# Sibelius and Tchaikovsky



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Is it me or are they like the same person? 

Anyone else feel that way?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The first two symphonies of Sibelius do speak strongly to the influence of Tchaikovsky, but including and after his third symphony, its quite a different ball game.

But I think Tchaikovsky's innovations, like how he did thematic development (as Bruckner's) would have been of great influence on Sibelius as a whole, beyond his first 2 symphonies.

That's what comes to my mind immediately.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Well, didn't young Sib say at one point, of Tchaikovsky: "I know there's a lot of that man in me"?
But then he started to talk about how Tchaik's music is "soft", while his own music was "harsh". And yeah, I can't imagine Tchaikovsky getting in a FIST FIGHT FOR BRUCKNER against those sissy Viennese Brahms fans, like Sibelius did.

I wish poor Tchaikovsky would have had such a vigorous and happy life, like Sibelius did!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Is it me or are they like the same person?
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?


No, they are neither.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Xaltotun said:


> Well, didn't young Sib say at one point, of Tchaikovsky: "I know there's a lot of that man in me"?
> But then he started to talk about how Tchaik's music is "soft", while his own music was "harsh". And yeah, I can't imagine Tchaikovsky getting in a FIST FIGHT FOR BRUCKNER against those sissy Viennese Brahms fans, like Sibelius did.
> 
> I wish poor Tchaikovsky would have had such a vigorous and happy life, like Sibelius did!


It all makes sense now.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

You mean that Russian guy with the pompous piano concerto? He would have no clue how to tackle Tapiola.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I find that Sibelius is a chameleon depending on who is conducting. Karajan conducts Sibelius very much like Tchaikovsky- smooth and lilting contrasted with dramatic, but Kajanus is at the other extreme, bringing out the raw nordic power and atmosphere. It took me a while to understand Sibelius and appreciate his music for its own individuality. It took several recorded versions of the symphonies to find the right one too.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Great music thread.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Isn't Sibelius meant to be the worst composer in the world or something like that?


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Nope, it must have been someone else. 

Best regards, Dr


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Isn't Sibelius meant to be the worst composer in the world or something like that?


My how times change lol


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think the Sibelius/Tchaikovsly comparison, which is a popular one, is not a truly solid one.

Is there a wee bit of Tchaikovsky in the First Symphony. Yes, perhaps a wee bit. But I find this is more in terms of orchestration and texture more than melody. Was Sibelius actively trying to copy Tchaikovsky in this piece? I don't think so, though, again, it's likely that he did look to him for a little bit of inspiration.

By the Second, any and all "reference" to Tchaikovsky is, I feel, gone. I feel there is no Tchaikovsky at all in the Second, assuming there is any in the First.

So, maybe we have a little Tchaikovsky in the First Symphony, as it were, but that's it. Nowhere else in Sibelius do we hear anything truly comparable to a Tchaikovskian sound.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Isn't Sibelius meant to be the worst composer in the world or something like that?


I can't believe I said this. Oh *Sibelius!!!* I am so sorry, *Sibelius!!!* Please forgive me!!!!!!!


----------



## FT Hall (Jun 1, 2020)

Tapkaara said:


> I think the Sibelius/Tchaikovsly comparison, which is a popular one, is not a truly solid one.
> 
> Is there a wee bit of Tchaikovsky in the First Symphony. Yes, perhaps a wee bit. But I find this is more in terms of orchestration and texture more than melody. Was Sibelius actively trying to copy Tchaikovsky in this piece? I don't think so, though, again, it's likely that he did look to him for a little bit of inspiration.
> 
> ...


A bit late, but here goes. I used to think so too. But it depends on how you listen to your composers. I've just been listening to Tchaikovsky's "Manfred" Symphony, written in 1885, when Sibelius was 20 and still self-teaching. A great deal of the brass writing sounds very much like Sibelius, particularly in the very black outer movements, and even in the much criticised fugal section (it's not really a fugue, unless the Markevich version I've been hearing makes cuts in it - David Brown seems to go in for a priori notions of fugue, rather than how composers use it) you can hear an anticipation of the Sibelius Seventh. But I can't find any suggestion that he might have heard it, and his hero in is Germanic student days was Bruckner - he seems never to have had much contact with St Petersburg, and, as a Swedish speaker, and like Smetana with Czech, he deliberately set out to learn Finnish. But he must surely have known the score. (The daft thing is also that I can't get rid of the other idea which struck me about Manfred which is that Prokofiev might ( possibly unconsciously) have been parodying the main Manfred themes throughout his "Classical Symphony").


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Tero said:


> You mean that Russian guy with the pompous piano concerto? He would have no clue how to tackle Tapiola.


Yeah, that's the guy who wrote the single most popular concerto ever written. The guy who whose music is played, recorded and loved more than practically anyone. The guy who wrote masterpieces of the highest quality in virtually every genre - symphony, ballet, opera, chamber, piano, voice, concerto. That's the Russian guy.

Sibelius may have written Tapiola, but his batting average for writing music that people play and listen to is really quite low - a few symphonies, Karelia suite, Finlandia, one concerto and not much more. Mind you, I'm a Sibelian to the core - I even splurged for that enormous complete edition on Bis. But his music is vastly overshadowed by that Russian guy. It was Rene Leibowitz who called Sibelius the "world's worst composer". Can't remember the last time I ever heard anything of Leibowitz's in concert. Oh, that'd be never.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Can't remember the last time I ever heard anything of Leibowitz's in concert. Oh, that'd be never.


He _has _been dead for nearly fifty years so if you do get to hear him in concert you are probably in heaven - unless his failure to appreciate Sibelius landed him in hell. He is largely remembered for a really very good Beethoven cycle which is often available very cheap.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

A Sibelius / Tchaikovsky comparison confuses me, but that's likely because we all take something different away from their compositions. There are lots of differing stimuli in music that might catch our attention more than others.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

brianwalker said:


> Is it me or are they like the same person?
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?


No. No. No. Like no.


----------



## Dima (Oct 3, 2016)

There is a big influence on Sibelius not only Tchaikovsky, but all Russian music.
I have wrote about that an article.
That is because he was a citizen of Russian Empire, don't forget about that.
He have it's own style, but russian melancholy feels very strong.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Honestly about as far apart as you can get IMO.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Dima said:


> There is a big influence on Sibelius not only Tchaikovsky, but all Russian music.


I happy with segregating the Russians from other Europeans. The focal point of sound is totally its own. Prepare yourself for the best analogy ever written. If those from the East (Russians) are like Chinese food, then Sibelius would be like Americanized Chinese food. More popular with the West, but ignorantly so. In the same way, Russian music... well, it's clearly the best, to only those who perceive it that way.

Yeah, I've heard a lot of influence in Sibelius from other Russians other than Tchaikovsky. The Tchaikovsky thing confuses me.


----------



## Dima (Oct 3, 2016)

Ethereality said:


> I happy with segregating the Russians from other Europeans. The focal point of sound is totally its own. Prepare yourself for the best analogy ever written. If those from the East (Russians) are like Chinese food, then Sibelius would be like Americanized Chinese food. More popular with the West, but ignorantly so. In the same way, Russian music... well, it's clearly the best, to only those who perceive it that way.
> 
> Yeah, I've heard a lot of influence in Sibelius from other Russians other than Tchaikovsky. The Tchaikovsky thing confuses me.


You are right. On this forum people often try to rate music. I must say that if we use criterias of russian music and then listen to music in west tradition - we would not find too much good examples 
But I must say that russian people traditionally think that all foreign is good, and russian is bad. You know it is difficult in Russia to find people who love russian music it is easier to find them abroad.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Ethereality said:


> I happy with segregating the Russians from other Europeans. The focal point of sound is totally its own. Prepare yourself for the best analogy ever written. If those from the East (Russians) are like Chinese food, then Sibelius would be like Americanized Chinese food. More popular with the West, but ignorantly so. In the same way, Russian music... well, it's clearly the best, to only those who perceive it that way.
> 
> Yeah, I've heard a lot of influence in Sibelius from other Russians other than Tchaikovsky. The Tchaikovsky thing confuses me.


I disagree with the Chinese v. Chinese-American food analogy. If Russian music is Chinese food, then Sibelius is Andorran food. Sibelius' music, his sound, is _sui generis_, except for maybe the violin concerto. Granted that some British composers were influenced by Sibelius (Walton). But I have always been impressed by the uniqueness, the singularity of Sibelius' music--some have described it (a little melodramatically perhaps) as cold fire, though we know he said it was more like cold, clear water.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mbhaub said:


> It was Rene Leibowitz who called Sibelius the "world's worst composer". Can't remember the last time I ever heard anything of Leibowitz's in concert. Oh, that'd be never.


Not only did Leibowitz call Sibelius the worst composer, he wrote a whole essay on the topic XD:

"The music lover or musician educated in France does not know very much about Sibelius. Even the frequenting of certain foreign musical centers (Germany, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Italy) will not shed significant light on this musician. Perhaps one knows 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 one looks upon the musical scenes in England or America, one realizes 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 one 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 it-still-[they are 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 our being able to say, however, 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 one expresses his 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 [style/era/sphere of influence]; 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, incompetence, and impotence.
But then, why such tremendous success?
Perhaps Sibelius himself is most surprised. It is always possible that one 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 one 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 clear him of all these [nuances?] with regard to 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, there is nothing easier than to become the worst composer in the world."


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> ... It was Rene Leibowitz who called Sibelius the "world's worst composer". Can't remember the last time I ever heard anything of Leibowitz's in concert. Oh, that'd be never.


He knew the orchestra though. His transcription of Bach's Passacaglia and Fugue is the best I've heard. It's Ravel-level.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

> Isn't Sibelius meant to be the worst composer in the world or something like that?


According to who?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

By the way,


brianwalker said:


> Is it me or are they like the same person?
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?


Absolutely not. :lol:

(Sibelius any day for me.)


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

brianwalker said:


> Is it me or are they like the same person?
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?


Sibelius and Tchaikovsky?

They used to be the same person …

View attachment 137138
View attachment 137139


when they both had hair.

But then Sibelius went bald.

View attachment 137140


And did something of a Samson act. He stopped composing, as if his powers of musical invention lay in his hair.

But, he did go on to become actor, Tor Johnson.









Or is _this_ Tor Johnson?









Oh … I get so confused by it all -- Tchaikovsky and Sibelius and Tor Johnson and all those other artistic types ….

Have any of you ever heard Tor Johnson's Violin Concerto? It sounds a little like Tchaikovsky's … or maybe it's Sibelius's … Oh my, it's happening again …. The confusion, the confusion ….


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

For me Sibelius follows the general pattern of composers whose earlier works aren't quite so unique as their later efforts (there may be exceptions). I hear much Tchaikovsky in Sibelius's early material and it's not a surprise given their countries proximity and Finland's subservience to Russia (ruled as an autonomous duchy of the Tsarist empire from 1808 but losing many of it's freedoms in 1899).

Sibelius sounds very much like Tchaikovsky here:

Finlandia
5th Symphony, 1st movement


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I find that Richard Strauss also sounds somewhat similar to Tchaikovsky in character:


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

...but then, of course, when we come to the 4th (1911) and 5th symphonies (1915, revised 16, 19) Sibelius doesn't sound like anyone else. Indeed, I would hazard that few composers have truly achieve such individuality...and he continued in this vein with Symphonies 6 and 7 and Tapiola.


----------



## FT Hall (Jun 1, 2020)

Leibowitz was an associate of Schoenberg who was pretty good at performing Offenbach - not so good with Beethoven or Schoenberg though. I think what he is saying is that he thought diatonic harmony was finished. Sibelius continued to work within the classical key system so he has to be a bad composer, by definition. Schoenberg himself wasn't so narrow-minded.

All the same Sibelius doesn't seem even to have visited Russia itself until as late as 1907, though he knew his (Russian as well as Finnish) Karelian folk-music well before then. It seems likely he knew his contemporary Russian music through Robert Kajanus ( who made very good recordings of his early symphonies around 1930. His great German supporter was Busoni, though you would have to look even harder to see what, if anything, he had in common with Busoni.


----------



## geralmar (Feb 15, 2013)

I recall reading the smart*** comment, "My favorite Tchaikovsky symphony is the Sibelius second".


----------



## Owen David (May 15, 2020)

I agree Sid! Early Sibelius hadn't found his own voice entirely. Later on - absolutely sublime!


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Owen David said:


> I agree Sid! Early Sibelius hadn't found his own voice entirely. Later on - absolutely sublime!


I love Sibelius' early works...really great stuff!!


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

IMO there’s nothing as sublime as his 7th Symphony. The first time I heard it was at a concert...not a record. It blew me away! At the time, I only knew early Sibelius. The early works are fantastic, but once Sibelius “found his voice” he became an original. Instantly recognizable.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Gray Bean said:


> IMO there's nothing as sublime as his 7th Symphony. The first time I heard it was at a concert...not a record. It blew me away! At the time, I only knew early Sibelius. The early works are fantastic, but once Sibelius "found his voice" he became an original. Instantly recognizable.


#7 is very excellent, and certainly exemplifies Sibelius' mature style....but my favorites are 5, then 1....great to hear, great to play, as well...#6 just does nothing for me....I guess anyone can have a misfire...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Gray Bean said:


> IMO there's nothing as sublime as his 7th Symphony. The first time I heard it was at a concert...not a record. It blew me away! At the time, I only knew early Sibelius. The early works are fantastic, but once Sibelius "found his voice" he became an original. Instantly recognizable.


Sadly, the 'average' classical music lover (no denigration intended) has probably not heard it (one rarely hears it aired on the radio); I guess it's one of those works that doesn't always reveal it's wonders on first listen (though that clearly wasn't an issue for you).

I listen to it probably every other day and it never ceases to amaze - I'm always left shaking my head in disbelief; an outstanding achievement imho.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Owen David said:


> I agree Sid! Early Sibelius hadn't found his own voice entirely. Later on - absolutely sublime!


My impression is that Sibelius found his voice--his sound, surely--almost right from the beginning. The dark woodwinds, sometimes in strange ranges, the often dark string colors, the sudden irruptions of brass, certainly the love of ostinato, allow one often to immediately identify even an early work (_En Saga_, second symphony) as Sibelius, or, in the case of Walton's first symphony, somebody sounding like Sibelius. Unique early.


----------



## Gray Bean (May 13, 2020)

Strange Magic said:


> My impression is that Sibelius found his voice--his sound, surely--almost right from the beginning. The dark woodwinds, sometimes in strange ranges, the often dark string colors, the sudden irruptions of brass, certainly the love of ostinato, allow one often to immediately identify even an early work (_En Saga_, second symphony) as Sibelius, or, in the case of Walton's first symphony, somebody sounding like Sibelius. Unique early.


Even parts of the First Symphony could only be by Sibelius. It's the orchestration for sure but the progression and "tone" as well...the end of the first movement, the scherzo...


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

The most “Tchaikovskian” moment in Sibelius IMO is the finale of the 2nd, which I have always found somewhat of a letdown. Just too much bombast and vapid gesturing (I feel the same way about the finale of Beethoven’s 5th - not one for prolonged victories). The 1st has some gorgeous melodies but they are all in a totally distinctive Nordic style. Otherwise, it is my opinion that Tchaikovsky never came close to achieving the musical and emotional depth of Sibelius 4-7, Violin Concerto and Tapiola.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Gray Bean said:


> Even parts of the First Symphony could only be by Sibelius. It's the orchestration for sure but the progression and "tone" as well...the end of the first movement, the scherzo...


Agreed. I simply cannot imagine Tchaikovsky opening a symphony, let alone his 1st, with an extended meander on solo clarinet played over pp kettles. That's pure Sibelius, from the start.


----------



## FT Hall (Jun 1, 2020)

But how about the extended meander by the horn at the opening of the second Tchaikowsky symphony?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Strange Magic said:


> My impression is that Sibelius found his voice--his sound, surely--almost right from the beginning. The dark woodwinds, sometimes in strange ranges, the often dark string colors, the sudden irruptions of brass, certainly the love of ostinato, allow one often to immediately identify even an early work (_En Saga_, second symphony) as Sibelius, or, in the case of Walton's first symphony, somebody sounding like Sibelius. Unique early.


I agree with you - these characteristic orchestrations do give him a voice - but I think it's the harmonic / melodic switch that occurred from about the 4th symphony onwards (in his major works at least) that really brought about fundamental change imo. Two totally different composers for me.


----------



## Guest (Jun 5, 2020)

brianwalker said:


> Is it me or are they like the same person?
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?


I can answer the first - no. I can't answer the second, except to say that I'm sure _someone _out there feels the same way.

Yes, there seem to be some similarities, but Sibelius was definitely his own man.


----------



## nncortes (Oct 5, 2014)

I feel like to understand Sibelius, you really have to start from the early Symphonies and Kullervo and work your way to the 6th, 7th, and Tapiola. You can like and appreciate the music, but I think to understand how Sibelius developed the symphony by stripping it down to only what is necessary is the opposite from all the other stuff going on (Mahler adding complexity, 12 tone and new forms of harmony, etc.) That is why he says so much with so little in the last pieces. But Sibelius didn't really have strong influences as he was so separated from everything being in Finland. He really didn't hear orchestras until he was college aged in Berlin (my understanding was there was a lot of internal politics in Helsinki's orchestra). So I find him incredibly unique.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

I would have never made the connection, and still don't. Tchaikovsky is my favorite composer, and am particularly fond of his numbered symphonies (never liked Manfred, but hey you can't be perfect), and absolutely love his concertos. I also love the ballets (usually through listening, although I have attended performances of the Nutcracker and Swan Lake). I don't listen to opera, so that aspect of Tchaikovsky is totally opaque to me. I do love Sibelius' violin concerto but never really warmed up to his symphonies. I am right now re-listening to Sibelius' second symphony, to see what the deal is about, but I remain skeptical. This is more of a "therapeutic" exercise to see if I can cure my allergy to 20th century classical music. Oh well, I am trying!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

haziz said:


> I would have never made the connection, and still don't. Tchaikovsky is my favorite composer, and am particularly fond of his numbered symphonies (never liked Manfred, but hey you can't be perfect), and absolutely love his concertos. I also love the ballets (usually through listening, although I have attended performances of the Nutcracker and Swan Lake). I don't listen to opera, so that aspect of Tchaikovsky is totally opaque to me. I do love Sibelius' violin concerto but never really warmed up to his symphonies. I am right now re-listening to Sibelius' second symphony, to see what the deal is about, but I remain skeptical. This is more of a "therapeutic" exercise to see if I can cure my allergy to 20th century classical music. Oh well, I am trying!


Don't give up with Sibelius - perhaps try the finale of his 5th symphony if you haven't already. I think his harmonic language was (and still is) unique so it's perhaps difficult to fathom at first.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Don't give up with Sibelius - perhaps try the finale of his 5th symphony if you haven't already. I think his harmonic language was (and still is) unique so it's perhaps difficult to fathom at first.


I actually listened to the 5th symphony, this morning, just before I listened to the 2nd. I find it more approachable than the second symphony. I also think it's relative brevity helps. It may eventually make it into my rotation, although I suspect I will still listen to the Tchaikovsky and Beethoven symphonies one hundred times before I throw in a Sibelius 5th just for variety.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

haziz said:


> I actually listened to the 5th symphony, this morning, just before I listened to the 2nd. I find it more approachable than the second symphony. I also think it's relative brevity helps. It may eventually make it into my rotation, although I suspect I will still listen to the Tchaikovsky and Beethoven symphonies one hundred times before I throw in a Sibelius 5th just for variety.


I agree - I am not a great fan of his second symphony.

You might also agree that sometimes it takes a particular performance or conductor's reading of a work for it to gel. Love this version of the 7th (Segerstam/DNSO).


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

from Tchaikovsky, the natural continuation is Rachmaninoff; and then maybe Shostakovich who despite some 20th century innovations, is more-or-less full of Tchaikovsky's sad, brooding, soulfully "Russian" quality. Sibelius shares much of Tchaikovsky's lush, grand, Late-Romantic quality; especially in the earlier symphonies before Sibelius started to express himself in a more "tight' and economical way (probably starting from _Symphony #4_). I think by looking to Tchaikovsky, Sibelius avoided Wagnermania that so much dominates Late Romantic music: Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Franck, and even the founding serialists, Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (Though, Webern ends up gets really "tight" and economical to the nth degree). Someone on the thread mentioned performance. If you take the Sibelius Violin Concerto and place in the hands of a really, soulful, Russian violinist like David Oistrakh it will sound a lot more like Tchaikovsky than, say, someone who is fresh, warm, and crispy like Zino Francscatti, Christian Ferras, or Cho-Liang Lin.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Coach G said:


> from Tchaikovsky, the natural continuation is Rachmaninoff; and then maybe Shostakovich who despite some 20th century innovations, is more-or-less full of Tchaikovsky's sad, brooding, soulfully "Russian" quality. Sibelius shares much of Tchaikovsky's lush, grand, Late-Romantic quality; especially in the earlier symphonies before Sibelius started to express himself in a more "tight' and economical way (probably starting from _Symphony #4_). I think by looking to Tchaikovsky, Sibelius avoided Wagnermania that so much dominates Late Romantic music: Bruckner, Mahler, Richard Strauss, Franck, and even the founding serialists, Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern (Though, Webern ends up gets really "tight" and economical to the nth degree). Someone on the thread mentioned performance. If you take the Sibelius Violin Concerto and place in the hands of a really, soulful, Russian violinist like David Oistrakh it will sound a lot more like Tchaikovsky than, say, someone who is fresh, warm, and crispy like Zino Francscatti, Christian Ferras, or Cho-Liang Lin.


For me, Shostakovich's melancholia is the very antithesis of Tchaikovsky's.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

haziz said:


> This is more of a "therapeutic" exercise to see if I can cure my allergy to 20th century classical music.


That's a great comment. My "allergy" has returned and this time I'm not going to bother trying to cure it. Life's too short to waste on music you don't like, understand, or care about. It took me a while to warm up to Sibelius, and there's an awful lot of his music that is just, well, awful. But his good stuff - terrific!


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

janxharris said:


> For me, Shostakovich's melancholia is the very antithesis of Tchaikovsky's.


I always saw Shostakovich's "melancholia" as laced with anger; lots of bitter sarcasm and irony. Even so, it's the "Russian" brand of sad, soulfulness that I think comes through in works like Shostakovich's such as Shostakovich's _14th Symphony_, or maybe it's just because of the bass soloist that it sounds that way. In any case, I think there is a lot more of Tchaikovsky in Shostakovich than in Prokofiev who to me sounds leaner and more athletic.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

Sibelius was certainly influenced by Tchaikovsky but surpassed him, in my opinion...in the same way that (also in my opinion) Bruckner, Mahler and Strauss were influenced by but surpassed Wagner.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

consuono said:


> Sibelius was certainly influenced by Tchaikovsky but surpassed him, in my opinion...in the same way that (also in my opinion) Bruckner, Mahler and Strauss were influenced by but surpassed Wagner.


Sibelius deserves respect as any other great composer, but I was a little underwhelmed by his violin concerto. He uses the orchestra in the way those 19th-century solo-instrument-oriented composers would. The opening sounds inspired though.
I would say Tristan is the most singular creation of the 19th century as far as stage/incidental music is concerned, (presents the most interesting use of dramatic suspense over extended space, imv). Btw, one problem I find in composers like Sibelius and Bruckner is that their more uninspired moments sound like stuff very good film composers of today might have also come up with. I think Wagner transcends that sort of thing in many of his moments, at least.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sibelius deserves respect as any other great composer, but I was a little underwhelmed by his violin concerto. He uses the orchestra in the way those 19th-century solo-instrument-oriented composers would. The opening sounds inspired though..


I love the orchestration of Sibelius Vln Concerto...excellent parts, esp for bassoon and clarinet..Sibelius makes fine use of the orchestra....always loved playing this piece...Beethoven VC is the best, but Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich are excellent as well. so are Khatchaturian, Glazunoff...


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> Sibelius deserves respect as any other great composer, but I was a little underwhelmed by his violin concerto. He uses the orchestra in the way those 19th-century solo-instrument-oriented composers would. The opening sounds inspired though.
> I would say Tristan is the most singular creation of the 19th century as far as stage/incidental music is concerned, (presents the most interesting use of dramatic suspense over extended space, imv).


My opinion is that Tristan and the other Wagner works are greatest mainly as influences rather than in themselves. I think Bruckner imposed more form and discipline on Wagnerian techniques while Mahler and Strauss were better at orchestration. 


> Btw, one problem I find in composers like Sibelius and Bruckner is that their more uninspired moments sound like stuff very good film composers of today might have also come up with. I think Wagner transcends that sort of thing in many of his moments, at least.


But that's exactly what Wagner's operatic music is, in a proto-film score way. Wagner to me is loaded with music that's there just because music is supposed to be there and be there continually.


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

I honestly think Tchaikovsky and Dvorak are more alike then Sibelius. Both were masters of the melody. 
And there's nowt wrong with Sibelius. He for me, along with Prokofiev runs supreme 20th century wise.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*Sibelius and Tchaikovsky*



brianwalker said:


> Is it me or are they like the same person?
> 
> Anyone else feel that way?


You may or may not be Sibelius and/or Tchaikovsky. I can't tell from here.
But I never feel that way. More like Mussorgsky on a bad day.
I _can_ say that the two composers have identical sounding Eighth Symphonies!


----------

