"Sibelius, the Worst Composer in the World"

[North Star]

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.

[Dancing Divertimentian]

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.

[zamyrabyrd]

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.

[Monsieur Croche]

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.

[Jo498]

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".

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".

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!

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.

[Jo498]

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

[Ghost Sonata]

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.

[zamyrabyrd]

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

[Karl Henning]

Richard Wagner was an eminent composer but doesn't make his opinions even on musical subjects, Holy Writ.

Oh, but it does — to Wagnerrhoids!

[Cato]

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.

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:)

[Mahlerian]

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.

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.

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Mahlerian]

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.

[Karl Henning]

I meant that Boulez found Leibowitz dull and pedantic.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

[San Antone]

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).

[Jo498]

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".

[Karl Henning]

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.

[Florestan]

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. 
================================
OK, can that please be the final word on that issue?

Thank you in advance.

Knight

[Dancing Divertimentian]

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.

[Pat B]

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.