# Sibelius: Romantic or Modernist?



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Please choose one or the other. No fence sitters allowed 

Justifications welcomed!


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

For me, he shook off the overwrought Romanticism of his first couple of symphonies and began to sound very modern from the fourth. As an example (and still sounding like no-one else I would say) - I would cite this passage from his Fifth.

With his Seventh he manages to seamlessly transition from one 'section' to another without a break - giving it a sense organic cohesion that remains breathtaking...still.

Kiaja Saariaho: "His orchestration was very avant garde in his time...'
(



)


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

Starting with _Symphony #4_, Sibelius seems to find a new voice that is dark, mysterious and tight, which may indicate a more Modernist approach; but even there Sibelius never seems to lose an underlying sense of the lush sounds that exemplify the music of the grand late-Romantic style.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Coach G said:


> Starting with _Symphony #4_, *Sibelius seems to find a new voice that is dark, mysterious and tight, which may indicate a more Modernist approach*; but even there Sibelius never seems to lose an underlying sense of the lush sounds that exemplify the music of the grand late-Romantic style.


Or he just let loose his inner Finn :lol:. Actually I think his inner Finn always comes through in his music. At least I haven't yet heard a composition where it doesn't.

But with all seriousness, I think with Sibelius, we cannot even say which one he was - a Romantic or a modernist. He started as a sort of national Romantic (the period when he wrote _Karelia_ suite, _Finlandia_ and _Kullervo_) but some of his greatest compositions, like the 7th, were composed late in his composing career and showed his very individual modernist-Romantic style. I think his style combined both the Romantic and modernist qualities. Sibelius' take of Romanticism and modernism was also different from that of, let's say Strauss or Mahler, as he had lived in a totally different environment with different struggles. Thus it's difficult to compare these composers to each other but I don't think any of the composers of Romanticism-modernism transition era were strictly one or another.

(Sorry RogerWaters, I accidentally found a free spot on the fence...)


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

annaw said:


> Or he just let loose his inner Finn :lol:. Actually I think his inner Finn always comes through in his music. At least I haven't yet witnessed a composition where it doesn't.
> 
> But with all seriousness, I think with Sibelius, we cannot even say which one he was - a Romantic or a modernist. He started as a sort of national Romantic (the period when he wrote _Karelia_ suite, _Finlandia_ and _Kullervo_) but some of his greatest compositions, like the 7th, were composed late in his composing career and showed his very individual modernist-Romantic style. I think his style combined both the Romantic and modernist qualities. Sibelius' take of Romanticism and modernism was also different from that of, let's say Strauss or Mahler, as he had lived in a totally different environment with different struggles. Thus it's difficult to compare these composers to each other but I don't think any of the composers of Romanticism-modernism transition era were strictly one or another.


I agree. The fact that as often happens, the world is not black and white. As many times happen, in the history of art there are transitional periods and figures and well, originality. And as you correctly said, developments. His early works and his late compositions are clearly different, so to start a similar thread with "No fence sitters allowed" onestly does not have a lot of sense, exactly because in this case both simple answers could be considered right or wrong.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

A late Romantic.


----------



## chill782002 (Jan 12, 2017)

Definitely one of the last Romantics. Even "Tapiola", his final major composition, is a very late example of Romanticism, in my view, rather than a Modernist work.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I am not aware of any characteristics of Sibelius' music, generally speaking, that would put him in the modernist camp. The fact that some seem desperate to do so is curious to me. To me, it is the characteristics of the music that define the category, not the year of composition (although there may be some rough correlation in many cases).


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

I'd say started romantic and turned toward modernity but never got around the corner. His later symphonies other than No. 5 reflect less the romanticism of the first two and more the changing nature of melody of the time.

He lived until 1957 but quit composing much earlier. Had he composed to the end, during the beginning of Boulez and other avant-garde modernists, his music may have reflected more of it.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

larold said:


> I'd say started romantic and turned toward modernity but never got around the corner. He lived until 1957 but quit composing much earlier. Had he composed to the end, during the beginning of Boulez and other avant-garde modernists, his music may have reflected more of it.


I doubt it. I think it could be that he saw the direction music was taking and decided that instead of being a Romantic holdout a la Richard Strauss, he would just stop right there.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Is saying "neither - he was a nationalist" considered as fence sitting. Otherwise, I don't think he fits as either except for the Romantic strain in his earlier works. If he is to be considered a Romantic then he joins Brahms as being a particularly disciplined and rigorous one.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_I think it could be that he saw the direction music was taking and decided that instead of being a Romantic holdout a la Richard Strauss, he would just stop right there. _

Possibly but he essentially had stopped composing by 1930, well before World War II and Shostakovich's fame. I think had he composed another 30 years his music may have reflected some of the changes of the time.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Enthusiast said:


> Is saying "neither - he was a nationalist" considered as fence sitting. Otherwise, I don't think he fits as either except for the Romantic strain in his earlier works. If he is to be considered a Romantic then he joins Brahms as being a particularly disciplined and rigorous one.


I think it would be considered a valid observation, but dodging the actual question raised.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

larold said:


> *I'd say started romantic and turned toward modernity but never got around the corner.* He lived until 1957 but quit composing much earlier. Had he composed to the end, during the beginning of Boulez and other avant-garde modernists, his music may have reflected more of it.


I think that's a great description! I think it's difficult to distinguish but while _Tapiola_, the 4th symphony and _The Tempest_ are late-Romantic, they also include dissonances, extreme climaxes, clashing and other aspects that became prominent and characteristic to the modern 20th century modern. That's why I hesitate to say his a pure late-Romantic, especially considering that many Finnish resources also have focused on the modernist traits in his music, while also stating that he always was rather Romantic than a modernist. A Romantic whose music exhibited the qualities of a modernist.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

larold said:


> _I think it could be that he saw the direction music was taking and decided that instead of being a Romantic holdout a la Richard Strauss, he would just stop right there. _
> 
> Possibly but he essentially had stopped composing by 1930, well before World War II and Shostakovich's fame. I think had he composed another 30 years his music may have reflected some of the changes of the time.


Not if those changes were among the reasons he stopped composing in the first place.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

For me the only choice is fence-sitting because I can’t think of him as a full-blown Romantic or a full-blown modernist. I feel the same with Nielsen (even though his style has very few resemblances to Sibelius). So, I will say “post-Romantic.” Certainly fair to say everything up to Sym 4 was in a romantic idiom, but after that he branched off in a very different and very special direction.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

consuono said:


> Not if those changes were among the reasons he stopped composing in the first place.


Sibelius continued composing also after the 30s. He published significantly less but he didn't stop composing altogether. Sibelius didn't seem to be too fond of all modern music - imo he felt it to be too far from his own life but I don't think this was the main reason why he stopped composing. Of course I don't know, but I think he was complex and burdened enough, that there were other reasons for that, more personal ones possibly.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

JAS said:


> I think it would be considered a valid observation, but dodging the actual question raised.


I did say that he started off as a Romantic. After that I can't hear him as a Modernist so he doesn't fit the OP's question. He is as much a Classicist as a Romantic and (perhaps the 4th symphony aside) can't hear him as a Modernist. I might have almost the same difficulty if the composer had been Shostakovich.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> I am not aware of any characteristics of Sibelius' music, generally speaking, that would put him in the modernist camp. The fact that some seem desperate to do so is curious to me. To me, it is the characteristics of the music that define the category, not the year of composition (although there may be some rough correlation in many cases).


what puts a composer in the modernist camp for you?


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> what puts a composer in the modernist camp for you?


Speaking for myself, it would be writing in a modernist style. I don't think Sibelius ever really did.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

It really depends on how you define "modernist". The general impression I get from his music is that it feels like modern-day neo-Romantic film composers though. (But I accept various people's argument he has original expression)


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

hammeredklavier said:


> It really depends on how you define "modernist". The general impression I get from his music is that it feels like modern-day neo-Romantic film composers though. (But I accept various people's argument he has original expression)


Don't you think that should be "modern day neo-Romantic film composers sound like Sibelius?"


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think the major musical eras (Baroque, Classical etc) tend to involve a reaction to - or perhaps only a change from - the one that came before. I don't think the music of Sibelius consciously attempts to move away from Romanticism.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> Speaking for myself, it would be writing in a modernist style. I don't think Sibelius ever really did.


I think that stuff like this






has definitely a modernist sound, especially for the era (1903) it was extremely advanced music in terms of harmony.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> what puts a composer in the modernist camp for you?


It is a question that has come up before, and always found resistance to try to pin down. Mostly, I would say, in my imperfect way, that modernism rejects traditional tonality as a basis for the music (and not merely a few touches here and there in a piece).


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> I think the major musical eras (Baroque, Classical etc) tend to involve a reaction to - or perhaps only a change from - the one that came before. I don't think the music of Sibelius consciously attempts to move away from Romanticism.


I don't think any music tries to move away from anything. When the world's musical scenery develops, it's a result of necessity and not a knowing move. That's how I see it, at least. Sibelius' compositional style certainly developed and there's a clear difference between _Karelia_ suite and _Tapiola_. Whether we decide to call it a move towards modernism or not, depends on how we decide to define modernism.


----------



## Allegro Con Brio (Jan 3, 2020)

Sibelius's compositional style within movements can be seen as resembling a jigsaw puzzle - he gives us a handful of very basic, seemingly rudimentary musical ideas - "thematic grains" - and develops them in an incredibly economical way through shifting of textures, orchestration, harmony, rhythm, meter, and other subtle variation that is ultimately very satisfying. The first movement of the 2nd symphony is an ideal example of this, as is the entire 7th. And then there is the incredible monothematic _Tapiola_ where he develops almost 20 minutes of material from the same seven-note motif. I can't imagine any 19th century Romantic composer writing in such a way. But nor do I see it as moving clearly in the direction of modernism. I've heard this described as foreshadowing minimalism to some extent, but I think there is a lot more variety than in minimalism.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

Romantic....certainly looking ahead in some ways...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

JAS said:


> It is a question that has come up before, and always found resistance to try to pin down. Mostly, I would say, in my imperfect way, that modernism rejects traditional tonality as a basis for the music (and not merely a few touches here and there in a piece).


and where would you put the piece I've posted above?


----------



## Guest (Jul 13, 2020)

RogerWaters said:


> Please choose one or the other. No fence sitters allowed
> 
> Justifications welcomed!


He was a fence-sitter.

Actually, I suspect he didn't care. Just wrote what he wanted, regardless...so, he was a Finnist.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

norman bates said:


> and where would you put the piece I've posted above?


Not available in the US. But even if that particular work would have modernist characteristics, the question was about placing Sibelius overall.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

He was, like Beethoven, a transitional figure. The question as put forth can't be answered accurately. It is interesting however that it is his early _Romantic_ works that are among his most popular: the first two symphonies, the violin concerto, Finlandia, Karelia Suite. He was never a modernist in the sense of trends going on around him. While many composers believed the symphony to be dead, he was always searching for symphonic mastery. He influenced later composers like Melartin, Bax, Rubbra.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> He was, like Beethoven, a transitional figure. The question as put forth can't be answered accurately. It is interesting however that it is his early _Romantic_ works that are among his most popular: the first two symphonies, the violin concerto, Finlandia, Karelia Suite. He was never a modernist in the sense of trends going on around him. While many composers believed the symphony to be dead, he was always searching for symphonic mastery. He influenced later composers like Melartin, Bax, Rubbra.


And I would not call Melartin or Bax modernist either. I am not familiar with Rubbra.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

annaw said:


> I don't think any music tries to move away from anything. When the world's musical scenery develops, it's a result of necessity and not a knowing move. That's how I see it, at least. Sibelius' compositional style certainly developed and there's a clear difference between _Karelia_ suite and _Tapiola_. Whether we decide to call it a move towards modernism or not, depends on how we decide to define modernism.


Whether it tries or not the result is music that does things that were not done before and finds beauty (in a broad sense) in different places and ways. The result as far as Sibelius is concerned in the same - even though his music was new and fresh he did not go beyond Romanticism.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

MacLeod said:


> He was a fence-sitter.
> 
> Actually, I suspect he didn't care. Just wrote what he wanted, regardless...so, he was a Finnist.


William Saroyan wrote a brief account of his trip to Finland, and his own meeting with an elderly Sibelius, long after he stopped composing. Saroyan said he had prepared a list of questions on art, music, beauty, tragedy, life, and death, to ask the great master. Saroyan said he asked the questions but Sibelius was more interested in smoking cigars and drinking whisky. It reminds of what the jazz pianist, Mary Lou Williams, said when she was asked where in the history of jazz does she place herself. She replied, "I don't place myself, I let others place me."


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> He was, like Beethoven, a transitional figure. The question as put forth can't be answered accurately. It is interesting however that it is his early _Romantic_ works that are among his most popular: the first two symphonies, the violin concerto, Finlandia, Karelia Suite. He was never a modernist in the sense of trends going on around him. While many composers believed the symphony to be dead, he was always searching for symphonic mastery. He influenced later composers like Melartin, Bax, Rubbra.


He was too late to be transitional. The transitional composers for the end of Romanticism and the birth of Modernism were Mahler and earlier Schoenberg.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I think the post-Romantic label (thanks, Allegro Con Brio) is probably the only one we will agree on.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Was Sibelius a Romantic or a Modernist? The answer is obvious: No, he was not.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> He was too late to be transitional. The transitional composers for the end of Romanticism and the birth of Modernism were Mahler and earlier Schoenberg.


Sibelius did harmonically more advanced things that Mahler and before him.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

iI've always thought of Sibelius as a late romantic - same as Mahler.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I think of Sibelius and Nielsen as not fitting neatly into any school.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I think that stuff like this
> ...
> has definitely a modernist sound, especially for the era (1903) it was extremely advanced music in terms of harmony.


Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt all wrote "moments" and even entire compositions that sound "modernist". None of the above were "modernists".


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

This may seem utterly unrelated, but I think it gets to the heart of the question. My brother likes to call WWE wrestlers athletes. I say that they are better categorized as entertainers. Although what they do requires a certain amount of physical dexterity, what they really are, overwhelmingly, is showmen (or show-women). He likes the idea of athletes because it seems more elevated, but it is such a small part of what they do that it is essentially false to use that word as a primary description. As a programmer, I do a lot of typing, but I am not primarily a typist. A medical doctor may file papers, but is not best described as a file clerk.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt all wrote "moments" and even entire compositions that sound "modernist". None of the above were "modernists".


That's true, generally speaking. The difference is that Bach had the art of the fugue, Mozart the dissonance quartet and some other pieces, Beethoven the grosse fuge. But in the works of late Sibelius is it possible to see a shift in style. And while even there are romantic elements for sure, I think it's right to say that modernist elements (in terms of harmony and form, altough I'm not an expert of the latter) were not an exception, unlike the other three. 
As I've said (and other has said) he was a transitional figure that doesn't fit exactly in one place or in the other, even making music that have elements of both. Like Beethoven is often considered a classicist and a romantic. Even if with Sibelius to me a more apt comparison could be with the painter Peder Balke, an artist who started as a traditional romantic painter and while his work was still romantic at its core late in his career his nordic landscapes took a new direction that was strikingly modern and ahead of its time.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

There may also be a question about what a composer wrote (in a broader sense) and his or her reputation as based on what people primarily listen to. I seem to recall reading that Frank Bridge was very annoyed because many people told him that they liked his works, but meant his early works. Hardly anyone seems to have listened to his later works, as he became more of a modernist.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

_Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt all wrote "moments" and even entire compositions that sound "modernist". None of the above were "modernists"._

I would say the opposite: all three were modernists that upended and forever altered the current formulae of the day in musicmaking.

Beethoven doubled what anyone did before him in terms of duration and emotional depth, Liszt turned sonata format on its ear by turning recaps into development, and without Bach's influence there would not have been the fugue.

These three were not just modernists they were revolutionary figures whose influence was felt a century after they died.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

larold said:


> _Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and Liszt all wrote "moments" and even entire compositions that sound "modernist". None of the above were "modernists"._
> 
> I would say the opposite: all three were modernists that upended and forever altered the current formulae of the day in musicmaking.
> 
> ...


Bach was imo the greatest composer ever, but he was no revolutionary -- quite the opposite probably (and paradoxically) -- and he was no modernist. Nor did he invent the fugue. The others weren't modernists either.

I believe this reflects the (in my opinion) flawed thinking that "greatness" lies in blazing the trail through striking originality and being a "revolutionary" and "turning everything on its head". Greatness, originality and blazing a trail may lie just in composing excellent, compelling music...even if it's using time-honored or even "reactionary" techniques and forms.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Romanticism and Modernism are cultural movements and sensibilities, not musical styles. Sibelus's two most conspicuous artistic foci - folkloric nationalism and nature-mysticism - are both Romantic, not Modernist, concerns. As far as musical style is concerned, his personal peculiarities shouldn't distract from his adherence to traditional Romantic genres: symphony, concerto, tone poem, song, incidental music for the theater. 

The scorn heaped on Sibelius by self-declared Modernists in his day (not unlike that heaped on Rachmaninoff) should tell us how best to categorize him, if we must do so.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> That's true, generally speaking. The difference is that Bach had the art of the fugue, Mozart the dissonance quartet and some other pieces, Beethoven the grosse fuge. But in the works of late Sibelius is it possible to see a shift in style. And while even there are romantic elements for sure, I think it's right to say that modernist elements (in terms of harmony and form, altough I'm not an expert of the latter) were not an exception, unlike the other three.
> As I've said (and other has said) he was a transitional figure that doesn't fit exactly in one place or in the other, even making music that have elements of both. Like Beethoven is often considered a classicist and a romantic. Even if with Sibelius to me a more apt comparison could be with the painter Peder Balke, an artist who started as a traditional romantic painter and while his work was still romantic at its core late in his career his nordic landscapes took a new direction that was strikingly modern and ahead of its time.


I don't hear anything particularly "modernist" about that. I don't quite understand this urge to label Sibelius a modernist, as if it's an insult to say that he was a great composer who, like Mahler and Strauss, remained a late Romantic in overall style and approach...and who composed great music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

< The case for the music of Jean Sibelius , by Frederic Kiernan>
https://theconversation.com/the-case-for-the-music-of-jean-sibelius-46808
"Haunting modal melodies in obsessively reiterative patterns (adumbrating minimalist and post-minimalist techniques of the 1970s and 80s) are threaded through intense, dark textures and uneasy, jolting rhythmic arrangements, creating within just a few seconds *a sound-world unmistakably Finnish and Sibelian.*"



larold said:


> without Bach's influence there would not have been the fugue.


Fugues would have existed without Bach; it's just that Bach's contemporaries and predecessors wrote them less expressively, elaborately than Bach. 
"If Papa has not yet had those [instrumental] works by Eberlin copied, so much the better, for in the meantime I have got hold of them and now I see (for I had forgotten them) that they are unfortunately far too trivial to deserve a place beside Handel and Bach. With due respect for his four-part composition I may say that his clavier fugues are nothing but long-drawn-out voluntaries." -Mozart, in a letter to his father, 20 April 1782

Ultimately, I think that these categorizations (such as Romantic, modernist) are a limited way to define composers. Sibelius was good at being Sibelius, just like Beethoven was good at being Beethoven.
"There are and will be a thousand princes; there is only one Beethoven."
Even the big pre-Romantic guys, Bach, Mozart are unique in their own ways - If you look closely, the elements within forms.
I'm inclined to think Mozart pretty much had his own voice from age 17. Look at his way to use chromaticism, which is unique, spontaneous, brash in character - take for example, this passage that modulates from G minor to E major in the missa trinitatis: 



 (it reminds me of Bernstein's lecture on the 40th symphony)
or 



I've looked for similar expressions in similar forms by composers such as J.A. Hasse, J.J. Eberlin, M. Haydn, J.C. Bach, L. Mozart, etc, but they don't quite write in this way.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> I don't hear anything particularly "modernist" about that. I don't quite understand this urge to label Sibelius a modernist, as if it's an insult to say that he was a great composer who, like Mahler and Strauss, remained a late Romantic in overall style and approach...and who composed great music.


I don't have any "urge", do you have a urge to label him a romantic? I don't see any insult in defining a composer romantic, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Like being a modernist doesn't make a composer great by default... actually a lot of people here would agree that being modern would make a composer terrible by default.
Still I see (like other persons here) elements in Sibelius that make difficult to consider him purely romantic. About Luonnotar, which is also one of my favorite pieces of music ever: I've read people defining it as proto-space music, which is quite fitting in my opinion. 
And the harmony too is quite peculiar to my ears.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> The scorn heaped on Sibelius by self-declared Modernists in his day (not unlike that heaped on Rachmaninoff) should tell us how best to categorize him, if we must do so.


there were modern composers who hated him. And there are modern composers like Morton Feldman, Per Norgard and Kiaja Saariaho who have a high consideration for his music or talked about the modern elements of his music. Wasn't Feldman who talking about Sibelius and his fifth symphony who said "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives and the people who you think are conservative might really be radical"?


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

norman bates said:


> there were modern composers who hated him. And there are modern composers like Morton Feldman, Per Norgard and Kiaja Saariaho who have a high consideration for his music or talked about the modern elements of his music. Wasn't Feldman who talking about Sibelius and his fifth symphony who said "The people who you think are radicals might really be conservatives and the people who you think are conservative might really be radical"?


Alan Hovhaness greatly admired Sibelius and visited Sibelius in Finland during Sibelius long, long years of retirement. Critics such as Virgil Thomson and Harold Schonberg treated Sibelius with some derision or, at best, faint praise; but classical music listeners and conductors alike seemed to love to bask in the opulence of a great Sibelius symphony or tone-poem. Bernstein, Karajan, Ormandy, and Paavo Berglund took many mystical journeys to the icy reaches of Sibelius-land, recording some or all of the symphonies more than once.


----------



## consuono (Mar 27, 2020)

norman bates said:


> I don't have any "urge", do you have a urge to label him a romantic? ...


No, it's just more accurate.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

consuono said:


> No, it's just more accurate.


and I disagree, still without having any urge


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

As a Sibelius devotee, I'm just dropping in here to say that I can't be doing with shoe-horning composers into broad categories.


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> Romanticism and Modernism are cultural movements and sensibilities, not musical styles. Sibelus's two most conspicuous artistic foci - folkloric nationalism and nature-mysticism - are both Romantic, not Modernist, concerns. As far as musical style is concerned, his personal peculiarities shouldn't distract from his adherence to traditional Romantic genres: symphony, concerto, tone poem, song, incidental music for the theater.
> 
> The scorn heaped on Sibelius by self-declared Modernists in his day (not unlike that heaped on Rachmaninoff) should tell us how best to categorize him, if we must do so.


The thematic ideas of Sibelius are actually a very fair argument. He follows the same path of Wagner which Mahler took. Instead of Teutonic myths and fairy tales, he used the dark Scandinavian mythology. After all, Sibelius was very stunned by a Bayreuth performance of _Parsifal_. Very many of his famous tone poems are influenced by stories taken from _Kalevala_ or _Väinämöinen_. _Kullervo_ is probably the most clear example of a terribly tragic Finnish myth Sibelius put into music. But I think the darkness of Finnish mythology made it necessary to use compositional methods which were later associated with Modernism. Then there are compositions like the Finale of the 5th which are triumphant and descriptive of nature rather than mythology. Those don't strike me as generally dark, rather flowing, spacious and just glorious. Oh, Sibelius, I could go on and on ...


----------



## RogerWaters (Feb 13, 2017)

Pat Fairlea said:


> As a Sibelius devotee, I'm just dropping in here to say that I can't be doing with shoe-horning composers into broad categories.


Pity my iPod disagrees with you.

Thanks for the perpsectives, everyone.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

annaw said:


> The thematic ideas of Sibelius are actually a very fair argument. He follows the same path of Wagner which Mahler took. Instead of Teutonic myths and fairy tales, he used the dark Scandinavian mythology. After all, Sibelius was very stunned by a Bayreuth performance of _Parsifal_. Very many of his famous tone poems are influenced by stories taken from _Kalevala_ or _Väinämöinen_. _Kullervo_ is probably the most clear example of a terribly tragic Finnish myth Sibelius put into music. But I think the darkness of Finnish mythology made it necessary to use compositional methods which were later associated with Modernism. Then there are compositions like the Finale of the 5th which are triumphant and descriptive of nature rather than mythology. Those don't strike me as generally dark, rather flowing, spacious and just glorious. Oh, Sibelius, I could go on and on ...


What "compositional methods associated with Modernism" did you have in mind? Harmony? Sibelius wasn't attracted to the atonality of Schoenberg, or to the "wrong note" manner of Stravinskian neoclassicism. His basic harmonic style is tonal/modal, often mildly dissonant but not saturated with dissonance; he uses some whole-tone-scale coloration in _Tapiola, _there are transitions where keys overlap momentarily, producing unusual but transient dissonances, and he sometimes keeps tonal direction ambiguous for a while. His harmony has a personal flavor but isn't much of a stretch for ears accustomed to late Romantic practice. Orchestration? Form? Sibelius exhibits originality in these areas, but if his music occasionally suggests later 20th-century trends one could make the case that he influenced others more than they influenced him. That is obviously true of modern Nordic composers.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> What "compositional methods associated with Modernism" did you have in mind? His basic harmonic style is tonal/modal, often mildly dissonant but not saturated with dissonance; he uses some whole-tone-scale coloration in _Tapiola, _


_
Perhaps Debussy? I'm not necessarily saying Sibelius is like Debussy, but perhaps an argument can be made he deviates from the general 19th century practice as much as Debussy does.




_


----------



## UniversalTuringMachine (Jul 4, 2020)

Woodduck said:


> What "compositional methods associated with Modernism" did you have in mind? Harmony? Sibelius wasn't attracted to the atonality of Schoenberg, or to the "wrong note" manner of Stravinskian neoclassicism. His basic harmonic style is tonal/modal, often mildly dissonant but not saturated with dissonance; he uses some whole-tone-scale coloration in _Tapiola, _there are transitions where keys overlap momentarily, producing unusual but transient dissonances, and he sometimes keeps tonal direction ambiguous for a while. His harmony has a personal flavor but isn't much of a stretch for ears accustomed to late Romantic practice. Orchestration? Form? Sibelius exhibits originality in these areas, but if his music occasionally suggests later 20th-century trends one could make the case that he influenced others more than they influenced him. That is obviously true of modern Nordic composers.


Your analysis corresponds to my aural experience. Tonally I don't think Sibelius is as adventurous as Debussy. There is still a clear sense of home key and direction in much of Sibelius whereas Debussy constantly disorients you.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I'm sure Sibelius was influenced by Debussy, but he makes little use of floating parallel progressions or the whole tone scale, except in _Tapiola._ By that time, of course, Debussy was dead and was no longer "modern."


----------



## annaw (May 4, 2019)

Woodduck said:


> What "compositional methods associated with Modernism" did you have in mind? Harmony? Sibelius wasn't attracted to the atonality of Schoenberg, or to the "wrong note" manner of Stravinskian neoclassicism. His basic harmonic style is tonal/modal, often mildly dissonant but not saturated with dissonance; he uses some whole-tone-scale coloration in _Tapiola, _there are transitions where keys overlap momentarily, producing unusual but transient dissonances, and he sometimes keeps tonal direction ambiguous for a while. His harmony has a personal flavor but isn't much of a stretch for ears accustomed to late Romantic practice. Orchestration? Form? Sibelius exhibits originality in these areas, but if his music occasionally suggests later 20th-century trends one could make the case that he influenced others more than they influenced him. That is obviously true of modern Nordic composers.


Yes, I didn't mean any drastic innovations. Rather I meant small things which influenced the Modern composers not the other way around. As I read, Sibelius wasn't overly fond of the music produced by all his contemporaries. The means of self-expression seemed to lie in the Romantic period for him.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

The example I gave at the beginning of the thread (first movement of the 5th symphony) is worth studying - it's a transition after the exposition with shifting chromatic strings and a bassoon / clarinet meandering motif:






Though we can't describe it as atonal (which has a particular definition of course, where the composer accepts rules that prevent accentuation of tonality), nevertheless, I for one cannot discern a tonal centre.

Maybe Sibelius's continuing popularity is in part due to the fact that he _balanced_ degrees of modernism with tradition.


----------

