The ending of Sibelius' 5th symphony

[alkan]

I saw the picture in the arts section of Maestro Robertson playing a kazoo solo. 

Now that would be a REALLY sensational and shocking reinterpretation of the ending to Sibelius' 5th symphony 

Imagine the scene ... the music struggles through grinding minor keys to a noble and uplifting climax which is abruptly cut off by six sharp and irregularly-spaced blasts on the kazoo .....     

[sul G]

Now that would be a REALLY sensational and shocking reinterpretation of the ending to Sibelius' 5th symphony 

Imagine the scene ... the music struggles through grinding minor keys to a noble and uplifting climax which is abruptly cut off by six sharp and irregularly-spaced blasts on the kazoo .....     

I see nothing wrong with that! My (music teacher) wife once began a school concert with the hall in pitch black, a deep droning C......and the massed choir playing the opening fanfares of Also sprach Zarathustra on their kazoos! 

[alkan]

I see nothing wrong with that! My (music teacher) wife once began a school concert with the hall in pitch black, a deep droning C......and the massed choir playing the opening fanfares of Also sprach Zarathustra on their kazoos! 

Beethoven's 5th would sound good this way ..... maybe for the next concert?     Where can I get a ticket ? 

[karlhenning]

It's not as shocking as the 5th !!!!

Isn't it, though? (The ending of the Seventh.)

[alkan]

Isn't it, though? (The ending of the Seventh.)

IMHO .....   wierd, yes  ...... shocking (like the 5th) no.

You outrank me in terms of musicology Karl, so I'm surely missing the subtleties of the music converging on a unison C  (if I remember rightly .... it's been a while since the last hearing).        But in the case of the 7th, the ending seems more evolutive (like the whole symphony) rather than a brutal switch to long silences punctuated by six blows.

I maintain that to an average listener the 5th is absolutely more shocking than the 7th .....

[Kullervo]

The ending of the Sixth is, to me, the most elusive. Nonetheless, I feel like I "get" it — inasmuch as anyone can guess at the composer's intentions.

[DavidRoss]

I figure that the composer's intention at the end of the piece is to end it.  Some like to end pieces unpredictably.

[alkan]

The ending of the Sixth is, to me, the most elusive. Nonetheless, I feel like I "get" it — inasmuch as anyone can guess at the composer's intentions.

I am getting a sinking feeling that everyone except me understands the ending to the 5th, yet I am the only person who is undisturbed by the 6th, 7th  (and surely the 4th will come soon ...).

[DavidRoss]

What's to understand?  Seems to me that you just don't like it.  (Few do at first--as with almost anything strange and unexpected--but most come to accept it, and after acceptance often comes appreciation.)

[alkan]

What's to understand?  Seems to me that you just don't like it.  (Few do at first--as with almost anything strange and unexpected--but most come to accept it, and after acceptance often comes appreciation.)

It all boils down to one word  .........  WHY?

And speaking as a true atheist, I won't accept it on blind faith ....

But don't worry ..... it's not torturing me or ruining my life.     I started the thread to hear how others perceive it and also to see if Sibelius himself gave any clues.      I got some interesting replies for the former, but drew a blank on the latter  (probably not surprising .... most composers want their works to stand by themselves).

I will keep listening ....

[DavidRoss]

It all boils down to one word  .........  WHY?

Why not?  You seem to be suffering from one of the (many) handicaps of intellectualism: an irrational belief that everything humans create must be the result of strictly rational processes.  The fact is that nearly everything we do is irrational--reason serves only to justify or rationalize our beliefs, actions, desires, and fears.  In artistic creation especially, inspiration (literally "breathing in God"), intuition, and the unconscious give birth, with the intellect applied after to shape and package the muse's gift.

And speaking as a true atheist, I won't accept it on blind faith ....

Hilarious!  Atheism is nothing but blind faith--and willfully blind, for at the same time atheists insist that rationality governs their beliefs, they refuse to recognize rationality governing natural processes, insisting that any order in the world other than that imposed by man is purely accidental.  What irony that self-identified atheists can read a simple sentence written by a stranger and discern intelligence behind the ordering of words and the concepts expressed, but cannot discern the intelligence behind "natural laws" and the functional order written throughout the universe!

[alkan]

Why not?  You seem to be suffering from one of the (many) handicaps of intellectualism: an irrational belief that everything humans create must be the result of strictly rational processes.  The fact is that nearly everything we do is irrational--reason serves only to justify or rationalize our beliefs, actions, desires, and fears.  In artistic creation especially, inspiration (literally "breathing in God"), intuition, and the unconscious give birth, with the intellect applied after to shape and package the muse's gift.

Well I do not believe that artistic creation exists in a vacuum.    I think that both the artist and his work are influenced by their environment  (amongst other things).     I'm not going as far as you imply above to say that there is always a direct, rational, "cause and effect" link.    But in most cases the artist is not in a kind of trance where he unknowingly transcribes God's commands into music (or painting or whatever), then wakes up and thinks .... "hey that looks great !".    I think that the act of creation is more subtle than that and involves human consciousness.

Hilarious!  Atheism is nothing but blind faith--and willfully blind, for at the same time atheists insist that rationality governs their beliefs, they refuse to recognize rationality governing natural processes, insisting that any order in the world other than that imposed by man is purely accidental.  What irony that self-identified atheists can read a simple sentence written by a stranger and discern intelligence behind the ordering of words and the concepts expressed, but cannot discern the intelligence behind "natural laws" and the functional order written throughout the universe!

Well, I think we have totally different definitions of "atheism".     What you have stated above does NOT represent the way I think.    When I ask WHY?, I simply don't want to accept a dogmatic, curiosity-limiting answer like "it is God's will", or "it's a natural law".      I don't expect to get answers to all my "why's" of course, but in the specific case of the ending of the 5th, I DO believe that Sibelius had something in mind  (and he DID explain the origin of the Swan Theme) ..... I'm just trying to understand why it ends this way and I don't accept that this was a random and illogical inspiration.      That is chaos, not creation.     I still cling to the belief that there is a message ......

Respectfully .....

[karlhenning]

I find the endings of both the Fifth and Seventh arresting.

I don't recall ever finding the ending of the Fifth shocking.

[karlhenning]

Well, I think we have totally different definitions of "atheism".     What you have stated above does NOT represent the way I think.    When I ask WHY?, I simply don't want to accept a dogmatic, curiosity-limiting answer like "it is God's will", or "it's a natural law".

Well, I think your implications about religion simplistic and tendentious.

[DavidRoss]

 I still cling to the belief that there is a message ....

The idea that Art has a "message" is a bit naiive--especially, I think, when it comes to what Sibelius called "absolute" music.  This erroneous belief may be responsible for the difficulty you're having with accepting the ending.  If you're looking for a message in Rothko's paintings, for instance, or William's imagistic poetry, or Judd's sculpture, you will be disappointed unless you recognize that whatever "message" exists is something you project into the work, and not something implicit in the work itself.  This did not always hold true for the Arts, certainly not when the methods of Art were employed in the service of a master--such as the Church at one time or Pepsi Cola today--but "Art for Art's sake" is a primary feature of Art following the liberation of the artist in the modern (and post-modern) era.

[Brian]

I see nothing wrong with that! My (music teacher) wife once began a school concert with the hall in pitch black, a deep droning C......and the massed choir playing the opening fanfares of Also sprach Zarathustra on their kazoos! 

Even that performance of Also Sprach Zarathustra must have sounded far, far better than this interpretation by a high school band in Sweden.  

And, "as a true atheist," I wish to express my irritation that this thread has for some reason devolved into yet another religious argument.

[alkan]

Well, I think your implications about religion simplistic and tendentious.

I really didn't want to get involved in a religious battle.      I used the word "atheist" first, so I take responsibility (and I apologize), but please let's not go down this path.      I think that you can see from my clumsy attempt to express myself that all I was trying to say was that "why not" is not an acceptable reply to "why"  !!!

so, I suppose that apart from noting that the end to Sibelius 5 is "arresting", that's where it stops for you.    Sibelius wrote it that way ....     The music has to end some way, so why not this way ...    It's a logical conclusion ....

C'mon Karl.   The ending sounds nothing like anything that has gone before in this symphony.   It's a total break.    Where's your curiosity?  (this is a deliberate provocation   )

[alkan]

And, "as a true atheist," I wish to express my irritation that this thread has for some reason devolved into yet another religious argument.

Please see my earlier message Brian.     This was not my intention and I apologize .....   

[karlhenning]

. . . I think that you can see from my clumsy attempt to express myself that all I was trying to say was that "why not" is not an acceptable reply to "why"  !!!

Well, and why not? 

so, I suppose that apart from noting that the end to Sibelius 5 is "arresting", that's where it stops for you.    Sibelius wrote it that way ....     The music has to end some way, so why not this way ...    It's a logical conclusion ....

C'mon Karl.   The ending sounds nothing like anything that has gone before in this symphony.   It's a total break.    Where's your curiosity?  (this is a deliberate provocation   )

Oh, my curiosity is doing just fine, thanks!

The "sounds like nothing that has gone before in this symphony" angle, of itself, does not find a lot of purchase with me.  I think the ending relates (in a rhythmically clever way) to the 'repeated-loud-chord' endings of Beethoven.

Sort of a back-to-the-future bead.

I find it exciting, but mostly harmless 

[alkan]

The idea that Art has a "message" is a bit naiive--especially, I think, when it comes to what Sibelius called "absolute" music.  This erroneous belief may be responsible for the difficulty you're having with accepting the ending.  If you're looking for a message in Rothko's paintings, for instance, or William's imagistic poetry, or Judd's sculpture, you will be disappointed unless you recognize that whatever "message" exists is something you project into the work, and not something implicit in the work itself.  This did not always hold true for the Arts, certainly not when the methods of Art were employed in the service of a master--such as the Church at one time or Pepsi Cola today--but "Art for Art's sake" is a primary feature of Art following the liberation of the artist in the modern (and post-modern) era.

I understand what you are saying David.     I am not saying the ALL works of art have a message, and I don't think that you are saying that all works of art have NO message !       And I also understand that it is quite normal for different people to appreciate art in different ways.   So I will continue to be shocked, and you will continue to be amused that I am shocked       But what about Sibelius?    The symphony is "reasonably conventional" until the final few bars, yet the ending is SO different to what has gone before.   I simply wonder what inspired this brutal transition .... I hate to think that the answer is .....nothing ....