir, Monsieur Leibowitz!  8)

The article itself is bizarre but so is this:
"This pertinent note is published on the occasion of the 90th birthday of the Finnish composer. 40 copies are printed on white vellum and 11 copies on "hollande antique", numbered 1 to 51 by the editor. The printing was conducted on 8 December 1955 by the National Invalids' Press of Liege."

Hope most of it went into the "round file".

Celebrating his 90^th birthday by trash-talking his work.  Is that a French thing?  0:)

Wagner (German) has his share of dissing composers he didn't like.

To be sure!

Quote from: Jo498 on August 19, 2016, 12:48:18 AM
What I have been told is that this polemic (there was a similar one in German by Adorno writing in the early 1930s) was partly born of the frustration of proponents of early/mid 20th century avantgarde. They witnessed the popularity of Sibelius and took this as one reason for the unpopularity of Schoenberg.

I expect you're right, and that this was the old mindset that Music all marches in lockstep, and that if there are two Ways, only one of them can be true and worthy.

Probably most of us here who like Schoenberg, like Sibelius no less.

And if there is a sub-population of Sibelius-lovers who are not great fans of Schoenberg—why on earth hold that against them?

Quote from: vandermolen on August 18, 2016, 11:07:55 PM
OT

George Orwell's essay 'Lear, Tolstoy and the Fool' is excellent in relation to Tolstoy's trashing of Shakespeare.

Yeah, that's how I know about it. I've never read Tolstoy's own pamphlet which was the subject of Orwell's essay.

Another Shakespeare denouncer was George Bernard Shaw. Karl Kraus said: "If Mr. Shaw attacks Shakespeare, he acts in justified self-defense."

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on August 19, 2016, 06:55:13 AM
Another Shakespeare denouncer was George Bernard Shaw. Karl Kraus said: "If Mr. Shaw attacks Shakespeare, he acts in justified self-defense."

Iced!

From Wikipedia... Liebowitz was later than Adorno in jumping onto this "Sibelius is no good bandwagon."

In 1938 Theodor Adorno wrote a critical essay, notoriously charging that "If Sibelius is good, this invalidates the standards of musical quality that have persisted from Bach to Schoenberg: the richness of inter-connectedness, articulation, unity in diversity, the 'multi-faceted' in 'the one'."  Adorno sent his essay to Virgil Thomson, then music critic of the New York Herald Tribune, who was also critical of Sibelius; Thomson, while agreeing with the essay's sentiment, declared to Adorno that "the tone of it [was] more apt to create antagonism toward [Adorno] than toward Sibelius".  Later, the composer, theorist and conductor René Leibowitz went so far as to describe Sibelius as "the worst composer in the world" in the title of a 1955 pamphlet.

Take that Liebowitz : just 'cause of your rude and misguided and unprincipled denunciation of him, I am going to read Andrew Barnett's sizeable Sibelius biography.  Entire.  So put that in your pipe and smoke it. 

Digging into the Adorno (never one of my favorites, for assorted reasons) controversy:

Quote...Theodor W. Adorno. In 1938 he published a review of Bengt de Törne's book Sibelius: A Close-Up (Faber & Faber, London, 1937). He was irritated by the uncritical personality cult in that book, but his actual target was Sibelius. 'If Sibelius is good, then all criteria of musical excellence valid from Bach to Schoenberg, such as complexity, articulation, unity in diversity, multiplicity in oneness, are frail.' Sibelius's scores are a 'configuration of the banal and the absurd;' all details sound 'commonplace and familiar,' but their arrangement is meaningless, 'as if the words gas station, lunch, death, Greta, plough blade had been arbitrarily put together with verbs and particles....

For Adorno, Sibelius was a perfect example of what he called 'fetish character in music.' ...Sibelius was a dilettante who could neither write a four-part chorale nor work up proper counterpoint. Worst was that his music was tonal. 'When a contemporary composer, such as Jean Sibelius, makes do entirely with tonal resources, they sound just as false as do the tonal enclaves in atonal music.'...

The reverse side of Adorno's argument was political. In Hitler's Germany Sibelius had a strong position. Between 1933 and 1945 he was fourth in number of orchestral performances ...and any music inconsistent with the Nazi aesthetics (e.g. Webern and Hindemith) was banned. Sibelius had unwittingly ended up in the wrong company, and he had to pay for it after the war...

...The reason for his popularity in the Third Reich, in Adorno's interpretation, was that his music had certain features in common with Nazi nature mysticism: 'The Great Pan, also Blood and Soil when needed, promptly offers assistance. The trivial stands for the original, the inarticulate for the voice of unconscious creation.'...

...(Adorno) had a large number of single-minded devotees in contemporary music circles both there and in neighboring countries, such as Austria, Switzerland and France. One of them was ...René Leibowitz (1913–1972), (who)  published a pamphlet entitled Sibelius, le plus mauvais compositeur du monde (Sibelius, the world's worst composer), which is in fact a paraphrase of Adorno's book review from 1938. How much this little invective affected Sibelius's reputation in the francophone countries is difficult to estimate, but it may be symptomatic that one of Leibowitz's most influential students, Pierre Boulez, never has conducted a single work of Sibelius...

...(Constant) Lambert confirms that Sibelius's concern about the name of his symphonies was not unjustified. The Fourth Symphony (1911), for instance, 'although in every respect as remarkable and challenging a work as the famous "spot" pieces of Debussy, Stravinsky and Schönberg... seems to have made singularly little impact on the consciousness of the time, and even today it remains among the least comprehended and most neglected of his works. The reason is that it obstinately refuses to be fitted into any category, ancient or modern....

...Arnold Whittall, thinks on the same lines when speaking of the Fifth Symphony (1915/1919): 'It is scarcely surprising (though profoundly depressing) that such a radical yet organic transformation of the traditional sonata design should have passed uncomprehended.'...

...One of the first composers to apprehend Sibelius's radical but subtle innovations was Per Nørgård in Denmark....In France the Symphonies 5, 6 (1923) and 7 (1924) and the tone poem Tapiola (1926) inspired composers whose names are associated with 'spectral music,' such as Hugues Dufourt, Tristan Murail and Gérard Grisey, and more indirectly Alain Blanquart and Pascal Dusapin....British composers Peter Maxwell Davies, George Benjamin, Oliver Knussen and Julian Anderson are devoted Sibelius enthusiasts. For Davies and Benjamin, the tempo transformation in the first movement of Sibelius's Fifth Symphony has been a model for a continuously unfolding structure, Knussen has mentioned Sibelius's textures and his powerful bass writing as major sources of interest, and the opening of Anderson's Symphony (2003) has been described in a review as 'Sibelius re-imagined by Ligeti'. In recent American music Sibelian undertones can be heard in pieces as different as Morton Feldman's Coptic Light (1985) and Steven Stucky's Second Concerto for Orchestra (2003)....

(My emphasis above)

"Your honor, in the matter of Adorno vs. Sibelius, the jury finds in favor of Sibelius."  0:)

See:

https://relatedrocks.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/the-sibelius-problem/ (https://relatedrocks.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/the-sibelius-problem/)

. . . which is in fact a paraphrase of Adorno's book review from 1938 . . . .

Ladies and gentlemen, we have plagiarism!  0:)

Cato, your mention of Boulez never having conducted a note of Sibelius, reminded me of a John Gardiner post I'd read on the Gramophone site about other non-conductors of the composer: 

"And while it's at cross-purposes with your original question [the best Sibelius conductors], the thing that stumps me is why so many major conductors have never (to my knowledge) conducted Sibelius symphonies. Where is the Haitink cycle, where is the Abbado, where is the Chailly? How did Giulini never conduct some of the late symphonies? Svetlanov seemed to conduct everything - but no Sibelius that I know of. Of course no conductor is obliged to conduct works for the sake of it (and indeed should avoid doing this), but given that there's surely no debate about Sibelius's greatness, what's going on here, do you think?"

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on August 19, 2016, 10:00:54 AM
Cato, your mention of Boulez never having conducted a note of Sibelius, reminded me of a John Gardiner post I'd read on the Gramophone site about other non-conductors of the composer: 

One can always say: "It's their loss."

On the other hand, perhaps the "subtlety" of the revolution in the music of Sibelius (mentioned in the article above) escaped those uninterested conductors as well.

Even if one could prove that Sibelius did no pushing of harmony, counterpoint, etc., the other-worldly, and (yes) enigmatic atmospheres of the works would be enough, should be enough, to intrigue any conductor.

But apparently not!

And by the way, concerning "Great Sibelius Conductors," allow me to mention the great advocate of the composer's music, Akeo Watanabe and the Japan Philharmonic.

[asin]B00000I75L[/asin]

Another handful of dirt on Leibowitz's rep., Grove sez: "Leibowitz's claims of having met Schoenberg and studied with Webern in the early 1930s remain unsubstantiated  - it appears that his knowledge of their music was acquired primarily through intensive study of their scores..."

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on August 19, 2016, 10:00:54 AM
"And while it's at cross-purposes with your original question [the best Sibelius conductors], the thing that stumps me is why so many major conductors have never (to my knowledge) conducted Sibelius symphonies. Where is the Haitink cycle, where is the Abbado, where is the Chailly? How did Giulini never conduct some of the late symphonies? Svetlanov seemed to conduct everything - but no Sibelius that I know of. Of course no conductor is obliged to conduct works for the sake of it (and indeed should avoid doing this), but given that there's surely no debate about Sibelius's greatness, what's going on here, do you think?"

They were obviously all brainwashed by Adorno and Leibowitz. Can't expect a conductor to think for himself, can you?

Quote from: Cato on August 19, 2016, 10:26:14 AM
On the other hand, perhaps the "subtlety" of the revolution in the music of Sibelius (mentioned in the article above) escaped those uninterested conductors as well.

I so seriously doubt this, as even the less famous conductors have in their skill sets the most basic requirements of readily understanding form and structure, a significant part of what conducting is about.  It might have been -- especially the later the date after the symphonies were written -- in Sibelius' harmonic language being found just less interesting than that of other contemporary composers of the same era, or that general trend (which was already at least slightly under way) away from the more classical romantic use of symphony as form, it was just not interesting enough to them.

Quote from: Cato on August 19, 2016, 10:26:14 AMEven if one could prove that Sibelius did no pushing of harmony, counterpoint, etc., the other-worldly, and (yes) enigmatic atmospheres of the works would be enough, should be enough, to intrigue any conductor.

Spoken like a true fan -- I find the Sibelius symphonies 'solid' writing, while they do none of that for me, demonstrating that both awareness of the 'bold new approach' to what goes into a symphony and where, and knowing (but not at all feelin') the emotional import as reported by so many -- is still not enough to convince.

There is always the practical factor which may have played in to some conductors and/or orchestras for that matter 'just not doing Sibelius.'  That being budget, most significantly the orchestra's budget and the recording label's budget -- re: how much was allocated and spent on more contemporay works due to copyright fees.  It is possible that budget for contemporary works was spent on other worksthought to be of greater interest insofar as being more 'contemporary sounding,' and that would have left Sibelius bumped off that budget list.

"Never recorded" does not imply "never conducted," and "never conducted" does not imply "does not understand."

Unload on Leibowitz and Adorno, but I don't think we gain much from speculating on why Abbado/Chailly/Haitink didn't record Sibelius.

Yes, I think going after conductors is a bit over the top. The fact is that no-one conducts (or, as has been pointed out, conducts and records) absolutely everything, and I expect you could pick any composer and start listing the people who don't have an entry in the recording catalogue.

It's not as if we have a shortage of recordings to choose from when it comes to the larger Sibelius orchestral works.

Whatever one might think about Leibowitz' verdict his statement in the first paragraph that Sibelius' music was hardly known and not prominent in concerts in countries like France or Austria, was undoubtedly true in the 1950s and this seems independent of any polemics.

Of course, it is somewhat difficult to find out what some conductor conducted once or twice (and probably almost everyone conducted the violin concerto, almost the only work that used to be considerably well-known outside the anglo-scando-baltic sphere). But even 60 years later there seems to be exactly one  Sibelius cycle by a German conductor (Sanderling) and one (not quite complete) by the Austrian Karajan and none by someone from a Romance/Latin country. Haitink, Solti, Sawallisch, Munch, Abbado, Giulini, Muti, Chailly, Barenboim: nichts, nada, niente, rien. Compare this to dozens, often repeated recordings by anglo-scando-baltic musicians.

And almost no single recordings either, except for the violin concerto. This might be partly due to the fact that the music was not all that popular in the respective countries/cultures (and still isn't), so record labels did not bother. Or it might be because these musicians did not much care for the music. As should be their right. And almost all of them are far more competent in musical things than most people on this board, a few professionals excepted. Neither do they need Leibowitz to tell them what music they find interesting enough to study and conduct.

Quote from: Pat B on August 19, 2016, 10:15:36 PM
"Never recorded" does not imply "never conducted," and "never conducted" does not imply "does not understand."

Unload on Leibowitz and Adorno, but I don't think we gain much from speculating on why Abbado/Chailly/Haitink didn't record Sibelius.

I couldn't agree more! I also think that comment 'Their Loss' (i.e. never having conducted Sibelius' music) is another transferred / projected item that only a true fan[atic] could make... as if those conductors did not have terrific and full careers conducting tons of great repertoire, possibly premiering new works, opera, conducting recordings, etc. 

Upon retirement, I can not imagine a one of them retrospectively contemplating their careers and sighing, "Gosh, I wish I'd been able to get around to Sibelius."

Quote from: Jo498 on August 19, 2016, 11:49:24 PM
Whatever one might think about Leibowitz' verdict his statement in the first paragraph that Sibelius' music was hardly known and not prominent in concerts in countries like France or Austria, was undoubtedly true in the 1950s and this seems independent of any polemics.

Of course, it is somewhat difficult to find out what some conductor conducted once or twice (and probably almost everyone conducted the violin concerto, almost the only work that used to be considerably well-known outside the anglo-scando-baltic sphere). But even 60 years later there seems to be exactly one  Sibelius cycle by a German conductor (Sanderling) and one (not quite complete) by the Austrian Karajan and none by someone from a Romance/Latin country. Haitink, Solti, Sawallisch, Munch, Abbado, Giulini, Muti, Chailly, Barenboim: nichts, nada, niente, rien. Compare this to dozens, often repeated recordings by anglo-scando-baltic musicians.

And almost no single recordings either, except for the violin concerto. This might be partly due to the fact that the music was not all that popular in the respective countries/cultures (and still isn't), so record labels did not bother. Or it might be because these musicians did not much care for the music. As should be their right. And almost all of them are far more competent in musical things than most people on this board, a few professionals excepted. Neither do they need Leibowitz to tell them what music they find interesting enough to study and conduct.

But is Sibelius a special case with this geographic distribution?

I doubt it. If you look at the recordings available of most English or Scandinavian composers, I suspect you would probably find that most of those recordings come from the same regions and not from the central part of Europe.

That Germanic musicians tend to focus on Germanic music is not earth-shattering news, the difference is that Germanic music managed to spread its influence far and wide so that non-Germanic musicians also expect to play it. French music has also tended to succeed further afield. English and Scandinavian music has generally not succeeded in exerting a similar influence.

You are right. It is not really a special thing. But imagine a similar polemic as Leibowitz' against Elgar or Pfitzner. Would it provoke such astonished reactions? Probably not. Because Elgar was mainly popular in Britain and Pfitzner is not even popular in Germany.

It's more that in the case of Sibelius most of us now tend to think of him as a "internationally relevant" composer, not as a regional/national style. Bruckner is a similar case. While prominent Italians have conducted lots of Bruckner now, his music was almost restricted to Germany and especially Austria until the 1960s or so. But now we do not really think of Bruckner as a regional speciality anymore.
But the truth is that both of these composers are still far more popular in some regions that in others, unlike, I guess Stravinsky or Richard Strauss.

When I began listening to classical music in the mid/late 1980s I did not encounter Sibelius at all. I do not remember when I first heard any of his music, it was probably Finlandia and many years later. It was not until I read international discussion groups on classical music in the mid 1990s that I realized how highly regarded the composer was in the anglophone world.
One of the most popular guidebooks to classical music in German, "Reclams Konzertführer", new edition from 1998, has 13 pages on Sibelius and 10-11 on Reger, (compare: R. Strauss 25, Mozart 64).

One has to take this into account because while the main issue for Adorno and Leibowitz was their frustration because of the lack of success of 20th century avantgarde they seem to have been genuinely puzzled at Sibelius's success in some musical cultures whereas it was fairly limited in France and Germany. I guess that neither would have had such a problem with respecting Sibelius as a Finnish regional composer, comparable to Elgar. But the elevation of an apparently merely local figure to the "greatest living composer" provoked such reactions alongside their defensive stance as champions of the avantgarde.

Yes, some very good points there.

It's interesting that some Americans on the forum have very recently expressed their frustration that American music is rarely considered elsewhere. I think there are expectations about where an internationally relevant composer "should" come from, built on notions of the traditions that are, subliminally, required.

Once upon a time it perhaps made more sense because there weren't such things as easy travel and recordings. But I don't know if it ever made complete sense, and these days there's no reason why a great musical talent can't have arrived from anywhere.

The one thing that is still uneven, though, is resources. In the same way that athletes often have to move to Europe or America for the best facilities, the music schools and orchestras are still most concentrated in those places. They have the money and they have the population density.

Quote from: Pat B on August 19, 2016, 10:15:36 PM
"Never recorded" does not imply "never conducted," and "never conducted" does not imply "does not understand."

Indeed.

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on August 19, 2016, 02:19:43 PM
Another handful of dirt on Leibowitz's rep., Grove sez: "Leibowitz's claims of having met Schoenberg and studied with Webern in the early 1930s remain unsubstantiated  - it appears that his knowledge of their music was acquired primarily through intensive study of their scores..."

Of course, there is no shame in that last (says someone whose knowledge of their music is entirely through study of the scores, and listening to recordings).  There is the odd chance of his having met Schoenberg, and no one else recollecting that fact in publication;  less of a chance, perhaps, of his studying with Webern and there being no sort of record.

I guess that was just a sort of See? The torch has been passed to me, too! moment.

(Separately: the record corroborates that I studied with Wuorinen)

8)

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on August 19, 2016, 08:54:21 PM
I so seriously doubt this, as even the less famous conductors have in their skill sets the most basic requirements of readily understanding form and structure, a significant part of what conducting is about.  It might have been -- especially the later the date after the symphonies were written -- in Sibelius' harmonic language being found just less interesting than that of other contemporary composers of the same era, or that general trend (which was already at least slightly under way) away from the more classical romantic use of symphony as form, it was just not interesting enough to them.

As I read your perceptive answer, I do think you may underscore Cato's speculative point that the subtlety of Sibelius's achievement eluded them, for your very reasons.

Quote from: orfeo on August 19, 2016, 10:36:14 PM
It's not as if we have a shortage of recordings to choose from when it comes to the larger Sibelius orchestral works.

And even in Sibelius's day, he was much better known internationally than (say) Nielsen, of whose music Leibowitz and Adorno would only have been yet more harshly dismissive.

Quote from: Jo498 on August 20, 2016, 01:16:44 AM
One has to take this into account because while the main issue for Adorno and Leibowitz was their frustration because of the lack of success of 20th century avantgarde they seem to have been genuinely puzzled at Sibelius's success in some musical cultures whereas it was fairly limited in France and Germany.

Speaking of projection, yes, indeed:  it was pretty much just the frustration talking, wasn't it?  Cannot be any problem with our work or our message;  the problem is with "the worst composer in the world," and all the "philistines" who prefer his music to ours.

Quote from: orfeo on August 20, 2016, 01:27:18 AM
It's interesting that some Americans on the forum have very recently expressed their frustration that American music is rarely considered elsewhere.

Call this an observation rather than frustration;  and it no doubt says as much about art music culture in the US as elsewhere.  But there are reasons (whatever those reasons may turn out to be) that the Boston Symphony and New York Philharmonic program pieces by living Finnish composers; while, if the Helsinki Phil has programmed any music by living Americans, I have permitted myself to remain in ignorance of that fact  8)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2016, 03:27:51 AM
As I read your perceptive answer, I do think you may underscore Cato's speculative point that the subtlety of Sibelius's achievement eluded them, for your very reasons.

I was about to remark upon the same thing!  :D

Many thanks to all for the additional comments!  On a tangential point, the Wall Street Journal today carried a review of a collection of music criticism by Virgil Thomson, who was quite blinkered by a bias that a deleterious and even "toxic" "Germanic influence" on American composers (e.g. Charles Ives and George Chadwick) prevented them from greater achievements.

See:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-life-in-american-music-1471639326 (http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-life-in-american-music-1471639326)

And:

QuoteAccording to my mentors in academia at the time, Sibelius, who died in 1957 at age 91, was a pathetic figure who never responded properly to the forward march of music history as led by Stravinsky and Schoenberg into the twentieth century. Beyond that, his childish obsession with Finnish folklore and nature mysticism made him out to be a hopelessly outdated proponent of musical nationalism or, worse, a cynical audience manipulator. From his bully pulpit at the New York Herald Tribune, Virgil Thomson branded Sibelius's music vulgar, self-indulgent, and provincial beyond description, and Thomson's successor, Paul Henry Lang, was just as damning. Both critics probably felt they had to use strong language since Sibelius was still dangerously popular -- back in 1935, in fact, New York concertgoers had selected him as their favorite composer, nosing out even Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, and Mozart.

See:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/classical/reviews/1960/ (http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/music/classical/reviews/1960/)

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2016, 03:33:54 AM
Speaking of projection, yes, indeed:  it was pretty much just the frustration talking, wasn't it?  Cannot be any problem with our work or our message;  the problem is with "the worst composer in the world," and all the "philistines" who prefer his music to ours.

True, and typical of the attitudes of elitist quasi-totalitarians.

Regarding german(ic) conductors, Horst Stein has also done a substantial amount of Sibelius - and fine recordings, too (as far as I'm able to tell ... I started digging into Sibelius last year but haven't proceeded much since then).

I have reworked Brian's translation and have contacted him privately, don't feel comfortable putting it up here before hearing from him. There were some syntax errors mainly ... and that funny bit about "inoffensive sample of salon music" - in the original ever so elegant "cet inoffensif échantillon de la musique de salon" - is actually Leibowitz' description of "Valse triste", and come on, that has to make you chuckle a bit, at least, right?

It is not truly coincidence, as I turned to the book with renewed interest as a result of this discussion, but last night I read the following:

Quote from: Harold TruscottSibelius is a strongly tonal composer with roots in late romanticism, who nevertheless is a genuine twentieth century phenomenon.  Everything moves in cycles, and even the serialist's world has roots in the past;  but nothing comes round again in the same way as before.  Consider a few passages that express a new view of musical language [...]

There follow three examples: four mm. from En Saga; four mm. from the first movement of the Fourth Symphony;  and seven mm. from the first movement of the Sixth Symphony.

Quote from: Harold TruscottNone of these extracts is foreseeable from the music of the nineteenth century as a whole;  and yet each grows from the past.  It is not the dissonance which is remarkable in [the En Saga excerpt] [...] what is remarkable about it is that it is a new treatment of a foundational element of musical speech and that this possibility was latent in tonal music from the beginning;  but no one found it until Sibelius did.  Once found, it enlarges the whole musical horizon.

If we pass on to [the excerpts from the Symphonies], we have two more facts of immense importance.  The first is again an enlargement of normal speech, this time arrived at, as often with this composer, by excision.  One chord grows into another in a way that enlarges our vision and, incidentally, teaches us a good deal about earlier forms of speech, by omitting connecting chords that earlier composers would certainly have used.  By thus bringing together the two extremes Sibelius has taught us more than we knew before about what he is leaving out.  He is simply seeing the new in the old, and he points forward as well as back.

This is from a collection of essays edited by composer Robert Simpson, a two-volume Pelican history of The Symphony first published in 1967.

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2016, 04:00:35 AM
It is not truly coincidence, as I turned to the book with renewed interest as a result of this discussion, but last night I read the following:

There follow three examples: four mm. from En Saga; four mm. from the first movement of the Fourth Symphony;  and seven mm. from the first movement of the Sixth Symphony.


This is from a collection of essays edited by composer Robert Simpson, a two-volume Pelican history of The Symphony first published in 1967.

An excellent case in how to argue - or even prove - one's assertions by using the scores themselves!

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on August 19, 2016, 02:19:43 PM
Another handful of dirt on Leibowitz's rep., Grove sez: "Leibowitz's claims of having met Schoenberg and studied with Webern in the early 1930s remain unsubstantiated  - it appears that his knowledge of their music was acquired primarily through intensive study of their scores..."

I can tell you that his book "Schoenberg and his school" is excellent: I read it several times.
It isnt because he went loose on Sibelius, that all his work should be trashed.
Anyway, there are way too many negative threads on this forum.
You should all think positively about classical music.

Quote from: Spineur on August 20, 2016, 06:14:02 AM
I can tell you that his book "Schoenberg and his school" is excellent: I read it several times.
It isnt because he went loose on Sibelius, that all his work should be trashed.
Anyway, there are way too many negative threads on this forum.
You should all think positively about classical music.

By examining something negative, and finding it wanting, I believe we are thinking quite "positively about classical music."  ;)

Quote from: Spineur on August 20, 2016, 06:14:02 AM
You should all think positively about classical music.

I think it's safe to say that in this case, no-one on the forum started the negativity.

Quote from: Spineur on August 20, 2016, 06:14:02 AM
I can tell you that his book "Schoenberg and his school" is excellent: I read it several times.
It isnt because he went loose on Sibelius, that all his work should be trashed.
Anyway, there are way too many negative threads on this forum.
You should all think positively about classical music.

I do recall finding that of interest, though it's a while since I've read it.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

Quote from: Spineur on August 20, 2016, 06:14:02 AM
I can tell you that his book "Schoenberg and his school" is excellent: I read it several times.
It isnt because he went loose on Sibelius, that all his work should be trashed.
Anyway, there are way too many negative threads on this forum.
You should all think positively about classical music.

Spineur, your comment brings to mind an old French saying, dripping with irony:  "C'est un animal sauvage*, quand on** l'attaque, il se défend."

* - Sibelius & fans
** Leibowitz

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on August 20, 2016, 12:37:38 PM
un animal sauvage

Oh yes, that's what I think of when I hear Sibelius  0:)

You don't want to be near the Swan of Tuonela when she's nesting!

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2016, 02:00:07 PM
You don't want to be near the Swan of Tuonela when she's nesting!

:laugh: Nor Sibelius fans attesting!

"Leibowitz", she said, "What did Adorno tell you this morning?"

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2016, 03:38:37 AM
Call this an observation rather than frustration;  and it no doubt says as much about art music culture in the US as elsewhere.  But there are reasons (whatever those reasons may turn out to be) that the Boston Symphony and New York Philharmonic program pieces by living Finnish composers; while, if the Helsinki Phil has programmed any music by living Americans, I have permitted myself to remain in ignorance of that fact  8)

May be the Finns' music comes cheaper?  :laugh:

Quote from: karlhenning on August 20, 2016, 03:38:37 AM
Call this an observation rather than frustration;  and it no doubt says as much about art music culture in the US as elsewhere.  But there are reasons (whatever those reasons may turn out to be) that the Boston Symphony and New York Philharmonic program pieces by living Finnish composers; while, if the Helsinki Phil has programmed any music by living Americans, I have permitted myself to remain in ignorance of that fact  8)

Well, the Finnish RSO is performing the premiere of American composer Tyondai Braxton's work TELEKINESIS on the first of February 2017.  8)
During the 14-15 season, they performed Cindy McTee's Circuits. The FRSO Chamber Ensemble also played Christopher Rouse's Ku-Ka Ilimoku. In Season 13-14, they played Adams' Harmonielehre and Lollapallooza, Lera Auerbach's Icarus, Kerry Turner's Ricochet, and John Harbison's Twilight Music.

You see?  Ignorance (and laziness, in letting you do the research) on my part.  8)  (And I might have guessed Adams, to be sure.)

Quote from: Uhor on August 20, 2016, 06:47:23 PM
"Leibowitz", she said, "What did Adorno tell you this morning?"

Adorno actually said (and this is verbatim),
"René, mein Freund.  Be double certain to take your meds, because you know how you get when you don't take them."

The "worst composer in the world" seems to have written the world's greatest violin concerto.  8)

Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 10:24:29 AM
The "worst composer in the world" seems to have written the world's greatest violin concerto.  8)

Hear, hear!!

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 17, 2016, 10:52:58 AM
Hear, hear!!

I'm glad someone on GMG agrees with me!

Also, how could the world's worst composer write one of the greatest of all 20th century symphonies?
I'm referring to the epic, soaring No. 7.  :)

Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 10:24:29 AM
The "worst composer in the world" seems to have written the world's greatest violin concerto.  8)

I agree, even though I do think it sounds a bit rash to name one piece to tower over the rest in a genre where there are many fine works. But it's hard to think of a violin concerto that is as good at being a violin concerto as the Sibelius is.

Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 10:56:20 AM
I'm glad someone on GMG agrees with me!

Also, how could the world's worst composer write one of the greatest of all 20th century symphonies?
I'm referring to the epic, soaring No. 7.  :)

One of them? As fas as I'm concerned, Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are among the greatest of the century, too.  8)

TBH except for the first few minutes I find the violin concerto a fairly standard late romantic thing, not nearly as interesting and original as the symphonies and I easily prefer a bunch of other violin concertos. It would have been interesting if Sibelius had written another violin concerto 20 years later...

Quote from: Jo498 on September 17, 2016, 12:29:39 PM
TBH except for the first few minutes I find the violin concerto a fairly standard late romantic thing, not nearly as interesting and original as the symphonies and I easily prefer a bunch of other violin concertos. It would have been interesting if Sibelius had written another violin concerto 20 years later...

Or during the period of Luonnotar and the Fourth Symphony!  That would be something.

Quote from: ørfeø on August 19, 2016, 01:41:49 AM
And Sibelius is not a conservative composer, he is a radical one. He's just not radical in the way that was approved by the avant garde atonal mob. He still believed in tonality, and to them that meant "conservative" despite that the fact that in matters of structure and development, Sibelius was crazy-radical.

This is still the comment that strikes me as the truest, and shows that Leibowitz, for all his strengths, missed the boat on this one. (Not something I would hold against him for eternity -- 1955 was a long time ago. Plus, history is filled with bad calls, later reversed by time.)

"Worst in the world" certainly has many more competitors for that honor.  (Karl Jenkins, anyone?) ;D

--Bruce

Quote from: North Star on September 17, 2016, 12:04:24 PM
I agree, even though I do think it sounds a bit rash to name one piece to tower over the rest in a genre where there are many fine works. But it's hard to think of a violin concerto that is as good at being a violin concerto as the Sibelius is.One of them? As fas as I'm concerned, Nos. 3, 4, 5 & 6 are among the greatest of the century, too.  8)

I will agree with you on 3 & 6. Pithy and to the point sort of like....

Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 01:25:06 PM
I will agree with you on 3 & 6. Pithy and to the point sort of like....

I'm glad to see so high an opinion of the 3rd. Often it seems to be somewhat overlooked in comparison with the last four.

Quote from: North Star on September 17, 2016, 01:31:03 PM
I'm glad to see so high an opinion of the 3rd. Often it seems to be somewhat overlooked in comparison with the last four.

I have the Davis/BSO set and for me 3 & 6 are the best performances of the set.

Quote from: North Star on September 17, 2016, 01:31:03 PM
I'm glad to see so high an opinion of the 3rd. Often it seems to be somewhat overlooked in comparison with the last four.

The Third, Mrs. Rock's favorite. Before we married, while we were still dating, I bought her a LP box of Sibelius Symphonies (Kamu/Karajan). She started with 1, then 2, then 3, then 3 again, and again, and again.... It was several years later before she progressed beyond 3  ;D

Sarge

Quote from: hpowders on September 17, 2016, 01:40:45 PM
I have the Davis/BSO set and for me 3 & 6 are the best performances of the set.

Ah, that Davis/BSO Sixth...perfection.

Sage

Am a big fan of 3 as well. When Vänskä and Minnesota came here recently, they did Nos. 3 and 1, in that order, with Hilary Hahn in the VC in between.

--Bruce

Quote from: Jo498 on September 17, 2016, 12:29:39 PM
TBH except for the first few minutes I find the violin concerto a fairly standard late romantic thing, not nearly as interesting and original as the symphonies and I easily prefer a bunch of other violin concertos. It would have been interesting if Sibelius had written another violin concerto 20 years later...

:o ??? :blank:

What other canonical work do you feel doesn't deserve its stature, Jo? :D

Quote from: Sergeant Rock on September 17, 2016, 01:46:07 PM
Ah, that Davis/BSO Sixth...perfection.

Sage

Yes. I've never heard a better Sibelius 6 than C. Davis/BSO.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 17, 2016, 04:22:58 PM
:o ??? :blank:

What other canonical work do you feel doesn't deserve its stature, Jo? :D

I don't say the violin concerto does not deserve its stature as an important work and a staple of the violin concerto repertoire (but so does the Bruch 1st...).
But it's news to me that it is widely regarded as the best violin concerto ever. There would be classics Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, for me also Bach, from the 20th century at least Berg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofieff 1st all of which I think are more interesting pieces. I'd also say that comparably late/post romantic/early modern works like the Szymanowski concertos are rather underrated compared to the Sibelius.

Also in the context of Sibelius' oeuvre I do find it a fairly standard late romantic piece, even more so than the first two symphonies. Except for the "spooky" beginning I do not find it terribly original, I am afraid. To me it seems closer to the Grieg piano concerto as an effective but not terribly interesting mix of folksy stuff and "nordic" atmosphere than to either the "serious" symphonic concerto of Brahms or the extraordinary colorful Prokofiev 1st.

I'll have to side with you. I'm a great lover of Sibelius, but find the violin concerto too conventional and lacking what I otherwise find fascinating in Sibelius.

Quote from: The new erato on September 18, 2016, 12:36:32 AM
I'll have to side with you. I'm a great lover of Sibelius, but find the violin concerto too conventional and lacking what I otherwise find fascinating in Sibelius.

The opening is rather atmospheric, then it sort of goes down-hill. Finale is the worst, melody isn't all that interesting.

As I listen to Sibelius' String Quartet in D minor 'Voces Intimae' I am amazed at his originality and individuality even in this chamber work. At first I was expecting something like his first SQ but this was leagues better. The instruments are rendered as individual voices speaking in unison or at each other. It is of interest that this chamber work was composed just before his 4th symphony.

Sibelius 4th symphony delved my mind into a world that no other composer had envisaged before. Its 3rd movement felt like being shown the way towards a light leading to a metaphorical holy grail. The 4th propelled me towards unknown reaches of my mind with the enigmatic ending leading the way to the fantastic 5th, sublime 6th and majestic 7th. Tapiola distilled all his achievements into a stupefying rhythmic breathtaking finale.

Needless to say I absolutely love this composer! When I managed to listen and 'understand' his symphonic works, I was left with a void as no one will replicate what Sibelius has achieved.

All good things come to an end.

There must be something to Sibelius's worth as a composer; in several interviews Morton Feldman testified that he was an important and more "radical" composer than given credit.

For myself, I've still not cracked the nut of his music.  But I'm nore of a chamber music lover than orchestral, anyway.

;)

Sibelius was a tough nut to crack for me too. Took me months to finally 'get' his 4th!
However he certainly wasn't as tough as Schoenberg in my experience.

I always feel that the understanding of music is worth persuing especially with radical and original works as Schoenberg or Sibelius' late symphonies.

Quote from: Muse Wanderer on September 18, 2016, 05:08:47 AM
Sibelius was a tough nut to crack for me too. Took me months to finally 'get' his 4th!
However he certainly wasn't as tough as Schoenberg in my experience.

I always feel that the understanding of music is worth persuing especially with radical and original works as Schoenberg or Sibelius' late symphonies.

Sibelius took me awhile, too, but I did like his music immediately, especially the tone poems. It's really the symphonies in particular the 5th and the 6th that took me the longest to figure out. Many will say the 5th is one of the more accessible symphonies and, while, on the surface it's probably true that it is, but for some reason it just wasn't clicking for me right away. The 6th just confused me to no end until I heard the Vanska/Lahti SO performance of it on BIS and then everything became clearer. I felt the deep emotions of the 4th rather quickly and was in-tune with it from the start.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 18, 2016, 12:26:43 AM
I don't say the violin concerto does not deserve its stature as an important work and a staple of the violin concerto repertoire (but so does the Bruch 1st...).

Disparaging by any other name...

QuoteBut it's news to me that it is widely regarded as the best violin concerto ever.

You took a fun comment (which that comment obviously is) and ran with it in the opposite direction. Hitting back with a slam is overkill to say the least.

QuoteThere would be classics Beethoven, Mendelssohn, Brahms, for me also Bach, from the 20th century at least Berg, Bartok, Stravinsky, Shostakovich and Prokofieff 1st all of which I think are more interesting pieces. I'd also say that comparably late/post romantic/early modern works like the Szymanowski concertos are rather underrated compared to the Sibelius.

Also in the context of Sibelius' oeuvre I do find it a fairly standard late romantic piece, even more so than the first two symphonies. Except for the "spooky" beginning I do not find it terribly original, I am afraid. To me it seems closer to the Grieg piano concerto as an effective but not terribly interesting mix of folksy stuff and "nordic" atmosphere than to either the "serious" symphonic concerto of Brahms or the extraordinary colorful Prokofiev 1st.

Good for you. Sad you can't hear the greatness in the work.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 18, 2016, 07:31:47 AM
Disparaging by any other name...

You took a fun comment (which that comment obviously is) and ran with it in the opposite direction. Hitting back with a slam is overkill to say the least.

Good for you. Sad you can't hear the greatness in the work.

Is the appropriate riposte to,
"Good for you.  Sad you can't hear the greatness in the work."
then,
"Good for you. Sad you hear greatness in the work." ???

... just curious.


Best regards.

I do not find my remark in #64 overly negative. It is also my honest opinion after 20 years of listening to that piece, sorry if this thread was meant to contain nothing but the highest enthusiasm.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 18, 2016, 09:40:22 AM
I do not find my remark in #64 overly negative. It is also my honest opinion after 20 years of listening to that piece, sorry if this thread was meant to contain nothing but the highest enthusiasm.

I'm not a huge fan of the Violin Concerto as I feel the second and third movements are less memorable and inventive than the first, but even still, I find it a piece that's worthy of the attention it has garnered throughout the decades.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 18, 2016, 07:31:47 AM
Hitting back with a slam is overkill to say the least.

I think the overkill is in your direction.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 18, 2016, 06:57:32 AM
Sibelius took me awhile, too, but I did like his music immediately, especially the tone poems. It's really the symphonies in particular the 5th and the 6th that took me the longest to figure out. Many will say the 5th is one of the more accessible symphonies and, while, on the surface it's probably true that it is, but for some reason it just wasn't clicking for me right away. The 6th just confused me to no end until I heard the Vanska/Lahti SO performance of it on BIS and then everything became clearer. I felt the deep emotions of the 4th rather quickly and was in-tune with it from the start.

I struggled a lot with Sibelius' 6th as portrayed by Osmo Vanska and Lahti SO.  Vanska's rendition of the other symphonies was blissful to my ears but not this one!

I literally memorised each movement but could not get it.  It was like trying to hold onto water that simply flows away.  So I tried so many other versions including Bernstein, Davis, Karajan, Segerstam, Rattle, Barbirolli and Volmer.

At the end I was ready to give up but then I heard Naeeme Jarvi and the Gothenburg SO and it just clicked. The 6th revealed itself as based on a simple 2 note motif with the third movement being the key to the whole, as with the 4th symphony.

Quote from: Muse Wanderer on September 18, 2016, 03:00:59 PM
I struggled a lot with Sibelius' 6th as portrayed by Osmo Vanska and Lahti SO.  Vanska's rendition of the other symphonies was blissful to my ears but not this one!

I literally memorised each movement but could not get it.  It was like trying to hold onto water that simply flows away.  So I tried so many other versions including Bernstein, Davis, Karajan, Segerstam, Rattle, Barbirolli and Volmer.

At the end I was ready to give up but then I heard Naeeme Jarvi and the Gothenburg SO and it just clicked. The 6th revealed itself as based on a simple 2 note motif with the third movement being the key to the whole, as with the 4th symphony.

It's always wonder, and strange, how opinions differ about performances, but that's not matter. We both love Sibelius' music and that's all that matters. :)

Quote from: ørfeø on September 18, 2016, 01:56:56 PM
I think the overkill is in your direction.

But an attitude like Jo498's plays right into the hands of that pontificating pond scum Leibowitz!! And Leibowitz is the guy we're here to throw darts at, remember?

Solidarity, I say. Long live hpowder's post!

Quote from: Monsieur Croche on September 18, 2016, 09:28:57 AM
Is the appropriate riposte to,
"Good for you.  Sad you can't hear the greatness in the work."
then,
"Good for you. Sad you hear greatness in the work." ???

... just curious.


Best regards.

In Haiku, maybe. ;D

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 18, 2016, 08:34:33 PM
But an attitude like Jo498's plays right into the hands of that pontificating pond scum Leibowitz!! And Leibowitz is the guy we're here to throw darts at, remember?

You got it exactly the wrong way around. What provoked Leibowitz (who nonwithstanding his poor judgment in this case was very probably a better musician than anyone posting on this board) was the hailing Sibelius as "the greatest composer of the world" by some magazine, something he found so ridiculously overblown that he wrote that polemic.

Taking my very moderate criticism (more lack of enthusiasm than clearly negative assessment) of the concerto as something in the vein of Leibowitz exaggerated polemic certainly does not help for an open discussion and a nuanced appreciation of Sibelius' music.
I do not see what is to be gained if anything less than overwhelming enthusiasm is interpreted as "hate".

When I was young, in the 60s and 70s, I remember 'serious' music critics being a bit disparaging of the music of Sibelius. That was when BBC Radio 3 was in thrall to much more cutting edge avant-garde music. Sibelius had died in 1957 and I got the impression there was a bit of a post mortem going on in a coterie of the music establishment. Sibelius was regarded as too easy to listen to. I believe that in the UK this did some damage for a time. Now, we know how popular his music is across a number of countries.

The Lebowitz trashing seems to me to be part of that backlash. Ultimately it is the public who decide what is listened to and programmed regularily. Clearly, the avant-garde and Lebowitz have so far lost out. Are any of us surprised?

When discussing how Sibelius' music has travelled outside of Nordic countries, I have not seen Russia mentioned. His music seems to have been adopted by a number of Russian musicians and I am not surprised. As next door neighbours, they will respond in much the way the Finns themselves do to the strong nature elements of the music and the darkness of it.

Sibelius was adopted as the Finnish national composer, not just because he wrote good tunes, but because his music expressed the country deepy to those in the country and purely anecdotally I have found that as a proportion, more Finns respond to Sibelius than English respond to Elgar.

Finally, have there ever been people who trash a composer more thoroughly than another composer? It is normal when one creative artist is so at odds with the sound world the other is working towards, So often the most hated had once been the most loved.

Mike

Quote from: Jo498 on September 18, 2016, 10:59:28 PM
You got it exactly the wrong way around. What provoked Leibowitz (who nonwithstanding his poor judgment in this case was very probably a better musician than anyone posting on this board) was the hailing Sibelius as "the greatest composer of the world" by some magazine, something he found so ridiculously overblown that he wrote that polemic.

Taking my very moderate criticism (more lack of enthusiasm than clearly negative assessment) of the concerto as something in the vein of Leibowitz exaggerated polemic certainly does not help for an open discussion and a nuanced appreciation of Sibelius' music.
I do not see what is to be gained if anything less than overwhelming enthusiasm is interpreted as "hate".

I agree with Jo and see no point in a discussion if we are all supposed to agree. There is a real difference between disagreeing and explaining on the one hand and trolling to be contentious on the other. No one here has been remotely trolling.

I do know people who don't like Sibelius, but I still like them.

Knight

To be clear again, I do not dislike Sibelius or even the violin concerto. I just do not think that it is an extraordinarily great piece, either taken in comparion to other famous violin concerti or to other important pieces by Sibelius.

I am actually almost equally puzzled by the high enthusiasm for the composer as by the denigration from e.g. Leibowitz. (For whatever reasons composers I'd see as somewhat similar, e.g. Nielsen, do not seem to provoke such extreme reactions.)
In my impression he wrote some very original and interesting pieces (like symphonies 4-7, Tapiola) although I cannot claim that I have a deep emotional connection to them, some pieces I admittedly find rather boring (what I have heard of the piano music) or not terribly interesting late romantic "fluff" (nice once in a while but not essential, e.g. Finlandia or Karelia Suite). The violin concerto is better than that but I don't quite see it up there with the most interesting pieces by the composer. On the other hand it is one of his most famous works and probably the only one that was widely popular at times or in musical cultures when the composer was not all that popular.

Sibelius reminds me of Mozart and Verdi, in that he was able to pen catchy tunes that perhaps the less musically educated would be attracted to (like when I was a teenager), but served as a crack in the door to world of profundity.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 19, 2016, 12:36:45 AM
Sibelius reminds me of Mozart and Verdi, in that he was able to pen catchy tunes that perhaps the less musically educated would be attracted to (like when I was a teenager), but served as a crack in the door to world of profundity.

Good insight.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

That is to say, just because a composer had such a facility for melodies, shouldn't be held as points against him. Sibelius' music, to me, is evocative of vast spaces - the grandeur, awe and even sheer dread of nature. It's not surprising therefore that these were expressed in symphonic form.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 19, 2016, 03:31:32 AM
That is to say, just because a composer had such a facility for melodies, shouldn't be held as points against him. Sibelius' music, to me, is evocative of vast spaces - the grandeur, awe and even sheer dread of nature. It's not surprising therefore that these were expressed in symphonic form.

For me, that was a seeming paradox which I found immediately engaging about the Sixth Symphony:  although it is breathtakingly economical in execution, it expresses space and vistas far out of proportion to its apparent footprint.

I am currently listening to Sibelius' songs on The Complete Sibelius Edition by BIS. Many of these are wonderful to listen to but nothing hits me like Schubert Winterreise for example. I love his violin concerto, especially the first movement, but it does not reach the depths of my being as Beethoven's, Prokfiev 1st or even Ligeti's.

The symphonies (especially 4th -7th) and Tapiola is where Sibelius really shines to me. No wonder he spent so many years refining them. His 5th took him 7 years to finish. If only he didn't give up on the 8th!

I don't like to rank composers as I tend to like most stuff I listen to. Besides this composers speak different 'languages' to me and trying to compare is futile. How can I rank Bruckner against Wagner for example? If 'greatness' is defined by excellent quality of whole ouvre and influence on future direction of music, then Stravinsky and Schoenberg would rank very high on my 20th century list. But then, who cares? I love them too!

Quote from: Muse Wanderer on September 19, 2016, 06:07:53 AM
I am currently listening to Sibelius' songs on The Complete Sibelius Edition by BIS. Many of these are wonderful to listen to but nothing hits me like Schubert Winterreise for example. I love his violin concerto, especially the first movement, but it does not reach the depths of my being as Beethoven's, Prokfiev 1st or even Ligeti's.

The symphonies (especially 4th -7th) and Tapiola is where Sibelius really shines to me. No wonder he spent so many years refining them. His 5th took him 7 years to finish. If only he didn't give up on the 8th!

The songs are obviously not as serious affairs as Winterreise. But there's the tone poem for soprano and orchestra, Luonnotar, which is among Sibelius' most majestic musings. And there's the incidental music to The Tempesty. The closest we can get to what would have been the 8th symphony is the splendid 2 Pieces for Organ, Op.111, written at a short notice for the funeral of painter Akseli Gallen-Kallela.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 18, 2016, 10:59:28 PM
You got it exactly the wrong way around. What provoked Leibowitz (who nonwithstanding his poor judgment in this case was very probably a better musician than anyone posting on this board) was the hailing Sibelius as "the greatest composer of the world" by some magazine, something he found so ridiculously overblown that he wrote that polemic.

Taking my very moderate criticism (more lack of enthusiasm than clearly negative assessment) of the concerto as something in the vein of Leibowitz exaggerated polemic certainly does not help for an open discussion and a nuanced appreciation of Sibelius' music.
I do not see what is to be gained if anything less than overwhelming enthusiasm is interpreted as "hate".

I don't give a sh*t whether you like the VC or not. ;) My point is: this thread was created for the sole purpose of putting some good-natured smackdown on Leibowitz. NOT for a "nuanced" discussion of Sibelius.

In that light I recognized hpowders's post for what it is: a simple middle finger to Leibowitz. I read nothing in it that resembled ipso-facto-isms. Just a fun "take that Leibowitz!!!".

You seemed to see the post in a different light and proceeded to "correct" it with your "thing" remark. Calling a work a "thing" is hardly "nuanced discussion". It's derogatory. That entire post of yours was as smug as it gets.

And since this thread has NOTHING to do with "nuance" I came out "un-nuancing" all over the place. Following your lead.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 18, 2016, 10:59:28 PM
What provoked Leibowitz (who nonwithstanding his poor judgment in this case was very probably a better musician than anyone posting on this board) was the hailing Sibelius as "the greatest composer of the world" by some magazine, something he found so ridiculously overblown that he wrote that polemic.

Er, Jo dear, maybe you should take that back "better musician" than anyone here.
You can still delete it.
Paraphrasing Forrest Gump: "Musician is as musician does".
In other words, music is made by notes not by talk.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 18, 2016, 10:59:28 PM
You got it exactly the wrong way around. What provoked Leibowitz was the hailing Sibelius as "the greatest composer of the world" by some magazine, something he found so ridiculously overblown that he wrote that polemic.

Imagine, overblown hyperbole about "The greatest composer of the world" (like, ever, lol) and a strongly reactionary polemic in response ~ all before the advent of Everyman as expert critic on zInternet! (see attached image)

The reaction to the OP and Liebowitz's polemic lacks no charm or endearing quality, in all those who rallied to Sibelius, those who have not only a right but a good reason (great composer, doh) to both love his music and 'defend' him.

This is the same kind of reaction seen when someone posts that Boulez quote, "Burn ALL the Opera Houses," again taking nothing into account of the socio-political arts environment or conservative choke-hold on what was programmed in Europe's Opera houses when a young firebrand contemporary composer said it.... one of my favorite maxims (please, not to be confused with a current type of relativism where "its all equally good,") is, "Context is everything."

The other slight slighted offense / defense re: Sibelius' fiddle concerto. 
~~~Just about any great and or anyone's favorite composer wrote at least a few pieces which are nothing more than 'serviceable' pieces, i.e. they are just not that great, or great at all, while they are entirely listenable. 
~~~I hear in the violin concerto a composer who wrote very well and idiomatically for a virtuoso violin solo, but whose heart and head were "Just not into" either the notion of a concertante work or the older protagonist / antagonist aesthetic of the later romantic concerti.  (Schubert is another who was disinclined toward composing any solo concerto; it was just not part of his innate disposition.)
~~~Sibelius was a formalist and the near entirety of his strengths and interest was in full orchestral writing... so he 'dropped the ball' a bit and wrote a very serviceable violin concerto, and that any one should say as much in a pretty neutral tone should be of no offense nor a real disappointment or heartbreak for the most ardent of his fans.


Best regards.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 19, 2016, 06:32:57 AM
I don't give a sh*t whether you like the VC or not. ;)

Apparently you do care. Otherwise you wouldn't call a fairly harmless (very mild compared to what one can read sometimes in this forum) comment "as smug as it gets".

Quote
My point is: this thread was created for the sole purpose of putting some good-natured smackdown on Leibowitz. NOT for a "nuanced" discussion of Sibelius.

This was not my understanding of the thread start. I actually had the impression that Brian took so much time and effort to copy the original French text as well as a translation for the purpose of a somewhat serious discussion, not for a "good-natured smackdown". Whatever, neither the first post nor the posters intention restrict what a thread can be about later on.
Sorry if I seem to take some things serious... I find this usually more interesting than giving each other (or long dead composers/conductors) "middle fingers".

Quote
In that light I recognized hpowders's post for what it is: a simple middle finger to Leibowitz. I read nothing in it that resembled ipso-facto-isms. Just a fun "take that Leibowitz!!!".

In brief, don't bother to try to understand what Leibowitz was about, if a middle finger suffices. Great! I am intellectually stunned by such subtlety!

Quote
You seemed to see the post in a different light and proceeded to "correct" it with your "thing" remark. Calling a work a "thing" is hardly "nuanced discussion". It's derogatory. That entire post of yours was as smug as it gets.

Not half as smug as the "middle fingers" you praise as worthy contributions. I am not writing in my first language as you may know and I probably should have written "piece". I certainly did not mean "late romantic thing" as derogatory. I still find it an apt description of the Sibelius concerto.

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 19, 2016, 06:40:11 AM
Er, Jo dear, maybe you should take that back "better musician" than anyone here.
You can still delete it.
Paraphrasing Forrest Gump: "Musician is as musician does".
In other words, music is made by notes not by talk.

I am not sure I have heard any of Leibowitz' compositions. I have to go by the fact that he studied with and taught extraordinary musicians, so I dare to assume that he was extremely competent because otherwise one does not get to study with Ravel and Monteux. From the recordings I have heard I think he was a sufficiently good conductor that I doubt we have practising professionals on this forum who are obviously "better" than him. He was obviously biased (against e.g. Sibelius) but he was hardly an incompetent idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Leibowitz

Quote from: Jo498 on September 19, 2016, 07:45:35 AM
I am not sure I have heard any of Leibowitz' compositions. I have to go by the fact that he studied with and taught extraordinary musicians, so I dare to assume that he was extremely competent because otherwise one does not get to study with Ravel and Monteux. From the recordings I have heard I think he was a sufficiently good conductor that I doubt we have practising professionals on this forum who are obviously "better" than him. He was obviously biased (against e.g. Sibelius) but he was hardly an incompetent idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Leibowitz

True, it is a fact of human nature : one does not have to be an incompetent idiot to do incompetently idiotic things, such as write that Sibelius diatribe.  But it sure helps. >:D

Quote from: Jo498 on September 19, 2016, 07:45:35 AM
I am not sure I have heard any of Leibowitz' compositions. I have to go by the fact that he studied with and taught extraordinary musicians, so I dare to assume that he was extremely competent because otherwise one does not get to study with Ravel and Monteux. From the recordings I have heard I think he was a sufficiently good conductor that I doubt we have practising professionals on this forum who are obviously "better" than him. He was obviously biased (against e.g. Sibelius) but he was hardly an incompetent idiot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Leibowitz

He must have been a very insecure person to be so put off by Sibelius.
I am not a person who subscribes to "argument by (alleged) authority".
Just because a person wrote more symphonies than another person, doesn't make him an expert.
In fact, a composer could be very BIASED in favor of himself and even vindictive in putting others down.
Richard Wagner was an eminent composer but doesn't make his opinions even on musical subjects, Holy Writ.

ZB

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 19, 2016, 08:00:12 AM
Richard Wagner was an eminent composer but doesn't make his opinions even on musical subjects, Holy Writ.

Oh, but it does — to Wagnerrhoids!

Quote from: Ghost Sonata on September 19, 2016, 07:48:50 AM
True, it is a fact of human nature : one does not have to be an incompetent idiot to do incompetently idiotic things, such as write that Sibelius diatribe.  But it sure helps. >:D

Interesting: I read an essay last week about "Intellectuals Yet Idiots" by Nassim Taleb, famous in the financial world for the "Black Swan" theory.

In ancient times, the Greeks called such people "Sophists."  0:)

Quote from: Jo498 on September 19, 2016, 07:33:41 AMThis was not my understanding of the thread start. I actually had the impression that Brian took so much time and effort to copy the original French text as well as a translation for the purpose of a somewhat serious discussion, not for a "good-natured smackdown". Whatever, neither the first post nor the posters intention restrict what a thread can be about later on.

I agree.  I actually found it interesting to finally read Leibowitz's short article after only ever hearing the soundbyte version.

And perhaps it shouldn't be surprising at all that he finds Sibelius so different?  His fans here (and I love some works of Sibelius myself) love him precisely because of the way his music breaks from the Germanic mold in his methods of development and harmonic technique.  As for counterpoint, Sibelius himself admitted his frustrations with his lack of contrapuntal facility.  That Leibowitz judges these differences as deficiencies is more a matter of his own personal judgement rather than a lack of discernment on his part.

That said, Boulez, who studied with Leibowitz, found him terribly dull and pedantic.  Once again, it wouldn't be surprising if someone who saw rules in the methods of the Germanic artists of the past and present were to judge any deviation from Germanic practice as a mark of incompetence.

Quote from: Mahlerian on September 19, 2016, 08:37:43 AM
That said, Boulez, who studied with Leibowitz, found him terribly dull and pedantic.

Well, and nothing wrong with reporting that fact.  Most fans of Boulez here would not mistake his opinion of Sibelius (or any other composer) as reflecting Universal Artistic Truth.

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 19, 2016, 08:47:09 AM
Well, and nothing wrong with reporting that fact.  Most fans of Boulez here would not mistake his opinion of Sibelius (or any other composer) as reflecting Universal Artistic Truth.

I meant that Boulez found Leibowitz dull and pedantic.  Later in life he said that he enjoyed listening to Sibelius and Tchaikovsky, both of whom he had disparaged earlier (or at least Tchaikovsky, I don't know about Sibelius), though he had no interest in conducting their music.

Quote from: Mahlerian on September 19, 2016, 08:49:26 AM
I meant that Boulez found Leibowitz dull and pedantic.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

René Leibowitz was primarily a conductor, who promoted new music of his time, serialism in particular (his was one of the first, if not the first, book to offer serious analysis of 12-tone music). 

I have thought of him as an early advocate who was later spurned by the Boulez/Darmstadt camp and ridiculed as  a "note counter" (Boulez conducted a scorched earth policy for the first half of his career and then spent the second half distancing himself from his earlier statements).  However, I think Liebowitz's early writings and promotion in general helped get the music of Schoenberg and his school out in the world.

As far as his opinion concerning Sibelius, well, it is not unusual for a composer or conductor to express negative opinions about otheriwse esteemed composers (e.g. Boulez, Stravinsky, even Brahms).

;)

As Leibowitz was a Polish Jew who moved to France at an early age I am not sure one can summarize his stance as "Germanic"; I am pretty sure his horizon was wider than that; e.g. he made quite a few Offenbach recordings. But he was of course a polemicist in favor of the Austrian dodecaphonic school and probably held to a somewhat similar view of musical history that viewed Schoenberg and his followers as the inevitable culmination of a development spanning at least from Bach through Wagner, Brahms and Mahler.

Anyway, I am not really defending Leibowitz polemics. I am mainly defending my freedom to opine that the Sibelius' violin concerto might not be universally acknowledged as da greatest evuh and that it does not necessarily show Sibelius at his most original and innovative without being called out as "smug".

Quote from: Jo498 on September 19, 2016, 09:09:00 AM
I am mainly defending my freedom to opine that the Sibelius' violin concerto might not be universally acknowledged as da greatest evuh and that it does not necessarily show Sibelius at his most original and innovative without being called out as "smug".

Yes, I affirm your freedom.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 19, 2016, 09:09:00 AM
I am mainly defending my freedom to opine that the Sibelius' violin concerto might not be universally acknowledged as da greatest evuh and that it does not necessarily show Sibelius at his most original and innovative without being called out as "smug".

Only a smug would deny you that freedom.  ;D
================================
OK, can that please be the final word on that issue?

Thank you in advance.

Knight

Quote from: Jo498 on September 19, 2016, 09:09:00 AM
I am mainly defending my freedom to opine that the Sibelius' violin concerto might not be universally acknowledged as da greatest evuh and that it does not necessarily show Sibelius at his most original and innovative without being called out as "smug".

Please let's not jump the rails, here. Nowhere am I suggesting censorship. ::)

Quote from: zamyrabyrd on September 19, 2016, 08:00:12 AM
I am not a person who subscribes to "argument by (alleged) authority".

What Jo actually wrote was: "nonwithstanding his poor judgment in this case was very probably a better musician than anyone posting on this board." That's pretty much the opposite of argument from authority.

FWIW I disagree with Jo about the VC.

Quote from: Dancing Divertimentian on September 19, 2016, 03:47:02 PM
Please let's not jump the rails, here. Nowhere am I suggesting censorship. ::)

No, you're just suggesting moral dressing down of those who don't engage in Sibelian hagiography.

I agree with those who don't feel the need to react to the description of Sibelius as the worst composer by going for the opposite extreme and declaring him faultless.

Quote from: ørfeø on September 19, 2016, 09:52:49 PM
No, you're just suggesting moral dressing down of those who don't engage in Sibelian hagiography.

Name chapter and verse where I suggested that.

QuoteI agree with those who don't feel the need to react to the description of Sibelius as the worst composer by going for the opposite extreme and declaring him faultless.

Name chapter and verse where I "declare Sibelius faultless".

I have asked that this acusatory conversation should stop. I am now locking it and when I reopen it, any continuation of the 'He said, did not say' will be deleted.

Knight

Good morning everyone from the UK. I am reopening this topic.

Flurin has retranslated the original quote from the opening of the thread and would like to post it. I ask that we rememeber the rules. Some excessive directness is allowed on the Diner topics, for example in the political discussions. But on the music board please stick to the rules and do not become acusatory.

Also, this is not an 'in praise of Sibelius' topic. It is a discussion of a polemical piece about the composer, the man who wrote it and the composer. People are perfectly in order to express how they feel about any of these things. If anone distorts the thread unduly, let the moderators know.

Thanks,

Knight

I come to bury Sibelius, not to praise him....

"...not that I loved Sibelius less, but that I loved Rome more".

Quote from: knight66 on September 20, 2016, 10:49:51 PM
Flurin has retranslated the original quote from the opening of the thread and would like to post it.

Thanks Mike - I actually re-worked Brian's translation, wouldn't have managed starting from scratch (or it would have taken me ages).

I hope a few are interested in this - here you go (link fixed, thanks Karl!):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2yu4o123ks99i5/Leibowitz_OnSibelius.pdf?dl=0

Quote from: king ubu on September 21, 2016, 01:13:25 AM
Thanks Mike - I actually re-worked Brian's translation, wouldn't have managed starting from scratch (or it would have taken me ages).

I hope a few are interested in this - here you go:
https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Leibowitz_OnSibelius.pdf (https://www.dropbox.com/home?preview=Leibowitz_OnSibelius.pdf)

That link is /home, and so does not point any of us to your file  0:)

(I land at my own DropBox, where there is no such file, e.g.)

Quote from: k a rl h e nn i ng on September 21, 2016, 01:16:26 AM
That link is /home, and so does not point any of us to your file  0:)

(I land at my own DropBox, where there is no such file, e.g.)

That's what you get from posting in a hurry at the office - should be fine now, thanks for the alert!

Quote from: king ubu on September 21, 2016, 01:59:38 AM
That's what you get from posting in a hurry at the office - should be fine now, thanks for the alert!

I'm here for you, buddy.

Quote from: king ubu on September 21, 2016, 01:13:25 AM
Thanks Mike - I actually re-worked Brian's translation, wouldn't have managed starting from scratch (or it would have taken me ages).

I hope a few are interested in this - here you go (link fixed, thanks Karl!):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/y2yu4o123ks99i5/Leibowitz_OnSibelius.pdf?dl=0

Oh, I feel bad that I never replied to your PM! But of course the answer was please do share, and I really appreciate your help. :)

Cheers Brian!

Time to weigh in, briefly. 8)

Speaking as an orchestral player who has actually played music by Sibelius, he is one of the greats.  In addition to all the other qualities associated with a great composer, he writes very well for all the instruments in the orchestra, and his dynamic scoring (the way he uses varying loud/soft indications) is second to none, not even Mahler or Ravel.  All an orchestra and conductor need is to play his markings exactly as written, and it will be a great performance. 8)

I am not going to get into an argument about the quality of the Violin Concerto; just point out that the violin was Sibelius's instrument. He owned and played one. It is currently played professionally by his granddaughter.  He had a piano, but did not use it for composition. He composed away from either instrument. It is perhaps surprising he did not write more where the violin is especially highlighted.

Mike

Quote from: knight66 on September 21, 2016, 10:14:53 PM
...It is perhaps surprising he did not write more where the violin is especially highlighted.

The string parts in his orchestral works are always brilliant and very idiomatic.  I would say that violins are "featured" in almost everything he wrote. 8)

thanks, Mike & Jochanaan!  :)  I knew the violin was Sibelius' instrument but the rest was all news I can muse over! 

Quote from: jochanaan on September 22, 2016, 08:03:06 AM
The string parts in his orchestral works are always brilliant and very idiomatic.  I would say that violins are "featured" in almost everything he wrote. 8)

Yes, I was ambiguous, what I meant was more solo violin works, but then, just because I don't know them does not mean they don't exist. I found this item and it describes his relationship with the violin.

_{http://www.sibelius.fi/english/musiikki/kamari_viulu_piano.htm}


Mike

BUMP

I revised my translation somewhat, sent it off to Dave Hurwitz, and he obligingly - even enthusiastically - included it in his video series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVwts7mQzI

Quote from: Brian on December 20, 2020, 09:56:36 AM
BUMP

I revised my translation somewhat, sent it off to Dave Hurwitz, and he obligingly - even enthusiastically - included it in his video series.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBVwts7mQzI

A fine way to feed a troll. :-\

QuoteHe had a piano, but did not use it for composition. He composed away from either instrument.

It kind of shows, doesn't it? The writing of his Sonata feels somewhat crude compared to his usual fare. It's still rather fun to play, though, with its merry mood (is it me or does it feel rather Christmas-ish?).

Quote from: Carxofes fregides on December 20, 2020, 02:36:26 PM
It kind of shows, doesn't it? The writing of his Sonata feels somewhat crude compared to his usual fare. It's still rather fun to play, though, with its merry mood (is it me or does it feel rather Christmas-ish?).

If you mean the piano sonata, it's a relatively early work and much of his later piano work is better.

Swedish composer Allan Pettersson was a student of Leibowitz. Pettersson once remarked about his second symphony (1952-53) that he composed it 'behind the back of Leibowitz'. I always wondered what he meant by that. That was 3 years before Leibowitz wrote his pamphlet on Sibelius. Did he (Leibowitz) detect 'sibelian tendencies' in his student's work?

This is my favorite comment from the comment section of the Hurwitz video, IMHO far more interesting than the people angrily mashing away at their keyboard

I only wish someone would take the pains of writing something as nasty about me for my 90th birthday.  Sibelius would have taken it as a great honour ... that's the Finnish spirit--take it from someone born in "Finlandia."  No one insults you unless you've done something Great.

Because I agree with it on every level. As a resident there used to be an absolutely miserable senior cardiologist that we loved to hate. But it wasn't simply because he was a miserable man, that would have been plain uninteresting. It was because he was one of the most brilliant physicians most people had ever met.

Sometimes with these kind of scathing takes there might be something to be learned, Boulez criticized his fair share of music but you'd often at least learn something from his writing, more often about his own music. I can't say I've gained any further insight into Sibelius from this.

Someone who had the genius of creating something like Tapiola is far, but too far from being the worst composer in the world.

Quote from: Symphonic Addict on December 22, 2020, 06:30:22 PM
Someone who had the genius of creating something like Tapiola is far, but too far from being the worst composer in the world.

I'd say if Sibelius only composed The Oceanides, he'd still be a genius in my book.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 22, 2020, 06:42:52 PM
I'd say if Sibelius only composed The Oceanides, he'd still be a genius in my book.

Indeed. There are plenty of works by him that easily put him in the major leagues.