# Sibelius: Any Good or Just a Dud?



## Andy Loochazee

In my estimation, Mahler was the last great Romantic composer. Sibelius added nothing worthwhile.

In symphonic development, Sibelius was a no-hoper. Apart from a few catchy tunes his chamber/solo instrument output is weak. I normally cringe each time I hear material like Finlandia. His violin concerto is sloppy and overshadowed by others', for example Brahms, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven. His output for voice/choras is abysmal.

As you can see there is room for some doubt in my estimation. I do not have closed mind, no sirree!

I have therefore decided to test your opinion by setting up this Poll. Unlike the crappy Poll on Mozart, this one is far more sophisticated in design. I have given a wide a choice of options using state of the art musicological terminology. If anyone finds the language daunting, I can only apologise and suggest you might carry out a Google search to ascertain the subtleties of my chosen language.

I look forward to your responses.

P.S. I trust you will treat this with the degree of seriousness it deserves.


----------



## World Violist

I think Sibelius is a great composer. I agree that Mahler was the last great Romantic composer, but I think that Sibelius still incorporated an organic sense of development that many composers who were still wrapped up in "sonata form" mostly ignored.

And why does a composer have to contribute something major to be great anyway? Honestly, Brahms didn't contribute squat (as compared to most other "innovators"), but he's regarded as one of the greatest composers.


----------



## muxamed

This poll must be a joke, right? I am stunned by the fact that two people have actually participated i it so far


----------



## Dim7

Used to dislike him, but I've learned to like compositions like Symphonies 1,2 and especially 7, Kullervo, and to lesser degree Tapiola and Lemminkäinen Suite. Initially I found his music to be too tame & reserved, formless, lacking in flashy orchestration and radical harmonies. Early woWrks like Kullervo and the first symphony however were actually something that appealed to Mahlerian like me, and now I've learned to like some later works of Sibelius too. I'm not entirely sure why, but the Seventh Symphony appeals to me for some arbitrary reason.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Well he doesnt need to contribute and I think his rather isolated position in Finland gives him greater room to maneouver.
As he long as a composer stays true to his preferred method of expression and achieves his works successfully he has all my respect as a genius no matter what my tastes dictate.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio




----------



## Andy Loochazee

Although I am warmly encouraged by the terrific response so far to this Poll, I would like to give this thread a “bump” in order to prompt responses from more of you so that we get as comprehensive picture as possible of T-C members' reckoning of the true status of Sibelius: Dogs ******** or Dog Poo.

So far the poll results suggest that Sibelius’ reputation, never all that high even on the most optimistic interpretation, is probably over-stated and that he belongs more in the “poo” department of classical music. 

First of all, I am so very happy to see that I am not alone in having a low regard for Sibelius. I can’t tell you what great joy it brought when I spotted that 50% of those who voted consider Sibelius’ music to be the musical equivalent of a big pile of dog poo. Oh, what joy! It made my day. I want round telling all my neighbours and even phoned my granny in her nursing home to give her the great news. She wondered WTF I was going on about but that’s not unusual regardless of the subject. Tonight, I'm booked into a top local restaurant and am going to have a celebratory dinner. Oh, what deep joy, what deep joy ... aaaaah!

Without in any way wanting to prejudice the results of further votes, I would like to clarify my own reasoning a little further as to why I think he is hopelessly overrated. I will do my best to explain my reasons in neutral, non-inflammatory terms and to be as musically proper as I can. After all, I am a very seasoned listener of classical music having spent all of my life since turning age 13 to its study and enjoyment.

How can I put it? Probably best way of describing my view is that whenever I hear Sibelius on the radio, I switch to something else. He bores me. Apologies to anyone who thinks that Sibelius is a musical “god” but, hell, it must be a funny kind of “heaven” they believe in. To be slightly more scientific, I definitely cannot stand Sibelius. He doesn't say anything to me, and he churns out such unimaginative music most of it dreary and sleepy. To be frank it disgusts me. Although I find some of it structurally sound with nice melody, I find it lacks any true elegance or refinement. There’s nothing in it to grab one psychologically.

The kind of sound Sibelius generates sounds more like he had his head up his *** while composing. Do you know what I mean? It gives you an uncomfortable feeling from the opening chords that it is musically regressive stuff, going backwards. .

At this stage I should point out that I have nothing against Romantic composers in general or any from the German/Austrian axis. I quite like some Romantic music and I think that Mahler was a far better technician and melodist. I must admit though that my favourite variety of classical music is not Romantic but from the Medieval period, the 14th Century to be precise. You may have heard of Guillaume de Machaut, (c. 1300 –1377). He was the most famous composer of that crowd, but it’s not him I’m fascinated but by a couple of his contemporaries called “Jake the Jackass” and “Walter the Wally” who were a couple of Franciscan friars who really did write some fantastic material for that period. It’s all mainly deeply religious chant, but what makes it so special is that they incorporated some very risqué elements (all in Latin of course) referring to their sexual fantasies in regard to the occupants of the nearby Convent. It was all done by the earliest known use of "leitmotifs" in which, upon hearing the relevant chords, they would all get into the appropriate position to take full advantage! 

I trust you can see that my wide classical music interests, and this particular focus of my most cherished favourites, gives me a perfectly respectable basis for commenting upon the qualities of Sibelius’ music. 

So, once again, many thanks to those who have voted so far, but let’s get the poll moving again.


----------



## david johnson

The only poo here is the poll. It's a poo-poll. If he says nothing to you you're listening with the wrong ears.


----------



## Jaime77

can't believe how anyone could rate sibelius low - his seventh symphony and tapiola alone are masterpieces. i dont know what people expect in a composer to call him 'great'. is so subjective too. sibelius had his own stamp of syle, his own organic compositional method, his music is still being played regularly and repeated listenings reveal more and more. i think it is fair to say, imo, this is greatness. 

saying mahler the last great romantic cos sibelius did nothing new... hmm that is not true. who sounds like sibelius? nobody. besides rachmaninov and r. strauss composed some truly great music after mahler died too. oh not the linear view of music history again  where if a composer 'looked back' or was less innovative than another, a little too much for someone's liking he must be deemed not 'great' and dumped.


----------



## muxamed

david johnson said:


> The only poo here is the poll. It's a poo-poll. If he says nothing to you you're listening with the wrong ears.


This poll is obviously a parody on another poll started by a Sibelius fan:

http://www.talkclassical.com/8259-mozart-god-garbage.html

In other words nothing anti-sibelian.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

muxamed said:


> This poll is obviously a parody...


O.K. then... it's a _parody_-poo-poll.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I think this quote by Sibelius sums him up well; what do you think?

*"Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public pure cold water"*


----------



## Andy Loochazee

muxamed said:


> This poll is obviously a parody on another poll started by a Sibelius fan:
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/8259-mozart-god-garbage.html
> 
> In other words nothing anti-sibelian.


Is it? You are Swedish I take it? Sorry about that but I'm trying to test opinion on Sibelius, and I can't help it if he is from close to your country. This is a serious study.

Some people rave about Sibelius but I reckon that even two somewhat obscure 14th Century composers I referred to earlier are better than him.

Sibelius is definitely not one of my favourites and I think that his limited reputation is unreasonably generous. I want to know how far others agree.

I find his music over-moody and on the whole poorly written rubbish. OK, some of his symphonic material is not bad (S2 and 5 are reasonable) but the rest is at best mediocre. The non-orchestral side of his music is pathetic. Can anyone point to any decent piano or violin solo, or to any decent chamber work? What about his non-existent operas or other very thin choral pieces. It's overall very disappointing.

If manure were music Sibelius would be the Number 1 composer, but as this is not the case I prefer to side-step it whenever I can. If his music comes on the radio, I leave. My cat (before it died recently in unfortunate circumstances) used to squeal badly at the sound of Finlandia. I'm sorry to say that even if Sibelius were twice as smart a composer than he is, it would still be awful.

I reckon all that drink polluted his brain, and that's why it sounds so dreadful. And what on earth happened to him in later life? If he developed any more chins he would have had more than a Hong-Kong telephone book.

I have been at pains to emphasise that I do not dislike Romantic or moody music generally. I quite like Mahler but, as explained ,my real speciality is 14th C music. I think the latter is far better than all the later material. I know that my tastes are perhaps slightly eccentric but I don't see how this dis-franchises me from expressing my disgust at the sloppy, gross music of Sibelius.

Please, folks don't feel bullied by any ruffians you may encounter on this or any other music Board to prevent you from speaking your mind on this matter. Although I have suffered greatly from such malpractice on other Boards before coming here, I know that the people on this Board are a very nice lot on the whole, and the Mod team is super-fantastic at blowing the whistle at the first sign of bullying should it ever happen.

This is your opportunity to speak up. Rise up to the challenge and get all your pent up frustrations about the scandalously exaggerated (albeit still quite modest) fame of of Sibelius off your chest once for all. Declare this bald-headed Scandinavian git the incompetent composer that he truly is.

Vote now.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I dont think youve heard the violin concerto...


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Andy Loochazee said:


> Declare this bald-headed Scandinavian git the incompetent composer that he truly is.
> 
> Vote now.


So far the poll would seem to indicate that most people think otherwise.

I would point out that your use of British slang terms like "git" and "dog's ********" is likely to be confusing to the rest of the world.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

emiellucifuge said:


> I dont think youve heard the violin concerto...


Of course I have. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, in the main classical music repertoire from 1600-1970 that I am missing which is generally considered to be of any significance.

I have good access to thousands of CDs but I don't go on about it like some boring people (and former extremely boring) people. I don't say they all belong specifically to me, but rather to my family (parents, siblings) and I have access to whatever I want.

In the case of Sibelius' VC, I have happen to have my own three versions, of which the Heifetz/ LPO/Beecham is the one that is probably the best. To be fair, it's not a bad work and is probably among Sibelius' best efforts but in absolute terms I wouldn't rank it that highly. It's too edgy and dreary by far. It gives me nervous tension; there is nothing smooth, elegant or refined about in the slightest.

The best VCs are by Beethoven (a clear winner) followed by Mendelssohn or Tchaikovsky in either order, and then the Brahms. Way below these in general quality, the Sibelius VC might squeeze in among the "also-rans" along with the Elgar and Bruch. Personally, however, I prefer the Schumann VC of any of these. On the whole, VC's don't interest me all that much.

So there you are: a nice try, but sorry it doesn't cut much ice with me. Sibelius belongs at the distinctly poo end of the market, despite one or two works that aren't all that bad. There is generally far better material available to listen to, unless of course you are fed up of living and simply want to wallow in all of his dreary, alcohol-driven melancholy.

Most certainly, if I were compiling a list of the Top 100 Classical Works for a general purpose user - who doesn't know his a.s from his elbow - there would not be much in the way of Sibelius in there, perhaps Symphony No 2 as a sop in the Scandinavian direction, but that's all. Generally, I think that Grieg was a better composer from that neck of the woods.

You really should try to get into 14th Century classical music. It is so richly rewarding. You will wonder why on earth later composers ever bothered to ply their trade, except possibly to get out of the way of theirs Mrs ("her indoors", as we say in the UK), assuming of course they had one, Mrs that is.


----------



## Aramis

Beethoven's VC the best ever? We will do no such thing. Och, please


----------



## Jaime77

Interesting... this came up before in a thread and Beethoven's violin concerto is the least favourite work of a favourite composer. Three Beethoven fans didn't like it - does not say much for it. I personally find it boring. Sorry to say.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Fsharpmajor said:


> I would point out that your use of British slang terms like "git" and "dog's ********" is likely to be confusing to the rest of the world.


I doubt that it's that much of a problem. I have spent a large amount of time on American music websites where of course they use their own slang or Americanisms ("left field") which is not understood in the UK. They don't make any concessions to foreign users, so why should I? The terms I have used were selected carefully and fit together appropriately to give the balance and flavour I was seeking. Whichever result "wins" suits me.

I occasionally have trouble interpreting what some non English speaking people say when it is garbled, but I usually manage to work it out. There is always the Google search facility, which I am sure they must be used to.

Some people come here not just to discuss classical music but to improve their English. I do my best, given the constraints on my time, to write decent English, which is a lot more than can be said for many English speakers. Most often it's downright disgraceful with all kinds of misspellings, poor grammar, bad concord, etc. Some don't even write sentences but nevertheless strike up huge numbers of posts most of which say absolutely nothing that is the remotest use to anyone.

I'm sure that some such people (I'm referring to people whose mother tongue is English) could do a lot better if they tried but I fear that in many cases their education has been so bad that they simply haven't a clue how to write correctly. I hesitate to say it but this tends to be particularly severe from one major country, and it's not the UK. It's the same on all music websites.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Jaime77 said:


> Interesting... this came up before in a thread and Beethoven's violin concerto is the least favourite work of a favourite composer. Three Beethoven fans didn't like it - does not say much for it. I personally find it boring. Sorry to say.


I wouldn't defend Beethoven's VC to the death by any means. It is not among Beethoven's very best works, but I would say that it is a more popular work now, and down the ages, than most other VCs with the possible exception of Tchaikovsky, Mendelssohn and Brahms. I would say confidently that Sibelius' VC is definitely not within striking distance of these four in quality or popularity.

I do happen to like Beethoven's VC best of all, but I accept that it's a moot point among afficionados of this kind of work. My favourite version of it is by Menuhin/Philharmonia/Furtwangler. If I haven't heard the work for a while I can say that within minutes of the start I get to love Beethoven all over again and wonder how on earth I could ever question his ability, which of course I do only jokingly when the occasion suits.

I also quite like the other three mentioned VC, although I am not strongly interested in heavy orchestral works so much as I used to be. Of these three the one that could have been so much better is the Brahms which has that superb opening movement but which rather fizzles out later. The best version in my view of the Brahms is by Nathan Milstein/Pittsburgh SO.

Poor old Sibelius' VC pales into virtual insignificance against these titanic works, which is what I'm saying, namely that there is generally far better material in any genre you care to name from other composers, so why bother with him as you're only getting second best, or third best most often.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Aramis said:


> Beethoven's VC the best ever? We will do no such thing. Och, please


Care to elaborate or is that it?

If so how do you expect any intelligent person to respond to such a vague comment?

I will normally try to answer any sensible questions or comments put to me, but if you can't be bothered to explain what you mean then why should I waste my time trying to guess what you are going on about again. You are among those I have difficulty working out what you're really saying most of the time, but if you don't at least try to write out a proper request it is impossible to do so.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I think a lot of Aramis's posts have some humour in them.


----------



## David58117

When you're dealing with subjective material, "best" doesn't exist.


----------



## Aramis

Andy Loochazee said:


> Care to elaborate or is that it?
> 
> If so how do you expect any intelligent person to respond to such a vague comment?
> 
> I will normally try to answer any sensible questions or comments put to me, but if you can't be bothered to explain what you mean then why should I waste my time trying to guess what you are going on about again. You are among those I have difficulty working out what you're really saying most of the time, but if you don't at least try to write out a proper request it is impossible to do so.


Just wanted to express that I find Beethoven's VC one of his minor works (even if we would reduce comparison field to concertos and violin music), it doesn't contain any musical idea, not the same kind as those in his groundbreaking works. Therefore I find considering this concerto as greatest/one of greatest absurdal.

Large part of Sibelius VC is violin playing solo, especially the first movement is slighty orchestrated. It is hard to defend such piece, you can't put forth much more arguments than just "hello, it's beautiful music, ho, ho".


----------



## Sid James

Ok we get the joke. Maybe someone whould do a poll "Mozart vs. Sibelius" to top off this absurdity.


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> Ok we get the joke. Maybe someone whould do a poll "Mozart vs. Sibelius" to top off this absurdity.


That is a terrific idea...


----------



## Sid James

I wasn't being serious with that suggestion...


----------



## shsherm

I attended performances of several of the Sibelius symphonies the year before last performed by The Los Angeles Philharmonic and conducted by Esa Pekka Salonen who for many years was averse to conducting Sibelius. I found these performances very enjoyable and I rather like Sibelius. I can't understand the vicious attacks on his music. If he was so terrible, why were his symphonies the most popular in the US during the 
30s and 40s of the 20th century and why are they programmed so frequently today?


----------



## Tapkaara

Andre said:


> I wasn't being serious with that suggestion...


Oh...well...um...darn it.


----------



## Eusebius12

I really like some Sibelius pieces, the 2nd, 5th, 6th and 7th symphonies, the voces intimae, Tapiola, the Tempest, parts of Finlandia, etc..

But I feel a certain ambiguity towards his works. They are starting to be overplayed. The more they are played, the more the weaknesses and limitations stand out. His themes in themselves are rarely distinguished. Some of them seem downright mediocre, I am thinking of the 1st symphony, the finale of the violin concerto, and the finale of Finlandia. Maybe the latter is spoiled by me by its use for a Monty Python skit of D-Day in tutus. 

Anyway Sibelius has a natural feeling for form, but his content is sometimes lacking, there is a quote, something like 'Sibelius is a theme desperately seeking a melody'..can't recall the exact quote

There is a big grain of truth in my view in that generalization...

He is still better than dog's ******** though


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I don't listen much to 20th century Romantic music anyway. As for Sibelius' music, I can find something else composed by my favourite composers in any genre that offers me greater satisfaction (that can be comparable, say a violin concerto, despite belonging to very different periods).

"Could do without", is basically what I'm saying.


----------



## Xaltotun

There's maybe no reason to bring this old thread up, but I couldn't resist - sorry! I'd just like to list some of my observations concerning the music of Sibelius. First of all, he's no more romantic than Beethoven is classicist. Sibelius clearly has his roots in romanticism but he develops into a different direction. He's also so different than Mahler that comparison seems almost pointless. They almost seem like mirror images of each other. Although, if you put all Sibelius' symphonies together to form a gigantic meta-symphony... it might resemble something like a Mahler symphony!

In the romantic (early) works of Sibelius, he allows us to glimpse his personality... but in his later works, he sort of obscures himself, or perhaps he melds into Nature, or the "World-Spirit" so much that it's hard to see his features any more. He starts from the particular, and ends in the absolute. I actually sort of agree with the criticism that "Sibelius is a theme in desperate search of a melody", and I'm a Sibelius fan. That is what he does! He searches for a melody, a meaning - and that search is the artwork itself. The journey, not the destination. Sibelius is extremely honest in his emotions, perhaps a bit like Brahms. He doesn't give us any resolutions that smell false or fake. He doesn't give us any melodies that we have not... earned, so to say. That said, he certainly becomes quite reserved as his carreer progresses - again, much like Brahms. In his reservedness, he might come across as quite... inhuman, neutral or cold. To a certain extent that is true: his music does not resemble human emotions that rise out of social situations. Rather, he seems to explore man's relation to himself, and to his surroundings (Nature). He's nothing if not an existentialist.

When Sibelius finally reaches a melody, it's usually something simple - a bit like Wagner. Simple and obvious, but shattering because of the journey that it took to find that piece of melody. That's why you shouldn't listen to his works in cut-outs, but go through the whole work. I mean, if you just took out the redemption motif at the end of "Götterdämmerung", it would sound silly, wouldn't it? But go through the 15 hours that precede it, and it becomes much, much more. The same with Sibelius.

Finally -- Sibelius' music is not simple. It took me a long time to get into it (I'm into drama and pathos and overt emotion, and Sibelius is not always about those), and now he's one of my favourite composers. But then again, his music has such a distinctive personality that it will not be everyone's cup of tea. And there's nothing wrong with it. There are a lot of famous composers that I don't personally care about. But if you are going to bash him, please make an effort to understand him first, and judge afterwards. He strives for different things than most other composers.


----------



## haydnfan

I think that anyone who is focused on 14th century music won't appreciate Sibelius the same way that most cm listeners will simply for being focused on different aspects of harmony and melody that the rest of us are drawn too.


----------



## gurthbruins

Fsharpmajor said:


> I think this quote by Sibelius sums him up well; what do you think?
> 
> *"Whereas most other modern composers are engaged in manufacturing cocktails of every hue and description, I offer the public pure cold water"*


That quote could be read either way... but it's a good one neverthess. I'd rather say that Sibelius offers diamonds of real substance, while all the gimmicks that seem to impress Andy so much are so much kitsch...

I don't vote, because it proves nothing. The majority is usually on the wrong side anyway. Or just as well could be.

Of course, Sibelius has real greatness and genius, while Mahler does not.


----------



## Couchie

Better than Finale.


----------



## anshuman

As a lover of classical music I found Sibelius enchanting when i for the first time listened to the Karelia suite.Such wealth of melody. Who says that Sibelius could not produce memorable melodies? Listen to his early works like En Saga as some parts of the Lemminkainen suite.But Sibelius was in search of something else. That which cannot be expressed in mere words appears in Tapiola,some dissonant parts of Pohjola's Daughter.Sibelius forme is my introduction to Finland. At the same time we should not forget that despite his relative isolation from the modernist curents of european musical life,he could not escape it totally.


----------



## dmg

Something tells me that this poll is a bit biased...


----------



## Lenfer

I voted for option one, he's not the best but I would have never thought before reading this thread anyone would say "oh no not Sibelius! AHHHHHH" but maybe that's just me.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

gurthbruins said:


> Of course, Sibelius has real greatness and genius, while Mahler does not.


Just so you know, you accidentally typed both of their names wrong. It's ok, it happens. Funny thing is, though, you spelled them both the other way around.


----------



## Kopachris

I clicked on the thread thinking it was about the software, so that I could go into a long rant about how LilyPond has been making prettyfuller music than Sibelius has for a long time.

Also, is "dog's ********" a good thing? I like Sibelius's symphonies.


----------



## Ravellian

_Sibelius: Any Good or Just a Dud?_

What kind of a stupid question is that? He's one of the greatest 20th century orchestral composers, no doubt about it.


----------



## Almaviva

Ravellian said:


> _Sibelius: Any Good or Just a Dud?_
> 
> *What kind of a stupid question is that?* He's one of the greatest 20th century orchestral composers, no doubt about it.


Oh my, you guys resuscitate a poll from early 2010 and then you start to fight? Uhoh...


----------



## Ravellian

Excuse me for my bluntness, Alma, but I just noticed this topic now and I felt rather offended by the topic title.


----------



## Sid James

At least the OP had the courtesy to say "dog's poo" not "dog's s***" :lol: ...


----------



## Andy Loochazee

Ravellian said:


> Excuse me for my bluntness, Alma, but I just noticed this topic now and I felt rather offended by the topic title.


What's wrong with it? Just because I'm a big fan of 14th Century classical music, and don't like much written afterwards, I don't deserve to be discriminated against for expressing my disliking of Sibelius' music. After all, another of the Forum's Moderators spotted this thread earlier, and made no adverse comment, he being a very astute person indeed who correctly identified how fervently some of us 14th Century music fanatics take our interest in that period. In fact, I'm absolutely bonkers about it, and Sibelius' music to me typifies how badly wrong things went after the demise of my particular musical heroes from that period, for which you'll have to read more of this thread to find out more as I'm not going to repeat any of it.


----------



## violadude

Andy Loochazee said:


> What's wrong with it? Just because I'm a big fan of 14th Century classical music, and don't like much written afterwards, I don't deserve to be discriminated against for expressing my disliking of Sibelius' music. After all, another of the Forum's Moderators spotted this thread earlier, and made no adverse comment, he being a very astute person indeed who correctly identified how fervently some of us 14th Century music fanatics take our interest in that period. In fact, I'm absolutely bonkers about it, and Sibelius' music to me typifies how badly wrong things went after the demise of my particular musical heroes from that period, for which you'll have to read more of this thread to find out more as I'm not going to repeat any of it.


So...you think all of music went to hell in a hand-basket after the 14th century?.....that is quite a big chunk of music not to like.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

That Mozart is just too darn _avant-garde_ for me. Did you hear one time he wrote a piece that was supposed to be bad? That's a bit too _postmodern_ and Cage-ian in my book.


----------



## Kopachris

regressivetransphobe said:


> That Mozart is just too darn _avant-garde_ for me. Did you hear one time he wrote a piece that was supposed to be bad? That's a bit too _postmodern_ and Cage-ian in my book.


You speak of "A Musical Joke," no? That's one of my favorite pieces by Mozart.


----------



## johnfkavanagh

As a young man, I disliked Sibelius, Mahler and Bruckner. In my 40's I suddenly began to appreciate Sibelius and am now a huge admirer. But I still dislike Mahler and Bruckner and it is not for want of trying as I have box sets of their symphonies and even bought the scores. Maybe in my 50's.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

mmmmmmmmmm at least its not a poll about Wagner


----------



## Klassik

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> mmmmmmmmmm at least its not a poll about Wagner


Are you sure about that? I see an option called "The Biggest Pile of Dog's Poo you have ever encountered posing as Romantic music." Somehow Wagner becomes relevant in every thread, huh?


----------



## Larkenfield

Andy Loochazee said:


> In my estimation, Mahler was the last great Romantic composer. Sibelius added nothing worthwhile.
> 
> In symphonic development, Sibelius was a no-hoper. Apart from a few catchy tunes his chamber/solo instrument output is weak. I normally cringe each time I hear material like Finlandia. His violin concerto is sloppy and overshadowed by others', for example Brahms, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Beethoven. His output for voice/choras is abysmal.
> 
> As you can see there is room for some doubt in my estimation. I do not have closed mind, no sirree!
> 
> I have therefore decided to test your opinion by setting up this Poll. Unlike the crappy Poll on Mozart, this one is far more sophisticated in design. I have given a wide a choice of options using state of the art musicological terminology. If anyone finds the language daunting, I can only apologise and suggest you might carry out a Google search to ascertain the subtleties of my chosen language.
> 
> I look forward to your responses.
> 
> P.S. I trust you will treat this with the degree of seriousness it deserves.


I think some listeners have a blind spot for Sibelius and then they write obnoxious and dismissive posts like this. Nor do I consider his great violin concerto "sloppy" at all and it has not been overshadowed by other concertos. It's treated more as an equal and look at how many world-class violinists have recorded it, such as David Oistrakh. Its beautiful melodic quality has already stood the test of time and so have the beauty, depth, and power of his symphonies, his magnificant expression of Nature.


----------



## philoctetes

Mahler just rewrote the same cat barf over and over. He had no sense of nature except the nerves jangling in his ego.


----------



## Zofia

Cannot vote as I do not agree in either option. I try and listen to him when it comes on the radio but I am much of a lover don’t know why.


----------



## CnC Bartok

This poll is over nine years old!!! How insane to resurrect it!

I think both composers wrote some jolly splendid stuff.


----------



## Zofia

CnC Bartok said:


> This poll is over nine years old!!! How insane to resurrect it!
> 
> I think both composers wrote some jolly splendid stuff.


i did not see this it was in the what's new section


----------



## StrangeHocusPocus

I prefer him to Mozart and Beethoven


----------



## philoctetes

I didn't notice either, but nine years is plenty time for my opinions to change...


----------



## Bulldog

This poll is an insult to all dogs. As it happens, my little dog Tango left me numerous pieces of poop in the dining room; it was time for me put some Sibelius on the CD player - an excellent combination.


----------



## Red Terror

A stupid thread idea, clearly.


----------

